You don't go into a "Hercules" movie starring Dwayne Johnson expecting an epic with interesting plot points. Sure that would be nice but you primarily are going to see Dwayne Johnson just destroy things. He's a big dude playing a strong character. When you sit down you expect him to just be pummeling everything in sight. You don't get that in Brett Ratner's "Hercules". Instead, you get a fairly standard tale about a band of mercenaries who are paid to defend a town. Yes, the "Seven Samurai", "Magnificent Seven", "A Bug's Life" (yes, I went there) story. Johnson's size and strength almost seem to be suppressed on purpose in the hopes of making a more realistic Hercules story. While that is somewhat surprising, it also creates a boring and underwhelming experience. It makes you wonder if Johnson regrets all those hours in the gym when it is barely shown on the screen.
The stories of Hercules (Dwayne Johnson) are a carefully crafted myth designed to give him notoriety and publicity. Sure he existed and he definitely is strong but there were no massive feats of strength. He is the son of Zeus. There are no hydras. There is no three-headed devil dog. They are stories created by his nephew Iolanus (Reece Ritchie) so that Hercules and his band of mercenaries can get jobs. These stories attract the attention of Lord Cotys (John Hurt) who hires them to train his army.
"Hercules" might be one of the biggest "bait and switch" films in quite some time. The trailers show Hercules attacking several mythological CGI beasts. The truth is that these scenes are all shown in the first few minutes of the movie while Iolanus narrates the activities. As mentioned in the plot description (this isn't a spoiler), none of these events actually occurred. Hercules is not the son of a God. He didn't defeat creatures who has impenetrable hides. This is a somewhat gutsy way to write a story and definitely a gutsy (if not ill-advised) way to promote your film. You take such a popular character and strip him of his super powers, essentially. Imagine a superhero story where the main character doesn't actually have powers or talents. Would anyone want to see a Spiderman movie where he was just a gymnast in a homemade suit? How angry would moviegoers be if the trailer for this hypothetical Spiderman film showed scenes of him jumping and web-shooting but it was all a dream that was in the first several minutes. Again, this is a risky way to make your story and that deserves some amount of accolade. It can't be denied that audiences will be upset by the version of "Hercules" that is actually delivered in the full film.
There is no sense that Dwayne Johnson as Hercules is anyone all that special. Ratner seems to go out of his way to not focus on the physical strength and presence of Johnson. Whereas films like "Fast Five" or "Pain and Gain" seemed to purposing give Johnson shirts a few sizes too small to emphasize his physicality, Ratner almost wants us to see him as just a guy who looks pretty strong. Johnson is a 6'5" guy who has posted his insane workout regime for this film. He doesn't look big and imposing though. The camera is positioned above him often. There is no sense of size or strength. There are even moments in the film where characters comment on how they expected Hercules to be more gargantuan. While this may have been intentional in order to downplay his heroics, it doesn't make us excited or interested in what he has to offer. If you make a Hercules movie with Dwayne Johnson, we should expect him to just be wrecking people left and right. Instead, we get badly-edited PG-13 action scenes of him just hitting people with clubs. Hercules, myth or no myth, should be punching people out of their sandals. Anything less is a disappointment.
Ratner doesn't know how to film an action scene. He relies far too heavily on CGI accompaniments. This gives no sense of action or even excitement. When you think of the battle scenes of movies like "Braveheart" you are drawn in the brutality of the whole thing. There are all people doing real stunts. While a PG-13 "Hercules" could never be a fraction as brutal as "Braveheart", it can still be action-packed. The scenes feel like cheap edited-for-television "300" battle knock-offs. Every serious part of these fight scenes is CGI. CGI arrows aren't scary. They don't look real and they don't make you worried about the characters. They just pull you out of the element.
The acting and characterization in "Hercules" is a little better than expected. The members of Hercules team are mostly interesting and not just there to supplement our main character. Rufus Sewell is especially good as Autolycus. It is great to see Sewell not playing villains or a even a good guy who becomes a villain. They even give a strong role to a woman in the form of Atalanta (Ingrid Bolsø Berdal), who is a vital part of the action scenes and the team. This almost makes us forget that the only reason for other women to be in this film is be partially naked. Almost. Hurt is good as Lord Cotys but it might be time to not accept every role he is handed.
"Hercules" is truly a movie for no one. It isn't action-packed enough for summer audiences expecting Johnson to pummel everything. It isn't smart and unpredictable enough to appeal to people who find an original re-telling of Hercules interesting. While it is never terrible, it just serves no real purpose. It is a $100 million film that will simply disappear like so many other films this summer. It makes you wonder what a director who knew how to film action scenes would have done with this. They no doubt would have been able to show that you don't need Hercules to live up the legend in order to captivate.
Saturday, July 26, 2014
Saturday, July 19, 2014
"Sex Tape" 1.5 stars out of 4 (D)
"Sex Tape" isn't insultingly dumb. It isn't without a few laughs. It has two lead actors who are nice to watch. The problem is that it is completely unneeded and useless. It feels amateurish and rushed. It contains no plot points, scenes, or laughs that you will remember by the time you walk out of the auditorium. This film does not care about the audience or entertaining them. The whole thing feels like a first draft that was filmed in one take by competent actors. They don't do a bad job. They just don't do anything well. They don't care if it is well done or even actually funny. They need to plow through it and move on to the next scene. There is no passion or effort on the screen. Just mediocrity.
The steam in Annie (Cameron Diaz) and Jay's (Jason Segel) relationship is gone. It isn't that the two don't find each other attracted. It is that the real world has gotten in the way of their love-life. Between their kids, their friends, and their jobs there just isn't enough time for the bedroom. In hopes of rekindling the spark, the two decide to film a "sex tape" on their tablet under the pretense that Jay will delete afterwards. Weeks pass and Jay receives a text from someone saying how much they enjoyed watching the show. It turns out when Jay synced music from his tablet to his friends, he accidentally synced all the media. This includes the "sex tape" that he had forgotten to delete. This sends Annie and Jay on an adventure to recover all the tablets and delete the tape before it becomes an Internet sensation that is certain to end Annie's career as a blogger and would make Jay really uncomfortable.
"Sex Tape" is a completely unnecessary film. It offers nothing that the audience will please an audience in any meaningful way. There are a handful of laughs. Diaz and Segel are charming and work well together. The problem is that it never commits to anything. It is a raunchy film that doesn't even feel raunchy. It is a comedy where the jokes seem forced and not polished. There were large stretches of this film where the audience simply didn't laugh. It wasn't that there weren't comedic moments occurring. The comedy simply didn't work.
The conflict in this feels so forced and uninteresting. "Oh no! Someone has the tape!" "Oh no! Many people have the tape!" "Oh no! This will hurt my job!" "Oh no! We need to go to your boss's house to get the video!" "Oh no! There is a guard dog!" "Oh no! That bratty kid has our tape!" There is nothing here that does anything besides simply moving the plot along in the hopes that it might generate a funny moment. It is a lazy film. Director Jake Kasdan has made some great films. "Walk Hard: The Dewey Cox story" is one of the best comedies in the last decade. He directed many episodes of "Freaks and Geeks" which is one of the best TV shows ever made. "Orange County" is one of the better coming-of-age films and it is a matter of time until it reaches cult status. "Sex Tape" is just boring, dull, and lazy.
There is an almost insultingly large amount of product placement in this film. Apple products must have have funded the production to a large degree. While the film is essentially admitting the iPad is a "mobile porn studio", it also champions the device left and right. It shows how easy it is to sync data. It stresses how durable the iPad is even when thrown out of a window. It is so easy even your children, mother, and everyone you know can use it. The product placement doesn't just stop at Apple. In one scenea character spouts off a huge list of Internet porn sites. This list of sites goes on for almost a minute. This isn't funny. The audience is not amused that your film knows about real-world porn sites. The whole thing seems like an extremely awkward commercial. I would like to watch the meeting the filmmakers had with these companies as they try to flesh out (pun so very much intended) how much money they would receive for each site mentioned. "We are really trying to promote 'Giant Tentacle Fury'. Can we fit that in there somewhere?" "Can we include just one more? The hits on 'Sad Mom's' have been dwindling and we need to push that brand."
The one redeeming quality of "Sex Tape" is that the relationship between Segel and Diaz works. These two actors click well and we care about them. This is not a couple that hates each other and should divorce like Leslie Mann and Paul Rudd in "This is 40". This is just a couple who have had the real-world push them away from the bedroom. They work well together and are great to their kids. With the exception of a moment in the last act, there is no real conflict between these two. They love each other and simply want to do what they can to stop this video from getting out. This is refreshing when you see so many couples in films who are always on the brink of divorcing. There is no doubt in the audience's mind that Segel and Diaz should be together and are good for each other.
"Sex Tape" should be so much better than it is. It has a good cast, a good director, and a decent plotline. The problem is that nobody seems to care that they are there. Everyone is sleepwalking through their parts. The only laughs seem like improvised one-takes that were no doubt better than what was on the script. In a summer that seems to be empty of a good comedy, this might be the lowest point.
The steam in Annie (Cameron Diaz) and Jay's (Jason Segel) relationship is gone. It isn't that the two don't find each other attracted. It is that the real world has gotten in the way of their love-life. Between their kids, their friends, and their jobs there just isn't enough time for the bedroom. In hopes of rekindling the spark, the two decide to film a "sex tape" on their tablet under the pretense that Jay will delete afterwards. Weeks pass and Jay receives a text from someone saying how much they enjoyed watching the show. It turns out when Jay synced music from his tablet to his friends, he accidentally synced all the media. This includes the "sex tape" that he had forgotten to delete. This sends Annie and Jay on an adventure to recover all the tablets and delete the tape before it becomes an Internet sensation that is certain to end Annie's career as a blogger and would make Jay really uncomfortable.
"Sex Tape" is a completely unnecessary film. It offers nothing that the audience will please an audience in any meaningful way. There are a handful of laughs. Diaz and Segel are charming and work well together. The problem is that it never commits to anything. It is a raunchy film that doesn't even feel raunchy. It is a comedy where the jokes seem forced and not polished. There were large stretches of this film where the audience simply didn't laugh. It wasn't that there weren't comedic moments occurring. The comedy simply didn't work.
The conflict in this feels so forced and uninteresting. "Oh no! Someone has the tape!" "Oh no! Many people have the tape!" "Oh no! This will hurt my job!" "Oh no! We need to go to your boss's house to get the video!" "Oh no! There is a guard dog!" "Oh no! That bratty kid has our tape!" There is nothing here that does anything besides simply moving the plot along in the hopes that it might generate a funny moment. It is a lazy film. Director Jake Kasdan has made some great films. "Walk Hard: The Dewey Cox story" is one of the best comedies in the last decade. He directed many episodes of "Freaks and Geeks" which is one of the best TV shows ever made. "Orange County" is one of the better coming-of-age films and it is a matter of time until it reaches cult status. "Sex Tape" is just boring, dull, and lazy.
There is an almost insultingly large amount of product placement in this film. Apple products must have have funded the production to a large degree. While the film is essentially admitting the iPad is a "mobile porn studio", it also champions the device left and right. It shows how easy it is to sync data. It stresses how durable the iPad is even when thrown out of a window. It is so easy even your children, mother, and everyone you know can use it. The product placement doesn't just stop at Apple. In one scenea character spouts off a huge list of Internet porn sites. This list of sites goes on for almost a minute. This isn't funny. The audience is not amused that your film knows about real-world porn sites. The whole thing seems like an extremely awkward commercial. I would like to watch the meeting the filmmakers had with these companies as they try to flesh out (pun so very much intended) how much money they would receive for each site mentioned. "We are really trying to promote 'Giant Tentacle Fury'. Can we fit that in there somewhere?" "Can we include just one more? The hits on 'Sad Mom's' have been dwindling and we need to push that brand."
The one redeeming quality of "Sex Tape" is that the relationship between Segel and Diaz works. These two actors click well and we care about them. This is not a couple that hates each other and should divorce like Leslie Mann and Paul Rudd in "This is 40". This is just a couple who have had the real-world push them away from the bedroom. They work well together and are great to their kids. With the exception of a moment in the last act, there is no real conflict between these two. They love each other and simply want to do what they can to stop this video from getting out. This is refreshing when you see so many couples in films who are always on the brink of divorcing. There is no doubt in the audience's mind that Segel and Diaz should be together and are good for each other.
"Sex Tape" should be so much better than it is. It has a good cast, a good director, and a decent plotline. The problem is that nobody seems to care that they are there. Everyone is sleepwalking through their parts. The only laughs seem like improvised one-takes that were no doubt better than what was on the script. In a summer that seems to be empty of a good comedy, this might be the lowest point.
Wednesday, July 16, 2014
"Obvious Child" 3.5 stars (B+)
"Obvious Child" opens up with Donna Stern (Jenny Slate) delivering a stand-up performance. Donna is not delivering the token "What's up with airline food?" stand-up. Instead, her act deals more with how she desperately wants to fart when her boyfriend is around but knows that she shouldn't. Her act veers into the somewhat unfunny realm of how she is having problems in her relationship. Her boyfriend, stands uncomfortably in the audience, waiting until after the set to let her know that he is leaving her. He is upset about how vocal she has been about their relationship and it has driven him away. "Obvious Child" deals with a woman in her late 20s who isn't fully an adult yet. She feels completely comfortable talking about vaginal secretions but when she steps off the stage she hides away from everyone. Donna hasn't learned how to talk to people about serious events or really how to live an adult life. In "Obvious Child" she is being forced into full adulthood very quickly and it propels her to finally become the woman she was meant to be.
Shaken by her break-up, Donna decides to drink. Hard. During this night, she comes across Max (Jake Lacy). Max is friendly, decently charming, and in very close proximity to Donna and her drinks. The two hit it off and it results in a one night stand. Almost two months later, Donna discovers that she is pregnant. She decides that an abortion is in order. The only available date: Valentine's Day. Donna has weeks to decide how or if to break the information to her family or Max.
"Obvious Child", much like last year's "Frances Ha", is about a late 20s woman in New York (in this case Brooklyn) who is finally discovering what it means to be an adult. Whereas Frances from "Frances Ha" was more aloof to her immaturity, Donna from "Obvious Child" is simply repressing it. She knows what she wants to do. She knows she wants to reach out to her parents and tell them how she is feeling. She knows that she would feel better if she told Max about the upcoming abortion. Donna decides to do none of these things. She spends her days at her job at a bookstore that is going to be going-out-of-business soon. There is one moment where she is just sitting in one of the moving boxes. Donna is actively stopping progress from happening. She is blocking the change (the closing of the store) from occurring. While it isn't necessarily deep, it is a good visual representation of what her character is going through.
The romantic comedy genre has been pronounced dead for years now. "Obvious Child" comes the closest we have seen in a competent comedy with romantic touches. This isn't a movie with "meet cutes". Donna and Max are just at the same bar at the same time. It isn't "love at first site". It is simply "lust by proximity". Throughout the movie there are slight romantic touches which are almost exclusively rejected by Donna. This is probably the only "romantic comedy" that can be produced in today's film market without being a saccharine rehash of things we have already seen. For that (and so much more), "Obvious Child" needs to championed.
Jenny Slate delivers a great and surprisingly deep performance. Her character is introduced delivering somewhat sophomoric comedy that relies more on shock than it does in substance. Donna could have easily just been a character who is vulgar and in the end finds "true love". That isn't what this is. Slate's Donna changes from the stage to the streets. Her voice and demeanor changes. She becomes shy and reserved. Gone is the girl who will talk about anything on stage. She is replaced by a woman who can't strike up the courage to talk to her ex-boyfriend. The last act has Slate delivering some wonderful dramatic moments. We know this isn't easy for Donna but we know she is making her way through this rough patch. It would be great if Slate's wonderful performance was remembered come Oscar season. It is the kind of performance that surprises you and pulls you in completely. At the very least, hopefully this puts her on the radar of other pictures and we see more of her.
If there is any complaint to be had about "Obvious Child" is that it is a little slight. It runs a tight 86 minutes but could have used one section excised. One scene featuring David Cross as a comedian friend is almost entirely pointless to the story. It is almost like they had Cross around, knew they wanted to use him but they couldn't figure out how to do it. While it might be said that he represents Donna's more irresponsible past, it seems a little unneeded and is a waste of Cross. While this would have made it run 80 minutes (if not less), this time might have been better supplemented by including more footage of comedians performing. "Obvious Child" is not just the story of a woman finally accepting her adulthood. It is about her performances on-stage and how they both mirror and end up influencing the events of her real-life. Some more digging into this concept would have fleshed this out a bit. Maybe a few other comedians going through similar "performance therapy" moments would have driven this point home further.
"Obvious Child" is a sharp and touching film that hopefully makes filmmakers realize that the "romantic comedy" genre might not be dead but instead just needs a reinvention. It is one of the most moving films to be released in some time. Through her performance and the wonderful characterization, it is impossible not to fall in love with Jenny Slate and her character Donna. At the end of the movie, you will feel that you've made the journey with her. You might even walk away thinking about things you need to do in your own life to be pushed deeper (or at all) into adulthood.
Shaken by her break-up, Donna decides to drink. Hard. During this night, she comes across Max (Jake Lacy). Max is friendly, decently charming, and in very close proximity to Donna and her drinks. The two hit it off and it results in a one night stand. Almost two months later, Donna discovers that she is pregnant. She decides that an abortion is in order. The only available date: Valentine's Day. Donna has weeks to decide how or if to break the information to her family or Max.
"Obvious Child", much like last year's "Frances Ha", is about a late 20s woman in New York (in this case Brooklyn) who is finally discovering what it means to be an adult. Whereas Frances from "Frances Ha" was more aloof to her immaturity, Donna from "Obvious Child" is simply repressing it. She knows what she wants to do. She knows she wants to reach out to her parents and tell them how she is feeling. She knows that she would feel better if she told Max about the upcoming abortion. Donna decides to do none of these things. She spends her days at her job at a bookstore that is going to be going-out-of-business soon. There is one moment where she is just sitting in one of the moving boxes. Donna is actively stopping progress from happening. She is blocking the change (the closing of the store) from occurring. While it isn't necessarily deep, it is a good visual representation of what her character is going through.
The romantic comedy genre has been pronounced dead for years now. "Obvious Child" comes the closest we have seen in a competent comedy with romantic touches. This isn't a movie with "meet cutes". Donna and Max are just at the same bar at the same time. It isn't "love at first site". It is simply "lust by proximity". Throughout the movie there are slight romantic touches which are almost exclusively rejected by Donna. This is probably the only "romantic comedy" that can be produced in today's film market without being a saccharine rehash of things we have already seen. For that (and so much more), "Obvious Child" needs to championed.
Jenny Slate delivers a great and surprisingly deep performance. Her character is introduced delivering somewhat sophomoric comedy that relies more on shock than it does in substance. Donna could have easily just been a character who is vulgar and in the end finds "true love". That isn't what this is. Slate's Donna changes from the stage to the streets. Her voice and demeanor changes. She becomes shy and reserved. Gone is the girl who will talk about anything on stage. She is replaced by a woman who can't strike up the courage to talk to her ex-boyfriend. The last act has Slate delivering some wonderful dramatic moments. We know this isn't easy for Donna but we know she is making her way through this rough patch. It would be great if Slate's wonderful performance was remembered come Oscar season. It is the kind of performance that surprises you and pulls you in completely. At the very least, hopefully this puts her on the radar of other pictures and we see more of her.
If there is any complaint to be had about "Obvious Child" is that it is a little slight. It runs a tight 86 minutes but could have used one section excised. One scene featuring David Cross as a comedian friend is almost entirely pointless to the story. It is almost like they had Cross around, knew they wanted to use him but they couldn't figure out how to do it. While it might be said that he represents Donna's more irresponsible past, it seems a little unneeded and is a waste of Cross. While this would have made it run 80 minutes (if not less), this time might have been better supplemented by including more footage of comedians performing. "Obvious Child" is not just the story of a woman finally accepting her adulthood. It is about her performances on-stage and how they both mirror and end up influencing the events of her real-life. Some more digging into this concept would have fleshed this out a bit. Maybe a few other comedians going through similar "performance therapy" moments would have driven this point home further.
"Obvious Child" is a sharp and touching film that hopefully makes filmmakers realize that the "romantic comedy" genre might not be dead but instead just needs a reinvention. It is one of the most moving films to be released in some time. Through her performance and the wonderful characterization, it is impossible not to fall in love with Jenny Slate and her character Donna. At the end of the movie, you will feel that you've made the journey with her. You might even walk away thinking about things you need to do in your own life to be pushed deeper (or at all) into adulthood.
Tuesday, July 15, 2014
"A Long Way Down" 2.5 stars out of 4 (C)
When you think of a movie about four suicidal characters who decide to make a pact not to kill themselves, you wouldn't think that it would not take itself seriously enough. Sure, "A Long Way Down" has its moments of darkness and sadness but not nearly enough to support the story at hand. There is a decent dramedy idea somewhere in this film but it isn't necessarily shown on screen. While "A Long Way Down" is breezier than you might expect, it is mostly pleasant if not forgettable. Still, knowing what it could have been disappoints.
Martin (Pierce Brosnan) wants to kill himself. He has lost his career as a talk-show host after having sex with an underage girl. He has spiraled to the point where the only thing that he believes can cure his pain is jumping off the top of a London skyscraper on New Year's Eve. As he looks down at the pavement he hopes to meet soon, a quiet woman named Maureen (Toni Collette) queues up after him to do the deed herself. Soon, they are joined by Jess (Imogen Poots), a young woman crying her massacre off over her nightclub outfit, and JJ (Aaron Paul), a pizza delivery man. All four saw this spot as the jump off to infinity. Thinking that this couldn't have been a chance encounter, the four decide that tonight isn't the night they die. They make a pact to survive until Valentine's Day and then make the decision to live or die. The group become famous when the celebrity status of Martin makes their story popular in the news. The four must deal with the celebrity and their reasons for wanting to kill themselves as they grow closer together.
From that plot description, "A Long Way Down" sounds like a depressing indie film. Oddly enough, it is much more of a goofy comedy. There is no true desperation or sadness to be had in the opening sequence when all four want to kill themselves. It has more of a "meet cute" feeling. While we don't need all four characters crying their eyes out at the beginning of a dramedy, it still seems like it should have had a little darker tone to it. The music and the way it is filmed gives it this aloof style. Maybe this is director Pascal Chaumeil's French film-making sensibilities showing. There is a way to mix humor (preferably dark humor) and a serious concept like suicide but "A Long Way Down" never hits it. It sits almost exclusively in the realm of being oblivious to the seriousness. When it does decide to dig deeper into why these characters want to kill themselves, it rings somewhat hollow for the most part.
This is primarily a four-person production and as a result it asks a lot of the characters. Most aren't written deeply enough to really make us feel for them. In order to really connect with characters or, at the very least, not want them to kill themselves, you need to have more development than you are given here. The only character who is mostly developed is Maureen (Toni Collette). Her story and reason for wanting to kill herself is the closest this film comes to hitting the intermittently-heartbreaking note that the rest of the film should have been hitting left and right. It almost would have been a better film if it had only focused on Maureen and her motives and what she learns after her "attempt". Brosnan's Sam is a caricature of a celebrity. There is no genuine emotion coming from his character. It isn't Brosnan's performance. It is the weak characterization that gives him nothing more than monologues about his embarrassment over his actions and how he desperately wishes he was still a celebrity. Poot's Jess is given very little to do except act like a watered-down "manic pixie dream girl". There is the slightest of moments given to her reason for wanting to kill herself but it is quickly ignored. Her character would have been so much better if this story had been fleshed out. The film surprisingly admits that JJ's story isn't interesting or original. His motives for attempting to kill himself are given and somehow seem the most realistic of the four.
There are laughs and a few touching moments to be had in "A Long Way Down". These mostly come from what these four do with their roles. Although we might not totally understand or fully believe their motives or the actions of these characters, we have fun watching them. It might not make sense when this group of depressed individuals decide to take an island vacation to get away from the media storm but it is fun to watch them go on the vacation. It almost makes us forget the somewhat clunky story lines and just enjoy being the presence of these actors if not necessarily these characters.
"A Long Way Down" is a pleasant enough film. It is the type of movie you stream on a whim but forget about after you are done. It seems to awkwardly request you to turn off your brain and then abruptly wants you to turn it back on. If you are able to turn off your brain, you will be charmed by the performances and some of the quirks of these characters. If you are able to turn it back on, you will be touched by Maureen's story and, to a lesser extent, JJ's. If you lock into either mode, you will be disappointed that it isn't funny enough or serious enough.
Martin (Pierce Brosnan) wants to kill himself. He has lost his career as a talk-show host after having sex with an underage girl. He has spiraled to the point where the only thing that he believes can cure his pain is jumping off the top of a London skyscraper on New Year's Eve. As he looks down at the pavement he hopes to meet soon, a quiet woman named Maureen (Toni Collette) queues up after him to do the deed herself. Soon, they are joined by Jess (Imogen Poots), a young woman crying her massacre off over her nightclub outfit, and JJ (Aaron Paul), a pizza delivery man. All four saw this spot as the jump off to infinity. Thinking that this couldn't have been a chance encounter, the four decide that tonight isn't the night they die. They make a pact to survive until Valentine's Day and then make the decision to live or die. The group become famous when the celebrity status of Martin makes their story popular in the news. The four must deal with the celebrity and their reasons for wanting to kill themselves as they grow closer together.
From that plot description, "A Long Way Down" sounds like a depressing indie film. Oddly enough, it is much more of a goofy comedy. There is no true desperation or sadness to be had in the opening sequence when all four want to kill themselves. It has more of a "meet cute" feeling. While we don't need all four characters crying their eyes out at the beginning of a dramedy, it still seems like it should have had a little darker tone to it. The music and the way it is filmed gives it this aloof style. Maybe this is director Pascal Chaumeil's French film-making sensibilities showing. There is a way to mix humor (preferably dark humor) and a serious concept like suicide but "A Long Way Down" never hits it. It sits almost exclusively in the realm of being oblivious to the seriousness. When it does decide to dig deeper into why these characters want to kill themselves, it rings somewhat hollow for the most part.
This is primarily a four-person production and as a result it asks a lot of the characters. Most aren't written deeply enough to really make us feel for them. In order to really connect with characters or, at the very least, not want them to kill themselves, you need to have more development than you are given here. The only character who is mostly developed is Maureen (Toni Collette). Her story and reason for wanting to kill herself is the closest this film comes to hitting the intermittently-heartbreaking note that the rest of the film should have been hitting left and right. It almost would have been a better film if it had only focused on Maureen and her motives and what she learns after her "attempt". Brosnan's Sam is a caricature of a celebrity. There is no genuine emotion coming from his character. It isn't Brosnan's performance. It is the weak characterization that gives him nothing more than monologues about his embarrassment over his actions and how he desperately wishes he was still a celebrity. Poot's Jess is given very little to do except act like a watered-down "manic pixie dream girl". There is the slightest of moments given to her reason for wanting to kill herself but it is quickly ignored. Her character would have been so much better if this story had been fleshed out. The film surprisingly admits that JJ's story isn't interesting or original. His motives for attempting to kill himself are given and somehow seem the most realistic of the four.
There are laughs and a few touching moments to be had in "A Long Way Down". These mostly come from what these four do with their roles. Although we might not totally understand or fully believe their motives or the actions of these characters, we have fun watching them. It might not make sense when this group of depressed individuals decide to take an island vacation to get away from the media storm but it is fun to watch them go on the vacation. It almost makes us forget the somewhat clunky story lines and just enjoy being the presence of these actors if not necessarily these characters.
"A Long Way Down" is a pleasant enough film. It is the type of movie you stream on a whim but forget about after you are done. It seems to awkwardly request you to turn off your brain and then abruptly wants you to turn it back on. If you are able to turn off your brain, you will be charmed by the performances and some of the quirks of these characters. If you are able to turn it back on, you will be touched by Maureen's story and, to a lesser extent, JJ's. If you lock into either mode, you will be disappointed that it isn't funny enough or serious enough.
Saturday, July 12, 2014
"Dawn of the Planet of the Apes" 3 stars (B-)
"Dawn of the Planet of the Apes" does something that I'm not quite sure I've ever seen in a film. I found myself caring about the CGI characters astronomically more than I cared about the human characters. The CGI apes features in "Dawn" are far more interesting, exciting, and thought-provoking than absolutely anything offered by their human counterparts. There were large stretches of time where the film focuses on the human characters where you sit bored out of your mind. You are watching these stock characters (the racist violent guy, the leader who will stop at nothing, the level-headed scientist, the African American character who possibly has a name) interact with each other in cold and lifeless dialogue. The film then cuts to the CGI ape story and you realize just how much more fleshed out and interesting these 1s and 0s are as compared to the humans. CGI characters are often involving but don't necessarily feel "alive" to the degree that we care. You have the "Transformers" films where the humans are really unneeded (except for the hilarity of repeating the name "Witwicky") and you are only truly interested in seeing these 0s and 1s attack each other. That entertainment is the equivalent of a monster truck show or just watching things burn in a fire. While "Dawn" isn't necessarily a great film, it does some of the most interesting and daring work with CGI characters yet seen in film.
The world is in turmoil after the events that took place at the end of "Rise of the Planet of the Apes". The super-intelligent ape population lead by Caesar (Andy Serkis) has moved into the San Francisco woods. They have spread the ALZ-113 virus (called the "Simian Flu") to the human population which has killed off most of mankind. The human survivors are immune to the virus and live in a cramped towns-square without electricity. A small group of humans lead by Malcolm (Jason Clarke) has descended in the ape-populated woods in search of a hydro-electric dam that will hopefully restore power to the city. A member of the expedition kills an ape which forces the human and ape populations to clash. Caesar draws a line explaining to the humans (in broken spoken English much to their surprise) that the apes home is in the woods and that humans must stay out. Malcolm and Dreyfus (Gary Oldman), the leader of the survivors, know that the dam that is in ape territory is vital to reconnecting with the rest of the world. Malcolm knows that he has to make an alliance with Caesar in the apes in order to make this happen. After the death of one of their own, the apes are hesitant to allow the humans into their world. Caesar believes that the ape population must co-exist with humans. He is meant with the resistance of Koba (Toby Kebbell) who doesn't trust humans after being tortured throughout his life. The clash between Caesar and Koba only builds as the humans come further and further into the apes world.
To say that the human characters are poorly-defined is an understatement. The first real exposure we have with bad human characterization is Carver (Kirk Acavedo), the member of the humans who kills the ape in the first act. Carver is so paint-by-numbers that it borders on insulting. He is the dumb and violent racist who is there to generate conflict. If he is in a scene, it is more than likely just for him to repeat how much he dislikes the apes and how he doesn't believe they can be trusted. While there would no doubt be humans who don't necessarily trust hyper-intelligent apes that can speak English, the actions of Acavedo's character seem forced. There is some slight description about how Carver is the only one who knows what he is doing with the electrical currents but this seems so shoe-horned in simply for the purpose of generating conflict. Acavedo is a good actor which he showed in the TV series "Fringe". Here he is given nothing to do except wield a gun and look equal parts angry and afraid. He is the first human we come into contact with in the film and is therefore the first indication that we aren't going to see well-written human characters. While Clarke and Oldman do well enough with their roles, they are really not given anything interesting to do. Clarke's Malcolm spends almost all of his time pleading with Caesar and the apes to be trusted. Oldman's Dreyfus spends almost all of his time just delivering speeches to his people that everything is going to be alright. Both actors deserve more than what they are given here.
That said, the visual effects and interaction of the ape population is just astounding. You rarely are forced back into the reality that these are computer-generated creatures battling, arguing, and riding on horses. I'm not sure if the credit should go to Serkis and the other motion-captured actors for their amazingly life-like portrayal of the apes or the visual effects team. Either way, the apes are the main reason to see "Dawn of the Planet of the Apes". The interaction between the group, the drama built, and the surprising character developments of these creatures is extremely enthralling. After watching the heartless and boring destruction brought on by the 1s and 0s of "Transformers: The Search for More Money" it is great to see visual effects be used in a productive and impressive way which propels the story forward. Director Matt Reeves is in his element when he is orchestrating the ape battle sequences. He showed in 2008's "Cloverfield" that he knows how to film destruction and mayhem well. These scenes of the last act are truly something to behold. While there are some errors in logic (automatic weapons that apparently never need reloading) they are still some of the most jaw-dropping experiences we have seen in film in quite some time. When these apes battle it is not a shiny car commercial. These are brutal and surprising moments that will leave the audience a little shaken.
A lot has been said saying that "Dawn" is a superior film to "Rise". I'm not sure I totally agree with that. The battle scenes and action are far better in "Dawn" as is the characterization and development of the supporting ape characters. Still, this doesn't necessarily rise above the human element of "Rise". You cared about the humans in "Rise" to some degree. In "Dawn" the human characters are just wasting valuable ape time. It can be argued that the character of Caesar was better developed in "Rise" as well. You were shown his motives and why he truly wanted to secede from human civilization. Here he is just a grimacing leader who battles well. Caesar is still leaps and bounds more interesting and developed than most effects-developed characters though.
In a lackluster summer, a film like "Dawn of the Planet of the Apes" is likely to be championed. It has great action scenes, eye-opening visual effects, an interesting story, and some decent philosophical additions. This isn't necessary a "smart film" but it is far smarter than what we have been exposed to this season. It isn't the "great summer film" that we desperately have needed this year but it is an entertaining and good movie that will no doubt pull in audiences. If anything, it is a technological marvel and a major step in the direction of computer-generated characters being on par with human characters. It would have been great, however, if the flesh-and-blood characters could have been presented less primitive.
The world is in turmoil after the events that took place at the end of "Rise of the Planet of the Apes". The super-intelligent ape population lead by Caesar (Andy Serkis) has moved into the San Francisco woods. They have spread the ALZ-113 virus (called the "Simian Flu") to the human population which has killed off most of mankind. The human survivors are immune to the virus and live in a cramped towns-square without electricity. A small group of humans lead by Malcolm (Jason Clarke) has descended in the ape-populated woods in search of a hydro-electric dam that will hopefully restore power to the city. A member of the expedition kills an ape which forces the human and ape populations to clash. Caesar draws a line explaining to the humans (in broken spoken English much to their surprise) that the apes home is in the woods and that humans must stay out. Malcolm and Dreyfus (Gary Oldman), the leader of the survivors, know that the dam that is in ape territory is vital to reconnecting with the rest of the world. Malcolm knows that he has to make an alliance with Caesar in the apes in order to make this happen. After the death of one of their own, the apes are hesitant to allow the humans into their world. Caesar believes that the ape population must co-exist with humans. He is meant with the resistance of Koba (Toby Kebbell) who doesn't trust humans after being tortured throughout his life. The clash between Caesar and Koba only builds as the humans come further and further into the apes world.
To say that the human characters are poorly-defined is an understatement. The first real exposure we have with bad human characterization is Carver (Kirk Acavedo), the member of the humans who kills the ape in the first act. Carver is so paint-by-numbers that it borders on insulting. He is the dumb and violent racist who is there to generate conflict. If he is in a scene, it is more than likely just for him to repeat how much he dislikes the apes and how he doesn't believe they can be trusted. While there would no doubt be humans who don't necessarily trust hyper-intelligent apes that can speak English, the actions of Acavedo's character seem forced. There is some slight description about how Carver is the only one who knows what he is doing with the electrical currents but this seems so shoe-horned in simply for the purpose of generating conflict. Acavedo is a good actor which he showed in the TV series "Fringe". Here he is given nothing to do except wield a gun and look equal parts angry and afraid. He is the first human we come into contact with in the film and is therefore the first indication that we aren't going to see well-written human characters. While Clarke and Oldman do well enough with their roles, they are really not given anything interesting to do. Clarke's Malcolm spends almost all of his time pleading with Caesar and the apes to be trusted. Oldman's Dreyfus spends almost all of his time just delivering speeches to his people that everything is going to be alright. Both actors deserve more than what they are given here.
That said, the visual effects and interaction of the ape population is just astounding. You rarely are forced back into the reality that these are computer-generated creatures battling, arguing, and riding on horses. I'm not sure if the credit should go to Serkis and the other motion-captured actors for their amazingly life-like portrayal of the apes or the visual effects team. Either way, the apes are the main reason to see "Dawn of the Planet of the Apes". The interaction between the group, the drama built, and the surprising character developments of these creatures is extremely enthralling. After watching the heartless and boring destruction brought on by the 1s and 0s of "Transformers: The Search for More Money" it is great to see visual effects be used in a productive and impressive way which propels the story forward. Director Matt Reeves is in his element when he is orchestrating the ape battle sequences. He showed in 2008's "Cloverfield" that he knows how to film destruction and mayhem well. These scenes of the last act are truly something to behold. While there are some errors in logic (automatic weapons that apparently never need reloading) they are still some of the most jaw-dropping experiences we have seen in film in quite some time. When these apes battle it is not a shiny car commercial. These are brutal and surprising moments that will leave the audience a little shaken.
A lot has been said saying that "Dawn" is a superior film to "Rise". I'm not sure I totally agree with that. The battle scenes and action are far better in "Dawn" as is the characterization and development of the supporting ape characters. Still, this doesn't necessarily rise above the human element of "Rise". You cared about the humans in "Rise" to some degree. In "Dawn" the human characters are just wasting valuable ape time. It can be argued that the character of Caesar was better developed in "Rise" as well. You were shown his motives and why he truly wanted to secede from human civilization. Here he is just a grimacing leader who battles well. Caesar is still leaps and bounds more interesting and developed than most effects-developed characters though.
In a lackluster summer, a film like "Dawn of the Planet of the Apes" is likely to be championed. It has great action scenes, eye-opening visual effects, an interesting story, and some decent philosophical additions. This isn't necessary a "smart film" but it is far smarter than what we have been exposed to this season. It isn't the "great summer film" that we desperately have needed this year but it is an entertaining and good movie that will no doubt pull in audiences. If anything, it is a technological marvel and a major step in the direction of computer-generated characters being on par with human characters. It would have been great, however, if the flesh-and-blood characters could have been presented less primitive.
Sunday, April 20, 2014
Transcendence - 3 stars out of 4 (B-)
Every now and then, a movie comes along that I can't help but like even though it isn't technically a good movie. These movies are often deemed "so bad they're good" and may very well be my downfall as a critic. Wally Pfister's Transcendence is a simply ridiculous movie. It seems to take itself incredibly seriously yet has characters who only vaguely resemble people doing things that don't sound possible even in the most convoluted science-fiction film. If it weren't for the decent special effects, I would have thought a science-fiction film from the mid-90s was put on a shelf only to be released two decades later. Transcendence is not a good movie but it is impossible not to be impressed by how committed it is to not making sense.
Dr. Will Caster (Johnny Depp) has pioneered in the field of artificial intelligence. He has developed an adaptive computer "person" called "P.I.N.N." which he hopes will aid humanity through becoming sentient and forming a "collective intelligence" with the rest of the world's data. Will calls this "Transcendence" and his plans are applauded as much as they are lauded. A member of an anti-technology group attempts to assassinate Caster. Although they are not successful in killing him, it is discovered that the bullet with tainted with radiation and that Caster's blood has been poisoned. With only weeks left before he will die, Caster decides the only way he can continue his work is if is implanted inside "P.I.N.N.". Caster's wife Evelyn (Rebecca Hall) and his colleague Max (Paul Bettany) begin the process of copying every brain impulse of Caster into a database. The experiment is a success and quickly the computerized Will starts learning and growing. Will asks to be connected to the Internet so that it can get more information and further the work he had started. Max wonders if this new Will is really Will or a digital menace that will stop at nothing to achieve the goals outlined in its code.
Wally Pfister is Christopher Nolan's primary cinematographer and Transcendence is his film time in the director's seat. As his work with Nolan would suggest, Pfister can make beautiful scenes. Every shot in Transcendence is gorgeous (and that is not solely because Hall is in most of it). Each scene is masterfully framed and photographed and is easily one of the best looking movies to come out this year. The fact that it is beautifully filmed utter nonsense makes Transcendence so much more than it would have been in the hands of a more competent director who was less interested in the appearance. As it is, Pfister has created the largest-budget and most impressive Sci-Fi Channel film ever created. The fact that it is so good looking makes every twist and move in the story that much more interesting.
Transcendence is almost daring in how little sense it makes. There are large stretches of this film that make absolutely no sense in any semblance of a real-world scenario. The movements toward Will's "Transcendence" would raise red flags in almost any slightly realistic movie. A scene where Computer Will hacks into Wall Street and performs fast stock trading to completely fund his post-morterm work is hilarious in the gutsiness it has. This action would have no doubt resulted in the money being frozen and people looking deep into the action of a such a high-profile company. Transcedence doesn't bat an eye over logistics or reality. It keeps feeding the audience quasi-intellectual statements on the destructive qualities of technology and moving bravely and stupidly forward. The story just keeps digging itself deeper and deeper into the ground until it gets so ridiculous all you can is laugh and keep watching. Eventually you begin to wonder why the military or the rest of the country doesn't seem to know or care about what is occurring. Video of the company's "experiments" makes it to the Internet. Still, nobody seems to want to stop Caster. The lack of a realistic and predictable retaliation by the country gives the whole thing a charming quality to it. It is like reading an insane story written by a teen who has clearly read too much science-fiction and wants to make "deep" insights on the nature of technology. "Reality be damned! These 1s and 0s will help and destroy us!" The closest comparison would be 2007's The Happening. That film was more flat-out "unintentionally hilarious" though. Both films will have audiences who activate even the slightest part of their brain looking cock-eyed at the screen and laughing at the ridiculousness presented.
There is no real weak element in Transcendence. The performances are universally fine. Some slight awkwardness by Depp (maybe playing a "cartoon character" for too long has permanently altered his acting) are eventually pushed away when he just becomes a disembodied voice. Hall plays the fiercely-devoted wife well. Bettany furrows his brow in worry the same way he has in almost everything he has made. The story builds and moves at a decent pace. It is entertaining and doesn't really succumb the explosions or big action scenes found in most big-budget studio pictures. The film's hesitation to degrade itself in these manners is no doubt Pfister at work. Nolan has absolutely no hand in the creation of this film and it would seem that Pfister is trying to emulate his direction. The direction is well done. It is the insanity of the script that "destroys" the film.
There is a "Shelley-esque" quality to much of the film. The idea of resurrecting a dead person using technology is primed for cheap sci-fi horror. If you take Transcendence as a twist on Frankenstein it becomes easier to swallow. You will still be interrupted by huge logic issues but at least you will shrug them off by dismissing the whole thing as a movie about a dead guy resurrected in a computer. Still, the lack of an angry pitchfork-wielding mob feels odd. In the end, we don't necessarily know how we feel about anything we have seen. The noncommittal nature of the film isn't artistically motivated like the ending of films like Memento or Inception. The audience is just left wondering if they should have been cheering for the "monster" the whole time or not.
Transcendence is the oddest recommendation. It looks great and moves along well. The overall enjoyment of the story is in how ridiculous it is. It is not ridiculous in the way that most big-budget blockbusters can be. Transcendence is something else. Much like its protagonist, the story resembles a heartless series of 1s and 0s uploaded into a computer to produce a story. It doesn't have feeling but it certainly knows how to run code. The inhuman characteristic of the presentation is half its charm.
Dr. Will Caster (Johnny Depp) has pioneered in the field of artificial intelligence. He has developed an adaptive computer "person" called "P.I.N.N." which he hopes will aid humanity through becoming sentient and forming a "collective intelligence" with the rest of the world's data. Will calls this "Transcendence" and his plans are applauded as much as they are lauded. A member of an anti-technology group attempts to assassinate Caster. Although they are not successful in killing him, it is discovered that the bullet with tainted with radiation and that Caster's blood has been poisoned. With only weeks left before he will die, Caster decides the only way he can continue his work is if is implanted inside "P.I.N.N.". Caster's wife Evelyn (Rebecca Hall) and his colleague Max (Paul Bettany) begin the process of copying every brain impulse of Caster into a database. The experiment is a success and quickly the computerized Will starts learning and growing. Will asks to be connected to the Internet so that it can get more information and further the work he had started. Max wonders if this new Will is really Will or a digital menace that will stop at nothing to achieve the goals outlined in its code.
Wally Pfister is Christopher Nolan's primary cinematographer and Transcendence is his film time in the director's seat. As his work with Nolan would suggest, Pfister can make beautiful scenes. Every shot in Transcendence is gorgeous (and that is not solely because Hall is in most of it). Each scene is masterfully framed and photographed and is easily one of the best looking movies to come out this year. The fact that it is beautifully filmed utter nonsense makes Transcendence so much more than it would have been in the hands of a more competent director who was less interested in the appearance. As it is, Pfister has created the largest-budget and most impressive Sci-Fi Channel film ever created. The fact that it is so good looking makes every twist and move in the story that much more interesting.
Transcendence is almost daring in how little sense it makes. There are large stretches of this film that make absolutely no sense in any semblance of a real-world scenario. The movements toward Will's "Transcendence" would raise red flags in almost any slightly realistic movie. A scene where Computer Will hacks into Wall Street and performs fast stock trading to completely fund his post-morterm work is hilarious in the gutsiness it has. This action would have no doubt resulted in the money being frozen and people looking deep into the action of a such a high-profile company. Transcedence doesn't bat an eye over logistics or reality. It keeps feeding the audience quasi-intellectual statements on the destructive qualities of technology and moving bravely and stupidly forward. The story just keeps digging itself deeper and deeper into the ground until it gets so ridiculous all you can is laugh and keep watching. Eventually you begin to wonder why the military or the rest of the country doesn't seem to know or care about what is occurring. Video of the company's "experiments" makes it to the Internet. Still, nobody seems to want to stop Caster. The lack of a realistic and predictable retaliation by the country gives the whole thing a charming quality to it. It is like reading an insane story written by a teen who has clearly read too much science-fiction and wants to make "deep" insights on the nature of technology. "Reality be damned! These 1s and 0s will help and destroy us!" The closest comparison would be 2007's The Happening. That film was more flat-out "unintentionally hilarious" though. Both films will have audiences who activate even the slightest part of their brain looking cock-eyed at the screen and laughing at the ridiculousness presented.
There is no real weak element in Transcendence. The performances are universally fine. Some slight awkwardness by Depp (maybe playing a "cartoon character" for too long has permanently altered his acting) are eventually pushed away when he just becomes a disembodied voice. Hall plays the fiercely-devoted wife well. Bettany furrows his brow in worry the same way he has in almost everything he has made. The story builds and moves at a decent pace. It is entertaining and doesn't really succumb the explosions or big action scenes found in most big-budget studio pictures. The film's hesitation to degrade itself in these manners is no doubt Pfister at work. Nolan has absolutely no hand in the creation of this film and it would seem that Pfister is trying to emulate his direction. The direction is well done. It is the insanity of the script that "destroys" the film.
There is a "Shelley-esque" quality to much of the film. The idea of resurrecting a dead person using technology is primed for cheap sci-fi horror. If you take Transcendence as a twist on Frankenstein it becomes easier to swallow. You will still be interrupted by huge logic issues but at least you will shrug them off by dismissing the whole thing as a movie about a dead guy resurrected in a computer. Still, the lack of an angry pitchfork-wielding mob feels odd. In the end, we don't necessarily know how we feel about anything we have seen. The noncommittal nature of the film isn't artistically motivated like the ending of films like Memento or Inception. The audience is just left wondering if they should have been cheering for the "monster" the whole time or not.
Transcendence is the oddest recommendation. It looks great and moves along well. The overall enjoyment of the story is in how ridiculous it is. It is not ridiculous in the way that most big-budget blockbusters can be. Transcendence is something else. Much like its protagonist, the story resembles a heartless series of 1s and 0s uploaded into a computer to produce a story. It doesn't have feeling but it certainly knows how to run code. The inhuman characteristic of the presentation is half its charm.
Sunday, April 6, 2014
"Amores Perros" 4 stars out of 4 (A)
At the time of it's release Amoros Perros was compared favorably to Pulp Fiction. Both films have brutal and unexpected violence. Both films also deal with interweaving story lines. This is the extent of the comparisons. Amores Perros is simply a deeper movie than Pulp Fiction. Through the three story-lines, director Alejandro González Iñárritu has created a beautiful film about loyalty that feels as fresh now as it did in 1999.
Amores Perros involves three chaptered story lines which occasionally come into contact with each other. The first part is "Octavio y Susana", which concerns a love triangle between Octavio (Gael García Bernal) and his brother Ramiro's (Marco Pérez) wife Susana (Vanessa Bauche). Ramiro is cold and abusive toward Susana and this angers Octavio who believes she should be treated better. He starts to devise a plan to make money in hopes that it will prove to Susana that he can take care of her. Octavio starts taking his pit bull to the local dogfighting ring and his dog proves to be a true warrior and the money starts coming in. The second story is "Daniel y Valeria". Daniel (Álvaro Guerrero) has just left his wife for his supermodel mistress Valeria (Goya Toledo). They move into a nice new apartment with a gorgeous view of a building-sized advertisement featuring Valeria. Things are great until Valeria gets in an accident which puts her in a wheelchair and stops her from working. As she waits at home, her dog named Richie, falls into a hole in the floor and won't come out. Her immobility and frustration over losing her "baby" Richie brings unexpected tensions between Daniel and Valeria. The third story is "El Chivo y Maru". El Chivo (Emilio Echevarría) appears to be a homeless man with a cart a pack of dogs following him everywhere he goes. What people don't see is the machete hiding in his cart. It isn't there just for self-defense or the defense of his dogs. El Chivo is a hitmen who has a history as a guerrilla. Years ago he had left his wife and his daughter Maru (Lourdes Echevarría) to follow the cause he believed in. The cause fell apart and now he lives a life as a "garbage man" taking the occasional hit men job to feed his dogs and also himself occasionally. He is given a job that he can't pass up. El Chivo makes a promise that this will be his final job so that he can reconnect with his daughter and re-start the life he left.
While the story-lines interweave occasionally (characters come into contact with each other briefly from time-to-time), they are three separate stories that deal with similar themes in different ways. All three stories could have produced impressive full-length films. The film begins in a brutal and violent way with "Octavio y Susana". The violence that involves dogs and humans is difficult to watch at times. Bernal is wonderful as Octavio, a man who is fiercely devoted to Susana. We never see him as being a bad person who is cheating with his brother's wife and submitting his dog to brutal violence. The strength of Bernal is that we feel sorry for him the whole time. He perfectly prepares us for the moral dilemma the audience will continue to have with feeling sympathy for characters who are doing unsympathetic things.
"Daniel y Valeria" is surprisingly the most mentally intense portion of the film. Coming off of the violence of "Octavio y Susana", "Daniel y Valeria" starts in a light-hearted fashion. While Daniel is cheating on his wife and leaving his child behind, the love between Daniel and Valeria is presented in an adorable fashion. It is only after Valeria's injury and her dog's disappearance takes a surprisingly depressing twist. "Daniel y Valeria" is the most calm of the three parts but is probably the most psychologically impacting. The storyline and the tension generated by Richie being heard in the walls and the floor but never coming out keeps the audience on edge in a way that you don't see often. "Daniel y Valeria" is the most fleshed out and honest part of the three stories. In some ways, it is the most powerful.
"El Chivo y Maru" is arguably weakest of the three sections. It may be simply that you are almost two hours into a 150-minute film that has already been emotionally taxing. While the interaction between El Chivo and his dogs is really touching, it would seem that a story involving a homeless hit man would have a little more flare to it. The power in this section, much like the first two sections, is how we can draw sympathy for someone is essentially doing a terrible thing. El Chivo's dogs are his life. He seemingly takes jobs just to feed them. While it has probably the saddest moment in the film, the last minutes are not as strong as you would imagine they would be. It somewhat appears that they simply didn't know how to end El Chivo's story. Maybe it is that it can have no true ending. Saying that "El Chivo y Maru" is the weakest of the sections does not mean it isn't good. It is simply very good compared to the other two sections brilliance.
The violence toward dogs in "Octavio y Susana" was as controversial during my 2014 screening as it was almost 15 years ago. The audience reacted to the violence toward dogs much more so than they did the violence toward humans. Anyone who is averse to seeing violence toward animals would do well to prepare themselves. While the dogfighting involved no real fighting (simply "playing") and the dead or dying dogs were really just sedated, it is still hard to watch from time to time. It is a great example how quick cutting and sound effects can create a powerful and difficult experience. While it is still rough to see even a sedated animal lying there with their tongue out covered in realistic stage blood, it is an emotionally priming sight that helps us feel for the human characters even more. I don't know if we would have had the same feelings toward Octavio, Daniel and Susana, or El Chivo if it weren't for our heightened emotions that came from the dog violence.
Even 15 years later, Amores Perros is a brilliant and powerful film. As comparisons to Pulp Fiction either in 2000 or now is short-sighted and do not convey the true feeling of the film. While it isn't always an easy watch, Amores Perros creates the same loyality from audiences as the dogs in the film have for their owners. They don't see criminals, adulterers, or hit men. They see damaged people who they feel for. So do we.
Amores Perros involves three chaptered story lines which occasionally come into contact with each other. The first part is "Octavio y Susana", which concerns a love triangle between Octavio (Gael García Bernal) and his brother Ramiro's (Marco Pérez) wife Susana (Vanessa Bauche). Ramiro is cold and abusive toward Susana and this angers Octavio who believes she should be treated better. He starts to devise a plan to make money in hopes that it will prove to Susana that he can take care of her. Octavio starts taking his pit bull to the local dogfighting ring and his dog proves to be a true warrior and the money starts coming in. The second story is "Daniel y Valeria". Daniel (Álvaro Guerrero) has just left his wife for his supermodel mistress Valeria (Goya Toledo). They move into a nice new apartment with a gorgeous view of a building-sized advertisement featuring Valeria. Things are great until Valeria gets in an accident which puts her in a wheelchair and stops her from working. As she waits at home, her dog named Richie, falls into a hole in the floor and won't come out. Her immobility and frustration over losing her "baby" Richie brings unexpected tensions between Daniel and Valeria. The third story is "El Chivo y Maru". El Chivo (Emilio Echevarría) appears to be a homeless man with a cart a pack of dogs following him everywhere he goes. What people don't see is the machete hiding in his cart. It isn't there just for self-defense or the defense of his dogs. El Chivo is a hitmen who has a history as a guerrilla. Years ago he had left his wife and his daughter Maru (Lourdes Echevarría) to follow the cause he believed in. The cause fell apart and now he lives a life as a "garbage man" taking the occasional hit men job to feed his dogs and also himself occasionally. He is given a job that he can't pass up. El Chivo makes a promise that this will be his final job so that he can reconnect with his daughter and re-start the life he left.
While the story-lines interweave occasionally (characters come into contact with each other briefly from time-to-time), they are three separate stories that deal with similar themes in different ways. All three stories could have produced impressive full-length films. The film begins in a brutal and violent way with "Octavio y Susana". The violence that involves dogs and humans is difficult to watch at times. Bernal is wonderful as Octavio, a man who is fiercely devoted to Susana. We never see him as being a bad person who is cheating with his brother's wife and submitting his dog to brutal violence. The strength of Bernal is that we feel sorry for him the whole time. He perfectly prepares us for the moral dilemma the audience will continue to have with feeling sympathy for characters who are doing unsympathetic things.
"Daniel y Valeria" is surprisingly the most mentally intense portion of the film. Coming off of the violence of "Octavio y Susana", "Daniel y Valeria" starts in a light-hearted fashion. While Daniel is cheating on his wife and leaving his child behind, the love between Daniel and Valeria is presented in an adorable fashion. It is only after Valeria's injury and her dog's disappearance takes a surprisingly depressing twist. "Daniel y Valeria" is the most calm of the three parts but is probably the most psychologically impacting. The storyline and the tension generated by Richie being heard in the walls and the floor but never coming out keeps the audience on edge in a way that you don't see often. "Daniel y Valeria" is the most fleshed out and honest part of the three stories. In some ways, it is the most powerful.
"El Chivo y Maru" is arguably weakest of the three sections. It may be simply that you are almost two hours into a 150-minute film that has already been emotionally taxing. While the interaction between El Chivo and his dogs is really touching, it would seem that a story involving a homeless hit man would have a little more flare to it. The power in this section, much like the first two sections, is how we can draw sympathy for someone is essentially doing a terrible thing. El Chivo's dogs are his life. He seemingly takes jobs just to feed them. While it has probably the saddest moment in the film, the last minutes are not as strong as you would imagine they would be. It somewhat appears that they simply didn't know how to end El Chivo's story. Maybe it is that it can have no true ending. Saying that "El Chivo y Maru" is the weakest of the sections does not mean it isn't good. It is simply very good compared to the other two sections brilliance.
The violence toward dogs in "Octavio y Susana" was as controversial during my 2014 screening as it was almost 15 years ago. The audience reacted to the violence toward dogs much more so than they did the violence toward humans. Anyone who is averse to seeing violence toward animals would do well to prepare themselves. While the dogfighting involved no real fighting (simply "playing") and the dead or dying dogs were really just sedated, it is still hard to watch from time to time. It is a great example how quick cutting and sound effects can create a powerful and difficult experience. While it is still rough to see even a sedated animal lying there with their tongue out covered in realistic stage blood, it is an emotionally priming sight that helps us feel for the human characters even more. I don't know if we would have had the same feelings toward Octavio, Daniel and Susana, or El Chivo if it weren't for our heightened emotions that came from the dog violence.
Even 15 years later, Amores Perros is a brilliant and powerful film. As comparisons to Pulp Fiction either in 2000 or now is short-sighted and do not convey the true feeling of the film. While it isn't always an easy watch, Amores Perros creates the same loyality from audiences as the dogs in the film have for their owners. They don't see criminals, adulterers, or hit men. They see damaged people who they feel for. So do we.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)