"Frozen" Review

There are two movies I've been hard pressed for my opinion on. Requiem for A Dream and Frozen. The former I will eventually get around to doing, but the latter I saw at long last yesterday. So it's time to finally review it. I've promised i'd do it, and a Lannister always pays his debts.

Set in the fictional kingdom of Arendelle, Princesses Anna and Elsa are sisters who have been separated by their parents due to Elsa's strange wintery powers. When the King and Queen die, and Elsa comes of age, she is coronated and is reunited with Anna for the first time in years. However, when Anna asks for her sisters blessing in marrying a man she just met, Elsa accidentally unleashes her powers, putting Arendelle in state of eternal winter.

First, let's talk musicals. I personally have never been a fan. I couldn't really get on board with the whole idea of spontaneous song. And as great as the acting and story was in Les Miserables was, I got a migraine from what turned out to be a two and a half hour song. Don't get me wrong, musicals are great, they're just not my thing. The only musicals I can consistently watch are Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory (the Gene Wilder version) and any movie involving The Muppets.

In Frozen, as much as I didn't want to, I found the songs kinda catchy. They're certainly the kind that would annoy the hell out of a parent after hearing it 20 times in a row in the car, but for the pre-adolescents that the film is targeted to, they get the job done. I certainly enjoyed them, and that is saying something.

What I really enjoyed was how different the film feels from other Disney fare. It's darker, more human, well rounded. Sure, the prospect of true love at first sight is all well and good, but it's enormously refreshing to see a character point out how ridiculous the idea of marriage after a few hours is. It's in a way satirical of the common Disney love stories, as well loved as they may be.

The characterization is also interesting. Especially for a children's movie. Characters like Elsa and Hans are fully fleshed out instead of being the flat one-sided characters in these types of movies. They are conflicted, they have choices to make, and they struggle with those choices. There are broad shades of gray that they all play to. It's a bit darker with higher stakes, but it certainly has enough humor and cute Disney moments to appeal to a broad range.

The vocal performances are pretty vibrant. People like Kristen Bell, Adele Dazeem Idina Menzel, Josh Gad, Alan Tudyk, the whole bunch make their characters come to life with popping personalities.

So to sum it up, Frozen is a worth a look. It's not going to be my favorite animated film, or musical, but it's got a lot of substance to it. It really depends on if the story is your cup of tea.

B+

"Transcendence" Review

Transcendence had the potential to be magnificent. It had Christopher Nolan's longtime cinematographer at the helm, it had a dynamic premise, and a more than capable cast. The end result, in my gentlest terms, frankly turned out terrible.

Will Caster is an artificial intelligence researcher who is shot by an anti-technological group. The radiation bullet wound gives him some five weeks to live. Using research conducted by a colleague, his wife Evelyn and best friend Max upload his consciousness to an AI system in hopes to save him. It proves successful, but the artificial entity seeks more power, and Max questions the cost.

As I said, the movie had a story that had potential to be brilliant. However, in execution the plot had a gaping pacing problem which caused it to alternate speeding up the plot or lingering and creating a yawn inducing lull. There are admittedly spots that are interesting, yet the span of the entire film is for the most part uninspired and listless. Nothing ever makes us feel for the characters, nor is the story fleshed out enough to make us realize the intensity of the stakes.

In addition, the symbolism and imagery is spoon fed to the viewer like mushed peas and strained carrots. It is basically told outright what the filmmakers want you to analyze in the plot, rather than taking advantage of the potential allegorical themes that could have made the film stand out. I wouldn't even go so far as to call it metaphorical in any semblance. It's a blatant, grammatical simile that is visited far too often to create any subtlety.

For it's credit, given director Wally Pfister's history of cinematography, the film is beautifully shot and has spectacular visuals. I anticipate Pfister shouldn't have much problem in that field with future endeavors, he just needs to sharpen his other tools.

Against what I've ranted in the past, Johnny Depp has proven himself to be a fantastic actor. But in an unbiased reception to his performance here, Depp is clearly phoning it in. Sure, it kinda works when the character is a face on a computer screen, but beyond that, even when the character is alive, he is flat, wooden and emotionless. Depp has a tendency to be wildly eccentric with his roles, but he has gone to the most distant end of the spectrum here. There has to be some healthy, balanced middle ground, and when he finds it, I will be more than happy to watch.

Rebecca Hall does her best as Will's wife Evelyn, and to her credit she has some great scenes, but it's more of the same as Depp in which she doesn't expand her reach too far. The same problem with a majority of the actors. It's most likely that Pfister isn't giving his actors the amount of attention that they require. It's a rookie mistake, however seeing as this is his freshman effort, he gets a mulligan.

Morgan Freeman, Cillian Murphy and Paul Bettany are by far the most dynamic performers in the film. They boast a range of emotion, whilst not glorifying, goes beyond the levels of anyone else in the film. And off the record, Cillian Murphy has some of the most beautiful eyes I have ever seen, and I say that with no regrets.

Transcendence is squandered potential with a listless plot, heavy handed imagery, and weak acting. Give it a pass.

C

"My Other Passion" by Andrew Woltman

If you can believe this, there is something that I enjoy just as much as movies, and this will most likely be the only time I talk about a subject beyond the silver screen. Even longer than I have been analytically watching movies, I've been watching Late Night television. Up to this day, every time I'm near a TV at 11 PM, you'll certainly see me watching Conan, and at 11:34, you'll see me switching back and forth between Conan, The Tonight Show starring Jimmy Fallon, and Late Show with David Letterman. As I fall asleep, I'll be watching Late Night with Seth Meyers. I know that sounds very non-committal, but the reason is that every late night comedian has their own unique style and delivery that sets each one apart. However, there is one thing that they have in common. Almost every Late Night comedian has the same influence, and rightfully so. The undisputed master. 

Johnny Carson. I was born in November 1992, some six months after Carson signed off The Tonight Show, so I unfortunately never got to see him while he was on the air. But thanks to our ever growing internet databases and YouTube, I have seen plenty of his work. The Art Fern's, the Carnac's, the interviews, the monologues, so much of what made him the King of Late Night. His warm, welcoming style, and his charming demeanor made his guests feel comfortable. Throughout all the hardships, the uncertainty, The Vietnam War, Watergate, the gas shortage, for 30 years the only common denominator was coming home to watch Johnny Carson at night. Johnny was hilarious at what he did, but what he especially excelled at was selling his guests. He never tried to overshadow them, he had the right timing to let their jokes sink into the audience. Johnny was the comedian, but also the straight man. At the beginning of the show, if the jokes didn't work, the audience didn't mind, because they were there for Johnny.

"At the end of the day, the guy you wanted there was Johnny Carson. What a tremendous luxury, when you think about, to be tucked in at night by Johnny Carson." -David Letterman 


Carson forged the mold that almost every talk show host uses now. Be it Conan, Fallon, Meyers, Letterman, Ferguson, Kimmel, they all use the same basic structure. Especially through the use of a sidekick. For Conan O'Brien, you have Andy Richter. For Jimmy Fallon, you have Steve Higgins. Seth Meyers has Fred Armisen. Letterman has Paul Schaffer. Craig Ferguson, has his robot sidekick Geoff Peterson. And Jimmy Kimmel has his parking lot security guard, Guillermo Rodriguez. 

They all have excellent chemistry and they all work well together, but I don't think any have the same level of a connection that Johnny had with his sidekick Ed McMahon. While Johnny played straight man to his guests, Ed did it for Johnny. He sold his role magnificently with his famous laughter, his booming "Hi-Yo!," and the way that he welcomed America home every night of the week with that immortal "Heeere's Johnny!" They would poke fun and tease one another to the end, but there was no denying that friendship.

"It is impossible I think, for anyone to imagine the ‘Tonight Show With Johnny Carson' without Ed McMahon. Ed's laugh was really the soundtrack to that show. For 30 years, Ed played his part perfectly, he played it with effortless joy and sitting alongside Johnny, Ed was an indelible part of what I think is the most iconic two-shot in broadcasting history. There will never be anything like that again." -Conan O'Brien

However, good things must come to an end, and in 1992, Carson stepped down. And though Johnny, and the nation all believed that his rightful heir to The Tonight Show was David Letterman, NBC chose to give the reins to....well, someone else. With that, David left his post at 12:35 and took his own program at CBS against the Tonight Show where he remains to this day. With his spot vacant at NBC, they scrambled to find a replacement, and so ushered in my personal Idol, Mr. Conan O'Brien. 

I started watching Conan O'Brien back in 2006 when I was hanging out with my uncle and he showed me some clips on the internet. I remember specifically watching a video of Conan taking a camera crew to the famous Famous FAO Schwarz and playing around with the toys and making jokes with the employees. There was something so appealing about seeing this tall awkward man act silly with his guests and make fun of himself more than anyone, and his magnificent pride in his Irish Heritage. It reminded me of myself. So as often as I could, I began staying up to watch this hilarious red head with his stockade of characters, and his rip-roaringly funny sketches.  (Bear in mind, this was before I had DVR.)

Eight years, three shows, a controversy at NBC later, I still tune in every night Monday through Thursday at 11 PM to watch Conan on TBS. Like Carson before him, Conan knows how to be both the silly comedian, and the patient straight man. In his "Live via Satellite" routines or his little sides in his monologues where he talks to his regular players in their characters or as themselves, such as Brian Stack, Deon Cole, Andres du Bouchet, Scott Chernoff, many more, Conan will let them sell their bit, make the punchline, and use his timing to help them showcase their talent. He'll point out the absurdities of what the characters have to say, but he'll make sure they get to say it, and have fun at the same time. 

We are entering a new age of the Late Night era. Jimmy Fallon (from my native Hudson Valley area) has taken over the Tonight Show, and in doing so, he has incorporated social media into his bits. He plays games with his guests and has them do silly tricks which become viral videos within 24 hours. Seth Meyers has taken over Late Night and while some think it is simply an expanded version of his  Weekend Update from Saturday Night Live, Meyers is doing what he does best and at the same time making it feel a bit more homely and traditional. 

But the biggest change is that David Letterman is retiring next year, and being replaced by the subversively satirical Stephen Colbert. Whilst Dave was never my favorite host, I always preferred him to.....er.....uh.....the person who was given The Tonight Show instead of him. Whenever I spent the night at Grandma Bridie and Papa Tom's, Dave was there at 11:34. I always loved his Top 10 lists, his Stupid Pet tricks, his back and forth with band leader Paul, plus his unrelenting honesty. Sure, he had his controversies, but he is the one who put them in the open. I will miss Dave. But I'm happy they hired someone who has a unique talent combined with a respect for the art. 

For the movie fan such as me, there is something special that late night television also does through interviews. It introduces us to the stars, let's us hear their down to earth human stories whilst making the rounds to promote their movies. They'll even reveal some of the processes they went through to make their film, and their mindset as they were doing a particular scene. It makes the experience in the cinema feel that much more real, knowing that you've gotten inside the star's head, if only for 4 minutes. 

So there you have it. My love for Late Night television exposed. I'll keep watching these shows until the day I die, and i'll always remember the history and legacy of those who came before. 

"Captain America: The Winter Soldier" Review

My absolute favorite comic book arc of all time is "The Winter Soldier" by Ed Brubaker. It introduced one of the most interesting villains ever to grace Marvel Comics, The Winter Soldier, and Brubaker's writing helped renew my interest in the Captain America character altogether. You can only imagine how excited I was when the title of this movie was announced at the 2012 Comic-Con. So did it meet my exceedingly high expectations? 

Set two years after The Avengers, Captain America is working for S.H.I.E.L.D. but is growing increasingly uncomfortable with the way that Nick Fury and his agents operate. When Fury stumbles across something he shouldn't have, there is a domino effect which results in the release of the mysterious Winter Soldier, and causes trouble for Cap and Black Widow. 

In order to fit into the continuity of the established cinematic universe, certain liberties had to be taken. All of it felt completely natural to the tone created for the film versions of the characters. In addition, the plot goes deeper in theme, development, and substance than it's still impressive predecessor. Whilst the first worked on the level of being satirical towards 1940's war movies, this one has the complexities of a 1970's conspiracy thriller where no one is completely clean. It's also amazingly fitting to our current political climate. In our modern world in which we all look over our shoulder, and watch what we say over the phone in fear of government tapping, the film demonstrates the ramifications and possibilities that those issues present. Freedom at what cost?

What I feel worked to the advantage of this film was that it had a healthy balance of humor and drama, something that was wildly uneven in Iron Man 3 and Thor: The Dark World. Whilst there are moments meant simply to make you giggle, it takes itself seriously when it matters most and doesn't make too much light out of the tensions. The directors Joe and Anthony Russo who are mainly known for their work on Community bring that same sense of balance and character development to this movie. (And they also bring a friend in for a cameo!)

It also makes magnificently brilliant use of it's production budget to choreograph impressive stunt work and construct wondrously eye-popping visuals. 

Chris Evans returns as Steve Rogers in yet another wonderfully nuanced take in the character. Rather than just your average "Liberty and Truth" soldier, Evans gets inside the characters head and shows us all the discomforts he feels adapting to our modern society. Not only by acclimating to new technology, but even more richly to our social conventions and methods of seeking justice. 

Scarlett Johansson also returns as the Black Widow, who is also hiding her own secrets, but is attempting to understand Captain America's mindset. She is sleek, but also with a sophistication and somewhat flawed interior that makes her more human, and Scarlett plays beautifully to that strength. 

Samuel L. Jackson was quite literally made to play the part of Nick Fury. In this appearance of the character, we get to see Jackson go to more fascinating depths than he has in previous films. You can see the range that he can convey when the stakes are raised. 

As for The Winter Soldier, it is hard to talk about Sebastian Stan's performance without giving too much away, so what I will say is that he has the emotional capacity to circumference all that the character represents and what is hidden within. 

Robert Redford is also enthralling in his turn as senior S.H.I.E.LD. leader Alexander Pierce. He helps to craft a performance that could have been one-note, but instead boasts much more under the surface. 

I can't say enough good things about Anthony Mackie. His down to earth personality helps to ground the Falcon with his past as a soldier. The backstory is solid, but it's Mackie who really hits home with his winning personality. 

Captain America: The Winter Soldier is easily the best Comic Book Movie since The Avengers, and it does justice to my favorite story of all time. It's an all around masterpiece. 

A

"Bad Words" Review

Regular readers of this site will know my oft-mentioned collection of five favorite actors. Those actors are Harrison Ford, Robert Downey Jr., Bruce Willis, Bryan Cranston, and last but not least, Jason Bateman. Previously, only Cranston had tried his hand at directing, and he absolutely excelled. Naturally, when I heard that Bateman would be stepping behind the camera, I was sold on the idea immediately. 

Bad Words chronicles the rise of a stubborn middle school dropout named Guy Trilby as he finds a loophole to enter a spelling bee, in which he makes his way to the National Championship. With almost the entire nation against him, Trilby enjoys every minute of the attention while at the same time, he befriends a young contestant, and grows a little along the way. 

The story subverts any discernible patterns and cuts through the bull. It almost anticipates what you think is going to happen, then pretty much says "Yeah, we thought you might think that, so we're gonna do this." It's a smart, raucous script with original jokes, and gags, no matter far they seem to take it. Frankly, i'm surprised there haven't been lobster gags like the ones in here before. 

Bateman is a natural in the director's chair, eliciting the humor out of every scene and getting his actors to showcase their entire ranges. He has made a film that is easily one of the funniest I've seen in a while, but also at the same time has a tremendous amount of heart hidden by the main character's misanthropic exterior. He chips away until we see the point, and when we do, it's glorious. But best of all, he makes us work for it. 

We've seen Bateman go against his clean cut, polite exterior before in The Change-Up, but he basically was playing a caricature of Ryan Reynolds. In his lead role of Guy Trilby, he crafts a new role he can call his own. As opposed to the appeasing Michael Bluth, here he is the foul mouthed, stubborn anti-hero that elicits laughter at every turn, and clicks with the inner voice that thinks what it would never say. Even the way the man shuts his eyes on the airplane is magnificently characterized to a specific role that he is crafting. This is easily the best Jason Bateman has every been. 

Kathryn Hahn (who you may recognize from her brief arc on Parks and Recreation) plays the reporter following Guy as he turns the spelling world upside down. As with the others in this film, she doesn't try to fill any stock, she gets her point across and has unique quirks that keep her from being just another busy-body journalist. 

Philip Baker Hall and Allison Janney in their roles as the spelling bee officials trying to get rid of Guy feel a little cliched at first, but they develop into something more that works to move the story along. 

From start to finish, Bad Words is a racy laugh riot with an outstanding performance by Jason Bateman, who also proves he can run the show too. Check it out. 

A-

"The Grand Budapest Hotel" Review

It takes talent to have your directorial style be instantly recognizable. Quentin Tarantino has conversational development mixed with over-the-top violence. Zack Snyder has slow motion shots with extreme close-ups. Darren Aronofsky (as I mentioned last night) has psychological torment. And as much as I dislike the man, I must admit Tim Burton has a unique perception of gothic darkness. When we come to Wes Anderson, we have a whimsical silliness, mixed with a horizontal cinematography, and the almost guaranteed inclusion of the legendary Bill Murray.

In The Grand Budapest Hotel, we are told a story within a story within another story about the titular location. The concierge Monsieur Gustave, who provides elderly female guests with "exceptional service" is framed with the murder of one of his frequent guests after he is mentioned in her will. With the assistance of his ever faithful lobby boy Zero, they seek to prove his innocence.

All one could expect from a Wes Anderson is present in this film. His normal troupe of actors, his unique visual style, his comprehensively worded dialogue. And as usual, it is all marvelous. It's not meant to be completely mentally stimulating, rather it's a classic murder mystery with that classic Wes Anderson touch. His characters are numerous, and while the majority of them aren't fleshed out, you still feel for them. They are simple, yet quirky, and magnificently diverse.

Amongst other things, it harkens back to a simpler time both in setting and style. The plot has threads that go around the entire spectrum of the film, but it doesn't feel overwhelming in the slightest.  The filmmaking methods of practical methods and painted mattes are well appreciated, and they remind one of the classics. Wes Anderson has a brilliant style, and it definitely distinguishes itself.

It's rather hard to talk about individual performances in this movie, as with the usual Wes fare, the actors all lose themselves in the aesthetic of the film. However, that is all a sign of great direction and it elicits excellent results. Ralph Fiennes, Jeff Goldblum, Willem Dafoe, Adrien Brody, Harvey Keitel, Edward Norton, Bill Murray, far too numerous to mention, all craft a wondrously cooperative ensemble which makes it difficult to discuss anyone individually.

Not one to be missed, The Grand Budapest Hotel is another Wes Anderson gem which boasts thoroughly engaging elements all around.

A-

"Noah" Review

It's been years since i've picked up a bible, and i've never really been one to study it intently. But I received my elementary education in St. Joseph's Catholic School in Kingston. Now while I don't know all the details of the story, Noah's Ark was always my favorite. I can't explain why, but I always enjoyed hearing the story from Sister Dorothy or Father Frank.

Noah, descendant of Seth, sees a vision in a dream that God plans to flood the Earth to cleanse it. After a visit to his grandfather Methuselah, Noah discovers that the lord wants him to build an ark to save his family, and all the beasts that wander the Earth. However, the descendants of Cain led by Tubal-Cain seek to fight Noah and take the ark.

The film is from Darren Aronofsky, the visionary director behind Black Swan, The Wrestler, and Reqiuem for a Dream. Needless to say, expectations were high. The man is well known for his psychological elements that create thought provoking situations. He also has a tendency to elicit visceral performances from his actors. Here, he does not disappoint. The methods that God has for communicating with Noah have that classic cerebral Aronofsky touch which show that the director is firmly putting his stamp on this film. Given the fact the man is adapting a portion of the most famous book ever written which doesn't allow much room for creativity, it's rather impressive.

As I mentioned, I don't know all the small details of the biblical Noah, just the basics. So be they original  I was surprised by the amount of subplots that helped to sustain interest in the picture. It also helped to round out characters which contribute to Noah's story. The story is fully fleshed out, and even if you know exactly how it ends, there are enough plot lines to follow that keep you guessing,

I must also point out the dark tone of the film, which I admittedly have mixed feelings about. On the negative side, it feels at times unnecessary and intense. But to it's credit, it helps to elegantly illustrate the savagery of mankind prior to the flood, and justify why God saw it necessary to flood the earth with a cleansing flood. So I kinda call this one a wash.

I've never really been too much of a Russell Crowe fan. I very much enjoyed him in Gladiator,  but found him detrimental to Les Miserables. In his performance as Noah, he is very flat at times, but irradiates a gritty exterior which apparently is only skin deep. You have to appreciate his subtleties, and he is certainly not phoning it in, but all in all he turns in a rather average performance.

Jennifer Connelly is very raw in her role as Noah's wife. Bound by her sense of loyalty, she finds her limits tested. And true to her character, she has a line, and when she speaks her mind, it is mesmerizing.

The always wonderful Emma Watson is magnificent in the role, Ila, Noah's adopted daughter and lover to his son Shem. Her character has several obstacles thrust in her path, and she overcomes them with beautiful energy and a wonderfully conflicted mindset.

We also have the talents of Logan Lerman and Ray Winstone who act as opposing forces to Noah. They create a conflict outside of Noah's inner turmoil and nature struggle. It establishes two interesting conundrums which leave you in the dark about where it is heading to maintain interest. And as a boon, both men are excellent in their roles.

It may be a little too dark at times, but Noah is another fantastic addition to Darren Aronofsky's filmography. Give it a look.

A-