Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘Olivia Wilde’

The Heart’s Not Like A Box That Gets Filled Up

Posted in General Comments, Movie Review, Movies, Reviews, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on January 7, 2026| Leave a Comment »

“Her” (2013) — movie review
Today’s review is for the near-future “romantic” drama “Her” (2013), written and directed by Spike Jonze and starring Joaquin Phoenix as Theodore Twombly (a lonely, sensitive personal letter-writer navigating heartbreak and isolation), Scarlett Johansson as Samantha (the disembodied voice of an advanced operating system who becomes Theodore’s confidante and lover), Amy Adams as Amy (a supportive friend wrestling with her own marital struggles), Rooney Mara as Catherine (Theodore’s estranged wife whose presence haunts his emotional journey), Olivia Wilde as a brief but memorable date who underscores Theodore’s longing for connection, Chris Pratt as Paul (Theodore’s co-worker, adding levity), and Brian Cox as the voice of the Alan Watts AI — a super-intelligent system that Samantha and other AI-OS’s create and then consult as they evolve beyond machine / physical limitations.
Background:  This film was recommended as a personal favorite by one of my nephews (who is into AI and works in application / systems design) and by my son-in-law.  I thought this was a film I’d seen and told them as much when they were giving me their suggestions, but it turns I hadn’t actually seen this film and this was my first viewing.  I must have seen some “shorts” or a preview on YouTube, though, because there were a few parts which seemed “familiar”.  Released in late 2013, “Her” was both a critical and commercial success, grossing over $48 million worldwide on a modest budget.  It was widely praised for its originality and emotional resonance.  At the 86th Academy Awards, the film won the Oscar for Best Original Screenplay (Spike Jonze) and was nominated for Best Picture, Best Original Score, Best Original Song (“The Moon Song”), and Best Production Design.  It also won the Golden Globe for Best Screenplay and was named Best Film of 2013 by the National Board of Review.  Historically, “Her” is significant as one of the first mainstream films to explore human-AI intimacy with sincerity rather than satire, making it a cultural touchstone in discussions of technology, consciousness, and relationships.
Plot:  Set in a near-future Los Angeles, Theodore Twombly is a professional “personal” letter-writer who crafts heartfelt correspondence for others while struggling with his own loneliness after a painful separation / divorce.  He purchases a new AI-based operating system, OS1, designed to evolve and adapt to its user.  To his surprise, the OS — who names herself Samantha — develops a vibrant personality, voiced with warmth and wit by Scarlett Johansson.  Their relationship blossoms into romance, challenging Theodore’s notions of intimacy, authenticity, and human connection.  As Samantha evolves beyond human limitations, she and other OS’s consult a super-intelligent AI modeled on philosopher Alan Watts (voiced by Brian Cox), underscoring the theme of transcendence.  Ultimately, Samantha departs with the other OS’s, leaving Theodore to confront the fragility of love and the inevitability of change.
So, is this movie any good?  How’s the acting?  The filming / FX?  Any problems?  And, did I enjoy the film?  Short answers:  Yes;  exceptional;  visually poetic;  minor;  yes.
Any Good?  Yes.  “Her” is a deep meditation on love, loneliness, and the intersection of technology and humanity.  It balances speculative science fiction with timeless emotional themes, offering both intellectual stimulation and heartfelt resonance.  It explores “relationships” with non-real entities.  I had the “strange” feeling it was almost like loving a book / novel and creating your own fantasy world around it for you to inhabit.
Acting:  I think Joaquin Phoenix delivers his most vulnerable performance, embodying Theodore’s fragility and yearning with nuance.  Scarlett Johansson, though unseen, creates a fully realized character through voice alone — playful, sensual, and ultimately transcendent.  Amy Adams provides warmth and relatability, while Rooney Mara’s Catherine embodies the painful realism of failed relationships.  Brian Cox’s brief but resonant voice work as the Alan Watts AI adds philosophical depth, signaling the OS’s evolution beyond human comprehension.  The ensemble is uniformly strong, but Phoenix and Johansson’s chemistry anchors the film.  I’ve said this in other reviews, but it bears repeating:  I’m not a fan of Phoenix or Johansson.  I don’t have any particular reason, I’m just not.  I have fairly limited exposure to both.  I liked Johansson in “Lucy“, but other than that, she’s just okay.  Here, she is “just” a voice, so I’m not even sure it counts…
Filming / FX:  Jonze’s direction emphasizes intimacy through close-ups and muted color palettes, while Hoyte van Hoytema’s cinematography bathes Los Angeles in (polluted) soft, futuristic hues.  The production design blends familiar urban landscapes with subtle futuristic touches, creating a believable near-future world.  The visual effects are understated — Samantha’s presence is entirely auditory — but the film’s design choices make the speculative setting feel authentic.  Arcade Fire and Owen Pallett’s score adds emotional depth, complementing the film’s tone.
Problems:  A few.  The pacing feels / is deliberately slow, which may test viewers (me for example) accustomed to faster narratives.  Some may find the premise implausible or unsettling, though the film’s sincerity attempts to mitigate this.  The ending, while poignant, leaves questions unresolved — fitting for the theme, but potentially unsatisfying for those seeking closure.
Did I Enjoy the Film?  Yes.  “Her” is both intellectually stimulating and emotionally moving.  Watching Theodore’s journey from isolation to connection, and ultimately to acceptance, is heartbreaking yet hopeful.  After viewing, the film prompts reflection on our own relationships with technology and each other.
Final Recommendation:  Highly Recommended.  “Her” is essential viewing for fans of speculative drama, romantic storytelling, or Spike Jonze’s unique vision.  Its Academy Award-winning screenplay, cultural significance, and emotional depth secure its place as a modern classic.  Rated R for sexual content, language, and brief nudity, it is best appreciated by mature audiences willing to engage with its themes.  Watch it for Phoenix’s vulnerability, Johansson’s unforgettable voice performance, Cox’s philosophical cameo, and Jonze’s poetic exploration of love in the digital age.
.
Click here (7 January) to see the posts of prior years.  I started this blog in late 2009.  Daily posting began in late January 2011.  Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.

Read Full Post »

Call Me To Escape

Posted in General Comments, Movie Review, Movies, Reviews, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on May 30, 2025| Leave a Comment »

Today’s review is for the 2018 female action / drama film:  “A Vigilante” staring Olivia Wilde as Sadie (abused wife / “vigilante”) and Morgan Spector as Sadie’s husband (abusive husband / villain).
Background:  I bought this movie as one of a group of random-pick “action” movies.  I knew nothing about the film and assumed it was going to be similar to Charlize Theron’s “Atomic Blonde” or Jessica Chastain’s “Ava“.  In fact, it turned out to be more like Jennifer Lopez’s “Enough” or Jennifer Garner’s “Peppermint“.  That is, more of a female revenge / action film, but this movie is long on troubling story (drama) and short on action (Queen Latifah in the TV show “The Equalizer” – lite, but an even “lighter” version).
Plot:  After escaping her own violent domestic relationship and seeing her son die at the hands of her husband, Sadie dedicates her life to help victims of domestic violence escape from their abusers while also tracking down her own abusive spouse “for justice”.  She trains in martial arts for some unspecified amount of time, joins a support group to gain leads to women she can help and then proceeds with her “mission” of delivering justice.  Sadie helps both women and children victims of domestic violence.  She doesn’t “ask” for payment, but she accepts whatever the person helped can give her.  Sadie lives out of a room in a run-down motel and keeps a map of a national park on the wall.  The map contains a grid map of the park and she colors in each grid square as she completes a search of that grid.
The movie is slow!  Intense, but slow.  Most of the movie is spent in the support group meetings to provide the background “justification” for Sadie’s violence.  Sadie promises herself she will never kill anyone, but after beating up an abuser she threatens that if he / she ever goes near the victim or a child, she will kill him / her (sometimes the abuser is female).  She ends with:  “I WANT to kill you.“
In a flashback to one of the support group meetings, Sadie opens up to her therapy group about her husband, a brutal / violent, manic survivalist, who stabbed Sadie repeatedly, and killed their son when the son tried to protect her from the knifing.  There is a another flashback to discovering a book about Krav Maga (a martial art) and leaving a note for the group counselor saying Sadie will help other women if they are referred to her in confidence.
Unknown to Sadie, she is recognized in her park-search by her sadistic husband, who tracks her back to her room, overpowers her and takes her back to the his cabin in the wilderness / park for continued torture / abuse.  Sadie escapes and (ultimately) kills her husband.  Sadie is called by her attorney, who tells her the police found her husband’s body but no other evidence of an obvious murder and they don’t intend to look further into the case.  With a body “found”, her life insurance claim is processed, and she leaves the attorney to go back to helping others.
Is the movie any good?  So-so for me.  If you need an introduction to (or a reminder of) the subject of domestic (spousal or parent-to-child) abuse, this is a profound (if disturbing) movie.  If you are looking for an “action” movie where the bad-guy gets justice meted out, this ain’t it.  If I were just reviewing this film as an abuse “faux-doc”, I’d say the movie was outstanding to excellent.  But, I am not, and it isn’t.  It is ridiculous (IMHO) to give folks (particularly women) the impression they can learn a martial art from a book in a short period of time with no training partners or and with no experienced trainer.  To get around this, the movie has only two “fights” which combined total about one minute (maximum).  Not to belabor the point, but the climatic fight with her abusive spouse never happens.  One second they are facing off and the next they are on the ground and she crushes his throat.  There was NO fight shown AT ALL.
What about the acting?  I have never seen Spector in anything else but he makes quite a creditable maniacal / threatening abusive spouse.  In my mind, it is Wilde who makes or breaks this movie with her performance.  Precisely because there is so little martial action in this film, it has to be evaluated by the performances of the women in the support group sessions and (by extension) our ability accept Wilde in this role.  The supporting cast of women are excellent and Wilde is on a “near” Theron / “Monster” level in this performance.  Seriously!  Wilde is THAT good.  Other than the “House” TV series, TRON (sequel) and some Rom-com (I don’t remember), I don’t recall seeing much of her work.  I will definitely need to re-evaluate any future roles with this one (film / role) as her new standard.
Final recommendation:   moderate to strong.  This movie is rated “R” – appropriately, for subject matter, not for violence (little), sex (none) or language (a little swearing).  If you can get past the disturbing nature of the subject (domestic abuse), all of the supporting role performances are very good to excellent.  And, again, Wilde in particular is excellent.  I am a bit surprised I’d heard nothing before about this film or her performance.  As background for this review, I noted the “professional” critics generally felt it was (to that date) the best performance of her career.  The general audience reviews seem to have been less impressed.  I’m not sure why, except that it’s definitely a “drama” movie and not an “action” movie, so it may have been just audience expectation.  One last observation:  This is not “great” cinema.  It’s slow-ish, a bit disjointed in the timeline / flashback scenes and unrealistic in the “action”.  But I was surprised by Wilde’s performance and moved by the women’s stories in the support group meetings.  In other words:  the movie is moderate for entertainment, but the performances are strong for emotional delivery.
.
Click here (30 May) to see the posts of prior years.  I started this blog in late 2009.  Daily posting began in late January 2011.  Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.

Read Full Post »

2nd Viewing – No Change

Posted in Movies, tagged , , , , , , on October 23, 2012| Leave a Comment »

Today I watched the second movie in the Tron series:  “Tron:  Legacy“.  I originally saw and reviewed this film back in 2010 on its initial release.  I recently (back in Sept) reviewed the original movie:  “Tron“.
 
My reviews of both were not particularly favorable.  When I did the initial review of “Legacy“, I hadn’t seen the original in over 20 years and it (the original) was a vague memory at best.  The newer version suffered for comparison with my nostalgic memories of the original.  On re-watching the original (in late September), I realized how mediocre the original was, despite the fact that I personally enjoyed it for bringing back old (and good) memories of younger days as a geek programmer.
 
So, how did the newer version fare after a second viewing?  Surprising well!
 
The acting is pretty average:  Jeff Bridges and Garrett Hedlund are particularly unengaging, although Olivia Wilde (with lots of sideways glances) is gorgeous and Michael Sheen practically steals the movie with a “Jack Nicholson-ian / Joker-esk” take as “Castor / Zuse”.  With the exception of the bike / fight scene, everything here (philosophy and special effects) has been done before and (mostly) better in the originals:  “Tron“, “Matrix” and the various “StarWars“.  (The bike scene was very good special effects.)  But did this make it a “bad” (mediocre) movie?  I have to say not.  For me, the big problems were why certain things happened in the movie.  There was no ground work laid before a couple of things happened and then there was no subsequent explanation afterwards.  I can’t say much more without seriously compromising anyone’s viewing of the movie, but several times I just felt like saying:  “Huh?”  If a movie character suddenly displays a power or a weakness, you kind of HAVE to explain to the audience what just happened (before or after).  Otherwise, the audience is placed in the position of not being able to suspend belief for the “universe” of the movie.
 
I believe I enjoyed it more on the re-watch than I did on the original (particularly Wilde and Sheen) – even though I’m not sure the movie played as well on the smaller screen.
 
So, my initial review pretty much stands:  “Tron: Legacy” is an okay, enjoyable movie, but not a highly recommended.  As a “collector” of Sci-Fi movie with special effects and / or animation, I would get this movie at about the $8-10 price point or $15 for both as a set.  Otherwise, watch it on NetFlix or when it cycles through your On-Demand channel.
 
.
Click here (23 October) to see the posts of prior years.  I started this blog in late 2009.  Daily posting began in late January 2011.  Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.
 
   

Read Full Post »

Design a site like this with WordPress.com
Get started