Here's
some more mini-reviews of movies I failed to review before due to
technical difficulties. Meanwhile, I still see more films every week
so it's piling up fast. Hopefully, I can still find time to finish
this catching-up and get back to regular reviewing. Next week will be
busy for me though (regular work, press viewing, dentist appointment,
shipping out many parcels full of sold Jurassic Park figures,
etc.), so that remains to be seen. Fingers crossed, no promises.
Hyde
Park on Hudson: ***/*****, or 6/10.
The
historic first visit of English royalty to the United States in 1939
immortalized on film, seen through the eyes of President Roosevelt's
distant cousin Margaret (played by Laura Linney), with whom he had an
uneasy semi-secret affair. Equally uneasy is the first meeting
between Mr. President (a formidable Bill Murray) and the King and
Queen of Britain (a sympathetic and convincingly 'just crowned'
Samuel West and Olivia Colman), the latter pair being completely
uncomfortable with the American way of life, but in need of winning
over the American public to support the Brits in the apparently
unavoidable upcoming war with Germany. The ultimate message: they're
all normal human beings with their own failings and strengths so why
not be friends? Putting human faces on historical characters of such
stature is what this film does best, resulting in both hilarious
confrontations – my favorite: the King waving at American farmers
in the distance for lack of other people to wave at, only to be
completely ignored – and genuinely compelling emotional moments,
but it's also a weakness: these people behave all too human, thus
making for a fair share of dull moments that compromise the film's
progress as the characters engage in routine human behavior. The plot
regarding FDR and his hidden mistress also gets in the way as it
gears towards a predictable clash between both personalities over the
exact nature of their affiliation that lacks full audience
engagement. Overall, this is a real 'hit and miss' movie, but the
thrill of seeing historical characters bicker and argue about whether
or not to eat hot dogs due to their political nature demands at least
one watch. My ex-history teacher, who was sitting in the audience
when I was running the film at the local arthouse theatre, seemed to
agree with this assessment: glad to know I learned some things from
him back in my high school days.
Life
of Pi: ****/*****, or 8/10.
Grand
tale of survival, man “versus” beast, the importance of hope and
the personal nature of religious beliefs, which won Ang Lee the 'Best
Director' Academy Award. A man from India named Pi (Irrfan Khan)
tells his life's tale: growing up in a zoo, ultimately moving the
whole animal circus to America as a boy, only to lose everything
(including his family) in a tropical storm at sea. Stranded on a life
boat, the young man (now played by Suraj Sharma) has to contend with
the only other survivor, an adult tiger named Richard Parker (created
by a fabulous mix between CGI and the real deal, the two blending in
so seemlessly that few people can tell the difference: a VFX Oscar
well earned!). Stuck with each other for months on end on the ocean
desert, Pi recalls their various encounters, the good, the bad and
the bizarre, with the message that no matter how bleak things seem,
there's always something to enjoy about the circumstances life has in
store for you. Lee serves this viewpoint from an atypical religious
angle that celebrates the good in religion by allowing Pi to take the
best elements of various religious belief systems and appropriating
it to form his own feel-good personal religion. The surprising result
(for hardcore atheists like myself at least) is that, despite the
fact Pi opens his story with the line 'I will tell you a story that
will make you believe in God', the movie is never to be considered a
pamphlet to convert anyone to any organized faith, but a call for
total individualist religious freedom, to belief in whatever you want
to belief to make the world work better for yourself. And so, despite
having lost his family at sea and having to take care not to be eaten
every day, Pi cannot help but marvel at life's grandeur, as he
witnesses splendid sights seen by few, including a whale feasting on
phosphorescent plankton at night, a carnivorous island populated only
by meercats and eventual mutual survival for Richard and himself
against all odds. As is expected from Ang Lee, such a colourful tale
comes with his typical ingeniously rich visual imagery, leading to
many breathtaking and haunting shots ('Best Cinematography' too),
made all the more effective by its grandiose use of 3D technology:
hence, watching this film in 2D is like listening to music with your
ears closed.
Gangster Squad: ***/*****, or 6/10.
Period
crime flick set in late Fourties' Los Angeles, loosely based on
historical events. When the city suffers under the regime of ruthless
crime boss Mickey Cohen (unusual but effective role for Sean Penn),
who rules through intimidation and corruption, a few clean cops form
an equally uncompromising (i.e., violent) 'gangster squad' to rid the
town of Cohen and his consorts by any means necessary. Under the
command of Josh Brolin, these badgeless law enforcers hit Cohen as
hard as they can in any which way they can think of, showing no mercy
at all. An all-out war between both parties is the predictable
result, while a rather forced love relationship is established
between cop Ryan Gosling and Cohen's mistress Emma Stone, to
complicate matters romantically (and needlessly too). All in all, a
solid action flick devoid of surprises, but delivering everything you
would expect (which is both meant positively and negatively).
Originally scheduled to be released a good six months earlier, a
shootout scene in a movie theater needed to be altered due to the
Aurora 'Dark Knight Rises' incident: some footage of the
original scene can still be found in trailers all over the Internet
though. The most interesting thing about this film is the fact it's a
direct prequel to the far superior period thriller/'film noir' LA
Confidential (1997), which details what happened after Cohen's
historical downfall and outmatches Gangster Squad in almost
every respect (except for the explicit violence).
Django
Unchained: ****/*****, or 8/10.
Hailed
as 'Tarantino's latest masterpiece' well in advance of its actual
release, this movie reaffirms Tarantino excels in taking an
established film genre and dipping it in his usual sauce of violence,
a catching soundtrack and memorable oneliners. Though it's safe to
say the man ought to resort to other tactics soon before it backfires
on him, it cannot be denied Django Unchained is a great,
thoroughly entertaining film. Chronicling the rise to freedom of
former slave Django (a stern Jamie Foxx) by the grace of bounty
hunter Dr. Schultz (Christoph Waltz, who won his second Oscar by
repeating himself for a Tarantino film, except playing a good guy
this time around), the movie witnesses Django, striking a deal with
the man, becoming his sidekick as the two track down his wife
Broomhilda (Kerry Washington), who is now in the service of the
wealthy southern slaver Calvin Candie (Leonardo DiCaprio, both
surprisingly charming and wickedly discomforting). Figuring out an
elaborate scheme to get his wife back, Django soon finds out more
violent solutions are in order to reach his goal. The no-no word
'nigger' can be heard a whopping 107 times, to the acknowledgment of
its historical use but to the predictable shock of conservative
America: accordingly, action figures of characters from this film
were promptly taken off shelves to avoid controversy in stores, but
the ridiculous debate about the use of such sensitivewords rages on.
Apparently quality television shows like Deadwood get away
with it, but a much anticipated flick like this gets marred in
political debate for applying the same tactics. A wonderfully
intertextual neo-western, the film is laced with references to past
westerns, both the undying classics and the more obscure fare, as is
Tarantino's forte. The (this time hidden) movie babbling fortunately
doesn't get in the way of plot and character development, as it did
in Death Proof and tended to do in Inglourious Basterds.
Tarantino gets away with his proven routine again, for now: it would
be nice to see him tackle something wholly new for a change though.
