12 Years A Slave

Damn that was good.

And that about sums it up.  Thank you all for coming - I'm out!

Seriously though.  Director Steve McQueen just keeps getting better and better.  While I am confident I would not recommend Hunger to anyone, gosh darn if the film wasn't beautifully shot.  Pretty sure I wouldn't tell most people they should see Shame, but the story is intriguing (if not of edgy material) and the filming of rare quality.  And now you have this gem - also hard to watch, also impeccably shot.

Take any, absolutely any aspect of this film and you would be hard pressed to find a challenger.  The acting.  The storytelling.  The editing.  The sound design.  The finesse of how all these elements danced together to form those perfect moments.  The subject matter may be hard to watch, but if for only just the one time you should take yourself there.  This film is a work of art if I ever saw one.

Oldboy

While there are many cult followers of the original 2003 South Korean version of this film, I think they will be relatively pleased with the 2013 Hollywood remake.  The new version, directed by Spike Lee, follows the original story quite closely (if not exactly) and mostly takes what one might call "acceptable liberties".

Notice I said "mostly"...

Certain memorable moments, while not directly present, are often referenced in an offhand manner.  Sometimes this is simply not good enough.  For me, one of the most striking scenes in the 2003 film is when the main character eats an octopus alive.  Guess that star Josh Brolin wasn't quite up for that, so he just relegates to staring at it in a fish tank.

Another major moment Lee doesn't give justice is a ridiculous fight scene that in the original is done in one long take.  Quite an accomplishment that Lee does not duplicate.  A shame.

All that being said, I do think Lee made some great choices in other areas to distinguish his film from the original.  Many I cannot get into for fear of spoilers, but honestly in this case I am not quite sure which version of the film I would say is the better.  The Hollywood version, as you might expect, is easier to follow with a more readily understandable plot flow - but the twist is just as delightfully shocking in the end.  In fact, even though I saw the 2003 and knew what was going to happen, I would still say that the 2013 was less predictable than the original.

Creative, violent, and slightly disturbing - it is a win despite which version you decide to see!

Prisoners

Holy crap, I am still reeling from this movie.  It took me until 20-30min from the end to figure out the whodunnit of this 2.5hr kidnapping thriller.  The entire time it was like trying to solve a puzzle... could this be the person?  No, because of x-reason... but wait, if they had an accomplice... still no.  Hmmm but what about that clue!  Or that clue over there!  No no diversion and distraction at its best.  Some pretty passionate acting too, especially by Hugh Jackman.  It was balanced out by really beautifully subtle characters, played by Melissa Leo and Paul Dano to name a couple, but the whole movie overall was pretty intense.

Just when you thought it wasn't going to go there, it did.  And when you thought it wasn't... well boy did it.  And one of the best parts for me was when it all tied up neatly, all the subtleties came together, all the nuances accounted for.

World War Z

Hello all.  I know I have been absent for quite some time and to be perfectly frank, it is because I found myself not watching movies because I didn't want to feel obligated to write a post.  These posts starting feeling like homework, and in turn became un-fun.

Then I was chatting with a couple friends a week or so ago, and they were like duh Danielle, why not just write posts on movies that really hit you hard - either in a good way or bad.  Don't post on everything you watch, just the ones you feel inspired to talk about.  Ding ding ding!  So here we go, back again...


WORLD WAR Z

So well done.  Best movie I have seen in a long time.  The film started and immediately you are in it, the movie wastes no time.  The suspense is incredible, and even more amazing is how it is sustained throughout the full length of the film.  There were non-cheesy bits of humor to relieve the tension, and subtleties that were tiny strokes of filmmaking genius.  As long as you don't go in thinking this movie will be anything like it's namesake book, then you are in for a helluva ride.

HOP - Django Unchained and Les Miserables

Half this hop was great, and half this hop not so much.  I imagine you can guess which is which...

DJANGO UNCHAINED ~ Tarantino cannot help but be awesome.  I mean, even if you don't like his style, or his story choices, you cannot help but appreciate his unique artistic vision.  He is one of few directors where you can spot his work a mile away.  Immediately recognizable, and this film is no different.

As good as Jaime Foxx and Leonardo DiCaprio were, for me it was relative newcomer to the Hollywood scene, Christoph Waltz, that stole the show.  Tarantino brought him to the American spotlight in Inglourious Basterds, and for that we are forever thankful.

There were some unexpected directorial-editorial points in this film, some seemingly random choices such as the moment at the end when Foxx's horse pulls some dressage moves.  Huh?

Overall quite graphic, yet badass, and doesn't at all feel like its long runtime (close to three hours).  Oh Tarantino, what will you give us next?!?

LES MISERABLES ~  Before I say anything, let me make clear that I have never seen the Broadway play of the same name.  My only experience with this show is that I have seen the 1998 non-musical movie version (which I should point out is one of my favorite films).  Ok, now that we have that out of the way I feel that I can comfortably say that I really didn't like this movie, and am in no way making any plans to rush out and see the live musical.

Talking purely about this film, I have to say that I really didn't like the directing.  For the vast majority of songs the director chose to shoot close-ups of his actor's faces, in super shallow focus, often in just one take (no cuts).  It got to the point where I was like why am I watching this?  I mind as well just listen to the music (rather than stare at a large singing head).  It also seemed like most of the celebrity actors couldn't handle a lot of the songs they were given.

If you choose to see one Les Miserables, my vote is to stick with the 1998 version.  Better actors.  Better execution of the story.  Better movie by far.  If you want to hear the songs, buy a CD.

Potiche

This French film didn't quite live up to what its trailer promised.  Rather disappointing overall.  Maybe it had a moment here or there, but overall slow and ponderous.  Definitely had potential, interesting and dynamic storyline, but execution fell flat.  The film even had two great stars - Catherine Deneuve and Gerard Depardieu - but both are clearly past their prime, and that just makes it kind of sad to watch.

L.A. Story

A classic.  Good ol' Steve Martin, I love his work.  He is so quirky and endearing, such a character.  This film is typical of his earlier work - kind of odd and offbeat, not following any standard formula... which makes it at times off-putting or simply "too weird", yet with some really great one-liners and funny scenes.

This film has several other faces you will recognize - like Sarah Jessica Parker and Patrick Stewart - but Martin is the real shining star.