Amour

Jean-Louis Trintignant and Emmanuel Riva in Michael Haneke's Amour

**** out of ****

I doubt myself as a critic greatly when I see a film like Amour. When dealing with a film which uncomfortably faces one with some of life’s most difficult aspects and offers no sensationalism or escape -aside from the knowledge that the movie will eventually end- it is a tough pill to swallow. This movie didn’t make me feel good but I will report to all that it is a great movie.

Amour is about an elderly married couple whose long, loving companionship is interrupted one day as the wife becomes catatonic while sitting at the kitchen table and returns to consciousness minutes later as if nothing happened. An unsuccessful surgery and series of strokes follow, rendering her helpless and unable to function as her husband devotes himself to her care every step of the way.

Michael Haneke has made a very important film here, which portrays the decaying years of life as a time that requires great strength and no reward. For those unfamiliar with the writer/director’s work, it should be known that he is very anti-sensational. Those who view movies purely for escapism have no business seeing his films.

Stylistically he is minimal to the point that he doesn’t seem to be visually driven - but he definitely is. His choices are often a simplistic no-nonsense approach and at other times, mysterious. One of the film’s early scenes takes place at a piano concert where the performer is not seen because the camera is pointed at the audience -completely framed in one shot. I must note the power of sitting in a movie theater while looking at a screen containing another audience as though they are watching me. In this particular audience, I made out where the two stars of this movie were sitting and had my eyes fixed on the small fraction of the screen they possessed. Was this the intended purpose of the shot? I don’t know but it did something to me. What’s really strange is that this is the only setting to be seen outside the apartment, which will be the setting for the rest of the film.

The couple are played by veteran actors Jean-Louis Trintignant (from Bertolucci’s The Conformist)and Emmanuelle Riva (Hiroshima, mon amour), both of whose work in this film conveys astounding realism and delivers the sense of physical and emotional suffering which looks beyond the will of most actors, particularly young ones. The film is just as much about the repressed pain of the husband watching his long time love gracelessly fade away, as it is about the wife unable to express herself or find the strength to comply with her husband’s efforts to keep her alive.

On occasion, their daughter, played by Issabelle Huppert (previously in Haneke’s The Piano Teacher), drops in and becomes more upset at her mother’s condition with each visit, desperate to find some way to help a situation that cannot be improved.

Amour realistically displays an aspect of life everyone will go through: Helplessness. There is nothing pleasant in seeing the pain that follows a life of love and devotion. I think it is a film that will have the strongest effect on those who have dealt with pain similar to what is portrayed in the film. It is the power of emotional recognition that makes realistic movies like this important. Me? I felt a sense of resistance and dread while watching “Amour.” I have yet to experience such pain in real life, while I am totally aware that it will come to me some day.

Snow White and the Huntsman

Charlize Theron is the fairest of them all.

*** out of ****

Ever since Disney and Tim Burton made the incredibly stupid Alice in Wonderland movie, I've been resentful of fantasy movies that try to copycat the success of the Lord of the Rings Trilogy and its action scenes. Why? Because nothing's going to top that level of spectacle. Also, magical stories for children should not be confused with medieval fantasies.

So now that we have a medieval-style war fantasy of Snow White -that's aimed at an older audience, what's it like? The answer: Not so bad. Snow White and the Huntsman was pleasantly surprising to me. It manages to be well made... Really well-made. Its only major fault - outside its flawed intention of an idea - is a mediocre screenplay, but what else is new?

Brothers Grimm stories were always dark but they were a different kind of dark. I could hold these fresh filmmakers in contempt for taking this story and turning it into an armor-obsessed action movie lacking the humor and whimsey one should expect from a fairy tale, but I would be ignoring how magical a lot of the movie winds up being.

There's a lot to enjoy in this movie -primarily from a production angle. Just think of big budget fantasy productions of the eighties and this movie echos them. The cast is good. The costumes are great. The sets are vast and immaculate, utilizing England's Pinewood Studios. The locations are real and beautiful. The cinematography uses the traditional scope lens, which results in a constant shift between shallow-focus intimate closeups and gorgeously detailed wide shots. James Newton Howard is one of the few composers working today who I really like. His score here is as beautiful as expected. Above all, the special effects are VERY good. 

The special effects of Snow White and the Huntsman are the kind you might expect from the films of Ridley Scott or Christopher Nolan, where CGI is merely a tool to take over when you've run out of in-camera options. As this is a fantasy, that is sure to happen a lot, but it is oftentimes an extension of something really on the set.

One of the  movie's best special effects gives an ensemble of great British actors, not only the appearance of being the size of this story's dwarves, but also the body proportions. This was achieved with multiple techniques depending on the shot. The effect is impressively seamless and an insult to real dwarf actors everywhere.

Another obvious flaw of this movie was apparent the day the cast was announced. If Kristen Stewart plays Snow White and Charlize Theron plays the wicked Queen, how can Snow White be the "fairest one of all"? I am in no way inclined to shit-talk Kristen Stewart. Honestly I like her. I think she's an attractive girl who I would rather call a limited actress than a bad one. But compared to Theron... There's no comparison. Theron is a great actress and a gorgeous screen presence who dominates this movie.

Stewart doesn't ever make sense as the the supposedly charming magical beauty who brings warmth and hope to all around her. She reminds me of pretty yet humble girls I've known, particularly in high school, who would rather avoid attention. Maybe the filmmakers wanted this in their version of Snow White, but it's more likely they knew she would attract Twilight fans to the film.

Then there's Chris Hemsworth as the Huntsman -who is good. But his accent is weird. There's also the dwarves, played by the talents of Ray Winstone, Ian McShane, Toby Jones, Bob Hoskins, Nick Frost, Eddie Marsan, and a couple others with whom I am not familiar (an eighth dwarf gets killed).

What really works for this film, is the amount of magical imagery it contains, particularly when the heroes walk into an enchanted forest filled with mystical animals and plants (One of the writers said Princess Mononoke was an inspiration for the film). Nothing against the Lord of the Rings movies, but this is one of those fantasies that does a much better job at making its atmosphere seem like a real place where supernatural things actually happen.

When the part I was dreading the most finally came, I just shrugged. Okay. Snow White is in armor leading an army. It's stupid but at least it looks good.

Mirror Mirror

Lily Collins and Armie Hammer are pretty close to royalty in real life. Good casting in the annoying yet well-intended, Mirror Mirror from Tarsem Singh

*1/2 out of ****

That was pretty tedious. It seems wrong to be tough on what is essentially a kid’s movie, but I have a long list of similar films in mind which charm people of all ages. Also, I don’t know if I would have liked this movie as a kid. I’ve always had contempt for shaky stories as the result of a movie trying too hard to be cute.

That’s the other thing, in spite of interesting sets, great costume design, a cute-as-can-be Snow White and a visually talented director at the helm, Mirror Mirror is ugly! In a time when digital cinema is starting to get on its feet, this movie makes a strong case for those who believe it produces lifeless stale images. The boring lighting of EVERY scene and the coffee-stained color grading, produces a visual experience that is dull and far from the comparatively lush The Princess Bride, a film that, it is fair to say, this movie attempts to echo.

To be fair, it makes some very good attempts at being a good whimsical tongue-in-cheek comic fantasy. The intentions of this movie are way more honorable than the humorless, gloomy, yet ironically superior Snow White and the Huntsman. There are terrific one-liners among stupid ones. We are spared any needless mass battle scenes. The casting seems to have good comedy in mind. Snow White actually is fairer than the queen. The acting talents of real dwarfs are employed. Above all, Snow White and the Huntsman didn’t end with a Bollywood-style musical number and this one does.

Fairy tales should be fun and this movie at least tries to be. I had no idea it was so hard for talented filmmakers to achieve such a goal. This movie has many good ideas that never seem to flourish.

  
There is just something I hate about family films when all the annoying gags and cartoonish music cues for the kids are stupid and the self-conscious yuppie-humor aimed at the parents is annoying. Mirror Mirror will probably be enjoyed by many kids -and maybe their parents, but for anyone seeking magical escapism… it really isn’t here.

Warm Bodies

Nicholas Hoult, Rob Corddry, and Teresa Palmer in Warm Bodies

**1/2 out of ****

It’s the beginning of a new year! This means that unless you’re catching up with Oscar candidates from the films of last year, which are currently in theaters, you don’t have many options in terms of good new movies. This is when studios release every movie for which they had little faith. So here’s a movie about a zombie who falls in love…

Meet R, played by Nicholas Hoult (eye candy to some) He is our zombie hero for the film who barely possesses the ability to speak, so his thoughts function as the movie’s narration. His words to the audience are friendly and seek sympathy for his existence that is rather devoid of good feelings or nice memories. The first letter “R” is all he can remember of his original name. His desire for human flesh is necessary to stay alive and brains are the best part. When you eat the brain of another, you experience their memories providing a euphoric feeling of being alive again.

As he and a herd of corpses attack a group of survivors searching for medical supplies, he encounters Julie played by Teresa Palmer (eye candy to others). He falls in love at first sight. R winds up killing Julie’s boyfriend and eating his brains, absorbing his memories, which leads him to learn more about Julie. She does not witness this, but R catches up with her as she is in a defenseless state, abandoned by the surviving members of the party. He then smears blood on her face to give her the appearance of another corpse and takes her back to his lair in an abandoned airline jet to keep her safe.

Julie slowly learns that R possesses characteristics she wouldn’t assume a walking corpse to have. He collects vinyl records and antiques. He can also muster up the ability to speak a word or two… or three or twenty.

Julie grows to care about R and wonders if the corpses are possible to save. Maybe she can convince her father, General Malkovich (I wish that were his character’s name) to reconsider his war on the dead.

The movie also establishes the Boneys: Zombies who have deteriorated down to walking skeletal beings who are the elite among the dead. Since this movie asks us to care about the walking corpses, there has to be another antagonist that is more zombie than zombie.

Let me get the obvious out of the way first: The idea of a zombie point of view works entirely against the purpose of a zombie. They are unthinking unfeeling beings robbing bodies of life and individuality. The interior monologue of a zombie is absurd and is therefore intended to be funny.

Warm Bodies is writer-director Jonathan Levine’s attempt at making a romantic zombie comedy. Based on a novel of the same name, the story is deliberately silly in concept, but I feel like it still became unnecessarily sincere at times. There are parts that get the tone absolutely right. The narration is funny and some of the synth-pop love music soundtrack selections make a wonderful contrast to the morbid atmosphere. On the other hand, Levine often fails to embrace the story’s corniness. This is his third film, and like The Wackness and 50/50 it has a daringly intriguing idea, but lacks a strong central foundation.

I’ve always understood that the trick to making a goofy idea work, is to give it heavy subtext and this film has its share of allegorical elements and a story that deliberately echoes Romeo and Juliet –minus the tragedy. Though the movie dabbles in deeper meaning, none of it is solid enough to keep it energized or get away with the “love conquers all” resolution.

There are a few big laughs including another great jab at the predictability of groan-inducing montage scenes (Team America: World Police still ranks at #1 at doing this). It was also great to see Rob Corddry cast against type, playing a short-spoken Zombie and not an over-the-top comical jack-ass.

This may have been a unique comic twist on the zombie genre but it doesn’t succeed the same way Shaun of the Dead did and doesn't approach the hilarity of Zombieland. Warm Bodies isn’t terrible, but I felt its mediocrity left me with a lifeless feeling as I made my way out of the theater when the credits rolled. Is the popularity of zombies making zombies of us?

MY TAKE ON Darkness in Escapist Cinema -Post 9/11

 

  Star Trek Into Darkness will be coming to theaters this spring. As a Trek fan, I am looking forward to any new entry J.J. Abrams and company will deliver after saving a nearly dead franchise four years ago. As amazing a production that this film looks to be, there is something about its title and trailer that worries me.

Ever since the immense success of Christopher Nolan’s Batman movie, The Dark Knight, there has been a trend in fantasy genre (that includes Science Fiction and Comic Book) movies to get more dark and gritty by feeding off of our insecurity during the "War on Terror.” This trend usually creates plots involving 9/11-inspired mass-destruction and/or threats of further destruction along with a compromised protagonist who is tormented by a terrorist villain filled with vengeance. Is anyone else getting tired of this?

Star Trek Into Darkness has a trailer with many exiting images like a starship emerging from water and a Starfleet officer falling between futuristic mega-structures but it dons a bleak color scheme (as opposed to the bright colors of the last film) and suggests a morbid atmosphere. The villain, played by Benedict Cumberbatch, is sinister and menacing with a threat to everyone’s security.

A character like this existed in one of the greatest of Star Trek films, named Khan, a classic terrorist villain, whose success as a movie antagonist has been ripped-off in more recent Trek adventures with little success. Even Eric Bana’s angry Romulan villain in the last movie was poorly developed but I was too entertained by the refreshed versions of classic characters -and the sight of a new Enterprise to care.

Now that we’ve been acquainted with a new Captain Kirk, Spock and McCoy, do we really need them to deal with another destructive man, hell-bent on irrational vengeance? Does Star Trek need this? There was a time when this franchise was about people in the future encountering danger and finding a resolution through understanding. Finding ways to outsmart and destroy an inflexible source of evil was only occasional.

This spring will also bring us Iron Man 3. Watch the trailer and you will see Tony Stark’s mansion being destroyed followed by the villain, known as The Mandarin, played by Ben Kingsley saying “Some people call me a terrorist, I consider myself a teacher.” This reminded me of when someone once told me, “War is business and terrorism is education.”

Terrorism is committed by people who have nothing personal to gain but want others to know that they are -or were, very angry. Our minds on this subject have recently shifted from enemies abroad to domestic terror. Last summer, people in Colorado gathered one night to view a movie, which is about this very subject. They were then horrifically massacred by a troubled man, who I can only assume, wanted people to know his frustration.

Last week I saw a very good movie about Osama Bin Laden being killed and it left me thinking over what kind of a world we live in now. I know that it is a world that contains terror -and always has, but I believe the commentary in popular culture needs to shift. Deny it or not, I strongly believe that fantasy film making is a haven for troubling subjects which we feel too uncomfortable to be direct about.

The Cold War had an unquestionable influence on escapist cinema from 1956’s Invasion of the Body Snatchers to (getting back to Star Trek) 1991’s Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country. In 2004 the series Battlestar Galactica brought post-9/11 moral conflicts to science fiction television. The irony is, that escapism can lead us very close to real-world problems.

So where are we now? Whether the “War on Terror” needs to end or not, fantasy movies are obsessed with finding success through dark themes of destruction and retaliation. For over a decade now, your average trailer to a movie in a big-name franchise, be it Batman, a crappy Star Wars prequel or even Harry Potter seems so obsessed with conveying how apocalyptic the experience will be, rather than portraying it as a fun time at the movies.

Despite the moral issue in taking advantage of mass anxiety, these tactics have produced interesting and effective entertainment. I think The Dark Knight worked when it came out, leaving it a product of our time in film history.

Now I just want fantasy movies to find something new to say. I don’t know what that something is. I’m just tired of the message: We’re all so afraid and need a hero to save us. My concern is that these movies around the corner look to be saying exactly that. They may find themselves less popular for trying to keep a nightmare alive that we’re trying to get over.