Tag: Romance

This movie was on every banner before my eyes every time I’d log on to IMDB, Netflix, Rotten Tomatoes, or movie phone. Clearly the gods of matching meta data were in its favor. Every time I clicked on it I just saw a boring, wanna be romance that said in the synopsis it was about a couple at the end of their marriage trying to rekindle things. It just didn’t excite me but I kept it on my list just in case nothing else was on. I highly recommend not giving up on movies because this one ended up being the opposite of boring. It is indeed about a failing relationship but the steps they take to make it better are partly science fiction. That’s right, I said that genre. It’s sort of a Twilight Zone meets a couple in therapy. I know my wife and I related with some of the humor and the sci fi. More than anything, it got me thinking about the many sides to our partner and how we can fall in love with one and not the other. In the end, which will we choose to live with? More importantly, which will we not.

I like Mark Duplass a lot. He has that “older guy” feeling to him in this. Ironically, he is 8 years younger than me. I won’t get too into it but you see a lot of aspects of his character. He was a bit over the top for my taste in My Sister’s Sister. In this one he has calmed down a lot and delivers a more mature, soulful performance. Elizabeth Moss was a perfect casting choice as the wife. I’ve respected and enjoyed her work since Girl Interrupted and she continues to please in this. One more character I enjoyed seeing, though it’s a small role, was Ted Danson as the therapist. Great to see him in a movie! If you’re in a relationship and you’re looking for a date movie, this would be an excellent choice. Couples who are more long term may enjoy it more as it covers some of the issues that tend to appear only after the honeymoon phase has passed. This was a breath of fresh air combing romantic comedy with sci fi. I’m reminded of The Time Traveler’s Wife, The Adjustment Bureau, and About Time so it’s not a new seasoning. In this case, it’s more subtle than the ones I mentioned but it really made the message of the film more attractive and easily heard. The end is another twist after the main twist. I loved it.

In Silver Linings Playbook Bradley Cooper plays a manic bipolar who is fixated on getting back with his wife who has cheated on him and secured a restraining order. Meanwhile, Jennifer Lawrence plays an admirer with issues of her own. There is some trouble here, the movie starts off clearly being about bipolar and metal illness and later waters all that psychology study down making it like a low grade Hangover or other romantic film Bradley Cooper has starred in. I was hoping for a more realistic portrayal of mental illness. I don’t know why, Hollywood is never good at that. Maybe it shouldn’t be expected to be. It was still highly entertaining as a romantic comedy.

The film was Directed by David O. Russell known for The Fighter. I liked this film because it portrayed people in an unflattering state, as they are. Many times movies try to sugar coat families and individuals to make them seem superhuman. I don’t think this really helps humanity. This movie starts out portraying bipolar disorder in a believable and textbook way but later veers from the realistic path. I think if they would have made this a movie about bipolar disorder it would have not had been as interesting. Still, it would have been educational which might have made it better. As it stands, Silver Linings Playbook is a romantic comedy about a form of bipolar that doesn’t exist telling an offbeat story that could never really happen with characters that are not realistic. Despite all that, it’s still an entertaining 2 hours.

Les Misérables (2012) is a film adaptation of a highly acclaimed stage musical that has been part of American culture for decades. So why make a musical cinema adaptation? After making more money as a motivation that is … It was likely meant to appeal to the growing number of younger people who never saw the stage version or all ages who would not have access to a stage. The movie makers took on a lot in this respect.

There are mammoth challenges when recreating musical theater on screen. This film was unsuccessful in meeting some of those those challenges. For one thing, stage musicals are seen from just one seat in a theater. They don’t provide close-ups and the bodies on stage of all the performers figure into the grand illusion known as stage performance. In a movie, there are close-ups. Furthermore, the focus is on whoever the director chooses to embrace. This leaves us with a flat image of a musical that never lets us turn our eyes away or have our own visual interpretation. In short, the cinematic musical adaptation rarely matches the power of the stage. As a person who has seen Les Mis (as it has been commonly referred to) on the stage when he was much younger, I can tell you the movie fails to measure up to that experience. Still, for what it tries to do, portray Les Mis in a new genre to a new audience, it is quite successful. It also may be safe to say it’s nearly impossible to portray a stage musical with justice on the screen. If that is the case, they get a huge handicap (if this were a golf game) and I would say it represents a gargantuan effort to get the Les Mis art piece to newer viewers by means of theater. For that, this film gets higher marks.

I think younger people (20’s and below) who have never seen the musical will like the movie because the music is so amazing. Still, the two lead actors, Russell Crowe and Hugh Jackman, are not captivating singers. One has an annoying vibrato he must have cherished in Catholic school and the other is forced sounding. Most lines in the cinematic are sung. There are some excellent moments in the film make no mistake. The Ebony character was my favorite. I will be watching for what she does in future movies. Last but not least, Anne Hathaway does an incredible job with her 1 song. People her give her too much praise however should remember that she had only that performance to focus on. I wonder if her voice and presence would have grown old as a lead role? Just something to throw out there and suggest we think about. The movie is far too long, approaching 3 hours. I think this is a very tough genre to embrace on the screen. They tried it and unfortunately, in my view, failed.

The Snow Walker (2003) shows a more primitive side of love, a side that casts away material comforts in favor of simply the closeness of another. I thoroughly enjoyed this movie and recommend it as a romance and adventure movie. It makes one wonder if the Eskimos knew more about love centuries ago than modern American culture does now.

It was directed and written by Charles Martin Smith known for being the actor who plays accountant that gets Al Capone in the Untouchables. He has been in a long list of other films through the years and is instantly recognizable in films. He doesn’t appear in this one but as I said, he wrote and directed it. The two main characters in this freezing love story are Charlie Halliday played by Barry Pepper, known for Saving Private Ryan. and Kanaalaq played by Annabella Piugattuk, known for Into the West.

This is the storyline from IMDB:

1953. Charlie Halliday, a former WWII fighter pilot, is a Yellowknife-based bush pilot. Like many of the white in the area, he does not associate with the Inuit except for what he can get out of them in bartering. On a personal plane trip, he runs across a small family of nomadic Inuit. The female of the group, named Kanaalaq, has what Charlie suspects is tuberculosis. In exchange for some ivory, Charlie agrees to fly her to a hospital in Yellowknife. En route back to the city, Charlie is forced to make a crash landing when the plane develops mechanical problems. Although both Charlie and Kanaalaq are unharmed by the crash, the plane is totaled, they are in the middle of nowhere, the radio doesn’t seem to be working, they have a meager amount of supplies, and Charlie’s whereabouts are probably unknown to others since he made a detour from his original route. Furthermore, they can’t communicate with each other as Kanaalaq only knows a few words of English.

The Snow Walker is a tough film to get through in the same way Dances With Wolves is. Both present  ironically touching love stories. Unlike Wolves, however, the emphasis in Snow is completely on the love story. Whether it is the romance we all dream of will vary person to person. Still, it shows a selfish man who comes to appreciate true and primal love in a way I hadn’t thought of before. I gave it 5/5 for a romance. It brings up valuable questions for a relationship. How far would you hike in the snow for the one you love? is one of those questions.

Ruby Sparks is a romantic comedy written by Zoe Kazan. Ruby is a fictional character thought up in the movie by a successful writer in his early twenties played by Paul Dano.

Much to his surprise, one day Ruby comes to life and takes on the role of his real life girlfriend. After that a roller coaster of emotions and love lessons ensues. For me, the strongest message in the movie is about the power we try to exert over each other in relationships. It has a truly all-star cast including Annette Bening, Antonio Banderas, Elliot Gould, and many more. Though the film started slow for me, it picked up in the middle and became a very fun and emotion-filled ride. I read online while watching the movie that the actress playing Ruby, Zoe Kazan, is the actual writer of the movie. For this reason, the audience gets the perspective of a woman being invented and controlled by an actual woman writer. I was impressed by Miss Kazan and will look for more from her in the future.

Final Thought: Relationships are often funny but more often perplexing. This movie uses metaphor and satire in the form of this invented woman to address some of those difficult issues. Paul Dano does a very nice job as a young writer trying to figure out life and love. He has definite ideas about what Ruby should be and he writes them clearly. I felt a real-life connection to what he was doing when he “wrote Ruby.” I thought at one point, “How would I ‘write’ my wife if I had the magic typewriter?” Through most of the movie I knew I would not rewrite her one iota. I think that is the message of the movie. We want “the perfect spouse” but in reality, we don’t know what that is for us. Better to let our spouse have her/his imperfections than try to craft them into something “perfect.” If those themes sound interesting, you’ll love this romantic comedy. I give it 5/5 stars. In some ways for me it was a perfect film experience.

Emma Watson and Ezra Miller steal the show in The Perks of Being a Wallflower. Miller often reminded me of a Jack Nicholson for a new generation. This book-turned-film pleases at every turn. It was written and directed by Stephen Chbosky known for the TV series Jericho. Lead actors include: Emma Watson as Sam, Logan Lerman as Charlie, and Ezra Miller as Patrick.

This movie is an adaptation of Stephen Chbosky’s novel. Charlie is 15 years old and has trouble finding his place in High School. He learns to make friends in the context of a group of misfits. He learns about love, friendship, and his own mental illness in the same context. Lucky for him, it’s a warm, supportive context. It is in some ways the typical coming-of-age film but there is some originality here as well. There are a LOT of “mix tapes” changing hands, almost to annoyance. My wife reminded me the movie is set in 1990 so that might explain it.

I was able to shed my grown-up reason and enjoy this film as my inner-high-school self. Emma Watson is the perfect choice for Charlie’s first love because her face is so familiar and calming. When Charlie has some of his darker moments, she is there as a comforting force. Ezra Miller, who was terrifying in We Need to Talk About Kevin, moves into a new phase of his acting career. He is a delight to watch often showing humor akin to Jack Nicholson (in his own budding way). Logan Lerman does a fine job as Charlie. His piercing eyes really speak more than his lines but I found him to be engaging for the role. People are comparing this film to the Breakfast Club, I think that a hollow comparison. Both are about kids in High School but I don’t see Wallflower hanging around in the American mind as much. It’s a lot of fun with some great acting but fails to mirror the storms of adolescence as clearly as the Breakfast Club.

The movie Secretary (2002 Rated R) seeks to portray sexual control in a relationship. This is probably a really hard thing to do straight out so the movie makes a sort of comic book story to get its point across.

The result is a jarring, strangely erotic tale of control between a cutter and a BDSM dominant. Though the writing and sets are comic-book like, this is definitely not one to show the kids. This film, replete with nudity and graphic themes like cutting, can be viewed however as a close look at how lovers can control each other in relationships. Not everything here is meant to be sexual.

This film was directed by Steven Shainberg and stars Maggie Gyllenthal and James Spader and the couple it centers on. While the director is not known for a slough of films, the actors are well known for many movies. Both deliver passionate performances. There is nudity and once again, this is not a film for kids. It is however well acted and the writing is bizarre yet enjoyable. None of this is anything I do but it helps me get what this sort of stuff is about. I found that interesting.

Here is the storyline from IMDB:

Lee Holloway is a smart, quirky woman in her twenties who returns to her hometown in Florida after a brief stay in a mental hospital. In search of relief from herself and her oppressive childhood environment, she starts to date a nerdy friend from high school and takes a job as a secretary in a local law firm, soon developing an obsessive crush on her older boss, Mr. Grey. Through their increasingly bizarre relationship, Lee follows her deepest longings to the heights of masochism and finally to a place of self-affirmation.

This movie bears indictable resemblance to “Fifty Shades of Grey” but is more than just a tale of BDSM sexual encounters. I gave it a 4.5/5 because I think the director succeeded in showing the power we can hold over our significant others. It lost points with me in the way that it wasn’t a more realistic portrayal. We are obviously not all like Mr. Grey and few like Mr. Grey will find requited love. Still, we do hold each other captive sometimes and it’s interesting to think about how we do that while watching this movie.

Moonrise Kingdom is a refuge amidst so many predictable and non-inventive movies out now. It tells a creative story line of lovers who thrive despite their antagonistic surroundings. The synopsis on IMDB reads: “A pair of young lovers flee their New England town, which causes a local search party to fan out and find them.” It was directed by Wes Anderson known for The Royal Tennebaums, The Fantastic Mr. Fox, and The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou. If you can enjoy a love story told in a campy way, this one will delight.

Moonrise Kingdom has many stars in it including: Bruce Willis (Captain Sharp), Edward Norton (Scout Master Ward), Kara Hayward (Suzy), Bill Murray (Walt Bishop), Frances McDormand (Laura Bishop), Tilda Swinton (Social Services), Harvey Keitel (Commander Pierce). There are excellent secenes delivered by all the most notable being the portrayal of the 12-year olds in love.

Moonrise Kingdom starts and ends slowly. I can’t tell you it ever speeds up but because there is so much great and beautiful retro stuff to look at, I didn’t complain. It takes place in 1965 on a remote yet suburban island. We encounter a family with children and a crew of boy-scouts learning to live off the land and get various merit badges. If you can believe it, the two paths cross and we get a love story between two twelve year old kids and a whole bunch of campy humor. The tenderness of the kids in love is not lost however. There is something deeply touching in the way they bare their weaknesses verbally to each other while running away from a world that can’t hold them. If you can suspend disbelief and judgement for 90 minutes or so you may enjoy this one. If you are looking for realism, you should pay for a ticket. Odd scenes and dialog permeate but I liked that. I can see how some audiences would be put off by this film’s quirkiness. It was something different in a predictable movie Summer of films like the Dark Knight and The Amazing Spider-Man. That made it quite refreshing for me. If you can handle getting lost in a fantasy film, you will enjoy this one.

In The Amazing Spiderman we see Spiderman more without the suit than with it. We also see him less as an untouchable comic book superhero and more as one of us mortals. The question then becomes: “Is this the same brand or a new one?” Here’s a short summary from IMDB: Peter Parker finds a clue that might help him understand why his parents disappeared when he was young. His path puts him on a collision course with Dr. Curt Connors, his father’s former partner.  It was directed by Marc Webb known for 500 Days of Summer and No Doubt: Return of Saturn. Its stars include Andrew Garfield as Peter Parker, Emma Stone as Gwen Stacy, and Rhys Ifans as Lizard.

This film is a darker, more gritty, telling of the classic comic than the earlier franchise. It unfortunately has a laboriously long section of Peter’s life before the Spidey suit and spends way too much time developing minutae like how his glasses belonged to his father. Still, it is interesting to see what they do differently. Another liability is how Peter and Gwen are both played by actors pushing 30. They are meant to be in high school. At times I thought they were in college. Another different thing is that Peter has a much more stormy relationship with Aunt Mae and Uncle Ben. For example, Peter is almost expelled after fighting with the school bully on the basketball court. Uncle Ben chews him out for this, an act I can’t comprehend the old Ben doing.

When these hundreds of millions of dollars are being spent on a per-established brand, character development is probably not important. What is important is that you follow the parts of the formula that work. There is a villain, a lizard, whose character is a part of the formula but he is also underdeveloped. As an aside, in my opinion he looks really fake. I’ve seen better CGI on National Geographic dinosaur documentaries. He’s not really sure if he likes Spiderman or not which is very confusing. We also never learn the true nature of the relationship between Peter’s parents and the lizard. Perhaps this was purposely left out for the sequel.

The new Spider Man runs amok doing whatever he feels at the moment. Once however he stops to truly focus on making a web spinner that would require hours of intense tedium and patience in real life. I don’t think with his what looked like ADD he could do such a thing. Flying maniacally on buildings and suddenly having this sort of patience is part of the muddy portrayal of Peter Parker. When he gets into the suit it isn’t much better. The Amazing Spiderman is not as good as the prior Spiderman trilogy because it assumes we are already on board with the new Spiderman’s vision. I for one needed to be shown and I never got that privelege. Here’s my last thing on character development: the romance with Gwen Stacy comes off as staged with awkward dialogue. A couple of times I could have sworn he spoke with an unintended stutter. I didn’t care if they ended up together, it felt as if their relationahip was obligatory top the movie and without passion. He is unlike the previous Spiderman in many ways. In fact, we see a superhero here more like Kickass than a comic book one.

In conclusion: There is very little that is “new” for us in this film. Of course, it is always fun flying around with Spiderman and there is a truckload of that. I think fans with an open mind will enjoy it but at the same time wish it “felt” like Spiderman. Perhaps it was the name that made this explains why Stan Lee himself financed this “prequel/remake” as its executive producer. We will never know for sure. Incidentally, Stan Lee does appear in a scene where Spidey is smashing through the high school library wall. Lee has headphones on while grooving to music. Based on the number of screens Spider Man was playing on here in our High Desert theaters, Lee is grooving all the way to the bank. As for me and whether this movie was a great action comic retelling, I’ll have to say it falls short. Despite its scattered portrayal of Peter Parker and a lousy CGI villain, this movie won points with its skyscraper scenes and other compelling special effects. I guess we will never know how it would have done if it had its own title and its own original characters.

This movie was directed by Andrew Stanton, known for Wall*E and Finding Nemo. He took a giant step out into the adventure epic genre with this one. The question is: “should he have?” This is a Disney creation and as a result has state of the art graphics and cgi. It stars Taylor Kitsch as John Carter, a relatively new actor known for the TV series Friday Night Lights. Clearly he worked out with weights for the role. His character flexes muscles like the best action stars extant. Lynn Collins plays Dejah Thoris, the princess. She also “gives good flesh” onscreen. Let me just say, she looks really hot in her costumes. They cast her well. Make no mistake, it is a visually stunning piece in many ways. Unfortunately, the implausible plot and cheesy screenplay overshadow the visual triumphs of John Carter. I forgot it was 3D in about 15 minutes as its sorry plot just kept dragging on.

The character John Carter is a captain set in the Civil War and he appears to be running from all forms of duty. We are never told why but we do find out at one point his wife and daughter have been burned inside his home. Perhaps that is why he runs? Again, we are not told why. The movie is based on a beloved turn-of-the-century novel so I can only assume the book explains these things. The movie moves quickly from Earth to Mars leaving no space for explanation. John Carter comes into the possession of a pendant that transports him to Mars. Once there, he discovers he has a new ability to jump ridiculously high over long distances. This makes him a sort of hero among a colony of 12 foot tall beings that each have 4 human like arms and tusks. They are uncomfortably similar to the tribes in James Cameron’s Avatar only they are flesh colored. The even have their own language like the creatures in Avatar. Things happen and there are all sorts of special effects that go on. There is a dog-like creature that runs blindingly fast, I found this creature quite cool. However stunning everything may look in this movie, make no mistake that none of it makes any sense. The story is preposterous, even from a fantasy standpoint. I hoped against hope it eventually would make sense and engage me but it decidedly never did.

There is a princess and John becomes her savior. There is a gladiator scene where John is thrown to a set of giant white gorillas. John defeats the mammoth beasts. It then becomes a struggle for John to get back to his planet but he really has no motive to do so. He decides to become a Martian and marries the princess. The romance writing is terse and the characterization underdeveloped. The love between them is not believable nor is much of anything written in John Carter. I must say, I hardly even know how to be sarcastic about this movie, it’s like a poorly made scif-fi channel movie. Disney knows how to make hero/princess stories, shame on Disney for this one. Oh, and I must inform you that if you persist in your desire to see this movie after reading  … it is 2 1/2 hours long so be warned. For my wife and I out on a date, it was movie watching torture. This movie may appeal to some but for me, it was a real waste of 2.5 hours. Having said all that, I am sure Disney is already starting to plan the sequel. If they make John Carter 2, let’s hope it’s better than this.