Blue Jasmine (2013) – Review

Review: Blue Jasmine is in moments very funny, in moments melancholic, but ultimately it is a character drama that presents characters that seem to not be able to get out of their own way, constantly engaging in self-destructive behavior. The film is about Jasmine, a woman who was swept off her feet by Hal a very successful and wealthy businessman. Hal treated her like a queen, showering her in presents and luxury, and in turn Jasmine became accustom to the life. However, Hal turned out to be a fraud, stealing money from his clients to support his extravagant lifestyle, only to commit suicide in prison when caught leaving Jasmine alone and broke. After suffering a nervous breakdown, Jasmine sets out for San Francisco to stay with her somewhat downtrodden and estranged sister Ginger in the hopes of putting her life back together.

Writer-director Woody Allen has seemingly done it all with character-based comedies and dramas, often blending the two. With Blue Jasmine, he has made a film that while funny is very much a drama, almost to the extent of being a tragedy. All his characters are unlikable and none of them learn anything or grow over the course of the film. Instead, Allen is interested in presenting a character study to the audience of a woman so haunted by the ghosts of her past that she becomes a bit insane.

Allen tells the story a bit like a murder mystery intercutting the present with flashbacks that further develop the characters and relationships in the present while revealing more and more information in regards to what really happen to get to the point where the film begins (often contrary to what the narrative initially leads the audience to believe). It is a very effective narrative structure as it pulls the audience in, giving them a sense of being a detective of sorts, slowly revealing clues and facts – especially as the characters themselves are not particularly likable or relatable (at least not in the way the audience would like to admit).

Allen does a fantastic job with the characters, however, despite none of them being likable. He constantly reverses roles and expectations on character archetypes that are well established. This allows the film feel fresh. Jasmine, for example, is in some moments a complete mess – an alcoholic that looks very worn and weary who is on the verge of a complete mental break. Yet, in her element, she soars as an elegant woman of taste and class. It is this juxtaposition that also creates the film’s best comedic and most tragic moments.

While Jasmine thinks highly of herself and will not settle, seemingly willing herself back into her old life by sheer force, her sister Ginger has done nothing but settle in her life. She is almost void of self-confidence. Even though Jasmine is jaded and lives to some extent in a different world, being in Ginger’s life might actually be good for Ginger, to push her in the right direction, while Ginger’s ability to role with life’s punches and keep moving forward might rub off on Jasmine. They just might be good for each other. But again, Allen spends the whole film building up expectations only to undermine them once the audience thinks they know where the story is going.

And to some extent this is also the flaw of the film, in addition to being one of its greatest attributes. Yes, it is a refreshingly different drama with characters that actually resemble real people experiencing life, and thus it should be very relatable. But, the audience does not like any of the these people, and just when they begin rooting for Jasmine and Ginger to succeed in their endeavors of love (as the film maybe turns into a romantic comedy), Allen pulls the rug from under everyone’s feet – the characters and the audience – and everything falls apart. Thus, the film leaves the audience feeling a bit disheartened. The film is presented very much as a comedy and plays like one for most of the film, but the third act leaves everything in shambles. Basically, the tone feels like an escapist romantic comedy only to come crashing back to Earth as the catastrophe of real life loss and pain seizes the film. But to be fair to Allen, he constantly hints that this is no fairytale and that eventually everything will fall apart, but the audience is nonetheless caught off guard by the severity by which everything come down and the abrupt ending seemingly lacking in narrative closure – there is no sense that things will be alright in the end for Jasmine.

Blue Jasmine is entertaining overall because of Allen’s strong writing, the wonderful performances throughout (and especially from the lead), and the innovative narrative structure (applying what seems like a detective mystery structure to drama that mostly feels like a comedy). Yet, it leaves the viewer feeling deflated in the end due to it destroying everything it seemed to be building towards.

Technical, aesthetic & acting achievements: Woody Allen continues to churn out films at a pace of one a year – some slight missteps (like last year’s To Rome with Love, which taken as a satirical work is actually quite funny), while others are triumphs (like Midnight in Paris). What does not change is Allen’s great dialog, interesting and neurotic characters, and flare for comedy and drama. I look forward to next year’s Allen film, knowing at worst it will be forgettable but entertaining in the moment and at best another work of brilliance.

Javier Aguirresarobe’s cinematography is fairly basic. The lighting is good, but Allen does not go for much in a visual sense, instead allowing the performances take center stage. Santo Loquasto’s production design is good as well. The difference between the style of Jasmine’s former homes and Ginger’s apartment is striking, and visually permits the audience to feel some sympathy for Jasmine (despite her gaudy snobbishness).

The cast is very good, as Allen works with a new company of actors (many of which are unexpected). Peter Sarsgaard (smarmy) and Louis C.K. (awkward nice guy) both play characters they are typically known for in small supporting roles, only for Allen to twist the audience expectations, while Michael Stuhlbarg is goofy as a dorky, yet rapey dentist. Bobby Cannavale is good as a native of the Garden State displaced in San Francisco and Andrew Dice Clay perfectly plays a down on his luck working class shlub. Alec Baldwin shows up, as well, to do a variation on his Jack Donaghy character, which is always fun. Sally Hawkins is great as Ginger, the sister who has no sense of self-worth and yet is probably the stronger of the two. And, Cate Blanchett is excellent as Jasmine. In one moment she is magnetic, completely commanding the screen beaming with elegance, and in the next she is a complete wreck, a totally different person yet just as fascinating. It is masterful performance.

Summary & score: Blue Jasmine sees Woody Allen at his best when it comes to creating compelling and complex characters who are not quite likable, but tonally the film might be a bit too erratic – the fantasies of romantic comedy crushed by the bitter realities of life. 7/10

Warm Bodies (2013) – Review

Review: Warm Bodies is a fun mix of genres with a surprisingly fluid (yet subtle) message. The film is about two young people (star-crossed lovers, if you will) who happen to be from different sides of a giant wall. The zombie-apocalypse has happened, and the surviving humans have built a massive wall protecting them from the zombie masses that surround them, but they still need to scavenge outside their protective enclosure for supplies from time to time. During one such supply run, Julie and a group of her friends are attacked by a zombie horde, but one of the zombies, R, has an unexpected reaction upon seeing Julie. R finds his life as a zombie to be unfulfilling. He is bored and craves connection. When he sees Julie, something changes within him and he decides to protect her and not eat her. He takes her back to his home, and the two of them form an unlikely bond that could save humanity. Just a warning: this review does contain some plot spoilers, so seeing the film first would probably be wise before reading the full review.

It would be easy to dismiss Warm Bodies for many reasons based on its premise – like: it is just another zombie movie trying to exploit the current fad (headlined by the AMC series The Walking Dead) and a Twilight copycat supernatural genre teenage romance aimed at drama-caving young women. However, writer-director Jonathan Levine’s film (based on Isaac Marion’s novel) is so much more. Yes, it is a zombie movie and yes it does center around two young characters, one a zombie and one a human girl, who develop a relationship, but Levine also addresses social issues, fleshes out great characters, and infuses the film with very funny material. And, best of all for genre fans, it is a good zombie movie too.

Visually, the film has a very typical post-apocalyptic look – things are in shambles, civilization has collapsed and retreated into an entrenched area, and dangerous creatures roam the wasteland. Plus, the action beats are done very well, fitting what one might expect in a zombie movie. However, Levine quickly makes it apparent that this is not a typical zombie film, as it opens with voice-over narration from R. He explains the mundane life that he has as a zombie and his inner aspirations. What works well about this is that Levine has established R as a character the audience can relate to – how different is R’s life to the banality of the typical day-to-day life of the viewer (aside from being a zombie) and all R wants is to not be alone, which is what we all want really. Outwardly, R cannot really communicate, so the use of voice-over allows him to stay in character while still enabling the audience to get to know him. This is the first major difference between most zombie movies and Warm Bodies. Here, the zombie is the main character and not just the monster (and they are still the monster too, as they do attack and kill humans). The audience actually gets to take a stake in their story.

Levine likes to switch gears and genres with the film. It starts out like a typical zombie movie (with a twist, as R, a zombie, is the main character and the audience hears his inner thoughts), but after R and his fellow zombies attack and kill most of Julie’s friends (R eats her boyfriend) he takes Julie back to his home and the film shifts to more of a romantic comedy. Julie does not know what to make of R. She does not really like him at first (because she is terrified of him), but as she gets to know him she sees there is something different about him. R, on the other hand, is trying his hardest to impress Julie, as he has fallen for her almost immediately (a common troupe of young love in movies – the main character having a crush on a seemingly unattainable girl or boy, and over time they come around). R acts chivalrously towards Julie, trying to both keep her safe and to evoke some affection. They share some pleasant times and Julie does form an affinity for R, but this relationship only exists in isolation. Her group would not approve and likely would shoot R in the head, and his group would not approve and likely eat Julie’s brains.

While it is certainly not new territory to have characters from two opposing sides form a bond, Levine does it in a manner that still feels fresh, while referencing Romeo and Juliet (of course) and making a social statement as well. Shakespeare’s play is probably the most famous to feature star-crossed lovers, and Levine pays tribute (along with Marion, the novel’s author). First, and maybe the most obvious, are the main characters’ names: R and Julie for Romeo and Juliet. Second, there are visual and narrative references as well – most notably there is a scene in which Julie is on the balcony outside her room and R has snuck into the human compound to find her and calls to her from below the balcony. This is maybe the most iconic of the Romeo and Juliet imagery.

Levine seems to also be very interested in delivering a social message with the film about love being the answer to problems and not fighting or war. It is the love and understanding between R and Julie that unites the humans and zombies, rather than one making the other subservient or eradicating them. Once Julie gets to see the zombies interacting with each other, she realizes that they are misunderstood and not so much different than humans. One of the final images in the film sees the massive wall that separates the humans from the zombies being destroyed, which invites memories of seeing the Berlin wall come down. Again, Levine is promoting love, understanding, and togetherness rather than hate and fear. What is great about Warm Bodies is that Levine never forces feeds or is heavy-handed with this social message. It seems to organically come out of the narrative (a sign of good direction).

The film also has a lot of great comedy. The interaction between R and Julie plays very much like the normal interaction between an awkward boy who is interested in a girl. It is resonates with the audience because they can relate. But, it also has an additional comedic undercurrent due to the sheer ridiculousness of the situation: a zombie making googly-eyes at a young woman and trying to get her to like him.

Unlike Romeo and Juliet, however, Warm Bodies is not a tragedy. In fact, its resolution is a very neat and tidy happy ending. (Personally, I thought) it works well, but maybe it is too wrapped up in a bow for some – especially those looking for a zombie movie, because ultimately this is not a zombie movie, it just operates under the guise as one, it is a romance. The resolution seems too easy. Would zombies and humans suddenly be friends? Well, there are a few factors to consider. First, they worked together to defeat a common enemy in the Bonies (super zombies that want to kill both the humans and zombies, once they become more human-like). Second, R and Julie’s connection ignited something in the zombies that made them become more human, even restarting their hearts. And third, there is no timeframe between the events of R and Julie starting a revolution of sorts and the tearing down of the wall signifying zombie and human co-habitation. Really, the specifics of how exactly they live together do not matter, as the message of the film is what is important. We can assume that they worked something out.

The film also embraces many of the clichés of the romance genre. And therefore, yes, the film does feature many of the same clichés, but Levine has turned them on their head, so to speak, by staging his romance in a world ravaged by the zombie apocalypse. Also, a lot of the humor comes from seeing these cliché romantic moments played between a zombie and a human girl. The film does not shy away from the clichés. It draws attention to them and revels in them.

Warm Bodies is not just a zombie movie or just a romance or just an action adventure. It blends all three creating a very fun and entertaining experience, and one that actually aspires to uplift through its positive social message of love. It is the first great film of 2013.

Technical, aesthetic & acting achievements: Jonathan Levine has now made four films, though his last two saw bigger commercial releases. 50/50 and Warm Bodies have both been very good films, blending genres and delivering great stories with wonderfully relatable characters and meaning. He is definitely a filmmaker on the rise and one to watch.

Marco Beltrami and Buck Sanders give the film a score that equally matches its genre blending aspects. However, it is the soundtrack that really shines, as it features both great music and songs that poke fun at and play with the zombie and romance movie features (stuff like: John Waite’s Missing You, Bruce Springsteen’s Hungry Heat, and Bob Dylan’s Shelter from the Storm). Levine uses music cues fantastically throughout the film as well. Javier Aguirresarobe’s cinematography is brilliant. He creates varying looks for the film depending on whether something is taking place pre, during, or post the zombie apocalypse. During has a very bleak color saturated look, while before (seen through memories) and after are much brighter, angelically lit, and filled with color. Martin Whist’s production design is equally great. R’s home inside the main cabin of an airplane, filled with knickknacks, is full of character. The dilapidated and decrepit city (in the wake of the zombie apocalypse) feels just as authentic as any zombie movie.

The film is comprised mainly of only a few main roles, and the cast is great across the board in them. John Malkovich plays Julie’s father, who also happens to be the leader of the humans (because if she is Juliet, then her father must be the patriarch of the Capulets). While he does not have much screen time, he is able to create the sense of a menacing and vindictive father that would never trust in a zombie. Analeigh Tipton is fun in support as Julie’s friend Nora. She is kind of goofy and sweet, but kind of badass too (she reminds me of the girls in Red Dawn a little). Rob Corddry is brilliant as R’s friend M. He has perfect comedic timing and brings heart and emotional depth to his role as well (something that is very important in aligning the audience with the plight of the zombies). Tipton and Corddry bring so much more to their roles than the typical throwaway one-dimensional best friends to the leads parts that the romance genre usually churns out. Teresa Palmer’s Julie is fairly complex for a teenage romance film. She is dealing intense emotions with the loss of her mom (turned by zombies and then shot in the head by her father), a distant father who is driven by hate, a boyfriend who is pulling away, and of course the zombie apocalypse, and yet she wants to be in love, have fun, and just be young but does not really have that luxury. This is why her mini-vacation away from her life with R (once she got over her somewhat debilitating fear) affects her so much and why she forms such a strong bond with him, because he enables her to feel those things. Palmer is able to covey all these emotions drawing the audience into the narrative and love story, as she must carry most the scenes with R merely reacting to her (due to the nature of his character). It is by far her best work to date. Nicholas Hoult has a very difficult role as R. He has to be a zombie, yet be a character the audience can relate to and care about. The voice-over narration helps, however Hoult is able to do enough with his face to sell his inner emotions. It is easy to overlook the performance, but it is great work.

Summary & score: Warm Bodies is both an exciting zombie movie and a funny and charming romance. It even has genuine and positive social message. It does all this while feeling fresh and original. 7/10

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

Fright Night (2011) – Review

Review: Fright Night is yet another film in which Hollywood (in this case Disney) tries to cash in on the current (and maybe fleeting) vampire craze – and not only that, it is also a remake. But, much like last year’s Let Me In (a remake of Let the Right One In), this version of Fright Night is just as good as the original. Director Craig Gillespie’s film has fun action, a wonderful dark aesthetic and sort of a mix between a dark and light tone (dark in terms of visual, narrative content and the amazing score and light in terms of the Marti Noxon’s jovial spirit of the script and the fun the actors have with their characters), leading to a film that works quite well – being both entertaining and scary. It exists in a grey area between being a comedy adventure and a horror adventure, but seems to focus more on the horror aspects. The comedy works for the most part (mostly centering on two characters: Peter Vincent and Ed), but the film is not nearly funny enough to really be deemed a comedy. It is much more an action horror adventure (that also has funny moments, similar to say Raiders of the Lost Ark, minus the horror genre). Thus, those looking for laughs as the primary reason for seeing it may be left feeling a bit disappointed (and that is really only a critique on the expectations of viewers). Going in cold (as in knowing nothing) or expecting a horror film, it plays much better. To a degree (and I feel this is true about many films with characters that are not quite fleshed out enough or have potential for more – aka the narrative is not tight or strong enough to make the film feel fully complete or sufficient as is), Fright Night may have worked better with everyone involved as a miniseries. The characters have a lot of rich potential and the narrative feels very rushed, having to get through the whole story in less than two hours. Since there is so much plot to get through, the characters do not have enough depth (for my liking). That said, the story is good enough, Gillespie’s narrative does not stall or drag and viewers want to see the resolution and are thus kept interested despite the weaker characters (though, I imagine the film does not work as well on repeat viewings). All in all, Fright Night is a fun and enjoyable horror adventure (in a genre that seldom delivers anything but crap) that is worth seeing.

Technical, aesthetic & acting achievements: Craig Gillespie seemed like a good choice coming into the film from a comedy perspective (having a drama/indie style of comedy), but really what worked the best was the horror aesthetic he created for the film (it is my favorite of his three to date). The great aesthetic look of the film also has a lot to do with the excellent work by cinematographer Javier Aguirresarobe (who in a weaker year than this, as this year has featured a lot of really well shot films, his work might be up for a yearend LeapBackBlog award) and production designer Richard Bridgland (Las Vegas and the cookie-cutter residential development made for a great setting). Ramin Djawadi’s score is pitch-perfect. It is menacing, has sort of a classic horror throwback to it and fits the material very well (definitely among my favorite scores of the year, here is a suite). Gillespie (et al.) also did a fantastic job casting the film. Toni Collette, Christopher Mintz-Plasse and Imogen Poots (a star to watch) are great in their supporting roles, but David Tennant is brilliant (very funny and charismatic). As good as Tennant is, Colin Farrell steals the movie. Jerry the vampire seems to be a part that is just right for him – brooding good looks, an ironic sense of humor and yet still able to come across as frightening and dangerous. Anton Yelchin is good in the lead, but a bit overshadowed.

Summary & score: Horror films are rarely good these days, but Fright Night is a funny and action packed adventure horror. 7/10

Movie of the Week - Vicky Cristina Barcelona

This week’s movie is Vicky Cristina Barcelona (2008).

The comedy is about two best friends Vicky and Cristina who travel to Barcelona for the summer, each with their own ideas about relationships and love. Those ideas and what they want for their lives are called into question when they meet a handsome painter Juan Antonio, who takes an interest in both of them. The film is written and directed by Woody Allen (and is the final entry in his so-called Scarlett Johansson trilogy, with Match Point and Scoop). Allen’s dialogue, characters and scenes are fabulous and among his best. Working on the film with Allen are Spanish cinematographer Javier Aguirresarobe and production designer Alain Bainee (both new to Allen’s films).  Their work gives the film a wonderful immersive aesthetic, especially the brilliant shot composition and use of light and locations. There is a beautiful look to the film with messy relationships occupying space in the grand setting – much like the work of the artists in the film. Allen always uses found music to score his films. Here, he uses Spanish guitar music and the song Barcelona to great effect. The cast in the film is excellent – Johansson and Rebecca Hall star (as Cristina and Vicky respectively), while Javier Bardem and Penelope Cruz (for which she won an Oscar) co-star. There are also great supporting parts from Patricia Clarkson and Chris Messina, and tying it together is the playful narration of Christopher Evan Welch. The film is a must for fans of Johansson, Hall, Bardem and/or Cruz, and well as Woody Allen fans. His work in Europe (for the most part) continues to be very good (as can be seen with his recent film Midnight in Paris). As one of my favorite films of 2008, I love the dialog and dynamic between the characters. Check out the trailer.

Available on Blu-ray, DVD, Streaming, and to Rent