Jeff Bridges' turn as Bad Blake, washed out, alcoholic country singer was the one that finally got him his Oscar. He'd been nominated before of course, once as leading man for Starman in 1984 and three other occasions for supporting roles, but this was the one that got him his little statuette. Critics and punters alike raved about him and the film when it was out, but I never got around to seeing it. As a Bridges fan, I should have ventured to a multiplex, and let's be honest if I really wanted to see it, I would have made the time, but for some reason it didn't scream out at me as a film I couldn't miss.
Months later, long after the hype had subsided and Bridge's victory speech was but a distant memory, the DVD came through the post from Lovefilm, and that night my girlfriend and I watched it, knowing that we were about to see an acclaimed and celebrated piece of cinema.
Whatever that nagging feeling was all those months ago, chipping away at me, suggesting that Crazy Heart might not be all it's cracked up to be, must be related to Mystic Meg, because come the end credits, I couldn't help but feel disappointed. And I wasn't the only one either, the girlfriend had the same empty, nonplussed feeling..
It may be down to the hype and constant praise and that it would never be able to live up to that level of hoopla, but I was oddly detached from the whole thing. The film itself felt very safe. The direction was not particularly adventurous, solid enough with the occasional beautiful scene of dusty American country, but to me, I could tell it's the work of a first time director (Scott Cooper) perhaps more concerned with not wanting to put a foot wrong than anything else. Also, for a film about an alcoholic, and one we're not meant to sympathise with for some of the story, it just isn't edgy enough. It smacked a little of a TV movie, alluding to grown up and disturbing themes rather than portraying them and predictable, never once straying from what I expected.
Another thing I wasn't particularly impressed with was Bridges' performance. He was good, but then he is good in everything he does, he just didn't WOW me. It was a very monotone performance, not in a dull way, it just felt like a constant tone. Blake's character doesn't call for a Pacino type shouting and arm-waving, but to me Bridges was at the same emotional level no matter what Blake's state. I'm not arguing with Bridges' idea on how the character should be pitched, I just believe that they way he chose to do it built a barrier between me and the film. Perhaps he was trying to build barriers with the other characters, I'm not sure, it just didn't work for me. I think back to other Bridges films and I can't help but feel he has been better elsewhere. If you ask me he was better in Arlington Road than in this. I saw this in the same week as I saw The King's Speech and 127 Hours and it's telling just how little Bridges' did for me in comparison to Franco, Firth and Rush.
Maggie Gyllenhaal was also nominated (best supporting actress) for her role as Jean Craddock, Blake's love interest. I was much more impressed with her, but it brings me to another problem with the film. The central relationship. I just didn't believe in it. I wasn't sure how she could fall for this past it country singer who can't stay sober. If i can't get past that, the whole thing is going to be an uphill struggle.
Colin Farrell turns up unexpectedly as Tommy Sweet, Blake's younger more successful rival. He is decent, but the role seems pointless. He pops in, it seems as though he might be integral to the plot, then disappears completely, before showing his face at the end but with no real purpose. Nice to see Robert Duvall too, all be it very underused.
The soundtrack is sublime though. Bridges and Farrell both singing their own songs, some of the music was utterly enchanting and, at times, heartbreakingly melancholic and has stayed with me long after watching it. That'll be a definite purchase.
So it's decent, but nothing more than that. It feels worse than it actually is though because it fell so far from the heady heights of all the hype that surrounded it.
Summed up best by a mate of mine - 'The Wrestler with country music'.
About Me
- Ollie Miney
- Lover of all things film, ready to tell you what to avoid, and more importantly, what to seek out.
Showing posts with label Robert Duvall. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Robert Duvall. Show all posts
Wednesday, 19 January 2011
Saturday, 8 January 2011
THE ROAD (2009)
Cormac McCarthy is flavour of the month at the moment. After the Coen Brothers' lauded adaptation of his novel No Country For Old Men you can't swing a cat at the moment without hitting another fan coming out of the woodwork. In fact this week, it was announced that James Franco will be behind the camera for an imagining of Blood Meridian. Among all of this hoopla John Hillcoat quietly went about his business bringing McCarthy's bleak tale The Road to the big screen.
Viggo Mortensen plays a nameless father trying to protect his son (Kodi Smit-McPhee) in an apocalyptic world after an unexplained disaster has left the planet barren and desolate while a select few survivors scavenge, kill and do whatever it takes to stay out of harms way. A real bundle of laughs then.
I read the book recently for the first time on holiday (interesting choice for beach-reading) and if you ever want an example of a director being completely faithful to the source material, then this is it. McCarthy leaves the origins of the disaster unsaid, and it takes a brave man to take the same tack with the film in today's age of the idiot viewer (in this case John Hillcoat, a music video director known for working with a Nick Cave). The plot then progresses in exactly the same way as the book as the father and son encounter a host of characters and situations that put them into perilous situations, but without much really actually happening. For a film about the end of the world, there is no big action set pieces, no race against time, no damsel in distress to save. This isn't popcorn fodder, 2012 fans should look elsewhere.
The story is essentially just about the father and son, as they journey towards in the coast, with the slim, vague hope that something will be different there. Stripped down, it is fundamentally a character piece exploring the paternal relationship, but also, more importantly what it means to be human. The boy constantly needing reassurances that he and his father are 'the good guys' and struggling to understand why the people they encounter won't help them and vice versa. As things become more desperate for the pair, the child's idealism comes into conflict with the father's willingness to do anything to keep them both alive. The film poses the question 'what lengths would you go to to survive, and at what cost?'. It's an interesting theme for the film to be based around and is very affecting.
At the centre of it are excellent performances from Mortensen (as you would expect) and Smit-McPhee even more so. He will be better known for the recent Let Me In but this was his real breakthrough and is far more impressive in this turn. Both are utterly believable in their roles, Mortensen unrelenting in his desperation to protect his son, while Smit-McPhee's trust in his father never wavers. There are nice moments where they find small joy in tins of food or a cuddly toy where there are flickers of what normal life once was, but these quickly evaporate as we have to endure a scene where the father teaches his son how to kill himself if the need arises. Charlize Theron also features as the mother/wife in various flashbacks that offer some background to the family and how it came to just be the two of them. These scenes are a nice contrast to the bulk of the film, with splashes of colour and touching moments that really offer depth to the central relationship but also yank at the heart strings. The legend that is Robert Duvall also turns up which is a nice treat.
If there is a criticism to be had, it's that it is a very tough watch. It's very bleak and dark throughout with very little hope, and culminates in a heart breaking ending that offers very little relief and resolution, to both the story and humanity - both McCarthy and the film clearly don't have a lot of faith if the end of the world were to occur.
However, just because it isn't full of optimism and light, it should not mean that you should not see it. Beautifully acted, excellently made, thought provoking and arresting. Perseverance will bring you massive rewards.
Viggo Mortensen plays a nameless father trying to protect his son (Kodi Smit-McPhee) in an apocalyptic world after an unexplained disaster has left the planet barren and desolate while a select few survivors scavenge, kill and do whatever it takes to stay out of harms way. A real bundle of laughs then.
I read the book recently for the first time on holiday (interesting choice for beach-reading) and if you ever want an example of a director being completely faithful to the source material, then this is it. McCarthy leaves the origins of the disaster unsaid, and it takes a brave man to take the same tack with the film in today's age of the idiot viewer (in this case John Hillcoat, a music video director known for working with a Nick Cave). The plot then progresses in exactly the same way as the book as the father and son encounter a host of characters and situations that put them into perilous situations, but without much really actually happening. For a film about the end of the world, there is no big action set pieces, no race against time, no damsel in distress to save. This isn't popcorn fodder, 2012 fans should look elsewhere.
The story is essentially just about the father and son, as they journey towards in the coast, with the slim, vague hope that something will be different there. Stripped down, it is fundamentally a character piece exploring the paternal relationship, but also, more importantly what it means to be human. The boy constantly needing reassurances that he and his father are 'the good guys' and struggling to understand why the people they encounter won't help them and vice versa. As things become more desperate for the pair, the child's idealism comes into conflict with the father's willingness to do anything to keep them both alive. The film poses the question 'what lengths would you go to to survive, and at what cost?'. It's an interesting theme for the film to be based around and is very affecting.
At the centre of it are excellent performances from Mortensen (as you would expect) and Smit-McPhee even more so. He will be better known for the recent Let Me In but this was his real breakthrough and is far more impressive in this turn. Both are utterly believable in their roles, Mortensen unrelenting in his desperation to protect his son, while Smit-McPhee's trust in his father never wavers. There are nice moments where they find small joy in tins of food or a cuddly toy where there are flickers of what normal life once was, but these quickly evaporate as we have to endure a scene where the father teaches his son how to kill himself if the need arises. Charlize Theron also features as the mother/wife in various flashbacks that offer some background to the family and how it came to just be the two of them. These scenes are a nice contrast to the bulk of the film, with splashes of colour and touching moments that really offer depth to the central relationship but also yank at the heart strings. The legend that is Robert Duvall also turns up which is a nice treat.
If there is a criticism to be had, it's that it is a very tough watch. It's very bleak and dark throughout with very little hope, and culminates in a heart breaking ending that offers very little relief and resolution, to both the story and humanity - both McCarthy and the film clearly don't have a lot of faith if the end of the world were to occur.
However, just because it isn't full of optimism and light, it should not mean that you should not see it. Beautifully acted, excellently made, thought provoking and arresting. Perseverance will bring you massive rewards.
Tuesday, 7 December 2010
FOUR CHRISTMASES (2008)
Right, so it's Sunday evening. I've been away for the weekend to Bury St Edmunds. Done some Christmas shopping. Feel a bit groggy from the night before. Get back to the sofa, use my two pizzas for 10 quid voucher at Pizza Express. What next? Well, the girlfriend fancies something 'Christmassy'. She doesn't fancy Black Christmas, I don't really want to go down the Miracle on 34th Street route. That leaves the movie channels, which leaves us at a crossroads. Home Alone 2 or Four Christmases? One I have seen, the other I have not. One I have fond memories of from growing up, the other I have only heard bad things. Classic family comedy v ropey romantic comedy.
Perhaps it was the hangover. It may have been my hurt at being let down by the recent re-watching of National Lampoon's vacation. It may have even been sub-conscious pressure from the better half. Or a narcissistic desire to review something I don't think I will like. Whatever it was, I chose Four Christmases as we tucked into a Sloppy Guiseppe and a Pollo Ad Astra.
Vince Vaughn (new rom-com regular) and Reese Witherspoon play a couple, a couple who are happy as they are. They don't fancy marriage, they don't fancy kids. They are a 21st century pairing, happy with what they have and don't want to go down the ruinous route that their parents undertook, which has consequently left them both with two separate families each. Two families per character, 4 in total, Christmas day, 4 different Christmas celebrations. And that is essentially the set-up. Once their usual selfish holiday plans are put to the sword due to fog, they have to each visit the different factions of one another's families.
You have his bad tempered, red neck dad, her flirtatious, evangelical Christian, cougar mum, she also has a kind caring father, but he must visit his mother who now has a sexual relationship with his old best friend.
And that is it really. Not much else.
I sensed that the film makers saw 'Meet The Parents' and thought to themselves, 'that's a good idea - let's do four mini versions of that in one movie'. And that is all we have here. There is physical comedy (which is, I must admit, comical and, at times, well done) and then gross out, cringey gags that are predictable and far from laugh out loud.
It isn't particularly funny, but then it isn't exactly devoid of humour altogether. I chuckled twice (the girlfriend counted), nothing more, nothing less. Is that what constitutes a comedy these days? I should certainly hope not. Spaceballs and Airplane! managed the same amount in the credits sequence. Have standards slipped that much?
What is most upsetting is the great actors that appear. Jon Voigt, Robert Duvall, Sissy Spacek. Has it really come to this? You should all know better than this. Please do not be tempted by De Niro's turn in Meet The Parents. He is better than that, and so are you.
Jon Favreau and Vince Vaughn share screen time, and they have to resort to wrestling moves and kicks in the balls. These sequences are some of the only amusing moments, but these two bounced off one another in Swingers with dialogue that few people have emulated since. You two are 'money'. Please take me back to those times.
The film also tries to have a message. Please stop this. Don't do it, You can't have a gross out, inappropriate comedy for an hour and then decide that you want the main characters to fall in love all over again as they realise the error of their ways. I despised them at the beginning, what makes you think that I give a toss as to whether they live happily ever after and overcome the badly portrayed commitment phobias that they both have?
It could have been an interesting comedy, an insight into the modern family and how fractured Christmas has become. A study of the 21st century nuclear family or it dissolution. Instead it is an example of how fractured comedies have become, with little thought put into, and time spent on character and narrative. I criticised National Lampoons for it's broken and incomplete structure, and here we have the same problem, 20 years later. Has nothing changed?
Plus it doesn't feel remotely Christmassy. Four Christmases, not one but four, and not once does you ever make you long for Turkey, sprouts and bad telly. If it can't deliver on this, and it can't give you the laughs, what on earth is the point?
If this is what we have to resort to at this time every year, then Bah Humbug.
Perhaps it was the hangover. It may have been my hurt at being let down by the recent re-watching of National Lampoon's vacation. It may have even been sub-conscious pressure from the better half. Or a narcissistic desire to review something I don't think I will like. Whatever it was, I chose Four Christmases as we tucked into a Sloppy Guiseppe and a Pollo Ad Astra.
Vince Vaughn (new rom-com regular) and Reese Witherspoon play a couple, a couple who are happy as they are. They don't fancy marriage, they don't fancy kids. They are a 21st century pairing, happy with what they have and don't want to go down the ruinous route that their parents undertook, which has consequently left them both with two separate families each. Two families per character, 4 in total, Christmas day, 4 different Christmas celebrations. And that is essentially the set-up. Once their usual selfish holiday plans are put to the sword due to fog, they have to each visit the different factions of one another's families.
You have his bad tempered, red neck dad, her flirtatious, evangelical Christian, cougar mum, she also has a kind caring father, but he must visit his mother who now has a sexual relationship with his old best friend.
And that is it really. Not much else.
I sensed that the film makers saw 'Meet The Parents' and thought to themselves, 'that's a good idea - let's do four mini versions of that in one movie'. And that is all we have here. There is physical comedy (which is, I must admit, comical and, at times, well done) and then gross out, cringey gags that are predictable and far from laugh out loud.
It isn't particularly funny, but then it isn't exactly devoid of humour altogether. I chuckled twice (the girlfriend counted), nothing more, nothing less. Is that what constitutes a comedy these days? I should certainly hope not. Spaceballs and Airplane! managed the same amount in the credits sequence. Have standards slipped that much?
What is most upsetting is the great actors that appear. Jon Voigt, Robert Duvall, Sissy Spacek. Has it really come to this? You should all know better than this. Please do not be tempted by De Niro's turn in Meet The Parents. He is better than that, and so are you.
Jon Favreau and Vince Vaughn share screen time, and they have to resort to wrestling moves and kicks in the balls. These sequences are some of the only amusing moments, but these two bounced off one another in Swingers with dialogue that few people have emulated since. You two are 'money'. Please take me back to those times.
The film also tries to have a message. Please stop this. Don't do it, You can't have a gross out, inappropriate comedy for an hour and then decide that you want the main characters to fall in love all over again as they realise the error of their ways. I despised them at the beginning, what makes you think that I give a toss as to whether they live happily ever after and overcome the badly portrayed commitment phobias that they both have?
It could have been an interesting comedy, an insight into the modern family and how fractured Christmas has become. A study of the 21st century nuclear family or it dissolution. Instead it is an example of how fractured comedies have become, with little thought put into, and time spent on character and narrative. I criticised National Lampoons for it's broken and incomplete structure, and here we have the same problem, 20 years later. Has nothing changed?
Plus it doesn't feel remotely Christmassy. Four Christmases, not one but four, and not once does you ever make you long for Turkey, sprouts and bad telly. If it can't deliver on this, and it can't give you the laughs, what on earth is the point?
If this is what we have to resort to at this time every year, then Bah Humbug.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)