posted by ![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
mmoa_writes at 12:31am on 14/03/2010 under a single man, alice in wonderland, colin firth, film, julianne moore, tim burton
mmoa_writes at 12:31am on 14/03/2010 under a single man, alice in wonderland, colin firth, film, julianne moore, tim burtonI'm not really feeling up to much at the moment. Partly because of exam results and partly because my brain is difficult like that. I really have to start doing more physics, but for some reason I can't quite bring myself to look at the wretched textbooks anymore yet alone work from them.
Anyway, have been very cultural of late - started some new writing and a painting - and went to the cinema over the week. I've been trying to make it more of a regular thing buthaven't got round to posting all my thoughts. Yes, I did go to see the Princess and the Frog and yes, I will put my thoughts on that up soon as well as on BBC's Gormenghast which I recently had the privilege of watching. But for now...
First things first. On the matter of writing desks and ravens, the reason why the former is like the latter is because both produce notes which are very flat.
As for the rest of the film... well, frankly I found it dull as dishwater with nothing quite working well enough on the whole. Unlike Avatar, the film started off pretty weak with the pacing/editing being soporific and uninteresting. I was hoping that it was a ploy to make Wonderland - or 'Underland' as it's properly known to it's inhabitants - more fun and zany. Instead, both the 'real' world and Underland are as tired and grey as each other, which didn't help keep one's attention.
The acting was consistently fine but not particularly convincing (except for Stephen Fry's Cheshire Cat which was not only one of the best things in the movie, but also his best role to date, I feel. And of course Helena Bonham Carter was amazing, but not served well by the script) which wasn't helped by a lacklustre script that occasionally betrayed some hint of sadly unfulfilled aspirations of aping Merchant&Ivory style dialogue and directing that seemed pretty much by the book. Again, unlike Avatar, the 3D, CGI, whizz bang magic stuff wasn't at all consistent. The 3D retroscaping whatsit was an interesting technique, but I don't think it worked out very well to be honest, which was a shame because usually Burton films can be counted on for the visual.
I did appreciate what Burton tried to do with Alice, turning her into a real fighter but still keeping her within her time. I also loved the promise of the ending, which, to be honest would have made an intriguing film in it's own right.
Overall though... I would have to say it was worse than Avatar which at least never made me want to go to sleep (though as that was as much due to the annoyance it generated, I'm not sure if that's entirely a good thing!). A bit of a shame, really. Personally I think Burton's suffering from the same syndrome as Tarantino - a growing streak of self-indulgence with an increasing lack of charm to carry it off.
A Single Man, however, was incredible. Now, I loathe Colin Firth with a passion. As an actor, that is; I do, however, enjoy reading/watching his interviews because he's obviously a very clever, quite funny man with just enough self-awareness and a sense of proportion that all too many stars lack. I just hate watching him perform. Well, I exaggerate a little. I didn't mind him in Love Actually - sometimes... - but in his other stuff, he just never seems particularly into his characters. May well be just me, though.
He was spectacular here, though. For starters there was an amazing chemistry between him and Matthew Goode (who I only just realised is also in what looks like a turd of a film called Leap Year. I suppose we all have to pay the bills some time...?). It also helped that for once everyone was stepping up to the plate. Julianne Moore should have got something for best supporting actress with her Charlie, Nicholas Hoult - who I thought was going to be atrocious - was superb and it was lovely seeing so many familiar faces (Lee Pace, Ginnifer Goodwin) doing their own little thing but doing it so damn well.
The direction was very subtle and beautiful (it's interesting that it's Tom Ford's first film because in many ways it reminded me of 'The Duellists' which had a similar delicacy and happened to be Ridley Scott's first film as well. There was also something 'Lost in 'Translation'y about it as well, which never hurts), at times humorous in that way that good 'Oscar' movies used to be (or maybe that's just my own bias), the music was just heartbreaking and used wonderfully (something that Alice in Wonderland failed in, actually. When will these people realise that Garageband is not the way to go) to great effect. Everything worked so well that even when Firth began to slip back into his old habits - he had me worried during his outburst at Charlie's prejudiced and ignorant remarks about the worth of his relationship with Jim against what they could have had, which, I have to say, was done so much more bare facedly (bravely?) than I thought it would have been done, even with all the mild spoilers I heard and read before watching it - it didn't matter; I barely noticed.
Anyway, have been very cultural of late - started some new writing and a painting - and went to the cinema over the week. I've been trying to make it more of a regular thing buthaven't got round to posting all my thoughts. Yes, I did go to see the Princess and the Frog and yes, I will put my thoughts on that up soon as well as on BBC's Gormenghast which I recently had the privilege of watching. But for now...
First things first. On the matter of writing desks and ravens, the reason why the former is like the latter is because both produce notes which are very flat.
As for the rest of the film... well, frankly I found it dull as dishwater with nothing quite working well enough on the whole. Unlike Avatar, the film started off pretty weak with the pacing/editing being soporific and uninteresting. I was hoping that it was a ploy to make Wonderland - or 'Underland' as it's properly known to it's inhabitants - more fun and zany. Instead, both the 'real' world and Underland are as tired and grey as each other, which didn't help keep one's attention.
The acting was consistently fine but not particularly convincing (except for Stephen Fry's Cheshire Cat which was not only one of the best things in the movie, but also his best role to date, I feel. And of course Helena Bonham Carter was amazing, but not served well by the script) which wasn't helped by a lacklustre script that occasionally betrayed some hint of sadly unfulfilled aspirations of aping Merchant&Ivory style dialogue and directing that seemed pretty much by the book. Again, unlike Avatar, the 3D, CGI, whizz bang magic stuff wasn't at all consistent. The 3D retroscaping whatsit was an interesting technique, but I don't think it worked out very well to be honest, which was a shame because usually Burton films can be counted on for the visual.
I did appreciate what Burton tried to do with Alice, turning her into a real fighter but still keeping her within her time. I also loved the promise of the ending, which, to be honest would have made an intriguing film in it's own right.
Overall though... I would have to say it was worse than Avatar which at least never made me want to go to sleep (though as that was as much due to the annoyance it generated, I'm not sure if that's entirely a good thing!). A bit of a shame, really. Personally I think Burton's suffering from the same syndrome as Tarantino - a growing streak of self-indulgence with an increasing lack of charm to carry it off.
A Single Man, however, was incredible. Now, I loathe Colin Firth with a passion. As an actor, that is; I do, however, enjoy reading/watching his interviews because he's obviously a very clever, quite funny man with just enough self-awareness and a sense of proportion that all too many stars lack. I just hate watching him perform. Well, I exaggerate a little. I didn't mind him in Love Actually - sometimes... - but in his other stuff, he just never seems particularly into his characters. May well be just me, though.
He was spectacular here, though. For starters there was an amazing chemistry between him and Matthew Goode (who I only just realised is also in what looks like a turd of a film called Leap Year. I suppose we all have to pay the bills some time...?). It also helped that for once everyone was stepping up to the plate. Julianne Moore should have got something for best supporting actress with her Charlie, Nicholas Hoult - who I thought was going to be atrocious - was superb and it was lovely seeing so many familiar faces (Lee Pace, Ginnifer Goodwin) doing their own little thing but doing it so damn well.
The direction was very subtle and beautiful (it's interesting that it's Tom Ford's first film because in many ways it reminded me of 'The Duellists' which had a similar delicacy and happened to be Ridley Scott's first film as well. There was also something 'Lost in 'Translation'y about it as well, which never hurts), at times humorous in that way that good 'Oscar' movies used to be (or maybe that's just my own bias), the music was just heartbreaking and used wonderfully (something that Alice in Wonderland failed in, actually. When will these people realise that Garageband is not the way to go) to great effect. Everything worked so well that even when Firth began to slip back into his old habits - he had me worried during his outburst at Charlie's prejudiced and ignorant remarks about the worth of his relationship with Jim against what they could have had, which, I have to say, was done so much more bare facedly (bravely?) than I thought it would have been done, even with all the mild spoilers I heard and read before watching it - it didn't matter; I barely noticed.