"Only the Young" - 2012

"Only the Young" - An Honest Look at Growing Up

     I won tickets to Only the Young and was excited to see it because I had heard very good things about it. People were saying it was the most honest depiction of teen angst since the films of John Hughes. I am a big John Hughes fan, so I had high expectations going into this movie. At first, these expectations were not lived up to, but I gave myself a few days to think about it without the preconceived notions I had. What came through those days was a film that is definitely a fine coming of age movie.

    This film is a documentary, which I had not mentioned. Throughout the film I kept forgetting it was a documentary though, because the structure and the cinematography were very much like a narrative film. There were many times where I found myself thinking "Whoa! That shot is awesome." Or "How did they get that?!" The documentarians must have been everywhere at once, considering all the possible angles they could tell the story from, because the coverage of the scenes in this movie is AWESOME. (I'll attach a trailer at the end of this review so you can see a sample of some of what I'm talking about.) I can't praise the style and beautiful imagery in this film enough. There is a misconception that documentaries aren't visually striking and I'm so glad that documentarians these days are challenging that. 

     The film is set in California where we meet Skye, Garrison, and Kevin. Kevin and Garrison are best friends, and skateboarders. They are active members in their church and even are apart of a youth ministry targeted towards skaters. Skye and Garrison do date for a while, but later just become friends. The relationships of the three change and evolve over time and we also get to see their relationships with others. We get to see iconic moments in teenage life; like getting your first car and how it changes everything, first dates, special memories and trips with friends, and even graduation. The teens also find themselves in situations way beyond their years, especially Skye.

     So, I do have some complaints. I felt that some of the more poignant moments in the film were sort of shied away from. There were moments where we caught real insight into the lives of these kids and the troubles they were experiencing, but the filmmakers let it go too soon. I'm not saying they have to beat us over the head with it, just hold on it a second or two longer! I want to have a satisfying look at the real intimacy they had with their subjects (which can only come from spending an extended amount of time with them). Not all touching moments were like this, just in the first half of the movie it seemed. 

     Also, the ending left too many questions unanswered. I want to know more about what happens to the kids!!! I know in real life, you never know what is going to happen next, and I think it was a conscious choice on the filmmakers part to leave it open-ended, but I became so involved with the three teens that I wanted to know everything. I guess that is just the maternal-ness in me. I want to know what happens to my kids as they spread their wings. (wow, that was cheesy)

     Overall, I did enjoy this movie and think it deals very honestly with teens, showing them as people with real problems, and also with problems that seem big to them at that moment, but that will probably not be as big of a deal in the future. The film never condescends or treats the characters with disrespect. That is the thing I think I like most about the film. My rating for this film: 6/10. I enjoyed it, but I don't think I would see it again. I'm glad I saw it, and would lightly recommend it to others if they are in the mood for a heart-warmy teen documentary.

That is all.

P.S.  THE TRAILER AS PROMISED.

"Hitchcock" - 2012

"Hitchcock" - A Look into the Mind of the 'Master of Suspense'

     I saw the trailer for "Hitchcock" when I went to see "Anna Karenina" and knew it would definitely be the next movie I saw. See, I have a history with Alfred Hitchcock. In my Freshman year of high school, my Communication Arts teacher, who would become my Cinema Studies teacher, would always show one after another of Hitchcock's movies going on and on about different ways in which he revolutionized filmmaking in his time. I only came to know later that she didn't particularly like Hitchcock's movies, but found them great teaching tools for young filmmakers. I personally always have mixed feelings about his works, but know how much they mean to the art of filmmaking. He definitely had his own style, and saw things in his own way.

     Enough about the man, let's get to the movie. The movie follows Alfred Hitchcock, played by Anthony Hopkins, and his wife Alma (Helen Mirren) during the time in which Alfred picks up the idea of "Psycho" for his next picture. No one wants anything to do with the idea, but that doesn't stop Hitchcock. Over the course of the movie we see a sense of determination that borders on blind and foolish stubbornness coming from him, most of the time only reaching a resolution because Alma steps in to help. The picture gets made though, no spoiler there, and goes on to be the film that he is most famous for.

     The plot of Hitchcock's attempts to get "Psycho" produced starts out a major player in the film, but devolves into a subplot as the film continues. The main focus of the movie is on Alfred and his wife Alma. Their relationship can be seen as  one of the "behind every great man is an even greater woman" types, but the movie doesn't leave it at that, for that would be too superficial. Both partners in the relationship are very complex and have their own neuroses, perversions, etc. The point is that they are  both flawed and can be found guilty of wandering thoughts of trysts, but both characters seem redeemable in a way, probably just because of the splendid acting of Hopkins and Mirren. You feel a genuine attachment between them and an affection that can only come from being together for 30 years through the wiles of Hollywood. 

     The film is mostly about the relationships one has with the people around them. This point is made in the Norman Bates character and his relationship with his mother, Alfred's search for the mysterious "Hitchcock Blonde" that will be the answer to his fantasies, and Alma's need for a relationship in which her creative efforts will be acknowledged and appreciated. Their is so much substance in the psychological goings-on between partners in relationships in this film that it is hard to put it all down in a review.

     All the acting was superb. Scarlett Johannson was a gem. I mean, I always love her but in this she was just so elegant and likable. She radiated light and poise. Anthony Hopkins made a total departure from what I have seen him as before, and completely immerses himself into a struggling Alfred Hitchcock who sympathizes with Ed Gein (the famous serial killer who the book "Psycho" was based on). I mean, he is still kinda crazy, but more relatable than in Silence of the Lambs. Helen Mirren is so cute. I want to be her when I'm older. She just seemed to have it all figured out (in the beginning) and was the boulder that supported Hitchcock. Jessica Beil is also in this, and usually she annoys me, but in this she didn't too much.
     The costumes and cars were great. I'm a sucker for anything in the 1950's-1960's. The camera work was good. Nothing crazy or sweeping like in "Anna Karenina", but good nonetheless. It was shot on a Red Epic, so the picture quality is very pretty. All the shots in the pool at the Hitchcock home are wonderful.

     Overall, this film provides a great look into married life, and shows that even when you love somebody there are times when you will wonder if the grass is truly greener on the other side. I thoroughly enjoyed this movie; laughed loudly at some parts, and was extremely touched at others. It was the perfect balance of comedy and real life drama. Plus all the movie making stuff for Psycho was a fun element. I seriously recommend it. 8/10.

Post Script. After the movie I even went and bought the V magazine issue where Scarlett Johannson is featured because of her role as Janet Leigh in "Hitchcock". The article was decent, but I mostly bought it for the cover. Look at it! It's a great photo.

That is all.

"Silver Linings Playbook" - 2012

"Silver Linings Playbook": A refreshingly not-so-romantic romantic comedy

     Initially, I wasn't that excited to see Silver Linings Playbook. I had seen the trailers on T.V. and thought it was just going to be another romantic comedy starring Bradley Cooper as the frustrated single guy with no real character objective. I went with friends though, and I tried to keep my mind open.

     What resulted was a refreshing movie that left me laughing, happy and wanting to see it again. The story is more coming-of-age than romantic comedy. The love-interest of Jennifer Lawrence to Bradley Cooper doesn't really come into play until probably 2/3rds or 3/4ths into the movie. The trailers make it seem like this is the plot all along, but in reality we see Bradley Cooper working on himself, his goals and his relationships with others.

     Bradley Cooper's character Patrick just got out of rehab for his anger management problems. His overriding goal is to get his wife back. He encounters many obstacles, including his wife's annoying friend and her "crazy" sister. The "crazy" sister, Tiffany, is played by Jennifer Lawrence who has a complete disregard for all opinions held about her. Patrick and Tiffany find common ground in their life problems, past drug prescriptions, void marriages and the fact that everyone else thinks they are unstable.

     The characters in this movie are very strong, likable and funny. Robert De Niro as Patrick's father who is insanely superstitious and runs a gambling operation for Philadelphia Eagle's games is definitely a treat. 

     The setting is in Philadelphia and suburban areas around it, which was really nice for me to see since I am from around that area originally. The general depiction of Philadelphia and its sports fan are pretty spot on, showing how crazy and into their sports teams they are.

     The way the movie is made isn't really anything to talk about. It is good, simple, there is one shot where they really should of used a steadicam because you can see the camera move up and down with the camera operator's footsteps. Other than that it is fine.

     The way the romance in this movie is introduced is very subtle and you aren't even sure it is going to work. But, it definitely finds roots towards the end after the climax. I think that is why I liked this movie a lot. It didn't shove romantic ideals down your throat, it shows how love can come about between normal people who both have problems they are working through and how friendship can be the perfect starting point for a relationship. 

     The romance is more of a subplot to Bradley Cooper's self-realization, showing that only once you figure yourself out can you be in a solid relationship with someone else, and sometimes the people you need may be just as "crazy" as you are.

Overall, I would totally see this movie again, even buy it for my personal library. I didn't want to give away too much in his review because I want you to go see it! There are tons of great moments that will make you laugh or touch you. I give this movie a 7/10.

That is all.

"Anna Karenina" - 2012

"Anna Karenina": A Movie of Great Moustaches.

     Okay, there is more to this movie than the facial hair of its leading men, even though most of it is quite impressive. 

     The movie is beautiful and interesting in its construction, the whole film taking place on a stage in a theater where the only spectators are us, the viewers. The rapid moving of set walls, screens and backdrops transform rooms that were just a few seconds ago bedrooms into offices, restaurants, and ball rooms. The ability to create new locations out of nothing is startling at first and lends a great deal to a sense of artifice. The performances at the beginning almost seem campy or over-dramatic, as if the actors are performing to a large crowd on the stage we see them on. The motions of the actors even are a little dance-y, seeming choreographed and cute. A scene in Anna's brother's office with his workers has them stamping paperwork to a steady beat.

     As time goes on though, we become acclimated to this inventive new environment and see the world the characters are seeing. The performances become more contained and realistic, and the ever moving world on the stage lends a great sense of motion and fluidity to the story. But as the movie continues, we break free from the stage and are out in the real world, only to come back to the stage in other scenes. The intertwining scenes in grandiose landscapes and in the composed sets in the theater give a clear view that what is happening on the stage in the glow of the oil lamps is what is being seen and judged by society, what is being witnessed on the "public stage" if you will, and what is outside of the theater is safe from the prying eyes of the aristocracy. (SPOILER ALERT) This can be evidenced by the fact that when Anna and her lover, Count Vronsky, first have their romantic interactions they break free of the stage and are on their own, such as in the Count's bedroom or in the field, but when their relationship becomes known to others in society they are seen on the stage. (END SPOILER ALERT)

     This review is mostly about the symbolism, hard work and ingenuity that went into this movie. It is beautiful, and interesting and makes me think over it again and again. But, it was lacking. Towards the end, the story got a little lagging and I found myself wondering when it would be over. My friends I saw it with said they didn't like Anna's character and found her annoying, but I don't feel the same. She was motivated by feelings she had never experienced before for another human being (everyone knows the intensity of first love) and her overwhelming desire for happiness in her life. Yeah, she got kind of whiney, but hey she had gone through a lot by that point and was being crushed by societal expectations day and night, SO MUCH SO that she couldn't even sleep. We can be unsympathetic nowadays to a character of her kind because we don't know what situations would be like for a woman back then unless we actually went back in time.

     Given all that, Keira Knightley was stunning, but felt a little cold at points, making my mind identify with her character, but not my heart. Everyone else's performances were pretty solid though.

     The story was decent. It was a good movie, just not my fave. Overall, I would give this movie a 5/10. I wouldn't say don't go see it, because I would recommend seeing it just for how gorgeous everything looks (including the actors), but don't have sweeping expectations. I have no clue how close it is to the book, for I have never read it. It isn't a very happy movie, so be warned if you think you are going to see a romantic comedy.

That is all.