Irreviews

Continuing with our survey of wine movies, my wife and I decided to revisit Bottle Shock. Here is my prior review from the early days of Irreviews; obviously we did not like it back then. But on second viewing, we actually kind of enjoyed it. What changed between then and now? Well, we’re into wine now, and we weren’t back then.

This is the unfortunate bottom line with this film. If you are really into wine as an intense intellectual hobby (not just into drinking it!) you will probably enjoy this movie. But it is definitely not a good film. It’s not even a good wine film, frankly. And the sad thing is it had a lot of potential – it could have been fantastic.

As with so many modern films, the main problem is lack of dialog. Here’s an example: in the very beginning of the film, Bill Pullman tells his son Chris Pine that they are going to “rack the chardonnay again.” Chris Pine reacts negatively, really upset, saying something like “Are you crazy? That will make 7 times!” Then one of them says “wanna fight,” and instantly the film cuts to them beating the shit out of each other in a makeshift outdoor boxing ring.

So let’s reflect on what a good movie would have done with this opening scene. First, a good movie would have seized the opportunity to explain what “racking the chardonnay” actually means, and the characters would have a (lengthy) discussion about why they felt re-racking was good or bad given 1) what they are currently tasting and observing about the developing wine, 2) what they are trying to accomplish, and 3) what had happened in the past, all three of which therefore requiring explicit exposition in the dialog. In the course of this conversation, you would begin to paint a portrait of each of these two central characters, their strengths and weaknesses, their emotional motivations, and the nature of their relationship. You would cover basic technical things about wine making, and you would frame the setting of the vino-hippy culture of the 1970’s that is the topic of the film. Now that would be an opening scene to set up an interesting movie.

Instead, what do they get by going the minimal dialog route? Bill Pullman comes off as a stammering, pig-headed dick the entire film – you hate him, and you don’t want him to win the competition. His son is a stupid, perpetually-grinning good-for-nothing with no ideas and nothing interesting to say. We don’t know anything about what they are trying to do, we know nothing about their history, not even how long they have been making wine! We just see Pullman pipetting  wine out of a barrel, endlessly. We see him tasting wine and looking “thoughtful,” endlessly. We see Chris Pine goofing with his friends, endlessly. We see them boxing each other, over and over. We see them yelling incoherently at each other. We listen to Pullman giving these insufferably righteous speeches which are just irritating without proper, intelligent development of his character. I ask you: how is any of this interesting?

The other characters are not much better. Freddie Rodriguez (who plays Gustavo) strikes me as a good and soulful actor, but his character has almost nothing to say, except “taste my wine.” Rachael Taylor, a quite charismatic actress who has slipped into complete obscurity, plays the now obligatory cute young woman bouncing between powerful, creative men as a sex object. It’s disgusting, frankly. Why couldn’t they make her a real person? She is an intern, after all, so start with what she is learning!!! It’s not that hard, people! And if she is just going to be a floozy, why couldn’t they have her at least wind up with Gustavo, who is somewhat interesting, and who also seems to genuinely like her, unlike Chris Pine who is basically unmoved by everything?

There there is Alan Rickman. I keep wanting to like this guy, but I think I’m finally getting over that and coming to the conclusion that I can’t stand him. After the film was over, I asked my wife if Alan Rickman had ever played a role that was not a highly affected weirdo who talks really, really slowly. She thought a while, and then replied that she thought there might have been one film in the distant past in which he played a semi-normal person, but that we would have to search IMDB to find the name of it. But even if this film could be identified, it would be the exception that proves the rule. The guy is like Johnny One-Note, and I’m not sure his “one note” is all that thrilling.

One thing I did like about this film was what I consider its real theme of interest, largely undeveloped but nevertheless present: the power of double-blind testing. There is starting to be more written in the mainstream about how profoundly suggestible and hopelessly subjective the human thought process actually is. The story told in this film is a good example: you have this entire culture of insufferable French wine snobbery, built on a grandiose classification jargon flowing from subjective observation, but the minute the tasting is blind these experts can’t even tell which wines are from France!

Again, if you have a strong interest in wine, this film might be somewhat enjoyable. If you are watching it for any other reason, forget it.

Richard Linklater is a hell of a director. He somehow managed to direct this film featuring three actors (Jack Black, Matthew McConaughey, and Shirley MacLaine) who are basically famous for over-the-top hamming and dominating films with their tics and exaggerated personas, and coax from them subdued and subtle performances that are funny and distinctive but do not distract, and which integrate gently and elegantly with the story. When people throw around praise for directors, it always seems to be focused on camera-work and flashy technique, so much so that if the film also has really bad performances (War Horse? Hugo?) the director is completely given a pass. Not here at Irreviews! How about an Academy Award for Linklater, for taming these three clowns in the same film?

I might also add that his direction of the real-life town-folk who provide the color-commentary throughout the film is also marvelous. These people come across like first-rate character actors. I can’t imaging how he got their performances so smooth and natural and yet so consistently and wickedly funny.

Bernie is a very enjoyable little film – funny, interesting, and a bit moving. I highly recommend it.

This film is an inoffensive potpourri of good-looking people minimally acting out various minimally entertaining stories. There’s a place for that.

The reasons my wife and I went to see Dark Shadows were 1) the preview looked sort of fun, 2) we kind of like Johnny Depp’s weird shtick, and 3) the Barry White song at the end of the preview. I realize these are not great reasons, but there you have it – it was Friday night at the end of a long week. Well, I can tell you that the movie adds surprisingly little to what was already in the preview (it certainly adds no additional humor,) and I found myself sick of Johnny Depp’s crap about 1/4 of the way through (largely because the film is terribly written.) As for the Barry White song, they broke one of the cardinal rules of movie soundtracks: if you are going to use an old pop song for comic relief, it must be a bad pop song. They completely destroy the fabulous You’re My First, My Last, My Everything by using it as accompaniment to a ridiculous and disgusting tongue-in-cheek sex scene between the two super-normal characters who roll around on the ceiling and smash things. Not only was it shameful of them, it of course did not work – you can’t layer a great song over visual vomit and expect harmony.

The only other thing I would like to add is that kid that plays the daughter (Chloë Grace Moretz) is one of the worst young actresses I’ve seen in a long time. She is horrible, just like she was in Hugo. I don’t know why or how she is getting these roles. I’m making a mental note to avoid any film she is in. She makes Ellen Page look good: need I say more?

Just watch the preview for Dark Shadows and pretend you saw the movie. Sure, the ending is not included in the preview, but if you give it a moment’s thought, its ending is pretty damn predictable, is it not?

My wife and I really liked Submarine a lot. It’s a throwback to the glorious Indie Renaissance of the 90’s. The writing is crisp, funny and unusual, and it features marvelously written narration, delivered well by the main character. The film is also visually striking, with some really beautiful montage sequences set to a really cool (and highly original) score. There is a complete absence of the existential vacuousness and post-modern downer shit that virtually defines the current indie scene. It even has (gasp!) a non-ambiguous ending, something that is has become almost sacrilegious in the slavishly formulaic milieux of modern indie dreck.

Submarine has two main story lines. One is a coming-of-age tale of young love, the other a humorous view of dysfunctional parents from the point of view of the child. The love story, besides being funny, also captures many lovely and subtle things about what it is to be in love when you are young. The dysfunctional parents story is mainly for laughs, but still maintains a measure of seriousness throughout. Both are very engaging, and they gel together well.

I highly recommend Submarine.

Marigold Hotel is exactly what it appears to be in the preview; my expectations were almost perfectly met. It is a light and fluffy tale of old age in a exotic land, featuring multiple overlapping storylines (one for each retiree,) and lots of scenes of older people looking disoriented in the hustle-bustle of an Indian city. It features many fine British character actors playing highly formulaic but enjoyable roles. The humorous moments are for the most part in the preview.

I enjoyed watching Marigold Hotel, but I must say it really did not make one iota of effort to be anything more than it was destined to be. The writing is inoffensive and minimal. The themes are almost self-consciously inoffensive, bordering on saccharine. The music is exactly what you would expect it to be. Judy Dench is doing her Judy Dench thing. The Indian people in the film all quintessential Hollywood Indian people (clean, insanely articulate, and paragons of virtue and industriousness.) In this film, nothing surprises, nothing challenges, nothing deviates from the expectation set in the preview; it’s remarkable, in a way. It’s a nice little movie, and not a single bit more.

Tom Wilkinson is a truly marvelous actor, probably the best actor out there (in my opinion anyway.) He has very little to do in this film, yet he manages as he always does to make something out of nothing and turn in a lovely performance. It was also nice to see Bill Nighy playing a different sort of role (a shy but charming henpecked husband) than the usual over-the-top weirdo he usually plays. Maggie Smith breaks out of her type-casting a bit too.

It’s hard not to recommend this film. If you liked the preview, you’ll like the film; if you loved the preview, you’ll love the film!

The Five Year Engagement is part Bridesmaids, part Lost in America, part New in Town, and part gross, Judd Apatow crap – it’s kind of a mishmash, a mishmash that does not hang together particularly well. A lot of the film is a pretty predictable rehash of elements of the above-mentioned films, but occasionally there are little, focused comic skits which break it up a bit. Some of these are pretty good (I liked the one where the vacuous 20-something chick goes off on Jason Segel,) but most leave you with the feeling that they could have been done better (e.g the Elmo / Cookie Monster scene.) A lot of the comedy in this film feels a bit forced; it does not flow easily like the best comedy.

The comedy is also hurt by the fact that there is not a shred of realism in the film’s story. The thing that made Lost in America so funny is that Albert Brooks got it all perfectly spot-on, and I say this from having experienced an episode in my life very much like their travails in that movie. But The Five Year Engagement makes no sense. Why didn’t he just talk to Emily Blunt after he found out he got a head chef’s job? It is not a rare thing for couples to do long distance relationships for a few years at the beginning, due to job commitments. And this wasn’t even a job, it was a post doc in a very questionable field. Why would Emily Blunt let him degenerate so extremely, indeed why would she even like him any more, or want to come home? Why would Jason Segel let himself be destroyed for so long? Why didn’t his best friend take him aside and talk sense to him? Are these people all retarded? The film tries to be clever about life and at the same time be completely absurd. They don’t mix very well.

Basically what this film has going for it are Emily Blunt and Jason Segel: they are attractive, they have great voices, and it’s pretty hard to go wrong with them at the center of a movie. It also has (running inconsistently under the main story themes) the heartfelt warmth of Jason Segel’s writing. But I wish he had more of an influence on the writing of this film. This film lacks the consistent humanity of his Forgetting Sarah Marshall, for example; there was a certain confidence and coherence in that film that Five Year Engagement totally lacks. The Five Year Engagement does not know exactly what it wants to be, and this dilutes the viewer experience quite a bit.

Still, I recommend it if you are in the mood for a very light diversion with great leads and a lot of silliness and mild laughs. It’s not a bad film.

Apollo 18 may wish it was part of the impressive low-tech sci-fi movement arising in films (Sunshine, Monsters, District 9, Another Earth,) but it is not. It’s really just a Blair Witch thing set in space, except that it is better than Blair Witch. They didn’t write enough dialog, or craft the story in an interesting and memorable way, and they rely too heavily on the central gimmick: the entire film is “found footage” from the secret mission. This basically puts a (rather low) ceiling on how good the film can be.

With that said, however, I must remark that they did the gimmick pretty well. They managed to make the footage seem fairly real and spontaneous, and did capture to a decent extent a certain vibe of an “official film record” of the mission. I thought all 3 main actors were really good in their roles, despite the relative lack of dialog. The pacing of the film is decent, and it didn’t devolve too much toward the end, as these things tend to do. With the right expectations, this film is enjoyable, with the caveat that it is a bit depressing in the end, and sort-of leaves a bit of a bad taste.

As a light diversion, if you like gross, creepy sci-fi, and don’t mind hand-held shaky-cam, give Apollo 18 a try. Just don’t expect too much.

I really liked Sarah’s Key, and it’s the kind of movie that I usually don’t like. They somehow managed to do so many things right that are usually botched in films like this. The script is actually pretty good, and the story was pleasingly multidimensional. They pulled off the simultaneous parallel narratives in way that was not boring and did not stunt or trivialize either story line. The supporting and incidental casting was strong. And most amazingly, I made it all the way through the movie without feeling manipulated. In a genera filled with lowest-common-denominator tripe, Sarah’s Key is a wonderful and enjoyable exception.

I don’t have too much else to say about this film, and certainly don’t want to give anything away. But I will add that any chance to see Kristen Scott Thomas in a serious lead role is not to be missed, and she definitely does not disappoint here. And the little girl who played young Sarah (Mélusine Mayance) is who should have been cast as Prim in The Hunger Games – she would have been perfect for that role.

I definitely recommend Sarah’s Key.