“Ant-Man” Movie Review – A Family Story

Year: 2015

Director: Peyton Reed

Writer: Edgar Wright, Joe Cornish, Adam McKay, Paul Rudd

Stars: Paul Rudd, Evangeline Lilly, Michael Douglas, Corey Stoll, Michael Peña,

               

With a warm heart, lots of funny moments and inventive action sequences that take full advantage of the weird superhero powers, “Ant-Man” is one of the more contained Marvel movies and easily one of the best MCU titles.

Granted, if “Ant-Man” was completed by Edgar Wright, it might have been a much more distinctive film, but it’s surprising how well it turned out after all the tribulations in production. The main characters are well rounded, although the villain (despite Corey Stoll doing a great job) could have been a bit better developed.

Still, Peyton Reed provided us with a solid story that although being quite wacky has the family theme in its core, particularly the relationship between fathers and daughters, and sons. Most importantly, the film consistently sticks to it. The screenwriters of “Ant-Man” are presenting us to complex characters with believable relationships. Even the standard setup of the hero, trying to win back the acceptance of his family, has some small twists and surprises. And Scott Lang’s daughter isn’t just a plot device, she actually has some of the coolest lines and was really adorable. The other daughter in the story, Hope, is probably the best female character Marvel has introduced so far. Some actually think that she was the secret hero of the movie. She’s a strong character, arguably stronger than Scott, but also complex and emotional. And in contrast to Black Widow – not sexualized. So, needless to say, Evangeline Lilly’s performance was completely befitting.

A pleasant surprise is the big presence of Michael Douglas’ character in the movie and it’s visible that he put passion and effort in his portrayal of Dr. Hank Pym. He and Evangeline Lilly have great and sometimes emotional scenes together, which sufficiently help us understand their motivations, weaknesses and desires. Thus, the main focus of the movie is actually the importance of the relationship between parents and kids.

“Ant-man’’ is one of the funniest Marvel movies. A few jokes didn’t exactly work for me, but there are a few laugh-out-loud moments as well. Of course, Paul Rudd handles the comedy well and thankfully, he fills in the superhero shoes just as well. He clearly has enough charisma to be a leading man in the crazy Marvel Universe.

What I find to be the best utilized aspect of the film is the actual shrinking technology and the creative ways, in which it’s used to get the characters out of various situations. It is really something fresh that we haven’t seen and Marvel made it look really cool on the big screen. With great macro-photography with real ants shot for reference (they even had ant wrangler on set), the shrinking scenes can actually make you dizzy, putting you right there with Scott and the ants, where you can feel the epic scale of the surroundings. Speaking of ants, they manage to be rather adorable characters, too.

The macro-photography is a technique often used for bug documentaries and here it’s combined with motion capture, which inserts the actors into these magnified real-life environments. Of course, they use some CGI and there’s a wonderful sequence toward the end that delves deeper (literally) into the science behind the costume and represents some theories in Physics quite excitingly.  

The tie-ins to the other Marvel movies were also surprising, because they felt better explained and organic, unlike what we saw in “Avengers: Age of Ultron”. And the end-credit sequences were not just cool glimpses in the future, but actually provided some essential information.

The movie has 7,9 on IMDB - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0478970/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1

8,1 from users and 64 from critics on MetaCritic -  http://www.metacritic.com/movie/ant-man

95% on RottenTomatoes -  http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/antman/

“Ex Machina” Movie Review

Year: 2015

Director: Alex Garland

Writer: Alex Garland

Stars: Alicia Vikander, Domhnall Gleeson, Oscar Isaac

Caleb (Domhnall Gleeson) is a young programmer working at a search giant (an obvious jab at Google), who is selected to spend a week at the private estate of the company’s CEO, Nathan Bateman (Oscar Isaac). When Caleb arrives, he finds out that Nathan has chosen him to participate in a special Turing Test to assess the human capabilities and level of self-awareness possessed by Nathan’s latest A.I. creation. The A.I. that Nathan created has the body of a beautiful female, called Ava (Alicia Vikander), who quickly еlicits Caleb’s sympathies. Not a completely originaly concept, but the plot isn’t the most important element of the film. It’s the ideas. “Ex Machina” is not an action-based, or filled with flashy effects, story. It’s a quieter, smarter science fiction, that’s best when the characters just talk to each other, discussing what is intelligence and humanity.

A first-time director, Alex Garland, has previously written the scripts for Danny Boyle’s “Sunshine” and “28 Days Later.” Besides a solid script, he gets really good performances out of his actors and manages to add tension and fluidity to the dialogue. After hearing a lot of praises on the look of the movie, I wasn’t particularly amazed. Actually, besides a few cooler shots in the beginning, it soon becomes pretty boring cinematically. The soundtrack isn’t particularly impressive either, but it’s sufficient.

“Ex Machina” isn’t something really new to the genre, but it’s fresh and thoughtful film among all the summer blockbusters. A big plus is that most of its science is based fundamentally on technologies that already exist. Thus, it’s warning us that huge corporations with great amounts of private information, acquired via social media and internet searches, are probably just as scary as having to deal with an android having a convincing human conversation. After all, the robot in “Ex Machina” can freely draw all the information for people from the web, especially having access to all of the search engine’s data.

In fact, the conversations in the first part of the movie, is what intrigues the most: how can the Turing test be optimized to truly prove an A.I., or even the “feelings” of a machine? And on the other side of that coin lies the question – what is it to be human, how intelligent is humanity itself, if it’s so dependent on its own weaknesses? Maybe we can’t even truly test A.I. if our senses and emotions are so easy to manipulate. Furthermore, we can see how flawed are actually the humans in the movie. Caleb is way too easily influenced by his emotions and from the very beginning, we can tell that Nathan is slightly off the rails. He’s actually the drunk creator, who had to, at least partially, sacrifice his own humanity to create a self-aware  intelligent being. There’s an interesting discussion between the characters about A.I. having sexuality, since it defines the evolution of all living things. It also justifies some of Nathan’s weirder traits, and some fan service in the film, characteristic of the B-movie sci-fi.

“Ex Machina“’s plot offers some delightful twists and turns. However, towards the end things become rather predictable and really not as exciting as they are in the first part, when the audience is still trying to figure out what’s going on. A rather enjoyable and intriguing watch, “Ex Machina” is not a waste of time, but it’s been really over-hyped, it’s nowhere close to a new classic, let alone the “Blade Runner” or “2001” of our time.

The movie has 8,1 on IMDB - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0470752/?ref_=nm_flmg_dr_2

7,9 from users and 78 from critics on MetaCritic -  http://www.metacritic.com/movie/ex-machina

91% on RottenTomatoes -  http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/ex_machina/?search=ex%20m

Trailer:

“Avengers: Age of Ultron” Movie Review

Year: 2015

Director: Joss Whedon

Writer: Joss Whedon, Stan Lee & Jack Kirby (comic book)

Stars: Robert Downey Jr., Chris Evans, Mark Ruffalo, Chris Hemsworth, Scarlett Johansson, Jeremy Renner, James Spader, Samuel L. Jackson, Aaron Taylor-Johnson, Elizabeth Olsen, Paul Bettany

One of the most anticipated films of 2015, “Avengers: Age of Ultron” has finally come to Europe and it lives up to the expectations, mostly. Although not perfect, and arguably not quite as good as the first one, it is not really a disappointment either. Overall, I really liked it, but I wish it was a bit more than a good comic book movie. And that’s only because I have faith in Joss Whedon, who’s capable of great things. But the fact is that “Avengers” is not just his movie, it’s a Marvel property before anything else. It still worked out very well, having in mind how many characters and plot elements Whedon had to juggle. The film also touches on some interesting themes, facilitated by Tony Stark’s ego and willingness to take any risk in order to ensure world peace.

Just like the first “Avengers” the best thing about the film is the interaction between the characters. That said, for me, some of these scenes didn’t work as well as others. The jokes are more than what you’d expect from the trailer and even Ultron has a dark sense of humor. Besides that humor, the most thrilling characters are possibly Ultron himself and Vision. Ultron was put together a bit too fast and I wish more of his motivations were clarified.  Still, he is one of the best Marvel villains, if not the best. Vision, although having even less screen time, is absolutely magnificent. I guess we owe that to a great performance from Paul Bettany and the fact that he wasn’t CGI-ed, but relied entirely on make-up. As for the main Avengers team, the focus this time is mainly on Hawkeye, Black Widow and Banner. I did find some of the revelations for Hawk Eye a bit stereotypical though. Unfortunately, with so much going on, you wind up wanting more from most of the heroes. The story and motivations of the twins seemed a bit forced into the overall arc, and Aaron Taylor-Johnson’s accent just takes the audience out of the movie. And his acting as a whole – I just couldn’t buy it. Both siblings could have been used better, but I found Scarlet Witch much more interesting than Quick Silver, who, essentially has two lines of dialogue.

I didn’t expect obvious product placement as well, but it was there. Then, there’s the “epic” moment when I was just thinking how all comic movies are just trying too hard to top each other. And although the movie is a bit darker and the stakes are higher, when some of the most dramatic moments happen, they aren’t really that effective, mostly because some characters aren’t so well developed. And although the threat to civilians is addressed, we only see the ones that are rescued. Besides, normal people get shot at with huge lasers and survive.

I don’t think that the visual effects were that spectacular as well, especially with the 3D. The big fighting sequences sometimes looked blurry or just kind of fake. I’m sure that in 2D will be much easier to tell what’s going on the screen. For comparison, in “Guardians of the Galaxy” the 3D was more efficiently used and looked better. The same goes for the effects. Probably, of all action scenes, the first is the best, especially considering that it is an intricately composed long tracking shot.

As all Marvel movies, “Avengers” also has to set up the following films and some of the scenes dedicated to this task aren’t very organic to the plot and feel just like thrown here and there. For example, there’s a rather irrelevant Thor scene that seems out of place. For the most part, the weaker parts are balanced out by the humor and character interactions. So, “Avengers: Age of Ultron” remains an enjoyable movie-going experience. I am also looking forward to the release of the director’s cut that will supposedly have an alternate ending and a lot more extra footage that could deliver on some of the lacking character development and motivations.

The movie has 8,4 on IMDB - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2395427/?ref_=fn_al_tt_4

Still no results from users and 72 from critics on MetaCritic - http://www.metacritic.com/movie/avengers-age-of-ultron

80% on RottenTomatoes -  http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/avengers_age_of_ultron/

Trailer:

“Calvary” Movie Review

Year: 2014

Director: John Michael McDonagh

Writer: John Michael McDonagh

Stars: Brendan Gleeson, Chris O'Dowd, Kelly Reilly, Aidan Gillen, Dylan Moran, Isaach De Bankolé, M. Emmet Walsh, Marie-Josée Croze, Domhnall Gleeson, David Wilmot

“Calvary” is John Michael McDonagh’s second film after “The Guard” and also starring Brendon Gleeson, but this time as a priest. The story takes place in Ireland, after the child-abuse scandal, when the church is openly despised and mocked, accused of cynicism or simply seen as irrelevant in a time when corporations rule the country.

As a film about a priest, “Calvary” doesn’t come off as the typical movie about religion and it doesn’t feel preachy. As someone who’s not a fan of the church in any way, I didn’t feel like watching a religious film, it is simply a striking film about human relations, life and death, morality and stoicism. It explores fate as a path towards finding forgiveness and staying true to your ideals and mission.

Set in a world where there’s no justice for the guilty, “Calvary” looks at the sacrifice of the good. From the very beginning of the film, we hear the death threat against the priest that will drive the story: “There’s no point in killing a bad priest. But a good one… that would be a shock.” After this “confession” Father James (Brendon Gleeson) has one week to prepare himself and to make a decision whether to run away, to turn in the man who threatened him or to stay. During that time we’re trying to figure out who made the threat. However, it is not the typical whodunit story. “Calvary” consists mainly of various conversations with all the parishioners, which are cleverly written and include a surprising amount of dark humor.

Father James is a flawed man, but a good priest that genuinely tries to help and understand his “flock” without judging them. He is witty and sometimes unorthodox; has a humble home, but also a convertible car. He has his own troubled past and just as troubled daughter, which give him more depth. Father James doesn’t pretend to know all the answers and simply tries to give some sensible advice. He doesn’t mind discussing possible situations when killing could be justified or suggesting pornography as an outlet for frustration.

In contrast to James is Father Leary, who seems to be much more innocent and kind, but he’s naïve, ignorant and “has no integrity.” He has no experience and he didn’t make the mistakes James made in the past, thus being far less unprepared to be a good priest.

“Calvary” has a big ensemble cast with a lot of great performances, but Brendon Gleeson is definitely the heart of the film. His acting is grounded, but warm and poignant. He has no problems convincing us that he is this flawed, but ultimately good and stoic priest. And by the end of the story, after he talks to all these people, you learn a lot not only about the world around him, but about his own fears and virtues. With such great performances, no wonder the last act of the film is so hitting.

“Calvary” can be seen as a bit more “theatrical”, heightened movie, full with extraordinary, bigger-than-life characters. However, it is extremely well written, engaging and believable. The nature in the movie has this indifferent and overpowering presence, with the Knocknarea hill looking like a monolith, placed by the gods to remind us of the cruel randomness of the world. Similarly, the horrible sentence doesn’t seem to have any logic or sense of justice behind it: “I’m going to kill you, because you’re innocent.” What if Father James chooses to reach his limits to help his parishioners and become the innocent one to pay for the others? Is it possible for his virtues to endure? You have to see (and decide) for yourself.

The movie has 7,5 on IMDB - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2234003/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1

7,6 from users and 77 from critics on MetaCritic -  http://www.metacritic.com/movie/calvary

89% on RottenTomatoes -  http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/calvary_2013/?search=calva

Trailer:

“Wild Tales” ("Relatos Salvajes") Movie Review

Year: 2014

Director: Damián Szifrón

Writer: Damián Szifrón

Stars: Ricardo Darín, Erica Rivas, Darío Grandinetti, María Marull, Leonardo Sbaraglia, Julieta Zylberberg, Oscar Martínez, Diego Gentile

“Wild Tales” is nothing short of amazing, simultaneously hilarious and dark thrill ride. Actually, the less you know about the film, the better it is. When I saw it with a friend, we knew absolutely nothing about it, besides the fact that it’s Oscar-nominated and “fun.” So, when we sat down in the cinema, we were absolutely surprised, electrified and by the end of the movie – thoroughly entertained. I didn’t even know that it consists of six different stories.

“Wild Tales” is a black comedy, filled with violence and action that will keep you at the edge of your seat. It effortlessly combines action and tension with the comedy; it does the same with with drama, romance and thriller. The introductory story even takes the type of situation that we would usually see in cartoons and excitingly ushers us headfirst into the crazy world of the movie.

Damián Szifrón, who has been directing and writing primarily for TV up to this point, takes full advantage of his experience with the short form. In fact, the film originally included a seventh tale called “Bonus Track” and the order of the stories was different. Remarkably, every unique story is enough fascinating and exciting by itself, but there are still common themes and style between all “tales.” With hot-headed characters that are driven in one way or another to their breaking point and often to a quite animalistic state, “Wild Tales” makes you question the inherent humanity of our species. In relation to that the movie has great opening credits, in which each actor is represented by the image of a wild animal. The director himself chose a fox, because he has red hair and his father had a fondness of the animal.

“Wild Tales” is considered an Argentine-Spanish production with the notable involvement of Pedro Almodovar as one of the producers. The movie looks great cinematically and also sounds great. Gustavo Alfredo Santaolalla, a two-time Oscar winner composed the soundtrack.

“Wild Tales” was among the Oscar nominated foreign-language films for 2014 and probably the most unexpected one, since it’s very fast-paced, filled with action and violence. It is also the seventh film from Argentina nominated for the award. The movie quickly became the most seen film in Argentina for 2014 and was shown in 275 cinemas throughout the country. Consequently, by the end of the it became the most seen film from Argentine of all-time. “Wild Tales” was also celebrated at the 2014 Cannes Film Festival, where it reportedly received a standing ovation for about 10 minutes. The film was also in the competition for the Palme d'Or at the Festival.

The movie has 8,2 on IMDB - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3011894/

8,9 from users and 77 from critics on MetaCritic -  http://www.metacritic.com/movie/wild-tales

95% on RottenTomatoes -  http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/wild_tales

Trailer:

Classic Movies: “Akira”

From Wikipedia

Year: 1988

Director: Katsuhiro Otomo

Writer: Katsuhiro Otomo, Izo Hashimoto

Stars: Mitsuo Iwata, Nozomu Sasaki, Mami Koyama, Tessho Genda

“Akira” is a gritty dystopian sci-fi thriller that depicts the city of Neo-Tokyo in 2019, 31 years after World War III. The futuristic city is in chaos with violent riots on the streets and warring teenage gangs on motorcycles. The plot of the film focuses on the gang leader Kaneda and his younger friend Tetsuo. Accidentally they get involved with a dissident group, that’s trying to unveil a secret government project. The film is based on Katsuhiro Otomo's manga of the same name and explores mainly the first half of the story.

“Akira” is considered by many to be the first movie that brought Japanese animation to the attention of western audiences. It also showed Hollywood that animation can be efficiently used for gritty and adult topics. It is certainly one of the most influential films in the genres of animation and sci-fi at the least. And just a reminder: “Akira” isn’t a family film, it’s an R-rated feature with some graphic and disturbing scenes.

Since the manga of “Akira” is over 2000 pages long and the story is very complex, don’t expect to necessarily get all the answers by the end of the movie. “Akira” gives all the basics, but doesn’t hold your hand, saving you from big chunks of exposition and awkward scientific explanations by the characters. Even without clarifying everything, the movie manages to explore (at least partially) various ambitious themes, mainly focusing on the dichotomy destruction – creation, also evolution – dehumanization, politics, friendship etc. Here I must admit that after seeing “Akira” two times I’m still not completely confident in these conclusions. It’s such an electrifying ride and there’s so much going on, it may leave you wanting more and I’m sure there’s plenty to learn from the manga. Having in mind the dense and dynamic nature of the film, I was happy with the story. Although not completely rounded, it’s more than what most big sci-fi action movies will give you. There’s also an argument that the main heroes could benefit from some more character development and I could understand that – it would be nice, only if the film was longer, but I couldn’t say that they were underdeveloped either. While I was watching it I didn’t really need anything more. Sure, I would spend some more time with them, but not because I didn’t like them – on the contrary. I might just get the manga.

“Akira” exceeds in what very few films manage to do. It creates its own unique world that’s so vast, yet extremely dense: you can almost feel the weight of the buildings and hear the roar of bikes and angry protesters around every corner. It has an outstanding style achieved with 160 000 single images, which is 2/3 times more than usual. It also set another record for animated film by utilizing 327 colors, 50 of which were specifically manufactured for the movie. That’s due to the fact that most of “Akira” takes place at night, a setting which animators usually shun away from, because of increased color requirements. “Akira” is also one of the first Japanese films with the voices recorded before the animation. Unlike American productions, in Japan the animation is normally created first. All these innovations cost about ¥1.1 billion ($11 million) - a record for Japanese animated film at the time.

When movies create fictional worlds I often find that an entire animated universe is much more fascinating and convincing than bunch of CGI effects mixed with real images. The attention to detail, the stylistic quality of “Akira” is great example of how this can be achieved. If I have to make a comparison I’d say that the look of Neo Tokyo and its atmosphere is closest to that of “Blade Runner”, but still distinctive and maybe even more breathtaking (while I acknowledge the disadvantages of “real” movies). I can’t even start thinking about how the thousands of buildings and miniscule windows were painted by hand.

Much of the unique “Akira” feel is due to the soundtrack, too. With emphasis on drums and the use of big choir the music feels very tribal and visceral, but still futuristic. And it hasn’t aged in any way. The music is the sound of the city, its gangs and its desperate, enraged citizens, as well as its “mystical” secrets. At times it may sound a bit too “visible” for some, but Japanese film-makers don’t like hiding a great soundtrack as many western directors and composers often do. The use of silence is also integrated to a great effect in “Akira”.

Look out for the famous toys scene, the music for which is nice and simple at first glance, but also incredibly creepy and haunting. It wouldn’t be as legendary if it wasn’t for the great use of sound and silence. This composition can be just as unsettling as any of the classic horror soundtracks. And unbelievably Tsutomu Ohashi (under the pseudonym Shoji Yamashiro) wrote it before seeing a single scene or script for the movie. It was only partially edited to fit the scenes afterwards. In one fighting episode the vocals are structured as a sequence of gasps and it may sound absurd on paper, but it’s amazingly fitting and invigorating when you hear it in the scene. And this is just one of the things that you can find only in “Akira”, along with other jaw-dropping moments and particularly dream sequences. Even the movie poster itself is a cult image. Thus, “Akira” successfully demonstrates how animated films can surpass the live-action ones in creativity and rich cinematic techniques. Not accidentally, in 1999 Roger Ebert wrote an essay titled “Japanese animation unleashes the mind”.

P.S.       Watch it with subtitles! The English dub isn’t in any way better than the original, the characters don’t even sound like angry teenagers, but like kids from Disney movies and most importantly – it just doesn’t make sense, the story and the characters are fundamentally Japanese. On that note: Although being delayed for many years, Warner Bros’ live-action “Akira” remake unfortunately hasn’t been completely shut down. But let’s pray it does, because this PG-13 project with grown-up American cast set in Manhattan and helmed by an average director that hates the source material, would turn out very much like this:

The movie has 8,1 on IMDB - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0094625/

87% on RottenTomatoes -  http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/akira/

Opening scene (sorry for the bits of French subs, but other clips and trailers I found reveal too much):

“The Theory Of Everything” Movie Review

Year: 2014

Director: James Marsh

Writer: Anthony McCarten (screenplay), Jane Hawking (book)

Stars: Eddie Redmayne, Felicity Jones, Tom Prior

If you thought that “The theory of everything” will concentrate on the achievements of Stephen Hawking or the way the terrible sickness affected his mind and scientific approach, you will be highly disappointed. As many reviewers pointed out – it is, before anything else, a love story, which is not a bad thing in any way, but I would personally choose the science. Knowing that the movie is a more personal look at the story, based on the book “Travelling to Infinity: My Life with Stephen” by Hawking’s first wife Jane, I was still a bit surprised to see how much of it is focused on their relationship. Many parts of the film actually feel like her biopic rather than his, which could seem a bit manipulative and disappointing, but at least Felicity Jones’ brilliant performance made it intriguing and more watchable than expected. Still, did we really need so much of the Jonathan story, because the first five, ten minutes of their interaction was pretty much enough to show us where things are going?

Most people compare the film with the other Oscar contender “The imitation game” and although it also had problems and was quite conventional, I enjoyed it more as a cinematic experience. Because of the way the story in “The imitation game” is constructed, it had a bit more tension to it and felt more quickly paced. “The theory” seems like a much longer movie, although it’s just about 10 minutes longer. Its advantage seems to be the screenplay, which is a bit more subtle than the “Imitation game” one, that constantly reminded us how important is to embrace being weird.

Just as “The imitation game”, “The theory of everything” is not a game changer, except for the performances, it is quite by-the-numbers romantic drama with a few cute jokes. In the begging we witness the greatly worn out first date montage, where you just wait for the characters to quote the next poetry verse or scientific principle, while standing in front of beautiful backgrounds. It is also one of a few sequences in the movie that feel like a music video. The cinematography is just all over the place. The last “musical” sequence is probably the best example, although the idea behind it is cute. It is also the only scene with good music in it, although it’s not actually written for the movie, it’s a popular instrumental piece by The Cinematic Orchestra and it felt, at least for me, kind of cheap and inconsistent, even more as a video clip. However, I’m sure it plays out fine, if you haven’t heard it. The rest of the score is just horribly melodramatic, obviously manipulative and conventional to the point it makes you feel as if you’re watching at least 60-year-old romantic Hollywood drama. It goes up to eleven whenever something sad happens, in case you haven’t noticed and you don’t know how to react.

Besides that I can’t really say that the movie is bad, because it has good intentions and it’s after all, dedicated to one of the greatest scientists alive. There are a lot of enjoyable moments. For a person that cries a lot at movies, this just made me tear up a few times and mostly because of the performances, which are definitely worth it.

The best reason to see “The theory of everything” remains the acting. And not just for Eddie Redmayne, but for Felicity Jones that was just as amazing. In a way her performance is the emotional center of the film, because the physical restrictions of Hawking as portrayed by Redmayne, although absolutely greatly done, also reduce his expressiveness. However, what really saved the movie for me was a really small thing, that would make any film lover very happy. It’s the “Daisy, daisy” moment – if you have to, just google it.

The movie has 7,8 on IMDB - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2980516/?ref_=nv_sr_1

7,4 from users and 72 from critics on MetaCritic -  http://www.metacritic.com/movie/the-theory-of-everything

79% on RottenTomatoes - http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the_theory_of_everything_2014

Trailer:

 

“The Grand Budapest Hotel”

As A Discussion About The Power Of Art

Year: 2014

Director: Wes Anderson

Writers: Stefan Zweig (inspired by his writings), Wes Anderson, Hugo Guinness

Stars: Ralph Fiennes, F. Murray Abraham, Mathieu Amalric, Tony Revolori, Adrien Brody, Jeff Goldblum, Jude Law, Edward Norton, Saoirse Ronan, Tilda Swinton

Great painters tell stories not only with their sheer talent and thematic sensibilities, but by creating their own unique color pallet, by meticulously composing everything in the scene and even picking the frames for the paintings. With masterful technique in composition, stunning colors, magical soundtracks and unforgettable faces, Wes Anderson does the same with his films.

“The Grand Budapest Hotel” is the perfect example for that and while some consider Anderson’s film-making superficial, isn't it what the movie is all about – the “faint glimmers of civilization left in this barbaric slaughterhouse that was once known as humanity”? It’s about the “glimmers” that barely survive trapped between the beautiful, but surfacy colors of the hotel. It’s about Monsieur Gustave H., who’s trying to sustain the illusion of refined, cultured world with the use of immaculate speech (poetry is extremely important here), looks and, of course, lots of “L'air de Panache” that mask the darkest realities of the modern world, as well as his own flaws. A great example for this is the scene after the prison break when Monsieur Gustav shows his own prejudices, because there’s no “L'air de Panache” to hide his unpleasant smell – literally and metaphorically. And just like any painter trying to capture all the beauty and vibrancy of the world, even Wes Anderson has to step back and drain the screen of its colors when the heroes are finally confronted with the monstrous reality of the war in the last train scene. Sadly, that’s what the Reich wanted – a very white world.

This really reminded me of a song, so here it is. From another “flamboyant” man questioning some modern values.

With the use of colors (or none in the train scene), with the deliberate change of the aspect ratio according to the time period, with the transforming appearance of the hotel, even the contrast between the two paintings in the film, the director seems to emphasize on the fragility of culture, on the ever-changing understanding and significance of art, which sometimes loses the battle to make the world a better place. What art seemingly does is to mirror reality and to transform along with it - just with a little bit more colors and… “panache”.

And in a way Monsieur Gustav is the artist in the story – the extravagant dreamer that awakens the bright colors in the world of “The Grand Budapest” making it more like an art album than a history book. Most of the time he simply prefers to ignore the changing world - at one point he’s given a newspaper and completely dismisses the news of the war starting. When we are introduced to the author he also seems a bit detached from society - he talks about his loneliness, treating it like a disease. Because of that he needs to visit the hotel in attempt to find something that's missing from his world. And yet, as we can see in the most recent time period, he transcends the harsh realities of history, becoming a national treasure.

This shows that despite often having just decorative purposes, art has the power to help us survive. Although the inheritance of the old lady is split just as the war is shattering Europe into pieces, the drama is still focused on the stolen art. And while the war ushers the world into a new era - the old priceless masterpiece is replaced by a piece by the modern painter Schiele. It's quickly destroyed, probably because before the war Schiele was seen more as an art criminal, rather than a modern master.

However, the work's not actually a Schiele masterpiece - it's a painting by Rich Pellegrino, commissioned specifically for the movie. Wes Anderson wanted it to look like a painting by Schiele, just as he wanted "Boy with apple" to resemble Flemish mannerist painters from the XVI century. This one was commissioned to Michael Taylor. So, both paintings are in fact fakes that emulate a certain artistic aesthetic, just as the "The Grand Budapest Hotel" as a film immerses us into different historical periods, re-imagined with Anderson's distinctive paintbrush. Even the characters in the movie are “fake” in a way. They are not historical figures, but both the author and Monsieur Gustav are loosely based on Stefan Zweig, who had the reputation of passionate idealist. And while The Grand Budapest is still standing it will remind the world that no matter how “fake” and ethereal art is by its nature, it is necessary in order to make us human.

The movie has 8,1 on IMDB - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2278388/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1

8,3 from users and 88 from critics on MetaCritic -  http://www.metacritic.com/movie/the-grand-budapest-hotel

92% on RottenTomatoes - http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the_grand_budapest_hotel/?search=the%20gra

Trailer:

10 Favorite Movies Of 2014 in GIFs

1. Nightcrawler

2. Whiplash

3. Frank

4. Calvary

5. Gone Girl

6. The Grand Budapest Hotel

7. Under The Skin

8. Boyhood

9. Force Majeure

10. The Tale Of Princess Kaguya 

“Whiplash” Movie Review

Year: 2014

Director: Damien Chazelle

Writer: Damien Chazelle

Stars: Miles Teller, J. K. Simmons, Paul Reiser, Melissa Benoist, Austin Stowell, Nate Lang

“Whiplash” follows the story of the young and promising jazz drummer Andrew (Miles Teller), who attends a prestigious music school and manages to get into the class of the most feared and respected professor - Fletcher (portrayed by J. K. Simmons), who easily becomes abusive when it comes to getting the best performances out of his students. Although Andrew is constantly tormented by Fletcher, they at least share the love for the music and throughout the film the two develop a kind of love-hate relationship that revolves around the pursuit of greatness and perfection.

“Whiplash” is pretty much straightforward and to the point, but here that approach is effective and electrifying. It might be hard to believe, but “Whiplash” is the first feature film by Damien Chazelle and it’s based on his own experience as a competitive drummer in high school. The movie was first realized as a successful short film that attracted investors for the production of the feature version.

As a result, we can observe the collision between two fascinating characters reaching for the limits of human abilities and willing to go as far as possible. It’s a dialogue about talent, determination, ambition and where do you draw the line between hard work and insanity, between true talent and mediocrity. “Whipwash” also greatly incorporates comedy and it has more tension and excitement than most thrillers and action movies, because of its immediacy and raw emotion. It achieves that with concise script, great editing and cinematography (including a lot of close-ups, especially of J.K. Simmons’ face) and two breathtaking performances. And while everybody is losing their minds over J.K. Simmons, can we talk about Miles Teller? He is just as amazing in his portrait of ambition, perseverance, struggle, at times desperation, even arrogance and physical pain. Still, J.K. Simmons is instantly magnetic, although at first it looks like he’s just building on R. Lee Ermey’s performance as Sgt. Hartman in “Full Metal Jacket”.

This film literally shows the blood and the sweat one must offer in order to achieve greatness.  And if you think about the plot, there’s a slightly unrealistic succession of events, especially towards the end of the movie, used to heighten the tension and drama. And although you know why it’s there by the end you are so entranced and drawn into this hectic, thrilling world that you go with it. I guess, because of that, although essentially realistic, the movie is also stylized, beautifully enhanced to immerse you in its world and the turmoil of the characters.

What I also like about “Whiplash” is that it doesn’t shy away from the arrogance of Andrew, often something very common among the great or just ambitious artists. So, there’s a tiny bit of “Amadeus” feel to it. Of course, there’s the “Black Swan” comparison and although definitely less fantastical and more straightforward, “Whiplash” describes just as well the struggles and obsessions of a young performer that happens to be in one of the most cutthroat arts.  

Also, there’s a hell lot of actual drumming (a big part of it performed by Teller himself) and I love it. I think that many directors would shy away from that, but Chazelle definitely made the best decision, because every second is absolutely enthralling and brings the audience closer to the drama and the characters. The ending of the movie is stunning and (for me) makes “Whipwash” one of the very best films this year.

The movie has 8,8 on IMDB - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2582802/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1

8,4 from users and 87 from critics on MetaCritic -  http://www.metacritic.com/movie/whiplash

95% on RottenTomatoes -  http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/whiplash_2014

Trailer (but the less you know the more exciting):

A small interview with Teller:

“Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance)” Movie Review Or How To Become A Shakespearean Superhero

Year: 2014

Director: Alejandro González Iñárritu

Writers: Alejandro González Iñárritu, Nicolás Giacobone, Alexander Dinelaris, Armando Bo

Stars: Michael Keaton, Emma Stone, Zach Galifianakis, Naomi Watts, Edward Norton, Andrea Riseborough, Amy Ryan

“Birdman” is essentially the story of a washed-up superhero movie star, who’s trying to find meaning in his life, torn between the allure of the Hollywood blockbusters he was once a part of and the pure artistic success he could find by making “real” art on Broadway. To what extend Michael Keaton plays himself is a matter of speculation, but casting the man who was the first famous live-action Batman back in 1989 (also an awesome Beetlejuice) was more than perfect. And not just because it’s “meta”: admittedly older than the average superhero, with no cape or mask and at some point only in his tighty whities, just like Bryan Cranston, Keaton relies only on his great acting skills and probably delivers the role of his career. But I suspect that we will get much more from him.

I must say that, despite Keaton (Riggan in the film) being the star, the movie actually feels like an ensemble piece with amazing performances from Emma Stone (his daughter Sam), Zach Galifianakis (his producer and friend Jake), Naomi Watts as the actress Lesley and Edward Norton as the genius on stage Mike. And probably because of that I often felt more interested in these supporting characters. Naomi Watts and Edward Norton particularly stood out for me, giving intense and emotional performances. Lesley’s desire to get on Broadway and Mike’s struggle to be himself in real life, rather than on stage, are even more touching than Riggan’s “virtue of ignorance” and vanity that allow him to often disregard his family and loved ones.

 And although not everyone wants to be an actor or a writer, everybody reaches that point when they ask themselves “what do I amount to?” So, it’s safe to say that film is rather relatable, but I personally wasn’t as stirred or touched as much as I was watching other movies in 2014. But I still don’t think the movie actually tries to get the Spielberg effect and make the audience sob in unison.

“Birdman” explores its themes with a lot of humour, unconventional camera work and even some fantastical imagery. The camera floats throughout the theater, interestingly, almost like a bird and bounces from one character to another. As a result in a very beautiful, almost dreamlike manner the camera movement, along with the seamless editing (digitally improved), colour pallet and the occasional winking at the audience (like cutting off the music, the changing location of the drummer) accentuate the amazing craft of movie-making and remind us of the very fact that we are in a film. That’s why I don’t think that the very cinematic “Birdman” simply sides with Broadway, while completely destroying summer blockbusters.

So, obviously, the most amazing thing about the movie is the cinematography and editing. It is really gorgeous and entertaining on purely visual level, if that makes sense. And no wonder – the film is handled by some of the best, also Oscar-winners: Emmanuel Lubezki (“Gravity”, “Children of men”, “The tree of life”, “Sleepy Hollow”) is the director of photography and the editing is managed by Douglas Crise and Stephen Mirrione ("Good Night, and Good Luck.", "Ocean's Eleven", "21 Grams").

The beautiful and fluid cinematography that makes the film look like it’s just one continuous shot takes you behind the Broadway scene and inside the world of the actors. And although it has its particular flavor in this movie, it must be noted that the one-take movie has been done some times before with projects like “Russian Ark” by Aleksandr Sokurov or “Silent House” by Gustavo Hernandez and there are also numerous movies with just a few takes like Gaspar Noe’s “Irreversible” (I give this example, because we also have the floating camera here). But most important is Hitchcock’s “Rope” from 1948 that also looks like one take (it was actually shot in 10 segments, but only because the film magazine for the camera is about 10 minutes long and must be replaced). And despite setting the film in just two rooms, Hitchcock basically achieved the same effect that “Birdman” has, but with no digital assistance.

Going back to the content - the humour in the film is really, really great. I actually didn’t know that the movie has a strong comedic side and was pleasantly surprised. The dialogue is intriguing and snappy; Michael Keaton and Edward Norton are explosive. Still, I have a few tiny, not really complaints… things I’ve noticed: There are a few monologues (the speech that Riggan gives to the critic and especially his daughter’s rant) that basically tell us in too many words things that we’ve already understood quite well from the movie. To me these sounded a little bit redundant and fake, despite the fact that the movie is quite fantastical. I just don’t like over-explaining in movies, but who knows – may be the idea of these scenes was to represent the classic stage monologue. Thus, the movie feels a little bit self-important at times, constantly trying to remind us how important and philosophical it is, especially with these “Tree of life”-type of images thrown in the editing. For example, I think that another movie from 2014 “Frank” deals with similar themes more subtly and laconically.

And while I’m comparing - there was one point in “Birdman” when I had the realization that it is very similar to “Back Swan”. If you saw it you know, which scene I’m talking about. However, “Birdman” had a delightful and surprising turn that proved me wrong. Still, there are many similarities with the theme of ambition and perfectionism, as well as the dream-like, hallucinogenic elements that the two films share.

What I really liked about “Birdman” is that it bashes quite a lot the superhero movies, while somewhat ironically turning its protagonist into a kind of superhero (because of his abilities, imagined or not, and… his looks towards the end). I can’t get into more details because - spoilers. This is also a bit of a spoiler: By the end of the film Riggan manages to achieve both the popularity as celebrity he once lost (via social media and viral videos) and the critical acclaim for his artistic work in the theater. And however you decide to interpret the very ending, I think it’s still going to be an appropriate conclusion to the story of a man on the edge of sanity, fighting for his work and for his right not to be forgotten.

The movie currently has 8,7 on IMDB - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2562232/?ref_=ttfc_fc_tt

8,0 from users and 89 from critics on MetaCritic - http://www.metacritic.com/movie/birdman-or-the-unexpected-virtue-of-ignorance

94% on RottenTomatoes -  http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/birdman_2014/

Trailer:

Classics Movies: Woody Allen’s "Manhattan"

  

Year: 1979

Director: Woody Allen

Writers: Woody Allen, Marshall Brickman

Starring: Woody Allen, Diane Keaton, Michael Murphy, Mariel Hemingway, Meryl Streep, Anne Byrne Hoffman

Gershwin’s “Rhapsody In Blue” and a celebratory montage of New York sceneries that resolves into a purposely over the top fireworks. That’s our introduction to Woody Allen’s hometown in the classic romantic comedy “Manhattan”. The scene is also accompanied with the narration by the main hero Isaac, who can’t decide in what way to begin his novel, pondering on how his protagonist sees the city.  

Isaac’s second ex-wife is writing a book on their love life and separation, while he’s trying to maintain a causal relationship with 17-years-old student. At the same time he falls in love with his best friend’s lover, after initially disliking her. Yes, sounds so trite and soapy. But not when Woody Allen is behind the camera. This is the kind of movie that even people, who, like myself, don’t like romantic comedies, should see. It is a treat for every movie lover, if solely for the masterful cinematography by Gordon Willis (“The Godfather”) and editing by Susan E. Morse (“Hannah and Her Sisters”), because every now and then they turn the film into a living painting.

As most Woody Allen’s films “Manhattan” also deals with intellectuals quipping at each other, while discussing interesting cultural, but sometimes empty topics. As Isaac points out in one scene - in certain cases not “biting satire”, but “bricks and baseball bats get right to the point.” Many of the heroes in the movie are wealthy, well-read and a bit pretentious, but often simply lost and lonely people. Woody Allen’s character looks for the answers to his problems in the changing cultural landscape around him, later in the movie clarifying that his book is about “decaying values”. And we can see how he often projects this pessimistic view of the world on the new generation, represented by his young girlfriend Tracy - “You were brought up on drugs and television and the pill”. But after all, he is the guy that works for the television, the guy that constantly refuses to accept the changing world and takes advantage of Tracy’s affection. And by the end she is the one that wisely corrects him on the subject of decaying morals, because “not everybody gets corrupted”.

When you talk about “Manhattan” you can’t forget the masterful visual storytelling that is particularly strong in two major scenes – the cabinet with the monkey skeleton and the planetarium scene. The scene in the biology cabinet adds to the humor of the situation, while making us ponder over love’s role in evolution and our place in the universe as species. The monkey skeleton sits silently next to Issac, who, as a superior specie that models himself after God, is trying to make sense of love and human relationships. Still, the monkey comically reminds us of the unpredictable, unclassifiable and often primal nature of love. In terms of our feelings and internal drive, it is possible that we haven’t really developed much. And the rest of the movie points to the same thing – sometimes the obvious “good” choices are the worst and no matter how hard we try to be informed, logical and to rationalize the world we live in, our nature is still emotion-driven and intuitive. And just like with art, we can’t always explain what sums up the ultimate chef-d-oeuvre.

In this world where everybody has a psychoanalyst, Woody Allen’s character ironically states “Nothing worth knowing can be understood with the mind.” But both Isaac and Mary (Diane Keaton) are often described as “cerebral” or “rationalizing” and we see that in the long run this is not necessarily the best way for them to maintain a relationship. There’s something else that I've noticed - with beautiful, yet simple cinematography and understanding of space, “Manhattan” often separates the couples with shots that leave one or the other out of frame during a conversation. This is emphasized and wonderfully realized in the scene where Mary and Isaac kiss for the first time. Although it is very romantic and sweet, for the entire scene they are almost never both in the frame, moving in and out of the door frame, where the camera is fixed. I wonder, is there a possibility that Allen decided to shoot the scene in this way in order to hint to us that no matter how much they try, Isaac and Mary can’t really become one? It might be far-fetched, but I like the idea.

But the best and most memorable scene from the movie is definitely the conversation in the planetarium. In almost full darkness all we see is the giant planets and these people’s tiny, almost unrecognizable figures. They walk through the lonely and cold cosmos, discussing the small troubles we humans have, looking so lost and insignificant next to the vastness of space. It’s such a beautiful and surreal scene, provoking so many feelings and interpretations: Are they small grains of sand drifting in the infinite darkness or simply aliens to each other? Maybe they are alienated from their own world…

Speaking of beauty and cosmic harmony, the soundtrack is comprised of wonderful compositions by Gershwin, including instrumental versions for many of his popular jazz songs. It is a powerful and energetic, but elegant companion piece to the beautiful black and white cinematic version of New York that Allen gives us. The performances are top-notch, I especially loved Mariel Hemingway, who is so subtle, tender and poignant. As a whole “Manhattan” is philosophical, funny, touching and magnificently shot – a true Woody Allen classic, well above the average romantic comedy.

The movie has 8,0 on IMDB - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0079522/?ref_=fn_al_tt_3

8,5 from users and 82 from critics on MetaCritic - http://www.metacritic.com/movie/manhattan

98% on RottenTomatoes -  http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/manhattan/?search=manhattan

A little taste of the movie – the bridge scene: