ScreenCrave - Passionate About Movies

Sundance 2011: My Idiot Brother – Movie Review
Sundance 2011: The Oregonian – Review and Interview with Reeder and Pulsipher
Sundance 2011: The Details Movie Review
Sundance 2011: Like Crazy Movie Review

Sundance 2011: My Idiot Brother – Movie Review

Posted: 30 Jan 2011 08:05 PM PST

My Idiot Brother 27 1 11 kc Sundance 2011: My Idiot Brother Movie Review

There’s not other way of saying it, with My Idiot Brother mainstream Hollywood has officially hit the streets of Sundance. Despite the fact that I will see Paul Rudd (even when I’m supposed to be looking for the best unknown ____ who is soon to be amazing) in anything and enjoy the entire supporting cast, one can’t help but wonder what this film is doing at an Independent film festival — everything about it seems as mainstream as possible…

The Players:

Director: Jesse Peretz
Writers: Evgenia Peretz, David Schisgall
Cast: Paul Rudd, Elizabeth Banks, Zooey Deschanel, Emily Mortimer, Steve Coogan, Hugh Dancy, Kathryn Hahn, Rashida Jones, Adam Scott
Cinematography By: Yaron Orbach
Original Music By: Eric D. Johnson, Nathan Larson

Sundance Synopsis:

Despite looking for the good in every situation and the best in every person, Ned always seems to find himself holding the short end of the stick—being conned into selling pot to a uniformed cop, being dumped by his girlfriend, and worse yet, losing custody of his beloved dog, Willie Nelson. When he turns to family, he is passed from sister to sister while he gets back on his feet. Ned's best intentions produce hilariously disastrous results, bringing the family to the cusp of chaos and ultimately the brink of clarity.

Review:

Well, it’s fun! I think my biggest problem with this film is that it was in no way a Sundance film…

Did it have new faces? Nope, it only had recognizable faces — even the extras were A-listers (really! Just look… reallllly hard.)
Did it push any boundaries? Do Steve Coogan’s cock and balls constitute as a boundary? We’ve seen Jason Segel’s, Ken Jeoung’s, Ashton Kutcher’s were referred to a lot by Natalie Portman in No Strings Attached and Ewan McGregor’s has made appearances loads of times in comedies and the like — I think we need more than just apenis, or some incredible penis feat to really get a laugh and/pr push any boundaries.
Did it have a small budget? For a mainstream film maybe, but not in the “I sold my last shoe to buy the tape to get the final shot” — not so much (hough I don’t know if that’s a realistic Sundance category anymore). Once a studio buys it (which was already done by the Weinsteins before any of us had time to form an opinion) so much money will be pushed into it, it won’t matter if they made the whole thing for a tissue, it will still be a multi-million dollar film.
Did it have a new director? Nope! But not a well-established one, one that is definitely trying to make his mark — that’s something.
The Shots/Camera Work: We’ve got no interesting colors, odd angles, wide ranges, extreme close-ups or anything to really differentiate this film from any other pretty and cleanly shot rom-com in theaters.
Did it embody the spirit of Independent film (whatever that means)? It’s as mainstream as all the other comedies in theaters, it was just took the Sundance route to get some buzz and possibly because John Cooper wanted Paul Rudd there (I have no idea if that’s true, but it might be!)

That all being said. It’s funny for a mainstream comedy, has a few very clever moments, is predictable but a fun ride none-the-less. Plus, check out how hairless Coogan is! Did he just get everything he could waxed before the shoot?

Rating: 5.5/10

Sundance 2011: The Oregonian – Review and Interview with Reeder and Pulsipher

Posted: 30 Jan 2011 02:31 PM PST

Well, it finally happened: I accidentally saw an art film at Sundance. Many people think that because a film is independently made, that it must be an art film. And sure, a lot of these films are finely crafted and contain a great deal of subtext, or stand as an allegory for one thing or another. But the majority of films we’ve seen at the festival have been straightforward narrative films with a more or less traditional style of storytelling. This is certainly not true of Calvin Lee Reeder’s The Oregonian. This demented collection of grotesque images and sounds, starring True Blood’s Lindsay Pulsipher, is one of this year’s most aggressively confrontational films. To find out more about one of the most difficult films to sit through at this year’s Sundance Film Festival, check out the rest of the review after the jump…

I’d love to tell you what this film is about, but I can’t. It’s not that it’s a surprise best left to be discovered on your own, it’s that I’m really not sure. The film opens with a young woman, whose name is never revealed, leaving a passed out drunk on the side of the road. The next thing we see is the aftermath of a car wreck, where it appears the girl has plowed into a father and child, killing a both. Injured and covered in blood, she stumbles down the desolate road in search of help.

Along the way, she encounters an older woman who says nothing, but smiles and laughs demonically at her. In her journey for help, she encounters several different intimidating nameless characters like a blood-pissing, omelette frying van driver, a journeyman whose face is wrapped in bandages, and a trio of cowboys drinking cocktails of what looks like semen mixed with urine, and a lurking figure in a green felt frog suit. As she travels through this surreal, wooded dreamscape, she encounters visions of the dead family she left, reflections of herself vomiting black blood, and sees herself smiling while being sodomized as a plate of eggs and can of gasoline are poured into a gaping spinal wound. Yeah. That actually happens.

Maybe it’s an excuse for poor journalism, but I prefer to go into a film knowing as little as possible about what I’m going to experience. I put myself in an extremely vulnerable place, emotionally, to allow the filmmaker to really take me on the journey they are leading. But sometimes this theory backfires. Walking out of the theater, I felt confused, disoriented, angry, and truly taken advantage of. Why would anyone feel the need to make such a film, let alone accept it into America’s premier independent film festival?

However, after sleeping on it (a night absent of dreams, thankfully), I woke up with a different opinion. After all, there is a rich tradition of experimental art cinema which is hardly palatable, but illuminates the medium’s potential for different kinds of expression. The film contains stylistic references to Alejandro Jodorowsky, Nicholas Roeg, and David Lynch; all of whom are superstars among surrealists, and hold a great deal of influence over the evolution of movies’ ability to change the way we consume art. Just because we are conditioned to expect broad entertainment and easily digested drama doesn’t mean that a movie has to be just that.

The filmmakers’ enthusiasm for experimental art cinema is present throughout, in the calculated complexity of its editing and sound design. Each grouping of high speed cuts and abrasive sound bursts is placed precisely to achieve maximum discomfort and shock. You never know where the next upsetting set of imagery and audio will be come from. Switching between 16mm film and super 16, the jarring disparity of the frames holds increasing meaning as the film goes on. Lindsay Pulsipher’s performance is a strong one, if only because she was willing to put herself in the middle of all this madness. There is not a whole lot of range, given the confused nature of her character, but it definitely takes a certain amount of boldness for an actor to dive right into a film with such a difficult mission ahead of it.

This is a decidedly difficult movie, and I certainly can’t say I enjoyed watching it. However, it definitely stands alone as the only film of its kind, made by a director with a unique voice, which is exactly what makes it appropriate for the Sundance Film Festival’s midnight movie category. In spite of over a dozen walkouts, The Oregonian is a film for audiences who are eager to be challenged by a movie’s ability to force them into a dark and cerebral space.

Rating: 6/10

Check out our interview with director Calvin Lee Reeder and star Lindsay Pulsipher, maybe they can help you understand the meaning of the film better….

Video edited by Laura Aguirre

Sundance 2011: The Details Movie Review

Posted: 30 Jan 2011 01:05 PM PST

Infidelity, charity, blackmail, raccoons, and a bow & arrow. These are a few of the details in Jacob Aaron Estes’ The Details, and the devil is in them. The film, which stars Tobey Maguire, Elizabeth Banks, and Ray Liotta, Laura Linney, and Dennis Haysbert, is a chaotic dark comedy, dripping with the offbeat indie sensibility which is characteristic of Sundance dramedys. To find out more about this runaway train of silly and tragic circumstances, check out the rest of the review after the jump…

The Details is the story of Jeff (Maguire), a successful doctor with a young family, whose life takes a turn for the crazy when his recently sodded back yard becomes a buffet for a group of invasive raccoons. His obsession over beautifying his idyllic home becomes yet another point of contention between him and his wife (Banks). When the rockiness of their marriage drives Jeff into the arms of an old med-school friend, who happens to be married (Washington & Liotta), and his nosy neighbor (Linney) discovers his secrets, things take a turn for the weird. The only way Jeff can hope find redemption for himself is by imposing himself in the life of a terminally ill basketball partner (Haysbert), and hope that his good deeds will be enough to make things right, karmically. But, as can be expected from a silly, dark comedy, nothing works out as planned.

The Players:

Director/Writer – Jacob Aaron Estes
Actors – Tobey Maguire, Elizabeth Banks, Ray Liotta, Laura Linney, Dennis Haysbert, Kerry Washington

The Good:

The Cast – Every one of these actors is playing against the type they are typically known for. The effervescent Elizabeth Banks plays a cranky, difficult housewife. Laura Linney plays a whacked-out, paranoid neighbor with the kind of crazy abandon that would otherwise be a role given to Catherine O’Hara. Ray Liotta brings a sensitivity to his tough-guy persona which is unexpected and welcome. Dennis Haysbert, complete with a salt and pepper beard and a set of false, cracked teeth, steps down from the eloquent, dignified kinds of characters we’ve become accustomed to seeing him in. And this could mark the first time Tobey Maguire has actually seemed like an adult, rather than a boy playing one.
Editing/Pacing - A lot happens in this movie. Significant plot points come like rapid fire, but with stylized montages combined with even pacing during scenes, they never seem especially rushed or disjointed. The story follows a logical progression, with Murphy’s law in full effect. On paper, the occurrences of this film seem extremely silly, but as it goes on and finds its footing, everything in it seems to make perfect sense.

The Bad:

The Characters – With the exception of Dennis Haysbert’s Lincoln, and possibly Ray Liotta’s Peter, there is not one sympathetic character among the cast. They are all shallow, manipulative, and generally despicable. Why should we care about any of these characters, when none of them exhibit qualities worth the effort? Jeff’s quest for redemption may be a genuine one, but he’s only got himself to blame for putting himself in the position he finds himself in.
Trifling – At the end of the day, this movie carries little weight. Considering its placement among such strong and significant films at the Sundance Film Festival, it really doesn’t compare to the emotional experiences of just about any other film screened.

Overall:

The Details is an enjoyable enough film in which its cast get to stretch their muscles in new directions, but ultimately falls short of being a truly engaging film. Laura Linney’s performance is exceptional, and includes one of the funniest sex scenes of recent memory, and Dennis Haysbert could make reading the ingredients off of a soup can sound impressive, but the story and its consequences don’t end up leading to an especially satisfying place.

Rating: 5.5/10

Sundance 2011: Like Crazy Movie Review

Posted: 30 Jan 2011 11:28 AM PST

Last night it was announced that Drake Doremus’ romantic drama Like Crazy was the winner of the Grand Jury Prize for Drama, one of the top awards at the Sundance Film Festival. The film, starring Anton Yelchin and Felicity Jones, is a look at what happens when a young couple falls madly in love, but is forced into a long distance relationship by no choice of their own. This quiet movie snuck up on audiences at Sundance, building buzz late in the game, but winning hearts as the festival went on. To learn more about this award winning sleeper, check out the rest of the review after the jump…

Like Crazy is the story of Jacob and Anna, a young couple who fall madly in love shortly before they’re set to graduate from college. Their infatuation is so strong that Anna disregards the limits of her English student visa after graduating. When she tries to return from the UK to be with Jacob, she is denied entry to the U.S. The couple, clearly meant to be with each other, must then figure out how to make their relationship work from nearly half a world away. But between their budding careers, the cultures of their respective homes (L.A. and London), and the sheer desire for companionship, things get complicated and messy pretty quickly.

The film’s strength lies completely in its two young stars, Anton Yelchin and Felicity Jones. The film, shot from a 50 page outline rather than a script, relies on improvised dialogue and natural chemistry. Yelchin and Jones both bring a vibrant energy to their characters, driving home the sense that these two are really in love with each other. Yelchin, doing his absolute best to grow facial hair, looks more adult than he ever has, thus allowing the heavy drama to seem more appropriate for him as an actor. Yet he still looks still boyish enough that the idea of first love is definitely not out of the question. And Felicity Jones enormous, shining eyes and broad smile are enough to make anyone fall in love with her at first sight. It’s like she’s got all the best facial qualities of Mila Kunis, Rachel Bilson, and Rachel McAdams, combined.

Another of the film’s actors, Winter’s Bone’s Jennifer Lawrence, deserves special mention for her understated performance as Samantha, the girl who Jacob finds himself with when the challenges of distance from Anna seem insurmountable. Her quiet devastation as Jacob wavers back and forth between which girl he belongs with makes hers one of the strongest performances in the film. She stands out not as a villain, but an innocent victim of circumstance, and a reminder that collateral damage is nearly inevitable with young love.

Doremus’ previous film, Douchebag, was largely shrugged off by critics and audiences at last year’s Sundance Film Festival. But he returns with newfound focus, and a softer touch with Like Crazy. The film is well directed in the sense that it avoids the pitfalls of other “mumble-core” movies (heavy on dialogue, low on budget, and focused on every day, interpersonal relationships), by keeping itself from being too self aware and fraught with introverted neuroses. Doremus seems particularly adept in extracting complex emotions from his cast, but keeping them from chewing up the scenery with the kind of large, loud acting that may come with emotional discussions and arguments.
But the film is not without its faults. The relationship in question is delved into far too quickly. We are given no reasons why these two are so in love with each other, just that they are. They go from the awkward, “I think I like this person,” phase to fully head over heels without anything in between. Doremus should count himself lucky that the two leads have chemistry strong enough to keep this from glaring at the audience throughout the film. Also, there is not a clear sense of time in the film conveyed by the editing which, again, makes the audience question the authenticity of the story’s plot points, at times. “Could they really fall so deeply in or out of love quite so quickly? I suppose, with enough time, but how long has it really been?” was a thought that popped up more than a couple of times over the course of the film.

The film’s biggest flaw, it seems, is its insistence on maintaining a voyeuristic camera sensibility throughout. We are constantly looking through door frames and around corners, as the story unfolds. It sacrifices aesthetic for the sake of tone, the effect of which is unclear and unnecessary. What is the benefit of alienating the audience from the characters by making them feel like they don’t belong there? Furthermore, they’ve paid their hard earned money to see a movie; why not give them a cinematic experience, instead of cutting off a full third of the screen with a blank wall?

Like Crazy is the kind of romance film that ends up feeling more like a cautionary tale. Long distance relationships are not as fun or cute as presented in the trite Drew Barrymore comedy Going the Distance. They are complicated, messy, and frankly, often impossible. But the sublime performances of Anton Yelchin and Felicity Jones make this film more about the emotions one feels when they are in love, rather than the difficulty of relationships. The actors in this film have earned their place at the top of a new generation of dramatic young performers, and will continue to be recognized for this as Like Crazy reaches more and more viewers.

with is ing

Senin, 31 Januari 2011