Over-stylized like a bad moustache: The Grand Budapest Hotel

Just a quickie one this week folks.

One of the biggest contenders for the Academy and winners for the Golden Globes was about to be taken off HBO, so I decided to watch The Grand Budapest Hotel over last weekend. And I mean that literally. I dozed off the first time I tried to go through it, and ended up having to break the one hour and forty minute movie into 2 viewings.

First, my opinion on the director and his breadth of work so far. I’m traditionally a huge Wes Anderson fan, with Bottle Rocket, his first major release, marking the low point and Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou at the high. His direction and editing, while consistent, changes enough with his chosen subject matter that it never feels stale. Recently I was most surprised by The Fantastic Mister Fox, which so seamlessly captured his signature style in an animated format it was almost an art form.

Then the hype machine started grinding for Budapest, and this large man started having some questions….

Long story short, I don’t feel that it deserves the heaps of awards that are being dumped on it, especially winning over Birdman at the Golden Globes. In fact, I think Anderson’s previous effort MoonriseKingdom out performed this one in every aspect. That’s not to say it’s a horrible movie. It’s entertaining, well shot, and has some solid performances (Here’s looking at you, Ralph Fiennes and Saoirise Ronan), but it’s overshadowed by an assault of Anderson’s style. It feels like he went way over the top in all aspects, from every character being over the top quirky, to his repeated shot style, and so many reused actor cameos that even Tim Burton would blush.

Lastly, I really didn’t feel like there was any overall message that struck out to me. So a prompt and fashionable posh befriends a below-the-line social outcast? Not really treading new water here. 

Again, while some aspects of it were good, this didn’t strike me as the kind of movie to kill it during awards season.

Final Letter Grade: C+

50 Miles to Montgomery: Selma

First and foremost: Happy (belated) MLK day! For those who were wondering this is actually celebrating a representation of his birthday, which is actually January 15th. However, since it’s a national holiday and *insert your political, banking, or illuminate opinion here*, we celebrate it on the 3rd Monday in January. Coincidentally, my roommate had…”found” a copy of Selma over the weekend, and we decided it was appropriate to pop it in Sunday evening.

I have to admit I’m not the biggest biopic fan. The last few years have had some massive nods towards this genre (The Kings Speech and Lincoln standing out for me) and these have generally gone by the wayside for me. I’m not a big history buff, so the fact that there is a lot I will miss in the 2.5+ hours plus these kinds of films generally run makes them not jump to the top of my “must see list”. Frankly, when I saw the first trailer for Selma I wasn't too fired up for it, almost for these exact reasons. As the Oscar hype swirled around David Oyelowo performance and Ava DuVernay direction, I decided that this would be a good one to break the dry spell.

I first have to say that the two positives above are spot on. Oyelowo has been a phenomenal character actor (I specifically remember him doing a great job in the underrated Jack Reacher), and he clearly steals the show. Interestingly, there are pretty big segments that don’t have him in the forefront, and each time it cuts away you immediately want him back in the picture. He has an understated confidence and power that completely captures your attention on the team. At first I thought it was going to paint him in a perfect light, showing him as a fearless leader without a chink in his armor. Again, I’m no history, but from what I’m heard the movie has a much more realistic portrayal, a man struggling with infidelity and self-doubt. It’s an interesting take on the figure, and you can clearly see Oyelowo put a lot of time and thought into this role. I’m sure fans will comment on Oprah’s character too, but to me she just felt a little stock. Not a bad performance, just nothing ground breaking.

The other performance that really stands out is Tim Roth as the racist and heartless Gov. Wallace. He could have easily turned in a stereotypical “good ole hater boy” role but again comes across as much more subtle. You can see how he could lead the people and authorities in Montgomery (and for that matter across the state of Alabama) on his crusade. It’s a delicate performance that could have easily gone over the top, but again Roth nails it.

I wasn’t familiar with the director before this, but her work here really stands out. The specific scene that draws my memory is the scene of the attack on the bridge. It would have been easy to make this exploitative and over the top, but the great work with the obfuscation of the tear gas makes it seem even more intense. The horses riding in and out of the melee is a pretty scary sight, and the officers with their gas-mask donned almost look like Stormtroopers or something out of World War One.

While the movie excelled on several aspects, it dragged on others. Selma reeeallllyyy takes its time, having long stretches of characters debating about actions or showing the hardships of the time. I understand that it is important to document the time period, but with a movie so focused on a single character it felt that it wondered a little bit from its purpose.

And I think that may be the biggest gripe I have with Selma. Dr. King is such an interesting character you want to see more of his speeches, more of his issues with his wife, more of everything. I think that DuVernay was not necessarily trying to make a MLK biography and was trying to paint a broader picture of racism at the time and location, but I feel that the latter is more well-known and documented than the life and times of MLK. Like the Joker in The Dark Knight, every time King left the screen I was a little sad.

Overall, it’s an interesting take on a massive historical figure and the impact he had on the US. If it was tightened up a little bit and had more of the amazing Oyelowo, it would have been one of the best biopics I’ve seen and maybe one of the best movies of the year. Even with its negatives, it still is worth a view just to see the parts that really shine.

Grade: B

Been A Long Time, Shouldn't Left You....

Movie Recap: Holiday Season

Howdy and hello fellow movie attendees!

I took a quick glance and saw that the last post I dropped on this here blog was in July 2013! While that may seem a little inconsistent, there’s probably a good reason for that. (For the 3 people that came across this blog by accident, I was in a different continent and 2 different cities in that time span).

As always when the calendars turn to a New Year, its customary to start a few goals/resolutions. I won’t bore you with the majority of mine, but a big one is getting this back up and running. I’m going to mostly focus on what I feel I do more-than average, which is movie reviews obviously, but I may pepper in a few thoughts and quips about other media that I consume.

For starters, I thought I would drop a few quick reviews of movies I've seen since my return to the City of Wind. Most of these are Golden Globe/Oscar nominations and winners, so I’ll throw a few thoughts in about that.

Without any further ado, let’s start the reviews!

Nightcrawler: This one flew completely under the radar for me when abroad, but upon my return had landed on more than one most anticipated lists. And for good reason! Jake Gyllenhal completely delivers on his role as the sociopath Lou. It’s an interesting take as its not too over the top but not under- performed, as many little choices make a huge impact. I believe Lou blinks about 4 times on screen the entire film which gives a very surreal and inhumane aspect to him. Additionally, his flat monotone voice rarely changes tone or pitch and gives him a Terminator level of emotion.

A phenomenal acting performance can be wasted with the wrong plot, and this movie hits home in this regard. The idea of media being driven by blood and violence just for ratings is an interesting idea, and certainly one that most people (myself included) wouldn't necessarily pay attention to. Bill Paxton’s “If it bleeds, it leads” foil to Lou shows how bodily harm and death can just be good business for the people that can stomach it, and the debate between the two producers about how to present a triple homicide brings up some interesting ideas about what media does and doesn't tell us.

My roommate told me not to see this movie alone or else you would feel like a total creep leaving, which I think is a great summary for the feeling and themes of the movie. Just remember: “If you want to win the lottery, you have to make the money to buy a ticket.”

Final Score: A-

Birdman: The Golden Globes took place last weekend, and (unsurprisingly to me) Michael Keaton won Best actor for his “Michael Keaton” expy in Birdman. An aging actor who can’t get out of his own shadow for playing a superhero? Obviously it rings close to reality, which would be fine but a little gimmicky in the wrong hands. Luckily, this is a much deeper movie about the differences between film and stage, attempting to reinvent yourself, and the pressures of being successful in your art.

The first thing I have to bring up is the direction and cinematography. The continuous one-shot style (called a “oner” in the industry) works incredibly well, showing the mounting tension and stress brought on by having so many egos jammed under one roof. I’ve heard some other reviewers call it “Preachy” and full of itself but I didn’t get that feeling. The performances seem genuine, the concept fresh, and the execution hitting its mark.

I could see how people wouldn’t like the ambiguity of the ending and of Michael’s “alter ego”, but I think it added to the surreal vibe and narrative style that comes with a stage play. The idea of watching actors perform as other people with specific feelings itself is somewhat of high-level concept that be can be deconstructed, so why hold back on bending the fourth wall?

Final Score: A

Whiplash: Another one that snuck under the radar for me, I originally had no interest in seeing this “Jazz Drumming” movie. I missed the Miles Teller rush and only saw him as the stereotypical “bad jock guy” in the horrible Divergent. After seeing a trailer, my interest grew, and I have to say the movie itself completely blew me away!

J.K. Simmons (Another deserved Golden Globe winner) does an amazing job in this role as a music teacher that is more R. Lee Earney than Mr. Setti (My band teacher in 7^th grade for those playing the home game). The editing is tight, the drama real, and the slow breakdown of the main character comes across as completely believable. Similar to a movie like Black Swan but completely ground in reality, it is a dramatic and shockingly tale of someone who is willing to give up everything to achieve greatness.

Final Score: A

Foxcatcher: I could sum up this review in a sentence: “Above-average movie with great performances that I never want to see again.”

Obviously, this being a slower-paced character study will have the movie drag at certain parts, but this movie really, REALLY takes it time. This allow us to wallow with the characters, played amazing by both Channing Tatum, Mark Ruffalo, and (both surprisingly and unsprisingly) Steve Carrel, and will it’s amazing to see how they relate to the world and each other, a pretty picture is does not paint. Bleak in story and cinematography, any potential hope spots are crushed under the baggage carried by Carrl and Tatum.  I watched this alone in the theater, and really wished I had someone else to share the sadness with. Add it to the list to not watch by yourself!

Final Score: C

Inherent Vice: The last film on the list is also the most incomprehensible. I knew going in that the combination of Thomas Pynchon and P.T. Anderson would probably leave more than a few questions unanswered, but man there was a ton of loose ends this movie didn’t tie. And I was really paying attention!

The best way to describe this is imagine the complexity of Chinatown told through the hazy vision of a drugged out hippie trying to be a PI. How he manages his drug/drinking habits is also hard to follow, as he never seems to take any sort of payment for his work (in fact, the one time its offered he all but turns it down immediately). As always with Anderson the Cinematography is excellent and the performances well done. Joaquin Phoneix continues his incredibly bizarre range of emotions and acting styles, and Josh Brolin steals the show as the wannabe Actor/Cop Bigfoot.  At times a comedy, at times a thriller, and all times a psychedelic trip, Inherent Vice may be a confusing ride but it’s a fun one.

Makko Pannakako!
Final Score: B

Welp, I’m exhausted. Keep tuned as I’m trying to get one of these up every. Damn. Week!

-Tuck Nasty

"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.