Interstellar (2014) Review

There was an article that I read a while ago in which Christopher Nolan was interviewed. He was asked about how he felt when people on the internet or in other places discussed the "plot holes" in his films. Nolan said he was aware of the plot holes but that he was surprised his films receive so much scrutiny on that end. With all due respect to Mr. Nolan, who is an incredibly talented filmmaker, he sets his films up to be scrutinized in that nature. In fact, he practically begs his audience to do so. How? by making his films with a self-seriousness and gravity which is found in almost no other blockbuster film. This is one of Nolan's strengths, that he makes blockbusters that can actually be intellectually interesting. It is also his curse because it means that his blockbusters are held to a higher level of scrutiny. He doesn't help matters by going around and comparing his latest film to "2001: a Space Odyssey" either.

So what of Interstellar, Nolan's latest film in which the director set his sights on the final frontier. To me this move has all the hallmarks of a recent Nolan blockbuster. It's full of ideas, Its visually stunning, and it has a bombastic score from Hans Zimmer. It is also on the long side, has a few story issues or "plot holes", and  unlike his more recent work it doesn't completely stick the ending. Nolan deserves lots of credit for creating another inspiring spectacle that makes you think at the same time, the trouble is that this time around the film seems to weaken under the burden of its own intellectual weight. While watching I was completely enthralled and exhilarated but after the credits had rolled and I allowed myself to digest what had actually happened in the film, I kept finding myself searching for plot holes. I can't say that I've found many that I could point out but I find it interesting that I was searching for them. I think this might have to do with some of the thematic burdens the film places on itself. It is striving to express so much that I think the film doesn't fully "flesh out", either visually or through dialogue, the ideas that it is expressing.

The truth is that all this thinking happens after the film and the film-going experience itself is incredible. It's emotional, it's suspenseful, and it's also very human. There's even a little more humor here than in many of Nolan's other films. As a theater-going experience it's hard to beat the exhilaration this film provides. Even if the film may falter a little intellectually, it has to be recommended for the sheer power it has up on the big screen.  I  found the film viscerally satisfying but I don't know if it accomplishes everything it set out to.  4/5

The Complete Frankenstein 2: Son of Frankenstein and Ghost of Frankenstein Review

Son of Frankenstein (1939)

After 1935's Bride of Frankenstein Universal Studios decided that they wouldn't make anymore monster movies. When a couple of years later they found that their revival screenings of Dracula and Frankenstein were doing really well they decided to resume production of their iconic monster films and begin what is commonly referred to as the "second phase" of Universal Horror. There is no doubt that the majority of the films made in this phase were of a lower quality of those in the first phase. A lot of this had to do with World War 2 which took away some of the talent in front of and behind the camera. The films of this phase would eventually be mostly B films but Son of Frankenstein, which kicked things off, certainly was not.

Son tells the story of the son of Henry Frankenstein returning to his homeland and soon finding that he can't help but delve into his father's past experiments, you can imagine where it all goes from here but there is certainly a lot of fun along the way. Those familiar with the classic Mel Brooks film Young Frankenstein will be delighted to see that much of the source of that film comes from this one. Certain references that I did not get before in Young Frankenstein are now clear to me and it only makes that film even better. Son is a pretty good film in its own right and has a great cast. Basil Rathbone is perfect in the role as the son of Doctor Frankenstein and Bela Lugosi does a fine job as the assistant Ygor. It is interesting to not that Ygor did not appear as a character in the first two films. Lugosi was never really able to recapture his Dracula performance but Ygor might be the closest he came to a comeback. Karloff is fantastic in his final turn as the monster but unfortunately is not given as much time on the screen here as he was given in the previous outings. The monster is also less emotive besides one scene involving a mirror. Karloff could tell that soon the monster would be nothing more than a machine in these films and he picked the right time to exit the series. Lionel Atwill plays a police inspector in this film and he gives a great performance. Atwill is one of those character actors who pops up in every B horror and mystery film you can think of. It is notable that he eventually faced-off against Rathbone's Sherlock Holmes as professor Moriarty.

Son benefits from its great actors and fantastic sets. The sets are done in an expressionistic style which reminds one of old silent German cinema. The make up is, as always, exceptional and all the actors work well together. Unfortunately, Son of Frankenstein does not work as well as the previous two efforts. It's plot is alright but it isn't enough to justify the film's 94 minute run time, which is the longest of the three films. the film begins well and then drags a little bit in the middle. The conclusion however is one of the best parts of all three films so far. It is gripping and suspenseful and really allows Karloff to shine on the screen in what was arguably his greatest character. In the end, Son of Frankenstein is a really good Frankenstein film and it should definitely be watched and enjoyed even if it isn't as good as the first two 3.5/5

Ghost of Frankenstein (1942)

I don't have much to say about Ghost of Frankenstein. By the time it was made in 1942 Universal's monster movies were now strictly "B" pictures. The budget is lower and Karloff is no longer playing the Monster. The film shows a definite drop in quality and despite a few decent moments Ghost is an utter failure.

The story involves the "other son" of Frankenstein taking control of the monster and this time he wants to give it a better brain. This idea is a logical one when you think about the mythos the films had created, but it is not enough to hinge a plot on, even if the film is only an hour and seven minutes long. This time the cast is not as good as the previous ones. Lon Chaney Jr. plays the monster in a way that really makes you wish Karloff had continued and maybe gotten the script changed. Chaney just isn't Karloff and he sticks out like a sore thumb. Lionel Atwill gets far too little screen time in his new role as a villain and Ralph Bellamy plays a completely uninteresting romantic lead. In fact, the romantic sub plot of this film doesn't even exist really and yet the two romantic leads are shown escaping in the last shot of the film. The woman at least gets a couple scenes where she is the main one on screen but Bellamy's character is completely undeveloped. They could've at least put together a cheesy love scene to make the end of the film have ANY emotional impact. Even Lugosi seems tired as Ygor and this is only his second appearance.

As it stands there are a couple of interesting scenes involving the monster but they are mostly one's we've seen before. There is an interesting twist at the conclusion which at least keeps the whole thing from being soporific. In the end, on its own, it probably is a fun little "B" picture but when viewed in context it really demonstrates a lowering in quality 2/5

Stay tuned tomorrow for my review of the monster mash-ups Frankenstein Meets the wolf Man and House of Frankenstein!

The Complete Frankenstein 1: Frankenstein and Bride of Frankenstein Review

It's been far too long since I have written a review for this blog. There are several reasons why I took such a long break, mainly work and school. Now that I am on fall break I'm going to be coming out with reviews at a furious pace. My first series will be a review of every single Universal Studios Frankenstein film (Including the monster mash-ups). This is in honor of Halloween and because I have four days to kill and I can't think of a better way to do it!

Frankenstein (1931)

After the success of Dracula, Universal Studios turned to Mary Shelley's creation for their next horror film. This one would cement the studio's legacy as one of monsters. Frankenstein was originally supposed to be played by Bela Lugosi, who played Dracula, but thankfully for us movie-goers Boris Karloff was given the role. The opening of Frankenstein is interesting because it involves a pre-credits message from Edward Van Sloan warning us that what we are about to see "may even horrify us" from then on the storyof Doctor Frankenstein and his creation keeps us glued to the screen.

Everybody knows what the plot of this film is so there is no need to summarize it. Some have criticized this film for straying from the original book so greatly. I actually believe that by stream-lining the story this version improves upon the book. The main theme is not lost in many drawn out pages of description which dilute its impact as it is in the book. Of course, having a great cast helps and Frankenstein is nearly flawless on this front. Colin Clive makes for an iconic Doctor Frankenstein and his exclamation of "It's alive!" is still memorable. Boris Karloff gives a truly incredible performance as the monster which I would argue is one of the greatest performances in the history of film. The  emotion and feeling he is able to bring to the character gives the monster incredible dimensions. This is aided by one of the most famous make-up jobs of all time.

The direction by James Whale is good, if not as experimental as his next Frankenstein film. The sets are incredible. What's truly surprising about Frankenstein is that for a movie from 1931 (generally considered part of the "talkie" period) it still holds up. It may not be as frightening today as it must have been back then but certain sequences still evoke chills to this day. Even more impressive is how much depth is able to be packed into a 1 hour and 10 minute run time. When today, a Transformers film can be 2 hours and 45 minutes it is refreshing to see a film pack so much story into less then half that time.

If there is one minor flaw with the original Frankenstein it is that there is a male character, Victor, who appears in the beginning of the film and who seems to serve no purpose but to build romantic tension. It is forgivable because he helps to provide some necessary exposition but he is still a very flat character. That flaw not withstanding this is a fantastic film and one of the jewels in Universal's crown. It's Alive and well 5/5!

The Bride of Frankenstein (1935)

By 1935 Universal had produced several more horror films and was unquestionably the "house of horror". Much in the film industry had changed as well. Movies were evolving to allow for musical soundtracks during a sound film and directors as well as actors were experimenting more with the form. It was the perfect time for director James Whale and stars Colin Clive and Boris Karloff to reunite for another Frankenstein film and, boy did they make the most of  it! Setting the template for how to make a great sequel the Bride of Frankenstein not only stands up to its predecessor, it surpasses it.

The opening of Bride is brilliant. It begins on a stormy night with three of the foremost ambassadors of English literature of the 1800's, Byron, Shelley, and Mary Shelley. Byron and Shelley both tell of how thrilled they were by the first story of Frankenstein and Mary tells them there is more to the story. She then begins to narrate  this new tale of Frankenstein. This opening serves to bring the viewer right back into the action and gives the viewer the feeling of being told a legend by the fireplace on a stormy night.

The film then goes on to show how the monster got a Bride and many other adventures which you will just have to see for yourselves it you haven't before. This film is sheer genius. It continues to delve into the ideas proposed in the original while expanding upon them and developing tis characters. It even does this while also introducing new and truly memorable characters to the mix. If that weren't enough this film has every emotion from the classic scares to self-referential comedy to tragedy to pathos, even more incredibly none of these elements overpowers the others Finally, what's truly staggering is that it does all of this in 1 hour and 15 minutes. Very few films are a perfect example of their genre but Bride of Frankenstein approaches perfection.

A lot of credit for this has to go to three people, Director James Wale, Boris Karloff, and Franz Waxman. Whale uses some truly inventive directorial techniques which help to give the film even more life then its predecessor had. He utilities some incredible special effects to their maximum and the different angles of shots are superb. The lighting and composition of the film is almost a character in and of itself bringing some incredibly inventive sets to life and given that great feeling of gothic horror to other scenes. Boris Karloff gives his best performance here as the monster. He is given the chance to speak in one of the greatest scenes in film history, the scene where the monster meets the blind man. This scene was taken from the original novel and it is executed perfectly here, giving the monster true humanity. Karloff's performance is uncanny and it truly helps one ot understand why he became so sought-after for horror films. Franz Waxman is the composer of the perfect soundtrack to this film. Every cue is interesting and exciting and it really adds to the film.

There is so much more that could be discussed about this film but this review would go on for far too long. The make-up of both the monster and the Bride is iconic and exceptional. Some may watch this film after reading this review and think that I have "over-hyped" it and that is the danger of writing a review where there is almost nothing you can give but praise. Nevertheless, the Bride of Frankenstein is the best monster film Universal Studios ever released and it is one of the best of its genre. It is also a prefect companion to the original making it a truly worthy sequel. I can't recommend this one highly enough 5/5!

Stay Tuned tomorrow for my review of Karloff's last outing as the monster Son of Frankenstein and the last solo outing of the Monster in "the Ghost of Frankenstein"!

Classics Thursday: The Rules of the Game (1939)

When I am about to watch a film which some label as "the greatest film of all time" I always feel a mixture of anticipation and foreboding. My anticipation stems from the fact that I am about to experience a "classic" for the first time. The foreboding stems from my feeling that there is no way the film will meet up to that high expectation. To call something the "greatest of all time" is to make it nearly impossible to approach with the right expectations. I'll never forget the first time I watched Citizen Kane. I was so excited to finally see the "best film ever made". I finished the film with a deflated feeling. Was it good? yes, but it was hard to think of it as the "greatest of all time". I had a feeling last night that The Rules of the Game would end up making me feel the same way. This French film from 1939 has been hailed by critics as a supreme masterpiece. Based on the synopsis, I did not see how this could be possible. The plot centers around a country estate wherein several members of the French aristocracy face many trials and tribulations with regards to that time honored of human emotions: love. It didn't seem like anything new or epic in scope and it didn't seem like the sort of canvas upon which a "masterpiece" could be painted on. Yet, the Rules of the Game defied expectations; it truly is one of the greatest films ever made.

The greatness of this film for me lies not in its biting social commentary of the French upper class on the eve of WWII, but rather in how absorbing this film is. The film brings you into its world so adeptly that after it was over I had to remind myself I had never actually lived in that house or known any of those characters. Today's blockbusters seek to bring people out of there ordinary world all the time. This summer I joined a gang of mutants, fought apes that could talk, and traveled through space with Chris Pratt, but none of these experiences was as engaging as the Rules of the Game. A lot of this has to do with the director, Jean Renoir's, use of the camera. It is a camera so free in its movement. In many scenes the people who the frame focuses on will change multiple times. This sense of fluidity creates a reality, a society, in which all of these people interact. The characters are well developed to be sure, but the film is focused more on their world than any specific character. To my mind there is no real hero in this film. There is no one who the audience is supposed to "root for". This further focuses the viewer on the society as a whole.

The realism is further created by having several scenes in which one can hear characters talking over one another. In some sequences many different actions are carried out at the same time. Many films of this period focused action on only one or two characters in a scene, but here the whole point is that many actions are taking place. Again this creates a world for the viewer rather than a narrative.

It is all so expertly shot that one can forget the marvelous dialogue which is spoken in the film. The script is razor sharp and each of the many characters feels unique. It is at moments funny and deeply tragic. I think that this mix of emotions helps to make the film all the more real for the viewer. At times we want to laugh and at others we are disgusted.

I think that some may read this and then see the film and be disappointed. That is inevitable when one lavishes such praise on a work. I think that seen in context it is difficult not to recognize the Rules of the Game as a great film but seen out of context I could understand, just like with Kane, how it would underwhelm some people. Nevertheless I wholeheartedly recommend giving this film a try and experiencing one of the greatest masterpieces cinema has to offer 5/5!

Classics Thursday: Bananas (1971)

In honor of his new film Magic in the Moonlight coming out July 25th I thought I'd take an opportunity to look back at Woody Allen's early career. This was the time when his films were strictly comedic in tone and low on budget. Bananas was only his third directional effort and as a comedy it works surprisingly well.

Bananas is the absurd story of a New Yorker who tests new products to see if they are safe for commercial use. After a break up with his girlfriend he decides to go to a small South-American country. Through a series of events he eventually becomes the leader of this small country. It is a parody of the American "puppet countries" in South America of the time combined with a sense of anarchy that is only matched by the Marx Brothers.

Allen's wit is in sharp form, especially in the early stages of the film. When the move to South America is made the film becomes even crazier and the whole thing reaches dizzying heights in one of the funniest courtroom scenes in movie history. Allen's earlier films are often "put-down" as immature and while this may be true there is no denying that Bananas is really funny. If you're looking for a good laugh you really can't do any better than this.

The film is a little dated in areas but the sharpness of the humor makes up for it. While not every gag works enough do that the film is enjoyable from start to finish. I was surprised how funny this gem was. If you get a chance to see it you owe to yourself to check out this great early Woody Allen film 4/5

X-Men Days of Future Past (2014) Review

X Men Days of future Past is really a statement by its director, Bryan Singer. A statement that not only can he direct a great comic book movie but that X Men is HIS franchise. Singer began the franchise back in 2000 when comic book movies were not the box office giants they are today. It can be argued that he directed the first "modern" comic book movie. It was a film which utilized the relatively new tool of  CGI to help bring its powerful heroes to light. After that first installment he followed it up with a sequel which many critics believe is even stronger than the original. The franchise was off to a great start and Hugh Jackman's Wolverine, Patrick Stewarts Professor X, and Ian McKellen's Magneto were now instantly recognizable. Unfortunately for us movie-goers the third installment was helmed by another director and it suffered for it. After this, two wolverine movies were made, and then in 2011 the franchise was "rebooted" by Mathew Vaughn with X-Men First Class. First Class gave us the backstories of Charles and Erik before they became enemies. It was set in the sixties and had a great Bond-like vibe. I thoroughly enjoyed this movie. As you may be able to tell from this complicated history the franchise was really all over the place and the task was given to Bryan Singer to right it all. It is a seemingly impossible task but miraculously he has pulled it off and made my favorite X-Men film to date.

The film opens in the future where Mutant killing Sentinels have wiped out much of civilization. Professor X sends Wolverine back in time to stop these  Machines from ever being used. This plot allows for a bridging of the universe of the first three films and the universe of the "reboot". Of course complications ensue and many great twists occur along the way which you should enjoy for yourselves. One of the best things about this film is just how great the cast is. everyone is back and plays their characters with a virtuosity the blurs the line between actor and character. Stewart IS Professor X and Jackman IS Wolverine just as Fassbender IS the younger Erik and Jennifer Lawrence IS Mystique. The story fleshes out both time periods even if the majority of the film is set in the past. The film is not afraid to have fun either. It was probably tempting to make everything in a film this epic deadly serious but it is a credit to the script and to singer that the film ahs plenty of moments of fun.

Singer shows off in several sequences that remind the audience just how good the early X-Men films were at bringing the comic books from the page to the screen. The action sequences work and they are done with an energy which keeps the film exciting. There enough surprises along the way that the movie never becomes stale. To be a comic book movie made in 2014 and still feel fresh is a great feat.

If there is one nit-pick it would be that the characters who are specific to the future don't get much time to be fleshed out. Some of them are just kinda there. For comic book fans this is probably fine because they are already familiar with the characters but for the average film goer some of the characters seem like extras. I'm not suggesting they should've been fleshed out because that would have weighed down the film but it is something which I noticed. The film packs so much into its run time it's really incredible how well paced it is. The fact that Singer was able to bring together this convoluted franchise is as great a feat as what Whedon did with the avengers. The fact that he made me really excited about future X-Men movies is maybe something he deserves even more praise for 4.5/5!   

Classics Thursday: On the Waterfront (1954)

In continuing with my new series I am reviewing another great film. This one is very well known, so it is not in the "gem" category, but after picking up Criterion's wonderful Blu-Ray this week I couldn't help watching it again and reviewing it.

Very few films have as important a place in film history as On the Waterfront. Many times a film is either historically significant, in that it is inexorably connected to its period due to its subject matter or style, or artistically significant, In that the techniques used to create the film were revolutionary. On the Waterfront is in that rare group of films that are both historically significant and artistically significant. The historical significance stems from its connection to the Hollywood blacklist. This has been written about many times in many places and really has very little bearing on a review of the film so if you are interested in the significance this film has in relation to the blacklist feel free to look it up for yourself. For the purposes of this review I will focus on the many advancements On the Waterfront made in terms of acting and filmmaking technique.

On the Waterfront is the story of Terry Malloy who begins the film as a heavy for the waterfront union. Throughout the course of the film Malloy begins to realize the types of atrocious things the union is doing and finally stands up against them. This is difficult since his older brother is very close to the union boss. The film is about Terry standing up for what's right and coming to realizations about his character. The true power of the film cannot be given in a brief synopses as this film is really about character. The revolutionary acting and directing allow this to be possible.

This film is a master-class in method acting, an acting style which was still quite new at the time. Brando's performance is legendary, and rightfully so. He brings so many layers to Terry that you feel that the character really comes alive. The famous "contender" speech is rightfully famous as well. It is really the dramatic peak of the film, and while repeated over and over it still retains much of its power. The rest of the cast also turn in tremendous performances. Eva Marie Saint in particular seems to work very well with Brando and you can't imagine another actress in that role  Karl Malden plays my favorite priest in film history, Father Barry. Finally Lee J. Cobb brings the right amount of nastiness to the role of the ironically named Johnny Friendly.

Acting is often what draws people to this film but Kazan's direction and innovative location shooting are what help make it a "perfect" film. The idea of making a movie, in widescreen no less, on a grimy waterfront was risky in the 1950's. This level of realism had been explored in Europe, especially Italy (see Bicycle Thieves as an example), but in America it was just not typical. Kazan brings an energy to the film that keeps everything moving. His close ups allow the actors to act and his framing gives every scene the right mood. The score is by Leonard Bernstein and it is quite dramatic but because of Kazan's energy it works very well.

On the Waterfront is a movie everyone should experience at some point. It is both a moral tale and a character study which works on a variety of levels. If you haven't seen it now is the time to check it out and if you have, you already know that it is worth going back to. It is simply one of the classics of cinema 5/5!

Classics Thursday: Charade (1963)

After a short hiatus (due to studying for finals) I am now back writing film reviews. For the summer I am going to institute a new series called "Classics Thursday". Every week on Thursday there will be a new review of a classic film. Some films will probably be ones that many may have seen, but my goal is to find, and review, some gems. Because of this, If you have any suggestions for movies that I should review for this series please comment.

Charade has been called "the best Hitchcock film Hitchcock never made", by that description alone I knew I had to see this film. Charade was directed by Stanley Donen, who, while not as well known as Hitchcock, is a great director in his own right. Donen is known for his musicals like Funny Face and my all-time favorite, Singin' in the Rain. Charade is the first, and only, pairing of two of the screen's most iconic stars: Cary Grant and Audrey Hepburn. Based on this film it's a shame that these two never did another film. All of this talent behind, and in front , of the camera makes Charade a truly fantastic film in the classical Hollywood vein. It was made in a year when that style was slowly dying out, but it shows no signs of aging in Charade.

Charade begins with a murder, the murder of Audrey Hepburn's characters' husband. This murder leads to a series of twists that really should be experienced uninhibited by spoilers. Suffice it to say, that this film is a jigsaw puzzle in which no one can be trusted. It is a thriller in the vein of North By Northwest with chases, witty dialog, suspense and romance in equal measure. Grant plays the urbane character he does so well and Hepburn is really the center of the film. Both stars light up the screen. Part of the reason for this, is the quality of the dialogue, but another reason is the power of seeing these two icons meet. The supporting cast is filled with great actors playing the roles we always imagine them in. Walter Matthau plays a member of the state department while George Kennedy and James Coburn play assassins. This depth in the cast is reminiscent of the great Hollywood films of old.

Donen directs the film with a style that is very reminiscent of Hitchcock. This is a major compliment. Donen creates sequences that are memorable long after the film is over. The musical score is by Henry Mancini, and that's all you need to know to know that it's good. The film takes great advantage of its locations and seeing it on Blu-Ray was a fun visual experience.

A surprising aspect of Charade is its comedy. It's as if Donen set out to create a perfect combination of the classic screwball comedy of the thirties and the post-war thriller of the forties. For the most part this combination is incredibly successful. The romantic comedy aspects of this film make Charade a little like a happy median between Hitchcock's To Catch a Thief and North By Northwest. This makes for one of the most entertaining experiences a film goer could have, but it is impossible to call Charade perfect. As with anything this tightly plotted, it can seem contrived at times, and some of the comedy could be a little bit out of place. Like Hitchcock however, because the film on a whole is so entertaining I really can't resist giving Charade a 5/5!

Remember if there are any films that you think are "gems" that you would like me to review please comment below!

Captain America The Winter Soldier (2014) Review

I may be in the minority but I enjoyed the first Captain America movie. It wasn't the greatest superhero extravaganza put on film but it was enjoyable, old fashioned fun, even if it took a bit too much from Indiana Jones. I was probably more excited to see this sequel than any of the other Marvel movies since the Avengers. As the hype grew my expectations were raised. After seeing the film I can definitely say it was worth the wait even if it didn't exceed my expectations.

Captain America the Winter Soldier's plot is something I really don't want to reveal. I know that many people have seen the movie already but for those that haven't you aren't going to get any spoilers here. The story involves Captain America, S.H.I.E.L.D., Black Widow, and a certain Winter Soldier. It is a movie that is filled with several sequences of action and which has a decent espionage plot to back it up. Chris Evans does a great job of bringing to life this classic hero. The rest of the cast play their roles very well and at this point it is hard to imagine these iconic characters in anybody else's hands.

The action in this film is truly incredible. I don't usually commend movies for their action but Cap 2 deserves praise. The opening sequence is probably the best opening Marvel has ever done, a character scene followed by a Bond-like sequence aboard a ship. This sequence brought the Captain and his shield to life like I have never seen before. The camera seemed perfectly placed throughout the scene and the stunts felt realistic. This opening was followed by so many good sequences that I think there wasn't a poorly done action scene in the film. The plot and script of the film are good but not great. The major twists and turns were pretty easy for a mystery and spy enthusiast to spot but luckily there were a couple of little twists that were unexpected. The dialogue had a sharp wit that never felt forced (cough Iron Man 3 cough).  It did not feel all that original though. It played around with current events which was interesting, but it felt surface level. The center-piece of the film was the action.

It's a good thing that the action was so good but there may have been too much of it. If a couple of the scenes had been shortened I feel like the pacing of the film would have been better and the plot more exciting. This is probably the hardest thing for an action film to get right, the pacing. In many ways Captain America the Winter Soldier is one of Marvel's best but despite its potential it can't beat out the big two (the first Iron Man and the Avengers). It's still one heck of a fun movie 4/5

The Grand Budapest Hotel (2014) Review

Wes Anderson is a filmmaker with a unique vision. His films create characters and worlds that are truly original. For some, his style can be off-putting in its oddness, for others, everything he does is a delight, for me, I find that his creativity is exciting, but not everything he does works. When it does work though, it's a filmmaker at the top of his game. Such is the case with the Grand Budapest Hotel a film that is my favorite Wes Anderson film to date and one that I'm sure will be in the running for my favorite movies of 2014. In short it is a true delight.

The beginning of the film sets up the main story by framing it not once, but three times.
The main story takes place in 1932 at the Grand Budapest hotel and it is about Gustave H. an esteemed concierge. The story is told from the perspective of his lobby boy who was new at the time. Soon the lobby boy and the concierge are wrapped up in a caper involving inheritances, prison break-outs, priceless art, ski chases, and murder. Ralph Fiennes brings the concierge to life with peerless timing and wit. It is he who helps give the film its great doses of humor with his delivery. The cast list is one of the most esteemed I have seen in some time and every actor gets to make a memorable appearance. This is a film that can handle actor cameos very well and I felt like they were all done to good effect without detracting from the overall story.

The true star of the film is the world Anderson creates and the innovative techniques he uses to get us into it. First there is the way he frames the story as a book being read. Many films have been structured this way but in this case the frame narration takes on a truly literary style. I felt it worked very well and added to the atmosphere that helped bring us into this world. In the main story Anderson is able to create the feeling of a classic Hollywood back-lot but with a very Andersonian touch. This film is meant to evoke those cosmopolitan comedies done to perfection by Ernst Lubitsch in the 1930's and 40's as well as some of Alfred Hitchcock's earlier work. It is not just a tribute though, it comes into its own in the way that is able to combine all of those elements with its own signature style. This helps the film to feel thoroughly fresh. The comedy is wonderful and the film is never afraid to surprise, which helps add to the audiences enjoyment.

Overall this is an entertainment of a highest order and something which I have not seen in a long time; an escapist film that is both intellectually interesting as well as a truly wonderful escape. Unlike many great recent superhero blockbusters which have gotten their intellectual side by going darker, the Grand Budapest Hotel does what many of its great, old-Hollywood pedigree did and creates an uproariously funny and enjoyable comedy which has layers to be found underneath its surface.  By doing this, like his influences, Anderson creates a world I certainly would not mind exploring again 5/5!

Rushmore (1999) Review

Comedy has been a genre of film which has, and will always be, popular. As the industry changed comedy has changed with it and Rushmore belongs to a type of comedy that could only have existed in the last 20 or so years, the auteur comedy. The auteur comedy is a type of comedy that derives its personality and sense of humor from the unique mind of an author or auteur. These comedies were not possible in the studio era of Hollywood when the humor used in a comedy had to be universal so as to appeal to a wider audience. With the advent of independent filmmakers auteur comedies were made possible because films could now reach more niche audiences. The Coen Brothers are masters of this comedy with their zany, wonderful and totally unique contributions Raising Arizona and the Big Lebowski. Wes Anderson is a relative newcomer to the field but his unique style immediately earned him a following and Rushmore was his breakout movie.

Rushmore tells the story of a fifteen year old boy who falls in love with a first-grade teacher. This simple premise is what allows Anderson to create a unique world populated by equally unique characters. Just when you want to fall into the comfort of a cliché the rug seems to be pulled out from under your feet. Max, the title character, is a unique creation and one of the aspects that I liked best about the film. Schwartzman embodies the character and makes him come to life in an unforgettable way. Bill Murray gets to show some serious acting chops as well, playing Max's adult friend. Their relationship is really the one at the heart of the movie and it is its unique nature that makes the film feel very original. The film is definitely a comedy with lost of humor and absurd situations. Sometimes these situations are so zany they could only exist in an alternate reality.

It is this reality which sets Wes Anderson apart and which also creates his movies' greatest weaknesses. Anderson is not afraid to hold back with his imagination and at times this can create wonder and awe and at other times this can create confusion and dislike. The acting is top notch in this film and the performances add to this world that comes to life before our eyes. Its vivid quality is striking and I think that many will find this movie memorable if only for the world and characters created. Sometimes the film got too wacky in a way I didn't like but I think that this will all be up to personal preference. As with any auteur comedy most people will have parts of the film they really like and identify with and other parts that may be off-putting. Rushmore, while not as good as the best Coen comedies, has many moments that are both funny and incredibly well done. It creates an unforgettable world and I can see why it made Wes Anderson a household name. 4/5

Tim's Vermeer (2014) Review

Now that the Oscar season has passed it is time for the new year of films to really get underway. Two weekends ago the second 300 film was released and made nearly 50 million dollars. This weekend the highly anticipated Muppets sequel comes out and on April 4th Marvel will release their second Captain America film. With all of these blockbusters hitting the movie scene it is easy to overlook some of the hidden gems that are in theaters. Tim's Vermeer is one of them, a documentary that enlightens and entertains in a way no blockbuster could.

Tim's Vermeer tells the story of Tim, an inventor whose work in special effects has changed moviemaking. Tim is the epitome of the "self-made" man and he has a fascination with the great painter Vermeer. Tim believes that he has discovered a method that Vermeer may have used to paint so realistically. The film chronicles Tim's quest as he attempts to paint his own Vermeer using the technique he discovered.

Watching Tim's quest unfold is a true delight. The film does a great job of setting up his idea and then demonstrating it to truly incredible effect. You could here the gasps from the audience as that idea unfolded. I won't reveal what the technique Tim uses is because I wouldn't do it justice in explanation and because you should see for yourself. Besides the actual painting of the Vermeer the true star of Tim's Vermeer is Tim. This man is truly a genius. He is able to adapt his skills to almost any discipline he chooses and he has the determination to do it. The filmmakers do a great job of letting the audience get to know his character and allowing us to feel like we are a part of the process. The film is riveting from start to finish and was definitely worth seeing on the big screen. Tim's Vermeer is a very entertaining and well made documentary. It is an inspiring story of a man and his relentless pursuit of a goal. I think that it is a true treasure for filmgoers who want a respite from the major blockbusters. 4.5/5

2013: Year in Review

In honor of the academy awards being today here at long last is my personal review of last year in film. It was a very interesting year and I could even go as far as saying it was a very good year. This year it was not the blockbusters that wowed but instead the smaller films. these pleasant surprises are what took this year from being a typical year to being a good year. So, with that out of the way, let's get down to this year's big winners in my book.

Best Film: 12 Years A Slave, A truly excruciating experience 12 Years takes the top spot because of its ability to make history come alive in a horrifying way. The acting and directing were top notch as well and helped to make this one of the best epics in recent memory.

Honorable Mentions: Gravity, American Hustle, Nebraska, and Her

Best ensemble Cast: 12 Years a Slave, the casting is one of the most important aspects of an epic. 12 Years shines with its choices of actors both familiar to audiences and new. It was truly a group effort.

Most surprisingly Good Movie: Mud, This movie has been all but forgotten because it technically premiered at Cannes in 2012  but honestly it was one of the best films to be released in the US this year. It walked the line between crowd pleaser and art film very well and was a truly pleasant surprise.
Honorable Mentions: Nebraska

Most Disappointing Movie: Iron Man 3, I loved the first Iron Man and after some early buzz it looked like the third was going to be a return to form, alas, it was instead just as problematic as the second one and it really left me feeling underwhelmed and disappointed.

Best Utterly Stupid Movie: Anchorman 2, I'll admit that I laughed more at this than I should have but that's what this category is for.

Best action Sequence: The opening of Star Trek Into Darkness was reminiscent of blockbusters of old and was a great introduction to a really good sequel.
Honorable Mention: Superman Vs. Zod Man of Steel

Hitchcock Award (Best Action Movie or Thriller): Captain Phillips an example of a great Hollywood thriller using a real story and a great cast that includes and incredible performance by Tom Hanks.

So their you have it, 2013 was a really good year and there were plenty of films that deserve awards but which weren't even mentioned here but there is only so much room. I look forward to the Oscars tonight and another great year of movies this year!

12 Years a Slave Review

Some films are great because they are entertaining (here's looking at you Raiders of the Lost Ark). Other films are great because they are visually spectacular (Star Wars, Gravity, etc.). Still some films are great because they are important, not just artistically, but historically. After finally seeing the much-praised 12 Years A Slave I believe it falls into that last category.

12 Years a Slave tells the story of Solomon. He is a free man who is captured and sold as a slave. This about all you need to know going in. The film uses this simple and perfect plot to help show the horrific nature of the institution itself. By using Solomon, a real person, as an outsider the director is able to bring us into this horrible world as Solomon is being introduced to it. This makes Solomon a character we can identify with, which helps us to better put ourselves in his situation. It is this that helps the director give the film such impact on the viewer. As Solomon is seeing and being oppressed by the injustice for the first time, we , as viewers, are as well.

Make no mistake, this is not Django Unchained. Not to malign that film but it used this backdrop relatively realistically as a way to provide context for its rather pulpy storyline. 12 Years a Slave is about pulling no punches. Some scenes are so hard to watch they will make you cringe. This cringing does not come from the gore on screen but from the acts themselves and sometimes the mere elapse of time. There is a point in the film where the director allows events to elapse in real time and this mere device makes that scene so hard to watch. In that moment I was not witnessing history from afar but living it.  I was very happy that the film made sure to be real and not over-or under-play any aspects as to, in some way, glorify the proceedings. The film felt real and raw.

The acting helped to bring this realism to the forefront as well. Ejiofor gives a perfect performance. He brings Solomon to life. Fasbender Is also incredibly well cast in this film and he creates a truly horrifyingly realistic slave-owner. Benedict Cumberbatch also makes a welcome appearance and does well with his screen time. The directing in this film is top-notch. Steve McQueen knows how to work the audience to incredible levels (as in the scene mentioned above) The film is one of the most recent epics to come out of Hollywood that one could actually call great.

Some might find that comparing 12 years a Slave to the Hollywood epics of old is insulting. They may feel that by making this comparison I am ignoring the films realism and true purpose. The Idea people have about the classic epics is that they are romantic and this film is certainly not. The comparison comes into play because like a great epic of old this film has a fantastic ensemble and well constructed story. Also like a classic epic this film takes a broad topic or period of history and makes a film that perfectly  captures it. It is important to note that while those two points put 12 Years a Slave in the category of a Hollywood epic there are several points in the film in which McQueen purposefully tones down these qualities. The specific shot that told me this was the shot of the boat with the slaves going down the river. The interesting fact is that there is no full shot of the boat on the river. The shot is instead of the propulsion of the boat and the water. This choice gives the film a distinct lack of romanticism that does a film of such serious subject matter credit. This film should be honored with  best picture and it was honestly the best film of the year. 5/5!

The Lego Movie (2014)

As the first movie that I saw of 2014 the Lego Movie holds a special place. It was a fantastic start to this year of movies and I can honestly say that watching the Lego Movie was one of the most pleasantly surprising cinematic experiences I have ever had.

I am going to refrain from giving a plot synopsis of this film because I honestly feel that viewers should go into this as in the dark as possible. All I will say is that it is truly a Lego Movie. The cast here is fantastic. It includes Chis Pratt, Will Ferrell, Liam Neeson, Will Arnett, and Morgan Freeman. If that sounds like a fun cast to you than you would be right. You just get the feeling that all of these actors were just having a blast making this movie and it shows. The humor in this film is razor sharp and will go far over the heads of many kids who see this film. In fact I would say that adults may actually find more to enjoy in the Lego Movie than their children will. That's not to say that there isn't plenty for the younger ones to enjoy, there is, but this film is really almost geared towards an older audience.

The best thing about the Lego Movie is its storytelling and its originality. There are so many films these days trying to be like Pixar that it was refreshing to see a movie not trying to follow that mold. The Lego Movie feels unique and exciting in a way that animated movies quite frankly haven't for a couple of years. The cast and the humor in this film work on many levels and the whole experience will leave you smiling as the credits roll. I would recommend wholeheartedly seeing it for yourself because quite frankly the Lego Movie is awesome, period. 5/5!

Oscar Watch: The Wolf of Wall Street Review

Martin Scorsese is a living legend among directors. His work has spanned decades and has garnered praise from critics and audiences alike. He will certainly go down in history as one of the great directors, sharing his company with the likes of Alfred Hitchcock, Howard Hawkes, Billy Wilder, Ernst Lubitsch etc. It is always a pleasure to go into a movie and know that you are witnessing the work of a living legend like Scorsese. The Wolf of Wall Street is a very entertaining film, feverishly directed with the energy that one would come to expect from the director of Goodfellas. Despite the artistry behind the camera the Wolff of Wall Street fails to completely overcome a script that doesn't quite earn its debauchery.

That script is by writer Terrence Winter who is famous as the head writer on the show Boardwalk Empire. Like that show there are many great scenes woven into this script about an extravagant stock broker but these scenes are only glimpses of brilliance in a script that fails to really do justice to the story. What I mean by this is that while the script shows many entertaining scenes of Jordan Belfort's excess it fails to show nearly any of the consequences of his actions. There is barely even a glimpse of the financial ruin that a man like Belfort caused. In fact while the script says that Belfort's actions as stock broker were illegal it never explains the reasoning behind this so the viewer is left feeling that Belfort was merely a guy who partied too hard and got caught. In many ways the film is the epitome of three hours of excess, entertaining excess at that, but still excess without much real substance. The one other positive about the script besides its entertainment value is the way that it manages to keep this long movie moving at a decent clip. So many outrageous things happen that we barely have time to internalize them and this is what makes the movie work reasonably well despite its flaws.

The reason I spent so much time on the script is that I feel like the script's lack of consequence was really the only thing burdening this movie. Mr. Scorsese is at the top of his game in terms of directing and several of the sequences feature incredible style. The acting is top notch because the cast is so meticulously chosen. DiCaprio deserves praise for his exuberance and believability in the role and Jonah Hill delivers another incredible supporting actor performance. Hill is one of the best comedic character actors in modern film when he is given the right character and here he shines just as he did in Moneyball. The soundtrack is well chosen as always and several of the sequences are laugh out loud funny. In fact I would say that Wolf was one of the funniest movies I saw this year and its a testament to the cast and director that this film was so entertaining. For some this movie will be too edgy but for others the lack of consequence in the script will not bother them in the least. Wolf could have been great but because of that one factor it fell to good and that's really more a testament to its legendary director that it wasn't any worse. 3.5/5

Oscar Watch: American Hustle Review

From the opening of the film there is no doubt that David O Russell's American Hustle is an excursive in style. The film begins with great confidence in media res not giving the audience any background about what's happening and expecting us to instead focus on the characters and their interactions. This is a bold move in what turns out to be quite a bold movie: one that has glamorous stars and which appears to have a glamorous plot line but one which is inevitably far more about characters and their relationships than one might expect. American Hustle is a complex and highly stylish film which defies expectations to the point where I almost feel like it requires a second viewing.

The truth is that the plot is very complex. Much of it is actually purposefully shady and left for the end of the film but when watching it for the first time one does not know that. This film builds upon this complex tale of con men, politicians, and FBI agents with many character studies. The film really cares more about the people involved and less about explaining exactly what's going on. This may be frustrating to some viewers who went to the film expected a tightly plotted film like Argo. There is a plot and when it reaches its conclusion it makes sense but it is a little more complex than the average plot of a Hollywood film.

The acting is where this film really shines. Christian Bale completely transformed himself for the role of Irving and he truly embodies the character. It is hard to believe that this is the same actor who played the Dark Knight. Amy Adams gives a really fantastic performance as well, showing the weaknesses and vitality of character in subtle ways that help to illustrate who Sydney is. Bradley Cooper does a fine job as the FBI agent. Jeremy Renner really does a remarkable thing in making this targeted politician one whom we actually sympathize with. And Jennifer Lawrence managed to not only hold her own  in this cast but give one of the very best supporting screen performances this reviewer has ever seen. Her energy and the realism she brings to the role fill the movie with so much energy that you want to applaud when her scene has finished. There are some great cameos as well but to spoil those would be to ruin the fun and there is much fun to be had.

American Hustle is directed with incredible style. Russell infuses this film with both a glamorous style (reminiscent of Goodfellas) and his own particular style as seen in his other films. This movie has glamorous stars playing con games and a well chosen musical score to match but in the end it works because of the acting and the characters of the film. Russell understands this and does not let the style get ahead of him. He is a great actors' director because he plays to their performances. This film really has two styles and plays to both of them. The first style is one that is broad and extravagant with flowing camera movies and soaring seventies music. The second style is more intimate and character driven  with the camera closer to the actors and the music subdued. because of this there is a lot going on in American Hustle and it really is difficult to take it all in. I have not yet had the ability to view it a second time but if I did I think that I would have an even greater appreciation for it. As it stands this film has actors and a director at the top of his/their games and that's reason enough to see it. 4.5/5

Oscar Watch: Saving Mr. Banks Review

After a winter break hiatus, I am now returning to this blog to write reviews in anticipation of the Academy awards. These reviews will focus on both the films themselves and their chances of winning Oscar gold and will conclude with my personal year in review.

Saving Mr. Banks had a very strong chance of ending up as a special feature on some Mary Poppins Blu-Ray someday. The idea of making an entire movie about the making of a beloved film classic was a risk because there was a chance that it could have no personality of its own. Thankfully for moviegoers Saving Mr. Banks not only has its own personality but is a truly fine film in its own right.

Saving Mr. Banks tells the story of PL Travers, the author of Mary Poppins;. We see scenes of her childhood and inspiration for the book as well as scenes of the older Ms. Travers working and fighting with the Disney company over the rights to her beloved characters. What makes this plot work is that it does well by the woman herself. By deciding to focus very much on her storyline this film becomes more than a making of documentary. We watch as the director slowly unfolds the character of this woman before our eyes and as he does so we slowly come to understand her.

Much credit for this must be given to Emma Thompson who brings Travers to life with a sense of realism that helps us to believe that this is a real person and also a real enigma. This is essential for the film to work the way it does and the acting job of Ms. Thompson helps give the film its life. Tom Hanks also give s a very good performance as Walt Disney. His character is far less of an enigma; he's a good salesman, and as an audience we feel immediately taken in by Hanks' presence. The film manages to both focus on Travers but also focus on the making of this classic film. When the film is at its best it combines these two goals in sequences that work on more than one level.

It isn't perfect though. It is quite a sentimental film and that may not be to everybody's liking and many of the developments that occur are not really unforeseen. There are certainly elements of the story that have been trod on again and again in these types of films and some may protest that it is not all entirely true to what actually happened.

Despite these minor quibbles this movie exceeded my expectations in that it was not just a love letter to Mary Poppins but a good film in its own right. It also made me want to revisit Mary Poppins. I would actually suggest that to get the most out of the film one should view the classic first because there are many nods in this that will be lost if you have not recently seen it. Overall I found this to be an entertaining film that is perfect for the winter season. I don't think it will be nominated for best picture but I do believe that Ms. Thompson deserves at least a nomination as best actress for her performance. 4/5