Showing posts with label Alec Baldwin. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Alec Baldwin. Show all posts

Wednesday, 30 April 2014

150W: Alice

Short reviews for clear and concise verdicts on a broad range of films...


Alice (Dir. Woody Allen/1990)

Beginning with a flirtatious fantasy, Alice is Woody Allen indulging his upper-class thoughts again. Released in 1990, it’s clear that this was a low point as Alice is tired and hollow. Alice, an upper-class housewife, turns to herbal remedies from an acupuncturist to solve her woes. Her privileged life is an excuse for boredom and frustration as she is attracted to the tall and handsome Joe (Mantegna). Akin to the desperately creative characters we’ve seen before, Alice wants to be a writer, but lacks the desire and motivation to become one. Magical powers and extreme wealth is simply not enough though, as she continues to blame circumstance. The finale tries to offset her blissfully ignorant perspective, but it fails to elevate the majority of Alice, whereby her apathy and “tortured” sense of self grates and frustrates. A returning ghost is a highlight, but Woody can do much better than this.

Rating: 4/10

Wednesday, 19 March 2014

Looking for Richard (Al Pacino, 1996)

The Al Pacino season at the BFI has showcased his best work, but it can be difficult to get a sense of what Pacino is like when viewed through the fictional lens of characters like Michael Corleone and Frank Serpico. Looking for Richard is Pacino’s directorial debut, digging deeper into American attitudes towards Shakespeare – specifically the influential historical drama Richard III. This is an insight into Pacino’s acting and his love for the stage. Informative, insightful and playful, Looking for Richard is a theatrical treat for film fans.

Led primarily by Pacino himself and his co-writer Frederic Kimball, they banter and argue about the text and purpose of the documentary. While Pacino is building and amassing footage to create a film to educate and illuminate a centuries old text, Fred is keen to prove how actors understand Shakespeare, while directors and academics don’t hold a candle to the perspective of the actor - who lives and breathes the roles.

Looking for Richard also showcases some of the finest American acting talent. Signing up Kevin Spacey and Alec Baldwin after working on Glengarry Glen Ross, we see their portrayals of their respective roles effortlessly played. Baldwin particularly clearly has a finesse and style that perfectly suits the betrayed brother of the king (How else can I see Baldwin play Shakespeare?). Winona Ryder appears briefly as the widow, and future wife, of King Richard. Her grace and conflicted young woman is challenged and manipulated so well, it only highlights how strong an actress Ryder can be. It also breaks my heart to see Pacino and Ryder acting alongside each other. Francis Ford Coppola cast Winona Ryder as Michael Corleone’s daughter in The Godfather Part III, but she was taken ill shortly before production and replaced by Sofia Coppola.  Suffice to say, if she can convincingly act Shakespeare, Mary Corleone would be a walk in the park – and what a film it would’ve been.

Pacino cuts between the actors discussing the roles and their motivations to actors and academics who have built their careers on Shakespeare. Vanessa Redgrave tells us of the Iambic Pentameter providing a direct connection to the soul; John Gielgud reveals his belief that Americans are simply not cultured enough to truly understand Shakespeare while James Earl Jones equates Shakespeare with the word of God.

It’s hard to argue with Pacino. The relevance of Shakespeare, and crucially Richard III, is all around us. From the debt House of Cards owes to Richard III, to the politics at play in Game of Thrones, the influence is all around us. In fact, considering the story so far in House of Cards, watching the third act of Richard III may give the plot away for the third season of House of Cards next year.


Though difficult to break down, iconic and unforgettable lines hark back to this specific text. “Now is the winter of our discontent” through to “… a horse, a horse, my Kingdom for a horse”. Looking for Richard deconstructs and reveals the poetry, though an acquired taste, of the language. While shooting some of his most memorable roles (his beard from Carlito’s Way, the use of crew in the final act - borrowed from Michael Mann’s Heat), this is Al Pacino discussing his love for Shakespeare, the stage and acting itself. But now I recall others. Where is ‘Looking for Hamlet’ starring Jude Law or David Tennant? Or Ian McKellan enlightening us with the words of King Lear? This is a fascinating documentary and, if you’ve ever been switched off by the Bard, this is your entrance into his work.

This was originally written for Flickering Myth on 17th March 2014

Sunday, 29 September 2013

150W: Blue Jasmine

Short reviews for clear and concise verdicts on a broad range of films...


Blue Jasmine (Dir. Woody Allen/2013)

Almost as a dream, a plane begins Woody Allen’s latest. From East to West, Jasmine (Blanchett) travels to San Francisco from New York after a troubled break-up. After Allen’s European jaunt, his return to America places Blue Jasmine amongst his very best. Living a life of luxury and upper-class elitism, Jasmine was married to Hal (Baldwin) – a dubious success within finance. Through flashbacks, we gain an insight into her previous lifestyle as Jasmine pill-pops her Xanax and relentlessly chastises her grocery-store sister Ginger (Hawkins) who she is staying with. The blissful ignorance of those in the upper echelons defends them from accountability – and by gently humanising Jasmine’s actions you don’t despise her and only pity her. Cate Blanchett is a wreck and Allen makes no attempt at sheltering us from her cheated, corrupted and warped outlook on the world. Thought-provoking and intriguing, the final revelation only serves to fascinate further.

Rating: 10/10

This review is part of Woody Allen Wednesdays on Flickering Myth...

Tuesday, 12 June 2012

Rock Of Ages (Adam Shankman, 2012)

"This place is about to become a sea of sweat, ear-shattering music and puke."

Introduction

In 2006, the Disney Channel released a TV-only film: High School Musical. This went on to become the most successful 'Disney Channel Original Movie' ever produced. In 2009, Fox released a TV-series in the same vein: Glee. An incredibly successful TV-show and film-series, both were musicals set in high-schools. The fundamental difference is how Glee re-imagined well-known songs and adapted them to suit the stories of the characters. This change is in in response to the success of reality-TV shows American Idol and The X-Factor, whereby songs are often covered by up-and-coming artists, only to be released soon after. I think, with regard to the revival of musicals in the last decade (Mamma Mia, Hairspray, Nine, Chicago, Dreamgirls...), it would be nice to attribute it to the success of Moulin Rouge. But we all know that this is simply not true - as production companies are well aware of the multiple sales available in different formats (At the time of writing, the best-selling 'soundtrack' on itunes is from Smash! with Burlesque and Hairspray still within the Top 20. I doubt those two films are as popular as film downloads.). The cult-following alone ensures a consistent financial-income can be generated over a long-period of time - Mamma Mia become the fastest-selling DVD in the UK. Ever. Musicals are very much 'in fashion' in production houses.

Rock of Ages is in the same world as Glee and Hairspray. The added bonus of Tom Cruise will surely get those ticket sales tip-top, but as soon as the film begins and Britney-Spears-a-like Sherrie Christian (Julianne Hough) sings with a chorus of bus-passengers, we realise the type of film we are in. This is a loose story hung together by rock-songs, which you will recognise, that has no connection to emotion, purpose or - of course - reality. Purples, reds and blues light up Los Angeles and, despite nods to the homelessness, drug-taking and prostitution within the city, the afflictions are merely a backdrop to the 'fun' musical that it is. At its core, it is pure Hollywood - shiney, A-list stars and big music. But it is hollow, soulless and contradicts the only issue it attempts to raise.

You Should Be Dancing
 
My partner Sarah has seen the musical and her biggest issue with the film was the lack of dancing. On stage, huge numbers are performed by a large dancing cast. Though I do recollect some dancing, the focus was always on the lead role and their 'emotions'. For example, the "Juke Box Hero"/"I Love Rock 'n' Roll" medley, clearly included a number of dancers alongside Drew and Sheriee - but we constantly cut-away to Brand and Baldwin singing on their own, before focussing on Drew singing whilst jazz-hands flicker at the side of the screen. Why not a static shot? Whereby the dancers are front and centre? If this is an all-out musical, show me something I don't see on The Voice because only 'Hit Me With Your Best Shot' portrayed dancers dominating the screen - and one song in a film-musical is simply not good enough.

Supporting Roles

The standout performance here is between two established actors - Paul Giametti and Tom Cruise. A fascinating dynamic whereby the business is up against the artist. Staciee Jaxx (Cruise) is everything he needs to be - and you desperately feel the love everyone has for him. It is also much-more than a 'supporting-role'. The film demands an actor who is well-know. By casting Cruise in this role, he demands your attention. Not only because of his iconic status, but he is doing things that we have never seen him do before. Paul Giametti shows two sides - we sympathise with the difficulties he has in reigning-in Staciee Jaxx, but we also despise his greedy money-making ideals. Staciee Jaxx is how he gets his money and we can see he will do anything to ensure that it happens. Catherine Zeta-Jones and Breaking Bad's Bryan Cranston are not as memorable, but they manage to give a little comedy to some dull-roles - Jone's is an up-tigh, conservative campaigner whilst Cranston is a Mayor with an interest in S&M.

The Complete Contradiction

The end of the film portrays Drew Boley (Diego Boneta) as he manages to sneak into the music-industry, but unfortunately, the 'rock-and-roll' time period is over - Wham! and Vanilla Ice is the new thing. Poor Drew sells his soul and becomes a George-Michael-looking pop star. Obviously, the film - and musical - criticise the late-80's pop-world, but the irony is how the film becomes the cheap-Hollywood it also criticizes. Its akin to the complete conflict when Britney Spears covered 'I Love Rock and Roll'. It simply doesn't make any sense. Then again, maybe all these 'rock-and-roll' ballads in the 80's were simply cheesy pop-songs dressed up as rock songs?

At any rate, Russell Brand  (Dennis Dupree) and Alec Baldwin (Lonny) both represent the old-school values of Rock and Roll. Initially singing "I Love Rock n Roll" (as Drew sings "Juke Box Hero" - already the conflict between fame-against-music perhaps?), the two characters then fall for each other, in a memorable duet covering REO Speedwagon's 'Can't Fight This Feeling'. A song covered by the Glee cast on their first album. But again, this is the contradiction - songs already performed by Glee (including Journey's 'Don't Stop Believing') and re-re-covered in Rock of Ages, so I'm sure that even the core-audience will watch it and have a feeling of deja-vu.

The "Fun" Finale

As a musical, I don't believe 'spoilers' are going to ruin the film for you. Suffice to say, at the end of the film, we see Staciee Jaxx perform with his band Arsenal in a stadium - and the crowd is going wild. They are singing Journey's 'Don't Stop Believin''. Initially, you think to yourself that maybe Staciee Jaxx has stolen the song from Drew (the "writer" of the song), who performed the song in the previous scene at The Bourbon Club. A very pessimistic ending I thought, until Jaxx says to the crowd "lets give a big hand to the writers of the song - Drew and Sheriee!". The crowd cheers and Drew and Sheriee continue singing the song on the stage. We see all the cast somewhere in the audience singing along. This is ridiculous.

And I think that this final scene summarises my feelings towards the film. Other than a rousing finale, whereby all the characters can sing a little bit, and we can all cheer, there is no purpose to why the story would play-out in such a way. The entire film, we have seen Drew and Sheriee struggle to 'make it' in LA. Do they achieve success? We don't know, they are merely brought on stage briefly at an Arsenal gig. Why would Staciee Jaxx even want them on his stage? Why would anyone cheer them on? These are writers - a profession which is historically not appreciated in the film and music industries. The story wraps up nothing except relationships - girl and guy get together. The entire '80's pop' destroying rock 'n' roll is not truly tackled. The whole Paul Giametti as a money-man isn't resolved - indeed, Staciee Jaxx fires him, but I'm sure he'll survive (a standout scene). But as long as the finale looks cool and the songs are great, theoretically we can all walk out happy to have sung, hummed and tapped our feet to the sounds of Foreigner, Poison and Starship. But that is it - a bunch of songs we all like to hear. But sung by actors. In a cheesy-pop manner.

I'd rather just listen to the original songs myself.

Large Association of Movie Blogs