This Blog Has Moved

Thanks for stopping by!

I've stopped publishing to this blog, but you can find it carried on here:

http://mrjoshpaul.wordpress.com/

Thanks to all my past and improbable future readers at this blog.

Josh

Gravity

A phenomenal accomplishment in filmmaking supported by an excellent cast, a strong script and bombastic soundtrack. In sum: the theater experience of the year. See it.

I've been on hiatus for a while, which has been disappointing because I love writing these things. I'm planning to overhaul my blog once I'm free from Uni commitments, but in the meantime... I've been watching lots of stuff! I'll do my best to pump out a few mini-reviews in the coming days as my essay deadlines loom and I need to start digesting all this information into something academically presentable, but in the meantime... Here's Gravity.

With all the buzz around this film I just couldn't resist dashing out to the theater last week to see it. It's almost like a perfect conclusion to my sort-of series about the Hollywood system: When big-budget movies go right. I don't really have much more to say about that, except that it does happen! There are creative people working in the industry - not every film that achieves blockbuster status is cookie cutter. Gravity is a totally unique film to experience.

Mud

A beautiful looking, fantastically written, acted and paced, all-round excellent film. Mud is a shining example of the upside to the bigger-is-better culture of Hollywood,

In my last post I spent a good deal of time dwelling on the problems with Hollywood's obsession with bigger and yet bigger pictures, built for the mass market. To be clear; I enjoyed my time in the cinema watching Man of Steel, and a good many other blockbusters of its ilk. Some of them are abominations though. I don't review them often, because I don't often bother to see them.

But here I want to focus on one of the upshots of modern Hollywood, and especially one that has come about with the recent proliferation of affordable digital film-making equipment. Mud is a relatively low-budget film - $10 million is pittance compared to $200 million superhero films - but it has all the professional production quality and artistic finesse of the best of those films.

Mud is directed by Jeff Nichols (who also directed Take Shelter, which I love). It's about two boys who live in the Arkansas delta - Ellis and Neckbone, born and raised on the river. Exploring the swampland, the boys stumble across an old boat suspended in a tree, and even stranger, a grown man living in it. The man's name is Mud. He has crosses in his footprints, and a snake tattooed upon his arm. The only things he values are his shirt, his gun, and the girl he's waiting for; Juniper. As they befriend Mud and begin to uncover his past, the boys are also being boys; living and learning as they throw themselves headlong at life.

Man Of Steel

Bombastic and ambitious, Man Of Steel creatively re imagines the Superman mythos for the modern audience. It lacks in acting, pacing and story, but makes up for it in sheer spectacle.

In response to the massive success of Marvel's Avengers franchise, DC Entertainment and Warner Bros. have unveiled their plans to create a Justice League film, featuring iconic comic book characters such as Superman and Batman.

While Batman has found great success on film recently, Christopher Nolan's The Dark Knight series was heavily grounded in reality, delving deep into the psychology of its central figure. Not the stuff of science-fantasy franchise building. But in the wake of Batman's success, Nolan was brought on board (along with Dark Knight writer David Goyer) to develop Superman into a story that could not only resonate with today's audience, but could also form the foundation for a whole series of DC-universe blockbusters that could intersect and expand.

The two super-powers of the comic book film franchising realm are clashing, and in the glorious carnage, we the audience are about to reap the benefits. Or endure the consequences. It's hard to say, really, whether this kind of film making is good for the industry or not.

"New" Hollywood tactics - of throwing as much money as possible at a film, and having it appeal to the widest audience possible - have been around for well over 30 years now. Has anything changed? Today's industry, it seems, is exacerbating the trend started by Star Wars and Jaws, with bigger budgets, bigger marketing, stronger branding, deeper pockets to be emptied and refilled. What do we call films like The Avengers, and the Justice League project? Mega-blockbusters? AAAA movies?

Elvira Madigan

Pretty and romantic and sweet and sad... but I couldn't get into this love story.

Elvira Madigan tells the (true) tragic story of Danish tightrope-walker Hedvig Jensen (stage name Elvira Madigan), and her lover Sixten Sparre; deserter of the Danish army. The two run away together, and find themselves penniless and starving, but happy in love as they make their way through the beautiful Danish countryside, evading their pursuers, making friends and enemies along the way.

The film opens with the two of them together, sitting in a field. He has a razor and mirror with him, and shaves off his beard in an attempt to disguise himself, as they are planning to run away together. This takes a while, as he pauses halfway through to finish making love, but once relieved of his facial hair and libido they set off.

Inexplicably, though she has a more distinctive look and a higher public profile, they make no attempt to change her appearance. Plus, after spending the entire scene pulling the gold lining off his military coat so that it looks more like civilian clothing, he inexplicably hangs it around a scarecrow's shoulders, in a most conspicuous fashion. This is the first of many careless mistakes the two make.

This, I suppose, is the epitomy of being carefree in love.

Star Trek Into Darkness

Star Trek Into Darkness is a perfect continuation of a supremely well-executed reboot. It draws on the old lore, builds on the new, with a balance that will likely please both the casual audience and the hardcore.

(This review will spoil some major plot developments from J.J. Abram's first Star Trek.)

Star Trek Into Darkness takes the solid foundation of the first film, and builds on it fantastically. The aesthetic of 2009's Star Trek remains with the action scenes, the creatively envisioned future gadgetry  and even the infamous lens flare. Yes, the first film caught a bit of flak for the incessant lights that seemed dialed up to 11, but this film tones it down only a touch. It's no longer blinding, but it's familiar and consistent with the feel of the first film. Good compromise.

J.J. Abrams 2009 effort to reboot one of sci-fi geekdom's most well known franchises was perhaps the most brilliantly executed in reboot history. Recasting new faces as iconic characters, Kirk (Chris Pine) and Spock (Zachary Quinto), the trick they pulled in that film was to make the new series occur in a parallel universe; one affected by time travel. Different from the original series, but with the same characters and settings (well, minus Vulcan).

What made it really work was the presence of old Spock, played by the original actor, Leonard Nimoy. Nimoy's presence in the film served both to tie it in with the old series; acknowledging its existence, and also allowed the new series to take it's own direction with this slightly altered timeline. It was like the old franchise was giving its blessing that the new one be made, and be made differently. And how different it is! Unlike previous iterations, Star Trek was an action/adventure blockbuster, and a good one at that.

Iron Man 3

In Marvels ongoing quest for world domination via massive interconnected blockbuster franchises, Iron Man 3 is utterly expected, but full of surprises. A step down from The Avengers, but a big step up from Iron Man 2.

Disney/Marvel's Iron Man film franchise has never looked more cartoonish than in the closing credits of Iron Man 3. Unlike the previous films, which featured first line drawings, then comic-strip style illustrations splashing across the screen to the music, this film uses live action snippets from the film, and from the gag reel (I believe). Despite the photo-realism, the mad-dash editing and brisk musical beat give it the feel, more than ever, of a Saturday morning cartoon title sequence.

It's a fine and fitting credit sequence, but I mention it because it's representative of where the franchise has been heading. Iron Man, way back in 2008 took a fairly realistic approach to the superhero film. It featured topical themes, and only barely stretched the boundaries of realistic technology. It was unique at the time. There have been a slew of more recent films that have connected with the original Iron Man, using that film's established credibility, and expanding its universe to include a large array of colourful characters who have been referenced and cameoed to no end in this ambitious project. And with each little step, this universe has grown further and further from our own; straining credibility both in the science-fiction aspects (which might as well be labelled fantasy at this stage), and with the fundamental principles of reality, such as the fact that a mere mortal cannot survive (let alone continue to fight) after a certain amount of force is applied to the body. All this is to say that Iron Man 3 continues Marvel's franchise-wide trend of turning this world that looks like ours into their own thoroughly cartoonish one.

Sadness

William Yang's Sadness is a short, poignant and powerful piece about loss and identity. There's something amazingly warm about it, despite the grim subject matter.

If you've got a spare hour, you should watch Sadness.

Fair warning though: as if the title didn't give it away, Sadness is a powerful and exceedingly sad film. It will make you feel things, and some of those things aren't pleasant. But they are important.

You can watch it RIGHT HERE, now.

William Yang is a social photographer, who has made a living taking pictures, but also uses his pictures to perform unique storytelling pieces in art galleries. In 1999, Tony Ayres directed a film based on one of those performances: Sadness. The performance basically consists of what is pictured above: Yang sits on a stool, facing the audience with an unwavering neutral expression. Behind him, a slide projector casts images on the wall from his photography. In monotone, he tells stories that link with the pictures.

If you want to be surprised by this film, stop reading now and go watch it. I'm going to give a little detail about the stories he tells, but it may be that they are more effective if you don't know what you're in for.

Vertigo

Hitchcock's classic thriller/romance about a man with a fear of heights has recently been labelled 'the greatest film ever made'. Vertigo is everything Hitchcock did best; a rollercoaster ride of suspense and surprise, an absolutely engrossing film.

The nice thing about Hitchcock's masterpiece is that, despite its incredible plot twists, it's a hard movie to spoil. I could tell you what one or two of the revelations are, but they wouldn't make sense without a fair bit of context first. I'll give you some context, but I won't spoil the film here.

James Stewart (one of my favourite actors ever) plays John "Scottie" Ferguson, a detective who retires after an incident in which, while on a chase, a police officer falls to his death trying to save Scottie from hanging off a building. The doctors diagnose Scottie with acrophobia; a fear of heights (often confused with the dizzy sensation known as vertigo). He encounters an old school friend, who asks him to follow his wife Madeline, concerned for her welfare. It seems Madeline believes that she is possessed by someone from the past; a mysterious figure named Carlotta.

Django Unchained

Django is by no means Tarantino's best - far from it in fact. However, by the very nature of what the film is about, it may wind up being one of the most important things he's ever done.

Films about slavery are few and far between. In my lifetime, I've seen one - Amazing Grace from 2006. Wikipedia lists twelve (three of those are set for release in 2012 or 2013). A scant few compared with  many hundreds - if not thousands - of films that have been made about the greatest crime against humanity in the twentieth century; holocaust films.

After the holocaust came a swell of films about the holocaust; providing an outlet for the widespread feelings of anger, horror, repentance and regret. They came from all sorts of countries, but German cinema especially was shaped by a generation of Germans looking back on their past. Likewise, in the wake of the Vietnam war, there were a flood of films that depicted the horrors that unfolded there, and called into question America's longstanding pride in superiority in warfare. The scars of the Vietnam war are still there, but it has been 'dealt with' on a cultural level. These films helped entire nations move on from the mistakes they've made; they are a result of and a part of the healing process. It's a trend that has gone on for centuries, and we see it now in today's trend of movies about wars in the Middle East.

But America hasn't finished dealing with its past yet. Django Unchained is an important movie because it is an American film about American slavery before the civil war. The practice is arguably more inhuman than the holocaust; treating entire people groups as animals to be commanded, traded, and bred. It was widespread around the world, and lasted far longer than the holocaust or any other genocide (for a solid rundown on the context of slavery, click here). And as I said before, there is relatively little in American popular culture that reflects on precisely what transpired across those decades.

Casablanca

A classic film from the golden age of cinema, rightly regarded as one of the finest.

You have definitely heard of this movie. At least, if you haven't explicitly heard of it, you have heard it quoted or seen it referenced a thousand times over. Such lines as "Play it once, Sam. For old times sake", or "Here's looking at you kid", or to my surprise, "I think this is the beginning of a beautiful friendship..." This is a film that has totally saturated pop culture, influenced many films for decades to come, and is held up as a contender for the 'greatest movie ever made'.

And I liked it. In fact, I think other people will like it too. While it exists in our cultural memory as a sweeping romance film - and, yes, the romance is integral to the plot - it's actually more of a drama/thriller, centring around the tension between characters trying to escape from Casablanca. The film was made and is set in the midst of the second world war, in a town in French Morocco called Casablanca. A melting pot of different cultures, Casablanca is located on the northern tip of Africa. In 1942 it is ruled by the French, who are occupied by the Germans, but is far enough from both that neither exerts complete control over it. Refugees from across Europe have made their way here in order to escape the war, by boarding a boat for Lisbon, and eventually getting to the United States. (The film was written before the States joined the war, but was released the year after.)

Dr. No

The first in the Bond franchise is only really remarkable in light of its legacy.

James Bond is a legendary figure of pop culture. First envisioned by author Ian Flemming in 1953 in his novel, Casino Royale, the name has become synonymous with the film series, and the universally recognized catch phrase; "Bond... James Bond." Dr. No was made in 1962, and was the first in a long, long, line of films featuring James Bond, with several actors playing the role of the central character (and others) throughout the 50 year run.

The first film opens unexpectedly with three goofy looking old men crossing the street, to the tune of 'Three Blind Mice'. This strangeness abruptly gives way to thriller material when the three men break into a building and kill everyone inside. This prompts MI6, to send their best man. Here we meet James Bond, suave agent of British Intelligence. He's introduced to us in a nightclub, playing poker, because that's what gentlemen do. We see him briefed by his superior, 'M', and given a different pistol by 'Q' (a shadow of the scene in later films), and flown off to Jamaica to investigate.

Gangster Squad

From the director of the fresh, funny, surprising Zombieland comes something utterly mediocre.

Gangster squad is set in late 1940s Los Angeles, with the city under the control of real life gangster Mickey Cohen. Hotheaded but honest cop John O'Mara, played by Josh Brolin, is chosen to put together a squad off the books to wage guerrilla warfare against the 'enemy occupation' of drug runners, whorehouse overseers and tommy gun toting gangsters that wear the badge of Mickey Cohen.

This true story is exaggerated into life on the big screen with stylish flair. Fast forward and slo-mo is liberally applied to the competent action beats to give them a glossy sheen. Ryan Gosling and Emma Stone provide the sex appeal as the sexy cop and sexy femme fatale (although unlike real femme fatales, Stone's character is a good girl pretending to be bad). O'Mara and his wife give moral grounding and warm fuzziness. Giovanni Ribisi plays the gang's tech expert and sympathetic family man (after O'Mara),  while Max Kennard plays the gunslinging bad-ass and Michael Peña his junior partner and part time comic relief.  There's also a black guy who's good with knives, because every team needs a black guy and someone who uses knives. So I guess they saved money by rolling them into one? Anyway, he's played by Anthony Mackie and he's pretty bad-ass as well.

Hitchcock

The film succeeds on many levels, but doesn't quite touch the heights of greatness of the titular director.

(This review contains spoilers for Psycho)

Alfred Hitchcock is still today the master of cinematic suspense. For the most part his films still hold up; I watched The Birds for the first time this week, and was enthralled at how such an admittedly silly premise could be turned into such a nail-biter. True, there were some awfully outdated "yellowscreen" effects, and times have certainly changed since the 1960s, but considering films like The Happening are made to this day, it's a wonder how well it holds up.

Psycho even more so. Psycho is perhaps most closely associated with the director today, but in 1960 when the film was in production it was considered a risky project, so different it was from Hitchcock's other works. The studio refused to fund and market it, the censors refused to approve it, and when it was released it was met with middling reviews. Since then, however, it has become most beloved by critics, with near universal acclaim. The film is considered both the genesis and the apex of the slasher/horror genre.

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

Peter Jackson's The Hobbit is finally here! Epic-ness overload!!!
Like really, way too much.

The Hobbit is one of my favourite books from childhood. I tried to get into Lord Of The Rings, but found it too dense. The Hobbit was a shorter story, on a smaller scale. A straightforward adventure with a tight band of characters. The book indicated links to a larger world and a broader story, but it was really an intimate tale of humble beginnings that built to an epic - but still relatively small - climax.

I feel like the films have gotten this mixed up.

Coriolanus

Shakespeare's elegant verse translates beautifully into this tale of modern warfare... As long as you have the patience for it.

Up until last year, Shakespeare's Coriolanus has never been adapted to film. Is that not astonishing?

Ok, there was a BBC series from the 80s, and it had some decent actors and direction behind it. I watched a little; it's a pretty much your standard BBC Shakespeare. This film is very different.

Coriolanus is tells the tragic tale of a Roman general, Caius Martius (played in the film by director Ralph Fiennes), who wins glory in battle and runs for consulship (similar to presidency) of Rome, urged on by his ambitious mother. The play is about patriotism, rivalry, jealousy, ambition and pride. There's a fair bit of Freudian psychology involved too, but since that wasn't invented when Shakespeare wrote it's a testament to his grasp on human nature that he hits on themes that will fascinate humanity for centuries to come.

Skyfall

Despite lagging a little behind in action movie trends, the newest Bond pulls them off flawlessly, delivering a fantastic spectacle, and reigniting the franchise's potential.

Like my little blog that lags behind schedule, and reviews films after they've been in theatres for a month, James Bond returns with all the action movie tropes you've seen in other films over the past few years, complete with the motorcycle chase from The Bourne Legacy. That's not to say the Brit's are lacking in originality; Bourne didn't hijack a caterpillar on a flatbed, and use it to rip a hole in a train carriage in order for him to board. Bourne just kind of ended.

There's a lot in Skyfall that riffs off recent action films. There's also a lot that riffs off the rich history of the character in the past 50 years. For Christmas I received the Bond 50 collection, and as I work my way through them I'll be posting reviews for each. So while I had to look up a few of the references in this film, I expect over time I will grow to appreciate it more.

And please hear me: I really, really enjoyed this movie.

Ted

The humour relies completely on vulgarity and shock value to succeed. But this movie is so vile, and so shocking, its almost brilliant. It's also got a warm heart, I guess.

I get Seth Rogan and Seth Macfarlane confused. I'm sure some would consider that a crime, but I this that's just my taste in comedy. I've seen a little Family Guy, and laughed at it for a bit, but I don't think I've ever found anything with Macfarlane in it compelling enough to seek out. Robot Chicken, American Dad, Drawn Together, his Star Wars parodies (Robot Chicken and Family Guy); all quite funny, but I haven't really watched any of them. I'm so out of touch that when I heard Ted was Macfarlane's first big picture, I thought "But what about Paul, just last year"? To add to my confusion, Seth Green does the voice of Joker in Mass Effect 2, and I found myself racking my brain to remember if this was the Seth from Family Guy or the Seth from Austin Powers or the Seth from Pineapple Express...

My current theory is that the three are in fact one dude, with pseudonyms for each voice he puts on.

All this is to say: I wasn't sure exactly what to expect going into Ted. I guess you could say I wasn't disappointed?

The movie opens with an old-timey narrator telling the story of once upon a time on a magical Christmas day where our story begins. The narrator doesn't stay long, but sets the tone for the rest of the film by occasionally diverting from his bedtime story voice to crack racist jokes, talk about Apache helicopters, and other such things.

On this magical night, a young boy named John Bennett wishes his Teddy bear was really real. When he wakes up the next morning, the bear comes to life! What happens next is perhaps completely plausible in todays celebrity culture: 'Ted' becomes an overnight sensation, appears on talkshows, signs autographs, and all the other things.

Cut to 20 years later: the life of a has-been celebrity.

John and Ted are living together in a messy looking middle class house, smoking pot and watching spongebob. There are lots of pop culture references, many surrounding the campy 1980 film Flash Gordon. The best scene in the film involves the original star, Sam Jones, showing up to one of Ted's parties. The scene is bombastic, vulgar, racist, flippant, trippy, wisecracking, self-reflexive, and at times hilarious; it pretty much encapsulates the whole film.

There's something of an action/thriller plot involving a creepy father stalking Ted on behalf of his creepy son. There's also a bit of romance/drama between John and his girlfriend, who wants him to stop playing with his teddy bear and take responsibility for his life. This stuff is actually played almost entirely straight, and works really well. The chemistry between Mark Wahlberg and Mila Kunis is strong, and makes for a believable relationship that grounds the film.

Given the absurdity of the premise, and the vulgarity of the humour, it's surprising to see such a solid romantic subplot. Because of it, though, Ted is elevated to something more than a mediocre shock humour film. I watched it twice, and enjoyed it still. Despite its foul mouth, this is ultimately a feel-good film with a warm heart.

(Update: I am now aware that Robot Chicken is made by Seth Green, not Seth Macfarlane. I think this just emphasises how confused I am.)

Twilight: Breaking Dawn Part 2

Apart from a few really clever surprises, Twilight is mediocre on every level. This is no Harry Potter finale.

Yes, it's nice to know that The Twilight Saga has finally drawn to a close. Despite its occasional hilarity, its importance in popular culture today is somewhat disturbing to me.

I'll start with the good.

The opening credits in Breaking Dawn Part 2 are really pretty. All those close ups of snow and roses freezing and melting... great stuff.

Plot-wise there are a couple of moments that stand out; when Edward makes a rousing 5 second speech, all the vampires from around the room pledge to join him in the fight. One vampire turns to another and says "That was easy." My thoughts exactly. Billy Burke gets one good scene in which he watches Taylor Lautner strip - It's intentionally very funny. The best jokes in the film are the ones with an air of self-referential mockery about them, and the the film doesn't suffer for them.

What I don't think was intentionally funny was when the Cullen's give Edward and Bella a house as a gift. "It's perfect" says Bella, having barely had time to glance at the thing.

Paris, Texas

The pace is slow going at first, but the drama is dynamite.An ultimately uplifting story of a man's quest to restore his broken family.

Oh, it says heartbreaker on that poster. There's a few ways you could read it, I guess.

You can also get it in formats other than videocassette nowadays.

Enough stalling, here's what this movie is about: a man is wandering through the desert in Texas, and runs out of water. When he makes it to a salon he manages to swallow a mouthful of ice before collapsing.

The mans name is Travis, we learn when Walt, his brother, comes to pick him up. Travis has been missing for four years, and has an 8 year old son now in the care of Walt and his wife Anne. Travis has amnesia, but slowly begins to remember his life before he went missing (though exactly where he went and what he did remains a mystery). He begins to develop a fresh relationship with his son, Hunter, a bright kid with an adorable charisma about him. Hunter's plans are equal parts childish and silly, and mature and useful. He functions as a kind of therapy for Travis, drawing him back to sanity after his bizarre long absence. Slowly, Travis becomes more and more fatherly to his own son.

Eventually, Travis decides that he needs to search out his wife, Jane. Walt and Anne still don't know what happened between Travis and Jane, or why the pair both went missing separately. I don't want to spoil the second half of the movie, because it's brilliant. Although the first half can drag at times, it builds to a powerful sequence in Houston, Texas, and a thouroughly satisfying conclusion.

The title; Paris, Texas, is a running 'joke' of the film. Inverted commas, because for Travis it's much more serious than a joke. His mother was from a town called Paris in the state of Texas, and his father would always hesitate before the word Texas; allowing them temporarily to believe his wife was French. It speaks to a broader motif of the film; of imagery, facades and deception. Walt's business is billboard construction, his wife is actually French, and the most apparently perfect character in the film. The town itself is never visited, only shown in a photograph... of an empty block.

It's a deeply layered film, its message delivered in the subtleties of the film making. It's beautifully shot, with characters who are well acted, but more noticeably well fleshed out. Every person in the film seems to act entirely within reason, and you can fully comprehend exactly why they act the way they do. None of this Hollywood villain crap; just real people, with real issues.

Alright, there are some pretty crazy issues, but they all seem to be in the past. What I took away from the film is the impression of a man who has made mistakes, and is trying to bring his family back together. To do so he must break the facades - or run away from them if necessary. His love for his son is evident in the lengths he goes to deliver him a good life; I found their relationship sweet and invigorating to watch (despite some sad moments).

Paris, Texas takes its time, but delivers with some extraordinary answers to its plaguing mysteries. There's a lot you could take away from it, but by the end of it, I was happy.



Seen Paris, Texas? Want to? Won't?
Leave a comment, start a discussion :)