Wednesday, December 31, 2014

The Motorcycle Diaries


The Motorcycle Diaries.jpg

Released:  September 24th, 2004
Rated:  R
Studio:  Focus Features
Starring:  Gael García Bernal, Rodrigo de la Serna
Directed by:  Walter Salles
Written by:  Jose Rivera
Personal Bias Alert:  don’t know much about Che Guevara, never been to South America

6.6 of 10







            Excuse me while I step on this soapbox for a moment.  Why is this film rated R?  Outside of language, there’s nothing offensive in it.  No sex, no drugs, no nothing.  Now, I personally think language shouldn’t inhibit teens from seeing a movie, because who didn’t know these words by 13 or 14?  And this film is all about a journey of self-discovery, which is basically a teenager’s life.  I don’t think every teen will connect to it, but I imagine there’s a descent amount who would find its contemplative nature interesting.  Maybe some might jump on the internet to learn more about these characters and along the way encounter some real facts about the world.  Even if you don’t agree with who Guevara ended up being, I can’t see how the humanist ideas this movie throws around would be a bad thing for a teen to have rattling around in their brain.

            Okay, rant over.  Let’s talk about the actual movie.  Based on the true story of the motorcycle trip across South America that formed Che Guevara’s political beliefs, The Motorcycle Diaries takes its time mapping out its character’s arcs and supplements this small story with the aesthetic grandeur of South America.  It is, at heart, about two immature young men who are self-centered enough to drop all their responsibilities to take a months-long trip simply for the fun of it.  They’re well-to-do and used to things going their way, so when the trip takes a turn and they start encountering people with much bigger problems than they’re used to, they aren’t quite sure how to take it.  Hence why the languid pace is needed; these aren’t characters who will change quickly.

            Guevara is played by Gael García Bernal, a well-known Mexican actor who has earned his good reputation in this and other roles.  He’s pretty subtle here, convincingly playing a guy whose morals haven’t quite solidified yet.  His friend, Alberto, is played by Rodrigo de la Serna, an Argentinian who doesn’t have the same name recognition as Bernal even though he equals his costar in this film.  His character is bigger and brasher, one that you could see becoming a radical until you realize that he wouldn’t stop to think things out.  They’re convincing friends and have a good sense of banter, an essential element since their relationship is one of the few constants in this meandering film.

            The other big reason to watch The Motorcycle Diaries is to see South America itself.  The trip spans several countries and wanders through mountains, cities, and fertile countryside, all of which is captured with the utmost care.  This beauty, perhaps more than anything else, is supposed to make you fall in love with the continent and wish for its well-being.  I’ve never had the desire to go to South America before, but even I found myself becoming enthralled by this place, imagining the hikes through those mountains and the wonder of stumbling upon a place like Machu Picchu.

            To contrast this natural beauty, the film has Guevara and Alberto stumble upon lots of impoverished people, many of whom have been taken advantage of by the wealthy and powerful.  The problem is that most of these people appear only long enough to tell their sad story and exit, making them seem more like presenters at a humanitarian conference than actual characters.  It’s all very finger-waggy, more a catalogue of wrongs than an emotionally effective device.  Bernal and Serna try to play up the pathos in these scenes, but they just don’t work, at least not until they finally stop and get to know a group of misunderstood people.

            I do like the languid pace, especially after the midway point, but the early scenes of their preparation and a brief visit with Guevara’s girlfriend is simply too long.  I get that we’re establishing character here, but I didn’t need a dinner scene and a goodbye scene with Guevara’s family.  The film runs just over two hours, and not a whole lot actually happens.  There’s some obvious cuts here and there that would have carved out a lot of the excess.

            Still, this is the story of a very small change, merely the planting of seeds that will grow into a movement.  Time and care is needed to tell a story like that.  I just wish it had trusted us to take the journey with the characters instead of spelling it all out for us.

            Other Notes:
Ø  I don’t know the history of Che Guevara or the politics of South America.  I don’t think it hampered my understanding at all.
Ø  Those two really couldn’t drive a motorcycle.
Ø  It’s Mía Maestro from Alias!

Monday, December 29, 2014

Top Ten Movies of 2014

            Let me throw out the usual caveats before we get down to business.  These are my personal favorite films.  There are other films that easily could have been included.  You won’t agree with all of them (but feel free to tell me that).  Enjoy!

Films I haven’t seen:  Calvary, Frank, Selma, American Sniper, The Grand Budapest Hotel, Inherent Vice, A Most Violent Year, Leviathan, Belle

Honorable mentions:  X-Men:  Days of Future Past, Dawn of the Planet of the Apes, The Lego Movie, Life in a Fishbowl, The Imitation Game, Ida, Foxcatcher, The One I Love, Pride





10.  Oculus
            Definitely the most surprising film of the year, Oculus is far better than a movie about a haunted mirror has the right to be.  It sports a well-thought-out narrative, some truly scary moments, and excellent visual motifs.  Once it takes off it doesn’t let go, blending grounded psychological horror with flecks of gore.  The performances, particularly by child actor Annalise Basso, are far better than you get in most horror films and are essential for landing the fears the film’s playing with.  As I said in my review, Oculus understands that there are far scarier things than ghosts and axe-murderers, and it’s all the better for it.




_________________________________________________________________________________


9.  Get on Up
            A few films could’ve slid into this spot, but Chadwick Boseman’s unforgettable performance as James Brown lands this film in my top 10.  It’s a mannered performance, but it always rings true and doesn’t overpower the film.  The movie’s stage performances are electric, Brown’s brilliance shines through (as does his arrogance), and his far from perfect life makes for an interesting story.  Some were turned off by the non-linear narrative, but I thought it kept things from getting too bleak.  Plus, it gets extra points for being really funny.





_________________________________________________________________________________


8.  Fury
            A World War II movie about a seasoned tank crew trying to break in a new recruit, Fury is one of those well-trod war stories that’s made great by some brilliant execution.  Brad Pitt and Logan Lerman turn in top-notch performances, and director David Ayer edits the action sequences so they’re always tense and clear.  However, it’s the cinematography that really pulls it all together.  The German countryside is portrayed as a place covered in muck with a constant mist hanging in the background, making the discomfort and the threat of battle inescapable.





_________________________________________________________________________________


7.  Birdman
            Definitely a film for movie people, Birdman is all about the balance between art and commerce and the internal and external pulls that accompany it.  It’s actually a very familiar story, but it’s got such energy and visual flair that it’s hard not to like it.  The trick of editing the film to look like one shot really sweeps you off your feet and keeps you bounding right along at the film’s quick pace.  Michael Keaton as a used-to-be movie star is great, but Edward Norton stole the show as an overly intense artiste. 





_________________________________________________________________________________


6.  Force Majeure
            What happens in the moments after this still defines a family’s vacation, forever changes how they view each other, and leads to some downright hilarious moments.  This is one of those films that brings up serious ideas without forgetting to entertain you.  It may be aimed at a small subset of people, particularly the kind who laugh in awkward, intense moments, but if you fall into that group you’ll find Force Majeure to be simultaneously astute and hysterical.  Personally, I refuse to apologize for laughing at a grown man crying on a bean bag chair.  It’s just funny.





_________________________________________________________________________________


5.  How to Train Your Dragon 2
            The choice to age these characters up and allow the story to grow along with them was a bold decision by DreamWorks Animation, and it may have allowed them to unexpectedly become the owner of a generation-defining kid’s series.  People my age grew up with Toy Story, and I don’t think I’m overstepping when I draw comparisons between these two series.  Both made a concerted effort to build on their themes from film to film, mirroring the maturation of their target audience and thus earning a special place in these kid’s cultural psyches.  As an adult looking at it, I can appreciate how much of a risk it is to throw such a big change-up into an established hit, but I can also appreciate just how well How to Train Your Dragon 2 pulled it off.  Add in that this had by far the best 3D I saw all year, charming background jokes, and a running gag about an arm fetish, and I was sold hook, line, and sinker.





_________________________________________________________________________________


4.  Nymphomaniac:  Volume 1
            Speaking about sex frankly and intellectually is a rare thing in America, and few movies have explored it from a woman’s perspective like the two Nymphomaniac films.  Volume 1 is the far better section, allowing Joe (Charlotte Gainsbourg and Stacy Martin) to tell her story of complete surrender to sexual addiction without judgment.  Yes, there are negative effects, and the movie is honest about that, but the camera and her audience of one, the bachelor Seligman played by Stellan Skarsgård, always looks at her with a humane eye.  The infamous Lars von Trier is pushing us without going too far in this one and shows a surprising funny streak, which is never more apparent than when Uma Thurman shows up and keeps you squirming with uncomfortable glee in my favorite scene of the year. 
           




_________________________________________________________________________________


3.  Edge of Tomorrow
            Or Live Die Repeat:  Edge of Tomorrow or whatever else it gets called in the future is a spectacular movie that doesn’t deserve its underwhelming box office total.  The summer of 2014 delivered a number of great blockbusters, but this one stands head and mechanical shoulders above the rest.  Smart without being challenging and fun without being easy, there’s some real stakes in Edge of Tomorrow that kept me invested even after the twists had been revealed.  The action is big and rendered with a gritty beauty, Tom Cruise and Emily Blunt sell every moment, and it’s infused with a surprising amount of humor.  If only all blockbusters could be this well made, and if only audiences would go see them.





_________________________________________________________________________________


2.  Nightcrawler
            Whether you take it as a character study masquerading as a thriller or a thriller masquerading as a character study, you’ll find lots to like in Dan Gilroy’s expertly paced Nightcrawler.  Jake Gyllenhaal keeps you unsettled but unable to look away as the smarmy Lou Bloom, and cinematographer Robert Elswitt makes the LA night pop with color, light, and the darkest of personal ambitions.  I think this is the best shot film of the year (yes, over Birdman), and it manages to skewer America’s latent bloodlust while wallowing in the grime.  This is why I don’t trust people who quote self-help books.





_________________________________________________________________________________


1.    Mommy
                    Getting to tag along on other people’s emotional journeys is one of the great joys of watching movies, and nothing else this year grabbed me with the ferocity of Mommy.  Following a mother, Diana, who enlists the help of her neighbor to turn her son’s life around, this is an energetic film that radiates the emotions of its characters out into the audience.  Keeping you on your toes is the son’s emotional vacillations, turning on a dime and at times getting unnervingly dark.  Through a surprisingly unintrusive 1:1 aspect ratio, a slew of well-known songs, and excellent performances by the lead trio of Anne Dorval, Antoine-Olivier Pilon, and Suzanne Clément, Mommy captures the intoxication and confusion of their lives without ever becoming unsympathetic towards any of them.  In a year where my parents divorced, this tale of unwavering love stuck in an untenable circumstance hit home.

Sunday, December 28, 2014

Into the Woods


Into The Woods (film).jpg

Released:  December 25th, 2014
Rated:  PG
Studio:  Walt Disney Studios
Starring:  Meryl Streep, Emily Blunt, James Corden, Anna Kendrick, Chris Pine, Tracey Ullman, Christine Baranski, Johnny Depp
Directed by:  Rob Marshall
Written by:  James Lapine
Personal Bias Alert:  not familiar with the play, have seen twisted fairy tales many times

4.5 of 10





            Between the singing, the never-ending story, and the kid with the cockney accent I felt like I was having a flashback to last year’s Les Misérables.  The kid is in fact the same actor, Daniel Huttlestone, here playing Jack from Jack and the Beanstalk.  If you don’t already know, Into the Woods features a mashup of various Brothers Grimm fairy tale characters, something that was perhaps more inventive when the musical came out in 1986 but is now nothing to write home about.  Still, the movie does feature an impressive cast, most of whom we already know can sing.  Sondheim also has a certain clout, so I went in hoping this would be an enjoyable family film.

            Let’s get the obvious out of the way first:  all the actors pull off their parts.  There’s some variation as to how well they pull them off, but no one grinds things to a halt.  Emily Blunt and James Corden as the only original characters (a baker and his wife) are great together, a one-two punch of comedy, musical chops, and general affability that provides a solid anchor.  If the film had focused on this pair’s search for the four ingredients the witch needs to grant them a child, I would’ve been a happy camper.

            But alas, the film has some larger statements in mind, so we get meandering offshoots about Little Red Riding Hood (Lilla Crawford), Cinderella (Anna Kendrick), Rapunzel (Mackenzie Mauzy), and Jack.  Did I miss anyone?  I may have missed someone.  Anyway, there’s a lot of side characters, most of whose storylines are pretty basic but feature big musical numbers that many in my theater reacted to like they were showstoppers (The princes’ Agony earned particularly big applause).  I was less impressed than my fellow Christmas morning moviegoers, finding Into the Wood’s brand of fairy tale skewering quaintly old hat and being more than a little thrown off by Sondheim’s wordy lyrics.

            Now, admittedly, these are all inherited problems from the musical, but what I was particularly unimpressed by was the translation into film.  I feel like there was a great opportunity to open this thing up, to really explore the titular woods and have some fun with the more fantastical elements, but it’s all left fairly monochromatic.  The big set pieces seem to always be just off-frame, an element that’s necessary in a play but frustrating in a movie.  However, the most troubling symptom of this is the woods itself.  It lacks any sense of personality or menace.  It’s just a jumble of trees that everyone seems to be walking through or talking about all the time.  Why everyone’s so concerned about it I don’t know because nothing very bad seems to happen there, at least nothing that the woods should be get credit for.

            By the time the bad things do start happening to people, it’s pretty clear that most of it is the character’s own fault.  It’s generally attributable to some underlying fault in the fairy tale, a twisted take on something you’re supposed to find Charming (Prince Charming, get it?  Hooray puns.).  The problem is that most of the things Into the Woods points out is incredibly basic, lacking any real bite for an adult audience.  It’s my understanding that the film is a watered-down version of the musical, which leaves me wondering why they would tone it down so much.  Wouldn’t a PG-13 interpretation allow them to keep more of the material that made the musical a hit while still reaching a wide audience?

            Luckily, many of the one-liners still worked and had me belly-laughing from time to time.  I wasn’t blind to the sarcasm underlying all this, it just wasn’t very well sustained.  I had to sit through long, boring periods before it shone through in a wittily sardonic line or at least a pleasant scene between Blunt and Corden.  These bright spots just didn’t add up to a complete product and only served to make the whole thing seem even more dull and drawn-out than it really was.

            Other Notes:
Ø  There was about 20 minutes in the middle where I was totally into it.  For the rest of the time it barely held my attention.
Ø  See, prerecording the songs works just fine.
Ø  Was the Rapunzel/prince storyline really necessary?  I feel like that’s an easy thing to cut out.
Ø  Why can’t you just have a wolf?  Why do you need Johnny Depp dressed up as a wolf?  And of course it’s Johnny Depp dressed up as the wolf.

Wednesday, December 24, 2014

Zombieland


Poster for Zombieland with subtitle "Nut up or shut up" and movie credits. The four actors appear as a group all holding different weapons.

Released:  October 2nd, 2009
Rated:  R
Studio:  Columbia Pictures
Starring:  Woody Harrelson, Jesse Eisenberg, Emma Stone, Abigail Breslin
Directed by:  Ruben Fleischer
Written by:  Rhett Reese, Paul Wernick
Personal Bias Alert:  likes zombies, likes big set pieces

8.3 of 10






            Historians will certainly mark this time as a period of the zombies.  Okay, that’s probably a bit drastic, but they certainly have become entrenched in pop culture.  Our TV shows, movies, and books drip with gore and entrails, spawning multiple think-pieces about why we’ve latched onto zombies with such fervor and stamina.  But who cares about reading those when you can watch a movie as fun as Zombieland?

            Jesse Eisenberg narrates and stars as Columbus, an awkward, nervous fellow whose ticks have morphed into a set of rules that keep him alive through the raging zombie apocalypse.  His philosophy and the downfall of the civilized world is shown in a nearly flawless opening.  It’s gory, irreverently funny, and always entertaining, doing much of the heavy lifting in such a way that it never feels like a chore.  Not to play this up too much, but I think Zombieland’s opening should be studied for years to come as a blueprint for getting through your exposition with style. 

            Eventually, Columbus meets up with the formidable Tallahassee (Woody Harrelson), whose verve for dispatching zombies is both concerning and undeniably cool.  The sister duo of con artists named Wichita (Emma Stone) and Little Rock (Abigail Breslin) round out the gang, making for a charming bunch that works incredibly well together.  That’s the biggest plus for this movie, since much of the jokes come from their near-constant bickering and bantering.  Your enjoyment of the movie really hinges on whether you like these people together, and I would’ve happily jumped into that car with them.

            Wichita, it turns out, is determined to give her little sister one more day of being a kid at an amusement park called Pacific Playland, prompting the cross-country roadtrip that gives the movie some structure.  It’s a weak goal, something even the characters acknowledge, but it’s a decent excuse to move from one set piece to another.  And oh, what grand set pieces there are.  As great as the comedy is in Zombieland, it’s just as worth watching for its big, playful use of its environment.  Tallahassee and others get creative with the zombie dispatching while chasing the Zombie Kill of the Week title, keeping the action fresh and exciting as they move from place to place.  Then, out of nowhere, you get a raucously joyful sequence of destruction that’s cathartic just to watch.

The weak overarching narrative does make the movie feel a bit episodic, but it still manages to zip right through its brief runtime.  There isn’t an ounce of excess on this thing, throwing action and jokes at you so fast that it’s no wonder it’s become a go-to crowd pleaser since its release.  I’ve never once had someone turn down the opportunity to watch this movie, and I find that the larger the group viewing it, the better it seems.  The laughs role on top of each other and give everyone a litany of quotes and references to pull out in everyday life, keeping this movie at the forefront of your friend’s pop culture playbook.

            All this being said, I’m not blind to the movie’s faults.  The quick pace is helped out by a stack of plot shortcuts and coincidences, and as great as some of the technical work is, particularly the interactive display of Columbus’s rules, there’s some awful voiceover mixing that sounds very tacked on.

            Even when I’m paying attention to these faults, I still have a great time watching Zombieland.  It gets all the important things right, making it an infinitely watchable, and quotable, piece of pop culture.

            Other Notes:
Ø  In case you were wondering, someone on IMDB confirmed that Twinkies are called Submarinos in Mexico.
Ø  “If the girls in your neighborhood are f***ed up little monsters, well, maybe it’s time to stop driving carpool.”
Ø  Let’s take a moment to reflect on how charming Emma Stone is.

Sunday, December 21, 2014

The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies


The Hobbit - The Battle of the Five Armies.jpg

Released:  17 December, 2014
Rated:  PG-13
Studio:  Warner Bros.
Starring:  Martin Freeman, Ian McKellen, Richard Armitage, Evangeline Lilly, Lee Pace, Luke Evans, Benedict Cumberbatch, Ken Stott, James Nesbitt
Directed by:  Peter Jackson
Written by:  Fran Walsh, Philippa Boyens, Peter Jackson, Guillermo del Toro
Personal Bias Alert:  has read the book, have not seen the previous Hobbit movies

5 of 10




            I first read The Hobbit in middle school and walked away thinking quite fondly of the nice, quick little story.  Subsequently, I heard the LoTRs trilogy was being made into films, and in my excitement endeavored to read all three books before the films were released.  I managed, but it was a slog, never getting into the series’ sluggish pace.  The films I fell head over heels for, largely because it dropped all the incessant singing and whittled down its mythology to what was necessary.  When I heard that The Hobbit was being made into multiple films (first two, then three), I knew this adaptation wasn’t going to be for me.  It seemed Peter Jackson and company were going in the opposite direction of my taste this time, expanding and stretching the fun little book into a slog of epic proportions.  Boy, did I nail it.

            As best I can tell, The Hobbit:  The Desolation of Smaug takes 144 minutes to cover about 100 pages of the book.  The main stretch comes from the titular Battle of the Five Armies, a sequence that takes only 6 pages in the book, but here gets drawn out to unnecessarily epic proportions without even being clear about how many armies there actually are (I really am a bit confused about that).  Yes, there’s some invented material to fill in the time, but most of it feels like the filler it is instead of something that’s actually interesting.

            This film’s saving grace is a series of excellent casting choices that allow the smaller parts to efficiently have the gravity that hardcore fans desire.  J. R. R. Tolkien created a world steeped in history, and Jackson understands that he must balance the expectations of hardcore fans with that of the larger audience.  Martin Freeman as Bilbo, cast just before making it big with Sherlock and Fargo, is a believably good-natured fellow that never buckles when out of his depth.  Sure, he’s no fighter, even if he is holding a sword in that poster, but he does his best to help out when he can.  The Elvin cast, primarily Lee Pace, Evangeline Lilly, and Orlando Bloom, all look the part, and Pace carries himself with an outward regalness that’s clearly hiding a broken heart.  Lilly and Bloom are two of the unfortunate actors stuck with frivolous roles, but they work adequately with what they’re given.  The other big standout here is Luke Evans as Bard, a leader of the men of Dale, who along with Bilbo are perhaps the two most decent fellows in the film.  Bard just wants a safe place for his family and his people, and Evans made me believe that this guy truly was only interested in the gold so he could rebuild his people’s lands.  Unfortunately, this does make Bard remarkably similar to Evan’s turn as Dracula earlier this year, and there were several times where I remarked on how helpful it would have been for Bard to have the same army-wrecking mojo that Dracula traded his soul for.

            Like I said, I once was head over heels for this series.  I still keep my worn copies of the books out in the living room for all to see, but to be honest, a fatigue set in shortly after the release of The Return of the King in 2003.  I guess my interest in fantasy, in the goings-on of elves and dwarves and wizards, has its limits, and I’ve simply had my fill of this world.  I couldn’t help but roll my eyes whenever the silly-haired dwarves showed up, and the intended comic relief of the smarmy Alfrid just grated.  Actually, let’s dwell on Alfrid a moment, because he brought this film down several notches for me.  He’s the classic character that exists only for broad comedy relief; a frantic, self-serving man who inevitably has a mildly high-pitched voice and ends up in drag.  He never once felt like he was in the same film as the rest of the characters, and his comedic efforts do little to break up the film’s dour tone.  All of his flailing just made me wish for Indiana Jones to step out from behind a wall and shoot the guy cold.  At least that would have been a satisfying moment.

            Granted, there are a few truly satisfying moments scattered throughout this film, like Thorin’s last conversation with Bilbo and the fan-service references to the LoTR series and the Sackville-Bagginses making off with Bilbo’s spoons.  Unfortunately, there’s little else to keep you entertained through the long stretches in between these moments.  The stakes they try to drum up for Thorin is ludicrously overdone, and the final battle is a repetitive CGI-fest.  The most remarkable thing is how bad most of the CGI work is, with vast armies blurred into a dark, muddled mass and the lead orc looking more doughy than tough.  If you’re going to invest this much time in a battle sequence, you have to do much better than this.  In fact, if you’re going to invest this much time in a beloved 304 page book, you better do inordinately better than this.

            Other Notes:
Ø  So do lady Elves always fall in love with non-elves?
Ø  Did we really need a sequence where Thorin is literally engulfed by his greed?  No one thought that was too on the nose?
Ø  On the plus side, I finally learned how to pronounce Smaug.

Wednesday, December 17, 2014

Lost in Translation


Lost in Translation poster.jpg

Released:  October 3rd, 2003
Rated:  R
Studio:  Focus Features
Starring:  Bill Murray, Scarlett Johansson, Giovanni Ribisi, Anna Faris, Fumihiro Hayashi
Directed by:  Sofia Coppola
Written by:  Sofia Coppola
Personal Bias Alert:  prone to ennui when traveling, not very interested in visiting Japan

8.8 of 10






            Lost in Translation came along fairly early in my life, when I was just budding into a ‘movie person.’  It was a time when I could still go into a film with few preconceived notions, mostly unaware of a person’s back catalog and trademark ticks.  I knew Bill Murray, of course, but only from his massive comedy hits like Ghostbusters.  It would be a few years before I became captivated by Scarlett Johansson in Ghost World and much longer still before I understood how unusual it was to have an esteemed filmed be helmed by a woman.  Remember, writer/director Sofia Coppola is one of only four women to ever be nominated for Best Director by the Academy and one of only a handful to win the screenplay award solo.  I’m more than happy to know these things now, to bang the drum whenever I get the chance, but part of me longs for the time before I thought about these things, when I could truly be knocked out by how great a piece of work is without qualifiers like “Yeah, but he’s always good.’

            Lost in Translation brings out thoughts like this, remembrances of little moments and things gone by.  The story exists between two people lost in these thoughts, spinning their wheels in an unfamiliar country and finding solace in each other.  Murray plays a washed-up actor who’s come to shoot a commercial while Johansson plays a young woman tagging along with her photographer husband.  To be honest, I’ve never been able to remember these character’s names.  I looked them up and felt no recognition despite finishing the movie a mere ten minutes earlier.  I suppose I simply don’t see them as actual people, but instead identify them as aspects of myself.  I’ve been restlessly resigned like Murray, and I often imagine myself (and wish for the moment) when I can dismissively exclaim “Evelyn Waugh was a man.”  I read on IMDB that the characters never introduce themselves to each other.  Perhaps that means I’m taking them as Coppola wished me to, as a fleeting aspect of my own person instead of full-fledged people.

            Whatever Coppola intended, she certainly created an atmospheric little film.  It shuffles along, taking in the numerous things Japan has to offer with the confused awe of an outsider.  We stare with the characters as a dinosaur lumbers across a building-sized screen, a women pads along in an elegant dress, and the hotel employees pay an inordinate amount of attention to the American guests.  This film is part travelogue, giving people who haven’t gone to this part of the world a taste for the good and bad it has to offer.

            This lackadaisical pace certainly sets the appropriate mood for its character’s introspective journeys.  If ever a movie captured the feeling of ennui that can set in during travel, it’s Lost in Translation.  The two characters are in very different places in their lives, Murray lamenting the way life has settled and Johansson struggling to get it started.  Their inability to fully grasp these problems is one of the many things that’s lost in translation, yet they’re still able to recognize each other’s troubled boredom.  Striking up a quick friendship, they explore the city and each other, taking the time to really listen and allow each other to formulate their grievances.  You get the sense that they’ve both been waiting for someone to shut up and listen, and it probably took being stuck in a place so immobilizing foreign for them to find the necessary time to give each other.

            Very little exists in this film outside of Murray, Johansson, and Japan, and that’s more than enough to make an affecting film.  Murray and Johansson nail every aspect of their characters and the complicated relationship between them.  I remember being entranced by them when I first saw it, then glancing over to see my Mom with a look on her face I didn’t understand.  Now I know it as a look of deep recognition, that the movie must have reached out and touched some aspect of her I didn’t yet know about.  As I’ve gotten older, Murray and Johansson’s relationship has only deepened to me, but I’m sure I still don’t understand as much about it as my Mom did all those years ago.  I’ll wait twenty more years and get back to you on that.

            My quibbles with this film are few and far between.  I’ve always thought that the airhead actress and Murray’s wife were trite and unrealistic.  There’s two scenes where the literal interpretation of lost in translation is drug out into an off-putting joke, and I find the lounge singer’s hair color vaguely unsettling.  Obviously, none of these are significant turn-offs, and what really knocks the score down a bit is how inconsistent my reaction to this film is.  I find that if I go into it with the wrong mood I’m drastically less affected by it.  I’ve never been able to place exactly why that is, but I do think that truly great films elicit strong reactions after every viewing. 

            That being said, there are times when I go into this film with a sense of discontent and find it revelatory.  It captures how sometimes, when you’re in the right headspace, even the smallest gestures can be enchanting and little moments can wedge themselves permanently into your brain.

            Other Notes: 
Ø  There’s a moment about halfway through the film that’s always stuck out to me.  Murray and Johansson are hanging out on his bed, and as Murray leans forward to set down a bottle he kicks his feet up in the air.  It’s an avoidably awkward motion that shows just how comfortable he is with her, and I always find that moment very endearing.
Ø  This was filmed in a quick 27 days, completely opposite the film’s lackadaisical pace.
Ø  Here’s a good article about the lack of female writers recognized by the Academy:  http://blogs.indiewire.com/womenandhollywood/the-big-o-oscar-needs-to-honor-more-women-with-the-write-stuff-20141113

Sunday, December 14, 2014

Exodus: Gods and Kings


Exodus2014Poster.jpg

Released:  December 12th, 2014
Rated:  PG-13
Studio:  20th Century Fox
Starring:  Christian Bale, Joel Edgerton, John Turturro, Aaron Paul, Ben Mendelsohn, Sigourney Weaver, Ben Kingsley
Directed by:  Ridley Scott
Written by:  Adam Cooper, Bill Collage, Jeffrey Caine, Steven Zaillian
Personal Bias Alert:  likes epics, kind of a Ridley Scott fan

5.5 of 10




            Twenty-two films into Ridley Scott’s career, I think we’ve largely sussed out his strengths and weaknesses.  He handles massive scales and eye-popping visuals with the best of them, but if you’re more interested in subtle character development and unexpected plot twists, then he’s probably not your man.  Sure, he’s made a few movies that break that mold, but Exodus:  Gods and Kings is not among them.  For better or for worse, it’s a Ridley Scott movie through and through, and undoubtedly it’s not his best work.

            I think I understand why Scott made another entry in the Moses leading the Israelites out of Egypt films.  There’s the obvious reasons, like it’s a tremendous story with a built-in audience that includes pretty much every member of the Abrahamic religions, but there’s several stories to choose from in that well (see this year’s Noah for another example).  No, I think it has more to do with the brotherly conflict that Scott chose to play up.  Remember, Ridley’s brother Tony killed himself two years ago, and I imagine that the loving but combative relationship between pseudo brothers Moses and Ramses would appeal to someone dealing with that kind of loss. 

            That the story takes place in a time when wonders like the pyramids were being built was just an added bonus.  Let’s face it, Scott seems to like making epics, and few societies can rival the scale that Egypt was operating in at the time.  After seeing his depiction of the Romans in Gladiator, it was hard not to get excited about what Scott would show us in Exodus.  Half-built pyramids with a massive labor force scrambling up their sides is awe-inspiring on the big screen, and then you get to see the ten plagues and the parting (and closing) of an entire sea.  Scott and his team knock all these visuals out of the park, making the spectacle factor the main reason people should go out and see this film in theaters.

            Unfortunately, that’s pretty much the only aspect of this film that exceeds average quality.  A bloated, two and a half hour runtime is sure to make everyone’s toes tap with boredom, especially during the long first act that spends a lot of time setting up very basic plot points.  It’s safe to assume that most people already know the nuts and bolts of this story, so you better be adding in some interesting flourishes to keep your audience sitting there that long, which Exodus resolutely fails to do.  To make it worse, this rendition is remarkably devoid feeling.  I mean, an entire slave force is freed in this movie, which should be an inspiring and emotional achievement.  Instead, the Israelites plod towards their homeland with the fatalistic energy most people bring on their trips to the dentist.  Even without taking into account the mood, the ending just doesn’t work.  It spends several minutes trailing off, I guess trying to wrap up arcs that were never really established in the first place, and then just fades to black.  It’s one of the worst endings I’ve seen all year.  It feels like someone in the editing room just shrugged and walked away because they were sick and tired of trying to pound this monstrosity into a story.

            The other unfortunate aspect of this film’s energy-sucking quality is that it takes all the performances down with it.  Granted, the characters aren’t particularly well-written in the first place, particularly the petulant Ramses and his barely present mother inexplicably played by Sigourney Weaver.  I can only speculate, but I’m guessing the role was edited down à la Eva Green’s Sibylla in Kingdom of Heaven, otherwise I have no clue why Weaver would sign on for a bit part.  Joel Edgerton lacks the power needed to pull off the god-king Ramses, but what really surprised me was how flat Christian Bale was as Moses.  This is the same guy who made velvet suits and a wicked comb over work in American Hustle, and here he’s floundering in a basic reluctant hero role.

            I know I’m bashing on the story pretty hard, but there was one aspect that I really appreciated.  The depiction of God and his relationship with Moses wasn’t clean.  This is the nasty God of the Old Testament, the kind that lets his chosen people live in slavery for 400 years and then gets huffy when he finally shows up and things don’t move along fast enough.  Moses calls him out on stuff like this, and even if the screenwriters don’t come up with very original responses, at least the questions are raised.

            All that being said, I can’t say I regret seeing Exodus:  Gods and Kings.  I wish it wasn’t so long, that the story was told with more verve, and the title wasn’t so clunky, but Ridley Scott’s so darn good at putting on a spectacle that you inevitably will get a thrill or two if you go see it on the big screen.  Just make it a matinee, preferably the cheapest ticket you can get.

Other Notes:
Ø  Is this movie setting itself up for a sequel?  They could call it Joshua:  We Finally Get There.
Ø  Moses’s privileged upbringing made him excellent at throwing rocks in a pot.
Ø  What’s up with all the horse killing?

Wednesday, December 10, 2014

Mad Max


MadMazAus.jpg

Released:  May 9th, 1980
Rated:  R
Studio:  American International Pictures
Starring:  Mel Gibson, Joanne Samuel, Hugh Keays-Byrne, Steve Bisley, Tim Burns, Roger Ward
Directed by:  George Miller
Written by:  James McCausland, George Miller
Personal Bias Alert:  don’t hate Mel Gibson, not a fan of cheesy action flicks

4 of 10






            You know what’s a disappointing piece of trivia about Mad Max?  Most of the leather was fake.  That’s right, this notoriously low-budget piece had to buy vinyl outfits just to keep costs down.  I’m guessing their heart was in the right place, though, since such drastic measures certainly freed up some precious money for car wrecks, and that’s what we all came for, right?

            Mel Gibson stars as Max, who for most of the movie is not mad but slowly succumbing to the violent allure of the road.  He has the free pass of being a cop, meaning he gets to legally dabble in the violent lifestyle of the ‘terminal crazies’ that roam the highways in this version of post-apocalyptic Australia.  Anchoring him down is his fellow officers, his wife, and his young son.  That’s just enough to keep his head on straight, at least until a series of encounters with a biker gang pushes him even further towards the edge.

            Now I watched the version that is on American Netflix, which seems to be the extended 93 minute special edition with the original Australian audio track.  Why anyone would want to watch this with American dubbing is beyond me.  I’m guessing that Max and Fifi and Bubba running around spouting American slang would make this movie even stranger, and not in the brazenly fun way it thrives on.  This film’s all car chases and manly posturing, sliding right along with a slightly off-kilter energy that never left me feeling bored, and I don’t even particularly care for car chases and posturing. 

            Gibson and the rest of the cast are game for this cheese-fest, hamming up their parts with as much glee as their bad leather (or vinyl) pants allow.  This is one of those movies where it’s hard to say if the acting is good or not, because it’s intentionally b-movie bad.  The first scene makes this film’s aspirations pretty clear.  It’s a chase scene, with the bad guy spouting insane lines like “I'm a fuel injected suicide machine. I am the rocker, I am the roller, I am the out-of-controller!” and practically foaming at the mouth.  Lines like that make me gag, but to the film’s credit, at least it’s up front about what it is.

            The part that I did like, that provided some good, visceral fun, was the car chases.  And the wrecks.  And the explosions.  The carnage is constant and all over the place, simultaneously graphic and ridiculously fake.  Seriously, a dummy being run over by a truck never looked more like a dummy being run over by a truck, but that’s because they had no budget for special effects.  Whatever stunts were going to take place had to be performed for real, and you can’t run over your actors for the sake of art or entertainment.  By the same token, that means that the car chases and the wrecks were all real, and they’re actually filmed quite well.  I imagine they only had one take for most of this stuff, and they managed to enthusiastically capture the thrill of the road, of tires screeching and metal rending, in a way that even I was into.

            The problem with Mad Max’s focus on the cars, even with that aspect being done well, is that there’s barely enough time left for a real plot.  Granted, that might be for the best considering how insanely nonsensical the small plot we do get is.  I swear, there’s a sequence where the leader of the biker gang threatens another member, then inexplicably starts walking them both out into the ocean.  Where does he think he’s going?  He’s clearly going to have to stop in a few steps or they and their guns will go underwater.  Then we cut to a bar scene, a seemingly nice bar where the waiters wear suits and a nice lady sings cabaret, a place where none of these characters would ever go.  Yet here is one of Max’s friends catching the eye of the singer, because this is a movie, so if the writer says that’s what happens then that’s what happens.  It seems that no one gave two cents about coherence, consistency, or pace when writing this film.  I’m guessing there were far more discussions about what cars would look coolest summersaulting through the air than what would actually happen in this movie.

            What it comes down to is that this film just isn’t for me.  I like plot and character, and I like it when they come together to explain what the hell is going on.  I like car chases and leather, too, but I need more than that to enjoy a film.

            Other Notes:
Ø  “That thing in there, that’s not Goose!”  Wow, you could be a little more accepting of people with severe burns.
Ø  “Dad used to take me on long walks.”  Dad didn’t have much money, did he?
Ø  Those villains were intentionally cartoonish, but that didn’t make me cringe any less.
Ø  Very subtle with the Anarchie Road sign.
Ø  I must say, I could definitely see the guys in Bellflower liking this movie.