Poor Things

 

Poor Things

Strange, weird, fanciful, and engrossing. The Frankenstein angle is a minor part of the story. The heart of the story is Bella’s journey. Bella is a reanimated woman who just committed suicide. Her new life starts in infancy. She spits out distasteful food and is petulant, smashing dishes at will. The story is about her discovery of her new life which is unencumbered by society's mores.  She is the one who defines herself as a woman.

The film has a fantastic quality. It reminds me of the movie “Brazil” with its unnatural setting and strange characters. With a few exceptions, the actors are boxed into their characters. Mark Ruffolo is a comical cad. He gives a wonderful performance and his acting is over the top but appropriate for the role.  William Defoe is the archetypical mad scientist. He is Bella’s surrogate father. He is part unethical surgeon, slicing and dicing cadavers but tender with Bella.

Bella is a challenging role for Emma Stone. In the beginning, she is childlike. In the course of the film Bella evolves. Bad romances shape her. For her prostitution is a means to buy chocolate eclairs. A word of caution, there are many sex scenes, more comical than arousal. There is lots of nudity, some nice others not. The sex scenes are energetic and more suggestive than graphic.

The movie is funny; the audience laughed more than I did. The costumes are extravagant and an important part of this eclectic film. In some scenes, the director Yorgos Lanthimos, uses extreme wide-angle shots distorting the frame adding to the surreal nature of the film.

The film won several accolades, including the Venice Golden Lion and a 92% rating from Rotten Tomatoes. It is a curious entertaining film.

Cruella (Disney)

 

Cruella (Disney)

Now that Disney has dropped its  price tag of $29.99 and streamed Cruella for free, I decided to watch it. It was quite entertaining. It is a mix of camp, comedy and  darkness. This move is very un-Disney. In an early scene one character meets a disturbing demise. Disney films have dark elements. Killing Bambi’s mother, Dumbo caught in a fire and a poisoned apple are not child friendly. Cruella has the distinction of the first Disney character to use a straight razor. She must have borrowed it from John Wick. A technical point: aside from an allusion to “1,001 Dalmatians” Cruella is far different.

Emma Stone must have had a fabulous time in the role of Cruella. With all the camping there were  dramatic scenes giving  balance to the movie. Stone’s voice and posturing  were over the top but appropriate for the character. The original Cruella was a nasty. Stone plays the role more with cunning and revenge rather than cruelty. However, the three dalmatians in this film do not come off well.

Emma Thompson is the villainess as the Baroness. She must have channeled Meryl Streep from the “Devil Wears Prada” for her over the top portrayal. With her ramrod posture and barely moving lips she takes snobbery to new heights. She is a cruel and narcissistic villain.

The supporting cast is wonderful. Cruella’s two childhood friends make up her gang. Joel Fry and Paul Walter Hauer play two street urchins who befriend her and become her henchmen. They provide comedy to the film. Mark Strong plays his usual granite faced persona. He plays the role with usual British reserve but strongly. There are many other characters who give wonderful performances.

Couture is a big part of the film. The dresses are excessive but not totally ridiculous. They have elements of legitimate fashion. The flaming gown was marvelous. This movie has an outstanding soundtrack of 70’s songs.

Was the price reduction worth waiting for, yes.

The Favorite

The Favorite

This movie is described as a drama/comedy. Since this is a British film drama beats out comedy. This is a period piece during the reign of Queen Anne in  17^th century England. Queen Anne played by Olivia Colman is in a feeble state  manipulated by her ladies in waiting and ministers petitioning her for their  rival campaigns. In her bedchamber the Queen keeps  17 rabbits in memory of the seventeen children she lost.

I do not know Olivia Colman. She appears in British television and film. She played Queen Anne as an insecure easily manipulated person, but when  angered or hurt turns forceful and absolute. She could be a fawning person cuddling bunnies and the help. There are many layers to the queen, for the most part she is manipulated and disinterested. She is the antithesis of Elizabeth I.

The real action is between Abigail Masham, Emma Stone, and Sarah Churchill, Rachel Weisz. They are battling vipers. Sarah Churchill  was the favorite of the Queen and used her position to manipulate her. Weisz played role with absolute confidence and resolve; crushing anyone in her way. Abigail Masham is her rival, they are cousins. Abigale fell on hard times when her father lost his fortune and gambled her away in a card game to a German (enter English humor). These two were having so much fun playing their roles they should fortieth their salary. The rivalry escalates to dangerous levels while see sawing for the Queen’s affection.  What they do to win her over would make Machiavelli blush.

Nicholas Hault (“About a Boy”) played the 1^st Earl of Oxford. He was always wearing a wig and had make up and enjoyed it (more British humor). He uses Abigale to win over the Queen . He played the aristocratic snob well.

This being a period piece the costumes were flamboyant. I think I saw RuPaul in the credits. With the puffed wigs and high heels, the men grew about eight inches in height. Their makeup was like pancake and their moles moved to different positions. It would be great to speak to a dance historian because the dances in the movie were outrages and kinetic. It was not your usual starchy curtsy and bow you see in British film.

 One thing I never saw before in a film is the extreme wide angle lens shots. Straight doorways were curved, hallways bent around themselves. Sometimes a shot will be at an angle to emphasis evil or foreboding, but here I did not understand the shots.

There is much I am not saying for fear of backlash. If you like the hilarity of Downton Abby, this is your movie.

  

La La Land L

                                                                                          January 28, 2017

The title La La Land, means:

“the mental state of someone who is not aware of what is really happening. La-La Land —used as a nickname for Los Angeles, California”,

The film is a combination of traditional l Hollywood musicals and drama. To legitimize the film as a musical the opening scene has Angelinos stuck in traffic breaking out in joyous spontaneous song and dance. Would this work on the FDR?

The theme of the movie is “things that could have been”. Ryan Gosling is a pianist who loves jazz but compromises his principals to get steady work. Emma Stone is a barista/actress who feels defeated by dead end auditions. As with all musicals boy meets girl and hearts a flutter. For musical talents, Gosling took six months training to play the piano. He was impressive; his fingering was more complicated as the film progressed. His singing was more like those Grammy spoken word awards. Emma Stone has more of a singing voice and gives a solid Broadway rendition.

As for the dancing neither one was Fred Aster or Ginger Rogers. Their numbers were heavily choreographed. You could almost hear them saying, 123…123…123. In tribute to Busby Berkeley one number had them dancing in the air with stars courtesy of the Griffith Observatory.  

Gosling and Stone are outstanding dramatic actors and when the film focuses on their relationship without song and dance, they are in their element. The relationship is complicated as both pursue their dreams. They support each other and fall away from each other. The consequences of their actions give the film a complexity, with a ting of sadness, unusual for musicals.

Adulation for this film is wide spread. Unlike the Golden Globes the Oscars do not have a musical/comedy category. How do you compare this movie to the current crop great dramas? How do you nominate Ryan Gosling as best actor as opposed Denzel Washington or Andrew Garfield? How does Emma Stone compete with Viola Davis or Nicole Kidman or Taraji P. Henson?

Every few years Hollywood gets nostalgic. Back in 2011 the black and white silent screen film “The Artist” won best picture. This could be one of those years. 

Birdman

For best picture the Golden Globes has Birdman under the category of comedy. The category should be black comedy. The film is about a former movie star whose fame came from playing the superhero Birdman. Now in his sixties he wants to revive his career and find meaning for himself as a Broadway actor/writer, directing himself in his own play. He is a man looking for resurrection.

There are parallels between Michael Keaton and his character Riggan Thomson (aka Birdman). Like Thomson, Keaton was a big star in the late 80’s and early 90’s with two Batmen movies under his belt and playing the lead in the iconic movie Beetlejuice. Even his minor movies were watchable. Then lead roles stopped coming and his star faded. Keaton has firsthand motivation to play this role. He is nominated for best actor by the Golden Globes.

 Keaton’ reputation was as a lighthearted comedic roles. When he branched out as Batman the role was confident and in control. Playing Riggan, Keaton is in uncharted water. Riggan is an emotional train wreck due for a collision.  Keaton delivers an intense and very paranoid (psychotic) performance. The script plays with your perception. Keaton coexists in the fields of madness and sanity. His hallucinations are a product of doubt and insecurity. His alter ego, Birdman, eggs him on to go back to the big screen and leave the uncertainty and pettiness of Broadway. Keaton desperately wants the legitimacy of Broadway more than a big box office. His character has two personas, Riggan the actor and Birdman. Contrary to physics they occupy the same space. Managing this conflict gives Keaton’s performance tension and the chance for his own resurrection.

Edward Norton plays a huge prick. He is the matinee idol that sells ticks, but his conceit and self-centeredness make him loathsome. What is worse he is a good actor. Norton plays the role with aplomb. It takes him out of his comfort zone as being mild mannered and almost nebbish. With his thick ego he has no compunction standing nude in front of a mirror in a dressing room with his privates strategically shielded.  He steals scenes and infuriates his co-stars. There is a great fight scene between Keaton and Norton seminude in their Fruit of the Loom underwear; Yuk. Norton was a bit over the top, but he relished the role.

Emma Stone is super. I think she gave one of the best performances of the movie. She looks fragile and just came out of rehab. She is Riggan’s daughter and their relationship is on the mends after years of neglect and divorce.   Her anger is explosive and her deliverance is muscular; she is in your face. She also plays coy with Norton’s character and gets under his skin, maybe more. If not the femme fatale, she is the femme to watch.

Much has been said about Zack Galifianakis’s performance as being normal and not looney. Bravo for acting like a human. With his weight loss he looked good.

This movie is not for everyone. Keaton gives a forceful performance. I am rooting for him because I am big Beetlejuice fan. Good luck Mike

The Amazing Spiderman 2 (2014)

Often sequels do not deliver, this one does but not all the way. Spiderman still swings from building to building and is dishing out a continuous banter of wise cracks and anemic jokes. He still lives in Astoria Queens with Aunt May, who is still a darling but with a few more wrinkles but boundless charm. Emma Stone as Gwen Stacy has those sparkling eyes and brings a lightness to the film.

Luckily we have a new villain in the person of Electro played by Jamie Foxx. Guess what his super power is? Jamie’s portrayal is part Jerry Lewis and part Von Doom. Before his transformation he has this nutty professor look with a bad comb over and a sad loner manic depressive personality. After his transformation he is wearing a hoody and so much make up that anyone could play him even Kevin Hart (scratch that, Hart is too short). The ultimate battle scene seems to short, it’s like a first date that goes nowhere.

Then there is Harry Osborn, again. The same cycle is resurrected; friend then enemy. You would think Peter Parker would catch on. Harry menacingly comes towards the end of movie and battles Spiderman on the Goblin sledge. Instead of resurrecting Harry in every film they should have a fight to the death and get over with it.

What was enjoyable in the film was the non-Spiderman scenes with Peter and Gwen. The sub story works here. Maybe this worked well because they are a couple in real life. Many of the super hero movies have a love interests but this should be secondary to the action (see Man of Steel).

This movie is for the Spiderman fanboys, for the rest, you may want to wait for Time Warner on demand.