2012 12 Directed by Woody Allen Starring Penelope Cruz, Woody Allen and Alec Baldwin
Once more Woody Allen has hand picked an all star cast and selected a European city in order to draw on its essence and make a something of a personal statement. To Rome With Love is a compendium of converging stories about love, fame, infidelity and changing culture all set again the peaches and cream backdrop of Italy's capital city.
Cruz, Eisenberg and Allen are good but you can't help think they could be excellent if they were given more time to develop but suffer due to the sheer amount of content Allen is trying to fit into the film. Alec Baldwin is hilarious as young student Jesse Eisenberg's sage conscience and Baldwin's breaking of the fourth wall is eccentric and really works. If, like myself, you have never visited Rome, To Rome With Love is the dream portrayal of the beautiful city and has probably done wonders for the Italian Tourist Board. From start to finish the movie maintains a nostalgic glow and showcases what looks like the best of a phenomenal city.
Given my love of Vicky Cristina Barcelona and more recently Midnight in Paris, I was looking forward to this movie. As a long time fan of Woody Allen I was expecting a certain amount a quirkiness, but this one definitely was! Certain story lines maintain a degree of realism and are inspired, but others are completely off the wall and slightly farcical; to put it bluntly it's hit and miss. Rating: 5
Starring Brit Marling, Nicola Vicius and Peter Denham
Directed by Zal Batmanglij
Would-be
documentary filmmaker Peter (Denham) and his girlfriend Lorna (Vicius)
infiltrate the creepy Californian sect that’s grown around a young woman
(Marling) who claims both to come from the future and to possess information
vital to mankind’s survival.
This was a movie that I had been wanting to watch for a long
time and as soon as I saw it on Sky I watched it immediately. I had heard about
it off someone on youtube who had said it was their film of the year so I did a
bit of reading up on it and watched as many trailers as I could but even that
couldn't prepare me for how much I loved Sound Of My Voice. I relish a low
budget independent cinema that is incredibly well acted, directed and written and Sound Of My voice is all of these
things wrapped up in a psychological sci-fi thriller. It has that charming
low-fi independent feel yet it is far classier than some of mainstream cinema
at the moment.
Interesting, gripping and tense - you get the impression
that this cult is believable. As a viewer you are in the same position as our
protagonists. You don't know where this basement is, you don't know whether to
believe Maggie either. There are times when her story is plausible, times when
common sense absolutely doubts what she is saying but at the back of your mind
if she really is from our future how can you ignore her wisdom.
Immediately it reminded me of Martha Marcy May Marlene,
which I loved, but I like this a touch better. They share a lot of paralells
(cult subject matter and cliff hanger endings) and both are films you will want
to talk about after, to debate and discuss which is something that really
appeals to me.
Brit Marling is
pretty creepy as the charismatic and mesmerising cult leader. There is a scene
early on where she breaks the fourth wall to say that she is from 'our future'
which is spectacularly eerie and chilling. From the point of view of an actress
this is one of the meatiest roles I have seen for a long time, she's ambiguously
manipulative and powerful despite the fact she allegedly cannot leave her
sterile basement.
One of the strongest aspects of the movie can also be viewed
as a draw back. The ending and key themes that are raised throughout are never
resolved and are so undeveloped that you can't help but hope a trilogy was
always in the writer's mind. There's the issue with the police woman, surely
the level of her security technology would not be necessary to find an
arsonist? Abigail and her hat, black lego and Narclepsy and the injection off
her barely introduced father are never explained. Were the revelations about
Peter's past fabricated or legitimate. It all rests upon faith - whether the
cult members have faith in time travel actually being possible and if so,
whether Maggie is what she says she is. This all alludes to a wider plot and
the fact that there are so many loose ends is acceptable because we have been
told that it is going to become a trilogy. Although many questions have been
raised and unanswered, it's not unsatisfyng because you hope that eventually
there will be an opportunity for it to be resolved and at best you have to
trust in your interpretation. Sound Of My Voice does not placate the audience and try to impose heavy handed conclusions; subtlety is Batmanglij and Marling's ace.
After fleeing an abusive cult, Martha struggles to readjust
to the life she once knew while trying to reconnect with her family in this
psychological drama.
What’s remarkable about this film is that the director’s
vision is so pure and clear, it hasn’t been diluted by 200 different opinions. It's artsy and quiet. There
are so many creative flourishes that are bold and set it apart from so much of
the drivel we sit through. The film is structured with a mixture of flashbacks
and present day sequences which link and flow into each other with undetectable
slight of hand. What’s so brilliant about the flashback structure is the
glorious confusion and tension in the opening scenes when we have no idea what
Martha is fleeing and what has happened to her. There’s a Polanski level of
ambiguity throughout and all the way up to the memorable ending. It’s unclear
whether Martha’s paranoia is legitimate or if it’s all in her mind which makes
the tension that bit worse because it doesn’t matter whether it’s real or not.
Martha Marcy May Marlene is a study into cult life, post traumatic stress,
memory, modern American life and family dynamics – but it doesn’t preach, it
merely chronicles the events in a beautiful way.
Elizabeth Olsen plays Martha (and Marcy May and Marlene)
with extraordinary restraint. The psychosis is constantly bubbling under the
surface, always being held back so that when she finally does explode its all
the more powerful. She has one of those enigmatic faces that doesn’t give
anything away but reveals so much at the same time. She consistently plays that
fine line between ‘she’ll be fine once she’s had time to settle in.’ and ‘get
this poor woman help, she’s losing the plot.’ Perhaps there may be some deep seated acting
talent in the Olsen Twins after all… But in all seriousness, Olsen carries this
film with grace and refinement that is altogether missing in some actresses of her
age.
Beautifully shot with all together nerve wracking performances,
Martha Marcy May Marlene is a must-see recommendation.
Rating 8
Have your say: Did you rate Elizabeth in this film? Also, if you're new to Amateur Reviews, please feel free to become a member of the blog or be sure to return on Friday for our review of the highly anticipated Les Miserables!
12A 2011 Directed by Drake Doremus Starring Felicity Jones, Anton Yelchin and Jennifer Lawrence
Like Crazy tells the story of a British college student who
falls in love with an American classmate. They are then separated when she is
banned from the US after overstaying her visa in order to stay with him. A long
distance relationship ensues…
It’s not that this film is bad (on the contrary there are
many lovely aspects of it), but it’s just not particularly good. Independent
romance films aren’t boring; you only need to look at Blue Valentine to see how
it’s done well, but Like Crazy is slightly bland. Felicity Jones and Anton Yelchin
are fine actors, but this leading role where they take up the majority of the
movie is too large a feat. The characters themselves are not striking and they are
never actually introduced so it’s hard to form an audience relationship with
them. All it takes is the arrival of Jennifer Lawrence’s character to show how
much of a difference an actor with a bit more charisma and presence can make to
the film, it is better after she’s introduced.
The photography and the editing are absolutely beautiful; there’s
a naturalistic quality about the way the movie is shot which is refreshing and
charming. But the fact still remains that this is a very slow film, which is
ironically only 90 minutes long.
It’s a simple romance and an ancient dilemma, but sadly this
film never gets chance to really sing.
In very quick succession last year, movie goers were treated
with two very similar movies about casual sex. First we had February’s No
Strings Attached starring Natalie Portman as a highly strung doctor who embarks
upon a ‘relationship’ with script writer Ashton Kutcher. Then there was
September’s Friends With Benefits which chronicled headhunter Mila Kunis’ bond
with Justin Timberlake in New York City.
We’re going to highlight the fact that, unless you dig rom
coms like this, there is no need to watch both. So which one do you go for? For
us, the answer is clear – but to prove why we favour one over the other, here’s
a movie show down!
THE LEADING LADY
NATALIE PORTMAN vs MILA KUNIS
Both very attractive ladies, but Mila has the edge. Not even the edge. She wins by a mile. For starters it's hard to believe that Natalie Portman would embark upon such frivolous behaviour in the first place, but generally the role doesn't sit too well with her: Mila is far more at ease and funnier too.
THE LEADING MAN
ASHTON KUTCHER vs JUSTIN TIMBERLAKE
This one was a lot harder to call, namely because both men are equally good in the films. However Ashton may just have it because he has more comedy moments than Justin.
Friends With Benefits has best female, and No Strings Attached has the best male. So which film in better? Ultimately it comes down to the fact that Friends With Benefits is significantly more funny, hipper, less cringeworthy, and although no less predictable, it's all together more entertaining. Also the cast is much more impressive in F.W.B - Emma Stone and Woody Harrelson are hilarious. Next time your scrolling through Sky Movies, opt for Friends With Benefits as it has won the battle against No Strings Attached.
1.
2.
Have your say: do you think this verdict is fair or would you have gone the other way? We'd love to hear your comments below!
Starring Jesse Eisenberg, Danny McBride and Nick Swardson
From the director of Zombieland and starring Jesse Eisenberg, you would be right in expecting the same again, but apparantly lightening doesn't hit twice: this isn't another Zombieland. It's not that it's bad. It's just not particularly good.
The plot chronicles a pizza delivery boy who gets kidnapped, wired up with an explosive and ordered to rob a bank in hours or else... The result is refreshing, quick, fun and completely quotable - but it is by no means perfect.
For starters, the casting is a little off. On the one hand, you have the main thread and pairing between Jesse Eisenberg and Aziz Ansari who are excellent. Whereas our masterminds (McBride and Swardson) are caricature and pantomine. So instead of being Dumb and Dumber it turns into two grown men acting like children and trying to be funny: but maybe that's the point.
30 Minutes or Less is funny though, the script is witty, it's incredibly fast paced and Jesse Eisenberg is genius as ever in this role. The movie also has Fleischer's signature indie look and amazing soundtrack which is always a strong point. So for a light hearted, good laugh - look no further than 30 Minutes or Less.
Starring Brad Pitt, Jessica Chastain and Sean Penn
Years after the death of his younger brother, architect Jack
(Penn) considers the nature of life and his place leading to cathartic memories
of a troubled childhood back in 1950s Texas. He reflects on his relationship
with strict authoritarian father (Pitt) and delicate mother (Chastain).
If you’re expecting a run of the mill Hollywood movie, this isn’t
it: but did we really need another of them anyway? The answer is no. This film
no doubt divides critics and viewers alike. Some say the Tree Of Life is too
pretentious and contrived, but even if you’re still slating it months after, it’s
served a purpose as you are still talking about it! Like all good art, it
provokes opinion, love it or hate it at least the movie garnered a response
from the masses: there will be no fence sitters, which is admirable in itself.
The Tree Of Life dispels the myth that main stream films aren’t allowed to be
abstract despite the fact that people fawn over controversial art, music and
literature every day – why can’t film also be that way?
Before even getting to anything close to a conventional
scene, Malick crafts magical sequences of the solar system, boiling lava, the
moment of conception and dividing cells, ethereal jelly fish and bleak
landscapes inhabited by dinosaurs while a meteor journeys to the earth. There
is a reoccurring motif of a flickering light in many of the scenes and this
cosmic and cataclysmic scale change is juxtaposed seamlessly with the mundane
and beautiful dynamics of one family’s life.
The Tree Of Life is profound and, some say, immensely
thought provoking but a lot of what an individual takes away from the viewing
experience depends on how open minded they are because you’d be sorely mistaken
to think this film should be taken at face value. The plot is no mean feat; it’s
an impressionistic study of family life that delves into our place in the
universe and relationship with a greater being.
The loss of L.R in the first act is illusive but prompts a
string of age old questions as to why they are taken from us seemingly before
their time. Jack and his two brothers are played by unknown actors who have an
immensely natural quality as they organically recall memories and fragments of
their childhood. Wisps of emotion and human memory are echoed by Malick’s
heavenly imagery of golden sunlight flickering through trees, gentle breeze on
fields of grass and flimsy curtains billowing. One thing that can’t be disputed
is that The Tree Of Life is an incredibly beautifully shot movie.
Both parents interestingly evoke polar opposites. “The way of nature and
the way of grace. You have to choose which one you follow.” is set up in the
opening of the movie and Chastain embodies the way of grace, she is sweet
gentle and depicted like an archangel in Jack’s recollection. In direct
contrast to this, Pitt plays the archetypal disciplinarian who teaches the boys
that nothing happens without will. It seems he means well, but it is lost in
translation and ultimately he seems to be a tyrant who fails to value what he
has.
The soundtrack is a symphony of choirs and esoteric opera
which serves as an epic back drop to artistic depictions of life. The movie has
a spiritual and cinematic feel to it as Malick finds beauty in the ordinary and
in an answerless void. It’s this aspect of the film that leaves it vulnerable to
derision and scorn because this is not what people expect. Yes, at times it
does come across affectedly pretentious and you really do lose touch with the
plot occasionally but the majority of the film is not in that vain.
It’s no surprise The Tree Of Life earned the Palme D’or at
Cannes last year - it feels refreshing in comparison to the barrage of drivel
that floods our theatres. This is a film fascinated by life: it poses the question
‘why and what are we here for.’ Thankfully, The Tree of Life does not profess
to have the answers we all crave. But least it touches upon it, unlike so many
others. The Tree Of Life is bold, brave and creative: it gives audiences great
faith that cinema can aspire to art.
