"Disconnect" could easily be compared to films like "The Place Beyond the Pines" or "Crash". It features actors you recognize as characters whose lives interconnect. Where "Disconnect" succeeds over the failures of "Pines" and "Crash" is that it is a dark, realistic depiction of these intersecting lives that doesn't once think low of its audience. There are several moments where "Disconnect" could have gone the easy route. It could have given you what you expect or in many cases simply "fear". Instead, it is a riveting, gripping film about how technology has pulled us away from the people who are around us. In one particularly touching scene the character says "Everything I love is in this room". This somewhat cliche line is made important by it being one of the few moments that character is seen without a cell phone.
"Disconnect" revolves around three stories. The first involves two teenagers (Aviad Bernstein and Colin Ford) creating a fake online character they use to tease Ben, a loner student (Jonah Bobo) who goes to their school. Ben's father, Rich (Jason Bateman) is unaware of his son's blossoming "relationship" as he constantly on the cell phone doing business. The second story involves reporter Nina Dunham (Andrea Riseborough) who begins to interview Kyle, an 18-year old online "sex webcam" performer (Max Thieriot), in hopes of putting together a juicy story based on his life. What starts off as online web chat interviews becomes much more as Nina tries to get the story that is Kyle's life. The last has couple Derek and Cindy (Alexander Skarsgård and Paula Patton) dealing with online identity theft which leaves them penniless. Derek is addicted to online poker while Cindy frequents chat rooms to help her deal with the grief of losing her child.
Films like "Disconnect" could implode on themselves with their overly weighty premise and meaning. The idea of technology pulling people apart is not a terribly new thing to film. 2006's totally unseen gem "LOL" dealt with characters whose relationships were ruined by technology. While "Disconnect" is often about how technology can have a negative impact on human interaction, it is never so over-the-top that it becomes eye-rolling. This is the kind of message that can get self-indulgent very quickly. "Disconnect" never feels like it is straining with the story and the message. It does not bash you over the head. It weaves the dangers of technology into real weighty human problems. This story is much more about human interaction than it is about those humans typing on keypads.
Director Henry Alex Rubin makes his fictional film debut here. He directed 2005's wonderful documentary Murderball (whose star Mark Zuban makes a brief appearance). Rubin shows great skill being able to weave these stories together in a sharp fashion considering the film's no-doubt low budget. He shows wonderful restraint when he needs to as well as impacting and suspenseful moments when they are called for. Again, Rubin and screenwriter Andrew Stern, need to be congratulated on how they were able to side-step many of the problems inherent in stories like "Crash" and "Place Beyond the Pines". There is not one "eye-rolling" moment in "Disconnect". It constantly surprises you not just in the directions the story takes but the directions that it does not take.
"Disconnect" is a small film that will no doubt not be playing in many markets. Hopefully, the inevitable appearance on Netflix Instant will result in people seeing this gem that will no doubt be one of the best of the year.
Tuesday, May 14, 2013
Saturday, May 11, 2013
"The Great Gatsby" 3.5 out of 4 (B+)
If there ever was a director that could be considered "polarizing", it is Baz Luhrmann. You either find his films (which include the, in my opinion, modern-day classic "Moulin Rouge" and the very inspired yet often maligned "Romeo + Juliet") interesting and visually-stimulating or you think they are over-the-top manic drug-induced dreams. His latest film, "The Great Gatsby", based on the classic F. Scott Fitzgerald novel, will do nothing to dispel those who already dislike his work. In fact, it will no doubt bring a new crew of Luhrmann-haters as he has once again taken a much-loved piece of literature and gave it a contemporary and altogether surprising twist. I can openly say that I like Luhrmann's films and his vision is one of the most interesting of a director working today. "The Great Gatsby" may be his best story yet and although his vision the original Fitzgerald story do not always connection well, it is still a jaw-droppingly beautiful film.
Nick Carraway (Tobey Maguire) is a 1920s bonds salesman whose newfound wealth moves him into an impressive house on Long Island. His small-town beginnings don't prepare him for what money and his new location bring to his life. Next-door to Carraway, is the house of a mysterious figure named Gatsby (Leonardo DiCaprio) who holds human parties that pull in all of New York City. Nobody has seen Gatsby but his reputation is more than enough for people to create elaborate stories about who he is and who he is not. After receiving an invitation (a rarity for Gatsby), Carraway runs into Gatsby. Gatsby pulls Carraway into a life of money, romance, alcoholism, and corruption all in hopes of rekindling a relationship with Carraway's cousin Daisy Buchanan (Carey Mulligan). Daisy's powerful and angry husband, Tom Buchanan (Joel Edgerton) is the only thing keeping Gatsby from achieving the only thing his money can't buy.
"The Great Gatsby" is easily Baz Luhrmann's most reserved film maybe ever. This, of course, isn't saying much. The extravagant party sequences show the Luhrmann we've come to love (or hate). They are loud, colorful events blaring music that is not time-period appropriate in the slightest. Sometimes the music works incredibly well (both incarnations of Lana Del Ray's "Young and Beautiful" fit perfectly) and sometimes they are like nails on a chalkboard (a scene featuring Jay-Z's "Izzo (H.O.V.A.)). Luhrmann utilizes 3D well in these scenes of excess allowing heaps of confetti to seemingly spill into the audience. It is his 3D utilization and filming of the more sullen and reserved moments in "Gatsby" that work especially well. Iconic scenes such as Gatsby staring at the often-discussed "green light" across the water are among the most beautiful moments presented in 3D cinema. The diminished brightness of the picture that 3D often causes has very little impact on the distance and depth the dimension adds. Luhrmann actually holds himself quite a bit in comparison to his previous works. The 3D is never so over-the-top that it takes you out of the film. The only scenes that feel completely connected with his often "campy" style are the party scenes which almost seem to be written just for Luhrmann to present. While it is not totally necessary to be seen in 3D (in fact, the brightness 2D offers might be preferable in several scenes) it is easily the most impressive 3D presentation since "Hugo".
DiCaprio is his typical great self as Gatsby. He plays the calm and kind-eyed man with every nuance that could be expected. He again proves that he possibly the best American actor currently working. While this won't be the time he walks away with an Oscar, he is perfectly cast and it is impossible to picture another actor in his position. It is nice to see Maguire make a return to wide-release cinema. After reading about how Maguire and DiCaprio grew up acting together, it makes the connection to Carraway and Gatsby that much deeper.
Taking such a well-loved work of literature like "Great Gatsby" and turning into into a big-budget 3D film filmed by the maker of "Moulin Rouge" and featuring a soundtrack produced by Jay-Z is something akin to a joke. On paper (no pun intended), Fitzgerald's story does not read even close to the presentation offered here. Surprisingly enough, Luhrmann's style fits perfectly. If you take the story and its themes of how money and parties can't bring you everything and inject it with the manic and gorgeous energy Luhrmann often presents, it is a natural fit. Many purists will no doubt be disappointed in this film. This is definitely not the story you pictured while reading this novel in high school. That said, there is no reason the film version should have to please the fans of the book. The book will remain and they can either choose to watch Robert Redford's 1974 version or simply to re-read Fitzgerald's text. The heart of Fitzgerald's story is still seen in Luhrmann's story. It gave me a whole new reading on a novel I all but ignored during my first reading in 9th grade. I can only hope I enjoy a re-reading of the novel as much as I enjoyed this presentation.
The film is not without its negatives though. The scenes featuring Myrtle (Isla Fisher) and George Wilson (Jason Clarke), working-class friends of Tom Buchanan's are extremely out-of-place. While it could be said that the slightly irritating characterizations of Myrtle and George are part of who these characters are truly meant to be, they are both miscast in their roles. Clarke, who was easily one of the highlights in last year's "Zero Dark Thirty" plays George almost as a theater performance and it doesn't fit. It could also be said that Edgerton's performance of Tom Buchanan might not be up to the character he needs to play. He may act cold and yell as a man in a loveless marriage protected by money but after we see similar performances by Jon Hamm in "Mad Men" that eclipse this weekly.
Luhrmann's campy flourishes don't always work. Almost every Jay-Z song in this film completely pulls you out of the moment. They feel like temporary audio tracks that were put on the film until they could fit a better song that fit the scene. While I'm definitely not against the usage of hip-hop in period films (Quentin Tarantino's usage of Rick Ross and Tupac songs in last year's "Django Unchained" worked perfectly), here they feel awkward. Dubstep, techno, and even Jay-Z collaboration with Kanye West "Who Gon Stop Me" fit with the gluttonous nature of the 1920s rich. Jay-Z songs like "100$ Bill" and "Hova (I.Z.Z.O.)" do not and pull you totally out of the moment.
"Great Gatsby" is still something we don't see often during the summer. An intriguing, beautiful, and well-made film that must be seen on a big-screen to be truly enjoyed (in 3D or 2D). While it will more than likely not be the movie you pictured when you bought that ear-marked copy complete with the writing of someone you never knew (as the copy I purchased at John Kings Books in Detroit), it is still an amazing story with themes that still echo today. Much like Luhrmann's "Romeo + Juliet", this is a retelling of an amazing story that we can only hope makes a connection with today's generation.
Nick Carraway (Tobey Maguire) is a 1920s bonds salesman whose newfound wealth moves him into an impressive house on Long Island. His small-town beginnings don't prepare him for what money and his new location bring to his life. Next-door to Carraway, is the house of a mysterious figure named Gatsby (Leonardo DiCaprio) who holds human parties that pull in all of New York City. Nobody has seen Gatsby but his reputation is more than enough for people to create elaborate stories about who he is and who he is not. After receiving an invitation (a rarity for Gatsby), Carraway runs into Gatsby. Gatsby pulls Carraway into a life of money, romance, alcoholism, and corruption all in hopes of rekindling a relationship with Carraway's cousin Daisy Buchanan (Carey Mulligan). Daisy's powerful and angry husband, Tom Buchanan (Joel Edgerton) is the only thing keeping Gatsby from achieving the only thing his money can't buy.
"The Great Gatsby" is easily Baz Luhrmann's most reserved film maybe ever. This, of course, isn't saying much. The extravagant party sequences show the Luhrmann we've come to love (or hate). They are loud, colorful events blaring music that is not time-period appropriate in the slightest. Sometimes the music works incredibly well (both incarnations of Lana Del Ray's "Young and Beautiful" fit perfectly) and sometimes they are like nails on a chalkboard (a scene featuring Jay-Z's "Izzo (H.O.V.A.)). Luhrmann utilizes 3D well in these scenes of excess allowing heaps of confetti to seemingly spill into the audience. It is his 3D utilization and filming of the more sullen and reserved moments in "Gatsby" that work especially well. Iconic scenes such as Gatsby staring at the often-discussed "green light" across the water are among the most beautiful moments presented in 3D cinema. The diminished brightness of the picture that 3D often causes has very little impact on the distance and depth the dimension adds. Luhrmann actually holds himself quite a bit in comparison to his previous works. The 3D is never so over-the-top that it takes you out of the film. The only scenes that feel completely connected with his often "campy" style are the party scenes which almost seem to be written just for Luhrmann to present. While it is not totally necessary to be seen in 3D (in fact, the brightness 2D offers might be preferable in several scenes) it is easily the most impressive 3D presentation since "Hugo".
DiCaprio is his typical great self as Gatsby. He plays the calm and kind-eyed man with every nuance that could be expected. He again proves that he possibly the best American actor currently working. While this won't be the time he walks away with an Oscar, he is perfectly cast and it is impossible to picture another actor in his position. It is nice to see Maguire make a return to wide-release cinema. After reading about how Maguire and DiCaprio grew up acting together, it makes the connection to Carraway and Gatsby that much deeper.
Taking such a well-loved work of literature like "Great Gatsby" and turning into into a big-budget 3D film filmed by the maker of "Moulin Rouge" and featuring a soundtrack produced by Jay-Z is something akin to a joke. On paper (no pun intended), Fitzgerald's story does not read even close to the presentation offered here. Surprisingly enough, Luhrmann's style fits perfectly. If you take the story and its themes of how money and parties can't bring you everything and inject it with the manic and gorgeous energy Luhrmann often presents, it is a natural fit. Many purists will no doubt be disappointed in this film. This is definitely not the story you pictured while reading this novel in high school. That said, there is no reason the film version should have to please the fans of the book. The book will remain and they can either choose to watch Robert Redford's 1974 version or simply to re-read Fitzgerald's text. The heart of Fitzgerald's story is still seen in Luhrmann's story. It gave me a whole new reading on a novel I all but ignored during my first reading in 9th grade. I can only hope I enjoy a re-reading of the novel as much as I enjoyed this presentation.
The film is not without its negatives though. The scenes featuring Myrtle (Isla Fisher) and George Wilson (Jason Clarke), working-class friends of Tom Buchanan's are extremely out-of-place. While it could be said that the slightly irritating characterizations of Myrtle and George are part of who these characters are truly meant to be, they are both miscast in their roles. Clarke, who was easily one of the highlights in last year's "Zero Dark Thirty" plays George almost as a theater performance and it doesn't fit. It could also be said that Edgerton's performance of Tom Buchanan might not be up to the character he needs to play. He may act cold and yell as a man in a loveless marriage protected by money but after we see similar performances by Jon Hamm in "Mad Men" that eclipse this weekly.
Luhrmann's campy flourishes don't always work. Almost every Jay-Z song in this film completely pulls you out of the moment. They feel like temporary audio tracks that were put on the film until they could fit a better song that fit the scene. While I'm definitely not against the usage of hip-hop in period films (Quentin Tarantino's usage of Rick Ross and Tupac songs in last year's "Django Unchained" worked perfectly), here they feel awkward. Dubstep, techno, and even Jay-Z collaboration with Kanye West "Who Gon Stop Me" fit with the gluttonous nature of the 1920s rich. Jay-Z songs like "100$ Bill" and "Hova (I.Z.Z.O.)" do not and pull you totally out of the moment.
"Great Gatsby" is still something we don't see often during the summer. An intriguing, beautiful, and well-made film that must be seen on a big-screen to be truly enjoyed (in 3D or 2D). While it will more than likely not be the movie you pictured when you bought that ear-marked copy complete with the writing of someone you never knew (as the copy I purchased at John Kings Books in Detroit), it is still an amazing story with themes that still echo today. Much like Luhrmann's "Romeo + Juliet", this is a retelling of an amazing story that we can only hope makes a connection with today's generation.
Saturday, May 4, 2013
"Mud" - 3 stars out of 4 (B)
One of the more interesting developments in Hollywood recently has been that Matthew McConaughey has turned from more than a punchline and into more of an actor. I'm not saying he isn't still funny or an easy addition to a joke. His laid-back demeanor and Texas drawl are just begging for comedy. He has proven though that he is a respectable actor who is hired in movies by directors like Lee Daniels, Steven Soderbergh, and even Christopher Nolan. His latest performance is in Jeff Nichols's "Mud". He plays the titular character with all the drawl we have come to expect from McConaughey. It just so happens that that drawl fits the character and the film perfectly.
Ellis (Tye Sheridan) and Neckbone (Jacob Lofland) are two middle schoolers who lived alongside the Mississippi River. They are bored and spent most of their time on the river, trolling for fish they can freeze and sell to the townsfolk. They also enjoy spending time in their treehouse on a remote island which is acutally much more of a treehouse-boat. The boat, located high up in a tree, has no owner and no sign of how it got there. On one of their visits, Ellis and Neckbone run into a man named Mud (McConaughey). Sly and personable, Mud asks the boys if they wouldn't mind going into town and getting him food. He can't leave the island as he is waiting for his girlfriend Juniper (Reese Witherspoon). It is with this action, that the two boys get themselves into a darker situation than they had expected as Mud proves to be more than they expected and yet exactly as they expected.
Jeff Nichols is coming off of 2011's "Take Shelter", a film that would have received much more award attention had it been released at a better time and had it received a proper advertising budget. Nichols again proves that he is one of the more promising new-comers. His writing and directing show a filmmaker who could produce something great in the next few years. He lingers just long enough on shots so that he makes his point but never beats you down with it. While "Mud" is not nearly as powerful or as riveting as "Take Shelter", it still shows Nichols in a good light.
McConaughey is a natural fit as Mud. One of the often maligned parts of his acting ability is that he essentially plays himself. His characterization of Mud is no different. McConaughey is a charming, good-looking rascal and that is his character here as well. Still, he plays his standard role very well and it fits the character extremely well. Witherspoon is essentially wasted as Juniper, a woman of few words or actions. Her role could have been played by any 30-something actress although it is nice to know that she can branch out from big-budget romantic comedies and do semi-independent film again. Nichols mainstay (and soon to be extremely sought-after actor following his performance in this summer's "Man of Steel") Michael Shannon appears in a supporting role as Neckbone's uncle. There is a part of me that wonders what he might have done with a character like Mud even though McConaughey is such a natural fit.
Much of the acclaim for "Mud" will not go to McConaughey but to the performance by Sheridan as Ellis. The characterization and delivery of Ellis seems natural and propels the film forward. One scene in particular between Mud and Ellis near the end after a realization is "Oscar-bait" in the best way. His performance is very reminiscent of River Phoenix in "Stand By Me" or Jamie Bell in "Undertow". There is not one moment we don't believe this boy is a 14-year old who honestly has no idea what is going through his mind or what he is getting himself wrapped up into. While his performance will more than likely be forgotten come next Oscar season, Sheridan is definitely someone to watch in the upcoming years.
Like "Take Shelter", Nichols somewhat fumbles his way through the third act. He builds tension incredibly well and pulls viewers in so tight that very few endings could complement them. The final 20 minutes of "Mud" feels oddly out-of-place, like a film with not enough time to adequately tie everything up. While it does not totally disappoint, it isn't the ending the film deserves. One hopes Nichols can figure out how to master an ending in his next film as he certainly knows how to build something up.
Much like its main character, "Mud" breezes through with a charismatic attitude that hides dark and mysterious undertones. It again proves that Nichols is on his way to something great, that we should probably compliment McConaughey at least 1/3 as much as we poke fun, and that there are some truly great child actors out there working today and hopefully in the future.
Ellis (Tye Sheridan) and Neckbone (Jacob Lofland) are two middle schoolers who lived alongside the Mississippi River. They are bored and spent most of their time on the river, trolling for fish they can freeze and sell to the townsfolk. They also enjoy spending time in their treehouse on a remote island which is acutally much more of a treehouse-boat. The boat, located high up in a tree, has no owner and no sign of how it got there. On one of their visits, Ellis and Neckbone run into a man named Mud (McConaughey). Sly and personable, Mud asks the boys if they wouldn't mind going into town and getting him food. He can't leave the island as he is waiting for his girlfriend Juniper (Reese Witherspoon). It is with this action, that the two boys get themselves into a darker situation than they had expected as Mud proves to be more than they expected and yet exactly as they expected.
Jeff Nichols is coming off of 2011's "Take Shelter", a film that would have received much more award attention had it been released at a better time and had it received a proper advertising budget. Nichols again proves that he is one of the more promising new-comers. His writing and directing show a filmmaker who could produce something great in the next few years. He lingers just long enough on shots so that he makes his point but never beats you down with it. While "Mud" is not nearly as powerful or as riveting as "Take Shelter", it still shows Nichols in a good light.
McConaughey is a natural fit as Mud. One of the often maligned parts of his acting ability is that he essentially plays himself. His characterization of Mud is no different. McConaughey is a charming, good-looking rascal and that is his character here as well. Still, he plays his standard role very well and it fits the character extremely well. Witherspoon is essentially wasted as Juniper, a woman of few words or actions. Her role could have been played by any 30-something actress although it is nice to know that she can branch out from big-budget romantic comedies and do semi-independent film again. Nichols mainstay (and soon to be extremely sought-after actor following his performance in this summer's "Man of Steel") Michael Shannon appears in a supporting role as Neckbone's uncle. There is a part of me that wonders what he might have done with a character like Mud even though McConaughey is such a natural fit.
Much of the acclaim for "Mud" will not go to McConaughey but to the performance by Sheridan as Ellis. The characterization and delivery of Ellis seems natural and propels the film forward. One scene in particular between Mud and Ellis near the end after a realization is "Oscar-bait" in the best way. His performance is very reminiscent of River Phoenix in "Stand By Me" or Jamie Bell in "Undertow". There is not one moment we don't believe this boy is a 14-year old who honestly has no idea what is going through his mind or what he is getting himself wrapped up into. While his performance will more than likely be forgotten come next Oscar season, Sheridan is definitely someone to watch in the upcoming years.
Like "Take Shelter", Nichols somewhat fumbles his way through the third act. He builds tension incredibly well and pulls viewers in so tight that very few endings could complement them. The final 20 minutes of "Mud" feels oddly out-of-place, like a film with not enough time to adequately tie everything up. While it does not totally disappoint, it isn't the ending the film deserves. One hopes Nichols can figure out how to master an ending in his next film as he certainly knows how to build something up.
Much like its main character, "Mud" breezes through with a charismatic attitude that hides dark and mysterious undertones. It again proves that Nichols is on his way to something great, that we should probably compliment McConaughey at least 1/3 as much as we poke fun, and that there are some truly great child actors out there working today and hopefully in the future.
Friday, May 3, 2013
"Iron Man 3" 3.5 stars out of 4 (B+)
For as much flack as the "comic book film genre" has received over the years, one of the most interesting occurrences in this genre has been the freedom given to filmmakers who want to do original takes on the material. Robert Rodriguez made his masterpiece with 2005's "Sin City". Christopher Nolan proved that you could take a comic and turn it into an interesting and adult piece of art with his "Batman" films. Joss Whedon took multiple Marvel super heroes and weaved them together to create something that is nothing short of a surprise in "The Avengers". It would be easy for the studios to find a lower-quality filmmaker for these films. Someone who will simply yes "Yes boss" and include every bit of stereotype, cliche, and product-placement into the films creating something pedestrian and vapid. "Iron Man 3" follows in the steps of Rodriguez, Nolan, and Whedon by taking a relatively unproven filmmaker, Shane Black, and giving him the freedom to create something that is becoming more and more uncommon these days: a special effects film where they got the script right before they got the pixels right.
The main complaint that people will have with "Iron Man 3" is that Downey spends so much time out of his Iron Man costume. There aren't nearly as many action sequences as we've come to expect. That said, the pull back from action to the drama of the characters and the situation is a worthwhile and interesting approach. Did we really need more scenes of a CGI superhero punching bad guys while a Black Sabbath song plays? Do we really need ADR Downey Jr quips piped in over "Shoot to Thrill" by AC/DC? These events have already been done and played out. We have seen Iron Man in enough action scenes. This is not to say that "Iron Man 3" is a slow-moving art house film. The film's $200 million budget is definitely prevalent in every scene. The action scenes are used well and fit in perfectly.
"Iron Man 3" starts off shortly after the events that took place at the end of "The Avengers". Billionaire machinist Tony Stark (Robert Downey, Jr.) is off. This is not the alcoholic and purely narcissistic Stark we were introduced to in the first two "Iron Man" films. This Stark is truly shook up. He can't sleep and when he does he has panic-induced nightmares. A new villain, The Mandarin (Ben Kingsley), starts threatening the American people through nationally televised cryptic threats. Stark must fight through his own demons in order to fight the ones that threaten him and his girlfriend, Pepper (Gwyneth Paltrow).
The "Iron Man" series started on a gamble. Having unproven former drug-addict Downey, Jr. play a major role in a comic book film was a risk that turned out to be a stroke of genius. The latest stroke of genius was letting Shane Black direct "Iron Man 3". After the dull and boring "Iron Man 2", Black's "Iron Man 3" is a quick-paced and witty film with more surprises than you would expect from a big-budget summer film. Black has made a career on writing snappy dialogue. We last saw this in 2006's "Kiss Kiss Bang Bang", the film that arguably reminded the film world about Downey. Here he takes the often overblown character of Stark and puts him in a mostly realistic world-place. He is no longer this over-the-top caricature of a person. While that is most definitely entertaining, it makes us difficult to care about him. Here, we actually start to feel for Tony Stark and the people around him. Gone is the narcissism and womanizing. Gone is the over-the-top AC/DC music that filled every scene of the first two films. Stark seems like a human being. Although this is definitely the most supernatural of the three "Iron Man" films, it also feels the most realistic somehow.
The supporting cast is another place where "Iron Man 3" shines. Ben Kingsley's performance as The Mandarin is perfectly chilling. While he isn't quite in the league of something like Heath Ledger's Joker, Kingsley reminds us that he is a great actor who is underused. Guy Pierce is also perfectly cast as Aldrich Killian, a scientist who has large plans for medical advancements that could replace missing limbs but at a great cost. Child actor Ty Simpkins is also incredibly good as Harley, a boy that Stark befriends on his adventures. The role of "kid sidekick" is a tired cliche that many fans will balk at even a mere suggestion. Simpkins is given great dialogue to work with and fits in very well with Downey's barbs of sarcasm.
The main complaint that people will have with "Iron Man 3" is that Downey spends so much time out of his Iron Man costume. There aren't nearly as many action sequences as we've come to expect. That said, the pull back from action to the drama of the characters and the situation is a worthwhile and interesting approach. Did we really need more scenes of a CGI superhero punching bad guys while a Black Sabbath song plays? Do we really need ADR Downey Jr quips piped in over "Shoot to Thrill" by AC/DC? These events have already been done and played out. We have seen Iron Man in enough action scenes. This is not to say that "Iron Man 3" is a slow-moving art house film. The film's $200 million budget is definitely prevalent in every scene. The action scenes are used well and fit in perfectly.
The most exciting thing about the success of movies like "The Avengers" and "Iron Man 3" is that they will open up the ability for real filmmaking to exist in the "comic book" genre. When wordsmiths like Joss Whedon and Shane Black are allowed to write films that weave together action and genuine screenwriting brilliance, it proves to studio heads that you don't need to leave your brain out when you watch an action movie. This is very similar to how Nolan proved with "The Dark Knight" that you could make a dark and challenging comic book film that audiences and critics both adored. The work of Whedon and Black proves that there is no excuse for films like "G.I. Joe Retaliation" or the "Transformers" films to rely purely on "dumb fun" and "'splosions". Black proves here that you can have fun and make a true "film" at the same time. While I don't know when we will see a new "Iron Man" film, I can imagine the impact from this movie will ring through in the big-budget films that come out in the next few years.
Tuesday, April 30, 2013
Trailers: The (Formerly) Best Part of Going to the Movies
I used to love trailers when I was a kid. I remember the day my small town got the E! Entertainment Channel and on came a show called "Coming Attractions". It promised nothing but "The best part of going to the movies... the trailers!"
Here is an episode from 1996.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wElqEg-4_WQ
Watching this video makes me think of two things. First, what in the world happened to Cameron Diaz? I understand that it has been about 16 years since then but she looks like a skeleton compared to how she looked in that "Feeling Minnesota" trailer. Also, this show makes me realize I will never look at trailers the same way again.
The days of 28.8 kbps modems allowed me to view trailers as they were released after loading them... for a very... very... low time. I remember waking up early on a snow day and downloading the latest trailer to "Batman and Robin". It only took me 2 hours. Was it worth it? I thought so. Was the movie worth it. No. Definitely not.
Flash forward to now where I'm seeing every movie that is coming out and my views on trailers have completely changed. In a perfect world, I wouldn't even have to see them. I could come right into the theater to my reserved seat just as the studio logo comes on for the film. More often than not, all I need to know is who is affiliated with a movie and the basic plot to know if I want to see it.
Take for example, "Pacific Rim", coming out in July. It is a movie directed by Guillermo del Toro who is the director who directed the modern-day classic "Pan's Labyrinth" along with the much-better-than-they-shoud be "Hellboy" films. It is about monsters who attack major cities (!) who must be defeated using giant human-controlled robots (!!!). Also Charlie Day of "It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia" and "Horrible Bosses" fame is in it as is Idris Elba (!!!!). You don't need to show me one frame of that movie and you've got my $7.50. Any trailer will just hurt my initial experience of seeing it. I've already seen one trailer and it actually made me LESS excited for the final product. Apparently a new trailer was released. I imagine it will play before "Iron Man 3"
Do you need to see a trailer to know if you want to see a big summer blockbuster? Did seeing a trailer for "Transformers", "The Avengers" or anything big-budget spectacle really convert anybody to see them? I would imagine not. These were tickets that could have been sold purely on a 10-second static picture of the poster with the release date below it.
I don't need a loud, flashy trailer to appear and spoil the movie for me. I remember hiding from the "Inception" trailers before that came out. I somehow managed not to see it (probably by not seeing many movies in the theater) until it played before "The A Team". I put my head down and hummed to myself. I must have looked insane but it definitely allowed my first viewing on that movie to be relatively blind.
I have seen the trailers for the upcoming summer films far too many times. I know this is because I've seen far too many movies. I know that when theaters are playing roughly 15 minutes of trailers before a movie, I'm bound to see them repeatedly. I don't think I can handle another viewing of "The Lone Ranger" trailer though. I'm happy "Iron Man 3" is coming out on Friday not just because I'm excited to see what Shane Black can do with the franchise but that I won't have to hear Ben Kinglsey say "You'llllllll nevvveeeeeerrrrr seeeeee meeeee commmmming" in his odd accent before every movie again. I'd also very much like not to hear David Allan Grier say "Well... now you're having puppies!" in the "Peeples" trailer again.
I was listening to the Rope of Silicon podcast recently and heard the critics Laremy Legal and Brad Brevet talk about how they are fairly subjected to what a film is like before seeing it. It appears that critic screenings don't come with trailers before them. Not only do they get early entry to a reserved seat away from the crowd but they also don't have to see trailers. Oh. My.
In my quest to replicate the experience of going in rather blind to a movie, I've decided I'm going to do my best to hide from trailers. I'm going to start bringing in headphones to movies. I'm going to have them lodged in my ears playing an audiobook. Maybe a How to Learn Spanish tape ("Un boleto para Hombre De Hierro Tres, por favor". Maybe I will catch up on some "This American Life". Maybe I will just blare Slayer to get me primed to suffer through "Smurfs 2". I may look slightly deranged but at least I will be going in mostly pure to these movies. I also won't have to be reminded about the upcoming "One Direction 3D" experience.
Here is an episode from 1996.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wElqEg-4_WQ
Watching this video makes me think of two things. First, what in the world happened to Cameron Diaz? I understand that it has been about 16 years since then but she looks like a skeleton compared to how she looked in that "Feeling Minnesota" trailer. Also, this show makes me realize I will never look at trailers the same way again.
The days of 28.8 kbps modems allowed me to view trailers as they were released after loading them... for a very... very... low time. I remember waking up early on a snow day and downloading the latest trailer to "Batman and Robin". It only took me 2 hours. Was it worth it? I thought so. Was the movie worth it. No. Definitely not.
Flash forward to now where I'm seeing every movie that is coming out and my views on trailers have completely changed. In a perfect world, I wouldn't even have to see them. I could come right into the theater to my reserved seat just as the studio logo comes on for the film. More often than not, all I need to know is who is affiliated with a movie and the basic plot to know if I want to see it.
Take for example, "Pacific Rim", coming out in July. It is a movie directed by Guillermo del Toro who is the director who directed the modern-day classic "Pan's Labyrinth" along with the much-better-than-they-shoud be "Hellboy" films. It is about monsters who attack major cities (!) who must be defeated using giant human-controlled robots (!!!). Also Charlie Day of "It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia" and "Horrible Bosses" fame is in it as is Idris Elba (!!!!). You don't need to show me one frame of that movie and you've got my $7.50. Any trailer will just hurt my initial experience of seeing it. I've already seen one trailer and it actually made me LESS excited for the final product. Apparently a new trailer was released. I imagine it will play before "Iron Man 3"
Do you need to see a trailer to know if you want to see a big summer blockbuster? Did seeing a trailer for "Transformers", "The Avengers" or anything big-budget spectacle really convert anybody to see them? I would imagine not. These were tickets that could have been sold purely on a 10-second static picture of the poster with the release date below it.
I don't need a loud, flashy trailer to appear and spoil the movie for me. I remember hiding from the "Inception" trailers before that came out. I somehow managed not to see it (probably by not seeing many movies in the theater) until it played before "The A Team". I put my head down and hummed to myself. I must have looked insane but it definitely allowed my first viewing on that movie to be relatively blind.
I have seen the trailers for the upcoming summer films far too many times. I know this is because I've seen far too many movies. I know that when theaters are playing roughly 15 minutes of trailers before a movie, I'm bound to see them repeatedly. I don't think I can handle another viewing of "The Lone Ranger" trailer though. I'm happy "Iron Man 3" is coming out on Friday not just because I'm excited to see what Shane Black can do with the franchise but that I won't have to hear Ben Kinglsey say "You'llllllll nevvveeeeeerrrrr seeeeee meeeee commmmming" in his odd accent before every movie again. I'd also very much like not to hear David Allan Grier say "Well... now you're having puppies!" in the "Peeples" trailer again.
I was listening to the Rope of Silicon podcast recently and heard the critics Laremy Legal and Brad Brevet talk about how they are fairly subjected to what a film is like before seeing it. It appears that critic screenings don't come with trailers before them. Not only do they get early entry to a reserved seat away from the crowd but they also don't have to see trailers. Oh. My.
In my quest to replicate the experience of going in rather blind to a movie, I've decided I'm going to do my best to hide from trailers. I'm going to start bringing in headphones to movies. I'm going to have them lodged in my ears playing an audiobook. Maybe a How to Learn Spanish tape ("Un boleto para Hombre De Hierro Tres, por favor". Maybe I will catch up on some "This American Life". Maybe I will just blare Slayer to get me primed to suffer through "Smurfs 2". I may look slightly deranged but at least I will be going in mostly pure to these movies. I also won't have to be reminded about the upcoming "One Direction 3D" experience.
Sunday, April 28, 2013
To 3D or not 3D: My Dilemma
First off, I need to admit that I got that great title from a website called Cinema Blend. They review 3D films and tell you how well the 3D is utilized. Here is their review for The Avengers:
http://www.cinemablend.com/new/3D-Or-3D-Buy-Right-Avengers-Ticket-30660.html
Trailer after trailer is playing these days promoting the upcoming summer tent-pole films. Almost all of them end with "See it in Real 3D" or even "See it in IMAX 3D". I must say that I've never really been a fan of the experience of seeing 3D movies. I recall being very impressed with the 3D in "Coraline" but that is about it. I have seen plenty of movies though where it simply just dimmed the image, made me feel awkward to be wearing glasses, and made me more curious about what the image looked like without my glasses on than with them.
As you can expect, I go out of my way to find non-3D showings. Not only are they usually cheaper and less attended, but they are more enjoyable. Recently, I drove 30 minutes to see a 2D screening of "Hansel and Gretel: Witch Hunters". I could have driven considerably less and seen it in 3D or even IMAX 3D but that was not what I wanted. I didn't want to see an awkward computerized re-tooling of a film. I don't want to do that so badly that it usually makes me have to wake up incredibly early (well... relatively incredibly early) to go see the 2D screening of something. "Jurassic Park" was only playing at 11am in 2D. I got myself out of bed to see that instead of seeing a fake-converted 3D mess.
This is not to say that I always shy away from 3D. I recently saw "Jack the Giant Slayer" and the only showtime I could make was 3D. It did look pretty good but it was natively shot in 3D by a director who knows what he is doing. I still firmly believe it did nothing to add to the enjoyment of the movie though.
The problem I come upon as a "film critic" is that I don't know if I SHOULD be seeing 3D movies or 2D movies when given the option of both. Which is the director's true "vision"? If I review a 2D version of a 3D movie, am I truly reviewing the same movie? People were amazed and astounded over the 3D presentation of "Avatar". I only saw it in 2D and it more than likely would have only gotten 2 stars from me. Was I missing something not seeing it in 3D. Did I see the same movie as most of the 3D viewers?
"Iron Man 3" and "Star Trek Beyond Darkness" are coming out in the next few weeks. They are both being released in IMAX which is something I'm frothing at the mouth to see. IMAX's increased resolution and booming sound will no doubt help both films. Unfortunately, both films have been post-converted into 3D. They weren't filmed with 3D cameras. They are being run through computers in order to create a fake 3D appearance. I've seen movies like this. They are more often than not, disappointing. Variety critic Scott Foundas found the 3D conversion of "Iron Man 3" "unremarkable" and suggested viewers "see it in 2D and (they) will miss little, but keep a few extra dollars in (their) wallet" (http://variety.com/2013/film/reviews/iron-man-three-review-1200413714/). "Star Trek Beyond Darkness" director J.J. Abrams has come out and said he had no interest in making the movie in 3D and that:
“The studio said, ‘You have to make it in 3D if you’re going to make it, for economic reasons. But my feeling was I didn’t like 3D. So the idea of doing Star Trek in 3D was ridiculous. But that was very helpful in some ways, because it let us work with stereographers and the 3D crew in a way that didn’t assume we just loved 3D.” (http://www.digitalspy.com/movies/news/a449669/jj-abrams-i-was-forced-to-make-star-trek-into-darkness-in-3d.html)
So why should we pay more for a dimmed presentation that many find disorienting and that the directors didn't truly want in the first place. A lot of time it comes down to convenience. I am lucky enough to be able to find a 2D showing of "Iron Man 3" for Thursday. There is no such thing as a 2D IMAX showing though. The 2D showing will no doubt be on a smaller screen than the 3D showings. I'm basically limiting myself in the presentation because I am choosing the 2D. More and more, theaters are only previewing the 3D version. It seems that critics often are only being shown the 3D cut. Most recently, "G.I. Joe Retaliation" was released a day early but only in 3D and IMAX 3D. I had to wait until the next day to see and review it. That one day could make a large difference in terms of readers (not that I have those now but in a hypothetical future).
I will continue to find 2D showings but will continue to have that little voice in my head that questions if I'm doing the right thing.
http://www.cinemablend.com/new/3D-Or-3D-Buy-Right-Avengers-Ticket-30660.html
Trailer after trailer is playing these days promoting the upcoming summer tent-pole films. Almost all of them end with "See it in Real 3D" or even "See it in IMAX 3D". I must say that I've never really been a fan of the experience of seeing 3D movies. I recall being very impressed with the 3D in "Coraline" but that is about it. I have seen plenty of movies though where it simply just dimmed the image, made me feel awkward to be wearing glasses, and made me more curious about what the image looked like without my glasses on than with them.
As you can expect, I go out of my way to find non-3D showings. Not only are they usually cheaper and less attended, but they are more enjoyable. Recently, I drove 30 minutes to see a 2D screening of "Hansel and Gretel: Witch Hunters". I could have driven considerably less and seen it in 3D or even IMAX 3D but that was not what I wanted. I didn't want to see an awkward computerized re-tooling of a film. I don't want to do that so badly that it usually makes me have to wake up incredibly early (well... relatively incredibly early) to go see the 2D screening of something. "Jurassic Park" was only playing at 11am in 2D. I got myself out of bed to see that instead of seeing a fake-converted 3D mess.
This is not to say that I always shy away from 3D. I recently saw "Jack the Giant Slayer" and the only showtime I could make was 3D. It did look pretty good but it was natively shot in 3D by a director who knows what he is doing. I still firmly believe it did nothing to add to the enjoyment of the movie though.
The problem I come upon as a "film critic" is that I don't know if I SHOULD be seeing 3D movies or 2D movies when given the option of both. Which is the director's true "vision"? If I review a 2D version of a 3D movie, am I truly reviewing the same movie? People were amazed and astounded over the 3D presentation of "Avatar". I only saw it in 2D and it more than likely would have only gotten 2 stars from me. Was I missing something not seeing it in 3D. Did I see the same movie as most of the 3D viewers?
"Iron Man 3" and "Star Trek Beyond Darkness" are coming out in the next few weeks. They are both being released in IMAX which is something I'm frothing at the mouth to see. IMAX's increased resolution and booming sound will no doubt help both films. Unfortunately, both films have been post-converted into 3D. They weren't filmed with 3D cameras. They are being run through computers in order to create a fake 3D appearance. I've seen movies like this. They are more often than not, disappointing. Variety critic Scott Foundas found the 3D conversion of "Iron Man 3" "unremarkable" and suggested viewers "see it in 2D and (they) will miss little, but keep a few extra dollars in (their) wallet" (http://variety.com/2013/film/reviews/iron-man-three-review-1200413714/). "Star Trek Beyond Darkness" director J.J. Abrams has come out and said he had no interest in making the movie in 3D and that:
“The studio said, ‘You have to make it in 3D if you’re going to make it, for economic reasons. But my feeling was I didn’t like 3D. So the idea of doing Star Trek in 3D was ridiculous. But that was very helpful in some ways, because it let us work with stereographers and the 3D crew in a way that didn’t assume we just loved 3D.” (http://www.digitalspy.com/movies/news/a449669/jj-abrams-i-was-forced-to-make-star-trek-into-darkness-in-3d.html)
So why should we pay more for a dimmed presentation that many find disorienting and that the directors didn't truly want in the first place. A lot of time it comes down to convenience. I am lucky enough to be able to find a 2D showing of "Iron Man 3" for Thursday. There is no such thing as a 2D IMAX showing though. The 2D showing will no doubt be on a smaller screen than the 3D showings. I'm basically limiting myself in the presentation because I am choosing the 2D. More and more, theaters are only previewing the 3D version. It seems that critics often are only being shown the 3D cut. Most recently, "G.I. Joe Retaliation" was released a day early but only in 3D and IMAX 3D. I had to wait until the next day to see and review it. That one day could make a large difference in terms of readers (not that I have those now but in a hypothetical future).
I will continue to find 2D showings but will continue to have that little voice in my head that questions if I'm doing the right thing.
Saturday, April 27, 2013
"The Big Wedding" 2 stars out of 4 (C)
"The Big Wedding" is a pleasant movie with great actors. It is always nice to see great actors like Robert De Niro, Susan Sarandon, and Diane Keaton together. It is arguably De Niro's most fun performance in quite some time, although that is definitely not saying much. It contains many moments that made the largely senior-priced crowd laugh hard. It is hard to dislike it. It is a pity though that the scripting, characterization, and plot progression do not think higher of their audience. The film chugs along like an R-rated CBS sitcom making it difficult to actually believe some of the events the characters are experiencing. Still, it is not without charm.
Divorced couple Don (Robert de Niro) and Ellie (Diane Keaton). Their adopted son Alejandro (Ben Barnes) is getting married and his biological mother, Madonna (Patricia Rae), is visiting unexpectedly. Unfortunately, Madonna believes that divorce is a travesty and this will sully the reception. Don must push his live-in girlfriend, Bebe (Susan Sarandon) out of the picture in order to keep up appearances that he and Ellie are still together. All of this is going on as Don and Ellie's 29-year old son Jared (Topher Grace) tries to lose his virginity (no, you didn't read that wrong) and their daughter Lyla (Katherine Heigl) deals with a rocky break-up with her husband. Will everything turn out well in the end? How many episodes of a TV comedy have you seen before?
Justin Zackham wrote and directed this film based on the 2006 film "Mon frere se marie" and it would seem like something got lost in translation. Plot points, character motivations, and the overall progression no doubt flowed better in French than it does here. The movie reads like a list of events that someone wanted to put in a raunchy adult comedy and then figured out how to do this with the loosest of plots. Things that matter intensely to a character seem to only matter for that particular scene until it moves to the next character. The audience is left confused not knowing if we are supposed to truly care about these characters or just revel in the general chaos. Although the film mercifully doesn't included anyone falling into a wedding cake, it pulls out every other stereotypical plot event. Some of the jokes and plot developments do work but the whole thing adds up to a mediocre, forgettable film that will be aimed squarely at the $5 bin in a handful of years.
This film would be totally lost without the charm of De Niro and Sarandon. The two are more fun than we have seen in quite some time. The script actually gives De Niro's character a few chances to really shine with his children, Bebe, and Ellie. He may be a colossal mess of a person (again a plot point that probably plays more loosely in the French original) but he is still presented as a mostly likable flawed character. He hasn't made me smile this much in far too many roles.
"The Big Wedding" is a flawed piece of fluff that will appear and disappear as quickly as it is consumed. It will no doubt provide a decent amount of entertainment for those who are fine with slightly ribald humor delivered by screen greats. It is not the great film that these actors deserve but it is better than it reads on paper. Attend this wedding if it is raining out and you have nothing better to do. The cake will be decent and you are always looking for an excuse to wear that dress or suit. Don't cancel your plans over it though.
Divorced couple Don (Robert de Niro) and Ellie (Diane Keaton). Their adopted son Alejandro (Ben Barnes) is getting married and his biological mother, Madonna (Patricia Rae), is visiting unexpectedly. Unfortunately, Madonna believes that divorce is a travesty and this will sully the reception. Don must push his live-in girlfriend, Bebe (Susan Sarandon) out of the picture in order to keep up appearances that he and Ellie are still together. All of this is going on as Don and Ellie's 29-year old son Jared (Topher Grace) tries to lose his virginity (no, you didn't read that wrong) and their daughter Lyla (Katherine Heigl) deals with a rocky break-up with her husband. Will everything turn out well in the end? How many episodes of a TV comedy have you seen before?
Justin Zackham wrote and directed this film based on the 2006 film "Mon frere se marie" and it would seem like something got lost in translation. Plot points, character motivations, and the overall progression no doubt flowed better in French than it does here. The movie reads like a list of events that someone wanted to put in a raunchy adult comedy and then figured out how to do this with the loosest of plots. Things that matter intensely to a character seem to only matter for that particular scene until it moves to the next character. The audience is left confused not knowing if we are supposed to truly care about these characters or just revel in the general chaos. Although the film mercifully doesn't included anyone falling into a wedding cake, it pulls out every other stereotypical plot event. Some of the jokes and plot developments do work but the whole thing adds up to a mediocre, forgettable film that will be aimed squarely at the $5 bin in a handful of years.
This film would be totally lost without the charm of De Niro and Sarandon. The two are more fun than we have seen in quite some time. The script actually gives De Niro's character a few chances to really shine with his children, Bebe, and Ellie. He may be a colossal mess of a person (again a plot point that probably plays more loosely in the French original) but he is still presented as a mostly likable flawed character. He hasn't made me smile this much in far too many roles.
"The Big Wedding" is a flawed piece of fluff that will appear and disappear as quickly as it is consumed. It will no doubt provide a decent amount of entertainment for those who are fine with slightly ribald humor delivered by screen greats. It is not the great film that these actors deserve but it is better than it reads on paper. Attend this wedding if it is raining out and you have nothing better to do. The cake will be decent and you are always looking for an excuse to wear that dress or suit. Don't cancel your plans over it though.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)