random thoughts on fridays (snowpiercer + award season)

To break things up, I just thought I'd post about random stuff. I mean, my blog is filled with mostly reviews or blogathons or whatever. So I thought I'd just post about random stuff and just write a typical blog post. I thought I'd try to do this once a week, so here we go...

I watched Snowpiercer a couple of weeks ago. Seriously, it was so fantastic. Like, so so good. I love how non-American it felt and just how much more guts it had than anything like it. I just don't get why this didn't get a bigger release than it did. Seriously, this is an R-rated Hunger Games starring Captain America. I definitely feel like if this had actually been marketed and released on a wider scale, there would've been a pretty solid audience. But yeah, Chris Evans proves to me that he is actually a really good actor. I mean, that scene where he's telling his story, right near the end? Yeah, so great. Also, Tilda Swinton is seriously underrated. Can I call her the quirky Meryl Streep? Because she kind of is. 

On a related note, limited releases sucks so much. I've been dying to see Foxcatcher for so long now, and this movie is just taking it's sweet time. It's been released now for a few weeks, but it's only playing downtown Toronto which, while not that far, takes a long time to get there, is inconvenient and I really don't have any time this time of year to just go. Here's to hoping it starts playing more places soon. Also, the Imitation Game better play at least somewhat close to me when it's released either next week or the week after. But yeah, Canada seems to be oddly behind on so many releases this year. I'm just happy that I was able to see Boyhood in theaters, and that I somehow was able to see the Theory of Everything at TIFF because goodness knows it's not really playing anywhere either. 

Also, I haven't see Mockingjay yet, and I really don't care. Weird for me, because I love the first two (and especially Catching Fire) but just really haven't bothered to go see it. I guess I will at some point but I'm thinking I'll just wait until my life gets a little less busy and go see it when it gets to the $5 theatre. That probably sounds like a better plan than spending a lot of money for what I hear is just a mediocre movie. 

Also, I'm getting ridiculously anxious and excited because I weirdly love Oscar season, and making predictions and who wins what, and ahhhhh. I love the competition and the guessing game and whatever. I've officially jumped on the "Boyhood for Best Picture" train. While I would love if Unbroken was fantastic (because the book was so great and Louis Zamperini's story is insane and amazing) but I don't really think it's going to happen and Boyhood seems the best bet after that. I mean, people are talking about Selma as well. If played right, it could get a big lift because of the whole civil rights thing going on in America right now, but I just don't (at this point) see another civil rights/"white guilt" movie winning two years in a row. I know they're different era's but I like to think the Academy can even provide a little more diversity with their winners. And yeah, I know Boyhood is probably way too indie to win, and that the Academy loves Jolie so Unbroken winning could still be a thing but I just really want Boyhood to win because, really, is there any other winner like it? Yep, I just love the speculation of it all. It's just too fun. 

Well, until next week...   (I hope this wasn't too random)  

My First Movie Blogathon!

So the ladies over at Flick Chicks are hosting another blogathon. This time, it's about your first movie experience. This could be anything from the first VHS you remember watching, your first time to the movie theater, or even the first VHS/DVD you bought for yourself.

So, for me, because I just can't remember the very first movie I ever watched, I am choosing to write about the first time at the movie theater. And honestly, I'm not even 100% sure this is the first film I saw in theaters. However, I spent some time going through the years I would've been old enough to go, and this was the first film that stuck out to me, and I'm pretty sure I saw in theater.

In 1999, I was seven years old. And one of my first trips to the movie theater (if not my first overall) led me to see the Disney movie Tarzan. I wouldn't say I was exactly raised on Disney (there are still a few I only remember vaguely watching and some I haven't seen at all), but, for whatever reason (maybe because I was finally old enough, or had seen the commercials and I was dying to see it), my parents took me to see Tarzan.

Tarzan, if you don't already know or haven't seen it, is about a man who has been raised by apes his whole life, out in the jungle. But when some explorers reach his area to research the apes, Tarzan discovers Jane. Jane and those with her are astonished in their discovery of Tarzan. A man been raised by apes? They teach him to read, speak and write English, to learn English customs and culture. And, of course, Tarzan and Jane fall in love.

Honestly, Tarzan is a movie I have not watched in quite a few years now, but it's one I definitely really loved growing up, after seeing it in theaters. The music is great, the story is great, and I kind of really wanted to be Jane Porter. How awesome was she? The animation was so beautiful, and I'm sure I pretended I was Tarzan or Jane various times after watching this film. And I also remember being slightly disturbed at the ending, with Clayton hanging in the vines. This scene, is the one I remember most from seeing it in theaters. I found it sad and scary and something I had never really seen before.

However, the music in the film was something I loved. All of it was awesome, Phil Collins wrote some amazing stuff. I believe we owned the soundtrack and I remember listening to it at home, thinking "You'll Be In My Heart" was such a sweet and romantic song.

Tarzan is a movie that I do not personally own, but my parents bought and owned on VHS after the movie was released. It was one we watched every so often and that we always enjoyed. It's one my mother probably enjoyed just as much as me and my younger sister. It was somewhat of a classic in our house for a period, but never really reached the level of love we had for Aladdin (which was my family's absolute favourite). We haven't watched this movie in years, and frankly, I can't really remember the last time I watched it. But it's a film that I've always loved and enjoyed, and one I'm actually thinking about watching sometime this week since it's been so long and I'd love to finally revisit it.

As mentioned, I can't be 100% sure that this is the first film I ever saw in theaters. But looking at the wide release movies in the years after I was born, this is the first one that sticks out to me and I'm 95% certain I did see in theaters.

Other movies seen in theaters in 1999: Inspector Gadget, Toy Story 2, Stuart Little

Interstellar

Interstellar, 2014
Directed by Christopher Nolan

Much of Interstellar is left to secrecy. I mean, what would be the point of an almost 3 hour movie if we knew generally what happens or even what it's about?

Interstellar, at it's very most basic, is about Earth, and it's decay, and about a group of people who leave it to find the people of Earth a new home. It involves space travel, worm holes and a lot of science.

Coop is a single father of two. A farmer since the world started running out of food, but a pilot and almost astronaut before that, Coop is always look up at the sky above him. His daugher Murph, too, is fascinated by science and space and the ghost that she claims haunts her bedroom. But Coop gets called into action when he gets recruited by NASA to go on a trip to find Earth a new home. There's a wormhole near Saturn that leads to another galaxy with planets with the potential for life. And Coop is the only person they know who has actually flown a spaceship. Heartbroken about leaving his kids, Coop sets out on this adventure, but vows to return, no matter what.

Matthew McConaughey was wonderful as Coop. Is he not the master of crying? His crying scenes are always so killer, and I know I teared up every time he did. The scene where he watches video messages from his son is so emotional and powerful. McConaughey really nails everything he does, and this film is no exception. Incredibly believable as loving and devoted father, desperate to return home to his children, and a man conflicted with the choices he is given. However, McConaughey is not the only one who stands out in this film, though I'd argue he gives the best performance here.

Anne Hathaway is also fantastic as Dr Brand. She is able to balance all the difference layers she is given, whether emotional, strong and professional, she gives everything. The hate people have for Anne Hathaway is something I have never understood, and still don't. She's incredibly talented, and while I wouldn't say she deserves an Oscar nomination for her work here, it is still solid work.

I won't spoil anything about Jessica Chastain, but she too, as always, gives a great performance. Really, can she give a bad performance? While her part is not as large as McConaughey or Hathaway, she still gives a great performance here. As well, there is such an incredibly supporting cast of Michael Caine, Mackenzie Foy (fantastic as Murph), Casey Affleck, Wes Bentley and Matt Damon.

Hans Zimmer, naturally, scored this film. And his work here blew me away. I had been expecting something along the lines of his work for Batman or Inception, but it was great to hear something different. Indeed, it was more celestial and classical. It was chaotic when it needed to be, and was reminiscent of classical music while spinning through the galaxies. It was great to hear something different, and Zimmer really did great work here.

Also, this is Nolan's only second film not to have Wally Pfister as cinematographer, as Pfister was busy filming Transcendence at the time. However, getting Hoyte Van Hoytema was a fantastic choice. The film looked different from Nolan's other films, and I thought Hoytema's work was a perfect fit for this film. It was beautifully shot and I'd love for Nolan to work with him again in the future. The cinematography here was stunning and was perfect for the feel of the film.

Interstellar is far from a perfect film. It's complex in plot, and it's science is head-spinning and sometimes hard to understand. There were parts where things weren't explained that well or just skimmed the details. Things sometimes got convoluted, and while I understand what Nolan was going for, and why he did what he did, things often got a little too bizarre, was a bit too much of stretch, or was just starting to slip from control. There's the scene near the ending (movie watchers will know which one I mean), that feels like it's just gone too far. It's pretty ridiculous and was a bit of mess. It made next to no sense, and while I like the thought behind it, it was just too far.

The problems I had with this movie are much like the ones I had with Inception. Both have extremely strict rules for some things, but other things, for whatever reason, aren't as strict and are flexible, all of which is inconsistent with each other. Some things are explained deeply, with rich detail. Other things are just skimmed over with little explanation, even though they play a large part in the overall story. However, like Inception, this doesn't make it a bad film! In fact, I enjoyed Interstellar very much, it just makes it more flawed than it could've been.

And at it's core, past the science and space travel, it's the story about a father and a daughter. It's about the power of love and the heart. And this is what the film is really about and what makes the film as good as it is. We all have people we love, and people we would do anything for. It's what makes us connect and relate to this film about worm holes and foreign galaxies and space travel.


8/10

Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance)

Birdman or (the Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance)

Directed by Alejandro G. Inarritu 

I’m one of those people who has become pretty tired of superhero movies. I have just a handful that I really enjoy, and gave a big sigh when Marvel and DC announced their line ups for the next 6 or 10 years or whatever it was. And while I know that no one is making me see superhero movies, it still is tiring and a little disappointing that our culture is inundating themselves with so much of the same thing, over and over.

This is kind of the idea behind Birdman. It’s more about an idea than an actual story. It’s about an experience and about our culture. Or at least that's what I think, anyway. Riggan Thompson played Birdman back in the 90’s. But now, 20 years later, he’s opening a play on Broadway (that he adapted, directed and will star in), trying desperately to prove that there’s more to him than just Birdman. It’s a film about human existence, and trying to prove that you matter, to try and do something great.

Riggan, obviously, is the most interesting. He’s constantly battling Birdman. He battles it while he walks on the street and people ask him for his autograph and a photo, even though Birdman ended 20 years ago. He’s trying to open a play, but the cities top critic is already planning to write a terrible review, simply because he’s Birdman and he’s taking up the place of people who are more talented than him. He goes viral when he finds himself needing to walk through Times Square in his underwear. He finds himself butting heads with the newest cast member, who is a very respected and brilliant (though somewhat crazy) Broadway actor. But mainly, he finds himself, seemingly literally, haunted by his superhero alter ego. Every moment alone, Riggan finds his head filled with the growls of Birdman. Birdman tells him he isn’t good enough, and that Birdman is all he’ll ever be. And while he tries to convince himself that he had a great time filming the Birdman films, he also finds himself hating the association, so many years later. Hating that nobody seems able to move past it. And so many people seem to write him off because of it. Riggan is constantly trying to separate himself from Birdman, and seems to always find himself constantly entangled and going back.

But there is also those around Riggan. There’s Mike Shiner, the brilliant but crazy Broadway veteran. Very well respected, but drives the cast around him crazy, Mike seems to be the opposite of Riggan. He doesn’t care at all what people think of him, and finds he is the most honest when he’s out on stage, playing someone else. His performances are honest, and he wants everything to be as real as it can be. His ex-girlfriend Lesley is making her Broadway debut in this play and is begging that he doesn’t mess this up for her. She just wants her Broadway dreams to come true. But then there’s also Sam, Riggan’s daughter. She just got out of rehab not that long ago, and her relationship with her father is strained from many years of her father not being there.

But all of this comes back to Riggan, and his inability to separate himself from Birdman and his desperation to do something that matters, to prove himself, to do something great. He doesn’t want to just be Birdman anymore, but it doesn’t look like anyone will let him.

I enjoyed this film. The commentary on superhero and blockbuster action movies is incredibly biting and is very honest. It’s something I’ve been feeling exasperated with for some time now, so it’s been interesting to have a film come along to say some similar things that I’ve been saying. I often find myself a little annoyed with superhero films, often wishing that the actors involved would put their great talents to actual use, and that they would do it somewhere else, almost feeling as though they are wasting their time. I often feel this way about Andrew Garfield, who has incredible potential, but hasn’t done very much since doing the Spiderman films. Meanwhile, there’s people like Chris Hemsworth who seems to be able to balance doing his Thor films, but also doing a variety of films in the off-time (Rush was fantastic, and Hemsworth was very good, showing a lot of potential for great things). Superhero movies have inundated our culture so much that it hardly leaves room for anything else. There are so many people out there that will go see every superhero film, but never want to have time to sit down and watch a drama movie with a lot of talking (I believe Mike Shiner made this point, as well, at some point in the film). We have this weird disinterest in things that don’t have a lot of action or quick moving “plots” that it starts to not leave room for different, more serious films.

Everything in the film is very deliberate in trying to continue to make its point. Even the cinematography, which is filmed as to look like it is one long take, seems to almost be a shot at action films that are obsessed with having hundreds or thousands of cuts in them, while this seemingly none. Indeed, this way of filming, winding through the backstage hallways and streets of New York makes it feel as though it is spinning out of control. The brilliant jazz drum score, as well, aids in this.

Everything has this sense of teetering on the edge of chaos. Michael Keaton’s performance, especially, leaves us spiraling. It’s such a stunning performance, and one that feels so incredibly honest and heartbreaking. He really embraces Riggan as probably only Michael Keaton could. A reflection of Keaton’s own career, having starred as Batman in the 90’s and having done nothing too remarkable until now, Keaton is inspired casting and his performance matches. Keaton his given everything to the role, and you can tell. Edward Norton as Mike Shiner is absolute perfection, doing a balancing act or brilliance and insanity but with a soft core buried somewhere deep underneath. Norton seems to completely understand Shiner and brings intensity, but also a lot of fun, to the role. As well, Emma Stone as Sam is never better, finally in a dramatic role that she shines in. It’s the performances, more than anything, that are pitch-perfect and will leave you stunned. Even down to Zach Galifinakis, whom I thought was perfectly cast and did an excellent job, and to Naomi Watts as Mike’s ex-girlfriend about to make her Broadway debut. Everyone seems to have given their everything to the role’s assigned, and it makes the movie that much more remarkable.

I may have raved a lot about this film, but, personally, it’s one I don’t need to see again anytime soon. It's definitely a film that has some commentary that is hard to swallow, and definitely won't be a crowd-pleaser with the everyday audience. It steps on a lot of toes and many people will disagree, but there's no doubting the film is well made. However, this is not what makes me not love it. Indeed, these things are what make me like it as much as I do. Though, something just didn't quite completely capture me, though it has gotten me thinking so much about it for the last 2 days since I walked out of the theatre.

The performances and technical's were stunning, with fantastically real dialogue. But by the end, things just seems to become a bit of a run on sentence. And while this does seem almost deliberate (though it feels less so than everything else), it does spiral a little too out on control. I feel like this accurately sums up how I felt about Birdman overall. It may have some lovely language being used, fantastic words and eloquent phrases, and you may even agree with everything that is stated. But in the end, while everything presented may have been wonderful, it simply just could've been articulated a bit better, and runs on past the point that it should've. And really, with a film that had as high hopes for itself as this one did, it could've been much, much worse than just being a perfectly acted and well-written run on sentence. It could've had no substance or artistic integrity at all.

Update (3/27/2015)
Birdman is a film that, upon second viewing, I enjoyed much more. It's a fantastic story of wanting to feel like you mean something and have made an impact. Michael Keaton was fantastic, though I feel he was probably outshone by Edward Norton and Emma Stone, who were absolutely fantastic. The commentary and messages are biting but the imagery and parallels that go along with it are so stunning. The ending is fantastic, and all the foreshadowing and allegories are so perfectly done. It's a film I respect very much, it's also one I've come to actually enjoy, especially upon second viewing, knowing how it all ends. Knowing the ending didn't detract from a second viewing, but actually added to it. There are so many small things that the film does, in reflections of mirrors or even just the reflections the play itself has on the actors involved in it.

While it wouldn't have necessarily been my choice to win Best Picture, it's something very different to win. It's a film about a mid life crisis, with fantastical elements (and it's up for debate whether they were real or not) with smashing performances from every single person involved.

Acting- 9/10
Directing- 8/10
Screenplay- 8/10
Visuals- 8/10
Music- 8/10
Emotional Connection- 7/10
Entertainment- 7.5/10
Rewatchability- 7/10
Overall Enjoyment- 8/10
Overall Package- 8/10    

Total: 79/100

God In Film: Bruce Almighty

So I have officially started up my God in Film project! As you can see, my first entry will be the film, Bruce Almighty. Bruce Almighty is a film that I have seen many, many times. It's a family favourite and was often picked for Saturday family movie night. So this is likely to be one of the easier posts for me to write. It's a film I enjoy, and it definitely has some interesting ideas about God. 

Bruce Nolan is just your everyday guy. He’s a TV reporter in Buffalo doing a lot of “cutesy” news and he loves his long-time, devoted girlfriend, Grace. However, all feels like it’s crashing down to him when he suddenly loses out on the coveted anchor job (on air, no less) and finds himself fired from his job. Furious with God and how He’s “picking on” Bruce, he cries out in rage, but also asks for a sign. What he doesn’t expect is it meet God, Himself, and to be given His powers! Because God “can fix it all in five minutes”, can’t he?

The film is filled with interesting little tidbits in its view of God. When Bruce first meets God, God is playing the role of janitor, electrician and “the boss” in the building he’s in. Everything Bruce does always has an effect, not just on himself, but also on the world around him. When Bruce pulls the moon closer for a romantic night with Grace, it causes tsunamis and flooding the next day in other parts of the world. Bruce causes a meteor to strike during a boring interview so that he can get the big story, but it causes power outages for those around the city.

But let me talk about the films overall view of God. Admittedly, if you’re looking, it’s really inconsistent.The thesis of the film, “be the miracle” is nice a thought. Instead of focusing all your time on complaining to God, reach out to others around you. We should all lend a helping hand, and the world will be a better place. Yes, God is all powerful, but we have the power to make changes in our own lives and to help others.

I know the film is trying to say that things are better left in God’s hands than our own, but the troubling thing about this ending is that life goes back to normal, and everyone is much happier, when prayers aren’t being answered by Bruce at all, that he isn’t using any of his powers, except his human kindness. The film starts to say (and I’m not entirely sure it realizes it’s saying this) that life is better when we’re nice to each other, so we don’t really need God at all. This is a bit of a contradicting end to the film and it seems to be in contrast with the point they are actually trying to make.

Bruce reaches a breaking point. He has lost Grace, maybe forever, and has just been hit by a truck and is having a chat with God while he’s potentially dead. During this scene, God says to Bruce “People want me to do everything for them. But what they don't realize is *they* have the power. You want to see a miracle, son? Be the miracle.” However, going back to the Bible, Philippians 2:6 says “Do not be anxious about anything, but in everything, by prayer and petition, with thanksgiving, present your requests to God”. These two things seem to come in stark contrast to me. Philippians tells us that in everything we should present our requests to God. But we also should do so with thanksgiving and without being anxious. It’s a hard balance to strike, admittedly but the verse means that we should always rely on God, but go through life without worrying. God will take care of you, whether he gives you what you want or not, but he is always giving us what is best for us.

And while I agree that we should try our hardest in life to help ourselves and to help others, to “be the miracle”, I think this minimizes how completely involved God actually is in our lives. We should be relying on God for everything. I know the point the film is trying to give, that we can’t just sit around waiting for God to clean up the mess we’ve made, but at the same time, the Bible specifically calls us to constantly be in prayer, to give everything over to God and that every good and perfect gift comes from Him. Yes, it may come in the way of others and that we can be used as someone’s “miracle” but the minimization of God and how He wants to be involved completely in our lives puts this films theology and the Bible in contrast.

God wants us constantly in prayer, constantly giving over everything to Him, but also to live our lives with thanksgiving, and for us not to be anxious about anything. I think the film only seems to remember the thanksgiving and the not being anxious part. You need that, but you also need God too, to make it complete.

The film, on the surface, gives a nice sentiment, and one that everyone, not just Christians, can get in on. Like Gandhi said, “Be the change you want to see in the world”. I can get behind the surface thesis of the film. We should always strive to live selflessly, to help others, and to be the best we can be. Be intentional about helping others, you may just be the answer to their prayer. However, it can’t just stop at that. What the film doesn’t say is that we still need to always reach out to God. We can’t do everything by ourselves, and often the divine intervention is what leads us to helping specific people and answering specific prayers. It’s not all just coincidence. If we partner up with each other, and especially with God, then, truly, we can make the world a better place.

The film gets a lot of ideas about God right, however. God is all powerful, is all-knowing, and He knows a lot better than us as to what’s best for us. This is especially shown when Bruce gets tired of answering everyone’s’ prayers, he just hits reply-all and answers every single prayers as “YES”. Bruce gave everyone exactly what they wanted at the same time. And chaos completely ensues. While good things come of it (people losing lots of weight, becoming taller, etc), there is also terrible things that happen. 400, 000 people win the lottery, and there are riots in downtown Buffalo (though the movie doesn’t really explain why everyone is rioting…). The film also makes a hard case that God can’t mess with free will. While I don’t know if this is necessarily true (you can make cases both ways, really), but it makes for an interesting dynamic with how humans interact with God. And in the end, it shows us that to truly live, we must surrender everything to God. In Bruce’s moment of breaking, he cries out that he surrenders. The film understands that you must surrender. You can’t live half-heartedly for God. However, as stated above, everyone’s lives in the film gets better when prayers go unanswered and God stops using his power. The film had good intentions, and indeed, did carry some of those out and played them well. However, the theology of the film is inconsistent and sometimes in contrast. It is a harmless film with some nice surface theology but shouldn’t be taken overly seriously. 

Gone Girl

Gone Girl is, in the perfect sense, a slow burner. It starts off pretty unassuming and normal. Nick Dunne gets home sometime during the day of his 5^th wedding anniversary to see a chair overturned and the glass coffee table smashed to bits and his wife Amy nowhere to be found. And from there the story slowly unwinds, raveling looser, building and building until all hell breaks loose.

The narrative is split into two parts. While it follows the present, counting the days since Amy’s disappearance, it also flashes back to Nick and Amy’s past, using Amy’s diary as our source. Amy and Nick meeting, Amy disappearing. Amy and Nick getting engaged, Nick being questioned by the police about Amy and not knowing very much about her. Amy and Nick losing their jobs and moving to Missouri to be with Nick’s mom who has cancer, Nick doing a press conference and smiling next to his wifes’ missing poster.  Slowly and slowly, things seem to get completely out of control. And then she’s just gone.

David Fincher was beyond the perfect person to direct this. The pace of this film was pitch-perfect and I think any other director would’ve moved the story along quicker. But what makes this film so good, and so enticing, is the slow build. The story drops a hint here, a small clue there and slowly unwinds all the characters, their stories, and their lies, until it all just explodes. The story never reveals more than it needs to. Fincher lets us know information when we need, and never before. Having read the book and knowing what we going to happen just as fun, I think, than if I hadn’t read it beforehand. Fincher drops clues and makes small gestures and has throwaway lines that made me, the informed viewer, love the attention to the tiny details.

Fincher also makes some pretty hard jabs at the way the media and the public react to cases like this. The highly publicized case, with beautiful people involved. The way we put “experts” on TV to make judgments when they have very basic information, how the population takes “sides” based on “evidence” reported by the media, and the rumors and untrue details made up to spiral the case. The flip-flopping over the public disliking Nick, then loving him, then thinking he is a killer and hating him to liking him again speaks volumes about widely publicized cases we heard about so often. People are so quickly jumping to conclusions of who did it and assuming they know much more about a case that they really do. People regard it almost like reality TV, being almost that far removed from what the actual situation is.  

And in contrast, Fincher does the exact opposite, as a director. Fincher doesn’t paint anyone as black or white. He shows them as they are so that we, not leaning one way or the other, like we like to have people painted. But the audience actually has to make their own decisions on the characters. He leaves everything ambiguous enough that you teeter back and forth on opinion, but it’s also not too vague that you don’t connect with a character. Even after the reveal of what exactly is going on and who did what, no judgment is laid down by the director. The characters are treated fairly, and don’t have them boxed in neat and perfectly into either “good” or “bad”. Life isn’t like this, and Fincher puts that out there for us to see. It’s such a different approach from most films of this genre. Fincher doesn’t really care what we’re supposed to think, he just wants us to think. And I love it.

In regards to casting, Ben Affleck is spot-on. Though I read the book before I knew about casting choices, I knew Ben Affleck would be the perfect casting for Nick. Nick is an interesting character. We are constantly trying to decide whether he’s just aloof, or if there’s some other motive going on. At a press conference, he stands next to the missing poster of his wife, looking sullen. When one of the dozens of photographers shouts “smile!”, he obliges, for a quick second. But it’s that smile that haunts him. It’s that homecoming king, charming smile that nobody can seem to figure out. That smile, that moment, is what seals the deal of Affleck nailing the part of Nick.

Rosamund Pike is the one you’ve been hearing most about since the film’s release. Pike, not as big a star or household name as her on-screen husband, has been around for a while. From Bond girl to Bennett sister, she’s done various projects, but none as juicy or amazing as this role here. Without spoiling anything, Rosamund Pike as Amy steals the show. Pike is beautiful, with wide, innocent eyes plays Amy to a tee. There is much more to Amy than there appears to be, and Pike just adds so many layers (that the audience who hasn’t read the book may not quite see at first). Hard to talk about without any spoilers, but expect to hear Pike’s name in conversation come Oscar time. Her role is insanely juicy and Pike knocked it out of the park.

The supporting cast, as well, was quite spot on. While many were questioning some of Fincher’s choices, there was no one who was at all weak or not giving out their best. Tyler Perry as Tanner Bolt exceeded many people’s expectations. Playing the cocky and hot-shot lawyer, Perry brings some unexpected talent to the role and was well cast. As well, Neil Patrick Harris seemed a very odd choice to me, and while his character is also very odd and little unfitting, he really does nail the role well. Carrie Coon, who is still relatively unknown, was perfect as Margo, Nick’s twin sister. The only real moral compass of the film, she brought perfect wit and empathy where it was needed.

But seriously, this film is just stitched together in a way that no other director would dare to do. The pace is a pure slow burner, the unraveling of the story. And not to mention that one scene, which had some of the most perfect editing and was an incredibly gutsy and was ever-so Fincher. It was a shocking move, how it was filmed and edited, but it seemed to cap things so perfectly for the story we have. As well the ‘aha’ reveal scene, where things finally start to become explained is perfectly done. It’s incredibly impacting and is just so well done. The emotional impact it punches is really great and the reveal is so perfectly timed and edited.

Indeed, just the whole film was so well edited (as usual), and the score by Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross was perfectly mood setting (again, no surprise). While it’s not really a film that just anyone will enjoy, it’s extremely well made and is perfectly adapted from its source material (mainly due to the author penning the screenplay). While the book doesn’t expand on a few points I felt it would benefit from (the impact of Amazing Amy on real Amy’s life, and many other things that I can’t talk about without spoilers) but it was the film that the book deserved and then some.   

God/Christianity In Film Project

So since I've finished watching all the Best Picture winners, I've been trying to think of a new project to start. I've tossed a few things around, none of which really stuck, but this one did. If you didn't know already, I'm a Christian. I love God, and try to love and serve him in all areas of my life. One interesting aspect of my life has been film. And sometimes I've struggled as to where God fits into that passion and how I can use it. So I've decided to watch various films that depict God and/or Christianity, and discuss them. I'm trying not to limit my list to just Christian made films, though they will be somewhat the bulk of it.

I have watched some of the films of this tentative list, and have even reviewed some of them. However, it'll be less of a review and more a discussion of the content. With each film, I'll focus on talking about how God is depicted and whether I feel this is reflective of the true God. I'll comment on societies comments on God and how they seem to view both Him and the people who serve him. Media has had an interesting relationship with God, so I thought I would specifically focus my mind on how He is treated and whether I feel this is an accurate or an unfair depiction.

My list has not been officially finalized. However, all mentioned on the list I will be watching. Feel free to comment and suggest films that aren't included on my list, or any thoughts you have about my reviews.

Official List of Films (updated 10/19/14)

• Bruce Almighty
• Saved
• Noah
• The Ten Commandments
• The Last Temptation Of Christ
• Fireproof
• Life of Pi
• The Tree of Life
• The Robe
• The Passion Of the Christ

I'm excited about this project. I love film and it will be interesting to do a study on the focus of God and the Christian religion in film and how the world views it. Some of these films are "Christian made" while others are "secular" films. Some of straight Bible stories, while others deal with Christianity and God in today's world. I'd love to get feedback on this list, and feedback once the project has started. As well, I'll also be posting my email address at the end of each review. If you have any questions, or want to discuss further, feel free to leave comments or send me an email! I definitely don't know 100% of everything there is to know about God or the Bible, but I thought I would use something else I'm passionate about (film) to broaden my views and to learn more about what I believe and how others view it.  

The Amazing Spider-Man 2

The Amazing Spider-Man 2, 2014
Directed by Marc Webb

I'm just going to put it out there that I very much enjoyed the first Amazing Spider-man movie. I thought Andrew Garfield was pitch-perfect casting (even though I think he can (and should) do a lot better than a superhero film) and I kind of love Emma Stone as well, so it went over pretty well with me. The love story and the story of Peter finding himself as Spider-Man is what worked the best (it almost felt like the villain was an after-thought, to an extent). However, The Amazing Spider-Man 2 seemed to just throw everything that worked about the first film out the window.

The second film starts off with a huge car chase. In the midst of saving the day, he saves the life of a random civilian. He's an employee of OsCorp and his name is Max. After arriving late to graduation, he decides (again) to break up with Gwen, later that evening. He's still haunted by her father who made him swear to stay away from her. Meanwhile, old best friend Harry Osbourne arrives back in town. His father died shortly after he came back and he is now President of OsCorp. He finds out he's dying, and, after looking into what OsCorp has done with all it's research, he realizes Spider-Man is the single human trial of radioactive spiders and that he can self-heal. He begs Peter to bring Spider-Man to him, since he thinks Peter knows him (because Peter has been "photographing" him). Meanwhile, Max, our saved civilian from the beginning is obsessed with Spider-Man but soon has his own accident. Being electrocuted and then falling into a tank of electric eels, he becomes a being of electricity. Things get covered up, and whatever, but everyone just becomes bad guys and they all hate Spider-Man or whatever.

This movie was just not good. Like I mentioned, everything that worked well in the first film seemed to just not be included here. The opening fight scene (both of them) were riddled with ridiculousness, corny lines and stupid resolutions. As well, Peter and Gwen are too on-again, off-again to really connect, so there was basically no chemistry between them. Peter just couldn't make up his mind, which was also frustrating. However, the sarcasm and jabs Peter uses while fighting as Spider-Man make a lot more sense this time around. Last movie, he seemed a little insecure as Peter to be that confident as Spider-Man, but this time around it came off perfectly, and it brought something fun to the fight scenes.

As other people have mentioned, the appearance of Harry is incredibly random, and the film has so much other stuff going on that essentially no relationship is built between them to make it believable that they were best friends when they were younger, or that they're even friends now. Though I will say that the casting of Dane DeHaan was about one of the only good things this film did. DeHaan just always pulls off the bad boy so well, and this part was really great for him. Too bad the movie didn't give him enough time to develop or for us to really care about him at all.

All in all, this film had too much going on to really be anything. This film left me feeling blah and it really didn't go anything good or original. Even the score I found to be uninteresting and cliche. The Spider-Man theme was a little too "hero-y", and while I did enjoy the more electronic (almost dubstep) feel to the music when Electro came on screen, it was still an obvious choice. The visual effects were also very sub par and were definitely over-animated (especially Spider-Man swinging around the city. It's very obvious that Andrew Garfield is not actually in that suit). And so many of the lines were just plain corny, just so they can get their point across.

Everything felt like it was done half-heartedly, and everyone was just kind of sleepwalking through it. Everyone involved has a lot of potential as individual people, but I felt no one really brought their A-game here (from director to writers to score to actors) so the movie just suffered. I felt if they had limited the storyline to just involving Harry, this would've been a much better film. Cut out Electro entirely, and do what the first movie did and have Peter build a relationship with Harry, only to have it come crashing down. Had this been fleshed out and made into the main storyline (and the only villain), I feel like this would've actually been a really good film. The relationship building and fleshing out was what made the first film good, and it was what would've made this film really good. But sadly, the opportunity was missed.

I just wanted to keep this brief. Overall, the movie was one I felt like I've seen before, many times over. It was filled with things over superhero movies have done before it, and have mostly done better (with the exception of Spider-Man 3). It did manage to do a few things right (casting Dane DeHaan, the fun use of the Spider-Man theme song, and Spidey's wit and jokes) but it just wasn't enough to make the movie that worthwhile. It will suffice, I think, for fanboys/girls, but as a casual viewer, it just wasn't worth it. (And seriously, Andrew Garfield, please stop doing Spider-Man movies because you are fantastic and could be do way more amazing movies and please just do some other movies, I beg of you)

4/10

TIFF Review: The Theory Of Everything

The Theory Of Everything, 2014
Directed by James Marsh

I've been wanting to go to TIFF for a few years now. Living just outside Toronto, it's not a big deal to get down there to see a movie. However, this is finally my first year! And while I was only able to see this one film, I was very pleased that this was my choice.

Stephen Hawking is working on his PhD at Cambridge University in 1963. At a party, he meets arts student, Jane Wild. They talk all night and, at the end, she gives him her phone number and they begin to fall in love. Stephen is passionate about his work in cosmology. He's naturally gifted and, while often disorganized, is completely brilliant. He has a new theory, something that would change the way we look at the universe and starts to work on it for his PhD thesis. However, he takes a bad fall while running through the university courtyard and knocks himself out. Upon waking up in the hospital, he is told he has Motor Neuron Disease, and the timeline is about 2 years left to live before his body deteriorates. At least, almost everything except his mind. Encouraged by the fact his mind will stay in tact, but terrified of everything else, Stephen pushes everyone out, only to find Jane pushing her way back in, agreeing to be with him for whatever time they have left, and for encouraging him to keep study and working. And while his condition does get worse and worse, we all know he surpassed the 2 year timeline.

Both Eddie Redmayne and Felicity Jones completely soar in the roles of Stephen and Jane, and are destined to be regarded as two of the year’s best. Redmayne perfects the progress and deterioration of Stephen throughout the years. The change is gradual, and Redmayne never brings it too quickly. He captures the little things incredibly well; the crooked hands, the inward turned feet, the lolling head and difficult speech. Credit must be given, not only to Eddie Redmayne, but to the director and screenwriter for the first 30 minutes of the film. Not yet diagnosed with Motor Neuron Disease, Stephen is brilliant, somewhat disorganized and has great dry wit. We get to know him, his personality, and his love for Jane. After he is diagnosed and his situation becomes worse, they never let Stephen become just his disease. This is so important to the rest of the film. We never lose who Stephen is and what his personality is. Redmayne is able to let this still shine through all the other layers of disability that he is portraying, and the ability to keep Stephen’s personality throughout is what makes the film as powerful as it is.  Redmayne could not have been a better choice for the role (and not just because he looks so much like a young Stephen Hawking) but because he gives it his all. He has an exceptional shot at scoring his first Oscar Nomination.  

As well, Felicity Jones brings a masterful performances as Jane. As the emotional backbone of the film, she may seem delicate, but Jones gives her strength and complexity that you initially wouldn’t have guessed when looking at Jane. Jones gives a brilliant performance as the brave woman who stood behind her husband, dressing him, feeding him, looking after their children and working on her own PhD. She carries the weight of the world on her shoulders, and Jones brings a weariness that we understand, and are still able to sympathize with. It’s a performance that absolutely can’t be ignored.

As you can imagine, the marriage between Jane and Stephen is not an easy one. Jane is a Christian who firmly believes in God, whereas Stephen feels mixing in a Creator to science throws off any calculations and they find themselves asking whether religion and science can be mixed. But not only that, it’s about their ultimate happiness as individuals. Stephen loves his work, but is constantly trying to overcome his phsycal limits. Jane, too, is seeking happiness, and is unsure where that is found. When she becomes close with the choir director from church who helps with her and Stephen, she must make choices. Not only were Felicity Jones and Eddie Redmayne cast so well individually, their innate chemistry is what brings their relationship truly to life, both in the happy parts and the difficult ones.

The performances are not the only stand out of the film. The cinematography by Benoit Delhomme is absolutely stunning. Everything from the classrooms of Cambridge, Stephen and Jane’s home, the landscape of Bordeaux or the inside of a theatre is captured in such brilliant vivacity and colour. Everything is made beautiful and brilliant. As well, the score by Jóhann Jóhannsson is beautiful and really captures Stephen and Jane and everything about their life. There is preciseness in it that reflects with the science themes. It is completely atmospheric and was a joy to listen to.

However, the film as a whole did not completely reach the potential it could’ve. It only seldom stooped to inserting saccharine lines and moments, but it never really inserted truly original or daring ones either. It is fairly standard for a biopic and doesn't do much out of the ordinary. While slightly formulaic, and definitely reminiscent of A Beautiful Mind, the film still does please and comes into its own. It still touches on all the hard subjects that I wasn’t sure the film would, but it softened the blows and while no one is painted perfect, the treatment is not as negative as it could've been. It treads lightly through the difficult portions, but the fact that they are there is still a bonus, and gives the film more of an authentic feel. As well, there were many heartbreaking moments, and I know I definitely welled up and almost full out cried in a couple scenes, but never felt like that was being forced on me. While there are definitely emotional and sad scenes, they are never forced or strung with music for a 'lets make the audience cry now' moment, which makes the connection with those scenes much stronger.

The film is not a perfect one, though it has enough things it does well to make it a worthwhile watch and one that is a definite crowd pleaser. It’s a film that is ultimately inspirational and uplifting. And while much of the complicated science and theories of Stephen are not really explained or included, it always ties back to where Stephen is, who he and Jane are, and what they believe. This movie, while formulaic, has a lot of heart and charm, and has a lot of technicals that are done exceptionally well, that it just might be the crowd-please, feel-good of the year. 

This is definitely a movie to keep an eye out for this Awards Season. As mentioned, Eddie Redmayne and Felicity Jones are forces to contend with. While no one is ever guaranteed nominations at this point, I’d say they are very safe bets at this point. As well, don’t rule out a cinematography, Original Score or Hair and Makeup nominations. While a nomination for Best Picture is less likely, it’s enough of a crowd please and ticks enough Academy boxes (Period Piece, Biopic, Someone Overcoming Disabilities, etc) that it could sneak in.

8/10

The F Word

The F Word
Directed by Michael Dowse

Romantic comedies have been going down a different sort of path in recent years. Maybe it's because 'everything has been done before' or because people are tired of unrealistic situations and beautiful people falling in love. Whatever it is, our romantic comedies have become more quirky and less conventional. In this sense, The F Word succeeds.

On paper, Daniel Radcliffe seems an odd choice as a romantic lead. He's more defined as cute or adorable as opposed to Sexiest Man Alive. He's not that tall and is known to most of the world as Harry Potter and is still trying to prove his career outside of it. However, Radcliffe plays Wallace to a tee. A med school drop out and seems to be wandering aimlessly, especially when it comes to his relationships. He's living in the attic of his sister and her sons attic in Toronto. He meets Chantry, a cute and funny girl, at a party, while arranging worded fridge magnets into odd and depressing poems. He quickly falls for her charm and wit.

On the other hand, the role of Chantry seemed to be right up Zoe Kazan's alley. While not the typical leading lady look, this is not unlike the casting of hipster Zooey Deschanel in (500) Days of Summer, there is a point to this quirky, atypical beauty. As Chantry, she is quick-witted and quirky, but but her adorableness is what draws Wallace in. Too bad she's in a serious relationship. However, she's tired of guys not wanting to be friends with girls in relationships (it makes her feel like the only interesting thing about her is how she looks with her clothes off). She proposes friendship to Wallace, and, though Wallace is disappointed she's taken, he accepts defeat and they agree to be friends.

The plot, from here, is quite predictable. Wallace and Chantry become best friends. They have lunches together, go shopping together and email and call each other. And Chantry's boyfriend is even a pretty good guy. He works for the UN while she's an illustrator. They live together and seem very happy. However, Wallace's friend definitely ship him with Chantry, whereas Chantry's friends are asking why she's never introduced him to her single friends.

Not only were Daniel Radcliffe and Zoe Kazan great casting as separate entities, the reason the movie works as well as it does is because of the immaculate chemistry between Radcliffe and Kazan. It was so realistic and organic. Both Radcliffe and Kazan are naturally funny people, and they really bring that across together, while on screen. It felt like I was truly watching best friends up on screen. The laughter and the jokes felt natural and so much of the conversation felt real, and almost improv. They meshed so well, and I can see exactly why the casting directors made the choices they did. They have some of the best chemistry I've seen in a full-out romantic comedy in a while.

As well, the supporting characters are also well cast. Adam Driver as Wallace's best friend and as Chantry's cousin Allan is another unexpected casting, but again, works out incredibly. I remember feeling almost awkward just seeing the immense height different between Radcliffe and Driver in the trailer, but they have another interestingly, quirky bond that leaves that behind. Rafe Spall as Ben was another interesting choice. While it didn't seem work as well as Radcliffe, Kazan or Driver, Spall was much more calm and much less quirky. He seemed much older than Chantry and seemed a little out of place amongst everyone else. (Perhaps this is on purpose, I haven't decided). These 4 are the main players, though we do have an array of smaller, fun parts (including Allan's wonky girlfriend, Wallace's sister and her son, and Chantry's sister).

The movie, while much smarter than the average romantic comedy, does often pull cliche scenes and utter oft-used lines. We have Allan giving Wallace bad advice on how to deal with the Chantry situation, Chantry's sister is much different and much more sex driven (and tries it out on Wallace), and Wallace and Chantry too, find themselves in situations we've seen very similar versions of in other films (one standout being the dress-shopping scene). However, every so often it proves it's slightly above the average and responds to these cliche instances in different ways. I won't spoil anything for you, but Allan and Nicole pull a prank on Wallace and Chantry that is meant to push Wallace and Chantry together. It's not unlike those romcoms where the pair show up at a hotel and 'oops- we only have 1 bed, sorry!' and forces the pair to share, awkwardly. However, this time Chantry and Wallace respond with anger at their friends, and feel betrayed. It's not a cute moment, and you feel awkward with the characters.

To say The F Word is in any way ground-breaking would be utterly untrue. Most romantic comedies like smart people now, with smart language. And this movie is no different. Even the ending you can gather right from the beginning. But this film works because the characters are believable. To me, they never felt like unreal people. As well, it's always nice to see Toronto playing Toronto. It gives a different feel from your typical New York or LA film. To me, it had the right atmosphere and has enough artsy and hip locations that it makes sense with it's characters. While predictable, the film works and is definitely one I'd like to revisit several times.

8/10