Change Your Image
katherinecmcmanus-881-430673
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
Guardians of the Galaxy (2014)
Irreverent, absurd... and fantastic. The best film of the summer - Marvel's best yet!
It was like a sudden, absurd romantic fling. I can pinpoint the exact moment where I realised that this Tuesday night tryst to the nearby London Angel Vue Cinema was well worth the absurd £8 I dropped on tickets. In typical science fiction fashion, we - the audience - were greeted by the traditional alien landscape - dramatic, mysterious and dusty. Our masked hero (because who else could it be) trumps past wreckage and debris, as though propelled forward by the dramatic, ambient score. He walks with near valiant hesitance into the strange, monstrous edifice before him, and gazes into the echoing, damp gloom of the room beyond.
And then he puts in his headphones, a song from my childhood comes on, Starlord starts bobbing his head
and magic happens.
I'm in love with Guardians of the Galaxy. I'm absolutely, madly in love with this film.
It didn't take long for this reviewer to fall head over heels with this modern take on the Marvel comics of the same name (which span across a strange, complicated history from 1969 to the present day). And this isn't the first indication of the company's genius - from over nine, interweaving and interrelated films to an ABC T.V. series, Marvel has proved itself as a powerhouse. But this film steps away from that carefully crafted "cineverse" into completely uncharted territory - the "final frontier," if you will (for any Trekkies out there). The Guardians that audiences around the world are familiar with only made themselves apparent in 2008 - a mere six years ago. In contrast to the well-worn faces of Captain America, Iron Man, Thor and the Hulk, the Guardians were total noobs.
But that certainly didn't stop James Gunn's hilarious, jaw-dropping, entertaining and irreverent leap into Marvel's cineverse from becoming one of the best films of the entire year. And this isn't drawn back to one aspect, but all - the casting, to the characters, to the plot, to the script and action
everything about Guardians of the Galaxy screamed success.
And that brings us back to the film's first scene - our first introduction to the Guardian-verse, and our first glimpse at our offbeat, eccentric hero, Peter Quill, wonderfully portrayed by Maui- bum-turned-Hollywood-sensation, Chris Pratt. After his first burst of "pelvic sorcery," it was obvious to anyone that Pratt had become a movie star - not just that funny dude from Parks and Recreation, but Starlord. And that's not all; take a look at the Guardian team - green-skinned assassin, Gamora (played by space badass Zoe Saldana), tattooed and literal brute, Drax the Destroyer (in David Bautista's role of a lifetime), pyromaniac raccoon, Rocket (voiced by an almost unrecognisable Bradley Cooper), and adorable - terrifying - tree man, Groot (Vin Diesel, who practically reprised his role from The Iron Giant). Yes, you heard that right - a green person, a space Hulk, a trigger happy racoon
and a talking tree.
That's what we're handling here, people. A team with a tree.
And yet, that's what makes Guardians of the Galaxy so fantastic. Notwithstanding the fantastically filmed action sequences, incredible graphics and tightly knit script and plot, the absolute irreverence and absurdity of the film are what makes it so endearing. The film masterfully leaps from heavy action and dastardly, villainous evil to uproarious, nonsensical one-liners like nobody's business. It's a perfect formula, tried and tested by Marvel in the past and similar franchises (and I'm making another nod to J.J. Abram's Star Trek reboots). And not only that - Guardians of the Galaxy practically laughs at itself with every Footloose reference, and asks the audience to join along with them. It's not nearly as dark, complex and intense as Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy, nor does it have the jaw-dropping (again, dark) destruction of DC Comic's Man of Steel (and upcoming Batman vs. Superman: Dawn of Justice). but that's what Marvel's all about - superhero action-y stuff, but with the fun
and with the human.
But notice one thing so far - what about the plot? Isn't that what makes the movie so good - a great plot? Well, in truth, there's not really a lot to get into; it's your typical superhero plot scheme. A group of miscreants - led by the hunky, endearing "bad boy" human - band together to stop evil - led by extremist Ronan (masterfully played by a reviewer favourite, Lee Pace) and his companion turned half-robotic sidekick, Nebula (the wonderful Karen Gillan) from completely destroying the galaxy. But the thing is, Guardians of the Galaxy didn't need to make itself any more unique than it already is - it didn't need to create a new, original plot (nigh impossible nowadays - curses, Hitchcock!). The plot is used and worn, been there and done that. The difference, then - and the reason why I would gladly drop another ridiculous £8 on a ticket again - is, as according to The Huffington Post - "all in the execution."
Guardians of the Galaxy, in all of its cheek, quirkiness and downright daring, has quickly found its way into the hearts of fanboys and fangirls worldwide. It was Marvel's biggest risk yet
and it was a risk that absolutely paid off (and not just in the big bucks). There's no limit to the amount of magic that Marvel is able to create - and there's no limit to where Guardians of the Galaxy can head in the future!
Surrender, earthlings, and step aside Avengers - the Guardians are here, and they're here to stay.
Joe (2013)
A cinematically beautiful testimony to the resilience of the human spirit
Sometimes, you walk into a theatre with no expectations, and two or three hours later leave with a bit of your mind - or even your heart - somehow changed; something has shifted, even ever so slightly, in a different direction. When I decided to click on David Gordon's Joe (2014) during a nine-hour-long international flight, I did so merely out of curiosity in regards to the hype surrounding Nicholas Cage's return to "cinema of actual worth," as one Londoner colleague stated. I did not expect to not only find no fault with Cage's performance, but to be inexplicably drawn into Joe's winding, dark narrative. I didn't expect to be forced to look at some of the darkest parts of human nature and yet still find a glimmer of hope amidst the depravity.
But Joe does exactly that. While by no means the best film of the year, Joe stands along films of the same strain and offers a unique take on the Darwinian, daily struggle of mankind while maintaining integrity to the ordinary man and the art of filmmaking.
Silent, contemplative and lonely films such as Joe really force the audience to appreciate what Complex called "grade-A filmmaking," sentiments which I agree with wholeheartedly. From the very first scene - a quiet, intense interaction between Gary and his alcoholic father - you feel the palpable loneliness, the sheer isolation of not only the dusty, Southern landscape, but of the characters themselves as they attempt to navigate their way through a world that just doesn't
fit. Or, rather, a world they cannot fit into. Everyone in this film struggles with something, and even when you cannot pinpoint exactly what they're struggling against, that tension - the inexplicable pull - suffocates every frame. Not only that, but the script shocks with every twist, every word, and every quotable scene. It's stunningly, tragically poetic - a cinematic gem in the midst of so much (admittedly wonderful) commercial fodder.
And that leads into the characters - the true masterpieces of this film. Only two recognisable names top off the cast list of this remarkable ensemble of - wait for it -
real, ordinary people; not of the polished, refined and gorgeous faces that have graced Hollywood for decades, but of the broken, the meek and the lost; those that we - the audience - never seem to consider. You are witnessing the struggles of ordinary people as they fight through a dog-eat-dog world in which everything seems to be utterly pointless.
Though Nicholas Cage's recent cinematic endeavours have been
questionable at best, Joe marks a turning point in the actor's long and oftentimes rocky career, and back to the Cage that fans know and love dearly - the one that won the Academy Award for Leaving Las Vegas (1995). While by no means an Academy Award-worthy performance, in Joe, Cage truly showed off his chops as a seasoned, thoughtful actor who could embody even the most minute, seemingly unimportant parts of a character. He was engaging even in a stupor, truly terrifying in rage. And if Joe is any indication of Cage's reemergence as a contender to the big screen, then the same can be said of young Tye Sheridan, who follows up his performance in Jeff Nichols's Mud (2013) with another fantastic characterisation of the hopeful, curious, young boy. Granted, he hasn't done much outside of this very specific genre, but he is still young, and the future is definitely bright.
Despite obviously dark subject matter, Joe flips what has literally been (poetically, beautifully) rammed down our throats on its head
within the final ten minutes. Somehow, despite everything that you had just witnessed - from murder to alcoholism to sheer human depravity - a glimmer of hope shines through. Even in the darkest of times, there is hope in the next generation - in the future.
Joe was never built to be a contender for awards in the festival circuits. It was never going to be brought to the Academy Awards to compete to films of an equal caliber. It's just not that good. For, what what it was - and I say that with the least condescension and criticism possible - Joe fit the bill and over exceeded admittedly low expectations. Truly, it was a fantastic piece of cinema.
Don't watch Joe expecting a rousing, inspiring tale of the indomitable nature of the human spirit (despite an admittedly uplifting, bittersweet end - no spoilers), but do expect a very dark look into some of the most depraved aspects of humanity, with a somewhat heart-warming conclusion that brings all loose ends together, and beautifully so. Joe stands as an unflinching testimony to the Darwinian law of mankind, a brutal landscape of man-versus-man, and survival of the fittest. And truly, the film's end - despite it's dark content - was almost a reaffirmation of the silver lining in any situation. We may not be diamonds in the rough - not everyone out there is a Will Hunting, a flamingo among the pigeons. The human spirit may not be able to shine
but it can endure. And that, in itself, has a certain kind of beauty that is as unexpected as it is genuine.
Sherlock: The Sign of Three (2014)
A funny, light-hearted return to typical Holmesian tomfoolery
Once upon a time, in a series long ago (or two years - same thing, really), Sherlock Holmes burst into 221B, covered in blood and holding aloft a harpoon, and announced to his startled flatmate, "Well, that was tedious." Though years later (demonstrating a much different situational and emotional dynamic between Holmes and Watson) "The Sign of Three" was almost a throwback to "The Hound of the Baskervilles" - and in more ways than some ridiculous and entertaining antics from our favorite consulting detective.
This second instalment in the long-awaited third series was a pleasant reminder of the sometimes frankly absurd nature of the original Sherlock Holmes stories, combined with a much-needed, healthy dose of bromance. "The Sign of Three" was a nice throwback to what truly makes Sherlock Holmes special - fun.
Fan-service was, once again, rampant in this new - incredibly loose - take on the short story originally by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, "The Sign of Four." This episode gave fans what they wanted - and much more - in the infamous "stag night" before John's wedding. It was utterly, absolutely fantastic, filled with nothing but laughs (as Sherlockians everywhere are aware, no "stag night" with Sherlock Holmes can be as simple as a pub crawl). The search to discover John's middle name was equally hilarious and endearing. That, in addition to the tomfoolery had during many of the moments in between Sherlock's now infamous best man speech, created an episode that was a well-deserved return to the light-hearted, ridiculous nature of the adventures that Sherlock and John share together. While Sherlock is a drama, people must take into consideration the shenanigans of the show which make it unique. This is perfectly exemplified in this episode's opening scene; "The Sign of Three" brings this sentiment back to the forefront after the intensity of the last episode which, despite its many laughs, had a certain weight to it.
And again with the acting - absolutely superb. Benedict Cumberbatch steals the stage with his best man's speech, which varies from the absurd to the thoughtful... and then, in typical Sherlock style, to the disastrous. Throughout this series so far, Sherlock's "human" side began to reveal itself, and average viewers are finally questioning his self-diagnosis as as "highly- functioning sociopath." This evolution would have not been possible without Cumberbatch's nuanced and thoughtful portrayal of Sherlock Holmes, and was equally assisted by another solid performance by Martin Freeman. And who could forget Ms. Abbington, who - with every line and quirky grin - endears herself to us, and reassures fans of Mary's new role in the lives of their favourite, dynamic duo.
One of the most fascinating aspects of this series - an aspect that is finding more and more prominence as this strangely weaving plot line continues - is the incredible character development for each and every individual in this modern retelling of the classic stories - especially the evolving relationship between the detective and "his blogger". Every episode, you learn something new about them, especially Sherlock, and what they mean to each other. While many fans may argue that their relationship is more than plutonic (something that this reviewer highly doubts - she's a canon kind of person), in "The Sign of Three," no one can doubt that John and Sherlock have some serious bromance going on. They truly rely on one another... which makes the ending of the episode, while thrilling in many ways, also incredibly tragic, and in the best way possible. The narrative arch as Sherlock realises his impending, superfluous role in the Watson family was perfectly done - from the dialogue to the, once again, astounding acting by Mr. Cumberbatch.
Essentially, the episode is a "love letter" of sorts to John Watson, the often overlooked "sidekick" to the Holmesian "hero" (if you could call Sherlock that). Even in acting as the faithful narrator for Conan Doyle in the past, Watson always took a backseat, and one of the many incredible things about BBC-One's take on the infamous detective stories is that John acts less as a lackey, and more as a comrade in arms. This episode was, pretty much, acknowledging John's essential role in Sherlock's life, and recognising that he now acts as more than an enamoured, eager sidekick, but as an essential part of every moment of Holmesian tomfoolery. This definitely made up for the jaggedly portrayed relationship between John and Sherlock in the series's first episode, "The Empty Hearse."
A blatant criticism was actually the mystery behind the wedding. The crime (again, an incredibly loose adaptation of an original short story) was slightly contrived, the villain practically superfluous and lacked much of the... sinister-ness that past ones embodied. Even Dr. Frankland from "The Hound of Baskerville" unsettled more than this rando from Photography 101. While this episode was definitely more about character development, a good villain wouldn't have gone amiss.
Overall, this was an enjoyable fun episode that gave fans of Sherlock Holmes a break from the heavy material of the past episode - and the episode that is sure to come.
Sherlock: The Empty Hearse (2014)
The Empty Hearse - an explosive opening episode in what is promising to be the most action-packed season of Sherlock yet!
It ended with a bang. Or, rather, a quick drop and a sudden stop - one that sent fans and critics alike reeling and demanding more, more, more. And this past New Years Day 2014, the two- year-long wait finally ended for millions worldwide as the infamous Consulting Detective returned to London with a theatrical flair that can only be described as, well
Sherlockian.
In many regards, the latest and newest installment of BBC's smash hit, Sherlock (2010 - present) did not disappoint fans worldwide - and why would it? Finally, Sherlock Holmes (Benedict Cumberbatch) and Dr. John Watson (Martin Freeman) are back to embark upon more exciting and thrilling adventures! This is the moment that we've all been waiting for! Yet, this first episode - while exciting - did have a few shortcomings that made it less than what some fans might expect.
When a TV show opens its door to the fandom world - i.e. Tumblr - and brings it into the fold of its own plot, it often risks laughing at itself, becoming a pantomime of the speculations, theories and obsession that have propelled it forward - in short, it risks lessening itself by approaching and enveloping the - sometimes, frankly alarming - fan world. Yet, somehow, Sherlock avoided this entirely, carefully balancing itself on the knife's edge of playful, poking jokes which Sherlockians will probably die over, and that the average viewer can appreciate in the grander scheme of the episode's overall and surprisingly cheeky nature. The fact remains that no one listens to their fans better than Mark Gatiss and Steven Moffat, and, while some fans might find offense in their references to the, again, frankly alarming Sherlock fan-base, being toyed with was actually quite enjoyable.
The laughs weren't too far behind in regards to this episode, either. Again, "cheeky" is the word for this script - as perhaps are the words, "confident," "smart" and "clever," as Gatiss once again shows off his prowess as not only a co-creator of the show, but a writer as well.
One thing that no one had to worry about for this new series is the superb acting. Benedict Cumberbatch is simply flawless as Sherlock Holmes, supporting an argument that he is, in fact, the best actor to have ever portrayed the sociopathic, genius sleuth. Martin Freeman once again shone as a modern John Watson, showing a wide array of emotions simultaneously. And fans who were worried about the introduction of John's romantic interest, Mary Morstan (played by Amanda Abbington, Martin Freeman's real-life partner) have little to fear. Mary is as charming, brazen and clever as we could have possibly ever hoped for. Though only shown sparingly in this episode, she's sure to become a fantastic character in the near future, one that will not only add to the plot, but help shape a wonderful, new dynamic for this new series.
The plot itself was, overall, very intriguing. From the get go, the audience is immediately thrown back into the excitement and adventure that makes Sherlock exactly that - an adventure unlike anything television has seen before. This new series is sure to be a unique experience.
However, somehow, the plot was very convoluted and sometimes choppy and jaggedly presented for those that couldn't catch every single word of dialog being presented. However, after my second viewing of the show (after my disastrous first attempt at a live stream), I could completely comprehend the plot of "The Empty Hearse" and its implications towards the later episodes. It's truly a masterpiece - yet one that was initially confusing. Yet, despite its many pros, there is one crucial con to "The Empty Hearse" that made it less than what many fans have been expecting - the relationship between John and Sherlock.
Again, it's been two years since Sherlock's faked suicide, and it's been only days since he's been vindicated of all of the charges that had been brought against him, thanks to one "Richard Brook." Somehow, the thrill of the new plot took away from that developing reconnection, and their struggle to reconcile after many years of hurt and loneliness. Again, we understand - Sherlock is an adventure, a wild ride through the twisting alleys of London, filled with danger, excitement and deductions galore. And, again, "The Empty Hearse" did not disappoint in this regard. Yet, the one thing that this episode should have been about - John's forgiving Sherlock, their friendship - was not touched upon enough. After a third viewing (yes, a third), I could see the small hints towards the larger picture, but they were vague and barely noticeable for those who weren't looking. If not for the fantastic performances by Cumberbatch and Freeman, Sherlock and John's character arcs would have been completely lost in the grandeur, the danger and the thrill.
Perhaps this crucial shortcoming has to do with the restrictive time set for Sherlock episodes - ironic, seeing as they're practically feature length films. Yet, an extra half hour would have been enough to help bring this absolutely vital dynamic to life. If not that, then taking away some of the action would have helped - it certainly would've helped clear up some confusion with the intense and rapidly moving plot line.
All in all, however, "The Empty Hearse" was an explosive opening episode in what is promising to be the most action-packed season of Sherlock yet. And its hints towards a greater danger for not only London, but Holmes and Watson, give a glimpse into the new, exciting plot that Gatiss and Moffat have lined up for Sherlock fans globally. I was only slightly disappointed with this opening episode, and I cannot wait to see what happens next!
Frozen (2013)
Frozen - Pure Disney magic and glorious family entertainment!
To say that I was apprehensive about going to see Disney's latest animated film, Frozen (2013) would be a bit of an understatement. I viewed t the film as simply an extension of what I saw as Disney's latest trend. Example DreamWorks Animations released How to Train Your Dragon (2010), and soon after Disney counters with their own Celtic-based adventure, Brave (2013) (which, admittedly, was one of Pixar's best films ever). More than an original masterpiece, I thought Frozen would be a reaction to DreamWorks foray into a winter wonderland with Rise of the Guardians (2012). And, from the ads and trailers, I felt like Frozen was just going to be a holiday season, money-grabber. So, coming from a Disney kid
I really need to stop underestimating Disney. This movie wasn't just good it was absolutely, breathtakingly fantastic.
First off, comparing Disney to DreamWorks was incredibly wrong of me. I beg forgiveness. While DreamWorks seems to have a standard formula for their more successful animated features (HTTYD, Kung Fu Panda, Rise of the Guardians), Disney is constantly throwing original and exciting material at their audiences (also, this film apparently has been in the works since the 1990's. Never judge a book by its cover). Frozen is no exception. Based (very) loosely off of the Danish folk tale, The Snow Queen (1845), by Hans Christian Anderson, the film sets up a unique scene in the land of Arendal where sisters Anna (Kristin Bell) and Elsa (Idina Menzel) struggle to connect after years of estrangement, caused by Elsa's mysterious ice-and-snow magic powers and her inability to control them.
I don't want to rain on anyone's parade, so let's just get the criticisms out of the way.
Unlike some people, my tiff isn't so much with the character demographics. Let's be realistic here, people, Frozen is set in a Nordic fairytale land. But, rather than making Elsa or Anna black, Asian, Inuit or otherwise, why not add a little
variety? Not every little girl out there is white, blonde with blue/green eyes and a teeny-teeny waist. Hopefully in the future, the creators of Frozen (who also produced Tangled, obviously), will add a little bit of variety to their character designs.
The story was fantastic, but sometimes lagged when the characters weren't singing their hearts out. There were several times when I sat twitching in the auditorium, impatiently waiting for the next song so that the story could actually move forward.
Undoubtedly, one of the film's greatest moments was the performance of "Let it Go" by Idina Menzel, who absolutely astounded with her killer vocals. The sequence was astonishingly beautiful in addition, "Let It Go" is just a simply beautiful song.
And talking about the MUSIC! I was immediately in love after the movie's first song, "Frozen Heart" and the wonderful duet in "For the First Time in Forever" (adorable). Though it's not apparent whether or not Frozen will go down with the older Disney classics, the parallels that it has to to older musical tales such as The Lion King,Mulan, or Beauty and the Beast is undeniable. It's a wonderful improvement from the somewhat flat songs of Tangled, and might just be the best musical-film that Disney has made in decades. But with the killer team of Christophe Beck, Robert Lopez (The Book of Mormon) and Kristen Anderson-Lopez (Robert's wife how cute!), what could you expect?
And what is a Disney story without a love story? Yet, Frozen throws the conventional love story to the wind in this adaptation. More than the often ridiculous notion of "true love," Frozen supports the wonderful idea that "everyone's a bit of a fixer upper," that you can "fix this fixer- upper with a little bit of love," and that Prince Charming's aren't all that they're cracked up to be. Sometimes, the best love stories are the ones that take time, and are unexpected in the best ways possible much like real life.
My favorite part of Frozen, however, wasn't the romantic aspect of the film it was the lack thereof. While some critics have bashed the film for its lack of focus on one particular protagonist, the story at its base is about two sisters and their love for one another.
In layman's terms, it's a classic Disney variation of an old fairy tale, complete with just the right combination of wonderful characters, charming music, a beautiful story arc and its specific brand of Disney magic (ice or otherwise) that DreamWorks could never hope to replicate. But, more than it's a break from traditional Disney-fairy-tale magic, with the typical, romantic formula that everyone's seen before. It's glorious family entertainment.
Or, if you're a hopeless Disney kid like me, it's a little slice of your childhood, that will send your little Disney-kid heart aflutter.
Fruitvale Station (2013)
Fruitvale Station - A promising, powerful directorial debut
"Hey! HEY! C'mon, man! That's unnecessary! Let him GO!"
Indignant and furious shouts from bystanders punctuate blurry cellphone footage of two BART police officers as they detain and arrest four young black men in Oakland, California. Moments later, a gun shot rings out, and these shouts turn into an eerie silence and gasps of horror. These are the pivotal moments of Oscar Grant's final hours - and the opening premise of Ryan Coogler's Fruitvale Station (2013).
Since its release in July 2013, Fruitvale Station - based on the true story of the Fruitvale BART train station shooting of Oscar Grant - has racked up a number of awards - from the Grand Jury Prize at the Sundance Film Festival to Best First Film in the "Un Certain Regard" section in Cannes. And, from the get go, Fruitvale proves incredibly deserving of these accolades. Cinematically, the film remains simple, candid and rather poetic, with limited music and filters. The camera literally "follows" Oscar (played by Michael B. Jordan) through an average day, to the effect that you become a part of his life. You accompany his struggle to maintain a job, raise a child, pay rent and overcome a drug-dealing past.
The performances by the film's talented compelling cast remain something to be commended and appreciated in regards to their contribution to the overall plot. Despite the film's compelling and interesting premise - combined with a fluid, raw script - the film's acting truly gave it that extra push towards excellence. Michael B. Jordan joins forces with the astonishing Melonie Diaz (Oscar's girlfriend, Sophina) and Academy-Award winner Octavia Spencer (Oscar's mother, Wanda) to present powerful representations of everyday men and women that you cannot help but grow emotionally invested in.
The film's true crowning glory, however, is its creative approach and implementation. With the sensitive subject matter, it would have been easy to produce an agitprop film - one used to create social and political uproar. Yet, Coogler attempted to take Fruitvale in another direction, to recreate Oscar's last 24 hours with simplicity and candidness. Fruitvale Station is an attempt at a very straightforward examination of a young man's life and the struggles, successes and injustices that fill it. The cinematography, editing and acting choices, and directorial vision all combined to create a stirring - and emotionally compelling - story.
The fact that you know what's going to eventually happen to Oscar Grant does not worsen the blow. In fact, this makes Fruitvale all the more painful to watch, and in the best way possible. You are constantly reminded of Oscar's impending fate - from firecrackers being fired in the street (reminiscent of gun shots), to a hit-and-run where a dog was left to die. Mundane every day tasks all join together to create a gathering weight. This "weight" culminates to Oscar's final hours, captured in Fruitvale with shocking emotion and pain. The film stands as a powerful, first feature-length film for newcomer Ryan Coogler, who might stand to become one of the next Spike Lees of the film industry if Fruitvale Station represents any indication of his work to come.
American Hustle (2013)
'American Hustle' - one of the the best films to hit cinemas in years!
"Some of this actually happened."
From this first inter-title, David O. Russell's new crime comedy-drama American Hustle (2013) promised two and a half hours of the twisted, the practically anarchic, but most especially, the absolutely absurd - and in the best way possible. Despite its late arrival to the Oscar scene (along with Scorsese's Wolf of Wall Street) and its being overshadowed by Steve McQueen's long-awaited 12 Years a Slave, American Hustle proves worthy of every nomination and accolade to date and lives up to its enormous hype. It is one of the best films to hit cinemas in years.
American Hustle - based on the true story of the FBI ABSCAM operation - follows conman Irving Rosenfield (Christian Bale) and con-woman Sydney Prosser (Amy Adams) after they are forced to work for wild FBI agent, Richie DiMaso (Bradley Cooper). As they con their way through the story "to survive," the audience joins them, dragged into a world of power schemes that is as lethal as it is intoxicating.
If the subject matter doesn't scream Scorsese's Goodfellas (1990) (or even Mean Streets (1973), if you squint), the style most definitely does. American Hustle's narrative trajectory is almost reminiscent of Casino (1995) in its first person narrative, given from the perspectives of both Bale's Irving Rosenfeld and Adams' Sydney Prosser. Yet, it's no Scorsese in regards to cinematography - and definitely no Guillermo del Toro. From a first viewing, the camera placement and movement remains incredibly simplistic and unremarkable. The cinematography, therefore, simply acts as an enabler for the film's greatest aspects - namely the performances by the A-list cast, and its fantastic script and plot.
The screenplay is simply sensational, creating a remarkable dynamic between both comedy and drama that is so rarely accomplished with films of this nature. Dramatic moments - including a screaming match between Irving and and his unstable wife, Rosalyn (Jennifer Lawrence) - are immediately followed by hilarious quips and creative dialog that left me gasping for air. Everything about the script is interconnected fluidly and cleverly and moments expressed in the film's infancy reappear later on with greater prominence and importance, all working together to create a story that comes full circle and completely encapsulates its overall themes of reinvention and survival. The story is fantastic, the writing superb - and the plot completely driven by its characters.
Christian Bale, renowned for his dedication when it comes to a character's physicality, immediately astounds with a comb-over and beer belly in his interpretation of lead, Irving Rosenfeld. However, it's his rendition of Irving that truly startles. Bale cleverly crafts a man who, despite his conning nature, is honorable at heart and is uncomfortable with potentially destroying a good man with good intentions (Jeremy Renner's Carmine Polito). Bale could have gone over the top with Irving - he is, after all, a conman from the Bronx - but, instead, he opted for a more realistic, grounded character. It was a fantastic choice, and one that definitely adds to the story's growing tension and drama. This may perhaps be one of Bale's best films. Opposite Bale is Amy Adams, in arguably one of her best showings to date, as well. Her performance as cleverly deceptive Sydney Prosser (or Lady Edith Greensly, if you're on the wrong side of the desk) is punctuated by moments of severe sincerity and emotional turmoil. Adams' prowess as an actress is in top form, and she proves absolutely deserving of her nomination for Best Leading Actress at this year's Golden Globe awards.
In almost a throwback to another Russell film, Silver Linings Playbook, Bradley Cooper plays uncontrollable FBI agent Richie DiMaso (slightly familiar to Paul Solitano in regards to his wild desperation), who is determined to prove himself as a worthy player to not only his department, but his mother and especially himself. Though not Cooper's best performance to date, American Hustle definitely shows off his stuff and solidifies his position as a powerful, talented actor in Hollywood.
Jennifer Lawrence once again proves herself to be one of the most daring and talented young actresses in the business as Rosalyn Rosenfeld, Irving's unstable and uncontrollable wife. In a world of reinvention and masks, Rosenfeld is the only character who tries not to change ("I hate change. I think I'd die before I ever changed") and it shows through her erratic and sometimes violent behavior - perfectly executed by Lawrence. Simply put, after watching American Hustle, I threw my hands up in the air and exclaimed to a startled audience of moviegoers, "Just give her the Oscar now!"
Jeremy Renner, though the only actor in American Hustle to not rack up a nomination at the Golden Globes for his performance as good-guy Carmine Polito - gave a solid performance. I could not see any other actor giving Carmine the sincerity and good-guy-politician, go-getter attitude he deserved. Keep an eye out for Renner in the future; that Hurt Locker nomination was just the beginning of what will be an award-stacked career, and American Hustle is a perfect stepping stone towards that future.
If the acting - and pristine characterization - isn't any indication of what an incredible film American Hustle is, just take a look at the Golden Globe nods its received - Best Picture (Comedy or Musical), Best Director, Best Screenplay, Best Lead Actor (Christian Bale), Best Lead Actress (Amy Adams), Best Supporting Actor (Bradley Cooper) and Best Supporting Actress (Jennifer Lawrence). And American Hustle proves incredibly deserving of every scrap of recognition that it's been getting.
If you haven't heard about - or seen - American Hustle, please get yourself out from underneath whatever rock you've been under for the last six or seven months and stomp on over to your local cinema immediately. Also, tune into the Golden Globe Awards on Jan. 12, 2014, where it's sure to give 12 Years a Slave a run for its money!
The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug (2013)
'Desolation of Smaug' promises a thrill ride that will not disappoint fans worldwide... mostly.
Long gone is the comfortable hobbit hole at Bagend, and long gone is the Bilbo Baggins that initially passed out cold when reading "incineration" as a cause of death on a "burglar" contract given to him by a company of rowdy dwarfs. Desolation of Smaug picks up where its slow predecessor left off - right after Bilbo discovers the Ring, and right before Thorin and company reach Erebor, the land of their forefathers.The Desolation of Smaug has been long anticipated by many this year and, in many regards, it did not disappoint fans worldwide. Yet, despite its domination in the box office, thrilling premise and great reviews, The Hobbit: Desolation of Smaug brought to light several aspects of The Hobbit franchise that remain lacking - and rather disappointing for die-hard Lord of the Rings fans, such as myself.
Once again, Peter Jackson masters the creation of Middle Earth - he and his team masterfully crafted every aspect of the Middle Earth that Lord of the Rings and Hobbit fans love most. The music was absolutely perfect, and the cinematography was captivating, as always - those sweeping wide shots and intimate close-ups with our favorite characters are what make the franchise what it is. As the story picks up, it grows steadily darker - much like The Lord of the Rings franchise (from The Fellowship of the Ring all the way to Return of the King) - and this is carefully and perfectly approached by Jackson, so that we're not completely overwhelmed by it, but can appreciate its implementation in the grander scheme of things. Overall, it was a fantastic and incredibly entertaining film.
As for acting... these actors are perfect matches for the roles that they take on. Aiden Turner finally got his chance to shine with the refined focus on Kili in Desolation of Smaug, and Richard Armitage's approach to the steadily desperate and mad Thorin Oakenshield was very fascinating. Ian McKellen (Gandalf), as always, is just a joy to watch. Namely, however, Martin Freeman's performance as the clueless and yet surprisingly courageous Bilbo Baggins is, once again, absolutely astounding - he practically carried the film in this regard. If one hadn't seen him in any of his previous work - ranging from the UK's The Office to BBC's smash hit, Sherlock - they would assume that he was born for this role. No one else would have been able to play the surprisingly layered Bilbo with such sincerity. He was not only hilarious (he somehow made the scene with Smaug as laughable as it was terrifying), but captivating - every time he was on the screen, I simply could not tear my eyes away from him! And his moments with the Ring sent uncomfortable shivers up my spine ("MINE").
The film's crowning glory, however, was undoubtedly the scene all Lord of the Rings fans have been waiting for - the unveiling of Smaug the Terrible, self proclaimed "King Under the Mountain." Whoever designed, animated and rendered Smaug should be given a cookie every day for existing, and I'd like to thank Peter and company for keeping the design a secret before the premiere - seeing Smaug for the first time was simply breathtaking. That, combined with the sultry and devilishly articulate voice of one Benedict Cumberbatch, created an adversary that was as "cool" as it was simply terrifying. The chilling game of words played between Smaug and Bilbo had me on the edge of my seat for the entire ride.
The problem with The Hobbit franchise, therefore, isn't the story or the filmmaking or the acting; it's the way that the story is being approached. Lord of the Rings fans will recall the incredible, epic sagas that each of the original three films would bring - near four hours of nonstop excitement, twists and character development, all leading up to the pivotal scene at Mordor. Yet, The Hobbit isn't an epic saga, nor should it be approached as one - it's the story of one unassuming hobbit who joins a company of dwarfs to reclaim their homeland and slay a dragon. A to B; point blank and simple - no ring to destroy and Middle Earth to save. Somehow, Peter Jackson tried to take on the entire alphabet, while moseying past more than a few key letters and relying more on action and CGI (where did the REAL men dressed up like the baddies go?) than the base story.
Most upsetting was how the characters were approached. The characters are what's key to the plot of The Hobbit - or any Tolkien work, for that matter - and they're crucial to the telling of any half-decent story. However, while I could name off any Lord of the Rings character and give you my opinion on them, I hardly know any of the dwarfs by name, and I never really get to see anyone's personal journey as the story progresses - in any detail, anyway. Bilbo and the dwarfs are sometimes passed up in favor of thrilling (and completely unrealistic) action sequences though, while exciting, really didn't do anything for me at the end of the day.
I stand by my opinion that three films is far too much movie to be had for Bilbo and his dwarfish companions. One long, four-hour film (or maybe two films, as was the original plan) would have been perfectly suited to tackle this story in a proper way.
That being said, creative differences with Jackson and his team didn't stop me from seeing The Hobbit twice in a weekend, and do not take away from the film being one of the best adventures of the year. The Hobbit: the Desolation of Smaug definitely trumped its predecessor. The pace picked up, Bilbo finally got his moment to shine as "burglar," and the scene with Smaug was near flawless. It's a "must see" for any movie lover, and especially any fan of Middle Earth!