Retro Review: Dances With Wolves (1990)

                                 

             'Dances With Wolves' Has Some Of The Right Moves
         Even though this isn't considered a remake, I would say that since Avatar practically has a similar plot only with aliens, that film is like a case where the remake outdoes the original since this film, Dances With Wolves, offers much more bark than bite.

       Story:
    Dances With Wolves follows the story of a U.S. Lieutenant named John Dunbar (Kevin Costner) who becomes suicidal after his leg is injured in battle. But he decides to be assigned to go out onto the Western frontier. There is where he encounters a Native American tribe and slowly starts to become a member. Along the way, he falls in love with a white woman that was adopted by this tribe named Stands With A Fist (Mary McDonnell).

       Ups:
    I feel this section is going to be pretty small. But I did like the beautiful scenery. I liked how the film didn't use studio sets and actual locations in the states of Wyoming and South Dakota. I think that is very neat. Other than that, there isn't a whole lot I liked.

      Downs:
    First off, this movie is too long. WAY too long. I watched the Director's Cut, which is just about 4 hours and this movie was way longer than it needed to be. I swear, if you were to get up from your chair and make popcorn or take a shower without pausing the film, you wouldn't miss a whole lot. Trust me, you wouldn't need to rewind to find out what you missed because hardly anything happens. Avatar may be like "Dances With Smurfs" and may have a near 3-hour running time, but at least that one has repeat value since it is entertaining. This doesn't.

    Another thing that I didn't like was how certain characters were used as plot devices. John Dunbar, or "Dances With Wolves" as the natives call him, serves as an aide for the natives to lead them in battle, hence becoming the "White Savior" of this White Savior movie. Stands With A Fist is just a love interest who also serves as a translator for her tribe so that Dunbar doesn't get a headache trying to figure out what the natives are saying. There are even a couple characters who (*spoiler alert*) are killed off so that Dunbar's fellow soldiers don't find out where he is. Just out of plot convenience and not the natural flow of the film. Plus, the narration that Dunbar gives makes the film seem almost too "on the nose" since he is practically saying exactly what he is feeling. I would've rather they just showed Dunbar revealing his feelings without saying anything.

     Consensus:
   Overall, Dances With Wolves is an overlong and rather overindulgent film that is more like dancing the Robot than the Tango. I guess I would say give it a watch since it won Best Picture (although it really should've gone to Goodfellas) or to formulate your own opinions. As long as it is, I will say this, it is miles better than The Boring, I mean, The English Patient.

Grade: C-

Retro Review: Kramer vs. Kramer (1979)

   

                   'Kramer vs. Kramer': An Honest Look At Just How Awful Divorce Can Get
             I myself am a child of divorce and when it happened the first time, it didn't really hit me because I was so young. But when I watched this film, it was after the second time. Thanks to this film, I was able to really get a grasp of how stressful it is for those involved, whether it'd be the child or the parents themselves.
   
           Story:
     Kramer vs. Kramer follows the story of a workaholic named Ted Kramer (Dustin Hoffman) who finds his life in a rough spot once his wife Joanna (Meryl Streep) suddenly leaves him with their young son Billy (Justin Henry). Ted must then fight for custody for his son while actually learn to become a father more than before.

         Ups:
     Since the film deals with divorce, I loved how it manages to not point fingers. It never says that one parent is better than the other or more fit to take care of the kid than the other. It just says that their faults were the cause of their separation. Plus, the film realistically displays the frustrations that divorce causes. We mostly see how it affects Ted. It causes him to become more flustered and at times his frustration is taken out on the son. Yet, when we watch Ted's conflict, we recognize that those of us who have gone through his situation or a situation where we just get mad never actually mean the hurtful things they say to those they love. It reminds me of one point not too long ago where my dad and I had a leaking pipe in the house and he was quite flustered while I was shaken. I knew he wasn't actually mad AT me, just with what was going on. We even see how the divorce affects the son himself. So I really applaud the screenwriter/director Robert Benton for creating such an accurate depiction of divorce and how it affects those involved.

    I also thought the actors did a fantastic job. Dustin Hoffman really excels as the father who tries to actually become the father to his son that he had trouble being before. I even liked the scenes between him and Justin Henry and how they play off each other. I even liked the rough scenes between them, like the scene where Ted snaps after Billy disobeys him by eating the ice cream before finishing his dinner, because they were just so powerful. But one actress I'd like to acknowledge is some actress by the name of Ms. Meryl Streep. Even though she only has a handful of scenes, she really brings it home in all of them, but in a rather low-key way. In her more quiet scenes, we get a glimpse of how she takes in the events that are occurring around her.

     Downs:
     Nothing.

     Consensus:
    Overall, Kramer vs. Kramer is a brutally realistic yet less patronizing look at the roughness of divorce. It succeeds thanks to the brilliant screenwriting and astounding acting from the cast. I feel that anyone who has gone through divorce, whether they have actually been divorced or is a child of divorce can certainly relate to this in some way and if you are any of these things, I would highly recommend you see this film. Plus, the film has Dustin Hoffman and Meryl Streep, which doesn't hurt.

Grade: A

Review: Deliverance (1972)

                                 

                  A Culture Clash Drama That Really 'Delivers' On The Scares

          While I do like films in the horror genre, the kind of dramatic films that I find quite as frightening are the ones that deal with plausible real-life scenarios. Deliverance is certainly under the latter category as it already makes me think twice about going on a canoeing trip.

          Story:
         Deliverance follows the story of four city men, led by Louis (Burt Reynolds), who decide to go on a canoeing trip away from their normal lives back home. However, they have a small clash with a few inbred locals which comes back to haunt them once they find themselves fighting for their lives.

         Ups:
        I'll start off by describing my favorite scene in the film. That scene would be the famous "Dueling Banjos" scene at the very beginning. In that one, Drew, one of the city men played by Ronny Cox, plays banjo along with a hillbilly kid and their playing begins to escalate. That scene just implicitly sets the tone for the film as a whole and foreshadows the conflict that would follow. I loved how this scene didn't require any use of dialogue or some horrific act to occur in order to establish the film's conflict.

        But one thing about the film that surprised me was how the film focused a little less on action and killings and more on the four men suffering the results of their conflict. At first, the men who come from a different walk of life from the hillbillies act superior to them, which leads to karma taking its course and these hillbillies exacting revenge. It is like nature itself taking its course and I thought that was very interesting. Plus, one scene that really had me on edge is the scene where all four of the men are going canoeing and there are these rather slithering sound effects and the men get the feeling they are being watched as they are paddling. That scene, to me, was just as scary as the famous male-to-male "Squeal like a pig" rape scene, except the scares here are much more implicit. If that was me in that position, paddling with someone potentially watching or targeting me, I would be terrified out of my wits.

        Downs:
        Nothing.

        Consensus:
       Overall, Deliverance is an edgy and scare-filled drama that deals with the urban vs. rural conflict in a rather unsettling way. I would say give it a watch because it is an essential film, but if you are a younger viewer, wait until you are about 18 or maybe 21 since the notorious rape scene might make you uncomfortable.

Grade: A

Retro Review: The Lion in Winter (1968)

                         

                        The 'Winter' Brings In Such A Roaring Cold, But In A Great Way
        
          I feel that it is a relief that when looking for material to adapt and put to film, we have stage plays to look into. Plenty of those have such juicy characters for the actors to sink their claws into and even touch on human themes. But The Lion In Winter has quite the juicy roles that really allow the actors playing them to "roar".
                   
              Story:
           The Lion In Winter follows the story of King Henry II (Peter O'Toole) and his struggle to find an heir to his throne. He then seeks the help of his wife, Eleanor of Aquitaine (Katharine Hepburn), who he regularly has imprisoned. Between their three sons: Richard the Lionheart (Anthony Hopkins), John (Nigel Terry), and Geoffrey (John Castle), Eleanor wants Richard but Henry wants John. The rest of the film involves a battle of wits and scheming in order to claim the throne and around Christmastime.

            Ups:
          First off, the acting is top-notch. I'll start off by discussing Katharine Hepburn. Pardon my french, but Holy Fuck, did she kill it! She is cunning and manipulative yet self-loathing and vulnerable. The way Hepburn channels her character's neuroticism is through the clinching of her teeth and sleazy smile and she absolutely more than deserved her Best Actress Oscar. One of the best performances I've ever seen in my entire life! Her co-star Peter O'Toole is equally as phenomenal. O'Toole brilliantly plays the character of King Henry II who is very tough and calculating yet still falls weak at the knees to those around him. I also loved how the brothers in their special trio each had their own distinct personality: Richard is the lion-hearted one, hence his nickname. John is the rather meek brother and Geoffrey is essentially the "brains" of the bunch. As the films progresses, the audience is able to decide who they want to succeed their father's throne. This is very much an actor's movie as all the actors bring in their A-game in this and not just the two leads.

         I even liked the way Anthony Harvey, the director, structured the film. The film is based off an old Broadway play and the film itself has a stage feel, yet I loved that since the stagey feel allows two different art forms fused together. I also loved how despite its nearly 2 and a half hour running time, I was not bored at all throughout the whole thing. The film is mostly based on dialogue and the way the characters interacted with each other yet I was engaged the entire film. I feel it is in large part due to how the actors play their parts and play off of one another. Not only that, but how it really focuses on its themes of manipulation and dominance. As I have said, the film follows the characters scheming one another and involves seizing power over the king's throne.

         Downs:
        Nothing.

        Consensus:
       Overall, The Lion In Winter is a top-notch master class in acting as it keeps you engaged until the end. However, I feel that because it is very dialogue-based, it won't be for those that love to see action throughout. But if you want to watch a film for brilliant acting and don't mind films that are dialogue heavy, give this one a watch.  
         
         

Retro Review: Planet of the Apes (1968)

               

                                 These 'Apes' Eat Great-Tasting Bananas
                    After having seen Dawn of the Planet of the Apes not too long ago, it showed us how apes aren't much different from humans. Yet the original Planet of the Apes shows us this, but in a much more different way yet like Dawn, does it in a way that is quite plausible.
               
                Story:
               Planet of the Apes follows the story of three astronauts, led by George Taylor (Charlton Heston), who crash land on an alien planet, where apes are the dominant species and are able to talk, but humans act more primal and are practically mute. Taylor himself becomes held in captivity while the apes try to study him and he tries to get his voice back since he becomes silent after an attack where he got shot in the neck, yet becomes attracted to a mute woman named Nova (Linda Harrison).

               Ups:
              First off, I loved the whole idea of Man being Beast and Beast being Man. To me, that is very interesting since people talk about how humans aren't much different from animals to begin with. Except here, we have humans actually acting like apes and apes acting and posturing like humans. I also loved how you could tell the different species of apes apart from each other: The orangutans are politicians, lawyers, etc. and dress in orange, the gorillas are more militaristic and dress in darker colors, and the chimpanzees are scientists and dress in green. Plus, the makeup effects on the actors playing the apes were very neat and really showcase the magic of prosthetics.

              Another thing I really liked about the story was the film's ending. I worry that I might implicitly give it away if I talk about it, but I'll just say that it ties together the whole mystery involving the humans on this "alien" planet together and I loved how the film has a bit of mystery to it as well as action and a demonstration of the world that these advanced apes live in. In my opinion, good sci-fi gives us an insight into the world of the advanced species or aliens or whatever and not just the humans themselves.

             Downs:   
         I'll be honest, one minor complaint I have with this otherwise brilliant film is the character of Nova. I personally felt she didn't serve a whole lot of purpose to the story and mainly exists as eye candy for the male viewers. The character itself is my only complaint.

             Consensus:
           Overall, Planet of the Apes is an insightful piece of sci-fi that features thoughtful storytelling as well as stunning makeup effects. Whether you are a fan of sci-fi or not, I would still say give it a watch, not just because it is a great film, but because it is essential and has stood the test of time.

Grade: A-
             

Retro Review: Raiders Of The Lost Ark (1981)

                         

                           A Brilliant Actioner Where You Just Get 'Lost' In The Adventure
                    Up until I saw this and Star Wars, I haven't seen the works of Harrison Ford, which is odd because of the legend he has become and those are the two films that made him the legend he is today. However, after watching those two films, it is not hard to see how he has become the star he is today and after watching this film, it is easy to see how Steven Spielberg has become a versatile director of the blockbuster genre.
                                   
                    Story:
                 Raiders Of The Lost Ark follows the story of an architectural college professor named Indiana Jones (Harrison Ford) who is sent on a mission to retrieve the Ark of the Covenant, which is an artifact that has been said to hold the key to human existence. However, he will have to fight off vicious Nazis and get to the Ark before they do.

                Ups:
               First off, I really liked the performance by Harrison Ford as Indy. I loved how even though Ford is the main star of the film and showcases quite a bit of charisma, he still showcases enough restraint to let his fellow actors give it their all and I liked that a lot. I also loved the chemistry between him and Karen Allen, who plays his feisty love interest Marion.

                But one thing that surprised me was how while there was action, there wasn't as much as I thought there would be. Although, it definitely didn't hurt the film at all. It was actually neat how they didn't incorporate a whole lot of action as we have scenes of suspense and even romance, so the story was able to become fleshed out and incorporate different genres. I will say that my favorite action scene is the one where Indy brings a gun to a knife fight and shoots the guy swinging around his big sword.

             Another thing that I thought was neat was how even though the film doesn't have a whole lot of settings, the people behind the film still really made the most out of it by focusing on its characters as well as the score used to fuel the action scenes, and the adventurous story. To me, that just shows that no matter how costly a film is, whatever matters is that you have a good idea and Raiders of the Lost Ark is certainly just that.

             Downs:
            Nothing.

            Consensus:
           Overall, Raiders of the Lost Ark is an adventurous tale with a multi-faceted story and an iconic hero brilliantly brought to life by Mr. Harrison Ford. It has a little something for everyone: suspense and action for the men and romance for the women. Much like how Star Wars has the essentials for a great sci-fi film, Raiders has the essentials for a great adventure film and I would put this one HIGH on your watch list. You'll be in for a treat when you watch this masterpiece.

Grade: A

Retro Review: Star Wars (1977)

                         

                               'Star Wars': An Epic And Powerful Odyssey Into A Far Away Land

                    As I may have mentioned before, I rarely ever call a film perfect. That is mainly because I tend to think every great movie has its fare share of flaws. But Star Wars is not only a perfect film, but it is a sci-fi film that is perfect and to me, that is quite an accomplishment.
                     
                   Story:
                Star Wars follows the story of a boy named Luke Skywalker (Mark Hamill) who joins a rebellion against the powerful Darth Vader with a pilot named Han Solo (Harrison Ford), a Jedi named Obi-Wan Kenobi (Alec Guinness), two droids named C-3PO and R2-D2, and a Wookie named Chewbacca. As they all join forces, they try to rescue the Rebel leader Princess Leia (Carrie Fisher) and in the evil Empire's spaceship known as the Death Star.

                Ups:
              First off, what makes this film so great is just how it not only manages to have what makes a great sci-fi film, including great action scenes as well as stunning visual and makeup F/X, but a great film in general. It has wonderful direction, engaging characters, a brilliant story, and especially has an amazing score. The musical score really helps elevate the high-paced action scenes as well as some of the more quiet moments of the film. In particular, the scene where Luke is looking out in the open as the sun hits and he is feeling the need to escape his homeland. But one thing I liked about the direction, however, was how writer/director George Lucas handled the action scenes, especially the end fight sequence where he films from the point of view of the different fighter ships. He makes you feel like you are in on the experience. Now onto the characters. One I really liked was Princess Leia because of how even though she is a princess, by the way she handles the situations she is in, you wouldn't know that she is. Normally, princesses in these types of movies are relegated to just going "Ahh, save me", but not Leia, as she is steel-tongued and has no problem handling guns. I also loved Han Solo, who is a bit of a wise guy yet is just so badass. He is the kind of guy that is all "shoot first, talk later" yet thanks to the portrayal of Harrison Ford, you just can't help but love him. Luke Skywalker is also quite an engaging character as he is the lovable youngster looking to learn the ways of the Force. I even liked Obi-Wan Kenobi, the calmly stern mentor who teaches Luke the ways of the Force, and I loved how all the actors played their respective characters.

            Another thing I liked was the beginning where we have scenes centered on the POV of just R2-D2 and C-3PO. I thought it was very interesting to see that since sci-fi films usually show us the POV of the human or alien characters and not necessarily robots, in my opinion. I feel that the scenes between those two just added another dimension to the script which is already centered on its main human protagonists. Speaking of which, I loved how the action sequences not only revolved on the brilliant direction, but its characters as well and their interactions. It feels like the action sequences are the centerpiece but they are done very successfully because of all the elements molded together: directing, score, and the characters.

          Downs:
          Nothing.

          Consensus:
         Overall, Star Wars is a fantastic sci-fi odyssey molded into perfection. It has all the elements of a great sci-fi movie and the elements of a great movie in general, and I think that is why it is an essential film that will stand the test of time. If you hate sci-fi, I would say this is a must-see just because it is a classic. But I will say if you love sci-fi and haven't seen this one yet, put this at number one on your watch list. Either way, you will be in for a treat that is one of the greatest films put on screen.

Grade: A+

Retro Review: The Truman Show (1998)

                               

                   
                             I Would Highly Suggest You Tune In To 'The Truman Show'
                     Reality television has become quite a part of our culture today and to me, that is quite unfortunate. But, thankfully, back in 1998, we had a brilliant film that was like a reminder of what would lie ahead in the future. That film is the satirical drama known as The Truman Show.
                         
                   Story:
               The Truman Show follows the story of a simple man named Truman Burbank (Jim Carrey) who is unaware that his whole life, he has lived in a television studio and his life has always been on camera on a show called "The Truman Show". Eventually, once he discovers this and that his friends and loved ones, including his wife Meryl (Laura Linney), are just actors, he not only tries to come to terms with this but tries to escape as well.

               Ups:
            First off, I really loved the idea. Similar to how Network is a prophetic look at TV in general and what people will do for ratings, The Truman Show is a prophetic look into the concept of reality television. Since Truman's life is always on camera, it is like how the Kardashians or those on shows like Jersey Shore, Teen Mom, The Kardashians, and Duck Dynasty are always documented. Except Truman lived his life on a Hollywood set and what he experiences in day-to-day life is actually not that realistic. Yet this movie is still like an indicator of what has become of reality TV, which obviously is real life. So, even though I never watch reality TV shows because I think they are pointless, I think this whole concept is fascinating.

            Next, I'll get into Jim Carrey's performance. Just like his performance in Eternal Sunshine, WOW! We hardly ever see an ounce of Jim Carrey-isms in his performance in this and he really carries dramatic heavyweight without ever going overboard. Once he realizes that everyone and everything he's known his whole life was just for show, he really captures that in his eyes. I normally love seeing Jim Carrey make me laugh, but he has really proven himself as a dramatic actor and even though he didn't get an Oscar nomination for Truman, he luckily still got some recognition, including a Golden Globe win. But one actress I'd love to acknowledge is Laura Linney. She effortlessly stole the show when she was on screen and I loved how at first, she is mostly upbeat and perky yet as the film progresses, she gets more nervous and slowly gets out of character. Ed Harris is also very good as Christof, the executive behind The Truman Show who is rather enigmatic.

            Another thing I really liked was the direction by Peter Weir. I liked how he filmed scenes from the point of view of tiny hidden camera lenses which to me, is like a representation of the "all-seeing eye" that watches over everything and everyone on the giant set. I feel that plays upon the theme of religion and a representation of Christoff. Since Christoff is behind the whole thing, if you really dig deep into the film, you wonder whether he has a God-like complex since he is the almighty power of the film or a Lucifer-like complex since the "all-seeing eye" comes from the Satanic cult known as the Illuminati and since the film is like a satire of the media, there is that whole rumor of people in the entertainment industry being a part of the Illuminati and looking to control the world. But Christoff looks to control not just Truman but those living in his little bubble. So, I not only liked Weir's direction, but how there were implicit themes of religion brought into writer Andrew Niccol's brilliant story.

          Downs:
         Nothing.

          Consensus:
         Overall, The Truman Show is an eerily prophetic yet highly captivating satirical drama. The performance by Jim Carrey is nothing short of brilliant and the direction by Peter Weir is just astounding. I would say whether you are a fan of Jim Carrey or not, give this a watch. Either way, you will be surprised by his performance. But if you just want to see a film with groundbreaking storytelling, I would still say put this high on your watch list.

Grade: A
           

Review: Carrie (2013)

                                     

                                     'Carrie' Lets The Fires From The Original Set Ablaze

               I feel that the timing could not be more perfect for this remake of the 1976 classic Carrie to come out. Since the original story deals with the horrors of bullying and bullying has become such a serious issue, to the point where a term called "bullycide" has been coined, it would make sense for MGM Studios to recreate what they started, but from a different angle.

              Story:
            Carrie follows the classic story about a teenage outcast named Carrie White (Chloe Grace Moretz) who badly undergoes torment from her classmates and her religious mother (Julianne Moore). Eventually, she realizes she has telekinetic powers and one fateful night, when her classmates push her too far, they learn the hard way that once you play with fire, you get burned.

            Ups:
           Now, for this review, I will not only draw comparisons to the 1976 original, but start off by mentioning the importance of this remake. Most remakes these days are nothing more than quick cash grabs (The Fog, A Nightmare on Elm Street, Black Christmas, When A Stranger Calls, etc.). But because this remake really touches on the bullying aspect of the story, I can see why it was done. These days, we hear all these horror stories about kids committing suicide just because other idiot children decided to make their lives miserable. Plus, because we live in an age of social media, kids are even using that as a form of bullying. In the shower scene in this remake, not only do the girls throw tampons at Carrie and yell "Plug It Up" like in the original, but Chris Hargensen, the main villain, films it on her phone and posts it on YouTube. To me, that makes that scene in the remake more horrific than in the original. While that scene in the original is messed up, I thought that the shower scene in the remake just amped up the horror factor and that is where the horror of the film lies. It is all about the horror of bullying.

          Next, I'll get into the acting. Chloe Grace Moretz brings her own fresh take onto the titular character. While Sissy Spacek's performance is expressive in her silence, Moretz's is expressive in her motions. Moretz's Carrie is not only withdrawn, but more physically nervous. I felt like I could connect to her because I would be the same way when I felt like I was getting bullied in school and like her, I was a victim of bullying. Now onto Margaret White. Julianne Moore also brilliantly brings her own fresh take onto the role of the maniacal matriarch and I'll be honest, I thought the way that Margaret was portrayed here was slightly better than in the original. One reason is because there are scenes where we see scars on her body, indicating that she not only harms her daughter, but is a danger to herself. But Piper Laurie, who played the original Margaret, is certainly far from horrible though and was equally good as Moore was. I just thought the way the character itself was portrayed here was creepier. I also thought Judy Greer did a very nice job as Carrie's gym teacher Miss Desjardins as well as Gabriella Wilde, who played Sue Snell, who is a bully that tries to change her ways, and Portia Doubleday, who played Chris Hargensen. I liked how Chris was portrayed here because she is more fleshed out. In this one, we not only see that she is mean-spirited, but also quite manipulative. After she is banned from prom, we see a scene where she brings "Daddy" to school to fix everything and she does the whole "Daddy's Little Girl" routine. Even Ansel Elgort of Divergent fame, who plays Carrie's prom date Tommy Ross, also brings quite a level of authenticity to his performance and made for a very sympathetic character.

         But, did I think that this was overall better than the original? Not exactly. I'll be honest, the original is a classic and in its own right. It works as a straight-up horror drama about the main character discovering her powers. But this one is more about the bullying angle and is handled very realistically, thanks to the direction from Kimberly Pierce of Boys Don't Cry fame. So the remake not only is faithful to the original, but also works as a bullying statement and both films succeed in their own respective rights.

         Downs:
        Nothing.

        Consensus:
       Overall, Carrie is a successful remake that offers up its own unique perspective while being faithful to its source material. I do hope that those who see the film take note of its bullying aspect, especially since it is such a serious issue these days. If you are a fan of the original, I would still highly suggest giving this a watch and figuring out for yourself whether both films succeed in their own rights.

Grade: A-

Retro Review: The Hustler (1961)

                                         

                           
                                               'The Hustler' Really Hits The Eight Ball
                   
          I remember my cousin once told me that a film that she considers her favorite is one that makes her want to do something that the characters did in the film. For example, Cool Runnings made her want to go out and bobsled, just like how after watching The Hustler, I want to go out and play Pool. I feel that in maybe a few years to come, The Hustler will become a new favorite of mine.
                         
                   Story:
             The Hustler follows the story of a pool hustler named "Fast Eddie" Felson (Paul Newman) who while playing a game of pool with a legend named "Minnesota Fats" (Jackie Gleason), gets carried away and eventually loses almost all of his stake money. Eddie then looks to get into a rematch with Fats in order to regain his confidence while he is involved with an alcoholic woman named Sarah Packard (Piper Laurie).

            Ups:
         One thing that actually really surprised me was how the film focused a little less on the actual pool matches and more on the whole context of "winning" and "losing". Whenever Eddie is being told that he is a loser, that is what drives him to be more competitive and at times, his pride ends up being his downfall. I feel that the film uses the whole concept of pool hustling to touch on very human themes. In particular, how we hate to be told we are losers. For some people, like Eddie, being called a loser is what ironically drives them to try and top themselves or try and succeed. In some cases, it doesn't always work out. Plus, the film also has a love story added to it and I thought it was pretty neat since it allows the film to appeal to a wider audience. I also loved the chemistry between Paul Newman and Piper Laurie, which brings me to my next point.

       Paul Newman is nothing short of brilliant and like his other films I've seen him in, he is able to bring emotional gravitas into his performance despite being quite a looker. But while he was amazing, I thought it was Piper Laurie that stole the film. She is so tender yet so fiery as Eddie's girlfriend and confidante. Some of you may know her as the crazy Margaret White in the original Carrie, but this is quite a departure. I also thought the supporting cast, that included George C. Scott as Eddie's sleazy manager Burt and Jackie Gleason as Minnesota Fats, were also superb as well. Plus, the direction by Robert Rossen was brilliant. I liked how during the pool scenes, he doesn't add any music to elevate the scenes or anything along those lines. He just films the actors playing pool and dissolves to the time changing on the clock or the result of each game. Like I said, the film focuses a bit more on the context of winning and losing rather than the actual game of pool itself.

        Downs:
        Nothing.

        Consensus:
       Overall, The Hustler is an entertaining yet humanistic drama about the loser in all of us. It has brilliant performances from the cast, especially from Newman and Laurie, and is an essential classic that I would highly suggest that you put on your watch list, especially if you like Newman. After watching this film, it honestly makes me want to go out and play a game of Pool.

Grade: A+

Retro Review: A Beautiful Mind (2001)

                                This 'Beautiful Mind' Could've Used A Little Less Or More Makeup
                   
                     We have seen plenty of films about mental illness over the years, but I feel that it is rare where we have a film about a mental illness that focuses a little less on the illness at hand. A Beautiful Mind falls more on the latter category rather than the former.
                       
                      Story:
             A Beautiful Mind follows the true story of a mathematician named John Nash (Russell Crowe) who, since his days at Princeton University, has slowly developed paranoid schizophrenia and eventually thinks there is a conspiracy involving the Soviets. As his condition worsens, his wife Alicia (Jennifer Connelly) tries to bring him back into reality.

             Ups:
           While I may have found the film to be problematic, I did think that Russell Crowe's performance was quite good. Some of his best scenes involve the use of his eyes. When his illness kicks in, they begin to widen and have you asking what he'll do or if he'll do something horrific. I also thought Jennifer Connelly was quite brilliant. Some of her best scenes are the ones where she is at her most quiet. In those, you can definitely get the sense of how desperate or flustered she is. It is actually a pretty transcendent performance, I would say, because she goes from being a rather sultry colleague to a loyal wife that tries to ground his husband back to reality, and I love seeing performances where the performer undergoes a quiet character arc.

            Downs:
           Well, one thing that I had to struggle with was suspending my disbelief over the idea of Russell Crowe playing a college student, or at least his character in his college days. They didn't CGI his face or anything like that to make him look younger, but it still seemed somewhat unrealistic, in my opinion.

           Another thing that bugged me about the film was how it was a bit too sugarcoated. I felt that even though the film is about a guy who has a mental illness, the illness itself almost felt like a footnote. The film focused a bit more on the love story angle between John and Alicia, as well as John's mathematical genius and the whole imagined conspiracy involving the Soviets. It comes off as the film saying "Yeah, he has a horrible illness but he is such a brilliant mathematician and has a loving and supportive wife" and it becomes a bit too mushy and sentimental. Plus, the film definitely was a bit longer than it needed to be.

          Consensus:
        Overall, A Beautiful Mind is an incredibly well-acted yet overly mushy drama. I would say if you want to watch a brilliant film about mental illness and how it affects one's family and doesn't just focus on its love story, watch Silver Linings Playbook instead. But if you like Russell Crowe or Jennifer Connelly or are even a fan of director Ron Howard's work, then I would say why not give it a watch. The acting is good and Howard's direction is also.

Grade: C+
         

Topic Of The Day: Diversity At The Oscars

Hello, Bloggers, welcome to another episode of my Topic Of The Day. Today's Topic will be about the Oscars and how I am all for seeing more diverse faces, especially after this year. Let's take a look:

This year was a good year for Hispanics as Alfonso Cuaron became the first Mexican to win Best Director and one of his frequent collaborators Emmanuel Lubezki won Best Cinematography. Plus, Mexican-born Kenyan Lupita Nyong'o won Best Supporting Actress for 12 Years A Slave, showing that it was not only a good year for Hispanics but Blacks as well. Not only did Nyong'o take home a trophy for her film, but so did Steve McQueen, who became the first Black person to win Best Picture and we saw Barkhad Abdi receive a nomination for Best Supporting Actor for his debut role in Captain Phillips. To me, that is quite amazing that the Academy branched out in terms of who they handed out trophies to, especially to Blacks and Hispanics since both races have enormous audiences.

This almost reminds me of the 79th Academy Awards, coincidentally the first show that Ellen DeGeneres hosted. That show was another good one for Hispanics as the Mexican film Pan's Labyrinth won 3 Oscars out of 6 nominations. There was also the film Babel, which scored 1 win for Argentine-born Gustavo Santaolalla, and 6 other nominations, including Best Director and Best Supporting Actress for Mexican-born Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu and Adriana Barraza, respectively. In her category, Barraza was even nominated alongside her Babel co-star Rinko Kikuchi from Japan. While Alfonso Cuaron and Emmanuel Lubezki won at this year's Oscar, they also received nominations at the 79th Oscars for the film Children of Men: Cinematography for Lubezki and Film Editing for Cuaron. Plus, Spaniard Penelope Cruz managed to score a Best Actress nomination for the Spanish film Volver. Another fun fact is the Best Actor and Best Supporting Actor categories each had two black actors: Forest Whitaker and Will Smith in the Lead category and Eddie Murphy and Beninese-born Djimon Hounsou in the Supporting category. Forest Whitaker ended up winning. To me, this is just absolutely fascinating, all the people in different film professions from different parts of the world being recognized by the Academy. Again, I love that. Oh, and the Clint Eastwood-directed Japanese language film Letters from Iwo Jima was a Best Picture nominee. Wow!

Also, while the 79th Academy Awards boded quite well for Hispanics among other races, the 76th Academy Awards were dominated by New Zealand, thanks to the smashing success of those behind a "little" film that was filmed out in New Zealand called Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King. Plus, New Zealander Keisha Castle-Hughes received a Best Actress nomination for Whale Rider. In that category, however, the winner would be the first South African to win an Oscar in a major category: Charlize Theron for Monster. There would be other nations represented as well with the Supporting Actor category having a Puerto Rican (Benicio Del Toro), Beninese (Djimon Hounsou), and Japanese actor (Ken Watanabe). Plus, the Supporting Actress category had the first Middle Eastern to be nominated for an Oscar: Shohreh Aghdashloo for House of Sand and Fog. 

Of course, I am not saying the Oscars should always look like a Benetton ad or anything like that. I am just pointing out that it is wonderful to not just see American films or just Caucasian people in the film profession get recognized by the American Academy, as demonstrated by this year and the other years I just pointed out. Plus, I am also sort of saying that by some of the winners this year, a certain progress might be being made.

So, that was my Topic Of The Day on how I love seeing more diversity shown at the Oscars. If you agree with me or disagree, please feel free to write your thoughts in the comments section. However, if you disagree, please be courteous and not racist. Thanks for reading!

Retro Review: Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid (1969)

                               

                           
                                 I'd Come Along For The Ride With These 'Kids'

                Whenever I say that a film is the "whole package", I mean that it has brilliant direction, writing, and acting. Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid not only has that, but a brilliantly written story that despite the fact that it is an older film and is a Western, still is a story for the ages.

                     Story:
        Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid follows the story of two outlaws named Butch Cassidy (Paul Newman) and the "Sundance Kid" (Robert Redford). Both men are on the run from the law and head over to Bolivia to try and escape after they attempt a train robbery. Coming along for the ride is Sundance's lover Etta (Katharine Ross).

                   Ups:
                One thing I absolutely LOVED was the chemistry between Newman and Redford. I liked watching these two actors play off each other and brilliantly pull off their such colorful characters. It was neat watching them go on an adventure and made me feel like I was being taken along for the ride. That is one  thing I like about movies, when the main characters take the audience on their physical or emotional journey. I also thought the way the two main characters were developed was very fascinating. Butch is essentially the "brains" of the duo as he fights using tactic and the Kid likes to engage in gunfights. I even thought the scenes between Newman, Redford, and Katharine Ross were also very nice and added a lighter touch to the film.

               Another thing I liked was how the action scenes were directed. Even though there isn't a whole lot of action scenes, whenever they do happen, they are explosive. Especially the final shootout at the very end of the film where (*possible spoiler alert*) a bunch of Bolivian troopers are waiting for the two heroes outside armed with guns and right after that, the scene cuts to Butch and the Kid talking about their possible next destination. So, I did really like the action scenes as well as the scenes where Butch and the Kid try to make a pit stop but the same posse of troopers keep pursuing them as the film progresses. In my opinion, those scenes really add to the cat-and-mouse feel the film has. Not only is Butch Cassidy a "cat-and-mouse" film, but it also works as a Western and fits the era the film was released in, the 60's, as it demonstrates the audience rooting for two young outlaws fighting the government or a higher power. If anyone besides myself wants to figure out how to create a multi-dimensional story, I would say take a quick look at this film and take a few notes because this is not only brilliantly directed and has tremendous performances from its leading men, but it is also a writer's movie.

             Downs:
            One minor nitpick is at times, I did feel it dragged. Only at small points, not most of the film. Besides that, nothing else.

            Consensus:
           Overall, Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid is an essential piece of filmmaking that is not only the "whole package" (Brilliant directing, acting, screenwriting), but offers a multi-dimensional story that despite being an old Western, has a timeless quality. I would put this HIGH on your watch list as it is a classic that has been on many Greatest Films list and it is definitely not hard to see why. I would even say give it a watch just to see Newman and Redford be awesome as well as for the beautiful setting, the tremendous directing and to learn how to write a script. Butch Cassidy is just perfection.

Grade: A+

     

Retro Review: Mystic River (2003)

                                              This 'River' Runs Quite An Intense Yet Soft Wave
                     They say it is a script that carries a film, but if there is anything that I have learned over the course of my film-reviewing experience, a film's band of actors can help carry a film even the story is problematic. I felt the story is somewhat complicated here, but the outstanding actors help Mystic River create a strong tidal wave.
       
                       Story:
                  Mystic River follows the story of three former childhood friends: ex-con Jimmy Markum (Sean Penn), cop Sean Devine (Kevin Bacon), and sex abuse victim Dave Boyle (Tim Robbins). The three estranged men find themselves colliding after the murder of Jimmy's eldest daughter. From there is when things really begin to go from bad to worse as Dave becomes a suspect, Sean tries to crack the case and Jimmy is out for revenge.

                  Ups:
                 First off, I thought the acting was spectacular. Tim Robbins is amazing and like a walking enigma as Dave. By the looks he gives from his eyes, you start to think he is a victim, but in scenes when he implodes, you start to think otherwise. Kevin Bacon gives a rather unassuming performance and both he and Laurence Fishburne, who plays his police comrade, pull off quite a good "good cop, bad cop" dynamic, with Bacon being the good cop. Sean Penn is also quite good even though, I'll be honest, I thought his performance was a bit sporadic. But one performance I really liked was Marcia Gay Harden as Dave's confused wife Celeste. Harden's performance was quite expressive in her silence and I give the Academy major kudos for recognizing a more quiet, observant performance and not just awarding her fellow nominated co-stars, Penn and Robbins. But overall, I thought the acting was quite amazing, even from Laura Linney, who had a smaller role as Jimmy's wife Annabeth. It doesn't surprise me that Clint Eastwood directed these brilliant performances since he is an actor himself. Plus, the way he directs it allows the heavy use of shadows that fit the film's shady tone, thanks also in part to the brilliant cinematographer Tom Stern. In my personal opinion, it worked a bit better here than it did in Million Dollar Baby. 

                I also liked how the film takes us into the point of view of those involved in the crime. We get a glimpse of the families, the suspects, and the cops as well. We even catch a glimpse of the daughter's boyfriend and how he handles the situation. So, I loved how the story wasn't one-sided and we see how everyone goes through the horrific crime.

              Downs:
             My biggest pet peeve with this film has to be the ending. At the very end, it starts to become Shakespearean and to me, it just came completely out of left field. I actually had problems with the ending as a whole. I don't want to give anything away because I hate to do that. But I'll just say it could have delved into the idea of how we tend to let vengeance get the best of us out of the natural flow of the story, but it was a missed opportunity. Other than that, I have no other real complaints.

            Consensus:
           Overall, Mystic River is an incredibly well-acted yet problematic story that in the end just had me "lost at sea". I would say this is definitely worth a watch for the acting and the brilliant direction by Clint Eastwood. It is far from a waste of time, yet it probably would've been a lot better if not for the film's complicated ending.

Grade: B

Retro Review: The Thing (1982)

                             

                          What A Spectacular 'Thing' It Is To Have A Monster Movie Built on Atmosphere 

                        I have said in previous reviews how much I cherish practical effects on film. The Thing really makes me appreciate my love for practical effects as it features realistic-looking aliens that blend in smoothly with a film that has an atmosphere that is as chilling as the film's cold setting.
 
                        Story:
                   The Thing follows the story of an expedition team in Antarctica led by a man named MacReady (Kurt Russell). Together, they discover a special alien organism that has the ability to genetically replicate whatever it touches. Eventually, as this special alien life form is released, the explorers become increasingly paranoid once they become unsure of who is the Thing or not.

                    Ups:
                  The thing that I loved the most about The Thing was how it relies on the use of practical effects rather than CGI. Of course, CGI wasn't really utilized back when the film was made, but still. As I've mentioned before, I prefer practical over CG because I find practical effects to look more realistic and the different aliens created for the film have distinctive designs done amazingly by Rob Bottin (The Howling, Legend) and I loved that.

                  Not only did I feel The Thing was such a unique monster movie, but also works as a classic "whodunit" thriller. Part of the reason this film creates such a chill is because you are unsure of who has become the Thing. As the film progresses and everyone becomes more paranoid, each one of them becomes suspicious of each other as they are held up together inside their camp amidst the snowy weather. Even at the very end, you are left wondering what will happen with whoever is left. It doesn't end on a bad note, but it doesn't necessarily end on a happy note either. I actually thought that was very neat. Most horror films either have a "The Worst Was Over" or "You Thought The Worst Was Over" type ending, but here you are just left wondering "Is The Worst Over?". I just loved how even though the monster isn't hidden in the shadows, the film is just shrouded in mystery.

                 Downs:
                Nothing.

                 Consensus:
                Overall, The Thing is an incredible and atmospheric exercise in sci-fi terror. If you love horror or sci-fi, I would put this HIGH on your watch list. In my opinion, this is an essential film for the horror genre. Also, if you are looking to get into film and do visual or makeup effects, look no further because this film really shows the wonders of practical effects. The nightmarish atmosphere and aliens certainly make one amazing "thing".

Grade: A

Retro Review: Million Dollar Baby (2004)

           

           
                  A Well-Crafted Film With A Story That I Wouldn't Say Smells Like A 'Million' Bucks
         
           I don't usually mind whenever someone tells a story that has been done before. That is why whenever a biopic or AIDS movie or whatever comes out around awards season, I'm like whatever, just as long as the people behind the film add a new twist to it. Million Dollar Baby kind of does that, but by the end, does it in a way that leans a bit towards cheap sentiment.

                 Story:
                 Million Dollar Baby follows the story of a boxing trainer named Frankie Dunn (Clint Eastwood) who has struggled to form a bond with his estranged daughter and whose only friend is a former boxer named Eddie "Scrap-Iron" Dupris (Morgan Freeman). Suddenly, a waitress named Maggie Fitzgerald (Hilary Swank) comes into Frankie's gym and eventually life determined to become a boxing champ, a dream that nobody sees but her.

                Ups:
               One thing that I did really like was the cinematography. I liked how the cinematographer, Tom Stern, incorporates use of black and white by shining them on the characters. There is one scene that I thought was amazingly shot where Frankie is healing Maggie's wounds and Maggie is put in the shadows, which was a bit of foreshadowing in my opinion for the events that would follow in the film. I especially liked Clint Eastwood's direction. I even thought the actors were brilliant.

                Downs:
               While I liked the brilliant direction and cinematography, my biggest issue with this film has to be the story. Not only do I feel the story of an underdog rising to the top has already been done, but by the end when a "big thing" happens to Maggie that I won't give away for those that haven't seen it and don't know the ending, I found it to be so emotionally manipulative. Although, to be fair, the filmmakers were probably looking to go in a direction different than what people were expecting and I give them credit for that, but still, it didn't strike a chord with me the way it has with others who saw the film.

               Also, while the actors were brilliant, I feel like it isn't anything they haven't done before. Eastwood is playing the gruff man. Morgan Freeman plays the wise confidante that is the *gasp* narrator and Hilary Swank plays a character that reminded me of her role in The Next Karate Kid. Like I said, the actors do a wonderful job with what they're given, it's just the roles they played weren't too much of a stretch for them, in my opinion.

              Consensus:
             Overall, Million Dollar Baby is an incredibly well-acted and directed yet slightly contrived film. It has its high points, but it really doesn't throw a hard punch. I would say give it a watch for the actors being amazing and who knows, you might feel differently about the ending than I did. I found it to be a bit calculated but everybody's viewing experience is different. See if it is a knockout or is the type of film to watch only in Round 1.

Grade: B-

Anatomy Of A Performance: Naomi Watts in Mulholland Dr. (2001)

Hello, Bloggers, welcome to another episode of Anatomy Of A Performance, where I take a performance and try to dissect the internalities behind them and hopefully allow viewers to get a closer look at them when watching the film. For today, I will look into a performance that in my mind got horrifically snubbed by the Oscars, Naomi Watts in Mulholland Dr. Let's take a look:

Now, for those of you who have seen the film, you know that in the first half, Watts plays a very sunny character, Betty Elms, who is very optimistic about a future in Hollywood. But I will first go into the actress' bridge from Betty to Diane, a more rainy character.

             In this scene, the camera just focuses on Betty and the man she is practicing a scene with in her audition. Even though her character is just saying lines, the way Watts delivers them makes it feel like there is an underlying fury and sensuality within Betty as it is an actress playing a character playing a character and saying her lines as if she really means them. It then becomes a performance within a performance. Notice how at the very end of the clip, Betty's voice then suddenly shifts to a much lighter tone. It is almost like Betty herself couldn't believe how she pulled off her lines.

     
          But this scene is where Betty really begins to be more grounded in reality. The woman singing is doing I believe a Spanish version of the song "Crying" by Roy Orbison. The song itself is about love and crying over someone who doesn't return the singer's love. (*Spoiler Alert*) This is an indication of the character of Diane and how she longs for a woman, Camilla, who doesn't feel the same way about her. But the performance of the singer forces tears from Betty and Diane's story indicates that what happens in this scene is Betty realizing what she is experiencing isn't real and that Camilla doesn't love her the same way as she does. So, Watts is really showing us what is going through Betty's mind without having to say a single word.

Next, I will get into the character of Diane, who as I mentioned, is much more rainy than the character of Betty. I can't really find any videos of the character of Diane, so I am just going to have to settle for pictures.

                 If you notice Diane's appearance, she doesn't seem as polished as Betty is. Diane's voice is also much deeper.

                    Those of you who have seen the film and remember the scene from this picture above, you know that in that scene, a certain type of news is announced that Diane doesn't take too well, which I don't want to give away for those that haven't seen it. But take a look at the expression on Diane' face. With a tear flowing from her left eye and a slight snarl from her open mouth, Watts showcases her character's rather boiling rage and in my opinion, does it without really playing up the melodrama. As you can see by her eyes, you can definitely get the sense that Diane wants to do something awful and you either sympathize with her or just go "crap".

                    The way I see it, it seems like it is two different actresses playing the different main roles. We see two different performances yet also a performance-within-a-performance, hence the bridge Watts got through from Betty to Diane. It is performances like those that are just interesting to dissect and show what kind of commitment an actor brings to a role that doesn't just involve just some kind of drastic physical transformation.

So, that was my quick analysis of Naomi Watts' stunning dual portrayal in Mulholland Dr. If you have the same insight to this performance as I do or looked at it differently, please feel free to share your thoughts in the comments section. Just on a side note, since I discussed just female performances, my next AOAP will be on a male performance, which I won't reveal until that next AOAP comes. Until then, thanks for reading!

                     

 

Oscars 2015 Forecast

Hello, Bloggers, since we got through the first half of 2014 and that brings us slightly closer to Oscar season in the near future with the festivals approaching in the coming months, I figured I'd run down the potential Oscar hopefuls that came out in the first year as well as what is being released in the coming months:

I'll start off by discussing what has already been released. When The Grand Budapest Hotel first came out, it was immediately pegged to be an Oscar contender. In my opinion, if that were to happen, I would bet on a Screenplay nomination and maybe Production Design if nothing else in the major categories. Usually, films that come out early in the year or in the first half are apparently not released according to Academy voters. I honestly would love to see a Wes Anderson film get a PD nomination since his films are so colorful and amazing to look at. Another film being campaigned for the Oscar circuit is Noah, which could have some marginal success if its controversy doesn't hurt it. I would imagine not just because films like this are ALWAYS going to get hit with controversy. But like I said, we'll have to see if the film's early release date will hurt its chances. I personally am not too crazy about its potential Oscar march because I didn't really like the film that much, but I digress.

Now onto the Cannes Film Festival, which usually is an indicator for the Foreign Language category. The Palme D'Or went to Winter Sleep, which is a foreign film that I'd imagine might be Turkey's selection for Best Foreign Language Film. But Best Director went to Bennett Miller for the upcoming Foxcatcher. This film was originally set to be in last year's Oscar march, but was postponed to move away from the crowd. But it might be an Oscar player because it not only won the prestigious directing prize at Cannes, but it is based on a true story and has two actors reinventing themselves (Steve Carell, Channing Tatum). The International Cinephile Society, which recognizes indie films or mainstream films with artistic merit, even had their own special awards for films screened at Cannes and gave Best Actor to Channing Tatum. Whether he will be campaigned in Lead or Supporting remains to be seen. But Best Actor at the actual Cannes festival was handed out to Timothy Spall for Mr. Turner, which is directed by Oscar darling Mike Leigh (Vera Drake, Happy-Go-Lucky) and Best Actress was handed out to Julianne Moore for Maps to the Stars. That film doesn't have an official release date here in the states as of now, but if it does, Moore could march her way to the Oscars which would really create an overdue narrative since she is already 0-4. That actually brings me to my next point.

This year, we are seeing plenty of actresses in contention that have either not won before or have not won and are overdue. The list includes not just Julianne Moore, but the 0-2 Viola Davis, who came very close to winning Best Actress for The Help, for the upcoming James Brown biopic Get On Up. Also, there is the 0-5 Amy Adams for the Weinstein-geared biopic Big Eyes, where she co-stars with Christoph Waltz and is directed by Tim Burton. But Adams is not the only actress that has Weinstein at her corner, as the 0-3 Michelle Williams is in possible contention for the WWII love story Suite Francaise, set in Nazi-occupied France. Plus, the 0-2 Jessica Chastain looks to have another banner year like her breakout year in 2011 with 4 films set for release: Disappearance of Eleanor Rigby, Miss Julie, Interstellar, and A Most Violent Year. But how about an actress that has won before? Reese Witherspoon is looking to have more of a comeback year to recapture her former Oscar glory with about four "Oscar" films set for release at the end of this year: biopic Wild, The Good Lie, Inherent Vice by prestigious director Paul Thomas Anderson, and Gone Girl, which she is producing. We even have actresses that have never been nominated, like Rosamund Pike for Gone Girl and Emily Blunt for the musical Into The Woods, which is directed by Rob Marshall and also stars the perennially nominated Meryl Streep AND Johnny Depp. That film could either go the way of the Best Picture-winning Chicago or Nine, which did "meh" in the awards circuit.

But Suite Francaise isn't the only WWII film in contention this year. We could be seeing a husband vs. wife battle as Brad Pitt has the WWII actioner Fury and Angelina Jolie is directing Unbroken, which stars potential breakout star Jack O'Connell as a former Olympian who was a prisoner of war in WWII. Plus, Weinstein has another WWII film up his sleeve with the Benedict Cumberbatch-starring The Imitation Game, which is about a man named Alan Turing who helped the Allies win WWII by figuring out the Nazi's enigma code but was persecuted for his homosexuality. I would imagine the Academy might eat this one up if it's any good.

But what about directors who are looking for another round at scoring Oscar gold? David Fincher came awfully close a few years ago to winning Best Director for The Social Network, just like how Christopher Nolan came awfully close to being nominated that same year for Inception. But they might just have another go with David Fincher directing Gone Girl and Christopher Nolan directing Interstellar. Coincidentally, each one stars a former Hollywood joke turned serious Hollywood player, with Gone Girl starring Ben Affleck and Interstellar starring Matthew McConaughey. Now for either of these two directors, I'm really crossing my fingers that they score Oscar gold. Same with Paul Thomas Anderson, who has Inherent Vice set for release later this year.

As of right now, I would say the frontrunners in this Oscar race are Gone Girl, Inherent Vice, and Foxcatcher. I would say Interstellar because of how sci-fi is slowly but surely entering its way into the Academy's wheelhouse, but I don't like to be TOO sure.

So, that is my quick Oscar forecast for the latter part of this year. If you feel that there is any film that should be entered in the Oscar conversation, like how I feel Dawn of the Planet of the Apes should, then please feel free to write your thoughts in the comments section. Thanks for reading!

Topic Of The Day: Oscar Noms for "Planet of the Apes"?

Hello, Bloggers, for today's Topic Of The Day, I figured that since I just saw Dawn of the Planet of the Apes, I would discuss why I think it should be nominated for Oscars beyond the usual F/X nods. Let's take a look as to why:

First off, I'll discuss the performance by Andy Serkis as Caesar. As Grace Randolph from Beyond The Trailer said, Serkis has become the "Lon Chaney" of motion capture. Whereas Chaney donned makeup, Serkis relies on electrodes to aid his performance. When watching his portrayal, it made me realize just how far we have come when it comes to motion capture. Now, the actors that don the electrodes are able to project emotion onto their characters and the audience is able to project pathos onto their performances. Plus, Serkis has contributed to motion capture since his days as Gollum in the Lord of the Rings trilogy and I feel it's about time he has gotten its due for his contributions to this special form of acting.

Another reason that the Academy should recognize this film in some of the major categories is ratings. As film like this getting a nod for say, Best Picture, would really cause people to tune in. As evidenced by recent years, the Academy has slowly but surely warmed up to mainstream fare, with Inception receiving nods for Best Picture and Best Screenplay while still winning in the technical departments, Life of Pi winning Best Director as well as technicals, and Gravity going home the big winner of the night with 7 wins out of 10 nominations, including Best Director. Like I said, they are getting there and they should get audiences excited. Remember when Slumdog Millionaire won Best Picture and people were too busy complaining about The Dark Knight not being on there? Remember a couple years ago when The Artist won and there were 9 Best Picture nominees and people were focused on wondering where Harry Potter, Bridesmaids, and Girl With The Dragon Tattoo were? So, to me, I feel like Gravity's near sweep has become a game changer for the Academy and hopefully, a positive omen for mainstream fare in the future. I do hope that this film becomes next in line, along with potentially Interstellar or The Hunger Games: Mockingjay. 

So, those are my quick thoughts as to why I think the Academy should give Dawn of the Planet of the Apes Oscar nods in the major categories. If you agree or disagree, please feel free to write your thoughts in the comments section. Thanks for reading!

Trailer Talk #18: St.Vincent, Exodus: Gods and Kings, Wild, Unbroken, Gone Girl #2, Sin City: A Dame To Kill For

Hello, Bloggers, welcome to another episode of Trailer Talk, where I take six trailers for six upcoming movies and discuss whether I want to trade my rectangular or plastic green men to see them in the theaters. Let's take a look at what's coming out:

St. Vincent: First up is the trailer for the upcoming comedy-drama St. Vincent starring Bill Murray, Melissa McCarthy, and Naomi Watts. Now, before I saw the trailer, I figured it would be pretty good considering the talent behind it. But after watching it, I think it looks very promising and seems like it breaks the mold in the "coming-of-age" story. I like how Melissa McCarthy is going slightly more serious and how Bill Murray is doing a balancing dramedy. Naomi Watts actually seems pretty funny in this as she plays a Russian stripper and dons a thick Russian accent. Will I see it in theaters? Maybe, but I do hope to see it.

Exodus: Gods and Kings: Next up is the trailer for Exodus: Gods and Kings starring Christian Bale. This one is quite a case as I have strong hopes that it is not only better than the last Biblical film to come out this year (Noah) but better than director Ridley Scott's minor hiccup last year (The Counselor). It looks like it just might be as it has the always great Christian Bale in the lead as well as support from Sigourney Weaver, The Great Gatsby's Joel Edgerton, Ben Kingsley, and Breaking Bad's Aaron Paul. It even comes out at the end of the year, so it could be an Oscar contender, depending on how well it does. But regardless, I do want to see this in theaters.

Wild: Next up is the trailer for the potential Oscar bait film Wild starring Reese Witherspoon. As I noted in my last Trailer Talk, it looks like Witherspoon might be having a "McConaissance" of her own with the release of this film as well as The Good Lie, which are two films that might cater to the Academy with Wild being a biopic and The Good Lie being a white savior movie. However, between those two, I would say Wild looks like it might be more promising. The Good Lie just looks like The Blind Side 2.0. I don't know if I will actually run out to see Wild because it seems like it might cater too much to the Academy, but we'll see. 

Unbroken: Next is the trailer for another potential Oscar film Unbroken directed by Angelina Jolie. Like Wild, this looks like another film that might cater too much to the Academy, which doesn't make me warm up to it as much. But on a side note, Jolie's boyfriend Brad Pitt has another WWII film coming out, Fury, which I am really excited for. But this one, I'll just say "wait and see". It doesn't look terrible, but I won't be quick to pay money and see it just yet.

Gone Girl: Next is the second trailer for Gone Girl, starring Ben Affleck. Normally, I don't review the same movie twice on Trailer Talk, but I just can't contain my feelings about this new trailer. Holy Toledo, am I looking forward to this film! I love that David Fincher is directing this, I like the cast, the film just reeks of eerie mystery, and I LOVE that. I love seeing trailers for mysteries that are shrouded in mystery. Oh my god, I cannot wait for this!

Sin City: A Dame To Kill For: Finally is the trailer for the sequel Sin City: A Dame To Kill For. While I did get enjoyment out of the first one, whether I see this in theaters remains to be seen. I think it's pretty neat that Joseph Gordon-Levitt is in it and Eva Green seems like a good choice for this type of movie as well as the role she is playing. Most of the players from the first one are back, with the only ones not being Brittany Murphy and Michael Clarke Duncan for obvious reasons, Clive Owen because of something involving his character, and Devon Aoki due to maternity reasons. While the ones returning are quite exceptional, whether I see this in theaters remains to be seen. I'm guessing the reason I'm not too crazy about this one is that it's been such a while since the first one came out that seeing this just became an afterthought. But, we'll see.

So, that was my 18th episode of Trailer Talk. If you saw any of these trailers, then as always, I encourage you to write in the comments sections to share your thoughts. Also as always, my next episode will come after I see a new film in theaters or if I just catch a bunch of new trailers online. Until then, thanks for reading!

Review: Dawn of the Planet of the Apes (2014)

                                      In A Good Way, These 'Apes' Had Me Going Bananas
                       
                      Pathos: a Greek term for the word emotion. Very rarely do we see blockbusters or sci-fi films project pathos to their main characters, in my opinion. The few recent examples I can think of are this film and X-Men: Days of Future Past. But not only does the film project pathos onto its human characters, but its primate characters as well, thanks in part to the writing as well as the acting.
                           
                        Story:
                       Dawn of the Planet of the Apes follows the aftermath of the events of its predecessor where apes and humans have reached a special truce after the plague known as "Simian Flu" has wiped out a good portion of humanity. Caesar (Andy Serkis) is living in peace with his family and fellow apes until the arrival of a group of humans slowly causes the peace to be disrupted and war begins to erupt.

                      What I Liked About It:
                     First off, one thing I absolutely loved was the performance by Andy Serkis. For a motion capture performance, Serkis is able to bring emotional gravitas to his portrayal of the main simian, along with his fellow actors who play Caesar's fellow apes. One in particular that stood out is Toby Kebbell, who plays Caesar's henchman turned enemy named Koba. It is amazing how Kebbell goes from faithful servant to skeptic to anarchist and I thought he actually stole the film. Another thing I loved was how we see both sides of the coin. In other words, we see the point of view of the humans and get a glimpse of the apes and how they live. We even see the point of view of Caesar's son conflicted son Blue Eyes played by Nick Thurston as well as Gary Oldman's anti-hero character named Dreyfus, who you sort of detest but eventually understand his flaws. Of course, Oldman was great. Jason Clarke, who plays the main human protagonist Malcolm is really as well and I liked how they didn't portray his character as the heroic Hollywood type, but more as an average guy who just wants things to be right in the world. Keri Russell plays his love interest and I liked how they didn't make her character a useless damsel that screams a lot or anything like that. Russell plays a very sympathetic character and like Clarke and Kodi Smit-McPhee, who plays Malcolm's son Alexander, really makes you want to be on her side.

                    Another thing I liked and thought was interesting was how they played upon the idea of father-son relationships. The film focuses on Caesar's relationship with his son torn between his loyalties to his father and Koba, who slowly acts as the devil on his shoulders. Plus, there is even a scene where Alexander is communicating with an ape about a comic book he is reading and Malcolm observes, indicating that he is somewhat of a parallel to his father since they both are trying to make peace with the apes. I also thought the action scenes were quite neat and the plot point of the humans trying to get the apes to fix the fuel in their broken city. That kind of thing hasn't really been dealt with before in post-apocalyptic films. The whole idea of running low on fuel and electricity, so I thought that was interesting.

                  What I Didn't Like About It:
                  Nothing.

                 Consensus:
               Overall, Dawn of the Planet of the Apes is a real sci-fi gem that is not only one of the best films to come out this year but is one of the best sequels to come out in recent memory that also manages to work as a stand alone film as well. It has fantastic acting from its cast, especially the actors playing the apes, as well as tremendous acting and emotional gravitas to the film as a whole.

Grade: A+