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.
"Anita" - 3 stars out of 4 (B)
Anita strives to prove one thing: that the Anita Hill/Clarence Thomas hearings of 1991 were a sham. Clarence Thomas was being vetted to become a Supreme Court justice and Anita Hill, a former co-worker of Thomas, wanted those who would be appointing him to know about what she claims was his past. She wrote a letter and was called in to what appeared to be a courtroom proceeding. She was questioned for a whole day by 14 white men as if she had committed a crime. Freida Lee Mock's documentary Anita is trying to convince that the hearings were a clear example of men blaming a female victim. She wants you to believe that the men entered that hearing with one goal. It was not to hear the truth. It was to prove Anita Hill wrong. In the end, Anita's testimony may not have changed Thomas's path but as Anita proves, it had a deeper impact on society over time.
Anita Hill didn't want to become a star when she wrote her letter concerning Clarence Thomas in 1991. Thomas was being vetted by then President George Bush to become a Supreme Court judge. Hill wanted the Senate to know about events she claims happened while the two worked together. Thomas is said to have made a few romantic passes at Hill to which she turned down. He didn't continue to act on this but he did continue to make Hill uncomfortable. Thomas is said to have made innuendos about his genitals and about pubic hair. Hill just wanted the Senate to know about what she claims to have gone through before they made their minds up on Thomas. The firestorm that followed was not what she was expecting would happen. Her "anonymous" letter was leaked and it became a major news story. Soon, Hill was giving her testimony in front of 14 male members of the Senate. They questioned every event she claims happened. In the end, her testimony was dismissed and Thomas was appointed as a judge. The attention to Hill continued though. Around the time, she shunned the exposure. 20 plus years later, her view on the event has changed. Anita presents Anita Hill as a Civil Rights activist whose exposure in 1991 had a major impact on society.
My only exposure to the Anita Hill case came from seeing repeats of the Saturday Night Live skit featuring Ellen Cleghorne as Hill. The skit is featured briefly in Anita and is edited to make it look like an uncomfortable and unfunny satire. The hearings are presented in this film in a squirm-inducing way. The audience at my screening was visibly cringing at the questions and phrasing of many members of the Senate. Hill is presented as strong and incredibly composed the entire time. The film doesn't question her testimony in the slightest, instead presenting her as someone who didn't crave the spotlight at all. She is presented as someone who simply wanted to anonymously get her word out. Thomas is only briefly shown giving his testimony which accused the Senate hearing as presented African American men as a racial stereotype and the hearing to be a "high-tech lynching". It doesn't present Thomas a liar as much as someone pulling "the race card".
The hard thing about the Anita Hill case then and now is there is no solid evidence as to Hill being correct. The testimonies of a few of her co-workers at the time Hill claims she was harassed are given. The testimonies of more of her co-workers were ignored. Anita doesn't necessarily strive to prove that Hill was correct and that Thomas was lying. It is trying to prove the case was an example of "witness blaming". It opened up a dialogue about work-place sexual harassment. The last part of the documentary presents how Hill's testimony had opened up the ability for other women who were harassed to make their case known. Even if Hill's testimony were a total lie, it still resulted in people knowing that "work-place sexual harassment" exists.
Mock's direction presents Hill in a positive although not "godly" way. One rather long shot of a picture of Rosa Parks on the wall seems a little over-the-top. It would seem that she could present Hill as an important part of the on-going female civil rights movement without resorting to such a direct comparison to Parks. For the most part, she simply uses Hill's actions in 1991 and her actions today to present her as an activist. The Parks shot seems redundant and grandiose. The film at 95 minutes feels a little longer than it needs to be. Some tightening during the presentation of the hearing could have helped speed the story along. The last part dealing with Hill's impact starting the dialogue of sexual harassment could have been an act in itself, if not just a full-length documentary. While it is a tiny complaint, this section is easily one of the most interesting parts of the film.
Anita reminds us in an entertaining and well-made manner an event that took place over 20 years ago. It reminds us of a time when "sexual harassment" wasn't necessarily a thing. What may have seemed like little more than a character attack is proven to be so much more two decades later. It takes what may have been little than a few paragraphs in history and fleshes it out in a very interesting way.
Anita Hill didn't want to become a star when she wrote her letter concerning Clarence Thomas in 1991. Thomas was being vetted by then President George Bush to become a Supreme Court judge. Hill wanted the Senate to know about events she claims happened while the two worked together. Thomas is said to have made a few romantic passes at Hill to which she turned down. He didn't continue to act on this but he did continue to make Hill uncomfortable. Thomas is said to have made innuendos about his genitals and about pubic hair. Hill just wanted the Senate to know about what she claims to have gone through before they made their minds up on Thomas. The firestorm that followed was not what she was expecting would happen. Her "anonymous" letter was leaked and it became a major news story. Soon, Hill was giving her testimony in front of 14 male members of the Senate. They questioned every event she claims happened. In the end, her testimony was dismissed and Thomas was appointed as a judge. The attention to Hill continued though. Around the time, she shunned the exposure. 20 plus years later, her view on the event has changed. Anita presents Anita Hill as a Civil Rights activist whose exposure in 1991 had a major impact on society.
My only exposure to the Anita Hill case came from seeing repeats of the Saturday Night Live skit featuring Ellen Cleghorne as Hill. The skit is featured briefly in Anita and is edited to make it look like an uncomfortable and unfunny satire. The hearings are presented in this film in a squirm-inducing way. The audience at my screening was visibly cringing at the questions and phrasing of many members of the Senate. Hill is presented as strong and incredibly composed the entire time. The film doesn't question her testimony in the slightest, instead presenting her as someone who didn't crave the spotlight at all. She is presented as someone who simply wanted to anonymously get her word out. Thomas is only briefly shown giving his testimony which accused the Senate hearing as presented African American men as a racial stereotype and the hearing to be a "high-tech lynching". It doesn't present Thomas a liar as much as someone pulling "the race card".
The hard thing about the Anita Hill case then and now is there is no solid evidence as to Hill being correct. The testimonies of a few of her co-workers at the time Hill claims she was harassed are given. The testimonies of more of her co-workers were ignored. Anita doesn't necessarily strive to prove that Hill was correct and that Thomas was lying. It is trying to prove the case was an example of "witness blaming". It opened up a dialogue about work-place sexual harassment. The last part of the documentary presents how Hill's testimony had opened up the ability for other women who were harassed to make their case known. Even if Hill's testimony were a total lie, it still resulted in people knowing that "work-place sexual harassment" exists.
Mock's direction presents Hill in a positive although not "godly" way. One rather long shot of a picture of Rosa Parks on the wall seems a little over-the-top. It would seem that she could present Hill as an important part of the on-going female civil rights movement without resorting to such a direct comparison to Parks. For the most part, she simply uses Hill's actions in 1991 and her actions today to present her as an activist. The Parks shot seems redundant and grandiose. The film at 95 minutes feels a little longer than it needs to be. Some tightening during the presentation of the hearing could have helped speed the story along. The last part dealing with Hill's impact starting the dialogue of sexual harassment could have been an act in itself, if not just a full-length documentary. While it is a tiny complaint, this section is easily one of the most interesting parts of the film.
Anita reminds us in an entertaining and well-made manner an event that took place over 20 years ago. It reminds us of a time when "sexual harassment" wasn't necessarily a thing. What may have seemed like little more than a character attack is proven to be so much more two decades later. It takes what may have been little than a few paragraphs in history and fleshes it out in a very interesting way.
Saturday, April 5, 2014
"Need for Speed" 3 stars out of 4 (B)
When I saw that Breaking Bad star Aaron Paul had been hired to star in a big-budget movie about car racing based on a video game, I was concerned to say the least. Paul has made a career out of playing damaged and emotionally stunted characters. His small stature and stern eyes don’t lead you to believe he could be an action star. Luckily Need for Speed is not your typical movie based on a racing video game (whatever that might be). While there are plenty of fast cars driven by stunt drivers and a relatively thin plot, Paul proves that he can handle himself in an action scenario by bringing a touch of heart that you don’t see often in a movie that would stereo-typically be shallow and mindless. This unexpected heart coupled with jaw-dropping race sequences make Need for Speed the exciting summer movie we didn't expect to see in the doldrums of March.
Tobey Marshall (Aaron Paul) is a small-town mechanic who is known for being able to do amazing things to impressive cars. He is also known for talent at at illegal street racing after-hours occupation. He is given a job by professional racer Dino Brewster (Dominic Cooper) to fix up a rare Shelby Mustang. Tobey completes the job and is challenged to a race. During the race, Tobey’s friend is killed by Dino. After the smoke settles, Dino is no where to be found and Marshall is framed for the murder. Two years later, Tobey leaves prison looking for revenge against Dino. He sees the opportunity in the Deleon race, a famous secret car race in California, which Dino will be racing. He teams up with racing enthusiast Julia Maddon (Imogen Poots) to make the cross-country drive from New York to California, dodging cops and hit men dispatched by Dino. Tobey sees the Deleon as a change to clear his name and prove Dino killed his friend.
While Paul is very enjoyable, the true star of any car movie is the cars themselves. Any film that features characters watching Bullitt, the quintessential “car movie”, knows what audience it is trying to appeal to. Need for Speed’s action driving scenes use a minimal amount of computer trickery. These are real cars driven by real people. It is a sight we might have forgotten we missed until we see the real thing. Where the Fast and the Furious films seem to be more about the action then they are about the cars and driving, Need for Speed makes the driving the sole focus in action scenes. These characters are very rarely fighting with weapons other than the four-wheeled variety. Each driving sequence is well constructed, thrilling and offer quite a lot of surprises.
One sequence that takes place in downtown Detroit is especially impressive. While the fact that I’ve frequented the city definitely helped me enjoy it (“Look! Comerica Park!”) it is still one of the most impressive driving sequences we have seen in quite some time. Any movie that portrays Detroit as more than the stereotypical cesspool that many stereotype it to be is always welcome. The only disappointment about this sequence is that it made me realized I was so close to Ms. Poots and yet I didn’t even know it. After a long day spent acting in stunt cars, she no doubt would have wanted to meet up with an aspiring film critic and talk over a meal at Slow’s or a drink at Great Lakes Coffee. Maybe that can happen that if Need for Speed 2 gets filmed in “D-Town”. A guy can dream, right?
Need for Speed has a surprisingly large amount of heart, mostly in the form of Paul. We believe Paul is a driver who honestly wants to clear his name and revenge the death of his friend. The film doesn't push the relationship between Tobey and Julia like you would expect them to. While they no doubt have chemistry, the two are very much goal-oriented. They don't even kiss during the film but yet we fully believe that Tobey cares about her. The fact that we care about these characters helps us have a connection beyond "cars driving fast".
The supporting human stars of Need for Speed is where the film falls apart a little. Imogen Poots is pleasant as the female love interest (Seriously, Imogen. Text me. Slow's is amazing!) who is more than just a love interest. Some may complain about her accent but it is a nice change from the pre-processed female interests like Megan Fox in the Transformers films. Cooper spends much of his role as a villain glaring and fighting a losing battle against his English accent. His cold attitude fits his character well though and most of his truly evil moments are done by stunt drivers. Marshall’s lackies (Scott Mescudi, Rami Malek, Ramon Rodriguez) are fairly one-note. This film will garner lots of comparisons to the Fast and the Furious franchise and maybe even 2003’s The Italian Job. Those films have both impressive car sequences and fun supporting characters. You'd be pressed to remember the names of Marshall's friends. The “buddy” roles are just not as fleshed out as they need to be. Mescudi, who is often known by his rapper name Kid Cudi, is grating as the “African American friend” role that has been getting parodied since the late ‘90s. He seems to be under the belief that the louder you are the more charming you will be. His antics along with one very out-of-place scene with Malek miss far more than they succeed.
Michael Keaton makes a fun appearance as Monarch, a racing show host who also puts on the Deleon race. It is always nice to see Keaton in a movie. While he doesn’t play as large of a role as he did in this year’s Robocop he is given some room to branch out here. All of his scenes take place in a room away from all other characters. This freedom allows Keaton to really shine. We get to see occasional flashes of the wild Keaton we haven’t seen much since the ‘80s. Hopefully this and Robocop will put him back into the minds of Hollywood.
While the film fits into the “turn your brain off” action genre (to stop you from thinking “What about all the innocent bystanders who probably die as a result of the car races?”), there is quite a bit to enjoy about Need for Speed. It may not be something you will remember come June but it is an enjoyable and fun exciting film with some truly inspired stunt car work and a serviceable story. It may not go the full 230 mph that the film’s Mustang can hit but it definitely gets you there faster than you expected.
Sunday, March 30, 2014
"Noah" - 2.5 stars out of 4 (C+)
Hollywood likes to give indie directors a chance to helm large pictures. Maybe this occurs because the studios appreciate the talent and expertise that these directors show with small budgets. Maybe it is simply that there is a dearth of directors in the running for productions. Often it is a mistake for both the director and the studio. The director has often made a career of making artistically challenging films and now much orchestrate something for bosses who demand ticket sales over quality. Jean-Pierre Jeunet followed up the visually captivating The City of Lost Children with the ridiculous Alien Resurrection, killing the franchise. David Lynch followed up Eraserhead and The Elephant Man with Dune, a critical and box office failure. Now the money bags have been placed in Darren Aronofsky's hands. His last film was 2010's Black Swan, a disturbing and challenging film that brought in money and acclaim. It was only a matter of time until Aronofsky was given a big production. Noah is a $150 million dollar epic retelling of the biblical story and much like Alien Resurrection and Dune it is a film that alternates between artistically challenging moments and events that only seemed to be included to please test audiences. It is inevitable that Aronofsky would have to tone down his material to appease someone. This inevitability doesn't make it any less disappointing or upsetting as we get occasional glimpses of the brilliance that could of been had concessions not been made.
Noah (Russell Crowe) roams a world that doesn't look too far-removed from the post-apocalyptic wastelands we have seen in many movies over the last couple of years. Food and vegetation are scarce leading many to take to cannibalism. Groups of marauders kill whatever they want and often eat it afterwards. Noah unwavering belief in his Creator has influenced him and his family to only use violence to defend themselves and to abstain from hurting plants or eating animals One night Noah has a disturbing vision in his sleep one night. The ground starts erupting with water holding him suspended and unable to breathe. His unshaking belief in his Creator leads Noah to believe that this is a prophecy of what will occur. Noah sees this upcoming flood as a cleansing of the evil which will leave only the truly innocent: the animals. He and his family band together to create an ark, a giant ship that will house two of each animal. Noah must protect those he loves from the ever-growing human threat and also deal with the internal struggle from knowing that his ark may save the animals and his family but would damn the rest of mankind to a violent death.
There are moments of brilliance littered throughout Noah. Aronofsky has made a career of directed disturbing yet beautiful movies. There are flourishes throughout the film that remind us that this is the same Aronofsky that directed 2000's Requiem for a Dream and 2006's The Fountain. Noah is at it's best when it is at it's most simple. Quick flashing images of visions. Characters contemplating what they must do and knowing what will happen as a result of their actions. Dark moments of graphic and brutal violence. Noah would have been a great movie had it simply stuck to simplicity. While the visual effects are nice and the swelling score aptly epic, Aronofsky is not a director who needs large set-pieces to tell a compelling and deep story. These moments of intimacy are where the heart of Noah appears. They are almost enough to make me recommend the film. These are scenes most, if not all, big-budget filmmakers would never go near. Their risky inclusion should be championed.
Another risky inclusion is the addition of the Watchers, large creatures made of rock that play a major part in Noah's life. They resemble a cross between the tree-like Ents of Lord of the Rings and a Transformer if they were re-imagined by Ray Harryhausen. While they might be one of the most "creative license" additions to the story (a passing mention in the original talks of giants existing but makes no mention of "giant creatures made out of rock") they are expertly well-designed. The herky-jerky, almost stop-motion appearance feels like something out of Clash of the Titans. Film goers have become so accustomed to shiny yet empty computer-generated creatures that the sight of them is oddly comforting. When you get over the feeling that a stone Optimus Prime is going to help Noah, they become some of the most interesting characters in the film.
The moments of dark desperation are where Noah succeeds the most. At the core, the story is depressing. Noah must build an ark to save his family from the end-of-the-world brought on by man's volleys. A scene where Noah sits in the ark hearing the screams of those being ravaged by the floods is a deep and poignant moment. The brutality of the other inhabitants of the land is also shocking. In one sequence, an animal is thrown into a crowd of starving people and they tear it apart in the air. There is a sense of dread to these scenes you don't see often in film, let alone big-budget epics.
Unfortunately, there are just as many moments of out-and-out banal stupidity in Noah that almost destroy the wonderful moments. The inclusion of a villain in the form of head marauder Tubal Cain (Ray Winstone) is ridiculous. When you have a movie that already has roving bands of cannibals and the prophecy of total world annihilation, you don't need an angry bearded baddie. Tubal Cain's character reeks of a studio saying "But... you need a villain. Who else is Noah going to have to defeat in the last act?" Any scene with Winstone seems like you accidentally turned the channel to an episode of Vikings.
The fact is that Noah is the only interesting human character in the film. Crowe is given some great solo moments where he must consider if what he is doing is truly right or insane. The rest of the cast suffers though. His wife Naameh (Jennifer Connelly) is given very little to do besides look concerned and be uncomfortable by a legion of snakes as they enter the ark. If you lived in a time full of the threat of cannibals and the impending end-of-the-world you would think slithery creatures would be the least of your worries. Ila (Emma Watson) is the token female love interest for Noah's son Shem (Douglas Booth). We know very little of Ila except she can't have kids and Shem desperately wants to put one inside her. Noah's other son Ham (Logan Lerman) is almost interesting as he struggles to find his purpose in his current life and the life after the flood. Unfortunately, Lerman is given little more than looking slightly creepy. It is almost as if he was trying to do a Paul Dano impersonation but didn't feel like fully committing to it. Anthony Hopkins plays Methuselah, Noah's grandfather who is capable of performing miracles. At this point Hopkins seems to be playing essentially the same character and only altering the length of his beard and hairstyle. While he isn't bad, he doesn't quite give off the aura of a powerful and magical individual that the story tries to sell.
The uneven nature of Noah makes me give it the weakest of recommendations. At the very least, it is a curious film that takes impressive and brilliant risks almost as often as it falls flat on it's face. It is worth seeing just to get in the discussion. Some will no doubt be able to overlook some of the problems and savor it for the moments of artistic and gutsy film-making. Just as many will be disappointed in the "creative license" and wonder why in the world Noah is being aided by a Rockbiter from The Neverending Story. In the end though, nobody will end up with what they truly want. They will either end up with a half-full or half-empty world of water.
There are moments of brilliance littered throughout Noah. Aronofsky has made a career of directed disturbing yet beautiful movies. There are flourishes throughout the film that remind us that this is the same Aronofsky that directed 2000's Requiem for a Dream and 2006's The Fountain. Noah is at it's best when it is at it's most simple. Quick flashing images of visions. Characters contemplating what they must do and knowing what will happen as a result of their actions. Dark moments of graphic and brutal violence. Noah would have been a great movie had it simply stuck to simplicity. While the visual effects are nice and the swelling score aptly epic, Aronofsky is not a director who needs large set-pieces to tell a compelling and deep story. These moments of intimacy are where the heart of Noah appears. They are almost enough to make me recommend the film. These are scenes most, if not all, big-budget filmmakers would never go near. Their risky inclusion should be championed.
Another risky inclusion is the addition of the Watchers, large creatures made of rock that play a major part in Noah's life. They resemble a cross between the tree-like Ents of Lord of the Rings and a Transformer if they were re-imagined by Ray Harryhausen. While they might be one of the most "creative license" additions to the story (a passing mention in the original talks of giants existing but makes no mention of "giant creatures made out of rock") they are expertly well-designed. The herky-jerky, almost stop-motion appearance feels like something out of Clash of the Titans. Film goers have become so accustomed to shiny yet empty computer-generated creatures that the sight of them is oddly comforting. When you get over the feeling that a stone Optimus Prime is going to help Noah, they become some of the most interesting characters in the film.
The moments of dark desperation are where Noah succeeds the most. At the core, the story is depressing. Noah must build an ark to save his family from the end-of-the-world brought on by man's volleys. A scene where Noah sits in the ark hearing the screams of those being ravaged by the floods is a deep and poignant moment. The brutality of the other inhabitants of the land is also shocking. In one sequence, an animal is thrown into a crowd of starving people and they tear it apart in the air. There is a sense of dread to these scenes you don't see often in film, let alone big-budget epics.
Unfortunately, there are just as many moments of out-and-out banal stupidity in Noah that almost destroy the wonderful moments. The inclusion of a villain in the form of head marauder Tubal Cain (Ray Winstone) is ridiculous. When you have a movie that already has roving bands of cannibals and the prophecy of total world annihilation, you don't need an angry bearded baddie. Tubal Cain's character reeks of a studio saying "But... you need a villain. Who else is Noah going to have to defeat in the last act?" Any scene with Winstone seems like you accidentally turned the channel to an episode of Vikings.
The fact is that Noah is the only interesting human character in the film. Crowe is given some great solo moments where he must consider if what he is doing is truly right or insane. The rest of the cast suffers though. His wife Naameh (Jennifer Connelly) is given very little to do besides look concerned and be uncomfortable by a legion of snakes as they enter the ark. If you lived in a time full of the threat of cannibals and the impending end-of-the-world you would think slithery creatures would be the least of your worries. Ila (Emma Watson) is the token female love interest for Noah's son Shem (Douglas Booth). We know very little of Ila except she can't have kids and Shem desperately wants to put one inside her. Noah's other son Ham (Logan Lerman) is almost interesting as he struggles to find his purpose in his current life and the life after the flood. Unfortunately, Lerman is given little more than looking slightly creepy. It is almost as if he was trying to do a Paul Dano impersonation but didn't feel like fully committing to it. Anthony Hopkins plays Methuselah, Noah's grandfather who is capable of performing miracles. At this point Hopkins seems to be playing essentially the same character and only altering the length of his beard and hairstyle. While he isn't bad, he doesn't quite give off the aura of a powerful and magical individual that the story tries to sell.
The uneven nature of Noah makes me give it the weakest of recommendations. At the very least, it is a curious film that takes impressive and brilliant risks almost as often as it falls flat on it's face. It is worth seeing just to get in the discussion. Some will no doubt be able to overlook some of the problems and savor it for the moments of artistic and gutsy film-making. Just as many will be disappointed in the "creative license" and wonder why in the world Noah is being aided by a Rockbiter from The Neverending Story. In the end though, nobody will end up with what they truly want. They will either end up with a half-full or half-empty world of water.
Wednesday, March 19, 2014
The Raid 2 - 2 stars out of 4 (C-)
Let nobody say that The Raid 2 is simply a retread of its prequel The Raid: Redemption. Instead of giving us a similar story as the original, one of the best action films to come out in quite some time, writer/director/editor Gareth Evans has decided to take the series in an altogether different direction. Gone are the grimy and claustrophobic action sequences of the original. Instead we get lengthy scenes of dialogue, lingering shots of decor, and surprisingly long gaps of time between action sequences. While it is certainly adventurous of Evans to take one of the most respected and original action films of the decade and move the series in a different direction, the shift is not entirely pleasant. What we have is a film with frantic and sometimes incomprehensible action sequences sandwiched between poorly-paced scenes of dialogue.
Beginning almost immediately after the events of The Raid: Redemption, The Raid 2 opens with Jakarta cop Rama (Iko Uwais) who had just fought his way out of a apartment complex full of criminals. He entered the high-rise in hopes of toppling a drug kingpin but walked out realizing that the police force he devoted his life to was plagued with corruption. Rama knows that he and his family aren't safe and encouraged to change his identity. He starts going by "Yuda" and goes undercover as a violent criminal in hopes of working his way through the crime-world in hopes of bringing an end to the corruption and hopefully protecting his future. Rama joins a gang run by Uco (Arifin Putra), who's father is a very important member of the crime world. As he gets deeper and deeper into this new world, the line that separates "Yuda" and "Rama". He is no longer fighting against a single drug-dealer and his cronies. He is fighting against an entire system plagued with brutality and corruption.
Much of The Raid 2 comes off as an attempt to combat the complaints toward the first film in the series. The late Roger Ebert, one of the few critics who hated the film, found the original film repetitive claiming "This film is about violence. All violence. Wall-to-wall violence". He also "estimated the film has 10 minutes of dialogue". It was almost as if Evans took this review to heart and crafted The Raid 2 in a different style. If it weren't for the opening sequence connecting the two films (and also pulling a move reminiscent of Alien 3 by getting rid of everyone but one character) and having a main character played by Uwais, it feels like an different story. The Raid 2 features far more dialogue than the original. While this may please those who want a story to go along with their spectacle, these scenes get repetitive. They show the seedy crime underworld in a way we've seen plenty of times before. Showing that crime-lords are despicable people who will kill and torture anyone who gets in the way of their power and wealth. Evans true talent is in his choreography of fight sequences and not in his writing abilities. While the dialogue and story here is better than The Raid: Redemption, these changes are not necessary. When you have amazing stunt work and an awe-inspiring performer like Uwais, it doesn't make sense to favor lengthy character-building over adrenaline-pumping action sequences.
What set Evans's film-making in The Raid: Redemption apart from his action-film contemporaries was the filming of his action sequences. They were frantic but exhilarating. If it weren't for the fact that you knew these were actors weren't truly being beaten into submission, you would swear you were seeing real battles. Audiences were wincing and gasping out loud at some of the more hardcore scenes of violence. In The Raid 2, Evans unfortunately has succumb to what appears to be the industry standard and filmed his action sequences using handheld cameras. This results in the scenes plagued by the much maligned "shaky cam". This technique gives the action sequences an almost sped-up and unrealistic feel that was not present in the action scenes of first film. The battles become hard to watch at moments, causing the audience to look away not at the brutal violence but in hopes of stopping motion sickness. Evans is an expert fight choreographer. Uwais is one of the most impressive martial-arts performers of the last decades. The choice to film the action sequences in such a rushed and difficult manner almost makes them unwatchable. When he lingers two or three extra beats on scenes dialogue and yet seems to cut his action in half, it almost comes across as Evans downplaying the action and presenting himself as more of a dramatic director. While it is respectable that he would try something new, The Raid 2 is seriously hurt by these choices.
Evans wears his influences on his sleeve in this film. While The Raid: Redemption almost played like a contemporary Die Hard, The Raid 2 appears to be heavily influenced by the work of Nicolas Winding Refn. The first action sequence has Uwais preparing to fight an almost unending series of inmates from the confines of a prison toilet stall. This scene is very reminiscent of the opening sequence of Refn's Bronson, where the main character prepares to fight off police officers in his small cell. While Evans doesn't bring in Refn's odd mismash of creepy cold instrumental music and synth, he does abandon The Raid: Redemptions pulsing "Linkin Park meets dubstep" score for orchestral flourishes. There is no hard-driving grimy action sequences set to throbbing music here. Instead we get more artistic presentations. A scene where a character bleeds out on snow is presented with symphony music. Evans fight choreography also shows his influences. A scene featuring a character named Hammer Girl (Julie Estelle) tearing into hoodlums with claw hammers is very reminiscent of a similar scene in 2003's Oldboy. A fight that takes place inside a moving car recalls a similar scene in 2010's I Saw the Devil. While I definitely wouldn't say Evans is copying any of these films, the originality that was present in the first film is replaced by a feeling of "been there, done that". We aren't invested in an action sequence if it simply brings to mind other films.
There is a good action movie somewhere in the bloated 148-minute runtime. Several scenes and an entire sub-plot could have been cut, leaving a much leaner and more interesting film. A sub-plot featuring an assassin played by Yayan Ruhian is especially pointless and actually confusing. Ruhian was one of the stand-outs from The Raid: Redemption, playing the deranged and violent henchman Mad Dog. Here he plays an altogether different character and there is no mention on why he looks so similar to Mad Dog. This makes every scene he is in incredibly odd. Maybe Evans just wanted to include Ruhian's talents in another film. They are mostly wasted here as he is not given anything close to what he was given in the first film. It is just a confusing and somewhat bewildering inclusion.
The Raid 2 is not without its merits though. Evans new eye for scenery makes a few action sequences wholly original. An early action scene in a muddy prison field is especially impressive. The unstable ground acts unpredictable elements to the battle and makes you wonder why nobody had put together a similar scene before. There are still many opportunities for the audiences to wince and gasp, even if some of them come across as pandering. Some of the action sequences have nice touches of dark comedy. It is difficult not to laugh at the absurdity of a man killing people with a perfectly hit baseball. These moments remind us that Evans knows what he is doing somewhere in the mix.
Evans is a promising director who is definitely trying something new with the action genre even with the slight misstep here. Much of The Raid 2's problems come from comparing it to the original. Had it simply gone by the international title Berandal (meaning "thug") and changed some of the early plot-lines, it would have no doubt succeeded more. Hopefully his next film will have someone else at the editing bay, delivering the lean and hard-hitting action that we know he is capable of.
Beginning almost immediately after the events of The Raid: Redemption, The Raid 2 opens with Jakarta cop Rama (Iko Uwais) who had just fought his way out of a apartment complex full of criminals. He entered the high-rise in hopes of toppling a drug kingpin but walked out realizing that the police force he devoted his life to was plagued with corruption. Rama knows that he and his family aren't safe and encouraged to change his identity. He starts going by "Yuda" and goes undercover as a violent criminal in hopes of working his way through the crime-world in hopes of bringing an end to the corruption and hopefully protecting his future. Rama joins a gang run by Uco (Arifin Putra), who's father is a very important member of the crime world. As he gets deeper and deeper into this new world, the line that separates "Yuda" and "Rama". He is no longer fighting against a single drug-dealer and his cronies. He is fighting against an entire system plagued with brutality and corruption.
Much of The Raid 2 comes off as an attempt to combat the complaints toward the first film in the series. The late Roger Ebert, one of the few critics who hated the film, found the original film repetitive claiming "This film is about violence. All violence. Wall-to-wall violence". He also "estimated the film has 10 minutes of dialogue". It was almost as if Evans took this review to heart and crafted The Raid 2 in a different style. If it weren't for the opening sequence connecting the two films (and also pulling a move reminiscent of Alien 3 by getting rid of everyone but one character) and having a main character played by Uwais, it feels like an different story. The Raid 2 features far more dialogue than the original. While this may please those who want a story to go along with their spectacle, these scenes get repetitive. They show the seedy crime underworld in a way we've seen plenty of times before. Showing that crime-lords are despicable people who will kill and torture anyone who gets in the way of their power and wealth. Evans true talent is in his choreography of fight sequences and not in his writing abilities. While the dialogue and story here is better than The Raid: Redemption, these changes are not necessary. When you have amazing stunt work and an awe-inspiring performer like Uwais, it doesn't make sense to favor lengthy character-building over adrenaline-pumping action sequences.
What set Evans's film-making in The Raid: Redemption apart from his action-film contemporaries was the filming of his action sequences. They were frantic but exhilarating. If it weren't for the fact that you knew these were actors weren't truly being beaten into submission, you would swear you were seeing real battles. Audiences were wincing and gasping out loud at some of the more hardcore scenes of violence. In The Raid 2, Evans unfortunately has succumb to what appears to be the industry standard and filmed his action sequences using handheld cameras. This results in the scenes plagued by the much maligned "shaky cam". This technique gives the action sequences an almost sped-up and unrealistic feel that was not present in the action scenes of first film. The battles become hard to watch at moments, causing the audience to look away not at the brutal violence but in hopes of stopping motion sickness. Evans is an expert fight choreographer. Uwais is one of the most impressive martial-arts performers of the last decades. The choice to film the action sequences in such a rushed and difficult manner almost makes them unwatchable. When he lingers two or three extra beats on scenes dialogue and yet seems to cut his action in half, it almost comes across as Evans downplaying the action and presenting himself as more of a dramatic director. While it is respectable that he would try something new, The Raid 2 is seriously hurt by these choices.
Evans wears his influences on his sleeve in this film. While The Raid: Redemption almost played like a contemporary Die Hard, The Raid 2 appears to be heavily influenced by the work of Nicolas Winding Refn. The first action sequence has Uwais preparing to fight an almost unending series of inmates from the confines of a prison toilet stall. This scene is very reminiscent of the opening sequence of Refn's Bronson, where the main character prepares to fight off police officers in his small cell. While Evans doesn't bring in Refn's odd mismash of creepy cold instrumental music and synth, he does abandon The Raid: Redemptions pulsing "Linkin Park meets dubstep" score for orchestral flourishes. There is no hard-driving grimy action sequences set to throbbing music here. Instead we get more artistic presentations. A scene where a character bleeds out on snow is presented with symphony music. Evans fight choreography also shows his influences. A scene featuring a character named Hammer Girl (Julie Estelle) tearing into hoodlums with claw hammers is very reminiscent of a similar scene in 2003's Oldboy. A fight that takes place inside a moving car recalls a similar scene in 2010's I Saw the Devil. While I definitely wouldn't say Evans is copying any of these films, the originality that was present in the first film is replaced by a feeling of "been there, done that". We aren't invested in an action sequence if it simply brings to mind other films.
There is a good action movie somewhere in the bloated 148-minute runtime. Several scenes and an entire sub-plot could have been cut, leaving a much leaner and more interesting film. A sub-plot featuring an assassin played by Yayan Ruhian is especially pointless and actually confusing. Ruhian was one of the stand-outs from The Raid: Redemption, playing the deranged and violent henchman Mad Dog. Here he plays an altogether different character and there is no mention on why he looks so similar to Mad Dog. This makes every scene he is in incredibly odd. Maybe Evans just wanted to include Ruhian's talents in another film. They are mostly wasted here as he is not given anything close to what he was given in the first film. It is just a confusing and somewhat bewildering inclusion.
The Raid 2 is not without its merits though. Evans new eye for scenery makes a few action sequences wholly original. An early action scene in a muddy prison field is especially impressive. The unstable ground acts unpredictable elements to the battle and makes you wonder why nobody had put together a similar scene before. There are still many opportunities for the audiences to wince and gasp, even if some of them come across as pandering. Some of the action sequences have nice touches of dark comedy. It is difficult not to laugh at the absurdity of a man killing people with a perfectly hit baseball. These moments remind us that Evans knows what he is doing somewhere in the mix.
Evans is a promising director who is definitely trying something new with the action genre even with the slight misstep here. Much of The Raid 2's problems come from comparing it to the original. Had it simply gone by the international title Berandal (meaning "thug") and changed some of the early plot-lines, it would have no doubt succeeded more. Hopefully his next film will have someone else at the editing bay, delivering the lean and hard-hitting action that we know he is capable of.
Saturday, March 1, 2014
My Opinions on This Year's Academy Awards Nominations
As a kid, I loved the Academy Awards. I would stay up far too late on a school night to watch them. I would strain my eyes to the end to see who won "Best Picture". I almost always agreed with them. I was very easily swayed as a child. If you told me "Shakespeare in Love" was the best movie of the year, I would agree with you. My 19-year old self was even convinced of the greatness of "Crash", a movie I haven't even thought about after seeing it for my first and only time.
It wasn't until I started learning more about the voting process that I started to lose respect for the Academy Awards. When I read that Ernest Borgnine, a voting member of the Academy, refused to watch 2002's "Brokeback Mountain" simply because he disagreed with the presentation of homosexuality, I lost a lot of hope that the Academy Awards were an accurate summation of the opinion of film. Borgnine's refusal to accurately assess a film can't be an isolated incident. How many nominated films went unwatched simply because of the personal beliefs of a voter. Did an Academy member simply not watch "Saving Private Ryan" or "Django Unchained" because they were too violent for their taste? Did last year's "Zero Dark Thirty" not get watched because of the political beliefs of a member? People are already admitting they refuse to watch this year's "12 Years a Slave" because it makes them uncomfortable. If a member didn't "have" to watch every movie, how many nominated films have gone unwatched simply because of lack of interest or time?
The Academy's refusal to consider most foreign films and almost all animated films as "Best Picture" options is also ridiculous. The fact that "WALL-E" was not nominated in the 2008's Best Picture contest, while "Frost/Nixon" was is absolutely insane. 2006's "Pan's Labyrinth" is an absolutely spell-binding and amazing film. If it were in English and not Spanish, there is little to no way it would have been ignored. When was the last time you thought of "Letters from Iwo Jima" or "Babel", two films that were nominated for Best Picture while "Pan's Labyrinth" was simply only nominated for Best Foreign Language film. The award is not "Best Live-Action Picture". It is not "Best English Language Picture". It is "Best Picture". It should be considered this. If it is a movie, it has the potential to be nominated. Can you honestly say a Pixar film like "WALL-E" or "Up" is less of a film than a Woody Allen film where it seems as if the camera was just placed in the middle of a group of actors? Does the fact that a film is comprised of polygons instead of actors make it less of a movie?
In 2009, in an attempt to make the race more interesting, the Academy increased the amount of Best Pictures nominations from five to ten. It had been capped at five since 1943. This change was an odd choice. Would the Academy be able to watch and assess twice as many movies? Why stop at ten? Why not have 20?
I am going to write this article as if I were voting for the nominations. I don't care about predictions. There are pages and pages of predictions out there. If you are interested in the Vegas odds or rumors, you can find them. Here I will give you my opinion of the "Best" choice in almost every category. "Best" is not the same as "Favorite". My "favorite" movie is "Almost Famous". I will never in a moment say that is the "Best Movie" I have ever seen. "Almost Famous" is not a better film than hundreds of other films. I love it though. I would watch it every day if there were more hours in a day. A film's re-watchablity is not an accurate summation of its worth. When was the last day you sat down and say "I really want to watch "Schlindler's List" again?" That does not diminish how great it is. My favorite film of 2013 was "The Wolf of Wall Street". It is not the "Best Picture" of 2013 though. It is the most entertaining film I saw but that does not mean it is a "better" film than "12 Years a Slave". My top 10 list of 2013 was based on "favorites", not "greatness".
Best Picture
"12 Years A Slave"
"American Hustle"
"Dallas Buyers Club"
"Her"
"Nebraska"
"Captain Phillips"
"The Wolf of Wall Street"
"Gravity"
"Philomena"
"12 Years A Slave"
"American Hustle"
"Dallas Buyers Club"
"Her"
"Nebraska"
"Captain Phillips"
"The Wolf of Wall Street"
"Gravity"
"Philomena"
The clear winner here for me is "12 Years a Slave". While every movie on this list was good, "12 Years a Slave" is the "Best Picture". It is a jaw-dropping display of film-making. Every shot is gorgeous. Almost every performance is fantastic. Hans Zimmer's score is wonderful. It might not be as re-watchable as the other nine nominations, but it is the "Best" film. While I agree that "Gravity" is a technological marvel, I found it to be a bit disappointing. Those who loved it will no doubt be able to explain how it is "Best Picture". I found it to be beautiful but repetitive and thematically flawed. "Philomena" and "The Wolf of Wall Street" were two of my favorite films of the year but neither is a "better" picture than "12 Years A Slave".
Actor in a Leading Role
Bruce Dern - "Nebraska"
Chiwetel Ejiofor - "12 Years A Slave"
Matthew McConaughey - "Dallas Buyers Club"
Christian Bale - "American Hustle"
Leonardo DiCaprio - "The Wolf of Wall Street"
Bruce Dern - "Nebraska"
Chiwetel Ejiofor - "12 Years A Slave"
Matthew McConaughey - "Dallas Buyers Club"
Christian Bale - "American Hustle"
Leonardo DiCaprio - "The Wolf of Wall Street"
This might be the hardest category to vote for. Both Ejiofor and McConaughey delivered great performances although I honestly don't know if either did a truly amazing job. For the Golden Globes I voted for Ejiofor in a quick gut-reaction. A vote for McConaughey is also respectable though. I fear though that vote is not necessarily just for his performance in "Dallas Buyers Club". It might be for "Dallas Buyers Club" and his wonderful, yet all too brief part in "The Wolf of Wall Street". Maybe it is for his master-class of acting he is exhibiting in HBO's "True Detective". A vote should be for the film nominated and that film only. It should not be for the "year" or a career. After re-watching both "12 Years a Slave" and "Dallas Buyers Club", I am voting for McConaughey. The physical transformation McConaughey delivered here is incredibly impressive. It showed great respect for the role. Not for one moment do we see McConaughey in his film. His drastic transformation in addition to a near chameleon-esque performance narrowly beats out Ejiofor.
Actor in a Supporting Role
Barkhad Abdi - "Captain Phillips"
Michael Fassbender - "12 Years A Slave"
Jared Leto - "Dallas Buyers Club"
Bradley Cooper - "American Hustle"
Jonah Hill - "The Wolf of Wall Street"
Barkhad Abdi - "Captain Phillips"
Michael Fassbender - "12 Years A Slave"
Jared Leto - "Dallas Buyers Club"
Bradley Cooper - "American Hustle"
Jonah Hill - "The Wolf of Wall Street"
This is between Fassbender and Leto. Leto deserves the award. He completely became his character and truly "supported" the film. Fassbender was great but Leto helped his film far more.
Actress in a Leading Role
Cate Blanchett - "Blue Jasmine"
Sandra Bullock - "Gravity"
Judi Dench - "Philomena"
Meryl Streep - "August: Osage County"
Amy Adams - "American Hustle"
Cate Blanchett - "Blue Jasmine"
Sandra Bullock - "Gravity"
Judi Dench - "Philomena"
Meryl Streep - "August: Osage County"
Amy Adams - "American Hustle"
Amy Adams deserves this award. In "American Hustle" her character is an American who is trying to act as if she were British. In the film, her character is not a good actress. This is a performance of a great actress acting as if she were a poor actress. In several instances, she is expected to switch between character types in the same scene. "American Hustle" is an "actor's film" and Adams is easily the best thing in it. While I loved Dench in "Philomena", Adams delivered the better performance.
Actress in a Supporting Role
Sally Hawkins - "Blue Jasmine"
Jennifer Lawrence - "American Hustle"
Lupita Nyong'o - "12 Years A Slave"
Julia Roberts - "August: Osage County"
June Squibb - "Nebraska"
Sally Hawkins - "Blue Jasmine"
Jennifer Lawrence - "American Hustle"
Lupita Nyong'o - "12 Years A Slave"
Julia Roberts - "August: Osage County"
June Squibb - "Nebraska"
Nyong'o is easily the best of these five. A vote for any of the other four is ridiculous.
Animated Feature Film
"The Croods"
"Despicable Me 2"
"Frozen"
"The Wind Rises"
"Ernest & Celestine"
"The Croods"
"Despicable Me 2"
"Frozen"
"The Wind Rises"
"Ernest & Celestine"
While I loved "Ernest and Celestine", "Frozen" narrowly beats it.
Cinematography
"The Grandmaster"
"Gravity"
"Inside Llewyn Davis"
"Nebraska"
"Prisoners"
"The Grandmaster"
"Gravity"
"Inside Llewyn Davis"
"Nebraska"
"Prisoners"
I'm not sure where the cinematography begins and the visual effects end in "Gravity". It is a beautiful movie but I don't know if if I would be awarding the visual effects or the cinematographer with a vote. Although it has no chance of winning, I'm going with "Prisoners". While it was not a great film, it looked amazing. One scene near the end involving a dangerous drive at night through hard rain was jaw-dropping in how gorgeous it was.
Costume Design
"American Hustle"
"The Grandmaster"
"The Great Gatsby"
"The Invisible Woman"
"12 Years a Slave"
"American Hustle"
"The Grandmaster"
"The Great Gatsby"
"The Invisible Woman"
"12 Years a Slave"
It is between "12 Years a Slave" and "The Great Gatsby". In a gut-reaction, I'm going with "The Great Gatsby".
Directing
Alfonso Cuaron - "Gravity"
Steve McQueen - "12 Years A Slave"
Alexander Payne - "Nebraska"
David O. Russell - "American Hustle"
Martin Scorsese - "The Wolf of Wall Street"
Alfonso Cuaron - "Gravity"
Steve McQueen - "12 Years A Slave"
Alexander Payne - "Nebraska"
David O. Russell - "American Hustle"
Martin Scorsese - "The Wolf of Wall Street"
While I may not have loved "Gravity" as much as most people, I can tell you the direction is great. Still, I believe McQueen did a better overall job. There is some staging and framing that is just wonderful. A scene involving a near-hanging is one of the best directed scenes of any film this year.
Documentary (Feature)
"The Act of Killing"
"20 Feet from Stardom"
"Cutie and the Boxer"
"Dirty Wars"
"The Square"
"The Act of Killing"
"20 Feet from Stardom"
"Cutie and the Boxer"
"Dirty Wars"
"The Square"
"The Act of Killing" is the easy choice for me here. It is a truly amazing piece of art. A vote for "20 Feet from Stardom" is simply voting for "favorite" or "easiest to watch". It was entertaining and interesting but that is all. "The Act of Killing" is spell-binding. It is everything that the documentary genre can be. I have not seen "Cutie and the Boxer" or "The Square" but I find it hard to believe that they are better than "The Act of Killing".
Documentary (Short Subject)
"CaveDigger"
"Facing Fear"
"Karama Has No Walls"
"The Lady in Number 6: Music Saved My Life"
"Prison Terminal: The Last Days of Private Jack Hall"
"CaveDigger"
"Facing Fear"
"Karama Has No Walls"
"The Lady in Number 6: Music Saved My Life"
"Prison Terminal: The Last Days of Private Jack Hall"
I did not watch any of these films. Sorry.
Film Editing
"American Hustle"
"Captain Phillips"
"Dallas Buyers Club"
"Gravity"
"12 Years a Slave"
"American Hustle"
"Captain Phillips"
"Dallas Buyers Club"
"Gravity"
"12 Years a Slave"
"Gravity" was a technological marvel. It was a taut and suspenseful experience. The editing made this film the way it is. "12 Years a Slave" was great but I can't honestly say the editing made the film what it was. In fact, it could probably have used a few scenes cut. No minute of "Gravity" is wasted.
Foreign Language Film
"The Broken Circle Breakdown" - Belgium
"The Great Beauty" - Italy
"The Hunt" - Denmark
"The Missing Picture" - Cambodia
"Omar" - Palestine
"The Broken Circle Breakdown" - Belgium
"The Great Beauty" - Italy
"The Hunt" - Denmark
"The Missing Picture" - Cambodia
"Omar" - Palestine
"The Hunt" was a deeply disturbing film. It was great though. It is the only film of the five that I saw unfortunately. I honestly don't feel I can vote for this category without having seen all of the five.
Makeup and Hairstyling
"Dallas Buyers Club"
"Jackass Presents: Bad Grandpa"
"The Lone Ranger"
"Dallas Buyers Club"
"Jackass Presents: Bad Grandpa"
"The Lone Ranger"
I am not against an award going to "Jackass Presents: Bad Grandpa". The makeup was great. Still "Dallas Buyers Club" did quite a lot at helping McConaughey and Leto fully become their characters.
Music (Original Score)
"The Book Thief" - John Williams
"Gravity" Steven Price
"Her" - William Butler and Owen Pallett
"Philomena" - Alexandre Desplat
"Saving Mr. Banks" - Thomas Newman
"The Book Thief" - John Williams
"Gravity" Steven Price
"Her" - William Butler and Owen Pallett
"Philomena" - Alexandre Desplat
"Saving Mr. Banks" - Thomas Newman
"Gravity" and "Her" were the only two scores I can truly remember shining in their films. Alexandre Desplat in "All is Lost" and Hans Zimmer in "12 Years a Slave" were both robbed of nominations. The music in "Her" was wonderful and helped that film immensely.
Music (Original Song)
"Let it Go" - "Frozen" - Kristen Anderson-Lopez and Robert Lopez
"Ordinary Love" - "Mandela: Long Walk to Freedom" - U2, lyrics by Paul Hewson, aka Bono
"Happy" - "Despicable Me 2" - Pharrell Williams
"The Moon Song" - "Her" - music by Karen O, lyrics by Karen O and Spike Jonze
Nomination recinded: The song "Alone Yet Not Alone" from "Alone Yet Not Alone" was originally nominated for later removed from the list it was discovered that musician Bruce Broughton emailed members of the group's music branch to make them aware of the submission during the nominations voting period, a move Academy President Cheryl Boone Isaacs, Academy President said "creates the appearance of an unfair advantage."
"Let it Go" - "Frozen" - Kristen Anderson-Lopez and Robert Lopez
"Ordinary Love" - "Mandela: Long Walk to Freedom" - U2, lyrics by Paul Hewson, aka Bono
"Happy" - "Despicable Me 2" - Pharrell Williams
"The Moon Song" - "Her" - music by Karen O, lyrics by Karen O and Spike Jonze
Nomination recinded: The song "Alone Yet Not Alone" from "Alone Yet Not Alone" was originally nominated for later removed from the list it was discovered that musician Bruce Broughton emailed members of the group's music branch to make them aware of the submission during the nominations voting period, a move Academy President Cheryl Boone Isaacs, Academy President said "creates the appearance of an unfair advantage."
As much as I loved "Let it Go", it is not better than "The Moon Song". "The Moon Song" perfectly touches on the overall theme of "Her". It helps that film in a way that "Let it Go" doesn't necessarily do.
Production design
"American Hustle"
"Gravity"
"The Great Gatsby"
"Her"
"12 Years a Slave"
"American Hustle"
"Gravity"
"The Great Gatsby"
"Her"
"12 Years a Slave"
Them parties, tho.
Short Film (Animated)
"Feral"
"Get a Horse!"
"Mr. Hublot"
"Possessions"
"Room on the Broom"
"Feral"
"Get a Horse!"
"Mr. Hublot"
"Possessions"
"Room on the Broom"
I only saw "Get a Horse", therefore I can't vote for this category.
Short Film (Live Action)
"Aquel No Era Yo (That Wasn't Me)"
"Avant Que De Tout Perdre (Just before Losing Everything)"
"Helium"
"Pitaako Mun Kaikki Hoitaa? (Do I Have to Take Care of Everything?)"
"The Voorman Problem"
"Aquel No Era Yo (That Wasn't Me)"
"Avant Que De Tout Perdre (Just before Losing Everything)"
"Helium"
"Pitaako Mun Kaikki Hoitaa? (Do I Have to Take Care of Everything?)"
"The Voorman Problem"
I saw none of these. I'm sorry.
Sound Editing:
"All Is Lost"
"Captain Phillips"
"Gravity"
"The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug"
"Lone Survivor"
"All Is Lost"
"Captain Phillips"
"Gravity"
"The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug"
"Lone Survivor"
Sound made "Gravity" the film it is. It gets my vote.
Sound Mixing:
"Captain Phillips"
"Gravity"
"The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug"
"Inside Llewyn Davis"
"Lone Survivor"
"Captain Phillips"
"Gravity"
"The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug"
"Inside Llewyn Davis"
"Lone Survivor"
Ditto.
Visual Effects
"Gravity"
"The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug"
"Iron Man 3"
"The Lone Ranger"
"Star Trek Into Darkness"
"Gravity"
"The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug"
"Iron Man 3"
"The Lone Ranger"
"Star Trek Into Darkness"
The same can be said for the visual effects. Without visual effects, "Gravity" is very little, in my opinion.
Writing (Adapted Screenplay)
"Before Midnight" - Richard Linklater, Julie Delpy and Ethan Hawke
"Captain Phillips" - Billy Ray
"Philomena" - Steve Coogan and Jeff Pope
"12 Years A Slave" - John Ridley
"The Wolf of Wall Street" - Terence Winter
"Before Midnight" - Richard Linklater, Julie Delpy and Ethan Hawke
"Captain Phillips" - Billy Ray
"Philomena" - Steve Coogan and Jeff Pope
"12 Years A Slave" - John Ridley
"The Wolf of Wall Street" - Terence Winter
I'm voting for this category with the film script that I would most likely sit and read. "Before Midnight" has wonderful moments of dialogue and tells believable characters. It might be thought that the movie was improvised but the fact that every line was actually written makes it clearly the winner.
Writing (Original Screenplay)
"American Hustle" - Eric Warren Singer and David O. Russell
"Blue Jasmine" - Woody Allen
"Her" - Spike Jonze
"Nebraska" - Bob Nelson
"Dallas Buyers Club" - Craig Borten and Melisa Wallack
"American Hustle" - Eric Warren Singer and David O. Russell
"Blue Jasmine" - Woody Allen
"Her" - Spike Jonze
"Nebraska" - Bob Nelson
"Dallas Buyers Club" - Craig Borten and Melisa Wallack
"Her" has some of the best dialogue I've heard in a movie in years. It is easily the most original and thoughtful film of this group. It is my vote.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)