My Reviews Become Lost in Translation

 Before we move to the review, I have to be just one more fangirl to shout out that Leo DiCaprio won Best Actor for The Revenant. I did not see Spotlight, the Best Picture movie, but I can easily assume that it's more in the style of the type of movie the Academy likes to give the Best Picture Award to; I bet it is a great film, but The Revenant is truly the best film I have seen in years. For those of you who are friends with me on Facebook, my first post in months summed up how I felt about it, so I don't have current plans to do a review on it. Just take my word that it's a masterpiece.

In the previous week, I reviewed The Hurt Locker, and that won Best Picture-- the first time a female director has won the award. If you count back a few years to 2003, you get the 3^rd female director to be nominated for Best Picture, Sofia Coppola for tonight's review of Lost in Translation. This movie won best original writing, and landed Bill Murray a well-deserved nomination for Best Actor (and Coppola was nominated for Best Director).

I am going to assume that most regular folks don't have a clue what Lost in Translation is or what the heck the plot is. And that's okay. It's easily the most complex film I will try to describe, but not for plot in any way, strangely enough. As a matter of fact, you really can't pin a genre to this movie. At the time of filming, Bill Murray was around 50 and Scarlett Johansson 17, so I wouldn't blame anybody for feeling an uneasy vibe if this movie was described as romantic. And don't worry, I won't call it romantic. Romance would bring all these cliches to mind about boy meets girl, falls for her, makes mistake, then at the end get back together. That is the formula for a Rom-Com. And this movie doesn't fit any formula, and I love it for that. And as to the Com part of that, there is certainly comedy (especially with how Bill Murray interacts with the Japanese, and there's a particularly humorous, improvised scene where Murray does a photoshoot for a whiskey commercial), but the quick pace and care-free attitude of a comedy doesn't fill the mold of this film either. So, what is this film I am describing?

Well, if you want the basis of the plot, Bill Murray is a fading actor named Bob Harris shooting a commercial in Tokyo away from his wife and family. Staying at the same hotel is Scarlett Johansson's Charlotte-- the wife of a photographer doing a shoot in Tokyo. Pretty basic, right? Well to erase the idea of this film being basic, I used statistical analysis (the internet) to deduce that Bob and Charlotte don't say a word to each other until we're past the 30 minute mark. Now this may detract somebody from wanting to see the film, and I do understand that, for it is such a different film that doesn't do anything simply to appeal to the masses; but what I have not done is do this film justice. Yet.

This movie doesn't try compelling an audience through an intricate plot. Rather, it is a film set upon the atmosphere. There is subtlety in every action. A shift of Charlotte's head to look out the window on a moving train showcases stark beauty of Japan that drives the emotions of the film rather than dialogue. Lots of the film contrasts the nighttime setting with the glamorous lights of skyscrapers. There is life and vibrancy happening on this island, but this itself contrasts with the subtlety and vulnerability of the two leads. And Sofia Coppola even said that she probably wouldn't have made the film if Bill Murray didn't take the part, and everybody should be thankful for that since the movie is largely in his hands.

If I were to describe a romance movie, I would most likely allure to the “chemistry” between the leads-- the believability and sincerity that these two could fall for each other. So in that sense, chemistry doesn't work at all for Bill and Scarlett. This is not a film about them falling in love. In case this point is not clear enough, I will hold a moment of silence represented by an ellipses to signify how dear this is to the entirety of the film … What Bob Harris and Charlotte hold is a bond. And it is a bond like no other depicted in any film I know of. I laud Boyhood and The Tree of Life for the best and most realistic depictions of boyhood onscreen. This film does the same with the realism of the friendship and connection made between the stars. The Oscar nominated performance from Murray and Golden Globe nomination for Johansson are perfectly realized by Sofia Coppola's direction-- direction that I do not think would be anything near the same from a man.

There is no clear way to describe what this film is like, for the grace and dignity are almost purely from a visual standpoint. This is not the film you take a group of friends to watch and expect a huge reaction; instead, there is a sophistication that rewards the viewer that desires thoughtfulness in a relaxed sense. Perhaps just as I asked for trust that The Revenant is a masterpiece, in a similar way do I ask for trust that Lost in Translation is a unique film that I believe everyone should indeed watch. And I hope I can continue this trust with fair reviews for all the weeks to come. And on that note, I do not have a particular agenda set for next week, but my thoughts were to blend a classic from the Middle Ages and a contemporary film. With that said, the point of this blog is to be useful to anybody and everybody, so please tell me of any particular movie that I should review, and I will be more than happy to oblige. Remember to tip your waitresses, and until next time, sayonara!

Transformers, Robots in Disguise

 Against my better judgment, I suffered through 2 hours and 20 minutes of Michael Bay's Transformers. This movie is a prime (or should I say Optimus Prime-- yes, I am allowed lame jokes for this review) example of a huge budget (equal to my monthly salary of $150 million) with no idea what to do with it. And to add to my misery, the movie's gross doubled the budget; thus, dreaded sequels were produced so that M. Bae could use explosives legally.

If you follow the line of reasoning that there is no such thing as bad publicity, well then, I give you my review of Transformers. To set off the vibe of the film, I am reminded of a video Mr. Lerchie showed his world geography classes. It analyzed all of the presidential candidates' use of vocabulary and scored them according to grade level. Unsurprisingly, Donald Trump is just above a 4^th grade reading level. Don't expect much more from this movie. Let's stoop down to the film's level and sum it all up as simply as possible: It bad.

This all starts with the director. Granted, Michael Bay did exactly the opposite for what he did with this franchise when he directed the recent war film 13 Hours: The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi-- he was focused to details and characters and it paid off as a nice tribute to the tragic fact-based story it represented. On the other hand, this film starts off with soldiers with no backgrounds that are completely expendable if their names aren't known to audiences. And I will talk about the actors later (cough Megan Fox), but first I want to make sure I blast Michael Bay with the whole arsenal he used to produce this disastrous film. At the length the film has, the pace needed to be quick to satisfy the action sequences. What happened instead was an imbalance. What I mean by that is the fact that I can't name single shot with a still camera. Constant movement mixed with slight shaking accompanies clashing metal and blaring explosives, and the result is no clear focus for the viewer. The climactic battle is so jumbled to the point of never knowing if an Autobot or Decepticon just got hit or where I was in relation to the action.

Furthermore, it was as if Michael Bay had called out, “Action!” and a delayed moment later the actors were moving or talking. Basically, there was this stiffness that removed any realism, and all jokes fell flat or were simply forced-- well, maybe a 10-year-old boy might laugh, but that's way beside the point. Now then, my previous 2 reviews have both been positive, so I don't want to be a complete downer on Transformers. In fact, I even have a favorite quote from the film: “We are here. We are waiting.” Why is that my favorite quote, you might ask? Because it marked the end of the movie, and never have I been more relieved for that.

Fans of actual cannibal Shia LaBeouf will probably be pretty disappointed. Whereas you could find charm from what could be called a quick wit in movies like Disturbia or especially Holes, there is an overwhelming lack of preparation. And that truly goes to the entire cast; even appearances from Jon Voight and John Turturro feel thrown in as an after-thought to a pointlessly loud movie where apparently yelling everything makes it all funnier or frantic. And then there's Megan Fox. Not once did I believe she had any idea what words she yelled out to the screen. Don't get me wrong, I'm not the type of guy to go around throwing labels at people, which is why I wouldn't dare throw labels like “actress” or “talented” Ms. Fox's way.

For those planning on watching the Oscars tonight, it might be interesting to know that Transformers was nominated for 3 Oscars: Sound Editing/Mixing and Best Achievement in Visual Effects. I disagree strongly with the sound nominations. Films like Star Wars changed the game with such iconic sounds that added such life to a vast galaxy. In Michael Bay's film, all I heard was screeching metals of varying degree that grew old so quickly. In the film's small defense, the robots are actually quite detailed and impressive; however, their intricate transformations were used with quickly edited shots that blurred whatever action was happening and rendered any appreciation for the natural flow of movement useless.

It pains me to continue to look back on this film, think about the film, or even utter the title of the film. There will be no more reviews of this franchise because I would like to reiterate a sophisticated point I made earlier-- it bad. Now as an actual tribute to tonight being the Oscars, tomorrow joins Bill Murray with my favorite actress in a tremendous film that all need to see. Good-bye until tomorrow, and for whatever life might be worth, please do not see Transformers. Please.

Oscar winning The Hurt Locker

 Gentlemen, you can't fight in here; this is the War Room! Yessiree, it's time to start loving the smell of napalm in the morning because we're going to war! Tonight, we take a look at the history-making Best Picture winner The Hurt Locker. And if you didn't get the reference the title makes, well, I didn't either until I looked it up. Needless to say, this movie starts off with a bang (ah, gotta love bomb jokes).

As with most really good war films, the movie is full of zooming shots and hand-held cameras. And you get the occasional soldiers acting as fools in the barracks to show character growth; however, that's basically all the similarities there are to other war films. Which is a positive to the first female best director and picture winner Kathryn Bigelow (beating out ex-husband James Cameron). The movie doesn't have a great flow to it, for it's not meant to be expressed as a story progressing; rather, setting the tone from the first scene, the audience is left guessing as to what will occur next with every encounter with explosives. Even if you are able to predict the outcome to some of these situations, the film still jars you with the suddenness and briefness of life. Now, it is not my favorite war film, but the execution is still a huge accomplishment to behold.

Since the film showcases life on the bomb squad, there has to be a dynamic relationship among the characters. It's honestly pretty typical after Guy Pearce's short run as leader: cocky leader who's great at what he does with little regard to danger (Oscar-nominated Jeremy Renner-- not the best performance, but a career-making performance), Mr. Ol' Reliable who follows the books better (Anthony Mackie-- personally enjoyed his performance the most), and The Kid (Brian Geraghty-- he got this role because of Jarhead). What I do appreciate the most, however, is that the characters are portrayed not by the typical banter thrown back and forth, but how they interact and have each other's back every single day in the field. And it's worth mentioning that Lord Vold-- excuse me, He-Who-Must-Not-- er, Ralph Fiennes, has a great cameo thrown in the midst.

In case anybody was counting, the movie won 6 Oscars and was nominated for 3 more. Did it deserve all that acclaim? No, of course not, but that's just how the Academy works. Nominated for best score, but I hardly noticed any music throughout (which is actually for the better), and nominated for all those technical Oscars. What it rightfully won was sound mixing/editing; for the record, those are two different awards, but it doesn't make too much of a difference to a simple-minded man such as myself. There's a great sniper fight about halfway through with whizzing bullets, and all the explosions throughout will release chest-hair manliness in anybody. What takes the cake is the opening sequence. It is hard to find a cooler shot than the gravel-and-Hell-raising, slow motion fatal explosion that makes the audience pay attention right away.

The Hurt Locker's greatest strength comes from the guidance of Kathryn Bigelow, who would amaze audiences again with Zero Dark Thirty. Yes, the movie is a war film, but there is little ground to compare it to. You may not come out of the film happy, but you will not be dulled, and you will have a new found appreciation for daily tasks of those who risk it all to protect us.

My plans for next week include a personal favorite film of mine with Bill Murray, and I scour for some beautiful trash to shred. Until next time, you stay classy, San Diego!

First Movie Review, Third of the Trilogy

Goooooooood morning, Vietnam! Ah, excuse me, I was getting ahead of myself. As it may be evident, I have decided to give it a go at this whole blog movie review thing. Before we kick things off with the very first review, how about a quick overview of what to expect?

Have you ever found yourself wondering, “Man, I just can't handle the truth of that movie,” or contemplating just how movies could be the stuff dreams are made of? Perhaps you would like to gain insight on context of A Few Good Men (you better bet your butt I will do a review of it in the near future) or The Maltese Falcon or whatever movie reference is made. Hopefully, with a meticulous blend of recent and classic films, I will provide fair reviews with plenty of trivia or analogies for your enjoyment. By no means will anybody have to agree with me, and frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn either way; but if you were considering watching a film and wanted confirmation on whether or not to see it, I may be able to help.

I was kung fu fighting with everybody over what the first review should be. I decided to start on a contemporary, fresh, and positive foot. Thus, we kick this blog off with Kung Fu Panda 3! If you haven't seen the previous 2, those are also recommended-- especially the second simply for the villainous peacock voiced perfectly by Gary Oldman. The trilogy is known to revolve around the kid-friendly humor of Jack Black as the titular Po. Po is surrounded by the Furious Five with voicing lended from stars like Angelina Jolie, Dustin Hoffman, Seth Rogen, and even Jackie Chan.

If you want to talk about an animated film, perhaps it is fitting to first discuss the visual flair and style. The films have always been eye-poppingly colorful, but this is where the third stands out with one of its highest points. There is an added focus with huge effort put forth into the research behind the Chinese setting, and it pays off tremendously. The viewer is drawn away from what happens during some montage scenes to admire the picturesque landscapes and wonderful use of silhouettes in front of the blazing sun. It's obvious to see the thought behind angles that pay tribute to ancient drawings. This has always been most evident with the flashbacks using 2D animation to grasp the audiences' attention. There was one strange moment in a flashback that suddenly switched from 2D to 3D, however, and it drew away from the moment.

Onwards to the plot! What is a huge aspect forced into any kid's film? A theme, a moral, or a lesson. This story of Kai (J. K. Simmons) being an old friend of Oogway (really, super, wrinkled old turtle) turned bad and wanting revenge is nothing to write home about, but the trilogy continues with a nice warmy feeling of letting kids know that they should only try to be one person: his or her self.

What the plot does allow for is the banding of the characters. And it's quite obvious that the cast and crew were simply having a fun time when making this, not taking anything too seriously and not forcing any idea or character. The addition of the panda village is sure to adore all ages with all the personalities from the ribbon twirler to the dumb, compassionate hugger; if you don't chuckle at the chubby baby pandas attempting to get around, then you are a monster. Sadly, despite special credit to Jackie Chan as Monkey, he continues his tradition of having less than 10 lines to speak throughout the film. C'mon Jackie, bring us some nostalgia.

For the first time, a huge American animated feature film partnered with a Chinese firm for production, and I truly believe that helped the aesthetic of the briskly paced film. This movie works so well as a third installment, but don't be fooled for one second that it will be the last. I'm putting down 5 dumplings that says the next film introduces a love interest to the rotund star.

Expect tomorrow a much more serious film, and one with huge critical acclaim at that. I hope to pour an average of 2 film reviews a week, and any and all suggestions from the good, to the bad, to the ugly are welcome. Hope this was well worth (I'll settle with somewhat worth) your time and will come back for more!