I just finished watching Mr. Brooks for the second time. I'm not sure why I love the film, but I just do. I didn't get a lot of hype, but I think its a gem that's slightly over looked. Who cares about Moore or Cook in the film, they are just character fillers for the main characters. The film has so many dimensions to it, that it obscures the best parts of the film, like the shooting scene at the end where Moore catches the Hangman Killer and his femme fatale. It seems strange that its in it. Like Moore's character should be the main character of her own film, but somehow is a minor detail in this one. Dane Cook doesn't do drama so well. In fact, I'm not so sure I like him as an actor, though I've seen all his films. So I have picked out some films that I enjoy, especially for the reason that I simply enjoy the acting.
Kevin Costner and William Hurt. The duo where Costner praises Hurt's brilliance, or tries to escape the hunger of Hurt. The whole second psyche, and that the two think separately from each other is phenomenal. I also love how when Hurt appears when Costner is around other people was done smartly. They show Costner's two psyches as two physical characters to represent what's actually going on his mind. Almost like a soliloquy, except that there are two people present and not just one, even though it is just one person. Its just brilliant. Cinematic poetry, but not on an indie film level.
Mel Gibson in this film is amazing. Seeing him play a father, in a way that he acts like himself makes this movie so charming. I think that this was his last film he acted in. Shame. He's talented, regardless of his bigotry and racism or whatever else he said to offend the public. His character's relationship with faith, is almost the same as a childhood friend. At some point in life, someone you trust and have leaned on and grew with your whole life suddenly does something to hurt you indirectly that completely changes you in ways that you never could have imagined. Shyamalan is usually a good writer, he sometimes is not so great, but the part seemed to be made for Mel Gibson. Gibson delivers the perfect amount of tenderness to this film that makes the film that much more amazing. I also like to note that Joaquin Phoenix is also very good in this film. I had seen him in some other movies before, but this is the movie that made me love him as an actor and to watch for all his movies. My favourite scene in the movie is when the sheriff comes to the house and the three of them have a conversation about what they saw the night before. Phoenix really needs to do some comedy, at least one. I don't care what kind. He has a coyness in his facial expressions that make him enjoyable to watch. Phoenix's character shares a story about how he almost made out with a girl at a party, but he had gum in his mouth, so he found something to place the gum. When he turned around, the girl had thrown up all over herself. He told this story like it really could have been his story. The two of them alone make up for the ending.
This movie has a great cast, but Natalie Portman steals the show with her brilliant acting. The older she gets and the more films she does, she really seems to expand her craft. Considering her age, she will only get better in the future. The part where she really starts to get into her character is when Anne gets back from Paris and at supper she already flirtatiously challenges Bana. This is probably one weapon women have over men is their ability to use their sexuality in an intelligent manner that commands attention and power. In this case, challenging a king is probably not the best way to use your manipulative skill for ambition. Sexuality has a limit when it comes to who has the most power.
Continuing with Natalie Portman is that she is also great in Closer. There is something in her character's naivety that really seems to speak louder than words. Her childish nature seems to draw others to her in this film. Natalie Portman has very seductive powers or acts like she has phenomenal sexuality, which is close enough. This film is also great because Clive Owen is just as equally a show stopper. These two characters are the victims of lust, and together they made a great pair, even though it was short lived. Owen is very raw, honest and abrupt in this film. His rugged good looks reflect his character well. I especially enjoy his dirty mouth and revengeful attitude. Sartre said there was a fine line between love and disgust. This film couldn't portray this element any finer. I could go on and on about how wonderful this film is, but I just wanted to talk about some movies with really great acting.
Steve Carell is just wonderful in this film. He always plays a goof when he acts. For some reason he seems more real and not so over done like he usually does in his other films. The Office is simply a different nature and I won't talk about his acting in the hit show. A could relate to the humanism portrayed in this film. Carell's character is pathetic, lonely and lost. Something we can all relate to... unless you have no sense of humour for life and its miseries, and in that case, I feel sorry for you. This is why comedians are usually depressed. Comedy and sadness are closely tied together. Funny how that is.
Finally, Lady in the Water. Paul Giamati is a wizard at acting. His fine acting skills shine in this film. Thinking about it now, this film and Dan in Real Life share the same kind of commonality of loss. This was not intentional. The best part of the film is when Giamati wants to hear the rest of the story, but because he is a stranger he must act innocent to warm the girl's mother so that she reveals the rest of the myth. The whole leaving milk in his moustache and lying down on the couch and pulling his feet up and behaving like a child were just sensational. I saw Giamati in a new light. His acting holds up the movie. If anyone else would have played the role, the movie would have sucked. Sometimes I think Shyamalan makes movies that can only be played by a specific actor, and that the wrong actor would destroy the delivery of the story. I think that's why The Happening failed. As much as I love Zooey Deschanel, I don't think she was quite right for the part. To go even mor off topic, Wahlberg was perfect for the role of Elliot. He does comedy well too.
To conclude the rest of the post, I'd have to say some of the best films that can be rewatched over and over contain some sort of comedy or wit to it. I read my electronic fortune cookie and it said something very true. "Life is tragic for those who feel. Life is a comedy when you have humor" or something along those lines. I couldn't have said it better. That's what all these films have in common. No wonder I like them so much.
Continuing with Natalie Portman is that she is also great in Closer. There is something in her character's naivety that really seems to speak louder than words. Her childish nature seems to draw others to her in this film. Natalie Portman has very seductive powers or acts like she has phenomenal sexuality, which is close enough. This film is also great because Clive Owen is just as equally a show stopper. These two characters are the victims of lust, and together they made a great pair, even though it was short lived. Owen is very raw, honest and abrupt in this film. His rugged good looks reflect his character well. I especially enjoy his dirty mouth and revengeful attitude. Sartre said there was a fine line between love and disgust. This film couldn't portray this element any finer. I could go on and on about how wonderful this film is, but I just wanted to talk about some movies with really great acting.
Finally, Lady in the Water. Paul Giamati is a wizard at acting. His fine acting skills shine in this film. Thinking about it now, this film and Dan in Real Life share the same kind of commonality of loss. This was not intentional. The best part of the film is when Giamati wants to hear the rest of the story, but because he is a stranger he must act innocent to warm the girl's mother so that she reveals the rest of the myth. The whole leaving milk in his moustache and lying down on the couch and pulling his feet up and behaving like a child were just sensational. I saw Giamati in a new light. His acting holds up the movie. If anyone else would have played the role, the movie would have sucked. Sometimes I think Shyamalan makes movies that can only be played by a specific actor, and that the wrong actor would destroy the delivery of the story. I think that's why The Happening failed. As much as I love Zooey Deschanel, I don't think she was quite right for the part. To go even mor off topic, Wahlberg was perfect for the role of Elliot. He does comedy well too.
So the beginning of this movie made me wonder if the entire movie was going to be filmed in just this one location... The lack of locations for this film and the way the film looked obviously made the statement that it was a low budget film. I had seen that this film was given really good reviews and wanted to check it out. By the time the movie got into the plot, it became very interesting. It showed a very dominant theme of love, and loneliness and that people need people. Nora Jones proved to be a pretty good actress. Rachel Weisz delivers as always, and I'm always charmed by Natalie Portman in all films. You can figure out the title for yourself. It ruins the film if someone tells you what it means. I loved it and now I see why it got such great reviews.
I have mixed feelings about this movie. I don't know what Mr. Phillipe saw in the girl in this movie to cheat on his wife and date this woman. Witherspoon is more attractive... Texans aren't hicks, but these people seemed like hicks. Drinking all the time and shooting things for fun... SO MUCH FUN... It blended the damaging mental effects a lot of soldiers have when they get home into real-life senarios, which was done very well. The real reaction of finding out that you aren't done serving your country, but going back to the place that has already messed you up is actually happening. I don't agree with war. The Americans should just let the Iraqi's kill themselves all out so that the problem fixes itself. Who are we to decide to that they need democracy??? This unnecessary war looks like neocolonization to me. What this movie also showed was that weak people should not be allowed to enlist. These are people who come home and don't know how to look after themselves when they get back. There is more to life than fighting someone else's battles. I'm still not sure how I feel about this one yet.
