Change Your Image
elfdorado
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Lists
An error has ocurred. Please try againReviews
The Song of Lunch (2010)
The Song of Losing My Lunch
This would have been unwatchable (and even unlistenable) had it not been for Rickman and Thompson. The writing is tedious, clichéd, and overwrought and every "insight" banal. There is even a slight mystery whose solution you can see from space. Why anyone would have decided to film this ridiculous poem is beyond me; I suppose the poet had some good connections.
As it is, Rickman is too perfect for the role. His looks and his voice too easily lend themselves to the pathetic and the desperate. He gets to both too quickly, partly because the language and narrative take him there and partly because the language, bad as it is, made me feel worse for him, made me pity him as an actor, thus creating another uncomfortable distraction. All that pity so soon and in one layer too many made me lose patience with the whole production. I kept hoping for something more, thinking that Rickman and Thompson would never have been involved with something this bad unless it offered something real and true. Instead, I think their participation has to do with the work ethic of the English actor: you must never take a break, you must always be acting. And if you can do a well-produced project with another excellent actor, then why not do it? Maybe other friends or respected colleagues were on board. I can't think of any other reasons why Thompson and Rickman would have done this. Sigh.
Michael Clayton (2007)
A fine film with some wretched flaws
The screenplay: Some of the writing is the best I've ever heard. Arthur's dialogue in particular is a real standout. And Michael's son is actually given real form and comes out looking like a real child with thoughts he wants to share with a father he doesn't get to see often enough.
The performances: These are amazing. Tom Wilkinson gets the show-stopping role, but Tilda Swinton is superb, and the script gives her character the best opportunity to show itself and build. George Clooney is at his best, his performance doing a great job of trying to gloss over the mistakes in how his character is drawn.
The cinematography: Generally very satisfying, the color and exposure are fine, but sometimes the composition (and even number) of the shots leaves a little to be desired, and a couple of times there are some amateurish focus problems.
All this being said, there are some glaring errors that make one really wonder how stupid either the audience or the characters are supposed to be.
For instance, why would Michael open a BAR with his alcoholic and longtime ne'er-do-well brother and then be surprised when Timmy falls off the wagon and runs the bar into the ground? Why would he have sunk his entire nest egg into a venture destined to be a failure? His desperation is key to the plot and to his character, but couldn't something more credible have been conceived? Why would Michael be so naive as to think that no one could be spying on him or aiming to do him harm after he hears Anna's talk about Arthur's affect in his final hours, which would rule out suicide? Why wouldn't he be more on guard after reading Memorandum #229? He knows how large the lawsuit is: $6 billion! Isn't it possible that a corporation, or certain people within it, would authorize a murder or two to avert a payout that large, publicity that bad, and the death of a very profitable product? After all, the case had been going for six long years, with all the attendant fees. Considering Michael's job---fixing a whole host and range of very sticky situations---how could he not see the enormity of the stakes and take a few routine precautions?
The idea that Arthur would go off his meds when clarity, stability, and reputation are most crucially needed to see his plans to expose u*north come to fruition is completely absurd. Yes, his semi-manic state allows him to be a newfangled Howard Beale who thankfully has no boardroom conversation with Ned Beatty---but Arthur is a man who has always had to do serious thinking, whereas Howard Beale is, as a network anchor, not much more than a condenser of information and spokesman. That being said, Arthur's naivety about what might happen to him makes more sense, since a person during mania so often feels omnipotent and invincible.
Another jaw-dropping flaw is the method of killing Michael. Arthur's death is so meticulously designed to look like a suicide, the scene so well-staged, the care taken to leave no evidence behind so fastidious. But using a car bomb to try to kill Michael immediately raises so many red flags and leaves behind enough evidence to ensure investigation and possible arrest. Because they have been using GPS to track Michael, the killers must also know that Michael's car is parked, but they don't consider that Michael might have gotten out of the car. (Although Michael's attempt to convince the police that he'd actually been killed by throwing a few personal effects into his burning car seems laughable on its face, it makes sense when you consider Michael's desperation in the face of what's just happened. It's remarkable that he even thought to do what he did, and the fact is that, with the connections he has in the NYC police force---and who knows who else---he could have told the police what happened and then come up with the plan he executes so well in the final scene.) So my fairly high rating of the film is based on often stunningly well-written dialogue and the quality of the acting. I have to admit it was entertaining as well.