Saturday Night at the Movies #28 – artsy, independent week

While trying to win the favor of an artsy eHarmony connection, I admitted that I have lived as a philistine, but would be amenable to being proselytized.  (FYI – a philistine, as vividly described by Wikipedia, is someone “who is smugly narrow of mind and of conventional morality whose materialistic views and tastes indicate a lack of and indifference to cultural and æsthetic values.”) 

My eHarmony connection said she would be willing to try to reform me, provided I had an open mind and an open heart.  I agreed, and decided to start with some artsy Netflix movies because I already had a modest interest in them, and perhaps that would ease the transition into a full-throated cultural maven.

Unfortunately, my start was rocky.  The first movie I watched is titled Destricted, described on Wikipedia as eight shorts “that explore the line where art and pornography intersect.”  Perfect, right?  Wrong.  I should have listened to the Rotten Tomato audience, 72% of whom disapproved of it.  Even worse, 82% of the artsy critics graded it rotten.  Most of the shorts were incomprehensible, and the others were boring.  The only mildly interesting short – called Impaled – involved some inexperienced young men being interviewed for a role in a porn movie. 

Step two in my artsy-movie week included two early films by Austin filmmaker Richard Linklater.  I became aware of Linklater earlier this year when I watched two of his classics – Before Sunrise and Before Sunset – and learned at that time that he was also responsible for two Austin-based cult films – Dazed & Confused and Slacker.

Slacker is a 1990 movie that Linklater filmed in Austin for $23,000, and it premiered in the Dobie Theater.  It is described as a plotless film that meanders aimlessly from one bohemian, twenty-something misfit to another in Austin, each pontificating and philosophizing.  Most descriptions of the movie fail to list any of the actors because none have more than a few minutes on the screen. 

Dazed and Confused is a 1993 coming-of-age movie that concerns the antics of Austin high school students on their last day of school in 1976.  Its cast included Matthew McConaughey in a breakout role and Milla Jovovich and Ben Affleck in insignificant roles.  The movie reminded me of American Graffiti, a 1973 movie that focused on some California kids in 1962 trying to decide what to do after graduating from high school.  According to an Entertainment Weekly list of the best high school movies, American Graffiti was #6 and Dazed and Confused was #3.   (The Breakfast Club was #1.)   

The titles to the two Linklater’s two Austin movies should have been reversed.  When I think of the term “slacker,” I think of someone who doesn’t work hard; whereas, when I think of “dazed and confused,” I think of people who don’t really understand what’s going on around them.  With that in mind, the high-school kids in Dazed and Confused are essentially slackers who just want to have some fun before growing up.  By contrast, the bohemian misfits in Slacker haven’t a clue about life.  That explains why I enjoyed Dazed and Confused – i.e., I can relate to a high-school kid who just wants to have some fun.  I give it three and a half stars out of four.  That also explains why I didn’t like Slacker – i.e., I get depressed by twenty-somethings who are never going to grow up mentally.  I give it one star out of four.

Rotten Tomatoes didn’t agree with me regarding Slacker, which received an 84% from the critics and 77% from the audience.  But it agreed in spades about Dazed and Confused, which received 98% from the critics and 89% from the audience.

For my final movie for artsy week, I decided to go with a 2010 Korean film titled The Housemaid, a melodrama thriller.  The movie concerns an aristocratic family that hires a housemaid to help care for their young daughter while the wife is expecting twins.  As might be expected, the husband converts the housemaid into his concubine, the wife finds out, and the shit hits the fan.  What makes this movie distinctive for me is its treatment of aristocracy and subservience in Korea.  I give it three stars out of four.  The artsy critics at Rotten Tomatoes agree with me and give it 75%.  The philistine audience at Rotten Tomatoes doesn’t appreciate the art and give in only 52%.

Looks like my transition to being an artsy guy is in progress.

Saturday Night at the Movies #25 – The Iron Lady, Crimes & Misdemeanors, and The Avengers

The Iron Lady is a 2011 biographical film on British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, who served in Britain while Ronald Reagan reigned in America.  The movie consists of an elderly Thatcher, played by Meryl Streep, afflicted with dementia having a series of flashbacks to her earlier life and career.   Those flashbacks reveal a bright, idealistic conservative who evolved into an imperious, aloof ruler who was eventually pushed aside by her own party.  Although Steep won an Academy Award for Best Actress, the film scored only 54% with Rotten Tomato critics and 52% with its viewers.  I think those rating are too high.  Because the movie was centered on a time when Thatcher was senile, the viewer is left with that as the dominant part of Thatcher’s life instead of the time when she was successful on the world stage and accomplished her life’s objectives.  Unless, of course, the filmmaker’s objective was to show how little her accomplishments meant in the end.  The one endearing aspect of the movie was Thatcher’s relationship with her husband Denis.  Theirs was truly a lifetime (and beyond) love story.  I give the movie only one star out of four.

Crimes & Misdemeanors is a 1989 Woody Allen black comedy.   It scored 92% with the Rotten Tomato critics and 90% with its audience, and I agree with those high ratings.  It has an excellent ensemble cast with Martin Landau, Alan Alda, Mia Farrow, Sam Waterston & Jerry Orbach from Law & Order, Anjelica Houston, and Woody Allen.  Allen received two Academy Award nominations – directing and screenplay – and Landau was nominated as a supporting actor.  The only troubling aspect of the film is that it contains two separate stories that appear to have no connection except one incidental character – a rabbi.  The first story focuses on Martin Landau’s character, a pillar-of-the-community ophthalmologist who has an affair with someone akin to Fatal Attraction.  The other story focuses on the Woody Allen character, who is a loser who aspires to an affair with a surprisingly attractive Mia Farrow, akin to There’s Something About Mary.  Each story is interesting, especially the Allen/Farrow romance, but I can’t detect any connection other than the rabbi (Sam Waterston), who is Allen’s brother-in-law and Landau’s patient.   Plus, as a black comedy, the movie is thought-provoking, but doesn’t end in a way that a romantic like me prefers.  I give the movie two and a half stars out of four – two stars for the Landau story and three stars for the Allen story.

The Avengers opened last weekend to a record North American box office in excess of $200 million and near universal praise – 93% from the Rotten Tomato critics and 96% from its audience.  Count me in the minority.  I’m not a fan of action movies, but I can be completely drawn in by the romance – e.g., Independence Day, Armageddon, Die Hard, Troy, Braveheart, Gladiator, etc.  To my disappointment, there is no romance in this movie, with Scarlett Johansson wasted as the Black Widow Natasha Romanoff.  But according to my date, who loves action movies, this one is top-notch, so I will give it two stars out of four.

Saturday Night at the Movies #25 – Black Snake Moan, The Game, Dream House, and Killer Elite

This week two friends highly recommended two movies to me – Black Snake Moan and The Game.

Black Snake Moan is a 2006 movie starring Samuel L. Jackson and Christina Ricci, with Justin Timberlake.  All three characters seem to be losers who have earned their fate (Jackson’s wife dumped him and has now taken up with his brother, Ricci is a nymphomaniac, and Timberlake is being washed out of the Army), yet we are supposed to be rooting for them to get their acts together.  Furthermore, instead of relying on the drama of the story, the filmmaker continually intersperses the drama with a variety of bad dreams used for cheap shock value.  Thus, this so-called drama could be categorized as easily as a sexploitation film.  Promotions of the movie showed a chained and scantily-clad Ricci being towered over by Jackson, which resulted in Ricci complaining:

• “The way that movie was marketed was probably one of the most disappointing and upsetting things that’s ever happened to me in my career. I have no interest in exploiting women any further than they’ve already been exploited…All they [marketing bosses] cared about was college-age boys going to see it.”

The Rotten Tomato critics gave it a 66% and its audience gave it 70%.  That’s too high – I give it only two stars out of four.

The Game is a 1997 thriller starring Michael Douglas that earned a 71% from the Rotten Tomato critics and 82% from its audience.  One critic said, “Fairly entertaining nonsense”; another said “it strains credulity, but it’s clever.”  That pretty well sums it up from my perspective.  There is nothing to like about Michael Douglas’s character (investment banker) so I couldn’t get very concerned with his precarious situations.  Sean Penn is insignificant as Douglas’s brother, and the only character who held my interest with was the mouthy waitress Deborah Kara Unger who was paired with Douglas for several of his chases/flights.

The Game reminded of the movies The Departed and The Invasion of the Body Snatchers, where you don’t know who you can trust.  Rotten Tomatoes suggested that, “The Game is one of those films that requires the viewer to suspend his disbelief to a great extent, but offers pretty good entertainment in return for that effort.”  I disagree.  This was two wasted hours.  I give it only one and a half stars out of four.

After watching the two friend-referred movies, I returned to my Netflix queue with Dream House and Killer Elite.  I have no idea how Dream House ended up on my queue.  The Rotten Tomato critics gave it only 6% and the audience gave it 36%.  I believe those are the lowest scores of any movies that I have viewed recently.  Furthermore, the movie is a psychological thriller, which typically doesn’t interest me.  It stars Daniel Craig, who played James Bond a few years ago, and because I liked him in the Bond movie, I might have decided to try the movie.  Bad decision.  Neither the story nor the characters were interesting.  I give it one star out of four.

By contrast, action file Killer Elite had interesting, likeable characters, even if they were professional assassins.   It stars Jason Stratham, whom I had never heard of, with Robert De Niro and Clive Owen in supporting roles.  Killer Elite is allegedly based on a true story, as described by Sir Ranulph Fiennes in the book The Feather Men.  The film did slightly better with Rotten Tomatoes than did The Dream House, but it didn’t score well – 25% with the critics and 43% with the audience.  I enjoyed it, just barely, and give it two and a half stars out of four.

Saturday Night at the Movies #24 – Falling Down and Moneyball

Falling Down is almost 20 years old and on its surface it is reminiscent of the Dirty Harry movies.  But it holds up much better than those movies because the protagonist (Michael Douglas) comes across as a modern-day conservative doing battle against the liberal secularists who are destroying his world.  Robert Duvall co-stars as the policeman who has the responsibility for stopping Douglas’s war on society.  Both Duvall and Douglas are excellent.  Rachel Ticotin is also noteworthy as Duval’s fellow officer, and her emotional connection with Duvall is eerily similar to the connection of Duvall and Diane Lane in Lonesome Dove.  As a lover of all things Lonesome Dove, that is no small compliment.  The Rotten Tomato critics gave Falling Down a 73% grade and its audience gave it 79%.  I agree with the audience and give it three and a half stars out of four.

Moneyball is a new movie (2011) starring Brad Pitt, Jonah Hill, and Phillip Seymour Hoffman that is based on a best-selling 2003 book of the same title.  The story revolves around the general manager Billy Beane (Pitt) of the cash-starved Oakland A’s baseball team in 2002 attempting to keep up with its big-spending rivals such as the Boston Red Sox and, especially, the New York Yankees.  With necessity being the mother of invention, Beane attempts to pull off this feat by relying on innovative statistics instead of intuition and judgment to evaluate baseball players.

The key to sabermetrics is a belief that you should evaluate a player, not on intangible, subjective skill sets, but rather on his ability to generate wins, which depend on his ability to produce runs (for position players).  Based on the success of the A’s, sabermetrics has spread throughout the sporting world.  In essence, it is very similar to Graham and Buffett’s approach to investing – so-called value investing in which the buyer searches for stocks (players) that are not adequately valued.  With sabermetrics, a team can produce the same amount of wins for less money or more wins for the same amount of money.

Moneyball is an outstanding movie because it is a great story and because of Pitt’s great acting.  You can’t help but be rooting heartily for him to succeed.  Although Kerris Dorsey has only a small role as Beane’s daughter, she is very much responsible for giving this movie a huge amount of emotional appeal.  The movie was nominated for the Best Picture Oscar and Pitt for the Best Actor Oscar, but neither won.  The Rotten Tomato critics loved Moneyball to the tune of 94%; the audience not so much – 87%.  I can’t quite give it four stars because there wasn’t enough romance in it, but it was a strong three and a half stars.

Saturday Night at the Movies #23 – An Inconvenient Truth and Margin Call

While reading Bill Clinton’s new book, which appears intended to remind Americans of how great a president he had been, I decided to view Al Gore’s old documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, which appears intended to remind America that, although Gore may not have invented the internet, he did invent global warming.  Actually, his Harvard college professor (Roger Revelle) invented it, but Gore is the person who took the ball and ran with it.

Although An Inconvenient Truth is only six years old, it seems outdated, probably because much has changed since its premiere in 2006.  The most significant change is that the scientific community has damaged its credibility by issuing reports that misstate the underlying research. 

Furthermore, the documentary relies heavily on statistics and charts showing that global warming is spinning out of control, which leaves you with the impression that things will be much worse in the near future.  Well, the near future is now, and the reports of the earth’s demise as we know it appear to have subsided.

An Inconvenient Truth won an Academy Award for Best documentary (I remember Gore accepting the award with his Orson Welles film-making look – rotund and hirsute) and 93% of the Rotten Tomato critics liked it.  But only 75% of the RT audience liked it.  Although the movie is somewhat outdated and the scientific community has lost some credibility, I think An Inconvenient Truth is an interesting, informative documentary, and I give it three out of four stars.    

Margin Call is a 2011 movie about an investment bank in 2008 that appears to be left holding a bag of worthless securities that will bankrupt the venerable firm.  But instead of accepting its fate, the bank considers whether to have a 24-hour fire sale of the worthless securities to its unsuspecting, long-standing clients.  Although this may seem like an easy good/bad dichotomy, none of the leading characters are cast as pure good or evil, and the line between good and bad becomes a bit blurry. 

The outstanding ensemble cast includes Jeremy Irons as the CEO, Simon Baker as the precocious #2, Stanley Tucci as the guy who stumbled across securities’ worthlessness, and the Demi Moore as the person who was the firm’s person responsible for managing risk.  Kevin Spacey’s role as the senior manager-cum-moral compass of the firm is probably the most important.  To ensure that Spacey’s character is considered warm, the filmmakers started the movie by showing Spacey agonizing over the ill health of his family dog.  Obviously, in a world of people obsessed with money, that trait sets Spacey’s character apart.

The other character that interested me was Paul Bettany playing a middle manager who served as a buffer between the jaded executives and the naïve traders.  Ever since seeing Bettany in 2001 in A Knight’s Tale, I have disliked the guy because his character was a jerk alongside the noble Heath Ledger.  Bettany reminded me of Tony Goldwyn, who played the bad guy (Carl Bruner) alongside Patrick Swayze in Ghost in 1990 and in my mind is forever typecast as a villain.

Bettany next appeared on my radar in 2001 in A Beautiful Mind alongside Russell Crowe.  Once again, Bettany played a jerk and, even worse, won the favor (in real life) of the movie’s female star – Jennifer Garner.  That reminded me of Bryan Brown, who in 1983 played alongside Richard Chamberlain in The Thorn Birds.  Brown hooked-up in real life with Thorn Birds star Rachel Ward, and in my mind he had stolen her from the noble Father Ralph de Bricassart .

Now in 2012, Bettany seems to have redeemed himself and he comes off as a decent guy.  Furthermore, in researching Bettany (British) and Brown (Australian), I have learned that they remain married w/children to Garner and Ward.  That’s the sort of happy ending I live for.  Unfortunately, the ending to Margin Call is not so happy. 

Margin Call performed similarly to Gore’s documentary in Rotten Tomatoes – it scored 89% with the critics, but only 74% with the audience.  Add my opinion to that of the 74%.  I would give it three and a half out of four starts.

Saturday Night at the Movies #22 – Mandingo, Jasper Texas, and Shortbus

Mandingo was a controversial movie in the 70s, not because of its portrayal of the cruelty of slavery in the 1830s, but because it depicted a young, white, aristocratic Southern female (Susan George) calling on the sexual services of a family slave (boxer Ken Norton).  Somehow the Southern male (Perry King) doing the same thing to a female slave (Brenda Sykes) did not generate the same controversy. 

Some critics hated the movie (Ebert gave it zero stars and Time magazine called it boring and cliché-ridden.), but it was a box office success and I thought it was excellent.  The story was fascinating and the acting was fine.  I give it a solid three stars, even though it received only 40% from Rotten Tomato critics and 60% from Rotten Tomato audiences.

Incidentally, a Mandingo is a person from the upper Niger River valley in western African.  According to the movie, they were especially valued by antebellum Southerners for their athleticism and related breeding purposes.

By watching Mandingo, I was reminded of how severe and dehumanizing the treatment of slaves had been in America, but things were different now, right?  I had been warned that, according Jasper, Texas, the 2003 Showtime movie, maybe things hadn’t changed that much.  Fortunately, that warning proved to be incorrect.

The movie Jasper, Texas portrays the true story of a black man, James Byrd, Jr., who was famously murdered by dragging in 1998 by three men, two of whom were committed white supremacists.  But the city itself is depicted as consisting of people who have learned to live with each other, although a strong racial divide persists.

Personally, I thought the movie was boring.  Lou Gossett as a black mayor and Jon Voight as a white sheriff are fine, but the story focuses on the city’s reaction to the murder trial and it totally lacks any suspense.  Rotten Tomatoes doesn’t rate it; I rate it as one star out of four.     

For those of you who enjoy sexually explicit movies, don’t be misled into thinking that Netflix can help you.  It has a category called “steamy,” out of which I recently watched Shortbus, an award-winning 2006 comedy-drama about contemporary life in the NYC club scene that included non-simulated sex.  Its Rotten Tomato critic rating was 66%, and its audience gave it 74%.  I agree and give it three out of four stars.

Saturday Night at the Movies #21 – Before Sunrise

After it prematurely delivered the sequel Before Sunset (2004) earlier this week, Netflix finally got around to delivering the original Before Sunset (1995).  As I suggested in my posting on Before Sunset, the sequel was great, so I couldn’t wait to see the original.  I wasn’t disappointed. 

Before Sunrise begins with young American Jesse (Ethan Hawke) on a train to Vienna to catch a plane back to America.  He had been visiting his girlfriend in Spain, where he learned that she was no longer that into him and didn’t appreciate his company.  While on the train, Jesse strikes up a conversation with a pretty young French woman Celine (Julie Delphy), who was returning to France after visiting her ailing grandmother in Budapest. 

As with Before Sunset, Before Sunrise consists entirely these two characters engaged in a philosophical conversation.  Whereas Before Sunset takes place in the span of less than two hours, Before Sunset actually lasts from one afternoon to the next morning, when Jesse has to catch a plane back to America.

The philosophy discussed by the two characters isn’t particularly deep or profound, although I was impressed with Jesse’s comment that the dumpee wants to think that the dumper is hurting, too, but his personal experience as a dumper informed him that the dumpers have no pain and little empathy because they have already moved on.  Been there.  I was also impressed by Celine’s comment about all her former boyfriends who went on to better relationships that ended in marriages.  Celine said she was sick of hearing from these guys that she had helped them learn how to love better.  Been there.  That’s like putting up with a defect in your house for years and then, after you decide to sell the house, you fix the defect for the benefit of the new buyer.  Why didn’t you fix it up in time to enjoy the change yourself?

What makes the Jesse/Celine philosophical discussion special is that the characters connect.  They both are vaguely sad individuals who have a deep interest in sharing their innermost thoughts, and they have finally found a kindred spirit who both gives and receives on the same level of undertanding and appreciation.

As I mentioned in my previous blog posting, the couple at the end of the movie promised to get back together in Vienna in six months, but that did not happen.  That is the only unrealistic thing about the sequel.  With the love that these two individuals developed in less than 24 hours, there would have been nothing that would have prevented their reunion in Vienna.  (Oops, I forgot the truism that in the beginning it is infatuation, not love, that exists between two souls.  Now I’m not so sure about that.)

Before Sunrise was written and directed by Richard Linklater, a Texas filmmaker who is famous for one-day movies like these, plus Slacker and Dazed & Confused.  Both the Sunrise and Sunset movies were excellently received by critics and audiences.  Although Before Sunrise was slightly better received by both, I reverse the order and slightly prefer Before Sunset.  Four stars.

Saturday Night at the Movies #20 – Before Sunset

After Sunset (2004) was a movie recommended to me by Netflix.  It is a sequel to Before Sunrise (1995), and even though I had never heard of either movie, I decided to view them because they star Ethan Hawke, one of my favorite actors, and were favorably reviewed.  I was planning to watch Before Sunrise first, but Netflix mailed me Before Sunrise first, so what was I to do?

What a movie!  Before Sunrise involves American Ethan Hawke having a fantastic one-night stand with French Julie Delphy in Vienna and then agreeing to meet again in six months (like An Affair to Remember) as the movie ends.  Before Sunset begins nine years later with Hawke, now a successful author, having a book-signing event in Paris and Delphy showing up at the event.  For the next 90 minutes, they played catch-up by having a non-stop 90 minute conversation, and that conversation between two people was the entire movie. 

Delphy’s first question was whether Hawke had shown up in Vienna.  She hadn’t because her grandmother died the day before.  Hawke initially said he hadn’t, and Delphy was saddened.  But then Hawke eventually admitted that he had, and Delphy was even more saddened.  Incredible!  As someone who loves philosophical, romantic conversation, I was in heaven the entire time. 

As their conversation got deeper over time, both Hawke and Delphy revealed that the connection that they made that one night in Vienna put a shadow on all their future relationships (Hawke was married to a teacher and had a son; Delphy was an environmental activist in a committed relationship with a musician).  Hawke mentioned that he was actually thinking on his wedding day that Delphy would show up and stop the ceremony, and Delphy described some similar incidents in her life.  As the movie draws to a conclusion, you wonder how the characters, with nine additional years of wisdom, will act differently that their younger selves.

Before Sunset received a Rotten Tomato rating of 95% from the critics and 89% from the audience, which is almost as good as Before Sunrise’s 100% from the critics and 92% from the audience.  I can’t wait to see Before Sunrise.  I give Before Sunset four stars out of four.

Saturday Night at the Movies #19 – Love and Other Drugs, Sex is Comedy, The Bucket List, and Shakespeare in Love

Love and Other Drugs is a 2010 romantic comedy starring Jake Gyllenhaal and Anne Hathaway.  It is based on the real-life memoir of Jamie Reidy called Hard Sell: The Evolution of a Viagra Salesman.  Although I love romantic comedies like the 1986 film Working Girl starring Melanie Griffith and Harrison Ford, I think that sometimes the comedy gets in the way of the romance.  It’s hard to get your serious romantic juices stirring when too much comedy is interjected.  That is the case with the early part of Love and Other Drugs, with Gyllenhaal and his dorky younger brother have scenes that are unbelievable and excessive.  But that problem is minimized later in the movie when girlfriend Anne Hathaway starts dealing with her early-onset Parkinson’s.  This causes the movie to shift from a romantic comedy to a romantic drama that is evocative of 1970’s Love Story, with Ali McGraw the sick girlfriend and Ryan O’Neill the dashing boyfriend.  Both Gyllenhaal and Hathaway are wonderful.  Love and Other Drugs starts lamely but finishes strongly.  It earned a 48% from the Rotten Tomato critics and a 54% from its audience.  I disagree and give it three stars out of four.     

Continuing with sex-based movies, I next saw Sex is Comedy.  According to Netflix’s thumbnail description, this French film is a movie director’s semi-autobiographical tale that captures the making of a cinematic sex scene in all its awkwardness.  Well said, except that the tale stars two incredibly unprofessional, childish actors.  Not surprising for a director’s semi-autobiographical tale, the only adult in the room appears to be the director.  The film received a solid 70% from the Rotten Tomato critics, but only 50% from its audience.  As usual, I lean more toward the audience than the critics, but I think the audience was too generous.  I give it only one and a half stars out of four.

The Bucket List has become a cliché, even for those who haven’t seen the movie.  The reference makes its way into a variety of philosophical discussions, and I always felt a bit guilty discussing the concept because I hadn’t seen the movie.  Now, because of Netflix, I no longer feel that guilt.  But watching The Bucket List was not time spent particularly well.  Although Jack Nicholson and Morgan Freeman acted proficiently, the movie contained no great insights or delightful nuances and nothing surprising.  Rotten Potato critics gave it only 40%, while the audience gave it 81%.  I don’t recall seeing such a divergence of opinion between critics and audience.  Although I tend to agree with the audience review, in this case I agree with the critics, and give it one and a half stars out of four.  I suspect the reason is that at my current stage in life I prefer movies that involve finding romance (like in Love and Other Drugs) rather than movies that deal with end-of-life issues.        

Shakespeare in Love made my viewing list because it won an Academy Award as the best 1998 movie, with Joseph Fiennes starring as William Shakespeare.  Gwyneth Paltrow played his love interest, and she won the Best Actress Academy Award.  The British movie is a fictional comedy that revolves around Shakespeare writing his play Romeo and Juliet while he having a similarly star-crossed relationship with Paltrow’s character.  As I have previously mentioned, I am not a big fan of serious comedies (Is that an oxymoron?), and I am not a big fan of this movie.  The actors, especially Fiennes, are too effeminate for my taste.  And although the ending was appropriate, it was disappointing.  As I expected, Rotten Tomatoes critics liked it more (93%) like it more than its audience (76%).  I would give the movie only two stars out of four because of its weak story and characters.     

 

Saturday Night at the Movies #18 – A Separation, Black Swan, The Constant Gardiner, and Fahrenheit 9/11

Since joining Netflix, I thought my movie-theater days would be over.  But I’ve also joined eHarmony, so my movie-theater days may be shifting into high gear.  My first movie-theater film in a long time was A Separation.  I picked it because it won this year’s Academy Award for Best Foreign Language film.  (The Iran-based movie is in Persian.) 

A Separation revolves around a middle-class couple experiencing a marital separation while trying to deal with a parent who has advanced Alzheimer’s.  Then to make matters worse, the husband gets caught up in a trumped up murder charge related to the miscarriage of his father’s caregiver.  I was surprised to see that Iran had a middle class, but even more to see that its judicial system operates relatively effectively even with its heavy overlay of extreme religiosity.  When I suggested to my date that the only thing it was missing was romance, she suggested that romance was probably not a big thing in Iran.  Perhaps. The movie earned a Rotten Tomato critic’s rating of 99% and an audience rating of 94%.  I give it four stars out of four.  I was impressed that Iran could produce such an outstanding drama. 

Black Swan is a so-called psychological thriller that was nominated for an Academy Award in 2011.  Although the film didn’t win the award, its star Natalie Portman won the Best Actress award.  I’m not sure if I don’t like psychological thrillers or if I just didn’t like this one.  Portman and her co-star Mila Kunis are stunningly attractive, but neither captured me.  The Rotten Tomato critics were 87% favorable and the audience was 86%.  I give it two and a half stars out of four.

Rachel Weisz (pronounced “vice”) was showcased in Time magazine this week in advance of her new movie, Deep Blue Sea, which comes out this weekend.  The article mentioned that Weisz had won an Academy Award for her supporting performance with Ralph Fiennes in the 2005 thriller The Constant Gardener, and that was enough reason for me to give this Netflix streaming movie a try.  The movie concerns humanitarian activists fighting corrupt capitalism in poverty-stricken Kenya.  Weisz is wonderful in the movie as an erratic, passionate activist, but Fiennes is at least as good as a sensitive, decent civil servant.  Their love for each other, however, is what makes the movie click for me.  Rotten Tomatoes gave it 83% by critics and 81% by the audience; I give it three and a half stars out of four.   

Fahrenheit 9/11 made my viewing list because this 2004 award-winning movie by Michael Moore is the highest-grossing documentary of all time.  It earned an 84% rating from Rotten Tomatoes critics, but only 69% from its viewers (mostly liberal, I presume).  I give it only one and a half stars out of four because it consisted mostly of anti-war (Iraq) and anti-Bush propaganda – a perfect example of Moore preaching to the choir and doing nothing to persuade the undecided.  Despite the film’s commercial success in mid-2004, Bush-43 was re-elected several months later in November 2004.

Incidentally, according to Wikipedia, “The title of the film alludes to Ray Bradbury’s 1953 novel Fahrenheit 451, a dystopian view of the future United States, analogizing the auto-ignition temperature of paper with the date of the September 11 attacks; the film’s tagline is ‘The Temperature at Which Freedom Burns.’”