Change Your Image
cdelacroix1
Reviews
Redbelt (2008)
If you like emotion and objective correlatives, you'll like this movie ...
I saw this movie and was very pleasantly surprised. I really liked this movie. Although at first I didn't know why.
After all, the script, as narrative, is full of holes. Big holes. Without going into details, the initial scene with shot fired has been accurately described as full of holes as swiss cheese. Yet this scene is a key part of the movie, referenced again and again. This is not good.
The title, pictures, and promos were all fundamentally misleading. I went expecting a martial arts film. But it turns out to be a drama. If you are looking for martial arts action, you'll come away very, very disappointed. This too is not good.
The final sequence is utterly incredible. This has been pointed out again and again. This is a basic plot failure. And this too is not good.
And yet ... and yet I came away really, really feeling good about this movie I had just seen. Why?
Well, first, if you view the script not as a narrative, but as a sequence of loosely connected scenes designed to evoke one emotion or thought or the other ... like tableaux vivants, or what TS Eliot called objective correlatives ... well, it works. For example, we have a main character stripped of everything in a series of narratively impossible scenes; and yet the emotions involved in "losing everything" are conveyed powerfully and evocatively. Likewise the ending redemptive sequence is narratively incredible; but emotionally very, very satisfying. This is all to the good.
The characters, acting, and characterizations were all excellent. Chiwetel Ejiofor as Mike Terry was superb. And the Mike Terry character is simply a delight, likable, appealing, interesting. Tim Allen was successfully cast against type. Ricky Jay's Marty Brown the sports promoter is utterly slimy and yet I couldn't take my eyes off of him. After every scene, I felt like running to the restroom to wash my hands and face and ears. He is sliminess personified. But all the characters were well drawn whether likable or disgusting. All to the good.
The cinematography and scenes were well drawn and well depicted. There were some really gripping, evocative shots I especially like: such as the Tim Allen character in dark profile. All to the good.
All in all, I'd say if you like emotion and objective correlatives, I think you'll like this movie. Don't go looking for martial arts, and don't go looking for a sound narrative; but if you want good, solid punch, you've come to the right place.
Snow Angels (2007)
How to Have a Short Miserable Life
I saw this movie today, 2 days after it opened here in Tulsa. And on the whole, I didn't like it. This movie does have some good features IMHO, but mostly it seems to belong to that genre of misogynistic movies in which misery is the main, though uncredited, character. Just not my cup of tea; but to each his or her own.
The acting is on the whole fairly good, with a special standout performance by Sam Rockwell as Glenn. But the characters are drawn so unpleasantly that it's very hard for me to feel much sympathy for any character over the age of 17. When I think about it, that's an interesting datum: but that age-divide doesn't seem to be a theme to be explored at all in this movie; it's just a coincidence. But generally the movie seems to be driven by a desire to depict any and all adults as unappealingly as possible. That to me doesn't make for a very engaging movie; and does make for a very unpleasant script.
There are some nice scenes, and some interesting camera technique ... such as focusing on a face and then slowly drifting left or right till the face is out of the picture, even though the character is still at the center of a scene. I think that makes for some interesting camera work, but of course the execution really reinforces the generally misogyny of the movie ... and if the movie doesn't "like" its own characters enough to treat them with greater respect, why should I? I do think there's much to be said for tragedy as a genre ... but this almost seems the opposite, in a way, because tragedy always treats the tragic hero or heroine with some sense of honor, decency, and respect. This movie depicts largely self-inflicted misery and seems intent on an absurdist treatment of such misery that is far from respectful or humanistic, but rather dystopian and disrespectful.
To anyone thinking about seeing this movie: unless stories about unappealing people wallowing in self-inflicted misery is inviting, I would recommend a pass on this movie.
Die Fälscher (2007)
Odessa Is Blue
I saw this movie today ... it opened here 2 days ago ... and was deeply moved. What an engaging, fascinating story, told well from beginning to end.
The acting was excellent throughout; but by far the greatest thumbs up should right go to Karl Markovics, perfectly cast, and perfectly performing, the Salomon Sorowitsch character.
The scenes are convincingly composed, with a strong sense of colorlessness and drabness supporting the script throughout ... but depicted in such a way that the characters and the story are strongly reinforced. I don't know when darkness and absence of coloration has gone so far to convey vividly a vividly colorful storyline.
The story has what looks to me like a few unconvincing scenes, but this is rare in what on the whole is a script that conveys authenticity at every moment in (almost) every scene. On the whole, the story is what makes this movie and the story is engaging, compelling, demanding, and never, ever boring. To me what really stands out in the story is the complex motivation of the characters ... and how humanity shines through in even the darkest circumstances. As one of the most brutalized characters says, of a black & white drawing he composed of his native Odessa, "To me Odessa is blue, always blue." That really could have been the title of the movie, it rings true at so many levels.
This is a dark movie, but one that is at the same time full of action, adventure, and hope. I can see why the movie won the 2008 Academy Award for Best Foreign Language movie. It certainly deserves such an award.
Smart People (2008)
A Quirky Story with a Quirky Sense of Hope
I saw this movie today, the day after it opened here. And I was simply delighted. This is a fine story told with non-stop heart-tugging humor and verve. The movie captured my attention immediately, and held it from beginning to end.
The scriptwriter, Mark Jude Poirier, adapted his novel for the screen with extraordinary acumen. The ensemble of characters are just delightfully appealing. Their story is told here with humor and poignancy. Dennis Quaid as Laurence Wetherhold, Sarah Jessica Parker as Janet Hartigan, Thomas Haden Church as Chuck, Ellen Page as Vanessa, Ashton Holmes as James
all turn in wonderful performances in a perfectly matched cast.
To me the pace is perfect, and the dialog is crisp, compelling, almost flawless, with lots of funny lines.
For me, one of the most uplifting features of this movie is the way the whole ensemble of characters develops together. The strangeness of the characters as individuals, along with the convincing balance as (extended) family, reminds me of the ensemble in Running with Scissors. The quirky dysfunctionality and functionality of this family in combination are like nothing so much as the family in Running with Scissors. In any event, these are characters who together gain a renewed sense of hope
a hope that imbues this wounded band of characters with a sense of togetherness and vision that is to me very, very moving.
Another feature of this movie that I myself found especially appealing is the presence of such exquisitely composed visual scenes. These are of such delightfully crafted texture that in some ways this movie reminds me of the carefully composed scenes in Girl with a Pearl Earring and Atonement. The cinematography and beauty of scene after scene are just wonderful.
All in all, this is a fun, funny, moving portrait of a delightful band of characters. I highly recommend this movie to anyone.
Funny Games (2007)
Horrifyly, chillingly good psychodrama
I saw this movie yesterday and on the whole really liked it. Whew ... I don't know when last I've been to a horror movie / psychodrama that was so relentlessly scary ... in a lean, bleak, psychologically devastating way.
I thought the acting and scripting and directing and editing were all really excellent throughout. Everything but everything in this movie works together to draw you into an utterly horrifying experience.
What really captivated me was this understated but relentless tension that just grips and chokes and overwhelms from beginning to end.
This is the kind of movie that really, really makes you *feel* like you're there, going through what this unfortunate family went through.
If you haven't seen it yet and like good, chilling, judiciously bloody psychodrama, hey, check this movie out ... it's really scary psychodrama at its very best.
Charles Delacroix
There Will Be Blood (2007)
Great sets, good cinematography, lousy story.
I just saw this movie today ... "Whoa yeah ... finally!" I thought when I saw it in the movie listings here. It was released here yesterday ... about a month after it had hit wide release, I think. By now there have been so many positive reviews ... and I liked the trailer ... so I was looking forward to seeing this movie very much. Unfortunately, it really didn't live up to expectations.
First, though, the good things. I really liked the sets and scenery and cinematography. The good folks in charge of such things really seem to have worked hard to give us a vivid, convincing vision of period oil and period settings for oil production and life in a dry, arid land in the period West.
The acting performances ranged from very good to excellent throughout. Daniel Day Lewis did a wonderful job giving us as convincing a depiction of Daniel Plainview as I for one can imagine.
Having said that, though, Daniel Plainview as a character came across to me as affected, posturing, and very unconvincing. For that matter, most of the characters in this movie were to me unconvincing. And the script that gave them birth was to me generally very, very unconvincing. The action was slow, even boring, without being redeemed by any kind of realistic character development or story development. I honestly thought about walking out a few times, but persevered until the bitter end ... and ended up just shaking my head at a final scene that was to me just utterly incredible.
My own view of almost any movie that professes a realistic historical setting is that there are two major pitfalls to avoid: (1) treating a historical period as if it's a reflection of our own time: "just like us". And (2) treating a historical period as if it's a caricature, almost the opposite of our time: "nothing like us."
There Will Be Blood makes the second mistake,IMHO.
A movie about a bygone world that's really just a caricature, seen through eyes that don't have any sympathy for another time and another place, is an expression of what has sometimes been called "chronological snobbery": the idea that just because people and place belong to the past, they must be brutal or inhuman or idiotic or venal far beyond what we know in our own here-and-now.
So in this movie everyone seems driven by brutality and greed and inhumanity and sheer stupidity far beyond what we would regard as credible in our times, but apparently we're supposed to buy this kind of vision about the past. Why? Because ... "they lived back then" while "we live now" as if that's some kind of automatic reason to embrace a dehumanized view of people who lived and moved on this old world before we were born.
So we have a movie full of people who are all ... meaning, all, with (perhaps) one exception that I can think of ... driven, uncaring, brutal, greedy ... and too stupid to get out of the way of obvious dangers although somehow they've managed to survive, for years and years, in a dangerous, inhospitable environment. Not to give away anything, but the final scene gives examples of all of these incredibilities (if that's the word) in an especially unrealistic vision that (I guess) must be the scriptwriter's idea of how things were back in the early part of the century. Yet anyone with any actual knowledge of the period ... or with any actual knowledge of people in general ... would consider this to make no sense at all.
Don't get me wrong ... a bleak, Hollywood-type nihilism may not be appealing ... not to me anyway ... but it can at least be rendered realistically and convincingly. See for example No Country for Old Men ... another 2007 film that in some ways has the same "flavor" as There Will Be Blood.
But No Country for Old Men gives us a well-scripted story with a strong, convincing plot. There Will Be Blood, in contrast, unfortunately serves up a script that is unconvincing, unrealistic, incredible, ahistorical, and boring.
Charles Delacroix
Juno (2007)
A Female Napoleon Dynamite
I saw this movie today, and found a sort of coming-of-age tale told with a large dose of campy humor. I thought this movie was on the whole a good movie, though not the stand-out dark comedy/drama that it's reported to be.
The movie focuses on a vivid 16 y.o. pregnant teen named Juno, who is in so many ways a female version of Napoleon Dynamite. If you liked Napoleon Dynamite, you'll very probably like Juno; if you didn't like Napoleon Dynamite, you'll probably be well advised to pass on Juno.
I myself liked Napoleon Dynamite ... although the constant sardonic humor and uber-Attitude becomes rather trying, both in Juno and in Napoleon Dynamite, the whole does kind of grow on me ... as on others. This is the kind of character that I myself find fun, if cloying. I don't myself enjoy sardonic put-downs as a part of my regular diet. One viewing is enough for me. But that's me; to each his/her own.
The storyline I thought was very engaging, and the supporting script conveys it well. The acting ranged from solid to excellent. Ellen Page as Juno is perfectly cast and delivers her character perfectly. Michael Cera did a solid job as Paulie Bleeker. Jennifer Garner, Jason Bateman, Allison Janney, and J.K. Simmons all turned in decent supporting roles. Cinematography, sets, sound were all good.
All in all, if you like teenage coming-of-age flicks in general, and Napoleon Dynamite in particular, this movie is for you.
Charlie Wilson's War (2007)
Not bad ... but not all that good either ...
I saw this movie today and admit I went with high expectations - which were generally disappointed. Still, it's a good geopolitical flick, full of action, humor, and sex.
Think of James Bond Goes to the US Congress and you'll get the basic flavor. Not bad ... but frankly, not all that good, either. I myself made the mistake of approaching this movie with overarching expectations based on the cast, and on the movie's capture of an amazing 5 Golden Globe nominations.
However, from my angle, the movie turned out to be an OK flick. OK, but a movie that doesn't deserve to be burdened with expectations that it just can't fulfill.
The storyline - about a Congressman who singlehandedly organizes the defeat of the Soviet Union in Afghanistan and thereby brings about American victory in the Cold War - is not really more incredible than any National Treasure or Die Hard storyline. But it's not better, either.
Similarly, the script wasn't outstanding, but it delivered the storyline and delivered it well: fast-paced, with great action, great dialog, cool humor, and plenty of alcohol and sex.
The cast - especially Tom Hanks, Julia Roberts, and Philip Seymour Hoffman - was stellar. These, and all supporting actors and actresses, turned in good, competent performances: nothing more, but nothing less, either.
Cinematography was solid and competent, again, no more, and no less.
All in all, I'd recommend this movie to anyone who would like a good, quick geopolitical flick with lots of action and humor. Think of National Treasure: Afghanistan or James Bond in the US Capitol and you'll have an idea of what to expect. Not bad ... but not all that good either ...
Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street (2007)
Disappointing Musical
I saw this movie today and had a generally mixed reaction. It's basically "OK" but the storyline doesn't really to me provide enough interest to sustain a full length motion picture. Also, although any new musical production is to me a cause for celebration, this one just doesn't come near to matching other modern musicals in quality or appeal.
Music and songs naturally make for a big part of the appeal of any musical like this. And I am simply delighted that the movie musical has gained something of a revival within the past half decade or so. However, with some exceptions, I just didn't really enjoy the music and songs
not nearly as much, anyway, as in other modern musicals, like Moulin Rouge, Phantom of the Opera, Chicago and Rent.
Casting and acting seem to me to be very solid throughout this movie, with two exceptions. One is Helena Bonham Carter as Mrs Lovett. Carter was perfectly cast and I thought gave a wonderful, exceptionally strong performance. On the other hand, I really thought Jamie Campbell Bower was either unconvincingly cast as Anthony, or was given a scripting for Anthony that was unconvincing. Johanna after all finds her heart captured by an Anthony who is supposed to be a handsome, romantic man she sees from a window
and whose chief distinguishing features appear to be androgyny. I can believe in love-at-first-sight for a "manly" man; or in love-at-first-sight for a male lead known as a "heart-throb"; or in love-at-second-sight for a "metrosexual" man whose character or personality, captures the heart of a lovely lady. But Johanna has only brief glimpses of Anthony in the street. She has no "manly looks" to go on; she has no special "Errol Flynn" appeals to go on; she has never met him, so can't fall in love based on his "personality". All in all, the response of Johanna to this Anthony is just not convincing in a musical like this.
The script contained other problems that to me undermined the storyline by giving us events that didn't seem consistent or credible. The movie is not in a "realist" genre, so I'm not at all interested in every little detail being somehow "credible". However, even in a musical, I need at least enough a to help me to a "suspension of disbelief"; and at minimum, obviously inconsistent details don't need to be flaunted in my face. Alas, the script did exactly that every now and then. For example, early on, a charlatan is selling a "miraculous elixir" said to promote a lush head of hair. Sweeney challenges him to a contest in which he and the charlatan are both to give the fastest, cleanest shave. Up till that point, there's no slightest indication that the peddler is also a barber. And there's not the least excuse offered for a face-off in which facility in shaving is supposed to establish credibility, or lack thereof, for an elixir promoting fast hair growth elixir. Similarly, there's a point at which Sweeney's daughter tosses a key out a window to a stranger she's never met. Things like that leave me scratching my head, and it's hard to "buy into" a story I'm constantly scratching my heard over.
I did like some things: the sheer darkness of the conception, and of the settings, and of the humor
these things I really enjoyed. The "life at the beach" sequence was a funny and light-hearted sequence that provided a welcome parody of Sweeney's perpetual gravity.
All in all, although Sweeney Todd is to me "OK", on the whole it just doesn't make for a good musical.
Atonement (2007)
Beautiful, Moving, Utterly Captivating Story of the Greatest Generation
I saw this movie today the day after it opened here in general release. And I think this is the best movie I've seen in a long time.
The visuals captured me from the first frame. What an amazing series of scenes: a beautiful late 1930s English country estate; wartime France; Dunkirk; wartime London. Every scene appeared perfectly composed, perfectly filmed, with perfect colors and sights and sounds. Authenticity and beauty were captured on every single frame of this movie. The attention to detail was exquisite without becoming at any point distracting. If there's such a thing as perfect cinematography and perfect lighting and perfect editing, this movie must come about as close to achieving these ideals as I for one can imagine. In fact, if this movie had had no dialog at all, I think I would have sat enthralled by the absolutely amazing visuals, from beginning to end.
The story, though, was captivating in a special way. Special because of course we all know from the trailer what the basic plot is, and although there are important twists as things proceed, on the whole, we're watching a movie the storyline of which we already know. There's a special pleasure to watching something unfold like this, and I love the way the story was conveyed almost as much as I love the story itself. Deft flashbacks, with changes of point of view, convey so much of the richness of the story.
To me, the interaction between the characters and their context is what made the whole story so fascinating. Here we have really very narrow parameters laid down and our characters must make their choices within those parameters with consequences of personal enormity for each of them. The film conveys the Character--Context interaction in an especially fine way by showing & repeating again and again. Sometimes the repetition comes through flashback: for example, in the fountain scene. Sometimes it comes through interleaving points of view: for example, near the beginning, when Cecilia and Robbie are thinking about each other. Most fascinating to me is when the repetition comes through a sort of deft camera's wheeling slowly and deliberately through a scene, following characters moving this way and that: for example, the amazing Dunkirk sequence.
A key theme of the movie, as we all know from the trailer, is What's Real and What's Not. And this is played upon in so many wonderfully delightful ways. There are so many scenes through windows, and sights in mirrors, and POV shots up and down hallways and through fields; typewritten pages retyped and retyped and retyped. What we see, what we think we see, and what we do about what we see, or think we see, are all so intimately bound up with who we are: and this is expressed from beginning to end with a sense of authenticity and beauty that was for me just extraordinary.
The characterizations and performances were just wonderful throughout this movie. James McAvoy's Robbie Turner was excellent. Keira Knightly's Cecilia Tallis was solid and convincing. Saorise Ronan as the young, 13 year old Briony Tallis was just extraordinary for her age I hope that we see more of this young talent. All of the supporting actors and actresses were first rate. Special props should go to Vanessa Redgrave for her affecting and very convincing cameo as the elderly Briony.
Now I do have two criticisms that (to be honest) may or may not be reasonably laid at the doorstep of this movie.
One is that to me, the build up to the arrest felt like it *may* have been somewhat long. Maybe a little shorter would be better. Maybe.
Also, from time to time, I plain old had problems making out what was being said. I don't know if this is because I was simply so overwhelmed by the visual imagery that I wasn't paying as much attention to the dialog as I usually would. Or maybe the audio in my theater may have been a little off.
But these are really minor drawbacks to the movie, if they are drawbacks to the movie at all. Again, I'm just not sure. To me this is simply a splendid, wonderful, and captivating movie no less.
Before I close, I have something to say on a personal note.
My father & mother were both members of "The Greatest Generation" - the WWII generation which is depicted with such extraordinary clarity in this movie. My father was a soldier in WWII. My mother waited on the Home Front as she waited for him to come home. I take away from this movie a very strong sense that this is a true and authentic representation of what that period of time was like for this generation. I come away from this movie with a deep, deep, deep feeling of sheer gratitude for this generation. For the last half of the movie, I simply could hardly stop crying; and left the theater crying as well: tears of joy and gratitude and of sadness at the passing of this amazing generation.
All in all, then, if you want to see an amazing period piece about the extraordinary and ordinary people of the Greatest Generation, set in the late 1930s 1940s: please, see this movie. It is absolutely one of the most delightful and authentic human tales of the World War II generation that I've ever had the privilege of experiencing. And the movie conveys its story with the most lovely, most beautiful, most affecting images that I have seen in years, perhaps decades.
As I feel deep gratitude for this generation, I feel deep gratitude to Director Joe Wright and everyone who brought this movie to us. It seems so little to say, but I'll say it anyway: Thanks.
National Treasure: Book of Secrets (2007)
It's OK ... but that's about it ...
I saw this movie this morning ... opening day here in Tulsa. And on the whole, my own reaction is that it's OK, but that's really about it.
The first National Treasure flick (2004) introduced us to Ben Gates, an engaging, adventuresome treasure hunter played by Nicolas Cage. Now we have a second installment in the franchise, and Nicolas Cage returns as Ben Gates. In addition, Justin Bartha returns as comical sidekick Riley Poole, Jon Voigt returns as Patrick Gates, Ben's father; and Diane Kruger returns as Abigail Chase, Ben's romantic interest.
The story line is full of archeology, history, humor, and adventure that takes our lead characters to Paris, London, Washington DC, and Mount Rushmore.
All in all, this is a pattern with which many are very familiar: the pattern successfully rendered in the Indiana Jones movies.
I won't give away anything except to say that I myself think that the National Treasure franchise is far less engaging than the Indiana Jones franchise. And I have to ask myself why.
I think, first, that scripts written for the Indiana Jones character always seem to me to be more convincing and more engaging. This has nothing to do with historical credibility: in this National Treasure movie, and its predecessor, we in the audience are fully aware that all the "history" in the movie is very, very unhistorical. Same for the Indiana Jones movies. However, in an Indiana Jones movie, the archaeological panoply is to me just so fascinating, and appealing, that I want it to be true even when I know it's not. And, in an Indiana Jones movie, the unfolding story is so much more fun than in a National Treasure movie. For both these reasons, in an Indiana Jones movie, I tend to take a look, roll my eyes, and then promptly suspend my disbelief and follow the storyline wherever it will lead me: it's that much fun and that attractive. Neither this National Treasure movie, nor its predecessor, lead me in this direction.
As for the lead characters, Indiana Jones is so much more appealing, to me, compared to Ben Gates. Indiana Jones, in his trademark hat and bull-whip, is such a wonderful figure, played almost tongue in cheek by Harrison Ford. But the character is so much fun, like the storyline, that again, I watch Ford's Indiana Jones, roll my eyes once or twice early on, and then suspend my disbelief and follow Indiana Jones while smiling through all his fascinating adventures. In contrast, Nicolas Cage's Ben Gates is a very different character, and just has no such appeal for me. In National Treasure: Book of Secrets, we see him at one point prancing comically on a staircase in Buckingham Palace. A few moments later, we see him peeping around a bouquet of flowers at his love interest. Watching Ben Gates in these scenes felt to me like I was watching a sort of metro-sexual version of Rowan Atkinson's Mr Bean character. I just can't see such a character as a heroic treasure hunter. In contrast, Indiana Jones is every inch a treasure hunter and hero. He's also a classic masculine hero, though one who is leavened by that occasional tongue in cheek irony.
About National Treasure: Book of Secrets: I did think this was better than the first National Treasure. The acting in the second movie, by everyone, was competent but unexceptional in delivering the script. The cinematography was good. Th4e dialog was sometimes entertaining. The the script overall supported a storyline, and a character, that didn't really appeal to me very much.
All the same, for light adventure and light entertainment, one could do a lot worse than go to this movie.
It's OK ... but that's about it, IMHO.
The Kingdom (2007)
Very Well Made Geopolitical Thriller
I saw this movie in a dollar movie recently ... actually my 2nd viewing, I saw it when it first opened around her, a month or so ago. I liked it then, and I like it now.
First, I really liked the introductory "background history". I would not recommend for a moment regarding this as "real history". But a geopolitical thriller like this needs something to set the geopolitical stage for the story, and this introduction made for a great quick "set up" that to me works very well indeed.
The idea of intermixing this intro with the introductory credits saves time and sets it apart from the rest of the story
which is what a good "set-up" should do. It's very much like having an opening panel, such as we see in a lot of 1930s or 1940s historical romances, that gives us a similar "historical" set-up. "In 1592, King Richard had left England on Crusade. While gone, the Sheriff of Nottingham ruled supreme. Only Robin Hood and his band of merry men stood in his way." In this example, I'm pulling the date out of the air, and everything else is made up, too. But that's the kind of placard they used to use to set up a Robin Hood movie. Well, in The Kingdom, the introductory sequence was an elaboration of that introductory placard. And to me it worked great setting up the story.
And what a great story. Like any good geopolitical thriller, it maintains a careful if sometimes intricate balance between the individuals involved in the narrow, here-and-now action, and the personages and institutions involved in the much larger "big picture" So we have 4 particular FBI agents constantly interacting with and reflecting on the larger political context in Washington, DC and in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. There's just enough dialog about these things to keep the story moving, without overwhelming the audience with the kind of boring "talking heads" scenes that afflict another contemporary movie about the War on Terror, Lions into Lambs. We have plenty of material to prompt from us a personal interest in the individuals involved here, who are presented as convincingly real people, and not as the kind of impersonal stereotypes who sit and lecture each other in Lions into Lambs.
The story is told with an immediacy and a fast pace that kept my attention throughout. Gritty realism is the style throughout and is carried off very convincingly, as far as I can see. All of the actors turned in solid performances from a script that seemed to me to be very convincing. The cinematography was excellent throughout.
All in all, I think The Kingdom is a wonderful movie that quickly engaged me, and then set about establishing and retaining my keen interest from beginning to end.
Mr. Bean's Holiday (2007)
Mr Bean's Holiday is Fun ... Mr Bean Fun
I was at the dollar movie theater today, and the film in the movie I went to see broke, so I ducked out and caught the last half of Mr Bean's Holiday instead.
And was just delighted.
I've seen the whole movie before - I went with my aunt and a young cousin who loves Mr Bean - and liked it very much then, too.
The movie was clearly designed to be neither more nor less nor other than good fun & entertainment, and it delivers and delivers well. Of course people either love Mr Bean or hate Mr Bean. I'm kind of in the middle: I think he can be funny ... but more in small doses than big. But that's just me.
Back about the movie, it's a great Mr Bean flick that's fun from beginning to end. Rowan Atkinson's Mr Bean is ... well, Mr Bean. Emma de Caunes' Sabine is just adorable, utterly captivating. The comic parody of pretentious film-makers in Willem Dafoe's Carson Clay and his Cannes film entry is to me just hilarious. The script is well-crafted and supports a storyline that is a small gem: in the grand Mr Bean tradition, he's off on holiday and everything that can go wrong goes wrong ... until the end, when everything that can go right goes right.
All in all, this is a good movie, full of fun ... Mr Bean fun. And that's not such a bad thing at all.
I Am Legend (2007)
Gut-wrenching movie full of adventure and heart
I just saw this movie today, the day it opened here. And was deeply, deeply moved.
I've got to start with the scenes of a deserted New York City post-apocalypse. These were so very, very moving; and very, very convincing. The clips in the trailers for the movie were good, but you really have to see the full panoply of close-up shots, distance shots, etc to really appreciate the sheer scale of what this movie is depicting. There's something of On the Beach and Resident Evil and of any number of disaster movies and zombie movies here. But none of them do justice to the New York depicted here. This is a New York City we see large-scale and micro-scale in order to show us the environment in which the main character is acting.
And Will Smith is simply brilliant as the sole survivor, Robert Neville. Will delivers movingly and convincingly on a script that really focuses on giving us a picture of "what it would be like" ... to be the last man on earth, living off the land in NYC. This is the real strength of this movie: there's really not a lot of blood or gore or zombie scenes at all. Yet I was riveted as Robert goes through his "typical days" in NYC. Every moment was full of pathos and full of menace, too. And occasionally we got some relief from Smith's trademark humor that blended seamlessly with the rest of his performance to give us "what it would be like" with a powerful delivery that just leaves me almost breathless.
There's an effective use of flashbacks that partly tell us the story of how we got to where we're at in this grim New York City; and the flashbacks also serve to give us an overwhelming contrast between Life Before and Life After the apocalyptic disaster wiped out the city. Yet use of flashback was sparing, which I found all the more effective.
Cinematography was excellent throughout, the storyline and script are brilliant, the use of a dog, Samantha, as a key actor was perfect to show us both Robert as companion and Robert as lonely, isolated survivor.
I won't give away the ending, but think it was satisfying as far as it goes, but not nearly as appealing, from my angle, as the foregoing material. That brings up my one complaint: the title. By the end of the movie, we have some sense of the meaning of the title. Yet it still seems to me to feel cheesy and really unworthy of the movie.
But that's a minor plaint. If you haven't seen this movie, and would enjoy seeing a really powerful story about a survivor in post-apocalypse New York City, hey, go check out this flick. It's really worth it.
Mrs. Worthington's Party (2007)
A Mixed Bag ...
I just saw this movie today after it opened here in two multiplexes, one of which only rarely carries independent films. It's really a remarkable movie in so many ways, but as can happen especially with independent films, occasionally, it raises for me two ethical dilemmas. First, it's misleadingly advertised as a traditional Christmas movie, but won't be found to be such by most viewers; and second, it includes a strong dose of anti-Catholicism.
But setting aside these two unpleasant features of this film, I found so much of this movie really very appealing. The storyline and the supporting script, anti-Catholicism aside, are really very interesting and so often moving. The characters in this movie are developed vividly and engagingly. We meet Father Jonathan Keene, who at first has the heart and social skills of a cash register, but we rejoice as we watch him developing into a human almost despite himself. We meet Father Simeon Joyce, full of love for his parishioners, though seemingly doomed to alcoholic ineffectiveness.
The story really revolves around relationships more than anything else, and some of the relational scenes were to me simply delightful to behold. One of my favorite scenes like this has Father Keene and the bartender engaged in a dialog that is just full of wit and poignancy. I really think this scene, and the delightful scene at Mrs Worthington's party, will stay with me for a long, long time.
The acting is almost uniformly very good, even though the actors and actresses apparently have had very little film experience. There is one exception: I thought Sean Patrick Brennan's performance as Father Joyce was wooden and monotonous. In contrast, David Wall gives a wonderful, wonderful performance as Father Keene.
The cinematography is excellent. Again and again we are treated to the most lovely vistas shot (I think?) in wintry Massachusetts. What beautiful settings for a beautiful story.
Well
the story is partly beautiful. But that brings me to the movie's ugly side: its anti-Catholicism. I won't say anything more about the other ethical problem with this movie, its marketing as a traditional Christmas story when it clearly isn't. The misleading marketing isn't really part of the movie as such after all.
But about the anti-Catholicism so prominent in the movie. The story could well have been told with a much less denominational context, but the movie singles out one particular religion for representations that could have come out of any number of anti-Catholic tracts known for their bigotry. The director/writer/producer, David Wall, is reported to be prejudiced against Catholics. This certainly comes through in his movie, in which he depicts Catholicism from a point of view that could be termed liberal, post-Christian, and anti-Catholic.
The Catholic archdiocese is painted as greedy and interested solely in money
a superfluous characterization that apparently has nothing to do with the story. We are treated to a Catholic priest who is an alcoholic who asserts no interest in priestly abstinence from sex. The same priest disdains Midnight Mass, a distinctively Catholic religious service of special affection to most Catholics. The priest is depicted along with a congregation that has lost interest in a Midnight Mass either. The other Catholic priest walks out, twice, on a Mass, a religious service considered important to Catholics in general. He also walks out on a poor woman's Confession; and breaks the Seal of the Confessional, betraying to others what he has heard in confidence in the Confessional. And by the end of the movie our priest has formed a romantic attachment and we are given to understand that he's become a nice, normal married man that has left that nasty old Catholicism behind.
As one feature of Catholicism after another is trampled underfoot, the movie apparently expects us all to applaud. If you're wondering what this has to do with the wonderfully humane storyline as such, I wonder as well.
One of the dilemmas of a moviegoer confronted with what is actually plain bigotry, mixed with so much beauty and so much humanity, is to know how to respond. I don't know the answer. I'm guessing that the same dilemma would have confronted a moviegoer in South Africa a few decades ago, who might have been watching a movie full of good things yet jarringly pro-Apartheid. Or perhaps a moviegoer in Nazi Germany might have found himself or herself watching a movie full of much beauty and humanity on the one hand, while coupled painfully with implicit or explicit celebrations of Nazism.
Can one applaud the beauty and humanism in such a movie while denouncing the ugly prejudice that's also there? I'm not sure
but I hope so. Each of us I'm sure must make our own decisions about how to approach such material, if we approach it at all.
Mr. Magorium's Wonder Emporium (2007)
Truly Magical Toy Emporium
I saw this movie today and really enjoyed it. The theater was fairly well filled for a matinée (I went to an 11:15 AM showing) and there was plenty of laughter and even applause from the audience. Both adults and kids really seemed to enjoy it from what I saw and heard.
One thing parents need to be aware of, though, is that the movie in some ways has what could be a very somber central theme: the death of Mr Magorium. I was really surprised at how forthrightly this theme was handled. But it was very, very well done, IMHO, and as I say, the audience, of all ages, responded very positively.
I've seen this compared to Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory. To this a long-time Willy Wonka fan - fan of the the original, that is, with Gene Wilder - sorry, gang, this movie doesn't come close.
But I'll admit to being hopelessly prejudiced on that subject. I still enjoyed the sheer fun and laughter and color and sounds of Mr Magorium's Wonder Emporium.
The script was crisp, fun, and contained some great lines. The script's structure uses one of my favorite techniques for story-telling: making the story-telling part of the story. We page through a story book as we go through the movie, with Eric (Zach Mills) our delightfully enthusiastic narrator. What could be better?
The acting & characterizations were finely done. Dustin Hoffman played a suitably eccentric Mr Magorium. Natalie Portman was an adorable Molly Mahoney. Jason Bateman makes an appealing accountant learning to have fun. Zach Mills gives a wonderful performance as Eric the youthful Hat Collector.
All in all, if you or your kids have any inclination to have some fun in a magical toy emporium, this one is surely worth a visit.
Go ... and have fun!
Love in the Time of Cholera (2007)
How to Make Star-Crossed Love Unappealing
I saw this movie today, the day after it opened here. And although I did find this movie sort of appealing, I think it's ultimately very disappointing.
The basic motif is really very appealing: an unfulfilled love that nonetheless lasts 51 years and more.
But although it's clear that we're supposed to like the main character, Fiorentino, he comes across as being a self-regarding narcissist, not as a man deeply loving from afar. After all, the movie shows him as a man carefully recording each sexual conquest. I think most of us can find a Casanova somewhat appealing as a character; but who can really like a man who seems so concerned to record each sexual conquest, and use his account book to periodically regale someone with how many women he's laid?
And the movie opens with this man approaching his beloved just after the funeral of her husband, ignoring her tears, oblivious to her sorrow, dismissing her bereavement, seemingly utterly insensible to her feelings ... and instead preaching his devotion to her. He seems not in love with her, but rather in love with his love for her; or in love with hearing his own voice nobly declaring his love for her. No wonder she reacts with such rage.
For that matter, all three main characters are interesting, in some degree, but also downright unlikable. Why? They come across as being self-indulgent and self-absorbed, not star-crossed lovers in a love triangle.
The script has holes ... such as a brief allusion to the main character's falling in love with one of his conquests. We don't find much out about this relationship. Yet, if love is so all-important, shouldn't we be allowed to learn more of this love, brief tho it may be? The acting is adequate but often over-played. The cinematography is resplendent - what a wonderful depiction of the lush Colombian jungle and the beautiful Cartagena.
Now the basic problem may well be with the translation of the book to script. I haven't read the book, so it may depict the main characters with greater sympathy. I certainly hope so. A good love story should give us lovers we can really like. This movie does not. And therefore ultimately proves unsatisfactory.
Beowulf (2007)
Wonderful Story, More-or-Less Wonderful Movie
I saw this movie today, the day it opened here. And had very mixed feelings about it.
The story, and the script undergirding the story, is to me the best part of the movie. The execution of the script was to me partly good, partly not so good.
I think it's the animation that most disappointed me. Maybe my expectations were staked too high based on pre-release buzz. But I'm really just mystified at those who rate the animation nearly perfect. Human faces and human bodies looked like comic book animation to me, except in those sequences in which either darkness or distance, or both, managed to obscure things enough to achieve a vivid genuineness that did indeed give me great pleasure.
Outside views of the Northern Danish snowy fastnesses were uniformly delightful, IMHO. My very favorite sequence was that with the dragon at the end of the movie. What a wonderful sequence. And the end of the movie was true Northern/Norse-mythic in content and execution: I loved it.
Acting was minimal but adequate for character depictions in a broad, sweeping mythic movie like this.
All in all, though, the story ... the amazing mythic story of Beowulf ... carries this movie and gives it what is to me a deeply satisfying telling of a tale that deserves to be told again and again and again.
Now if I can just get to see it in IMAX ...
Bella (2006)
Beautiful, Delightful, Humane Story
I saw this movie today - it just opened here in Tulsa - and was amazed at how delightfully engaging a seemingly simple human story can be when a great script is placed in the hands of a wonderful director.
Think of a Hispanic, or Anglo, Tyler Perry who wants to show us that plain people aren't plain, and good families are really good.
As so many have already pointed out, this is a story about a young lady who learns that she's pregnant at the same time that she gets fired from a restaurant in New York City. Jose, a co-worker, befriends her and they spend a day that takes them ... and us ... in a wonderful tour of a city and a family that kept my attention riveted.
The cinematography and editing seemed utterly flawless to me. What amazingly delightful shots, what perfectly timed cuts.
The actors were all superb. Tammy Blanchard's Nina and Eduardo Verástegui's Jose were convincing and engaging. All supporting actors and actresses were excellent. And everyone was simply perfect at carrying forward this delightful story.
I would simply recommend this movie to anyone who enjoys convincing and engaging human interest stories.
Borderland (2007)
Well Told Tale of Horror
I saw this on the last night of our local Horrorfest 2007 and was both duly horrified and impressed. To me this is an outstanding horror film that could stand alongside Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Halloween, and Friday the 13th.
The tale provides a really delightfully horrifying mix of quasi-religious/satanist cultishness, sadistic gore, fun-loving college students plunged into terror, and nightmarish cross-cultural confusion.
The script was solidly scary; it delivers and delivers well. I really like the basic strategy: starting with a really nasty, brutal, scary torture scene, introducing the horrifyingly sadistic and creepy Gustavo; then for a fairly lengthy time we have this wonderful story full of indirection and feints and suggestiveness, including all kinds of cultural misdirection and confusion, during which I kept looking for a new horror along the lines of the initial scene of horror; and finally after this long fear-inducing build-up, we get an even more horrifying torture scene and a bloodbath to go along with it. To me this all works very, very well, and the script gets top props for this arrangement and for really solid scenes throughout. The script is even sprinkled with some really great lines: "The border has no memory." "I'll be back when I know what I'm doing."
The script was executed very convincingly. The acting was consistently solid. Brian Presley's Ed was excellent and convincing, and Jake Muxworthy gave us an excellent rendition of party-loving Henry. Valeria is attractively portrayed by Martha Higareda.
As for the cult and cult members, the script as executed gives the cult as such a strong "flavor" while giving us convincing portrayals of several very distinctively wicked members of the cult. The leader of the cult, Beto Cuevas' Santillan, was not for me nearly as salient as Marco Bacuzzi's Gustavo. Bacuzzi gives us a Gustavo who is to me so sadistic, so creepy, and so scene-dominating that I would really put him in the same pantheon of nasty horror characters as Jason and Michael Myers and Hannibal Lector.
The cinematography is consistently outstanding, and there are some really great visuals. I especially liked the scenes in the amusement park, and some of the indoor scenes: such as the early scene of a policeman looking down a blue corridor with a statue of the Virgin Mary in a niche in the wall behind him; and then another in which one of the female characters is climbing an indoor circular staircase. But really almost all of the scenes were really composed very effectively; and the gory scenes were as gory and creepy and scary as one could wish.
The only really big objection I had was to the sound, which was just horribly washed out, obscure, and sometimes almost non-existent, as in the case of several gunshots that sounded like pencils tapping on a table. I couldn't really believe that the movie's sound could be this bad, except that another audience member in my theater said he talked with theater staff, which did try to make adjustments of some kind, utterly unsuccessful.
And I'll admit that I'd much rather see Gustavo as the top cult-creep.
But all in all, this is a wonderful horror movie that deserves a lot wider recognition as such, IMHO.
Lions for Lambs (2007)
A Talking Heads Movie - A Bad Talking Heads Movie
I saw this movie today, the day after it opened in the US in general release. And have to say that this is perhaps one of the worst movies I have seen in years.
The trailer led me to think that this might be a geopolitical action movie of some kind. Think "The Ugly American" or Redford's "The Candidate." It turned out to be a movie consisting almost exclusively of Larry King / Charlie Rose - style "talking head" dialog scenes: long scenes, containing the most contrived debate/discussion material. One such extended debate - lasting, unbelievably, with cuts in and out, through about 2/3 of the movie, takes place in Washington DC, between a US Senator played by Tom Cruise, and a prominent network journalist played by Meryl Streep. The other, extending even longer, takes place in California between a professor played by Robert Redford, and a student played by Andrew Garfield.
The script was poor, containing little beyond this poor quality dialog. The "talking head" scenes are scripted with extraordinarily contrived, and extraordinarily boring, material. The plot was almost non-existent and lacked credibility in even very basic features. For example, we are supposed to believe that a smart, bright US Senator is going to choose a journalist who is diametrically opposed to what he stands for in order to float a "new strategy" in an exclusive interview.
The movie provides some action type footage in Afghanistan, but it is very under-developed, in service to the bi-polar State-side "talking heads" dialog sets.
Characters were stereotypical. Tha acting by the "big name" actors was competent but wooden, reflecting the wooden script with which they had to deal. Acting by the minor and support cast was actually far better than that of Redford, Streep, and Cruise. Andrew Garfield's Todd was portrayed with skill and commitment and believability that shone all the brighter given the poor quality of the dialog he reads to us opposite the remarkably disengaged and unbelievable professor played by Redford.
Cinematography was competent and uninteresting, consistent with the "talking heads" format of the movie. Scenery in Afghanistan showed early promise, but subsequent wintry scenes were poorly set, unengaging, and not generally credible.
My advice, if you like this kind of "talking heads" matter, is to skip the movie and watch Larry King or Charlie Rose or any number of other TV or radio interview/debate shows which at least, to their credit, provide some degree of believable, spontaneous dialog.
Michael Clayton (2007)
A Story connected with a Story connected with a Story
I'm probably one of the last commentators to make an entry for this movie. But I was just struck today with how well this movie "wears" for me. It's been in first run release for about 3 or 4 weeks now, during which time I've seen it 3 or 4 times. And I'll probably see it some more.
The acting is great, the cinematography is great, the storyline and scripting great ... but what really make this movie for me is the interconnected storylining.
Stories seem to be given to us at three levels: the personal story, the professional story, and what might be called the miracle story, or the story of the X-Factor.
So we have Michael Clayton's personal story, interconnected with Michael Clayton's professional story, interconnected with the personal and professional stories of Tom Wilkinson's Arthur, and the personal and professional stories of Tilda Swinton's Karen. Then the story of the child, Austin Williams' Henry, and the extraordinary story of Realm & Conquest. The latter captivates Henry, and the manic Arthur, and introduces us to what might be called yet another storyline, the Story of the "X Factor" - a transcendent, extraordinary, beyond-this-world window through which Arthur gazes to organize his world, just as Henry does as well. This is a world in which Miracles are alluded to seriously, as we gradually work our way through the movie, pacing our way through the personal and professional stories swirling around our main characters, finally arriving at the extraordinary scene in which the X-Factor seems to overtake and demand the attention of Michael Clayton: the much-discussed scene with Michael and the three horses.
I have to admit that the Director Tony Gilroy gives what is probably the most authoritative explanation for the horses. See http://www.aintitcool.com/node/34448. Basically he says Clayton had had a long past few days and saw these three horses and went up to see them to chill out a bit. Maybe. But this doesn't account for an implausibly coincidental series of linkages between this scene, and the picture of horses in the Realm & Conquest book, allusions to horses elsewhere in the movie, and most saliently the (yes) miraculous manner in which Michael Clayton survives a murder attempt: for if he hadn't stopped his car to approach these 3 horses, he would have been blown up in his car. This is the X-Factor. This is the Miraculous appearing suddenly and unexpectedly and changing Michael Clayton's life as it changes the lives of others.
What follows, I'm sorry to say, is one of the more implausible scenes in the movie: Clayton throws his i.d. into his burning car, and is then reported as having been killed in the car ... even though the police surely would find that there's no body in the car.
All in all, though, this amazing movie delivers a beautiful, gripping, compelling set of stories, all centered, of course, on the person of Michael Clayton.
George Clooney's Michael Clayton is brilliantly acted, a real tour de force. The final scene, in the cab with the credits, is worth staying for and gives an absolutely extraordinary look at Clooney's ability to act by facial expressions alone, as his Michael Clayton lurches through the streets, looking this way and that, decompressing, wondering, reflecting, fearing, wondering.
Tom Wilkinson plays Arthur authoritatively, portraying a manic-depressive with convincing precision, and giving us a look at the powerful lawyer as well that is all the more extraordinary for being played in a scene with an armful of bread as a prop.
Tilda Swinton's Karen is really amazing - she gives us confidence, with harrowing looks at the anxiety-ridden person underneath the professional persona.
Austin Williams really does a splendid job as the youngster Henry, and I'm hoping we'll see some more of this fine young actor in the future.
And Sydney Pollack's Marty is a very convincing portrait, rounding out a cast giving us great supporting roles.
This is a very dark movie, with lots of night-time shooting, and even the daytime shots tend to be dark or look like they are begging to be done under cloak of darkness. Especially striking for me are the visuals of a cold, dark city, with blinking lights and civic mechanisms (traffic, cabs, phones, etc) everywhere. There are lots of shots either through windows or in reflections on windows. Lots of indirect lighting, seeming to undergird the indirectness of so much that happens in this movie.
All in all, I think anyone who likes great story-telling, intricate plotwork, well-depicted characterization, great acting, and splendid cinematography will very much enjoy this amazing movie.
Charles Delacroix
Martian Child (2007)
A Wonderful Tale of a Boy, an Adoptive Father, and a Martian Adventure on Earth
This is a wholly delightful, heart-warming movie about exactly what the tag-line says: a man becoming a father, and a boy becoming a son.
The key conceit - a boy who thinks he's from Mars - provides a fine vehicle for exploring a whole series of themes: what's real and what's not; imagination as a means of coping; building trust; loss and healing. The script provides us with a story that very effectively ties all these earthly elements together by means of a Martian connection that is pleasing throughout.
The whole cast does a fine job, with John Cusack providing an exceptionally outstanding performance as David, the boy's adoptive father. Young Bobby Coleman does a fine job as the boy Dennis.
I especially liked much of the cinematography and scene visuals. This is a very visual movie. The scenes of David and Dennis amid the Christmas lights in front of the house were to me very, very appealing. So were the repeated visuals in which we saw a face through a window that partially reflected other things, often lights. The lights on the ceiling in Dennis' room, and the use of photography by both Dennis and David to help convey and capture and mediate reality ... all of these helped reinforce the credibility of the main conceit.
If you see this movie, be sure to stay for the closing credits, presented amid a pastiche of photos and scrapbook-like visuals that actually provide a quick review of the whole movie.
Lars and the Real Girl (2007)
Reality and Community
I just saw this movie today and was very deeply impressed. What a fascinating use of an unusual conceit to produce a movie full of humor, grace, and beauty.
The conceit - troubled young man forms a relationship with a life-sized doll - is unusual, and looks like the kind of thing that could only go so far. However, the scriptwriter, Nancy Oliver, elaborates this conceit with amazing skill so that the various subthemes are interwoven into a fascinating and engaging story.
The humor sprinkled throughout the story is to me perfectly calibrated in such a way that the rhythm is never broken: we get a quick laugh and then rapidly move on before any sense of cloying or over-play can set in.
Of course the title sets us up for an important theme: what is real? And the love story between the main character and a doll becomes a foil for examining various other kinds of love. But the primary theme undergirding all others is the love relationship between a troubled individual and a community.
The acting, especially by Ryan Gosling, is truly wonderful. The cinematography and technical features seem to be reflected in a very good light in this movie.
But it's the story ... and the story's execution ... that really make this movie what it is. I think the scriptwriter and director deserve especially strong plaudits for their work in this wonderful, wonderful film.
The Darjeeling Limited (2007)
Misanthropy as Film
I saw this movie yesterday, when it opened here, and generally disliked it. I confess that I am not a Wes Anderson supporter: if I liked Wes Anderson films, then I would probably have liked this film, since it does seem very like other Wes Anderson films. But I disliked it probably as much as other Wes Anderson films.
What struck me most strongly this time was that I suddenly realized why Wes Anderson films ... or at least this one ... are so easy for me to dislike. It is because they seem above all imbued with a sort of consistent misanthropy.
Or at least this one does. The stylistic and structural elements are not repugnant to me. The cinematography seemed to me to be stylized but delightful. The scenes generally unfold as highly stylized tableaux vivants only loosely concatenated by a very loose plot structure. But the humor was what was most striking. I felt like I was once again a sophomore in high school, with a sneer on my lips for anyone and anything around me. And that is the kind of view of life that I feel I am invited to in this movie. Everything, and everyone, deserves a sneer, seems to be the Anderson message. Even ... in a particularly brutal sequence ... the death of a child.
Contrast another film maker known for his stylized approach to film: Quentin Tarantino. A Tarantino movie seems to invite me to almost the opposite of a sneer for everything; rather, I feel invited to like and respect and find something good and worthwhile in everything. In an Anderson movie, in this one in particular, I am invited to view everything with an amused contempt.
Thanks but no thanks.
I did love the scenes in India. The acting of the main characters seemed competently consistent with the tableaux vivants they adorned. There is a sort of crisp cadence to the unfolding of the loose concatenation of scenes that to me was appealing.
But all in all, I think I'd rather watch things that don't invite me to that sophomoric sneer that I thought I had long ago left behind.