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.
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
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
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.
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/
Stars: Rosamund Pike, Ben Affleck, Neil Patrick Harris, Tyler
Perry, Carrie Coon, Kim Dickens
“Gone Girl” is a movie that reminds
us that David Fincher is one of the very best directors working today. He is
back on form with a haunting, visceral and stylized retelling of the Gillian
Flynn’s novel of the same name. Writers often fail to adapt their own books for
the screen, but Flynn did a fantastic job unifying all threads of the intricate
story into a coherent script.
The movie tells the story (or rather “stories”)
of Nick Dunne (portrayed by Ben Affleck) and his wife Amy (Rosamund Pike). The
mystery starts on the day of the couple’s fifth anniversary when Nick finds out
that his wife is gone. As the plot unfolds he becomes the center of media
speculations and his life turns upside down when he becomes the main suspect.
But while we see his version of the story, we also get the chance to peek into
Amy’s thoughts almost entirely via her diary entries.
What Fincher and Flynn did so well is
presenting us with two points of view, both not entirely truthful, both keeping
parts of the story in mystery. And that’s truly revealing, especially after we
find out who’s the “worse half”. The relativity of the truth is highlighted in
a scene where Nick Dunne insist on telling the “true” story and quickly gets corrected
– it’s “your” story. “Gone Girl” works perfectly as a thriller – it is atmospheric,
suspenseful and brutal when it needs to be. But the best thing is that it’s so
much more. A social commentary, a character study, an exercise in style, a treatise
on marriage…
In many ways “Gone Girl” is a film
about image – the image we create for ourselves, the way our loved ones see us,
the labels society gives us, the distorted personality that media can create and
destroy within a few hours for us. All the roles we assume in order to function
in society could easily distort our perception of reality and ourselves. In “Gone
Girl” Rosamund Pike struggles to achieve the perfect image of “The Amazing Amy”
– a fictional character her mother wrote a series of popular books about. And as
she says in the movie, “Amazing Amy” had always been one step ahead of her,
always perfect, always better. How do you keep up with that? Amy sometimes even
speaks as if she’s a fictional character and she might as well do what any true
dramatic hero might do in a classic play. Amy is beautiful, rich, extremely
intelligent and still her life is not always perfect. Surely, in “Gone Girl”
this problem is explored in its extremities, but in modern society the image,
the idea of the perfect job, the perfect family, the requisite success can often
become the basis for extreme egoism, apathy, depression and all kinds of psychosis.
Just like in “Nightcrawler” – the hero is the product of the society he/she
lives in.
SLIGHTLY SPOILERY PARAGRAPH:
What are the social expectations for
the perfect woman, for the perfect wife? One thing is for sure - these are some
of the factors that create the Amy we see by the end of the movie. That’s why I
don’t think that “Gone Girl” is in any way misogynistic, because how could Amy exist
the way she is and get away with the things she does, if she didn’t live in a
society with established stereotypes for women that she clearly takes
advantage of: the stupid, but beautiful girlfriend, the accommodating wife, the
helpless mother, the victim? Besides, it’s absolutely entertaining to see all these
concepts turn around by the end.
On the other hand, Ben Affleck’s character
is also exposed to social preconceptions – he is supposed to be “the provider”
in the marriage, he is more likely to be aggressive and should feel oppressed
because he doesn’t have the outstanding education his wife has. Thus, “Gone
Girl” explores both sides of what marriage “should” be and the image it has to adhere
to. Further on, the film shows how easily media (particularly TV news) can
manipulate any story and any “image”, completely turning around the opinion we
have for someone and even profoundly affecting their life.
“Gone Girl” has one of the most
magnetic, complex and unique characters we’ve seen this year and one of the
very few strong female characters in cinema. Gillian Flynn gave life to a hero
that’s anything, but the typical female from either criminal or love stories.
And Rosamund Pike made this extraordinary, bigger-than-life character appear absolutely
authentic and captivating. She can simultaneously make us hate her and be
sympathetic with her, while preserving the mystery and the wonder of the
character. It is definitely a stunning Oscar-worthy performance. Everybody else
in the movie also does a good job, but it’s her movie from beginning to end.
Only Neil Patrick Harris, who plays Desi, doesn’t seem entirely in place. His
acting is fine, but he is in the role of a rich stylish man, that inevitably
reminds you of Barney (I guess it’s ok if you haven’t seen “How I met your
mother”, but it got me out of the movie at times).
The entire film, not surprisingly,
looks great. The attention to detail, characteristic for any film by Fincher,
and Jeff Cronenweth’s work on the cinematography create a stunning atmosphere. Cronenweth
had two Oscar nominations for David Fincher’s films (“The Girl with the Dragon
Tattoo” and “The Social Network”) and he’s certainly keeping up. For the last a
couple of films Fincher has also developed a symbiotic relationship with Trent
Reznor and Atticus Ross. Reznor’s music seems to be the perfect addition to
Fincher’s images. The minimalistic soundtrack for “Gone Girl” is just as
mysterious, elegant and atmospheric as the movie itself and it perfectly complements
the mood without being obtrusive. It gently seeps into the subconsciousness
like a perfume and blood scented mist. It does its magic in the background and you
don’t even realize when it’s present.
The movie has 8,5 on IMDB - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2267998/?ref_=nv_sr_1
8,2 from users and 79 from critics on
MetaCritic - http://www.metacritic.com/movie/gone-girl
Starring: Andy Serkis, Jason Clarke, Gary Oldman, Toby Kebbell, Keri
Russell, Kodi Smit-McPhee, Nick Thurston
The story of “Dawn Of The Planet Of
The Apes” picks up about decade after the events in “Rise Of The Planet Of TheApes”. At that time the virus unleashed in the first movie has wiped out most
of humanity, while the apes are thriving and building their own community. This
film has a new director - Matt Reeves who did “Cloverfield”
in 2008. The old team of writers is joined by Mark Bomback and the result of
their collective effort is a better and smarter script.
“Rise Of The Planet Of The Apes” was quite
good. But this one is better in every aspect – the themes are more thoroughly
explored, the dialogue is smarter and the plot is meticulously thought through.
All characters in this film are well-rounded, this time both apes and humans.
Needless to say, Serkis as Casear and Toby Kebbell as Koba both give strong
compelling performances. And how could you forget the adorable Maurice (Karin Konoval)?!
As to the human characters – the leader of the group – Malcolm, played by Jason
Clarke is absolutely fascinating. Clarke puts so much emotion and intensity in his
character without even speaking, so you could easily believe that he’s a real
person dealing with his fears and desperation in a critical situation. Gary
Oldman in the role of Dreyfus, although given less screen time also manages to
create an intense and believable character. Sadly, the female heroes are not as
strongly presented.
“Dawn Of The Planet Of The Apes”
explores the main issues from the franchise more effectively, focusing on politics
and diplomacy in time of crisis and war. It touches on our anthropocentric philosophy
and self-entitlement as the better species. In a few scenes Koba takes
advantage of this mindset to fool a few humans to think he’s just a stupid
animal. And although kind of funny, these scenes are also very unsettling
exactly for the same reasons. Simply, but effectively this concept is later reversed
when Caesar says that he used to think that apes are better than humans.
The movie does really good job at
showing us the two sides of the conflict by focusing on two families from both
species. We understand their fears and desires and by exploring the tension within
both groups we see how thin the line between peace and war can be. On both
sides we have the piece-makers and the assholes. But the film treats them
equally, so we understand the motivations of the violent characters just as
well.
Strangely, the film has a little bit
of “Jurassic Park” feel, at least for me. There are a few scenes with people
nervously waiting in vehicles stopped in the middle of the rainy forest, a man
dragged from under a car and the most obvious one – people hiding from a stampede
of apes under a fallen tree. I don’t know if that’s on purpose, but as someone
who grew up with “Jurassic Park” I absolutely loved it. Speaking of this, “Dawn
Of The Planet Of The Apes” builds tension very well. For a while it also turns
into a war movie with well-directed action scenes and awesome dramatic shots.
Of course, at the end there is a little bit of spectacle, not over the top, but
suitable for a big blockbuster. Although well-done this act relies almost
entirely on CGI that’s a bit noticeable.
The soundtrack by Michael Giacchino draws
the attention with its more dominant use of percussions and a little bit old-school
dramatic vibe that also reminds me of older movies like “Tarzan” or maybe the
original “Planet Of The Apes”. I think it adds nicely to the great emotional
pull and themes of the movie. And finally, I’d like to give this entertaining,
endearing and smart cinematic adventure 5 Kubricks.
The movie has 8,0 on IMDB - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2103281/?ref_=ttfc_fc_tt
90% on RottenTomatoes -http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/dawn_of_the_planet_of_the_apes/?search=dawn%20of%20th
8,2 from users and 79 from critics on
MetaCritic - http://www.metacritic.com/movie/dawn-of-the-planet-of-the-apes
Director:
Jean-Luc Godard (appears as Jean-Luc Cinéma Godard, it’s a joke for the way
American directors present their movies)
Stars:
Anna Karina, Daniele Girard, Sami Frey, Claude Brasseur
“Bande
à part” is a New Wave film by one of the most influential French directors Jean-Luc
Godard. Its title derives from the phrase “faire bande à part”, which
means "to do something apart from the group." The film is an
adaptation of the novel “Fools' Gold” by Dolores Hitchens.
Most
Godard’s movies, especially these from the 1960s, are experiments in
deconstructing the conventional Hollywood stories. In an interview from 1964 Godard
said for “Bande à part”: “This movie was made as a reaction against anything
that wasn’t done… It went along with my desire to show that nothing was off
limits.” Despite the movie’s role mostly as a critique and exercise in
reinvention, it is now considered one of Godard's most accessible films.
The
story of “Bande à part” follows two wannabe gangsters - Franz (Sami Frey)
and Arthur (Claude Brasseur) when they meet Odile (Anna Karina) in an English
class. She is not only the “love interest”, but happens to live with her aunt
and another tenant, who has hidden a large amount of cash in the house. The duo’s
plan is to persuade Odile to help them steal the money.
By following
this plotline “Bande à part” becomes a crime B-movie satire with sometimes
poetic and profound insights that contradict its pulp origins and clichéd heroes.
A lot of high literary references are in contrast with the source material and the
popular culture that the heroes are immersed in. The movie nods to Shakespeare,
Thomas Hardy, T.S. Eliot, Jack London, Arthur Rimbaud and others. This rich
intertextuality helps Godard not just to criticize, but to rethink the clichés
of cinema by inventing new imagery from the old. The male duo at the center of
the movie often quote pulp novels and movies, even recreate legendary criminals
and events (pretending to shoot at each other), dreaming of the romanticized
life of crime. Interestingly, their English teacher is just as excited for
Shakespeare as they are for crime novels, but just like them has become
disconnected with reality.
There
are many parallels between the reality and the literature referenced in the
movie. Even the book, from which Franz reads to Odile (stating that it’s about
a girl just like her) is actually titled “Odile”. The rude way in which Arthur courts
Odile is in contrast with the love described in Shakespeare’s “Romeo and
Juliet”. The cool and witty criminals described in the books Franz reads couldn’t
have planned the disastrous and comical robbery, which takes place in the movie.
Similarly, the actions of Vincent and Jules in another unconventional crime
film - Quentin Tarantino’s “Pulp Fiction” seem contradictory to Jules’ favorite
Bible quotation.
So, what
happens if we live by the knowledge we acquired from pop culture? Does art at all
have the power to change our ways? Probably not, since Goddard seems to constantly
remind us that we’re watching a movie with a very present “auteur” behind the
camera (very apparent in the sarcastic voice-over that sometimes breaks the
fourth wall). For example, when Franz and Arthur tell Odile that they are going
to make a plan for the robbery, for a second she looks straight into the camera
asking “Why?” as if to ask us or the director. When she sings a song in the
subway and when Arthur tells us a story from Jack London, they are looking at
the camera again as to remind us that this is all made-up by emphasizing on the
external literary text. It’s like saying: “Here are some fictional stories in our
fictional story”. I guess that’s how Goddard would make “Inception”.
Sometimes
“Bande à part” can be really funny and full of contradictions, allowing
the innocent and foolish Odile and her not so pleasant male counterparts with
poor strategic abilities to occasionally provide insightful thoughts and
exciting dialogue. The two male characters are actually not the most
interesting part of the story, especially the more aggressive and meaner Arthur
and I personally wasn’t that invested in their story. But Odile surprisingly gets
more and more charming and mysterious as the film progress. For most of the
movie, I actually expected her to turn out to be the biggest schemer, but while
Godard follows the typical plot for the genre, he still plays with our
expectations (in this case making me feel stupid when I realize that I have
seen too many modern thrillers with too many plot twists), giving us characters
that are not as good at romance and crime as we are used to seeing in the
American criminal films. But Anna Karina’s performance is absolutely magnetic
and for me the culminating scene of the entire film is somewhere in the middle
when Odile starts singing in the subway while observing the lonely people in
the train. This was so unexpected and striking moment, emphasized by great
editing, that I suddenly started crying without even knowing why.
“Bande
à part” actually suggests that there might be some social and economic reasons
for the loneliness and anguish that result in the affection for the American culture.
Paris in this movie is bleak, lonely and with no future for the poor. Still, we
should have in mind that the American noir movies traditionally also have dark
tones. The movie beautifully reflects the loneliness and despair of our heroes
and their surroundings, which is synthetized in Odile’s song. Here we can see
why Godard said in an interview that “Bande à part” is "Alice in
Wonderland” meets Franz Kafka." We get a sense of the doom and despair
omnipresent in Kafka’s books, as well as the frivolous and playful, childish behavior
of the characters. Sometimes they really act like kids and ironically, Franz states
that the robbery “will be a child’s play.”
Till
the very end of film Goddard doesn’t stop juxtaposing the movie clichés with
the reality of the heroes’ actions, thus questioning them and creating his own charming,
mysterious and bleak reality. Another example of that is the difference between
the “fake” killings in the movie and the “real” one. When Arthur mimics the
death of Billy the Kid it looks realistic because that’s what he has seen in
many movies. But in the scene when he’s actually shot it looks artificial and intentionally
prolonged. Right before the end, after losing her lover Odile states “I’m
disgusted with life” and Arthur ponders over “how strange it is that people
never form a whole”. But just after that sad conversation they sail away, both
in love, happy and full with expectations for their new life, just as the
typical Hollywood movies should end. And the sarcastic voice-over promises us a
sequel about the tropical adventures of the couple.
There
are a few very famous scenes in Godard’s film that may seem quirky and random,
but give “Bande à part” a feeling of freedom and playfulness that pleasantly surprises.
The first scene features the trio, sitting in a coffeehouse, drinking Coke and
smoking. Out of boredom, Franz suggests for a minute of silence and then suddenly
not only the heroes become silent, but the sound of the movie is completely cut
off, until Franz interrupts it ("Enough of that.") and we hear all
the noises from the café again. This comical and memorable scene is probably
the best example for the use of silence on film. The quiet minute could also be
the basis for the “uncomfortable silences” that Mia and Vincent talk about in “Pulp
Fiction”.
The
second infamous scene is in the same café and includes the “Madison” dance that
the three of them do, while the voice-over interrupts the music to describe
their feelings. This scene inspired the famous dancing scene in “Pulp Fiction”
and Tarantino actually named his production company “A Band Apart
Films” after Goddard’s movie. There are even more similarities between the
two films, which are in no way devaluating “Pulp Fiction”. In both we are
introduced to a conventional crime story that has many surprising twists and
turns. Both movies are parodies of the genre (and in a way homages, too) and
both achieve wondrous moments of profundity between the romancing and the
crime-doing. They also have a main character reading a cheap crime novel (Vincent
and Franz) that falls in love with the wrong girl.
The third well-known scene from “Bande
à part” shows our heroes, childishly storming through the Louvre, trying to
break the record for fastest viewing of the museum, set by American, as the
voice-over points out. In review for the movie I read that this could symbolize
the brainwashing effect of the (american) pop culture on the youth unable to
notice the rich cultural landscape around. But with the intertextuality of the
film this scene could also represent cinema and art as a whole. New art is
always influenced by previous works (signified by the hallways of the Louvre)
and as Picasso said “Good artists copy, great artists steal”. Still, Godard tells us that big percentage of
the popular art runs like a child through the corridors of cultural legacy,
blindly following the established commercial formula without stopping to reinvent
its aesthetic and moral values. The Louvre scene could also simply mean that in
most cases art doesn’t really change our lives; it hangs beautifully, yet
quietly on the walls, while life passes way too fast through the endless
corridors…
As a whole, “Bande à part” is an interesting film to analyze
and search for clues, especially for anyone who wants to know more about the
history and development of cinema. It puts contemporary movies in context,
while still enchanting the audience. However, while not long (about hour and a
half) the movie might feel a bit slow at times. But this is also a result of
what conventional cinema has thought us and it’s nice to challenge yourself
sometimes. Finally, although I loved a lot of things about it, “Bande à part”
didn’t become one of my top movies, but I still think that it’s an intriguing
piece of inventive cinema that deserves attention.
Here’s
translation
of Odile’s song “J'entends, J'entends” and the entire song performed by Jean
Ferrat:
I
saw so many depart like that
All they’d ask for was a light
They settled for so little
They had so little anger in them
I hear their steps, I hear their voices
Speaking of things quite banal
Like things you read in the papers
Like things you say evenings at home
What are they doing to you, men and women
You tender stones, worn down too soon
Your appearances broken
My heart goes out at the sight of you
Things are what they are
From time to time, the earth trembles
Misfortune only misfortune resembles
So deep, so deep, so deep
You long to believe in blue skies
It’s a feeling I know quite well
I still believe at certain times
I still believe, I must admit
But I can’t believe my ears
Oh, yes I’m very much your peer
I am just the same as you
Like you, like a grain of sand
Like the blood forever split
Like the fingers always wounded
Yes, I am your fellow creature
Starring: Andy Serkis, James Franco, Freida Pinto,
John Lithgow, Tom Felton
“Rise Of The Planet Of The Apes” isn't a
sequel or a prequel to the original movies, it’s not exactly the standard
remake, too. It is closest to a re-imagining of “Conquest Of The
Planet Of The Apes” (1972) with different, more relatable for the 21st
century, plot.
Having said that, the great achievement of the movie
is to actually make the entire story of how the planet of the apes came to be
rather plausible. You don’t watch this movie occasionally going “That’s
absolutely ridiculous”. The story is pretty much straightforward, but the
detail is what makes it an enthralling experience. The movie is a little less
than 2 hours long and it feels like half an hour. I heard some complains about
the pacing in the beginning of the film, but for me it was timed
perfectly: it gives you time to get to know the characters before the
badassery of the apes ensues.
The movie has a surprising emotional pull and the
brilliant Andy Serkis as Caesar just breaks your heart. He is indeed the lead
in the movie and the most fleshed out character, not Will Rodman, the scientist
who takes care of him (played by James Franco). He is more schematic and far less
engaging, but sometimes reminds us of doctor Frankenstein. John Lithgow`s
performance as Will’s father is also good and touching. But as a whole the
humans are largely in the background of the story, the most intriguing
characters all throughout the movie remain the apes. The best example is Freida
Pinto’s role as Will’s girlfriend who, except for being very beautiful, doesn't really
have anything to do on the screen. But that’s not that unsettling,
since the monkeys are genuinely fascinating and the movie deliberately focuses
on them. You understand their motivations and even root for them by the end.
The cinematography is great, the movie is beautifully
shot. The CGI is also excellent (all motion capture), for me
it wasn't entirely convincing in the scenes with the younger Caesar,
but it didn't really take me out of the story. I have
another minuscule gripe – the presence of a little bit of voice-over,
which probably the movie could go without.
The movie touches the well-known questions about
intelligence, our treatment of animals (minorities if you wish), corporal
greed, what can be justified in the name of science etc. These problems are
presented, although not explored in huge dept. Still, “Rise Of The Planet Of
The Apes” is a terrific movie, well above the average blockbuster – it is
visually gripping, smart, well-balanced and moving. I give it 4 and a half Kubricks.
Stars: Michael Fassbender, Domhnall
Gleeson, Maggie Gyllenhaal
This
movie followsthe journey of Jon, portrayed
by Domhnall Gleeson, who is searching for his place on the music scene and in life
in general, when he happens to play keyboards for Frank’s band with unpronounceable
name “The Soronprfbs”. He’s fascinated with Frank, not just because of the fake
head he’s wearing all the time, but his musical talent and mysterious personality.
Frank Sidebottom, Captain Beefheart,
Daniel Johnston are among the musicians that inspired the movie. However, you
can enjoy the story even you haven’t heard these names. Jon Ronson, one of the
co-writers was actually part of Frank Sidebottom’s band, but the screenplay,
initially based on his
publications, later became an absolutely fictional story. And Peter
Straughan is already an established name with Oscar nomination for “Tinker
Tailor Soldier Spy”.
In
the trailer and promotional clips for the movie, we have heard probably the
weirdest parts of the score, but in fact, the soundtrack provides some really
exceptional, even profound songs. The fictional band in the movie does feel
like a real band and the songs (written by Stephen Rennicks) have a fresh,
unique sound. What makes it feel so organic and special is also the fact that
it was recorded on the set by the actors (the drummer is actually a pro
musician –Carla Azar from the band Autolux).
The
movie is original and unpredictable, without it seeming forced or simply
random. It really gives you the sense that everything on the screen happens
organically and that you are observing the creative process of this band
consisting of unique, intriguing characters. The little narration in the movie
is given to us via social media posts, which is not simply convenient, but
questions how we use these tools to represent ourselves and particularly how it
affects the creative process.
“Frank”
plays with our preconceptions about musical genius and madness, it questions what
is to be truly unique and creative, rather than simply mediocre (as one of the characters
puts it “There can be only one Frank”), how do you stay true to yourself and
your music etc. The movie beautifully draws both intense and quiet scenes that
can be really profound at times and constantly increases our interest in the
characters.
The
directorial work is outstanding; all performances are absolutely great,
starting from Maggie Gyllenhaal’s extreme and magnetic role to Michael
Fassbender’s undeniable talent as comedian, who also manages to create a moving
and intriguing character without even showing his face.
“Frank”
is a genuinely funny piece of cinema with a lot of laughs along the way, but
it’s not only a comedy, it maneuvers between emotions effortlessly, mixing humor
and drama to create the engrossing atmosphere of a great tragicomedy. By the
end “Frank”becomes an absorbing and
poignant piece of movie-making. It is not easy to compare it to anything else
and it’s full of energy, wit and wonder. It deserves 5 full Kubricks.
