Hitchcock Review (RE-POST)

Fox Searchlight

Hitchcock Review

2012, 98 minutes

Rated PG-13 for some violent images, sexual content, and thematic material

This is a re-post of my 11/10/2012 review of Hitchcock.

Fox Searchlight has done it again; Hitchcock is one entertaining, if slight, film.  I do not understand how Fox Searchlight has pulled off at least two consecutive years (I have seen nearly all of their releases from 2011 and 2012) with almost universally fantastic slates.  Look at this year alone.  They have released the outstanding Beasts of the Southern Wild, Sound of My Voice, The Sessions, and the sleeper hit, The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel.  And now, they have the wildly entertaining Hitchcock, directed by Sacha Gervasi (Anvil!: The Story of Anvil), which follows Alfred Hitchcock's relationship with his wife as he makes his masterpiece Psycho.

The main reason why this movie works is the stellar acting from leads Anthony Hopkins and Helen Mirren as Alfred Hitchcock and Alma Relville, his wife, respectively.  Hitchcock dons a fat suit and is very convincing as Hitchcock.  He seems to touch the complexity of the notoriously mysterious Hitchcock, but doesn't get too deep (this is due to the script also).  Mirren is once again brilliant as the tough, but loving Alma Relville.  Relville, while never credited in Hitchcock's films, helped Hitchcock with his films, particularly with the script.  Relville was Hitchcock's backbone.  Mirren and Hopkins' line delivery is spot on and sparks fly from the scenes in which they are together.  Their chemistry is so great that it seems as if they really have been married for years.

The supporting cast doesn't disappoint either.  The two standouts are James D'Arcy as Anthony Perkins and Scarlett Johansson as Janet Leigh.  D'Arcy nails Perkins.  I forgot that I was watching him and not the real Anthony Perkins.  Johansson, one of my favorite actresses, does a great job at playing Janet Leigh.  She makes Leigh a really professional, likable person who had a lot of class.

The screenplay by John J. McLaughlin (Black Swan) follows the generic biopic structure, but has enough entertaining moments and clever lines to rise above the structure and clichés.  One complaint I have with the script is that it should have focused more on Hitchcock's troubles making Psycho instead of his marriage.  While this was not the intended focus of the film, the scenes where he is shooting Psycho are far more interesting than the ones about his marriage.  A little more balance would have done it good.  In addition, the pace sags a bit in the middle when the focus switches entirely to the marriage.  That being said, McLaughlin's script has plenty of fun sequences and gets the job done pretty well.

The editing of certain sequences was noteworthy as well, as was Danny Elfman's sly score.  A fun fact about the score is that Danny Elfman scored Gus van Sant's remake of Psycho and has now scored Hitchcock, a film about the making of Hitchcock's 1960 original, Psycho.

Overall, Hitchcock isn't a great film, but I would definitely recommend it, as it is certainly entertaining and will especially resonate with fans of Hitchcock and his work as it did with me.  The film has some fun subtle references to Psycho thrown  in [i.e. the candy corn in Janet Leigh's car (Norman Bates nervously munches on candy corn when Arbogast pays him a visit in Psycho)] that make the experience that much more fun if you know the film well.  One note: see Psycho before seeing this if you haven't already because naturally, there are spoilers for the film in Hitchcock.

3/4

-Joshua Handler

Life of Pi Review (RE-POST)

Fox 2000

Life of Pi Review

2012, 120 minutes

Rated PG for emotional thematic content throughout, and some scary action sequences and peril

This is a re-post of my 9/28/2012 review of Life of Pi.

Life of Pi is the new film by Oscar-winning director Ang Lee (Brokeback Mountain; Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon) and was screened tonight as its world premiere at the opening of the New York Film Festival.  Ang Lee was present at the screening tonight and said that he had been working on the film for four years and that he had two weeks to make some tweaks before handing in the film to Fox.  Life of Pi is obviously the work of a master director working at the peak of his powers as it boasts a huge heart and the best cinematography, visual effects, score, and 3D (the film was actually shot in 3D, not turned into 3D during post-production) that you will probably see all year.  The film follows a young Indian teen, Pi (newcomer Suraj Sharma) who gets stuck in the middle of the ocean on a lifeboat with a tiger after the ship carrying him and his family sinks.

Let me get my gripes out of the way before anything else, so that it doesn't seem like this is a negative review.  Every problem with this movie came from the screenplay by David Magee (Finding Neverland).  The pacing was uneven.  There were sequences that were heart-stoppingly stunning and suspenseful, such as the shipwreck sequence, but after that, the movie literally seemed to stop, especially in the scenes with Pi at sea.  It also became quite repetitive and some scenes were too dramatic (in terms of the dialogue, the tone was perfect).  

With that out of the way, let me mention all of the wonderful parts of the movie.  First off, the score, by Mychael Danna (Moneyball, Little Miss Sunshine) is the best of the year.  It is subtle, moving, and sets the tone of the film.  It never overwhelms and gave me chills.  

Claudio Miranda's cinematography is perfect.  Each shot is exquisitely and carefully picked and the images that Miranda captures are breathtaking.  The way he works with the 3D is especially impressive (you'll see what I mean when you view the film).

The 3D effects for this film are the best that I have ever seen.  The film uses 3D to both deepen the image onscreen and to also have the occasional object pop out of the screen into the theater.  It immersed me in the film's world.  Also, it is amazing what a difference it makes to shoot a film in 3D as opposed to post-conversion.  The image has depth and each object onscreen looks three-dimensional as opposed to two-dimensional with a little shading on the background (as it typically looks in post-conversion).

The visual effects were jaw-dropping.  Much of the water and the animals were rendered with CGI and it was very hard to tell what was real and what wasn't.  The animals, particularly the tiger, have emotional depth in their animated faces.  The backgrounds are colorful and are colored much like some Bollywood films.  While it was obvious that backgrounds and images like many portrayed in the film do not exist, in the context of the movie, they looked very realistic.

While technical work is very important, especially for a film of this scope, what really matters is the amount of care and humanity that is put in the film.  Ang Lee and crew really made sure that this was not another $100 million CGI-fest with no heart or soul.  Lee captures moments of such humanity that it brought tears to my eyes.  In one sequence, the tiger is clinging to the side of Pi's lifeboat, its head bobbing in and out of the water.  It knows that if it doesn't get aboard, it will die.  Pi looks over the side of the boat and looks into the tiger's eyes.  The tiger looks back at him, sad, alone.  This image was captured beautifully as we stare right into the tiger's eyes; into his soul.  We see the humanity in this wild beast.  He is as alone as Pi is and realizes this.  Lee carefully places the formerly majestic tiger's face in the middle of the frame with the dark blue ocean around it, showing the desolation.  Less experienced filmmakers would have simply shown Pi looking over to see if the tiger is there and then just show a brief image of the tiger.  

Overall, Life of Pi is a solid film, partially undone by a weaker-than-it-should-have-been script.  But, it is redeemed by its big heart and outstanding technical work.  This is a film that will appeal to people of many ages and will surely do well (in the least in the technical categories) come awards season.

3/4

-Joshua Handler

Silver Linings Playbook Review

The Weinstein Co.

Silver Linings Playbook Review

2012, 122 minutes

Rated R for language and some sexual content/nudity

Now this is one of a handful of films that actually deserves the Oscar buzz that it is getting.  Argo was good, but wasn't suspenseful or emotionally engaging enough, Life of Pi had some serious emotional moments and was visually stunning, but had an uneven script, and Lincoln was flat-out boring, but technically solid and featured an amazing performance by Daniel Day-Lewis.  But, we have a winner on our hands with David O. Russell's (The Fighter, Three Kings) Silver Linings Playbook, a film that follows Pat Solitano, a man with bipolar disorder who, after getting out of jail on a plea bargain, tries to look for the "silver linings" in life and get his wife back.  But, while trying to accomplish this, he meets Tiffany, a young woman with problems similar to his, who helps him in his quest to turn his life around.

The acting in this film is all-around fantastic.  Bradley Cooper, an actor not known for his superior acting ability (he is always good, however, just nothing stellar), but known for his roles in big mainstream films like The Hangover, nails his performance as Pat.  He gets almost every nuance of his character and shows some serious heart and soul in this role.  He was magnetic every time he was onscreen and I would not be surprised if his performance gets some awards attention.

Co-starring with Cooper is the always-amazing Jennifer Lawrence as Tiffany.  As Tiffany, she is tough, but sweet and vulnerable at the same time.  Like Cooper, she nails every nuance.  Do not be surprised if she too gets some serious awards attention (a second Oscar nomination is very likely coming her way).

The supporting cast is all great, but the standout is Robert De Niro as Pat's incredibly superstitious father who either has or borders on OCD.  He brings a real passion and warmth to his role that he hasn't shown in years (this could be because he has been in some awful films).  Expect an Oscar nomination for him.

David O. Russell is on a roll.  The Fighter was one of the top five best of 2010, and now Russell made this?  Two hits in a row.  He seems to have a way with actors that very few other directors have.  He and his actors get into the characters and really bring them to life.  The Fighter and Silver Linings Playbook both are very character-driven which makes for really compelling films.

Another aspect of Russell's direction that is superb is the pacing.  He rarely lets the pacing slow and I was never bored during the movie.  It always helps when the director wrote the film too because they seem to know what pace to keep with their film.  Russell's screenplay is wickedly funny, but also moving and honest which is an impressive feat.  The film deals with mental illness in an honest way that never is exploitative and the comedy and drama are well-balanced (the film is definitely more comedy, though).  The film follows a familiar arc, but Russell infuses it with so much wit, humor, and life, that the familiarity of the arc is easily forgiven.

Finally, I must say just how much I enjoyed watching the film.  It is so rare to see a movie that actually inspires me to try to find the "silver linings" in life, but this one really worked some magic on me.  After the film was over, I felt invigorated and energized.  In short, I felt good, which is a hard feat for a movie to pull off.

Overall. Silver Linings Playbook, while not a perfect film, is still truly stellar, with a third act that is unforgettable.  This is a must-see film for anyone who loves going to the movies.  You'll see this one pop up on Oscar ballots.

4/4
-Joshua Handler

If I Could Pick the Oscar Nominees...

MY PERSONAL OSCAR PICKS AS OF NOW

Fox Searchlight

As of now, I have seen almost all films getting major awards attention, save for Django Unchained, Zero Dark Thirty, The Impossible, The Hobbit, and Les Misérables and Rust and Bone.  Therefore, I decided that it would be fun to make an early list of films/people that I would nominate for Oscars before the societies and guilds release their award nominees and winners.  So, here it is: 

Best Picture:

Holy Motors (my review)
Skyfall (my review)
Silver Linings Playbook (review coming soon)
Moonrise Kingdom (my review)
Looper (my review)
Beasts of the Southern Wild (my review)
Amour (my review)
The Queen of Versailles (review coming soon)
West of Memphis (review coming soon)
Chicken With Plums (my review)

Fox Searchlight

Best Actor (I cannot decide on five):
John Hawkes for The Sessions (my review)
Bradley Cooper for Silver Linings Playbook
Daniel Day-Lewis for Lincoln (my review)
Denis Lavant for Holy Motors
Denzel Washington for Flight (my review)
Joaquin Phoenix for The Master (review coming soon)

Fox Searchlight

Best Actress:
Emmanuelle Riva for Amour
Quvenzhané Wallis for Beasts of the Southern Wild
Helen Hunt for The Sessions
Jennifer Lawrence for Silver Linings Playbook
Helen Mirren for Hitchcock (my review)

Best Director:
Pablo Larraín for No (my review)
Michael Haneke for Amour
Sam Mendes for Skyfall
Benh Zeitlin for Beasts of the Southern Wild
Leos Carax for Holy Motors

Best Supporting Actor:
Tommy Lee Jones for Lincoln
Javier Bardem for Skyfall
Robert De Niro for Silver Linings Playbook
Paul Giamatti for Cosmopolis (my review)
Matthew McConaughey for Magic Mike (my review)

Best Supporting Actress:
Judi Dench for Skyfall
Amy Adams for The Master
Gina Gershon for Killer Joe (no review available)
Emily Blunt for Looper
(No fifth choice)

Best Original Screenplay:
Amour
The Sessions
Looper
Moonrise Kingdom
Your Sister's Sister

Best Adapted Screenplay:
Beasts of the Southern Wild
Silver Linings Playbook
Chicken With Plums
No
Skyfall

Skyfall Review

MGM/Columbia Pictures

Skyfall Review

2012, 143 minutes

Rated PG-13 for intense violent sequences throughout, some sexuality, language, and smoking

The experience of watching Skyfall is something that I did not expect.  After the disappointment of Quantum of Solace and the hiring of Sam Mendes (a director who specializes in drama), I was worried.  However, after viewing the superb action scenes in Road to Perdition, I knew I was in for a treat.  And I was.

Skyfall follows Bond as he tries to protect M and MI6 from terrorist threats and actions.  The root of this terror is terrifying and personal.

I don't even know where to begin with my praise for this film.  But, I have to start somewhere.  The acting by the entire cast is impressive, a rarity for an action film.  Daniel Craig's Bond is developed in this film and Craig's ability to translate Bond's emotions from script to screen is incredible.  There are moments in Skyfall in which Craig expresses everything through his face that are simply incredible.  In addition, he has a quick wit and is a great action hero.  

Judi Dench also adds complexity to her final role as M (she is retiring soon).  Dench has played M with such stern authority throughout the years and nails it in her last outing.  Judi Dench is one of the greatest living actresses today and it is truly sad to see her leave the cinema.

Finally we get to Javier Bardem who plays Raoul Silva, the villain in the film.  Bardem, known for playing a variety of different roles, is blonde in this film and embodies pure evil.  The first scene in which we see Bardem, he gives a monologue that will send chills down your spine.  With Silva, he created one of the best Bond villains ever.

Due to the fact that this year is the 50th anniversary of the Bond franchise, there are multiple hilariously fun references to previous Bond films.  These got a rise out of all of us in the theater.  The screenplay delves into the characters' complexities and is alternately dark and funny, blending drama and action perfectly.  One huge departure that this film makes from the rest of the series is that it is not a film where Bond has a mission and goes on the offense.  In this film, while going on the offense, he is more defensive as he tries to protect M from threats on her life and on MI6.  This approach to the material allows for more character development and works very well.

Roger Deakins' cinematography is stunning; the best part of this masterful film.  Nine-time Oscar-nominee Deakins, best known for his work on the Coen Brothers' films, has shot some of the most beautiful sequences of the year, particularly one in which Bond and an enemy fight in a glass-filled room in a Shanghai building with colored lights illuminating the walls.  This sequence is thrilling.

The opening has to be the most thrilling action scene of the year.  Taking place in Istanbul, the filmmakers try every kind of stunt they can and succeed marvelously.  This scene was a huge adrenaline rush, and so was the last half hour of the film.  The final action sequence is brilliant and so is the ending.

While this is not a complaint, I did like Casino Royale better because it was slightly more mysterious and the action was brutal instead of stylized as it is here.  However, the action here is great.

Overall, Skyfall is a brilliant piece of filmmaking that shows Sam Mendes on top of his game.  Bond films rise and fall on their directors and this one really shows what happens when a great director takes the helm and brings along his talented crew.  The result is a thrilling, complex, and fascinating Bond film that is unlike anything that we have seen before.

4/4
-Joshua Handler

Hitchcock Review

Fox Searchlight

Hitchcock Review

2012, 98 minutes

Rated PG-13 for some violent images, sexual content, and thematic material

Fox Searchlight has done it again; Hitchcock is one entertaining, if slight, film.  I do not understand how Fox Searchlight has pulled off at least two consecutive years (I have seen nearly all of their releases from 2011 and 2012) with almost universally fantastic slates.  Look at this year alone.  They have released the outstanding Beasts of the Southern Wild, Sound of My Voice, The Sessions, and the sleeper hit, The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel.  And now, they have the wildly entertaining Hitchcock, directed by Sacha Gervasi (Anvil!: The Story of Anvil), which follows Alfred Hitchcock's relationship with his wife as he makes his masterpiece Psycho.

The main reason why this movie works is the stellar acting from leads Anthony Hopkins and Helen Mirren as Alfred Hitchcock and Alma Relville, his wife, respectively.  Hitchcock dons a fat suit and is very convincing as Hitchcock.  He seems to touch the complexity of the notoriously mysterious Hitchcock, but doesn't get too deep (this is due to the script also).  Mirren is once again brilliant as the tough, but loving Alma Relville.  Relville, while never credited in Hitchcock's films, helped Hitchcock with his films, particularly with the script.  Relville was Hitchcock's backbone.  Mirren and Hopkins' line delivery is spot on and sparks fly from the scenes in which they are together.  Their chemistry is so great that it seems as if they really have been married for years.

The supporting cast doesn't disappoint either.  The two standouts are James D'Arcy as Anthony Perkins and Scarlett Johansson as Janet Leigh.  D'Arcy nails Perkins.  I forgot that I was watching him and not the real Anthony Perkins.  Johansson, one of my favorite actresses, does a great job at playing Janet Leigh.  She makes Leigh a really professional, likable person who had a lot of class.

The screenplay by John J. McLaughlin (Black Swan) follows the generic biopic structure, but has enough entertaining moments and clever lines to rise above the structure and clichés.  One complaint I have with the script is that it should have focused more on Hitchcock's troubles making Psycho instead of his marriage.  While this was not the intended focus of the film, the scenes where he is shooting Psycho are far more interesting than the ones about his marriage.  A little more balance would have done it good.  In addition, the pace sags a bit in the middle when the focus switches entirely to the marriage.  That being said, McLaughlin's script has plenty of fun sequences and gets the job done pretty well.

The editing of certain sequences was noteworthy as well, as was Danny Elfman's sly score.  A fun fact about the score is that Danny Elfman scored Gus van Sant's remake of Psycho and has now scored Hitchcock, a film about the making of Hitchcock's 1960 original, Psycho.

Overall, Hitchcock isn't a great film, but I would definitely recommend it, as it is certainly entertaining and will especially resonate with fans of Hitchcock and his work as it did with me.  The film has some fun subtle references to Psycho thrown  in [i.e. the candy corn in Janet Leigh's car (Norman Bates nervously munches on candy corn when Arbogast pays him a visit in Psycho)] that make the experience that much more fun if you know the film well.  One note: see Psycho before seeing this if you haven't already because naturally, there are spoilers for the film in Hitchcock.

3/4
-Joshua Handler