Throwback Th-Sunday: The Rock

Last night I decided to have a few drinks, put on the nostalgia goggles, listen to some bands I really dug in high school, and watch one of my favorite movies ever, The Rock.  Yes, I first saw the film at an impressionable age and yes, of course, I know what you're thinking: "eww Michael Bay", "eww Nick Cage".   Yeah, I get it. Neither of those two guys have been in any filmgoer's good graces for years, but this was before that and should thus be treated with as little bias and pre-judgement as possible.

A quick summary: The Rock is an action film following the story of Stanley Goodspeed (Cage), an FBI chemical weapons specialist, and John Mason (Sean Connery), an ex British spy and former Alcatraz inmate, and their involvement in saving San Francisco from a terrorist threat organized by decorated ex black ops marine Francis Hummel (Ed Harris).   Hummel manages to arm himself with some warheads capable of dispersing poison gas over a large area and takes hostages on his base of Alcatraz Island in hope of getting recognition and compensation for the families of soldiers who have died under his command.  Goodspeed is contacted by the US military/government to assess the threat as he is the foremost expert in the weapon systems with which Hummel is armed.  Mason, on the other hand, has a unique knowledge of Alcatraz as he is allegedly the only inmate to ever escape the prison and is forced to assist.

Yes, at its heart, The Rock is an action film.  It has chase scenes and gun fights like you would expect, but they never feel gratuitous like some of Bay's later films. Here he allows the characters to drive the action of the film rather than the other way around.  The writing, which apparently has uncredited contributions from Quentin Tarantino and Aaron Sorkin, really shines through, unobstructed by unnecessary explosions.

It doesn't hurt Bay that he is working with tremendous acting talent rather than an Even Steven.  Connery is a total gimme.  The man is an absolute legend AND he is playing a British spy, something he has done once or twice before.  Cage plays the archetypal ordinary guy (as normal as a chemical weapons expert can be anyway) thrust into an extraordinary situation.  He does not overact and is definitely not painful to watch as some might think he is in more recent roles.  He is also not without his quirks, however, as his character rarely swears and instead uses more friendly phrases like "gee whiz", something that seems like a bit of an in-joke, which Cage apparently suggested.  Then you have Harris, who instead of playing a villain that you want to punch in the face, plays a villain with which you can sympathize.  He's essentially doing the wrong thing for the right reason, with no actual intent of hurting anyone that he needs to make use of in his plan.  On top of these guys, you get smaller roles played by John C. McGinley (Scrubs, Platoon), David Morse (Disturbia), and John Spencer (the West Wing) to name a few, all of whom are just fun to see on screen.

If you hate Michael Bay, you should give the Rock a shot, because he can make a movie that is not full of extra zoomed in CGI robots and 100 explosions per minute.  If you hate Nick Cage, you should give the Rock a shot because he's just good in it and the only time you are laughing at him is when it's because he's funny, not because his acting is laughable.  And finally, if you like Sean Connery you should watch because he makes this face...

...mere minutes before delivering one of the best film quotes of all time.

"Only losers try their best.  Winners go home and fuck the prom queen."

And the Oscar for Best Animated Short Film goes to...

One category that I seem to always miss is the short film categories. This year I'm trying to watch all of the shorts nominated for live action and animated. Today I finished the animated category. I can tell you that I am so glad I decided to watch them all!

The winning Oscar went to my first choice short known as Paperman by John Kahrs.

This was who I wanted to win, and I'm so glad it did!
The black and white, with a hint of red, short about love at first sight became an instant favorite right after I watched it. The story follows a man who meets a woman on a windy train platform and is shell shocked by her beauty. He later finds out that the key element to grasp her attention is through paper airplanes. This serendipitous tale through New York City leaves you with a large smile on your face!
Rating: 5/5

Watch Paperman here.

In 2nd goes to Fresh Guacamole by PES.

Claymation, claymation, claymation!!! What a wonderful short film filled to the brim of creativity.
Fresh Guacamole is about items from our lives turning into a batch of Guacamole. These items are not everyday items though. They include grenades, pool balls, and Monopoly pieces...just to name a few. Besides the creativity aspect, the vibrant colors stood out like nothing else to me. This isn't the only short that PES has done like in this way. This short is a follow up to the previous short titled Western Spaghetti.
Rating: 4/5

Watch Fresh Guacamole here.

Watch Western Spaghetti here.

Coming up in 3rd goes to Adam and Dog by Minkyu Lee.

I loved this short from beginning to end.
This is a tale about the first dog on Earth and Adam in the Garden of Eden. The timid pooch livens up once he and Adam meet, but then is left alone once Adam wants to get more acquainted to Eve. Following the banishment of the two humans from the Garden of Eden, the only animal that follows them is the dog. Reconciliation and trust then show us that a dog really is a man's best friend. 

Rating: 4/5

Watch Adam and Dog here.

4th goes to Head Over Heels by Timothy Reckart.

It was tough to follow at first and the claymation is somewhat on the creepy side, but it wasn't all that bad.
A story of stubborn love between an elderly couple, Head Over Heels is one bizarre story. The wife lives on the ceiling and the husband lives on the floor, yet their house is floating. Their love is distant and when the husband tries to reignite their relationship by fixing her ballet slippers, their world (or house for that matter) comes crashing down. Things are flipped when we find that the husband now lives on the ceiling and the wife lives on the floor. They have to figure out a way to put their marriage back together. The wife finds the refurbished slippers and is filled with warmth. She decides to hammer all of her other shoes on the ceiling to rekindle the love with her husband.
Rating 3.5/5

Watch Head Over Heels here.

Rounding up the animated shorts in 5th goes to Maggie Simpson in "The Longest Daycare" by David Silverman.

Clearly this wasn't my favorite, but I don't think it was horrible. The major thing that differed from the other nominees is that everyone knows about The Simpsons, so they didn't need to develop who the character was unlike the other nominees. You are thrown into the short already knowing what should have been before Maggie going to daycare.

Maggie goes to daycare and goes through a test to see which part of the daycare she should be in. Being places in the "Nothing Special" room, she must deal with a brash child who like to kill butterflies. A caterpillar befriends Maggie, and remembering what the other child does to bugs, she runs away to keep the caterpillar safe. She finds herself in a chase with the other child to save the insect while it morphs into a butterfly in her hands. Trying to set the butterfly free, the other child kills it. Putting on an over dramatized painful scene, Maggie is then taken home by Marge. As you see Maggie in the car with her bow in her hair, it turns into the butterfly. Success! The butterfly is saved!

Rating: 3/5

Watch Maggie Simpson in "The Longest Daycare" here.

With being a fan of minimal dialogue, these shorts were nothing but pure entertainment. Congratulations goes out to all of the nominees! An even bigger congratulations goes out to Paperman for taking the top seed in the category! Until next year...

Argo

Continuing where Rachael left off with reviewing Nominees for this year's best picture Oscar, I'm taking a look at Ben Affleck's Argo.  I tried to keep this one spoiler-free for the most part, but there may be bits that could be considered spoilers ahead.

Argo is an historical fiction piece loosely based on events surrounding the Iranian Hostage Crisis in 1979/1980.  Affleck directs as well as playing the lead role of Tony Mendez, a real-life CIA agent who assisted in the extraction of six American diplomats from Iran.  He is joined by a colorful cast of supporting actors, including Bryan Cranston, John Goodman, and Alan Arkin, playing a CIA supervisor and Hollywood make-up artist and producer respectively.  The CIA decides the "least bad idea" for safely extracting the six diplomats from Iran is to create a cover story claiming they are a Canadian film crew on a location scout for a new science fiction film called "Argo".

Despite some apparent historical inaccuracies,  the film's artistic apex is formed by blending real footage of the events being portrayed with dramatic recreation.  It opens up with some exposition on the history of Iran and its political history including strained, to say the least, relations with the United States.  The history lesson is delivered by a narrator over images of storyboard drawings transforming into actual photographs, setting a trend that will continue throughout the film.  The opening action masterfully transfers back and forth between a recreation of a riot outside of the American Embassy in Tehran and archival footage of the real-life events.  Several details from the footage are recreated by actors to the point where it might seem like the camera was simply changing resolution.

While the story itself is cohesive, the film changes feeling a couple of times.  It goes from suspense during the scenes focusing on the hostages, to slightly dark comedy while building credibility in Hollywood, back to the suspense of the execution of the operation.  I wouldn't say it hurts the film, but it seems to break it up a tad so that there is not much transfer of how dire the situation at hand is to the bits taking place in Hollywood.  There is however, occasional movement in the other direction, switching back briefly to Arkin and Goodman from Affleck and the CIA office.

The other thing that I thought was a little bit weak was the establishing of a relationship with the characters.  Affleck for a lot of the film is the central focus, or at least is present in most scenes, and is more or less a strong silent type.  He's got some classic back story as a husband and father who doesn't get to spend time with his wife and child due to his job, but there are only a couple of short scenes that establish this.  The one in particular features Affleck on the phone with his child which, while establishing the relationship, serves more to move the plot forward as this is where the "let's create a fake film" idea originates.  When the character reunites with his family later on, there is not such a catharsis as there might be in other films that use this sort of plot.

Another weak character-viewer relationship is established with the both the escaped hostages and the ones currently being held by their Iranian captors. There are six escapees, the back story of whom we get from a CIA briefing.  We know their names, their jobs, and the fact two of them are husband and wife but that's about it.  They are also featured on screen as purely secondary to Affleck, some feeling reluctant about the plan, others realizing it's probably their best option.  You know that they are the reason the whole film is taking place and I guess that should be enough for you to feel connected to them.  As for the hostages still in Iranian captivity, they are barely featured after the initial taking of the embassy.  Where they do appear seems to just serve as an additional way to demonize the captors and after the rescue of the six, they become an after thought.

I don't like doing the whole number ratings thing so I'll just say this: kudos to Affleck for directing Argo, a film that is deserving of its best picture nomination; however, if it doesn't win, I wouldn't be surprised.

Zero Dark Thirty

CAUTION: SPOILERS MAY BE WRITTEN

So today I finally saw Zero Dark Thirty after a long battle of avoiding it at all costs...now for the opinion.

All in all I thought it was good, not great. I believe that it is being way overhyped, but it is definitely a step up from Bigelow's other film The Hurt Locker. You can say I'm calling Oscar bait on this one but it was the only thing I thought of while watching ZDT.


My Pros:

1. Jessica Chastain - I think we can all agree that Chastain gives an Oscar worthy performance. In the beginning I was uneasy about her because I didn't feel like there was enough drive in her character. As the film progressed, I found that Chastain encompassed a character who was docile in the beginning and rugged in the end. There were some parts where I was hoping to see a little bit more anger out of her but everything else was quality.
2. Jason Clarke - Out of all the male roles in this films, my favorite character was Jason Clarke's. It gave a partial comic relief to such a story. He had witty one liners to get us through the somewhat dull and information filled first half of the film.
3. Score - I have always been a fan of Alexander Desplat's film scoring, so it came natural for me to enjoy the musical undertone.

My Cons:

You may not agree with them but as I tell everyone I talk to...everyone is entitled to an opinion.

1. The length - This film could have been 2 hours long or even a little less and gotten to the point for the amount of skipping through the timeline that was done. Even though with the length, I feel like there is a lot more pertinent information out there to this story that wasn't covered. I feel as though this film shouldn't have been made right now. Maybe in a few years time, but to me it's too early.
2. The outline of the story - What I despise in a film is breaking it up into parts. The first half of the film was a lot of information and seriousness, and the last half hour was the action. I'm sure there was more action during the time this plan of attack was being talked about. Yes, Bigelow did show events that happened but I just wanted more. The story drags a bit from time to time as well. Also, the way that the date and location were displayed bothered me so much and I don't know why. I think I would've preferred the words placed towards the bottom of the frame.
3. The ending - The ending is one of the dragging areas of the film for me. First you were in a room, then blowing up a door, then oh wait you're in another room. The worst part about it was that I felt like I could hook up a game console controller and actually be one of the men conducting the raid. I guess I'm just not a fan of first person perspective when it comes to filming, I don't know. I also felt like that was in a way the climax of the film too. All that planning actually happens then boom - Osama's dead - Chastain is on a plane to somewhere (she never answered the guys question) - roll credits.

Like I said, this is definitely a step up from The Hurt Locker. I just don't understand why everyone is in love with this. Is it because the story affected us all in some matter? Maybe. Is it because it's so close to Oscar time that it's fresh in The Academy's minds? Maybe. But I for one will not be rooting for it to win best picture. I however will in fact be cheering for Chastain, although she's in one tough category.

Rating: 3.5/5 stars

Thoughts on Thrones the Third

WARNING! Game of Thrones Season 1 and 2 spoilers ahead!

Just to make this absolutely clear: I'm a huge fan of Game of Thrones and I plan on writing quite a bit about it in the future. I became interested in the series when I saw HBO was planning on a fantasy/medieval ensemble drama featuring Sean Bean and Mark Addy. Despite the two of them not making it out of the first season, I was hooked. I went and read all of George R. R. Martin's novels and am now in a terrible lull, waiting for season 3 to begin and for The Winds of Winter to be finished.

I had a post written that previewed season 3, but it was filled with spoilers from the books. I've ditched that to bring you a spoiler-free (provided you've seen the first two) preview of this coming year in Game of Thrones. Since there are a ton of different stories going on, I'm going to talk about the top 5 I'm looking forward to.

Caesar Beyond the Wall

                               

At the end of season 2, everyone's favorite Night's Watchmen, Jon Snow, had been taken captive by the wildlings and was on his way to meet the King Beyond the Wall. He even killed his fellow brother in black Qhorin Halfhand in order to prove to the free folk that he was ready to forsake his vows and could be trusted.

Jon's up for an intense story this season. He'll have to pose as an oath breaker to learn of the wildlings' secrets and deal with the feisty Ygritte for better or worse. Jon is one of my favorite characters and I'm very much looking forward to his story, but I'm extra excited because we will finally get to meet Mance Rayder, the self-styled "King Beyond the Wall". Mance will be played by Rome alumnus, the former Gaius Julius Caesar, Ciaran Hinds, which was hands down my favorite casting decision during the off-season. Hinds is tremendously talented and I can't wait to see what he does with the material.

A Kraken Betrayed

If not for that son-of-a-bitch King Joffery, last season probably would have catapulted Theon Greyjoy to the top of the most hated characters list. He betrayed Robb Stark, felt up his sister, captured Winterfell, killed Ser Rodrick, was essentially responsible for Maester Luwin's death, and for a week, had you convinced that he killed Bran and Rickon. The guy seems like a real piece of shit, but the complexity of his character makes him and favorite of mine to both read and see on screen.

Theon really has no idea where he belongs. He was taken from his family at a young age as a spoil of war. It would have been simpler had he been treated like dirt by his captors, but instead, the always honorable Ned Stark treated him like a son. Then he returns home to another hostile environment provided by his own father and sister, who think his time with the wolves has made him soft, a pansy as it were. Now we find out that after trying to earn the respect of his men by being brutal and unyielding to the folks of Winterfell, he's been betrayed by his fellow Ironborn, who would rather just go home than try to hold Winterfell with too few men. Next season we'll get to see what happens as he becomes a true hostage, this time of Roose Bolton's bastard son Ramsey, who had been marching to recapture the city.

Kingslayer's Ransom

                                

Thanks to Catelyn Stark (more on her later), Jaime Lannister is on his way back to King's Landing with Brienne the Beauty to escort him. They've already seen some trouble from some Stark men as they started their journey and the rest of the way is sure to be a bumpy ride. Jaime obviously hates his spot here, possibly more than being locked up in a cage while traveling around with Robb. Not only is he still a prisoner, he's now being pulled around on a chain by a woman and a big, strong, ugly one at that. The only solace he has is that he may see his sister Cersei again one day if they can make it back to King's Landing alive.

Mommy Knows Best

So Robb Stark is pretty pissed off at his mom Catelyn for letting his prisoner Jaime Lannister free, but she did it for a good reason: she thinks she's out two sons and wants her daughters returned to her. The problem is Robb wasn't exactly down with losing his one piece of leverage even if it was in exchange for his sisters ,and the Lannisters actually only have one daughter to trade back. The King in the North is not without his own fault, however. He's just gotten married to someone who is not a daughter of Walder Frey, breaking the promise he made in season 1 in exchange for crossing the Twins. Look for these mistakes to haunt the Starks as the war goes on.

The other part of this story, presumably anyway, to look forward to is meeting Cat's family. The Tullys have been pushed back quite a bit, but we'll finally get to see the lords of Riverrun this year. Notable among them are Cat's brother Edmure, played by another Rome alumnus, Tobias Menzies, and her uncle Bryndyn the Blackfish, played by Clive Russel.

A Wolf, a Bastard, and a Dessert

Arya seemed to have a pretty cushy ride back home to Winterfell in the back of Yoren's wagon at the outset of season 2. Obviously with Lannister men in search of a royal bastard in the ranks of Night's Watch recruits, things were not going to be that simple. She managed to survive the horrors of Harrenhal thanks to the many faced Jaqen H'ghar and is now wondering the Riverlands with the late King Robert's bastard Gendry and Hot Pie looking for any way back to her family. With direwolves stalking through the woods and the so called Brotherhood without Banners causing havoc we can be sure that Arya's story will be anything boring.

For the Love of Wes Anderson

I'm here tonight not to write a review for a film but to tell you about a director that I can't help but adore. One who has shown me that it is ok to be a bit over the top when making a film. 

Now, if you know me, you know that one of my all time biggest celebrity crushes is the one and only Jason Schwartzman. Not only do I love him, I love his whole family. I wish I could be part of his family lineage. Brother to Rooney frontman (and yes Michael Moscovitz from The Princess Diaries) Robert Schwartzman, cousin to Nicolas Cage, Roman Coppola, and Sofia Coppola, nephew to Francis Ford Coppola, and the son of Talia Shire. How can you not love that lineup!?

I was introduced to Jason Schwartzman when I watched Rushmore for the first time. I could probably quote that film from front to back if I needed to. Instantly I fell in love with the Jason and film. The way it was shot, the wardrobe, the coloring, the music, the cast, just absolutely everything. From there I knew I needed to know everything about Jason and whoever directed it. Turns out the gem who directed it was Wes Anderson. 

I dove right into Hotel Chevalier and The Darjeeling Limited. After realizing that Wes Anderson could in fact be my favorite director, I had to continue with a marathon of his films. I completed his whole filmography in just a few days. (Not including Moonrise Kingdom at the time!)

Wes Anderson is a unique director to me. Many may think of him as the 'hipster' director because his films are different than your normal Speilberg film that everyone knows of. However, everything that is included in his work is something I genuinely adore and love. There's also that returning cast of his that you can't help but be infatuated by...I mean it includes Bill Murray for crying out loud!

Wes uses color as a big part in his films for emotion. I was talking to a friend earlier today and this is the perfect example. In The Royal Tenenbaums, the main color throughout is this sort of yellow hue to display their normalcy, as it is in MANY if not all of his films. You see blue tones in a certain scene when something controversial happens. The scene I'm talking about is when Luke Wilson's character tries to commit suicide. The blue shows a dark time in the characters life.

One of my favorite things that I love about Wes the most is his camera movements. My favorite display of this would be in Moonrise Kingdom. His perpendicular and horizontal camera movements blew me away. It makes for a perfect long shot too. It's never all over the place and it never falls under the illness of the shaky camera syndrome, which is something I cannot stand in a film. 

His scripts always seem to be relatable for someone in one way or another. You'll have a character dealing with a relationship issue, personal issue, family issue, or even an economic issue. Sometimes, Wes makes the saddest parts filled with some kind of joy through his selection of music. I've always enjoyed his touch of French influence in any of his choices. (The best is when Jason Schwartzman starts to speak in French in Hotel Chevalier…swoon!) His choices of French music are always the best pieces of music in each of his films. I would have to say my favorite is when he uses Les Champs-Élysées by Joe Dassin in The Darjeeling Limited. It's definitely a head bobbing song!

Wes's attention to detail is absolutely beautiful. He always seems to fill the frame with anything and everything possible. I love it. You can watch his films over and over again and pick up on something new each time. 

Wes's quirky style attracts me to his films more than any other director, and I like a lot of directors! Wes has four films in the Criterion Collection…Rushmore, The Royal Tenenbaums, The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou, and The Darjeeling Limited. As of now I only own two of the four, but don't worry because these will all be in my possession at some time. I'm hoping that Moonrise Kingdom makes it's way into Criterion as well. This doesn't mean that his other films are bad. I think it's very hard for me to actually hate an Anderson film!

If I had to rank my least favorite to favorite films of his they would be:

8. Bottle Rocket

7. The Life Aquatic of Steve Zissou

6. Hotel Chevalier

5. Fantastic Mr. Fox

4. The Royal Tenenbaums

3. Moonrise Kingdom

2. The Darjeeling Limited

1. Rushmore

I can only cross my fingers that with the LARGE and highly anticipated cast, that The Grand Budapest Hotel will be amazing. Only time can tell, so we'll have to wait and see!

Concerning Hobbits on a Very Long Unexpected Journey

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey was, for me at least, one or the most anticipated films of last year and how couldn't it be? It's the start of a new trilogy in a series, the previous installment of which was one of the most awarded films of all time. I was thrilled to see it and left the theater slightly less so. Let's discuss.

First the good: the actors were fantastic. Ian McKellen reprises his role as Gandalf perfectly just as everyone expected him to.  Richard Armitage really acts through all of the make-up to bring a complicated Thorin to life.  He doesn't immediately come off as a good guy, but through his performance (and the expositions of dwarvish history which I particularly enjoyed)  it becomes easy to sympathize with the burdened character.  When I saw that James Nesbitt was cast as one of the dwarves, I was worried that he would just be a background character, but his Bofur has probably the second most speaking lines of any dwarf next to Thorin and becomes a solid secondary character.

Then, of course there's Martin Freeman as a young Bilbo Baggins. I'm a big fan of his work on BBC's Sherlock and was really looking forward to his performance in the Hobbit. He did not disappoint. I've read some other reviews that claim Freeman's Bilbo is the best protagonist in the series and I'm inclined to agree as the character is genuinely more relatable and likable than his competition, namely Frodo and Aragorn from LOTR. Whereas Frodo just becomes annoying at times and Aragorn is too morally perfect, Bilbo is understandable, easy to sympathize with, and somewhat flawed.

In addition to some fine acting, the film is beautiful and full of the sweeping environments and detailed locales that we've come to expect from the Peter Jackson team.  Likewise the soundtrack is tremendous, brilliantly blending the familiar scores of The Lord of the Rings, that along with the visuals make us feel right at home at the Shire and Rivendell, with the new Dwarvish theme based on the melody of the Misty Mountains song.

With all that said, I do have some negative criticisms. The filmmakers do a lot to establish The Hobbit as a work related to the previous trilogy by adding appearances of actors that wouldn't have necessarily appeared had they been doing a stricter book adaptation. They rather effectively start the story on the same day that Fellowship does and then flashing back to the primary action. That's all fine and mostly very well done. The inclusion of Elijah Wood's Frodo makes the film instantly more relatable to fans of the Jackson trilogy, but then the overall feeling becomes very different from that of LOTR mostly in terms of being much less organic. There's a lot of screen time with purely CGI characters delivering several lines of dialogue, whereas in the first trilogy that was really only Gollum's case with the remainder of characters being played by actors wearing make-up or prosthetics.  I'm sure it saved time and money or whatever but it definitely makes the film feel inorganic and cartoony.

Also, the movie is way too damn long and not very cohesive. We could logically come to the conclusion that it's based on a third of Tolkien's novel since it's a planned trilogy. The Hobbit is a shorter book than any of the LOTR trilogy but the film is only about 10 minutes shorter than the Fellowship, the next shortest film and book. The length results in (or is due to) some pacing issues. On top of that, the movie doesn't seem to have a cohesive plot of its own. Each of the LOTR films have a sort of sub-plot and solid ending points, making them good standalone films on top of being part of something bigger. It does leave the viewer wanting more (something that should be inherit in a planned trilogy) but not in the best way possible.

So there you go.  Let me know what you think about the movie. Tell me how wrong I am!