Today's Review: Cinderella

Finally, another review up!

Cinderella review

Okay, so this movie serves us a most oldfashioned fairy tale imaginable and displays a shockingly conservative view on the role of women. Nobody will deny it. But if you can swallow that, it's indeed quite as magical a movie experience as it aims to be (and not even in obnoxious 3D, for a change!). I don't think the studio is excusing reverting to old social values, it just acknowledges a classic tale without feeling the need to utterly change it by updating it to appease a modern audience. And that's not necessarily a bad thing, as this movie proves much more enjoyable than similar recent rehashes of old glory like Maleficent and Alice in Wonderland, which were quite bland and forgetful despite making the female protagonists tough and independent. Both qualities are sorely lacking in the victimized Cinderella, I admit. But this movie seems to say 'Oh, the heck with it! Let's embrace such ridiculously backward gender patterns for a change and acknowledge our true classics as they used to be, not as they should be today!' If Disney meant to say explicitly that women are either weak willed victims or total bitches with this movie, you honestly think grand dames of cinema like Cate Blanchett and Helena Bonham Carter, let alone promising new faces like Lily James, Holliday Grainger or Sophie McShera, would voluntarily have signed up for this slap in the face of their sex? I think they just recognized the obviously outdated romantic plot for what it was and decided to run with it just to enjoy getting a chance to play such outrageous roles, so seldom seen today. And for the better, since if they occurred more often, that would indeed be suspicious and uncalled for. But it's not wrong to indulge in reactionary storytelling every once in a while, to appreciate just how much female roles have changed since the days these types of women were seen everywhere on the big screen.

Plus, the movie is at least a little modern in other regards. There's a black guy playing the captain of the royal guard in a court full of white folk. And him and the prince certainly seem like close chums. That wouldn't have happened in the original animated classic for sure. What a long way we've come!

Today's News: dumb dinosaurs and jungle automata

 http://www.moviescene.nl/p/156944/pixars_good_dinosaur_opnieuw_aangepast

I have a bad feeling about this one. And not just because there's talking dinosaurs present, though that's never a good sign (eh, WWD3D?). The Good Dinosaur has been reported to feature its fair share of production difficulties, and now it appears the whole thing needed to be started largely from scratch, even though the majority of the voice acting had already been recorded. Of course, major restructuring of Pixar films is part of their routine by now. Toy Story, too, had to be started all over again, and few will argue that final result didn't work out as well as the first concept would have done. Then again, the last Pixar movie to experience severe production diffulcties was Brave, and that finished film wasn't among Pixar's best efforts. It really can go both ways. Of course Lithgow says it's gonna be even better than before, but that's not a very reliable statement; he's not likely to say the opposite before the movie has hit theaters. Actors and other assorted crewmen always come clean about disappointing work after the audience has had to experience their failures for themselves. Replacing the original director, who did the wonderful Up, by someone who thus far has only directed a single Pixar short by comparison, doesn't bode well. But then, there's talking dinosaurs in here, so for me the project was going awry from the get-go.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/156960/blanchett_en_bale_in_jungle_book_origins

The Jungle Book war is on! You'd think Disney's The Jungle Book would have an edge, with a grand cast including the likes of Scarlett Johansson, Ben Kingsley and Bill Murray, but Warner's Jungle Book: Origins, too, has assembled a stellar cast to stay in the competition. Cate Blanchett, Christian Bale, Benedict Cumberbatch?! Suck on that, Disney! Considering both movies deal with the same subject matter in a very similar way, combining live-action with digital animals, and now both include a top-notch cast of seasoned and popular voice actors, the question is which of the pair has the edge. I think I'll have to say it's Warner's Origins, based on their choice of director. Andy Serkis just has much more experience with both animals and motion capture, and that's key. He understands the technology, plus he understands the biology. Jon Favreau, who directs Disney's take on the story, doesn't have the amount of experience with the natural world Serkis does. Also, Serkis has a whole extra year getting things right and working out the technical aspects. Not to mention he gets to see the competitor beat him to theaters so he can witness its pitfalls and carefully avoid them to make for a superior film. Time is not on Favreau's side. However, he has the directing experience, as this is Serkis' true feature film directing debut (not counting his job as Second Unit Director on the Hobbit movies). I guess both movies are relatively even matched. It sure as heck won't be a matter of casting in both cases.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/156923/eerste_posters_dumb_and_dumber_to

Oh wow, a mindless Hollywood comedy making fun of another film in its promotional campaign. Like that's never been done. I gotta say, this choice of poster post-modernism is a no-brainer (pun, duh!). And considering the general reception of Lucy (despite its financial success) by both critics and audience - both parties agreed it made little sense and was utterly devoid of logic - I think the similarities won't end there. But maybe that's just because I care naught for Dumb and Dumber To and don't have any particularly positive hopes for this one. I didn't see the original, which by now is twenty fucking years old, so I won't bother with this excessively late and therefore unwarranted sequel. At least it's safe to say only the marketing campaign will rip off other Hollywood films, unlike most brainless Hollywood comedies whose sole plot seems to be based around that single notion.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/156959/eerste_trailer_automata

I think it's safe to say everybody's first reaction to this trailer will be 'I, Robot much?' Both from a plot perspective and from a design point of view the similarities between both pictures are remarkable. Even though Asimov's 'Three Laws of Robotics' are standard fare in many Sci-Fi works in film and literature these days, this movie seems to take more than a few pages from Asimov. The trailer also hints there's many a character trait Will Smith's and Antonio Banderas' characters from both movies share. Can't say Banderas looks much like an insurance fraud investigator, though in the future, who knows what changes to their image they made? Still, I'm intrigued. It's a Spanish/American co-production starring an international cast and helmed by a relatively rookie Spanish director, so it's bound to be something other than your average Hollywood action flick, which is basically what I, Robot was, though it was a good one at that. The trailer suggests these robots are evolving more or less on their own accord rather than because of outside interference in their programming, which is also an appealing notion bound to raise some juicy existential questions if adequately explored. Other than that I remain on the fence for this one. You just can't judge a film like this based on a single trailer, they're too deceiving. I won't be programmed by a trailer to believe a movie is something when there's a good chance the final product will prove to turn out to be something else entirely.

Oscars 2014: the results

Well, the Academy has finally held its annual ritual, so let's see how many Oscar winners I guessed right. Or expertly deduced correctly, if you prefer.

Best Picture: correct! It seems the time was right for a movie directed by a coloured man to win in this category. This is the Age of Obama after all. Too bad he didn't also win Best Director, but let's not push things, right?
I have yet to see 12 Years a Slave.

Best Actor: incorrect. Matthew McConaughey seems to have been on a roll last year with Mud, The Wolf of Wall Street and the movie he won for, so he was really actively pushing for that Oscar, and successfully so it appears. Though I won't deny him his prize, I feel kinda sad for both Bruce Dern and Chiwetel.
Second choice: also incorrect.
I have yet to see Dallas Buyers Club.

Best Actress: correct! This one just seemed a given. Blanchett deserved a Best Lead win for a change, Best Supporting Actress is good, but just not as good. Woody Allen's recent sex scandal hasn't hurt Blanchett for starring in his film.

Best Supporting Actor: incorrect. I should have known the Academy wouldn't go for a first-time actor, no matter how impressive his performance. Jared Leto proved a more conservative winner, despite him playing a transsexual.
Second choice: also incorrect.

Best Supporting Actress: incorrect. Jennifer Lawrence got her spotlight moment last year and she tripped over her dress while walking the stairs... never again! Plus, 'twas all white folks winning acting awards so far, so this evens the score a little.
Second choice: correct.

Best Director: incorrect. Considering all the technical stuff, I didn't see this one coming. The Academy has a tendency to overlook such aspects of filmmaking when it comes to this particular category, in favor of more trite but true apporaches. No more it seems. Apparently all the technical stuff was just too groundbreaking to ignore for a change.
Second choice: also incorrect.

Best Original Screenplay: incorrect. Poor American Hustle got snubbed good! A story about man and his increasingly accepting mentality towards anthropomorphizing non-human machinery fit right in with appreciating Cuaron's technical stuff. The Academy has finally learned to embrace the digital age then.
Second choice: correct.
I have yet to see Her.

Best Adapted Screenplay: correct! There just had to be a few more wins for 12 Years a Slave to go with that Best Picture win. Right before Gravity took all the rest.

The Academy clearly didn't take a hint from Gravity's tag line.


Best Animated Feature: correct! When Disney gets good again, all other animation is silenced. Like it or not. Let it go.

Best Foreign Film: correct! It just had to be, considering all the raving critical acclaim. Its competitors just didn't stand a chance.
I have yet to see La Grande Bellezza.

Best Cinematography: correct! Duh!

Best Editing: correct! See above.

Best Production Design: correct! Gatsby may not have felt like a great movie, but it sure looked like one.

Best Costume Design: correct! Same.

Best Make-Up: correct! The performances of McConaughey and Leto were undoubtedly stirred to great heights thanks to the way they looked.

Best Music: incorrect. Despite all the innovations, a grand picture still needs a solid soundtrack. Gravity got one.
Second choice: also incorrect.

Best Song: correct! The Academy, too, let it go. Good for them!

Best Sound Mixing: correct! It didn't matter that in space, nobody can hear you scream. For your information.

Best Sound Editing: correct! *insert second joke about the uneasy relationship between space and sound here*

Best Visual Effects: correct! The most obvious winner of the bunch, courtesy of the year's most jaw-dropping sights.

Best Documentary: incorrect. This unexpected pick is the one I take umbrage with the most. There's this hugely unsettling, daringly executed, effectively engaging shock doc about Indonesian genocide, and the Academy opts for a bunch of singing people instead. I'd say they 'let it go' a little too much in this case.
Second choice: also incorrect.

Correct: 14
Second choice: 5-2.
Incorrect: 7

Last year's results: 6 correct, 5 second choices correct and 9 blatantly wrong. There's some personal improvement there!
Most of the choices in the "lesser" categories were just glaringly obvious this year. It was an easy year in that regard. However, the 86th Academy Awards ceremony just proved once again how fickle Academy members can be when it comes to the acting categories. And also just how much the Academy likes to compromise. Then again, American Hustle received 10 nominations and ended up completely empty handed... Maybe because we once again didn't see Jennifer Lawrence's boobs? Oh well, let it go.

Today's Mini-Review: Blue Jasmine

Blue Jasmine: ****/*****, or 8/10

Woody Allen returns to directing with a vengeance after a disappointing interlude of lesser, though still decent, films. Allen's greatest gambit in Blue Jasmine is the formidable talent provided by the divine Cate Blanchett. Her portrayal of a down-on-her-luck big city socialite who must leave her comfort zone of excessive luxury in exchange for crashing on her blue-collar sister's couch (sort of, since both women were adopted as children) and getting an ordinary job both causes you to hate this woman and feel for her (at first!) in her misery and increasingly deteriorating mental state. Thanks to her former husband (impeccably nefarious Alec Baldwin), a wealthy entrepreneur whose entire fortune was built on the ruthless conning of decent folk – including her own sister and her former fiancé – Jasmine was living the good life until she herself brought down her own house in a petty move that showed she was at least as vicious and self-absorbed as her spouse. Allen doesn't just give the reasons for her sad emotional state away; instead he utilizes a distinctly fragmented narrative that gives you one bit of information at a time until the full picture is revealed at the close of the film. But all the while, he paints a distressing portrait of an utterly narcissistic character who is living in extreme denial of her sorry social situation brought about by turning a blind eye to the obvious shenanigans of her husband for her own financial security's sake.

Nevertheless, a depressing drama Blue Jasmine is not. Rather, it is a tragicomedy in the truest sense of the word, which is swiftly indicated by the delightful opening that features Jasmine's non-stop rambling about her life to a complete stranger on a plane flight. Other hilarious moments include Jasmine's illogical reasoning as she decides what sort of job she thinks she deserves, as well as her wonderfully funny portrayal of a lousy dentist assistant, who can do nothing right but is so good looking her boss (a rather atypical performance by Michael Stuhlbarg) can't keep his hands off her, which illuminates the fact Jasmine is all style over substance: something that most certainly cannot be said for the film itself, unlike some of Allen's other recent work. Allen's message is clear: the rich and wealthy of this world, whose life is built on their own house of cards, are playing with fire at the ruin of others, but mostly themselves, as the hardworking everyday folk have much less to lose and can regain their happiness and lust for life far easier. You might consider this a form of social commentary on the current economic crisis that tells the audience it's really not all that bad unless you can't cope with living a simpler life, but Allen doesn't claim to have pretensions towards such lecturing on world affairs in Blue Jasmine. However, he clearly illustrates the life of high society is not a state of being to be envied with its incessant petty bickering and rampant relational double-crossing, especially compared to us normal people who fortunately don't have to deal with such scandalous affairs. Case in point, Jasmine's sister Ginger (a charming Sally Hawkins), who soon must deal with the rifts in her own circle caused by Jasmine's disturbing presence in her home. Ginger blames the bad history between her and her sister on her ex-husband, but over the course of the film must come to terms with Jasmine's apparent self-destructive nature, which threatens to drag her down with her, except she won't let it, after which she gets back on her feet much quicker because of her flexible stance towards life. Meanwhile, poor Jasmine sinks deeper and deeper, to our delight and sense of moral justice, as pity ever more tucks its tail between its legs when we come to know what she hath wrought and how much she deserves her fate, which is all the while coupled with nothing but the sincerest admiration for Blanchett's displayed skills at her craft in making this downward spiral feel totally compelling throughout.

Curious Case of Benjamin Button, The

Rating: ***/*****, or 7/10

Lyrical and poetic attempt at an epic chronicle of a man aging backwards by David Fincher (Se7en (1995), Fight Club (1999)), who is obviously less at home in the fantasy genre than he is doing thrillers. Nevertheless, the film looks fabulous and stars an array of wonderful actors, chief among them Brad Pitt as the protagonist Benjamin Button who is suffering from this strangest of afflictions and the stunning Cate Blanchett as Daisy, the woman he keeps on loving all his life despite the obstacles time throws at their passion that keep them from forming a natural relationship. Born as a wrinkled and frail baby suffering from all the symptoms of old age, Benjamin is discarded by his disgusted father and left at a home for the elderly where he is raised by caretaker Queenie (Taraji P. Henson, who was Oscar nominated for her contribution). Growing up amongst the old folks, Benjamin isn't suspected to last long but surprises everybody by getting younger and younger, eventually leaving home to explore the world, which results in a voyage through the 20^th century similar to Forrest Gump (except not going for comedy, undoubtedly for the best), having the naive and ever positive Benjamin participate in WW II and witness the space race of the Sixties among other situations. Traveling the globe, he never loses contact with the love of his life and finally settles with Daisy when both reach middle age (the only moment of temporal equality for them both), after which they produce a child, only for Benjamin to realize his grotesque condition means he could never be a true father figure for his new born daughter. A sense of lust for life and adventure goes hand in hand with an unshakeable feeling of tragedy and melancholy when The Curious Case of Benjamin Button steers towards a dramatic ending that doesn't entirely successfully balance a bittersweet note with blatant sentimentality. The film is also an homage to the city of New Orleans which witnesses the beginning and end of Benjamin and his caring for Daisy: however, Fincher's decision to have the story be told by an aging Daisy on her death bed in a New Orleans hospital threatened by hurricane Katrina keeps on hindering the plot at various turns and adds an uneasy link with recent history the movie had better done without, also to keep the running time in check instead of letting it run rampant to 166 minutes, with many of the last act's moments losing pace and dragging on needlessly, thus making a potential masterpiece end up as just a curious case itself.

Starring: Brad Pitt, Cate Blanchett, Julia Ormond

Directed by David Fincher

USA: The Kennedy/Marshall Company, 2008

Babel

Rating: ****/*****, or 7/10

Iňárritu's call for tolerance and mutual understanding between everyone, no matter what their ethnic, linguistic or religious background, is an ingeniously woven mosaic following four families around the globe in the aftermath of a boyish prank gone terribly wrong. An American couple (compellingly portrayed by Brad Pitt and and always phenomenal Cate Blanchett) on vacation in Morocco sees a good time turning into a nightmare when the wife accidentally gets shot by two Moroccan boys playing with their father's gun, their family afterwards immediately suspected of terrorist activities by the local authorities. Meanwhile, the couple's Mexican babysitter gets into trouble at the American border with their two children in tow, and a widower in Japan, the former owner of the gun, deals with his deaf teenage daughter's blossoming sexuality. Iňárritu's message is clear: if people tried harder to listen to each other, a lot of trouble could be avoided. Overall, Iňárritu gets a little too preachy near the end of the picture, despite thoughtful writing and solid acting.

Starring: Brad Pitt, Cate Blanchett, Rinko Kikuchi

Directed by Alejandro González Iňárritu

USA/Mexico: Paramount Vantage, 2006

The Aviator

Rating: ****/*****, or 7/10

Martin Scorsese's biopic on billionaire Howard Hughes witnesses the second collaboration between himself and Leonardo DiCaprio, who finally definitively sheds his up until then dominating stigma of a 'pretty boy' superstar in favour of a classification as a true top actor. DiCaprio successfully plays the noted industrialist as a man ruled by his various personal ticks and impulsive weaknesses from the late 1920s up until his last few years living as a hermit in a hotel room. Lavish production design includes a phenomenal look at the Golden Age of Hollywood as Hughes took control of RKO Studios to direct his own movie, and various classic air planes constructed by Hughes as part of his most notable passion, his love of aviation. Scorsese also tells of Hughes' romances with star actresses Katharine Hepburn (a fantastic Cate Blanchett, who rightfully won an Oscar for her contribution) and Ava Gardner (a less convincing Kate Beckinsale). Overall, Scorsese does a good job at explaining this otherwise unfathomable man, though the film does drag on too much in the long run, especially when it comes to the affairs revolving Hughes' 'Spruce Goose' dream plane project.

Starring: Leonardo DiCaprio, Cate Blanchett, Kate Beckinsale

Directed by Martin Scorsese

USA: Forward Pass, 2004