At first I was not interested in seeing Lucy. What got me seeing it was all the talk so many people who’ve seen it have said about it. I thought I’d check it out myself.
For those who haven’t seen the movie, it’s about a young woman who goes by the name of Lucy caught in a crime heist by surprise thanks to her shady and no-longer-living boyfriend. She then becomes a drug mule for a set of mind drugs that expands the brain’s use at one time from the alleged normal 10% to as much as 100%. This sets her up with getting even with her crime bosses, connecting with the other drug mules involved and making sense with the human race thanks to a college professor and her own mind’s supernatural ability to travel through time. Sound confusing? Well, you be the judge after you see the movie.
The funny thing about the movie is the whole plot of trying to make a connection between brain use at one time to the evolution of humanity coinciding with a criminal act. It’s a movie that tries to be humorous as in the case of Lucy telling her roommate of her health condition as well as action-filled in the story of as well as try and provoke thought about the human race and people’s ability to think. This is a complicated mix to try and create a good script that can entertain moviegoers.
One thing about the film is that it doesn’t make complete sense. Yes it’s a complicated story and yes there are parts that try to make it make sense over time. In fact the movie looked very ambitious at the beginning and appeared like it would deliver something to think about as the plot unraveled. However there are many times in which I wonder if it could have been organized out better or even played out better. Like those parts where Lucy connects with the ape-like human from eons ago made me question its purpose and whether it really worked or not. This is one case when I leave the movie theatre thinking of what scenes could have been done better and how. I will give credit to the effort by director/writer Luc Besson given to make such a movie that includes an intriguing story. In fact I found the best thing about the movie is the fact we never know Lucy’s real name. But all the elements included in this story don’t blend together well as a whole. I felt it to be uneven and confusing at times.
The movie did have a lot of positive qualities. The best thing about it had to be the acting. I can’t complain about that. Scarlet Johansson and Morgan Freeman were good in their roles. They knew how to work their roles well otherwise the movie would have come across as completely ridiculous. They also knew how to keep our intrigue to the unfolding events. Choi Min-Sik and Amr Waked also acted well enough to keep the story intriguing and intact. The movies’ special effects were also excellent, and for not even $40 million. The score to the film by Eric Serra also fit the story well.
One thing I have to say about Lucy is that it was actually successful in getting people to talk about the movie’s topics. From the 10% brain-use hypothesis to the belief of evolution, that got a lot of people thinking, despite how disjointed the movie seemed. In fact I myself went to see it after two people I knew mentioned they saw it and gave their comments of what they thought of it. I find it interesting. That’s all I will say. It also paid off at the box office too. It’s still in theatres but it has made almost $125 million in North America and $378 million worldwide. I think the topic of the plot paid off in getting people to come. One feat it has achieved is this is Besson’s highest-grossing film to date.
Lucy is an ambitious science fiction movie that tries to make us think while keeping us fixated on the story and the action along the way. However it’s not all that together of a movie. Attention-grabbing, thought-provoking, but not really together.
Meet the Guardians Of The Galaxy: a superhero quintet that became household names this summer.
Oh boy. Now my time to catch up on movie reviews. This is the first of two reviews of summer blockbusters I saw. I will admit I’ve been a bit laxed in watching big movies this year. One of which I did feel I had to see was Guardians of The Galaxy. I’m glad I did.
I won’t go into giving a brief description of the story since it’s safe to assume most people have already seen it. This is one of those superhero movies that tries to balance out the comedic parts with the dramatic parts and the action parts. It does a very good job of it. It succeeds in giving the movie intriguing characters like Peter Quill, Gamora, Drax the Destroyer, Rocket and Groot. However like every first movie or introduction movie of a superhero or superhero ensemble, it has to have a very good story of how the superheroes came to be or in this case, came to be an ensemble. It does a good job of creating an introduction movie of such. It may not be as heavily dramatic as your typical superhero movie. It’s a mix of drama and comedy that many will find entertaining. I will admit there are a couple of cornball scenes in there but the movie does a mostly good job.
I will admit that when I first saw the trailer for this months ago, I thought this would be a cheesy movie. I think what got me thinking it would be cheesy was seeing a raccoon as part of this superhero ensemble. It wasn’t until I learned the Guardians Of The Galaxy movie is based off of a Marvel Comics series that I thought that this might be something good. I will admit I’m like a lot of people that probably never knew of the Guardians Of The Galaxy until I saw this movie. Anyone else? Yeah, I’m sure there are a bunch of you guilty of it too. Guardians Of The Galaxy has probably been one of Marvel Comics’ least known comic heroes or hero ensembles. Actually the Guardians we know of are not the original Guardians. The first Guardians came out in 1969 and consisted of a different set of Guardians including one named Captain Marvel. Then came the 2008 ensemble of Guardians that consisted of some of the original characters but added in others like Groot, Rocket, Star Lord and Gamora but the total number of Guardians is in the dozens.
This also makes for an additional point for the challenge it had. Marvel and the producers had to work with creating a hit movie about a superhero ensemble that most of the general public are not very familiar with. It’s definitely more challenging as doing such a movie with a more celebrated superhero like Superman or Captain America. The example of John Carter demonstrates the challenge; Disney hoped to introduce the world to John in a big way but it didn’t work. Here it’s Marvel’s challenge to introduce the Guardians to the world and no doubt it would be a huge cost risk: $170 million to be exact. It paid off as it was the #1 movie for a total of five weekends. Its total box office is $313.7 million in North America and $632 million worldwide which is a modest number for a movie of that much success. Nevertheless I’ll save it for when I give my upcoming movie year forecast. The movie’s success also has paved the way for an upcoming sequel in 2017. The question is will they stick to the original five Guardians or will they add some additional Guardians in?
The first person who deserves acclaim for the success is director James Gunn. He hasn’t had too huge of a resume as far as directors go. Actually he has a major blemish as he is one of the many directors with the atrocity Movie 43. However this is his breakthrough and should make a good name for him in the future. Possibly even a director of the sequel. Additional kudos to Nicole Perlman who co-wrote the script with Gunn. The collaboration paid off in giving a story full of action and humor and being what a script for a superhero movie should be.
Chris Pratt was entertaining as Peter Quill. He does a good job of balancing the role of a superhero with adding comedy plus he doesn’t make dealing with his late mother too seriously dramatic. Zoe Saldana seems to be the actress made for sci-fi. First Avatar, then Star Trek and now this. Nevertheless I can’t think of a better choice as she nails it again here. Dave Bautista also did a good job. And it’s good to see since I don’t normally think wrestlers make good movie stars as seen by past wrestlers. Bradley Cooper added great character to the voice of Rocket and Vin Diesel was good as Groot. Actually some of his better acting as of late. Other highlights include the visual effects of the movie which are probably some of the best of the year. Another plus is the inclusion of 70’s music. At first you’d think it was cornball. However it becomes more evident why it’s incorporated as it’s this music that connects Peter to his mother. It also adds to the humor too.
Guardians Of The Galaxy is not just another good movie from the Marvel Comics team but a commercial achievement too in making household names of their lesser-known comic book characters. Good job.
Boyhood is a movie of the growing years of Mason Evans Jr. (played by Ellar Coltrane) and was shot over a period of twelve years.
I know there have been a lot of people who liked my World Cup blogs but there are still some who feel like saying: “Jon, when’s your next movie review?” For those wondering about that, yes I have been watching movies over the summer and I have a few reviews to share. To start with, I’ll do Boyhood: a good choice for those who want something different.
The movie starts with six year-old Mason Evans Jr., a boy growing up in a small Texas town who’s more interested in nature and collecting arrowheads than playing football. He lives with his slightly older sister Samantha, single mother Olivia and her boyfriend. Things are not the best as Mason has to share a bedroom with his sister and that causes typical brother-sister issues. Then it changes one day after an argument with Olivia and her boyfriend which she claims she has no free time. She moves to Houston with the children. This causes concern for mason wondering if he’ll ever see his father again.
Life in Houston starts to work out fine for Mason and the family. Olivia is able to attend classes at the University of Houston while Mason and Samantha attend school. They’re able to meet up with their father Mason Sr. but it’s not so frequent. Even as Mason Sr. drops the kids off, friction between him and Olivia come back. In the meantime, Olivia meets up with Professor Bill Welbrock. He appears to be a good man with a head on his shoulders and even takes a liking to Mason, willing to introduce him to his own son Randy who’s a similar like. The two marry and his children Mindy and Randy move in together. The family appears close knit as the stepsiblings have fun together and Bill appears to be the ideal husband. However things turn for the worse as Bill develops a drinking problem he first tries to keep secret only to have it exposed as he becomes abusive to Olivia and the children, even forcing Mason Jr. to get his head shaved. Olivia immediately leaves the household taking Mason and Sam with her.
The three find a new life in a town close to Austin. Olivia becomes a psychology teacher and falls in love with one of her students Jim who’s a former Afghanistan War veteran whom she eventually marries. Mason Sr. has married and has become a father to a newborn. In the meantime, Samantha and Mason Jr begin social interaction of their own as they make friend and start dating. However Mason’s drinking and earrings have gotten on the nerve of a visibly drunken Jim. Not surprisingly Olivia divorces him.
In the meantime Mason has a girlfriend named Sheena, works part-time at a seafood restaurant and has developed a passion for photography. His work in taking pictures and developing in the darkroom inspires him to be an artistic photographer. However it doesn’t sit well with his teacher because he knows how competitive of a field photography is and how gimmicks are easier moneymakers than art. The teacher then makes Mason photographer for the football team.
Grade 12 is a life changing year for Mason Jr. Sam has moved onto college but she does allow Mason and Sheena to ‘visit.’ Sheena soon breaks up with Mason for a boy on the high school lacrosse team. Mason also wins second prize in a photography contest and receives scholarship money. His graduation is celebrated with family and others close in his life like his teacher and his boss at the restaurant. Going to college is the next chapter in Mason’s life. However it’s not without heartache as his mother finds it hard both her children have moved out and wonders of her own life. The film ends with Mason attending college, becoming friends with his roommate and being introduced to his roommate’s girlfriend’s best friend who shares a lot of common interests and common dreams with Mason.
Now this is something. Director Richard Linklater tells a story of Mason Jr. over the years and the people around him. He uses all the same actors, no replacements. This was very chancy because a lot can change over a period of twelve years. It’s possible Ellar could have gotten tired of acting and wanted nothing to do with it anymore within that time. It’s even possible one of the actors in one of the main roles could have died. Any one of them. But it worked. And it wasn’t just simply the technical bits. It was also a story about a boy whose life over the years catches our intrigue. We’re astonished to see Mason Jr. (or should I say Ellar?) grow over a twelve year span. We also see the lives of his mother, father and Sam pave their way too. All those who were part of the film and its ‘aging process’ contributed significantly. Also as it progresses over the time, Linklater doesn’t leave anything out as far as aging goes. He doesn’t get the adult actors to hide their facial aging. He doesn’t replace the child actors if any one of them go through the ‘awkward stage’ or get braces. He keeps it all as is. That’s another quality.
The thing is the film doesn’t really tell the typical story that has a beginning, middle and end. Rather it tries to paint a portrait of Mason Jr. growing up over the years and of the boy he was and would grow up to be. It’s not too thick on a plot but rather lets time unravel itself and tell the story as it goes along. Almost like childhood through Mason Jr’s eyes. It’s common with Richard Linklater’s movies that they’re not too heavy on the plot and give more of an atmosphere. Another thing this film can do is remind audience members of their own childhood growing up. It may tell a story of a boy who’s not into sports and more of a dreamer but I’m sure there are some parts of Mason’s childhood that will remind them of their own.
Another additional element that adds to the film are the surrounding scenes that add to the atmosphere. Linklater has done that in past films where he would show elements in the film that would actually add to it. We see it here too with Sam’s like of popular culture from Britney Spears to High School Musical to Lady Gaga. We see it in the computer technology as the cast go from Apple computers with big box screens to iPhones. We see it in Mason Jr. growing up in highly conservative Texas and the values the state tries to instill with the people and through the schools. We also see it in how it with Mason Sr. being a liberal Democrat in a state that has a lot of staunch conservatives. We also see it with scenes with other artistically-minded people in the film. It all adds to it.
This film also adds to a common theme of Richard Linklater’s movies. Linklater has never been one to dwell into the typical Hollywood fanfare. He’s always been one to do his movies his way. His movies have featured people pursue their passion and even dream out loud. He often focuses on the visionaries and the inspired ones and he presents them as the ones to be admired. I think that’s why he has such a following with Generation X. We can see that in Mason Jr. He falls in love with photography and wants it to be his life passion. The problem is those around him don’t think highly of his choice. The teachers question it and whether it’s a career choice that will allow for a decent living. His father wonders why he doesn’t pursue something that ‘wins chicks.’ His girlfriend drops him for a jock because it doesn’t make him look cool enough. And his friends razz him about it. But it’s his passion. I think that’s what Linklater is showing. About how passion is what matters. Especially for a boy like Mason.
Without a doubt, this is an accomplishment from Linklater. It was a unique idea from him that was creative but risky and it paid off very well. However this is also an accomplishment from actor Ellar Coltrane. It was not an easy job to play the same role over twelve years of filming. Nevertheless he did an excellent job in the role. It wasn’t so much a role filled with emotional range or drama but rather a role that required the actor to grow along with the role and have the personality of the dreamer Linklater intended to have as the central protagonist. Much of it was natural personality but a lot of it was maturity over age. And Ellar did it. Very excellent.
Patricia Arquette was also very good as the mother almost to the point it appeared she stole the movie. The movie was also about the mother over the years improving her life, raising her two children and falling into two marriages that appeared right at the time but would soon make a turn for the worse. Her struggles added to the story not just to add to Mason Jr’s story but to also mix it in as her own story too. Ethan Hawke was also good as the father who makes the annual visit. He too shows maturity over the years but his overall role was not as challenging as his past roles. Lorelei Linklater was also very good. She may have been cast as Sam simply because she’s Richard Linklater’s daughter–much the same way Ethan was cast because of working in his Before Sunriseseries– but she wasn’t just simply there. She was given a role too that involved her to grow along with Ellar and also portray Sam as this sister who was liked pop culture, had her own individual style, had ambitions of her own and was a typical older sister in both the fun times and the bad times with Mason.
One thing to note as well. It has been noticed in the last few years the lack of buzz alternative or independent cinema has had over the years. There hasn’t as big of a phenomenon from Sundance or any other film festival promoting independent film in the last while. I don’t know if Boyhood would qualify as a phenomenon but it is one film that has gotten bigger notice over time and has grown with the buzz. It currently has made $22 million in the US and $37 million worldwide. It has also received a lot of critical admiration and a lot of praise for its uniqueness. Definitely a big boost for independent cinema this year.
Boyhood is one of those summer movies one who wants to get off the beaten path of your typical summer movie fanfare would want to see. It’s definitely worth it.
I’m glad I waited until now to do my Top 10 list. Being at a house with access to Netflix allows me to see some I missed back when they were out. For early reference, here are my past lists: from 2002-2010, 2011 and 2012. Now here’s my list of the Top 10 Films of 2013 and five honorable mention picks:
DISCLAIMER: I admit this review is one month old since I saw it back in June. However as you noticed, I’ve been very active in World Cup blogging and I’ve been taking a break from movie reviewing. I’m back to reviewing movies but there’s still one or tow World Cup blogs yet to come.
Entertainment mogul/promoter Shep Gordon (left) is the subject of Mike Myers’ documentarian debut Supermensch: The Legend Of Shep Gordon.
Who is Shep Gordon? Even I didn’t know until I saw the documentary. Nevertheless I decided to give Supermensch: The Legend of Shep Gordon a try after someone gave me passes. Wikipedia lists Shep as a talent manager, Hollywood film agent and producer. The film however presents a more closer look at what he’s done and the life he’s had.
Shep may have a degree in Sociology from back in 1968 but as far as talent and entertainment go, he was the right person at the right time. He was around with some of the biggest names of the late 1960’s. However it was his work as a promoter with Alice Cooper that things really got off the ground. The ‘chicken incident’ of 1969 was what kicked Alice’s fame off but it was Shep who brought the chicken there. Did he know Alice would throw it off?
The thing is Shep always had a way of picking them. His next promotion was Anne Murray once Alice started an alcohol problem. It was unusual for Shep to go from promoting a shock rocker to an innocent Canadian country girl but she worked out too. He also knew of next waves on music as he helped promote Blondie into the limelight. He also helped promote soul singer Luther Vandross to R&B success and even helped him cross over to pop successfully.Interesting how he was able to promote so many musicians from so many genres to stardom.
Another aspect of Shep’s success was not just about his success in music. He also had a hand in working on some of the more critically renowned films. He helped produce The Duellists which was director Ridley Scott’s first feature length film and that catapulted Scott’s directing career that included three Best Director Oscar nominations. Another film he helped produce, the Brazilian-American production Kiss Of The Spider Woman, helped William Hurt win the Oscar for Best Actor and was nominated for Oscars in three more categories. Gordon also created Alive Productions, the first independent film production company in the U.S. He’s also helped on some popcorn movies too like Wayne’s World which is where Mike Myers who directs this documentary first met Shep. In addition to movies and music, he also helped catapult the wave of cooking celebrities in the past couple of decades including Emeril Lagasse with his company Alive Culinary Resources. It seemed like he not only knew how to pick winners but how to make them winners. He could rank up there with the likes of Saul Zaentz or David Geffen.
The interesting thing of this documentary of Shep is that it’s not all about entertainment. It’s also personal too, especially coming from a man who saw a lot of people either damage themselves over success or even destroy themselves. Shep also was known for being quite the debaucherous one. In fact he had a lot of involvement with a lot of showbiz debauchery back in the 1960’s and 1970’s, back when debauchery was possibly the most shameless. However Shep does have a spiritual side. Born Jewish, he devoted himself to Buddhism in the past few decades and has even been a private guest of the Dalai Lama. Another aspect the documentary showcases is that despite his hand in debauchery, and boy was it legendary to those who knew him, he has had a deep desire to be a family man and father a child of his own. He shows that he has it in him to be a father when a female he worked with died young and willingly fathered her children to adulthood. His desire to be a father also had a lot to do with why his two marriages didn’t last long: conflicting feelings with the wife. The film ends with him speaking his desire to be a father of his own.
One thing about this documentary is that it portrays many sides to Shep. One minute he’s this typical brutal conniving Hollywood bigwig doing whatever it takes to get his acts famous. Another minute, he’s a family man to others. Another minute, he’s out starting the celebrity chef craze. Another minute, he’s being spiritual. It shows Shep’s complexity in a unique manner. We see that and we hear it from those who’ve worked with him and with those whom have had him as part of their life.
Another thing about this documentary is that it does show a lot of sides to Shep but it does not piece the puzzle together or weave together in a straight manner. There are times when I felt the documentary bounced around from Shep being a showbiz exec to being this family man to focusing on his desire to have a child. It didn’t really string together to well and it felt like it shift topics too often. Even seeing at the end how Shep talks about wanting to be a father one day makes me wonder what the whole point of the documentary is. Like what’s the main point? Is it about Shep? About his entertainment pursuits? Or his desire to have a family? It was either too much for a biographical documentary or it was unevenly done. I know this is Myers’ first documentary but he could have been done more organized.
I also confess that I first thought this documentary was more of a mockumentary along the likes of This Is Spinal Tap. There were times I questioned: “Was Shep the one behind the whole Alice Cooper chicken incident?” or “Did Shep really discover them or promote them?”I especially questioned Anne Murray because I thought she was Bruce Allen’s promotion. Later on I learned more so I’m more comfortable with believing what I saw.
Supermensch is an interesting and intriguing documentary about the life, times, successes and even the heart of Shep Gordon. However it was not unevenly organized and didn’t make sense to what the whole point of the documentary was about. Sure it had lots of points, but what was the whole point?
It’s funny that when the original Godzilla first took the world by storm back in 1954, who would have thought it would ‘inspire’ two remakes? One was back in 1998 and the other was just last month. But how do they fare as entertainment?
For the record, I have not seen the original Japanese version of Godzilla. This movie comparison is based from what I have witnessed in the two remakes and their entertainment value. In fact even as I read the story of the original movie, I won’t compare it to the stories of the other two on whether it’s ‘true to the original.’
The 1998 remake of Godzilla had an over-the-top hype machine behind it but it ended up being all action and no real story.
Some of you may remember the 1998 remake starring Matthew Broderick, Hank Azaria and Michael Lerner. I remember it well too. One thing I remember most about the movie is that it relied too much on the special effects and action moments. That is probably the areas where it most delivered. Elsewhere it completely went downhill. At first it seemed like the right thing to hire Independence Day writer/director Roland Emmerich as director and co-writer along with Dean Devlin. However what the audience received as far as a story turned out to be a lot of ridiculous fluff. The story was typical and cliched. It stars off as a lizard-like monster is making its way to New York. A Japanese man knows it was warped that way by nuclear testing. Meanwhile in the Big Apple, Audrey, a news reporter who’s too nice to succeed over her backstabbing assistant meets her ex-boyfriend Nick, who’s now an agent. Once Godzilla attacks New York, everyone’s involved. Nick tried to get the case solved, the armed forces try to kill it, Audrey tries to get a big break out of it and win Nick back. The acting was very stockish and added to the ridiculousness of the movie. Even casting Maria Pitillo as Audrey turned out to be a bad choice because it made her look too ditzy and bimbonic, almost like a Minnie Mouse persona. Overall it was a ‘quantity not quality’ picture. It’s no wonder it was nominated for five Razzies including Worst Picture and won two including Pitillo for Worst Actress. Even today I cringe whenever I remember scenes from that piece of idiocy.
The craziest thing about it was its huge marketing campaign. The film featured a CD which hit platinum and spawned a #4 hit for P. Diddy (then known as Puiff Daddy) with Jimmy Page ‘Come With Me.’ It also featured songs from some of the top hitmakers at the time like Green Day, The Wallflowers, Rage Against the Machine, Jamiroquai and the Foo Fighters. Taco Bell contributed $20 million to the campaign and even featured a special meal advertised by the Taco Bell chihuahua. There were even Godzilla toys marketed by Trendmaster which included a 11-inch Godzilla and a 22-inch Godzilla. So overall it was an overly hyped up movie intended to content for top box office honors. The hype machine behind Godzilla was spoofed in a Sprite commercial the following year shown in movie theatres where Hollywood execs are discussing marketing the movie ‘Death Slug’ with the script not even completed. The movie did succeed in making the Top 10 box office hits of the year with $136.3 million but it was only slightly over the $130 it cost to make and market. Internationally was slightly better with an additional $242.7 million. Congratulations, boys. Your hype-machine paid off.
One thing to note is that the movie ended with a hint of a possible sequel coming. Fortunately it did not happen. Another couple things to note: Maria Pitillo retired from acting a few years later and Roland Emmerich would write and direct another piece of idiocy in The Day After Tomorrow.
This summer came with the release of a new remake of Godzilla. Funny how there are a lot of movie remakes done these past few years; some remakes of movies done just ten years earlier. Before it was released, I kept thinking to myself: “I hope it’s not like that hideous remake from 1998.” When I saw it was certified fresh at Rotten Tomatoes (73% it cureently stands at), I decided to give it a chance.
The 2014 version of Godzilla impressed critics more with the story and action moments.
This features a new story with Aaron Taylor-Johnson as Joe, the lead protagonist with Elizabeth Olsen playing his wife, Bryan Cranston playing his father, and Ken Watanabe playing the Japanese doctor. The story starts with a hydrogen bomb trying to kill a mutated creature in 1954. In 1999 a nuclear power plant in Japan ruptures which Joe’s father attemted to control. Fifteen years later, Joe, one of the sons of a rescue worker from that accident, is a naval officer living in San Francisco with his family because he was arrested in Japan for entering the disaster area trying to get the truth. Joe witnessed his father die as they discovered a large winged creature. It’s later learned from Naval officers the attempt to kill Godzilla forgot there were eggs and two hatched. One of the children has grown and is on the prowl. Not only that, two other large creatures names MUTO with the potential of mating. Godzilla first arrives in Hawaii and causes a devastating tsunami. The male mutant creature fights Godzilla temporarily while the female wreaks havoc in Vegas. The MUTO arrive in San Francisco and Joe is separated from his wife and son in the mayhem. Then a sign the two MUTO will mate as the two make a nest out of submarines and nuclear warheads in downtown San Francisco. However some in the military feel Godzilla might stop the MUTO. Once Godzilla hits Frisco, he battles the MUTO smashing the male and breathing fire into the female’s face. Joe is reunited with his wife and son. Godzilla is thought to have died in the ocean but he returns to the sea with the media labeling him ‘king of the monsters.’
Unlike the 1998 remake, it doesn’t try to be a comedy-drama. Instead the story is much more dramatic, way more sensible and way better acted. Both the actors and writer Max Borenstein worked to deliver a movie that was very watchable for both the action scenes and the story lines. It actually worked in being a thriller. There were a few times in which I was waiting for a ‘fluff moment’ to happen. Okay, I’ll admit I hadn’t fully recovered from the phobia I had after the original remake. I found it very hard to remember a time during the film when I was left displeased. I won’t say that I was head over heels astounded with the movie but I was impressed with it to say the least. Oh, did I say that the Godzilla here looks way scalier too?
I will admit there were times in which I was confused by the story or wondered if it was getting confusing. Both previous Godzilla movies strictly focused on Godzilla the creature in which he’s killed at the end. This was bizarre as Godzilla was not the only mutant creature but there were two others. I thought that was awkward at first. However I will give the writers and directors credit for developing a new unique story to the Godzilla franchise. Also good to see is that this new take to the story didn’t come off as corny as it could have ended up as.
I won’t really say that this new Godzilla movie ‘did Godzilla right’ in comparison to the 1998 tripeload. Mainly because I haven’t seen the 1954 original and also when looking back, I think of areas it could have been done better. Nevertheless I will say this remake ‘did Godzilla better,’ way better than the 1998 schmaltzfest. And the best thing is there was no hype-fest with a CD or with a restaurant deal. If you remember back in the late-90’s, it was common for fast food restaurants to take part in the summer movie hype-fest by promoting movies with special meals that included images and ads of the movies on the packaging. I still remember Burger King doing promotions for 1999’s Wild Wild West and 2009’s Transformers: Revenge Of The Fallen: two over hyped dribblefests. Nowadays I don’t see restaurants hyping movies up anymore or not as often. That’s a relief. Let the summer movies sell themselves! As for the biz of this new Godzilla, it cost $160 million to make, was hyped up way less obviously and has done well at the box office so far with almost $195 million to date and still stands in the box office Top 10 at #9 with $1.9 million last weekend.
The most recent Godzilla movie is a much better remake than the 1998 fluff-piece in almost every way. Goes to show you that less can be more even during the summer movie season.
On Tuesday, May 27th, the Dolphin Theatre located on Hastings Street in North Burnaby showed its last shows. It would make room for a planned condominium project. The Dolphin Theatre doesn’t have the same legendary status as recently closed theatres like the Hollywood or the Ridge but it did provide a place for a community.
The Dolphin Theatre was a small movie theatre located in North Burnaby by the corner of Hastings and Willingdon. It was opened in 1966 and featured two screens with a total seating capacity of 430. It started as an independent theatre and continued to be successful at operating for a long time. However during the last decade, the Dolphin Theatre had been under threat from problems commonly experienced by most smaller theatres in Greater Vancouver like land development issues, rising costs of rent, the changing forms of entertainment and the changing technologies of showing movies.
People young and old came to the last showing at the Dolphin.
In 2010, Rahim Manji started operating the Dolphin Theatre. Manji also operated the Hollywood 3 cinema in Surrey and Pitt Meadows theatre. For a look at the Hollywood 3 theatres he runs, click here. He has shown a wide variety of films over t the Dolphin but he mostly had family films showing for someplace in the neighborhood to bring the whole family to. Since that time, other theatres have closed down like the independently-owned Hollywood, Ridge and Denman and megaplexes like the Granville 7 and Station Square. Last year it was decided that a four-story mixed use development would be built on the area of the Dolphin. The project includes commercial space, residential units, and 11 wheelchair-accessible units for people with disabilities.
The Dolphin Theatre isn’t one in which I have been loyal to for a long time. Actually I just started liking it over last summer. I just decided to see We’re The Millers there one time because I wanted to see what all the buzz was all about. There had been times in the past i wanted to go there but distance and timing were almost always an issue. Finally I had my chance. It was a good theatre for those who just wanted to relax. Nothing grandiose. Nothing too styled up. Actually I think most of it has remained unchanged since it opened. As for the screen, they’d have an advertising system before the movies different from that of Cineplex or the other chain theatres. One more set for local theatres much like the one for the Rio Theatre, one of the last independent theatres in existence. Anyways I enjoyed the show and hoped to come back to see more.
Funny how it was only until then I realized how close I was to the theatre. Took me that long to figure out? Since that time I decided to go whenever a movie I wanted to see was showing. I would return weeks later to see Gravity. I remembered before the film, there were no trailers shown. Days later when I saw nothing on the website about anything upcoming there, I wondered if it was about to close. I researched the news and saw a story from months earlier of its fate in city hall. Anyways I was relieved the next day to learn movies were still being shown there. I also went to see Ender’s Game and The Hunger Games. I also tried a $2 Tuesday, one of the theatre’s big highlights, and saw Frozen with a couple of friends.
Then I heard the news when a friend posted the news story on her Facebook page. I was unhappy about it and I decided to go on its last day May 27th for its last showing: The Amazing Spiderman 2. I got there ten minutes before showtime but by then, I was too late. It was too long of a line and already it was filled with people who wanted to visit the Dolphin for the last showing. Rahim handed out passes for a free movie over at the two other Hollywood 3 theatres for those who couldn’t get in. Fortunately I was able to talk to Rahim. I told him I didn’t mind not seeing the show but I wanted to see the closing speech. He was willing to do so.
The crowd at the last showing was a mixed bag of people: young and old. I’m sure there were some that came to witness the last day of the theatre but for some in the audience, they came to be part of a theatre that they were appreciative of. I’m sure there were many from the neighborhood of North Burnaby who came that night, appreciative of a place that helped keep the local kids off the streets. Just before The Amazing Spiderman 2 was about to start, Rahim and his other co-workers stood at the front and he thanked the audience for coming to the last showing at the Dolphin. There were times he had to hold himself back. However he ended his speech mentioning that independent theatres in Vancouver are a dying breed. There are only three left. That was a hard truth but necessary to be mentioned at that time. I talked to him after his speech and I wished him well with the other two theatres.
It’s true about the problem of independent theatres in Vancouver. I already mentioned the problems at the beginning and of some that have closed down. However it’s not the only problem. Two years ago Burnaby had three movie theatres to go to: the Dolphin, Station Square and SilverCity at Metrotown. Station Square had to be closed down because of a land development taking place. Actually all but a few businesses on that chuck of land that was part of Station Square that included a Future Shop and a Save-On-Foods had to relocate themselves and make way for the whole area to be torn down for the development. They’re still doing construction to it right now. It’s almost two years. Now with the Dolphin closed there’s only the SilverCity at Metrotown. It’s a shame only one right now.
I actually found out there will be a new movie theatre opening up in the redevelopment of the Brentwood Town Centre. I consider that to be a plus for the city as it gives the kids someplace to go to. However Rahim saw it through an independent theatre point of view and is unhappy it will be one of those chain theatres. That was a good point. I only know of the Rio and the Dunbar being the only independent ones still standing. Sure there’s the VanCity and the Cinematheque but they are involved with film on a higher scale and have their own offices there.
It is a shame that I was only able to know the Dolphin Theatre for not even a year. Too bad it closed recently. Nevertheless I’m glad I had the chance to visit it when I did. Sure I wish I did it sooner. Sure I wish I could do it now. But I’m glad I had the chance.
Goodbye Dolphin Theatre. Thanks for the entertainment you’ve given the neighborhood over the years.
I saw the Oscar-nominated shorts yesterday and this makes it the sixth year in a row I’ve seen them. However it almost wasn’t the case. By the time I arrived for the first segment, for the animated shorts, news was they were all sold out and those interested had to stand in a rush line. By the time the rush line were allowed, only those with orange tickets could get in. That had me waiting for a bit longer. Fortunately I was able to get in but I was probably the fourth-last in and my friend the third-last.
Nevertheless I was able to see all the shorts. And I’m able to give you all my thoughts as well as my picks for what Should Win and what Will Win:
BEST ANIMATED SHORT FILM:
Get A Horse! – dir. Lauren MacMullan – If you’ve seen Frozen, you’ve already seen this short. At first you think this is a Disney cartoon from the 1930’s until Peg-Leg Pete gets nasty with Mickey and punches him off through the theatre screen and into the present as 3D. The whole story is a battle between the good characters and Peg-Leg Pete which has them all going from the black-and-white past to the 3D color present with humorous results. Very entertaining and funny and that’s why I pick it as my Will Win pick.
Mr. Hublot – dirs. Laurent Witz & Alexandre Espigares – This is very unique and also quite futuristic. It’s of a robot man who has a robot dog as a pet. He’s man’s best friend but gets bigger and bigger over time. So what’s Mr. Hublot to do? The short is more focused on the animation than in telling the story. It comes off as both intriguing and quite charming.
Feral – dir. Daniel Sousa – This may remind some of the 1960’s French film The Wild Child. This 2D film is of a boy found in the wilds of the wood by a hunter. He is taken and raised to be a human but finds at times he has to rely on his animal skills for survival. This short reminds us that not all the stories involve humor. Some are dark. This 2D short does capture the darkness of the story and one can get an understanding of it without any dialogue.
Possessions – dir. Shuhei Morita – This is a unique style of Japanese anime: not of the style we commonly call ‘anime.’ This was not too focused on the plot as it was about the style of animation and the entertainment factor. Nevertheless very colorful and very entertaining. It also included a lot of elements of Japanese culture which I really liked. That’s why I give it my Should Win pick.
Room On The Broom – dir. Jan Lachauer & Max Lang – This is another entertaining short from the team of animators responsible for the Gruffalo shorts. Here they tell a different story of a witch with a broom whom she first uses for herself and her cat. Soon other animals find a place on it until it becomes too small and it stars to break. Features voices of Simon Pegg, Gillian Anderson, Timothy Spall and Sally Hawkins. Very charming story which is great for all ages. It will also remind you of the Gruffalo shorts.
BEST LIVE-ACTION SHORT FILM:
Helium – dir. Anders Walter – This Danish short is of Alfred, a dying boy striking an unlikely friendship with Enzo, the hospital janitor. Enzo tells him the story of a place called Helium where he’s about to head to. The place is a wonderful fantasy world. The problem is that Alfred’s condition worsens as the story nears its end. Enzo has to tell Alfred about his trip to Helium before he dies but Enzo being a janitor is not allowed in the area. The story keeps from being your typical story of a dying child that pulls at your heartstrings. Instead it aims for a happy ending. It’s as much a nice trip to a fantasy world as it is a drama. That’s why I give it my Should Win pick. It could pull an upset to the one I think will win.
The Voorman Problem – dir. Mark Gill – This British short stars appearing as a drama but comes off as a surprise in the end. Dr. Williams feels he’s dealing with yet another mentally ill person when he’s dealing with a man named Voorman. Voorman tells him all sorts of bizarre and eccentric things, even how he destroyed the country of Belgium. Dr. Williams tells his encounters to his wife but is in for a surprise. A bigger surprise awaits him in what would be his last interview with Voorman. The best quality is its unpredictability and surprise ending.
Just Before Losing Everything – dir. Xavier Legrand – This French short starts off as a melodrama that you think is about the young boy Julien. Instead things take sharp turn as Julien’s mother Miriam picks him up and his sister who leaves her boyfriend in tears. Turns out the mother is hiding herself and her children from her abusive husband and seeks the department store she works at as her refuge. Then her husband shows up. Excellent drama that’s very true to life and you don’t know what will happen next, even though you hope for the best result. That’s why this is my Will Win prediction.
That Wasn’t Me – dir. Esteban Crespo – The story begins as international doctors going to work in a village in Africa only to be held at gunpoint by child soldiers and then held hostage by an angry and accusative warlord. Frequent flash-forwards to when the young boy soldier is all grown up and telling his story to an audience. The drama of what takes place and how he’s able to escape is a painful reminder of child soldiers but also a message of hope that they can find a way out. Very well-played out and passes on a good message.
Do I Have To Take Care Of Everything? – dir. Selma Vilhunen – This Finnish short is actually a comedy. A family overslept and is late for a wedding. they’re in a rush to dress themselves and their children. The parents get themselves ready fine but their daughters end up in Halloween costumes. They forgot their present so they take their plant instead. even after they drop it while running to the church and smash the pot, they still take the plant there. The ending is a hilarious surprise. Definitely the funniest of the five and succeeds in entertaining in the seven minutes it has.
And there you have it. My thoughts and predictions of the five nominees from both shorts categories. Any of the five can win. I remember last year the ones I thought would win didn’t. We’ll just see which ones win on Oscar night. For those that want to know my predictions for all the other categories, click here.
Like my chocolate Oscar? Find out who wins the real ones Sunday.
Yep, the Oscars will be given out this Sunday. Those of you who were offended by Seth MacFarlane’s hosting last year, it’s your fault. You should know Seth is known for his envelope-pushing humor as demonstrated over the years in The Family Guy, American Dad and Ted. And he wasn’t going to soften anything for the Oscars. That’s his style.
Anyways enough of last year. This year will be hosted by Ellen DeGeneres. She’s an entertainer most can trust and she even proved herself a good Oscar host seven years ago.
Once again, I’ve seen all the Best Picture nominees. This makes it the thirteenth year in a row in which I’ve done such. And I’m ready again to make my predictions for who Should Win and Will Win. Also all the Best Picture nominees as well as some of the other predictions will feature links to my full reviews of the movie. Anyways here I go:
BEST PICTURE:
For this, I will give a brief review of the nominees one by one. As I said earlier, if you click on the titles you’ll get my full reviews:
American Hustle– It seems as though these past two years, there’s been at least one film the critics just love but I can’t understand why all the rage. Last year was Django Unchained. This year it’s American Hustle. It’s because it does not make a lot of sense what this movie is to be about. No real focus. Or if there is, it doesn’t make it clear to us.
Captain Phillips– This is the most underrated movie of the nine nominees. The best quality is that it takes a no-nonsense approach and makes one think that these moments are actually happening. The terrorists were very believable. The doctors and armed forces were very believable in their roles. And Tom Hanks was excellent. It was a shame he wasn’t nominated for Best Actor.
Dallas Buyers Club– This is the best of the indie films. Matthew McConaughey and Jaret Leto do great character acting in a story that will not only keep one intrigued but also have one thinking about a topic that’s still present today: a drug system slow to approve. Deserving of a Best Picture nomination but lacking aspects for the win.
Gravity-This was thrilling and entertaining from start to finish. It featured excellent acting from Sandra Bullock and a lot of qualities in both filmmaking and visual effects seen before. It has finished behind Twelve Years A Slave at major awards shows. However I’m well-convinced that it could win it here, especially with all the directing awards Alfonso Cuaron has won. That’s why this is my Will Win pick.
Her-This is an odd movie that manages to charm and actually make sense. However it doesn’t look Best Picture-worthy against the main favorites of this year. Not that it matters too much to Spike.
Nebraska-This is my sentimental favorite. This is another winner from Alexander Payne. However it’s up against other movies with bigger buzz and a bigger box office draw. We shouldn’t forget that sometimes a low box office performance can decrease a film’s Oscar buzz.
Philomena-This is an very good story with very good acting. Even the story doesn’t come out as harsh as one would anticipate at the beginning. However this doesn’t appear to be Best Picture-worthy. Not while there are other nominated films with more muscle and more juice.
Twelve Years A Slave-I thought it was excellent and astonishing for its brutally truthful depiction of slavery. It has a lot of human elements in the film too. That’s why this is my Should Win pick. It has won loads of Best Picture accolades but I think it may stop short at the Oscars because of Gravity‘s Best Director boost. That’s one key ingredient that helps for the win of Best Picture.
The Wolf Of Wall Street-Once again, Scorsese shells out a film that’s sure to create an impact and has all the making of a Best Picture nominee. However the film is too over-the-top to deserve the Oscar win. There are times in which I wonder if some scenes were included in for the sake of shock value.
BEST DIRECTOR:
-Should Win: Steve McQueen – Twelve Years A Slave – I hope in the future, Steve includes his middle name or middle initial in the credits to differentiate himself from the Steve McQueen. Anyways if I were a member of the Academy, he’d get my vote for his unflinching and brutal portrayal of slavery during the 18th century. I also give him the credit for making this film a human story as well.
-Will Win: Alfonso Cuaron – Gravity – Cuaron has received most of the directing accolades this year and rightly so. Firstly because he directs a film that intensely focuses on a single character, rarely taking its eyes off her. Secondly, because he directs a film that’s intended to flawlessly look like a trip in space. He works the simulation to a tee. I didn’t notice a technical glitch at all. It completely convinced me Ryan and Matt were in space.
BEST ACTOR:
-Should Win: Bruce Dern – Nebraska – This was a tough call between him and Chiwetel Ejiofor in Twelve Years A Slave but I went with Bruce. Firstly because he played a character whom many moviegoers would feel for. Secondly because portraying an elderly man with memory loss and senility takes a lot of physical acting effort on its part. Bruce was believable from start to finish.
-Will Win: Matthew McConaughey – Dallas Buyers Club – I may feel that Bruce Dern and Chiwetel were the best leading male performances of the year but McConaughey is not undeserving of the Oscar. He portrayed an excellent role that was challenging in terms of both character acting and physical acting. he also had to lose a lot of weight for that role too. Great job.
BEST ACTRESS:
-Should Win and Will Win: Cate Blanchett – Blue Jasmine – Okay I know I’m making my call just a day after finally seeing Blue Jasmine but I wanted to find out what all the buzz is about and it got my answer. Cate played an excellent character whom will make us want to laugh at, look down upon, but also feel for them in the end. That was a complicated deal that Cate pulled off.
BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR:
-Should Win and Will Win: Jared Leto – Dallas Buyers Club – I know his performance has been all the rage with the awards juries. And rightly so. His performance was complicated as he had to play a transsexual character that was both comical and tragic. Not only did he succeed in that, he also succeeded in stealing the movie from Matthew McConaughey at times. Great job.
BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS:
-Should Win: Lupita Nyong’o – Twelve Years A Slave – Oddly enough, she’s not the only big screen debut performance to get nominated. Barkhad Abdi in Captain Phillips is the other. Lupita succeeds in giving the audience a character one can feel sympathy for without guilt. You can see the torture, both physical and mental, in her.
-Will Win: Jennifer Lawrence – American Hustle – Jennifer Lawrence has quite the resume stacked up at the tender age of 23. Already she’s been nominated by the Academy three times including one from last year that won Best Actress. It’s a tight race between her and Lupita but I think she’ll win. Even though I want Lupita to win, I don’t think Jennifer’s undeserving. Playing that ‘Wife Of A Thousand Leagues’ was quite the character.
BEST ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY:
-Should Win: Bob Nelson – Nebraska – This was a stronger year for original scripts than last year. I took a liking to this script of all the original script nominees. Firstly because it has all the makings for a cheesy movie but it becomes a work of excellence instead. Secondly because it succeeds in having the audience feel for the protagonist. I was very impressed.
-Will Win: Spike Jonze – Her – Spike is usually known for offbeat films with eccentric scripts thanks tho the likes of Charlie Kaufman. Here Spike does one of his own. It does have an unusual story line but it is one that oddly makes sense and even offers a glimpse into the future. I just hope people don’t end up dating computerized personas.
BEST ADAPTED SCREENPLAY:
-Should Win & Will Win: John Ridley – Twelve Years A Slave – The original scripts may have had the competitive edge this year but the adapted screenplays were also very strong. The best of the bunch was the script from Twelve Years A Slave. It was excellent for its intensity and brutal truthfulness about slavery.
Just Three More:
BEST ANIMATED FEATURE:
-Should Win and Will Win:Frozen – Okay, I admit this is the only nominee in the Animated Feature category I’ve seen. I still consider it a remarkable film with funny characters, charming songs and mesmerizing animation. And to think it’s still in the Box Office Top 10 just 14 weeks after its original release! Talk about a phenomenon.
Bonus Prediction: Since we’re on the topic of Frozen, I predict the song Let It Go to win the Best Original Song category. I can’t think of another song this year, or even in the past five years for that matter, that has been as catchy.
BEST FOREIGN LANGUAGE FILM:
-Should Win and Will Win:The Great Beauty (Italy) – Okay I admit that just like Frozen, this is the only nominee in this category I’ve seen. Nevertheless it is a great intimate story with intriguing characters and awesome cinematography. I was very impressed when I saw it Tuesday night. Hard to find a movie that will challenge it.
Here are some of my predictions for the other categories. In these, I will only predict who I think Will Win:
BEST ART DIRECTION:
Catherine Martin & Beverly Dunn – The Great Gatsby
Prison Terminal: The Last Days Of Private Jack Hall
And there you have it. My predictions for Sunday’s Oscars. Winners to be decided there and then. Let’s hope the wins go to the right movies. Also let’s hope Ellen delivers another winning show.
Cate Blanchett plays Jasmine, a socialite with all the wrong moves, in Blue Jasmine.
I’ll admit I did not see Blue Jasmine when it first came out in theatres. The Oscar buzz for it prompted me to watch the DVD. I’m glad it did and now I know why it’s buzzing.
Jasmine comes off a plane from New York to San Francisco. She tells the elderly female passenger next to her the story of how she used to be a top socialite in New York but is near broke and hoping to start a new life. She appears to have impressed the passenger but we learn in a conversation to her husband she didn’t welcome herself to Jasmine. Jasmine then goes to her sister Ginger’s apartment. The bizarre thing is Jasmine hardly ever gives Ginger any contact but is now seeing her because of her dire straits. It’s funny since Ginger–whom is actually sister to Jasmine via her parents’ adoption–always credited Jasmine as having the good genes. The problem is that even though Jasmine is drowning in debt, she’s still set in her opulent ways.
Frequently Jasmine flashes back to her luxurious past with her husband Hal and her stepson Danny. Life was good for Jasmine and Hal appeared to be very successful as an investor It’s years ago when Ginger and her original husband Augie come to visit her in New York that things started to decline. First Jasmine offers an investment opportunity for Augie through Hal with the $200,000 he won in the lottery: money Augie was planning to use to start a business opportunity for himself. Augie and Ginger thought they’re being treated by Jasmine with a stay at the Marriott and their car and driver but Jasmine put them there because they cramped her style. It’s right during one of their sightseeing tours they noticed Hal kissing another woman.
It later became clear that Hal is a fraudster who would eventually get arrested, convicted of fraud, sentenced to prison and later committing suicide. Augie’s money was lost and it led to Augie and Ginger’s divorce. Ginger forgives Jasmine even though Augie is still resentful but is now dating a mechanic named Chili, a man Jasmine resents at first sight and gives Ginger snide remarks about him. The remarks cause Ginger to leave Chili much to his hurt.
Jasmine comes to San Francisco in hopes of starting a new life. She missed completing her anthropology degree because she fell for Hal. She wants to become an interior designer but has to take courses online and lacks computer skills. She reluctantly takes a job as a receptionist at a dentist’s office. Nevertheless it does not work out as Jasmine finds the job too stressful for her and receives unwelcomed sexual advances from the dentist.
Things do improve for Jasmine as she falls in love with a wealthy widower named Dwight who’s a diplomat with plans to become a congressman. Ginger also meets a new love named Al at the same party. Jasmine is able to win Dwight’s affection through lies of her being married to a doctor who died of a heart attack. The lies fall through when Augie bumps into them on the street and tells the whole story, including the details that her stepson Danny is working in a record store in Oakland. Right in the car ride home Dwight calls off the engagement and leaves Jasmine on the street. She visits Danny at the record store to no avail. Danny didn’t even want Jasmine to know his whereabouts. He wants to leave the past behind which means never seeing Jasmine again.
It’s right in a flashback at the end we learn of when Jasmine confronted Hal of his many affairs. Hal confesses he wants to divorce her in favor of a teenage maid for Danny. That was when she called the police and had Hal arrested for fraud which led to his imprisonment and suicide. In the end, Jasmine has to face the music for what she did to Danny, to Augie, for her interference with the love between Ginger and Chili, and herself in general.
It seems odd at first to see a Woody Allen movie classified as a drama. We’re all used to Woody Allen doing comedies. Mind you it’s after seeing this movie that there are a lot of elements that are darker than what one would expect in a Woody Allen film. It succeeds in not being too comical and even serious in some of the harsher parts of the movie. Nevertheless there are a lot of comical elements in this film despite the situation.
If there’s one thing that it does have in common with Woody Allen movies, it’s that it ends completely unexpectedly. It’s bizarre that you think things are going to go better for Jasmine in the end. Instead it all ends up worse, she fails at making peace with whatever wrongs of the past she did, whatever improvements in her own life fell through the cracks and she’s left all alone. She’s even confronted of her real name: Jeanette. She is the type of rich phony whom could easily charm and impress anyone but had a lot to hide and hid it well at the time. In the end, she has nothing left to hide and no one left to charm. She goes from being the life of the party to a person not even one on a park bench would want to be around. It’s also surprising since Jasmine would remind some of Scarlet O’Hara in Gone with The Wind. Sure, Scarlett lost it all in the end too but she still held her head high at the very end with a sense of hope. Here, you don’t see a hint of ‘Tomorrow is another day’ in Jasmine.
Sometimes I think it’s not just a story to do about a socialite who gets a reality check but sometimes I think it’s a message from Woody Allen. For all intents and purposes, you’d probably know that Woody Allen is not the type who likes to go to big Hollywood parties. He hardly even makes visits to the Academy Awards. Sometimes I think his is his statement about the social scene and the phonies involved with it. It’s also a story with a lot of good relevance. It may have been more relevant had it been done ten years ago as Paris Hilton was constantly embarrassing moment after embarrassing moment upon herself, and getting more famous off of it in the meantime. Nevertheless it still does show relevance as Kim Kardashian’s exploits still make a lot of copy, if not the same hugeness of copy as say two years ago.
Yes, Woody Allen did a very good job of directing and writing this story but it was Cate Blanchett who did the greatest effort in making the character of Jasmine. The interesting thing is that Cate succeeds in making Jasmine to be the charismatic but snooty, phony, superficial, self-indulgent, materialistic socialite who deserves to be looked down upon. But she does something else. Right at the very end, she succeeds in making us actually feel from sympathy for Jasmine. Sure she went from impressing everybody to causing great personal and financial harm to others and ending up with nobody. But for some reason, the end scene actually succeeds in making us feel for Jasmine. What was it? Her willingness to try to do better? Her coming to her senses too much too late? Whatever it was, that was something hard to do and I give Cate great kudos for pulling that off. I think that’s why she has that edge in the Oscar race.
The best supporting performance has to go to Sally Hawkins as Ginger: the sister that’s supposedly the inferior one but comes off as the winner in the end. Sally also did a very good job of character acting and made Ginger into a believable and colorful personality. Finally we see which sister has the ‘good genes.’ The female leading roles were the best of the film but the male roles were also great from Alec Baldwin playing the scamming superficial Hal, to Bobby Canavale as the ‘inferior’ Chili, to Michael Stuhlbarg as the sleazy dentist, to Peter Saarsgard as the politician Jasmine has a second-chance with to Andrew Dice Clay as the distraught ex-husband of Ginger (and I hardly noticed any of the ‘Dice Man’ in him). The women ruled the movie but the male supporting roles also added to the story and contained character flares of their own. The movie didn’t really have too many stand-out technical aspects but the scenic cinematography and the music tracks added to the movies charm.
Blue Jasmine has all the ingredients of a Woody Allen movie. Only it’s more of a drama than a comedy. Nevertheless it’s something Woody and the actors pull off excellently to make it work.
Jon The Blogcentric 