Avengers: Age of Ultron (7/10): And the Build-up continues...

"I know you're good people. I know you mean well. But you just didn't think it through. There is only one path to peace... your extinction."

Age of Ultron doesn't live up to the first Avengers mostly because the novelty of seeing all these superheroes together has warn off, but it is still a very entertaining film with some positive elements to take out of it. First of all, the villain voiced by James Spader is an improvement over most others we've seen in the Marvel Universe. He is actually a menace to the heroes, and although Ultron isn't as charismatic as Loki, he still represents a much more dangerous threat for them so we feel there is much more at stake. The addition of Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch also enhances the franchise. Olsen is an actress I've admired ever since her screen debut in Martha Marcy May Marlene, so it was exciting to see her play this role alongside other fantastic actors. Aaron Taylor-Johnson's Quicksilver wasn't used as well as he was in X-Men, but it was still fun to see him on screen. Quicksilver was the highlight for me in the latest X-Men franchise, but here he is simply another new character. It was much more fun to see his quick movements in slow motion instead of at such a rapid pace. The returning characters also enhance the sequel and make it entertaining. Robert Downey Jr. as Iron Man is by far my favorite character in the franchise and Mark Ruffalo's Hulk always delivers some of the best comedic moments. Age of Ultron delivers plenty of fun scenes, but it also tries to take itself a bit more seriously, and that didn't work as well for me considering I found Captain America The Winter Soldier to be a slightly better and interesting serious thriller. In summary, it doesn't match the comedy of its predecessor and it doesn't stand out as a more serious film either. The run-time does begin to feel a bit heavy, but I still have to admit that I had a fun time with the movie. There is a lot going on and with the addition of the new characters some of the scenes feel rushed and the plot gets a bit convoluted.

The main problem  with these Marvel movies is that they're getting more and more difficult to view as individual films. They seem to be always building up to something and I expected all the build-up in the previous films was going to lead to something important in this second Avengers movie, but what we get instead is more of a build-up to the next phase of the Marvel universe. Ultron presented a great threat to the heroes, but everything was rushed and it seems it was resolved all too easily by the end. It's still hard to resist a film with so many likable characters and charismatic leads, but I couldn't help but feel a bit disappointed with Age of Ultron when the introduction of the main villain seemed promising. Spader's voice work stood out for me in this film as one of the best performances. I was also happy to see Jeremy Renner get much more screen time with his character, Hawkeye, as well as Scarlett Johansson with Black Widow. This is probably as close to an individual film about them we'll get. Captain America and Thor however, are underused and I really didn't care too much about them here.

http://estebueno10.blogspot.com/

My Review: Very Good Girls (4/10)

"We got to get over this hump."

Very Good Girls was on my radar ever since I heard it was debuting in last year's Sundance Film Festival. The reason I was attracted towards this despite not knowing anything about the plot was the cast. It starred Elizabeth Olsen who I've been a fan of ever since Martha Marcy May Marlene and Dakota Fanning who I think hasn't matched that same potential she had as a child actress. The supporting cast included Demi Moore, Peter Sarsgaard, Clark Gregg, and Richard Dreyfuss so I was really looking forward to what they could do. This was also the feature film debut from director Naomi Foner who had written a couple of screenplays in the past, but is best known for being the mother of the talented actors, Jake and Maggie Gyllenhaal. 

You would never guess this screenplay was written by a woman considering these young teenage girls have no personality and their entire lives seem to revolve around this guy they met at a beach. He is the only thing they talk about and both girls end up falling for him, which is pretty much the basic theme of this film as their friendship is tested by their personal feelings towards him. Dakota Fanning and Elizabeth Olsen play these young girls who want to lose their virginity before going to college. The guy they both fall for is played by Boyd Holbrook and I really wasn't a huge fan of his performance. I couldn't see why these girls would fall for him as he lacked personality and wasn't really charming either. Both Fanning and Olsen come from very different families. Olsen's parents are played by Richard Dreyfuss and Demi Moore who are very talkative and liberal, while Fanning's parents are played by Clark Gregg and Ellen Barkin and they are much more reserved. The parents don't get much screen time so they weren't really developed very well and all the information we gather from them is through the conversations the two girls have about how they view them (which is almost entirely negative). So that was a big let down for me because I was interested in what these actors could bring to the drama. There is nothing really that engages the audience since none of the characters have any personality whatsoever and not even the love triangle seems too appealing due to the lack of romantic chemistry. The film is only 90 minutes long but it seemed to drag forever and the score didn't help out either. I was hugely disappointed by Very Good Girls and I understand now why it took so long to reach a wider audience after the Festival. 

Unfortunately the talented cast is wasted in this film and not even my appreciation for Elizabeth Olsen engaged me. I didn't even like her character very much here and much less the rest of the cast. Olsen has to find better roles because her latest films haven't exploded her potential very well. I was amazed to see how little Demi Moore and Richard Dreyfuss were used in this film; there could have been a better movie somewhere if they were given more importance. The lack of personality from any character just makes this film even more boring and tedious. There have been so many good coming of age films over the past year that this film simply fails to reach the bar that was set so high by Kings of Summer, The Way Way Back, and The Spectacular Now.  This could have been an opportunity for two strong female leads but they simply didn't have much to work with.

My Review: In Secret (4/10)

"It's always the ones in the corner you have too worry about."

Kind of like in the same way that the main character, Therese, is trapped in a loveless marriage in this period drama directed by Charlie Stratton, I felt trapped in this dull and lifeless film. To be honest, I checked this film out because of the cast: Elizabeth Olsen, Oscar Isaac, Tom Felton, and Jessica Lange are all superb actors, but their characters never had much depth. There were major problems with the adaptation of the screenplay from Émile Zola's 19th century novel, "Therese Racquin," while the pacing was an issue for me as well. The production design transported me to 19th Century Paris very well, but the English language used never felt like it was from that period. In Secret does begin with some promise and I actually was drawn to the characters, but after 20 or so minutes it began to lose its appeal as it became hard to sympathize with any of the characters. We've seen this sort of Shakespearean tragedy played out many times and much better than it is done here. Jessica Lange is the only one who actually raises above from the rest of the cast and tries to salvage the movie, but it is expected considering her character had to undergo the most emotional ranges. Her character is the strongest thing about In Secret where she slowly transforms from an unsympathetic character to a sympathetic one.

The story is set during the 1860's in Paris as we are introduced to a forced marriage between Thérèse Raquin (Elizabeth Olsen) and her cousin Camille (Tom Felton) by his domineering mother, Madame Raquin (Jessica Lange). Therese was raised by Madame after her mother passed away and her father decided to leave her in their care before moving to Africa. Therese grew up playing nurse to the often sick Camille, and eventually was forced to marry him. Camille cares for Therese as a brother, but doesn't really show any affection towards her as a husband, which leaves Therese sexually repressed. One day Camille brings an old friend home. His name is Laurent (Oscar Isaac) and he soon begins a secret affair with Therese behind Camille's back, which eventually leads to tragic consequences.

This is the third film I've seen Olsen in over the past two weeks, and despite not choosing the best projects for her I still consider she is a talented actress. She has not reached the same level she did in Martha Marcy May Marlene, but she is someone whose movies I'm always looking forward to. Despite this, I still didn't like the character she played in this film and didn't believe the chemistry she shared with Oscar Isaac on screen. This period drama really relies on that strong chemistry, but other than the forbidden love premise the film doesn't have much going for it. The film explores common issues we've seen in other better films. In Secret uncovers the tragic consequences of dark secrets and how they can end up destroying you. Only Jessica Lange fans might leave this film satisfied because she does deliver the strongest performance in the movie, but nothing else works very well in this uninspired film.

My Review: Oldboy (5/10)

"-You might wanna think about what you're doing here!" "-I've been thinking about it for the last 20 years."

I could criticize the fact that this was yet another unnecessary remake considering Chan-wook Park's 2003 Oldboy has become a cult classic among worldwide audiences, but knowing this, I still decided to go ahead and watch Spike Lee's version, so I can't just claim it was unnecessary. I had curiosity as to what Lee could bring to the table and thought that the cast was pretty interesting as well. After seeing this film I can honestly see how difficult it must have been for Chan-wook Park to pull off such an ultra-stylish and violent movie, because Lee never manages to engage those of us that are already familiar with the revenge story. One of the things that the Korean film had going for it was the fantastic shocking ending, and Lee couldn't just rely on that surprise factor now. It would be like having someone remake The Sixth Sense; it would be an impossible feat to pull off considering how it relies heavily on that final twist. The other scene we all remember from the original film is the hallway hammer scene, and there was no way Lee could have left that scene out. He should have though because the scene felt completely out of tone with the rest of the film. The violence in this film never seems to have a purpose like it did in the Asian version. What this Oldboy lacked was the style and sense of purpose that Chan-wook Park's version had with some memorable characters and unforgettable scenes. The chemistry between Brolin and Olsen is nothing compared to the leads in the Asian film who really kept us engaged and interested in the story. This just proves how difficult it really is to capture that sense of style some of the Korean directors handle so masterfully. 

The general story is pretty similar to Chan-wook Park's film with some minor changes. The screenplay was actually adapted by Mark Protosevich from the Japanese manga, not the film. This time the anti-hero's name is, Joe Doucett (Josh Brolin); he's an advertising executive who is kidnapped and held captive in a small prison decorated as a hotel room for 20 years. During his mysterious abduction his wife is murdered and he is framed for the crime, while his 3 year old daughter, Mia, is adopted by another family. Not knowing who is holding him captive and for what reason, Joe's only window to the world is the television set he has in front of him. During his captivity Joe decides to get back in physical shape and stop drinking, hoping some day he can confront his captors and return to his daughter. Finally after 20 years he wakes up in a box a free man with no explanation as to why he was held captive all these years. He is given a cellphone, some cash, and the letters he has written for his daughter. The first thing Joe does is find his friend, Chucky (Michael Imperioli), who owns a nearby bar. Chucky helps Joe make a list of the people who might have done this to him. Joe also befriends a nurse named Marie (Elizabeth Olsen), who believes his story after seeing the poor conditions he's in. Together they search for answers as Joe plans his revenge, but the real question is why he was held captive for so many years and then all of a sudden released. 

Josh Brolin wasn't bad in the lead role, while Elizabeth Olsen also delivered a solid performance, but the film relied heavily on the chemistry between both characters and it wasn't really there. Samuel L. Jackson had a wacky supporting role, while Sharlto Copley played a convincing villain. His performance reminded me the most to the original character because he was more creepy than actually frightening. There were some minor changes to the ending which I thought weren't as effective, but perhaps it had to do with how shocking I found the original film. This film is much shorter than the original and perhaps it's not all Lee's fault considering the studio didn't allow him to release his original 140 minute cut which could have given the characters a better background story. This version felt rushed at times. If you have't seen either film skip this remake and watch the original instead.

My Review: Godzilla (8/10)

"The arrogance of men is thinking nature is in their control and not the other way around. Let them fight."

Godzilla is by far the best film of 2014 in the visual department thanks to some stunning special effects and beautiful cinematography. It is different from last year's Pacific Rim in that you get far less action scenes and much more teases. Some people had a problem with this, but I loved this approach from director Gareth Edwards allowing the tension to slowly build and not making this just one giant battle sequence after another. What didn't work for me in Pacific Rim, worked perfectly for me in Godzilla because I got exactly what I wanted. The human drama might have been weak, but it was enough to engage me and make me care for them as destruction was heading their way. Some may argue that a film about Godzilla should focus on the monster and not just have it on screen for a mere 10 minutes, but I disagree because without seeing him, his presence is felt throughout the film. We may not have gotten the full scale monster that we were expecting at the beginning, but the way Edwards teased the audience by showing just small parts of Godzilla or the path of destruction it left behind was enough to engage me and leave me wanting more. By doing so, Edwards kept the audience engaged and slowly built some memorable and gripping climactic scenes towards the end. It is what other great films like Jaws, Jurassic Park, or even Alien have done, and Edwards inspired by them borrowed those elements and directed a remarkable blockbuster film. If you thought that Godzilla should be on screen for almost the entirety of the film in order for it to be the true star, than you were mistaken because even though it isn't on screen much, its psychological presence is felt throughout the film turning it into the real star. This argument reminded me of Hitchcock's Rebecca which was a film that centered on the title character without ever showing her once on screen, but her presence dominated every single scene just like Godzilla does here. Godzilla's presence is felt throughout the entire movie and that is what distinguishes this film from Roland Emmerich's 1998 version which may have had more monster on screen, but with disastrous results.

Ever since Ishiro Honda directed the original 1954 film, Godzilla has remained the king of all monsters in cinema. After an impressive debut in 2010 with his small indie film, Monsters, director Gareth Edwards was given a much bigger monster to work with. With a larger budget and an all-star cast, Edwards had a heavy load on his shoulders, but he delivered. The screenplay co-written by Max Borenstein and Dave Callaham may be the weakest link in the film, but it works nonetheless. The film opens by introducing us to Joe Brody (Bryan Cranston) who is responsible for the security at a Japanese reactor plant. His wife, Sandra (Juliette Binoche) also works at the plant and their young son, Ford (CJ Adams) studies at a nearby school. Joe has been picking up some strange signals after a series of quakes had affected the region, but his officials refuse to allow him to shut down the plant. What appears to be a big earthquake ends up destroying the plant and Joe is forced to shut it down leaving his wife and hundreds of workers underground contaminated by the nuclear reactor's leak. Fifteen years later we see Ford (Aaron Taylor-Johnson) all grown up returning to San Francisco from his military service to his wife, Elle (Elizabeth Olsen) and his young son, Sam (Carson Bolde). Elle receives a call from Japan that night, and it's the police who claim to have arrested Joe for invading private property. Ford has to travel to Japan to bail his father out of jail and convince him to come back home with him, but what they end up discovering there will change their lives forever.

I really enjoyed the performance from Bryan Cranston (after the success of Breaking Bad, I don't think there is anyone who doesn't like this guy) and I thought he gave the film a powerful dramatic narrative. Aaron Taylor-Johnson may not have what it takes for the lead role, but he delivered. The best dramatic moments took place during the beginning of the film and they were enough to keep me interested in what was going on. I really thought Elizabeth Olsen, Sally Hawkins, Juliette Binoche, David Strathairn, and Ken Watanabe were all underused. They are all talented actors and should have been given stronger characters, but they all felt like cardboard cutout characters. Watanabe's character especially didn't seem to serve no other purpose in the film than to inform the audience and explain what was going on. The human drama along with the screenplay didn't work as well, but the spectacular visuals and great action scenes carried this film a long way. The score by Alexandre Desplat is also spectacular and helped set the tone of the film. The final 15 minutes of the film are gripping and there are also several memorable scenes like the one that takes place in Hawaii or the HALO parachute jump scene. I'm not one usually blown away by CGI, but this time I was really impressed with Godzilla. This isn't a perfect film, it has many flaws, but it works way better than other recent disaster or monster related films.

My Review: Kill Your Darlings (6/10)

"Another lover hits the universe. The circle is broken. But with death comes rebirth. And like all lovers and sad people, I am a poet."

I knew nothing about Kill Your Darlings going into this movie (which means I basically don't know anything about modern American literature because apparently these guys were famous poets that influenced their generation during the 50's with their literary work). Known today as the Beat generation, they basically rejected the moral standards imposed at the time and innovated in style while experimenting with drugs and sex. Many films based on their work have been adapted for for the big screen (Howl, On the Road, and Naked Lunch), but I haven't seen them, so I actually went into this film without knowing anything about these writers. The film serves as an introduction as to how these writers came together and influenced one another during their teenage years, and it is told from Allen Ginsberg's point of view. This biographical drama/thriller may not be entirely factual, but it is still a fascinating story, and once the film ended it made me want to know about who these people were. The film's main attraction is the excellent chemistry between Daniel Radcliffe and Dane DeHaan who give excellent performances (and after a while you actually forget Radcliffe is Harry Potter). The supporting cast is also strong, including Michael C. Hall, Ben Foster, and Jack Huston. I'm a huge fan of Elizabeth Olsen, but in this film her character wasn't given much to work with, but it makes sense considering the Beat generation is a male dominated movement. It ended up influencing the hippie movement in the 60's and popular rock bands like The Beatles. This film only focuses on the early stages of their lives, but it shows how these artists came to know each other and how Lucien Carr was the most influential figure in their formation.

The screenplay was co-written by director John Krokidas and Austin Bunn focusing on the early stages of Alan Ginsberg's (Daniel Radcliffe) life as he began studying at Columbia University which shaped his philosophical views on life. The turning point in his life was when he met his classmate, Lucien Carr (Dane DeHaan) who taught him to question the orthodox methods of the school and introduced him to other future icons of the Beat generation: William S. Burroughs (Ben Foster), and Jack Kerouac (Jack Huston). Together they would hang out in night clubs exploring new literary ideas and basically rediscovering themselves. They were against moral boundaries and explored with drugs and sex. Alan and some of the others also dealt with their homosexuality, while some tried to hide it. Lu also introduced Alan to one of his mentors, David Krammerer (Michal C. Hall), who was obsessed with Lu and ultimately led to a tragic event. 

The film succeeds mostly because of the great performances from the young cast and because it is actually an intriguing story. John Krokidas isn't a director I was familiar with, but he does a decent job with this film. The film does have a believable 40's style and it stays true to the period. It is really well paced as well and it begins to get more interesting once the crime takes place. Unfortunately the film does lack some structure and at times I felt like it was wandering off. The scenes with Allen's mother never were explored much, but we understand how it affected his life and his relationship with his father. The characters are sometimes a bit too clever and don't feel real at times. Still, I was engaged with this film thanks to the material which is very interesting and I enjoyed the performances very much. The film is ambiguous at times, but that is what will leave you thinking and wanting to learn more about these characters at the end. It is all over the place at times, but I was drawn in to the story and for a biopic it gets the job done.

My Review: Liberal Arts (6/10)

¨I was English... with a minor in history. Just to make sure I was fully unemployable.¨

Liberal Arts is Josh Radnor´s (How I Met Your Mother) second film as a director following his 2010 film Happythankyoumoreplease in which he also wrote the screenplay and starred in. Josh Radnor is a very funny actor, but in this film he takes a bit more of a dramatic approach. I really prefer him in the funny role, although he didn’t do a bad job here. He was just one of those characters who likes to over think things sometimes and have intellectual dialogues with his friends. He also seems to have that puppy face that makes the viewer want to feel sorry for him. I really didn’t enjoy his character as much as I did Elizabeth Olsen´s.  Olsen, who was brilliant in Martha Marcy May Marlene, plays a very likeable character here as a sophomore student in a Liberal Arts college. She seems very intellectual and really played her part perfectly. Liberal Arts is one of those films that depends almost entirely on the screenplay and the chemistry between the actors. It was a sort of nostalgic film with some romantic moments. I thought the film was a bit too talkative and tried a little too hard to make the characters overly intellectual. Some dialogues seemed a bit forced to me, but I won´t complain because I was entertained by Elizabeth Olsen´s performance. This was a very divisive film for critics, some tended to hate it while others enjoyed the intellectual side of it. I on the other hand found it pleasing enough to watch, but not as enjoyable to recommend for all viewers. See this if you are a fan of the actors or enjoy intellectual romantic dramas.

Jesse (Josh Radnor) is a former English student who had high dreams of becoming a romantic poet, but has had to settle for a job in college admissions which he doesn’t really enjoy. He´s in his mid 30´s, and when he receives a call from Prof. Peter Hoberg (Richard Jenkins), his former English college professor, about visiting his former college for his retirement dinner he decides to go visit his alma matter. Once there, in Ohio, he meets with his Professor with whom he has remained close friends and meets one of the students there named Zibby (Elizabeth Olsen). He immediately feels a connection with her as they discuss several issues which remind him of his college days as a student. He keeps in touch with her through old fashioned letters when he goes back to his hometown. Both begin to feel an emotional connection, but Jesse feels like he is too old for her. After a few months Zibby asks him to visit him again and he does. Once they are together he begins to feel more attracted to her, but at the same time he feels weird because of the age difference. The film moves from here as the two deal with their feelings for each other, while there are some other minor side stories with some secondary characters.

The film works as sort of a psychological study between two very different characters. One is a 35 year old who is unsatisfied with what he has achieved in his life, while the other one is a young student full of hope for the bright future ahead of her. Zibby sees in Jesse that 35 year old intellectual with whom she can have serious conversations about life and opera music, while Jesse is reminded of his young former self when he speaks to her. Both share great chemistry, but you can also feel the tension and weirdness that Jesse feels each time he has to meet with her in public. I really enjoyed the first half of this film, but was a little disappointed with the resolution. I still enjoyed the film in the most part and had a good time. Richard Jenkins is always great in his secondary roles, although here he plays a more serious and depressive role, while Zach Efron has a couple of very funny scenes here as well. The film might be worth a rental for some, but don´t get your hopes up this is an average film after all.

http://estebueno10.blogspot.com/

My Review: Martha Marcy May Marlene (10/10)

¨There's no such thing as dead or alive; we just exist. ¨

Sean Durkin and Elizabeth Olsen have two things in common; first of all most of us probably never heard of them before Martha Marcy May Marlene was released, and second now they will be on everyone`s radar as to what they will be doing next. First time director and screenwriter, Sean Durkin, directs a terrific and dark psychological thriller that has many parallels and similarities with the Charles Manson cult. The film might be considered as slow paced for some people, but I was haunted with the story and premise throughout the entire 100 minutes and was completely enamored with the film. I absolutely loved every second of the movie, I loved the editing and how the film went back and forth so naturally playing with the main character`s delusions and fears. Elizabeth Olsen, the youngest sister of the famous Olsen twins, is just breathtaking in this film and gives one of the best leading performances of the year. She was spectacular and truly became the haunted and troubled character that was Martha. The name of the film which many people hated, but I loved, had to do with the different names by which Martha was known during the movie. Beside the excellent direction from Durkin, the great performance from Olsen, and the excellent editing, the film also counts with terrific secondary performances. John Hawkes is really good as the leader of the sort of cult which Olsen becomes a member of and later tries to escape from. He has a quiet role, but he shows true leadership qualities and you can see how these troubled people might have been fooled into wanting to belong to this family.

The film begins with a scene where we see Martha (Elizabeth Olsen) fleeing from a sort of cult and calling her sister to come pick her up after disappearing for nearly two years and having no contact whatsoever with her family. Her sister, Lucy (Sarah Paulson), comes to the rescue as soon as she can and is glad to be reunited with her missing sister. Lucy takes Martha to her vacation house where she is staying with her husband, Ted (Hugh Dancy), and they soon begin to realize that Lucy has been through some sort of psychological and physical abuse during these years, but all Lucy tells them is that she was with a boyfriend who had lied to her and that is why she has left him. She tells them nothing about the cult or the ¨family¨ with whom she was living and keeps mostly to herself, although her strange behavior gives her away at times. During these scenes in which Martha is with her sister we see a series of flashbacks as to what she was up to during these past two years. The movie jumps back in forth between these scenes as Martha tries to adapt to normal society life and deal with the paranoia and fear that she is being hunted by the sect that she has just fled. We see the first time that Martha is presented to the leader of the ¨¨family¨, Patrick (John Hawkes), who sees a lot of potential in her and calls her Marcy May. The rest of the members of the cult greet her and teach her the ways of the family. They all have different roles in the house, but they sort of all live a sort of hippy lifestyle. The movie jumps back and forth between Martha`s memories of the cult and her adaptation process while living with her sister.

Perhaps one of the greatest things about Martha Marcy May Marlene (beside the great performances from Elizabeth Olsen and John Hawkes) is the way in which the film is edited and jumps perfectly between the present and the memories of the past. At some points even I was fooled as to we were watching Martha or Marcy May. The film successfully jumps back and forth and it kept my interest throughout the entire time. I loved this film, its pace, and everything about it: the dark psychological aspect and the delusions Martha suffered which we couldn’t really tell if they were real or not. Many people also hated the ending, but I loved it. Martha Marcy May Marlene is one of the movies that keep you thinking about it long after it’s over. It really had a great effect on me and it reminded me once again why I love going to the movies despite it not being about a subject matter I really cared for. This is truly a remarkable movie and among the year`s best, although I admit it probably will divide audiences because it isn`t a commercial movie. Elizabeth Olsen deserved a nomination for her performance, but I`m used to expecting the Oscars to ignore performances like this one. I really recommend this movie.

http://estebueno10.blogspot.com