The Original Anime

I’ve been in a movie slump lately.  There has been so much going on, I feel like I have so much to do and not enough time to do it.  With 2 jobs, an internship, 2 blogs, writing a novel and a slew of other things, there is not enough time in the day for everything.  I haven’t been watching many films but I recently remembered that I have never done an ‘Akira’ (1988) review.  This has to be the gravest offense I have ever committed thus far.  The ‘Akira’ saga has been causing some stir recently when a new Americanized version of the original film was set to be produced.  After a lot of banter and ridicule from fans protesting against the all Caucasian cast, the film was scrapped from the eyes of main stream motion pictures.  I took this news with a sigh of relief because I feel that this film should never be Americanized.  If anyone is a fan of anime they have seen ‘Akira’.  If you claim that you are but have yet to see this film, stop posing and get yourself a copy.  In the hierarchy of anime cinema, ‘Akira’ is the mother of all.  This film revolutionized the industry and still remains to this day, one of the greatest animated films of all time. I hope that my review does the film justice.

The film takes place in New-Tokyo, a few years after a horrible war which forced Japan to its knees.  During this time, street gangs are rampant as the youth run the city.  One of these gangs lead by Kaneda, goes head to head against the Clowns, a rival bike gang.  The carnage begins as skill is pitted against skill; metal flies and blood spills all across the city.  Tetsuo, a member of Kaneda’s gang, begins taking out a few clown faced rivals with a swing of his metal bat.  As he rides away in victory he has a head on collision with a young boy Takashi, who has escaped from a top secret government facility.  After finding their injured friend, Tetsuo is carted away leaving Kaneda and his gang rattled and worried about their injured friend.  While this government facility begins to run tests determining the impact Takashi has had on Tetsuo, Kaneda is determined to find his lost friend.  Tetsuo miraculously escapes, but not without horrible consequences.  He begins to have hallucinations and spurts of tremendous power that he cannot control.  These events, spiral into a tornado of chaos, creating a whirlwind of pandemonium amongst the city.  Kaneda and his new friend Kei begin to fight an impossible battle to save Tetsuo from himself and the fate that awaits him.

Director Katsuhiro Otomo has created his masterpiece with this film.  Based on a graphic novel from the 80′s, ‘Akira’ revolutionized the anime industry and it is clear why.  The story runs with a magnificent energy that keeps up with its pulsing momentum throughout the entire film.  The story drips with heartache and passion as each characters journey is revealed.  Kaneda plays the part of the heroic underdog, a boy who’s family revolves around his friends.  Tetsuo is someone he considers a brother and through tough love has become someone he would not want to loose.  For Tetsuo, he see’s his new found abilities as a way to become the one people look up to.  He no longer has to hide behind Kaneda like a scared child.  He can command his own destiny because now he has the power to do so.  This hunger for control consumes him into madness.  His transition is spectacular and is composed like a Mozart masterpiece.  The one element Otomo continuously revisits during the the film is the desire for control.  Whether it be to control a dangerous threat or ones own selfish desires,  it is the driving force behind a majority of the characters motivations.
Visually, ‘Akira’ is a stunning example of anime gold.  I’ve heard a lot of fans complain that ‘Akira’ is not anime because of the realistic style Otomo has chosen for the film.  Not every anime needs to consist of blue haired women with gigantic breasts or fruity looking heroins who wield ridiculously large weapons. Otomo chose a more realistic approach to make the film feel as if it were hinted in reality.  The characters are all more relate-able and harness a more practical meaning for the audience.  It gives off a strange feeling that perhaps, in the near future, this could possibly be a reality.  It’s not all out of the ballpark of science fiction though, but that does not in any way take away from the tone Otomo was trying to set.  Be wary, this is not really a film for children.  It kind of carries the same feel as ‘Fist of the North Star’ only far more grounded and emotionally eradicating.  Not only are the visuals stunning and down right mind blowing, the musical score of the film really carries it all the way through.  It’s amazing how much music can really make or break a film.  In this incidence, it makes it.  It helps place you alongside the characters, leading you to experience everything they would be themselves.  Composer Shoji Yamashiro created a story though his score alone; one does not have to watch the film to feel it happening inside your mind.  It successfully draws you in and keeps you captive until the final credits roll.  You feel empowered by it which truly adds to the considerable control presented.

Overall, this film is amazing.  It sets the bar for every element that makes a film great and gives the audience a jaw dropping experience they won’t soon forget.  I actually made an ‘Akira Trailer’ for a film project I had to do for school, which proves how much this film has impacted me (see below).  Also, make sure to check out ‘The Akira Project’ a live action trailer made my Akira fans FOR Akira fans.  It’s now in post production and I know there are rumors that they will throw together a film as well.  From what I can see so far, it looks worth the wait (link below).

Munky Rating: A+

check out the Akira Project here

3′s a Crowd

I’m sure most of you know my love for Ryan Gosling, but when it comes to romantic comedies I tend to steer clear.  Don’t get me wrong; there are a lot of great ro-coms out there that really set the bar as far as entertainment goes.  With the good comes the bad and there are definitely more bad then good.  ‘Crazy, Stupid Love’ (2011) was one of those iffy ones where you weren’t sure which way it was going to flop.  The mess of actors they got together for the film builds it up to be worth while, but there is always the possibility that all that talent could go to waste with a badly written story.

The film follows the life of Cal Weaver (Steve Carrell), a very boring sneaker-wearing husband whose wife Emily (Julianne Moore) asks him for a divorce.  Cal leaves without much of a fight, moving into his own apartment where he see’s his 2 young kids Robbie and Molly on a regular basis.  One night, while drowning his sorrow with alcohol, he is befriended by ladies man Jacob (Ryan Gosling).  Jacob vows to completely transform Cal into a confident heartbreaker and the two men embark on a journey to transform Cal’s physical and mental stability when it comes to women. As the film moves forward, we begin to see that Cal still loves Emily and vice versa.  The two struggle to piece back together their deflated marriage. One step forward seems to always result in two steps back as they try to find a middle ground.  Meanwhile their son Robbie is in love with the babysitter and the babysitter is in love with Cal. Also, a girl Jacob fails to woo named Hannah (Emma Stone) hits a wall when her boyfriend seems to lack any sort of commitment backbone.  She hunts Jacob down to fulfill her sexual needs but what ends up happening is more surprising then she could have imagined.

The film sounds confusing but it’s really all spaced out rather well.  There is a lot going on with this family, and everyone seems to be in love.  Carrell and Moore’s relationship is obviously the major driving force of the film.  It’s interesting to see how much Cal transforms from a deadpan coward to a confidant man ready to fight for the one he loves.  At first it’s a bit unbelievable that this should be happening to him.  How many times does a ‘ladies man’ take a complete stranger under his wing to transform his manhood? Honestly, this is something that only happens in the movies unless you’re counting reality shows (which I refuse to count).  It’s a bit cheesy and was definitely something you have to get over.

It does, remarkably, set the tone for the rest of the film.  In seeing Carrell’s transformation you get to know Goslings character a whole lot better.  It’s almost like the audience is acting as scientists watching the results of an experiment.  Every one of there actions has consequences to the story.  Some of the things that take place are a bit farfetched and dare I say…dumb?  If you have the capacity to look past all of that it’s actually a pretty compelling story.  It confronts love on every level; through a married couple, a new couple, a kid and a teenager.  The idea that every one of us has a soul mate is reignited with a certain innocence which sets the pacing throughout the film.  There are few surprises that surface, in an attempt to give it that comedy edge.  Whether its necessary or not remains to be seen.

Overall this film isn’t terrible.  It’s a chick flick, 100% A CHICK FLICK! There is way too much lovey dovey stuff flying around for it to be anything but.  I really like the dynamic set between Carrell and Moore.  I think that the film could have benefitted more without the rest of the gang’s problems getting involved, even if it all does tie in at the end. I was genuinely interested in seeing where Stone’s story was going though, which was kind of predictable/kind of surprising.  Not good but not bad, that’s the long and short of it.

Munky Rating: C+

‘Silver Linings Playbook’ Guest Review by Shah Shahid

There has been a lot of hype around this movie, and I’ve avoided all of it. While watching the trailer last summer in Canada, I remember thinking to myself that it’s about time Bradley Cooper stops playing cool and badass pretty boys roles, and gets his hands dirty, cinematically of course. SILVER LININGS PLAYBOOK is an excellent example of his, in my opinion, thus far untapped talent.
SILVER LININGS PLAYBOOK is a blend of very unexpected combinations of elements and plot points, working together with even more unexpected writing and performances, making it a beautifully crafted movie that somehow brings about some very strong emotions. Bradley Cooper’s Pat is a neurotic and eccentric man who, after a bi polar episode causes him to lose his job wife and has him institutionalized, returns to live with his parents. Convinced that he’s got a handle on everything, Pat feels that everything in his life will be back on track if he reconciles with his estranged, and formerly cheating wife. A chance encounter leads him to Jennifer Lawrence’s Tiffany, a grieving widow who hooks up with anyone and everyone in sexual relationships as a way of dealing with her newfound loneliness.
SILVER LININGS PLAYBOOK is about this man trying to rebuild his life, while trying to deal with others, trying to deal with his mental illness, and how these two damaged characters, try to overcome their baggage, together. Their journey is a wild and convoluted process filled with awesome dramatic tension, revelations, hilarity and even some pretty decent romantic moments.

The writing here is genius. Director David O. Russell also wrote the screenplay from Matthew Quick’s novel and did a brilliant job with it. The lead characters of Pat & Tiffany are flawed and damaged, to the point where their actions may not be relatable to the audience. But that works for them rather than against, as they are supposed to be people who no one understands, but themselves. It’s difficult to write characters that the audience can’t relate to, and be too flawed. But watching Pat & Tiffany struggle with their emotional problems, while trying to navigate around their feelings and circumstance, makes SILVER LININGS PLAYBOOK that much more endearing.
And all of this works to perfection, due to the amazing ensemble cast featured in this movie. Robert DeNiro is the stand out from the rest, as the old fashioned father, completely unaware of how to deal with his bi-polar son, while being a superstitious Football fan and with some OCD himself. DeNiro is the everyman whose reactions are the benchmark with which to gauge Pat & Tiffany’s crazy behavior. You can almost say he’s the antagonist, standing in the way of the two head cases trying to make sense of their lives.
The most amazing thing about SILVER LININGS PLAYBOOK is that it’s an unconventionally inspiring movie that has the ability to make the audience creep to the edge of their seats, cheering and rooting for the characters by the end, to accomplish a mundane and ridiculous climax. It’s an emotion driven story which does a 180 near the end and becomes a physically driven under dog challenge, the likes of which we haven’t seen in years.
In exchange for Tiffany’s help in getting back together with his wife, Pat agrees to practice with her for an upcoming dance competition, participating mostly for the hell of it. After a series of events that threaten Pat’s mental well-being and the loss of all the progress he’s made since his release, an unlikely scenario brings them all together. To show his support for his son’s actions, despite not understanding, DeNiro’s character bets his entire retirement fund into the outcome of this near impossible to win dance competition, which essentially becomes everyone’s white whale.

This bet acts as the catalyst that unites all the family and puts them in Pat & Tiffany’s corner. Cooper is brilliant as a man desperate to get his life on track, without really knowing how to do so. His performance has shades of a frantic junkie, trying to get what he wants, by any means necessary. In this case, Pat believes that his wife is the magic drug that will ‘fix everything’.
Jennifer Lawrence on the other hand is the perfect compliment to Cooper. Her portrayal of an emotionally isolated widow, seeking comfort in the arms of any man, is so horribly sad that it’s fucking amazing! In the 3 movies I’ve seen her in, she’s been unrecognizable to me. From X-MEN: FIRST CLASS, to THE HUNGER GAMES to SILVER LININGS PLAYBOOK. Lawrence gets into the skin of every character she plays and owns it.

SILVER LININGS PLAYBOOK is full of moments that define the characters with each turn and moments that are so very poignant. Every scene with Bradley Cooper & Jennifer Lawrence oozes with dramatic tension and insanely witty banter back and forth. DeNiro’s breaking down in his son’s bed, blaming himself for not being able to handle his son’s illness is a scene which will go down in cinematic history as being simply legendary.
It’s a movie about the journey of two emotionally disabled people, taking an unconventional road to recovery. It’s a commentary on how the proper way isn’t always the right way, and what doesn’t always make sense can work in the most unexpected of ways. I was cheering as hard at the end of SILVER LININGS PLAYBOOK as I was during the in-ring sequences of any ROCKY movie. That says a lot for someone who doesn’t like ‘boring talky movies’.

Munky Rating: A-

Dead and Loving It

It’s amazing how some films become such cult classic favorites.  When millions of fans heard that the famous B horror ‘Evil Dead’ series from the 1980′s were being remade, most people were unsure about how they were going to pull it off.  It was even more of a shock when the first trailer was released and the film was beginning to gather mixed reviews from die hard fans.  Some people did not even want to give it a chance, “No Ash, no go” is the phrase most people were sticking to.  After countless interviews with director Fede Alvarez and producers Bruce Campbell and Sam Raimi, it was explained that this new installment of ‘Evil Dead’ (2013) was made for a new generation of horror fans.  They wanted to no necessarily re-make the much loved franchise, but pay homage to a great series with a larger budget and a hell of a lot of gore.  For those of you who never experienced the original ‘Evil Dead’ films, you don’t have to be a fan to enjoy the re-make.

The film starts out with a group of young college kids retreating to a family cabin.  David (Shiloh Fernandez), along with some of his friends, are helping out his sister Mia (Jane Levy) with her decision to go cold turkey after a scary overdose with drugs.  The cabin is their families refuge which they have not been able to enjoy in a very long time.  A dense smell of decay leads them to the basement where they find an array of skinned deceased animals and a book wrapped in a black trash bag and barbed wire.  One of their friends Eric (Lou Taylor Pucci) decides to open the book to find out its contents.  Not thinking much of it, he recites a passage from the book, releasing a swirling torment of evil upon them.  This is where the fun begins.

There’s nothing like an endless amount of blood and gore to end the night on a positive note.  ‘Evil Dead’ has not shortage of teeth grinding mutilation.  Jane Levy’s character, Mia, is the first to be planted with the demon bug.  After throwing up gallons of bloody slime into her friends mouth, cutting her tongue in half with a knife and ripping off her own arm, you could say she’s had a hell of a night.  Despite all the crazy limb severing actions, the movie tries to peasant a memorable storyline to its audience.  The concept of Mia going through withdrawals from lack of drugs is the perfect stepping stone for her friends not to give a damn if she’s acting a little crazy.  Once Pucci finally debunks that there is no way she is just having ‘bad withdrawal symptoms’ the movie shifts gears from practical reality to over the top unreal.  Fernandez is the lead for the most part, trying to mend his mistakes while dealing with the evil coursing through everyone’s veins.  The ending is somewhat heartfelt and a little surprising that the director was able to produce somewhat of a concrete ending to a sad situation.
The film definiately pays homage to the original epics.  There are many references to cleanse to pallet of every cult follower of the ‘Evil Dead’ series.  It was great that they were able to make a film that would both satisfy old and new fans alike.  Alvarez did a dynamite job with the cast and storyline.  It’s a great horror film, less on the scary side and more on the gory ‘OMFG’ side.  It’s just what the fans ordered, I think, and makes for a great dedication to all things ‘Evil Dead’.  They really set the bar with this one, and I would not be surprised if they have a sequel in mind.

Overall the film presents itself as the new age of ‘Evil Dead.’  It has plenty of original ideas and homages to it’s predecessors which allows it to be enjoyed by old and new fans alike.  Expect a lot of disturbing scenes and situations with a touch of Raimi style horror.  I enjoyed this film to my hearts  content and hope that you all find it as amazing as I did.

Munky Rating: A+

Turn the Lights Out

Been scratching at the bottom of the barrel to come up with some good reviews for you guys.  I recently discovered that my lack in reviewing some of the more classic flicks have been leaving me with an unpleasant taste in my mouth.  I’ve seen a good number of oldies that are definitely review worthy, but time does tend to lapse the memory of some of these better films.  One film that I will never forget watching is ‘Gaslight’ (1944).  The reason for its permanent stain on my memory is the ridiculousness of it, certainly not blatantly obvious to most since the film was meant to be taken seriously.  I am by no means making fun, but only expressing the impact it has had on my psyche.

The film follows a young woman named Paula (Ingrid Bergman) who recently moved back into her aunts old house with her new foreign husband Gregory (Charles Boyer).  The couple seem very happy in their new life until Paula begins to experience lapses in memory.  Although completely unaware of her actions, she becomes somewhat of a kleptomaniac, stealing small things from museums, shops and even her husband.  Her loving husband, although appearing to be genuinely concerned, takes a firm stance against her ridiculous new trend and slowly begins to convince her that she is insane.  Their close close friend and officer of the law Brian (Joseph Cotten) begins to smell something fishy about the whole situation.  Soon it is revealed that everything is not what it seems and the answers to unanswered questions become a little hard to handle for Paula and her so called ‘happy marriage.’

I really love movies from the older generations. It’s hard to rightfully compare films from one generation to the next because unless you were raised with that style of film making, its difficult to thoroughly enjoy it for what it is.  ‘Gaslight’ really struck a humor cord in my bones.  There was just something about Boyer’s accent that made every situation more comical then serious. Bergman performed to expectations.  Playing a women in distress from herself was a role she pulls off perfectly.  I really wanted to appreciate her acting more but I found it exceedingly difficult with her fancy french husband mouthing off next to her.  I don’t think Boyer is a bad actor, I just think they should have meshed his character better to what was expected of him. 
There is one scene where the two love birds are at a fancy dress party.  Boyer goes fishing in his pockets and pauses.  His face becomes hard and somber as he slowly turns to his wife and says in a heavy accent, “Paula, my watch is missing.” Bergman replies with a look of horror before wailing in dismay, forcing her eyes away from her psychologically abusive husband.  Heads turn before he carts her away with a rough arm out the door. The whole time this scene was playing out, I could not help but laugh at how much is seemed to be overdone.  I just could not take it seriously; as much as I tried I could not look past Boyer’s fancy Frenchness.

Overall the film is entertaining.  For me, a lot more comical then it probably was meant to be.  I’m sure some of you will be able to accept it for what it is, a great psychological story of a mentally abusive husband forcing his wife in to psychological submission. I can assure you I am not mocking the 1940′s cinema in any way with this review.  I love old movies, but this one just struck a less serious cord with me.

Munky Rating: C

Tweet Tweet! I Mean…Rawrr!

Let’s face it, British comedy is amazing.  I understand it is an acquired taste.  There are people amongst us that just don’t get its dry take on everyday humor. Growing up watching great shows like “Keeping Up Appearances”, “Fawlty Towers” and “Black Addar” really left a permanent scar on my funny bone. ‘Fierce Creatures’ (1997) stars the original cast of the famous comedy ‘A Fish Called Wanda’ to unleash its crippling laughs upon its audience once again. The film is all about the actors and the incredible chemistry that seems to naturally flow between them.  

The movie follows Rollo (John Cleese) the newly appointed director of a struggling zoo owned by a vicious business mogul Rod McCain (Kevin Kline).  In an attempt to reboot the zoo, McClain appoints Willa (Jamie Lee Curtis) and his clumsy good for nothing son Vince (Kevin Kline) to watch over the improvements and monitor the zoo operations. Trying to make his father notice him, Vince implants his creative genius upon the zoo critters while Willa cleans up after him. After an ill attempt at sabotage,   Rollo and his fellow zookeepers discover that Rod McCain plans to sell the zoo and all the animals with it.  Not wanting the zoo to be shut down, Rollo and Willa try to come up with a plan to save the zoo from the hands of their cruddy boss.

The plot is simple.  It runs with a straight forward path with no real backlash or stray ends.  Although not the most exciting story, this movie is strictly made for its comedic charm.  Kline does another stellar job playing both an arrogant pompous old man and his clumsy good for nothing son.  When I first saw the film, I didn’t even know he was both characters until my husband pointed it out to me.  Although Vince carries himself almost the same way as Otto in ‘A Fish Called Wanda’, playing Rod McCain was a breath of fresh air for the actor to take on.  Cleese and Curtis still carried that silly romantic energy, almost as if it never left.  In a way, this film is almost exactly the same as ‘Wanda’ only with a different setting.
That doesn’t make the film any less entertaining.  The comedy is still very much there and integrated in almost every scene.  From Curtis and Kline trying to hunt down Cleese’s so called ‘lovers’ to Cleese dealing with the ever talkative, ever annoying bugkeeper “Bugsy” Malone (played by Michael Palin) there is not hint of dullness to be found.  It doesn’t even matter if the two films are so similar, if you’re looking for a healthy dose of comedy you need look no further then here.  The romance between Cleese and Curtis is so incredibly awkward and clumsy, it’s just nice to see such a change of pace to the average romance.  It’s also always fun to see Kline act so matter of fact but honestly has little to no clue what is really going on. 

For these reasons, this film hits a home run for me.  The issues I could see people having is that the film is pretty much a clone of ‘Wanda’ and if one was looking to see something different, they would be sorely disappointed.  Also the style of comedy is very cut throat.  Not everyone is fan and although it’s not all from a Brits perspective, it may be enough to put someone off.  This film still holds water to its true self.  I will always enjoy it no matter how many times I watch it.

Munky Rating: B+

Suckers

Although many may disagree, I love Zack Snyder films.  With his breakthrough artistic design of ’300′ to his incredible interpretation of ‘Watchmen’, Snyder has a way of creating a whole new reality with an artistic style of film making.  He has raised the bar in slow motion action, although sometimes overdoing it a bit.  It still harnesses the audience and keeps us captivated.  I have yet to see ‘Suckerpunch’ (2011) until it graced my HBO TV screen.  I know the film had mixed success but that did not sway my interest in any way.  I still wanted to see if the film lived up to Snyder’s name.

The film follows a young girl called Baby Doll (Emily Browning) who gets institutionalized by her abusive step father.  She is lined up for a lobotomy to coverup the murder of her sister.  With only a few days left before the procedure is scheduled, she envisions a plan of escape.  She recruits a small group of girls who agree to help her if it means a chance at freedom.  The film turns from reality to a sort of burlesque actuality. Using Baby Doll’s ‘dancing technique’ each obstacle plunges the girls into different warzones, facing down different adversaries with the help of the Wise Man (Scott Glenn).  Each victory brings them closer to their goal of freedom, but the shark Blue Jones (Oscar Issacs) begins to nip at their heels as their plan begins to unfold before them.

In a literal sense, this film is one for the story books.  It’s incredibly eye stimulating with all the different scenarios laid out during each individual scene.  The fighting was over the top but not in the least bit boring.  I did not find Browning 100% convincing as the lead ass kicker amongst the group of 5.  Abbie Cornish and Jena Malone, playing the sister duo of Sweet Pea and Rocket, had more of a concrete storyline behind them.  I feel that the film would have been a lot more interesting if their story was the main event.  The costumes were thought out perfectly.  Each girl had a different style of fighting and therefore a different costume to fit their personae.  This film is definitely made for all the badass women of the world.
I also loved the way the film was interpreted through Baby Dolls eyes.  At first we see how she ended up in this terrible institution in the first place.  The opening brings us into her messed up situation and you honestly feel a deep sense of remorse for the people who put her there.  After the drab and dreary introduction, the film completely does a 360 and turns into a flashy dance house for orphaned girls.  The metaphors that go along with the film run deeper then one would think.  I feel that is were the film might have fallen short for some people.
If you were expecting just an all out action film with girls in hot outfits then, yeah…that may be in there somewhere. It’s really not about any of that at all, in a literal sense.  The interpretation that life is just a dance; the steps you take influence the future, is brilliantly laid out and really makes a lot of sense.  Every action you take effects the ones around you. Whether you feel it is the right thing to do or not, the outcome will always end up hurting someone.  What really needs to be decided is if you are willing to take the risk, to sacrifice yourself or someone else to reach the ultimate freedom.

I thought ‘Suckerpunch’ was great.  I do feel there were some strays in the storyline that may have been better formulated, but overall I loved the message behind it. It had a lot of over the top action and a lot of bare skin. It also holds this great interpretation of life.  For these reasons, the film could be a major disappointment for anyone trying to get something out of it.  If you want a good action film strictly to tantalize the sense, the in depth interpretation would definitely be a turn off and vice versa.  If you have not seen the film before, just remember that it’s not just one of the other, it’s both.

Munky Rating: B+

Gladiator aka Pirate Robin Hood

It was a shock when my husband found out that I have never seen ‘Gladiator’ (2000). I was in 7th grade when it came out and have yet to discover my bloodthirsty side.  Therefore I had no interest in seeing the film until now.  I remember hearing so much hype for this film when it first came out.  Even in the pro wrestling world, I can recall Kurt Angle on Monday Night RAW talking about the heroism and ferocity of the Gladiator, and how he himself was very much like him.  So I sat down one night with the dog and the hubbie to watch, what was, a breakthrough in cinema for its time.

The film starts off on the field of battle. General Maximus Decimus (Russell Crowe), a very respected and loved man amongst the Roman Army, strides forward to lead his men in a victorious battle against the barbaric Germanians.  After the battle, the Cesar Marcus Aurelius (Richard Harris) confides in Maximus his intentions of handing his power over to the senate after he dies.  Aurelius tells his mad son Commodus (Joaquin Phoenix) of his intentions and Commodus, not taking this news too easily, quickly kills his father to become the new Cesar.  After Maximus denies accepting Commodus as the new Cesar, he is taken to be executed and his family slaughtered.  Being a seasoned fighter, Maximus escapes his executioners and begins his long journey of revenge against Commodus.

I found it really hard to enjoy this film the way it was meant to be enjoyed.  It reminded me of the new ‘Robin Hood’ film which Crowe also stars in.  The story line was basically the same, only different periods of time and different countries.  Also the music sounded so much like the music from the ‘Pirates Trilogy’.  Every time I heard the same few notes being played, I was just waiting for Jack Sparrow to swagger on in looking for rum.  It didn’t help that every time the music sounded most like pirates were during the most harrowing scenes in the film. The only thing that really kept my interest was Phoenix as Commodus.  It was refreshing to see him play a role that compliments his acting ability so well.  Crowe was typical Crowe.  He was brave, determined, driven, strong…yadayadayada.

It was really hard for me to find anything original or captivating.  The fighting was entertaining, but its not hard to find an excuse for men to brutalize one another on the big screen.  I can’t really past judgement though.  It’s hard to see this movie as a breakthrough in cinema now because there are so many films that are just like it.  It did not grab my interest back in 2000 and now that I do enjoy films like this, I found nothing about it that i have not already seen before.  It was still a good action film.  The acting was decent and the storyline was agreeable.

I’m sorry I did not see this movie earlier, otherwise this review may have given it the recognition it deserves.

Munky Rating: C

ON DEMAND MOVIE NIGHT: Everyone is Lonely Sometimes…

Since I now have the ON DEMAND feature on my TV, I have decided that every week I will watch one ON DEMAND movie.  Hopefully I can remain vigilant to this task and belt out a least one blog per week.  I actually have not been slacking on my writing, but on my movie watching.  Besides this next film that I am about to review, I have not watched a film in about 2 weeks.  That is because of horrible addictive video games like League of Legends, SimCity and Tomb Raider that were just released recently.  They have consumed a good chunk of my free time. The other night, I made it a point to sit down on my couch and dedicate an hour and a half of my time to movie watching.  After scowering the list of free ON DEMAND movies, I finally came across ‘The Lonely Guy’ (1984).  Starring one of my favorite actors, Steve Martin, I thought it would be a good film to start off my weekly ON DEMAND movie night.

The movie follows recently moved to NY bachelor, Larry Hubbard (Steve Martin).  A writing hopeful, he takes a job at a greeting card company while living with his ballet dancer girlfriend.  One day he finds her sleeping with another man.  Left out on the street, he takes his things to the park and contemplates his next move.  He runs into another man, Warren (Charles Grodin), who has also recently been kicked out of his girlfriends apartment.  He goes on to tell Larry that this is the beginning of his ‘lonely guy’ life.  Skeptical at first, Larry takes Warren’s advice and begins to unconsciously begin his lonely guy lifestyle.  He finds a new apartment and begins to desperately try and meet a new girl.  After acquiring a few canines and attending a cardboard cut out party hosted by his new friend Warren, Larry goes on a fake jog pouring sweat from a can all over his clothes.  He runs into Iris (Judith Ivy) who is a recent divorcee from a lonely guy.  She picks up on Larry’s situation from the start and tries to give him sound advice. After scoring her number on a napkin which he mistakenly wipes his face with, Larry becomes consumed with the thought of being with Iris. Larry may have found the girl to break his ‘lonely guy luck’ but with Iris having so much ‘lonely guy’ history, their relationship is up in the air as to what is to happen to this almost perfect couple.

This movie falls into the category of quirky comedy.  You really have to have a love for this style of laughs to enjoy this film.  Most of the time they are subtle; written into the dialogue very well.  Some things just seem desperate, but as the film goes on they are a lot more elaborately placed.  The film does a great job following the life of a lonely guy.  This has all happened to us at least once in our lives and if it hasn’t then you are just in denial.  One scene that particularly carries weight to the lonely lifestyle is when Martin’s character goes to a fancy restaurant to have dinner alone.  As soon as he utters the words “table for one…” the spotlight shines down upon him.  Everyone in the restaurant stops eating to get a glimpse of this solo diner.  He is ushered to his table, spotlight still focused on him, and awkwardly takes his seat.
That scene hits the nail on the head for lonely situations every where.  Both Martin and Grodin are perfect in demonstrating the lives of lonely guys.  Grodin is a dynamite character but he plays a lonely guy so well, its almost sad.  Being a comedy, it obviously doesn’t get him down all the time.  The two actors play off of each other well as they attempt to keep the other one grounded.  They act as one another’s support rope, which gives their relationship a special significance.  Ivy’s portrayal of Iris is somewhat always ridiculous.  She struggles in accepting her growing love for Martin, not wanting to fall into another marriage trap.  Having been previously married 6 times, it’s assumed she would have commitment issues.  Ivy and Martin are a somewhat strange pairing, but they do well trying to iron out the issues that arise between them.  When Ivy accidentally pours hot coffee on her lap, Martin voluntarily does the same, saying he wants to experience all the pain that she does.  It’s a sweet gesture to a desperate situation, but it gives the film a bit of sustenance when it comes to how committed Martin has become to breaking the cycle.

Overall the film is cute.  There are many situations a person can relate to and they are dusted with a fine layer of sugar to help sweeten the severity of it’s impact.  Although sometimes cheesy, in both the acting and the storyline, it’s a great story that could give someone a bit of hope to their lonely lifestyle.  As long as you try you will not be lonely forever.

Munky Rating: B-

Amour: Review By Darran

Amour (2012) literally means love and the film itself is about a loving relationship coming to an end. The story follows Georges (Jean-Louis Trintignant) and Anne (Emmanuelle Riva) a retired couple whose loved is tested when Anne falls desperately ill after a stroke sets off a sad decline in her physical and mental health. Georges is left to look after her at their home as she declines and this is where the film finds it’s drama.
The film is directed by Michael Haneke who missed out at the 2010 Oscars with The White Ribbon (2009) to Argentinian Director Juan José Campanella’s The Secret In Their Eyes (2009). However, this year Haneke’s Amour took home best foreign language film to beat out stiff competition from Nikolaj Arcel’s A Royal Affair which is also phenomenal and worth seeking out.
Haneke has a very unique style in his films. He frames a scene precisely and lets the actors move around and interact with each other, rarely cutting and allowing static shots to go on for a long time. I like this style and think it definitely has it place, it’s refreshing to watch something that doesn’t seem edited together by someone stitching together imagery in a caffeinated frenzy. The opening of Quantum of Solace (2008) being a painful example of editing that simply moves too fast for the amazing action that is depicted to have any real meaning. Amour is the opposite of that, scenes happen naturally with the camera rarely moving and shots not being frantically chopped and spliced together to add drama: instead the drama comes from the natural performances of the actors.
Haneke’s voyeuristic style of the camera watching from corner of the room, staying deadly still and allowing things to happen on their own helps these natural performances evolve. This results in a film that seems very real and that works wonders for this specific story about love in which the love, critically, rings resoundingly true. This is not a style that is for everyone. Anyone who
does not like it when films have long periods of silence, no explosive action and very little camera movement may find themselves uncomfortable. There were at least a few walk outs each of the two times I saw this one at the cinema. However, if you let the static style overwhelm you, it will envelop you in the lives of its characters for its running length and you will most likely be moved by their story in a very deep way.

One of my favorite scenes in the film involves Georges slowly and methodically trying to capture a pigeon with a soft blanket that has somehow found its way into his home. In an Haneke with the cast on set interview Haneke has been asked about the pigeon’s symbolism in the film:

Consider the pigeon just a pigeon. You can interpret it any way you want. I wouldn’t describe it as a symbol. I have problems with symbols, because they always mean something specific. I really like this answer. Some creators have very specific metaphorical or symbolic intentions with their work and become dissatisfied with their audiences if they ‘just don’t get it’ the way they intended. I really hate it when creators turn on their audiences in such a way: everyone has their own unique take on art and while the authors intentions are valuable I do not think they should override any audience member’s reading either.
Georges obsessive chasing of the pigeon could be reflecting his inner obsession with keeping the love of his life, Anne, alive. He cannot let her go just as he cannot let the pigeon roam free around his house. He clings to the pigeon in the blanket just as he clings to every last moment caring for his dying wife. However, this is just one specific interpretation and in the same interview Haneke points out that there are simply “lots of pigeons in Paris”. His film is ambiguous in it’s symbolism – if there is any. Instead the film finds great emotional power in rendering, wholly realistically, a relationship coming to an end. Symbolism is specific but emotions are universal and Amour displays them with a truth rarely seen in modern cinema. A remarkable film.

Munky Rating: A+

Guest Review By: Darran
foxxiecinnamon’s blog