Film: Letters to God
Writer and Director: David Nixon
Runtime: 90 Minutes
Company: American Cinema International
Cast: Jeffrey Johnson, Maree Cheetham, Michael Christopher Bolten, Robyn Lively, Tanner Maguire
Dear God,
I know you have good intentions with this film. Tyler, played by Tanner Maguire, struggles with his cancer and the mailman Brady, played by Jeffrey Johnson, battles his alcoholism every day. But unfortunately, with the ever-so-cliché characters and cheesy-beyond-belief dialogue, Letters to God took a gamble and lost.
To better explain myself, I have developed a list of Ten Commandments that explore the ingredients of this film and why it may be stuck in purgatory for eternity.
1. Thou shall not cast the protagonist as a small child with cancer.
Cancer is sad, I will admit. But directors play the sympathy card far too often with films today. As soon as the main character, Tyler, appears on the screen bald and full of chemo, I couldn’t help but sigh and think to myself that this was going to be another sob story about a child with cancer. See: My Sister’s Keeper.
2. Thou shall not wipe tears from a face when they don’t exist.
If you are going to make the cheesiest movie possible, and the budget is limited, save money on some eye drops and hire actors that can actually squirt some tears. The child already has cancer and everyone wants to express sadness about it but no one can cry. That creates a very difficult task of conveying the emotions when they have none.
3. Thou shall consider the reality of teen angst.
So the small child has cancer and the brother is jealous of all the attention he gets but he keeps letting that emotion build up and using the excuse that he is just sad for Tyler. Not only is Tyler hogging the attention of all the local residents, but also he is now writing letters to God to pray and ask questions about his existence. Sounds like there’s a lot of Daddy issues going on in the family. Meanwhile, we don’t even find out until later that their Dad in the film has actually been dead for several years. So the brother is jealous and flips out on the mother, but she never even considers his hormones and all of the teen anxiety he could be having. She seems to be the one that needs to learn some compassion.
4. Thou shall remain consistent in choice of target audience.
Surprise! There’s a subplot. The new mailman has been drunk for about fifteen years and he just now decided that he was going to get real with his life and the post office has assigned him to Tyler’s house. He sees that Tyler has been writing letters to God, and doesn’t know what to do with them so he keeps them. Pretty logical. If you’re a drunk man.
5. Thou shall invest more than five dollars into the set design.
I would like to think that Tyler lives in real house. Just a thought when it comes to movies, but it usually works better when the scenery and such is actually realistic. The white picket fence with the generic dog and the token, but neighborly, minorities add nothing to this Jesus-freaked Pleasantville.
6. Thou shall not use the exact dialogue, “I’ll do what Jesus would do.”
Really? Tyler is eight years old. In all honesty, do you expect a child to ask their mom what they should do when the kids at school make fun of him and then say they’ll just do what Jesus would do? It may be idealistic for some, but the odds of that sentence leaving the mouth of a child seem farfetched.
7. Thou shall search for authenticity.
I want this movie to succeed, really. The message is great and I know that the creators have good intentions…but nothing seems real. The people, places, events, and even the letters to God from the entire community seem so far from reality that I feel like they should maybe get together with the creators of Full House and they can compromise.
8. Thou shall introduce and conclude subplots.
Apparently all the time the mailman has been spending with Tyler could have been spent with the family that he has. I guess he was too busy helping the pregnant neighbor get to the hospital to remember not to drink before he drove with his son in the car so now he can’t hang with him. Then, out of nowhere, the church leader comes along to bring Jesus into the hearts of the characters, but Tyler has been busy doing that all along. He got everyone to write letters to God.
9. Thou shall not fire the guy in charge of the music.
Soundtrack is enjoyable. I didn’t hear any clapping on the tracks and everything seemed to key in at the right moment. If only they can find those tears…
10. Thou shall choose to make a documentary instead.
The film definitely would work as a documentary, as it is based off of true events. Cancer is a serious illness and the content issue of religion is important to consider when discussing the foundation that actually collects letters written to God. I would thoroughly enjoy learning about the real story instead of being taken aback by what comes of as an overly religious children’s drama.
Sincerely, Melanie
Film: Mothers Little Helpers
Writer and Director: K. Asher Levin
Runtime: 86 Minutes
Company: Stonebrook Entertainment
Producer: Jack Schuster, Danny, Roth, Asher Levin
Executive Producer: Mickey Gooch, Cyrus Ahanchian
Cast: Kyle Gallner, Sarah Hyland, Denise Richards, James Belushi, Rebecca Mader, Kathryn Morris, Maeve Quinlan, and Ryan Pinkston
Struggling to imagine anything in which Denise Richards stars would be of any value, I took it upon myself to examine the recent feature from Stonebrook entertainment in spite of my old habits. Once I began watching the film Mother’s Little Helpers, I realized that Richards would not have exert much effort for her role as an attractive and rich older woman, or “cougar”, that yearns to get involved with younger men despite her failed marriage. Granted, Richards hasn’t done anything worth watching, well, ever… I must say that this film caught me by surprise. The sundry cast, some familiar faces and some not, the peculiar storyline, and the cleverly constructed humor creates a pleasurable experience that caters to the perverse minds of a resilient generation of young adults.
Mother’s Little Helpers, written and directed by K. Asher Levin, tells the story of Sam, played by Kyle Gallner, who is a rebellious teenager headed to his next private high school after being kicked out of several others for various ridiculous circumstances. The apple doesn’t fall far from the tree when Sam’s mother’s career as a Playboy Playmate doesn’t last long enough to bring in sufficient funding for his education. So, after a random but convenient rendezvous with a cougar in a nearby hotel, Sam decides to take matters into his own hands. The cougar, played by Maeve Quinlan, leaves Sam with a check for five hundred dollars and his entrepreneurship skills kick into gear. What ensues is a haphazard system of hookups between private school playboys looking for some cash and rich older women, victims to distressing marriages that crave some loving.
The cast bestows an air of charming and captivating abnormality onto the screen. Appropriately, James Belushi, who starred in National Lampoon’s Animal House, is featured as the ex-roadie headmaster of Sam’s private school. The pot-smoking faculty member has a son, the school jock, played by his real-life son Robert Belushi, who is not afraid to pick on the new kid...shocker. The overrated bully is a little bit typical, but plays a vital role in beating up the protagonist later, of course. Television sitcom Modern Family’s Sarah Hyland, who stars as Courtney in the film, provides the audience with a completely different picture of a teenage girl than what one would normally see on the weekly program. In this film, her character is both loud-mouthed and trashy, which seems a bit strange coming from a puppy-eyed young lady that seems to have gone astray from an Old Navy commercial. Nonetheless, Hyland’s performance unites her character’s varied development as Sam’s love interest, the daughter of the headmaster, and sister to the school bully.
Ryan Pinkston, as seen on MTV’s Punk'd, provides added comic relief as the cliché best friend and wingman to Sam. His odd presence and blatantly obvious desperation to get laid is equivalent to that of Chris Marquette’s role as the best friend, Eli, in The Girl Next Door. The other males cast as part of what becomes their escort service are amusing and equally as awkward, but the main story stays centered with its focus on Gallner as Sam.
Various scenes contain the dynamic of a camera (obviously handheld) that appears to tremble slightly, but it seems rather symbolic to the teenage adolescents in their awkward proposition of their discreet escort service. Not only that, but I don’t believe that the editing process is quite finished. There are imprudent mistakes in the audio that distract from the content and the level of volume is, at times, inconsistent. Aside from these trivial, yet rookie, glitches in the audio and the slight indulgence in unnecessary nudity, this work of cinema provides an entertaining plotline with dynamic characters. It resembles the likeness of The Girl Next Door with a hint of Milk Money, and presents an enjoyable comedy that succeeds in presenting the ideas that people make mistakes and life goes on, but lacks it a sense of moralization. However, that fact in itself is fitting for the film. Life is a collection of events that may or may not turn out as we had hoped. People make choices, time goes on, and the only thing that anyone can do is just keep living and roll with the punches. That is exactly what the characters demonstrate, just not in a blatantly profound way.
James Belushi, although a bit more restrained, is a crucial character in that he provides an older, more experienced outlook on the situation and furthers the faint and abstract morality of the film. His attitude towards Sam is always one of compassion and concern, and I feel that although the film may address an extremely rare issue, the character of the headmaster is one that should be admired and not overlooked. He brings a resolution to the conclusion of the film after all of the crossed wires have been uncovered and the conflicts have fully exposed themselves to the characters, while remaining a mediator among the masses.
Mother’s Little Helpers is creative expression in a modern day society that no one can dismiss as average. Although it may not be for the whole family, the film’s alluring soundtrack, quirky actors, and twisted comedic brilliance create a film that at least the average cougar can appreciate.
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Saturday, May 22, 2010
Blue Valentine
Film: Blue Valentine
Director: Derek Cianfrance
Producers: Doug Dey, Carrie Fix, Lynette Howell, Jack Lechner, Alex Orlovsky, Jamie Patricof, and Rena Ronson
Runtime: 120 Minutes
Company: Hyde Park International
Cast: Michelle Williams, Ryan Gosling, and Mike Vogel
Blue Valentine paints a dramatic and honest picture of what today’s society can see as an average relationship. Unfortunately, what some may see as true love may or may not turn out to last in the covet that is “marriage.” The film is executed beautifully, with a myriad of shots and techniques that allow the story to flow in a way that is both creative and appealing to the audience. I say this because of the use of both the past and present state of the couple’s relationship and the dynamic intertwining of the time periods. The presentation of the story of how the two met after you see them as a current couple provides a strikingly emotional image of the changes that have taken place.
Interestingly, there are many scenes in which I feel the characters of Dean and Cynthia, played by Ryan Gosling and Michelle Williams, are type cast. There is a scene in which Cynthia is afraid to tell Dean that she is pregnant and in order for her to tell him, Dean has to threaten to throw himself from a bridge. At this point, all I can think of is Ryan Gosling’s character in The Notebook that threatens to drop from the top of a Ferris wheel to get Rachel McAdams’ character to ask him on a date. He seems to always play the reckless and childish romantic. Williams’ character Cynthia even makes several comments about how foolish Dean acts. I think of Williams as a scolding, motherly type and Gosling is the irrational, impulsive character.
Michelle Williams is cast as a colder, more stubborn force in the relationship that is similar to her role as Alma in Brokeback Mountain. She seems to have given up on the relationship a long time ago, while Dean is still trying his hardest, yet depending far too much on alcohol for an outlet. Sad but true, it is a reality faced by many couples today.
The filmmakers do a wonderful job in conveying the growth of tension between the couple, specifically sexually. The young love shared between the two is playful and consistent, but as they grow older, it becomes difficult to watch. The chemistry is missing and the passion appears obligatory. The acting on both sides in these situations is spot on. Luckily, both Williams and Gosling can effectively play younger, college aged people. The past is vibrant and full of color and shot using a not-so-steady hand held camera that makes the time seem very physical and intimate. Later on, the present is shot in dimmer light, with lack of sentiment and expression, using still shots in more wide frames that distance the characters. All the tactics that were considered in the contrast of the past and present serve as effective factors in the storyline. In the exploration of their younger years, the issue of promiscuity arises when Williams claims that she doesn’t know who the father is of her unborn child. What follows is an intense scene that demonstrates the trauma behind an abortion. As Williams gets close to going through with the procedure, she decides against it. This evokes much emotion from the audience and it is as though we are there in the room with her.
One scene in particular that speaks to me is when Cynthia asks her grandmother about love, particularly how to tell when one is in love. Her grandmother states that she believes love is revealed to someone by “a feeling”. Then later, Dean is conversing with his co-workers. They are talking about love at first sight and whether or not they believe it is possible. He says to them, about Cynthia, “I just got a feeling.” I think that the subtle connection and eloquent dialogue of the characters fits perfectly in the love story. Both happening in the past, the audience is taken on a journey of the dim radiance of the couple’s love that slowly matures.
The story of Dean and Cynthia is displayed in a creative contrast between the younger, more passionate, exciting beginning of their relationship and the present state of the tribulations they are facing. I feel as though the story is an emotionally raw representation of the challenges that husband and wife face all the time. That is part of life and what makes the development of their relationship so full of tension. The audience wants to see the couple end up together in the long run, and seeing their genuine love for one another fall apart as times and people change will pull at the heart strings of any witness. But the ambiguity of it all makes the film that much more intriguing. There is no end and we don’t know how things will turn out, but no one ever does. All we can do is do what our heart tells us to do and hope that we are happy and able to withstand any curveballs that life throws in the way. That is exactly what is seen between Dean and Cynthia. No one can say that a single event was the cause of the trouble between the two, but the love slowly transformed itself and the film portrayed that wonderfully. With the help of Gosling and Williams ability to express themselves in ways that fit their changing attitudes towards one another, the audience can visualize how the couple has disintegrated and no longer really recognizes who they are.
Seeing a single relationship through many stages and the changes that take place in the actions and speech of the characters creates a canvas of ideas that the audience viewing Blue Valentine cannot ignore. The ignition of that first spark of passion and the scattered ashes of broken memories and fights all take part in the fire that is “love”. Thankfully, with Blue Valentine, we can see just how vague that term can be.
Director: Derek Cianfrance
Producers: Doug Dey, Carrie Fix, Lynette Howell, Jack Lechner, Alex Orlovsky, Jamie Patricof, and Rena Ronson
Runtime: 120 Minutes
Company: Hyde Park International
Cast: Michelle Williams, Ryan Gosling, and Mike Vogel
Blue Valentine paints a dramatic and honest picture of what today’s society can see as an average relationship. Unfortunately, what some may see as true love may or may not turn out to last in the covet that is “marriage.” The film is executed beautifully, with a myriad of shots and techniques that allow the story to flow in a way that is both creative and appealing to the audience. I say this because of the use of both the past and present state of the couple’s relationship and the dynamic intertwining of the time periods. The presentation of the story of how the two met after you see them as a current couple provides a strikingly emotional image of the changes that have taken place.
Interestingly, there are many scenes in which I feel the characters of Dean and Cynthia, played by Ryan Gosling and Michelle Williams, are type cast. There is a scene in which Cynthia is afraid to tell Dean that she is pregnant and in order for her to tell him, Dean has to threaten to throw himself from a bridge. At this point, all I can think of is Ryan Gosling’s character in The Notebook that threatens to drop from the top of a Ferris wheel to get Rachel McAdams’ character to ask him on a date. He seems to always play the reckless and childish romantic. Williams’ character Cynthia even makes several comments about how foolish Dean acts. I think of Williams as a scolding, motherly type and Gosling is the irrational, impulsive character.
Michelle Williams is cast as a colder, more stubborn force in the relationship that is similar to her role as Alma in Brokeback Mountain. She seems to have given up on the relationship a long time ago, while Dean is still trying his hardest, yet depending far too much on alcohol for an outlet. Sad but true, it is a reality faced by many couples today.
The filmmakers do a wonderful job in conveying the growth of tension between the couple, specifically sexually. The young love shared between the two is playful and consistent, but as they grow older, it becomes difficult to watch. The chemistry is missing and the passion appears obligatory. The acting on both sides in these situations is spot on. Luckily, both Williams and Gosling can effectively play younger, college aged people. The past is vibrant and full of color and shot using a not-so-steady hand held camera that makes the time seem very physical and intimate. Later on, the present is shot in dimmer light, with lack of sentiment and expression, using still shots in more wide frames that distance the characters. All the tactics that were considered in the contrast of the past and present serve as effective factors in the storyline. In the exploration of their younger years, the issue of promiscuity arises when Williams claims that she doesn’t know who the father is of her unborn child. What follows is an intense scene that demonstrates the trauma behind an abortion. As Williams gets close to going through with the procedure, she decides against it. This evokes much emotion from the audience and it is as though we are there in the room with her.
One scene in particular that speaks to me is when Cynthia asks her grandmother about love, particularly how to tell when one is in love. Her grandmother states that she believes love is revealed to someone by “a feeling”. Then later, Dean is conversing with his co-workers. They are talking about love at first sight and whether or not they believe it is possible. He says to them, about Cynthia, “I just got a feeling.” I think that the subtle connection and eloquent dialogue of the characters fits perfectly in the love story. Both happening in the past, the audience is taken on a journey of the dim radiance of the couple’s love that slowly matures.
The story of Dean and Cynthia is displayed in a creative contrast between the younger, more passionate, exciting beginning of their relationship and the present state of the tribulations they are facing. I feel as though the story is an emotionally raw representation of the challenges that husband and wife face all the time. That is part of life and what makes the development of their relationship so full of tension. The audience wants to see the couple end up together in the long run, and seeing their genuine love for one another fall apart as times and people change will pull at the heart strings of any witness. But the ambiguity of it all makes the film that much more intriguing. There is no end and we don’t know how things will turn out, but no one ever does. All we can do is do what our heart tells us to do and hope that we are happy and able to withstand any curveballs that life throws in the way. That is exactly what is seen between Dean and Cynthia. No one can say that a single event was the cause of the trouble between the two, but the love slowly transformed itself and the film portrayed that wonderfully. With the help of Gosling and Williams ability to express themselves in ways that fit their changing attitudes towards one another, the audience can visualize how the couple has disintegrated and no longer really recognizes who they are.
Seeing a single relationship through many stages and the changes that take place in the actions and speech of the characters creates a canvas of ideas that the audience viewing Blue Valentine cannot ignore. The ignition of that first spark of passion and the scattered ashes of broken memories and fights all take part in the fire that is “love”. Thankfully, with Blue Valentine, we can see just how vague that term can be.
HappyThankYouMorePlease
Film: Happythankyoumoreplease
Director and Writer: Josh Radnor
Runtime: 90 Minutes
Company: Myriad Pictures
Producer: Jesse Hara, Austin Stark, Benji Kohn, Chris Papavasiliou
Executive Producer: Glenn Williamson, Bingo Gubelmann, Peter Sterling
Cast: Josh Radnor, Kate Mara, Malin Akerman, Michael Algieri, Zoe Kazan, Pablo Schreiber, and Tony Hale
Writer, director and actor Josh Radnor must have had a fun time with his first film, a quirky new romantic comedy mixed with drama called Happythankyoumoreplease. He took a risky chance on a new idea that had success at the Sundance Film Festival. The storyline is realistic in its representation of the young seemingly overgrown adolescent lives of a few people that are making decisions about life and love that will ultimately have the audience rooting for them. The From the start, the film appears to tell a tale of one young man’s adventures in life and love as a freelance writer (of course, this is New York) named Sam that has a knack for short stories, but can’t seem to produce a good novel. Sam, played by Radnor, is on his way to an important interview about his novel when he encounters a young black boy on the subway of New York that is separated from his family. What follows is what one would presume to be a skewed attempt at a contemporary Legend of Bagger Vance. However, the film becomes a fascinating product with its introduction of new characters and plotlines that resemble a mix of the well-known films Big Daddy, Love Actually, with a touch of 500 Days of Summer.
I must commend Radnor on his creative and detailed interlaced plots. He manages to develop at least four separate stories that connect his involved his inner circle of friends, the young boy, and the mysterious bartender named Mississippi played by Sienna Miller look-alike, Kate Mara. Sam attempts to seduce Mississippi with his new “mentor” situation with Rasheen and faces an awkward situation after he proposes that they live together for three days. The agreement is pretty far-fetched and unfortunately seems to turn into another tangled adventure that Sam is prone to. Meanwhile, Sam’s artsy friend Mary Catherine, played by Zoe Kazan, is involved in her own puzzle of a relationship when her boyfriend suggests moving to Los Angeles, and Mary Catherine learns that she is expecting a baby. Although the dialogue between the characters seems unnatural at times, the quick wit and sarcasm are still appreciated in context. By the end of the film, the characters have been developed as likeable and the audience can’t help but to remain hopeful for them in their endeavors.
One of the only problems that I have with this film is just the general decision making of the characters. First of all, though, there is no way that even if someone made the impulsive choice to take in a stranded foster child that they would just avoid the situation for quite some time, as this would subject them to kidnapping and child abuse. Radnor’s friendship with Rasheen is endearing and the audience understands that Radnor’s character has good intentions for the foster child that is in a bad situation. However, he creates many more problems for himself when he is faced with the law after avoiding the responsibility of his decision. I love the light-hearted romance that presents itself and the honest representations of the character’s struggles, but the lack of responsibility on the part of these “adults” is somewhat frightening. Aside from the awkward title, though, which is actually linked to a cute conversation in the film, I have few complaints about the film and find it to be one that many would be able to enjoy.
When Sam’s novel is rejected, and the boy comes to stay with him, the film begins to play out as an allegory. The variation of shot sequences combined with an enjoyable indie soundtrack allows the audience to smoothly transition between the short stories that are playing out in the film. Sam’s best friend Annie, played by Malin Akerman, would not be complete without the illness known as Alopecia that presents her with a struggle to accept love from anyone except her deadbeat ex-boyfriend. This occurs as the viewers can see that her co-worker is obviously infatuated with her, but she continues to deny him. The themes of rejection and persistence are prominent. Sam’s novel is rejected, Annie rejects her co-worker until she sees his true intentions are only to genuinely love her, Mississippi rejects Sam because of his unwillingness to commit, and Mary Catherine rejects the idea of moving. Nonetheless, everyone is persistent, and the actors are enjoyable to watch, seeming genuinely authentic.
It is neat to observe just what the characters are trying to say through their words, but also in what they leave unsaid. The charming personalities of the characters, creative cinematography, and complex plot development creates artistic expression of cinema that is fun, enjoyable, and should be appreciated as Radnor’s first film that will hopefully lead to more in the future.
Director and Writer: Josh Radnor
Runtime: 90 Minutes
Company: Myriad Pictures
Producer: Jesse Hara, Austin Stark, Benji Kohn, Chris Papavasiliou
Executive Producer: Glenn Williamson, Bingo Gubelmann, Peter Sterling
Cast: Josh Radnor, Kate Mara, Malin Akerman, Michael Algieri, Zoe Kazan, Pablo Schreiber, and Tony Hale
Writer, director and actor Josh Radnor must have had a fun time with his first film, a quirky new romantic comedy mixed with drama called Happythankyoumoreplease. He took a risky chance on a new idea that had success at the Sundance Film Festival. The storyline is realistic in its representation of the young seemingly overgrown adolescent lives of a few people that are making decisions about life and love that will ultimately have the audience rooting for them. The From the start, the film appears to tell a tale of one young man’s adventures in life and love as a freelance writer (of course, this is New York) named Sam that has a knack for short stories, but can’t seem to produce a good novel. Sam, played by Radnor, is on his way to an important interview about his novel when he encounters a young black boy on the subway of New York that is separated from his family. What follows is what one would presume to be a skewed attempt at a contemporary Legend of Bagger Vance. However, the film becomes a fascinating product with its introduction of new characters and plotlines that resemble a mix of the well-known films Big Daddy, Love Actually, with a touch of 500 Days of Summer.
I must commend Radnor on his creative and detailed interlaced plots. He manages to develop at least four separate stories that connect his involved his inner circle of friends, the young boy, and the mysterious bartender named Mississippi played by Sienna Miller look-alike, Kate Mara. Sam attempts to seduce Mississippi with his new “mentor” situation with Rasheen and faces an awkward situation after he proposes that they live together for three days. The agreement is pretty far-fetched and unfortunately seems to turn into another tangled adventure that Sam is prone to. Meanwhile, Sam’s artsy friend Mary Catherine, played by Zoe Kazan, is involved in her own puzzle of a relationship when her boyfriend suggests moving to Los Angeles, and Mary Catherine learns that she is expecting a baby. Although the dialogue between the characters seems unnatural at times, the quick wit and sarcasm are still appreciated in context. By the end of the film, the characters have been developed as likeable and the audience can’t help but to remain hopeful for them in their endeavors.
One of the only problems that I have with this film is just the general decision making of the characters. First of all, though, there is no way that even if someone made the impulsive choice to take in a stranded foster child that they would just avoid the situation for quite some time, as this would subject them to kidnapping and child abuse. Radnor’s friendship with Rasheen is endearing and the audience understands that Radnor’s character has good intentions for the foster child that is in a bad situation. However, he creates many more problems for himself when he is faced with the law after avoiding the responsibility of his decision. I love the light-hearted romance that presents itself and the honest representations of the character’s struggles, but the lack of responsibility on the part of these “adults” is somewhat frightening. Aside from the awkward title, though, which is actually linked to a cute conversation in the film, I have few complaints about the film and find it to be one that many would be able to enjoy.
When Sam’s novel is rejected, and the boy comes to stay with him, the film begins to play out as an allegory. The variation of shot sequences combined with an enjoyable indie soundtrack allows the audience to smoothly transition between the short stories that are playing out in the film. Sam’s best friend Annie, played by Malin Akerman, would not be complete without the illness known as Alopecia that presents her with a struggle to accept love from anyone except her deadbeat ex-boyfriend. This occurs as the viewers can see that her co-worker is obviously infatuated with her, but she continues to deny him. The themes of rejection and persistence are prominent. Sam’s novel is rejected, Annie rejects her co-worker until she sees his true intentions are only to genuinely love her, Mississippi rejects Sam because of his unwillingness to commit, and Mary Catherine rejects the idea of moving. Nonetheless, everyone is persistent, and the actors are enjoyable to watch, seeming genuinely authentic.
It is neat to observe just what the characters are trying to say through their words, but also in what they leave unsaid. The charming personalities of the characters, creative cinematography, and complex plot development creates artistic expression of cinema that is fun, enjoyable, and should be appreciated as Radnor’s first film that will hopefully lead to more in the future.
Monday, May 17, 2010
The Clinic- Review
I’m the kind of person that definitely does not judge a book by the cover. With movies, I am a little bit more cynical. For this reason, I have a habit of choosing to view films that I think will make perfect sense and have happy endings. Well, that shell is in dire need of a break. Thank God that I have found an outlet: Cannes. What a wonderful place to branch out and discover how wonderful worldwide cinema can be! With that in mind, I have taken it upon myself to venture out and explore any and every facet of film and make a conscious effort to watch every kind of movie that I can find. Well, here goes. The following is a review of the film The Clinic, which was one of the first risks I took as an official Cannes Film Festival attendee…
Film: The Clinic
Writer and Director: James Rabbitts
Runtime: 94 Minutes
Company: Accelerator Films
Producer: Samuel Pinczewski
Executive Producer: Bob Marcs and Jonathan Shteinman
Cast: Tabrett Bethell
Freya Stafford
Andy Whitfield
Clare Bowen
Sophie Lowe
Boris Brkic
Apparently James Rabbits has some skills with ladies considering he cast what appear to be six supermodels in his first feature film The Clinic. Based on true events, this film explores the violent instincts of six women and just how far they will go for their children. The first thing that comes to my mind when I sit to watch this film is the frightening fact that the story is based on true events. The protagonist Beth Church, played by Tabrett Bethell, is pregnant and on a trip with her fiancé Cameron, played by Andy Whitfield. After stopping in a motel, Beth awakens in a clinic…no longer pregnant. There are six women; each one is gorgeous, successful, and now determined to find their child. What follows is a horrific display of the primal side of women and the sickening operation of an undisclosed adoption agency.
Unknown to the women, there are tags in each of their stomachs that link them to their corresponding child. Would wouldn’t think to look for a child replacement in their stomach that resembles a chip clip? Because of this, the clinic operator tells a single woman that the only way to find her child is to kill the other mothers. After a seemingly long period of time and one too many deaths, one woman takes it upon herself to utilize the nearby veterinarian clinic to operate on the remaining women to reveal their tags. It may just be me, but if I saw a group of babies in locked cages, I would not give up as easily as they do, and I certainly would not leave the room. The cheesy scene in which the women are flailing around the land being chased by dogs does not add to the plotline, but actually makes the characters look quite dumb. They are about to perform an operation on one another in an abandoned clinic, but they are scared of two dogs…some things simply do not seem logical. The story was unclear until Beth comes in contact with Duncan, a male with retardation that does all of the dirty work for the clinic’s director. There are so many events and unknown factors in the film that it is hard to keep track of the bad guy. And to bribe Duncan for his keys to the baby cage, there just so happens to be a bag of gummy bears nearby.
The cinematography is effective for creating suspense, but there seems to be a lack of creativity in the character development. It looks like a bunch of clueless women running around with no logical thinking or communication skills. If one of them can operate, I believe death can be avoided all together. Conveying that fact to the other women, however, is something that they cannot do. The acting is a bit over the top and the role of Beth’s fiancé does nothing for the story line, even though I await his heroism.
The dialogue is mediocre, but simple sentences seem to get the point across to the audience. I find myself laughing, although it may not be appropriate, in the horror scenes because of their missing production value. The over use of fade-to-black becomes obnoxious, particularly towards the end of the film. Beth’s flashbacks don’t make sense until she somewhat explains the dreams she has been having. Even then, the audience is left in the dark (literally and figuratively) until the last few scenes. The adoption agency’s director reveals herself and explains everything to Beth. Meanwhile, a couple appears to be adopting Beth’s baby while she is chained to the floor. Her death is the choice of the couple that has been watching her attempt to survive. Surprisingly, Duncan returns to rebel against his mother and ends up killing the couple and being shot himself. Although extreme, Tabrett Brethell, through it all, conveys the emotions of her character successfully and credibly.
The final scenes of the film redeem much of the outrageous plotline with a twist. Turns out, the protagonist, Beth, was actually a child that was adopted from that agency and her mother was killed there. Seeking revenge and salvation for future mothers, Beth murders the agency director who remarks that Beth’s mother “was not a killer” to which Beth replies, “revolution is a bitch.” Although the dialogue is lacking, I am one that appreciates quick wit in any situation. The final scene leaves me somewhat disappointed and wondering. Beth is walking in a cemetery, in a horrible wig, and sees a man walk by where she has found her biological mother’s grave, and the man is implied to be her father by the local gravedigger. Witty and interesting, the closing scenes bring some life to a confusing and revolting story. However, every prior scene has me wondering how many new plot developments are going to take place and when the film will end.
Film: The Clinic
Writer and Director: James Rabbitts
Runtime: 94 Minutes
Company: Accelerator Films
Producer: Samuel Pinczewski
Executive Producer: Bob Marcs and Jonathan Shteinman
Cast: Tabrett Bethell
Freya Stafford
Andy Whitfield
Clare Bowen
Sophie Lowe
Boris Brkic
Apparently James Rabbits has some skills with ladies considering he cast what appear to be six supermodels in his first feature film The Clinic. Based on true events, this film explores the violent instincts of six women and just how far they will go for their children. The first thing that comes to my mind when I sit to watch this film is the frightening fact that the story is based on true events. The protagonist Beth Church, played by Tabrett Bethell, is pregnant and on a trip with her fiancé Cameron, played by Andy Whitfield. After stopping in a motel, Beth awakens in a clinic…no longer pregnant. There are six women; each one is gorgeous, successful, and now determined to find their child. What follows is a horrific display of the primal side of women and the sickening operation of an undisclosed adoption agency.
Unknown to the women, there are tags in each of their stomachs that link them to their corresponding child. Would wouldn’t think to look for a child replacement in their stomach that resembles a chip clip? Because of this, the clinic operator tells a single woman that the only way to find her child is to kill the other mothers. After a seemingly long period of time and one too many deaths, one woman takes it upon herself to utilize the nearby veterinarian clinic to operate on the remaining women to reveal their tags. It may just be me, but if I saw a group of babies in locked cages, I would not give up as easily as they do, and I certainly would not leave the room. The cheesy scene in which the women are flailing around the land being chased by dogs does not add to the plotline, but actually makes the characters look quite dumb. They are about to perform an operation on one another in an abandoned clinic, but they are scared of two dogs…some things simply do not seem logical. The story was unclear until Beth comes in contact with Duncan, a male with retardation that does all of the dirty work for the clinic’s director. There are so many events and unknown factors in the film that it is hard to keep track of the bad guy. And to bribe Duncan for his keys to the baby cage, there just so happens to be a bag of gummy bears nearby.
The cinematography is effective for creating suspense, but there seems to be a lack of creativity in the character development. It looks like a bunch of clueless women running around with no logical thinking or communication skills. If one of them can operate, I believe death can be avoided all together. Conveying that fact to the other women, however, is something that they cannot do. The acting is a bit over the top and the role of Beth’s fiancé does nothing for the story line, even though I await his heroism.
The dialogue is mediocre, but simple sentences seem to get the point across to the audience. I find myself laughing, although it may not be appropriate, in the horror scenes because of their missing production value. The over use of fade-to-black becomes obnoxious, particularly towards the end of the film. Beth’s flashbacks don’t make sense until she somewhat explains the dreams she has been having. Even then, the audience is left in the dark (literally and figuratively) until the last few scenes. The adoption agency’s director reveals herself and explains everything to Beth. Meanwhile, a couple appears to be adopting Beth’s baby while she is chained to the floor. Her death is the choice of the couple that has been watching her attempt to survive. Surprisingly, Duncan returns to rebel against his mother and ends up killing the couple and being shot himself. Although extreme, Tabrett Brethell, through it all, conveys the emotions of her character successfully and credibly.
The final scenes of the film redeem much of the outrageous plotline with a twist. Turns out, the protagonist, Beth, was actually a child that was adopted from that agency and her mother was killed there. Seeking revenge and salvation for future mothers, Beth murders the agency director who remarks that Beth’s mother “was not a killer” to which Beth replies, “revolution is a bitch.” Although the dialogue is lacking, I am one that appreciates quick wit in any situation. The final scene leaves me somewhat disappointed and wondering. Beth is walking in a cemetery, in a horrible wig, and sees a man walk by where she has found her biological mother’s grave, and the man is implied to be her father by the local gravedigger. Witty and interesting, the closing scenes bring some life to a confusing and revolting story. However, every prior scene has me wondering how many new plot developments are going to take place and when the film will end.
Monday, May 3, 2010
Welcome!
Hello there! I am so happy to be embarking on a new adventure in my life...Cannes, France and a blog! It's like a new diary. How exciting...but now everyone on the internet can see! They can even check out how I feel about some movies. I am anxious, excited, ready to be done with finals, and I cannot wait to get to know all of my fellow travelers. This is going to be interesting to say the least. Hope you're ready!
Anyways, I chose Paper Heart for my first review because I am an avid comedy fan and I thought I would check out a Sundance film from last year. I am a huge movie buff so I cannot wait to hear what people have to say about movies they have seen or even this one. So, check it out. Explore my site...complex, I know...And I will hear from you all so soon.
M. Stewart
Movie Review- Paper Heart 2009
Love hurts…Well you can’t be hurt by something that doesn’t exist right? The Sundance Film Festival of 2009 brought a new perspective to the table with Paper Heart. Paper Heart, directed by Nicholas Jasenovec, is a mockumentary that takes an interesting and comedic approach at exploring the topic of true love. Starring comedian Charlyne Yi as an awkwardly quirky skeptic, the movie takes the audience on an adventure around the country to uncover various definitions of true love. The use of both real and scripted scenario, combined with the profound subject of love, creates a work of film that provides light-hearted entertainment as well as genuine insight on the coveted element of love.
The film Paper Heart utilizes the sincere personalities of comedian/musician Charlyne Yi and actor Michael Cera to demonstrate the ups and downs of a relationship. The two meet at a party, where Yi explains the cameras as a part of her documentary. From the beginning, the cameras are acknowledged and eventually become a crucial factor in the relationship. As Yi and her camera crew journey around the United States, they conduct real interviews and illustrate stories using puppets. The story becomes somewhat confusing due to the fact that the interviews are real but the onscreen relationship between Yi and Cera is fictional. Yi’s camera crew includes actor Jake Johnson who plays director Nicholas Jasenovec. Their character development also adds another layer to the story in that their friendship grows into a loving relationship. For a minute, I almost thought they would end up together.
As the film progresses, Yi and Cera’s relationship grows as a couple, only to be hindered by the lack of privacy. The cameras for Yi’s project are serving a purpose to document her own experience of love, but there is the ever-present issue of the intimacy that can be experienced in the limelight. Cera ends things with Yi, to which she responds somewhat unemotionally until actor Johnson reveals to her that he knows how she feels. Yi eventually heads to Toronto to speak with Cera and the camera crew holds back when they would normally enter the home. The microphone that Yi wears is still on, but her friend, the director of the project, decides to cut the audio feed. The film ends with a puppet sequence that features Yi’s creativity in reenacting the “secret” scene between the two that is overwhelmingly exaggerated and untrue.
Throughout the film, it becomes quite difficult to differentiate between the reality and the fiction of every situation. There is a muddled line between professional acting and the true emotion of featured citizens. This brings about the question of whether or not one could even believe the documentary to be an accurate portrayal of varying perspectives.
Paper Heart is a spunky, creative film that uses comedy and some of the most artistic ideas and techniques to present a common subject. The acting and scenarios are at times overly awkward, but I can’t be sure that it wasn’t Yi’s purpose as a contributing writer to include such discomfort. Her maturity level is lacking, but if the film is taken as a simple look into several adventures of examining love, Yi’s becomes part of a larger picture. That picture captures, as a whole, the creative expression of the writers and their desire to make an enjoyable film.
Anyways, I chose Paper Heart for my first review because I am an avid comedy fan and I thought I would check out a Sundance film from last year. I am a huge movie buff so I cannot wait to hear what people have to say about movies they have seen or even this one. So, check it out. Explore my site...complex, I know...And I will hear from you all so soon.
M. Stewart
Movie Review- Paper Heart 2009
Love hurts…Well you can’t be hurt by something that doesn’t exist right? The Sundance Film Festival of 2009 brought a new perspective to the table with Paper Heart. Paper Heart, directed by Nicholas Jasenovec, is a mockumentary that takes an interesting and comedic approach at exploring the topic of true love. Starring comedian Charlyne Yi as an awkwardly quirky skeptic, the movie takes the audience on an adventure around the country to uncover various definitions of true love. The use of both real and scripted scenario, combined with the profound subject of love, creates a work of film that provides light-hearted entertainment as well as genuine insight on the coveted element of love.
The film Paper Heart utilizes the sincere personalities of comedian/musician Charlyne Yi and actor Michael Cera to demonstrate the ups and downs of a relationship. The two meet at a party, where Yi explains the cameras as a part of her documentary. From the beginning, the cameras are acknowledged and eventually become a crucial factor in the relationship. As Yi and her camera crew journey around the United States, they conduct real interviews and illustrate stories using puppets. The story becomes somewhat confusing due to the fact that the interviews are real but the onscreen relationship between Yi and Cera is fictional. Yi’s camera crew includes actor Jake Johnson who plays director Nicholas Jasenovec. Their character development also adds another layer to the story in that their friendship grows into a loving relationship. For a minute, I almost thought they would end up together.
As the film progresses, Yi and Cera’s relationship grows as a couple, only to be hindered by the lack of privacy. The cameras for Yi’s project are serving a purpose to document her own experience of love, but there is the ever-present issue of the intimacy that can be experienced in the limelight. Cera ends things with Yi, to which she responds somewhat unemotionally until actor Johnson reveals to her that he knows how she feels. Yi eventually heads to Toronto to speak with Cera and the camera crew holds back when they would normally enter the home. The microphone that Yi wears is still on, but her friend, the director of the project, decides to cut the audio feed. The film ends with a puppet sequence that features Yi’s creativity in reenacting the “secret” scene between the two that is overwhelmingly exaggerated and untrue.
Throughout the film, it becomes quite difficult to differentiate between the reality and the fiction of every situation. There is a muddled line between professional acting and the true emotion of featured citizens. This brings about the question of whether or not one could even believe the documentary to be an accurate portrayal of varying perspectives.
Paper Heart is a spunky, creative film that uses comedy and some of the most artistic ideas and techniques to present a common subject. The acting and scenarios are at times overly awkward, but I can’t be sure that it wasn’t Yi’s purpose as a contributing writer to include such discomfort. Her maturity level is lacking, but if the film is taken as a simple look into several adventures of examining love, Yi’s becomes part of a larger picture. That picture captures, as a whole, the creative expression of the writers and their desire to make an enjoyable film.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
