(Dir. Keiichi Hara 2015)
PG-13, but I wouldn't really consider it a kids movie. It's something that they could watch, but not necessarily made for them. Miss Hokusai is an animated biopic of O-Ei, the daughter of the renowned Japanese painter Hokusai. Most people, Japanese or no, would recognize his Great Wave woodblock print. O-Ei is also a skilled artist and often sells them under her father's name. The movie was based on a manga of the same name and is told in a series of vignettes. I liked the overall tone of the movie and use of vignettes, but they were disjointed at times and the switches between could sometimes be confusing. One issue I had with the movie was its lack of closure. Throughout the vignettes there were recurring issues, such as O-Ei's struggle to capture sensuality in her paintings and the man who was wooing her. The movie shows her struggling with these but neither of these issues are ever resolved. I will recognize that part of this comes from the fact that it's based off a real person and real life doesn't have proper closure, but they just left the viewer in limbo. At the end they had a voiceover tell the details of the rest of her and her father's lives, but it just felt rushed and stilted. The style of animation in the movie is beautiful. It's reminiscent of classic works of art from the time while still keeping a modern edge. The most beautiful shot of the movie is during a boat ride with O-Ei and her blind sister. As, O-Ei is describing the waves to her and how they could swallow boats the waves pick up and mimic the Great Wave wood print that Hokusai is famous for. One part of the movie that really stuck out was the use of classic rock music. Others said that they felt that this music captured O-Ei's rebellious spirit and while I didn't necessarily dislike the music, I kind of wish they had chosen something more traditional or fitting to the time period.
1 Comment
(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. (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. |
Aubrey KirchhoffI'm just screaming into the void and somehow getting graded on it. Archives
April 2018
|