LADY!! OUCH. Remember the old saying: It only hurts when I laugh?

I thought you were coming here yesterday. I kept looking into car windows. I really did!!

For Your Consideration, Academy.

(The New York Times's film critics offer their own nominations for the year's best.)

http://tinyurl.com/7qnw9f


.

Watched Revolutionary Road last night.
A very well-directed film with a lot of attention to detail. DiCaprio really looks 1950's here and has a lot of period mannerisms down cold (palm on forehead in frustrated anger, hands in out and out suit pockets, etc.). At times, Leo looked like some lost relative of William H. Macy. I think Winslet has the more difficult role, and at times is excellent, but maybe not as fully locked into the period as Leo.

The character of the contentious son of their real estate agent/friend is a bit exaggerated, but really provocative and well played. Blanche nom. coming for Michael Shannon in that role. I didn't really care for Kathryn Hahn as the neighbor's wife, maybe because the part was too ambiguous and underdeveloped. Overall, the situations and arguments can become pretty powerful and charged, and I was left thinking that the source novel must be pretty strong. (Has anyone read it?)

I guess mostly due to Kate, I was often reminded of Little Children, re-worked for the 50's. Both films are about a woman who wants to escape from her normal boring family life in the burbs. The film looks great and I should have guessed that it was lensed by Roger Deakins. But towards the end, skewed close-ups are employed to show the characters' psychological troubles, which I thought wasn't especially effective. And the music was a bit distracting at times (but I'm never much of a fan of Hollywood music cues). The dialogue and acting in their first big argument in their home felt a bit off to me.

Another flaw is how the kids disappear for super-extended periods. In fact, they hardly appear, and when Leo finally comments that it's nice to have breakfast without the kids for a change, I thought, Oh yeah, they are supposed to have two children. I can't even remember by what flimsy pretext the kids are away throughout most of the film.

Two small things seemed out of place. At one point, Leo's workmate refers to "life in the cubicles" or somesuch, and cubicle struck me as too modern a word. Not positive, but it seemed anachronistic. Quick research shows cubicles being first used in the computer industry (Intel) in the mid-60's, while this has a 50's setting (though Leo works for a NYC computer/business machine company, so not far off). The second was the use of the modifier "fucking" which gets thrown around some mid-film. I just don't think people used it then as we do today, and while Leo gets angry, I had doubts he would use it in what used to be called mixed company. And I think the reaction to such language would be much stronger than presented, gasps maybe from the middle-aged woman.

But the period detail is impressive. I liked the clothing and hair styles. There is one scene during a night out where a pregnant character is smoking and drinking martinis. It stood out as grossly irresponsible behavior, and took me a few seconds to realize that back then it's likely nobody would bat an eye. I also liked some of the brief shots at Grand Central Station, which possibly reference some actual 50's films.

Revolutionary Road is definitely worth a viewing and should figure somewhere in the awards.

....Regarding your comment about the children missing for long periods of time - perhaps that isn't so unsual - I dont think children were monitored so closely then - they did disappear (into the neighborhood etc)....

"The Spirit" is mannered to the point of madness. There is not a trace of human emotion in it. To call the characters cardboard is to insult a useful packing material. The movie is all style -- style without substance, style whirling in a senseless void. The film's hero is an ex-cop reincarnated as an immortal enforcer; for all the personality he exhibits, we would welcome Elmer Fudd.

The Spirit (Gabriel Macht) narrates his own story with all the introspection of a pro wrestler describing his packaging. The Octopus (Samuel L. Jackson) heroically overacts, devouring the scenery as if following instructions from Gladstone, the British prime minister who attributed his success to chewing each bite 32 times.
...