“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:

“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:

“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:

“Guardians Of The Galaxy” Movie Review

Year: 2014

Director: James Gunn

Writers: James Gunn, Nicole Perlman

Stars: Chris Pratt, Vin Diesel, Bradley Cooper , Zoe Saldana, David Bautista, Lee Pace, Michael Rooker

“Guardians Of The Galaxy” is funny, action-packed, full of adventures and most importantly – unique and lovable characters. In the first part of the movie we see how The Guardians meet and their formation as the group of outsiders that will save the galaxy. This part is a bit rushed and their motivations don’t seem completely clear. However, you can let that slide, knowing that this movie has the big task to present not only a whole new team of largely unknown heroes without doing origin stories; it also has to introduce the audience to the huge cosmic Marvel universe for the first time. And it does these things pretty well, while watching the movie you are immersed in this vast and colourful world. Besides The Guardians, you see other important personas and places in the galaxy, new races and essential entities from the Marvel universe like the Nova Corps, Yondu (Michael Rooker) or The Collector (Benicio del Toro).

“Guardians Of The Galaxy” is arguably the funniest Marvel movie and it can be easily classified as comedy. It has kind of goofy, cheeky humor and it’s very self-aware (in a good way). If you like that kind of thing, you will definitely love it. I saw it twice in the cinema, the second time the audience wasn't very excited, but at the first screening there were people around me who laughed so hard that scared me. There were also audible reactions to some of the songs. It was just one of these rare movie-going experiences when even if everyone is a bit noisy, there’s this feeling of shared excitement.

Of course, as everyone already knows even without seeing the movie - the soundtrack is great, with the songs perfectly fitting the scenes and keeping the humanity and its culture at the heart of this crazy, alien world. It’s not just great achievement as a music collection, but the way it is integrated as a central part of the story, even as a character by itself.

The story in its essence is not very unique or different from that of the other Marvel movies. But it’s presented in a fresh, heartfelt form, revolving around a few memorable and intriguing badass characters. Chris Pratt as Star Lord (Peter Quill) is… well, he is THE Star Lord. He is funny, charming, a bit heartbroken and lost in this crazy world, where he is the only human. Peter Quill is the most fleshed-out character and he is at the heart of the story. The other big stars of the movie (and not just for the kids) are definitely Rocket Raccoon (Bradley Cooper) and Groot (Vin Diesel). With their unique friendship and backstories, along with the amazing CGI, these two can easily steal the show, providing some of the most emotional and funny moments in the movie. Gamora (Zoe Saldana) and Drax (David Bautista) aren't exactly on the same level, but I hope that they’ll have more screen time in the next movie. It is also true that the villain is quite plain, but that didn't really bother me. The only character (or the acting – I’m not really sure) that actually annoyed me was Nebula (Karen Gillan) - there’s just something about her manner of moving and speaking (it’s probably subjective), but I guess there wasn't much time for her backstory as well. Outside the Guardians the most intriguing character for me was definitely Yondu. And his weapon… wow!

The movie looks great and it is certainly the most colourful Marvel film with some really amazing space scenery. The space imagery, along with the action sequences, would probably look even better and clearer without the 3D. Still, the 3D wasn't bad and it was actually used in a really fun way for a few scenes.

“Guardians Of The Galaxy” makes me very excited about the sequel, because now that it has laid out the basics we can get more character development. And I can’t imagine how excited I would be if I watched this as a kid (especially for Rocket and Groot). So, I will give this charming and refreshing space opera 5 Kubricks, although I realize that it might be the geeky part of me speaking… 

The movie has 8,5 on IMDB - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2015381/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1

8,6 from users and 76 from critics on MetaCritic - http://www.metacritic.com/movie/guardians-of-the-galaxy

91% on RottenTomatoes - http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/guardians_of_the_galaxy/

Trailer:

“Frank” Review

Year: 2014

Director: Lenny Abrahamson

Writers: Jon Ronson, Peter Straughan

Stars: Michael Fassbender, Domhnall Gleeson, Maggie Gyllenhaal

This movie follows the 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. 

“Frank has” 93% from critics on RottenTomatoes - http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/frank_2014/

7.0 on IMDB - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1605717/

6,8 from users and 75 from critics on MetaCritic - http://www.metacritic.com/movie/frank

Trailer:

And one of my favorite songs from the movie (I guess it may be considered a minor spoiler):