mitch_e33 Reviews

Melancholia (2011)

A Human Take on the End of the World

[8/10 · 1 December 2012]

The latest work from Swedish visionary director, Lars Von Trier, Melancholia (2011) follows sisters Justine (Kirsten Dunst) and Claire (Charlotte Gainsbourg) during the final period of life on earth before it is destroyed by the incoming planet, Melancholia.

Set in two parts, the first half follows Justine, a clinically depressed newlywed, struggling to enjoy her lavish reception after marrying Michael (Alexander Skarsgård). In the second half we revisit the site of the reception owned by Claire and her husband John (Kiefer Sutherland) as they, along with Justine and their son Leo, watch the progress of the giant blue planet making its way towards them.

Despite its apocalyptic overtone, the film largely is based on the relationship between the two sisters and it is this aspect that lies at the core of the film that helps propel it to extraordinary heights. Focussing on themes such as emotional fragility as well as the complexity and, at the same time, insignificance of the human condition, Von Trier is able to explore ideas surrounding the entire existence of life on earth. But he ensures the film is kept oddly but wonderfully grounded through the brutally honest humanity conveyed by his actors throughout, especially by his two leads.

Kirsten Dunst has never been better as the film's main driver, as we watch her character struggle with the most complex of human emotions. We discover the effect this has on not only her and her sense of place in the world, but on the people around her. Similarly, Charlotte Gainsbourg is simply sublime as the anxious but empathetic Claire as she more or less carries the final act. A solid supporting cast, most notably Sutherland and Skarsgård, adds a large amount of depth to the film.

At times, Von Trier can be accused of being slightly self-indulgent when it comes to his stylistic tendencies. Most notably this included questionable framing of key shots, a shame considering the beautiful work done by the art department. However due to this indulgence Von Trier is also able to present some of the most beautiful images captured for film.

Met with ferocious polarisation at film festivals and screenings around the world, Melancholia is ultimately a complete triumph, questioning theories of life, love and the overall human condition, all through the eyes of these two sisters.

The Ides of March (2011)

Subtlety & restraint from Clooney

[8/10 · 22 December 2011]

With the feast of new films coming out in December, there are bound to be clever, well-made, thought-provoking films, as well as disappointing or downright embarrassing ones. The Ides of March, I am happy to say, fits in the former category.

Based on the play Farragut North by Beau Willimon and directed by one of Hollywood's favourite leading men, George Clooney, The Ides of March follows Stephen Meyers (Ryan Gosling), a young, political up-and-comer as he works as the chief media adviser on Governor Morris' (George Clooney) campaign to win the all-important Ohio primary in the Democratic presidential nomination. As one of Morris' most trusted advisors and the race increasingly swaying in Morris' favour, Meyers comes ever closer to having a top role in the White House.

However, political tides turn when the other candidate's chief adviser, Tom Duffy (Paul Giamatti) asks to meet with Meyers and advises him to come work for his side. After Meyers declines, things begin to go awry in the campaign and questions of loyalty and dignity are brought into question more so than ever before.

Obviously, this is not a ground-breaking plot in the political genre, and at times this becomes a noticeable problem, but Clooney is able to overcome this with a clear sense of purpose and technical skills in his direction and the performances he is able to achieve from his actors.

The performances work so well because they achieve a sense of subtlety and restraint throughout the film. This is especially true when talking of Gosling or Clooney who could have easily stole every scene. Instead they allow room for their supporting cast, including an exceptional Evan Rachel Wood, to develop and as such they are able to achieve more depth and consequently, more humanity in their characters.

Themes such as loyalty and deceit are very prevalent and at times it can feel that Clooney is trying too hard to hammer these aspects home. His overuse of lighting, particularly shadows to represent these themes are not as subtle as the rest of his direction and there are clear issues with pacing as the middle section of the film dragged slightly, but these are minor faults in Clooney's direction and do little to detract from the elegant restraint he shows throughout the rest of the film.

Ultimately though, despite all these other aspects, the majority of discussion surrounding The Ides of March will be that of the man of hour – Ryan Gosling. After a string of box-office and critical hits, Gosling gives another fine performance that on any other year would put him in the awards race but will instead be overshadowed by the audacious and controversial performance in the critic's favourite, Drive.

In many ways this is typical of the film itself, as while it is a truly fine film with brilliant direction and performances, it will be ultimately, almost cruelly, overshadowed.

Paranormal Activity 3 (2011)

Fails to live up to the hype or its predecessors

[5/10 · 3 November 2011]

What does it take to scare people in today's cinemas? Suspenseful timing, believable emotion, relatable characters? Well, Paranormal Activity 3 tries to scare its audience by using as little of these things as possible.

Set in 1988, when the two leads of the first two movies in the franchise are young sisters, PA3 uses the same (nearly identical) opening premise as its predecessors: a young family that begins to hear weird noises which leads the 'man of the house' to set up cameras around his home like a pseudo-Big Brother. Following the two previous scripts to the letter, the noises and strange occurrences become more and more erratic or 'scary', and by the 70 minute mark, life in the house becomes unbearable as the demon/entity/bad guy starts slamming doors and moving kitchen utensils.

The real question on everyone's lips though is the obvious. Is it scary? Short answer, not really. As someone who thoroughly enjoyed of the first two instalments (the first one in particular), PA3 is a real disappointment and is for a number of reasons. Firstly, as it is a prequel, you have a pretty general idea of who is going to live and die (if any), which leaves little room for any great amount of suspense. That said, there is a slight 'twist' in the final five minutes, but anyone that paid attention to the first two films will guess the 'twist' in the first five minutes.

Another let down of this film, the third in a highly successful franchise, are the characters. In Paranormal Activity 1, Katie guided you through the story and while Katie Fetherston may not win any Oscars anytime soon, you felt for her and you were completely taken in by what she was going through and rode every bump, scream and cooking pan with her. This time round you don't really care for any of the characters or their safety (I found myself at one point cheering for the demon), which is never a good sign.

The timing and pace of this one is also completely off as the producers have obviously reached a point at which they are out of ideas to build suspense, having to come up with strange ways to make looking at an empty room suspenseful (you will be cursing the 'fan- cam' by the end of it), and when they did manage to build the suspense, the majority of the time it amounted to nothing, a trick that gets old quickly. The exception to this is the Bloody Mary scene, which no, is not a tribute to Gaga, but is perhaps the only point the suspense is built and executed well. But hey, 1 scene out of 90 minutes isn't bad, right?

All that being said, my two friends loved this and said they were deeply shaken by the end, something I could not understand, so perhaps it is just me. I just would find it hard to imagine that anyone who liked the first one for what it was, would find this one anywhere near as suspenseful or well executed as the original.

Silkwood (1983)

Good film lifted by sublime performances

[7/10 · 14 October 2011]

Set in a small rural town in Oklahoma, 'Silkwood' (1983) follows Karen Silkwood's (Meryl Streep) quest to reveal the truth about the local nuclear power plant she works at. Based upon a true story, Karen is killed in a car accident on her way to meet an editor of the New York Times who was going to help her expose the truth. Living with her boyfriend Drew (Kurt Russell) and friend Dolly (Cher), Karen, a technician in the plant, sees her life turned upside down after she tests positive for radiation poisoning. After she is subsequently moved to a different department, Karen quickly becomes suspicious that the company is putting worker's health at risk in order to fulfill million dollar contracts. A suspicion that ultimately leads to her death. Directed by Mike Nichols, direction for which earned him an Oscar nomination, Silkwood is for the large part a believable, thrilling and touching film. The script by Nora Ephron and Alice Arlen is given life by the two lead actresses, Streep and Cher, both of which gained Oscar nominations for their performances for the high amount of depth and humanity exhibited in each of their characters. At times, however the plot seemed to drag slightly, and Kurt Russell was given little room for character development playing the stereotypical southern blue collar worker, but these are minor criticisms. The bigger problem with this film is the structure. As the audience is let known beforehand that Karen will die at some point, the tension that builds quite effectively through the film is wasted somewhat by a anti-climactic end. A problem that seems to undermine many thrillers/dramas that are based upon true stories as the spoiler is given before the film. Nonetheless, Silkwood is a high quality film and Meryl Streep gives yet another Oscar nominated performance (her 5th at the time) and with her co-star Cher they help lift a film that otherwise may have lacked. 7/10

Friends with Benefits (2011)

Full of promises, but little delivery.

[6/10 · 2 September 2011]

Set in the Big Apple, 'Friends With Benefits' (2011), follows LA-based art director Dylan (Justin Timberlake) and New Yorker corporate head-hunter Jamie (Mila Kunis), who both have been dumped by their respective partners after being labelled emotionally damaged and unavailable. After Jamie is assigned to lure Dylan to the GQ offices in New York, they quickly form a close friendship. As the title suggests, they eventually attempt to experiment with their friendship by adding sex into the equation, all the while convinced they can remain 'just-friends'.

Directed by Will Gluck, who directed and produced the brilliant 'Easy A' (2010), 'Friends With Benefits' is pretty much your run-of-the-mill rom-com. The script at the beginning offers the possibility of a unique plot line, as the characters declare Hollywood to be full of unrealistic love, however the film ends with a highly predictable finish that goes against the ideas brought forth in the first half an hour.

The two leads are solid, however, and Justin Timberlake shines somewhat in the last 30 minutes, giving his character more depth than that is usually found in romantic comedies. However it is the supporting cast that really add to the film, Patricia Clarkson as Jamie's mother is excellent, and Jenna Elfman is genuinely believable as Dylan's sister, struggling with their father's Alzheimer's. Woody Harrelson is somewhat wasted, however, as Dylan's gay friend, with the writers resorting to tiresome stereotypes for the duration of his time on screen.

Overall, while the cast is solid and there are genuine laughs to be had, the first 30 minutes promises something other than the ending that we are left with, and will inevitably go into the enormous pile of predictable rom-coms.

Rise of the Planet of the Apes (2011)

Solid Reboot

[7/10 · 2 September 2011]

A reboot of the popular films done over the past 40 years, 'Rise of the Planet of the Apes' (2011), follows scientist Will Rodman (James Franco) who works at the medical research company 'Gene Sys'. After testing on a number of chimps, Will believes that he and his team has discovered a cure to Alzheimer's, a disease from which his own father is a sufferer of. After a breakout by one of the testing chimps ruins the company's chance of obtaining investors, Will takes a baby chimp home, and uses it to test the results of this potentially world-changing drug. However, after the chimp develops abnormally high intelligence, Will begins to realise the danger of his experiment.

Having not seen or read any texts from the 'Apes' franchise, I was able to go into the film with little expectation. Whether this was a factor or not, 'Apes' for me, was a lot of fun, for lack of a better word. Franco was solid, and lifted the at-times, cheesy script but I felt Freida Pinto (who shot to fame after 'Slumdog Millionaire' (2008)) was underused as Franco's love interest, and added little to the overall film. The director Rupert Wyatt, was able to create a real sense of humanity among the apes, especially within the main chimp, Caesar, as we became quickly emotionally attached, even if having used cliché methods to force that attachment.

Yes, at times the film dragged slightly, particularly in the middle, but the last 20 minutes of action sequences are perfectly staged, but showed that it could have benefited with 3D technology. But all in all, being an action film, 'Apes' delivered and then some, with a genuine emotional core, lifting it above your average action blockbuster.

It's Kind of a Funny Story (2010)

So-so expectations, so-so result

[6/10 · 2 September 2011]

'It's Kind of a Funny Story' (2010) follows Graig Gilner (Keir Gilchrist), an out-of-sorts, depressed teenager who checks himself into the local hospital after having suicidal thoughts. After begging to be treated, Craig is admitted to the adult psych ward, known affectionately by patients and staff as 'North 3'. Despite initial uneasiness about sharing a ward with people suffering conditions such as schizophrenia and bi-polar disorder, Craig befriends Bobby (Zach Galifianakis), a middle age divorcée that has attempted suicide on numerous occasions and Noelle (Emma Roberts), a charismatic, self-harming teen.

After my latest 'anonymous teen/indie' film, 'The Squid and the Whale', I had average expectations for this film. It did exceed those expectations, but only marginally. While starting out strong with an interesting, relatable premise, coupled with high quality narration from Gilchrist, the second half of the film lets it down, as cheesy, Hollywood sentiment seeps through the script.

While Gilchrist is fine throughout and Galifianakis (showing a truly diverse range in comparison to his most high profile work in 'The Hangover') is especially wonderful in a number of scenes, Roberts however, is an actress that I have never loved, and her performance in this further cements my opinion that she is only in the business because of her infinitely superior aunt.

Viola Davis however, is a shining light as the head psychiatrist and meetings between her and Gilchrist provide the film with its most genuine and moving moments. However she is not utilized enough, a real shame.

The ending too, feels odd, for a lack of a better word, and the final line left me cringing and confirmed my overall opinion of this film.

Cars 2 (2011)

Cars 2

[7/10 · 27 June 2011]

'Cars 2' (2011) picks up a few years after the original left off, with Lightning McQueen (Owen Wilson) winning 3 more Piston Cups since we last saw him win his first and has now been invited to participate in the new World Grand Prix. In this sequel, the attention is divided between McQueen and his tow-truck best friend Mater (Larry the Cable Guy), who is unwittingly roped himself into a top secret mission involving international spies.

Yes it is another Pixar sequel, and not the last from the highly regarded animation company with the follow-up to 'Monsters, Inc.' (2001), 'Monsters University' slated for a 2013 release. Is this a bad thing? Yes and no. While many commentators will argue that 'Cars 2' is the beginning of the sale of Pixar's soul, I tend to give the company a bit more credit than that. Not only have they created some of the greatest children's films of the past 20 years, but have created films that transcend the 'target' audience and leaves a lasting impact on audiences of all ages.

'Cars 2', it must be said however, is not their best work. In fact, it is probably one the least enjoyable experiences I have had out of a Pixar film. The important thing to note though is that this does not mean it was bad. Not at all, rather just lacking in comparison to the brilliance of 'Finding Nemo' (2003) and 'Toy Story' (1995). All in all, it was a good family film, with a particular emphasis on action. 2 long action sequences that bookend the film are brilliantly done and is some of the best high-speed work done in animation. Mater is extremely lovable, goofy character and complements the excellent voice work of Michael Caine as the international spy Finn.

Where I have issue with this film is the script. There are too many cheesy one-liners plucked from the last 30 years of children's action films and not enough slickness and wit that usually overflows from Pixar's scripts. There is also a lack of sentiment that accompanies the best of the companies films. 'Finding Nemo' for example, makes me, an 18 year old, cry, laugh and cry again all in the space in 90 minutes. That powerful use of emotion is not found in this film, at least not to a great degree.

However, that makes it seem a lot worse than it actually was. It was still a great film (certainly better than anything DreamWorks can put up), and it made my and my brother laugh numerous times.

Rosemary's Baby (1968)

Polanksi's Masterpiece? Maybe...

[8/10 · 27 June 2011]

'Rosemary's Baby' (1968) was master director Roman Polanski's first American film and is a thriller/horror based on Ira Levin's novel of the same name. The film follows Rosemary Woodhouse (Mia Farrow) as she moves into apartment 7-E in New York City with her actor husband Guy (John Cassavetes). After making friends with elderly couple Minnie (Ruth Gordon) and Roman Castevet (Sidney Blackmer) who also live in the building, Rosemary falls pregnant, to the delight of many. However, as Rosemary's health begins to deteriorate during pregnancy she starts to become suspicious about the actions and behaviour of those around her.

Staying extremely true to Ira Levin's novel, Polanski has created a slick, smart thriller that is, at times, genuinely terrifying as we follow the tale of the beautiful and perfectly cast Mia Farrow as she strives to protect her unborn child. Ruth Gordon, gives an Oscar winning performance as the nosy Minnie, and while you become more and more concerned about the safety of Rosemary as the film progresses, there are still genuine funny moments to be had, a credit to Polanski's script and Mia Farrow's timing.

Right now I am still debating whether to give it a 7 or 8, as there are certainly problems I have with it. Most notably I felt John Cassavetes was not as convincing as the other 3 main cast members, which lets down the story slightly as he is integral to the final scenes. I am however to give it the latter score, mostly because I saw this film having been given a full description of the film and its climax beforehand, which, undoubtedly lessened the impact. Overall, 'Rosemary's Baby' is a must-watch, as it shows how true terror can be created without the need of blood and gore, a feat that horror/thriller directors of today have struggled to achieve.

Far from Heaven (2002)

Beautiful, but something missing.

[7/10 · 27 June 2011]

'Far from Heaven' (2002) follows Cathy Whitaker (Julianne Moore), a typical 1950's mother and wife. Married to successful sales manager Frank (Dennis Quaid), Cathy seems to have the perfect family life in her large Connecticut home. But after a revelation shatters the 'perfect family' illusion, Cathy goes on a journey of self-discovery in a community faced with deep divisions over major social issues.

Firstly, Julianne Moore is so perfect for this role, and delivers a near perfect performance as the strong, yet slightly vulnerable Cathy. Her co-star Dennis Quaid gives the performance of his career, helped by intriguing developments in his character, provided by writer/director Todd Haynes.

Haynes, drawing influences from the many female oriented melodramas from 1930's, 40's and 50's Hollywood, such as All That Heaven Allows (1955) and Stella Dallas (1937), constructs a beautifully presented tale of love, tolerance (and intolerance) and trust. Using interesting sub-themes such as homosexuality and racial prejudice, Haynes, helped immensely by the performances of his two leads, is able to successfully guide a script that could easily turn to vulgarity, by keeping its complexity and emotional force at the forefront.

There are issues I have with this film however. Dennis Haysbert as Raymond I felt was a bit of a miscast, as he was unable to bring the sentimentality and emotion to his scenes that the two leads were able to do so well, meaning he is out shined by Julianne Moore in nearly all their scenes together. I also felt the last 20 minutes was rushed and left many subplots unfinished, a disappointment.

Overall though, a good movie that I am happy to recommend, for it's beautiful execution and extraordinary lead performances.

The Squid and the Whale (2005)

Self-indulgent waste.

[5/10 · 27 June 2011]

'The Squid and the Whale' (2005) revolves around a dysfunctional family going through a separation in the 1980's. Bernard Berkman (Jeff Daniels) moves out of the family Brooklyn townhouse that his wife Joan (Laura Linney) remains in. Their sons, 17 year old, Walt (Jesse Eisenburg) and 12 year old, Frank (Owen Kline) are placed in the centre of their parents conflicts and despite Joan's attempts to keep her children at a distance from the problems between herself and Bernard, the children are undoubtedly emotionally affected. The film largely revolves around Walt and Bernard, and the changes in their relationship, and in some ways is a coming-of-age story as Walt's character is a pivotal force in the progression of the plot. The film was directed and written by Noah Baumbach, who's true childhood experiences are the basis for the film and Wes Anderson is attached to the project as a producer.

Umm. Alright, well I'll guess I'll start with the positives. This is the first film I have seen Jesse Eisenburg in outside of 'The Social Network', and I was thoroughly impressed, certainly not just an 'edgier Michael Cera' as I had previously had him pegged as. No, in this he is the undeniable star and outshines all other cast members, not an easy feat when co-starring with actors of the caliber of Laura Linney and Jeff Daniels. I also felt the relationship between him and his girlfriend Sophie (Halley Feiffer) is well done and felt honest. Laura Linney, as usual, is excellent, but I felt that she had little to work with and only became a truly complete character in the last half hour.

Unfortunately, the positives end there. A major problem I have with this film is the young Owen Kline and everything to do with his character. His unbelievable and truly disgusting acts felt tacked on, and I couldn't escape the feeling they were for shock value only.

Having Wes Anderson attached to the project was a gamble in my opinion, a gamble that I felt did not pay off. From the beginning of this film, hell even the DVD menu told me it was a Wes Anderson film, which left me comparing it to the brilliant 'The Royal Tenenbaums', one of my favourite films. Having very similar themes to each other did not help it's cause either, from the New York townhouse setting, to the 'typically dysfunctional family' genre (a genre beginning to feel overused in many independent Hollywood films in recent years), to the 'deadpan' performance of Daniels, but in no way does it live up to the greatness of 'The Royal Tenenbaums'.

Overall, I personally will most likely not watch this film again, and wouldn't recommend it either, as I felt it was just an average addition to the growing collection of 'dysfunctional family' films we have been in abundance of in the past decade.

Water for Elephants (2011)

A lovely surprise.

[8/10 · 27 June 2011]

Based on the bestseller book of the same name by Sara Gruen, 'Water for Elephants' (2011), tells the tale of young Jacob Jankowski (Robert Pattinson), a veterinarian student sitting his final exams upon hearing the news of his parents death. Set during the 1930's, during the depression era in the United States, Jacob is forced to give up his course and leave home. Eventually joining a traveling circus run by August Rosenbluth (Christoph Waltz), Jacob works as the circus vet when the circus acquires its new 'star attraction' Rosie the Elephant. During this time Jacob meets August's wife Marlena (Reese Witherspoon) and the two soon forge a close relationship.

I went into this film with fairly average expectations, but by the end it had completely skyrocketed above those expectations. There is so much to love about this film, the cinematography is excellent, the romantic story between the 3 is a fairly typical love story but the performances by the 3 leads lifts the script to its full potential. There is no Edward in Robert's performance (something I was concerned about before going into the film), Reese is stunning and slick as the endearing Marlena, and Christoph Waltz once again reminds us how in debt Hollywood is to Quentin Tarantino for bringing him to mainstream audiences, as the steadfast and brutal circus boss.

Perhaps the only criticisms I could give was the length of the film as I felt it could have gone for 20 minutes less and still had the same impact, but ironically, the last few scenes felt slightly rushed and time that was spent during the middle of the film could have been used to further emphasis on the closing scenes.

But overall, 'Water for Elephants' is defiantly a triumph, and much of the credit should go to the outstanding cast for rising above what could have been a cheesy script.

One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (1975)

Underwhelming...

[6/10 · 26 June 2011]

'One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest' (1975), based on the novel by Ken Kesey and directed by Milos Forman, centers around R.P McMurphy (Jack Nicholson) a prisoner serving time for the statutory rape of a 15 year old, among other things. In an attempt to escape from the work yards in the penitentiary, McMurphy fakes a mental illness, leading to him being admitted into a mental hospital. There, he befriends many of the other patients in the ward and attempts to break them out of the strict and monotonous routine set by Head Nurse Ratched (Louise Fletcher).

OK, first of all, it has to be said, I had quite high expectations for this movie. It came highly recommend by both my parents, is number 8 on IMDb's Top 250 list, and won the grand slam at the 1975 Oscars (Best Picture, Director, Actor and Actress). However, I was left extremely disappointed with this film.

While the first 20 minutes seem promising, showcasing Nicholsons immense talent, the film drags for the next hour, trying to convince you to love McMurphy and loathe Nurse Ratchet, unsuccessfully, I will add. Which brings me to my first and largest problem with this film. On the back of my DVD case it states that "…Nurse Ratchet is among the coldly monstrous villains in film history". Based upon that assessment, I expected numerous unnecessary, unethical punishments, and a complete lack of care for her patients. Well I did not receive that, no instead we got a firm, cold, woman that takes charge of her ward, filled with mentally unstable and perhaps dangerous people, with an iron fist, being nothing but a true reflection of the mental health system at the time. That being said, I am not in anyway completely condoning her behavior. She is far too cold to be an effective nurse and her use of manipulation would not be accepted in today's society. However to asses her as being the one of most wicked, evil, heartless is completely and utter over exaggeration and unfortunately paints the film in a 'State vs Rebel' way.

Which leads also to my other major problem with this film. McMurphy, is not likable. At least not to me. He is an arrogant, self-centered 'rebel', who has made the rather laughable decision to get himself committed to this mental hospital as he is tired of the prison work yard. But no, we are supposed to cheer him on in his attempts to rid the ward of rules and boundaries, in other words, 'fight the system'. Perhaps it was 'in' to rebel against the state in the 70's? To me this film reeked of this ideology, spoiling much of it.

There are certainly positives to 'One Flew Over…' and I can understand on one level why is rated so highly by many critics and audiences. It is well directed, the acting by the two leads, regardless of my objection of the use of their characters, is extremely well done but I do not believe it to be Nicholsons best work, as many praise it to be. There are genuine funny moments to be had and a certain scene revolving around cigarettes is the perfect example of acting at its best. The last 20 minutes is also very well executed and left me somewhat vindicated.

Overall however, the particular framing of the 2 leads left me simply annoyed with this film and as such, I was left underwhelmed.