by Philip Price Before we start anything here, it should be noted that I’ve only seen two other Noah Baumbach pictures. While I’ve generally enjoyed what I’ve seen so far and certainly have an interest in earlier films such as “The Squid and the Whale” and “Margot at the Wedding,” as of this writing I’ve only seen “Greenberg” and the rather infectious “Frances Ha.” I state this at the beginning to preface that while I found his latest, “While We’re Young,” to be much more accomplished and substantial on first viewing than anything I’ve seen of his prior work I wouldn’t be surprised to find out he was repeating himself in some way, on some major themes. Heck, some of what Ben Stiller’s character goes through here feels like it has some shades in his titular “Greenberg” character, but I honestly don’t remember that film well enough to say for sure. That concern aside, what I do know for sure is how strong this film hit me, how its ideas are universally relatable despite depicting a very specific niche and simply how magnificent the writing is. While the dialogue is quick and forms full characters who have specific and individual mindsets intact I can’t imagine the hours poured over the page by Baumbach in order to create this natural ease with which each of these characters speak. In a word, the characters and the dialogue are more than archetypes or composites of several other people, but they are authentic and authenticity is essentially what “While We’re Young” is all about. Baumbach, who both wrote and directed this film, is 45 years old. Stiller, who in real life is 49, plays a very specific 44-year-old and in that small detail it is apparent that Stiller serves as the Baumbach surrogate. Wondering how he came to be on the other side of life, the one where striking and profound realizations such as knowing things exist that he’ll never do must be accepted. It is a film that both acts as a study in adjusting to getting older while at the same time dealing with accepting the generational differences of the current young people and the culture that existed 20 years prior. The film opens with the quote from Henrik Ibsen’s “The Master Builder” where Hilda suggests to Solness that he open the door to the younger generation he fears. The thing is it’s not whether he opens the door or not that’s the real decision, but how far. We first meet Stiller’s Josh and his wife Cornelia (Naomi Watts) as they visit friends Marina (Maria Dizzia) and Fletcher (Beastie Boys Ad-Rock AKA Adam Horovitz) who have just had their first child. While both couples are in their mid-40s and in themselves represent a generation having kids at an older age both Josh and Cornelia look at the new baby and seem to wonder what they might be missing out on. It seems the couple attempted to have children earlier in their marriage with more than a few failed attempts, miscarriages and procedures making them question whether or not they were meant to be parents at all. They have moved on, coming up with countless justifications as to why their lives are just as good, if not more their own for not having children. They can be spontaneous, they can travel or do any number of things they tell themselves, but hardly follow through on. It is when Josh, a documentary filmmaker (which is thankfully more vital to the plot than simply being another quirky detail), meets Jamie (Adam Driver) and his wife Darby (Amanda Seyfried) that he becomes enraptured in the free-wheeling lifestyle they have adopted that Josh attributes to their youth. Jamie and Darby are in their mid- to late-20s and live in a New York loft with a roommate that looks so perfectly put-together by a hipster that it almost contradicts the hipster mantra. Watching movies on VHS, listening to music on vinyl and playing board games rather than accessing Netflix, transferring their CD’s to iTunes and downloading apps on their iPads, Jamie and Darby seem to yearn for the nostalgia of yesteryear, where to them it seems things were of a simpler time whereas Josh and Cornelia embrace the changing technology, if not the culture, to keep up with the times. It is in Josh’s attempt to emulate Jamie that we go on this journey of self-discovery, this midlife crisis exemplified of sorts that shows not only Josh’s transition in being able to accept and be comfortable with who he “authentically” is, but in adjusting to this new stage of life he’s entering. There is a large portion early in the film when we are introduced to Driver and Seyfried’s characters that I became slightly annoyed. It was an initial reaction to the film in that it seemed to be preaching the age-old lesson of being comfortable in your own skin while dressing it up in contemporary clothing and fancy language while having its characters try way too hard. Everything I mentioned about Jamie and Darby adopting older means of doing things felt more forced than a natural inclination or sincere in any way and while I gave the film the benefit of the doubt in thinking such extremes were done in order to make a point, part of me believes Baumbach really lives in this kind of hipster environment where he strives to retain such a lifestyle more out of how he wants to feel about his life than what it actually is. Of course, as a semi-popular director of quirky indie films who’s also written for Wes Anderson, Baumbach is probably the most credible hipster around and it is his intention with the plot within “While We’re Young” and it’s main ideas that turned me from a pessimistic viewer of the mind that I’d heard this all before to a viewer wondering if what Baumbach was actually doing was providing a commentary on the falsehood of building our own facades, actually detracting from individuality no matter a groups principles and thus creating another subculture instead of spurning true individuality, and using the hipster movement as a target to make his point. If not using a word as harsh as target it would seem it is at least something along these lines and in Baumbach making Josh the more naive, hopeful person more likely to be filled with hope, wonder and optimism that we all wish life consisted of he paints his outward appearance, his own facade that people know him by while Jamie seems to be an incarnation of the success-driven young man he had to be in order to reach this seemingly wonder-filled adult he has become. The cynical, hungry, merciless 20-something he once was afforded him the abilities and status he currently enjoys. With this kind of dynamic in mind, realizing the director is not only telling a story of self-discovery and exploring the facets of what each choice might mean or represent and if the opinions of those your own age or those of your younger peers matter more we come to understand this is also Baumbach’s way of working through his own transitional experiences. This film is his own little trip of self-discovery. He acknowledges the disappointing truth that the magic of a pursuit, whether it be in love or in a project, is largely lost once that pursuit comes to the finish line or that goal is obtained. His kind of epiphany comes in the form of acknowledging the magic you have readily available in your everyday life deserves more than you likely give it. That there is no point in hoping for what you know you can’t have, that the truly meaningful moments, the lasting things in life are those that come effortlessly if you give the time you’re granted a real shot rather than dwelling on the past or what the future may or may not hold. As simple as this type of advice might seem it is rather profound when going through such a journey as the one we are privy to with Josh and Cornelia. When they are faced with the attraction of youth while the disappointment of getting older hovers they expect things to begin to lose their luster, but distance adds perspective and inherently adds quality. Sure, “While We’re Young” may be intent on somewhat spoofing the stereotypes of hipster culture or the lifestyles of the younger population in general, but the film itself takes into consideration what it can learn from both ends of the spectrum and applies that to a mentality that gives our main character a kind of peace. We all want things, certain things, and no matter if we’re young or old doing what we have to do to obtain those things doesn’t always make us good or bad, but it’s more the angle we come at things determined by our stage in life and the amount of perspective we’ve accrued that is truly telling. It is a film set around trying to be as authentic about achieving these life goals as possible yet being able to accept the shifts in popular culture as they change from your own. While this has been anything but short, “While We’re Young” is the kind of film that inspires a lot of thought, a good amount of contemplation and reflection as well as just some good ole’ fashioned analysis. And so, in short, I could go on to say how well Stiller and Watts were or moreover what an impression Driver leaves while Seyfried is somewhat underwritten and disregarded in the second half of the film or even how I wish Charles Grodin was in more of this, but these factors aren’t what matter about a movie like this. What matters is how well it conveys these complex, somewhat philosophical questions to an audience that understands them in a way they can both apply to their own lives or learn from them to better ready themselves for that inevitable midlife crisis. Midlife crisis feels like such a cheap way of putting it, but in essence that’s what we have and Baumbach has made not so much a statement on this strange time in life, but as the film sticks to its oft-repeated thesis that we don’t know the answers, but discover them he is making observations about how we all get old even if we never feel like we actually grew up.
0 Comments
by Preston Tolliver 5. “Captain America 2: Winter Soldier” (2014) The first ‘Captain America’ movie was great, but it was bogged down with the origin story that makes so many first installments of comic book films almost a drag. The second movie is where Marvel found its niche with Cap. It was fast and action-packed, while throwing in the perfect amount of drama with Steve and Bucky's backstory. It's also the most recent sequel of an individual hero movie that Marvel's done, and if it's any indication, ‘Civil War’ and “Thor 3: Ragnarok” can only get better. 4. “X-Men II” (2003) Truthfully speaking, this is really the only good ‘X-Men’ movie. We had two alright ones (“X-Men” and “The Wolverine”), a couple "meh" ones (“X-Men: First Class” and ‘Days of Future Past’) and two absolutely atrocious films (“X-Men III” and “Wolverine Origins”). “X-Men II” came at a time when it wasn't old or unoriginal to focus a film primarily on Hugh Jackman's Wolverine (It was the first — and therefore, the last acceptable one), and introduced just enough new characters to get fanboys excited (especially the crowd-favorite Nightcrawler, which, by the way, what the hell is happening here?). “X-Men: Apocalypse” has some promise — the introduction of new characters on the horizon (God, please let these new characters have more airtime than in ‘Days of Future Past’) and X-Men's biggest villain seem like a combination that can't be screwed up ... but if there's one company that can do it, it's Fox. 3. “Iron Man” (2008) This one didn't make the list until my friend Ben pointed out that it's the film that really kicked off the Marvel franchise (at least in terms of “The Avengers” and “Guardians of the Galaxy” films). Without “Iron Man,” we wouldn't have the 10-or-so movies that were built around it (OK, I would have been fine without “Iron Man III”). It was with this film that Robert Downey Jr., quickly solidified his role as Tony Stark, as much as Heath Ledger made The Joker his own. It was also Marvel's first hugely-successful origin story, and probably the only origin film that was better than its sequels. 2. “Guardians of the Galaxy” (2014) “Guardians of the Galaxy” accomplished everything “The Avengers” couldn't, and without all the origin stories. And perhaps that's what made this one so good. Instead of focusing on individual characters who were coming together as a team, “Guardians of the Galaxy” was able to focus on the team itself, dropping small bits of each character's history throughout the movie. Perhaps it was because it was a relatively unknown group to comic fans — not nearly as big as “The Avengers,” fans went to the movies unsure of what to expect, and for some reason, even skeptical. The movie hit theaters with a low bar to hit, and they pole vaulted over it. The movie also hit Marvel's comedic peak — serving more as a self-parody for the Marvel Cinematic Universe. While some of Marvel's movies have a tendency to take themselves too seriously, almost to a fault (see the ‘Iron Man’ and ‘Thor’ movies), ‘Guardians’ never did. The characters themselves knew they were part of something silly, nonsensical and reproduced — it was almost as if their knowledge of this (see Zoe Saldana and Chris Pratt's yawns while the team assembles together in cliché Marvel fashion) that made the movie Marvel's best yet. 1. “The Dark Knight” (2008) There's a fundamental plot in every comic book storyline, only it gets recycled in different ways to (hopefully) become more and more appealing to the reader. Nearly every comic book story -- as well as any good action movie, in general -- is one quintessential conflict: that of good versus evil. Fans of Batman — not just Batman, but movie fans in general — were given this conflict in its most pristine form, with a story with the perfect combination of action and drama, and an even better performance by its two leading actors. Everyone knew from “Batman Begins” that Christian Bale was on pace to surpass Michael Keaton and Adam West as the best Batman yet — no one knew what to expect from Heath Ledger (to the point that fellow cast member Michael Caine was so speechless the first time he saw Ledger as The Joker that he forgot his lines). Even in the comics, the story of The Joker seems to always be changing. Right now, he's currently immortal, for whatever reason, but the mystery that has always shrouded Batman's biggest rival along with his bizarre personality is one that Ledger personified to a T. Jack Nicholson was a wonderful Joker 30 years ago, and Ledger was given the opportunity to take the role's reins from Nicholson's hands — only he didn't just take them, he forced them away and made them forever his (Sorry Jared Leto, you won't ever be as good, especially with this). by Philip Price This is a story of ideas. A story of very precise ideas. It is the ideas that make the story and not the other way around. This is a film that if you were to take all the attributes of any major summer blockbuster and put them on the opposite end of the spectrum it would be something similar to what we have here. In essence, this is people in rooms talking. As always though, it is the human mind and the countless contemplations we can come up with when given an interesting topic that fuel how fascinating such a simple set-up can be. There is no need for explosions, action or even a convoluted plot when instead all of the adrenaline these things strive to rouse in an audience are done through the power of conversation, of possibilities and of our own interpretations. Needless to say, writer/director Alex Garland's directorial debut, “Ex Machina,” is fascinating not just for the ideas it brings to the table, but for how well it executes them. It is a combination of many factors coming together to form a completely harmonious final product that feels labored over to the point of near perfection. It is clear this began with the script in that the aforementioned basic set-up doesn't take a single line of dialogue for granted. Garland is communicating tone, thoughts and themes among many other facets with his script and as he brings in actors to bring them to life these things only become more enhanced. As he brings in the production designer things are only implicated further. Everything about the film builds off one another until we reach a point where we're almost suffocating in the amalgam of philosophy, technology and mystery the film presents. That is, of course, until it reprieves us from the weight of those implications just long enough for us to catch a breath before delving back in to explore the unknown a little further. To put it bluntly, the film is enthralling in a way that is almost cryptic. There is nothing to warm up to here because it is a decidedly cold film, but despite that coldness this story of ideas pulls you in by the nature of its bleakness hitting a little too close to home. Garland wastes no time in delving into his ideas as we are quickly introduced to Caleb (Domhnall Gleeson), a 26-year old coder at a major search engine company akin to Google known here as BlueBook. We see he is the winner of an internal competition to spend a week with the mysterious and reclusive CEO of the company, Nathan (Oscar Isaac). Once Caleb arrives in this remote, kind of secret estate that is built into the side of a mountain he learns he is not there to necessarily get to know his boss better, but to participate in a test. Nathan lets Caleb in on the secret that he has been working on the creation of an A.I. and that Caleb, should he choose to accept the challenge, will be at the heart of this technological revolution by conducting a Turing test on Nathan's creation. A brief synopsis of the Turing test is that it is basically the test of a computer’s intelligence. It requires that a human being should not be able to distinguish the machine from another human being. In order for Caleb to go about this he will conduct one session a day with Nathan's creation to decide whether or not she passes. Typically, the test would be conducted without the human having access to what the A.I. looks like, but Nathan's goal is to have Caleb consciously know and talk to his robot while eventually forgetting he is indeed speaking with a robot. Crazy, right? You would think so. That Nathan has decided to make this a female robot that exudes a kind of sexuality, manipulative qualities and an acute self-awareness is not lost on Caleb and is at the same time both amazing in that it's been able to be achieved and frightening in what it suggests. Where is the line drawn and where does this creation cross over from simply being a product to that of an actual life form? This has always been the question-what if our organs and bones are seen as nothing more than software to our own creator? Would they then not feel bad wiping out our existence without a second thought? These are the types of abstract, profound, provocative yet clearly logical questions that Garland poses and that he executes beautifully with the help of Rob Hardy's gorgeous cinematography and a chilling score from Ben Salisbury and Geoff Barrow. In a way, the film passes its own tests as we as an audience come to recognize Nathan's invention that he calls Ava (Alicia Vikander) as a being we care about. She is haunting in her innocence, quiet in her sincerity and through the building of her intelligence through the unimaginable number of searches done through Nathan's company that he (legally) used to create her she is also intimidating in her ability to progress. She is discretely complicated in that there would seem to have to be a certain capacity for her emotions, but where that line is drawn is again what is up for grabs. Influencing the precision of the writing is how well it is brought to life by the actors and their sleek, but claustrophobic surroundings. Gleeson, who we see as something of the lead, is presented as an intelligent if not average guy in every other facet of life. As much as Caleb is there to test Ava he is there to be observed by Nathan in how he chooses to interact and how Caleb's reactions to he and Ava's interactions succeed in whatever Nathan's ultimate goal might be. Gleeson is a solid bit of casting in that he embodies an everyman while easily possessing an ability to express critical thinking. He is a worthy opponent of sorts given Nathan, in his solitude, has become something of a man unsure of how to fit in. As Nathan, Isaac is simply magnificent. It seems the guy can do anything and the almost chilled out mentality he presents, despite feeling somewhat forced so as to better meld with Caleb's everyman, is unexpected in that this is a genius who has now cut himself off from the world due to the fact he's probably always felt alone. The details (or lack thereof) we are given early on about both men hint at traits that not only play critically into the plot, but come to play a role in revelations that don't resort to juvenile or expected conclusions, but rather those that push the envelope further. Vikander is indisputably the star here though. Through her Ava we see a character we know isn't human and it is through her subtle performance choices such as dialect, tone and accuracy of her voice that we feel we can see her mind maturing and compiling the information until she fills out a pool of knowledge large enough to make her aspirations a reality. Over the last few years, filmmakers and writers have become more and more fascinated with the idea of artificial intelligence. It is an idea that has always been present of course, but as we get closer to the actual realization of such a thing (give Siri a body and we're one step closer) the consequences of it become all the more real and thus all the more frightening. You can look to Her, which is likely the closest in terms of what these films are saying about developing convincing relationships with artificial beings and their inability to stay with us for too long before moving on due to their superiority, but there are also films like “Transcendence” and “Chappie” that have come out within the last year or so that attempted to tackle the consequences of creating a God-like being who is omniscient and capable of knowing all. While “Transcendence” spun too many ideas that it couldn't keep track of “Chappie” gave us the cliff notes for what make up the most interesting discussions in “Ex Machina.” In Garland's film we are introduced to the idea not only that a sentient being can exist and be raised from a child-like mentality to that of a fully-functional adult being (like in “Chappie”), but the HOW of that type of artificial intelligence coming into existence (unlike in “Chappie”). This is the idea of not just addressing what we or a robot might be thinking, but how we come to think the way we do (whether by nature or nurture) and if that kind of intelligence is a natural stage in evolution, an extension of the human race if you will, or if this is simply another example of man trying to play God and devising our own demise because of it. Early in the film Caleb makes a statement to Nathan about how if the artificial intelligence he's created is as close to actual human life as Ava seems that it would make him something of a God. This idea of creation is at the heart of the film in that while Nathan is the father of his creation in the same way the common Christian God is viewed as the Father of us all, it is his creation that is the all-knowing being we typically assume a God to be. Given what occurs in the film, the dichotomy between the creator and the superior being leads to countless other questions and theories of how much the good that can come from such an invention is worth when given the possibility of how much bad could also come of it. Is it worth it? Is the pursuit of advancement worth our eventual extinction? by Philip Price Organized chaos. Organized chaos is what best describes the sequel to the third biggest movie of all time. How does one top the first culmination of the first cinematic universe? Sure, bigger is always better (and ‘Age of Ultron’ certainly feels bigger), but more it is the combination of broadening the scale with that of keeping the characters compelling and their story moving forward. As always, whether it be trying to manage the multiple characters or the overarching storyline that the Marvel Cinematic Universe intends to execute some things get lost in the shuffle. This is to be expected, more so with the characters than the storyline as Marvel and head honcho Kevin Feige seem to have a pretty clear picture of where things are ultimately going if not allowing each director their own wiggle room to implement their own ideas and ambitions. Within this wiggle room we are given the titular baddie of this second ‘Avengers’ film in Ultron. While Thanos has been making minuscule appearances since he first showed up in that mid-credits stinger on “The Avengers” and would seemingly be Marvel's biggest bad of them all, Ultron seems to be the deviation that Joss Whedon wanted to explore and thus proved a solid enough distraction to carry the Avengers through this soggy middle ground and onto the third act of this cinematic universe they've been constructing. While Ultron is a compelling piece of artificial intelligence as far as characters go with James Spader providing a maniacally dark humored mentality to the intimidating "murder bot" the evil robot’s motivations are always a bit muddled. Covered up by flowery speeches and philosophical mumbo jumbo about the only way to peace being true extinction Ultron is given no motivation for his actions beyond being programmed in such a way. A program that is too smart for its own good who hijacks any physical form he can in order to execute his plan. This is all well enough reason to give earth’s mightiest heroes someone to fight, but it's the weakest link in an otherwise sprawling production that is everything we want it to be. Everything we've been waiting for. Diving right into where “Captain America: The Winter Soldier” left off, S.H.I.E.L.D. is in shambles and our heroes have reunited to locate Loki's scepter that was stolen after the fall of S.H.I.E.L.D. and the reveal that Hydra was still very much alive. The scepter landed in the hands of one Wolfgang von Strucker (Thomas Kretschmann) who then gathered volunteers among the rioting population of Sokovia to use as test subjects for the scepter’s power. Most of the volunteers died as a result of these experiments, but twins Pietro (Aaron Taylor-Johnson) and Wanda Maximoff (Elizabeth Olsen) gained some interesting powers. It is in this reclusive, castle-like estate where Strucker resides with his Hydra henchman that we begin and watch on as writer/director Joss Whedon careens through a barrage of action pieces as if flipping through the pages of a comic book with his team of super heroes laying waste to all that stand between them and the scepter. They of course retrieve the scepter, but not without the caveat of Wanda's Scarlet Witch beginning to stretch her mind manipulation muscles. Before Thor (Chris Hemsworth) takes the scepter back with him to Asgard, both Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.) and Dr. Bruce Banner (Mark Ruffalo) intend to run a few tests, check a few things and generally just satisfy their intelligence cravings by being afforded the opportunity to examine an alien instrument. Within the scepter’s gem, the mad scientists that are Iron Man and Hulk discover an artificial intelligence, one that Stark is keen on applying to his global defense program so as to keep our little blue rock safe from any more Chitauri-like invaders. Unbeknownst to Stark, Ultron is surprisingly sentient thus inherently inclined to eradicate the earth of the human race that hinders its possible prosperity. After he escapes with the scepter, Ultron uses the resources in Strucker's Sokovia base to build an army of robot drones and recruits the Maximoff twins to assist him in his quest. This of course leads Captain America (Chris Evans) and the rest of the Avengers including Scarlett Johansson's Black Widow and Jeremy Renner's Hawkeye to stop Ultron before he fulfills his destiny. Naturally, there is so much more to the story than this it would be impossible to give a broader description of the events without going into specifics. Being able to paint a clear picture though, which the film ultimately does, is an achievement in itself as this could have easily been a mess of confusion instead of the aforementioned organized chaos it turns out to be. In comparison to this, Whedon had it easy on the first ‘Avengers.’ Already having his villain in place, the core story clearly focusing on bringing these several different characters and storylines together with the built in novelty of seeing these guys all together for the first time gave Whedon plenty to roll with and while it is still required he hit certain story points and connect certain strands it can't help but feel that large portions of ‘Ultron’ were at his disposal as far as what he wanted to show the Avengers actually doing. The initial issue a movie like this faces is the idea people have about a movie like this. The thought process doesn't go much further past the initial thought of how cool it would be to see all of these players team-up for an all-star game. Of course that would be cool to see, but once they're in place what are they going to be doing? This is the part typically dismissed in light of it just being a neat idea, but with ‘Ultron’ Whedon is able to take it a couple steps further than the initial introductions and climactic if not obligatory final battle sequence from the first ‘Avengers’ planting his follow-up firmly in the thick of everything. I'll go ahead and put it out there despite the fact I'm somewhat cautious given I've only seen it once and this could end up being a knee-jerk reaction, but I firmly believe I liked and enjoyed this more than the first film. I make this claim fairly comfortably though due to the fact ‘Age of Ultron’ serves as everything we've been waiting for, everything we've been looking forward to from these movies since the promise of the Avengers initiative was made in the first “Iron Man.” This isn't the pilot that the first film was, no, this is a mid-season finale where we all know the characters well enough for no exposition to be necessary and we see the throughline plots of several episodes prior come together to create a layered and satisfactory story that just so happens to be aided by top of the line special effects and gigantic action scenes. With this kind of mentality, Whedon wastes no time in spinning his wheels and giving fans what they desire because he knows what he would want to see were he going to an ‘Avengers’ movie. Besides watching these larger than life characters interact with one another and deepen their relationships, begin more serious ones, welcome individual friends into the larger group (it really is great seeing Don Cheadle's Rhodey and Anthony Mackie's Sam Wilson just hanging out with everyone else at Avengers Tower) it is refreshing to see them work together with no inhibition. At this point, Marvel is so self-aware and self-deprecating that it is hard to imagine anyone hesitating to embrace the ridiculousness of something like the ‘Avengers’ (here's looking at you, Banner), but in allowing these relationships to flow so naturally due to Whedon's witty banter and character building it in turn allows each personality to contribute to the ever-broadening scope these movies exist within. This only makes each new film all the more closer to the ideal we all held for these movies when we were kids watching Saturday morning cartoons and wondering what it might be like to see this in real life. Speaking of character building, it truly is astonishing that Whedon is able to accomplish as much as he does in a nicely paced two hours and 20 minutes while including as many action set-pieces and scenes exclusively designed to further extraneous stories. Downey Jr. is still the captain of this ship, delivering on every level we have come to expect from him as the genius, billionaire, playboy, philanthropist and now sole benefactor of the Avengers. While Stark is the eldest of the group, Banner is right there with him and the inspired friendship between the two continues to hold strong throughout ‘Ultron’ as they debate the pros and cons of their meddling in matters seemingly not meant for mortal men. Ruffalo continues to shine as the beaten down Banner who really comes through in the big green guy as well. While the main focus on Banner this time around comes in the form of a budding relationship with Johansson's Natasha Romanoff both are served fairly through the plot device of Scarlet Witch's power that offers insight into both Romanoff's past and a breakthrough for Thor that puts him on the path of a kind of existential journey to figure out the meaning of his own hallucination. Whedon is able to flesh out Renner's Clint Barton much more this time around as well whereas instead of having him brainwashed for the majority of the film Renner is given ample opportunity to let an actual personality shine through while introducing the world and his fellow Avengers to his family that includes wife Laura (Linda Cardellini) and two children with one on the way. That, on top of all of this, Whedon is still able to seamlessly introduce the twins, another major character in Paul Bettany's Vision later in the film and use that introduction to tie-in Thor's crisis of the mind to the ever developing story of the six Infinity Stones is somewhat exceptional and deserves to be applauded if not re-watched and appreciated more with the time and perspective that the movies to come after it will offer. At the heart of all of this though is Chris Evans’ Captain America. I am still slightly in awe that Evans was able to take what, on paper, was the most boring of heroes in his earnestness and righteousness and create not only a compelling character out of him by simply being a decent man, but more a charismatic leader. As much as Tony Stark and his legacy (a theme still intact here) is the bedrock of the Avengers there are no qualms that Cap is the leader and while Whedon manages the screen time and quality of one-liners between Steve Rogers and Stark with good measure it is who we are looking at right before the credits roll who will continue to hold this cinematic universe together. While much of the issue with creating a cinematic universe like Marvel has done comes with not really relishing in the film at hand but more moving so rapidly on to the next one that ‘Age of Ultron’ is forgotten the moment we leave the theater, this entry should really be given the opportunity to relish in itself. The scale of some of the action sequences is breathtaking, the focus on the safety of human life is vital and reassuring with the camera work in which Whedon works his choreographed fight scenes through and around revealing themselves to be nothing short of stunning on the big screen. Even the color palette and bleaker tone coupled with the globetrotting aspect of this chapter that doesn't keep things strictly stateside give the film a larger breadth than that of the more compact and cartoony first film. There are obviously flaws with this sequel; I've already expressed my major issue in the fact Ultron's introduction and lack of genuine motivation feels rushed in an attempt to keep things moving and jump into the major conflict as quick as possible despite Spader providing a charming villain. That out of the way though, “Avengers: Age of Ultron” is, of course, a huge, bombastic piece of mainstream pop entertainment that plays into everything any jaded cinephile will tell you is wrong with the movie industry today, but damn if the pre-ordained movie of the summer isn't actually pretty good and wholly satisfying on an interconnected universe of childhood-like wonder level that no other film can match even if they tried. by Philip Price The immediate assumption when seeing a movie starring both Jonah Hill and James Franco is that it is of course a comedy, but when you place the fact both of these guys are Oscar-nominated actors in front of that, you can understand where things might not be all you expect. In a new collaboration between the actors simply titled “True Story” there is little to smile about, much less laugh at. All of that taken into consideration, I wasn't sure what to expect given this seemed a deliberate attempt, especially from Hill, to further his dramatic career while Franco is so all over the map at this point it was up for debate how much time and effort he actually put into the role of a seemingly normal man who came home from work one night and murdered his entire family. To these points, suspicion was dismissed fairly early as director Rupert Goold (making his feature film debut) jumps right into the hook of the piece while following it up with an intense exploration as to why that hook might have existed in the first place. The readily available chemistry between Franco and Hill is on full display as the majority of the film concerns itself with these two central characters figuring out the other with the remaining facets outside these more fascinating moments being more by the numbers. We've all seen movies based on real-life crime stories of course and have become accustomed to the beats they hit as far as how to figure out the big question of whodunit and why the typical protagonist might make certain mistakes, getting too close to the case for their own good, but this only happens in “True Story” part of the time and while it certainly detracts from the more fascinating relationship formed between Hill's Michael Finkel and Franco's Christian Longo there is enough here between the two of them to create a rather enticing piece of character study for the audience to decipher and ultimately decide where we come down not just on the accused murderer, but both of these men. Michael Finkel was a reporter for the New York Times who'd accrued nine covers of the publication’s magazine before the age of thirty-three. When he was discovered to have created composite characters for a story he had written on the African slave trade he was promptly fired. With his career on the line he moved back to Montana with wife or girlfriend or whatever she is in Jill (Felecity Jones), who the movie doesn't care to clarify a relationship with, in an attempt to put his life back together. Shortly after returning home, he receives a phone call from a reporter at The Oregonian (Ethan Suplee) regarding an FBI Most Wanted individual named Christian Longo. It seems Longo, who'd recently been captured, had been claiming to be Michael Finkel with the New York Times. Having not heard anything about this situation prior Finkel sees this as nothing short of an opportunity knocking on his door. There is undoubtedly a story here and seeing as Longo was pretending to be him there is also a curiosity present in Finkel to know why he was the chosen one of sorts. Inevitably, the two men meet while Longo is in prison awaiting trial. In these initial meetings Finkel makes it clear he is present to find out not only why Longo decided to impersonate him, but if he did what he was accused of doing. It is also made clear that Longo wants the assistance of Finkel in hopes that he may help him win acquittal. There is clearly more to Longo's plan than this though as he is quick to set-up his admiration for Finkel, the writer, and lathers on the compliments almost to the point we immediately suspect the man of purely taking advantage of this man who he's implanted a sense of connection with, simply by flattering him. As the conversations run deeper, Finkel becomes more wrapped up in the stark charisma of Longo and delves into writing a portrait of this man no one but him seems to understand. How the film approaches the dynamic between the two is golden, but as the film builds to a third act courtroom drama it can't seem to keep up with the deceptive Longo. The title of the film comes as much from the events of the film being based on a true story as it does the plight of Finkel attempting to uncover the true story of Christian Longo. If it's not clear already, the meat of this story is the interaction between our two leads and more the angle each of them are playing at. We know that Finkel is keen on digging himself out of the hole he's placed himself in by turning this strange set of circumstances into a best-seller, but those of Longo are more uncertain. It is easy to forget that Franco is actually a solid actor as so much of him and his major films at this point come off as something of self-parody. I, while enjoying his comedic sensibilities in films like “Pineapple Express,” “Spring Breakers” and “This is the End,” have come to kind of dismiss him as being capable of anything greater than what he's already accomplished. While Hill, on the other hand, has been delivering on both fronts in credible pieces for several years now. What Hill has done differently though has been to find a way to balance his comedic skills with those necessary to being a part of the drama. He utilized his appearance and facade in “Moneyball” and his improvisational skills and taste for the outlandish in “Wolf of Wall Street” with the main difference being those films hold a more pedigreed set of credentials than anything he did in the purely comedic genre. In continuing to stretch his range, Hill finally steps into strictly dramatic territory with “True Story” and while he has the less-interesting role, essentially playing the straight man to Franco's serial killer, there was something about the character’s persona that didn't immediately strike me as likable. While main characters don't have to necessarily be people we like, it doesn't hurt and that my slight disdain for the character had nothing to do with his bad decisions early in the film struck me as odd. I'm a guy who clearly likes to write and while writers typically don't like most people they can at least relate to other writers, but there was something distinctly loathsome about the guy. What that says about the performances, I'm not exactly sure, but what it says that Franco's character seemed more in tune with the tone of their conversation is telling. That this comes from the book written by Finkel only makes my uneasy feelings about the character all the more striking. I understand that the real-life guy could be totally different from the demeanor Hill presents him as having onscreen, but for the purposes of reviewing the film the more interesting aspect of it all is how well and for how long Franco's interpretation of Longo is able to fool the audience into thinking one way or another about him. He is an enigma of a character that floats in and out of a cell, only fully reflecting on his existence in the countless hours he sits alone. Much of this time seems to be taken up by writing down his life story, a decision that not only builds a closer affinity with Finkel, but one that seems to genuinely further Longo's desire to be a better writer. In putting this life story to paper, Franco's character is more easily fleshed out with possible motivations and outcomes being hinted at. These, together with the stone-faced portrayal presented by the actor, lend an enticing aura to the man we want to believe is innocent, but can't come to buy into all the way. In every moment that Longo confesses something about his personal life Franco intentionally does little to add any emotion to his words. His performance is all the more striking for it and in the single scene he shares with Jones both are electrifying while perfectly encapsulating the reality of the situation and the inhumanity of it all. This is not to discount the performance Hill gives as it is more than competent and for his first, true dramatic turn it is more than solid in a way that conveys the necessary tragedy, confusion, desperation and depressing aspects of the story in a way that resonates. It just so happens the more interesting part goes to his counterpart and that overshadows his performance more than the fact I didn't necessarily like or trust his character either. Despite the fact this is based on a true story (no pun intended) and that the bulk of Goold and David Kajganich's screenplay comes from the real Finkel's book, there is always room for interpretation and change to make a story more dramatic, especially when presenting it in a movie-format. There is clearly more to the film than just these central performances, but they are the highlight. The cinematography is striking in its choice to stay surrounded in pure white environments whether it be the cells of Longo's prison or the landscapes of Montana. Goold is sure to keep his camera trained on the single elements that stick out of these landscapes all of which adds to a consistent pacing that leads with the critical aspects of the picture and takes their critical story detail from scene to scene driving the suspense. There is some striking imagery from the opening shot down to that of little more than Franco's hands that are as manipulative as his eyes. “True Story” isn't what you would necessarily call an enjoyable experience, but it is startling where it needs to be with a compelling relationship at the center and a creepy tone that Goold elicits overall, made moreso by Franco's surprisingly committed performance. by Philip Price “Unfriended” is one of those fun thrillers. One of those quick, harmless scary movies that fully intend to make you jump, but are just as funny as any mainstream comedy you've seen as of late. Of course, the comedy is meant to throw you off your game, to make you comfortable before it all comes crashing down and the original intent of the film is fulfilled. While ”Unfriended” clearly knows what it is and exactly who it is meant to play for, it is much smarter than its facade suggests and it only comes off this way because it clearly knows its target audience well enough to pull the gimmick of the film off almost flawlessly. That gimmick being the fact the entire film takes place within a single computer screen. It's an interesting concept and actually allows for a large amount of character building to be conveyed without a word being spoken (the ads on the side of our protagonists Facebook page hint at what she's interested in as do the multiple tabs opened in her Chrome browser), but more than this it takes advantage of every piece of social media technology at a teenagers disposal and turns it into a weapon against them. Sure, it is exaggerated at points and though we never feel anything is really at stake given we're expected to believe a dead girl has come back to haunt her friends from beyond the keyboard, the main idea holds steady while the rather precise story is executed at a pace that never allows the audience to become bored. In fact, it's just the opposite as the further down the rabbit hole we go the more fascinating it is to see just how much we divulge of ourselves online and how easily that can come back and be used against us. That is what the throughline theme is here, if there is even one to be found: that, eventually, the lives we lead on the clouds of the internet may someday meet up with our actual reality and the result for most might be pretty messy. Of course, ”Unfriended” isn't really into teaching lessons or serving as a cautionary tale to a generation absorbed by their tech, but more it just wants to have a little fun with current trends and in this regard, it succeeds to the point of obtaining guilty pleasure status. We're introduced to the world of Blaire (Shelley Hennig) as she takes a peak at the suicide video of former classmate Laura Barns (Heather Sossaman). A link in the caption of the video takes her to YouTube where the video that apparently caused Laura's suicide still remains. We are initially taken by shock into this world of Blaire's as we witness Laura taking her life, but are soon reprieved of such depressive material when we glimpse what we can only guess is flirtation with first love between Blaire and the chiseled, all-American Mitch (Moses Jacob Storm) who sits on the other end of her Skype call. While the two discuss Blaire's readiness to lose her virginity and go all the way with Mitch on their prom night the two are unexpectedly interrupted by a trio of close friends that seemingly harbor nothing but good will towards the picture perfect couple. Ken (Jacob Wysocki) is the uncool cool guy of the group as he is overweight and better acquainted with technology than the others as well as serving as the prime source of comic relief, but manages to maintain a natural air of charisma the others cannot argue. Jess (Renee Olstead) is the more experienced female of the group, heavily teased by her friends, but likely just searching for that one genuine guy who actually gives a shit about her. Then there is Adam (Will Peltz) who is the actual cool guy. He's the rich, good-looking dudes-dude that you would probably hate from afar until getting to know him better in which you'd then hate yourself for actually liking the guy. Each bring a vital enough flavor to the proceedings, but it is when they notice a mysterious sixth member on their video chat line that things begin to get a little hokey. What at first appears to be a prank continually builds to a more legit and genuinely terrifying experiment in what will happen next as Laura Barns seems to truly be back. “Unfriended” is junk food. It is pure trash, but it is entertaining trash and it knows it as well as anyone willing to buy into the concept. One could easily berate the film for being little more than a quick, capitalization on the found footage genre that is all but over at this point (though M. Night Shyamalan will be taking a stab at it next), but they'd be wrong because if anything the film is more a rift on that genre than anything else. ”Unfriended” will certainly look dated within a years’ time at the most, but it captures a very specific moment in time and will somehow come to be cherished more in twenty years because of that. The immediate reaction to that previous statement is will anyone even remember a movie called “Unfriended” in two years’ time, much less twenty. But while it may quickly pass in our revolving door system of entertainment that overloads our brains today, Unfriended” is different because it plays into a very specific niche — one that will pick up on it and never let it die. This isn't the classy, pedigreed kind of horror that will bring the genre back to good standing with purists as features like “The Babadook” and “It Follows” have, we've already determined ”Unfriended” is the slutty step-sister to those types of horror films, but it has such a distinctive set of equipment that it utilizes so well it would be a true mistake to call this a bad film. I can admit there is nothing new going on here is terms of scary movie story beats; each character is still taken out one by one and the musical choices are deliberately ironic, but it is almost undeniable that something clicks for this cast and screenwriter Nelson Greaves slight narrative that asks for much to be conveyed under strict limitations. That both Greaves, director Leo Gabriadze and their cast were able to pull this off as well as they do is not just worth applauding, but worth spreading the word about. “Unfriended” is a solid little horror flick wrapped in cheap clothing intended not to be taken on what you think you already know it is, but for how well it delivers on what you didn't think it could be. |
Archives
April 2024
|