Jamie Daily

12 Years a Slave (2013) Review | Jamie Daily

12 Years a Slave (2013)
86th Academy Awards 2014
4/5 Stars
Nominated for 9 awards, of which it won 3.
Nominated for Best Actor (Chiwetel Ejiofor), Best Supporting Actor (Michael Fassbender), Best Costume Design (Patricia Norris), Best Director (Steve McQueen), Best Film Editing (Joe Walker), and Best Production Design (Adam Stockhausen, Alice Baker).
Won Best Picture (Brad Pitt, Anthony Katagas, Dede Gardener, Jeremy Kleiner, Steve McQueen), Best Supporting Actress (Lupita Nyong'o), and Best Adapted Screenplay (John Ridley).
Watched April 23, 2014.

 

12 Years a Slave is based off of the memoirs and book of Solomon Northup, a free black man who lived in the north in the 1800s and was kidnapped and sold into slavery.  This is no Quentin Tarantino's Django.  This is raw, and somehow artistically balanced to give a small taste of what Solomon went through during 12 years in slavery in southern plantations.

 

Solomon (Chiwetel Ejiofor) fights for his freedom from the beginning, but the crippling terror and the ruthless inhumanity of the slavers beat him down into survival mode.  His fight becomes smaller and his caution greater.  His first owner is kind, as plantation owners go, but a run in with a power corrupt plantation hand lands him with the only owner who will take him.  Edwin Epps (Michael Fassbender) is matched in evilness only by his wife.  He has a lust for the slave Patsey (Lupita Nyong'o), which has her physically and verbally abused repeatedly by the married couple.  Shortly after Solomon comes to the plantation, Patsey begs him to kill her.  After this they form a painful relationship that is more out of mutual understanding than of affection.  Solomon is a good man.

 

His ability to read and write must be hidden, but his intelligence and education helps get him out of many tight spots.  He still endures punishments we can barely fathom.  He spends a full day hanging from a noose with only his toes touching the ground.  He dares to hope and trust in few men, because those he takes a chance on are looking out for themselves and no one else.  

 

((SPOILERS)) The one let down for me in casting was actually Brad Pitt who plays Bass, a Canadian who comes to work on the plantain to make some money.  He doesn't agree with slavery, but Solomon calls him out to act on his beliefs.  For me, Pitt is so well known and so trustworthy that his appearance was a sure sign that Solomon's salvation would come through him.  I wish they had chosen a lesser known actor to maintain suspense and realism.  ((End spoilers))

 

The film itself is artistic in nature.  Although most of the story line is linear, the director chooses a few painfully long sequences in order to communicate Solomon's emotions.  He symbolically expresses an event or emotion when typical hollywood editing and story telling don't seem to do an adequate job.  Solomon's experience with the noose is long and drawn out.  Almost long enough for the viewer to go to the bathroom in the middle and not miss anything.  I cannot decide if I think this is a strong choice or a weak choice.  The style reminded me a lot of Beasts of the Southern Wild.  I almost wished for a little more story and less pause, but I can understand the choices of the director.  

 

There a very few times that I can appreciate nudity in a film, but this is one of them.  The slaves are stripped of identity, dignity, respect, and humanity.  They bathe in the open, men and women together, watched by slavers.  They stand nude as plantation owners shop and decide who to purchase.  They are stripped naked and lashed to poles where they are whipped for things like wanting soap.  Although this symbolism is more obvious than others in the film, it showed a very raw side of the slavery culture.  Fed by their own justifications, the plantation owners were sick with the twisted logic of the south that believed that slaves were property and nothing more.

 

If you can take it, you should watch 12 Years a Slave.  In fact, even if you don't think you can take it, you should watch it.  It has its flaws as a film, but its underlying message and its strong elements in acting and artistry are what won it the Oscar for best film this year.

 

 

Lincoln (2012) Review | Jamie Daily

Lincoln (2012)
85th Academy Awards
3/5 Stars
Nominated for 12 awards, of which it won 2.
Nominated for Best Picture (Steven Spielberg, Kathleen Kennedy), Best Director (Steven Spielberg), Best Supporting Actor (Tommy Lee Jones), Best Supporting Actress (Sally Field), Best Adapted Screenplay (Tony Kushner), Best Original Score (John Williams), Best Sound Mixing (Andy Nelson, Gary Rydstrom, Ronald Judkins), Best Cinematography (Janusz Kaminski), Best Costume Design (Joanna Johnston), and Best Film Editing (Michael Kahn).
Won Best Actor (Daniel Day-Lewis) and Best Production Design (Rick Carter, Jim Erickosn).
Watched February 27, 2014.

  

I have heard a lot of good things about Lincoln, and perhaps these things, along with Daniel Day-Lewis' win at the Oscars made me expect too much.  As much as I tend to enjoy the pristine nature of a good Spielberg film, the stage like dialogue, production design, and cinematography left something to be desired.

 

President Abraham Lincoln is perhaps one of the most well remembered Presidents.  This film focuses on a small period of time around his reelection, just months before his assassination.  He is gunning for the 13th Amendment, which would abolish slavery, much to the chagrin of his cabinet.  Even some within the Republican party were hesitant.  Everyone wanted peace from the Civil War.  They wanted their sons to stop dying in battle and for the South to come back to the nation.  The Democrats were vehemently opposed to the Amendment.

 

We all know what happens in the end, which takes away some of the mystery and suspense, although the filmmakers tried their best to keep the audience on the edges of their seats.  The representatives vote and threaten each other.  Lincoln is slow and yet eloquent.  He speaks strongly when needed but prefers a calm state and story telling.  In tense situations he commands the attention of a room by telling a story that might relate to the situation at hand.  

 

The acting, particularly from Daniel Day-Lewis and Sally Field, is top notch.  They deliver difficult lines and portray a wounded spirit very well.  My favorite scene involving Mary Todd Lincoln (Field) is when she defends her remodel of the white house to some extremists, showing a bit of the gumption that Lincoln must have fallen in love with in the beginning.  The loss of one of her sons has all but done her in, but in this moment there is fire in her eyes, much like in the President's when he expresses how disgusting slavery is.  

 

He and his political party dance the line between peace and the freedom of slaves.  They believe that if they declare peace with the south before the Amendment is brought to a vote, there will be no sense of urgency and it will not be passed.  They employ questionable and typical techniques to "buy" votes and stall envoys.  

 

Some of the story is much too slow, or maybe unnecessary.  I understand why they included the story line of Robert Lincoln (Joseph Gordon-Levitt), the son who wants to go to war, but it is so underused that it is more of a distraction from the main story than anything else.  It shows the fear of his parents and unearths more of their grief.  The emotions in these scenes are palpable, but the execution of the filmmaking is very staged.  There is a constant tug of war between filmmaker and actor in this film that I found very distracting.  

 

Despite some negative attributes, the film is well done and deserving of its nominations as well as wins.  I would definitely watch it again, although I might not own it.  If you are a history buff you will probably really enjoy it.  I can recommend Lincoln as a good film, but you should expect it to be somewhat slow, dark, and quiet.

 

Snow White and the Huntsman (2012) Review | Jamie Daily

Snow White and the Huntsman (2012)
85th Academy Awards 2013
3/5 Stars
Nominated for 2 awards.
Nominated for Best Costume Design (Colleen Atwood) and Best Visual Effects (Cedric Nicolas-Troyan, Michael Dawson, Neil Corbould, Philip Brennan).
Watched February 26, 2014.

 

Snow White and the Huntsman is an entertaining film worthy of its nominations--no more, and no less.  Recently we have been treated to new spins on old tales and for the most part, this rendition of Snow White is pretty good.

 

Snow White (Kristin Stewart) is supposed to be incredibly beautiful, not just in appearance.  Her mother the queen was well loved and poured that love out to her daughter.  When the queen dies, the king remarries (fairly quickly) to an incredibly beautiful woman who kills him immediately and takes the throne.  Ravenna (Charlize Theron) is perhaps the best part of this film.  She clings to her beauty and must take the youth of young virgins in order to maintain it.  Otherwise her skin sags, her hair thins and grays, and she loses all beauty.  Her magical mirror informs her always what she must do to remain the fairest in the land.

 

Snow White is kept prisoner in her own castle and when she comes of age, she must escape to save her own life.  The Huntsman (Chris Hemsworth) is brought before the queen and ordered to track Snow White and bring her back.  This is the twist of the film--the Huntsman has a strong part to play, and he soon falls under the charm of Snow White, just as the dwarves and other rebels of the land.  In this rendition, there is still an apple and a prince charming, but there is also war and evil knights made of glass shards.  

 

As much as I loved this movie, I would not give it five stars.  Charlize Theron was brilliant, although I think she was riding the edge of the knife between "perfect crazy" and "too much crazy" the whole movie.  A lot of the focus of the film was displaying just how crazy she was.  I did love, however, how discontent she was.  From fits of rage to silent tears, her range of emotions was amazing.

 

Another downer was, of course, Kristen Stewart.  To be honest, I do think she's pretty--not necessarily fairest of the land pretty, but pretty.  Her method of acting came in handy when it came to her wandering through the dark forest.  She was confused, scared, disoriented--I think she played that part well.  I also thought she did a good job during her monologue at the end.  However, I did not have much faith in her character.  She not only represents life, but in actuality IS life.  Snow White was a challenging character in comparison with Bella from "Twilight," but I do not think that Stewart pulled it off.  She was not believable as Snow White.  She was instead a girl running around in a big medieval dress, trying to be a great beauty.  Snow White is supposed to capture everyone's heart, but Kristen Stewart did not capture mine.

 

My personal favourite was, of course, The Huntsman.  Chris Hemsworth--tall, muscular, brunette (yeah, I missed the blonde hair too), and with a Scottish accent.  Whether you are male or female, you should have a crush on this man.  I thought he did a good job with "Thor," but when he did his monologue in "Snow White," I could tell we are going to be seeing good things in his future filmography.  Hopefully he will not just be the brawny action star who plays the same role all the time.

 

I loved the special effects.  I expected more of the glass-demon knights we all saw fighting in the previews.  I was a little disappointed they had such a small role.  I didn't notice the editing, which must mean it was good because trust me, I notice when it is bad.  The symbolism was blatantly obvious--death versus life, red apples being eaten, etc.  I liked the cinematography.  I think my favorite aspect was probably character development.  Before the end of the film, I knew who each of the characters were and understood their decisions.  We were given enough information about their pasts to understand their present.  While rooting for the good guys, I had a sick desire to see the queen succeed because Theron captured me with her crazy ways.

 

If you are not looking for a deep film, or even a frivolous film, I would definitely recommend Snow White and the Huntsman for a Friday night entertaining movie.  It is rated PG-13 so it is certainly not as kid friendly as the original Disney animation, but other than that it is a good family film.

 

The Other Side of Midnight (1977) Review

The Other Side of Midnight (1977)
50th Academy Awards 1978
1/5 Stars
Nominated for 1 award.
Nominated for Best Costume Design (Irene Sharaff).
Watch November 18, 2013.

 

Have any of you read those famed "romance" novels?  You've probably at least seen them on the shelves.  The ones with the half naked men and women in a provocative embrace?  That's what The Other Side of Midnight is.  Full of plenty of unrequited love, nudity, sex, and passion--not to mention plots of murder--this novel based screenplay is an interesting nomination.

 

Noelle Page (Marie-France Pisier) is a young French girl whose piggish father tells her that her beauty and body are the only things she has to offer the world.  He essentially sells her off to a shop keeper, where Noelle is expected to do more than tend the cash register.  She escapes to Paris where penniless and possessionless, she is is rescued by a young American pilot named Larry Douglas (John Beck).  He takes her in, feeds her, beds her, and when his orders come in he tells her to buy a wedding dress and he'll be back for her.

 

But he never comes back.  Noelle, still pursuing fashion as a career, soon finds herself modeling and then acting.  Knowing that men only want one thing, she takes her father's advice and uses her body to get the roles she wants.  She rises to fame quickly and once one of the wealthiest men in the world takes an interest in her, she leaves her director beau fairly quickly for a life of luxury with the Greek Constantin Demeris (Raf Vallone).

 

Larry, in the meantime, has married and is finding it hard to hold down a job since in the end of the war.  Noelle discovers this and offers him a job as her personal pilot in Greece.  Not knowing she is the girl he once ditched, Larry and his wife Catherine (Susan Sarandon) move overseas.

 

Of course Larry will eventually find out who Noelle is.  She has loved him ever since the beginning and no money or spouse can stand in her way.

 

The movie is outlandishly long.  The story begins during World War II but you hardly know it.  Occasionally there are swastikas, but that's as close to the action as we get.  This may be because Noelle is distinctly indifferent to anyone else's suffering than her own, or it may just be an awful choice from the original author.  You decide.

 

Although Noelle was indeed slighted, once she begins to see herself as little more than sex, she loses all strength and is no longer a powerhouse woman.  She is presented as someone intelligent who only takes care of herself, however she comes across as easily used and lacking in a lot of things, most importantly self respect.  

 

Catherine is everything that Noelle should have been.  She is strong, intelligent, supportive.  She has an amazing job in the city but moves to Greece to support her husband.  Although she will do anything to keep their relationship strong, I do not see this as a weakness.  She has a drinking problem but leaves it before she would leave Larry.  

 

Larry is the most unattractive, weak, and grating character the movie can produce.  He is amazing in the beginning, but he seems to lose everything with the war, and in my opinion he never gets it back.  

 

The  movie is too long, the ending makes the entire film pointless, and the third act is so different from the first two that I almost stopped watching entirely.  The cinematography is boring, the editing isn't much, and the story line is far from special.  I do not recommend it.

Les Miserables (2012) Review

Les Miserables (2012)
85th Academy Awards 2013
3/5 Stars
Nominated for 8 awards, of which it won 3.
Nominated for Best Picture (Tim Bevan, Eric Fellner, Debra Hayward, Cameron Mackintosh), Best Actor (Hugh Jackman), Best Music--Song ("Suddenly": Claude-Michel Schönberg, Herbert Kretzmer), Best Production Design (Eve Stewart, Anna Lynch-Robinson), and Best Costume Design (Paco Delgado).
Won Best Supporting Actress (Anne Hathaway), Best Sound Mixing (Andy Nelson, Mark Paterson, Simon Hayes), and Best Makeup (Lisa Westcott, Julie Dartnell).
Watched October 3, 2013.

 

Photo Source: Acesshowbiz

This adaptation of Les Miserables is both deeply loved and deeply hated by many--critics and citizens alike.  The enchanting music and performances are beautiful, but the dutch angles* and static camera work is grating.  For some (book lovers, mostly) the first two parts of the film are what they should be, if a musical can be considered a good representation of the original literature.  For others, the last act is what makes the piece.

 

For myself, the first two thirds of the film were incredibly boring.  There are certain pieces that stand out, but over all it isn't something that I would be able to watch very often.

 

For those who don't know, Les Miserables is a story about a man named Jean Valjean (Hugh Jackman) who is set free from prison and hard labor after serving 19 years for stealing a loaf of bread.  Javert (Russell Crowe) is the guard who sets him free, but Valjean's papers label him a dangerous man, which make it impossible for him to get a job, something to eat, or a place to stay.  He is shown incredible kindness by a godly man who tells him to turn his life around.  Valjean creates an alias for himself and years later we find him a factory owner and the mayor of a small town.  This happy world is rocked when Javert returns, now as an inspector, although he does not at first recognize Valjean.

 

Distracted by the new inspector, Valjean doesn't take notice when one of his factory workers is thrown to the streets because she had a child out of wedlock.  Fantine (Anne Hathaway) enters a dark path and in her deepest despair performs the most heart wrenching, memorable solo number of the entire 158 minute film.  Valjean learns of Fantine and her daughter Cosette (Amanda Seyfried) and vows to take care of the girl.

 

In the next act, a rebellion against the crown in stirring in France.  Cosette is a young woman and her beauty attracts another young man who has left behind his family wealth to support the revolution with his friends.  Marius, played by the freckle-faced tenor Eddie Redmayne, sees her but once and is in love.  He must choose between the girl and the revolution.  When Valjean discovers the romance, he must choose between his own freedom or Cosette's happiness.

 

The film's biggest strength is director Tom Hooper's decision to have the cast sing live.  Normally with musicals, they record the tracks before they shoot, but with singing live the actors have a much better opportunity to connect emotionally with their characters and their performance.  There is no debate that Hathaway's performance of "I Dreamed a Dream" is the best point in the entire film and it is undoubtedly what won her the Oscar.  

  

The film captures the darkness of the circumstances, but its biggest flaw is probably the conversion of stage to film--it stays too true to Broadway.  The continuous musical ballads draw out the emotions of characters that we as an audience can see in a split second simply from the actor's face.  We spend five minutes exploring a single emotion.  On stage this can work brilliantly, especially if you're sitting in the nosebleed section.  Film is different.  The slightest flicker of emotion can be detected by your audience--we don't need to marinate in it.  

 

My second favourite performance is when Redmayne sang "Empty Chairs at Empty Tables." He expresses perfectly the emotion--the devastation he felt at the loss of his comrades.  The film also did well in showing the sorrow that the soldiers must have felt at killing such young men.  

 

There are so many facets to this film, it is hard to discuss them all.  For me, the first two parts of the film were slow and tedious.  They did not hold my attention very well.  If it wasn't a musical I probably would have enjoyed it, but when there is little to no dialogue, it gets old fast.  Part three, which many critics disliked, was my favourite.  By then I was used to the singing and although certain love stories were a little silly, the character interaction was much more engaging.  The revolution was interesting and its toll was disheartening.  

 

If you are a fan of musicals, you will probably love this film.  If you hate musicals, you will hate this film.  There isn't really an in-between with this Les Miserables.  I will probably see it again, simply because it is so well loved, but I hope it isn't any time soon.

 

*Dutch Angle (or dutch tilt) is defined as "a type of camera shot where the camera is tilted off to one side so that the shot is composed with vertical lines at an angle to the side of the frame" (Wikipedia).

Anna Karenina (2012) Review

Anna Karenina (2012)
85th Academy Awards 2013
2/5 Stars
Nominated for 4 awards, of which it won 1.
Nominated for Best Original Score (Dario Marianelli), Best Production Design (Sarah Greenwood, Katie Spencer), and Best Cinematography (Seamus McGarvey).
Won Best Costume Design (Jacqueline Durran).
Watched June 6, 2013.

Photo Source: Peter Viney's Blog 

The story of Anna Karenina is perhaps one of my least favourite so far among the 2013 nominations, which is of course no fault of the screenwriter as it is based on Leo Tolstoy's classic novel.  Those who love the story, as well as Tolstoy, don't worry.  Although my feelings toward Anna and her plot line are less than favorable, I did quite enjoy the stories surrounding her, as well as the interesting style of this latest film.  While the artistic direction may be a bit distracting from the story, I found it quite enchanting and it made me wish that it had been bestowed upon a different story, because then I would have liked to watch it again.

 

This may all be a very complicated way of saying that I have a love-hate relationship with director Joe Wright's interpretation of Anna Karenina.  It is the story of a woman (Kiera Knightley) in the Russian high society  who does not love her husband (Jude Law).  Instead of remaining faithful so that she may be with her beloved son, she runs off with Count Vronsky (Aaron Taylor-Johnson)--whose mustache is very silly if I do say so myself--and therefore suffers the social backlash.

 

It is this story that I found very annoying.  I didn't care for Anna and therefore understood none of her decisions.  Her husband, although a bit weak when it comes to home life, was an admirable character.  Vronsky was young and had no idea what he was getting Anna into, and her poor abandoned son doesn't get much screen time.  I appreciated the story in that it shows an example of why it is morally wrong to cheat on your husband, although Anna mainly suffered the surface repercussions--none of her friends would hang out with her any more.  If the book goes more in depth about this, then perhaps there was not enough time to explore the depth of it more than that in the film.

 

Despite my dislike for the story, again, I quite appreciated the production design and the costumes.  In fact, my love for period pieces is what kept me going through the over two hour film and I wished that the beautiful consuming and innovative sets could have been bestowed on a different plot line.  I liked the side stories, although they seemed somewhat out of place, despite showing a complete turnaround from Anna.  

 

I will very readily say that I won't be seeking out this Anna Karenina adaptation again any time soon, and unless you 1. like the story or 2. have incredible patience, I would advise against watching it just to see the aesthetics.

  

W.E. (2011)

W.E. (2011)
84th Academy Awards 2012
1/5 Stars
Nominated for 1 award.
Nominated for Costume Design (Arianne Phillips).
Watched January 13, 2013.

photo source: IMDB 

In no lifetime will you hear me say that the costume design in W.E. was not divine, because it was.  That, and the performance of Andrea Riseborough, are the two qualities of this film that endeared it to me, but there were few others.  The story could have been intriguing and it could have been a creative, well made film.  Madonna, however, followed a rising trend of late by mixing past with present and that was W.E.'s downfall.  

 

The film is about the highly controversial romance between Wallis Simpson (Riseborough) and the heir to the throne, King Edward VIII (James D'Arcy).  He fell in love with Wallis, who was an American woman already married.  Wallis Simpson became the most hated woman in Britain and lived with it the rest of her life.  Once they were married, Edward was never allowed back in England, except for after he had died and he was buried there.  Wallis was allowed to accompany him for only the funeral, after which she returned to France.  

 

On the modern day story side, we follow a woman named Wally Winthrop (Abbie Cornish) who was named after Wallis and who has an almost disturbing obsession with the afore mentioned romance, and most especially for her name sake.  She is married to an abusive Psychiatrist and finds solace filling her days exploring an exhibit of the Windsors' possessions at Sothelby's in New York.  It is here that she befriends a security guard (Oscar Isaac).  He finds her obsession endearing as well as troubling and eventually saves her from a desperate situation.

 

Except for the fact that Wally is completely obsessed with W.E. and occasionally sees Wallis come to her with advice, their stories have very little to do with one another.  Both want children desperately, and neither are able to conceive (while they still hold onto the past, at least).  The cinematography is a bit interesting and fresh--reminiscent of Madonna's music videos.  There are a lot of extreme close ups of eyes or interesting bits that go around a tree and then up and away, but they lend very little to the story and are a bit out of place as such.  What is the motivation for the shot?  

 

If Madonna had forgotten the present and merely focused on W.E., as I assume she really wanted to focus on Wallis' side of the story, it could have been quite good.  To this day, there continues to be hatred for the woman who almost destroyed a nation.  Even after both she and Edward were gone, to see the effect on herself and their relationship depicted in this film was interesting.

 

Once again I must admit that the costumes were incredible and if I could only watch this film for the bits with Wallis and her impeccable style, I would.  Be that as it may, I would not recommend this film.

 

 

Sources: IMDB, Rotten Tomatoes, The Telegraph, NY Times, The Guardian 

Hugo (2011)

Hugo (2011)
84th Academy Awards 2012
4/5 Stars
Nominated for 11 awards, of which it won 5.
Nominated for Best Picture (Graham King, Martin Scorsese), Costume Design (Sandy Powell), Directing (Martin Scorsese), Film Editing (Thelma Schoonmaker), Music-Original Score (Howard Shore), and Writing-Adapted Screenplay (John Logan).
Won Best Cinematography (Robert Richardson), Best Art Direction (Dante Ferretti, Francesca Lo Schiavo), Best Sound Editing (Philip Stockton, Eugene Gearty), Best Sound Mixing (Tom Fleischman, John Midgley), and Best Visual Effects (Rob Legato, Joss Williams, Ben Grossman, Alex Henning).
Watched January 4, 2013.

 

photo source: Scarlett Cinema

In a machine, there are no extra parts.

 

Hugo is a family movie, despite its length, that brings humor and reality to a world of magic.  The plot seems to begin in one place, but before you know it you are headed in almost a completely different direction.  

 

It is a film about Hugo Cabret (Asa Butterfield) who lives in a train station in France.  He once lived with his father (Jude Law), a clockmaker who passes away in a museum fire.  Hugo is then taken to the train station, where his Uncle Claude (Ray Winstone) takes care of the clocks.  Once Hugo knows how to do his Uncle's job, his Uncle disappears and he is left to somehow survive on his own.  He steals food and maintains the clocks so that no one suspects his Uncle has gone.  The Station Inspector (Sacha Baron Cohen), the almost childish comic relief, is notorious for catching boys and sending them to the orphanage, therefore Hugo must always watch his step.  

 

Hugo is in possession of an automation that he and his father were repairing.  While trying to pilfer supplies for the repair from the station's toy merchant (Ben Kingsley), he is caught and his notebook with is father's drawings of the automation is taken.  This throws him into an adventure, one which he doesn't really care for until the merchant's goddaughter Isabelle (Cloë Grace Moretz) gets involved.  She reintroduces him to books, he introduces her to movies, and together they seek out the notebook while fooling the Station Inspector left and right.  

 

In a machine, there are no extra parts, and as Hugo Cabret sees it, if the world is a machine, then he must be there for a purpose, and so must Isabelle.  They soon discover that maybe, for now, their purpose is to give a man back his life.  Once Isabelle is introduced to the magic of movies, the plot turns and the two adventurers discover a secret about her Godfather.

 

photo source: A Potpourri of Vestiges

The performances in this film are pretty standard.  Many reviewers rave over Moretz but are a little wavy on Butterfield's performance in comparison.  On the contrary, I thought Moretz fell a bit short of her past appearances but this is perhaps more because of the story and the intention of being a family movie.  Her enthusiasm often felt a bit unreal, but then again, isn't the magic of movies a bit unreal itself?  Butterfield did an adequate job for a family movie, on the same level as Moretz.  I loved the supporting cast and fell quite in love with Ben Kingsley's on screen wife, Helen McCrory.  Sacha Baron Cohen, also, was much different from what you might remember him as in his past roles, and I found that it fit him quite well.  His story was a bit unnecessary to the rest of the plot, but again, it is a children's film and therefore requires a little bit of unnecessary humor to maintain everyone's attention for two hours.

 

The cinematography, art direction, sound, and visual effects were all absolute magic.  Everything combined beautifully to create such a visual feast that even in 2D format it was incredible.  I have heard that nothing can touch the original 3D format and it is said that although there is a lot of shoddy 3D work happening in the industry right now, Scorsese has the sense to respect the viewers and understand that if you are going to do something, you must do it right.  He also brings his own passion for maintaining film history to the story and perhaps wishes to help the younger generation understand the magic of film so that they too can respect it and pursue it, whether in career or simply pastime.  

 

Hugo might not be for everyone, but if you are looking for a family film with a bit more depth than usual, and an incredible visual display, I would definitely suggest you sit everyone down to enjoy this Scorsese masterpiece.  

 

 

Sources: A Potpourri of Vestiges, Scarlett Cinema, IMDB, Rotten Tomatoes, Movies on Film, The Guardian, Films According to Chris Wyatt, Picturenose, The Best Picture Project, John Likes Movies

Jane Eyre (2011)

Jane Eyre (2011)
84th Academy Awards 2012
4/5 Stars
Nominated for 1 award.
Nominated for Costume Design (Michael O'Connor).
Watched December 30, 2012.

photo source: Jane Austen Film Club 

I have never been a big fan of Jane Eyre.  I think it stems back to my childhood when I was terrified of everything.  Not much has changed for me in that department, and therefore I very rarely seek out a film with excessive suspense or with a horror undertone, such as Jane Eyre.  The classic piece of literature by Charlotte Brontë has been interpreted into film countless times, and the fact that the book is so well loved makes many in the audience forgive the redundancy of its remakes.  However, how can a director possibly make something new out of such a classic?  It is hardly worn out, and yet there are only so many ways you can depict plane Jane and her dashing costar heartthrob/bad boy Rochester.  

 

I can't remember much from the other Jane Eyre films that I have seen--just that they all seemed very dark and rainy and that a lot of scary things happened in the house.  I did of course remember the source of the scary happenings, and thus I was able to watch this film with little fear, even though I couldn't exactly recall what was about to happen next.  

 

Jane Eyre (Mia Wasikowska) is a typical heroine at first description, but her continued presence shows you how much of a novelty she really is and how she has possibly shaped the very idea of feminism itself.  She had strength, even as a child, and had to endure such oppressions that her triumph in spite of them is a sure testament to her character.

 

Orphaned at a young age, she is sent to live with her aunt, who despises her and sends her off to a girls' school the first chance she gets.  This is your typical boarding school where dropping a slate in class results in public humiliation, and girls are constantly being hit with a stick.  I appreciated that in this rendition of the film, they did not dwell heavily on her mistreatment in either her aunt's home or the school.  They showed enough that we understood, but did not draw it out and then call it entertainment and drama.  

 

photo source: Very Jane Austen

Once she is grown, the story is a bit confusing to me.  They show much of the film in flashback form.  The beginning of the film is of Jane wandering the moor in a state of extreme sadness, whereupon she finds herself at the door of a pastor (Jamie Bell) and his sisters, who take her in and care for her.  I did not remember this part of the story in the least bit, and because it jumped around a bit, I wasn't exactly sure who was who or what was going on until quite a ways into the film.  For someone who can't even recall if I had to read the book for school, let alone the basic plot line, I think it is safe to say that I came at this film pretty blind, and upon finding the opening timeline difficult to follow, felt that this is a definite problem in the scripting department.  It is possible that they created the film under the pretext that everyone has read the book, but clearly, those of us who are pretty sure that we haven't are going to have a difficult time sorting things out until Jane gets to Thornfield and the real meat of the story begins to happen.

 

Thornfield is the home that Jane moves to after leaving her school at the age of 18.  She is to be a governess to a pretty French girl and it is here that she falls in love with dashing and abrasive Mr. Rochester (Michael Fassbender).  Although they are in completely different social standings, Jane's upbringing had a likelihood of being in contact with very few men and thus she falls quite hard, quite fast.  Although he tests her wit in a very rude manner on their first two meetings, she succeeds quite well in responding and his interest is peaked.  

 

The chemistry between Wasikowska and Fassbender is palpable--similar to that between Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie in Mr. and Mrs. Smith.  It is their performances that really make the film.  They bring much to their characters, and although much context is given to them to perform, they do it extreme justice.  I am led to believe that the novel is narrated by Jane, but the film is not, and thus Wasikowska was left the difficult task of communicating pages and pages of her character's thoughts on only her face.  Their performances are especially good in the proposal scene, which was my favourite by far in the film.

 

If you haven't seen Jane Eyre, have not read Jane Eyre, or know little to nothing about it, I will say no more about the plot and how certain aspects were handled.  There was one exchange involving a white dress and then a shocking revelation that seemed very rushed and was a slight let-down (and if you know the story, I hope you understand the reference).  However, the costume design and acting were all top notch and if you have the two hours to spare, I would certainly recommend that you watch yet another rendition of Charlotte Brontë's masterpiece.  

 

 

Sources: Very Jane Austen, Jane Austen Film Club, IMDB, Rotten Tomatoes, NY Times, The Guardian, Cinema Blend, John Likes Movies

Anonymous (2011)

Anonymous (2011)
84th Academy Awards 2012
5/5 Stars
Nominated for 1 award.
Nominated for Costume Design (Lisy Christl).
Watched November 11, 2012.

 

photo source: Quickflix

I think that everyone has a bit of a conspiracy theorist inside of them, and this film certainly delves unabashedly into the theory that William Shakespeare was not the author of his famed plays and sonnets, but that it was actually an Earl who wrote them.

 

Shakespeare is probably the most famous English playwright in existence.  His works spread light on his time in history, as well as contributed immensely to the expansion of the English language.  His brilliance, however, is a source of discontent among those who believe that a son of an illiterate man in the time of hierarchies could not possibly possess the wit to create such masterpieces.  The Shakespeare (Rafe Spall) in Anonymous plays this part quite well--he is an actor who is portrayed as being a few cards short of a full deck, if you know what I mean.  

photo source:  Quickflix

There are all sorts of things we could say about this.  Whether Shakespeare was the author or it was the 17th Earl of Oxford (Rhys Ifans), that is not the purpose of this blog.  If you are able to lay aside all preconceptions and watch the film for what it is, I would highly encourage you to see it.

 

It is exceedingly dark in everything--lighting, art design, and story.  The Queen (Vanessa Redgrave and Joely Richardson) is a fascinating character, with a trail of lovers and heirs that amuse her almost as much as her plays.  There are plots twists, deaths, and best of all, the performances of Shakespeare's plays in their natural habitat.  The costume design is flawless and deserved more than just a nomination, in my opinion.  

 

Whether or not the film is historically accurate, I could not say.  It is exceedingly fascinating and entertaining.  It makes you believe in its theory, if only for the time you are viewing it.  Its execution, acting, characterization, and realness is all you can ask for in a period piece and I would gladly add it to my ever growing personal library.    

 

 

Sources: Quickflix, IMDB, Rotten Tomatoes, Roger Ebert, NY Times