Whatever Works (2009)

Posted by The Citizen Review | Posted in , , | Posted on 4:48 PM

Matthew says: C+

For the past 20 years or so, Woody Allen has made and released a film ever year. Perhaps this reflects on his work. Well, in any case, it certainly has in his latest release, Whatever Works.

The movie is very "Woody Allen-like" but that's basically all it is. When you watch the movie all you think is him trying to recreate his success with his previous, and better, New York set film. It's been four films since his last New York picture, and let me just say, maybe he should go back to Barcelona.

Whatever Works is the morality tale of an intelligent but has a very dark view of the world. One day he stumbles upon a teenage southern belle, comfortably residing in the dumpster by his house. She ran away from her constrained life in the south and wants a place to stay. Well, she and he get more than they bargained for when the incidentally fall in love (or something like that).

Her very southern, bible beating mother comes along and gets swept up in the mad world of New York City. Her father also drops by, and gets swept up as well.

In the end of this messy, confused tale, the only lesson I found is do "whatever works", whatever that means.

Sincerely,
The Citizen Review

(0) Comments

A Midsummer Night's Dream

Posted by The Citizen Review | Posted in , , | Posted on 11:58 AM


Jack says: B-

In 1999's A Midsummer Night's Dream, we have a perfect example of what happens when a movie is nearly perfectly faithful to a piece of work, but changes all the wrong aspects of it.

The movie has a magical forest of great actors: Christian Bale, Dominic West, Calista Flockhart, Michelle Pfieffer, Stanley Tucci, Kevin Kline, Rupert Everett. They all have pretty good performances, considering the whole movie is in the original Shakespearian tongue. They all do their job, but it's all a mess at the same time. Another mistake was casting Anna Friel in the role of Hermia. Hermia could arguably be called the heroine of the story and she is least well-known actor. It seemed a little off.

The film is not set in Shakespearian times, but in the 19th century in Athens (it basically looks like England) which I think was the first mistake. If the film wanted it to be set in that era, I think 19th century jargon would suited the film better than the original play. It was just too confusing and clunky. If they wanted to keep the Shakespeare-speak, then it should have been set in the original date. There are bicycles, hoop skirts, parasols. It's a little over the top.

The storyline is also exactly the same as the play, which seemed to be a burden in the 'modern' setting. They should have changed it up a little if they wanted the film to communicate better to audiences. It's like it can't really decide if it wants to be a broad Shakespeare-blockbuster or a die hard period piece, for the most discriminating English scholar.

The film uses all classical music for the score, which made for some dramatic sequences that I quite enjoyed, it almost made up for the ridiculous other parts of the film.

The film can be used as an educational tool, since it follows very closely to the script. I watched the film in my Shakespeare class recently and one can basically hold the script in front of them and follow along. People who have studied Shakespeare in high school or maybe even college can appreciate the film for it's accuracies and it's beauty, for it's production value and for the merit of the performances by the supporting cast. But for those scholars out there writing their dissertation on old Billy S., it may seem like a frivolous misfire.

Sincerely,
The Citizen Review

(0) Comments

James Cameron Still Reigns and Everyone Else is Hungover

Posted by The Citizen Review | Posted in , , , | Posted on 6:28 PM

The Golden Globes are one of the most important award shows in the road to the Oscars. In a way it foreshadows what might happen in the Academy Awards. But if that's true with this year's Golden Globe winners, there will be a problem.


First off, the best dramatic actress of the year was Sandra Bullock for The Blind Side. Not Gauborey Sibide in her remarkable performance in Precious. Or Carrey Mulligan in her vibrant performance in An Education. Nope. Or, let's talk about how Robert Downey Jr. won best actor, musical or comedy. The category was a little vacant. But I'd say he was the last person I would pick out of that bunch of actors. He gave his acceptance speech and I could have sworn it was the Sherlock Holmes her "portrayed" in the film. Or Iron Man. Whichever, they're pretty much interchangeable.

And, finally, let's all say it out loud. The Hangover won best film, musical or comedy. (500) Days of Summer? Nine? No.

Well, on a happier note, James Cameron won best director and best picture, drama for Avatar. And it deserved it. Hopefully these two categories will be the same in the Oscars. Meryl Streep won for best actress, musical or comedy and Jeff Bridges won best dramatic actor. Oh yes, and Mo'Nique won for best supporting actress and most dramatic speech. At least that gives us some hope that the Foreign Press wasn't smoking pot while they were choosing the winners. Some hope.

Well, the announcements for the Academy Award nominees will be aired February 2nd. We'll see what fate gives us. Or what the Academy gives us.

Sincerely,
The Citizen Review

(0) Comments

The 2nd Annual Citizen Awards

Posted by The Citizen Review | Posted in , , | Posted on 7:14 PM

avatar.jpg (535×301)

BoldBest Picture: Avatar

Top Ten List:
1. Avatar
2. The White Ribbon
3. The Hurt Locker
4. Precious
5. Where the Wild Things Are
6. Up in the Air
7. (500) Days of Summer
8. Inglorious Basterds
9. A Serious Man
10. A Single Man

Best Actor
Colin Firth, A Single Man - WINNER
Jeff Bridges, Crazy Heart
Morgan Freeman, Invictus
Jeremy Renner, The Hurt Locker
Joseph Gordon-Levitt, (500) Days of Summer

Best Actress
Gabourey Sibide, Precious - WINNER
Carrey Mulligan, An Education
Meryl Streep, Julie & Julia
Zoe Saldana, Avatar
Zooey Deschanel, (500) Days of Summer

Best Supporting Actor
Christopher Waltz, Inglorious Basterds
Woody Harrelson- The Messenger
Matt Damon, Invictus
Stanley Tucci, The Lovely Bones
Zachery Quinto, Star Trek

Best Supporting Actress
Mo'Nique, Precious - WINNER
Julianne Moore, A Single Man
Anna Kendrick, Up in the Air
Penelope Cruz, Nine
Marion Cotillard, Nine

Best Director
Jason Reitman, Up in the Air - WINNER
James Cameron, Avatar
Lee Daniels, Precious
Quentin Tarantino, Inglorious Basterds
Spike Jonze, Where the Wild Things Are

Best Screenplay
An Education, Nick Hornby - WINNER
(500) Days of Summer, Scott Neustadter & Michael H. Weber
Up in the Air, Jason Reitman & Sheldon Turner
Inglorious Basterds, Quentin Tarentino
Precious, Geoffrey Fletcher

Best Cinematography
Where the Wild Things Are - WINNER
Nine
The White Ribbon
Broken Embraces
A Single Man

It should be noted that these categories are listed in increasing merit. In other words the winner is first and first runner-up is listed second, etc.

Sincerely,
The Citizen Review

(0) Comments

30 Rock: Season Three (2008)

Posted by The Citizen Review | Posted in , , | Posted on 8:49 PM


Average Grade: A


Jack says: A

My favorite show on television, 30 Rock, is back for a third season and although it was off to a rough start, it's just as good as the other two.

The show is now perfectly comfortable with it's familiar quirks and lovable characters. There are certain things that I associate with the show, which I think is a sign of an excellent program. The acting is great. Of course there's Tina Fey, who is a complete natural at the spirited and stressed-out Liz Lemon (could we ask for a better TV heroine? I think not) and the always great Alec Baldwin as the ridiculous CEO of GE. Then there's the great supporting cast, which is half of the show's greatness.

The show is also known for it's stellar guest stars: Elaine Stritch, Jennifer Anniston, Salma Hayek (my personal favorite), Steve Martin, Jon Hamm, Larry King, Megan Mullally, Oprah Winfrey, it's a pretty impressive list.

The show's comedy is still better than ever. It's not just a bunch of one-liners and easy gags, the jokes are truly funny, intelligent and relevant as well. Keep in mind that it also was nominated for 22 Emmy's. That's TWENTY-TWO. It's also different from any other show that you will watch on TV these days, which keeps 30 Rock at the top of my list.

Three Best Episodes: 1. Apollo, Apollo 2. The Ones 3. Kidney Now!

Matthew says: A

The best comedy show on television two years in a row is back and remains the best. It indeed started off roughly with the first few episodes but got its groove back with Christmas Special. Christmas saved the day or the season.

30 Rock gets many things right that most comedy shows fail to do. Such as adding drama to the show without making it seem corny or inconsistent. It also has fully developed and original characters that don't outshine each other. This is certainly a problem with shows with a main character. Other shows give all the good lines to the protagonist and all the other characters are left in the dust. And having amazing actors to play these characters doesn't hurt either. Seriously, these actors are at the top of their game, and not just Fey and Baldwin. The supporting cast is just as excellent.

The writing is also what makes this show truly great. It has writing like no other show. It's randomness and relevancy is truly hilarious while being smart and witty. This show really does tackle on serious current issues and makes you laugh at them. This show has gotten everything right in the past and remains so with season three.

Three Best Episodes: 1. The Ones 2. Apollo, Apollo 3. The One with the Cast of Night Court

(0) Comments

Rob Marshall's Travelling Circus of Godesses

Posted by The Citizen Review | Posted in , | Posted on 11:01 PM

Nine (2009) Grade: B+

Jack says: B
Everyone film critic and film lover watches Nine with contrasting eye to 2003's Chicago, you did it at least once. I will start off by saying that this doesn't exactly match Chicago's luster, magic and pure sizzle. The view didn't seem quite as focused. I will also say that it's not a bad film in any way, but it's definitely got some things that need patching up.
The musical numbers are excellently choreographed. They are energetic, and jaw-dropping at times. The only problem I had with the sequences is that they were better than the parts of the film in 'real life'. There's not enough story to back up the film's constant break into song. It's like the audience isn't exactly sure why they are siging the songs at all times. We do of course, because it's a musical but we shouldn't have to wonder, they should be natural.
The other issue is the casting: we have basically the most beautiful women in Hollwood not only acting well but singing and dancing just as well. The are all at the top of thier game and when watching them on stage, one can tell that they are in total control of their abilities. When I first saw the trailer, I instantly thought that most of the actresses would get doused with awards, but when I saw the film I realized it would be nearly impossible for any of them to nab a nomination, because they hardly get a chance to act amongst the competition. On the other hand, it's simply grand to see each and every actress up on the screen at once. It's the curse and the miracle of this film.
Overall, Nine is a good time to see in a theater. The songs are catchy, all the actors are stunning, the choreography is breathless and the sequences where Guido Contini (the main protagonist of the film) is talking to one of his many lovers, one can definitely see Marshall's signature flair. Guido Contini definitely had his inspirations: his mother, his wife, the whore of his childhood town, his floundering mistress, his rock and a drunken fling. But with this film going in no precise direction, couldn't it find just one inspiration?
Matthew says: A-
Nine is a film that has many inspirations, all which are very different. There is the film, the musical and now the movie-musical, creating again a very different take on the original premise.
Rob Marshall directed the previous musical "Chicago" and this film has established a true artist, one with a signature style that is all his own.
The musical sequences are bursting at the seams with energy and urgency. And the non-musical sequences are mysterious and dreamy. This film boasts, and rightly so, a full, star-studded cast. Rob Marshall tends to pick actors who are not known for singing and dancing but show audiences just how multitalented these men and women are.
The style of this film is so good to look at, like the actors, costumes and the very beautiful Italy. It has a variety of styles. Black and white, gorgeous color, steady camera, hand held. It's a celebration of films and movie-making. It has many great and memorable scenes. Like the final scene where each woman in his life that has inspired him in some way comes out from the top balcony from the studio set and give him a long judgmental stare. The kid from his past sits on his lap. He rises, the lights lower and he calls out action.

(0) Comments

There wan't a magnifying glass in sight

Posted by The Citizen Review | Posted in , , | Posted on 9:28 PM

Sherlock Holmes (2009) Grade: B

Jack says: B+

Sherlock Holmes is the ninth film by Guy Ritchie, and he doesn't exactly have the best repetoire in my opinion: Rocknrolla, Swept Away, Revolver (Roger Ebert gave it half a star). But with this film, I couldn't help but be entertained. It has a very good cast, which is probably the only reason the film works, and the film does have problems. Robert Downey, Jr., Jude Law and Rachel McAdams make for a riotous group actors to behold in these quirky albeit unbelievable sequences.

The film is quite boisterous, the fight scenes get a little excessive and may be too much for some viewers. The slow motion/high speed camera parts may be a little too modern for Sherlock Holmes as well, but the cast is so grand that it's just fun to watch them do 'their thing'.

Could it have been better in a different director's hands? Yes, there's no question about it. But this isn't a total failure. The casting of Downey, Jr. was pitch perfect and the cinematography, costumes and music make for a good time. It was definitely fun to watch in a theater, the cinematography was excellent and it was convincing as a period piece, but this film isn't for everyone.

Matthew says: B-


Sherlock Holmes is the old classic detective story. Or just detective. The kind of character that is bound to hav more remakes than you can count on your hands. And you could do so much with a character like Sherlock Holmes. But Guy Ritchie handles the source material like it's a lame pitch for the new summer blockbuster starring last summer's star (this case being Robert Downey Junior).

That brings up another key element in the movie, the cast. Jude Law, a typically one-dimensional actor, is at his best and seems to be having fun with his character. So does Downey, but in a different way. Law has fun in his character. Downey just is having fun making tons of money. It seems that from watching movies with him in it (and there have been a lot recently) he always plays the same fast talking "witty" narcissist. He does a lot of talking in this movie, so does Law. But that, actually, is one of the only enjoyable parts in this movie. If the movie was more dialogue and detective-doing, this could have been a very interesting remake.

But instead they fill this film with long, uninteresting fight sequences and a mystery that isn't the least bit mysterious. They have a mystery in the begging of the film that is supposed to capture our attention and keep us intrigued. But it doesn't. And when it comes up again, I was just like, this again? And in the end when Sherlock Holmes explains his theory and the solution to all of the mystery, they set everything up right, and make us think that he really has something here, but he really doesn't and neither do the screenwriters.

(0) Comments
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)