Hail, Caesar!

    This last spring I was lucky enough to sit in for a Q&A with Joel Coen. The Coen Brothers are one of my favorite directors and I reference them often in this blog. So when asked about his next project and Joel described a movie called Hail, Caesar! about George Clooney being abducted by a group of extras, I was thrilled. I finally saw Hail, Ceasar! last weekend on a Valentine's date with my Mom. I was not thrilled.

    So let's get this clear. The movie is not awful. It's not Battleship or some other Hasbro garbage. But is not a good movie for them and is one of my least favorites by them. I like the visuals, the jokes, and the acting. But there were some key story elements that did not happen. For example, there's a plot line that involves a dastardly act George Clooney's character did on his first Hollywood film. The act was revealed at the end of the movie in an offscreen conversation and written out quickly. Additionally a lot of the characters don't have purpose or a desire, other than create work for Josh Brolin's character Eddie Mannix.

                                                            Mannix is the protagonist of this twisty, seemingly meaningless comedy-drama. That description in itself shows how scattered the characters are. Huge stars like Ralph Fiennes, Tilda Swinton, and Scarlett Johansson pop in and out of the story with very little to do and loose ends that get tied up by a simple walk and talk with Eddie Mannix in the last five minutes.

The only actor who is given any other meaningful screen time is Alden Ehrenreich who gives a marvelous performance as country good ole boy Hobie Doyle. Hobie is a stud with horses but is brought into a adapted play directed by Ralph Fiennes' Lawrence Lawrence. The scene provides the only true moment of comedy of the whole film with an endearing Hobie and the artist Lawrence. 

  

     Now at the Q&A I learned about Hail, Caesar! before while it was shooting. This could be me only hearing what I wanted to hear but I could have sworn that Joel Coen said that Hail, Caesar! was going to be a musical.

     It fits with the current cut of the movie. There are large musical interludes with Channing Tatum, Scarlett Johansson, and Alden Ehrenreich and music and old Hollywood is a big theme. Additionally the explanation of major off screen plot points through dialogue would make sense if these were originally supposed to be shown in a musical number. Channing Tatum's character is given a full length musical number and then has no dialogue until what seems to be the climactic scene. And this climactic scene has absolutely no context. 

     I think Hail, Caesar! was supposed to be in a musical and somewhere in the production that was cut. What was left was a hodge podge of actors, characters, and story lines tied together by Eddie Mannix and Roger Deakins.

Sicario

I'm having a pretty difficult time making sense of Sicario. Coming fresh off the heels of my first Villeneuve film viewing (the weird, overly metaphorical yet somehow beautiful "Enemy") I had pretty high expectations going into the movie. It's got Roger Deakins behind the camera and Emily Blunt, Josh Brolin, and Benicio Del Toro in front of it, and I heard that the tension alone would make the 2 hour running time fly by.

Well. Here we are. Two hours later, and I'm not exactly sure what to think. All of those mentioned above did their job exceedingly well: Deakins killed it as always, and the performances of the three lead characters - specifically Blunt's - were riveting. The film definitely went by quickly, and it was tense throughout, and yet I can't help feeling that something is missing. Which is weird, because everywhere I look, all I can see are glowing reviews and praise being thrown at Villeneuve and Co. for making what some people are calling the best movie of the year (for example, check out Rolling Stone's review here and the AV Club's right here) So... am I wrong here? Am I missing something?

To make a long answer short; yes. Probably. The more I read about the film, the more I feel like it deserves an immediate second viewing. Specific complaints of mine, like the sense that I was never quite sure what was going on throughout the movie, were more or less put to rest when I realized that Blunt's character is supposed to be in the same shoes as the audience, with the lack of info supposedly pulling us along throughout. I'll buy that, I guess, and watching it again could take away that distraction of trying to figure out what the hell is going on and the constant worry that I'm missing something.

The more I think about it, the more that I realize that I just didn't particularly care about any of the characters (spoilers coming if you haven't seen Sicario). Sure, the scene where Blunt's character almost gets choked to death by the undercover hitman was suspenseful, but I never particularly cared if anything bad happened to her. Same goes for Brolin's and Del Toro's characters. They all did a fantastic job with the acting, don't get me wrong, but the movie more or less failed to connect with me on a personal level of any kind. In retrospect, I understand that the point was, as the AV Club puts it, to "squeeze the protagonist out of her own story." It was dark and futile, and every time you wanted to see Emily Blunt kick some male ass, she didn't. This wasn't a movie about the good guys winning, or even about the bad guys winning. Nobody won. Even the characters who managed to achieve their goals didn't win. I don't mind bleak movies, or even movies that subvert audience expectations, but with something this bleak, I at least like to be left with some sort of tidbit to ruminate on as I leave the theatre. In reality, I was kind of just frustrated.


Again, I feel like I'm just shitting on this movie, but it really did have some incredibly well executed scenes. The beginning had me 120% hooked, and might be one of the better intro scenes to any movie that I've seen in a long time. Roger Deakins filmed the whole thing beautifully, with what seemed to be a tendency to center his shots more so than I've seen him do in the past. All of the night vision/infrared scenes were really well done, and it's safe to say that the whole film was more or less a visual pleasure.

So. I don't know. I want with all my heart to say that this was a great movie, but right now I can't muster up the strength to call it anything more than decent. I'm not mad that I paid to see it, but at the same time, I wish I had enjoyed it just a teensy bit more. Denis Villeneuve has a history of making morally ambiguous films, and Sicario fails to break that trend. Maybe I'll feel different on a second viewing, but I don't exactly have high hopes.

It's Actually Pretty Groovy To Be Insane

      Inherent Vice is the first ever Thomas Pynchon novel to be adapted into a screenplay. The fact I have to say that is pertinent to the creation, outcome, and reaction to the movie. Thomas Pynchon is a modern literary giant. He is well respected, reclusive (as artist are portrayed), and has created a modern classic. Some call it The Modern Classic. Regardless, one of critics most loved filmmakers in Paul Thomas Anderson has taken on the great challenge of adapting one of critics most loved writers. He did so by writing the whole novel out as script and then cutting out what he felt was unnecessary.

     Inherent Vice, a movie based on the 2009 novel of the same title, is a drug-filled noir set in the 1970's. The main story follows "Doc" Sportello, played by Joaquin Phoenix, a private investigator and dirty hippie. The story is jumpstarted when Shasta Fay Hepworth, an ex lover of Doc's, comes into Doc's home with a hunch that the new hot shot real estate tycoon she's with, well his wife and her boyfriend are planning to send him to the loony bin. She thinks.

   

   













   
     Doc begins his journey and immediately bumps into characters such as a Black Guerilla Family member, a woman who thinks her husband may not be dead, and a prostitute Jade. Like a noir film Doc has a particular distaste for the formal police, particularly Josh Brolin's character nicknamed "Bigfoot."

     

     Detective Bjornsen is the antithesis of Phoenix's doping Doc and their unwillingness but need to work together to solve the case creates a lot of the tension and comedy in the film. 

     To try to summarize the rest of the plot would do a disservice to both the movie and Pynchon's style of writing. The movie is complex, surreal, and elaborate. All the characters relate and the solving of one mystery just leads to more questions. That is to say, it watches as a Pynchon novel would read. The cast is humongous and star studded, leaving me to look over several times to a friend throughout the film and remark "Oh my god I didn't know they were in this movie." 

    Critic review of the film has been inherently positive while audience left the theatre "confused." I too left confused and spent most of the remainder of the night trying to piece together the plot. I think the story would work better in it's original format, as a novel. That's not to say I didn't like the film. I really liked the film. The more I write about it the more I liked it. It's a flawless adaption of a Pynchon novel. Tonally the movie was perfect and, dare I say, groovily insane. 

    

     

This week in movies...

Friday: Tonight, I've just watched Reservoir Dogs by Quentin Tarantino. And I've got to say I was taken aback by it. And I'm not sure if in a good or a bad way.

In one aspect it was beautifully done and in Tarantino-fashion. Lots of blood, lots of "F" and "N" words but wonderfully showed the grittiness of what it means to do a "job".

Maybe it's due to the last few of his movies I've seen are his quote-on-quote best movies, that I built it up as going to be just another Pulp Fiction but with more mobsters.

Hopefully if I watch it again in a few weeks or so, I'll appreciate it more... Of course I enjoyed when Blonde cut the cops ear off- the pacing of it was so well done that my ear only hurt once I saw the ear in Blonde's hand.

And like always, the soundtrack was on point... And I loved Orange's references to Marvel... made my night.

Saturday: This afternoon my boyfriend and I saw Gangster Squad. He wasn't sure on whether we should see it or not since the website, Rotten Tomatoes, gave it a low score. I usually hate what most critics say about a movie so I finally beat the whole "But Emma Stone is in it!" to a pulp and we finally got to see it.

It wasn't that bad. Now, I enjoyed Josh Brolin bash peoples' faces in and Ryan Gosling in a fitted suit but it was a movie you have to see at least once. The story telling was sub-par but it was still a good gangster movie. Brolin's wife in the movie was one of my favorite characters and the fight scenes were always exciting. 

Don't spend your money on the movie while it's out in theaters- wait till it's either at your $2 theatre or until it's at RedBox. If you like Ryan Gosling and gun fights, might as well check it out.

Coen Brothers

     I recently watched No Country For Old Men (2007), directed by the Coen Brothers, for the first time. This movie was on my list of movies to watch so I sat down by myself and enjoyed the film. There is mostly natural sound throughout the movie and no music to accompany the characters. The sounds of wind and the environment reflect the main character's motives and convey a feeling of isolation and loneliness. Javier Bardem plays the 'villian' in the movie and is truly insane and dynamic. After seeing Skyfall (2012) last weekend, I respect Bardem for playing such diverse characters and being able to become the character he is casted as. The movie is now on my list of favorite movies and accompanied by it are many other Coen Brothers movies. Ethan and Joel Coen are two of my favorite directors and I've been making an attempt to watch all of their movies. Thus far, I've seen No Country For Old Men, O Brother Where Art Thou?, Fargo, and The Big Lebowski. I plan to watch True Grit and Burn After Reading. Why do I like their movies? The Coen brothers direct movies with the most unusual characters and unlikely stories. The cinematography is amazing and the actors featured in the movies are some of my favorite actors (John Goodman, Jeff Bridges, Josh Brolin, Steve Buscemi, Phillip Seymour Hoffman and many more). Below are Coen Brothers trailers for movies I've seen. Watch their movies.

                                                     No Country For Old Men

                                                          The Big Lebowski

                                                 O Brother,Where Art Thou?

                                                              Fargo