• Home
  • Meetings
  • Events
  • Blog
  • E-Board
  • Around Boston
  • Join
Northeastern University's Film Enthusiasts Club
.

Marguerite Darcy on Marguerite

3/27/2016

0 Comments

 
I swear I was not biased by the title of this movie. Or the fact that it was French.

Marguerite is set near Paris two years after WWI, period that was later called “les années folles” (the crazy years). It is the story of Marguerite (Catherine Frot), an eccentric, wealthy baroness that has a true passion for music. She particularly enjoys giving recitals at her luxurious place, and she herself contributes to the singing. But as it turns out she sings out of tune. Completely. Although everyone is well aware of that, she herself doesn’t realize it, and everyone around her is perpetuating the lie.
Picture
Her husband George (André Marcon) is ashamed of her, and her so-called friends are only enduring her singing because of the free food and champagne that comes with it. Basically, Marguerite is living a lie, surrounded by people that use her for her money. The movie does a good job of depicting the French nobility: a bunch of old, stuck-up heartless hypocrites. Always polite, giving the “vous” (formal “you”) to one another, even between husband and wife. Fake as fuck (pardon my french) and following the money because a lot of them are broke. Marguerite also painfully illustrates most marriages in nobility: titles, money, politeness, but no passion, no love.

Marguerite likes singing so much than in addition to giving recitals in her house, she decided she wants to sing in front of a real public on a real concert stage. The big wonder is: “Why is she doing that?” Well first, she doesn’t even know she is making a fool of herself. Then, she’s desperately trying to get her husband's attention. It is obvious that all Marguerite wants is to be loved, to be looked at, but George fails to notice that. The only thing he cares about is how his wife embarrasses his own reputation. So because he is so insensitive, Marguerite is deeply unhappy, lonely, and constantly afraid of not being good enough for George. She is suffocating in her big house (rich people’s problems, I know) which explains her passion for music: it is the only thing that comforts her. Without it, she doesn’t have a goal. Marguerite has nothing in her life but music, so she throws herself all in it, to the point that she fools her own ears and thinks she’s pretty decent at it.

I was happy to realize Christa Théret (LOL -- the French and original version) was in the movie. I was most impressed with her voice, as she plays Hazel, a promising opera singer. Hazel represents all that Marguerite doesn’t have: she is loved and she sings amazingly well -- although there is no competition between the two, and her role in the story plot is unclear. I was also impressed by Catherine Frot’s strong performance, which by the way got her Best Actress at the César ceremony in Paris in February! Marguerite offers a powerful depiction of a lonely and misunderstood woman going crazy because of her alienating environment. Worth the watch!
​

Grade: B+
0 Comments

Anu Gulati on Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice

3/25/2016

0 Comments

 
Picture
Six-year-old me would have never believed that superheroes movie could become so grim. I’m referencing the first time I saw Sam Raimi’s Spiderman from 2002, a superhero movie post-9/11 that opened my eyes to the hope in trying times that the genre represented. Here was Spiderman, swinging between buildings and getting the girl, despite the absolute, heart-felt trauma of losing his parents and uncle. If he could bounce back and make his life better, then I sure as hell can, too!

But superhero movies directed by Zack Snyder are not about this feeling. His gritty, edgy style translated well in 2009’s Watchmen, a beloved graphic novel brought to the screen with a stunningly pure translation. His 2013 Man of Steel definitely turned some heads because his edgy style didn’t sync up with everyone’s untainted, goody-two-shoes version of Superman, and Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice is kind of an apology to that. Dawn of Justice is infinitely better than Man of Steel, but it’s still… not much better.

What really brings down Dawn of Justice is how concerned it is with being the first in a DC mashup series. Like Marvel and their Avengers, DC is getting amped to have Batman, Superman, Wonder Woman and Aquaman all hash it out against the rest of the world, and Dawn of Justice does not stop reminding you of this. So much of the talk and “plot” is about what’s going to happen, what’s coming up, what evil lurks even further in the shadows that the movie feels overwhelmingly dull. Why should I care about what’s going on now if there’s going to be cooler things in the future? There’s no thought put into any of the characters here, especially the villain, Doomsday.

Man, fuck Doomsday. He’s a muddy, CGI mess who bears a striking resemblance to the actual poop-like final boss in Teen Titans: Battle Blitz. He does nothing but stomp around and yell garbage, and his defeat feels more like a “thank god this visually unappealing, moving piece of trash is dead” than a victory. There’s no real sense of “victory” in Dawn of Justice, thanks to Snyder’s pessimistic world view, but it’s unique to this genre that’s gotten overly cheesy in recent years. Sure, Man of Steel and Dawn of Justice are darker than they should be, with Superman making out with Lois Lane while people die around him, or Batman now branding villains with his signature bat-symbol that guarantees death in prison, but it’s strangely realistic and fresh. It’s interesting to think of our favorite superheroes morally: Superman could destroy the world at any instant, and we’re… okay with this? If Snyder could have explored this topic without all the bro-ness and testosterone of two men in tights fighting each other over a Hans Zimmer score, Dawn of Justice could have been a game-changing superhero movie.

But it’s not. Everything I’ve come to expect from movies of this ilk is further solidified by Dawn of Justice. Lois Lane first appears as a damsel in distress, then she’s naked in the next scene, and continues being helpless throughout the rest of the movie. Gal Gadot is a pretty cool Wonder Woman, introducing more life than her super-serious male counterparts, but her arrival comes pretty late and feels inconsequential, and after we’ve already seen her decked out in multiple, showy evening gowns. Ben Affleck and Henry Cavill are surprisingly great with how little they’re given, and Jesse Eisenberg’s Lex Luthor is his usual weasel-self, often being the talking head for Snyder’s obsession with Good v. Evil, Man v. God. Dawn of Justice is observedly angsty and grimy, but it’s definitely not fun. I’m not sure if it’s really meant to be, but it’s griminess is dull and more egotistical than movies like Watchmen or Sin City that perfected their alternativeness. For once, it’s actually reassuring to know there’s a bright and sunny Avengers movie coming up.

Grade: D
0 Comments

Anthony Formicola's February Movie Round-up

3/21/2016

0 Comments

 
I saw less movies last month, but ended up writing a good amount more on each of them. Let me know what you think! At the very least, check out my rankings, then check out some of these films. Three are streaming on Netflix, one is on Amazon Prime, one is on HBO GO, and all eight are worth a watch.

8. Princess Mononoke

Picture
It feels unfair to put this one in the bottom slot because I have no experience with (or, to be honest, real interest in) Japanese animation. Furthermore, I’m aware that this is one of the most well-respected pieces in the genre, and I can understand why; it certainly drops you into a world that is fully built and fully realized. But there were just too many barriers that kept me from buying into the way this world looked, the way it sounded, and the dream logic on which it operated. I think if it was a bit more fun or silly and a bit less strange or self-serious, I could have enjoyed it more. However, I did appreciate the moral complexity with which it treated some of its characters. Usually, an environmentally-friendly fable such as this one would establish clear heroes and villains, but Princess Mononoke refrained from such simplicity. It acknowledged that even good people can play large parts in the destruction of our planet — and that to commit to conservation is difficult but necessary.

7. Chi-Raq

Picture
This was a film that polarized my favorite critics; some had it in their top five movies of the year, while some completely dismissed it. In other words, I had no idea what to expect, but I was really excited to find out.

Unfortunately, it ended up being a disappointment in my eyes. Spike Lee’s latest feels less like a movie and more like a variety show. It’s disjointed, but not in a way that pulls together disparate perspectives in service of one theme or message. It’s not funny enough to be farce, not insightful enough to be satire, and too unfocused (and plain silly) to leave any strong statements in the minds of viewers about gun violence in America. It certainly has a lot to say, which it often imparts in rhymed verse that should appeal to lovers of Shakespeare and hip hop equally. However, much of its dialogue is too didactic to feel remotely authentic. Additionally, some Chicagoans have objected to Lee’s entire premise and his ability to understand the particular situation of the South Side. I can’t comment on that personally, but whenever I tried to pull a metaphorical meaning from Lee’s idea of a sex strike, I couldn’t unearth it — and from an interview that I saw Lee give on Colbert several months ago, I wonder if he really doesn’t have any bigger-picture intentions on that matter.
However, I did appreciate the frequent references to the institutional discrimination that exacerbates all the other problems that the film discusses. It was an interesting choice to have one of the only white characters in the film (a clergyman played by John Cusack) be the mouthpiece for many of these truths. Some might call it problematic, but I prefer to see it as Lee urging white viewers to listen up, expand their worldviews, and join this movement for peace.
​
Chi-Raq’s greatest good is that it reveals the megastar potential of its lead, Teyonah Parris. If Hollywood has any sense (and the jury’s still out on that one), it would offer her as many multi-dimensional and interesting roles as she could fit into her schedule.

You can watch Chi-Raq on Amazon Prime.

6. Melancholia

Picture
This film was a true challenge, and I don’t think I ever need to see it a second time (at some point, I’ll describe why rewatchability is crucial to my rankings, but this piece already does it so well that I probably don’t have to). However, I feel so strongly about some of Melancholia’s achievements — particularly, how it submerges viewers in a perspective informed by depression, then by anxiety — that I wonder if it should be higher on my list.

One of the features of this movie that might make it unpalatable for viewers is that it begins with an eight-minute overture of strange, apocalyptic images and thunderous classical music. I wouldn’t be surprised if most people backed out at some point during this experience, but I really do believe that it sets the stage for the rest of the film so well. The overture establishes a universe that is frightening and unsettling, fatalistic and epically awful. We quickly come to see that this is the perspective held by the film’s two main characters, two sisters named Justine (Kirsten Dunst) and Claire (Charlotte Gainsbourg), because of their struggles with mental illness. The camera allows us to look through these women’s eyes and see what they project onto each scene.

Part 1 of the film, entitled “Justine,” seems to be an allegory of living with depression; each character at Justine’s wedding stands in for a different (unhelpful and unsuccessful) way that someone might handle a friend or family member with depression. Dunst submits the best performance of any movie on this list (except for an actor in my #1 movie of the month). She puts on a face of grace and jubilance as would be expected of any new wife, but gradually allows the pain and anhedonia that her character experiences to claw its way to the surface and take over. Besides the fidgety camerawork that distracted me at certain points, I found this section of the film to be riveting.

Part 2, called “Claire,” was a bit harder to mine for meaning and a bit less interesting since the overture had hinted all along at how the story would conclude. Still, I loved how it began to incorporate more and more elements of a sci-fi disaster movie. (Some of its sky-gazing shots are more beautiful than anything in recent movies like Interstellar or The Martian that were actually set in space.) Also, its dramatic rendering of the anxiety that Justine’s sister experiences is an effective vehicle for director Lars von Trier’s message: this is how it feels. To live with this sickness is to fight against imagining the worst possible scenario at all times. It’s as drastic as believing that planets might literally collide.

You can watch Melancholia on Netflix.

5. The Big Short

Picture
Thanks to Oscar season, I feel like so much has already been said about this film that I don’t know if I have anything necessary to add. What’s obvious is that the editing team did a bunch of interesting work and that the writers did everything they could to get viewers to understand (and be compelled by) the ins and outs of the 2008 financial crisis. There’s no doubt that The Big Short is funny, infectiously fun, well-acted, and aware of its implications when it’s asking you to root for guys who are making money off of national peril. I really appreciated all of those things. However, as I get farther away from having seen this film, it feels less and less essential that I ever saw it in the first place. Its style is nothing new for Wall Street stories — the fast talking, the black humor. Its performances are well above average but nothing that requires any serious range. Its message (big banks are shady, greed is pervasive, and we need to change how all of this works) is vital, yet something that I already understood. All in all, this film is enjoyable and important, but it brings nothing to the table that will make it stand out a few years down the line.

4. Dope

Picture
This movie has such vitality: an amazing soundtrack, jittery and creative editing, a collection of lively performances, and a propulsive plotline. My main issue with it was when it became less than believable, whether that was the plot becoming contrived or the characters becoming caricatures. Most of the time, though, these features were much more excited than frustrating. Dope employs a sort of fun-loving surreality, and viewers are completely along for the ride.
​
The movie has plenty to say about issues of race and how they impact black identity and achievement, but these ideas never seem superfluous or grafted onto the main story. In general, Dope’s characters and settings feel true to life in 2016, but they’re usually confined to other forms of media (or not shown at all), so it’s exciting and refreshing to see them on center stage in a feature-length film. Shameik Moore is a natural in the leading role, and I’m really looking forward to see him in Netflix’s The Get Down later this year.

You can watch Dope on Netflix.

3. No Country For Old Men

Picture
I can’t remember the last time that a movie made me so mad. I was basically seething in my seat for the last 20 minutes or so of No Country for Old Men. I don’t want to say why, because I don’t like to spoil plot points in these write-ups, but I will say that I felt as if the treatment of one of the main characters in this movie was totally unfair to viewers in terms of emotional payoff.

After a lot of thought, I’ve come around to the idea that the Coen brotherswanted to unsettle me like this. It reminds me of something that one of my favorite TV critics, Andy Greenwald, has said about the first season of one of my favorite shows, The Leftovers — basically that he hated it at the forefront of his consciousness because it was asking him to deal with pretty frustrating and upsetting ideas underneath the surface. It’s hard to deal with the notions that life might be nasty, brutish, and short, or that the arc of the moral universe might not bend towards justice. But this movie asks us to, and I respect it for that.
​
Plus, I wouldn’t have been so mad about the last 20 minutes if the first 100 hadn’t been so engrossing. This movie exemplifies the best of Western/crime thrillers; it’s suspenseful, gritty, and shocking. Javier Bardem pulls off the nightmare-inducing psychopath quite well (even if I thought the whole coin thing was a bit gimmicky), and Josh Brolin perfectly displays a man who seems much more confident and capable than he actually is. The Academy wouldn’t normally choose a movie like this for Best Picture, but it did, and it’s great to see two of our best directors get recognition.

2. Burn After Reading

Picture
Although No Country For Old Men is many people’s favorite Coen brothers movie in general, it honestly wasn’t even my favorite of those that I saw in February. That honor goes to Burn After Reading. This isn’t a movie that has one thing in particular that vaults it into the realm of excellence; instead, it’s like a little machine in which every gear and pulley performs its own task, and the result is a deftly managed and darkly funny story. I don’t want to go into all the different ways that the plot weaves together a bunch of different characters and situations, but it ends up being pretty impressive. I also have to mention the manic energy that Frances McDormand brings to her role and the way that Brad Pitt is totally convincing and hilarious as a dumber-than-average personal trainer. It’s sometimes hard to remember — since he’s usually being referred to as Angelina Jolie’s husband or Sexiest Man Alive — but Pitt is a incredibly believable and likable actor. (I thought George Clooney was funny and convincing, too — more so than in O Brother, Where Art Thou? from last month.)

The Coens are masters at shifting back and forth between humor and horror, and their work in Burn After Reading is no exception. The movie leaves you with the troubling notion that something can so easily come out of nothing — that a simple set of misunderstandings can precipitate a total disaster. You’re also forced to wonder about our nation’s increasingly omnipresent security apparatus: how often does it defuse these disasters, and how often does it accidentally cause them?

You can watch Burn After Reading on HBO GO.

1. The Master

Picture
Maybe there’s some truth to “third time’s a charm.” I had already seen two movies directed by Paul Thomas Anderson (There Will Be Blood and Punch-Drunk Love), but I couldn’t buy into his aesthetic in either one; as much as critics champion him as one of our best contemporary filmmakers, I just didn’t get it.

But The Master completely floored me. First of all, it’s beautiful. I don’t have much of a working knowledge of cinematography, but all I can say is that this film’s color palette is rich and evocative of its 1950s setting, and it (in addition to its otherworldly soundscapes) makes the movie a total joy to absorb. Secondly, Joaquin Phoenix, as a deeply troubled WWII veteran named Freddie Quell, gives a performance with more range, tension, and unexpectedness than anything I’ve seen in recent memory — certainly more than anything I’ve written about this month or in January. The role requires rage, violence, weirdness, instability, and vulnerability, but Phoenix gives freely and fully. He’s completely believable, and it’s impossible to look away. As for the plot, I’ve heard from others that they found it to be inscrutable or hard to follow. I will admit that events aren’t always laid out plainly, and we’re not always sure what certain lines of dialogue are meant to imply, but I would urge viewers to trust the filmmaker and let him take the lead.

After the end of the war, Quell undergoes a series of strange trials but eventually comes under the wing of a cult leader named Lancaster Dodd (Philip Seymour Hoffman), and their relationship is the main focus of the movie. The Master deals with a collection of visceral concepts, but nearly all of them return to one question: who deserves our devotion? It’s a film that begs for deep psychoanalysis, having so many ideas swirling throughout that relate to power and attraction, repression and self-medication, love and idolization, and belonging and fatherhood that I’d have to write a full thesis to feel like I’d finally exhausted the text (and I’m sure there are film majors out there who have done just that).
​
Because Phoenix’s performance captivated me so much, I think my interpretation of the movie was colored by Quell’s perspective, but you could focus on Dodd’s motivations or the motivations of Dodd’s wife, played by Amy Adams, and arrive in totally different places. I look forward to rewatching The Master a couple more times and pulling together these interpretations. I really do believe that the film deserves that type of close attention.

You can watch The Master on Netflix.

0 Comments

AJ Martin on Eye in the Sky

3/18/2016

0 Comments

 
Picture
I actually got pretty excited when I went to see this movie. It’s pretty rare that a movie flies completely under my radar, but I hadn’t heard anything about this movie until about a week before I went to see it. I avoided everything about the movie, eager to finally see something where nothing had been spoiled for me. I didn’t watch any trailers and didn’t read any plot descriptions or synopses.  The only thing I knew about the film was its cast, which made me even more excited to see the film. A drama starring Helen Mirren, Aaron Paul and Alan Rickman sounded amazing, making the adage of going into the film as blindly as possible more exciting. Luckily, my lack of knowledge regarding the film seemed to pay off.
​

The film follows multiple parties, who are simultaneously involved in a mission to apprehend terrorists in Kenya.  Initially, the mission is intended to be a capture with no casualties, only having a military drone (armed with hellfire missiles) to be the “eye in the sky” for the operation. However, when the terrorists enter Somali controlled Kenya, where the military is unable to apprehend them, and the military realizes that the terrorists are planning a suicide bombing, the mission turns from capture to kill. The different parties involved in the mission begin to argue over the validity of a full-on drone strike, arguing whether or not the collateral damage of the strike is worth stopping the suicide bombing.

As with the majority of dramatic thrillers regarding topical and controversial issues, the core of the film is structured around the struggle to decide what is right and what isn’t. Drone strikes are obviously a very controversial political issue, and the film does quite a good job at showing both sides of the argument regarding their use.  As the film progresses, the situation keeps changing, adding to the tension and drama. No matter what side you may go into the film believing is right, the movie does an excellent job of getting you to question what you initially believed was moral and necessary. Like all great films about controversy, it doesn’t tell you which side is right and which side is wrong, but leaves that up to the interpretation of the audience.

And what makes the drama of the argument over said drone strike so tense and interesting are the performances. Mirren, Paul and Rickman all give excellent performances, pushing the tension of the film even further. One of the only issues I took with the film was the occasional flash of clunky, expository dialogue, which the actors try to break through. But, when the lines the actors perform aren’t stunted and forced, they feel quite organic. The performances truly enhanced the tense scenes, making the film pretty exciting. Overall, we are left with a pretty good topical drama.  Maybe I should go into films blind more often.

Grade: B  
0 Comments

Carter Sigl on Knight of Cups

3/11/2016

0 Comments

 
Picture
​Recently in NUFEC, at one of our weekly meetings, we watched The Tree of Life. During our discussion afterwards, I mentioned the same thing I always say when talking about Terrence Malick films: after you watch one, you either feel at one with the universe or annoyed that you just watched a random stream of images. I personally love The Tree of Life- I think it possesses just the right balance between traditional plot and characterization and experimental film techniques. Sadly, the same cannot be said about Knight of Cups- even for someone who loves Terrence Malick films, this movie felt like a random stream of images.

The lead actor in Knight of Cups is Christian Bale, who plays… someone in Hollywood named Rick. I honestly couldn’t tell if he was supposed to be an actor or writer or what. The film is divided into eight chapters (Wes Anderson style), each of which is named after a tarot card (as is the film itself) save for the final chapter and charts Rick’s relationship with a different person in his life. For example, the fourth chapter (Judgement) examines his strained relationship with his wife (played by Cate Blanchett) while the eighth chapter (Death) illustrates an affair he conducted (with a woman played by Natalie Portman).

And… that’s about it. The single, glaring problem with this film is the almost complete lack of either plot or characterization. Over the course of two hours, we learn virtually nothing about Rick or any of the people he interacts with, save for the barest of details- his ex-wife is a doctor, is brother seems to be mentally unstable, etc. Sometimes we don’t even learn the characters’ names. I mean, I know Malick’s films are typically light on plot and characterization, but they’re stretched to the point of non-existence in this film.

Of course, this film does possess Malick’s trademark airy and borderline spiritual style. There’s a lot of talk in the film of the meaning of human existence- par for the course for a Malick film. But while his prior films have very definite themes, the near complete lack of plot and proper character development means that whatever message he is trying to convey is lost. He seems to be commenting upon the shallowness that characterizes modern life in general and Hollywood in particular, but because of the lack of plot and character development all we see is a collection of equally shallow and meaningless characters who we can’t connect with. The Thin Red Line examines the psychological effects of war upon soldiers, and The Tree of Life plumbs the meaning of life and the experience of losing faith, but all we see in Knight of Cups is an incredibly attractive and seemingly successful man who can’t find happiness or love or establish any meaningful relationships despite sleeping with numerous exceedingly attractive women.

Maybe I just didn’t get it. Like his previous works, Knight of Cups has generated very mixed reception. Hell, maybe the shallowness of the movie was the whole point. And this is not to say that the film is a complete loss- like every Malick film, it contains absolutely gorgeous cinematography. But in the end, Knight of Cups just felt like a meaningless stream of random images and shallow characters who I learned nothing about and couldn’t identify with. It is certainly a disappointment. Let’s just hope that his next film, Weightless, is better.
​
Grade: D
0 Comments

Gabrielle Ulubay on Zootopia

3/6/2016

0 Comments

 
Picture
For a cartoon about animals, this movie had a lot of realistic commentary. In fact, some illustrations of subversive urban forces were perhaps more realistic than depictions in most live-action movies.

At several points during the film, I asked myself if it was entirely a commentary on race relations. The animal species were treated like different races or ethnicities in contemporary society. This resulted in a number of heavy-handed messages of tolerance and spot-on jokes about racial sensitivity. Particularly fun was the jest that bunnies could call other bunnies cute, but that if a different species did so it was insulting.

Other references were more obvious, including stereotypes of species and we-didn't-always-get-along rhetoric, but they needed to be. It is important that adults watching this film remember that it is made for children, and as a result the lessons will seem overtly obvious. There are still plenty of relatable references to and satires of society and popular culture, such as "Rat Pack" music, Godfather quotes, and Breaking Bad references. And let’s also not forget the remarkably relatable illustration of every DMV employee being a sloth.

I will excuse obvious morals because Zootopia is a children's movie, but there were other eyeroll-worthy aspects of the film. Judy Hopps (Ginnifer Goodwin) is an innocent good girl who goes toe-to-toe with sly bad boy Nick Wilde (Jason Bateman). Haven’t audiences seen more than enough of this? Most of the plot is also based on the overdone idea of a naive farm girl moving to a city in hopes of achieving her dreams. It's likely common in film because it's common in real life, but that doesn't mean audiences don't tire of it.

Judy Hopps, the protagonist, is initially annoying in this respect. The extent of her optimistic naïveté is unbelievable, especially considering how often she repeats that in the city of Zootopia, anyone can be anything and all species live in harmony. Perhaps this can again be attributed to the fact that this is a cartoon for children, but it seems more like a lack of originality because Disney doesn’t deviate at all from the trope. There are enough movies about naive Country Bumpkins moving to the city and meeting a bad boy with a heart of gold— we don’t need any more.

The bully scenes in this movie from Nick Wilde and Judy Hopps' childhoods are somewhat horrifying. They probably aim raise awareness for bullying because of how dark they are, but subtle bullying would have been more realistic because that's how most bullying occurs. A vast majority of children realize that violence is wrong, but not all realize what real bullying tends to look like (i.e., comments, exclusion, etc.). It seems that every children's movie aims to raise awareness about bullying, but none depict it accurately. We must ask, then, how effective these overt bullying scenes are in the first place.

Zootopia's animation, however, was phenomenal. The animators were able to use traditional gendered mannerisms and physicality to express age, sex, and personality in these animals. Considering many of the characters were not always dressed in gendered clothing, this accomplishment is impressive. Characters were so well-illustrated and moved so realistically that I was able to stop regarding them as animals and regard them more as people (or at least personalities).

I enjoyed Zootopia. It’s well-made, well-timed, and simply entertaining. There are film tropes it succumbed to that it would have been better off without, but they’re negligible in light of the movie’s better qualities. Watch this film because it’s fun and it’s important, but let’s hope for more originality in the next Disney movie.

Grade: A-

You can read Gabrielle's interview with Nick Orsi, one of the artists who worked on Zootopia, here.
0 Comments

Gabrielle Ulubay interviews Nick Orsi of Zootopia

3/6/2016

0 Comments

 
NUFEC writer Gabrielle Ulubay recently got the chance to interview Nick Orsi, one of the artists at Walt Disney Feature Animation responsible who worked on their new feature Zootopia!

GU: First, thank you so much for meeting with me!
NO: Thank you for having me!

GU: To start off, which characters did you play a part in designing?
NO: Let's see: Judy, Nick, Bogo, Gazelle, the Tiger Dancers, sheep, polar bears.... Those are the big ones. A lot of different people work on these characters though, so it wasn't just me.

GU: What was the most difficult animal to animate?
NO: The giraffe, definitely. You have to make the animals distinct, even from far away, so a giraffe couldn't be this long, blurry form. The mice are a good example of that too, actually.

GU: Yes, I figured that. I was impressed during the movie because during the mice scenes there were so many of them, but it wasn't just this indistinct cloud of shapes. You could tell it was just masses of mice.
NO: Exactly. There were a lot of those crowd characters in this movie.

GU: What was character design like for scenes of that scale?
NO: It was a challenge. Crowd characters like are tricky because they need to complement the main character and make him or her stand out, but they also need to be distinct. We use a lot of tricks like motion blurs, camera tricks to move them, clear silhouettes, clear shapes, shape identifiers, arching--tricks like that. It's fun, but challenging.

GU: I can imagine! And what was designing Gazelle like? How does one make a long, skinny animal like that look anything like Shakira?
NO: [laughs] When Shakira expressed interest in playing Gazelle, we had to give the character more hips and make her more like Shakira. Shiyoon [Shiyoon Kim, one of Disney's animators] had the task of making a sexy gazelle while still keeping it a gazelle, which is a tough line to tread. It's hard enough to make the gazelle stand upright because of how weird their joints are, and it's even more difficult to give it curves! Shiyoon has been there a long time and was definitely up for the task, though.

GU: Right, I would assume that sexy gazelles aren't exactly intuitive. In your artistic process, do you often watch people in real life and use their gaits, mannerisms, and so on to create characters?
NO: For me and what I do, it was more of the overall character. I don't focus much on movement. I focused most on how they look, how they're shaped, and what that says about them. They're animals, so I try to find the personality and design more of that person and what makes them special, what makes them a character. I try to pull that inner character out and sort of write it on their forehead.

GU: The animals' ages and genders were also pretty clear just from how they looked and behaved, which is interesting because they weren't always wearing clothes that clarified those things. How did you manage to accomplish that?
NO: There's all kinds of animation tricks that help with that, actually. Usually broader characters look more masculine. If you streamline drawings, give the animals more subtle curves, and soften their features, it makes them more feminine. On the other hand, there are specific chiseled features that make a character appear male.

GU: I saw Zootopia in 3D. It's not jump-out-at-you, 3D, though. Now, 3D seems more about realism--there's nothing flying out of the screen at me. How does animating for that sort of depth compare to animating for 2D features?
NO: Everything has a 3D option now, so we just take that into account regardless. It's definitely more about depth rather than being in-your-face. It's not about having something pop out at you. From a broad sense, lighting and modeling are effected the most in 3D animation. Lighting has to do with how everything is colored and textured, and modeling is more about the actual construction. In other words, the character has to look good from all angles. Most character design--which is what I do-- has to do with rigging, modeling, and animation.

GU: Finally, there's definitely a social message in this film.
NO: [smiles] Yes.

GU: During your presentation earlier, you mentioned that you began working on this movie four to five years ago, and that's before a lot of the civil rights issues that are garnering a lot of attention today. Was it frightening this year to release Zootopia in the midst of so much social unrest?
NO: It wasn't frightening because these issues were still a problem then.

GU: Right, they just have more visibility now.
NO: Yes. Disney has such a huge audience, so doing a film like this with such a strong message will reach both the average little kid and their grandma and grandpa. These families are then going to go have these conversations at dinner with the kids, and we think it's really important that these messages reach these varied audiences and that these conversations happen.

GU: Thank you so much for taking the time out to speak with me!
NO: Of course! Thank you!

You can read Gabrielle's full review of Zootopia here.
0 Comments

Haley Emerson on London Has Fallen

3/4/2016

0 Comments

 
Picture
I was going to think of a witty joke to make about this movie, but honestly it isn't even worth it. -The Editor
I can think of a couple of much more apt names for London Has Fallen: perhaps Same Shit, Different Movie, or Literally None of This At All Could or Would Ever Happen.  Alternate titles aside, this film fell short of my specially ordered low expectations. The sequel to Olympus Has Fallen (2013), London Has Fallen is a carbon copy of its precursor, except maybe even worse.

Presidential security officer Mike Banning (Gerard Butler, 300) is planning to resign from his post in preparation for the birth of his first child. Meanwhile, the British Prime Minister has died under suspicious circumstances, so every important world leader must gather in London for his funeral. Banning has no choice but to accompany President Benjamin Asher (Aaron Eckhart, The Dark Knight) to keep him from any harm, so his resignation is postponed. The world’s leaders arrive in a heavily protected London, but shortly, something goes horribly wrong!!!!! The British police force has been infiltrated by Middle Eastern terrorists, and even the Queen’s Guard starts shooting at innocent civilians (honestly, one of the most unintentionally funny scenes I’ve seen in a long time). Banning springs into action to protect the President, who also happens to be his partner in bromance. If you’ve seen Olympus Has Fallen, this plotline may sound awfully familiar. And that is for good reason: the two films have almost identical plotlines, apart from taking place in different cities.

Everything about London Has Fallen is wildly unrealistic. I know that’s pretty much a keystone characteristic of any American action film, but this one takes it too far. My personal favorite logic-defying scene is when Banning happens upon a hallway full of terrorist soldiers with automatic rifles, and he somehow manages to pick off every single one...using a small knife as a weapon. Seriously. That is something that happened in this movie. I am so embarrassed that this is the type of movie geared towards American film-goers. I am especially embarrassed that it is still somehow acceptable to employ the trope of Middle Eastern terrorists as the main enemy. As much as I disagree with the use of this stereotype, there are some ways to make it a little less egregious. London Has Fallen is so flagrantly racist that I’m surprised it hasn’t seen more backlash as of yet. “Go back to Fuckhead-istan, or wherever you came from,” is something that Butler’s character actually said to one of the soldiers. Disgusting, I know.

I struggle to find any redeeming qualities in this film. The only thing I can consider as positive is that it didn’t drag on. It was kept to a jam-packed, shit-filled hour and forty minutes. The ending came at exactly the right time, but brought with it a terrifying possibility: they could make another one of these trainwrecks. The movie ends with Banning permanently erasing the resignation email he was drafting, leaving his character on the very path that he was on before. It is so scary to think that within the next few years, we may see Sydney Has Fallen or Tokyo Has Fallen or whatever the hell they decide to do next.

London Has Fallen was filled with cheesy one-liners, ridiculous action sequences, stupid “humor,” and empty dialogue that contributed absolutely nothing to the film as a whole. If you’re a fan of action movies with little to no substance, this is the perfect movie for you. If you’re not a fan of that stuff (and I truly hope that you are not), then avoid it at all costs.

Grade: D
0 Comments

    Categories

    All
    AJ Martin
    Andy Robinson
    Anime
    Anthony Formicola
    Anu Gulati
    Arjun Agarwal
    Arzu Martinez
    Ben Garbow
    Brandon Isaacson
    Brian Hamilton
    Carter Sigl
    Dan Simeone
    Discussion
    Elizabeth Johnson Wilson
    Eliza Rosenberry
    Emily Fisler
    Erick Sanchez
    Eric Tatar
    Essays
    Festivals
    Gabrielle Ulubay
    Haley Emerson
    Here's Some Movies
    Ian Wolff
    IFF Boston
    IFFBoston 2015
    Interviews
    Isaac Feldberg
    Kunal Asarsa
    Library
    Lists
    Marguerite Darcy
    Marissa Marchese
    Mary Tobin
    Meghan Murphy
    Mike Muse
    Mitch Macro
    Neel Shah
    Netflix Instant Watch
    Parth Parekh
    Patrick Roos
    Profiles
    Reviews
    Short Films
    Television
    This Week In Movies
    Tyler Rosini

    Want to Write for Us?

    Contact NUFEC President Ian Wolff at nufecblog@gmail.com if you're interested in writing for this blog!

    Archives

    April 2022
    November 2021
    October 2021
    September 2021
    August 2021
    July 2021
    June 2021
    March 2021
    February 2021
    October 2019
    September 2019
    June 2019
    April 2019
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    February 2014
    January 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013
    October 2013
    September 2013
    August 2013

    RSS Feed

Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.