Two Amazing Concerts and a Few Films to Catch Up On
What another unbelievable week of my summer. I spent Monday-Thursday house-sitting and dog-sitting for another teacher at her family's home in Scarborough. I spent each day lounging around, mainly at their in-ground pool (something I'd always wanted, growing up, but settled for the above-ground pool my parents decided to put in our backyard, instead- we didn't use it nearly enough, and perhaps took advantage of the fact that we had the pool). Nothing much else to report on for those days.
My Friday night was incredible. I went to see Taylor Swift at Gillette Stadium in Foxborough, MA. I had purchased my tickets all the way back in December and finally, 7 months later, the day had arrived. I saw her play the same venue two summers back and it was a great show, then, so I knew this time around it would be another great experience. She puts on quite a show. Where Britney Spears seemed to drop the torch of her show-woman-ship (as far as her concerts went, yes, I've seen Britney Spears in concert x8), Taylor Swift picked up the torch and carried it well above her head. Her concert is a spectacle to be watched. Fireworks. Dancers. A band. Outfits. Shiny instruments. It was great. Here's her setlist and video of the entire show (taken from a different concert, though, but still worth watching):
And then, Saturday night, I finally got to see Tegan and Sara (having been introduced to them by my sister way back in like 1999, during her tenure as the Programming Director at WRBC, Bates College radio station- yes, she was cool back then and knew of some great indie music that I didn't). They had never played in Maine, until last night and it was an incredible show. They used to put out records which really focused on their guitars and singing. They've evolved, musically, like all good musicians should and have created a wonderful career for themselves. They've added keyboards to make for more of a pop-infused sound to the music, which I was skeptical of, upon first hearing this news, but seeing them last night, I'd say they've done well for themselves. And I totally approve. It was an amazing show, to say the least. And they played just enough of their older stuff to satiate fans that have been with them for years now. I think my favorite songs were "I was a Fool" and "Shock to Your System" as well as all three encore songs. Here's the setlist from the night, though, so you can see for yourself:
....................................................
Film 202
"O"
starring: Josh Hartnett, Mekhi Phifer, Andrew Keegan, Julia Stiles, Rain Phoenix, Elden Henson, Martin Sheen
directed by: Tim Blake Nelson
I can still remember being super-excited when I heard of this modernized remake of the classic Shakespeare play "Othello." It was supposed to come out in 1999 (I was a Senior in high school), but in light of the tragic events of Columbine, politics overtook Hollywood and the filmmakers, in general, were asked to police themselves, have some sympathy, censor themselves, be sensitive. We, as a society, become very fearful and paranoid when tragedy hits us at home. It's seen as a wake-up call to everyone that perhaps we are not as invincible as we see ourselves. Even back then, I questioned the rights of politicians to tell "us" what we should see, hear, and do. Censorship is a thin line that can always lead to a slippery slope. We, as a society, have always been quick to judge others and to blame others for problems that occur. Hey, nevermind the fact that when Columbine happened everyone seemed to ignore the two prominent factors to the tragedy: bullying and (lack of strong) parenting. In fact, I would generalize right here and now, and say that any time a child has a problem at school it can probably come down to those two factors.
I love what Roger Ebert had to say about the background to this film's two-year shelf-life:
"We have a peculiar inability in our country to understand the contexts of things; when it comes to art, we interpret troublesome works in the most literal and simple-minded way. In the aftermath of Columbine, Washington legislators called on Hollywood to police itself, and rumbled about possible national censorship. Miramax caved in by suppressing this film. To suggest that ''O'' was part of the solution and not part of the problem would have required a sophistication that our public officials either lack, or are afraid to reveal, for fear of offending the bottom-feeders among their constituents."
It's an unfortunately circumstance that this remake/updated version of a tale as old as time (one of jealous, doubt, revenge, and everything else) was set in high school, especially given the real-life Columbine situation. Because, this story could work in any environment and setting. I think I enjoyed it the first time I saw it because I was ripe from high school (2001, having just graduated a year prior) and the story intrigued me, having read it in high school. I absolutely love(d) Baz Luhrman's teenage-gang take on "Romeo and Juliet," but then again, it's a completely different story, handled completely differently, with excellent young actors. I think it helped that Luhrman chose to include the line-by-line Old English dialogue for his version. With "O" unfortunately, director Tim Blake Nelson and writer Brad Kaaya decided to only use the original, classic play as a muse and backbone for their version. I think that was a big mistake, seeing it this time around, because I was severely under-whelmed by it years later. Sure, it has some passion, and the youthful cast of actors gives it everything they've got, although they all seem sedated (especially Josh Hartnett and Julia Stiles, the two actors that should be filled with passion, as they are two pieces of crazy triangle, which also includes Mekhi Phifer, as well).
The story here is about Odin James (Phifer) who is the All-Star high school basketball player made jealous by another all too easily. Jealousy is this character's fatal flaw. Fatal. Desi (the updated version of Desdemona from the play) is his faithful girlfriend who loves him. Julia Stiles has a brief history of playing these tragic ladies rather subdued (re: her version of Ophelia in Ethan Hawkes' "Hamlet"). Odin cannot seem to bring himself to trust her, though, like any true high school relationship that has a "tragic" ending (re: break up) and he doubts his abilities to keep her happy and satisfied. Josh Hartnett plays the updated version of Iago, except here his name's Hugo (really, come on, enough with the name-changes, that's one of the things I loved about Shakespeare's plays). His father (Martin Sheen) is the basketball coach who doesn't give him enough love, attention and credit for what he does on and off the court. The need to impress his father or really to just show his father what he is truly capable of sort of drives this entire version of the film. Hugo is the chess player in this game and everyone else are his pawns. He doesn't want Desi for himself. That's not why he decides to meddle in Odin and Desi's relationship. It's that Odin is everything that Hugo is supposed to be, or that's what he thinks. I absolutely love the character of Iago. He is right up there with "The Stranger" in terms of his reasoning for doing everything that he did. "I did what I did." (in the play: "Demand me nothing, what you know, you know. From this time forth I never will speak word." OH! SO heartless!)
There are a few problems and improbabilities in this version, like, for example, the scarf that really drives home the fabrication of Desi's affair with Michael (her really good friend, and Odin's best friend and basketball co-star), whom Hugo uses to create this elaborate story of Desi's infidelity. Michael is just a dimwitted high school jock who gets mixed up in a story he has no business being in. He apparently has a girlfriend, anyway, who actually helps Hugo in getting the scarf from Desi. Everyone is clueless to everyone's behavior and goings-on in this inner circle. How can that really be? Cliques are meant and defined to be a tight-knit group of peers. How this entire story got out of control so quickly seems unlikely, just as it is unlikely that not a single one of them would've talked to someone else and spilled some information before the climax of the film.
And the climax is where everyone truly shines (and coincidentally, what people were nervous about). Everything hits the fan. Odin kills Desi by choking her. And then he delivers a speech, that even as an updated version of the Shakespeare language, comes off with heartbreaking anguish. I think I loved the last 15-20 minutes the most, seeing it this time around. It's impact was far greater than the rest of the film, which is unfortunate because I've always loved Shakespeare's plays; and I also always look forward to new interpretations of his work. I think director Tim Blake Nelson (an actor, first) failed this time around.
.....................................................
Film 203
"X-Men Origins: Wolverine"
starring: Hugh Jackman, Liev Schreiber, Danny Huston, Lynn Collins, Taylor Kitsch, Ryan Reynolds
This installment in the X-Men franchise is meant to almost be a break from the series, but also to be a sort of money-making scheme by the studio, because they knew that superhero/comic book films were a jackpot and the X-Men trilogy, alone, made millions and millions of dollars. Perhaps they wanted to see if a lone character could drive a film, and they chose the most "compelling" character of the X-Men group: Wolverine. Unfortunately, his story has lots of holes and misunderstandings, at least from what this film presents to us as Wolverine's story. It's a bit of a history lesson for everyone, too. Unfortunately the history is unbelievable (even for a comic book character).
Hugh Jackman has always been great as Wolverine. He is sardonic and dry, a no bullshit kind of guy/mutant who has constantly struggled with his identity as a mutant. His character is primitive, much like the dog/wolf he is supposed to be. His actions are driven by emotions: anger, hurt, vengeance, love, hate, and determination. He perseveres. He's a dog in every fight. He only thing, which separates him from other meatheaded human men is that his body has been infused with some kind of metal, which shoots out of his knuckles and act as sharp claws (like a wolf) when he is angry. Wolverine has consistently been chosen as the #1 comic book superhero of all time is a little baffling to me, because we are never really given a reason to root for the guy. He is basically indestructible. He feels no pain. Nothing an kill him. In the franchise's films, and this one too, he is essentially used as a device to drive action sequences. And this film has plenty of those. As an action film, it is certainly well-made. It is highly entertaining. But that's about it. We don't dive into the psyche of a man-turned-mutant who sets out to exact revenge on those who made him this way. There is little dialogue, nothing about human nature (comic books are usually great about giving us a new perspective on some aspect of philosophy), no lessons learned, no personalities emerged, no joy or other emotions really experienced other than hate. This film has mayhem, loud noises and explosions galore, and bright colors for the screen. I am much more of a Batman fan.
Here, we get to see where he's coming from. Logan (Wolverine's human-given name) hails from the Northwest Territories of Canada and has a half-brother, Victor (played by Liev Schrieber), who will later become Sabertooth (for X-Men followers). They fought in every important American war together, side-by-side, perhaps for the pure enjoyment of fighting, until Logan is kicked out of the Army for reasons the story doesn't necessarily get into. This opens up an opportunity for Logan to be recruited by General Stryker (Huston) to join a secret Blacks Ops unit, that is apparently experimenting with new technology and science. The secret plan is to develop a pack of Mutants that will fight for the country in future wars. That's about all of the plot that I can handle divulging for you here. To say I was disappointed by this look into a very popular comic book hero is an understatement. Although, it did leave me with some hope that perhaps this is just acting as a spring-board for the upcoming "Wolverine" film (just released, which I may wait for on DVD after seeing this one).
Watch at your own risk. If you want an action film with some comic book history infused within its 2 hours, by all means, watch this and be entertained.
......................................................
Film 204
"X-Men: First Class"
starring: Jennifer Lawrence, James McAvoy, Michael Fassbender, Kevin Bacon, Rose Byrne, January Jones, Nicholas Hoult
I really enjoyed "First Class" as a prequel to the entire "X-Men" clan of mutants. Where "Origins: Wolverine" failed in its history lesson giving, "First Class" succeeds and it is perhaps solely because the 4 (!) writers in took for this script decided to use a real-life historical event to tell the story. The Cuban Missile Crisis of the 1960s. Who knew that the Crisis was averted by a clan of mutants, who helped mentally control the shot and hovering nuclear missiles. Oh, what happens behind the scenes of politics, huh? What a great story device, though. I appreciate it, as a film aficionado who needs a decent story and not just a bunch of action and things blowing up. Yes, this X-Men film has enough of that: action sequences that are dazzling. It's very high-tech, which makes me appreciate the fact that they are deciding to make prequels nowadays, with the advancement of technology, which allows for a much more spectacular presentation of the films. Its loud, but not obnoxiously. And its well-acted by quite a round-up of actors/actresses, including: Michael Fassbender as the child who survives the Nazi prison camp after witnessing his mother's death and discovers his ability to control metal (you guessed it, he becomes Magneto); James McAvoy plays the young Charles Xavier (who becomes Professor X), before he was paralyzed (and this film adds why/how he was paralyzed in the middle of the intense final fight sequence) and as he was developing his genius status, becoming a Professor at Oxford University; Jennifer Lawrence plays Raven/Mystique the adopted sister of Xavier. She is even wonderful in a slimmed down role as a comic book superhero, in blue paint (which Rebecca Romijn made famous in the original X-Men films); Nicholas Hoult is a British actor whom I know better from his starring role in the British television series, "Skin." He does a wonderful job as a young version of Beast or Hank, the human scientist that helps the mutants reign in their newly discovered powers at Charles Xavier's school and shelter for mutants; Rose Bryne (whom I love as an actress) plays a CIA agent who believes in Xavier's ability to battle against Sebastian Shaw (played unconvincingly by Kevin Bacon) and offers to assist the X-Men in their pursuit of justice. She is fighting on the good side for world peace, as the Cuban Missile Crisis becomes more and more apparent to her. Her involvement in the story, though, seems unfortunately just as a tool to help drive the rest of the story along, because apparently the CIA needed to be involved in the execution of the Crisis. How American! The acting that I thought was subpar came from perhaps the oldest of the crew, found in January Jones, who plays Emma Frost, with about the same acting ability and talent that she seems to bring to every single role she is given. I think she is perhaps one of the most overrated actresses of this time and it is probably because of her role on "Mad Men," but also because she has the classic Marilyn Monroe beauty in her blue eyes and long blonde hair and generous chest. The other actor that disappointed me was Kevin Bacon, who played the archenemy to Magneto and Xavier, Sebastian Shaw, the Nazi camp tormentor who was looking for the typical world-conquering status.
Overall, this is an excellent film that tells a great story with enough action packed in to thoroughly entertain all its viewers. Definitely watch this one.
.........................................................
Film 205
"The Object of My Affection"
starring: Paul Rudd and Jennifer Aniston, Alan Alda, Allison Janney, Tim Daly, Hayden Panettiere (as a little girl), Steve Zahn, John Pankow (from "Mad About You")
This film came out in 1998, around the time that Jennifer Aniston was probably getting sick of being stuck in her television role as Rachel on "Friends" and she knew she had more talent than what was confining her to the small screen. I could tell that she wanted to emerge from the shadow of that monumental character. Rachel is a bona fide, classic American television character. A staple in television history, much like "Friends" itself. The show lasted for a decade, by the way. I grew up watching it. It has always been one of my favorite shows. And Jennifer Aniston is a hell of an actress. Diverse. And this film was perhaps the beginning of her way out of the television world. Sure, she had the (un)forgettable role in "Leprechaun" back in 1993, and then she emerged in 1996 in the indie hit by Edward Burns, "She's the One" where she was fantastic. And yes, she's had a lot of misses, mostly in the form of romantic comedies (re: Picture Perfect, Til There was You, The Thin Pink Line, Rock Star, Bruce Almighty, Along Came Polly, Derailed, Rumor Has It, Management, He's Just Not Into You, Love Happens, The Bounty Hunter, and Just Go with It), but she is thankfully still quite a bankable star actress. Films that help you forget those misses read like this:
She's the One
The Good Girl (perhaps one of the best dramatic performances in a long time)
Office Space
Friends with Money
The Break-Up
Marley and Me
The Switch
Horrible Bosses
Wanderlust (where she teamed up with Paul Rudd again)
and I'm looking forward to "We Are the Millers" but who knows how that will be
Unfortunately, this was not the film that catapulted her to the movie-star fame she has now, because this is a film fighting with itself. It plays out like a serious-comedy. It tackles serious subject matter (pregnancy and relationships, as well as homosexuality before it really became a cultural fixation) with lightheartedness and jokes perhaps to lighten the tension throughout the film with its characters.
Aniston plays Nina, a social worker and Rudd plays George, a first grade teacher. They meet by chance at a party. Nina is dating a creep, chauvinist dude named Vince. George is living with the guy he is seriously dating, Robert. At this party, Nina informs George of the end of his relationship with Robert, unknowingly and innocently, as she thinks he is in the market for a new place and offers the extra room in her apartment. A bad way to find out your relationship is over, but it sets up the rest of the film. Vince is none too happy to discover Nina's new roommate, even though George is gay, he still feels threatened by his presence in the apartment. As he should because Nina sort of falls in love with George, and classically, thinks she can change him or get him to rethink his life choices. Ultimately, he doesn't (spoiler alert), even after everything they go through together. Soon enough into George living with Nina, she finds out she's pregnant (with Vince's baby, much to her chagrin), but she doesn't want to be with Vince and sort of sees this baby as her way out of the terrible relationship she found herself stuck in (huh? usually babies are a way of staying together, interesting twist). Instead, she wants to raise the baby with George. At first, George doesn't think it's such a good idea, but he changes his mind after a stroll through Central Park (or something like it) and sees a father and son playing catch together. Hmm, if only single moments like that would wake people up to their responsibilities as a parent (not that George even has responsibilities, but regardless, he decides he wants to help Nina raise the baby, which isn't even born yet). In fact, the entire film takes place while Nina is pregnant, good times, bad times, shit hitting the fan, only at the end, during the climax of the revelation that George has (that he wants his cake and to eat it, too- meaning he wants to remain gay, be in the relationship he's in with a budding acting student AND raise the baby), does Nina actually give birth.
Nina and George are the perfect couple because they've taken out the major complication to most relationships: sex. George is still hyper-aware of his sexuality and he eventually falls for Paul (the acting student), but until that point, Nina and George have everything. They go dancing together. They eat together. They stay up late, talking and/or watching movies together. Nina is extremely hurt and jealous of George and his decisions, even though it's his life and he has a right to do and feel as he chooses. Nina is rather selfish. She wants what she can't have. Does she know that, though? Not until a conversation with an older gentleman, who happened to be involved with Paul, before George and he spent time together. Rodney, played by Nigel Hawthorne, creates a completely different tone for the film. He acts as the film's conscience. Rodney is an aged drama critic who tells Nina like it is. He becomes the center of interest for anyone watching the film and looking for insight. He speaks a limited amount, which makes what he says when he says it even more hard hitting. In the defining moment of the film and for Nina, he tells her, "Don't fix your life so that you're left in the middle of it." A sound piece of advice that many of us should listen to (myself being included, as I've often changed who I am, unbeknownst to me until later, in relationship in order to have the thing/person that I think I want/need to have). Unfortunately, this comes all too late and the film cannot be saved by a secondary character, but he and his advice certainly steal the show. If only the entire film would've followed through with this sentimentality. Then, perhaps it could've worked far better than it did. But, with that being said, I've always enjoyed this film because Paul Rudd is one of my favorite actors (stretching all the way back to his role in "Clueless" which stole that movie, I think).
And truth be told, Jennifer Aniston is definitely one of those women on my Top 5 Forgiven List. You know what I'm talking about, a list of celebrities/famous people that you are allowed to sleep with at any given point in your life, no matter what your relational circumstances are...and you are forgiven for the transgression (although, how much of a transgression would it be, I mean, they're famous!).
THE FIVE (in order particular order)
Sarah Michelle Gellar
Jennifer Aniston
Natalie Portman
Zooey Deschanel
Taylor Swift (switch-hitting with Britney Spears, of course)
My Friday night was incredible. I went to see Taylor Swift at Gillette Stadium in Foxborough, MA. I had purchased my tickets all the way back in December and finally, 7 months later, the day had arrived. I saw her play the same venue two summers back and it was a great show, then, so I knew this time around it would be another great experience. She puts on quite a show. Where Britney Spears seemed to drop the torch of her show-woman-ship (as far as her concerts went, yes, I've seen Britney Spears in concert x8), Taylor Swift picked up the torch and carried it well above her head. Her concert is a spectacle to be watched. Fireworks. Dancers. A band. Outfits. Shiny instruments. It was great. Here's her setlist and video of the entire show (taken from a different concert, though, but still worth watching):
And then, Saturday night, I finally got to see Tegan and Sara (having been introduced to them by my sister way back in like 1999, during her tenure as the Programming Director at WRBC, Bates College radio station- yes, she was cool back then and knew of some great indie music that I didn't). They had never played in Maine, until last night and it was an incredible show. They used to put out records which really focused on their guitars and singing. They've evolved, musically, like all good musicians should and have created a wonderful career for themselves. They've added keyboards to make for more of a pop-infused sound to the music, which I was skeptical of, upon first hearing this news, but seeing them last night, I'd say they've done well for themselves. And I totally approve. It was an amazing show, to say the least. And they played just enough of their older stuff to satiate fans that have been with them for years now. I think my favorite songs were "I was a Fool" and "Shock to Your System" as well as all three encore songs. Here's the setlist from the night, though, so you can see for yourself:
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
(Tiësto feat. Tegan & Sara cover)
-
- Encore:
-
-
....................................................
Film 202
"O"
starring: Josh Hartnett, Mekhi Phifer, Andrew Keegan, Julia Stiles, Rain Phoenix, Elden Henson, Martin Sheen
directed by: Tim Blake Nelson
I can still remember being super-excited when I heard of this modernized remake of the classic Shakespeare play "Othello." It was supposed to come out in 1999 (I was a Senior in high school), but in light of the tragic events of Columbine, politics overtook Hollywood and the filmmakers, in general, were asked to police themselves, have some sympathy, censor themselves, be sensitive. We, as a society, become very fearful and paranoid when tragedy hits us at home. It's seen as a wake-up call to everyone that perhaps we are not as invincible as we see ourselves. Even back then, I questioned the rights of politicians to tell "us" what we should see, hear, and do. Censorship is a thin line that can always lead to a slippery slope. We, as a society, have always been quick to judge others and to blame others for problems that occur. Hey, nevermind the fact that when Columbine happened everyone seemed to ignore the two prominent factors to the tragedy: bullying and (lack of strong) parenting. In fact, I would generalize right here and now, and say that any time a child has a problem at school it can probably come down to those two factors.
I love what Roger Ebert had to say about the background to this film's two-year shelf-life:
"We have a peculiar inability in our country to understand the contexts of things; when it comes to art, we interpret troublesome works in the most literal and simple-minded way. In the aftermath of Columbine, Washington legislators called on Hollywood to police itself, and rumbled about possible national censorship. Miramax caved in by suppressing this film. To suggest that ''O'' was part of the solution and not part of the problem would have required a sophistication that our public officials either lack, or are afraid to reveal, for fear of offending the bottom-feeders among their constituents."
It's an unfortunately circumstance that this remake/updated version of a tale as old as time (one of jealous, doubt, revenge, and everything else) was set in high school, especially given the real-life Columbine situation. Because, this story could work in any environment and setting. I think I enjoyed it the first time I saw it because I was ripe from high school (2001, having just graduated a year prior) and the story intrigued me, having read it in high school. I absolutely love(d) Baz Luhrman's teenage-gang take on "Romeo and Juliet," but then again, it's a completely different story, handled completely differently, with excellent young actors. I think it helped that Luhrman chose to include the line-by-line Old English dialogue for his version. With "O" unfortunately, director Tim Blake Nelson and writer Brad Kaaya decided to only use the original, classic play as a muse and backbone for their version. I think that was a big mistake, seeing it this time around, because I was severely under-whelmed by it years later. Sure, it has some passion, and the youthful cast of actors gives it everything they've got, although they all seem sedated (especially Josh Hartnett and Julia Stiles, the two actors that should be filled with passion, as they are two pieces of crazy triangle, which also includes Mekhi Phifer, as well).
The story here is about Odin James (Phifer) who is the All-Star high school basketball player made jealous by another all too easily. Jealousy is this character's fatal flaw. Fatal. Desi (the updated version of Desdemona from the play) is his faithful girlfriend who loves him. Julia Stiles has a brief history of playing these tragic ladies rather subdued (re: her version of Ophelia in Ethan Hawkes' "Hamlet"). Odin cannot seem to bring himself to trust her, though, like any true high school relationship that has a "tragic" ending (re: break up) and he doubts his abilities to keep her happy and satisfied. Josh Hartnett plays the updated version of Iago, except here his name's Hugo (really, come on, enough with the name-changes, that's one of the things I loved about Shakespeare's plays). His father (Martin Sheen) is the basketball coach who doesn't give him enough love, attention and credit for what he does on and off the court. The need to impress his father or really to just show his father what he is truly capable of sort of drives this entire version of the film. Hugo is the chess player in this game and everyone else are his pawns. He doesn't want Desi for himself. That's not why he decides to meddle in Odin and Desi's relationship. It's that Odin is everything that Hugo is supposed to be, or that's what he thinks. I absolutely love the character of Iago. He is right up there with "The Stranger" in terms of his reasoning for doing everything that he did. "I did what I did." (in the play: "Demand me nothing, what you know, you know. From this time forth I never will speak word." OH! SO heartless!)
There are a few problems and improbabilities in this version, like, for example, the scarf that really drives home the fabrication of Desi's affair with Michael (her really good friend, and Odin's best friend and basketball co-star), whom Hugo uses to create this elaborate story of Desi's infidelity. Michael is just a dimwitted high school jock who gets mixed up in a story he has no business being in. He apparently has a girlfriend, anyway, who actually helps Hugo in getting the scarf from Desi. Everyone is clueless to everyone's behavior and goings-on in this inner circle. How can that really be? Cliques are meant and defined to be a tight-knit group of peers. How this entire story got out of control so quickly seems unlikely, just as it is unlikely that not a single one of them would've talked to someone else and spilled some information before the climax of the film.
And the climax is where everyone truly shines (and coincidentally, what people were nervous about). Everything hits the fan. Odin kills Desi by choking her. And then he delivers a speech, that even as an updated version of the Shakespeare language, comes off with heartbreaking anguish. I think I loved the last 15-20 minutes the most, seeing it this time around. It's impact was far greater than the rest of the film, which is unfortunate because I've always loved Shakespeare's plays; and I also always look forward to new interpretations of his work. I think director Tim Blake Nelson (an actor, first) failed this time around.
.....................................................
Film 203
"X-Men Origins: Wolverine"
starring: Hugh Jackman, Liev Schreiber, Danny Huston, Lynn Collins, Taylor Kitsch, Ryan Reynolds
This installment in the X-Men franchise is meant to almost be a break from the series, but also to be a sort of money-making scheme by the studio, because they knew that superhero/comic book films were a jackpot and the X-Men trilogy, alone, made millions and millions of dollars. Perhaps they wanted to see if a lone character could drive a film, and they chose the most "compelling" character of the X-Men group: Wolverine. Unfortunately, his story has lots of holes and misunderstandings, at least from what this film presents to us as Wolverine's story. It's a bit of a history lesson for everyone, too. Unfortunately the history is unbelievable (even for a comic book character).
Hugh Jackman has always been great as Wolverine. He is sardonic and dry, a no bullshit kind of guy/mutant who has constantly struggled with his identity as a mutant. His character is primitive, much like the dog/wolf he is supposed to be. His actions are driven by emotions: anger, hurt, vengeance, love, hate, and determination. He perseveres. He's a dog in every fight. He only thing, which separates him from other meatheaded human men is that his body has been infused with some kind of metal, which shoots out of his knuckles and act as sharp claws (like a wolf) when he is angry. Wolverine has consistently been chosen as the #1 comic book superhero of all time is a little baffling to me, because we are never really given a reason to root for the guy. He is basically indestructible. He feels no pain. Nothing an kill him. In the franchise's films, and this one too, he is essentially used as a device to drive action sequences. And this film has plenty of those. As an action film, it is certainly well-made. It is highly entertaining. But that's about it. We don't dive into the psyche of a man-turned-mutant who sets out to exact revenge on those who made him this way. There is little dialogue, nothing about human nature (comic books are usually great about giving us a new perspective on some aspect of philosophy), no lessons learned, no personalities emerged, no joy or other emotions really experienced other than hate. This film has mayhem, loud noises and explosions galore, and bright colors for the screen. I am much more of a Batman fan.
Here, we get to see where he's coming from. Logan (Wolverine's human-given name) hails from the Northwest Territories of Canada and has a half-brother, Victor (played by Liev Schrieber), who will later become Sabertooth (for X-Men followers). They fought in every important American war together, side-by-side, perhaps for the pure enjoyment of fighting, until Logan is kicked out of the Army for reasons the story doesn't necessarily get into. This opens up an opportunity for Logan to be recruited by General Stryker (Huston) to join a secret Blacks Ops unit, that is apparently experimenting with new technology and science. The secret plan is to develop a pack of Mutants that will fight for the country in future wars. That's about all of the plot that I can handle divulging for you here. To say I was disappointed by this look into a very popular comic book hero is an understatement. Although, it did leave me with some hope that perhaps this is just acting as a spring-board for the upcoming "Wolverine" film (just released, which I may wait for on DVD after seeing this one).
Watch at your own risk. If you want an action film with some comic book history infused within its 2 hours, by all means, watch this and be entertained.
......................................................
Film 204
"X-Men: First Class"
starring: Jennifer Lawrence, James McAvoy, Michael Fassbender, Kevin Bacon, Rose Byrne, January Jones, Nicholas Hoult
I really enjoyed "First Class" as a prequel to the entire "X-Men" clan of mutants. Where "Origins: Wolverine" failed in its history lesson giving, "First Class" succeeds and it is perhaps solely because the 4 (!) writers in took for this script decided to use a real-life historical event to tell the story. The Cuban Missile Crisis of the 1960s. Who knew that the Crisis was averted by a clan of mutants, who helped mentally control the shot and hovering nuclear missiles. Oh, what happens behind the scenes of politics, huh? What a great story device, though. I appreciate it, as a film aficionado who needs a decent story and not just a bunch of action and things blowing up. Yes, this X-Men film has enough of that: action sequences that are dazzling. It's very high-tech, which makes me appreciate the fact that they are deciding to make prequels nowadays, with the advancement of technology, which allows for a much more spectacular presentation of the films. Its loud, but not obnoxiously. And its well-acted by quite a round-up of actors/actresses, including: Michael Fassbender as the child who survives the Nazi prison camp after witnessing his mother's death and discovers his ability to control metal (you guessed it, he becomes Magneto); James McAvoy plays the young Charles Xavier (who becomes Professor X), before he was paralyzed (and this film adds why/how he was paralyzed in the middle of the intense final fight sequence) and as he was developing his genius status, becoming a Professor at Oxford University; Jennifer Lawrence plays Raven/Mystique the adopted sister of Xavier. She is even wonderful in a slimmed down role as a comic book superhero, in blue paint (which Rebecca Romijn made famous in the original X-Men films); Nicholas Hoult is a British actor whom I know better from his starring role in the British television series, "Skin." He does a wonderful job as a young version of Beast or Hank, the human scientist that helps the mutants reign in their newly discovered powers at Charles Xavier's school and shelter for mutants; Rose Bryne (whom I love as an actress) plays a CIA agent who believes in Xavier's ability to battle against Sebastian Shaw (played unconvincingly by Kevin Bacon) and offers to assist the X-Men in their pursuit of justice. She is fighting on the good side for world peace, as the Cuban Missile Crisis becomes more and more apparent to her. Her involvement in the story, though, seems unfortunately just as a tool to help drive the rest of the story along, because apparently the CIA needed to be involved in the execution of the Crisis. How American! The acting that I thought was subpar came from perhaps the oldest of the crew, found in January Jones, who plays Emma Frost, with about the same acting ability and talent that she seems to bring to every single role she is given. I think she is perhaps one of the most overrated actresses of this time and it is probably because of her role on "Mad Men," but also because she has the classic Marilyn Monroe beauty in her blue eyes and long blonde hair and generous chest. The other actor that disappointed me was Kevin Bacon, who played the archenemy to Magneto and Xavier, Sebastian Shaw, the Nazi camp tormentor who was looking for the typical world-conquering status.
Overall, this is an excellent film that tells a great story with enough action packed in to thoroughly entertain all its viewers. Definitely watch this one.
.........................................................
Film 205
"The Object of My Affection"
starring: Paul Rudd and Jennifer Aniston, Alan Alda, Allison Janney, Tim Daly, Hayden Panettiere (as a little girl), Steve Zahn, John Pankow (from "Mad About You")
This film came out in 1998, around the time that Jennifer Aniston was probably getting sick of being stuck in her television role as Rachel on "Friends" and she knew she had more talent than what was confining her to the small screen. I could tell that she wanted to emerge from the shadow of that monumental character. Rachel is a bona fide, classic American television character. A staple in television history, much like "Friends" itself. The show lasted for a decade, by the way. I grew up watching it. It has always been one of my favorite shows. And Jennifer Aniston is a hell of an actress. Diverse. And this film was perhaps the beginning of her way out of the television world. Sure, she had the (un)forgettable role in "Leprechaun" back in 1993, and then she emerged in 1996 in the indie hit by Edward Burns, "She's the One" where she was fantastic. And yes, she's had a lot of misses, mostly in the form of romantic comedies (re: Picture Perfect, Til There was You, The Thin Pink Line, Rock Star, Bruce Almighty, Along Came Polly, Derailed, Rumor Has It, Management, He's Just Not Into You, Love Happens, The Bounty Hunter, and Just Go with It), but she is thankfully still quite a bankable star actress. Films that help you forget those misses read like this:
She's the One
The Good Girl (perhaps one of the best dramatic performances in a long time)
Office Space
Friends with Money
The Break-Up
Marley and Me
The Switch
Horrible Bosses
Wanderlust (where she teamed up with Paul Rudd again)
and I'm looking forward to "We Are the Millers" but who knows how that will be
Unfortunately, this was not the film that catapulted her to the movie-star fame she has now, because this is a film fighting with itself. It plays out like a serious-comedy. It tackles serious subject matter (pregnancy and relationships, as well as homosexuality before it really became a cultural fixation) with lightheartedness and jokes perhaps to lighten the tension throughout the film with its characters.
Aniston plays Nina, a social worker and Rudd plays George, a first grade teacher. They meet by chance at a party. Nina is dating a creep, chauvinist dude named Vince. George is living with the guy he is seriously dating, Robert. At this party, Nina informs George of the end of his relationship with Robert, unknowingly and innocently, as she thinks he is in the market for a new place and offers the extra room in her apartment. A bad way to find out your relationship is over, but it sets up the rest of the film. Vince is none too happy to discover Nina's new roommate, even though George is gay, he still feels threatened by his presence in the apartment. As he should because Nina sort of falls in love with George, and classically, thinks she can change him or get him to rethink his life choices. Ultimately, he doesn't (spoiler alert), even after everything they go through together. Soon enough into George living with Nina, she finds out she's pregnant (with Vince's baby, much to her chagrin), but she doesn't want to be with Vince and sort of sees this baby as her way out of the terrible relationship she found herself stuck in (huh? usually babies are a way of staying together, interesting twist). Instead, she wants to raise the baby with George. At first, George doesn't think it's such a good idea, but he changes his mind after a stroll through Central Park (or something like it) and sees a father and son playing catch together. Hmm, if only single moments like that would wake people up to their responsibilities as a parent (not that George even has responsibilities, but regardless, he decides he wants to help Nina raise the baby, which isn't even born yet). In fact, the entire film takes place while Nina is pregnant, good times, bad times, shit hitting the fan, only at the end, during the climax of the revelation that George has (that he wants his cake and to eat it, too- meaning he wants to remain gay, be in the relationship he's in with a budding acting student AND raise the baby), does Nina actually give birth.
Nina and George are the perfect couple because they've taken out the major complication to most relationships: sex. George is still hyper-aware of his sexuality and he eventually falls for Paul (the acting student), but until that point, Nina and George have everything. They go dancing together. They eat together. They stay up late, talking and/or watching movies together. Nina is extremely hurt and jealous of George and his decisions, even though it's his life and he has a right to do and feel as he chooses. Nina is rather selfish. She wants what she can't have. Does she know that, though? Not until a conversation with an older gentleman, who happened to be involved with Paul, before George and he spent time together. Rodney, played by Nigel Hawthorne, creates a completely different tone for the film. He acts as the film's conscience. Rodney is an aged drama critic who tells Nina like it is. He becomes the center of interest for anyone watching the film and looking for insight. He speaks a limited amount, which makes what he says when he says it even more hard hitting. In the defining moment of the film and for Nina, he tells her, "Don't fix your life so that you're left in the middle of it." A sound piece of advice that many of us should listen to (myself being included, as I've often changed who I am, unbeknownst to me until later, in relationship in order to have the thing/person that I think I want/need to have). Unfortunately, this comes all too late and the film cannot be saved by a secondary character, but he and his advice certainly steal the show. If only the entire film would've followed through with this sentimentality. Then, perhaps it could've worked far better than it did. But, with that being said, I've always enjoyed this film because Paul Rudd is one of my favorite actors (stretching all the way back to his role in "Clueless" which stole that movie, I think).
And truth be told, Jennifer Aniston is definitely one of those women on my Top 5 Forgiven List. You know what I'm talking about, a list of celebrities/famous people that you are allowed to sleep with at any given point in your life, no matter what your relational circumstances are...and you are forgiven for the transgression (although, how much of a transgression would it be, I mean, they're famous!).
THE FIVE (in order particular order)
Sarah Michelle Gellar
Jennifer Aniston
Natalie Portman
Zooey Deschanel
Taylor Swift (switch-hitting with Britney Spears, of course)
Comments
Post a Comment