Tag Archives: movies

5 PHENOMENAL MOVIE ROMANCES

by

37

movie_theatre - Phenom 5

Well this is the week where millions and millions of dollars will be spent on fresh roses, boxes of rich chocolates, sparkling diamond jewelry, and expensive fancy dinners all in the name of undying love. Ok, let me reword that. This Thursday is Valentines Day – a day where we guys had better have our wives or girlfriends something nice or the following few weeks will not be very pleasant! In the spirit of this wallet-crushing holiday I thought it would be good to focus this week’s Phenomenal 5 on love. So today I’m listing 5 Phenomenal Movie Romances. These are classic onscreen romances that are equally memorable and romantic. Now with so many big screen romances gracing cinema for all these years I would be a real goof to call this the definitive list. But I have no problems calling these five movie romances absolutely phenomenal.

#5 – Jack and Rose (“Titanic”)

TITANIC

While the first half of James Cameron’s epic sized blockbuster “Titanic” wasn’t nearly as good as the second half, it did set in motion a romance that gave the tearjerker finale some huge emotional pop. Jack (Leonardo DiCaprio) is a poor drifter and Rose (Kate Winslet) is a member of the high society upper class. The two cross paths on the maiden voyage of the British luxury liner Titanic. Obviously they come from opposite ends of the social order but you know the old saying – “opposites attract” yadda yadda yadda. A deep and forbidden love develops between them and Rose’s family are none too happy about it. But all of that takes a back seat when the Titanic strikes an iceberg and begins to sink. At no time does their love shine brighter than in their struggle to survive and you can’t help but be moved by it.

#4 – Jesse and Celine (“Before Sunrise” & “Before Sunset”)

BeforeSunset

No list like this would be complete without including Jesse (Ethan Hawke) and Celine (Julie Delpy). These two young lovers first met on a train from Budapest to Vienna in “Before Sunrise”. Jesse convinces Celine to skip her connecting train to Paris and spend the night walking around Vienna with him. A romantic spark is lit and the two seem like true soul mates but at the end of the film they head their separate ways. They cross paths 10 years later in Paris in “Before Sunset” and their lives have taken on many new changes. But as they spend the day walking and talking we quickly learn that spark never went out. It’s such a wonderful but complicated romance and we’ll get to see them 10 years later in this year’s “Before Midnight”. I can’t wait.

#3 – Nathaniel and Cora (“The Last of the Mohicans”)

MOHICANS

Underneath the surface of frontier violence and costly war lies an incredible romance that plays a big part in “The Last of the Mohicans”. Cora (Madelenie Stowe) is an English woman who has arrived in the States during The French and Indian War. She’s rescued by Nathaniel (Daniel Day-Lewis) and his adopted father and brother after a Huron war party tries to kill her. Through Nathaniel she learns a different perspective of the war and how it effects the locals. Even more important to the story, the two develop a love for one another that carries them through blood, battlefields, and tragedy. The way this love story is told through this dangerous and violent environment is beautiful and “The Last of the Mohicans” remains one of my all time favorite films.

#2 – Scarlett and Rhett (“Gone with the Wind”)

GONE WITH THE WIND

There may not be a more difficult and sometimes volatile relationship in film than the one shared between Scarlett O’Hara (Vivien Leigh) and Rhett Butler (Clark Gable). Their fascinating romance takes place during the outbreak of the Civil War. Scarlett is a fiery but spoiled daughter of a plantation owner and Rhett is just the one to tame her…or is he? Rhett is a confident and brash fellow who makes a play for Scarlett. But he’s not her puppet which often times infuriates her. But through their on again/off again relationship there is evidence of a truly passionate love between them. These two take us on a roller coaster ride that’s anything but a soft and tender love story. But it’s without a doubt one of the most mesmerizing romances to ever grace the movies.

#1 – Rick and Ilsa (“Casablanca”)

CASABLANCA

My favorite movie of all time also happens to feature what I think is the greatest romance in movie history. Humphrey Bogart plays Rick, a club owner in Casablanca during World War 2. His world is turned upside down when Ilsa (played by the stunningly beautiful Ingrid Bergman) reenters his life. We learn the two fell madly in love after first meeting in Paris but circumstances tore them apart. From the first moment their eyes meet again, we know that neither’s feelings have changed. But there are several obstacles keeping them from being together and watching what seems to be an ill-fated romance is simply great cinema. Bogart and Bergman have incredible chemistry and you never doubt their character’s love for each other. This is the quintessential romance in what’s a truly flawless movie.

So those are my five phenomenal movie romances. Now I want to hear your thoughts. What did I miss or where did I go wrong. Take time to comment and share you favorite movie romance.

“The Da Vinci Code” – 1 STAR

by

21

DA VINCI POSTER

For the sake of full disclosure, it took two sittings for me to get through Ron Howard’s “The Da Vinci Code” and I felt that was an accomplishment. I was never interested in seeing this movie but finally caught up with it over a three day span. There were several things that pushed me away from it from Tom Hanks’ hideous hairdo too much more glaring flaws. As you can probably guess, the Hanks mop is the least of the film’s unforgivable vices. “The Da Vinci Code” is a sloppy, lazy, and amateurish production from a director that should know better.

“The Da Vinci Code” was based on Dan Brown’s wildly popular 2003 novel of the same name. It reportedly cost $6 million to obtain the rights for the film with Howard signed to direct and Academy Award winning writer Akiva Goldsmith handling the screenplay. Goldsmith is hard to figure out. He’s done some brilliant work including “A Beautiful Mind” and “Cinderella Man” but he’s also written some real stinkers. But even with some questionable work on his resume, I wasn’t expecting the lazy and amateurish results that we get here.

DA VINCI 1

Hanks plays a noted religious symbology professor named Robert Langdon who is doing a series of lectures in Paris, France. He finds himself the prime suspect in a grisly murder inside the Louvre museum. He’s asked to come to the crime scene by a suspicious police captain (Jean Reno). While there Langdon discovers that he has been left a message from the victim that points him towards a mysterious cryptex, a device containing a message that could hold world-changing secrets. He’s joined by Sophie Neveu (Audrey Tautou), a French cryptologist and granddaughter of the victim. The two find themselves in the crosshairs of the French police and a mysterious religious sect, both trying to get their hands on the cryptex.

The big revelation turns out to be a possible death blow to Christianity and the Catholic Church. It’s told through a swirl of long-winded religious conspiracy theories, absurd revisionist history, and anti-Christian nonsense that serves as nothing more than insulting shock value. Most of this is revealed to Robert and Sophie by Leigh Teabing (Ian McKellen), an old acquaintance of Robert’s and a Holy Grail enthusiast. He believes many of the secrets are hidden in Leonardo Da Vinci’s “The Last Supper”, secrets that the cryptex can corroborate. Blah, blah, blah. Honestly it’s all so bloated, preposterous, and boring.

Goldsmith’s script is simply terrible. There’s not an ounce of creativity or subtlety in his storytelling. Everything is so contrived and by the books. There are numerous scenes of tedious exposition meant for nothing more but to fill in the audience on certain bits of information. There’s nothing wrong with that except for the fact they’re so poorly written and we know what they’re there for. This is also a movie loaded with ridiculous conveniences. So many times the story is advanced by a simple convenience that allows our heroes to either escape or find the next clue. Some of them are so lame that I found myself laughing out loud.

da vinci 2

I could go on about the writing but I can’t let Ron Howard off the hook either. This thing is an utter mess. It’s a thriller without thrills. The action sequences have no pop whatsoever. The dialogue is as stale and lifeless as you’ll find. His movement from scene to scene feels more like an assembly line production. And his dull and dank color palette gives the movie a dark and unattractive look. I mean neither Paris or London have ever looked worse on screen. Howard has shown in the past he knows how to direct a picture. I have no idea what happened here but a lot of the movie’s problems can be put on him.

I still can’t imagine how “The Da Vinci Code” made over $750 million at the box office. That’s something that boggles my mind. Maybe it was the controversial label that it received and deservedly so. Whatever the reason, it wasn’t because this is a good film. Even without its eye-rolling, anti-Christian shock value, “The Da Vinci Code” is a movie filled with cheap shortcuts, head-shakingly bad dialogue, and poor visual decisions throughout. It’s a shame it turned out this way because there was a good cast in place. But this just shows that you can have a good cast but if you throw them crap the result is going to be crap. Such is “The Da Vinci Code”.

“Hitchcock” – 4 STARS

by

24

HITCHCOCK POSTER

You know, I just love movies about making movies. That’s one reason I thought the movie “Hitchcock” would be right up my alley. Another reason is that it’s about one of cinema’s greatest directors – Alfred Hitchcock. Yet another reason I was interested was because of the fantastic cast specifically Anthony Hopkins as Hitchcock and Helen Mirren as his wife Alma Reville. These and several other yummy ingredients had me really hungry for this film and after seeing it I can say that it’s quite satisfying.

But enough with the gastronomical analogies. “Hitchcock” takes place during the filming of arguably the director’s most popular and groundbreaking film “Psycho”. The movie begins just after the release of Hitchcock’s wildly successful “North By Northwest”. He still owes Paramount Pictures another film but he’s struggling to find the right one. He also feels that the studios and press believe he is past his prime and he wants to pick a bold project that will prove otherwise. He finds himself attracted to a Robert Bloch novel titled “Psycho”. He convinces Alma and his agent Lew Wasserman (Michael Stuhlbarg) that it’s the right choice but he has a harder time with Paramount president Barney Balaban (Richard Portnow). They finally reach an agreement where Hitchcock agrees to fund the picture for 40% of the profits and a Paramount distribution.

HITCHCOCK1

It’s really fascinating to watch the behind-the-scenes process and how Hitchcock labored to make “Psycho”. But a bigger and even more enjoyable part of the movie focuses on Hitchcock’s relationship with his wife. Hopkins and Mirren are a joy to watch. The two veteran performers dissect this marriage with surgical precision, bringing out so many interesting aspects of it. There’s a clear love that they both share for one another, but there’s an equally clear strain on their marriage brought on by the financial stress of funding the movie and by Hitchcock’s own negligence, pride, and fear of failure.

Hitch is betrayed as a self-assured man on the outside but he clearly has uncertainties on the inside. He has a wandering eye for his leading ladies and has a tendency to overindulge in food and drink – something Alma stays on him about. Alma is a talented writer herself and her uncredited contributions to Hitchcock’s creative process prove vital. Her growing frustrations lead her to begin her own collaboration with fellow writer Whitfield Cook (Danny Huston), something Hitchcock disapproves of. All of these pressures begin to wear on Hitch and ends up threatening the completion of “Psycho”.

As I alluded to, one of the real strengths of this picture are the performances. Mirren rightfully earns her award nominations that she has received. Hopkins does a fine job fleshing out this complex director under a coat of heavy prosthetics. He nails all the mannerisms and postures and his speech is almost perfect. But there’s one thing I struggled with. I never could quite get past that I was watching him do Alfred Hitchcock. Take Daniel Day-Lewis’ performance in “Lincoln”. I was so drawn in by his work that I forgot I was watching an actor play Abraham Lincoln. I never quite got to that point here. Don’t misunderstand me, it’s not a bad performance by any means. But I never completely bought into the idea that I was watching Hitchcock on screen.

????????????

I also have to mention the other supporting performances that I really enjoyed. I’ve liked Michael Stuhlbarg since seeing him in the Coen brothers film “A Serious Man”. He’s good here too. I was also impressed with Jessica Biel as Vera Miles. She’s an actress I normally don’t care for but she gives a nice subtle performance that works really well. But an even bigger surprise for me was Scarlett Johansson as Janet Leigh. I’ve never been completely sold on Johansson as an actress but I love the Janet Leigh she portrays. She’s beautiful and sexy but she’s almost a stabilizing influence on Hitch. She’s a lot of fun to watch in the role.

“Hitchcock” has a hard time escaping that biopic feel but it’s still a really good film. I think my love for the director’s movies and my particular affection for “Psycho” added a sense of nostalgia to my viewing, but there’s a lot more to this picture than just that. There are many clever little inclusions that go hand-in-hand with Hitchcock. For instance look closely and you’ll find his shadowy silhouette that fans of his will instantly recognize. Then there’s the cool opening and closing of the film that hearkens back the “Alfred Hitchcock Presents” days. These nifty treats fit in well with the solid script and wonderful performances and anyone with the slightest interest should come away well pleased.

“Life of Pi” – 3.5 STARS

by

18

LIFE OF PIE POSTER

“Life of Pi” is a movie I could never get excited about seeing. During several trips to the theater I tried to muster up enough interest to cause me to see it but it was tough. I wasn’t convinced of the story and I’m not the biggest fan of Ang Lee. It finally took strong reviews from several of my movie blogging buddies and the large number of Oscar nominations it received to get me to check it out before it left the big screen.

“Life of Pi” is based on Yann Martel 2001 novel which was considered by many to be an unfilmable book. The project passed through the hands of several different writers and directors before finally resting with Ang Lee directing and David Magee handling the script. This was a highly ambitious work requiring a clear vision and a large number of special effects artists to make it the jaw-dropping visual experience Ang Lee was shooting for. There’s no doubting that this is a major cinematic accomplishment and even though I may not have responded as strongly as others, I was still very impressed with what the filmmakers were able to do.

“Life of Pi” is a story of religion and faith. It’s not a story of a religion or a specific faith. No, it plays it safe by just speaking to the power of faith in God while never clearly defining the God it speaks of. I guess you could say that the movie isn’t in the business of proselytizing and it steers clear of that through the very tidy character of Piscine “Pi” Patel. The movie begins with a novelist, hungry for inspiration for a new book, visiting an adult Piscine (Irrfan Kahn) after being told he had a good story to tell. Piscine begins sharing his incredible story which we see through flashbacks.

LIFE OF PIE

We first see Piscine as a child living at the zoo ran by his parents. He changes his name to Pi after facing a year’s worth of ridicule over his real name from his classmates at school. Pi grows up to be a very smart and spiritual young man. At 13-years old, he is introduced to Christianity which he adds to his Hindu upbringing. Later he adds Islam into the mix to complete his unique theological perspective. Pi’s father wants him to be more of a rationally thinking person and ends up teaching Pi some lessons that change his view of the world. At age 16, Pi and his family are forced to close down the zoo, sell their animals, and move to Canada. They hop aboard a Japanese freighter with some of their animals in tow and head across the Pacific.

While at sea a monstrous storm hits which capsizes and sinks the huge vessel. For me this was one of the most visually stunning sequences in the entire picture. Pi manages to get to a life boat but his family and everyone else onboard are killed. But he’s not alone on the small boat. A crippled zebra, a baboon, a vicious hyena, and a huge bengal tiger known in their zoo as Richard Parker are also with him. The natural chain soon kicks in and Richard Parker and Pi are the only two remaining. The bulk of the film follows the two in their attempt to survive. Suraj Sharma plays the 16-year old Pi and he is really good. Sharma went through a lot of physical preparation for this role including ocean survival training. He also had the tricky task of acting with and reacting to a tiger that wasn’t there. It’s a great performance.

The movie becomes one part survival story and another part spiritual journey although I would argue that the spirituality takes a backseat until the end of the picture. It becomes more of a subtle and subconscious component of the film as things move forward. The relationship between Pi and Richard Parker becomes the driving force of the story. They begin as predator versus prey but soon becoming territorial enemies. It’s pretty fascinating to watch Lee and Magee take both of these characters down to the most basic animalistic survival instincts. You would expect it from Richard Parker but Pi finds himself fighting against these impulses. He learns it will take more than that if they are to survive their ordeal.

Life of Pie 2

A lot has been said about the visual experience that “Life of Pi” provides. I have to admit, at times it can leave you speechless. There are some beautiful shots in the film soaked in vivid colors and framed with such imagination. The animation involved in bringing Richard Parker to life is something you just have to see. I was blown away. But I have to say what I liked in the film could have been done without 3-D. Now don’t get me wrong, the 3-D is better than 90% of the stuff that comes out today. But after all I heard, I expected something that would knock my socks off. It does have a handful of dazzling 3-D moments but I think the movie would be just as visually stimulating in bright and clear digital.

I do have another gripe. I couldn’t help but feel the movie begin to lose me a little after Pi and Richard Parker had been lost at sea for a while. It seems like the movie took too much time in progressing their relationship and moving towards the finale. The survivalist element was quite good but eventually I did start hungering for some type of conclusion. But when it did come to an end, I felt it wrapped everything up in a smart, emotional, and thought-provoking way.

So while I may not be as crazy about “Life of Pie” as some of my moviegoing friends and the Academy, I still really appreciate what Ang Lee was able to accomplish. There’s a lot of creativity and skill on display. And while I felt the story did play it safe, it also asked some questions that many movies seem afraid of. That’s something else I can appreciate. “Life of Pi” wouldn’t have cracked my top 10 list of 2012 movies, but it’s a very good film and I am really anxious to revisit it.

“Heartbreaker” – 4 STARS

by

10

HEARTBREAKER POSTER

I’m a sucker for a good romantic comedy. Call me a softy but I really respond to them. Unfortunately the genre is in shambles as studios continue to pump out one lame, brainless rom-com after another. Maybe that’s why I get so excited when I actually find one worthwhile. Maybe that’s why I almost instantly rewatch it, knowing it may be a while before I get another good one. Such was the case with the 2010 French film “Heartbreaker”.

Okay, let me get this out of the way first. “Heartbreaker” is at times incredibly silly and like many romantic comedies it’s completely predictable. But that did little to quench my enjoyment of the film. For the most part “Heartbreaker” is smart even in its silliness and director Pascal Chaumeil wisely keeps the pace up, never allowing us to mull over the absurdity of some of the things we’re seeing. And then, by the end of the movie, I realized what a great time I had with the film and even that absurdity played its own little role in my enjoyment.

HEARTBREAKER

The story goes like this, Alex (Romain Duris) runs a unique business that breaks up relationships. He works with his sister Melanie (Julie Ferrier) and her dimwitted but tech-savvy husband Marc (François Damiens) to create elaborate ruses that persuade women to break off their relationships. But the team has their own honor code. Alex never takes a job involving a perfectly matched couple and he never breaks up a happy relationship. Alex plays the handsome swooner of the operation. Melanie play the well disguised ground operative. Marc handles everything technical. We learn all about their operation in the film’s amusing opening. Alex wraps up a successful job with a series of over-the-top lines that sets the smitten target woman free and left me laughing at his scripted sappiness.

Alex is approached by a rich father with ties to organized crime who wants his daughter’s engagement to an Englishman ended. The wedding is in a few days and the couple seems happy, but Alex, knee-deep in debt with a loan shark, puts his rules aside and takes the job. The crew heads to Morocco where Alex meets the daughter Juliette (Vanessa Paradis) and poses as a bodyguard hired by her father. Juliette is a spunky and independent young woman and Alex finds out that the job is going to be more difficult than anticipated. As the wedding gets closer, Alex begins to run out of options. On top of that, things are made more difficult by the fact that he’s falling for her. Bet you didn’t see that one coming!

Heart breaker

The story is clever and the laughs are aplenty, but I thought the biggest treat was the cast. I had seen Romain Duris in a handful of other movies but never in a role quite like this. He is very funny and he wonderfully channels that good-looking arrogance and occasional knuckleheaded cluelessness. Vanessa Paradis continues to impress me with every performance of hers I see. She’s really good here playing it straight while the others around her have the fun. But she has her own funny moments that pulls some good laughs from the audience. Paradis and Duris have an odd but convincing chemistry and that’s a key ingredient to making this such an enjoyable experience. If you doubt me, just wait until you see the “Dirty Dancing” scene. I’ll just leave it at that.

As I mentioned there is a lot of predictability along the way and there’s nothing that will catch you by surprise. But the filmmakers and the cast know this and they never try to sell you anything else. It’s a rare romantic comedy that caused me to laugh a lot and to genuinely care about the characters. I’ve rewatched “Heartbreaker” a couple of times now to see how it holds up. It’s still funny. It’s still entertaining. It still leaves me extremely satisfied despite its few flaws. Now I hear that there is a US remake in the works. There’s no need in that. I would much rather this film get a bigger audience. It certainly deserves one.

“ARGO” and the Oscars

by

16

OSCAR 1

There’s a very interesting thing happening this awards season. The believed to be front-runner for Oscar’s biggest award, Steven Spielberg’s “Lincoln”, finds itself in the dust of the surprising “Argo”, Ben Affleck’s Iran hostage thriller. I loved “Argo” as did many others and I have no problem with its award season success, but very few people saw this one coming. Sunday night it took home the biggest prize at the Screen Actors Guild Awards to go along with the top prize it won at The Golden Globes. So now all eyes are on The Academy Awards. But for “Argo” to pull one final rabbit out of its hat it’s going to have to buck a pretty established trend.

In what I believe are two of the most inexplicable snubs in Oscar history, the Academy failed to give director nominations to either Affleck for “Argo” or Kathryn Bigelow for “Zero Dark Thirty”. Bigelow has won several recent awards including the Best Director nod from the New York Film Critics. But it’s “Argo” that’s really running wild and it’s “Argo” that could be the fly in the Academy’s soup. You see the winner of the Best Director Oscar is almost always a sign of who will win Best Picture. It’s extremely, extremely rare for a Best Picture winner to not also take home the Best Director Oscar. So what is the Academy to do? This spotlights their blatant snubs even more and with them comes real questions of motivation.

Could it be the Academy is punishing Bigelow and Affleck for the perceived politics behind their films? Now I think anyone watching these two fantastic movies with an ounce of objectivity has to conclude that both are simply telling stories and not trying to make a huge political point. Perhaps that’s why I loved them so much. I get tired of being force-fed political perspective at the expense of good storytelling. Both of these movies are set in politically charged climates yet both Affleck and Bigelow allow the audience to process the politics. In fact, for me both pictures go beyond politics and into much deeper and more personal areas – something I can really appreciate.

So what else could the Academy’s beef be with Affleck and Bigelow? Both have created strong and challenging movies that certainly deserve to be nominated. Could it be that the Academy is unhappy with Affleck and Bigelow’s failure to use their opportunity to put a hard political slant on their films? Are they angry because they see the two films as leaning too much to the political right? Whatever the inexcusable reasoning is behind it the Academy has dropped the ball and now “Argo” is bringing it all into the light. I love it!