Tag: 2014

140 Character Movie Review – #140RVW

Don’t have to be fan of Wes Anderson’s style to enjoy this near perfect film (handy, since I’m not). Hard to imagine how it could be better.

Spoiler-free Movie Review of The Grand Budapest Hotel:

Oscar predictions are always tough. You can do your absolute best, make your finest film, reach the top of your abilities, and still lose out to other equally worthy films. I’m no psychic, but I rather imagine that to be the fate of The Grand Budapest Hotel tonight.

It really is hard to imagine any possible way for this movie to be any better than it is. The Grand Budapest Hotel is unquestionably the finest film in Wes Anderson’s already impressive resume and represents a skilled artist at the top of their craft. The filmmaker has achieved personal perfection. And it still will certainly miss out on awards to more “serious” fare. C’est la vie…

Let me state that I’m not overly fond of Wes Anderson’s films. I find his intentionally quirky and detailed style to be affected, trite and precious and it usually rubs me the wrong way. But I’ve never sweated the technique. He is without any doubt a truly gifted, unique and incredibly skilled filmmaker with a singularity of vision that’s worthy of praise. I find that I admire his films without actually enjoying them.

The Grand Budapest Hotel is an exception; I could scarcely have had more fun watching a picture. Every moment is meticulously assembled, as is customary with Anderson, but they are all working together to propel the story. The quirky beats aren’t excess (mostly); there is a tight narrative and every scene hums along with energy towards that tale.

The imagery is first rate, as Anderson and DP Robert Yeoman switch between three separate aspect ratios to tell the tale through different timelines. The signature visual style of the director is familiar, while still very effective for the period story. The film shies away from digital effects, employing mostly miniatures to great effect.

The acting is marvelous, as you might expect with such a loaded cast, but Ralph Fiennes really owns this picture. It quite simply lives and breathes because of him.

Very highly recommended.

Poster:

Trailer:

Bechdel Test:

Fail

The Representation Test Score: C (4 pts)

(http://therepresentationproject.org/grading-hollywood-the-representation-test/)

[schema type=”movie” name=”The Grand Budapest Hotel” description=”THE GRAND BUDAPEST HOTEL recounts the adventures of legendary concierge Gustave H. and Zero Moustafa, the lobby boy who becomes his most trusted friend. The story involves the theft of a priceless painting; a raging battle for an enormous family fortune; and a desperate chase on motorcycles, trains, sleds, and skis – all against the back-drop of a suddenly and dramatically changing continent.” director=”Wes Anderson” actor_1=”Ralph Fiennes” ]

Main Cast	Ralph Fiennes M. Gustave, F. Murray Abraham Mr. Moustafa, Mathieu Amalric Serge X., Adrien Brody Dmitri
Rating	R
Release Date	Fri 28 Mar 2014 UTC
Director	Wes Anderson
Genres	Adventure, Comedy, Drama
Plot	The adventures of Gustave H, a legendary concierge at a famous hotel from the fictional Republic of Zubrowka between the first and second World Wars, and Zero Moustafa, the lobby boy who becomes his most trusted friend.
Poster
Runtime	100
Tagline
Writers	Stefan Zweig (inspired by the writings of), Wes Anderson (screenplay)
Year	2014

140 Character Movie Review – #140RVW

The premise is noteworthy & truly an impressive achievement, but in no way should this be part of the discussion for Best Picture. #SoLong

Spoiler-free Movie Review of Boyhood:

For me, saying that Boyhood exceeded my expectations is something of a backhanded compliment. It didn’t look particularly interesting to me and I’m no fan of Linklater, Hawke or Arquettes (any of them). I thought it was an interesting premise, though. Upon viewing I found my diagnosis fairly accurate, but still thought the film was full of good moments. Unfortunately they are spread far too thin.

In short the movie is exactly what it looks like: an impressive and novel idea for making a film relating the childhood of one boy. Except longer. Unacceptably longer. Inexcusably longer. It felt like the longest movie I’ve ever seen…

I’ve stated before the belief that comedies venture past the 90-minute point entirely at their own risk – they’re in over their head at that point and will be judged accordingly. The analogue to this for drama is that two hours should be sufficient for most tales – I start getting fidgety shortly after that without a compelling reason to keep the story going. But 2 1/2 hours? That really requires something else. At 150 minutes there had better be at least one massive battle scene. And there really is no reason to go to three hours for non-war pictures.

On the positive side of the ledger, it’s a gorgeously shot film showcasing amazingly realistic human emotion. The concept of following a child through myriad changes in life is excellent and this picture succeeds at this as well as any film I can think of. The concept of sticking with one cast that you keep revisiting every few years is masterful.

But that’s the problem; it’s all concept. The whole film is like a class project or a proof-of-concept. It’s really just an exercise in technique – and the technique is good – but it’s ultimately just kind of there as a film, a piece of cinema. There’s no plot, no ending and no message beyond some sort of hesher, hippie worldview. I’m not spoiling anything by revealing that the denouement is essentially a piece of trite stoner insight delivered by a character introduced five minutes beforehand.

Another compliment: I noted while watching that it’s downright bizarre that we’re spending 12 years with this kid and it seems to be so little about sex and romantic relationships. But then I realized what I think they were going for and it’s very clever; Linklater makes a kind of a cool decision to sort of skip over the big moments – showing them only in transition. For example not filming wedding scenes but showing people coming back from a honeymoon; picking up right after graduation instead of using the typical shots of the ceremony. It avoids some cliches and I appreciate that. Also the filmmaker gives the audience credit for being able to keep up – there are no clunky transitions or titles indicating time passed.

There’s some really interesting stuff going on here and some well-written dialogue. It’s just all too damn long. Much like I’m criticizing the film for not really being about anything, I’m aware that I’m leaving myself open to criticism by making my review so much about the length of the movie, but I really can’t stop coming back to it. I just haven’t the slightest idea why this it is so unbelievably long. It’s stubbornly slow and repetitive and for no good reason. There are two separate instances of the mother marrying a man who turns into a drunken husband who clashes with the kids. Is there any reason that this had to happen twice? It’s essentially the exact same character and arc.

Since there’s no discernible plot, Boyhood is something of a rorshach test (not my insight – I’ve seen it in other reviews) – you take from it what you bring into it. Different viewers latch onto different parts of the story or different characters. I guess that’s good – if you’re into film theory or sociology.

In case my review hasn’t been negative enough, here’s a few quick bites from my notes:

• Personally, I don’t see how can you justify nominating 2 supporting actors but not a Best Actor for Ellar Coltrane. Not that any would get my vote.
• I don’t know if the problem was that I had run out of patience or the marked increase in navel-gazing teen talk, but I was climbing the walls for the last 60 minutes of the film.
• The use of overly familiar pop music is a bad call. I understand the thinking – they’re trying to use audio cues to identify the timeline of the story and establish setting. Due to the aforementioned skill of the filmmaker, it’s unnecessary and distracts, pulling you out of the picture by making you mentally synchronize your personal timeline. They did the same thing in Watchmen and Forrest Gump and it didn’t work then either.
• Boyhood exposes the audience to Ethan Hawke’s singing on 5 separate occasions – I counted. Charlie Sexton by comparison: 1.
• If this wins Best Film Editing I may stop writing reviews…

After nearly three hours of watching Boyhood I finally realized what it was – it’s The Truman Show – the whole thing is like just like unscripted reality tv – it isn’t uninteresting, but I don’t get the impetus behind making movies that accurately reflect the mundanity of life.

Poster:

Trailer:

Bechdel Test:

Pass

The Representation Test Score: C (5 pts)

(http://therepresentationproject.org/grading-hollywood-the-representation-test/)

[schema type=”movie” name=”Boyhood” description=”Filmed over 12 years with the same cast, Richard Linklater’s BOYHOOD is a groundbreaking story of growing up as seen through the eyes of a child named Mason (a breakthrough performance by Ellar Coltrane), who literally grows up on screen before our eyes. StarringEthan Hawke and Patricia Arquette as Mason’s parents and newcomer Lorelei Linklater as his sister Samantha, BOYHOOD charts the rocky terrain of childhood like no other film has before. Snapshots of adolescence from road trips and family dinners to birthdays and graduations and all the moments in between become transcendent, set to a soundtrack spanning the years from Coldplay’s Yellow to Arcade Fire’s Deep Blue. BOYHOOD is both a nostalgic time capsule of the recent past and an ode to growing up and parenting.” director=”Richard Linklater” actor_1=”Ellar Coltrane” ]

Main Cast	Ellar Coltrane Mason, Patricia Arquette Mom, Ethan Hawke Dad, Elijah Smith Tommy
Rating	R
Release Date	Fri 15 Aug 2014 UTC
Director	Richard Linklater
Genres	Drama
Plot	The life of a young man, Mason, from age 5 to age 18.
Poster
Runtime	165
Tagline	12 years in the making
Writers	Richard Linklater (written by)
Year	2014