So, I had remembered hearing about this movie awhile ago because I've been a huge fan of Chloe Moretz ever since Kick Ass and more importantly, Let Me In. This movie got a very small limited release in theaters back in May (so small that even boxofficemojo doesn't have it's stats) and then found it's way to my local Redbox where I gladly picked it up to watch.
The story follows a 13 year old runaway, played by Moretz who leaves her alcoholic parents back in rural Nebraska in the 70's and attempts to hitch her way to Las Vegas. She quickly meets Glenda, played by Blake Lively, who takes her under her wing as they travel west.
I really didn't know much about the plot before I saw the movie, but according to all of the cast/crew interviews on the DVD extras (yes, I'm one of those that watches that stuff) they all loved this screenplay so much and raved about how great it was. It was adapted from a book of the same name and the author of the novel penned the screenplay as well. The story tricks you into thinking in the beginning that this is going to be the normal road trip movie with wise characters who come in and impart some kind of wisdom into the main character's life. In no time at all, we learn that the characters that our protagonist meets have much more to learn about life than our 13 year old runaway. The story also abandons it's road-trip theme for the majority of the movie. I was a little amazed at how none of the characters seemed to realize the inappropriateness of their relationships with respect to a girl who is only 13. The last quarter of the movie, took me completely by surprise and everything became quite surreal. At first, I did not like the way the last quarter of the movie went down but then I realized that we were seeing things from a 13 year old's point of view and one who received her education from movies and had a flare for the dramatics. I think the last quarter of the movie can be up for your interpretation as to the true events. The same can probably be said for the whole movie. It does give some credibility to the grandiose dramatics of the characters she meets.
The cinematography was simply fantastic. The colors were so beautiful in all of the scenes and everything was framed perfectly. The makeup and wardrobe were also especially cool and retro for the movie.
Chloe Moretz was exactly what I expected; awesome. I really enjoy all of her performances and she's still so very young. It's crazy. Blake Lively was pretty good as well. I don't think I've really seen her in anything, but her character was so dramatic that she pulled it off, even if her twang was very thick. Eddie Redmayne proves why he is so incredibly talented and versatile. I have not seen him play the same character twice, ever. He can take on these completely different characters with ease and can do a pretty much flawless American accent at the same time.
In the end, the movie completely surprised me. Serves me right for judging the movie by it's cover. It was a very dramatic tale and it had some very disturbing aspects if you think about it, but those parts were just played with a shrug and the characters didn't seem to dwell on any of that stuff at all. It's really only after you've finished the movie when you take a second look and realize the characters had some really questionable morals. It was pretty memorable and entertaining. Amazing screenplay and story? I'm not convinced there, but I didn't read the screenplay...."Dear God, please don't let that old man die. - yet."
Sunday, October 21, 2012
Saturday, October 20, 2012
Perks of Being a Wallflower
So, yes I had been uber excited to see this movie for what felt like ages and had legitimate pangs of sadness when I learned that Austin was not included on the initial limited release and I would have to wait another few weeks! I was excited mostly because Emma Watson is so awesome, but also because the movie looked fun/cute/unique. It's made about $7 million already after making it's wide release only last week.
The movie was written and directed by Stephen Chbosky, who also just happened to pen the source novel. It centers around Charlie, a shy and introverted high school freshman played by Logan Lerman, who is quickly taken under the wings of two upperclassmen, played by Ezra Miller and Emma Watson. It spans the ups and downs of his first year of high school and his new friends' last year.
This movie can loosely be defined as a 'coming-of-age' high school story. It is somewhat unique in that the main character is in his freshman year while the others are in their last year. The dramatization of the typical teenage life are a little more subdued than in say, Can't Hardly Wait. This felt a little more grounded in reality. The characters, while flawed, were incredibly likable and you became easily invested in them. Even the antagonists were ultimately likable. The familiar teenage stereotypes were mostly abandoned for something that felt more real in this story. It was also set in the early 90's which just adds to coolness. The ending did feel a little too 'wrapped up' for my taste, but hey it is a movie after all. I will be reading the source novel as soon as Barnes and Noble ships it to my local store, (I'm one of the few that prefers to read the books after viewing the movie). I did read that the ending was changed for the movie, so I'm interested to see how the original ending is.
Obviously the soundtrack was ultra cool, which is a requirement nowadays for any decent indie movie. I've had Come On Eileen stuck in my head for about three weeks now and have been listening to the entire soundtrack on Spotify. The editing was super smooth and the storyline was incredibly easy to follow, even with the instances of non-linear plot. There was enough time given to character development instead of just following plot advancement. The 'drug scene' was edited so well that it really helped the audience to feel what the character was feeling instead of just giving the audience slow motion double vision.
I honestly don't know how you can not like Emma Watson. I think one of the main reasons I was looking forward to this movie was to see her in pretty much her first post-Hermoine main role. She can carry a movie. She did fantastic in this role and you really felt she was your friend at the end of the movie because you knew her character so well. In a side note, she did a pretty stellar job with the American accent. Logan Lerman had just the right balance of naivety and maturity to make his character come off without being annoyingly innocent. It was as if his character was much more mature than his peers in some aspects of his life but then much more naive in the more obvious ways. I'm not sure if anyone else could have pulled it off without becoming annoying or unbelievable by the end of the movie. The only thing I didn't like was it seemed they had too much makeup on him throughout the movie, but that could've just been my poor eyesight. Ezra Miller had the task of keeping up most of the comic relief in the film and did a rather nice job. Out of the characters, he was unfortunately the most stereotypical however he was given some complexity. I thought it was rather awesome that Johnny Simmons and Mae Whitman were both in this movie (and both did stand-ups jobs with their smaller roles), because as I'm sure everyone already caught, they were both in Scott Pilgrim! Score on the movie connection.
Anyway, I ended up tremendously enjoying this film but I am the demographic audience (a young female). While I would not come close to defining this movie as a chick flick, it was set in high-school which almost always narrows it's audience greatly. While the characters were dealing with events and situations in a high-school setting, it was not about those events but instead about the characters and how they related to each other. With it being set in the past, I think it can appeal to a slightly larger audience who lived through that time. It really was a fun movie and you will really cherish your own friends by the end of the movie. Oh, and did I mention there is a Rocky Horror Picture Show reenactment? "We accept the love we think we deserve".
The movie was written and directed by Stephen Chbosky, who also just happened to pen the source novel. It centers around Charlie, a shy and introverted high school freshman played by Logan Lerman, who is quickly taken under the wings of two upperclassmen, played by Ezra Miller and Emma Watson. It spans the ups and downs of his first year of high school and his new friends' last year.
This movie can loosely be defined as a 'coming-of-age' high school story. It is somewhat unique in that the main character is in his freshman year while the others are in their last year. The dramatization of the typical teenage life are a little more subdued than in say, Can't Hardly Wait. This felt a little more grounded in reality. The characters, while flawed, were incredibly likable and you became easily invested in them. Even the antagonists were ultimately likable. The familiar teenage stereotypes were mostly abandoned for something that felt more real in this story. It was also set in the early 90's which just adds to coolness. The ending did feel a little too 'wrapped up' for my taste, but hey it is a movie after all. I will be reading the source novel as soon as Barnes and Noble ships it to my local store, (I'm one of the few that prefers to read the books after viewing the movie). I did read that the ending was changed for the movie, so I'm interested to see how the original ending is.
Obviously the soundtrack was ultra cool, which is a requirement nowadays for any decent indie movie. I've had Come On Eileen stuck in my head for about three weeks now and have been listening to the entire soundtrack on Spotify. The editing was super smooth and the storyline was incredibly easy to follow, even with the instances of non-linear plot. There was enough time given to character development instead of just following plot advancement. The 'drug scene' was edited so well that it really helped the audience to feel what the character was feeling instead of just giving the audience slow motion double vision.
I honestly don't know how you can not like Emma Watson. I think one of the main reasons I was looking forward to this movie was to see her in pretty much her first post-Hermoine main role. She can carry a movie. She did fantastic in this role and you really felt she was your friend at the end of the movie because you knew her character so well. In a side note, she did a pretty stellar job with the American accent. Logan Lerman had just the right balance of naivety and maturity to make his character come off without being annoyingly innocent. It was as if his character was much more mature than his peers in some aspects of his life but then much more naive in the more obvious ways. I'm not sure if anyone else could have pulled it off without becoming annoying or unbelievable by the end of the movie. The only thing I didn't like was it seemed they had too much makeup on him throughout the movie, but that could've just been my poor eyesight. Ezra Miller had the task of keeping up most of the comic relief in the film and did a rather nice job. Out of the characters, he was unfortunately the most stereotypical however he was given some complexity. I thought it was rather awesome that Johnny Simmons and Mae Whitman were both in this movie (and both did stand-ups jobs with their smaller roles), because as I'm sure everyone already caught, they were both in Scott Pilgrim! Score on the movie connection.
Anyway, I ended up tremendously enjoying this film but I am the demographic audience (a young female). While I would not come close to defining this movie as a chick flick, it was set in high-school which almost always narrows it's audience greatly. While the characters were dealing with events and situations in a high-school setting, it was not about those events but instead about the characters and how they related to each other. With it being set in the past, I think it can appeal to a slightly larger audience who lived through that time. It really was a fun movie and you will really cherish your own friends by the end of the movie. Oh, and did I mention there is a Rocky Horror Picture Show reenactment? "We accept the love we think we deserve".
Friday, October 19, 2012
Samsara
So, I had wanted to see this film since seeing the trailer at the theater a couple months back and knew that I had to experience this movie on the big screen. It's the 'first feature film since the 70's to be shot entirely on 70mm film'. The movie has earned about $2 million so far despite being released in only 70 theaters.
The movie does not have a narrative and is instead a series of images gathered from around the world over the course of five years.
I enjoyed that there was no agenda to the selection of images, or at least there wasn't an apparent one. Everything was amazingly beautiful and most of the imagery was from countries other than America. There also really didn't appear to be much connection between the images. There was no intended message other than the wonder that is our world.
The images were just ridiculously beautiful. The crazy shots in some of the sequences must've taken ages to set up and some of them I can't even wrap my head around how they got the angles they got. I enjoyed the fact that they didn't just set up a tripod in a foreign country and shoot. They mapped out their shots and got loads of overhead crane and dolly shots. As much as I enjoyed the rolling crane shots, it did become a bit repetitive by the end because they used pretty much the same two angles for every image. I would have liked a little more variety considering I was basically watching a slideshow for 1.5 hours. The score was a little cheesy for my taste.
Well considering that the people selected to be in the shots just stared at the camera as it moved closer, they did a great job. Again, that got a bit repetitive.
So overall, it was 'an experience'. I don't think it can be appreciated on anything other than the big screen. It was a little awkward to sit in pretty much silence for that long inside the theater, and as much as I wanted to get into this film, I did find myself a tiny bit bored due to the repetitiveness of the shots. But even still, it deserves tons of respect for the work and determination it took to get this thing completed.
The movie does not have a narrative and is instead a series of images gathered from around the world over the course of five years.
I enjoyed that there was no agenda to the selection of images, or at least there wasn't an apparent one. Everything was amazingly beautiful and most of the imagery was from countries other than America. There also really didn't appear to be much connection between the images. There was no intended message other than the wonder that is our world.
The images were just ridiculously beautiful. The crazy shots in some of the sequences must've taken ages to set up and some of them I can't even wrap my head around how they got the angles they got. I enjoyed the fact that they didn't just set up a tripod in a foreign country and shoot. They mapped out their shots and got loads of overhead crane and dolly shots. As much as I enjoyed the rolling crane shots, it did become a bit repetitive by the end because they used pretty much the same two angles for every image. I would have liked a little more variety considering I was basically watching a slideshow for 1.5 hours. The score was a little cheesy for my taste.
Well considering that the people selected to be in the shots just stared at the camera as it moved closer, they did a great job. Again, that got a bit repetitive.
So overall, it was 'an experience'. I don't think it can be appreciated on anything other than the big screen. It was a little awkward to sit in pretty much silence for that long inside the theater, and as much as I wanted to get into this film, I did find myself a tiny bit bored due to the repetitiveness of the shots. But even still, it deserves tons of respect for the work and determination it took to get this thing completed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)