Justin's (new) Review Thread

[Justin]

Thanks again, Yoda.


The Illusionist (Sylvain Chomet,2010)

http://allfilmreviews.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/illusionist-classictatipose.jpg?w=300&h=225

In an era where most every film is laden by heavy-handed dialogue and exposition, Sylvain Chometʼs The Illusionist is a breath of fresh air–then again, so was his last film, The Triplets of Belleville. Chometʼs wonderful artwork and lively characters and worlds make for an incredible viewing experience. Itʼs not easy to create a film with no dialogue–not to mention an animated film–but heʼs made a career (however short itʼs been) out of it. His charactersʼ actions speak louder than their words ever could, and the bittersweet nature of The Illusionist–-but never overwrought with sentimentality–is never once bogged down by superficial language. Chomet has really given us something special here, and he has given it to us with his heart on his sleeve, much like his protagonist, The Illusionist himself.

Originally written by the French filmmaker, Jacques Tati, The Illusionist follows an unnamed French magician who travels abroad performing his act to dwindling audiences. But, while traveling through Scotland, he meets a girl in her teens, who works in the inn heʼs staying at. The Illusionist notices her tattered clothing and worn, over-sized boots and takes it upon himself to purchase her new shoes. And from there on, she follows him to Edinburgh, where he seeks to find work performing his act. Unfortunately, at this point, interest in magic acts seems to be waning–people are finding more interest in television and rock music. Sad, but entirely true, so The Illusionist must find other work, however humiliating or unfitting. Alice is, however, smitten with the glitz and glamor of society in the city, and it ultimately takes a financial toll on the soft-hearted magician.

This is a story about broken people who have given all they can give, and The Illusionist is one of those very people. Chometʼs world is full of life and energy, yet there is an underlying sadness to it all. The Illusionist is caught on the cusp of an era with an obsession with rock music and television, where magic is hardly relevant anymore–in the conventional sense, anyway. Sylvain Chomet pokes fun at the theatrics of rockstars, and even lingers around television screens, where people either stand in front of the window watching, or steal glimpses as they stroll by. Alice and The Illusionist stay at a hotel filled with other individuals in similar situations; these people are stuck where they are, with one sole talent to give the world, and the world has moved on. Both The Illusionist and Alice show tremendous sympathy towards each downtrodden individual–-and even save a few of their lives, too.

The Illusionist is truly a work of art and delicacy that is rarely seen in cinema today, both in animation and live action. There is a moment in the end (and youʼll know what Iʼm talking about when you see it…) that is one of the most bittersweet moments that youʼre likely to see in awhile. The Illusionist is one animated film that should be seen and will likely not be forgotten.


5

[Brodinski]

Black Swan is a near-perfect film that deserves to be watched over and over (though it may be difficult to sit through it again for some of you--if you get what I mean). Thereʼs a lot to it.

Exactly. I really, really liked Black Swan, but I'm not sure if I'll watch it again before a long time has passed. The subject matter was deeply unsettling to me and I had to look away during some scenes because I couldn't stomach them. In spite of having seen it only once, there are some moments that are etched in my mind and every time I see a mention of Black Swan, I think of them. That says a lot about the emotional impact this film had on me. Not a lot of films are capable of doing that from only one viewing. Black Swan might very well be my favourite film of 2010. I'm just not sure if I want to watch it again to confirm that...

[nebbit]

Black Swan (Darren Aronofsky,2010)

http://www.beniiboutique.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/black-swan-movie-poster-02-thumb.jpg


Black Swan is a near-perfect film that deserves to be watched over and over (though it may be difficult to sit through it again for some of you--if you get what I mean).
I'm with Brodinski :yup: it isn't something I want to watch for a while :nope: great movie but very much like work to me :yup:
I felt the same about Requiem great movie but not one to watch over and over :nope:

Nice reviews :)

[Brodinski]

I don't know, man. I'm not a fan of these Potter films. I've seen like 3 and a half (I think): Order of the Phoenix (for my summer job, no BS), Half-Blood Prince, Deathly Hallows and part of The Prisoner of Azkaban.

The biggest issue I have is that these films leave me cold and unengaged. I could care less what happens to Potter or the other two. Perhaps this is because I just kind of rolled into the series through a job I had instead of actually checking them out myself, starting with the first one. All I took with me from watching Order of the Phoenix was: "Is this it? This is one of the most successful movie series ever? How..." As a result, I didn't have any interest to watch the previous films. I only watched Half-Blood Prince en Deathly Hallows because my girl wanted to and again, I wasn't particularly engaged in the story or the characters.

It's not for me I guess.

[Justin]

In case you were wondering, I deleted my review mostly because I thought it was crap.

More reviews will be on the way....and hopefully better ones, at that.

[honeykid]

You know what, Justin? You've almost talked me into taking a look at this, should the chance come along.

[Justin]

Tree of Life review coming up soon.

[Justin]

The Tree of Life (Terrence Malick,2011)

http://theflickcast.com/wp-content/uploads//the-tree-of-life-movie-photo-03-525x283.jpg

The Tree of Life is quite possibly Terrence Malick’s magnum opus, as it might very well be a culmination of his entire oeuvre. However short his filmography may be, there is a strong overarching theme throughout his work. Malick has always taken a great deal of care crafting his films; a span of seven years passed between The Thin Red Line and The New World, if that tells you anything. But Malick has made an undeniable impression on those who have had the privilege of watching his films. The Tree of Life is no different; it has divided audiences, much like The New World, but that is perhaps the early sign of a masterwork. Slowly and quietly, his films have had an impact on those same people--whether they enjoyed it or not--while he goes unnoticed by most of the population. Let’s face it though, that’s how he wanted it from the very beginning.

Summing up The Tree of Life is nearly impossible, especially within the confines of a simple, straightforward review. It’s Malick’s most abstract film with no real narrative to speak of. Instead, it moves in mood and tone, and by swirling, kaleidoscopic imagery. Reminiscent and intensely personal, he has crafted a film about life and all of its complexities, about growing up, fatherhood and motherhood and even the creation of the universe, which all comes together in a mosaic of life--much like the film’s poster. It sounds intimidating, yet Malick’s touch is delicate and precise. Emmanuel Lubezki’s cinematography is breathtaking to watch, and Alexandre Desplat’s soundtrack is both subtle and fitting.

Set in the 1950‘s, in the midwest, The Tree of Life follows a boy and his family (the O’Brien’s) through a tumultuous, unsettling time of their lives filled with tragedy and suppressed feelings--but, of course, it isn’t without its share of beauty. The chief conflict in the film is Jack’s (Sean Penn) problematic feelings towards his father, played by Brad Pitt. However, this is much later in life, and we’re only given glimpses as to how his life has changed and how he interacts--or doesn’t--with the rest of the world. Jack appears withdrawn, disillusioned with his life. This is primarily the driving force of the film, which is entirely a reflection on his past relationships with his mother and father and his siblings. Difficulty with the father figure is one of the most common symptoms of a character’s psyche, in all forms of art. Malick approaches this differently, however; instead of vilifying the father, he gives him a sense of humanity--this was done so well, it nearly brought me to tears. Balancing out the father, Jessica Chastain plays the mother, whose affection contrasts the father’s nature quite well.

The Tree of Life is the work of someone who is setting out to discover and explore, and only Malick could have created such a monumental piece of cinema. This is Terrence Malick at his very purest. A seemingly evanescent piece of filmmaking that truly had a lasting impression on me. It’s been weeks since I’ve seen it, yet the images still play out in my mind as if I had just finished watching it. The Tree of Life is a lasting piece of art, that won’t likely be forgotten any time soon. Malick, along with very few others, are pushing cinema to new heights, all the while creating something truly personal and special.

5

[nebbit]

I am going to see this when it comes to my town :yup: Nice review Thanks :)

[Justin]

Attack the Block (Joe Cornish,2011)

http://moviecarpet.com/iwave/images/1/o-attack-the-block-trailer-3.jpg

Upon hearing about Attack the Block, I wasn’t entirely sure what to expect. I didn’t really know much about it; somehow it had escaped my radar. But I did do some research and learned some very refreshing facts about the film, which quickly soothed my skepticism. Edgar Wright had been involved with the production, as well as Nick Frost. I’ve been a fan of both for a long time now, but the director I was still unsure of, as he hadn’t really proven himself; this happens to be his first feature film…and it’s not a bad start, at all. With hilarious dialogue and plenty of great, action packed set pieces, Cornish has really started off with a bang.

Aliens have landed. This time, however, they are met by a group of miscreant teenagers armed with bats, fireworks and plenty of other random items in their arsenal, rather than the military. Let’s not get ahead of things, though. Before the action takes off, it begins with some activity one wouldn’t really expect from their protagonist: a mugging. Led by their quiet, serious leader, Moses, who’s played excellently by John Boyega, they confront a woman walking home, named Sam, who is played by Jodie Whittaker, who is the unfortunate victim of the mugging. Suddenly, something crashes violently into a car nearby, which bursts into flames. You can guess what it is. Unfortunately for the alien, it happens to be in the presence of a gang of teenagers whose guts and nerve far exceed that of the average teen. Luckily for Sam, though, she’s able to escape. As you can probably guess, this is not the only alien to show up—not by a long shot. Of course, this won’t be the last time Sam and the gang are going to meet.

Like Edgar Wright and Co., Cornish does many clever things with the photography, editing and music. It all blends together wonderfully. He takes advantage of the environment and the fireworks and chaos going on all around South London. There are some really great shots consisting of smoke, fireworks and the aliens, which are pitch black with glowing blue eyes. The soundtrack and images are what give “Attack the Block” its science-fiction/horror feeling, which blends firework smoke and retro electronic beats. Though one of the huge surprises in the film is John Boyega. Cornish works exceedingly well well with the actors, who give off the frustrating confidence of a teenager flawlessly. All of this is brought together with a strong sense of humor, largely consisting of idle banter and slang.

But in the end, Cornish manages to bring sympathy and understanding to this characters. In one very strong scene where Sam is inside of Moses’ apartment, you can already get a sense of how young these kids really are. That singlehandedly made me feel for these characters, who, at first, seem simply like miscreants causing trouble. There’s a strong sense of theme that makes the film, which is that our actions have consequence. Not a unique theme perhaps, but a valid one, and a resonating one nonetheless. Cornish is definitely a promising director, who has delivered a film that will likely keep everyone happy.

4

[Justin]

Another Earth (Mike Cahill,2011)

http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/entertainment_movies_blog/files/2011/08/another-earth-sundance.jpg

Another Earth boasts an interesting premise: what if, quite literally, another Earth appeared before us? Bigger and closer than the moon, bearing the same landscape of the Earth, but alternatively, a different reality from our own. Of course, with an idea as intriguing as this one, almost inevitably, they’ll be asking many of the same metaphysical questions we often ask of ourselves, and the life we have before us. “What is reality?” “Is there anything out there waiting for us, god or otherwise?” “Who are we?” You get the idea. These questions have often been asked by films of the same ilk as well, such as Solaris (remake and original). Mike Cahill’s film is moody, transgressive, introverted, brutally honest and mind-bending, much like Soderbergh’s— which, in my eyes, sounds like a recipe for greatness. Each film carries their own sense of independence and individuality, though they share similar sentiments towards redemption and self-discovery. It doesn’t quite touch the masterstroke of Soderbergh’s film, but as far as modern science-fiction is concerned, this is certainly very good

Another Earth is not light-hearted or melodramatic; in fact, it’s pretty damn dire and no nonsense. Cahill has crafted a film more about mood and tone than anything else, though his script is well-written and thought-provoking. Rhoda Williams, played excellently by Brit Marling, is a very intelligent young girl whose interests in space leads her to an acceptance letter and scholarship to the prestigious Boston College. All of that is shattered in an instant, and the consequences are not only on her, but her actions shake the foundations of others’ lives. Intoxicated and behind the wheel, she overhears the radio talking about the discovery of a new planet, as she gazes up towards the night sky, she slams into another car. Shot with a dizzying, handheld aesthetic, the moments leading up to the collision are hypnotically dreamy. The collision itself is sudden, horrific and will likely leave you shaken. Rhoda stays at the scene, and is ultimately sentenced to four years in prison for vehicular homicide. When she’s finally released, the world has changed, and the Second Earth, as they call it, is closer than ever and perfectly visible.

As I said before, Cahill’s script is really strong—he mixes tension and subtle, minimalism very, very well. More specifically, the script never truly slows down to a crawl, but rather, it grows from within Rhoda. Cahill’s cinematography (yes he also did that, along with the editing) is sublime, as it captures the landscape and surreal nature extraordinarily well, as well as Rhoda’s inner turmoil—it’s all tinted with blues, like the ocean waters and sky. Driven by guilt and remorse, Rhoda takes up a job as a janitor at her former high school, despite the temp agency encouraging her to do something more. But, as her guilt worsens, she comes into contact with the sole survivor of the accident, who’s a composer and teacher at Harvard, John Burroughs. William Mapother, who plays the character, might be the only weak link in the film (his current state seems particularly exaggerated).

Though imperfect, Another Earth is undeniably a very good film with a lot of soul. There is something intensely personal about it, maybe it has something to do with Marling’s life, or Cahill’s, or perhaps they’ve shared similar circumstances. As preposterous as some of he script is, it’s difficult to say how much it really matters when in the face of such introspective filmmaking. He put together a film with many great elements, such as mixed media, a haunting soundtrack (reminiscent of Cliff Martinez’s Solaris) and a strong script led by Brit Marling’s stellar performance. Perhaps most importantly, though, it’s clear that Cahill set out to make a film about guilt, remorse, lost chances and people beaten down by existence. It may seem hopeless or relentlessly dreary, but, in this world, there might just be an inkling of hope for Rhoda and John, whether it be their reality, Earth One, or the alternate reality, Earth Two, because for them, it makes no difference.

4.5

[Justin]

Captain America: The First Avenger (Joe Johnston,2011)

http://blog.zap2it.com/pop2it/captain-america-the-first-avenger.jpg

I’ll come right out and say it: Captain America: The First Avenger is as bland a motion picture as they come. As you might have already guessed, for the most part it follows a formula, which might have been fine, if they had had more competent actors and a director with a personality. I hate to beat a dead horse, but comic book movies such as Batman Begins, The Dark Knight and Spider-Man worked because the inner-conflict within the protagonists and their outer conflicts are paid an equal amount of attention. Unfortunately, in Captain America, this does not happen. It isn’t all bad, though, there are some good things, but it all really comes together in a very, very mediocre fashion, that’s almost instantly forgettable. It’s unfortunate, since the film is well made and looks good.

We begin in the midst of WWII: the Nazis are invading Norway, led by a sadistic, power hungry general named Johann Schmidt, played well by Hugo Weaving—who, by the way, is given very little to work with. Schmidt seeks out the power of the gods and since this is Norway, he means the Nordic gods. Schmidt is not one to simply obey orders, he has other plans in mind—though he shares the same goal as just about every comic book villain: world domination. Meanwhile, a beaten up (literally and figuratively), downtrodden Steve Rogers, played by an extremely average Chris Evans, has a hunger that can only be satisfied by enlisting in the military and serving his country. Noble his intentions may be—he proudly states that he “doesn’t like bullies”—he’s been rejected five times because of his many health problems and skinny build. Of course, as luck would have it, and perhaps a little too coincidentally, he runs into a German scientist named Dr.Abraham Erskine, who is played very well by Stanley Tucci. Dr.Erskine has the instinct that he will be the perfect candidate for his government funded project.

Ironically enough, before he becomes Captain America, Steve Rogers is actually more interesting; he’s damaged, tired and hates the bullying of other countries. Why doesn’t he carry this weight throughout the film? It’s incredibly lopsided—all of the real drama is in the first half of the movie. He transforms into a superhero whose resilience and goofiness overshadows everything else—the good half, basically. Of course, it isn’t all bad; aesthetically it’s well done, Joe Johnston takes advantage of montage and colors—it truly gives the film a more authentic, comic book panel appearance. Johnston also does a nice job with the time period (which might be one of the most interesting aspects of the film). There are even some great scenes throughout, even a few of the action set pieces are wonderfully crafted. But the film fails to make much of an impression beyond the appearance. It seems like a common critique for Hollywood productions, though nevertheless a valid one. It’s just too bad there isn’t much more to say.

1

[Justin]

Our Idiot Brother (Jesse Peretz,2011)

http://static.tvguide.com/MediaBin/Galleries/Movies/M_R/Oq_Oz/Our_Idiot_Brother/1/our-idiot-brother7.jpg

Our Idiot Brother is definitely misleading; even the poster itself makes it look like another mundane comedy with no personality. It happens to be a well-written film with a few very funny scenes. It’s still flawed, but it proves to be just a little bit more than merely passable entertainment, though it comes dangerously close to that category—or otherwise called “disposable entertainment”. Paul Rudd plays an idiot, at least he’s supposed to be one. Unlike the world around him, he’s honest, innocent and child-like— these traits ultimately cause problems within his family. What’s most interesting is that it isn’t even really about him, so much as it’s about his family and the ugly lies and secrets we keep from one another. Ned somehow ends up tangled up in a web of family troubles, inevitably putting a heavy strain on their relationships with each other.

Almost immediately, we are shown, quite clearly, Ned’s personality: he’s a hippy with a caring, honest disposition that’s extremely difficult to dislike. Ned lives a very simple life working as a biodynamic farmer (which he’s forced to explain in one scene) with his girlfriend, Janet (played by Kathryn Hahn) and dog, named Willie Nelson—who he loves dearly, perhaps even more than his girlfriend. Unfortunately, being the kind of oblivious person he is, he sells a cop who’s “having a difficult time” marijuana, which lands him in jail. In eight months, he’s released, but comes home to find that Janet has moved on and despite his protests, keeps Willie Nelson. So, now, he’s forced to move back home with his mom and three sisters, who welcome him with open arms….at first, anyway.

Ned’s sisters are pretty much the cliches you might have imagined; they all have vastly different personalities, all having chosen very different careers and paths in their lives. One is a hard-edged, career driven journalist, named Miranda, played by Elizabeth Banks; another is a bisexual artist named Natalie, who’s played by Zooey Deschanel; and last, but not least, is an unhappily married housewife named Liz, played by Emily Mortimer. Regardless of the archetypes, they do bounce off each other quite well—the interactions and scenarios work. Paul Rudd’s performance as Ned improves the exchanges even more, where he’s the center of all of the conflict. Like I mentioned earlier, the script is indeed pretty good. Rather than focusing too much on the goofiness of Ned, it spreads it out, and we can certainly see how his behavior brings his sisters’ problems to the surface. I hesitate to go any further without giving too much away, but it’s well done.

I, like many others, still believe the film to be uneven and ridden with cliches. It seems like a contradiction, since the film is undeniably enjoyable. Sadly, unlike other comedies in recent years, this one in particular will likely be tossed into the mix of “fairly enjoyable, but only above ordinary”—if that’s truly a category. What prevents it from going any further is the lack of laughs throughout; instead, we have several pretty funny moments mixed with some mediocre melodramatics, such as the scenes leading up to the ending. Being this critical certainly sounds like I’m picking at an innocent film, even so, it lacks the comedic edge of a variety of other films. Our Idiot Brother is a nice idea, but it doesn’t push itself far enough. It tries to be both dramatic and comedic, and lacks the punch for either.

2

[Justin]

Melancholia (Lars von Trier,2011)

http://s4.daemonsmovies.com/mov/up/2011/04/melancholia-movie-photo-kristen-dunst-01-550x365.jpg

Putting his antics aside, von Trier is indeed a talented filmmaker, though I doubt that’s ever been up to much debate. Melancholia is his newest film following the heavily controversial Antichrist which enraged and divided audiences due to its graphic imagery. But in Melancholia, we have a different type of animal, and I’d argue that it could be equally as controversial—just not necessarily in the classical sense (which involves gratuitous violence and sex in today’s entertainment world). Like a majority of his films (if not all), Melancholia stars a female protagonist surrounded by utter gloom and doom. Justine, played amazingly well by Kirsten Dunst, is in a state of extreme depression.

A planet has been spotted in the Scorpio constellation, glowing red with energy, then shifting into a variety of other colors. It sounds peaceful enough, so the scientists of the world, along with the media, name it Melancholia. As mundane and insignificant as the events of Earth may be, a wedding is taking place: Justine is marrying Michael, played by Alexander Skarsgard. Justine is not as down-to-earth as she appears at first glance. She’s deeply troubled with feelings of depression, fear and anxiety. Her sister, Claire (Charlotte Gainsbourg), is saddled with Justine’s problems. Though she tries to be comforting, you can visibly see the burden that Justine is on her. Claire’s husband, John (Kiefer Sutherland) doesn’t even hide it—he’s frustrated because of the amount of money he’s put into the wedding, and with Claire’s preoccupation with Justine. Claire and Justine’s relationship is the most intriguing part of the film, and the most integral.

One of the problems of the film is that the choices of the characters make little sense, and some of the plot points seem particularly ridiculous. Von Trier was never a great writer, but his weaknesses are shown pretty transparently here: his dialogue and the fluidity of the script feel off-kilter. Melancholia also teeters towards being comically gloomy, at times. Regardless, it’s definitely well-directed, and the imagery is stellar. In Antichrist, the film opened with a rather intense sex scene in slow motion, set to classical music—and similarly in this film, where the soundtrack is a Wagner piece and the end of the world is happening in dramatic fashion. Visceral, memorable images have been the focal point of von Trier’s most recent films. They will certainly leave a significant impression on the viewer.

Kirsten Dunst’s performance is one that should be championed around Oscar time. Von Trier’s notorious history with depression can obviously be felt here; it feels very personal, like his own experiences have been transmitted to the viewer. Dunst’s performance is less vocal, and more internal. Justine’s evolution throughout the film is mesmerizing to behold, all in due part to Dunst. Opposite of her is the always wonderful Charlotte Gainsbourg. Claire is the exact opposite of Justine, and their relationship works as the beating heart of the movie. Moving between tenderness and anger, to bitter resentment, to hatred—it all seems to move all over the map, which works for and against the film. There’s one great scene where Claire is trying to encourage Justine to take a bath. I dare you to not be moved.

Despite the stilted dialogue and messy screenplay, Melancholia is a good film. It’s problematic, but ultimately it does end up working. Now, the biggest problem in the film is what keeps me from bumping the grade up to a high “B”. As good as the characterizations are, the film still feels a little pointless. We understand the relationship and the portrayal of extreme depression—but what else is there? If, as Justine says, the Earth is such a miserable place, then what’s the purpose of this film? Maybe I just “didn’t get it”, who knows. Lars von Trier probably has a lot to say behind the symbolism and clunky screenplay, but it’s hard to say what it is or if even he knows how to say it.

3

[Masterman]

nice reviews.

[Brodinski]

It’s difficult to find too many negatives about Contagion: it actually works very well. However, after the film, I thought for awhile about ensemble pieces and their limitations and capabilities. Granted, the “sub genre” is one that has a pretty patchy history, despite people like Altman’s and Soderbergh’s contributions. We’ve had masterful directors working in it, but it never truly feels as cohesive as it should. In my eyes, regardless of how great the director is, the “sub genre” will always lag behind because of the lack of focus—the scope of the work is perhaps too much.

I personally thought that it worked in Contagion, because the virus was basically the main character. All of the characters were tied together through the virus, some trying to survive it, some trying to find a cure and some trying to make money off it.

My gripe with Contagion is that it sometimes feels rushed. When that scientist finally finds the cure by testing the vaccin on herself feels very, very forced, because it's barely set up. There's just a little visit to her father beforehand and that's it if I recall correctly. I wasn't a fan of that, and as a result, I ended up rating it 3.5.

Good review by the way, Justin, as per usual.

[Justin]

That's actually a good point.

Thanks for the feedback, everyone.

[Justin]

The Artist (Michel Hazanavicius,2011)

http://www.csmonitor.com/var/ezflow_site/storage/images/media/images/2011/1205-weekly/1205-lrainer-the-artist/11063596-1-eng-US/1205-LRAINER-The-Artist_full_380.jpg

Surprisingly in 2011, we have a “black and white silent film”. The Artist is surely an unusual animal, but even more surprisingly is that it’s been undeniably successful in winning over the hearts of critics and viewers alike. But does it live up to the hype? Not quite. In The Artist, we have a story about the progression and impact of audio in cinema, only told through a relationship between a man and a woman. It’s an intriguing idea that has a lot of potential. Unfortunately, it squanders it by not taking full advantage of the amazing cast and possibilities within the silent medium. Director Michel Hazanavicius has a passion for the era, and it shows, but unfortunately the problems outweigh the positives.

George Valentin, played by French actor, Jean Dujardin, is the comically self-indulgent premiere actor of the time. He’s suave, mustachioed and incredibly over-the-top. One day, a fan accidentally stumbles into the picture with George, and the two are caught in a strangely awkward moment on the front page of the newspaper the next morning. This woman, named Peppy Miller (Berenice Bejo), continues to fall into George’s life in a variety of ways. Peppy is an aspiring actress, and George helps her find her place. The two have a great deal of chemistry together–with her charming wink and his suave, Clark Gable-like appearance. But their relationship is not all wonderful, as her talents are soon noted by numerous agents, and audio is not far off at all.

Granted, there are scenes in the film that truly raise it into new heights. But the drama never feels threatening, or real enough. It’s all in due part to the script, which is sadly underdeveloped. The real core of the film lies in George and Peppy’s relationship. The chemistry is there, but the drama isn’t. We have a film that seems to be more focused on what it is rather than what really matters most: the characters and their relationships. George and Peppy are potentially two interesting people with more to say and more beneath the surface, we just never go there. Their relationship is hollowed out by weak screenwriting.

Hazanavicius directs the film with a keen eye, however. His attention to detail and loving care towards the environment and time period are well done. Like Hugo this year, Michel loves cinema and its history, much like Scorsese. Both films show that perfectly clearly. In one particularly good sequence, George is on the verge of losing it all due to the invention of audio, and he makes a feeble attempt at salvaging whats left of silent cinema. He directs and stars in an adventure film where he’s in the jungle with a beautiful woman. The ones you’ve probably seen parodied a few times. It’s hilarious, but the results are what’s so sad.

Michel Hazanavicius is a talented filmmaker, though he never takes it far enough. The Artist is one of those well-made films that lacks the very charm it tries to create. Although enjoyable, it’s stricken with ridiculous scenes clearly designed to charm the pants off the viewer. Instead, it’s stuck in a state of goofy humor and shallow characters that never fully come into their own. It also made me wonder while I was exiting the theater: is this the only type of silent film we’re likely to get? One that uses silence as a gimmick, rather than as an artistic choice? I’d like to think not.

2

[Justin]

The Woman in Black (James Watkins,2012)

http://cdn.screenrant.com/wp-content/uploads/The-Woman-in-Black-2012-starring-Daniel-Radcliffe-Review.jpg

The Woman in Black is a throwback to an older generation: a generation of haunted houses, ghosts and creepy children. It’s a challenge, certainly, for a film such as this to be released in an era where no one is frightened by ghostly apparitions anymore. But nevertheless, director James Watkins’ The Woman in Black is pretty creepy. Initially I was skeptical as to whether or not Daniel Radcliffe could shoulder the load—since the film is centrally focused on his performance and his alone. And, sadly, he limps along to the finale. An average performance that needed more push.

Arthur Kipps (Radcliffe) is having trouble. He’s been haunted ever since his wife died tragically after childbirth, leaving him with a son, Joseph, and a nanny. Kipps is having further difficulties with his finances and is on the verge of losing his job until he is offered to take care of a deceased woman’s estate. Kipps is sent on his way into a small town, where he soon finds he is unwelcome by the locals, and also by an unknown entity draped in black. She appears in the woods and, unnervingly enough, all over the mansion.

The story itself isn’t really complex. But that’s precisely what allows Watkins to focus entirely on the mood. This is where Watkins is most successful. He works with the grey- and-black toned photography very well. Strikingly moody and grim. What was most important was Radcliffe’s performance, which is what is most uneven. While he works reasonably well in solitude, his relationship with his son seems completely artificial and contrived. They lack the chemistry necessary to build empathy. In fact, they seem incredibly distant.

Susan Hill’s creation The Woman in Black is at its heart a haunted house, ghost story. But in this case, the plot never hits the high notes it needs to. It’s creepy, but it never builds the emotional and unstable feeling that we as an audience need and live for—our catharsis. As harsh as it sounds, The Woman in Black is purely artificial in its way of storytelling. We hit all of the necessary jumps and thrills, but we never go any deeper. A good example of this is in the opening scene where Kipps is contemplating suicide, yet his performance is never as heartbreaking as it should be.

In the end, it’s not a bad film. It might, and most likely will be enjoyed for its classic horror feel that could prove to be a breath of fresh air—and it’ll certainly cleanse our palette of recent, awful horror movies. We can always hope that this is a foreshadowing of better horror to come. Ones that actually care about their characters, not only the unique ways they can torture them (see any other horror movie in the past five years; e.g. Saw 20 and yet another exorcism). The Woman in Black is a solid piece of craftsmanship, and unfortunately, that’s about as far as it goes. It’s too bad, too, since it could have been a great horror film.

2

[Justin]

The Grey (Joe Carnahan,2012)

http://cdn.screenrant.com/wp-content/uploads/Liam-Neeson-in-The-Grey-trailer.jpg

Let me start off with the plain and obvious: The Grey is a B-movie, of sorts. One of those releases that goes straight-to-video. But does that make it a bad movie, necessarily? Not at all. For what it’s worth, it’s undeniably silly and suspenseful at the same time. Liam Neeson’s performance is achingly real. As I see it, The Grey is precisely caught in the grey area between B-movie and a movie like The Edge (horrible pun aside). Despite its goofy but interesting premise, it’s a surprisingly thrilling ride into the heart of the wilderness, and man. Poetic, yet unrelentingly brutal, The Grey is a must-see film for those who long to see a classic existential, survival thriller. Oh, and the wolves are pretty badass, too.

A team of low-lives are on their way to a barren portion of Alaska to drill for oil. This is the type of group that one would probably send on a mission such as this: ex-cons and marginalized people with little connection to the outside world. This is primarily where the film works the best. Each actor does very well with what they’re given. Though we’re only provided with snippets of each individual’s life, the empathy, I felt, was surely there. Liam Neeson plays Ottway, a hunter who’s haunted by memories of his girlfriend. He’s an accomplished marksman. His existence is pretty shoddy, and at the beginning of the film he’s contemplating suicide.

As you might have guessed, before they can arrive, the plane crashes in a horrible storm. There are very few survivors. This has to be one of the most frightening, disorienting plane crashes I’ve ever seen. But on the contrary, the cinematography of the Alaskan north is beautiful and majestic. It’s big, open and at times still and somber. Since we’re often in the mind of Ottway, all throughout the film we are reminded of a poem that Ottway’s alcoholic father wrote, which is quite beautiful. It goes something like this,”Once more into the fray. Into the last good fight I’ll ever know. Live and die on this day. Live and die on this day.” The melancholic tone of the poem seems perfectly fit for the somber, grim tone of the film. Mix that with flashes of his girlfriend and we have a some very depressing imagery.

Though Ottway is a hunter, he’s never been the one being hunted. In the wild, there are no real weapons. His rifle was destroyed in the plane crash, so essentially all they have left are sticks and some useless rifle bullets. Ottway is the only real woodsman the group has to rely on. Some of the most unnerving scenes are the ones at night. A howling can be heard from not far off. These wolves don’t really seem like ordinary wolves. They are huge and unintimidated by man. Director Joe Carnahan holds nothing back when showing how brutal nature can be.

The Grey does slip into silliness from time to time, namely in the scenes where the team is devouring a wolf carcass and teasing the pack. Nevertheless, Liam Neeson brings his A-game into every scene. One of the best scenes in the entire movie is where Ottway is screaming for a savior, yelling into the sky, but to his remorse, no one answers. This leaves us with a lot of questions about Carnahan’s intentions with his film. It may be that he simply provides us with no easy answers. The Grey certainly offers us just that in ample doses.

3.5

[Justin]

The rest are in my blog, but I'll post them here later...

[Justin]

Project X (Nima Nourizadeh,2012)

http://www.chicagonow.com/hammervision/files/2012/03/Project-X-485.jpg

Project X is certainly a product of its time. Filled with sex, crude humor, alcohol, rap music and teenagers behaving poorly—yes, it does sound like a Girls Gone Wild video. Though to be fair, It’s pretty funny. However, as I was walking out of the movie, it had me thinking: the end suggests living in the moment, rather than for the future. Is this really a great value for people? Ridiculous ending aside, the ending itself is sort of a sham. The ending almost ruins the entire movie. What was the point? If this was meant to be a comedy filled with montages and crazy teenagers, it might as well have been on MTV. But it’s not: it’s a movie that has a purpose. Project X provides us with a half- baked idea about ‘living in the moment’ and it ultimately left me cold and uncaring.

This is indeed another ‘found-footage’ movie. In this case, however, the people are not dead. Instead, it is told from the perspective of several ‘loser’ high schoolers who long for the popularity of other students. They want the alcohol, the women and the crazy parties. Thomas Mann plays Thomas, who’s birthday is today. Costa, played by Oliver Cooper, wants to throw a big party, despite Thomas’ reservations. But, of course, it happens anyway—and you know the rest. They hope that this party will launch them into the ‘elite’ group of ‘popular, cool’ kids. Problematic and atypical as the premise may be, it manages to serve up some laughs along the way. Project X could have been something more than the sum of a few laughs along the way, but it isn’t. In fact, it’s a lot less.

Much of the drama actually occurs much later in the film, only a little after the party has erupted into an uncontrollable mass of teenagers. This is where it actually works to some degree: a man from across the street wants them to call off the party and put everything to rest. It slams on the breaks shortly after and again falls into relentless montage. Project X, really, struggles to be dramatic in any real sense. This is a case of ‘style and idea over execution and substance’. Director Nima Nourizadeh forgets to add the substance into the mixture—it’s all style, but no drama. Quick fix after quick fix. In one scene, Thomas is finally coming to terms that this party has gotten out of control, to the point of no-return, only for his friend, Costa, to offer him ecstasy, which then he takes and all is ‘normal’ again. Nima has some opportunities for some solid, dramatic material with the friends, but squanders it with simple solutions.

That’s merely the tip of the iceberg for Project X’s problems. Thomas, Costa and the little-seen, goofy JB, are all utterly without note. They serve the story so the party can erupt, but afterwards, they merely fall into the backdrop as events unfold. In the beginning, we see Thomas as a loser—his dad even to some degree thinks he is—and not much else. Shallow characterizations and caricatures. Is Thomas more than a loser? Well, maybe, but in this case, he’s a loser who can throw a really big party. He has no personality that Nourizadeh cares to share with us. No one, including myself, is insisting that this be some deep, thoughtful character-driven piece, but some character is required to make a film endearing in any real way.

Nourizadeh isn’t a bad filmmaker by any measure, but Project X feels more like a music video. In a way, I guess it sort of is. As inventive and interesting as the production was, (apparently it was shot with flip phones and other handheld devises), it would’ve worked better as a short film, but as a feature it lacks the dramatic emphasis of a real film. Funny as it may be, it feels more like it should have been a YouTube video rather than a film playing at the cinema. Project X is an enjoyable, but unfulfilling experience. Your time might be better spent elsewhere.

1.5

[Justin]

The Hunger Games (Gary Ross,2012)

http://cdn.screenrant.com/wp-content/uploads/The-Hunger-Games-movie-images.jpg

On buses, in stores, and in libraries, you’ve seen them being read. The Hunger Games is becoming something of a phenomenon. Like Twilight, it is manufactured primarily for young adults (or YA) and does its best to deal with ‘serious’ subjects. But this is precisely where I find both of them to be disturbing and completely unnecessary. The Hunger Games, for those uninitiated, is about a post-apocalyptic future where adolescents and teenagers are pitted against each other for a battle to the death. Indeed, Battle Royale did it before, but there’s a big different between what the latter did and what The Hunger Games is doing right now. In the case of Hunger Games, we have an author and filmmaker who are seeking to sell this pasteurized, ironed out science-fiction world, where all of the real disturbing nature of what’s actually happening has been cleaned up and removed so it can be sold easily and digested by young adults and 20-somethings alike.

Katniss Everdeen, played by Jennifer Lawrence (blander than she’s ever been before), lives in complete poverty in a district ominously named District-12. She resides in a future-world named Panem, what was once North America. She does her best to take care of her mother and younger sister with the use of her terrific hunting and marksmanship with a bow—and like in all futuristic societies, there’s an overbearing, almost totalitarian regime that does their best to keep all of the districts in line and impoverished. The Capitol— the hub of the rich and well-off— host an event called Hunger Games. It’s an annual event that brings together all of the districts, as two contestants are selected from each one. Katniss’ younger sister is chosen, but in order to save her from the games, Katniss nominates herself instead.

Director Gary Ross gives the film a gritty, handheld aesthetic that works for the most part, considering the rugged, earthy tones while in District-12. And the world is indeed very believable, especially the districts. But the problems are the cast of characters we have here. Katniss, indeed, is a strong female protagonist. However, she proves herself to be completely without personality, right alongside everyone else. A majority of the contestants in The Hunger Games event prove themselves to be faceless, nameless people merely set in place for the kill. One of the best examples is the band of one- dimensional, ‘evil’ teenagers. Cato (Alexander Ludwig) is the alpha-male leader by default. They are never given much sympathy. In fact, they are almost completely deranged. And yes, there are several others characters whose names they share with people of the Ancient Roman Empire—as if the symbolism wasn’t heavy-handed enough.

It doesn’t get much better. Katniss slowly falls for her fellow District-12 member, Peeta (Josh Hutcherson), who loves her dearly. This is where it starts to show its teeny-bopper roots. Unbelievable and underdeveloped, the romance works as only a gimmicky way for us to show some sympathy towards the two. It could have benefited from some extra breathing room for the characters to bond. There’s barely any time for that. The Hunger Games does flow well, though. It moves at a brisk pace despite the long running time (142 minutes). It does commit a few faults, which include numerous deus ex machina. Katniss, of course, is miraculously saved time and time again by the author/screenwriter rather than her own skills and abilities.

Okay, well, I’ll admit, I’m being very harsh towards it. It’s not a bad film—it’s well-made and the sense of foreboding and suspense are certainly there. It also shows some signs of intelligence. Katniss illustrates her warm-hearted nature by refusing to kill, and when she finally does, she expresses her anguish by attempting to wash the blood from her hands. Does this make up for the rest of the bloodshed? What about all of the other teenagers who were needlessly killed, manipulated and discarded for no reason? Katniss expresses her sadness when a loving, sweet character dies—but what about everyone else? Gary Ross and Suzanne Collins, as good as their intentions may be, created a film that exploits and relishes in the fight to the death of innocent kids. And I realized, as I looked around the theater and as the ‘games began’, that people were— ironically enough—excited about seeing the bloodshed. This can’t have been what they wanted, right?

2

[Brodinski]

The Grey (Joe Carnahan,2012)

http://cdn.screenrant.com/wp-content/uploads/Liam-Neeson-in-The-Grey-trailer.jpg

Let me start off with the plain and obvious: The Grey is a B-movie, of sorts. One of those releases that goes straight-to-video. But does that make it a bad movie, necessarily? Not at all. For what it’s worth, it’s undeniably silly and suspenseful at the same time. Liam Neeson’s performance is achingly real. As I see it, The Grey is precisely caught in the grey area between B-movie and a movie like The Edge (horrible pun aside). Despite its goofy but interesting premise, it’s a surprisingly thrilling ride into the heart of the wilderness, and man. Poetic, yet unrelentingly brutal, The Grey is a must-see film for those who long to see a classic existential, survival thriller. Oh, and the wolves are pretty badass, too.

A team of low-lives are on their way to a barren portion of Alaska to drill for oil. This is the type of group that one would probably send on a mission such as this: ex-cons and marginalized people with little connection to the outside world. This is primarily where the film works the best. Each actor does very well with what they’re given. Though we’re only provided with snippets of each individual’s life, the empathy, I felt, was surely there. Liam Neeson plays Ottway, a hunter who’s haunted by memories of his girlfriend. He’s an accomplished marksman. His existence is pretty shoddy, and at the beginning of the film he’s contemplating suicide.

As you might have guessed, before they can arrive, the plane crashes in a horrible storm. There are very few survivors. This has to be one of the most frightening, disorienting plane crashes I’ve ever seen. But on the contrary, the cinematography of the Alaskan north is beautiful and majestic. It’s big, open and at times still and somber. Since we’re often in the mind of Ottway, all throughout the film we are reminded of a poem that Ottway’s alcoholic father wrote, which is quite beautiful. It goes something like this,”Once more into the fray. Into the last good fight I’ll ever know. Live and die on this day. Live and die on this day.” The melancholic tone of the poem seems perfectly fit for the somber, grim tone of the film. Mix that with flashes of his girlfriend and we have a some very depressing imagery.

Though Ottway is a hunter, he’s never been the one being hunted. In the wild, there are no real weapons. His rifle was destroyed in the plane crash, so essentially all they have left are sticks and some useless rifle bullets. Ottway is the only real woodsman the group has to rely on. Some of the most unnerving scenes are the ones at night. A howling can be heard from not far off. These wolves don’t really seem like ordinary wolves. They are huge and unintimidated by man. Director Joe Carnahan holds nothing back when showing how brutal nature can be.

The Grey does slip into silliness from time to time, namely in the scenes where the team is devouring a wolf carcass and teasing the pack. Nevertheless, Liam Neeson brings his A-game into every scene. One of the best scenes in the entire movie is where Ottway is screaming for a savior, yelling into the sky, but to his remorse, no one answers. This leaves us with a lot of questions about Carnahan’s intentions with his film. It may be that he simply provides us with no easy answers. The Grey certainly offers us just that in ample doses.

3

Nice review, as per usual Justin. I was already pretty intrigued by the premise of this film, think I'll watch it some time.

[Tyler1]

The Hunger Games (Gary Ross,2012)

http://cdn.screenrant.com/wp-content/uploads/The-Hunger-Games-movie-images.jpg

On buses, in stores, and in libraries, you’ve seen them being read. The Hunger Games is becoming something of a phenomenon. Like Twilight, it is manufactured primarily for young adults (or YA) and does its best to deal with ‘serious’ subjects. But this is precisely where I find both of them to be disturbing and completely unnecessary. The Hunger Games, for those uninitiated, is about a post-apocalyptic future where adolescents and teenagers are pitted against each other for a battle to the death. Indeed, Battle Royale did it before, but there’s a big different between what the latter did and what The Hunger Games is doing right now. In the case of The Hunger Games, we have an author and filmmaker who are seeking to sell this pasteurized, ironed out science-fiction world, where all of the real disturbing nature of what’s actually happening has been cleaned up and removed so it can be sold easily and digested by young adults and 20-somethings alike.

Katniss Everdeen, played by Jennifer Lawrence (blander than she’s ever been before), lives in complete poverty in a district ominously named District-12. She resides in a future-world named Panem, what was once North America. She does her best to take care of her mother and younger sister with the use of her terrific hunting and marksmanship with a bow—and like in all futuristic societies, there’s an overbearing, almost totalitarian regime that does their best to keep all of the districts in line and impoverished. The Capitol— the hub of the rich and well-off— host an event called The Hunger Games. It’s an annual event that brings together all of the districts, as two contestants are selected from each one. Katniss’ younger sister is chosen, but in order to save her from the games, Katniss nominates herself instead.

Director Gary Ross gives the film a gritty, handheld aesthetic that works for the most part, considering the rugged, earthy tones while in District-12. And the world is indeed very believable, especially the districts. But the problems are the cast of characters we have here. Katniss, indeed, is a strong female protagonist. However, she proves herself to be completely without personality, right alongside everyone else. A majority of the contestants in The Hunger Games event prove themselves to be faceless, nameless people merely set in place for the kill. One of the best examples is the band of one- dimensional, ‘evil’ teenagers. Cato (Alexander Ludwig) is the alpha-male leader by default. They are never given much sympathy. In fact, they are almost completely deranged. And yes, there are several others characters whose names they share with people of the Ancient Roman Empire—as if the symbolism wasn’t heavy-handed enough.

It doesn’t get much better. Katniss slowly falls for her fellow District-12 member, Peeta (Josh Hutcherson), who loves her dearly. This is where it starts to show its teeny-bopper roots. Unbelievable and underdeveloped, the romance works as only a gimmicky way for us to show some sympathy towards the two. It could have benefited from some extra breathing room for the characters to bond. There’s barely any time for that. The Hunger Games does flow well, though. It moves at a brisk pace despite the long running time (142 minutes). It does commit a few faults, which include numerous deus ex machina. Katniss, of course, is miraculously saved time and time again by the author/screenwriter rather than her own skills and abilities.

Okay, well, I’ll admit, I’m being very harsh towards it. It’s not a bad film—it’s well-made and the sense of foreboding and suspense are certainly there. It also shows some signs of intelligence. Katniss illustrates her warm-hearted nature by refusing to kill, and when she finally does, she expresses her anguish by attempting to wash the blood from her hands. Does this make up for the rest of the bloodshed? What about all of the other teenagers who were needlessly killed, manipulated and discarded for no reason? Katniss expresses her sadness when a loving, sweet character dies—but what about everyone else? Gary Ross and Suzanne Collins, as good as their intentions may be, created a film that exploits and relishes in the fight to the death of innocent kids. And I realized, as I looked around the theater and as the ‘games began’, that people were— ironically enough—excited about seeing the bloodshed. This can’t have been what they wanted, right?

2

Agree with pretty much everything you wrote. Everyone i know seems to dislike this movie as well.

[Justin]

Post Mortem (Pablo Larrain,2012)

http://www.moviespad.com/photos/picutres-movie-post-mortem-6070f.jpg

Set during the coup d’etat by General Pinochet in 1970’s Chile, Mario (played by Alfredo Castro), a civil servant who makes a living typing reports for a morgue, is caught in the crossfire. He’s not involved in the politics, nor does he really have anything directly at stake during the takeover—but a woman he falls in love with, a burlesque dancer, named Nancy Puelma (Antonia Zegers), is indirectly involved with an underground communist party that seeks to have Pinochet and his regime ousted. Directed by Pablo Larrain, this piece of art-house filmmaking is top-notch in quality, but lacks the dramatic and narrative energy of other of the same ilk—like The Lives of Others—even though the last 20 minutes are gripping, touching and even terrifying. In Post Mortem, Larrain chooses to inject the film with a lot of dark humor and touching humanism, like Mike Leigh, but as a piece of drama, it doesn’t quite make it.

Mario is your lonely, awkward protagonist. Like most art house or independent films, the central character is usually encumbered by his or her inability to communicate with the world around him/or her. This is Mario’s dilemma. It’s not without its humor, though. But despite his inhibitions, he gives it a go and before he knows it, he’s out driving with her. With Mario, it’s difficult to say whether he merely has traits of the archetype or he’s just a cliche—he does have his moments of being harsh, or cruel, but his vulnerability is hidden behind it all. Surprisingly enough, this isn’t really a romance. It’s only getting started. It slowly turns into a drama when Nancy disappears, and Mario’s world is turned upside down. Even though the Pinochet coup was the backdrop, it slowly takes on more prominence as the film goes on—whether it really adds up to a whole or not is questionable.

Post Mortem takes its time getting to the second and third act (if this film ‘technically’ follows the three act structure, that is). I’ve never had a problem with slow boiling movies; rather, I find it to be more of a relief since it allows us to breathe and take in the environment and characters—Larrain is in no rush to get to the ‘point’. However, in this case, Larrain seems split on what kind of film he really wants to make. One side being the darkly humorous romance set in a tumultuous time in history (which seems strangely contradictory to the dark and violent time period) and the other side being a drama bent on suspense and the fear of being caught. Unfortunately, these pieces of the puzzle do not fit together properly.

Larrain has a strong directorial vision, and it’s even more evident with his wonderful cinematography and direction of the actors/actresses. As a character study, it is certainly interesting. Like the film, Mario is a mess of contradictions. It makes him likable as well as a little off-putting. This is what gives the film its life. He feels compelled to lie about his profession and turn away those who seem to really like him. One woman in the film, Sandra, (Amparo Noguera), genuinely likes him, and he rebuffs her with no remorse and it makes for a surprising and even cruel scene. And in the last 20 minutes, the characterizations come full circle and almost make the movie. Sandra, a mortician’s aide, is the most vocal character in the end. Her reaction to a mass slaughter is horrific and real.

Pablo Larrain’s interesting Post Mortem is flawed but definitely worth the price of admission for those accustomed to this ‘type’ of film. It needed more focus, and a better sense of what it is—rather than what it really wants to be. Larrain is terrific with characterization and could have made an entire movie with just Nancy, Mario and Sandra. It ultimately ends up feeling like another movie. Mario surprises us in the end, when a shocking reveal throws him over the edge. In this case, the term ‘civil servant’ almost seems contradictory. All the while, I found myself wondering if Mario was in fact sealing himself off from the world, pushing out the fear of persecution and war—instead, retreating back into his own solemn, lonely life at the morgue.

3.5

[nebbit]

Nice review Justin :yup: thanks :)

[Justin]

The Raven (James McTeigue,2012)

http://static.moviefanatic.com/images/gallery/the-raven-john-cusack_500x333.jpg

Edgar Allen Poe’s mysterious last few days are unknown to everyone, which only makes his enigmatic, often controversial figure even more intriguing. Full of contradictions, vitriol and self-praise, he was one of a kind. Poe jumped from horror stories with a philosophical spin to everyday mystery novels that could be enjoyed by critics and audiences alike. He spawned a majority of the genres we take for granted today. The Raven is none of these things. It’s even less: Poe is almost like a caricature, despite John Cusack’s acting prowess, which leads me to believe that James McTeigue is largely to blame. McTeigue hasn’t impressed me since V for Vendetta. It was indeed a really good movie, but the writing has not been solid since then (the Wachowskis were responsible for the screenplay in V for Vendetta). Silly plot line aside, since it doesn’t take itself seriously, The Raven never even touches the bounds of being a fun, entertaining drama. It takes for granted Poe’s sad, melancholy disposition and turns it into a goofy, over-acted piece of undramatic storytelling.

The Raven is as silly as it sounds: Poe’s stories are brought to life by a serial killer. Quite literally. A murderer is reacting his stories, even going so far as to include The Pit and the Pendulum. Somehow it manages to sound completely ridiculous, yet undeniably fun at the same time. It only manages to live up to one of those, and not the ‘fun’ part. Plot holes and messy storytelling aside, Cusack fails to sell the role. In the opening scene, where Poe is in the bar trying to grab a drink, he’s given the opportunity to steal the show and make the scene, but McTeigue sends him into an almost cringe-worthy rant. I don’t even know how this made the final cut. Nevertheless, Poe is summoned by the police force to assist in solving the case—seeing as he has some sort of mental advantage, even though he simply just wrote the stories. Like The Grey earlier this year—which I enjoyed—this film feels more like a made-for-TV movie. The SyFy channel premise gives even more credence to what I’m saying here.

Poe’s character in The Raven isn’t exactly the same Edgar Allen Poe you’d imagine. Instead, he’s more of a Poe-lite. His gloominess is played out as an ‘angsty drama’, and his sense of individualism and character are also missing. In The Raven, he almost comes across as a cartoon character rather than a real person with real problems—it almost makes a joke of the actual person. Why was he developed this way? McTeigue has never been a director skilled with subtlety and this makes it even clearer. Detective Fields (Luke Evans), who is partnered with Poe, plays the same note through the entire movie. He’s the gruff police officer bent on justice, essentially every stereotype imaginable. But what was perhaps most disappointing was the lack of chemistry between Cusack and Alice Eve, who plays Poe’s love interest, Emily Hamilton.

Severely disappointing on every level. You have an incredibly interesting figure in history and reduce him to a few cliches and make him overact to try and compensate. The Raven also slowly loses steam going into the third act and attempts to add on a twist that you could’ve guessed from the beginning. In other thrillers with a ‘gothic’ edge, like Seven, it worked because of the dark, disturbing atmosphere and unrelentingly brutal way in which the story progresses. Here, it feels like someone trying to do the same exact thing but not having the will to go much further. Needless to say, this one is a big miss.

1

[Justin]

The Secret World of Arrietty (Hiromasa Yonebayashi,2012)

http://parentpreviews.com/legacy-pics/secret-world-of-arrietty.jpg

Hayao Miyazaki is something of a wonder. His worlds have captured and stimulated the minds of young children and adults alike. From Spirited Away to Ponyo, his worlds are magical, lush and beautiful pieces of animation that are filled with secrets and mystery. Though he didn’t direct The Secret World of Arrietty, his spirit and soul can be found all over the film, from the environment to the characters.That’s not taking anything away from first-time director Hiromasa Yonebayashi, who has functioned as a key animator on just about all of Miyazaki’s films. But Miyazaki’s hand is so prominent that it’s like he directed it himself. The sense of delicacy and touching understanding of the human condition are palpable and very Miyazaki. This is a must-see film for all audiences.

Based on the story The Borrowers, Arrietty tells the story of a young Borrower, named Arrietty (voiced by Bridgit Mendler) and a sick boy named Shawn (David Henrie). She is among the few Borrowers remaining (tiny people who borrow things people won’t miss). Their code has long been “to not be seen by humans”. In this case, however, Arrietty’s curiosity gets the best of her. She longs for interaction with the outside world and to join her father, Pod (Will Arnett) in his Borrowing. They live under Shawn’s great aunt’s house, who has always had the feeling “little people” lived under her home. Shawn is sick, but his illness is only hinted at by several mentions of “heart troubles”. Despite her efforts, Arrietty is seen by Shawn, and events take a different turn. Her world is in danger now, with the threat of Hara, the irritable, nosy house keeper, looming over.

A lot has been said about the glorious, hand-drawn animation, but there’s much more to Arrietty than that. It’s a somber, elegant story which moves at a leisurely pace, like a fairytale. Though Shawn and Arrietty face their own dangers, the tale keeps a sense of melancholy. Miyazaki’s stories have always been surreal, magical and enchanting, but his characters are what have always shined through. Shawn is sick, as I mentioned. His operation is supposed to happen in a week’s time, and his hopes are sinking. Arrietty, by comparison, is youthful, exuberant and hopeful. Their interactions are touching. One of the most emotional moments in the entire film is when we see another side of him—a side that is withdrawn and depressed. For a cartoon, it’s pretty heavy stuff.

Perhaps the most surprising part of Arrietty is the bittersweet ending. It certainly harkened back early feelings that I had for another animated film, The Illusionist (Sylvain Chomet,2010). It caught me off guard. Then again, Miyazaki has never been one for the ordinary. Through all of Arrietty, he surprises us with new elements of his world: a “hunter”-like character named Spiller (Moises Arias), who glides through the air with ease, crickets that chirp, a cat that pounces on everything in sight and a crow that flies into a window, Arrietty’s raucous mom, named Homily (Amy Poehler) and so on and so forth—his worlds are full of vibrant creatures. Both Chomet and Miyazaki have proven themselves to be the two best animators in the world, and their worlds speak for themselves.

Needless to say, The Secret World of Arrietty is a treasure. What’s wonderful is that not all problems are resolved, but spirits are lifted, and much of the world is still left a mystery. Yonebayashi’s directorial debut is impressive. It’s clear that his tutelage under Miyazaki is working wonders for him. I encourage everyone to see this film, as it’s one of the few pieces of pure, original animation left. It feels lively, new and refreshing. CGI, indeed, dominates the market, especially the animated film market now. But this is evidence enough that hand-drawn animation can absorb a viewer into the world without 3-D or anything else. A good story, strong characters and beautiful animation do that for you—and that’s exactly what The Secret World of Arrietty accomplishes.

4.5

[honeykid]

Just wondering if you like(d) V For Vendetta or From Hell?

[Justin]

I liked V for Vendetta and I don't remember much of anything from From Hell. I'll have to rewatch it.

[Justin]

Nice review, as per usual Justin. I was already pretty intrigued by the premise of this film, think I'll watch it some time.

You should. Liam Neeson fights wolves, that's reason enough.

[honeykid]

I liked V for Vendetta and I don't remember much of anything from From Hell. I'll have to rewatch it.
I only mention it because Mark Kermode was saying that if you like those film, that this (The Raven) was in the same vein and might be something you'd like.

[Justin]

James McTeigue did direct both V for Vendetta and The Raven, but I felt that was as far as it went. One was a well-written action movie while the other was more like a cheap made-for-TV movie.

[honeykid]

He was refering to their comicbook origins and style, but you obviously don't agree, so you have, in fact, answered the question without knowing it. :D

[TheUsualSuspect]

I thought there was a Cabin in the Woods review here?

[Justin]

There was but I'm rewriting it. Way too many errors. Plus, I had a few more ideas.

[TheUsualSuspect]

Ahh, I usually just write the review and don't bother checking for errors. Which is why my inbox is usually full of people pointing out stupid spelling mistakes. :p

[Justin]

Hah, well, I must be getting lucky then. Because mine are usually chock full of half-completed thoughts and typographical errors.

[The Rodent]

Meh, mistakes shmishtayksh.

I thought your Cabin review was ok. Anyway, I'm a right stickler for correcting bad grammar but once I've sat for 30 minutes writing a review, I can't be bothered correcting half of my spelling.

My last review bad enough, I even missed out the last letter of some of the words lololol!

[Justin]

The Cabin in the Woods (Drew Goddard,2012)

http://blog.zap2it.com/pop2it/cabin-in-the-woods.jpg

Slasher films, almost inevitably these days, run off the same tired formula. It’s to the point of being their very nature. But occasionally, we’ll run into something smart and well-made, but it’s become so sporadic and inconsistent that I’m surprised that the horror fanbase hasn’t rebelled or caused mass anarchy--justifiably so, mind you. Joss Whedon and Drew Goddard take their mayhem to the screen and make The Cabin in the Woods crazy, entertaining and smart. It feels a lot like the complaints and gripes of every fan of the genre (and cinema, in general) is being funneled through their pens and onto paper. Instead of being a tirade, however, it’s an extremely clever and thoughtful deconstruction of the entire genre--which isn’t just limited to slasher flicks, mind you. They’ve also somehow included Cthulhu mythos and an aspect of science-fiction. Nevertheless, Whedon and Goddard not only bring us a refreshing take on the horror genre, but raise interesting questions as to whether or not a character in a horror film can maintain a sense of individualism and be capable of making their own choices and still be a part of the genre. Not only is this a meta-film, but a funny one, at that, making it that much more endearing. It’s a must-see for horror fans.

In The Cabin in the Woods, Whedon and Goddard are working within a framework. It’s clear from the start. With that said, it’s a genuine opportunity for breaking from the stereotypes and cliches while still making fun of them. We have the mandatory five friends (who all possess the stereotypes: the jock, the pothead, the ‘slut’, the heartbroken virgin, and the nice guy intellectual) who decide to take a trip out to a cabin and spend a weekend there. We’ve seen it all before. Where the film shines the most are the moments where we’re slightly unsure of what’s going on, or where this film is going--yet, we sort of have an idea. It may seem contradictory, and it is, but the uncertainty and certainty are both there. Like I mentioned before, this is a meta-film--our characters are burdened with choice with no knowledge of their future or even that they’re being handed an opportunity to change their destiny. Without sounding like a philosophical essay, it’s an engaging, yet unusual scenario.

It may seem near impossible to keep a film like this engaging and moving quickly, but Whedon and Goddard do so wonderfully. Goddard has done a surprising job of bringing the comically best out of their characters: Kristen Connolly plays the naive virgin; Chris Hemsworth the belligerent jock; Anna Hutchison the ‘slut’; Fran Kranz the pothead. They all manage to make their stereotypes hilarious. Fran Kranz (who worked with Whedon on Dollhouse), in particular, does a good job of overacting when necessary and even bringing out a sense of humanity towards the third act of the film. The script is, as always, taut and well-thought through. Whedon has always been a master of creating your three act structure scripts but somehow keeps a sense of surprise to his work. Strangely enough, he includes an element of science-fiction that harkens back to old horror. It’s a bizarre concept, but one that works exceedingly well. Drew Goddard, of course, can not be understated--his directorial hand is precise and thorough.

We as the audience demand certain traits of our horror, yet we still see the same slasher films over and over, despite our endless complaints. It’s a weird scenario, yet an accurate one that The Cabin in the Woods comments on. The Ancient Ones, in the film, could quite possibly represent our desire to see the virgin sacrifice, to see the jock get his comeuppance, or to see the necessary amount of blood and gore. Perhaps the film represents even more than a commentary on the stereotypes and cliches of the horror genre, but the human desire of seeing what we think those we disapprove of deserve. It’s an endless cycle of ‘what if’s’, though that’s precisely what gives it life. Who is watching who and so on and so forth, ad infinitum. Those looking for a few scares will likely get them, as well as a few viciously violent scenes that seem far worse than what we’re used to--they seem more real, more disturbing. It’s a weird movie, suffice it to say, that feels more complicated in retrospect. Everyone here has done some great work and it pays off very, very well. The Cabin in the Woods, I’ll reiterate, should be seen and hopefully, you’ll find as much there as I did.

4.5

[Tyler1]

Great movie review of a great movie.:)

[Justin]

The Raid: Redemption (2012,Gareth Evans)

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-c6QSa0gc3aw/T7JitzXzxlI/AAAAAAAAG5g/5uv8R6C9jUk/s400/mp1.jpg

The Raid: Redemption is something of a breakthrough for the martial arts genre. That is to say, it kicks all kinds of ass. Director Gareth Evans displays his love for the genre and the style of martial art called Pencak Silat. Between a high octane sense of urgency on behalf of the actors and a kinetic, Danny Boyle-esque styled camerawork. It’s truly a thrill to watch, and martial arts enthusiasts will surely be clamoring in to watch this what will surely be a cult classic on DVD/BR. Keeping with the MA genre, the plot itself is rather simple and straightforward. Evans has acknowledged his love for movies like The Assault on Precinct 13 and the influence is felt strongly here. But don’t let the simplicity fool you: it isn’t about the story, but about a display of unbelievably physical ability and a perfect chemistry between the cinematography and fight sequences. Suffice it to say, you won’t regret seeing it in the theater.

In The Raid, the scenario is quite simple: a SWAT team are sent into a seemingly abandoned building to extract a drug lord who has been renting out rooms to drug addicts and murderers in exchange for their services to him. We hardly take any time introducing our protagonist, Rama (played by Iko Uwais), who is moralistic and determined to accomplish an ulterior motive in this mission, which we know very little about. First off, quiet, soft-spoken Iko Uwais is spectacular at what he does. His athletic ability is unparalleled, something I haven’t seen since Ong Bak’s Tony Jaa. In The Raid, his acting chops aren’t quite as important as his ability to use everything at his disposal to escape an ugly scenario. Make no mistake, this is a throw-everything-you-can-at-your protagonist piece of cinema, and it shines all the more for it.

Of course, the plot isn’t without its twists and turns. Even in the beginning, Evans openly stated that this film was meant to be a show and display for the Pencak Silat style. And it is exactly just that. He also brings out the best in what little the actors have to work with; that is to say that they all competently bring their characters to life. It contains all of the ingredients that comprise a great action movie. Despite some criticisms over the violence and gore, Evans does manage to show us bursts of ugly violence that is portrayed in that way. They aren’t sugarcoated for us, even if the film is loaded with it.

The battle scenes are set up with a stationary camera that allows us to watch in full detail the Pencak Silat style (granted, I don’t know much about it, so I can’t be the judge of how well its shown). This makes for an exhilarating experience—truly a high octane piece of entertainment. This will likely be taken for granted, seeing as a majority of action sequences filmed today are done with a realistic, handheld aesthetic that numerous viewers have complained about (whether it made them nauseous, or just found it annoying). The Raid stays clear from that from the most part, though Evans does use it in several scenes, but luckily, never in the fighting sequences.

The Raid: Redemption is a tremendous amount of fun. It’s sort of an indie film for action/ MA lovers, that will undoubtedly please them. The genre itself has not seen much for many years now, but Raid may just be the shot in the arm it needs to finally put some energy back into a stale genre that was once thriving. It harkens back to a primal sense of action and thrill-seeking. It will likely quench the thirst many of us have for an all-out action film that doesn’t cut corners. It may seem simple, but that is exactly why The Raid pays off so well.

4.5

[donniedarko]

^ I've heard great things about Raid. Gonna get my hands on it as soon as it gets out on DVD

[Justin]

Do it. You won't be disappointed.

[Justin]

Snow White and The Huntsman (2012,Rupert Sanders)

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2012/5/30/1338383066347/SNOW-WHITE-HUNTSMAN-008.jpg


Instead of beating around the bush, I’ll go ahead and throw this out there, since we’ve all known it from the very beginning: Kristin Stewart is an awful actress. It might as well be mentioned, since it’s also a good springboard into the justified criticism that her performance has received. From the Twilight movies up until now, she’s somehow managed to capture the hearts and minds of tweens all across the world. Perhaps its her wooden, unresponsive glazed-over look of someone who either doesn’t care, or has no clue as to what’s going on; or more likely than not it’s that she’s just in the right series. I gave her more than adequate praise for her work in Adventureland and surprisingly enough, she did more than just stand there and nod. But Snow White and the Huntsman is a return to form for her. In the worst way possible.

Set in the fairytale world of Snow White, director Rupert Sanders has taken a different approach to the frequently told and retold story. This has a much darker sensibility than what we’v seen before, yet it carries a sense of familiarity. I’m speaking of the amount of “dark” fairytales that have been in production, on TV and in the theaters over the course of this year. We’ve seen it before, it’s nothing new. But in Snow White, Sanders has his hands full trying to surpass the other recreations—and unfortunately, he does not succeed. In casting Stewart as Snow White and Theron as Ravenna, he was taking a big risk in Theron completely overshadowing Stewart. This, however, doesn’t happen. Neither actress does much—one overacts (Theron), while the other is wooden. In spite of Stewart and Theron’s performances, the film faults on a basic storytelling level more than anything, though they can hardly be ignored. They are the central pieces, after all. Sanders has added in some new material to the story, but nothing that really makes it stand out.

One of the biggest surprises is how Theron’s performance is so over-the-top. She’s never been one to overact in the past, but for some strange reason—possibly Sanders’ direction?—she does a great deal of it here. To his credit, she is given more backstory than Stewart is, surprisingly enough. In a weird way, it is actually more of Ravenna’s story than it is Snow White’s. In the end, I felt more empathy towards the cruel Ravenna than I did towards the lily-white image of Snow White, whose personality seems utterly flat in comparison to the villain, Ravenna. As I learned more about Ravenna, the more I felt for her plight. Her brother, Finn (Sam Spruell) whose weird haircut can’t be ignored, is downright evil. Spruell, mostly an unknown, plays him to a ‘T’. Chris Hemsworth, the Huntsman, plays his role charmingly, while director Sanders’ visual flair attempts to elevate it from mediocrity.

Snow White and the Huntsman is an altogether unsuccessful film. Despite the strong sense of theme, as well as a striking ending shot, the film flounders around due to a weird sense of pacing and lackluster performances. But while the film doesn’t work, it certainly has its fair share of shining moments—the ending, some of the action sequences were choreographed well and the score, as well as an additional song by the band Florence + The Machine played during the credits. That may seem like very little to see a film for, which is why I’d say it’s a definite must miss. Nevertheless, Rupert Sanders will hopefully bounce back from this with a stronger cast and a tighter script.

2.5

[Justin]

Elena (2012,Andrei Zvyagintsev)

http://thescriptlab.com/images/stories/elena%20sff.jpg

Building tension is an art form in itself. Hitchcock knew that, and apparently so does Andrei Zvyagintsev. It is also quite apparent that he is a student of Hitchcock with his newest slow-burner, Elena; which is a follow-up from the The Return, another film with the same moral ambiguity. Elena would be classified as a modern film noir, if we’re looking to categorize cinema. Even the opening shot carries some unnervingly ominous symbolism, with a raven landing on an empty, autumnal tree branch and cawing loudly, making the only noise that can be heard. We gaze through the skeletal branches, through the window, and from there on, it’s all out of focus. This entire shot lasts a good five minutes (or a little under), yet it’s wrought with tension and doom. Somehow Zvyagintsev has us looking into virtually nothing and finding something to make us feel uneasy. This is most of Elena, until a dramatic turn in the story that most of us saw coming, but it feels just as unexpected. Elena is masterful filmmaking of the highest calibre; it epitomizes what a film noir can be.

Elena is a moderately happy housewife who married a wealthy, though cold, businessman. It’s clear she didn’t do this out of monetary gain, since she genuinely loves him. But when confronted with her son’s financial difficulties, whose own son’s future is at stake, she decides to take drastic measures when Vladimir has a heart attack and rejects her request to pay her grandson’s tuition. In Vladimir’s mind, a father must do for his son. There’s nothing wrong with this belief, since it’s not greed that drives it, but a strong sense of morality and ethics of what should constitute a father figure. Her endless love for her family is what drives her. Katya,Vladimir’s daughter, is another major component. There’s a lot more to Katya than what Elena believes. In that respect, it becomes all the more tragic.

The film manages to separate itself from the conventional noir by way of the thin plot. A vast majority of the film noir genre carry a convoluted plot—this is done on purpose, of course—but in the case of Elena, it’s straight forward. And all the better for it. Filled with sparse landscapes, desolate fields with low-income apartment buildings tattooed with graffiti, surrounded by chemical plants sending smoke into the air, all contrasted with the orange glow of a setting sun. There’s an unconventional beauty in the landscaping of the film, where we’re given typically ugly settings made beautiful, just like the dark, shadowed black and white grain of your classic film noir. It all matches up perfectly with the minimalist story. The Hitchcockian orchestral score highlights this contradiction with a soaring, tension-laden soundtrack. Between the soundtrack and the stark landscapes, it all underscores the inner conflict faced by our protagonist.

Elena is played by Nadezhda Markina to terrific, understated perfection. She hits all of the right notes. While there is very little going on on the surface, there is an electric undercurrent of feeling surging through her. Faced with decisions many would deem impossible and cruel, her reactions seem wholly human. In one scene that stood out in particular, Elena meets up with Katya, who is seemingly distant from her father. Katya is played by Elena Lyadova to bitter satisfaction, with an air of resentment towards Elena that is unparalleled and slightly inexplicable. She has life all figured out, or in her own way, as she believes adamantly that children are a waste of time, and that her father is a greedy womanizer. In this scene Elena is faced with the nigh impossible task of persuading Katya to visit her father in the hospital. Her rejection to Elena’s innocent request is shocking, but when Katya does agree to it in the end, her interaction with Vladimir is strangely touching. Zvyagintsev not only proves his skill with tone, but his prowess with guiding conversations effortlessly to unsettling places. His actors speak, but their true personalities are shown and often betray their words.

The consequences of a character’s actions, to Zvyagintsev, are not always shown. In fact, he seems particularly bent on showing a lack of consequence. We are left with an uncomfortable feeling with no knowledge of where our protagonist and the others will be going. This same uncomfortable feeling is accompanied by the sense of disillusionment with our characters who we thought we knew, only to reveal themselves as something deeper, more complex and independent. Elena, whose morality is shown to be the most ambiguous, is questionable—but her motivation for doing what she did is clear, yet it seems all the more unsettling for it. Like Vladimir, this is a cold world that Zvyagintsev has constructed; where the cool, beautiful autumnal landscape is differentiated by the rugged, urban power plants. It all seems perfectly contradictory.

5

[Justin]

Chicken with Plums (2012,Vincent Paronnaud)

http://www.filmofilia.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Chicken-With-Plums2.jpg

Based on the graphic novel of the same name—written and illustrated by Marjane Satrapi—Chicken with Plums tells a simple story, but one packed with her trademark humor, seriousness and surrealism. Perhaps even more so than Persepolis, Chicken with Plums is a film that meanders quite a bit, but it’s emotional power can’t be understated; it thoroughly details a musician’s history, future and present with great ease. Stylistically it’s very interesting and resembles some other films with zany visuals, yet it brings its own sense of uniqueness into the mix, making it an enthralling experience filled with Satrapi’s wondrous imagination. If you’re looking for a straight forward piece of storytelling, this might not be the best place to look. However, if you’re looking to merely engage with characters, learn a little about yourself in the process and find amusement and humor in the quirky surrealism, this will undoubtedly be a joy to watch.

Starring in Chicken with Plums is the popular French actor Mathieu Almaric. He plays the young violinist, Nasser Ali Khan, who has fallen in love with Irane, a woman seemingly out of his reach. It’s difficult to summarize, as the film sort of weaves in and out of present day, mixing up the chronology. But what it lacks in plot (I say that like it’s a bad thing, and it’s not), it makes up in the way it brings out the inner life of our protagonist, Nasser. There’s a lot going on inside of his head, much of his time being preoccupied with finding a replacement for his broken violin, which has driven him to his bed, awaiting his death. He’s an unusual musician, whose love for his shattered violin is only outmatched by his love for Irane, a former lover. His longtime wife, Faranguiss, is loving and devoted to Nasser—though she misunderstands him to some degree, through no fault of her own.

Like Satrapi’s Persepolis, the protagonists always revel in simple pleasures: the children in Chicken with Plums opening their mouths for snowflakes, the sound of a violin at night and Marjane’s love for rock music (the outside culture). She takes it one step further in Plums, where Nasser remembers his love for large breasts, which is brought to life by disembodied, hilariously large breasts floating in midair. Director Paronnaud did some great work with the meandering hallucinations. In one particularly great scene, Azrael has come to visit Nasser, who still lays on his death bed. Azrael is a horned shadowy figure with a biting sense of humor and wit.

Altogether Chicken with Plums is without a doubt a success. Whether it be the style, the humor, the surrealism or the heartfelt nature of the work, it’ll manage to please all audiences. Satrapi has a way with her characters. Her writing brings out the best and worse of everyone; where we’re able to see every flaw and every positive trait of our protagonists. It may seem common, but I assure you, it’s not. Every so often we have someone who can truly give their characters a sense of humanity. I realize I’ve not said enough about Paronnaud, and like in Persepolis, he has somehow brought her works to the screen—it isn’t easy; something so surreal and unique, and meandering. It seems Satrapi and Paronnaud understand each other quite well.

4

[Justin]

Declaration of War (2012,Valerie Donzelli)

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/sites/default/files/2011/04/19716096_a_l.jpg

Declaration of War is based on reality, and it couldn’t really be any grimmer—in fact, it could have easily of played out as a simple, emotional drama, something more like Babel. What makes this even more difficult is that the director, Valerie Donzelli, was directly involved with the events that took place—it was her son, along with her husband, Jeremie Elkaim, that endured these traumatic, life altering events. Her newborn son, Adam, is vomiting violently, having difficulty walking and his face has taken on an abnormal shape. They learn that Adam has a brain tumor, and his life is at stake. Yet in spite of all of this, Donzelli finds time to show us that her relationship with her husband and son never changes; it only grows stronger, and their times together sometimes produce humor and sadness in the same breath It’s nevertheless a tough subject, but one done with such compassion and understanding, it ironically makes it all the more difficult to endure.

Even in the opening minutes, we are reminded of the importance of humor and silliness in life. Elkaim, who plays Romeo, spots Juliette (Donzelli) from across a party where everyone is dancing frenetically on the floor. Yes, they are Romeo and Juliette, and they acknowledge this striking coincidence. Romeo flicks a peanut over to Juliette, who allows it to land in her mouth. For some reason, this became a very memorable scene in the film. Perhaps one that helps show their relationship at its best. All the way through, it reminded me distinctly of classic French New Wavers, such as Godard and Truffaut, whose early playfulness pervaded their work and made it all the more endearing. Montage played an integral role in the early French New Wave, and it does here, as well. It makes Declaration of War all the more effective.

But Donzelli will always be on point to remind us that it’s not all a joke. In fact, it’s deadly serious. In one memorable montage, the entire family is notified of Adam’s tumor and the results are heartbreaking. The togetherness of this family is shown with such ease, with dramatic and unrelenting consequences. It not only affects the parents, but the entire family. The actors all show it, too; they are all very strong in their roles, even several of the minor characters are natural and un-theatrical. Our leads, Elkaim and Donzelli, are an absolute thrill to watch as they live out their own history on screen. Even more admirable, is their ability to confront such a tough subject twice in their life— once in privacy with their family and friends, while the second time being in front of an audience. It’s the act of opening old wounds, thus pushing the healing process forwards. They remove their masks and show the most intimate, troubling time in their lives for an audience.

Shot with a loving, intimate handheld style, the film jumps from each event to each event with an urgency. But Donzelli never forgets to include simple moments, as well— which are usually some of the most important. She’s also included a voice over, also like early Godard and Truffaut, that doesn’t necessarily help progress the film along, but it actually helps us reflect on the events as they unfold. Discussions with family members are had, fights are had—sometimes all in montage—and it all is held together by a tight voice over that also adds a bit of comedy into the mix. It certainly isn’t superfluous. What also makes this film special is the ability to not only show how it unfolds in their lives, but also the consequences of each event. New routines are built that revolve around Adam, something un-saccharine in its execution. The theme of togetherness and his importance to their lives never once leaves the frame.

Perhaps the most emblematic moment of the entire film comes in the end. A film, typically, should be able to be summed up with one image. A family that has literally given everything for their child, so he may grow up happy and healthy. This is done with such unsentimental, yet compassionate storytelling that it brought tears to my eyes. I am not one to usually grow such attachment to each character, but here, I wouldn’t have minded watching another full hour of their life. But it’s not necessary. Donzelli and Elkaim have brought us something special, something personal in their lives. They’ve not only opened up a chapter in their lives that will undoubtedly have a lasting effect on the rest of their lives, but they have reminded us of the life-altering nature of cancer— and more specifically, childhood cancer. Indeed, it’s a tough subject. One that isn’t usually approached in film due to its delicate nature. We can thank them here for their daringness to do that.

4

[Justin]

The Dark Knight Rises (2012,Christopher Nolan)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_606w/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2012/07/16/Style/Images/dkrb8.jpg?uuid=QyPwKM9zEeGOVt_7--G9IA

The Dark Knight Rises really couldn’t have been any bigger. Not just the crowds, but in the scope of the work, where Nolan involves global, topical subjects ranging from renewable energy to politics. But the big issue is not the topics themselves, but the way they’re spread so thin. Rises is an epic affair that leaves you little time to stop and think, it ultimately feels like you’ve barely had time to breathe. I acknowledge that most of my frustration stems from my dissatisfaction with the ending, but Rises somehow manages to encompass all of our modern day fears within its extensive running time (which just might have been too short). The Dark Knight Rises is many things: chaotic, messy, apocalyptic, choppy and colossal. Despite all of the problems, it remains entertaining and I think even those sorely disappointed—like myself—will find themselves re-watching it just for the sheer thrill of the ending of a landmark trilogy in the comic book world. It’s as flawed as it is daring.

It’s been 8 years since Batman last showed his face. During that time, Bruce Wayne has become a recluse. Now he lives in utter solitude, growing a beard and spending his time doing….well, who knows what. Wayne has retreated into a dark place, and has withdrawn from his life as Batman and is now Bruce Wayne full-time. Naturally, trouble is brewing in the sewers of Gotham. A man named Bane (Tom Hardy) is building an army. Bane is an illusive, masked character with a booming, strong English accent. He’s built like a tank, skilled in martial arts and very intelligent. He wants to create a new Gotham; one without the rich and corrupt and where the people run it. Catwoman makes her debut in the final act of the trilogy. Played surprisingly well by Anne Hathaway, it’s difficult to put a tap on her personality. She seems to play both sides of the field, sometimes selfishly. Joseph Gordon-Levitt makes his second appearance in a Nolan film—the first being Inception—and here he makes little impact, through no fault of his own.

One of the biggest issues with Rises is the pacing and chaotic first act. In a film that feels urgent and apocalyptic, it’s normal that it should feel this way, but to an extent. Nolan seems to have forgotten to help us along a little, so we’re not left in the dust wondering what’s going on. Characters are racing around, Bruce is moping about and five other events are occurring simultaneously. It’s incredibly difficult to get your bearings. Even if just 30 minutes were added on, it could’ve helped us to settle in a bit more. Sometimes you just want a break. Luckily, we are eventually given some form of reprieve but it comes rather late in the game. Nolan has created a problematic scenario where he wants to give ample screen time to everyone, making this somewhat of an ensemble piece like The Dark Knight, he often forgets his protagonist: Batman.

It was always going to be difficult to top the greatness and near-perfection of The Dark Knight. This was going to be a huge challenge for Nolan, some might say insurmountable. But with Rises, his ambitions are epic in scope and almost too large. With that said, much of the action scenes are spectacular to behold. Like in Inception, Nolan has a knack for creating some amazing sequences. Much of them are actually the fights between Bane and Batman. Nolan is also known for chaotic action set pieces where it’s hard to tell what’s going on—this isn’t the case here. Along with that, there’s also a terrific scene in which a football game is disrupted and the stadium is ultimately destroyed by Bane. This scene in particular stuck with me for many reasons. Bane is looking to implement a new social order, and sports are often considered a luxury—a decadence—so this would naturally be one of his first targets. In the previous films, Batman usually receives some kind of new gadget from Lucius Fox. He does not disappoint here, either, when The Bat is unveiled. Some of the scenes of the craft gliding around Gotham are astonishing, especially in IMAX.

What would it have looked like if The Dark Knight Rises had been less ambitious? It certainly wouldn’t have had the impact it did on the audience, who either left disappointed or in a state of awe at the grandiosity of the work. After the sudden, devastating loss of Heath Ledger, it seemed near impossible to really bring a villain that could match his performance. Tom Hardy doesn’t have the charisma or the quotable lines, but it shouldn’t be gauged by how well it measures up to the Joker. Judging the film on its own terms makes this a substantially better film. I’d go as far as to say it’s better than Batman Begins. All of the cast do their best with what they have, especially Bale, whose performance in several scenes is as strong as any in the series. I can’t help but feel, however, that their performances are lost in the scale of the work. Nevertheless, this trilogy brought a seriousness to comic book films that were once scoffed at for their ridiculousness. While The Dark Knight Rises is marred by a cornball ending, it is without a doubt an endlessly enjoyable piece of entertainment.

3.5

[Sexy Celebrity]

The Hunger Games (Gary Ross,2012)

But the problems are the cast of characters we have here. Katniss, indeed, is a strong female protagonist. However, she proves herself to be completely without personality, right alongside everyone else. A majority of the contestants in The Hunger Games event prove themselves to be faceless, nameless people merely set in place for the kill. One of the best examples is the band of one- dimensional, ‘evil’ teenagers. Cato (Alexander Ludwig) is the alpha-male leader by default. They are never given much sympathy. In fact, they are almost completely deranged. And yes, there are several others characters whose names they share with people of the Ancient Roman Empire—as if the symbolism wasn’t heavy-handed enough.

I see no problem with this. 'Evil' teenagers? People can be evil, even teens. And there's probably teens among this group who enjoy the sport they're playing for some reason, just like people enjoy football and get really rowdy and deep into it. People might have trained these teens earlier in life in preparation for The Hunger Games and they may have had a thirst to be in it. It was probably exciting to them.

I liked the vile display of aggression that The Hunger Games features.

It doesn’t get much better. Katniss slowly falls for her fellow District-12 member, Peeta (Josh Hutcherson), who loves her dearly. This is where it starts to show its teeny-bopper roots. Unbelievable and underdeveloped, the romance works as only a gimmicky way for us to show some sympathy towards the two. It could have benefited from some extra breathing room for the characters to bond. There’s barely any time for that.


This didn't feel like teeny-bopper stuff at all. They have every reason to be attracted to each other and to fall in love.

Perhaps it is a bit forced that the other contestants didn't really develop emotional bonds like these two. The most forced aspect of the film is that

both Katniss and Peeta survive and win the game

But, I think most can be excused for the sake of being a movie and trying to tell a story.

It could have been a lot more darker. It does focus a lot on syrupy moments like when a certain character gets killed and Katniss tends to him/her, but, I think it was alright.

Katniss, of course, is miraculously saved time and time again by the author/screenwriter rather than her own skills and abilities.

Yes. She barely does anything to survive. That's right - I remember that now. She is always getting saved, usually by someone else. That did irritate me.

And I realized, as I looked around the theater and as the ‘games began’, that people were— ironically enough—excited about seeing the bloodshed. This can’t have been what they wanted, right?I was excited. It's thrilling.

I think The Hunger Games is a product of all of the reality TV, Survivor type programming we've seen in the past 10+ years. That's where the idea came from, I'm sure. I enjoyed it.

[Justin]

I'm glad you liked it. And thank you for taking the time to read my review.

[Justin]

Hara-Kiri: Death of a Samurai (2012,Takashi Miike)

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Observer/Pix/pictures/2012/5/3/1336058984860/HARA-KIRI--Death-Samurai-008.jpg

Hara-Kiri: Death of a Samurai is a remake by Takashi Miike of the classic film of the same name. Miike is indeed a prolific filmmaker, who has worked within a dozen different genres, so it should come as no surprise that he has changed his direction to samurai fiction. Most notably, he has built up a reputation for his work within ultra-violent filmmaking with a philosophical edge. Recently, his film 13 Assassins garnered a lot of well deserved praise for his stellar action sequences. Hara-Kiri is a different animal, but works much the same way. Miike takes his time working towards the finale, while telling a story about love, honor and betrayal. This one is something different from his other films, where unusual, atypical storytelling insists upon itself, along with characters who do not fit into any archetype take priority. Death of a Samurai is weighed down by its melodrama and saccharine staging, something the original steered clear from. Less time is spent pondering and more time is spent making each scene feel simplistic. Realistically, there was little to improve on from the original, so its no surprise that is falls way short of reaching those great heights.

In Feudal Japan, hara-kiri was a common practice by many shamed samurai. It was considered a noble act, that accompanied great pride and bravery. Quite simply put, it’s the act of disemboweling yourself. We are introduced to a samurai who shows up on the doorsteps of a renowned clan asking to be allowed to commit the act (also called seppuku). Kageyu Saito (Koji Yakusho) is this samurai. On this day, however, the leader of the clan begins to tell a story of another who requested the same right. It is granted, but when the time has come for him to do it, he attempts to bide his own time and then decides to abandon it altogether. With honor and pride being as important as they are in this time period, you can imagine the outrage of the onlookers and their leader. This impoverished samurai, named Hanshiro Tsugumo (Ichikawa Ebizo XI) is forced to do it with his sword, which is revealed to actually be made of wood. It’s a bloody, grisly death that’s difficult to watch. Miike doesn’t go as far as he does in his earlier works—thank goodness—but it’s no less disturbing. He doesn’t pull the camera away until he collapses to the ground.

If you’ve seen the original, there is no reason that you should see the remake. Miike hasn’t done much to really establish the necessity of his decision to recreate an already perfect film. It feels a lot like Gus Van Sant’s remake of Psycho, which was pointless and a waste of time. Neither film really does anything of their own, except change the actors and make the story a lot less engaging. It is worth noting that a lot of the themes still resonate strongly and they aren’t toned down for contemporary audiences. But it doesn’t save the film from being dull. For whatever reason, Miike added 3-D to his project which does nothing for the atmosphere. Every film Miike has directed he has always had his personality that reminds us that it’s him directing rather than a machine. That is unfortunately absent from this film. While 13 Assassins was a stellar action film, it had his trademark acting, cinematography and over-the-top violence. None of which can be found here. Granted, he hasn’t lost his touch. This is just an unimportant, forgettable film in his extensive catalogue.

2

[Justin]

Las Acacias (2012,Pablo Giorgelli)

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-KCnX4a-pYm8/T4VfBQT3z4I/AAAAAAAAB6w/3MJl8AbKnpU/s1600/LA.jpg

Las Acacias is an intimate portrayal of a man’s evolution; though small and unconcerned about larger issues at hand, it’s very focused on a man’s growth as a human being. Shot almost entirely inside of a lumber-hauling truck, it feels even smaller and uncomfortably claustrophobic. Ruben (German de Silva), a lumberjack and truck driver, is soft-spoken, reserved and he mostly keeps to himself. Strangely, director Pablo Giorgelli averts the archetypes that often plague films of this ilk; where they’re saccharine, over-the-top and usually provide us with an ending that tells us virtually all we will ever need to know about the future of these two people. Giorgelli, instead, chooses a different route. Although this road is less dramatic, it is entirely geared towards a thorough character study. Acacias is leisurely paced, often humorous, and completely and utterly humanistic. It is not without its fair share of problems, but they are difficult to notice when a film is this humane and kind-hearted.

Usually, in films, we are given a series of experiences (mostly profound, always life- altering) that change the landscape of our lives. They almost always change who the characters are on the inside. Las Acacias is no different, except that these experiences are extraordinarily small by comparison. The depth of the change is no different; it’s all working towards the same transformation. In this film, each event is small, almost imperceptible. Each ‘experience’ is more like a look, a gesture or an offering. Everything he does is physical. Ruben is stagnant, stuck in his way of life after many years of driving his truck by himself. When his boss, Fernando, asks him to carry his friend Jacinta from Paraguay to Buenos Aires, it changes almost nothing, until it’s revealed that she is also carrying her five-month-old daughter, Anahi. Clearly uncomfortable, making faux pas after faux pas, he stumbles through this short journey with Jacinta.

I’ll admit, it may seem difficult for this film to sound like it’s more than the sum of its parts. It may seem like nothing happens, but that couldn’t be further from the truth: a lot happens in such a short running time. Ruben goes back and forth with his decision to take her along. Perhaps one of the best moments in the entire film is when Ruben is resting in the backseat of the truck and Jacinta is sitting up front. She has just gotten off the phone with her mother. She’s crying. Ruben keeps his silence and nothing is explained. Giorgelli has deliberately chosen to leave us out of the loop with what has happened with her. Ruben is too shy to ask—or perhaps it just isn’t his place to do so. It is certainly one of the key moments (maybe even one of the most moving scenes) and the greatest indicator of what type of film we are watching. This is a short, sweet study of a man and a woman’s isolation from the world. In the end, Ruben makes one last courageous gesture, where he stumbles along, trying to find just the right set of words.

4.5

[nebbit]

Nice reviews Justin Thanks :)

[JayDee]

I know it's from quite a while back now but just had to rep you for your review of The Raid. Blind bought and watched it a couple of days ago, fantastic action film. :yup: And great review of it.

I really need to try and catch up on your reviews Justin even though I've not seen, or even heard of lots of them! :D

[Justin]

The Sweeney (2012, Nick Love)

http://media.tumblr.com/5060c395514c224765eed3ee6f14f8ea/tumblr_inline_miqnquErkk1qz4rgp.jpg

Cop movies are a dime a dozen these days. It’s become almost more commonplace to see morally corrupt officers of the law acting in their own best interests than seeing them protect the public. Like the current trend in Hollywood, the idea is to keep them in-tuned with reality. They’re stylistically gritty and usually the director attempts to inject the film with some sense of ambiguity so that we can still sympathize with the characters in spite of their flaws. But is it ever that easy? Even some half-baked philosophy about morality and the touchstones of what constitutes a human being could theoretically become routine and a parody in and of itself. The Sweeney is exactly that. Director Nick Love struggles with balancing a gritty cop drama (that might be trying just a little too hard to please fans of the cop drama) and a romance between stars Ray Winstone and Hayley Atwell. Both routes take a toll on one another, causing this UK cop drama to slog and creak to the bloody finale.

Ray Winstone brings his usual tenacity and even a little braggadocio as DI Jack Regan. He’s the head of a division in the police force commonly referred to as “The Sweeney”. Regan could most likely be compared to the likes of Detective Vic Mackey from The Shield, whose violent and unpredictable protagonist stormed the streets of Los Angeles with a fiery, reckless abandon. He is accompanied by Nancy Lewis (Atwell), who is his love interest. Lewis is sadly underdeveloped as a character. She seems to be inserted into the plot for the sake of a romance that’s more melodramatic than authentic (what exactly does she find so attractive about Jack?). Unfortunately, his love interest also happens to be married to DCI Ivan Lewis (Steven Mackintosh). Regan is also a mentor of sorts to George Carter (Ben Drew). Drew carries his own weight with a surprisingly solid performance that doesn’t quite match the ferocity of his counterpart, but nevertheless keeps the audience involved.

One of the biggest issues with The Sweeney is its uncanny resemblance to a CSI episode (only located in England) mashed up with a desire to be Michael Mann. It could be that because it’s based on a TV show from the 70’s, it still wears its roots proudly on its tough-guy, renegade cop suit sleeve, or it could be that director Nick Love approached it from the standpoint of a standard cop-thriller with no higher ambitions. Love mishandles a relationship that doesn’t seem to spark any real life of its own. It feels clumsy and artificial and doesn’t really push the story forward. While their relationship is under heavy strain due to the job at hand, which involves a series of high- profile robberies, the actual drama isn’t thrilling and utterly predictable. Fortunately, there are some really solid action (one very extensive bank shoot-out that might overstay its welcome ever so slightly) set pieces that truly shine in this procedural cop drama.

You might find it odd that I didn’t bother to sum up much of the plot. This is because there isn’t much of one. Much of the drama is within The Sweeney department, where DCI Lewis is doing everything in his power to shut down said division. Lewis finds Regan’s methods crass, brutish and unnecessary despite Jack’s accomplished history with getting results. Of course his wife, Nancy, having an affair with Jack has a lot to do with it as well. Regardless, The Sweeney is stuck in between trying to do two separate things—neither one of them working, either. Whether it be from a plot standpoint or a character one, it can’t focus enough to truly earn the ending that it gets. Director Nick Love is skilled behind the camera, there’s no doubt about that, but his sense of storytelling is lacking. There was enough talent in this film to make it more than watchable, but sadly I caught myself looking at my watch more than once. Truly a missed opportunity.

2.5

[Justin]

Stoker (2013, Chan-wook Park)

http://media.tumblr.com/5970e540be709a8e512a84cc23903e65/tumblr_inline_mheg68KlaC1qz4rgp.jpg

Oldboy has long been a favorite of mine. Chan-wook Park’s direction is risky and transgressive, and invokes a newfound awareness of social and moral grey areas that have not been treaded on in such a dangerous fashion in many years (though Gaspar Noe’s nihilistic Irreversible comes to mind). But since then, Park has created a career out of sidestepping stereotypes and societal norms. With his newest film, Stoker, he is constructing a different sort of film. Though far more classical in its execution, Stoker is a gothic piece of storytelling in the most traditional sense. Aesthetically and technically, this might be his most sensual and visceral film. While Oldboy induces a sense of disillusionment and confusion, Stoker is pure dread. and suspense. There are a number of directorial and literary references sprinkled throughout the film. Hitchcock is easily the most prominent figurehead that will undoubtedly be named in many reviews and criticisms. Even though Park’s direction and technical work are phenomenal, his material has let him down. Penned by first time writer Wentworth Miller (who starred in the T.V. show Prison Break), the script doesn’t quite hit the same high marks set by the direction. It’s merely serviceable, and that’s the problem.

Miller’s script is even reminiscent of earlier films, where a mysterious figure suddenly appears and wreaks quiet and unnoticed havoc on a simple family. One film that springs to mind is The Night of the Hunter. Though thematically different, they hit a lot of the same noir-ish notes. In Stoker, the story concerns an uncle who appears after the untimely death of the father. India (Mia Wasikowska) is an only child, who develops a fascination with funerals and death following his demise. She’s sort of like Wednesday Adams in her comedic obsession with darkness. Her mother, Evelyn Stoker (played by Nicole Kidman), does her best to connect with her daughter. They clearly have little or nothing in common. But almost immediately, her Uncle Charlie (played by Matthew Goode) shows up one day in order to help them cope. His presence is ominous enough, with his dark Wayfarers. He’s seemingly educated, well-dressed, and has a talent for cooking. This is recipe enough for suspicion.

Long-time collaborator and cinematography Chung-hoon Chung does great work here. This is perhaps his best cinematography to date. Park and Chung’ s insistence on a camera that seems to loom menacingly around our central characters, whose innocence and purity are contradicted by Uncle Charlie. While technically the film is exceedingly well-made, the script is unfortunately the weakest link in the chain. Perhaps the best actor/actress of the bunch is Nicole Kidman, but she is given very little to work with. Evelyn comes across as almost entirely secondary. She is a pawn for other characters to bounce off of and react, as opposed to her having any semblance of personality of her own. Matthew Goode shows little more than express a stable, deadpan expression that reveals or shows nothing beneath. He’s clearly miscast. Frustratingly enough, Stoker feels like an exercise in style rather than storytelling. Park’s intent is clear, however. They are meant to be a lily-white on the surface, while a dark underbelly bubbles underneath them, ready to show itself in the most violent of ways.

Unfortunately, Stoker doesn’t quite reach the heights of something like Oldboy or even Thirst. Instead its caught in the exact place where it insists that it stays: the middle. Park’s direction is excellent, but the lackadaisical writing doesn’t match up well with him. It often felt like the style was covering up for the lack of depth in the material, and the numerous literary and cinematic references were just coating an empty interior. But in spite of the problematic nature of the film, it still somehow remains enjoyable and very watchable. This is most likely due to Park’s love for the material and his utterly distinct way of directing a film. I’m afraid this review will sound far harsher than it should, but that is in due part to my disappointment with the film. However, one could arguably say that this might be the most watchable of Chan-wook Park’s films. It’s certainly easier to digest and serves more as “entertainment” than his other films do. Sadly, this was a little dispiriting for me. I certainly expected a lot more.

3.5

[Swan]

Stoker is fantastic. One of my favorite movies of that year.

[JayDee]

Nice to see you back and reviewing Justin. :up: Where you been?

[Justin]

Thanks. Oh, here and there.

[nebbit]

The Sweeney (2012, Nick Love)

http://media.tumblr.com/5060c395514c224765eed3ee6f14f8ea/tumblr_inline_miqnquErkk1qz4rgp.jpg

2.5
Bought this for $10 worth about that much :yup: