Carrie: Just Like the Old Carrie. Except Now.

Lots of Hollywood classics are getting reboots these days. But when you see a movie like Carrie, you're going to start asking yourself, "Why?" I went and saw Carrie the other night with my mom and found myself asking that very question.

Carrie, as most of you well know, is a story about a young girl bullied in high school. But this ain't your average nerd. Carrie (played in this version by Chloe Grace Moretz) has psychic powers and can make things move with her mind. She is raised by a single mother (played by Julianne Moore) who is insanely (pun intended) religious and mentally abusive. After a bullying incident turns into a revenge-fest for one evil-minded girl, Carrie absolutely snaps. But this isn't a girl who is about to cry over spilled pig's blood. Carrie then seeks revenge on the entire school's prom.

And it's scary.

Scary Carrie.

With this remake, I'm not quite sure what they were trying to accomplish. Maybe they thought that the 2002 remake was totally awful (which it was) and that the 1999 sequel The Rage: Carrie 2 was really stupid (again accurate), so they took it upon themselves to make a better remake. But though the movie wasn't bad, it wasn't as good as the original. I will never understand why some studios think "Hey! Let's revamp this one! Cuz I'm out of ideas!" 

"Heck I dunno!"

While this remake of the original Carrie is interesting in that it's modernized, it doesn't really bring much new to the table. They amp up the effects and hone in a little more on Carrie's relationship with her mother (as well as making some strange commentary on pregnancy and babies), but the movie stays a little stagnant. It seems to get so caught up in paying homage to the original that it forgets to build on it. Chris is turned from a regular bully into an entitled rich bitch, Carrie from a weakling into a girl testing her powers, and the mother from a bit of a joke to a woman with serious mental problems. But though these characters are magnified, the general reaction just boils down to, "Huh. That's interesting."

So uh...guess you're gonna go kill everyone at

prom now, huh?

Another thing I wasn't thrilled about was their choice of Chloe Grace Moretz for the role of Carrie. As someone in my office put it earlier, "She's not Carrie, she's Hit Girl!" Moretz is hard to see as the wallflower Carrie, though I honestly tried to give her the benefit of the doubt in the beginning. Although she plays the role with less passivity than the original Carrie (using and practicing her powers in her own home and against her mother), she lacks the believability of someone that's really been kicked around. And really, if I may be completely honest, her looks harken more to the popular girl that we see in Kick-Ass 2 than Sissy Spacek's original Carrie.

Doesn't exactly scream loser.

The one thing that I did find interesting about Moretz's Carrie is that she's totally conscious of everything that she's doing throughout the entire movie. While Spacek's Carrie massacres her prom unconsciously, almost like she's in a trance, Moretz's Carrie takes visible joy in manipulating those that have before hurt her. Could be a comment on the way current bullies handle being pushed over the edge...

Long story short, it's too same to be different and it's too different to be same. Carrie doesn't bring much to the table that you can't get from the first one, but the effects are neat and it'll probably appeal to a younger audience.

5 outa 10. Eh. Not bad. Not awesome.

Gravity: Is Wooorkiiin' Against Meee--Wait, Wrong Gravity...

Just for the record, the John Mayer song was stuck in my head for days after seeing this one. But, long story short, this was pretty deserving of all the hype it's been getting, especially for a Hollywood movie.

Remember the good ole days of disaster flicks in the late 90s? Volcano, Titanic, Deep Impact, Dante's Peak. So many choices! But they've kind of gone out of style in the past couple of years.

UNTIL NOW.

(God, doesn't this poster give you acute anxiety?)

Gravity is the perfect opportunity to bring them back. Instead of natural disaster (which may be a little bit too close to home after the extreme environmental crises of the past couple of years), this one takes place in space. Instead of volcanos and super storms, the initial accident that spurs the action of the movie is a missile launch gone awry. Hitting a huge satellite, the lack of GRAVITY (heh) sends a chain reaction through the world's many satellites, creating a technological tidal wave of sorts. The unfortunate victims of this chain of events are Dr. Ryan Stone (Sandra Bullock) and Matt Kowalski (George Clooney).  Dr. Stone goes careening into space after the satellite shards hit their ship and the rest of the film follows her (and Kowalski) trying to find a way back to a safe spaceship/station.

And if you let go, you're doomed. No pressure.

The cool thing about this movie is how well it's set up. I know some people may be turned off from watching this film because of the small cast (I mean, you really only are exposed to Ryan Stone and Matt Kowalski). But that is what makes the movie so incredibly captivating. Instead of watching Houston trying to bring them back down or intercuts between space and Earth, they fix the camera on the two main characters and don't leave the realm of space for nearly the entire movie. And because of their interactions and isolation, you end up really bonding with their characters in a way that wouldn't work if the cast was bigger.

Bff.

This movie also had some intense suspense. Watching this after seeing All Is Lost was really interesting because, despite their being a similar plot, Gravity really pumps up the drama. The relationships are stronger, there is a more dynamic denouement, and (to put it bluntly) the accidents are bigger. The vast openness of space creates a terrifying landscape in which all of these accidents happen. And the need for them to be as resourceful as ever is absolutely paramount.

Very, very well done, Hollywood. My hopes were not high but you proved me wrong. Good job.

8.5 outa 10. I liked that Dr. Ryan Stone talks to herself (and to Houston, who is offline) when she's alone as well. Keeps the movie from getting too boring.

Nebraska: A Midwestern Tale

There are plenty of movies (and plays and books and real-life examples) out there to constantly remind us that dysfunctional families aren't exactly uncommon. But Nebraska takes a close look at one of these such families and makes the statement that although some families definitely have their problems they can still all love each other regardless.

Nebraska opens with an old man walking down a busy interstate at a slow and steady pace. He's then picked up by a police officer and taken in where he is picked up by his son, David. Apparently the old man, named Woody (played by Bruce Dern), was trying to walk to Lincoln, Nebraska to cash in a winning million dollar prize that he received in the mail. Only the letter is spam. But even after listening to his son and his wife trying to tell him that he's crazy, they keep finding him wandering off towards the highway. David then decides, what the hey, why not just drive his dad to Lincoln and get the whole thing over with. The rest of the movie follows them as they slowly make their way to Lincoln, stopping in Woody's old hometown, where they learn about the value of money, old grudges, and family ties.

Ole buddies

(OR ARE THEY?)

Movies like this take me a while to chew on. I know it's a little childish, but I usually have an aversion to anything that takes place in the Midwest. While the bleakness of the landscape and the rough, introverted nature of the people is perfectly executed through the black and white film (and really, it's made pretty stunning through this stark contrast), there's something scary to me about miles and miles of nothing but plains. I really just can't imagine living in a place like that.

I mean woof.

That being said, the landscape almost defines all of the characters. In a land where nothing happens, what could be more exciting than someone you know winning $1,000,000? This proves reason enough for family members and old friends to try and strong-arm the silent old ex-drunk into lending them money (that he doesn't have!).

Good thing his kid's there to try and set them straight!
(Even though it largely doesn't work...)

Despite the movie's bleak themes and emptiness, the incredible actors really pull it together. A family dynamic that makes you cringe (and chuckle) in the beginning, makes you smile towards the end. Director Payne and the three main leads all commented during the press conference the comfortability that they had with each other during filming, and it definitely show's in their on-screen relationships. The son, David (played by Will Forte) is so sweet and patient, balancing his gruff of a father, and the mother (played by June Squibb) is the hilarious shrew that ends up giving the movie a dynamic that it wouldn't have without her.

Pretty lively for her age

7 outa 10. Really ends up being a gorgeous movie in its own way, and full of tongue-in-cheek laughs about the Midwest.

(Also see if you can spot Buzz from Home Alone in this trailer.)

Only Lovers Left Alive: Not Your Average Vampires

I didn't really know anything about this screening going in. I knew it was about vampires and it looked like a moody sort of drama from the pictures I had seen of it. But I wasn't expecting this film to be such a treat! Very interesting look at human nature through the eyes of people that have lived for hundreds of years.

The film is a romance about two vampires, one named Adam, one named Eve (haha), whose relationship has spanned centuries. Taking place in two completely different cities (Tangiers and Detroit), the story follows their relationship with each other as well as the things that happen while Eve visits Adam in Detroit.

As some of you may have noticed, I'm a big fan of the supernatural and horror genres at the moment and I see a lot of scary movies that deal with vampires and similar monsters. But this was a total breath of fresh air. Instead of them being typecast as monsters, like we so often see in popular culture, their characters get to become fully formed through the lens of Adam and Eve's relationship. The whole movie has such a different vibe than any other vampire movie that I can really think of. They aren't battling werewolves for the love of a human being (the worst) and they aren't scary beasts that hunt people in the night either. The movie takes a very practical look at how a vampire romance would work. And in doing so, gives us a look at two vampires who are in fact very human. In the end, the movie really isn't at its essence a supernatural or horror film at all, but a romance.

(Obviously.)

Adam and Eve's chemistry is fantastic. Tilda Swinton and director Jim Jarmusch mentioned that they didn't so much want to focus on the vampire element so much as the fact that that was the vehicle for portraying a centuries-long romance. Their focus was to try and portray what exactly a romance that long would look like, and it very definitely succeeds. Many times in romance movies (especially the supernatural ones, amiright?) there are major passions and dips, but this one achieves authenticity in the comfortability between Adam and Eve. Despite having loved each other for ages (or maybe because of this), they take enjoyment in doing mundane things together like playing chess, going for drives, and talking about old times.

Another thing that I loved about this movie was the humor it takes with its approach to vampirism. Avoiding cheesy jokes about how delicious people are (campy much?), they have intellectual conversations about the many famous and brilliant people that they've known throughout their lives with an off-the-cuff frankness that takes you by surprise. And things that are so often portrayed in horror movies as gruesome are put in laughably commonplace context. Filled with more giggles than I would've expected.

Including John Hurt as Christopher Marlowe

Only Lovers Left Alive also gives an observation of what humans look like from the points of view of two people that have been (consciously or subconsciously) monitoring their actions since the 1500s. At the beginning of the film, Adam expresses frustration with the "zombies" (as they call humans) and their inability to learn from the past. He then rattles off a list of human geniuses that have been either ridiculed or completely misunderstood and destroyed. It's fascinating to get a glimpse of what people of the past would think of us today.

Jarmusch's mise-en-scene* in this is also refreshingly different from the common vampire flick. Adding in his own elements of superstition (they constantly wear gloves and sunglasses when out), he also creates an open set that keeps them from getting bogged down in the gothic elements that so often make vampires seem menacing. On the contrary, the sets in this are very open, if cluttered, and as soon as night falls they roam around freely. Additionally the costumes are designed to look timeless, and the characters frequently add in garments that don't belong to this century at all simply because they're nostalgic. (One character constantly wears a waistcoat that he's had for five hundred years--because he likes it!)

Also, the soundtrack is incredible. A hodgepodge of original music that Adam makes (he's a very accomplished musician), rock, country, Motown, classical, and everything. This soundtrack is going to blow up.

Featured track.

All in all a fascinating and brilliantly made movie. I'd highly recommend to anyone.

9.5 outa 10.

(Also, the trailer's not out yet so this is the only clip I could find of the film. Gonna have to wait a while, guys!)

YAY! NEW TRAILER!

*So! You wanted to learn what mise-en-scene was! Mise-en-scene (meez-awn-senn) is essentially all that makes up the visual of the movie. The sets, the costumes, the music, everything that takes place in the frame. Arguably, it can also include sounds and music choices as well, but that depends on who you're asking. Here's more info on mise-en-scene:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mise_en_sc%C3%A8ne

http://www.cod.edu/people/faculty/pruter/film/15points.htm

http://userpages.umbc.edu/~landon//Local_Information_Files/Mise-en-Scene.htm

The Invisible Woman: No, This Is Not a Superhero Movie

Last night, preceding this film, there was a tribute for Ralph Fiennes (Rafe Fines) as both an actor and as a director. After learning some about his various projects, it was interesting to watch The Invisible Woman with the things he said in perspective. He seems like a very organic actor, who really throws himself into his characters.

(audio from the interview pending)

Following the tribute and interview, we got to see a brand new screening of his movie The Invisible Woman. The film follows Ellen "Nelly" Ternan (Felicity Jones), a married woman who once has a 13-year-long hidden romance with Charles Dickens (Ralph Fiennes). Meeting Dickens as a young actress, she is immediately taken with him, and is already a huge fan of his writing. Dickens seems immediately attracted to her and pursues her after hearing how much she understands of his writing, despite his already being married. The story then focuses in on the politics of having an affair in the mid-1800s and the consequences that this relationship with Dickens has on the rest of Nelly's life.

I'm a little on the fence about this movie. Sometimes hearing the actors' perspective on the work can make it harder to look at it objectively, and in the case of such a great actor as Fiennes, it was really difficult. The tricky thing about this movie doesn't seem to be in the acting but in the script. Both Fiennes and Jones do a fantastic job of being their respective roles, but the problem seems to be in capturing the essence of what their relationship is. While in the beginning of the movie their flirtations are tangible and interesting, as they begin their actual affair, they seem to cool off and get caught up in the ethics of what it is (as will happen, I'm sure). Dickens seems to be so taken by her that his actions towards the public seem a little brash sometimes, but Nelly doesn't seem to approach him with the same love that he shows for her. In fact, whether its her morals with the situation or something else, she seems reluctant to begin the affair at all and only ends up doing so after her mother voices concern that she's not a good enough actress to support herself on the stage.

Welp, when you can't act, guess the only 

option is to enter an affair

Fiennes as Dickens is impossible not to like, and I hope this speaks with accuracy to the man that Dickens really was (certainly more jovial than I ever imagined him). Nelly herself seems well portrayed, a young girl with stars in her eyes and a deep understanding of the humanity that is in Dickens's writing. But as the story moves on, nelly seems to morph from the girl that idolizes Dickens into a woman that has an affair on her hands that she never wanted. There's such a disconnect with his passionate character to this more rigid Nelly that their chemistry seems to suffer as the story goes on. Maybe they were trying to more accurately portray an affair that would happen in this time period, but as a whole the relationship doesn't quite make sense.

"Haha, do you like me, check yes or no."

Additionally, the movie claims to be all about Nelly, but the dutiful mistress that she is during some of the flashbacks seems a far cry from the dreamy young girl she was before and the heartbroken married woman that she becomes. Her heartbreak seems to suggest a could-have-been-soulmates sort of love affair, but the meat of the film seems to offer the contrary. You only really even see them kiss twice. Which could be suggesting the intent of the romance to start off as "proper," but becomes a bit boring.

While the movie as a whole is absolutely gorgeous with beautiful sets and camerawork, and the acting is great, the script just didn't quite carry this one through.

6.5 outa 10.

All Is Lost: Like, Literally. All Everything. Is Lost.

Got to see a press screening of All Is Lost yesterday and frankly I was unimpressed. Not that the movie isn't cinematically pretty or thematically well executed, but...well, let's talk.

Not that this champion among men didn't try. Bless him.

The first scene of the movie we hear a narrator saying something along the lines of "I just wanted to let you know that I tried. I think you know I tried. I'm sorry. All is lost now." We then backtrack to several days beforehand and the shot starts with a crash. Our man (played by Robert Redford) is sailing in the middle of the ocean when his yacht crashes into an abandoned storage container floating in the middle of the sea (we're talking like the size and weight of a dumpster). As the boat begins to take on large amounts of water, we see him do his best to save the ship. He repairs the hole, empties the water from the boat, and continues on. Because of where the water damage occured, though, he is left without a navigation system and without a functioning computer. A day or two later, he gets caught in a super storm that ravages his boat and wrecks his sail. As things get increasingly worse and the movie continues on, the audience is left to wonder whether all is truly lost or whether he will be able to be resourceful enough to get himself out of this horror of a situation.

Okay, flat out, I did not like this one. It is well made, but it doesn't accomplish its goal. The movie is supposed to be a suspense-fest. We watch a seasoned sailor try to survive a wreck happening in what is essentially the middle of nowhere. But, quite honestly, seeing this poor man jump from horrible situation to horrible situation stops becoming incredible about 45 minutes in, and starts becoming fodder for a Wile E. Coyote cartoon complete with everything but an Acme anvil falling from the sky onto his head.

In the same vein as horrific tales of accidents in completely isolated places (like Open Water and Castaway) this movie relies on the horror of the circumstances to carry you through to the end. But there is no character development in this. Redford literally only speaks three words throughout the entire film, which hardly allows us to learn who he really is. And while we're obviously rooting for him to live through the wreck of his ship, it becomes harder and harder to care about what he's going through because there's no dynamic in the situations he's presented with. A regular Bad Luck Brian, he has to go through the original hole in his ship, a storm, going without vital equipment, getting hit with another storm, eventually having to make a decision about whether to leave his boat for his lifeboat or not, and then (you guessed it) another storm.

Perhaps our man is the unfortunate victim of one of Acme's other kits.

The steady stream of unfortunate events becomes less tragic and more (I hate to say this, and I'm horrible) funny. At one point there are sharks and I actually giggled. Like, come on. How much more awful can you get? Even if this is an honest look at what the ocean is really like, at least give me another character and some dialogue, instead of watching these scenes unfold and seeing Redford's face just look like "Shit. Another obstacle on the path to staying alive."

Well shot and (obviously) good acting from Redford, but All Is Lost leaves little suspense in what is supposed to be a nail-biter.

4 outa 10. Comes out on 10/18.

Although, mad props to Redford for doing almost all of his own stunts. What a salty old dog.

Alan Partridge: Under Siege and Lovin' It

Saw Alan Partridge last-minute on Monday and I have to say it's pretty damn funny. The only reason I wanted to see it was because A) I love Steve Coogan (everyone please see Hamlet 2, it's hilarious) and B) I had heard a lot about this character Alan Partridge but had never seen the show so I decided to check it out. Please keep in mind that this review comes from the point of view of someone unfamiliar with the show (which, after talking to a couple other people, may skew my opinion of this film).

Alan Partridge is a radio DJ based in North Norfolk who is as hammy and awkward as they come. When North Norfolk Digital, the radio station for which he works, is conglomerated into Shape (and XM sort of station), they decide that they have to cut back on some of the staff members. After Partridge's meeting with the new superiors goes horribly wrong, he gets to keep his job while his colleague, Pat Farrell is "sacked" (means "fired," ya bunch of dirty Yankees). Going off the deep end, Pat ends up holding the entire studio hostage following the reception party for Shape's new takeover. But while Alan is appointed by the police to be a point of contact, can he stop this "siege" (means "hostage situation," which maybe you knew, but took me a couple minutes to figure out) and will he want to stop it if it means his chance in the national limelight?

Omg...

So, first off, Steve Coogan is just a gem in the land of English humor. Alan Partridge is such a perfect mix of endearingly awkward and trying to take charge of conflict when he really is not very good at it. Like, at all.

I mean, look at this guy, haha

This movie was full of the kind of humor that we see in the US from shows like The Office (which, in fact, was originally a British show). The situational humor takes advantage of the awkward, the absurd, and the random, which keeps the surprises coming as you try and figure out how and if Alan will end up trying to end the seige and save everyone in their studio.

7.5 outa 10. Pretty damn funny.

(Not sure when or if this is coming to US theaters across the country, but it looks like it will also be showing at the Chicago International Film Festival in a couple weeks)