Once Upon a Time...In Hollywood (2019)

Once Upon a Time…In Hollywood (2019)

Written and Directed by: Quentin Tarantino 

Cast: Margot Robbie, Leonardo Di Caprio, Brad Pitt, Al Pacino, Michael Madsen, Emil Hirsch, Kurt Russell, Luke Perry 

The god of cinema decided to make another one so of course I had to go see it. Movie buffs like me live for days like this, when a legendary filmmaker releases his new masterpiece upon an unsuspecting universe. As you can see, with every Tarantino film there comes a certain expectation of greatness for me. It goes without saying that I am a full blown Tarantino fan since day one, when I first saw Pulp Fiction back in ‘94 and felt a bucket of cold ice being poured down my cinematic back. But time has passed and as Tarantino himself has said, directors do not make their best movies in their heyday. And Tarantino is close to what he calls his ‘heyday’.  But whatever, I don’t subscribe to that idea, I mean, Scorcese is still amazing and he's close to hitting 80 as I write this. It’s true, that directing a film is a “young person’s game” but Tarantino isn’t that old yet. He still has it in him to hammer out a few good ones. So, was this one of his “good ones”?

 Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood is as the title suggest, a huge love letter to Hollywood, filmmaking, actors and life in L.A. during the end of the 60’s. We follow Rick Dalton, an actor who’s afraid of being a has been and his stunt man Cliff Booth. Together they go from gig to gig hoping that it isn’t their last. Somehow, they end up getting entangled with Charles Manson and his gang of zelot followers. The rest is fun times in La La Land, Tarantino style. 

 I’ve noticed this thing Tarantino’s been doing with his films. He takes a moment in history and totally changes it as if saying “this is how I wish it had happened!”. Remember how he burned Hitler and all his cronies in Inglorious Bastards (2009)? Of course we all know that’s not how it happened, but that’s how Tarantino wished it had. Well, Tarantino does the same thing here with Sharon Tate’s murder at the hands of Charles Manson’s followers. It was a crime of pure hate and stupidity. Tate was pregnant and two weeks away from giving birth to her new child when these crazy Manson zombies killed her and her guests. Tarantino feels this was a great wrong, Tate was a beloved actress, she was loved for her looks and her talent and was a star on the rise. Tarantino decides to tell us the events that occurred that night, but in a completely different way, using Poetic Justice as his weapon. 

 Along the way, the film muses on the hardships of being an actor and trying to survive in Hollywood. What’s it like to have that pressure of delivering a great performance? What is the actors duty on a film or a television show? Tarantino also takes us on a stroll down Los Angeles 1969, with all the cinema marquees and automobiles from that era that you’d expect. I thought it was awesome how he brought that era to life, no digital effects to be seen I might add. A lot of scenes in the film are of characters just driving around L.A. streets so we can absorb the era. Granted, this film isn’t as profound as Inglorious Basterds (2009), there’s a decidedly lighter tone to the film, like a fun breezy vibe, a feeling enhanced by Brad Pitt’s character Cliff Booth, always smiling, his character serves as a counter part to the darkness of one of the films themes, Sharon Tate’s murder at the hands of the Manson Family.

 Tarantino, Di Caprio and Pitt get together once again and I have to say the results are fantastic. Di Caprio delivers another amazing performance to his repertoire. I’ve always thought that Di Caprio is one of the best actors of his generation from day one when he blew me away in What’s Eating Gilbert Grape? (1993) and to be honest he continues to do so to this day. Love his performance on Once Upon a Time…In Hollywood. A flawed, imperfect character struggling with his craft, worried about becoming useless in life. Brad Pitt turns in another loopy sort of happy go lucky stoner type, where nothing fades him, always the cool dude. His character reminded me of that stoner guy he played in True Romance (1993), it felt as if that character had grown up and become a stunt man in Hollywood. There are lots of cameos sprinkled all through out the film, we get Al Pacino playing a film producer and Kurt Russell as a stunt coordinator, in a way, it felt like he was perhaps playing the same character he played in Tarantino’s Death Proof (2007)? We also get a lot of Tarantino regulars like Zoe Bell, Bruce Dern and Michael Madsen, sorry, no Samuel Jackson this time around. 

 This is Tarantino’s 9^thfilm and there’s been a lot of talk about Tarantino saying that his next one, his tenth film, will be his last. Quite honestly I think they will milk that angle to death for his next film and make a profit out of it being “Tarantino’s 10^thand final film”, but I can almost guarantee that wont be the case. Tarantino’s love for cinema is too strong, a fact that’s evident by what we see in Once Upon a Time…In Hollywood. Tarantino has still got it and I don’t think it’s going anywhere, not even after he makes his 10^thfilm. But that’s just me and I could be horribly wrong so don’t quote me on that. As for Once Upon a Time…in Hollywood, it’s a fun ride down the trippy 60’s. It’s a fun time at the movies that explores a dark chapter in Hollywood history while also exploring in a very entertaining way what it means to produce, act and direct films. A film buffs dream this movie is. 

Rating: 5 out of 5.  

Pink Floyd's The Wall (1980)

Pink Floyd’s The Wall (1980)

Director: Alan Parker

Cast: Bob Geldof, Bob Hoskins, Jenny Wright

As a film buff, sometimes important movies escape my all scanning, all seeing eyes. Truth is there’s just so much to see; a life time isn’t enough.  So for whatever the reason, probably because I was never really into Pink Floyd’s music, I had never seen Pink Floyd’s The Wall. Man am I kicking myself in the ass for not having seen this one before! This movie is not just a movie, it’s an experience! An audio visual tour de force!

This is the story of ‘Pink’, a young man that’s not to happy about the worlds his born into, we follow him through the different phases in life, so in many ways it’s a life story. In this sense, it is similar to Ken Russell's Tommy (1975), because its also a life story, it's also a critique on society and it's also a film fueled by Rock and Roll. In Pink Floyd's The Wall, we see Pink go from growing up in an abusive and unproductive education system, to becoming comfortably numb through watching television and doing drugs in order to ignore the crazy world that surrounds him. Pink manages to become part of a famous rock band, but even with success nothing makes sense to him. Will he snap and go totally insane? Or will he join the ranks of Big Brother?

This film is very special, and I’m going to have to ask anyone out there reading that hasn’t experienced this film yet to do so at the earliest possible convenience. I mean, if you love film and the range of emotions and themes that you can express through it, then go on and find a copy of this amazing movie and watch it. It’s a wonderful achievement, an amazing marriage of sight and sound. All gushing aside, what actually makes this film so special? Well, let me count the ways.

One of the things that stands out about this movie is that it hardly uses any dialog to tell its story. Its main character hardly utters a word throughout the entire film! Other characters around him speak, but Pink himself remains with his lips sealed for most of the film, even though a lot seems to be going on inside of him. Yet, what he doesn’t say through words, he conveys through facial expressions, through performance and through action. Like Chaplin, here’s a character that says a lot without saying a word! Pink is a guy that has grown sick of the mind numbing stupidity that society occupies itself with. He hates television, the dumb masses, he hates money, war, material things, Pink basically dislikes everything he sees. Where will this abhorring of the world take him? Bob Geldof’s performance is a good one; a lot is conveyed through performance, which to me is one of the films major achievements. This films modus operandi is “a picture speaks louder than a thousand words”. And boy, the imagery we see on this film truly speaks for itself!

In order to tell their story through surrealistic, symbolic images, the filmmakers put a lot of effort into marrying the perfect images with the lyrics to Pink Floyd’s songs, which are just amazing. Songs and images gel together so perfectly here! The songs are every bit as subversive as the visuals, which hold nothing back, these songs tell a story. I mean, here’s a movie that tells us that today’s education system treats students like meat to a grinder…every student grinded into one same piece of meat, without anything to make them individuals, without uniqueness. Here’s a film that says that television can drive you mad, that war is death, that bad parents are something to drive us mad, that we will eventually turn into a piece of the machinery, into another senseless clone.  Here’s a film unafraid to say that governments can turn into fascist regimes, basically, this is a movie without any filters or restraints. Yet it says everything so artistically, with such emotion and intensity. It’s impossible to ignore it, or the truth within it.

The talent in the film is obviously a huge part of what makes it such a wonder to behold. Here we have Alan Parker in the director’s chair; a director whose films have always been thematically strong, like a punch to the gut. If you don’t believe me then go and watch Midnight Express (1978). Watching that movie for the first time is like getting a bucket of ice cold water poured down your back! I dare you not to be inspired by Parker’s Fame (1980), or be freaked out by Robert Deniro’s Satan in Parker’s satanic thriller, Angel Heart (1987). Point is that Pink Floyd’s The Wall has an excellent director behind it, which is probably why the visuals are so memorable. But then again, Pink Floyd has always been a band who pays as much attention to their music videos as they do to their songs; their music videos are always a joy to watch. The film was written by Pink Floyd’s own Roger Waters, but the basic jist of the film is that the songs from their conceptual album ‘The Wall’ are the driving force behind the plot of the film. These songs tell us the story of a young man in disgust with society, and the songs are truly special, and this comes from a new fan. Thanks to this film, I am now a Pink Floyd convert/fan, the same thing might happen to you if you’ve never been a fan of Pink Floyd. I dare you not to have some sort of emotional reaction to the images that accompany the song ‘Comfortably Numb’, one of Pink Floyd’s biggest hits. With this song, the film also comments on the sometimes nightmarish lifestyle of a rock and roll star, as if the film wasn’t already commenting enough. And yet another great element in the film are Gerald Scarfe’s amazing animated sequences, which are mind blowing! This movie wouldn’t be the same without Scarfe’s imaginative animation, it is an integral part of the equation. Scarfe’s animation is so fantastic that various sequences, like the hammers marching, the teacher grinding the students into a meat grinder, or that screaming face emerging out of the brick wall have all become part of this films iconic imagery. So what we have here my friends, is a nonstop onslaught of talent. This is definitely one of the movies you should see before you croke, put it on your must watch list, you won’t regret it.

Rating: 5 out of 5

Midnight Cowboy (1970)

Midnight Cowboy (1970)

Director: John Schlesinger

Cast: Dustin Hoffman, Jon Voight

Midnight Cowboy is a fish out of water story about a young Texan dishwasher who decides he wants something more out of life so he packs up his bags, gets on a bus and heads towards big bad New York City. The problem is that his big plans for a better life strive entirely on hustling in the world of male prostitution. And further complicating matters, Buck isn’t really much of a hustler, in fact, he’s one hundred and one percent naïve, which means, in a city like New York, he is the one who’s going to get hustled. So it’s that kind of a story in which an innocent person is confronted with a bizarre and violent world, which will transform him forever.

Usually the first thing you do when you arrive to a new place is make new acquaintances and hopefully, find a kind soul which you can befriend, someone who will show you the ropes. In the case of young and naïve Joe Buck, as soon as he arrives to New York, he connects with a guy whom people call ‘Ratso Rizzo’, a name that would’ve raised a couple of red flags under my radar, but Buck is so naïve he becomes best friends with Rizzo. This ultimate naiveté is what drives the whole story; Buck’s innocence is pitted against Razzo’s experienced hustler ways. These opposite personalities create some very interesting and entertaining situations, for example, the party scene in which they are both randomly invited to one of these crazy swinging parties from the 60’s, where people are doing all sorts of drugs,   dancing naked and fucking. I got flashbacks from a similar scene in Beyond the Valley of the Dolls (1970). There was something about movies from the 60’s; they always had these groovy party sequences. Lots of psychedelic images, like some sort of acid trip, nothing makes sense! Someone’s always smoking weed, there’s always trippy music. Anyways, it’s interesting to see both characters getting lost in all that craziness. Will Joe Buck survive all that insanity? Will he become corrupted somehow? Or has he finally found his place?

At the crux of it all, are these two guys helping each other under such dire living circumstances.  And they are truly dire, I mean, these guys are so dirt poor that they live in an abandoned building in New York City, with a million rats and the roaches as their roommates. Dinner is canned soup. And there’s always that question of, are they attracted to each other? Is there something else going on here? I love how the film hints at it, but never truly answers that question. The strongest part about the film are the performances by its two main actors, Jon Voight as Joe Buck the innocent manwhore with a heart of gold and Dustin Hoffman’s Rizzo, the scummiest dirt bag in town. They both portray their characters to perfection. This without a doubt is one of Dustin Hoffman’s most memorable performances, I’m sure it’s one of his top five. It’s in this film he gave us that famous line “I’m walking here!” a line that some say was improvised by Hoffman because that cab that almost hits him on that scene was a real New York cab, because they were filming that scene live, on the streets, without the proper permissions. Hoffman’s performance is so good, you actually feel empathy for Rizzo, a low street hustler who owes money to everybody and will lie through his teeth for a twenty dollar bill. Yet, by the films end you will feel something for the guy. For both of them actually, but what’s beautiful about this movie is that they both grow to become family, a true friendship develops.

Interesting thing about this movie is that it was rated X. I’m pretty sure it’s because of all the sexual themes. I mean, Joe Buck does become a bisexual, but only out of necessity, he doesn’t seem to enjoy being with men, he just needs the money. There is some nudity, but nothing that I’d say would garner an X rating, so I’m thinking it was the subject manner and the conservative mentality of the time that got this movie the dreaded ‘X’ rating, which is something that any studio fears because getting an ‘X’ rating means death at the box office. Yet even with its X rating the film went on to become the first and only film with an X rating to win academy awards! Actually, it won three, Best Picture, Best Director and Best Adapted Screenplay! Right now it is not an X rated film, in 1971 they the MPAA changed it to an R, without changing a thing about it.

Bottom line is, you should watch this film because it’s a real American Classic. It truly captures the city of New York thanks to some amazing photography and the fact that they had the fortune of being able to film in the actual city of New York, which is something a lot of films are faking these days because its so expensive to film there. So those are real New York City taxi cabs about to run over Dustin Hoffman! Those are real scummy, 1970’s New York City streets! The film has amazing performances from both its protagonists and it’s a film about true friendship. John Schlesinger purposely left out any sexual complications between Buck and Rizzo in order to make a film about two guys who end up becoming the best of friends, without any sexual ties. These are just two dudes who decide to support each other in the middle of this messed up world, in the middle of the darkness true friendship blossoms. But can friendship eclipse the darkness in our lives? The film asks the question: can we make our lives better, even when we’ve been dealt a dark hand in life? Can we out of sheer will power and positive thinking change the course of our lives? Or are some of us so far down the rabbit hole that there’s no way out no matter how much we try? 

   

Rating: 5 out of 5

    

Wild (2014)

Title: Wild (2014)

Director: Jean-Marc Vallee

Cast: Reese Witherspoon, Laura Dern

Wild is the story of Cheryl Strayed, a woman who falls into heroin addiction and furthermore, becomes sexually promiscuous in order to deal with her mother’s death. After reaching an all time low by becoming a town whore and getting pregnant in the process, she decides it’s time to do something with her life in order to straighten things out.  She decides to go hiking for three months in order to ‘find herself’ and eradicate her heroin addiction. Can she survive on her own for three months in the wilderness and kick her heroin addiction? And will Reese Witherspoon win an Oscar for this role?

I did some surfing on the net, trying to scope the general reaction for this film and discovered (to my surprise) that some folks seem to be disappointed by this film because they find it “to simple of a movie”. That it’s just about Reese Witherspoon walking around remembering the events that led her to heroin and sex addiction. That it’s not worthy of a movie, that it’s an ego trip for Reese Witherspoon. I guess those folks just don’t get it. I mean, yes, they are right; this is a film about a woman walking and remembering, but to these sentiments I say, what’s wrong with that? What’s wrong with a film about analyzing ourselves? So obviously, Wild is not a movie for everyone, especially not those expecting special effects, action or impossible situations. No, this movie is more of an introspective tale, a spiritual journey of self discovery, so be ready for that.  

How personal is this story? Well, it’s based on Cheryl Strayed’s book Wild: From Lost to Found in the Pacific Crest Trail, which she mostly wrote as she hiked the trail herself. This is why we hear a lot of inner monologue through out the film, we here Cheryl’s thoughts as she is hiking, which made perfect sense to me. When  you hike for as long as she did, it’s just you, the road, nature and your mind. So what the director was doing here was capturing the experience of hiking on film; the loneliness, the beauty of nature, the grandness of the landscape and the inevitable tendency to get introspective, to reanalyze your life; where you've been, where you’re going, what does it all mean? We also get a glimpse at the whole hiker community, a whole different lifestyle that you've probably never gotten a glimpse at. It’s these elements that make this film unique. A good movie should capture the experience it’s trying to represent on film in a convincing manner and director Jean-Marc Vallee did just that, so kudos to him for it.

I like spiritual tales like this one. They are about people trying to connect with themselves, with the universe, trying to find the goodness in life by disconnecting from all the crap that society has to offer. Let’s face it, the world we live in offers some really crappy solutions to the sameness of it all. Once you grow tired of your repetitive life, of your problems, it’s easy to turn to drugs and alcohol to escape it all. What I liked about this movie is that it was Cheryl looking to escape from the escapes, if that makes any sense at all. She’s cuts with the world and with everyone in it in order to hear her own voice. That’s worthy of a movie for me, it’s a worthwhile story to tell. It reminded me a bit of Sean Penn’s Into the Wild (2007), though they are different films because Into the Wild was more about a man looking to completely disconnect from the modern life, completely giving his back to society and the modern world. Wild is more about escaping it all for a while, punishing your body a bit, showing it who is boss; taking a breather from the modern world in order to return to the battle and start again. But they share that idea of disconnecting, leaving all the noise of the world behind. Hiking for three months in the wild is no piece of cake; it takes a special kind of determination and will power and yes, inner strength to do it. Even more interesting is the fact that Cheryl Strayed did this without any prior experience in trail hiking!

Reese Witherspoon (left) and Cheryl Strayed (right)

Reese Witherspoon has gotten an Oscar nomination for her work in this film, but she has to go up against some stiff competition. She's going up against Julianne Moore for Still Alice, Rosamund Pike for Gone Girl, Felicity Jones for Theory of Everything and Marion Cotillard for Two Days, One Night. I guess we’ll see if she has what it takes to win, I thought her performance was excellent but I haven’t seen the competing films, so here’s hoping. I enjoy films like this one, they talk about life and how all of us deal with it in different ways. Some say big deal, we all got problems and they don’t make a movie about them. We all lose our mothers; we don’t all turn to promiscuous sex and drugs to deal with it; to that I say we don’t all react the same way when we lose someone close to us, some of us go on just fine, others break down. Each of our stories is different, they could make a movie about all of our lives, each one would be entirely different, each one would teach us a little something about the world we live in. This is Cheryl Strayeds story, and we can learn just as much from it as well. It’s a story about loss and redemption, told in a beautiful and sometimes poetic way, definitely worth a watch.

Rating: 5 out of 5   

Whiplash (2014)

Whiplash (2014)

Director: Damien Chazelle

Cast: Miles Teller, J.K. Simmons, Paul Reiser, Melissa Benoist

Here’s another Oscar contender, as it is, Whiplash has been nominated for five awards which include Best Picture, Best Actor Nomination for J.K. Simmons, Best Film Editing, Best Sound Mixing and Best Adapted Screenplay, now if you ask me, I think it has a shot at Film of the Year, simply because it’s such an engaging film, which is one of the great things about it, it’s a movie about a music student, a drummer, yet the film manages to be so tense! Well, this film got to me on a whole other level because I’m currently finishing my bachelor’s degree in education, and so of course, I saw it from the student-teacher perspective. Because obviously, there’s many theories as to how to educate a student, what to do and what not to do, so I loved how the film explored these themes and situations. So this review comes to you guys from the perspective of a future teacher, which might offer you a different point of view on the film.

Whiplash is all about Andre, a 19 year old percussionist who has just gotten accepted into one of the best music schools in New York. He practices often and hard because he wants to be “one of the greats”. Unfortunately, he soon meets Mr. Fletcher, the music teacher from hell. Mr. Fletcher’s education techniques are extreme and unorthodox, he insults, screams and smacks his students in the face. Questions immediately arise. Is he too extreme? Does he achieve anything by intimidating his students? Is he going too far with his methods? Is it worth it? Or is he just a whacko blowing off steam with his students? Of course, we’re all rooting for Andre to make it, but will he make it with such a hellish music teacher breathing down his neck?

This movie touches upon many themes, but one of them is the choice that a person who wants to be “one of the greats” has to make when the time comes to choose between love or career. This is a conundrum that those completely dedicated to their careers eventually stumble upon, to love someone or to love what you do? The idea being that if you’re going to be 100% dedicated to something, you cannot have time for love. Whiplash reminded me of The RedShoes (1948) and Black Swan (2010) in that sense. But ultimately, Whiplash is an inspirational film because it introduces to a character who doesn’t let anything get in the way of getting where he wants to go. He wants to be the best of the best, unfortunately, his extreme teacher serves as a stumbling block. Some might see it another way, some might see Mr. Fletchers methods as extreme, yet effective. How did I see this film, from the perspective of a future educator?

Well, in the film, Mr. Fletcher has a peculiar way of pushing his students to their limits. He speaks at them in a very candid matter, quite a few ‘fucks’ are said on this film (and interesting drinking game would be to take a shot every time the word is said) not to mention other beautiful words like ‘faggot’ and ‘cocksucker’, but these aren’t high school kids, and to be honest, college professors can sometimes be very candid. But at the same time, you’ll feel that Mr. Fletcher is going just a little too far, he’s methods are harmful in a way that affects the student’s self esteem and psyche. I mean, I’m all for helping students achieve their maximum potential, but is there a line? That is the main question that the film addresses. And I say yes, there has to be a line. You cannot for example humiliate a student to the point that he’ll commit suicide. This film is being compared with Stanley Kubrick’s Full Metal Jacket (1987) for a reason: the teacher behaves in the same manner as R. Lee Ermey’s ‘Sgt. Hartman’, screaming and hollering at his students like if they were in the military. I’d say Whiplash is a mash up between Full Metal Jacket and Fame (1980), strange comparison I know, but that’s exactly what it feels like. 

 I’m glad that J.K. Simmons was nominated for an Oscar, his performances is quite good. I’m sure he was chosen for his explosive personality, some of you might remember him as J. Jonah Jameson, editor of ‘The Daily Bugle’ in the old Spiderman movies, he’s the guy that always screams and insults Peter Parker. On Whiplash he does that, but with a decidedly more serious and deadly tone. J.K. Simmons plays a character that you’ll either admire for his extreme methods or completely hate. In any case, he also comes off as a very human character. He’s not the squeaky clean, pitch perfect wholesome teacher you’ve seen in so many movies centered around education, like say Mr. Holland’s Opus (1995) or Dangerous Minds (1995). I also loved Miles Teller’s character, Andrew, a very vulnerable yet headstrong character. He proves to be Mr. Fletcher’s biggest challenge. There’s this amazing scene where Andrew is completely humiliated by Mr. Fletcher, and he sort of gives up, but then turns things around and decides to give Mr. Fletcher the old “fuck you man, I know I’m good!”. This was a scene that I loved because sometimes as a student, you have to stand up to a particularly idiotic professor, you know, the snobbish kind, with those damned egos. If there is one thing this film proves is that there is such a thing as a bad teacher and that sometimes personal problems and personality traits can get in the way of the teaching, and that’s when the student has to stand up for himself, because we all have our pride and self esteem to protect. Whiplash gets a perfect score from me, a very satisfying film, you won’t know where it’s going or how it’s going to end, it deserves an award for that alone.

Rating: 5 out of 5  

Foxcatcher (2015)

Title: Foxcatcher (2015)

Director: Bennett Miller

Cast: Channing Tatum, Steve Carell, Mark Ruffalo, Sienna Miller

Steve Carell has gotten an Oscar Nomination for his performance as John Dupont, the mad man millionaire who shot Olympic wrestler Dave Shultz three times, point blank, for god knows what. It’s one of those crimes where we’ll never really know what happened, because those involved won’t say, so it’s probably some really dark secret thing that they don’t want anyone knowing about, which gets your imagination going as to what really happened. Some say it had something to do with exposing Dupont’s potential homosexuality, others attribute the murder to John Dupont’s schizophrenia and others say he was just high on drugs. Similar to The Wolf of Wall Street (2014), this is the story of a millionaire with enough money to be high all the time, on the drug of his choice. Apparently, one of them was cocaine.

So anyhow, the story is all about how John Dupont, one of the richest men in America, decides he is going to fund the American olympic wrestling team by creating a training compound called ‘Team Foxcatcher’. You see, Dupont was an Olympic wrestling aficionado, so he wanted to back the team up, go for the gold by sponsoring these young guns, he also wanted the glory of being called their ‘coach’, though in reality, he had very limited knowledge of the sport. Things go sour when John Dupont’s schizophrenia or his drug abuse begin to show their ugly face. Will Team Foxcatcher win the gold medal? Can the team hold together when its financial backer is a certified wacko millionaire?

So this is one of those movies that runs on the strength of one particular performance and that’s Steve Carell’s portrayal of John Dupont. Everyone else in the film is great, it’s refreshing to see Channing Tatum trying something serious, and the same goes for Mark Ruffallo who turns in a solid performance as Dave Schultz. The thing with Carell’s performance is that we’re used to seeing him play the goofball Manager of Dunder Mifflin, Scranton branch on The Office. But here he is playing a psycho and it’s a drastic change to be sure. It’s not surprising to see a comedian trying something new, comedians always try to branch out into more serious roles in order to stretch their acting abilities, to grow as an actor. We’ve seen a lot of comedians do this, Bill Murray is a good example, but I guess the biggest example would be Tom Hanks, a straight forward comedian who’s suddenly this serious Oscar Caliber actor who rarely makes a comedy anymore. Will we see Carell leave comedy forever after Foxcatcher? I hope not, to me Carell is such a hilarious actor he should keep making funny movies forever, but of course, an actor wants to expand and grow, so I wouldn't be surprised if he wants to explore the serious/dramatic route for a while.

That's Steve Carrell playing John Dupont on the left, and on the right, the real John Dupont, playing at being a coach for the Olympic Wrestling Team. 

Speaking of the Oscar race, Foxcatcher has been nominated for Best Director, Best Original Screenplay, Best Actor and Best Supporting Actor. Mark Ruffalo gets the nom for Best Supporting Actor. I think he did a fine performance here playing Dave Schultz, Mark Schultz’s big brother, but he has some stiff competition. The same goes for every category that Foxcatcher is nominated in. If you ask me, Carell and his performance as John Dupont is the only chance Foxcatcher has at winning an Oscar. Even director Bennett Miller, who also directed Capote (2005) and Moneyball (2011) doesn’t have much of a chance against the contenders going up against him. For me, the best director Oscar will go either to Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu for Birdman or Richard Linklater for Boyhood, simply because of the technical prowess displayed in both of these films and the phenomenal concepts behind both of them. Both Birdman and Boyhood are so much more complex in execution than Foxcatcher, that its pretty obvious either of those two will win. And therein lies Foxcatchers limited chances, its a pretty simple picture when compared to other Oscar contenders. Don’t get me wrong, Foxcatcher is a completely watchable film with many merits, it just didn’t say much to me, it felt like a lightweight thematically speaking, like empty calories. I mean, the sibling rivalry angle isn’t exploited much and neither is Dupont’s possible homosexuality. Things are sort of touched upon, but never really explored, ultimately, Foxcatcher left me wanting more, I wanted it to dig deeper, but I detected a bit of restraint on the filmmakers part.

Why wasn’t Dupont’s schizophrenia explored more in depth? I mean here’s a guy who reportedly spoke to rocks, thought spirits and spies where after him and thought that treadmills could send him back in time! It would have been interesting to see this angle explored a bit more. The film does go into Dupont wanting to garner others respect, mainly his mothers. Here's a man who's trying to do something great, but is unable to because he himself isn't a "great man", so what does he do? He hangs around the greats, to see if some of that greatness and talent rubs off on him, but that's not how it works. Greatness is achieved through talent and dedication. Dupont wanted to pretend. In regards to Dupont’s schizophrenia, the film reminded me a bit of Ron Howard’s A Beautiful Mind (2001) a film in which Russell Crowe plays a brilliant mathematician who also talks to imaginary people, yet is brilliant in his own field. The only difference is that A Beautiful Mind ends on a more positive vibe, while Foxcatcher goes down a darker path. So in conclusion my friends, Foxcatcher was a good movie, with a strange vibe which I enjoyed. You know something is off, but you’re not sure what it is.  And we get Steve Carell’s awesome performance, which is strong enough to get him an Oscar this year;  but the competition is tough, we’ll see.

Rating: 4 out of 5

Dave and Mark Schultz during their glory days

Birdman (2014)

Birdman: Or the Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance (2014)

Director: Alejandro Gonzalez Iñarritu

Cast: Michael Keaton, Emma Stone, Zach Galifianakis, Naomi Watts, Edward Norton

I enjoy Alejandro Gonzalez Iñarritu films because of the level of realism they have, they have immediacy to them that attracts me to them, they feel like real life and not like many of today's color filtered, fake looking films. If you don’t believe me go rent Amores Perros (2000), a film that tells five stories that are all connected by one catastrophic car accident, an idea that Paul Haggis borrowed heavily from for his film Crash (2004). Amores Perros is shot in this hyper realistic documentary style that just blows me away every time I see it, actually all of Iñarritu’s films are shot this way which is what I like about them. So anyways, I always look forward to Iñarritu’s films, because he is one of those few directors with a pitch perfect record, he hardly ever makes a disappointing film. The only time I wasn’t blown away by one of his films was with Babel (2006), and even that film has its merits. Iñarritu’s the kind of director that even when he makes a “bad” film, it’s still good. When I heard about Birdman I was immediately attracted to it because of its premise, I thought it was a novel idea, but I have to admit I was more than a bit curious as to what Iñarritu was going to say with this film. What would it be about? 

Birdman is all about Riggan, an aging actor trying to gain the respect of an audience that has forgotten all about him. You see, at one point in his life Riggan was the biggest star on the planet when he starred in a series of comic book films called Birdman; a series of films about a super hero with wings, which by the way is a pretty cool looking character. Point is Riggan stopped making Birdman movies and is now fading away from the spotlight. His plan to regain the audiences approval and attention is putting on a play called ‘What we talk about when we talk about love’.  When the movie begins, the play is days away from premiering in a theater in New York City and he is all kinds of nervous looking for a new actor to take the lead role. Will he get to premiere his play successfully? Does he still have what it takes? Will the audience accept him once again?

Various elements make Birdman one of the best films of 2014, but let’s start with its obvious technical prowess. Here’s a film shot in a way that makes it look like its one long continuous shot, and though this might fly undetected by the common moviegoer, those with a more keen sense of observation will realize just how difficult it is to make a film this way. The big problem is that when an actor messes up a line, you have to start filming the shot all over again. Also, shooting a film with long continuous shots proves difficult in the editing room, because through editing you can establish certain beats in the rhyme of the visuals and the storytelling, you can even add comedy through editing, but if it’s all one continuous shot, things become just a little more demanding. Performances and shots have to be incredibly well choreographed and timed in order for this technique to work well, so this is why I applaud Iñarritu for achieving this technique so well.  Alfonso Cuaron also used this technique effectively in Gravity (2013). And it’s not that they don’t ever cut, they do, but the cuts are placed in a way that you hardly notice them, and they are very few. Entire sequences will go on and on and on without cutting, it’s quite amusing for those interested in filmmaking. It certainly makes things more demanding for everyone involved. Some shots are amazing, keep your eyes peeled for them, there’s quite a few of them.

Iñarritu directs a scene

Another area in which this film excels is in its themes, you see this is one of those films that’s about film. It’s not unlike Hugo (2011), The Big Picture (1989) or Shadow of the Vampire (2000), which are films that explore the nature of filmmaking both from the filmmakers view point and from the actors view point. On Birdman filmmaking is explored from the point of view of the actors, it’s all about the never changing fact that “Hollywood takes you in, chews you up and then spits you out”. There’s a reason why that saying hasn’t faded away and it’s because it still remains true. Hollywood caters to the young, the beautiful, the ‘now’, what’s in and what’s hot is what matters. You get old, suddenly you’re not getting as many roles as you used to. The movie addresses this idea that in Hollywood, unless you become a raging icon to the masses, you are more than likely going to fade away, quietly into the night. And sometimes that “fading away” ain’t a pretty sight because it’s hard for actors to let go of the fame and the spotlight. The film focuses on that frustrating moment when the actor simply doesn’t like the fact that he or she is no longer “popular”. What makes things even more interesting is the fact that Michael Keaton used to play a comic book character himself, same as the character in Birdman. It’s no wonder Keaton’s performance rings so true, I’m sure a lot of his own frustrations were channeled into his performance, because while Keaton has never stopped working, he isn’t as popular as he was when he made Batman (1989) or Bettlejuice (1988). There’s this amazing moment when Riggan is locked out of the theater by mistake and he’s in his underwear, the scene comments on how acting is a very vulnerable profession, you expose your soul to others through your performance, so I loved the metaphor there, an actor desperately baring his naked soul to his audience, humanity, the masses. You can expect a real heartfelt performance from Keaton. Could the critical success of Birdman spell a comeback for Keaton? It certainly feels like it, from what I hear, he’s gonna be reuniting with Tim Burton for Beetlejuice 2 next! It will be interesting to see how they make that one work after so many years have passed.   

The film also speaks about how aging actors have to adjust to the changing of the times, and the way things are marketed nowadays. For example, there’s a moment when a video of Riggan becomes popular on You Tube and is ‘trending’ and his daughter shows him how many people have viewed it and tells him “this is power”, a fact that Riggan is completely clueless about. The film also talks about how a lot of Hollywood films are aimed at a young audience and that what the masses love is action, blood, explosions and special effects. Which is true, just ask Michael Bay and Roland Emmerich. The masses don’t want “philosophical bullshit” and the filmmakers behind Birdman are obviously frustrated by this.  I agree with them to a certain extent, because while I enjoy big fx spectacles, I also love brainy, artistic films. In my book there’s space for both types of films; the escapist summer movies as well as the more philosophical, story driven films. But of course, what the masses like, which is to say what the grand majority likes is brainless action and effects like the next Transformers movie, this in turn speaks volumes about the kind of people that make up the majority, which in turns is a sad state of affairs. When we get down to it, I think what the filmmakers behind Birdman are really frustrated with is the level of education of the majority, in other words, if we’re to read between the lines, there’s a genuine frustration with how many brainless zombies exist in the world. So yes my friends, we have an amazing film here, certainly deserving of being called one f the best of the year and one that I’m sure will garner Michael Keaton an Oscar nod, and quite possibly an Oscar win, here’s hoping.

Rating: 5 out of 5 

Nightcrawler (2014)

Nightcrawler (2014)

Director: Dan Gilroy

Cast: Jake Gyllenhal, Rene Russo, Bill Paxton

Nightcrawler came out of nowhere for me, I had no idea who was behind it, who made it, who wrote it, I didn’t even know it was in production. But then I saw a trailer and I was immediately hooked. The premise alone got me; the idea of a guy who takes matters into his own hands and starts filming things that happen on the streets, capturing footage of moments on the spot, seconds after they’d happened, or sometimes as they are happening, sometimes getting there before the cops or the fire men themselves, it just seemed like a very original concept to me. I mean, speaking about the media, we all know how news is manipulated to shape the way the masses perceive things. I personally despise how the media is always fear mongering. Example, I turned on the television the other day and right there in words that caught practically half of the screen where the words ‘Fear’ and ‘Ebola’, with no other words on the screen. I was like wow, that’s what their selling now. That’s what they want people to fear now, but is this an actual epidemic? Or are they deviating the publics attention from things that really matter in the world? A few months down the line it’ll be some other fear; the trick is to keep us in a state of panic without focusing on things that are truly important. So a film in which someone wants to capture the news himself seemed so interesting to me. Did Nightcrawler deliver the goods? 

The story focuses on Louis Bloom, a common thief with delusions of grandeur. Louis is a smart guy, he educates himself by reading a lot, the problem is that he’s kind of nuts. Actually, the guy is full blown nuts. He’s the kind of guy that a few minutes into the conversation, you realize he’s completely bonkers, but boy, what a character! So anyhow, when we first meet him he’s stealing manholes and watches to sell them for scraps, until he stumbles upon this guy who films video footage so he can sell it to the local news channel. Suddenly, like an epiphany, Louis realizes that he can make more money doing this as well. So he gets himself a camera and starts shooting footage of car accidents and fires, with the footage being as graphic as possible. Soon he starts making some money and growing. He starts to get ambitious, how far is he willing to go to make it the top?

One thing I like about movies like this one is how they feel like a jolt of electricity because they speak the truth because they aim their guns at something that’s happening in society, something that’s real.  The media is of course being controlled, so is music and films, this is probably why most films are so watered down and silly, the Motion Picture Association of America holds a firm grip on the type of films that are being released in cinemas, same goes for the news we see in the newspapers and on television. They focus only on certain things, on things they want us to think about. There’s this amazing scene in Nightcrawler in which the producer of the news show (played by Rene Russo) is feeding the news anchors the words that they have to emphasize during their broadcast. The word fear and panic popped up more than once. The question that popped in my head was: just how much of what news anchors say are their own words? The answer is zero, they read everything. Everything is filtered, chosen for them. But this is just one of the themes the film addresses, we’re talking about a very layered film here.

A few movies came to mind while watching this one, but one of the first ones to pop up was of course Taxi Driver (1976), because the main character is a loner roaming the streets at night, slowly going insane because of society and the way things are. But unlike Travis Bickle in Taxi Driver, Louis Bloom doesn't try to change the world, instead, like a vampire, he wants to feed off of it. What kind of person is society breeding? Louis Bloom is a good example, here’s a desperate character without a formal education, but willing to learn and do what he’s got to do to survive in this crazy world. He’s ambitious, but ambition and greed have corrupted his soul, so here we have a guy willing to do anything to make it to the top, even if what he has to do is morally unacceptable. But then you get to thinking, arent these the kind of people that make it to the top anyways? Louis Bloom builds his own small enterprise, he becomes the boss of his own imaginary corporation, and he treats his only employee the way most big corporations treat their employees, like shit; with little benefits or remuneration for their work, yet exploiting them as much as possible. So in a strange way, Louis becomes the mirror image of corporate America. You think Louis Bloom is wrong in the way he treats people? Then you think most big corporations are, because to me they are one and the same in this movie.

How awesome is Jake Gyllenhal in this movie? I’d say his performance is Oscar worthy stuff, I hope he gets it. It’s one of those career defining pieces, where the actor will never be the same after it, so here’s hoping. It’s been interesting seeing Gyllenhal grow as an actor. I’ve been following his career since his early days, when he blew me away with Donnie Darko (2001). Gyllenhal, you’ve come a long way baby, many kudos to you for this performance, hopefully we’ll see you Oscar night. So anyhow, his performance will blow you away, or send chills down your spine. You might even find yourself cheering him on at one point? At others you’ll totally despise him, at others you might pity him, he’s a very ambiguous character with many sides to him. Certainly not someone we want to emulate, but at the same time, you have to admit his character does say certain truths about life and the world we live in; is Louis Bloom a mad prophet of our times? You be the judge. 

The way it was shot, and the way it looks, Nightcrawler has this weird thing about it, it feels like a film from the 70’s. It’s also like a film from the 70’s because it reminded me of that time when movies weren’t worried about being politically correct and were more concerned with saying something that matters, something relevant about society. The 70’s were a time when movies still had an edge to them, and Nightcrawler has that edge. It speaks of the desperate times we’re living in, where people are struggling to “make it”, struggling to dig themselves out of the proverbial hole, doing anything necessary to make ends meet. Sad part is that it’s the economy and the way society is constructed that pushes people to live this way. I enjoyed that rawness about Nightcrawler; it feels real, genuine and alive. It reminded me a bit of Sydney Lumet’s Network (1976) because it has to do with the dissemination of news to the masses and because it speaks the truth about the dog eat dog world we’re living in. If we’re not careful, we’ll turn into Louise Bloom, a desperate individual, willing to step on anybody to make it to the top.

Rating: 5 out of 5