Review: The World's End

Focus Features

Well guys, this is it: the end of the Cornetto Trilogy! Beginning with Shaun of the Dead, Nick Frost and Simon Pegg set out with director and good friend Edgar Wright to make a trilogy of movies about basically whatever they wanted. Shaun of the Dead, as the name suggests, was a zombie/horror parody with abundant fast, witty humor and quick cuts/editing (Wright's filmmaking trademark), but also with some legitimately dark moments. In the same way, Hot Fuzz was a parody of action/buddy cop movies with its main target being American, blockbuster action-fare (namely Michael Bay's Bad Boys II), but with some truly cool and entertaining action and directing. First news of the The World's End suggested that it would be a sort of sci-fi, apocalyptic parody, but whatever it would be, die-hard fans of the Pegg/Frost/Wright trio expected nothing but for the trilogy to go out with a bang.

Childhood friends Gary (Pegg), Andy (Frost), Steven (Paddy Considine), Peter (Eddie Marsan), and Oliver (Martin Freeman) once attempted a legendary "pub crawl" around the 12 pubs of their hometown in the early '90s, but fell 4 or 5 pubs short. Now, 20 years later, Gary, always the adventurous leader, convinces the rest to join in a quest to complete the pub crawl. Little do the 5 friends know that their quaint hometown has been secretly overrun by an alien presence! Thus, you have one ridiculous premise: a handful of drunk, middle-aged men trying to fight robots(that they call "Blanks")/aliens while attempting to complete a drinking game that is life threatening enough as it is (1 pint per pub, so that makes 12). So how does this stack up to the rest of the trilogy?

Review: Blue Jasmine

Sony Pictures Classics

Every year for as long as I can remember (so probably the last decade) we get a new movie written and directed by Woody Allen. They can be hit or miss for critics, but I tend to find most of them somewhere in-between with the occasional fantastic film. 2011's Midnight in Paris being the last really great one with Vicky Cristina Barcelona before that in 2008 with a handful of the 'meh' ones mixed in. I've always been a Woody Allen fan, but I did not pay much attention to Blue Jasmine during its production or early release besides when my brother and his girlfriend texted me to say they had seen Allen filming in San Francisco. So, I looked the movie up and was not surprised to find a typically stellar cast Allen always assembles consisting this time of Cate Blanchett, Sally Hawkins, Alec Baldwin, Louis CK, Andrew Dice Clay, Peter Sarsgaard, and more. I didn't look into the plot at all, so I had the rare opportunity of experiencing a movie without already having some considerable knowledge of it.

What kind of story would it be? With Allen, it's fairly simple as to what one can expect. Sometimes he tackles certain concepts or human struggles/enigmas such as with Match Point, Cassandra's Dream, Vicky Cristina Barcelona, and others, and sometimes he focuses on straight-up character studies as with Annie Hall, Hannah and Her Sisters, Manhattan, etc. Blue Jasmine definitely falls under the realm of character study as the story focuses on the sad life of Jasmine (Blanchett) and all the people her life has affected, generally for the worse.

What I'm Watching: The Great Gatsby

Warner Bros.

Why I watched it: I had no real interest in seeing this in theaters. The idea of once again adapting Fitzgerald's beloved novel about the elusive and empty "American Dream" didn't interest me, and the idea of Baz Luhrmann (Romeo+Juliet, Moulin Rouge) having creative control presented a whole host of other possible issues. For those of you familiar (obsessed) with Moulin Rouge, you know Luhrmann loves the grand and dramatic saturated in a never ending cycle of heavily saturated spectacles. Don't get me wrong, I actually really like Moulin Rouge, surprisingly enough, and think it is almost a perfect example of how a musical should be. Still, the pizazz of Moulin Rouge is about all I can take, and it was tolerable and enjoyable because it fit the story-line. In the case of The Great Gatsby, I never imagined it as the rip-roaring twenties full of booze and (very modern) partying that the trailers for this movie exhibited. The cast seemed like a good choice (aside from Tobey Maguire who I am not too fond of) though, and if anything, perhaps it'd be worth watching for the sake of some pretty colors and scenery.

What I thought: So yes, Luhrmann takes the flash, pomp, dazzle, and grandeur to a level that is fun to watch, but does not feel true to the novel. Luhrmann tries very hard to emphasize how Nick Carraway (Maguire) gets caught up in the dream of the roaring twenties and finds the hope and optimism he longs for manifested in the character of Jay Gatsby. However, much of the symbolism relies entirely on the spectacle which feels overdone rendering much of the rich symbolism and themes moot. Leonardo DiCaprio (Gatsby) and Carrey Mulligan (Daisy Buchanan) definitely steal the show though and present the best performances. Still, even their performances and those of the rest of the cast feel forced at times; especially the emphasized way in which everyone talks. Joel Edgerton's (Tom Buchanan) attempt at a gruff voice is especially painful. Even though Luhrmann's attempts at communicating Fitzgerald's themes generally fall flat, the ending does capture Fitzgerald's ultimate message quite well. Much of his original language is used in the film spoken mainly through Carraway's narration but is most impacting when Luhrmann chooses to end the film with Fitzgerald's final lines of the novel: "Gatsby believed in the green light, the orgastic future that year by year recedes before us. It eluded us then, but that's no matter - tomorrow we will run faster, stretch our arms out further...And one fine morning - So we beat on, boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past." There are a few times such as these when The Great Gatsby that I remember so fondly reading in high school shines through, but overall, Luhrmann's visual aesthetic takes precedence and distracts from the point.

Should you watch it: For those of you who adore Fitzgerald's novel, I would say definitely watch it. Even though I don't think it interprets the original tone or atmosphere correctly, it's always good to see different adaptations to experience different interpretations. And for those of you who don't remember the novel or don't care, I would say see it as well. Don't expect to be blown away or anything, but if you go in not expecting much, I think you'll enjoy it even more.

Review: Spring Breakers

A24

Why does anyone watch something like Spring Breakers? In my case, utterly depraved curiosity and/or necessity. Those of you who know of Harmony Korine (writer of the notorious Kids at the age of 19, no less) know that anytime he makes something it is generally considered borderline offensive, cutting-edge, and sometimes brilliant at the same time depending on who you're talking to. Spring Breakers is his second director/writer feature after 2009's Trash Humpers, which I've been told is exactly what the title suggests. Needless to say, James Franco sporting a Riff-Raff inspired persona, corn-roes and all, accompanied by four actresses formerly associated with harmless, Disney-type child's fair taking on the roles of scantily clad, booze and drug soaked college students was bound to cause some waves all over the interweb and pop culture social stratosphere (that was a terribly long and I'm sure grammatically incorrect sentence but who cares SPRING BREAK 4EVER). 

And once it came out, I don't think anyone was expecting the generally favorable reviews it received. Still, I had friends from film classes who loved it and some who hated it, and judging by their different tastes in film, I began to develop a pretty good idea of what to expect. And after having Spring Breakers in my possession for a number of weeks and actively choosing to watch other things instead, I finally forced myself to watch it after my roommate moved out and took the router with him leaving me stranded without the internet and without a choice.

What I'm Watching: The Iceman

Millennium Films

Why I watched it: As you can see from the picture above, it is Michael Shannon, and he looks extremely badass. Not only does The Iceman feature Shannon as real-life contract killer Richard Kuklinski, but it also includes Ray Liotta, Winona Ryder, Chris Evans, and a couple very random cameos from James Franco and Stephen Dorff. Overall, it's a great cast and who can resist a mob-related biopic? The plot and trailers promised some cool action and stone-cold killings by Shannon, and even though I'm not a huge fan of biopics, I had no prior knowledge of Kuklinski and the subject matter seemed much more interesting and entertaining than some other biopic on a President or something. So of course I'm interested in this one!

What I thought: As expected, Shannon is good in anything he does. Granted, he's a natural when it comes to scary, cold (no pun intended) characters and keeping that signature frown frozen (another pun!) on his face. Ryder is also good as Shannon's wife, and she even pulls off her Jersey accent quite well too. The other supporting actors are all fine as well. However, as interesting as the premise for the movie and Kuklinski's life sounds, the plot is still fairly void of anything worthwhile. We understand that Kuklinski had a messed up childhood and that he has no problem being violent and cruel if necessary, but beyond that, the reasons for why he so easily takes on the role of contract killer are never fully explained. We hear him say a number of times "Everything I do is for my family" or something along those lines, but that still doesn't give a solid enough reason for why someone would kill over 100 people in their life. ONE HUNDRED PEOPLE! Of course there's the money he was paid for the killings, but still, not anyone can just do that for any amount of money. So The Iceman and it's events are entertaining and well executed enough, but there's a hole at the center that begs the question "why." The absence of an answer for this question forms the basis for my problem with many historical or biopic pieces: sure, a true story like this one is interesting and informative, but there has to be a better reason than just "based on a true story" for me to warrant making a movie out of something.

Should you watch it: Despite its lack of substance, The Iceman is still better than most other movies out on DVD right now. Shannon is always fun to watch, and it is crazy to fathom that killers like that actually existed and I'm sure still do exist. Overall, the killings and such don't provide anything really new as far as style and action, but it's still a generally entertaining time. So, for the sake of Shannon and his stoney-silence, go for it!

Review: Elysium

TriStar Pictures/Sony Pictures Entertainment

There's no denying writer/director Neill Blomkamp's talent for futuristic sci-fi. The South African filmmaker began his career working with visual effects which is no surprise. Like it or hate it, District 9 had some very sweet special effects, not to mention a very good performance from Sharlto Copley. Blomkamp made it clear with District 9 that he likes to focus on harsh, gritty futuristic environments and action. I went into that movie unsuspecting of the high level of graphically exploding bodies and blown off limbs that were flying everywhere. So Blomkamp definitely has an eye for vivid settings and detail, but he can also get carried away with the visual effects and lose hold of the story's ambition.

With District 9, Blomkamp attempted to set up an analogy for apartheid in South Africa with the way that the humans segregate and poorly treat the aliens who land in Johannesburg. Suffice to say, Blomkamp attempted to tackle an extremely sensitive and complicated matter via a hypothetical sci-fi scenario, something that many famous authors have done in the past. So the idea is by no means new, but Blomkamp's name and ambition overstepped its bounds even with Peter Jackson's name attached to District 9. By the end of the film, the plot descends into albeit impressive and highly entertaining action but action that is unrelated to the analogy and unnecessary for its progression. Once again, Blomkamp has decided to tackle a very complicated subject in Elysium, and the result is very similar to District 9.

Review: The Wolverine

Twentieth-Century Fox Film Corporation/Marvel Entertainment

I remember one of my friends saying before how they thought it was weird that Marvel and Fox decided to take the Wolverine story-line the furthest out of all the other X-Men/mutants available to them. I know nothing about the comics myself, but according to those who know them, other X-Men have more interesting and cooler plots and complexes than the self-healing mutant with retractable claws and infamous side-burns. Still, it cannot be denied that with the first X-Men films, Hugh Jackman created a very like-able and entertaining character. There's no doubt that Marvel and Fox went with Wolverine over the others because of Jackman's box-office appeal, and even though 2009's X-Men Origins: Wolverine got panned by the reviewers and generally disliked by everyone that I know, that didn't stop it from making $179 million compared to the $150 million budget. That's not a huge profit margin to speak of especially compared to other Marvel films, but still, it more than suggested that people were still into Hugh and X-Men.

So now we have The Wolverine, directed by James Mangold (3:10 to Yuma, Walk the Line), and set in Japan. The initial premise set up by the trailers suggested that Wolverine would be struggling with the option of giving up his mutant ability to regenerate in order to finally be able to live as a mortal. The "curse of immortality" plot-point has been used in a number of movies in the past, but it still presents an array of possibilities for character development and substance beyond Wolverine fighting ninjas and samurais and watching cuts and gashes magically disappear from his body. The Japanese setting also promised some potentially cool, pretty settings and mis en scene for Wolverine to explore as well as other, interesting mutants to encounter. In short, with this new plot-line and creative team, The Wolverine seemed like it could deliver what Origins promised but failed to do.

Review: Only God Forgives

RADiUS-TWC

I probably should have taken at least one more day to think this one over, but I'm going to attempt to write this review anyway. For those of you who have paid any sort of attention to reviews that came out of Cannes or anywhere else, you know that Only God Forgives has received some extremely mixed reviews. Many articles have been written mainly about the criticism instead of the movie itself. One such "top critic" on rottentomatoes said "Ryan Gosling and his "Drive" director, Nicoals Winding Refn, sail into the heart of darkness and emerge with a trinket of crackpot porno kitsch." Another said "Style over substance doesn't really tell the half of it: you can bathe a corpse in groovy light and dress it in an expensive suit, but in the end that rotting smell just won't go away." Combine both of these snippets and you get Refn's latest film compared to a stinking, rotting piece of pretty looking shit. For these reviewers, there isn't enough characters, emotions, or reasons for "why" anything happens, and a beautifully lit Gosling just won't cut it.

While watching the movie myself, I experienced a lot of reactions: awe, disgust, confusion, embarrassment, frustration, and revulsion. At least, those are all of the verbs I could think of right now. The reviewers aren't wrong when they describe and react strongly to the grisliness and apparent pointless brutality and borderline sadomasochism exhibited here. But at the same time, their criticisms of Refn's lack of characters and subject matter doesn't really have a place. 

What I'm Watching: Oblivion

Universal Pictures

Why I watched it: this is one that I meant to see in theaters, but just never got around to it. Reviews had the consensus of "meh," but I was still intrigued by the pretty looking clips from the trailer and a new sci-fi movie. Director Joseph Kosinski made his debut a few years back with Tron: Legacy which for all of its silliness was fairly dazzling to watch. So, I figured Oblivion would at least deliver something cool to look at if not a fairly good story. I am also a fan of Tom Cruise, I have to admit. He may play the same character in nearly every movie, but he plays that character very well in opinion (especially in Magnolia). Unlike a lot of actors who obviously phone in their performances in many movies, Cruise seems to try and actually do his best in just about anything. I am also a fan of Olga Kurylenko (Quantum of Solace) even though she's not the greatest actress around, I still find her more like-able than most.

What I thought: it is very pretty! The mixture of digital effects and real locations (like the one above) make for images that are bright and crisp. Cruise delivers everything that he possibly could with the character and script he was given, but I will have to side with critics on this one and say that the story is "meh." It holds multiple plot points and twists that are a combination of things seen in sci-fi before, and while the film itself is over 2 hours long, it still feels as if things are hurried along too much. A lot of time is spent watching Cruise fly around to different places that look cool, but when it comes to moving the plot along, things happen too fast. In this same vein of thought, there is a fairly long prologue narrated by Cruise which is just lazy writing in this case. I don't have a problem with prologues in general; sometimes they can be quite useful and done effectively, but in this case it's a way for the writers to pack all of the back-story, major plot points, and other key character motivations into a just less than 10 minute sequence. Oblivion has also received a lot of attention for its soundtrack done by the band M83, and it is a good soundtrack! But it becomes overplayed and explodes into certain sequences that just don't feel right for that kind of music. On its own, I'm sure it'd be very cool to listen to while running or something because it's fairly epic. All of the time, which is one of its problems.

Should you see it: I'd say that Oblivion is better than most of the fair you'll find at Redbox these days, and the same goes for new releases on Netflix too if you pay for mail delivery. It has enough sparkling imagery and exciting moments (especially this spaceship chase through an ice-canyon) in it to make for an enjoyable time. Still, I'm glad I didn't spend money on it in theaters, and it would be best if you tried not to do too much guessing as to what happens in the plot. Otherwise you'll probably figure everything out pretty fast just like I did. I guessed the ultimate twist from the very beginning.