This movie is based on a true story. It is about students under forced integration living in desperate circumstances in a time and place of poverty and gang violence. Racism strongly divides the students and education is the least of their concerns. Teachers have given up on them and strive mainly to warehouse them.
A naive optimistic teacher finds ways to inspire the students and give them hope along with genuine opportunity for education through journaling and reading that they relate to, and building classroom community. She gives her whole life to the class at the expense of her marriage and two part time jobs to support her supply needs for her day job.
Union teachers are given a bad rap here as anti-reform and out of touch - not an accurate depiction as a generalization.
There is a strong anti-racism message. The movie has a good overall message but is a bit sappy and yes, I do think unrealistic in terms of mass application.
Tuesday, January 30, 2007
Monday, January 08, 2007
The Departed
I've always loved Scorses flicks and why he still hasn't won an Oscar is beyond me, I wouldn't put it passed petty politics though.
The movie plays out in typical Scorsese style, but this time it's Boston, not his native New York where he bases most of this work. The movie is SO Gangster... and it has all the usual elements, love, betrayal, confrontation, deception all beautifully put together like an orchestral masterpiece and so reminiscent of a Shakesperean tragedy.
The acting is superb, all the players: Leonardo Di Caprio, Jack Nicholson and Matt Damon, work extremely well together as well as on their own. The direction is a brilliant mix of old and new, making it typically Scorsese but very refreshing, very different.
The movie isn't anything you would expect. The learnings however are interesting because the story line mostly revolves around deception and infiltration of the good guys by the bad guys and vice versa. Inevitably the entanglement and complex nature of all the characters makes you sometimes root for the bad guy and sometimes question the good guys... All in all it leaves you questioning around the nature of loyalty and how far a person would go to keep their loyalty to someone else.
It's something definitlely adult, not in the sense of nudity, but in the nature of the story, the violence, the language and the subject matter at hand. You have to note that all these elements, however, are only there to reflect the reality of the context the movie is set in.
Utter Brilliance.
M.
The movie plays out in typical Scorsese style, but this time it's Boston, not his native New York where he bases most of this work. The movie is SO Gangster... and it has all the usual elements, love, betrayal, confrontation, deception all beautifully put together like an orchestral masterpiece and so reminiscent of a Shakesperean tragedy.
The acting is superb, all the players: Leonardo Di Caprio, Jack Nicholson and Matt Damon, work extremely well together as well as on their own. The direction is a brilliant mix of old and new, making it typically Scorsese but very refreshing, very different.
The movie isn't anything you would expect. The learnings however are interesting because the story line mostly revolves around deception and infiltration of the good guys by the bad guys and vice versa. Inevitably the entanglement and complex nature of all the characters makes you sometimes root for the bad guy and sometimes question the good guys... All in all it leaves you questioning around the nature of loyalty and how far a person would go to keep their loyalty to someone else.
It's something definitlely adult, not in the sense of nudity, but in the nature of the story, the violence, the language and the subject matter at hand. You have to note that all these elements, however, are only there to reflect the reality of the context the movie is set in.
Utter Brilliance.
M.
Tuesday, January 02, 2007
Monday, January 01, 2007
Best and Worst of 2006
This site has a list of most of the movies released (not counting foreign films, some of the smaller Indys, etc.): MovieWeb
There were several movies I liked in 2006, several that were okay or mediocre and one that I hated. There are sure to be both better and worse movies in '06 that I just didn't see.
My #1 favorite movie of 2006 is
1. The Prestige
Runners up are, in order:
2. Invincible
3. Casino Royale
4. Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest
5. Akeelah and the Bee
And the worst movie I saw this year:
1. Little Miss Sunshine
I'll refrain from talking about each for now, aside from saying critics loved Little Miss Sunshine but I thought it was awful. I don't see a lot of movies that I pretty much have a miserable time watching because I usually can pick them out first and avoid them, but I went to see this one without having heard much about it except that critics liked it but yuck!
And The Prestige, it isn't perfect, but it was something different, dark, and thrilling, with a nod in it to my home town and my favorite insane scientist Nikola Tesla. Invincible is a Disney movie but tells a great true story, Pirates of the Carribean is exciting and fun, and Akeelah and the Bee is light but delightful.
Chime in - what are your favorites and least favorites?
There were several movies I liked in 2006, several that were okay or mediocre and one that I hated. There are sure to be both better and worse movies in '06 that I just didn't see.
My #1 favorite movie of 2006 is
1. The Prestige
Runners up are, in order:
2. Invincible
3. Casino Royale
4. Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest
5. Akeelah and the Bee
And the worst movie I saw this year:
1. Little Miss Sunshine
I'll refrain from talking about each for now, aside from saying critics loved Little Miss Sunshine but I thought it was awful. I don't see a lot of movies that I pretty much have a miserable time watching because I usually can pick them out first and avoid them, but I went to see this one without having heard much about it except that critics liked it but yuck!
And The Prestige, it isn't perfect, but it was something different, dark, and thrilling, with a nod in it to my home town and my favorite insane scientist Nikola Tesla. Invincible is a Disney movie but tells a great true story, Pirates of the Carribean is exciting and fun, and Akeelah and the Bee is light but delightful.
Chime in - what are your favorites and least favorites?
Friday, December 22, 2006
Night at the Museum
Ben Stiller plays a divorced father with shared custody of his son who feels like he has to compete for his son's respect with mom's new boyfriend. He has had trouble finding his way since the divorce, with several failed career moves and financial troubles. He turns to a job agency to get him a job, any job, when his son tells him maybe he should quit trying to do something extraordinary because maybe he is just an ordinary guy who should go get a job. He is sent to the museum of natural history to be a night watchman.
His first night on the job, he undergoes a trial by fire, and he finds out it is nothing like he expected. Before long, he and his son both find out it is his chance to do something extraordinary and be someone great in the eyes of his son after all.
This is a PG rated film that is very family safe and friendly. It is just a tad corny from an adult perspective but very fun and enjoyable and full of amusing imagination and good clean humor. It promotes family values, interest in learning, and working together. I believe it will do well at the box office and will become a minor family classic for the next few years due to the small number of interesting films with a PG rating.
His first night on the job, he undergoes a trial by fire, and he finds out it is nothing like he expected. Before long, he and his son both find out it is his chance to do something extraordinary and be someone great in the eyes of his son after all.
This is a PG rated film that is very family safe and friendly. It is just a tad corny from an adult perspective but very fun and enjoyable and full of amusing imagination and good clean humor. It promotes family values, interest in learning, and working together. I believe it will do well at the box office and will become a minor family classic for the next few years due to the small number of interesting films with a PG rating.
Monday, December 18, 2006
Flags of Our Fathers
A film which covers the turning point for the US in World War II where public support for the war was waning, cash was running low, and how the entire situation changed by a single picture... of soldiers putting up the American flag in Iwojima. Now I know it sounds like a propaganda movie, however it is actually quite an effective assessment of the complexity of war on the ground.It also looks at the concept of heroism and how the hypocrisy is exposed when soldiers who were in the field are suddenly woven into the war-propaganda-machine. The film is highly critical of how war is sold to the public, the manipulation of emotions, the use of images, words and imagery, all to glorify and promote the good work the soldiers are doing "over there". It does shed light on the truth that there is nothing honorable in killing or being killed.
The acting is pretty good and so is the Directing (Clint Eastwood). The war scenes do look a little like Saving Private Ryan, but then again, it is produced by Steven Spielberg... so expect lotsa blood, lotsa CGI, but it all looks pretty real, nonetheless.
Overall, a good movie to watch albeit not so much for entertainment value than education value. I recommend this one :)
Peace,
M.
P.S. There is a sister movie "Letters from Iwo Jima", this will be out in 2007.
Tags:
Saturday, December 16, 2006
The Pursuit of Happyness
Mom and I went to see this movie last night.
My 4th-grader nephew was with us. For him, it was a bit serious and a bit long, but he said he guessed it was alright. :)
This is "inspired" by a portion of the life of Chris Gardner. If you Google him, you can read about him and get some ideas of the Hollywood liberties taken with the true story. Not nearly as drastically different as the changes Disney made to the "real" story to make Eight Below, but a few differences are to be expected. This is a San Francisco Chronicle article that would give you a good taste.
First of all, it must be said that Will Smith and his son Jaden Christopher Syre Smith both do remarkable acting jobs in this film. Will Smith's Golden Globe nomination for this role is well-deserved. The quality acting really carries the story.
Another strength to this movie is that a person sitting in the audience will, for a brief while at least, really have an inkling of what it feels like to be homeless - and that is something we could all benefit from, to gain empathy of those in need, and perhaps a bit of compassion. Although it is not made a point in the story, if one pays attention, we also see something of the choices people make and the emotions involved that put them in such a dire situation and how they deal with it - how pride can hurt a man and his family and also help them. Thankfully, the telling is neither sapped over nor sensationalized -it feels genuine. But make no mistake that when you think things are bad they can get worse. The audience knew the ending would be a happy one and what a happy one it was, but when Chris Gardner was homeless with his two-year-old son (in the movie, his son is five) he didn't have the luxury of knowing that - he just had the dream.
A weakness is that the story runs long and you start to feel the point has been run into the ground, but it is still compelling. At times, you may find yourself questioning some of the choices made by the hero - could he have done more to improve his situation with a son involved if he swallowed a bit of pride? If you read up on the real Chris, you may find that in some instances he did do more but still had to endure some dark dark nights. On the other hand, you might get through the whole story and not think about it until afterwards - did he have family he could've gone to, friends, church? In truth, not everyone has these lifelines and some just can't bring themselves to ask for help when they need it. He is presented as a hero, but a fully human one who makes mistakes.
Did he have faith in God to pull him through? The real Chris has said a few things to suggest he believes he has a close line to Jesus, as he said, " Jesus loves me. He only likes you.' I don't know him to tell if he intended some humor in there, but he definitely maintains his pride.
From a Muslim perspective, there is a lot going for this movie - to learn about homelessness and feel a bit of it is a good thing. And as a Muslim I found myself thinking about would I trust God and keep faith if everything were taken from me? Would I hold and take solace in the belief that I am in God's care? Would I manage the balance between putting faith in God in desperate times and trying to improve my situation without losing my integrity? I suspect that no one really knows how they will respond to desperate situations until they are in them.
My 4th-grader nephew was with us. For him, it was a bit serious and a bit long, but he said he guessed it was alright. :)
This is "inspired" by a portion of the life of Chris Gardner. If you Google him, you can read about him and get some ideas of the Hollywood liberties taken with the true story. Not nearly as drastically different as the changes Disney made to the "real" story to make Eight Below, but a few differences are to be expected. This is a San Francisco Chronicle article that would give you a good taste.
First of all, it must be said that Will Smith and his son Jaden Christopher Syre Smith both do remarkable acting jobs in this film. Will Smith's Golden Globe nomination for this role is well-deserved. The quality acting really carries the story.
Another strength to this movie is that a person sitting in the audience will, for a brief while at least, really have an inkling of what it feels like to be homeless - and that is something we could all benefit from, to gain empathy of those in need, and perhaps a bit of compassion. Although it is not made a point in the story, if one pays attention, we also see something of the choices people make and the emotions involved that put them in such a dire situation and how they deal with it - how pride can hurt a man and his family and also help them. Thankfully, the telling is neither sapped over nor sensationalized -it feels genuine. But make no mistake that when you think things are bad they can get worse. The audience knew the ending would be a happy one and what a happy one it was, but when Chris Gardner was homeless with his two-year-old son (in the movie, his son is five) he didn't have the luxury of knowing that - he just had the dream.
A weakness is that the story runs long and you start to feel the point has been run into the ground, but it is still compelling. At times, you may find yourself questioning some of the choices made by the hero - could he have done more to improve his situation with a son involved if he swallowed a bit of pride? If you read up on the real Chris, you may find that in some instances he did do more but still had to endure some dark dark nights. On the other hand, you might get through the whole story and not think about it until afterwards - did he have family he could've gone to, friends, church? In truth, not everyone has these lifelines and some just can't bring themselves to ask for help when they need it. He is presented as a hero, but a fully human one who makes mistakes.
Did he have faith in God to pull him through? The real Chris has said a few things to suggest he believes he has a close line to Jesus, as he said, " Jesus loves me. He only likes you.' I don't know him to tell if he intended some humor in there, but he definitely maintains his pride.
From a Muslim perspective, there is a lot going for this movie - to learn about homelessness and feel a bit of it is a good thing. And as a Muslim I found myself thinking about would I trust God and keep faith if everything were taken from me? Would I hold and take solace in the belief that I am in God's care? Would I manage the balance between putting faith in God in desperate times and trying to improve my situation without losing my integrity? I suspect that no one really knows how they will respond to desperate situations until they are in them.
Friday, December 01, 2006
Casino Royale
Well, I think over the years I've seen every James Bond film at one point or another, or pretty close to it.
I had no idea what to expect of this film or the new Bond. I had seen a few previews and was mildly interested. But I came out a big fan of the latest film, which brings new life to the genre.
That being said, I think Daniel Craig is probably the best of all the actors to play James Bond so far. This movie is better and different than the Bond movies of the past 10 or 15 years. It is an origin story - it is about James Bond's first mission as 007. It shows him as being more physical than other Bonds and more human - and that makes him much more intriguing. This version Bond, said to be truer to Ian Fleming's vision, is also capable of more intelligent dialogue. Mr. Craig is a talented actor, and it shows.
The "Bond girl" in this film is also different than others. She is more intelligent than most, contributes more to the plot, and actually has a genuine emotional impact on Bond, although I found the love story to have a bit of weakness to it. It wouldn't be a James Bond movie if the women weren't all "eye candy" - the objectification of women is toned down here compared to some previous films as the women are somewhat more empowered, and double entendres are at a minimum here, but there is a certain expectation of Bond movies that does not go unmet.
"M"'s interaction with Bond in this film is far more interesting than any I can remember from other films. Dame Judi Densch actually has at least a little occasion to demonstrate her acting ability with a real character this time.
The villain in this one, however, was weak and uninspiring, and only mildly interesting. He wasn't the real villain anyway, but by the end of the film Bond seems ready to move up the ladder to tackle some of the bigger fish.
Techno gimmicks and gadgets are not the drivers in this story - a few are present but they are appropriate rather than expensive attempts to wow an audience with the latest and greatest. Instead, the audience is quickly grabbed by a stunning opening action sequence including a memorable display of free running, and the action remains very good throughout.
There are some slow parts in the film and a few mini-twists that might strike as ridiculous but nothing to make you look at your watch or not buy in to the story as a whole. This is a satisfying movie and I hope to see another one with the new Bond Daniel Craig, building on a good beginning here. If you haven't been a fan of other Bond movies, this one could change your mind - unless your disdain is in response to the omnipresent sex and violence of the genre - in that case, stay away.
PG-13 is an appropriate rating, although there are a few particular scenes of violence that are not for the squeamish. Nudity (in a particular Abu-Ghraib-ish torture scene, of Daniel Craig - not so much of the females beyond the typical skin-baring $1000 prom dresses), sexual situations, and violence make this, of course, not a "family film".
I had no idea what to expect of this film or the new Bond. I had seen a few previews and was mildly interested. But I came out a big fan of the latest film, which brings new life to the genre.
That being said, I think Daniel Craig is probably the best of all the actors to play James Bond so far. This movie is better and different than the Bond movies of the past 10 or 15 years. It is an origin story - it is about James Bond's first mission as 007. It shows him as being more physical than other Bonds and more human - and that makes him much more intriguing. This version Bond, said to be truer to Ian Fleming's vision, is also capable of more intelligent dialogue. Mr. Craig is a talented actor, and it shows.
The "Bond girl" in this film is also different than others. She is more intelligent than most, contributes more to the plot, and actually has a genuine emotional impact on Bond, although I found the love story to have a bit of weakness to it. It wouldn't be a James Bond movie if the women weren't all "eye candy" - the objectification of women is toned down here compared to some previous films as the women are somewhat more empowered, and double entendres are at a minimum here, but there is a certain expectation of Bond movies that does not go unmet.
"M"'s interaction with Bond in this film is far more interesting than any I can remember from other films. Dame Judi Densch actually has at least a little occasion to demonstrate her acting ability with a real character this time.
The villain in this one, however, was weak and uninspiring, and only mildly interesting. He wasn't the real villain anyway, but by the end of the film Bond seems ready to move up the ladder to tackle some of the bigger fish.
Techno gimmicks and gadgets are not the drivers in this story - a few are present but they are appropriate rather than expensive attempts to wow an audience with the latest and greatest. Instead, the audience is quickly grabbed by a stunning opening action sequence including a memorable display of free running, and the action remains very good throughout.
There are some slow parts in the film and a few mini-twists that might strike as ridiculous but nothing to make you look at your watch or not buy in to the story as a whole. This is a satisfying movie and I hope to see another one with the new Bond Daniel Craig, building on a good beginning here. If you haven't been a fan of other Bond movies, this one could change your mind - unless your disdain is in response to the omnipresent sex and violence of the genre - in that case, stay away.
PG-13 is an appropriate rating, although there are a few particular scenes of violence that are not for the squeamish. Nudity (in a particular Abu-Ghraib-ish torture scene, of Daniel Craig - not so much of the females beyond the typical skin-baring $1000 prom dresses), sexual situations, and violence make this, of course, not a "family film".
Wednesday, November 29, 2006
Gangster No.1 (2000)
This is a bit of an old movie, and is directed by Paul McGuigan (Same guy who directed Lucky Number Slevin) however, the two movie's have a sort of polarity in terms of the message they deliver. Both have the theme of Revenge, but where Lucky Number Slevin glorifies the act of revenge, Gangster No.1 shows its utter futility.
Malcolm Mcdowell plays "Gangster 55" an aged head gangster who retells his past and how he came to be in his current situation. Paul Bettany plays a young "gangster 55" and looks eerily like how Malcolm McDowell looked when he starred as the protagonist in the Stanley Kubrick Classic, A Clockwork Orange, in his younger days.
If you look at the movie from an Islamic perspective it does make you question your goals in life... What exactly are you looking to achieve by the actions you commit today? In the movie, all that is glorified in the beginning and looks so Shiny and Brilliant is shown to be a mirage and when the protagonist finally gets to the top, the view is a dull and dreary life of nothing to look for in the past and nothing hopeful in the future. So from an Islamic perspective... the movie does show you the farce of chasing anything material as the ultimate attainment and the ultimate destination.
The movie is definitely not for kids though, a mature audience is preferred if you really want to discuss the crux of the subject matter. I would consider a this a classic movie, somewhere near the top of Gangster and Mafia movies like Goodfella's and The Godfather, but with a different and more attuned message than those movies.
Warning: Rated R, It has strong brutal violence, pervasive language, and brief drug use and nudity.
Malcolm Mcdowell plays "Gangster 55" an aged head gangster who retells his past and how he came to be in his current situation. Paul Bettany plays a young "gangster 55" and looks eerily like how Malcolm McDowell looked when he starred as the protagonist in the Stanley Kubrick Classic, A Clockwork Orange, in his younger days.
If you look at the movie from an Islamic perspective it does make you question your goals in life... What exactly are you looking to achieve by the actions you commit today? In the movie, all that is glorified in the beginning and looks so Shiny and Brilliant is shown to be a mirage and when the protagonist finally gets to the top, the view is a dull and dreary life of nothing to look for in the past and nothing hopeful in the future. So from an Islamic perspective... the movie does show you the farce of chasing anything material as the ultimate attainment and the ultimate destination.
The movie is definitely not for kids though, a mature audience is preferred if you really want to discuss the crux of the subject matter. I would consider a this a classic movie, somewhere near the top of Gangster and Mafia movies like Goodfella's and The Godfather, but with a different and more attuned message than those movies.
Warning: Rated R, It has strong brutal violence, pervasive language, and brief drug use and nudity.
Tags:
Sunday, October 01, 2006
The Guardian
This movie stars Kevin Costner and Ashton Kutcher. It is a story of Coast Guard rescue swimmers. If this movie gets it right, being a rescue is one of the most hardest, dangerous and heroic jobs of all time and place.
Kevin Costner plays arguably the greatest rescue swimmer of all time on the downside of his career, struggling with recent tragedy. He gets sent to teach recruits for awhile to get him out of the water. In Ashton Kutcher's character, he finds someone much like himself, someone with the potential to carry the torch.
At the end of the movie, some choices are made and you can decide for yourself if Ashton's character carried the torch the way Kevin's wanted to but couldn't. And you'll be left with respect and awe for rescue swimmers.
This movie promotes the ideal of saving lives and at times while watching it I was reminded of the Islamic teaching that saving a life is like saving all of humanity.....
Kevin Costner plays arguably the greatest rescue swimmer of all time on the downside of his career, struggling with recent tragedy. He gets sent to teach recruits for awhile to get him out of the water. In Ashton Kutcher's character, he finds someone much like himself, someone with the potential to carry the torch.
At the end of the movie, some choices are made and you can decide for yourself if Ashton's character carried the torch the way Kevin's wanted to but couldn't. And you'll be left with respect and awe for rescue swimmers.
This movie promotes the ideal of saving lives and at times while watching it I was reminded of the Islamic teaching that saving a life is like saving all of humanity.....
Thursday, September 14, 2006
Volver
Watching this, it is clear that Penelope Cruz has been completely wasted by Hollywood.
Her Hollywood career may be a clutch of dull flops, yet in this she is incandescent, her character utterly believable and involving
The basic plot of Volver is two sisters dealing with the death of their mother, but of course, this being an Almodavar film, subjects such as murder, incest and adultery are also featured.
The beauty of Almodovar is that such issues are handled without ever being sensationalised. More then this, his protagonists have a realness to them, they feel like people you've met. Wonderful.
Her Hollywood career may be a clutch of dull flops, yet in this she is incandescent, her character utterly believable and involving
The basic plot of Volver is two sisters dealing with the death of their mother, but of course, this being an Almodavar film, subjects such as murder, incest and adultery are also featured.
The beauty of Almodovar is that such issues are handled without ever being sensationalised. More then this, his protagonists have a realness to them, they feel like people you've met. Wonderful.
Friday, September 01, 2006
Akeelah and the Bee
This is one of the nicest movies I've seen in a long time. I think everyone should see it, especially with their children. Good for all ages.
Sunday, August 20, 2006
Accepted
This movie is about several kids who do not get accepted into college. To avoid facing their parents' disappointment, they end up creating a college of their own. It starts with a fake acceptance letter, then a fake website, then a fake campus, and when the website was accidentally made functional, they suddenly have a bunch of students show up at the fake campus for orientation and end up trying to run a real college, albeit a very unorthodox one.
This movie is pretty standard fare but enjoyable. It does promote fraud as "creativity" in a way and general irresponsibility, misuse of parents' money, and so on to a point, etc., but it is pretty obvious even to a young viewer that what they are doing is stupid.
This movie is pretty standard fare but enjoyable. It does promote fraud as "creativity" in a way and general irresponsibility, misuse of parents' money, and so on to a point, etc., but it is pretty obvious even to a young viewer that what they are doing is stupid.
Saturday, August 19, 2006
Snakes on a Plane
Nasty, nasty film.
Not recommended unless you want to see people being bitten in horrible places by the aforementioned snakes, and subsequently dying a most unpleasant death.
Not recommended unless you want to see people being bitten in horrible places by the aforementioned snakes, and subsequently dying a most unpleasant death.
Tuesday, August 15, 2006
Miami Vice
This is definitely not a family or kids movie.
And it isn't nearly as fun or even as cool as the television series.
The plot revolves around some sophisticated crime and some stupid and not-believable gratuitious lust. It is a violent movie - reminds me of the violent rated R movies so common a decade ago.
I didn't hate it but I didn't love it, it was just kind of there, it was kind of interesting and quite dark.
And it isn't nearly as fun or even as cool as the television series.
The plot revolves around some sophisticated crime and some stupid and not-believable gratuitious lust. It is a violent movie - reminds me of the violent rated R movies so common a decade ago.
I didn't hate it but I didn't love it, it was just kind of there, it was kind of interesting and quite dark.
Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby
The humor in this movie involves bad language, abusive behavior of children toward elders, and sex.
There is some more benign humor as well.
I didn't find this movie really all that funny. I like stupid movies if they are funny, but for me this one wasn't really, and I was embarrassed that my nieces were watching it.
There is some more benign humor as well.
I didn't find this movie really all that funny. I like stupid movies if they are funny, but for me this one wasn't really, and I was embarrassed that my nieces were watching it.
Sunday, July 30, 2006
Pirates of the Caribbean II
Not writing a review, but just thought I'd see if we could discuss.
I thought this movie was just plain good fun. What did others think?
I thought this movie was just plain good fun. What did others think?
Saturday, July 01, 2006
Click
Mom, Laura, me and the kids went to see Click tonight. It has some standard Adam Sandler humor in it, but it is pretty different than a lot of his previous movies. There is a moral to this story big time and it made me cry. It is a really sweet story. Man, Adam Sandler movies always have such nostalgic music in them that make me think of my childhood..... But, that's not what brings tears, you'd have to see it yourself, I would recommend it. Some of the humor is just a bit mature (or maybe immature) so you might want to preview it before taking your kids.
Here's one of its favorable reviews (not everyone liked it, of course):
REVIEW
Fast-forwarding through life is fun. But it can also give a guy pause.
- Mick LaSalle, Chronicle Movie Critic
Friday, June 23, 2006
Click: Comedy-drama. Starring Adam Sandler and Kate Beckinsale. Directed by Frank Coraci. (PG-13. 115 minutes. At Bay Area theaters.)
Maybe Adam Sandler and his team intended to make a serious movie, and maybe they didn't, but in "Click" they've made one, all right, one of the best American films of the year so far. The filmmakers take what might have been just a gimmicky premise and pursue it meticulously, following wherever it leads. Along the way, they create a shrewd and moving metaphor for the way people live their lives in 21st century America.
That Sandler should appear in one of the year's best movies is astonishing enough. What's more astonishing is that he's good in it. For once he doesn't play a self-satisfied imbecile that we're supposed to regard as a savant, or a complacent slob who's right and everybody else is wrong. Instead, he's an ambitious family man, a talented architect who is slaving at the office and putting in late hours in the hope of someday making partner and achieving financial security.
With all the pressures at work, he finds himself resenting his family obligations as suffocating, even though his wife (Kate Beckinsale) is loving and accommodating, his kids are adorable, and his parents (Henry Winkler and Julie Kavner) are no trouble at all. He wants to work and get ahead and then finally start living, and soon he gets a chance to put his wishes into action.
He goes to the store to buy a universal remote for all his home electronics and is given a brand-new one by a mysterious inventor. The fact that the inventor is played by Christopher Walken should give him pause, but it doesn't, so he takes it home. There he finds that it not only works on the television but that he can use it to silence a barking dog. When he has to walk his dog, he can fast-forward through the boring parts. He can even fast-forward through a spat with his wife.
The seductiveness of the remote works on the audience as well as on the character, which is the beauty of the conceit. Who wouldn't want to fast-forward through a traffic jam? Or fast-forward through desk work? I'm five paragraphs into this review and would be very tempted to fast-forward ahead four paragraphs. But if we had the power to bypass every bit of labor, tedium or unpleasantness in our lives, how much would we actually bother to live? And how much would we lose as a result of not experiencing the process of living? Maybe a lot, or everything.
The point "Click" is making is simple but sharp and effective: That's what many of us are doing, even without the remote control, just going through the motions, digging in, pursuing our goals in the time-honored American way, but so fixated that we're barely present. The movie makes a crucial distinction, one that turns "Click" into a near-great movie instead of a routine piece of garbage: When our hero, Michael (Sandler), presses that remote, he doesn't change reality. He only changes his own perception of it. Thus, when he hits fast-forward, things aren't really going faster, but rather his consciousness is going away and then returning at a later point in time. The joke isn't on everybody else. The joke is on him.
While everyone else, for example, is experiencing a family dinner, he's floating through it on autopilot, functioning but not present. In that way, the magical premise becomes, for writers Steve Koren and Mark O'Keefe, not an end in itself, but the jumping-off point for a story about the consequences of the autopilot approach to life.
The magical element creates opportunities for visual flourishes, which the movie executes with aplomb. In the flashback scenes, live action is mixed with computer graphics to make Winkler and Kavner appear to be in their 30s. In scenes of the future, the 2020s are accounted for by differences in interior design, car design and license plates. Everything is handled with subtlety and intelligence, enhancing the story without calling attention to itself.
The remote is basically a DVD remote, with a menu that pops up as a hologram around the protagonist, another nice visual effect. The menu is for the DVD that's his life, for the life story that he's in the process of creating. That, in itself, is an interesting metaphor, because it speaks to a belief in self-improvement, a faith that life can be made into something magnificent -- and a concomitant narcissism that can infect such naive confidence. It's much more of an American than a European thing to see one's life as a movie.
Director Frank Coraci seamlessly blends comedy and drama, finding the right balance by ignoring genre convention and just telling the story. He gets a performance out of Sandler that I didn't know he had in him.
-- Advisory: Crude humor, sexual situations.
E-mail Mick LaSalle at mlasalle@sfchronicle.com.
Page E - 1
URL: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/06/23/DDGENJI4UT1.DTL
©2006 San Francisco Chronicle
Here's one of its favorable reviews (not everyone liked it, of course):
REVIEW
Fast-forwarding through life is fun. But it can also give a guy pause.
- Mick LaSalle, Chronicle Movie Critic
Friday, June 23, 2006
Click: Comedy-drama. Starring Adam Sandler and Kate Beckinsale. Directed by Frank Coraci. (PG-13. 115 minutes. At Bay Area theaters.)
Maybe Adam Sandler and his team intended to make a serious movie, and maybe they didn't, but in "Click" they've made one, all right, one of the best American films of the year so far. The filmmakers take what might have been just a gimmicky premise and pursue it meticulously, following wherever it leads. Along the way, they create a shrewd and moving metaphor for the way people live their lives in 21st century America.
That Sandler should appear in one of the year's best movies is astonishing enough. What's more astonishing is that he's good in it. For once he doesn't play a self-satisfied imbecile that we're supposed to regard as a savant, or a complacent slob who's right and everybody else is wrong. Instead, he's an ambitious family man, a talented architect who is slaving at the office and putting in late hours in the hope of someday making partner and achieving financial security.
With all the pressures at work, he finds himself resenting his family obligations as suffocating, even though his wife (Kate Beckinsale) is loving and accommodating, his kids are adorable, and his parents (Henry Winkler and Julie Kavner) are no trouble at all. He wants to work and get ahead and then finally start living, and soon he gets a chance to put his wishes into action.
He goes to the store to buy a universal remote for all his home electronics and is given a brand-new one by a mysterious inventor. The fact that the inventor is played by Christopher Walken should give him pause, but it doesn't, so he takes it home. There he finds that it not only works on the television but that he can use it to silence a barking dog. When he has to walk his dog, he can fast-forward through the boring parts. He can even fast-forward through a spat with his wife.
The seductiveness of the remote works on the audience as well as on the character, which is the beauty of the conceit. Who wouldn't want to fast-forward through a traffic jam? Or fast-forward through desk work? I'm five paragraphs into this review and would be very tempted to fast-forward ahead four paragraphs. But if we had the power to bypass every bit of labor, tedium or unpleasantness in our lives, how much would we actually bother to live? And how much would we lose as a result of not experiencing the process of living? Maybe a lot, or everything.
The point "Click" is making is simple but sharp and effective: That's what many of us are doing, even without the remote control, just going through the motions, digging in, pursuing our goals in the time-honored American way, but so fixated that we're barely present. The movie makes a crucial distinction, one that turns "Click" into a near-great movie instead of a routine piece of garbage: When our hero, Michael (Sandler), presses that remote, he doesn't change reality. He only changes his own perception of it. Thus, when he hits fast-forward, things aren't really going faster, but rather his consciousness is going away and then returning at a later point in time. The joke isn't on everybody else. The joke is on him.
While everyone else, for example, is experiencing a family dinner, he's floating through it on autopilot, functioning but not present. In that way, the magical premise becomes, for writers Steve Koren and Mark O'Keefe, not an end in itself, but the jumping-off point for a story about the consequences of the autopilot approach to life.
The magical element creates opportunities for visual flourishes, which the movie executes with aplomb. In the flashback scenes, live action is mixed with computer graphics to make Winkler and Kavner appear to be in their 30s. In scenes of the future, the 2020s are accounted for by differences in interior design, car design and license plates. Everything is handled with subtlety and intelligence, enhancing the story without calling attention to itself.
The remote is basically a DVD remote, with a menu that pops up as a hologram around the protagonist, another nice visual effect. The menu is for the DVD that's his life, for the life story that he's in the process of creating. That, in itself, is an interesting metaphor, because it speaks to a belief in self-improvement, a faith that life can be made into something magnificent -- and a concomitant narcissism that can infect such naive confidence. It's much more of an American than a European thing to see one's life as a movie.
Director Frank Coraci seamlessly blends comedy and drama, finding the right balance by ignoring genre convention and just telling the story. He gets a performance out of Sandler that I didn't know he had in him.
-- Advisory: Crude humor, sexual situations.
E-mail Mick LaSalle at mlasalle@sfchronicle.com.
Page E - 1
URL: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/06/23/DDGENJI4UT1.DTL
©2006 San Francisco Chronicle
Wednesday, May 31, 2006
Paradise Now
So Netflix finally got around to sending me this flick, and we had a nice family viewing of it.
Summary from the official website:
"PARADISE NOW" follows two Palestinian childhood friends who have been recruited for a strike on Tel Aviv and focuses on their last days together. When they are intercepted at the Israeli border and separated from their handlers, a young woman who discovers their plan causes them to reconsider their actions.
This is the Palestinian response to Munich. Not literally, of course, but it tackles many of the same issues Munich tried to in describing the characters and lives of people who are willing to kill for their country. The two friends volunteered to become suicide bombers as long as they would be able to die together. The leader of the resistance group contacts them suddenly, telling them that they've been selected for an attack the next day. They get one last night with their families, whom they're not even allowed to tell about their plans or even say goodbye to.
The one important difference in the two films is that there is not one violent scene in the entirety of Paradise Now (except for a brief scuffle between the two friends). The genius of this film is that it is able to convey a human real-ness that you would expect to be impossible to find in a movie about two would-be suicide bombers. One of the key factors to that relatability is the presence of Suha, the daughter of a famed martyr who was raised in Morocco (aka Maghreb). She brings the "Western" point of view into the story, or at least the idealistic version of it. Her dialogue contains all the thoughts of every Western (Muslim or otherwise) sympathizer to the Palestinian cause: Suicide bombing cannot be the only solution. This cannot truly be a moral war until the violence stops on one end.
It's a film that definitely makes you think. Especially when given the main characters' responses to these points. Khaled says, "We are already dead. And I would rather go to that heaven than live in this hell." Said's position gives a broader insight into the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. "They say that they are the victims. If the oppressors have become the victims, then the victims must become murderers." (I'm paraphrasing because I don't remember the exact quote)
The one thing that's missing in this movie is a motive. We are given some personal motivations for these two specific characters, but they seem a little flimsy. There is no singular event (as there was in Munich with the death of the Olympic team) that seems to trigger the desire to kill for their country. Or at least it isn't shown to us. The film presents the conflict as a feud that has been running for generations and neither side really knows how it started anymore.
The best quality of the film was it's presentation of likeable characters. Despite knowing that they are suicide bombers in the making, you feel like these guys could have been your friends, the kind who you sit around and smoke hookah with and talk about your crappy jobs. It made me sad about the Palestinian conflict in a way I haven't felt since they released that footage of the Palestinian boy being shot by Israeli gunfire right before his father's eyes.
All in all, it's a movie worth taking 90 minutes to watch.
Summary from the official website:
"PARADISE NOW" follows two Palestinian childhood friends who have been recruited for a strike on Tel Aviv and focuses on their last days together. When they are intercepted at the Israeli border and separated from their handlers, a young woman who discovers their plan causes them to reconsider their actions.
This is the Palestinian response to Munich. Not literally, of course, but it tackles many of the same issues Munich tried to in describing the characters and lives of people who are willing to kill for their country. The two friends volunteered to become suicide bombers as long as they would be able to die together. The leader of the resistance group contacts them suddenly, telling them that they've been selected for an attack the next day. They get one last night with their families, whom they're not even allowed to tell about their plans or even say goodbye to.
The one important difference in the two films is that there is not one violent scene in the entirety of Paradise Now (except for a brief scuffle between the two friends). The genius of this film is that it is able to convey a human real-ness that you would expect to be impossible to find in a movie about two would-be suicide bombers. One of the key factors to that relatability is the presence of Suha, the daughter of a famed martyr who was raised in Morocco (aka Maghreb). She brings the "Western" point of view into the story, or at least the idealistic version of it. Her dialogue contains all the thoughts of every Western (Muslim or otherwise) sympathizer to the Palestinian cause: Suicide bombing cannot be the only solution. This cannot truly be a moral war until the violence stops on one end.
It's a film that definitely makes you think. Especially when given the main characters' responses to these points. Khaled says, "We are already dead. And I would rather go to that heaven than live in this hell." Said's position gives a broader insight into the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. "They say that they are the victims. If the oppressors have become the victims, then the victims must become murderers." (I'm paraphrasing because I don't remember the exact quote)
The one thing that's missing in this movie is a motive. We are given some personal motivations for these two specific characters, but they seem a little flimsy. There is no singular event (as there was in Munich with the death of the Olympic team) that seems to trigger the desire to kill for their country. Or at least it isn't shown to us. The film presents the conflict as a feud that has been running for generations and neither side really knows how it started anymore.
The best quality of the film was it's presentation of likeable characters. Despite knowing that they are suicide bombers in the making, you feel like these guys could have been your friends, the kind who you sit around and smoke hookah with and talk about your crappy jobs. It made me sad about the Palestinian conflict in a way I haven't felt since they released that footage of the Palestinian boy being shot by Israeli gunfire right before his father's eyes.
All in all, it's a movie worth taking 90 minutes to watch.
Tuesday, April 04, 2006
Brokeback Mountain
finally got around to writing one of these.. (sorry Masooma!)
I am probably one of very few Muslims who actually went out and paid money to watch this movie, but as a self-proclaimed movie buff, I felt it necessary to defend my title. My first mistake was in not realizing that this was, after all, a cowboy movie. I don't like cowboy movies. Second, I'm not a big fan of sappy romance either. There's two strikes. I'm just presenting you with my biases before I let you know what I really thought.
The opening was very slow. Pretty much a staring contest between two very good looking men (if I do say so myself) which wasn't too bad from an eye-candy point-of-view but rather pointless and boring, in general. The two men are looking for jobs and end up tending sheep on Brokeback Mountain together and slowly fall into love (or lust, depending on your definition). They have the talkative and sensitive Jack Twist (the classic 'wife') and the quiet and reserved Ennis (the dominant partner). The fact that the writers so cleanly classified certain behaviors as masculine or feminine was rather irritating for me from a feminist point-of-view. Later, when they part ways and end up marrying women and raising families, Jack is shown as an ineffectual husband, and a person with a weak will and it is implied that this is because he is 'feminine' or subordinate and needs a "man" to support him.
They did try to avoid any stereotypical 'gay' behavior, though (as far as cleanliness, fashion sense or show tunes are involved) and kept any explicit scenes between the two men to a minimum. The two love scenes were mostly in the dark and only about a minute or two long each though there were about 4 or 5 kissing scenes. There were love scenes between each man and his wife as well which were considerably more graphic.
The story and plot were lacking, but the acting was very well done. Ennis' wife (played by Michelle Williams from Dawson's Creek) does an exceptional job in creating a sympathetic female character in this movie centered around the love between two men. The dialogue could have used some work too. "I wish I knew how to quit you"? Delivered in a Texan accent?? Save me from the cheese. PLEASE.
And with all romantic films there must, of course, be some tragic angst because we all know that true love was never meant for senior citizens. All in all, this film played out like any 90's drama romance (like Legends of the Fall or Before Sunrise) with the female lead substituted for a male instead. I didn't find anything orginal about the story or anything that might create a precedent or establish a brand new genre for any other films about 'alternate lifestyles'.
As you can tell, I can't understand why it would win (or even be nominated) for Best Picture or Best Screenplay, but I will admit that it wasn't quite as bad as I thought it would be.
For a more entertaining film about an unconventional love affair, I suggest Memoirs of a Geisha.
I am probably one of very few Muslims who actually went out and paid money to watch this movie, but as a self-proclaimed movie buff, I felt it necessary to defend my title. My first mistake was in not realizing that this was, after all, a cowboy movie. I don't like cowboy movies. Second, I'm not a big fan of sappy romance either. There's two strikes. I'm just presenting you with my biases before I let you know what I really thought.
The opening was very slow. Pretty much a staring contest between two very good looking men (if I do say so myself) which wasn't too bad from an eye-candy point-of-view but rather pointless and boring, in general. The two men are looking for jobs and end up tending sheep on Brokeback Mountain together and slowly fall into love (or lust, depending on your definition). They have the talkative and sensitive Jack Twist (the classic 'wife') and the quiet and reserved Ennis (the dominant partner). The fact that the writers so cleanly classified certain behaviors as masculine or feminine was rather irritating for me from a feminist point-of-view. Later, when they part ways and end up marrying women and raising families, Jack is shown as an ineffectual husband, and a person with a weak will and it is implied that this is because he is 'feminine' or subordinate and needs a "man" to support him.
They did try to avoid any stereotypical 'gay' behavior, though (as far as cleanliness, fashion sense or show tunes are involved) and kept any explicit scenes between the two men to a minimum. The two love scenes were mostly in the dark and only about a minute or two long each though there were about 4 or 5 kissing scenes. There were love scenes between each man and his wife as well which were considerably more graphic.
The story and plot were lacking, but the acting was very well done. Ennis' wife (played by Michelle Williams from Dawson's Creek) does an exceptional job in creating a sympathetic female character in this movie centered around the love between two men. The dialogue could have used some work too. "I wish I knew how to quit you"? Delivered in a Texan accent?? Save me from the cheese. PLEASE.
And with all romantic films there must, of course, be some tragic angst because we all know that true love was never meant for senior citizens. All in all, this film played out like any 90's drama romance (like Legends of the Fall or Before Sunrise) with the female lead substituted for a male instead. I didn't find anything orginal about the story or anything that might create a precedent or establish a brand new genre for any other films about 'alternate lifestyles'.
As you can tell, I can't understand why it would win (or even be nominated) for Best Picture or Best Screenplay, but I will admit that it wasn't quite as bad as I thought it would be.
For a more entertaining film about an unconventional love affair, I suggest Memoirs of a Geisha.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)