Guardians of the Galaxy (2014) – Review

Review: Guardians of the Galaxy is simply an extremely fun and entertaining sci-fi adventure film.

The film is about Peter Quill. His mother died when he was still a young boy and he was kidnapped by space marauders, taken from Earth to a far-off galaxy, growing up among them. Now, as an adult, Quill is himself an outlaw bandit. His latest score is a mysterious orb. Finding the orb, Quill quickly discovers that dangerous people are after its contents, including an assassin named Gamora. She is working for Ronan the Accuser, a powerful being who wants to rain genocide upon the peaceful Xandarians. As Gamora and Quill fight over the Orb, bounty hunters Rocket and Groot also join the mix, as they are after Quill to collect a bounty out on him. All four are captured by the Xandarian police and put in prison. There they meet Drax the Destroyer, a man who only seeks revenge for the murder of his family by Ronan. In prison, an unlikely friendship forms between the five as they plot their escape and agree that the orb must not fall into Ronan’s hands (Gamora, secretly planning on betraying him the whole time).

Marvel started its cinematic universe with a few decent superhero films (most notably Iron Man) but nothing on par with the genre’s best; however, that has all changed. Phase II has been fantastic – even the weakest film of Phase II (Thor: The Dark World) is funny, action-packed, and very entertaining. Since the sheer joyful gallivanting of The Avengers and with its writer-director Joss Whedon at their creative center, Marvel Studios has found a formula that fits their brand perfectly – and they have been able to get the right people (mostly) to work on their projects. These films are incredibly fun, but also feature strong, likable characters and some emotional depth (to varying degrees). Guardians of the Galaxy might be their best standalone adventure yet (though, I could easily also say the same thing about Iron Man 3 or Captain America: The Winter Soldier too, which speaks to the quality of Phase II).

There are a ton of things to really like about Guardians of the Galaxy. It is in many ways a grand space adventure in the vein of Star Wars, mixing great characters with action and adventure in a visually spectacular/engrossing sci-fi setting; but, Guardians of the Galaxy has one additional key element: it is wonderfully funny and features superb witty dialog (making a comparison to Serenity maybe a more accurate one – not that Star Wars does not also have its comedy moments). The film’s sense of humor is juvenile to some extent, but also smart and poignant (it is not crude and lazy like say Transformers). Writer-director James Gunn does a fabulous job putting everything together, creating the perfect tone.

Gunn embraces the weird, allowing characters like Rocket and Groot to not only feel real but succeed as fan favorites. All five of the Guardians feel developed with stories, wants, needs, and emotions that the audience can recognize, take stock in, and care about. If nothing else, Gunn introduces five new Marvel characters for the audience to love, each with their own unique voice and persona (not simply just turning out generic caricatures of classic sci-fi troupes). All five are great, which allows the film in many ways to play like The Avengers (or the anti-Avengers) – a group of individuals who come together as a team. These characters are not heroes, however. They are not gods, super geniuses or morally incorruptible. They are outcasts – a ragtag group of misfits, which in many ways makes them more relatable. They do not set out to save the galaxy initially; they are in it for personal gain, but they discover a special courage inside themselves – a morality – and become heroes. It is a classic tale that we all know, like and want to get behind. Gunn understands this, setting up the film to take full advantage of its strongest assets.

Peter Quill is similar to Han Solo in some ways and Luke Skywalker in other ways (much like Malcolm Reynolds). He is an outlaw at heart, but there is something inside him that aspires to greatness. Rocket and Groot are also similar to Han Solo and Chewbacca (though, much more mischievous and rambunctious). Gamora, however, more resembles Black Widow than any Star Wars characters. She is an assassin who betrays her past to become a heroine. Drax is the muscle, but with a good heart and extremely loyal. In these characters there is something for everyone – classic sci-fi/western heroes, a strong female character, and characters who generate tons of great comedic material.

Conversely, though, I would say that Guardians of the Galaxy is a bit weak in terms of its villains, keeping it from being truly great (or it is one of the things that holds it back – I will get to the other main one later). Ronan the Accuser is a fairly bland genocidal maniac. He has some flair, but he is mostly uninteresting. Far more interesting is his chief assassin Nebula (have a similar background to Gamora, but choosing a different path), but it seems as though she is being saved for a later film to explore in a more meaningful way – here, she is just a badass but not much more is revealed. The same goes for Thanos; he is being saved for another film (Guardians of the Galaxy 2 or The Avengers 3). Guardians of the Galaxy is made to focus its attention on introducing the Guardians, that is its primary goal and concern, and in this regard it does its job wonderfully, but again the villains are a casualty of there being only so much screen time. There are a few good side characters, however, most notably Yondu – Quill’s sort of adoptive father figure and chief marauder.

What is maybe the film’s best asset, in addition to its main characters, is its tone and pacing. Gunn has created a film that is just plain entertaining and smile inducing. It is a pleasure to watch, blending laughs with great action to a very satisfying degree. The film is very tightly structured, always moving forward (which I think is an important attribute of successful lighter-toned blockbusters). Gunn devises all his scenes to support the tone – one of humor, adventure and sci-fi aesthetics. The weak villains do not really matter in the end because Gunn already has five other great characters and he keeps the plot moving and the film very funny and entertaining (or at least, they do not seem to matter as much, because the viewer is just having some much fun experiencing the film).

All that said, however, I think that Guardians of the Galaxy does lack emotional depth. Gunn does a fantastic job with almost every aspect of the film, but nothing really resonates on a deeper emotional level. There are big emotions and tragedy in the lives of all the Guardians, but it all feels a bit superficial because the tone is incredibly fun and energetic. Even seeing Quill’s mother die in the opening scene does not seem to have its full intended impact – probably because he seems to have completely moved on emotionally the next time we see him. The loss of his mother does not feel like a defining character trait, even though it probably should be or was intended to be. We want to see the Guardians win the day, not because we care about them on an emotional level, but because we like them and they are a lot of fun, which is again much more superficial. The great films connect with their audiences on an emotional level. The death of Luke Skywalker’s family (his aunt and uncle and earlier his father) at the hands of the Empire (and Darth Vader) has a real palpable impact both on him and the audience. There is nothing that meaningful in this film, leaving it as something that plays more as pure entertainment than as a full cinematic experience, engaging its audience on many levels. Marvel has their formula down for making fantastically entertaining films, but they still struggle with deeper emotional resonance (though, I would argue there are moments that work well in The Avengers, Iron Man 3 and Captain America: The Winter Soldier, engaging their audience in a more impactful manner). As fun as Guardians of the Galaxy is, it is still not quite on the same level as the uppermost films in the genre (both superhero and entertainment-oriented sci-fi). I say this having thoroughly enjoyed the film.

Yes, Guardians of the Galaxy may have been a seemingly huge risk for Marvel because it is a bit weirder than their past films and deals in unlikely heroes; but due to James Gunn’s clear love of and vision for the characters and world, the film is marvelously entertaining and incredibly fun. I am not sure if it is the best Marvel Studios film so far – it very well might be – but it certainly solidifies that with Phase II Marvel Studios is on top of the superhero genre right now, churning out great stories and characters that are very funny, thrilling, and adventurous. I, for one, cannot wait to see what is next (Avengers: Age of Ultron looks like it is going to be amazing).

Technical, aesthetic & acting achievements: James Gunn deals in superb and dark comedy, writing and directing films like Slither and Super, but Guardians of the Galaxy is by far his best effort to date. It exemplifies his great subversive wit (but it is not nearly as dark as his past work). I am even more interested to see what he will do with Guardians of the Galaxy 2, now that the cumbersome origin story is over with (unlike with most cinema, superhero sequels are often better as they allow filmmakers to tell more complete stories with already established characters).

In the review portion of this, I completely skipped over just how great the film looks aesthetically. Cinematographer Ben Davis and production designer Charles Wood (who are both working on Age of Ultron by the way) do excellent work creating a world that is gritty and realistic yet grand and full of brilliant sci-fi awesomeness (much like The Collector’s showroom). Davis lights the film to be appropriately dark and ominous in moments/places and bright and clean in others, giving the visuals a nice dichotomy, juxtaposing the villainy of Ronan against the innocence/morality of Xandar. Wood’s sets and design are rich with detail and depth. Ronan’s ship, The Collector’s showroom (again), the Xandarian prison, and especially the interior of Quill’s ship (the Milano) are fantastic. Tyler Bates provides a good score that matches the tone well, but it is the film’s soundtrack that takes center stage musically. The mix of great 1970s pop songs seems to perfectly capture the spirit of the film and its characters.

The cast is tremendous and perfectly suited to their roles and the overall tone. Peter Serafinowicz, Benicio Del Toro, John C. Reilly, and Djimon Hounsou are all great in small supporting roles. Karen Gillan is fantastic as Nebula with almost a frolicsomely evil menace (I hope there is much more of her in the future). Michael Rooker is one of the James Gunn troupe who make appearances in the film (others include Sean Gunn, Greg Henry, and Nathan Fillion). Rooker is great as space pirate Yondu, a role that is right in his wheelhouse. Lee Pace brings a lot of Shakespearian energy to Ronan, always gravely monologing; it works well. Bradley Cooper voices Rocket (who was played live for the actors during filming by Sean Gunn), the character who might just steal the film. Cooper has a manic energy – jubilantly rude and playful, yet with a heart (in there somewhere). Vin Diesel voices Groot, who may very well be the film’s best character. (Like with his voice role in The Iron Giant) Diesel does a lot with very little, displaying a vicious loyalty to his friends. Dave Bautista is good as Drax, definitely displaying the physicality, but also Bautista shows a knack for comedy too, playing a warrior who takes everything literally. Zoe Saldana does everything well in this. She certainly has the physicality to make a convincing assassin as Gamora, but she also displays a sympathetic heart, allowing the audience to believe that she would fight to save the galaxy despite her past allegiances. It is also nice to see that she is not just relegated to ‘romantic interest’. Chris Pratt was always going to make a great Han Solo type as Peter Quill. He has brilliant comedic timing and delivery, but also the confidence and swagger that typify the archetype.

Summary & score: Guardians of the Galaxy is the sci-fi saga general moviegoers have been waiting for since Star Wars’ original trilogy ended in 1983 (or for those who found Firefly/Serenity: it is the sci-fi saga fans have been waiting for since Fox cancelled Firefly). It is spectacularly fun. 8/10

her (2013) – Review

Review: Her is a fascinating and aesthetically compelling look at loneliness in the age of modern relationships. The film is about Theodore Twombly, a writer who has recently split-up with his wife and companion since childhood (seemingly not by his choice). Theodore is stuck in the past, the good and the bad memories haunt him and he is unable to move forward, transfixed in a stupor of loneliness and despair in a world that seems closed off. That is until he installs a new intelligent and aware operating system, which names itself Samantha. Theodore finds that he has a real connection and affection for Samantha, and even thinks he might be falling in love with her. But is it just another excuse for him to continue to isolate himself from what is happening outside in the world of actual physical people? The film is set in Los Angeles in the near future.

The concept behind Her is a bit weird – a man who falls in love with his OS. But writer-director Spike Jonze wins the audience over by making his lead character Theodore very relatable and by using the concept as a way to explore the transformation of modern culture, including modern relationships. That is not to say that the film does not exhibit very quirky moments and characters, as it does – because, after all, it is still a film by Jonze, a champion of the aesthetically interesting and conceptually strange.

The look of the film is fantastic. Things more or less feel similar to today, just a bit more compartmentalized with LA (doubled at times by Shanghai’s Pudong district) looking more congested (if that is possible) and featuring a lot more towers, interesting architecture, and more colorful displays and lights (LA becoming more like an Asian metropolis similar to Pudong or Tokyo).  People are often alone in the film, engaged with their electronic devices. Yet there are still people conversing with other people in public as well; it is not a society that has completely become modular, but it certainly seems to be trending that way.

With the advent of this new advanced intelligence and awareness in the OS, people find that they can have full experiences (be it friendship or on a deeper emotional level) without interacting with real people. It is a logical next step in a culture that hires third parties to compose personal correspondence for them (the job Theodore has – he writes letters for people), a culture that is constantly online, whose main method of communication involves technology, a culture that is not too far removed from our own. Already, we interact socially online to such an extent that real life contact is seemingly becoming a secondary activity, reserved only for specific occasions and activities or a particular few people. We are content to communicate via technology, often without the experience of actual human interaction (i.e. sending text messages instead of physically talking to someone in person or on the phone). Convenience has become paramount, overshadowing other forms of interaction. Isolation is also in many ways easier and less stressful. There are so many expectations when one ventures into the world. Isolation and technology offer a protective shield.

Thus, in our world, our culture is it not impossible to believe that the next step involves people engaging in meaningful relationships with objects that emulate human emotion and for all intents and purposes can imitate to the full extent possible the same experience that people can have relationship wise through technology (i.e. conversations via phone, text, email, et al.). If this is possible, what is the difference between engaging emotionally with a real person and software if the interaction is the same? In this way, Jonze makes Her and Theodore’s relationship with Samantha feel real and emotionally vital. This scenario, while maybe conceptually strange, is in fact very believable in context; plus, the audience actually cares about not only Theodore but also Samantha. She might as well be real because her personality and emotions sure seem to be.

And yet, Jonze seems to be making a clear statement with the film that we as a culture have become too dependent on technology as a means of social interaction. The film is completely respectful to Samantha, treating her as an entity just as entitled to existence as Theodore, but it seems to have an overall negative opinion of humanity allowing society to become a grouping of isolated individuals who purposely cut themselves off from the physical social world. Jonze does not like that print is dead. That physical music (like records) is a novelty. That a beach crowded with people actually features very few people who are in large to moderate social groups. He does not like that we all walk around glued to our phones or with earbuds thereby closing ourselves off from those around us. In this way, the film is actually really sad.

Theodore is extremely lonely, almost cripplingly so. He is so affected by his breakup with Catherine (his wife) that he just cannot imagine jumping into another real physical relationship. There is a gloomy cloud that follows him around (despite his rather bright wardrobe choices). He is just a sad individual, and to some extent has every right to be.  It is difficult to lose what you believe is everything you ever wanted, to lose the person you thought was everything you needed. In this way, Theodore is very relatable for the audience. We have all been there (to varying degrees). Heartbreak is a powerful emotional experience, one that often holds us back. We can recognize ourselves in Theodore – his sadness, his loneliness, his guarded hope that maybe one day he will be happy again, and his fear of being hurt again. Samantha too engages us. She too wins us over with her spunkiness and charm, her wonder, joy, and excitement for life. It is infectious, because for us life has become mundane and tedious (maybe not all the time, but enough that we are drawn in by visceral passion).

But, Jonze’s argument against what our culture has becomes starts to become more and more apparent as Theodore’s relationship with Samantha develops and changes. Humans need physical interaction. It is a vital part of our ability to experience life and emotions fully. We are so lonely and life has become so tedious because this physical interaction (and not just random meaningless sex) is a necessary component and it is missing. We need to experience the world and not just look at pictures; we need to have things in our hands to fully engage in the experience (be it reading an actual book, playing an actual sport or game, taking the record out of its sleeve and putting on the player) rather than just looking at the same screen all day. We need to do these activities with other people who are there in person and not just avatars online, because at that point does it even matter if they are real or not.

Her works because it is touching and emotionally captivating, and to some extent a rallying call to get out there and live our lives. We care about these characters and see ourselves in them (our own hopes, dreams, insecurities, and pain). And on top of all that, Jonze presents a world that is vibrant with aesthetically alluring sights and sounds. The film is a masterwork of style, narrative, and emotional resonance.

Technical, aesthetic & acting achievements: Spike Jonze is known for his catalogue of great and interesting music videos (including The Breeders’ Cannonball, Weezer’s Buddy Holly, the Beastie Boys’ Sabotage, Fatboy Slim’s Weapon of Choice, and Kanye West’s Flashing Lights). Jonze has also made some of the most creatively striking and eccentric commercial films. His first two, collaborating with writer Charlie Kaufman, are both great: Being John Malkovich and Adaptation. His third was the uneven adaptation of Where the Wild Things Are. While aesthetically quite good, it just does not work once Max is immersed in his imaginary world where base emotions rule. With Her, Jonze has made his best film to date. It is just as aesthetically dynamic and interesting as anything he has made, but where it really succeeds is in its ability to capture and really speak to both the plague of social technology that is actually making mankind antisocial and the emotional consequences that have arisen as a result (chiefly an unshakable collective loneliness). I also really like Jonze’s creative imagining of Theodore’s interaction with others (both human and software) online. The sex chat room scene is hilarious and the Alien Child in the game is equally hysterical. Despite the film having a deep sadness to it, I enjoy that Jonze still infuses it with humor and a sense of hope for the future.

Across the board the film is among this year’s best aesthetically speaking. Arcade Fire’s (working with Owen Pallett and Karen O as well) score is fantastic. It perfectly captures the emotional tone of the film, while also fitting the stylistic look as well. Hoyte Van Hoytema’s cinematography is exceptional. The colors are radiant, yet the sky seems to have solemn tone (probably because both LA and Shanghai have a ton of pollution that sort of just hangs in the air) creating a striking juxtaposition.  K.K. Barrett’s production design is really the standout technical achievement, however. His work too is mostly features a very subdued color pallet, which allows Theodore to really pop (with his red shirts). The overall set design is phenomenal as well (I wish Theodore’s flat was my own). The whole look feels very artistic and specific to the narrative and tone.

The cast too is wonderful. Portia Doubleday, Kristen Wiig (in a voice-role), and especially Olivia Wilde are great in small supporting roles. Chris Pratt is also fantastic and hilarious in a small supporting role. He just brings so much energy and charisma even with a tiny amount of screen time. The same can be said for Rooney Mara. She is mesmerizing as Catherine, even though she is mostly featured in flashbacks and has little screen time. She is able to convey so much in so little time, and her work is paramount to fully understanding Theodore. She is brilliant. Amy Adams just seems to be a chameleon this year. From her work in Man of Steel and American Hustle to her work in this, she plays completely different, yet all engaging, characters. Here, she plays Theodore’s friend Amy, a game designer who (of course) is a little quirky but feels alive and vital (she is not just the typical pixie dream girl). She is Theodore’s connection to humanity. Scarlett Johansson voices Samantha, giving her so much life and substance that the audience completely forgets that she is nothing more than hyper intelligent software – she is alive as far as the audience (and Theodore) is concerned. It is quite a feat considering that she gave her whole performance in a vocal booth without the interaction of the other actors. Joaquin Phoenix too is excellent as Theodore. He is able to emote so much, the audience can feel everything he feels. He is also able to make Theodore a complex character. He is primarily sad and lonely, but there is much more going on as he struggles with past scares/joys and future hopes/fears. It is among 2013’s best leading performances.

Summary & score: Her is a romance unlike any other conceptually, but through the skill of Spike Jonze and his cast it is able to perfectly capture the modern human condition in our culture of social isolation. 9/10

Zero Dark Thirty (2012) – Review

Review: Zero Dark Thirty is a taxing and intense dramatic thriller, ripe with strong performances and sure directing. The film is about the CIA’s operation to find and kill Osama bin Laden, which took over a decade. The story focuses on the efforts of the CIA officer that fronted the team in the field in Pakistan (named Maya in the film).

Zero Dark Thirty presents a difficult narrative challenge, and director Kathryn Bigelow does a magnificent job. The challenge is that the story takes place over a period a bit longer than a decade with multiple characters coming in and out. Plus, the whole third act (practically) does not feature the film’s protagonist, and finally the audience goes into the film already knowing the ending. Bigelow makes a series of good choices with her screenwriter Mark Boal to combat these potential issues.

First, instead of making it completely about the mission Bigelow devises much of the film as a character study centered on Maya – a woman who has devoted her whole life to catching one man. She has no friends, no personal life, and is even not well liked within the CIA for her relentless drive. The film feels so emotionally draining because the audience is completely invested in her, and feels the strain of her tireless work.

Second, Bigelow structures the third act to be utterly gripping as it features the two SEAL team assault on bin Laden’s compound. Not having the protagonist feature heavily in the third act of a narrative film is a huge risk. Most films would flounder or feel incomplete, but the SEAL team assault is done with a perfect mastery of tension that the entire audience is fully enthralled. Bigelow also gives Maya enough moments to still feel like a meaningful part while also giving her narrative a sense of closure.

When making a film with an ending that the audience already knows going in, the film needs to be more about the characters and the journey than the ending. Bigelow does this brilliantly, but again still gives the audience a captivating ending. The narrative has a sense of momentum as the information builds and the audience can feel the ups and downs of Maya’s (et al.) search. Maya’s emotional journey resonates with the audience making the stakes feel heightened, which is great achievement when the audience knows what will eventually happen.

Politically the film has raised some issues as well – namely the use of torture. Torture played a somewhat vital role in extracting information that lead to bin Laden being found – along with a lot of surveillance, ground work, and critical thinking among good CIA field officers. The film would seem to suggest that torture is a necessary evil to combat terrorism. It even goes as far to say that the information started to dry up after President Obama mandated that torture was not to be used by U.S. armed forces and government agencies. Do the ends justify the means, or does evil only beget evil – violence begets more violence? However, the film also shows the cost of torture, both on those that carry it out and on those that it is done too. Nothing is glorified.

Much like Ridley Scott’s Body of Lies, Zero Dark Thirty also seems to take shots at the incompetency and bureaucracy of those in positions of control and power within the CIA. The Pakistan station chief Joseph Bradley does not come out of the film looking too good. Zero Dark Thirty also points out just how much data is gathered and processed and just how difficult it is to analyze it – not to mention the resources it takes to fund all these continuous operations. It is an interesting look behind the curtain, so to speak.

The film is very good alone as an informative look at how the CIA found bin Laden and how the SEAL team infiltrated his compound and killed him. However, this would only serve the film for one or two viewings. What makes this film more than just a dramatization of the real events (to some percentage of accuracy) is its ability to drive deeper into the characters, the people who sacrificed parts of themselves and even their lives to find and kill bin Laden, or more importantly to try and keep America safe. It is this human aspect of the film that resonates with the audience and pulls them in (and makes this more than just a History Channel special).

Bigelow does not treat her characters like heroes. They are real people – flaws and all. The audience can see and feel the toll that the life and work takes on these characters, living in constant danger, working long thankless hours, and being asked to treat other humans as less than human. The film is exhausting, yes, but because Bigelow has done such a fine job with her characters and their relationship to and with the audience. The viewer feels exhausted at the end because they emotionally went on the journey with the characters (particularly Maya, who is exhausted by the end as well).

The film however does feature graphic seasons of violence and torture, and thus many not appeal to all viewers. However, Bigelow does not go overboard. The violence is actually fairly minimal given the graphic nature of the material. It is more emotionally and psychologically unsettling.

Zero Dark Thirty is ambitious in its scope both expertly telling its story and developing strong characters. It is an arduous journey, but one well worth taking.

Technical, aesthetic & acting achievements: Kathryn Bigelow has certainly asserted herself as the filmmaking authority of modern American war films with The Hurt Locker and now Zero Dark Thirty (though, I would argue that Generation Kill is a step above – but it is a miniseries). These films not only effectively tell their stories, but they also care about their characters. Her films are more so about her characters than events or action, which is why they work so well dramatically. She also is so adept with tension throughout these films that she never lets the audience’s attention wander (which is also why the experience of these films is so taxing). After The Hurt Locker, Bigelow and Boal seemed like the perfect team to take on Zero Dark Thirty, and I am not sure another filmmaker would have done a better job with the material.

Alexandre Desplat’s score very much sets the mood for the film as it pulses with tension and thriller aspects, ever driving the suspense. It is fantastic work, as always. Greig Fraser’s cinematography is gritty, which fits Bigelow’s realistic style for the film. Yet, he still is able to keep his actors well lit (maintaining the magic of Hollywood filmmaking), but not in a glamorous, glossy, or flashy manner. Jeremy Hindle’s production design also has a very realistic quality to it. Everything looks and feels authentic, which is crucial for a film like this.

The film is mostly filled with small performances as the narrative encompasses tons of characters for short amounts of screen time. Chris Pratt and Joel Edgerton are both very good, giving a relatable human face to the SEAL team that takes the lead in the third act. Mark Strong gets to come in and give a strong thunderous monologue that is great. But really, the stars of the film are Jason Clarke and especially the lead Jessica Chastain as Maya. Clarke is tough as nails as CIA interrogator Dan but he eventually is worn down by the stresses of his job, which gives a human quality to these CIA characters the audience is asked to take stock in despite their morally questionable practices (i.e. torture). Chastain is fantastic in the film. She is strong and smart as a whip, and not shy about letting everyone know that she is the smartest person in the room. It is her drive, despite the personal cost, that resonates so effectively with the audience.

Summary & score: Zero Dark Thirty is entirely fascinating, both from a story standpoint and more so its characters. 9/10

The Five-Year Engagement (2012) – Review

Review: The Five-Year Engagement is a different kind of romantic comedy, as it tries to present much more authentic characters and situations while also commenting on the expectations of couples who have grown up with the myth precipitated by typical romantic comedies. In its humor, it is both grounded and absurd (sometimes at the same time). The film is about Tom and Violet, a couple who gets engaged but life keeps getting in the way of them actually getting married and (as the title suggests), their engagement is dragged out, with each questioning whether they really are right for each other and should get married. Writer-star Jason Segel and writer-director Nicholas Stoller have structured the film in a much different fashion than almost any other in the genre, allowing the characters to be fleshed out much more than the genre usually has time for. While there is a loose overarching three act structure, Stoller and Segel present the film in a more episodic manner detailing the evolution of Tom and Violet’s relationship at different points in time – the happiness and love, but also the frustration and anxiety. The structure goes in the face of everything the audience typically expects from a romantic comedy, which is usually mapped out so specifically that the viewer knows what to expect with each plot point before even watching the film. This is not the case at all with The Five-Year Engagement (I honestly did not know if they would stay together or not, which is amazing given how overly predictable rom-coms are). In fact, the film begins where most romantic comedies end – with two people deciding they are perfect for each other, utterly in love and want to be together forever. It tells the story of what happens after that – sometimes happy, sometimes sad, a little messy, and a lot of work. Stoller and Segel do a wonderful job with the principal characters (they reportedly revamped each character with the actor set to play them, once cast), as they feel much more authentic and their drama more real than anything viewers typically see in the genre. They are very relatable and the viewer cares about them as a result. This authenticity is the most charming aspect (and maybe the best part) of the film, as it is so refreshing, charting the challenge and chaos that is life and love. In many ways, the film is also looking at the myth that romantic comedies have championed pertaining to relationships and finding ‘true love’, pulling it down and retorting with a much more accurate and unveiled account of what relationships are like. But, this is a romantic comedy all the same after all, and as such is still infused with those zany somewhat over-the-top sequences, goofy supporting characters and a few other genre mainstays that the genre has always demanded (especially in the third act) – and really these genre conventions are to an extent part of the fun and appeal. Overall, however, the film breathes new life into a genre that has perpetually turned out generic and abject emotionally staged and false narratives for some time now (with the odd great film – like Stoller and Segel’s last rom-com Forgetting Sarah Marshall). Humor wise, this film is funny, but odd. The narrative is mostly driven by dramatic and emotional moments, and characters that are struggling. However, this is a comedy, and thus is inundated with gags, many of which are very funny. The best humor in the film generates from the situations and characters organically, while the stuff, while still mostly funny, that does not work quite as well is of a more absurdist nature (and I say absurdist because this is a film steeped in reality and yet there are a few moments that are built around jokes that seem out there, like the dinner between Tom, Violet and Violet’s sister and her husband in which they are eating deer, using deer-bone utensils – it is almost like an absurdist dramatization of how Tom feels, as he is very unhappy at the point the scene takes place in the narrative, yet happening in reality). Whether using somewhat inane humor as a projection of internal torment juxtaposed to the reality the film mostly features was a narrative choice or not is unknown, but these gags sort of stick out as they seem to not be quite in the right film, though (again) they are still funny, and even maybe work a little. As a comedy, the film is very funny mixing crude humor (both sight gags and situational comedy) with typical joke areas found in the genre. Like most Judd Apatow productions, The Five-Year Engagement both has heart and R-rated humor. And like many of his produced films, it goes beyond the typical overly generic genre dynamics and presents a fresh take (in this case in terms of presenting real characters and drama).

Technical, aesthetic & acting achievements: Nicholas Stoller and Jason Segel have now made three films together (four, if you count Get Him to the Greek, which Segel co-produced and wrote songs for but was not too creatively involved in), the other two being Forgetting Sarah Marshall and The Muppets. They make a good team, especially with their romantic comedies bringing a great sense of humor and relatable characters. I look forward to their next entry in the genre. Composer Michael Andrews scores the film well, matching the light and more dramatic tones. Cinematographer Javier Aguirresarobe’s work is fairly standard for the genre, but that being said this is one of the better shot and visually beautiful films within the genre. Julie Berghoff’s production design is great, and she seems to have some fun with the juxtaposition of San Francisco and Ann Arbor as well. The evolution of the set design accentuates where the characters are in the narrative. As with most romantic comedies, much of this film’s success comes down to its characters and performances. Among the actors with small bit parts, Jacki Weaver, Lauren Weedman, Mindy Kaling, Randall Park, and Chris Parnell stand out. Rhys Ifans and Dakota Johnson are also good in supporting roles. However, Chris Pratt and Alison Brie almost steal (if not do steal) the film. Pratt, playing a more aware version of his Parks and Recreation character, has a lot of funny stuff; and Brie is brilliant as Violet’s impulsive and emotionally eruptive sister (she has some of the best stuff in the film – from her toast at the engagement party to her Elmo and Cookie Monster talk with Violet). Jason Segel has his character down pat – a lovable nice, sometimes awkward guy who seemingly could not be mean even if he tried. Here, Segel has a lot of emotional drama to play and does so very well, while still making the audience laugh. Emily Blunt is as good at comedy as she is at drama. In this film she gets to do some of both, and is fantastic on both accounts.

Summary & score: The Five-Year Engagement is a romantic comedy that dares to be different and authentic in its portrayal of love and life. 8/10

Moneyball (2011) – Review

Review: Moneyball is a good sports drama that thrives on excellent writing, but may have been more concerned with character than story. At its core, the story is about a man, Billy Beane the General Manager of the Oakland A’s, who embraces a new way of analyzing players and revolutionizes the game of baseball. However, director Bennett Miller does not allow to film to play as a typical sports drama. Sure, there are sequences and structural references to the classic sports story (nobody believes in the team to being with, they start down, then things get better, then they ascend to greatness or almost), but Miller seems to be much more interested in the character of Beane than the exploits of the A’s in their first Moneyball-era season of 2002 (and I enjoyed the sequences that did involve the team to the extent that when the camera left them to focus somewhere else, I wanted it to return, as if the character stuff was getting in the way of the baseball stuff – probably because I enjoy baseball movies so much). Miller wants to know why Beane would forsake the traditions of how scouts and baseball people had always evaluated players for this new seemingly radical model, and most of the film digs into that question. These sequences are effective as well, especially in their ability to connect Beane to the audience (which is behind him 100%, completely embracing the mantra of the new statistical baseball model for players). However, there is a disconnect between the slow character piece narrative and the typical baseball movie narrative. The pacing and rhythm feel off between these two aspects of the film, resulting in the overall narrative dragging at times (I would also argue that the ending is not wholly satisfying as well as a result). As a whole the film is problematic in its overall pacing and structure, but Miller is able to overcome this with fantastic scenes and sequences (sort of a ‘the sum of the parts is greater than the whole’ type thing). It is not a crippling issue, but it holds Moneyball back from being a brilliant film (as there are certainly moments in which it does feel like one). That being said, from a scene-writing and performance perspective, Moneyball is very good. It is a great character drama and a great sports drama, but does not come together to be a truly great movie (but it is really close).

Technical, aesthetic & acting achievements: Bennett Miller, now with two narrative feature films under his belt, has made a case for himself to be mentioned among the best directors of his generation. He is certainly a master of character dramas, as evidenced both by this film and Capote. I look forward to seeing what he does next. Mychael Danna’s score has a fantastical feel to it, which coupled with cinematographer Wally Pfister’s work fits the overall feel of the film well. The cinematography is very good, especially in the incorporation of historical footage and then matching it up to what was shot for the film. The baseball scenes have a very atmospheric look to them which works well, as if the audience is watching something grand and outside of time (fitting the mythos of baseball). Jess Gonchor’s production design is very good as well. The script was written by Steven Zaillian and Aaron Sorkin, though it is the work of Sorkin and his fantastic dialog that steals the show in a number of scenes. As a character piece, however, the success of the film largely comes down to its performances, which were all very good. Stephen Bishop and Chris Pratt are good as A’s players that Beane interacts with on a more personal level, while Philip Seymour Hoffman is fun playing off Brad Pitt’s charisma as sort of a black hole of emotion and inconvenience. Jonah Hill does well is his first major dramatic role. But, it is Pitt and his excellent performance that helps the film overcome some of its pacing and structural issues. He is wonderful. He plays Beane as sort of like a modern-day maverick cowboy – stoic and unwavering.

Summary & score: Moneyball has aspects of a typical sports drama (or baseball movie), but at its heart it is a very good character piece with great writing and lead performance. 8/10