Tag Archives: movie reviews

Movie Project #11: Y Tu Mamá También [2001]

Posted by

17

The 50 Movies Project: 2013 Edition

In what has become an annual tradition, I have decided to embark in a third round of the 50 Movies Project. The premise is simple — I have put together a list of 50 movies that I feel I absolutely must see in order to continue my progression as a film lover. With so many films to see, it’s easy to get off track and forget about some of the essentials. This is my way of making sure I watch those that have been on my “must see” list for too long.

Y Tu Mamá También [2001]

Y Tu Mamá También [2001]
Director: Alfonso Cuarón
Screenplay: Alfonso Cuarón, Carlos Cuarón
Country: Mexico
Genre: Drama
Starring: Maribel Verdú, Gael García Bernal, Diego Luna
Running Time: 106 minutes

Reason for inclusion: I can’t remember where I first heard about this film, but it caught my attention years ago. Since then, I have seen it pop up in many “best of” lists, which has made me want to see it even more.

Accolades: New York Film Critics Circle Award for Best Foreign Language Film, Broadcast Film Critics Association Award for Best Foreign Language Film, Independent Spirit Award for Best Foreign Film, One Oscar nomination (Best Original Screenplay), two BAFTA nominations, one Golden Globe nomination

It seems only fitting that I follow up Luis Buñuel’s fantastic erotica, Belle de Jour, a film that showed little in the way of nudity, with Alfonso Cuarón’s Y Tu Mamá También, a film that revels in its sexual freedom.

Here is a film that takes pieces from many cinematic themes — a coming of age story, a road movie, a tale of best friends, and the seduction of an older woman to a much younger male — and ties them altogether into something very unique. I can’t say I have ever seen a film like it, even though it still feels familiar.

Y Tu Mamá También [2001]

Julio (Gael García Bernal, a recognizable face from Amores Perros) and Tenoch (Diego Luna) are two teenage boys that are also best friends. They seem inseparable, especially when their girlfriends go away for the summer. Now free to do whatever they like, they party, drink, do drugs and try to get laid whenever possible. At a wedding, they meet Luisa (Maribel Verdú), the Spanish wife of one of Tenoch’s cousins. Both teens are instantly smitten with her and, in jest, they invite her on a road trip to a secluded beach that no one knows about. She finds their gesture flattering — and amusing — but politely declines. Later, when it appears her marriage has hit a rough patch, she decides to take them up on their offer, much to their surprise.

Y tu mamá también [2002]

Julio, Tenoch and Luisa all hit the road together and drive through the Mexican countryside in search of this mysterious beach. This gives everyone involved — us included — to learn something new. For us, this trip provides a glimpse through rural Mexico, showing economic disparity while also beautifully evoking its many different cultures. For the characters, they are all discovering new things about themselves and each other, for better or for worse. It goes without saying that things will not be the same by the time they come back.

Y Tu Mamá También is frank with its subject matter, and full-frontal nudity is a common occurrence. However, there is nothing sleazy about this film, and in fact, it should be commended for not concealing anything. This is a wonderfully told story that feels raw and authentic. Best yet, it is honest, and by the end of the film I felt like I really knew these characters. All three grow up, just not perhaps in the way you might expect.

9/10

About these ads

Movie Review: Mud [2013]

Posted by

29

Mud [2013]

Mud [2013]
Director: Jeff Nichols
Screenplay: Jeff Nichols
Genre: Drama
Starring: Matthew McConaughey, Tye Sheridan, Jacob Lofland, Reese Witherspoon
Running Time: 130 minutes

Much like the water/soil mixture of the same name, Mud, Jeff Nichols’ latest film, is a mixture of a number of elements. This is part “coming of age”, part love story and part mystery/thriller. While sometimes films fail when mixing so many themes together, that is not the case here. With Mud, all ideas are expertly interwoven in a film that is as American as it gets.

Set deep along the Mississippi River in rural Arkansas, Mud tells the tale of two 14-year-old boys, Ellis (Tye Sheridan) and Neckbone (Jacob Lofland), who together share a wild adventurous spirit. They ride dirtbikes and regularly sneak off on afternoon boat trips to a hidden island down the river. One day, they notice a boat in a tree on this island. While exploring what they believe to be their new treehouse, they discover that someone is actually living there. Shortly thereafter, they meet this inhabitant, a man who only goes by “Mud” (Matthew McConaughey).

Mud [2013]

It turns out that Mud is on this secluded island for a reason — he’s on the run from the law. The fact that he is a wanted fugitive doesn’t deter the boys from developing an unlikely friendship with him. As Mud tells them about his long-lost love, Juniper (Reese Witherspoon), the boys make an oath to help him find his lady and ride off to the sunset.

There are other factors at play as well. Ellis is feeling distant from his soon-to-be-separated parents (played by the fantastic Ray McKinnon and Sarah Paulson), and surely this is part of the reason why he is so drawn to Mud. Ellis also has a love interest of his own — Maypearl (Bonnie Sturdivant) — with two first names, just like his mother. No matter that she is a few years older than him; Ellis is the type of feller who isn’t afraid to ask her to be his girlfriend after just one date.

Mud [2013]

The comradery between Ellis and Neckbone is tremendous. These two young boys really do feel like they are best friends, and both are expertly portrayed by relative newcomers to the acting biz (Sheridan was in The Tree of Life, this is Lofland’s first film). Matthew McConaughey also takes an exceptional turn as the multi-layered Mud. After several excellent Southern-fried roles in the last few years (including Killer Joe and Bernie), this manages to stand out as his best work. The supporting cast here is terrific as well. Reese Witherspoon is a surprisingly good fit as the damaged and confused Juniper, Ray McKinnon and Sarah Paulson make for a strong pairing as Ellis’ disgruntled parents, and Sam Shepard has a memorable appearance as the grizzled old vet who lives across the river. Even Nichols favorite, Michael Shannon, has a small role as Neckbone’s uncle/guardian.

Mud [2013]

Mud is very much an enjoyable film, but it does suffer from two notable flaws. One, it runs a little long. The film’s pacing is slow and methodical, which isn’t a problem in itself, but certain subplots and minor characters could have been reduced or even omitted with minimal loss. Two, the explosive final act feels a bit out of place after the slow burn drama leading up to that point. While exciting, the transition to this action setpiece is jarring.

Regardless, Jeff Nichols has delivered another engaging film, one that especially nails its Southern setting. Everyone involved feels like a real Southerner — even McConaughey is touched up to look more rugged — and it’s hard not to get attached to most of these characters. This is a film that makes us feel like teenagers again, and through their eyes, it’s not hard to empathize with ol’ Mud.

8/10

Movie Review: 42 [2013]

Posted by

10

42 [2013]

42 [2013]
Director: Brian Helgeland
Screenplay: Brian Helgeland
Genre: Biography/Drama/Sport
Starring: Chadwick Boseman, Harrison Ford, Nicole Beharie
Running Time: 128 minutes

Jackie Robinson will always be known as the first African American to play in Major League Baseball, but many seem to forget that he was also a damn good player. In a ten year career, he was a 6-time All-Star, an MVP winner, Rookie of the Year, and a World Series champion. In the new biopic, 42, his excellent career is only glossed over in favor of taking a look at his tumultuous first season.

First, we begin in 1945. Brooklyn Dodgers general manager Branch Rickey (Harrison Ford) is looking to improve his team and comes up with an unfathomable idea — why not sign a talented African American player? While there was no rule against letting minorities play Major League Baseball, there was an unwritten code that every team adhered by. After taking a look at several of the big names in the Negro leagues — including Roy Campanella and Satchel Paige — Rickey settles on the then 26-year-old Jackie Robinson (Chadwick Boseman), citing his strong demeanor and ability to withstand verbal abuse.

42 [2013]

Jackie, accompanied by his lovely wife, Rachel (Nicole Beharie), spends a season in the minor leagues before hitting the majors in 1947. As soon as he steps on the field on Opening Day, Jackie is surrounded by reporters. This is commonplace, as is the racist heckling from the crowd, written death threats and even petitions against him from his own teammates. It’s hard to believe that just over 60 years ago, the U.S. was so heavily segregated. Toilets, water fountains and even baseball stadiums were divided, with different lines for “whites” and “colored” patrons.

Many of the character interactions in this film are downright disgusting, and sadly enough, most of them actually happened. The most notorious example is when Philadelphia Phillies manager Ben Chapman (Alan Tudyk) attempts to rattle Robinson while he’s at the plate by spewing racial epithets at him over and over again. Chapman is relentless, and this is when Jackie reaches his breaking point. Is he really ready to do this? Can he continue to handle all of the pressure bestowed upon him as MLB’s first African American player, essentially a trailblazing pioneer? Of course, we know the answer to this.

42 [2013]

It’s somewhat disappointing that 42 only focuses on Jackie’s first season, simply because he had an impressive career with many noteworthy moments. This makes sense from a film perspective since it gives director Brian Helgeland a chance to portray Robinson in the brightest possible light (which I have no complaints about), but it still feels like there is just so much more to tell.

The film is given the full Hollywood treatment with tried-and-true cliches, dramatic music and a number of heavy-handed scenes (I half-expected Steven Spielberg’s name to be attached to the project), and it concludes with notes on what later happened to Jackie and a select few teammates. While I was fully expecting this “where did they go?” epilogue, it was bizarre to see notes given on players who weren’t even named in the film. Much of the supporting cast (re: teammates) are briefly acknowledged by a first name, if we’re lucky, and they all just blur together. While it’s nice to know Ralph Branca played for three different teams in his career, why should the audience care when he was given maybe a few lines in the movie?

42 [2013]

Regardless of these head-scratching end notes, it should be stated that the entire cast did a hell of a job with their roles. Chadwick Boseman perfectly nails Jackie’s baseball mannerisms, and Harrison Ford hits one out of the park with his scenery-chewing performance as the cigar-chomping old codger running the Dodgers. An impressive array of character actors fills out the supporting cast, led by John C. McGinley as the legendary announcer, Red Barber, and Alan Tudyk as the racist manager, Ben Chapman.

42 is a serviceable biopic, and it hits all of the proper emotional notes. It is an important film, one that deserves to be seen, even though it may be too “Hollywood” for its own good. Jackie Robinson’s legacy is undeniable, and at the very least this film has deservedly brought him back into the forefront.

7/10

Movie Review: Trance [2013]

Posted by

28

Trance [2013]

Trance [2013]
Director: Danny Boyle
Screenplay: Joe Ahearne, John Hodge
Genre: Crime/Drama/Thriller
Starring: James McAvoy, Vincent Cassel, Rosario Dawson
Running Time: 101 minutes

Danny Boyle’s latest thriller is a film that bounces all over the place with a plot that is both convoluted and completely outlandish. Twists and turns are plentiful, and at times the film is hard to follow. However, it is directed with a style and vision that only Boyle can pull off.

James McAvoy stars as Simon, an art auctioneer who is violently hit in the head by criminal Franck (Vincent Cassel) during an art heist gone bad. When Simon regains consciousness, it is discovered that he also has amnesia — he cannot remember anything that happened after the damaging blow to the head. His memory is crucial, as it turns out that he had hidden an extremely valuable painting during the heist, sending Franck and his goons home empty-handed. Franck begins torturing Simon in a desperate attempt to find its whereabouts. Realizing Simon isn’t bluffing with his amnesia, Franck sends him to a hypnotherapist, Elizabeth (Rosario Dawson), in a further attempt to unlock the memories of where the painting might be.

Trance [2013]

From there, the film bends in all sorts of directions, and there are enough dream sequences shown to make it very difficult to know just what is real and what is fantasy. This is a film that must be taken at face value; it asks its audience to go with the flow and not think too much about what is happening on screen. So much of it is far-fetched that these jumps in logic are bound to infuriate some.

For a good 3/4 of the film, it’s incredibly difficult to determine what exactly is happening. A huge twist near the end puts things in perspective, and it is in this way that the film rewards patient viewers. Sure, it may not entirely make sense, but then again the film’s concept itself is pretty ridiculous.

In the hands of a lesser director, Trance could easily be a middling affair. However, this is Danny freakin’ Boyle, so at the very least it’s full of eye candy. Dazzling shots, vibrant colors and a rush of a soundtrack (composed by Underworld’s Rick Smith, no less) all help make Trance fly by.

Trance [2013]

The cast, of whom McAvoy, Cassel and Dawson are all given nearly equal screen time, is strong, and they play off each other rather well. The arch of McAvoy’s character is particularly invigorating, and he delivers what may be his strongest performance yet. It is Dawson’s performance, however, that people will remember most. She is completely believable as a hypnotherapist, which is a major feat in itself. I could listen to her soothing voice all day long.

While Trance may jump around a bit too much for its own good, it remains a solid thriller that is rewarding enough for those who sit through till the end. It is the type of film that begs to be seen more than once, but at the same time it is perhaps not strong enough to warrant repeat viewings.

7/10

Movie Review: Evil Dead [2013]

Posted by

33

Evil Dead [2013]

Evil Dead [2013]
Director: Fede Alvarez
Screenplay: Fede Alvarez & Rodo Sayagues, Sam Raimi (1981 screenplay)
Genre: Horror
Starring: Jane Levy, Shiloh Fernandez, Lou Taylor Pucci, Jessica Lucas, Elizabeth Blackmore
Running Time: 91 minutes

Evil Dead is a horror film that means business. After a brief prologue set in the past, the film wastes no time diving headfirst into pure, unadulterated horror.

This reboot/remake takes the premise of Sam Raimi’s 1981 original film and kicks it up several notches. Once again, five friends are getting together for a weekend vacation in an old cabin in the woods. David (Shiloh Fernandez), Eric (Lou Taylor Pucci), Olivia (Jessica Lucas) and Natalie (Elizabeth Blackmore) have arranged this little trip as an effort to help Mia (Jane Levy) kick her drug addiction. Within minutes of arriving, they discover a hidden door on the floor of one of the bedrooms. Downstairs in this room are dead, rotting cats hanging from the ceiling and bound in barbed wire. There’s also a burned corpse. Oh, and a book known as the Naturom Demonto. You may have heard of it.

Eric, ever so foolish, reads a short passage from this book aloud, awakening an evil supernatural force that begins haunting Mia. It doesn’t take long for the evil to spread to others in the group, causing a wild, bloody and gory affair.

Evil Dead [2013]

Oh, the gore. This film is not for the weak of heart. Skin is pulled in unfathomable directions, limbs are tossed aside like cigarette butts, and blood sprays everywhere. I usually have a strong stomach for this type of stuff, but I had to look away on more than one occasion. This is a gruesome, violent movie, and it’s bound to disgust those not suited to this style of horror.

For fans of the genre, though, Evil Dead is a real treat. Despite lacking a strong central figure like the original’s Bruce Campbell, the cast is solid enough to make the film work. None of the performances are exceptional, but Jane Levy does stand out with her well-played transitions from evil to innocent.

Evil Dead [2013]

The real highlights in Evil Dead come from the makeup and special effects. The film is essentially CGI-free, and it is all the better for it. The attention to detail with the blood and gore is a thing of sick, sick beauty. Again, I cannot stress enough that this is not for the weak of heart.

Evil Dead is a rare remake that gets it right. It’s extremely doubtful that it will obtain the same type of cult following that Sam Raimi’s film has achieved over the years, but it’s still strong enough to stand on its own. For that alone, Evil Dead can be considered a success.

8/10

Movie Review: Spring Breakers [2013]

Posted by

15

Spring Breakers [2013]

Spring Breakers [2013]
Director: Harmony Korine
Screenplay: Harmony Korine
Genre: Drama
Starring: James Franco, Selena Gomez, Vanessa Hudgens, Ashley Benson, Rachel Korine, Gucci Mane
Running Time: 94 minutes

Oh how I would have loved to have attended an opening night screening of Spring Breakers, just to gauge the reactions from a full audience. Here is a film that is so polarizing and divisive among critics and movie fans alike, and one that is bound to infuriate those simply looking for a party movie.

Director Harmony Korine, perhaps best known for writing the controversial 1995 film, Kids, has crafted a film unlike any I have ever seen, a rare feat in this day and age.

Spring Breakers tells the story of a quartet of young female college students, two of whom just so happen to be played by former Disney starlets. These four girls — Candy (Vanessa Hudgens), Brit (Ashley Benson), Cotty (Rachel Korine) and Faith (Selena Gomez) — are all so desperate to leave their boring college town and go on a spring break vacation that they are willing to do anything to come up with enough cash to do so. Their solution? Rob a restaurant using hammers and squirt guns. Shockingly, it works, and the girls head to St. Petersburg, Florida to party their asses off.

The girls are enjoying themselves, drinking, doing drugs, and riding scooters in their tiny bikinis, but their vacation is turned on its head when they meet Alien (James Franco, never better).

Spring Breakers [2013]

Alien is a goofy-looking rapper/gangster (those grills! those cornrows!) who the girls quickly take a liking to, and they get soaked up in his world of crime. What was a typical spring break vacation full of debauchery turns into something none of them could have imagined. It’s here where the film will lose half of its audience, as it goes in a completely different direction than expected.

Harmony Korine deserves major credit for keeping his viewers on their toes, as he seemingly drops bits of foreshadowing then completely disregards them. I had no idea where the film was going to go, and for that, I am impressed.

However, I can’t say I was entirely thrilled with the film’s editing choices. Monologues and certain moments are repeated over and over again, and this repetition grows monotonous over the course of film. At the same time, this is clearly what Korine intended to do, as it is readily apparent he does not care if we are actually entertained. Not everything he does *works*, but he certainly doesn’t lack the courage to do whatever the hell he wants to do.

Spring Breakers [2013]

If there is any common ground in this film, it likely comes in the form of appeal for James Franco and his unforgettable performance as Alien. He is completely ridiculous but also wildly entertaining. People will be talking about him in this film for quite some time. The girls also do well in their roles, though their characters mostly blend together. Only Gomez is given a different story arc, as her character is frequently at odds with the lack of morals presented by her friends.

Spring Breakers is pretty far out there, and as such, it will appeal to a select audience. It’s a challenging, curious film, one that I am not fully in love with, but one that I appreciate all the same. It oozes style, dares to go in directions most films won’t, and it even manages to make Skrillex tolerable. That alone makes it a winner in my book.

7/10

Movie Review: Stoker [2013]

Posted by

29

Stoker [2013]

Stoker [2013]
Director: Chan-wook Park
Screenplay: Wentworth Miller, Erin Cressida Wilson (contributing writer)
Genre: Drama/Mystery/Thriller
Starring: Mia Wasikowska, Nicole Kidman, Matthew Goode
Running Time: 99 minutes

Stoker will forever be known as Chan-wook Park’s first English language feature film, and the comparisons to his Vengeance trilogy are hard to avoid. However, it is best to go into his latest film with an open mind. Stoker is strong enough to stand on its own, comparisons be damned.

The film begins with a funeral for Richard Stoker (Dermot Mulroney), a wealthy man who passed away in a car accident on his daughter India’s (Mia Wasikowska) 18th birthday. She remains in the care of her estranged mother, Evelyn (Nicole Kidman), but they are soon joined by Richard’s long-lost brother, Charlie (Matthew Goode). Right off the bat it seems that something is amiss with Charlie. Goode plays him to smarmy perfection as he weasels his way into the household. Evelyn falls for his charms rather quickly; India, not so much.

Stoker [2013]

India is a complex girl. She’s quiet and often gets picked on at school, but she’s also not afraid to stand up for herself. The loss of her father has clearly been quite damaging, and Charlie’s insistence on building a friendship with her is not exactly welcomed. Yet as she learns more about her seemingly-vagrant uncle, she begins to discover things about herself that she perhaps didn’t know before.

As such, Stoker is something of a “coming of age” tale. However, it’s unlike any such tale you have seen before. After all, this is a Chan-wook Park film with a screenplay written by Prison Break star, Wentworth Miller. Stoker is completely unnerving during its entire running time, and it seems determined to leave its audiences feeling as uncomfortable as possible. Violence is kept to a minimum, but Park plays with a number of social taboos, all using a distinct visual style that only he can offer. His use of color and flawless transition shots are a thing of beauty, even if at times they do distract from the film itself.

Stoker [2013]

The cast here is terrific, led by the very talented Mia Wasikowska. Best known for playing Alice in Tim Burton’s Alice in Wonderland, Wasikowska thrives in this much, much darker role. It’s also great to see Nicole Kidman deliver another strong performance in her limited screen time, but perhaps most surprising is Matthew Goode. He has one of those faces where he feels instantly familiar, but beyond his pretty face is a disturbing interior that comes out more and more throughout the film. While Wasikowska is the star, Goode is the one who keeps the wheels turning.

Stoker is arguably Chan-wook Park’s most accessible work, but it’s still not for everyone (even notable amongst critics, given its 66% Rotten Tomatoes average). For those willing to brave the incommodious atmosphere, this is a rare great film released during the first quarter of the year. Park has transferred his talent masterfully to Hollywood, and I can’t wait to see where he goes next.

8/10

Movie Project #10: The Warriors [1979]

Posted by

32

The 50 Movies Project: 2013 Edition

In what has become an annual tradition, I have decided to embark in a third round of the 50 Movies Project. The premise is simple — I have put together a list of 50 movies that I feel I absolutely must see in order to continue my progression as a film lover. With so many films to see, it’s easy to get off track and forget about some of the essentials. This is my way of making sure I watch those that have been on my “must see” list for too long.

The Warriors [1979]

The Warriors [1979]
Director: Walter Hill
Screenplay: Sol Yurick (novel), David Shaber, Walter Hill
Country: USA
Genre: Action/Thriller
Starring: Michael Beck, James Remar, Dorsey Wright
Running Time: 92 minutes

Reason for inclusion: This is one of the essential cult films I have heard so much about but never seen.

Accolades: Part of the 500 Essential Cult Movies list and the New York Times Guide to the Best 1,000 Movies Ever Made

Warriors, come out to play-i-ay.

One of the great joys in watching film is to finally see a cult classic for the first time. I had heard so much about The Warriors already — I’m sure *everyone* has heard the quote above, right? — but watching it still managed to be fresh and invigorating.

The Warriors takes place in a dystopian version of New York City in which gangs run the streets. It’s a dark, gritty city, and it seems that everything is tagged with graffiti, including the inside and outside of subway trains. The most powerful gang in the city is the Gramercy Riffs, and their leader, Cyrus (Roger Hill), has called a midnight summit of *all* New York area gangs. He requests that every gang sends nine unarmed delegates to meet in the Bronx to hear his proposal. Cyrus calls for a truce so everyone can work together to obtain total control of the city.

The Warriors [1979]

Shit hits the fan when the leader of the Rogues shoots and kills Cyrus, then pins the blame on a member of the Warriors group. Now every single gang member in NYC is out for blood against the Warriors, and the film follows them as they attempt to make it back to their Coney Island stomping grounds in one piece.

“I’ll shove that bat up your ass and turn you into a popsicle.”

The Warriors [1979]

It’s a pretty basic story, but what makes The Warriors so great is its style. This goes for the dangerous NYC wasteland all the way to its colorful cast of characters. The gangs we are introduced to are all memorable and utterly ridiculous at the same time. The Warriors are a shirtless bunch that wear brown pleather vests with a “Warriors” patch on the back. The Orphans — a group of misfits so low on the totem pole that they didn’t even get invited to the summit — wear greasy green shirts and blue jeans, and they are anything but intimidating. My favorite gang? Easily the Baseball Furies, a silent, facepaint-wearing bunch that wears old baseball jersies. Also, who could forget the Boppers — a snazzy-looking group with bright purple hats and vests?

Very few of the characters are even attempted to be fleshed out, but that’s not a problem here. This is a film in which you need to just sit down and enjoy the ride, campy dialogue and all. Taken on these values, The Warriors is a lot of fun. I can dig it.

8/10

 
This film inspired a 2005 video game of the same name. Anyone play it?

Movie Project #9: Belle de Jour [1967]

Posted by

24

The 50 Movies Project: 2013 Edition

In what has become an annual tradition, I have decided to embark in a third round of the 50 Movies Project. The premise is simple — I have put together a list of 50 movies that I feel I absolutely must see in order to continue my progression as a film lover. With so many films to see, it’s easy to get off track and forget about some of the essentials. This is my way of making sure I watch those that have been on my “must see” list for too long.

Belle de Jour [1967]

Belle de Jour [1967]
Director: Luis Buñuel
Screenplay: Joseph Kessel (novel), Luis Buñuel, Jean-Claude Carrière
Country: France
Genre: Drama
Starring: Catherine Deneuve, Jean Sorel, Michel Piccoli
Running Time: 101 minutes

Reason for inclusion: I had never seen a full-length film from Luis Buñuel. My only experience with him was his insane 1929 short film collaboration with Salvador Dalí, Un Chien Andalou.

Accolades: Venice Film Festival Golden Lion Award, Venice Film Festival Pasinetti Award for Best Film, Bodil Award for Best European Film, BAFTA Award Nomination for Best Actress, included in Roger Ebert’s Great Movies series

 
In French, the term “belle-de-jour” refers to the name of the daylily flower meaning “beauty of the day.” In Luis Buñuel’s seminal 1967 film, Belle de Jour, it also serves as the name of a high-class prostitute living a secret life.

Catherine Deneuve stars as Séverine Serizy, a stunningly beautiful housewife who seems to have it all. Her husband, a successful surgeon named Pierre (Jean Sorel), provides her with everything she could ask for, yet they are unable to share a physical connection. They appear to be madly in love with each other, but Séverine is unable to be intimate with him — they even sleep in separate beds.

Belle de Jour [1967]

Little does Pierre know that Séverine has wild, elaborate sexual fantasies involving other men, many of which involve domination and bondage. After hearing from a friend that brothels are still thriving underground, she becomes curious enough to visit one. It is there that she meets Madame Anaïs (Geneviève Page), who encourages her to offer her services. Following a strict schedule of 2-5pm (when her husband is working), Séverine begins working as Belle de Jour, bringing her fantasies to life. Naturally, this double life cannot go on forever, and it leads to tragic consequences.

This film is considered one of the greatest in erotica, and it’s easy to see why. Deneuve is absolutely gorgeous, and I can totally understand why so many men fell in love with her back then (and likely now, even). While quiet for much of the film, she gives her character an incredible amount of depth. There is more to Séverine than meets the eye, as she holds an incredible amount of emotional and mental scars. Every now and then we catch glimpses of her past via random flashbacks, most of which are clues to her current sexual frustration.

Belle de Jour [1967]

What made me fall in love with the film was its intricate use of these flashbacks and daydreams. By the end of the film, I was questioning just what was real and what was not. Reading online theories afterward just made me appreciate the film even more, as there are so many layers present that leave its story open to interpretation. It’s quite possible that everyone can take a different meaning from it.

This is exactly the type of film I love, and it has made me eager to see more from Luis Buñuel. I cannot recommend Belle de Jour enough.

9/10

Movie Review: Oz the Great and Powerful [2013]

Posted by

32

Oz the Great and Powerful [2013]

Oz the Great and Powerful [2013]
Director: Sam Raimi
Screenplay: Mitchell Kapner & David Lindsay-Abaire
Genre: Adventure/Family/Fantasy
Starring: James Franco, Michelle Williams, Rachel Weisz, Mila Kunis
Running Time: 130 minutes

Oz the Great and Powerful begins with a wonderful black-and-white prologue. In 1905, a hack magician named Oscar Diggs (James Franco) performs a small-time circus act in between trying to shag the local women. He flirts with the wrong girl, however, and ends up running for his life. Diggs (also known by his stage name, Oz) escapes in a hot air balloon, only to get sucked into a nearby tornado. Somehow this tornado takes him to the Land of Oz, and it is here that the film pans out to full technicolor, bringing this magical new world to life.

Oscar, confused but grateful to no longer be in danger, wanders around his new surroundings before meeting the witch, Theodora (Mila Kunis). She believes that Oscar is actually the wizard that has been prophesied to return and overthrow the Wicked Witch, and she brings him to meet her sister, fellow witch Evanora (Rachel Weisz). They send him to the Dark Forest to destroy the Wicked Witch’s wand, but he discovers that this witch is not so wicked after all — she’s actually Glinda the Good Witch (Michelle Williams). Now Oscar finds himself caught in the middle of a battle between the two sides, all while being forced to masquerade as the powerful Wizard of Oz.

Oz the Great and Powerful [2013]

As a film, Oz the Great and Powerful is likely exactly as you might expect it to be. It works well as a kid’s film — Oscar meets some crowd-pleasing fantasy characters on his way, including a china doll and a flying monkey — though its 2+ hour running time might be a burden for some little ones. The Land of Oz is colorful and vibrant, and the Munchkin inhabitants of Emerald City are sure to be a hit (despite having a very small role). In this regard, the film succeeds.

However, it’s hard not to expect more in the hands of director Sam Raimi. The characters are hardly interesting. James Franco makes Oz come across as a total sleazeball, and it’s hard to buy in to the fact that he has any ‘good’ values underneath. Michelle Williams and Rachel Weisz do well with their material, but Mila Kunis is completely out of her element as Theodora. Kunis isn’t given much to work with, but her performance is devoid of any real emotion.

Oz the Great and Powerful [2013]

I also noticed some issues with the CGI — there were multiple occasions where the actors’ interactions with the artificial characters were completely off (i.e. Franco trying to shake the china girl’s hand but there being a noticable gap in between). For a film with a budget north of $200 million, these quirks are inexcusable.

And so goes Oz the Great and Powerful, a superficially pretty film without any real depth. Judging from my audience’s reaction, the kids seem to be digging it, so the film has that going for it. It’s just a shame that it isn’t as magical as it could have been.

6/10