Archive for the ‘Theatrical Film Review’ Category
Directed by Edgar Wright
Scott Pilgrim is not unlike the sorts of indie hipsters you run into on the streets of Toronto, or any other metropolis.
You see him at Bloor Cinema, catching the latest zombie movie. You see him at Sonic Boom, shopping for records by bands you’ve never heard of. You see him at Lee’s Palace, seeing those bands live – hoping that one day his band (or her band, for there are many female Scott Pilgrims out there) can gain the amount of respectability to get booked there too.
In many ways, Scott Pilgrim (Michael Cera) is his generation’s Rob Gordon (the mid-thirtyish protagonist of High Fidelity). He likes rock music, video games and girls – and as soon as a new one dazzles him, he’s forgotten about everything else in his life. Pilgrim is happily dating a high school girl and playing in a band, until he meets Ramona Flowers (Mary Elizabeth Winstead), at which point the only priority in his life is winning her heart.
Unfortunately for Pilgrim, Ramona comes with some baggage. In order to be with her, she warns him that he must defeat all seven of her evil exes. This is where the video game motif comes in. Each time Scott faces one of Ramona’s exes, we are immediately thrust into a world reminiscent of Street Fighter II or Dragonball Z. When Scott defeats Ramona’s first evil ex-boyfriend, Matthew Patel, he bursts into coins – much like a villain in Super Mario Bros. would. Meanwhile, an old school computer font flashes a large “1,000″ for points scored. After defeating another evil ex, Scott reaches for a “1 Up” icon of his face, denoting an extra life.
Each face-off with one of Ramona’s evil exes is staged like a video game level, with a different soundtrack, different backdrop and different villain. All of these villains seem equipped with superhuman strength and some sort of supernatural or metaphysical ability. Although sleek and agile, he must use his creativity to defeat each one of them, leading up to the group’s mastermind, music promoter Gideon Graves (Jason Schwartzman).
Elsewhere in the film, we get to see Scott interact with a great supporting cast. His sister (Anna Kendrick) and roommate (Kieran Culkin) in particular try their hardest to keep Scott grounded in reality, even if it never manages to work for very long. Also entertaining are Pilgrim’s bandmates Stephen Stills (Mark Webber), Young Neil (Johnny Simmons) and Kim Pine (Alison Pill), not to mention his initial girlfriend Knives Chau (Ellen Wong), who he ditches as soon as Ramona comes along.
Scott Pilgrim may be the titular character of the film and the one we find ourselves rooting for (when he’s not being an asshole), but the true hero of Scott Pilgrim vs. The World is director Edgar Wright, who has taken visual and musical cues from video games, television and comic books and delivered a well-crafted, widly entertaining feature film. Even the opening Universal logo and music are done up in the style of an 8-bit video game, and audio and visual cues are all over the rest of the film.
All of the important elements of Bryan Lee O’Malley’s graphic novels have stayed intact, most importantly the uniquely Torontonian references and setting. Admittedly, as a Torontonian, it’s a unique thrill to see a film produced by an American company and directed by a Brit take place in my city. There are a few jokes that may be lost on foreign audiences, but I secretly wait in vain until one of my friends visits and requests the “Scott Pilgrim Experience Tour.”
Whether you work for a small business of fifteen employees or a multinational corporation of thousands, chances are that the current economic climate has led to some unfortunate personnel changes. This is precisely the backdrop of Jason Reitman’s third feature film, Up In The Air. The film centers on Ryan Bingham (George Clooney), a man who flies around the United States to tell people that their “position is no longer available.” In other words, he fires people for a living. But more than that, he is checking in and out of airports, staying in airport hotels and flying in airplanes.
Some people would find this lifestyle exhausting, but not Bingham. He finds it exhilarating. His dream is to become the seventh person to ever hit the 10 million mile mark. When he’s not firing people, he’s giving motivational speeches entitled “What’s In Your Backpack?” He encourages people to make the same decisions as he has by not overloading themselves with mortgages, possessions and even friends, family and acquaintances.
Bingham claims he doesn’t feel isolated because he’s constantly surrounded by people. This changes when he meets Alex (Vera Farmiga), a fellow frequent flyer. The two share travel tips, compare loyalty program membership cards and fall for each other pretty quickly. Parting ways is tough for both of them, and they scramble to coordinate their busy schedules so they can meet again in a different city.
Meanwhile, Bingham’s lifestyle is being put at risk by the fresh ideas of Natalie Keener (Anna Kendrick), a young new hire at Bingham’s company who has come up with a streamlined system of firing people via online chat windows, all from their physical office in Omaha. Ryan’s boss Craig Gregory (Jason Bateman) is all for the idea and the cost savings associated with it. Bingham doesn’t like it one bit, but takes Keener under his wing and shares his experiences with her.
Some of the most memorable scenes in the film are the reactions of the various people getting fired. Some are young, but many are older people who have been at their company for many years. Some take it calmly, while others are hysterical. Bingham and Keener have clearly been trained to position themselves as coaches who are going to help these people find new careers. They do their research. During one of these firings, Bingham reminds someone (J.K. Simmons) of their interest in culinary arts and their promise as a young chef.
With Thank You For Smoking, Juno and now Up In The Air, Jason Reitman is positioning himself as one of the first auteurs in a new generation of filmmakers. His filmmaking is distinctive, featuring great visuals and a wonderful script. Just as you expect the storyline to take a predictable turn, Up In The Air manages to surprise the viewer by offering something a bit different than what they might have expected.
It is almost heartbreakingly naive to believe that in a world so ruined and stripped of life and true humanity – a world so obviously over – any amount of goodness could really tip the balance. One could argue that only a child could hold this belief, especially one whose moral compass clearly has two points: good and bad.
The means to the world’s end in The Road (based on the Pulitzer prize winning book by Cormac McCarthy) is never explained, but after the apocalypse, this child (Kodi Smit-McPhee) and his father (Viggo Mortensen) journey to the southeastern coast of the US, keeping to the land off the beaten path. Stumbling and starved, the two plod on through a cold, dangerous and unrelenting environment, dodging thieves, cannibals and their own fear.
Despite their desperate love for each other, there are momentary bits of friction here as the boy inevitably grows and matures in a way his father had intended but for which he had not prepared. The boy doesn’t know where he’s going, but because he’s never known what the world used to be, he refuses to believe that this is all that the world is. Although we feel the boy cannot possibly hope to triumph over what the end has wrought, it is in the nature of a beloved child to aspire. His father, however, does remember the time before this life, remembers when their family was complete and his wife and the boy’s mother (Charlize Theron) was alive, and he knows that he’ll never have that again. While the father’s prime directive is to keep his son alive and safe, the boy has set his sights on remaining good and true, carrying “the fire” for them both.
The onus to relate the pair’s journey and their encounters along the way is not placed on pulsing, retina-jabbing special effects. All of the wreckage and ruin seen here is genuine footage from the aftermath of actual disasters and most of the film is shot in some surprisingly desolate locales in Pennsylvania, of all places. Likewise, this is not so much a story as a jagged, character-driven depiction of a fragment of a family’s life, broken in many ways.
One would hope that when faced with the end of the world, he or she would react with decency and humanity, that when encountering others fighting for their lives, one would extend oneself in a grand gesture of compassion. Indeed, survival and societal rebirth lies in hope and mercy, in the alleviation of the suffering of others, and a reminder of this often comes in the form of a child’s hope. It has been opined that the film does not always capture the desperate and immediate intensity of the father/son relationship, but it’s important to remember that this is not a big budget disaster movie, or even a disaster movie: this is a study in surviving ongoing, post-disaster emotional trauma. There are many layers, many undercurrents; Hillcoat, Mortensen and the impressive Smit-McPhee have seen to that and their work here deserves attention and appreciation. The film should be given further examination, perhaps long after the credits roll. It’s certainly worth that much.
From his indie breakthrough feature Bottle Rocket though 2007’s The Darjeeling Limited, Wes Anderson has made a name as one of the indie film world’s most polarizing directors. Either you buy into his quirkiness and off-the-wall humor and “just go with it” or you don’t. My love of The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou has been met with blank stares by a number of friends and acquaintances.
Anderson’s new film, Fantastic Mr. Fox, adapted rather loosely from Roald Dahl’s 1970 children’s book of the same name, is unlikely to do anything to change anyone’s mind about Anderson’s unique sensibility. But for moviegoers attuned to his love of goofballs and eccentrics and his knack for inventive dialogue, it must rank as one of his finest achievements.
Painstakingly produced over a number of years, first in tandem with Henry Selick, who left the project to work on his own Coraline, Fantastic Mr. Fox follows the adventures of the title character, a reformed chicken thief turned family fox, who, restless with middle age, decides to pull one last grand heist at the expense of Boggis, Bunce and Bean, three unsavory local mega-farmers.
Using stop-motion techniques, beautifully crafted dolls and a stunning variety of miniature sets, Anderson succeeds in drawing the viewer completely into Mr. Fox’s world. He is helped in no small part by a number of outstanding voice performances, most notably George Clooney as Mr. Fox — self-confident to a fault and possessing a devilish charm. Meryl Streep’s Mrs. Fox is a down-to-earth contrast to Mr. Fox’s lofty plans and schemes. A number of other Anderson regulars are on hand as well, including Jason Schwartzman as the couple’s son Ash and Bill Murray as Mr. Fox’s attorney, Badger. Owen Wilson has a brief turn as Coach Skip, who teaches young Ash and his visiting cousin Kristofferson to play whackabat, a ludicrous cross between cricket and quidditch.
Naturally, Mr. Fox’s brilliant plan begins to unravel, and the second half of the film finds he and his family and friends in dire straits, pursued to ridiculous lengths by the three vengeful farmers. The jerky style of stop-motion animation would not seem to be conducive to telling a story with a great deal of emotional heft, but the relationships between the animal characters – most notably between Mr. and Mrs. Fox and between Mr. Fox and Ash – are so beautifully drawn that you may find yourself investing as much or more in this animal family as you would in any human family. The figures, faces, fur and eyes have a remarkably lifelike quality. For those who associate stop-motion animation with hokey claymation or third-rate film school projects, this is art of a different order.
So the question remains, “Is this a movie for kids?” For those raised on Pixar and Disney, it certainly could be a bit of shock to the system. But for me (and my kids, age seven and nine, who loved the film), Fantastic Mr. Fox is a welcome antidote to the slew of cookie-cutter CGI features coming out of Hollywood.
Starring Joaquin Phoenix, Sigourney Weaver, Adrien Brody, William Hurt
Written, Produced and Directed by M. Night Shyamalan
“The world is in awe of love, it kneels at the feet of love.” –The Village
A small, tightly woven group of people lead simple, blissfully sheltered lives in Covington, Pennsylvania. For years, a truce has kept them away from the surrounding woods and the mysterious beings who reside inside them, Those Who Must Not Be Named, until one resident, Lucius Hunt (Joaquin Phoenix) steps beyond the border. His boldness leads the community into a nightmare, and threatens to change their peaceful existence forever.
This is Shyamalan: superb directing, great camera angles, odd little details (hint: newspaper) and tension, tension, tension. It’s dark, it’s freaky, the trees whip around rather menacingly, and there are lots of thuds on doors. And yes, the expected plot twist is there, and of course it’s bizarre.
But is it a good bizarre? Well, partly. The first bit is a surprise, and while I didn’t see it coming and that’s good, I was a bit sorry it came, and that’s not good. The last bit of the twist was, sadly, not much of a surprise, and clumsier than what we’re accustomed to from M. Night.
What the film is lacking in bug juice, it makes up for in other ways. M. Night has always been able to cast just the right people, and the highlight here is Bryce Howard, who plays Ivy Walker, the blind daughter of one of the village elders. Howard is a quietly strong actress and what could have been a flaky, hysterical girl is instead a headstrong, resourceful leader. Without saying much more, the film isn’t so much a horror movie as something else: it turns out to be M. Night’s Life Lesson, which is okay, because that in itself is perfectly acceptable if it’s allowed to take root. Yeah. I’m talking in circles. I have to, it’s an M. Night film. Go see it.
Starring Morgan Spurlock
Written & Directed by Morgan Spurlock
Why do we go to McDonalds? Is it because we like the taste of the McNugget? Is it because we fondly remember their indoor playgrounds? Their cookies and soft serve ice cream? Breakfast? Ronald? Grimace? Remember Grimace?
I was once one of the millions of children that were warped into the McDonalds Mind Machine. The television told me that McDonalds was fun and that if I made my parents take me there I would get a toy with my Happy Meal. I definitely enjoyed McDonalds, and in many ways, I still like the occasional Quarter Pounder with cheese. Of course, as McDonalds is not even a minor part of my diet, I am not the target audience of Super Size Me. The film seems to aim to show obese Americans what they are doing to themselves through the consumption of fast food. As a relatively healthy guy who likes to splurge every once in a while, I can identify with the film’s writer, director, and star, Morgan Spurlock, a man who decided to take a giant plunge into the McDiet.
For years, individuals have attempted to sue large corporations over selling them toxic products, such as cigarettes. Recently, the US senate passed the “Cheeseburger Bill,” which essentially states that fast food chains cannot be sued over selling unhealthy food to their customers. It is up to the customer to decide whether or not they want to continue to buy their food, and most often they do.
Before the “Cheeseburger Bill” came around (and the bill was not introduced until after Super Size Me had already had its early screenings), many of these lawsuits simply never took off. Unless people could prove that it was the fast food restaurants alone that were damaging their health, there was nothing they had to prove.
The brain behind Super Size Me, Morgan Spurlock set out to prove a point. He set out on the seemingly insane task of eating nothing but McDonalds for breakfast, lunch, and dinner, every day for thirty days and record the effects it would have on his health. The film is largely a chronicle of this adventure in fast food, in which Spurlock visits several American cities and repeated visits to various types of doctors and nutritionists, who log his progress.
Over the course of Spurlock’s experiment, the film also looks at interesting aspects of the fast food industry and how it affects Americans. There is a large focus on children, and how school cafeterias are loading them with junk food. It also shows us how they are exposed to thousands of fast food advertisements on a constant basis. Is fast food the new tobacco, or alcoholism? After watching what a McDiet did to Spurlock after only thirty days, doctors who initially expected little to come of it were surprised to find that it was just as damaging to his health.
I was hoping that Super Size Me would put me off of fast food forever. I even had my last trip to McDonalds a day before seeing the film to prepare myself. However, in many ways I found myself craving a Big Mac while watching them on the big screen. Could this be evidence of addictive substances in McDonalds’ image and food? Perhaps I am simply allowing them to win, and my love/hate relationship with McDonalds will continue well into the future. But in this age of heart and liver failure, if people are able to quit smoking and drinking, surely we can all quit McDonalds knowing what it does to the human body.
Written and Directed by Michael Moore
Michael Moore certainly has a lot to say. Over the past two years, he has written, produced, and directed a controversial Academy Award winning film, Bowling for Columbine, which later caused even more of a media uproar when in his acceptance speech, Moore openly criticized President Bush for engaging in a “fictitious war” in Iraq. He also wrote two books (Stupid White Men, andDude, Where’s My Country?) that both spent a significant amount of time on the New York Times Best Seller list, and has again written, produced, and directed a film that has not only become the highest grossing documentary of all time (beating out the previous record holder, Bowling for Columbine, by more than twofold), but also one that has earned the top prize at the Cannes Film Festival, the Palm d’Or.
Fahrenheit 9/11 is Moore’s most controversial film to date, and for good reason. It critically deals with the current U.S. administration and how they handled one of the worst tragedies America has ever had to deal with. Controversy is nothing new to Moore’s films, dating back to his first film, Roger & Me, where Moore played up his status as the “little guy” by trying to expose ugly truths about the big bad corporation, General Motors. In this film he doesn’t go after a corporation, but instead the head honchos of the US government itself. It blatantly accuses the U.S. President of rigging the 2000 election to secure his victory, calls him a bald-faced liar in regards to connections between September 11th and the war in Iraq, and even goes so far as to point out some not-so flattering connections between the Bush family and the bin Ladens. Moore’s points are made in such a way that they pull on all of the emotional strings he can find, making each member of the audience laugh, cry, get angry, and most importantly, be inspired to change the status quo.
What surprised me the most about this film, believe it or not, was how little I was surprised by the information Moore provided. Having already read both Stupid White Men and Dude, Where’s My Country?, very little of the information he provided was new to me. Obviously, the film medium will reach a wider audience, and Moore wants to ensure that this information is accessible to all – especially the voting population within the United States. And yet, it is unfortunate that Moore could not come up with much in the way of new material for the film.
With that said, I do believe this is a film that should be seen, even if you’ve read Moore’s books. The visual representation of the information he provides makes it all the more powerful, though perhaps more likely to be tagged as pure propaganda. Moore has provided a website (www.michaelmoore.com - where else?) with sources backing up the data used in the film, with multiple sources for each tidbit.
See the film. Find your own criticisms, and form your own opinions. Oh yeah, and vote.
Starring Ethan Hawke and Julie Delpy
Directed by Richard Linklater
Two young strangers meet on a train, fall in love and wave goodbye just hours later. In nine years, the press is interviewing Jesse (Ethan Hawke) in a hip Paris bookstore. He’s on tour with his new book of obsessions inspired by his brief time with Celine (Julie Delpy) fromBefore Sunrise (1995). Jesse muses while we’re reminded of poetic moments from the first film. He’s on the last stop of his tour, and the plane back to America leaves in a few hours. In walks his mythic Celine.
This is Richard Linklater’s Before Sunset (2004), a thought-provoking and sincerely funny romantic drama. Linklater has gained popularity with the stoner comedyDazed and Confused (1993) and the recent Jack Black comedy School of Rock (2003). To his fans, he’s known best for a unique loose narrative structure and philosophical dialogue, as evidenced from his debut feature Slacker (1991), up to the dream-induced Waking Life (2001).
In Before Sunrise, the first film, the two strangers hit it off and have a romantic night together. In Before Sunset, they come together as friends with a short time to catch up. Jesse addresses the surreal feeling of suddenly being together. This is a situation more of us have found ourselves in, even the most cynically romance-straved. How does one take advantage of a couple hours with an old lover? By truly ‘being there’ in each other’s company.
The decade has matured both Jesse and Celine as well as Hawke and Deply’s natural acting. The distinction between actors and characters becomes blurred; Hawke has really written two romance novels. In addition to Linklater, the sequel’s screenplay was co-written by both lead actors.
The Paris locations are stunning, not as a typical exotic movie backdrop but as real, wandering spaces of Paris. The would-be lovers leisurely experience a small cafe, a subdued park and a beautiful boat ride down the canal while the camera follows at their pace.
While a conventional dramatic film is based on a series of conflicts, Before Sunset is freed from this storytelling technique. Despite the unorthodox structure, the pace seldom falters and the viewer remains engaged. The philosophical discussion can be enjoyed on its own terms, philosophizing about astronomy, gun ownership, environmentalism, the apocalypse… I feel these tangential conversations are an effective way to explore the true nature/theme of love. In Waking Life, Before Sunrise co-writer Kim Krizan discusses the importance of intimate conversation as true spiritual connection. Normal chatter can be misinterpreted and doesn’t connect two individuals. When able to share the full power of words, one can extend beyond themselves and connect deeply with another. If this doesn’t sound appealing, skip Before Sunset and head towards another summer sequel.
The viewing context of the film is crucial. Don’t see it with your old drinking buddy, and instead invite that new friend, or the old friend you wish to reconnect with. After the credits roll and you’ve wandered from the theatre, resist the temptation to discuss the film. Don’t discuss the opening montage, great camera movement or minimal editing. The film ends without a conventional climax and resolution, so when we turn to our friend, we’re left in the same heady romantic mood. Keep the spirit alive and enjoy an intimate conversation of your own.
You are currently browsing the archives for the Theatrical Film Review category.