Her Movie Review

March is quickly approaching, which means that Academy Awards season is here. This means that there's a lot of Oscar Bait in theaters between December and March. Her (2013) seems like Oscar Bait material; biographies, period dramas, weepy inspirational stories, big name actors, etc. Her wasn't half bad, but I'm not sure it's going to win Best Picture.

Theodore Twombly (Joaquin Phoenix) is a lonely man in the final stages of his divorce with his childhood sweetheart Catherine (Rooney Mara). When he's not working as a letter writer, his down time is spent playing video games and occasionally hanging out with his married friends Amy (Amy Adams) and Charles (Matt Letscher). Theodore decides to purchase the new OS1, which is advertised as the world's first artificially intelligent operating system, "It's not just an operating system, it's a consciousness," the ad states. Theodore quickly finds himself drawn in with Samantha (Scarlett Johansson), the voice behind his OS1. As they start spending time together they grow closer and closer and eventually find themselves in love. Having fallen in love with his OS, Theodore finds himself dealing with feeling of both great joy and doubt. As an OS, Samantha has powerful intelligence that she uses to help Theodore in ways others hadn't, but how does she help him deal with his inner conflict of being in love with an operating system?

The thing that makes this such Oscar Bait material is that there is a lot of dialogue about life, love, and what it all means; that's a telltale sign. That's not necessarily bad; in fact Her does this quite well. It's an impressive piece of writing. In fact, one of the Academy Awards that Her is up for is Best Writing and I think it's got a very good shot at it. The frequent exposition on love and relationships is thought provoking, poignant, and flows naturally with events in the story. It didn't exactly make me want to run out and fall rapturously in love with someone and appreciate the tender moments in life as other movies have, but it's still a solid piece of writing.

What makes this movie so interesting is the fact that Theodore is falling in love with an incorporeal personality; specifically artificial intelligent software on his computer. This adds a surreal quality to this love story. You don't doubt that Theodore and Samantha are in love, but how can that possibly work out under the best of circumstances? Her does address this and explores the surreal nature of the relationship. There is a "sex" scene which really is just Theodor laying in bed by himself while he and Samantha are describing what each would be doing if they could actually touch one another. It really is a strange and surreal scene. It manages to express what a normal sex scene usually does, that is depict the unity of the two characters, while also drawing lots of attention to how bizarre that unity is.

Her also comments on our "relationship" with our technology today. We are so plugged into our computers, smart phones, and iPads that we are gravitating away from human interaction and connectedness with real people. This is particularly well illustrated as Theodore's job is acting as a ghostwriter for clients. He makes handwritten letters to a recipient, which is printed out, put in an envelope, and mailed off. The idea of literally falling in love with technology is not too much of a stretch of the imagination. Frankly, if Theodore and Samantha were both human doing the same things ,the movie wouldn't be nearly as interesting. But seeing this guy on a date with a disembodied voice who sees through the lens of his cell phone is attention-grabbing. It's one thing to see someone guide a date by the hand to a surprise; it's another thing entirely to see a guy wandering around with his eyes shut and his cell phone out in front of him as a disembodied voice directs him to a surprise.

Her isn't a bad movie. It's got interesting characters, an original concept, some excellent writing, great camera work and direction by Spike Jonze, and a great performances from the cast. Since this is a movie about adults and relationships, there are several adult scenes and adult dialogue. It's all meaningfully implemented, but put me off only as a matter of personal preference. It's still a good solid movie even with the Oscar Bait material. I recommend seeing this if you're not too put off by the adult situations.

Would you date an operating system? What kind of perks might that have? Comment below and tell me why!

Brother Bear Movie Review

Disney produces a new animated feature just about every year.  Many of these become cinema classics that withstand the test of time. Beauty and the Beast, for example, is still a well known classic that you can still find merchandise for decades after its initial 1991 release. Brother Bear (2003) was released only about ten years ago, and it’s been about ten years since I heard anyone talk about it.

Set in a post-ice age North America, three Inuit brothers return from a hunting trip. The youngest, Kenai (Joaquin Phoenix), is to receive his sacred totem which will make him a man in the eyes of his tribe. In the ceremony Kenai receives the bear of love to guide him through his life. Kenai hates bears and considers the attribute of love to be pretty far down the totem pole, so to speak. Kenai finds his fishing catch stolen by a bear after the ceremony and decides to hunt down the beast. While attempting to save his brother from the bear, the oldest brother, Sitka (D.B. Swenney), is killed. With a renewed sense of vengeance, Kenai later kills the bear. Following this, Sitka appear as an eagle spirit and transforms Kenai into a bear. The middle brother, Danahi (Jason Raize), believes that bear-Kenai is responsible for the death of both his brothers and begins hunting down Kenai out of a strong sense of hate. As he tries to seek the spirits who can restore him to his human form, Kenai tries to stay ahead of Danahi while learning how to be a bear from a young bear cub named Kota (Jeremy Suarez).

Possibly the best thing I can say about Brother Bear is the animation and art direction is impressive. The art direction was heavily influenced by ancient cave paintings. The film’s aspect ratio was used as a storytelling device. It begins in a standard widescreen aspect ratio of 1.75:1, which is common in U.S. movies and on HDTVs these days. After Kenai turns into a bear, the aspect ratio changes to an anamorphic aspect ratio of 2.35:1, accompanied by a much brighter and fanciful color pallet with slightly more caricatured art direction. This is done to illustrate how Kenai’s perception of the world changes and broadens.

During the character introductions early in the film, the script seemed forced; everyone goes out of their way to address other characters by name so that we know exactly what everyone’s name is. We’re also repeatedly told about Kenai’s desire to receive his spirit totem and become a man. The writing wasn’t very good for the first ten minutes of the movie because it didn’t feel very natural. After the characters were established, the script flowed much smoother.

Of course where would an animated Disney movie be without its token comic relief characters? In Brother Bear there is a pair of moose named Rutt and Tuke that periodically tag along with Kenai and Kota as they travel. They are played by Rick Moranis and Dave Thomas and are essentially the same characters they played in Strange Brew, except they look like moose. They really add a humorous tone to the movie.

Remembering that Brother Bear came out in the years following the 9/11 attacks sheds some light on its cultural impact. After September 11, 2001 the United State was still reeling from the terrorist attack which was fueled by hatred and anger. Many people were resentful, angry, hurt, and some were even vengeful. I think we needed a film like Brother Bear to remind us of the value of forgiveness and love. The themes in Brother Bear included seeing things from another’s perspective, admitting fault, and forgiving hurtful, irreversible offenses. These are key components to conflict resolution that are important in the healing process. Disney isn’t responsible for the US recovering from the attack, but I think they may have influenced some level of spiritual healing that I believe many people were still needing.

I think that what made Brother Bear not withstand the test of time is that is wasn’t very bold. The Disney films that have achieved the status of “classic” did things in terms of character, setting, and animation that their predecessors did not. Brother Bear was good, but seemed to strive to be sweet and cute rather than bold and exciting. And it really did achieve that, which is why it’s been overshadowed by bolder and more exciting classics like The Lion King or Finding Nemo. Brother Bear is worth seeing at least once. Kids will enjoy it and adults will relate to the spiritual healing in the story. It’s also got plenty of material to help you teach younger viewers about forgiveness, love, and healing.

Have you ever seen a movie that helped you “heal” in some way? What movie was it? Comment below and tell me about it!

The Village Movie Review

In most cases, directors go from bad or mediocre films to good films as they progress in their career. M. Night Shyamalan seems to have managed to do the opposite. He gained renown with The Sixth Sense (1999), but his movies started to fizzle out with Signs (2002). He really began to lose credibility with audiences after The Happening (2008). When The Village (2004) was released, we still had high expectations, but it was with The Village that he really started to disappoint.

There is a small village of about 60 puritans in rural Pennsylvania. For the most part these puritan settlers live a quiet and peaceful life, but fear the terrible creatures that lurk just outside the borders of the village. The villagers have reached an agreement with these beasts in which each side allowed to go about their business as long as neither one crosses the village’s boundaries.  This delicate balance is upset when a young man, Lucius Hunt (Joaquin Pheonix), ventures into the forest to see what lies beyond the borders. Animal carcasses, stripped of their fur, being to appear around the village, causing the council of elders to fear for the safety of the village, the agreement with the creatures, and more. After Lucius gets injured, the village patriarch, Edward Walker (William Hurt), sends his daughter Ivy (Bryce Dallas Howard) through the woods to retrieve medicine from the outside towns. Ivy is blind and cannot tell where she is going or where the prowling creatures might be.

All the characters in this movie are pretty flat and uninteresting. They don’t develop, they aren’t deep, and they are remarkably reserved. It’s almost as if the puritan qualities of simplicity and humility are over insinuated upon the characters to the point that they are scarcely even one-dimensional. Everyone gets along with such ease that they end up feeling unrealistic. The characters (and the tone of the movie itself) are so somber that they almost seem afraid to make the audience aware of their presence.

The best part of The Village is when we are focused on Ivy. About halfway through the movie, Ivy becomes the central figure; she gets to learn about some of the village secrets and she stumbles around in the woods, completely blind. To put the viewer on the same level as Ivy, we see her hand stretched forth to the edge of the screen as she tries to feel her way around. When she comes across something, she feels it with her hand and then it comes into full view on the screen only after Ivy figures out what it is. We are shown shots of the front of Ivy’s feet as she walks through the unfamiliar forest; we (like Ivy) cannot see where she is going or what obstacles may be in her way. Not only is this a brilliant way to visually depict the world through Ivy’s perspective, it also intensifies the sense of being completely lost in the woods and amps up the suspense.

M. Night Shyamalan is known for his twist endings. Generally, a good twist ending blows your mind as you realize all the subtle little things previously in the movie all add up to a big surprise at the end. The twist in The Village was completely out of the blue. There was no logical build up to it, no hints leading up to it, and no subtle clues to take into account. It’s established that there are secrets in the village, but when we see the big secret it’s just too out of place with the story, and even the setting, such that that it’s impossible to swallow.

The Village was the movie that caused M. Night Shyamalan’s credibility as a director and writer to take a significant downswing. The story is pretty forgettable. In fact the only thing that seems to stick out in people’s minds even years after seeing it is how unjustified the ending was and how disconcerted it made them feel. The only redeeming value is the creative camera work while the blind girl stumbles around in the woods. If you haven’t seen The Village, you’re only really missing out on a disappointing product of a formerly good writer and director. If you did see The Village years ago, you probably only remember how non-sequitur the conclusion was. This movie is “okay” at best, but isn’t really worth going out of your way to see.

What did you think of The Village? Did it have some endearing qualities? Did you think the twist ending was acceptable? Comment below and tell me why!