Month: January 2016

I saw “The Revenant” last night. This might be a long one. No shock there, right?

I like Leonardo DiCaprio just fine. I think he’s a pretty solid actor, and he generally turns in a pretty solid performance. I know everyone thinks he’s been robbed of an Oscar every year ever, but I can’t say that I agree- I think he’s pretty good, and he’s generally beaten out by someone great. That said, he’s the main character of “The Revenant,” and his performance was…pretty good. Sorry. He was perfectly functional, and had some great moments, but it wasn’t a perfect, Oscar-worthy performance. Between the two “like Cast Away but in a different setting” films this year, Matt Damon from “The Martian” delivered, in my opinion, a better performance.

However, this film did have a couple of truly standout actors. Tom Hardy stole almost every scene that he was in- it was truly wonderful to watch, even if you could call his voice “redneck Bane.” My favorite performance from the whole thing, though, was Domhnall Gleeson, as Captain Andrew Henry. He has one scene between him and Will Poulter (who also did a fine job) that was easily my favorite sequence of the film, for its raw emotion.

So, the acting was good, approaching great in several places. So too was the camerawork. This film favored those grand, sweeping shots that you see in nature documentaries, only without the sweep. “The Revenant” was very content to let shots linger, showing us a massive piece of landscape, with a character trudging along in the middle of it, lost in the vastness of their surroundings. It was all very pretty and impressive, particularly the use of light and fog, which allowed for some truly gorgeous shots.

The soundtrack… now that I’m thinking back on it, I can’t remember much of it. I’m not sure if that’s good or bad, for two reasons. One, this is the kind of film that benefits from contemplative silence. Two, the one piece of music I do remember was a sudden, heart-rending swell, straight out of a Hallmark movie.

Now we come to the plot, and the scenes in general. Look, “The Revenant” is essentially “Cast Away” meets “Hatchet” (the book about wilderness survival, not the slasher film) meets “Kill Bill.” And that’s fine with me. I like a good survival movie, and I like a good revenge movie, and I really liked “Hatchet” (the book about wilderness survival, not the slasher film). And the parts of the film that are following that storyline are great. The action is intense, watching DiCaprio’s Glass survive is interesting, and the cinematography is really pretty. Unfortunately, this film suffers from several different conditions.

The first is “Gladiator” disease, or possibly “Zack Snyder-itis.” I like “Gladiator,” and I like most of Snyder’s films, but if you’ve seen any of those, I think you’ll know what I’m talking about. The incessant flash-back scenes, shot in a really, REALLY artsy manner, both to generate sympathy for the main character, and to make the movie look really artsy. The difference is that both “Gladiator” and “Man of Steel” show the characters that show up in the artsy flash-backs beforehand, allowing us to know them even a little bit, so that we care about them. In both cases, it shows us what the title character is fighting for. This just wasn’t the case in “The Revenant,” as the character that features most prominently in those scenes has (spoilers, but not really) been dead since well before the movie began, and DiCaprio isn’t fighting for them.

The second condition doesn’t have as pithy a name. It’s something I blame on mainstream drama in general, so I’ll go with “TWD-osis” (that’s “The Walking Dead,” by the way). This basically means that the plot is driven by what will generate the most drama, rather than what makes sense for the scene in question. It’s not a constant issue, and it’s a relatively minor one, but it did happen once or twice, and it was pretty obvious when it did. I think I can probably blame most of these issues on the book, though, as this film is an adaptation.

Thirdly, this movie has chronic B-plot. There is a side story in this film that takes way, WAY too much time out of the main plot. It is actually staggering how pointless the whole thing is, as well- I was waiting for a payoff, something that would make me think, “Oh, that’s why they included this,” but it never happened.

Finally, fatally, this movie was Sundance Syndrome. It’s trying so hard to be an arthouse film that it comes right around and starts being irritating and/or annoying. As an example of each: there is a moment during a flashback scene where the deceased character appears levitating, facedown, above our main character, who is lying on the ground, looking up, and they just stare at each other. I burst out laughing here, because it didn’t look poignant- it looked ridiculous. On a less funny, and more annoying note, there were multiple occasions when DiCaprio’s breath would fog up the camera lens. In an attempt to be more artsy, the film completely pulled me out of its setting. There was nothing nearby that could have been fogging up- he was breathing directly into a camera. These decisions are baffling to me.

I can’t say that the film isn’t good, because it is. It’s got some pretty great acting, some pretty great cinematography, and some pretty great action. But I can say that the film is disappointing, because it is, depressingly so. I wanted so much to love this one, and I just couldn’t. It tried too hard to be too many things, and so none of its many hats are quite the right fit. I’ve said before that a film should be either “Interstellar” (i.e. a work of art, a great film), or “Sahara” (i.e. a lot of fun, a great movie), in order to be good, and that some films can be both. “The Revenant” was suited more for the “Sahara” camp, I think, but it tried far too hard to be “Interstellar” as well, and so it didn’t quite reach either camp. It’s worth watching, particularly if you don’t analyze things as incessantly as I do, but it’s hardly the top film of the year. Well, I mean, it kind of is, since it’s one of the first major releases this year, but you know what I mean.

I saw “Everest” last night. 

I’m not really big on disaster films. I find that believable storywriting often takes a backseat to impressive setpieces, and generally excellent actors often turn in lackluster performances on what they know is a quick paycheck of a film. However, having seen films moving in an “experience” direction, with films like “Gravity” and “Interstellar” I was willing to take a chance. 

All of the actors did an excellent job. Even actors that have had a reputation as mediocre like And I’m glad I did. “Everest” has none of the hallmarks of a “disaster” film- except for the whole “disaster” thing. That part still happens. Sam Worthington- though I admit I’ve not really thought that; I quite like Worthington- turned in an excellent performance. A large portion of the characters were Kiwis- natives of New Zealand- and I know that not all of the actors were, so their accent work should be commended. Jason Clarke as Rob Hall, the mountain guide, was an excellent “wise leader” type, and Keira Knightley pulls off a really impressively emotional performance as Rob’s wife Jan. Jake Gyllenhaal had an excellent turn as a cocky, adrenaline-junkie mountain guide. My favorite performance probably came from Josh Brolin as Beck, an arrogant Texan, who bordered on parody at times, but since I know Texans who are like that, I’m willing to forgive the man.

Nor, indeed, does “the shot” have mastery over good storytelling. This is helped by the fact that “Everest” is based on a true story, and therefore details can’t be outrageously exaggerated, or they risk offending the families of those who did not survive. Spoilers, I suppose: not everyone in a disaster film gets out alive. Nor, indeed, does everyone who tries to climb Everest.

The cinematography was everything I’d hoped for. There were a few shots that truly had me pressed back into my seat, gripping the arms of my chair. Perhaps this is partly because I saw the film in 3D, which I highly recommend, if you’re not one of those whose stomachs are upset by the effect. The camera often does those grand, sweeping shots, but it was often more impressive when the camera would simply start from a close-up of a character, or a medium shot of the group, and then pan to the side, to show the vastness of their surroundings, and how terrifyingly high they were. There is one shot that involves a character watching a storm approach his position…from below. There is also one sequence with a helicopter near the end that is probably one of my favorite pieces of cinematography that I’ve seen since “Interstellar.”

The soundtrack was very fitting, soaring and calming as the situation required. It added to the scenes without being overt about it, which is the sort of thing one wants in a film like this.

It’s not exactly a heartwarming film, people. (Well, I suppose it’s not much of an anything-”warming” film. It’s a bit cold.) Characters will indeed die, and since it’s based on a true story, don’t think that certain characters are safe because of how big-name the star is, or how much screen time they’ve gotten. I’m just warning you – it’s not a happy ending for everyone.

I came out of “Everest” ready to recommend it, and as I type this up, I still am. If you get too nervous with heights, or cold, or bad weather in films, or danger in general, then you might want to give this one a pass. If every film that you go and see must have a happy, sweet ending in order for you to feel that you’ve gotten your money’s worth, then this isn’t for you, either. And finally, if you are easily irritated with the phrase “Come on down,” then I cannot recommend enough that you pass this film by, as they say that quite a few times. Otherwise, give it a shot, make the climb, this film’s the very top… some sort of quippy mountain pun.

I saw “The Martian” today. I know, it’s been out for a while, and I’m sorry, but we’ve had election work to do the past couple of weeks, and also I am in a house with three people and two cars.

First of all, I haven’t read the book. It might be incredible, and it might be dreadful. It might be an awesome adaptation, and it might be the equivalent of M. Night’s “The Last Airbender.” I’ll assume, for the sake of argument, that the film was an excellent adaptation of an excellent piece of literature.

I really, really like the first scene of Mark Watney, played by Matt Damon, once he is (spoilers but not really) stranded on Mars. It’s a frantic scene in which he very quickly makes several snap decisions that mean the difference between difficult, painful survival and death, and it really sets him up as a clever, inventive man who is willing to do what it takes to stay alive.

Speaking of Mr. Damon, the acting in the film is pretty great. Matt Damon rarely turns in a bad performance, and this is no exception. He has a lot of “by himself” acting, reminiscent of Tom Hanks in “Cast Away” or, more appropriately, Sandra Bullock in “Gravity,” and he does a nice job with it. He is often sarcastic to the recordings he’s making, and you get a good sense of the kind of man he is, even though he’s not interacting with anyone but himself and the hypothetical viewer of his logs. It is always a good sign to have Jeff Daniels in anything, ever, and he doesn’t disappoint. Chiwetel Ejiofor, whose name I am proud to announce I spelled correctly without having to Google it, serves as a great mediator between Daniels and Sean Bean, who is another delightful presence. All the supporting roles are fairly solid, and fill their roles, with the crew of the spacecraft “Hermes” all delivering very nice performances, particularly Jessica Chastain as the commander, although it’s very, very nice to see that Kate Mara is capable of doing better than “Fant4stic.” 

The cinematography is what you’d expect if you’ve seen either “Gravity” or “Interstellar,” if you dial it down a couple of notches. Most of the film is set on the surface of Mars, which means much more static landscapes, and far fewer Mass Relays. That’s not to say that the film is unappealing visually- far from it; I’m just warning those of you who’ve seen “Interstellar”: you’re not getting “Interstellar”-level cinematography here.

The soundtrack was an eclectic mix of sweeping orchestral score and added music. Of particular note was their use of Bowie’s “Starman,” which I’m sure was an easy choice, but it is also, evidently, a very nice choice for a montage.

I’d like to take a moment and make a very nerdy comment in the midst of my little write-up here. They make reference to a certain “Lord of the Rings” character and setting in the film (extra points for the scene in which the reference is made being in a conference room and involving Sean Bean), and soon after, I noticed a couple of comparisons between a short scene of Watney musing about his being “the first” to do most things on Mars, and the character of Durin from Tolkien’s works. Perhaps this was an unfounded comparison, made by my subconscious and fanned by my love of things Tolkien, but I found it an interesting moment nonetheless.

I did have a few problems with the film. Perhaps they’re problems from the book, faithfully adapted onto the big screen, but they were problems regardless. A few of the characters, particularly an eccentric scientist played by Donald Glover, were kind of jarringly silly, and it really did pull me out of the moment on a few occasions. Secondly- and I know Brody Ratto has heard this particular criticism too many times from me- the pacing in the film does drag a bit on a couple of occasions, in between the conflicts. It’s not a boring sit by any stretch, but there are a few moments where I feel the film could have benefited by picking up its pace. Finally, and this last one is only a half-criticism, the film fell straight into the twists I predicted…some of the time. There were times, however, where things did not at all go according to my expectations, which is, of course, to the film’s credit.

All in all, I’ll recommend the movie to any fan of a solid science fiction. There is some language, and an emaciated Matt Damon derriere, but so long as you can tolerate that, and have the patience for what can, at times be a somewhat methodical film, it’s a good choice.

As a forewarning to the two or three people reading this who occasionally take my little write-ups as a guide for whether a film is worth seeing or not, I haven’t bought my tickets to see “The Force Awakens” yet, and so my “review” of it will likely go up late. That being said, if you’re waiting on my say-so to decide whether to see the new Star Wars film… don’t do that. Just go see it.

I saw “The Peanuts Movie” today. In direct contrast to yesterday’s write-up, I saw this film the very day that it came out. On a Friday. And there were only about twelve children in the theater with their parents. Nobody respects the classics anymore.

Let me start by saying that I’d forgotten that this film was brought to us by Blue Sky Studios, the same company that produces the long-running series “Ice Age.” That fact was smacked into my head before the film began, as there is a several minutes-long short featuring the squirrel Scratt. I recognize that I am no longer an eight year old, and that perhaps the humor of a squirrel partaking in comic shenanigans that were dated forty years ago is not intended to be the sort of humor that impacts me particularly, but impact me it certainly did not, and I found myself hoping desperately that this sort of lazy slapstick wouldn’t find its way into the main film. I’m afraid that it does, but it’s spaced out and, what with the style being so slap-bang and rushed, doesn’t last long when it does show up. It was annoying and jarring, but not enough to ruin the film by itself.

Something strange was up with the eyes of the characters sometimes. They usually went for a black dot, like the classic depictions, but occasionally some of them, especially Snoopy, had the more traditional wide, white eye with a black pupil, and watching eyes change shape like that in a medium that is far more restrictive and realistic-looking than 2D cartoony animation was startling.

The film pays homage to the classic “Peanuts” shorts in the same way that a copy machine pays homage to the original document, and with similar results. There were many moments recreated line-by-line from their original shorts, down to the word and gesture. 

I debated with myself for a moment before I started typing this about whether I should begin with my complaints or my praise, and I thought I should get my complaints out of the way first. That’s all I’ve got. On to the good, then!

The film centers around everyone’s favorite blockhead, Charlie Brown, and the rest of the “Peanuts” gang. If you know the classic shorts, or the comic strip, you know the characters by name and archetype, and the film wastes no time in making sure you remember each character’s gimmick. Schroeder plays piano, Lucy is vain, arrogant, and overbearing, Sally is a flaky idiot, and so on. I apologize to anyone who considers Sally their favorite character, and am deeply sorry for how poor your taste in characters seems to be.

The exceptions to this rule of one-phrase characterization are Linus and Charlie Brown himself. Linus is childish and naive, but also far wiser than he has any right to be. He constantly appraises the world simultaneously through the eyes of a child, and the intellect of a well-versed scholar. If one were to assign Charlie Brown a quick description, the temptation would be to simply say “loser,” or “blockhead.” Indeed, the film tends to agree at the beginning, with Charlie’s bumbling failures taking center stage to everything else. The film is the introduction of a long-running but rarely-seen character in the strips, the otherwise unnamed “red-haired girl across the street.”Charlie Brown’s instant childlike adoration of the girl is his driving motivation for everything that he does for the rest of the film. She is endlessly fascinating to him, and a curiosity to the rest of the gang, and the film still manages to make it all the way through without revealing her name.

I should probably get on with technical comments now. The film is, as I said, animated in a more realistic style, but it keeps the artistic aesthetic from Schulz’s original strips, complete with the golf putter-feet and round heads. Overall, I liked the way it looked, though I think I would have enjoyed it more without the darkening tint that comes from the 3D glasses. By the by, you can skip the 3D. It adds very little, and I only chose it because it was my only option.

The music is a blend of pop songs and classic Peanuts. The former is a little off-putting for me, but was, judging by the loud comments from behind me, a hit with the children in the audience. The latter…well, it’s the music of the Peanuts. Anyone who’s ever watched a single short knows the music I mean, and it is hard to pin down why I love it so much, but I do.

The voice acting is, again, an attempt to recreate the style of the original. The only performer I recognized at first glance at the credits was the actress who played the squeaky-voiced female beagle in Snoopy’s daydreams – Kristin Chenoweth, which is incidentally a name I did have to look up in order to spell correctly. It’s a solid effort, with Charlie Brown and Peppermint Patty being my favorite performances.

What the film does best, I think, is to highlight who Charlie Brown is. They say it a few times in the film, as it had been said several times in the shorts, and it’s still the case. “Good old Charlie Brown,” they say, and you really do get a sense of the good man Charlie is. It’s a wonderful digression from just making him the loser, or the depressive, or the blockhead. He is all of those things in turn, of course, but that’s not at the core of who he is. The film asks us to recognize greatness in a gesture, even if the greatness comes from an unusual source, or in an unusual way. There is a victory at the end of the film that I won’t spoil. It’s not a huge victory; it’s a small, personal triumph that means very little to anyone except the victor, but to that one soul, such a triumph means the very world. It’s a validation of who you are because what your heart reveals about you, and not because of your failures.

In the end, I can only say that the film is utterly charming. I’m a cynical person by nature, something which can be attested to by anyone who has tried to talk to me about “Where the Red Fern Grows.” I dislike being emotionally manipulated for manipulation’s sake. For all that… I’m not made of stone. There is a part fairly early on where each of the characters, having been identified by their trait, is pulled along the ice on their skates in a pattern, while the Peanuts theme plays, and I admit to having sat there with an enormous grin on my face.

It’s perhaps not the most graceful film, but by its very message, grace in action is far less important than grace in intention. You should definitely check this one out.