Woman in Gold Review

I do enjoy viewing art museums, though my articulation of art criticism outside of film is somewhat limited to something akin to, "Now that is an aesthetically pleasing... whatever that is." When I see good art, I can recognize it as good art. The artist Gustav Klimt's iconic painting "Portrait of Adele Bloch-Bauer I" is what initially caught my attention in the trailer for Woman in Gold (2015); it's a beautiful painting that used real gold and silver foils to create a beautiful paining. On top of that, seeing two mismatched actors together on screen was also intriguing. Finally, some World War II history was involved and it sent me over the edge; I had to see it. While it is a good movie, it's not as deep or profound as it thinks it is.

Sixty years after she fled Vienna during World War II, an elderly Jewish woman, Maria Altmann (Helen Mirren), starts her journey to retrieve family possessions seized by the Nazis, among them Klimt's famous painting 'Portrait of Adele Bloch-Bauer I'. Together with her inexperienced but plucky young lawyer, Randy Schoenberg (Ryan Reynolds), she embarks upon a major battle which takes them all the way to the heart of the Austrian establishment and the U.S. Supreme Court, and forces her to confront difficult truths about the past along the way. Maria does this not just to regain what was rightfully hers, but also to obtain some measure of justice for the death, destruction, and massive art theft perpetrated by the Nazis.

I was privileged in college to study World War II history coupled with psychology, culminating in travels to Munich, Germany to see historic sites firsthand. It is one of the greatest experiences I've had in academia. The combination of these two disciplines was positively fascinating and ever since, I have been engrossed by that time period. World War II dramas tend to resonate with me. Woman in Gold was particularly interesting, because it explored how the actions of the Nazis of the day have an effect on the present, even when well over half a century has passed. Nazi Austria is only visited briefly in flashbacks throughout the film as Maria reflects on memories. The movie shows how history is still very much alive and continues to influence us today. The past isn't just stories, it is our personal history, our family history, our heritage, and the long standing narrative that defines who we are now.

Woman in Gold tries to portray this idea of returning to our roots and preserving our histories, but seems somewhat lacking in its ability to do so. Initially, Randy is helping Maria for the money and prestige that the lawsuit would grant him; but he eventually he sees how it's not just Maria's history they are fighting for, but his as well, and he gains new conviction as the case becomes more relevant to him. How this is portrayed is that Maria and Randy visit the Austrian Holocaust memorial, and Randy excuses himself and cries in the privacy of a public restroom with no prior indication of interest. This could have been a deeply dramatic scene, but we're not shown why this change of heart happened so much as we were shown that it did happen. It causes this turning point to seem like a convenient plot development. This is just one example of some dramatic action being over simplified and weakened. It was well acted, no doubt, but without establishing enough context so many of the scenes felt lacking.

Helen Mirren is a beautiful and regal actress who often plays very dramatic roles. She has played three British queens in different films and television series, and she fits the role of nobility with remarkable astuteness. I particularly liked her in Hitchcock and The Hundred-Foot Journey. Ryan Reynolds is frequently typecast as an arrogant, handsome, cocky, and rude young man. And he plays that role very well. He's essentially the same character in Just Friends, Green Lantern, X-Men Origins: Wolverine, and Waiting. While I hate to oversimplify his career, I think this is one of the only times he's taken on a dramatic role. He does a pretty good job of it and emotes remarkably well. In one scene, he loses his patience and is downright intimidating as he vents his anger and frustration. There are moments when his characteristic humor shines through, but overall he does quite well in a dramatic role. These two mismatched actors bounce off of one another beautifully; their character's contrasting views and personalities make for some great scenes between the two. It's an odd coupling of actors, but they do a splendid job together.

Woman in Gold was not a bad movie, but wasn't as deep as it seems to think it is. It is at its core the true story about legal proceedings meant to resolve ownership of a painting. While that is an interesting story, frankly there isn't a whole lot of actual story to tell with that. Fortunately it is more character and theme driven than story driven, and the characters and theme are excellent. I'd never have imagined seeing Helen Mirren and Ryan Reynolds acting opposite each other, but here they are. Woman in Gold benefits greatly from the talented leads, but their strong work doesn't manage to overshadow the fact that there isn't a whole lot actually going on otherwise. It expresses the idea of getting in touch with our heritage and preserving our histories, but it doesn't do a whole lot outside of that. I like the movie overall and I recommend seeing it once it hits home video, but I don't think it's quite worth going out of my way to see a second time.

Can you think of another great movie that urges you to get in touch with your family history and heritage? Comment below and let me know!

The Hundred-Foot Journey

In light of recent major blockbuster action movies some other movies have been eclipsed by things like Guardians of theGalaxy, The Giver, Dawn of the Planet of the Apes, and others. Smaller, less bombastically advertised movies were overlooked. When I told friends I was seeing The Hundred-Foot Journey (2014) no one had heard of it. But since it's a foodie movie, the trailer piqued my interest and I'm glad I caught it in theaters.

Coming from a family of talented cooks, Hassan Kadam (Manish Dayal) has a life filled with both culinary delights and profound loss. Drifting through Europe after fleeing political violence in India that killed the family restaurant business and their mother, the Kadams arrive in France. Once there, a chance auto accident and the kindness of a young woman, Marguerite (Charlotte Le Bon), in the village of Saint-Antonin-Noble-Val inspires Papa Kadam (Om Puri) to set up an Indian restaurant there. Unfortunately, this puts the Kadams in direct competition with the snobbish Madame Mallory (Helen Mirren) and her acclaimed haute cuisine establishment across the street where Marguerite also works as a sous-chef. The resulting rivalry eventually escalates in personal intensity until it goes too far.

The Hundred-Foot Journey practically demands that you take it seriously. It's cram-packed full of feel good themes and multicultural understanding, as if to stress "this is something important!" It even comes with the official stamp of approval from media proprietor Oprah Winfrey and legendary filmmaker Steven Spielberg, both of whom are producers for the movie. The Hundred-Foot Journey clearly has artistic ambitions and is probably trying to pander to the Oscar judges. While the movie is certainly well crafted, well acted, and undoubtedly enjoyable, it is also conventional and predictable. The movie is about opening up your senses and sampling exotic tastes, but this comic drama plays everything a bit too safe to the point that it's a bit bland at times.

One of the best parts of the movie is the interplay between Helen Mirren and Om Puri as battling restaurant owners operating across the street from each other - one hundred feet away from each other to be exact, a short but fraught trip that various characters take for various reasons. Watching these veteran actors stoop to sabotage each other provides a constant source of laughs and a few shocking moments; I gasped more than a few times at the audacity each character demonstrates and the undermining stunts they pull. Mme. Mallory is all sharp angles, piercing looks, and biting quips; Papa is all round joviality, boisterous blasts, and warmhearted optimism. Their constant squabbling is the only tension in this soft and gooey dish, until the third act when the film goes all soft and gooey.

Hassan enjoys a flirtatious relationship with Marguerite which is cute but bland and fairly predictable. They do look lovely together and share a light but enjoyable chemistry. Hassan and Marguerite's storyline eventually takes the helm and steers the story in an unexpected direction that feels out of place with most everything that came before it. It all fits back together again by the end and results in a happy little movie that most anyone could enjoy.

This was a beautifully filmed movie. We get many shots of the rural French countryside which is stunningly gorgeous to say the least, and the camera work captures as much of it as possible. So many of the shots are picturesque and would look splendid if framed on your wall. Even the sets have this beautiful rustic texture that makes everything seem organic, natural, and has an antique quality to it.

As was the case in Julie & Julia, The Hundred-Foot Journey is a foodie movie. As such, food plays a prominent role in the film. We get to see some elegant looking French cuisine as well as some delectable Indian fare. We see everything from purchasing the food from local markets, to preparing the food, to cooking with tedious accuracy, arranging it in an attractive manner on the plate, and presenting it to the dining guest. Every step of the cooking process is shown over and over in different scenes but is no less interesting to watch. It is at least as interesting to watch as any program on The Food Channel. The movie made my mouth water; it was a feast for the eyes and made me crave Indian food.

I genuinely enjoyed The Hundred-Foot Journey even though it was predictable and tame. The story was good, the characters were fun, the romantic subplot was cute but very bland, the camera work and scenery was incredible, and the food was luscious to behold. This is a nice, clean movie and rests safely in the PG realm, though it probably won't hold the attention of younger viewers. I think this is worth catching in theaters if you can still find it. I enjoyed it enough that I might get myself a copy when it hits Blu-Ray.

Every culture has its own culinary traditions. What kind of food would you like to see used in a foodie movie sometime? Comment below and tell me why!

Legend of the Guardians: The Owls of Ga'Hoole Movie Review

I've said in previous reviews that Zach Snyder's movies are often hit or miss, but his visual style is absolutely gorgeous to behold. That said, Snyder's animation debut was pretty exciting news. I finally got around to seeing Legend of the Guardians: The Owls of Ga'Hoole (2010), and I think it somehow managed to be both hit and miss.

Soren (Jim Sturgess) is a young barn owl who is enthralled by the epic stories his father (Hugo Weaving) tells him of the Guardians of Ga'Hoole, a mythic band of winged warriors who fought a great battle to save owlkind from the evil Pure Ones. While Soren dreams of joining his heroes one day, his brother Kludd (Ryan Kwanten) scoffs at the notion. Kludd yearns to hunt, learn to fly, and earn his father's favor from his younger sibling. Kludd's eagerness causes both of the young owlets to fall from their treetop home and into the talons of The Pure Ones. The two discover the evil plot to abduct fledgling owls and raise them to become an army with which to conquer all of owlkind. Soren manages to escape with a few allies; Gylfie (Emily Barclay), Digger (David Wenham), and Twilight (Anthony LaPaglia). Together they set off to find the legendary heroes, the Warriors of Ga'Hoole to warn them of The Pure One's evil plot.

Zack Snyder's visually intense directing made Legend of the Guardians: The Owls of Ga'Hoole absolutely gorgeous to look at. Unlike most CGI animated movies which aim for a cartoony sort of look, The Owls of Ga'Hoole strived for a photorealistic art style. It was stunning! You could actually see the individual feathers on the owls fluttering in the wind, getting ruffled up during action scenes, and take on a different texture when they got wet. It is very difficult to animate hair and fur; a whole new program was created just to get Merida's hair to  look right in Pixar's Brave. There are so many feathered characters in The Owls of Ga'Hoole that it each scene must have taken ages to animate and look as good as they do in the movie. The photorealism extends to the sets and scenery, too. You could pause the movie at any time and the resulting still shot would look picturesque enough to frame and hang on the wall.

It came as no surprise to me that Zach Snyder's signature use of spontaneous moments of slow motion during action. He did this a lot in 300, Watchmen, and Sucker Punch. It's still a neat visual effect, and thankfully we don't get swamped with it. There were moments where I didn't understand why the slow motion effect was used, the scene didn't seem to justify using it. But there were other scenes such as when Soren was trying to fly through a rainstorm and tries to focus; everything slows down for a moment including the thousands of raindrops all around him. That looked really cool.

I only mentioned a few of the voice actors who appear in The Owls of Ga'Hoole above. Others include big name actors such as Joel Edgerton, Sam Neill, Helen Mirren, Abbie Cornish,  and Geoffrey Rush. There's nearly an all-star cast and they do great! The voice acting is spectacular. Hugo Weaving actually voices two characters, but it's done so well you'd hardly know they were the same actor.

The downside to The Owls of Ga'Hoole is the weak plot. The movie is based on Kathryn Lasky's book series and the movie received a lot of negative comments about the modified story. I haven't even heard of the books so I can't comment there, but it made fans of the books upset enough to mention it here. The story ended up being very predictable and vague on details.  The Pure Ones have some sort of magic metal "flecks" that they get from owl pellets (a mass of undigested parts of a birds food that some bird species occasionally regurgittaes). How that is magic and why that paralyzes enemies was totally lost to me. The characters were simple and predictable. So much of this movie has been done in dozens of other children's adventure movies that literally nothing surprises you in the least.

For being Zach Snyder's first animated feature, Legend of the Guardians: The Owls of Ga'Hoole was not a bad attempt at an animated movie. The photorealistic animation was stellar to say the least, and the camera work was fantastic! The story and characters were so predictable that it's safe to say you've already seen this movies several times before, unless you're an 8-year-old. The movie seemed to try to go for a hard core edge while still being kid-friendly. This wouldn't be a bad family movie; the animation will likely captivate adult audiences while the simple characters and story are easy enough for younger kids to keep up with. Overall, I think I would have been just fine if I hadn't seen the movie at all. I don't think it's worth the money to purchase unless you truly value the impressive animation or have young kids who would enjoy an animated action movie.

Is there a director who has only done live action movies whom you'd love to see make an animated feature? I think a Quentin Tarantino movie would be crazy! Comment below and tell me who you'd like to see direct an animated feature!

Hitchcock Review

Alfred Hitchcock was one of the most famous directors in film history. He had an iconic and entertaining public image as well as creating some of the most influential films in his day. Psycho is easily my favorite Hitchcock film; I got to analyze Psycho to pieces in my film class. I knew what kind of a sacrifices Hitchcock made for that film, but I never envisioned making a movie about making Psycho. Someone did think of it and thus Hitchcock (2012) was born.

in 1959, Alfred Hitchcock (Anthony Hopkins) and his wife, Alma Reville (Helen Mirren), are at the top of their creative game as filmmakers amid disquieting insinuations about it being time to retire. To recapture his youth's artistic daring, Alfred decides his next film will adapt the lurid horror novel, Psycho, over everyone's misgivings. Unfortunately, as Alfred self-finances and labors on this film, Alma finally loses patience with his roving eye and controlling habits with his actresses. When an ambitious friend, Whitfield Cook (Danny Huston), lures her to collaborate on a work of their own, the resulting maternal tension sullies Alfred's work even as the novel's inspiration (Michael Wincott) haunts his dreams.

So, Hitchcock opens with a scene where Ed Gein, the real life inspiration for Psycho's Norman Bates, kills someone for calling him a "momma's boy." Before the scene becomes gory, the camera slowly pans to the left and settles on Anthony Hopkins in a remarkable prosthetics and make up job casually sipping some tea as he watches the murder take place. He then turns to the camera and speaks briefly to the audience in Hitchcock's signature coyly grim demeanor about how these events inspired a great movie. It starts off just like an episode of Alfred Hitchcock Presents. Not only did this set a fascinating tone for the movie that draws you in from the get go, but also it put me, as a Hitchcock fan, in a some kind of film-production enthusiast overload. I was put in an "awesome coma" before the movies' title had a chance to appear on screen.

Anthony Hopkins and Alfred Hitchcock

The casting was beyond compare. Anthony Hopkins is incredible as Alfred Hitchcock. Granted, Anthony Hopkins is incredible as anything, but makeup job and prosthetics aside, Hopkins captivated Hitchcock's vocal tone, speech inflections, and mannerisms perfectly! Even the script gave him dialogue that sounded exactly like things Hitchcock would say. Scarlett Johansson and James D'Arcy were cast to play the stars of Hitchcocks' masterpiece Psycho. They look and act so much like Anthony Perkins and Janet Leigh it was simply amazing. Whoever did the casting for Hitchcock deserves an award.

The movie is about a married couple. Both are aware of their age, the romance in their relationship is basically dead, they are at a low point in their lives with all the personal sacrifices they each made for the Psycho film, and both have reason to suspect the other of infidelity. What I loved about both these characters is they are able to become more unified as they work together on a mutual project, which also happens to be something that I am passionate about: movie making! Hitchcock shows us how most of Hitchcock's films would have been much weaker without the unseen collaboration from his wife. Unlike a lot of contemporary movies, Hitchcock depicts a marriage as something that is reciprocally beneficial and requires much work and trust from both husband and wife to succeed. I really appreciated that aspect of the movie.

Hitchcock is a movie about making a movie. It captivates the energy and excitement of making a film and creating art. The movie depicts Alfred and Alma as being highly passionate about film and struggling to create despite the apathy and business side of the industry. The studio execs want movies that are exactly like every other film; it's safe and will guarantee a profit. Hitchcock wants to be bold, take calculated risks, and refuses to make standardized art just to make money. That resonated with me immensely as I hate seeing movies that follow a moneymaking formula and have no  heart. That, coupled with watching some classic scenes being filmed, was just fantastic to behold!

Hitchcock was an excellent film that hit nearly every point that makes a good movie while also catering to my fascination with film as an art medium. The acting was superbly presented by an outstanding cast, the plot was good, the history was mostly accurate. The allusions to the Psycho movie were creative, meaningful, and well implemented without actually showing clips from Psycho. I also loved seeing Hitchcock and Alma in a masterful creative collaboration that culminated in making movie history. If you like Alfred Hitchcock movies at all, I think you owe it to yourself to see this one. You'll probably get more out of it if you've seen Psycho. If you haven't seen Psycho you should see that, too. Not everyone will enjoy it as much as I do, but I still implore you to see Hitchcock; it's a good, solid movie that is worth owning.

What is your favorite Alfred Hitchcock film? Comment below and tell me why!