Magic in The Moonlight (2014)

Photo Credit: Magic in the Moonlight / Sony Pictures Classics

Skeptic Englishman Stanley Crawford (Colin Firth) is the world's greatest illusionist, known for his transcendent work on stage as Chinese conjurer Wei Ling Soo. He knows all the tricks of this world and the next, which he is convinced doesn't exist.  An alluring American clairvoyant Sophie Baker (Emma Stone) and her mother charm their way into the heart of a rich matriarch wishing to make contact with her late husband. When a lifelong friend of Crawford offers an opportunity to debunk her talent, Crawford is eager to expose her as a fraud.

At first glance, Magic in the Moonlight is so easy to fall in love with. Crawford's dalliance and stern refusal of optimism or any suspension of disbelief is palpable. He makes us convinced there is always a master pulling the puppet strings of life. Baker's charm and magnetism allow us and Crawford to fall head over heels for her powers while simultaneously guessing if she is for real. Portrayed by Firth and Stone, they deliver a blossoming friendship that challenges each other's beliefs and grows into something more.

Their character's relationship is so much like the process of film-making and what a movie needs to be believable. Like the magician who rehearses his tricks to perfection, the director must successfully emote what is on the page into a production that is believable and successful. It takes a fair bit of open-mindedness on the audience to accept the invitation to fully escape from their own lives and follow the story that lies ahead. The exceptional cast, whimsical production, dreamy setting of 1930s France, and drool-worthy costumes makes it hard not to swoon.

Director Woody Allen's earlier work centered on relationships & life in Manhattan is a favorite among film fans more than his recent movies - though I'm not so conflicted about his study of love, lies, nostalgia, and deception by dipping into the past and jaunting to dreamy European destinations. From his recent filmography of the past few years, Midnight in Paris is one of my favorites of all time. Whimsical, light-hearted, and wonderfully cathartic, the cast and production weave a story about a Hollywood writer who escapes the present moment by indulging into the 1920s. Bringing back his love of France, history, and the idea of rationality versus fantasy, Magic in the Moonlight could've been a repeat successful story if it didn't seem so rushed.

Even though the effort of production and the intention of fantasy must condense together smoothly to pull off, the work behind the magic becomes more obvious than it should.  As believable as Firth is as the ultimate skeptic turned believer, at times he looks lost in terms of fitting into a scene. Stone becomes the more majestic presence turning in an intoxicating and charming performance. Primarily, Crawford's defiance of seeing is knowing, and vice versa gradually loses its luster towards the third act, where the script drags itself to the finish line rather than leaving us on an ethereal note.

On the note of the age difference between Firth and Stone, and the possibility of a brewing romance between them, there isn't anything to write home about. Their chemistry is light-hearted and doesn't detract from the story. What undermines the movie moreso than the debate of the leading stars' ages is how their relationship loses its ease; sometimes it feels like Crawford is talking himself into a relationship rather than letting his feelings form naturally. This is not the prized way - at least in my eyes - of winning any woman's affection. But, this is a Hollywood fantasy after all.

The questions that kept presenting itself to me though was: does a movie have to blow our socks off in order to be considered worth our time? Can we like something that is imperfect, and not brilliant, and not consider it a guilty pleasure, but just a movie with faults that we still like?  Reason versus love is how I'd describe my affair with Magic in the Moonlight. I felt I should dislike this movie because other reviewers did, even with agreed acknowledgement of its pros and cons. With the awareness of knowing the movie's shortcomings, I wondered in the grand scheme of how we bloggers rate films, if it was still okay to like something that isn't mind-blowing, and sorta rested on simple, brief examinations of two character's beliefs that didn't try to wow us with epiphanies or emotional catharsis.

Allen's latest film is not perfect. Its third act and script could have used polishing. What is redeeming about the movie is that the stars are worth their weight in gold. Firth pushes us to believe the universe and its grandeur is a menacing machine of hard work and tears, while Stone enchants us to dip our feet into the unknown. Even if somewhere along the way, the idea of the story falls a bit short, it's enjoyable for the most parts. Magic in the Moonlight could've used a bigger leap of faith into the unknown instead of clinging to the cliffs of logic.

Rating: ★★☆
Have you seen Magic in the Moonlight? What did you think?

Nightcrawler (2014)

Photo Credit: Nightcrawler / Open Road Films

Blood sells in the world of the evening news, and at the foothills of Los Angeles, the sharks come out at night. Known as stringers or nightcrawlers, are videogoers; men and women who chase tragedy and package their footage of roadside crashes and neighborhood crimes to television stations.

One shark hungry for the entrepreneurial life is Louis Bloom (Jake Gyllenhaal), a desperate but ambitious young man who finds his calling in the supply and demand of voyeurism and violence. From thief to cameraman, Bloom studiously climbs his way up the ladder of a local station selling footage he captures of car accidents and jackings and robberies. Eventually a triple-homicide is a make-or-break venture that threatens to his video gathering production out of the water.

But Bloom isn't like other cutthroat videogoers converting tragedy into dollar-sign motivated adrenaline rushes. He's a shell of a person cashing in on bloodshed like a normal person orders a cup of coffee at Starbucks. Nothing startles him. His hand is always steady on the cam ready to cash in on the next tragedy and his mind is already onto the next crime scene. Nobody gets in the way of his brass ring.

With the rise of technology and how it permeates our lives to create fame monsters, out of nothing (the Kardashians) to stealing (The Bling Ring crew), is vastly becoming a favorite subject in film. Even with the gadgets used in the movie are a bit dated, it serves to entrap us into ravenous quest of what's sellable in evening news. Like it's predecessors that question how we approach the separation of what is being created in social media, on the news, and entertainment industry, Nightcrawler takes us on a real high-stakes job of feeding what society craves for - if it bleeds, it leads.

Produced by longtime writer, and now first-feature film director, Dan Gilroy doesn't as much impose a heavy-handed question of what type of world creates a person like Lou. Instead it presents a person like Lou who is moralistically removed from his job to chase what the news or entertainment world is asking of, what he's more than willing to fulfill, and the bargaining chips he systematically puts into place to keep the upper-hand on the streets and in business. The movie asks where the line is drawn in pursuit of ratings and media clips or stories we can't turn away from.

As a ghoulish and gaunt protagonist, Bloom is one of the scariest sweet-talkers of cinema; a parrot reciting entrepreneurial mantras with chilling and enigmatic persuasion. By day, he waters his plants and merely waits for the sun to set. Then he comes alive speeding through the sprawling city streets and freeways to be the first at a crime scene. Void of empathy, he who reels and deals in mayhem and is always hungry for taking more.

A performance like this may usually be considered as a cliche sociopath stereotype we can spot from a mile away, but Gyllenhaal doesn't give a typical performance. Instead it's the refreshing praise-worthy work of an actor who gives enough to display his range without going overboard and seeing the methodology of his performance. Over the past few years, the ever-changing actor has been consistently changing his role choices, and this time around he seems to slip into Bloom so easily, it's hard to recognize the actor of long ago.

Nightcrawler is the type of movie where it's easy to get carried away on the idea of its plot or a singular performance, and wonder if it's really the film you're excited about. Gilroy's flick is dramatic, action-packed, and refreshing. Nearly flawless in its performance by Gyllenhaal and his co-stars, the films' social commentary on the complicit nature of sensationalizing humanity's barbaric side subtly hooks you. From car chases to winded monologues, and Bloom's double-sided nature, we are taken on a gripping thrill ride and are also reminded of that gruesome cultural exploitation we all participate in.

Rating: ★★★

Have you seen Nightcrawler? What did you think?

Brilliant Acting Defined by One Look

Brittany at Rambling Film shared a great idea of Brilliant Acting Defined by One Look. Upon reading her awesome list, I was immediately excited to comb my favorite expressions that are unforgettable.

Sometimes during award show season it's easy to get caught up in the loudest performances; comedic actors who prove they are capable of being dramatic, actors who physically transform to the point of being unrecognizable, and life-changing themes that strike everyone's heartstrings. The most natural and memorable moments on film sometimes occur the most strongly when looks speak louder than words. I'm sure there are plenty more choices I could've added but I left this list at a solid ten picks. I hope you enjoy (thank you Brittany)!

Lucille Ball - I Love Lucy

Uh oh, Lucy is up to no good again. All Lucille Ball had to do was give a glimpse at her husband Ricky, or friends Ethel and Fred, for us to know she was up to something. This crazy redhead was able to distort her face into so many wildly comedic and expressive looks. I don't think there's another comedienne who'll live up to the same amount of physical comedy.

My Life (So Far) As Illustrated by Movie Characters

photograph by Alexei Izmaylov
Today is my birthday; I turned twenty-five. To be honest, my mind was entirely blank about how to commemorate the day on this blog.

Celebrating my birthday isn't really my thing, but as a person who is always reflecting on something, it's a great opportunity to focus on how events, people, time, and especially movies, change perspectives or made me grow. In the birthday post last year, my stroll down memory lane was about films thatshaped my movie-watching experiences so far.

Interstellar (2014)

Photo Credit: Interstellar / Paramount Pictures

On a futuristic Earth, our planet is slowly dying. Humankind is staving off extinction from starvation and suffocation; the crops have failed and dust bowls sweep through the last remains of working farms. A brilliant scientist Dr. Brand (Michael Caine) and his daughter Amelia (Anne Hathaway) are convinced their last chance of survival is to explore of a wormhole discovered near Saturn's galaxy and its possible habitable planets.

Former Air Force pilot and engineer Cooper (Matthew McConaughey) is recruited by a secretly-funded NASA to pilot one last mission. Sacrificing himself to secure Earth's future has one deeply personal drawback. His children's generation will be the last to survive and chances are Cooper may never return; his choice gashes the relationship with his young daughter Murphy (Mackenzie Foy).

Director Christopher Nolan's work spurs you to watch his cerebral plots unfold over and over again. Memento teases its backward storytelling. Inception plunges into reality versus dreams, and dreams within dreams. The complexity of Interstellar's zeal is to depict Eistein's theory of relative time and space as well as the enormous conflicts of man's capabilities for exploration and love. Nolan's ambitious worlds can sometimes work against itself since his complex stories can polarize movie goers. With Interstellar, his imagination invigorates us but can also work against itself.

Under the hubbub and central plot of astrophysics, multiple dimensions, and wormholes, Interstellar works its magic by splitting the story of theories on chalkboards versus what we feel intuitively. It challenges the balance to accepting both sides of the equation. Applications can be reworked around a finite amount of equations and outcomes but humanity is more complex.

Cooper doesn't necessarily belong on Earth but he will go above and beyond what is necessary to save his family and millions of others. He embodies not only the pioneer in each of us who wants to travel the stars but also the bygone American era of discovery. His children are growing up in an entirely different era than one of his own. College is a pipe dream, and though his children are intelligent, their best chances of a future is to be a farmer just like him. Cooper's journey is about his long-gone dreams of exploration being fulfilled as much as it is about the ones who are left behind during his voyage.

Portrayed by Matthew McConnaughey, and his daughter by Mackenzie Foy, their relationship creates the greatest emotional momentum. McConaughey recently revived his career over the past few years and earned an Oscar for Dallas Buyers Club; his career continues to soar in a leading performance that is sincere and heartbreaking, even for a complex blockbuster that puts our minds to work. Cooper's daughters played by Mackenzie Foy and Jessica Chastain is equally moving as the daddy's girl who is left behind - in what they believe - to die and coming to terms with their father's absence.

In an equal parallel relationship, Amelia Brand leaves her elderly father behind in order to carry out NASA's mission. Played splendidly by another recent Oscar winner Anne Hathaway, her relationship to Cooper acts almost as the one Cooper would've had with his daughter. Both Cooper and Brand's emotional vulnerabilities cloud the theories and options in securing mankind's futures.

Love which is intrinsically quantifiable is tested against the perimeters of their voyage. As theories and data are swallowed up and dissected for best possible outcomes, not only does the universe spar against their mission but other characters too. One actor in particular (I won't spoil here) was especially surprising and creates a heart-pounding antagonist to Cooper and Co's nearly impossible quest. Obstacles - simply put, invade all dimensions.

What proves to be a bit of an obstacle in the film's production is the complexity of the script and their mission. Both Christopher, and his brother Johnathan Nolan studied under physics expert Kip Thorne to needle out the details of what a wormhole would be like on film and how to depict accurately with special effects. Visually what's created is nothing short of adventurous, beautiful awe. However, the laws of space, time, and physics can be confusing to follow - most specifically in the third act.

In comparison to Nolan's other films like Inception or The Prestige there is enough provided via dialogue for example that you can pinpoint where the story is going and how it ends up with a mind-bending conclusion. Interstellar requires more suspension of disbelief. If you are not familiar with astrophysics, the story and narrative can hit some bumpy roads. It can be hard to keep track of the technology, time lapses, space lapses, planet locations, wormholes versus black holes, and overall worldbuilding.

The ability to turn off your brain though and watch the tangled complex trek the characters take is also a big part of the ride to enjoy; the complicated scientific nature of the film is what wondrously sweeps you off your feet and blasts you out of your life and into another cinematic sphere. Even if the science isn't fully comprehensible on its first viewing, Interstellar leaves you wanting more. As the director always manages to do, I was left feeling a little obsessed with my confusion, in love with his ideas, and hypnotized by the film's beautiful ambition.

Hypnotized might be the best word to describe what quickly became one of my favorite movies of the year. Composer, Hans Zimmer described the process of his tantalizing score as one that was as personal to Nolan's process as the director. Throughout the movie, similar to Alfonso Cuaron's Gravity, the sound of silence and orchestra deepens the mood of nostalgia and the rapturous quest.

Unlike Nolan's previous work, it's hard to categorize his very personal film under one umbrella; a fallen previously high-tech society drama dealing with family dynamics and survival. Drawing intense inspiration from 2001: A Space Odyssey, it serves as a reminder of what good science fiction in film can be. Coop's relationship to his daughter is a soul-touching love story between father and daughter. Humankind's plunge to save each other, our passion, dedication to self-preservation, and devotion to loved ones throughout dimension serves as inspiration for how far mankind has gone and can go.

Nolan's films don't require people to not necessarily read between every single line but also slowly builds a mosaic of layers that by film's end it's wondrous how it all came together - even if it needs another viewing to piece it all together. Similar to Gravity, I walked out of the movie theatre grateful for my feet sticking to Earth's surface. Exiting out of Interstellar, I looked at the stars and was grateful for mankind's ambition to be one with them. I couldn't help but wonder what's next? It's all relative.

Rating: ★★☆
Have you seen Interstellar? What did you think?

Fairytale Blogathon: Meet the Charmings

Over the summer Fritzi Kramer at Movies Silently invited bloggers to partake in a Fairytale Blogathon. As a big fan of so many adventures about true love overcoming all, I couldn't wait to cover one of my favorite princess/prince relationships: The Charmings from Once Upon A Time.

When this show premiered in 2011, millions of home viewers instantly fell in love with the fairytale-centered story split between a fantasy world and a small town in Maine called Storybrooke. From the creators of Lost came a new show starring popular and favorite fairytale characters stuck in a new dimension of the real world unable to remember who they were.

Two of the main characters that caught my attention from the beginning were the Charmings - more commonly known as Snow White and Prince Charming. The show has explored the many dreamy, romantic ways some princes and princesses have met (Cinderella/Phillip, Ariel and Eric, etc) and spun their legends into charming storylines of adventure, sacrifice, and romance. Though Once Upon A Time is a Disney production, the story of Prince Charming and Snow White's relationship isn't the Walt Disney animated version most of us grew up with.

Over the span of the first season Snow White and Prince Charming meet, fall in love, (have a young daughter who they sacrifice from an evil curse), lose, and find each other. To not dive into the entire series of complicated storylines, we're going to focus more on the main similarities between the animated film and the television show, and why the latter is vastly more interesting.

FanCasting: The Birds Remake

{ source }

Hollywood has been circulating a remake of director Alfred Hitchcock's The Birds for more than ten years. Every time a director and a writer commit to the overhaul, the project inevitably falls apart. It's seen its fair share of possible leading stars like Nicole Kidman, George Clooney, and Naomi Watts, hinting that it would be a retelling of his specific version rather than a take on the actual novel.

Being a big fan of not only the original film but also Daphne DuMaurier's short story, I finally felt it was time to let go of how I've always imagined the original source material translating to the big screen.

The original 1963 film was a cinematic introduction to model Tippi Hedren as Melanie Daniels, a complicated socialite who meets a charismatic lawyer Mitch Brenner (Rod Taylor) in a pet shop. Traveling to his hometown island Bodega Bay, she aims to surprise his younger sister with a pair of love birds. During her trip, flocks of birds attack the residents where she, with the Brenner family, are striving to survive in their home.

With the realistic special effects of using real birds and captured footage, Hitchcock's version doesn't variate drastically except in characters and story. As a leader of killer plots, he translated the book with an original vision in mind - one that holds up decades later. Even with The Birds as one of my favorite films, the drama veers towards melodrama in portraying the attack of the birds and the aftermath they leave behind.

{ x and x }

Mixing romance, suspense, and feathery gore, the movie is drastically different from DuMaurier's story. Shortly after the end of World War II, Nat Hocken (Joaquin Phoenix) is a disabled war veteran residing in a small Cornwall seaside town with his family (wife played by Rebecca Hall). Due to a sudden change of climate from fall to winter, thousands of birds attack the coast. Over the course of several days, Hocken tries to protect his wife and children in their small cottage as the birds invade their home and the neighboring farms.

A good three-fourths of DuMaurier's story is far more claustrophobic than what Hitchcock showcases in his version. When I first read the book I often imagined it as a gruesome play that has yet to be taken advantage of by theatre companies. The house can be easily situated on stage with backdrops used to show the road, nearby meadows, and farms. It's difficult for me to pin on who I would like to see direct a remake since most modern suspense movies lean towards blockbuster horrors. Having liked the direction of The Awakening by Nick Murphy, the slow-suspenseful ambiance he brought to that 2011 movie would serve well here too.

{ source and source }

Since the story is set and written in 1952, I wander when a future remake will be set and what special-effects will be used. Like the Brenner family, the Hocken clan is cut off from the outside world. While the former are residing in Bodega Bay, California, the latter is in a small seaside Cornish town. Birds brutally attack neighbors and invade the family's home from the attic and children's bedrooms. Since Hocken is the main character we only glean from his assumptions about the birds that they are not co-existing well with gathering food and are heading inland; but it's the violent attacks over people and homes that makes the suspense worthwhile. It's like slowly waiting for another war to go off, except we're facing birds and we have no real defense against them. The ending itself leaves us questioning if they or anyone survives.

As a novel it provides far more scientific information as to why the birds attack (it mostly has to do with the ebb and flow of the ocean, tides, and the moon). This may not interest many movie goers but I find the added information gives a whole new meaning to nature as a threat to humanity. We're so under the guise of living our lives routinely and that we have the environment under control, we forget how easy we can be picked off the top of the food chain - even if it's just by a few birds.