Two Trips To The Movies (One Back) – “Punch-Drunk Love” (2002) 8.15.15 and “The End of the Tour” 8.16.15

This was my third consecutive weekend in a row where I visited the Portland Art Museum so I could catch yet another film in all seven films they are showing honoring one of the greatest American cinematic auteurs – Paul Thomas Anderson. I’ve always considered “Punch-Drunk Love” to be somewhat of a minor work in the filmography of this undeniably talented and incredibly influential writer/director’s. Maybe, because at the time of its release, it seemed like a rather odd shift in direction for the director who was coming off the powerhouses of his three previous works – 1995’s “Hard Eight” (a.k.a “Sydney), 1997’s “Boogie Nights”, and 1999’s “Magnolia” (the latter two films as mentioned in previous reviews are up there in my top 10 films of all time). So coming off one of the strongest one, two, three debut punches of almost any other director I can think of in history. To say they would be hard acts to follow would be a grave understatement. That, and the casting of the then still funny Adam Sandler as the lead, whose previous work had only been in comedy, seemed to be a rather strange casting choice. Anderson still to this day when reflecting back on the film says “it was and will be the only art film ever starring Adam Sandler”. And while I remember liking the movie when it initially came out I can’t necessarily say I loved it, especially in comparison to the two films that preceded it. Though I still went into it feeling an almost moral duty or obligation to see it as part of this ongoing retrospective of the director. Because I, as do many others, feel that it’s incredibly important to look at a director’s entire body of work. Especially with writer-directors that I admire and hold in such high regard as someone like Anderson.

The story itself revolves around Barry Egan (Adam Sandler). He’s a single man who his self-employed and owns his own business selling novelty items. He has seven rather overbearing sisters, who we’re introduced to via telephone at the beginning of the film. Barry is a lonely guy, who one night decided to call a phone sex line and is put on with a girl named “Georgia” (drawing up comparisons to Jennifer Jason Leigh’s character in Robert Altman’s “Short Cuts” (1993) ). He winds up getting himself caught up in a scam, and Georgia and her shady, sleazy business partner (played in a small part but a scene stealing Philip Seymour Hoffman). Barry is overwhelmed with stress as a result of it. All the while thinking he may have found a loophole in a Healthy Choice promotion that offers frequent flyer miles (lifted from a true life story). Just when Barry couldn’t possibly be any more down on his luck in walks the beautiful (and very talented) Emily Watson’s character, Lena. The two fall for one another under some rather strange circumstances and well, the rest of the picture more or less focuses on how two people, who couldn’t be more different from one another, and under strange circumstances, fall madly in love.

“Punch-Drunk Love” is certainly far from being Anderson’s best work. But even as a standalone film, it’s a uniquely strange, bizarre, and often times funny one. It’s also the first film in Anderson’s oeuvre where he begins to branch off from his previous style and work and shift into new forms of storytelling. Which in looking at a director’s body of work, I think is the one of the most important parts – the ability to keep things refreshing and original while staying true to your craft. I remember at the time of its release thinking that as much as I loved his two films prior, I wished that his next piece would be a little something different from the ensemble driven dramas that Anderson had mastered and built his career on up to that point. And boy this couldn’t be any different from anything he had done to date at that point. Sandler puts in a rather impressive performance as a man constantly on edge who mind you also has a very (and I mean very) bad temper mixed in with aggression problems (providing some of the film’s funniest and classic moments). It utilizes his comedic talents rather well but placing him in a role with a bit more of a dramatic turn. And surprisingly he pulls it off quite nicely. But what was striking to me this time around as how great of job Anderson does at shifting into unfamiliar terrain and pulls off a rather charming, heartfelt, and well polished love story with a lot of heart. It’s a minor work in the scope of Anderson’s seven films to date. But even despite its minor flaws (it never really “takes off”) it still is an impressive take on what we know to be the American romantic comedy.

[B]

The next film of the weekend was the newly released “The End Of The Tour” starring Jesse Eisenberg and Jason Segel. Despite my not being too particularly fond of the film’s two leads (I really only liked Eisenberg in Noah Baumbach’s “The Squid and the Whale” (2005) and David Fincher’s “The Social Network). Segel I’ve liked in a handful of work like in his earlier TV series “Freaks and Geeks” (1999), “Forgetting Sarah Marshall” (2007), “I Love You Man” (2009) and still my favorite of his – “Jeff, Who Lives At Home” (2011). But after watching a trailer that piqued my interest mixed in with the based on a true life story that took place between Rolling Stone journalist David Lipsky (Eisenberg) and famed author David Foster Wallace (Segel), who Lipsky gets put on assignment to interview the rather eccentric and immensely popular literary writer Wallace. It struck me as something that quickly caught my interest especially after seeing that it opened to rave reviews among critics, I thought it would be a great choice for my movie meetup group as it looked like something that had the potential to appeal to all tastes.

To expand on the brief synopsis of the film I hinted at above. We are first introduced to the up-and-coming, young, 30-year old Lipsky. A Rolling Stone journalist whose bogged down with covering stories he just doesn’t seem interested in and is looking for his big break. That big break comes when he is employed to cover an assignment where he would be invited into famed writer David Foster Wallace’s world for five days as he wraps up the end of his speaking tour advertising his new book that would go on to be his most popular and greatest literary achievement – ‘Infinite Jest’. Lipsky gets complete and total access to Wallace life and covers his day-to-day life through a series of candid interviews as they embark on the last few remaining stops on Wallace’s book tour. That’s essentially the film’s set up, as it becomes sort of “buddy road trip drama” that gives us insight into the world of one of the most famous and successful American authors of the 1990’s.

“The End of the Tour” sheds light on the literary world with what feels must have been a well researched story in recreating what it must have been like for its two central main characters during this short period in time. What I liked most about the picture was its take on the nature of celebrity, particularly with Wallace’s character, but as the journalist Lipsky spends more and more time with the beloved author. They begin to form a special kind of bond and friendship which comes across as totally natural and convincing, with each of its two leads taking up almost frame within the film, and their chemistry felt both relatable and authentic. Jason Segal puts on what’s probably his best real performance to date, as the bandana wearing, long-haired, unshaven author Wallace. It’s a rather impressive performance from an actor, who similarly to Adam Sandler in “Punch-Drunk Love”, shows that Segel can do drama and not just comedy like his cohort. It’s a believable and transformative role for Segel that shows he has quite a bit of range as a dramatic actor. Eisenberg on the other hand, feels out-of-place and miscast, and at least to me, plays the shaky, anxiety-ridden, unsure of himself character that he seems to become typecast in almost all of the work I’ve seen him in post-“Social Network”. Also, unlike Segel’s transformation into getting Wallace’s look and mannerisms down, Eisenberg looks exactly like he always does. And both my fellow movie meetup fans and I agreed and wondered, did he change anything outside of his usual persona and acting abilities to play this role? Well, it didn’t seem like it. Also, there’s some great in-depth, introspective talks that go on throughout the course of the film that play out almost like an homage to the great “Before Trilogy” films directed by Richard Linklater. Sure we get some great insight into the minds of the great writer and journalist, but at least to me, while I admired its exploration into them. It just felt a little too slight and somber throughout the entirety of its duration, sort of how I felt about Alexander Payne’s “Nebraska” (which I liked but thought it to be very average). And that’s more or less similar to how I would up feeling about this film. For fans of literature who are familiar with author David Foster Wallace and his rise to fame and unwanted celebrity, you might like this film a bit more than I did. But despite the impressive turn by Segel, it wound up being a slightly above average dialogue driven talk fest with plenty of insight, but just not enough feeling.

[B-]

The End Of The Tour – Starring Jesse Eisenberg and Jason Segel

Sunday, Aug 16, 2015, 4:30 PM

Regal Fox Tower 10
846 Sw Park Ave Portland, OR

6 Portland Film Enthusiasts Went

The story of the five-day interview between Rolling Stone reporter David Lipsky (Eisenberg) and acclaimed novelist David Foster Wallace (Segel), which took place right after the 1996 publication of Wallace’s groundbreaking epic novel, ‘Infinite Jest.’ Co-starring Anna Chlumsky and Joan Cusack.

Check out this Meetup →

Advertisements

A Trip To The Movies: Review – “Eden” 7.4.15

I thought of starting this review out to reflect something I said awhile back in another. I started by saying something to the effect of “it should be by way of some sort of miracle that I happened to stumble upon this film”. And that’s the first thought that entered into my brain after the house lights came on after having seen Mia Hansen-Love’s (the French 34-year old writer/director who’s married to a little known guy by the name of Olivier Assayas) latest film. All I really knew was that it had been selected, screened at, and opened to quite a bit of positive praise at many of this past year’s most prestigious film festivals. That and it touted itself as being THE most quintessential film about the electronic music scene to date.

The film was co-written by writer/director Love’s real life brother, Sven, about his experiences as a successful music DJ/Producer who practically lived through what many electronic music fans would undoubtably agree was the hey day of electronic music, particularly that of the House/Disco scene that was coming out of Europe in the early to mid nineties and lasted for the next 20 years. It revolves around its central character, Paul (Felix de Givry, in what was my first introduction to him as an actor), a late teenager in early nineties Paris, France. Paul and his friends are stuck in a time where the electronic music scene, particularly in Europe, where the music seemed to really be taking off with artists like the Godfathers of House music, Daft Punk (who are featured regularly throughout the film as fictionalized versions of themselves and in the film’s soundtrack). Paul and his friends live, breathe, eat, and sleep electronic music. The scene is going through what some may call a rebirth or revitalization, and Paul and his fellow music friends seem to live for any single chance they can get to attend any of Paris’ many underground electronic events that take place each and every weekend. It’s not long before Paul and one of his fellow electronic music fans start to aspire to be on the other side of the dance floor and become DJ’s themselves. He forms a duo called “Cheers” and their events start to spread throughout Europe via word-of-mouth and ultimately to the States. The film goes on to explore these two decade plus years of Paul and his mates as they go on to become to be internationally recognized figures while also giving us a complete and comprehensive overview of what their experiences were like, the highs and lows, and trials and tribulations of being successful DJ’s at the time when the scene was exploding and experiencing a burgeoning renaissance.

What can I say about this film other than it was nothing short of both incredible and astonishing. As a devoted lover of electronic music this film felt like the ultimate love letter to not only myself, but to legions of fans around the world as it just could possibly be the most accurate and comprehensive look at a pivotal moment in history within the genre. Then there’s the character of Paul (played remarkably by Felix de Givry) who literally grows up before our eyes. From his young days as a late teenager transitioning into adulthood in his twenties, to the 20 year period that followed where he immerses himself into the world of electronic music. At times I got hints of Richard Linklater’s “Boyhood” as we follow Paul for on his 2 decade plus journey through the music that runs through every moral fiber of his body. We see how his commitment to his passion affects his family, his continuous failed relationships (one of which is with the great American actress Greta Gerwig, who plays a small but important role in Paul’s life), to his struggles with cocaine addiction. And what becomes an underlying subplot that I personally could relate to in being  so passionate about something that it becomes difficult to break away from it. Change doesn’t come easy for any of us, and in the context of this film, neither does it for Paul. As the world seems to grow and change as time goes by, so do the people around Paul, except his commitment to his love and work doesn’t really  allow for much in terms of personal growth. This was just one in a film that explored a number of many other brilliantly explored subplots. Making Paul’s rise to an internationally renowned DJ/Producer feel like an expert character study of a man that’s so committed and dedicated to his life’s work. That when the party starts to fade away and the scene begins to change, like anything in life, Paul isn’t quite sure how to change along with it. This all bolstered by an excellent soundtrack of House (or as Paul would call it “Garage” music – i.e. House + Disco) music as well as some more contemporary electro tracks. As a music fan overall but especially an electronic music aficionado, this is the best collection of songs put to screen from the genre since Danny Boyle’s “Trainspotting” (1997) soundtrack almost two decades ago. Lastly, what I’ll end on saying is this – what I love most about the art of film is when you can see part of yourself mirrored in it and come to a greater understanding about who you really are through the eyes of another director’s lens. And it becomes intimately personal. Then you know you’ve just lay witness to something spectacular. Which is exactly how I felt walking out of this film. The film’s message to me was clear and something that all of us either have or could relate to at some point, which is letting go of the person we saw ourselves as in our youth and accepting the permanent person that we’ve become. It’s a cathartic, self-revelatory, and utterly rewarding experience. And a film that ranks up there with this year’s best right alongside “Ex Machina” which should bode well and wind up as a serious top 5 contender come my end of the year best of list.

[A-]

Midweek Review: 2 New-To-DVD Releases – “The Salvation” + “Girlhood” and One Trip To The Movies – “Wild Tales” (6/1-6/3)

First up was the Mads Mikkelsen (TV’s “Hannibal”) western drama “The Salvation”, which was officially released Tuesday on both DVD and VOD. What can I say, like the Australian actor Ben Mendelsohn I will see just about any and everything this Danish actor stars in. I also happen to like Jeffrey Dean Morgan, who played the film’s villain and outlay enemy to Mikkelsen’s film protagonist. It’s about as simple as simple set ups go. Mikkelsen’s Danish wife and child meet him in America only to quickly be murdered in a thrilling stagecoach scene and Mikkelsen is left behind. Mikkelsen than goes into bad ass, revenge mode, and swears vengeance on the men who killed them. He does but winds up in one of those small, little frontier towns and learns that one of the men he’s killed is the brother of one of the most notorious and corrupt outlaws in the town (Morgan). A somewhat predictable story follows that (you guessed it) has Mikkelsen escaping and teaming up with some of the local townspeople who aren’t too keen on Morgan’s character and for the rest of the film we get a relatively standard, yet enjoyable, Spaghetti Western, with a fair amount of action but all contained within something I felt like I had seen before. Mikkelsen is enigmatic as usual, as is Morgan as he pulls off just the right blend of menace and ruthlessness. I’m going to recommend this for fans of the Western genre and of the actors involved. However, that being said, it breathes no new life into a genre of which I recently talked about in my “Slow West” review that seems to be reinventing itself in original and innovative ways particularly as of late. I can confidently say you won’t find much of that here. But for the most part, it’s a good time. [B-]

Bande de filles Movie Poster

Next up was a highly anticipated film from the young French female director Celine Sciamma, who wowed audiences with her sophomore effort “Tomboy” just a few years back in 2011. A movie which I held in such high regard that it wound up on my Honorable Mentions list at the end of that same year. “Girlhood” is an extension of “Tomboy” in that it depicts an adolescent girl, seemingly going nowhere and who is on the verge of dropping out of school. She teams up with a rival street gang, where she finds community, moral support, and a new-found sense of confidence. Things that seem to be lacking at home and she seems to find exactly what she’s looking for. But like ., “Tomboy”, this is a deeply probing (and quite moving) look at adolescence. Drawing to mind another film I saw the same year as “Tomboy” – Dee Rees’ “Pariah”, a coming-of-age story, like this one, except in that it focused on a young teenager struggling with “coming out” and showing the world who she really is. “Girlhood” seems to focus more on finding one’s own true identity and being faithful to who you are and not who you think others may think they might want you to be. Sciamma seems to have a perfect and uncanny understanding for these coming-of-age stories of adolescence (sorry Richard Linklater, this is no knock on you) and manages to do it with such a sense authenticity that it’s hard not to get wrapped up and emotionally invested in her characters. This is one of the sleeper house hits of the year, and it’s too bad (well, not for myself, but for others I know who try to stray away from subtitled films…which as an added disclaimer, for those of you that do, you’re missing out on 90% of the world’s best films) that it’s a foreign film in the French language. Because it’s a deeply raw, moving story, about teenage adolescence, that is remarkably well done and should be seen by everyone. This should make my list of Honorable Mentions at this year’s end. [B+]

Last up, was “Wild Tales”, a film I ventured out to the theater to see, as for one it got astronomically good reviews, but even more importantly, it garnered a nomination for Best Foreign Language film (Argentina) at this past year’s Oscars. That and it was nominated for the Palme d’Or at last year’s Cannes Film Festival (and word has it earned itself a full ten minute standing ovation following). Other than this I knew little to next to nothing about it other than I heard it was supposed to be completely and utterly batshit crazy. The story itself contains six short films, almost like one of those anthology movies you see that have been being released in droves these past  few years. Except with one major difference – this film has got more hilariously depraved and deranged moments in its 2 hour running time than almost any other film I’ve seen like it (similarities could be drawn between it and 2013’s “Cheap Thrills). Except unlike that film, everything seems to take place coincidentally and by a mere matter of chance (think Ben Wheatley’s “Sightseers” (2012) as a reference point and there’s quite a fair bit of dark humor/black comedy and satire, that takes on an almost screwball “oh my god you’ve got to be kidding me” element to the proceedings that had both myself and my fellow moviegoers laughing hysterically at various moments throughout the film. Just at the mere absurdity of it all. My one critique of the it as is usually with most “anthology” films are that some are segments that are better than others. The first starts off real strong, as the second and third, but I felt like it lost a bit of steam in its fourth and fifth segments, only to finish strong in its final act. Though despite this one somewhat moderate criticism of the film I still had a hell of a time with it. As it’s a funny, daring, original, and undeniably deranged piece of cinema that wound up being well deserving of its Best Foreign Language film nomination. [strong B]

DVD Review: “Top Five” 3.15.15

I stumbled cross this movie after seeing a trailer way back in December before seeing another film in the theater. I’ve always liked Chris Rock – in not so much looking at his career as an actor, but more as a comic. He was part of some of my favorite years on Saturday Night Live (1990-1993),  and his HBO stand up performances were up there with some of the best from the list of some of the best Black comedians – Bill Cosby, Richard Pryor, and Eddie Murphy to name a few. I also thought he was perfectly cast in his role in the documentary “Good Hair” (2009). I’ve always looked at Rock and considered him one of the last few remaining Black comedians that can actually write. And it was interesting that just the other day, I was going back and forth with one of my co-workers, who has an encyclopedic knowledge of Black entertainers, particularly those of the mid to late 20th century, who stated that he felt like the death of Black comedy ended with Richard Pryor. Which I think is true to some extent. While I like guys like Dave Chappelle and Rock, the majority of Black entertainers, especially comedians, in our current climate, just aren’t very funny (I’m looking at you Kevin Hart!). However I did bring up to said co-worker that I liked Rock, and considered him to maybe be the last in the short remaining list of Black comedians with real talent whose career has longevity (sorry Chappelle but you came onto the scene much to fast and left much too early). So when I first so the trailer for this film I took note of it when it said “written, directed, and starring Chris Rock” and was almost immediately sold. But what actually sealed the deal for me was that it looked like it was something that was clever, with real creativity, that separated itself from what you might expect of a Chris Rock film (and certainly that of any Tyler Perry movie). Given my being a semi fan of Rock as a writer, I decided to check this one out as soon as it became available on DVD.

Rock plays a fictitious film actor named Andre Allen (the last name being an overt nod to Woody) in an opening scene that involves a long tracking shot of him walking down the streets of New York City with a reporter (played by the always reliable Rosario Dawson). He spouts diatribes about the ever-changing times in America (his stabs at politics and president Obama are hilarious and only something that could come from the mind of Rock). The Dawson character is trying to convince Rock to allow her to do a piece on him for the New York Times, with him not really wanting or willing to commit. You see his career has hit a low point, and he strives to do something more dramatic but he’s been typecast into doing films like the “Hammy” franchise (imagine Smokey the Bear but with an AK-47!). He’s currently promoting his first foray into dramatic acting territory with a serious film called “Uprize” that looks like something Steve McQueen might have made if he set out to make “12 Years A Slave” a comedy. This on top of trying to juggle the press and his flailing career, as well as upcoming marriage to reality TV star (played by Gabrielle Union) and the days leading up to which is all going to air on the Bravo network. An obvious choice for his media hungry wife which he seems to be conflicted about but goes along with it anyway. Andre finally commits to allowing Rosario’s reporter to cover and do the piece, in hopes that maybe she’ll write something that will revitalize his career and give it some rejuvenation. Throughout this process she uncovers many truths about Andre that have yet to be revealed. Many of which involve deeply personal aspects of his life. That’s where the film really starts to build in terms of story, and much of what we learn about Andre’s deeply troubled past is shown in a serious of flashbacks (most of them downright hilarious) as the two of them stroll around the city working the press junket and getting ready for his big wedding.

There was a lot of strong elements encompassed in this film which as I expected, mostly came from within the writing and script departments. Rock gives us his version of Federico Fellini’s “8 1/2” (1963), Woody Allen’s “Stardust Memories” (1980), and something that clearly seems influenced by the Richard Linklater “Before” Trilogy. It starts off and mostly stays solid with one joke after another, with many (and I mean many) cameos from just about everyone we’ve seen Rock be involved with in the number of different projects he’s done over the years. Like the films of Woody Allen, there’s a cynical undertone to a lot of the dialogue in the script, but with more satire involved in what it means to be an entertainer in the increasingly demanding film industry. Some of the flashback sequences I spoke of above are simply hilarious, particularly the ones involving Rock with Cedric The Entertainer, Dawson’s journalist revealing her more brazenly honest sex life in some of her past relationships, as well as Andre’s bout with alcoholism. The latter of which takes on a funny but sad tone that comes across as a bit more honest even despite the confounding situations that it got him into. It maintains a serio-comic edge throughout its almost entire duration when even if at times it seems a little overstuffed with ideas. That and about two-thirds of the way through there’s a revelation that came across as being a bit contrived which takes place while another shift in plot is formulating that also seems cliché. Though to Rock’s credit the razor-sharp script and witty dialogue mostly make up for it falling into typical romantic comedy movie tropes. I also thought it handled and straddled the line between serio-romantic comedy and drama rather well. With a script that came across as both original and inventive. For those of you looking for a comedy with a bit more of an edge like one of Rock’s comedic contemporaries, Louis C.K., then this might just be the comedy for you. It’s smart, funny, and refreshing, and even if you don’t necessarily like the film’s feel or tone, I can assure you it will at least be worthwhile for the sheer amount of great cameos in it. Let’s hope that Rock has more tricks like this one up his sleeve.

[B]

Review: “The Congress” 11.30.14

This is yet another example of a film that caught my attention solely because of the fact that I loved Israeli-born writer/director Ari Folman’s previous effort – 2008’s Golden Globe Winner for Best Foreign Language Film “Waltz With Bashir”. I recently revisited “Waltz” for maybe about the half dozenth time or so and found it to be every bit as mesmerizing as I had remembered it from the 5 or so previous viewings of it that I had seen. Maybe even more so. Part of the reason why I revisit movies is because I feel like I look at them differently with each passing year. That and it’s always a wise choice to revisit a director’s previous work which allows someone like myself to drum up anticipation for their next film. This film in particular highlights this ethos exactly. As WWB is a brilliant film from a multitude of cinematic stand points. It brought an entirely new and fresh approach to the documentary format in that it was shot similarly to what Richard Linklater did with both “Waking Life” (2001) and “A Scanner Darkly” (2006). It presented us with a series of interviews that the director films beforehand then has a team of animators draw over the already filmed material which gives them an almost surreal and dream-like quality. The major difference being that Forman utilized this same look but without the fictionalization of the 2 Linklater films. His was a real life account of a series of different people talking about their experiences of the 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon. Which not only gave it a sense of authenticity in terms of how it breathed new life in telling a somewhat familiar war-torn story. It gave me a newfound admiration for how animation could be used to tell a highly effective tale with a deeply emotional center. However, since then, a very seemingly long 6 years have past. And now Folman is back with his next feature that finds him, like many other foreign filmmakers, coming to the United States following an award-winning film of theirs. This plus it boasted a rather impressive cast in Robin Wright, Harvey Keitel, Paul Giamatti, Danny Huston, and Kodi-Smit McPhee in a film that like WWB, brings back this combination of animation with live action footage.

The film opens with a close up shot of Robin Wright’s character, and a close zoom out with an off-screen voice-over by her film agent played by Harvey Keitel. Keitel is debasing her about her career and the many ups and downs it has taken, more recently for the worse. He says that he has come to bring her one last opportunity to do something that might kickstart her career. A move that could give her the same fame and notoriety she received for films that she was in when she was younger. Films like “A Princess Bride” (1987) and “Forrest Gump” (1996). It is quickly brought to our attention that she is playing a fictionalized version of her real life self. Though everyone around her including her son (Smit-McPhee), head of “Marimount” Studios (Huston), and son’s doctor (Giamatti), play characters and not themselves. Wright is being told that in order to save her career, she needs to be copied, or “computerized”, so that she can maintain both her youth and success. She is very apprehensive to this as she seems to be a “technophobe” as her daughter puts it. She’s afraid that by becoming cloned or made into a chip she might lose her sense of self and identity. However, because of her growing older and in need of a career change, she decides to take the offer. She then heads to some sort of scientific division within the studio, where she undergoes said transformation. Then, at this point, we jump 30 years ahead to the year 2033. Where she is about to cross the border from real life to computer life. And after having done so, she’s transported to this world where a number of different events transpire. Most of which revolve around the studio and the societal framework known as “The Congress”. The film takes a huge shift at that point and delves into entirety new territory, as it goes on to explore themes of identity, existentialism, the self, and post-technology. Giving us an inventive glimpse into the future.

I’ll start by saying I felt very indifferent about this picture. There really was so much to like, yet at the same time a lot that I had quite a bit of hard time finding myself being able to get into. First off, as I mentioned above it boasts a pretty incredible cast. Robin Wright is perfectly cast here as the aging star who’s own real life career trajectory is important in terms of the story’s context. She’s also in just about every frame of the film, so almost all of it rests on her really pulling her weight. And she rises to the occasion here providing some very strong work. Also, the animation, which a little more than a third of the film consists of, is simply breathtaking. As was with WWB, Folman and his obviously very talented animation team provide a visual spectacle with animation that makes anything I’ve seen up to this point look outdated. It’s hallucinogenic and acid-soaked imagery is nothing short of dazzling to watch. There’s also a pretty deep emotional core to the film, as the Wright character goes on a journey of self discovery that forces her to tap into some pretty introspective places. That stuff aside, the film feels almost tedious throughout its entire duration. The shift in tones were off-putting. The first third drags and then just when it starts to get interesting, they totally shift focus in the story and we’re presented with this entirely new universe and character arch. That and the animation segment, which takes up about the second third to three-quarters of the film, is a head scratcher and utterly difficult to keep up with and follow at times. It feels overwrought and much too dense for even the hardest of genre fans. Which in the case of this film would be heady Science Fiction. It attempts to explore some really deep existential themes that at times just seemed like a tad bit too much. So for all the incredibly stunning imagery on display here, the film gets caught up in the too many themes in which it tries to explore. And even despite its great cast and voice over work by people like Jon Hamm and Tom Cruise, this is mostly a tiresome effort for director Ari Folman and a disappointing follow-up to “Waltz With Bashir”.

[C]

#5: ‘Sinister’ (2012)

Scott Derrickson’s “Sinister” had the make up to be just another lame Hollywood horror entry. It stars Ethan Hawke, who as an actor, I really never cared for much up until just this year having recently grown quite fond of the films of Richard Linklater. It was supposedly about a “supernatural writer” (see countless others like 2004’s “Secret Window” or 2007’s “1408” to name a couple) who awakens dark spirits. In essence the pedigree to be just another standard, run-of-the-mill American horror flick. Then, after hearing some positive feedback about it from some friends of mine I decided to give it a whirl. And of all the horror films that I’m going to make mention of over the next week – this is the one that took me by surprise the most.

To me what’s so impressive about “Sinister” are essentially two major elements that were reaffirmed the second time around was 1) the lighting and 2) the use of score. I can honestly say I’ve never seen a film lit quite like this one. The entire film is essentially filmed indoors. And while although if you look closely you can see that certain segments are clearly shot during the day, the creators always keep the blindfolds down smoldering it in darkness. So dark that at many points all there seems to be is one hovering lighting rig looking down. Which can be disorienting because most of the time all you can see is whatever’s in focus. This could be off putting to some. But to me I thought it was completely effective because it constantly had me wondering and asking myself what could possibly be lurking in the shadows (and there are quite a few scares mind you).  Second, the score by composer Andrea Nebal is pitch perfect. The way in which it is used, especially during the scenes of panic, tension, or dread, is really effective in rattling the viewer. In fact, the score is so good that I can only think of 2 others that are comparable in recent memory. One of which is my #1 film that is going to complete this list so I don’t dare spoil it. The second being Mica Levi’s remarkable score from this year’s “Under The Skin”. All three scores that really act as second characters in the film and without them the end result in each one of the films wouldn’t be half as great. Now I know both of these 2 aspects I highlighted are purely cinematic ones, and would be a hard sell for someone not interested in such areas of film and I completely understand that. However, I’m not trying to shy away from how truly terrifying this movie is. It’s the type of movie that you will see images on screen that will be forever embedded in your brain that even if you try to forgot you will never be able to “un see”. Which to me is one criteria of horror that I love if done right and isn’t cheap or exploitative. And in the case of this film, not only does it right but does it with an added cherry on top.

[B+]

 

 

 

Review: ‘The Double’ 8.31.14

If Woody Allen’s ‘Annie Hall’ is the best movie about middle aged adults falling in love, and Richard Linklater’s “Before Trilogy” is the best set of films about twenty/thirtysomething’s falling in love, then Richard Ayoade’s 2010 remarkable debut – ‘Submarine’ (which made my top 10 films of that year) has got to be the best film about teenagers falling in love. I remember being so moved by ‘Submarine’, so touched, both in its humanity and the way in which its characters were treated. I remember thinking “who is this Ayoade guy”? But at the time I didn’t really care. What I did know is that I just lay witness to one of the most refreshing young talents who made one of the strongest debuts in as far back as I can remember.

So it was only fitting that I would be heavily anticipating Ayoade’s sophomore effort. Especially because from the little bit I read I heard it was more or less an extension of his singular style, his ability to create something new and inventive, while also not conforming to any of Hollywood’s typical movie tropes. All things that were apparent if you saw ‘Submarine’ (and if you haven’t I would highly encourage you to do so). This, co-written and directed by Ayoade, with Avi Korine (Harmony’s brother also getting a co-writing credit), and based loosely on a novel penned by the famous 19th century Russian writer Fyodor Dostoyevsky. Plus starring both Jesse Eisenberg and Mia Wasikowska (is there anything this talented young actress isn’t in?). I thought this had the pedigree to be a great film. And for the most part it is. Set in the future, or a setting that gives no indication of space or time, and the story taking place below ground (at least it appeared to me to), following the central character, Eisenberg, who plays his usual awkward, unconfident, nervous self, but which in this case winds up suiting the material well. Who witnesses an attempted suicide while spying on his love interest through a telescope (a nod to Hitchcock’s ‘Rear Window’), here played by Wasikowska, only to show up the next day to work and there’s a carbon copy of himself, a doppelganger, and that’s where things really start to get interesting. Throughout, I couldn’t stop thinking of Terry Gilliam’s 1985 masterpiece – ‘Brazil’, as this film felt a lot like it in both feel and tone. It’s peculiar, quirky, and very bizarre. It presents the viewer with a lot of questions – are the 2 Eisenberg’s switching identities? Obsessions? Are they both the same person just different versions of one another? This is a film, much like ‘Enemy’, that will have you asking yourself a lot of similar questions throughout. It’s a completely original, highly unique, and singular work. And proves once again that Ayoade is one of the more fresh, talented, and original voices on the filmmaking scene today. This is one that will most likely wind up on my list of Honorable Mentions (#’s 10-20) by year’s end.

Grade: strong B