Category Archives: Movie Review

Movie Review: Beasts of the Southern Wild

For a film about struggle after a hurricane, “Beasts of the Southern Wild” is surprisingly as life affirming as it is tragic. Then again, “Beasts of the Southern Wild” is the only film of its kind you’ll see that also has prehistoric creatures randomly roaming around.

Hushpuppy, the six-year-old protagonist of “Beasts of the Southern Wild” is more curious than precocious. It’s nice for a change to see a young lead who’s willing to learn more about the world as opposed to simply thinking they know everything about it. As Hushpuppy, newcomer Quvenzhané Wallis is, as many before me have already said, a force of nature. Such a label is not an exaggeration. I will say this now so I don’t have to repeat myself later: Wallis is on her way to becoming one of the youngest actresses ever to be nominated for an Oscar.

Hushpuppy grows up in that part of America that we often pretend doesn’t exist. The Bathtub, where Hushpuppy lives, looks like a slum in Mumbai. It is located in a part of Louisiana that is south of New Orleans. On one side of the levees lies a protected city made ugly by industry. On the other side lies The Bathtub, which is basically under water already. Hushpuppy and her father Wink (Dwight Henry) typically get around in a boat made out of a pickup truck. Bathtubians (is that what you would call them?) are a strong and resilient people who live off of whatever the land has to offer them, and make do even with the very little that they have. Indeed, they even learn how to fish without bait and tackle.

Hushpuppy’s mother died when she was much younger, and she has only her father to raise her. Consequently, she raised somewhat like a boy, with Wink always asking her to suppress her tears and show her strength (one of the funniest scenes involves her shouting “I’M THE MAN!”). Yet, all the suppression of tears cannot stop Hushpuppy’s true emotions, and her quest to find her mother (or at least, the spirit of her) guides her journey.

“Beasts of the Southern Wild” contains one of the most moving parent-child relationships a film has had in a long time. Of course when the hurricane strikes and gets stronger, Wink runs out into it to prove that he is stronger than it, as opposed to quelling his daughter’s fear. Walking in, I was expecting a tale of Magical Realism along the lines of “Pan’s Labyrinth.” However, “Beasts of the Southern Wild”is more about a young girl who has a lot to live for in her own life, but uses fantasy as a way to understand reality, as opposed to just escaping from it.

This is just too harsh and demanding of a reality to simply escape from. After all, what can you do when a hurricane is coming and you’re stuck on the wrong side of the levees? Something that struck me most about The Bathtub is that despite the extreme poverty, it seems like an amazing place to grow up in. Because it is cut off from the outside world, Bathtubians form their own rituals and traditions to guide them. The film opens warmly on a festival, rather than on a disaster.

The film, as mentioned previously, has a fantastical element to it. Early on, Hushpuppy learns in school that major environmental changes are coming, and that the only thing everyone can do is stick together. This is quite a tough lesson for a six-year-old to learn, it felt similar to when Max learned that one day the sun will burn out in “Where the Wild Things Are.” She also learns about the Aurochs, a giant creature that was once top of the animal kingdom during the ice age. Based on pictures I could find, the real Aurochs looked like cattle. The Aurochs that Hushpuppy sees looks more like pigs with horns. That’s fitting, as pigs are a common sight in The Bathtub. Hushpuppy’s fantasies don’t come totally out of her imagination, but rather as a kind of culmination of everything she sees.

Hushpuppy is at too young of an age to be on a journey of maturity, but she is in the kind of environment where that kind of thing is forced to come about early. The Aurochs must symbolize her coming of age in some way I am still trying to figure out. That has been the part of the film has frustrated me and fascinated me most since I last saw it. I believe it fits in to Hushpuppy’s final words (which I am not spoiling, as they are in the trailer), that every piece of life is meant to fit together perfectly to create a whole of the gigantic universe. This might be known more commonly as the Butterfly Effect. If the Aurochs had never died, Hushpuppy could not have lived. The ultimate truth behind “Beasts of the Southern Wild” is that death gives way to life. That is a profound thing for a six-year-old to learn and to me, is sad, optimistic, and even beautiful.

“Beasts of the Southern Wild” is the directorial debut of Benh Zeitlin. At such a young age, he is already a visionary with an exciting career ahead of him. At times, it feels like he doesn’t even want to direct a story, but rather explore the lush scenery of the surrounding world. There are some very strange choices made by the characters. For instance, Wink at one point refuses medical treatment. Yet, Zeitlin never passes judgement when so much could have been. He becomes a true fly-in-the-wall in this very foreign culture that is right here in America.

I actually had the rare opportunity to meet Zeitlin while at Cannes. It was at the beach screening of “Jaws,” and I remember he remarked that “Jaws” was like his muse. I could see some of the influence rubbing off here. This is not a horror film, of course, but the scenes in which the locals talk with each other reminds me of the scene in “Jaws” in which the men discuss their scars. During conversations like this, it is as if both directors, usually very present, walked away for a few minutes, because they knew the magic going on between the actors could not be disturbed. For a director, knowing when to shut the f**k up is just as admirable a quality as knowing which angle to use at which moment. As the end credits began to role, the first thing I thought was that I could not wait until Zeitlin’s next film, whatever that may be and whenever it may come out.

For a film that is only 91 minutes long, “Beasts of the Southern Wild” tells an expansive story. After screening at Sundance and Cannes, Zeitlin’s film immediately captured the hearts of all who viewed it. However, I don’t know if a second viewing is enough. Another venture into the “Southern Wild” would be helpful, just so I can delve into the brooding images a little longer, and get lost in Hushpuppy’s delicately delivered voiceover.

Movie Review: To Rome with Love

Leave a reply

Besides a few new shooting locations, Woody Allen hasn’t changed a lot during the span of his career. Not that he has to. Every one of his films open with the same white font against a black background as classical music plays. It never gets old.

“To Rome with Love” opens in this same way. However, this time around, classical music will become a pertinent part of the film. The film opens with a crossing guard on a busy street in Rome, who is the first narrator introduced. As is the typical narrator in a Woody Allen film, he directly addresses the camera while in front of it, instead of only existing as a voice offscreen. This makes sense, as Allen’s films seem to be a way of letting his odd subconscious run wild. “To Rome with Love” doesn’t come near the same territory that “Midnight in Paris” dwelled in, yet it is almost always exciting and funny. “To Rome with Love” is told in four vignettes which never interlock, and never should. Three of them thematically fit together. Another one is kind of just there and has just a few inventive moments.

The film opens as a young Italian couple (Alessandro Tiberi and Alessandra Mastronardi) get off of a train and get ready to start their new life together. Antonio (Tiberi) is hardworking businessman who is always nervous about something. While his wife Milly just wants a haircut that will make her look young and hip, Antonio worries that she won’t make it back on time to meet his family. She gets the same terrible directions to the salon from every Roman she encounters, and ends up lost and without a cellphone. While wandering the streets of Rome, she bumps into her favorite actor, dines with him, and then faces a moral dilemma. Antonio, meanwhile, is involved in a classic mixup, and a prostitute with a sharp and dirty sense of humor named Anna (Penelope Cruz) is sent to his room. She poses as his wife, since his family has yet to meet Milly. However, Anna doesn’t look like much of a Milly, but she plays along. Milly’s story becomes one of the story’s most amusing. Of course Anna is on speed dial for every businessman at a fancy party Antonio attends. Both Antonio and Milly learn how to be better lovers from other lovers. Antonio and Anna’s story feels inconclusive, but Allen definitely doesn’t take it down the predictable road.

Another vignette stars Allen himself as Jerry, a now retired music executive with too much ambition who is itching to go back to work. Allen is a welcome presence after being absent from the screen since last acting in “Scoop.” It is only natural that he enters this film complaining about turbulence. Despite Jerry’s claim that no psychiatrist has ever been able to diagnose him, it is easy to see where some of his neuroses come from. His wife (Judy Davis, in deadpan glory) is constantly trying to analyze him. In a very Woody Allen joke, the typical Freudian model of id, ego, and superego doesn’t work on him because he is a man with three ids. But I digress. The couple heads to Italy to meet Michelangelo (Flavio Parenti), the new boyfriend of their daughter (Alison Pill). The interesting story is not the budding Italian love affair, but rather the hidden talent that Michelangelo’s father possesses.

Next, there is John (Alec Baldwin), a renowned American architect who has sold out and now builds mini-malls. Instead of seeing the ruins for the hundredth time with his wife, he decides to go for a stroll. Going for a stroll and finding something unexpected seems to be a big theme in Allen’s European chapter in his career. On a side street, John meets Jack (Jesse Eisenberg) a student studying architecture in Rome with his architect girlfriend (Greta Gerwig) and living in the same place John once lived. John becomes quite interested in retracing his old footsteps, and finds that Jack is making similar mistakes he once did, as he falls in love with his girlfriend’s best friend Monica (Ellen Page). The conversations between John and Jack at times appear to only be happening in Jack’s head. However, if this is his subconscious, then the other characters at times seem to have the ability to communicate with it. However, this is one of those outlandish elements that is never explained and doesn’t need to be, like the time-travel in “Midnight in Paris.” As John constantly criticizes Jack and gives him life advice, they talk to the audience without directly addressing them, saying that they know as well as we do that this story will not end well.

This unaware self-awareness might be Allen’s way of saying he knows that this story has been played out. After all, this vignette contains a very similar story to “Match Point,” which was already basically the same story as “Crimes & Misdemeanors.” This definitely feels like the most familiar Allen story, and it even contains one of the archetypes that he basically invented (the pseudo-intellectual). The kind-of inner monologues and speaking back-and-forth to the audience between Jack and Jessie never do carry quite the same spark as, say, Marshall McLuhan’s drop-in in “Annie Hall.” Allen is at his best when he is expanding on his most common ideas, rather than just repeating them.

The fourth story follows Leopoldo (Roberto Benigni), an average, middle class Roman. You can tell from his gleeful strut to work everyday that he is totally satisfied with where he is. As long as he can eat breakfast with his children, gaze at the beautiful young woman in the office, and understand movies slightly better than his friends, life can’t go wrong. Then one day, he is pulled out of obscurity, put on a newscast, and becomes the most famous man in Rome. He is pestered by swarms of paparazzi all day long and is constantly asked to make a statement on subjects such as the weather and shaving. Leopoldo comes to realize that it’s not always so good to be in the public eye.

Leopoldo’s story is not necessarily the most complex nor the best of the four stories. However, in the end, it feels the most satisfying and leaves no loose ends dangling. Benigni gives his best performance since “Life is Beautiful” all those years ago. And yes, it does make sense that an ordinary schmuck (his words) like Leopoldo could end up becoming famous over night for doing nothing at all. He’s not much like a Hilton or a Kardashian. He is more like Joe the Plumber, as he is famous simply because he has an opinion on whatever you ask him about. Newscasters want everyone’s opinion but what “To Rome with Love” shows is that not everyone’s opinion actually matters.

“To Rome with Love” is at its best when it embraces visual slapstick that is oddly philosophical. For example, it asks why people sing under the shower with the obvious answer that everyone sounds better under a shower head. This observation is then taken to the next level when Michelangelo’s father becomes a renowned opera singer by bathing himself while onstage during shows. Things like this work because it fits very well into the world that’s been invented, where everyone becomes fully exposed in the public eye. Woody Allen is the quintessential intellectual everyman.

Still, the greatest pleasure of “To Rome with Love” is seeing Woody Allen act again. Before he is even seen, his recognizable voice is heard, and the whole audience I experienced the film with immediately burst out into laughter. It was a familiar kind of laughter, the kind that welcomes back an old friend who can make our lives just a little more entertaining.

If you liked “To Rome with Love,” then you should check out these similar Woody Allen films: Sleeper, Crimes & Misdemeanors, Annie Hall, Small Time Crooks, The Purple Rose of Cairo

Movie Review: The Amazing Spider-Man

1 Reply

After the disaster of “Spider-Man 3,” which all but destroyed the hero that made superheroes box office gold, the world wasn’t exactly craving more Spider-Man. “The Amazing Spider-Man” isn’t the superhero movie we needed, but we got it, and it’s actually a stellar installment of the myth of a man in red spandex.

To compare “The Amazing Spider-Man” with Sam Raimi’s “Spider-Man” is to tiptoe on a tightrope, as saying that the new one is better than the old one would be potentially putting down something that I deeply cherish. “Spider-Man” was one of the first movies I watched multiple days in a row when it first arrived on DVD, and it spurred an interest in comic books that led me to a giant box full of them in the attic (benefits of having an older brother). But then again, what makes “The Amazing Spider-Man” work is its ability to build on and improve the flaws of its predecessors.

“The Amazing Spider-Man” seems most similar to the fantastic, revisionist Ultimate Spider-Man graphic novels. However, “The Amazing Spider-Man” also takes on a life of its own. It starts at the very beginning, during one of the crucial moments of Peter Parker’s life. As a child, Parker’s father, a brilliant scientist with a controversial view on genetics, is under constant threat. In order to keep Peter safe, he is to go and live with his Uncle Ben (Martin Sheen) and Aunt Mae (Sally Field) in their working class Queens home. One thing remains constant throughout the evolution of the Spider-Man Story: poor Uncle Ben can never catch a break.

Years later, and Peter is the nerd we always knew. Except this time, he’s more of brilliant punk than a plain old brainiac. Spotting a skateboard, square glasses, and an old jacket, he looks more like the new generations definition of cool kids as seen in “21 Jump Street” (hint: reduce, reuse, recycle). Andrew Garfield plays him with just the perfect amount of teenage awkwardness that is uncomfortable and funny all at once. Because of this, him and Emma Stone, who portrays Gwen Stacy, bounce off each other well as love interests.

“The Amazing Spider-Man” is very slow to start. However, there is a lot of necessary world-building that goes on which does not pay off until later in the story. But really, the movie could have done without the scene in which Peter researches the mystery of his father’s death by searching on the Internet. Obviously, this is the way research is done nowadays. However, there is nothing interesting about watching someone typing words into a search engine, nor does it make someone look any smarter.

Once Peter is bitten by the radioactive spider and starts to experience symptoms does the story really take off. It starts off with a series of ingenius sight gags, directed to comedic perfection by Marc Webb. Webb, who previously directed “(500) Days of Summer,” shows off flashes of self-awareness that first established his talent. After all, we are dealing with a man with spider-like powers who wears a tight red body suit. There is something inherently silly about that. Webb plays around with the humor, but without ruining all seriousness in the story. This was the biggest problem in “The Avengers,” and it does not get the best of the new “Spider-Man.”

Unlike many blockbusters, the action here is well shot and edited. It moves at a pace that anyone can follow, and it doesn’t alternate shots every millisecond. Webb’s indie sensibilities, overall, bring a much more humanized feel to the entire movie. However, there is a major action set piece towards the end, coupled with some emotional backstory, that comes off as quite trite. All I will say is that it involves crains, and I can picture the writers saying something like “we need an easy way to get Spider-Man from one place to another. I know: deus ex machina!”

The fact that “The Amazing Spider-Man” at all had me thinking about the nature of superheroes and comic books shows just how different of a superhero movie this is. It all stems from the creation of a “new” Spider-Man and Peter Parker. Putting a mask on is a way of being two different people at once, and then gaining the ability to do what you couldn’t without a mask on. The old Peter Parker is timid and clumsy, while the old Spider-Man will climb up the tallest of buildings without fear. Meanwhile, the new Peter Parker and Spider-Man are almost one in the same: they are both brilliant, sarcastic, and sometimes too proud and too much in need of getting even. As Peter Parker, he gladly shows off his new ability to jump by playing basketball and smashing the backboard. As Spider-Man, he spends a large chunk of time trying to track down Uncle Ben’s killer.

In addition, Spider-Man is not just a superhero here. Rather, as Police Chief Stacy (Denis Leary) describes him), he is an outlaw, roaming the city with his own code of justice, while hiding behind a mask. When he swings through Manhattan alone on silk ropes, it now feels more like a cowboy walking off alone into the sunset.

While the Spider-Man of the 2000s gained the ability to shoot webs from the spider bite, the Spider-Man of Stan Lee’s creation had to create the web blasters himself. This makes a big difference, as it reveals even more how smart Parker is. No more of that “Go web go!” stuff. Unfortunately, the movie forgets to include what happens when Spider-Man runs out of his webs, which was always one of the more interesting elements of the comics. Seeing Spider-Man fight bad guys without his webs is like seeing Samson without his hair. Only this Samson can jump much higher.

Superheroes, in general, were created to pull of the physical feats that humans could not. The first villains of Captain America and Superman were Nazis. “The Amazing Spider-Man,” in a way, is about what makes a hero. Peter can be a hero with or without the mask. If superheroes are made to do what humans are incapable of, then the point of one armed Dr. Connors’ (Rhys Ifans) cloning experiment was to prove that humans on their own are weak, and only with the help of the genetics of others can they truly excel. Maybe this is foolish, as the experiment goes awry and turns Connors into an evil lizard monster (not as ludicrous as it sounds). Humans might not have the strength or ability to grow back dismembered body parts that other life forms have the ability to do. However, they do have the ability to distinguish right from wrong.

I might be overanalyzing a bit here, but the fact that “The Amazing Spider-Man” at all put these thoughts into my head shows that this reboot runs deeper than one might imagine. It is in line with “Prometheus” as smartest blockbuster of the summer. The real difference between this Spider-Man and Spider-Mans past is character. By adding motivations to every action, the story no longer feels like a bunch of set pieces of a teenager having fun with his magical powers. “The Amazing Spider-Man” is far from perfect, but I truly appreciate its ability to take long stretches of time without blowing something up. The superhero movie has truly come a long way since its humble rebirth ten years ago.

Sidenote: Don’t see this in 3D.

Movie Review: Safety Not Guarenteed

1 Reply

WANTED: Someone to go back in time with me. This is not a joke. You’ll get paid after we get back. Must bring your own weapons. I have only done this once before. SAFETY NOT GUARANTEED

It all starts with one of the greatest premises I’ve ever heard: a group of journalists investigate a classified ad stating, amongst other things: “Someone to go back in time with me.” No, the ad is not a joke, and while “Safety Not Guaranteed” is a comedy, it does not treat the subject matter as such. There is a big difference between being mean, and prodding delicately.

“Safety Not Guaranteed” is a Mumblecore film that is light on the mumbles. To call it a straight-up comedy would be a disservice. To call it a dramedy also wouldn’t quite be the right word. It falls somewhere else in between.

Aubrey Plaza plays Darius, who can be added to her collection of sarcastic, anti-social sad sacks. While I feel I should be tired of it at this point, like I felt with Steve Carell in “Seeking a Friend for the End of the World,” I strangely feel like this is the only role Plaza should be playing. Every time she plays a character like Darius, it is as if she is revealing some new layer of her true self.

But unlike, say, April Ludgate, Darius has a kinder air to her, and a darker backstory. She begins the movie explaining her life story, which mainly consisted of her being an anti-social sad sack as a result of her mother’s death. It turns out she is not just explaining this to the audience, but also to a man trying to hire her for a job. Needless to say, she doesn’t get it. Darius is also a hard-working intern for a Seattle magazine, where she can be seen lifting boxes and changing out rolls of toilet paper. One day, Jeff (Jake Johnson), an overly self-assured writer, spices up a brainstorming session by bringing out the aforementioned classified ad, and then suggests turning it into a story. Jeff recruits Darius and another intern, Arnau (Karan Soni), who is only interning for the magazine because he thinks that it will look good on his resume. Can any other Biology majors attest to this?

“Safety Not Guaranteed” starts off as a detective story mixed with an offbeat road story of mismatched characters. It doesn’t veer toward sappy quirkiness or cliche in either case. The investigation takes them to the town of Ocean View. Jeff, however, has another motive for this mission: to track down his high school love interest. With this second story, the title takes on another meaning. Safety is not guaranteed, as this movie does not suffer from the cushion of predictability.

We are not introduced to the man who put the ad out for quite some time, but it is well worth the wait. The investigation leads them to Kenneth (Mark Duplass). Duplass gives such a surprisingly warm performance despite never letting a smile come across his face. Kenneth, despite being a middling supermarket employee, also may or may not be a brilliant scientist who may or may not have discovered time travel. Now, “Safety Not Guaranteed” could have chosen any of the three leading men to be Darius’s eventual love interest (they all seem possible), and gotten three very different movies. With Jeff, it would have been a brief and regrettable affair. With Arnau, it would have been a quirky yet corny mismatched relationship. But with Kenneth, it feels just right. These two outsiders who couldn’t connect with people needed to meet each other in order to be able to face the rest of the world.

However, “Safety Not Guaranteed” isn’t simply about two outsiders connecting over loneliness. “Safety Not Guaranteed” is about what we would change in our past, whether we could actually travel through time or not. The answers are not so simple. At one point, one likable character will turn out to be hiding a very big secret, and a very big lie. The movie doesn’t ask you to forgive the action, but certainly it does ask to accept the very possibility of turning over a new leaf.

For a film with such a small budget, it certainly has great ambitions to be much more than it appears to be. This is fitting, as it is about people who aspire to transcend their rough edges. It sure packs a lot of change and development into just 84 minutes. It feels long, but that is because it is slow burning, not just slow. And while “Safety Not Guaranteed” is a comedy, it is not a comedy in the way that anyone would expect. The funniest moment in the film involves Plaza trying to re-organize a shelf of soup cans while trying not to look suspicious.

Little Miss Time Travel

While “Safety Not Guaranteed” brings out the very best of its small ensemble, there is still a lack of closure in certain areas. I wouldn’t have minded if director Colin Treverow had tacked on a few more minutes to the running time. Jeff’s story arc didn’t feel totally resolved. Also, one big late story twist isn’t really given enough time to sink in, and there seems to be something of a rush to the grand finale. For a film that takes its time to tell its story, and often gets lovingly lost in images of sun-soaked beaches, this didn’t feel right.

However, the ending is a small-scale marvel. For a film with this small of a budget, one visual feat is particulary impressive. What is really nice about “Safety Not Guaranteed” is its optimistic outlook. Films of this kind tend to view everything with through a cynical lens. However, “Safety Not Guaranteed” is not about a bunch of hipsters forever mad at people who don’t get emotional while listening to The Shins with Natalie Portman. This film does not want to punish the audience for its patience. This is now, and probably will remain, the most inspired and inventive film ever to be made based off of a classified ad. I can only hope that that the events in “Safety Not Guaranteed” played out the same way in real life. For now, I will just have to live with the notion that fiction is often a lot more interesting than reality.

Movie Review: Seeking a Friend for the End of the World

Leave a reply

This basically sums it up.

Don’t get me wrong, Steve Carell is one of the funniest, most likable actors working today. But with his past few features, and his latest, “Seeking a Friend for the End of the World,” he has a created a new film archetype: The Sad Insurance Salesman.

The Sad Insurance Salesman is a male in mid-life crisis. His wife will have cheated and then walked out on him because their marriage has lost all sense of excitement. Basically, the Sad Insurance Salesman might as well say, “I’m really nice, but I’m also boring.”

This, in a way, can also define “Seeking a Friend for the End of the World.” It is nice at parts but in the end, it is unsatisfying and lacks chemistry.
“Seeking a Friend for the End of the World” begins at the end. Well, the end of the world, that is. An asteroid is hurdling towards Earth, and death is inevitable. Dodge (Steve Carell), a timid insurance salesman who doesn’t take a lot of risks, is abandoned by his wife (Nancy Carell, Carell’s real life wife), who doesn’t want to spent her last days on Earth with him. Her exit is marked with The Beach Boys’ “Wouldn’t it Be Nice” playing over the radio. No matter how many times that song is used ironically over a dark scene in a movie, it never gets old.

Dodge still shows up to work everyday, despite the fact that most of his co-workers have jumped ship. Here is a man who won’t step out of his comfort zone and enjoy life, even as all life on Earth is about to end. Dodge doesn’t want to face the end alone, but he also doesn’t want to be promiscuous, as per the advice of his friends (Rob Corddry and Patton Oswalt, both criminally underused). Instead, he first seeks solace in a dog that has been abandoned by its owner. The dog might have been the highlight of the movie, even if it felt a little like pandering at times. The dog might have been the best part for me for the sole reason that it is a dog. Dodge names the dog Sorry, because it shows his regrets in life, and blah blah blatant symbolism.

One night, Dodge meets another lonely tenant in his apartment building, Penny (Keira Knightley). Penny is deeply unhappy with her relationship to a penniless musician (Adam Brody). She breaks up with him, and her and Dodge find solace in their loneliness. Unlike Dodge, Penny is spontaneous and positive. She also carries around her baggage from the past: a collection of records, without a record player to play it on. Based on Penny’s collection, which includes Leonard Cohen and Lou Reed, writer-director Lorene Scafaria must be a pretty awesome person.

“Seeking a Friend” becomes a road movie with two separate goals: Dodge wants to spend his last days with his childhood sweetheart, and he promises Penny a plane that will take her to England to see her parents. Unfortunately, one goal seems to be completely forgotten and another becomes completely unnecessary.

As Dodge and Penny, Carell and Knightley are not bad, just underwhelming. Carell is one of the most infinitely likable actors around, but I think he does better as the lovable idiot character role that he perfected in varying degress on “The Office” and in “Anchorman.” Knightley, meanwhile, doesn’t quite settle in well to the comedic potential of her character. Her role would have been much better suited to Gillian Jacobs, the “Community” MVP who shines in a minor role as a waitress who lives too close to the edge. She displays all of the zany energy that would have made Penny as impressionable a character as she was meant to be.

For a movie about a meteor hitting Earth, “Seeking a Friend” ends more with a whimper than with a bang. Without giving much away, there is a fade to white, and the only reaction that immediately came to mind was, “that’s it?” Every conflict plays out in an anti-climatic matter, and not the kind of anti-climatic that skewers your expectations for the best. “Seeking a Friend” would have been better suited as a straight up comedy sprinkled with poignant moments. The movie is supposed to be a look at humanity with typical societal constraints removed. People overlook it, but oftentimes comedy is the most truthful way to examine mankind.

Also, it would mean a lot to me if you could check out this review on The Film Stage. I actually give it a letter grade!

Movie Review: Prometheus

3 Replies

Look familiar at all?

Ridley Scott’s “Prometheus” is like a sci-fi opus from a better time in the history of sci-fi films. And I would know, because I like to pretend I grew up then.

“Prometheus” rises above because for once, it is a movie interested in actually exploring what lies in space, as opposed to just killing everything not from our home planet. If you give Ridley Scott a space ship and weird space creatures that like to impregnate people, he will create his best work. Basically, he needs to stay out of Medieval England and French vineyards.

“Prometheus” was sold largely as a possible prequel to the “Alien” franchise. It would be better suited as a prologue than as a prequel. It is not just expanding on the lives of a few characters and explaining trivial details that didn’t need to be explained (do I even have to say it? I’m talking about “Star Wars”). Instead, “Prometheus” is about expanding an entire universe.

Here is a movie that asks a lot of broad questions about the origins of life. They are the kind of questions that have been asked before, but “Prometheus” asks them in ways that you would never think of asking. At times, it doesn’t even feel like giving us all the answers. However, I was always down to stay on this ride until the very end.

“Prometheus” begins in some place that looks an awful lot a cross between Antarctica and Victoria Falls on a planet that may or may not be Earth. A bald man resembling Voldemort eats a black liquid goo, which alters his shape and DNA into something else entirely.

Cut to the year 2093. Just like the explorers of “2001: A Space Odyssey,” a team of scientists on Earth are called to examine something that may explain mankind’s origin, located in deep space. Scott takes his precious time taking us to the new planet, and points his camera at infinite stars, and then tracks it around the elaborately detailed ship. The painstaking attention to detail and abounding curiosity shows Scott in his absolute element.

On Earth, a diagram of planets is found in old cave paintings by archaeologist couple Elizabeth Shaw (Noomi Rapace) and Charlie Holloway (Logan Marshall-Green) and their team, which also includes Janek (Idris Elba) and Meredith Vickers (Charlize Theron). These planets may map out the beginnings of humanity. Or not. Another thing that makes “Prometheus” work is that it takes so much time to explore its characters, and make each of their personalities distinguishable. Yes, Vickers seems like the kind of person who would order a Vodka Up.

Cue the Weyland Corporation, where aging founder Peter Weyland (Guy Pearce, in inexplicably silly old man makeup) funds the building of Prometheus, a ship which will take its crew to LV-223, a moon named after the toxic air in its atmosphere. I want to leave as much of the plot as a surprise as possible, but let’s just say that being trapped in a cave by yourself in LV-223 filled with creatures you can’t see is even more frightening than being trapped on the Nostromo with one creature you can’t see.

“Prometheus” is the kind of movie I could see myself watching and admiring with the sound turned off. This is not to say that the story is trivial, but that the worlds created are unlike anything I have ever seen. It just about puts Pandora to shame. The 3D is used in the best possible way: it is present, but not too flashy. It is there enough so as to give the stunning images a little more depth, but it doesn’t make things pop out in your face. It is immersive enough that the eyes gets accustomed to it and at times, it doesn’t feel like you are even watching 3D. I still prefer my images to be flat and removed, but “Prometheus” is a big step up for the technology.

Scott utilizes genre so well here as it is not just used as a means for action, but as a means of portraying an incredibly complex view of life. It both shatters and fuels creation myths. It asks many questions that will have you arguing on the car ride home. Does it matter how we were created? Would knowing the answers better or worsen mankind? We all come from somewhere, and the way “Prometheus” portrays it, it certainly isn’t as pretty as we’d like to think.

As this film’s Ripley (Sigourney Weaver) replacement, Rapace perhaps had the biggest shoes to fill. She is a worthy predecessor to Weaver’s throne. She displays Ripley’s bravery and ability to survive against all odds. Because at the end of the day, the ability to persist triumphs above everything else. While Shaw is certainly brilliant, part of her final battle at the end felt like a bit of a cop out, and didn’t allow her to outwit the enemy in quite the same way Ripley did in “Alien” (SPOILER singing it a lullaby while launching it into space? All of the motherly creation themes of the movie lie right there).

Meanwhile, as David (Biblical name much?), Michael Fassbender is much more philosophical and sophisticated than the machines in “Alien” movies past. He is also one of the keys to figuring out what this movie is about. He plays a robot that is cold and mechanical, yet also very human. Like Scott’s “Blade Runner,” a very human robot can make us question the very definition of what constitutes human life. Can it be simply the ability to breath and make decisions? Does it matter if we are run by blood, or by gears?

In order to enjoy “Prometheus,” you don’t necessarily have to have seen the other “Alien” movies, but it would definitely help. Perhaps you just need to know that the ship is named after the Greek myth of a Titan who wanted to be a God, and was punished because of it. Or so a friend more educated than myself tells me.

The best part is that “Prometheus” actually provides answers that make the “Alien” universe far more interesting and complex. It will definitely create new fans of the series. Perhaps the one thing fans of “Alien” were waiting to see occurs in a very brief instant, and in a pretty ingenious way. It is as if writers Jon Spaihts and Damon Lindelof (“Lost”) were saying, “here this is what you wanted, right? Are you happy now?” Yes, yes we are. “Prometheus” might try and tackle too much some times, but the scope and intrigue puts it streets ahead of the average franchise blockbuster.

SPOILER SECTION

Here are a few of my thoughts on “Prometheus.” This section is made for anyone who has already seen the movie:

-The big revelation at the end, in which we discover how the Alien was first born. This was not just used simply because it looks cool. After leaving the theater, the true significance really struck me: the Alien came from the same creator as mankind. Therefore, Man and Alien are somewhat related. I will not be able to look at the original “Alien” movies in the same light again.

-The role of religion- In the end, Shaw puts her cross back on her neck, to which David asks, “after all this, you still believe?” Shaw doesn’t respond. Despite being a work of science fiction, “Prometheus” is heavily about God and faith. I can see the touch of “Lost” scribe Lindelof in the aspect. In the “Prometheus” universe, everyone seems to come from some kind of creator, and the fact that the human’s creator can be killed shows perhaps that God is not all powerful. Or, as more eloquently put by Hattori Hanzo, “if on your journey you should encounter God, God will be cut.”

-I think another overall theme of this movie is that creation is a natural process that should not be interfered with, and that creating new life will create chaos in natural order. From the beginning, it seems that the creation of humans was a mistake, and perhaps the reason that man’s predecessors wanted to destroy Earth was as a means of righting their wrong, and creating a new, better life form. After all, when one life form goes extinct, another one can come into existence.

-Here is a very good theory a friend of mine pointed out about David: David himself was disappointed with his own creators. Therefore, he wanted humans to be disappointed when they met their own makers, so he decided to “screw up” contact with the engineers as a means of shattering their illusions and beliefs.

-What did everyone think of the scene in which Shaw has the Alien seed removed from her stomach? As bad as the instance from the first “Alien”? Worse? Or lacking the essential element of surprise? Also, it displays a standard for horror that Scott helped set once upon a time: what we don’t see is scarier than what we actually do see.

Now, share some of your own theories. There is a lot to dig from here.

The Reel Deal Goes To Cannes Update #4: Three Screenings

Leave a reply

A hotel in Cannes decked out following a “Dictator” publicity stunt.

It’s been a hectic, overwhelming, and exciting week so far at Cannes. I wish I could get a post out everyday, but it’s not as easy as it seems. I have three films to talk about, all in one post, so I’ll keep this introduction brief. The last few days have included another walk down the red carpet, some delicious baguettes, and a lot of movie related business. Today, I present three films. You will definetly get to see one of these films in America. Another one could come our way. And one you probably shouldn’t see even if it does.

Celebrity Encounters:

Gael Garcia Bernal- Bumped into the Latin American star today, perhaps best known for “Amores Perros” and “Y Tu Mama Tambien.” He was nice enough to take a quick photo with us, and I was a bit too much in shock to even get a word out.
Sean Penn- He walked the red carpet for “Reality.” No paparrazi were hurt in the process. Haha good one, talk show host from 1987.

Read after the jump for the film breakdown:

Excision

“Excision” has received much buzz at Cannes for its bloody and controversial poster. However, it is also misleading. What appeared to be a “Carrie”-type thriller about a misfit teen with supernatural powers turned out to be a misguided shock-and-shlock fest that is only half ironic. It involves a series of gory and sexualized fantasies involving an abortion and another scene later on involving an organ transplant done by someone who isn’t a doctor.

This film has a few moments of genuine humor. The most priceless moment, perhaps, was the burst of laughter after the revelation that John Waters (director of “Pink Flamingos” and the original “Hairspray”) plays a priest. There is also an appearence from Malcolm McDowell, who played the most memorable creepy teenager in cinema. “Excision” has the potential to become a midnight movie classic. While I usually enjoy flawed and even hatable protagonists, “Excision” took it a step too far, and didn’t even make me want to know what Pauline (AnnaLyne McCord) would possibly do next. And oh yeah, there’s a bird dissection. Make of this one what you will.

Reality

I still cannot tell if this Italian feature is an actual film or just a series of pretty images. In the end, I concluded that it was both.

Being at an international film festival, I decided that I had to see at least one foreign feature. This story of an average father who becomes a contestant on Big Brother, and loses his grip on reality because of it, has many features that seems distinctly American (including a mall). It displays perhaps some of the most breathtaking tracking shots I have ever seen, some which start from the sky and don’t stop until they’ve reached their destination. Many of the surreal scenes will invoke Italian Neorealist maestro Federico Fellini. But, just as with my biggest problem “8 1/2,” some of the most thrilling set pieces don’t totally connect. There is some very beautiful symbolic images, from the ever-watchful eye of the grasshopper on the wall, to the final image of the house which seems to resemble a television set.

I may have to see “Reality” again, as there were some biases in my experience. One problem with the Lumiere theater is taht the subtitles are displayed on a small, seperate screen below the movie, and it is hard to follow both. But seeing the cast and crew sitting in the center, treated like modern royalty, made the experience so interesting, and very worth it.

Lawless

I have set to see “Rust and Bone” (the most praised film of the Festival thus far), but “Lawless” is currently my favorite film at Cannes. I have so much to say about it that I can’t fit here. So a future review (and a second viewing) seem inevitable.

“Lawless” is the story of southern moonshiners during Prohibition. Tom Hardy stars as tough but loving gangster Forrest (Tom Hardy), who is said to be invincible, and Shia Labeouf plays his younger brother Jack who, as the southern colloquialism goes, breaks bad. In an unusual twist, the villain is a detective (Guy Pearce), and the good guys are the violent law breakers just trying to maintain the family business.

This is the second time Australian director John Hillcoat has breathed new life into a very American genre. The first time was with the Outback western “The Proposition.” “Lawless,” in a way, feels like a western. It is interesting for once to see a gangster story that takes place in a very rural setting. The streets of New York and Chicago are replaced with a small town in the backwoods of Virginia.

This Prohibition-set movie manages to be closer to “Miller’s Crossing” than “Public Enemies.” Labeouf has come a long way since “Even Stevens” and Hardy is quickly becoming one of the best actors around with his mumbly way of communicating which always seems to have a strange charm to it. My one complaint is that Gary Oldman does not have enough screentime.

It is good when a movie meets your expectations, but even better when it totally takes you by surprise. “Lawless” had a sense of humor about itself that I did not expect, and which ultimately makes the movie very unique. It hasn’t even been released in theaters yet, but I already know that “Lawless” is one of the year’s best films.

Next Up: The director’s cut of “Once Upon a Time in America.” Robert De Niro and Ennio Morricone showed up to last night’s screening. Here’s hoping they may just want to sit through their own four hour plus epic once more.

Movie Review The Avengers

Leave a reply

At one point, Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson) describes what is basically the film’s premise, in which a bunch of superheroes are put into a room in order to see what happens. What he just described could also be a pitch for a new MTV reality show called “Real World: Superheroes.”

At its worst, “The Avengers” is cheesy and derivative. At its best, it is fresh, funny, and exhilarating. There was never one moment in which I wasn’t in some form of awe at what was occurring on screen.

Before this review goes any further, I will admit that I am only a half-committed comic book fan. I read “X-Men” and “Spider-Man” comics pretty passionately when I was younger. I relish the new “Batman” movies as well as the first “Iron Man.” Yet, I never saw the “Hulk” reboot, “Captain America,” or “Thor.” I lost some faith in movies based on comic books after seeing “Iron Man 2″ and witnessing the “Spider-Man” movies go under. I will be as accurate as I can be in this review. “The Avengers” doesn’t necessarily make me want a slew of new comic book movies in the future, but it is certainly a worthy addition to the multimedia-spanning genre.

“The Avengers” will leave those who missed the last few big comic book adaptations scratching their heads. “The Avengers” allows us to catch up on bigger details, but it expects the audience to come in already knowing about the character and the worlds they inhabit. The truly amazing thing about Marvel Comics is the way that characters from separate stories can inhabit the same world. Over the years, each movie has built up to a sort of common universe usually only seen in Quentin Tarantino movies. However, each new entry into the universe should be able to be enjoyed even through a fresh pair of eyes.

“The Avengers” are the superhero dream team, “The Westminster Dog Show” of superheroes, as Roger Ebert described it. With Earth under threat, Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson) calls seven of the most qualified superheroes alive. There’s Natasha Romanoff a.k.a. The Black Widow (Scarlett Johansson), who shares her namesake’s stealth and deadliness. However, her greatest skill is the ability to get information out of someone without actually interrogating them. Captain America (Chris Evans, or the secret scene stealer of “Scott Pilgrim vs. the World”) somehow ended up in the future and is now adjusting to life in the present. Thor (Chris Hemsworth) came down from whatever planet he’s from. Hawkeye (Jeremy Renner), well, I don’t really know much about him. he’s a skilled archer.

But there are two superheroes who’s backstories I actually know about. Tony Stark a.ka. Iron Man (Robert Downey Jr.) moved bases to New York City with the innovative Stark Tower. He’s still as cheeky and pompous as ever, with most of his dialogue consisting of “okay, [insert character from pop culture that looks like Thor, Hulk, etc.]!” It gets a little annoying after a while. And then there’s Bruce Banner a.k.a. The Hulk (Mark Ruffalo). Banner has been traveling the world for some time, trying to find ways to keep his rage from getting the best of him. Hollywood finally solved its Hulk problem with Ruffalo. This is the most entertaining and personable Hulk yet. That’s probably because a Hulk who smashes things is more entertaining than an existential and moody Hulk.

Through a series of clunky lines that are supposed to come off as cool, we learn that Loki (Tom Hiddleston) wants to take over the world. He wants to teach humans a lesson [Editor's Note: That's why you always leave a note] that freedom is an illusion and Loki is a boot and humans are ants. Until Nick Fury points out that Loki is actually the ant and The Avengers are the boot. See what they did there? Just about every other character will somehow repeat that line throughout the movie.

In order to defend the world from Loki and the mysterious energy he is using against Earth, Fury and Phil Coulson (Clark Gregg) assemble a team of heroes whose abilities can help end this mess. It never feels like The Avengers are just thrown in together. Each member (with the exception for Hawkeye, the least developed of them) feels like they are there for a reason. On the scale of “The Magnificent Seven” to “Some Terrible Standard Blockbuster,” the assembling of the team sequence ranks out about a 6.

Let’s Go to the Mall!

“The Avengers” is directed by Joss Whedon, one of the gods of Comic Con. Among many achievements, Whedon is responsible for “Buffy the Vampire Slayer” and “Firefly.” The latter is one of the best modern sci-fi television shows. As director, Whedon treats the Marvel universe with love and respect, and he shows his knowledge of the mythology. Yet, in both writing and directing, he adds a self-aware nature which proves at times to be the movie’s saving grace. However, it’s strongest point is the visuals, which often resemble the panels of a comic book coming to life.

While I am sure Mr. Whedon and the rest of the writing staff put a lot of time into crafting this story, but the writing proves to be the biggest downfall of “The Avengers.” While the writing doesn’t seem to be the biggest draw of this movie, or the reason that most people will see it, the clunkiness of some of the dialogue does have an impact. Imagine reading a comic in which the dialogue bubbles sound downright terrible. It wouldn’t be readable. Some of the movie’s dialogue should have been given a closer listen before it was filmed.

“The Avengers” will make a lot of fans of the previous comics and movies very happy. However, it may leave others confused. Black Widow and The Hulk are the most fun to watch, because Black Widow is convincingly intelligent and The Hulk smashes things just as The Hulk is supposed to do. Yes, it is awesome.

After “The Avengers” ended, the first comment I had was about the writing. My friend argued that nobody is really coming to see this movie for the writing. In a way, he might be right. But no matter what, everyone is coming to see a movie for the way it is written, and the entertainment value is hinged on the script. Obviously, the world the Avengers occupy is not a real one, but it still must seem plausible during the entire viewing experience.

For example, The Hulk has been praised widely, but there is a flaw in him. At first, Banner does his best to never get angry and when he does, he has absolutely no control over what he does as The Hulk. Suddenly, Banner says “I’m always angry” and immediately turns into The Hulk and whilst The Hulk, he shows emotional change and even the ability to have a conversation. This goes against the rules set up at the beginning in an unexplained way and therefore, took me out of the world.

Now that “The Avengers” has been out for a week, this can serve as both a review and a reflection, because I can’t really encourage people to see or not see it now that it’s already grossed over $200 million. With a 93% on Rotten Tomatoes, “The Avengers” has been labeled by most critics as an ideal summer blockbuster. While it is definitely a very good one, that does not excuse its flaws. I wish the movie was clearer to those who aren’t already so aware of the universe, and I wish it didn’t try to resolve so many plot lines, and fight so many villains at the end. “The Avengers” might be memorable now but once “Prometheus” and “The Dark Knight Rises” roll around, the “ideal summer blockbuster” will be truly defined.

Movie Review: Bernie

Leave a reply

When we are first introduced to Bernie Tiede (Jack Black), he is making a dead body smile and look at peace. Surprisingly, being a mortician (or, in “gentler” terms, a funeral director) is no joke of a job, it is an art. What is so interesting about “Bernie” is not the art, but rather the artist.

While I hate to use such a tired phrase, “Bernie” is a story that truly is too strange to be fiction. In short, it can best be described as “Crimes and Misdemeanors” shot like a Christopher Guest movie. However, one simple sentence, and even one review, will be hard to do justice by the absolute surprise of the movie’s complexity. This is unlike any work that director Richard Linklater and actors Jack Black and Matthew McConaughey have ever done.

With “Bernie,” Linklater returns to his homeland of Texas, the state that made him famous with “Slacker,” “Dazed and Confused,” and “Waking Life.” However, “Bernie” has a totally different feel from any of those films. As one of the locals points out in “Bernie,” Texas is basically like a diverse country of its own. “Bernie” moves away from Austin (or as it is described in this movie, “The People’s Republic of Austin”) and into East Texas. This region lacks the flat desert lands that usually define the Lone Star State and instead is covered in the forests usually seen in Louisiana. East Texas is a little more south than west. This is not the Texas usually seen on film.

The town of Carthage, Texas largely consists of people who were born there and never left. And Bernie Tiede. Bernie, the assistant funeral director at the local funeral home, is the most beloved man in town. He is friends with everyone. If you need someone to paint your house or help you with taxes, Bernie is there. He has the best best side manner that any mortician could have. He even treats the dead with love and respect.

“Bernie” is about a mortician who becomes a murderer. It steps into the mind of a killer by removing itself almost entirely from the killer’s mind. This works well here, as a morally questionable villain is the most interesting kind of villain there is. Black gives a career-defining performance here. Playing someone who actually exists, in ways, could be easier than playing a fictional character. Black had the physical mannerisms to work off of (such as Bernie’s somewhat effeminate style of walking). The challenging part, which Black nails, is the emotional core. While Black usually plays slacker characters who start off unlikable and then become likable as the story progresses, “Bernie” is the first time he plays a character who starts off likable and by the end, it’s hard to tell whether or not he should be.

Despite his good deeds, Bernie’s motivations are constantly in question. His relationships with the older widows are a little too close for comfort, especially his possibly romantic one with cold-hearted Marjorie Nugent (Shirley MacLaine). If you knew Marjorie Nugent, who will take advantage of your kindness and then chew her beans in a way that angers you, you would probably hate her, too. If you know the true story of Bernie Tiede, then you know the fate of Marjorie Nugent. But knowing the truth does not ruin the story. “Bernie” sets up her demise in a way that is actually kind of shocking, and what happens to her body afterwards is funny in a darkly comedic way. The fact that she has died is not funny, but what is funny is that Bernie still feels the need to give her a proper burial. An unconventional one, at that.

While Texas once wanted to secede from the country, “Bernie” is a very American satire, from 10 gallon hats to 10 gallon Coke cups. It explores the bedrock of traditional American values, such as the law and Jesus Christ himself, and supposes that they may be filled with lies. We have seen men who use religion to hide evil, but I have never thought this much about how the individual members of a jury could effect the outcome of a trial so much. This is coming from someone who has seen “12 Angry Men.”

Later on, the story’s real hero turns out to be District Attorney Danny Buck Davidson (McConaughey). This is a big turn for a man who at first seems to be able to look for any opportunity for a PR stunt. Davidson might take his job a little too seriously, but he’s also very good at it. Linklater has a habit of getting the best possible performances out of McConaughey, and by that I mean getting him to actually act. As Davidson, McConaughey doesn’t even feel like he’s giving a performance, he just seems to be existing as Davidson. He blends in with the locals, yet he has a big city attitude that clashes with rural life of Carthage. Plus, he provides one of the film’s biggest laughs with his terrible mispronunciation of a famous play.

“Bernie” seamlessly blends fiction with reality. It is not a mockumentary, but rather half scripted, and half documentary. The residents of Carthage steal the show, despite Jack Black’s fantastic performance. Some of the stories and words of wisdom that the Carthaginians (is that a thing?) share are the kind of things that seem to only be able to come from memory, and not a screenplay. Sure, the movie has fun at the expense of the obese folks on jury duty, but the minds behind the film seemed to have done enough research and close observation of the region that they have to be hitting it on the head. Or at least, that is what a man at the theater who grew up in East Texas told me.

Having the semi-documentary format is perhaps the only way to tell the story of Bernie Tiede. There are never any real private moments of Bernie in contemplation. Therefore, some of his deeper emotions are never reveled, and his intentions are left up to interpretation. A movie that explores if someone could possibly have two personalities, and if someone could commit cold-blooded murder and still be loved, is one that is deep and though-provoking. A movie like that doesn’t leave the viewer’s mind once the film ends. The fact that “Bernie” explores these themes in a way that is both funny and endearing is a mini-revelation.

“Bernie” has yet to receive a wide release. That may be because “The Avengers” is all anyone is going to see, but I believe this movie has about the same amount of mass appeal. And the fact that many believe this movie is not entirely accurate just adds further to the intrigue of it.

Everybody Loves Bernie

Movie Review: Submarine

Leave a reply

Okay, everyone. Time to put on a scarf, thick-frame glasses, and turn your record player on. That’s right, it’s time to get quirky.*

“Submarine” is a very Welsh film directed by someone who is distinctly English, with a distinctly English sense of humor. Funny, as it begins with a note from the narrator Oliver Tate (Craig Roberts) notifying the American audience that there is indeed a difference between being English and being Welsh. This is not the last time Oliver Tate will try and screw with your head in the most deviously playful way possible.

Watching “Submarine” is akin to watching a British Wes Anderson movie. Depending on who you are, this can be taken as a compliment, an insult, or something else in between. The film is filled with jabs of irony and self-awareness, yet thanks to the ideological protagonist, it mostly veers away from being pretentious.

Oliver Tate’s story is set in 1986. 15-year-old Oliver is a blend of Max Fisher, Antoine Doinel, and Alex DeLarge, minus the violent tendencies of the latter. Oliver seems to be a crafted response to these teenage anti-heroes, and his voiceover is of someone who is not aware that he is in a movie, but wishes he could be in one. At one point, Oliver imagines a small moment being captured in a zoom-in on film and low and behold, we get the zoom-in. Richard Ayoade may be credited as the director, but Oliver Tate deserves some of that credit as well.

Oliver may be precocious, but he is also like any character you would find in “American Pie,” as his foremost goal is to lose his virginity. But Oliver, who is probably too young to be this particular, won’t take just any girl. Oliver sets his sights on a girl who is neither the most popular nor the prettiest girl in school. Jordana (Yasmin Paige), like Oliver, keeps to herself. But she stands out in her bright red jacket, a change from everyone else’s drab uniforms. The color red has a big significance throughout, and with just one movie, Ayoade has already found a way to manipulate the small details on screen for his own advantage.

On the inside, Oliver is a hopeless romantic. Meanwhile, Jordana despises anything romantic. Oliver will only take her to the most decrepit places in town. Their dates, captured by Erik Wilson’s hauntingly beautiful cinematography, involve chaos and destruction. In Oliver’s head, everything is going perfectly between them. That is, until tragedy strikes in Jordana’s life, and Oliver is not there for her. She finds this an unforgivable betrayal and dumps him. Yet, he cannot forget about her. Then, Oliver is posed with one of the biggest questions involving young love: will it matter when you’re 38-years-old? Let’s wait until we get to that age to find out.

What differs Oliver from the lead of most high school movies is that he has to deal with issues well beyond what is important to the typical teenager. While trying to maintain his own relationship with Jordana, Oliver also takes on responsibility for his parents’ crumbling marriage. His mother Jill (Sally Hawkins) is falling out of love with her husband Lloyd (Noah Taylor). Lloyd, given the look of a depressed 18th century philosopher by Taylor, is a man who seems content not reaching his full potential. He is a brilliant marine biologist (probably not coincidentally, he was also in “The Life Aquatic”) who excels in research, but mumbles in front of a crowd. He likes everything to be predictable, and he feels no shame in revealing gifts before they are unwrapped. Oliver’s mother, meanwhile, may be having an affair with her former lover Graham Purvis (Paddy Considine), who is an even cornier motivational speaker than Jim Cunningham of “Donnie Darko.” Purvis adds on to the comedic edge of “Submarine,” and makes the movie into a slightly altered version of a plausible reality.

“Submarine” has a deep affinity for the ocean. Maybe it’s a Welsh thing, as the rugged shoreline sure is scenic. The ocean, very adeptly, represents everything that “Submarine” is about. The one fact Oliver remembers that Lloyd taught him about the ocean is that it goes down six miles at its deepest point. Besides that, there is not much more that we can know for sure. It is also probably symbolic for the subconscious, but even my own knowledge only goes so far.

Someone will likely post this on their Tumblr.

The title of the movie comes from the idea that submarines operate at an ultrasound frequency above what humans can hear. One submarine can never know what the other one is planning or thinking. Oliver points this out. Yet, perhaps one of the biggest marks of immaturity is the constant need to contradict one’s self. In the memorable and darkly comic sequence in which Oliver imagines how everyone would react to his death, he believes he has it all down to a T. Maybe he does have it all right. Or perhaps, as he says himself, its better to be by yourself and think about how these things will happen then to actually experience them.

“Submarine” is really the story of Oliver coming out of his shell. The self-assured performances by Roberts and Paige give the movie the heart that it sometimes struggles to find. In a lesser movie, it would have been solely about him winning back Jordana and finding true love. But this is an above par Sundance entry that is about more than what is seen on screen. Here is a coming of age story where the character doesn’t even know if he came of age; all he knows is that he has grown older.

Here is a movie that is all kinds of sad and funny. It is never funny in the cliche, fall out of your seat sense, but rather in the satisfying sense that it has humorously captured a little trinket of life quite accurately. Alex Turner, better known as the lead singer of the Arctic Monkeys, is the movie’s Simon & Garfunkel: you feel like the songs could not exist without being a part of the movie, and vice versa. “Submarine” is one of the most aesthetically pleasing movies to come along in a while. It is like a cinematic museum composed of paintings and polaroids worth staring at for hours. While Oliver’s narration, which guides the story, can go all over the place and get out of hand at times, that is the way it should be. It is hard to say that any decision made by in the production wasn’t made for a reason.

While “Submarine” is rated R, I believe it is still suitable for any 15 or 16 year old to see. I probably shouldn’t be doling out advice to parents, but there is something wrong with how your kids have been brought up if they don’t swear words.

*If you feel the need to punch me in the face after reading the opening paragraph, then I would not blame you.

I have no definitive proof that the final images from “Submarine” (above) and the final images from “The 400 Blows” (below) are related, but I would be surprised if they weren’t.