Confession: I've never seen a James Bond film. Does that make me a bad film geek?
I'm not sure, but having seen Skyfall I suppose my days of being a 007 virgin are done with, and I don't think I could have selected a better film to take it away from me. Skyfall is a great action film that will keep audiences, Bond fan or not, on the edge of their seat. This is a pure adrenaline ride filled with all the action, beautiful women and witty one liners (I've heard) a 007 film deserves.
Comparisons to The Dark Knight are certainly warranted when talking about Skyfall as this film certainly seems intent on living out the typical character arc that 'dark and edgy heroes' must undergo these days. In fact, certain scenes felt like they were lifted out of Nolan's genre defining Batman film. That's not a criticism so much as it is an observation. While I was constantly aware of how similar the two films were, it never bothered me, simply because the film has some very distinct differences. Daniel Craig, and James Bond himself, are very different people than Christian Bale and Batman, making this feel like a familiar ride in a very different vehicle. The plot may be moody and dark, but the tone director Sam Mendes and Craig strike is a lot more lighthearted than you may think. There are a ton of one liners, charming banter, and outright fun displayed on screen where it doesn't feel like a complete rip off. Add in a screenplay that may be riddled with plot holes but can at least acknowledge the fact that Bond is aging (it's his 50th birthday, to be precise), and you have yourself a film that's not copying Nolan's trilogy but, instead, feels inspired by it.
Then there's the action. I've been very picky (read: angry) about the action films this year and their inability to entertain me in the slightest, with the exception of The Avengers. Skyfall is, by far, the best action film since Joss Whedon's superhero epic, and features some of the most exhilarating scenes of the year. Special mention must be made of the film's opening sequence, which literally throws audiences into the action. Making the action even better is the stunning cinematography from Roger Deakins. This film is absolutely phenomenal to look at and is worth picking up on Bluray solely to see the film in HD.
I also don't think you can even begin to review Skyfall without making mention of Javier Bardem's thrilling villain, Silva. Bardem is terrifying, entertaining and oddly charismatic as this psychopath of a character, and watching him interact with Bond (or, any character really) is a thrill. Bardem is so good it feels like almost all of his actions are improvised on the spot, as he is completely in character. The rest of the cast is strong (what do you expect with legends like Judi Dench and Ralph Fiennes?) but nobody comes close to Bardem's level in this film.
Skyfall has nothing profound to say, other than that the Bond franchise will truly never die, but it'd be nice to have a fun diversion to the sometimes weighty Oscar fare will be exposed to as the year goes on. This is a truly entertaining film which, I think will leave many satisfied. So, if you find yourself looking for a good time at the movies later this year, check out Skyfall, Bond fan or not.
OVERALL GRADE: A-
Monday, November 19, 2012
Flight- Doesn't Add Up to the Sum of It's Parts
The trailer for Flight sells the first twenty minutes of the film. The rest of the movie? That would require a different trailer entirely. This is more Leaving Las Vegas than whatever sort of film the marketing team put together, and that's not a bad thing. But while Leaving Las Vegas was an unflinching, extremely dark film about alcoholics and drug addicts, Flight tries to have it's cake and eat it too. Mind you, I'm not comparing the two films, just saying that Flight tries hard at being an edgy drama, somewhat succeeds, and then tries to tack on an overly emotional finale. The result is a stunningly well acted, but overly preachy, drama that's worth seeking out but isn't as great as the sum of its parts.
You can't talk about Flight, however, without first addressing the actual flying scene. Believe the hype: this is one of the most intense scenes of the year, with stunning direction from Robert Zemeckis. It's the sort of scene that I'd love to see deconstructed at some point in the future, so we can figure out how exactly he managed to direct it the way he did. It's an astonishing sequence to behold, and really sets you up for an intense film. Unfortunately, the rest of the film never regains the same momentum.
Now, that's not a bad thing. The rest of the film is entertaining and I certainly was never bored. But, there is no denying that the rest of the film feels significantly different than that sequence. In fact, it feels like a bit of a different film. This is a story about two addicts, pilot Whip (Washington) and photographer Nicole (Kelly Reilly, who is not even featured in the trailers or commercials), and how they deal with their troubling pasts and questionable future. This is where the film starts to come apart at the seams. I'll try to avoid spoilers, but Whip's road to redemption is, obviously, a bumpy one. His troubles along the way are necessary for good drama, yes, but I wouldn't have minded a few less pitfalls along the way. It feels a bit redundant when halfway through the film Whip decides to stop drinking as we know he's going to have to take a drink, for the sake of the plot, at a later time. I also find his relationship with Nicole to be a bit questionable. Their is certainly sexual tension between them and, (minor spoiler) they sleep together shortly after meeting, but are they romantic? Or are they just friends? It's never completely addressed, and due to that we never get a real sense of the stakes at hand. Why is it that Nicole wants Whip to sober up so badly near the end of the film?
The film also has an uneven mixture of "edginess" and hopefulness. What I loved (and, in a way, hated) about Leaving Las Vegas is the way it repeatedly punched the viewers in the gut with the turns in the plot, refusing to sell out at any point and provide an unrealistic happy ending. Flight attempts to provide the same edginess, but never reaches that same point. Sure, we see a surprising amount of nudity, lots of drug use, and some pretty dark scenes depicting Whip's alcoholism, but it's never nearly as dark as we are lead to believe. Then, at the end, the film tries to become optimistic and hopeful, which completely negates the dark tone of the first half. It's uneven and more than a bit clumsy.
Yet, there is a lot to praise about this film. Namely, Denzel Washington. One of the few movie stars we have left in America, Denzel turns in what is most likely his strongest performance as Whip. It's a role that, I feel, deserves an Oscar nomination and all the praise he's been receiving. It's hard to play a drunk- you can be too over-the-top, unintentionally funny, or just not drunk enough. Washington does it all perfectly, making us root for Whip but also feel pity and get angry whenever he takes another drink. Washington is also surrounded by a stellar supporting cast, all of whom give in wonderful performances. John Goodman, Don Chedale, and Tamara Tunie are all fantastic, while relative newcomer Kelly Reily really left me impressed with just how talented she was.
I also enjoyed the way faith was incorporated into the film. Sure, some will say that the film was too preachy. And, in a way, it was. The filmmakers are not exactly subtle about the religious theme in the film. Yet, I totally bought it. Growing up in a very religious home, I sat through many "Christian" films which, frankly, are terrible. Although I now identify as agnostic, it still makes me upset to see the idea of God and religion being saved for such crappy films. Flight may not be subtle about the idea of a "higher power" but I at least respect the fact that they treat religion in a realistic and fairly dark way, and don't just rely on it as a cheesy plot device.
Flight features one of the best performances of the year but it's not one of the best films of the year. I wholly recommend it as a performance piece for Washington and I definitely think it will play differently to each audience member, but it just didn't completely appeal to me. With a tighter script and the decision to either become more dark or less dark, this could have been great. In the end, it's just good.
OVERALL GRADE: B
You can't talk about Flight, however, without first addressing the actual flying scene. Believe the hype: this is one of the most intense scenes of the year, with stunning direction from Robert Zemeckis. It's the sort of scene that I'd love to see deconstructed at some point in the future, so we can figure out how exactly he managed to direct it the way he did. It's an astonishing sequence to behold, and really sets you up for an intense film. Unfortunately, the rest of the film never regains the same momentum.
Now, that's not a bad thing. The rest of the film is entertaining and I certainly was never bored. But, there is no denying that the rest of the film feels significantly different than that sequence. In fact, it feels like a bit of a different film. This is a story about two addicts, pilot Whip (Washington) and photographer Nicole (Kelly Reilly, who is not even featured in the trailers or commercials), and how they deal with their troubling pasts and questionable future. This is where the film starts to come apart at the seams. I'll try to avoid spoilers, but Whip's road to redemption is, obviously, a bumpy one. His troubles along the way are necessary for good drama, yes, but I wouldn't have minded a few less pitfalls along the way. It feels a bit redundant when halfway through the film Whip decides to stop drinking as we know he's going to have to take a drink, for the sake of the plot, at a later time. I also find his relationship with Nicole to be a bit questionable. Their is certainly sexual tension between them and, (minor spoiler) they sleep together shortly after meeting, but are they romantic? Or are they just friends? It's never completely addressed, and due to that we never get a real sense of the stakes at hand. Why is it that Nicole wants Whip to sober up so badly near the end of the film?
The film also has an uneven mixture of "edginess" and hopefulness. What I loved (and, in a way, hated) about Leaving Las Vegas is the way it repeatedly punched the viewers in the gut with the turns in the plot, refusing to sell out at any point and provide an unrealistic happy ending. Flight attempts to provide the same edginess, but never reaches that same point. Sure, we see a surprising amount of nudity, lots of drug use, and some pretty dark scenes depicting Whip's alcoholism, but it's never nearly as dark as we are lead to believe. Then, at the end, the film tries to become optimistic and hopeful, which completely negates the dark tone of the first half. It's uneven and more than a bit clumsy.
Yet, there is a lot to praise about this film. Namely, Denzel Washington. One of the few movie stars we have left in America, Denzel turns in what is most likely his strongest performance as Whip. It's a role that, I feel, deserves an Oscar nomination and all the praise he's been receiving. It's hard to play a drunk- you can be too over-the-top, unintentionally funny, or just not drunk enough. Washington does it all perfectly, making us root for Whip but also feel pity and get angry whenever he takes another drink. Washington is also surrounded by a stellar supporting cast, all of whom give in wonderful performances. John Goodman, Don Chedale, and Tamara Tunie are all fantastic, while relative newcomer Kelly Reily really left me impressed with just how talented she was.
I also enjoyed the way faith was incorporated into the film. Sure, some will say that the film was too preachy. And, in a way, it was. The filmmakers are not exactly subtle about the religious theme in the film. Yet, I totally bought it. Growing up in a very religious home, I sat through many "Christian" films which, frankly, are terrible. Although I now identify as agnostic, it still makes me upset to see the idea of God and religion being saved for such crappy films. Flight may not be subtle about the idea of a "higher power" but I at least respect the fact that they treat religion in a realistic and fairly dark way, and don't just rely on it as a cheesy plot device.
Flight features one of the best performances of the year but it's not one of the best films of the year. I wholly recommend it as a performance piece for Washington and I definitely think it will play differently to each audience member, but it just didn't completely appeal to me. With a tighter script and the decision to either become more dark or less dark, this could have been great. In the end, it's just good.
OVERALL GRADE: B
Sunday, November 18, 2012
Magic Mike- By Far, The Biggest Surprise of 2012
As a straight male in the prime of his youth, watching a film in which Channing Tatum, Alex Pettyfr and other attractive 20-30something men prance around in thongs while women scream in ecstasy just doesn't sound like a good time. But Showgirls this is not. And if any award must be handed out for this film, I feel like it simply has to be Most Misleading Advertising Campaign to whoever marketed this blockbuster hit. This film is not some plotless comedy that serves as a vehicle for People's Sexiest Man of 2012 to strip off his clothes. This is an intelligent, well directed and extremely entertaining movie that I'd be willing to bet...wait for it...guys would enjoy more than women.
In a weird way, Magic Mike is the story of what it means to be a man in today's society. Are we supposed to be brimming with masculinity and obsessed with trying to dominate the women in our lives? Are we supposed to be financially successful? How long can we live a life of "fun" before we have to get serious? These are the questions that Magic Mike subtly poses throughout the film. But, the film is certainly more interested in keeping the audience entertained, which brings me to the stripping scenes. Now, granted, I'm not attracted to Channing Tatum (or any in the men of this movie) but I just cannot imagine how anybody would be turned on by the stripping scenes. With a single exception, the scenes are so over the top and cheesy that, in my opinion, it removes any sort of eroticism from the film. That's not a flaw- this was obviously Steven Soderbergh's intention- but it's just an observation I had. To be frank, if you are uncomfortable with watching this film because of the stripping scenes, I just have to assume that you're uncomfortable with your sexuality. Because, honestly, there is nothing remotely sexual about this film. And, if you are really worried about seeing (gasp!) a few male asses and a silhouetted penis, don't worry, Olivia Munn takes off her top within the first three minutes of the film.
Back to the "fun" aspect of the film, this movie, while occasionally serious at times and posing some interesting questions, is primarily a comedy. And a hilarious one at that. The film is genuinely amusing throughout and features a surprising compelling storyline, one that feels like a 2012 update of All About Eve set in the world of male stripping. The stripping scenes are so over the top you can't help but laugh (and wonder how the hell these men aren't being arrested for sexual harassment) and the non-dance scenes are just as amusing. Even the 'serious' moments in the film aren't all that serious. Magic Mike kept me constantly absorbed in the movie.
I also marveled at how realistic the film felt. In a more, shall we say, theatrical interpretation of this plot, we'd be forced to sit through dramatic speeches, over-the-top professions of love and wacky hijinks. Soderbergh, however, treats the film as if it's a documentary. Even the music in the film, which was one of the highlghts for me, comes from stereos being played in the film. This is a very natural movie, one that avoids the cliches of this genre and feels oddly refreshing.
The cast also sells the naturalism. The biggest shock in the film: how well Channing Tatum can act. Now, I never hated Channing Tatum but there was no denying he was a bit...wooden. I guess it just took a brilliant director to get a great performance out of him though! Maybe it's because the story is inspired by his own life, but Tatum delivers a performance in which he feels completely comfortable. Radiating charisma, likability and a genuine sweetness, I wish the Academy would seriously consider him as a Best Actor candidate. In supporting roles, Alex Pettyfr and (especially) Matthew McConaughey impress, despite the fact that I despised them in most other films I've seen them in.
By far the film's biggest problem is actress Cody Horn. Now, Ms. Horn has potential as an actress and I think, with the right material, will give a strong performance at some point. But, Magic Mike just isn't that film. Horn comes off as awkward, emotionless and, frankly, a little boring. Tatum and his fellow actors all give understated performances, and I suppose that's what Ms. Horn is going for, but she instead comes off as robotic. Take, for example, a scene where she enters the strip club and watches a man dance on the stage. The camera consistently cuts back and forth to the performance and her face. But what is she feeling? Angry? Upset? Disturbed? Indifferent? We can't tell from her face, and that is quiet distracting.
I also wish we got to learn more about the supporting strippers in the film. Other than Tatum's Mike, Petyfrr's The Kid, and McConaughey's Dallas, we learn very little about the men in the movie. While, yes, they aren't important to the film's overall narrative arc, it'd be nice to see them do a bit more on screen. They, in the end, feel like colorful supporting characters that never really do much. Especially since many of them are played by relatively popular and talented actors.
I really can't stress enough how much I recommend this film. I went in with relatively low expectations and came out completely surprised. As of right now, it certainly places in my Top 10 of the year and can see it making the final cut. It's a well directed, extremely entertaining film that's not nearly as brainless as the trailers would lead you to believe. Check it out.
OVERALL GRADE: A
In a weird way, Magic Mike is the story of what it means to be a man in today's society. Are we supposed to be brimming with masculinity and obsessed with trying to dominate the women in our lives? Are we supposed to be financially successful? How long can we live a life of "fun" before we have to get serious? These are the questions that Magic Mike subtly poses throughout the film. But, the film is certainly more interested in keeping the audience entertained, which brings me to the stripping scenes. Now, granted, I'm not attracted to Channing Tatum (or any in the men of this movie) but I just cannot imagine how anybody would be turned on by the stripping scenes. With a single exception, the scenes are so over the top and cheesy that, in my opinion, it removes any sort of eroticism from the film. That's not a flaw- this was obviously Steven Soderbergh's intention- but it's just an observation I had. To be frank, if you are uncomfortable with watching this film because of the stripping scenes, I just have to assume that you're uncomfortable with your sexuality. Because, honestly, there is nothing remotely sexual about this film. And, if you are really worried about seeing (gasp!) a few male asses and a silhouetted penis, don't worry, Olivia Munn takes off her top within the first three minutes of the film.
Back to the "fun" aspect of the film, this movie, while occasionally serious at times and posing some interesting questions, is primarily a comedy. And a hilarious one at that. The film is genuinely amusing throughout and features a surprising compelling storyline, one that feels like a 2012 update of All About Eve set in the world of male stripping. The stripping scenes are so over the top you can't help but laugh (and wonder how the hell these men aren't being arrested for sexual harassment) and the non-dance scenes are just as amusing. Even the 'serious' moments in the film aren't all that serious. Magic Mike kept me constantly absorbed in the movie.
I also marveled at how realistic the film felt. In a more, shall we say, theatrical interpretation of this plot, we'd be forced to sit through dramatic speeches, over-the-top professions of love and wacky hijinks. Soderbergh, however, treats the film as if it's a documentary. Even the music in the film, which was one of the highlghts for me, comes from stereos being played in the film. This is a very natural movie, one that avoids the cliches of this genre and feels oddly refreshing.
The cast also sells the naturalism. The biggest shock in the film: how well Channing Tatum can act. Now, I never hated Channing Tatum but there was no denying he was a bit...wooden. I guess it just took a brilliant director to get a great performance out of him though! Maybe it's because the story is inspired by his own life, but Tatum delivers a performance in which he feels completely comfortable. Radiating charisma, likability and a genuine sweetness, I wish the Academy would seriously consider him as a Best Actor candidate. In supporting roles, Alex Pettyfr and (especially) Matthew McConaughey impress, despite the fact that I despised them in most other films I've seen them in.
By far the film's biggest problem is actress Cody Horn. Now, Ms. Horn has potential as an actress and I think, with the right material, will give a strong performance at some point. But, Magic Mike just isn't that film. Horn comes off as awkward, emotionless and, frankly, a little boring. Tatum and his fellow actors all give understated performances, and I suppose that's what Ms. Horn is going for, but she instead comes off as robotic. Take, for example, a scene where she enters the strip club and watches a man dance on the stage. The camera consistently cuts back and forth to the performance and her face. But what is she feeling? Angry? Upset? Disturbed? Indifferent? We can't tell from her face, and that is quiet distracting.
I also wish we got to learn more about the supporting strippers in the film. Other than Tatum's Mike, Petyfrr's The Kid, and McConaughey's Dallas, we learn very little about the men in the movie. While, yes, they aren't important to the film's overall narrative arc, it'd be nice to see them do a bit more on screen. They, in the end, feel like colorful supporting characters that never really do much. Especially since many of them are played by relatively popular and talented actors.
I really can't stress enough how much I recommend this film. I went in with relatively low expectations and came out completely surprised. As of right now, it certainly places in my Top 10 of the year and can see it making the final cut. It's a well directed, extremely entertaining film that's not nearly as brainless as the trailers would lead you to believe. Check it out.
OVERALL GRADE: A
Saturday, November 17, 2012
Moonrise Kingdom- A Charming Gem of a Movie
It's time for a confession: I had not seen a Wes Anderson film until Moonrise Kingdom. Simply because quirky films like Anderson used to be a huge pain for me to sit through and even now, after seeing some truly great films from that genre, most of them tend to rub me the wrong way. Yet, Moonrise Kingdom surpassed my expectations and quickly dug it's way into my heart. To be honest, it's one of the most lovable films I've seen all year and the sort of film that I think I will always be able to fall back on and re-watch whenever I'm in the mood to wear a huge grin on my face.
Anderson has a fantastic screenplay to work with, which he cowrote with Roman Coppola. The tone for this film is one that is constantly upbeat and charming, with lots of eccentricity and hilarity thrown into the mix. The film deals with all too relatable challenges associated with growing up- such as feeling like you're alone in the world, or that you're parents don't like you- but they are handled with a sweet sensitivity and without becoming overly dramatic. The quirkiness in the film also manages to improve the film and make it feel like an organic part of it, not like some unneeded addition. The quirks, also, tend to make the film even more wonderful. Edward Norton's grown up boy scout of a character is a wonder to behold, and I laughed out loud every time Tilda Swinton's character was referred to as "Social Services." Add in that the film is often hilarious, with a ton of quotable one liners and a surprisingly sweet romance between the two youthful leads, and you have yourself a real winner of a movie.
The most noticeable thing about Moonrise Kingdom, however, is how beautiful it is. I'm not quite sure how Anderson managed to make the film look the way it does, but I was astonished by how stunning some of the shots were. From it's opening moments to it's closing scenes, every shot seems perfectly planned and serves as a real feast for the eyes. It's the sort of film you'd want to take screen shots of and hang them from your walls. As I mentioned above, I haven't seen any other Anderson films, and cannot offer a comparison, but I can say that Moonrise Kingdom is, by far, the best looking film I've seen this year.
I suppose it's time to list the negative aspects of this film, but I can really only think of one, and it would spoil a major part of the film. So, I'll try to tiptoe around it, but still address it. In my opinion, a certain subplot involving Frances McDormand's character was incredibly unnecessary and did not add anything to the film. It felt forced into an otherwise tight screenplay and, in the end, there are no real consequences as to why it happened. I also wish we had the time to find out more about the other boy scouts in the film, and maybe a little more about Suzy's siblings, but these are minor quibbles and not so much flaws.
Also, there was one more thing I really noticed about this film: In the past, I have been extremely critical of child actors. In fact, I tend to hate them. Yes there are the rare few that prove to be quite talented in front of the camera but, most of the time, they seem awkward and distracted. Kara Hayward and Jared Gilman are not a part of that majority. Both young actors have so much natural screen presence and radiate with charm and realism. Their comedic timing is impeccable for actors of their age, yet they never feel too mature for their age. Actors like Dakota Fanning and Chloe Moretz, while quite talented, come across as young teens who will be turning 30 next month. Gilman and Hayward are both filled with youth and childhood charm, but never act too old for their age. These are two refreshing performances that completely deliver. In fact, I'd say they give the best performances in the film, much better than their experienced adult counterparts like Norton, Willis and McDormand.
It's too early to say where Moonrise Kingdom will fall on my Top 10 list, but I really can't imagine an adequate list without this film appearing on it. I'm not sure if it's my favorite film of the year, but I feel as if it's the most re-watchable by a mile. It's consistently entertaining, heartwarming, hilarious and filled with so many stunning images that I feel like it will never get old. I can't wait to see it again, which, unfortunately, won't be until the holidays when I (hopefully) get it as a gift. But you don't have to wait that long! Check this film out as soon as possible, it's a truly special film.
OVERALL GRADE: A
Anderson has a fantastic screenplay to work with, which he cowrote with Roman Coppola. The tone for this film is one that is constantly upbeat and charming, with lots of eccentricity and hilarity thrown into the mix. The film deals with all too relatable challenges associated with growing up- such as feeling like you're alone in the world, or that you're parents don't like you- but they are handled with a sweet sensitivity and without becoming overly dramatic. The quirkiness in the film also manages to improve the film and make it feel like an organic part of it, not like some unneeded addition. The quirks, also, tend to make the film even more wonderful. Edward Norton's grown up boy scout of a character is a wonder to behold, and I laughed out loud every time Tilda Swinton's character was referred to as "Social Services." Add in that the film is often hilarious, with a ton of quotable one liners and a surprisingly sweet romance between the two youthful leads, and you have yourself a real winner of a movie.
The most noticeable thing about Moonrise Kingdom, however, is how beautiful it is. I'm not quite sure how Anderson managed to make the film look the way it does, but I was astonished by how stunning some of the shots were. From it's opening moments to it's closing scenes, every shot seems perfectly planned and serves as a real feast for the eyes. It's the sort of film you'd want to take screen shots of and hang them from your walls. As I mentioned above, I haven't seen any other Anderson films, and cannot offer a comparison, but I can say that Moonrise Kingdom is, by far, the best looking film I've seen this year.
I suppose it's time to list the negative aspects of this film, but I can really only think of one, and it would spoil a major part of the film. So, I'll try to tiptoe around it, but still address it. In my opinion, a certain subplot involving Frances McDormand's character was incredibly unnecessary and did not add anything to the film. It felt forced into an otherwise tight screenplay and, in the end, there are no real consequences as to why it happened. I also wish we had the time to find out more about the other boy scouts in the film, and maybe a little more about Suzy's siblings, but these are minor quibbles and not so much flaws.
Also, there was one more thing I really noticed about this film: In the past, I have been extremely critical of child actors. In fact, I tend to hate them. Yes there are the rare few that prove to be quite talented in front of the camera but, most of the time, they seem awkward and distracted. Kara Hayward and Jared Gilman are not a part of that majority. Both young actors have so much natural screen presence and radiate with charm and realism. Their comedic timing is impeccable for actors of their age, yet they never feel too mature for their age. Actors like Dakota Fanning and Chloe Moretz, while quite talented, come across as young teens who will be turning 30 next month. Gilman and Hayward are both filled with youth and childhood charm, but never act too old for their age. These are two refreshing performances that completely deliver. In fact, I'd say they give the best performances in the film, much better than their experienced adult counterparts like Norton, Willis and McDormand.
It's too early to say where Moonrise Kingdom will fall on my Top 10 list, but I really can't imagine an adequate list without this film appearing on it. I'm not sure if it's my favorite film of the year, but I feel as if it's the most re-watchable by a mile. It's consistently entertaining, heartwarming, hilarious and filled with so many stunning images that I feel like it will never get old. I can't wait to see it again, which, unfortunately, won't be until the holidays when I (hopefully) get it as a gift. But you don't have to wait that long! Check this film out as soon as possible, it's a truly special film.
OVERALL GRADE: A
Friday, November 16, 2012
Cloud Atlas- An Ambitious, Beautiful Film
An American lawyer in the 1800s who befriends a slave. An English musician in the 1930s who agrees to assist an aging composer. An investigative journalist in the 1970s who uncovers a huge conspiracy involving a nuclear reactor. An amoral book publisher in 2012 on the run from gangsters. A fabricant in Neo Seoul circa 2144 leading a rebellion against an oppressive government . A tribesman in a post apocalyptic Hawaii overcoming personal demons to assist a beautiful woman and overcome an army of cannibals. Six very different stories. Six very different genres. One epic movie. This is what makes Cloud Atlas so ambitious. Quite simply, nothing like it has ever been made. While these six stories may seem completely different and without any actual connection, the are all strung together not by a storyline but an idea: Can the actions of impact others for years to come? The Wachowskis and Tom Tkywer examine that question in one of the best films of the year.
Clocking in at nearly three hours, there is no denying that Cloud Atlas is a lengthy film. That being said, I did not feel the three hours once. The film moves by at a fairly quick pace, without any scenes that feel tacked on or unimportant. In fact, every scene feels important and central to the primary theme of the film. Whether it be an intense action sequence or a quiet moment, each moment feels significant and, often, powerful. Also, while I'm sure some of the detractors of the film will argue that the stories are not completely connected, I would beg to differ. The Wachowskis and Tkywer made the distinct decision to not display the stories in a linear format and, instead, cut back and forth between the six different stories. This may feel overwhelming or confusing, but by looking past the story being told on screen viewers will see the film's actual stories: Of a man (Tom Hanks) who evolves from a despicable human being into a selfless hero, and the woman (Halle Berry) who inspires him to change his way. Of a couple (Jim Sturges and Doona Bae) who constantly try to protect the men and women on the fringes of society. And of the people on the fringes of society due to race or sexual orientation (David Gyasi and Ben Whisaw) trying to find independence. As one of Berry's six characters, Luisa Rey, says in the trailer "I'm trying to figure out why we keep making the same mistakes." That question, and many others, are the real story of Cloud Atlas. The rest is just the tool used to tell it.
But to tell such a story writers and directors must employ top notch editing skills and show true talent behind the camera. These three directors are more than up for the challenge and, again, displaying the stories simultaneously proved to be a wonderful decision. Each story works well on their own, but seeing a suspenseful moment on a slave ship in the 1800s intercut with an futuristic shootout gives an exhilarating feeling, that all too rare emotion that what we are watching is truly unique and unlike anything we've ever seen before. This intercutting also packs the biggest emotional punch. Seeing Berry and Hanks attempt to find love throughout the timeline makes it all the more better when they do and all the more sadder when they do not.
Now, the make up for the film, to be honest, is terrible. There is just no way to deny it. Was it intentional? I don't think so, but I'd be willing to hear some arguments about that. But, to be honest, I didn't mind all too much. Sure it's a bit distracting when Jim Sturges has to play a Korean but looks like a British man telling a racist joke, and when Hugo Weaving plays a malicious nurse in 2012 he doesn't look like a woman but a man in drag. And, the rare times the make up does look convincing, such as when Halle Berry plays a white woman in the 1930s, the effect wears off the second you realize that you are, in fact, looking at Halle Berry. Yet, I stopped caring about that due to the strength of the performances behind the makeup. The actors behind the makeup really sell the performance. Did I, even once, believe that Jim Sturges was actually a freedom fighting Korean? Or that Hugo Weaving was a Nurse Ratched-esque villain? Yes, I did, and not because of the makeup. The acting is, simply, one of a kind. Nobody here really seems like a weakest link, but if I had to highlight a few key actors, I'd say that Hanks, Jim Broadbent, Ben Whisaw and Doona Bae deliver the strongest performances. Bae gives one of my favorite performances of the year as Sonmi-451, and I hope she manages to break out into American films soon. Broadbent, who is great at playing over the top (see: Moulin Rouge!) finds a nice balance between realism and exaggeration while playing publisher Timothy Cavendish, and also steals scenes as the villainous Vyvyan Ayrs. Whisaw, who also delivers a solid performance in Skyfall, does a great job as Frobisher, one of the more dramatic and depressing characters in the film. And Hanks is simply a marvel. The fact that Hanks has built his reputation on being a 'nice guy' in almost all of his pictures, seeing him play a villain is shocking but a reminder of how talented he really is. Then, when he transforms into a hero, we are reminded how much we love him as 'the nice guy.'
Will everybody love Cloud Atlas? The middling box office results seem to say no, but I'd be willing to bet that, let's say, twenty years from now it will build up a reputation a la Blade Runner. A film this ambitious isn't goint to set the world on fire right away, and that's fine. I'm just happy to have the Wachowskis back in my life. Bound and The Matrix are both wonderful films, and Cloud Atlas can now join that list. And, in a way, the Wachowskis are bigger than ever. Lana Wachowski has become an icon for transgenders in Hollywood, and has become a true inspiration (have you seen her speech at the Visibility Awards? It's incredible!). Their next film also has two of the biggest movie stars working today, Channing Tatum and Mila Kunis, attached. Despite the film's status as a box office disaster (which is a shame considering the $100 million budget was paid, out of pocket, by the three directors) those two aren't going anywhere. And, I didn't forget about Tom Twyker. I haven't seen a film of his, but I certainly plan on it now. Right now, the film may be viewed as a financial disaster and a film that divided most critics. I say it's a visually stunning, beautiful epic with big ideas blockbusters should incorporate more often. I also say that the film is bound to be viewed in a much more positive light as the year's go by. And, lastly, I say that the film is one of the very best I've seen this year. Go see it, you might be impressed or, at the very least, treated to something you've never seen before.
Clocking in at nearly three hours, there is no denying that Cloud Atlas is a lengthy film. That being said, I did not feel the three hours once. The film moves by at a fairly quick pace, without any scenes that feel tacked on or unimportant. In fact, every scene feels important and central to the primary theme of the film. Whether it be an intense action sequence or a quiet moment, each moment feels significant and, often, powerful. Also, while I'm sure some of the detractors of the film will argue that the stories are not completely connected, I would beg to differ. The Wachowskis and Tkywer made the distinct decision to not display the stories in a linear format and, instead, cut back and forth between the six different stories. This may feel overwhelming or confusing, but by looking past the story being told on screen viewers will see the film's actual stories: Of a man (Tom Hanks) who evolves from a despicable human being into a selfless hero, and the woman (Halle Berry) who inspires him to change his way. Of a couple (Jim Sturges and Doona Bae) who constantly try to protect the men and women on the fringes of society. And of the people on the fringes of society due to race or sexual orientation (David Gyasi and Ben Whisaw) trying to find independence. As one of Berry's six characters, Luisa Rey, says in the trailer "I'm trying to figure out why we keep making the same mistakes." That question, and many others, are the real story of Cloud Atlas. The rest is just the tool used to tell it.
But to tell such a story writers and directors must employ top notch editing skills and show true talent behind the camera. These three directors are more than up for the challenge and, again, displaying the stories simultaneously proved to be a wonderful decision. Each story works well on their own, but seeing a suspenseful moment on a slave ship in the 1800s intercut with an futuristic shootout gives an exhilarating feeling, that all too rare emotion that what we are watching is truly unique and unlike anything we've ever seen before. This intercutting also packs the biggest emotional punch. Seeing Berry and Hanks attempt to find love throughout the timeline makes it all the more better when they do and all the more sadder when they do not.
Now, the make up for the film, to be honest, is terrible. There is just no way to deny it. Was it intentional? I don't think so, but I'd be willing to hear some arguments about that. But, to be honest, I didn't mind all too much. Sure it's a bit distracting when Jim Sturges has to play a Korean but looks like a British man telling a racist joke, and when Hugo Weaving plays a malicious nurse in 2012 he doesn't look like a woman but a man in drag. And, the rare times the make up does look convincing, such as when Halle Berry plays a white woman in the 1930s, the effect wears off the second you realize that you are, in fact, looking at Halle Berry. Yet, I stopped caring about that due to the strength of the performances behind the makeup. The actors behind the makeup really sell the performance. Did I, even once, believe that Jim Sturges was actually a freedom fighting Korean? Or that Hugo Weaving was a Nurse Ratched-esque villain? Yes, I did, and not because of the makeup. The acting is, simply, one of a kind. Nobody here really seems like a weakest link, but if I had to highlight a few key actors, I'd say that Hanks, Jim Broadbent, Ben Whisaw and Doona Bae deliver the strongest performances. Bae gives one of my favorite performances of the year as Sonmi-451, and I hope she manages to break out into American films soon. Broadbent, who is great at playing over the top (see: Moulin Rouge!) finds a nice balance between realism and exaggeration while playing publisher Timothy Cavendish, and also steals scenes as the villainous Vyvyan Ayrs. Whisaw, who also delivers a solid performance in Skyfall, does a great job as Frobisher, one of the more dramatic and depressing characters in the film. And Hanks is simply a marvel. The fact that Hanks has built his reputation on being a 'nice guy' in almost all of his pictures, seeing him play a villain is shocking but a reminder of how talented he really is. Then, when he transforms into a hero, we are reminded how much we love him as 'the nice guy.'
Will everybody love Cloud Atlas? The middling box office results seem to say no, but I'd be willing to bet that, let's say, twenty years from now it will build up a reputation a la Blade Runner. A film this ambitious isn't goint to set the world on fire right away, and that's fine. I'm just happy to have the Wachowskis back in my life. Bound and The Matrix are both wonderful films, and Cloud Atlas can now join that list. And, in a way, the Wachowskis are bigger than ever. Lana Wachowski has become an icon for transgenders in Hollywood, and has become a true inspiration (have you seen her speech at the Visibility Awards? It's incredible!). Their next film also has two of the biggest movie stars working today, Channing Tatum and Mila Kunis, attached. Despite the film's status as a box office disaster (which is a shame considering the $100 million budget was paid, out of pocket, by the three directors) those two aren't going anywhere. And, I didn't forget about Tom Twyker. I haven't seen a film of his, but I certainly plan on it now. Right now, the film may be viewed as a financial disaster and a film that divided most critics. I say it's a visually stunning, beautiful epic with big ideas blockbusters should incorporate more often. I also say that the film is bound to be viewed in a much more positive light as the year's go by. And, lastly, I say that the film is one of the very best I've seen this year. Go see it, you might be impressed or, at the very least, treated to something you've never seen before.
Tuesday, November 6, 2012
Let's Get Down to Business: Breaking Down the Big 8 Categories
Whether you realize it or not, we are well into Oscar season. Over the next few weeks, there is at least one movie for film geeks and Oscar lovers to check out. I, unfortunately, have been behind on my Oscar movie calendar due to Hurricane Sandy but by next weekend I should be completely caught up with my schedule (or, at the very least, Thanksgiving). That being said, it's time to get serious. A majority of the Oscar films have premiered at this point or, at the very least, there is a sizable amount of buzz attached to them. While ranking the nominees was important, now it's time to break each category down. Once we get to the Critic Choice Awards and especially the Golden Globes my predictions will be almost definite but, until then, we move into stage two of Oscar forecasts: Breaking Down the Nominees!
BEST PICTURE:
THE LOCKS: Argo, Les Miserables, Lincoln, Silver Linings Playbook
WHY ARE THEY LOCKS?: Argo is one of the most critically acclaimed films of the year and with a plot Academy voters will love and a major backing from mainstream audiences, it's a major threat to the rest of the year's nominees for the award. Les Miserables, meanwhile, is one of the most buzzed about films of the year and Universal has a lot of faith in the film. It's most certainly getting in there, and could win it all. Lincoln is said to be a return to form for Spielberg after a few duds, but if even one of his duds (War Horse) could get a BP nomination, one of his best will most certainly fit in there. Finally, Silver Linings Playbook is swooping in this Thanksgiving and will most definitely have critics and audiences eating it up. All four films will most definitely be nominated, and stand a good chance at winning as well.
FIGHTING FOR THE REMAINING SLOTS: Django Unchained, Flight, Hitchcock, Life of Pi, The Impossible, The Master, The Sessions
HOW LIKELY ARE THEY? It's an intense fight for the remaining slots, and it's very tough to see what will actually make the cut. If I were a betting man, I'd say that Django Unchained and Life of Pi would most definitely make the cut, but I think it's too early to call either a lock. Flight, The Sessions and Hitchcock could have what it takes, but both feel like acting showcases as opposed to true Best Picture nominees. On the outside looking in are The Impossible, which will largely depend on mainstream critics, and The Master which, I feel, may have lost it's steam in this category.
POSSIBLE DARK HORSES: Amour, Beasts of the Southern Wild, Moonrise Kingdom, Zero Dark Thirty
DO THEY HAVE A CHANCE?: At this point I doubt that Moonrise Kingdom has much of a chance, which is a shame as it's one of my favorites this year so far. At most, it could be this year's Midnight in Paris, but there are many more serious contenders compared to last year. Beasts of the Southern Wild has a slightly better push, but it will need a major end of year push from other award circuits. I have no clue if a positive critical reception could impact Zero Dark Thirty, as it may be viewed as simply a re-do of The Hurt Locker. And despite rave reviews, Amour has the massive hurdle of being a foreign film before getting a nomination.
AS OF RIGHT NOW, I'D PREDICT:
BEST PICTURE:
THE LOCKS: Argo, Les Miserables, Lincoln, Silver Linings Playbook
WHY ARE THEY LOCKS?: Argo is one of the most critically acclaimed films of the year and with a plot Academy voters will love and a major backing from mainstream audiences, it's a major threat to the rest of the year's nominees for the award. Les Miserables, meanwhile, is one of the most buzzed about films of the year and Universal has a lot of faith in the film. It's most certainly getting in there, and could win it all. Lincoln is said to be a return to form for Spielberg after a few duds, but if even one of his duds (War Horse) could get a BP nomination, one of his best will most certainly fit in there. Finally, Silver Linings Playbook is swooping in this Thanksgiving and will most definitely have critics and audiences eating it up. All four films will most definitely be nominated, and stand a good chance at winning as well.
FIGHTING FOR THE REMAINING SLOTS: Django Unchained, Flight, Hitchcock, Life of Pi, The Impossible, The Master, The Sessions
HOW LIKELY ARE THEY? It's an intense fight for the remaining slots, and it's very tough to see what will actually make the cut. If I were a betting man, I'd say that Django Unchained and Life of Pi would most definitely make the cut, but I think it's too early to call either a lock. Flight, The Sessions and Hitchcock could have what it takes, but both feel like acting showcases as opposed to true Best Picture nominees. On the outside looking in are The Impossible, which will largely depend on mainstream critics, and The Master which, I feel, may have lost it's steam in this category.
POSSIBLE DARK HORSES: Amour, Beasts of the Southern Wild, Moonrise Kingdom, Zero Dark Thirty
DO THEY HAVE A CHANCE?: At this point I doubt that Moonrise Kingdom has much of a chance, which is a shame as it's one of my favorites this year so far. At most, it could be this year's Midnight in Paris, but there are many more serious contenders compared to last year. Beasts of the Southern Wild has a slightly better push, but it will need a major end of year push from other award circuits. I have no clue if a positive critical reception could impact Zero Dark Thirty, as it may be viewed as simply a re-do of The Hurt Locker. And despite rave reviews, Amour has the massive hurdle of being a foreign film before getting a nomination.
AS OF RIGHT NOW, I'D PREDICT:
- Argo
- Beasts of the Southern Wild
- Django Unchained
- Les Miserables
- Life of Pi
- Lincoln
- The Master
- Silver Linings Playbook
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)