Serena (3/10): Course 101 on how execution and post production can ruin a film

“I think you’ve taken nine months to do about six months work.”

It’s funny that Jennifer Lawrence was given this line in a film that took over 18 months to make during post-production because for what it is, this could have been edited much better in two or three months. The narrative feels choppy and instead of focusing on the characters in this period piece they move the narrative from one act to the next without ever giving the audience anything to chew on. This is simply a flat period romance with very little chemistry that misfires on all cylinders (editing, casting, and screenplay). You can’t help but feel that there is another film in here somewhere that got lost in the editing room. Serena seemed to be a film aiming for Oscar gold because it had everything going for beginning from the romantic pairing of Jennifer Lawrence and Bradley Cooper after their incredible success in Silver Linings Playbook. Add the solid Danish director, Susanne Bier (In a Better World), and a script based on Ron Rash’s 2008 novel to the mix and Serena seemed to be a sure bet. I had high expectations for it and many were already including it as a contender for next year’s Academy Award even before it finished being produced. How could a film like this end up being so forgettable and predictable at the same time? I’d guess the blame relies on the producers who tried to cash in on Lawrence and Cooper’s success by centering the film on the romance instead of focusing on the other interesting cast members. The romance never works here because the characters are never fully developed so there is no way we can invest in their relationship. The amazing chemistry these two actors had in their previous film is completely wasted here. Everything about this film seemed disconnected and I am sure it won’t live up to the aspirations the producers and critics had for Serena. 

I have genuinely enjoyed all of Jennifer Lawrence’s performances up to this film. The setting in the woods reminded me of the first time I saw J-Law in Winter’s Bone, a film so richly invested in character development that I was expecting her to deliver another outstanding performance. That comparison to Winter’s Bone only ended up disappointing me. She is extremely over the top in this film and the emotional scenes she gets are never believable. The scenes where she breaks down and cries were painful to watch. Bradley Cooper loses his charm as well, but I guess the blame relies on the script. If you are trying to deliver a strong romantic period piece you have the right actors to do so, but the script doesn’t help build the romance. Bradley Cooper’s character catches up to J-Law on a horse and asks her to marry him and then they are married. The entire film felt sort of chopped up and fast forwarded to the key parts of the story without taking time to give the characters any depth. About 15 minutes into the movie I knew where everything was heading and it was a huge disappointment for me because I expected a lot more from this film. The secondary cast is interesting, but unfortunately very little time is given to these characters. Rhys Ifans, Toby Jones, and David Dencik are extremely talented actors and I wish the script would’ve given them more time. Unfortunately Christopher Kyle’s script misses the mark at every turn. The only positive thing about Serena was Morten Søborg's beautiful cinematography. 

My Review: The Five-Year Engagement (6/10)

¨This is supposed to be exciting. It's your wedding - you only get a few of these! ¨

The Five-Year Engagement is a rare and honest Hollywood romantic comedy which explores the relationship between a couple with its usual up and downs in a very sincere way. It does have some unauthentic moments as well, but for the most part it does take the story pretty seriously. You can`t have a romantic comedy without those few eccentric moments Jason Segel likes to add to his work. These moments don’t work really well (the New Year`s costume party with Segel in a pink bunny suit, the ending which I don`t want to give away, and a weird scene between Segel and one of his female co-workers), but the rest of the film is pretty strong and authentic. My main concern with this movie was that it did seem to drag at several points of the film. The film could have been cut much shorter, two hours is very long for a romantic comedy. Jason Segel and Emily Blunt have a strong chemistry together and their relationship is very believable, we know these two characters belong with each other despite all the difficulties they have to face. It helps that both actors have worked together in the past and that you have two hugely likeable actors of their comedic caliber. Director, Nicholas Stoller, also knows Jason Segel very well as they have worked together in Forgetting Sarah Marshall and The Muppets. Once again they contributed with the screenplay and they leave their unique signature in the story. The Five-Year Engagement is rare, but in a good way thanks to the authenticity with which it tells the story. For the most part it never feels forced or cliché, so I would recommend this movie although it isn’t very memorable.

Tom (Jason Segel) and Violet (Emily Blunt) are perfect for each other. They are very much in love and after having met for the first time exactly one year ago Tom proposes to Violet. They get engaged and everything seems to be working out fine for the couple. They have their engagement party where Tom`s best friend, Alex (Chris Pratt), and Violet`s sister, Suzie (Alison Brie) meet. Both of them spend a night together and Suzie ends up pregnant thus ruining the moment for Tom and Violet to get married. The couple agrees to postpone their marriage in order for Alex and Suzie to get married. Tom is happy in San Francisco with his job as chef at a clam restaurant, but Violet receives a very important offer for her career at Michigan University. The couple decides to move to Michigan since Tom believes he can find a decent job there and Violet can finish her degree. Tom has a difficult time adjusting to life in Michigan as he can’t find an important restaurant to work for, but Violet seems to be doing well. Her employer, Winton (Rhys Ifans) thinks highly of her and extends her position at the University. This is when the couple begins to experience difficulties and constantly find excuses to postpone the marriage that has been going on and off for five years.

The audience will find it very easy to sympathize with Tom and Violet as their relationship is believable and authentic. We know they are very much in love and have great chemistry together, but their paths seem to go very different ways. This is something that many people can relate to since it happens in the real world and we know that in order for things to work someone has to give in some way or another. The problem I had with this film beside the fact that it`s too long is that in the end we never get a solution. The entire film feels so real and authentic, but the ending had Hollywood written all over it. It`s as if they couldn’t think of a way to find a believable resolution and simply rushed things at the end. If you are going to take two hours to present an honest portrayal about relationships then you need to come up with a better ending instead of just trying to sweep everything under the carpet. This film fails to find an honest solution to the couple`s problem and leaves the audience wandering what kind of resolution they will get to in order to solve their dilemma. I guess the writers really didn’t want to take sides and left the film open ended, which would`ve been ok if they hadn’t hammered the issue on us throughout the entire film.

http://estebueno10.blogspot.com

My Review: The Amazing Spider-Man (8/10)

¨We all have secrets: the ones we keep... and the ones that are kept from us.¨

Spider-Man is back with a reboot and although it seemed sort of early for it, Marc Webb did a great job with this film by refreshing the story and the characters. I enjoyed the first three Spider-Man films, although I wasn’t a huge fan of them. Webb not only refreshed the series, but he also improved it in my opinion by doing one thing: getting Andrew Garfield to play Peter Parker. Garfield, who I really appreciated in The Social Network despite having flown under the radar in that movie, is excellent as Peter Parker. He has the right amount of charisma and wit that his character needs. I loved his performance much more than Tobey Maguire`s. The other great addition to this reboot was the inclusion of Emma Stone as Gwen Stacy, Peter`s original love interest in the comics and who was played by Bryce Dallas Howard in the third film. Emma Stone is one of the greatest young talents on the screen and she is just lovely in this film and had great chemistry with Garfield. Webb had proved in the past that he could make a strong romantic film with his feature film debut, 500 Days of Summer, but I wasn’t sure how the action was going to work out in The Amazing Spider-Man. The truth of the matter is that the action scenes were excellently choreographed and the film was visually stunning; I had a great time at the theater. I don`t know if a reboot was absolutely necessary at this stage, but I had a fun time nonetheless.

There are a few similarities between the original Spider-Man and this film, but for the most part screenwriters James Vanderbilt, Alvin Sargent, and Steve Kloves chose a different approach in this version of the superhero story. They focused more on Peter Parker`s (Andrew Garfield) troubles in school as a teenager and how he dealt with his parents death. After leaving him with his Uncle Ben (Martin Sheen) and Aunt May (Sally Field), his parents never returned so Peter was raised by them with strong moral values. Despite having a great relationship with them, Peter is still hurt about the loss of his biological parents and is trying to deal with it as well as his growing feelings for his classmate Gwen Stacy (Emma Stone). While trying to deal with all these normal teenage feelings, Peter discovers a forgotten briefcase of his father which contains some secrets about his past. Peter finds a picture of his father with Dr. Curt Connors (Rhys Ifans), who used to be his good friend and science partner in Oscorp. That is when Peter decides to visit Oscorp and is bitten by a genetic spider. We all know the result of that spider bite: Peter becomes Spider-Man. As he tries to manage these new special abilities, Peter also befriends Dr. Connors in search for answers about his parents past. Peter deciphers an equation he found from his father`s briefcase which allows Dr. Connors to make a huge advance in his genetic experiments, which ultimately leads to him becoming the Lizard, Spider-Man`s nemesis.

If you would`ve told me that the silly guy from Notting Hill would be playing The Lizard I would`ve thought it was a joke. Rhys Ifans is great in comedies, but I never imagined he could play an important villain with such success. The people behind the casting of this film did a tremendous job because every character seemed to be played by the perfect actor. I mean who better to play Captain Stacy than Denis Leary? Every role just fit perfectly and that was what ultimately made The Amazing Spider-Man such a fun film. Andrew Garfield with his unique wit and charm works almost in the same way that Robert Downey Jr. did as Tony Stark. It was as if these actors were born to play these roles. The entire cast was great in this film, so was the crew behind the special effects department. The film looks really good and is exactly what a summer blockbuster movie is supposed to be. The Amazing Spider-Man might not be as great as The Avengers, but it still was a really entertaining film worth the ticket price. Spider-Man fans will be pleased and I doubt anyone will be missing Tobey Maguire as Peter Parker after this performance, although I still have my reservations over whether or not a reboot of the series was necessary at this early stage.

     

http://estebueno10.blogspot.com