Cosmopolis

So, I had been interested in seeing this movie for some time but had to wait until it was finally available at Redbox. I'd been hearing strange things about it and decided it was best to not watch the trailer beforehand (which is my usual preference under most circumstances). The movie found it's way to only 65 theaters last October in a small release and ended up taking in about $6 million which didn't quite make offset it's $20 million (estimated) budget.

The basic story: It's about a billionaire who drives in a limo all over NYC one day to get a haircut. The long story: On the surface, it's about this characters crumbling world around him as each encounter brings a change to his world.

Well the plot was adapted by Cronenberg himself but I have not read the novel, nor do I plan on doing so, therefore, I'm not a good source on how well it was adapted. I've seen some criticisms that the characters were not developed and there was not emotion, but my argument is that is exactly what's happening to the 'people' in this world that is being shown in the movie. I felt as though the story of the movie was not about any of these characters but rather as the world as a whole. Almost as if we were watching from the outside in despite it's intimate proximity to the main character. The plot is drenched with heavy dialogue and material and it's obvious up for interpretation. It is very possible that everything is way over my head and I'm getting something different than the intended symbolism, meaning, etc. I felt that this was a movie that forced the viewer to reflect afterwards and take from it what you connected with. Viewing the movie as a whole and reflecting on the choices within provided to be much more entertaining than going through the plot, in my case. When I viewed the movie, I was looking for a storyline and found the entertainment fell short. As I progressed through the movie, I gave up trying to understand any of it until the end when I could look back on it as a whole.

I was quite shocked at the pretty bad greenscreen car backgrounds in almost all of the limo shots. Who knows if Cronenberg did this on purpose to illustrate the fictitious world capitalism can create or something smart like that. The soundtrack was quite minimal in the first half of the movie and even had several scenes without any score. I wasn't a fan of that choice, but again it could have been used to illustrate a point. Towards the end, things began to pick up and I loved hearing some Metric songs in there. I was expecting much more stylized camera movements, pacing, and theme. A lot of the plot was cut into different distinct bits. While this was surprising at first, it helped to illustrate that the surface story was unimportant. One thing very evident, and kinda genius, was the eye contact, or lack thereof, and body positioning that was reflective of the character's dynamics. While I was unable, i.e. not smart enough, to figure out every character's dynamics and correlation to the eye contact and blocking, I did pick up on some. That took a solid effort instead of just putting the actors in the frame and rolling camera.

Since the story of the movie really isn't about the story, it does unfortunately constrict the actor's performances to a more subtle emotional level. I could be completely wrong in my interpretation of the movie however. This wasn't a big emotional drama, it was more about the character's relationship with one another and how it connected to the world. These actors had a lot of things to remember in addition to performing some strange scenes. Since almost all of the characters were quite unique an the dialogue was constricted and not really emotionally tied to the scenes, these was most likely a very challenging screenplay to pull off. Robert Pattinson created a very complex character that caused you to question and think about his actions to try and find a motive instead of simply giving the answers away for free.

In the end, the movie is not for everyone. This movie will leave many questions that will require your own interpretation and everyone's probably got a different one. I think it was about the world as a whole and obviously about our ties with economic gain and growth. I don't think it's necessary for or against capitalism but again it's probably all above me anyway. While the movie was very stylized and had very memorable moments, it was a long process and the most interesting parts was the reflection after the movie, at least in my experience. I know a lot of people don't like, even despise, movies that are ambiguous and give no real answers so I'd warn those to stay away at all costs. I was mildly entertained and have enjoyed trying to come up with my own (un-educated) answers but I will say I did feel pretty un-smart during the film while I was 'not getting' most of it. "Talent is more erotic when wasted".

Pitch Perfect

So, at first I was totally against seeing this movie, but then I heard everyone raving about it and it has Anna Kendrick and Elizabeth Banks in it so It couldn't be all that bad right? Either way, it's made about $105 million on it's modest $17 million budget.

This movie, apparently based on a novel, centers around a college freshman, played by Anna Kendrick. She's really into 'dropping the beats' (am I saying that right?) and wants nothing more than to move to L.A. to produce music. Her father makes an agreement with her for her to complete her freshman year whilst joining at least one group and if she still doesn't like it, he will pay for her to go out to L.A. Secretly, she's an awesome singer and gets recruited into an all-female glee club that has ran out of members and is letting anyone join. Their ultimate goal is to beat the champion all-male club also at their college.

Well, the plot is pretty predictable even though the characters make fun of predictable plots. There was some satirical moments dripping with wit and then there were some pretty bland generic moments as well. I couldn't quite figure out throughout the movie if they were taking themselves seriously or not, and I'm still unsure. In any case, there were many humorous moments throughout. The pacing was a little off because the parts in-between the humorous bits were rather boring. Most of the physical comedy bits were a little over-the-top for my taste, but they were few and far between. On average, most of the moments aimed for humor hit their mark, there were only a few failed scenes in my personal opinion. The movie was rated PG-13 but I feel like if they had removed those limits and just went for an R rating, this could've been the Bridesmaids of the college glee club genre.

The music was pretty rad. I almost wanted to go out and start DJ-ing after this movie, or at least go back to college and join a glee club. The color palette and wardrobe were incredibly vibrant and made everything pop on the screen. I will say I did notice inconsistencies with the makeup in that there was noticeable jawline discoloration.

What really made this movie was Anna Kendrick and Rebel Wilson. Unfortunately, Kendrick had to play the grumpy sour-puss for most of the movie and lost out on a bunch of comedic opportunities since she was basically in the scenes to look like the sane character which in turn made the others look even crazier. Wilson was pretty much hilarious in all of her scenes, a la Bridesmaids. The guy from Workaholics (Adam Devine), the girl from True Blood (Anna Camp), and Britney Snow pretty much completed the comedy in the movie. Oh, well Elizabeth Banks and John Michael Higgins had some great moments as the announcers of the movie but their time wasn't maximized. Some of the odd characters were overplayed, i.e. the 'magician' and the girl who was inaudible.

In the end it wasn't as ridiculously hilariously awesome as I was hoping, but it wasn't that bad either. It hit somewhere in the middle between Step Up 13 and Bridesmaids. I think it was a solid effort but it just missed some opportunities for the satire and wit I think it was aiming for. You can't deny that a lot of hard work went into making the film. "Nothing makes a woman feel more like a girl than a man who sings like a boy".

The Dark Knight Rises

So, I had pretty much forgotten the plot of The Dark Knight since seeing it many moons ago, but this movie still looked pretty bad ass. Well it's made $1.08 billion so far, which means most people have already seen this and there's really no need for a review. Too bad, I have to catch up. So here goes. . .


The movie picks up where the last one left off ( I assume ) and we find Batman no longer fighting crime and basically being a scraggly hermit. Soon, a super villian, Bane played by Tom Hardy, locks down NYC, I mean Gotham, and threatens to blow up the city. Batman also meets Catwoman, played by Anne Hathaway, for the first time and sort of teams up together.

Now that you've read my amazing synopsis, there's obviously no need to actually watch the movie. I'm not a Batman historian at all and I have no idea how the characters are related (except what they've listed under the trivia section of imdb), but the plot seemed pretty original and realistic, except when you think about the physics of it. Explosive-laced concrete? I'm pretty sure that wouldn't work. And it would've taken decades to get around the city and the security around the explosive making site (two construction workers) was pretty lax. But anyway, who cares about the logistics? Some of the character's motivations didn't make that much sense either; such as sleeping with your arch-enemy? On average though, the plot was pretty entertaining and I wasn't able to predict pretty much any of the plot.

The action sequences were totally rad, as expected. That's why we watch these films. The cinematography played up the dark mysteriousness of the movies and made it just feel powerful.

Marion Cotillard is without a doubt one of my favorite actresses and she was awesome in this movie. I enjoyed seeing her play a multi-faceted character. Anne Hathaway also made a pretty cool catwoman, much more realistic than I had expected. I'm still not sure why Christian Bale whisper-talks when he's Batman, but he gave the same quality performance as expected from the other movies despite being barely audible when speaking. I didn't realize that Tom Hardy voiced his character at the time I was watching as I found the voice he used to not be very intimidating, even though it was based on a a real person. Physically, he was very intimidating and I guess it was unexpected when he had that non-threatening voice.

Basically, there's no need for a review of this movie. It's the epitome of 'cool'. The action sequences are every man's dream and the characters are interesting enough to keep us entertained inbetween the action. I have enjoyed the dark and twistedness that Nolan has given to the franchise. It's made it one-of-a-kind for sure. I'll be sad to see it go. "About the whole no guns thing, I'm not sure I feel as strongly about it as you do".

Looper

So, I had wanted to see this ever since I heard those three little letters; JGL. Who doesn't love him? The movie brought in a nice $166 million making a nice little profit from it's $30 million budget. Oh, and did I mention it has Joseph Gordon-Levitt in it?

The movie is a time-travelling movie about a futuristic America where time travel hasn't been discovered yet, but will be in thirty years. In that future future, the mob uses time travel to send back people they want to assassinate because it is much harder to dispose of the bodies in the future future. So they hire 'loopers' which are people in the (past) future who show up at a certain time/place and shoot the people they send back and dispose of their bodies in the (past) future. Make sense? Of course it does. Well, if the loopers are still alive 30 years later, the mob finds them and sends them back for the loopers to kill themselves (unknowingly because they show up with a hood on). That's called 'closing the loop' and they get a big payout and get to live their next thirty years as they see fit. Okay, still with me? JGL's character's future future self, played by Bruce Willis, comes back and tries to escape 'closing his loop'. Emily Blunt, Piper Perabo, Paul Dano, and Jeff Daniels also star in the movie.

Contrary to my synopsis, the movie is actually pretty easy to follow. It is in keeping with the Dr. Who time travel motto: Don't worry about it. This is true, the plot isn't about time travel; it's about life decisions. Obviously, when you have time travel in a movie, you can go on a million tangents trying to find loopholes, or you can focus on the characters and their choices and motivations, which are the main focus in this movie. While the movie started out a little slow, I enjoyed the characters and plot line of the movie. I was not aware that there would be some children in harm's way in this movie (which is usually a no-go for me) but it was done respectfully enough for me to continue watching.

One of the biggest visual pieces of this movie was the prosthetic work done to JGL to make him look more like Bruce Willis, which worked. He looked like Bruce visually and in his mannerisms. It took about 3 hours for him to go through makeup each day. While it was very realistic looking, i'm not convinced it was necessary. Perhaps if one of them had been a lesser-known actor, it would make sense to change their appearance to match, but this is Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Bruce Willis. You still saw these two actors despite the makeup. It really wouldn't have been that much of a stretch to believe they're the same person, it's been done a million times before. Since JGL is really really good-looking, I was a little disappointed we didn't get to see his dapper self the whole time. Ok, I've vented. The score was pretty awesome in the movie. Almost awesome enough to buy from iTunes. I also very much appreciated the minimal use of CGI in the movie. The practical locations and sets gave it almost a comic book feeling. It was quite beautiful cinematically.

JGL and Bruce Willis did a good job acting as the same person, well it was more JGL acting like Bruce but it was still cool. I also enjoyed Emily Blunt's performance in the movie. She was somehow vulnerable while being a bad-ass at the same time. The best performance in the movie no doubt was from the five year old phenomenon called Pierce Cagnon. Wow. Some adult actors couldn't pull off his range in this movie. I can barely get my five year old to pick up her toys let alone cry/scream/sneer on cue.

I've heard mediocre reviews from some people about the movie. I'll admit that the beginning was a tad slow, but once it got into it, it picked up pretty well. It's really not hard to follow, if you're paying attention. I'd never recommend mult-tasking anyway during a film, but especially in this one. In the end, it was pretty unique and cool. It was definitely different than what I was expecting. "I don't want to talk about time travel because if we start talking about it we're going to be here all day talking about it, making diagrams out of straws and stuff".

Best Picture Pact: Life of Pi

Best Picture Pact:

So, I got dragged to go see this movie in the theater and in 3D. I really didn't know anything about this movie except that I didn't want to see it and especially not in 3D. The movie has made an impressive $450 million worldwide, greatly surpassing it's $120 million budget. Oh, and it's been nominated for 11 Oscars (picture, director, adapted screenplay, editing, cinematography, art direction, visual effects, sound, sound editing, original score, and original song. whew). So that makes this review a part of my Best Picture Pact (where I watch and review all films nominated for Best Picture).

The movie is adapted from a novel about a boy who becomes stranded in the ocean with a Bengal Tiger in a small lifeboat for almost a year. He was traveling on a freight ship with the animals from his family's zoo on their way from India to Canada when they hit a storm which causes the ship to sink. While there was an actual story of a man being stranded with a jaguar on the ocean, this story is fictional.

Okay, I'll admit the story was pretty good even though it's one of those 'heart-warming' survival stories. I had forgotten what the movie poster looked like, so I didn't see the sinking of the ship coming at all. The story was actually quite entertaining and well paced even though the majority took place on the ocean. It had all of the elements to make it 'heart warming'; family, animals, survival, humor, etc. I also liked how it didn't shy away from the animals or people trying to kill each other and I admired how they didn't give this tiger unrealistic human qualities that you might see in some other movies. I haven't read the source novel so I have no idea how well it was adapted or not.

Okay, this movie was beautiful. Albeit, most of it was added in post-production, but it sure was pretty. Was 3D necessary? No. Hugo still remains to be the only movie in which I believe 3D was appropriate. As you can tell, i'm not a fan of the medium. I think it took away from the beautiful imagery in this movie. The color palette used in the movie was just breathtaking and some of the scenes of 'nature' were awesome.

What I was most impressed with, well the cinematography was up there, was the performance from the lead actor, Suraj Sharma. He did fantastic. I totally believed that he had been shipwrecked for months. This was a challenging role no doubt, and he completely pulled it off and he's only about 20. I'm surprised the movie got so many nominations but not one for best actor.

Well, I'll admit that this was a pretty good movie. Best Picture? Not sure. This is only the second I've viewed from the entire nomination list. Personally, I like Silver Linings Playbook better. This was a beautiful epic journey, no doubt. It was maybe a little too over-the-top for my personal taste for Best Picture however, and somewhat predictable. The imagery alone made this movie worth it. I'd recommend non-3D however. "You cannot know the strength of your faith until it is tested".

Ruby Sparks

So, I had been wanting to see this movie from the super cute trailers that had been playing everywhere I looked, it seemed. The movie was written by Zoe Kazan, who also plays the female lead, and starred her real-life boyfriend, the amazing Paul Dano. The movie was released in 261 theaters back in July and made about $6.5 million.

The movie is about a writer, played by Dano, who is having trouble writing his second novel after writing the 'next great American novel' ten years before. He starts to write about a girl he meets in his dreams and the girl then shows up at his house. He realizes that he wrote this girl and can control her actions.

The plot doesn't really center on the fantasy aspect of creating a person from thin air, but rather the relationship in the story. Even though he created his girlfriend, they still had problems normal couples encounter. It also brought up questions about what's really real, etc. The plot was very entertaining and actually pretty realistic. As mentioned by most fans, it was refreshing and original.

The movie was paced very well and flowed smoothly throughout the entire thing. Also, being a legit indie film, it had a rocking soundtrack.

Paul Dano and Zoe Kazan were ridiculously cute. It was surprising when I read after the movie that they are a real-life couple. It was also nice to see Dano play something other than a super creepy character. Annette Bening and Antonio Banderas, who play Dano's parents, were super funny and charming. Oh, and my inner True Blood fan loved seeing the little cameo from Jessica, or Deborah Ann Woll.

This movie reminded me a lot of Stranger Than Fiction (one of my all-time favorites), not only in plot similarities, but general theme and pacing. It was a cute romantic comedy that had more substance than the run-of-the-mill studio romcom. "I couldn't see you when you were here, and now that you're gone, I see you everywhere".

Lola Versus

So, I had been wanting to see this although a little worried because even though I love Greta Gerwig as an actress and writer, I really haven't enjoyed many of her movies. This movie was released last July and only made it to 52 theaters. It brought in only $252k.

The movie centers around Lola, played by Gerwig, who is suddenly dumped by her boyfriend three weeks before their wedding. She then is forced to re-examine her life and relationships.

The story had an actual plot and was quite humorous (some of Gerwig's other movies seemed to be lacking in the plot department). The characters were unique and genuine and the story was entertaining for the most part.

The editing helped with a lot of the humorous bits and was paced rather well throughout. The lighting, set design, and cinematography were very professional and executed well.

Greta Gerwig, did great again. I've always enjoyed her acting, even if the movies themselves that she was in were sub-par. Her character was relatable and very funny at the right times. Zoe Lister Jones, who plays her friend and co-wrote the screenplay, was downright hilarious in the movie. The men in the movie were pretty great as well.

It's been awhile since I viewed this film, but I do remember thinking I finally found a Greta Gerwig movie that I liked. It turned out to be a pretty funny dramedy about love and sex which I think most people could at least relate to. "I think, to love yourself, you first have to learn to love other people."

Anna Karenina

So, I had never seen the previous movie(s) nor read the source novel for this movie. Nevertheless, I was  uber excited to see this, mostly because I'm a huge fan of Keira Knightley/Joe Wright movies (i.e. Pride & Prejudice, Atonement). It was released in November and has brought in about $43 million and has been nominated for four Oscars (cinematography, art direction, costume design, and original score).

The movie centers around Anna Karenina in turn of the century Russia as she begins a passionate affair with Aaron Taylor-Johnson's character (from Kick-Ass fame) despite being married to a loving and prominent political figure played by Jude Law. The movie also has Matthew MacFayden and Domhall Gleeson (long live Harry Potter!).

The plot is from a classic novel, so obviously it's pretty great. It's really more of an ensemble plot with all the characters involved in the movie. I've never read the novel so I'm not sure how accurate the movie is or not. There was a lot of action and a long timespan in the movie that was kinda hard to keep up with at times, but it was still pretty entertaining.

I had been hearing about all the 'risk-taking' that Joe Wright had done with this movie but I didn't really understand why until I saw it. The movie was basically played out in a stage setting. Almost all of the scenes took place on this 'stage' and was musically theatrical. There was one character however who left the 'stage' as he was, according to Wright, the only pure-hearted character in the movie. It was definitely inventive and interesting. I think it only took away slightly from the drama in the story but it did make it visually entertaining, especially when trying to fathom how some of those long rolling shots were set up and executed.

Everyone was pretty great. Matthew MacFayden was much more animated than I've seen him before and even though I still want him to be Mr. Darcy, it was a pretty humorous performance. Keira Knightley and Aaron Taylor-Johnson had believable chemistry. Jude Law's vulnerability was quite believable which is a hard thing to pull off given his natural charisma and since he's really really good-looking.

Overall, it was very beautiful. The story kept me entertained, however I am a female that enjoys the theater and Russian history, so I'm the prime demographic. It didn't surpass Pride & Prejudice or Atonement in my personal list. I'm not sure yet who the other contenders are in the Oscar race, but I'd say it's got a real shot at Costume, cinematography, and especially art design. "You cannot ask 'why' about love"

So behind

I'm extremely behind in my reviews over the past couple of months! I know that all of my loyal readers have probably been devastated and have not known what to do for these past months. For those two or three people out there who read these; don't worry. I'll catch up (eventually). Here's a list of the movies that are on the slate to be reviewed. I'll most likely do some abridged versions to catch up.

Anna Karenina
Lola Versus
Ruby Sparks
Life of Pi
Looper
The Dark Knight Rises
Under Still Waters
Irresistible
You Will Be Mine
Total Recall
That's My Boy
Seeking a Friend for the End of the World
The Amazing Spiderman
The Avengers
Moonrise Kingdom
Prometheus
Breaking Dawn part 1
Your sister's sister
Magic Mike
Five Year Engagement
Damsels in Distress
Hysteria
What to Expect
Bel Ami
American Reunion
Wanderlust
Salmon Fishing in the Yemen
21 Jump Street
Jeff Who Lives at Home
Take this waltz
Blue State
Romantics Anonymous
Puccini for Beginners
The Secret
The Poker House
Virginia
Sleepwalk With Me
Mister Foe
Pitch Perfect