Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides
05.21.2011 | By Jack Rico |
05.16.2011 | By Jack Rico |
Just being in Paris at midnight is a memorable experience that true romantics will appreciate, and most likely, never forget. In the case of Woody Allen, he decided to make a movie about it. Its title is self explanatory – ‘Midnight in Paris,’ and it is without question, his best work since ‘Matchpoint’, a powerful drama that echoes the writings of Russian author Fyodor Dostoyevsky. It is also, through May, one of my top 10 films of 2011.
‘Midnight in Paris’ is a simple romantic comedy set in Paris that bursts with engrossment. As the story begins, Gil (played by Owen Wilson) and his fiancée Inez (Rachel McAdams) are tagging along on a trip to Paris with her father, John (Kurt Fuller), and mother, Helen (Mimi Kennedy). These two young people, who are engaged to be married in the fall, have Woody-Allen-like experiences there that change their lives forever.
In true Allen fashion, our New York legend need not be on screen to be felt. His words and direction are immediately recognizable from the onset as we hear the protagonist’s dialogue off-camera while the opening credits are still on screen. Allen, who is filming in Paris for the second time in his career (his first was Everyone Says I Love You), finds his imaginative form again here as his star Owen Wilson meets legendary historical figures of the literary, art and film world, including Spaniard/Mexican Luis Buñuel. It’s this type of inventiveness humor that has been sorely missed from his work. Somehow he has found it in ‘Paris’. Throughout the years, Woody has had a very consistent track record of making very good to very bad movies. His last two films ‘Whatever Works‘ and ‘You Will Meet a Tall Dark Stranger‘ didn’t impress the way ‘Matchpoint’ or ‘Midnight’ do. In ‘Whatever Works‘ comedian Larry David didn’t even managed to crack a smile on my face. The script wasn’t interesting enough nor was the payoff. In “You Will Meet a Tall Dark Stranger ‘, Woody improved the story and even threw in Antonio Banderas for kicks, but it ended up being a rehash of previous average films and had nothing original. Then suddenly he comes out with a gem like this that is simple and honest, true to the Woody of old. To say it titillates the mind’s eye is more than effective.
Â
On the acting front, Owen Wilson, fresh off being a part of one of the worst films of 2010 – How Do You Know – and the overhyped and awkward comedy ‘Hall Pass’, is obliviously innocent and likable as Gil, a hack Hollywood screenwriter that is penning his first novel which he can’t seem to get passionate about. He’s an uncouth and distracted person that finds it difficult to please his fiance or her family. Wilson plays the role with a wonderful, natural comic instinct and charm that we as the public have come to grow fond of. As is typical for a Woody Allen film, the rest of the superlative supporting cast is top notch. They range from stars like Adrien Brody and Kathy Bates, Carla Bruni to talented newcomers like Corey Stoll, Nina Arianda, Tom Hiddleston, Alison Pill, and Léa Seydoux.
But no matter what actor steps in as the ‘star’, the real star will always be Woody Allen’s essence which he leaves on the screen so richly. The script is tight, it always moves forward and there are no frills to be had. The performances are quirky, funny, sexy and astute. ‘Midnight in Paris’ is Woody Allen’s valentine to the City of Lights, and I hope he comes back to New York yearning to recapture his love for the city like he has in Paris.
05.6.2011 | By Jack Rico |
The “1-4-0″: ‘Last Night’ explores temptation from the female and male perspectives. Which one will give and the questions that surround it in is what this film centers on.
The Gist: Infidelity. Can people really be faithful to one another no matter how in love they are? This is the topic director Massy Tadjedin explores in an authentic, intimate, emotionally charged depiction of love in New York City. During an evening apart, married couple Joanna and Michael encounter tempting opportunities to cheat on each other: Michael spends time on a business trip with his sexy colleague, Laura, while Joanna crosses paths with a former flame, Alex.
What Works: I really enjoyed this film. ‘Last Night’ is a realistic look at what happens to people when sexual temptation is presented to them front and center. What most pulled me in was how director Tadjedin delved deep into the struggles of infidelity. The performances are modest here, but great casting choice in Eva Mendes who was perfect as Washington’s seductive paramour. This is an eye opener, one that shows how much pain and anguish one goes through when feelings of unfaithfulness begin to take hold. You stick around intensely engaged to see how the whole thing will it end. Will they cheat on each other, will you as a viewer lose faith in your own relationship because of it? The storyline is relatable, the outcome is unexpected, just like in real life.
What Doesn’t Work: If you’re not used to intensive dialogue, even one as interesting as this one, then you shouldn’t watch this film. It’s for people who enjoy cinema that cates to real issues that people can identify and connect with.
Pay or Nay? Pay. Keira Knightley is becoming good at acting in these indie romance NYC films that focus on women in search for love in the big city. The movie serves up a good dose of raw emotion and tension in the form of temptation. It’s a wonderful date movie, one which will perhaps spark many questions about your own relationship.
[youtube id=”sTDyNxXutLs”]
05.6.2011 | By Jack Rico |
‘Thor,’ the first Marvel superhero film of the year, debuts this weekend to high expectations from cinephiles to film executives. This film adaptation is faithful to the mythology of the comic book hero, has a well blend of humor and drama, is visually stunning, but stumbles through the end, and although it recovers, it does not manage to have a place in the pantheon of superhero classics such as ‘Superman II’ and ‘The Dark Knight.’ However, the film, mostly, is great popcorn fun and is worth spending the money to see, especially in IMAX 3D. Read More
05.3.2011 | By Jack Rico |
‘From Prada to Nada’ marks a special occasion in film history since its release signals the coming of a new type of cinema into the Hollywood landscape – Hispanic American films for the US Hispanic. Pantelion, a new movie studio joint venture between Lionsgate and Mexico’s powerful Group Televisa, is the first major Latino Hollywood studio to enter into the foray of the $9 billion dollar box office US film industry. It’s purpose is to create culturally relevant Hispanic motion pictures, in English and Spanish, that include top-rated Latino actors, directors and writers. But it seems that this mission statement was only half met on their first cinematic effort.
‘From Prada to Nada’ is a modern twist on Jane Austen’s Sense and Sensibility. It’s a riches to rags story of two spoiled sisters: Nora (Camilla Belle), a law student, and Mary (Alexa Vega), an undergrad party girl, living with their father in a luxurious mansion in Beverly Hills. Mary has become so “90210” she refuses to admit she is of Mexican descent. When dad suddenly passes away, their posh lives are turned upside down. They discover they have been left penniless and are forced to move into their estranged aunt Aurelia’s (Adriana Barraza) modest but lively home in the Latino-centric Boyle Heights neighborhood of East LA. They are terrified to leave their world of privilege, and terrified of their new thug neighbor with a heart of gold played by Wilmer Valderrama; neither Nora nor Mary speak Spanish or have ever had to take on actual responsibility. The girls gradually adapt to their new environment; their BMW and Prius are traded for the public bus and a used car. As they embrace the culture that for so long they refused to accept, they both discover the true meaning of their Mexican heritage and romance along the way.
Though it might not seem it at a glance, ‘Prada’ is carrying around a tremendous amount of responsibility and pressure to deliver a good film. Why? In part because historically, US Latino films have underwhelmed, disappointed and failed to meet the expectations of a hungry Hispanic moviegoing demographic, along with its press compeers. It seems that almost all Latino oriented films made never improve, better or advance the current state of Latino cinema in this country. Therefore, Hollywood producers take less risks in investing in movies that adhere to the culture, unless its obscenely stereotypical like Beverly Hills Chihuahua.
Hispanic American movies made in the United States live in a type of limbo where it’s not gritty, political, or intriguing enough to attract critical attention, as its South American counterparts do, nor do their production values rival its Hollywood peers.
Even though it’s not as embarrassing as the disgraceful ‘Chasing Papi’, it doesn’t deliver anything that can make you feel proud of the future of Latinos in Hollywood. I must confess that Alexa Vega is very good and better than a lot of actresses out there, period. She’s charming and pretty and delivers. Unfortunately she can’t carry this film all on her own.
‘From Prada to Nada’ is a DVD movie that should’ve gone directly to DVD and not via a theatrical release. You can see what I’m talking about at a Netflix near you.
04.22.2011 | By Jack Rico |
‘Water for Elephants’ is one of the most beautiful films you’ll see this year. With the help of one of the greatest Mexican cinematographers in Rodrigo Prieto, director Francis Lawrence who helmed ‘I Am Legend’ and ‘Constantine,’ gives us a visually beautiful, colorful picture full of vibrancy and panache with love at its core. This is the theme that traverses the story at every level. You see it subtly, passionately, and in complex ways. A mixed bag of everything. Unfortunately, you need real chemistry to pull this off, not a modicum. ‘Water for Elephants’ has its great moments but it also possesses some mediocre mush that weighs it down. It is ultimately a fine film, but because it could’ve been perfect, it is measured at a different scale. The criticisms here are not of the negative kind, but would like them to be viewed as constructive, a ‘what could have been better’ analysis of the events.
The film, in essence, is the circus story version of 1997’s Titanic. It follows almost the same exact plot structure: old man narrates his story of a tragic event in the form of flashbacks when he was young, his romance with a woman that was out of his reach, and the memory of the tragedy that our narrator has never been able to forget. Robert Pattinson is Leonardo DiCaprio and Reese Witherspoon is Kate Winslet’s character, with a circus ambience. This structure is very successful, but I have already seen it and have seen it done better. I don’t think it’s nonsensical to say that many who watch the movie will feel like they’ve seen it before. It’ll be an involuntary and subconscious reaction, but one that will affect the viewer’s judgement of it.
Based on the book by Sara Gruen, ‘Water for Elephants’ swirls around the life of a veterinary student from the wrong side of the tracks, Jacob (Robert Pattinson), who meets and falls in love with Marlena (Reese Witherspoon), a star performer in a circus of a bygone era. They discover beauty amidst the world of the Big Top, and come together through their compassion for an elephant named Rosie. Both are faced with the challenge of her charismatic and dangerous husband August (Christopher Waltz), who seeks to keep his matrimony and the circus alive no matter the consequences.
Twilight heartthrob Robert Pattinson’s individual work here is the best I’ve seen him do. He’s photogenic, charming and definitely has the magic to attract a vast contingency of female cinephiles with that ‘aww shucks’ demeanor. Witherspoon is Witherspoon, nothing more, and Waltz channeled Col. Hans Landa. Very good, but again I’ve seen him perform this character better in Inglorious Basterds. I tip my hat and salute the performance of Hal Holbrook as the elderly Jacob. You almost choked up in most of the scenes he was in, especially at the end. There’s something to say about watching an elderly person be so fragile and vulnerable in a close up. It’s powerful stuff.
Pacing and dialogue play a big part in the reasons this film made one or more yawn a few times. The pace is at times uneven because the dialogue withers a bit in the middle and it felt slow and wearisome. It then picks back up only to wane again. It did this a few times until it moved consistently enough to engross you once and for all through the end. Lawrence should’ve cut some scenes and push the movie forward even if it risked cutting out his favorite scenes with Pattinson. During the fist hour I must’ve looked at my watch once or twice and a guy in the back let out a loud yawn. Is it entertaining? No, not in the Fast Five type of way, but it’s not supposed to. It is supposed to titillate my senses and crescendo into a rousing symphony of engagement for me. It never reached those heights, but it also didn’t ruin my experience. This is a delightful movie, not a preeminent one.
