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

Carter Sigl on X-Men: Apocalypse

5/27/2016

0 Comments

 
Picture
Don't cry, Michael Fassbender- it's not your fault this movie is so bad.
In my time reviewing films for this wonderful blog, I have learned that it is often very valuable to suspend any expectations you have when going to a film. This is helpful partly because I believe that harboring preconceptions often leads to a biased review even before we see a movie. But it’s also useful because going into a movie without expectations can sometimes soften the blow of a disappointing film. Unfortunately, I did not follow my own advice when seeing X-Men: Apocalypse, as the X-Men films are some of my favorite superhero movies. So the fact that Apocalypse is the worst movie I’ve seen so far this year was a big disappointment.
​
X-Men: Apocalypse takes place in 1983, and is the first movie set in the new timeline following the temporal reset at the end of Days of Future Past. CIA agent Moira McTaggert (Rose Byrne) is in Egypt investigating a mysterious cult. While spying on one of their rituals, she accidentally sets into motion a chain of events which awakens an ancient mutant who has been sleeping for thousands of years: En Sabah Nur, also known as Apocalypse (Oscar Isaac). According to legend, he was the world’s first mutant, and he dominated the ancient world with an iron fist and multiple mutant abilities. After learning about the state of the modern world, he decides that humankind must be cleansed in order to create a more perfect world, ruled by him of course. To this end, he recruits four lieutenants, known as the Horsemen, including Magneto (Michael Fassbender) and a young girl who will later be known as Storm (here played by Alexandra Shipp). Standing in his way are the X-Men, led by Charles Xavier (James McAvoy), which includes Mystique (Jennifer Lawrence) and young students Scott Summers (Tye Sheridan) and Jean Gray (Sophie Turner).

X-Men: Apocalypse is, quite frankly, a complete and utter mess. It essentially encapsulates everything I hate about many modern superhero films. This is especially disappointing because the X-Men franchise has generally avoided most of these problems in their past films. Apocalypse is essentially just a collection of bloated and generic special effects scenes tied together with an incredibly uninteresting and generic plot. I use the phrase ‘special effects scenes’ intentionally here because I hesitate to even call this an action movie, because there are very few instances of people actually fighting in the conventional sense. It’s mostly just a bunch of effects painted over green screens; the only real exception is one scene which functions as the obligatory Wolverine cameo, which is otherwise pointless to the plot of the film. And it’s not even particularly good special effects at that, although CGI is so ubiquitous these days I may just be getting bored of it.
​
Apocalypse has none of the things that have made any of the previous X-Men films so interesting. It lacks the biting social commentary and interesting villains which made the first two films so meaningful. It lacks the fun-filled action that made First Class so enjoyable, and the change of style and setting that made The Wolverine feel different. It’s missing the general epicness which made Days of Future Past so triumphant, and the humor and heart which made Deadpool one of my favorite films of the year so far. The only X-Men film that it seems similar to is Origins: Wolverine- the one that was so bad that most people pretend that it doesn’t exist.

So what does X-Men: Apocalypse have? It has Oscar Isaac, who is criminally misused considering he does nothing but stand around in a blue rubber suit and yell at people in a vaguely Middle-Eastern accent. It has Jennifer Lawrence, who looks like she would rather be anywhere but on that set. It has magical ancient Egyptian pyramids, and laser swords coming out of Olivia Munn’s hands. It has the villain misusing Xavier's telepathy for their own nefarious purposes (again). It has Magneto reliving his days in Auschwitz (again). It has colonel Stryker torturing Wolverine (again). And it has a bizarre slow-motion scene of Xavier’s School for Gifted Youngsters exploding while the weirdly peppy “Sweet Dreams Are Made of This” by the Eurythmics plays over it.

To be fair, I did see this film less than a week after the infinitely better Captain America: Civil War, which didn’t do it any favors. But that doesn’t change the fact that the whole movie is an incoherent mess. This is particularly surprising considering that it is directed by Bryan Singer, who previously directed the first two films of the series and Days of Future Past, all considered high-points of the film franchise. Maybe there was a lot of executive meddling. Maybe the screenplay was rushed. Maybe he just doesn’t care anymore. But whatever it is, X-Men: Apocalypse is not only the worst movie I’ve yet seen this year (note:  I did not see Batman v. Superman), it is quite possibly the worst incarnation of the X-Men film franchise so far. It’s not quite Fantastic Four levels of bad, but nevertheless make sure to avoid it at all costs.
​
It’s a shame, I was really looking forward to this movie.

Grade: F
0 Comments

Carter Sigl on Alice Through the Looking Glass

5/27/2016

0 Comments

 
Picture
As I have stated recently, it seems like nowadays we get a new unoriginal film from Hollywood every week. All of the major studies are extremely reluctant to take any sort of risk on an original IP, and Disney is no exception. Although their animation division is still going strong with films such as Zootopia and Big Hero 6, they have also taken to re-imagining their older animated classics as live-action fantasy movies. While last year’s Cinderella was fairly well-received, the updated interpretations of Sleeping Beauty (dubbed Maleficent) and Alice in Wonderland were less than impressive. With the addition of Alice Through the Looking Glass, Disney now has a trio of live-action disappointments.
​
Following her adventures in Wonderland (no, I refuse to call it ‘Underland’) in the previous film, Alice Kingsleigh (Mia Wasikowska- Crimson Peak and Only Lovers Left Alive) has spent three years as a ship captain exploring Asia. On her return to England she discovers that, due to the machinations of her jealous male superiors, she is out of a job and her mother faces eviction from her home. While trying to resolve these matters, Alice is once again sucked into Wonderland, where she finds her good friend the Mad Hatter (Johnny Depp) also in peril. He has been even madder than usual lately, due to becoming convinced that the other members of his family (who perished long ago) are still alive. With his health quickly deteriorating, the White Queen (Anne Hathaway) deduces that the only way to save Hatter is for Alice to travel into the past and save the Hatter’s family from their doom. But to do this, Alice will have to confront the personification of Time (Sacha Baron Cohen) and her old enemy the Red Queen (Helena Bonham Carter).

Now, I must admit that it has been some time since I read any Lewis Carrol, but I am quite sure that neither Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland nor Through the Looking Glass have time travel in them. Simply put, this film is an adaption of the latter novel essentially in name only, with virtually none of the elements (or, for that matter, charm) of the original book making it into this film. Rather, this film simply takes numerous elements and characters associated with Carrol’s novels and uses them to tell a generic fantasy story. There is neither the whimsy and surrealness so vital to the original novels nor the distinct visual style Tim Burton bestowed on the first movie. Although Burton did act as executive producer on the sequel, he handed off directorial duties (to James Bobin), and frankly it shows.

In addition to simply being generic, this movie is filled with confounding creative decisions. Why would the writers replace the excellent content of the original story with a silly time travel narrative which doesn’t even try to be consistent? Why are the first ten minutes of the movie a cheap knock-off of Pirates of the Caribbean? Why does Sacha Baron Cohen speak in a silly Russian accent which makes him sound like Ensign Chekov from Star Trek? And why, out of all the things you could write for an Alice in Wonderland adaption, would you write a story based around the Mad Hatter’s strained relationship with his father? This is especially bewildering since the film’s screenwriter, Linda Woolverton, was the writer of Beauty and the Beast and The Lion King in the Renaissance Age of Animation. Although more recently she also wrote the screenplays for the aforementioned Maleficent and this film’s immediate sequel, so I suppose not everything gets better with age.

All that being said, Alice Through the Looking Glass is not a flat-out bad movie, despite its perplexing narrative and creative decisions. Mostly, it’s just boring and generic, a flaw that can frequently be forgiven. But considering the film’s source material, which is frequently considered one of the best pieces of surreal literature ever written, being generic is probably the worst sin an adaption can commit. And if I want to see a mindless, colorful, CGI-filled blockbuster, I have a hundred other options as these movies are a dime a dozen these days (just look at the other terrible film being released today). If you want my opinion, skip this movie entirely and instead stay home and watch Disney’s original Alice in Wonderland, Jan Švankmajer’s 1988 fusion of live action and stop motion animation, American McGee’s Alice, or any of the numerous better adaptions of Carrol’s novel.

Grade: C-
0 Comments

AJ Martin's This Week in Movies: X-Men

5/25/2016

0 Comments

 
​I don’t think it would be a stretch to call this era of film the age of the superhero movies. Films about comic book heroes dominate mainstream cinema, with multiple hugely successful franchise films coming out each year. We are currently half-way through the superhero wave of the year, with three of 2016’s six superhero movies having already hit theatres. This upcoming weekend, however, will see the release of a superhero movie whose franchise helped usher in this constant flow of films. X-Men: Apocalypse marks the seventh (eighth if you count Deadpool) film in the franchise, which started all the way back in 2000 with the release of Bryan Singer’s X-Men. The way I see it, the X-Men movies can be broken up into three trilogies, or at least categorized in three different sections. There are the original three (X-Men, X2 and X-Men: The Last Stand), the ones that focus specifically on Wolverine (X-Men Origins: Wolverine, The Wolverine and the currently untitled third Wolverine film set for release in 2017) and the newest trilogy (X-Men: First Class, X-Men: Days of Future Past and X-Men: Apocalypse). So, to truly prepare for the release of the newest incarnation in the series, let’s look at the other two movies in the most recent X-Men trilogy.

X-Men: First Class

Picture
The first film in the new X-Men trilogy, which takes place in the United States during the Cold War, focuses on showing the story of some of the older characters in the X-Men universe, as they first began to use their powers for good. The movie follows Charles Xavier (James McAvoy), Eric Lensherr (Michael Fassbender), Raven (Jennifer Lawrence) and a group of other young mutants, who are enlisted by the government to stop Sebastian Shaw (Kevin Bacon) from starting a World War between the U.S. and the Soviet Union. Shaw, whose mutant power involves feeding off the energy of any type of energy, means to use the fallout of a nuclear war to declare himself the ruler of a world that would be rid of non-mutants, whom he feels are genetically inferior to his race.

One of the things that makes First Class so interesting is that the audience gets to see characters that we know (if you have seen the other X-Men films) will eventually be enemies have to work together. Xavier, who eventually become Professor X, and his adopted sister Raven, who turns into the villain Mystique, are well known to viewers of the franchise as enemies. Lensherr is the main antagonist of the original three films, who, as the villainous Magneto, attempts to eradicate non-mutants just as Shaw tries to do in this film. However, in this movie, these mutants who will eventually be at odds with each other are forced to come together for a common goal. While Xavier feels that what Shaw is doing is wrong and that humanity will eventually accept mutants, Lensherr actually agrees with Shaw, only seeking revenge for the death of his mother at Shaw’s hand. These interesting interpretations of characters that fans of the franchise already know make the movie feel fresh and different than all of the others.

The appeal of the characters is the main draw of the movie, which is fairly consistent across director Matthew Vaughn’s entire line of work. The movie has a lighter feel than many of the other X-Men movies, especially during scenes where Xavier is teaching the younger mutants to harness their powers and use them for good. The setting of the 1960s adds to the charm of the movie as well. However, the plot doesn’t shy away from multiple segments of darkness, like the death of Lensherr’s Jewish mother at a concentration camp or Xavier and Lensherr’s debates about humanity. The movie keeps the classic feel of X-Men, discussing the struggle between those who consider themselves normal and those who are considered the outsiders. But, with its excellent interpretation of classic characters and more accessible tone, First Class is easily my favorite of the X-Men films.

Grade: A-

X-Men: Days of Future Past

Picture
Days of Future Past, Bryan Singer’s return to the franchise after an 11 year absence, is the X-Men movie that has the most interesting, albeit confusing, premise and story. The film merges the universe of the original trilogy with that of First Class, using Wolverine as a bridge between the time periods. Essentially, in the 1970’s, Dr. Bolivar Trask (Peter Dinklage) approached the US government with the idea of building "sentinels", an army of robots that could detect the gene that gives mutants their powers and give the non-mutant population the upper hand. The government seems wary of the idea, until Mystique assassinates Trask, pushing the humans to accept the sentinel program. Eventually, the sentinels begin hunting both mutants and humans that help them, causing the planet to fall into apocalyptic chaos. The mutants of the future decide that the only way to stop the destruction is to send someone’s consciousness back in time (they have a mutant that can do that) and stop Mystique from killing Trask. Wolverine (Hugh Jackman) is sent back to 1973, enlisting the help of Charles Xavier (James McAvoy) and Eric Lensherr (Michael Fassbender) to stop the impending doomsday.

The plot, which is very confusing for those who haven’t seen the movie or the previous X-Men films, does an excellent job at combining the worlds of the original trilogy and the new trilogy. The segments that take place in the future see the return of Patrick Stewart, Ian McKellen, Halle Berry and more to the roles they played in the original three, while still integrating McAvoy, Fassbender and Lawrence from First Class in the remainder of the film. The film strategically uses Wolverine as the bridge between the two casts, who was one of the best elements of the original trilogy. Jackman brings the gruff charm of the character back to the vast world of X-Men very well, adding to the excellent performances of the First Class cast.

Where this movie differentiates itself significantly from First Class is in tone, opting for a much darker approach to the universe. Once Wolverine arrives in 1793, he meets with Xavier, who is in a state of depression after many of his students were drafted for the Vietnam War. He takes a cure which gives him his legs back, but causes him to lose his telepathic abilities, not wanting to have the thoughts of others invade his head any longer. This is a far darker and deeper take on Xavier than First Class had, creating one of the move interesting parts of the movie. Unfortunately, the darker take on the X-Men universe makes the series lose some of the charm that First Class had. The darker tone is not new to modern superhero films, so there is a feeling of lost originality when watching Days of Future Past. But, overall, the movie still manages to be an great take on characters in the X-Men universe.  

Grade: B+
Check back each Wednesday for another installment of This Week in Movies!

Last week covered Seventies films in preparation for The Nice Guys,
0 Comments

Carter Sigl on The Nice Guys

5/20/2016

0 Comments

 
Picture
​Ah, the Seventies. The era of Star Wars, free love, leisure suits, the Vietnam War, and Pong. Ever since I saw an old History Channel documentary on the decade when I was a kid (yes, there was a time when there was actual history on it), I’ve been intrigued by this quirky time period. And despite the common image of the time (including my own), it’s actually an incredibly varied period of history. This is demonstrated by my personal selection of favorite Seventies movies: Black Dynamite, Apollo 13, and Zodiac. But of course, the stereotypical depiction of the Seventies will always have a charm of its own, a charm demonstrated in Shane Black’s The Nice Guys.

It’s the high times of the Seventies, in sunny Los Angeles, California. Our story begins with two men: Holland March (Ryan Gosling; Drive, Only God Forgives) and Jackson Healy (Russel Crowe; Gladiator, Les Misérables). March is a private detective, though the mundanity of the majority of his cases has disillusioned him and driven him to the bottle, a situation resented by his young daughter Holly (Angourie Rice). Healy is a local freelance enforcer, a consummate professional who will beat his targets senseless without any malice or ill will. Our two protagonists first meet when March is hired to find a missing girl named Amelia (Margaret Qualley, The Leftovers) and Healy is separately hired to persuade March from pursuing the very same job. However, when Healy is almost killed by professional hitmen, he and March are forced to team up to find Amelia. Soon, they discover that her disappearance is part of a much larger conspiracy involving the Department of Justice, a group of auto manufacturers, and a recently murdered porn star named Misty Mountains.

Looking back on The Nice Guys, I can’t help but compare it to the last private detective movie I reviewed: Inherent Vice. It’s certainly not the best comparison, but since they’re both 70s movies I can’t help but associate them in my mind. However, where Inherent Vice was an affectionate parody of Private I tropes and stories, The Nice Guys is an unironic embrace of those same tropes. It’s pretty much a prototypical Private I and 70s movie, and that’s not a bad thing- it’s fun, it’s action-packed, and it’s a bit silly at times. It actually feels somewhat like a classic buddy cop movie, except that the main characters aren’t actually cops.

The Nice Guys is a throwback film, a foray into a time long past and a genre rarely seen anymore. Or more specifically, rarely seen played so straight. The movie is full of catchy one-liners, stereotypical Seventies characters and tropes, and no particular attempt to feel either relevant or edgy in any way. This is not to say that the film is completely unoriginal or formulaic- the inclusion of Holland’s young daughter as a main character is an interesting choice which prevents Gosling and Crowe from machoing up the whole movie. But as a whole, this is a film which earnestly immerses itself in its genre and setting, and doesn’t take itself particularly seriously.

The Nice Guys is not an amazing film. It won’t win any major awards, and it’s probably not the film I’ll associate Gosling or Crowe with when I think of them in the future. But it is a fun, funny, and generally entertaining film, particularly as a relief from the never-ending stream of superheroes and super dark and gritty action movies so ubiquitous these days. It’s, to use an old (Seventies?) phrase, “good, wholesome fun”. Whether you like Seventies movies, Private I movies, or just want to see a generally fun movie, you can’t go wrong with The Nice Guys.
​
Grade: B (Groovy) 
0 Comments

Elizabeth Johnson-Wilson on Neighbors 2: Sorority Rising

5/20/2016

0 Comments

 
Picture
Here comes yet another movie crashing onto the scene garnering support for the argument that Hollywood has no new ideas: the sequel to Neighbors, i.e. Neighbors 2: Sorority Rising, directed again by Nicholas Stoller and written by Andrew J. Cohen, Brendan O’Brien, Nicholas Stoller, Seth Rogen, and Evan Goldberg. It follows the exact same formula and structure as the first incarnation and features the exact same people, with the addition of a few new college girls: basically, a sorority moves next door to Mac and Kelly Radner and their young daughter Stella, and in order to ensure the sale of their house and keep the potential buyers from running off, the pair go to war with the partying girls next door.

So, first thing’s first: the movie is definitely funny. It received a lot of genuine laughs in the theater, with some – ahem – boundary-pushing/went there bits and rehashed but-never-gets-old physical gags. But again, just like the first movie, the film rocketed into the story without taking time to set much foundation for character motivation, a choice that leaves the audience in a place where they don’t know why the characters care, or why they should care either. So again, I wasn't very invested in the story; it went from laugh to laugh without much build. The writing soccer team made some meager attempts at character work, mainly with Teddy Sanders (Zac Efron) and college freshman alternative sorority girl Shelby (Chloë Grace Moretz), although most of it was completely vapid. 

Speaking of every Disney kid’s teenage dream, Efron is totally and repeatedly sexualized in the movie, which I assume is supposed to be the women-as-object foil. And may God bless him for taking on that role (*valley girl voice* I mean, he’s just like so brave...). But all literal drools sexualizing aside, Efron’s spot-on portrayal of frat dude forever Teddy, tragic and comic, is the most successful, watchable, and salient aspect of the whole movie (And he like can actually act, too! #talent!), the only character with the arc that’s not only relevant, but also effective, in a way.

Where the film somewhat failed lies in the writers’ attempts to shoehorn in quite the handful of thematic elements, including modern day feminism and female empowerment, sexism in college Greek life culture, bad parenting, and aging. These elements were heavy-handed and somewhat over-present, yet underdeveloped in a way in the film- definitely relevant and worthy issues, but not particularly done well here. It seemed like the writers had something to say, but never really said it. Maybe one could argue that this is purely an irreverent movie, and things like this don’t really matter in gauging its success; if that’s the case, then that’s fine. But if you’re going to try to make a point, then do it and do it well. Because not doing it well almost renders the attempts as exploitative or mocking. There was also a lot of villainizing of the “youths,” in general: they were rendered thoughtless, shortsighted, unreasonable, and just plain stupid in the film. I mean, I’m not arguing that experience and wisdom doesn’t come with age: I’m just saying that the portrayal in the film was incredibly unilateral, and seemed to focus more on generating laughs than creating believable characters with any depth. At some point, the whole “kids are dumb and selfish and destroy everything and must be stopped” schtick became – dare I say – just plain annoying (In the spirit of millennials: #eyerollsoneyerolls).

All in all, Neighbors 2 wasn't bad; it was funny. And in the land of failed sequels, it was actually a pretty good one, delivering similar spirit and laughs as its predecessor. However, it was like a rocket ship that runs parallel to the ground: it shot out of the gate, but, never rose or fell and, in essence, went nowhere. Moreover, the whole youth vs age thing, not even considering the bevy of other themes, was kind of heavy-handed, while still being short-sighted, undeveloped, and unwarranted. People of all ages are complex, and have complex thoughts and opinions and relationships with mortality and age. At the end of the day, college kids aren't children and 20/30-somethings aren't old. I would argue that the writers over-simplified a great and rich topic. All of us have some growing up to do, and no one ever quite figures it all out.
​

#zacefrontho

Rating: B-
0 Comments

Carter Sigl on The Lobster

5/20/2016

0 Comments

 
Picture
Although I could levy any number of criticisms at the current Hollywood establishment, I think that probably the most problematic of their faults is their extreme reticence to take any sort of risk or gamble on film these days. There are so few actually original films these days, and I don’t just mean in terms of narrative content (although that certainly applies). In 2015, all but 2 of the top ten most successful films of the year were new installments in existing franchises (the exceptions being The Martian and Inside Out). Going back the last few years will reveal nearly identical ratios. Film studios have become so enamored with the security afforded by franchises, sequels, prequels, remakes, reboots and reimaginings that it is now quite rare to see a major new release which stands on its own, in my opinion to the detriment of cinema as a whole. This is why, I think, indie cinema has enjoyed such a renaissance in recent years- it’s the only place where film buffs can get unique, original movies. And it is for this reason that The Lobster shines.

Colin Farrell (In Bruges) plays David, a man who recently lost his wife. According to the rules of the city in which he lives, he is sent to a hotel in the countryside which is occupied entirely by other single people. Each person is allotted 45 days to find a significant other among the hotel population. If they fail to find love during this time, they are turned into an animal (David decides he would want to be a lobster). Each relationship is based upon the two partners sharing a “Defining Characteristic”, but since no else in the hotel shares David’s (near-sightedness), he decides to fake having a different Characteristic to achieve romance. This goes poorly, and as a result he ends up a fugitive in the wilderness with the hotel staff and guests hunting him. There he discovers a resistance group made up of Loners, who have sworn off any sort of romantic relationships. But it is here that he finally meets a woman who shares his Defining Characteristic (Rachel Weisz, The Fountain) and he finds himself falling in love despite himself.

Subversive, absurdist, and incredibly entertaining, The Lobster is a dark comedy and (sort of) science fiction story from Greek director Yorgos Lanthimos. Although it possesses the sci-fi conceit of turning humans into animals, the film is really a dark, cynical commentary on the nature of relationships, the lack of a relationship, and the act of looking for a relationship. Lanthimos’ sense of humor is incredibly pessimistic and seemingly knows no bounds. His jokes take aim at everything from dating to marriage to raising children to suicide. This movie made me laugh at some truly awful subjects, which I think is the hallmark of a brilliant comedy writer. That, or I’m just a terrible person with a really twisted sense of humor (probably both). 

The humor is also incredibly dry, despite its absurdest tendencies. It almost reminded me of classical British humor like Python, although in this movie pretty much every actor plays a straight man. This creates a really interesting dynamic because the fact that no one on screen seems to acknowledge or even notice any of the insanity surrounding them makes everything happening both funnier and more disturbing to the audience. Speaking of which, the cast for the film is excellent; Farrell and Weisz play the leads, but the movie also features the likes of Ben Whishaw (Skyfall), John C. Reilly (Wreck-It Ralph), and Léa Seydoux (Inglourious Basterds).

This sort of dark, surreal comedy is certainly not for everyone, and I’m sure that both the unusual premise of the film and it’s incredibly cynical comedy will probably turn a lot of people off this movie. But I urge you to give this film a chance. It’s so rare that we get to see such an wholly unique and original film, not to mention how incredibly funny it is. If you’re like me and you’re tired of the same old formulaic stuff Hollywood keeps pumping out, then do yourself a favor and go see The Lobster. Just don’t come crying to me afterwards if it offends you.

Grade: A
0 Comments

AJ Martin's This Week in Movies: The Seventies

5/18/2016

0 Comments

 
​Hello everybody and welcome to my new weekly series, where I’ll be discussing films that are similar to the most popular new movies of the week. On Friday, Shane Black’s newest film The Nice Guys is set to release, which follows two private investigators in 1970’s Los Angeles. Films set in the 70’s are not a rare breed, with many writers and directors eager to dramatize the glamorous style of the decade. The culture of America in the 1970’s creates an exciting and vibrant aesthetic, making the film that are set then feel more alive. The majority of films set in this decade use this style and way of life to enhance the events that are occurring or to remind the audience of how much times have changed since then. So, let's get started!

Boogie Nights

Picture
Paul Thomas Anderson’s film about changes in the pornography industry is a perfect example of the way that things were in the 70’s and how quickly those ways changed. The movie follows Eddie Adams (Mark Wahlberg), a dumb young man who is taken under the wing of pornographic film maker Jack Horner (Burt Reynolds) and quickly rises to the top of the XXX world. Along the way, Adams (who begins to go by his porn name, Dirk Diggler) encounters all the colorful people you would expect to be part of the industry and learns that the initial glamor eventually wears off.
​

The film does an excellent job at making the audience feel invested in its characters, from the naïve but loveable Dirk to the father-like Jack. These people are completely enamored with the world of pornographic films, with Diggler finally feeling like he has accomplished something and Horner captured by the artistic side of X-rated film. Our attachment to Dirk as a character makes his turn from a lovable idiot to a self-absorbed diva all the more tragic, as he pushes away everyone who initially cared about him. Anderson’s writing carefully crafts his character arc in a way that keeps the audience constantly hooked.

Along with the great characters and story-telling, Boogie Nights captures the way that the 70’s viewed pornography and how much that idea has shifted. Horner is praised for his pornographic films, which have stories along with the porn segments. But, as time changes, people begin to care less about the story and more about the porn, with the shift from porn on film to porn on VHS becoming paramount to the industry. This shift cripples both Diggler and Horner, who are trapped in the old mentality of pornographic filmmaking. This display of the old ways of porn and the shift of the market, which also parallels the shift in Diggler, is a perfect way of showing the lifestyle of the 70’s to an outside observer while also creating narrative complexity.

Grade: A

Dazed and Confused

Picture
There are fewer films that truly show what high school was like in the 70’s than Richard Linklater’s Dazed and Confused. The movie follows a number of high schoolers on the night after the last day of school, getting drunk and high, partying and causing mayhem in their small town. The film has little in the way of conflict, focusing mostly on the crazy way in which teenagers of that era used to get away with acting and how high school has both changed and stayed the same.

There are pretty much no main characters to speak of either, with the movie constantly jumping between different groups of people. And while this might seem jarring at first, each character is so distinct that it becomes pretty easy to tell what is happening with all of them. What makes the film so charming and fun to watch is how different, and yet the same, the 1970s were for teenagers. On the one hand, these kids seem to get away with a lot more than teenagers nowadays, staying out all night partying and drinking, hazing the new freshman by humiliating them or beating them with paddles and constantly driving around the town like hoodlums. There is a distinct lack of caring about what the kids did, with the only intervention by adults being the occasional threat with a gun or confrontation with a cop. On the other hand, the way that the characters think is very similar to that of modern high schoolers, feeling as though high school is a complete waste of time, adults don’t understand their complexities and that the best years of their lives are just around the corner. In this way, by showing both the similarities and differences of 70’s and modern high schools, the movie is fascinating. With the added bonus of the 70’s style and vernacular, the movie has an amazing aesthetic.

Unfortunately, the lack of a substantial plot or characters who are the focus makes the movie feel less important. There is nothing for the audience to really latch on to, as the movie lacks a solid narrative. The film feels as though you are on a ride through the lives of partying teenagers, but doesn’t have the substance to be heavily effective. And while that may work for some people, I feel as though the lack of conflict detracts from my enjoyment of the film's feel and style.
​

Grade: B

​Super 8

Picture
Many people may not associate this movie with the 1970’s. It’s not totally drenched in the style of the decade like the other movies I’ve discussed, but it definitely represents the way that kids acted and had fun in that time. The J.J. Abrams film follows Joe Lamb (Joel Courtney) and his group of filmmaking friends, as they witness a train crash that is linked to alien life on earth.

The movie functions both as a sci-fi mystery, with the characters putting the pieces together involving strange events and a sudden military presence in their town, and a coming of age story. Joe is trying to cope with the loss of his mother, having a father who isn’t really around much. He spends the majority of his time making short movies with his friends, forming a close relationship with a girl named Alice (Elle Fanning), who also has some family issues. The movie does a very good job at writing believable child characters, who speak to each other the way that most people expect kids to talk. They are mean and crude to each other, but in a way that you can tell means they care about each other. The relationships between each of the characters, and its overall believability, drives the film and strengthens the narrative.    

Like Dazed and Confused, Super 8 uses the 70’s to show how differently kids acted back then. The children of Super 8 spend their days making films, riding their bikes all over the town and being very independent. It reinforces the idea that kids, in those days, had more freedom to roam around and act however they wanted. The kids in Super 8 aren’t nearly as rebellious as those in Dazed and Confused, but they are just as independent. And it is because they are so independent that they work as characters, not needing the adults in their live to work out their issues for them. The strength of the movie comes from the way they act, and the way they act would not feel genuine had the film not taken place in the late 70’s. Thus, the movie succeeds at being a great coming of age story and a great look at life in the 1970’s.

Grade: A-
Check in every Wednesday for another installment of this series!
0 Comments

Anu Gulati on A Bigger Splash

5/13/2016

0 Comments

 
Picture
“Is there nothing I can say, nothing I can do to change your mind?”

Mick Jagger wails in falsetto on “Emotional Rescue,” a disco-influenced tune released around the commercial peak of the Rolling Stones in 1979. The electric piano and synthesizers swirl into what’s considered a standout track from their album of the same name, even being commemorated on the official The Best of Rolling Stones compilation. However, the song is most notable for being the docking point of the burgeoning rift between Jagger and Keith Richards, as each band member wanted their own rockist vs. popist direction for the Stones.

It’s not easy to conclude all that subtext under the seductive, ageless sound of “Emotional Rescue,” and Italian director Luca Guadagnino employs much of the same camouflage in A Bigger Splash. Set in the stunning scenery of Pantelleria, Bowie-like rock star Marianne Lane (Tilda Swinton) and muscular, younger boyfriend Paul (Matthias Schoenaerts) rest and recover from Marianne’s recent vocal surgery in muted bliss. They tan in the nude by a spectacularly blue swimming pool placed on top of the gorgeous rocky landscape after countless mud baths that promptly turn sexual, day after day.

Their steady lives are quickly interrupted by Marianne’s ex-lover and former producer flying in with his supposedly formerly estranged 22-year-old daughter and no hotel preparations, and the combined four of them twist this once tranquil setting into one torn by emotional drama. Harry (Ralph Fiennes) is a restless and experienced spirit, his energy carried by Fiennes’ unfettered performance. Flashbacks to Harry and Marianne’s 80s rockstar escapades, soundtracked by glam pop and dusted with cocaine, peep from the cracks of their now weathered relationship, and it becomes evident from the beginning that Harry’s skittish self is here for a reason.

Though it’s eventual melodrama is unmistakable from the start, A Bigger Splash serves as a treat for the visual and theatrical senses, as Fiennes and Swinton put on astonishing performances for two seemedly opposite people. Swinton sways in her nostalgic resort wardrobe by Dior, expressively gesturing her wants and needs with an elegance that makes you almost forget she’s an otherworldly rock star. She speaks in a hoarse whisper when really required to, even lets us experience her experiencing a silent orgasm while standing up, and her weightless performance becomes a heavy one as her facial expressions and miming express her agony so fervently.

Meanwhile, Fiennes’ Harry is rushing in and out of the frame like a jazzy spirit, gutting out fresh fish his first morning there and drunkenly boasting a karaoke of Deep Fish’s “Direction NYC” that same night. Previously a producer for the Rolling Stones, he spins “Emotional Rescue” on the house turntable and shows off his moves like Jagger in a particularly memorable sequence for it’s juxtaposing entertainment and uncomfort. He wails that opening line to Marianne as her boyfriend awkwardly sits next to her, and the increasing tension between the two former lovers becomes soap-opera addicting until it bubbles over like Mediterranean champagne.

The juicy stories of past suicide attempts and slender, oiled bodies pasted against the Italian island’s natural beauty make A Bigger Splash a worth-it watch. Unlike 2015’s The Second Mother, a Brazilian film that overdid the melodrama but perfectly delivered the socioeconomic strife of modern Brazil, A Bigger Splash serves up some amusing scenes that get clumsily interrupted by Guadagnino’s half-baked political messages. He tries to make a white people vs. the world conversation with his wealthy main characters virtually ignoring the Italian residents around them, and frequently shows the Tunisian refugees that have started to arrive for sanctuary on the sidelines, but makes no legitimate point with either of these being included. Swinton’s tall and all-white designer attire is enough to make her stand out from the faded rags surrounding her, enough of a statement for a movie that should’ve kept all it’s focus on the emotional chess that it’s best at.

The final act churns into ambiguous anticlimax, but never hesitates to remain pleasing on the eyes. We are served freshly made ricotta with daiquiris cliffside and tabletop candle lighting, all the while seeing who’s gonna fuck who next. A Bigger Splash is never gaudy in its unraveling, instead consistently excelling at it’s meta-escapism. With cinematography that stuns at every corner in both technique and visuals, Yorick Le Saux (Clouds of Sils-Maria, Only Lovers Left Alive) and Guadagnino mask their characters’ intentions and emotions with beautiful mastery, much like the Stones’ “Emotional Rescue.” What most interests me about A Bigger Splash is finally seeing what Guadagnino can do, seeing as to how he’s scheduled to make a Suspiria remake in the next few years. Here’s to hoping his sensual awareness translates well to unnerving horror.. *nervous laughter*

Grade : B
0 Comments

Carter Sigl on Captain America: Civil War

5/6/2016

0 Comments

 
Picture
As I have said (probably several times by now), I am not the biggest fan of super hero films in general or Marvel movies in particular. I didn’t grow up reading Marvel or DC, and I had very limited exposure to any super hero media until I saw The Dark Knight. On the whole, I think that most of Marvel’s movies, while certainly enjoyable, tend to be seriously lacking in proper plot and particularly in interesting antagonists (there’s Loki and…. nope, I guess it’s still just Loki). However, Marvel has been working to address these problems; Guardians of the Galaxy and Captain America: The Winter Soldier were both steps forward for the franchise, while Avengers: Age of Ultron felt like a step back. Captain America: Civil War is another step forward- there’s still a long way to go, but significant progress had been made.
​
The latest incarnation in Marvel’s cinematic universe begins as world-wide public opinion has begun to turn against the Avengers. Although many people are thankful for the good they have done in the world, others are becoming bitter at the amount of death and destruction which always seems to follow in their wake. These people point to the destruction wreaked upon New York City (The Avengers), London (Thor: The Dark World), Washington D.C. (Captain America: The Winter Soldier) and Sokovia (Avengers: Age of Ultron), and demand that they be reined in. In response to public pressure, the majority of nations in the world sign the Sokovia Accords, an international treaty which would turn the Avengers from a private group into a public organization supervised by the United Nations. While some members of the group (led by Tony Stark/Iron Man) believe that they must be held accountable due to their capacity for destruction, others (led by Steve Rogers/Captain America) fear that political obstruction could prevent them from helping people or, even worse, that they could become tools for world governments to wield against each other. Tensions only get worse following a terrorist attack during the signing of the Accords, an attack for which Steve’s old friend Bucky, known to the rest of the world as the Winter Soldier, is implicated. Rogers suspects a set-up, but it turns out that the Avenger’s worst enemy could be itself.

The first thing that you will notice about this film is it essentially another Avengers movie in all but name (I may refer to it as Avengers 2.5). Virtually every super hero character from every previous Marvel film is present, save for the conspicuous absence of Thor and the Hulk. There’s Captain America, Iron Man, Black Widow, Hawk Eye, Scarlet Witch, Vision, Falcon, War Machine, Ant-Man… There’s even Spider Man and Black Panther, whose own movies aren’t even being released until 2017 and 2018, respectively. I must admit, I was sure that the sheer number of characters in this film would make the film cluttered and unorganized, as characters fought each other for limited screen time. In fact though, the movie does a pretty good job at giving all the characters enough screen time, and the movie actually doesn’t feel that cluttered. This is helped by the fact that (A) most of these characters have already been established in previous movies so exposition can be kept to a minimum and (B) the movie is a full two and half hours. However, Captain America is still the one driving the plot forward, so putting his name in the title is appropriate.

I must also admit that I was skeptical that Marvel would be able to tell the story of Civil War well, considering their less-than-stellar track record of writing good plots thus far. However, I was pleasantly surprised at how well the story worked. I think the big reason for this is because the actual villain of this movie (without getting too spoilery) doesn’t actually spend much time on screen and mostly works from behind the scenes, manipulating the Avengers from the shadows. Rather, in many ways Tony Stark/Iron Man takes on aspects of the villain role. And this actually works really well because of the already-established characterization of each Avenger and their existing relationships with each other. The filmmakers didn’t need to write a villain, they just needed to place arguably their best character into a situation where he acts like a villain, and the plot just writes itself, side-stepping their traditional weakness in plot and villain characterization entirely.

Of course, Civil War is still an immensely satisfying action movie. There’s giant set-piece battles, funny quips, and of course the obligatory action sequence with all the heroes in the movie fighting each other, so if you’re just interested in that than you’ll have a grand old time. But Civil War is surprisingly more than that. It’s another step forward for Marvel, as they show that their superhero films can be more than just summer blockbuster beat-em’-ups, even if it still lacks the dramatic depth of a film like The Dark Knight. Between Civil War and the surreal and mystical Doctor Strange releasing later this year, 2016 is looking to be one of Marvel’s best years yet.
​
Grade: A-
0 Comments

AJ Martin on The Meddler

5/6/2016

0 Comments

 
Picture
It is very rare that an overall mediocre movie is propelled to a higher level of greatness by the performance of one actor. There are a few examples (many people consider Elf to be a modern Christmas classic, a film that would be nothing without Will Ferrell’s performance), but, generally, a poor script cannot be fixed merely through the charisma of a lead actor. For perhaps the first half of The Meddler, I believed Susan Sarandon (of Thelma and Louise and Dead Man Walking) could carry the otherwise uninventive and repetitive story. However, as the movie dragged on, it become apparent that no one could save this movie from impending boredom.

Marnie (Sarandon) is a somewhat loud and over-protective mother from Brooklyn, who recently lost her husband. She decides it would be best to move to Los Angeles, where her daughter Lori (Rose Byrne from X-Men: First Class and Neighbors) works as a writer, to be closer to her. Her daughter doesn’t seem to want anything to do with her, so Marnie begins using her spare time and money helping others. She helps finance the wedding one of Lori’s friends, drive a young Apple worker to night school and befriends a retired police officer.

As the movie continues, Marnie begins to realize that she is doing everything to cover up the grief over the loss of her husband. Writing the plot of the movie down for this review has reminded me just how generic and overdone this type of movie is. Marnie is zany and over-protective, her daughter distant and a gigantic asshole and the side characters stare at Marnie, in awe of her constant energy and positivity.

The movie relies on Marnie to keep the energy going. Without her, this movie would have absolutely nothing going for it, as the rest of the characters are boring blank-slates. Marnie’s constant energy and enthusiasm is quite infectious, reminding me of an aunt with similar loving charisma. Everybody has a family member like Marnie, and her boundless and constant positivity makes some of the movie funny and charming.

Unfortunately, even Sarandon’s charm begins to wear off when you realize that it is all the film has going for it. There is no sense of originality here, no moment where I could say “I’ve never seen a movie do that before.” It’s a color-by-numbers drama/comedy that seems to hope its lead will make the mediocrity of its script go away. It doesn’t.
While writing this review, I am reminded of the movie Demolition that was released a few weeks ago, as both films follow characters who are struggling with the loss of a loved one and have the way they think changed by the people they meet. The only difference is that The Meddler focuses more on the comedy where Demolition stuck to drama. The similarities are so uncanny that I feel like it would be wrong not to give them the same score. So I will.
​

Grade: C+
0 Comments
<<Previous

    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.