The Avengers Review

The Avengers (2012)

Dir: Joss Whedon

It’s not all the time that we see a movie as ambitious as The Avengers, Marvel has built a complete universe of characters and stories leading up to this event with fantastic results. For most of us who embraced this right from the moment we saw the post-credit scene in the first Iron Man the expectations were insanely high and while it’s not perfect or deep enough to be considered something like a “superhero Seven Samurai”, it absolutely meets and sometimes even surpasses them. 

Much like in the original comics, the Avengers come together when the evil god of mischief Loki (Tom Hiddleston) threatens our planet after taking possession of the tesseract, a mysterious artifact that provides him unlimited energy and allows him to take control of an army of alien known as the Chitauri. SHIELD agents Nic Fury, Phil Coulson and Maria Hill bring together a group of heroes that consists of self-proclaimed genius, billionaire, playboy, philanthropist Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.), master marksman Clint Barton (Jeremy Renner), Loki’s stepbrother, the god of thunder Thor (Chris Hemsworth), skillful assassin Natasha Romanoff (Scarlett Johansson), Super-soldier Steve Rogers (Chris Evans) and the incredible Hulk himself (Mark Ruffalo, who takes over the role from Edward Norton who played him in the 2008 movie).

These people are egotistical, lost in their own minds and messed up in unbelievable ways; they do not belong in the same room together, let alone in the same team. Naturally, conflict arises and them trying to balance their inner problems with Loki’s imminent attack takes up a huge chunk of the film.

In writer-director Joss Whedon, Marvel found the perfect person to lead this massively ambitious project. Whendon’s knowledge and love for the story and characters allows this movie to be what it should and needs to be.  The characters are treated with respect to their comic-book counterparts and their previous portrayal in the other movies but the new elements added to their personalities mash-up well with what’s already established and the story is well-paced and has enough twists to keep it surprising yet they never feel cheap.

Perhaps most surprising of all is how well the many characters are fleshed out and balanced. It’s not only the titular Avengers and Loki who get all the attention and focus but secondary characters like Fury, Coulson and Hill also get their big moments in the action sequences and some well-made personal scenes. We also get to see new sides of characters that didn’t get a lot to do in the previous films like Black Widow, Hawkeye and Agent Coulson. Everyone gets plenty of moments to shine and none of them get the short-end of the spotlight.

This is best shown in the massive 20+ minute climax in New York City where they confront Loki and his army in what is the purest form of exhilarating entertainment. There are plethora of memorable moments and characters doing awesome things on an epic scale. I’ve seen a lot of comparisons between this and Michael Bay’s Transformers series which I think is completely erroneous. Bay’s obnoxious style is nowhere to be found, the action is coherent and because the characters are so well-developed and the story has set-up what’s at stake we care a lot more about the result, which makes it a lot more exciting.

This is also a very funny movie. Nowadays we’re used to seeing most comic-book and action movies being dark, gritty and super serious, thanks in no small part to Christopher Nolan’s Batman series and Daniel Craig’s recent Bond films. In keeping with the tone of the comics, Whedon has included plenty of hilarious dialogue and scenes that are perfectly balanced with the action and the more dramatic character moments. They are all really well made and seeing the characters interacting with each-other is as much fun as the action.

Every member of the cast does a fantastic job in the movie; their shared chemistry is what makes it work so well, because if it didn’t the rest of the film would lose its impact. Thankfully that’s not the case; Robert Downey Jr. is charismatic and sardonic as only he knows how to be and has a great dramatic moment with Captain America when a certain thing that shakes them all up happens. Renner plays Hawkeye as what he is, a loner, but he gets to show some vulnerability. Chris Hemsworth and Chris Evans don’t add much more to their performances than what we saw at the end of Thor and in Captain American: The First Avengers but they still do a great job and Scarlett Johansson has some great scenes with Hawkeye, Loki and Banner as he turns into Hulk, I know she has her detractors but I thought she gave an excellent performance and added a lot to the mystique of the character.

Mark Ruffalo and Tom Hiddleston were the stand outs. Ruffalo completely redefines a character that has been played countless of times by many different actors and he is just perfect as both Banner and the Hulk. Meanwhile, Hiddleston evolves his character from Thor by making him a lot more evil and confident, in my opinion he is one of the most memorable villains in recent memory.

But this is not a perfect movie, there were a lot of weird angles that bothered me a lot and one great battle in particular kept being interrupted by some less-than exciting scenes which proved to be really annoying; the most disappointing thing was probably the epilogue, we never got a chance to see how the experience had affected the characters, it just sort of ended in a very unsatisfactory way. The 3D didn’t add much to the experience, it doesn’t bother and it’s perfectly watchable with it but it felt unnecessary.  But these were just a few problems that don’t hurt the experience of having all these heroes together in such an amazing way, marvel’s risk definitely paid off.

By the end of the movie, the whole theater burst out in applause, we knew we had seen something special, a film that reached its potential and was more than the sum of its parts. One that can be enjoyed both by people who’ve been following Marvel’s cinematic universe and by people who have no interest in the comics. It did not disappoint, it’s one of the purest and best pieces of entertainment I’ve ever seen and I’ve never left a theater with such a big smile on my face.      

 

 

      

    

Hall of Fame: Akira Kurosawa's Red Beard

Welcome to a brand new edition of Hall of Fame, a blog where I’ll be exposing my favorite movies and discussing exactly why I like them so much, this might include some pivotal plot points and even endings so if you haven’t seen the movie I suggest you don’t read these until you do.

This week is the turn of my favorite filmmaker, one that you should be expecting to see here very often, Akira Kurosawa and his 1965 film….

Red Beard 

First off, I’ll start with a brief summary of my history with Kurosawa and his films, which I’ve been seeing since a very early age. Seven Samurai was my first, and it was the film that changed how I view movies and made me realize their potential, I’d even go as far as saying that it is the movie that made me want to become a filmmaker. After that came the usual fare…Yojimbo, Rashomon, Ran, Ikiru, etc. All of which have shaped my film-viewing/making life in one way or another, I also love his underappreciated gems like The Bad Sleep Well, Dreams and One Wonderful Sunday. Basically, I’ve never seen a Kurosawa film I don’t like, though I have not seen them all.

Red Beard could’ve changed that. I don’t remember exactly when I first watched it, but I do remember not liking it very much.  I could probably attribute that to the fact that it’s a 3 hour movie with only a brief moment resembling action, a necessity for my then very young mind.  Over the years and after multiple viewings I have a lot more appreciation for it, so much so that I’d place it as one of his masterpieces.

This story, like many of Kurosawa’s films takes place in a small district of Edo during the 19th century and follows the young and highly unsympathetic and arrogant Dr. Yasumoto (who until recently I could’ve sworn was played by Tatsuya Nakadai and turns out it’s played by Yuzo Kayama; the resemblance is uncanny), who has been assigned to a small rural clinic which he believes is below his talent and aspirations as a physician. The clinic is filled with patients who are “poor, filled with fleas and lice and stink” as one character so eloquently puts it, the staff is small and can barely keep up with the constant influx of sick patients.

 Dr. Kyojo Niide, or “Akahige” (red beard, played by the legendary Toshiro Mifune) is the head of the clinic and though he seems autocratic at first, we soon discover he is actually sweet and compassionate, running the clinic with almost no resources and yet never charging poor people. Yasumoto rebels against him, “how does he dare to make me work for people who don’t pay me? I trained to be the Shogun’s doctor!” He thinks to himself; he never obeys Akahige and very rarely helps anyone.

Kurosawa’s mastery in demanding absolute perfection out of every single aspect of shoot, be it the actors’ make-up or the realistic and claustrophobically small rooms, makes the clinic come to life (which is rather ironic since most of the people in it are dying). It really puts you inside that place in that moment and it’s truly depressing. The juxtaposition of these images and Yasumoto’s attitude actually makes me angry, “What the hell is he doing? Can’t he see all that’s going on around him?”.

And right there, from the very beginning, it’s always clear to me that this is a movie that will make me feel and will make me think. Kurosawa always puts a lot of social commentary in his films and I feel like in this one, alongside Ikiru and One Wonderful Sunday he makes his views on injustice clearer than in any other.

Thanks to Akahige and his patients, Yasumoto starts to realize how terrible things around him truly are as well as what he can do to help.  From that point on I feel the film starts showing us Akahige from Yasumoto’s subjective point of view, because even though he continually criticizes himself he is shown as an almost flawless character, so kind and good that he seems almost like out of an alternative universe were people is completely thoughtful and compassionate, an idealized version of what a doctor should be (I’m not saying there aren’t doctors like him but they’re certainly a minority). This amount of social criticism might turn some people away from the film altogether, but I can’t help but agreeing with it and the fact that a film that takes place in the 19th century and was made in 1965 still resonates with the reality we’re living in right now is truly impressive.

As its common occurrence in Kurosawa’s films, the story of the lead character is but a small piece in a gigantic puzzle. There are many other sub-plots revolving around patients and staff of the clinic. Most of these are great and add a lot to the plot, the only notable exception is the story of Sahachi, a popular and generous man who tells the story about his wife and how it relates to a mysterious corpse that is discovered during a landslide on his deathbed. This takes roughly 15 minutes of the film and it’s not very interesting, it doesn’t add anything to the rest of the story either so it’s not only boring but also unnecessary.

But this is a small exception that can be easily overlooked when we consider how powerful the rest of the stories are, especially Otoyo’s, a girl who becomes the central point of the movie during most of the second half. The sick 12-year old is rescued by Niide and Yasumoto from her oppressive step-mother who makes her work in her syphilis-infested brothel without any regard for her health or sanity.

How she is rescued is actually amusingly strange. Niide has to fight off a gang of toughs and uses his martial arts and medical knowledge to break their bones and put them out of battle. The film is very consistent with its dark and dramatic mood, almost depressingly so, so this scene stands out because it comes out of nowhere and although very brief and not intended to be, it’s actually kind of funny. But I suppose that also applies to how Niide is presented as a nearly perfect human being.

Otoyo forms a bond with Yasumoto, who spends most of his time taking care of her, so much so that she even gets jealous when his fiancé visits him. With time, she earns everyone’s trust and even begins to work in the clinic helping the staff.  She becomes friends with a young thief her age, offering him food and life advice. Their story takes the center stage for a good portion of the movie, but it’s so rich and beautifully told that it’s hard to complain.

One of the most magnificent and heartbreaking moments comes near the end of the film. The kid is about to die so Otoyo runs out crying, we start hearing screams coming from outside; it’s Otoyo and the other women of the staff screaming the boy’s name into the well, they believe that if they call out to him his soul will return from the center of the earth and back to his body, if they can bring his soul back by the morning he won’t die, it gives me chills every time I watch it. It’s also a wonderful technical accomplishment; in one shot we see them from inside the well when suddenly the camera starts panning down its walls until it reaches their reflections below as a single drop falls. How this was made still boggles my mind.

We’re used to see Toshiro Mifune in larger than life roles as sometimes crazy but hilarious characters, but Niide is a whole different beast than Kikuchiyo or Sanjuro (his characters in Seven Samurai and Yojimbo respectively), he is a lot more calm, serious and knowledgeable, something more akin to his roles in The Bad Sleep Well and High and Low, though a lot less dark.  This also represents something of a step up from his early collaborations with Kurosawa where he often played the apprentice (most of the time opposite Takashi Shimura as his master), here he plays the master, a calm, serene and strong man. It truly is one of his great performances.

And yet, no matter how good Mifune is, it’s Terumi Niki as Otoyo who is the stand out in the cast. Despite her young age at the time, the performance is completely believable, touching and sometimes even painful to watch because of how real it is. If it wasn’t for how good the rest of the cast is, she could’ve completely stolen the show.

And what about the incredible cinematography? The beautiful soundtrack? The amazingly realistic sets? I could literally talk and write for days and days about this movie and that wouldn’t even scratch the surface of everything that could be said about it. This is a notable film in Kurosawa’s filmography for not only being his last one in black and white, but also the last time he would work with Toshiro Mifune, his collaborator in 16 films. The two-year long production and the fact that his natural beard had to be maintained through shooting because Kurosawa would not allow a fake beard which made him unable to act in other films and resulted in him being nearly bankrupt caused a breakup between them. Sure, it is a damn shame that we never got to see another Kurowa-Mifune film, but boy, what a swansong we got.            

Artists working

This is a photographic work that documents via a few pictures the day to day life of different Venezuelan street artists

(Click on picture for full size)


 

Hall of Fame: Sofia Coppola's Lost in Translation

Welcome to the first edition of Hall of Fame, a hopefully weekly (or bi-weekly depending on my schedule) blog where I’m going to talk at length about some of my favorite movies. I’ll be discussing exactly why I like these films so much, including some pivotal plot points and even endings so if you haven’t seen the movie I suggest you don’t read this until you do.

The first film of this new feature is my currently favorite film, which I thought was a good way of starting.

Lost in Translation

Tokyo, one of the most populated and convoluted cities in the world; its language, culture and lifestyle almost impenetrable to foreigners. This is the setting for Sofia Coppola’s Lost in Translation, a film that is as much about the quiet moments as it is about dialogue. It’s an exploration not of a country but of life.

How many of us wouldn’t dream to go to with someone we loved to a new, fascinating place where nobody would recognize us? That’s what Charlotte (Scarlett Johansson) wants and expects when she travels to Tokyo with her photographer husband, but he is there for his work. She wants to be with him but the last thing on his mind is his wife. He leaves her alone for long periods of time and all she does is stare outside her huge window, what is she thinking about? We can only imagine.

And then there’s Bob, an actor whose best days are long behind him. He is in Tokyo to earn 2 million dollars doing a whiskey ad. You can tell he doesn’t really want or care about the money, he is only doing it to keep his wife back in Los Angeles happy. He’s almost emotionless to the news that he forgot his son’s birthday again and his wife keeps pestering him with messages about things he obviously doesn’t care about.

They are both staying in the same hotel and neither can sleep.

A lot of people complain that during this time nothing happens. I disagree. Through their interactions with their surroundings we understand much more about the characters. Charlotte walks around the city, going into temples and arcades, there’s some kind of magic about everything she sees, she’s obviously interested in trying but she uses the fact that she doesn’t know how to as an excuse not to do it, which goes far beyond these simple things.

Bob does his photo shoots trying his best to understand just what the hell his directors want. He is not annoyed, he just wants to get everything over with and go back home to stop being miserable in a strange, weird environment to be miserable in a more familiar one.  

It’s this state of seemingly perpetual loneliness that allows me to connect with the characters. We’ve all felt lost at some point, in one way or another. Sofia Coppola shows exactly how it feels like manipulating these characters in an almost hypnotic way. It’s hard to take my eyes out even if in the exterior it seems like they are not doing much.

And then the magic happens.One particular sleepless night they meet for the first time in the hotel bar. They’ve seen each-other around the hotel before but they’ve never talked until this moment.  The conversation is short and not too deep, neither of them seems to be awfully interested in the other and yet they are more truthful with each-other than they have been with anyone else, even their own partners.  

As the week passes they grow closer and closer, spending almost every moment of their short stay together.  Their relationship is more than just romantic or sexual attraction and Coppola makes it clear by having them spend a whole night in bed fully-clothed, just talking about life, though they obviously have feelings that go beyond a simple casual friendship; they connect in a way I’ve rarely seen characters in a movie do. They don’t kiss or have sex, they just exist there, in the same place, at the same time, understanding what the other is going through and loving every second of their company. It’s a beautiful thing to look at.  

The movie is just a series of tiny, quiet and almost inexplicably powerful moments: A conversation, a joke, a smile, an awkward pause. The one that has the most effect on me happens during a night out with Charlotte’s friends; they go to a club, then to a party and finally to a karaoke bar where Bob sings the 80s song “More than This”. After the chorus, during a short pause he turns around and just stares at Charlotte, she stares back and after a little while she gives him a little smile. It lasts only a few seconds but the way they look at each-other and the way the scene is shot and written says so much more than a simple dialogue would. It’s the most beautifully poignant moment in a movie full of them.

Murray and Johansson have an almost magnetic chemistry, the dialogue magnificently flows between them and every gesture, whether it’s a wink, a smile or a simple touch of hands feels important.  It’s almost effortless how they inhabit their characters and yet allow the audience to put themselves in their position without losing their personality and making every emotion feel real. Simply put: They are human.

I also enjoy the fact that the movie acknowledges that not everything in life, even for a lonely person, is never-ending sadness. There are many hilarious scenes and dialogue mostly provided by Murray. One particularly hilarious moment is when one of his Japanese assistants sends an aggressive exotic dancer to his room who keeps asking him to “lip her stockings”, the expression on Murray’s face as he tries to understand what the hell she’s asking him to do is priceless.

The other star of the movie besides the protagonists and Coppola is cinematographer Lance Acord, who captures every setting and brings them to life with a colorful yet modest look. The way he shoots the scenes with Charlotte looking outside her window is awe-inspiring; he is able to convey through the images exactly what the characters are feeling.

The emotional roller-coaster that is this story culminates in the most powerful ending I’ve ever seen in type of media. As Bob is about to leave Tokyo he sees Charlotte walking down the street, he promptly gets out of his limo and runs to her, there’s a moment of silence and then he hugs her. She starts crying and he whispers something to her ear, we can’t hear what he says but it doesn’t really matter, it is a secret between them. They kiss briefly and say one final goodbye before continuing their different paths. The adventure is over, they’ll probably never see each other again but in the end the movie leaves a hopeful message: We are all meant to be found, it doesn’t matter where, when or how long it’ll last.

Every time I watch Lost in Translation I feel something different, I learn something, I question the purpose of life, I question the meaning of happiness. It’s not all the time that a movie deeply influences you or makes you think and feel, let alone makes you discover new feelings and thoughts each time you see it and I’ve seen this movie over 20 times since I first watched it in 2006. That’s why it is holds a very special place in my heart and it is my favorite movie 

We Bought a Zoo Review

We Bought a Zoo (2011)

Dir: Cameron Crowe

We Bought a Zoo is a part of a particular sub-genre of movies that most people refer as “feel-good movies”. They are un-complicated dramas usually based on real-life events  were everything turns out for the best and in the end everyone is happy and viewers leave the theater with a positive attitude, a recent example of this is 2010’s Academy Award winner The King’s Speech.  They usually do well with critics and award shows (especially the Oscars) but I’ve never particularly cared for them. It’s not that I’m a depressive person, but they tend to be too by-the-book, not that they’re bad movies but if you’ve seen one you’ve seen most of them, which is why I’m surprised I enjoyed this as much as I did.

Cameron Crowe’s latest film stars Matt Damon as Benjamin, a widower who is trying his best to take care of his young daughter and rebellious son after the death of his wife.  Everyone around him feels pity for him, which drives him crazy and absolutely every place in the site reminds him of his wife so he decides to move to a place that will make him and his kids happy.  The problem is that his dream house is part of a zoo, complete with all kinds of exotic animals and a small staff to take care of them.

After some consideration he chooses to buy the zoo and reopen it. During the process he and his family establish a bond with the animals and the eccentric staff which includes Kelly (Scarlett Johansson) and her cousin (Elle Fanning).  There are complications, fights and misunderstandings but in the end everyone learns something from the experience.

Yes, this story is very predictable and some of the dialogue, particularly the one from the kids is pretty terrible.  It follows an extremely common pattern, down to the shot of the protagonist gazing at the sight of the house while a hopeful piano tune plays in the background, the comic relief little daughter, the love confession under the rain and working in the title of the movie in an inspirational speech, which is done a little too many times for my liking.

But deep in all the predictability and terrible dialogue lays a really sweet and charming story. While it starts out pretty bad, it picks up after the whole buying a zoo thing begins. The trials and tribulations of maintaining the animals is by far the most entertaining aspect, though the relationships between characters work well and while none of them are terribly deep, they all add something the story.

This is a movie that plays with the emotions, and does it well. I’m not afraid to admit that I shed a few tears during a particular scene with a tiger and I laughed a lot at some of the stuff that happened, there are a lot of funny moments there.  The relationship between Benjamin and Kelly is good but I was far more invested in the one between Elle fanning’s character and her son, which was a lot sweeter and more compelling.


Benjamin is the character who grows the most during the movie and Damon does a fine job showing the wide array of emotion he needs. Johansson plays somewhat against type as a character who is not as defined by her beauty as some of the other stuff she has done, which is a nice change.  With the exception of Elle Fanning, who is terrific in the movie, the kid actors are very soap-operish, becoming unintentionally funny sometimes and their line delivery is pretty terrible. Thomas Haden Church is the best part of the ensemble being hilarious as Benjamin’s older brother.

We bought a Zoo is more than the sum of its parts thanks to Cameron Crowe’s ability to create a touching story with charismatic characters. And despite the almost unbelievable and ridiculous positivity it is a film that everyone can enjoy, I’d recommend it even if like me, you’re not the type to watch this kind of films, because it is great.

Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol Review

Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol (2011)

Dir: Brad Bird

An explosion in the kremlin, people hanging off tall buildings and a car chase in the middle of a sand storm, that’s what Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol is all about: intense and incredible action sequences. Brad Bird’s almost poetic approach to these scenes and the amazing choreography is what makes them work so well, it also helps that the story itself is more than an excuse to get to these moments, it’s actually a fantastic thriller that while it can get pretty ludicrous at times, it never stops being fun.

Every Mission: Impossible movie has a movie-defining sequence, whether it’s Tom Cruise’s character Ethan Hunt hanging from a cable dangerously close to a pressure-sensitive floor in the first one or a slow-motion mid-air shoot out after jumping out of a motorcycle in M:I 2. It’s hard to choose a best one from all the incredible action sequences in Ghost Protocol, but the most memorable sees Cruise hanging on the side of the world’s tallest building in Dubai, which is absolutely one of the most impressive and exciting scenes in modern action cinema and it’s all the more impressive knowing that it was done with little CGI and without stunt doubles. This scene kept me at the edge of my seat; I can’t express well enough just how incredible it is. 

And that’s the thing that makes this film great, even though there are a lot of special effects, there are also many realistic stunts that are way more creative and exciting than most of the stuff we usually see in movies right now. They never give in to the chaotic, 1-second cuts style popularized by Michael Bay and Jason Statham. Everything is wonderfully choreographed, photographed and edited which makes them understandable and truly exciting.

That’s not to say that the film is entirely realistic, there are some truly ridiculous things in it, the prime example being a robot-controlled floating suit. But they are done so casually that it works, most of them are very funny too and yet they never lose the high tension that the film carries all the way through its 135 minute running time.

At times, the movie feels like a combination of all the best elements from the previous three films, but director Brad Bird makes it much more than that. The way he frames every shot and builds up every moment takes it to highs the series has never been even close to reach and the script by Josh Applebaum and Andre Nemic that sees the proceedings getting more and more complicated in ways the viewer never expects is, while not unique in the genre, one of the most inventive.

Of the newly added elements to the series, Jeremy Renner who plays former agent-turned analyst Brandt is the best of them. He adds a level of charisma to the character that even Cruise with all his enthusiasm fails to reach. That’s not saying Cruise is not good in the role though, in fact he is pretty effective and believable in his stunts, he still has the physicality and charm to play the lead character a movie like this needs. The rest of the cast also get their own chance to shine, Simon Pegg is the funny man and gets all the best lines and some hilarious moments. Meanwhile Paula Patton, while not great in the more emotional scenes does a pretty good job in her role.  

The only thing Ghost Protocol lacks is an engaging villain, which sometimes is a necessity in a film like this, but that doesn’t make it any less of an exciting action thriller. Brad Bird’s first live action movie is certainly the best in the series and one of the best action movies in the last few years. Let’s hope that whatever the future holds for this series, which usually sees directors changing from film to film, lives up to what Bird’s excellent installment. 

John Carter Review

John Carter (2012)

Dir: Andrew Stanton

As I left the 3D screening of John Carter (for which I won a free ticket) I heard a kid who I presume was between 11 and 14 years old saying “That reminded a lot of Prince of Persia”. The comment immediately clicked on me, I now realized why the film seemed so familiar even though i’m not familiar with the original novels or any related material besides the movies it has inspired, like Star Wars. Disney’s latest big-budget extravaganza can be compared in most ways to their 2010 attempt at franchise building.

The biggest comparison that can be made is in the way the whole thing looks. John Carter is an excellent looking film from a technical standpoint, but the style is pale and monotonous. The alien design is decent but nothing really special and the costumes look like they were reused from Prince of Persia. They’re even similar in the yellow-ish tone that is prevalent through both films, which I guess can be justified as coming from the desert setting but it is overused.

But this isn’t necessarily what makes this a bad movie. The film’s biggest weakness is the story that focuses on the titular character, an American civil war veteran is mysteriously transported to Mars, where he finds himself in the middle of a multi-race conflict and falling in love with the princess of one of the nations which forces him to stay and fight to prevent the destruction of the planet. The story is predictable which is not really a problem considering its age and the elements that have been taken from it by other pieces of media but it is the way it develops that leaves a lot to be desired. 

The major problem here is with the pacing, there are some really exciting scenes in the film that are interrupted by 10 to 15 minutes of melodramatic dialogue and un-engaging plotting which leads to a lot of boring moments and the first half hour feels disconnected from what follows. Andrew Stanton’s previous films as a writer/director like Finding Nemo are character-driven stories, never letting the fantastic events surrounding them take the focus away from what is truly important: the character’s growth.  The same happens in John Carter but the characters’ arcs are poorly constructed and the attempts to add emotional depth with flashbacks and such are terribly placed and end up ruining otherwise great action sequences.  That and the fact that the villains never feel compelling and lack a real reason for their actions make me feel like it would’ve been better to keep the story and characters on the sideline in favor of the impressive set pieces.

The use of 3D is good but never feels specially necessary, there are some neat looking effects during the battle sequence between Carter and his pet “dog” against a group of evil alien and with the villain’s light beam but it adds nothing to the overall quality of the film, just like it doesn’t take anything away from it, the experience should be the same regardless of how it’s watched. In the end the best use of 3D is in the Disney logo at the very beginning.

There are some good ideas behind this movie but they are badly executed. It has some entertaining moments but they are overshadowed by the overall mediocre feel of the film. There’s a lot of room for improvement should a sequel ever be made, though I really doubt so, let’s hope Disney does a better job at their next attempt to build an action-adventure franchise to emulate the success of Pirates of the Caribbean. After all, the third time’s the charm right? 

Vertigo Review

Vertigo (1956)

Dir: Alfred Hitchcock

I must admit that Alfred Hitchcock’s work is one of the big deficiencies in my history as a cinephile. I have only watched five films by the renowned director and though I’ve liked them all in one way or another, I’ve never felt compelled to dig deeper into his filmography.  Vertigo is the most personal and maybe even best of the ones I’ve seen, but there are certain things about it that keep it from being my favorite of his.

In Vertigo, the legendary James Stewart plays Scottie, a former detective who leaves the force after his acrophobia (fear of highs) kicks in during a rooftop chase and results in the dead of a fellow officer. Afterwards he is recruited by his old friend, businessman Galvin Ester to use his skills to follow his wife Madeleine (Kim Novak), whom he suspects is possessed and in verge of committing suicide; Scottie accepts reluctantly.   

Always a realist, Scottie believes her to be insane rather than possessed. Shortly after they fall in love with each other and it is here when things start getting really strange.  Madeleine begins showing signs of her possession by one of her ancestors. Scottie can’t do anything to stop her and it all ends in tragedy.

It’s at this point where the themes of the movie change radically. What used to be a mystery and somewhat supernatural story turns into a tale of guilt, obsession and insanity. The big shift happens halfway through the movie but it manages to keep things interesting and exciting so the viewer never feels cheated.

Steward commands this film by portraying a genuinely unlikable character. He’s obsessive, compulsive, neurotic and the kind of person who tries to convince you that all the strange things happening around you have some logical explanation to the point of annoying you. Steward portrays these emotions not with expressions or movements, but with his big blue eyes that tell you everything you need to know about his character better than the dialogue would.

And in a way that is a great thing because the weakest part of this movie is its dialogue, too melodramatic and self-explanatory for its own good. Sometimes going as far as ruining scenes that could’ve been great. But the key plot points remain interesting and make up for it, that is until the absolutely horrendous and abrupt ending that kills any sense of excitement that the story had going for it until it reaches that point. There’s a big confession and then it just ends, like that, mid-climax. It’s an unsatisfying and disappointing finale that leaves the viewer without any sense of conclusion.

That, combined with the long running-time and slow pacing keep this movie’s story from flourishing the way it should. Characters like Scottie’s friend played by Barbara Bel Gedes feel unnecessary; granted, it’s important to show Scottie has normal relationships but her scenes are uninteresting and the character is not developed further than being a jealous ex-girlfriend. It just keeps the focus away from the really important characters.

If there’s something Hitchock is known for is his mastery of every technical aspect of his movies. In Vertigo, the color plays an important part in allowing us to understand the characters and it’s done in a beautiful way.  The uses of zooms and tracking shots (usually at the same time and on opposite directions) do a fantastic job in conveying the sense of vertigo Scottie is feeling and the color flashes and animation combined with live-action really get us deep into his deteriorating mind. If there’s one scene that summarizes the perfect technical qualities of this film is when Kim Novak first appears on screen in the restaurant scene,  the combination between the angle of the shot, her clothes, the background and the music is simply magnificent.

Vertigo is technically the best of the Hitchcock’s films I’ve seen, but its many flaws really hindered my enjoyment of it.  The main story is certainly exciting and it’s interesting to see a more personal side to Hitchcock’s film in the character of Scottie, who tries to model his girl in the way he wants her to be, not unlike what Hitchcock did with his main actresses. But it just lacks that entertainment value of his other films, which is why North by Northwest still remains my favorite of his work.

The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo Review

The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (2011)

Dir: David Fincher

I should open this review by saying that I have not read Stieg Larsson’s novel upon which this film is based on, nor have I watched the 2009 adaptation from its home country so I can’t compare the two or talk about faithful or not it is to the novel. I came to this film very unfamiliar with its story except for the fact that I knew there’s supposed to be a big rape sequence in it.

The film opens with a hypnotic title sequence that puts James Bond’s to shame and sets the crazy, dark, melancholic tone for what’s about to come. We are then shown Mikael Blomkvist (Daniel Craig), an investigative journalist who lost a libel case against a corrupted businessman named Wennerström which leaves both his ego and reputation shattered; that he is constantly reminded by everyone about it just makes it worse.

Later on he is hired by former industrialist Henrik Vanger to use his investigative skills to find out who in his incredibly messed up family killed his beloved niece 40 years ago. The case is not easy, everyone in the family seems to have their own motives and is evil in one way or the other, but the reward is far too good to pass: information about Wennerström that proves Blomkvist is right.

But what role does the titular girl play in this whole thing you might ask? The first time we see Lisbeth (Rooney Mara) is giving a man working for Vanger all the information they need about Blomkvist. She is also an investigator and possesses almost supernatural computer hacking abilities. For most of the first hour of the movie her story plays separately to Mikael’s; she’s under legal guardianship due to being diagnosed mental incompetency at age 12 after burning her father to death. She is presented as antisocial, strong, determined, violent when she needs to be and most of all, smart.

Though not bad by any means, all of this feels a little disjointed, almost as if we were watching two different movies intercut between each-other. It’s not until both stories converge that things start getting really good. Mikel hires Lisbeth to work with him, she only accept cases that are interesting but he doesn’t have to do much convincing her after he tells her what he has found out.

This is the point where director David Fincher’s mastery for thrillers really gets to shine. As proven by Se7en and Zodiac, very few directors can craft a murder mystery quite like Fincher does. Like those films, there’s a point where the interest stops coming from the investigation itself and instead comes from just watching fascinating characters that are well-created by both actors and screenwriters do their thing and interact with each other which elevates the otherwise predictable plot.

Fincher’s movies are also known by having a very specific type of look, this time provided by Jeff Cronenweth, with whom he also worked in The Social Network and Fight Club. Girl is no different; it’s stylish like only Fincher knows how to do. The sets are not beautified, everything looks just as it would in real life which combined with the gloomy lightning establishes the haunting mood that somehow feels both real and dreamlike at the same time.

His confident direction allows him to try inventive and impressive camera angles (like a subjective view from inside a plastic bag) that are great. The score by Trent Reznor and Atticus Finch is also brilliant and complements fantastically the beautiful visuals and they’re not afraid to experiment as a torture scene with an Enya song in the background proves. All in all, this is a pretty much perfect movie technically speaking.

One thing I should point out is that this is a very violent movie, which to me at first posed no problem as I’ve seen violent movies ever since I was a kid. But Fincher’s desire to make things as realistic as possible makes certain scenes very tough to watch. The rape scene in particular is absolutely brutal and stands right there with Irreversible as one of the most cringe-inducing moments in my cinema watching history.

Even though Daniel Craig’s name appears first in the titles and every promotional material, it’s Rooney Mara who steals the film with her sublime performance as Lisbeth. Her most powerful tool is silence, which makes her seem almost robotic and cold hearted but there’s a certain vulnerability displayed behind her tough exterior. The attention to every little detail in the way she talks, moves and even when she isn't doing anything is incredible. She gave everything to the character physically and emotionally and it shows on screen.

But that’s not to say that Craig is not good. He plays against type as a man who has lost confidence in himself but is nonetheless determined to get the job done, he is also clumsy and more normal looking than usual. They have great chemistry and that makes the interactions between the characters and the little moments like Lisbeth rolling her eyes when Mikel takes several minutes finding a picture on the pc an absolute joy.

Fincher is not a director who sticks to the usual three act (beginning, middle, climax) storytelling method. He does it his own way and plays around with several stories at the same time like he has with his other movies. It doesn’t work as well here due to the source material not being as strong, the main investigation is great but some subplots drag it down and the last few minutes feel out of place with the rest of the film. At two hours and forty minutes it's just too long and can get pretty heavy at parts because the story is just not made to support such a long film.

Fincher is one of the masters of modern cinema and even though Girl with the Dragoon Tattoo does not quite reach the highs established by his other films, it still is a great movie with interesting characters and beautiful aesthetics that is definitely worth watching.

Tokyo Drifter Review

Tokyo Drifter (1966)

Dir: Seijin Suziki

Tetsuo walks through a deserted train cemetery wearing a white jacket, he stands next to a man who’s wearing a black jacket. Through conversation we find out Tetsuo was once part of a yakuza gang led by Kurata, who has decided to give up his life of crime and to whom Tetsuo is loyal to. The man in black works for Otsuka, a rival gang boss who’s trying to convince Tetsuo to join him. He refuses, is beaten up and earns Otsuka’s hate. This is the beginning of Tokyo Drifter, shot in black and white, which contradicts the color-filled story that follows.

Otsuka pushes them back into the crime life after he ties them up to a real state scam, which forces Tetsuo to leave Tokyo and live the life of a drifter while trying to survive the attacks of Otsuka’s men who are trying to get rid of him once and for all.

Many other characters come into play as the plot gets thicker and thicker, but none of them are as impressive as Tetsuo. He is a classic action hero, too smart, fast and strong to be killed; a bullet repellant that never runs out of bullets himself and a master marksman. He fights to survive and because of his loyalty, which makes him pay a heavy price later on. At first sight, this seems like any other yakuza/gangster movie, and story-wise it pretty much is. But the way the story is treated is what makes it truly special. 

Director Seijun Suzuki created a film that is very much a product of its era, but one that stands the test of time like few others. He seamlessly combines amplitude of genres to make this a complex and intriguing gangster drama, a silly comedy and sometimes even a musical.

The colors are vibrant and the visual motifs are endless and can be seen everywhere from the designs of the cars’ painting to the backgrounds and the clothes the character’s wear.  But they’re not only there because they look pretty; everything has a meaning to it, the clearest example is that through the movie Tetsuo wears a light blue suit while Otsuka, the villain wears a bright red one. The set design is also inventive as well as absolutely insane. This is one of the clearest examples of how colors and lightning can be used to enhance the story and our understanding of the characters and the director’s intentions.

The editing is also extremely weird. There are many jump cuts that happen right in the middle of the action and completely throw the viewer off. One example is when Tetsuo is being chased by one of Otsaka’s men on foot; he hides behind the pillar of a bridge, we see the enemy walking above the bridge without noticing Tetsuo hiding beneath, a fast cut to the train signals and then cut back to Tetsuo facing the man in the middle of the train track with the train coming dangerously close to them.  There are many more moments like this through the movie that are absolutely bizarre.

And yet, the movie is able to get away with it because it just adds so much to the whole experience of watching it. It’s not hard to connect the dots of what happened between one moment and the other which makes it really interesting because the director fully trusts his audience’s ability to understand the procedures and they actually help the pacing of the action sequences and make them feel less silly than what we’d expect from a 60’s movies.

But this is a silly movie nonetheless. One scene in particular exemplifies this better than any other; in the last half of the movie there is a ridiculous bar fight that feels straight out of the 60s Batman show, people start joining the fight for absolutely no reason, a group of girls play around with the fighters saying things in terrible English; tables, chairs and bottles are used and in the middle of the madness an exotic dancer saves Tetsuo by punching an attacker before turning to him and saying “better than French, English and American men together” with the stupidest expression that I’ve seen in my life before he throws her away. In the end, everyone ends up conveniently piled up outside the bar.The sound also plays an important role in the film, especially the song that gives the movie its name which is sung by Tetsuo to indicate his presence.     

This is one of the few cases of “style over substance” that work, a movie that embraces its style in such a way that it is completely defined by it. There might be deeper, more meaningful stories and characters to be found in other films in the genre, but Tokyo Drifter stands out because of how absurdly entertaining it is.