So, I haven't posted in a while due to a number of factors. Namely, being super busy with theatre stuff and not having a laptop for a few weeks. I will start posting reviews regularly again, but here's a little snippet regarding each of the movies I have seen since my last post.
Kick-Ass 2: Glad they made a sequel to one of my favorite superhero movies of all time, but wish they would have taken a little more time to tighten the script up. The movie is sloppy all around and manages to almost ruin the character of Hit-Girl by putting her in a Mean Girls-esque plot for the majority of the film. Also a total waste of the talents of Jim Carrey. So much potential, just didn't quite reach it in any aspects
5.5/10
You're Next: Really solid horror flick that managed to consistently balance some really creative and authentic scares with disturbingly dark humor. Not quite as original as I had hoped it would be, but still a great time at the movies
7/10
The Spectacular Now: A really nice and simple love story featuring two amazing performances from Miles Teller and Shailene Woodley. One of only two movies so far this year that has made me shed tears in the theater. There was a slightly misogynistic tone throughout the film that prevented me from loving it, but overall, it was sweet and heartfelt enough to almost make up for its flaws
7.5/10
Gravity- This is one of the most beautifully shot films I have ever seen. I saw it in IMAX, which I NEVER do. Surprisingly transcendent and really cool to look at. Unfortunately, the script left a lot to be desired and the overall plot of the movie did not really do anything for me. More of a one-time viewing experience for me. See it for the visuals but do not expect to be enlightened or moved in any significant way
10/10 for the visuals
5/10 for the rest of the movie
7.5 overall
I think that is about it. Thank you for your patience
Wednesday, October 23, 2013
Tuesday, August 20, 2013
In a World...
I've been enamored with Lake Bell ever since I saw her in What Happens in Vegas. Remember that movie? The one with Cameron Diaz and Ashton Kutcher, where they get married in Vegas. Well, it is as good as it sounds, but Lake Bell played a supporting role and was easily the best part of the movie. Cute, funny, energetic. She is my dream girl, so naturally when I found out she was writing, directing, and starring in In a World..., a film about the trials and tribulations of a struggling voiceover actress, I was thrilled. The movie did not disappoint. Lake Bell has a definite future as a writer and shows some pretty impressive directing chops. Hopefully, this will be her meal ticket to A-list status and we'll be seeing a lot more of her, both in front of and behind the camera
As I said, In a World... is about Carol, a struggling vocal coach/voiceover artist who deals with the challenges of not only breaking into a small male-dominated industry (Did you know that the last mainstream release to have a female voiceover in its trailer was Gone in 60 Seconds? Back in 2000??) but also the fact that her father is one of the most recognizable and formidable voices in the game. In spite of those hamperings, she suddenly finds herself notable work, and as always...complications ensue.
Lake Bell's script is undeniably sharp and witty, even if it does take a while to get started. The movie's first 30 minutes take a little too long to introduce us to the characters, some of whom turn out to be completely expendable in terms of plot. The jokes are there, there's no doubt, but it felt a tad slow right out of the gate. Fortunately, once things get going, they really get going. The dialogue is unformulaic, the jokes are hilarious, and the dramatic beats are well-paced and heartfelt. It's just a great script, and one that proves to be engaging and entertaining, as it explores an area of the entertainment industry that a lot of folks, film buffs included, do not know a whole lot about.
The direction, though standard, is good considering its the work of somebody doing it for the first time. Everything looks good and the performances never feel out of place or disjointed. One big issue I had with the film in general though, and this has more to do with Lake Bell's filmmaking in general than her specific skills as a director, was the barrage of unnecessary characters. In a World, is not strictly speaking, an ensemble film. It's about Carol and her journey. Lake Bell, no doubt in an effort to draw in more support for her freshman effort, cast a lot of well-known actors and comedians in very small parts in the movie, parts that are not only tiny but completely inconsequential. Nick Offerman, for example, plays a mustache-less sound engineer who maybe has a dozen lines. As a result, his presence in the movie overshadows the film itself at times. We all love Nick Offerman and we expect something memorable from him, but he is really just there to be another recognizable face. It becomes distracting. Ditto goes for Tig Notaro, Eva Longoria (as herself..Why?), and even a little bit from Geena Davis near the end. None of these people give bad performances, but they just make the movie feel crowded as they aren't given anything substantial to do. I would be hard-pressed to believe that these characters were all in Lake Bell's original vision of the story. They were obviously called in to support Lake Bell's first movie, its admirable but it doesn't help the movie any.
There are some really great comedic performances throughout the film. Lake Bell herself is painfully awkward and undeniably charming as Carol, played with a likable fragility that will resonate with a lot of artists who end up seeing the movie. Demetri Martin, one of my favorite comedians for years, is surprisingly great as Louis, sound engineer and Carol's doting love interest/vocal coach. He brings his deadpan sardonic sense of humor right into the role with himself and the results are hysterically sweet. The two of them have real chemistry that fuels the movie's softer moments. Rob Corrdry was the stand-out for me. An actor who has appeared in a wide array of comedies over the past couple years, always sort of playing the same kind of obnoxious older guy supporting role, he gets out of his supposed comfort zone as Moe, Carol's sister's husband who deals with his own host of marital issues alongside Carol's professional struggles. He's heartbreaking and, as always, hilarious. His work in this film, along as his performance in Warm Bodies earlier this year has proven that he is a great actor who is capable of much more than we usually see of him. Ken Marino, Michaela Watkins, and Fred Melamed round out the rest of the main players, all of them doing a fine job, even if their characters all hang on the side of unlikeable more than I would have liked.
In a World... , for a straight-up comedy, surprisingly manages to pull off a very well-thought out commentary and critique of how women struggle in the film industry in some novel ways that you would expect. I don't want to give anything away, but it was pretty brilliant to use "Movie Promo Voiceover" as the platform by which to do its analysis. The themes are universal to almost all aspects of film and acting, but the film makes the situational boundaries specific enough that it all comes off as very novel. Carol's struggle as a female breaking into "the biz" mirrors the struggle of so many women today, both in and out of the entertainment field. The film's conclusion on the subject wraps it up too tightly (It is a comedy after all) but it does leave you with some lingering questions. This was not a movie I was expecting to be enlightened by, yet here I am, hours later, still thinking about what it had to say. If I were to delve fully into it in this review, it would take another nine-to-ten paragraphs. Also, as a man, nothing I have to say about feminism or gender equality really matters.
This is a really good little movie. If I am to take one thing from it, it is that Lake Bell has the potential to be one of the next great comedic writer/directors of our time. It's really funny and showcases some great comedic performances as well as a tight script. I would recommend it to all film buffs out there and anybody who appreciates comedy with indie sensibilities. It has a lot more substance than it gives itself credit for and hopefully will spark some debate regarding women in the film industry.
8/10
As I said, In a World... is about Carol, a struggling vocal coach/voiceover artist who deals with the challenges of not only breaking into a small male-dominated industry (Did you know that the last mainstream release to have a female voiceover in its trailer was Gone in 60 Seconds? Back in 2000??) but also the fact that her father is one of the most recognizable and formidable voices in the game. In spite of those hamperings, she suddenly finds herself notable work, and as always...complications ensue.
Lake Bell's script is undeniably sharp and witty, even if it does take a while to get started. The movie's first 30 minutes take a little too long to introduce us to the characters, some of whom turn out to be completely expendable in terms of plot. The jokes are there, there's no doubt, but it felt a tad slow right out of the gate. Fortunately, once things get going, they really get going. The dialogue is unformulaic, the jokes are hilarious, and the dramatic beats are well-paced and heartfelt. It's just a great script, and one that proves to be engaging and entertaining, as it explores an area of the entertainment industry that a lot of folks, film buffs included, do not know a whole lot about.
The direction, though standard, is good considering its the work of somebody doing it for the first time. Everything looks good and the performances never feel out of place or disjointed. One big issue I had with the film in general though, and this has more to do with Lake Bell's filmmaking in general than her specific skills as a director, was the barrage of unnecessary characters. In a World, is not strictly speaking, an ensemble film. It's about Carol and her journey. Lake Bell, no doubt in an effort to draw in more support for her freshman effort, cast a lot of well-known actors and comedians in very small parts in the movie, parts that are not only tiny but completely inconsequential. Nick Offerman, for example, plays a mustache-less sound engineer who maybe has a dozen lines. As a result, his presence in the movie overshadows the film itself at times. We all love Nick Offerman and we expect something memorable from him, but he is really just there to be another recognizable face. It becomes distracting. Ditto goes for Tig Notaro, Eva Longoria (as herself..Why?), and even a little bit from Geena Davis near the end. None of these people give bad performances, but they just make the movie feel crowded as they aren't given anything substantial to do. I would be hard-pressed to believe that these characters were all in Lake Bell's original vision of the story. They were obviously called in to support Lake Bell's first movie, its admirable but it doesn't help the movie any.
There are some really great comedic performances throughout the film. Lake Bell herself is painfully awkward and undeniably charming as Carol, played with a likable fragility that will resonate with a lot of artists who end up seeing the movie. Demetri Martin, one of my favorite comedians for years, is surprisingly great as Louis, sound engineer and Carol's doting love interest/vocal coach. He brings his deadpan sardonic sense of humor right into the role with himself and the results are hysterically sweet. The two of them have real chemistry that fuels the movie's softer moments. Rob Corrdry was the stand-out for me. An actor who has appeared in a wide array of comedies over the past couple years, always sort of playing the same kind of obnoxious older guy supporting role, he gets out of his supposed comfort zone as Moe, Carol's sister's husband who deals with his own host of marital issues alongside Carol's professional struggles. He's heartbreaking and, as always, hilarious. His work in this film, along as his performance in Warm Bodies earlier this year has proven that he is a great actor who is capable of much more than we usually see of him. Ken Marino, Michaela Watkins, and Fred Melamed round out the rest of the main players, all of them doing a fine job, even if their characters all hang on the side of unlikeable more than I would have liked.
In a World... , for a straight-up comedy, surprisingly manages to pull off a very well-thought out commentary and critique of how women struggle in the film industry in some novel ways that you would expect. I don't want to give anything away, but it was pretty brilliant to use "Movie Promo Voiceover" as the platform by which to do its analysis. The themes are universal to almost all aspects of film and acting, but the film makes the situational boundaries specific enough that it all comes off as very novel. Carol's struggle as a female breaking into "the biz" mirrors the struggle of so many women today, both in and out of the entertainment field. The film's conclusion on the subject wraps it up too tightly (It is a comedy after all) but it does leave you with some lingering questions. This was not a movie I was expecting to be enlightened by, yet here I am, hours later, still thinking about what it had to say. If I were to delve fully into it in this review, it would take another nine-to-ten paragraphs. Also, as a man, nothing I have to say about feminism or gender equality really matters.
This is a really good little movie. If I am to take one thing from it, it is that Lake Bell has the potential to be one of the next great comedic writer/directors of our time. It's really funny and showcases some great comedic performances as well as a tight script. I would recommend it to all film buffs out there and anybody who appreciates comedy with indie sensibilities. It has a lot more substance than it gives itself credit for and hopefully will spark some debate regarding women in the film industry.
8/10
Friday, August 16, 2013
Elysium
Over the past couple years, Hollywood has been churning out more and more original science fiction movies. It's great and it's very welcome. Less motivation is behind sequels and remakes (They are still there, but marginally less. A drop in the ocean. But I'll take it) and more focus is on original stories. This year alone, we've had quite a bit of them. Oblivion, Pacific Rim, Looper, Prometheus to name a few. All movie with enormous potential, but none of them have been all that memorable or game-changing. That isn't a standard that all sci-fi films have to measure up to mind you, but still. The last original sci-fi picture to make a truly big impact was Avatar, back in 2009. Elysium could have been that movie. The movie that set a new standard for modern sci-fi. It had everything going for it. A great cast, an exciting director, mind blowing effects, poignant social commentary.....but for some reason it just doesn't quite live up to its potential.
Since the film's trailer gives away the entire first half of the movie, I'll make my summary briefer than usual. Elysium is about an ex-con factory worker named Max (Matt Damon) who lives in 2154 Los Angeles. In the future, everyone one on Earth is pretty much destitute, while the rich get to live in a luxurious space station habit called........I'm drawing a blank on the name. Anyway, Max ends up getting severe radiation poisoning in a work accident and had five days to live. He gears himself up with a powerful exoskeleton suit and...ELYSIUM! THAT'S the name of the space station! Phew. That was close. OK, so Max gets the suit and hatches a plan with some old cronies to get into Elysium to save himself and potentially all of Earth's inhabitants.
Here's the first problem with the movie. Elysium, the space habitat that the entire film's plot hinges on, does not make a whole lot of sense. There is never a lot of context or history given about it other than "This is where the rich people live". It makes just enough sense to serve the narrative of the film, but not much else. How long did it take to build? Was the government complacent in it's creation? Why does everyone from Elysium have a weird pseudo french/robotic accent. It's a really interesting plot device, and it is extremely frustrating that it serves as nothing more than a proverbial finish line. Also: another big important part of the film is the existence of these things called Med-Pods. Futuristic cyber operating tables that can cure any physical ailment, from broken bones to terminal cancer. Again, a very intriguing thing to explore, but it never is. The characters main incentive and purpose to breaking into Elysium is to get access to these Med-Pods, but there are so many questions that are never answered or touched upon. How is this technology possible? Are the Med-Pods manufactured on Earth? If so, isn't there an easier way to harness the technology than by sending a suicide mission into space? These are all pretty annoying cinephile nerd questions to have, I'll admit. It does, however matter a great deal that these questions exist, as there are several more of them throughout the movie and when they add up it makes the film as a whole seem a little hollow. Nothing exists for any other reason than to serve its purpose in the plot. It doesn't make the movie "bad", but it prevents from being anything more than "fine".
Another problem with the movie lies in its aesthetics. Neil Blomkamp brings his distinct dystopian vision from District 9 into this film, and with it, a lot of the same old tricks. The robot police force that keeps the citizens of Earth in line look an awful like the "Prawns" from the director's last film. As a matter of fact, 2154 Los Angeles looks pretty much exactly like 2009 Johannesburg and even though the film's opening title card explains that Earth didn't go completely to shit until around 2080, the majority of the things on planet Earth, from the computers to the factory machines to some of the robotic human counterparts, look like they were made in 1975. I know they are supposed to be in poverty, but still it comes off as more lazy than practical. Again, nit-picky, but it all adds up.
The performances are all fine. Matt Damon is back into ass-kicking form and gives a nice layered performance as Max. Jodie Foster is icy and domineering as ever as Secretary Delacourt, the de facto leader of Elysium. Would have been nice to see more of her though. Sharlto Copley proves to be another problem with the movie, serving as the main villain, Kruger. An insane, amoral mercenary type who will stop at nothing to prevent Max from reaching his goal. Kruger is a great character in theory. Ruthless. Ferocious. Untethered by any sort of ethical code. A classic sci-fi villain. He suffers, however, from what I like to call "Bane Syndrome, which is when a movie's central villain is impossible to understand, both verbally and philosophically. Kruger mumbles his way through the movie committing atrocious acts of violence and making completely manic and off-the-wall decisions with no clear plan or endgame. He makes the movie exciting and ends up being involved in most of the film's memorable moments, but when your antagonist is supposed to be one of the most intimidating and deadly figures in the galaxy: Sharlto Copley, a guy who can't way more that 130 lbs, might not be your best candidate.
Alright enough bitching, there is a quite a bit in this movie that I quite liked. For one, how impressively savage it all is. A film that really earns its R-rating, which is rare for modern big-budget films. There is a lot of swearing and A LOT of carnage. I wasn't expecting it and was ultimately impressed by it. I also appreciated how it showed the true consequences of violence, not social or humanistic consequences, but actual logical consequences. When characters get shot, they die. When a character gets stabbed or grazed by a bullet, they bleed, sometimes for the rest of the movie. Nothing annoys me more than movie characters taking several gunshots or stab wounds to the torso and then soldiering on though the rest of the thing without so much as a wince. It was refreshing to say the least. The movie also features a host of really cool action sequences, particularly in the third act. All the fight choreography is very inventive and gripping to watch, and a lot of that is due to the conception and design of the unique high-tech weapons they use. One of the few characteristics of the film that feels truly futuristic. Whenever there is any sort of violent fight or battle scene, it never feels recycled or cliched, it's all very creative and fun to watch.
Neil Blomkamp seems to want to make sci-fi social commentary his niche, and he really lays out his cards with Elysium. The comparisons between the literal class warfare of the future and what is going on in today's society are pertinent and agonizing, particularly the state of health care. It's more of a framing technique than a main focus, but it is effective and mildly thought-provoking. While the world of Elysium is very bombastic and all too black and white, it is a scary portrait of where we could be heading. The movie has a very honest and heartfelt message, even if a lot of it does get lost in the crossfire.
I liked Elysium. I really did, and I would recommend it to all fans of the genre. It just could have been so much more than it ended up being. The movie's last 30 minutes are nothing short of awesome, but everything preceding it seemed like a means to an end, rather than anything substantial or meaningful in any way. It is, however, better than most modern sci-fi films and that says something. Check it out, but expect entertainment, not enlightenment.
7/10
Since the film's trailer gives away the entire first half of the movie, I'll make my summary briefer than usual. Elysium is about an ex-con factory worker named Max (Matt Damon) who lives in 2154 Los Angeles. In the future, everyone one on Earth is pretty much destitute, while the rich get to live in a luxurious space station habit called........I'm drawing a blank on the name. Anyway, Max ends up getting severe radiation poisoning in a work accident and had five days to live. He gears himself up with a powerful exoskeleton suit and...ELYSIUM! THAT'S the name of the space station! Phew. That was close. OK, so Max gets the suit and hatches a plan with some old cronies to get into Elysium to save himself and potentially all of Earth's inhabitants.
Here's the first problem with the movie. Elysium, the space habitat that the entire film's plot hinges on, does not make a whole lot of sense. There is never a lot of context or history given about it other than "This is where the rich people live". It makes just enough sense to serve the narrative of the film, but not much else. How long did it take to build? Was the government complacent in it's creation? Why does everyone from Elysium have a weird pseudo french/robotic accent. It's a really interesting plot device, and it is extremely frustrating that it serves as nothing more than a proverbial finish line. Also: another big important part of the film is the existence of these things called Med-Pods. Futuristic cyber operating tables that can cure any physical ailment, from broken bones to terminal cancer. Again, a very intriguing thing to explore, but it never is. The characters main incentive and purpose to breaking into Elysium is to get access to these Med-Pods, but there are so many questions that are never answered or touched upon. How is this technology possible? Are the Med-Pods manufactured on Earth? If so, isn't there an easier way to harness the technology than by sending a suicide mission into space? These are all pretty annoying cinephile nerd questions to have, I'll admit. It does, however matter a great deal that these questions exist, as there are several more of them throughout the movie and when they add up it makes the film as a whole seem a little hollow. Nothing exists for any other reason than to serve its purpose in the plot. It doesn't make the movie "bad", but it prevents from being anything more than "fine".
Another problem with the movie lies in its aesthetics. Neil Blomkamp brings his distinct dystopian vision from District 9 into this film, and with it, a lot of the same old tricks. The robot police force that keeps the citizens of Earth in line look an awful like the "Prawns" from the director's last film. As a matter of fact, 2154 Los Angeles looks pretty much exactly like 2009 Johannesburg and even though the film's opening title card explains that Earth didn't go completely to shit until around 2080, the majority of the things on planet Earth, from the computers to the factory machines to some of the robotic human counterparts, look like they were made in 1975. I know they are supposed to be in poverty, but still it comes off as more lazy than practical. Again, nit-picky, but it all adds up.
The performances are all fine. Matt Damon is back into ass-kicking form and gives a nice layered performance as Max. Jodie Foster is icy and domineering as ever as Secretary Delacourt, the de facto leader of Elysium. Would have been nice to see more of her though. Sharlto Copley proves to be another problem with the movie, serving as the main villain, Kruger. An insane, amoral mercenary type who will stop at nothing to prevent Max from reaching his goal. Kruger is a great character in theory. Ruthless. Ferocious. Untethered by any sort of ethical code. A classic sci-fi villain. He suffers, however, from what I like to call "Bane Syndrome, which is when a movie's central villain is impossible to understand, both verbally and philosophically. Kruger mumbles his way through the movie committing atrocious acts of violence and making completely manic and off-the-wall decisions with no clear plan or endgame. He makes the movie exciting and ends up being involved in most of the film's memorable moments, but when your antagonist is supposed to be one of the most intimidating and deadly figures in the galaxy: Sharlto Copley, a guy who can't way more that 130 lbs, might not be your best candidate.
Alright enough bitching, there is a quite a bit in this movie that I quite liked. For one, how impressively savage it all is. A film that really earns its R-rating, which is rare for modern big-budget films. There is a lot of swearing and A LOT of carnage. I wasn't expecting it and was ultimately impressed by it. I also appreciated how it showed the true consequences of violence, not social or humanistic consequences, but actual logical consequences. When characters get shot, they die. When a character gets stabbed or grazed by a bullet, they bleed, sometimes for the rest of the movie. Nothing annoys me more than movie characters taking several gunshots or stab wounds to the torso and then soldiering on though the rest of the thing without so much as a wince. It was refreshing to say the least. The movie also features a host of really cool action sequences, particularly in the third act. All the fight choreography is very inventive and gripping to watch, and a lot of that is due to the conception and design of the unique high-tech weapons they use. One of the few characteristics of the film that feels truly futuristic. Whenever there is any sort of violent fight or battle scene, it never feels recycled or cliched, it's all very creative and fun to watch.
Neil Blomkamp seems to want to make sci-fi social commentary his niche, and he really lays out his cards with Elysium. The comparisons between the literal class warfare of the future and what is going on in today's society are pertinent and agonizing, particularly the state of health care. It's more of a framing technique than a main focus, but it is effective and mildly thought-provoking. While the world of Elysium is very bombastic and all too black and white, it is a scary portrait of where we could be heading. The movie has a very honest and heartfelt message, even if a lot of it does get lost in the crossfire.
I liked Elysium. I really did, and I would recommend it to all fans of the genre. It just could have been so much more than it ended up being. The movie's last 30 minutes are nothing short of awesome, but everything preceding it seemed like a means to an end, rather than anything substantial or meaningful in any way. It is, however, better than most modern sci-fi films and that says something. Check it out, but expect entertainment, not enlightenment.
7/10
Monday, August 12, 2013
Prince Avalanche
Prince Avalanche is a quirky little picture with a pretty impressive production story behind it. David Gordon Green, the director, hoping to get back to his indie roots after making Pineapple Express, Your Highness, and The Sitter, all with varying degrees of success, decided to shoot this movie completely in secret. That's right. Nobody besides those who worked on the film knew about it until it was completed. Surprising considering Green's notoriety among film buffs, and the fact that the film stars Emile Hirsch and Paul Rudd, two relatively big name actors. He accomplished this by having a small cast; just Rudd and Hirsch in the lead roles, and one other actor in a smaller capacity, and shooting the film entirely in the backwoods of Bastrop, Texas not long after the area was ravaged by forest fires. The concept of shooting an indie film completely in secret has pros and cons, but regardless about how you feel about the film, you got to hand it to them, it's a pretty damn cool way to make a movie.
The film takes place in the spring of 1988 and tells the story of two men: Alvin, a crotchety wet blanket type, played by Paul Rudd, and Lance, a young, dumb, full of cum southern boy, . The two men are spending the spring making their way along the highway, repainting yellow traffic lines after a decimating fire. The two men have close to nothing in common and spend most of their days in silence either working or camping for the night. Alvin periodically goes fishing and writes letters to his fiance, who also happens to be Lance's older sister. Lance spends his time masturbating and pining for his weekends spent in the city while Alvin stays behind, enjoying the pleasures of solitude. The film mostly consists of idle conversations between these two men, framed by the desolate, yet breathtaking forest. There are moments of levity, as well as high tension, but the overall rhythm of the movie is very calm and almost meditative. As a result , there is a great deal of silence, which is mostly deliberate, but sometimes feels like time-padding more than anything else. Admittedly, it gets a little frustrating.
It's very assuring that David Gordon Green is getting back to his indie roots after roughly 6 years of working with big studios. He is a gifted director and this film is an excellent showcase of what he can do when completely left in control of his devices. He gives the film's setting, the fire ravaged forest, an expressive fairytale vibe that lets us get lost in the beauty of it all without it feeling like the main focus. It acts as a perfect backdrop to the character's existence. There are some really beautiful shots in this movie, and its almost worth checking out for the direction alone, because it really is the best thing about the movie. Actually, the whole movie is aesthetically fantastic. The film looks gorgeous, and also features an eclectic and low-key score from Explosions in the Sky, who seem to abandon their distinguishable post-rock haunting instrumentals for a more downplayed acoustic feel. The score is a perfect match with Green's visuals.
Another big highlight is Paul Rudd's performance which is totally against-type and nothing short of stunning. Alvin is almost the antithesis of most of the roles on Rudd's resume. He is boring, unadventurous, and sort of socially repulsive. Paul Rudd has mastered the art of portraying likeable leading man characters. Guys you want to hang and have a beer with. Alvin is none of these things. He's not a bad person, he's just so totally unremarkable and flat that its irritating. Much kudos to him for pulling it off. Hirsch, on the other hand, is kind of a disappointment. Lance is also a kind of revolting character. He's immature and vulgar, and more importantly selfish. He's also kind of disgusting as a human. Emile Hirsch is just a little too good-looking and charming to be all that believable and as a result overcompensates by overplaying stupid. He's a good foil to Rudd, but overall his performance is pretty one-note. It's not entirely his fault. It's mostly a combination of poor casting and the comparisons to Rudd's performance. That might seem unfair, but the movie is 95% just the two of them so to compare them is unavoidable. The mismatch of the performances is generally forgivable because the overall chemistry between them is really quite good. Both men at different stages of their lives struggling to connect with each other, the script does a fine job creating naturalistic dialogue between two characters who are so opposite each other. Alvin and Lance simultaneously admire and pity each other for different reasons and the bond they end up forming serves as a reward for the audience rather than a predictable outcome.
The biggest problem with the movie is the sum of all its parts. Even with Green's able and captivating direction, even with Rudd's excellent performance, the movie feels a little hollow. Unfinished even. It might just be the consequence of an indie movie about two guys in the woods, but somehow I feel like it could have gone further. There are interesting spiritual and psychological implications scattered throughout the story, but they mostly get glossed over and unexplored. I'm not sure what exactly the film is missing, but it is definitely devoid of something that could have made it great, rather than merely pleasant. Maybe more characters would have helped, maybe some more conflict. Who's to say? All I can say is that the whole thing felt a little inconsequential. Still, the movie has enough going for it to make it worth checking out. A must-see for anyone who considers themselves to be a fan of Paul Rudd or a lover of indie film in general. Even if it won't blow your mind, it won't offend or put you in a bad mood. It's a very competent, visually striking, and surprisingly sweet film
7/10
The film takes place in the spring of 1988 and tells the story of two men: Alvin, a crotchety wet blanket type, played by Paul Rudd, and Lance, a young, dumb, full of cum southern boy, . The two men are spending the spring making their way along the highway, repainting yellow traffic lines after a decimating fire. The two men have close to nothing in common and spend most of their days in silence either working or camping for the night. Alvin periodically goes fishing and writes letters to his fiance, who also happens to be Lance's older sister. Lance spends his time masturbating and pining for his weekends spent in the city while Alvin stays behind, enjoying the pleasures of solitude. The film mostly consists of idle conversations between these two men, framed by the desolate, yet breathtaking forest. There are moments of levity, as well as high tension, but the overall rhythm of the movie is very calm and almost meditative. As a result , there is a great deal of silence, which is mostly deliberate, but sometimes feels like time-padding more than anything else. Admittedly, it gets a little frustrating.
It's very assuring that David Gordon Green is getting back to his indie roots after roughly 6 years of working with big studios. He is a gifted director and this film is an excellent showcase of what he can do when completely left in control of his devices. He gives the film's setting, the fire ravaged forest, an expressive fairytale vibe that lets us get lost in the beauty of it all without it feeling like the main focus. It acts as a perfect backdrop to the character's existence. There are some really beautiful shots in this movie, and its almost worth checking out for the direction alone, because it really is the best thing about the movie. Actually, the whole movie is aesthetically fantastic. The film looks gorgeous, and also features an eclectic and low-key score from Explosions in the Sky, who seem to abandon their distinguishable post-rock haunting instrumentals for a more downplayed acoustic feel. The score is a perfect match with Green's visuals.
Another big highlight is Paul Rudd's performance which is totally against-type and nothing short of stunning. Alvin is almost the antithesis of most of the roles on Rudd's resume. He is boring, unadventurous, and sort of socially repulsive. Paul Rudd has mastered the art of portraying likeable leading man characters. Guys you want to hang and have a beer with. Alvin is none of these things. He's not a bad person, he's just so totally unremarkable and flat that its irritating. Much kudos to him for pulling it off. Hirsch, on the other hand, is kind of a disappointment. Lance is also a kind of revolting character. He's immature and vulgar, and more importantly selfish. He's also kind of disgusting as a human. Emile Hirsch is just a little too good-looking and charming to be all that believable and as a result overcompensates by overplaying stupid. He's a good foil to Rudd, but overall his performance is pretty one-note. It's not entirely his fault. It's mostly a combination of poor casting and the comparisons to Rudd's performance. That might seem unfair, but the movie is 95% just the two of them so to compare them is unavoidable. The mismatch of the performances is generally forgivable because the overall chemistry between them is really quite good. Both men at different stages of their lives struggling to connect with each other, the script does a fine job creating naturalistic dialogue between two characters who are so opposite each other. Alvin and Lance simultaneously admire and pity each other for different reasons and the bond they end up forming serves as a reward for the audience rather than a predictable outcome.
The biggest problem with the movie is the sum of all its parts. Even with Green's able and captivating direction, even with Rudd's excellent performance, the movie feels a little hollow. Unfinished even. It might just be the consequence of an indie movie about two guys in the woods, but somehow I feel like it could have gone further. There are interesting spiritual and psychological implications scattered throughout the story, but they mostly get glossed over and unexplored. I'm not sure what exactly the film is missing, but it is definitely devoid of something that could have made it great, rather than merely pleasant. Maybe more characters would have helped, maybe some more conflict. Who's to say? All I can say is that the whole thing felt a little inconsequential. Still, the movie has enough going for it to make it worth checking out. A must-see for anyone who considers themselves to be a fan of Paul Rudd or a lover of indie film in general. Even if it won't blow your mind, it won't offend or put you in a bad mood. It's a very competent, visually striking, and surprisingly sweet film
7/10
Thursday, August 8, 2013
The Kings of Summer
The Kings of Summer is a true gem and a rare treat for cinema goers. A beautifully shot, truly hilarious coming of age comedy with a lot of honesty and truth behind it. I don't use the word "Masterpiece" often....and this review is no exception, but this is without a doubt the best movie I have seen this year.
The movie is about three teenage boys, who frustrated and horrified by the prospect of spending their summer with their overbearing parents, decide to go deep into the woods to build themselves a house and fend and care for themselves, away from prying parental eyes. That's it. The plot of the movie is very simple, and that is one of the many reasons why this film works so well. "Brevity is the soul of wit"- William Shakespeare. Truer words were never spoken. Keep it simple, stupid. You don't need an eclectic cast of characters from polarizing backgrounds or convoluted plot structures to make a comedy interesting. You just need a captivating and funny script and able performers.
Jordan Vogt-Roberts, in his first feature film, displays a remarkable directorial style. The film is constantly interspersed with stylistic and artsy shots of the forest where most of the film takes place. He utilizes things like lens flares and slow motion shots in a way that doesn't scream; "Look what I can do!". The whole movie has a sort of auteur Terrence Malicky vibe without feeling pretentious. In fact, the whole movie is pretty honest, and by that I mean it is free from any agenda other than telling a good story and making the audience laugh and more importantly, care. The film touches on a lot of familiar themes: Complicated father/son relationship, teenage angst and rebellion, love and subsequent heartbreak, to name a few, but Kings Of Summer has such a unique feel and vibe to it, that it never feels cliched. It feels new and it's specific enough to not be entirely predictable.
The script is pretty close to perfect. It has a balance of comedy and drama that doesn't rely heavily on either side. It is really REALLY hysterical. I saw this movie by myself (Awwwww) and I rarely laugh out loud when watching anything alone, and this film had me guffawing quite obnoxiously for the entire run time. When the film wants to be serious, it doesn't force it by dramatically shifting tone and manipulating you into how it wants you to feel. It's all very measured and natural. One of the most striking things about the film, is that unlike most modern coming-of-age stories, it doesn't focus on teenage angst and pain. That stuff is there, but what the film mostly endeavors to capture is the selfishness of teenage years. The feeling that people, especially your parents, are trying to ruin your life and make you unhappy. The main characters choice to run away from their families is a selfish impulsive decision, but one they believe is right, and by showing both the liberating awesomeness of the boy's makeshift house in the woods, as well as the effect their absence has on their families, it creates a very fair and accurate world where all sides are heard and showcased.
The reason that this movie is so wonderful rests a great deal in the performances. The three actors who portray out main characters are all relatively unknown, with the minor exception of Moises Arias (Rico from Hannah Montana. Yeah I watched it......somewhat regularly........what are you, a cop?) as Biaggio, a short creepy kid who follows Patrick and Joe into the forest without invitation and who also provides the film's biggest laughs. Seriously, who knew this kid was a comedy genius? Everyone is great. The timing and delivery of all the jokes and beats in the off-the-wall script are all pitch perfect. Nick Offerman (Ron Swanson, need I say more?) is the biggest standout as Joe's obstinate and vinegary father. He has an unmistakable deep growling voice, almost like a grizzly bear. He showcases an ability in this film to be both hilariously dry and dejectedly vulnerable. He should, but probably won't get some sort of award or accolade for his performance.
This movie is a pretty under the radar indie film, but I am not sure why. It is the perfect comedy for the digital generation, with elements of recent Judd Apatow produced pictures along with a timeless and nostalgic quality that has proven to be very attractive. I implore you to go see it. Check your local movie times, find a small indie theatre, and go support it by buying a ticket. It is sincerely, a remarkable film. I wish there were more movies like this, and I hope that we see more from this director as well as the actors. You are going to appreciate it, "I guarantee it"- Men's Warehouse
10/10
Also, any east-bay people who consider themselves film buffs in any capacity should seriously check out The New Parkway Theatre on 24th and Telegraph in Oakland. I've lived here for almost a year and just found it about a week ago, and Kings of Summer was the first movie I had the pleasure of seeing it at. It's pretty hipstery, but all in good ways. What other movie theatre can you get a slice of awesome pizza and a pitcher of locally brewed beer for under $25 at? I defy you to name one. I'll post a link to New Parkway's website so you can see for yourself how fucking awesome this place is.
http://www.thenewparkway.com
The movie is about three teenage boys, who frustrated and horrified by the prospect of spending their summer with their overbearing parents, decide to go deep into the woods to build themselves a house and fend and care for themselves, away from prying parental eyes. That's it. The plot of the movie is very simple, and that is one of the many reasons why this film works so well. "Brevity is the soul of wit"- William Shakespeare. Truer words were never spoken. Keep it simple, stupid. You don't need an eclectic cast of characters from polarizing backgrounds or convoluted plot structures to make a comedy interesting. You just need a captivating and funny script and able performers.
Jordan Vogt-Roberts, in his first feature film, displays a remarkable directorial style. The film is constantly interspersed with stylistic and artsy shots of the forest where most of the film takes place. He utilizes things like lens flares and slow motion shots in a way that doesn't scream; "Look what I can do!". The whole movie has a sort of auteur Terrence Malicky vibe without feeling pretentious. In fact, the whole movie is pretty honest, and by that I mean it is free from any agenda other than telling a good story and making the audience laugh and more importantly, care. The film touches on a lot of familiar themes: Complicated father/son relationship, teenage angst and rebellion, love and subsequent heartbreak, to name a few, but Kings Of Summer has such a unique feel and vibe to it, that it never feels cliched. It feels new and it's specific enough to not be entirely predictable.
The script is pretty close to perfect. It has a balance of comedy and drama that doesn't rely heavily on either side. It is really REALLY hysterical. I saw this movie by myself (Awwwww) and I rarely laugh out loud when watching anything alone, and this film had me guffawing quite obnoxiously for the entire run time. When the film wants to be serious, it doesn't force it by dramatically shifting tone and manipulating you into how it wants you to feel. It's all very measured and natural. One of the most striking things about the film, is that unlike most modern coming-of-age stories, it doesn't focus on teenage angst and pain. That stuff is there, but what the film mostly endeavors to capture is the selfishness of teenage years. The feeling that people, especially your parents, are trying to ruin your life and make you unhappy. The main characters choice to run away from their families is a selfish impulsive decision, but one they believe is right, and by showing both the liberating awesomeness of the boy's makeshift house in the woods, as well as the effect their absence has on their families, it creates a very fair and accurate world where all sides are heard and showcased.
The reason that this movie is so wonderful rests a great deal in the performances. The three actors who portray out main characters are all relatively unknown, with the minor exception of Moises Arias (Rico from Hannah Montana. Yeah I watched it......somewhat regularly........what are you, a cop?) as Biaggio, a short creepy kid who follows Patrick and Joe into the forest without invitation and who also provides the film's biggest laughs. Seriously, who knew this kid was a comedy genius? Everyone is great. The timing and delivery of all the jokes and beats in the off-the-wall script are all pitch perfect. Nick Offerman (Ron Swanson, need I say more?) is the biggest standout as Joe's obstinate and vinegary father. He has an unmistakable deep growling voice, almost like a grizzly bear. He showcases an ability in this film to be both hilariously dry and dejectedly vulnerable. He should, but probably won't get some sort of award or accolade for his performance.
This movie is a pretty under the radar indie film, but I am not sure why. It is the perfect comedy for the digital generation, with elements of recent Judd Apatow produced pictures along with a timeless and nostalgic quality that has proven to be very attractive. I implore you to go see it. Check your local movie times, find a small indie theatre, and go support it by buying a ticket. It is sincerely, a remarkable film. I wish there were more movies like this, and I hope that we see more from this director as well as the actors. You are going to appreciate it, "I guarantee it"- Men's Warehouse
10/10
Also, any east-bay people who consider themselves film buffs in any capacity should seriously check out The New Parkway Theatre on 24th and Telegraph in Oakland. I've lived here for almost a year and just found it about a week ago, and Kings of Summer was the first movie I had the pleasure of seeing it at. It's pretty hipstery, but all in good ways. What other movie theatre can you get a slice of awesome pizza and a pitcher of locally brewed beer for under $25 at? I defy you to name one. I'll post a link to New Parkway's website so you can see for yourself how fucking awesome this place is.
http://www.thenewparkway.com
Tuesday, August 6, 2013
Blue Jasmine
I love Woody Allen. Always have. Always will. He's a fantastic writer and has been arguably the most esteemed and consistent director of the past couple decades. He's not perfect, he has the occasional theatrical misstep, but in my opinion, Woody Allen movies are like pizza. Even when it's "bad", it's still a Woody Allen movie, and that's good enough for me. The being said, Blue Jasmine is a terrific slice of pizza.
Blue Jasmine tells the tragically hilarious story of a former New York wealthy socialite, named Jasmine (Cate Blanchett) and her slow descent into total and utter madness brought about by the arrest and incarceration of her Bernie Maddof-ish husband, played with usual smarmy-ness and charm by Alec Baldwin. Jasmine, after being found wandering around the streets of New York talking to herself and subsequently committed, decides to travel to San Francisco to live with her adopted and estranged sister, Ginger, and her two kids. From then on out, the story glides on documenting Jasmine's struggles to find a new path for herself in a world devoid of charity dinners and shopping sprees.
The juxtaposition of Jasmine's two worlds is particularly striking and lends itself very well to the overall tone and scope of the film. The movie jumps back and forth periodically between Jasmine's luxurious 5th Avenue existence amidst the hustle and bustle beauty of New York City, and her dreary stint in artsy and eclectic San Francisco. Two cities, two coasts, two completely different worlds. As a Bay Area native, I really appreciated how Woody Allen filmed this beautiful city. Utilizing places hardly seen in other SF-based films, like Ocean Beach, the Outer Sunset, and Soma. This also might be the first film to take place in San Francisco that does not include a single shot of a cable car, which is pretty refreshing. It's a San Francisco that you'd recognize, as opposed to a heavily romanticized and airbrushed one. The atmosphere is authentic and allows the characters to be as well, which is crucial because....
This, like most Woody Allen fare, is a character driven movie. It's about relationships and internal struggles, and most of that lies in the capable hands of Cate Blanchett who delivers the first unquestionable "Oscar-Worthy" performance, by a man OR woman, that I have seen so far this year. She manages to portray textbook crazy without having to chew on scenery or have some big scream moment. (I'm looking at YOU, Silver Linings Playbook). This resonated with me because, as a person who has struggles with mental issues for a good portion of his life, true madness is internalized. Sure there are obvious crack-ups and breakdowns, but for the most part it's about trying to save face and deal with what's going on in your body and mind and also living out your day as normally as possible. Blanchett nails this down pat. Jasmine is nutty, she's at the end of her rope, but Blanchett gives her madness a subtlety and nuance that is truly fascinating and heartbreaking. The rest of the performances are pretty perfect as well. Sally Hawkins plays Jasmine's sister, Ginger, a woman struggling to raise two kids as well as deal her embittered ex-husband, A shockingly great Andrew Dice Clay, and now has to bear the burden of her previously cold and distant sister. She's got an attractive feistiness to her, and in some moments, even pulls the focus from Blanchett, in a good way. Everyone, from Bobby Cannavale's Stanley Kowalski-esque Chili, Ginger's on-off again boyfriend, to Peter Saarsgard's tempered and sweet Donald, Jasmine's potential new beau. I do feel as though I should issue a disclaimer for people heading to this movie to see a Louis C.K/Woody Allen mash up. Louis C.K plays Al, another one of Ginger's romantic partners, and he's great. However, he is only in the movie for a couple of minutes total and essentially does the same shtick he does in Louie, his TV show. He's a welcome addition to the film, but his overall impact is relatively small compared to the rest of the movie. I just don't want anybody to get their hopes up.
Blue Jasmine tells the tragically hilarious story of a former New York wealthy socialite, named Jasmine (Cate Blanchett) and her slow descent into total and utter madness brought about by the arrest and incarceration of her Bernie Maddof-ish husband, played with usual smarmy-ness and charm by Alec Baldwin. Jasmine, after being found wandering around the streets of New York talking to herself and subsequently committed, decides to travel to San Francisco to live with her adopted and estranged sister, Ginger, and her two kids. From then on out, the story glides on documenting Jasmine's struggles to find a new path for herself in a world devoid of charity dinners and shopping sprees.
The juxtaposition of Jasmine's two worlds is particularly striking and lends itself very well to the overall tone and scope of the film. The movie jumps back and forth periodically between Jasmine's luxurious 5th Avenue existence amidst the hustle and bustle beauty of New York City, and her dreary stint in artsy and eclectic San Francisco. Two cities, two coasts, two completely different worlds. As a Bay Area native, I really appreciated how Woody Allen filmed this beautiful city. Utilizing places hardly seen in other SF-based films, like Ocean Beach, the Outer Sunset, and Soma. This also might be the first film to take place in San Francisco that does not include a single shot of a cable car, which is pretty refreshing. It's a San Francisco that you'd recognize, as opposed to a heavily romanticized and airbrushed one. The atmosphere is authentic and allows the characters to be as well, which is crucial because....
This, like most Woody Allen fare, is a character driven movie. It's about relationships and internal struggles, and most of that lies in the capable hands of Cate Blanchett who delivers the first unquestionable "Oscar-Worthy" performance, by a man OR woman, that I have seen so far this year. She manages to portray textbook crazy without having to chew on scenery or have some big scream moment. (I'm looking at YOU, Silver Linings Playbook). This resonated with me because, as a person who has struggles with mental issues for a good portion of his life, true madness is internalized. Sure there are obvious crack-ups and breakdowns, but for the most part it's about trying to save face and deal with what's going on in your body and mind and also living out your day as normally as possible. Blanchett nails this down pat. Jasmine is nutty, she's at the end of her rope, but Blanchett gives her madness a subtlety and nuance that is truly fascinating and heartbreaking. The rest of the performances are pretty perfect as well. Sally Hawkins plays Jasmine's sister, Ginger, a woman struggling to raise two kids as well as deal her embittered ex-husband, A shockingly great Andrew Dice Clay, and now has to bear the burden of her previously cold and distant sister. She's got an attractive feistiness to her, and in some moments, even pulls the focus from Blanchett, in a good way. Everyone, from Bobby Cannavale's Stanley Kowalski-esque Chili, Ginger's on-off again boyfriend, to Peter Saarsgard's tempered and sweet Donald, Jasmine's potential new beau. I do feel as though I should issue a disclaimer for people heading to this movie to see a Louis C.K/Woody Allen mash up. Louis C.K plays Al, another one of Ginger's romantic partners, and he's great. However, he is only in the movie for a couple of minutes total and essentially does the same shtick he does in Louie, his TV show. He's a welcome addition to the film, but his overall impact is relatively small compared to the rest of the movie. I just don't want anybody to get their hopes up.
This movie definitely packs a wallop, emotionally speaking. The film goes from irreverently hilarious to hopelessly tragic very quickly and can make for a kind of frustrating experience, but in the end it all works out into a pretty cohesive narrative. This is a movie that works really well and is an impressive feat by Woody Allen for making a compelling piece of truly modern drama at this stage in his life. It might not have the timeless and farcical quality of his last great effort, Midnight in Paris but it does offer something at once new for the director as well as being charmingly reminiscent of his earlier works (Annie Hall, Manhattan, etc. etc.) If Blue Jasmine is any indication, this could be the start of Woody Allen's renaissance.
8.5/10
8.5/10
Friday, August 2, 2013
Only God Forgives
It's difficult for me to write a review about "Only God Forgives", in the same way that it is difficult for someone who was hit by a truck to explain to first responders what just happened. This movie is a total sensory overload, and not in a good or stimulating way. It's like staring into the sun. It's astonishingly beautiful, for a few seconds, but then it starts to hurt, and you start to lose your vision, and then you go blind. "Only God Forgives" is one of the most bafflingly incoherent films I have ever seen. I will attempt to explain why it is terrible, but like I said, my eyes still hurt.
The film tells us the story of Julian, played by Ryan Gosling, and his quest for revenge through the streets of seedy, violent, prostitute-filled Bangkok. Julian is an American ex-pat who runs an underground boxing gym. He also deals drugs and likes to get into staring contests with beautiful hookers. His brother, a charming fellow, gets drunk one night and rapes and murders a 14 year old girl working in a brothel. He is then arrested and beaten to death, with the cooperation of the police, at the hands of the dead girl's father. Julian's mother comes into town to see that her son's death will not go unpunished. The rest of the movie is an orgy of blood, cleavage, swords, and mood lighting. It's heavy-handed, overlong, and somehow makes human dismemberment, dull and unfulfilling.
I am a huge fan of the director, Nicolas Winding Refn's pervious work. Namely "Bronson" and "Drive", the latter of which was one of my favorite films of 2011, so I was shocked by how terrible this movie was. He, in his own words, likes to make movies set in "heightened realities" like "fairy tales". That is true, but heightened realities and fairy tales are only compelling if there is a presented reality for it to be grounded in. For example, "The Wizard of Oz" doesn't work if we don't see Dorothy in Kansas before she gets to Oz. "Alice in Wonderland" doesn't work unless we see Alice's life BEFORE she falls into the rabbit hole. "The Matrix" doesn't work if....YOU get the idea. "Drive"; another revenge fueled violent thriller, works because the over the top crime-filled underbelly that most of the film lies in is surrounded by recognizable Los Angeles. "Only GOd Forgives" takes place in a fantasy Bangkok where everything is hued in neon red, murders and human torture can take place in public while no one bats an eye, and pretty much NOBODY talks or behaves like a normal human being. It's all very disconnected and alienating. Refn is very good behind the camera, especially when it comes to creating specific worlds for his characters to live in. There is something disturbingly beautiful about the way he portrays Bangkok, but after about five minutes it gets old, and it becomes obvious that he has played all of his aesthetic cards and we are left to sit and wonder what the hell is going on for the remaining 90 minutes.
I don't blame Refn entirely for the disaster of this film. He's an acquired taste and like him or not, he is very visually distinct and has a style that works for him. The performances might be the most disconcerting part of all this. Ryan Gosling is very handsome. I get it. I saw "The Notebook" "You're a bird, I'm a bird" made me swoon into delirium as well. But, seriously, I've had enough of him. He maybe has 11 lines of dialogue in the movie, all delivered in a gruff yet feminine Marlon Brando-esque mutter. His performance rests in about six to seven stare downs with other characters. We are never given any sense of what kind of man he is, other than the creepy kind. He acts like he was shooting a series of print ads for Calvin Klein, only speaking when he has no other choice. It's all very strange. Kristin Scott Thomas, who plays his vengeful, sadistic, incestuous mother, is equally weird. She seems to be channeling some sort of Real Housewives vibe, complete with a bleach blond wig and Juicy Couture sweatpants. Her character at least has some sort of outline, but everything she does and says is really REALLY mean, or befuddlingly cryptic. There is a scene that takes place at a fancy restaurant where Julian has taken his prostitute girlfriend to meet deal old mom, where she waxes poetic about the size of her dead son's dick. It may have been the funniest thing I have ever seen, or the dumbest. I don't think it was meant to be either. Both actors are more talented than this movie allows them to be, and part of me commends them for putting up with the wackiness that must have been the production of this picture.
The biggest problem, is what I said before, nothing anybody does in the movie makes any sense, and as a result, whatever point the movie is trying to make becomes moot. There are unearned passionate cries, gratuitous and inconsistent violence. One scene actually explicitly shows a guy getting his eye slit open. in close-up. Why? Because Fuck You, that's why..... apparently. I'm all for senseless violence, but at least ATTEMPT to put some meaning or reasoning behind it. I am not as demanding of a movie-goer as I might come off as. Give me something that makes sense and I can work with it, even if I don't like it, I can appreciate it and attempt to justify whatever meaning you try to put behind it. But this. THIS. I cannot abide. I refuse to accept that this is genuine auteur intellectual surrealist cinema. Because it isn't. It is grating. It is pointless. And it probably cost a lot of money.
And the script........you know what? I'm not going to even try. Seriously the movie is at least 75% silence and I am not refined enough to comment on any implied subtlety or nuance. It's not a good script. At least not in the way it is presented in the context of this movie. Although, I would be curious to
"Only God FOrgives" could have been good. Hell, it could have been great. However, with off the wall and ultimately dull performances, repetitive visuals, and inconsistent tonal shifts, it fails to deliver anything memorable or even palatable. Avoid it. Unless you're at my apartment six months from now and are playing the inevitable "Only God Forgives" drinking game. (Drink everytime you lose a staring contest with Gosling)
2/10
The film tells us the story of Julian, played by Ryan Gosling, and his quest for revenge through the streets of seedy, violent, prostitute-filled Bangkok. Julian is an American ex-pat who runs an underground boxing gym. He also deals drugs and likes to get into staring contests with beautiful hookers. His brother, a charming fellow, gets drunk one night and rapes and murders a 14 year old girl working in a brothel. He is then arrested and beaten to death, with the cooperation of the police, at the hands of the dead girl's father. Julian's mother comes into town to see that her son's death will not go unpunished. The rest of the movie is an orgy of blood, cleavage, swords, and mood lighting. It's heavy-handed, overlong, and somehow makes human dismemberment, dull and unfulfilling.
I am a huge fan of the director, Nicolas Winding Refn's pervious work. Namely "Bronson" and "Drive", the latter of which was one of my favorite films of 2011, so I was shocked by how terrible this movie was. He, in his own words, likes to make movies set in "heightened realities" like "fairy tales". That is true, but heightened realities and fairy tales are only compelling if there is a presented reality for it to be grounded in. For example, "The Wizard of Oz" doesn't work if we don't see Dorothy in Kansas before she gets to Oz. "Alice in Wonderland" doesn't work unless we see Alice's life BEFORE she falls into the rabbit hole. "The Matrix" doesn't work if....YOU get the idea. "Drive"; another revenge fueled violent thriller, works because the over the top crime-filled underbelly that most of the film lies in is surrounded by recognizable Los Angeles. "Only GOd Forgives" takes place in a fantasy Bangkok where everything is hued in neon red, murders and human torture can take place in public while no one bats an eye, and pretty much NOBODY talks or behaves like a normal human being. It's all very disconnected and alienating. Refn is very good behind the camera, especially when it comes to creating specific worlds for his characters to live in. There is something disturbingly beautiful about the way he portrays Bangkok, but after about five minutes it gets old, and it becomes obvious that he has played all of his aesthetic cards and we are left to sit and wonder what the hell is going on for the remaining 90 minutes.
I don't blame Refn entirely for the disaster of this film. He's an acquired taste and like him or not, he is very visually distinct and has a style that works for him. The performances might be the most disconcerting part of all this. Ryan Gosling is very handsome. I get it. I saw "The Notebook" "You're a bird, I'm a bird" made me swoon into delirium as well. But, seriously, I've had enough of him. He maybe has 11 lines of dialogue in the movie, all delivered in a gruff yet feminine Marlon Brando-esque mutter. His performance rests in about six to seven stare downs with other characters. We are never given any sense of what kind of man he is, other than the creepy kind. He acts like he was shooting a series of print ads for Calvin Klein, only speaking when he has no other choice. It's all very strange. Kristin Scott Thomas, who plays his vengeful, sadistic, incestuous mother, is equally weird. She seems to be channeling some sort of Real Housewives vibe, complete with a bleach blond wig and Juicy Couture sweatpants. Her character at least has some sort of outline, but everything she does and says is really REALLY mean, or befuddlingly cryptic. There is a scene that takes place at a fancy restaurant where Julian has taken his prostitute girlfriend to meet deal old mom, where she waxes poetic about the size of her dead son's dick. It may have been the funniest thing I have ever seen, or the dumbest. I don't think it was meant to be either. Both actors are more talented than this movie allows them to be, and part of me commends them for putting up with the wackiness that must have been the production of this picture.
The biggest problem, is what I said before, nothing anybody does in the movie makes any sense, and as a result, whatever point the movie is trying to make becomes moot. There are unearned passionate cries, gratuitous and inconsistent violence. One scene actually explicitly shows a guy getting his eye slit open. in close-up. Why? Because Fuck You, that's why..... apparently. I'm all for senseless violence, but at least ATTEMPT to put some meaning or reasoning behind it. I am not as demanding of a movie-goer as I might come off as. Give me something that makes sense and I can work with it, even if I don't like it, I can appreciate it and attempt to justify whatever meaning you try to put behind it. But this. THIS. I cannot abide. I refuse to accept that this is genuine auteur intellectual surrealist cinema. Because it isn't. It is grating. It is pointless. And it probably cost a lot of money.
And the script........you know what? I'm not going to even try. Seriously the movie is at least 75% silence and I am not refined enough to comment on any implied subtlety or nuance. It's not a good script. At least not in the way it is presented in the context of this movie. Although, I would be curious to
"Only God FOrgives" could have been good. Hell, it could have been great. However, with off the wall and ultimately dull performances, repetitive visuals, and inconsistent tonal shifts, it fails to deliver anything memorable or even palatable. Avoid it. Unless you're at my apartment six months from now and are playing the inevitable "Only God Forgives" drinking game. (Drink everytime you lose a staring contest with Gosling)
2/10
Wednesday, July 31, 2013
Blackfish
I'm not gonna lie to you. As soon as I saw the trailer for "Blackfish", the new documentary about killer whales in captivity at Seaworld. I was hooked (That was an insensitive pun, I realize that.) The movie looked daring, insightful, and honestly really scary. The film definitely did not disappoint any of those expectations
The movie attempts to explain why killer whales in captivity, specifically at SeaWorld Orlando, have a greater tendency to attack, maim, and sometimes kill humans. The main consensus being pretty obvious: If you take an animal from its family in the wild, then place it in a concrete pool, and make it do tricks for fish. THe animal, especially one as intelligent as the orca, will snap. The movie paints this picture pretty clearly from the first couple of minutes. Most of the the interviews are with ex-SeaWorld trainers, some of whom have been involved with the incidents shown in the film. These trainers have all universally since begun to speak out about SeaWorld's practices and policy's regarding the creatures. The rest of the interviewees are pretty much Anti-SeaWorld across the board. This makes the documentary a bit unfairly biased. Luckily, the film leans towards informative more-so than straight up editorial opinion piece. (March of the Penguins vs. Bowling for Columbine). Still, it would have made for a more interesting piece if someone currently working for SeaWorld had participated. The film states that the park refused to be involved with it. Does this admit guilt or responsibility. "Blackfish" suggests that it does, and I am inclined to agree.
What elevates the film beyond typical classroom documentary fare, is that it actually has a narrative. A deliberately paced narrative that is more akin to a horror film than an animal rights documentary. THe director, Gabriela Cowperthwaite actually lets a story unfold, rather than just show us a cavalcade of courtroom documents, talking heads, and Ken Burns-y photographs. Interviews play out over actual footage of some of the attacks. They are truly terrifying. Out of context, some of the footage doesn't seem all that suspect. But in the context of the film, when we've learned how powerful these animals really are, and having eyewitnesses explain the gravity of the situations on screen, it becomes palpable and altogether unpleasant. There is one incident in particular, in which a trainer is pulled into the water, while playing with two orcas on her lunch break. The aftermath of which inspired a very panicked yelp from several audience members in the theatre with me. Something truly horrifying and real that your run of the mill exorcism movie just is not capable of. Don't come see this movie on a full stomach.
The true horror, for me at least, comes not from the killer whales, but SeaWorld itself. The theme park, time and time again, publicly refuses to accept blame or even partial responsibility for ANY of the incidents, especially those that involve the death of a human being. It truly is both astonishing and frustratingly unnerving. Constantly blaming the attacks on "trainer errors" and "avoidable accidents" rather than accept the harsh truth that their business model is putting both humans and their whale-counterparts at risk. The film partially centers around an OSHA lawsuit against SeaWorld filed after the death of Dawn Brancheau, an experience SeaWorld trainer who was mutilated and partially eaten during a live show by an orca named Tillikum. The result of the lawsuit was that SeaWorld was no longer allowed to allow trainers to interact with the whales in the water, putting up barriers around the pool to keep both parties safe. SeaWorld is currently appealing the decision. What a bunch of assholes.
One of the better documentaries I've seen in recent years, Blackfish paints a hair-raising picture of the realities of animal captivity while also exploring how beautiful and graceful these intimidating creatures can be. Again, SeaWorld's involvement would have been nice, as the film really never provides a real counterpoint to its claims, but I am not sure if that would have necessarily made the film any better. Regardless of bias, it is a truly suspenseful, informative, and enlightening documentary, and hopefully will encourage people to actively try to promote change in policies not only at SeaWorld, but in all harmful and immoral animal captivity situations.
8/10
The movie attempts to explain why killer whales in captivity, specifically at SeaWorld Orlando, have a greater tendency to attack, maim, and sometimes kill humans. The main consensus being pretty obvious: If you take an animal from its family in the wild, then place it in a concrete pool, and make it do tricks for fish. THe animal, especially one as intelligent as the orca, will snap. The movie paints this picture pretty clearly from the first couple of minutes. Most of the the interviews are with ex-SeaWorld trainers, some of whom have been involved with the incidents shown in the film. These trainers have all universally since begun to speak out about SeaWorld's practices and policy's regarding the creatures. The rest of the interviewees are pretty much Anti-SeaWorld across the board. This makes the documentary a bit unfairly biased. Luckily, the film leans towards informative more-so than straight up editorial opinion piece. (March of the Penguins vs. Bowling for Columbine). Still, it would have made for a more interesting piece if someone currently working for SeaWorld had participated. The film states that the park refused to be involved with it. Does this admit guilt or responsibility. "Blackfish" suggests that it does, and I am inclined to agree.
What elevates the film beyond typical classroom documentary fare, is that it actually has a narrative. A deliberately paced narrative that is more akin to a horror film than an animal rights documentary. THe director, Gabriela Cowperthwaite actually lets a story unfold, rather than just show us a cavalcade of courtroom documents, talking heads, and Ken Burns-y photographs. Interviews play out over actual footage of some of the attacks. They are truly terrifying. Out of context, some of the footage doesn't seem all that suspect. But in the context of the film, when we've learned how powerful these animals really are, and having eyewitnesses explain the gravity of the situations on screen, it becomes palpable and altogether unpleasant. There is one incident in particular, in which a trainer is pulled into the water, while playing with two orcas on her lunch break. The aftermath of which inspired a very panicked yelp from several audience members in the theatre with me. Something truly horrifying and real that your run of the mill exorcism movie just is not capable of. Don't come see this movie on a full stomach.
The true horror, for me at least, comes not from the killer whales, but SeaWorld itself. The theme park, time and time again, publicly refuses to accept blame or even partial responsibility for ANY of the incidents, especially those that involve the death of a human being. It truly is both astonishing and frustratingly unnerving. Constantly blaming the attacks on "trainer errors" and "avoidable accidents" rather than accept the harsh truth that their business model is putting both humans and their whale-counterparts at risk. The film partially centers around an OSHA lawsuit against SeaWorld filed after the death of Dawn Brancheau, an experience SeaWorld trainer who was mutilated and partially eaten during a live show by an orca named Tillikum. The result of the lawsuit was that SeaWorld was no longer allowed to allow trainers to interact with the whales in the water, putting up barriers around the pool to keep both parties safe. SeaWorld is currently appealing the decision. What a bunch of assholes.
One of the better documentaries I've seen in recent years, Blackfish paints a hair-raising picture of the realities of animal captivity while also exploring how beautiful and graceful these intimidating creatures can be. Again, SeaWorld's involvement would have been nice, as the film really never provides a real counterpoint to its claims, but I am not sure if that would have necessarily made the film any better. Regardless of bias, it is a truly suspenseful, informative, and enlightening documentary, and hopefully will encourage people to actively try to promote change in policies not only at SeaWorld, but in all harmful and immoral animal captivity situations.
8/10
Fruitvale Station
The Oscar Grant shooting happened when I was a junior in High School. I was 16. I was in the throws of my first relationship. And I considered myself to be an intelligent and well-informed being. I'm a skeptic by nature, and when the news of the shooting first broke out; when everyone called "racism" and "police brutality", I shrugged it off all too quickly. I decided to essentially ignore it. The shooting didn't affect me and I did not see the point in getting my feathers ruffled about something that couldn't be changed. I thought this was a righteous and just way of thinking. I have had mixed, albeit passive feelings about the way the shooting and the ensuing trial went down ever since. That is, at least until I saw Fruitvale Station.
When I first heard that they were making a movie about Oscar Grant, I admittedly rolled my eyes. Surely there must be more interesting stories to make a film about than the tale of one man who was accidentally shot in the back while allegedly resisting arrest. I figured the movie would be overly sentimental, manipulative, and biased. Dramatizing the story of a young impoverished black man who was JUUUUUUST beginning to turn his life around, before we was murdered by a racist, tigger-happy transit cop. After reading the first reviews of Fruitvale Station, I began to suspect that my preconceptions about the film's content were wrong. Now that I've seen it, I have learned that I WAS wrong. Both about the film and the incident itself.
But enough platitudes. Let's talk about the movie.
Fruitvale Station is one of the most powerful movies I have seen in a long time, and what makes it all the more powerful and impressive is how effortless it all seems; In almost every category.
The movie's plot is simple. A chronicle of the last day in the life of Oscar, a recently released felon who struggles to support his girlfriend and his very young daughter amidst the temptations and familiarity of drug dealing, and in the end has his life tragically cut short at the hands of law enforcement.
The "true story" angle can potentially eliminate some of the drama in some films. In other words, knowing the ending of a movie before you even see it can make it less compelling. Nothing can be further from the truth when it comes to Fruitvale Station. The director, Ryan Coogler, instead of framing the story as a martyr's tale or filling it with senseless foreshadowing and death omens, captures Oscar's day as if it were any man's day. There are moments of tension, as well as levity, and boredom. The movie is much more interested in portraying Oscar as a man, a father, and a friend; as opposed to a martyr or a symbol for something greater than himself. Because he is flawed, like all men. He is dishonest, quick-tempered, and immature, but he is also friendly, benevolent, and an altogether nice guy. He is not placed on some sort of pedestal to be an example to all young men, but rather someone you'd hang out with, one of your friends. And it is that relatability that makes the movie so gut-wrenching. That this could have happened to someone you know. And it might already have.
Michael B. Jordan plays Oscar and does one hell of a job. All of the actors do in fact. Octavia Spencer's portrayal of a loving mother who has just begun to forgive her son for his misdeeds is truly great. She is effective without being brash or overly emotional. The real standout, in my opinion ; Even more than Jordan. Is Melonie Diaz, who I haven't seen or heard about since she was in Be Kind Rewind back in 2008. She plays Oscar's girlfriend and the mother of his child, Sophina. She really is the emotional center of the film. Sophina is very obviously head over heels for Oscar, but motherhood has made her quick to hold Oscar responsible for his selfish actions. Diaz plays hot and cold to different intensities throughout every scene she is in, and has a gracefulness and confidence, both as a character and an actress that is extremely compelling.
The only thing that irked me about the movie, and this is pretty nitpicky, but this is a review after all, is that for a movie that brings us such interesting and well-rounded characters. The police officers responsible for what took place on the train platform that night, are very cookie-cutter. It has nothing to do with the performances. Kevin Durand and Chad Michael Murray (Yes, THAT Chad Michael Murray) are both fine, but they only exist to fulfill their purpose as the villains and nothing more. I wish we could have gotten a little more insight as to how their actions affected them or what caused them to initiate the confrontation between themselves and Oscar and his friends. IT just all felt a little hurried. There is probably a reason for this. THe movie is OScar's story after all, but still, would have been a nice little extra oomph.
The movie takes a political backseat and lets you decipher how to feel about the circumstances behind the shooting. For me, this was a key piece to why I found it so striking. And led me to some regret towards my feelings towards the real-life events. The fact is, whether or not you think that cops are heroes or pigs, whether or not you think race was a key motivating factor in the shooting, whether or not you think Johannes Mesehrle deserved a life sentence or was justly sentenced: At the end of the day, Oscar Grant was an unarmed man who was shot in the back and killed. He didn't deserve that. No one deserves that. And it was that fact alone that outraged me as I left the theatre. True outrage. Maybe the movie was indeed that powerful to evoke such a strong emotional response from a curmudgeonly cynic like me. Maybe it was over-compensation for the four years of apathy catching up with me. Either way, the movie changed me. It was a small change. But a change nonetheless. Not that many films have that power. And this one does. It seems that this movie's power will not go unnoticed. And that gives me hope.
9.5/10
(One More Thing....)- I saw this movie on $5 movie day in Jack London Square in Oakland. It's a great bargain, but you usually have to put up with babies crying, snoring of incontinent seniors, and groups of teens chatting to each other and on their cell phones. It's infuriating, but then again, it is a five dollar movie ticket. There is a moment in the film, near the end, that serves as a reflective montage of sorts. Played out in silence and lasting for about 2-3 minutes. During this time, an old black woman two rows behind me started singing some old spiritual tune, quietly but audibly, "Oh Jesus, He didn't do nothing wrong", over and over and over again. I don't know if she made it up or if it is in fact a real song. In any other instance, this would have upset and annoyed me greatly. But in this case, it seemed right. I don't know why she did it, but I am glad she did. It is another testament to the weight that this film has. This woman wasn't crazy. She was hurt. Hurt by what she saw. And rather than cry, she chose to sing. I don't think I, or anyone else in that theatre will get to experience anything like that again. A raw human moment expressed in such a way, in a crowded movie theater. It might have bothered some people, but it was a welcome interruption for my experience, as it called on me to reflect, almost religiously, on the events that were unfolding in front of me on the screen, and ultimately informed what I took from the film. Call it bravery, or call it rudeness. It was ten times better than a cell phone ring.
When I first heard that they were making a movie about Oscar Grant, I admittedly rolled my eyes. Surely there must be more interesting stories to make a film about than the tale of one man who was accidentally shot in the back while allegedly resisting arrest. I figured the movie would be overly sentimental, manipulative, and biased. Dramatizing the story of a young impoverished black man who was JUUUUUUST beginning to turn his life around, before we was murdered by a racist, tigger-happy transit cop. After reading the first reviews of Fruitvale Station, I began to suspect that my preconceptions about the film's content were wrong. Now that I've seen it, I have learned that I WAS wrong. Both about the film and the incident itself.
But enough platitudes. Let's talk about the movie.
Fruitvale Station is one of the most powerful movies I have seen in a long time, and what makes it all the more powerful and impressive is how effortless it all seems; In almost every category.
The movie's plot is simple. A chronicle of the last day in the life of Oscar, a recently released felon who struggles to support his girlfriend and his very young daughter amidst the temptations and familiarity of drug dealing, and in the end has his life tragically cut short at the hands of law enforcement.
The "true story" angle can potentially eliminate some of the drama in some films. In other words, knowing the ending of a movie before you even see it can make it less compelling. Nothing can be further from the truth when it comes to Fruitvale Station. The director, Ryan Coogler, instead of framing the story as a martyr's tale or filling it with senseless foreshadowing and death omens, captures Oscar's day as if it were any man's day. There are moments of tension, as well as levity, and boredom. The movie is much more interested in portraying Oscar as a man, a father, and a friend; as opposed to a martyr or a symbol for something greater than himself. Because he is flawed, like all men. He is dishonest, quick-tempered, and immature, but he is also friendly, benevolent, and an altogether nice guy. He is not placed on some sort of pedestal to be an example to all young men, but rather someone you'd hang out with, one of your friends. And it is that relatability that makes the movie so gut-wrenching. That this could have happened to someone you know. And it might already have.
Michael B. Jordan plays Oscar and does one hell of a job. All of the actors do in fact. Octavia Spencer's portrayal of a loving mother who has just begun to forgive her son for his misdeeds is truly great. She is effective without being brash or overly emotional. The real standout, in my opinion ; Even more than Jordan. Is Melonie Diaz, who I haven't seen or heard about since she was in Be Kind Rewind back in 2008. She plays Oscar's girlfriend and the mother of his child, Sophina. She really is the emotional center of the film. Sophina is very obviously head over heels for Oscar, but motherhood has made her quick to hold Oscar responsible for his selfish actions. Diaz plays hot and cold to different intensities throughout every scene she is in, and has a gracefulness and confidence, both as a character and an actress that is extremely compelling.
The only thing that irked me about the movie, and this is pretty nitpicky, but this is a review after all, is that for a movie that brings us such interesting and well-rounded characters. The police officers responsible for what took place on the train platform that night, are very cookie-cutter. It has nothing to do with the performances. Kevin Durand and Chad Michael Murray (Yes, THAT Chad Michael Murray) are both fine, but they only exist to fulfill their purpose as the villains and nothing more. I wish we could have gotten a little more insight as to how their actions affected them or what caused them to initiate the confrontation between themselves and Oscar and his friends. IT just all felt a little hurried. There is probably a reason for this. THe movie is OScar's story after all, but still, would have been a nice little extra oomph.
The movie takes a political backseat and lets you decipher how to feel about the circumstances behind the shooting. For me, this was a key piece to why I found it so striking. And led me to some regret towards my feelings towards the real-life events. The fact is, whether or not you think that cops are heroes or pigs, whether or not you think race was a key motivating factor in the shooting, whether or not you think Johannes Mesehrle deserved a life sentence or was justly sentenced: At the end of the day, Oscar Grant was an unarmed man who was shot in the back and killed. He didn't deserve that. No one deserves that. And it was that fact alone that outraged me as I left the theatre. True outrage. Maybe the movie was indeed that powerful to evoke such a strong emotional response from a curmudgeonly cynic like me. Maybe it was over-compensation for the four years of apathy catching up with me. Either way, the movie changed me. It was a small change. But a change nonetheless. Not that many films have that power. And this one does. It seems that this movie's power will not go unnoticed. And that gives me hope.
9.5/10
(One More Thing....)- I saw this movie on $5 movie day in Jack London Square in Oakland. It's a great bargain, but you usually have to put up with babies crying, snoring of incontinent seniors, and groups of teens chatting to each other and on their cell phones. It's infuriating, but then again, it is a five dollar movie ticket. There is a moment in the film, near the end, that serves as a reflective montage of sorts. Played out in silence and lasting for about 2-3 minutes. During this time, an old black woman two rows behind me started singing some old spiritual tune, quietly but audibly, "Oh Jesus, He didn't do nothing wrong", over and over and over again. I don't know if she made it up or if it is in fact a real song. In any other instance, this would have upset and annoyed me greatly. But in this case, it seemed right. I don't know why she did it, but I am glad she did. It is another testament to the weight that this film has. This woman wasn't crazy. She was hurt. Hurt by what she saw. And rather than cry, she chose to sing. I don't think I, or anyone else in that theatre will get to experience anything like that again. A raw human moment expressed in such a way, in a crowded movie theater. It might have bothered some people, but it was a welcome interruption for my experience, as it called on me to reflect, almost religiously, on the events that were unfolding in front of me on the screen, and ultimately informed what I took from the film. Call it bravery, or call it rudeness. It was ten times better than a cell phone ring.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)