Multiplex - a comic strip about life at the movies
DELETED SCENES

Posts Tagged ‘drama’

 

Trailer Watch: Joseph Gordon-Levitt in 50/50

From Summit Entertainment (via Coming Soon), comes the trailer for 50/50 (formerly titled I’m with Cancer), a comedy-drama based on screenwriter Will Reiser’s own experiences, about a young man (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) diagnosed with cancer. Sounds like a laugh-riot, huh? Well, check out the trailer below; I laughed out loud a number of times. This movie looks great.

50/50 rounds out its incredibly impressive cast Seth Rogen, Anna Kendrick, Bryce Dallas Howard, Anjelica Huston and Philip Baker Hall, and hits theaters on September 30th.

Review: Insidious


Directed by James Wan.
Starring Patrick Wilson, Rose Byrne, Ty Simpkins, Barbara Hershey, and Lin Shaye.

I’m not a horror fan, so take this review for what it’s worth. For the most part, I know horror by its clichés, through its parodies, its trailers, and a handful of its well-known specimens: I like Nightmare on Elm Street 1, 3, and 4; I like Night Breed and Alien; I like The Others, The Orphanage, and The Devil’s Backbone (which are arguably not horror movies). Simply put, it’s not a genre I peruse when I’m looking for stuff to watch on Netflix. But in Multiplex, Jason’s going to be getting a bit of an introduction to horror in the near future, so I figure I’ll need to force myself out of my own comfort zone and do my research.

So, for the toe-dip into the pool (filled with blood, naturally)… Insidious.

Screenwriter Leigh Whannell and director James Wan are best known for creating the Saw franchise. Their two non-Saw follow-ups Dead Silence and Death Sentence were met with mixed reviews and so-so box-office. For their fourth feature, the two team up with Paranormal Activity‘s Oren Peli as producer for a pretty much gore-free haunted house flick that feels more than a little bit like “What if Paranormal Activity had a bigger budget?” — not much bigger, mind you. Insidious cost only $1 million to make.

Insidious starts out like a lot of these stories do: a family moves in, and weird shit starts happening. There’s an accident, and the oldest child, Dalton, has falls into a coma. More scary shit happens, but like clockwork, right when the guy down the aisle from you starts shouting that they should move to a new house, they actually do. It’s a little disappointing that they blow this twist on the usual haunted house story in the trailer, because I thought it was interesting, but ultimately, it doesn’t matter much. The family moves, but that doesn’t stop the scary shit from happening, and so they go looking for professional help.

Rose Byrne and Patrick Wilson are Insidious‘s best special effects.

Their characters might be thin on the page, Rose Byrne and Patrick Wilson work well enough together that Renai and Josh feel fleshed out. It certainly helps that they’re allowed to behave like intelligent people actually might if facing these ludicrous circumstances. If you can entertain the “what if?” at all, you’ll enjoy Insidious as it teases you with an answer. Unlike Paranormal Activity, it’s not all teasing until the very end; in Insidious, you start to see supernatural stuff (in small doses) pretty much right away, although you don’t necessarily know it the first time.

The third act will be divisive. It will lose some, because there’s no real gore to speak of (it’s PG-13, after all). It’ll lose some people with the comic-relief duo of hyper-competitive paranormal investigators, whom I liked. It’ll lose some based on how they show the supernatural elements of the film. (Spoilers.) The design of a certain red-faced demon that becomes prominent late in the film is a little uninspired, but the approach seemed appropriate to me; it evoked a little kid’s real-world nightmares. (End spoilers.) The point is, I went with it.

Insidious doesn’t reinvent the wheel for horror; it feels more like a “reset,” back to a time before Saw and the ensuing wave of torture porn had taken over the whole genre. Insidious trades in the crutches of most recent horror — creature effects and buckets of blood — and instead uses three of the oldest special effects: a clever, efficient script; two talented actors; and good cinematography — and it uses them pretty damn well.

Insidious is out in the US now. It’s rated PG-13 ’cause it’s scary.

Review: The King’s Speech


Directed by Tom Hooper.
Written by David Seidler.
Starring Colin Firth, Geoffrey Rush, Helena Bonham Carter, Guy Pearce, and Derek Jacobi.

The King’s Speech is the tale of the not-yet-crowned King George VI and his speech therapist. I know, it sounds extraordinarily dull, right? Except that it’s not.

Crackling dialogue and an absolutely stunning performance by Colin Firth make this a English production a riveting crowd-pleaser in the best sense of the term. Firth’s work masterfully sidesteps any cynical “poor little rich boy” resistance you might have, utterly humanizing Prince Albert, the Duke of York, who was born second in line to the throne and unexpectedly crowned after a royal scandal — just in time for England to get pulled into World War II. (The trailer is all you need in the way of plot synopsis.) As you can imagine, a Duke needs to speak publicly every now and then (and certainly a King does), so — speech therapy to the rescue!

“Bertie” and his therapist Lionel Logue (Geoffrey Rush, who also produced) are the warm, fuzzy heart of the film, and its their interactions that make The King’s Speech such a joy to watch, but a host of ace supporting players fill out the film beautifully, most notably Helena Bonham Carter as Bertie’s wife.

History buffs may smirk a bit at the seriousness of “Bertie’s” stammer; by most of the accounts I could find online, his stammer was never so bad as depicted in the film, and even so, Logue’s treatment had allowed him to speak publicly without a stammer (or without much of one) within a couple of years. Most of the facts behind the film do, in some loose sense or another, seem to be faithful to the truth, but it is more than a bit exaggerated in the dramatization. It’s a movie, after all, not a documentary.

Movie buffs will definitely smirk at the slightly too familiar story points: the set-up, treatment, growing friendship, a setback and a falling out, and then, of course, patching things up just before the critical moment (the titular King’s speech). Whether these are based on real events or simply dramatic inventions, I can’t say for sure, but the strength of the dialogue and the performances make it all ring true, at least for the duration of the film.

The King’s Speech is rated R for a bit of language (the S-word and the F-bomb are dropped multiple times, mostly in one scene related to the Duke’s therapy). There is no sex or violence in the film, and even just a bit of implied impropriety. Frankly, it’s absurd that this film is rated R; it’s absolutely a family film on every level. If the film isn’t playing near you yet, it will be soon.

Review: Spring, Summer, Fall, Winter … and Spring and Why Has Bodhi-Dharma Left for the East?

Spring, Summer, Fall, Winter … and Spring

Directed by Kim Ki-duk.
Starring Young-soo Oh, Kim Ki-duk, Young-min Kim, Jae-kyeong Seo, Yeo-jin Ha, and John-ho Kim.

Why Has Bodhi-Dharma Left for the East?

Directed by Bae Yong-Kyun.
Starring Lee Pan-yong, Sin Won-sop, and Yi Pan-Yong.

Set entirely on and around a floating temple (a set built for the movie on an artificial lake built about 200 years ago, to be specific), Kim Ki-duk’s 2003 feature Spring, Summer, Fall, Winter … and Spring is a beautifully crafted but frustratingly artificial tale of one man’s life told in five chapters. The most disappointing aspect of Spring is how amazingly beautiful it is — disappointing because the several gorgeously photographed, languorous shots of the valley around the temple on the lake, sublime music, and mostly solid, understated performances with minimal dialogue make for exactly the right tone for the kind of film this aspires to be — yet its story falls short.

The film begins innocently enough — in “Spring,” of course — with a charming but troubling story wherein Child Monk (Jong-ho Kim) ties stones to a fish, a frog and a snake. Old Monk (the enchanting Young-soo Oh) is disappointed in him, so he ties a large stone to the child as he sleeps that night and says that he’ll only remove it once the boy has found the three animals and released them, telling the boy that if any of the animals are dead, he will carry the stone with him in his heart for the rest of his life. As he finds them, he discovers that the fish and the snake have died and begins to cry. Even as I was moved by the boy’s tears, it troubled me that the Master placed more importance on the boy’s lesson than the lives of the animals, a choice that — although I am neither a Buddhist nor a scholar of Buddhism — struck me as rather inauthentic.

(more…)