Search This Blog

Thursday, January 31, 2008

Thoughts: Heath Ledger



I was talking to a friend of mine a few weeks ago about The Dark Knight. It was just after I had finally seen the trailer on the big screen and I had to share my excitement with someone. The Dark Knight looks fantastic but there was one thing in the trailer that had really gotten us both going. Or rather, one person. I don't think I need to tell you who that was.

Last week I was sitting at my desk, muddling through my To Do List. Our Assistant Location Manager came in and made an announcement. "Did you guys here about Heath Ledger? They just found him dead in his apartment."

Wait. What?

I've been wanting to write something about Heath Ledger. Something about how saddened I am by his death. Something about how he was one of the few young actors that I was truly excited about. Maybe even something about how, purely selfishly, I'm incredibly disappointed that I will never have the opportunity to work with him.

However, what do I really have to say that no one else can say? When it comes down to it, I didn't know the guy. I've never even seen him in real life. I just know and respect his work. I appreciate his talent. But I have nothing really beyond that to say.

So rather than just being another fan lamenting his death, I'll say simply that I'm sorry he's gone. I feel for his family and friends. And I'm sorry that we won't have any more of his work to look forward to after this summer's Dark Knight.

Now while I can't really say much more than that, someone who knew him most certainly can. I'll leave you here with this then. A very nice piece by The Dark Knight's director, the wonderful Christopher Nolan.

Heath Ledger: dedication and passion of a star

Saturday, January 12, 2008

Review: The Mist



Originally posted at Epinions

There's this thing that happens when a Stephen King story is adapted into a film. It doesn't always, always happen. But it usually does. What is it? It's that Stephen King's stories, tales of horror, terror, survival, and human nature, stories that read so well on the page, become, well, bad. Almost every single story to be adapted into a film fails to translate onto the screen. Most Stephen King films look like cheap made for TV crap (which, granted, many of them are).

There are of course the notable exceptions. Among them are Brian De Palma's Carrie, Stanley Kubrick's The Shining, Rob Reiner's Stand By Me and Frank Darabont's The Shawshank Redemption. Not only is Shawshank Redemption a great adaptation, it is a great film frequently listed at the top of Best Of... lists. In addition to Shawshank, Darabont has also given us The Green Mile. While not topping Shawshank it to is a great adaptation. So when Darabont decided to give us yet another Stephen King story, The Mist, I'll admit it. I was a little excited.

The Mist is an adaptation of the novella by the same name that appeared first in Dark Forces and then again in the short story collection Skeleton Crew. It's the story of David Drayton and what happens when a mysterious mist envelops his hometown in Main. A violent storm rips through Main, wreaking havoc and destroying property. The following day, as the people take stock of the damage, a strange mist descends upon them from the hills to north. Hills that are home to a military base and the mysterious Arrowhead Project.

David, his young son Billy, and their neighbor Brent Norton make a trip to the supermarket where many others have come to stock up on supplies. While in the market, the mist rolls in. As the outside world disappears from view, the earth shakes and everything seems to stop. In the silence a single man runs through the white. "There's something in the mist!" he screams. Blood pours from his nose. Frightened, the people in the market shut the glass doors against the acrid smelling mist, against whatever else is lurking in it.

What follows is a survival story that has Stephen King's fingerprints all over it. We are introduced to a cast of characters including David, an artist known for his movie posters, Norton, a slick talking lawyer from New York, Ollie Weeks, an unassuming employee of the market, Amanda Dunfrey, the new teacher in town, Irene, Dan Miller, Bud Brown, and finally, Mrs. Carmody.

Played by Thomas Jane (The Punisher), David is the classic King hero. A regular guy, a family guy, a strong guy with a head on his shoulders who manages to stay cool in an extreme circumstance. Amanda (Laurie Holden) is the classic King heroine. She's hot, she's sexual, she doesn't need a man and therefore she's a woman who every man wants. While The Mist is definitely Thomas Jane's movie, Marcia Gay Harden comes within a hair's distance of stealing it from him. As the doom saying, sacrifice preaching Mrs. Carmody, Harden is as frightening as she is passionate. While, again, this is Jane's movie, Harden's performance is close to being the best part of it.

The Mist is different kind of King story than Shawshank Redemption and The Green Mile. While Stephen King is known for his horror, his supernatural stories, there are variations. Some stories are more tails of humanity that happen to contain a couple of elements of horror. Some stories however are meant to scare. They are stories of monsters, death, of things that go bump in the night, they are tails about things that would make most of us lose our sanity before we could even fully comprehend what we are facing. Shawshank Redemption is story of human nature; The Mist is a story of survival, a story of terror. The thing I was most interested to see was how Darabont would handle this different kind of Stephen King story.

For the most part, he handles it very, very well. The actors, the characters they play, how Darabont goes about shooting a film that spends most of its time in one interior location. All of these things work. What also works are the small details. A character decides to leave the store, to make a run for his truck. David asks him to tie a clothesline around his waist, so they can see how far he gets. At first the rope plays out as it should. Then, it stops. The people in the store wait tensely, their breaths held. Finally, the rope moves again. There is a sigh of relief followed quickly by a cry of terror. The rope flies through David's hands, burning his palms. And then, it not only pulls out faster than any human could pull it, it starts to slide upward. Up and up until it hits the top of the door. It pulls taught and finally, it stops again, falling harmlessly to floor. What that bit shows is not only that something has gotten the man outside, it shows quietly, visually, exactly how unimaginably large whatever the thing hiding in the mist actually is.

Little bits like this work very well. Unfortunately there are other bits that don't reach the same successful level. I think the biggest problem Darabont has in his adaptation is, well, his adaptation. While he has made changes, he has his additions, there is so much that he has taken almost word for word from the story. What works so well on the page does not always work on the screen. There are scenes that seem written by a fan boy, scenes almost comical in how literally they take King's story. I'm all about fidelity in an adaptation but there is a line before it becomes too much. Darabont regrettably crosses that line several times.

In spite of this one fallback, for the most part Darabont succeeds in giving us a gripping story of horror and humanity. And, as in the story, the key to survival becomes a question of where the greatest danger exists. Is it outside with the monsters in the mist? Or is it inside with monsters in our hearts? What I find most interesting about Darabont's adaptation is that where it stays so close to the story for so much of it, in the end it moves so far away. One thing that King is best at is giving us the ambiguous ending. He takes the story so far and then he leaves us. And while in some ways we may want to know if our heroes live or die, in another his endings are very satisfying because they always leave us at just the right moment. They give us enough and what we are left with are ambiguities in our characters' fates that compliment whatever story King is trying to tell.

Darabont takes The Mist one step farther than King does. We see our characters' fates. As a result, I feel like the ambiguity still exists but it serves a different purpose. Where in King's story Mrs. Carmody and her fanaticism are an absolute evil, in Darabont's film I'm not as sure as to what it is the message is supposed to be. The ending Darabont gives us at first was a complete shock and I kind of liked it. Rather than hold back, he punches his audience in the gut, hard. However, after more thought I'm not sure how I feel about it because it colors the rest of the movie. What is Darabont trying to say about David and the others? I know how I want to feel, how I want to interpret things, but the ending of the film doesn't let me go completely the direction I want to go. So in this moment I think I have to say that I prefer King's ending. It's not that it's uncomplicated or easy, it's just that I think it's more successful in having a stance and getting a point across. I don't feel like Darabont ever gets there. I don't feel like he has a clear stance, I don't feel like his message is decided.

Really though, just taking The Mist for what it is, a horror story set in a supermarket with various people fighting for survival, it's a really good time. It kept me entertained, I liked the people I was watching, and overall I really enjoyed it. And there it is. Not the best Stephen King adaptation ever made but still. The Mist is a competent, well done film with a good story. It's a Stephen King movie actually worth your time.

Friday, January 11, 2008

Review: Into The Wild



Originally posted at Epinions

Every once in a long while I see a film that really touches a nerve. A film that tells a story I can relate to, a story that is in some way my own. Into The Wild tells a story that is not only mine, it is a story that a million others share with me. There are films that dive into our psyche, explore themes, feelings, and ideas that we all, at one time or another, have experienced. Into The Wild is one of those films.

For me, I think it’s the fact that the story is about 23-year-old Chris McCandless, a college graduate disillusioned with the life set before him. He takes off across country, leaves everything behind, cuts off all ties. He experiences a freedom most of us can only dream of.

In terms of my life, where I’m at: I’m a 24-year-old college graduate who only recently decided to stop driving around the country, pick a place to live, and attempt to settle into a somewhat normal (and I mean that in the loosest sense) lifestyle. It’s a change that is hard at the best of times and watching Into The Wild I longed to be back behind the wheel of my car, driving to some new place I’ve yet to see.

Of course, in all of my travels I never cut up my credit cards, burned my money, and my parents always knew where I was. So watching Chris I was even a bit envious. Because I always saw those turn-offs on the highway, I always wondered where they would leave me, but I only ever made the turn once or twice. And I always ended up at my planned destination.

That’s where Into The Wild hits for me. It also hits through the people that Chris meets. In a sense, the film romanticizes Chris’s journey but in another way it shows so completely how his foolish decisions affected those he touched. The story expresses change in people so very, very well. Whether it’s Chris’s family (Marcia Gay Harden, William Hurt, Jena Malone), the hippies Rainy and Jan (Brian Dierker and Catherine Keener), the farmer who’s business practices aren’t completely straight (Vince Vaughn), a lonely old man (Hal Holbrook), an innocent young girl (Kristen Stewart), or Chris himself (Emile Hirsch), the film shows subtly who they are and who they become. In each case, it’s about love. Love is the idea at the heart of Into The Wild. What it takes to find it, what we need to feel it, that we all deserve it.

Into The Wild is by far one of the best films of 2007. Sean Penn does a remarkable job in bringing Jon Krakauer’s book about Chris to life. Every actor becomes the person they are portraying. Penn tells the story with sensitivity while at the same time showing us Chris’s flaws. It’s not about Chris’s fate; it’s about the journey he takes. So yes, there is a bit of romanticizing going on, but the film isn’t telling us to necessarily follow in Chris’s footsteps. Because ultimately his path is as foolish as it is hurtful to those in his life. It’s a tragedy that it took so much for Chris to find what he was searching for.

The film shows how lonely and lost we can all be. It understands that we are all searching for something. What are we searching for? I have no idea. I guess it’s something different for everyone, I certainly haven’t found my something yet. And maybe that’s why I can relate to Chris’s story so well.
Not only is the story well told, the film is just very well done. As much of the story is told visually as it is told through dialogue, narration, and music. Oh yes, I can’t forget to mention the music. It seems so appropriate that Eddie Vedder has put together this soundtrack. The soundtrack compliments the film so perfectly that I’m not really sure what more I can say about it. Beyond that it’s perfect.

Into The Wild is one of those rare films where I actually agree with all the hype, where I think the attention is actually deserved. It’s a film that I just can’t recommend enough.

Thursday, January 10, 2008

Review: Atonement



Originally posted at Epinions

Two figures stand by a fountain. A little girl watches from a window. What the girl thinks she sees only marginally corresponds with what actually occurs between the man and woman below. A little girl’s perception, a little girl’s imagination, a confusion, occasionally deliberate, of truth. This is what lies at the heart of Joe Wright’s Atonement.

Atonement is the second feature by director Joe Wright, his 2005 adaptation of Pride and Prejudice being his first. An adaptation of Ian McEwan’s novel, Atonement tells the story of writer Bryony Tallis, her sister Cecilia, and their gardener Robbie Turner. It’s a story of love, hurt, passion, and forgiveness: what the characters involved want, need, and ultimately fail to find.

The story begins in England on the cusp of World War I. Over the course of an evening lives are torn apart by a crime of lust and young Bryony’s purposely false accusation of guilt. As a result Robbie Turner is torn from his lover Cecilia. The story continues through the war four years later, telling the story of Cecilia and Robbie’s attempt to reclaim the life that was stolen from them and of Bryony’s attempt to make things right.

The narrative meanders throughout the course of the film, the story being told out of sequence and from different points of view. We see glimpses of the private lives of Robbie, Cecilia, and Bryony. But what is true and what is imagined? What version of events can we trust? How much is Bryony’s invention?

As a result of how the story is told you do have to pay attention. There are enough cues that I never found it so disorienting as to take me out of the film. In the end everything makes sense and any questions I was left with seem to be left unanswered for a reason. The idea is that if it’s not our story we can only know as much as we are told. If our narrator is unreliable then we can trust what they give us only so far. The idea of trust and ambiguity in a narrative is one that I find fascinating and films that explore that generally appeal to me. I enjoy being allowed to think and question, I like being challenged. Atonement succeeds in this sense.

Of course, while there are questions raised, enough is given that if you are more inclined to see a movie that is straightforward Atonement can still be perfectly enjoyable. While not completely linear, its narrative is not confusing. The visuals are lush and the acting is strong. Keira Knightly continues to impress and James McAvoy makes Robbie Turner such an incredibly sympathetic character that it is near impossible to not ache for him.

Saoirse Ronan is Bryony at 13 while Romola Garai comes in for the older 18-year-old Bryony. I personally prefer Garai’s older Bryony but Ronan is still solid. I think for me it may be more that Bryony is more complex character at 18 and therefore more sympathetic. Vanessa Redgrave also has a few minutes as Bryony at the end of her life and, interestingly, I found this elderly Bryony to be the least sympathetic of all. Where the child acts out of hurt and the young woman seeks to repair, the old woman has fallen back on the sins she committed at 13 and seems to have failed to grasp the lessons she should have learned.

Balancing the different view points expressed in Atonement is tricky at times and as a result the pacing is a bit off. It slows down in the middle which is unfortunate considering the slowest portion had the potential to be the most affecting. Where it could have added substantially to the emotional impact of the film, the problems with pacing instead detract from it. So while I felt sad as I watched the credits roll, my eyes remained dry.

I love Wright’s use of long, moving shots, how he deals with the passage of time, as well as his use of sound (most notably the use of the sound of a type writer in Atonement). I’m incredibly interested to see what Wright does with his next film, The Soloist.

Atonement is a good, almost excellent film. There are flaws for sure but it’s strengths make up for them. A beauty to watch, characters to care for, Atonement is a film definitely worth seeing.

Thoughts: In The Name of The King: A Dungeon Siege Tale



I was hanging out at a friend's last night when the trailer for In The Name of The King came on TV.

"What the hell is that?"

"Oh, it's some video game based thing by that awful director guy with the weird name. Bowel or something."

"Uwe Boll??? Oh NO."

Why does this man get to continue to make movies? And how on earth does he get any recognizable talent in his movies? It depresses me. And that trailer just looks hideous. And the posters suck. Whenever I see crap like this being produced I'm just baffled. I really don't understand how In The Name of The King gets made and yet so many better scripts never see the light of day. Why would you want to pour money and time and energy into something that has no redeeming value whatsoever?

It makes me a little bitter.

If you haven't seen it, you may not want to. But the trailer if you're curious:



Also. This other poster is so much better than the one in American Cineplexes:



Not that a cooler poster will make it any better. Uwe Boll is beyond help.

Wednesday, January 09, 2008

Review: Bridges of Madison County


Originally posted atEpinions

By what definition does a romance become great? Is it the doomed fate of Romeo and Juliet or is it the triumphant happily ever after of Cinderella? We all go through life searching for that elusive great love. How often do any of us get to find it?

Bridges of Madison County is the story of a great, brief, love affair. Francesca Johnson and Robert Kincaid meet over a weekend in rural Madison County in 1965. Francesca lives a quiet farm life. Her husband has taken the children to the state fair for the weekend when Kincaid shows up. He is a photographer on assignment for National Geographic magazine and is there to photograph the famous bridges of Madison County. Francesca offers to help him find his way and as they spend more time together, the attraction between them grows.

The movie is filled with tender moments of hinted at desire, expressions of frustration, and acknowledgements that a relationship between them can never be. With all of that, I was honestly expecting something more. More tension, more sympathy, something more personal. As it is, the movie is good, really good; it’s just not great.

The talent behind the film is excellent though. Meryl Streep and Clint Eastwood are Francesca and Kincaid. Streep got quite a bit of attention for her performance (an Oscar nomination for Best Actress among other things) and rightly so. Her expression of emotions is powerful. Eastwood has a strong presence as always and the chemistry between them is certainly believable.

Eastwood directs and as much as I love Clint Eastwood I think that may be part of the problem. I love Eastwood for his westerns, for his films with a more male perspective. The viewpoint that works so well for something like Unforgiven does not give us the same insight that Bridges of Madison County would have benefited from.

I will say this though. It’s a beautiful film. Jack Green’s cinematography truly takes advantage of the rural setting. Combined with Eastwood’s direction, the warm images captured are definitely my favorite thing about the movie. It evokes a distinct feeling of nostalgia that makes me long for summer. It’s a feeling that fits the story perfectly.

While the visuals are its strength, the narrative structure is its greatest flaw. Adapted from the novel by Robert Waller, the story is told through the narrative device of a frame story. Which is just awful, especially the acting. Where Streep's performance is spot on, the acting of her grown children is forced and seems fit more for a TV movie than a Clint Eastwood epic. It was also frustrating how the frame would continually interrupt the flow of the narrative. We would be involved with Francesca and Kincaid, waiting anxiously for what was next, only to have the grown children thrust back into our focus. Their poor voice over narration would interrupt Streep and Eastwood’s dialogue and I would be taken completely out of the film.

So overall I guess what I feel towards the film can be best described as ambivalence. I enjoyed it, I’m glad I watched it, but I’m in no rush to see it again. I’m not going to force it upon my unsuspecting friends. Or at least, any more than I all ready have (my roommate watched with me). So for my recommendation I will say this: If you’re a fan of romance, Clint Eastwood, or Meryl Streep you should definitely see this film. It will be worth your time. Otherwise, I don’t think this is a must see.

The DVD is nothing to write home about. No real features or anything like that. Just the movie for your viewing pleasure.

About This Thing

This blog is about film and life in the wonderful world of LA. I'm a filmmaker just getting started; I'm navigating my way through the industry, trying to find work, and sometimes even managing to make a living.

I've worked across the country on projects big and small. Everything from an indie in PA shot during the dead of winter to one of the bigger reality shows involving Models and the things they do.

I also just love doing things*. I'm a writer, aspiring director, wannabe photographer and cook. I waste too much time on the internet and sometimes all I want to do is hang out with my dog.

Stick around and chances are you'll catch me writing about it all.

*I use the word "thing" a lot. An inappropriate amount. I can't help it. There are just so many different things to talk about. And I just kind of like it.