Tag Archives: movie reviews

QuestForBestPic-Silver Linings Playbook

Standard

This is my last Best Picture Nominee review, and not a moment too soon as the awards are starting shortly. Even though I’ve bombarded myself over the past few days with movie review assignments, this has been a really fun project. I got to see some great films and am way more excited to watch the Oscars than I usually am. Well, here it is, last but not least, Silver Linings Playbook…

Silver-Linings-Playbook-poster

“This is what I believe to be true: You have to do everything you can and if you stay positive you have a shot at a silver lining.”

Silver Linings Playbook stands out from the pack in that it is an uplifting film with a happy ending. Are best pictures allowed to have happy endings?

I left the theatre smiling after seeing Django, but it wasn’t exactly a warm and fuzzy kind. It was that smile that a badass Tarantino gives you, that one where you feel kind of weird and terrible on the inside but kind of exhilarated at the same time. To be fair, Argo did have a happy ending, and the six US citizens were rescued from Iran. It left me thinking about the Iran Hostage Crisis, US foreign relations, and how crazy it was that the incidents in the movie actually occurred in real life (oh, and what a marvelous job Ben Affleck did directing!) But this is a different type of happy ending than the one in Silver Linings.

For, while I was happy to have seen Argo, and thoroughly enjoyed it, Silver Linings actually made me happy.

The film follows Pat, played by Bradley Cooper, after his release from a psychiatric hospital where he was being treated for bipolar disorder following a violent attack in which he nearly killed his wife’s lover. Pat, in desperate effort to win back his estranged wife Nikki, is in a constant state of attempted self-improvement, exercising obsessively, reading each book on her classroom syllabus, and generally willing himself to be better.

SILVER LININGS PLAYBOOK

He meets Jennifer Lawrence’s character, the emotionally unstable Tiffany, through her sister, who happens to be a close friend of Nikki’s. A peculiar and combative friendship forms between these two damaged souls, eventually leading to a love story. They have eccentric social skills. They are blunt and sometimes impolite. And while they are comfortable around each other and understand each other better than their respective family members do, they also seem to push each other’s buttons far more than anyone else would dare to. Pat makes constant reference to Tiffany’s deceased husband or to her being a “slut”. (“No, that doesn’t count, he’s dead.”) And Tiffany casually asks Pat how his restraining order is going. Neither of these character flaws would be bluntly discussed by a “normal” person, because we’re always so concerned about etiquette, sparing feelings, and not making situations worse. Pat and Tiffany in this film found a way to connect with one another on a small oasis of truth.

Which sounds weird since Tiffany was lying to Pat about having contacted Nikki for almost the entire film.

The relationships are what this film is all about. Besides the relationship between Tiffany and Pat, we see a spectrum of others that range from devoted friendship (Pat and friend from the hospital Danny) to strained misunderstanding (Pat and his Parents) to stifling resentment (Tiffany and her sister Veronica played by Julia Stiles), and everything in between. The little idiosyncrasies that render each of us “crazy” in our own way are showcased in the context of tangled and thorny interpersonal relationships to create a small snapshot of life and of human interaction that is strikingly honest and relatable.

THE SILVER LININGS PLAYBOOK 121116_MOV_SilverLiningsPlaybook_jpg_CROP_rectangle3-large

The script is fantastic. It’s funny, like really a lot of funny. And it’s touching and entertaining.

The acting, very obviously, was wonderful. Jennifer Lawrence, our new IT girl killed this role. It was a great move after Hunger Games, and I can’t wait to see what she has coming up next. Bradley Cooper played this high-strung, delusional, and idealistic character very well, but he has a snowball’s chance in hell at beating Daniel Day Lewis for Best. I LOVED DeNiro in this role. Seeing the softer side of him in the heart-to-heart scene with his Cooper makes you want to give him a hug. He could be a contender for Best Supporting (although I still think I’d have to pick Christoph Waltz).

This feel-good film was worthy of the actors nominations it received and of Best Picture. One can only guess who will be victorious, but it is worth seeing either way. Enjoy!

QuestForBestPic-Argo

Standard

Argo was the first of the Best Picture Nominees I saw, way back months ago. But, being the last-minute-mary that I am, I didn’t write the review until just now, the day of the awards show. But it’s done and up. I will be posting my Silver Linings Playbook review shortly (yes, I am strategically placing the happy ending films at the end.) Anyway, here it is:

article-2216161-1574A3EB000005DC-340_306x423

Whenever I see a film that is based on a true story, I am inevitably more interested and invested. The story of Argo is so incredible that it is hard to believe it was based on actual events, and it certainly could have been a great, highly entertaining film even if there were no truth behind it. With all the excitement of a fiction suspense set on the backdrop of a real historical political crisis, this movie was a home run for me.

The film takes place during the 1979 Iran Hostage Crisis, in which the U.S. embassy in Tehran was overtaken by protestors, and the employees held hostage for 444 days. Six US diplomats escaped the embassy before seizure and sought refuge in the home of the Canadian Ambassador and his wife, hiding out and waiting to be rescued. Argo tells the story of this unlikely rescue mission.

image Iran hostage crisis

CIA operative Tony Mendez, played by Affleck, headed the impossible mission of retrieving these harbored escapees. The ingenious and extravagant plan involved creating a fake sci-fi movie, which came to be titled Argo, using the ruse of scouting film locations to evacuate the six diplomats undercover and in plain sight.

The movie keeps you on the edge of your seat, biting your nails or nervously clutching your bag-o-popcorn, right up until the last frame. The plan, so improbable and so intricate, that it almost seemed sure to fail, and almost did more than once. While I don’t particularly enjoy the feeling of panic or anxiety, I do like when a movie makes me feel. It kept me fretful, uneasy, and hopeful the entire time, conspicuously rooting for our Argo crew to make it out. And while the events of the movie are serious and daunting, the creators left room for comedic relief. And this I appreciated.

argo01

I personally found this to be Ben Affleck at his best. Both in direction and acting he was superb. Seeing him as a man named Tony Mendez, however, was a little less than believable. Maybe he should have gone tanning before or something. Alan Arkin (who played film producer Lester Siegel) and John Goodman (Hollywood makeup artist John Chambers) brought the funny. Their characters were a central piece to the movie and helped take the film from scene-by-scene docu-drama to a personal and entertaining experience.

John-Goodman-and-Alan-Arkin-in-Argo

I was very glad to see the happy ending, and left in amazement that something so far-fetched had actually occurred. Bravo for bringing history and entertainment together in a piece that was neither stuffy, nor campy, and for creating a film that I can and will recommend to anyone, regardless of age or personal taste in film.

<<insert nod of approval here>>

130108_CBOX_Argo_jpg_CROP_rectangle3-large

Amour-QuestForBest Picture

Standard

MY review for Amour, as part of my Quest For Best Picture series. **Contains Spoilers**

emmanuelleriva_amour_LARGE imagesCAOCHMU9

If the emotional response evoked by a film is any measure of greatness, then Amour wins.

I just got home from the theater. I cried most of the car ride home, and then once in the bathroom since I’ve been here. My eyes are welling up right now thinking about it. I am so incredibly sad.

I was thinking, with the title being Amour, that I might see more of a traditional love story, albeit a senior citizen love story. I thought perhaps the suffering of one would bring them closer together, they’d fall more deeply in love, “still the one”, all that jazz. But this was a different kind of love story.

Amour shows us the depth, the brutality and beauty, of a love that has withstood time and joy and pain and just about everything in between. Both terrifying and admirable, this portrayal is perceptive and sincere.

Amour follows husband and wife, Anne (played compellingly by Emmanuelle Riva) and Georges(Jean-Louis Trintignant), through their struggle with Anne’s deteriorating health and journey. She goes slowly, suffering one stroke that leaves the right side of her body paralyzed. Wheel-chair bound and utterly vulnerable, she needs Georges’ help for the most basic tasks like washing her hair, pulling up her pants after going to the bathroom, or getting in and out of bed.

While Georges is out attending a funeral one rainy afternoon, Anne tries to kill herself by jumping out of the courtyard window in their apartment. When George walks in earlier than expected and finds her, she shrugs that she was sorry that she was too slow. She very seriously tells him that she doesn’t want to live any longer, doesn’t want to wait around for things to get worse. But she lives, and they do.

The second stroke leaves Anne completely helpless and utterly unrecognizable as the person she once was. Unable to speak or move on her own, Ann continues down the slope. And Georges stays the course, stating Things will go on, and then one day it will all be over.”

The movie caused me a cascading pendulum of emotions that swung from benevolent sympathy to gut-wrenching depression. At one point I recall thinking to myself in the theater I could have gone my whole life without seeing this movie. And been happier for it.

I’m not unhappy that I saw the film. But the aftermath is severe and so right now I’m generally unhappy. No need to worry, as I’m sure it will pass. But I think the feelings that the film has left me with will be long-lasting, or at the very least, will again well up inside of me when I recount the experience. Michael Haneke, Amour’s writer and director, must have known what he was doing.

In one scene, Georges tells an anecdote about a film he had seen as a boy that touched him so deeply that he found himself distraught afterward and ended up crying in front of the first person who asked him about the movie.

Georges: I started to tell him the story of the movie, and as I did, all the emotion came back. I didn’t want to cry in front of the boy, but it was impossible; there I was, crying out loud in the courtyard, and I told him the whole drama to the bitter end.
Anne: So? How did he react?
Georges: No idea. He probably found it amusing. I don’t remember. I don’t remember the film either. But I remember the feeling. That I was ashamed of crying, but that telling him the story made all my feelings and tears come back, almost more powerfully than when I was actually watching the film, and that I just couldn’t stop.

Yeah, I see what you did there. Projecting exactly what’s going to happen to me once I am finished watching your film. Well played, Haneke.

The struggles that these two characters face—the humiliation, the power-shift of extreme dependence and responsibility, losing a partner, and facing death head on—are intensely painful and difficult to watch. But that’s not what makes it so hard, and it’s not what makes this movie so emotional.

We, the audience, we’re not crying over Anne and Georges. We’re crying over our grandmothers and grandfathers who we watched lose mobility and shrivel down to half-size and suffer the confusion and maddening frustration of not knowing who they are. We’re crying thinking about our parents falling ill, the hard decisions we’d have to make, and whether we’d make the right ones. We’re crying about the prospect of being so completely dependent on others, of someday not having control over our own bodies, our own minds. We’re crying over the time we should have spent with the people who are gone when they were still around. We’re crying, during Amour, about the terrifying prospect that we’ll be Anne or Georges one day.

And this is why this film, as the film that afflicted Georges, sticks with you long after you’ve exited the theater.

Les Miserables– they weren’t kidding

Standard

Reviewing Les Miserables on my Quest for Best Picture

I was an almost Les Mis virgin before seeing the film. Almost because although I had never seen the show, I was in chorus and chorale in high school and one year we performed all of the songs. So while the music was familiar, the details of the story were pretty blurry to me.

Les-Miserables-Movie-Wallpapers-les-miserables-2012-movie-33248437-1920-1080

This being said, I was SUPER excited to see it. And let’s be serious, that trailer featuring starring Ann Hathaway was awesome. As a matter of fact, Ann Hathaway’s performance in general was phenomenal. In stark contrast with the rest of the cast, I cannot say one negative thing about Hathaway’s portrayal of Fantine. Her singing was haunting and lovely. She was beautiful and wretched and desperate and hopeless. Believable. The silver lining of this uninspiring film.

As for the rest of you….

Russel Crowe’s singing voice is nasally and unpleasant to say the least. His singing sounds strained as if each note in each song were a struggle. (I once heard a singing tip that it should never sound like you’re straining and that the audience would hear it and be turned off. This was in the back of my mind the whole time listening to Crowe.)Les Miserables

I can’t (or won’t) hate on Hugh Jackman in the same way. His singing wasn’t great either (by any means) but I suppose his character had more emotion and more life. I felt more compelled to like him. NO, not because he’s the good guy. I have no problem liking a bad guy (hence my strange affection for Billy Bob Thornton—real life!) BUT where Crowe’s portrayal of Javert felt flat and boring, Jackman got across the emotions that he was hired to display and incite. Like really, Javert is a huge asshole. I should have left the theater hating him, and instead I left feeling nothing.

And THIS, my friends, is the issue I have with Les Mis. It’s not that Amanada Seyfried’s voice was quivering and shaking (probably out of terror), or that Crow sounded like he had a cold throughout the ENTIRE film. No. What made me give this terrible review is the fact that after two and a half hours sitting on my ass watching this piece of work I left feeling NOTHING. Not one ounce of emotion.

Am I alone on this one? Did anyone out there see this movie and seriously love it? There were people crying in the theater I was in. I’m not some kind of hard ass, I cry a lot in movies. All the time! So why wasn’t I crying? Should I have seen the show first before seeing the movie? Is it one of those things you have to have background knowledge of to really get into? But…but…I know the songs!

IF this is the case, that you had to know the story already to enjoy the film, then it is probably not a good film. End.

Almost end.

I can’t sign off without saying Sacha Baron Cohen was GREAT! And Helena Bohnam Carter, come on! The two of them were perfection in these roles. (Not that I know what I’m talking about since I’m a nouveau Les Mis-er.)

I guess this is the end of my Les Mis rant. I recommend you see it, but only so you can agree with me.

helena-bonham-carter-sacha-baron-cohen-les-miserables-photo

QuestForBestPic-Lincoln

Standard

Being that it’s  President’s Day, it seemed an appropriate time to finally post my Lincoln review. (And by this I mean it was President’s Day…before I finished at 12:20am.)

Lincoln2

In case you didn’t catch the other posts, I’m on a mission to see and review each film nominated for Best Picture…

After all the buzz and rave reviews Lincoln received, I was looking forward to seeing it. My dad, a big movie lover, was as well. So we did.

I’m not a history buff, but the older I get the more interested in politics and history I become. (Is it me or is it so unfair that we teach this stuff in school when kids don’t care about it and by the time we’re curious adults most of it has been forgotten…?) The film looks at President Lincoln’s struggle to get the Thirteenth Amendment, abolishing slavery, passed before the end of the Civil War. The direction and acting were fantastic, but there were two other things that really interested me when viewing this film.

First, it was really cool, I thought, to get a glimpse of the Republicans and Democrats of 1864 and their respective party stances. I’m not going to insult your intelligence (“you” being the maybe five people who will ever read this blog post). I’m a registered independent. But the truth is I can’t vote Republican because I have a soul a lot of the stances of the current party I just can’t jive with. “Who votes on social issues?” I know, I’ve heard it before. Try being gay. OK, the gay card was a bit much. But seriously.6a00d83451b74a69e20167659bac90970b-pi

I vote on economic issues too, I just don’t think that everything without a monetary value is worthless. I really believe that for our society to flourish and to be the great people we imagine ourselves to be, there are certain standards we must hold ourselves to, there are certain necessities to which everyone should be entitled (healthcare, for example), and there are certain investments we must make, not because the profit is great, but because they are just and because they will benefit our people as a whole.

Now, don’t go calling me a socialist. I’m a reasonable independent thinker. But that Tea Party shit is Fucking NUTS. Logical Republican Americans know this. Do yourselves a favor, band together and make those lunatics secede to form their own group…They could be the “Mad Hatters” or something, if they want to keep the tea theme.

Anyway, that being said, it was actually very fascinating for me to watch the Republicans as the good guys on screen in this film. I’m not demonizing anyone, but in all honesty in 2013 who would we expect to be holding onto racism? (Hint: not Democrats.) I know it’s a movie and so the truth was stretched to be formatted to fit the screen, but, similar to how I felt about Life of Pi, it was really cool for me to connect with and root for the opposition.

What also drew me in was the reality of the good guy/bad guy complex that is so palpably demonstrated in this film. I mean…none of us are all of one and none of the other, are we? Lincoln’s best intentions were realized by corrupt, illegal, even immoral measures.

The movie covers only the last four months of Lincoln’s life, the end of the Civil War, the passing of the Thirteenth Amendment, and his untimely death. The Emancipation Proclamation, which had been signed in 1863, a year prior to where the film begins, was of questionable legality. In one scene, Lincoln admits to this, pondering, himself, the legitimacy of the Proclamation and the potential legal quandary it could result in.

I decided that the Constitution gives me war powers, but no one knows just exactly what those powers are. Some say they don’t exist. I don’t know. I decided I needed them to exist to uphold my oath to protect the Constitution, which I decided meant that I could take the rebel’s slaves from them as property confiscated in war. That might recommend to suspicion that I agree with the rebs that their slaves are property in the first place. Of course I don’t, never have, I’m glad to see any man free, and if calling a man property, or war contraband, does the trick… Why I caught at the opportunity.

09lincoln-span-articleLarge

Lincoln, a figure for the people, oversteps his executive power—the power granted him by the people– to ensure that his objective is advanced. A pure intention it may have been, and reflectively we forgive him this transgression. But it makes it awfully difficult, looking at the actions of one of our most beloved historical figures, to discern where the line of right and wrong lie, whether they’re rigidly set by some ultimate guide, or whether, more likely, they’re relative, bending and swaying as necessary, meeting at some eventual plot on the map of existence.

Honest Abe did whatever it took to get his Amendment passed, including cheating, lying, and bribery. His actions would get him thrown in prison in 2013, but, luckily for us, it was 1864 and the man took care of business.

Dad thought the movie was a little dry. He said he would have preferred more action. I found the dialogue, the back-and-fourth verbal jousting, to be quite entertaining. But I was a Legal Studies major in college and spent my days reading and deciphering case law and legal journals and debating absolutely EVERYTHING for years. And now I spend my time in the car listening to talk radio, catching up on the ins and outs of the day’s current events and political happenings. Soooo this film was right up my alley. I think Dad thought there would be more war scenes, which I was quite happy to do without. The presentation of the factual legal and political arguments tied in with the humor of Lincoln’s long-winded stories or of Thaddeus Stevens’ political trash-talking was enough to keep me entertained.

The acting was wonderful. I cannot say truthfully that the “character portrayals” were excellent because, if I’m quite honest, I’ve never seen footage of Abraham Lincoln or Mary Todd Lincoln or Thaddeus Stevens or any of the other characters. And yes, I did list these three as examples because they are the stand-outs for me.

Daniel Day Lewis is getting more praise than maybe Lincoln did himself. His performance was captivating. Lincoln’s quirks, his lengthy, at times exasperating stories, his manner of avoiding difficult subjects when he saw fit, and his soft spoken and distinctive speech and mannerisms all helped to solidify the idea that this historical figure was no ordinary man. And yet, at the same time, the honesty of the scenes of his and Mary Todd Lincoln’s arguments, the visual of a strained relationship between a father and son (Joseph Gordon-Levitt), and the clear inner turmoil and uncertainty about his actions and the potential for success, show the true humanity of our treasured monument. Bravo Daniel Day Lewis, and Bravo Steven Spielberg, and Bravo Doris Kearns Goodwin.

sally-field-as-mary-todd-lincolnSally Field. As with the multidimensional qualities I mentioned above when discussing Abraham Lincoln, Mary Todd Lincoln was also a woman of many hats, so to speak. She was difficult to like at times. She was very emotional. Screaming, crying, giving her husband absolute hell when she thought it necessary, aiding to her long-standing reputation as a crazy woman. But this fiery disposition came in handy as she used it to put Thaddeus Stevens (played by Tommy Lee Jones) firmly in his place at the President’s Ball. Another side of Mary Todd Lincoln was shown in the film. While emotionally charged and undoubtedly fragile, she also was a woman of concrete opinions and ideas. She was not merely a devoted supporter of her husband, but she was a powerful force behind him. She, a woman, knew of the goings-on of the presidency, of the political battlefield, she had her own thoughts about the best use of her husband’s power, and she was indeed one to be reckoned with. So another complex character gets my approval.

Tommy Lee Jones as the Asshole-With-a-Heart sort of melted mine. I liked that Thaddeus Stevens was disagreeable. I liked that his intentions were pure, outspoken, and unyielding. And I liked that when he came to that ultimate bridge where principle meets action, which he probably never imagined crossing, he crossed it. And I really liked the “twist” at the end, showing his personal stake in abolishing slavery.

It may have been long and it may have been dry, but I found myself emotionally and intellectually involved throughout Lincoln, and that is something of great importance to me.

daniel-day-lewis_original

This theme of actions vs. words, the blurring of the lines of good and bad, the sight of honorable intentions and dishonorable actions brings about the age old question of whether the means justify the ends. Do they always have to? Are victories less sweet when you’ve jabbed a hole in your moral compass to achieve them? Are pure and just goals reason enough to commit dishonest acts? Or do those ends become less pure, less just, in the process of objectionable procurement?

These are questions I cannot answer. But ones that I, and probably all of you, have wondered about.

QuestForBestPic- Life of Pie

Standard

I’m on a quest to see all the movies Academy Awards Nominees for Best Picture. Here’s my review for Life of Pi *Contains Spoilers*

lifeofpi

Life of Pi was beautiful. I just saw the film and I can see why it was nominated for Best Picture.

Much like the title suggests, Life of Pi is the story of a big adventure, and the life leading up to it, of a boy named Pi. He dubbed himself Pi in grade school because of the target that his full name, Piscine, made him for torturous teasing (Pissing). He declared on the first day of school that he would be “known to all as Pi”, explaining the significance of the mathematical figure and writing the number out in its entirety (almost), impressing students and teachers alike and becoming a school legend. Which turned out to be a theme of his life.

I can’t let this go. Because I don’t remember a lot of mathematics from school, but I remember Pi. Everyone does. IT is a legend! And Pi is an irrational number and also a transcendental number. I would argue that Pi, our protagonist, is also both of these things. Here is a quick Wikipedia article on all the different forms of “transcendence” (religion and math are the top two, go figure.) Anyway, I thought this was pretty rad and tied in nicely with the film. (And don’t we all love feeling we’re somehow smarter because we’ve picked up on the significance of clues the artist gives?)

LIFE OF PI

The first portion of the movie documented his upbringing, family and religious template. A practicing Hindu-Christian-Muslim, Pi found his way through each religion, keeping bits of every one with him. It was fascinating to me to explore this idea of subscribing to more than one religion. In the society I find myself living in, you have a religion or you don’t. Just one. And the ideological differences seem so vast and people seem so separate and so segregated from one another that this picture of multiple religions living and flourishing in one being was like a firework of original thought.

I liked the disagreement between Pi and his Parents Father. Father believed in logic and rational thought above all, telling his son that religion is dark, that one shouldn’t practice one religion, and certainly couldn’t have more than one. The reason this resonated so much with me is that while Pi, the thoughtful protagonist of our story grabbed my attention and got me to root for him almost instantly, in real life I’m on Dad’s level.

movies-life-of-pi-fact-file-8

I’m not religious, was never brought up in a religious home, but I would say that much of my family “has a relationship with God” or is spiritual in some ways or at least believes. When I was younger I went back and forth and ultimately became convinced that if God was real he would know that I was only pretending to believe and only just in case. I figured if there was someone up there he wouldn’t appreciate my farce or following, so I kind of gave up on it. I suppose now that I’m older I’d be more up to exploring the issue, and I’d love learning about different religions.

But what’s always held me up is exactly what Pi’s father brought to the table. Darkness. Like why is everyone killing in the name of God? How the hell (oops pun-drop) does that even happen? And why does it seem like every strict interpretation of religion=no fun? WHY? You put me here to what—work at some job and give money to church and have kids (in heterosexual wedlock) so they can do the same thing? So I “sinned” (which I wouldn’t have done if you had created me the way you wanted me) and now I have to what go to Hell for it? Or can I just give money to the church? Either way it sucks. Okay (since we’re here) how are priests born normal people and then go to priest school and all of a sudden they’re spitting the words of God like they had coffee with him yesterday. Really? Why, if being gay is a sin, are there so many gays? If he made us all why didn’t he work on that part? Gay people exist in every single tiny section of the globe. Literally everywhere. Very quick example.

Anyway, in addition to this darkness and hypocrisy that seem to be easily found when examining organized religions, there is also a lack of logic and of reason that doesn’t sit well with someone like me. I suppose this point was illustrated above where I feel the need to keep asking “why”. One of my legal studies professors said something in class one day which has become my all-time favorite quote: “If you can’t defend it, you’re not right.” This is literally how my thought process works. This is how I function. So when the “hows” and the “whys” don’t have good, solid answers…How do you believe them? And why?

imagesCA1OUXD7

Seeing the interaction between Pi and his father was great for me. Because I could identify with both of them. What Pi did was at the same time strictly religious and highly unorthodox. It was brilliant. And he had reasons for each thing he believed. Maybe I took something from it, because I’ve been thinking a lot about this religious aspect ever since.

Pi recounts the story of his great adventure to a writer. “It’s a story that will make you believe in God.”
And I suppose it could. But at the end there’s a little gotcha moment and I was left wondering who was right…Pi or me his dad.

121121_MOV_LifeofPi_jpg_CROP_rectangle3-large
So on this journey Pi finds himself without family, without friends, without anyone-except a Bengal tiger-lost at sea. The movie follows his dangerous and desperate journey through storms, and seas and near starvation. And of course terror of being killed by his shipmate.

Shit. Goes. Bad. Like everything is going horribly for Pi. And I hate saying it, but I was way more invested in the movie in the first half (through the first couple disasters at sea) of the movie. I HATE saying it because I really liked the movie a lot, but the incredible things that were happening to him, at a point, become sort of redundant. Am I a lazy American viewer? Maybe. I appreciate each of the things that happened to him, but the movie was two hours and it felt like three.

review_life-of-pi-e1353441124712

That being said, let’s get to one of the best things about this film. I need to talk about the magnificence of the cinematography. Every scene is a visual indulgence. It is breathtakingly beautiful. I could have smoked a bowl and watched the thing on mute like a 2003 Windows Media Player sound Visualizer (you remember those right?) I mean it was completely synthesized and computerized and edited and whatever other terms apply….I don’t even know if a single scene was shot with real people in a real location or if it was all done on a green screen in a studio. But I DON’T CARE. It was, in addition to being a thoughtful (thought-provoking) film, a display of artistry. And I ate that shit up.

LifeofPi (1)

All in all I’m gonna give the Life of Pi a thumbs up and recommend that you see it if you haven’t. Let me know what YOU think. Also, if you have the answers to eternity, please feel free to tell me what’s up.

Thanks for reading!

A Quest for Best Picture

Standard

By the time the Academy Awards roll around on February 24th, I will have seen each film nominated for Best Picture, reviewed, rated, and picked my preferred “best”.

So I’ve never done this before. I like movies but I am by no means a film critic. I am not trained in film at all, other than my Australian Film class I took while studying abroad. But I’ve been seeing a lot of movies lately and I had a lot of fun with the Cosmopolis review I wrote for Literary Traveler. Alas, movie reviews I shall write.

This year I decided to see each of the films nominated for Best Picture at the Academy Awards. This decision was really made because I happened to have already seen Lincoln and Argo and figured I may as well continue through the list (which contained many of my “I really want to see that” picks.)

bosw    lincoln   LifeOfPi_VerA_Poster_rgb   SLP2

I got pretty into this idea, and on my birthday, which was last Sunday, January 27th, I decided what I wanted to do was to see some movies. Kate and I hit one movie theater for an early afternoon showing of Silver Linings Playbook (which my mom and little brother joined us for), drove to the other local theater for a late afternoon showing of Les Miserables, and then hit up a Red Box on the way home and watched Beasts of the Southern Wild from the comfort of my bed. It just so happens that Monday is my day off, so the following day I saw Zero Dark Thirty with my dad.

I’ve put quite a dent in my list. Just three more to go.

Seen:                                                                  Not Seen:
Argo                                                                     Amour
Beasts of the Southern Wild                            Django Unchained
Les Miserables                                                   Life of Pi
Lincoln
Silver Linings Playbook
Zero Dark Thirty

lesmis argo amour zerodarkthirty django

I have to say thus far I’ve been really impressed (with all but Les Mis, which I am decidedly rooting against.) Lincoln I loved for the historic factor. I’m pretty into politics and law now, so it was fascinating for me to see the making of an amendment, the struggles of a nation at war and what it really took to end political stagnation and put something together that was just, right, and for the people. (Ummm…hello Congress.)

I heard great things about Silver Linings Playbook, so I had pretty high expectations. It was a really nice story. The character development was great and it was easily accessible for audiences. I enjoyed it a lot.

Argo and Zero Dark Thirty I liked for the same reason: that they found a way to make “true” stories into entertainment. The Iran Hostage Crisis and the hunting and murder of Bin Laden. Argo may have been more fun to watch, more entertaining on a superficial level, but this could be because throughout the movie you’re rooting for a group of people to be saved, rather than rooting for one person to be caught and killed. Grim if you look at it that way, eh?

Beasts of the Southern Wild was beautiful, moving, and disturbing all at the same time. An emotional film, the story takes place on an island off the coast of southern Louisiana and portrays a family, and community’s struggle through Hurricane Katrina. I went in with no expectations, but I can certainly see why it has been nominated.

Les Mis did nothing for me. Other than checking one more movie off my list.

I’ll have more in depth reviews of each of these films, and I’m planning on getting to the ones I haven’t seen in the next week or two. I’m probably most looking forward to seeing Life of Pi, although Kate said she loved Django.

Stay tuned for more of my Best Picture Adventure!

And please share your thoughts on any these films in the comment section. I’d love to hear! 🙂

oscars