To boldly go, to climb a rope, to sleep and dream
#76: Gravity - A medical engineer and an astronaut work together to survive after an accident leaves them adrift in space. [imdb] PS: This is not a movie about the astronaut.
If you haven't seen this yet, you should do that, and you should see it in IMAX 3D if possible - or else, on whatever the largest and most immersive screen you can get to may be. It deserves a fall, and an experience.
I've been following this one since /Film first reported that Alfonso Cuaron was writing a movie about a woman lost on her own in space. I've read about its casting cycles, funding issues, and production battles, along with more wonderous details reported and making me root for it to survive. The final product is testament to artistic vision and storytelling integrity. Do I wish there had been less Clooney? A little, but he was minimal and well-used, anyway. IMDB summary lies about this movie focusing on two people. It's really just the one person's survival journey. Sandra Bullock does a very fine job with bringing her to screen under intense conditions, and I'm kind of amazed to find that she's starred in two of what will surely be my top ten movies of 2013 (The Heat being the other).
The craftsmanship is where this one should contend for awards, though, up through Director and Best Picture (although I don't think it'll win the latter, it should be nominated). It's a visceral movie, and if it has a few flaws (the ending veers a touch too cheesy for me), it remains a master work from a director whose work continues to challenge and amaze.
#77: A.C.O.D. - A grown man caught in the crossfire of his parents 15-year divorce discovers he was unknowingly part of a study on divorced children and is enlisted in a follow-up years later, which wreaks new havoc on his family. [imdb]
First: ILU Adam Scott, and also, most of this cast. They got a group full of people I really enjoy together for a movie that's funny enough, but ultimately not too memorable. Mostly, it just felt unfinished; there's some deliberateness to it, but it needed a few more polished edges to feel complete. It's watchable but not a must-see in theatres.
#78: The Book Thief - While subjected to the horrors of WWII Germany, young Liesel finds solace by stealing books and sharing them with others. Under the stairs in her home, a Jewish refuge is being sheltered by her adoptive parents. [imdb]
I went back to find my (locked) post about this book, where there was collective raving from those on the flist who'd read it, but not until after I'd seen the movie. It's not out yet, but I was able to attend a sneak preview this week.
Okay, so - we all know better than to expect the books we love to translate perfectly to film, and in particular, I didn't expect this book to work as well because so much of what I loved was the narrative style and (quoting myself) "stunning imagery that will leave you lingering over phrases." Then there was the first trailer that looked just wrong, and which had the friend I took thinking this would be a sweet and uplifting movie. (I corrected her before it started.)
Fortunately, the movie is true to the book in tone and in plot. They even incorporate the narrator to some extent, which I didn't expect, but more on that later. As far as I could recall, no major plot points were missed or inaccurately shown. It was a good movie with fine turns from the cast and a lot of emotional punch. I liked everyone in it, and I especially liked seeing the basement dictionary.
My friend and I agreed, though, that it was just shy of being great. It doesn't gut-punch you the way the book does. My theory is that it was the usual curse of time; it's a long movie but it still feels quick-paced because there's just so much to get through if you're determined to include everything. I can't blame them for not wanting to mess with greatness but this just never works out in adaptations, unless you go full Peter Jackson, and even then, you don't get to scour the Shire. The movie didn't feel rushed, but it kept moving along, which meant that character depth was limited to snatches and emotional moments couldn't sink in. Additionally, I felt a lack of attention to small details that just felt lazy. They also had a really hard time showing years passing and had to rely on captions. I can't be too hard on that point, especially with Liesel and Rudy, because kids physically change so much during those years that faking it with make-up is a huge order. Still, the crutches were obvious. Finally, I'm undecided on the narrator. It's so important to the book, and there are certainly pieces of the movie that wouldn't have worked without it, but I feel like it could have been done more effectively.
Literal interpretations are rough, guys.
There is a lot to like about the movie, certainly, but let's all be realistic with what we expect from adaptations of our favorite books. If you can go in with that mindset, and bring some friends, you'll spend your time and money well.
If you haven't seen this yet, you should do that, and you should see it in IMAX 3D if possible - or else, on whatever the largest and most immersive screen you can get to may be. It deserves a fall, and an experience.
I've been following this one since /Film first reported that Alfonso Cuaron was writing a movie about a woman lost on her own in space. I've read about its casting cycles, funding issues, and production battles, along with more wonderous details reported and making me root for it to survive. The final product is testament to artistic vision and storytelling integrity. Do I wish there had been less Clooney? A little, but he was minimal and well-used, anyway. IMDB summary lies about this movie focusing on two people. It's really just the one person's survival journey. Sandra Bullock does a very fine job with bringing her to screen under intense conditions, and I'm kind of amazed to find that she's starred in two of what will surely be my top ten movies of 2013 (The Heat being the other).
The craftsmanship is where this one should contend for awards, though, up through Director and Best Picture (although I don't think it'll win the latter, it should be nominated). It's a visceral movie, and if it has a few flaws (the ending veers a touch too cheesy for me), it remains a master work from a director whose work continues to challenge and amaze.
#77: A.C.O.D. - A grown man caught in the crossfire of his parents 15-year divorce discovers he was unknowingly part of a study on divorced children and is enlisted in a follow-up years later, which wreaks new havoc on his family. [imdb]
First: ILU Adam Scott, and also, most of this cast. They got a group full of people I really enjoy together for a movie that's funny enough, but ultimately not too memorable. Mostly, it just felt unfinished; there's some deliberateness to it, but it needed a few more polished edges to feel complete. It's watchable but not a must-see in theatres.
#78: The Book Thief - While subjected to the horrors of WWII Germany, young Liesel finds solace by stealing books and sharing them with others. Under the stairs in her home, a Jewish refuge is being sheltered by her adoptive parents. [imdb]
I went back to find my (locked) post about this book, where there was collective raving from those on the flist who'd read it, but not until after I'd seen the movie. It's not out yet, but I was able to attend a sneak preview this week.
Okay, so - we all know better than to expect the books we love to translate perfectly to film, and in particular, I didn't expect this book to work as well because so much of what I loved was the narrative style and (quoting myself) "stunning imagery that will leave you lingering over phrases." Then there was the first trailer that looked just wrong, and which had the friend I took thinking this would be a sweet and uplifting movie. (I corrected her before it started.)
Fortunately, the movie is true to the book in tone and in plot. They even incorporate the narrator to some extent, which I didn't expect, but more on that later. As far as I could recall, no major plot points were missed or inaccurately shown. It was a good movie with fine turns from the cast and a lot of emotional punch. I liked everyone in it, and I especially liked seeing the basement dictionary.
My friend and I agreed, though, that it was just shy of being great. It doesn't gut-punch you the way the book does. My theory is that it was the usual curse of time; it's a long movie but it still feels quick-paced because there's just so much to get through if you're determined to include everything. I can't blame them for not wanting to mess with greatness but this just never works out in adaptations, unless you go full Peter Jackson, and even then, you don't get to scour the Shire. The movie didn't feel rushed, but it kept moving along, which meant that character depth was limited to snatches and emotional moments couldn't sink in. Additionally, I felt a lack of attention to small details that just felt lazy. They also had a really hard time showing years passing and had to rely on captions. I can't be too hard on that point, especially with Liesel and Rudy, because kids physically change so much during those years that faking it with make-up is a huge order. Still, the crutches were obvious. Finally, I'm undecided on the narrator. It's so important to the book, and there are certainly pieces of the movie that wouldn't have worked without it, but I feel like it could have been done more effectively.
Literal interpretations are rough, guys.
There is a lot to like about the movie, certainly, but let's all be realistic with what we expect from adaptations of our favorite books. If you can go in with that mindset, and bring some friends, you'll spend your time and money well.