Change Your Image
Anna_L
Reviews
Dreamgirls (2006)
I just don't get it
After watching "Dreamgirls" I just don't get all the raving this movie is receiving. I did think it was an interesting exercise in style, but nothing more. And it's OK, really; I didn't mind its cliché-driven plot very much: it's a pop musical, so it's supposed to be lavish, loud, fast-paced,outrageously stylish and inconsequential like a music video. And for all the money that's been put out, they sure did a darn good job. The songs were good enough, the production was first-rate, the costumes were dazzling and the music performances were mostly enjoyable.
What I'm still trying to figure out is why all the fuss about the so-called groundbreaking performances of Jennifer Hudson and Eddie Murphy. I was shocked that this movie even got nominated for its acting since there wasn't a single moment of substantial acting in the entire film - which was no surprise, really. Murphy, when not singing, was being the same old Murphy. Nothing new, certainly nothing Oscar-worthy.
And what about Hudson!? Saying she's overrated is understating it. As I said before: there are NO characters in the movie with more density than a cardboard figure. They're just underwritten and are passable as we are completely stupefied by the beautifully staged music numbers and snapping our fingers to the catchy songs. Hudson's character is no exception - plus, she's a stubborn bitch who deserved to be punished for her hateful diva behavior. How am I supposed to sympathize with that? Why these people decided to promote her in the movie is beyond me. All of a sudden she's the star and we're to bear her high-pitched screeching for over two hours. And I was worrying about Beyonce who politely stepped into the background, accepting the shallowness of her character - I actually enjoyed her restraint participation. "And I'm telling you" was a monstrosity and after that I was praying to God that she wasn't going to open her mouth for the remaining of the movie. That WASN'T acting; it was hardly singing. To put emotion into a tune doesn't necessarily mean to distort it into screaming and grunting. And THAT was supposed to be the showstopper, the reason why Hudson got her Oscar when she was up against people like Cate Blanchett and Adriana Bazarra? It's a mockery and I just don't get it. Anyway, she's being much acclaimed now, but time will tell...
Le divorce (2003)
"Le Divorce" and a bunch of other stories - it's NO romantic comedy people!
It usually takes a while so a movie can grow on me. In the case of Le Divroce it took me a whole year to finally notice its appreciable features.
I'm strolling around the video store when this title pops out from a random shelf loaded with perfectly forgettable romantic comedies. Immediately i recognized Kate Hudson and remembered I found her extremely sympathetic in 'How to Lose a Guy in Ten Days'. Then i thought 'why not?'and just like that i was caught in the wicked 'mismarketing' trap. Maybe on account of a mediocre marketing campaign, or even a mischievous trailer, we are erroneously led to believe this is a breezy fluffy comedy. Well, it's not. In fact this is about anything but a comedy.
It starts off with Blondie #1, a.k.a. Isabel (Hudson) landing on Paris to be inquired by some cute French customs guy about the purpose of her visit to the country. In response she starts gabbing about her sister Roxy, Blondie #2 (Naomi Watts). We get to meet pregnant Roxy in the following scene. Mother, daughter and unborn child are fruit shopping in a charming fruit market around the corner. If the prosaic episode is there to remind us that everything in France is charming, Roxy's not-so-charming-though-sexy hubby, Charles-Henri (Melvil Poupaud) is there to remind us that even France has its share of jerks. Chales-Henri is a painter while Roxy is a poet, which raises the question of how the hell do these people eat? Anyway, all of a sudden he leaves his pregnant wife and cute little daughter for some reason he doesn't care to explain and storms out apologizing at random. On his way to the cab he runs into Isabel and again, no explanation. She probably senses some nervousness on her brother-in-law but doesn't make a big deal out of it. To welcome her there's this French version of a busybody neighbor, an adorable old lady who's not much of a babbler but keeps an eye on everything that happens around.
Watching these first 15-20 minutes you may think you have nailed the whole plot. At least the title is explained. Well think again, buddy, the thing is not that easy. The plot of this multi-gendered film is truly a riddle.
Let me guess, you thought that Watts'character was the main one and that Isabel was there to support her so she could find a way to get back at that no-good husband of hers and thus providing the comical element we so desperately yearn?
Wrong!
Scads of humdrum sub-plots dreadfully start to come alive and dominate the film! "Le divorce" of Roxy is just a mere detail when out of the clear blue sky there's Thierry Lhermitte as a married elder man lusting after Kate Hudson (or is it the other way around?), an annoying Russian girl (chalers-henri mistress), a psychotic American husband and also some business about a painting. A bunch of French people show up as the de Persand family (Leslie Caron as the main stuck-up figure) along with Stockard Channing and her gang sticking up for the American side. And there's also Olivia Pace (Glen Close),some American writer who keeps talking about scarfs and French women who, like the rest of the cast, somehow forced her way into the story.
Even Bebe Neuwirth join the circus as a museum curator prompting the painting bore.
Now what really bugged me about this movie is that after the equivalent of two entire life times, i was drowsy, frustrated and STILL hadn't figured out the whole point of the movie! People asked me what it was about and i couldn't answer because I had no idea. One year after the first unsuccessful experience I finally got it! The movie is not about any of those idiotic sub-plots, it's actually about the contrast between the French and the American culture and in that aspect, it's not only interesting, but it's brilliant! Also the scenery and cinematography, the outfits, the whole aesthetic, it's all very chic, very distinguished.
In the end it might be a very pleasant experience, believe it or not! If only they told me that in the first place....
Enemy at the Gates (2001)
Interesting stuff
I myself was never into war epic movies. Oppressive violence on screen never did seem to impress me much.
While "Enemy at the Gate" provides us with the regular amount of blood, gunfires and chopped up men a respectful war flick demands, it also portrays a different kind of battle, one of patience, unshaken stillness and quietness. It's a fascinating duel between sharpshooters Law (on the Soviet side) and Harris (on the German side) who was sent out to Stalingrad especially to kill troublemaker Vassili (Law). What we witness is a battle through the eyes of the duelers and, despite of the contrast with the loud environment it never falls into a dull moment. On the contrary. The intensity that the precise eye closeups convey is tangible enough to keep us hooked.
Also the cast helps immensely, of course. They certainly had a lot of sensibility casting actors with such remarkable expression on their eyes.
Law is altogether fierceness and tenderness. He's absolutely alluring on screen, everything he does is fascinating and you don't wanna miss one single movement. Every gesture, every glance of his eyes has this depth and sincerity that are incredibly captivating.
Now Ed Harris is a guy who truly supports a film. He inflicts so much intensity in such a subtle way that even though he's not the main character, you can't imagine the movie without him. And also there're those fusillading blue eyes of his which can be as sharp as any weapon.
In the Sovietic side we also have Joseph Finnes, as a regular Russian intellectual, obviously more useful on tactical field than on battle field. A very skilled writer who created the legend of sniper shooter turned into Soviet pride Vassili. Rachel Wiesz represents the women on front. Another strong presence in the film.
On the background, astonishingly crafted battle scenes, breathtaking bombings and an incredibly realistic setting. Great cinematography recreates properly the bleakness and desolation of a grim Stalingrad back in 1942.
Romance is inevitably provided by the love triangle among Law, Finnes and Weisz'characters (apparently the war was not enough to keep them busy).
If I had to pick a favorite war movie, this is it. Well done, Annaud.
The Interpreter (2005)
Not what i expected from a Kidman/Penn combo, yet, definitely not a flop
I think i know the reason why i was not very much impressed by the film. When i heard that Sean Penn and Nicole Kidman might have joined forces in a so called "political thriller" i was out of my mind with excitement! Even though i was not completely sure what they meant with "political thriller" I watched it the day it premiered; i bought my ticket on the internet in advance so that there was no way i could miss it (i never do that); i actually dragged a friend to the theater on a Thursday night. I was expecting the greatest thing! Well, i often make that mistake and never seem to learn.
The story is not all that bad. Its just that there's SO much information to it that it's impossible to deliver it intelligibly! Pollock doesn't seem to have juggled everything very well, for that matter he just threw everything on the screen! You have a hard time trying to make sense out of a infuriatingly fragmented plot. It's like they're trying so hard to intrigue us that they just keep on adding new facts to the story whether they make sense or not.
You'll find fair acting here, as expected. Everybody seems to understand their roles and they behave rather veraciously (which comes as a surprise, really).
Instead of falling head over heels for Silvia (kidman), Penn's character is prudently suspicious about her (he's a FBI agent for crying out loud!). Later on it's possible to find out how complex he really is. He manages to be charming and protective and yet miraculously never lets his relationship with Silvia slip into a boring cliché.
now, Kidman's character, i don't really know what to say about her. One thing's for sure though: she's awfully exotic! Too exotic to function actually. In every sequence of the movie we learn new secret details about her past but not even that works to define Silvia Broome. They try to make her look mysterious but in the end she's just plain confusing. But yet, a skilled Kidman plays her (whoever the hell she is) very well. In fact nobody plays distressed women as beautifully as Kidman does and for that i'll give her credit. She's frightened when she's supposed to be frightened without ever overreacting it; she's helplessly frail but yet she has this latent dignity that you can't help but admire.
The end ruins it in my opinion. I know we're talking about a UN set film, but that was just TOO politically correct and moralist!
It's an OK movie. It ain't great, but its not a flop. Have a good time watching it.
Something's Got to Give (1962)
gotta give her one last 10...
I gotta say, i was terribly gloomy while watching the footage of what could've been a very interesting work in Marilyn Monroe's résumé.
I haven't watched the original movie in which Something's Gotta Give was based, so i really can't say it would've lived up to the original.
The one thing i can say though is that i've never seen Monroe looking so stunning on screen. She was 36 and more beautiful than ever! She had lost that dizzy kinda dumb blonde look she had in the 50's, even the famous breathy affectation in her voice was gone. No gimmicks this time. She was determined to prove that she was indeed an actress and apparently those years she spent in the Actor's Studio improving her acting really paid off. The footages leave us only wondering how delightful it would have been to watch this new, much more mature and sophisticated woman she was evolving into. Her acting was quite sharp and despite of her constant mental confusion she still turned out refreshingly sexy and funny on the screen. Watch as her astonishingly slim figure gracefully strolls across the set in this flowery summer dress. She was cheery and smiling here.
Her character was a young wife and mom and ,as absurd as it may sounds, she seemed to have nailed it. As a mom, she was caring and loving (watch her effusively playing with the kids) and as a young wife she was just absolutely charming. The film even includes some scenes in which she splashes around the poll naked. And believe me there's nothing tasteless here, in fact she was just being a plain goof ball. It's very funny to watch 'cause you can totally tell she was having the best time while shooting it.
I was completely charmed by Dean Martin's character and Cyd Charisse was just being her regular elegant self. They truly assembled a terrific cast for this!
The documentary that comes before the 37 minute film is somewhat biased but effective either way.
Seeing this only puzzles me more and more regarding Monroe's tragic demise. Clearly she was not the most stable person, but with the new contract she got with Fox, all these new perspectives springing up and all, nothing hinted she was on the verge of something like that. That's why i think the suicide assumption becomes less and less believable.
Anyway, hands down, Monroe's still absolute.