Avengers 2 Trailer Reaction

January 13, 2015January 13, 2015 | Rachel's Reviews

A few months ago I really geeked out over the Star Wars trailer. I still think it is one of the most solid teaser trailers I’ve ever seen. It did what it was supposed to do- it teased us and made the fans excited. Yesterday the Avengers 2: Age of Ultron trailer came out and I watched it with the same eagerness and my response was more mixed.

Avengers is my favorite super hero movie ever. I know, I know most of you would pick the Dark Knight but not me. What I liked about the first Avengers is that it was fun without being stupid. It reminded me of Spiderman 2 (from 2000s). Some humor mixed with great visuals and a terrific villain in Loki. I give the credit to director Joss Whedon who is so good at finding that balance- whether it be in his TV shows like Buffy that have a cheeky self-awareness to them or Cabin in the Woods that both embraced and laughed at horror movie tropes.

What worries me about the Avengers 2: Age of Ultron trailer is it has a Man of Steel feel about it and for me that is a very bad thing. The music is ominous, speeches are deep and profound, backdrops and settings look very CGI’ish. I hated Man of Steel. I thought it was ponderous, preachy, violent, ugly, muddled, and confusing. It had its director Zach Snyder written all over it. He loves making CG grim ponderous movies.

Especially for Superman shouldn’t it be a little bit fun? We don’t have to stoop to Superman 3 levels (or certainly Superman 4) but a smile every now and then? Is that too much to ask? There wasn’t even a convincing romance in Man of Steel. The product placement was also incredibly obnoxious in Man of Steel. Just all of it I hated. (I realize some of you love it and that is great! I’m glad when anyone enjoys a movie).

A lot of the things in the trailer feel Man of Steelish to me and that has me worried. But Joss Whedon hasn’t let me down yet, so if anyone can pull it off it is him. Fingers crossed!

What did you guys think of the Avengers 2: Age of Ultron trailer? Would love to hear your thoughts.

DisneyToon Studios review: The Return of Jafar

January 13, 2015January 13, 2015 | Rachel's Reviews

My friend over at animatedkid is doing a review of the Disney Toons canon. If you aren’t familiar this includes all the direct to video sequels and movies, as well as franchise films like the Tinkerbell or Planes.
And no I will not be doing a similar endeavor because I want to keep my sanity. Especially in the sequel phases it’s going to be rough going. Still there are a few hidden ‘not as bad’ movies like Cinderella 3 so I’m looking forward to reading the reviews. Definitely check them out!

Rapid Eye Reviews: The Hobbit, Into the Woods, The Imitation Game, and Annie (2014)

January 12, 2015 | Rachel's Reviews

4 reviews of current films it may take me a while to get to see by my friend over at All Eyes on Screen.

Rango Movie Review

January 12, 2015January 12, 2015 | Rachel's Reviews

So I finally had the chance to watch the Academy Award winning film Rango tonight. I had never seen it because a bunch of my friends at the time were very offended by it, so I never bothered.

I wish I could ask them what it was that offended them because it is definitely a very strange movie but I wasn’t offended.

That said, I didn’t really care for it either. The artistic style I found off putting and there is a certain garishness to the story, dialogue I didn’t like.

It is a very strange movie and I appreciated some of the risks they took but it is not a pleasant film to watch. I don’t know if that makes sense but sometimes you look at a piece of art and you can see it is ambitious and groundbreaking and yet find it disgusting at the same time. That’s what Rango felt like to me.

It’s about a pet lizard named Rango who is abandoned in the desert. There are a lot of surrealist moments at the start with a armadillo that has been run over but is still alive who is delusional and then other animals he meets and then he is chased by a hawk in a long sequence. The story takes a long time to get going but eventually he makes it to an old west town called Dirt.

Everything in Dirt is ruled by water and there are a lot of bad guys- a Gila monster (Ray Winstone), a desert turtle (Ned Beatty), a rattlesnake (Bill Nighy), a mole (Harry Dean Stanton), a hawk that can’t speak, and a bunch of rats that I think were bad. Honestly I lost track after a while. There were so many characters and the story didn’t make much sense. Rango becomes Sheriff of Dirt and I guess that was explained but I missed it. But he fights outlaws and there are bar room brawls and standouts.

There is also a girl iguana called Beans who’s father owned land that the turtle tries to get her to give up throughout the movie. She is the only female character and an obvious love interest for Rango but she is treated in the movie like a man and so there is no chemistry or witty banter between the two. Honestly it seemed like Rango was in a different movie than the rest of the characters. It was weird.

There is a vault that is opened which has the town’s water and the bank manager is killed and the turtle controls the vault. But they end up with only 6 days of water left.

About an hour into the movie they start on a journey to find water and I started to enjoy it more. There was more of a traditional narrative as opposed to the randomness of the earlier part of the movie. It is also a movie set in modern times so why can’t they get the water? It is also not like Great Mouse Detective where humans are living in the town and animals. No, this is just a town for animals. But it is set in the old west but not really but why?

It was just a confusing movie and I didn’t think it was funny or aesthetically pleasing. Even the way Rango’s eyes moved I found kind of unsettling and distracting. It was like looking at someone with a lazy eye (I have a lazy eye so I know of what I speak) and they never look you straight in the face but their eyes are constantly moving. There is also 2 scenes where a hawk (long scenes) chases Rango in a bottle and a vending machine that do nothing for the story.

I’ve rarely been more befuddled by a film. I guess it is one that just doesn’t appeal to me. I can see why others who appreciate randomness and the type of art love it. And if you are super knowledgeable about westerns than you might like it. Not everything has to be made for my aesthetic but it would have been nice to have at least a story I could follow with characters that made sense. I think I am pretty open minded when it comes to artistic expression and creative films.

As it is, its too cluttered, confusing, and convoluted.

Also, who is this movie made for? It’s not adult enough to be like a South Park or ‘adults only’ animated movie. But I can’t imagine any kids following the plot and myriad of characters or getting any of the jokes. Part of the problem is kids haven’t seen the Western movies it constantly spoofs. There is even a Dirty Harry cameo from Clint Eastwood. Most young adults haven’t seen many westerns let alone kids. I wish I had seen more Westerns and it is on my list so I think a lot of the homages and spoofs were lost on me. I don’t know. I just don’t get who the movie is geared towards?

It kind of felt like they dumped all their ideas into a canon and then just put it all on screen without regards to a cohesive story or characters that made sense or we could keep track of.

Giving a grade is tough because it is thoughtfully made but it just didn’t work for me. The last 45 minutes it gets better but I didn’t care for it. Sorry!

Overall Grade- D+

Film review: Frozen

January 11, 2015 | Rachel's Reviews

I really enjoyed this review of Frozen!

Locke and Grand Budapest Hotel

January 11, 2015January 11, 2015 | Rachel's Reviews

I saw 2 movies this weekend and they are very different but both very good.

Locke is a film that defies description. I was telling my sister about it and she laughed and said it sounded ‘like the worst thing ever’. Why?

Well, it’s a man in a car talking on the phone for an entire movie. I’m serious. There are no other actors, just voices you hear and I’m telling you it is completely riveting.

It’s so hard to talk about this movie without giving spoilers away but basically Tom Hardy is on a drive to do something he know he needs to do but wishes he didn’t have to. Then as the car ride goes it becomes the worst day of his life. Home, family, work, are complete chaos but he is a man who has a plan and knows he can make it all right, but as the story goes you and him start to become less secure that even he can salvage any of it.

It’s so tense and the music and lighting build until you worry he is going to drive off the freeway or have some kind of panic attack. Then just when it seems he is losing control a conversation will happen that gives him a breath of hope and we start the cycle of anxiety all over again. It was a thriller but about a person’s life falling apart and isn’t that kind of the scariest thing of all?

There are also moments where a character brings up a soccer game and after all he has been through it feels so stupid. It kind of puts a lot of things we think are important in perspective. It’s just pretty brilliant.

I’m telling you give it a shot. The photography by director Steven Knight and cinematographer Haris Zambarloukos alone has to be appreciated. The lights and reflections off the windows add to the tension.

In a way it feels like someone in a hostage negotiation but the hostage is his life and happiness.

Steven Knight also wrote Locke and they made it for 2 million dollars. It just goes to show with good writing and storytelling anything can be good, even a man driving for 84 minutes.

I was blown away.

It does have a lot f bombs so definitely adults only.

Content Grade- F, Overall Grade- A

GRAND BUDAPEST HOTEL

It is no secret I am not the biggest Wes Anderson fan. Like Tim Burton, he can be more style over substance, but I don’t think any of his movies are terrible. Just not a fangirl. (I am Mormon which means I am so not a hipster…)

Anyway, the Grand Budapest Hotel is probably Anderson’s most approachable film even though I still didn’t love it but I enjoyed it. The reason I liked this better than previous works (I haven’t seen all of them) is it is a story being told as opposed to something grounded in ‘real life’ like his other films. It makes more sense to have his quirky style in a work in a fictional world to me.

It’s a little confusing because there are layers of storytellers. Tom Wilkinson is an author telling the story to a little girl that he heard told to him by the GBH owner played by F Murray Abraham. So you have details from the girl, Wilkinson, Abraham and the actors. This makes it seem like even more of a fairytale. It is also set in a fictional town of Zubrowka (again more fairytale like).

It’s kind of a convoluted plot but basically it is about a concierge of the hotel named Gustave played by Ralph Fiennes and his devoted lobby boy played by Tony Revolori.

Gustave is dedicated to the hotel and to giving great service with rewards from the elderly female patrons on the side. One of the patrons played by Tilda Swinton gives him a valuable painting on her death. Her family is furious and so feeling it is his right he steals the painting and flees.

What follows is a cat and mouse chase with a lot of humor and whimsey. We get a ton of actors involved in the chase including Adrien Brody, William Dafoe, Mathieu Amalric, Jude Law, Bill Murray, Jason Schwartzman, Bob Balaban and Owen Wilson.

It does get a little tiresome after a while but it isn’t that long of a movie so I was ok with the story and the Anderson cuteness. Like I said, it fit this particular tale better than some of his others and was generally nicer too. Some of his more popular movies I have a hard time bonding with because the characters come across as kind of mean and unlikable. (see I am so not a hipster).

But this I liked. It isn’t my favorite movie by a long shot but I enjoyed the style, story was fun and performances all very good.

It does have nudity that is quick and easy to miss but strong and a fair amount of profanity so I would say adults or mature teens only.

I would love to see Wes Anderson try his eclectic style in a different genre. Like what could he do with a comic book movie or a musical? I guess he kind of did that with Fantastic Mr Fox, which is my favorite Anderson film, despite it being more for adults than kids in pacing and tone.

Content Grade- D, Overall Grade- B

Any of you seen either of these? What did you think? What a great year 2014 was for movies! I can’t think of another better in nearly every genre (don’t start a debate on that topic bc it really doesn’t matter what year is best. I just really liked this one!).

Please put in your comments what you thought of either film? I’d love to hear. Both are seemingly different but have a certain challenge to conventional storytelling which I really dug. Fun times at the movies!

Character Profile 4: Little Edie Bouvier

January 10, 2015January 10, 2015 | Rachel's Reviews

I thought I would do a fun character profile today that would introduce you to a film that may be new to some of you less hard-core movie buffs.

This is unique because it’s not really a character but an actual person in a documentary. Today we are talking about Little Edie Bouvier from the 1975 documentary Grey Gardens.

In some funny ways Little Edie is kind of similar to Napoleon Dynamite. Both have kind of horrible lives but embrace them with contentment. They are both easy to please and I like that.

Grey Gardens is a documentary made by two brothers Albert and David Maysles about 2 distant relatives of Jacqueline Onassis Kennedy, a mother and daughter both named Edith Bouvier (big and little Edie).

It’s a style of documentary that is rarely made today with no agenda, just watching these borderline delusional women living their lives. I think it is brilliant.

In a certain way Little Edie’s life is sad. She is living in trash with racoons, fleas and garbage everywhere. Her mother has clearly kept her from pursuing her dreams and she has alopecia which caused her to lose her hair a difficult thing for any woman especially in a ritzy area like The Hamptons. There is a sense she is hiding from the world and that is sad.

But with all of that Little Edie has chosen to be happy. She dances and smiles and speaks her mind to anyone who will hear her.

I love her description of herself:

“But you see in dealing with me, the relatives didn’t know that they were dealing with a staunch character and I tell you if there’s anything worse than dealing with a staunch woman… S-T-A-U-N-C-H. There’s nothing worse, I’m telling you. They don’t weaken, no matter what”

Isn’t that a lovely way to stuff it to the high class ladies who probably think they are staunch? I love it!

There’s something to be said for deciding to be happy even to the point of being a little nutty. It certainly beats the alternative.

“‘Course, I’m mad about animals, but raccoons and cats become a little bit boring. I mean, for too long a time.”

She does talk a lot about wanting to get the heck out of Grey Gardens but again it’s this sadness mixed with a cheerful exterior that makes her a fascinating person. Tough to figure out. A part of her seems on continuous survival mode but then another part seems like a little girl especially compared to her rather deadpan mother.

“I only cared about three things: the Catholic Church, swimming and dancing, and I had to give them up”

Little Edie became a fashion icon with her scarves and unique style. Just everything about her was unique. Like I said it’s a movie you can watch 100 times and come away with different conclusions each time. Now documentaries are made with a specific agenda and the audience is manipulated to agree with said ideas. Not Grey Gardens. It is just an introduction to these crazy, happy women and then you as the viewer must make what you will of it.

“It’s very difficult to keep the line between the past and the present. You know what I mean? It’s awfully difficult. ”

If you want to watch a movie where every viewing you see something new and thought provoking about two of the strangest and most interesting characters ever put on film Grey Gardens is the movie for you.

Little Edie steals every scene she is in and leaves you despite all the crazy feeling, wishing you could have a meal with her and ask her a million questions. You know she would be funny, vulgar, cheerful and probably a little shocking. A movie about both women would have to be a documentary because people would say it is too out there for fiction, and yet there it is.

Proof that the human race is endlessly fascinating.

My Go-To Movies

January 9, 2015 | Rachel's Reviews

I really enjoyed this post. We all have our go-to movies that just make us feel good and we could watch a million times. Sabrina, Breakfast at Tiffany’s, While You Were Sleeping, Up, Perks of Being a Wallflower, Clueless, Pitch Perfect, all make my cut among others.

Character Profile 3: Napoleon Dynamite

January 8, 2015January 8, 2015 | Rachel's Reviews

I wasn’t going to post a character profile today but I feel inspired to talk a little bit about the great Napoleon Dynamite. I feel a special kinship to Napoleon because it was made by Utahns (and Mormons) and speaks to a culture I can relate to a little bit. I guess you could consider it a one hit wonder of movies as none involved have been able to strike such a home run again but some one hit wonders are classics and so is Napoleon Dynamite.

If you don’t know Napoleon Dynamite is a movie about a boy in high school named Napoleon who is an unusual kind of misfit. He is a terrific character because he doesn’t know he is a misfit and that makes him incredibly likable. He’s happy with his life despite the fact that everything which happens in the movie is kind of sad. In another writers hands it could have been a tragedy.

Think about it- his brother is a borderline creepster, his parents are MIA, his grandma is injured and his uncle is a mess. He gets rejected by the girl he likes. He only has 2 friends and everyone kind of makes fun of him. Then why is it such a cheerful picture? Because Napoleon is a content character. He gets pleasure from small things like drawing ligers, acquiring skills, helping his friend win an election, learning karate and eating tater tots. One might say he has learned to be happy on very little. Easy to please.

And yet he is certainly not a cheerful or bubbly character. Napoleon is very deadpan but this is where you get most of the laughs. It is funny to have someone talking about tatertots or ligers in an intense/deadpan way. It’s just a funny way of speaking. He’s so easily pleased by simple things that as an audience we root for him to get those things. The dialogue makes us laugh along the way (the plot isn’t particularly funny. It is the script that makes us laugh and root for him).

Here’s a great example. Whether it’s reciting current events, advocating for our underwater allies, signing with the happy hands club or eating tots, Napoleon is happy with his life.

He doesn’t care that the jock is making fun of him. He cares when he takes his tots and calls him an ‘idiot’ but as far as people and his self esteem he remains consistently strong. It makes him extremely likable and funny (oblivious and unaware people can be the most funny because we think about how we might feel in that situation and maybe are even a little envious of Napoleon).

The ultimate example of this deadpan freedom is in his dance. He doesn’t care what anyone thinks of him. He only cares about his friend and what he thinks is cool. Wouldn’t life be great if we were all a little more like that? If we didn’t need the praise of the world to be happy but could be satisfied by such simple things?

So I think we could all learn a little bit from Napoleon. Enjoy the life we’ve got and be a little bit less worried what others think about our choices. Have a good laugh and watch Napoleon Dynamite again. It’s certainly one of my favorite characters in the movies. Vote for Pedro! 🙂