Hello hello! Miss me? Well I’m not exactly back yet, I’m extending my hiatus probably until after Christmas. I’ve been diligently working on my script daily and I don’t want to lose momentum. I might still do a post here and there if I have time and feel like doing it, so don’t forget me 😉
Well, we’ve been watching a ton of great movies, both new releases and rewatches, thanks to the four-day Thanksgiving weekend. Here they are in alphabetical order…
Disney Short Films Collection Worth seeing if you love Disney and short films. It’s a pretty eclectic collection and some of them you might’ve seen. The Little Matchgirl one got me bawling, it’s such a heartbreaking story. I remember seeing a stage adaptation of that as a kid and even that stayed with me for years! …
Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part 2 This was one of the craziest press screenings ever with thousands of people, mostly teens, lining up for hours at a local IMAX theater. But the movie was so ho hum, I could barely remember anything about it now and it was so darn predictable. It just reinforced me what a terrible actor Liam Hemsworth truly is and honestly I’m bored at seeing Jennifer Lawrence‘s face, which was practically in every single scene. It still pains me to watch the late Philip Seymour Hoffman though. …
If I were to review this movie, it’d just be a collection of pictures of how Bond-like Tom Hardy looked in most of the scenes, well when he’s playing Reggie that is. Ron, not so much. But he’s really the reason to see it, otherwise it’s a pretty standard gangster flick.
A witty indie comedy/drama that takes place over a single night. The dialog is sometimes raunchy, but there’s a genuine chemistry between the two leads and the script is refreshingly honest and has a natural flow to it. Definitely worth a look. Stay tuned for my interview with writer/director Charles Hood on Wednesday! …
Spotlight This film about the uncovering of the sexual abuse scandal by Catholic priests in Massachusetts will certainly rile you up and stay with you for days. This fine ensemble cast certainly lives up to its stellar reviews. It’s a riveting, disturbing, and emotionally-gratifying from start to finish. Terrific script and top notch cast that’s thankfully NOT wasted. Definitely one of the best investigative journalism film of all time, right up there with All the President’s Men. …
I LOVE films about Classic Hollywood and if you’re a fan of Bryan Cranston, then it’s an absolute must-see. He’s electrifying as Dalton Trumbo, one of the Hollywood 10 screenwriters who were jailed and blacklisted for their political beliefs. …
I had the pleasure of seeing Tom Hiddleston as Coriolanus during a National Live Theater presentation at a local cinema last week. It was a powerful and mesmerizing performance from the Shakespearean actor. I wish I could’ve seen it live on stage, which would’ve been amazing to watch considering how intimate the Donmar Theatre was, it seats only 250!
Man in the High Castle (season 1)
I have to do a whole post on this series as I have a lot to say about this Philip K. Dick’s adaptation. But for sure Rufus Sewell is one of the highlights here, if only the producers realized that and give him more screen time in future seasons.
I rewatched a ton of movies this past month, which turns out to be quite an eclectic collection now that I think about it. Hey, I love the action stuff as much as the romantic love stories 😉
Captain America: The Winter Soldier
For Your Eyes Only
Mad Max: Fury Road
Midnight in Paris
Not Another Happy Ending
Movie of the Month
Well, that’s my November update. What about you, what’s your favorite film you saw last month?
Hello everyone! You might’ve noticed I’m not blogging as regularly of late after the flurry of Twin Cities Film Fest. Well, I’ve been wanting to take a real blogging break and since this is Thanksgiving week, it sounds like the perfect time.
I’ve been wanting to really focus on my script and so I also plan to blog less in the coming weeks. I’m really close to finishing my script but as with many things in life, the last stretch is often the toughest. But before I do so, I wanted to share just my quick thoughts on two recent films in which the protagonist has been the subject of many films/tv projects. Thankfully we’ve got two very competent thespians in the lead of both movies (movie geeks will probably realize they’ve played the same role in the X-Men franchise).
STEVE JOBS (2015) Steve Jobs takes us behind the scenes of the digital revolution, to paint a portrait of the man at its epicenter. The story unfolds backstage at three iconic product launches, ending in 1998 with the unveiling of the iMac.
My hubby and I are huge fan of everything Steve Jobs had built, as we pretty much use solely Apple products in our homes: Macbook, iPad, iPhone, Apple TV, etc. So we’re quite familiar with his life and my hubby has read Jobs’ biography by Walter Isaacson and at first I was rather reluctant to see this given that it’s mostly a work of fiction. Well, ahead of the press screening, I read a bunch of articles that outline its inaccuracies, which I’ve listed in this comment section. That fact actually helped tamper my expectation about the film, but as soon as the film started I was immediately engrossed in the film. Ok so Michael Fassbender didn’t resemble Steve Jobs one bit, but it hardly matters once he started spewing lines from Aaron Sorkin‘s sharp script.
I have to say the film is quite mesmerizing, Fassbender is as charismatic as ever, as I think he captured the essence of Jobs’s magnetic but difficult personality. Apparently he memorized the entirety of the 180-page script which is just incredible. The supporting cast is equally phenomenal. Kate Winslet is fantastic as Jobs’ loyal marketing exec Joanna Hoffman and the constant banters they have are entertaining, even her Polish accent is quite believable. But my favorite supporting cast has got to be Jeff Daniels as Jobs’ former BFF and business partners John Sculley whom Jobs stopped speaking with when he was fired from Apple. Even Sculley himself was reportedly impressed by Daniels’ performance, even though most of the conversations between them never took place. One thing I didn’t really care for is Seth Rogen‘s performance as Steve Wozniak, which seems so sensationalized and just didn’t ring true at all. Yes the rest was pure fiction but at least they seemed believable. It’s ironic since Rogen apparently met with Wozniak extensively for the role.
That said, I definitely recommend this film. Danny Boyle‘s fine directing brings the fine elements of the script and performance to life and the camera angles and intriguing shots certainly liven up an otherwise dull scenes of talking people. If you’re going into this film expecting excellent dialog and great acting, then you won’t be disappointed. Just don’t expect a documentary because Sorkin himself envisioned it more like a ‘painting, not a photograph.’
Mr. Holmes (2015)
Now, Sherlock Holmes’ adaptation has been done many times over, but this one seems to have an intriguing angle that’s rarely seen. The aged, retired London detective is dealing with early dementia, as he tries to remember his final case and a woman, the memory of whom still haunts him. Ian McKellen is perfectly cast in the role, playing Sherlock as a 60 and 93 years old. As he returns to Sussex in 1947, he ends up befriending the young son of his housekeeper, Roger (Milo Parker). The interraction between these two is the heart of the film.
The curious kid had been through Holmes’ study and it’s clear that he wanted the detective to work again. Through his proding and also because he’s still hunted by his final case, Holmes started writing again. The film goes through several flashback scenes, which is handled very well and definitely adds the mystery aspect one would expect from a Sherlock Holmes film. Hattie Morahan is terrific as the woman central to Holmes’ case and there’s a heartfelt exchange between the two that undoubtedly left a mark on him. As the film progressed, it’s apparent that the older Holmes is a changed man and that he has learned that intellect and logic alone often won’t solve issues involving matters of the heart.
McKellen is effortlessly magnetic here, as he always is, and he is whom I’d imagine an older Holmes to be. The usually excellent Laura Linney has a rather distracting British accent here as Holmes’ housekeeper, though I think towards the end she redeemed herself in the role. I do love Milo Parker as Roger who more than held his own against his much older and far more experienced co-star.
I wasn’t impressed with Bill Condon’s direction of The Fifth Estate (which strangely enough starred Benedict Cumberbatch who became famous playing Sherlock on BBC), but he did a good job here. It’s a slow-burn narrative that remains interesting even when there’s not much going on, and the film is beautifully shot. It’s the quintessential character study of a titular character that certainly merits its existence.
Have you seen either one of these? Do share your thoughts in the comments!
Ahead of the release of The Peanuts Movie, St. Paul MN mayor Saint Paul Mayor Chris Coleman declared that October 20, 2015 “Charles M. Schulz Day.” He presented the film’s writer/producer Craig Schulz (son of Charles M. Schulz) with a proclamation making, followed by red carpet interviews and family-friendly celebrations that include face-painting, photos with Snoopy, trick-or-treating, pumpkin decorating, food trucks & more!
I had the privilege to chat with both Craig Schulz and the film’s director Steve Martino that same week, along with fellow bloggers Paul McGuire Grimes from Paul Trip’s To The Movies and Emmylou Barden from Donnahup.com. Thanks Paul for helping transcribe the interview!
Paul McGuire Grimes:What inspired you to bring it back, rejuvenate it, and bring it to a new audience?
Craig Schulz:A couple of things. It was eight years ago when I had the idea for the movie. There was a challenge to start it, how was I going to get this passed the family, and New York, find a studio, and everything else. I was determined, so it was an uphill battle. We went through a lot of steps to get there, and at one point I sat down with Bryan, my son, and Neil [Uliano] who are the co-writers of the project and producers, and we spent a month locked up in a house together crafting what would be the treatment for this movie and then we met with Ralph from Fox and Ralph loved it.
He said “We’d love to buy it” and it was a matter of finding the team to build it. Bryan had met with all the studios and we decided that we liked what Blue Sky had done and knew what Steve [Martino] had done in the past. We called them and said “Let’s make this movie”
Paul: How long did it take to get the animation correct in taking the 2D that everyone knows and loves to really making sure the 3D animation was correct and that it felt within what your dad created?
Craig:Steve can answer that best.
Steve Martino:I think, for us, that first year of development was critical. I went into it with a couple of objectives. 1) I thought the paintbrush we use today is computer animation, and I knew, as a fan, anybody would read that in an article or on a blog would be like “Really? Computer animation?” that they would be lined up ready to give us a hard time. The team that I work with at Blue Sky locked arms and said, “Look, we’re going to approach this film in a way we never have before. We studied the way Bill Melendez* animated the characters in 2D and we emulated a lot of that thinking in the way we’ve animated the characters in our world. I thought there would be a nice advantage in using computer animation in making the environment feel a little more real. Still in the wonderful style of Charles Schulz, everything needed to feel handmade and drawn.
My mantra to the team was that I wanted to feel the pen line in everything we put on the screen. With that, it was a year. We knew we had a year or year and a half before we had to put out that first image. Craig was along for that entire journey. There were times where we put some imagery together that didn’t feel quite right and we’ve had some Charlie Brown moments where we had to pick ourselves back up and go “No, we can do this.”
*Melendez directed, did the animation for, and provided voice acting in the first four Peanuts theatrical films – ed.
Paul: Did you literally say “good grief” at the same time?”
Steve:I’ve got to tell you, there were days when we had great intentions and something just didn’t look right, and I’d go home and Charlie Brown really became a mantra for me on the film. When it was a really bad day, I had a Charlie Brown sweatshirt and I would wear it the next day and say “Today’s the day when we’ll win the game or fly the kite today.”
Craig: There were days where it was a struggle to get some stuff right. At Blue Sky, they have a fur guy, a hair guy, and a feather guy. We’re just trying to get Charlie Brown’s squiggle in the front right. Steve would come to me and say, “look at these different hair things” and we kept battling with it. Finally I said, “Can’t we just go back to the line art how dad drew it?” We’d talk about Linus and his hair going up. How do we fill in the bald spots and then deal with the eyeballs? Trying to create the emotion of the whites of the eyes. I told Steve about a special I’d seen on TV called “The Umbrellas” where all they had was two dots for eyes and we had a big discussion on eyes. He put the challenge out to the group to try to deal with what we had to make it work. It was a big challenge, but it paid off in dividends at the end because everyone stepped up to make it work without going to something that would make it look really weird. It didn’t take much to make them weird.
Steve: For us, it ended up being probably the most technically challenging film that we’ve ever worked on to make something look so simple. Because that’s all that really matters in the end is that when Charlie Brown speaks, you want to feel that he’s come to life. I mean that really is what animation is about. We create the illusion of life with pixels, with drawings. We have a fair amount of 2D hand drawn animation
Paul: All of the flashbacks that you do were just so creative, and the way you then use the 2D original drawings were super creative and a good use of that.
Steve: I’m so proud of the team. There’s one artist in particular who’s a 2D traditional artist and I think that he’s done some of the most wonderful interpretations of Charles Schulz’s ink work where we really tried that thin/thick pen line and make it come to life on the screen whenever Charlie Brown is imagining you know what’s going on in his mind. To me, we’re looking at the daily strip, it’s black and white, pen and ink, it’s 2D.
Craig: The other missing thing for me was this was the first animation that’s been done where we don’t have the black outline of the characters. I hadn’t really thought about that until we started to process. I think someone mentioned that to me. “What are the edges of the characters going to look like? They don’t have the black line that your dad did with the big and small. Is it going to look like a toy, a stuff animal?” And yet it came out beautiful and I guess that’s the lighting effect guys that created the magic of that stuff, just getting that head to glow just right and create the sphere just right so it didn’t look like a planet.
Emmylou Barden:My brother used to make fun of me and say I was the Charlie Brown because I was really bad at things. I was wondering now that you’re adults and look back at your life, if you have advice for the Charlie Browns? What would you say to them?
Steve: That’s the heart of the movie, to be perfectly honest. The way Craig and Bryan and Neil looked at the body of fifty years of who Charlie Brown was, and I think what I’m happiest about is thematically in the film what we hold up are the qualities that Charlie Brown does have. We focus on the failures and love to laugh at those because we see ourselves in that a little bit, but what is wonderful about him as a character is that he is kind, honest, and with every failure comes the other side of Charlie Brown is great perseverance. He always picks himself up and tries again. That is the heart and soul of the movie that we see him go on a quest to try to be a winner and try to win that gold medal. In the end, he may not achieve that but the qualities that he does have, and this is a great lesson for me or anybody in our own lives, that those things are more valuable. How you treat your friends. How you live your life can make…those are the qualities of a winner.
Ruth Maramis: What’s the international appeal of the story? I know the story is universal. There’s an underdog in any culture that would translate. Is that something that you are mindful of for people that might not be familiar with the characters? When you’re making movies these days you kind of have to think international.
Steve: Our audience is a global audience. We no longer make movies for the US market. The world is our audience.
Ruth: The story is so universal and relatable. Can you talk a little bit about that, as this is the fifth Peanuts film?
Craig:You really can’t go wrong by going back to the source. When Bryan and I started the project, the idea was to stick within the comic strips and stick within the context of what my dad had done for fifty years. Again, that’s that universal appeal and no matter what country you’re from, you’re dealing with the same problems. Do people like me? How do I meet that beautiful girl over there when I lose a lot more than I win? The message is universal. His work is really a study in humanism and he expresses that through the comic strip, so it should translate well. We’re going to China and Japan and all over the globe, and we hope it does. We wrote the movie staying within the context of what he did before.
Ruth: That’s what I love. The balance of teachable moments. Things that kids and adults can learn, but also have that adventure and fantastical elements with the dream sequences. They’re just so entertaining and you’re so moved by it. There’s the emotional core to the story. I want to applaud that.
Steve:I think that’s the key to a good movie is that you want to have a range of emotional feelings when you go into a theater. Peanuts is perfect for this because there’s heart and you can get emotionally invested in the characters, but you want to have a lot of laughs as well, and Snoopy is just the best character ever.
Paul:Those scenes are so great. He just comes alive essentially without saying anything. It’s so hilarious.
Steve: That’s animation at its purest form. That is a language that ascends language. It plays in any culture because its pure pantomime. It’s what we love to create as animators because it’s all on us to bring the fun to life. You mentioned with Snoopy and his adventures, we also felt that a movie going audience today wants some moments where they are on the edge of their seat and get some scope and dynamic action. We felt with the story that Craig, Bryan, and Neil put together that we’d have an opportunity to fly with Snoopy as the flying ace against the Red Baron and that we could make something bigger, more dynamic than had ever had been done with the flying ace in the past.
Ruth:The aerial sequences are great as it looks almost realistic and you look at Snoopy and remember, “oh, that’s right, it’s a cartoon.” It’s so easy to forget because it’s so beautiful. Especially when they’re flying through the clouds…
Steve: Snoopy has a big imagination, and it had to be big.
Paul: I want to ask about the casting of the kids. Was it more important to get the essence of each kid or that they could sound like the former actors that were voicing the characters?
Steve: It started with the first conversations Craig and I had. For me, Charlie Brown is the voice that was in the Christmas special. I was six years old, and that imprinted on me. That’s who Charlie Brown is. That’s who Linus is. All of the characters. As I worked with our casting director, Christian Kaplan, the objective/the mandate was that I wanted to find a vocal quality that matches that because I’m asking an audience and fans to come in on this ride with us to watch this film. I don’t want them bumped out on the first frame of the film by hearing a voice that seems wrong.
Paul: Lucy in particular was so accurate. I knew that it wasn’t the old voice but it was a close impersonation.
Steve:Craig gave some great advice as we were doing our casting, and that was besides having the kids read the lines, just have conversation with them. Let them talk in their natural voice. I know from all of the work I’ve done with other actors that we’re in our best place when people are just performing naturally and we’re not putting on a voice. With kids, I didn’t want anybody putting on a voice. I just wanted their natural qualities. What we learned from that process, you know, Charlie Brown has that slow and steady demeanor and you need to see that in the actor, in the child that you’re casting. I tell you, the one story that didn’t follow that was Lucy, Hadley Miller.
I met her the first day and heard her audition tapes, and she sounded great. When I met her, she was the most polite, sweet nice girl and in the back of my mind what’s ticking around is, “Oh my gosh, can she be Lucy?” She’s got to be bossy. She’s got to get in Charlie Brown’s face.” Sure enough, we go into the recording session and the second line we did called upon her to bring it. I set up the scene. I always act against the kids and she just turned on Lucy and I blew back in my seat. When she was done, I was like “Oh my God, it was amazing.” And she goes “oh, thank you” in the sweetest most delicate voice. She was one by her natural demeanor that you wouldn’t see a Lucy there. With the rest of the kids, you kind of see the character in them.
Ruth: She’s a young Meryl Streep there.
Emmylou: If you had to convince someone who was in-con-vincible or seemed that they didn’t want to see the movie, as it wasn’t like the classic version, what would you say to them?
Craig: I would say that it’s not like the classic version; it’s an extension of the classic version. When you see the characters, you see them in a light that’s new and fresh, on the other hand, it’s recognizable. To me, it’s actually better. I think they are more identifiable. They’re more real. You feel more connected to them. They don’t feel as distant as they did in 2D animation. To me, I think it’s a wonderful medium. I would never have guessed it would have been this good.
Steve:For me, I would say to them if the things that you loved about reading the comic strip or the earlier specials, the heart, the emotion, and the laughs that you have with these characters, we have retained every bit of that. That’s the core of what Peanuts is. The core is at the heart of the story. Come out to the film and feel it.
Ruth: And the music. David Benoit. I actually knew David Benoit mostly because of the Peanuts music that he wrote. I think he did a memorial album for Charles Schulz.
Craig: He’s done a lot of stuff for us. That’s why we brought him on. I called Steven and said, “Let’s bring David on.”
Steve: One of the greatest days on the scoring stage was our jazz combo day. We got David Benoit on piano, we had stand up bass, and we got the vibraphones. It was fantastic, and Christoph Beck who’s our composer did a wonderful job. It’s the same challenge as us animating these characters. There’s a lot of history to the music of the Peanuts film, and he embraced the philosophy Craig and I had on the movie, which was to tell a feature film story with these characters and to create emotion. He used everything within that palette. There are moments that we are flying with Snoopy that will have full orchestra, and there other moments where the jazz combo just lays it out there. Meghan Trainor wrote two original songs for the movie.
Emmylou: I really liked them.
Steve: She really seemed to get Charlie Brown and this story in particular.
Ruth: Did Christoph Beck and David Benoit actually work together?
Steve: Christoph Beck wrote the score for the movie, and yes they worked together on the performance. David Benoit added all of the piano work to the film.
Ruth: The film is definitely an eye AND ear candy!
Steve: That’s wonderful.
Paul: Thank you so much.
Emmylou:It was so nice to meet you.
Ruth:Thank you for coming here.
Steve: It’s the home of it all!
We also got to chat with some of the voice cast from the film, which was a real blast! They seemed to have a great time making the movie and it shows. Their voices certainly adds much to the movie and sounds like they would gladly be back for the sequel(s) 😀
What are your thoughts on The Peanuts Movie? Did you grow up reading/watching Charlie, Snoopy & co?
Right from the moment this film was announced, I was immediately hooked by the timely premise and the cast. Set in Orlando, Florida and loosely based on a real-life events, Andrew Garfield plays a twenty-something single dad Dennis Nash who’s been struggling to find decent work as a construction worker. His family gets evicted from his family home where he’s lived since he was a kid, where he lives with his young son and hairstylist mom. Right away I sympathize with Nash as he just can’t seem to catch a break no matter how hard he tries.
On the other end of the spectrum, we’ve got a shrewd, wealthy real estate broker Rick Carver, played with steely gaze and gravitas by Michael Shannon. The actor is a towering figure already at 6’3″ but there’s something inherently ominous about him that makes him so perfect for this role. It’s easy to think of Carver as nothing but a greedy bastard who’s all about making money off of other people’s misery. I mean, when he drives around the block of certain neighborhoods in his fancy car, all he sees is what profit he could make from these homes. Yet as the film progress, we see that he’s not a one-dimensional villain and there is a reason behind his madness.
Filmmaker Ramin Bahrani tackled the subject of the housing crisis with such astute and empathetic eye. The way he filmed the eviction scene is truly heartbreaking and the actors portray the grief and outrage convincingly. I read that Bahrani apparently used some non-actors playing people being evicted from their homes, but he didn’t tell the lead actors in order to get an authentic response from those scenes.
The film is tense and suspenseful despite not having much action going on. I felt that under a lesser director, they’d probably sensationalize this story with unnecessary shoot-outs or sex scenes to drive the point across. But thankfully Bahrani chose subtlety and infuse the film with nervous energy that keeps building until a boiling point in a riveting finale. He’s definitely a director to watch and no wonder Roger Ebert called him ‘the new great American director’ in this piece from 2009. “His films pay great attention to ordinary lives that are not so ordinary at all,” the article says, and indeed he accomplished that in 99 Homes. I think being the son of Iranian immigrants gave him a unique perspective on American culture and events that shape Americans.
The strength of the film also lie in the two leads Shannon and Garfield. It’s interesting that both have just recently done a superhero movie(s), Man of Steel and Spider-Man, respectively. But you won’t even associate either of them with those roles, which is a testament to their fantastic performance and versatility. Garfield captured the anguish of his character perfectly, and he makes for a convincing young dad. There are some emotional scenes between him and his son (Noah Lomax, who bears a striking resemblance to Garfield), as well as his mom (the always watchable Laura Dern). He has a great rapport with Shannon and they play each other off so well. I have to mention Tim Guinee as well who has a small but memorable supporting role as a friend of Nash who’s driven to extremes by circumstances.
This film certainly doesn’t paint the real estate system in a flattering light, but yet somehow Bahrani manage to present the story as it is. It’s not a preachy piece that push a certain agenda. It’s more about two characters from two opposite real estate spectrum, and how their lives end up affecting each other in ways they’d never imagine.
Like any formidable house, 99 Homes is built on a strong foundation of a sharp script and held up by intuitive direction and powerful performances. A timely drama that will linger long after the closing credits. I can’t recommend this one enough. I definitely look forward to more films by Ramin Bahrani and more intriguing roles for both Garfield and Shannon.
Well, it’s been almost two weeks since the 2015 Twin Cities Film Fest wrapped. I knew the tough part would be selecting the top 10 and so I took my time posting this. I use the same criteria when selecting my top 10 films from a given year. So when I say ‘top movies’ it’s sort of a cross between a ‘best of and favorite’, so these films made an impression on me, combining the virtue of being entertaining, deeply moving, thought-provoking, and indelible.
So with that in mind, I present you my top 10 picks:
I really didn’t know what to expect from this, but the subject matter intrigued me. A directorial debut from Paul Dalio, the film seems to have been crafted as a love letter to bipolar artists and creative people. I was quite impressed by Katie Holmes and Luke Kirby who played poets who are manic depressive. It’s a heartfelt and sensitive tale of an unconventional love story.
This is one of those unique films in which the risky experimentative film-making style paid off in the end. It’s another feature film debut from Dennis Hauck, and it contains only five 20-minute uninterrupted takes, amounting to 100 minutes of non-linear narrative. It’d be a shame if the style was only a gimmick, but thankfully the story is intriguing and actually quite emotional in the end. Plus it’s got an amazing performance from the criminally underrated thespian John Hawkes. His 2015 Northstar Award of Excellence from TCFF is so well-deserved!
As I mentioned in my review, there have been so many Nazi vengeance tales been made on screen before and yet this one manages to inject something new and different into the sub-genre. That alone is a feat in and of itself. Director Atom Egoyan made this with not much frills but the film is brimming with mystery and suspense. Boasted by an astute and heartfelt performance by Christopher Plummer, I was engrossed in the story despite not much action in the film. That finale packs quite an emotional punch, and it’ll make you forgive the generic and boring title, as it actually fits the plot VERY well.
Films that contain mostly of dialog between two people is tricky because a lot is required of the chemistry two actors AND of course, the script. Well, director Emily Ting in her directorial debut certainly managed to create a compelling film thanks to those two ingredients. Bryan Greenberg and Jamie Chung (who I found out was a real-life couple after I saw the movie) have an effortless chemistry together. Everything flows nicely and in a natural way, the actors seem comfortable and fit the roles perfectly. But the strength of the film is in the dialog (also written by Ting), which comes to life as the night wears on.
A homeless shelter in Seattle took a novel approach in helping their residents overcome their addictions, and that is to give them an epic goal to summit one of the most dangerous mountains in the country, the 14,400 ft Mt. Rainier. The film shows the residents train for that mission and the drama that happens in the group, led by former Army Ranger Mike Johnson, who spearheaded this unorthodox rehabilitation project. The film asked the question, ‘will their personal mountains be too steep to overcome?’ and it certainly made me ponder about that in my own life. It’s quite riveting to see each recovering addict face their demons head on, plus the vast splendor of the mountain is absolutely stunning to watch. Directors Samuel Miron & Stephen Scott Scarpulla also had to train for mount climbing as well in order to make this film. Their dedication and their labor of love definitely paid off on screen.
There are a ton of great documentaries playing at TCFF every year and so it’s no surprise they made up nearly half of my top 10 list. This one certainly has one of the most intriguing subject matter. In 1982, Miguel Vazguez performed ‘the greatest feat in all of circus history’, that is the quadruple somersault, during a Ringling performance. He certainly had a fascinating life journey to tell and director Philip Weyland certainly did his story justice. It’s one of the most entertaining and moving documentary that showcase not only a series of amazing–you could say impossible–physical feat, but also a portrait of a truly extraordinary and inspiring individual. Even if you’re not a fan of circus or trapeze act, I highly recommend this one.
Critics have called this film one of the most important film about video game ever made and it certainly lived up to that. It’s a tear-jerker of a film but one that’s also incredibly uplifting. The story chronicled the Green family, as Ryan and Amy deal with their son Joel who’s diagnosed with a terminal cancer. Ryan is a video game designer and he embarked on creating a most unusual and poetic video game to honor Joel’s life. Most video games deal with a lot of deaths, that is people getting shot or chopped to pieces violently. But never has a game dealt with death the way That Dragon Cancer game does it, tackling the issue of death head on in such a personal, affecting and encouraging way. This well-crafted film should encourage everyone going through a tough time in their lives, and also inspire people to channel their emotion, whether it’s grief or joy, into something truly creative.
When I saw this on the TCFF schedule, I knew this would be one I had to see with my husband. We’re both such huge fans of Indiana Jones and we LOVE Raiders of the Lost Ark! The film has a huge dose of exhilarating fun that matches Spielberg’s adventure masterpiece, as it’s truly the greatest homage to a film fueled 100% by genuine passion and creativity. You can’t help but root for the three guys who remade the film shot for shot when they were 11 years old and reunited 30 years later to finish it. It’s also interesting to see how their families share this unusual journey over the span of three decades. Watch for some extra special surprises that would definitely make you want to get up and cheer. A must-see for Indy fans, but really, anyone who loves a good story would be entertained by this.
I’m thrilled that there have been a lot more female filmmakers as well as talents represented this year, one of the reasons I love TCFF! So it’s especially gratifying that two of the main gala screenings feature a strong female performer in the lead. I actually saw Room at a press screening before TCFF started, but I’m still going to include it here as this was TCFF’s opening gala.
Room is one of the most well-acted films I saw the entire year, emotionally heartbreaking but not a dour, depressing film. Featuring one of the strongest lead performances this year, Brie Larson shines as a doting mother who’s kept in captivity in a single room for years. The believable relationship between Ma and her young son Jack is crucial to the film and both Larson and Jacob Tremblay nailed it. It’s a deeply immersive film that really get you into the emotional psyche of the characters, thanks to a shrewd direction by Lenny Abrahamson.
It’s always wonderful when a film lives up to your already lofty expectations and then some. Saoirse Ronan is the perfect leading lady to tell the story of Eilis, a young Irish immigrant who moves to Brooklyn and becomes torn between the new city and her homeland. The story is deceptively simple, but I was swept away by the rich, engrossing human drama that’s brought to life by the nuanced performances of the cast.
This is such a gem of a movie and watching Ronan is her understated yet layered portrayal of Eilis is nothing short of mesmerizing. She’s able to convey internal battle within her with just her eyes or a subtle smile, as there’s a great deal of economy of dialog in this film but everything has a purpose. I’m also impressed by Emory Cohen, and actor I’ve never seen before but I certainly want to see more of. He has a James Dean-esque vibe here, charming but vulnerable, certainly a worthy suitor to the film’s protagonist.
No doubt this is Ronan‘s best work among her already illustrious career and I’d love to see her get major acting nominations come award season. Kudos to director John Crowley and screenwriter Nick Hornby for crafting a beautiful story that’s engaging and full of heart. I mentioned this in my review already but it bears repeating: lest Hollywood forget, well-written story is the greatest special effects of all.
HONORABLE MENTIONS (in random order):
Just because these didn’t quite make my top 10, I still think these films are excellent and definitely well worth your time. In fact, I’m pretty sure Anomalisa would make a lot of critics’ top 10 of the year. I love how film festivals always offer *a cure for the common flicks* so to speak, a breath of fresh air from what you see in mainstream Cineplex today.
Happy Midweek all! [just three more days until Friday] I’ve been thinking of taking a brief blogging break after the whirlwind film festivities of TCFF at the end of October. Well, I figure I should do that before the rush of holiday movies. I do have a top 10 TCFF picks to do still, so expect that at the end of the week before my temporary hiatus.
Before we get to that, let’s get to those links shall we?
I haven’t got around to reviewing this but I agree with Josh‘s and Tom‘s take on the excellent Steve Jobs movie.
Some of you already know what I think of Spectre, well it’s interesting to read reviews of opposite spectrum from fellow bloggers. Check out what Mark and Keith think of the latest Bond movie.
I missed Suffragette at a recent press screening, so check out what Natalie and Jay think about the historical drama. I also missed The Intern screening, but I’m in no hurry to watch it. Based on Mike‘s review however, it sounds like it might still be worth a rent.
One of my top five films from TCFF is Brooklyn, glad to hear that Adam feels the same way.
Margaret reviewed Bone Tomahawk, a horror Western that I’m pretty sure I won’t be able to handle.
Jordan‘s been covering Adelaide Film Festivals and posted his review of his martial arts drama The Assassin.
Nostra‘s still keeping up w/ the BlindSpot series, and he recently posted his thoughts on Werner Herzog’s Aguirre the Wrath of Gods, whilst Cindy posted her musings on the absurd (but entertaining) work of Wes Anderson
Some fun music-related posts: Dan did a list of Top 10 films about musicians, Michael posted one of my favorite Bond song Skyfall, and Chrisreminisces on the best songs of the 1980s
Last but not least, Chris E. reviewed the pilot of Supergirl, a show I wasn’t all that interested in despite my love for superhero stuff.
And now on to the trailer spotlight…
Ooooh, what a treat we’ve got here! I’m a huge Pixar movies fan and Finding Nemo is one of my all time faves. So naturally I’m looking forward to its spin-off Finding Dory! I LOVE everything I’ve seen so far, even the poster is so fun, witty and whimsical.
“Finding Dory” reunites the friendly-but-forgetful blue tang fish with her loved ones, and everyone learns a few things about the true meaning of family along the way. Featuring the voices of Ellen DeGeneres, as Dory, Albert Brooks as Marlin, Diane Keaton as Dory’s mom Jenny, Eugene Levy as Dory’s dad Charlie and Ty Burrell as Bailey.
Check out the brand new trailer that just dropped earlier today:
I LOVE Ellen’s voice as Dory, and great to see some of the same cast back. But I’m looking forward to hearing Idris Elba and Dominic West as new voice cast members! Not sure what roles they’d be playing but it doesn’t matter, love those guys, esp Idris whose voice is as sexy and smooth as the Brit himself.
Man, now the worst part is the long wait. Finding Dory‘s released next June 2016!
I wonder if the way I feel about the Bond song somehow impacts how I feel about the film itself. Some of my least favorite Bond songs are The Man with the Golden Gun, Die Another Day, and Quantum of Solace, and those are also my least favorite Bond films. I already mentioned in this post how much I abhorred Sam Smith’s latest, Writing’s on the Wall which sounds more like fingernails on a chalk board. Unfortunately for me, during the press screening, I had to endure that song not once but twice as they played Sam Smith’s music video before the movie, so I had to suffer through THAT song once again during the opening title [sigh]
Of course it’s ludicrous to judge a Bond movie from the song, so I was prepared for an awesome Bond film. To be fair, the melody of the song itself is actually not bad, with Thomas Newman back scoring this again after Skyfall. Well, the first 15 minutes is certainly promising. It’s tradition that Bond films open with a bang and this one is no different, starting with a foot chase through a throng of huge crowd during the Day of the Dead festival in Mexico City. It’s followed by a spectacular fight scene aboard a helicopter flying above the main square. If we’re to judge a movie by cinematography alone, Spectre is excellent, thanks to Hoyte van Hoytema whose done amazing work in Her and Interstellar recently.
Plot-wise, Spectre has a lot going for it, at least on paper. The parallel conflicts that Bond and M are facing in the film also promises an extra layer of intrigue, in addition to the personal vendetta that runs through the vein of Daniel Craig‘s Bond films. A cryptic message from Bond’s past sends him on a trail to uncover a sinister organization and somehow he ends up going rogue. Meanwhile, his boss M (Ralph Fiennes) is dealing with a crisis of his own as the head of Joint Intelligence Service (which merged MI5 and MI6) threatened to shut down the double-O section. It’s an intriguing set up and as a massive Bond fan, I expect once again to be bowled over.
Alas, after that spectacular opening, the film seems to lose momentum and never quite claim it back. All the high-octane action didn’t have quite the adrenaline rush I expected from a Bond movie. Even the car chase through the streets of Rome feels rather stale, it’s like I’ve seen a far more exciting car chase scene in previous Bond movies and recently in its rival franchise, Mission Impossible 5. Then there’s the unintentional humor that makes it hard to take the film seriously. The two times Bond wooed two of the beautiful Bond girls, Monica Bellucci and Léa Seydoux, the scenes elicit laughter from the audience. It feels so obligatory and cringe-worthy, a far cry from the intriguing AND sexy love affair between Bond and Vesper in Casino Royale. Vesper was a complex character with a compelling story arc, but here the two Bond girls aren’t given the same courtesy. It’s sad to see an actress of Bellucci’s stature be utterly wasted here.
The film also promises a massive super villain, the mother lode of all villains Bond has encountered in his past, “I’m the source of all your pain,” Oberhauser tells him once Bond gets to his lair. So it’s quite a let down that this supposedly fearsome, ultra-powerful mastermind turns out to be not so menacing at all. Remember how sinister Christoph Waltz was in Inglourious Basterds? Well, here he’s nothing more than a clichéd psychopath throwing tantrums at Bond because of… a childhood feud. Huh? No less than FOUR screenwriters credited here, three of whom also worked on Skyfall, and all they could come up with is THIS half-baked story? [spoiler alert] I find it hard to believe that Mads Mikkelsen’s Le Chifre, who was effortlessly menacing AND intriguing in Casino Royale, actually worked for this lame, petulant nutjob.
Sam Mendes and his team of writers seems to have recycled a lot of what’s been done in previous Bond films with nothing new to add to the franchise. In fact, in terms of the treatment of the Bond girls, it’s a step backward. The film seems to aim for a darker story but the execution feels light and even unintentionally comical. I realize that Bond films aren’t expected to be too deep or poignant, but even the fun, escapism factor seems to be missing in this one as Mendes can’t decide what kind of Bond movie he wants this to be. At times it harkens back to the Roger Moore era, which is a jarring contrast to the more pensive and grittier tone established in Craig’s films.
The returning characters from Skyfall are still good in their roles. I do like Ralph Fiennes as M but yet he still can’t hold a candle to how fantastic Judi Dench was in the role. Moneypenny and Q (Naomie Harris and Ben Whishaw) have bit more to do in supporting 007, though not so much that would make any real impact in the movie. Andrew Scott, who’s excellent in the Sherlock series, is just serviceable here, but Dave Bautista certainly lives up to other big, burly but taciturn henchmen of Bond’s past. The fight scene on the train is certainly an homage to From Russia With Love and The Spy Who Loved Me with my favorite henchman, Jaws.
As for the titular hero, I still like Craig as Bond, but more often than not he looks bored in this movie. It’s as if he’s weary of the same old types of shenanigans and hollow sexual escapades in various exotic locations. Yes I know Bond’s supposed to have this devil-may-care attitude but I think there’s a sense of fatigue that the actor can’t quite conceal. Perhaps it’s telling when Craig said in an interview recently how he’d rather slash his wrist than play James Bond again. It’s tacky to bite the hand that feeds you, but I can’t say I blame him for feeling that way.
It’s a pity because this could’ve been a truly great swan song for Craig if he were to retire as Bond (though I think he’d be back for at least one more). I like the fact that four of his films are connected in some way, though the constant throwback to his previous films also invites the inevitable comparison. If I were to rank Craig’s Bond films now, Spectre is just slightly more watchable than Quantum of Solace, but falls far short of the greatness of Casino Royale and Skyfall.
Spectre might’ve topped the box office, but it’s nowhere near the top of the best Bond films for me. So I guess that awful theme song is sort of a warning about the movie. Bond’s most personal mission barely evoke any emotional response as the protagonist himself didn’t even seem to care. There’s just no compelling human drama here in this largely soulless affair. Overall the payoff just doesn’t live up to all that build-up and frankly, the film is just forgettable. I saw it four days ago yet I barely remember anything about it. It’s such a bummer really, this movie even made this loyal Bond fan think that perhaps I’ve outgrown this franchise a bit.
Well, what did you think of Spectre? Did you like it more or less than I did?