Tuesday, March 16, 2010
Another Revision of Sherlock Holmes Review
Actually made some legitimate changes this time around. I feel like my voice is more cohesive now. Enjoy.
Qualities usually associated with blockbuster action-films are far from the established norm for video adaptations of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s Sherlock Holmes. This is what gives significance to the ‘shoot ‘em up’ style that Guy Ritchie is known for in movies like “Snatch” and “Lock, Stock & Two Smoking Barrels” and which he brings to his latest project, a block-buster action adaptation of Sherlock Holmes’ character. The plot of this film, though, does a good job of outshining all of the glitz and glam of Hollywood with an excellent storyline.
Robert Downing Jr. (Sherlock Holmes) and Jude Law (Dr. John Watson) have great on-screen chemistry. As they stumble through a spectacularly gloomy set of the grimy London streets, their witty banter keeps you laughing while a super natural plot line keeps you on the edge of your seat. Downing Jr. , especially, seems to get completely enveloped into his character and is fun to watch. These two actors are the highlight of a movie that, on the whole, does a great job of bringing Sherlock to the big screen.
The gloomy set contrasts nicely with the bright, posh wardrobes of the two leading ladies in the film, who work to tear Holmes and Watson from their case as well as their friendship. Rachel McAdams does a better job than expected at her character, Irene Adler’s, devious nature while she seduces the audience in her attempts to capture Sherlock Holmes’ heart.
Writers Anthony Peckham, Michael Robert Johnson and Simon Kinberg work well with the team of Ritchie and Downing Jr. in adapting Holmes’ character while remaining true to the gloriously sublte details of Doyle’s makeup of Holmes. A number of striking close-ups in Holmes’ bedroom highlight a collaboration of an imaginative script, fantastic art-direction, and strong directing that creates a unique take on Holmes that remains true to Doyle’s character. The audience’s eyes burn along with Holmes as Watson pulls back the blinds to reveal a perfect attention to detail in Holmes’ Lair. These scenes make the character developed in the film unique while managing to avoid alienating Holmes fanatics.
Huge explosions and well-done, slow-motion fight scenes add to a successful set of special effects and highlight the stark difference between this movie and other video-adaptations of the book. The film’s 90 million dollar budget goes a long way as this beloved story is finally realized in a true blockbuster. The intricacies of the set draw the audience to the movie for a whopping 128 minutes. At first glance this two-hour-plus run time seems daunting but it flies by as the twists of the plot take you through the twists of the Thames and to the top of record-breaking bridge heights.
And just when one might start to worry that they left out the most important part, Moriarti makes a guest appearance just long enough to give you a glint of what is sure to be a disappointing sequel. Robert Downing Jr. and Jude Law may prove otherwise, though, as their great success in this movie had me brimming from ear to ear when I left the theatre.
Qualities usually associated with blockbuster action-films are far from the established norm for video adaptations of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s Sherlock Holmes. This is what gives significance to the ‘shoot ‘em up’ style that Guy Ritchie is known for in movies like “Snatch” and “Lock, Stock & Two Smoking Barrels” and which he brings to his latest project, a block-buster action adaptation of Sherlock Holmes’ character. The plot of this film, though, does a good job of outshining all of the glitz and glam of Hollywood with an excellent storyline.
Robert Downing Jr. (Sherlock Holmes) and Jude Law (Dr. John Watson) have great on-screen chemistry. As they stumble through a spectacularly gloomy set of the grimy London streets, their witty banter keeps you laughing while a super natural plot line keeps you on the edge of your seat. Downing Jr. , especially, seems to get completely enveloped into his character and is fun to watch. These two actors are the highlight of a movie that, on the whole, does a great job of bringing Sherlock to the big screen.
The gloomy set contrasts nicely with the bright, posh wardrobes of the two leading ladies in the film, who work to tear Holmes and Watson from their case as well as their friendship. Rachel McAdams does a better job than expected at her character, Irene Adler’s, devious nature while she seduces the audience in her attempts to capture Sherlock Holmes’ heart.
Writers Anthony Peckham, Michael Robert Johnson and Simon Kinberg work well with the team of Ritchie and Downing Jr. in adapting Holmes’ character while remaining true to the gloriously sublte details of Doyle’s makeup of Holmes. A number of striking close-ups in Holmes’ bedroom highlight a collaboration of an imaginative script, fantastic art-direction, and strong directing that creates a unique take on Holmes that remains true to Doyle’s character. The audience’s eyes burn along with Holmes as Watson pulls back the blinds to reveal a perfect attention to detail in Holmes’ Lair. These scenes make the character developed in the film unique while managing to avoid alienating Holmes fanatics.
Huge explosions and well-done, slow-motion fight scenes add to a successful set of special effects and highlight the stark difference between this movie and other video-adaptations of the book. The film’s 90 million dollar budget goes a long way as this beloved story is finally realized in a true blockbuster. The intricacies of the set draw the audience to the movie for a whopping 128 minutes. At first glance this two-hour-plus run time seems daunting but it flies by as the twists of the plot take you through the twists of the Thames and to the top of record-breaking bridge heights.
And just when one might start to worry that they left out the most important part, Moriarti makes a guest appearance just long enough to give you a glint of what is sure to be a disappointing sequel. Robert Downing Jr. and Jude Law may prove otherwise, though, as their great success in this movie had me brimming from ear to ear when I left the theatre.
I've never really been a T.V. guy and I haven't gotten excited about a show in a long time but this show looks damn good I'd say, damn good indeed. Do we get FX in the dorms? Anyone? Enjoy- from NPR. Justified!
Blu Changes the Game
Graffiti-art has come a long way since its identity as solely a vandalistic act. Painting on walls used to carry certain stereotypes that have been challenged by the recent popularity of many contemporary street-artists, and specifically graffiti-artists, who are paid to paint on urban canvases around the world. One artist who is turning heads in this strange paradox of paid-vandals is a 30-year-old street-artist from Bologna, Italy who goes simply by Blu. He is changing the face of street-art as his primarily monocolor, and almost always politically charged, paintings have been popping up on walls around the world.
Blu is a great example of the widening acceptance of steet-art worldwide. Blu’s ability to paint walls all around the world comes, in large part, as result of his widening success – actually being paid to paint in exhibitions like this one at the Tate Museum of Modern Art in London.
Blu has also participated in many of the street-art festivals that have been popping up in cities all over Euroupe. Take for example the Fame Festival in Indirizzo, Italy which invites an international selection of
street-artists to paint on the walls of their city. This in-turn opens up opportunities for other street-artists for acceptable venues for their wall-based painting. Eventually popular artists like Blu start having books of their work or sketches sold, as well as prints of their pieces.
The size and quantity of Blu’s pieces are daunting. He travels far and wide as he paints his way around the world. As his blog reports, he has spent most of the last four months touring around South America, stopping in cities such as Buenos Aires; Argentina Lima, Peru; and Bagota, Columbia.
Some of his paintings are commissioned by private owners, some are done as a part of street-art festivals that have been popping up all over Europe, many of them are probably done illegally. These ‘rouge-paintings’ are in large part possible due to Blu’s growing fame. For example, many of the ‘art-projects’ and ‘exhibitions’ that contract him don’t actually have permission to paint the walls that they do. His fame has lead to easy collaboration with street-artists of different countries.
The full collection of his work is illusive. His website, blublu.org does provide a large number of pictures of walls he has painted in the last four to five years; many of his pieces, though, are lost in the sprawl of the web. The more you search the more you find.
The same rings true with regards to Blu’s identity. The artist’s use of a pseudonym probably has something to do with his easily identifiable style and the ‘guerilla’ nature of many of his works. Any biography you can find online is a visible farce. There is, though, one recorded interview with the artist done by Wooster Collective, an online magazine of street art and the dominion on all things graffiti. Here he names most of his influences as being street-artists that revolutionized the discipline; among them is Basnksy, a street-artist who paints small, highly political, stencil-based images all around the world.
The subjects in Blu’s paintings are mostly abstract beings, cartoonish human-figures, or large figures made of many smaller pieces; this is usually done with white, beige, or light blue paint inside small black outlines of the figure. His pieces almost always have a surrealist nature and he uses this surrealism to strike a very real chord. He often incorporates political messages into his images. Take for example this painting done in Bogotá, Columbia earlier this year commenting on the effect of U.S. Drug-trade with South America.
Blu is also changing the world of street-art by adapting the mediums used in the discipline. A huge part of Blu’s fame and success comes from his groundbreaking animated-graffiti. His first fully-produced video-upload to YouTube entitled “Muto” quickly accumulated one million views and is now at 6 million after one year of activity. His most recent animation, a collaboration with contemporary artist, David Ellis, entitled “Combo,” is ahead of pace – racking up almost three million views in under five months. This popularity acts as yet another resource in providing Blu the opportunity to paint more walls.
These amazing videos incorporate Blu’s style in an animated format done by stringing thousands of single photographs together in what is called stop motion animation. Similar humanesque-figures transform into strange and otherworldly images, grow, move and dance around courtyards and through city streets. The final product even includes sounds that bring the images to life. Blu’s pioneering of this new medium is truly revolutionizing the world of graffiti-art.
David Ellis comments on this new street-art, stop-motion phenomenon in a video interview with Vernissage TV. Ellis’ newest project includes a week-long live painting performance in the window of a store. All the while, pictures are being taken of him in high definition, the end product will be projected on a wall or screen during a gallery showing. This new medium combining painted art on walls with video-media creates new possibilities for artists allowing them the opportunity for collaboration with artists of different disciplines. “If you know other people who are talented in other things and you want to make it more fun, and enjoy it, then you have to make it for what you enjoy, and be around people, and collaborate,” Ellis said. This collaboration between artists seems to be part of an identity as a new type of artist being adopted by many street-artists, and being widely accepted as it turns out.
Even more so, Blu’s newfound fame in the cyber and art worlds support new interest, collaboration, and evolution in and of street art and art as a whole. It challenges this idea of painting on walls as being bad and brings in a whole new notion of what art is and what the possibilities are when it comes to a ‘career.’
Blu is a great example of the widening acceptance of steet-art worldwide. Blu’s ability to paint walls all around the world comes, in large part, as result of his widening success – actually being paid to paint in exhibitions like this one at the Tate Museum of Modern Art in London.
Blu has also participated in many of the street-art festivals that have been popping up in cities all over Euroupe. Take for example the Fame Festival in Indirizzo, Italy which invites an international selection of
street-artists to paint on the walls of their city. This in-turn opens up opportunities for other street-artists for acceptable venues for their wall-based painting. Eventually popular artists like Blu start having books of their work or sketches sold, as well as prints of their pieces.
The size and quantity of Blu’s pieces are daunting. He travels far and wide as he paints his way around the world. As his blog reports, he has spent most of the last four months touring around South America, stopping in cities such as Buenos Aires; Argentina Lima, Peru; and Bagota, Columbia.
Some of his paintings are commissioned by private owners, some are done as a part of street-art festivals that have been popping up all over Europe, many of them are probably done illegally. These ‘rouge-paintings’ are in large part possible due to Blu’s growing fame. For example, many of the ‘art-projects’ and ‘exhibitions’ that contract him don’t actually have permission to paint the walls that they do. His fame has lead to easy collaboration with street-artists of different countries.
The full collection of his work is illusive. His website, blublu.org does provide a large number of pictures of walls he has painted in the last four to five years; many of his pieces, though, are lost in the sprawl of the web. The more you search the more you find.
The same rings true with regards to Blu’s identity. The artist’s use of a pseudonym probably has something to do with his easily identifiable style and the ‘guerilla’ nature of many of his works. Any biography you can find online is a visible farce. There is, though, one recorded interview with the artist done by Wooster Collective, an online magazine of street art and the dominion on all things graffiti. Here he names most of his influences as being street-artists that revolutionized the discipline; among them is Basnksy, a street-artist who paints small, highly political, stencil-based images all around the world.
The subjects in Blu’s paintings are mostly abstract beings, cartoonish human-figures, or large figures made of many smaller pieces; this is usually done with white, beige, or light blue paint inside small black outlines of the figure. His pieces almost always have a surrealist nature and he uses this surrealism to strike a very real chord. He often incorporates political messages into his images. Take for example this painting done in Bogotá, Columbia earlier this year commenting on the effect of U.S. Drug-trade with South America.
Blu is also changing the world of street-art by adapting the mediums used in the discipline. A huge part of Blu’s fame and success comes from his groundbreaking animated-graffiti. His first fully-produced video-upload to YouTube entitled “Muto” quickly accumulated one million views and is now at 6 million after one year of activity. His most recent animation, a collaboration with contemporary artist, David Ellis, entitled “Combo,” is ahead of pace – racking up almost three million views in under five months. This popularity acts as yet another resource in providing Blu the opportunity to paint more walls.
These amazing videos incorporate Blu’s style in an animated format done by stringing thousands of single photographs together in what is called stop motion animation. Similar humanesque-figures transform into strange and otherworldly images, grow, move and dance around courtyards and through city streets. The final product even includes sounds that bring the images to life. Blu’s pioneering of this new medium is truly revolutionizing the world of graffiti-art.
David Ellis comments on this new street-art, stop-motion phenomenon in a video interview with Vernissage TV. Ellis’ newest project includes a week-long live painting performance in the window of a store. All the while, pictures are being taken of him in high definition, the end product will be projected on a wall or screen during a gallery showing. This new medium combining painted art on walls with video-media creates new possibilities for artists allowing them the opportunity for collaboration with artists of different disciplines. “If you know other people who are talented in other things and you want to make it more fun, and enjoy it, then you have to make it for what you enjoy, and be around people, and collaborate,” Ellis said. This collaboration between artists seems to be part of an identity as a new type of artist being adopted by many street-artists, and being widely accepted as it turns out.
Even more so, Blu’s newfound fame in the cyber and art worlds support new interest, collaboration, and evolution in and of street art and art as a whole. It challenges this idea of painting on walls as being bad and brings in a whole new notion of what art is and what the possibilities are when it comes to a ‘career.’
NEW YORKER ARTICLE ON SOFT JAZZ
Just a personal anecdote, I have been using this very kind of music to help get through all nighters recently. I especially like these types of artists that also derive their influence from some sort of folk music. Cat Power is a great example of this. I love music that drones a little - and have a deep connection to female voices. Anywho- enjoy.
Just a personal anecdote, I have been using this very kind of music to help get through all nighters recently. I especially like these types of artists that also derive their influence from some sort of folk music. Cat Power is a great example of this. I love music that drones a little - and have a deep connection to female voices. Anywho- enjoy.
Jeff Bridges' Vindication?
Jeff Bridges long wait may be over. His most recent role as Bad Blake in “Crazy Heart,” a film about a washed-up country singer looking for a second chance, very well may land him his first Oscar in 5 nominations. His first nod by the academy came in 1971 for his supporting role in “The Last Picture Show.”
The movie follows the escapades of a desperately alcoholic country-singer, Jeff Bridges, as he falls in love with a woman, Maggie Gyllenhal, who convinces him to turn his life around. In his comeback, Bad Blake, writes his way through the movie’s sound track which has some spectacular songs.
Bridges’ performance in this film is impeccable. Jeff looks like he was born for this part from the very first scene as he smokes a cigarette in a bowling alley, very reminiscent of his fun-loving scenes in “The Big Lebowski.” His voice surprises and his guitar skills combine with his wonderful acting to lock you into the movie from start to finish.
The music would have been the highlight of this film if it weren’t for Bridges’ excellent performance. Ryan Bingham and T Bone Burnettreally put together some excellent pieces of music here. The songs hit hard, but the scenes hit harder – there was hardly a dry tear in the house.
Bridges’ co-star, Maggie Gyllenhaal is beautiful in this film. She proves her worth against the likes of Jeff Bridges and Robert Duvall with a commanding performance. It certainly doesn’t hurt that she looks great in a pair of wranglers. Her interactions with Bridges are tantalizing and her tears hurt almost as much as Bridges’ do.
The movie really draws you into the struggles of Bad Blake. You struggle with him, you fail with him, and most importantly you succeed with him. The movie is an emotional ride worth taking. The music, especially, jerks your emotions this way or that, and adds to the plot in a big way.
As if the movie hadn’t done enough things right some of the wide-shots of south-west landscapes nearly bring you to tears themselves. The cinematography is great in this movie and whether or not that is simply because of the beauty of the landscapes surrounding the actors is a mute point. This film is visually stunning.
The movie isn’t without its imperfections but they only add to the endearing nature of the film. Even Collin Ferrel surprises with some good acting. Nothing extraordinary, but that would have been too much anyways. His role fits neatly into a film that could do no wrong in my book.
Jeff Bridges deserves to have his fifth time be the charm. This movie is excellent and truly is a must see.
The movie follows the escapades of a desperately alcoholic country-singer, Jeff Bridges, as he falls in love with a woman, Maggie Gyllenhal, who convinces him to turn his life around. In his comeback, Bad Blake, writes his way through the movie’s sound track which has some spectacular songs.
Bridges’ performance in this film is impeccable. Jeff looks like he was born for this part from the very first scene as he smokes a cigarette in a bowling alley, very reminiscent of his fun-loving scenes in “The Big Lebowski.” His voice surprises and his guitar skills combine with his wonderful acting to lock you into the movie from start to finish.
The music would have been the highlight of this film if it weren’t for Bridges’ excellent performance. Ryan Bingham and T Bone Burnettreally put together some excellent pieces of music here. The songs hit hard, but the scenes hit harder – there was hardly a dry tear in the house.
Bridges’ co-star, Maggie Gyllenhaal is beautiful in this film. She proves her worth against the likes of Jeff Bridges and Robert Duvall with a commanding performance. It certainly doesn’t hurt that she looks great in a pair of wranglers. Her interactions with Bridges are tantalizing and her tears hurt almost as much as Bridges’ do.
The movie really draws you into the struggles of Bad Blake. You struggle with him, you fail with him, and most importantly you succeed with him. The movie is an emotional ride worth taking. The music, especially, jerks your emotions this way or that, and adds to the plot in a big way.
As if the movie hadn’t done enough things right some of the wide-shots of south-west landscapes nearly bring you to tears themselves. The cinematography is great in this movie and whether or not that is simply because of the beauty of the landscapes surrounding the actors is a mute point. This film is visually stunning.
The movie isn’t without its imperfections but they only add to the endearing nature of the film. Even Collin Ferrel surprises with some good acting. Nothing extraordinary, but that would have been too much anyways. His role fits neatly into a film that could do no wrong in my book.
Jeff Bridges deserves to have his fifth time be the charm. This movie is excellent and truly is a must see.
Friday, March 12, 2010
The Oscars Dissapoint
The 82nd Academy Awards marked the first year in which a woman won an Oscar for best director as Kathryn Bigelow took home the award for her directing of The Hurt Locker, a film about a bomb-squad’s journey in Iraq. As Barbra Streisand put it, “the time has come” for a new era in Hollywood. Unfortunately, this shining moment was overshadowed by one of the worst shows in recent memory for the Academy.
The Oscars were hosted by Steve Martin for the third time this year, his first two coming in 2001 and 2003. Steve was hilarious as usual; just the perfect mix of hilariousness, political-correctness, and edge to keep the audience captivated for what proved to be a marathon of an awards show. The Academy affirmed, though, as it so often does, that it has a knack for making the wrong choice - starting with Martin’s co-host, Alec Baldwin.
Baldwin and Martin had no chemistry on stage and their performance was exceedingly awkward at points. They did get the audience laughing, but it wasn’t nearly enough, to keep the audience interested for the show’s nearly four hour run-time. Every so often it would seem like the Academy reward us and Baldwin would disappear from the stage for a moment, only to return just in time to ruin another one of Steve Martin’s jokes.
The show was also riddled with technical errors. Strange, clunky noises in the background, stuttering by multiple award-presenters, and constant camera-transition mistakes all made the show nearly unbearable to watch on television. The show started with the usual fuss over the red-carpet as a rousing game of “my dress is more expensive than yours” and “my skin is more orange that yours” ensued. As if this wasn’t enough torture the show then attempted to parade the stars from Twilight, Kristen Stewart and Taylor Lautner, around the Kodak Theatre as much as possible.
The Academy was entirely too busy proving their ability to be wrong to put on a successful show. Among their errors, assuming that there were actually 10 films deserving of a Best Picture nomination, thinking that Alec Baldwin and Steve Martin would make good co-hosts, including an Edward Scissorhands clip in a video-montage of horror films, and, of course, presuming that Miley Cirus appeals to adult as well as pre-teen audiences. They were too busy screwing up, in fact, that they forgot one of the most captivating aspects of the Oscars – the full orchestra visible in the pit.
The night wasn’t without its highlights, though. Among them were a performance of the Beatle’s “In My Life” by James Taylor, a particularly endearing acceptance speech by Jeff Bridges winning Best Actor in his leading-role as Bad Blake in the film Crazyheart, and for the first time ever, a female recipient of Best Director. But these moments seem to get lost in the four-hour ceremony riddled with b-list celebrities and technical on-screen errors. All-in-all the Oscars left something to be desired this year as Hollywood’s “biggest night” became its “biggest mess.”
The Oscars were hosted by Steve Martin for the third time this year, his first two coming in 2001 and 2003. Steve was hilarious as usual; just the perfect mix of hilariousness, political-correctness, and edge to keep the audience captivated for what proved to be a marathon of an awards show. The Academy affirmed, though, as it so often does, that it has a knack for making the wrong choice - starting with Martin’s co-host, Alec Baldwin.
Baldwin and Martin had no chemistry on stage and their performance was exceedingly awkward at points. They did get the audience laughing, but it wasn’t nearly enough, to keep the audience interested for the show’s nearly four hour run-time. Every so often it would seem like the Academy reward us and Baldwin would disappear from the stage for a moment, only to return just in time to ruin another one of Steve Martin’s jokes.
The show was also riddled with technical errors. Strange, clunky noises in the background, stuttering by multiple award-presenters, and constant camera-transition mistakes all made the show nearly unbearable to watch on television. The show started with the usual fuss over the red-carpet as a rousing game of “my dress is more expensive than yours” and “my skin is more orange that yours” ensued. As if this wasn’t enough torture the show then attempted to parade the stars from Twilight, Kristen Stewart and Taylor Lautner, around the Kodak Theatre as much as possible.
The Academy was entirely too busy proving their ability to be wrong to put on a successful show. Among their errors, assuming that there were actually 10 films deserving of a Best Picture nomination, thinking that Alec Baldwin and Steve Martin would make good co-hosts, including an Edward Scissorhands clip in a video-montage of horror films, and, of course, presuming that Miley Cirus appeals to adult as well as pre-teen audiences. They were too busy screwing up, in fact, that they forgot one of the most captivating aspects of the Oscars – the full orchestra visible in the pit.
The night wasn’t without its highlights, though. Among them were a performance of the Beatle’s “In My Life” by James Taylor, a particularly endearing acceptance speech by Jeff Bridges winning Best Actor in his leading-role as Bad Blake in the film Crazyheart, and for the first time ever, a female recipient of Best Director. But these moments seem to get lost in the four-hour ceremony riddled with b-list celebrities and technical on-screen errors. All-in-all the Oscars left something to be desired this year as Hollywood’s “biggest night” became its “biggest mess.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
