The Danish Girl (6/10): Strong performances, but familiar biopic.

"I love you, because you are the only person who made sense of me. And made me, possible."

Tom Hooper's latest film is a fictionalized portrayal of real life Danish artists Einar and Gerda Wegener. It is a period piece that reimagines the love story between these two artists. Einar who later becomes Lili is recognized as one of the pioneers in transgender, but the film takes many liberties and is far from representing the true relationship between the artists. Alicia Vikander plays Gerda, the artist who painted her husband as a lady. Eddie Redmayne is Einar Wegener, who after enjoying the transformation in his wife's painting discovers himself as Lili. The film focuses on the couple's struggle to accept these changes, although history proves that this depicted love story is far from true. David Ebershoff's novel takes several liberties, ignoring the fact that Gerda herself was a lesbian. 

Now that I got that settled and out of the way, I can focus on the film itself. It is a formulaic biopic that does little to stand out from other period pieces. This is my fourth Tom Hooper film and despite being gorgeously filmed, I found it to be one of his weakest efforts. My favorite from him continues to be The Damned Untied, which ironically was the first film from him I've seen. The King's Speech and Les Miserables were also movies I enjoyed, but to a lesser degree. The Danish Girl has a fantastic production design, but it stands out exclusively for its two lead performances. Both Eddie Redmayne and Alicia Vikander are superb and worthy of their Oscar nominations. Redmayne comes fresh out of his Oscar win for portraying Stephen Hawking in The Theory of Everything, but I think his performance here is even better and just as physically demanding as his previous one. He probably won't win, but I think this performance is stronger. Vikander has had a wonderful year after her stunning performance in Ex Machina. Here she gets to shine along Redmayne and even steals several scenes from him. Ever since I first saw her in the Danish film, A Royal Affair, I've always been a fan of Vikander's work. This might be her best performance to date, but competing against Kate Winslet in the supporting category for this year's Oscar will make it hard for her to stand a chance.  The Danish Girl is worth the watch for the strong performances alone, but there isn't much more to the story. I found the pacing a bit dull and lost interest in the story halfway through. The Danish Girl is a forgettable formulaic biopic, but it's worth the watch for the fantastic performances.

The Man from U.N.C.L.E. (6/10): Visually stunning but lacking substance.

“America teaming up with Russia. That doesn't sound very friendly.”

In-between his work with the Sherlock Holmes franchise, Guy Ritchie has decided to adapt The Man from U.N.C.L.E., a TV series that aired in the mid 60’s during the height of the Cold War. In a year where we were already getting the releases of the James Bond and Mission Impossible franchises it was quite a risk and one that didn’t pay off as well as it could have. In order for the film to stand out from these and other similar spy thrillers, Ritchie put the emphasis on the style giving the film a unique and cool 60’s look. Unfortunately the film doesn’t have the substance to go along with the style. There are not many thrills, the villains in this movie are forgettable, and the pacing at times becomes monotonous. The style however is so invigorating and cool that it deserves to be seen for its visual appeal alone. It doesn’t hurt that you have the likes of Henry Cavill, Armie Hammer, and Alicia Vikander in the lead roles, all actors who undoubtedly benefit from the stylish fashion of the film. More mature audiences might enjoy the film for its nostalgic and retro value, but most were probably not around that time to be familiar with it. In order to stand out from other spy films it needed a unique approach, and that is what we get from Ritchie here, but at the same time it was also its downfall because the film became all about style leaving it with very little substance.

   

The story takes place in the 60’s during the Cold War as two secret agents are trying to locate the daughter of a German scientist in hopes of finding her father that has gone missing. CIA agent, Napoleon Solo (Henry Cavill) gets to her first at her garage shop in  West Germany. Gaby Teller (Alicia Vikander) hasn’t seen her father in decades, but Solo offers his help to get her out of the country and set up a meeting with her uncle so they can find him. He believes that the Nazi’s are holding him captive and forcing him to build an atomic bomb. While they are trying to escape, Solo discovers he is being followed by a mysterious man who we soon discover is a KGB operative. Illya Kuryakin (Armie Hammer) tries to intercept them before they escape and the two turn out to be an equal match. Solo barely escapes with Gaby thanks to the help of his team who are awaiting them. Later on, he is being briefed by his superior, Sanders (Jared Harris) where he is informed that he is going to be teaming up with Illya to go to Rome with Gaby to search for clues of her father’s whereabouts. Neither of the agents are pleased with having to work with one another after having nearly tried to kill each other, but that is where most of the fun comes from for the audience. It is basically the origin story of The Man From U.N.C.L.E.

Thanks to its unique style the film stands out from other thrillers, but I’d still recommend Rogue Nation over this. The cast here is great and they have an incredible chemistry. The story borderlines on conventions since you have your typical buddy comedy where two opposite characters are forced together and a bromance ensues. The spy elements aren’t very exciting here although there is one great action sequence involving a chase through an island in the final act of the film that looks stunning. The comedy works, but the thrills don’t as much, so even Spy is a better bet in that department. The cast makes this a much more fun experience than it should’ve been. Cavill and Hammer play off each other extremely well. I still think Hammer is a talented actor, but he hasn’t been able to prove himself after that stellar duo performance in The Social Network. Alicia Vikander is always a treat to watch and despite not getting to do much she always delivers her characteristic charm. If you want to see her in a better film than you need to see Ex-Machina. Hugh Grant also delivers quite a surprisingly charming supporting performance and there are a few twists in this film that kept me interested. Other than that this film is a bit forgettable but still an entertaining ride. Ritchie still hasn’t been able to match the success of his earlier works, but he still delivers a unique visual style of his own.  

Ex Machina (8/10): Garland's solid sci-fi directorial debut

“Of course you were programmed, by nature or nurture or both and to be honest Caleb you're starting to annoy me now because this is your insecurity talking, this is not your intellect.”

Many positive things have been said about Alex Garland’s directorial debut, but it shouldn’t come as a surprise considering he has written several successful screenplays in the past. His three previous collaborations with Danny Boyle (Sunshine, 28 Days Later, and The Beach) had to be heavily influential in his learning experience. In my opinion, writing a clever screenplay is one of the most important aspects of a film so Garland already had a halfway decent movie with his original sci-fi script. What did surprise me however, was the look of the film. The cinematography by Rob Hardy was gorgeous, showing the stark contrast of the beautiful location with the inclosed heavily secured home of powerful CEO, Nathan (Oscar Isaac). Nathan is the owner of the world’s largest internet company, which is basically a search engine similar to Google. He has secretly built a robot with artificial intelligence, called Ava (Alicia Vikander), that he keeps hidden in his reclusive residence. In order to test its AI, Nathan decides to award one of his employers, a young coder named Caleb (Domhall Gleeson), the opportunity to spend an entire week at his private estate. Once Caleb arrives, Nathan introduces him to Ava and explains the experiment to him, which is basically a Turing Test in which he will have to decide if  his creation actually has a conscious of its own. 

After having been exposed to the large amount of land Nathan owns through an aerial shot taking place in a helicopter, the film takes place almost entirely in an enclosed space in his residence. This allows Garland to focus the screenplay on the relationships between the characters, setting the claustrophobic tone of the film (similar to what he did in Sunshine). The dialogue is gripping and sometimes heavily philosophical, but there are several undertones that the story is getting at here. It is what has made Ex Machina such a critical success because everyone takes something different out of it. It may be a slow building film, but the unnerving score composed by Geoff Barrow keeps you engaged with the story. Without entering into spoiler territory some of the underlying themes I took out of the film were that of the creator versus creation (with references to Frankenstein), masculinity trying to overpower femininity, and there were even a few attacks towards corporate espionage. Its hard to ignore a film like this that manages to subtlety explore some of these issues and speak to audiences in different ways. 

The performances are as important as the screenplay here considering the action takes place in such an enclosed space, and Garland’s screenplay allows the cast to deliver solid performances. Oscar Isaac stands out as this reclusive CEO who you know can’t be trusted. There is always tension when he is on screen and there is something unsettling about him. Gleeson plays the role of Nathan extremely well and his scenes with both Isaac and Vikander are interesting. Vikander nails the role of this artificially intelligent robot with wonderful physical and voice work. These three characters interacting with each other are the highlight of the film and it all leads to some interesting twists and reveals along the way. I’m not the hugest fan of AI films, but this one kept me engaged thanks to the wonderful performances and solid dialogues. I do have to say that from the moment in which Ava puts on a dress to impress Caleb, I would’ve failed her in the Turing Test because there is no way a woman would so easily know what to wear without complaining she didn’t have anything to put on for that day. Alex Garland has delivered one of the smartest sci-fi films of the year, but it is more of a philosophical drama so if you are expecting an action film this isn’t for you. 

Seventh Son (5/10): An epic fantasy adventure that wastes an all star cast

“We will meet again.”

Seventh Son is Sergey Bodrov’s (Mongol) latest fantasy epic film starring Jeff Bridges, Julianne Moore, Alicia Vikander, and Ben Barnes. It’s a big budget adaptation of Joseph Delaney’s novel, The Spook’s Apprentice, which failed to make a splash at the box office. It is set in a Tolkien-like fantasy world where supernatural forces live among humans. There are witches, warlocks, boggarts, ghouls, and many other dark morphing creatures, and then there are spooks who protect the people by hunting down these monsters. Bodrov relies heavily on the CGI effects, but the film does look good thanks to its production design. Bridges plays the sole remaining spook, Master Gregory, who is trying to hunt down the extremely dangerous witch, Mother Malkin (Julianne Moore). Malkin plans on using her powers to reunite her followers and unleash evil across the world. After losing his latest apprentice (played by Kit Harrington), Gregory must train the young seventh son of a seventh son named Tom (Ben Barnes) who really doesn’t seem to be an interesting prospect. He only has a week to train him before reaching Malkin and preventing her from fulfilling her evil plan. Along the way, Tom falls for a young witch named Alice (Alicia Vikander) who has been spying on them. She isn’t a dark witch, but is following her mother’s orders.  Seventh Son doesn’t take itself too seriously and Bodrov jumps from one action set piece to the next without spending too much time on the characters and thus not allowing the audience to think too much about the silliness of it all.

The greatest disappointment is of course the weak screenplay that never allows us to engage with the characters despite being played by a fantastic cast. It’s inevitable not to thing about The Big Lebowski when seeing Jeff Bridges and Julianne Moore working together again. Moore had a fantastic year, winning the Oscar for her lead performance in Still Alice, but here she doesn’t have anything interesting to do. She plays a typical and cliched villain. Bridges goes extremely overboard with his character, reminding us that we shouldn’t take this adventure film too seriously. It’s hard to understand his drunken mumbling which will remind us of his work in True Grit. Olivia Williams and Djimon Hounsou also have some small roles in this film, so it is a huge disappointment to see such a talented cast wasted in a big budget film like this. Barnes and Vikander are young talented actors that try to do the best with the material they are given. The Swedish actress has taken Hollywood by storm after her performance in the Danish film, A Royal Affair, and she has five films coming out this year. She’s an actress I will be keeping my eyes on. 

Seventh Son has been receiving terrible reviews, but it wasn’t as bad as I had expected. The plot moves along very quickly and in a very predictable manner, but it never tries to take itself too seriously and that is Seventh Son’s greatest strength. The action set pieces are fun and the film is short (under 95 minutes). Of course it isn’t a good film either, but considering it is light for the eyes it’s not a difficult film to watch. If you’re bored you might find the film entertaining and it’s a good way to kill time, but there is nothing memorable about it either. More than anything it’s a huge disappointment for wasting such a talented cast. There’s no character development, but the impressive set designs and quick pace make up for it.    

My Review: The Fifth Estate (6/10)

"If you want to know the truth... no one is going to tell you the truth. They're only going to tell you their version. So, if you want the truth, you have to seek it out for yourself."

The Fifth Estate is an engaging political thriller based on real events involving the popular and questionable internet site, WikiLeaks, which intended to work as a sort of watchdog site exposing the corrupt actions of powerful organizations and governments. Despite all the media attention this got all over the news, audiences didn't seem too interested in checking out this film. If you've basically kept up with the news about WikiLeaks than this film doesn't offer much more than a dramatic story focusing on the main characters. In the end this film only tells its own version of the truth, but if you really want to know what happened you will need to investigate more on your own. The Fifth Estate raises some interest towards the subject, but it never really informs much about it. Despite being a bit one sided and exposing Assange as an egocentric and obsessive character, it still managed to raise interesting questions. The film focuses more on the relationship between Assange and Daniel Berg who teamed up to build the site than on the actual events themselves. It is worth watching for the dynamic relationship between the two, perfectly played by Benedict Cumberbatch and Daniel Bruhl, two actors that weren't on my radar before 2013, but have had an impressive year.

The Fifth Estate was based on Daniel Domscheit-Berg (Inside WikiLeaks: My Time with Julian Assange at the World's Most Dangerous Website) and David Leigh's books (WikiLeaks: Inside Julian Assange's War on Secrecy) and the screenplay was adapted by Josh Singer (The West Wing) which focused on the relationship between WikiLeak founder, Julian Assange (Benedict Cumberbatch), and Daniel Berg (Daniel Bruhl) who teamed up with him to guarantee that the website would protect the anonymity of the whistleblowers that were exposing corruption and dark secrets of powerful organizations such as banks or dictatorships. Thus the site began exposing corporate crimes and other government secrets at a very fast pace. However when the site receives thousands of confidential US military and government documents, Assange and Berg differ in how they should deal with this sensitive material. 

The lack of public interest in the WikiLeak scandals kind of hurt this film, but the truth is that with everything that went on it's hard to decipher what the intentions of the producers of this film truly are. It might be one sided, but it still presents some interesting points and it is left to the viewer to keep on searching for the truth on their own. The focus of the film is on the relationship between the two main characters and I was fine with that because the performances were strong. Alicia Vikander, Laura Linney, Anthony Mackie, and Stanley Tucci aren't given much to do with their characters considering the plot kept on jamming a lot of information in a short period of time and they really didn't stand out, but it was still nice to see some of these talented actors here. Vikander is gorgeous and I'm glad she's getting more roles after her great performance in the danish film, A Royal Affair. Bill Condon is a talented director (Gods and Monsters, Kinsey, Dreamgirls), but The Fifth Estate is a flawed film. We never learn much about the secrets that were being uncovered, since the film focused more on the relationship between Assange and Berg. It's more interested in the characters and exposing Assange's flaws than in telling the actual story. Cumberbatch and Bruhl save this film and make it watchable.

My Review: A Royal Affair (8/10)

¨I am one of you¨

A Royal Affair is a Danish film that has recently been nominated at the Oscars for Best Foreign Film, and rightfully so. It is my favorite movie in that category so far considering this is a period drama with a great storyline, beautiful production design, and excellent performances from the lead cast. Every period drama seems to focus on the art and production design so much that it sometimes forgets about the importance of the story and character development, but that isn’t the case here because despite the careful attention to the art design there was a great story to be told. I felt this was a much more complete film than the recent remake of Anna Karenina, which also happened to star the beautiful Alicia Vikander who has a lead role here. Vikander seems perfect for these roles with her young and angelical face, and she also gives an incredible and strong performance. This movie will open several doors for her, and I expect to see her in many more films in the future. The story is based on historical events that I´m pretty sure every Danish knew about, but I was pleased to be introduced to this period of history. The screenplay was adapted by Rasmus Heisterberg from the novel written by Bodil Steensen-Leth. Heisterberg had co-written the screenplay to the Swedish version of The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo with Nikolaj Arcel, the director of this film. Arcel directs this film with great craft balancing out the technical aspects with the detailed historical events that took place in this 18^th century tale. This felt like a great history lesson for me (and an entertaining one at it) and was satisfied with this period drama thanks to a clever script and some strong lead performances.

The film takes place in Denmark during the mid 18^th century as we are introduced to the young queen, Caroline Mathilde (Alicia Vikander), from Britain who is to be married with the Danish King, Christian VII (Mikkel Boe Folsgaard). She has never seen the King or knows what he is like, but royal arrangements have already been made for their marriage as she travels to Denmark to meet her husband. Upon arriving in this new land she discovers that the King is not very fond of her, he seems a little childish and giggles nervously. He receives his dog with much more love than he receives her. Caroline is resigned to live her life this way until she meets the royal physician, Johann Struensee (Mads Mikkelsen), who happens to share her same beliefs and ideals. Europe was in a state of transition as The Enlightenment movement was revolutionizing the Dark Ages with new ideas from Voltaire and Rousseau, but Denmark remained tied to the Middle Ages with their traditions. The council, formed by noble men and clergy, was running everything and Christian VII was only the puppet signing the documents. Upon the arrival of Dr. Johann Struensee, a German intellectual influenced by the enlightenment philosophy, things began to change in the Kingdom as he greatly influenced the King. Although at first he spent most his time fooling around with the King and winning his trust, he ends up falling in love with Caroline and begins to have an affair with her. Caroline realizes that Johann has a great influence in the King so she asks him to use that confidence to gain more power in the council and revolutionize the nation with humanitarian ideals.  Of course Johann´s influence on the King isn’t welcomed by the noblemen who will do what it takes to regain their power.

A Royal Affair stands out from other typical romantic triangles in that here there is really no interest from one party. The King doesn’t love his wife, and prefers to spend time with Johann fooling around. He calls his wife mother because he believes she is no fun at all. The affair would have gone unnoticed by everyone if it weren’t for the brave ideals that Caroline and Johann came up with in order to start a revolution. This is what upset the noblemen who found a way to distance the King from his physician, and this is where the tension begins to escalate in the movie. That is also what makes the romance so risky and torrid, and in a way makes the story so juicy. The film is really engaging and entertaining, and works wonderfully as a period drama. The script is very clever and introduces several quotes from Rousseau and Voltaire who were a great influence in that time period. Perhaps the films ends up being a little too predictable, but it does so because it sticks with the historical facts and that is pretty much how things happened. I thought the film ended in a rather hopeful note despite it not having a happy ending. Mads Mikkelsen, Alicia Vikander, and Mikkel Boe Folsgaard stand out in this film with some terrific performances and make this film stand out above the rest.

         

http://estebueno10.blogspot.com/

My Review: Anna Karenina (7/10)

¨Anna isn’t a criminal, but she broke the rules! ¨

After the success Joe Wright had last year with his thriller Hannah, he now returns to doing what made him famous: adapting well known romantic period pieces. His collaboration with Keira Knightley in Pride and Prejudice put him in the map. They teamed up again for Atonement with equal success, and now they got together for the third time for the adaptation of Leo Tolstoy´s famous novel. They say that the third time is the charm, but I found this to be their weakest collaboration together despite its four Oscar nominations (Cinematography, Costume Design, Original Score, and Production Design). Wright has had success in the past with these period pieces always receiving nominations for his work in the technical department. This film is a triumph visually with a great production and costume design representing 19^th century Imperialistic Russia. The performances are pretty much alright but no one really stands out here. The film is shot in an experimental way as the narrative seems to be taking place in a theater where actors come in and out of different sets through the stage. It strikes you odd at first, but later you get used to this approach which in a way works because the characters in this story are viewed through a lens in society in a similar way as we view actors performing plays on stage. It was an interesting and original way to make the film in my opinion, but I don’t know if it worked for everyone. The main issue I had with this film is that it was so focused on the beautiful exterior designs that the narrative and characters seemed to lack depth and humanity. Several issues were left out of Tolstoy´s novel, but it’s understandable considering Wright put more emphasis on the relationships than on socio-political ideologies.

The story is set in Imperialistic Russia during the late 19^th century focusing on aristocratic families. Anna Karenina (Keira Knightley), an aristocrat who is married to a senior government official named Alexei Karenin (Jude Law) who is twenty years older than her, decides to travel from St. Petersburg to Moscow to visit her brother, Stiva (Matthew MacFadyen) and convince his wife Dolly (Kelly Macdonald) to forgive him for being unfaithful to her in order to calm the turmoil that his affair stirred up in Moscow society. Stiva is a womanizer, but Anna convinces Dolly to forgive him and stay with him. Dolly´s beautiful sister, Princess Kitty (Alicia Vikander), invites Anna to a ball where she expects Vronsky (Aaron Johnson), a cavalry officer to propose to her. In the meantime a childhood friend of Stiva´s, Levin (Domhnall Gleeson) a passionate but shy landowner who lives in the country, has come to propose to Kitty as well. Kitty is in love with Vronsky so she politely refuses to marry Levin and he returns to the countryside. During the ball, Vronsky and Anna seem to instantly feel attracted towards each other and Vronsky completely ignores Kitty by choosing Anna as his dance partner instead of her. This is when Kitty realizes that Vronsky has never been in love with her, and Anna having such a strong attraction for Vronsky decides to return home to her husband and son before more damage is done. This is just the beginning for Anna´s moral troubles as, Vronsky takes the same train back to Petersburg and confesses his love to her. The two soon share a passionate affair, which Russian society will not forgive.

It must be hard to adapt what is considered to be one of the best novels of all time into a screenplay; and that difficult task was left to Tom Stoppard (Shakespeare in Love). I think that several elements from the novel didn’t translate very well, especially if the viewer wasn’t familiar with the novel. However the story is still so rich and powerful that the film works, although the characters don’t have enough depth as in the novel. Despite the difficulty in adapting the novel I feel the movie did succeed in some ways and makes this film worth the watch. Fans of period pieces will be delighted with the exquisite attention to the costume and production designs. They will also fall for this love affair, a story that has transcended time and space. Despite living in a very different society now, I feel that through paparazzi and gossip magazines we still kind of remain obsessed and judgmental towards Hollywood stars private lives in a similar way as ancient societies gossiped about aristocratic life. I do have to admit that as beautiful as the film might look, it does feel like it is missing a beat to it and will leave you a bit indifferent towards the end.

http://estebueno10.blogspot.com/