Hello, my name is Andrew Jara. I am trying to be a writer/director. I made a film named "Last Days" that i'm trying to bring some press to.
Catching Elephant is a theme by Andy Taylor
Plot: Two boys come across a mysterious man named Mud and agree to help him but his dark past starts to come to light and come to haunt him.
Review: In a lot of ways, Mud is the movie that “Place Beyond the Pines” wants to be. It’s themes deals with love especially with the love between a bond of a father and son, with the generational gaps between them, and with how circumstances and upbringing that we try to escape from can end up defining us. Tye Sheridan stars the boy that befriends Mud, played by Matthew Mcconaughey. Sheridan really brings a great performance and in him you get to see the cockiness mixed with doubt and confusion that comes with being a kid at puberty. Mcconaughey also continues his re-discovery in a way and it’s him movie to steal. He plays Mud as wounded dangerous animal which was very hard and very great to do. His performance alone is worth checking out the film.
Okay so for theme and why it’s important. The story itself is a bit slow, these two boys meet Mud on an island while searching for a boat stuck in a tree. Mud says he is waiting for his girlfriend, played by Reese Witherspoon, to leave. It quickly becomes apparent that Mud is a criminal and it turns out that his girlfriend was dating someone not very good and Mud killed him. He wants to take her and go down to Mexico before the cops or the deadly family of the man he killed can find him. The little boy, Ellis, looks to Mud because his own family may be falling apart and Mud gives him a look at undying love. Mud’s dad or father figure is also involved. Again the main theme is love. One thing I liked is the choice to not make any of the woman unlikable or at least one-note. Reese Witherspoon has little screen time but she’s more than the true love or the whore even if she is presented as both. Her and Mud can never be but that won’t keep them from trying. Sarah Paulson plays Ellis’ mother and again is given more characterization that regularly. She is a woman that has tried and tried but may have no other options but to flee. With both women, there outcomes are not because they don’t or can’t love but more because there are other factors in life than that and they take their toll. This keeps the film realistic and also doesn’t simplify the theme like another Ryan Gosling film.
In the end, Mud is a great drama and I look forward to Jeff Nichols’ next film.
Trivia: Michael Shannon has been in very Nichols’ film so far including his next one.
Plot: A ex-smuggler must return to his old ways to protect his brother in law.
Review: I put off this movie for awhile and I kind of wish I hadn’t. Because it’s just so bad. The whole story revolves around weird twists and for every character other than Mark Wahlberg acting as dumb as possible. For example, Wahlberg is helping his brother by smuggling some money for about two million dollars. On top of that, the bad guys also want him to collect about ten keys. But why risk one smuggle for another one when the brother has only proven to be a screw up. I mean he messes up every assignment they give him. So why risk it? For the movie I guess as it makes no sense! Ben Foster plays his best friend who is also in love with his wife. He is also the guy behind everything. We learn this pretty early but when Wahlberg finds this out it is treated as a big reveal. It’s such a terrible plot that tries to hide itself behind fake twists and dumb characters. Never watch this! Also Kate Beckinsale, you are beyond beautiful but can you act? I like to think so but you are in such bad movies I’m starting to lean towards no.
Trivia: A remake of an Iceland film.
Plot: Nick Carraway, played by Tobey Maguire, tells of his time in New York during the Jazz Age and meeting the mysterious Jay Gatsby, played by Leonardo Dicaprio. Based on the classic novel by F. Scott Fitzgerald. Directed by Baz Luhrman.
Review: I’ve been dreading this review. Mostly because I have so much to say and don’t know how to say it. Which is a bit like this movie. It’s all over the place and Baz Luhrman doesn’t seem to understand the story. It’s worth skipping and makes the shitty Robert Redford one look good. Now let’s get to spoilers!
Spoilers: Okay so I have never been the biggest fan of this story. I thought it was too heavy handed and just not that enjoyable outside of the Daisy/Gatsby relationship. But good thing we got Baz Luhrman because he is famous for injecting subtlety into a story.
The film is presented a lot like other Luhrman films: very colorful, very flashy, very loud with an emphasis on technical aspects over story or characterizations. Luhrman has added a framing device of Carraway being in a mental institution and told to write the story that will one day become the Great Gatsby. It seems that the only reason to do this is to add a voice over and to sometimes be able to literally display words from the book on the screen. This is all fine but the problem comes with how he is able to present the story. In this film, we are given Gatsby’s backstory interspersed in the film instead of presented all at the the end. The problem with this is that it’s presented to us before we even see Daisy with Gatsby or gotten to know Gatsby. It not only takes away all the mystery of the character and really ruins the story. Because we haven’t gotten to know Gatsby yet, to hear his story so early it leads one to wonder whether this is real or not. Also in an hour and a half hour film, presenting it so early makes it hard to keep track of later. So by the end when Carraway tells Gatsby, he’s the best of all of them it’s glossed over and doesn’t hold any gravitas. Once we learn Gatsby’s motivations, we are supposed to sympathize with him because he is the one person doing something for someone else. Who has the ability to love, even if the love is unearned. But to know that more from the beginning, it takes all the mystery away from the character and thus there is no reveal so it everything else feels very repetitive.
Another problem is characterization. That is to say the main theme is that the rich are so isolate, so oblivious from the real world or real problems that they aren’t really even capable of human emotions. That’s what sets Gatsby apart. The problem is that the film doesn’t really address this. For example, Tom off-handly mentions his disgust with other races but this is quickly forgotten and in fact frequents and listens to African-American music and clubs. Luhrman’s want to add rap and add different colors to the scenes seems modern and progressive but hurts the character. This is the first time where a little white-washing would have been acceptable, it’s the 20s for good’s sake! The Daisy character is ruined even more! The Great Gatsby isn’t a love story no matter how much Luhrman or Gatsby want it to be. Daisy isn’t supposed to be sympathetic. In this a lot of Daisy’s selfishness is taken out and she seems to care about Gatsby. But that undermines the theme again. If Daisy can experience love then what’s so special about Gatsby. So to make Daisy more likable makes the ending seem more like a shift that comes out of nowhere and leaves the viewer confused. It’s little changes that help prolong the film but don’t help the theme.
I will say this is even worse because the cast is great. Leonardo is both charming and mysterious as he should be and Carey Mulligan is like Fitzgerald’s words come to life. Even Joel Edgerton gives a great performance as Tom. This also leads to the two best scenes. For the me, the best scenes where the first meeting of Daisy and Gastby and the battle of wills between Jay and Tom. It’s funny that these scenes are both done on sets and not in front of green screen and also both deal with dialogue instead of dazzle. It’s here we see what the film could have been as Daisy and Gatsby have great chemistry and you can see both performances before they even speak. It was here that I was into the film. The scene between Jay and Tom is also great. It’s the only real time where Luhrman improves on the story as Gatsby explodes at Tom pointing out his flaws. It really does show difference between the emotionless riches and the driven by emotion Gatsby. It’s a great square off and you see the loss in both Gatsby and Daisy’s emotions. Their performances drive home the points and delivers in ways all the green scenes and rap music could never convey.
I guess at the end of the day the main problem is Luhrman. His need to show extravagance and be visually impressive only really works during the parties. But this is such a small part of the movies, once Gatsby gets Daisy and disappears the film has no more need for Luhrman. Luhrman responds by getting bored and trying to wow you. This is where he really inserts words passing at the scene and slow motion to keep you entertained. The problem is we are invested in the story (or should be) so his visual tricks become distracting. If there was some kind of visual difference between the rich and Gatsby, I could have not only seeing his style work but be amazing! As it is, it’s just there to be there and does nothing in terms in the film. It’s his need to inject style that ruins the film. The best example of this is the phrase “Old Sport.” In the good Tom-Gatsby square down scene, the tip off is that Gatsby using the phrase “Old Sport” implying that he thinks he uses it because that’s what rich people say but they don’t. It’s a great example that no matter how much money Gatsby gets he will even be like them because he isn’t them, he just acts like them. It’s a great metaphor for the whole theme and a powerful scene. The problem is that Luhrman makes DiCaprio so much, it gets to the point of self-parody. I counted at one point that Dicaprio says Old sport three times in the course of two sentence. Luhrman doesn’t think we will understand unless Gatsby uses the phrase ever other word. At the end of the day, the film becomes a perfect counter-metaphor for the novel. The film uses flash, loudness, and color to try and hide how hollow it really is. And that’s too bad because the story is “better than the whole lot of them.”
Trivia: Tobey Maguire and Leonardo DiCarpio have been friends since childhood.
This week, we will be looking at Kill List, Star Trek Into Darkness and Black Rock!
Plot: A horror-loving outcast must save the town when zombies attack.
Review: It’s funny that a movie about an outcast would be so generic but here we are. Which is sad because obviously a lot of effort was put into the film. The theme is very simple here and is basically be yourself. That’s fine as it’s a kid movie and it should be easy to understand. The problem is the characters and story are never endearing enough. The only character that has any personality is the Jock and that’s mostly because he has the funniest lines. Every one else is just filling in a trope and it gets tiresome. I feel bad about bashing the film as it is very pretty and a lot of work has been done to create the world and effects. If only they had put it into the story and characters.
Trivia: The movie was filmed using a Canon 5D Mark II DSLR Camera.
Plot: A documentary about a man who pretends to be a guru from India to try and prove that religion doesn’t work.
Review: So I don’t get into the debate of whether there is a god. Mostly cause it’s too long but also because the movie starts out by saying that this is a journey about religion and whether it still works in our day and age. But that is quickly forgotten in loo of the hoax that the guy wants to do. Basically this guy when out to Arizona and convinced the people that he was a guru from India and had people follow him. If it feels like Borat that’s because it has shades of it. It’s also where the movie falls. The whole point of the film is in question and by the end you wonder if they looked at the footage and didn’t know what to do. Kumare wants to make people believe that we shouldn’t be listening to these religious heads and instead make up our own mind. His intentions are well meaning and that is one of the problems.
Okay so the problem with the film is the hoax itself. The genius of Sasha Baron Cohen is commitment. Cohen does not break character no matter how bad it makes his subject or him look. It’s the only way for the film to be effective. The problem with Kumare is he can’t do it. He doesn’t want to hurt people so he is always standing back and it never works. This is never more relevant than when he is supposed to reveal himself but doesn’t. Another problem is the subjects themselves. These people aren’t racist or bigots or even dumb (one is a lawyer) but are people lost and how have no one else to turn to. These are wounded people (a montage shows them talking about rape, incest, etc) so tricking them into believing into a guru seems mean even if the intentions are well meaning. Kumare wants to show people that god is all around us or that we are our inner peace but it’s hard to tell us which is which because much like the man himself, the movie wants to ask uncomfortable questions but does not want uncomfortable answers. This isn’t life and the fake guru ends up being more real than the real man behind it.
Trivia: Premiered at the South By Southwest film festival.
Plot: Tony Stark, Iron Man, must fight against a terrorist known as the Mandarin while also dealing with anxiety problems after the events of New York as seen in the Avengers.
Review: So let me get the spoiler-free review out of the way. This is quite a good Iron Man film. It does have a bit of a clunky beginning but I blame that more on the director finding his grove and once it does it gets bad ass. The action is actually quite exciting and the finale is actually long and worthwhile which the last two films weren’t. Also the film steers clear of Tony just fighting another guy in the suit while still keeping the tone of the iron man movies (note I did not say The Avengers as Iron Man the Avengers are different films.) Overall this was a good film and if you liked the others you will like this one. Okay let’s spoil this bitch
SPOILER REVIEW: Okay so let’s talk actors first. Everyone was top form here. Robert Downey Jr. has the most to do in this film than any other film and he handles it amazingly. The depiction of his anxiety attacks was super realistic and well-done. Having gone through anxiety attacks recently as well I can say that this film pretty much portrayed them well and I liked that they didn’t just gloss over it as a way to introduce Tony and then forget about it. It actually plays into the film and gives us another depth to Tony. Gwyneth Paltrow turns in her best turn as Pepper Potts but that’s also cause she has more to do than look concerned and be kidnapped. Especially after last movies, annoying ass Pepper is replaced by bad ass Pepper and it was awesome. I think my favorite character was Don Cheadle as Rodney. He also actually has something to do. I think that’s the problem with the last film, it wasn’t that there were too many characters but more that they were only in service of Tony, which can work but didn’t there. In this film, not only is Cheadle part of the film but he has his own arc about being his own man outside of Tony and trying to hunt down the Mandarin. It was another fresh start and also made Cheadle actually worth following instead of the bland one we got last time. Guy Pearce is awesome as the Villain and they managed to do the smart genius without going overboard. Ben Kingsley was awesome but we’ll get more to that a bit later. The only one that was wasted was Rebecca Hall. I don’t know about her character but in about ten minutes she is introduced, turns bad, turns good and dies. It seemed rushed and I wish we had more time with her or gotten rid of her completely.
Okay let’s talk theme. The theme of this film is about growth. Tony is stuck in a funk after the events of New York and is having a bit of a midlife crisis. He isn’t sure if he is worth anything outside of the suit and doesn’t know if the suit is even worth it when he has gods all around. This is resulting in panic attacks and lack of sleep. The cool thing about the Iron Man films is that the villains always play one of Tony’s demons: Obadiah (Jeff Bridges) played Tony’s selfish greedy side, Whiplash (Mickey Rourke) portrays Tony’s obsessiveness and daddy issues and finally Killian (Guy Pearce) plays Tony’s reliance.
Which leads us into the Mandarin. I have seen a lot of hate about how they didn’t portray the Mandarin right but I thought what they did was genius. If Killian is the embodiment of tony’s reliance on the suits than it makes sense that he isn’t the Mandarin as we think. Killian has become so reliant on the Extremis formula that he literally can’t live without it. (As stated by Rebecca Hall in her only addition to the story.) And as Tony is worried about his own reliance of the suit, he sees in Killian where that could lead. Also as Tony has a different face when he is Iron Man, Killian also has a different “face” when he is Mandarin in Ben Kingsley. The Ben Kingsley character is what Killian wants people to see him as and again tying into the theme, Ben Kingsley isn’t the Mandarin: Killian is. The Killian has ceased to exist by the end of the film and the only thing left is the Mandarin (again told to us by Pearce saying “I am the Mandarin.) This is Tony’s fear and this is what he’s really fighting. Also it’s quite perfect that Tony isn’t the one who stops the Mandarin but Pepper. The one thing that keeps Tony a human is also the one who stops the embodiment of Tony’s fears. How awesome is that guys? Do you see what they did? Anyway, I may have been more annoyed if the twist just seemed like a way to trick the fans or something to spice things up but it is handled so well and done as such a part of the story it makes the story stronger. If you don’t understand that I don’t think you understood the movie.
In conclusion this is a good end to the Iron Man story. If this is the end, it has tied up the end of the theme that has lasted across the whole series. The Iron Man series has been about a playboy changing his life to do worthwhile things and all the doubt and pain that comes with that. It has been about growth and so in the end all the changes and robots blowing up was about that realization. Tony has finally realized his self-worth and the fact that they extended the them across three movies is a interesting chance to take. In the Avengers, Tony became a true hero but in this film, finally, Tony has become Iron Man. And there is something special about that.
Trivia: The dragon tattoos on Killian’s chest are of the Iron Man Villain: Fing Fan Foom. (also are extremely ridiculous)
Plot: A young man gets to know Marilyn Monroe when he works on one of her movies in England.
Review: This movie was harmless is the only thing good I can say about it. I have never really understood the appeal of Marilyn Monroe. I mean I understand the appeal at the time but now what is our obsession with her so strong while other like Vivian Leigh gone away? So I was looking forward to this film to maybe show us why we were obsessed and then maybe show us what she was really like. Instead I learned nothing new and I barely knew anything to begin with. The movie portrays her as a kind of loopy ditz that means well and does maybe too many drugs. But we knew that? We have the actors in the film tell us about how great and special she is but we never really see it other than her naked body. We never get any of the charm or spell that she was supposed to have and the director thinks it’s okay if he just have extras scream her name to show us how amazing she is. I don’t blame Michelle Williams as she does a great job with what she is given and a lot of times you forget you are not watching Marilyn. I blame the writing. In fact, it wasn’t until the end that I realized that she hadn’t even made “Some Like it Hot” yet. Was she really famous before then because I thought that was her breakout role? The film expects you to know all about Monroe and her career but I was watching it to learn about those things so it just comes off as confusing. I actually felt the only interesting character was the Judi Dench role of aging film actress dame Sybil Thorndike. In fact, the cast is amazing with everyone from Toby Jones to Kenneth Branagh to Dominic Cooper. Also this is Emma Watson’s first role outside of the Harry Potter series and after this and Perks, I’m not sure the girl can act. She is beautiful (which makes it more confusing as she is more attractive than Marilyn Monroe) but she over-projects every line and emotion that it all feels false. Instead of acting like she is from the 50s, she is acting like the actors acted in the 50s and I really hope she gets better at acting as she does has charm and grace.
Overall this isn’t so much a movie as it is a love letter to fans and the people in it. Which is fine I guess but maybe a bit of a risk, a bit of a chance to make the film compelling for everyone? I was supposed to spend a Week with Marilyn but it all felt so fleeting.
Trivia: Because of scheduling problems, Judi Dench and Michelle Williams were never in the same room despite having all their scenes together.
This week I will be looking at mud, also The Great Gatsby (don’t worry I’ve seen both) and maybe what to expect when you are expecting
What should you expect on Movie i Saw?
Plot: A Bank Robber, a Cop and their children echo in each other’s lives.
Review: Okay so the best way to review this movie is to tell you what it’s really about. It’s not one film, it’s actually three short films that are vaguely connected. SPOILERS In the first story, Ryan Gosling plays a daredevil who quits to take care of the baby he never knew he had but is forced to rob banks to get the money. The second story is about Bradley Cooper as the cop that killed Gosling but then must face a corrupt system. In the final story, the children of Gosling and Cooper meet and the chaos that ensues.
I did not like this film but why? It’s hard to say because the acting, the camera work and all the technical aspects of it are amazing! It’s beautiful and there has been a lot of thought put into the characters, the framing and the look of the film. The problem is the story never raises to the occasion. The most interesting and original story is Gosling’s and his is still very cliched. He wants to help his family but he doesn’t know how to be a good person. It’s an interesting way to look at this story and to explore but as the first act is never given room to breathe. Here is also where the action comics into gear and the tension is great. I could have seen a whole movie of this. But about 45 minutes in, Gosling is killed by Bradley Cooper ending all of the things that were building up.
This begins Bradley Cooper’s tale, with Gosling’s story and all the things that were set up only vaguely playing a part. Instead Cooper must deal with a bunch of corrupt cops in what may be a corrupt system. Ray Liotta turns up and gives one of his best performances in years. As a corrupt cop, he is both unpredictable and terrifying. This too would have been a great movie, it would not have had the fast pace of the Gosling story but it would have been an interesting facet. In fact, if the film had been both of these stories, it would still be lacking but it could have been entertaining. The theme being “what men do when faced against an unforeseeable and maybe unwarranted future” or the fight against the destiny that they were both leading to while one succeeds and the other fails. But once again, we aren’t given enough time with Cooper as if the movie is rushing to get to the next segment.
THEN the third story starts. In the third story, set 15 years later, Cooper’s son and Gosling’s son as they meet. The problem is the characterization for both sons. Cooper’s son is now a wanna be thug that is into drugs and rap. Gosling’s son is also into drugs but seem to have more street smart. The problem being that we saw them at one year old and we didn’t see too much of them with their fathers, so we have no idea why they ended up so bad. Gosling doesn’t know who his dad is so he seems to have come from a very loving family. Cooper has since become a politician so his son acting like a ganster with a heavy boston accent doesn’t work without some kind of knowledge of why. It also underhands everything we just saw. Both characters were fathers that were going through hell for their families and children. To have the children end up worse than imagined seems like a waste of time and a director who is not as clever as he wants to be. Their friendship too seems to be so coincidental and gets even worse after a rift that they keep coming back to each other. They don’t seem to like each other but still hang around a lot. This creates the problem of theme. If the theme was the fight against destiny that putting these two together by seemingly magical forces seems well.. forced. And if the theme is just “bad things happen because life” then it’s a lazy theme that is hammered into us so much by this film that it makes it eye rolling. Plus the last story just drags everything down with it as the characters now all act like they are in a soap opera contrasting the realism of the first two segments. I.e. Gosling is killed with very little action, he’s shot and dies. It’s ugly and quick as the film suggest there is no romanticism in death. Cooper likewise takes down the corrupt cops in a very realistic quiet moment, no shootouts, no monologues, just police works. Both scenes show that real life isn’t a movie and most big changes happen as quick and quiet as a blink of the eye. The third story has Gosling’s son taking Cooper out into the woods and making him get on his knees to kill him. It’s the exact opposite of what the film was fighting against doing in the two previous hours and melodramatic. As if the director decided “no real life should happen in big meaning full moments that stick with you.” That would be fine if that’s what we were seeing but the scene doesn’t fit into the movie that he was trying to make. Then the last seen, Gosling’s son just knows how to ride a motorcycle without even knowing how to drive a car, as if he inherited it. But it never works and sets it so much apart from the first half you would think it belonged in a Big Fish type of film.
I think the main problem with the film is that it wants to have an epic feeling in a grandiose movie but it never really earns the right to do so. It never works for the story instead the director seems to think the ambition equals greatness because don’t get me wrong this has great ambition all over it but it lacks purpose. There is a line in the film “if you ride like thunder, you are going to crash like lighting” and I feel that best describes the film. It doesn’t see the forest for the trees.
Trivia: Derek Cianfrance, the director, says that he and Ryan Gosling came up with the exactly way of robbing banks at the same time without knowing the other was thinking it.
Short version: No.. Just no
