"You Want To Fight?": Only God Forgives

Hey Gang

I know it's been awhile since I posted, and that has mainly been attributed to two things:

• I haven't been to the cinemas much recently
• The last two films I saw ("This Is the End" and "Byzantium") I enjoyed but they weren't real big standouts for me.

However, last night I ventured to the amazing Music Box theater in Lakeview to watch Nicolas Winding Refn's newest film "Only God Forgives". I'm glad it was in their main auditorium, and their second viewing screen is about the size of my bed (a roomy queen for those wondering).

Let me go on record, and it probably sounds like a broken one, that "Drive" was easily my favorite movie of 2011 and breaks into my Top 10 without a hitch. The soundtrack, old-school heist/noir plot, and acting across the board blew me away. While the story and beats weren't anything brand new, the way they were presented and mesh together make a memorable and unique movie-going experience.

I also saw "Bronson" and "Valhalla Rising", and liked both, but didn't have a huge opinion on either. I enjoyed what I saw, and they helped bolster my opinion of Refn's chops.

But then I saw "Only God Forgives"....and now I am confused.

I have to give credit to his direction, as the film was beautifully shot (a loooooooootttt of red, which set the ominous mood well but was a little repetitive), and what few action scenes that were present were excellent. It seems that Refn has an eye for these scens, and most of his his long, slow shots really put you in the moment and let you drink in the scenery.

Unfortunately, sometimes they go on a little to long. There is probably 30 minutes of footage that has action, movement, or development in it. The rest is just scenery porn, which is unique considering the glow of Bangcock but gets a little long in the tooth after you see the same room(s) over and over again.

While the direction and cinematography is on point, where the film really falls apart is in the plot, acting, and blunt yet hard to decipher imagery. The movie's plot can be easily described as a basic revenge circle, with Julian (Gosling) being the pawn to his mother's wishes, and clashes against a Vigilante/retired/old(?) cop who extracts his own revenge/torture on criminals. Simple right?

Where the film really gets bogged down is what it all means. Is Pansringarm (the cop) god/the devil/some other supernatural entity? Is he meant to be the protagonist or villain? What little characterization we get regarding Gosling's character is also contradictory (I would assume he has no more than 2 pages of dialogue in the entire film) and paints him as a despicable and somewhat weak drug-dealer. By the end of the movie, I was having trouble discerning who I was supposed to be rooting for, and was almost relieved when all the of the characters got what was coming to them. 

I get it when movies are very open to interpretation, but what separates the good and the bad in that category are the ones that at least point you in discernible directions. "Only God Forgives" comes across as aimless, almost as if Refn spent too much focus on making a pretty and deep picture but forgot to fill the hole with substance.

In the conclusion, even though the imagery and meanings can be deciphered  after thinking about them (finally go the bit about Gosling's hands), the films slow pace, lack of strong characters, and almost avant-garde quality to it makes it easily the weakest of Refn's Films. I love the major fight scene in it, and would love to see Refn do a more straight-forward and better paced independent action film.

Overall Grade: C

The Great Gatsby (2013): 2 styles for one!

Happy Monday gang!

Another late post for me, as I ventured to the local Davis theater (home of the Bed-sheet Sized Screens!) last thursday to see the Great Gatsby. As a huge fan of the book (probably top 5 for me) but a mixed fan of Baz Luhrman (Romeo+Juliet/Moulin Rogue having both highs and lows), I went into this with somewhat high hopes but not high expectations. I also tried to stay away from reviews, as I'm sure this was going to be a polarizing film.

Frist: The good parts. The cinematography and editing was outstanding, especially in the first half. The party scenes and opening shots of New York City were beautiful, and the fast pacing (much like Moulin Rogue) gave a kinetic feel that really drew you into the scenes. Nick Caraway (Toby Macguire's character for the three of you out there unfamiliar with the book) getting drunk in a crowded hotel room full of strangers is even further brought to life with the vibrant colors and quick edits. While the second have slows down considerably with the flashy editing, it still remained a sight to see.

The casting was also very well done, save for Tobes. For some reason he just doesn't seem to be invested in this role. Granted, he pretty much served as a exposition machine in the novel but I couldn't help but thinking that a younger actor like Joseph Gordon-Leavett or Andrew Garfield would have brought more to this role. Leonardo was pretty great as Jay Gatsby, almost a reverse image of his recent role in Django Unchained.  I think the best person in the cast had to be Joel Edgerton. I honestly couldn't think of a better person to play the brute with the lack of compassion for others than him.

My biggest issue with the movie was the choice of music. I know and understand how they made the decision to have Jay-Z produce and use modern music was a purely artistic choice, but man it brought me out of the mood. Earlier I mentioned that the scene in the hotel was well shot, but I distinctly remember there being a man on the fire escape next door playing the trumpet which was better for setting the mood than whatever rap song they chose to go with. I also believe that Beyonce's "Crazy In Love" was playing at some time which almost had me cracking up with how sorely out of place it was.

Lastly, the second half of the movie really dragged out. I understand that the plot takes a pretty big turn and focuses more on the characters than the Roaring Twenties as a whole, but they could have used some of the energy from the first half to continue drawing you in, as it was it was very drawn out and sometimes a little boring.

Overall there was a solid 45 minutes to an hour of a movie here, but for a work of fiction that had such an impact on American Literature you need to bring something new to the table to have your work stand out. The first act brought that with the fast editing and great casting choices, but the drag of a second half and poor choice of music keeps this from being a new-age classic.

Grade: B-

Iron Man 3: A good intro to the Summer!

As I came back from a quick jaunt around downtown Chicago, it looks like we have decided to skip spring completely and transition to summer. 80 degrees in May? We'll take it.

My movie going experience has had that same transformation, going directly from The Place Beyond the Pines, Trance, and Upstream Color - all of which independent releases with varying degrees of bizarreness - to the biggest summer blockbuster (so far) this year: Iron Man 3.

My personal history with the Iron Man series has been a mixed bag. The first one took the concept of a super-human man and ground him in reality, albeit one with super-powered suits and heart-magnets. Regardless, it kept itself grounded and stayed out of the extraterrestrial/supernatural element that most Marvel movies drift towards. It had a great cast, tight plot, and excellent action set-pieces and cinematography.

Then Iron Man 2 came along and pretty much brought the series to a stand-still. I wasn't sold on Don Cheadle as Rhodes (Terrance Howard nailed the part IMHO), and the plot was both all over the place and not detailed enough in some of its points. Again the action was good but it really slowed the momentum brought up by the original Iron Man.

*Some Spoilers Ahead*

Following up the excellent Avengers, Iron Man 3 gets the series back on track. First, the dialogue and character development was top-notch, which is not surprising to me personally since Shane Black's directorial debut Kiss Kiss Bang Bang is in my top 10, maybe top 5 movies of all time. Spending the majority of the time deconstructing the "billionaire playboy philanthropist" Tony Stark that had been built up by his previous 3 film appearance was a very effective way to establish him as a super-hero not necessarily defined by his armor. While obviously lifting some elements from The Dark Knight Trilogy (that's a whole other blog post), seeing him solve crimes and act heroically with only ~15 minutes spent inside the armor makes him a much more believable and easier to relate to character overall.

While the character development and script was on point, the plot could be a little lackluster at time. **MAJOR SPOILER** I thought the turn of the Mandarin to be nothing but smoke and mirrors was a little weak and a cheap solution. I understand that the character the Comics was much more Supernatural/Spiritual in nature, but now that we are in a universe with Norse Gods, Aliens, and a Hulk, the idea of keeping a realistic/grounded super-hero movie is a little harder to swallow. Thankfully the main villain of the movie was done expertly by Guy Pearce, and was the best super villain of the Iron Man trilogy.
Last and not least, the effects were amazing. The scenes of the armor interacting with Pepper Potts and Lounging around were incredible, and at times I couldn't even tell if there was CG used. I didn't see Life of Pie, but this may be some of the most realistic animation I've seen in years.

Overall, Iron Man 3 was an enjoyable summer movie and a great opener to the Blockbuster season. While there were some problems with the plot and a few missed opportunities, it brought the series back from the lackluster Iron Man 2 and established Tony Stark as a true hero, suit or not.

So Here We Go

Due to the strong response from my brief Movie reviews on Facebook, on top of my resolution to be more "creative" this year, I decided to fire this up and start review some feature films. I'll try to stay current, but to start I'm going to post some "recent" reviews from my Evernote. Let me know what y'all think!

Starting with a movie I saw in January: Django Unchained! *Some Small Spoilers*

Django: Unchained (90/A-):

The review for this movie can be surmised in one line: if you like Quentin Tarantino, you will love this; if you don't, you won't like this. I don't think this one will have the draw that Inglorious Bastards will, as it dives pretty deep into racism and slavery (albeit in Tarantino's Alternative Reality) which is not as generally as well received as "killing Natzis". Jamie Foxx and The Doctor had great chemistry (Shown by Waltz taking home the best supporting actor Oscar-ed), and Waltz was the highlight of the movie. The way he spoke had such an interesting cadence and order of words from his German heritage (both in movie and in real life), it really made you want to listen in. Surprisingly  Leo's character was one of the least interesting and one note, and Samuel Js was way more menacing than him, which on reflection is probably what they were shooting for. 

The biggest problem was the run-time  While it was never a case of checking your watch, there were some serious times that dragged, and the entire candy land part had a lot of different tonal changes that could have been tightened up. It was also pretty obvious how this was going to end up, so the parts that where building up to the big revenge ending really felt like padding.