Tag Archives: movie

Setter’s ‘Spectives, Part II: Well, I Finished ‘The Lunchbox’

~

Setter Drawing for Blog 082613And it was good. Not a masterpiece. But very well done.

Some might find it slow. I didn’t; I though the pace was perfectly fine. I did, however, feel that it used one particularly loaded line a bit too much; it was something about “the wrong train” getting you to “the right place,” and I think a less heavy-handed application of this would’ve suited the film better. It’s not a deal breaker, however. The movie still worked.

I wonder why it’s so difficult for American movies to take such simple plots – The Lunchbox was about two people connecting via handwritten notes in misplaced lunch deliveries – and pace them in a way that’s both not too fast and not too slow. Of course, there are exceptions, but it seems the slam-bang styles have more of an appeal in this day and age to the general public … that is, if we are to believe what the movie previews tell us.

Anyway, I enjoyed The Lunchbox very much. Maybe it’s not for everyone, but if you’re interested in a laid-back film that deals honestly with people’s problems, it might just be what you’re seeking. It was for me.

Setter’s ‘Spectives: A Taste of ‘The Lunchbox’

~

Setter Drawing for Blog 082613I have to write a little about The Lunchbox before I finish it.

It’s really a fine film. I thought I was going to be frustrated with it. Boy, was I wrong.

Watched about a third last night; had to stop it because I was tired. But it was enthralling. Beautiful cinematography. Great sound. And a simple but touching story (two people in Mumbai get their lunchboxes mixed up and start writing notes to each other). I’m hoping to see the rest of it tonight.

It’s further proof that a movie doesn’t have to have a complicated plot or flashy editing to be enjoyable. It can be deliberately paced, like The Lunchbox is. The conflict can be minimal. The characters may be few. And yet, the flick can be as powerful as any one with a cast of thousands.

It only helps that this film, which is tangentially about food, made me hungry. Hopefully, I’ll have at least a bite to eat before I complete it this evening.

Skip’s Quips: A Toast to ‘The Roaring Twenties’

~

Blog Sketch 082813I like a good Jimmy Cagney movie. Strange that I hadn’t seen The Roaring Twenties until the other night, though.

It was a crackling flick, this tale of the rise and fall of a bootlegger during Prohibition. Good pacing, great production design and sharp direction by the reliable Raoul Walsh. Plus, Bogie was in it, and he made, as he often did, a very able villain.

Cagney was good at playing gangsters, but he had a lot more range than I think people give him credit for. Still, these pictures remain some of his most memorable ones. Glad I got a chance to see The Roaring Twenties, finally.

Setter’s ‘Spectives: Bad Puns and ‘Good Will Hunting’

~

Setter Drawing for Blog 082613I have five things to say about Good Will Hunting, which I just saw for the first time a couple of days ago.

I. Did. Not. Like. It.

Part of me knew this would happen. The bad pun in the title gave my future cinema verdict away. I couldn’t appreciate something that didn’t take itself seriously enough to give itself a sharper moniker.

But there were other problems that rubbed me the wrong way. A script that was both sappy and abrasive. An unlikable lead performance. Schmaltzy music. And a plodding pace. All of which undermined several good performances, notably by Robin Williams as a therapist helping the title character.

Direction was also problematic. The film moved so slowly it was unbearable. I’m not a big fan of Gus Van Sant’s other films, including the dreadful To Die For and the frustrating Elephant. GWH is just another movie in his canon that I don’t care for.

I realize GWH is very popular. Once again, I’m in the minority on this. I don’t know why, though. To me, it just didn’t work.

Skip’s Quips: Picking Up the Pace with ‘Only Lovers Left Alive’

~

Blog Sketch 082813There’s little more frustrating than a frustrating movie.

Enter Jim Jarmusch’s vampire opus Only Lovers Left Alive. Was this flick frustrating or what? It had some funny bits, some great cinematography, a look, a feel. But it didn’t have a lot of conflict … and the internal issues experienced by the characters – what seemed to be the problem of remaining alive, as a vampire, for hundreds of years and quelling the thirst for sucking someone’s blood out of his or her body without being  bored – were resolved in an all too pat fashion. Add in a very deliberate pace (glacial doesn’t come close), and you have a bit of a mess.

Jarmusch has a lot of talent. I like the fact that this film was to a horror-driven vampire movie as eggplants are to horn-rimmed glasses. But I think it might’ve been overly ambitious. It reached for things it couldn’t attain. A more straightforward flick would’ve been more entertaining.

Of course, if it was a more straightforward film, it probably would’ve been a horror movie. So perhaps the only thing it could’ve been was what it became.

Oh, well. I guess I was expecting something a little more satisfying. It was a good try, nonetheless.

Skip’s Quips: The Verdict on ‘Argo’ Is … Pretty Smooth Sailing

~

Blog Sketch 082813I somehow knew Argo was going to be good, yet for no apparent reason I’ve been avoiding it.

Until last night. Saw it for the first time. And you know what? It’s a more than decent suspenser. OK, as a friend noted, there were too many “ticking clocks.” But it was tense enough, with sharp direction from Ben Affleck, who also starred in the film. There were also good turns from Alan Arkin, who was a hoot as a cynical yet patriotic producer, John Goodman and Bryan Cranston. Cinematography and editing were solid; perhaps there was a bit too much herky-jerkiness with the camera. All in all, though, it was quite well done.

I’m not usually a big fan of Affleck’s work; as an actor, I find him rather mannered. But in this movie, he was relatively subdued, and it worked nicely. I hope his next opus will be just as strong.

Setter’s ‘Spectives: I Love You, Orson, But Really!

~

Setter Drawing for Blog 082613Ever see part of a movie so you never have to see any more of it again?

That’s what I did with Someone to Love, Henry Jaglom’s very, very (and I mean very) bad film about, basically, nothing and starring, of all people, Orson Welles and Sally Kellerman in poorly used roles. The story in part seemed to concern Jaglom’s character filming people talking about loneliness while contemplating their lives in an old Los Angeles theater, but instead of providing astute insights, it became a trying bore after only about 30 minutes. Poorly edited, too, with Welles interrupting the proceedings with strange reflections on the sexual revolution and the camera often focusing on irrelevant subjects before whisking itself away all too quickly and filming someone else.

Needless to say, it didn’t take me long to turn it off.

I was wondering what Jaglom’s point was with all of this navel-gazing. There probably were interesting things to say, but they got swallowed up in a tempest of tedious talking. I’d never seen any of Jaglom’s other films, so perhaps I should’ve come prepared, but I still think a good movie should be accessible no matter where it falls in a director’s canon. And Someone to Love wasn’t.

This would definitely be in the “So Bad It’s Funny” category if I believed we should watch bad movies for laughs.

I don’t.

Skip’s Quips, Part II: ‘Minister’-ing to Movie Wounds

~

Blog Sketch 082813Well, I saw Bertrand Tavernier’s The French Minister yesterday at Manhattan’s Walter Reade Theater.

Some amusing bits. But it didn’t feel cohesive. Undeveloped characters ran rampant in this tale, the based-on-a-true-graphic-novel-story of a young Parisian speechwriter’s encounters with his blustery foreign minister. Once-funny jokes were repeated all too often, including a running gag in which papers fly each time the public serviceman enters a room and slams the door. Yes, it was too much of a good thing. Then there was the protagonist’s love interest, who remained just that: a love interest. There wasn’t much conflict or development in their relationship as the film proceeded.

Cinematography was conservative, save a few dashing shots and screen slice-ups. And the film was overlong; much of the door-slamming could’ve been cut. Overall a decent film, but not a special one. More appetizing was the fact that Tavernier showed up and took questions afterward. A tall, white-haired gentleman, the veteran director seemed very personable and interested in talking about his film. Sadly, the movie isn’t a masterpiece, but it’s definitely different from the rest of the cinematic fare being shown on Broadway.

If only it were better.

Setter’s ‘Spectives: How Glib Was My Movie

~

Setter Drawing for Blog 082613Trying to watch Celeste & Jesse Forever is hard.

I don’t like movies like this. Glib, smug, self-conscious. Snarky, unfunny humor.

Tough flick to get through. Oh, and it’s something about a couple in the process of divorce who still behave like a married pair. What a concept. Bleah.

Too bad, too, because there’s talent involved in this Lee Toland Krieger film, including Andy Samberg and Rashida Jones as the not-so-doomed lovers. The components, however, just don’t seem to mesh, and they end up making for tiresome viewing. Too bad.

Is there a comedy in the house? Well, there is … once I decide to watch something better.

Setter’s ‘Spectives: Dude, Where’s My Movie?

~

Setter Drawing for Blog 082613Now I can finally say I’ve seen The Big Lebowski.

And what a big, sloppy movie it is. Kind of tedious, ultimately, too, though it has some bursts of funny dialogue.

Could’ve been a lot better, though. Seemed to miss a lot of opportunities. Still, you rarely see real, bona fide (OK, actors portraying real, bona fide) nihilists onscreen, so that’s a plus. A Big Lebowski plus. Hm.

Actually, what bothered me the most about this Coen Bros. film was the structure. Despite all the tying up of (really) loose ends, it felt like it was generated in a room at midnight over a couple of White Russian cocktails and tons of stale coffee. Perhaps that was the point. I’m not Big Lebowski big on that kind of point, though.

Yes, the cinematography was quite good. Especially the camera-in-the-bowling-ball shot as the orb rolled down the lane. Nice job on that, guys. It didn’t, however, define the movie, like some shots do. And great camerawork does not necessarily a great movie make.

Oh, well. I wish the Coens decided to be much sillier with the film, as it had so many wide-open targets: nutty artists, bowling aficionados, stoner, uh, no-goodniks. It just ended up being diverting, with a number of long stretches. I’m not Big Lebowski big on long stretches, either.

I just want a good-overall movie.