Wolf of Wall Street

This is an odd film. I'm not really going to get into the controversy of whether or not the film is glorifying its protagonists, Vince over at filmdrunk has a good take on all that. To me the movie was all surface, entertaining surface, but surface none the less. I wasn't really sure how I was supposed to feel about the protagonists (other than that they were incredibly lucky morons), and the stated point, from Scorcese, that the film is all about class and the financial system, was lost on me. I think the biggest problem is the movie just glossed over how they were actually so successful (we were just supposed to assume they were master salesman, what given what was shown wasn't that convincing) and what the actual effect on their victims were. We're told a about how much they stole, but it didn't have much gravity to it. Really it just came off as a a lot of spectacle, without much of a point. It is really funny at times, and well-executed, but its not a classic by any stretch of the imagination.

Also three hours is way too long for this story. Two hours would have been plenty (you can now say 'shut up grandpa').

Her (with a cameo by American Hustle and Inside Llewyn Davis)

Lets knock the cameos out first. American Hustle is a lot of fun and worth seeing (and I'm still impressed how Jennifer Lawrence is able to convincingly play so much older than she looks), and Inside Llewyn Davis is yet another Coen Brother's film that I respect more than I enjoyed. Take that for what its worth.

Her, on the other hand, may be one of the most impressive films I've seen in awhile. This is due to the degree of difficulty it has to overcome. Basically its the story of a man who falls in love with his operating system that's not only believable, but not creepy, without feeling forced. Its the kind of high concept that would be an absolute disaster in the wrong hands, but writer/director Spike Jonze pulls it off. I was so impressed with the execution that I didn't even worry about the film's flaws.* The two main performances are also key to the film's success. Joaquin Phoenix manages to believably play someone who's socially awkward without coming off as a loser, and Scarlet Johannsen uses just her voice to create a fully realized 'character' that you can sort of understand how someone could be attracted to 'her' (the meta-question is if we didn't subconciously know what Johannsen looked like would it be as believable? Whoa dude, deep, I'm so high right now.).

Its also a really clever piece of science fiction, not calling attention to itself, but still painting a nice portrait of what the relatively near future might look like. In particular we are apparently no longer subject to the tyranny of belts:

Every guy wore these pants in ever scene. I approve, belts are for suckers. Anyway, check Her out if you get a chance. Its not perfect, but its incredibly satisfying.

*I'll relegate them to a footnote. A lot of Phoenix's character's writing is kind of trite, and some of the big speeches border on college english major level insights. Also I'm not sure they quite stick the ending.  Still these are just quibbles.

The Hunger Games: Catching Fire/The Hobbit, something something something

The Hunger Games

This second installment of the franchise was better than the first. Partially because the new director moved away from shaki-cam, but mainly because the movie at least tried to expand beyond a rote  retelling of the books. Specifically, it at least made an effort to explore the world from other characters perspective (The books, which I love, are told entirely from the main character's point of view) which is the big opportunity the film has to differentiate, and build on, the books. Overall it still hues closely to the main narrative, but I still appreciated the effort to do something different.

Other than that there's not much else to say.  Jennifer Lawrence is still great, the action scenes are a bit long, and its reasonably entertaining. Unlike the next film I saw.

The Hobbit Desolation of Smaug (probably misspelled but I don't care)

It's long.
So long.
So so long.

Look I liked the Lord of the Rings films, but I found the first installment of the Hobbit to be incredibly tedious and boring. However I saw it on a plane so I'm willing to admit that maybe not having the proper visual environment colored my opinion. Nope. This was equally as tedious and drawn out. Yes they spent alot of time and money on the visuals but perversely I found the much hyped 48 frames per second shooting style to be a detriment. Specifically, it makes everything on screen so clear that the falseness of the CGI really stood out for me, particularly in the daylight scenes. Of course had the film not been a slog this wouldn't have been such a bid deal, but at three hours long it was tough not to miss any flaws.

I'm sure I'm being too hard on this, and had it been shorter I probably wouldn't be so annoyed. Its not horrible, simply boring. Which, as I've said before, annoys me more than almost anything.

Oh well since we're in full on awards mode I'm hoping to see the following over the next few weeks to cleanse my pallet:

American Hustle
Wolf of Wall street
Her
Inside Llewyn Davis

Gravity/Thor: The Dark World

If you had told me I would have come out of these films wishing one had more action and less character, and the other less action and more character, I probably wouldn't have guessed the latter would be Thor. Its interesting but in all the Marvel Films the characters (particularly Iron Man) have been so established that I prefer the time spent just hanging out with them, rather than the generically interchangeable fight scenes. This is particularly true in Thor where they try even less than usual to make the villain compelling (or even logical). As a result the best scenes focus inherent goofiness of the character (particularly when its just Thor and Loki hanging out and talking trash), rather than 20 minute fight scenes where you never really believe the world is going to end. Joss Whedon got close to the desired dynamic with the Avengers (in the scenes with Iron Man and Hulk) but even there the action ended bogging down the proceedings. Really I wouldn't mind someone like Kevin Smith getting ahold of one of these films. Someone who would put all the focus on the interactions of the characters, and the incongruity of having them in the world, as opposed to massive set pieces.  Don't get me wrong. I still enjoy the universe, I guess I'm just less impressed by the spectacle.

Gravity on the other hand is a taut 90 minutes of essentially real time space action, and it looks as good as everyone says. Really the only problem with it, and this is the same point Will Leitch made in his review, is the arbitrary attempt to force a back story on Sandra Bullock's character. Its completely unnecessary, and really grinds whats an overall propulsive film to halt. There's plenty of tension already, we don't need a dead kid thrown in there as well. This is only a minor quibble though, and its well worth checking out.

The World's End/Rush

Been busy (busy = napping) so haven't been out to see much.  Anyway I saw The Worlds End about a month ago and like the rest of the Cornetto Trilogy (Sean of the Dead, Hot Fuzz) its really enjoyable. The cast has a nice rapport and the film doesn't beat you over the head with references. Its not going to change the world or anything (which is good because, well, The World Ends) but it has a high rewatchability factor and is one of the funnier films I've seen this summer.

Rush on the other hand is the embodiment of a 'solid' movie, but nothing more. It follows two formula one drivers vying for the 1976 championship, one is a hothead who relies on guts, and the other takes a cerebral technical approach to his work and finds the other to be a 'danger to the sport.' If this sounds a little too generic and cliched to you, you're not wrong.  The weakest part of the film is the overly broad characterizations and on the nose dialog which did have me roll my eyes at times. However, the film excels in the racing scenes. You really get a nice sense of the power and speed of the cars, and just how dangerous it was to race in the relatively unregulated race series in the 1970's.  Really the way the films portrays it I was amazed there weren't more racer, and spectator, deaths. Basically you could just roll right up on the track behind a minimal, or non-existent, barrier and watch the race. Though if this was still allowed I might actually watch a NASCAR race (no I wouldn't).  Anyway Rush is worth seeing for the racing action, and that is worth seeing, but don't expect much more.

The Spectacular Now

TSN (I only did that because I realized the film's initial's were the same as The Sporting News, and makes it sound like a network on The Newsroom. I'm clever) is a generally enjoyable film about a functioning high school alcoholic who ends up falling for a sheltered classmate. The best things the film has going for it are the two leads (whose names I"m  not going to bother to look up). They have the benefit of actually looking like high schoolers (or, at worst, sophomores in college), and do a great job capturing the subtlety of the characters. This subtlety is generally matched by the pace of the film and I appreciated how for most of the first half it didn't feel the need to put an explanation point on the drinking, or the main character's general sense of disillusionment and fear of the future. Unfortunately the last half hour or so devolves into a combination of a PSA and the ending of Good Will Hunting which undercuts the restraint the rest of the film exhibited. Its still worth watching just because the two leads are so good, but I wish it had stuck to the earlier feel and not felt the need to shift tones so dramatically.

Also because I like to appear like a discerning pop culture fan I'm obligated to mention the Bubbles from the wire plays a math teacher. #stuffwhitepeoplelike

Blackfish/Despicable Me 2/Blue Jasmine

Okay got a little backed up here doing other super important activities (video games don't play themselves). Lightning round.

Blackfish

This documentary about deaths of Sea World trainers at the hands (flippers?) of Killer Whales is smart in how it goes about its business. Rather than being the expected "Aren't Orcas beautiful and mysterious, how dare we keep these beautiful spirits in captivity" route (though there is some of that), it focuses on whether or not Sea World (and other water parks) run unsafe work environments. And really, if the very act of working with these animals is asking for trouble (the answer would seem to be yes). The film has amazing footage of whales attacking trainers, and paints a pretty damning picture of Sea world  management ignoring risks and trying to hide all of the attacks from not just the public but other trainers as well.

The film does have two major drawbacks. The first isn't really the makers fault. Sea World refused to participate so there really isn't anyone arguing the other side (though there are few things that seem indefensible). This leaves most of the arguments feeling incomplete. Second, it does verge a bit into the polemical at moments, particularly at the end as former trainers get into the whole 'should we even have zoos' debate. I don't deny there may be a discussion to have about that, but its a much more problematic area then the question of unsafe work conditions (particularly, as my brother likes to point out, we do spend much of our time breeding animals in worse conditions for the sole reason of eating them).  Thankfully this isn't the focus, and the majority of the film is engaging and brings up some interesting questions. Well worth checking out.

Despicable Me 2

Its fine. Ignores the kid characters probably too much, and definitely gets draggy in spots, but inifinitely less offensive than something like Planes.

Blue Jasmine

As I've said before, I'm totally in the bag for Woody Allen.  I'll see anything the guy does, and even with his lesser works I always find something to enjoy.  Blue Jasmine is actually a divergence from his last several, mainly comedic, films.  Its funny, but more like Crimes and Misdemeanors funny as opposed to a farce. It follows a thoroughly unlikable character (jasmine, played by Cate Blanchett) whose life falls apart and then spends the rest of the film popping pills and going crazy. The film actually plays lighter than my description sounds, but its a really interesting choice and pretty dark. Not everything works (some of the supporting characters are, to say the least, broad) but overall another solid effort from the Wood-man (yes I really just called him that. Shut up.)