Review for Session 9

Flash Summary:
An asbestos cleaning team enters an abandoned mental asylum to do some cleaning to prepare the building for something more commercial. Turns out the asylum may not be so abandoned after all...

Review:
For a movie that I constantly avoided for the worry that it was simply a SciFi-esque cheap thriller with a somewhat decent cast, I was more than pleasantly surprised with Session 9. As I sat down to screen this film for my Art of Cinema class (after my class denied watching Evil Dead 2 over this...ugh....), I was ready to cast the film off as yet another people-enter-bad-place-and-make-dumb-decisions film, but there was, get ready for this, a plot!

While it may be being facetious to add the bold italics to that statement, I find that simply having a decent and original plot in a horror/thriller film instantly gives it merit. If you want mindless B-movie exploitation horror, there is plenty of that in the 80's and spamming Netflix weekly. Session 9 dug under my skin with it's close knit group of characters and their ever-growing tension throughout the film, to the point where I felt their struggle physically and mentally. For someone looking for a great psychological film with a couple brain exercises and hard-hitting, yet sparse, gore, I implore you to look no further.

For our asbestos team of 5, including cast members such as David Caruso and Josh Lucas, we quickly become the 6th worker as we are given a decent exploitation into the personal lives of our workers and why they have stuck with this unsafe and poor-paid job for so long. I think the screenwriter/director Brad Anderson did extremely well with giving our characters a story, since a horror film is not exactly where we find these sort of things. After we are introduced to our setting, which becomes a character of the film itself, and given a dose of back story, the mind-games begin.

The film is one of the better looking horror films I've seen, especially considering how low the budget was one the film (only $379,000!!!). Certain scenes of the asylum, especially the sinister ward A where our lead man Gordon, played by Peter Mullan, has some sort of connection with the halls and passages, are standouts in my memory, and the clear vastness of the building as not many scenes are repetitive. Also, it should be duly noted that the director had only had experience directing two rom-coms prior to this film. It's a no-brainer as to why his next film was the incredibly darker and depressing The Machinist, with this being the foreplay.

At the end of the day, I would still label this film as a horror film, but I wouldn't follow that statement without my reasoning as to why it's most certainly a standout in the genre. It has smarts, it has a decent cast and setting, and it's not what you'd expect from the setup of its story. I will admit that if you aren't paying close attention to the film, there will be some things that may not be completely clear to you, but hey, if you aren't paying attention to it, why are you watching it? Don't choose this as a midnight movie to just have a couple drinks and talk during it, but rather, give it your full undivided attention, and you'll be rewarded with a smart, engaging horror movie that threatens the question; are we aware of the notion of insanity when we ourselves may be?

Sidenote: Sorry for the late review(s), this past week was my 21st birthday, so it's safe to assume movie reviewing was the last thing I was focused on! I'll be back on track from here on out!

Review for The Princess Bride

Flash Summary:
A young boy is told a story of damsels in distress and great heroes by his grandfather. This story is not the traditional King Arthur, as we have a comical twist to keep our story alive!

Review:
Rob Reiner's 1987 film The Princess Bride is a very special film to a lot of people I know. The jokes, the actors, and the story have all been the victim of pop culture regurgitation over the years, and most people/critics/websites cite it as one of their favorite comedies. I, myself, had never completely seen the film until about a week ago, and I thought it necessary to gather my thoughts and see if I agreed with the general consensus. I regret to inform, I did not feel the same way.

While this film is in no regards bad or dumb, I simply couldn't find myself to think most of the film was funny. Granted, the comedy made nowadays is either a play on an Apatow film or a copy of The Hangover, I simply felt that the film was using its characters in the dumbest way possible. I will also say that having seen this film while I was younger or when it was in theaters, I would have probably appreciated it a lot more than having just seen it at 20 years old in 2013. It is certainly easy to tell why this film is nostalgic, though, as the entire movie is joke upon classic line. It is not always true to wait until you're older to truly appreciate cinema.

I quite enjoyed the three pirates' interaction with our hero, played by Cary Elwes, but the fact that their time together was so short made for a sour taste in my viewing experience. The whole story was incredibly basic, but this little addition was my favorite piece of the film. I'd also like to note that for being a film in 1987, this film has held up beautifully aspect-wise. It may be because I watched a Blu-ray copy of it, but the film looked marvelous, and the scenery and action pieces were well-constructed and choreographed. Our damsel in distress, played by Robin Wright, was perfect in the role, constantly vying for her rescuer and badmouthing our Prince Humperdinck, my favorite character, portrayed by Chris Sarandon.

In watching the film, I was trying my hardest to watch it with the mindset of an audience in 1987, or a young child, but I simply thought the jokes were just too dried out for my age and not evoking responses. I am not saying this was not funny at all, as there are certain areas where I thought the film exceeded in its comical aspect (the cups of wine scene and the prince tracking our hero), but I wouldn't go as far as to say it was one of the best comedies I've seen. Like I said before, it is clear to me while many people love this film, and to those who do, I'm happy for you and glad you find this film so great. I simply couldn't feel the same way!

I do not have any specific reviews slated for the upcoming dates, so if there is something any of you would like me to review, please comment below or on any other of my reviews, and I'd be happy to screen your film of choice! Thanks again for reading!

Review for Take Shelter

Flash Summary: 
A husband/father begins to have increasingly dark and threatening visions, with most including his daughter. The line between insanity and sanity is breached.

Review:
I'll never forget seeing William Friedkin's Bug in theaters when I was younger and being so damned disappointed. For a movie that was boasting "From the director of The Exorcist" and having rave reviews about how scary and suspenseful it was, my 13 year old self was ready to pee my pants. Instead I got a dark drama about a war veteran who is a little whack-o and it starts to rub off on to Ashley Judd. Of course, watching that movie again later in my life, I came to realize how truly wonderful of a movie it really was, and applauded all involved.

Take Shelter, which stars our main character from Bug, Michael Shannon, had quite the exact effect on me. I had seen this movie about 2 years ago when it was initially released with a group of friends at a midnight premiere, and we all had plans to call this movie the scariest thing that ever happened to us. This was not the absolve. Instead, Shelter is a slow crawl to a big finish, with no jump scares, just psychological trauma for your pleasure. As we journey down a dark road with Shannon's character, we realize that this film is not meant to frighten, but to enlighten. Are we crazy for seeing things, or is there a higher reason for it?

While Michael Shannon is incredible (as always) in this film, we would be without a proper cast if Jessica Chastain was not in the credits as his wife. Yeah, that girl from Zero Dark Thirty and Mama. She plays us; the scared individual who desperately wants to believe the person we love so much, but has to find it in her heart first before fully accepting. Both of our main actors were nominated for numerous awards for this film, and it is so incredibly easy to see why. They interact like a real struggling couple, who are going through a very real problem.

My favorite aspect of the film had to be its sense of awareness to Shannon's issue. He does not blindly believe in his visions and just rant about it or forget like in every other dumb horror/thriller. He is seeking help, not just from psychiatrists or doctors, but from his family. Sure, it takes him a while to come around to the family part, but it was really nice to see the way a normal human being would react to these apocalyptic sights, rather than turning him into a crazy old bitter man. I also really enjoyed the daughter's role in the film. While having almost no dialogue since she is deaf, she presents the aspect of silence in the issue of the film. Should I tell somebody what I'm seeing, or should I keep to myself and ignore it? That's always the pending questions with movies like these, and her role kind of embodies that question. You'll have to see the film through to get the answer, though.

This write-up has honestly felt more like a Q and A with myself, because this is a very different movie that I still ponder from time to time. I don't know if a solid review would have been possible on my part, since I'm still not sure about a lot of things in the film. I will say that the effects in the film, primarily the visions, are very clear and well-made, and the shots of the desolate farmland they live in create an even stronger sense of isolation in this film. I wish for everyone that appreciates Michael Shannon (even just from Premium Rush) or Jessica Chastain to see this film, because it really showcases their abilities to act with a sense of familiarity to normal human life.

A review for The Princess Bride will be up shortly, and sorry for the delay on this review! This past weekend was my 21st, so I was a little busy! Happy viewing!

Review for The Impossible

Flash Summary:
A family of five on vacation in Thailand undergoes the tragic tsunami of 2004.

Review:
I will start this review by stating that if you have not heard of this film or seen any advertisements for it, please review my summary and stop there. The trailer for this movie captured my attention and quickly disrupted it for the sake of so much exposition in it's almost 3 minute trailer. The entire story is in the trailer, much like many Hollywood blockbusters, and it leaves nothing to wonder. This being said, the film is everything I could possibly ask for in a drama.

The film The Impossible finds us following a family of two parents (played wonderfully by Naomi Watts and Ewan McGregor) and their three boys as they go on a Christmas vacation to a beautiful beach resort in Thailand. There is a slight turmoil between the parents, as our father figure is constantly worried about work, and it seems to affect the mother and her children. This becomes a minor detail when we are dealt with the biggest natural disaster known to have struck Thailand: the tsunami(s). The family is at the foot of the disaster when it occurs, and there is an onslaught of terror and fear for most of the remainder of the film. This is all I will reveal, because it'd be a shame for anyone to know more before walking into the theater.

With some of the greatest cinematography on celluloid I have ever seen, it is incredibly hard to believe that this movie isn't a documentary. The display of the island they're vacationing on once the tsunami has taken its toll is breathtaking and captivating. You feel like you took part in the tsunami yourself, and are witnessing your home/world crumble around you. I felt incredibly uneasy and disturbed by some of the destruction/wounds/bodies that appear throughout the film. Quite frankly, there is enough hard-pressed gore and violence in this movie to shake even the toughest of horror fans (I myself winced more than enough times). One particular wound is the one Watts' character has on her leg, and her breast. The special effects and makeup team are incredibly on spot with this work.

A problem I found with the film, apart from its transparent trailer, was its need to bring tears to my eyes every 5 minutes or so. I honestly don't think I've been this emotionally involved in a film since 2007's Into the Wild. For the entire last 15 minutes, the waterworks were at play like a pair of dueling sprinklers, and my girlfriend (quite obviously) had it even worse than I did! It may be foolish to call this a problem, simply because if a movie isn't trying to move you emotionally, it's most likely not doing its job. But it just seemed like an onslaught of terrible/miraculous things happening at every minute was something I couldn't get used to. The fact that this is based off of a true personal account of a family who suffered this tragedy makes it all the scarier, and more eye-opening.

Please see this film. Regardless of critics, hearsay, or that guy at work who said it was a dumb disaster movie, please make your way to the theater/store and see it. I honestly feel like this could be an important piece of cinema down the line of Watts'/McGregor's career, and their children in the film are just as talented. I grew to care about all of these characters as if they were my own family over the course of the opening 10 minutes, something I am not particularly used to. It is vital that you see this movie if the tragedy has affected you in any way. I can't remember exactly where the quote came from, but a survivor of the tragedy who saw the film described it as "cathartic and resolving." I pursue you to see this film, or if you already have, please leave a comment below and let me know your thoughts on it, because I'd love to see how this has affected people other than myself.

P.S. A review of the 2011 film Take Shelter is up next, I can't wait to tell everyone about it!

Review of Dr. Strangelove

Flash Summary: 
A general during post-World War II issues a plan to bomb Russia without consent from the President or any other established authority. Chaos ensues, to the hilarity of the viewer. Sidenote: This very well could be the easiest Kubrick film to summarize. God knows I couldn't do this for 2001.

Review: 
It has taken me quite some time to actually sit down and prepare myself for the only Kubrick movie I have yet to see, apart from Eyes Wide Shut. I was, in a sense, scared of the film for a while, for reasons of not understanding the concept or not being able to "get" the comedic portions of the film. Needless to say, I hope anyone wishing to see this film drops these feelings if they mirror my own, because this is a film anyone above the age of 15 can enjoy, and one I was quite happy to finally see.

I watched this film in a class I have at school, among many other people who had heard of the film, but had never seen it. The reception of the film was quite mixed, to say the least, as this is a black-and-white movie with a not-so-very-dated issue. The film follows multiple people: a cracked-out general who calls for a team of planes to drop nuclear bombs on Russia; a single plane of that very team; and the war room containing the President, the Russian ambassador, many other authoritative figures, and our beloved Dr. Strangelove. All aspects of the story are very important, crucial to the following of the current event, and, simply put, hilarious.

Out of our three colliding stories, I would most definitely categorize the war room scenes as my favorites. The interaction of the war general with the President and the ambassador was spot on and very satirical of how our political system is ran to this day. But, these scenes would feel incomplete without our titular character, Dr. Strangelove, himself. Although it is quite "strange" that he only appears in about 15 minutes of the film, the screen/scene is completely his once he wheelchairs in. Peter Sellers, who not only plays a character in every separate story, is in a role of a lifetime with Strangelove, and he eats up the German Hitler-built ego with presence and ecstasy.

I quite liked the portions of the film located in the cockpit of the B-52, as well. The flight team was very comical and represented the dire opposites of their general who put them to the task. They cannot make a single move without getting it confirmed about a thousand times, and nothing seems to go right for them, but they always maintained a positive feel to their scenes and it was a welcome addition to our three-part story. The scenes I was not particularly fond of were the general and his executive officer. These scenes, apart from a couple in the beginning of the film, felt almost like filler to me, and watching the degradation of a man who has made a decision to be hanged for in a black comedy is not always so funny to me. Needless to say, Peter Sellers portrayal of the executive officer that stands by his general's side (forcibly, one might say) is quite the touch to these scenes, and makes them more entertaining.

 Through and through, it is quite clear to me how this is such an important film in not just Kubrick's career, but in film history, as well. This was not a light subject at the time the film was released, and it still isn't today. This was a very daring film, something Kubrick was known for, and it is reminiscent on the celluloid. I can't fairly say I enjoy it more so than his other films, such as A Clockwork Orange or Paths of Glory, but it is most certainly a film I wouldn't mind revisiting from time and time again. I highly recommend this film to anyone studying the history of film, or anyone that finds political satires to be their favorite sort of cinema, because this may be the king of the genre.

P.S. More reviews coming up soon, namely The Impossible and Take Shelter!!! Be sure to follow me on Google+, and also feel free to leave and commentary or discussion below my reviews, as I would love to hear everyone's personal opinions and thoughts! See you at the movies!

Review of Charles Swan III

Flash Summary:
A graphic designer's day-dream fueled reality starts to topple before his very own eyes when his girlfriend breaks up with him, followed by a near-death experience.

Review:
In viewing the trailer for this film a while back, it surprised me to not see Wes Anderson's name behind the credits, seeing as how two of his major picks for movies (Bill Murray & Jason Schwartzman) were starring in this alongside the ever-so-rambunctious Charlie Sheen. I thought the trailer for the film was extremely captivating and left me wondering what we would exactly get a glimpse of. Needless to say, I'm glad Charles Swan III took a trip to a psychiatrist, because I had a blast with this film.

"Can you guys believe I'm in a movie after all that crazy shit I did?!"

Charles Swan's (portrayed by Charlie Sheen) brain trip begins with his girlfriend Ivana, played by Katheryn Winnick, ruthlessly breaking up with him after she discovers a drawer full of pictures of his exes. He proceeds to go on a whimsical day-dream journey, sometimes accompanied by his comedian friend (Jason Schwartzman) and/or his graphic designing manager (Bill Murray). We see Charles' destruction as he starts to realize he may be too old to try and love again, and searches for anyone to tell him he should win Ivana back. Although a pretty grim life crisis, the film is a joy ride, and our characters are so colorful and dynamic that we rarely find ourselves bored with anyone on screen.

I did have a slight issue with the running time, as I felt that the film was cut too short and much more exposition for Swan's character was possibly left on the cutting room floor. The third act of the movie involves little to no dream sequences, while the prior two acts were soaked in a blender of reality and fantasy. This may have been Roman Coppola's attempt to show Swan's character coming to grips with reality, but I felt like it somewhat made the movie fall short of it's title. Although it is only a glimpse, and who is ever truly satisfied with a glimpse?

I made a reference to Wes Anderson earlier, saying how this looked like it could clearly be his work, but the comparisons stop at the actor choices. Although Coppola has written with Anderson in the past, this is a very fresh, new type of film, one I could get used to quickly. It was very personal, reflected a real life dilemma of our main character, and was a trippy way to show a person's thoughts on their everyday life. I quite enjoyed Coppola's film, and it has certainly prompted me to seek out more of his work. The movie's subject matter could have been dealt with in a variety of manners, but I'm quite glad this was the chosen form. If you have yet to check this movie out, or have never heard of it, I have posted a link to the trailer below.

Thanks so much for reading my review of A Glimpse Inside The Mind of Charles Swan III, be on the lookout for reviews of Dr. Strangelove and The Impossible coming soon!

Review of Django Unchained

Flash Summary: 

A slave in the pre-Civil War era is freed by a bounty hunter who promises him freedom, his slave wife, and a little pocket change to carry out some people hunting. Tarantino madness ensues, to the pleasure of gore-hounds.

Review:
Let me start by stating my views on Tarantino and his films themselves, as this can always be a lingering question when reviews are given for his films. I have yet to see a Tarantino film I did not like, and by no means place him on a pedestal above other directors of his current/past time. There are mild things and major things wrong with some of his films, but I have not been overcast by his mistakes so as to be made to hate anything he's done. And no, I do not refer to him as QT.

This being said, I am on a Django high right now. I was completely engulfed in the film, and felt like it was a struggle to take my eyes away from the screen throughout the 165-minute run-time (which had legitimately frightened me at the start). The film Tarantino has given the public is incredibly violent, incredibly racy (to the highest extent of the word), and incredibly daring. There is not a scene of dialogue or shootout that was unimportant to my immediate memory, and it is very simple to see why this movie called for so much controversy. To that, I will adress anyone to read the rating of this movie more thoroughly. 

Django, played by Jamie Foxx, is a slave on a walk through a forest with his two recent buyers and some other no named slaves, when along comes Dr. Schultz. The doctor, played by the ever-so-perfect Christoph Waltz, proceeds to free Django from his current predicament, only to bestow yet another challenging one in his hands. The two pair up to search for Django's lost slave wife, all while engulfing themselves in shootouts and tense conversations will ill-fated southerners. The climax of the movie only begins when we are introduced to Calvin Candie, portrayed by Leonardo DiCaprio, in what may be his most diverse role to date. From this point on, the film takes place in Candie Land, and the name is the only soft, sweet solace we receive while in this grim third act.

The group I saw this film with agreed that this film was most certainly not Foxx's to own. In traditional Tarantino style, we are given several multiple characters, and everyone is given their chance to shine. Waltz was basically handed the first hour and a half of the movie, dealing with any conflict with sullen ease and teaching Django his craft in gunmanship and in language. It really is wonderful to see Waltz act, almost like walking art. He was cookie-cut for this role, and it was a pleasure to see him supporting the lead role, quite unlike his last Tarantino film (Inglorious Basterds). 

Foxx seems to have a great balance on his character, but, at times he appears confused or shaken in the role. It is only natural, being that the film deals with slavery, and this was probably a very tough and heavy role for any black man to sign on for. He should be applauded for his attendance in this film, and his character speaks this in leagues. As our heroes were mighty fine and dandy, I couldn't take my eyes off of Leonardo DiCaprio in this movie. Every gesture he had and every line he spoke seemed to make me nervous and cautious. His aura in this movie is genuinely disturbing, which makes the scenes where he is charismatic and gentle all the more frightening. His role is quite reminiscent of Waltz's mentioned before in Inglorious Basterds. 

I'd have to applaud Tarantino for his spaghetti-western, because it delivered a solid theme and was a great time at the movies, two of the things I simply ask for out of any movie. I would revisit Django in a couple months' time, simply because of its length, but I would recommend this movie to anyone that has seen Tarantino's work in the past. For newcomers to Tarantino, I would try to explore his earlier filmography before delving into this movie, as you will be able to appreciate some of his signature actors/camera movements/dialogues a lot more. Before finishing, I'd like to encourage any readers to post their thoughts of Django or any other Tarantino films below, as I am quite curious to see what more of the general public thought/thinks.