filmgurrl-blog - Tumblr blog

[filmgurrl-blog]

TBT: Casablanca

Last week I reviewed a classic that didn’t exactly live up to that title. So would Casablanca fall into the same trappings? Absolutely not.

Those of you who have seen Casablanca might be wondering why I would even bother reviewing it. However, I know an alarming number of people who have not only not seen it, but also have no intention of seeing it. To that I say sacrilege. I do understand, there is a danger films like this won’t live up to the expectations – it’s well reviewed, on all the best films lists, and stars legends.

Casablanca, though, stands up to the test of time. It is a witty, thoughtful, heartbreaking story about lovers during the war. For those of you living under a rock, it stars Ingrid Bergman as Ilsa and Humphrey Bogart as the famous Rick as star-crossed lovers reunited in Casablanca as they are both trying to avoid the fray of World War II. For reasons I won’t go into here, they are forced apart and (spoiler alert) their story doesn’t exactly end happily. One of the most iconic endings, yet it doesn’t fall into the Hollywood ‘happy ending’ abyss. It is a realistic and heartbreaking ending that the audience wouldn’t have any other way.

But the best thing about Casablanca, if I were to choose just one, is it’s not just a love story. It provides a picture of what the war was like for those not necessarily in a war zone – the farce that was ‘unoccupied France’, the lengths people will go to in order to obtain an exit visa, how war can make anyone into a cynic. And it does so with wit, and some genuinely entertaining musical numbers (though this is NOT a musical, but rather the setting of Rick’s café allows for some well placed musical interludes including the always great ‘As Time Goes By’).

And unlike many war films, even those not told from the front, it presents a genuinely intriguing female lead. Bergman’s Ilsa is a layered romantic lead in a time when that wasn’t always the case (hell it’s rarely the case now). She is perfectly cast against Bogart, whose signature sarcastic wit provides some genuinely funny moments in a film filled with so much tension and drama. As a female lead, she is one of the best (especially considering Bergman refused to bow to the pressures of Hollywood beauty standards – her eyebrows are proof of that).

Casablanca does have its flaws, namely the typical 1940s fight scenes (meaning the punches land anywhere near the actors). However, there is nothing that can overtake the writing, direction, and superb acting of this classic film. For anyone who hasn’t seen it, I would say put Casablanca on the top of your must see list. For me, it is one of the only classic films that not only lives up to expectations, but surpasses them with leaps and bounds. 

[filmgurrl-blog]

Maleficent: Feminist success or disappointment?

Updating fairy tales seems all the rage as of late - Snow White and the Huntsman, Alice in Wonderland, Mirror Mirror, and many more. Yet none of them seems to have gotten it quite right. Disney is the latest studio to try their hand, this time by telling their classic Sleeping Beauty through the eyes of its ever so famous villain. However, after the travesty that was Disney’s Oz: The Great and Powerful, I was a little apprehensive about going to see Maleficent. It has all the ingredients to be a crowd pleaser – fairy tale basis, Disney at the helm, Angelina Jolie – but early reviews pointed to the worst. The worst being that this was just another incarnation of Oz – an iconic villain is borne out of being scorned by a man. Because obviously being dumped is the only thing that can motivate a woman to do anything other than shop and swoon.

So was Maleficent more of the same? Absolutely not.

Let me preface this by saying, Maleficent is a flawed film – the direction is lacking , the plot dragged at times,  and there is no reason on god’s green earth why it should have been in 3D. However, it is still one of the best reinterpretations of a fairy tale in recent years.  You might be asking how I can say that after pointing out all that it lacks. That’s because it does what no other fairy tale redux has  before – made women the primary forces of the story, both good and evil (and I don’t count Snow White and the Huntsman as let’s be honest, the Huntsman was the hero).

While the source material for Maleficent is a Disney classic, the original falls prey to the same pitfalls as most early Disney films. Women are either helpless damsels or evil hags. Maleficent turns that on its head by making the villain and the protagonist one in the same. The film follows Maleficent (the character) as she goes from good natured fairy, to demonic villain, and (spoiler alert) then to somewhere in between. The narration actually points to her as both hero and villain, as she is the one who ultimately saves Aurora, not a prince. True love can mean more than romantic life, don’t you see? (Ok it might be a little on the nose, but the intention behind it is beautiful).

What is that you say? A Disney film where the prince doesn’t save the day? I too was pleasantly surprised. There are some who point out that Maleficent’s descent into darkness is sparked by her relationship with King Stefan, Aurora’s father. However, it’s not his rebuff of their romantic relationship that begins the metamorphosis. Rather it occurs only after Stefan as friend almost kills her and then steals her wings – essentially her essence – in order to become king. It’s a subtle but important difference that makes the film worth watching.

And if you’re looking for reasons other than the great feminist message it sends, then look no further than Angelina Jolie. Perfectly cast, she elevates a predictable (yet beautifully written) story into something great. It’s a shame she doesn’t get in front of the camera more because roles like this are proof positive that she is the ultimate movie star.

I urge you all to see Maleficent, not because it is the perfect film – as I said, it is far from it. You should see it because it marks the next step in blockbuster films – stories about women, written by women, that appeal to the masses. And shouldn’t there be more of those in the world?

[filmgurrl-blog]

#TBT

While it’s always nice to see reviews of the latest blockbuster, that doesn’t necessarily mean we should ignore the past- or our Netflix queues. There are so many films out there heralded as revolutionary, great for women, or just plain bad – but are they really? So every Thursday I’ll be posting a quick review of an older film to see how it stands up against the sands of time. First on my list is the oft cited classic, When Harry Met Sally. 

Tweet me @mellyhugs for any you'd like to see me review

[filmgurrl-blog]

When Harry Met Sally: witty comedy or more of the same?

There is a trend in today's rom coms – uptight woman meets lovable slacker . They banter, she usually cries at some point, they end up happily ever after – after they vow to completely change of course.  It’s trite, predictable, and in many ways offensive.

So my expectations were high watching When Harry Met Sally (and yes this was the first time I’d watched it). It is constantly ranked amongst the wittiest and funny romantic comedies, or comedies period. Whether or not that reputation is deserved, I felt let down in a lot of ways.

The film follows the friendship between Harry and Sally, from their first encounter driving cross country in college, to a bourgeoning friendship in, of all places New York City (surprising I know). Harry is the lovable slacker who becomes the stereotypical Romeo after his divorce. He believes that men and women can’t be friends because sex gets in the way – even with ugly girls, men will (secretly) want to sleep them too. Sally, on the other hand, is the uptight woman we’ve all come to loathe – she is bossy, serious, and dares to ask for her salad dressing on the side (gasp!). I won’t spoil it for those of you who haven’t seen it, but it’s a pretty predictable set up.

What bothers me about this film is not the tired stereotypes of men and women it relies on (and yes these were stereotypes in way back on the 80s too). Rather, it’s that people hold this up as some paragon of the genre. It is often cited as one of the best romantic films for being smart, witty, and ever so observant. I found it to be entertaining, but no smarter or wittier than the rom coms people love to disparage these days. We get it, women are up tight and will have a meltdown if an ex gets married. Next please. I would have found this film more refreshing if it swapped the roles, or at least kept the friendship intact. Because despite what Harry thinks, men and women can be friends I promise.

If you are going to watch When Harry Met Sally, do so with the full knowledge that it enforces the gender roles current filmmakers and actresses are fighting to distance themselves from (without much luck).

[filmgurrl-blog]

[filmgurrl-blog]

Captain America: The Winter Solider

The Avengers gave us a taste of something; hope that Marvel was capable of incorporating some kick ass women into their universe. Iron Man 3 did an admirable job of continuing the tradition with Pepper Potts, but there was plenty of room for improvement. I wasn’t really expecting Captain America to surpass both in the representation and inclusion of female characters, but that’s exactly what Chris Evans and co did.

The Winter Soldier features Evans’s Steve Rogers as he navigates the modern world without the support of Tony Stark and his fellow avengers. It’s obviously not the world he left and he doesn’t have Loki now to distract him. Without getting too spoiler happy, the film follows the Captain as he uncovers a nefarious plot within SHIELD and he is the only one left to save it. Except that the Captain has help in the form of three pretty spectacular women. Scarlett Johansson’s Natasha Romanoff is very much a central part of the story, supporting Steve and driving the plot in her own right. She is the female lead of the film without being pigeon holed into “the love interest”. She and Steve are friends and colleagues, working together to essentially save the world.

The truly surprising part of the film, however, is not the inclusion of Romanoff as the lead. Marvel has previously shown that it intends to include women in its films. However they are prone to tokenism – let’s include one bad ass woman to placate the feminists. In Captain America though, Romanoff is complemented by two very competent if not completely fleshed out characters – Cobie Smulders’ Maria Hill (of Avengers fame) and Agent 13, played by Emily VanCamp. Both women are very much supporting characters, but they play vital roles. Without them, the Captain and Romanoff would not have had the chance to succeed.

This causes a problem though. How can Marvel be so good at writing women like this and not have any solo films planned for any of their female characters? I walked out of The Winter Soldier quite happy with Steve Rogers, but yearning to know more about the Black Widow. Love her or hate her, Johansson’s Black Widow is a character deserving of her own film. How did a Russian assassin become part of the biggest crime fighting syndicate in the world? What are the secrets she is so desperate to keep hidden? The complexities of her character deserve more than just a supporting role.

Maria Hill is another deserving candidate. So far, her portrayal has been that of the ultimate company man, loyal to nick Fury and SHIELD. But with the events of Captain America, and her involvement in them, a solo film would provide an interesting character arc for this supporting cast member. I can only hope Hill will be a much bigger part of the upcoming Avengers: Age of Ultron, for a solo film seems a little out of reach.

However, there is a glaring issue with the film, one that Marvel seems to have ignored in hopes no one would notice. Without giving too much away, the crisis the Captain faces is a global threat with the Captain seemingly defeated numerous times. So where in the hell are the other Avengers? Scratch that – where in the hell is Tony Stark? I can forgive the absence of Thor and the Hulk, but Tony Stark is talked about numerous times except when a mass terrorist plot is about to succeed. I know that Marvel doesn’t want characters to infringe upon others’ cinematic outings and that’s fair. But they still need to explain why Captain America is left to his own devices. A few lines of dialogue, a clip on the news in the background to explain why Tony Stark is MIA would go a long way to create a sense of continuity and keep Marvel geeks like me from going crazy.

Despite this, the film as a whole is a surprising success, in many ways surpassing the Captain’s first outing. It’s entertaining with just the right amount of cheese, introducing a few new great characters (Anthony Mackie’s Falcon is a great addition to the Marvel Universe and he’ll probably get his own film before the Black Widow does). It creates suspense and includes the trademark Marvel wit without trying to imitate the other more famous Avenger (ahem – Iron Man). And let’s not forget the inclusion of Canada’s best export, GSP (that would be George St Pierre for those not in the know) in a truly entertaining fight. Most of all though, Captain America makes me excited for the next Avengers film. With the events of this story, The Avengers is sure to bring some surprises our way (and make sure to stay past the credits to get your first look at a few new additions). 

[filmgurrl-blog]

[filmgurrl-blog]

Only Lovers Left Alive: A vampire romance for adults

Over the past decade, the vampire romance has been somewhat warped by the rise in YA attempts at the genre. Projects like Twilight and The Vampire Diaries have turned vampires from darkly attractive supernatural creatures to Tiger Beat pin up boys. Only Lovers Left Alive is a true return to form in the genre, while also moving it forward into the 21st Century.

The film follows Tom Hiddleston’s Adam and Tilda Swinton’s Eve as a centuries old vampire couple reunited in Detroit. Eve is compelled to visit visionary musician Adam as his melancholia seems to have hit a new low. The films is not plot heavy, but rather explores their relationship as they try to navigate through what the world has become, or as Adam likes to say, how the zombies (humans) just float through life. Having seen centuries of war, disease, hatred how can a couple like this continue to thrive? The use of Detroit as a backdrop provides a microcosm for exactly what Adam sees as both wrong and right with the world.

The film is interesting in that it doesn’t exclusively focus on the fact that Adam and Eve are vampires, but rather on their relationship with one another and the world in which they are ‘living.’ There is no boring explication regarding their existence as vampires. Instead, the facts are revealed organically through anecdotes such as Adam’s dalliances with writers like Shelley and ‘those French bastards.’ It’s a testament to writer/director Jim Jarmusch that the film is able to avoid the obvious tropes of a vampire film while still filling the audience with that sense of fear yet attraction we’ve all come to associate with (good) vampire stories.

And his choice of leads is what makes this film interesting to watch. Hiddleston perfects the sad, emo musician we’ve become all too accustomed with. However, he does it in such a way that I’m not annoyed by his self-pity, but rather fascinated as to what has made him this way. Other than the hipster emo hair, Hiddleston’s Adam is both attractive yet utterly frustrating to the viewer as he doesn’t seem to quite appreciate the life he’s cultivated and the fact that he has a woman like Eve to spend eternity with.

It’s Swinton, though, who takes over the film. Her performance as Eve was something of an eye opener for me. I’ve always associated Swinton with very serious, dour characters. So her charm and charisma in this film surprised me in the best way possible. She acts as the foil to Hiddleston’s sad sack, but much like him, she does it in a way that isn’t cloying. She is equal parts gravitas and fun, with the wisdom of centuries of stories informing her every action. If you’re going to watch this film for one thing, let it be Tilda Swinton.

But a romance doesn’t work with two great individual performances. The leads have to have chemistry, and boy did they. Going into Only Lovers Left Alive, I wasn’t sure if I could accept Hiddleston and Swinton as a couple, but I was very wrong. They put all the other vampire couples to shame in the way they interact or even just look at each other. There’s a scene in which they dance with one another to motown music, Adam in scrubs, Eve in a dressing gown, that may have become one of my favourite cinematic scenes ever.  Move over Edward and Bella, there’s a real vampire couple in town.

Only Lovers Left Alive is not a perfect film. There are some points where it’s slow, and sometimes the wigs are a bit distracting. However, Jarmusch, Hiddleston, and Swinton have brought credibility back to vampire films. Here’s hoping anyone else attempting the genre will look to Only Lovers Left Alive as an example. 

[filmgurrl-blog]

[filmgurrl-blog]

The Counselor: Too Clever for its Own good

I try not to let my expectations get the better of me when seeing a film. If you build it up too high, it’s sure to disappoint. That was likely the issue when I saw The Counselor. After all, how much better could you get than a film written by Cormac McCarthy starring Michael Fassbender, Javier Bardem, Brad Pitt, and Penelope Cruz. It was sure it would be one of the best films of the year. Then I saw it. And honestly, I still don’t know whether or not I enjoyed it.

For those not in the know, the film fallows Fassbender’s titular counselor as he attempts to enter the world of Mexican drug cartels. As it usually does in films like this, things go very wrong for poor Fassbender. Through his journey he is accompanied by a motley crew of characters, including Bardem’s eccentric (and crazy haired) Mexican, Cameron Diaz’s Bermuda born euro trash, and Pitt’s connected cowboy who loves a polyester suit. It’s a good enough film, a few twists and turns, spectacular performances from most of the cast (we’ll get to that in a bit), and solid direction. It’s more that it was ordinary where I was expecting so much more.

The major issue with the film, I hate to say, is the script. As an aspiring writer I find it hard to criticize McCarthy as he has achieved more than I likely will. And it’s not that the script was bad. On the contrary, the script would have made for an extraordinary read. Watching it play out, it was like a novel on screen but I’m not sure that’s a good thing. The way in which a novel operates is very different than film. There can be more tangents, more involved dialogue as the reader has the option to go back and reread. What I would have given to be able to rewind a few key moments in this film because to be quite honest, I didn’t know what people were saying half the time. There was a plethora of poetic monologues. While great on the page, on screen it leaves the viewer a little perplexed.

Though, we are still engaged enough to see the ending a mile away. I was surprised by the predictability of the plot. Perhaps McCarthy and director Ridley Scott thought the beauty of the writing would mask the “been there done that” plot. It didn’t. However, while the dialogue may have seemed superfluous every word spoken was a clue. Which is why it was so frustrating to try and follow the convoluted conversations. I felt like I was missing important revelations, which I likely was.

What made me want to love it was the performance of the main cast, save unfortunately for Diaz. We never really get to know the Counselor (including his name) but that doesn’t mean we don’t get another stellar performance from Fassbender. Without giving too much away, a heart wrenching scene towards confirmed my belief that Fassbender is one of the best we’ve seen in years. Bardem and Pitt were solid as supporting players, also providing well needed moments of comic relief in the very dour film. Unfortunately, Diaz as the lead female was not as convincing, especially when you consider the role originally went to Angelina Jolie. Diaz is a solid actress, but I didn’t believe her at all in this role, especially whatever accent she was trying to put on. I kept seeing Jolie in the scenes which made it worse. Diaz looked incredible, but she felt a little out of her depth when cast along the likes of Fassbender, Bardem, and the other female lead Penelope Cruz.

I feel like The Counselor is a film I’ll need to watch again. There is a lot of potential in it, but I can’t decide whether it’s been fulfilled or not. Essentially, it was too clever for its own good relying on the rules of prose, seemingly forgetting it is a film not a novel. I think with a little more flow and a little less dialogue, the film would be the masterpiece I expected. But for now, we’ll just have to take it as a solid film. Nothing more, nothing less. 

[filmgurrl-blog]

[filmgurrl-blog]

We’re the Millers: About as good as you’d expect

The R rated summer comedy. It can either be a pleasant surprise (The Heat) or the expected dismal attempt to recreate movies past (The Hangover III). We’re the Millers falls somewhere in the middle. The film follows the requisite slacker – in this case Jason Sudeikis’ David Clark – as a series of unfortunate events put him on a crash course with a motley crew of supporting characters. Clark, a drug dealer, makes a deal to pay back his boss by smuggling a ‘smidge’ of marijuana from Mexico to Denver. How will he do this you ask? By paying some acquaintances to act as his family of course. You have eighteen year old dork/virgin Kenny (Will Poulter), street kid Casey (Emma Roberts), and of course his broke stripper neighbour Rose (Jennifer Anniston).

There are the expected misadventures, such as the fact they are actually stealing the pot from a Mexican drug lord, and a run in with the overzealous family of Nick Offerman’s DEA agent. All of this adds up to a mediocre summer comedy. Except that unlike others who try, We’re the Millers offers some genuine laughs. It’s not a ‘romp’ or ‘a knee slapper’ but there are many moments throughout the film I found myself genuinely laughing, including Kenny’s rendition of a TLC classic. It does help that I’m a big fan of Jason Sudekis, but the filmmakers were also smart in not putting all of the best gags in the trailer – an all too common mistake with films like this.

We’re the Millers also benefits from a surprisingly plausible ending. Where other comedies go for the outlandish, this films ends on a silly yet not completely inconceivable note. Which also – not surprisingly – leaves the door open for a sequel. And given that We’re the Millers has already made more than $100 million, it’s practically an inevitably.

The pleasant surprises don’t cover up the numerous issues however. The film ventures into cliché territory more than once, and relies heavily on cartoonish villains (Ed Helms’ yuppie drug lord being the most grating of the bunch).  My biggest issue though is with Jennifer Aniston’s character. Unlike other critics, I don’t mind seeing an over 40 woman stripping on screen. She keeps on the important things and Aniston looks damn good for any age. What irks me is that a supposed A-list star is relegated to gyrating on screen for laughs while the men of the film wear nothing but jeans and hoodies. And Aniston’s on screen striptease is not vital to the plot; rather it is a lazy attempt to get Aniston into her underwear. The whole scene comes off as Aniston trying really hard – too hard – to shed a particular image. Unfortunately it doesn’t accomplish the goal and only serves as another example of a competent actress being objectified onscreen for no real reason.

We’re the Millers does accomplish what it sets out to do – it makes me laugh. At the same time, there is nothing particularly great or innovative about it, it’s the requisite late summer comedy acting as a place holder between blockbuster and awards season. I would say wait until it’s on VOD, grab a few friends, and have a movie night because it’s definitely the type of film that would benefit from the group mentality. 

[filmgurrl-blog]

[filmgurrl-blog]

The Heat: The funniest film of the summer

It has all the right elements – Sandra Bullock, Melissa McCarthy, and Paul Feig. But as we’ve seen time and again, being good on paper does not a funny movie make. Thankfully, in this case all of the elements came together resulting in one of the funniest films I’ve seen this year. The Heat brings together two of the funniest people in film today and pits them against one another in a buddy cop comedy that is sure to be a classic.

            The film sees Bullock as a by the book FBI agent assigned to work with what seems to be a mentally ill Boston police officer in the form of Melissa McCarthy. The roles may be stereotypical, but they are played to perfection by these two talented women. Bullock hasn’t been this funny since Miss Congeniality as she undergoes a similar transformation from by the book agent to ass kicking crime fighter. And McCarthy brings an unexpected amount of heart to what could have been a by numbers character. Officer Mullins may be bat shit crazy, but when we get a glimpse of her story it’s easy to why she acts the way she does. Together they work to take down a major drug dealer running the streets of Boston. The chemistry between these two is sheer perfection.

            That’s not to say there aren’t a few flaws. The plot isn’t always the most coherent and has more than a few holes. But I don’t think people are going to see The Heat for its intricate plotting. People are looking to laugh and in that area, The Heat is about as perfect as it gets. But more than that, it has a lot of heart. A lot of R rated comedies these days get bogged down in the gags and going for cheap laughs (ahem Hangover 3). The Heat, on the other hand, uses its humour to actually tell the story of some interesting characters. We are not only rooting for Mullins and Ashburn to catch the bad guy, but we’re also rooting for them to become friends. And they do, albeit in the funniest way possible. I found myself in tears on multiple occasions, one of which involved scotch tape and ventriloquism (believe me, it needs to be seen).

            I can’t write a review about The Heat without mentioning that it is an achievement for women in film. A buddy cop comedy starring two women is rare enough, but one that touches upon women’s issues without throwing it in our faces is unheard of. Over the course of the film, Ashburn and Mullins come up against some misogynistic characters, most notably an angry albino. However, the film is not dominated by the fight against sexism. Instead it focuses on the journey of these two characters as people. Though it is nice the characters acknowledge there are some obstacles women face in law enforcement.

            What’s also refreshing is that The Heat is not dominated by a romantic storyline. More often than not, comedies starring women focus on female characters in terms of how they relate to men. Not The Heat. There are hints of romantic subplots. Bullock and Marlon Wayans have some amazing chemistry. And McCarthy’s Mullins is quite the player. But these are little more than an afterthought, a way of rounding out the main characters. I was impressed as it allows for Mullins and Ashburn to still be women even though they are operating in traditionally male roles.

            I am going to go out on a limb and say The Heat is one of my top ten films of the year. It is just the right amount sincere while still being stupidly funny. I can only hope that McCarthy and Bullock continue to appear together onscreen hopefully under the tout ledge of someone like Paul Feig. If you don’t see The Heat you are missing out on one of the funniest films in years, and one of the best onscreen partnerships of all time. 

[filmgurrl-blog]

This is the End: Never has the Apocalypse been this funny

Usually when a film is lacking in a cohesive script and visionary direction it’s the kiss of death. Not so in the case of This is the End.  This apocalyptic comedy is so rich in hilarious performances and guffaw inducing one liners, the deficiencies in other areas are not all that noticeable. The script comes courtesy of Seth Rogen and perpetual writing partner Evan Goldberg, who have brought us such gems as Pineapple Express and Superbad. While the duo is well versed in writing a stoner comedy, they used this as their opportunity to venture into directing. I hate to say anything negative about a film I enjoyed so thoroughly, so I will only say that there are some brilliantly funny feats of directing but the boys have a long way to go.

            The writing, on the other hand, is standard Rogen and Goldberg and I mean this in the best way possible. It is a very meta story in which a group of celebrities – all actors play themselves in the film - are stranded at James Franco’s house after the apocalypse. There are many celebs who make cameos – Jason Segel, Kevin Hart, Mindy Kaling, Emma Watson to name a few  - but the plot revolves around perennial BFFs Rogen, Franco, Jonah Hill, Craig Robinson, Jay Baruchel and Danny McBride. They are all stranded on earth after the worthy are brought up to heaven. They have to battle looters, Satan, and more importantly each other in an attempt to redeem themselves and gain entry into heaven. While it seems like a large concept to take on, it is quite ingeniously centred on the strained friendship of Baruchel and Rogen who are somewhat estranged while Rogen embraces the Hollywood lifestyle and Baruchel embraces his life in Canada.

            But the plot is not the reason to see this film. As you may have guessed, seeing these actors play exaggerated versions of themselves is the funniest proposition I’ve seen in months. Franco is especially hilarious as he desperately tries to cultivate a bromance with Rogen. Baruchel brings a bit of humour only Canadians can truly understand (he and Rogen are Canada born and bred). The term Jesus Murphy is used, enough said. Jonah Hill is the standout in this group though, playing both the nice guy and the asshole at the same time. Not since Superbad has Hill been so funny.

            Speaking of Superbad, there is one scene stealer in this film but – SPOILER ALERT – he is gone way too soon. Michael Cera is hands down the best character in the movie. I say character because I doubt the real Cera is a cocaine snorting, threesome having, thrill seeking douche bag (although I kind of hope he is). Let’s just say there is an incident involving a Capri Sun, two women and a bathroom that had me in tears. And while I wish his character had stuck around, he does have one of the most spectacularly hilarious death scenes in recent memory.

            My only real issue with This is the End is the lack of substantial female characters. There are a few key scenes involving Mindy Kaling who wants nothing more than to bone Michael Cera of all people. And Emma Watson proves herself to be a total comedic badass (if there is such a thing) but their appearances are fleeting. This is a movie about a group of boys dealing with the apocalypse the way boys would. While this is fine, I can’t help but wish they’d utilised their female co-stars in a more significant way. Though Watson’s appearance does provoke a surprisingly relevant yet funny discussion about sexual assault. Who woulda thunk?

            This is the End is every stoners dream movie, but it is definitely one that can be enjoyed by the more sober among us. It gives us celebrities playing fantastically idiotic versions of themselves including Channing Tatum as Danny McBride’s sex slave. It must be seen to be believed. Oh, and it has the most epic ending I have ever seen. Not the world ending and all that. It’s much bigger. I don’t want to give everything away but it involves a little group called the Backstreet Boys. And yes you read that right. Everybody Backstreet is back and This is the End is totally awesome. 

[filmgurrl-blog]

Man of Steel: Finally Superman done right

Warning spoilers ahead. Superman fans have been awaiting this day for years; since the bomb that was Superman III really. Thirty years is a long time to wait for a serviceable adaptation of this iconic superhero. Zack Snyder’s attempt isn’t serviceable – it is astonishing in how well it’s able to update Superman to the modern age. This film is a feat in that it totally reinvents a character without dismissing what makes him iconic in the first place.

Man of Steel excels in how it blends Superman’s origins on Krypton with his life on earth. The prologue shows us the demise of his home planet, including Russell Crowe’s Jor-El riding a dragon like creature (and it’s awesome). While providing us background of our superhero, it also gives us insight into the film’s villain General Zod, played impeccably by Michael Shannon. He sees himself as protector of his race, an important force in his conflict with Superman later on.

What I love about this film is that it doesn’t waste time showing us unnecessary story details. It cuts from an action packed prologue to an adult Clark Kent wandering the country trying to “find himself”. We already know Kal-El becomes Clark Kent, so we don’t need to see the Kent’s discovery of him. Screenwriter David S. Goyer instead uses timely flashbacks to allow us to peer into Clark’s childhood and the conflict he deals with. This is also a point of departure with previous incarnations, and a welcome one at that. In the past, Clark has been portrayed as the all American teenager, using his alien abilities to excel in life. However, I find that a little unrealistic. It’s far more fulfilling as a viewer to see Clark struggling to fit in, trying to hide his powers – sometimes with fatal consequences. Yet, even in his struggle it’s apparent there is a deep sense of morality in Clark, allowing us to believe his transition into Superman.

When he finally does come to grips with his powers, Man of Steel really gets going. Shannon’s Zod makes a dramatic re-entrance and all hell breaks loose. Cities are smashed, people flee, and it’s a sight to behold. The entire third act is a series of fights between Superman and Zod, and I can tell you Superman fights dirty.

The finale is quite satisfying, though it has become a point of controversy. MASSIVE SPOILER Superman is forced to kill Zod, an act some see as out of character for their superhero. However, those who disagree with the ending clearly weren’t watching the film closely enough. This is not the mild mannered naive Superman of the past. He is conflicted, yet hopeful. With the acts that Zod has committed, essentially trying to commit mass genocide, death is the only option. As a Kryptonian no earthly prison would hold him, so what is Superman supposed to do? The conflict he feels in that moment is enough to prove that this Superman doesn’t take killing lightly, and thus is still the superhero we all know and love.

Superman himself is played impeccably by Henry Cavill. He is a joy to watch on screen, nailing every facet of both Superman and Clark Kent. He is cynical yet optimistic, and more importantly not boring (sorry Brandon Routh). Cavill is poised to overtake Christopher Reeve as the quintessential Superman, and it’s not just because he is insanely hot (and that’s an understatement).

My favourite part of Man of Steel though (besides the hotness that is Henry Cavill) is its portrayal of women. The film incarnations have not been particularly kind to Lois Lane, lacking in the feistiness and intelligence with which the comics imbue her. Not on Amy Adams’ watch. Adams’ Lois is smart, witty, and driven; a Pulitzer Prize winning reporter who pursues the story of Superman before he even really exists. And the fact that she discovers Superman is Clark about halfway through the film made me jump for joy. While some fans think this to be blasphemous, I find it refreshing. For the longer Lois stays in the dark about his identity the dumber she looks, and Snyder does not give us a dumb Lois. She is even an integral part of defeating Zod and his troops. Not just a damsel in distress anymore.

She’s also not the only strong female character. Zod’s second in command is Faora-Ul, portrayed by Antje Traue. Faora-Ul is a soldier, nothing more nothing less. She is an expert in her field and a great villain. The film doesn’t try to get us to sympathise with the poor little girl. Instead it portrays her as a competent second to Zod, and a force to be reckoned with. I applaud Man of Steel in giving us women who act as more than set dressing or motivation for the hero. Though there is still an epic kiss, because it is Superman after all.

Overall, I would say Man of Steel is my favourite film so far this year. While it doesn’t have the wit of Ironman 3, it doesn’t have to. Superman is a more serious character than Tony Stark, though the film does throw us a few bones (as well as a few Easter eggs – keep your eyes peeled for a Wayne Enterprises satellite). With Cavill’s portrayal of Superman, a Justice League movie doesn’t seem so farfetched. I only hope the rumours of a sequel in 2014 are true because a year is too long to wait for more Man of Steel (and shirtless Henry Cavill). 

[filmgurrl-blog]

The Great Gatsby: More like The Pretty Good Gatsby

The film adaptations of F. Scott Fitzgerald's most famous work haven't been all that successful in the past - I'm looking at you Robert Redford - so expectations were high when this project was announced. Renowned director Baz Luhrmann, Leonardo DiCaprio, Carey Mulligan; all the pieces seemed to come together. Unfortunately what looks good on paper doesn’t quite translate onscreen. Don't get me wrong, Luhrmann and company do an admirable job, but I can't help but feel a little let down by the over the top take on this classic. 

The trouble begins early with a miscast Toby McGuire as narrator Nick Carraway. McGuire is a solid enough actor but his wide eyed naïveté feels forced and insincere. It may be the character itself, though a different actor would have helped (Joseph Gordon Levitt springs to mind). Luhrmann doesn't help matters. Having inexplicably decided to shoot the film in 3D, the first third of the film feels very much like Moulin Rouge threw up on F. Scott Fitzgerald. I'm usually a fan of Luhrmann’s bold and colourful directing style. However, the subject matter calls for more restraint than is seen here, much like he did with his other literary adaptation, Romeo and Juliet. Luhrmann’s take on Shakespeare was the perfect blend of over the top visuals and powerful character driven story. There is little restraint in this film so Gatsby becomes less Romeo and Juliet, more Moulin Rouge and it doesn’t quite work. And his reliance on montages is overkill; maybe just one an hour Baz.

That being said, it is a spectacle to behold. The sheer scale of this adaptation makes me want to love it. Luhrmann doesn't settle for a straight literary adaptation. Instead, he treats us to the blockbuster version of a literary classic. His vision is very clearly to make the film a feast for the senses. And while he sometimes fails to get to the heart of the story, where he fails he does so spectacularly. Though there are a few inexplicable moments, such as random passages from the book being splashed on screen or an inane framing device centred on McGuire’s Carraway.

Even with all these issues, the film is a must see for two reasons – Carey Mulligan and Leonardo DiCaprio. They are perfection as the doomed lovers Daisy and Gatsby. Mulligan pulls off the tragic little rich girl with ease, making us sympathize with Daisy even in the end. But it's DiCaprio who really shines. He doesn't appear until almost a third of the way through and his presence completely shifts the trajectory of the film. He is everything Jay Gatsby is supposed to be; charismatic, good looking, charming, sympathetic and just shifty enough. He blows everyone else out of the water, with the exception of Mulligan who matches him step for step. Their performances even stand up against the visuals that are often competing with the story line  Mulligan and DiCaprio are able to make even the quietest moments stand out against the insanely loud backdrop they are performing against. I would say I expect them to at least be nominated for an Oscar, but the Academy seems to have a grudge against DiCaprio. Let's hope they come to their senses because, while this may not be his best performance ever, DiCaprio is so talented his second best should suffice. 

All in all, the flaws of The Great Gatsby are outweighed by the spectacular performances of its leads, even if the ending is half an hour too long. It may not be the masterpiece we all hoped it would, but it is a valiant effort and entertaining to boot.