Alex Florez Archives | Page 2 of 5 | ShowBizCafe.com

Alex Florez Archives | Page 2 of 5 | ShowBizCafe.com

Alex Florez

By

2009/08/11 at 12:00am

‘It Might Get Loud’ director sounds off on new film!

08.11.2009 | By |

'It Might Get Loud' director sounds off on new film!

Recently I had a chance to sit down with Oscar award winning filmmaker Davis Guggenheim (An Inconvenient Truth) in New York to talk about his latest documentary It Might Get Loud.  The film tells the personal stories, in their own words, of three generations of electric guitar virtuosos – The Edge (U2), Jimmy Page (Led Zeppelin), and Jack White (The White Stripes). It reveals how each developed his unique sound and style of playing favorite instruments, guitars both found and invented.

We spoke about documentary filmmaking, whether the non-fans will enjoy the movie and his arguable decision to include Jack White in the film. Here in full, the Q & A:

AF:  First of all, congratulations on the film, I thoroughly enjoyed it!  However, I almost have to say that with an asterisk at the end.  That’s because I’m a fan of all three musicians in the film. But I also have a lot of friends that are ‘U2 haters’ who say things like “The Edge is nothing but pedals and effects…he’s not a true guitarist!â€

How much do you worry about getting the non fans out to watch the film?

DG:  Well the thing about the movie is that it’s kind of universal.  Some fans may like this band more than that band but everyone responds to these guys as artists.  We all grew up to this music and this movie shows you how they made it and why they made it and the people behind it.  So I find that for non guitarists, people will like it even more because they connect with the artistry behind it.  The super guitar geeks want to look at the chords being played but this is not about that, this about how these kids from different times, from different generations, took their obsessions and became rock stars.

AF:  So is it fair to say that these bands will get some new fans out of the movie?

DG:  Oh yeah.  It already has. My son bought a mandolin and now he’s playing ‘The Battle of Evermore’.  Years later, Led Zeppelin still moves people.  U2 still moves people.  All this music is still cutting edge.

AF:  I want to talk about your selection process.  For the film you chose three guitar virtuosos from three different generations.  While it’s difficult to argue with the contributions that both Jimmy Page and The Edge have made in their respective eras, I think Jack White is a curious and somewhat debatable choice to represent our time.  Perhaps because we’re not far enough removed from the era.

Did you ever consider someone else instead of Jack White?  For instance, Tom Morello from Rage Against the Machine.  Or did you just need a singer? Was this your original wish list of guitarists?

DG:  We knew we weren’t going to get everybody.  In fact, if we tried to make a movie about everybody it would be too diluted.  You’d spend three minutes on Tom Morello, three minutes on Eric Clapton…We thought, why not pick 3 guys from 3 different generations? And it was important to have Jack White because he is still becoming, he’s got two new bands, and he’s also a singer, but most importantly because he represents the next innovator. He’s such an innovator. His sound is so distinct.  He’s so creative.  To me, he embodies what Led Zeppelin embodies: experimentation, improvisation and aggression.  You could easily make a movie about Tom Morello or Eric Clapton too…I really wanted Jimi Hendrix but he wasn’t available.

AF:  What kind of guitarists did you grow up with?

DG:  I was a huge fan of U2 because my brother brought home that first album called ‘Boy’ and I was like ‘this is my music!’  It was so different and so direct and so different from the classic rock that everyone else was listening to.  But it was years later that I started to realize Led Zeppelin is this really amazing band.  ‘I cannot ignore Led Zeppelin.’  It was a half a generation ahead of me so I really didn’t look into it at first.  But then when you hear it, you’re like ‘this is such great music, this is great musicianship and it’s the root of all the rock and roll that followed it.’  Everyone who came up after Led Zeppelin had to deal with Led Zeppelin because they were so good.

AF:  Its interesting to me too.  Led Zeppelin was obviously before my time but when you really fall in love with a band like U2 you eventually start to trace their roots, their musical family tree and you find out that sure enough, it was Led Zeppelin, The Clash, Patti Smith and all those bands from the 70s that influenced them so much.

DG:  Yeah.  You’re good. I like that. You know your stuff.

AF:  A rockumentary.  In my opinion, ‘It Might Get Loud’ is one of a few that genuinely deserves to be called that.  A lot of films are called rockumentaries but all they really are is concert footage with a few sounds bites.  Then there’s the ‘E! True Hollywood Story’ and the ‘Behind the Music’ specials. ‘It Might Get Loud’ arrives as something different and refreshing because at the end of the day it is about the relationship between the musician and his instrument.

DG:  I wanted to make a different kind of music documentary.  Even to call it a documentary…I guess that’s how it has to be categorized, but this is about a summit of three guys from three different generations coming together to play and I’ve never seen that before. Whereas a lot of rockumentaries end up leading towards the death of the band or a drug overdose or a girlfriend breaking up the band, this movie is about the personal journey of these guys and how they went from teenage boys to artists and how they would write their songs.  I see a lot of other movies and say ‘wait you didn’t tell me anything about how they wrote and how they created. I want to know more!’

AF:  What is the appeal of the documentary film? And do you prefer it over a traditional narrative feature?

DG:  You know, I’ve done a couple of features and I’ve done a bunch of television.  So I like it all.  I’m really drawn to documentaries because right now at this moment, documentaries are exploding.  Creatively they’re changing.  Features aren’t being as experimental as documentaries are.  It Might Get Loud is an experimental movie where I had a lot of creative control.  I had animation in this film.  I used different kinds of techniques and storytelling devices that you could never use in features.  On top of that, you have all these people that you admire whose stories haven’t been told. 

The thing that you’re desperate for when you’re telling any kind of story, whatever is, is wanting to be passionate.  You want to be excited when you wake up in the morning, because if you excited that comes through in the filmmaking. 

I get sent a bunch of scripts.  Just last night I was reading a script and I cannot finish reading it because I’m so bored. I think audiences feel that same way when they see a lot of these movies. ‘Why did they even make this movie?’  These documentaries are so fun and interesting that I just keep following that.

AF:  A documentary like this one doesn’t have the same urgency as some of the others like ‘An Inconvenient Truth’, or the Obama piece that you made.  The ‘It needs to be said NOW’ factor.  Can you talk about the differences in the approaches?

DG:  That’s a very good question.  We made Inconvenient Truth in 5½ months and documentaries usually take a couple of years to do.  But we just felt like we had to make this movie now and the timing of it was its success. It was about capturing the moment. It Might Get Loud is very different. This is an exploratory movie about the nature of creativity. 

I like just jumping around.  I like being in the situation where I’m doing a totally different movie and saying ‘I don’t know if I’m going to be able to pull this off!’

AF:  I know that the structure of most documentaries are found in post.  I don’t know how much scripting you did beforehand but it was pretty neat how each story had its own take.  There’s a boy in the film that shadows Jack White, which serves as a clever device for his segment.  The Edge going back to his old high school brings this nostalgic effect. Then, Jimmy Page’s visit to the legendary Led Zeppelin house is almost mythological.  is that something that was at all premeditated, to have these different approaches for all of them?

DG:  Documentaries have a script that you are kind of writing in your head as you’re editing them, and when you finish the movie you finish the script.  Whereas if you’re doing a feature you finish your script, then start shooting.  So its kind of the opposite right? But I’ve learned with documentaries not to script stuff, to let the characters take me where I should go.  So with Jimmy Page, we just sat in a room for two days and just talked.  I asked him questions about this song and that song, and his songwriting.   Out of those interviews, an early map came out of the places where we might go shoot.  Those places then led to more clues.  We would edit some more, and that led us to even more clues. 

AF:  Very different from ‘An Inconvenient Truth’, where you had Al Gore’s slide show in essence, guiding you.

DG:  Yes, the slideshow was about 2/3 of the movie but the other part was telling his story which hadn’t been really done properly.  So we were following him around debating whether we should go here or whether we go there, still trying to discover those moments as we went.  I wasn’t even sure that you could intercut these very personal reflective moments inside this slideshow.  But it was very organic.  Then, we were constantly animating his slideshow and changing it and cutting it and moving it around.  It’s all an evolution.  His slideshow was almost twice as long than it was in the movie, so we had to kind of shape that.  By the time we finished the movie, we had our script. 

AF:  Thanks again, Davis. we wish you the best of luck with the film.

DG:  Thank you.  What a nice interview.  I enjoyed it! 

Alex Florez

By

2009/07/30 at 12:00am

Thirst (Movie Review)

07.30.2009 | By |

Rated: R for graphic bloody violence, disturbing images, strong sexual content, nudity and language.
Release Date: 2009-07-31
Starring: Seo-Gyeong Jeong, Chan-wook Park
Director(s):
Distributor:
Film Genre:
Country: South Korea
Official Website: http://www.filminfocus.com/focusfeatures/film/thirst/

Go to our film page

Thirst

Those of you familiar with South Korean filmmaker Park Chan-wook know exactly what to expect from his latest film, Thirst.  For those of you that aren’t, allow me to introduce you to one of the more fearless storytellers around. 

In his previous work (Old Boy, Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance, Sympathy for Lady Vengeance), Chan-wook has taken on those ethical dilemmas and taboos that most are unwilling to confront head on.  Obsessed with how we as humans behave under the most extreme circumstances, Chan-wook has put together stories that are unsettling, visceral, and unapologetic.  But his films aren’t simply ‘shock & awe’.  Beneath it all, are complex and tragic love stories that are surprisingly compelling.  When asked about his major influences, Chan-wook’s response was: Sophocles and Shakespeare.  No wonder.

Thirst however is a little different.  It is about a failed medical experiment that turns a priest into a vampire – but Chan-wook is quick to note that this isn’t just any ol’ vampire movie.  “There are no bats, no stake through the heart, no fear of garlic and the crossâ€.  For the most part, he’s absolutely right. However, somehow the film doesn’t feel as fresh or as daring as his previous movies.  There just isn’t as much envelope pushing here.  Nevertheless, Korean stars Song Kang-ho and Kim Ok-vin turn in outstanding performances in a well put together film. 

Thirst is not everyone’s cup of tea, but for those of you that still can’t quench your blood sucking desires, here’s a fresh take from a film that can be incredibly fun.   

Alex Florez

By

2009/06/24 at 12:00am

Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen (Movie Review)

06.24.2009 | By |

Rated: PG-13 for intense sequences of sci-fi action violence, language, some crude and sexual material, and brief drug material.
Release Date: 2009-06-26
Starring: Ehren Kruger, Roberto Orci
Director(s):
Distributor:
Film Genre:
Country: USA
Official Website: http://www.transformersmovie.com/

Go to our film page

Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen

‘Revenge of the Fallen’ falls somewhere between ‘American Pie’ and ‘Terminator’.  Yes, I know that covers the gamut of movie genres, but that’s exactly the situation at hand.  Director Michael Bay’s follow up to the blockbuster film based on Hasbro’s action figures, is clearly targeting the graduating class of 2009.  School is out, summer is in and screenwriters Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman turn the first half of the movie into a teen-sex comedy, something most fans of the original cartoon series from the 80s won’t really care for.  But somewhere beneath all the sophomoric double entendres, lies a story-line with the potential of whipping fanboys into a frenzy by shedding light onto the ancient origins of the Transformers.

Optimus Prime, leader of the ‘Autobots’ (the good ones), is the ultimate hero to rally around but it is Sam Witwicky (Shia LeBoeuf) the boy responsible for discovering the alien race, who will hold the fate of the world in his hands.  Together with the help of the humans, the ‘Autobots’ engage in a battle of biblical proportions against the evil ‘Decepticons’.  The action here is certainly impressive and the special effects out of this world but it is difficult to enjoy when you can’t quite tell what’s going on – also my biggest concern with the first film. With the exception of Optimus Prime, the hot-rod semi-truck and Bumblebee, the golden Camaro, telling some of these robots apart is a mounting challenge especially during combat scenes.   

At the end of the day, there’s a lot of fat that can be cut out of the film to make it a leaner action-packed extravaganza. I’d start by eliminating a series of extraneous characters that add very little.  John Turturro as Agent Simmons, for instance, feels as out of place as the late Richard Pryor in ‘Superman III’.  And we all know how that franchise turned out. 

 

Alex Florez

By

2009/05/28 at 12:00am

Up (Movie Review)

05.28.2009 | By |

Rated: PG for some peril and action.
Release Date: 2009-05-29
Starring: Bob Peterson
Director(s):
Distributor:
Film Genre:
Country: USA
Official Website: http://disney.go.com/disneypictures/up/

Go to our film page

Up

With its 10th film, Disney-Pixar adds to what is an already impressive collection of animated features that have delighted kids and adults alike since the mid 90s.  In the tradition of its predecessors, UP not only stretches the imagination, but through the familiar qualities we see in their characters, also manages to galvanize our hearts into action. Quietly, and simply put, Pixar has become the brand we can trust to inspire.

UP, follows the touching story of a 78 year old balloon salesman Carl Fredricksen (Ed Asner), who finally fulfills his lifelong dream of a great adventure when he ties thousands of balloons to his house and flies away to the jungles of South America. But he soon discovers that he won’t be alone on his journey – an 8 year old ‘wilderness explorer’ named Russell is inadvertently on board.

Despite its impeccable record of hit films, Pixar doesn’t simply follow a formula that has worked for them in the past.  They continuously explore new territory and with last year’s Wall-E even go as far as making daring social political commentary.  Of course it’s all hidden underneath a score of lovable characters and a hilarious string of jokes. 

 

UP however, seems to push the envelope even further by introducing some sobering moments we’re not used to seeing in ‘kid movies’.  Trust me, you’ll know what I’m talking about when you see them.  While navigating between these type of scenes and the lighthearted ones is something director Pete Docter (Monsters, Inc.) does swiftly, it also presents the film’s most challenging and uncomfortable moments. Notwithstanding, you’ll be in for an hour an a half of absolute fun.

It is hard to say where UP ranks among the other Pixar classics, but as of now it is one genre-bending unpredictable animated family action comedy for all age groups.

 

Alex Florez

By

2009/04/02 at 12:00am

Adventureland (Movie Review)

04.2.2009 | By |

Rated: R for language, drug use and sexual references
Release Date: 2009-04-03
Starring: Greg Mottola
Director(s):
Distributor:
Film Genre:
Country: USA
Official Website: http://www.adventurelandthefilm.com/

Go to our film page

Adventureland

Having directed “Superbadâ€, one of the biggest and most critically acclaimed comedies in recent memory, Greg Mottola chooses another teen-angst coming of age story as his follow up project. But don’t be fooled, “Adventureland†is a completely different type of movie.

Although both the quirkiness and awkwardness of our adolescence are obviously exploited here for comedic effect, the film comes across as deeply personal and honest.  That’s because it is the semi-autobiographical story of Mottola as an uptight, overeducated young man who’s forced to take a minimum wage job at the local amusement park when his family suffers an economic downturn in the middle of the Reagan 80s.

What James Brennan (Jesse Eisenberg) doesn’t anticipate when he gets the job however, is falling head over heels for the alluringly sharp-tongued arcade girl, Em Lewin (Kristen Stewart).  Of course, a number of things have to stand in their way – mainly, the park’s maintenance guy (Ryan Reynolds), who is also vying for her affection. 

At the center of it all, the film is nothing more than a love triangle but it’s the film’s uncomfortably accurate representation of this misfit world that sets it apart from other movies of its kind. 

Unfortunately, that sincerity is threatened by studio interference.  Just when you think you’re watching a film that has the license to present a realistic depiction of an adolescence full of the traumas and failures, you are reminded that Disney is behind the scenes making sure you leave the theater “feeling goodâ€.  It is the disappointment that you’re likely to avoid if this were an independent film. Nevertheless, Adventureland is likely to please most viewers.

 

Alex Florez

By

2009/03/18 at 12:00am

Duplicity (Movie Review)

03.18.2009 | By |

Rated: PG-13 for language and some sexual content.
Release Date: 2009-03-20
Starring: Tony Gilroy
Director(s):
Distributor:
Film Genre:
Country: USA
Official Website: http://www.duplicitymovie.net/

Go to our film page

Duplicity

At its core, Duplicity is a romantic caper about two spies that have left the world of government intelligence for a scheme to cash in on a highly profitable cold war raging between two big rival corporations.  The problem is, half the movie goes by before we can figure that out.

Duplicity feels a lot like one of the Ocean’s Eleven movies with the romantic dynamic of Mr. & Mrs. Smith, but its plot is wound up tighter than it really needs to be. Director Tony Gilroy (Michael Clayton, The Bourne Identity) seems to be overly concerned with keeping his audience guessing, virtually adding a plot twist wherever he can in the film.  Yes, for most of it we don’t quite know who’s good, who’s bad or who’s double crossing who, but at some points we’re also utterly confused. To make matters worse, this is one of those movies where the timeline isn’t linear and the events are completely shuffled around.

But let’s face it, at the root of this whole thing is a love story in which all those other details don’t really matter much.  For all of the intricacies Gilroy writes into the film, all we really care about is the fate of the two spies – as lovers.  Fortunately for us, both Julia Roberts and Clive Owen are total pros at being charmingly ‘duplicitous’, and thanks to them, the film is solidly entertaining.  Let’s remember how creepily untrustworthy they both were in Mike Nichols’ Closer. 

Of course, this isn’t The Bourne Identity nor is it Michael Clayton, and as far as romantic capers go, the endings are never as deceitful. Wink wink.

 

Alex Florez

By

2009/03/05 at 12:00am

Watchmen (Movie Review)

03.5.2009 | By |

Rated: R for strong graphic violence, sexuality, nudity and language.
Release Date: 2009-03-06
Starring: David Hayter, Alex Tse
Director(s):
Distributor:
Film Genre:
Country: USA
Official Website: http://watchmenmovie.warnerbros.com/

Go to our film page

Watchmen

Film goers, be warned. Watchmen is no ordinary superhero movie, but it’s also not an extraordinary one.

This latest comic book adaptation is one complex, multi-layered murder mystery, set in an alternate 1985 America in which costumed superheroes are part of the fabric of everyday society.  It is the world Alan Moore created for his legendary comic book series, which, when published, challenged both the genre and medium. 

For those who haven’t read the books, Watchmen chronicles a group of vigilantes which disbanded years earlier when masked superheroes were banned by the US government.  The story begins when one of its members, “The Comedian” (Jeffrey Dean Morgan) is murdered, setting “Rorschach†(one of his former partners) on a mission to find out who done it. 

Those that have read the books, will know that in reality the story is about much more than that.  It is part political satire, part Shakespearian tragedy and oh yes, part “Detective Comicsâ€. It’s mature content is without a doubt bound to surprise many. The ones who argue that comic books can’t be or aren’t “deepâ€, simply haven’t read this one.  And that’s precisely the challenge the filmmakers met when adapting it to the big screen. 

The books are so carefully crafted that everything in them, needs to be there.  If even one of the elements goes missing the story just doesn’t work. There’s no question that director Zack Snyder attempted to make a faithful adaptation, but when you try to fit all 12 issues into a regular movie’s running time (this one runs 15 minutes shy of three hours), some of the desperately needed elements in the story are bound to be lost in translation.  In the end however, some different directing choices could have tied things together more coherently.

One such thing I think could have been re-imagined is an opening montage that condenses the origins of the Watchmen lore to the duration of a 1960s folk song, leaving you will little time to figure out what’s happened.  At times things feel a bit convoluted but unlike reading a comic, in a movie you can’t go back and re-read a page to further understand what happens later in the story.  Fortunately the appeal of some of the characters are undeniable.  Jack Earle Haley wonderfully plays “Rorschach†the borderline psychopath who wears a mask with shape shifting inkblots, and gives the film its edge and ferocity. 

It is not the first time that one of Alan Moore’s graphic novels is adapted to the big screen.  V for Vendetta and The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen were the other two films that fell short on their promise.

While the film disappoints on some levels, my hope is that viewers will be drawn to read to the comic book series that set a precedence for future books of its kind.

 

Alex Florez

By

2009/01/29 at 12:00am

Taken (Movie Review)

01.29.2009 | By |

Rated: PG-13 for intense sequences of violence, disturbing thematic material, sexual content, some drug references and language.
Release Date: 2009-01-30
Starring: Luc Besson, Robert Mark Kamen
Director(s):
Distributor:
Film Genre:
Country: France
Official Website: http://www.takenmovie.com/

Go to our film page

Taken

For years now, french filmmaker Luc Besson (The Transporter) has been hemorrhaging preposterous action films that are wildly unsophisticated in their storytelling but that are also inexplicably entertaining.  Taken is no exception. 

Yet the Besson-written screenplay is directed by another frenchmen, Pierre Morel, who at least for this film, happens to share his exact same sensibility:  A reckless disregard for character development because the order of the day is a ‘shoot-em up thriller’.

Unsurprisingly then, the film’s premise is pretty straightforward. It centers on a former government operative named Bryan Mills (Liam Neeson) who is on the hunt for a fearsome organization that has taken his daughter Kim (Maggie Grace), with whom he has just started to rekindle a relationship with.  After being absent for most of her life, Mills will terrorize all of Paris hunting down the band of kidnappers to prove his fatherhood.

Despite its slow beginning, hokey dialogue, and poor acting on everyone’s account (Maggie Grace being especially unbearable), the film doesn’t ever pretend to be more than it really is. It’s just strange to see Neeson, such an accomplished actor, playing the type of role usually reserved for people like Jason Statham. 

I know what I’m getting into when when I watch these films and so I’m rarely disappointed.  And If you have the slightest appetite for the genre, then it should be an easy 90 minutes of film to watch.

Taken is the type of film that easily gets filed under the ‘really bad films I’d watch category’.

Alex Florez

By

2008/12/25 at 12:00am

Revolutionary Road (Movie Review)

12.25.2008 | By |

Rated: R for language and some sexual content/nudity.
Release Date: 2008-12-26
Starring: Justin Haythe, Richard Yates
Director(s):
Distributor:
Film Genre:
Country: EE.UU, Reino Unido
Official Website: http://www.revolutionaryroadmovie.com/

Go to our film page

Revolutionary Road
Alex Florez

By

2008/11/25 at 12:00am

Transporter 3 (Movie Review)

11.25.2008 | By |

Rated: PG-13 for sequences of intense action and violence, some sexual content and drug material.
Release Date: 2008-11-26
Starring: Luc Besson, Robert Mark Kamen
Director(s):
Distributor:
Film Genre:
Country: France
Official Website: http://www.letransporteur3-lefilm.com/

Go to our film page

Transporter 3

Let’s be frank (no pun intended). This review really isn’t needed. 

The latest installment of the ‘Transporter’ series is everything you expect it to be: one ridiculous action sequence after another with a senseless romantic plot sandwiched in between.  But who says that’s a bad thing?

Frank Martin (Jason Statham), a former Special Forces officer and now a highly skilled courier for the underworld world, has been pressured into ‘transporting’ Valentina (Natalya Rudakova), the kidnapped daughter of Leonid Vasilev, a top Ukrainian politician, all across Europe.  But things get pretty ugly for him when he has to contend with the people who strong armed him to take the job, the special agents sent by Vasilev to intercept him, and his unruly passenger.  If you haven’t seen the first two films, you’ll quickly pick up on its simple premise. 

Oh yes, one other matter of hilarious complication. On this particular run, Frank is forced to wear a high tech bracelet which is programed to explode if he gets too far from his Audi S8.  And so he speed races through Europe stopping only to battle dozens of henchmen that are on his tail using his masterful kung fu skills – all within 50 feet of his car, of course.

If nothing else, Transporter 3 is hysterical. The implausibility of all the stunts should be enough to keep you entertained for a couple of hours. And the fact that it takes itself so seriously makes it even funnier. If you’ve seen ‘Crank’ (my personal favorite Statham film), I’m sure you know exactly what I mean. 
 
It is what it is.  A kung fu movie with fast cars and a British accent.

Now we all know the effects a big turkey dinner can have. So if you’re looking for a film to watch on Thursday night, perhaps ‘Transporter 3’ is a better choice than the 3 hour epic which also opens this weekend.

 

Select a Page