a film-etc blog
D is for d'oh! Alas. I was hopeful about this one.
Well, I knew as I was watching it that it was either a masterpiece I simply wasn't getting or the biggest ton of shite to come down the pike since Brokeback Mountain (yes, you read that right- but more on how much Ang Lee's extraordinarily reactionary, laughably written flick disturbed me at another time. I will say that I maintain had anyone else made it, it would be dismissed as risible). But back to Woody Allen. The first 45 minutes was like watching a train wreck; compulsive because you just could not believe the two leads could be acting that badly or that the script could be any more stilted, the endless static shots of people waving tennis rackets, etc. etc. ad nauseum, could really be what you were being forced to look at. Then the "plot" set in. Lawdy! I am so disappointed in my holiday screener viewings ("King Kong" included) that the tedium of "Jarhead" suddenly leaps to the forefront. At least Walter Murch's double-whammy contributions in picture and sound editing keep it interesting, as does the ever-delicious Peter Saarsgard. Happy New Year, indeed.
Oh, but King Kong? How could you?!No film with Peter Sarsgaard in it can be entirely bad. Well, except Flightplan...
I am so sorry to hit "Kong" with a solid B-, Tim. I really am! Your rave was so wonderful I rooted for it throughout the first 90 minutes and determined to sit in the theater until Kong showed up. Which I did. Then I left, sad to say. I am sure it got better. Much better. But the first 90 minutes, for me, were criminally boring and that was enough for me to skeddaddle outta there."Jarhead" isn't half bad. Truly. Far better than "Munich," that's fer sure! If only Mendes hadn't cribbed so many shots and setups from "Full Metal Jacket." Well, I guess he cribbed scores of shots from Billy Wilder and Bob Fosse for the egregious "American Beauty" and that turned up roses for him, so who could blame him for doing that here?Speaking of Peter Saarsgard... when d'ya reckon he's going to get a leading role worthy of his talent?
tim i don't get you! ;)I thought Match Point was so clever (with capital C) and had a fun sense of humor about itself.and King Kong. quite good but soooo many problems dragging it down from perfection. The action sequences all being about 5 minutes too long. I know it's criminal when I get bored with dinosaurs because I mean, really, DINOSAURS! How can it be boring?
@ginger: I had hopes for The Dying Gaul - and he's good in it - but, well, no. Did you hear about this film In God's Hands he made with Lodge Kerrigan and Maggie Gyllenhaal? Fully wrapped and then they discovered that all the footage was damaged and unusable. Gotta hurt.Oops, forgot Garden State on my short list of films that have Peter Sarsgaard in them but are, nonetheless, entirely bad.If it's lead Pete you're after, I really recommend him in Wayne Wang's The Center of the World. Dubious film, and there's a lot of Molly Parker to contend with, but he's outstanding.@Nat: If you're British, you think Match Point is rubbish. I'm afraid it's a rule. The "posh" dialogue is laugh-out-loud terrible, and, well, you can read the review tomorrow. I really think it's dismal though, and any cleverness was confined wholly to the framing device.Kong lost something on a second viewing for me, but first time round I can't remember being less bored in my life! It's certainly not perfect, and, yes, it often overreaches, but I think genius and that kind of imperfection are perfectly happy bedfellows, and can still earn a film an A grade in my book.
Post a Comment