Essential Songs of 2012: Part 4 – Music Spotlight – July 2012

Artist: Best Coast Song: The Only Place Producer(s): Jon Brion Featuring: N/A Album: The Only Place

Artist: Chiddy Bang Song: Handclaps & Guitars Producer(s): Xaphoon Jones Featuring: N/A Album: Breakfast

Artist: Dusted Song: Pale Light Producer(s): Leon Taheny Featuring: N/A Album: Total Dust

Artist: Ellie Goulding Song: High for This (The Weeknd cover) Producer(s): Xaphoon Jones Featuring: N/A Album: N/A

Artist: Hot Chip Song: Motion Sickness Producer(s): Hot Chip Featuring: N/A Album: In Our Heads

Artist: Kanye West & Pusha T Song: New God Flow Producer(s): Kanye West and Boogz & Tapez Featuring: N/A Album: Cruel Summer

Artist: Meek Mill & Rick Ross Song: Black Magic Producer(s): Young Shun Featuring: N/A Album: Maybach Music Group Presents: Self Made Vol. 2

Artist: Regina Spektor Song: Open Producer(s): Mike Elizondo and Regina Spektor Featuring: N/A Album: What We Saw from the Cheap Seats

Artist: Stepdad Song: Will I Ever Dance Again Producer(s): Chris Zane Featuring: N/A Album: Wildlife Pop

Artist: Ty Segall Band Song: I Bought My Eyes Producer(s): Ty Segall Featuring: N/A Album: Slaughterhouse

Savages (2012) – Review

Review: Savages is a decent crime thriller with some good performance and action, but ultimately hindered by an awful ending and poorly developed characters. The film is about two independent pot distributors in California, Ben and Chon, and their shared girlfriend O. Ben is a peace-loving guy, who double-majored in botany and business, while Chon is an ex-Navy Seal. Their business is running smoothly and successfully until a Mexican cartel wants to partner with them, looking to expand their operation north of the border. Ben and Chon refuse, and so the cartel takes O hostage, setting Ben and Chon on a dangerous course as they try to get her back. What immediately sticks out about this film is director Oliver Stone’s visual style (it reminds me a lot of a Tony Scott film, but is also reminiscent of Stone’s Natural Born Killers, as if Stone is trying to recapture that films success and present it to a modern audience). Stone distorts the viewer’s perspective using quick cuts, image discoloration and black & white, all in an attempt to visually put the viewer in an anxious and uneasy position (resembling what the characters are feeling). The style in less capable hands could (and probably would) be distracting and even annoying, but Stone is skilled enough to employ it to the benefit of the film’s narrative. The problem, however, is that Stone does not develop the main characters quite enough, and thus the viewer is not fully invested and the visual style is not exploiting the viewer to its full effect. The relationship(s) between O, Chon and Ben is mostly told to the viewer through O’s narration throughout the film, rather than being shown visually. Stone does have some character moments between them, but their real bond is not really apparent from what the viewer sees (though, again, O tells us that they all love each other). Stone tries to convey this with three sex scenes, but most of the other scenes between O, Chon and Ben are mostly just exposition filled to push the story forward. However, without the emotional foundation the sex scenes are only physical and do not tap into a deeper more character driven emotional development for the viewer. Stone has a lot of plot to get through, and the film is just not structured efficiently enough to include satisfying character development to show in a meaningful way why O is so important to Chon and Ben, and why Chon and Ben love each other more than anyone else. But, Stone does present the narrative in an entertaining manner with fun supporting characters and well-staged action to keep the viewer interested and engaged. Plus, the story is compelling to a degree. The major flaw, however, with the film is its ending. SOME SPOILERS AHEAD – Stone tries to give the audience the best of both worlds – one with real consequences and one where everyone lives happily ever after (for the most part). The problem is that by doing this, Stone negates any emotional investment that the audience might have had in the film (which is already small to begin with due to the lack of good character development). The consequences ending is done to give the film a grand action sequence, which the film builds towards, but then by having it be just an imagined ending followed by sort of a cop-out ending (in comparison) the viewer feels cheated, and the characters feel even more hollow as the stakes were never real because there are no consequences. It makes the whole film sort of pointless. Either ending alone would have been fine, but by Stone giving both he negates the power of both – END OF SPOILERS. Savages is not a great crime thriller, but despite its poor ending and underdeveloped characters it still has enough good stuff (the negotiation scenes for example are the most interesting, as Stone sort of juxtaposes the seedy dealings of drug deals with the jargon and tactical strategy of big business) to make it entertaining and worth renting for genre fans.

Technical, aesthetic & acting achievements: With each Oliver Stone film, the promise of a comeback (or return to his previous status as one of Hollywood’s best directors, as he was in the 1980s and 1990s) is again brought up. And again, with Savages, the promise is dashed. It seems to come down to Stone’s inability to give characters enough dramatic weight and the narrative focus – Alexander is un-engaging with poorly drawn characters, World Trade Center is rife with clichés and tear-jerking audience exploitation, W. is unpolished and uneven, and Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps is again unfocused and dull. Savages is maybe overdone with too many story elements at the expense of the characters, again leaving the film kind of un-engaging (especially for those more interested in characters than action and style) pointing to Stone’s seeming inability to focus his narratives. Adam Peters’s score plays mostly a background role, emphasizing the narrative beats. The found music soundtrack stands out more, fitting the tone well. Daniel Mindel’s cinematography is very good. The film has a very mixed color palate, stylistically trying to match the scene specific tone in many cases. Mindel does a great job lighting the atmospheric scenes. Tomas Voth’s production design also compliments the tone, as his sets along with Mindel’s photography reinforce the emotional state of the characters and work to also push the audience into an equally anxious state. While the three leads in the film are decent (maybe bordering on flat), many of the supporting performances are very good. Emile Hirsch and Shea Whigham are great in small roles. Salma Hayek does good work portraying the vulnerability and power of the woman at the top of the cartel. John Travolta is very slimy and slippery as the DEA agent Dennis just looking to come out unscathed and ahead if possible. Benicio Del Toro is brilliant as Lado, a henchman who is looking for a bigger role. He plays Lado as a smart man who knows his business, but also ventures over the edge into psychopathic killer territory with sort of a menacing glee. His performance is the best aspect of the film. Blake Lively is adequate as O, but she is not emotionally engaging, and seems distant from what is happening to her (which is maybe because she is playing someone perpetually stoned?). Taylor Kitsch (continuing is streak of poor film role choices) is intense and does convey a deeper side with his eyes, but as stated above Chon is not given a lot of character moments. He is just stoic for the sake of clichéd lazy stereotyped characterization. The same can be said of Aaron Johnson. He is decent in the film, but plays Ben as the weak side of ‘Chon and Ben’, also relying on overused characterizations.

Summary & score: Savages can be called an entertaining decent crime thriller, but also yet another disappointing overall film from Oliver Stone. 6/10 

Movie of the Week – One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest

This week’s movie is One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest (1975).

The drama is about R.P. McMurphy, condemned to a mental institution that he does not belong at (or at least he thinks he does not belong at), he contends to bring hope and fun to his fellow patients. However, he is often stifled by the overbearing Nurse Ratched, causing a war of escalation. The film is directed by auteur Milos Forman, and is among his great works (with Amadeus, Loves of a Blonde and The Firemen’s Ball – Amadeus is my favorite of his films). He collaborated on the film with composer Jack Nitzsche, great director of photography Haskell Wexler and production designer Paul Sylbert. One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest, however, is probably more known for its performances from a fantastic cast – especially from lead Jack Nicholson, as his R.P. McMurphy is one of the great characters of cinema history. There is good work from Brad Dourif, Christopher Lloyd, Louise Fletcher, Danny DeVito, Will Sampson, Sydney Lassick, and William Redfield as well. The film won five Oscars including Best Actor (Nicholson), Supporting Actress (Fletcher), Director, Adapted Screenplay and Best Picture. In addition to being very well written and acted, it is a wonderful character study – leading me to question whether or not McMurphy is actually criminally insane. The whole issue of mental health and how it is dealt with in places like asylums is critically scathed by the film – it is both a harsh attack and a thoughtful discussion, which not very often the case. One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest is a must-see for fans of Nicholson and character pieces, as well as those looking to be familiar with the great films in American cinema. Check out the trailer.

Available on Blu-ray, DVD and Streaming

The Amazing Spider-Man (2012) – Review

Review: The Amazing Spider-Man is a mixture of things that work and things that do not work. The film is about Peter Parker, an orphaned high school student who gains spider-like superpowers after being bitten by a genetically engineered super spider. His powers are put to the test when a scientist, Dr. Curt Connors, tries a trans-species genetic experiment on himself and turns into The Lizard, who wreaks havoc on New York City. Peter also finds love in the form of classmate and fellow nerd Gwen Stacy. Being that this film has nothing to do with Sam Raimi’s Spider-Man Trilogy, I am not going to compare and contrast them, rather I am going to just let this new version stand on its own. Starting with the elements of the film that work: director Marc Webb gets the visual style for Spider-Man right. His suit is dirty and lived-in, not everything is glossy and clean. And the same goes for the world Peter lives in, it feels realistic, which helps ground the spectacle and fantasy of the film and its characters. Webb does a great job with Peter and Gwen (in terms of garnering great performances and the tone of each character). Their characters and relationship are the most compelling aspect of the film. Peter is cocky and wisecracking as Spider-Man but shy and somewhat reclusive as Peter and Gwen is confident and intellectually right there with Peter, making them a good match. First-love is something viewers can relate to and has a powerful nostalgic charm, and thus the audience relates to Peter in this respect. The action set pieces are well done and build throughout. Stan Lee has probably his best cameo to-date (both being very funny and seamlessly fitting into the narrative). And finally, Webb gets the tone of Spider-Man right (for the most part). The film is fun and entertaining firstly, but he also gives Spider-Man grave situations and consequences that he must deal with and that shape him. The film is light enough to have funny moments, but serious enough to allow the more dramatic moments to have weight and significance. Now the things that do not work: The principle issue with the film is that the motivations of the characters are not strongly detailed for the audience (if at all). Why does Gwen seem to really like Peter right off? Is it because he stood up to Flash Thompson? Is that enough for her to seemingly be completely infatuated with him, even though he speaks to her for the first time ever moments after standing up to Flash (and it somewhat seems like she does not even know his name)? Webb does not give the audience enough dramatic character development for their relationship to really feel organic and honest. As is, the audience accepts it because that is how it is in the books or the movie-marketing told them they are romantically linked. Yes, their relationship is the best aspect of the film, even without the strong character development, because the chemistry is great and the performances are great. The audience understands why Peter likes Gwen. Webb visually shows them that he does (a picture of her is his desktop wallpaper, for example) and has from afar for some time, but Gwen’s motivation for liking Peter back immediately and so strongly is not clear (and does not really make sense). Continuing with the issue of characters’ lack of motivation, what causes Connors’s sudden change of heart from wanting to stop Ratha from delivering his formula to Osborn for it to be tested on V.A. patients because it turned him into a lizard to wanting to turn everyone in NYC into a lizard like him? It made no sense. Webb uses a very sloppy scene in which Connors seemingly has two personalities that are fighting each other (one that is timid, Connors, and one that craves power, the Lizard) to try to explain why Connors decides to turn everyone into lizards – done with competing voice-overs (signaling that this was probably added and done in postproduction – also, random side-note, how did Connors build a new office/lab in the sewer? How did he get internet and access to the power grid down there? He is a scientist specializing in reptiles, not an electrical engineer – oh boy, this is getting off track). The problem is that this scene just randomly shows up. There is no set up for Connors internal struggle. Webb does an awful job with Connors overall. There is little to no character development, and thus his motivations are unclear, which in turn removes all dramatic tension from his actions. The audience does not care about him or anything he is doing, and thus their stake in the outcome is diminished. This is only worsened by the fact that Webb does not give Peter and Connors enough character development together either. Connors is merely some guy that used to work with Peter’s father, and Peter only relates to him in as much as to try to discover the truth behind why his father disappeared. Yes, Peter feels responsible for giving Connors the equation that made his transformation into the Lizard possible, but they never really have a true connection, which again removes the tension from the action scene in which Peter is trying to stop Connors and lessens the audiences’ stake in the outcome even more. The audience is watching it more so to see what happens and to partake in the cool action set pieces than a much more engaged and visceral experience in which they are right there with the characters and truly care about what happens to them (which makes more a much more enthralling and lasting movie experience). This is almost a completely debilitating flaw in the film. The characters are just sort of secondary to the action and special effects, propped up by good performances. Even Uncle Ben’s death is handled in a drama reducing manner. Peter is not directly the cause. Sure, he could have stopped the eventual killer maybe, but it is done in such a way that Peter is really only slightly indirectly involved, and thus again Webb has let potential character development and real emotional drama slip away. Without being the cause of Uncle Ben’s death (in as much as Peter is the cause in the books), how will he learn responsibility for his actions? Something that greatly shapes him as Spider-Man. Thus, Webb leaves us with a film that is spectacular in many ways, but without a strong adversary for Peter, no clear motivations for the Lizard (or Gwen) and very weakly drawn characters The Amazing Spider-Man is nothing more than a fun summer blockbuster, one that does not standup to the great comic-book films that drive audience expectations.

Technical, aesthetic & acting achievements: Marc Webb, coming off the indie hit (500) Days of the Summer, has shown that visually and performance wise he is a very competent Hollywood director, able to handle big budget action/adventure films. However, and this could be attributed to the film having three different writers credited (each scripting a different daft) and/or the film seemingly having a condensed runtime at the expense of some the characters (especially Connors), he certainly needs to work on his ability to craft a more efficient and strong narrative structure, particularly pertaining to strong characters. If he directs the sequel, he should have an easier time without all the Spider-Man origin stuff to get through putting a time constraint on the rest of the story. I suspect that the sequel will be much better as a lot of the important pieces are in place (i.e. a good cast and crew). James Horner delivers a good score that has a different vibe to it than most comic-book/superhero film compositions. That said, it did not have an iconic theme for Spider-Man, something that is needed in such a film as this (though, I did like this piece a lot). John Schwartzman’s cinematography is also very good. Schwartzman has a grand scale to his visuals that work well in the action set pieces. He also gives the film a grittier ‘lived-in’ look and feel, complementing Webb’s vision. J. Michael Riva’s production design (he is a carryover from Spider-Man 3) is great in a few places. Peter and Gwen’s rooms fit their personalities very well (the Rear Window poster is an awesome piece of set decorating), and the Oscorp tower in its entirety is fantastic. Webb did do a good job with his cast. Martin Sheen is quite good as Uncle Ben (Peter’s surrogate father). He has warmth to him, while exuding the principles of a strong moral code. Sally Field’s Aunt May is sort of a deer in headlights. In her eyes, Peter is a troubled youth (and yet it seems as if she knows he is Spider-Man at the end and that reconciles her feelings). Field is fine, but her character is not very well written. Denis Leary is fantastic as Captain Stacy, bringing energy to the film and stealing scenes. Rhys Ifans has a very difficult part. As shown in the film, Connors is very under written and lacking lots of needed character moments. But, Ifans does bring humanity to Connors even so. Emma Stone is brilliant as Gwen (maybe even stealing the whole movie). The audience gets why Peter likes her, because they like her. She is cool and sweet, but capable of fending for herself. She does not need to be rescued (which is refreshing). Andrew Garfield plays Peter well. He is a loner, who is going through a lot of tough emotional stuff, dating back to his parents’ death. Yet, Spider-Man is almost like an emotional release for him, something that allows him to finally experience pure joy. And, Garfield is able to covey that well.

Summary & score: The Amazing Spider-Man is a fun enjoyable superhero film and good first chapter to potentially a new trilogy, but pales in comparison to the great films in its genre. 7/10

Magic Mike (2012) – Review

Review: Magic Mike is more than just the spectacle of attractive men dancing without shirts on. It is a solid drama about growing up and deciding what is important in life. The film is about Mike, an entrepreneur who wants to start his own custom furniture business, but is drawn to the party lifestyle of his night job as an exotic dancer. During one of Mike’s day jobs, he meets Adam, an aimless recent college dropout, who Mike brings into his lifestyle, and introduces him to dancing. With Adam, however, also comes his sister Brooke, who challenges Mike on what he really wants out of life. Director Steven Soderbergh structures the narrative with a protagonist who is a veteran of the business looking to make a change, but he also has an outsider (Adam) who get introduced to the world as the secondary lead (when typically, this type of character would probably be the protagonist). Soderbergh does commit a lot of screen time to what could be called “eye candy” sequences (much like a blockbuster), but does not forget to give his characters, especially Mike, Adam and Brooke character moments and real drama, which ultimately is what makes the film compelling. Mike’s struggle to find himself is something the audience can connect with, as we all go through something similar when we make decisions about the future. Soderbergh also structures Mike’s character arc simplistically, which is good, because again he commits a lot of time to dancing sequences. A complicated dramatic arc would potentially have made the film more tedious and/or overly long. However, while the film works well as a drama, it does have a few issues, namely the pacing is a tad slow at times and Mike is not really the most interesting character in the film. Adam, as an outsider being drawn in by the bright lights, naïve to the consequences (much like Nomi in Showgirls), seems like he would have been a more interesting character to have the narrative follow. Rather, Adam is sort of like a younger version of Mike, thus the audience sees both the beginning and end of Mike’s career through two characters at the same time. The advantage of the outsider is that he, like the viewer, needs to be told about how things work, and thus is someone the audience can identify with more so than a veteran of the game like Mike. The other disadvantage of essentially splitting the protagonist to a degree between two characters is that the supporting characters are not given much depth. The viewers do get some insight into Brooke and a little into Dallas (Mike’s boss), but the other male dancers are just background. Mike alone is not quite a strong enough character to carry the narrative, which does hurt the film a bit. Magic Mike, overall, is exactly what it sets out to be – a good drama with lots of male stripping (for its so inclined fans), but it is not really a film about male strippers. Mike could have done anything, as really it is about him growing up and finding himself, and here it works, but only to a degree as Mike is not quite a well-drawn enough character.

Technical, aesthetic & acting achievements: Steven Soderbergh is often known for his visual style, using techniques more prevalent in the 1960s and 1970s than modern cinema (like optical zooms), but with Magic Mike he shot it in a fairly straightforward manner, allowing the performances to play. The dance sequences have more of an artistic style, and there is a drug-use scene that is done in a fairly typical distorted manner. Soderbergh, who also serves as the film’s cinematographer (something he often does), uses lighting gels or postproduction color correction in a few of the outside scenes to make Mike’s world look a little dirtier, with the sky a dirty yellow as opposed to a blue (it is very noticeable in the sandbar party scene), maybe as a comment on Mike’s lifestyle (or society’s view on it). The soundtrack for the film worked well with the tone and dancing style. Howard Cummings’s production design is fairly straightforward as well. There is nothing that stands out, as the film is presented to take place in a realistic space (though, I got the sense that despite Mike wanting to save money, he still lived a bit above his means from the design work for Mike’s house). The cast is good overall. Olivia Munn is good in what could be considered her dramatic feature debut, playing Joanna a character that just uses Mike. She serves as sort of the general societal opinion of Mike. Matthew McConaughey is also good in support. His Dallas resembles a modern and older version of his Dazed and Confused character, just trying desperately to cling to his fleeting youth. Alex Pettyfer and Cody Horn both have breakout performances in the film, and sort of steal it as secondary leads. Pettyfer plays Adam as a wide-eyed troublemaker who is just looking for an excuse to make easy money and not have responsibility (again, seeing his character arc might have been more interesting). Horn is good as Adam’s easygoing but concerned sister Brooke, who serves as the moral center for the film, and the saving grace to some extent for Mike. Channing Tatum continues to improve as both a leading man and actor. Here, he is good, but Mike is not a great character and thus he does not really have too much dramatic acting to do.

Summary & Score: Magic Mike has both spectacle and drama making for a good film. 7/10

Ted (2012) – Review

Review: Ted is a very funny mixture of a 1980s style family adventure and a modern crude comedy. The film is about John Bennett, a kid who grew up in New England without any friends so he wishes his toy bear would come to life and be his real friend. It comes true, and they promise to be friends forever. Fast forward twenty-six years, John is a thirty-five-year old loser who still has not grown up, goofing around drinking and smoking pot with his teddy bear Ted. John’s girlfriend Lori is ready to move to the next stage of their life together and asks John to grow up, causing a riff between John and his dearest childhood friend. Writer-director Seth MacFarlane crafts the narrative to be a story about a man child who needs to grow up, and in this the film and the character of John are decent. The story works well enough touching on friendship and relationships, but really the main focus is on the comedy, which is centered on both the silliness of a walking talking stuffed bear and crude humor. As a comedy, the film is brilliant and extremely funny. MacFarlane knows his intended audience well. He has a ton of nostalgic 1980s jokes and throwbacks (Flash Gordon, Tiffany and Indiana Jones to name a few – loved the Indiana Jones hat reference) mixed with Judd Apatow style crude humor (drugs, violence, language, and so on). It works very well. The whole narrative device of a teddy bear who comes to life feels very much like the family adventure films I grew up with (stuff like Mac and Me, Short Circuit, Labyrinth, The Goonies), only mixed with adult humor, since most moviegoers who know the references are in their 30s and 40s now. I actually wonder if younger viewers will get the joke, tonal and cinematic references or will the crude humor just have to carry them through the film. MacFarlane does a good job keeping the tone feeling magical like the 1980s films, despite the crude humor which is a very big part of the film, as the overall narrative needs the magic to feel genuine. Ted is more than just a typical modern crude comedy, which are seemingly abundant (though, still very enjoyable when done well). It is the nostalgic appeal and feel that make the film special.

Technical, aesthetic & acting achievements: Seth MacFarlane has successfully transitioned between TV and feature film. Ted somewhat feels like his Family Guy TV show, but really it shows that MacFarlane can be a force in feature comedy as well. Walter Murphy’s score very much sounds like his work in Family Guy (at least some of the Stewie/Brian episodes), but it fits the tone here. Michael Barrett’s cinematography and Stephen Lineweaver’s production design ground the narrative in reality, allowing the magical tone to stem more from the music. The characters are not that deep in the film, as really they do not need to be. John’s character arc is simple and generic (in that it is one we have all seen many times), and thus the audience can relate because they already know the story and characters to some extent, and more importantly they are there to laugh (and the film achieves that primarily). That said, there is not a lot of great dramatic work for the actors, all they need to do is be funny and hit their comedic timing and have chemistry (which are all things just as difficult in many ways as drama, in different ways). Joel McHale, Giovanni Ribisi, Patrick Warburton, and Sam Jones are all good and funny in their supporting roles. Mila Kunis has some funny stuff as Lori, but has the task of playing the straight-character for much of the film. Mark Wahlberg is much funnier in this than he was in The Other Guys. He plays the typical man-child loser with a good heart well. Seth MacFalane voicing Ted steals the movie though (as we all probably expected). He voice work is perfect and hilarious.

Summary & score: Ted has heart, teaches friendship, has a lot of nostalgic awesomeness, and is very funny. 8/10

At the Movies – July 2012 – Part 3: Most Anticipated Films

Must See of the Month:

The Dark Knight Rises (Christopher Nolan) – Adventure Crime Thriller – Jul 20

Summary: The final chapter to The Dark Knight Trilogy. The story begins eight years after Batman took the fall for Harvey Dent’s crimes. A new terrorist group led by Bane has run rampage over Gotham and its police force. Bruce Wayne must bring Batman back for one final struggle to save Gotham. Filmmakers: Writer-director Chris Nolan is probably the most prolific of his generation, being an auteur who has achieved excellent critical praise and enormous box office success with his films (and has yet, seven films in, to make a bad or even marginal film). He has his Batman Begins and The Dark Knight team back behind the camera with Jonathan Nolan and David Goyer also working on the screenplay and story (respectively), producer Emma Thomas, composer Hans Zimmer, cinematographer Wally Pfister, editor Lee Smith, and production designer Nathan Crowley (who is working with Kevin Kavanaugh, the supervising art director on The Dark Knight). Cast: Also returning are star Christian Bale, co-stars Gary Oldman, Michael Caine, and Morgan Freeman and Liam Neeson and Nestor Carbonell in support. New are co-stars Tom Hardy, Anne Hathaway and Joseph Gordon-Levitt, and Marion Cotillard, Aidan Gillen, Matthew Modine, and Juno Temple in support. It is a fantastic cast, and probably the best of any film so far this year. Expectations: As much as I was looking forward to The Avengers and Moonrise Kingdom (my two favorite films of 2012 so far), neither was even close to the anticipation I have for The Dark Knight Rises. I fully expect it to be the best film of the year (anything less would be sort of a letdown, which is a lot to put on a film and filmmaker, but that is honestly the pressure than most fans have put on Nolan). I have said that Spider-Man 2 is my favorite superhero/comic book film and that is true, but The Dark Knight and Batman Begins are right there with it. Nolan has brought so much to the film version of Batman (forever changing the landscape for darker heroes), and with Raimi really promoted comic book films not only as money-makers but as wonderful genre films that are not just among the best of a given year but of the decade as well. The action is going to be great, but really what sets Nolan’s Batman ahead of other adventure/action/crime films are his deep and well-drawn characters (starting with his impeccable casting). I am really excited to see what Gordon-Levitt, Cotillard, Temple, and especially Hardy bring to the franchise (following in big footsteps – both from returning and non-returning cast members). Hathaway is not an actress I really seek out in movies, but I completely trust Nolan and think her Selina Kyle will be good. The Dark Knight Rises is the must-see of July. Re-watch Batman Begins and The Dark Knight and get ready for something special on July 20^th (and if you can, see it in IMAX, as over an hour of the film is shot with IMAX cameras). Trailer: Here. Review: Here. 

At the Movies – July 2012 – Part 2: Hollywood Films

Serious Films:

Savages (Oliver Stone) – Crime Thriller – Jul 7

Summary: Pot growers Ben and Chon have a good life, business and shared girlfriend they both love and who loves them – it is all working out. But, everything falls apart when she is kidnapped by a Mexican drug cartel. Now they must go to extremes to get her back. Filmmakers: It seems like every time director Oliver Stone has a new film everyone is quick to call it his comeback picture, as he is known for the great films Platoon, Wall Street, JFK (my favorite), and Natural Born Killers but has not really made another to the level of those films in almost two decades. He is working with relative newcomers composer Adam Peters and production designer Tomas Voth and excellent action cinematographer Daniel Mindel (John Carter). Cast: Taylor Kitsch and Aaron Johnson star with Blake Lively co-starring. John Travolta, Salma Hayek, Emile Hirsch, Benicio Del Toro, Joel David Moore, Shea Whigham, and Demian Bichir feature in support. Expectations: Savages has the potential to be a very fun and entertaining action-thriller, and Oliver Stone could use a commercial and critic hit. Based on the trailer, I am looking forward to seeing it as a good summer film. It is probably worth checking out for action oriented thriller fans (let us just hope Stone does not bog the narrative down in preachy border/war-on-drugs politics and just allows it to be a fun film). Trailer: Here. Review: Here.

Action/Adventure:

The Amazing Spider-Man (Marc Webb) – Adventure – Jul 3

Summary: Rebooting the Spider-Man franchise, the new Peter Parker has a new origin story. Peter sets out to find out what happened to his parents causing them to disappear when he was young. His search leads him to his father’s former partner Dr. Curt Connors. Meanwhile, he develops a relationship with his first love Gwen Stacy, whose father the chief of police hurts his alter ego down. Filmmakers: Director Marc Webb, coming off (500) Days of the Summer, seemed like an odd choice for Sony to task with revamping their flagship franchise, but picking good filmmakers (and potentially blooming auteurs) with less experience over Hollywood action/adventure veterans to helm big franchise movies has paid off in the past commercially and critically (Tim Burton – Batman, Christopher Nolan – Batman Begins, Peter Jackson – The Lord of the Rings, Sam Raimi – Spider-Man, Matthew Vaughn – X-Men: First Class, Bryan Singer – X-Men, Alfonso Cuaron – Prisoner of Azkaban, Joss Whedon – The Avengers, and probably Sam Mendes - Skyfall). Webb is working with great composer James Horner (Avatar), cinematographer John Schwartzman (Armageddon) and production designer J. Michael Riva (Spider-Man 3). Cast: Webb also has a fantastic group of actors as well with Andrew Garfield starring and Emma Stone and Rhys Ifans co-starring. Denis Leary, Martin Sheen, Sally Field, Irrfan Khan, Campbell Scott, and Embeth Davidtz feature in support. Expectations: When The Amazing Spider-Man was announced, I was really disappointed that Sony was not going to give Raimi his Spider-Man 4 (especially since Sony had essentially taken Spider-Man 3 creatively away from Raimi during shooting and ruined it to some extent). Spider-Man 2 is still my favorite superhero/comic book film to date, and I really like what Raimi did with the character of Peter Parker. Though, while I did enjoy Spider-Man 3, ‘dark’ Peter was a bit too campy and silly. All that said, The Amazing Spider-Man became something I have been looking forward to since the casting of Garfield and Stone (both among the best young actors right now). Most know Garfield from The Social Network, but he is also wonderful in Never Let Me Go, Red Riding: In the Year of Our Lord 1974 and Boy A. Early reviews point to their acting and chemistry as the best part of the film, and with Webb directing I am not surprised, as it seemed logical that he would take a more relationship and character oriented approach (than action and special effects over everything – the typical Hollywood way). I think this will be on par with Raimi’s first in the series, but not as good as Spider-Man 2 (and probably not close). And, as much as I would have liked to have seen Raimi’s fourth film, a good Spider-Man film by a new director is better than none at all. Trailer: Here. Review: Here.

Comedy:

The Watch (Akiva Schaffer) – Sci-Fi Action Comedy – Jul 27

Summary:  A group of suburban dads get together a form a neighborhood watch group, not so much to keep the neighborhood safe but more so to goof off and get out of day-to-day family events that have become mundane. However, when aliens invade Earth, they must step up and defend their homes. Filmmakers: Creatively, the film has a good team with Lonely Island member Akiva Schaffer directing his second feature (his first is the very funny, under-seen Hot Rod) and a script from Evan Goldberg and Seth Rogan (Superbad, Pineapple Express and The Green Hornet). Schaffer is working with a good genre specific group including composer Christophe Beck (The Muppets), cinematographer Barry Peterson (21 Jump Street) and production designer Doug Meerdink (Cedar Rapids). Cast: The film stars Jonah Hill, Ben Stiller, Vince Vaughn, and Richard Ayoade. Rosemarie DeWitt, Billy Crudup, R. Lee Ermey, Will Forte, and Jorma Taccone populate the supporting cast. Expectations: Schaffer directed most of the Lonely Island videos and did a great job with Hot Rod – The Watch could be his breakthrough as a comedy director if it does well. While it looks like a tamer suburban version of Attack the Block, it is R-rated so there is at least potential for things to get more out of hand (crude comedy, language and violence) than if it were PG-13, which should be beneficial given the intended audience. The cast has a lot of comedic talent (though, Ben Stiller seems like he gave up years ago, just taking paychecks for terrible sequels to tired franchises). However, it will be most Americans’ first experience of Richard Ayoade (who is wonderful in The IT Crowd), who may very well steal the movie. I think Fox is hoping The Watch will play like 21 Jump Street did earlier in the year (but with a sci-fi twist) as a really fun and entertaining R-rated action comedy. Trailer: Here.

At the Movies – July 2012 – Part 1: Independent Films

Art-House Dramas:

Farewell, My Queen (Benoit Jacquot) – Drama – Jul 13 [limited]

Summary: During the final days of the French Revolution, the Queen of France Marie Antoinette develops a relationship with one of her readers – this is her story. Filmmakers: French writer-director Benoit Jacquot is known for making decent dramas, his best probably being Tosca or A Single Girl. He is working with composer Bruno Coulais (Coraline), cinematographer Romain Winding and production designer Katia Wyszkop. Cast: The film stars Diane Kruger and Lea Seydoux, with Virginie Ledoyen and Xavier Beauvois in support. Expectations: As a big fan of both Kruger and Ledoyen, I am personally looking forward to this – plus, from what I have seen, the film looks to be excellent aesthetically and stylistically (appealing to my love of great visuals in film). Seydoux is also one of France’s brightest up and comers. She is best known to American audiences through her work in Inglourious Basterds (having a small role in part 1), Robin Hood, Midnight in Paris, and Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol (her biggest role so far in the States). The film played to mixed reviews at the Cannes Film Festival in May, but should appeal to fans of period dramas (if for nothing more than for the design, costumes and atmosphere). Trailer: Here.

Easy Money (Daniel Espinosa) – Crime Thriller – Jul 13 [limited]

Summary: All coming from very different background and circumstances, JW, Jorge and Mrado get wrapped up in the world of drugs and organized crime in Sweden. Filmmakers: Director Daniel Espinosa had a hit earlier this year in the States with Safe House. This film came out in 2010, and was a critical and commercial hit in Sweden getting him the Safe House gig, and now with the success of that film, this is coming to American cinemas. Cast: The film stars Joel Kinnaman (from The Killing), Matias Varela and Dragomir Mrsic. Expectations: Kinnaman is on the verge of having a breakthrough in Hollywood, which could come with 2013’s Robocop (in which he has the title role). Safe House was fairly well received as an entertaining action thriller in the States; and for those who have seen both, Easy Money is typically credited as the better film. It shares a lot of the same visual and narrative pieces as a typical American gangster film (or crime drama/thriller) and should appeal to fans of the genre. Trailer: Here.

Red Lights (Rodrigo Cortes) – Thriller – Jul 13 [limited]

Summary: Psychologist Margaret Matheson and her assistant Tom study paranormal activity, in many cases disproving frauds. However, when they decide to investigate the world-renowned psychic Simon Silver, their lives are thrown into dangerous disarray. Filmmakers: Writer-director Rodrigo Cortes is coming off a fantastic thriller in Buried, hoping to follow it up with another. He is working again with composer Victor Reyes, while cinematographer Xavi Gimenez (Transsiberian) and production designer Anton Laguna are new to the team. Cast: Sigourney Weaver and Cillian Murphy stars with Robert De Niro, Toby Jones, Elizabeth Olsen, Joely Richardson, and Craig Roberts in support. Expectations: Red Lights looks like a decent thriller – hopefully, however, it will bring something new to a sub-genre(s) (psychological/paranormal thrillers) that is seemingly a bit played out. Despite the great cast and really liking Buried, I am a bit skeptical of this just because of its narrative roots being in paranormal occurrences (and maybe I am the only one that is tired of these films – as they are mostly bad). That said, this should serve as good counterprograming to the blockbusters and crime-thriller that fill up much of the month. Trailer: Here.

Trishna (Michael Wintterbottom) – Drama – Jul 13 [LA/NYC]

Summary: A modern retelling of Tess of the d’Ubervilles set in India, the story is of a tragic relationship between Trishna and Jay – both from different worlds (economically and socially speaking). Filmmakers: Director Michael Winterbottom is one of Britain’s most exciting filmmakers. While his films are not always good, they are always ambitious and interesting (I particularly like The Road to Guantanamo and his Steve Coogan trilogy – 24 Hour Party People, Tristram Shandy: A Cock and Bull Story and The Trip). He is working with Indian composer Amit Trivedi, brilliant Japanese composer Shigeru Umebayashi (In the Mood for Love) and frequent collaborators cinematographer Marcel Zyskind and production designer David Bryan. Cast: The film stars Freida Pinto and Riz Ahmed. Expectations: It is somewhat interesting that the only Indian narratives set in India that seem to make it to the States are shot by British filmmakers – I am thinking both of this and Danny Boyle’s Slumdog Millionaire (though, I guess there is Mira Nair’s Monsoon Wedding, but that was 11 years ago). Tess of the d’Urbervilles was done quite well in 2008 by the BBC, but has never had a successful transfer to film. Winterbottom’s films can be quite polarizing, especially his dramas, so it will be interesting to see out this is received. Based on the trailer, it looks potentially good and is probably at the minimum worth a rental for those that like tragic romantic dramas. Trailer: Here.

Hara-Kiri: Death of a Samurai (Takashi Miike) – Drama – Jul 20 [limited]

Summary: A samurai plots vengeance against the house of a feudal lord after discovering the fate of his ronin son-in-law. Filmmakers: Takashi Miike had a critical hit in the States with his last film 13 Assassins, and is looking to follow up on that goodwill. He is again working with cinematographer Nobuyasu Kita and art director Yuji Hayashida, while composer Ryuichi Sakamoto is new to the team. Cast: Koji Yakusho stars (working again with the director after also starring in 13 Assassins) with Eita and Naoto Takenaka, among others, in support. Expectations: 13 Assassins reestablished Miike for American audiences after his last two breakthrough films came in the early 2000s (Ichi the Killer and a segment of Three… Extremes). It also revitalized the samurai genre. Hara-Kiri looks to be another fantastic samurai picture and well worth checking out for fans of the genre and Japanese cinema. Trailer: Here.

Killer Joe (William Friedkin) – Crime Thriller – Jul 27 [limited]

Summary: Chris is gravely in debt to the wrong people. He desperately needs money. The only option he sees is to collect on his mother’s life insurance policy. So, he hires a hit man – Killer Joe Cooper. Filmmakers: Director William Friedkin is best known for his films from the early 1970s – The French Connection and The Exorcist – lately though, he has not made anything good. He is working with a good group including composer Tyler Bates (Super), cinematographer Caleb Deschanel (Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter) and production designer Franco-Giacomo Carbone (The Expendables). Cast: The film stars Emile Hirsch, with Matthew McConaughey, Juno Temple, Thomas Haden Church, and Gina Gershon in support. Expectations: Killer Joe is supposed to be part of the Matthew-McConaughey-is-a-good-actor-2012 campaign (along with Mud, Paperboy, and last month’s Magic Mike), as well as being Friedkin’s comeback film (almost thirty years in the making). Personally, I am most interested in seeing Temple’s performance as she is one of my favorite under-the-radar actors right now. The film looks very twisted and demented – and almost like a black comedy. It is definitely worth checking out for fans of that type of film, as this has been playing to critical acclaim on the festival circuit. Trailer: Here.

Art-House Comedies:

Ruby Sparks (Jonathan Dayton & Valerie Faris) – Romantic Comedy – Jul 25 [limited]

Summary: Calvin is a struggling novelist. One day something strange happens. The character he is writing in his latest novel materializes in real life, and is controlled by his writing to be the perfect girl for him to fall in love with (what could go wrong). Filmmakers: After six years the directors of Little Miss Sunshine Jonathan Dayton and Valerie Faris are back with a new film (much to the adulation of indie movie fans). They are working with a very good group including composer Nick Urata (Crazy, Stupid, Love.), cinematographer Matthew Libatique (Black Swan) and production designer Judy Becker (Shame). Cast: Paul Dano and Zoe Kazan (who also wrote the film) star with Deborah Ann Woll, Antonio Banderas, Alia Shawkat, Annette Bening, Steve Coogan, Elliott Gould, and Chris Messina in support. Expectations: While I liked Little Miss Sunshine, I feel like I am not as big a fan of it as most people seem to be. That said, I am not anticipating this based on the directors as much as I am for the cast, which has a ton of wonderful potential. Dano and Kazan have great chemistry, and supporting players like Woll, Banderas, Bening, and Coogan should bring a lot to the film as well. Based on what I have seen, the film looks very funny and sort of quirky (like every indie dramedy). I am interested to see where the story goes from “Guy invents his dream girl”. This is probably a must for fans of indie dramedies. Trailer: Here.

Movie of the Week – Two for the Road

This week’s movie is Two for the Road (1967).

The romance drama is about a couple Joanna and Mark. Structured to cross-cut between multiple periods of time, the story unveils how they fell in love and out of love, the good moments and bad moments of their marriage while taking trips by car through France. Directed by a great Hollywood filmmaker Stanley Donen (known for the musicals Singing in the Rain and Damn Yankees!), it is one of three collaborations between Donen and star Audrey Hepburn (the other two being Funny Face and Charade; it was also one of her last performances before retiring). Donen works with cinematographer Christopher Challis and art director Willy Holt on the film, but it is composer Henry Mancini’s score that stands out the most (here is a piece). The performances from Hepburn and Albert Finney also both very good, each have to play their characters at different times in their lives convincingly. What makes this romance drama special is its unique narrative structure and both leads’ good work. It is at times very lovely and at other times bleak and heartbreaking. It is worth checking out for fans of Hepburn and romance films. Check out the trailer.

Available on DVD and Streaming