jul-kinnear Reviews

Closing Escrow (2007)

You'd be forgiven if, while watching Closing Escrow, you thought you were watching a documentary instead of an actual feature film.

[7/10 · 15 January 2015]

You'd be forgiven if, while watching Closing Escrow, you thought you were watching a documentary instead of an actual feature film. This award-winning independent comedy takes a look at the lives of three married couples and their real estate agents during their search for the perfect home. Filmed in the same style as some of your favourite reality television shows (live-action and pre-filmed interview segments), this film convincingly portrays the struggle between buyer and seller when it comes to presenting and purchasing real estate property. What are the buyers looking for? What kind of property would best suit their needs? Does the agent fully comprehend the importance of keeping within their client's budget? And, something we can all relate to, how do homeowners cope with the incessant train of people walking through their homes during a showing or open house?

Tom (Andrew Friedman) and his wife, Dawn (Patty Wortham), are looking for their dream property. Tom is a gentle, timid, somewhat weedy man who left his first wife to marry the whimsical, sometimes genuinely frightening possessed hippie Dawn. When we meet this couple, they are living in Tom's old house, which he shared with his previous wife. Dawn insists that they find a place of their own, free from the shackles of Tom's "past mistakes." The two of them hire real estate agent Richard (Ryan Smith) who employs the following strategy to keep purchasing prices down for his clients: carry a chainsaw with you to all home showings and begin destroying walls and floors, countertops, and mantelpieces in the hopes that the existing homeowners will cut $50,000 off their asking price. Despite his clients' horror, Richard stands by his unique method of price reduction and wreaks havoc in every listed home he visits with Tom and Dawn.

Bobby (Cedric Yarbrough) and his wife, Tamika (April Barnett), currently occupying a small apartment in the city, are on the hunt for a trendy, upmarket downtown loft that will both impress their lawyer friends and allow the two of them to spread out and live among high-vaulted ceilings and industrial-style building features. They hire elitist realtor Hillary (Wendi McLendon-Covey) to find them their perfect city abode but stress that, despite how financially successful the two of them are, they have a budget in mind and would very much like to stick to it. Hillary automatically sees dollar signs and begins taking Bobby and Tamika to beautiful, spacious city lofts that are lovely, but that the couple cannot afford. Hillary is driven to make a sale, but things go horribly wrong when Bobby and Tamika reveal that they are expecting a baby. Because of the new addition to the family, the couple's plans for a home have changed. The couple are now looking for a charming house in suburbia, the bane of Hillary's existence. A happy camper she is not. Not only has her clients' budget gone down, but she will also have to begin showing them lifeless, generic bungalows located on plots of land so close together that you can see into your neighbours' houses just by gazing out your dining room windows.

Allen (Rob Brownstein) is a successful accountant and his wife, Mary (Colleen Crabtree), is an avid scrapbooker. They have one pre-teen daughter and are looking for a larger home to raise their little family in. Upon first glance, Allen is quite unassuming and content with his lot in life. But when he hires neighbour Peter (Bruce Thomas) as his and his wife's realtor and begins spending more and more time with him, Allen begins coveting everything Peter has â€" from electronically controlled home lighting to the customized dance room Peter built for his daughter in an upstairs spare bedroom. It is beginning to look impossible for Peter to find Allen and Mary the home of their dreams because Allen keeps changing his mind about what he wants. First he wants a pool, then he wants a bigger lawn, a customized dance room just like his neighbour has, a bigger floor plan, and perhaps even a sewing and crafts room for his beloved wife. Real estate agent Peter cannot keep up and finally explains to Allen that, if he cannot stick to one plan, he and Mary will never find their next home.

The final third of the film brings all three couples and their realtors together when they casually meet at an open house. If you're a realtor or an experienced buyer and homeowner yourself, I bet you know what's coming next! Yes, you guessed it. After a long and fruitless search, all three couples are interested in submitting an offer for the home they're all currently traipsing through. Automatically, the audience understands that because there are three couples bidding on the same home, each one will have to offer more than the asking price in order to gain a foothold and come out the victors. Yes, we understand that, but the characters in the film have a harder time coming to terms with the fact that not only will they have to go over their set budget, but that someone else has their eye on what has become their dream home.

The situation quickly grows tense and the audience is left wondering who will ultimately win the property. If I said the film's final frames weren't anxiety-inducing, I'd be lying. It's no wonder I ruined my pristine manicure while sitting through the last twenty minutes of Closing Escrow. I couldn't stop biting my nails! Don't worry; I'm not about to spoil the ending for you here. I'd much rather have you watch it and see how it all unfolds in real time yourself.

Are We Done Yet? (2007)

Delinquent behaviour, silliness galore, a touch of potty humour and lots of rap music.

[3/10 · 15 January 2015]

If you've ever seen one of Ice Cube's films before, you know what to expect when sitting down to watch ARE WE DONE YET? Delinquent behaviour, silliness galore, a touch of potty humour and lots of rap music. Well, we can't fault Ice Cube for the latter since he was one of the biggest rappers of the 1990s, but the kind of humour found in his films is quickly becoming stale now, and his hijinks don't seem as funny as they did back when I was growing up in the 90s grunge era.

ARE WE DONE YET? is a sequel to the 2005 comedy ARE WE THERE YET? and some Hollywood execs even claim that it is a remake of the classic MR. BLANDINGS BUILDS HIS DREAM HOUSE (1948) which we have reviewed here in the past. Personally, I find that a little hard to swallow but there are definite signs of this modern comedy being influenced by the likes of the beloved classic Hollywood film starring Cary Grant and Myrna Loy. I think it's just incredibly difficult for me to wrap my head around the fact that movie audiences have been told to expect comparisons between this film and its classic predecessor.

Produced by Revolution Studios, RKO Pictures, and Cube Vision, ARE WE DONE YET? starts where ARE WE THERE YET? left off: Nicholas "Nick" Persons (Ice Cube) has married Suzanne Kingston (Nia Long) and together with her two children – Lindsey (Aleisha Allen) and Kevin (Philip Daniel Bolden) - have moved into Nick's small, compact apartment. Chaos (and a whole lotta mess) ensues when the four of them try to navigate their way through the tight hallways and diminutive rooms of Nick's former bachelor abode. Milk is spilled and eggs go flying and when Suzanne reveals that she is pregnant, and expecting twins no less, Nick makes the executive decision to move the family out and into a larger home.

Suzanne, Lindsey, and Kevin are not impressed when the search for a new home leads them into the countryside. Nick waxes lyrical about the clean, fresh air, the serenity of the landscape and the wide open spaces and tries to convince his wife and stepchildren that moving into rural Oregon is the best choice for them – until he comes face to face with a deer and then it's every man for himself! They somewhat reluctantly set their sights on an outwardly beautiful historic home built in 1889 and consider buying the property from real estate agent Chuck Mitchell Jr (John C. McGinley).

Chuck describes the property as a "fixer-upper" and rightfully so because it seems that everything the Persons touch either crumbles into little tiny pieces or savagely tears apart with no warning whatsoever. When Suzanne expresses concern over the dilapidated structure, Nick insists that he is perfectly capable of renovating the home himself and fixing any little problems that crop up. I can pretty much guarantee that you're sitting there, reading this review and shaking your head in disbelief right about now. Believe me, so am I.

Realtor Chuck wins himself a sale and the Persons move in (albeit grudgingly). Now that the family is based in the country, it's time for Nick to introduce his wife and stepchildren to the beautiful outdoors. He takes them on fishing and canoe trips, quiet walks through the wilderness, and jaunts across open trails reminiscent of the open plains of the English countryside. Nick obviously wants the best for his new family and tries really hard to help them all adapt to their new surroundings, but at every turn they encounter one obstacle after another. If they're not being attacked by a shark-like fish, their house's electrical wiring is blowing up. If they're not being chased by a swarm of bats, they're falling through holes in the floor and muddy trenches in the ground.

Admitting defeat and at the behest of his wife, Nick calls in the local contractor who happens to be realtor Chuck (he wears both hats apparently). Chuck quickly gets to work and upon his initial inspection proclaims that the home's issues go a lot deeper than his original diagnosis of it being a simple "fixer-upper." Needless to say, Nick is not impressed especially when he re-enters his home and finds it nearly gutted soon after Chuck's arrival. Frustrated and emasculated, Nick takes out his anger on his expectant wife and stepchildren, not to mention realtor/contractor Chuck whom Nick swiftly fires. To add more fuel to the fire, daughter Lindsey sneaks out of the house one night to go to a party and when she gets caught, Nick grounds her which further provokes the ire of pregnant Suzanne.

As with all family comedies, it's pretty much inevitable when the husband and wife clash and the situation is brought to a head; in this case, Suzanne takes the children and moves into the guesthouse, away from her frustrated spouse. Unfortunately, the stress of the situation and her already fragile condition culminate into labour pains – looks like the twin babies are on the way! Turns out the nearest hospital is an hour away so Nick and Lindsey are stuck having to deliver the infants themselves. In comes Chuck and it's a full house of frantic, panicked people. Oh joy!

Fast forward to six months later and we see the Persons and their friends (including Chuck) enjoying a big barbecue in the home's backyard. The house has been renovated, the Persons family is living together again, and everyone's happy – just in time for the film's animated end credits to roll. How charming! Except that it's not. The whole film seems juvenile and horribly contrived. Yes, it's billed as a comedy, but I honestly didn't laugh once and it was due mostly to the cast's poor performances and deficient humour (if you can even call it humour).

The Haunted Mansion (2003)

There's one thing that people should be very clear on, and that's that Eddie Murphy does not care in the slightest what people think of his acting career.

[4/10 · 15 January 2015]

There's one thing that people should be very clear on, and that's that Eddie Murphy does not care in the slightest what people think of his acting career. And that's good, because this film is unspeakably bad and is only viable as a tool for wantonly consuming 90 minutes from your life that you will never get back. Yes, this is an Eddie Murphy project that functions better as a fourth-dimensional black hole than anything else.

What audiences have here is a project in which Eddie Murphy plays real estate agent Jim Evers, who hopes to transform a dilapidated mansion in New Orleans into financial success. Before venturing out in search of a buyer for wreck, he and the family he's been somewhat neglectful towards visit the house for an inspection. They discover there is more going on with the property than they could have ever anticipated.

Eddie Murphy's character is hapless, with little awareness of what is going on outside of his real estate duties. Terrance Stampis, confusingly, in this movie as one of the 999 ghosts that reside in this mansion, even though his acting career easily and understandably puts the film "beneath him." Jennifer Tilly is present in the film in a significant role as a disembodied medium and adviser to Jim Evers. Despite the quality of the film overall, their talents are put to good use, considering what little they're working with.

The acting is stiff and contrived. Murphy turns in a performance that is completely alien to the talent that brought him success throughout the 1980s. The relationship between Evers and his wife appears unnatural and difficult to believe within the context of the film. The film might have had greater success with an increased focus on the efforts made by the home's original owner, a ghost, to reunite with his long-lost wife. Certain contradictions were apparent in the film as well, such as what physical objects ghosts were capable of manipulating. Sometimes they were able to move objects. Other times they were relegated simply to phasing through them. The visuals of the film are quire colourful. The effects, both special and practical, are top-notch and clearly show a great deal of effort had been put into producing them.

This film is mainstream pabulum of the highest order. Murphy delivers a performance that's typical Murphy schtick — frantic, energized inanity with a dull edge and inarticulate delivery, devoid of any nuance or subtlety. Murphy's more sophisticated and impressive roles, not nearly as upsetting, are not easily remembered. Everyone can remember his Saturday Night Live origins, his work in 48 Hours, Trading Places, Coming to America, The Golden Child, Bowfinger, the Beverly Hills Cop series, and Dreamgirls. People often want to remember these, but seldom do they wish to recall the likes ofMeet Dave, Norbit, Daddy Day Care, Nutty Professor, Dr. Dolittle, and the infamous Pluto Nash. People can find themselves anxious with the likes of Ben Affleck because they remember roles he's "phoned in," such as with Jersey Girl, because they know he can produce absolutely amazing work like he did in The Town. People know he can do better, so they become, understandably, disappointed. That perspective we have for Murphy has inflated to such proportions that you can't help but see anything else. The Haunted Mansion is a good vehicle of work to add to the pile of problems movie- going audiences have with his intentions. It's good that a man that has done ten Shrek-related jobs since the first Shrek doesn't care what audiences think of him, otherwise this might all seriously effect him on an emotional level.

Former Village Voice writer Rob Minkoff may have put it best when he said, "Rob Minkoff has directed a movie that's nearly laughless and nowhere near as frightening as what's happened to Eddie Murphy's career." Even famed film reviewer Richard Roeper simply described The Haunted Mansion as "dreadful." While Disney proved, earlier in 2003, with Pirates of the Caribbean that a film based on an amusement park ride can be successful, Eddie Murphy proved that substantial talent is a significant portion of the equation required to project the success of such a film.

You'd get more for your dollar if you were to visit the actual Haunted Mansion ride at Disneyland rather than engaging with The Haunted Mansion. There's no particular reason this film should exist. The world is worse off it now that it exists. Rather than waste your time with this cinematic detritus, you would be better off sitting somewhere and reading a book for 90 minutes.

Empire of the Ants (1977)

This is not a good movie. It aspires to mediocrity and fails.

[2/10 · 15 January 2015]

This is not a good movie. It aspires to mediocrity and fails. The acting is generally bad, the dialogue is forgettable at best, the characters aren't very interesting, and the special effects are so bad they're the highlight of the film.

Before I rant further, a synopsis is in order. Filmed in 1977, under the direction of Bert I. Gordon (creator of such classics as Satan's Princess, Earth vs the Spider, and Attack of the Puppet People, just to give you fair warning), Empire of the Ants takes place on an unnamed island off the Florida coast, where the unprincipled Marilyn Fryser (Joan Collins) is trying to sell pieces of beach to a boatload of would- be land owners. For reasons never even remotely explained, this area is the dumping ground for mysterious, sinister silver toxic waste, which has somehow transformed some of the local ants into gigantic, moderately intelligent monsters intent on either enslaving or devouring any human beings who cross their path.

But they don't manage to devour all the right people.

Marilyn Fryser's 'Dreamland Shores' development is the latest in a series of scams. She's hard on her employees, tricks customers into deeply inconvenient contracts, and every one of her anti-ant ideas turns out to be wrong. By the rules of most monster movies, Fryser should die a particularly gruesome and humiliating death about halfway through film. Here, she makes it all the way to the end without any apparent character development or redemption.

It has to be said though, that while they're not so blatantly amoral, the other main characters are no more interesting than Fryser. There's Joe (John David Carson), the dull young guy with 'designated hero' stamped on his forehead, Coreen (Pamela Shoop), the hysterically screaming blonde, Dan (Robert Lansing), the quiet, practical tough guy, and Margaret (Jacqueline Scott) the thoughtful, sensible woman who clings to him whenever the bugs show up.

On top of their badly-acted blandness, these characters aren't gradually revealed and developed, but are dropped on us in a heap over the course of one long beach-picnic scene. A few scabs are bared, chemistry fails to happen.., and then the ants show up and none of it matters very much for the rest of the movie.

I could wail and nitpick my way through Empire of the Ants for ages, but since it is a giant-bug movie, priority ought to be given to the special effects. The term 'special' here is extremely euphemistic.

Groan all you like about the modern fondness for CGI, a little computer magic would have gone a long way in this film. The ant effects come in two main flavours; the fairly lifelike, but not very menacing footage of real ants, which vaguely wave their legs around, climb up invisible walls, and sometimes face the wrong way, and the close-quarter model ants, which look a bit silly, don't move like insects, and are inexplicably furry in places. It doesn't help that the real ant footage has been blown up to look much larger than the physical models, so that the ants keep changing size. They can also pop up out of thin air. A tangle of huge, noisy ants can apparently teleport into any scene, even when the characters really ought to have seen them from a distance (or heard them. Not only do they emit a sort of fantasy-insect buzzy shriek, they also scream now and then. I don't know why. Maybe Coreen inspired them).

Mr. Blandings Builds His Dream House (1948)

MR. BLANDINGS BUILDS HIS DREAM HOUSE is a film that makes you want to ditch your noisy urban dwelling in favour of a serene spot in the country.

[7/10 · 28 November 2014]

Jim Blandings (Grant) and his wife Muriel (Loy) have lived in their four-room Manhattan apartment for the better part of fifteen years. During that time they have had two daughters and hired one maid making for a very tight squeeze. Like most Manhattan apartments, there isn't a great deal of space and the strain of living amongst erupting closets and a constantly occupied bathroom is putting a damper on things. Oh, and before I forget, there is also a pet bird and a close family friend – lawyer William "Bill" Cole (Douglas) – that have become permanent fixtures in the Blandings home.

Jim Blandings is an ambitious advertising executive whose creative ideas have started to suffer due to his frenzied and inhibiting living conditions. One day, whilst reading the newspaper, he comes across a property listing that makes him sit up and take notice. There is a home for sale in rural Connecticut that promises great views, acres of land, serene surroundings and plenty of space to raise a family in. In other words, it is precisely what Jim and Muriel Blandings are looking for! The Blandings arrange to see the house and when they eventually come face to face with it they are forced to make a particularly difficult and very expensive decision: do they tear the existing dilapidated structure down and start from scratch, commissioning an architect to build their dream home for them? Or do they move into the current house and settle for a renovation?

Real estate agent Smith (Ian Wolfe) has been trying to sell "the Old Hackett Place" for years and when the Blandings show interest in the property, Smith's eyes light up - seriously, you can almost see the sparks shooting out of them. The home is a two hundred year old farmhouse and looks it's age; it's falling apart and leaning dangerously to the left, ready to keel over as quickly as a Victorian woman wearing a corset. Eager to make the sale, agent Smith encourages Jim to buy the property (for more than market value, naturally) and turn it into his and his wife's dream home. It's what they've always wanted, isn't it? Why not take the plunge?

Since the existing structure is pretty much falling apart and not worth saving, the Blandings finally decide to purchase the property, tear down the house, and build their dream home (hence the title of the movie). Throughout the negotiations and decision-making process, the Blandings have Bill Cole breathing down their necks, advising and cautioning them about the hindrances and difficulties of undertaking such a massive project. It takes a lot of convincing and a lot of construction-related hiccups that eventually make Jim and Muriel second-guess their real estate purchase; Jim only makes $15,000 a year and the costs of tearing down a house and re-building it from the ground up is taking its toll on his earnings. We all know what comes next, don't we? Jim and Muriel's marriage starts to suffer and they find themselves second-guessing each other at every turn. Jim thinks Muriel is having an affair with Bill Cole and Muriel thinks Jim is overreacting and being unreasonably selfish.

Though things start to look bleak for the Blandings, they pull through and their marriage remains intact. I wish the same could be said for their new home! First the property gets flooded when a well is dug, then the pouring of the foundations is delayed, doors that were supposed to have locked from the inside end up locking from the outside (and chaos ensues), the previous owner demands the repayment of his mortgage since the Blandings unceremoniously tore down his home without first seeking his permission, and when the family finally manages to move in, the house is missing half of its windows. I know what many of you must be thinking: this sounds awfully familiar. Well, that's probably because THE MONEY PIT (1986) starring Tom Hanks and Shelley Long served as a sort of loosely based remake of this classic film and went on to gross almost $55 million at the box office.

Things eventually settle down for the Blandings and they end up getting their dream home by the film's final reel. All is well: there are spacious closets in every room, more than enough bathrooms for everybody, an enormous living room featuring a lovely wood burning fireplace, a sewing room for Muriel, and room for the maid. Like many other classic movies of the period, MR. BLANDINGS BUILDS HIS DREAM HOUSE ends in smiles and laughter.

Though there were plenty of entertaining moments in the film, I thought it could have done with a bit more comedy. Cary Grant was an actor with incredible comedic timing and in this film his performance seems a little bland. The same goes for Myrna Loy who achieved worldwide fame starring alongside William Powell in THE THIN MAN movies of the 1930s and '40s; Loy plays the part of a dutiful wife in this film beautifully but she does very little else. Sure, she's absolutely charming when she needs to be, but again, I feel as if her performance falls flat. I definitely don't think that either star was used to his or her full potential here whether the script is to blame or the film's director, H. C. Potter.

Having said all that, though, MR. BLANDINGS BUILDS HIS DREAM HOUSE is worth seeing. It's a light-hearted look at the perils and trials that come along with purchasing property and designing your own home. Perhaps the youth and young families of today would do well in watching a film like this one, especially considering the state of today's real estate market. It may serve as a warning and it may serve as a gentle push towards home ownership – who can tell?

http://juliekinnear.com/blogs/mr-blandings-dream-house

Gone with the Wind (1939)

This movie's grandeur is incomparable and its message is one we can all still relate to seventy-five years later: home is where the heart is.

[10/10 · 6 November 2014]

David O. Selznick's 1939 production of GONE WITH THE WIND[1] has earned itself many titles over the years: the greatest film ever made, the first film to receive a staggering thirteen Academy Award nominations of which it eventually won eight awards, and the highest grossing film of all time (adjusted for inflation). Its grandeur is incomparable and its message is one we can all still relate to seventy-five years later: home is where the heart is.

GONE WITH THE WIND is based upon Margaret Mitchell's American civil war epic of the same name which was published in June 1936, a few years before the film was released. Mitchell and her book became an overnight sensation, selling one million copies by the end of December. Curiously, Mitchell's publishers hadn't forecasted high sales for the book based on the fact that it was priced at three dollars apiece (the average book price in 1936 was one dollar). This gives you some indication of the mania that swept America when Gone with the Wind was released in print. Also, it's important to keep in mind that during the summer of 1936, the Great Depression was at its height, and yet people still flocked to booksellers wanting to obtain their copy of Mitchell's bestseller. Once Hollywood studios caught wind of the novel's popularity, they each fumbled to secure the story's film rights in order to be able to adapt it for the screen. David O. Selznick eventually came out on top and immediately began casting the roles of what have now become legendary literary – and film - characters: Scarlett O'Hara, the novel's heroine; Rhett Butler, the exiled blockade runner; Mammy, Scarlett's indomitable maid; and Ashley Wilkes, the emotionally damaged civil war soldier. GONE WITH THE WIND tells the story of the American civil war through the eyes of the losing side: the south. The film begins by depicting the carefree, wealthy, and privileged lives of a group of prominent Southern plantation owners. In the days leading up to the Civil War, the south sincerely believed that they would emerge the victors against their foe in the north (the 'Yankees'). A war that everyone believed would be over in a month ended up lasting four years and brought the American south to its knees.

Through the strength and stamina of Tara, a once terribly spoiled Scarlett becomes the backbone of her family – and of the entire film, really – by persevering in the face of destruction and death. A woman who was once in love with Ashley Wilkes (Leslie Howard), a man promised to his cousin Melanie Wilkes (Olivia DeHavilland), has now realized that the only man she wants to spend her life with is daring blockade runner and philanderer Rhett Butler (Clark Gable). You see, Scarlett has now matured into a strong, unwavering woman and she has come to realize that her love for Ashley Wilkes was nothing but a schoolgirl infatuation. She needs someone who is equally as strong as she is now, and no one fits that bill better than Rhett Butler does.

Each character in GONE WITH THE WIND endures incredible hardships, from births to deaths, to famines and familial uproar and still each one – well, almost everyone – emerges at the end a stronger human being. Whether they're happy or not by the film's conclusion is another matter entirely but that perfectly illustrates how unpredictable life really is. No one is perfect and we each have our faults. A good chunk of credit for the film's endurance must be paid to the production's crew; people like director Victor Fleming, musical composer Max Steiner, costume designer Walter Plunkett, cinematographer Ernest Haller, and art director Lyle R. Wheeler all contributed to this movie's lasting appeal by creating a world in which dreams were made, crushed, and made again.

The film's cast is simply marvelous with each actor completely inhabiting his or her role: Vivien Leigh captures the steely determination of Scarlett with the lift of an eyebrow and the steadfast glare of a woman wronged, while Hattie McDaniel – the first black woman to win an Academy Award for Best Supporting Actress – exudes love, devotion and warmth playing the pivotal role of the O'Hara maid, Mammy. Clark Gable, who was reluctant at first to accept the lead role of Rhett Butler, plays his part with gusto, determination and nonchalance. Beloved character actor Thomas Mitchell who plays O'Hara patriarch Gerald O'Hara is stalwart when he needs to be and heartbreakingly damaged when his character becomes emotionally shattered halfway through the film.

GONE WITH THE WIND is not the easiest film to watch. Its content, themes, and characterizations can be difficult to witness and hard to comprehend even for the most avid classic film fans among us, but it is certainly one worth seeing (again and again if you're up for it). Its epic tale and visual scenery will blow you away and you will be left breathless by the time the end credits roll. Trust us on this one: GONE WITH THE WIND is a film that will endure for many more lifetimes. It's magic, it's luxury on a grand scale, it's as majestic as any King or Queen yet it is at the same time revolting, disconcerting, and always emotionally draining. It's a film that has earned its title of the greatest movie ever made.

http://juliekinnear.com/blogs/gone-with-the-wind

Dracula (1931)

This movie will continue to cement the Count's immortality for generations to come.

[10/10 · 28 October 2014]

Universal Studio's 1931 production of Dracula is loosely based on Bram Stoker's Victorian novel of the same name. I say "loosely" because the majority of the film is the work of film director Todd Browning and bears little resemblance to Stoker's literary masterpiece. Don't be fooled, though, because the film is just as powerful and as engaging as Stoker's original story.

Bela Lugosi won the role of the Count (again) after Universal's first choice, Lon Chaney, passed away prematurely from throat cancer. So, in this respect, the passing of a silent horror star made way for the birth of a new, talking horror star. Lugosi electrified movie audiences with his eerie portrayal of a man hungry for blood. The film begins as Renfield (Dwight Frye) makes his way to the Count's mountaintop abode in Transylvania. He is meeting the mysterious Hungarian aristocrat in order to finalize the lease on a dilapidated structure called Carfax Abbey, which is situated in London, England, and which the Count has recently purchased. Not long after meeting Dracula, Renfield is rendered insane and is committed to Doctor Seward's (Herbert Bunston) psychiatric asylum located just steps away from Dracula's recent acquisition, Carfax Abbey.

ow that Count Dracula and Renfield are both ensconced in London, England, all havoc breaks loose — from innocent flower girls dropping dead in the streets to performances of the Royal Ballet's Swan Lake being infiltrated by an evil Hungarian bloodsucker on the prowl. Soon, the women in this film are dropping like flies. First, the love-struck Lucy (Frances Dade) is brought down, and then her best friend — and Jonathan Harker's (David Manners) fiancée — Mina (Helen Chandler) is pursued. Clearly, Dracula has an insatiable appetite for women of the meek and blonde variety.

Thankfully Mina's demise is stalled by the ever-alert Abraham Van Helsing (Edward Van Sloan), who clashes with Dracula from the very start. Van Helsing is an expert on mysterious ailments and mythical creatures of the night. He identifies the Count as the girls' assailant almost immediately. Van Helsing's will is strong and he is able to battle Dracula better than anybody else. It is truly a battle of brains and brawn between these two formidable characters, and watching them go head to head is a real treat! As we previously mentioned, Van Sloan and Lugosi had worked together before on the 1927 stage version of Dracula, and their on screen chemistry is just fantastic.

Lugosi is an absolute delight to watch — well, aside from the fact that he can't seem to stop preying upon defenceless young women. Simply speaking, Lugosi was born to play the role of Count Dracula. Even if you have never seen this film before and are unfamiliar with Lugosi, his image is still the first one you picture when someone mentions the ubiquitous Transylvanian count. He was handsome, rather than grotesque, and that is one of the biggest reasons why his variation of the Count was considered so dangerous. He embodies Count Dracula from the top of his head through to his long claw-like hands, down to his expertly shined shoes. His long cape flutters behind him, almost dancing along as he hunts down innocent females to feed upon.

If you are new to this film, one of the first things you will notice is that there is no musical soundtrack. Some may view that as a negative, but upon closer inspection, the silence that ensues in the most frightening scenes actually adds to the story's intense atmosphere. Together with the lack of mood music, the cinematography and camera-work in Dracula are quite impressive, considering the film's age and how new this medium still was back in the early 1930s. The close-ups of the Count are chill inducing and the images that were captured on film really stay with you for hours and even days afterwards! It will be a long while before I sleep with my window open ever again; that is for sure.

The set design and decoration is typical of most 1930s era films (heavily influenced by the Art Deco movement), especially the scenes set in Carfax Abbey. Just one glimpse of that humongous twisting stone staircase sets my heart on fire! Though Count Dracula is a wealthy aristocrat, his living spaces are primitive and decrepit and they beautifully illustrate his very nature as a monster. On the other end of the spectrum, Doctor Seward's living and working quarters are very robust and welcoming, warm and inviting, ostentatious yet practical for a man who studies medicine and psychiatry.

Dracula has left an indelible mark on movie audiences since its premiere in 1931. It is widely considered a cult horror classic unrivalled by many of today's modern horror fare. Mention it to anyone who has seen it before and their eyes will inevitably light up as they begin offering you tales of the first time they sat down to watch the movie. It is a film that will continue to live on well past our lifetimes, cementing the Count's immortality for generations to come.

http://juliekinnear.com/blogs/movies-realtors-Dracula

The Fountainhead (1949)

The Fountainhead does an incredible job of forcing us to re-evaluate our thought processes and open ourselves up to change and modernity in the form of ingenious design.

[8/10 · 14 October 2014]

The Fountainhead (1949) was released by Warner Bros. and is based on author Ayn Rand's literary masterpiece of the same name. The film stars film legend Gary Cooper as headstrong architect Howard Roark, Patricia Neal as idealist Dominique Francon, and Raymond Massey as newspaper magnate Gail Wynand. Directed by King Vidor and scored by Max Steiner, The Fountainhead is a beautiful example of Hollywood at its finest. It illustrates the cut-throat reality of real estate, architecture, and the public's insatiable appetite for tradition and otherwise mundane structures that populate their city and suburban spaces. The film begins by depicting Roark's undeserved expulsion from university. His dean proclaims him too unique and forward-thinking for the average man's traditional sensibilities and declares that Roark won't amount to much if he sticks to architecture as a profession. Roark's designs are ahead of their time: presenting sleek, unblemished lines and curves on both residential and commercial buildings that any other architect would stick Grecian accents on before calling it a day. The public and the community's builders cannot see past Roark's visionary designs to recognize the greatness and genius that undulates within each one.

Howard Roark quickly becomes a starving artist because he refuses to adapt his designs to fit the mob's consensus. No one will hire him and anyone who does consider commissioning him for a job attempts to re-work his plans and incorporate more traditional accents and flourishes onto his buildings. Roark stands firm and refuses to alter his designs despite the fact this means that he is kissing his career as a successful architect goodbye. After having gone nearly two years without a single job, Roark is forced to accept a position working in a granite quarry, drilling into vast white sheets of marble to make a living. The work is laborious, tedious, and overwhelmingly exhausting, yet Roark remains stalwart and committed to performing his task to the best of his abilities. Gary Cooper excelled at playing righteous characters with strong, determined backbones and he is completely mesmerizing in the role of Howard Roark in The Fountainhead.

Dominique Francon (Neal) is a woman determined not to become a slave to any man or object. She is flawed, certainly, but her hesitancy to belong to any one person rings true to today's feminists and gender equality seekers. She is just as headstrong and stubborn as Howard Roark is and it's only natural that the two characters are immediately drawn to each other after spotting one another at the granite quarry. The relationship between Howard and Dominique is sultry yet damaged, tender yet violent. Dominique is a spoiled socialite but her one redeeming quality is that she recognizes talent and stays true and loyal to it as she does when she is introduced to Roark's designs and work ethic. Once Roark gets back on his feet again and is commissioned to design a luxury high-rise apartment tower in the city, his modern designs are ridiculed not by the builder who sought Roark out specifically for his architectural prowess, but by the public and their destructive criticism is egged on by one of the city's most prominent newspapers, The Banner, which is owned by Gail Wynand (Massey).

Lambasted by the public, the press, and his fellow architects, Roark perseveres with his modern designs and, once completed, the apartment tower is hailed as being a truly magnificent and original piece of architecture. His critics are silenced — temporarily — and his work quickly gains popularity.

Unfortunately, any man's (or woman's) climb to the top of his or her profession is rarely an easy one. The way up is paved with rejection, ridicule, dangerous temptations, and ill will — all of this causes Howard Roark, no matter how strong of a constitution he has, to stumble. His pride and his unwillingness to change result in a total professional upheaval and Roark is forced to defend himself in court, risking not only his livelihood but his professional reputation as well. Still, through thick and thin, Dominique Francon remains a constant fixture in Roark's life, defending him to the last and sticking by him in his darkest hour. She has unwittingly become a slave — the very thing she was determined to avoid — and she discovers that there is nowhere she'd rather be than in the arms of Howard Roark.

The Fountainhead is a film full of elitism, pride, vanity, and defeatist attitudes. It is also one of the most beautifully shot classic black and white films I've ever seen! Its cinematography and set design hearkens back to the German expressionist masterpiece Metropolis (1927) in which the world is broken into two social classes: the workers and the elite. The Fountainhead's cinematography has an almost film noir quality about it; plenty of smoke, hard edges and clean angles, shadowy spaces, and awesomely cropped longshots. Lightness and darkness fight for screen time here and the victor is a marvellous visual blend of hard and soft modern film celluloid.

The only aspect of the film that I had a slight problem with was the evident lack of chemistry between the two romantic leads (Cooper and Neal). They each portrayed their characters well, but that special, essential spark and fire was missing from the finished version of the film. Perhaps the studio, producers, and director (King Vidor) were well aware of this issue because, though Cooper and Neal were two of the story's major characters, they didn't share a large amount of screen time. Rather, the majority of their scenes were filmed separately.

http://juliekinnear.com/blogs/the-fountainhead-movie

Her (2013)

This movie will have you pondering your existence, your friendships, your relationships, and much more for some time.

[9/10 · 2 July 2014]

Relationships are complicated. But what's even more challenging than dealing with a tough relationship, you might argue, is dealing with the prospect of a lifetime of loneliness. This struggle leads Theodore (Joaquin Phoenix) to enter into a relationship with an operating system (or OS) — a computer program — that goes by the name of Samantha (voiced by Scarlett Johansson) in Spike Jonze's film Her. After separating from his wife (Rooney Mara), Theo decides to leave the awkwardness of dating behind and pursue a relationship with a computer program specifically designed to cater to his needs and learn and grow alongside him.

The film is set in the future, but rather than taking the more common route of portraying the coming years as a world full of hovercrafts and robotic devices, writer and director Spike Jonze and his team take a unique and far more interesting approach by portraying the future as similar to our own world. The clothing and furniture are almost vintage, with the occasional futuristic addition. By playing on the way different fashion and décor trends fade away throughout time and then unexpectedly become popular again, Jonze creates a future you can easily believe is just around the corner.

As well as being nominated for six Academy Awards (including Best Picture), Her took home the prize for Best Original Screenplay—and it won't take you long to figure out why. The writing seamlessly bounces between different genres. At times, the film seems like a clear-cut romantic comedy. At other times, the film seems to be a true drama or social commentary. And there are even elements of a futuristic suspense flick thrown in. It is genuinely possible to laugh, cry, and sit on the edge of your seat over the course of this 120-minute movie.

Unsurprisingly, the incredibly talented Phoenix thrives in this challenging role — often playing against nothing more than a disembodied voice — and pulls you along for the emotional ride. With the wrong actor in the lead role, it would have been easy for the audience to see Theo as an oddball and feel disassociated from him. But Phoenix doesn't let that happen. His honest portrayal of a complex character at a challenging point in his life is incredibly captivating. You can't help but feel his pain and loneliness and understand why he has chosen to pursue this unconventional relationship.

There were rumours of the possibility of Scarlett Johansson being the first person to get nominated for an Academy Award for Best Actress in a role where only the actor's voice is present. And after seeing Her, you'll understand why people considered such an unheard-of possibility. The interesting thing is, Johansson wasn't actually the original pick for the operating system Samantha. Johansson brings an incredible warmth, curiosity, kindness, and honesty to Samantha that makes you completely understand why Theodore falls for her.

Undeniably, the acting, writing, and design of the film are all spectacular, but they wouldn't be nearly as powerful if it weren't for the brilliant cinematography and editing. To give you a snapshot of different moments in Theo's life, silent scenes are pieced together and accented by beautiful music. You actually feel as though you are entering into his mind and seeing his memories as he might see them. These montages are beautiful and efficient ways to provide back-story and relay crucial emotional points in a short time.

One thing to keep in mind before you settle in to watch this film is it's rated R due to sexually explicit content. And because of the themes the movie deals with, the way sex takes place is very different than what you may be used to seeing or hearing on screen. However, the explicit material is rarely gratuitous. Rather, it's genuinely used to advance the plot and create a realistic depiction of this new kind of relationship. But it doesn't hurt to keep this fact in mind in case you or someone you plan on watching the film with is sensitive to this kind of mature content.

The movie is visually stunning and emotionally captivating, but what truly makes it a must-see is the way it forces you to think. There is no end to the amount of questions Her will have you asking yourself. The many shots of whole busloads and crowds of people talking to their phones rather than to each other doesn't seem very far from our world today. Is that where we're heading? Will we replace real relationships with artificial romance? And is that such a bad thing? If we feel a true connection to a computer program, is it ultimately just as real as the connection we have with another person?

One of the most interesting questions the film poses lies in the different relationships Theo has with Samantha and his soon-to-be ex- wife, Catherine. Although his relationship with Catherine started out with the expected attraction and butterflies, their marriage quickly became a struggle. He fought to accept her moods, to communicate with her effectively, and to persevere in the relationship through their differences. Samantha, on the other hand, is specifically designed for Theo. Although she exhibits certain emotions and can at times seem "real", she is still ultimately there to give Theo what he needs. Was Catherine truly the "wrong" woman for Theo, or was it simply the fact that she was a real woman with real emotions, real needs, and real opinions that he couldn't handle? If we could have all the butterflies and shared interests and learning together without the awkwardness or the fighting, would we all choose an operating system over a real relationship? Or should Theo — and many of us, by extension — accept that relationships aren't always meant to be easy and they require hard work and constant discourse?

X-Men: Days of Future Past (2014)

The Most Satisfying Mutant Movie So Far

[9/10 · 19 June 2014]

This film is a hot mess of goings-on that challenge viewers to various degrees for their attention. And in many ways, these efforts are rather successful. Whether you will enjoy this film lies in whether this is an experience you will be all right with. In director Bryan Singer's X-Men: Days of Future Past, we as viewers deal with the presence of two series worth of X-Men casts, a time travel story that forces viewers to juggle a number of plot points in lieu of a more fluid plot, a splattering of subtle references to other elements from the X-Men universe, as well as a mélange of historical and cultural references — some of which exist in a retroactive continuity thanks to the humans with mutant abilities and the effects of their presence in the world.

Even though it had been a decade since Bryan Singer directed an X-Men film (2003's X2), he does so here with the confidence and ability a dedicated expert. Singer had a difficult job in reconciling conflicts of story continuity between the first three X-Men films, the Wolverine films, and the series' most recent instalment before this, X-Men: First Class. But Singer manages to bring everything together and adjust the details so that they make sense for the most part.

More committed fans of the franchise and the comic books will probably take issue with conflicts that would be more glaring to them, but as a general movie-going experience, the film is far from unpleasant. In fact, it's rather exciting. It's a time-travelling adventure, and as such, it carries with it consequences on a scale much grander than previous films in the franchise. This film creates much grander stokes befitting a world filled with super-human beings. It also jumps ahead in creating what feels like a much more expansive mutant-filled universe that has been around for much longer than we viewers have seen up to this point — especially if we consider the post-credits scene and the deep implications it carries, which viewers familiar with the X-Men comic book universe will instantly understand.

The plot of the film itself is adapted from one of the comic book franchises most legendary story arcs. It's a story from 1981 where mutants in the future are hunted to near-extinction. A member of the X- Men travels back in time so they may alter history. The heart of the film is easily the interplay between the young Charles Xavier (James McAvoy) and the young Erik Lensherr, or "Magneto" (Michael Fassbender), as they struggle in a heart-wrenching back-and-forth over the troubles their friendship faces and their hopes for the future of mutant-kind. Their future counterparts, played by Patrick Stewart and Ian McKellen, accomplish much to convey the grim and dire situation their young selves fight to erase. There's a tone in this movie unmatched by any of the other occasions where these actors have portrayed these characters on film.

Ellen Page, in her role as "Kitty Pryde," is worthy to further recognition as well. Her character, whose ideas and power prove to be a lynchpin to the whole movie's plot, is an intelligent, brave, fearless soldier who proves herself to be just as multidimensional in character as any of the actors and characters that have come before her in this film franchise. Plus, Peter Dinklage, of Game of Thrones fame, makes for a curious villain, as he not only seeks to eliminate mutant-kind but also proves at the same time to be fascinated by them, making him far from the one-dimensional villain many feared he would be. Ultimately, it may be Jennifer Lawrence as the ever-popular character "Mystique" who steals the show. She's just as much a lynchpin to this cast as Ellen Page, exercising her well-established acting skills with wildly successful finesse and depth of emotion.

The plot of X-Men: Days of Future Past is easily the most satisfying in the franchise's history — and the most fluid. It drops the need to reintroduce old characters, doesn't spend too much time on new characters, and moves immediately towards the plot that carries this film towards its end. This approach reflects self-confidence in the film franchise, as it assumes fans who are familiar with the series are in fact familiar with the series. The franchise is so popular that it doesn't have to spend much time re-introducing characters and recapping previous events in the franchise. Perhaps this is a presumptuous move, but it proves very helpful in terms of efficient plot delivery. It uses the audience's presumed fandom to move faster and go further than it could if it were continually stopping to reintroduce characters and explain the setting — which is good, because this instalment is perhaps the most narrative-driven. The downside to this is approach is that this makes the film less of a movie to new fans and crafts itself more towards as product for returning fans.

In the end, the film is definitely worth the price of admission. It makes for an adventurous, fantasy-filled piece of alternative history storytelling and emotionally compelling action.

Maleficent (2014)

Wasted Potential

[6/10 · 16 June 2014]

Long ago, in the final year of the 1950s, there was Sleeping Beauty, the sixteenth of Walt Disney's animated children's tales. The film told the story of the princess Aurora, cursed into unnatural slumber by the vindictive fairy Maleficent– considered by many to be one of Disney's greatest villains.

Fifty-five years later, under the first-time direction of Robert Stromberg , the self-titled "mistress of all evil" gets her own movie – complete with some good ideas, a nice plot twist, lots of unanswered questions, and a heap of wasted potential.

Show, don't tell, is one of the basic commandments of storytelling, whether on paper or on screen, and it's broken into tiny shards like the frailest of magic mirrors by Stromberg and his scriptwriter Linda Woolverton. By using a completely unnecessary narration throughout the movie, Stromberg repeatedly refuses to let his characters speak - or even emote - for themselves. Worse yet, he barely lets them speak to each other. The title character (Angelina Jolie) is driven to revenge by her lover's betrayal, yet there's no time given to showing their relationship. We're permitted a chirrupy scene when they first meet, and a brief -- nearly dialogue-free -- view of a really bad breakup, but that's it. Sharlto Copley's King Stefan - the cause of our poor dark fairy's grief - gets three scenes with her, and a couple more briefly terrorizing his subjects, and nothing else. He's absolutely essential to the plot, and his psychological turmoil is an obvious counterpoint to Maleficent's own, but no one could be bothered to give him any time to do it in. He barely has any dialogue.

Dialogue in general is in maddeningly short supply in this fantasy world, as are characters to speak it. Much of the the film's hour and a half run-time is spent with Ms. Jolie and her prosthetically enhanced cheekbones, but we never learn all that much about her character, because personality is largely displayed through interaction and conversation, and over the course of the entire movie, Maleficent actually talks with only four different characters. The same is true of Princess Aurora (Elle Fanning), and the raven-man Diaval (Sam Riley). These three are our protagonists, yet they barely really speak to each other. When they do, it's often not that all that meaningful or all that much. It's as if Woolverton was paying for dialogue by the word.

The lack of verbiage brings with it some significant story gaps. With the exception of her avian sidekick, we never find out what the other inhabitants of her magical realm think of Maleficent's actions, or of the Humans who periodically attack their borders. We are never shown (or even told) why three bumbling fairies break ranks to protect the child of their queen's worst enemy, or why said enemy even let them into his castle in the first place. Maleficent's magical abilities are left frustratingly undefined: She can telekinetically toss people around like leaves, and make them fall asleep at will, yet falls back on physical combat on at least two occasions. She can levitate objects and people, and change one creature into another, yet never uses these ability on herself - even when it would be incredibly useful.

And why, oh why, is the forest she lives in called "The Moors"?

The pity is, there's actually a lot of good stuff buried in this movie. There are some interesting revisions of the old story, nothing is dull, the main character is - despite everything - engaging and visually striking, (actually, visuals in general are another area where the movie does pretty well) and there's a wonderfully refreshing twist on one of the best-known fairytale scenes in history. There's nothing too violent or frightening for a young audience, yet little that feels overtly 'kiddie'. It's precisely because the movie has so much going for it that its shortcomings are so frustrating. It's not terrible, but it could have been really good.

Captain America: The Winter Soldier (2014)

Henry Jackman's score for The Winter Soldier is utterly bland and modern, so it fails to evoke a protagonist who is, despite everyone's efforts, neither of the above.

[7/10 · 16 May 2014]

Let's start this out on a positive note. Captain America: The Winter Soldier (directed by brothers Anthony and Joe Russo) features a likable protagonist, comfortable pacing, and some rather good plot ideas.

Tying in to the growing Marvel cinematic universe, The Winter Soldier takes place soon after the events of The Avengers film (for a full grasp of the setting and characters, we're supposed to have also seen Captain America: The First Avenger).

WW2 hero Steve Rogers (Captain America, played by Chris Evans) is still trying to adapt to life in the 21st century — which, in his case, entails working for a well-intentioned but overbearing intelligence organization headed by the sensibly paranoid Nicholas Fury (Samuel L. Jackson).

On paper, at least, there's a great deal of dramatic potential in the idea of the honest, quietly gallant but somewhat old-fashioned soldier of the 1940s trying to work alongside a former KGB assassin (Scarlett Johansson) who lies for a living, under the command of a leader who trusts no one. Add to this some dubious anti-terrorism tactics and blurred lines between security and oppression and you have the recipe for an exciting and morally rich story.

All that's on paper. On the screen, what we get is a decent set-up, a couple of distinctive — though mostly unexplored — characters, a juicy ethical conundrum that vanishes unresolved in a puff of smoke (or rather, a series of explosions), and an overdose of acrobatics and flying bullets.

Let's be fair here. Dynamic, over-the top fight scenes are one of the perks of comic book movies, and this one does indeed deliver a few entertaining dustups. It also contains quite a few that overstay their welcome and wear out the old Hollywood tradition of ineffectual antagonist gunfire.

While it's true that too short a confrontation at the very end of a film can feel anticlimactic, it's also manifestly true (even in the world of comic book fights) that less is often more. A shorter fight can actually pack more of an emotional punch instead of leaving the audience numb and wondering why everyone isn't dead yet.

Speaking of everyone being dead, there's also the small problem of collateral damage to be dealt with here. One of the charms of the Captain America character (as set out in the previous movies, anyway) is his sincere, instinctive decency and compassion. Here, there's not even a second of anguish or even acknowledgement of civilian damage caused by his exploits and those of his enemies.

Having said all this, many of The Winter Soldier's flaws would be much diminished if only the movie were shorter and better scored. The Russos could have knocked nearly half an hour off the movie's two-hour-plus runtime without losing any of the plot, humour, or characters depth simply by slimming a few obese action sequences. What remains would then benefit a great deal from a more distinctive and evocative soundtrack. Alan Silvestri's work on the first Captain America movie was both memorable and very fitting for both the historical period and the hero. Henry Jackman's score for The Winter Soldier is utterly bland and modern, so it fails to evoke a protagonist who is, despite everyone's efforts, neither of the above.

http://juliekinnear.com/blogs/captain-America-soldier

RoboCop (2014)

Part Action, Part Drama, All Mediocre

[5/10 · 16 May 2014]

For a remake of an '80s action movie about a robot with a human brain shooting up drug dealers, Robocop is surprisingly low-key at times. In fact, it's almost too restrained. Directed by José Padilha and set in a near-future United States, the film follows the travails of Alex Murphy (Joel Kinnaman), a Detroit police officer so dreadfully injured by an explosion that he must be reborn with a mechanical body.

Once you get past trying to say the title Robocop with a straight face, there's actually a lot of potential here. What makes someone human? Memories and emotions, or flesh and blood? How much freedom must be sacrificed in the name of peace? Which is more corruptible, human beings or machines made by human beings? How trustworthy is something without free will? What is free will, anyway? All of these questions are glanced at in the film, but none are dealt with directly. It's hard to tell whether the movie is leaving the audience to form their own decisions, or whether its creators simply lacked the desire to explore the philosophical issues in any depth.

For those unconcerned with the peripheral treatment of ethical dilemmas, Robocop is comfortably paced and offers some respectable but unspectacular action sequences. Much of the original film's grim whimsey is absent, but some subtle humour is provided by Samuel Jackson as the highly opinionated TV personality Pat Novak. There are a few nice touches in the musical score, including an all-too-brief appearance of Basil Poledouris' theme for the 1987 film, and a caustically amusing use of "if I only had a heart" from The Wizard of Oz. The cast is uninspired but solid and would serve the film admirably if the leading man were only a bit more compelling.

Given that the dramatic core of the movie consists of a human mind trapped in a mechanical body, it would help tremendously if Alex Murphy actually had a distinctive human personality to contrast with the robot. Unfortunately, he's utterly bland and two-dimensional even before the metal limbs are attached and the corporate-sponsored doctor (played by Gary Oldman) starts messing with his emotional responses. There isn't a twitch or a quirk of speech to distinguish him from the hoard of other generic "decent guys" in movies. While the script and director must shoulder a large part of the blame, little good can be said of Kinnaman. His performance isn't wooden, exactly, but it lacks most of the little details that would have made Murphy a likable and interesting character.

A flat hero might be more forgivable if Robocop were just another mindless action movie, but it's clearly trying to be a good deal more. A respectable amount of screen time is devoted to Murphy's family (played by Abbie Cornish and a pleasantly understated John Paul Ruttan) and to the people responsible for his transformation. The movie wants to have an emotional arc keeping pace with the flying bullets, but it doesn't quite manage. It seems that Padilha set himself the ambitious and admirable task of combining mechanized crime-busting action with a futuristic drama. The resulting hybrid is — like the title character — a bit of both worlds, but far from the best of either.

http://juliekinnear.com/blogs/robocop-action-mediocre

Veronica Mars (2014)

Show creator Rob Thomas, along with his creative team, do not disappoint.

[7/10 · 19 April 2014]

After breaking multiple Kickstarter records, enticing over 90,000 fans and backers to personally fund its creation and raising over $5.7 million, the Veronica Mars movie has arrived. And show creator Rob Thomas, along with his creative team, do not disappoint.

The film begins years after the series ended, with Veronica having moved to New York and given up what seemed to be a sure-fire career path towards becoming a private eye to instead pursue a career as a lawyer. She has also abandoned her hot and cold relationship with bad boy Logan Echolls (Jason Dohring) in favour of loving and reliable college boyfriend Stosh "Piz" Piznarski (Chris Lowell). But when Logan's new girlfriend is found murdered and Logan is the lead suspect, Veronica finds the pull of her old life hard to resist.

Like the show, the film is a brilliant mix of intriguing murder mystery, witty comedy, and undeniable romance. There's a crime to be solved, humorous banter to be enjoyed, and a titillating love triangle to be explored — all rolled into one neat little package. Plus, it doesn't hurt that there's one incredibly clever, tough-talking, fierce young heroine (played by the lovely and talented Kristen Bell) at the centre of it all. To top it all off, almost all of the cast from the original series returned for the film, and they've been joined by some fresh new talent and surprise guest appearances from well-known actors like Justin Long and Dax Shepard. Whether old or new to the Veronica Mars franchise, every single actor holds their own and there isn't a bad performance in the bunch.

It may have been seven years since Veronica Mars was last on the air, but the title role seems to come so naturally to Bell, you'd think no time had passed at all. Thanks to Bell, Veronica is every bit as sassy, smart, witty, and lovable as ever. She may have traded in her t-shirts and jeans for New York lawyer-worthy blouses and suits — but don't let the change in appearance fool you. At her core, she's still that down- to-Earth girl who will do anything for her friends.

Her playful banter with pals Wallace (Percy Daggs III) and Mac (Tina Majorino) is still fully present and her close relationship with one of the coolest TV dads in the world, Keith Mars (Enrico Colantoni), is still very much intact. Although Veronica may be a "marshmallow" with the right people, she's still every bit as tough as she was as a teenager and isn't above telling her high school nemesis, Madison Sinclair, exactly how she feels about her — or of wielding her trusty old Taser should the need arise!

Of course, any movie that attempts to continue a much-loved TV show in film form takes on the challenge of having its audience be a mix of existing fans and viewers who are new to the whole scene. The added challenge the Veronica Mars team was faced with was the fact those existing fans were the ones funding the actual movie. That's no easy tightrope to walk! Fortunately, the Veronica Mars film does so brilliantly.

The movie starts off with a quick opening montage to catch viewers up on who Veronica is, the people who are important to her, and the backstory of her hometown, Neptune, California. So whether you haven't seen the show at all or you need a refresher after the seven-year break between when the series went off the air and now, the opening of the film has got you covered. Thomas is also careful not to fill the film with "inside jokes" but rather uses subtle indications throughout to make sure viewers can keep up with what's happening regardless of whether they're familiar with the show.

That being said, however, chances are you'll have a different experience and appreciation of the film depending on whether you're already a fan. Does that mean someone who has no previous knowledge of Veronica, her friends, and her history won't enjoy the film? Absolutely not! There's just a bit of an added payoff for fans who get to see how Neptune and its citizens have developed since we last saw them. Ultimately, though, whether you're already a fan or just discovering Veronica for the first time when you sit down to see the movie, this witty and intense murder mystery is definitely worth watching.

In Secret (2013)

When struggling to breathe makes you drown

[7/10 · 4 April 2014]

In life, people all have shades of grey. We have good moments and bad. At times, a person can be our best friend, and at other times, he can seem our worst enemy. A family member can be our greatest ally, and then suddenly our fiercest obstacle. But for the purposes of cinema, films often eliminate these complexities. They present us with heroes who are immaculate in virtually every way and villains who have no redeeming qualities whatsoever — and they expect us to cheer and boo accordingly. But that certainly isn't the case in Charlie Stratton's first feature film, In Secret . In this dark and captivating drama based on the novel Thérèse by Émile Zola, the lines are brilliantly blurred. There's no hero to worship or villain to wish dead — just people with good moments and frighteningly bad moments trying to get through life.

When Thérèse Raquin (Elizabeth Olsen) is left with her Aunt (Jessica Lange) after her mother's death, her life doesn't seem to be off to the best start. After years caring for her ailing cousin Camille (Tom Felton), her aunt announces that the two of them will be wed and they'll all move to the city. Understandably, this isn't the life the imaginative Thérèse had dreamt for her future. But dutifully, she does as she's told — and quickly sinks deeper and deeper into the hands of this family she never truly wanted to be part of.

Then, seemingly out of nowhere, the strong, charismatic, and handsome Laurent (Oscar Isaac) presents himself and she finds hope and love for the first time in her young life. But with a needy husband and overbearing aunt, the two realize they can never truly be together — unless they take matters into their own hands. And so begins a dark and terrifying psychological study of what happens when people are desperate to pursue their wants, regardless of the damage those desires may cause.

Although the average summary of the film might have you going into the cinema expecting a tortured romantic drama, Stratton isn't afraid to take sharp turns without a moment's notice. So be prepared for plenty of darkness and suspense. Your notions of bad guys and good guys quickly disappear as you find yourself cheering for one character one moment and feeling terrified of her at the next. Olsen, Lange, Felton, and Isaac carry off these depictions of refreshingly multi-dimensional characters almost effortlessly and with captivating honesty. Stratton's screenplay and direction brilliantly capture the complexities of human wants and needs — and the devastating effects of our desperate attempts to achieve them.

Everyone just wants to be happy — but at what cost?

http://juliekinnear.com/blogs/in-secret-review

American Hustle (2013)

Isn't having a ton of fun while watching a movie what this is all about?

[8/10 · 25 March 2014]

When David O. Russell's Silver Linings Playbook was the first film since 1981 to be nominated in the four acting categories, we didn't know history would repeat itself so soon. His film this year, American Hustle, matched that record and was leading with 10 Oscar nominations — the most in 2014, only tied with Gravity. In the end, the movie didn't win in any of the categories.

The film stars actors from his 2013 film, like Jennifer Lawrence and Bradley Cooper, in addition to Christian Bale and Amy Adams, and the two female actresses won Golden Globes in January for these performances.

The comedic story is loosely based around the FBI ABSCAM about two con artists (Bale and Adams) in 1978, scamming people through investments by posing with false identities. Things get interesting when an FBI Agent (Cooper) discovers them committing a loan scam but offers to let them go free if they can catch and incriminate other crooks in an illegal act. The magnificence of this film comes from the comedic, smart, and wild screenplay delivered by brilliant actors whom you can barely recognize from any of their past roles. The brilliantly written conversation captivates you as a true crime-drama should. Christian Bale's character of Irving is hilariously bizarre, with his comb-over and beer belly, but oddly mesmerizing. As Sydney Prosser (Adams) will say early on in the film, "He had this confidence that drew me to him".

Amy Adams is also in a role rarely seen before. As a powerful and very sexy manipulative woman, she puts any past expectations of a shy girl from her previous roles far behind her. However, the star of the show seemed to still be Jennifer Lawrence, gone from Hunger Games heroine to self-obsessed wife to Irving. Even with less screen time, Lawrence is riveting, and particularly frustrating, as she portrays an irrational and uncontrollable woman who threatens to destroy the entire plot and the lives of everyone around her. If the brilliant comedic screenplay isn't enough for you, the fantastic presence and performance of comedian Louis C.K. as frustrated boss to Bradley Cooper will please any comedy fan.

American Hustle has received widespread acclaim, and with good reason. The acting is spectacular, with an impeccably chosen cast. The characters are mesmerizing, and the screenplay is as witty and smart as it is funny. Although it seems to fall short of life-changing, memorable for decades to come, or filled with heart-wrenching inspiration, I don't always need or want those qualities from a movie. If you're looking to be as moved as you were when watching 12 Years a Slave, this just isn't the movie for you. But American Hustle did exactly what I was waiting for in a movie this year: it entertained. Isn't having a ton of fun while watching a movie what this is all about?

http://juliekinnear.com/blogs/review-American-hustle

Dallas Buyers Club (2013)

McConaughey and Leto in the roles of their lives

[10/10 · 7 March 2014]

Let's get one thing out of the way. The hype you've heard about Matthew McConaughey and Jared Leto's performances in Dallas Buyers Club is absolutely true. It'll be a shock if they don't both walk away with Oscars this Sunday. They are phenomenal in this. And it's not just the fact that they went through some extreme physical changes (McConaughey lost 47 pounds, while Leto lost 30 pounds). They genuinely transform into these characters, these people, which is a rare thing — even among the best actors. Thankfully, the movie isn't just all about the acting. It's also a great story.

Based on true events, Dallas Buyers Club — directed by Canada's own Jean-Marc Vallée — is about Ron Woodruff (McConaughey), a homophobic drug abuser diagnosed with AIDS. Told he has 30 days to live, he scrambles to extend his life and eventually finds help in an FDA (Food and Drug Administration)–unapproved pharmaceutical drug in Mexico. He decides to smuggle the drug into the United States. With the help of a transgender woman (Leto) whom he increasingly befriends, he sells the dugs to HIV-positive patients. But as more and more people turn to him for help (and he becomes more compassionate along the way), he starts to face the wrath of the FDA, forcing him to fight the system — not so that he can keep making money, but so he can help those, like himself, in need.

It's the kind of inspirational story that Hollywood can often do so well — where one person stands up and fights the system for what's right. It's a really well-done, classic David and Goliath tale that you become invested in and root for.

That doesn't mean Dallas Buyers Club is all upbeat, of course. It's a harrowing, emotional movie about AIDS, after all. But, like life, the movie is a balance of a lot of things. It's inspiring and maddening, heartfelt and sad, funny and serious. It also balances a mix of different kinds of stories.

It's a character study. It's a look at how people can completely change. It's an underdog story. It's an exposé of the problems with the FDA. It's a look at how awful AIDS can be.

But what's most inspiring about the movie isn't just its theme that anyone can make a difference. It's that a selfish, hateful person like Woodruff can do a 180 to become the kind of noble person who genuinely wants to make a difference by helping people. Dallas Buyers Club is an emotional film for a lot of reasons, but the biggest reason is the idea that everyone deserves to live a good life and enjoy what life offers. Sometimes that means doing whatever it takes to make that happen — whether it's for ourselves or for others.

American Beauty (1999)

"There is nothing worse in life than being ordinary."

[9/10 · 13 February 2014]

Angela (Mena Suvari) says in American Beauty. The Academy Award–winning 1999 movie is about many things, but this is one of its strongest messages. The only thing it suggests more is that if you pull back the curtain on even, say, a seemingly perfect everyday suburban family, nobody is ordinary, normal, or boring. As the movie poster for American Beauty says, "Look closer." Which is what the film also does by giving us a not-so-common behind-the-scenes look at what it's like to be in the real estate world.

But first, the story. In American Beauty, Kevin Spacey plays Lester Burnham, a self-described loser. His Martha Stewart–like wife, real estate agent Carolyn (Annette Bening), and his gothy teenage daughter, Jane (Thora Birch), respect him as much as he respects himself: not at all. Lester is a wet blanket and a pushover. He is someone who describes his life as so dull and unsatisfying that he considers himself practically dead. That changes when he meets Jane's best friend, Angela, and a strong attraction sparks in him. Something awakens, and he begins to change his life around. In doing so, he sets things in motion (for himself and others) that snowball into the dramatic end of the movie.

As the film goes along, it does what its poster promised: it looks closer. It pulls away the layers of its characters. It shows them as more than just stereotypes. In particular, Carolyn — as a real estate agent — proves to be an interesting representation of our trade (more on that later). All characters are complicated and contradictory people, just trying to fulfill their desires by moving past the obstacles they face.

The fact that you can so easily take this message out of American Beauty is credit to Alan Ball (creator of Six Feet Under and True Blood), but also the actors' extraordinary work. What's hard to believe about American Beauty isn't just how good the performances are — it's how many good performances there are. Annette Bening and Kevin Spacey (both of whom won Oscars for their roles) especially stand out. They single- handedly carry (and pull off) the film's delicate back-and-forth between being very serious and darkly, maniacally funny.

A big reason American Beauty is so funny is because of how relatable it is. It plays out like a dark vicarious fantasy. Who hasn't wanted to break a little free from some of the rules and structures of everyday life? Who hasn't wanted to tell off their boss, or throw a plate of vegetables at a wall when they're angry? We laugh at the outrageousness of it all because there's a part of us that wishes we could ditch our inhibitions and do what we want, like these characters. Well, maybe not exactly like these characters. The lesson to take from American Beauty isn't that you should threaten your boss with blackmail to get a better severance package. But maybe stand up for yourself a little more so you get what you deserve in all aspects of life. And that's something not only that we can all relate to, but that's also probably good advice we all need to remember now and then.

Of course, for us, American Beauty is more relatable in some ways, given that Annette Bening plays a real estate agent. As was the case with Glengarry Glen Ross, American Beauty isn't necessarily a nice representation of our trade. That's partly because nobody is meant to come off looking very good in American Beauty, and partly because the movie is less interested in Carolyn the real estate agent than it is Carolyn the person. Still, while it might easy to write her off as a negative stereotype, it's worth heeding American Beauty's advice and look closer.

Stripped of all exaggeration, Carolyn does illustrate kernels of truth. For one, the scene where she prepares one of her listings for an open house shows how much hard work can go into this job. It also emphasizes something that's true of many jobs: if you're good at what you do, it looks easy to outsiders. But, of course, nothing is entirely easy. Enjoyable? Worthwhile? Absolutely. But a lot of work goes into making something seem perfect.

A lot of work goes into being a real estate agent in other ways too. Carolyn's competitiveness and mantras about projecting an image of success (or "I will sell this house today!") are extreme, but the relatable truth there is this: real estate professionals are often entrepreneurs who have to put in a great deal of effort to be successful and keep themselves motivated. Which is why Carolyn's eventual "friendship" (at first platonic, later more intimate) with Buddy the Real Estate King (Peter Gallagher) also rings true. Sure, real estate can be competitive, but there still can be a communal sense of mutual understanding — a sense that everyone is in it together.

While Carolyn may be a more relatable real estate professional than the men of Glengarry Glen Ross, there's one significant thing she shares with them: she never seems to place any importance on the people she's helping find her homes. She is so obsessed with the success of her career. That's it. But, as we said with Glengarry, that isn't to say American Beauty isn't a great movie. It's just not one that entirely represents what we do. But, unlike Glengarry, it does — in its way — give you a more behind-the-scenes look at the hard work, determination, and entrepreneurial spirit we put into helping people find their dream homes. Because for most real estate agents, the mantra isn't "I will sell this house today." It's "I will help find someone a home today."

http://juliekinnear.com/blogs/real-estate-American-beauty

August: Osage County (2013)

If I were to sum up August: Osage County in one word, it would likely be "intense."

[8/10 · 5 February 2014]

Upon learning their father has gone missing, the three daughters of Beverly and Violet Weston return to their parents' country home in Oklahoma. Nearly a dozen characters are introduced into the family arena — each with their own personal demons — and many face-offs ensue. Drug addiction, hidden romance, emotional abuse, divorce, and bourgeoning adolescence are just some of the many themes tackled over the course of the film. Between their own personal struggles and their complex family history, the sisters are in for a tough few days in each other's company.

Lately, with series like Harry Potter and books like The Hobbit turning into movies, we're getting pretty accustomed to seeing cinematic versions of novels. But it isn't every day that you get to see a compelling play like August: Osage County turned into a film. Even more intriguing is the fact that the playwright, Tracy Letts, adapted his original work, which premiered onstage in 2007, to create the screenplay for this 2013 film rendition.

If your main requirements when selecting a movie are strong acting performances and intense family drama, then August: Osage County is definitely worth seeing. You're likely to be drawn in by how the film looks at challenging familial relations with an intriguing dark humour twist. And with an all-star cast that includes Meryl Streep, Julia Roberts, Ewan McGregor, Dermot Mulroney, Abigail Breslin, Benedict Cumberbatch, and many more — along with a brilliant breakout performance by Julianne Nicholson — there's nothing but superb actors in the bunch.

Unlike in the days of classic movies, the trend in films lately has been towards more "real," improvised language, which probably leaves you more familiar with common, "everyday" speech on screen. Because of this, some of August: Osage County's language might feel a little more theatrical than what you're used to seeing on screen in recent years. Fortunately, the strong, committed actors manage to work with this heightened language and drama very well.

If I were to sum up August: Osage County in one word, it would likely be "intense." But not in the guns-a-blazing, action-packed Die Hard–style sense of the word. Rather, this movie is about real pain, the dramatic consequences of secrecy and revelation, and how families struggle to keep things together even through the toughest times. So if you want to appreciate the strong performances and unique experience of seeing a Pulitzer Prize–winning play adapted for the screen, make sure you're in the right mood for it. Because if you are, August: Osage County won't just be intense for you, but it will also be brilliant.

Gravity (2013)

Gravity in a Word: "Captivating"

[8/10 · 22 January 2014]

Gravity is the latest in science fiction feature films, a thriller directed by Alfonso Cuarón that will have your heart racing and your breath held for most of the film. Gravity toys with your emotions from minute one, juxtaposing the beauty and serenity of space with its impending danger and destruction.

The film stars Sandra Bullock and George Clooney and tells the story of two astronauts and their fight to get back to Earth after the destruction of their space shuttle. Bullock plays the role of Dr. Ryan Stone, a medical engineer on her first expedition to space with Matt Kowalski, played by Clooney, a veteran and the more experienced of the two. Bullock's acting is wonderful, as she shared strong and true emotions with the audience despite the fact that for most of the film, she only has herself or Matt (a man her character isn't very well acquainted with) to talk to.

What set this film apart are the special effects. With a budget of $100 million, about 80 per cent of the production was done in CG (more than James Cameron's Avatar) to create a visually stunning film. Viewing the beauty of Planet Earth from space is what captivates you for most of the film, with the help of 3D technology designed and added in post- production under the supervision of Chris Parks, giving an amazing depth to the film. The work producers put into bringing space to life is phenomenal — not to mention the light box, with over 4,000 LED bulbs that had to be created (invented, even) to film the actors' faces inside their astronaut helmets.

Gravity shares similarities with traditional tales of determination to return home and survival. The Odyssey and Castaway come to mind. But in space, this narrative takes on a new perspective. The theme of perseverance is written all over this movie, with Stone questioning her ability to keep fighting — to look death in the face and either go on or give up. This is a story about going against all odds when the entire universe is against you.

There are several hints of a rebirth theme as well, with the astronauts hanging from the space shuttle with their lifelines like fetuses with their umbilical cords. Look out for the scene partway through the film with Bullock floating in a C-shape fetal position, and remember the way astronauts have to relearn to walk and gain strength in their muscles upon returning to Earth, like a child. All these instances suggest a Kubrick-like interest in demonstrating the evolution and vulnerability of human life, united with the scenes of confronting death.

Gravity is at the top of the list where the Oscars are concerned, with ten nominations (tied for the lead with American Hustle), including a nomination for Best Picture. Even astronaut Buzz Aldrin gave the film positive reviews, and he told the Hollywood Reporter that he's happy Gravity was made and hopes it will "stimulate the public" to encourage advancements in space technology. I think with a movie like this — and all the recent press from Canadian astronaut Chris Hadfield — we're taking one small step in the right direction.

http://juliekinnear.com/blogs/gravity-movie-captivating

The Wind Rises (2013)

I hold my breath, hoping and wishing the screen would pause at any moment to allow me time to admire the brush stroke–filled landscapes.

[9/10 · 8 January 2014]

I hold my breath, hoping and wishing the screen would pause at any moment to allow me time to admire the brush stroke–filled landscapes. The camera pans across the stretch of a plane, diving into the distance and blowing glades of grass, with a fluffy clouded sky in the background. This is all easily confused with an acrylic painting.

The Wind Rises (Kaze Tachinu) is Hayao Miyazaki's final film, and the only one he's solely directed and written since Ponyo (along with films like Spirited Away and Princess Mononoke). It was released in Japan on July 20, 2013, and is to hit North American theatres February 21, 2014, although if you were lucky, you got to catch it at the 2013 Toronto Film Festival. Based on a manga of the same name, The Wind Rises tells the story of Jiro Horikoshi, the designer of the Mitsubishi A5M fighter aircraft during WWII. However, the personal events in the film are completely fictional.

Jiro's desire to make something beautiful was an inspiration to Miyazaki. Jiro's dedication to creating a revolutionary plane (for the war, or not) makes up most of the film. But the surprising love story about an unrelenting affection through sickness and health that takes over the second half of the movie is what tears at your insides and gets into that special spot inside of you, reserved only for the most touching stories.

If you try to compare it to other Studio Ghibli films, The Wind Rises seems to be in its own category — neither like the fun and fantastical My Neighbour Totoro nor the futuristic Castle in the Sky. It's a more "serious" film, with tales of perseverance, the Second World War, and a heart-wrenching romance. That isn't to say Miyazaki doesn't imbue fantastical elements that allow the story to come alive in the limitless animated form, but this feature film is the realest story of Ghibli's I've come across, which helps to draw the viewer into this emotional tale.

Jiro was an extremely lovable and understandable character. His age puts him apart from younger Ghibli heroes, which made the film feel more relatable than his others, despite the dreamy and surreal scenes Miyazaki included. More than ever, it's clear Miyazaki is at the peak of animation genius in this personal project, and with a film as stunning as this one, it seems a good place to retire.

Overall, the end of the first half has its slow parts, but the film soon picks up with full drama in its second half. The animation is breathtaking, with characters delicately placed into scenes where each key frame could have been an artwork on its own. If you're not convinced, take a look at his water colour storyboards. Miyazaki's work in the world of animation will surely be missed.

The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug (2013)

There is a warning uttered in JRR Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings: "Do not meddle in the affairs of wizards, for they are subtle and quick to anger."

[4/10 · 3 January 2014]

There is a warning uttered in JRR Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings:

"Do not meddle in the affairs of wizards, for they are subtle and quick to anger."

Alas, the same cannot be said of Peter Jackson (despite his mastery of CGI wizardry) and his Hobbit movies, which meddle considerably with Tolkien's original plot and possess all the subtlety of a rampaging dragon.

In The Desolation of Smaug — the second chapter of Jackson's Hobbit trilogy — the quest to reclaim the Lonely Mountain continues, along with all of the flaws and missed opportunities that plagued the first movie. As with The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, this film is wonderful to look at, but many of the details are lost as the characters race through the movie, pausing every now and then for gratuitous action sequences. (In fact, they don't even stop for the worst of these, but engage in ludicrous combat while floating down a river in the world's most indestructible wooden barrels.)

The action sequences have (with perhaps one or two exceptions) only become more frantic and unsatisfying since the last movie. There's no emotional weight to most of the action, and no real plot or character- driven purpose either. It's just there to look good, and it often doesn't succeed. The main offenders here are the newly introduced Elves who bound about unconvincingly and make impossible feats look so commonplace that they become boring immediately.

Much of this mindless mayhem could be forgiven if the perpetrators were fun, quirky characters who felt at least a little like real people as opposed to cartoons with funny hair. Unfortunately, despite its length, The Desolation of Smaug does very little to develop distinctive characters or meaningful interactions beyond a few basics for the most important protagonists. Martin Freeman's near-perfect Bilbo Baggins and Richard Armitage's gruffly charismatic Thorin Oakenshield are given a few chances to display signs of personality, as are fellow adventurers Kíli (Aidan Turner) and Balin (Ken Stott), but such tidbits are few and far between.

Middle Earth newcomers Lee Pace and Evangeline Lilly (along with Lord of the Rings veteran Orlando Bloom) are unremarkable but respectable as superhuman and aloof elves Thranduil, Tauriel, and Legolas. Jackson even permits them to show a few flashes of personality in between airborne archery sessions. They actually get more non-action screen time than many of the characters from the first movie.

No discussion of The Desolation of Smaug is complete without mention of the titular villainous lizard. Here, at least, the movie rises to the occasion. Voiced by Benedict Cumberbatch and gloriously rendered via CGI, Smaug is at least as fearsome as he was in the book, and the extra time spent (running, of course) in his mountain lair is a welcome expansion of the original material.

If you liked the first Hobbit movie, you'll almost certainly like the second one. Just beware of Elves, savour the dragon, don't hope for much emotional content, and you might make it through without too much disappointment.

http://juliekinnear.com/blogs/hobbit-desolation-smaug

The Disappearance of Eleanor Rigby: Him (2013)

Him and Her – At their best when they're together

[8/10 · 20 December 2013]

When this intriguing and original film was first screened at the Toronto International Film Festival on September 9, it surprisingly didn't have a release date. Fortunately, The Globe and Mail reports that less than 24 hours after viewing its Toronto screening, distributor Harvey Weinstein scooped it up. And that's a very good thing — no one should have to miss out on this clever and creative story-telling.

Imagine, for a second, that a friend comes to tell you about his terrible break-up. You hear about how hurt he is and how devastatingly it ended, and you feel for him 100 per cent. But then a few days later, you happen to run into his ex and you hear her side of the story. Suddenly, the break-up doesn't seem so clear. Who's "at fault" is murky, and what really brought the relationship to a close is a complex and intricate issue. That's precisely the mystery that Ned Benson brings to us in his new film, The Disappearance of Eleanor Rigby: Him and Her. Rather than simply showing the complex issues of a marriage from one character's point of view, Benson created two separate but united films — one told from the point of view of the husband, and the second from that of the wife. Not only does Benson tackle the issue of perspective — but he also weaves in the subject of memory. What might initially seem like continuity errors between the two halves are quickly revealed to have far more significance and ultimately tell an equally affecting tale. Some differences are subtle, while some are striking — but all showcase how our perspectives subjective, but so too are our memories.

At the beginning of the movie, the lively and upbeat Conor (James McAvoy) and Eleanor (Jessica Chastain) are in a quickly disintegrating marriage. What follows are the stories of how each of them got to where they are, as individuals and as a couple, and where they hope to go. McAvoy and Chastain have proved themselves to be brilliant actors in their own rights — and, if you can believe it, they're even more dynamic and captivating together. Their deep understanding of the story paired with their commitment to the roles and intense chemistry makes this story enthralling to watch from beginning to end.

The one aspect that may have made it harder for this exceptional film to get a wide release is its length. Since it's essentially two separate films, it has a running time of three hours and ten minutes — and not everyone has the patience required. To combat this challenge, The Globe and Mail notes there has been some talk of showing the films each on their own rather than as a combined unit. Although the performances are spectacular, the writing compelling, and the direction well done in each film, it seems to me that a lot of the brilliance of the film's structure would be lost without the two parts together. It's the clever balancing act between the two perspectives and the way they address how much we can trust our memories that make The Disappearance of Eleanor Rigby: Him and Her so unique and captivating. If you were to take away the "Him and Her" in favour of one pronoun or the other, I feel you would lose a great deal of what makes the film special. It might be a longer haul as far as romantic dramas go, but I beg you to grab your popcorn — and a sizeable coffee if necessary — and settle in for the full three hours. This powerful and invigorating tale is worth the time.

Don Jon (2013)

Keep in mind that although this movie deals with important issues in an insightful way, it's still a movie about porn addiction.

[20 December 2013]

We've known for a long time that Joseph Gordon-Levitt can act. But now, with his debut on the other side of the camera in the film Don Jon, he proves he has some serious chops as a director and writer as well.

In today's cinematic world, when you hear a movie is about porn addiction, it's easy to assume it will involve a lot of gratuitous sex scenes strung together with a flimsy plot line. And although some porn does — understandably — make it into the movie, it's accompanied by dynamic writing, clever societal observations, and intriguing characters. At its base, Don Jon is about a man, played by Gordon- Levitt, who has created unrealistic expectations of how sex and relationships "should" be due to his addiction to porn. But instead of just stopping there, the film introduces Barbara (Scarlett Johansson), who, unbeknownst to her, is dealing with her own unrealistic expectations that have been imposed on her from a lifetime of watching romantic movies. She wants her partner to be a "real man" — a guy who will be the epitome of a manly man and do everything for the woman in his life. Ultimately, as we all recognize on some level, life isn't like the movies — pornographic or otherwise — so what happens to people when they want their lives and their relationships to be so much different than reality has to offer? This is the intriguing question Gordon- Levitt's film poses in a thought-provoking but not hit-you-over-the- head-with-it kind of way.

Keep in mind that although this movie deals with important issues in an insightful way, it's still a movie about porn addiction. So although you won't see any full frontal shots, there are a fair amount of pornographic clips and sex scenes in the mix. Given the amount of nudity and sexuality in everything from billboard ads to HBO shows these days, the clips in Don Jon probably won't shock the average adult viewer. But if you're planning a movie date with your sweet, traditional grandmother, maybe catch another flick and check out Don Jon with friends.

Between sex scenes in what seems likes every movie or TV show and the romanticized ways people seem to be selling everything — from cars to perfume — it's no wonder we can get caught in a loop of thinking about nothing but sex and romance. And more importantly, thinking about it in unrealistic ways. If you're looking for a film that's clever and funny but offers a little something extra in terms of worldly observations, Don Jon is definitely worth checking out.

http://juliekinnear.com/blogs/don-jon

The Hunger Games: Catching Fire (2013)

However barbaric and sad the Hunger Games seemed in the first movie is made all that much worse as the story unravels into the second.

[9/10 · 20 December 2013]

"I think these Games are going to be different.",

Hunger Games' mentor Haymitch Abernathy (played by Woody Harrelson) utters these words in the movie trailer for The Hunger Games 2: Catching Fire and they could not reflect the new movie more accurately.

The first Hunger Games movie, released in 2012, immersed the audience in the unfair and devastated world of starving districts overpowered by the cruel Capitol. However barbaric and sad the Hunger Games seemed in the first movie is made all that much worse as the story unravels into the second.

In the first film, District 12 tributes Katniss Everdeen (Jennifer Lawrence) and Peeta Mellark (Josh Hutcherson) overcame the Hunger Games and managed to trick their way into winning the Games together — something that had never happened before. By attempting to commit suicide together while all of Panem watched on their TV screens, the gamemakers had no choice but to stop them and dub them both winners. Seen as an act of love to some — Katniss refusing to live without Peeta — and an act of defiance to others, the film ended with the death of Head Gamemaker Seneca Crane.

The second film takes us into the aftermath of Katniss and Peeta's victory, as they must undertake their Victor's Tour around the other districts. While on tour, there is a sense of an underlying rebellion, although President Snow makes it evident that he plans on maintaining the Capitol's dictatorship — especially as he calls for this year's tributes to be reaped from the existing victors for The Quarter Quell (the games marking the 75th anniversary of the Hunger Games).

The battle in the arena is different from the first, as the tributes are angry with the Capitol for forcing them back inside the nightmare they spend their nights trying to escape. While Katniss and Peeta are each determined to save the other, they slowly begin to realize there might be others with similar intentions.

The film is action-packed with much darker moments than the first, as we are submerged into a world of a dictatorship where people are executed for the slightest question to authority and, it seems, for mere association with Katniss. Director Francis Lawrence did a great job showing the scenes outside of Katniss' view — scenes that are more difficult to construct, as reading the novels can't give insight to the other side until it has been discovered later on in the book.

Although it's impossible to ensure total accuracy when it comes to transforming an epic novel into a blockbuster film, the cast and crew have, yet again, managed to bring us into the world of Panem, leaving the audience excited for the final release in the trilogy.

http://juliekinnear.com/blogs/review-catching-fire