Category Archives: Movie Review

Movie Review: An Education

1 Reply

The beginning of “An Education” might throw you off a bit. For a premise that sounds so trite, the music is so upbeat and unexpected. It’s basically an indicator for what’s to come: a surprising, refreshing, and extremely entertaining British drama.

“An Education” brings us back to a time where many things were accepted and others rejected that we couldn’t even imagine today. Still, something about this time seems alarmingly relevant. The year is 1961, and the location is London. Jenny (Carey Mulligan) is a 16-year-old with a love for French music and film. Her real ambitions seem to be to absorb all things cultural. However, she is ruled more by the ambitions of her strict father (Alfred Molina). Therefore, she attends an all girls private school with a goal of getting into Oxford.
Everything in Jenny’s life seems mechanical. Even the cello, which she loves so much, is meant simply as a means of getting her into college. This all changes one day when she meets David (Peter Sarsgaard). David is a Jewish businessman about twice Jenny’s age. He breaks her away from her imprisoned life and introduces her to a world of jazz, gambling, and drinking, amongst other things. Once she sees this new life, she never wants to go back.
Much talk about the film has gone into Carey Mulligan’s performance. All of this talk comes for good reason. I cannot see any other actress stepping into the role of Jenny and doing as fine a job as Mulligan does. She conveys Jenny’s emotion and confusion with absolute perfection, letting both her emotions and her ambivalence guide the story. Mulligan also constantly reminded me of Audrey Hepburn in “Breakfast at Tiffany’s.” It’s not just for her looks, but for the way she conveys her many complex feelings, and ultimately finds her purpose in life.
Mulligan might be front and center, but she’s not the only great actor on display. Molina is amazing when you think how drawn out his character could’ve been. Instead, he breathes life into his performance and even bring a good deal of humor into his character’s awkwardness. And in his sternest moments, he’s always convincing.
Sarsgaard performance is the most underrated in the film. He has a fascinating ability to be able to act in two different emotions at once, especially with his body language. His smile will suggest a calm amiability, while his cocked eyebrows can suggest a whole different man. This is a rare talent few actors possess, and for this, as well as his convincing British accent, Sarsgaard should be praised more often.
“An Education” does not solely rely on performances for greatness. To tell you the truth, the only thing that got me to see this movie was the Oscar buzz surrounding it. The story sounded like something I’ve seen many times before. However, “An Education manages to take this formula and bring a whole new dimension to it.
For starters, none of the characters are turned into caricatures. None of the adults seem to be putting Jenny through her miserable education simply to torture her. There is always a reason behind each motive. In the end, Jenny’s strict father ends up being as likable as she is.
The whole story is an ode to rebelliousness and non-conformity. This of course isn’t the first film to celebrate these things. What is so great about the story is that it doesn’t seem to be celebrating the wrong kind of rebelliousness. It wants Jenny to find freedom, and find it in the right way. Just as it makes the point that one can’t get an education until they realize why they’re being educated, one can’t truly go their own way until they understand why they’re going in the direction they’re headed.
Some film critics judge how much they like a movie by their emotional connection to it. I don’t do that too often but with “An Education,” I will take a big exception. Jenny’s coming-of-age story reminded me of events I’ve faced recently in my own life, and some words she hears sound a little like things I’ve been told as well. It’s not just what Jenny is told, but her reactions to it that I can relate to so much.
I think what made “An Education” such a unique viewing experience for me is its tone. It could’ve been a film that was darky, moody, and constantly angry. Instead, it remains optimistic throughout. Even when Jenny reaches her lowest point, there is always the reaffirming touch of life in every shot. It’s nice for once to see a film about the machine that is life which doesn’t approach it’s subject in such a pessimistic manner. “An Education” is a film that proves that it doesn’t just matter what story you’re telling, but how you tell it.

Movie Review: In the Loop

Leave a reply

Some things are too ridiculous to be true. Other things, when put into the right context, are too ridiculous to not be true. This is the very case for “In the Loop.” Its a very relevant political satire about ridiculous characters and situations during a very ridiculous period in history.

“In the Loop” might be so brilliant because of its stunning realism, or just because of how funny it is. The film is shot in a mockumentary style and spans a wide range of characters across an entire ocean. It takes place in the days leading up to a major war with a Middle Eastern country (no name is mentioned, but the film is obviously alluding to Iraq).
The film follows the lives of incompetent bureaucrats as the US and Britain prepare for war. The British side is headed by the Prime Minister’s enforcer Malcolm Tucker (Peter Capaldi), a man who curses more than he thinks. The war plans are constantly compromised by Minister for International Development Simon Foster (Tom Hollander) and his new assistant Toby (Chris Addison).
On the American front, Liza Weld (Anna Chlumsky) writes an anti-war report. As the two countries try and thwart the invasion, the more they work together, the less they get done.
“In the Loop” works so well for so many reasons. For one, it does not encompass one single style of humor, but rather a very broad comedic range. The film seems to have a combination of humor from both sides of the pond, which is a perfect fit. At times, it embraces British deadpan and visual humor. At other times, it uses the American humor of awkwardness and slapstick.
The great thing is that it doesn’t restrict British humor to the British characters and American humor to the American characters. One of the best examples in the film is when Toby stumbles into a meeting late, and he uncomfortably tries to find a good excuse. Of course, he has no clue what he’s talking about.
“In the Loop” is also blessed by hilarious dialogue from writer Jesse Armstrong. At times, some of the lines seem too natural to be scripted; I would not be surprised if improv took place in this film. The lines contain many pop culture references, and a fair amount of cursing. However, the cursing is not just thrown in for the sake of being there. It seems to have a purpose. At times, it can reveal frustration. Other times, it shows abundant emotional immaturity. Mainly though, it just manages to make you laugh. Rarely has the f-word been used this creatively.
“In the Loop” is boosted by an incredible ensemble. No one actor dominates. Rather, each is given a moment to shine. James Gandolfini shines as a US general. He manages to be hilarious by being intimidating at some times, and at other times delivering lines about murdering kittens and puppies without sounding angry.
The strength of the cast lies not just in the strength of each actor, but in the way they all communicate with each other. While great chemistry between actors is usually defined by how convincing it is that they like each other, the great chemistry in “In the Loop” is defined by how well the characters fight with each other. The fact that this was passed on by SAG for the Best Ensemble Award is something of a crime.
“In the Loop” works not just as comedy, but as spot-on political commentary. Armando Iannucci has created a satire worthy of being mentioned alongside “Dr. Strangelove,” the greatest political satire of all time. Like “Strangelove,” “In the Loop” shows miscommunication as the most powerful starter of war. However, unlike “Strangelove,” “In the Loop” is based more off something that actually happened rather than something that could’ve happened. Both are inevitably about trying to stop a crisis that’s already started.
All joking aside, “In the Loop” does have a very serious message to tell. Of course, it does this through humor. It portrays a world in which everything we’re told is essentially a lie, and the real, dirty business goes on way behind closed doors. Also, by having pretty much every person working for the US and British government be way too young, Iannucci is saying that Iraq War might as well have been planned by children. This balance of humor and serious message is something we don’t see enough in modern American comedies.
I really hope in the next two weeks, Oscar voters take this film into some serious consideration. Mainly, a surprise nomination for Capaldi and a Screenplay nomination for the bleeding gums scene alone would be just fine.
In the end, there is really one reason you should go and see “In the Loop”: it’s the most intelligent comedy you’ll see involving diarrhea jokes.

Movie Review: Crazy Heart

Leave a reply

There are some movie characters I really wish were real. Bad Blake is one of them.

“Crazy Heart” is a great movie propelled by an even greater performance by Jeff Bridges. Bridges plays Bad Blake. Bad Blake is an aging, chain-smoking, alcoholic country singer who’s seen better days.
Bad is long past his glory days and is now taking small gigs at bars and bowling allies. He doesn’t really have much a home, he just tours across the American West and does any show he can for money. Along the way, he gets interviewed by music journalist Jean (Maggie Gyllenhaal) and falls in love with her. The film shows Bad as deciding between two life paths: either rekindling his career, or recovering from his problems and settling down.
Bridges has been receiving the most praise for “Crazy Heart.” Obviously, I’m going to spend a large portion of this review talking about him. But before I get into that, lets talk about the film itself. The movie seems something like “The Wrestler” for the world of country music. However, the film amazingly manages to steer away from genre conventions. Just when you think it’s going to turn in one predictable direction, it steers away and goes somewhere you wouldn’t have expected. And there are certain events that occur that just have to occur. However, writer and director Scott Cooper makes them less much less contrived than they could’ve been.
I think two things that impressed me most about “Crazy Heart” are two things you’d never even notice: sound and set design. These two elements make the world “Crazy Heart” takes place in seem so real. When Bad plays in a bar, it sounds like he’s really playing a concert in a bar. Even every little detail, from the lights to the behavior of the audience when Bad plays at a bigger venue is pitch perfect. Were these shot at a studio, or on location? I’d rather not know, I’d rather just be sucked in by the magic of movies.
 I also must commend Cooper for creating such engaging characters. Beyond Bad Blake, all of his friends, acquaintances, and lovers are equally compelling to watch.
 But of course now is the reason you’ll likely see this movie: Jeff Bridges. Yes, it is one hell of a performance. Bridges takes a whiskey chugging burn out and turns him into someone you’ll actually like. Mainly, he makes the character seem so realistic through the smallest mannerisms. Most hilariously, he always opens his belt before he drives. Small details like this might seem insignificant, but they ultimately bring humanity to the character. In this case, a loosened belt shows Bad’s carefree attitude towards life.
Bad Blake is the role Bridges was born to play, and the role that will win him an Oscar. This is the most Dudesque performance Bridges has done in years. It’s a testament to how much “The Big Lebowski” has shaped Bridges career that the first scene of”Crazy Heart”‘ takes place in a bowling alley.
Truly, the best part of a good performance is how it makes you feel in relation to how the film is supposed to make you feel. No matter how emotionally cold Bad can be sometimes, there is still this level of warmness that is projected from his character at all times. We only get a very short glimpse of Bad’s 57 years on earth, but we get a fully realized understanding of Bad’s amiable personality and amazing ability to form relationships with pretty much any human being he meets.
 At times, Cooper’s film feels sort of like a New Age Western, as Bad travels across the west staying in motel to motel doing what he can to make money. Not to mention, Bad perfectly embodies the reckless outlaw spirit.
 “Crazy Heart” also contains what is likely the best original score of the year. The songs by T Bone Burnett bring extra layers of meaning to the film. The last song we see Bad write, a song that shares its name with the movie’s title, shows Bad’s true nature: no matter how much he changes, he’ll always be that same outlaw. He might go back to his old name, but he’ll still always be Bad Blake. And we wouldn’t have it any other way.

Movie Review: Big Fan

1 Reply

Here’s a little gem that escaped audiences. “Big Fan” is a film that came and went without much buzz, but it’s a film deserving of praise.

“Big Fan” is a film that’s something of a genre bender. It can be defined as either a solemn drama, or an extremely dark comedy. That’s up to you to decide. Most importantly, it’s an amazingly deep character study of a character you’d usually never want to know. The character in question is Paul Aufiero (Patton Oswalt). Paul is like Rupert Pupkin of the sports world.
Paul has two sides to him: one side is a lonely, unmotivated man who still lives with his mother. The other side is the world’s most passionate fan of the New York Giants.
By day, Paul is nothing but a worker at a parking garage. By night, he’s “Paul from Staten Island,” a frequent caller to a local sports radio station. One day, he stumbles upon Quantrell Bishop (Jonathan Hamm), his favorite quarterback. Paul follows him to a strip club, which results in a fight which sends Paul to the hospital. After the attack gets Quantrell arrested, Paul must decide between loyalty, and reality.
“Big Fan” comes from the mind of Robert Siegel. This is Siegel’s directorial debut. However, he did write the brilliant “The Wrestler.” This once again proves Siegel’s talent at making works of art examining what happens in the sports world from the inside out. While “The Wrestler” could be seen as something of a mockumentary following one man’s life inside the ring, “Big Fan” is a mockumentary about the man who always stands at the sidelines.
Siegel explores the twisted life of Paul Aufiero the same way he explored the twisted life of Randy “The Ram”: through an objective, almost apathetic, observer’s eye. Siegel is the rare filmmaker who realizes it’s not his duty to tell the audience how to feel about the character. Instead, he shows you everything the character does and you decide how to feel about them. Whether Paul is a pathetic loser who needs to get a life or just a lonely man who will only reach out in certain ways is up to the beholder.
What helps bring Paul into a three dimensional perspective is none other than the performance by Oswalt. Oswalt is just one of many renowned who have proven they have dramatic acting chops. What launches Oswalt into the ranks of other great comedians in serious roles such as Robin Williams in “Good Will Hunting,” Adam Sandler in “Punch Drunk Love,” and Bill Murray in “Lost in Translation” is his ability to take comedic sensibilities and shape them into a fine, serious performance. Even though Paul is the kind of man most people would mock in disgust, Oswalt makes him seem more like a human being than a walking joke.
“Big Fan” feels like a story ripped right out of the headlines. It’s one of those films that feels like it shouldn’t work but in the end, it does. It’s one of those movies that never goes where you’re thinking it will. For example, there’s no montage set to hipster music where the character gets new clothes and finally gets a job. No, it’s much more brutally real than that.
“Big Fan” basically has only plot development and a lot of things don’t change in the end. However, in a film, two things matter most about a story: what is being told, and how it’s being told. The “what” here is interesting, but with the wrong direction, it would’ve been nothing. The “how” here is stronger than ever.
Perhaps what makes the “how” so strong is the fascination the viewer will have with the film’s main character. Paul is a man of incredible complexity. Sometimes, he comes off as a stereotypical fanboy idiot. Other times, he comes off as someone with much intelligence, and a man who lives the way he does simply because he wants to.
If there is one definite thing we could find out about Paul, it’s that he’s extremely lonely. Siegel’s film is one of the better studies I’ve seen of isolation. Paul always has chances to escape his little bubble and be a real member of society. However, he doesn’t want to. Perhaps he sees no other way, he is just another of “God’s lonely men,” as Travis Bickle would say. But the beauty of the film is in its ambiguity, and we’ll never know the answer. “Big Fan” might offer an extremely vivid portrait of Paul Aufiero, but to know Paul, you just have to be Paul.

Movie Review: It’s Complicated

Leave a reply

After I saw “It’s Complicated,” I pondered one of the greatest questions of all: what makes a solid comedy? The answer is complicated. Though it does contain a few good gags, “It’s Complicated” doesn’t totally answer the question.

I hope this opening doesn’t sound too harsh, because in the end, “It’s Complicated” is a decent comedy, but not a great one.
“It’s Complicated” is what can be described as nothing more, and nothing less, than a typical romantic comedy. The film centers around the divorced couple of Jake (Alec Baldwin) and Jane (Meryl Streep). Since the divorce ten years earlier, Jake has remarried the much younger Agness (Lake Bell) while Jane remains single. After reuniting at their son’s (Hunter Parrish) college graduation, the two inadvertently rekindle their love and embark on a long, troublesome affair.
It’s also worth noting that Steve Martin is in it as Jane’s love interest. It’s important to note this as the actors are truly what make the story work. The actors that make the story work are the trio of Baldwin, Streep, and Martin.
As usual, it’s a pleasure to watch Baldwin’s relaxed intensity. His sternness always seems to make for the best humor. He shows this skill most on “30 Rock,” and it truly carries over here.
Streep, meanwhile, is great as usual. Here she again proves that she is one of those rare actresses who can conquer any genre. It’s amazing to think she can be in something as serious as “The Deer Hunter” and something as silly as “It’s Complicated.” Streep even shows off the acting skills that a great comedian would have. These skills are visible in her body language and line delivery.
At times, the chemistry between Baldwin and Streep is almost magical. When Jake talks to Jane as she soaks in the tub, the two seem so believable as a married couple. It was a rare scene in the film that could’ve kept going and I wouldn’t have minded.
While Baldwin and Streep rarely seem to go wrong, this is probably the best performance Martin has given in years. He proves to audiences why he was once hailed as one of the greatest comedians out there. All he has to do is roll his eyes a certain way and you’re already laughing.
While this trio of actors essentially is the movie, they don’t totally steal the show. John Krasinski (“The Office”) proves himself to be an amazingly promising comedic talent.
I wish I could talk about how great the actors of “It’s Complicated” are for the rest of this post. However, I can’t ignore the film’s weak points. Its main weakness is its writing. While the film certainly has its funny moments, I can’t pinpoint one hilarious line that I could repeat for weeks to come. Also, the film doesn’t become funny until some way in and there are many long, humorous stretches. A great comedy should be consistently funny throughout. And while the film is only 118 minutes long, it feels much longer than that.
It also goes without saying that the story of “It’s Complicated” is something of a cliche and many parts of the plot line are very predictable. Then again, this is likely what the average viewer was expecting when they came into this movie: an entertaining, predictable romantic comedy. But some comedies can be good by being typical; some can be even better when they try to be smart and original. Take this year’s “The Hangover” and “Adventureland” for example.
Overall, “It’s Complicated” is funny and entertaining at times, but it relies too much on its acting, and too little on its writing. While great acting helps, the best comedies are bolstered by writers, not actors.
Note: While I normally try to keep my hatred toward the MPAA out of my reviews I thought it was important to mention here. “It’s Complicated” is rated R. There is no graphic sexuality, violence, or even explicit language. The only thing that got it an R was a very funny scene involving marijuana. Believe me, an intelligent 13-year-old could handle this.

Movie Review: Up in the Air

Leave a reply

I won’t go as far as to say that “Up in the Air” is the best film of our time. However, should a future alien life form want to learn about our time and culture through film, they should look no further.

“Up in the Air” is the kind of film we need right now; it’s one that allows the life of one man to mirror our very own existence.
“Up in the Air” is based on a 2002 novel of the same name. The film version is given a 2009 financial crisis twist. Ryan Bingham (George Clooney) is a corporate downsizer, going from city to city firing people for corporations too afraid to confront their own employees. While some might face a guilty conscious doing this job, Bingham has developed an addiction to his life on the open road. In fact, he’s spent 322 days of the past year flying from city to city.
Bingham’s air-bound life leaves him isolated from the rest of humanity, but he wouldn’t have it any other way. Soon enough, Bingham’s livelihood is at stake as his company moves toward computerized communication. Only another frequent flyer (Vera Farmiga) and a new employee (Anna Kendrick) could possibly help him get used to a life on the ground.
“Up in the Air” is a rarity; it’s a film that takes a delicate subject and brings both drama and humor into it while keeping neither emotion from becoming overbearing. The film is led with a commanding performance by George Clooney, who shows a whole range of emotion with just one mournful stare. This works well as he portrays a character who must fire people without remorse, and therefore every emotion he might ever have is trapped inside of him.
While Clooney’s acting is nothing short of fantastic here (as are the rest of the ensemble’s), this is really director Jason Reitman’s show. This is Reitman’s third feature. After “Thank You for Smoking,” “Juno,” and now “Up in the Air,” Reitman has gone three for three and proves himself as something of a force to be reckoned with. He is probably Hollywood’s most versatile young director, as he can pull off a dark social satire in just about any setting. Whether that be the halls of Congress, a suburban high school, or the corporate world, Reitman just seems to know where and when to point a camera.
Like “Thank you for Smoking” and “Juno” before it, “Up in the Air” provides the in-and-out narrator bringing the audience through the painful processes of their lives. However, “Up in the Air” lacks much of the snark of his first two films and is by far his most serious one to date.
In addition, this film shows off Reitman’s talent not only as a director, but as a writer as well. No situation feels contrived, and no dialogue goes to waste. Every line feels insightful into either the experience of Bingham, or life as a whole. The ability to be both a great writer and director ultimately shapes you into a great storyteller. Nowhere is that more apparent than in this film, especially in one of the film’s final, game-changing twists which you’ll just have to see for yourself.
Quite possibly part of the reason why I think “Up in the Air” is so great is because I viewed it as a throwback to the greatest era in American cinema: the 1970s. Like a film out of the 70s, “Up in the Air” sets its story in a socially aware context, without hammering the viewer with politicized themes.
Of everything from the 70s I can think of, “Up in the Air” feels most like a film by Hal Ashby (“The Last Detail,” “Harold & Maude”), as it contains many scenes that one could find extraneous, but which do so much to develop character. One instance I can’t get out of my head is Bingham taking pictures of a cardboard cutout of his sister and her fiance in front of famous American monuments. This serves as one of the film’s funniest running jokes, and Reitman’s ability to utilize quirky characters.
“Up in the Air” also immediately made me think of “Taxi Driver,” mainly in how similar Ryan Bingham is to Travis Bickle. One might think both characters are forced into isolation by society, but it is instead their very nature to remain isolated. Clooney does the impossible in nearly channeling De Niro’s performance, minus the murderous rampages.
What could best make “Up in the Air” perfect 70s cinema is its open-ended ending. While some just want films to give them an answer, the best ones, the ones we never forget, are those that let the viewer do the thinking. This is why we go to the movies: not just to be entertained, but to be challenged. Some movies are an escape from reality, while others mirror it. “Up in the Air” certainly falls into that latter category. Its a cinematic gem; the kind of film that brings you to terms with reality but manages to impress with impeccably good writing, directing, music, camerawork, and acting. “Up in the Air” works so well because its so satisfying in basically everything it sets out to do.

Movie Review: Avatar

6 Replies

James Cameron only makes a movie every 10 or so years. But every time he does, he seems to rewrite the rules of filmmaking. With “Avatar,” James Cameron not only rewrote the rules, but opened a whole new book.

“Avatar” is one of those films that’s not just a film, but a vision beyond anyone’s wildest dreams; it’s daring in ways one couldn’t even imagine.
Cameron’s strange yet fascinating sci-fi epic takes a few steps to break down, it’s a premise that mixes contemporary society with ancient faiths. “Avatar” takes place around the year 2154. At this point, the earth has been totally ravished by humans (and, not mentioned in the movie, run out of oil), so the human race heads toward a distant moon called Pandora. Pandora contains a race of creatures called the Na’vi, a tall, blue species with a cat-like face and human tendencies. More important to humans, the moon also contains a valuable, energy-rich rock called Unobtanium. In order to get the Unobtanium, humans infiltrate and then hope to destroy the Na’vi by slipping into their bodies in Na’vi form. These bodies are called Avatars.
War veteran Jake Sully (Sam Worthington), paralyzed from the waist down, takes his brother’s place on Pandora after he dies. He is sent to become part of the Na’vi, but in the process, he becomes a powerful member of the tribe, and falls in love with a Na’vi woman (Zoe Saldana).
In some ways, in different hands “Avatar” could have been a disaster, or maybe just an action film like any other action film ever made. But in the hands of a man with a real vision, “Avatar” is something totally different. “Avatar” is shot with a new form of Motion Capture technology that Cameron himself invented. This form looks stunningly real, from the monsters that live on Pandora, to the Na’vi themselves. While some forms of Motion Capture come out as uncannily unrealistic, there is something about the Na’vi that is incredibly human.
The film is shown in 3-D, a usually wasteful tool to add to feature length films. It is something I usually associate with the Muppet ride at Disney World. When used in most films, the only thing it is used for is to shoot raindrops or bullets out at the audience. “Avatar,” however, uses its 3-D to make its images more stunning. It seems like more of a way to put the viewer into the film than create some means of shock value. While I hope 3-D doesn’t become a regular feature in filmmaking, if it is used for this purpose alone, then I really wouldn’t mind.
The storyline of “Avatar” has many elements derived from both contemporary issues and religions. This helps turn the film into a pretty effective parable of human nature in both the past and the present. For example, Avatar comes from the Hindu faith and is the manifestation of a deity from heaven to earth. That makes sense, as Avatars are humans in Na’vi form. Also, the entire film itself seems based off the Hindu belief of reincarnation, as the wheel-chaired Jake wants so desperately to be reborn into something else.
The film also seems to take on the totally unrelated ideology of Shinto, in which it is thought that people have a spiritual connection with the natural world, a connection the Na’vi share with their own planet.
When looking at “Avatar” from a contemporary perspective, one could quite obviously point out that it is a highly critical look at man’s depletion of his own home. Some might even try and politicize the film for this reason, though politics should be left out of it.
Looking deeper into the film, one could see that it is about the horrors of imperialism. The war between the humans and the Na’vi often mirrors the destruction of the Native Americans of the United States or the Aztecs in Central America. It is also about the human instinct to act as pillagers: destroying one land, and then moving on to the next.
Moving beyond the themes, the greatest part about “Avatar” is its incredible CGI. Pandora becomes a planet that seems almost tangible. Every aspect of it, from the animals to the plants to the water, is something that could never have been thought of by anyone. In this light, one could almost say “Avatar” is the “Star Wars” of this generation that we’ve all been waiting for.
Alas, “Avatar” doesn’t go without its minor flaws. At times, some of the dialogue is a little clunky. Also, the basic storyline is one that has been done before in one way or another. However, the context it is put into is totally original.
Quite simply “Avatar” is such a great filmgoing experience because its audacious, and its exciting. The end battle sequence is one that could rival the ones from “The Return of the King” and “Lawrence of Arabia.”
The very first line of “Avatar” is, “You’re not in Kansas anymore!” This shows that in “Avatar,” you’re being swept out of your comfort zone and being taken to a place beyond the imagination. It could also be nothing less than a shout out to “The Wizard of Oz,” a film that led the way to a new dimension of filmmaking with its bold use of color. Cameron is the kind of filmmaker with the vision to accomplish this.
Cameron always manages to defy our expectations. People doubted him before “Titanic” came out and they did the same with “Avatar.” Both times he totally changed the game. As Pandora was the beginning of a new frontier for humans, “Avatar” is the beginning of a new frontier for filmmakers worldwide.
Note: Earlier, I accidentally wrote that Pandora was a planet, when it is in fact, a moon. We all make mistakes sometimes, and for this one, I apologize. Thanks to Cameron Bruce for catching this mistake.

Movie Review: Invictus

Leave a reply

After seeing “Invictus,” I thought of a scene in “Barton Fink” where a greedy studio executive informs Fink his wrestling picture won’t work because the real drama takes place in the ring, not outside of it.

Somehow, “Invictus” manages to strike a rare balance of both; making the action in the story as intense on the action on the field. Then again, I expect nothing less from Clint Eastwood.
“Invictus” comes entirely from a true story. It is slightly a biopic on Nelson Mandela (Morgan Freeman). However, it’s not a rise and fall story of his entire life. Instead, it tells of the years when he became president of a post-Apartheid South Africa. Once Apartheid ended, all of the country’s racial tensions had not ended. To reunite the torn country, he looks for help in the most unlikely place: South Africa’s rugby team. In order to reunite the country, he befriends the team’s white captain (Matt Damon) and inspires the team to win the World Cup. Here is where sports and social conflict collide.
You could call “Invictus” a mix of two very different genres: inspiring biopic, and inspiring sports flick. It manages to be unconventional, but not necessarily groundbreaking in both. As a biopic, it manages to show its subject as an amazing person without necessarily deifying it. As a sports flick, it manages to be uplifting without being schmaltzy. Of course, this shouldn’t come as a surprise, as the film is directed by Eastwood.
Even at the age of 79, Eastwood remains as alive and energetic as he was at 29. Here, he shows off his talent for amazing, simple human interactions. Some philosophical life conversations that take place in the movie feel similar to those in say, “Million Dollar Baby.” Meanwhile, the brilliantly shot rugby sequences feel as engrossing and brutal as a real game of rugby. Eastwood puts in the same energy of mastering the technique of a rugby game as he did with a battle sequence in “Letters from Iwo Jima,” a boxing match in “Baby,” and a shootout between gunslingers in “Unforgiven.” Simply, this man can do anything.
Another man who can do (or in the case, play) just about anything is Freeman. He’s the first person that comes to mind when I think of a good candidate for Mandela, and here he proves why. He doesn’t just play Mandela, he is Mandela. Any person who doesn’t know a thing about Mandela will walk out of this movie understanding why this man deserves a movie. He underlines his amazing quality of forgiveness, but also his outgoing, always humorous personality. His performance goes along with the screenplay, as he plays Mandela as not just an inspiring public figure, but also a man could faint from too much work, and a man who could also have family problems.
The film’s other star, Damon, gives something of a mixed performance. While he gave a career best performance earlier this year in “The Informant!” this performance is a slightly bigger challenge, as the South African accent is a hard one to nail. Sometimes, he gets it right. Other times, it leans towards Australian with a mix of American. Damon is a talented actor, and I admire him for trying. However, his imperfect accent didn’t serve as a distraction from the film’s higher points.
“Invictus” might just be the perfect sports movie for this day and age. It’s one of those films that provides both makes you face reality, and allows you to escape it. It engrosses you in the power of the game, but it also uses the game as a way to represent South Africa’s social problems. It represents the power of something as seemingly insignificant as a sporting event as being one of the greatest uniters of all. It is also a great sports flick for the way the game is shot. Eastwood puts you inside the huddles, forcing you immediately inside the action. Meanwhile, each kickoff is incredibly suspenseful. Even if you know the outcome, you can’t help but feel like you don’t.
Only someone like Clint Eastwood could get away with showing one of the most significant turning points in modern human history through sports. Here, he has also shown his new world view, which is leaning away from the depravity of mankind and leaning toward the idea of how even one life can inspire so many. The title “Invictus” comes from a poem that Mandela read during his years in prison about man triumphing over his soul and his destiny and in the end, conquering great obstacles. “Invictus,” like Mandela himself, will inspire many, and leave no audience member unmoved. This is one of the year’s best films.
Below is a picture of the real Nelson Mandela with the real Francois Pienaar

The Room: When Bad Movie Means Great Cinema

1 Reply

I know, I too often gripe about bad films, and how they are relentlessly tearing apart the fabric of good, intelligent, filmmaking.

Having said that, “The Room,” a disaster of a film, might just be one of the most rewarding film watching experiences you’ll ever have. Why is it that I’m recommending such a bad film? Quite simply, it achieves the rare feat of being so bad that its actually good.
Before delving into details, it helps to have some background on the making of the film. It was the first (and to date, only) feature made by Tommy Wiseau, who also wrote and stars in the film. “The Room” had a $6 million dollar budget. Apparently, Wiseau raised most of that money selling leather jackets. It also looks like more money was put into the opening credits than in the entire story itself. In reality, much of the budget was spent on a ridiculous billboard campaign.
I can’t say this for a fact, but it seems almost evident that the film’s editor was asleep throughout production and the studio executives who let it be made were likely on crack. Among its many problems, “The Room” contains so many scenes that have absolutely no value to the film. There are characters and important situations that are brought up and then never mentioned again. The dialogue is cliche and incredibly straightforward. In fact, Wiseau can’t even figure out how to use cliches properly (for instance, the placing of “love is blind”). The acting is emotionless and artificial. The camera is usually shaky and there are way too many unnecessary cuts to stock images of the San Francisco skyline.
I should be listing all these criticisms in a very angry tone. However, I feel a delighted one makes much more sense. That’s because “The Room” is the midnight movie of our generation to remember. The 1950s might’ve had Ed Wood and “Plan 9 From Outer Space,” but we have Tommy Wiseau and “The Room.”
There is no doubt you’ll enjoy the film so much because you’ll be laughing at it. Sometimes, that’s what can make an extremely bad drama an extremely bad thing. Usually, a film is bad because it turns out to be the opposite of what it intended. For example, “Gigli” was supposed to be a dark comedy. Instead, it turned out to be a dark drama. “The Room” is meant to be a tragedy “with the passion of Tennessee Williams.” Instead, its a passionless laughfest.
Still, what truly makes the room a cult classic is the eccentricity behind the auteur himself, Tommy Wiseau. In one scene, he tries to emulate James Dean by proclaiming “You’re tearing me apart Lisa!” In a later scene he destroys his bedroom bit by bit, a scene that is so clearly inspired by the destruction of Susan Alexander Kane’s bedroom during the climax of “Citizen Kane.” Of course, Wiseau’s thick, French accent sounds nothing like Dean, and the destruction of the bedroom scene is nowhere near as heartbreaking as the way Orson Welles filmed it. In both instances, they are flat out hilarious.
Could this be why in a way “The Room” is more than just a flat out bad movie. Despite how horribly made it is, it’s so hard to hate because it feels inspired. You can sense the filmmaker was striving to show his unique vision but ultimately failed at it, much to the delight of audiences across America. All of this is more than can be said for a film like, say, “New Moon,” which is thrown together in too quick a time for the sole purpose of commercial success.
I don’t think this post can really do “The Room” justice. You’re just going to have to rent it yourself or better yet, get to a midnight screening.
Here are a few great sample clips:

Movie Review: Fantastic Mr. Fox

5 Replies

Who thought that Wes Anderson, who’s still early on in a career of mastering the human frontier, could suddenly switch to the world of animated animals so perfectly? “Fantastic Mr. Fox,” for lack of a better word, is fantastic.

“Fantastic Mr. Fox” is based off the book by the wildly imaginative Roald Dahl. Dahl’s source material often makes for classic cinema (mainly, the original “Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory”). The imaginative mind of Dahl is in good hands with the equally imaginative mind of Anderson.
For those not familiar with the book, the titular Mr. Fox (George Clooney) was a former chicken thief who retired his old profession after marrying Mrs. Fox (Meryl Streep) and having their child, Ash (Jason Schwartzman).
After going through what could be described as a mid-life crisis, Mr. Fox gets back into his old stealing habits and incites the wrath of the three wicked farmers Bogus, Bunce, and Bean. After they threaten his home and family, Mr. Fox prepares to fight back.
As pointed out, “Fantastic Mr. Fox” comes from the brilliant mind of Wes Anderson. Anderson is well known for directing films such as “Rushmore,” “The Royal Tenenbaums,” and “The Life Aquatic.” For a film that follows around the lives of foxes, rats, and badgers, it is still completely Andersonesque. He accounts for every tiny detail. The cozy tree the foxes inhabit is alive with color, their furniture and their walls adorned with the most intricate decorations. You might also marvel at how a computer in the background is covered with post it notes, or how the walls of the deepest parts of the earth have fossils imprinted into them.
Anderson also leaves his mark with the music, which is a mixture of original score and rock music. What other director would use a Rolling Stones song in a family movie? The original score often perfectly matches the pleasant, agrarian landscape and during more suspenseful moments, takes on a spaghetti western feel.
The characters themselves also feel ripped out of previous Anderson films. Mr. Fox’s mischievous behavior over family values can feel something like those of Royal Tenenbaum, and his struggle to find a real identity for himself can at times, make him seem like Max Fisher.
What’s most important about Anderson’s direction is that every frame seems filled with absolute love. Rather than record the voices and sound in a studio, Anderson instead decided to record out in a farm in Connecticut. This no doubt gives the film a much more natural feeling, rather than just feeling like another artificial studio product churned out in too short an amount of time.
Perhaps that’s what makes this better than the typical, how real it feels; even the animals feel human. Also, the film manages to be so adult in both theme and humor despite being a children’s film. The fact that the word “existentialism” is mentioned in it might give you an indication of it.
In this light, Anderson’s adaptation of “Fantastic Mr. Fox” manages to turn this fairytale into an allegory of the human existence. At one point, Mr. Fox realizes that his days as a thief proved him to be a wild beast, and that he must settle down. The fact that he goes back to his old ways shows the wild, untamed beast that is the basis of our existence. Here, is the key to existentialism.
But I don’t want to get into philosophy. After all, this is meant to be a fun story for the family, and at that it succeeds admirably.
For some reason, as I watched this film, I couldn’t stop thinking of the other children’s film made by a mature filmmaker this year: “Where the Wild Things Are.” Both were experiments of whether their directors could reach to new audiences. “Fantastic Mr. Fox” wins in this experiment not just because its well filmed, not just because it has depth, but for one small reason alone: it’s an amazingly fun time at the movies.