Inside Llewyn Davis Review

I, along with every other cinema buff who likes to keep up on the latest movie news has, I’m sure been hearing a lot about the movie Inside Llewyn Davis lately. It’s been praised as everything from “a brilliant magpie’s nest of surrealism, period detail and pop-culture scholarship.” to “the best film of 2013“. It’s undeniable that the movie is very good, but is it the best film of 2013? Not quite. The story of Inside Llewyn Davis is simple enough. It focuses on a week in the life of a failing folk singer in 1960’s New York who spends his days couch surfing through Greenwich Village and trying desperately to catch a break in the world of folk music. Llewyn is road wearily down trodden and Oscar Issac plays him with just the right amount of determination and frustration. The real triumph of Inside Llewyn Davis though is in its relatability. We have all felt like Llewyn at some point in our lives which makes the viewing of this movie almost therapeutic. Overall the Coen brothers are in their element with this film. It’s folksy depresionism and softly faded edges will be well known by any Coen connoisseur  who’s familiar with movies like True Grit or O Brother Where Art Though. Well the movie is definitely good it’s not as memorable as I expected it to be. All the best movies are ones that, in my opinion leave a long lasting impact. They’re the movies you can’t stop thinking about for days. Inside Llewyn Davis didn’t do this for me. My final say on the movie is that the acting is exceptional, the music is phenomenal, The cinematography is beautiful, and the script is brilliant, but the over all effect of the film and it’s message is largely forgettable.

A- 

Why is The Shawshank Redemption so good?

I saw The Shawshank Redemption for the first time when I was far too young. It was my mom’s favorite movie and she hadn’t seen it in a very long time so she popped it in and urged me to come sit with her and watch. It terrified me. I was scared mainly by the first half and the scenes about prison rape but the crushing disappointments that Andy and all the other prisoners experience weigh on your soul even at a young age. That was the first thing I noticed well re-watching for the first time since. It’s a painful movie. I’ve seen a few films like that, that just wrench your soul. They’re as hard to watch as any horror film just because of how realistically painful they are such as Capote (for different reasons) or Where The Day Takes You. Both are movies that I loved but wouldn’t necessarily watch again. That’s what The Shawshank Redemption is to me. At first I planned on writing a review for this film but halfway through I changed my mind. There’s just nothing I can say but praise. It’s ranked number one on IMDB’s 250 best films of all time list which I personally respect very much. I didn’t get it until my second viewing but now I do. What The Shawshank Redemption  does so well is tell a very long story. Reflecting back on the film I realized that that was what really hit me. The fact that the movie takes place over a course of thirty years and you really feel the time passing. Plenty happens to fill the movie but the span of events makes it so realistic that you can easily believe this is how prison life really is. I also noticed in my second viewing the very obvious message that I was previously to young to understand about our justice system, it’s screwed up. The film also exemplified for me the idea that we are all both good and evil and I loved the fact that the main villain of the movie is the man who in our society is depicted as the keeper of peace and upholder of justice. The entire film is ironic but not trying to be, every single character that graces the screen is both perfectly cast and marvelously portrayed. Frank Darabont the director convinced Stephen King to sell him the rights to The Shawshank Redemption novella so that he could write the script himself and then decided to take a pay cut so he could direct it as well. This was his first feature film and a passion project at that, but maybe that’s why it’s so good. There’s one line of dialogue I particularly liked near the end of the movie where Andy is  telling Red about when he proposed to his wife and he says something along the lines of,

“We had a picnic and made love under that big oak tree and then I asked her to marry me.”

It might just be me but I loved this line so much because I at least wouldn’t expect an upstanding wall street banker to propose to his girlfriend after sex under an oak tree. I’m sure that at some point someone told Darabont to cut that part out but he didn’t and it makes the movie better. All throughout the movie Andy is depicted as a good man and I liked that we’re reminded at the end of the film that even if he’s a good man he’s not a perfect saint. After all he may never have killed anybody but he did pick that gun up meaning that he at least thought about it. Even Andy, the most moral man in the entire film is far from perfect, or at least he is in the beginning. But as the title implies nobody is to far gone for redemption, even those that society deems the worst of us. So why is The Shawshank Redemption so darn good? Well it tells a very important and interesting story that most have never heard. The honesty and truth of it is evident in every scene and line of dialogue which is so different from so many other big studio films. Nothing is held back. And of course the twist at the end helps a bit too. I knew for sure that it was a great movie because at the end of it I was sobbing and only the best of movies provoke this reaction in me. This is a movie that will make you believe in the strength and goodness of the human spirit and that’s surprising considering it’s a film about murders. The last thing I’ll say on this is that The Shawshank Redemption is completely deserving of that top spot on IMDB.

World War Z review

I saw this film two times, the first at a drive in movie theater with friends and the second at a small local theater in Colorado with my dad. The first time I saw the film it failed at holding my attention at all. I put this down to the fact that I was in a small car with bad sound surrounded by friends. That’s why I agreed to see it a second time, and also I’d just read the book which I loved and wanted to love the movie just as much. I was disappointed, the movie bored me even more the second time. Now this is a rare complaint for me. This is coming from someone who sat through Sofia Coppola’s Somewhere and loved it which is a movie with no discernible plot line at all.  World War Z just failed to meet any of the hopes I had for it. First of all the zombies were annoyingly unrealistic. I think we all get that zombies, at least in any of the ways pop culture have portrayed them are as impossible as vampires, werewolves and any other mythical beast. But that doesn’t mean you give up trying to make it seem a little plausible, or at the very least include some doctor somewhere talking about “this new disease turning everyone into man eating cannibals” or something along those lines. This explanation or any explanation at all is nowhere to be found, the zombies just sort of happen. Admittedly the book is equally vague as to the origin but at least its zombies acted more realistically. In the movie a human essentially becomes a zombie within fifteen seconds of being bitten and is then transformed into an extremely fast, and strong, cannibal with extraordinary hearing. I get that fast zombies are way scarier than slow zombies but let’s be real if they could really outrun cars and break down giant stone walls in under five minutes than no one would stand a chance not even the ever heroic Brad Pitt. This was another thing that annoyed me, Brad Pitt. The tiny scarves and freshly pressed shirts, his long silky hair, his ever heroic and unfailingly good character, it was all just too much for me to believe. Have we learned nothing from Superman movies or beloved TV shows like Breaking Bad or Game of Thrones? People don’t like perfect heroes. It’s unrealistic and annoying. Let the guy have a few flaws. I genuinely can’t think of one moment in the movie when Brad Pitt’s character Gerry Lane wasn’t portrayed as the best guy in the room. Even when he’s with his wife and kids. They beg for him to stay with the family and he bravely decides that saving the human race is more important than comforting his kids. I really don’t think the family would put up such a fight if Gerry Lane was as important as everything seems to think he is. I did like the two main female characters though, Gerry’s wife and the french soldier (played by Mireille Enos and Daniella Kertesv). I thought the characters were played both beautifully and poignantly and each played a huge part in saving an other wise sinking ship of a movie (or at least managing to escape on a rowboat together well the rest of the ship sank to the depths of the summer blockbuster ocean). Something else that the movie could have used was more of the book it was based off of, and I use the term “based off of” very loosely. Really the only thing the two share is a name. If the movie had included more characters instead of just highlighting the adventures of Mr. Incredible Brad Pitt, or if it had used more of the rich history and political tension that Max Brooks the author brought to the book I think it would have been greatly improved. As a side note that really can’t be used as a complaint against the movie but I’m mentioning none the less, the casting of Mathew Fox depressed me. I didn’t even notice him until well into my second viewing of the film which is probably because Mathew Fox is essentially an extra. That’s right Jack Shepard, an extra! It’s outrageous. I assume they cast him in a larger role that was cut down due to time constraints or plot holes or some other problem in post but they should have had the decency of cutting him all together instead of reducing him to a face in the background. I get that he’s been struggling since Lost but I honestly got hated the movie a little more when I saw what it had degraded him to. My final words on the movie would be that the action wasn’t enough, the family banter in the first five minutes was the only part I really liked, and Brad Pitt really shouldn’t be wearing scarves into a war zone. I mean come on dude, you’re in the dessert how douchey do you have to be to wear a tiny gray scarf and jeans well everyone around you is in combat gear?

C-

 

The Fantastic Mr. Fox review

I first saw The Fantastic Mr. Fox on TV, about a year ago. All I can say is that it left me mesmerized as no movie has before, or since; including Wes Anderson’s later picture Moonrise Kingdom. Maybe it’s the beautiful claymation figures, or the warm folksy tunes reminiscent of your fifth grade music class. But more likely, it’s no one thing but a combination of many that leaves you feeling like a child again. I realize how cliche that sentence sounded, but there is no better way to put it. Many spend there whole lives searching for the wonder they once felt as children,  this is exactly what I found inFantastic Mr. Fox. This movie first introduced me to the genius of Wes Anderson. Every detail is precise. Every line of dialouge is powerful. Every scene left me awed. Baz Lurhmen aside, I have never before been so impressed with a director. You can tell that the only way this movie succeed as absolutely as a work of art as it did is by the precise brushstrokes painted by the master artist that is Wes Anderson. Who else would think to so perfectly embody the soul of an angsty teen in a two year old (twelve in fox years) fox.

A

The Great Gatsby review

This last Friday I saw The Great Gatsby and let me start out by saying I walked into the theater already knowing I’d love it, it didn’t disappoint  I’ve been a fan of Baz Lurhmen ever since I first saw Moulin Rouge, and I’ve been an exceptionally devout fan of Leonardo Dicaprio ever since I saw him in Catch Me if You Can. The combination of those two things and the knowledge that both of them combined previously delivered Romeo and Juliet, a movie I absolutely loved assured me that I would love the movie before I ever stepped in the theater. The movie itself was everything a Baz Lurhmen movie is wild, brightly colored, fast paced, and very modern no matter what the story or setting. In this case 1920’s New York. Now, I’ve never read the book but I had an idea of the basic plot before the film and by the end I was almost glad I saw the movie first because it was so much more exciting not knowing how it would end. You could tell Baz Lurhem was in his element on this movie, every party scene was perfectly executed and edited in a disorienting fashion that he has become very good at over the years. These were my favorite parts, the mixture of loud music, bright colors, and wild movement was positively disorienting but in a good way. This is the precise reason I absolutely love him as a director, he makes movies that are very true to the core purpose of the motion picture, to entertain and to help us escape every day life. My absolute favorite moment was a perfect Baz Lurhemn exaggeration  it is the first moment we met Jay Gatsby and he is standing on a deck above the party and he slowly turns around and smiles, the music grows, fireworks explode, Nick Caraway’s inner monologue narrates the moment with direct quotes from the book, the moment is absolutely perfect. My second favorite moment was when we first meet Daisy Buchanan, two elegant glass doors open and pure white curtains are blowing in the breeze all throughout a wide room, on a couch in the center is Daisy giggling on the couch with Jordan Baker, this like the moment with meet Gatsby is why I love Baz Lurhmen. He knows how to use every part of the film making process to tell the story, from the script, to the effects, to the cinematography, to the music. He knows how to make everything work perfectly together to set the exact mood he wants. At moments however I must admit that it all did become a little much for me. There were parts like the scene in the hotel where I thought I was at a play because of all the wildly exaggerated facial expressions playing across the actor’s faces. Not to mention that one Lana Del Ray song, Young and Beautiful seemed interwoven into almost every scene in the   movie. Also all the dialogue scrawling across the screen seemed a little too iMovie for me. Over all I did like the film though, the climactic ending scenes in particular left me stunned. Baz Lurhmen was in his element and you could tell the actor’s were having fun. Admittedly I’m probably a little biased due to my love for both the director and star and maybe if I wasn’t I’d have a little more to say about it, but overall it was wild, exciting, and a very fun movie.

A-

The Lovely Bones Review (Spoilers)

Last night I watched the 2009 film The Lovely Bones, based on a 2002 novel of the same name. Both the book and the movie are told from the perspective of a young girl growing up in the 70’s who is murdered but unable to move onto heaven and so is stuck “inbetween” as she watches her family and friends grieve and struggle to move on.  I read the book about two years ago and was impressed by the language and style but not so much by the content. Still, the movie’s directed by Peter Jackson and the trailer impressed me so I decided to watch it. The first thing I’ll say is that Stanley Tucci was amazing in the role of Susie’s murder. He was creepy but not overly so, and completely convincing as a twisted but sad man. The roles of Susie’s father however was in my opinion completely miscast. I’m actually a pretty big fan of Mark Wahlberg but they just did not work in this movie at all. Wahlberg’s role originally went to Hugh Jackman who I would have loved to see in this film, when Jackman dropped out it went to Ryan Gosling who is much younger but still in my opinion better suited. After Ryan Gosling dropped out three days before shooting strated due to creative differences the role ultimately went to Mark Wahlberg. Jack Salmon, Susie’s father is not meant to be a tough man. He works in insurance and builds models in his spare time. After the death of his eldest daughter he is desperate to find the killer but never succeeds in proving his suspicions. There’s a scene in both the book and the movie where a furious Jack goes out to the corn fields at night where he believes Susie’s killer is with the intention of beating him to death. The scene ends with him finding two teenagers having sex and being attacked by a sixteen year old boy who badly beats him. This should proof enough the Jack isn’t meant to be to intimadating. That’s why I was so surprised by the casting of Mark Wahlberg, the notorious Hollywood tough guy. I mean I can suspend disbelief  during the scenes where Susie narrates the story from heaven, or when a rose miraculously blooms in Jack’s hand to signal that the killer is near, or even when Susie came down to earth to have sex with the boy she’s always had a crush on but Marky Mark getting beaten up by a gangly pimpled teenage boy? Ya come on, that is not happening. The visual effects were well done and both Stanley Tucci, and Saoirse Ronan’s preformances where impressive but the movie as a whole was awkward and uncomfortable. I’m not just talking about the scenes involving child rape and murder which by the way should have called for an R rating. The movie changed tones far to fast and failed to explain key plot points such as why Susie’s mother left the family to work on a peach farm that looked like it came straight out of Grapes of Wrath. Also what happened to the book the proved George Harvey guilty as the  murderer that Lindsay stole? And why did Susie have to lose her virginity before she could move onto heaven? Over all The Lovely Bones was underwhelming and unimpressive.

C+

 

A Criticism of The Bling Ring, Pretty Wild, and All Involved

I recently watched all nine episodes of the only season of the reality show Pretty Wild and by the end all I felt was tired and depressed. The show centers on Alexis Neiers, her “sister” and best friend Tess Taylor, and their family. Both girls are aspiring models and young socialites on the outskirts of the Hollywood scene. The show is meant to be a comedic and light hearted account of there misadventures as they climb the Hollywood ladder but the series takes an unexpected turn for the serious when in the pilot episode Alexis is arrested for her believed involvement in a series of Hollywood burglaries that come to be know as the bling ring in which she and her six friends burglarized the houses of numerous Hollywood celebrities such as Paris Hilton, Orlando Bloom, and Rachel Bilson. This was my first real experience with a reality show other than Americas Next Top Model or The Bachelor and it was not a pleasant one. The two leads, Alexis and her adopted sister Tess are pretty in the most superficial way. They cry at some point in almost every episode  and exercise on the stripper pole in their living room. The real shocker of the series comes from the mother Andrea, a former playboy model and current minister for the church of Buddha. From the pilot episode in which she home schools her daughters by asking them to make a board of all the celebrities in the latest People magazine that they admire to the final episode in which she insists it’s time for Tess to have a nude photo shoot for her portfolio and that she be the one to take it Andrea proves herself to be as independently minded and vapid as her daughters. That’s not to say they were horrible people because they weren’t. In fact by then end of the series I actually had come to understand their ridiculous life style and even had come to accept their major character flaws as consequences of an impossibly demanding society. And mostly because even when they were at their worst at least they were honest with it. That is why I was so horrified to discover the dark truth behind the bright lights and expensive cameras. The series Pretty Wild was cancelled after only one season because it was soon discovered that both Alexis and Tess had been secretly living out of a Best Western close to home with money stolen from both their parents and the homes of strangers so as to fuel their raging drug addictions. Tess was addicted to opium, and Alexis was addicted to crack cocaine and black tar heroin. I was especially disgusted at one scene in particular in which Alexis’s little sister Gabby discovers xanax in her purse and Alexis wholeheartedly agrees to go to counseling for an addiction to xanax. The part of me that was so willing to forgive their selfish and silly behavior on the show was the same part that appreciated the openness with which the family presented themselves. It may have been a bit ridiculous how much they over reacted to losing their dog in a rainstorm for five minutes but at least we were allowed to see all the emotions. Don’t we all have moments when we unreasonably freak out over menial things? I accepted Pretty Wild because the show didn’t hold back from putting the Neiers family in the most honest light as possible even if it wasn’t the best. This was why I hated finding out that what I thought was an honest protrayel of a shallow but spirited family was actually hiding something far darker. As far as Alexis’s involvement in the bling ring the answer seems pretty clear. She may have claimed and continues to claim that she is completely innocent but the security footage, eye witnesses, and evidence confiscated from her bedroom pretty clearly prove her wrong. She may have been involved but I do believe that she has since then heavily regretted it which was why the movie The Bling Ring to me almost feels cruel. It is a satire of modern teen culture and celebrity worship made by a famous director from a famous family and staring celebrities who almost seem to be mocking the fans that obsesses over them.  I mean I get the whole idea of it, people are ridiculous and these kids were shallow and stupid and made some bad decisions and it’s an interesting story but something about it just seems so wrong and like it should have just been left alone. Isn’t that the whole problem after all? These kids went out seeking fame in whatever way possible and we continue to give it to them by glamorizing some very bad choices even when many of the people involved have been doing their best to put it behind them. In response to the film Alexis tweeted that it was “Trashy and inaccurate.” And one must admit that it is very one sided as the main consultant for the movie was the lead defense attorney on the case who actually had a cameo in the film. It turns out that his involvement in the film also threatened the still ongoing trial for the members of the bling ring which too me just seemed unfair. Also I read in an LA times article that Paris Hilton, whose house was burglarized in real life and in the film cried when she saw the scene in the movie because she felt so violated even though she had agreed to let them film in her house and even met with the stars and the director. Everything about the film, the making of it, and the actual bling ring just seems so wrong to me. The movie may be an exploration of the insanity of modern pop culture but the true story is far darker than any interpretation as real life tends to be. In the movie Alexis is depicted as a mean, mean girl who is vapid and very immature. In real life Alexis Neiers was sexually molested as a child and raised in an unstable home and became addicted to drugs at a young age well still managing to uphold a very controlled facade for the cameras. In real life Alexis was vapid and immature but also smart and strong willed and very very real. In the film Alexis becomes a character. Someone to be dissected by film buffs and viewed from all angles, and that is where the real problem lies. Alexis is not a character and the bling ring is not a metaphor but a real mistake made by six teenagers who didn’t think about consequences. The same as all mistakes we make as children it’s not meant to follow us around and certainly not to be broadcast to the world but instead belong to only those involved. In my opinion this whole story should simply have been left alone.