Monday, September 28, 2009
I'm kinda excited for this. I mean, I love New York, and there are a few good people in this, but when you had all those amazing directors for Paris, Je T'aime, it's a hard act to follow.
I guess I'll see in two weeks.
Steven Soderbergh has once again solidified himself as one of the industry's most stylish directors (It's hard to pick just one, though, when you have about a dozen to choose from).
The Informant! is based on the true story of Mark Whitacre (Matt Damon), who was the President of Bioproducts at Archer Daniels Midland, a company that, in essence, sticks corn syrup into food products. He turned informant for the FBI when he discovered a fair bit of corruption within the company. It should be quite dramatic, but it's presented as a farce.
Matt Damon is hysterical, and honest. He gained some weight to portray Whitacre, but where he truly resembles him (or rather, how he resembles someone who isn't himself) in in his performance.. Like any good actor does. There is a stream of ridiculous inner-monologue voice over throughout the film, seemingly about absolute nonsense, but is actually, in a roundabout way, entirely related to the plot.
The story portrays Whitacre as bumbling, though it's clear that he's actually brilliant, another credit to Damon's performance.
And the style. The style of the film is fab. I've been told that natural light sources were used, i.e. regular lightbulbs. It gives the film a yellowish tint, which actually perfectly captured the early 90's for me. It really set the tone nicely.
Not that I would ever expect Soderbergh of anything less.
Recommended? A must see.
O, woe is me..
The period romance always feels the same to me. It's... Sweeping, it's weepy, and it's indulgent. Bright Star is no different. It is largely dramatized from the true story of John Keats, the poet, and his lady love, Fanny Braun, the fashion designer. They dance around some sort of love affair for like 10 years then become estranged, then become engaged, then she's really depressed, and he's sick or something, and she's really happy and wistful, then she's really angry. She's incredibly weak-willed. Like I said, it's a weepy film.
But it is beautifully shot. It takes place in the sprawling green landscapes of the English countryside. It's definitely pleasing to the eye. And it's pleasing to my lady parts. But otherwise, the film was boring.
I feel like they'll make a movie out of anything these days. (Stay tuned for the "Young Victoria" trailer)
Recommended? If you like period romance dramas, you'll definitely love this movie.
Monday, September 21, 2009
I apologize for being away for so long. I have, like, 4 other blogs, and all my children were suffering equally.
Also I completely forgot that I saw this movie, and therefore forgot to write a review. Because, as I have said, I hate writing them.
But, let's see. This is an odd film. In 1969.. Woodstock happened. We know about that. That's not really what this film is about. It's about the guy who brought Woodstock to his hometown, and the hijinks that ensued for those couple weeks. Demetri Martin is that guy. He plays the part very quietly, but it's a good performance. The supporting actors (Imelda Staunton, Eugene Levy, Liev Schreiber...) are all spot on, but nothing spectacular.
That's how this whole movie felt. Good; not great.
In fact, in a movie where everything is going on, nothing is happening. So, I felt confused as to why I was even watching. It's not too memorable. But it's finely made. I'm completely ambivalent. Bleh.
Recommended? Do what you want...