Showing posts with label tom hollander. Show all posts
Showing posts with label tom hollander. Show all posts
November 23, 2013
About Time (2013)
4.9/5
About Time is billed as a romantic comedy in the same vein as Notting Hill and Love Actually (appropriately so, since they were all written and directed by Richard Curtis). And while it is a remarkably affecting and effective romantic comedy, it is so much more than that. Curtis spends equal amounts of time on romantic love and familial love, on joy and sorrow, on birth and death. It is a grand opera, with equal parts comedy and tragedy, but it never loses sight of the individual. It captures life's little moments, as experienced by a hopeless romantic, and lets us treasure them.
On his 21st birthday, Tim (Gleeson) is told by his father (Nighy) that he has the ability to travel back in time. After a chance meeting with Mary (McAdams), he believes he has found true love. But he later undoes the entire encounter by accident when trying to fix another friend's problem. And so he begins to understand the true nature and the dramatic consequences of his newfound power.
Domhnall Gleeson is absolutely astonishing, bringing an instant charm and vulnerability to the screen. He is the beating heart of the movie and he knocks it out of the park. Rachel McAdams is, most surprisingly, the frumpiest she's ever been in a movie--and she plays it extraordinarily well. I cannot think of a more comforting or attractive version of her than in this movie. Nighy shows his veteran chops, being both stoic and drained, loving and firm. His life story is written in his small actions, his posture, his tone. The cast has an extraordinary chemistry that is nearly impossible to replicate. This movie must have been as magical to make as it feels to watch.
About Time is a whirlwind of emotion. It yanks at the heartstrings in just the right amounts, without feeling melodramatic or manipulative. There is a rare humanity that ebbs beneath every scene and fills the movie with empathy. This is about love, about growing up, about changing but being true to yourself. There are some sappy parts, for sure, and parts that defy the movie's own time travel logic, but they never hamper your enjoyment of the film. It's a movie made for the gut, not the head, and it hits its mark perfectly. About Time is a special movie and one that I plan on enjoying again and again.
IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2194499/
October 23, 2011
Hanna (2011)
4/5
Hanna is a terrific movie. The plot follows the daughter (Ronan) of a rogue agent (Bana) on a quest to take revenge on the person who killed her mother (Blanchett). The scenario surrounding that basic premise is fairly uninspired and recycled, borrowing heavily from action movie tropes without anything to call its own. The writing is just as dull as the plot, with characters that, while well-acted, end up flat and boring because there's nothing original or even remotely interesting about what they do or what they say.
What this movie does have, and in abundance, is style. Its visual flair makes it a delight to watch from beginning to end. The movie uses the most exotic, curious, beautiful locales to set gun fights and chase scenes. It combines refreshing cinematography with eclectic, exciting music to create something unique and memorable despite its bland storyline. Wright directs this film with ease, using some of the same techniques he used in his earlier Pride & Prejudice and Atonement to striking effect. He even cuts away from the action from time to time to focus on images or ideas that are more captivating than the fighting itself. This is not a traditional action movie, and may in fact alienate some typical action fans, but it will enthrall those who appreciate the essence of cool.
IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0993842/
Hanna is a terrific movie. The plot follows the daughter (Ronan) of a rogue agent (Bana) on a quest to take revenge on the person who killed her mother (Blanchett). The scenario surrounding that basic premise is fairly uninspired and recycled, borrowing heavily from action movie tropes without anything to call its own. The writing is just as dull as the plot, with characters that, while well-acted, end up flat and boring because there's nothing original or even remotely interesting about what they do or what they say.
What this movie does have, and in abundance, is style. Its visual flair makes it a delight to watch from beginning to end. The movie uses the most exotic, curious, beautiful locales to set gun fights and chase scenes. It combines refreshing cinematography with eclectic, exciting music to create something unique and memorable despite its bland storyline. Wright directs this film with ease, using some of the same techniques he used in his earlier Pride & Prejudice and Atonement to striking effect. He even cuts away from the action from time to time to focus on images or ideas that are more captivating than the fighting itself. This is not a traditional action movie, and may in fact alienate some typical action fans, but it will enthrall those who appreciate the essence of cool.
IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0993842/
September 25, 2011
Possession (2002)
2/5
Possession is a film adaptation of a book that is likely superior in every way. The plot focuses on two English literature historians, Roland Michell (Eckhart) and Maud Bailey (Paltrow), who both research Victorian-era poets: Michell knows Randolph Henry Ash (Northam) and Bailey knows Christabel LaMotte (Ehle). As the two uncover a heretofore secret, hidden love affair from the past, they discover the emergence of their own love for each other. Yes, the storyline sounds more than a little cheesy, but it reminded me--in a good way--of Wong Kar-Wai's In the Mood for Love. (Unfortunately, it never even came close to being as good as that movie.) All the storytelling elements were there to make this a truly compelling story, but the rest of the filmmaking was not. The acting oscillated between flat and harsh. The written dialogue was unconvincing and stilted. Most of the shots were plain Jane boring. A few times LaBute surprised me with some clever juxtaposition of scenes or imagery, but I left the movie unimpressed. (It doesn't help that it ends on a ridiculously laughable action/chase/fight scene.) Trust me when I say that Possession is a movie not worth seeing. If the plot sounds interesting, I would suggest you try reading the book instead.
IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0256276/
Possession is a film adaptation of a book that is likely superior in every way. The plot focuses on two English literature historians, Roland Michell (Eckhart) and Maud Bailey (Paltrow), who both research Victorian-era poets: Michell knows Randolph Henry Ash (Northam) and Bailey knows Christabel LaMotte (Ehle). As the two uncover a heretofore secret, hidden love affair from the past, they discover the emergence of their own love for each other. Yes, the storyline sounds more than a little cheesy, but it reminded me--in a good way--of Wong Kar-Wai's In the Mood for Love. (Unfortunately, it never even came close to being as good as that movie.) All the storytelling elements were there to make this a truly compelling story, but the rest of the filmmaking was not. The acting oscillated between flat and harsh. The written dialogue was unconvincing and stilted. Most of the shots were plain Jane boring. A few times LaBute surprised me with some clever juxtaposition of scenes or imagery, but I left the movie unimpressed. (It doesn't help that it ends on a ridiculously laughable action/chase/fight scene.) Trust me when I say that Possession is a movie not worth seeing. If the plot sounds interesting, I would suggest you try reading the book instead.
IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0256276/
July 06, 2011
In the Loop (2009)
4/5
Wow. In the Loop is hilarious. It had me cracking up non-stop with unending vulgarities, random asides, and preposterous situations. The movie is supposedly a political satire--although the story arc itself never really made me laugh--about a group of politicos linked together by the possibility of war. There is Simon Foster (Hollander), who made a statement about the war being "unforeseeable," then flipflopping and suggesting that sometimes we must "climb a mountain of conflict" to reach peace on the other side. There is Karen Clark (Kennedy), who is very much against the war based on a paper recently put out by her aide Liza Weld (Chlumsky). There is Linton Barwick (Rasche), perhaps the funniest of them all, who feels a war is inevitable after receiving compelling but faked evidence from Malcolm Tucker (Capaldi). Linton and Karen both try to use Simon's quotes to defend their side, but even his new aide Toby Wright (Addison) cannot fix the situation. In fact, he ends up making it worse by sleeping with Liza and leaking story after story to a CNN friend.
If the plot sounds too intricate to follow, it's not. The personalities are so well-developed and visually distinct that you remember them and all their mannerisms well after the film has finished. The acting is on point, but I have to give credit to the brilliant, sharp, incisive script. The writing is impeccable. I can't remember the last time I saw a movie that had me laughing this hard, sitting in my apartment by myself on a lonely, fateful Sunday afternoon. The editing was also remarkable, as it effortlessly united numerous disparate stories to feel like a single tapestry of chaos. The cinematography, on the other hand, struck me as rather bland, trying to pull off a documentary feel and not really impressing. You don't have to be a politics aficionado to enjoy this film, just someone who appreciates witty dialogue and amazingly unique characters. Highly, highly recommended.
IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1226774/
Wow. In the Loop is hilarious. It had me cracking up non-stop with unending vulgarities, random asides, and preposterous situations. The movie is supposedly a political satire--although the story arc itself never really made me laugh--about a group of politicos linked together by the possibility of war. There is Simon Foster (Hollander), who made a statement about the war being "unforeseeable," then flipflopping and suggesting that sometimes we must "climb a mountain of conflict" to reach peace on the other side. There is Karen Clark (Kennedy), who is very much against the war based on a paper recently put out by her aide Liza Weld (Chlumsky). There is Linton Barwick (Rasche), perhaps the funniest of them all, who feels a war is inevitable after receiving compelling but faked evidence from Malcolm Tucker (Capaldi). Linton and Karen both try to use Simon's quotes to defend their side, but even his new aide Toby Wright (Addison) cannot fix the situation. In fact, he ends up making it worse by sleeping with Liza and leaking story after story to a CNN friend.
If the plot sounds too intricate to follow, it's not. The personalities are so well-developed and visually distinct that you remember them and all their mannerisms well after the film has finished. The acting is on point, but I have to give credit to the brilliant, sharp, incisive script. The writing is impeccable. I can't remember the last time I saw a movie that had me laughing this hard, sitting in my apartment by myself on a lonely, fateful Sunday afternoon. The editing was also remarkable, as it effortlessly united numerous disparate stories to feel like a single tapestry of chaos. The cinematography, on the other hand, struck me as rather bland, trying to pull off a documentary feel and not really impressing. You don't have to be a politics aficionado to enjoy this film, just someone who appreciates witty dialogue and amazingly unique characters. Highly, highly recommended.
IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1226774/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)