By now you've probably heard what happened to Barbaro. The Kentucky Derby winner was euthanized today after complications from surgery. I saw it coming; the vet had been using the word 'quit' far more often than in the past, but I had had hope. Up until recently he'd been doing well and talk had been that he'd move to a farm soon. Then the problems began.
I'm afraid this means that any other horse that suffers the same injury will be euthanized immediately. I had hoped his survival would mean good things for other injured horses, but consensus will likely be they should be put down immediately.
This sport just breaks your heart sometimes.
Monday, January 29, 2007
Sunday, January 28, 2007
Movie Review - Adaptation
Nicholas Cage is fond of being the action-hero type - tough, craggy, dangerous. The problem is, he hasn't really looked in a mirror lately. Cage isn't action-hero handsome and instead of using that to his advantage, he signs up for movies that play to his ego rather than his strengths. (There wasn't anything wrong with National Treasure, for example - it was a travelogue of my last four vacations - but would the movie have been even better with Sean Bean in the lead and some other schlub as the bad guy? And is anybody really thrilled to see that ghost biker movie he's promoting right now?)
In Adaptation, Cage gives a fabulous performance. By playing against type. And, according to some movie notes I read, by playing the part not as he would have liked to play it but as the director insisted. He should listen more often.
Adaptation is the story of a pair of screenwriting brothers - Charlie and Donald Kaufman. Charlie writes deep-mind theater, while Donald writes scream-happy crap. Donald is becoming happily successful. Charlie is depressed, cranky and resentful, not to mention frustrated. He's just coming off his film "Being John Malkovich", which is another odd mind bender. That movie and this one rub elbows quite a bit, so you'll see a lot of familiar faces, including Maggie Gyllenhaal in a small role, and Malkovich himself, briefly, in the very beginning. (You should watch "Malkovich" first just to make it easier to figure out what's going on.)
Charlie is in the midst of trying to adapt a book called 'The Orchid Thief' by Susan Orlean (Meryl Streep). It's about a woman who writes an article about an orchid thief (Chris Cooper) and then expands it into a book that really doesn't have a narrative thread. Charlie is practically pulling his balding hair out trying to figure out what to say. He wants to meet Orlean but gets too shy to do so, so he has his twin brother do it. Donald, always more socially adjusted, realizes something is up.
Cage is perfect as the neurotic, balding, odd duck Charlie, and even has fun as the more self-assured yet self-delusional Donald. Charlie's worried eyes and slumped posture fit perfectly with Cage's nasal voice and creased forehead.
Streep is good as Orlean (the dial tone scene is funny), and Chris Cooper breathes life into another odd-duck character John LaRoche, who flits from obsession to obsession without a shred of self-recrimination or introspection. This is Cooper at his oddly creepiest, yet LaRoche is very clear on who he is, while many of the other characters (not to spoil anything) are still trying to find that connection to self.
If this sounds ambitious, it is. We don't really understand the obsession with orchids, but it's not really about that anyway. It's about, no surprise, adaptation. Who are we? How do we make do with who we are and where we are? What makes us happy and connected?
This is one of those 'critics-darling' movies, and I'll be honest in saying I'd rather just be entertained. When the movie takes on its action angle, it's mocking itself and its characters, but after a while, I sat with furrowed brow, wondering where this is going and how it all can go so wrong. I prefer redemption for my characters, and it's true Charlie finds it by the end, but too many other souls have gone wrong by that point to make it feel worthwhile. Anyway, I'll be honest and show my lack of class and say in the end the film got a little too artsy-fartsy for me, even though I did like the line, "Catherine Keener is in my house???"
Animal Trauma: None that I could see, although I did watch an edited version taped from Oxygen network. However, having to see Cooper's bare butt is enough to make you cringe.
Overall: It's ambitious but alienating and a little slow. I give it two and a half roses out of five.
In Adaptation, Cage gives a fabulous performance. By playing against type. And, according to some movie notes I read, by playing the part not as he would have liked to play it but as the director insisted. He should listen more often.
Adaptation is the story of a pair of screenwriting brothers - Charlie and Donald Kaufman. Charlie writes deep-mind theater, while Donald writes scream-happy crap. Donald is becoming happily successful. Charlie is depressed, cranky and resentful, not to mention frustrated. He's just coming off his film "Being John Malkovich", which is another odd mind bender. That movie and this one rub elbows quite a bit, so you'll see a lot of familiar faces, including Maggie Gyllenhaal in a small role, and Malkovich himself, briefly, in the very beginning. (You should watch "Malkovich" first just to make it easier to figure out what's going on.)
Charlie is in the midst of trying to adapt a book called 'The Orchid Thief' by Susan Orlean (Meryl Streep). It's about a woman who writes an article about an orchid thief (Chris Cooper) and then expands it into a book that really doesn't have a narrative thread. Charlie is practically pulling his balding hair out trying to figure out what to say. He wants to meet Orlean but gets too shy to do so, so he has his twin brother do it. Donald, always more socially adjusted, realizes something is up.
Cage is perfect as the neurotic, balding, odd duck Charlie, and even has fun as the more self-assured yet self-delusional Donald. Charlie's worried eyes and slumped posture fit perfectly with Cage's nasal voice and creased forehead.
Streep is good as Orlean (the dial tone scene is funny), and Chris Cooper breathes life into another odd-duck character John LaRoche, who flits from obsession to obsession without a shred of self-recrimination or introspection. This is Cooper at his oddly creepiest, yet LaRoche is very clear on who he is, while many of the other characters (not to spoil anything) are still trying to find that connection to self.
If this sounds ambitious, it is. We don't really understand the obsession with orchids, but it's not really about that anyway. It's about, no surprise, adaptation. Who are we? How do we make do with who we are and where we are? What makes us happy and connected?
This is one of those 'critics-darling' movies, and I'll be honest in saying I'd rather just be entertained. When the movie takes on its action angle, it's mocking itself and its characters, but after a while, I sat with furrowed brow, wondering where this is going and how it all can go so wrong. I prefer redemption for my characters, and it's true Charlie finds it by the end, but too many other souls have gone wrong by that point to make it feel worthwhile. Anyway, I'll be honest and show my lack of class and say in the end the film got a little too artsy-fartsy for me, even though I did like the line, "Catherine Keener is in my house???"
Animal Trauma: None that I could see, although I did watch an edited version taped from Oxygen network. However, having to see Cooper's bare butt is enough to make you cringe.
Overall: It's ambitious but alienating and a little slow. I give it two and a half roses out of five.
DVD Review - An Inconvenient Truth
It's easy enough to throw the tin can in the trash, or run down to the store one more time for salsa. But you might just change your mind about that after seeing this Oscar-nominated documentary. The glorified slide show An Inconvenient Truth encourages you to recycle, buy energy efficient appliances and buy a hybrid vehicle, mostly by showing you just how close our Earth is to big-time disaster. (And we're closer than you think.)
In the interest of full disclosure, I have been known to hug trees in my day. (It's an odd but vaguely stirring feeling, embracing something so old and so still but unquestionably alive. I recommend you try it at least once. But I digress.) So I was already open to the messages former Vice President Al Gore was going to share with us and his studio audience. Still, even I wasn't prepared for the depths he plumbs in an hour and a half.
Gore's schtick is still political but he's thorough in his persuasion. He takes complex environmental theories and data, and explains them through the use of bar graphs, charts, pictures and short videos so that even the densest viewer can follow just how bad it would be if, say, Greenland just melted away. And he does it all with the assurance and persuasiveness of a man used to being in front of an audience. He doesn't use straight scare tactics; he approaches the material carefully and with a genuine understanding and care. Here's a guy who knows his stuff, and he knows how to make sure you get it too. If you don't catch yourself sucking in a deep breath at least once during this movie, you're not paying attention.
The focus is almost strictly on global warming, and what that means for you and me. It's an abstract concept, one that most of us think of only when the mercury tops 100 on a sweaty July day. But the problem is, Gore says, it's bigger than that. We're rushing wholesale into a time when our air might not be breathable, when our oceans could rise 20 feet and flood significant parts of Florida, New York and California, when our inland lakes and seas are drying up to become red deserts. This is happening world-wide, but Gore does point out the US is the worst offender. He takes a few shots at the Bush administration (you can't mention the Kyoto Treaty without doing so) but he doesn't lay it all at Dubya's feet. And he shows how the effect doesn't hit just the States but the rest of the world too. How days are getting hotter. How the ice is breaking up at the poles. How fresh water resources are being depleted. (And what he doesn't say, but I picked up from my own research is, when that happens, guess what? The world will come to Michigan to draw water from the Great Lakes. So this has a bigger implication for the Wolverine state.)
This movie can also be titled "The Resurrection of Al Gore." The slideshow is broken up into personal segments highlighting the Man Who Would Be President, presumably to distract the viewer from the 'This is a slide show!' realization. Gore is unquestionably the star, and at times it feels like environmentalism, his raison d'etre, takes a back seat to 'look at what you COULD have had in the White House.'
That's one of the movie's drawbacks. The other is the fact that there are few solutions presented. From my study it's clear to me that the problems we face can't be solved by individual change alone, although individual change certainly puts a dent in the problem. But we can't do it while companies belch carbon monoxide and other pollutants from their smokestacks tons at a time, earning tax breaks and little environmental oversight. Corporations and governments need to change their policies instead of shouting 'but that will cost jobs!' whenever someone proposes tougher environmental standards (instead, say, of finding ways to move some of those workers into new positions enforcing the tougher environmental standards - Big 3, I'm talking to you regarding the CAFE standards). Gore wants you to take the problem seriously, and a few solutions roll with the credits, but the overall solution doesn't really lie with you and me - it's up to the United States government, regardless of who is in power, to start cleaning up the mess. Unfortunately, it's politically expedient to look at the short term answer. Gore doesn't call out the offenders with the vitriol they actually earn.
And you and I shouldn't feel powerless either. Every little bit helps - it has to. Covering our eyes to the problem isn't going to make it go away, and our efforts might be able to encourage bigger effort. Gore does touch on that, probably because after a while this video starts to feel a little hopeless.
On a lighter note, in the Extras, Gore updates the data he presented in the slide show. It's then I notice that he's starting to really sport a combover - nowhere near Carl Levin status, for example, but watch the slicked-back hair action. I think someone should admit he's lost some hair and move on. Can hair gel deplete the environment?
Animal Trauma: A cartoon polar bear and a cartoon frog are placed in jeopardy. In the extras, there is a still shot of a horse crossing sands that used to be a lake. I dare you not to start singing "I've been through the desert on a horse with no name."
Overall: If this doesn't persuade you that we're in a world of hurt, nothing will. I give it four roses out of five.
In the interest of full disclosure, I have been known to hug trees in my day. (It's an odd but vaguely stirring feeling, embracing something so old and so still but unquestionably alive. I recommend you try it at least once. But I digress.) So I was already open to the messages former Vice President Al Gore was going to share with us and his studio audience. Still, even I wasn't prepared for the depths he plumbs in an hour and a half.
Gore's schtick is still political but he's thorough in his persuasion. He takes complex environmental theories and data, and explains them through the use of bar graphs, charts, pictures and short videos so that even the densest viewer can follow just how bad it would be if, say, Greenland just melted away. And he does it all with the assurance and persuasiveness of a man used to being in front of an audience. He doesn't use straight scare tactics; he approaches the material carefully and with a genuine understanding and care. Here's a guy who knows his stuff, and he knows how to make sure you get it too. If you don't catch yourself sucking in a deep breath at least once during this movie, you're not paying attention.
The focus is almost strictly on global warming, and what that means for you and me. It's an abstract concept, one that most of us think of only when the mercury tops 100 on a sweaty July day. But the problem is, Gore says, it's bigger than that. We're rushing wholesale into a time when our air might not be breathable, when our oceans could rise 20 feet and flood significant parts of Florida, New York and California, when our inland lakes and seas are drying up to become red deserts. This is happening world-wide, but Gore does point out the US is the worst offender. He takes a few shots at the Bush administration (you can't mention the Kyoto Treaty without doing so) but he doesn't lay it all at Dubya's feet. And he shows how the effect doesn't hit just the States but the rest of the world too. How days are getting hotter. How the ice is breaking up at the poles. How fresh water resources are being depleted. (And what he doesn't say, but I picked up from my own research is, when that happens, guess what? The world will come to Michigan to draw water from the Great Lakes. So this has a bigger implication for the Wolverine state.)
This movie can also be titled "The Resurrection of Al Gore." The slideshow is broken up into personal segments highlighting the Man Who Would Be President, presumably to distract the viewer from the 'This is a slide show!' realization. Gore is unquestionably the star, and at times it feels like environmentalism, his raison d'etre, takes a back seat to 'look at what you COULD have had in the White House.'
That's one of the movie's drawbacks. The other is the fact that there are few solutions presented. From my study it's clear to me that the problems we face can't be solved by individual change alone, although individual change certainly puts a dent in the problem. But we can't do it while companies belch carbon monoxide and other pollutants from their smokestacks tons at a time, earning tax breaks and little environmental oversight. Corporations and governments need to change their policies instead of shouting 'but that will cost jobs!' whenever someone proposes tougher environmental standards (instead, say, of finding ways to move some of those workers into new positions enforcing the tougher environmental standards - Big 3, I'm talking to you regarding the CAFE standards). Gore wants you to take the problem seriously, and a few solutions roll with the credits, but the overall solution doesn't really lie with you and me - it's up to the United States government, regardless of who is in power, to start cleaning up the mess. Unfortunately, it's politically expedient to look at the short term answer. Gore doesn't call out the offenders with the vitriol they actually earn.
And you and I shouldn't feel powerless either. Every little bit helps - it has to. Covering our eyes to the problem isn't going to make it go away, and our efforts might be able to encourage bigger effort. Gore does touch on that, probably because after a while this video starts to feel a little hopeless.
On a lighter note, in the Extras, Gore updates the data he presented in the slide show. It's then I notice that he's starting to really sport a combover - nowhere near Carl Levin status, for example, but watch the slicked-back hair action. I think someone should admit he's lost some hair and move on. Can hair gel deplete the environment?
Animal Trauma: A cartoon polar bear and a cartoon frog are placed in jeopardy. In the extras, there is a still shot of a horse crossing sands that used to be a lake. I dare you not to start singing "I've been through the desert on a horse with no name."
Overall: If this doesn't persuade you that we're in a world of hurt, nothing will. I give it four roses out of five.
Sunday, January 14, 2007
Movie Review - Phantom of the Opera
Before I get to my movie review, I want to say I just realized I have to moderate the comments, so that's why your comments didn't get posted until today. Some change I must have selected without knowing it, I guess. Sorry!
And on to the movie review...
I got HBO free for a few months when I signed up to Comcast and so I have been taping several movies and am now just getting around to watching them. Phantom of the Opera is one of those films.
Most of you already know the story of the Phantom of the Opera. Orphaned chorus girl Christine Daae has been taking voice lessons from an anonymous benefactor she calls the Angel of Music. When theatrical diva Carlotta won't go on during a performance of 'Hannibal', Christine gets her chance and becomes a sensation. While on stage, her old friend Raoul sees her and the two fall in love, angering the Phantom, who has been Christine's anonymous teacher. And struggle ensues.
The movie stays fairly close to the theatrical performance. Andrew Lloyd Webber worked with Joel Schumacher on the screenplay and added a few bits here and there, based on the original novel, so there's more backstory than you'll see on the stage. I found some of that a little distracting, as I did the black and white flashbacks; I much prefer to get lost in the colorized moment.
Speaking of the auction, I was thrilled to see the movie keeps my favorite moment, when the auctioneer selling an old chandelier says he'd like "a little illumination. Gentlemen?" And as they whip the covering off the chandelier, it bursts into colorful life to the strains of the organ overture. That's one of those moments I can be watching the movie, the stage play or just listening to the CD and the hair on my arms stands up. That's when I knew this movie wouldn't deviate from the successful stage performance, and that's to the film's benefit. Why mess with a worldwide success?
Emmy Rossum plays Christine and to say she has a voice is an understatement of the highest degree. I found myself wondering why we hadn't seen her in more films since this one, then wondered if she was doing stage work. She should be. She filmed this role at 16 and she sounds amazing - she carries the highs and the lows of Christine's singing with little effort. Plus she's gorgeous, so you can understand why men are fighting over her. I'll admit I was a bit surprised that we get a shot or two of her thigh high stockings - especially once I realized how young she was. This is a sexier Phantom.
Patrick Wilson plays Raoul, and he too has a lovely voice, if you can look past the nancy-boy haircut. (He looks more manly when his hair is pulled back, which is only done once.) He is a stage veteran and it shows vocally, so his duets with Christine will remind you of being in the theater. This is a bit of a 'white hat' role - he's asked to play the Prince Charming, oh-so-good. He has a title, he dances eloquently, he rides horses bareback to rescue the damsel in distress. I hear the swooning now.
Of course he has to do this to fight his rival for Christine's affections, a 'black hat' who is not quite a villain, a sexy, open-neck-shirt-wearing Phantom who gropes Christine while singing to her (I hear more swooning). Gerard Butler plays the Phantom with a stronger dose of testosterone than I'd seen on stage, and it would be effective - if his voice could play along. He doesn't have the requisite vibratto to keep up with Emmy Rossum, and when the two sing together, he's aiming for force, while she's aiming for range, and that's distracting. His is a rock band voice, which I understand from reading IMDB was what Webber wanted, but it doesn't fit.
In fact, that was my big complaint with the movie. Some of the voices are exquisite. Some are merely in tune (Ciarin Hinds is another example of a voice that wouldn't work on Broadway). Some casting changes would have evened out the vocals and focused attention where it should be - songs that stick in your mind, gorgeous sets, strong acting.
Even if you don't recognize a lot of the faces in this film, you should recognize Minnie Driver, having a riotously good time as the diva Carlotta. She does not do her own singing, but it looks like she's having so much fun that you can imagine her breaking into snorts of laughter the minute the director yells 'cut'. She's supposed to be over the top, and she does it with panache. Why she doesn't get good comedies is a mystery. Also, Miranda Richardson plays Madame Giry, and the movie actually fleshes out her role, which cleared up a few things I had missed from the stage performance.
One other note that occurred to me while watching this movie, and I hope you won't see this as a spoiler if you don't know the story. Christine's father told her about the Angel of Music before he died - so at first she thinks the Phantom is her father's ghost. Yet there are a few scenes where she's clearly hot under the collar for the Phantom. Does this strike you as a bit creepy? Me too.
Animal Trauma: None, although you'll find yourself feeling sorry for Carlotta's lapdog and the on-stage sheep. The movie also restores a few horses apparently found in the original text that aren't utilized on stage.
Overall: Exquisite sets, attractive leads, a great story and songs, and a few mediocre voices. I give this film three roses out of five.
And on to the movie review...
I got HBO free for a few months when I signed up to Comcast and so I have been taping several movies and am now just getting around to watching them. Phantom of the Opera is one of those films.
Most of you already know the story of the Phantom of the Opera. Orphaned chorus girl Christine Daae has been taking voice lessons from an anonymous benefactor she calls the Angel of Music. When theatrical diva Carlotta won't go on during a performance of 'Hannibal', Christine gets her chance and becomes a sensation. While on stage, her old friend Raoul sees her and the two fall in love, angering the Phantom, who has been Christine's anonymous teacher. And struggle ensues.
The movie stays fairly close to the theatrical performance. Andrew Lloyd Webber worked with Joel Schumacher on the screenplay and added a few bits here and there, based on the original novel, so there's more backstory than you'll see on the stage. I found some of that a little distracting, as I did the black and white flashbacks; I much prefer to get lost in the colorized moment.
Speaking of the auction, I was thrilled to see the movie keeps my favorite moment, when the auctioneer selling an old chandelier says he'd like "a little illumination. Gentlemen?" And as they whip the covering off the chandelier, it bursts into colorful life to the strains of the organ overture. That's one of those moments I can be watching the movie, the stage play or just listening to the CD and the hair on my arms stands up. That's when I knew this movie wouldn't deviate from the successful stage performance, and that's to the film's benefit. Why mess with a worldwide success?
Emmy Rossum plays Christine and to say she has a voice is an understatement of the highest degree. I found myself wondering why we hadn't seen her in more films since this one, then wondered if she was doing stage work. She should be. She filmed this role at 16 and she sounds amazing - she carries the highs and the lows of Christine's singing with little effort. Plus she's gorgeous, so you can understand why men are fighting over her. I'll admit I was a bit surprised that we get a shot or two of her thigh high stockings - especially once I realized how young she was. This is a sexier Phantom.
Patrick Wilson plays Raoul, and he too has a lovely voice, if you can look past the nancy-boy haircut. (He looks more manly when his hair is pulled back, which is only done once.) He is a stage veteran and it shows vocally, so his duets with Christine will remind you of being in the theater. This is a bit of a 'white hat' role - he's asked to play the Prince Charming, oh-so-good. He has a title, he dances eloquently, he rides horses bareback to rescue the damsel in distress. I hear the swooning now.
Of course he has to do this to fight his rival for Christine's affections, a 'black hat' who is not quite a villain, a sexy, open-neck-shirt-wearing Phantom who gropes Christine while singing to her (I hear more swooning). Gerard Butler plays the Phantom with a stronger dose of testosterone than I'd seen on stage, and it would be effective - if his voice could play along. He doesn't have the requisite vibratto to keep up with Emmy Rossum, and when the two sing together, he's aiming for force, while she's aiming for range, and that's distracting. His is a rock band voice, which I understand from reading IMDB was what Webber wanted, but it doesn't fit.
In fact, that was my big complaint with the movie. Some of the voices are exquisite. Some are merely in tune (Ciarin Hinds is another example of a voice that wouldn't work on Broadway). Some casting changes would have evened out the vocals and focused attention where it should be - songs that stick in your mind, gorgeous sets, strong acting.
Even if you don't recognize a lot of the faces in this film, you should recognize Minnie Driver, having a riotously good time as the diva Carlotta. She does not do her own singing, but it looks like she's having so much fun that you can imagine her breaking into snorts of laughter the minute the director yells 'cut'. She's supposed to be over the top, and she does it with panache. Why she doesn't get good comedies is a mystery. Also, Miranda Richardson plays Madame Giry, and the movie actually fleshes out her role, which cleared up a few things I had missed from the stage performance.
One other note that occurred to me while watching this movie, and I hope you won't see this as a spoiler if you don't know the story. Christine's father told her about the Angel of Music before he died - so at first she thinks the Phantom is her father's ghost. Yet there are a few scenes where she's clearly hot under the collar for the Phantom. Does this strike you as a bit creepy? Me too.
Animal Trauma: None, although you'll find yourself feeling sorry for Carlotta's lapdog and the on-stage sheep. The movie also restores a few horses apparently found in the original text that aren't utilized on stage.
Overall: Exquisite sets, attractive leads, a great story and songs, and a few mediocre voices. I give this film three roses out of five.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
