The Help

So I had some interest in seeing this movie since I heard the premise and learned that Emma Stone was starring in it. Before watching, it did look like it was going to be a little too wholesome for me but still thought I'd give it a chance, and this was before it was nominated for a best picture Oscar. The movie did a fantastic job as is raked in over $205 million worldwide with a budget of only $25 million, plus it had everybody talking about it non-stop during it's release. 

The movie is set in 1960's Mississippi and revolves around a privileged white girl, Emma Stone, who sets out to further her own civil rights activism by writing a book about the 'colored' help, from their perspective. It also includes Allison Janney, Viola Davis, Jessica Chastain, Octavia Spencer, and Bryce Dallas Howard in it's eclectic cast. 

The plot obviously was going to deal with some heavy issues however it kept things light-hearted for the most part. Instead of getting deep into the harsh realities of this time period, it kept things in line with it's PG13 rating. Hopefully that decision will resonate with the younger audience who are getting detached from this part of our history. The main character was quite likable although some of her attempted development in the plot fell short in my eyes, I think the focus should have been spent on just the book and dropped her other subplots. Some of the other characters blended into each other and honestly I got Bryce Dallas Howard, Jessica Chastain, and Anna Camp's characters mixed up throughout the whole time. Perhaps I was very tired when watching or maybe the characters were too similar. The time the plot spent with the help characters was the best parts of the plot. The plot seemed to reinforce the idea that the upper class characters were in fact the less civilized too much that it became redundant. There were some nice anecdotes and some touchy subjects that the plot brought up however again it kept a wholesome and light-hearted tone throughout. Unfortunately most of the characters were one-dimensional and not very complex. 

Obviously the set design, wardrobe, and makeup were paramount in this film. The movie had the glowy picture perfect feeling of the (early) 1960's. It was definitely a romanticized movie and the cinematography matched that. 

Viola Davis fully deserves her leading actress nomination. She did a fantastic job of playing this dichotomy of subservient in one setting and powerful in another. You could feel the emotion just oozing out of the screen during the scenes where she talks about her son. It was a great performance. Jessica Chastain and Octavia Spencer have also been nominated for their roles as supporting actresses in this. They both provided much of the comic relief in the movie. By the second half of the movie, I could distinguish Chastain from the others. She was definitely believable in her role and was a refreshing break from rest of the upper class characters. Spencer also provided much of the comic relief on the other side of the plot and was much more ferocious than Davis, but she pales in comparison because her character didn't have as much moving material to work with. I think both of these ladies did nice jobs with their roles. Emma Stone was really great in her role as well. It was nice to see her in something a little different although she still was the Emma Stone we've come to know and love. I think it was a great decision for her to take on this film. 

In the end, it still felt a little too wholesome and light-hearted even though it dealt with some heavy issues. It just didn't get too deep into those issues. I enjoyed the movie as it was entertaining, even if the characters weren't too complex, except for maybe Davis'. I think perhaps my feeling about the wholesomeness of the movie could be related to the fact that I took several courses and read numerous books about this subject that dove head first into the heavy issues. Perhaps someone who has a working knowledge of this time period would find this a deeper movie, such as the younger PG13 audience.  Also I may be overlooking the fact that the goal of the movie was to provide this type of look into the past. "Pay to the order: Two Slice Hilly". 

Rise of the Planet of the Apes

So, I had no inclinations to see this movie at all when it came out. Only after hearing for the millionth time about how Andy Serkis deserved an Oscar nod and other general praise for the movie, I decided to bite the bullet and watch it. Perhaps I'm still holding a grudge from the Mark Wahlberg version, which was one of the worst movies in history, but I'm not a fan of this franchise in particular. I don't believe I have seen any of the other versions. In any event, it looks like this movie did extremely well as it not only generated serious Oscar buzz, it's brought in almost $481 million worldwide with a budget of only $93 million.

The plot is what I assume a prequel to the franchise, or at least the last movie (please forgive my ignorance on the ape franchise). It follows James Franco as he manipulates genetic codes in order to save his father, played by John Lithgow, from Alzheimers. The apes that he tests on become highly intelligent which ultimately leads to their demise at the lab he works for, save one tiny little baby with a super I.Q. Franco's character takes him home and raises him. The aptly named Caesar, finds himself imprisoned in a brutal ape sanctuary and ultimately leads a revolt against those damn dirty humans.

I will say that the script was fresh and original. Apparently there were also tons of little hat-tips to the other movies, but in a smart and realistic way. The characters were unfortunately riddled with cliches and stereotypes, except for maybe Caesar, but again that's only to be expected in an action movie. The dialogue was predictable and simple.

I was quite disappointed with the CGI. Don't get me wrong, the faces were beautifully done and far superior to most other movies with CGI creatures. That being said, the way their bodies moved and the lighting and interlacing with the film was just really off. I'm not anything close to being a special effects guru, but it seems as though all of the time was spent on the faces of the apes instead of making them look like they were actually there. The lighting didn't even match the backgrounds in some shots. And I don't want to even mention the body-dragging sequence after Malfoy's character was knocked out. Although, I do have to hand it to them since almost every single frame contained a CGI character in it. I'm surprised it only cost $93 million. As far as the other cinematic elements, obviously the majority of the budget was in the special effects department as there was run-of-the-mill camera work, score, etc.

James Franco is such a Renaissance Man and he did fine in this role. Malfoy, a.k.a. Tom Felton, did pretty well, plus it was fun watching him without his accent. I will admit that Andy Serkis did an amazing job with his motion capture acting. He conveyed so much through his face it was unreal.

In the end, I was disappointed. Most likely this is due to the supersized ultra overrated non-stop hyping of the movie going on. Other than the exquisitely done ape faces, the CGI was way below par. The plot was interesting enough to keep me from hating the movie but still falls in the mediocre realm. "Ape alone, weak. Apes together, strong."

50/50

So I had been wanting to see this for forever but honestly I'd been kind of dreading it because I didn't want to think about the existential ideas in the movie. Alas, I caved and finally saw it and thank goodness I did. The movie has made about $39 million so far on a budget of about $8 million.

The movie is about a young twenty-something guy who is diagnosed with a rare form of spinal cancer and it's inspired from the real-life events of screenwriter, Wil Reiser. Joseph-Gordon Levitt plays the main character and Seth Rogan plays his best friend. Bryce Dallas Howard plays his girlfriend, Angelica Huston is the mother, and Anna Kendrick is the worst therapist in the world.

This was an extremely well written script. It found humor in such a tragic setting. Even with all of the improvisation on set, the dialogue and script are just fantastic. You really feel like you're a part of the secret cancer society that you don't think much about until your life is affected by it. I think that when dealing with such a touchy subject matter, it can either come out fantastic or just horrible. Luckily, it was awesome in this case. The characters were very well written and displayed different emotions and dynamics all around.

The cinematography and film used on this movie were superb. The scenes were framed and colored beautifully. The soundtrack was perfect and in the right spots. The characters were given time to develop and interact with each other. This is the way movies should be made (I'm referring to the $8 million budget). When you spend the focus on cinematography, scripts, and actors you get a much better result and you don't need multi million dollar budgets, but I digress.

Joseph Gordon-Levitt was simply awesome (as always). They actually had first cast James McAvoy, whom I also adore, but I really think JGL was perfect for the role. I especially loved the scenes with Anna Kendrick and JGL. They were awkwardly funny and I enjoyed their dynamic. Seth Rogen was Seth Rogen. I would've liked to see some dramatic scenes from him, but I'm just being picky now. Angelica Huston was very great but I wouldn't have expected any less. Bryce Dallas Howard is proving to be a pretty good character actress. I definitely had my doubts from her Victoria portrayal but when you compare it with her character in The Help, she's really becoming these different characters.

In the end, this was a great movie. It gives you a great outlook on life. I'd recommend watching this movie once you've settled down for the evening. It's one of those that makes you reflect afterwards. I'm not a fan of illness or sick children movies, but I did great with this one. "Nobody is going to f*** me, I look like Voldemort".

What's Your Number

So, sometimes I like these fluffy romantic comedies, I am a girl. I had thought the premise of this movie looked cute and I have loved Anna Farris ever since Smiley Face. The movie has made about $30 million with a tiny profit given it's $20 million budget. It's from director Mark Mylod who seems to be most well known as a tv director of Shameless and Entourage.

The movie is about a girl living in the big city who comes to the realization that she's slept with 19 men in her lifetime and vows that the next man she takes to bed will be 'the one'. When she 'accidentally' sleeps with number 20, she then goes on a mission to find all of her ex-lovers to see if she can re-kindle the romance and therefore not increasing her number. She uses the help of her super hot neighbor, Chris Evans, who has an investigation background.

Ok, so obviously this is going to be a predictable plot. Also it's yet another movie about finding 'the one' perfect guy and making everything right in your life, etc. I also found it interesting how it reflects on our culture that the average number of sexual partners a girl has is 10.5. Just imagine if this same movie was made 50 years ago. Anyway, it was fairly comical, mostly thanks to Faris. There were a lot of potentially hilarious scenes that only came away with small chuckles.

The soundtrack was pretty rockin'. I looked up a couple of the songs I didn't already know, so props on that. The main characters were amazingly sharp dressers, although they seemed to make Faris' clothes skimpier and skimpier as it went along, well Evans' too. There were a few different camera angles so the whole movie wasn't just close and wide shots.

Anna Faris did the best and carried the movie. She had help from Evans who was comical at times, don't forget his breakthrough performance from my beloved Not Another Teen Movie. There were bit parts scattered throughout from Faris' own husband, Andy Samberg, Martin Freeman, to name a few, but they didn't really get enough time to really make a comical impact.

In the end, it was a pretty, light-hearted, sometimes comical, ultra predictable chick flick. Sometimes that's not a bad thing since it really didn't claim to be much else. I do like how they kept it rated R or it most likely would have lost all of it's comedy. "Step-cousins, mom. It's like we're not even really related".

Sylvia

So this is a little BBC movie from 2003 starring Gwyneth Paltrow and Daniel Craig about the rise and fall of Sylvia Plath via her relationship with Ted Hughes. Netflix recommended this movie to me, possibly because I was one of the few that laughed at the Plath joke in Easy A? Or possibly because Netflix thinks I'm depressed? Either way, the movie looked interesting enough for me to watch since I really didn't know much about Plath past her infamous ending and that she wrote the Bell Jar.

The movie is directed by Christine Jeffs, who would later direct the quirkily awesome Sunshine Cleaning.  The movie follows the 1960's poet Sylvia Plath, played by Paltrow, who is plagued with insecurities and suicidal tendencies through her relationship with fellow poet Ted Hughes, played by Craig. His philandering doesn't help matters any in this moody period piece.

Obviously, this is a feel good movie that will warm your heart. Aside from the fact that we all know how this will end, the plot was rather interesting. Now, I'm no Plath expert but I did do a little research on the subject and apparently there are some differing opinions on Hughes himself, although everyone else seems to love Plath. They chose to show Hughes in an equivalent light instead of painting him in a darker role. I like that choice since it's all really conjecture anyway. The movie could have benefited from showing Plath at an earlier age, but at least she described her experiences.

It was a BBC film and the cinematography was exactly as you'd expect. The movie could've used some non cliche'd elevator music and better lenses and film quality. There was really nothing in this part of the movie that was worth mentioning. Wait, that's not entirely true. The wardrobe, makeup, and set design deserves some credit as it did have the feel of 1960's England.

Gwyneth Paltrow did a good job I thought. She did these almost unnoticeable little body movements, such a wringing her hands or clenching her dress, just to add to the insecurities Plath had about herself. I really don't know if she captured her or not because I have to admit that I've never read any of her poetry, but she seemed to capture the persona of a unmedicated manic depressive at least. Craig did a nice job, especially when he was reciting poetry or taking his shirt off. Unfortunately his character just reinforced the idea that all men suck.

I'd really only recommend this to Plath fans or fans of depressive movies, unless you have suicidal tendencies, then don't watch! In any event, the actors did a nice job and I learned a little bit more about her history, other than that the movie was somewhat forgettable. "Sometimes I feel like I'm not, solid. I'm hollow. There's nothing behind my eyes. I'm a negative of a person" -- Sylvia.

Tiny Furniture

So I remember seeing the trailer for this at SXSW in 2010 but I wasn't able to go see it because of my schedule. I had since forgotten about the movie even though it looked interesting but now it's on Netflix instant and I finally got to see it. It's sad the anticipation was better than the product. The movie, which is a microbudget indie made with $50,000 and written and directed by it's star Lena Dunham. The movie actually won best first screenplay at the Independent Spirit Awards and was nominated for three other various awards.

The movie is about a post-grad, played by Dunham, who moves back home to New York City to live with her artist mother. She gets a job at a restaurant and hangs out with some friends. Okay that about sums up the whole movie.

Yes yes it's about the post-grad what-do-I-do-with-my-life syndrome, which means it's basically about nothing. Some of the characters have some witty observations about life, but they're few and far between. The movie borders on becoming a little mumblecore movie, but the nice cinematography seems to save it from that fate. I didn't find the main character very endearing, and rather whiny. Perhaps because I have children and real responsibilities I wasn't able to relate to this movie, but then again I still love The Graduate.

The camera lenses were soft when needed and focused in other shots. The angles were done nicely as well with interesting focus. Even with the smooth moves and interesting angles, it couldn't hide the fact that the characters were just rambling along with the plot.

I found the crazy friend Charlotte the most entertaining and endearing with her mysterious accent and no holds barred attitude. I also found the younger sister equally as entertaining with her passive-aggressive demeanor. Sadly, I did not find the main character entertaining, and seeing as she is in every scene of the movie, this was hard to work with. Not saying she didn't play the character well, I just wasn't interested in the character.

Sadly, I was very disappointed in this movie. Aside from the nice camera work and plot points that were almost discovered, the movie was quite boring in my opinion and this is coming from someone who loves movies about nothing. Perhaps it just wasn't for me. Apparently someone likes the movie since was nominated four times. I was also secretly disappointed there wasn't more tiny furniture in the movie. "I just don't think you should promise things you can't actually deliver"

Midnight in Paris

So I had been hearing so much about this movie since it opened up the Cannes festival this year and I thought it was about time I saw it. It has my favorite actress, or at least one of my top three, Marion Cotillard in it and it's a Woody Allen film. The movie has made about $145 million worldwide, thanks to a great performance overseas, and it was made with a budget of only $17 million. 

The movie is about a couple, played by Owen Wilson and Rachel McAdams, who are vacationing in Paris while McAdams' parents are there on business. One night Wilson's character finds himself drunk and lost in Paris at midnight when an old antique car comes to pick him up. He then finds himself in a timeslip back to 1920's Paris and rubbing elbows with Ernest Hemmingway, F. Scott Fitzgerald, Gertrude Stein, etc. Oh, did I mention that the movie also has Adrien Brody, Kathy Bates, Michael Sheen, and Carla Bruni?

The plot is obviously a little whimsical, but it was so much fun and was totally relatable. Everyone (almost) always thinks it would be so much simpler and easier to live in a time before their own. This plot explores that feeling. The dialogue and observations made by the characters are quite witty and spot on. Contrary to some other of Woody Allen's films, this plot was linear and worked towards a conclusion. 

The scenery shots in the movie were just beautiful, but Paris is beautiful itself. The timeslip sequences were equally as beautiful. The nostalgia was almost palpable in the movie. The score was perfect and featured Cole Porter which was simply awesome. 

Owen Wilson is almost like the modern day Woody Allen, with his rambling monologues and such. He did a good job in this movie. He was not different than most of his other roles but he wasn't over the top and let the movie take center stage. Rachel McAdams played the perfect distant and angry girlfriend. I loved Marion Cotillard's character and thought she was just super smooth and polished in this role. 

In the end, I really really liked this movie. It had witty observations but also hit a chord with the escapist inside of me. It really is symbolically and quite literally about escaping the droll present and was a fun ride to watch. It was beautiful, had a great story, showcased some of the greatest periods in modern history, and was all shot on location in Paris for goodness sakes. Props to Woody Allen, who can sometimes be hit or miss in my opinion at least. "The artist's job is not to succumb to despair but to find an antidote for the emptiness of existence".