Like Someone in Love

First Hit:  Slowly paced, little character development, and artistically shot.

This is a story of a young girl who is both a student and a hooker.

Watching her talk on the phone, in a bar, and trying to get out of a trick that her John was setting her up on, didn't work for me. This part of the story just wasn’t believable to me.

The part that did work was her boyfriend’s extreme worry and attempts to control his beautiful girlfriend. When he says to the old man, I’ve got to do everything I can to keep her because I could never get someone like her again if I lost her. The man her John wants to set her up with is a very old professor, who wants to talk with her and fix her a meal.

We’ve no history about this man and why he wants to meet up with this young girl. What we do know is that he is protective and wants to help her.

This film is very slow paced and scenes take a long time to play out. The ending is quite startling and leaves you hanging.

Rin Takanashi as Akiko (the whore) is quiet and very reserved in this role and her lips are extraordinary. Tadashi Okuno as Takashi (the old man) is sweet however we never know much about him and why he’s interested in her. Abbas Kiarostami wrote and directed this film, with well-crafted sets, but it was very very slow in unfolding.

Overall: Until Kiarostami sees how his slow moving films can try the patience of an audience, his commercial success will be fleeting.

The Host

First Hit:  Well intentioned and not well crafted or executed.

The idea that an alien life form could use our bodies as a host and use them with less anger, violence, and angst is interesting.

The idea of what happens to the person whom had the body prior to being inhabited is thought provoking. Would our violent nature fight against the intrusion?

Would humans see the wisdom of the species taking over their body, or just see the quiet nature and simple robotic way of being as a way to kill our spirit? Or would humans know they are inhabited? All interesting questions and not explored very well in this film.

There were moments where Melanie / Wanderer / Wanda (Saoirse Ronan) who was a human holdout (as Melanie), captured and given new soul (Wanderer / Wanda). The two spirits (Melanie/Wanda) live inside Melanie’s body. She is hated by her former human boyfriend and other humans in a colony headed by Jeb (William Hurt). The souls outnumber the humans but the audience is pushed by the story and director to take sides that the humans are the righteous beings in the universe.

To me the film had a strong possibility to really explore some interesting questions, but only Ronan and Hurt gave the possibility of this interesting story a chance to live in this film. Hurt was hampered by his role as head of the human holdouts and therefore had to have a more human slant. Ronan, however, was able to bring a level of sensitivity to her role and the moment that the camera was about 6 inches above her face as she lay down on the operating table, the tenderness of her human and invader presence was truly felt. She held the film together.

Ronan was the best part of this whole film and it only worked because of her. Diane Kruger as The Seeker, the person charged with converting Melanie from human to Wanderer was very good as her own internal fight with her human aspect became clear as the film progressed. Hurt was fun to see and enjoyable to watch. His natural air of authority rang true. Andrew Niccol wrote the screenplay, playing on human emotions to protect our ways and essence, was a little naïve. It would have been interesting to explore a human getting to know and embrace what was good about the species we were hosting. Niccol also directed this film which showed the limitations of his ability to create a wider more interesting story.

Overall:  Liked some of the acting and the potential of the concept and this execution lacked depth.

On the Road

First Hit:  Why...  This is what I thought about after seeing this film.

Just because a book or writing may be interesting, doesn’t mean it will string together well as a film.

This film represents a failure to make an interesting piece of writing viable as a film. The film is about how Jack Kerouac wrote the book “On the Road”. Sal Paradise/Jack Kerouac (Sam Riley) wants to write but can’t seem to type the words on paper. He can, although, take notes.

He meets Dean Moriarty/Neal Cassady (Garrett Hedlund) and his 16 year old wife Marylou/LuAnne Henderson (Kristen Stewart) who spins his world upside down. They do everything he’d like to do. Have sex anywhere and with any one. They drink all night long while consuming all sorts of drugs, and they party like there is no tomorrow – what the reality is, is that tomorrow does come.

The issue is that this film tries to replicate the book, and along the way it does a great job of showing/documenting their current experiences, but does nothing to give the audience a reason as why they approach life like this and why would we would care.

I didn’t care about the characters and I didn’t have any perspective to put context into their actions. Was the film interesting? To some degree yes, but sitting in the theater I kept wondering why Dean made choices he did and why Sal made his choices.

Although I did sense there was a great degree of respect for Kerouac’s book and legacy by the director (Walter Salles) it didn’t end up on the screen.

Riley is good as Sal (Jack Kerouac). He did provide a level of curiosity and desire to experience life more than others. Hedlund was very good and believable as Moriarty who just couldn’t help but respond to his momentary desires and impulses. Stewart was strong as the young Marylou. This role definitely set her apart from other roles she’s taken and may open up her career to more challenging things. There is a fire under the smolder. Amy Adams had a small but impactful role as Jane (Joan Vollmer). Tom Sturridge as Carlo Marx (Allen Ginsberg) was also very strong and brought intelligence to the role/film. Kirsten Dunst (Camille & Carolyn Cassady) as Dean's wife was good and tried to bring a depth to the film. Jose Rivera wrote this script and unfortunately couldn’t bring a depth to the actions of the characters. Salles directed this film, and although he showed respect to the original material, it missed a depth of character that would have the audience care.

Overall:  I’m glad I saw the film but wouldn’t recommend it.

Addmissions

First Hit:  This film felt disjointed, lacking depth in character development, with moments of laughter. A good romantic comedy is a wonderful and fun to watch. It is also one of the easier genres to do poorly. Despite having Tina Fey and Paul Rudd, two funny people who can make a romantic comedy work – it doesn’t work here. Yes there are very funny parts but they are few and far between. The failure here is that this film also wants to be taken seriously as a drama as well. The result is a film looking for a base/home genre and therefore lost. When Portia (Fey), who is a Princeton Admissions Director, is with her partner (living together for 10 years) Mark (Michael Sheen), the scenes were not believable. There is no way I bought that they even liked each other – let alone lived together for 10 years. In fact this whole part of the story and script could have been scrapped and the film would have worked. The basic premise is that Portia likes stability and not getting close to anyone. Rudd as John Pressman (a director in an alternative school) pushes for not being stable; he travels with his adopted son and lives in countries all over the world. Both of these people are rebelling against their parents. Portia’s mom Susannah (played by Lily Tomlin) is a rebel of society and stable life – she wants to push the envelope. Mrs. Pressman (Lisa Emery) is old school conservative money and her son John wants to be free and always keep moving. This could be enough for a romantic comedy, but then add Portia may have a son she’s never known and that Rudd might have to settle down – we mix too much drama and it fizzles.

Fey is occasionally good, but mostly neither funny nor dramatically interesting. Rudd is better as he doesn’t have as many hurdles to jump to make his role work. Travis Bratten (as Rudd’s adoptive son Nelson) is excellent. Nat Wolff is very good as a smart lost young man who wants to become part of something. Tomlin is good as Fey’s troubled and inspirational mother. Sheen was wasted in this role that wasn’t needed to make this film work. Karen Croner wrote an inadequate screen play that didn’t know what it wanted to be. Paul Weitz directed this an probably knew it was failing as he filmed and edited it together.

Overall:  Not really worth the money but there are enough laughs to want to watch this for free on a Sunday evening.

Ginger & Rosa

First Hit:  Elle Fanning is brilliant in a strong but a little too long film.

Ginger’s father Roland (Alessandro Nivola) has a particular view of life, is verbally manipulative and wants to change the world’s perception of how to act and be. His philosophy as a Pacifist and freedom to be and act as he sees fit, runs into boundaries that cause pain.

Ginger (Fanning) grows up with a best friend – Rosa (played by Alice Englert). Together they experience their own lives and homes lives - together. Rosa’s father leaves her mom when she is young. Rosa is partly a rebel who is willing to try and experience new things. She is darker in her life views.

Ginger is lighter but equally troubled by the nuclear crises of the mid 1960’s. As 17 year old girls, they are both finding their way. They go to protest meetings, they meet guys, they drink booze, and they smoke cigarettes while  experimenting with sex.

Their paths begin to separate as Ginger gets more involved with the anti-nuclear movement with her family friends Mark (Timothy Spall), Mark Two (Oliver Platt) and Bella (Annette Bening). Rosa thinks she can heal Ginger’s father’s sadness and empty heart.

Nivola is very good as the rebel pacifist. Fanning is extraordinary as Ginger. Her subtle facial expressions and expressive voice solidified her strength as a young actress to watch. Englert was very strong as Rosa. Although her role is more quiet and darker it was no less powerful and her place in the film was solid. I would expect to see her again - soon. Spall, Platt and Bening were all great in their roles in this film. Christina Hendricks as Natalie (Ginger’s mother) was very good in her performance and provided a great juxtaposition to Ginger’s father. Sally Potter wrote and directed this film and although the it was a very good film, it needed trimming to make it more crisp.

Overall:  This was a very good film to watch especially because I remember the nuclear war threat of the 1960s.