Match Point (2005)

Premise: Social climbing Chris Wilton (Jonathan Rhys Meyers) takes a position as a tennis pro in a ritzy country club, where he is befriended by the fabulously wealthy Tom Hewett (Matthew Goode). Although Chris begins romancing Tom's sister, Chloe (Emily Mortimer), it's really Tom's fiancee, Nola (Scarlett Johansson) that Chris can't keep his eyes, or his hands, off of.

Lady: It's the best Woody Allen movie.
Man: It's not much of a Woody Allen movie.

Isn't it nice when the two people sitting behind you do all your work for you? Of course it is!

Oh, Woody, you really shouldn't have. Except that you totally should have. It's about damn time, really, that you left behind the stuffy corners of New York where your alleged creativity has been stagnated for years and wrote something completely different: a sleek thriller. It's about time that someone picked the new Hugh Grant, so you did that, too (that would be Matthew Goode, for the record). It's about time that no one forced pretty American ingenues to adopt ridiculous and unflattering English accents, so you let your new muse stay American (Scarlett Johansson, if you're keeping score). And, finally, it's about time that you stopped writing the "you" character in and expecting someone else to do it because everyone fails at it. Sure, Will Ferrell hinted at this in Melinda and Melinda, but here the transformation is complete.

Oh, my little septuagenarian, what a delight this was! The way you filmed London after you abandoned the idea of setting the film in the Hamptons was fresh and lovely. In addition, you very kindly gave me the exact ending that I've been craving for years and years, the likes of which no movie has seen fit to deliver.

You made me forget all about the corpse-like appearance Johansson made on the cover of Tom Ford's skeevy Vanity Fair Hollywood issue. You made me remember why I liked her in the first place. She's spunky as Nola, all husky whispers and knowing sexuality, while actively involved in luring men and refusing to acknowledge her power over them. By the end I may have considered her on the verge of becoming bat shit crazy, but, hey, I kind of liked that, too.

The winsome Mortimer worked wonderfully in what I have come to expect as her type. For a couple of scenes in there, I had half-wished that you had cast someone with a bit more of Kelly Macdonald's dynamism, but I suppose that would have resulted in a different kind of Chloe. Ah, well.

At his relatively young age, the fact that Goode seems to have embraced both sides of the Hugh Grant persona (bumbling and shy love interest and charming rake) will serve him well for years to come on this side of the Atlantic. We like that sort of thing around here.

In the nearly ten years that have slipped by since I first glimpsed Rhys Meyers writhing in the Irish sea in The Governess, he's done a lot with himself. He's all swagger and bluster and on the verge of snapping into a homicidal rage most of the time, but, when he gets to hint at the vulnerability underneath it all, not the typical male ingenue low self-esteem/no-body-sees-the-real-me crap, but the guilt, the remorse that plagues a pretty man who does whatever he has to to get everything he wants, well, that's something worth staying tuned for. Besides, he manages to look highly feminine and kind of like a cold fish and still be sexy. That's a feat, my friend.

I can only hope the next Johansson/Allen match turns out as well. A

P.S. Watched Mr. Smith Goes to Washington last night. I love the combination of Jimmy Stewart and Frank Capra. So cheesy and full of warm fuzzies.

Transamerica (2005)

Brief: A week before her final surgery in the gender reassignment process, Bree (Felicity Huffman) discovers that she has a teenage son, Toby (Kevin Zegers). And that son just happens to be in lock up. Because her therapist (Elizabeth Pena) won't approve the surgery until Bree deals with her past, she heads to New York and ends up driving across the country with Toby, posing as a church member trying to help him reform.

It's been almost a week since I saw this movie, and I've been reluctant to post about it ever since. I liked it, and Huffman's tender tour-de-force is indeed Oscar-worthy, but, well, I'm going to have to say some things that, um, I don't know . . . every critic in the country will disagree with?

Actually, this will be good for us. So that you know that I, too, wonder why critical praise is lavished on some films and not on others. Sure, most of the time the critics and I are like this (if you know what I'm saying, and I think you do) but not this time.

So you know the road movie? You've seen it a thousand times before. Strangers or semi-strangers head out on the road, maybe they don't like each other at first, then things go pear shaped and grudging respect generally gives way to friendship, which is tossed up in the air when some secret or other is revealed, but the friendship survives and grows stronger. Throw in some crazy relatives/backwoods weirdos (or combine them!) for comedy/pathos. Mix well and serve hot.

You've seen it before. Don't tell me you haven't. I've seen it before as well. And writer/director Duncan Tucker, in his feature length debut, must have since he presents it to us here. Which is fine, I suppose, because he's using the form as a foundation for the fresh twists he provides. Makes sense. It works most of the time.

An instance where it doesn't work, you ask? Toby. As wonderful is Zegers is, much like the formulaic plot, his character is also a pastiche we've all seen before. As soon as you know what landed Toby in jail, you know what his big secret will be. Doesn't diminish the dramatic irony, per se, but it does give you the slightest hint of what this movie could have been.

In the film's defense, the reason we have formulas is the fact that they work. Or Adorno's right, and the culture industry perpetuates itself through self-cannibalization,* while reinforcing goals that cannot be achieved by the average movie goer. I guess my view depends on whether it's a glass half empty kind of day.

*Is there a word for self-cannibalization?

Nonetheless, formulas exist because we want them to. It's easier for us to see and respond to a theme and variations than it is to understand and accept the variations on their own. I wouldn't have gone to see this movie if it wasn't a formula I didn't respond to, and I really enjoyed what I saw. Huffman, with her voice dipping down a few octaves, makes Bree such a full, breathing delight that it's impossible to ignore her plight, whether it's her desire to conceal her son's true parentage or to see herself the same on the outside as she feels on the inside. In the kind of role that nearly demands a showy performance, Huffman manages to resist that impulse and gives a beautifully internal performance that is nothing short of legendary.

I was going to give this movie a B+ when I first started this review. Thinking back on the strength of the performers, it's fair to bump it up to an A-.

I'm it, I guess

(click and scroll)

Four jobs I have had:
i) Environmental Emergencies Communications Officer
ii) Junior Communications Officer
iii) Operations Implementation Liaison Communications Officer
iv) Staff writer

Four movies I could watch over and over:
a) Sin City
b) Swing Kids
c) Rushmore
d) Quills

Yes, I did just randomly choose some titles I own. Think about what site you're reading, people.

Four books I could read over and over:
1) The Bible (New Living Translation, please!)
2) Gail Anderson Dargatz's A Recipe For Bees
3) Harper Lee's To Kill a Mockingbird
4) Corrie Ten Boom's The Hiding Place

Places I have lived:
Sarnia
Ottawa

Four places I have been on vacation:
i) Tenerife, Canary Islands
ii) South of Spain
iii) Paris, France
iv) East coast of Canada

Four websites I visit daily:
a) CBC weather
b) Ice Conditions on the Rideau Canal (seasonal)
c) Girls are pretty
d) Television Without Pity

Four favourite foods:
1) my homemade pizza
2) cheeseburger and fries
3) shepherd's pie
4) Anjou pears (they are the stillest of fruits, after all)

Four favourite non-alcoholic drinks:
i) root beer floats
ii) milkshakes at The Works
iii) green tea
iv) Dr. Pepper

Four favourite musicians:
a) Joni Mitchell
b) Bob Dylan
c) Johnny Cash
d) Steven Curtis Chapman

Four places I would like to be right now:
1) Paris
2) Fiji
3) Berlin International Film Festival (on now!)
4) Machu Picchu

Last four books I read:
i) C.S. Lewis' The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe
ii) Christopher Gidlow's The Reign of Arthur: From History to Legend
iii) Stephen Glass' The Fabulist
iv) Robert S. Boynton's The New New Journalism

Last four movies I have seen:
a) Transamerica
b) Equilibrium
c) Gattaca
d) Boondock Saints

What's on my desk right now?
Stack of CD jewel cases, spindles of CDs, pic of my sister, mug that once contained mint tea, moisturizer with sunscreen, external disc drive, modem, laptop, globe, container full of pens, DVD player remote control

Bloggers I'm tagging:
It's up to you, kids, but I'd go from some Sarah, Alexia, Amy, and Jenelle action.

Reds (1981)

Premise: A socialist journalist, Jack Reed (Warren Beatty) becomes passionately involved with the Bolshevik revolution and fellow writer Louise Bryant (Diane Keaton), to point of covering the revolution from Russia.

To be honest with you, I only recently discovered that this movie exists. I have been missing out.

Never mind the sizzling chemistry between sometime paramours Keaton and Beatty, never mind the juicy proportions of young Edward Herrmann, Jack Nicholson, and an uncredited Gene Hackman, the real jewel here is writer/director Beatty.

He already had all the movie star good looks, charisma, and talent he needed to set him up for the easy come good life. So, why, why get himself involved in a hot political piece about a man few remember? And then turn it into a three hour plus epic?

Well, I guess he had something to say. To make a movie about a man so overtly communist and dare to neither condemn or elevate your subject? To look at him as both a man and a legend, to find the way both those things overlap and diverge, and to refuse to criticize his failings, which, in turn, beautifully plays as his humanity? That takes some cojones, my friends.

In addition, he packs every frame with actions and gives the movie virtually no score. There's nothing to direct you how to feel besides the exceptional work on the many wonderful character actors who fill the screen.

The movie's subject matter may overtly deal with the rise of communism, but it's plea is much more subtle: one of freedom. It makes it all the more disappointing that Beatty hasn't worked since 2001. I don't care if you are turning 70 next year, Warren. We need ya. A

Because I care, here's something funny. And here's something funny and movie related. Automagically, people. Automagically.

Flirting with Disaster (1996)

Plan: After the birth of his son, Mel (Ben Stiller) seeks out his birth parents with his wife, Nancy (Patricia Arquette), and a case worker, Tina (Téa Leoni), much to the chagrin of his adoptive parents (Mary Tyler Moore and George Segal).

There's a thing about watching David O. Russell movies, kind of like how I always say there's a thing about Wes Anderson movies or how I recently said that there's a thing about Terrence Malik movies. In any case, there are certain writers and directors that you instantly know when you are watching one of their pictures. For some it's style, for others it's thematic, and still others it's content. For David O. Russell, it's audience reaction.

First of all, while the sentence I typed above sounds like a simple enough plot, things are never simple in Russell's world. Everything always goes wrong. Not just in the movie way that things go wrong in order to draw out a three sentence pitch into a full length feature. Things go wrong in a very special way in a Russell movie: they go wrong for no discernible reason, and there is no real solution to the inanity. Only the most absurd things can occur, yet the follow their own special Russellian logic.

And so it goes for you, the viewer. The first few minutes seem normal. Then sense flies out of the window and you start to wonder what the heck you're watching. You're compelled to roll with it, and, suddenly, in spite of your objections or perhaps because of them, you realize that you are enjoying yourself.

Personally, I found this one a little too warm family fuzzies and a little less absurd than I would have liked, but that's how it goes with Russell. The work is sort of on the same vibe as the previously viewed material and completely different. I'll have to watch it a few more times to be certain of exactly where I stand with it and it with me. B

Should you be concerned about the dearth of reviews, please remind yourselves that it's February. Besides catching up on the contenders, there's really nothing to see in the first few months of the year.

Holy Crap

Yeah, just yeah. As it should be. I'm looking forward to this one.