Hey, everyone. "Moriarty" here with some Rumblings From The Lab.
Hey, if Mr. Beaks refers someone to us, then we’re going to listen. I tried to take Irish-Man seriously when he showed up at the Labs last night, especially since he alleged that he had all sorts of super Irish-Powers, but the leprechaun outfit was just too precious, and I’m afraid I hurt his feelings when I laughed at his request for some “Lucky Charms.” Still, he dropped off some good reviews, so you guys should dig in and see what he’s got to say on two of 2003’s upcoming releases...
I was extremely fortunate to get into one of the first showings of the new Christopher Guest comedy, “A Mighty Wind.” I owe this entirely to Mr. Beaks and his roommate. Thanks guys. Now I know a bunch of people wrote in yesterday, but I figured another one couldn’t hurt, so here goes.
First, most of you already know whether or not you will see this, based on previous Christopher Guest movies. So the review should basically just compare it against the others to see how it stacks up. It is, in fact, another of the faux-documentaries like “Best in Show,” “Waiting for Guffman,” and “Spinal Tap.” Yes, I know Guest didn’t direct “Spinal Tap,” but who are you kidding? It’s in the same group. This one is about folk singers from the 60’s and 70’s reuniting for a concert.
Anyway, the crowd was very familiar with these movies and was eager for more. For the first 15 minutes, spontaneous applause would break out whenever a familiar face would pop up. Which was quite frequently. Using almost every actor from the previous three movies (including Harry Shearer), the characters came fast and furious. It was a ton of fun spotting all these people together again. As usual, they are playing quirky people who are so into their own world that they drag you in with them. And the audience was very willing to be dragged. We were probably overly generous with our laughter.
I’ll stop right here before I go on to say: I really liked this movie. I had a great time, and it was ten times better than most comedies these days. The problem is that a lot of the jokes and situations are a little too familiar by now. They are still funny, but they aren’t as fresh. The actors are almost all great, but we barely get to know any of them. There are just so many, and the movie is short. There HAS to be more footage; I think they should put some back in. Let us spend more time with some of the people who get shafted. Parker Posey and Guest himself barely have any scenes to themselves. The people are all funny; why not show them and use them?
Of course, Fred Willard is hilarious, as are Bob Balaban and Michael McKean. I’m going to talk a little more about two characters that really stuck out, but for different reasons. Eugene Levy’s Mitch Cohen is recovering from a mental breakdown and has trouble talking. His facial expressions are a riot, but when he talks, it takes him SO long to get a sentence out that the audience gets impatient. There is one scene in particular where it is just him talking and it is so annoying that you just want him to spit out what he’s saying so we can get back to people who know how to speak. It was a good performance saddled with a bad personality trait. I think it’s fixable if they just make sure his character doesn’t have any long speeches. The other character is Mitch’s ex-wife, Mickey, played by Catherine O’Hara. She is probably the least funny, but the most “real.” You really get a sense of her life, and she has some scenes bordering on melancholy. I really appreciated the depth she gave the movie, but I wish her timing was a little different. Her first scene is a real downer, and it follows a series of hilarious introductions. I don’t see why they couldn’t give her a similarly enjoyable introduction and hit you with the sad stuff once you are into the characters.
Finally, the music. It’s good. I will admit to some toe-tapping, especially during the Folksmen’s big hit song (Shearer, McKean, and Guest). The music felt real; maybe they used some real folk songs (I wouldn’t know), but whoever wrote these should be commended. It’s not “O Brother” good, but it is still enjoyable.
Overall, I really liked this movie. Honestly enjoyed it more than most Hollywood comedies. It will fit well in any Guest DVD collection. It’s wonderful to see the “old gang” together again onscreen, and there are some marvelous moments. On the whole, however, I would say it is not as good as the others. Now this is only after one viewing of course. And it is a rough cut. But the initial impression was that the sparkle and originality is starting to fade. But it was still good, and I don’t think anybody would regret seeing it. I certainly don’t and look forward to seeing it again when it is done and polished.
If you remember, Mr. Beaks hated this next film with a burning passion. Color me surprised, then, at this reaction:
I saw “The Life of David Gale” this past week. I was under the impression that it would be released this year for Oscar consideration. Now I hear it’s slated for February. Is this because, as Beaks has said, the movie is just plain bad? Well, as much as I regret disagreeing with the esteemed Mr. Beaks, the answer is no. It’s not bad. I wouldn’t say Oscar-worthy, but I would definitely say “Not bad.”
Ok, here’s a brief, spoiler-free plot synopsis. A disgraced professor and death penalty abolitionist (Kevin Spacey) is on death row. He is convicted of killing his former colleague (Laura Linney). During his last week of life, he is interviewed by a newly notorious journalist (Kate Winslet). An investigation ensues, wherein Kate and her intern race against the clock to see if he really is guilty or if one of his enemies framed him. Sounds kind of like a standard suspense/courtroom drama type of movie. It mostly is, but at least the format is different. There are no courtroom scenes, and the movie is mostly told in flashback.
For now, let’s skip what actually happens in the movie and talk about some general things. I can’t say much for the cinematography or music because I’m not well versed on those…let’s just say that nothing stuck out. The pacing was good. The movie was right about two hours but didn’t drag much. Now why didn’t Mr. Beaks like it? It would have to be the script. This movie wears its politics in plain view, and Republicans are portrayed as “bad guys,” if you want to call them that. Much like in “The Contender.” However, this suits me just fine, as I’m a registered member of the Green Party. The movie makes a strong case against the death penalty, and its advocates really come across poorly (on purpose). However, one of the people I went with is very conservative and he liked the movie also, while acknowledging its blatant opinions.
Ok, so if not the politics, what about the plot? I won’t use the word “twist” because people automatically think of “Sixth Sense” or “Usual Suspects.” This movie doesn’t have a “twist,” it has surprising plot developments. Totally different and perfectly acceptable. They really fit the story well. The only problem with them is that about two-thirds of the way into the movie, my two friends and I all started thinking about the same thing. And we were right. This may be because we’re all smart and film-literate. Or maybe it was telegraphed a little bit too much. Or maybe we got lucky. Regardless, the plot played out as I think it should. It was the story I wanted to see develop, and I was satisfied. Oh, there’s also one minor, yet obvious, plot hole that had people in the audience muttering to themselves. But it was easily forgivable in my mind.
As for the acting…Kate Winslet is really a supporting character, but she looks good and does a decent job. She’s very sure of herself as the slightly cocky journalist. Kevin Spacey is good as always; what else can you really say about him? Laura Linney (whom I think is attractive) manages to look rather frumpy, which is good because that’s what her character is supposed to be. She also really makes you feel empathy for her character and her struggles. Everybody does a solid job, but nobody is Oscar-caliber. Spacey was probably the best, but that’s because he was the main character and had the most traumatic/emotional stuff happen to him. And he even gets to play drunk, a sure-fire sign of award nominations. Right? Well, not here. There is just too much competition this year. Universal probably realized this movie couldn’t stack up to the Oscar big-shots this year and decided to delay it to get some more feedback and put it into the slow February period, where it might have a chance of standing out. I think it’s a good strategy, business-wise. This movie would get swallowed if it were released in the next three weeks. Maybe now it can breathe and become a modest success. It’s a tough subject matter to sell, but it could find the right crowd to make some money. Just not a lot.
So overall, I liked it. The politics were right up my alley. The acting was convincing. The plot wasn’t too simplistic, nor too clever and full of self-importance. Nothing was so bad that it distracted or stuck out. A solid political suspense/drama, and one that I enjoyed watching. I won’t see it again in the theater, but it’s not really a repeat-business kind of movie anyway. If you like the subject matter and genre, it’s worth a look when it’s finally released.
Until next time,
Irish-Man
Thanks, buddy, and I hope we hear from you again soon. Just lose the green tights.
"Moriarty" out.
