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

Gabrielle Ulubay on Detroit

8/4/2017

0 Comments

 
Picture
Detroit takes place during the civil turmoil of the summer of 1967 which turned Detroit into a war zone. The film is set almost entirely on the night of July 25 and July 26, when law enforcement officers raided the Algiers Motel in search of a purported sniper. Before delving into the horrifying events of the night, the audience is exposed to the unbelievable unrest unfolding in the city. We are also introduced to several characters, including a music group called “The Dramatics” (two of whom become victims in the July 25-26 raid) and a pair of racist police officers who become the main aggressors.
​
Unlike many films portraying civil unrest, Detroit offers insight into a myriad of perspectives: African American rioters, law enforcement officers, victims of police brutality, grieving family members, and political leaders. The movie also shows the perspectives of white cops -racist and otherwise- and white victims of police brutality. Detroit subtly, intelligently illustrates that rioting and civil disorder are not simple issues. Director Kathryn Bigelow (of Hurt Locker and Zero Dark Thirty fame) finds a variety of ways to illustrate the strong emotions, differences of opinion, and historical intricacies that characterize not only the politics of the time but also the communities involved. 

Indeed, Bigelow does this through dialogue, but she more importantly does this through imagery. She transitions between close-up, medium, and long shots to show the agony, horror, and enormous extent of the issues at hand. Her close-ups, which are often of individuals or of intimate shots between characters, are sometimes even more jarring than certain shots of violence because they poignantly convey characters’ deep-seated emotions.

The latter is also a credit to the actors. I found Jacob Latimore’s (who plays Fred) performance of particular note. He conveyed an impressive range of emotion on his face not only during the heart-wrenching raid but in reaction to events throughout the film. He stole the show- transitioning beautifully between fear, joy, hope, humor, and bravery.

During the film, I couldn’t help but think of the classic anti-colonialist film The Battle of Algiers (1966). This film depicts the Algerian struggle for independence, and there is a particular scene in which two white men drive through an Algerian neighborhood at night in order to plant and set off a bomb in a residential area. In Detroit, we are introduced to the primary antagonists, two racist white police officers, while they are similarly driving through a black neighborhood. The scene bore an eerie resemblance to the scene in The Battle of Algiers, and sure enough, the police officers soon shoot an unarmed black male in the back as he ran away. Detroit’s riot scenes also reminded me of similar mob scenes characterizing The Battle of Algiers, including sequences during which community leaders try to assuage citizens’ anger. The hotel in which most of the film takes place also happens to be named “Algiers Motel.” The last detail is based on truth (the entire movie is based on truth), but nevertheless I appreciated the striking similarity Detroit bore to that film. If it was indeed an homage to the classic film, I applaud Bigelow’s choice and think it both poetic and befitting.

However, Detroit was a disorganized film. Before the raid on the Algiers Motel, it is comprised of a motley of scenes of protests, of characters being introduced, and of everyday life. By the end of the film, I understood that these scenes were included in order to provide essential contextual and character background, but while watching I found it difficult to discern what the movie was really about. At times, I got the sense that it was simply a sequence of tear-jerking events meant to inspire empathy in the audience. I strongly believe that these scenes were necessary, but so many characters and so much information was introduced in a choppy manner over a short period of time. I would have liked to see a clearer arc in the rising action, or at least to have been alerted to what information and which characters were most essential to the plot. 

The filmmakers did a commendable job in grounding the film, interspersing their own footage with historical photos and videos of the actual Detroit riots in 1967. These details drew attention to the painful reality of the events depicted and to the high quality of work done by Detroit’s cinematographers in recreating the time period. The film also utilized music from the 1960s -much of which was diegetic- but not to excess. Much of the sound in the film focused on the riots unfolding throughout the city, immersing the audience ever further into the setting.

That being said, the events in the film were tragically familiar. We are no strangers to hearing about police officers shooting unarmed people of color, sexually harassing women, or planting evidence at crime scenes. I believe Bigelow was intentional in releasing this film at this particular time in history, and that there is a bold, biting intelligence in her doing so.

One of the first lines we hear a police officer say in Detroit is, “If they’re not resisting, don’t push them.” It’s sad that anyone -especially a law enforcement officer- would need to be reminded of that in 1967, and even sadder that many need to be reminded today. 

Grade: A-
0 Comments

Gabrielle Ulubay on Atomic Blonde

7/28/2017

0 Comments

 
Picture
I was critical of Atomic Blonde before even seeing it because I thought I knew what to expect. Based on Antony Johnston’s graphic novel The Coldest City, this film is about an MI6 agent, Lorraine Broughton (Charlize Theron), who is sent to Berlin just before the fall of the Berlin Wall to investigate the murder of a fellow agent. Subsequently, her superiors instruct her to uncover a missing list of international spies, which includes the identity of the elusive double agent “Satchel.” Upon arriving in Berlin, the icy, collected, and rather glamorous Broughton is forced to work with the unpredictable Agent David Percival (James McAvoy), who immediately chafes Broughton’s steely composure.
​
Yes, this movie is perfectly in line with the most foreseeable spy movie tropes: Theron’s character is powerful, sexy, smart, and unbelievably fit. She’s edgy yet feminine, insubordinate yet respected. Broughton, like James Bond, is a consistently overdressed badass who manages to both engage in sex-capades and single-handedly fight off hordes of well-armed men with her bare hands. Soviet/KGB stereotypes also run rampant in this movie, particularly when Broughton’s superiors inform her of her mission and she bitterly whispers, “Soviets.” 

Other critics might criticize this adherence to the secret agent stereotype, because in regards to the protagonist’s characteristics Atomic Blonde does not offer anything outstandingly novel. I however, find that this is part of what makes the movie so fun. After all, who would go to see a spy movie about an underwhelming, sexually frustrated secret agent?
Furthermore, Broughton’s character manages to be revolutionary in several ways. Like many of Angelina Jolie’s characters (see: the Tomb Raider movies, Wanted, and Salt), Theron’s character subverts sexist stereotypes that women are inherently weak or that they need men to save or seduce them (or both). Importantly, Lorraine Broughton’s sexuality is also addressed with a subtle complexity completely absent in any action film I’ve seen before. When McAvoy’s Agent Percival first appeared onscreen, I rolled my eyes, anticipating that they would fall in love or lust. Sure enough, they soon shared a scene wrought with predictable sexual tension. However, they never slept together--and that’s very important. I commend the writers for not linking the main male and female protagonists just because they’re there. 

When the movie eventually does address Broughton’s sexuality, it does so through flashbacks of a past relationship with the agent whose death she is investigating, and later through sex scenes with French agent Delphine Lasalle (Sofia Boutella). I was refreshed to see the depiction of a powerful queer female without her queerness being made into the main spectacle. The film also illustrated a level of depth and complexity in Broughton and Lasalle’s relationship that is totally unprecedented in the realm of spy movies.

As far as the film’s editing, its sound production impressed me the most. Atomic Blonde is rife with 80s music to both remind you of the time period and to establish a fun tone that offsets the movie’s frequent violence (think: “Stuck in the Middle with You” in Reservoir Dogs). Much of the music is diegetic--it is coming from radios, headphones, and stereos within the world of the film. Consequently, the music becomes muffled or stops and restarts intermittently. This was a delightful touch, though at times the source of such music was unclear or inconsistent.

The visual editing was conventional and I didn’t note any particularly daring shots. The set, on the other hand, was beautiful in its dimly lit, neon-punk drabness. The filmmakers did a spectacular job of setting the tense, deeply dissatisfied mood of partitioned Berlin in late 1989. I especially loved the gritty details of the scenery and the way the costume designers turned James McAvoy into a walking manifestation of the city’s punk reputation. My chief complaint about the visuals is the incessant product placement via Charlize Theron (Lorraine Broughton wears “Boy” brand. We get it.).

Go see Atomic Blonde. I doubted it would be worth the hype, but it is. Theron, McAvoy, and Boutella deliver powerhouse performances and are invigorating to watch. Boutella (who stars in The Mummy, which also came out this year) especially stands out, holding her own with her seasoned costars. Atomic Blonde is filled with both unexpected plot twists and exceedingly predictable dialogue, but I’m not sure I’d go see a spy movie expecting anything less. 

Grade: A 
0 Comments

Gabrielle Ulubay on Jeremiah Tower: The Last Magnificent

5/12/2017

0 Comments

 
Picture
Jeremiah Tower: The Last Magnificent is a biographic documentary about famous (or perhaps infamous) chef Jeremiah Tower, who influenced contemporary American cuisine and operated the “Stars” restaurant from 1984 to 1999. While watching, I couldn’t tell whether I disliked the movie or if I just disliked Tower himself—I soon realized it was both.
​
The film begins with choppy shots of Tower inexplicably wandering Mexican ruins and saying dramatic axioms such as “I need to stay away from human beings, because somehow I am not one.” At this point in the film, we do not know where Tower is, why he is there, or why these ruins are relevant. Film-goers may not even be sure who he is in the first place. This opening thus feels bizarre and confusing, and its over-dramatic tone is downright laughable. When the documentary informs us that Tower mysteriously disappeared during his career and moved to Mexico, the scenery make slightly more sense, but the sequence continues to be theatrical and borderline nonsensical. The shots of Tower looking over the ruins from the top of a pyramid, his feet walking along the sand, are totally unnecessary. There are even images of unidentified children, which only seem remotely appropriate when Tower discusses his childhood.

The documentary depicts Tower in such an unfavorable light that I wondered if we were supposed to dislike him (it soon becomes unbelievably apparent that we are meant to sympathize with him). Tower begins to talk about his privileged, opulent childhood by saying that the worst thing to ever happen to him was not being an orphan. However, after expressing a desire to have been an orphan he describes how his parents’ wealth enabled him to live a lavish life, including the ability to order plate after plate of luxury food that directly inspired his culinary career. Tower may not have been so successful were it not for his parents and the privileges his family name afforded him, yet he whines that he would have been better off without his parents.

He proves to be even less relatable as the film goes on, laughing about the fact that when civil movements were coming to fruition in the 1960s, he was “too busy cooking” to be a revolutionary. Not everyone needs to or should consider themselves revolutionary, but Tower seems apathetic when he boasts that while people were fighting for their rights (and his rights, for that matter, because Tower is homosexual) he was drinking champagne and expensive wine, cooking dinner for his friends, and throwing a Molotov cocktail at an unoccupied building in the middle of the night on a joyride with his friends. The filmmakers clearly want audiences to feel sorry for Tower when, at the age of 30, his parents stop giving him an allowance hefty enough to support his frivolous lifestyle, but I couldn’t help but think he deserved it. It is also hard not to sympathize with his friend-turned-lover-turned-enemy Alice Waters, who clashed with Tower when he turned her affordable hippie restaurant into an expensive, high-class business. 

The documentary was difficult to watch because the editing and narrative were disjointed and confusing. Modern day interviews were juxtaposed with shots of Tower participating in merry activities (such as snorkeling, yachting, and shopping) while talking about how sorry he feels for himself, which were combined with mysterious shots of the ruins and dream-like sequences of childhood flashbacks. The film also switched back and forth between time periods without explanation, jumping back to unrelated events that took place in the 1980s, then forward to 2014, then back again. When the documentary discussed the “Stars” and “Tavern on the Green”  restaurants, the filmmakers for the most part focused on one linear time period and theme—and those parts were the most enjoyable to watch. 

It would have been an infinitely more enjoyable film if they had edited in a linear, sensible manner and scrapped the clichéd, melodramatic shots of Tower gazing pensively over the Mexican landscape. Tower also, while clearly an influential genius, is not a relatable or particularly likable person, and the film could have done more to humanize him. You will learn much if you watch this documentary, but you will also likely leave the theater confused and annoyed.

Grade: C-
0 Comments

Gabrielle Ulubay on Hunt for the Wilderpeople

7/8/2016

0 Comments

 
Picture
In a summer filled with summer-blockbuster-sequels, Hunt for the Wilderpeople is refreshing. It was interesting to watch a movie that takes place in the unique location of the New Zealand bush, and the relationships that the movie focuses on are seldom studied in popular culture. In the movie, a troubled young orphan named Ricky is forced to survive in the wilderness with his foster uncle Hec, who initially dislikes him. The two soon find themselves on the run from the authorities, who believe Hec has kidnapped Ricky. 

This film had the potential to be depressing: The main characters have heartbreaking backstories, the harsh reality of foster children is painfully evident, and director Taika Waititi employs realistic visuals for shocking events including the slaughter of a pig and the death of a dog. Ricky, played by Julian Dennison, also suffers the death of his beloved foster aunt, Bella (played by Rima Te Wiata).

However, there is sufficient comic relief in the movie to save it from being an emotional endurance test. Bella’s funeral is marked by the priest’s ridiculous speech, punctuated by uncle Hec’s evident incredulity. Furthermore, serious scenes are often accompanied by comedy. For instance, Ricky’s somber attempt at running away from home is nearly thwarted by floorboards that creak laughably with his every move. Certain poetic scenes were admittedly heavy-handed, such as when Ricky sentimentally announced that he’d never had such a birthday celebration before or when uncle Hec held aunt Bella’s body for an uncomfortable amount of time, but the film’s mood was largely kept from becoming oppressive.
​
Visually, the film is stunning. The natural world is used to convey the passage of time clearly and without over-emphasis. A later montage of Ricky and uncle Hec evading the search party stands out as especially beautiful, with the camera rotating so it appeared all the characters are trapped in a snow globe, close but still unable to detect each other. I also applaud that Nina Simone’s Sinnerman played over one of these montages.

Hunt for the Wilderpeople entertains a largely unexplored, alternate idea about highly publicized criminal stories. It was unlike any film I’ve seen before, and I encourage everyone to give it a chance.

Grade: A-
0 Comments

Gabrielle Ulubay on Sing Street

4/24/2016

0 Comments

 
Picture
Sing Street is a coming-of-age, musical movie that defies clichés. It's directed by John Carney, creator of Once and Begin Again, and focuses on a young boy named Conor (Ferdia Walsh-Peelo) growing up Dublin during the 1980s. When Conor's parents transfer him from an expensive private school to a rough inner-city high school, he becomes infatuated with the mysterious girl (Lucy Boynton) who lives across the street. Conor tries to impress her by lying that he is in a band, and consequently finds he must form one.

This story line sounds familiar: Boy meets girl, boy tries to impress girl, boy and girl fall in love with comedic and/or touching hiccups along the way, right? But this is where Sing Street exceeds expectations. Romance is an important aspect of the film and contributes to Conor's motivations, but the movie takes unexpected directions and is ultimately more meaningful than its romantic parts.

Sing Street is first and foremost about how important music can be during the difficult years of early adolescence. 80s music by likes of Depeche Mode, the Cure, and Duran Duran punctuate the film and help Conor digest increasingly tense relationships with his parents and his school's sadistic principal. He uses music to find himself, both artistically and aesthetically, and often with comedic results.

Sing Street's characters clearly deal with adolescent internal crises yet remain funny, tough, and realistic enough to save the film from banality. Each character has a level of depth unusual for teenage movies, their difficult realities only focused upon long enough to make them realistic and instill sympathy in audiences. Backstories were explored, but never to an emotionally exhausting degree.

It was especially refreshing to watch the relationship between Conor and his brother, Brendan (Jack Reynor). Brendan is a moody, perpetually stoned college dropout with limited screen-time, yet Reynor excels in this role to such a degree that Brendan is one of the most likable characters in the film. The way he communicates with Conor is attentive and compassionate, and Reynor manifests this verbally and nonverbally. Facial expressions and body language communicate his inner conflicts, even when he is trying to hide them.

Brendan's less-than-glamorous qualities could easily have made him irritating, but instead he was relatable and emotionally affecting. He is especially gripping in the final scene, when he expresses both regret over his own life's direction and excitement for his brother's future. The bond between the brothers is strong and far from simple, and was the most touching relationship in the film.

Symmetrical cinematography, match-on-action shots, blunt dialogue, and precocious young characters remind audiences of Wes Anderson films, but with a gritty touch. Here, John Carney has managed to make a movie that is at once tough, funny, nostalgic, and heart-warming. I encourage everyone to see Sing Street: there is something here for everyone.

Grade: A+
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

Gabrielle Ulubay on Where to Invade Next

2/14/2016

0 Comments

 
Picture
Michael Moore’s ideological crusade in this movie was to point out everything the United States is doing “wrong” by showing how well a random smattering of countries are doing by contrast. Moore travels to Italy, France, Tunisia, Slovenia, Portugal, and others, claiming to invade them in order to “take the things we need from them.” He juxtaposes narration lauding the US with footage disproving the validity of these compliments, such as of police brutality, poverty, dilapidated infrastructure, and discrimination. The movie had a lot of potential, but both its structure and its messages were disappointing. Frankly, Americans whining about how insecure they are about being American is becoming overdone and irritating.

This documentary felt more like a list than a movie. The countries Moore chose and the order in which he visited them seemed random, neither building on nor relating to each other. The escapades themselves were organically funny, relying more on people’s reactions to Moore than to Moore himself, which saved this critic from becoming especially impatient as the movie progressed. A generally comedic tone gave way to the movie’s more serious roots when Moore eventually visited the Berlin Wall and reminisced with an old friend about when the wall fell, but then the film seemed to return to its previous light-hearted, didactic nature and I found myself wondering where Moore was going with all of this. While his actual journey around the world might have been directionless, his film should not have been.

However, my biggest qualm with this movie is the extent to which Americans are demonized. Self-hating Americans and American-hating foreigners, hear me out: The United States is not perfect, but neither is any other country. Indeed, there are strategies that the US should at least consider adopting to combat its domestic problems, but the countries Moore advertises are also imperfect. In addition, it is not so easy for the United States to adopt some of the policies Moore praises because this is a large, populated country and consequently policies that work in smaller countries might be logistically inappropriate here. Many Americans also oppose certain policies, and whether the policy works or not, it cannot and should not be installed in a country whose majority is against it.

Moore speaks here as if the United States is the only country with lacking educational funding, racial tensions, and violent crime. America is not perfect, but it is likely not populated with hordes of apathetic sadists. Moore brags about other countries’ successes in social movements (i.e., women’s rights, racial equality, and students’ rights) as if people in other countries succeeded because they simply tried harder. His narration erroneously implies that protesters in America eventually shrugged and surrendered to the status quo due to fear, laziness, ignorance, and lack of leadership. Obstacles for social movements differ country by country, and it was pathetically self-hating on the part of Moore to dismiss Americans in such a way.

Moore’s theme that the United States should claim other countries’ ideas as its own was clever, as was the quip that America typically steals from others and then claims the stolen item as American. However, he also roundly dismissed Americans and claimed that the United States was founded on quasi-utopian ideals that are now embodied better by foreign countries. Each of these proclamations ignorantly lacks political, historical, and ideological nuance. Listing everything America does wrong doesn’t make Moore artistic or edgy, and it certainly doesn’t aid a country that needs real solutions rather than self-hating sensationalist journalism.

Where to Invade Next?​ If you must, invade this country. Solve problems here instead of comparing us to everyone else.
Grade: C-
0 Comments

Gabrielle Ulubay on Zoolander No. 2

2/12/2016

0 Comments

 
Picture
​I don’t know what people were expecting from this movie. A lot of the critiques I’ve heard stating that the movie was too awkward, immature, or under-developed put me under the impression that some expected some operatic epic. I was under no impression that Zoolander No. 2 would be any less immature or random (and I say that with great affection) than the first and you shouldn’t be, either. This sequel is certainly not the first movie, and doesn’t have the same novelty as the first did, but it also doesn’t pretend to do those things. Zoolander No. 2 is what I hoped it would be: a continuation of the first movie’s storyline, with new challenges for the main characters and acknowledgement of the time that has passed since we last encountered Derek Zoolander, Hansel, and Mugatu.

I’m still relieved that Ben Stiller retained the original cast—even Christine Taylor, whose character (Matilda Jeffries) is dead in the sequel. The additions that are included in Zoolander No. 2, most notably Kristin Wiig and Penelope Cruz, were hysterical but not perfect fits. Wiig’s big laugh was her nearly incomprehensible accent/speech impediment, but it wavered. The joke was inconsistent because at times she would lose the accent, and that came off as an irritating lack of focus. Cruz's character, Valencia, took herself too seriously. Cruz herself acted well, but her character did not have any of the awkward quirks that Zoolander characters typically have. Even Matilda Jeffries was laughable in the first film. Simply put, Valencia was too perfect of a character for the Zoolander movies. She was too suave, too smart, too sexy--her only "flaw" was that her breasts were too large for her to be a runway model. Cruz pulled that joke off well, but it wasn't self-deprecating enough for her character to fit in with the rest of the ensemble.

Otherwise, the humor in this movie was well done. Zoolander No. 2 took buzzwords from popular culture and adapted them to the slapstick sense of humor characterizing the first film. Characters mentioned "farm-to-table" wifi, repurposed human waste, intentionally tasteless tattoos, and hashtags. The film mocks not only fashion, but everything that contemporary society has become (even though the hashtag joke is over-done at this point). I especially enjoyed the ongoing ridicule of the contemporary habit of dismissing everything as uncool or mainstream, even if they like it. 

Of course, Zoolander No. 2 also spends a substantial amount of time poking fun at the fashion industry, but it does so in a different way than the first movie did. Zoolander No. 2 adjusts its quips to fit in with the current state of fashion, pointing out the fickleness of the industry in the process. The movie suggests that the fashion industry is killing itself, and at the end brings in some of the most famous modern fashion designers and mocks them to their faces.

Zoolander No. 2 is a fun movie. There are enough references to the first movie (i.e., the orgy scene) to please fans, but this sequel does not pretend to be the first movie. Expect some great laughs and plenty of satire about popular culture, but don't take it too seriously. It's Zoolander, not Casablanca.
​

Grade: B+
0 Comments

Gabrielle Ulubay's Top Ten Films of 2015

2/11/2016

0 Comments

 

10. Black Mass

Picture
I know a lot of people didn't like this movie, and that it was especially contentious in Boston, but I enjoyed Black Mass. It truly struck me as Johnny Depp's comeback role after a lot of bad press on his acting, and I also thought it was an interesting new way of filming gangster movies.

You can read Gabrielle Ulubay's full review of Black Mass here.

9. The Big Short

Picture
The Big Short is difficult to watch if you or anyone you know was negatively affected by the financial crisis in the late 2000s (so nearly everyone).  However, it is important that this movie was made. Most people don’t know or understand what caused the economy to collapse, and this movie exposes the truth without preaching or being too sentimental. The main characters balance each other out and are written in such a way that no one seems too obnoxious or too righteous, and there are no distinct good or bad guys. The contentious topic is helpfully explained by a smattering of stars featured specifically for this purpose (i.e., Margot Robbie, Selena Gomez), which also lightens the mood. This movie is entertaining, educational, and perhaps most importantly a warning.

8. Mr. Holmes

Picture
Mr. Holmes is a movie that will linger in your consciousness long after you’ve finished it. At once heartbreaking and heartwarming, it is a new take on the sarcastic Sherlock Holmes of popular lore. We’re all familiar with the Holmes that Sir Arthur Conan Doyle wrote about (who was catapulted back into popular culture through Guy Ritchie’s Sherlock Holmes films and CBS’s Elementary)—but what happened when Sherlock became old and disillusioned? What happens when Sherlock has to face the fact that his cynical intellect can have disastrous consequences? Mr. Holmes is a worthwhile meditation on age, memory, and family.

7. Legend

Picture
Tom Hardy’s performance in this film as both Kray brothers was incredible. His physicality, comedic timing, and nuances in speech were striking. The movie itself is also well-filmed and undeniably emotional—ranging from hysterical to rage-inducing to tear-jerking. It isn’t perfect, but it’s a hell of a gangster movie. 

You can read Gabrielle Ulubay's full review of Legend here.

6. Carol

Picture
Carol (based on Patricia Highsmith's The Price of Salt) was a poignant, beautifully filmed depiction of two women's love for one another when all odds and circumstances were working against them. All the actors, especially Rooney Mara and Cate Blanchett, did a phenomenal job portraying the difficulty (if not impossibility) of resolving their respective conflicts. The film was also dream-like, like a half-faded memory of a forbidden 1950s romance. ​

You can read Anu Gulati's full review of Carol here.

5. Inside Out

Picture
Inside Out is first and foremost an intelligent movie. It takes one of the most emotionally difficult stages in a child's life and makes sense of it, including visual and verbal references to how the brain actually works. Some of my favorite parts of Inside Out are the sequences that run during the credits, when minor characters' inner psyches are also delved into. The movie discourages the idea that one should feel strange for being depressed or insecure, and these end sequences really drive that home. It was a smart, well-made movie with an essential message  for people of all ages.

You can read Carter Sigl's full review of Inside Out here.

4. Ex Machina

Picture
2015 was a quite a year for Alicia Vikander. I love this movie’s subversion of traditional themes and complete reversal of so many narrative expectations. The film is delightfully ominous, due in part to masterful auditory editing. Ex Machina’s sound design is so memorable that I can still recall the chilling sound of the robots’ rustling machinery.

You can read Elizabeth Johnson-Wilson's full review of Ex Machina here.

3. The Hateful Eight

Picture
The Hateful Eight embodies many reasons I love film. The cinematography is stunning, with jump cuts, long shots, tracking shots, and close ups juxtaposed together in a way that attracts attention without being too jarring. The dialogue is witty, daring, and just what we need in a culture paranoid about political incorrectness. It sheds light on historical tensions without shying away from their ugliness, and that quality is what gives The Hateful Eight its ability to effectively spread a message of racial tolerance. It could not have done this if Tarantino had used kinder language. The acting was also believable; you could really feel how cold that blizzard was. Kurt Russell, Samuel L Jackson, and Tim Roth (Tarantino veterans) performed well, as expected, but Jennifer Jason Leigh and Channing Tatum’s performances stood out to me. It was refreshing to see Leigh so uninhibited, and I always enjoy the opportunity to see Tatum show off his acting chops rather than his abs. I could go on about this movie, but that would need its own article.

You can read Carter Sigl's full review of The Hateful Eight here.

2. The Man from U.N.C.L.E.

Picture
This movie is so much fun. Directed by Guy Ritchie, a notoriously witty filmmaker, The Man from U.N.C.L.E. is an homage to the 1960s television show of the same name. Movies based on television shows tend to be hit or miss, and thankfully this was a hit. Armie Hammer, Alicia Vikander, and Henry Cavill deliver their lines and manifest physicality in such a funny way, without losing any of the suaveness expected from spy movies.

You can read Carter Sigl's full review of The Man from U.N.C.L.E. here.

1. Trumbo

Picture
Jay Roach’s Trumbo was everything an audience could ask for—it was funny, moving, based on a true story, and fun. It educates people about a time not too long ago when free speech was stifled by mass paranoia-turned-hysteria, teaching a lesson that many would do well to learn today. Trumbo sheds light on a phenomenon that will amuse, surprise, and grip audiences, and perhaps most importantly piss them off. I’d recommend this film to anyone and everyone.

You can read Arjun Agarwal's full review of Trumbo here.

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.