I will be honest, I have not seen a notable film in a good while. I saw Hunger Games: Mocking Jay: Part 1, and, that kind of sucked. Other people have also written about it, so why waste time on a review when the movie in itself was a waste of time. So I return to a time where my film-watching habits were more consistent. I have never written about a film I hated, and thus, Dumb and Dumber is on the table. The sequel had just come out at the time, and I had not seen the original, which was conveniently on Netflix.
Let me start out saying that if I was in the fifth grade when viewing this movie (I will not even call it a film), I would have possibly found it the slightest bit funny. Maybe not, I hope fifth-grade me was not a complete imbecile. But, I digress from what I can sum up in one word: garbage. Dumb humor is dumb humor and Dumband Dumber even does that poorly. I never laughed throughout the entire movie, it was mostly just cringing at how stupid and misappropriated these guys are for any sort of place in society. There was even a part that stooped to childish poop humor, where Jeff Bridges has severe diarrhea and, apparently, that's funny. This movie is that diarrhea. The script is fairly conventional in structure (still stupid) and even tries to develop an emotional attachment to our idiot friends, but the movie achieved the farthest thing from success in that aspect. I also hated Jim Carrey's haircut. I did not, however, hate Jim Carrey. I think he plays the same character in all of his comedic roles (very physical, almost a lunatic), but he does it well like in Liar, Liar and in Bruce Almighty. The film was also very long for a comedy, at almost 2 hours. I was indeed bored near the end. I refuse to say anything else because the movie does not merit more of my time.
In short, Dumb and Dumber is dumb. Do not watch it because of an opinion your friend made when they were in the second grade, because odds are if they watched it again they would see the error of their ways. Do not watch it. Maybe buy the DVD and defecate on it and send the picture to the writers, I would endorse that. I do not understand how anyone today can enjoy this film.
Since I have not seen anything I have a dying need to write about in the last while, I am reviewing a film I saw about a month ago, Terrence Malick's The Tree of Life. After hearing about this film in the early part of this year, I knew I had to see it. A film that can have some critics saying it is an absolutely transcendent masterpiece and one of the greatest pictures of all time, and have others saying it is pretentious garbage that should not be given a second glance, is a movie that immediately makes my watch list. I disagree that this is the greatest movie ever, but it is extremely ambitious project that succeeded for the most part and somewhat failed in others.
To give a synopsis of this movie in the simplest way possible: The Tree of Life is an art film that attempts to tackle human nature in the broadest possible sense, watch the trailer above, it really gives the vibe. It begins with Jessica Chastain talking about as people develop, they either follow the beautiful path to grace, or the stern path of nature. The exposition to this film can effectively sum up how I feel about the rest of the movie. The beginning is a bit confusing as it is extremely nonlinear,
but what I got is the main characters are Brad Pitt and Chastain are husband and wife in the 1950's, and they lose a son. Their oldest son (Sean Penn) is seen in the present day and he is confused about life (Nothing is explicitly shown). This is followed by, as Mr. D put it, a Discovery Channel documentary of the birth of the universe, earth, and a section with dinosaurs. The section with the birth of the universe is almost awe-inspiringly beautiful with the help of a fantastic score throughout, but it drags on for far too long. I have this voice for when I think someone is being pretentious and artsy, and I would use the voice here. It's something like "Ooohooo look at me I'm so artsy, I, like, get humanity and how we are so. like, small and the big bang was so big and pretty ooohooo". The dinosaur section's message is very obvious in its relation to human nature and a bit strange as CGI dinosaurs are just so out of place with the otherwise fantastically done visuals. But then the story of the parents goes back to when they first have children, and I was in tears at how well raw emotion was captured without much dialogue. It was all excellent music, and absolutely suburb cinematography (I have come to the conclusion that Emmanuel Lubezki is a master at his trade).
The film continues to have breath-taking visuals, and excellent music as the story continues. The raw emotional moments are powerful sometimes, but other times lackluster, especially the ending. As the main characters' children grow up, we see them form their ways towards nature or grace, taking after their parents. Brad Pitt is nature, as he is a stern ex-military. Jessica Chastain is grace, she is elegant and beautiful. It seems to be obvious in which one Mallick thinks is the better path, and I say that may be the films message or a flawed approach to the storytelling. The performances are fine, but the child actor who plays Jack, the son who is most conflicted in his path towards grace/nature, is done extremely well as the viewer can really sense his inner conflict. I rarely see a child actor perform this well. When the film comes to a close, it comes back to present day Jack, played by Sean Penn. A surrealist sequence brings everything and everyone together for a nice conclusion, but it felt weak and kind of dumb and pretentious, but that might be on top of the fact that the film was poorly paced and I wanted it to end. It tackles almost everything Interstellar tried to do in the exploration of human nature, and the parts it does well are amazing. Then again, even the bad parts are still better than Interstellar (Sorry, Nolan. Good try, though.).
This is still a beautiful art film, especially for a film class (wink, wink), and I would really like to discuss it further. Parts of it truly moved me. I recommend anyone who is well-rounded in cinema watch this film, and decide for themselves where they are on the love/hate spectrum. I do not usually enjoy or even try to watch experimental cinema, but I thoroughly enjoyed this piece. I give The Tree of Life
I saw two films that I was very much looking forward to this past weekend, one being Interstellar and the other Birdman. One of those films was extremely disappointing, and that same film will likely be written by someone else in the class, so I decided to review Alejandro Gonzalez Innaritu's Birdman over Nolan's Interstellar.
I am almost confident in calling Birdman a masterpiece. It is an absolutely fantastic film and the more I think about it the more I love this film. I find myself uncomfortable labeling films "masterpieces" without having viewed them multiple times for a better critique, but when I walked out of Birdman I felt fufilled in my expectations and beyond. It was an invigorating experience. This film has dethroned The Grand Budapest Hotel as my favorite movie of the past while and should definitely win some Oscars at the Academy Awards. However, it may not be for everyone as some moments have a little too much ambiguity for some, and the whole concept and the way it is metaphorically executed may fly over many people's heads, I know I didn't pick up on everything from the first viewing (then again, who does).
The plot centers around a washed-up actor, played brilliantly by the coincidentally-casted Michael Keaton in the best performance I have seen this year and the best performance I have seen from him ever (then again, I have not seen him in many movies), who is trying to revive his career by directing, starring, and writing a broadway production. The film mostly takes place around the theater, and in doing so conveys much of a sense as seeing a broadway production. This was my favorite element of the direction, as it is reflected in everything from the acting to the cinematography to even the music. I like theater, so that most definitely contributed to my enjoyment of this film. The cinematography was particularly amazing (if this does not win the Academy Award I will be blown away), as the whole film is shot in what seems to be one continuous take, as plays are also done in one take so to speak. That continuous take is very reminiscent of the shot at the beginning of last year's Gravity, which coincidentally, was the same cinematographer, Emmanuel Lubezki. It is so well choreographed that the camera becomes a bystander and lets the show go on seamlessly. There is one shot where Emma Stone's character is yelling at Michael Keaton's character (shown in the video below) and as she finishes yelling, the camera looms on her face, and we see her realize how mean the things she just said are. The acting is a bit over the top, specifically Edward Norton's performance, but this is again highlights the fact that stage acting is indeed a bit over the top, as well as the people being quite the characters. The score is mostly that of an individual drummer jamming out as if he is warming up before the show begins, and sometimes the camera even pans over the actual drummer, a detail I found splendidly eccentric. So technically, I would be fine giving Birdman a 10/10.
When in comes to the actual plot Birdman does not disappoint in delivering a deep, enriched story, with commentary on egotism and ignorance in human nature and the ever-changing status of celebrity and the struggle for "relevance", among smaller points about the nature of show business. I want to avoid spoilers as much as possible, but the story succeeds with almost everything it sets out to do. Especially of note are the surrealist sequences, which must be first explained. The main character, Riggan Thompson, used to be a celebrity famous for playing the superhero Birdman, who visits him from time to time as his alter-ego, and Riggan seems to have superpowers, mainly when he is alone. Whether or not he has powers is up for debate, but I have to side with the argument that he does not for reasons I will not explain. The sequence where he displays his questionable superpowers all-out is enlightening for the character and great commentary for the audience on the very nature of typical audiences. Something great it does along the way is allow for Riggin's thoughts to be read aloud without being blunt through the use of the play scenes. Another point of ambiguity is the ending, which may cause dismay for some viewers, but I found it particularly excellent, in part because every person will think of it in a different way. This is after all, an art film. The characters are excellent, not a single character felt especially one-dimensional which is a success as there are a plethora of characters with relatively small roles. So on a creative level, Birdman is near-perfect.
In short, Birdman is a must-see for all cinephiles and the best movie I've see all year (so far) and brought a world of respect to Michael Keaton. Whether or not the film is a masterpiece will be debated in the years to come. I now need to see Inarritu's other films because this one is just so frickin' great. Birdman gets a
The cult classic Donnie Darko is great at the beginning. It follows the story of a teen boy who tries to uncover the meanings of his dreams and visions of the supposed coming end of the world. The movie does so much right, but the questionable (to say the least) decisions the director made towards the end make this film sink in the ranks.
First the good: Darko has an absolutely intriguing opening sequence that is so strange yet so well done as some parts speed up and slow down very subtly, cueing the viewer in that something strange is going on with time, a big part of the rest of the movie. The movie does a great job of making the viewer ponder over Donnie's sanity throughout the film and whether or not his visions are schizophrenic hallucinations or his experiences with supernatural forces leading up to the conclusion. Darko has some great cross-genre action going for it, with the teen drama/romance on one end, which was really well-done and interesting to watch, and the supernatural aspect with Donnie and his interactions in his visions. Jake Gyllenhaal is surprisingly great in one of his big breakthrough roles, and so is his real-life sister playing his character's sister. The titular character is a comfortably complex and relatable character, although his name sounds like that of a superhero, as his love interest points out. His struggles and actions make you root for him as a person, I'd probably be friends with him (though I would keep my distance). As Donnie gets closer and closer to the important day, he learns more and more about what it means and his situation in general, as well as some good lessons about teenage love and fears. This is where the movie goes downhill. There is just some looming feelings I have about this movie that are bringing me more and more to dislike it, especially the freakin' ending.
The Infuriating: I absolutely hate when a movie makes an ending so complex that it alters the viewer's perspective of the entire story, and in this case I had to go online and spend half-an-hour reading fan theories about how the "universes" of the movie get all jangled and screwed up and exactly how and why our protagonist is at the center of it. Which makes me sad, because the movie had some great things going for it. It just comes to a conclusion somewhat abruptly and is so gosh darn confusing I have no idea how someone is supposed to just 'get it' and enjoy it on the first view. After researching critics' responses, they seemed to agree with me in that aspect, but they also said that the film is heavily improved by the director's cut.
Ah, Director's Cuts, you love them or you hate them. Why would the studio wanted to make the film hella confusing and take out a bunch of stuff that gave the viewer a clue about what was actually going on throughout the whole movie? I don't have the answer and neither does Wikipedia. But, when the Director's Cut was released with 20 minutes of extra footage and specifically, text from the time travel book that Donnie uses to realize his situation is actually shown, the viewers can realize the bigger picture of Donnie's story (along with him), and that alone raised the critical consensus.
So, because of the discrepancies, I don't think it is fair to rate Donnie Darko until I have seen the Director's Cut, or at least watch it again with some of the fan theories in mind. Some modern fans have hailed it as their favorite, so I am reluctant to give it a score, but as of now, the theatrical cut of Donnie Darko gets
I find David Fincher's work typically great, and his latest work, Gone Girl, is no exception.
Gone Girl follows the story of Nick Dunne (Ben Affleck), a bar-owner in a small town, and his wife, Amy (Rosamund Pike) , a former celebrity who now lives quietly with Nick. One day, she goes missing, and the signs begin to point to Nick as the cause of her disappearance. In terms of the plot, that is as far as I am going to go because this movie revolves around its ever-changing and complex narrative and revealing any more than that would possibly discourage one from going to see it. But, in short, the movie is solid, and the plot is one of the best parts. However, if I had to make one criticism of it, it is that it does not end in a satisfying or even an unsatisfying way, it just ends, I guess leaving it up to interpretation as to what follows. I read that people had problems with the ending in the book, and the author (who wrote the screenplay), Gillian Flynn, did not change it in its adaptation to film. But what the plot did remarkably well, for the first half, was not make it clear who the audience should root for (again, really not trying to spoil things), but as the movie progresses some actions made by the characters push the audience over the line and make it clear who should be punished and who we should feel bad for. The film has some great depth to it, exploring themes of the media's perception of our appearances and the subsequent public perceptions, modern marriage (I can't really relate to this), and honesty, enough to merit repeat viewings. I would like to go into some detail, but as this film came out only last week I don't even want to spoil it for Mr. D, and every scene reveals something somewhat important about where the story progresses.
David Fincher's meticulous and precise directorial style is very much present. Not his best work (I would have to agree with critics that The Social Network is the best, followed by Zodiac, and then Se7en), but one worthy of the Fincher name and perhaps will rise in my ranks over time with another viewing, which it definitely merits. The film is dark and yet well-lit, like his other films. The cinematography is clean and slick, but nothing of note. I love how he details the world so realistically, taking the extra step in setting the scene and adding extra layers of immersion to the film. One example is the subtle reflection of a character's text messaging in the reflection of her glasses, when another director would easily have cut the corner and made the actress pretend to text. The movie is very tense at parts, something I find Fincher to do best, especially with the help of a very well-suited score. Speaking of sound, that is something the film does incredibly well. The sound mixing here is something I never notice, but again with the extra layer of immersion, Fincher manages to combine realistic ambiance with audible dialogue (I would be surprised if it did not get an Oscar nomination for just that). The pacing is precise and near perfect, at 140 minutes, I was never bored and never even checked my watch. The casting here is spot-on, Affleck nails it, Pike is excellent (Oscar nom?), and the surprise performer is Tyler Perry. I hate everything about Tyler Perry, why does he put his name on his movies? I read somewhere that Perry, a director himself, did not know who David Fincher was, and because of that, almost turned down the part. But he plays his part well.
The main criticisms I have are of some instances of funky and inappropriate dialogue (odd interjections of "sweetheart" among others), some illogical repercussions to characters actions (avoid spoilers), and the ending (Again, don't want to give anything away I don't have to).
A solid thriller film with scrutinous direction, Gone Girl gets an
8.5/10 Out-of-place Ben Affleck genitals (Seriously, why?)
Critics tend to agree with me, Rotten Tomatoes: 88%, Ave. Rating: 8/10
Martin Scorsese is a director of legendary status among the greats such as Stanley Kubrick and Steven Spielberg. These are people who have been in the business for decades and have shown and proven their directorial excellence countless times. Throughout his career, Scorsese has been nominated for 8 Academy Awards for Best Director, although he only won once for The Departed (Of all of the films, why The Departed?). One of the gaps in the films I had yet to see (but desperately needed to) was some of Scorsese's better known works. Thus, the choice was made. One film from each decade of his long-spanning and continuous career has stood out among the others, some of which are still recognized to this day as some of the greatest films in modern American cinema. From the '70s, Taxi Driver, from the '80s, Raging Bull, and from the '90s, Goodfellas, a film which Roger Ebert called an even finer film then the Godfather.
All three of which star Robert "You talkin' to me" De Niro,
and the latter two also feature Joe "What do you mean I'm funny?" Pesci.
(This famous scene was surprisingly improvised)
COARSE LANGUAGE
Cinematically, if one were to look at one scene from each of the movies (without previous knowledge, of course) one would most likely be unable to say for certain that they were directed by the same man. When Scorsese's presentation is compared to a director with a distinctive visual flare, Wes Anderson for example, it just simply is nothing extraordinary. Noticeable stylistic choices do exist, however, they are not overarching choices that he does throughout his works. In Raging Bull, the choice to film in black and white was, in my opinion, a little unnecessary, albeit not taking away from the film itself. Wikipedia reads that one reason the decision was made was to hide some anachronisms, one being the fact that the gloves they had were not the same color as the gloves of the time (kind of lazy at first glance). As well as giving the film more of a period feel and distinguishing itself from other color films of the time (Rocky is a good example). Taxi Driver is noticeably dark, to emphasize the brutal gritty nature of the film of its vigilante struggle. Goodfellas is my favorite in terms of stylistic setup, as the film is given a much warmer color pallet throughout much of the movie to display the effervescent grandeur of mafia lifestyle, while still maintaining the darkness of dirty work. The notable use of freeze frame also make it stand on its own ground. In terms of cinematography, the films are nothing spectacular or groundbreaking in comparison to modern films, but there are some similarities between the films in shot type choices, such as the use of long tracking shots. The best shot of Goodfellas (shown below), and pretty much the only one that stood out, was the tracking shot from behind, following Henry Hill and his soon-to-be wife as they enter the Copacabana nightclub through the back entrance. It really captures the feeling through her eyes, as she is introduced to the lavish (for the time being) life as the girlfriend of a powerful criminal. Other smaller uses include slow motion sequences, used to emphasize brutal physical violence, in both Raging Bull and Taxi Driver.
The core similarity between these films lies in the narrative structure and the accompanying themes. They are all, more or less, character studies. These characters are distraught individuals, with distorted views on the world, have social inadequacies, and at the root, are very broken people. This even extends to Scorsese's most recent work, The Wolf of Wall Street. The films all center around one central protagonist (or antagonist, depending on your perspective) and this man, always a white man I might add, has a clear peak and a downfall. The exception would have to be Taxi Driver because when exactly Travis Bickle ever peaks or plummets, depends on who is asked (A big point of the movie is perspective). Henry Hill loves life in the mafia in the earlier days, but later becomes more frustrated with it, to the point of nurturing an abusive relationship with his wife and then alienating his 'friends' when the whole scheme goes down the toilet. Jake LaMotta in Raging Bull was the best boxer in the business, but as he becomes more and more obsessed with the fidelity of his wife he is lead to eventually become estranged with his brother. In turn, he declines and eventually lets himself get beat into an almost forced retirement. After quitting boxing, he engorges to a balloon (Robert De Niro binge ate for 4 months and gained 75 pounds) and starts letting underage girls get statutorily raped and drunk in his club along with other things, there is no real resolution. Jordan Belfort, the multimillionaire stockbroker in the Wolf of Wall Street, of course, loses everything (do I really need to explain more).
Themes are overarching in the films mentioned, usually concerning morality and its subsequent discussions. These themes are emphasized through the use of heavy profane language use and graphically realistic violence by the central characters that the audience is traditionally supposed to be rooting for. People are shot, stabbed, and beaten, sometimes in callous slow motion. These acts are committed by our protagonists, in order to get the viewer to see if the protagonist they are following is actually a good person, or a scumbag at heart, again to drive the big theme of moral ambiguity. To portray the events in the story through the eyes of the character, Scorsese made the choice to use voiceover in three of the four films I have mentioned. In Taxi Driver, Travis Bickle journals about his conflicts in correspondence to the events in the story. In Goodfellas, Henry Hill narrates the proceedings as if it was an autobiography, and the same goes for Wolf of Wall Street. Although the former was adapted from a novel that was not autobiographical and the latter, in fact, was, this choice was made to connect the viewer to the films' morally ambiguous protagonists. Raging Bull was adapted from an autobiography, but it was not given the voiceover treatment. Perhaps Scorsese did not want to make a film 4 years following Taxi Driver with too many overt stylistic similarities.
Of course, there are hundreds of more details that could be nitpicked in a comparison study such as this, but there are only a few more aspects of noticeable importance I noticed in my first viewing of these films. Scorsese keeps a tight ship, sticking with the same actors throughout his movies, first it was De Niro, and now DiCaprio, but anybody who watches his films can pick up on this. A big criticism I have of the films is that many employ very strange jump cuts in the same angle, an example of discontinuous editing. An example of this is in Raging Bull, near the end, where Jake LaMotta is in prison and is beating his head against the wall (2:10 in the video) in a complete breakdown, and a jump cut ensues. It adds absolutely nothing and disjoints the otherwise most emotional scene in the entire film and effectively compromises the viewers train of emotion with confusion instead of sympathetic sorrow. This happens in other scenes in Taxi Driver and possibly Goodfellas too, however, this is the one scene that comes immediately to mind in terms of Scorsese's questionable editing choices. But otherwise, Scorsese's films are art, and require many more viewings for a wider scope and further analysis, and should rightfully be considered some of the greatest films of all time (Taxi Driver being my favorite). Good job Marty.
In 1935, a movie that shifts the tides of film history is released. That movie is Gangboy. The film follows the story of a man, played by Dick Powell, who starts off as a criminal cowboy but eventually gets phased out by the introduction of the automobile. He moves to New York City and ends up pursuing his dream of acting and singing in a broadway musicals by joining a theater troupe. Little does he know that the theater he works for is owned by the mafia, the boss of which is played by Paul Muni, and they pressure him to get involved. As he returns to his roots he becomes more distant with his love, the beautiful Bette Davis, who wants him to give it all up and start a family with her. He ends up doing just that, realizing that love, family, and most of all, integrity and morality, are the most important things in life. Combining elements of gangster and musical cinema, as well as a dose of a spaghetti western, this film combines popular genres of the time along with delivering a message for the audiences that do not just want mindless entertainment and strong underlying themes throughout. There is something here for everyone to enjoy. But with the Great Depression in mind, people need something to enjoy. With two directors who each have their own strong suits specialized to each genre, this movie has expertise on every aspect.
The cast and crew especially were chosen to play a very specific role suited for their talents. Dick Powell, the leading man, has had a lot of experience in the film musical genre, and is an overall very well-rounded actor. Paul Muni was chosen for his association with the gangster genre, even garnering attention from the Academy. Bette Davis plays her well-known role as the pretty woman. Busby Berkeley is well known for his camerawork while preserving the sound that comes with a musical, and William A. Wellman knows how to do a gangster film right. To help out with the sound aspects to maintain the integrity of the musical scenes, Hans Warren was brought in as a sound engineer, renowned at the time. Warner Brothers Studios was the perfect studio to produce this film, as they too are known for gangster films, as well as musical, and Gangboy is the ambitious project that brings the two together. With all strings pulled, the budget ran a bit too high for Warner Brothers standards, so the upgrade to color was ignored, it was not as if it added a significant amount to the movie as a whole. The Hays Code has been planned for, and the story will tell its more provocative moments metaphorically though the main characters' broadway show, therefore stylishly toning down otherwise violent or overly sexual scenes.
My group and I pretty much completely agreed on every decision and I had a great time doing it. When we put it all together we knew we had struck 1935 film gold.
