(Dir. Francois Ozon 2016)
PG-13, no explicit content but the themes are mature in an emotional sense. The movie is about dealing with the post-WWI consequences in everyday life. This movie is absolutely heart breaking, all the more so because the viewer knows that WWII is coming. It focuses around Anna, a young German woman whose fiancé, Frantz, was killed during the war. Since the war ended life in her town has been subdued and just about everyone lost loved ones in the war. The movie took time to specifically highlight the feelings of bitterness many Germans felt towards the French and vice versa. Enter Adrien, a mysterious frenchman who claims to have been friends with Frantz before the war. Much of the film centers around the domestic consequences of such a destructive war and how survivors and those who lost loved ones process the consequences of institutionalized violence. **Spoilers** Though it is clearly hinted at throughout the film, it is not until halfway through that Frantz reveals his true purpose in visiting Frantz's family. He was not friends with him before they war, he killed him during it and visiting Frantz's family is his form of penitence. **End Spoilers** What I admire most about Frantz is its dedication to showing the devastation and mistrust on both sides after the war. The first half of the film takes place in Germany. Everyone in the town is still reeling from the tragedies of war and most of the town reacts to Adrien with distrust or blatant hostility. As he spends time there, feelings towards him soften, but many still only see him as the enemy. Frantz's father is shunned by the other men in the town for welcoming Frantz, which motivates him to give his speech which encompasses the central theme of the movie. Adrien eventually leaves Frantz's family to return home, but after months of silence from him Anna leaves Germany to find him. On her journey to France, Anna receives the same prejudices that were leveled at Adrien in Germany, which is what finally makes her truly forgive Adrien. She realizes that on both sides men did the unthinkable for their country. Some criticized the second half of the movie because they felt it deviated from or negated the first half of the movie. I don't think those people truly understood the true message of the movie. On both sides, loved ones were killed and loved ones killed. This movie is more than the story of one family after the war, it's a message about the horrors that war forces men to commit. Also what I think many didn't realize was that this movie was based off of a play. It explains a lot of the structure of the film and why the second half may feel a tad disjointed from the first, in the play that would be the second act. ***Spoilers*** Personally, I loved the end of the movie. It was very bittersweet, but I think it was the best way to do it. There was no way that Anna could have moved on with Adrien. Even though she had forgiven him the knowledge of what he'd down would still affect them both. I also understand why she couldn't return home. Everything there would always remind her too much of Frantz. ***End Spoilers*** Besides having a poignant message, the cinematography in the film was absolutely stunning and added to the overall message. The film isn't just black and white to mimic the style of film at the time, it is also used as a way to convey the characters emotions. The black and white signifies the depression everyone feels after the war and it lapses into color occasionally to show solitary moments of happiness. I have to admire the work they did in black and white, the lighting must have been meticulously planned for the movie to keep sharpness. The other truly impressive part of the movie was the bilingual cast. Half of the movie was in German and the other half French, which meant the two leads had to speak both. They were both absolutely fantastic.
1 Comment
(Dir. Billy Wilder 1954)
NR, I would give it PG or PG-13 TOPS. This is a good family movie. Note that there is a suicide attempt, but it's half-hearted at best. Picture this: it's a Sunday night. My family and I are sitting on the couch trying to find a movie to watch. We stumble upon a remake of Sabrina, with Harrison Ford and Julia Ormond. "Should we watch it," we ask ourselves. This is a decision that could make or break family movie night. We look each other in the eye, each knowing the consequences this decision could have. "No," we decide. Then proceed to buy the original Sabrina and watch it instead. We made the right decision. I absolutely adore Audrey Hepburn, so it's definitely odd that before this I'd only seen one of her films, Funny Face. Why is it, that in these films, they have Audrey Hepburn, the most gorgeous woman on the planet, and they spend half the movie acting like she isn't the most gorgeous woman on the planet? The whole plot of Funny Face is, "'Boy does that girl have a funny face, BUT WE CAN MAKE HER BEAUTIFUL." Bruh what are you talking about, that's Audrey Hepburn. I could put Audrey Hepburn in a trash bag and she'd still look amazing. I honestly find it hilarious in these movies when they're trying to make her look little less gorgeous by putting her in somewhat plain clothes. These movies can basically be described as, "Oh look it's Audrey Hepburn," then, "Oh look it's Audrey Hepburn in slightly nicer clothes". Not to make it sound like I don't absolutely love these movies, because I do love them. I just still find this hilarious. Sabrina tells the story of the daughter of a chauffeur who is absolutely infatuated with the youngest son of the family who her father works for, David. This movie cannot stress anymore how absolutely rich this family is. Richie Rich would look at them and say, "Boy are they rich". Anyway, David is a bit of a playboy, but somehow he never notices the absolutely stunning Audrey Hepburn, who pretty much lives in the same house as him. UNTIL, she returns from Paris after two years, just as gorgeous and ten times classier. This would be all fine and dandy, except David has become engaged to the daughter of a wealthy company owner thanks to the schemes of his older, much more business savvy, brother Linus. Linus can't have David running off with some nobody, so he decides to woo Sabrina (Audrey Hepburn) away from David. Poor guy. In the process he ends up falling in love with Sabrina (Audrey Hepburn) himself (who wouldn't). Classic rom-com, and boy am I a sucker for one of those. This film is a classic for a reason. It knows exactly what it is and does it perfectly. When people talk about tight films, this is what they mean. You don't get anything more than you need, but at the same time the characters feel fully developed. It pulls it off so seamlessly that I really didn't even notice until I started to watch the remake (yes I did eventually end up watching it). The remake is a lot less tight, it spends so much more time trying to flesh out the characters, but honestly it just makes them feel more like tropes than in the original. Another thing the remake made me realize was just how good the casting was in the original. It kind of bugged me that Humphrey Bogart was at least twenty years older than Audrey Hepburn. But after watching Harrison Ford in the remake try to play Linus Larrabee I realize nobody else could've played that role half as well as Humphrey Bogart. As much as I love Harrison Ford, he was much TOO charming to play Linus Larrabee. Humphrey Bogart was also charming, but there was always that undercurrent of cynicism and willingness to be underhanded to get what he wanted. He wasn't a bad guy, but he was definitely no Prince Charming. That's part of what makes it so satisfying though when Sabrina melts his rough exterior and why Humphrey Bogart was perfect for this role. Honestly, I don't know why they even tried to do a remake of Sabrina. They were doomed to fail to be honest. The original is a classic and absolutely perfect. Honestly I think I could recommend this film to anyone. It may not be everyone's favorite movie, but I think everyone could find something to enjoy in it. Besides the romance, there's good humor and quite a bit of witty dialogue that is only made better by the chemistry between the actors. Honestly 10/10 would watch again. (Dir. Steven Soderbergh 2001)
PG-13 Ocean's Eleven is based off the 1960 Frank Sinatra version and is a classic heist movie. I decided to watch this because Ocean's Eight is coming out soon and I wanted some context before I went to see it. Again this is a classic heist movie, it doesn't try to do anything groundbreaking. It is what it is and it excels at that. I enjoyed this movie, but I have to say that it was aggressively 2000s. From the actors to the fashion to the filming style, it all screamed 2000s. Personally I like to pretend that the 2000s never happened so this movie came as a slap in the face in terms of that. Honestly though feelings on that matter is viewer preference, so you have been warned. Ocean's Eleven did an amazing job of balancing showing and telling. This is going to be a hurdle for any heist movie. Most audiences don't have in-depth knowledge of heists or the lingo and terms. So the script faces the conundrum of the characters sounding realistic and confusing the audience. Obviously no one wants to watch a heist movie if half of it is just explaining the role of each of the men in on the con, so a lot of the movie must be devoted to the idea of showing and not telling. At the beginning of the movie, when the men are assembling their crew they mention the role of each of the men. To avoid having to over-explain to the audience what that meant, they instead cut to clips of the men doing their job. The one complaint I have about this movie is that it didn't spend much time developing the characters. I understand why, there wasn't a lot of extra time left over once they got through explaining and planning the heist, but I still would've loved to see some more interaction between George Clooney's and Matt Damon's characters. Though I feel that due to the intended audience for this movie they didn't worry about the lack of development. Which isn't a critique of the intended audience, it just means that this was meant to be a typical heist movie. Nothing more nothing less. The only instance of lack of development that really bothered me is when Ocean's ex-wife goes back to him. I understand why she left the casino owner, but that doesn't give me any explanation as to why she would suddenly decide to go back to Ocean. Other than her deciding to leave the casino owner, nothing had changed between the two of them. That just felt kind of cheap to me. They wanted Ocean to get his girl but they didn't want to devote any more time to their relationship. Thus turning that character essentially into a trophy for Ocean. So that bugged me. (Quentin Tarantino 2003)
R I'm not really sure what I expected out of Kill Bill, but I definitely not expect to be whatever it was. I didn't love the movie, but I can't say I didn't like it either. I can definitely see the appeal and why it has attracted such a cult following though. I personally don't care for violence or gore, but I don't fault the movie for it. I mean it's about a wronged assassin seeking vengeance on her former team, if you go into this expecting it to not be violent then that's your own fault. I thought the fight scenes were fun to watch, if not a little over the top, but that does seem to be Quentin Tarantino's style. The blood though, really? Did there really need to be that much? Whenever somebody was injured, which was often, it was like someone turned on a hose full of red water. I know I'm being ridiculous, cause this movie is purposely over the top and that's part of its charm, but both my parents are doctors so I just can't stop that from bugging me. Part of what I really liked about the film was that Quentin Tarantino does not try to hide his style at all. I had never seen any Quentin Tarantino films before this, and I can already feel his presence in the movie. Boy does he like his close-ups. I feel like 45% of this movie consisted of close-ups. This movie really threw me for a loop at times, like when it would suddenly switch to black and white or animation, which I didn't dislike, but also didn't really understand. Overall Kill Bill felt like a bunch of different styles shoved together in one film that really shouldn't work together, but somehow do. The movie mixed its styles so well and flipped back and forth so quickly that it felt like I was watching a Kung-Fu movie and a Western at the same time. I didn't realize that this movie was only going to be half the story. I suppose I should have guessed since there's a volume one and a volume two, but I kinda just assumed vol. one would be its own story and vol. two would be a generic sequel. Never assume with Quentin Tarantino. After I finished the first I went straight on to watch volume two, which I think was the best way to do it. I was originally going to do a separate post for volume two, but they're essentially the same film so I don't think there's really a point. There's only one thing that I would change about this movie. I wish it would've shown more of how the assassin squad came to be. I really wanted to see how the characters interacted before they betrayed her. They alluded to each others' relationships before the betrayal, but never in any in-depth way. The Kill Bill universe is a pretty interesting place and I wish that they'd explored more of it. (Dir. Lucas Guadagnino 2018)
R, This movie is visually stunning and beautiful, but keep in mind what it is about before you decide to go see it. This is not something you want to walk into blind. Call Me By Your Name is a coming of age story that depicts the relationship between Elio and Oliver, a grad student of Elio's father. The story takes place entirely from Elio's point of view and is set in the Italian countryside in the 1980s. Before I get into anything else I'll address the age difference between Elio and Oliver. I can definitely see why the age difference causes concern in people and honestly I'd be worried if someone didn't find the age difference concerning. The full first half of this movie basically covers this struggle. Within the film, Oliver goes through those same concerns and inner turmoil, though they are very toned down due to the fact that the film is from Elio's point of view. To Elio, the age difference is not that big of a deal. He willfully ignores Oliver's struggles over the morality of the relationship. Part of this I think is due to Elio wanting to be an adult and to be viewed as an adult. His relationship with Oliver is his final step into the realm of adulthood and is a demand from him to be seen as an adult by others. The other part I think is a cultural difference. The age of consent in Italy is much younger than the US. I'm not saying that a relationship with a young child is ok just because it's legal, but it is indicative of a culture that is much more tolerant of age differences in a relationship. I would also like to note that at no point is the relationship between the two abusive in any way. The relationship between the two is definitely awkward at times. As an audience, expect to feel awkward and uncomfortable at times. This movie does not shy away from the clumsiness of a new relationship and is very honest about it. I would not call this movie a loss of innocence as much as a loss of naivety. Elio has been raised in a household that is very loving and accepting. Oliver comments how jealous he is of the relationship that Elio has with his family. Again, the audience doesn't get the full picture of this, as the film is from Elio's point of view, but it is heavily implied here that Oliver's family is much less accepting. I'm not sure how much of this is cultural, considering that Oliver is American and Elio is Italian, or if it is just Elio's family in particular. ***Spoilers***This also explains David's call at the end of the film and his decision to get married. At this point he has left the bubble of safety and acceptance that surrounds Elio in his home and is now back to trying to live up to his family's expectations. This is where the loss of naivety comes in for Elio. He has now been introduced to life outside his bubble. The other more universal experience Elio faces here is the loss of his first love. Elio's father covers this perfectly in a very moving speech he gives to Elio after Oliver leaves. Essentially his father tells him not to close himself off to new love after experiencing his first heartbreak. These emotions hurt, but it is better to have them than to feel nothing. The movie's overall message is about how first love tends to be the purest kinds. When you love without ever having had your heartbroken or experienced the difficult parts of a relationship, it is easy to love completely and wholeheartedly. After one experiences this however, it is hard to fully open yourself up to someone again. What Elio's father tells him is to not fear that openness despite the possible heartbreak. Sort of "it is better to have loved and lost" sort of thing. The cinematography of this film is absolutely stunning. It was filmed in Crema in the Italian countryside, which is absolutely gorgeous to begin with and I would love to visit there. Call Me By Your name was shot on 35 mm film, which makes it look almost like it's from the eighties, but it does not compromise the quality of the film. I haven't found anything about this yet, but it seems to me like a majority of this film was done using natural light. The sun almost becomes another character with how bright and pervasive it is. It's hard to believe that this was filmed during the rainiest summer in Italy in a century. Talk about bad luck. I generally hate the eighties, this movie made me like it. The old Italian cars and the general aesthetic of this movie is absolutely amazing and lends itself to the plot so well. Every scene in this movie could honestly be a painting, it's all so gorgeous. It's so fitting that Sufjan Stevens wrote music for this movie because it honestly feels like one of his songs made into a film. Beautiful and bright, but melancholic at the same time. (Jake Kasdan 2017)
PG-13: There is crude humor and some language, but its very very slight This is a great movie to watch with your family, provided there are no very young children. Not to sound like a prude, but you really don't want them to see this, more for your sake than theirs. The kind of humor in this can definitely be appreciated by adults and teens, but if you show it to somebody too young it's going to be something they're never going to stop repeating and it will drive you bonkers. I have young cousins so I know what it's like and I am helping you out here. Do not go into this movie expecting it to be like the Robin Williams one. It carries the same basic plot elements, but other than that it is totally different. I personally liked that it was different, but my younger sister who really liked the original Jumanji did not. Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle is much more light hearted and humorous than the original, which I just found straight up scary when I watched it. I absolutely adored all the characters. The film definitely took its time in developing the characters and giving them heart to hearts. I really appreciated the relationship between the two main girl parts, even though one of them was technically a guy. I'm pretty sure this film quasi-passes the Bechdel test. On that note, Jack Black playing a Pretty Girl stuck in his body is hilarious and he played the part so well. I liked it so much better than the rebellious man child character he usually plays. The Rock and Kevin Hart pull their classic Big Guy Little Guy schtick, which I still find hilarious. The opening ten minutes or so is a little boring. The use this to set up all the classic high school character tropes, the nerd, the jock, the pretty girl, etc. You can't be too mad at it though because it is necessary to the plot and there's really no way around it. This is not a movie to see if you're expecting a pretentious oscar worthy piece, but I found it very funny and enjoyable. Definitely worth the price of the tickets and it's something that you can go see with a group and have everyone enjoy it. (Dir. Renoir 1939)
NR If you are interested in fast paced action, then this is not the film for you. La Regles du jeu is of a more philosophical nature and is meant to satirize the French elite at the time. That being said, the last thirty minutes of this film is a RIDE, especially when compared to the first hour and a half. This is also where the satirization can be most felt and at the end of the movie the hilarity is balanced by a rather alarming sentiment. After seeing the main characters in this film make and execute multiple poor and immoral decisions, the consequences are covered up in a very elegant way. The guests see through the cover up, though, and, despite knowing that a man was murdered in cold blood, praise the cover up as a rare instance of class and decorum. At the very end, you see exactly what cultural issue that Renoir was remarking upon. Genuine goodness is no longer expected, one can engage in whatever immoral or harmful act they please, as long as they do it with a decorum that keeps up the facade of goodness. In addition to this very poignant commentary, the film contains amazing sequences. I thought the hunting scene made an excellent addition to the movie in terms of being composed of interesting shots as well as adding to the main philosophy of the film. I would also like to say at this point that I am fairly certain animals were harmed in the making of this film. In case that's a deal breaker for you. Overall I do recommend this film, especially if you are a fan of French culture. Though when you watch it I would keep in mind that it is definitely a product of its time and bear with it. If you have the choice, I would also watch Renoir's introduction before starting the film. It gives a lot of cultural context that greatly adds to the understanding of the film's philosophies. (Dir Michael Dowse 2013)
Rated PG-13 I usually cannot watch rom-coms at all. There's typically too much awkwardness and I get second hand embarrassment and I just can't do it. This movie successfully kept the awkwardness of the situation, but kept it light and humorous enough that I didn't feel like cringing into my seat the entire time. Is this movie guilty of being of having a stereotypical manic pixie dream girl (though personally I think she has a little more depth to her than that) as the love interest? Yes. Do I love it anyway? Yes. Here's the situation: Wallace and Chantry meet at a party, instant connection, the issue? Chantry has a boyfriend and just wants to be friends. From here on to the movie focuses around the question, can men and women just be friends? This movie didn't shy away from that idea. Wallace and his roommate, who also happens to be Chantry's cousin, spend a lot of time discussing the situation and what one can even do. The options, as presented by them, are: be pathetic, be manipulative, or move on. If a person tries to be friends with someone they have feelings for, is there any way they can do that without somewhat becoming the bad guy? Either you become the pathetic piner, you know the "nice guy" who constantly wonders why the girl will only date jerks and just waits for the girl to notice that you're actually perfect for her. Or you become manipulative and try to break the girl up with her boyfriend so that she will date you. OR you move on, stop torturing yourself and distance yourself from her. This movie wrestles with these ideas, as Wallace doesn't want to choose any of the options. It also doesn't shy away from either of the character's flaws or mistakes in this situation. This serious emotional turmoil is kept light-hearted by the meddling of comical friends and hilarious situations making it enjoyable to all. This is an amazing movie to watch if you need something light, but still amazingly executed and thought provoking. If you liked the Big Sick, you will also like What If. You actually may notice that the actress who plays Chantry, Zoe Kazan, also plays the female lead in the Big Sick. The actors in this movie were amazing. This is the kind of role that Adam Driver was meant to play, a comical, crass, but good hearted guy. Not whatever kind of neo-nazi situation they have him doing in Star Wars. Despite how much I hate his character in Star Wars, honestly it just shows how good of an actor he is. He can successfully play a character I absolutely despise, but also turn around and play a character I love. Daniel Radcliffe is, unsurprisingly, spectacular. They don't shy away from his background and don't try to make him play an American, which I loved. It's terrible when a good movie is ruined by a just not quite convincing accent, plus it honestly added to his character. Honestly though, Daniel Radcliffe probably could've pulled it off, but I'm glad they didn't take the risk. I loved all the characters in the movie, everyone has their flaws, but it never tries to demonize anyone, which made the movie feel more honest than a lot of other movies with this scenario. Overall I had a great time watching this movie, but it's a movie I'd feel vulnerable recommending to people. It definitely is kind of guilty of what a lot of rom-com movies are with the whole dream girl/nice guy situation. Personally, I think that this movie is kind of above that because of the honesty what the honesty with which it presented the situation. I think the idea of trying to be friends with someone who is in a relationship and you have feelings for is something a lot of people can sympathize with. The movie makes the case for it without unnecessarily demonizing anyone which makes it feel much more true to life than many other films with this same scenario. So personally, I think the movie rises above other movies like it. (Michael Gracey 2017)
PG the most riskè thing to happen was the glimmer of an affair and a *gasp* interracial relationship First Impression: Hugh Jackman is a much better singer than I expected him to be, but more on that later. I don't really like feel good movies. You know, the kind that focuses on someone who's "different" than everybody else, but really they're just special. I hate these movies. That makes me sound like such a scrooge but I've known so many people who are just so annoying and everything they do is based around "oh I'm not weird I'm special". You're not special, take a shower and stop screaming every three seconds. Ugh. I'm sorry to dump all this on you but I think you need to understand my bias. That being said I found this movie bearable. I wasn't perpetually cringing in my seat and the songs were pretty good. I think part of that was that the story was fairly shallow. Usually when they get into emotions and stuff is when I want to run out of the theater, but this actually avoided a lot of that. Which is good for me, but honestly the film probably needed some more depth. Every conflict was introduced and solved within one musical sequence basically. And it's actually kind of sad that in a movie focused on empowerment and diversity the only character development occurred in the two privileged white guys. So don't go into this movie expecting anything earth shattering, the songs are catchy and the cinematography is pretty, but it has got nothing going for it in the plot department. Similar to Guardians of the Galaxy, this movie is purely spectacle. The plot is shallow and so are the characters, but the music and choreography is very entertaining. Unlike most movie musicals, the songs are very pop oriented instead of classical musical theater like songs. Which kind of surprised me because the two main songwriters were also heavily involved in La La Land, which is kind of pop but doesn't fully venture into sounding like radio pop songs. The songs in this movie were good. That doesn't sound very enthusiastic I know, but it really is. You honestly don't even need to see the movie, you can get just as much from listening to the soundtrack. I expected another Ryan Gosling debacle but Hugh Jackman was a really good singer. A real Disney princess. I'm sure there are plenty of critics ripping this movie to shreds over the plot so I'm just going to leave it at that. It was entertaining, but nothing special. But I honestly don't think it was trying to be. Sure they could've gone into the moral complexities of running a freak show and whether it's really empowering or degrading, but that wouldn't align with the positive pop vibe they created with the songs. They had to choose one or the other, and they chose the music. (Dir. James Gunn 2017)
Rated PG-13 After the first Guardians of the Galaxy came out it took me a while to get around to watching it. I ended up watching it with my family, but I didn't play all that much attention to it. I think that's an issue me and watching superhero movies, unless it's in a theater it just doesn't catch my attention enough. Even movies that I really like when I see in theaters, like Wonder Woman, when I get them on DVD its just not the same. I think it's partially because so much of these movies revolve around spectacle and the theater adds to that. Maybe it's because I didn't see it theaters, but I never really got into Guardians of the Galaxy. I liked the second movie better than the first, but I still wasn't in love with it or anything. I think part of the reason is that in the second movies the characters were established and I didn't have to trudge through all the origin stories. That being said I thought the characters in this movie were just flat. There just wasn't much depth or change to them. The overall lesson of this movie was the characters realizing that the team was all the family they needed, and that was basically what the first one was. The movie was just so focused on the action that I think they missed out on a lot of character interactions. One thing that really bothered me in this movie was Drax. Maybe I'm just misremembering from the first but I felt like his character changed a lot with zero explanation or cause. In the first movie he was a humorous character, but that was more through his abject literalness than any real attempts on his part. In this movie it seemed like they were trying to make him a much goofier character. Also he seemed to just totally forget about his family most of the time. You know, the one he spent the entirety of the first movie trying to avenge. They get brought up in this, but most of the time he seems to have totally forgotten them until he gets real serious for a moment and then just drops it again. The main selling point of Guardians of the Galaxy is its visual and sound aspect. They've never been super deep in terms of plot, but with the music and action they're fun to watch. They lose a lot of character development to them, but man are the fight scenes cool. When Rocket is protecting the camp and they go through the scenes of all the defenses and people are getting launched around, I gotta admit it's pretty funny. The opening of the movie I think characterizes these films really well. Groot dances to well chosen music while there's chaos in the background. There's zero true character interaction, but it looks and sounds amazing. These movies are all about spectacle and I think they do that well. I just wish there was more substance to them. |
Aubrey KirchhoffI'm just screaming into the void and somehow getting graded on it. Archives
April 2018
|