"As long as you can still grab a breath, you fight. You breathe... keep breathing."
It's only been a year since Alejandro Gonzalez Iñarritu delivered the award winning Birdman and somehow he managed to deliver another visual masterpiece in record time. To follow up such a groundbreaking film like Birdman, with an epic adventure film like The Revenant is mesmerizing. But Gonzalez doesn't deserve all the credit, his films have stood out because of Emmanuel Lubezki's groundbreaking cinematography. The best thing about The Revenant is without a doubt its visual style. And the same could be said about Lubezki's previous efforts: Gravity and Birdman. In three years Lubezki has delivered some of the most beautiful looking films of our decade (and I'm not even including The Tree of Life which he worked on in 2011). This man is pure genius and will without a doubt win his third Oscar in a row. I hope the two continue to work together and deliver more visually inspiring films.
Leonardo DiCaprio deserves all the accolades he's received for his physically demanding performance here. From the very first scene we see him face one obstacle after another as the opening sequence takes place while he is being attacked by a group of indians during a fur trading expedition. It's not much later when the much commented bear mauling scene takes place, but that is only the beginning of his struggles. DiCaprio gives it his all and even though this isn't the best performance of his career, it will finally be the one that gives him the Oscar. Tom Hardy also delivers a fantastic supporting performance as John Fitzgerald, the man who wants to leave him behind. The film ends up feeling like one long chase in a similar way as Mad Max Fury Road, although at a much slower pace. A survival/revenge film like this has never looked so beautiful. The film is a bit too long and it eventually begins to wear down, but it's a constant feast to the eyes despite the exhaustion.
“There's been an awakening. Have you felt it? The Dark side, and the Light.”
There is a new film that has been released this weekend that not many people may have heard of, so I want to recommend it because it’s worth checking out. Apparently The Force Awakens is the seventh film in the little recognized Star Wars franchise and I’m surprised not many people have been talking about this sci-fi action packed adventure franchise. It seems to have some sort of cult following because there were a few people dressed up in the movies as some of the characters in the film. I’m glad I was lucky enough to have heard about this J.J. Abrams’s directed movie. Abrams who is better known for creating the hit TV series Lost has directed some remarkable films. His first feature film was Mission Impossible III which I will always remember for having one of the best villains in the franchise (played by the late Phillip Seymour Hoffman). He followed it up with the reboot of the Star Trek franchise which was a wonderful surprise for fans around the globe. I wasn’t a fan of the franchise myself until I got to see what Abrams did with it. He later went on to direct Super 8 which was as close to a Steven Spielberg 90’s movie that you will ever get. From that point on I knew Abrams could do no wrong. After succeeding yet again with another Star Trek sequel he decided to aim for something much smaller: A reimagining of the Star Wars franchise. If the film has success it will probably be thanks to my recommendation of the movie since I’m hoping it gets a lot of word of mouth. Please go watch this movie even if you haven’t seen the other films in the franchise because it stands on its own. It is almost a remake in a way since it follows the basic blue prints of the original film with some returning characters. I guess Abrams can receive some of the credit because everything he’s done up to now has been highly entertaining. Hopefully the film will be a success and that way people will go back and check out the other films in the franchise starting way back in the late 70’s.
The Force Awakens takes place some 30 years after Luke Skywalker (Mark Hamill) and Han Solo (Harrison Ford) defeated Darth Vader’s evil Empire (sorry for the spoilers if you haven’t seen the original films). It was a battle between the dark forces and the light. Now the galaxy is facing a new threat. Supreme Leader Snoke (Andy Serkis) has been training his apprentice, Kylo Ren (Adam Driver), and establishing the First Order which wants to rule the galaxy and put an end to the Resistance which is led by General Leia (Carrie Fisher). Ren is extremely powerful and he uses the dark side of the force to his advantage subjugating anyone who opposes him. The only one who could threaten his abilities is Luke Skywalker, but he has disappeared and no one knows his whereabouts. Both the First Order and the Resistance are searching for him for different reasons. One of the Resistance’s best pilots, Poe Dameron (Oscar Isaac), has received an important tip about his whereabouts, but when Ren finds out he will stop at nothing to retrieve the information. Dameron has no other option but to hide the information in one of his personal droids (BB-8) and sends him off before being captured by Ren. The droid is discovered by a young scavenger named Rey (Daisy Ridley) who helps BB-8 escape from some mercenaries who are after it. Rey and the droid find assistance from an unlikely ally, a rogue stormtrooper named Finn (John Boyega) who is fleeing from the First Order. The fantastic sci-fi adventure begins as these fugitives try to reach the Resistance before the First Order discovers their whereabouts.
Abrams and Disney both leave their personal stamp in this film. There are classic Disney elements to this story which are told through Abrams’s unique style. Abrams knows exactly what his audience wants and he delivers a nostalgic piece of filmmaking by following pretty much the same beats as the original film did. Disney recycles some of its known humor and adds its own familiar tragic elements. I don’t know if The Force Awakens is more of a sequel than it is a reboot with returning characters because it feels so familiar and predictable. But it is exactly what fans wanted and it delivers. Darth Vader is probably the best villain in the history of film, but here Abrams manages to craft another memorable villain who comes close to matching him. Kylo Ren will probably become a pop culture icon just as Darth Vader has been over so many decades. Driver delivers a fantastic and memorable performance although my only complain about his character would be that his powers seem to weaken throughout the film after such a powerful entrance. Although I’m sure that will be resolved in the next film which will probably have a similar tone to The Empire Strikes Back which is my favorite film of the franchise. Harrison Ford stands out once again as Han Solo and he gets a lot of screen time, reminding us all why he is such a beloved action star. He delivers most of the funniest lines in the movie just as he did in the late 70’s and 80’s. The new additions, Daisy Ridley (who reminded me of a young Keira Knightley), John Boyega (who was discovered in the fantastic British horror comedy Attack the Block), and Oscar Isaac all deliver fantastic roles and inject the movie with fresh and well established characters that will deliver the franchise beyond nostalgic value. The Force Awakens had huge shoes to fill, but Abrams managed to reinvigorate the franchise by combining fresh blood with returning beloved characters. Fans will definitely be pleased with the film although it is hard to match the greatness of the original films due to its predictable nature that has more nostalgic value than anything else. We will have to wait and see how it works with younger audiences and if it stands the test of time.
“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.
Directed by Angelina Jolie, Unbroken focuses on the inspiring true story of Olympic winning medalist, Louis Zamperini, who later went on to serve during World War II going through all kinds of hardships. Unbroken opens with an incredibly strong action scene (which might be the best in the movie) and as the story unfolds we get some flashbacks of Louis’s childhood and upbringing. It is a bit formulaic in the sense that it follows pretty much the same conventions as most biopics have done in the past. One of my favorite quotes in the film is when Louis’s brother tells him that “A moment of pain is worth a lifetime of glory,” but ironically after getting through this film the quote feels like it works better the other way around, “A moment of glory is worth a lifetime of pain” because Jolie makes sure we witness all the trials that he went through during the War. She focuses more on Louis’s lifetime of pain and only a moment of glory. Unbroken is The Passion of the Christ of war dramas because we experience the hardships that Louis has to go through in a very detailed manner. There is no doubt in my mind that this was an inspirational story, but Jolie spends most of her time going from one scene to the next without ever trying to develop the character or tell us who Louis really was. In other words she tells an inspiring story but doesn’t transmit anything about the man who went through it all. There are several reasons why I did enjoy this film despite its flaws and the first one is because of Roger Deakins’s cinematography which is always outstanding. I could see pretty much any movie that this man shoots. The second reason is because the Coen brothers were involved in the adaptation of Laura Hillenbrand’s best-selling novel. The Coen brothers aren’t as successful when they don’t direct their own screenplays, but this time they had strong material to work with. Hillenbrand is a great writer (Seabiscuit and now Unbroken) and the story is inspirational so there is a lot to like.
The film hooked me from the opening scene where we experience a great action scene from within a bomber aircraft overflying the Pacific Ocean. Then the generic flashbacks began and the film lost some of its potential. Jack O’Connell plays the lead character Louis Zamperini. After his solid performance in Starred Up, O’Connell, is definitely someone worth keeping your eyes on because he’s extremely talented. In Unbroken we see him enduring a great amount of suffering (thus the comparison with The Passion of the Christ) so the film focuses on that aspect instead of giving us any insight on O’Connell’s character. I still think the story is so inspirational that it manages to hook us and captivate us throughout the entire run time. Jolie is interested in simply telling the story so we go from one scene to the next without learning much of who the character’s really are. The opening was fantastic, the scene where the plane crashes into the Ocean and the survivors struggle to survive was also another highlight of the film, and finally the torture he endures as a prisoner of war was inspiring. The technical aspects of the film are fantastic and Deakins cinematography is gorgeous. The supporting performances from Domhnall Gleeson and Miyavi are also very solid. But by the time the end credits start rolling you kind of wish the film had focused on the later aspects of Louis’s life which were perhaps even more inspiring than the torture he endured.
“I love your wall. Put your arms around me. Fiddly digits, itchy britches. I love you all.”
Lenny Abrahamsson directs this offbeat tragicomedy inspired by comedian Chris Sievey’s comedy character Frank Sidebottom. I had never heard of him, but this film isn’t actually a biopic because it only takes that concept of the character and applies it to a musician who always wears a mask around his head. It is a film that very subtly has a lot to say about the relationship between artistic creativity and mental illness among many other things. Frank is a film that I respect more than I actually enjoy considering I found the pacing a bit tedious at times and wasn’t engaged with the characters. I didn’t actually enjoy the music either, but of course it isn’t meant to be entertaining, but it would probably have a little fan base considering their creative approach towards music. I also found it way more clever than funny. I didn’t find myself laughing as much as I had hoped for. Frank is actually a short film running under 90 minutes and for about the first hour I wasn’t really into it, but the last 30 minutes did draw me in and by the end I even enjoyed Frank’s last song. From the moment the band travels to the SXSW concert I finally began to engage with some of the characters. The film is offbeat and weird at times sort of like its central characters and it reminds us that there is a very thin line between artistic creativeness and madness. Most of the film takes place in a cabin in Ireland where the band is recording their next album over the course of an year. You get the sense that what they are doing isn’t just searching for inspiration. They actually are like of a support group in a way considering they are all mentally unstable (with the exception of Gleeson’s character who plays like the fish out of the water here). Frank is a very odd film, but creative nonetheless with some touching moments near the end.
It’s impossible not to talk about Michael Fassbender when reviewing this film. I truly believe he is one of the best actors living today, but having him wear a gigantic papier-mâché head covering his entire face could seriously restrain his performance. It didn’t because it is Fassbender who we are talking about and he can pull anything off. So without his facial expressions he was forced to use his voice and body language which he did perfectly. His posture and the way he uses his hands convey a lot of meaning. Even his voice was restrained by this gigantic head so he really did basically do it all with his body language. If there was anything that got me trough this film during the first hour it was his performance. The lead character of the film however is Jon Burroughs (played by Domhnall Gleeson) who runs into the eccentric band members at the right time and is offered a chance to play the keyboards for them. Jon has always wanted to write songs, but he doesn’t quite fit into this group of misfits. He is more interested in becoming famous than actually being creative and in a way begins to influence Frank and trying to make him sell out. The rest of the band members are played by Maggie Gyllenhaal (who is perhaps the oddest character of them all), Francois Civil, and Carla Azar. Scoot McNairy is sort of the manager of the band. Jon discovers early in the film that these are all troubled people and so he begins to develop a theory that artistic creativity comes from living traumatic experiences. So considering he has never been able to write a decent song, he believes it is necessary to go through some sort of trauma with the rest of the members in order to find his creative genius. With Frank however that concept is turned upside down and it reminds us that art isn’t a product of traumatic events. It is a way of healing and coping with them through music. The film can be absurd and strange at times but it does convey the message in a very subtle way which makes the ending all that much better.
"We're all traveling through time together, every day of our lives. All we can do is do our best to relish this remarkable ride."
If there is someone who can get away with being too schmaltzy, generic, charming and sentimental it's Richard Curtis. It comes as no surprise here considering he's directed Love Actually, and wrote such rom-coms as Four Weddings and a Funeral, Bridget Jones's Diary, and Notting Hill among others. He has a tendency of melting even the toughest hearts and no matter how prepared you think you are for his next film somehow he gets you again. Perhaps About Time is his most sentimental film and that could turn some people off, but I must say this isn't your typical romantic comedy. Half way through the film it turns into a completely different movie becoming one about family dynamics and enjoying the ordinary moments in life. Perhaps the reason why Curtis gets away with being so charming is that he creates a perfect balance in his stories and introduces comedic relief at the right moments. About Time is a flawed film, but you can probably say this about all his films. The thing a lot of people might have a problem with specifically in this one is the time traveling element which many may find a bit absurd, but it worked for me (at least it was much better than the other time traveling movie that Rachel McAdams starred in) and I think Curtis uses this element as a sort of parable to remind us of the importance of savoring each day. It may feel like a sermon at times, but it's one I don't mind being reminded of. Carpe Diem!
Tim (Domhnall Gleeson who you may recognize as Bill Weasley in the last two Harry Potter films) is a shy kid living with his parents (Bill Nighy and Lindsay Duncan) and lovable sister Kit Kat (Lydia Wilson). The morning of his 21st birthday his father shares with him a family secret: the men in their family can travel in time, but they can only do so to moments they personally have experienced. Tim decides to use this special ability to find love, because he really needs all the help he can get for it. Tim leaves his parents beautiful beachside estate in Cornwall for London in order to become a lawyer. He moves in with one of his father's friends, Harry (Tom Hollander), who's a struggling writer with a bad temper. In London Tim meets Mary (Rachel McAdams) and the two fall for each other, but due to a time traveling incident that night is erased from Mary's memory and Tim has to find another way to win her back.
I feared this film would become another sort of 50 First Dates, but surprisingly it took an unexpected turn halfway through the film and becomes something else. It is not just a romantic comedy, it becomes a movie about family, love, and life where Tim learns a couple of valuable lessons along the way. McAdams and Gleeson shared great chemistry on screen, but the true standouts in this film were the supporting characters, especially Tim's father played by the wonderful Bill Nighy. He is great here once again, while Wilson, Duncan, and Hollander all are extremely funny and used for comedic relief. It's a relief from the schmaltzy sentimentality of the film. It's as if Curtis is admitting he's manipulated us way too much with all the emotional sentimentality and now it's time for a good laugh. If you don't find this film funny then you will probably find it way over the top with the sentimentality. It's not a film for everyone, but I had a good time and was charmed by the story.
¨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
19th 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 19th 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.
