Hey folks, Harry here... Well Imtrio has chimed in with reviews and opinions upon two of the films many feel could be competing for BEST OF THE YEAR awards. He is a huge fan of both, but felt that both films did not end on the perfect notes... With A BEAUTIFUL MIND, it seems the last thirty minutes Spielbergs out on us... ie... doesn't know where to end, and with VANILLA SKY, he felt there was too much exposition towards the end. I've inquired with Cameron Crowe about Friday's screening of VANILLA SKY and how it was 45 minutes shorter than the previous screening... He said that he was just trying some things out... to see what the audience could and could not live without, as well as himself. None of the cuts were permanent, but rather experiments to see how it plays. I have not yet talked with Ron Howard though. Take care and read on...
Hi Harry,
I saw you posted some reviews for "Vanilla Sky" this morning. I was at that screening on Friday, plus I saw "A Beautiful Mind" earlier in the week, so I thought I'd toss my two cents into the communal fountain.
First, "A Beautiful Mind." I saw this last Monday up in Woodland Hills. According the preview people, we were the first audience to see it. It was definitely a workprint -- all the dissolves and fades were dumped from the Avid.
This film is going to be HUGE. I'm predicting nominations for Best Picture, Director, Actor, Screenplay, maybe even Best Supporting. It is directed by Ron Howard (practically SALIVATING for the Gold Guy), stars Russell Crowe, and was written Akiva Goldsman (he of "Lost in Space" and "Deep Blue Sea" fame -- the guy actually writes here!)
"A Beautiful Mind" is based on the life of John Nash, a mathematician in the Fifties who was eventually diagnosed as paranoid-schizophrenic. If it sounds boring, it's not. Howard, Crowe, and Goldsman all work together to create a fascinating portrait of a truly unique individual.
Russell Crowe is amazing. It's a shame he won the Oscar last year, because he deserves it more for this. His Nash is a socially awkward, uncomfortably frank, and tormented guy. The other performances are solid -- Ed Harris as a Government Official and Paul Bettany (Chaucer in "A Knight's Tale") as Nash's best friend. The only blah actor is Jennifer Connelly, a.k.a Acting Unit # 75 ("The Wife.")
My only drawbacks with the movie are in the last 30 minutes. Ron & Co.try too hard for the tears -- staging a ridiculous, totally unmotivated scene with some pens, and an all-too standard award ceremony monologue followed by heartfelt applause deal. It also depicts schizophrenia as a disease that can be cured by determination and love -- unfortunately not true.
But this is a quality mainstream film. A well-told story, grounded by solid directing and a great performance by Crowe.
Now for "Vanilla Sky." I saw this on Friday at the Beverly Connection. Here's my take:
"Vanilla Sky" is GREAT. It is daring, bizarre, genre-busting, and totally captivating. I had no idea where the story was going next. However, I don't know how audiences are going to react. It's just too WEIRD, man. There's stuff in there that you don't see in a Hollywood movie, especially one starring Senor Cruise. It will be interesting to see what they change.
Y'all know the story. This is a real departure for Cameron Crowe. I went expecting another romantic comedy, and this is ... a thriller? A romance? An artistic exploration of one man's psyche? I don't quite know. But whatever it is, it works. Crowe definitely knows how to creat suspense. It's nice to see him try out some new stuff here, and it works for the most part.
The actors are great -- Cruise has a lot going on, Cameron D is psycho in an unsettling way, and even Penelope (who I usually don't like state-side) is charming. All the supporters are cool -- Jason Lee, Tilda Swinton, the Spielberg cameo, the kid from "Shine" and "Tomb Raider" (forgot his name).
Music = fantastic. Trust Crowe to alway have the perfect musical complement to any emotion. The Radiohead/Times Square opening is stunning. The recurring Peter Gabriel theme is great.
But ... there's almost too much going on in this movie. Just one of these ideas would have been enough to deal with for two hours. We have the disfigurement/vanity thing, the is he insane or not thing, the possible takeover of his company, and then the out of left field third act reveal.
Don't get me wrong. I liked the movie. Probably because it had a lot going on. But it does feel a tad uneven. The ending is kind of a cop-out. I think any third act that has ten minutes of exposition is weak. ("A.I.", anyone?) There was also one too many climactic reveals at the end.
This whole thing reminds me of "Fight Club" -- a huge studio movie with huge stars and a huge director that dares to challenge the mainstream audience. I only hope the masses don't reject it the way they did Fincher's picture.
Call me "Imtrio."
