My Favourite Films of 2013

These past few years, I always find it a tad difficult to do a top ten list at the end of the year. Not being a professional critic I haven't seen everything. That, and I find that I often have to give certain films a second look before I can be sure how I feel about them. A lot of the time I enjoy a film more on the second watch. There's also the question I always face, which is, what films from this year did I truly love and stood out to me? What are the ones I'll want to go back and watch as the years go by? It's a difficult question, especially when you don't know how a certain film will age or how you'll feel in five years about a film you love now. All that being said, here are my favourite films of 2013, starting with number 1 and proceeding alphabetically.

1. Blue Is the Warmest Color

When I saw Abdellatif Kechiche's film back at the Atlantic Film Festival here in Halifax this past September I immediately thought it was the best film I had seen in 2013. While I may have seen better films over the next few months, this is still my favourite film of 2013, a love story both of our time and timeless, a film that captures the pain and joy of love better than many other films I've seen. It tells the story of a young high school student named Adele (Adele Exarchopoulos) who falls in love with a fine arts student named Emma (Lea Seydoux).  The two embark on a passionate love affair that changes both their lives. The film is seen through Adele's eyes, who, through her attraction to Emma, discovers her sexuality. While Emma has known her own sexual identity for years Adele is only beginning to understand herself.

The term "coming of age film" has become somewhat of a cliché but Blue Is the Warmest Color painfully and beautifully portrays a woman "coming of age" in ways both positive and heartbreaking. Exarchopoulos' performance is a big factor in why we feel Adele's transformation so deeply. Exarchopoulous seems to age and grow right before our eyes, and we feel we're on the journey with her. Sadly, Exarchopoulos probably won't be nominated for an Academy Award for her magnificent performance.

Before Midnight

After viewing Before Midnight this past summer, the third in Richard Linklater's series chronicling the relationship between Jesse (Ethan Hawke) and Celine (Julie Delpy), I walked away somewhat disappointed, despite admiring the acting and writing on display. I think it was due to wanting to see more in the style two films in the series, Before Sunrise and Before Sunset,  whereas I viewed this film as the "couple fighting" installment. I also felt the structure of the film was "off." It was only on a second viewing and third (with commentary by Linklater, Hawke and Delpy) that I truly came to appreciate how excellent this film truly is. Hawke and Delpy give lived in performances- they've known these characters for almost 20 years and surely Jesse and Celine have not only become their signature roles but integral part of their lives. It's hard to imagine any one else playing either of these parts.

What's fascinating about Before Midnight, in contrast with the previous two films, is while those films showed us the only two instances these characters met, Before Midnight picks up after nine years of living together, of conversations and complications. This is immediately clear during a extended long take during a car drive (a virtuoso feat of filmmaking with only one cutaway) where Jesse and Celine's conversation no longer feels like it's betwee just two young people who've jut me. Instead the dialogue captures the rhythms of people who've lived together and know each other well. There are still talks of philosophy that remind us of the first film- notably during a dinner at a writer's villa in Greece, where we're introduced to a few new characters- a change of pace from the mostly Jesse/Celine format of these films. But most of the conversation in this film between Jesse and Celine deal with their own personal issues as a couple, notably Jesse wanting to move to Chicago to be with his son from his first marriage.

I mentioned earlier that I was disappointed this film had Jesse and Celine fighting. I  think I missed the way they talked in the first two films. But the hotel sequence which climaxes the film is truly amazing in how it's structured, the way the dynamic changes and how it tempts us in to choosing sides. But we really can't. Both Jesse and Celine are flawed people who both fight in ways that stop communication from flowing. Celine is overly passionate while Jesse is sarcastic and dismissive. Before Midnight strips away the idealized nature of Before Sunrise and shows us the organic evolution of this relationship, which can be almost painful to watch. But Before Midnight isn't really cynical about love and marriage, just honest, funny, and ultimately hopeful, albeit cautiously about the future.

The Conjuring

One of the most effective horror films in recent memory, The Conjuring demonstrates how a talented filmmaker can take familiar genre elements and make them fresh and exciting. The Conjuring is based on a real life case from the files of paranormal investigators Ed and Lorraine Warren (Patrick Wilson and Vera Farmiga) concerning the haunting of a house occupied by the Perron family. I love old fashioned haunted house films so The Conjuring definitely appealed to my sensibilities. Director James Wan crafts sequences that are as horrifying and nerve shattering as anything in the classic horror movie pantheon, all while allowing his actors to give well defined portraits of good people confronting evil.

Gravity

I'm still not sure how well Alfonso Cuaron's Gravity works as actual movie but as an experience (I saw it in IMAX 3D) it's one of my favourite film going memories of 2013. In an age where blockbusters have numbed us and taken the wonder out of big budget spectacle, Gravity was genuinely mind-blowing. Love it or hate it, for better or worse, I think this film is a game changer and I can already see a young kid watching this film and sparking a passion for filmmaking.

While it's largely a technical achievement, the film isn't soulless. The film has a deeply spiritual core. Stranded in space, astronaut Ryan Stone (Sandra Bullock) goes through a rebirth as she struggles to survive, all while remembering the death of her young daughter. Bullock and George Clooney, perfectly cast as veteran astronaut Matt Kowalski ground the film and give it humanity. Gravity is at once a revolutionary exercise in spectacle as well as timeless and inspiring tale of human survival.

 

Inside Llewyn Davis

The Coen Brothers returned this year with a quiet triumph of a film. Inside Llewyn Davis chronicles one week in the life of folk singer Llewyn Davis (Oscar Isaac), circa 1961, as he struggles to make it big . Unfortunately for Llewyn, artistic success doesn't seem to be his future. This is before Bob Dylan came on the scene and ignited the folk music genre. Inside Llewyn Davis is essentially a film about being unsuccessful- but instead of being depressing it has a perfect sense of melancholy that never completely dips in to tragedy or optimism. I don't believe the Coens view Llewyn as a failure but they do believe- and demonstrate- that even a talented artist won't always become a legend. But while Llewyn may never become a legendary musician like Dylan, Inside Llewyn Davis is a film for the ages.

The Past

Asghar Farhadi's follow up to A Separation is, like that film, both a family drama and a mystery. In both films the mystery isn't simply a whodunit but an existential quest for truth and a exploration of morality and responsibility. It tells the story of Ahmad (Ali Mosfatta) an Iranian man who returns to Paris after several years due to his wife Marie (Berenice Bejo from The Artist) wanting a divorce. Marie is in a relationship with an Arab man named Samir (Tahar Rahim from A Prophet), whose wife is in a coma. Marie and Ahmad's daughter does not approve of Marie's relationship with Samir, which complicates matters. While The Past tells a somewhat familiar story and its plot can verge on what some naysayers call "soap operish," The Past is adult filmmaking at its best, examining the complexities of family dynamics and the inability to find an objective truth about events. And like A Separation it's also a very accessible film for those who haven't seen many foreign language films

The Place Beyond the Pines

While I knew the structure of The Place Beyond the Pines before viewing the film I was still quietly blown away and shaken by where this film begins and eventually ends. It's rare that films have this type of expansive scope. The Place Beyond the Pines explores a simple and old theme, that of persona; choices reverberating throughout the years, particularly in terms of fathers and sons. Motorcycle stuntman turned bank robber Luke (Ryan Gosling) and rookie cop Avery Cross (Bradley Cooper) cross paths one fateful day, changing the course of Avery's life and of Luke's newborn son Jason. Director Derek Cianfrance has crafted what may eventually be called an American film classic.

This Is the End/The World's End

Both This Is the End and The World's End are- on the surface-comedies about the end of the world and alien invasions- but at their heart are actually painfully honest films about broken relationships and wanting to get back what's now in the past. In This Is the End, Seth Rogen and Jay Barachel (playing versions of themselves) deal with Jay's outsider status amongst Seth's L.A. friends, including James Franco and Jonah Hill (also playing themselves). While Seth, Jay and others are holed up in James' house, tensions come to a head and the meta humour of the actors playing themselves gives us as the audience insight in to these men's lives

In The World's End, the final film in Edgar Wright's Cornetto Trilogy, after Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz, Gary King (Simon Pegg) wants to recapture his youth by finally finish a famous pub crawl he and his friends didn't complete after high school graduation. He gets the old gang, including Andy (Nick Frost) and Oliver (Martin Freeman), back together. While Gary's friends have grown up he still hasn't moved on from his high school days. As the film goes on we realize what a tragic character Gary is. While I don't love The World's End as much as Hot Fuzz, it may actually have the most depth of the Cornetto Trilogy. I think The World's End is a better film than This Is the End- it's a narratively tighter film- but both are two of the smarter comedies in recent memory.

12 Years a Slave

It may come across as cliché to call 12 Years a Slave an important film, as well as making the film seem stuffy, but 12 Years a Slave is truly an important piece of filmmaking by director Steve McQueen. Not just because it deals with one of the most horrific crimes against humanity in our history but because it's one of the most essential documents of American slavery on film. The film portrays the inhuman treatment of men and women in a brutal and uncompromising fashion. The film is based on the memoir of the same name by Solomon Northrup (Chiwetel Ejiofor), a black man born free in New York who was kidnapped and sold in slavery. Ejiofor, in the role that may win him an Academy Award conveys dignity in the face of inhuman treatment as well as the emotional toil life as a slave takes on him. Michael Fassbender, as one of Solomon's several masters, shows us a horrifying vision of true evil.  While period pieces can sometimes feel a little dry cinematically, McQueen's visual style makes this a truly cinematic film. A long take of Solomon hanging by a tree may be the most unforgettable and powerful shot of the year. As the film ended, after Solomon is reunited with his family and words are unable to describe the emotions in that room, I was overwhelmed in a way I rarely am by a film.


The Wolf of Wall Street

If Martin Scorsese's Goodfellas and Casino were siblings then his latest film The Wolf of Wall Street is their twisted cousin, showing us that maybe those ruthless gangsters weren't that bad compared to the slimy stock brokers on Wall Street. The Wolf of Wall Street is a period piece, taking place in the late 80s and 90s- but it has a modern feel and its depiction of these crooked men still seems relevant. Leonardo DiCaprio plays Jordan Belfort, who in 1987 takes a job at a firm run by Mark Hanna (Matthew McConaughey). Belfort loses his job when the stock market crash of Black Monday happens. Belfort then creates his own firm, which grows in prominence and comes to the attention of the FBI.

DiCaprio gives what is arguably his best performance of this career thus far. As much as I like DiCaprio he can come across as trying too hard with some of his performances but here, as with last year's Django Unchained, His theatrical style of acting perfectly suits the character of Belfort. He creates a vivid portrayal of a man who in any other film would be self destructive- but as addicted to cocaine and sex as Belfort is, he never really gets his comeuppance or experiences any kind of moral epiphany. Belfort may not be the deepest character DiCaprio has played but it allows him to be freer as an actor. The "lemmons" sequence also demonstrates what a great comedic actor DiCaprio can be.

The film has been criticized a condoning the actions of Belfort and his cohorts. I think the film, while entertaining, ileaves it to the audience to both have fun watching the insane antics of these men but also acknowledge the immorality and stupidity of several of the characters. By doing this the film avoids being hypocritical and trusts the intelligence of its audience.

It can't be said enough how amazing it is that Scorsese, at 71, can still make a more exciting and purely cinematic movie than most filmmakers half his age. While one does feel the three hour length and it is a little meandering the film never really drags. The film is tinged with so much energy and hilarity that the three hours move by pretty quickly. The fast paced nature of the film is not only due to Scorsese's live wire direction but also the editing of frequent collaborator, Thelma Scoonmaker.

While I'm still partial to DiCaprio and Scorsese's last collaboration, the underrated Shutter Island, The Wolf of Wall Street is still a vital and bold film, and one of the most entertaining films of 2013.


Some other films I liked: Much Ado About Nothing, Drinking Buddies,  Iron Man 3, The Wolverine, Man of Steel, Insidious Chapter 2, Warm Bodies, The Heat, The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug, Now You See Me, Mud, Evil Dead, I Give It a Year, To The Wonder

Still need to see: Frozen, The Hunger Games: Catching Fire, The Spectacular Now, Short Term 12, The Act of Killing, American Hustle, Dallas Buyer's Club, Her, Fast and Furious 6, All is Lost, Nebraska

Looking forward to: Interstellar, Guardians of the Galaxy, X-Men: Days of Future Past, The Amazing Spider-Man 2, Inherent Vice, Gone Girl, Godzilla, The Hobbit: There and Back Again, Captain America: The Winter Soldier, Dawn of the Planet of the Apes


The Davies Awards:

Favourite Actors:
Leonardo DiCaprio, The Wolf of Wall Street
Chiwetel Ejiofor, 12 Years a Slave
Martin Freeman, The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Oscar Isaac, Inside Llewyn Davis

Favourite Actresses:
Adele Exarchopoulos, Blue Is the Warmest Color
Olga Kurylenko, To the Wonder
Jane Levy, Evil Dead

Favourite Supporting Actors:
Benedict Cumberbatch, Star Trek Into Darkness and The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Charlie Day and Burn Gorman, Pacific Rim
Tom Hiddleston, Thor: The Dark World
Danny McBride, This Is the End
Matthew McConaughey, The Wolf of Wall Street

Favourite Supporting Actresses:
Kat Dennings, Thor The Dark World
Carey Mulligan, Inside Llewyn Davis
Margot Robbie, The Wolf of Wall Street

Favourite Directors:
Alfonso Cuaron, Gravity
Joel and Ethan Coen, Inside Llewyn Davis
Abdellatif Kechiche, Blue Is the Warmest Color
Terrence Malick, To the Wonder,
Nicholas Winding Refn, Only God Forgives
Steve McQueen, 12 Years a Slave
Martin Scorsese, The Wolf of Wall Street
James Wan, The Conjuring and Insidious Chapter 2

Favourite Cinematography: To the Wonder

Favourite Action Sequences:
The barrel sequence, The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Plane rescue, Iron Man 3
Bullet train fight, The Wolverine
Superman vs. Zod, Man of Steel

Happy Anniversary Awards: The Exorcist, Badlands and Mean Streets, 40th Anniversaries, Die Hard, 25th Anniversary, From Russia With Love, 50th Anniversary, Jurassic Park and Schindler's List, 20th Anniversaries, A Nightmare Before Christmas, 20th Anniversary, Return of the Jedi, 30th Anniversary.

Trailer Talk: "The Amazing Spider-Man 2"

 

Rejoice true believers. As you all pretty much know, the first official trailer for Marc Webb's The Amazing Spider-Man 2 dropped yesterday. I had, a little shamefully, already watched the leaked Comic Con trailer from this past summer, so I was unsure if I wanted to watch anymore footage, especially since the CC trailer had already shown quite a bit of footage. Still, I was curious to watch the official trailer since it'd be better quality- and when it comes to something like Spider-Man, I just couldn't resist.

The official trailer is actually strikingly different than the CC one. The biggest difference for me is the focus on Harry Osborn (Dane DeHaan), childhood friend of Peter Parker (Andrew Garfield), than Max Dillon/Electro (Jamie Foxx). While Electro is said to be the main antagonist of the film, this trailer gives me the sense Electro may only be a pawn in a larger plan, a plan that'll lead to the Sinister Six in either the third or fourth film in this franchise. Before the trailer debuted, we pretty much got confirmation that Harry would be the Green Goblin before his father Norman Osborn (Chris Cooper), who we learned in the previous film, and see in this film, is dying. This confirmation came in the form of the close-up of the new poster for the film:

And the trailer also confirms Harry will be our first Green Goblin. DeHaan looks very good in the role, conveying a slightly sinister vibe- though I wonder if it was a little too soon in the series for Harry to go down the bad guy route, particularly when he already had a Harry as GG two movies ago. I know Harry eventually becoming GG is part of the Spider-Man mythology but he wasn't the bad guy right off the bat. Then again, maybe Harry won't be that evil but another pawn of his father Norman and the "evil empire" (as Webb calls it) known as Oscorp.

Cooper has confirmed that this is an introduction to Norman, and I'm starting to get the feeling that Cooper will only have a brief part. The only footage we've seen so far is him in the hospital bed, talking to Harry and telling him, when asked about Peter, "Not everyone has a happy ending." Will this be his only scene?

I'm also getting the feeling the film will go down a route vaguely similar to that of The Dark Knight. Remember in that film the Joker was the main antagonist but once he was out of the picture the film concluded with the confrontation between Batman and Harvey Dent/Two-Face, who was manipulated by the Joker. I think that while Electro may be the central villain, once Spider-Man defeats him, the film will conclude with the confrontation between Spider-Man and Harry/GG. However, it'll be the reverse of The Dark Knight since, as I mentioned, earlier, Electro will the pawn.

I do wish we got more of Electro's back story in the trailer since if you're not aware of the backstory we've been told by Foxx, we don't get much context for Electro's speech near the end of the trailer about a world without Spider-Man.

 

I'm still wondering how much of a threat Aleksei Sytsevich/Rhino (Paul Giamatti) will present in the film. I previously assumed he was only there at the beginning of the film but I think that after Spider-Man defeats him the first time he may come back with his mechanical Rhino suit, which will tie in to Oscorp.

In regards to Oscorp, I think the biggest take away from the trailer was this image of who I presume is the shadowy figure from The Amazing Spider-Man's mid-credits teaser walking past some familiar items:

Those do appear to be Vulture's wings and Doctor Octopus' arms, which is pretty awesome. Colm Feore was rumoured to be playing Adrian Toomes some time ago. It was never confirmed but I think it's a possibility. I don't know how I feel about all these villain being connected to Oscorp however. I understand they're trying to create an interconnected and expansive universe but somehow, and this has mentioned by others, having everything connected to Oscorp makes this world feel smaller rather than larger. It also somewhat betrays the fun and randomness of those early Spider-Man comics, when the creators would just make up random and bizarre characters without much connection to each other. Also, I hope this series isn't just about eventually making a Sinister Six film. While the concept of the Sinister Six have been around since the early Spider-Man comics, this isn't like The Avengers where they're a central part of the Marvel Universe. Spider-Man stories should never put Spider-Man in the background.

The trailer also brings back Peter's father, Richard Parker (Campbell Scott). My biggest criticism of the previous film was how the film didn't do enough with the story of Peter's parents disappearance, but rather shamefully made it a mystery to be played over the course of the series. Ideally I would hope the mystery gets closure in this film.

I wrote an article a while ago concerning why it'd be wise to keep Gwen Stacy (Emma Stone) alive throughout The Amazing Spider-Man 2: http://whatculture.com/film/amazing-spider-man-2-7-reasons-makes-sense-keep-gwen-stacy-alive.php, though I assumed that without Norman as GG she'd probably live until the third film. While I still stand by my points, I have a feeling Gwen may meet her iconic fate in this film since we are getting an actual GG. There's a shot in the trailer, which I assume is from the fight between Spider-Man and GG at a clock tower, where Spider-Man shoots his webbing downwards, as if to catch something, or someone:

Could he be trying to save Gwen? I think so. While I think Norman's presence in this series may be weakened

if he's not the one to actually knock her off a great height, I could see Gwen's death actually working in this film.

We also get our first, brief, look at Felicity Jones' role unnamed role, said to be someone with a romantic relationship with Harry. I feel Jones's role will be small. Unfortunate since Jones is a splendid actress. I hope I'm wrong and she gets some significant screen time.

 

 

So, the trailer definitely has me intrigued, and that final sequence between Electro and Spider-Man does look cool. Though I wonder if the movie will just be "cool" or if it'll be something that'll be a genre classic. I sometimes wonder if the great irony of the superhero movie boom will be that not many of them live on in 50 years. Anyway, The Amazing Spider-Man 2 opens on May 2nd, 2014. See you there.

 

Andrea Arnold's Wuthering Heights: Adapatation, Interpretation and Modernization

 

After watching Andrea Arnold’s magnificent Wuthering Heights I began to think about the difference between adaptation and interpretation. What is the difference? For me, adaptation means a filmmaker or artist is adapting a work to another medium, like film or television, but interpretation is when the filmmaker takes the source material and approaches from a different angle, changing something within the source material to fit their vision. This is common in superhero films where there is much leeway in adapting certain characters to the screen. Of course, this can be very controversial when source material is altered but it can lead to interesting results. A film, or what have you, can be both an adaptation and an interpretation at the same time, with some leaning more towards a literal “book on film” approach.

 

 

Arnold’s Wuthering Heights is more of an interpretation than merely an adaptation. Moreover, one has to put aside any expectations he or she may have about literary adaptations, particularly adaptations of Emily Bronte’s immortal classic. Her film is the exact opposite of the stereotypes we associate with period pieces- stodginess, awards bait, dry- this is a raw, naturalistic yet lyrical and sometimes unsettling work. It trims down, like other adaptations of Wuthering Heights, the plot, but instead of feeling abridged for truncated, the piece feels like a whole- it feels like an actual film, richly cinematic, almost a silent film (the dialogue is very sparse)- almost Malickian in its appreciation and focus on nature.

 

 

 From my memory of Bronte’s novel, not much of the plot is changed, but we never feel the film is just the book on screen. As I mentioned earlier, it’s not heavy with dialogue, and I don’t believe much of the dialogue is actually from the novel. Coming back to the theme of what makes this more of an interpretation rather a strict adaptation, Arnold approaches the novel from a strictly cinematic perspective. It communicates its emotions through visuals and mood. It’s a film we really need to pay attention to- to watch and soak in. I wish I had been able to witness this film on a large theatre screen. The images are so beautiful and textured that I want to get lost in them. I feel the cinema screen is always the best way to experience film, particularly a film like this.

One of the most significant interpretative elements in this film is Arnold’s casting of black actors in the role of Heathcliff (Solomon Glave as young Heathcliff and James Howson as the older Heathcliff). At first glance, this seems like a major change-and it is- but at the same time, making Heathcliff black while keeping the other major characters Caucasian feels truer to the spirit of Bronte’s novel. While Heathcliff wasn’t black in the novel, he was intended to be of an unspecified ethic origin (a gypsy I believe) which is why he was an outsider in this world. I don’t believe Heathcliff was supposed to be the image of a matinee idol like Laurence Olivier. With the casting a black actors, Arnold gets to the heart of Bronte’s fascination and empathy with the idea of the outsider. Critic David Fear, in his video essay on the DVD, parallels Heathcliff with Bronte, highlighting the fact that Bronte herself was an outsider in her time. Despite being a male character, Heathcliff was a very personal character for Bronte.

 

 

By making Heathcliff black, Arnold not only gets (arguably) closer to Bronte’s conception of Heathcliff, she re-contextualizes Heathcliff’s sufferings as the sufferings of people of African descent- despite the film not taking place in the United States. I think Heathcliff being black allows for a more relatable and contemporary entry point for audiences.  And the film, despite taking place in the same era as the novel. It can be difficult making a period piece feel modern- the easy way out would be to set it in modern day- which was Arnold’s original intent.  But Arnold finds the balance between setting the film in the past as well as making it feel contemporary. I think she manages this by using a hand held camera work, putting the audience right in the middle of events, making us feel like we’ve been transported in the past. Arnold’s work with cinematographer Robbie Ryan makes the moors of Wuthering Heights feel real to us, allowing us to view this world as a realistic place that existed for people- that was modern and common. I think that’s the key to Arnold’s mastery of modernizing the past.

 

The Amazing Spider-Man 2: Uanswered Questions and The Problem of Serialized Storytelling in Film

Just this week, Alex Kurtzman, co-writer, along with frequent collaborator Bob Orci, of The Amazing Spider-Man 2, went on record that the film will address the questions left unresolved by last year's controversial reboot, The Amazing Spider-Man:

“It’s interesting because the first movie asks all these questions and what I loved about it in so many ways is that it didn’t answer them. Part of what we were drawn to and intrigued by was wanting to know the answers to a lot of those questions.

“The villains emerge from a lot of unanswered questions at the end of that movie and none of them are random at all, they are all tied together by a theme, an idea, and I think they come from our curiosity about what was going on in the life of Peter Parker and his parents.”

My chief criticism of The Amazing Spider-Man was it seemed about concerned with setting up plotlines for future films rather than just being a standalone, so I can't say I share the same enthusiasm for what it was doing. The film's marketing, and the film's first act, suggested the main drive of the film was to be Peter Parker's (Andrew Garfield) investigation in to why his parents disappeared when he was a child, how Peter's father was connected to Peter's eventual gaining of spider-like powers, as well as how Curt Conners (Rhys Ifans) relationship to Peter's parents. But the film pretty much drops these plot threads halfway through the way, only to remind us, in a mid credits stinger involving Connors and a mysterious man played by Michael Masse, that "Hey, come back for the sequel if you want to get any answers."



I understand what the filmmakers, most notably director of Amazing 1 & 2, and most likely 3, Marc Webb- they want to achieve what Marvel Studios has done and continues to do among its franchises, which is bringing expansive, comic book style continuity to the big screen- expect in the case of The Amazing Spider-Man franchise, the want to create an expansive universe in a singular franchise. It's an ambitious and admittedly exciting idea. There's 50 years of Spider-Man continuity to draw from, with almost limitless possibilities, and it appears this franchise is leading up to Sinister Six film, a reverse-Avengers, if you will.

But this brings up the difficulties of telling a serialized narrative in film. When you sit down to watch a film, even a film like The Amazing Spider-Man, where you know it's going to be the first film in a franchise (the second film was announced well before the first film hit theatres), as well as mostly a retelling of the Spider-Man origin story, you still expect a mostly standalone film. But I don't think The Amazing Spider-Man was designed to be a standalone film. In many ways, it mostly serves as a 2 hour pilot. This is not a pejorative swipe at TV mind you, I'm just highlighting how I think this film doesn't work as a film. I don't feel Peter has a character arc or that the film has a firm dramatic arc regarding its stories. This would work if the film was a pilot for a TV series, or the first few issues of a new Spider-Man comic. But it's neither of those things. It's a film, but it's not thematically well rounded or satisfying on its own terms the way a film, particularly an origin story, which in most superhero's case, especially Spider-Man's, are usually dramatically very pure and straightforward.

Compare The Amazing Spider-Man to Christopher Nolan's Batman Begins, which, as the title suggests, is about Batman becoming Batman. It's focused almost entirely on Bruce Wayne's childhood, the death of his parents, his training and establishment as a vigilante in Gotham City, fighting corruption and forming a relationship with Jim Gordon, one of the few good cops in the city. But while a film like this could feel like just a set-up, which in some ways it is, Batman Begins still works very well as a standalone film about how someone goes from a child crouching over the bodies of his dead parents, to a figure of hope and fear. When that Joker card is revealed, it works as both an organic lead in to the next film as well as a great moment by itself, even if we didn't get a sequel. And the film genuinely feels mythic, despite Nolan' goal to set the film in a more stylistically and visually realistic universe than the Tim Burton/Joel Schumacher series. I feel The Amazing Spider-Man lacks that kind of mythic nature, and while I think the film wants to be the Batman Begins of the Spider-Man, and while I think in some respects it is successful in that respect, I don't feel it works as a standalone film the way Batman Begins does. And going back to Sam Raimi's first Spider-Man film in 2002, even that film, while leaving room open for a sequel, ends on a strong not that concludes Peter's (Tobey Maguire) character arc.

Now, I'm not saying serialized storytelling can't work in film. The Lord of The Rings, Harry Potter, and Star Wars made it work, and serialized storytelling, in whatever medium, can be rewarding. But I feel The Amazing Spider-Man wasn't as interesting a film as it could've been. The film had such rich thematic potential in regards to the mystery surrounding Peter's parents, how his father potentially gave birth to Spider-Man, and Peter's relationship to a man (Connors) who knew his parents and may have taken part in their murders (?) But the film doesn't truly explore this material, I think. To be fair, this film did suffer from post-production tinkering by Webb and/or the studio, which resulted in several scenes being cut out, one in which makes clear the fate of Dr. Ratha (Irrfan Khan).

I'm glad Kurtzman  says the villains will be tied to the themes and questions of the first film. One of the things I really liked about Nolan's Batman Trilogy was how the villains were representations of the each film's themes. Of course, we know Norman Osborn (Chris Cooper) has a connection to Peter's parents, though I assume he won't become the Green Goblin until the very end of this film. I wonder how Max Dillon/Electro (Jamie Foxx) will be connected to Peter, since he seems more thematically and emotionally connected to Spider-Man than Peter. I'm interested to see how the film juggles its multiple plot threads and relationships, including the continuing relationship between Peter and Gwen Stacy (Emma Stone), the reappearance of Peter's childhood friend Harry Osborn, (Dan DeHaan), Norman's son, as well Felicity Jones' still mysterious role as the "Goblin's girlfriend."- Harry or Norman? I'm still a little disappointed that Shailene Woodley's minor role as Mary Jane Watson has been cut and I hope she comes back for the third film.

While it's nice that Kurtzman has implied questions will be answered, I think the film should be more than just answering questions, just as how the first film was as its best when it wasn't just asking questions. The Amazing Spider-Man 2 needs to explore what these questions mean for Peter and the other characters, as well what consequences the answers will have. It needs to blow us away emotionally, visually and thematically. I hope it does. The superhero genre and this franchise has a lot of potential, and it'd be great if this film fulfilled that potential

The Essential Films: "Whatever Happened to Baby Jane?"

A Series of Writings on Films that I feel are essential viewings for film lovers, coupled with films that are personal to me

I don’t think a film like Whatever Happened to Baby Jane? would be possible in today’s Hollywood. Or, a better way to put it, I don’t think it would have the same effect. Here is a film that stars two Hollywood titans who’s off screen relationship so affects our reaction to onscreen events that it’s hard to think of two actresses who could pack so much personal subtext in to their performances and our reading of the film. Bette Davis and Joan Crawford really did hate each other in real and no doubt it must have been a joy for Davis to psychologically and physically torture her. And there is a certain twisted pleasure the audience gets from this.

The film begins in 1917 where Baby Jane Hudson is a famous child star on the Vaudeville stage. As she gets older, she begins to appear in films but in an ironic twist of fate, it is her sister Blanche Hudson, who had been in her sister’s shadow when they were children, becomes the more popular and beloved star. One night Jane drives her car in to Blanche, crippling her. The rest of the film takes place in 1962- Blanche now spends her life in a wheelchair in a house being taken care of by her sister.  

I feel that how you approach a film is important to judging it fairly. If one goes in to this film expecting something that wants to be taken completely seriously, then one may start criticizing this film as too silly or “hammy” to be taken seriously. But I think the key to enjoying the film is to understand that the film is largely a black comedy, as well as a psychological thriller. The film, I believe, wants you to laugh at the relationship between the Hudson sisters. What’s miraculous about the film is how it both has this darkly humorous edge while still working as a compelling, tragic and empathetic psychological thriller. Outside of Alfred Hitchcock, I don’t think there are many directors who can pull off this feat- but director Robert Aldrich, director of the great film noir, Kiss Me Deadly,  is able to both play much of the film for sinister laughs, while still creating a genuine sense of fear and suspense that gets us invested in the story. He also finds the tragedy in this story. Both Jane and Blanche used to have it all, now Blanche is crippled and Jane is mentally sick, still in many ways a little girl who likes to torment her sister and who still clings on to her former fame as a child star.

I think Whatever Happened to Baby Jane? would make a great double bill with Billy Wilder’s Sunset Boulevard, made 12 years earlier. Both films deal with former actresses, Norma Desmond and Jane Hudson who become disillusioned and bitter when they’re no longer famous. Sunset Boulevard is more of a satire but both films show a dark and twisted side of show business, where people who never knew anything but fame shrink in to insecurity. When Jane goes to put out an advertisement for a piano player to help her revive her act she mentions that she’s Baby Jane Hudson, but the younger men at the office don’ t have the slightest idea who she is, though she doesn’t catch on to this fact. Norma and Jane both live in almost gothic mansions, shut away from society. Norma’s only companion is her former husband and director, now servant, Max Von Mayerling. Jane only really has Blanche, who despite being treated poorly, does care about Jane’s health. Both Norma and Jane also try to revive their careers through the help of a younger man- William Holden’s screenwriter Joe Gillis who happens upon Norma’s mansion- and Victor Buono’s piano player Edwinn Flagg. Both films eventually end with Norma and Jane completely detached from reality, convinced they still have an audience.

Blanche has a firmer grasp on reality. I think this has to do with the fact Blanche became famous later in her life than Jane, who was shoved in to the spotlight when she was only a child. Blanche had enough distance from the craziness of Jane’s life that she was able to understand the pressure of being famous even before she became a star. The fact that Blanche became a bigger star than Jane is a big reason for Jane’s bitterness and hatred towards Blanche. That and the fact she has to carry around the guilt of crippling her sister. At the end of the film we learn that it was Blanche who crippled herself when she tried to run over a very drunk Jane. “You mean all this time, we could’ve been friends?” Jane asks. Like a lot of the film, it’s both funny and tragic. These two sisters, due to their upbringing and careers never really had the chance to have a normal, healthy relationship.

Aldrich’s restrained visual style contrasts well with the more macabre elements of the story. If his visual style was too assertive, we’d probably feel smothered by the camp horror.  Like Kiss Me Deadly, Aldrich finds a tone that is both cold but still absorbing. I love a lot of his camera angles and way he shoots Davis and Crawford. Just through their close-ups. Davis is grotesque, covered up in make-up that makes her look like a living doll- creating a link between Jane and the Baby Jane dolls from her time as a child star, one which she still keeps. Crawford is haggard, but we can still see the beauty that made Blanche, as well as Crawford, a star. This film uses footage from Davis and Crawford’s actual films, so it’s very impactful seeing the younger Davis and Crawford in this film and having the contrast between their younger and older selves. When we first see the older Blanche, she’s watching one of her older movies. There’s an added poignancy to the scene since Crawford is literally watching her younger self.

The title of the film asks where Baby Jane went. And the answer may be that nothing ever happened to her, she never grew up, never moved on or went away. Jane is still that little girl, stuck in a twisted kind of arrested development.   Her dancing on the beach at the end suggests that even if Jane had moved in to adulthood, has no regressed back in to the child Baby Jane. It’d be simplistic to say this is a just a cynical film about show business/Hollywood, but I do feel the film is a tragedy about that world. As in Kiss Me Deadly, Aldrich puts us in a reality that is a nightmare version of our own, but finds thematic and, in the case of this film, emotional truths that allow us to connect with the stories. Jane and Blanche represent the broken lives of two women who, in a better world, could’ve been best friends.    

I Write On Water What I Dare Not Say: Some Thoughts on Terrence Malick's "To The Wonder"

As I was watching Terrence Malick's latest film To The Wonder the other night, it occurred to me that, love him or hate, Malick is among the handful of directors, past and present, that has completely infused himself in to every fibre of his films. It's not just that he has a particular style, but that's there not a single moment in this film, or his previous few films, that he's not present. He's there in every image, camera movement, line of dialogue and even performance. Wes Anderson is similar in that regard, and maybe even Stanley Kubrick but I can't think of many directors that have become so much part of their films. I think it's hard to review a Malick film, particularly now, since  his films exist outside any typical narrative structure- so this will be more of a "thoughts on" piece rather than a "good or bad" summary. Overall, I liked the film and maybe even loved it. While it's not as monumental a work as his previous film, The Tree of Life, it's a lovely and often beautiful film, telling a simple but universal film about finding and losing love.

The film tells the story of Neil (Ben Affleck) and Marina (Olga Kurylenko) who meet in France and move to Oklahoma to start their life together. Complications in their relationship leads to Neil and reconnecting with his childhood sweetheart Jane (Rachel McAdams). A parallel storyline focuses on Father Quintana (Javier Bardem), a priest struggling with his faith.

Malick tells these stories, as to be expected, through impressionistic imagery and hushed voiceovers. But in this film I found that Malick was moving even further away from dialogue, crafting something focused very much on the physicality and movements of the actors- particularly with Kurylenko and McAdams. I don't think either of these women have ever looked more gorgeous. By just looking at them, watching them move, their beauty really shines through in a pure way.

Journalist and filmmaker Bilge Ebiri wrote a piece interpreting the film as a dance, a ballet. All one has to do is look at Kurylenko and her movements in the film and it becomes clear what Ebiri is talking about and what Malick is trying to achieve. Moreover,  I feel that Malick isn't just trying to create a ballet but he's fascinated in taking actors we recognize and using them in a fashion where their usual stature as an actor is stripped down to something quite simple. Think of Sean Penn in The Tree of Life. In this film, Affleck is just a normal man, not the hero of Argo or complicate bank robber of The Town.

This is the shortest gap between movies for Malick, who's taken up to 20 years between films. While it's exciting to get a new Malick film so soon after The Tree of Life, that film was such a bold and visionary piece of work, a film which could possibly be deemed a landmark film, that To The Wonder seems somewhat anti-climatic in comparison. Even if there was a bigger gap between the films, I didn't sense the level of ambition in this film that was present in The Tree of Life. But one has to take the film as what it is. To The Wonder is not as towering an achievement as some of Malick's other films but it's still a film in which we find Malick striving for pure visual poetry, which I think he achieves.

 Malick has always had a fascination with exploring America's past- the late 1950s that gave birth to one of America's first serial killers, Charles Starkweather, in Badlands, the turn-of-the-century labor in Days of Heaven, the physical an existential conflict soldiers face during WWII in The Thin Red Line, and the founding of the Jamestown, Virginia settlement in 1607 in The New World. He returned to the 1950s in The Tree of Life- an course in that film Malick went beyond just exploring America's past- he literally dramatized the creation of the universe itself. To The Wonder is Malick's first film set entirely in the present day. I may have to see the film again but I didn't feel Malick was too preoccupied with modern day America- the story could've taken place in nearly any time. But then again, Malick's eye always seems to exist outside of time, showing us not the way things actually were in a given time period- but how they exist in the memory or dreams.

I'm still not sure how the Quintana storyline relates to the love triangle. His struggle with his faith reminds us of The Tree of Life, and also Ingmar Bergman, but it didn't feel directly tied to what has happening between Neil, Marina an Jane. 34444444444I've heard that Quintana's story is also a love story- one between him an God. I assume the relationship between Quintana an God is a spiritual relationship that's falling apart much like the physical relationships between Neil and the two women.  I'll have to keep this in mind the next time I see the film.

The way Malick moved the camera in certain scenes reminded me of The Tree of Life- as well as the houses, which brought to mind the O'Brien home. Also, every thing seems bigger through Malick's camera- faces, places, it's a recognizable world but one that seems larger than life.

Those are my initial thoughts on the film. I wasn't as overwhelmed as I was the first time I saw The Tree of Life, but the film, like all of Malick's works, it'll require at least another viewing to completely take every thing in. It'll be interesting to see what To The Wonder's critical standing will be as time goes on, particularly in relation to how it's ranked amongst Malick's other films. The initial reviews have been mixed and maybe the reaction towards the film will always be divided. But for Malick enthusiasts, it's worth seeing and becoming part of Malick's singular world.

"Evil Dead" Review

I've been a little behind lately in regards to writing here, so I'm going to try to get back on track. I'm going to make my return on writing out my thoughts on the new The Evil Dead remake, which I saw on opening day. Evil Dead does what a good remake should do, which is take the basic components of the original- in this case a an abandoned cabin, five college students and a book that unleashes demons which possess those around them- and finds a new angle from which to approach it. The original The Evil Dead launched the career of director Sam Raimi, who would go on to direct of the biggest Super hero films of the the last decade with the Spider-Man Trilogy, and part of The Evil Dead's success was the personality that Raimi injected in to the film. While I'm not ready to call this new film's director, Fede Alvarez, the next Sam Raimi, he brings his own sense of style and tone to this film, never falling in to the trap of trying too hard to be Raimi. The new film is raw and brutal- don't go in expecting the slapstick humour of The Evil Dead's two sequels, Evil Dead II and Army of Darkness. It's more in line with the straightforward, go for the throat approach of the original. But even saying that undersells the gruesomeness and near humourlessness of this new film, which makes the gore of the original film seem tame by comparison. This film is definitely not for the faint of heart, but it gets the job done and I think it offers Evil Dead fans what they want in an update of the classic original.

The film focuses on the character of Mia (Jane Levy), whose four friends, Eric (Lou Taylor Pucci), Olivia (Jessica Lucas), Natalie (Elizabeth Blackmore), and Mia's brother David (Shiloh Fernandez) take Mia to an abandoned cabin in the woods in order to put her through drug detox. And of course, Eric finds and reads from the a book in the basement, unleashing human possessing demons, one which attaches itself to Mia. All that fun stuff. I liked the drug detox take on the cabin in the woods setup since in other cabin movies, including the original film, the reason the main characters come to the cabin is to have a party. Here, the film establishes a dark reality that's present even before the really horrific stuff begins to happen. Combining the supernatural horror with the real life horror of a drug addict going cold turkey, while it can be argued makes the film one note, for me, raised the tension quite a bit.

I also think it makes Mia's possession a metaphorical representation of her drug withdrawal. This is emphasized verbally when at first the others think Mia is going through a panic attack. She burns herself in the shower (the demons get off on inflicting pain on themseves in this version) and they think it's her way of getting them to take her away from the cabin. Like The Exorcist this is a film where people try to rationalize the horrific things happening, even though the situation reaches a point where no rational explanation can suffice.  

Levy gives a real star making performace in this film. Levy, most known for her work on the sitcom Suburgatory, gives a much darker performance here, convincingly playing a young woman who has reached the point where she can't survive without drugs, an unadulterated evil demon, and finally a woman who becomes a real badass in the face of evil. I was surprised that the film did strive for dramatic weight regarding Mia's situation and her relationship with David.  That's why I wish there was little more development for the characters- the film seems to be leaning towards fleshing these people out but doesn't go all the way. In regards to the other females, Olivia and Natalie, they seem underwritten. I liked Eric but he also felt he needed a little more focus. Mia and David definitely feel like they're the heart of the film. I also admit that despite wanting a little more development for the other characters, I did feel for them during some crucial moments.

I like the look of the cabin in this film. It's not inviting at all, which is apporpriate for the tone the filmmakers are going for. I feel in other cabin based horror films, the cabin isn't dingy enough. Here you really feel the creakiness, dampness and death within the cabin d I also admire Alvarez's staging of the set pieces. He's not afraid to dwell on the grisly details. Some may say Alvarez is overcompensating by making the film so gory but I think that when updating a film like The Evil Dead, you have to go big or go home. I also feel that the extreme use of gore makes the situation all the more nightmarish, as well as making you sympathethic to what these people are going through,

The film ends with an obligatory hint that things aren't over yet. This is to be expected in a film like this but I actually am looking forward to seeing where this new line of films is going, as well as if it's secretly part of the original Evil Dead universe. There's been talk of Raimi and Evil Dead Trilogy star Bruce Campbell doing another Evil Dead film, with Cmpbell's character of Ash makng his way in to the new series of films. I don't know if the Ash persona can fit with the new tone of this series- but hey, if they could find some way of reintroducing Ash, it'd be pretty groovy.  


PS: Here's a link to my audio review of the film: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tM_ZWhfj_RA and a retrospective I did on the original trilogy for Scene Creek: http://scenecreek.com/features/retrospective-a-look-back-at-the-evil-dead-trilogy/