A SHINE OF RAINBOWS (dir. Vic Sarin)Gawd, this movie is so nauseatingly nice. And generic. And hackneyed--any seasoned moviegoer will be able to predict every single story beat in advance. Connie Nielsen and Aidan Quinn--neither of whom is from Ireland (the director, meanwhile? From India)--play an Irish couple who adopt an adorable stuttering moppet (John Bell) from the local Dickensian orphanage. Because the kid is timid, kind of effeminate, and more than happy to learn the ropes from Nielsen, stoic, grunty Quinn can't relate to him. But then tragedy strikes (as you know it will from the first moment Nielsen tentatively clutches at her chest), and Quinn goes on a bender, and the kid steals a boat, and Quinn's grinch heart grows three sizes when the kid inevitably capsizes. Did I mention the baby seal yet? Who is this movie for? ½*/4
There may still be another capsule at the mothersite, but otherwise this it for my TIFF coverage. Apologies that I wound up reviewing such underwhelming fare; I confess I didn't pursue the buzz very aggressively--a muscle injury, coupled with the unexpected death of a friend, left me at the start of the Festival with little physical or psychic stamina. I'm kinda bummed that in the case of both Werner Herzog movies I showed up at the wrong theatre, but on that I blame a seemingly genetic aversion to doublechecking. Thanks for reading, even if you haven't felt much like commenting!
11 comments:
No worries Bill, the reviews were well written (especially given the circumstances) and I think you were selling yourself short by quarantining them from the mothersite.
In particular A Shine of Rainbows seems to have deserved your frustration, and I'll be keeping an eye out for My Toxic Baby as a reult of your write-up...
Mercy buckets, Justin. If you happen to live in Canada, MY TOXIC BABY airs tomorrow night @ 8pm on Global as part pf a show called "Currents".
It's a rare fellow who can juggle while standing on one leg, BC. Thanks for playing hurt.
Yeah, thanks for the coverage.
What I love about Werner Herzogs Rogue Film School:
The Rogue Film School will not teach anything technical related to film-making. (...) Related, but more practical subjects, will be the art of lockpicking. Traveling on foot. The exhilaration of being shot at unsuccessfully. The athletic side of filmmaking. The creation of your own shooting permits. The neutralization of bureaucracy. Guerrilla tactics. Self reliance. (...) Censorship will be enforced. There will be no talk of shamans, of yoga classes, nutritional values, herbal teas, discovering your Boundaries, and Inner Growth.
I wish I could attend.
here:
"Moviemaker BRETT RATNER lost his virginity to a paraplegic dangling from a tree - and now he has turned the sexual encounter into a scene in his latest film, New York, I Love You."
Um. Really? Did we need to know that?
The jokes just write themselves.
I'm guessing it was a pretty low tree.
For such a clever site, the Onion has very unfunny fans. Have you read the jokes people post in comments?
The movie I have seen most this year is Observe and Report, despite being confused on many levels of Jody Hill's intentions. Critics can't seem to get a grasp on it either (on RottenTomatoes it is literally a coin flip), though Ian's review does seem to be on point, and maybe Hill's slippery mindset adds to the raw appeal. My favorite line has to be the Storytellingesque critique of it's own audience's critique, where the cop listening in on Ronnie says "I thought this was going to be funny, but it's really just kinda sad."
My favorite line has to be the Storytellingesque critique of it's own audience's critique, where the cop listening in on Ronnie says "I thought this was going to be funny, but it's really just kinda sad."
I was confused about Jody Hill's intentions until that line. The comparisons to Punch-Drunk Love are appropriate, but I think Hill had a much harder job than Anderson. Anderson took a comedian's persona and placed it in the context of the real world. There's not really any confusion about what he was doing. But Hill's target is a genre. He had to do the opposite: place truly deranged people into the world of a comedy. Those characters in that context where confusing to a lot of critics. Still, I'm surprised that so few really got it.
Oh hey, there's a new Ken Burns documentary. I like how he never leaves any stone unturned in his work. If I had been a wiser person in high school I would have watched The Civil War rather than guessing my way through tests.
My God, a movie that I absolutely loved and it gets all this negativity? For once a movie written after 2000 isn't filled with profanity, music from the ghetto, juvenile crime, abused women and broken families and the critics can't handle it. Does every movie today require a PhD in psychology to understand, or a healthy dose of "real life" in order to get good reviews? Maybe one could say this movie is for 10-year old. Well, I'm 10 years old at heart!
Post a Comment