Movies on the Mind
Friday, March 14 2014
Movie of the Day:
The Grand Budapest Hotel (2014)
It's funny how in a new year of movies, we've already been dished with so much which seems a little uneasy and possibly untrue given that the Oscars for LAST year's movies were only a couple weeks ago.
But believe it or not, in the last three months alone we've been given a Paranormal Activity spin-off, a new movie about Jesus (which is just the Jesus segment from The Bible miniseries stretched over two hours), a new squirrel-themed animated movie called The Nut Job, one CGI-ridden retelling of Two Face Frankenstein with abs, two Kevin Hart-themed comedies, TWO Kevin Costner-themed action movies, THREE historically-based (very loosely based) Greek-Sparta-Roman-style 3D movies including a completely inaccurate "retelling" of Hercules and a SEQUEL to 300 (that's real life [Hey, I never said we've been given good movies])... Oh, and The Lego Movie. The Lego Movie was good (scroll down if you want to see my thoughts on The Lego Movie).
And perhaps my taste in film is maturing or perhaps I don't want to shell out the $10+ for a gamble of a film but this is only the second film I've seen of 2014. Now, to say that my taste based on The Lego Movie and Grand Budapest alone amount to "class," would just be a misunderstanding... Because make no mistake, I can't wait for Trans4mers (see what I did there!?) and all the inevitably crappy Blockbusters to start hitting us two months from now. I'm no hypocrite, I love a good popcorn movie every now and again but movies like The Grand Budapest Hotel remind me why I wanted to become a filmmaker so many years ago and because it's a Wes Anderson film, my love for it makes me the biggest hypocrite of them all.
Flashback to me in high school. I loved Fight Club and Requiem for a Dream like EVERY teenager discovering actual film for the first time does (still love those movies but that's not a lie) where on the opposite end of the spectrum, I absolutely loathed quirky movies like The Royal Tenenbaums and Lost In Translation, because I was above that "art house crap" (do you want to punch 17-year-old-me in the face as much as I do yet?). I was a stubborn, ignorant moviegoer who wasn't ashamed to go out to the movies to have fun but also got trapped under the weight of mediocrity while ignoring genius filmmaking (looking back on trekking to the theaters to see movies like Balls of Fury while bashing No Country For Old Men honestly makes me ashamed to say I love movies).
ALL IT TO SAY IS, I used to bash Wes Anderson because of his hipster-quirky attitude that was apparent in EVERY movie he put out, trying to cram so much pretentiousness in EVERY center-framed shot and somehow got ginourmous stars to feature in his droll, dragging miserable pictures he called "comedies." (I did say I was ignorant).
FLASHFORWARD to the present day. I now proudly own almost the entire Coen Bros. works on DVD (am waiting for Llewyn Davis to drop in price) and as of last night, returned from what is hands down, far and away (in my humble opinion of course) Wes Anderson's finest film to date.
Now let me catch up with my present-day self for a sec. I used to bash Anderson's films but over the years have given them more chances and like the Coen's, I find that there is FAR much more to be taken into account for with his films and I can't believe how many years I spent blind ignoring the pure, genius craft at hand. And it is GENIUS.
First and foremost, it is only natural to address that this is still a Wes Anderson film (some have deemed it "the most Wes Anderson film of all time") and therefore, it is as hipster as ever and will only be for a CERTAIN audience. And this truly isn't me demeaning anyone, this is me giving a heed of warning so my taste in film stays perfectly in tact: Whatever you do, DON'T bring the wrong person to this movie; whether it be somebody old, slow, someone who can't follow a rapid pace of dialogue and editing or someone who finds the characters a little too mean-spirited; this is NOT a movie for everyone.
With that said, for the right audiences, the film is brilliant in LITERALLY every department. With Anderson's largest cast to date, the acting is brilliant, notably from a phenomenal as always Ralph Fiennes and his newly-appointed new-to-acting Tony Revolori as the two leads old and young, HOWEVER, all the major players (and I mean ALL of them from an up-in-arms Adrien Brody, a mustache-worthy Ed Norton, a corpse-looking Tilda Swinton, a beardy Jeff Goldblum, a poingnant Jude Law and even more poignant F. Murray Abraham [Salieri from Amaedus], with tons of cameos from Bill Murray to Owen Wilson to Harvey Keitel to a phenomenally scene-stealing Willam Dafoe) NAIL their roles as not one person in this lineup is wasted.
The script is superb and moves with lightning fast direction through multiple decades of time, most notably the 1930's, and consistently shifts pace so quick that if you're not paying attention you could miss a pivotal moment, whether it be important to the story or just down-right hilarious. It's easily Wes' best script in terms of taking his audience on a grand adventure but it's probably also his most poignant as it dwells on the pain of nostalgia and an era of the past through one person's eyes passed on through the looking glass of another's as we wither with age. It's a bittersweet, dark comedy but it hits the points exactly as the film calls for it to. It's also got the most amount of heart in any Wes Anderson picture. You can't help but root for these characters even when they're in the wrong and one can't help but want to see these characters achieve their goals in adventure, romance, thievery, peril and bonding over new-bound relationships. It's one to make your heart smile, if not laugh.
Let us also not forget the shots and the outstanding visuals the film acquires. Anderson is probably one of the only filmmakers working in Hollywood today who uses to SAME shot consistently from beginning to finish. No, literally from opening frame to the closing, his shots are identical and probably about as simplistic as the human eye can see: a lone, single shot EXACTLY center-framed were he using a ruler to measure out the exact degree of 180 on a flat plane where his three-dimensional characters cross the camera left to right on a solid two-dimensional plane. Sure, he has actors cross the frame in a three-dimensional manner (sometimes with backdrops that often look like beautiful paintings) but much of the time he has characters run left to right and often as silhouettes being chased by a large group of sorts that in certain wide frames, makes the film look like a comic strip. As simple as that looks visually, that's gotta be tricky as hell to pull off and make it look cartoonish enough to be believable. The quick physical manifestation these characters take on in their moments of physical reaction is something reminiscent of George Melies and you can't help but wonder how Wes would do with a Trip to the Moon remake.
The soundtrack is phenomenal and catchy. I would buy this movie's soundtrack.
The humor is deviously black and QUICK. Think of Monty Python were it sped up and not so focused on one joke at a time rather than hitting us at lightning speed. Some events happen so fast and some off camera, leaving much to the imagination, that ends up leaving us in stitches (and some moments, notably Dafoe's, are laugh-out-loud hilarious).
It's a grand film for the ages and it's truly a phenomenal first (or second) foot into the new year, even if we are still in the dead season of late Winter/early Spring. All I know is, it's Anderson's finest film and one of the, if not THE best film of 2014 so far. It's a grand masterpiece in a filmmaker's career. It's a grand feat for cinematography and editing in 2014 (that doesn't rely on heavy CGI to get the required shots!). It's The Grand Budapest Hotel folks.
It's funny how in a new year of movies, we've already been dished with so much which seems a little uneasy and possibly untrue given that the Oscars for LAST year's movies were only a couple weeks ago.
But believe it or not, in the last three months alone we've been given a Paranormal Activity spin-off, a new movie about Jesus (which is just the Jesus segment from The Bible miniseries stretched over two hours), a new squirrel-themed animated movie called The Nut Job, one CGI-ridden retelling of Two Face Frankenstein with abs, two Kevin Hart-themed comedies, TWO Kevin Costner-themed action movies, THREE historically-based (very loosely based) Greek-Sparta-Roman-style 3D movies including a completely inaccurate "retelling" of Hercules and a SEQUEL to 300 (that's real life [Hey, I never said we've been given good movies])... Oh, and The Lego Movie. The Lego Movie was good (scroll down if you want to see my thoughts on The Lego Movie).
And perhaps my taste in film is maturing or perhaps I don't want to shell out the $10+ for a gamble of a film but this is only the second film I've seen of 2014. Now, to say that my taste based on The Lego Movie and Grand Budapest alone amount to "class," would just be a misunderstanding... Because make no mistake, I can't wait for Trans4mers (see what I did there!?) and all the inevitably crappy Blockbusters to start hitting us two months from now. I'm no hypocrite, I love a good popcorn movie every now and again but movies like The Grand Budapest Hotel remind me why I wanted to become a filmmaker so many years ago and because it's a Wes Anderson film, my love for it makes me the biggest hypocrite of them all.
Flashback to me in high school. I loved Fight Club and Requiem for a Dream like EVERY teenager discovering actual film for the first time does (still love those movies but that's not a lie) where on the opposite end of the spectrum, I absolutely loathed quirky movies like The Royal Tenenbaums and Lost In Translation, because I was above that "art house crap" (do you want to punch 17-year-old-me in the face as much as I do yet?). I was a stubborn, ignorant moviegoer who wasn't ashamed to go out to the movies to have fun but also got trapped under the weight of mediocrity while ignoring genius filmmaking (looking back on trekking to the theaters to see movies like Balls of Fury while bashing No Country For Old Men honestly makes me ashamed to say I love movies).
And perhaps my taste in film is maturing or perhaps I don't want to shell out the $10+ for a gamble of a film but this is only the second film I've seen of 2014. Now, to say that my taste based on The Lego Movie and Grand Budapest alone amount to "class," would just be a misunderstanding... Because make no mistake, I can't wait for Trans4mers (see what I did there!?) and all the inevitably crappy Blockbusters to start hitting us two months from now. I'm no hypocrite, I love a good popcorn movie every now and again but movies like The Grand Budapest Hotel remind me why I wanted to become a filmmaker so many years ago and because it's a Wes Anderson film, my love for it makes me the biggest hypocrite of them all.
Flashback to me in high school. I loved Fight Club and Requiem for a Dream like EVERY teenager discovering actual film for the first time does (still love those movies but that's not a lie) where on the opposite end of the spectrum, I absolutely loathed quirky movies like The Royal Tenenbaums and Lost In Translation, because I was above that "art house crap" (do you want to punch 17-year-old-me in the face as much as I do yet?). I was a stubborn, ignorant moviegoer who wasn't ashamed to go out to the movies to have fun but also got trapped under the weight of mediocrity while ignoring genius filmmaking (looking back on trekking to the theaters to see movies like Balls of Fury while bashing No Country For Old Men honestly makes me ashamed to say I love movies).
ALL IT TO SAY IS, I used to bash Wes Anderson because of his hipster-quirky attitude that was apparent in EVERY movie he put out, trying to cram so much pretentiousness in EVERY center-framed shot and somehow got ginourmous stars to feature in his droll, dragging miserable pictures he called "comedies." (I did say I was ignorant).
FLASHFORWARD to the present day. I now proudly own almost the entire Coen Bros. works on DVD (am waiting for Llewyn Davis to drop in price) and as of last night, returned from what is hands down, far and away (in my humble opinion of course) Wes Anderson's finest film to date.
Now let me catch up with my present-day self for a sec. I used to bash Anderson's films but over the years have given them more chances and like the Coen's, I find that there is FAR much more to be taken into account for with his films and I can't believe how many years I spent blind ignoring the pure, genius craft at hand. And it is GENIUS.
First and foremost, it is only natural to address that this is still a Wes Anderson film (some have deemed it "the most Wes Anderson film of all time") and therefore, it is as hipster as ever and will only be for a CERTAIN audience. And this truly isn't me demeaning anyone, this is me giving a heed of warning so my taste in film stays perfectly in tact: Whatever you do, DON'T bring the wrong person to this movie; whether it be somebody old, slow, someone who can't follow a rapid pace of dialogue and editing or someone who finds the characters a little too mean-spirited; this is NOT a movie for everyone.
The script is superb and moves with lightning fast direction through multiple decades of time, most notably the 1930's, and consistently shifts pace so quick that if you're not paying attention you could miss a pivotal moment, whether it be important to the story or just down-right hilarious. It's easily Wes' best script in terms of taking his audience on a grand adventure but it's probably also his most poignant as it dwells on the pain of nostalgia and an era of the past through one person's eyes passed on through the looking glass of another's as we wither with age. It's a bittersweet, dark comedy but it hits the points exactly as the film calls for it to. It's also got the most amount of heart in any Wes Anderson picture. You can't help but root for these characters even when they're in the wrong and one can't help but want to see these characters achieve their goals in adventure, romance, thievery, peril and bonding over new-bound relationships. It's one to make your heart smile, if not laugh.
Let us also not forget the shots and the outstanding visuals the film acquires. Anderson is probably one of the only filmmakers working in Hollywood today who uses to SAME shot consistently from beginning to finish. No, literally from opening frame to the closing, his shots are identical and probably about as simplistic as the human eye can see: a lone, single shot EXACTLY center-framed were he using a ruler to measure out the exact degree of 180 on a flat plane where his three-dimensional characters cross the camera left to right on a solid two-dimensional plane. Sure, he has actors cross the frame in a three-dimensional manner (sometimes with backdrops that often look like beautiful paintings) but much of the time he has characters run left to right and often as silhouettes being chased by a large group of sorts that in certain wide frames, makes the film look like a comic strip. As simple as that looks visually, that's gotta be tricky as hell to pull off and make it look cartoonish enough to be believable. The quick physical manifestation these characters take on in their moments of physical reaction is something reminiscent of George Melies and you can't help but wonder how Wes would do with a Trip to the Moon remake.
The soundtrack is phenomenal and catchy. I would buy this movie's soundtrack.
The humor is deviously black and QUICK. Think of Monty Python were it sped up and not so focused on one joke at a time rather than hitting us at lightning speed. Some events happen so fast and some off camera, leaving much to the imagination, that ends up leaving us in stitches (and some moments, notably Dafoe's, are laugh-out-loud hilarious).
It's a grand film for the ages and it's truly a phenomenal first (or second) foot into the new year, even if we are still in the dead season of late Winter/early Spring. All I know is, it's Anderson's finest film and one of the, if not THE best film of 2014 so far. It's a grand masterpiece in a filmmaker's career. It's a grand feat for cinematography and editing in 2014 (that doesn't rely on heavy CGI to get the required shots!). It's The Grand Budapest Hotel folks.
Thursday, March 6 2014
Movie of the Day:
The Lego Movie (2014)
And why it's already won next year's Oscar for Best Animated Feature of 2014
It might seem crazy what I'm about to say.
I know I'm about a month late to this one but I'm always late to the party. Doesn't mean I don't have valuable things to say (they're valuable to me and that's enough dammit!). So why praise the latest Lego Movie and why write up anything regarding it a month after its release? One word: nostalgia.
To be perfectly honest the reason it's sat with me for the last month and I can't stop dwelling on it is because, first and foremost, for being deemed as The Lego Movie, the movie was far better than it had any right being. In EVERY department.
Granted, this isn't the first Lego movie to grace (or disgrace) screens. With straight-to-DVD releases featuring watered down Lego Ninjas, Bionicle heroes, Lego Star Wars and more importantly (we'll get there in a moment) Lego Batman, all depicted in subpar CGI adventures that were made solely for children, the new and improved simply titled "Lego Movie" didn't pave the way for high expectations... given the fact that it's been a road paved by kid-targeted consumers who are pumping out products based on the world's most popular toy brand. So needless to say, there wasn't much to look forward to... Then we remember Toy Story.
The reason I revisit the word nostalgia is that in order to make a feature film about toys that's pleasing enough for adults beyond laughs and subtle adult humor is that it must strike them in the heart; right in the feels, and what more feels can a grown adult feel than by remembering the toys they had adventures with, more so adventures with Legos, from a time that seems oh so long ago. And this year, Legos have struck the chord of our hearts once more, making us all feel like kids again but diving into a fresh, new, bold world of toys that's imaginative, insightful and incredibly, absurdly hilarious.
What makes the film work as much as it really shouldn't, is its self awareness. Leave it up to Phil Lord and Christopher Miller, the guys who helmed not just Cloudy with a chance of Meatballs but the 21 Jump Street reboot, to dish out something so cleverly unexpected in its environment of irony that it's not only brilliant but as mentioned, side-splittingly hilarious.
Now, to compare Lego to Jump Street may seem wildly absurd on paper, but hear me out. 21 Jump Street was dubbed an action comedy in vain of Judd Appatow's wild universe that has growingly taken its own evolved shape leading way for absurd action comedy spectacles such as Pineapple Express or last year's phenomenally absurd, self aware, religious end-of-days meta phenomenon This Is The End. It's a universe that creates a certain level of expectation amongst its college-audience. One can only expect something that's first and foremost going to make them laugh out loud but also allows us to follow characters who seem real that take us on some kind of meaningful journey whether it be learning valuable lessons about waiting for the right person to get laid, being careful with our one night stands, being okay with a serious breakup or keeping your bonds while you get so stoned that all your predictions about asian drug lords come true that end in an all-out gun spree... Or keeping your bonds amongst a covert operation to pose as the high school kid you never were in high school... WHATEVER IT MAY BE... These comedies all have SOME form of absurd value and so, with a history behind it, The Lego Movie has reason to march forward as a comedy in vain of its predecessors but this time, for all ages.
Lord and Miller sort of helm a similar self awareness they do in Jump Street. Where Jump Street keeps the laughs going a mile a minute while being real about embracing who you are and not who you're trying to be, it also every now and again subtly (or not so subtly) references the fact that it's also being a very respectful homage to an old cult-followed TV show. And The Lego Movie sort of plays a similar game. While yes, it has a very straightforward story that brilliantly crosses Star Wars with The Matrix in a merry gathering of unlikely heroes acting as rebels, the movie also ENDLESSLY makes ironic references that happen SO quickly and SO often that it's literally impossible to catch them all in one viewing, or possibly even ten viewings. The movie soars at an unbelievable pace that even when the references aren't happening too fast to catch them all, you still can't catch them because you'll be laughing out loud and missing moments of gold.
And the movie is a goldmine, not just of references and laughs, but of nostalgic wit that's a literal throwback to childhood toy-playing that hasn't been this flawlessly depicted since the Toy Story trilogy (I know, there aren't many movies about toys, shut up) and if you grew up with Legos specifically, this may just hit your soft spot even more than Toy Story did. To compare the stand-alone film (though inevitable sequels on the way!) to the empire that is Pixar's baby, Toy Story, which has spawned one of the few flawless trilogies in cinema, is bold. So I won't do it. But while it's not better, The Lego Movie does something Toy Story does not. It plays off its ironic self awareness in a world of literal toys (which ultimately pays off in a wildly unexpected twist ending) in a way that Toy Story only barely touches upon. To go into detail would spoil the brilliant twist and I won't do that today. All it to say is, up until the last 20 minutes, The Lego Movie is a great movie. Those last 20 minutes make it a brilliant movie.
Suddenly, at the end of the day, we realize we're not just watching a movie based on a toy brand that's become a worldwide phenomenon but something much more that resonates with WHY it's a movie based on this toy brand. Like I said, being deemed The Lego Movie, it plain and simple should just not be this good.
And maybe I currently hold it at a higher pedestal than it deserves to be. But critics and fans alike agree (currently sitting at a 96% fresh on Rotten Tomatoes), it's way smarter and way funnier than any of us expected. Like I said, I MIGHT be blowing it up a little. For starters, I think it's a shame it wasn't released last year because it would have easily been nominated for Best Animated Feature, but I'm guessing Lord and Miller got early word of mouth that Frozen was DOMINATING the world of animated movies and pulled an extremely smart move and pushed the movie back to the following year.
Now, do I think The Lego Movie is better than Frozen? Hell yes (don't get mad just yet!) but I also think Frozen is one of the most overrated movies to be released in QUITE some time (make no mistake, naysayers, I loved Frozen... But "the best animated movie since The Lion King!"??? WHAT). Yeah, I said it, Frozen is SUPERBLY overrated, but I'll save that for a separate note in itself (okay now you can get mad)....
There's something to be noted about The Lego Movie that beyond all the irony in politics; consumerism, commercialism, communism (I'm being so serious) and beyond ALL the laughs and brilliant references, the film is also a new leap for animation, breaking a mold that hasn't been done arguably since Toy Story (almost 20 years ago)... if you don't count Avatar (I guess I'm referring to solely animated movies and not animated movies that pretend to be live-action movies) where unlike OTHER Lego movies, THIS Lego movie immediately jumps off the screen as something of a visual spectacle.
When the trailer debuted last Summer, it got people talking. From the get-go it just looked spectacular. It appeared to be fun, funny but visually striking for one sole, very important fact. It looked like it was stop-motion... and it was breathtaking. One wouldn't necessarily dwell on it but then you watch the movie and you stop and look at the details and you can't help but be in pure awe. When I say everything I mean EVERYTHING, from the hundreds of characters to the skyscrapers, streets, clouds and OCEAN, LOOKS like it's actual moving legos... And it's un-freaking-believable. The film is a visual treat and its use of "stop motion" CGI is flawless. Obviously the film couldn't have been done with actual stop-motion because it would have taken literal decades to pull off with millions of tiny Lego pieces literally at hand. But the fact that this is all done with CGI that's made to fool the human eye into thinking they're watching really ridiculously good looking stop-motion breaks an entirely new barrier in animation that gives hope yet for old-school technical animators like the guys who made Chicken Run and Wallace & Gromit, for many futures to come.
Last but not least, let's not forget our characters and the actors who brilliantly bring them to life. Chris Pratt, soon-to-be Star Lord who will break out of the Parks and Rec department and launch into inevitable famousness this Summer, puts on the perfect anti-hero of an average Joe we all relate to and we enjoy watching him surprisingly (yet plot-ridden-predictably) succeed as much as we relate to when he fails (and he fails a lot). His moral as a character is phenomenal because he's a nobody and sometimes, it's the nobody who can make ALL the difference bla-bla-bla-morals. And while Elizabeth Banks gives personality to a friendly, funny, yet sexy(?) sidekick (please don't dwell on it folks...), it is all the supporting characters who not only steal the show but NAIL their characters right in the coffin, from Will Ferrell as the flawlessly evil Lord Business, to Liam Neeson's tragic split personality of the Good Cop-Bad Cop, to the ever-loving (even in animation) Morgan Freeman as the wizardly Vitruvius, to Charlie Day as "1980's Spaceman" to the show-stealing NEVER not-funny Will Arnett as Batman (as f**king BATMAN).
The movie is AMAZING folks! GET IT TOGETHER AMERICA. If you haven't seen the Lego Movie GO SEE THE DAMNED LEGO MOVIE. It's smart, funny, ironic, moves at a brisk pace, is self aware with, action, suspense, comedy, romance (WILDLY violent toy animation [that's as hilarious as it is innocently entertaining because... well, we're watching TOYS fight so it's obviously not nearly as violent as it would appear had these characters not been toys]) and like I said, it's got a brilliant twist that proves this movie has a real, beating, plastic heart.
As of right now, I dare another movie in 2014 to be better than this one. Right now, the bar has been set and its been set pretty damned high. Sure, something might come as early as next month or so when Captain America's Winter Soldier or the newly, hopefully solid rebooted Godzilla come reigning hell fire on theaters, smashing the box office and MIGHT prove to be ultimately worthwhile. But for now, ride the coat tails of the success of these little, plastic, yellow toys, because it's guaranteed to give you a wild ride down nostalgia lane that's sure to entertain you enough to make you want to watch it again the moment it's over (and if not, you probably have no soul).
EVERYTHING IS AWESOME
Saturday, August 10 2013
Movie of the Day:
The Conjuring (2013)
Well I'll be damned, it's almost horror movie season! And what a better way to kick off the season than a bit of an early bloomer and James Wan's latest is not only a fitting kick-off but just about the damned spookiest film to come out since Jack and Jill. Let's start from the basics and where this movie's history comes from.
First up at bat we have James Wan, the director of the first 'Saw' flick and not uninvolved in the six, yes, SIX sequels that it spawned while gratefully opting out of the director's chair, a wise move indeed. Then the man comes out with Insidious which I still have yet to see but I've heard nothing less than it scaring the b'jesus out of just about all ye who viewed it. Now here we are with Wan's latest and he decides to take a chapter from the 70's unholy playbook of cinema (with favorites such as The Exorcist or The Omen) and by God does The Conjuring conjure up enough homage and sheer terror enough to not only chill you down your spine but it could very well one day sit on a shelf next to said horror classics.
Let's just cut the cake here. People are split about their feelings on horror movies. It might be the most uneasy genre for folks to agree upon. You've got the addicts who will see everything regardless of how incredible or terrible a horror movie may be, in hopes to feel that sense of rush and fill in that small horrific hole in their heart. You've got the wimps who literally won't go anywhere near a horror movie. You've got the people who "don't do horror" because they "usually find it really funny" and what makes The Conjuring one of the more memorable spooky flicks of the last decade or so is that the horror comes naturally, the scares don't feel too cheap and the giant build up makes for an unsettling exorcised climax.
By not showing it's audience too much, we feel a sense of dread and cold terror in the mysteries of the unknown. What's really out there? What do these terrors look like? And by hiding your creatures and apparitions is what makes your scares the most effective. It takes a small chapter out of Paranormal Activity but I won't compare the two since this is everything and more what Paranormal Activity should have been. Unfortunately, the jumps and scares aren't always to imagination and while mildly terrifying, no ghastly face could be scarier than what the audience will ultimately create in their heads. Safely though, there are enough moments that leave the audience with enough to shiver to bed with; enough shadows, sounds and elements that one will call back to when horrified in the bathroom in the middle of the night.
The Conjuring's most impressive trick is playing such rightful homage to the horror flicks of the 70's; the kinds that build dread and suspense for long, drawn out periods of time and when do result in spooks don't weigh in on cheap special effects but in fact, mostly practical use of pure filmography. And that's where I'll bring this full circle. It all comes back to the essence of film and that is why I get a kick out of it than most folk. Because this ain't just thrills and chills. It's also pure, well crafted film. Between the swooping, upside-down shots, the low tracking shots and eerie zooms; the use of actors in make up (for the most part) and not CGI ghosts; the actual acting in a horror movie; the use of actually talented actors who make its audience believe there's a demon damned straight from the depths of hell terrorizing their whole family, characters who make decisions that don't have you yelling at the screen for making such terrible choices; what terrifies me more than anything about The Conjuring is it's believable. It hits a little too close to home with my beliefs in demons but that's exactly why I love to be scared of it and why I absolutely love this flick.
When was the last time you had so much fun watching a horror movie? Grab a friend. Grab three friends. Make sure you're ready to jump and shriek together. Don't watch it alone. Get scared. Because it's a little too terrifying how much I enjoy this flick.
Tuesday, June 4 2013
Remember Broken City, The Call, The Big Wedding or Peeples? Me neither. It's because nobody goes to see those movies unless they literally walk in blindly having absolutely no predetermined knowledge of a critical consensus whatsoever. That's not to say that some movies that appear from thin air aren't a fantastic surprise. I still have yet to see a movie in 2013 that's more quality than Spring's sleeper A Place Beyond the Pines.
So why am I rambling about forgettable movies? Because, if it didn't wear the reputation of being an adaptation of possibly America's most crucial piece of literature, this year's Gatsby would not only be forgettable, but would be one of the furthest things from Great.
Now pause a while before you nay-sayers and die-hard Fitzgeraldians draw your torches and pitchforks.... I didn't hate the film. In fact, I really can't even say I disliked it. I have a few major bugs up my ass about what irks me about the film itself which I'll shift to momentarily. For now, let's just talk about the name this film has to live up to.
Coming from someone who admits they're not a reader, I admit that Gatsby is one of American literature's most important contributions and no, chief, I'm not just saying that because my high school English teacher said so when we were required to read it. Very few books actually stuck with me in high school, frankly because very few interested me. Like I said, I'm not a reader. But Gatsby was one of the few that captivated my young mind because its core themes that drive the pages; themes of greed, poverty, love, loss, all represented the tragedy of the downfall of New York's roaring 20's and yet they are all themes that represent the continuous downward spiral in the once-deemed good culture of not just Long Island, New York or America but people everywhere, and to have to explain why the novel is such a gem means you haven't read it or can't recall it.
I'm not saying that the book didn't deserve an adaptation. Baz Luhrmann's latest spectacle is the fifth attempt at bringing Jay to the silver screen and it's indeed the greatest attempt yet. Plenty of classic-deemed novels have made their way to the big screen. Memorable but broad selections such as The Godfather or Jaws were turned into blockbusters and the films ended up being much better than their counterparts on page, where films such as To Kill a Mockingbird, One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest and The Shining are all up for debate as to whether their loyal followers subjectively prefer the book. While most of these examples actually shake up the formula a bit to give their film adaptations the feel of nostalgia and homage to the author while creating something fresh for new audiences, Gatsby surprisingly follows the book very faithfully down to the very page yet somehow, some way, it feels like something different entirely.
There are countless fingers to point at who or what's to blame for what is ultimately a bland adaptation of the memorable novel even though some of the victims make minor compelling arguments (yes, it does feature some music by Jay-Z but if you're boycotting the movie simply based on that alone, you're a moron), but it comes down to Luhrmann's style and ultimately his vision and what he does with the characters. Normally, I wouldn't spend so much time and care for something I'm deeming bland but it's not just because of F. Scott's vision but because some of the pieces on this chess board work so well and the film just simply should have been better because of them.
The cast is a mixed bag but it mostly works. DiCaprio proves his phenomenal acting chops once again as the tragic hero and while he's no plantation owner, he nails the role. Carey Mulligan can produce tears but her Daisy feels more confused and desperate, clinging on to her indecisiveness rather than her hopeless, forlorn poverty. Joel Edgerton surprisingly made for an impressive 20's-style baller, sporting his mustache, cigar and crooked-mouthed New York talk though his motivation was about as forgettable as his Isla Fisher-looking mistress. And then we have Toby Maguire. Love him or hate him, being the only voice of reason and subsequently the only voice overlaying the film's narration, he is still the most forgettable, bland, dull and useless of the bunch. While the other actors spring with life as they make poor decisions that mark their death, Maguire's Nick Carraway gazes upon the debauchery as if he represents the bored moviegoer, peering in at the party from behind the veil.
And let us not forget Baz Luhrmann, the initial primary target. I'm not gonna slam the guy. He's one of the most ambitious filmmakers in Hollywood since he pretty much represents... well, Hollywood. Every single film Baz has pumped out kick-lines its way onto stage, unabashedly sporting bright, flashy colors, fast editing, swooping camera angles (most of which being done with a computer rather than a camera) and tons of upbeat jazz. I don't necessarily mean jazz music, more so the lush and extravagant wonderment that entices the viewer almost never leaving them bored whether they end up loving or hating the final result. So why is it that Gatsby nearly put me to sleep? I think the reason is that Luhrmann has finally outdone himself. He's not only found a classic novel that couldn't be shaken up the way Romeo + Juliet so violently was (like I said, love it or hate it), but his style is no longer enticing, at least not through the rusty glasses of Fitzgerald.
His use of modern-day hip-hop fused with old jazzy recordings from 20's records surprisingly works well and features some of the most memorable scenes clashing film with music, though the modern-music approach does pull you directly from the 20's setting, reminding you you're watching a film about the 20's in 2013 rather than let you feel as if you're engrossed in the world of the roaring 20's (the way it should be). In the end it's nothing he hasn't done before (just turn to Moulin Rouge) but where it's worked in the past, here (for at least the first 40 minutes of the film) it feels like Luhrmann's using Fitzgerald's words to string together a series of pulpy, flashy, music videos.
It's the same vibe I initially got when I saw the very first preview for the film nearly a year ago and it's the same reason why it's bugging me so bad. With some brilliant, stunning art direction (and about the only thing it has going strong for it), I'm floored at how God-awful some of the cinematography and green screen was. With a glitzy glimpse into the past for the first time, we see a real hammy, swooping CGI tracking shot of a completely fraudulent Manhattan while Kayne West faintly raps in the background and in these opening minutes, somewhere in the world, Fitzgerald fans and film nerds just gave a great sigh that they'd be in for a long two hours. And Gatsby should feel anything but that. Such a trim book feels like a workout on film; a breeze of morals, deception and greed on the pages feel meaty, lengthy and bloated on screen. The story trumps through beat by beat and yet mere sentences from the book take up minutes on screen turning words of treasure into droll tripe. Small decisions like putting Nick in a sanitarium, having his writing hand (and inconsequent narration) forced upon him by a doctor, causes the viewer to peer in at someone who appears unstable rather than someone we relate to. Nick's narration appearing in words written out for us on screen time to time throughout the film feels like a cheap gimmick a film student would use rather than a useful writing tool. Baz' obsession with flashing his audience as if we've never been to the theater is jarring and misguiding rather than stunning or mesmerizing. What should have been a look into the glitz and glamor of the top of the 20's feels like the red-headed step child of Moulin Rouge.
But alas, there are saving graces. Like I said, the story is there... It's all there, whether you want it or not. Noble readers who have memorized the pages might treasure each milked and savored moment while people who didn't read the book or don't remember will probably be on their phones. DiCaprio's entrance is stunning and hauntingly mesmerizing as he gives us that devilish smirk that won so many of us over when he was just a kid on a boat pretending to be king of the world. Unfortunately, for me, that's where the momentum stops and the tedious romance takes the all-too-familiar floor. I almost preferred when Gatsby was just secretive talk; a mystery of a man who lurked behind the shadows watching the world of New York building his reputation as a legend. But unfortunately, stories must go on and long rants must come to an end.
I've been harsh and unnecessarily lengthy here, I know but with all that said, I didn't hate the film. What bothers me more than any kind of movie, even the worst kinds of movies, are the ones with so much potential. I almost would have even preferred a dreadful misfire as an adaptation to this because at least it would be more memorabe. I never set the bar high for this Gatsby to begin with but like I said, this is the Great Gatsby we're talking about. I never asked for an Oscar winner and like I said, I'm not usually one for books, but this simply should have been more than a mediocre Gatsby.
Wednesday, May 1, 2013
First, I can see how this movie's going to lose a major chunk of its anticipated audience. Every meat head and action lover saw this on the opening Friday night expecting a typical Michael Bay movie and I can only imagine how disappointed they were when the fast cars, guns, drugs, babes and even weights were not just tools for flash and show but were actually roots incorporated into the pure greed of the movie's lead three characters. By finishing off your opening narration with "Unfortunately, this is a true story," you know you're getting into a story that results in something tragic or ultimately pessimistic. I think that's why so many people were turned off by it in the end. All the previews made this out to look like it was going to be the first big fun, Summer, action-comedy, popcorn blockbuster of the season. That's definitely where the previews were wrong. I walked in expecting Bad Boys and walked out with something almost entirely different: The notion that I had just possibly witnessed the first step towards Michael Bay making a film and not a movie.
Don't get me wrong, this is still Michael Bay here, so we're still not completely taking him seriously. But one thing Bay makes clear is that for the first time, he seems to fully acknowledge that we're laughing at him and not with him, and it seems he's completely in on the joke. In a way, Bay exchanges his bigger budget explosions for smaller budget gadgets: eye candy (the guns, cars, girls, money). And with that, he uses what we "as Americans" desire; that eye candy, ultimately as a tool of destruction in a series of unfortunate events. It seems what Bay's doing here, for the first time in his career, is creating morals, and the fact that this is based on a true story makes it all the more shocking and valuable.
The true comedy in this dark tale which is ultimately not funny at all, is the sheer stupidity of its three leads. I've read multiple reviews that compare Whalberg, Johnson and Mackie to the three stooges, if they were weight-lifting, crime caping meat heads, and I couldn't agree more. Whalberg's Danny Lugo is the "mastermind" in this operation, after being motivated to become a do-er instead of a don't-er by finding what he wants and taking it, AKA living the American dream, and in Lugo's mind, that means taking money from a wealthy, "criminal prick." What starts off as motivating for we, the American people, to get off our fat asses and do something to change our lives, very quickly escalates into a series of very stupid and very poor decision making. What begins as foolish theft and robbery in order to be able to buy anything you desire, becomes attempted murder, failed and even more attempted murder and accidental murder. Yes, it's the same old moral that money can't buy happiness, but by following our three leads we're actually fooled into believing that these moronic criminals are characters we're supposed to be rooting for... That is, until things go from stupid to bad to worse. People connected to the real-life events of the Sun Gym Gang appear to be furious that Bay's "making light" of such a dark situation but if you watch the movie, yes we're laughing at the stupidity of these characters but they're ultimately not glorified to which we come to the conclusion that we've actually been focused on the bad guys of a movie, who don't appear bad because they think they're good... Perhaps it's just me, but to me, that's a brilliant way to portray "the bad guys."
In the end, I walked out with such mixed feelings because coming off of more than five years of Transformers, it was so unlike Bay to give us something that was so much more than action. Yes, the movie drags in the middle a little bit but a Michael Bay movie wouldn't be a Michael Bay movie if it wasn't over two hours long, and perhaps it was the script adapted off the news articles depicting these awful events, but for the first time in a long time, Bay gives us real, raw, fleshed out characters. Surprisingly Johnson's acting stood out the most being the biggest, beefiest guy who ended up being the softest, good natured Jesus-loving evangelist of the three leads. And while Anthony Mackie really shined, Rebel Wilson is still fat but not funny, it is Mark Whalberg who proves over the last few years that he's picking the right roles, even if the characters are so wrong.
Friday, November 30, 2012
Movie of the Day:
Cloud Atlas (2012)
It's rare when I finish watching a film that it sits with me well afterward. I'm talking when it sits in your lower intestine for days (unless that's just indigestion); ya know really sits with you. The kind of film that drives you to research the internet for trailers, clips, discussions or someone else's words on the film who could describe the experience in better words than you ever could... I guess that's the word that comes most to mind when watching this year's Cloud Atlas: Experience.
This is by no means just a story. It is in every sense a journey of the fantastical through phenomenal use of visual story-telling, weaving its epic saga of six intertwined stories onto the big screen and bringing such an ambitious idea to life. It was said that the book the movie was based off of was unfilmable. That makes this one of two films deemed unfilmable based on their literary counterparts to be released less than two months apart (the other being Ang Lee's Life of Pi), both being some of the most visually memorable experiences I have ever been able to recall from film. Am I crazy or does this mean ambitious storytelling is making a huge comeback for grand experiences for the big screen? Like Tom Hanks' line from the movie (from one of his multiple counterparts), "I can't explain it, but I knew when I opened that door something important happened." This translates exactly how I felt the moment my eyes feasted upon the introductory prologue giving just a taste of how powerful these six stories being told simultaneously over more than six-hundred years would become. And maybe I'm just a sucker for grand, fantastical pictures such as these but are films this ambitious not the reason we fall in love with film? It's no surprise to me that I've been swept up by this film seeing as it was written and directed by the creators ofThe Matrix trilogy which is one of my favorite trilogies, The Matrix being one of my favorite films of all time. I guess I could also give into the philosophical and spiritual aspect that drives not just the characters but the incredibly powerful story which reflects a very true nature that we are all, indeed, connected. I dare not even begin to step into the actual plot of any of the interwoven stories but I don't think I or any critic out there has to. I've said myself, the film definitely bites off a little more than it can chew and while ignorant moviegoers will refuse to open their pea-sized attention spans to the nearly three-hour running time (yet will flee to the midnight screenings of the Twilight films, running almost the same length, is beyond me), anyone who is willing to open and expand their imagination for a great story such as this won't even think about the clock. Like the character of Timothy Cavendish says in one of his opening monologues, "I believe that if you, dear reader, can extend your patience for just a moment, you will find that there is a method to this tale of madness;" the most seemingly poignant advice for the film's audience. Am I calling the movie perfect? No. The movie is flawed and some will find it meaty and pointless. But if you, like me, look for the meaning of life through the wonders of the smallest details, the story through visual mastery will blow you out of the water, regardless of any of its faults. Unfortunately, it's not a film I can recommend to all since not all will understand it; not all will be able to read between the lines and many will write it off for being too long, too preachy and too convoluted. But if people view the film through my eyes; the way I see it; the way the Wachowskis intended it, they'll see something much larger than just a movie.
This is by no means just a story. It is in every sense a journey of the fantastical through phenomenal use of visual story-telling, weaving its epic saga of six intertwined stories onto the big screen and bringing such an ambitious idea to life. It was said that the book the movie was based off of was unfilmable. That makes this one of two films deemed unfilmable based on their literary counterparts to be released less than two months apart (the other being Ang Lee's Life of Pi), both being some of the most visually memorable experiences I have ever been able to recall from film. Am I crazy or does this mean ambitious storytelling is making a huge comeback for grand experiences for the big screen? Like Tom Hanks' line from the movie (from one of his multiple counterparts), "I can't explain it, but I knew when I opened that door something important happened." This translates exactly how I felt the moment my eyes feasted upon the introductory prologue giving just a taste of how powerful these six stories being told simultaneously over more than six-hundred years would become. And maybe I'm just a sucker for grand, fantastical pictures such as these but are films this ambitious not the reason we fall in love with film? It's no surprise to me that I've been swept up by this film seeing as it was written and directed by the creators ofThe Matrix trilogy which is one of my favorite trilogies, The Matrix being one of my favorite films of all time. I guess I could also give into the philosophical and spiritual aspect that drives not just the characters but the incredibly powerful story which reflects a very true nature that we are all, indeed, connected. I dare not even begin to step into the actual plot of any of the interwoven stories but I don't think I or any critic out there has to. I've said myself, the film definitely bites off a little more than it can chew and while ignorant moviegoers will refuse to open their pea-sized attention spans to the nearly three-hour running time (yet will flee to the midnight screenings of the Twilight films, running almost the same length, is beyond me), anyone who is willing to open and expand their imagination for a great story such as this won't even think about the clock. Like the character of Timothy Cavendish says in one of his opening monologues, "I believe that if you, dear reader, can extend your patience for just a moment, you will find that there is a method to this tale of madness;" the most seemingly poignant advice for the film's audience. Am I calling the movie perfect? No. The movie is flawed and some will find it meaty and pointless. But if you, like me, look for the meaning of life through the wonders of the smallest details, the story through visual mastery will blow you out of the water, regardless of any of its faults. Unfortunately, it's not a film I can recommend to all since not all will understand it; not all will be able to read between the lines and many will write it off for being too long, too preachy and too convoluted. But if people view the film through my eyes; the way I see it; the way the Wachowskis intended it, they'll see something much larger than just a movie.
