Change Your Image
thesouthfamily2-552-707097
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Lists
An error has ocurred. Please try again*Directors that I love, but haven't made enough films yet to be considered on the list*
Charlie Kaufman Spike Jonze Damien Chazelle Ryan Coogler Alex Garland
Reviews
It's Such a Beautiful Day (2012)
It's Such a Beautiful Day or: How Everything Will Be OK and I Am So Proud of You.
The film is actually three short films molded into one. But it flows so well as one movie. It tells its story with such importance and sympathy.
Early in the film, Bill recognizes that his routine (which he finds so strange) is his life. Any deviation of his routine is actually strange because its not the norm. It's this terrible recognition of what life is really like.
Bill shows signs of depression early on. Lack of sleep, loss of interest in what once made him happy, a stagnant inability to do anything, etc.
It's hard to describe depression to someone who doesn't experience it on a regular basis. And even if they do, it's still hard to describe because everyone has their own shade of depression; their own symptoms, as well as an inner conflict of intrusive thoughts.
For some people, it's just background noise, like you know it's there and it's not persistently going after you. However, for others, it's exactly that: everyday is a nightmare. You don't want to do anything; but you have to because nobody is taking care of you.
Your day is right there, laughing at you, making you feel small and you drag your depression around like an anchor. It ruins everything. Everyday is a nightmare; it's just a waking, unending nightmare.
They are no good days. There are just bad days and some days that are worse. That's the bar you've set for the lowest expectation. You wake up and you pray for a bad day like it's Christmas morning. If only everyday was Christmas morning; a bad day, not a worse day.
You also can't tell people about it because they think all you need is exercise and to smile more; however, I am tired of smiling.
Depression is much more than just feeling sad; it's also about being tired and filling unfulfilled despite your best efforts.
This film gets that and more. It gets through the horrors of depression and everyday life.
🥇100%
A+
Awesometacular
Better Than Sex
The Perks of Being a Wallflower (2012)
"And in that moment, I swear we were infinite."
The story of the film centers on Charlie, a freshman that returns to attend his first year of high school after being admitted into a hospital having suffered from depression. Charlie is played by Logan Lerman who is best known for his role in the 'Percy Jackson' films, as well as 'The Three Musketeers', '3:10 to Yuma', 'Noah', and 'Fury'. After struggling to make new friends, as many of those he knew before he entered the hospital won't speak to him, Charlie attends a football game and says hello to classmate Patrick, played by Ezra Miller. Patrick introduces Charlie to his stepsister Sam, played by Emma Watson.
Like Lerman, both Miller and Watson are terrific young actors and are among the very best of their generation. I remember first seeing Ezra Miller in 2011's, 'We Need To Talk About Kevin', a powerful family drama that everyone really this must see. His standout performance in that film has been burned into my memory ever since. Of course, many of us know Emma Watson for playing Hermoine Granger in the 'Harry Potter' franchise, but she also did a terrific job beside Eddie Redmayne in the indie darling My Week With Marilyn.
The supporting cast is quite stellar and absolutely worth mentioning as well. Nina Dobrev, from the television show 'The Vampire Diaries', stars as Charlie's sister Candace, a popular girl who is in an abusive relationship. Kate Walsh, from 'Grey's Anatomy', plays Charlie's mother and his father is played by Dylan McDermott, best known for starring in 'The Practice'. Mae Whitman, from 'Arrested Development' and 'Parenthood', plays a school student named Mary Elizabeth and Johnny Simmons plays the high school quarterback, Brad. Both of those young actors appeared in 'Scott Pilgrim Versus The World'. Other supporting actors and cameo appearances are made by Tom Savini, Paul Rudd, Joan Cusack, and Melanie Lynskey.
Charlie's life and high school experience take off after he attends a senior's party where he is accepted by Sam and Patrick's clique, called the Wallflowers. Thus, Charlie begins to not only find himself but is quickly able to find who his people are; the misfit, artsy, theater crowd that some of us probably knew and/or hung out with in high school.
One of the reasons I love this film so much is that it's more than just a simple coming-of-age tale about an outsider who finds out where he/she belongs. No, 'The Perks of Being a Wallflower' is so much more that just your typical high school film. It's emotionally gripping from beginning to end with engaging performances and a powerful story. In particular, there's an unsettling reveal that Charlie makes about one of his family members, which is both disturbing and yet it's what Charlie needed in order to move on with his life and to overcome his depression.
Another reason why 'The Perks of Being a Wallflower' isn't a typical high school movie is that we don't really know what year the story takes place. Therefore, the distractions of fashion and technology don't play a major role. While there are some vague references made to the late 1980's/early 1990's, the soundtrack then becomes one of the stars of this film. From everything that era had to offer, including David Bowie, New Order, Dexys Midnight Runners and one of my favorite bands, The Smiths, the filmmakers certainly knew exactly how to set up both the light- hearted, coming-of-age moments with the emotionally powerfully tone of the story.
If I did have one problem with the film, it would be the ending. It shows Charlie and Sam starting a relationship with each other. It bugs me personally because, in the book, it was stated that they would be better off as friends, but maybe they could be in a relationship one day. I thought that was a better message because it showed the progression of characters that Charlie and Sam go through Charlie realizing that Sam's friendship is more important than sleeping with her and Sam being OK with his decision of not sleeping with each other. However, the film's ending states that both are in a relationship, and it botches up the message.
Overall, 'The Perks of Being a Wallflower' happens to be a personal favorite because it's not your typical high school film. Sure, there are parties and cafeteria cliques, but the story delves deep into the most serious issues that young people face. Love, homosexuality, acceptance, religion, family, drug abuse, partying, popularity, sex, and mental health are themes that not every movie about teenagers goes into. Remember, this isn't about a group of horny guys who want to lose their virginity at prom. Rather, 'The Perks of Being a Wallflower' is a realistic take on the emotional reality that young people go through all over the world. And for that, I more than respect this indie gem that also has the rare honor of being directed by the same person who authored its novel.
So, please see this film if you haven't before. There are many characters one can relate to and I'm sure you'll find something about it to love.
Blade Runner (1982)
"I've seen things you people wouldn't believe"
Directed by genius film maker, Ridley Scott (Alien, The Martian, Thelma and Louise), Blade Runner is such a unique and intriguing entry into the sci-fi movie genre. While watching the movie, I was instantly blown away by how realistic this dystopian future was. It seemed straight out of 1984.
The story is based in L.A. during the year 2019. The film follows Rick Deckard (Harrison Ford), who's job is to track down and kill "replicants" (a replicant is a human clone that was used for slavery years before. By the time Blade Runner begins, replicants a considered illegal and now must be destroyed). While the premise has been done before, what makes it stand out above the rest is the theme of man vs. machine. Ironic that it's the machine at the end that gives the monologue about life, rather than the human characters. It's also ironic that aside from Harrison Ford, all the replicants are alive and cherish life and are more fleshed out in character development than the human characters.
Another aspect of the film that is exhilarating is the unbelievable, visual beauty that exists in Blade Runner. From the cinematography to the production design, everything about it seems real and alive. The film is over 30 years old; yet I can't find one thing in the film that looks the least bit dated. There was absolutely no computers used in the effects, and yet, the "Blade Runner" world looks completely authentic. Luckily, it's finally starting to be recognized as one of THE seminal special-effect films. I love how incredibly meticulous the details are. From Japan's influence in our country's future culture, to the neon umbrellas, it still looks like we're heading in that direction. Every building looks like it exists, every vehicle that flies passed the camera shines rings of light into the lense. It's film making at it's finest.
Perfectly fitting with the visuals of the film, is the musical score done by Vangelis. The unbelievably beautiful use of synth music blended together with blues and jazz is something that truly makes Blade Runner what it is. The soundtrack for the film has got to be one of the more underrated film scores I've ever heard.
As far as performances go, everyone does a fantastic job. Daryl Hannah,Edward James Olmos, Sean Young, and William Sanderson all created great memorable characters, but with out a doubt, the two people that really need the most mentioning are Harrison Ford and Rutger Hauer. Both Ford's and Hauer's performances are really unique and exciting. Deckard is one of the best protagonists and Batty is one of the best antagonists. The way Hauer delivered some of his dialogue is truly mesmerizing, while Ford's performance is more physical, but equally engaging. The closing monologue by Hauer at the end is really though provoking, and makes the audience question life.
Blade Runnner really is a director's film. This is Ridley Scott's movie, one can see him and his mind on every frame of film. Scott created things that no one else would have ever thought of, and that's why it's still remembered. It's still ahead of it's time, and it still makes people want to watch it over and over again. It's definitely a film worth multiple viewings. I wasn't a huge fan the first time a saw. The second time I watched I liked it just a bit more. The third time I watched it I liked a LOT more, and the fourth time I watched it I really fell in love with. Blade Runner is one of those films that, you not only like it more every time you watch it, but you like it more by a substantial amount.
Star Wars: Episode VII - The Force Awakens (2015)
"Chewie, we're home"
The Force Awakens is a continuation of the "Star Wars" saga, balance returns to the Force as the First Order, emerging from the ashes of the Empire, clashes with the Resistance, which includes scrappy newcomers as well as heroes from the former Rebel Alliance.
It's been awhile since we've seen a Star Wars movie hit theaters and the last one wasn't that great. Fans today are still not over what George Lucas did. Then the news came out about a 7th film in one of the biggest and most iconic franchise of all time, but that only made fans more worried. Everyone had doubts over J.J. Abrams directing a new Star Wars movie, because Star Wars is one of the BIGGEST movies ever and fans seriously don't want another Phantom Menace on their hands, but after seeing the movie I can safely say that J.J. Abrams nailed it.
J.J. Abrams broke his back making this movie, I mean taking on a project like this is a big deal. Abrams himself is a fan of the original Star Wars movies and while watching this movie I could tell. He put everything in this movie and it absolutely paid off. I can't imagine anyone else directing this movie and I think it's a perfect idea for a Star Wars fan (like Abrams) to direct the movie, because he knows his roots better than Lucas. Abrams really listened to fans and this isn't the first time a director did that, I mean with J.J. Abrams wanting to make a good Star Wars movie, he wants to get everything nailed down perfectly and the best way he could do that is by listening to what people what. Abrams did fantastic job directing this movie as he added a mix of A New Hope, the old school film making and a little bit of a Star Trek feel to it.
Daisy Ridley and John Boyega play new character's in the Star Wars saga and both of them are unknown stars to some people. Both of them deliver a great performance and their characters were enjoyable to watch. The characters themselves are interesting, you care for them and you have a little glimpse of their back story that makes you want to know more about them. All the characters in the movie are great and I'm talking about the old and new characters.
Now lets talk about the villain 'Kylo Ken' played by Adam Driver. This might honestly be the most fleshed out, human and understandable villain we've had since Vader, now I'm not saying he's the next Vader or he's up up there with Vader, but he is a menacing villain that's quite frightening at times. He's not the type of villain that's just evil or tries to have a clear motivation that's done poorly in other movies, but here (Without spoiling everything) is more than that. He was a great villain and just his presence can make anyone go silent.
I loved the use of the CGI in this movie. Abrams went back to original way of filming things and that's blending the CGI into the background that this universe is set in, and it's execution was beautiful. Now when I think about it, the whole movie is one big "f**k you" to George Lucas and how this movie avoids the things that we hated in the prequels (two of them is the use of CGI and Jar Jar).
To those wondering if Luke Skywalker is in the movie and again without giving much away, yes, he is.
Now for the flaws: A lot of people have said that The Force Awakens is basically a remake of A New Hope and I do agree on that. Some might have no problem with that and that's fine be me, but there were some call backs that felt a bit force (No pun intended).
I already talked about how amazing the visual effect's look, but some effect's were a bit noticeable. I think some of the noticeable effect's were some of the CGI character's. But all that a side, the rest of the effect's was really good.
Overall The Force Awakens is a great Star Wars movie and it feels good saying that. It's way way better than the prequels and Return of the Jedi. It's absolutely worth seeing.
P.S. Here is something for those people who are going to spoil this movie for others. "Those attempting to spoil Star Wars for others, know that it's the most attention you'll likely receive in life". - Quote by Chris Stuckmann
Reservoir Dogs (1992)
"Now listen up... There's two ways we can do this job. My way or the highway!"
Knowing now that Quentin Tarantino can make movies, it's amazing how well crafted his film debut was.
I give credit where credit is: right from the start, not only was Tarantino a great director, he was also a great screenwriter. In all of his films, he would set up his characters in any scene (from a diner, to an empty warehouse), and then put them through a stick-up that goes disastrously wrong. What would follow afterwards is a bloody aftermath.
This movie has one of the best casts you could imagine, led by the legendary Lawrence Tierney, who plays Joe Cabot, an experienced criminal who has assembled a team of crooks for a big diamond heist. The key to his plan is that his associates don't know one another, and therefore can't squeal if they're caught. He names them off a color chart: Mr. White, Mr. Orange, Mr. Blonde, Mr. Pink, and so on. Mr. Pink doesn't like his name. "You're lucky you ain't Mr. Yellow," Tierney rasps (which is one of my favorite scenes in the movie).
I feel this is where Tarantino is at his strongest: right from the opening scenes, everyone can tell they are in for a ride; these characters play off of each other so well. They can discuss anything from Madonna's "Like a Virgin" to the difference from a black woman to a white woman, and it would not feel uncomfortable. We as an audience can relate to them and feel like we're in the conversation with them. So much so that we want to butt in and contribute.
We see the bungled crime in flashbacks. Tarantino has a confident, kinetic way of shooting action: guys running down the street, gun battles, blood and screams. But the real drama is finding out who's the snitch in the operation. It's a good way for dramatic effect because we as audience don't know who the snitch is even more than the characters do.
Tarantino's stamp is all over this film, and it's amazing that this was his film debut. Great writing, great characters, and a great set-up lead up to a film I can watch over and over again and see the details that I have missed.
Lawrence of Arabia (1962)
"Truly, for some men nothing is written unless they write it"
An inordinately complex man who has been labeled everything from hero, to charlatan, to sadist, Thomas Edward Lawrence blazed his way to glory in the Arabian desert, then sought anonymity as a common soldier under an assumed name. The story opens with the death of Lawrence in a motorcycle accident in London at the age of 47, then flashbacks to recount his adventures: as a young intelligence officer in Cairo in 1916, he is given leave to investigate the progress of the Arab revolt against the Turks in World War I.
In the desert, he organizes a guerrilla army and--for two years--leads the Arabs in harassing the Turks with desert raids, train-wrecking and camel attacks. Eventually, he leads his army northward and helps a British General destroy the power of the Ottoman Empire David Lean's stunning film is often referred to as "One of the greatest films ever made" and one of the "greatest British films to cross the pond "and rightly so. So breathtakingly beautiful I even had the stunning colors in my dream last night and that score playing over and over again. As Spielberg said on the DVD" A film which is an inspirational to all" and I totally concur with that as I, like Spielberg won't to try direction in the future. This is the film that inspired Spielberg to make movies and the likes of Scorsese. So this is one film that no-one should miss.
A film of epic proportion and stunning visuals is overwhelming when you watch it. In modern film making it's unlikely that you will see a film so authentic as this. With the introduction of CGI, a film like this would not be made today! I doubt I'll give such a detailed review, as I am still spellbound by the film...still thinking about it's greatness. I will most likely repeat myself, so bear with me. It took 2 years to film this, but you can see the attention to detail in every frame. So well directed and so well put together with stunning visuals, which makes most films you've seen recently look average. If only films were like this now, I would be so much more happy! The screenplay has to be one of the greatest ever written. Every bit of dialogue, you want to hear and when there's no dialogue you are still engaged by the landscape and the spacial awareness of the characters-who so wonderful portray their characters, you can't help but feel part of the film.
Each actor's dialogue so brilliantly play off one another...again it's so wonderful to watch. Some outstanding performances from Peter O'Toole, and Omar Schariff, who rightly gained an Academy Award nomination, and Alec Guiness and Anthony Quale. By the end of the film, I didn't realize it was almost 4 hours long, which again shows how much I enjoyed this film. Perhaps it shows the shot attention span of people today as to some negative reviews I've read on here. That annoys me a lot. All I can say to people is this, it shouldn't matter the length of a film! That score has to be one of the greatest I've seen on film. I am still running over in my mind now, so well orchestrated it's unbelievable. Arabia contains some of the most iconic scenes in cinema history from Omar Scharrif's entrance to Lawrence standing on top of the Turkish train with a background of sunlight....it leaves me Wowed. Again that scene with the entrance of Omar Schariff, wow! One of the greatest entrances I've seen. So well photographed and directed, you'll never see such a scene like that again. Superb! Overall, a masterpiece of a film, which every single person on this site such watch. Such an amazing film...outstanding!
La strada (1954)
"For if its useless, everything is useless. So are the stars!"
A whimsical and often magical story that is one of Fellini's more linear and accessible stories. Not only is the warm heart of the story apparent, but the visuals, in typical Fellini fashion, provide striking background imagery.
Gelsomina (Giulietta Masina) travels with Zampanò (Anthony Quinn) to earn money. Together they journey and experience various people. Amazing performances especially from Masina coupled with an endearing score. Il Matto (The Fool) provided some laughable moments who meets his fate the last time he meets Zampanò. Simple yet striking screenplay with a sample lines: "For if its useless, everything is useless. So are the stars!" - The Fool. More of an emotional drama that have no direct or structured plot, which lets the viewer wait what happens to the leads. La Strada shows several metaphors such as the nuns (religion), The Fool (humor and realization that everything has a use), Zampanò (greed/selfish desires/loneliness/physically strong yet morally weak) and Gelsomina (a talent never given the spotlight/purity/innocence).
Inside Out (2015)
"Crying helps me slow down and obsess over the weight of life's problems"
The movie follows Riley (Kaitlyn Dias), a happy 11 year-old girl with loving parents, great friends, and a passion for hockey – thanks to subtle monitoring from her personified emotions. For over a decade, Riley's emotions – led by the exuberant Joy (Amy Poehler) – have helped their girl navigate the ups and downs of life, ensuring that even the most challenging days result in happy memories. When Riley's father takes on a stressful new job in San Francisco, the Minnesotan pre-teen tries to be positive about the family move, buoyed by the Joy's can-do attitude.
As Joy attempts to keep Riley focused on the bright side of life, the young girl faces disappointments that throw her emotions into chaos. In a desperate attempt to regain control, Joy tampers with Riley's memory logging system, which inadvertently leaves Joy and Sadness (Phyllis Smith) stranded in the maze of Long Term Memory. As Riley faces one frustrating situation after another in the world, Disgust (Mindy Kaling), Fear (Bill Hader), and Anger (Lewis Black) attempt to keep their girl from mental collapse, while Joy and Sadness embark on a dangerous trek back to "Headquarters."
After the release of Toy Story 3, Pixar hit a slump in their movies being lackluster. Moreover, fans were starting to question whether Pixar was collapsing, and whether they would be making any original films instead of sequels/prequels. It's clear, given the announcement of Toy Story 4, Cars 3, Finding Dory, and The Incredibles 2, that sequels are now a key piece of Pixar's production slate; yet, there's nothing quite like a fresh Pixar tale. Inside Out is the best Pixar film in years, blending thought-provoking human drama (for kids and adults) with an imaginative premise and whimsical adventure – a must-see for children, parents, and cinephiles alike.
Director Pete Docter, who had directed Up and Monsters Inc, has created a beautiful and dynamic film. The story setup and balance between Riley's real life conflicts and the fantastical internal drama of her emotions, is fertile ground in both visual sophistication and narrative punch. Riley's emotions color her view of the world – literally (through shifts in visual tone) and figuratively (as she reacts to events in the story). This combination of vibrant fantasy and real-world challenges is the hallmark of Pixar's most iconic and groundbreaking films, which depicts a deeply emotional story through unique perspectives.
For Inside Out, Pixar anthropomorphizes emotion – with a new set of colorful characters for young viewers to enjoy, while also exploring one of mankind's greatest mysteries: the mind. Delving into psychology theory, Docter injects entertaining but equally sophisticated insight into how emotions influence behavior – insight that affords Inside Out's audience a chance for self-discovery and reflection, regardless of age.
Amy Poehler leads the voice cast as Joy – a familiar fit (in all the right ways) for the comedy actress. Docter imbues Joy, along with the rest of Riley's emotions, with layered personalities – even though they're each representative of a single "feeling." The characters are ripe for gags that play off their emotional namesakes (ex., Anger is a hothead) but Inside Out manages to find a deeper level for the protagonists on the inside – the same nuance that differentiated past Pixar animation films from their contemporaries. As a result, Joy struggles with her own fear, disgust, sadness, and anger – breathing life into what could have been a gimmicky outline (while also contributing to the movie's larger message of emotional maturation).
Smith leads the supporting cast, providing the same depth to Sadness that is given to Joy – and, in spite of Poehler's energetic leading role, Sadness is instrumental in many of Inside Out's funniest and most impactful scenes. Kaling, Hader, and Black are given less to do, but their characters are not afterthoughts. Docter ensures each has a spotlight to shine in the movie, and makes it apparent that each emotion is essential in maintaining Riley's safety and happiness.
As indicated, Inside Out also makes a genuine effort to juxtapose the zany cartoon hijinks of Riley's mind with relatable and heartwarming real-world drama. Docter dedicates a significant amount of his runtime to life in San Francisco, as Riley and her parents endeavor to carve out a new home there. Thanks to Pixar's evolving depiction of CG people, Inside Out accurately animates micro-expressions and body language that are crucial in non- verbal comprehension of emotion. Riley isn't necessarily the most realistic person that Pixar has ever animated, but instead of striving for photorealism, the studio takes advantage of Inside Out's cartoonish style to accentuate human emotion – delivering some of the most expressive CG characters in animation history.
After years of cashing-in on established film franchises, Inside Out is a much-appreciated return to form for Pixar Animation. In an industry that is packed with CG animation studios, many of which have made significant strides in quality over the years, Docter's latest film offers a sobering reminder of the invention and heart that turned Pixar into one of Hollywood's most beloved (and bankable) brands. More than an entertaining film, Inside Out is an important reflection on the power of emotion – and proof that Pixar is still king of imaginative CG animated storytelling.
Jurassic World (2015)
Ushering in the Future by Honoring the Past
Jurassic World is the rare sequel that pays homage to its roots while offering up plenty of thrills on its own. While the depth of characters leaves the most to be desired, I can't argue that the film is a tried and true summer blockbuster that lives up to the hype.
The story seems to follow the 1993 original while none-too-subtlety kind of ignoring Lost World and Jurassic Park III. And you know what? I'm fine with that. We finally have the vision that John Hammond wanted to present - a fully functional theme park where dinosaurs indeed roam the Earth once again. A brand new multimillionaire, Simon Masrani (played by Irrfan Khan) now owns the park. It has made plenty of money over the preceding 20 years, but costs have also gone up. Thanks to head scientist Dr. Henry Wu (played once again by BD Wong - the same role he originated in Jurassic Park) the theme park has rolled out plenty of new "attractions" to keep the public interested.
PR head Claire (Bryce Dallas Howard) has just sealed a deal with Verizon to sponsor their brand new attraction to open up in mere months - the genetically-modified hybrid dubbed the Indominus Rex. But Masrani is a bit concerned about its security and calls on former Marine Owen (the always welcome Chris Pratt) to check things out before he signs off. Meanwhile, Claire's nephews (Ty Simpkins and Nick Robinson) are visiting the park and are given over to her assistant to worry about while she is off on pressing business. Owen is also dealing with an InGen (remember them?) representative (an oily Vincent D'Onofrio) who is impressed with his work with training velociraptors (in hopes that is leads to the militarization of dinosaurs in the future). Rounding out the cast are Jake Johnson and Lauren Lapkus as two computer techs, Omar Sy as Owen's right-hand man and Judy Greer as Clair's sister.
Introductions aside, none of these characters are really given more than a cursory personalty. It also means the "romance" between Howard and Pratt feels a bit forced and kind of extraneous. It's the main reason I have to bump it down a notch - that, and they spend too much time trying to establish these paper thin characters before moving on to the meaty aspects (and the dinosaurs).
That being said, once we are finally introduced to Rex 2.0, all hell breaks loose and things never let up. We have dinosaur on human carnage, dinosaur vs. dinosaur carnage and plenty of running, jumping, dodging and lots and lots of deaths. In fact, I'm surprised they killed off as many people as they did. For a PG-13, I think they pushed things about as far as they could (given that the U.S. is more lenient towards violence compared to language or sex). It might be a bit much for the young kiddos, but I'm glad they didn't tone things down much.
The reason I can endorse this whole-heatedly, however, is how much fun it was comparing it to the original. The cast lines up quite nicely with the original Jurassic Park crew (two kids, rogue, nice lady, rich guy, jerky guy you want to die) and not only are the characters reminiscent of the original film, but they actually go back to the original Jurassic Park at one point - and use John Williams' original theme to some nice effect. For me, it was a nostalgic look back while fully grounding itself in the now. I love the way its mixed old but still managed to keep things fresh.
All in all, Jurassic World left me with a good feeling. While I really wish the film offered a bit more depth in the character department, overall and excellent summer blockbuster and one worthy of carrying on the Jurassic Park legacy.
Gone Girl (2014)
"When two people love each other and can't make that work, that's the real tragedy"
One thing I can count on from David Fincher - he's consistent. Consistently great - as a director. From Fight Club to Social Network, no one can quite mix social commentary with a streak of dark humor quite like Fincher. And somehow, he can keep you on the edge of your seat - even if you know the outcome. With Gone Girl, he has done it again, and, if you haven't read the book by Gillian Flynn, do yourself a favor and don't spoil this one - because it's worth it to go into it with as little knowledge as possible. I will try to be as spoiler free as possible in this review.
We start off with Nick Dunne (Ben Affleck) heading out for the day to hang out at The Bar (yes - wickedly original name) that he owns with his sister, Margo (Carrie Coon). It seems like today, the fifth anniversary to his wife, Amy (Rosamund Pike) he would rather forget. Seems things are a bit rocky at the Dunne household and even since moving from New York to Missouri to care for his (now-deceased) ailing mother, the relationship has soured a bit from the heady, happy days when they were both employed and hadn't fallen into such a rut.
Things go from bad to worse when Nick returns home to find his door open, Amy gone and a broken table. Enter Detective Rhonda Boney (Amy Dickens) a by-the-books cop who wastes no time in ascertaining the situation. Nick is fully cooperative, even as things start to shine a light on him. Soon enough he is hounded by the media non-stop, finds Amy's parents (David Clennon and Lisa Banes) turning against him - along with public sentiment, as secrets are uncovered and he learns some disturbing information about his wife's past. Needless to say, there is a much deeper plot afoot - one long in the making that will have lasting implications on the lives of the people involved.
Gone Girl isn't just about the characters, even though they are greet. Affleck stated that he studied many real life crime cases to play the role of Nick Dunne - especially Scott Peterson - and he nails the part. And Pike is even better as Amy - just when you think you know her character, the film throws in a completely new angle and, needless to say, it gets better with every twist. But the supporting characters are great - even Tyler Perry, a man I thought would forever be ingrained in my mind as "that dude who dresses up to play Madea" is good in his role as a hotshot lawyer known for defending husbands in trouble. Look for Missi Pyle as dead ringer for witch hunt queen Nancy Grace as well as Sela Ward as a top network interviewer (ala Diane Sawyer).
The media plays just a big a role in this film as the characters - and that is where Fincher takes his social commentary. I know - I watch CNN every morning and if there is one thing the media is great at - is jumping the gun. How many times has a person gone from victim to villain or vice versa? Remember how we treated the "Olympic bomber" Richard Jewell? If not - his case is a prime example of how quickly a life can be ruined by media speculation. The media here is always present - TVs are always on in the background - a smile and a selfie become damning evidence and talking heads and online comments spiral out of control. It is fascination and disquieting just how effective the film is at portraying the media.
Aside from that, the story is riveting, although you are sure to see some of the twists in advance, watching how it plays out is a great way to spend the time. The ending may be a bit abrupt, but essentially if gives you an open-ended way to end the story - in your mind, and it can play out in so many different ways. The movie is long, but it moves at a brisk pace. There isn't much outright humor (aside from a few well-placed lines) but the underlying tone is there, dark as it might be.
Gone Girl is one of the better movies of the year, and once again I have Fincher to thank.
Mad Max: Fury Road (2015)
"Oh what a day! What a lovely day!"
It has been a long and troubled road to bring Mad Max back to the big screen - but it looks like all the behind-the-scenes drama was worth it as Fury Road is the best action movie of the year and, I would argue, one of the best to come along in years. What makes it work is the lack of CGI and the reliance on a lot of amazing stunt work as well as the impressive turn from Charlize Theron who raises the bar for action heroines.
Despite being titled "Mad Max" Tom Hardy really plays a supporting role. The film opens with Max, who has survived the harsh future, where gas has become the hottest commodity, but not without sacrifice. He has lost his family, friends and has earned his nickname wondering if he is mad
or if it's everyone else. He is captured by a group of bandits run by Immortan Joe (Hugh Keays-Byrne) - who is hooked up to a machine to keep him breathing (along with suffering from some nasty skin lesions) but none-the-less controls his piece of the world thanks to controlling a source of water. He keeps a harem of women "breeders" as well as an army of half-life warriors (so named due to the radiation that shortens life spans). One of his high-ranking warriors, Imperator Furiosa (Theron) is going on a run to Gas Town and Bullet Town (not the most original of names) for a supply run - but soon after makes a detour.
Soon enough, Joe finds out she has taken his prize breeding women and summons all the forces at hand to go after her. This includes warrior Nux (Nicholas Hoult) who brings his "bloodbag" along with him (wouldn't you know it - Mad Max) so he can drive. Thus begins what is arguably one the longest, and most impressive, car chases in film history. Mad Max was filmed in Nambia, across vast deserts and canyons and about 80% of the effects are practical - stunts, makeup, sets and the like - and I think this greatly enhances the tone and impact of the film.
The film is very visceral - you feel the action, the explosions, gunshots, crashes - it's all very in- your-face and unrelenting. Despite that, unlike, say, Transformers, the action is also much easier to follow. It's intense, and often over-the-top, but it never feels fake or cheesy. And the characters - man, if you want female empowerment in action, look no further. If Theron could kill you with a look - she would have taken out entire armies with the dagger stares she throws out in Fury Road. She cranks things up to 11 and never lets down on the gas. And she is surrounded by a supporting cast - Rosie Huntington-Whiteley, Riley Keough, Zoë Kravitz, Megan Gale, Melissa Jaffer, Abbey Lee and Courtney Eaton - that gives women everywhere a reason to cheer. From toting sniper rifles and explosive spears to shotguns, handguns and even knives - thought they may appear to be fragile and scared, these women know how to fight.
The men in the films (given names like Rictus Erectus, Slit, The People Eater, The Organic Mechanic and The Doof Warrior) are all either twisted, unhinged or insane - yes, even Max himself isn't exactly "hero" material. The characters all seem to suffer from some malignant sickness (likely due to the radiation) or mutilation. They are mean, ugly and ruthless. When someone gets their face blown off or is crushed under the wheels of a vehicle, you don't feel bad. Mad Max doesn't exactly glorify its brutal violence, but neither does it shy away from it.
For pure action, you're not likely to find another film that delivers in such a way as Fury Road. It never hides what it is but, surprisingly, for all this action it does have a good plot, one that provides a nice commentary on how we view and treat women, and the dangers of following the wrong man (or even the right one, sometimes). Enjoy the action, sure, but know there are layers under all that grit that make a lot more sense than all the mindless movies Hollywood tends to throw at us.
Kingsman: The Secret Service (2014)
"Manners Maketh Man"
Matthew Vaugh, director of "Kick-Ass" and "X-Men: First Class" once again succeeds in adapting a comic with "Kingsman: The Secret Service". While the film takes a few liberties with the original Secret Service story, the movie ultimately delivers an outrageously fun take on the spy movie genre – one that should appeal to fans of the series as well as moviegoers who are in the mood for cartoonish violence and action. Certain elements might be a little too crude for sensitive viewers but Vaughn's film includes enough crowd pleasing laughs, stylized fight choreography, and slick spy gadgets to make it an easy recommendation for casual moviegoers in search of popcorn entertainment.
Kingsman relies heavily on toying with genre expectations. It retrofits spy movie tropes (gentleman who are super spies, twisted villains, and zany henchmen) with modern filmmaking aesthetics. The core storyline and character outright acknowledge these parallels to humorous affect; though, the film itself is still locked in a relatively stock spy outline (a game of cat and mouse between heroes and villains) paired with the familiar tale of a scrappy young person given the chance to do something extraordinary with their life – assuming they are bold enough to take it. Vaughn's moment to moment execution supplies a constant stream of sharp action, enjoyable characters, and clever pop culture nods.
In fact, while recent James Bond films continue to retrace 007′s signature style, Kingsman presents a hyper-stylized variation that, without question, offers some of the best fight choreography that moviegoers will have seen in the spy genre as of late. The tone can be tongue-in-cheek, and gags are lewd, but Kingsman isn't just a silly spy romp either - there's a heart to the story that, in between all of the blood, explosions, and sexual innuendo, imparts thoughtful commentary on the men behind the suits.
For that reason, Firth (whose name had been thrown around years back as a possible candidate for Bond) furnishes one of his most likable and entertaining performances, in an already illustrious thirty-year career, as Harry Hart. Fans may never get to see Firth don a 007 tuxedo but, thanks to Kingsman, the actor proves he has the necessary charisma and flexibility to lead future action vehicles - often out-Bonding recent James Bond movies.
As stated within the film, a spy movie is only as good as its villains and the combined pairing of Jackson (doing his best Russell Simmons impression) and Sofia Boutella (as his bladed henchwoman Gazelle) are a fun set of opponents for Hart and the Kingsman. Unsurprisingly, Jackson is a scene stealer as Valentine – injecting laughable quirks that punctuate the character's contagious charm and unrepentant insanity. Kingsman also features a strong cast of supporting players – led by Taron Egerton as Eggsy. Even though Hart is the biggest draw of the film, Eggsy is the central figure of the story – as he transitions from troublemaker to a tailored suit wearing hero. To that end, the juxtaposition between the young actor and Firth is especially captivating and, often, heartwarming – providing a unique and layered mentor/mentee relationship that isn't often explored with such care in the spy genre. Rounding out the cast, viewers are also treated to genuinely fun moments from Mark Strong (Kick-Ass) and Mark Hamill (Star Wars) as well as Michael Caine (The Dark Knight Trilogy) and newcomer Sophie Cookson.
Vaughn and Goldman borrow heavily from espionage-thriller classics but through smart genre riffs and hyper-stylized action, Kingsman: The Secret Service manages to provide a clever twist on the spy movie format. Vaughn successfully balances a hefty amount of world-building, humor, action, and character drama into a tight two hour runtime – laying the foundation for a film franchise that, much like its main character, might be a little rough around the edges but delivers where it counts.
Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance) (2014)
"Popularity is the slutty little cousin of prestige."
In Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance), Michael Keaton plays former blockbuster movie star Riggan Thomson – remembered best for portraying comic book hero Birdman on the big screen (back in the 1990s). Fast forward two decades and Thomson is no longer a hot Hollywood commodity. Broke, separated from his wife (Amy Ryan), estranged from his rebellious daughter (Emma Stone), and forgotten by his once adoring fans, Thomson sets out to prove that he's not just a washed up hack – opting to write, direct, and star in a Broadway show based on the Raymond Carver story "What We Talk About When We Talk About Love".
However, when Thomson is unhappy with the actor cast as Nick in the production (Jeremy Shamos), he makes a last minute replacement – auditioning critically acclaimed stage performer Mike Shiner (Edward Norton) to take over the part. Impressed by Shiner's sincerity (and method acting approach), Thomson hires the quirky thespian less than 24 hours prior to the first preview performance of What We Talk About When We Talk About Love. However, when Shiner makes a scene during his first public rehearsal, Thomson is thrown into a spiral of self-doubt and fear – second-guessing his own talent, personal relationships, career choices, and begging the question: will audiences even be willing to love him again?
Birdman was written and directed by Mexican filmmaker Alejandro González Iñárritu. He's made a film that's both technically astounding yet emotionally rich, intimate yet enormous, biting yet warm, satirical yet sweet. It's also the first time that Inarritu,actually seems to be having some fun.
Birdman" is a complete blast from start to finish. The gimmick here–and it's a doozy, and it works beautifully–is that Iñárritu has created the sensation that you are watching a two-hour film shot all in one take. Working with the brilliant and inventive cinematographer Emmanuel Lubezki, Iñárritu has constructed the most delicate and dazzling high-wire act.
Through impossibly long, intricately choreographed tracking shots, the camera swoops through narrow corridors, up and down tight stairways and into crowded streets. It comes in close for quiet conversations and soars between skyscrapers for magical-realism flights of fancy. A percussive and propulsive score from Antonio Sanchez, heavy on drums and cymbals, maintains a jazzy, edgy vibe throughout. Sure, you can look closely to find where the cuts probably happened, but that takes much of the enjoyment out of it. Succumbing to the thrill of the experience is the whole point.
The actual story is focused on more personal matters: troubled relationships, artistic integrity, Broadway versus Hollywood, and the true definition of love. Birdman is about a father, husband, lover, business partner, and actor – not a superhero. Instead of an active plot point, Birdman is a shadowy figure from Thomson's past – one that, above all else, haunts him (as a voice to his self-loathing). He's a shoulder devil, rarely seen but a gripping source of temptation and self- destruction when the actor is vulnerable. The interplay between Thomson and Birdman charts a journey of risk and rejection - along with the pitfalls that accompany personal ambition and sincere attempts at artistry.
Iñárritu has produced an arresting tale of love and art in a time of viral videos and celebrity gossip columns but, in spite of the film's achievements, Birdman is not going to be for everyone. Potential viewers who are hoping for a lighthearted riff on comic book movie culture – where Keaton suits up (again) for action will probably be surprised, and possibly put-off by Iñárritu's contemplative and layered black dramedy. Nevertheless, those open to the film's experimental style will find Birdman provides a thought-provoking and inventive exploration of artistry, family, the difference between power, popularity, and prestige – not to mention what we talk about when we talk about love.
Source Code (2011)
"Everything is going to be okay."
"Source Code" is an ingenious thriller that comes billed as science fiction, although its science is preposterous. Does that matter, as long as everyone treats it with the greatest urgency? The "science" in this case is used to prop up an appealing story of a man who tries to change the past.
His name is Colter Stevens (Jake Gyllenhaal). That he is sure of. That's why it's strange when he finds himself on a Chicago commuter train talking to Christina Warren (Michelle Monaghan), a woman he's never met. It's even stranger when he goes into the toilet and sees a face in the mirror that doesn't belong to him.
How can this be? We are far from sure in the early scenes, which embed us in his confusion. Because some of the pleasure comes from unwinding the mystery, I'd advise you to stop reading now; Spoilers ahead.
Colter gains consciousness to find himself (as himself) in a secret Army lab, talking to a scientist named Colleen Goodwin (Vera Farmiga). He gradually understands that the commuter train was destroyed by a terrorist bomb, and that the brain of one of the victims was harvested for memories of the last eight minutes before the explosion.
But listen. Goodwin and her Army intelligence team believe that by rerunning those eight minutes, they can discover the identity of the terrorist and prevent a larger explosion that could destroy Chicago. This is because the terrorist unwisely detonated the small bomb as a warning, or something, I dunno. In the movies, evildoers love to pass out alarms and clues so they can be prevented from carrying out their schemes.
Now comes the human touch. As he returns again and again to those fateful eight minutes, Colter finds that he can remember his previous visits, even though for Christina and others on the train, they are of course happening for the first time.Colter begins to care for Christina, as well he might; As the conscious occupant of this borrowed body, he apparently possesses free will and need not duplicate exactly what the original memory donor did.
What we have here, setting aside the fancy editing involving the time travel, is something that looks like hard science fiction. That's a threatened genre. Movies with plots are threatened in general; much modern "science fiction" involves blowing stuff up. The good classic sci-fi involved starting with an idea and exploring its implications.
Characters in Duncan Jones movies should learn not to be so sure of things. But Jones has the right spirit, Gyllenhaal and Monaghan are adept at playing their variations on the eight minutes, and here's a movie where you forgive the preposterous because it takes you to the perplexing.
Interstellar (2014)
"Our greatest accomplishments cannot be behind us, cause our destiny lies above us."
In the not-too-distant future of Interstellar, Earth has been ravaged by an environmental disaster known as the Blight – forcing humanity to abandon technology and the dreams of discovery, in order to focus on basic survival. To that end, former NASA pilot Cooper (Matthew McConaughey), a widowed father of two, is now a farmer tasked with growing one of the planet's last remaining sustainable crops: corn. In a time when humankind has been asked to put aside personal desire in the interest of a greater good, Cooper has attempted to make peace with farm life, providing for his teenage children, Tom (Timothée Chalamet) and Murph (Mackenzie Foy), as well as his aging father-in-law (John Lithgow). Yet, even as conditions become increasingly dire on Earth, Cooper's thirst for scientific discovery remains.
However, when Cooper is reunited with an old colleague, Professor Brand (Michael Caine), he is offered a new chance to fulfill an old ambition. Informed that the situation on Earth is much more serious than he previously knew, Cooper is asked to leave his family behind (in an increasingly dangerous world) and set out on an uncertain journey into space – to find humankind a new planet.
Director Christopher Nolan has built a career on cerebral storytelling – starting with his feature debut, Following, in 1998. Since that time, the filmmaker has delivered one thought-provoking drama after another (Insomnia, Memento, The Prestige, and Inception) – while also setting a new bar for comic book adaptations with a contemplative three-film exploration of Batman (and his iconic villains). As a result, it should come as no surprise that Nolan's Interstellar offers another brainy (and visually arresting) movie-going experience – one that will, very likely, appeal to his base (those who spent hours pouring over minute details in the director's prior works); however, it may not deliver the same casual appeal that made Inception and The Dark Knight cross- demographic hits.
Interstellar is an imaginative movie, but a heavy-handed mix of personal sacrifice and theoretical physics doesn't leave much room for subtle storytelling (or particularly memorable action). For a film that is rooted in the love between a father and his daughter, Interstellar offers surprisingly cold (and often stiff) drama – albeit drama that is buoyed by high-minded science fiction scenarios and arresting visuals. Nolan relies heavily on lengthy scenes of surface-level exposition, where characters debate or outright explain complicated physics and philosophical ideas, to educate the audience and ruminate on humanity (both good and bad) in the face of death and destruction.
Unlike Nolan's earlier works, the filmmaker's passion is most apparent in his science (based on the theories of physicist Kip Thorne) - rather than his characters. This isn't to say that Interstellar doesn't provide worthwhile drama, but there's a stark contrast between the lofty space-time theories and the often melodramatic characters that populate the story.
McConaughey ensures his lead character is likable as well as relatable, and manages to keep exposition-heavy scenes engaging. Still, despite a 169 minute runtime, Interstellar never really develops its central heroes beyond anything but static outlines – and Cooper is no exception. Viewers will root for him, and come to understand what he cherishes and believes about humanity, but any major revelations come from what happens to him – not necessarily what he brings to the table or how he evolves through his experiences.
The same can be said with regard to the supporting cast. Everyone involved provides a quality turn in their respective roles, but they're shackled by straightforward arcs – limited exposition machines that add to the film's thematic commentary and/or advance the plot, but aren't particularly well-realized or as impactful as Nolan intends. To that end, in a cast that includes Anne Hathaway, Jessica Chastain, Casey Affleck, and Matt Damon, two of the most memorable characters are actually non-humans - quadrilateral-shaped robots, TARS and CASE, that aid the crew on their adventure (and inject much-needed humor into the proceedings).
Casual film-goers who were wowed by the director's recent filmography may find that Interstellar isn't as accessible as Nolan's prior blockbuster movies – and dedicates too much time unpacking dense scientific theories. Nevertheless, while the movie might not deliver as much action and humor as a typical Hollywood space adventure, the filmmaker succeeds in once again producing a thought-provoking piece of science fiction. For fans who genuinely enjoy cerebral films that require some interpretation, Interstellar should offer a satisfying next installment in Nolan's well-respected career.
That said, for viewers who are simply looking to get lost in a thrilling adventure with memorable characters (from the director of Inception and The Dark Knight), Interstellar may not provide enough traditional entertainment value to balance out its brainy scientific theorizing. On many levels, it's a very good film, but Interstellar could leave certain moviegoers underwhelmed – and feeling as though they are three-dimensional beings grasping for straws in a five-dimensional movie experience.
How to Train Your Dragon (2010)
"We have... dragons!"
I really had no expectations the first time I saw this film. Frankly, based on the trailers I'd seen I thought it was going to be fairly hokey and formulaic. Imagine my surprise when I found it to be a funny, heartfelt and action-packed movie for kids.
How to Train Your Dragon tells the story of "Hiccup" (voiced by young Jay Baruchel, but who I would have sworn was Christian Slater), a skinny, quirky pre-teen growing up in a Viking village. He's clumsy, intellectual and prone to inventing things using the crude technology available at the time. The village is a harsh place to live and the Vikings are portrayed as big, beefy, hearty men and women who have to fight not only the elements but invasions of attacking dragons, which they've fought for generations.
The Vikings in the village define their lives through their battles against the dragons, and Hiccup's father (Stoick, voice by Gerard Butler) is the biggest and bravest of them all – and the leader of the village. He thinks Hiccup is not cut out for dragon-battle despite Hiccup's desire for just that very thing (motivated in great part because he believes it'll get him a girlfriend). Hiccup is mesmerized by Astrid (America Ferrera), a blonde warrior in training who can hold her own against the boys her own age with whom she is training.
There are many, many types and varieties of dragons here, but the most elusive one – that not only has anyone ever seen, much less killed, is the mysterious and super-fast Night Fury. Hiccup uses one of his gadgets to bring down the Night Fury far from the village. Of course no one believes him, and he goes out in search of the deadly dragon. I won't say much more than of course Hiccup finds it (he names it "Toothless" for reasons that are apparent) and the film is basically about how they come to be friends. From Toothless Hiccup learns how to train dragons and appears to subdue them in dragon battle training.
I was concerned that the audience would be bludgeoned with some sort of "message" in this film, but instead I found the story to be uplifting and the message more subtle than that of Avatar – a film that this reminded me of with the scenes involving dragon flight and a battle towards the end. Yes, for the most part you'll know where this story is headed, but they actually managed to turn the story in a direction I didn't expect at all – something I can't say about the aforementioned other film.
I found the CGI animation to be very detailed, although a little more expressiveness in the characters' faces might have been nice. I particularly enjoyed Gerard Butler's performance – loved hearing him speak any time his character was on screen. Although you'll know where things are headed between Hiccup and Toothless and between him and Astrid, I felt the movie took its time getting there and didn't make it too easy for the inevitable transitions to take place. Toothless was a joy to watch – they made him a cross between the best aspects of a dog and a cat as far as personality and he was completely lovable.
Overall I found How to Train Your Dragon to be great fun with a big heart – it drew me in and I enjoyed it from beginning to end. Feel free to bring kids of all ages to this one, nothing in it is inappropriate or so scary that it would give the little ones nightmares. Personally, I look forward to seeing it again every time I pop it in on DVD
Ratatouille (2007)
"The only thing predictable about life is its unpredictability"
Remy is a member of a large family of rats (a horde, I think, is the word) who ply the trash cans and sewers of a Parisian suburb, just like good rats should. "Eat your garbage!" commands Remy's father, who obviously doesn't come off as a loving parent. The rats are evicted from their cozy home in a cottage-kitchen ceiling in a scene that will have rat-haters in the audience cringing ), and they are swept through the sewers in a torrential flood. Remy washes up near the river, in view of the most famous restaurant in tout le France. This is the establishment of Auguste Gusteau, author of the best-seller Anyone Can Cook.
Remy (voice of Patton Oswalt) has always been blessed, or cursed, with a refined palate and a sensitive nose, and now he starts skulking around the kitchen of Gusteau, his culinary hero (voice of Brad Garrett). Alas, when the monstrous food critic Anton Ego (Peter O'Toole) issues a scathing indictment of Gusteau's recent cooking, the chef dies in a paroxysm of grief or perhaps it is not a paroxysm, but I like the word, and the kitchen is taken over by the sniveling little snipe Skinner (Ian Holm). Lowest of the low is Gusteau's "nephew" Linguini (Lou Romano), who must be hired, but is assigned to the wretched job of plongeur -- literally, one who washes the dishes by plunging them into soapy water.
Linguini and Remy meet, somehow establish trust and communication, and when Linguini gets credit for a soup that the rat has saved with strategic seasonings, they team up. Remy burrows into Linguini's hair, is concealed by his toque, can see through its transparent sides and controls Linguini by pulling on his hair as if each tuft were a joystick. Together, they astonish Paris with their genius.
All of this begins as a dubious premise and ends as a triumph of animation, comedy, imagination and, yes, humanity. What is most lovable about Remy is his modesty and shyness, even for a rat. He has body language so expressive than many humans would trade for it. His eye for detail is remarkable. Every prop and utensil and spice and ingredient in the kitchen is almost tangible, and I for one would never turn off the Food Channel if Remy hosted a program named "Any Rat Can Cook."
I will not dare give away the ending of this movie; in my opinion, this is the perfect ending to a fantastic movie. It's heart-warming, funny, clever, and the ending monologue is very thought provoking. This is clearly one of the best animated films ever. Every time an animated film is successful, you have to read all over again about how animation isn't "just for children" but "for the whole family," and "even for adults going on their own." No kidding!
North by Northwest (1959)
"Now you listen to me, I'm an advertising man, not a red herring."
It's the ultimate reluctant hero story about an innocent man who is being chased all across the country by both the police who think he's a terrorist, and actual terrorists who think he's a government agent. Reluctant in finding the real agent, he goes on a quest. As the plot unravels and gets more complicated, he finds out the agent never existed (spoilers), and it was a decoy planted by the FBI. But now that he's assumed the role of the agent, he's enlisted to become the agent he was trying to prove he was not. It will make your head explode!
Cary Grant is phenomenal in the role, making quick comebacks and speaking rapidly; you would believe that someone with his personality would get in such a mess. It feels like a precursor to a James Bond movie or an Indiana Jones movie in my opinion: a suspenseful thriller that works as a comedy all rolled into one.
The screenplay, written by Ernest Lehman, keeps the viewer guessing but also provides answers in a timely fashion. For example, when things start going wrong for the protagonist near the beginning, we aren't forced to wait until the closing scenes to uncover the plot against him. Enough clues are provided early that the intelligent viewer can deduce what's going on and move to the next mystery. Such intellectual participation, always a Hitchcock hallmark, is sadly lacking in most of today's so-called "thrillers."
As is the case with many of Hitchcock's films, the director sets up his hero as the only one who knows the truth. His story is so preposterous that no one else believes him without a great deal of convincing. We, of course, sympathize with the hero immediately, because we know that he's sane and is the victim of a conspiracy - even though we don't understand what that conspiracy entails.
Of course, the hallmark of North by Northwest is the way in which Hitchcock develops tension. It only takes one introductory scene - the one with Thornhill and his secretary in a cab - for us to lend our sympathy to the hero. From that point, with a lone exception, we see things through his eyes. There is only one scene in which we are given information that the protagonist is not privy to - when the camera takes us into a government office to shed light on Thornhill's situation while adding deeper layers to the mystery. In fact, it's the complexity of Thornhill's trap and the seeming impossibility of getting out of it that builds suspense.
Hitchcock introduces strong comedic elements into this film. The result doesn't diffuse the tension, but offers an occasional break from it. For a '50s film, North by Northwest is also surprisingly forthright when it comes to sexual matters. There aren't many euphemisms or double entendres in the interaction between Thornhill and Eve.
From the brisk strains of Bernard Herrmann's opening-title fandango to its concluding gag of a honeymoon train speeding into a tunnel, North by Northwest is the apotheosis of Alfred Hitchcock's exploration of the wrong-man-pursued comic thriller and functioned in 1959 as a summary of the Master's career to date. Few films can be a showcase to the art of great film making (considered from a purely entertainment perspective). North by Northwest is one of them. I recommend renting it and watching it on as large a screen as possible
The Maltese Falcon (1941)
"The stuff that dreams are made of"
Among the movies we not only love but treasure, "The Maltese Falcon" stands as one of those films. Consider what was true after its release in 1941 and was not true before:
(1) The movie defined Humphrey Bogart's performances for the rest of his life; his hard-boiled Sam Spade rescued him from a decade of middling roles in B gangster movies and positioned him for "Casablanca," "Treasure of the Sierra Madre," "The African Queen" and his other classics. (2) It was the first film directed by John Huston, who for more than 40 years would be a prolific maker of movies that were muscular, stylish and daring. (3) It contained the first screen appearance of Sydney Greenstreet, who went on, in "Casablanca" and many other films, to become one of the most striking character actors in movie history. (4) It was the first pairing of Greenstreet and Peter Lorre, and so well did they work together that they made nine other movies, including "Casablanca" in 1942 and "The Mask of Dimitrios" (1944), in which they were not supporting actors but actually the stars. (5) And some film histories consider "The Maltese Falcon" the first film noir.
The moment that sticks out for me comes near the end, when Brigid O'Shaughnessy (Mary Astor) has been collared for murdering Spade's partner. She says she loves Spade. She asks if Sam loves her. She pleads for him to spare her from the law. And he replies, in a speech some people can quote by heart, "I hope they don't hang you, precious, by that sweet neck. . . . The chances are you'll get off with life. That means if you're a good girl, you'll be out in 20 years. I'll be waiting for you. If they hang you, I'll always remember you."
Spade is cold and hard, like his name. When he gets the news that his partner has been murdered, he doesn't blink an eye. Didn't like the guy. Kisses his widow the moment they're alone together. Beats up Joel Cairo (Lorre), loses patience with Greenstreet, throws his cigar into the fire, smashes his glass, barks out a threat, slams the door and then grins to himself in the hallway, amused by his own act.
If he didn't like his partner, Spade nevertheless observes a sort of code involving his death. "When a man's partner is killed," he tells Brigid, "he's supposed to do something about it." He doesn't like the cops, either; the only person he really seems to like is his secretary, Effie (Lee Patrick), who sits on his desk, lights his cigarettes, knows his sins and accepts them. How does Bogart make a character get away with making such a dark guy the hero of a film? Because he does his job according to the rules he lives by, and because we sense (as we always would with Bogart after this role) that the toughness conceals old wounds and broken dreams.
The plot is the last thing you think of about. The Maltese Falcon is a black bird (said to be made of gold and encrusted with jewels) has been stolen, men have been killed for it, and now Gutman (Greenstreet) has arrived with his lackeys (Lorre and Elisha Cook Jr.) to get it back. Spade gets involved because the Mary Astor character hires him to--but the plot goes around and around, and eventually we realize that the black bird is an example of Hitchcock's "MacGuffin"--it doesn't matter what it is, so long as everyone in the story wants or fears it.
To describe the plot in a linear and logical fashion is almost impossible. That doesn't matter. The movie is essentially a series of conversations punctuated by brief, violent interludes. It's all style. It isn't violence or chases, but the way the actors look, move, speak and embody their characters. Under the style is attitude: Hard men, in a hard season, in a society emerging from Depression and heading for war, are motivated by greed and capable of murder. For an hourly fee, Sam Spade will negotiate this terrain. Everything there is to know about Sam Spade is contained in the scene where Bridget asks for his help and he criticizes her performance: "You're good. It's chiefly your eyes, I think--and that throb you get in your voice when you say things like, 'be generous, Mr. Spade.'"
Shrek (2001)
The greatest fairy tale never told.
This is not your average family cartoon. "Shrek" is jolly and wicked, filled with sly in-jokes and yet somehow possessing a heart. All that work has paid off: The movie is an astonishing visual delight, with animation techniques that seem lifelike and fantastical, both at once. No animated being has ever moved, breathed or had its skin crawl quite as convincingly as Shrek, and yet the movie doesn't look like a reprocessed version of the real world.
The story follows Shrek (voiced by Mike Myers, who utilizes his Fat Bastard voice from the Austin Powers movie into the role). Shrek is an ogre who lives in a swamp surrounded by "Keep Out" and "Beware the Ogre!" signs. He wants only to be left alone, perhaps because he is not such an ogre after all but merely a lonely creature with an inferiority complex because of his ugliness. He is horrified when the solitude of his swamp is disturbed by a sudden invasion of cartoon creatures, who have been banished from Lord Farquaad's kingdom.
From there we have our plot: Lord Farquaad's desire to wed the Princess Fiona, and his reluctance to slay the dragon that stands between her and would-be suitors. He hires Shrek to attempt the mission, which Shrek is happy to do, providing the loathsome fairy-tale creatures are banished and his swamp returned to its dismal solitude. On his mission, Shrek is joined by a donkey named the Donkey, whose running commentary, voiced by Eddie Murphy, provides some of the movie's best laughs.
The expedition to the castle of the Princess involves a suspension bridge above a flaming abyss, and the castle's interior is piled high with the bones of the dragon's previous challengers. When Shrek and the Donkey get inside, there are exuberant action scenes that whirl madly through interior spaces, and revelations about the dragon no one could have guessed. And all along the way, asides and puns, in-jokes and contemporary references, and countless references to other movies.
No doubt all of this, and a little dig at DisneyWorld, were inspired by feelings DreamWorks partner Jeffrey Katzenberg has nourished since his painful departure from Disney—but the elbow in the ribs is more playful than serious.
Nowadays, actors who do voice-over work have starring roles with fat paychecks, and the ads for "Shrek" use big letters to trumpet the names of Myers, Murphy, Cameron Diaz (Fiona) and John Lithgow (Farquaad). Their vocal performances are nicely suited to the characters. I feel like each performance is given great care rather than just having a celebrity do the voice.
"Shrek" unveils creatures who have been designed from the inside out, so that their skin, muscles and fat move upon their bones instead of seeming like a single unit. They aren't "realistic," but they're curiously real. The artistry of the locations and setting is equally skilled—not lifelike, but beyond lifelike, in a merry, stylized way.
Still, all the craft in the world would not have made "Shrek" work if the story hadn't been fun and the ogre so lovable. Shrek is not handsome but he isn't as ugly as he thinks; he's a guy we want as our friend, and he doesn't frighten us but stir our sympathy.
Monsters, Inc. (2001)
"We have a Twenty-three nineteen!"
Even though the premise of Monsters Inc. has been done before (monsters scaring kids and coming back to an office environment), this adds it's own creativity to it. It creates it's own world, it's own characters, and it's own reason to scare kids.
James P. Sullivan "Sulley" (John Goodman) and Mike Watzowski (Billy Crystal) are a monster duo that scare kids for the company that they work for, Monsters Inc. They need the screams of children because the screams power everything in their world. However, they're in tough competition with Randall (Steve Buscemi) for the most scares. The monsters one weakness though, is that they believe that kids are incredibly contagious and that one touch can kill you. When a little girl enters their world, chaos ensues and Sulley and Mike have to bring the girl back, only to discover a conspiracy within the company.
I'll just say what bothers me the most of the film: the evil conspiracy. While not bad, I barely could follow it. But to be fair, that's not the focus of the movie. The focus of the movie is the interaction between Sulley and Mike and the little girl, which they later name Boo. I like the irony of two monsters being scared of something as harmless as Boo.
The monsters, come in every conceivable shape, size and color, which must have been one of their attractions, and the movie is jolly to look at. And since the monsters are terrified of Boo, whose very name is a rebuke to their lifelong missions, there are screams and chases on both sides of the closet doors.
Speaking of those doors--turns out they're manufactured in Monstropolis, to such exacting specifications that no one ever figures out they didn't come with the house. The most entertaining sequence in the movie is a roller-coaster chase scene involving hundreds of doors on an endless conveyor line that loops the loop at a breakneck speed.
''Monsters, Inc.'' is cheerful, high-energy fun, and like the other Pixar movies, has a running supply of gags and references aimed at grownups
Ghostbusters (1984)
"We came, we saw, we kicked its ass!"
In this supernatural comedy that blends the paranormal, when Columbia University downsizes their science department, Doctors Peter Venkman (Murray), Raymond Stantz (Aykroyd), and Egon Spengler (Ramis) make the leap from scientists to Ghostbusters - investigators and eliminators of paranormal pests. When the team's first client Dana Barrett (Sigourney Weaver) discovers her refrigerator has become a portal into the spiritual dimension, the Ghostbusters come face to face with an ancient evil force with plans to destroy Manhattan and the world along with it.
"Ghostbusters" has a lot of neat effects, some of them mind-boggling, others just quick little throwaways, as when a transparent green-slime monster gobbles up a mouthful of hot dogs. No matter what effects are being used, they're placed at the service of the actors; instead of feeling as if the characters have been carefully posed in front of special effects, we feel they're winging this adventure as they go along.
This was a movie that was crafted in a way where its sincere, dry humor relied mostly on witty dialog and delivery rather than sight gags. It's the comedy, the acting, the writing, and the creativity behind the film that truly make it succeed.
The comedic genius of Murray, Aykroyd, and Ramis, coupled with the intriguing and exciting idea of ghostbusting (those proton packs are almost as irresistibly cool as a lightsaber from Star Wars), really make this one stand out. The guys play off each other like a modern day Marx Brothers team, lead by the ever-talented deadpan humor of Bill Murray.
But the idea behind Ghostbusters feels as though it could have been adapted from a famous comic book. However, its completely original story and realistic portrayal set in New York City really adds a lot to the film. While many of today's comedies probably would be more vulgar, more silly, and more campy (you can look at director Ivan Reitman's abysmal 2001 mistake Evolution as such an example), the comedy in Ghostbusters just seems more honest and real.
The jokes, the chemistry on screen, and the effects all fall into place. As entertaining today as it ever was, it's a classic to be treasured by all.
Guardians of the Galaxy (2014)
"We're just like Kevin Bacon."
Going into this movie, I had no idea what to expect. I had never heard of these heroes before, and I had little to no expertise based on the trailers and footage I have seen. I saw these footages, and I thought to myself, "This is either the greatest idea ever put to film, or the stupidest thing I've ever seen". However, I decided to turn my analytical brain off, and I give the benefit of the doubt.
This is what I got when I walked out of the theater: it's a sprawling space opera with a sort of interesting characters, a fun sci-fi romp through diverse and interesting worlds, wildly inventive action sequences, and an almost non-stop barrage of humor and fun. The Guardians themselves are a bizarre assembly of losers and misfits, with the CG-created Rocket and Groot providing some of the most emotional and human moments of the film, and it's all brilliant. In fact, they practically steal the show. This shows that Bradley Cooper and Vin Diesel should do more voice- over work in their acting careers.
I give credit where credit is due and first-time blockbuster director James Gunn did a great job. Gunn is mostly known for directing "art-house" and hipster films; however, in his first attempt at a blockbuster, he does a great job at realizing his vision for this world, because rest assured, this film wouldn't have been nearly as good with someone else at the helm.
So, maybe you never heard of Guardians of the Galaxy (like me). But I can tell you that this movie is a sum up of all this: a colourful, tongue-in-cheek fun, purpose-built for grown-up lovers of kitsch '80s science-fiction. Now for the next movie: they team up with The Avengers.
X-Men: Days of Future Past (2014)
"We are the sum of our choices, as what we do now defines what we will do."
X-Men: Days Of Future Past is a movie about the slippery paradoxes and mutable mechanics of time travel. Although the storyline was conceived back in the early '80s for a two-issue run of the Uncanny X-Men comic book, it feels like it was dreamed up especially to solve the problem Fox faced after 2011's X-Men: First Class: what to do with a franchise that's been split into two time-lines, with two sprawling casts? The answer, clearly, is to put all of it in a big pot and stir.
Coming back to direct is Bryan Singer, who seems to have himself jumped back in time. Whether he's been recharged by his decade away from the series, or by the prospect of eradicating some of the dodgier plot-turns made by Brett Ratner's The Last Stand, this is easily the most on-form and playful he's been since X2.
The action scenes in this movie are fantastic. The opening scene alone made me feel like a kid again: pitting young mutants against a teeming mass of unstoppable Sentinel robots. And that's just the beginning. Magneto's prison escape from the Pentagon is well executed and Mystique has some great scenes just on her own.
Jumping between the future and the past, the plot teeters on the edge of becoming exhaustingly knotty. Fortunately, the story distracts from any temporal muddles by zeroing in on three of the most charismatic characters in the X-universe: Wolverine, plus the younger iterations of Xavier and Magneto.
My issues with the movie are minuscule, at least for me; however, they are obvious. First off, Wolverine doesn't have his metal claws. I don't like his bone claws. And even though I do like the ending a lot (it's one of the best endings ever in comic book movie history), it means they have erased EVERYTHING about the X-Men franchise
even the good things. So that means the first two X-Men movies didn't happen, as well as the bad ones. It's now just X-Men First Class and this movie.
The best X-Men EVER, this sequel/prequel/reboot trashes the '70s with élan.), What's here is all good (with some minor exceptions). The characters are all good, and the stakes are really high, and the execution is well done. This is the X-Men movie I wanted, and now, I hope that they will make more X-Men movies like this one: strong emphasis on characters, action, stakes, and a good solid story.
The Incredibles (2004)
"I never look back it distracts from the now"
The Pixar Studios, which cannot seem to take a wrong step, steps right again with "The Incredibles," a superhero spoof that alternates breakneck action with satire of suburban sitcom life. Here's another example of Pixar's mastery of popular animation.
Mr. Incredible, the hero of "The Incredibles," is a superhero in the traditional 1950s mold, dashing about town fighting crime and saving the lives of endangered civilians. Alas, the populace is not unanimously grateful, and he's faced with so many lawsuits for unlawful rescue and inadvertent side-effects that he's forced to retire. Under the government's Superhero Relocation Program, Mr. Incredible moves to the suburbs, joined by his wife Elastigirl and their children Violet, Dashiell and little Jack Jack.
One day, however, he gets a message from a woman named Mirage. She has a lot of superhero duties to do, and he agrees to do it without letting his family know. But things go array when it turns out Mirage wasn't the one behind the superhero duties; but her employer, a villain named Syndrome, who a childhood obsession with Mr. Incredible, but now wants to destroy him due to what Mr. Incredible did to him in the past. Syndrome also wants to destroy all superheroes, then make himself a hero through any means necessary.
On the surface, "The Incredibles" is a goof on superhero comics. Underneath, it's a critique of modern American uniformity. Mr. Incredible is forced to retire, not because of age or obsolescence, but because of trial lawyers seeking damages for his unsolicited good deeds; he's in the same position as the Boy Scout who helps the little old lady across the street when she doesn't want to go. What his society needs is not super-deeds but tort reform. "They keep finding new ways," he sighs, "to celebrate mediocrity."
Anyone who has seen a Bond movie will make the connection between Syndrome's island hideout and the headquarters of various Bond villains. "The Incredibles" also has a character inspired by Q, Bond's gadget-master. This is Edna Mode, known as E and voiced by Brad Bird, who also wrote and directed. She's a horn-rimmed little genius who delivers a hilarious lecture on the reasons why Mr. Incredible does not want a cape on his new uniform; capes can be as treacherous.
The Incredibles," too, has special qualities, especially in the subtle ways it observes its gifted characters trying to dumb down and join the crowd. Kids in the audience will likely miss that level, but will like the exuberance of characters like Dash. Grown-ups are likely to be surprised by how smart the movie is, and how sneakily perceptive.
The highlight, and strongest point of the movie, is in the last third where we see The Incredibles team up to defeat Syndrome and his evil plan. Not only are the powers used to the maximum potential, but the climax is a lot of fun. It's action packed, well done, and very entertaining. It's a unique superhero movie because it focuses on the family rather than just one superhero. And the family is unique; the kids are energized, the parents are well written, and what they're going through is relatable (even in the world they live in). Not only do I consider this one of my favorite animated films ever, but also one of my favorite superhero movies ever. It's a must-watch.