Recently viewed films

[Jack of All Parades]

My money is still on John Hawkes for his role in "The Sessions"- as much as I appreciated Denzel's performance, Hawkes really turned my head as a man, though, damaged in his body, but very much alive in his heart and head. It is the season's best performance despite what Day Lewis might turn in as Lincoln for me.

[Jack of All Parades]

"Lincoln" last night at the Fenway complex with my family-all the women went to see "Life of Pi" in 3d while the men took in "Lincoln". Visually quite impressive with the subtle lighting done by Januz Kaminski. He can make anything look good I am convinced. It is the nuts and bolts depiction of politics that is most illuminating. The wrangling, arm twisting and pure gamesmanship are refreshingly revealed for the first time as Lincoln struggles to get the 13th Amendment passed in the early months of his second term. Then there is Lincoln himself. Thanks to Daniel Day Lewis I have never seen him so human. There seems nothing he cannot do as a man-be a leader, a husband, a father, a citizen all at once. Lewis gives him a human depth that will not allow you to look away from the screen. He captures a man who is a man amongst men. His wisdom and humanity is cloaked under a thoughtful but calculating politician; one who is willing to wheel and deal in a cold blooded manner to accomplish what he wants. He wears his self taught knowledge lightly and when Shakespeare or the thoughts of others comes out of his mouth it never seems pretentious but as a natural part of his speech. The glories of English and the written tradition are as readily available to him as oxygen.

Have to admit my guilty favorite parts of this movie was the times when James Spader and John Hawkes were on the screen playing the thugs brought in by William Seward to procure the vote by any means possible. Spader, in particular, just chews the screen up with the glee he takes in his role. Just all around good with a performance that both manages to catch the supreme dignity and vital human aspects of our greatest President. It also shows that my government has changed little in the last 150 years-only the insults were better then and Tommy Lee Jones has the best time with them in the movie.

[Jack of All Parades]

"Lincoln" last night at the Fenway complex with my family-all the women went to see "Life of Pi" in 3d while the men took in "Lincoln". Visually quite impressive with the subtle lighting done by Januz Kaminski. He can make anything look good I am convinced. It is the nuts and bolts depiction of politics that is most illuminating. The wrangling, arm twisting and pure gamesmanship are refreshingly revealed for the first time as Lincoln struggles to get the 13th Amendment passed in the early months of his second term. Then there is Lincoln himself. Thanks to Daniel Day Lewis I have never seen him so human. There seems nothing he cannot do as a man-be a leader, a husband, a father, a citizen all at once. Lewis gives him a human depth that will not allow you to look away from the screen. He captures a man who is a man amongst men. His wisdom and humanity is cloaked under a thoughtful but calculating politician; one who is willing to wheel and deal in a cold blooded manner to accomplish what he wants. He wears his self taught knowledge lightly and when Shakespeare or the thoughts of others comes out of his mouth it never seems pretentious but as a natural part of his speech. The glories of English and the written tradition are as readily available to him as oxygen.

Have to admit my guilty favorite parts of this movie was the times when James Spader and John Hawkes were on the screen playing the thugs brought in by William Seward to procure the vote by any means possible. Spader, in particular, just chews the screen up with the glee he takes in his role. Just all around good with a performance that both manages to catch the supreme dignity and vital human aspects of our greatest President. It also shows that my government has changed little in the last 150 years-only the insults were better then and Tommy Lee Jones has the best time with them in the movie.

[Poor Deportee]

I must see "Lincoln." It gets complicated, though, because of the hassle and expense of lining up a babysitter for the evening - a problem compounded by the fact that we recently splurged on the same so as to catch "Skyfall."

The latter film is agreeable enough, but I wish someone would explain to me why it's garnered such immoderate critical praise. It's the third Bond movie in 15 years (Goldeneye, Casino Royale, and this one) to putatively "reboot" the character, have him confront his age or obsolescence in the modern world, reimagine him as a human being instead of a cardboard cut-out, etc., etc.. The idea that every third film must see the character rebooted seems a tad silly to me. Yet critics are acting as though this is some revolutionary breakthrough on a stale formula. Indeed, this film draws much of its appeal by drawing on the capital accumulated over the life of the franchise rather than adding to it, in my opinion - a fundamentally bad sign.

Maybe I'm eccentric, but I'd rather see them work within the formula so as to keep in fresh, than redefine Bond as the subject of melodrama.

[Otis Westinghouse]

Isn't your critique contradicting itself in terms of 'working within the formula so as to keep it fresh' and 'drawing appeal from accumulated capital + expanding the dimensions of the character'? Seems that way to me. For me you're describing the same thing in two ways, both of which more or less equate to what made the film good. I definitely wouldn't say revolutionary, in fact one of its strengths is that it doesn't seek to be radically different, but is steeped in love of the accumulated capital. I did find the ending very poignant, but more than anything I found it all very well executed in terms of its pacing and the memorable qualities of every scene. After the frenetic mess of the last one, this was a huge relief. Mendes does always handle his material very well. Shame you didn't enjoy it more. For me these films are really about enjoying the moment and getting a bit of wow factor, not about Bond's psychological make-up or whatever. Hope you get to see Lincoln.

I'm dying to see both The Master and Haneke's latest Amour, but a combination of work trips and social activity is conspiring against me. Good season for films.

[Jack of All Parades]

Hope you both get to see Lincoln- Spielberg has the sense to pull back and let the actors and strong screenplay by Tony Kushner just tell the story- very effective film making. When the huge audience in the theater I sat in on Friday night broke into a thunderous and spontaneous applause as the credits started to roll I had goose pimples. "Anna Karenina" last night was a different matter. I wanted to flee the theater at Coolidge Corner. I will be interested in your thoughts on the Master- I had trouble with that one-a lot of fuss for so little pay off for me.

[Poor Deportee]

Otis: I dunno - in truth I haven't given Bond a great deal of soulful thought, beyond finding the retroactive excursion into his childhood, and the M-as-substitute-mother theme the sort of hokey psychologizing that works better as a subtext (at least, to my mind). I wasn't especially convinced by this 'reboot' because it doesn't whet your appetite for more in the same vein; having given us Bond's past, they can never till that terrain again, unless they wish to become maudlin, which I'm sure they eventually will. So it seems to me more of a creative dead end than a compelling retooling of the franchise. That said, the movie was a passably diverting hour-and-twenty, so I suppose I could have found worse uses for my 12 bucks.

[Who Shot Sam?]

I admired "Lincoln" (Day-Lewis, Tommy Lee Jones and James Spader in particular) but I can't say I loved it. The title is a misnomer. It's not really a film about Lincoln. Rather, it concerns the passage of the 13th Amendment and all of the political maneuvering that made it happen. Because the film was so wordy and there were so many interior scenes, there wasn't that much of an epic scope. I suppose you could argue that history is made in smoky rooms and not on battlefields, but I would have liked a bit more of a sense of the violent upheaval happening at the time. Apart from the opening scene, a brief segment on one of the Virginia battlefields, and the perfunctory scene at the end when Lincoln is assassinated, I never really got that. Maybe I was just expecting another kind of film, but put me down as mildly disappointed.

Loved "Skyfall".

[Emotional Toothpaste]

Skyfall - I give it 2.5 stars. The first half of the movie started out pretty good, but then the whole castle scene and return to his home w/ Albert Finney, good lord, that was boring, cheesy, and predictable. Hand grenades and machine guns never looked so dull. Albert deserves better than that. And the shot-up Aston Martin certainly deserves better than that. Last good 007 flick you have to go all the way back to Moonraker -- which, crap, that reminds me, were they trying to make Javier Bardem another Jaws-type character? Who is writing these Bond movies these days? it sure as hell isn't Ian Fleming. The way they borrow from the past 007 is poorly done and the new ground they try to break is uninspired. And Daniel Craig just isn't cool enough to be Bond.

Lincoln - I give it 4.5 stars. Daniel Day-Lewis nailed Lincoln. I read Team of Rivals about a year ago and so the movie brought much of it back for me. Great movie.

[Jack of All Parades]

Because the film was so wordy and there were so many interior scenes, there wasn't that much of an epic scope. I suppose you could argue that history is made in smoky rooms and not on battlefields, but I would have liked a bit more of a sense of the violent upheaval happening at the time.

"I could be bounded in a nutshell, and count myself a king of infinite space, were it not that I have bad dreams." - Hamlet

I liked the scope of the film particularly the application of this quote by Lincoln during a key scene- it was quite epic for me.

[Who Shot Sam?]

Last good 007 flick you have to go all the way back to Moonraker

!!!!

The one with the laser battle in space? On my list of the worst - certainly Roger Moore's low point.

[Emotional Toothpaste]

Last good 007 flick you have to go all the way back to Moonraker

!!!!

The one with the laser battle in space? On my list of the worst - certainly Roger Moore's low point.

Well, yeah okay, 1979 special effects weren't quite there yet. But still way better than watching Daniel Craig call Judi Dench "mom" or the Javier Bardem escape scene which was ripped straight from Silence of the Lambs, or the rigging of booby-traps to prepare for the bad guys coming to visit just like in Home Alone 1, 2, 3, etc, or the shoot 'em up of the Skyfall with the <gasp> helicopter mounted machine guns! and then escaping via a secret tunnel. Or falling into an iced over pond with a bad guy, like Harry Potter.

And despite all of Moonraker's cheese . . . there were a lot more good lookin gals!

[Otis Westinghouse]

the movie was a passably diverting hour-and-twenty

Make that 2 and twenty. See! It's so well done it passes far faster than you realise. I thought the whole closing sequence was great from start to finish.

[Jack of All Parades]

"Les Miserables"- God! What a mistake for me. Christmas day choice for the family and I was overruled-as I would have preferred "Amour". Just one long song and boring power ballads at that. Anne Hathaway's show stopper justly earns its praise but that was the only part of the movie I enjoyed. Hugh Jackman and Russell Crowe have never seemed superfluous but they certainly come across that way in this film. The overt Christian images are too obvious and the political sentiments are insipid and cliched. The NY Time's critic, Manohla Dargis, is right; I was ready to wave my flag in surrender at the end when the cast jumps to the barricades waving theirs. I found myself wondering where was the great Victor Hugo novel buried underneath this snooze fest.

I also now know where the "Master of the House" bit from a strong Seinfeld episode comes from where George irritates Elaine's father, a famous writer[Richard Yates based], by constantly humming it- it annoyed me as well.

[Otis Westinghouse]

Oh dear! Sounds like Amour would have been the one to go for! Sounds bloody awful.

Given the lack of anything exciting on the telly (no Sky in this house), the seemingly impossible task of finding something my two upper teens lads were equally keen to see was a challenge. Ended up with a DVD of On The Waterfront. I thought I'd seen it as a teen myself, but realised I'd only seen the 'contender' scene. What a great film. Immensely powerful. As lloyd sings, 'She looks like Eva Marie Saint in On The Waterfront'.

[Jack of All Parades]

Otis, you could not be more right. Should have known given my general dislike of musicals. "Waterfront" is a tremendous movie. One wishes Kazan had had the same moral courage as the character he directs, Terry, in real life. Brando never kept my eye on the screen more than he did in that movie.

[Poor Deportee]

Les Miz is a musical. Ergo it is unwatchable. Simple law of nature

I enjoyed the Seinfeld reference, Jack. One of my favourite episodes - 'I can't go back out there!!' - and the coda where the grouchy old man sings 'Master of the House' to himself cracks me up.

[Jack of All Parades]

I like the simplicity[and beauty] of your equation. What has always made that Seinfeld episode work for me is the father character-later when I learned that Larry David based him upon a girlfriend's father- the writer Richard Yates- and his demeanor that only enhanced my appreciation like when John Cheever's love letters to Susan's father are recovered from the burned cabin.

[SCIENCEFICTIONTWIN]

"This Is Forty" gets my vote for worst movie of the year. But if you liked "The Hangover," you might be able to stomach this recycled dog turd. I've never seen anything less funny or so desperately pointless. Of course it will be a huge hit regardless. It amazes me how much mediocre material like this is unexplainably produced in the first place, and then, shockingly is unjustifiably rewarded. Is the general public THAT starved for gratification?
Normally, I would have typically passed on this one if not for the appearance of Graham Paker, an artist I would never have expected to "sell out," but I was sadly proven wrong this time. Certainly few artists would turn down such an opportunity to reach a larger audience from their appearing in a hit movie, but this particular one is downright embarassing and my admiration for GP has diminished as a consequence (hopefully only temporarily).

[Poor Deportee]

"This Is Forty" gets my vote for worst movie of the year. But if you liked "The Hangover," you might be able to stomach this recycled dog turd. I've never seen anything less funny or so desperately pointless. Of course it will be a huge hit regardless. It amazes me how much mediocre material like this is unexplainably produced in the first place, and then, shockingly is unjustifiably rewarded. Is the general public THAT starved for gratification?
Normally, I would have typically passed on this one if not for the appearance of Graham Paker, an artist I would never have expected to "sell out," but I was sadly proven wrong this time. Certainly few artists would turn down such an opportunity to reach a larger audience from their appearing in a hit movie, but this particular one is downright embarassing and my admiration for GP has diminished as a consequence (hopefully only temporarily).

These kind of movies seem to be basically sentimental pandering to the self-importance of 'generations.' Like nobody ever turned 40 before. But it's that sentimentality that ensures their success, the overriding message to its target demographic being: you and your feelings are EVER so important.

That's OK. Because I have morons for friends, I was dragged into going to see Jack Reacher yesterday, despite lobbying for Lincoln or Django Unchained. My God. While Robert Duvall's turn was mildly diverting and the sequence where The Patron Saint of Scientology uses one guy's head to repeatedly smash another guy's head was good for a chortle, by and large the whole thing is a massive turd expelled from the bowels of Tom Cruise's permanently adolescent ego. The filmmakers should be paying ME the price of admission to consume that steaming heap of excrement

[Jack of All Parades]

Silver Linings Playbook by David O Russell. This is the movie I should have seen on Christmas Day instead of Les Miserables. Genuinely funny, quirky, a screwball gem; it makes the pain of being human most palatable. I have never seen a better comedy about family and how it both infuriates and offers solace and comfort. One would not think mental illness fertile material for a family comedy but it is mined in this movie to a depth of humanity that is both touching and laugh out loud screamingly hilarious. Though aided by a strong script the real assets in this film are the actors led by Bradly Cooper, Robert DeNiro, as his father, and the eye opening Jennifer Lawrence. Her appearance early on in the film at an outrageous dinner party is most memorable. From that point on you cannot take your eyes off of her. Her screen presence is so luminous, her character so touching and her acting so seamless. I knew she was something when I saw her in Winter's Bone a few years back; this role solidifies her abilities for me. She should have a long and luminous Hollywood career if the fates allow. I cannot champion this great screwball comedy about the 'family' enough. This movie is the equivalent of the humor one finds in Samuel Beckett. It is that good. Go see it and enjoy a well spent two hours in the dark. Also, as usual, Russell's movie has a tremendous soundtrack. I have not seen a better usage of Dylan's "Girl From the North Country".

[Otis Westinghouse]

Sounds good. Had a family outing to the cinema yesterday myself to see Life of Pi. Read the book when it came out and liked it, wondered how Ang Lee would reimagine it and was not disappointed for a second. Commentators have criticised it as boring, too long at sea with the tiger, etc., and The Guardian's Peter Bradshaw lambasted its ending, the same as in the book, but I like the framing device of the telling of the story and how it concludes very much indeed. First-time actor Suraj Sharma is excellent as the boy, the CGI animals and tiger in particular are mind-blowingly good, and it has the best use of 3D I've seen (one to definitely see in this format over 2D as some of the ocean-going visual magic would be much weaker in 2D). Ang Lee is building up a varied and remarkable body of work and I think pulls off the rare thing here of a film that matches its literary source for magic (more visual, less psychological, inevitably). For me it didn't drag for a second, there are consistently interesting things happening in all moments, and all 5 of us inc 12 year old liked it. Recommended without hesitation.

The visit to the cinema was memorable for another reason. Some 30 mins or more into the film, after most/all of the India sequences, Cambridge's most famous resident Stephen Hawking came in. I've been near him in restaurants before, but never the cinema. Although he was quite far away to the side of the theatre, it was hard not to be aware of his presence throughout, not least due to his bright screen and especially the very regular bleeping from the computer. For a lesser being I don't think I could have resisted shouting out 'Hasn't it got a silent mode?', but maybe the bleeping is an essential part of monitoring his status. It seems incredible he's made it to 70. Pure comedy came a few times when that unmistakeable voice said, also at a level very far from silent mode 'Yes', 'Thank you' and 'I hope so'. It made a good talking point at the party I was at later on.

It's a curious juxtaposition, a story that vouches it will make its listener believe in God and the great scientist who recently said that 'heaven and the afterlife are fairy tales'. He's also written metaphorically of the mind of God. I hope he liked the film. The God theme is one that would be fun to discuss in a literary class, but it's certainly one that is handled in such a way as not to irk someone of my atheistic persuasion (nor even that of my student son's more hardcore version!). The humour of Pi's pantheistic vision is wonderfully done. Check out the closing note on this ASTONISHING website's review for the (fascistically) hardcore Christian take on this!

http://www.focusonthefamily.com/parenti ... of-pi.aspx

And tomorrow the 5 of us will reconvene for The Hobbit. I think Hawking would enjoy that one too.

[Jack of All Parades]

Love that story about about the great scientist and thinker- love the irony that he goes to a movie that takes a very strong pro- deity stance.

Spoiler alert- tried to sit though Melancholia last night- pure tripe and speaking of big egos just one gigantic egotistical mess to my eyes and mind. Turned it off after twenty minutes.

[Otis Westinghouse]

Hobbit was fun, but tempted to add 'if you like that sort of thing'. I don't especially, and could have done with an hour loess of it. Somewhat ludicrous that Jackson has opted to make it a trilogy. Seems to be after to easy a life. I did like Martin Freeman a lot, though, and nice to see him getting the exposure. Liked him since The Office.

Pi is pro-deity, but at least part in a pro-fairy tale sort of way. Two versions of the story are offered, and the favoured one is the fantastical tiger one. 'So it is with God.' In this way it fits neatly with the above Hawking fairy tale quote and as such doesn't cause offence to a staunch believer, at least in my case, as it isn't trying to tell me their way is the only way.

[Otis Westinghouse]

Contrary to the above Christmas Day response, had great fun at Les Mis. Of course it's all pretty far-fetched and over the top, but there's something unique and loveable about the whole thing. Crowe's singing was a bit painful, but Jackman did well, and Hathaway was certainly excellent. Made me want to read the book and know about the history, and maybe visit Stendhal's The Red and the Black, which I recall my dad having on the shelf at home. Definitely not one to watch if you hate musicals, and although I've only ever seen one on the London stage (the outstanding Matilda last year), I like the concept of drama being sung, from my childhood love of old Fred Astaire films on.

I was trying to work out what linked this with The King's Speech stylistically. A love of intense close-ups, a driving narrative feel, some occasionally arresting compositions and shots (like a great one with the camera lifting vertically from the street to above the rooftops). Not sure what else. but I'm happy to see the once flagging UK cinema industry further propped up by his success. What next?

The often sniffy or contrarian Peter Bradshaw offers a pretty good review. Don't quite agree with him re Crowe and vulnerability. To me it sounded more like he wanted to be stern and commanding but just didn't have the voice for it.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2013/jan ... les-review

The venerable Philip French also enthuses, and rightly celebrates the on-set singing, which I do think made a big difference to it all:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2013/jan ... tom-hooper

I think it's probably the first and hopefully the last time I've heard applause at the end of a film. Maybe they knew they couldn't grab the tricoleur and rtun off to the barricades as Bradshaw suggests and this was the only other option.

All in all, go see if you aren't anti-musicals or too obsessed with subtlety.