Martin's Musings

The Squid and the Whale is one painful movie.

And from that pain it generates some laughs, but it’s not pretty. Right from the get-go you’re embroiled in the thick of a marriage on the decline and you watch as things get worse, the parents separate, and the kids take sides.

Jeff Daniels gives a fantastic performance as the messed-up father whose superiority complex and comments about uncultured Philistines makes you feel like if you don’t like this movie, then you’re one too. Continue reading →

Wow. Is King Kong ever a cool movie. It’s three hours long, and every consecutive hour is better than the last. In fact, when Kong battles not one, not two, but three T. Rexes midway through the movie, you’ve already forgotten how endlessly long the first hour felt. And, just when you think you’ve seen the money scene, Peter Jackson shows you another. And another. And another. And then he leaves you in awe with the truly awesome climax atop the Empire State Building. Naomi Watts’ performance breaks your heart because she makes you really care for Kong — particularly in a scene where they watch a sunset together. I loved how cool New York circa 1933 looked, and I also got a big kick out of the fact that Andy Serkis served as the model for Kong’s movements and also plays one of the ship’s crew members (actually, he also gets the film’s goriest death at the hands — or rather, the mouths of some giant-sized slugs). So there you go: no surprise, King Kong gets high marks from me: an A–.

All I really have to say about The Family Stone is that it probably could have used a bit more Sly. But seriously, yeah, it was fine. Not the wacky family comedy the trailer and ads make it out to be. If you’re iffy about seeing it, here are two reasons: Rachel McAdams and Diane Keaton. Still not convinced? Claire Danes is much better here than she was in Shopgirl. Other than that, eh. I give it a B-.

In 1972, 11 Israeli athletes were killed by a Palestinian terrorist group known as “Black September.”

What happened next is told in Steven Spielberg’s new film Munich, which I saw earlier today (it hits theaters on Dec. 23).

Simply put, it’s great — one of the best films I’ve seen all year. I had the emotional reaction to it that was missing from Brokeback Mountain earlier this week — no surprise, really, since I can more easily identify with the plight of Jewish people than I can with the plight of repressed gay cowboys (which I hope doesn’t sound too easily dismissive). Continue reading →

It’s hard to review Brokeback Mountain because so much has already been written and said about it and so my view is already tainted. Accordingly, I went into the movie with extremely high expectations and was ready to just be blown away. Well, I wasn’t. I didn’t really feel the passion between Jack and Ennis, didn’t feel like they really had much of a connection other than convenience and their mutual loneliness, didn’t feel the longing that Ennis supposedly felt, thought the ending was lacking, thought Heath Ledger held back too much to really register any emotion, and kind of felt like the initial sexual experience was sort of forced.

But maybe that’s just me, because on the other hand, the film — which is based on Annie Proulx’s short story — is impressive and really does need to be seen, if only because it treats its subject matter with such respect. That the two guys fall in love is practically matter-of-fact — it doesn’t happen with any swelling orchestral music, isn’t belaboured to make any grand political statements, and it’s allowed to continue without the outside world intruding in any real way. It’s just happening. This is an on-screen relationship like any other we’ve seen before, and yet it’s unlike any other we’ve seen before. And because the movie treats its subject matter with such respect, I initially thought I would take some time before writing about it, so I, too, could be respectful. I was hesitating to dismiss Brokeback Mountain for the reasons I listed earlier, because really, the story itself is moving, the film’s heart is in the right place, and just because I didn’t feel them doesn’t mean all those emotions aren’t there.

I’m thinking I should see this movie again when it actually hits theaters in a week or two and write about it some more then. After all, there has to be a reason why so many critics are raving and calling it one of, if not the best film of the year. I don’t mean to invalidate my opinions, and I don’t want to come off as a lemming wannabe because I didn’t feel what many other people have felt. I just want to be fair, because I do acknowledge that I may not have given the film a fair shot given my expectations. That said, I’m giving it a B for now.

[P.S.: One unexpected cool thing about Brokeback Mountain is the fact that one of my old high school chums, David Harbour, is in it. He comes on about half-way through, playing Anna Faris’ husband and a friend of Jack and Lurleen’s. He’s the guy with the beard — no pun intended.]

Update (1/28): I have seen the movie for the second time. Click here to read my revised thoughts.

I suppose you know what you’re getting when you go to see a Terrence Malick film: beautiful cinematography, sweeping shots of nature (and lots of them), ethereal narration, major actors who have bit parts or who don’t appear until two-thirds of the way through, and a general sense that you’re watching a Very Important Movie and you should just get comfortable because Malick’s in no rush. All that and more is present in The New World, Malick’s latest film — which probably hits a theater near you on January 13 (if it’s not there on Christmas Day). The New World is Malick’s take on the founding of Jamestown in 1607, but instead of it being a historical document of culture clashes, Malick has made an epic love story. And this is not the Disney Pocahontas movie, that’s for sure.

To be honest, I have a hard time reviewing the movie. It’s not that it’s not good — and with sweeping camerawork, a beautiful score, and fine acting by Colin Farrell, it’s quite impressive. I can appreciate the film for what it is, but I just didn’t enjoy it. I just found it hard to connect with. My eyelids were closing at times, the narration got a bit annoying, and I really thought it was quite long — as opposed to Malick’s last film, The Thin Red Line, which was also long, but which I did enjoy. I’m no professional critic, just a frequent moviegoer (this was my 48th film so far this year), so I guess that entitles me to write about the movies I see however I want to. So, I’m not going to give this one a letter grade, because I don’t see how I could give it a B+ or A-, for example, when B+ is the same grade I gave, say, Wedding Crashers, and that movie is in a whole different league from The New World. So let’s leave it at that: The New World is an impressive, beautiful movie, but it didn’t make a connection with me, and I just didn’t enjoy it.

For a change, I bought and actually watched a DVD this past weekend: Mr. & Mrs. Smith.

When I first saw this movie over the summer, I rated it a B/B+, but after a second viewing, I am upgrading my grade to a solid B+. Mr. & Mrs. Smith clearly got a bad rap because of all the Brangelina hype, and too-high expectations from literal movie critics. Now that some time has passed … well, the film is really fun — a great mix of humor and action with some great showpieces, and Brad Pitt gives a typically deadpan funny performance. Continue reading →

The Good News? The Producers is great. Just like the show, it’s funny, the songs are catchy and memorable, there’s priceless chemistry between Matthew Broderick and Nathan Lane, and you want to leap to your feet with applause throughout.

The Bad News? Did I mention it’s just like the show? More so than even the movie of Chicago was, The Producers is basically a filmed version of the show. It’s like there was a camera on stage documenting the whole thing. There’s no attempt to make it more real by filming in real locations (aside from some quick scenes in Central Park), and with many of the characters performing right to the audience/camera just as they would on stage, there is no pretense that it’s anything more than a film of the show. It’s just bigger (more dancers, larger sets, etc.).

So yeah, that’s the mixed news. But I have to emphasize that while The Producers: the movie is almost exactly like The Producers: the show, it is a really well done filmed version. As I said, it’s bigger in scope, really funny, and I was actually tempted to burst out in applause more than a few times. I mean, let’s be honest: The Producers is a great show (it did win 11 Tony Awards, after all). And what’s different about the movie version — some new jokes, Will Ferrell, fun cameos — is generally really enjoyable. (Then again, Uma Thurman is not so good. The first scene with Leo and Max goes on a bit too long. And by the way, what happened to the “King of Broadway” song?) I really enjoyed the movie, so I’ll give The Producers a B+ and highly recommend it.

(And by the way, when you see the movie, make sure you stay all the way to the end, after the end credits.)

It’s entirely possible that I wasn’t in a movie-going mood yesterday, but despite that, I went to see The Ice Harvest. I’m not sure exactly what the movie was about; it was something about stolen money and Christmas Eve. Oliver Platt was his usual boorish self, there wasn’t enough Billy Bob Thornton, and nor was there enough nasty holiday humor. I was kind of under the assumption that the movie would be more along the lines of Bad Santa, though not so holiday-specific. Anyway, the film really didn’t do anything for me. Still, I’m giving it a C-.