Nov 07 2014
Leave a comment
Trending

“Toy Story 4” Coming in 2017

Yes. And no.

Shocking details emerged yesterday about the development of one of Disney/Pixar’s most cherished and well recognized animated icons. Not only was Toy Story 3 not going to be the last film for the critically acclaimed animated trilogy: the fourth entry is well on the way and is due for release in June 2017 with animator John Lasseter directing.

Who on Earth was expecting this? Even though talks and rumors have been going on for years now on the development of a possible Toy Story sequel, nothing was ever confirmed, and indeed, Toy Story 3 director Lee Unkrich ensured that nothing was going on. All of that is now disproven because of Bob Iger, Walt Disney chief executive officer, who confirmed to multiple news outlets that Toy Story 4 is indeed in production with the original creative team behind the project.

“John created Toy Story and directed the first two films,” Iger said. “It’s great to have him back directing one of our most valuable properties.” 

Lasseter said that the new film will pick up right after where Toy Story 3 left off, and will be a “love story” of certain sorts.

“A lot of people in the industry view us doing sequels as being for the business of it,” Lasseter said. “But for us it’s pure passion. We only make sequels when we have a story that’s as good as or better than the original.” 

Considering Lasseter is the same man who also wrote and directed Cars 2, I’m inclined to disbelieve him on that.

I’m sorry, excuse me that I’m being just a big sourpuss over here. I loved Toy Story 3. I think it’s one of the most definitive animated films ever made, going so far as to name it my favorite film of 2010. And I’m not the only one. Many other bloggers and movie lovers declared the movie as their favorite film from 2010, including Quintin Taratino himself. And one of the best things about the film was that it brought the toy’s journey with Andy to a satisfying, albeit tear-jerking, conclusion. Toy Story ended like childhood itself does, and that’s part of what brought grounded emotional reality to this seemingly innocent children’s flick.

Well, I can’t say that it ended anymore. Lasseter said people see Pixar sequels as being for the business of it. How can anyone see it as anything but? Anything beyond the Toy Story films did not fare better than the former one did. Cars 2 was not better than Cars. Monsters University was not better than Monsters Inc. Finding Dory and Incredibles 2 hasn’t come out yet, but I doubt they’ll be as good as Finding Nemo and The Incredibles. I know for a fact Toy Story 4 will not match the mastery of Toy Story 3. There is no possible way you can. Imagine if after The Dark Knight Rises was released, Christopher Nolan took himself back on his own word and started production on The Dark Knight Resurrected. I hate sequels. I hate em’, I hate em’, I hate em’, and excuse me for not jumping on the bandwagon and enjoying paying my money for an expanded franchise constantly milking the content out of its already used characters.

I know many people will be excited to hear this news, and will hurry with excitement to tell their friends that they’ll get to see Woody, Buzz and everyone else in more of their fun adventures. To which I have to ask where were you during any of their short films (“Hawaiian Vacation”, “Small Fry”, and “Partysaurus Rex”) and any of their television specials (“Toy Story of Terror!” and “Toy Story That Time Forgot”)? I’m so hard on this because a feature-length sequel is so blatantly unnecessary. I’m able to get the same wit, humor, fun, and enjoyment out of the toys by seeing their smaller-scale adventures on the small screen. Why do we need a feature-length sequel for any reason other than for commercial value?

I’m sorry for being so hard on this, but I’m really not happy about this.What do you guys think? Are you excited for the toy’s return to the big screen, or are you like me and wish they kept themselves under the bed?

Comment below, let me know.

– David Dunn

SOURCE: IGN, Variety, Buzzfeed
Nov 04 2014
Leave a comment
Trending

Steve Jobs Biopic Faces A Bale Out

Batman or Magneto: which would you want to be Steve Jobs?

Oh wait, one of those cards is now off of the table. Variety reported a few hours ago that Christian Bale, the Academy-Award winning actor most known in roles including The Fighter, American Hustle and The Dark Knight trilogy, bailed out on Danny Boyle’s Steve Jobs biopic, which is written by Aaron Sorkin and tells the life of the Apple co-founder during three Apple presentation that came to define him and his career. Sources say that Bale dropped because he felt wrong for the part after much thought and deliberation.

Ugh. I’m trying really hard not to be upset about all of this. Bale is one of today’s most versatile and talented actors in the industry. If he needs to lose weight for a role like The Fighter, or gain weight for a role like American Hustle, or build up muscle for a role in The Dark Knight, Bale has proven time and time again how effectively well he can slip into the mind of his character. Seriously, if you haven’t seen how well Bale can act, look at his performance in Steven Spielberg’s 1987 film Empire Of The Sun. He was 12 years old at the time of filming.

My point being if Bale can slip so wonderfully into the roles of so many different characters, there’s no reason he can’t slip into the role of Steve Jobs. But actors can pick and choose their projects, and Bale has certainly earned that right. That doesn’t mean I need to be happy about this though, and I’m not.

So who’s going to pick up the role? Reports from early today indicated that Michael Fassbender (X-men First Class, 12 Years A Slave) is in the running to portray the founder. He certainly has the chops for it, and in many ways is just as versatile an actor as Bale is. If you don’t believe me, watch his performance in Steve McQueen’s 2008 film Hunger. If you were going to replace Christian Bale in an iconic role as Steve Jobs, the perfect pic would have to be Michael Fassbender.

However, let me die your hopes right there and say that Fassbender is in talks to portray the entrepreneur. He has not been confirmed yet, and has not signed on for anything.

What do you guys think? Who would you like to see in the running for Steve Jobs? Comment below, let me know.

– David Dunn

SOURCE: Variety, The Hollywood Reporter
Oct 28 2014
Leave a comment
Trending

Marvel announces it’s Phase Three Lineup

Looks like DC isn’t the only ones churning out their movie plans.

Earlier today, Marvel Studios released it’s lineup of movies that will be set for release after Avengers: Age of Ultron comes out in May. The announcement was originally reported by Variety before treading out into the internet in every which way and under.

The first movie to be released for their lineup is not Payton Reed’s film Ant-Man, despite Kevin Feige’s comments from earlier in the year. Instead, it is Captain America: Civil War, the third film in the star-spangled superhero’s story that pits Steve Rogers against Robert Downey Jr’s own Iron Man to be released on May 6, 2016. The next film to be released later that same year is Scott Derrickson’s Doctor Strange, currently set for release on November 4.

It is important to note that earlier yesterday, it was heavily implied and emphasized that “Sherlock” actor Benedict Cumberbatch was Marvel’s top pick to play the sorcerer supreme. But no confirmed report has come out yet.

On May 5, 2017, James Gunn’s sci-fi fantastic follow-up to his highly successful summer blockbuster Guardians of The Galaxy comes out, having many of the previous actors reprising their roles for the sequel. Then, the third Thor film Ragnarok will be released in July 28. Who the villain is and what the storyline will be has yet to be announced, but considering that a villain named Ragnarok was introduced during the Civil War story arc, I wouldn’t be surprised if Thor found himself going up against a might mechanical clone of himself in the movie. Black Panther, starring Chadwick Boseman (42, Get On Up), is the last film of the year slated for a Nov. 2018 release.

Then, in May 2018, the big blockbuster arrives: The Avengers: Infinity War Part 1. Yes, it’s part one. The first part will have the Avengers teaming up against the immensely powerful super villain Thanos, first portrayed by Josh Brolin in Guardians of the Galaxy. The second part, due for release in May 2019, will conclude the Avengers’ epic fight with the galactic supervillian, and will most likely feature an appearance of the Guardians of the Galaxy as well.

The last two films to be featured in 2018 before Part II is Captain Marvel and Inhumans, both slated for a July and November release respectively. Captain Marvel is an intergalactic alien superhero who is affiliated with the Kree race, first introduced in Guardians of the Galaxy. The Inhumans is another intergalactic team of superheroes who also fought Thanos on a few occasions.

This is Marvel’s lineup up until 2019, and although it’s a lot of films to take in all at once, it isn’t nearly as much as DC’s ten part film series for release up until 2020. I’m excited for the lineup Marvel has planned for phase three, and if Age of Ultron works out as planned, Marvel will continue to grow and expand it’s universe well beyond it’s limits.

What do you think of Marvel’s new lineup? Comment below, let me know.

– David Dunn

SOURCE: Variety, Moviepilot
Oct 20 2014
Leave a comment
Reviews

“THE BOOK OF LIFE” Review (✫✫✫)

book of life

Ay caramba, tu joven amantes.

As children, we were told many fairy tales that filled our young minds with wonder and imagination. We looked at the pictures in our tiny children’s books as our parents narrated the words to us, but did we ever stop to think about where these fairy tales came from? The Three Little Pigs came from England. The Little Red Riding Hood, London. The Fountain of Youth, Japan. The Little Mermaid, Denmark. The Sorcerer’s Apprentice, Germany. So many stories have come from so many places all around the world that by the time they reach us, we have “cleansed” it of it’s culture and Americanized it for our own comfort.

Here, we have Jorge Gutierrez’s own fairy tale called The Book Of Life, and for the sake of the movie I’m glad it didn’t succumb to mainstream appeal by having it take place in Colonial America. The Book Of Life is splendid, a wonderful, uplifting, joyous, and immensely entertaining animation engulfed and inspired by the culture Gutierrez came from. Think about how quickly you are swept away when you read the fairy tales by the Brothers Grimm, and you can imagine how this film sweeps you up in that exact same way.

Told as a story within a story similar to Rob Reiner’s The Princess Bride, The Book Of Life follows a group of schoolchildren through a museum as they are told the tale of Manolo (Diego Luna), a Mexican bull fighter who is fighting for the heart of his childhood friend Maria (Zoe Saldana). His closest friend and rival, Joaquin (Channing Tatum) is also fighting for her love, and when they finally see each other after many years apart, they begin their pursuit for Maria’s love.

Unbeknownst to any of them, however, a heavy secret hides behind their innocent intentions. The spirits of the afterlife La Muerte (Kate del Castillo), who rules the world of the remembered, and Xibalba (Ron Perlman), the one who rules the world of the forgotten, have placed a bet on these three friends. If Manolo ends up marrying Maria, La Muerte wins and gets to rule both the land of the remembered and the forgotten. If Joaquin marries Maria, Xibalba wins and he gets to rule the land of the remembered. The world of the undead is at stake here, and it’s up to Manolo, Maria, and Joaquin to set things right.

What do I say about an animated children’s film that’s based around Mexican fables and customs? The Book Of Life is a wonderful animation: bright, vibrant, colorful, and lively all at once. Writer/director/animator Jorge Gutierrez has a careful eye for detail, and does well in visually adapting to different scenes, settings, and moods.

In one scene, after one of the supporting characters die, the setting suddenly becomes dark. The sun drops. The candles burn out. A cloudy fog envelops in the sky as rain drops pellet onto the ground. In the very next scene, however, we see the world of the remembered from this deceased person’s perspective, and it is lively colors light up with shiny, gold-brick pathways illuminating everywhere and with Churros and balloons floating as far as the eye can see.

This is what I mean when I say the animation is versatile: it’s attentive, eye-catching, and delightful, demanding your attention the minute you lay your eyes on it. But it’s not just the animation that works so well with this movie. The Book of Life is entrenched and inspired in its own culture, living and breathing the Mexican customs though every frame of its run time.  There is one work that Gutierrez did this with before The Book Of Life, and that is the Annie award-winning Nickelodeon cartoon series “El Tigre: The Adventures of Manny Rivera.” Now we have The Book of Life, and I feel it will spur on many Mexican children and families to pick up their heritage and be proud to represent it. In a day and age where Hollywood feels they need to Americanize everything, The Book of Life is a Godsend.

Everything else in this film functions exactly as it is supposed to. The story is mostly formula in that there has to be a good guy, a bad guy, a forbidden love, a big fight scene at the end, and a happy ending. The voice cast is solid, and Channing Tatum didn’t annoy the living daylights out of me for a change. And the music by Gustavo Santaolallo is pristine and authentic, with the plucking of the Mexican guitar strings filling your ears with wonderfully harmonic sound.

But make no mistake. The best thing about this film is the inspiration Gutierrez instills in it, the inspiration that his parents most likely instilled in him when he was still just a little boy. I hope there will be a children’s novelization of this film in the future and that it too will inspire children of all ages, regardless of their heritage.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Oct 18 2014
Leave a comment
Reviews

“BIRDMAN” Review (✫✫✫✫)

The artist’s struggle, all in one take. 

Birdman, or otherwise known as The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance is one of the most mesmerizing films I’ve ever seen. It is also one of the most unique, disturbing, shocking, and confusing films I’ve ever seen too. That’s okay. This film was reaching for a specific vision, and director Alejandro Inarritu has expanded beyond it. I admit I don’t know what to expect as far as the public reacting to this, and I also don’t know how accessible it is to non-film aficionados either. But I have seen the movie frame by frame, and I think it’s one of the best films of its kind. On the surface value, it’s about the struggles of Broadway theatre. In deeper insight, it’s about ego and the obsessive human condition.

The film stars Michael Keaton as washed-up actor Riggan Thompson, who has been forgotten by his adoring public after portraying the lead role in a series of superhero films titled Birdman. This is ironic, because in real life, Keaton portrayed a superhero in Tim Burton’s 1989 film Batman. Desperate for a comeback, Thompson sets out to write, direct and star in his favorite Broadway play: What We Talk About When We Talk About Love by Raymond Carver.

Things immediately hit the fan during the week of their first preview. One of Riggan’s actors gets a head injury from a loose light on the set. His replacement, Mike Shiner (Edward Norton) is a talented but brash and arrogant actor who sees himself as Riggan’s superior. And, as he faces personal problems with his estranged daughter Sam (Emma Stone), Riggan begins to feel the closing pressures of Broadway when a malicious theatre critic tells him she’s going to “kill his play.” Now Riggan is trying to keep the play and his sanity afloat, and he will make whatever sacrifices he needs to make sure both happens.

Written, directed and produced by Inarritu, Birdman is the first black comedy made by the filmmaker, his most successful films to date being Oscar nominees Babel and Biutiful. Now he has made Birdman, and I am tempted to say it’s the best film he’s made yet.

What worked so well with the film? The first thing is the editing and the cinematography, which was shot so wonderfully by Oscar winner Emmanuel Lubezki that it places you in the moment, in the reality of the film, not making you watch it from a cushion seat on the eighth row of a dark movie theater. Lubezki, who worked with Inarritu on short films in the past, decided to shoot the film and edit it into a continuous fashion, giving off the illusion that the entire film was filmed in one take. Even though the movie wasn’t filmed in one shot, the feeling it gives off makes it feel alive and moving, not unlike the world of theatre that Riggan is trying to prove himself in.

I wonder how much effort this takes, not just from the cinematographer and director’s point of view, but from everyone else involved in the film as well. How many hours did the actors need to rehearse their lines in order to get their roles right? How much pressure was the tech and lighting crew under while they were filming, knowing that if they screwed up, everyone would have to start back to square one? How many hours did film editors Douglas Crise and Stephen Mirrione have to sit in front of a computer, making sure the shots transitioned so well that you couldn’t even see the transitions? The illusion not only worked because of the idea that Lubezki and Inarritu offered, but because of the commitment it received from everyone involved with the film. In many ways, their efforts were all worth it: the camerawork here expresses more of the story than the character’s dialogue does.

The parallels in this movie are also ingenious. How does Keaton feel playing as Riggan Thompson in the movie, knowing that he reached international fame as Batman earlier in his career and having since then never been able to match a more recognized role? How does Inarritu feel, going through all of the production pressures Riggan did in making the play as he himself did in making the movie? Did he intend this movie as self-reflection? Is he telling the audience what he goes through daily as a filmmaker? Or is he using his struggles as a platform to tell a much deeper, more important story to the audience?

For me, I don’t get as much joy out of interpreting as much as I do out of experiencing. And make no mistake: Birdman is an experience, surreal, tantalizing, and thought-provoking all at once. I’m still sitting here, hours later, not quite fully realizing what exactly Inarritu was trying to portray in this film. Is he commenting on the artist’s struggle? Commercial vs. independent film? Fatherhood? Friendship? Family? Lost love?

I think it’s all of the above. Or maybe none of the above. I honestly don’t know. In the movie, Inarritu battles labels that are placed on artists and on the art that they produce. Is Riggan Thompson a superhero, or an actor portraying a superhero? Is he a former shell of who he is, or a flower that has yet to bloom? We see in this film how these labels influence his life and how much stress and anxiety it presses upon him. To put labels on the movie would contradict Inarritu’s intentions. It would be offensive to the film.

My bottom line: Birdman is a masterpiece. It is so distinct in its own language and style that I think it is impossible to define it, let alone replace it. Critics will applaud it for it’s technical and emotional achievements. It will definitely garner some Oscar nominations. It’s a sure contender for visual effects, cinematography and editing. It is also sure to confuse certain people, to which I would recommend stop trying to understand it. Birdman is not meant to be understood. It is meant to be experienced, and if you can help it, interpreted.

Post-script: A thought I had after seeing the movie that I think viewers will also have. Because of how profoundly his role as Birdman affected Riggan, is Inarritu attacking the superhero genre of film? I believe he is, but I choose not to acknowledge that. After all, for every time a superhero film was called too simple, couldn’t you call any art film too complicated? I quote Mark Twain: “Too much of anything is bad.” 

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Oct 16 2014
Leave a comment
Trending

DC Plans 10-Part Film Series

Well, isn’t this something else.

Details have emerged recently over DC’s big plans as far as an expanded universe. It looks like DC hasn’t been looking from Batman V.S. Superman: Dawn of Justice up until the Justice League movie: they’ve been looking well and beyond past that.

Multiple outlets have reported that DC has released not only it’s planned release schedule for it’s upcoming lineup of projects up until 2020: they’ve also revealed new cast members alongside anticipated release dates. The full schedule from now to 2020 is as follows:

• Batman V.S. Superman: Dawn of Justice
Directed by Zack Snyder. Starring Henry Cavill and Ben Affleck. Releases March 2016.

• Suicide Squad
Directd by David Ayer (End Of Watch, Fury). Releases August 2016.

• Wonder Woman
Starring Gal Gadot. Releases June 2017.

• Justice League: Part One
Directed by Zack Snyder. Starring Henry Cavill, Ben Affleck, Gal Gadot and Amy Adams. Releases November 2017.

• The Flash
Starring Ezra Miller. Releases March 2018.

• Aquaman 
Starring Jason Momoa. Releases July 2018.

• Shazam
Starring Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson. Releases April 2019.

• Justice League: Part Two
Directed by Zack Snyder. Releases June 2019.

• Cyborg
Starring Ray Fisher. Releases April 2020.

• Green Lantern
Releases June 2020. Details TBA.

There’s a few interesting things to notice about this piece of news. First of all, Justice League is divided into two parts, which is an idea I’ve never heard about until just now. Wonder Woman is getting her own movie too, and it will be released before the Justice League rather than after, and they’re also rebooting Green Lantern. Excellent.

Few questions I know people will have that I will try to answer. First of all, who is the Suicide Squad, and how do they tie in to the DC universe? The Suicide Squad is a villain-turned-antihero team who handles black ops missions for the government in return for a deduction in their prison sentences. A few members who have been speculated to be a part of the team is Harkness, Blockbuster and Deadshot, many of which are Batman villains. Filmmaker David Ayer is directing, and he’s responsible for the 2012 action thriller End of Watch and 2014’s Fury. This is a definite project fit for the filmmaker.

Another question people might be wondering: who on Earth is Ezra Miller, the guy who is currently assumed to playing the Flash? Miller has been most known in a string of highly successful independent films, among which is the 2011 film We Need To Talk About Kevin starring Tilda Swinton and 2012’s The Perks Of Being A Wallflower, also starring Emma Watson and Logan Lerman. While he definitely has talent and a well-versed acting range, I can’t say I was expecting it, and I can’t explain what on Earth convinced DC saw in him to cast him in the role. Not that he’s a bad choice, but he’s so left field he kind of came out of nowhere (which might be a good thing, because The Flash kind of comes out of nowhere too).

Nevermind that though. Is it wise for DC to be pushing out a plan this fleshed out, this early? DC has announced plans on movies to be made before. Years ago, before Man of Steel was even released, they released an outline for the universe they wanted to make, including a Lobo movie to be released  before they hopped into the Justice League. Before that, they included plans of a Green Lantern trilogy before the movie was even released. Both plans expired shortly after both films were released. How do we know DC is going to follow through this time? Not only that, how do we know they’ll be able to keep up quality work for more than 9 films in six years? Aren’t they worried the public will get superhero fatigue at that point?

Questions, questions, questions, all to be answered in the next few years. For now, rejoice as we face an onslaught of superhero movies like we’ve never seen before. Or mourn.

– David Dunn

SOURCE: SlashFilm, Cinemablend
Oct 14 2014
Leave a comment
The Scope

An Afternoon With Alejandro Inarritu

“And did you get what you wanted from this life, even so?

I did.

And what did you want?

To call myself beloved, to feel myself beloved on the earth.”

– Raymond Carver

These were the words that director Alejandro Inarritu (Babel, Biutiful) chose to quote at the beginning of his meticulous film Birdman, or The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance. It was also the first words that came back into my head minutes before I was to interview him.

This weekend, I had two great experiences happen to me. Firstly, getting to see Birdman, a viciously unique film that tackles it’s characters and themes with pinpoint precision: a masterwork by a master director. The second you already know. If you don’t, you didn’t read my first paragraph.

Alejandro gave myself, along with about ten other college journalists, the privilege to talk to him about his upcoming limited release. After seeing the movie, this surprised me, because there was a moment in the film where a journalist accuses the main character of injecting semen into his pores to maintain his young features. I suspect Mr. Inarritu hosts a very guarded spirit while being interviewed by the press, and I certainly don’t blame him for that if that is the case. Now that I think about it, maybe that’s why Inarritu wanted to host the interview over the phone in the first place.

Anyhow, I had 20 minutes to listen to the director’s innermost thoughts, and while I only got to ask him one question, I enjoyed the experience as much as any other college journalist who participated in the call. While all of these aren’t my questions, these are the ones I found the most relevant to the film, and the ones I believed Inarritu would have preferred to be answered in the first place. So without further adieu, here is Alejandro Inarritu on the unexpected virtue of ignorance.

Question: Your film is unique, hyperactive and full of energy. How do you communicate to your cast the complex tone you’re wanting to portray?

Answer: I always try to be very specific, help them to clarify and simplify things by having a very clear objective. I think every scene has an objective, and every character has something they want to achieve in each scene. When you have cleared your objective, and to try one or two possible ways to get that done through an action verb, I think that would simplify the work not only for me, but for everybody.

Q: What were some of the challenges you faced while making the film? 

A: It was a very short shooting — 29 days. We rehearsed a lot before arriving to the set, so basically it was a very intense and meticulous work of precision with actors, camera and crew. Everything was designed and matched the needs of the film that was basically predecided in rehearsal.

Q: You have a big role behind your scenes in producing, writing and directing all of your films. What is it like taking on all of those jobs at once? 

A: I have been lucky to have been the producer and be involved in all of my films in a very personal way. I think there is no other way to make it. I think if you have a film that is personal, if you are doing your own film, there is no other way to not produce it, because I think it’s a part of the film. Producing means a lot of decisions that will impact your film one way or another.

Q: In the movie, Riggan Thompson is overshadowed by a superhero role he played earlier in his career. In real life, Keaton is overshadowed by his role in Tim Burton’s Batman. Is that an intentional casting decision that you made?

A: Keaton adds a lot of mental reality to the film, being an authority and one of the few persons of his work that pioneered the superhero thing. But at the same time, he has the craft and the range to play in drama and comedy, and very few actors can do that. He plays a prick in this film, and I need someone who was adorable, somebody who you can really like. He has that likeness, that likeness that was required. All of these things made him the perfect choice for it. I think he was very bold in trusting me with this role.

Q: One of the things that is particularly interesting with the film is the long take. Can you talk about why you made that visual choice?

A: I wanted the long take to make the people really feel the experience of this guy. I think it’s important for every director in every film to pick the point of view, and in this case I wanted radical point of view, and the people were in the shoes of the character to experience his emotions. I felt that was the most effective way to do that.

Q: Why did you choose to portray mental illness in a film that is at least extensively a comedy?

A: I think ego is a part of our decease as a society. I think the ego is a necessity, but I think when the ego takes over and we attach our personalities to the ego, and he domains a person absolutely without being discovered or controlled. That’s mental deceit, and I see in a way Riggan Thompson suffering from that illusion of ego that’s distorting him. He thinks he does things that he does not do, he’s in like a manic state of mind. He’s an extreme case of ego.

Q: Is that part of the commentary?

A: Everything is part of the tone of the film. That’s why it opens with a guy meditating in tidy whites.

– David Dunn

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Oct 12 2014
Leave a comment
Reviews

“GONE GIRL” Review (✫✫✫1/2)

Gone Girl

What happened to Amy Dunne?

When I started watching Gone Girl, I had no idea what happened between Nick Dunne and his wife Amy. Now I have finished the movie, and I still have no idea what happened between the two of them.

Gone Girl is a very strong psychological thriller, packaging the essential elements of tension, grit, and confusion to make an extremely fascinating, yet equally frustrating, watch. Imagine you’re driving on a highway, except you take a wrong turn. Then you take another wrong turn. Then you take another, then another, and then another after that. Gone Girl is that highway, taking you through so many twists and turns that you don’t know which way you’re going anymore. The only problem is that there’s no end destination when you get off of the highway.

Based on the book of the same name by Gillian Flynn, Gone Girl starts with Nick Dunne (Ben Affleck) coming home to see his living room torn apart and his wife Amy (Rosamund Pike) missing. There are a few details that disturb him upon this discovery. The glass table is smashed in. Chairs are overturned. A blood splatter can be spotted above the stove in the kitchen. Suddenly, Nick finds himself swept into a media frenzy as everyone everywhere cries out “Where’s Amy?” as he and Amy’s parents work to find Amy and bring her back home.

Yet, in the midst of all of this media attention, people start to recognize strange things about Nick. He’s behaving oddly for someone who has just lost his wife. A woman outside of a press conference takes a selfie with him and posts it online. He smiles at the conference when people take his picture. And as police discover Amy’s diary and uncover incriminating evidence about Nick’s marriage with Amy, people start to ask one question: did Nick Dunne kill his wife?

Let me start by saying this: there’s no way to expect anything from this film. The minute you think Gone Girl is going in a specific direction, it does a reversal and goes in the complete opposite direction, setting you on another prediction track until it does another reversal. There are many factors contributing to these twists, the biggest one being the writing contributions of Gillian Flynn. Flynn, who wrote the original book, was adamant about being involved in writing the screenplay for David Fincher’s adaptation, and she’s a good sport as far as working with him. Even though there are a few differences conceptually from the book, the work remains a whole emotionally, and lets off this gnawing paranoia on both characters as we question who is the victim and who is the perpetrator. This movie is like a game of cat and mouse, except no one really knows who is the cat or mouse.

The writing is ingenious, but the real star of this show is David Fincher. Fincher, who is no stranger to mind-bending plots (1997’s The Game, 1999’s Fight Club, and 2007’s Zodiac), incorporates elements from all of his movies into this one mind-bending thriller. It has plot twists as big as those in The Game, the pseudo/suicidal/mind trickery in Fight Club, the dark, disturbing realism in Zodiac, and the broad, expressive shots, angles, and edits from The Social Network. I like this about Fincher films, that they’re so distinct in visual style that you can almost instantly tell that it’s a David Fincher film.

Example: In the opening sequence of The Social Network, we capture the essence of the scenery as a lonely Mark Zuckerberg trots back to his dorm. We get a sense of the campus he’s on, the bridges, the buildings, the sidewalks, the trees. We not only feel the physical surroundings around him, but also the life that’s in it, almost like the scenery is breathing around him. Fincher did the same thing during The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo, and he did it again with Gone Girl. When he’s not filming a scene where there’s a tense exchange of dialogue between characters, he’s quietly viewing the scenery all around him, telling a story with silent images just as much as he does with outspoken characters.

More than what he does shot-wise though, I’m impressed with how he handles his cast. Look at the names associated with this film. Ben Affleck. Rosamund Pike. Tyler Perry. Neil Patrick Harris. Are any of these names what you’d expect to see in an intricate crime-thriller, let alone give a decent performance? I mean, the last memorable role Perry had since dressing up in drag as Madea is Alex Cross, and that was about as complacent as an action movie can get. Neil Patrick Harris’ most serious movie role is as himself in Harold and Kumar. Rosamund Pike is most known as a Bond girl. Affleck’s acting career is self-explanatory. I looked at all of these actors cast in these roles, and I couldn’t help but wonder what they were doing in a Fincher film.

Then I saw what he did with them, and I couldn’t see anyone else in their roles. Perry played Dunne’s attorney Tanner Bolt, and he was so smug and straightforward that he could lend Robert Downey Jr. a few tips for The Judge. Harris steps so wonderfully into a role he’s never played before, and Pike is exemplary too, though I won’t exactly specify how. Affleck to me was the most interesting. He uses awkward lulls, blank expressions, and his sterile voice just like he did during some of his bad performances in past movies. It’s not a bad performance though. Fincher is just using Affleck’s natural reactions to lend details to Nick Dunne’s character, like how he could be smiling in pictures while his wife is missing, or why he sounds so unconvincing when he gives a speech about how he loves his wife to ongoing listeners. Fincher uses both Affleck’s strengths and weaknesses as an actor to the film’s advantage, and that goes the same for everyone else in the film.

I liked many things from this film. The cinematography, the editing, the thought-provoking plot, Fincher’s masterful direction of the film and it’s cast all culminated into a jaw-dropping experience. My only regret about this film is it’s ending. I won’t spoil it for you, but I will say that it ends in the same way that it begins, posing questions and vague thoughts so that the audience may fill it with their wild imaginations. I realize Fincher and Flynn did not intend to have a straightforward, clear-cut ending, but I have a stubborn need for closure. Films are supposed to provide answers to the questions they’ve already posed to you. Gone Girl does not provide an answer. It provides a question.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Oct 09 2014
Leave a comment
Trending

Casey Affleck is going to be in the Boston Marathon

The Boston Marathon bombings was an American tragedy that struck everyone in 2013. And yet despite how recent it happened, Hollywood is already working on a movie, Variety reports.

According to the article by film reporter Justin Kroll, actor Casey Affleck is the first cast member to be officially attached to the project, and one of the film’s producers alongside writer John Ridley (12 Years A Slave), and producer Dorothy Aufiero (The Fighter). The screenplay was written by The Fighter scribes Eric Johnson and Paul Tamasy, and is adapted from the book “Boston Strong” by Casey Sherman and Dave Wedge.

“Affleck’s attachment should help in jump-starting the project as the producers get it ready to take out to studios in the next week,” Kroll writes. “Tamasy and Johnson were still undecided on whether to make it a movie or TV series when they optioned the rights to the book in July 2013. EOne Television came last April on to develop it as a miniseries, but those plans fell apart earlier this summer.”

I couldn’t care less about Affleck’s casting. He’s a fine young actor, collaborating with his older brother Ben on many projects, including Good Will Hunting and Gone Baby Gone, and also featured in the Steven Soderbergh Ocean’s heist trilogy. I don’t know what role they’re going to cast him in or if he is the lead or not. It doesn’t matter to me. He’s a good actor and he will handle well whatever he is given.

I’m more frustrated that a movie is even happening in the first place. Is there no respect for the dead? Movies based on real-life tragedies will do one of two things to the stories they are adapting: honor it, or exploit it. Movies like Schindler’s List, Glory, and United 93 honored and stayed true to the stories they were adapting, whereas movies like Pearl Harbor, W., and Remember Me used it as a selling point. That’s not to say that Boston Strong will be one or the other, but when the event occurred less than two years ago, I’m not instantly feeling like the filmmakers are giving it the space it deserves. I felt the same way toward Kathryn Bigelow’s Zero Dark Thirty, and that was a victory for the states rather than a tragedy.

What do you guys think? Should there be a movie based on the Boston Marathon bombings so soon, or should they give it room to breathe? Comment below, let me know.

-David Dunn

SOURCE: Variety, TIME
Oct 05 2014
Leave a comment
Reviews

“THE FAULT IN OUR STARS” Review (✫✫✫✫)

And the stars have never shone brighter.

The Fault In Our Stars is one of the most magical films you will ever see. It is also one of the most tragic, heartbreaking, funny, genuine, and real films you will ever see. It does exactly what the book does, and exactly what movies are supposed to do: it sweeps you away, transporting you, making you forget about your own reality and immerses you into the reality of these fictional characters that don’t seem so fictional. While I was watching the movie, someone in the audience leaned over to me and asked if this was a true story. “No, but it deserves to be,” I thought to myself.

Based off of the highly popular book of the same name by John Green, The Fault In Our Stars follows the story of Hazel Grace Lancaster (Shailene Woodley), a spirited, spunky, and sarcastic teenager who loves to read books, watch horrible reality TV shows, and question everything her parents tell her to do. Augustus Waters (Ansel Elgort) is another spirited, spunky, and sarcastic teenager who loves to watch movies, play video games, and ponder the many questions about the universe. Hazel and Gus are both like any regular teenager but with one significant difference: they’re cancer survivors.

Note that I said survivors. They’ve had cancer in the past, Hazel in her lungs and Gus in his right leg, but both have since moved on from their ordeals to try and tackle their lives as any other teenager would. Because of Hazel’s lungs, she has to carry around a respiratory machine (Oxygen tank instead? Machine sounds intensive) with her everywhere she goes, and what would seem like a simple task to anyone else (I.e. standing up, or walking a flight of stairs), nearly exhausts Hazel after doing so. Gus, on the other hand, has a prosthetic replacing his right leg in exchange for being cancer free.

One day, they both meet each other at a cancer support group meeting. Hazel notices Gus having a bounce to his step, despite only having one full leg. Gus notices Hazel’s beautiful face even though she’s deoxygenated. As they continue to meet and see each other, they soon realize that they have a special relationship with each other, one that no “normal” human being could ever possess.

From a first glance, some people may look at this movie and see it as an overly optimistic tween romance, where two characters fall in love, and their love beats all things, including their ailments. I know I did when I first heard about it, and why wouldn’t I? Romantic dramedies have a way of underemphasizing conflicts just so characters can have happy endings. As a result, we get movies that are more cheesy and insincere than they are genuine and heartfelt, much like those ungodly Nicholas Sparks movies.

But The Fault In Our Stars is different. It is not manipulative of it’s emotions and it doesn’t downplay the severity of character’s problems. It’s honest and up front about the challenges these teenagers face, and doesn’t shy away from the severity of it just because they’re children. In fact, Hazel Grace herself dispels the notion at the beginning of the film, saying to her listeners “That wouldn’t be the truth. This is the truth. Sorry.”

I know, I’m late on writing this review. Why am I writing this in October, when the movie has already come out on DVD? I was waiting, dear reader. Waiting to read the book and see not only how faithful the movie was to it’s source material, but also to it’s emotions. I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: you can bend the plot of the original story, but you cannot bend the emotions and still remain faithful.

Now I have read the book, and I can tell you firsthand from my experience that the movie held up to the book on both counts. The Fault In Our Stars is a breathtaking experience: touching, deliberate, and beautiful all at once. To say it’s faithful to the book is an understatement. It’s quite possibly one of the best book-to-movie adaptations I’ve ever seen.

The things that work so well in the movie are the same things that work so well in the book: the writing and the characters. At the heart of the entire story, movie and book included, is Hazel Grace, who is such a fascinating and singular character that it makes me sad to think that she doesn’t exist. Hazel isn’t like other cancer-ridden characters. She neither has an overly defeatist attitude of her ailment, or an overly optimistic perspective one either. She’s in the neutral realm, seeing her sickness as a part of her no matter what she does, and choosing to accept it because she’s more or less forced to.

And yet, she’s so much more than her sickness. In many ways, she’s just like any other regular teenager. She has a favorite book. A favorite author. A favorite show. A favorite food. A crush. And like any other teenager her age, she’s bursting with opinions, hopes, fears, and desires, all of which combine to make a completely fascinating, involving and passionate character. We quickly learn to love Hazel not because she has cancer, but because she is unique.

On that note, let me talk about Augustus. Can I just say that I love this kid? Gus is filled with spirit and enthusiasm, having a bounce to his step that contrasts with Hazel’s shy trotting. I find it interesting that even though I don’t like it when characters are unrealistically happy, here Gus is almost nothing but happy. He thinks it’s cool that he has a metal prosthetic leg, seeing it as him being half-cyborg. He likes video games, zombies, and heroism, seeing himself as one of the brave movie heroes who sacrifices himself for the sake of the people he loves. In many ways, that’s who he is: the hero of the movie, bringing all of the love and affection he could for the woman he loves. He’s so great in the film, he could have a movie all to himself if he wanted to.

You’ll notice that I’ve referred to both of these persons by their characters, not by the actors that portray them. That’s because Woodley and Elgort slip so wonderfully into their roles that they’ve completely disappeared into them. I didn’t think about The Descendants when I saw Woodley tear up and cry, or when she picked up her BiPAP and exhausted herself walking up the stairs. I didn’t think of Divergent when Elgort so tenderly cared to her needs, or sweetly telling her that he would be honored to have his heart broken by her. I saw these actors and was so immersed into their performances that I no longer thought about what they were and thought more about who they were. These two are not Shailene Woodley and Ansel Elgort. They are Hazel Grace Lancaster and Augustus Waters.

Everything else in this movie was made to near perfection. The screenplay by Scott Neustadter and Michael Weber adapted the story and emotions wonderfully from the book. The camera work by Ben Richardson was elegant and harmonic, much like the great work he did with 2012’s Beasts of the Southern Wild. And director Josh Boone guides the actors through the blissfully tragic story created by John Green, whose wondrous words were what made this entire movie possible.

That ends the review with one question: which is better? The book, or the movie? Neither. I could argue that the book is better because it has more content, or I could argue the movie is better because it brought the story to life visually. Both arguments are pointless. They are both two different mediums, but they both tell the same wonderful story.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
← Older posts
Newer posts →