Robot & Frank (6/10): An original futuristic take on aging.

"The human brain, a lovely piece of hardware.”

Jake Schreier won the Feature Film Prize at Sundance in 2012 for this original dramatic comedy and it’s easy to see why. There are few films in Hollywood that deal with aging and when they do they are usually handled in an overly sentimental or poorly manner. By simply looking at the poster alone, I thought I knew what this movie was going to be about: an odd pairing of a grumpy old man refusing to accept the assistance of a robot but who would eventually get to befriend it and accept it. Robot & Frank however was nothing like I expected and the story had a very original premise with a strong central performance from Frank Langella. It also stands out in its depiction of the future, which seems much more believable and approachable than most futuristic dystopian movies. It is a simple movie that approaches the subject of aging in a rather simple but realistic manner. 

Frank (Frank Langella) is a former jewel thief who has served time in prison, but is now living on his own in an upstate New York town. His son, Hunter (James Marsden) takes long drives to come visit him during the weekends to check up on him and during one of those visits he brings him a robot (voiced by Peter Sarsgaard) to assist him. The robot specializes in healthcare, but Frank isn’t too keen about having him around. Not knowing how to shut if off he eventually gives in and allows it to do the chores in the house. During the course of the movie we realize Frank is beginning to have trouble remembering things (showing early signs of dementia), and that is why his family is concerned for him. His daughter, Madison (Liv Tyler), is a philanthropist who is always traveling to foreign countries but also tries to check up on him when she has a chance. Frank’s robot wants him to begin a new project in order to improve his health and it believes that Frank should take on gardening and establish a daily routine. But Frank has other ideas, he wants to plan for a new heist and he easily convinces the robot that it is a good idea. Susan Sarandon also has a supporting role in this film as a local librarian that Frank frequently visits, but there isn’t much of a romantic arc. The film is basically a dramatic comedy centering on the relationship Frank forms with his robot and how his family deals with his illness. 

Langella is the true stand out here and he carries this movie with his solid performance. There were moments were the pacing seemed to drag, but his character simply captivated me and got me through some of those patches. I had some issues with the ending as well, which seemed a bit too neatly wrapped for a film that basically was staying away from genre formulas and conventions for almost its entire runtime. But for a film that centers on a relationship between an old man and a robot it does feel quite fresh in that unlike with most sci-fi films, here there is no conflict as to if the robot will develop a consciousness or not. It never seems to be an issue here and he constantly reminds Frank that he is not alive. This isn’t a man versus machine type of movie, it is more interested in showing how technology can help improve our lives as is the case with Frank, although there are of course dangers implied with it, depending on how we use this technology. The screenplay focuses on that intimate relationship between Frank and his robot, and that ends up being the highlight of this film.        

My Review: Night Moves (4/10)

"It'll all go fast in the end. Once the marine biodiversity goes, everything goes with it."

I was unfamiliar with Kelly Reichardt until Night Moves, but I had heard several great things from her direction in Meek's Cutoff and Wendy and Lucy. Night Moves has also received many praises from critics so I really don't know how I will feel about her other films because this one was a disappointment for me. Perhaps I don't get her style of filmmaking but the entire film felt tedious and there wasn't any tension. For a movie that is centered on a character driven plot I really didn't feel like I learned much about these three radical environmentalists. What motivates them to take these extreme measures? All we know is that they are environmentalists, but I didn't feel like they had any distinct trait. The pacing of this film was really slow and at times I felt like abandoning it, but I continued to watch in hopes that the plot got better. After all, Hollywood Report compared it to the the suspenseful Hitchcock films of the 50's. The final third act of the film was the worst considering some of the decisions made felt completely out of character. Night Moves lacked soul and purpose, I really never managed to get into it despite how much I liked the cast. It was a numbing experience for me and no matter how gorgeous the Oregon landscape was, I simply never bought into the story. Reichardt loves to use steady shots and let the action unfold in front of us, but they were as tedious as the the slow pacing of the film. Nature might be captured beautifully in Night Moves, but the characters' motivations were really hard to believe at times. I tend to enjoy low key films, but for a character driven one I really didn't see much development going on. Yes, Eisenberg's character is alienated, Fanning's is strong willed, and Sarsgaard's is the most adventurous, but other than that we don't get much from their restrained performances. I might be on the minority here so I will give Reichardt another chance and check out one of her previous films to see if I enjoy it better than Night Moves. 

I wouldn't have a problem with a slow burner like Night Moves if the final result was a rewarding experience, but the third act is even less engaging than the previous ones. I can't simply enjoy a film because it's restrained and it's nice to look at. Sure some of the steady long shots looked cool, but after a while it too becomes tedious as the characters in this film. Eisenberg received a lot of praise for his performance here, although I really never bought into his character's motivations. The strongest performance for me came from Peter Sarsgaard who was much more believable and understandable. Dakota Fanning had some interesting scenes as well, but I still had a hard time getting engaged with their characters. Comparisons with The East were almost inevitable for me considering the theme of this film, but somehow I didn't enjoy this as much as Batmanglij's film. That film despite having several flaws managed to maintain the tension throughout most of its running time unlike what I felt with Night Moves which simply failed to deliver suspense or any real drama. 

My Review: Blue Jasmine (7/10)

"Who do you have to sleep with around here to get a Stoli martini with a twist of lemon?"

Woody Allen has returned to the States for this film after experiencing some extended vacations over Europe (To Rome with Love, Midnight in Paris, You Will Meet a Tall Dark Stranger, and Vicky Cristina Barcelona), and this time the story takes place mostly in San Francisco, although we do get several interesting flashbacks in New York (Allen's favorite filming location). I mention these locations because in most of his films these cities are actual characters and sometimes even main ones. There were two general criticisms I had read about Blue Jasmine before watching it, one was that this was Woody Allen's return to form and the second was that Cate Blanchett's performance was magnificent. I agree with the second statement because Blanchett delivers one of the best performances of the year and she is the main reason why this film actually worked for me. As for the second statement I have to differ because I thought Midnight in Paris was his best recent film and I enjoyed it much more than Blue Jasmine. I do have to say that Woody Allen's capacity for writing and directing these films in such a short period of time (he's directed one every year for the past decades) impresses me. He has a unique voice in all of his films that sometimes make me picture him talking through each one of his characters. I remember something similar happening to me during college when I would be reading over my notes as I studied for a final exam actually listening to my professors unique voice in my head as I read. This is what happens to me often during a Woody Allen film as I imagine his head popping over one of his characters. It happened during this film as well, except for Blanchett's character who managed to bring her unique style which took a voice of its own. She deserves all the accolades she's been receiving from her peers and critics alike. It was a wonderful performance and an affecting one as well.

Jasmine (Cate Blanchett) was a New York socialite who lived a happy and blessed life with her husband Hal (Alec Baldwin), until he was sent to prison for fraudulent business acts. We get to discover some darker secrets about their past as the story unravels through flashbacks, but the film opens at the present as Jasmine is returning to San Francisco to live with her sister, Ginger (Sally Hawkins) and her two sons, completely broke. She has experienced several mental breakdowns due to her traumatic past, and despite being estranged from her sister during that time, Ginger takes her in. Jasmine imposes on Ginger who wasn't as blessed as she was and is working at a grocery store while dating Chili (Bobby Canavale). Jasmine and Chili don't get along too well as she has interfered in his plans to move in with Ginger. Jasmine is always telling her that she should find someone better like she did (which wasn't really the case) and that is the reason for the constant friction between them. In San Francisco, Jasmine meets another wealthy man named Dwight (Peter Saarsgard) who she begins dating, and which gives her hope that she will recover her past glory, but her constant lies begin catching up with her affecting her relationship with him and her sister.

I wouldn't say this is a character driven story because I felt a lot of them were one dimensional characters, with the exception of Jasmine of course. The people in Woody Allen's films don't tend to feel real or authentic at times, and they usually are just cartoonish caricatures from a bubbled world. Allen's films aren't the laugh out loud type either, I find them funny in a rather witty way. He is slick at times and the scenes put a smile on your face, but they don't have you laughing hysterically. Blanchett does manage to portray Jasmine in a more authentic and believable way, showing her flaws and inner struggles with her mental illness. It's a character that we find hard to sympathize with, but also feel sorry for as her life begins falling apart. She's the type of person who cannot be on her own and is always depending on someone. I also liked the way in which Woody Allen told the story and let the past unravel smoothly through flashbacks revealing several things about her character. This along with Blanchett's performance is what saves the movie and makes it entertaining, but I wouldn't agree with the critics who are saying this is Allen's best work in years. I do agree it is perhaps his most tragic and darkest comedy in recent years.

http://estebueno10.blogspot.com/

My Review: Knight and Day (5/10)

¨They'll tell you I'm mentally unstable and violent and dangerous and it will all sound very convincing. ¨

That is probably the best way to describe Tom Cruise`s character in this movie, which is also unstable in trying to be an action thriller, comedy, and romantic flick all at the same time. Knight and Day mostly succeeds as a comedy because of the performance from Cruise and Diaz, but as an action thriller it is pretty ridiculous, and the romance isn`t all that believable. The action relies too heavily on poor CGI effects; the story is poorly developed and has too many plot holes.  However, Cruise does give a comedic performance and his character is very likeable so if you go into this movie expecting a satire of Mission Impossible then you might just enjoy Knight and Day, but don`t expect a smart thriller with great action sequences because you will leave the theater disappointed. Mr. and Mrs. Smith began this trend of genre films that combine spy thrillers with comedy and romance, but it has gone downhill from that point. James Mangold has taken a huge step backwards with this movie after directing such great films as the 3:10 To Yuma remake and the Johnny Cash biopic Walk the Line, and Patrick O`Neill`s debut as a screenwriter didn`t begin very promising either, but you can`t blame him only because the script was rewritten by at least 5 other people, including Mangold himself.

I don`t want to give too much of the plot away because the most intriguing part of the movie is wondering who Roy Miller (played by Tom Cruise) really is. You wonder if he is a good guy or a bad guy for the first minutes and that is probably one of the best things about Knight and Day. He really gives a good performance and is very funny on screen. He seems a little paranoid, but at the same time he looks relaxed and cool. At the beginning of the film Roy runs into June Havens (Cameron Diaz) in the airport before getting into the plane and uses her without her knowledge to get across customs. June is a mechanic who enjoys restoring classic sport cars and happens to be buying pieces for the vehicle she is assembling to give to her sister as a wedding present. Roy and June share the same flight and seem to click immediately, but everyone else in the plane seems to be trying to kill Roy (including the flight attendants and pilots). Fitzgerald (Peter Sarsgaard from An education) is a CIA agent that is also trying to kill Roy who apparently has something valuable that everyone wants. Even an arms dealer named Antonio (Jordi Molla) is after Roy. June gets involved in all the mess and together with Roy end up all over the States, Jamaica, Austria, and Spain running for their lives. Paul Dano also has a supporting role as a nerdy scientist named Simon Feck that Roy is also trying to protect.

The plot is a bit ridiculous and the action is unfulfilling, but there is enough comedy thanks to Tom Cruise and Cameron Diaz who are two likeable actors who pull off decent performances although they are far from their best work. They`ve worked together in the past in Vanilla Sky, which is a clear reminder of how much better they can be, but in Knight and Day the issue wasn`t their performance, it was the material. Mangold has also proven he can do much better and maybe next time he will stick to more serious material. I´m not saying this movie was terrible or a complete waste of time, but it is far from being a good film. It will satisfy those in need of some good laughs, but this isn`t a movie you will want to watch over and over again because the more you think about the plot the more ridiculous you realize it becomes. This is an average film which could be enjoyed if taken lightly and viewed one time only. Cruise fans will definitely enjoy his performance. Not a good movie, but not terrible either.

http://estebueno10.blogspot.com/

My Review: An Education (7/10)

¨If people die the moment that they graduate, then surely it`s the things we do before hand that count. If you never do anything, you never become anyone.¨

(7/10) An Education is one of the ten nominated movies for best picture in the Oscars this year and it is the last one I got around to watching because I thought it would be the less interesting one. I remember seeing the trailer and thinking: not again, another movie about an underage girl having a relationship with an older man. Well, when I finally got around to seeing An Education I was really surprised at how the story caught my attention and captivated me. The performance from the entire cast was excellent, but Carey Mulligan stands out in the lead role. It will be a difficult task for her to overcome heavy favorites Sandra Bullock and Meryl Streep in the Oscar race for best performance by a leading actress. An Education might end up empty handed in the Oscar race, but that doesn`t mean you shouldn`t get around to seeing this movie. Female Danish director, Lone Sherfig, does a great job directing this film with an almost entirely English cast. Nick Hornby, known mostly for writing novels such as High Fidelity, Fever Pitch, and About a Boy, writes the screenplay for An Education which is based on the memoir from Lynn Barber. Surprisingly the main issue that An Education deals with isn`t the relationship between an older man and a girl; but the conflict between deciding to have a good education or marrying a wealthy man and living a good life. Mulligan`s character is so mature that it makes it difficult for the audience to see her as a little girl.

The story takes place around 1960 in a London suburb. Jenny Mellor (Carey Mulligan from Public Enemies and Pride and Prejudice) is a very talented sixteen year old who is studying really hard in order to be accepted to the prestigious Oxford University. She loves art, speaking French, and playing the cello. Her father, Jack (Alfred Molina from Spider Man 2) pushes her really hard because he wants her to have a better life than him and recognizes that she is extremely gifted and smart. Miss Stubbs (Olivia Williams who I recognized from The Sixth Sense) is her English teacher who also recognizes her talent and encourages her to take the exam in order to be accepted. Graham (Matthew Beard) is a young Jewish boy who is interested in Jenny, but her father disapproves because he has no aspirations in life. Jenny`s life will change dramatically when she meets a much older man named David (Peter Sarsgaard from Boys Don`t Cry and Jarhead). He seems to be a wealthy man who drives a nice car and is always inviting her to cultural events along with his friends Danny (Dominic Cooper from The Duchess) and Helen (Rosamund Pike who played Miranda Frost in the Bond film Die Another Day). Together they have a great time, and Jenny gets to know the world she has been reading in books for so long. She even goes to Paris with David because he is so goo d at winning her parents acceptance. Jack really likes David and everything he has to offer for his daughter and Jenny seems happy living the life she always dreamt about, but not everything is what it seems and money doesn`t grow around in trees. Emma Thompson has a small role as the Headmistress of Jenny`s school and she disapproves of her new relationship. Jenny is at risk of losing her education at Oxford and she doesn`t seem to mind because she finds out life is such more fun living it than actually studying.

I already said that Carey Mulligan was great in this film as the very smart and gifted Jenny, but Rosamund Pike has to get some credit for playing the stupid blonde and contributing in some of the funniest lines of the movie. Peter Sarsgaard is also great as David as he not only wins over Jenny and her parent`s hearts, but the audience`s as well. The performances in the movie are great and the story is very interesting. The dilemma that the film presents between getting a good education or getting married with a wealthy person is also a great debate. It is funny that Emma Thompson played a character that was so in favor of education, when she herself has said in real life that ¨the best education there can be for an actor is to walk up the street and observe human nature.¨ Jenny seemed to be the one using similar lines in this movie to prove her point. She was having the time of her life and learning so many things by attending these high class society events. The scenes between her and the headmistress, or with Miss Stubs are perhaps the best in the movie. Another touching moment was Alfred Molina´s monologue to Jenny while she was locked in her room. I really enjoyed the performances and the story as well.