Minnesota native and movie lover Morgan Lee Potter reviews any and all films.
- One girl, thousands of movies; endless rants, swoons, and possibilities!
Directed by: Wes Anderson
Released: 2014
Staring: Ralph Fiennes, Tony Revolori Saoirse Ronan, Tilda Swinton, Jeff Goldbloom, Edward Norton, Willem Defoe, Adrien Brody, Harvey Kietel, Jude Law, F. Murray Abraham, Bill Murray, Jason Swartzman, & Tom Wilkinson
Rated: R
What can one possibly say about Wes Anderson? Love him or hate him (because let me tell you, those are the only options), the man possess the strongest aesthetic vision of any director in Hollywood. Never has a director been so consistent in the quality of his production and product; from Rushmore to Moonrise Kingdom, Anderson continually builds upon his unique style. A rainbow of hues accompany his equally colorful cast who expertly showcase his rapid fire scripts, bringing to life a world distinctly of Anderson's creating. Here is a man who knows what he wants, when and how he wants it, and most importantly, how to get it. The Grand Budapest Hotel is a triumph; funny, dark, and unbelievably gorgeous, Anderson cements himself as Hollywood's most valuable visionary. He has no where to go but up.
The man and master, Wes Anderson
Anderson writes and directs with a hairline precision, making all his films feel of the same highly-saturated world. The Grand Budapest reins above all with it's opulent visual sets, costumes, and scenery. Robert D. Yeoman (with special assistance by Roman Coppola) acting as cinematographer, sets by Anna Pinnock, costumes by Milena Canonero, and three art directors, this lavish production is seamless. Not a color or shot is out of place with the rest. Anderson plays with aspect ratio in a classic, yet non-distracting way, harking back to films of old. The exactness and specificity of all visual aspects provides The Grand Budapest a golden seal of quality.
Alexander Desplat's score, similar to his work in Anderson's Moonrise Kingdom, is just as precise, distinguished, and devilishly funny as the film itself.
The cast of The Grand Budapest is grand in their own right. The many, many familiar faces to have previously graced Anderson's picture are accompanied by fresh and talented new comers. Ralph Fiennes again proves his range as a comedic actor as well as a man of drama. Fiennes' involvement in acting has diminished somewhat in the past few years (focusing more on directing) and his presence from the big screen has been sorely missed. Fiennes performance is just the right amount of panache followed by some expertly timed curse words. I dare to say no other actor could have executed the role as expertly as he.
New comer Tony Revolori is everything a young Wes Anderson hero should be and casting an unknown was a smart choice. Simply glancing at the cast list gives one an idea of what kind of talent and experience the film offers. A director who is able to work with a group of actors not only once, twice, but three times is a true testament to his skill. The Grand Budapest Hotel marks the 7th time actors Bill Murray and Owen Wilson have worked with Anderson on a film, and Jason Schwartzman's 5th.
I do wish I had more to write, but when a film's as tight as The Grand Budapest it speaks for itself. The trailer alone gives the viewer a clear vision of what the film is and what to expect. Undeniably the best film of the year, The Grand Budapest Hotel rises above the mid-winter/first of the year slop that Hollywood produces in the months between Awards Season and Blockbuster Summer Season. If you're not familiar with Anderson's work The Grand Budapest Hotel is a great place to start; it's undeniable charm, snappy script and characters along with it's candy colored appearance make it the most satisfying treat in theaters.
Every year the Academy picks a grouping of movies, their premises fairly basic and straightforward. Then there's one film who's synopsis causes folks to tilt their heads to the side, furrow their brows and ask the film industry's most important and controversial question. "Huh?" Perhaps I'm being dramatic; in reality Her's premise is about as straightforward as they come. Lonely man falls in love with his operating system (sub with 'computer' based on audience) and rediscovers the joys and pain of love.
Compared to a southern slavery drama, Scorsese+DiCaprio performance piece, sexy 70's mafia flick, or even technologically advanced space adventure, Her does seem like the odd duck…BUT, when you put all these ducks in a row you realize Her isn' out of place at all. It's Titanic, it's Blue Valentine, it's Casablanca, it's the tragic love story of the year! One half of the romantic leads just happens to be detached voice. This results in a uniquely alluring film that messes with it's audiences in all kinds of unexpected psychological ways.
I didn't know what to expect from Spike Jonze's fourth feature film; I knew that a piece of my heart cried every time I saw a trailer. Her proved to be one the most emotional romantic dramas of the past year. Highly stylized, with a clever and touching script, this film boasted a brilliant blend of laughter and heart break. Joaquin Phoenix's character could have easily become a downer for the entire film, dragging it from quirky romance to depressing sob story, {*cough* Blue Valentine *cough*} but proper editing and a special supporting cast keep the overall tone light.
Editing in this film magically transports the audience back in time, allowing them a look at the lonely Theodore Twombly in the best and worst of times without being distracting. This editing is a great example of Jonze's understanding of the human condition. He realizes emotions towards others are based off of past experiences, and visualizing a varied range of experiences gives the audience a better understanding of our hero and his relationships.
Set during an undetermined time in the present future, Designers could have gone the cliche, white wash route, but I must say, it was refreshing not to be drowning in chrome, spandex, and alabaster walls. This future is not so different than ours, the warm hues and textures give the world a lived in feeling; more welcoming than the cold, sterile air often portrayed in film. The advances in technology, fashion, and living are present, but they're subtle, verging on un-noticeable differences. The beautiful approach to the design delivers a mores substantial film. Substantial in the sense that this future is a realistic possibility, leaving audiences to open to the idea that a man could fall in love with his organizational device…if that hasn't happened already.
In a nice stylistic choice, the warm oranges, yellows and browns of the film give Her a faint 1960's vibe; reflected in costuming and the atmosphere of the film in general. Atheistically, it's retro and modern at the same time. This charming blend gives the film it's physical appeal. True, a good portion of Her is tight shots of Joaquin Phoenix's mustached face (EVEN THE STACHE IS RETRO) but once the lens retracts we're treated to some clever camera work and beautiful colors. Again, this is smart editing and film making on the part of Spike Jonze. A film this personal and emotional needs to have it's fair share of medium and wide shots to balance out the many intimate close-ups.
Speaking of intimate...
Her features several interesting sex{?} scenes, the best of them involving a partner voiced by Kristen Wiig , a dead cat and strangulation…I'll just leave it at that.
The relatively small cast is talented and as unique as the film. Amy Adams is almost unrecognizable as Theodore's fresh faced friend. The role was a smart choice for Adams, allowing her to show off not only her comedy, which we already know and love, but also her talent in a real life roles. Although I've yet to see it, when compared to her role in American Hustle, Adam's character in Her is (visually at least) a near polar opposite…There's nothing I enjoy more in an actor than diversity in their body of work and over the past couple years Adams has explored a vast range of characters proving she's willing to take risks and work hard in an industry that readily type casts it's young, bright actresses. Oliva Wilde and her gorgeous face make an amusing appearance and Chris Pratt wins a few chuckles from the crowd as well.
When Joaquin Phoenix isn't trying so hard to convince the world he's a great actor by putting on a charade for two years, he is a great actor. The man is completely ridiculous, but when he's not striving for attention and commits to a role he's quite enjoyable to watch. Phoenix takes a role that, as I said before could have been dead weight, and balances the heartbreak with joy. Theodore Twombly remains a sympathetic, but not pathetic, character throughout the film. In addition, the fact that the majority of this film is Phoenix acting to the open air, responding to a recorded voice, is a feat to be recognized.
The recorded voice is that of Scarlett Johansson. Over the years I've remained somewhat indifferent to Johansson's acting...she's always good, but never great. Her body of works doesn't strike me one way or the other. Johansson is an actress that can play almost any role in any genre of film, which is fantastic, Hollywood needs such actresses; however, I don't peg her as the best in the business. This being said, Johansson's performance in Her is a highlight in her career. The actress has a certain vitality in her voice that creates such a presence without ever needing the visual. Her's is a bright, lively voice you can't help but enjoy it. The breaks, breathes and squeaks are so distinctly human it's not difficult to rationalizing falling in love with her. Johansson masters emotional inflections and tones which, if not paired with a face can sometimes be hard to recognize. The audience knows what her character is thinking and feeling without needing to see a face; exactly what's required to make this role, and the entire film, work.
In it's second act, Her delves deeply into the discovery of emotions, what they mean, and how they set humans apart from other beings. Do our emotions make us individuals or do they hold us back from discovering more? Students of Psychology should get excited because they'll finally have a new, and not entirely depressing film to watch in class…you can only sit through A Dangerous Method and The Mechanist so many times. Surprisingly moving and unique, Her offers a perfect fusion of humor and misfortune. A less than happy ending doesn't leave audiences completely downhearted, but keeps the film grounded in reality. January-March is notoriously cinema's slowest months in releasing quality films, it's the Awards Season/Summer Blockbuster lag...In actuality this charming film will most likely be forgotten in the midst of big titles like 12 Years a Slave, American Hustle and that lot, but if audiences are looking for a fresh romantic comedy/drama in the fading winter transition, Her fills that slot.
Me, thinking about the oncoming late-winter, cinema slump
See you in March when Wes Craven's Grand Budapest Hotel comes out...
Directed by: Francis Ford Coppola
Released: 1992
Staring: Gary Oldman, Winona Ryder, Keanu Reeves, Anthony Hopkins, Clary Ewles
Rated: R
Times Viewed 5+
There is a moment in film making when the artistic choices go beyond filling a lot, clothing an actor, and underscoring a scene; the artistic team behind Bram Stoker's Dracula immortalized not only a literary character but multiple periods of art and history, all on screen.
Nothing dates a film more than bad special effects, whether they be shoddy stop motion or CGI. Francis Ford Coppela's adaption of the iconic novel by Bram Stoker will forever stand the test of time due to his traditional method of special effects and camera technique. When one says "traditional"the usual connotation is old, boring, out of day; however, by using practical effects and no CGI, Dracula is a back of all treats and no tricks. Coppela's collaboration with costume designer Eiko Ishioka, scenic designer Joseph Hodges, special effects artist Roman Coppola, and composer Wojciech Kilar resulted in a true work of classic, cinematic art.
The only thing more engrossing than watching Coppola's adaption is watching the production documentaries and videos following the development of the film. I own a copy of the 15th anniversary edition DVD which is packed with hours of such footage. Absolutely no green screen's were used all sets were built on screen and effects only produced as they would have been in the early 1900's. Magic tricks, reverse photography, and double exposure were all used to create the unique and often haunting effects that give Dracula it's classic flair. In this Coppola really must be applauded, his passion and unrelenting dedication to the classic art of film is something sorely missed in today's Hollywood. There are some truly BRILLIANT effects and sequences created in this film...all of which are addressed in this fantastic short The Naive Visual Effects of Bram Stoker's Dracula. I highly suggest checking it out, it's a great look at the technical craft and ingenuity that goes into practical classic film making.
Special Effects included, Bram Stoker's Dracula is wickedly theatrical and full of art history and this is most apparent than in it's costume designs. Eiko Ishioka one of Hollywood's most creative and dramatic costume designer's created looks that not only elude to famous works of art , but become art themselves; Dracula's garments specifically span generations and cultures. Coppola refers to images as "swatches" during the visual production period and the these "swatches" from Klimt to numerous other's are...There are just too many brilliant pieces to choose from, each gorgeous in it's own individual fashion...
The quality of the production design is beyond words, and let's not forget that the film one best Oscar for Costume Design, Make-up, and Sound Effects/Editing...The old age make-up on Gary Oldman is truly THEE best over put on screen, I've yet to see it's rival...Benjamin Button, eat your heart out. Besides age make-up, the creature prosthetics are incredibly detailed and quite honestly perfection; every line was considered, every hair in place. The costumes are pure theater, and the make-up pure magic.
Wojciech Kilar's melodies are equally haunting as the tale they underscore. A multiple repetition of chords that build and build, creating tension; Kilar compliments these heavy tracks with a light as air romanic theme that twists itself and soon becomes a hair raising refrain.This soundtrack is the perfect mix of horror, danger, and romance.
Now let's address the one conflicting factor that takes this Art History masterpiece of Romanic Horror and turns it from Oscar gold, to B-film camp. The acting...Specifically Keanu Reeves acting.
Poor, poor Keanu Reeves...he tried, He really, REALLY tired. While he's one of those actors who's been consistently bad in almost every movie he's in I, due to some unknown force, like his movies. {The Matrix, Constantine, & of course Dracula} Some roles are juste cursed and the role of Jonathan Harker is on of them...first of all, he's like Raoul in The Phantom of the Opera...the writer's try SO desperately to turn him into the romantic lead when it's obviously the opposer. Second, he's a bit of a pussy...he goes to the castle, get's imprisoned, get's out then whines the entire rest of the story...I don't think anyone has every felt badly for Jonathan Harker in Dracula's history. THAT, however, does not excuse the exceptionally painful job that Reeves did in this role. His acting befits that of a high school freshman...who doesn't enjoy theater.
Keanu Reeves is not the only one having a hard time in their roles...Sadie Frost who plays the part of Lucy Winestra struggles through her character by series of sexual moans and screeches. Winona Ryder as a whole makes a mostly successful transition from child star to leading lady with this role, however she does have a couple awkward moments herself. And if I must be totally honest I have to confess that, while he's brilliant, this is not Sir Anthony Hopkin's best role. He was and is perfect for the part, it's simply falls upon some rather odd physical choices he makes that bring the performance down to a satire level.
Check out this clip below, it shows not only the faltering attempts of Reeves, but also the levels that Gary Oldman brings to his performance of Dracula as well as the rich costume, set, and sound designs...it's definitely a defining scene of the film.
The shining star in this sometimes fading constellation without a doubt is Gary Oldman. Oldman's versatility and complete commitment never fails to blow me away, Dracula is no exception. In a performance that could have been weighed down by make-up and costume, Oldman uses them to his advantage and brings a timeless, yet fresh take to the most iconic of Monsters. The performance plays on the subtleties and theatricality of the character of Dracula creating a new character who you are both revolted and attracted to. My personal favorite, of all Gary Oldman's performances.
So if you haven't see it yet, Bram Stoker's Dracula is the one to watch this Halloween evening. With his stunning costumes, intriguing set and special effects designs and above all Gary Oldman's performance it's not only my pick of Halloween movie, but also happens to be my FAVORITE movie.
Directed by: Joe Wright
Released: 2012
Staring: Keira Knightly, Jude Law, Aaron Taylor-Johnson, Matthew Macfadyen, Domhnall Gleeson, Alicia Vikander, Michelle Dockery, Kelly Macdonald, & Emily Watson.
Rated: R
Times Viewed: 1
If you know me, you know THIS is my kind of film. Victorian bustles, lace, taffeta and tool. Hats and feathers. Jewels and dramatic silouhettes. Yes, I'll admit I'm a costume whore. Periodical costume whore. Victorian periodical costume whore to be specific. I love theater and fireworks, magic and romance. Needless to say, when this trailer was released I was a tad bit excited. Not only did it star the lovely and talented Keira Knightly along with Jude Law, but was being directed by Joe Wright; master of the modern day romantic period piece. This makes sense yes? Yes. For those of my readers who are not up on the know who of directors, Joe Wright directed Atonement and Pride & Prejudice. With an academy acclaimed director and killer ensemble of actors, check out that list above, I had this one pegged to beg a big contender at this year's academy awards. Come awards season though, the film seemed to be all but forgotten about in every category save Costume Design, Art Direction, and Cinematography & Score. This leaves the viewer believing this was solely a visually accomplished film and nothing else. So what happened? After FINALLY tracking down a copy of the film I think I have an idea.
While visually striking, the vast scale and grandeur of Joe Wright's Anna Karenina sometimes engulfs the actors; swallowing performances and the well developed production.
Now, I'm not going to lie, I've never read the entire novel. It was one of those HUGE pieces of classic literature I picked up in 8th grade thinking I could finish it and soon discovered it was not meant to be. From 8th grade, I felt I simply didn't have the time to finish the lengthy book, so Anna Karenina has never made it's way from my "Want to read" to "Read." shelf....I tell you all this to reiterate that this review will not be a comparison of book and film (screen play) adaptation. I will be reviewing visual aspects of the film along with acting/character progression in relation to THIS FILM.
Set, cinematography, and an unique approach to a classic
The visual/cinematographic aspects without a doubt, are what drive this film to existing apart from other period, costume dramas. The revolutionary idea behind the spectacle is setting all scenes in St. Petersburg on (a) stage and transitioning the scenes as a play transitions sets. I wish I could find a clip of the opening scene because it's that scene that establishes to the audience the new and unique road that Wright has chosen to take. The bustling, "fake", acting, world of city life in St. Petersburg is contrasted by natural, organic, sweat and blood "reality" of life in the country. The transformation between the staged city and the natural city, while absolutely brilliant, lost me at times In various shots it seemed as though there should be even MORE over exaggeration or at least transitional method from stage to field. On several occasions I wondered if the actors really had left the set of the city or whether it was just an abrupt stop of the set changing motif the film carried. I honestly thought the revolutionary vision had stopped mid revolution. This was until I realized that the stage was the city and the large, open fields were the "real world" of the country...but this realization didn't happen until the film was almost over! As the film progressed, I though they had just forgotten the set changes; using them simply as a lure to gain the audiences attention for the first hour and a quarter...but that would be an amateur mistake. While the set metamorphosis IS used LESS as the film advances, it's not completely abandoned.
At work in the fields
This being said, I truly loved the concept of the set transitions and wish they would have used it to the extent they did in the opening and establishing scenes. The form is so unique to film, the viewer CAN NOT stop watching. It's an engaging technique that reminded me quite a bit of Kenneth Branagh's Hamlet from 1996. *One of my favorite films* While Branagh used cuts in his film, in many scenes servants are seen moving certain set pieces and working in the back, transitioning the scene from one location to another.
The films even bare similar posters as well as several artistic shots and set design.
As Jude Law throws torn pieces of a letter into the air, the shreds turn into falling snow. Beautiful
This action is reminiscent of the wedding scene at the beginning of Ken Branagh's Hamlet (1996)
The "Play" of Anna Karenina's life in St. Petersburg is set within the "Play" of the stage.
"The play's the thing, wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king!"
Hamlet also deals with plays inside plays, who's acting, who's catching who, what is real and what is for show ect. ect. Branagh's adaptation deals heartily with the young Prince putting on a show for his Uncle the King. The film features an abundance of rich gold tassels and fringe along with velvety red curtains. Anna Karenina utilized many of the same decorations.
Anna Karenina
Hamlet
The sets designs were amazing and it's a shame Sarah Greenwood & Katie Spencer didn't win the Oscar for Production Design or Seamus McGarvey for Cinematography. Sadly though, I feel like the design and over designed approach out weighed the story and performances. This film went from a beautiful retelling of classic in a unique way, to a film who's main focus is it's design and distinct staging. I believe Branagh's Hamlet could handle the lush furnishings because the performances were just as bold. Not say the acting in Anna Karenina isn't fantastic, because it is, I just feel the story was told more through visuals and less through acting/performances/words.
Now for me this wasn't a horrible thing, I enjoy spectacle/pomp/avant-garde, it's just a fact to keep in mind if you're wondering why you the viewer didn't see more of Anna Karenina during awards season.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
One member of the crew who DID receive an Oscar for her work on Anna Karenina was the impecable Jaquline Durran.
To the costumes....the costumes the costumes the costumes. Honestly I cannot begin to describe how GORGEOUS and detailed every character's costume is in this film...I can try my best and show you every screen shot, but it wouldn't begin to describe how wonderfully Jaquline Durran's pieces move and work on screen. She is a beautifully gifted designer that believes in collaboration with the actors to help develop the character's they've created from the film...an invaluable characteristic to have while working in film.
In interviews, Durran has stated that Joe Wright's original concept was to mix 50's couture with 1870's silhouettes. In an unimaginable way, these two time periods mesh together almost seamlessly. Many of the fabirics used in the late 1800s (taffeta, brocades, silks of course) were hugely popular in couture houses of the 1950s...specifically Dior and Balenciaga. Not only are similar fabrics and necklines used, but the majority of hair accessories are HUGE nods to fashionable, rich women of the 50's....when I say hair accessories I mean feathers. The use of feathers ares dramatic and unique. Instead of featuring a single plume as many films of the late 1800's or Victorian era did, Durran bends, clips, and position the feathers into new and fascinating shapes that seem both old and new. She remains true to the respective period, alludes to the 50s, but keeps the whole film relevant without loosing the characters in heaps of fur, feathers, and tool. Here's a great behind the scenes short with interviews from Jaquline Durran and some of the main cast...
There is a reason she won the Oscar people....
Jaquline Durran with some costumes from Anna Karenina
A very 50's pill box hat.
Another pill box hat as well as swooping 50's neck line.
Touch ups and a gorgeous feather hair piece.
FUR!
Breath taking!
~~~~~~
Acting
Now I'm not going to touch much on the quality of the acting in the film because when you have Keira Knightly, Jude Law, Matthew Macfayden, and Michelle Dockery you can assume, quite correctly, that the performances are great. Not to contradict myself though, sometimes the lavish epicness of the film does swallow the actors a bit leaving the story telling up the visuals and "wow factor" versus the the pure talent of it's main cast. Keira Knightly- As the leading lady she does fantastic as always, but in this role Knightly did something that I don't believe she's ever done before. She made me hate her character...this doesn't pop up till the very end, but after hours of her not making up her mind, going crazy and ultimately killing herself I didn't feel much pity for the character in the last 20 minutes or so. I feel this is a strong quality though...it shows the audience developing with the character. I went from liking this young, fashionable lady, to feeling bad for her, and ultimately not shedding a tear when she dies...cold hearted am I? Perhaps, but any actor that can make me feel a strong emotion one way or the other towards a character has already done their job.
Jude Law-I felt the same way towards his character as I did towards Knightly's only in reverse. Frist hate, then pity...an interesting character.
Aaron Taylor-Johnson- I can't really say much for the young, somewhat unknown who played Anna's lover Vronsky. He was fine, neither a nuisance nor an asset...simply a pretty face who delivers lines in an obsessed, gentlemanly like fashion.
Matthew Macfadyen- Oh my gosh MR. DARCY I LOVE YOU'RE MUSTACHE! I say this in all honestly that I bore the most ridiculous grin whenever Matthew Macfadyen's character Oblansky was on screen...and NOT just because he IS Mr. Darcy...it was because he was so NOT Mr. Darcy. Oblansky is a total social deviant; loud, smiling, having affairs and not really apologizing for any of it. I. loved. it. A great performance that shows Macfadyen's true range as an actor.
Reunited and it feels SO GOOD!
Michelle Dockery- Although her role is somewhat small, Michelle Dockery leaves her stamp on the character to the point where you're not sure if it's Princess Myagkaya (uh...Russian names) or Lady Mary Crawley. So yes, she does play somewhat of the same crass yet truthful character, but she just does it so well! Dockery's character is one of the only one's to remain a true friend to Anna through out her adulterous troubles. Now come on, who WOULDN'T want to have Michelle Dockery as their best bitch friend ready to slash any haters down with her sassy wit and sharp tongue? Plus I really loved her dress...
Michelle Dockery is judging you and it is NOT a secret...
Watching out for her friends and looking lovely in lavender.
Alright and finally if you're not sold on the whole "epic love tragedy affair" nonsense, you can watch for the real love story and the character that I enjoyed most in the film, LEVIN! Freakin' most adorable man in this film. His love for Anna's friend Kitty represents a sincere pure love that Anna and her brother Oblansky will never know.
Thomas Hacker I give you exhibit B to our "No Male Gingers Are Attractive" discussion.
I want a rugged ginger, Russian Farmer!!!
So in loooove!
Find me that ginger, get me that ginger, I will MARRY that ginger.
Yeay for the tragic, love sick ginger! In a plum suits no less!
Uh...AND I just discovered that he played BILL WEASLEY in the HP films. It's done.
