Tag Results
237 posts tagged Movie Reviews
![BEST OF 2012
Monsieur Lazhar - directed by Philippe Falardeau. Starring Mohamed Fellag, Sophie Nélisse and Émilien Néron.
A moving tale about grief, political correctness and education, Monsieur Lazhar is an evocative film that tackles an array of serious topics but never in a way that comes off as pedantic. In fact, the film addresses issues like immigration, politics and etiquette in such a subtle yet effective manner, it’s almost like cinematic jujitsu. Director Philippe Falardeau skillfully weaves through so many themes that are traditionally heavy but are somehow a lot more palatable when their interconnectedness is explored. Many stories have been told about the relationships between students and teachers, but Monsieur Lazhar offers a new and interesting take on what kind of relationship that can be. The film follows Bachar Lazhar, an immigrant from Algeria who finds work as a substitute teacher at a middle school in the predominantly French-speaking Montreal, Quebec. He enters the school during a tumultuous time, however, as a disturbing incident has just occurred and both faculty and students are on edge. Lazhar’s back story puts him in a unique position to relate to the school’s situation, and his story is about connecting (some may even say reconnecting) with people - from the new culture he finds himself in, to the fragility of the student population and anxiety of the school’s faculty.
[[MORE]]
I was really impressed that there were so many topics and subtopics covered in this movie, all connected to one stunning incident at the school. There was the matter of Algerian politics and issues of terrorism, to how immigration is sometimes glamorized by some, all the way to how education these days has declined thanks to a tort-happy society that enforces political correctness as a standard of propriety, when sometimes it can be detrimental in the classroom. The brilliance of Monsieur Lazhar is that while one can identify what side of an issue the story is on, it never solidly cements that stance, leaving audiences instead to think for themselves and come to our own conclusions. It’s a perfect metaphor for education, in my opinion, giving students the tools that they can use to make their way into the world without necessarily handing them silver spoons.
The film was so subtle in its approach to the sensitive subject matter at hand that at times I found myself caught off guard when its intensity hit maximum. And this was a shock that was essential to the film, because the effect was arresting and incredibly emotional. I admired the patient unfolding of the story, with individual plot details revealed sparingly but as a whole conveyed a very robust tale. When grief is a topic in film, there sometimes is a propensity to be overindulgent, to dwell too much on the turmoil in an effort to elicit a bigger impact on viewers. With Monsieur Lazhar, this was never the case. It was moving but never maudlin, and most importantly, thought-provoking but interestingly not pedagogical for a film set in an educational institution.
What I loved most about Monsieur Lazhar was that it treated children with respect. It wasn’t patronizing or condescending, but instead a lot more honest in that it not only showed children in their element, in their varying, colorful personalities, but it also explored the emotional acuity they have, especially when it comes to dealing with tragedy. Children, because they don’t have the emotional baggage and overall jadedness that adults have, sometimes see the world much clearer and simpler. It also means they sometimes feel things in a much deeper, more impactful way than adults, who tend to be dulled by pain because it has become a fixture of life. The film explores this really well and offers some insight into how we can all learn from each other in grief and that sometimes trying to make sense of actions that are inherently senseless do us no good.
Monsieur Lazhar’s emotional drive was propelled by a remarkable, understated cast. The ones who stand out are two young actors, Sophie Nélisse and Émilien Néron, whose incredible performances were the most evocative. Néron in particular had several scenes where he showcased such lovely, nuanced acting that was absolutely impressive for one as young as he. Mohamed Fellag, who played the titular character, also had a nice understated quality to his performance. He never went overboard with his character, but offered just the right balance of intriguing but emotionally-driven. Everyone in the cast was really pretty exceptional. The film, overall, was one of the best of the year and one that I would love to own because of its thought-provoking message and pleasantly minimalistic production quality. See this film if you liked Half Nelson, Good Will Hunting or Dead Poets Society.](http://24.media.tumblr.com/f62cd18b20b077e0679e3af53528bef2/tumblr_mg1pieQvWu1qg4blro1_1280.jpg)
Monsieur Lazhar - directed by Philippe Falardeau. Starring Mohamed Fellag, Sophie Nélisse and Émilien Néron.
A moving tale about grief, political correctness and education, Monsieur Lazhar is an evocative film that tackles an array of serious topics but never in a way that comes off as pedantic. In fact, the film addresses issues like immigration, politics and etiquette in such a subtle yet effective manner, it’s almost like cinematic jujitsu. Director Philippe Falardeau skillfully weaves through so many themes that are traditionally heavy but are somehow a lot more palatable when their interconnectedness is explored. Many stories have been told about the relationships between students and teachers, but Monsieur Lazhar offers a new and interesting take on what kind of relationship that can be. The film follows Bachar Lazhar, an immigrant from Algeria who finds work as a substitute teacher at a middle school in the predominantly French-speaking Montreal, Quebec. He enters the school during a tumultuous time, however, as a disturbing incident has just occurred and both faculty and students are on edge. Lazhar’s back story puts him in a unique position to relate to the school’s situation, and his story is about connecting (some may even say reconnecting) with people - from the new culture he finds himself in, to the fragility of the student population and anxiety of the school’s faculty.
KILLER JOE (2012)
Dim-witted Chris (Emile Hirsch) owes a lot of people in Dallas some money. He comes up with the harebrained idea of having his mother killed so he can profit from the life insurance policy. He enlists the services of a contract killer slash cop, dubbed Killer Joe (played by Matthew McConaughey), and along with Chris’s father (Thomas Haden Church), stepmother (Gina Gershon) and little sister Dottie (Juno Temple), they all conspire to execute this nefarious scheme. But as expected with ridiculous stories like these, things don’t exactly go according to plan. Written by Tracy Letts and directed by The Exorcist’s William Friedkin, Killer Joe is a dark dramedy that follows the trailer park bunch as they get themselves in way over their heads with the wrong crowd.
First and foremost, Killer Joe is so poorly-written and performed right out of the gate. Tracy Letts’ screenplay has some potential, but the corny, contrived lines are so terribly crafted it’s incredible that this was greenlit at all. It’s as though Letts took a crash course in How to Talk Like a Hick and decided she knew enough to pen a script that would make these characters believable. The problem was that the dialogue sounded like it was written by someone who didn’t know much of what they were talking about, and the result was a air of incredulity that lingered throughout the entire film. Emile Hirsch and Thomas Haden Church in particular just seemed like they were playacting. Their recital of dialogue had absolutely no conviction, and as such despite the sheer ridiculousness of the entire situation, it was hard to laugh or invest anything in these characters’ actions because of how unconvincing the two were. Hirsch seemed almost unwilling or just unmotivated enough to get dirty. His character needed to ugly it up a bit, not only by being physically more gross, but by altering his diction to suit his character as well. It’s interesting to me that this was the case with Hirsch, because although Alpha Dog was set in a different subculture, he was able to immerse himself a little bit more in that role, which resulted in a much more convincing performance. Similarly, Haden Church just didn’t seem like he was into his character at all. It didn’t seem like he was even trying. At the end of day, both I felt were miscast in their respective roles, but probably could have done more had they been given better direction and better dialogue to work with.
McConaughey, Gershon and Temple were the only ones in the film who felt like they understood their characters and conveyed that on screen, although after a while Temple too started to come off as grating. McConaughey was convincing as the unflappable, steely-gazed Joe, although he too wasn’t exactly blessed with good lines. The film also had such an odd combination of moods, as though it didn’t quite know if it was funny, serious, suspenseful or satirical. I felt that the film would have done much better had it figured out exactly what it wanted to be. A far superior film that explores the same subject matter but consisted of much better writing and performances is Home Fries, which is pretty underrated despite its stellar cast and hilarious script. In comparison, I felt that Killer Joe was a film so obviously a film, made by people who don’t seem to know much about the characters they are trying to tell stories about, let alone the world these people are in. If the film was an attempt at making fun of the hick lifestyle, it wasn’t very humorous. It also wasn’t harsh or insightful enough to be a commentary on the subculture. Not only that, but the film was also emotionally barren. I felt nothing for these characters nor desired to know what would happen to them. Overall, Killer Joe joins Bachelorette and Hick as one of the worst films of the last year.
Ai Weiwei: Never Sorry - directed by Alison Klayman. Starring Ai Weiwei, Danqing Chen, and Ying Gao.
There’s a quiet storm brewing in China, and Ai Weiwei is right in the thick of it. The activist artist has been causing quite the stir in China with his provocative work challenging the status quo that has had a stranglehold on Chinese freedom of expression for so long. Alison Klayman’s brilliant documentary explores the turbulent political conditions in China, focusing on the activities of Ai Weiwei as a representation of a society that feels like it’s on the brink of revolution but that is still struggling to make real change happen. Like Ai Weiwei’s “Sunflower Seeds” exhibit, where millions of tiny sunflower seeds are assembled in one vast room, his work is but a small part of a big tapestry that calls for freedom, fairness and transparency. It’s a call to arms that beckons people to wake up and recognize oppression, especially when it’s thinly veiled as harmony and community.
The documentary follows Ai Weiwei as he constructs his fearless art exhibits, wrangles with members of government police and on a seemingly regular basis, fights for his very existence and the right to express himself. For Ai Weiwei, communication is the essence of his being, and everything he is doing stands for something. The media-savvy revolutionary takes to Twitter, blogging and printed propaganda to rally the world towards a cause that little seem to care about. After all, China has been a dominant world power in the past decade, with its rapid rise to the top of the economic food chain. Weiwei’s art challenges that façade; he implores people to see past the smoke screen of China’s economic prosperity and asks the world to put the country on a microscope. For that, Weiwei has seen tremendous pushback from government authorities, putting his life in a constant state of peril.
But despite the shroud of uncertainty and what seems to be an air of perpetual hopelessness for freedom of expression and democracy in China, Weiwei remains optimistic for the future. He believes in the potential for media to usher in change, and he has faith that young people of the generations that follow will look at what he has started and build on it to create meaningful change for China. Klayman’s documentary is inspiring, but it never comes off as propagandist. Weiwei is a sympathetic figure, but his story is presented not in a way that seems like it’s being demagogued, but rather, through a bit of show and tell. Viewers decide for themselves what they find to be meaningful struggle, and at the end of the day, we are all reminded that even as we snuggle safely in our beds free from fear of being abducted while we slumber, there are people all around the world whose voices are always trying to be silenced. Ai Weiwei: Never Sorry is an exploration of the power of art to be transformative and revolutionary, and whether it goes on to change lives and reform regimes is left up to the viewer to decide.
The Avengers - directed by Joss Whedon. Starring Robert Downey Jr., Mark Ruffalo, Jeremy Renner, Chris Evans, Scarlett Johansson, Chris Hemsworth and Tom Hiddleston.
The superhero franchise is alive and well thanks to Marvel and its ambitious undertaking of assembling six of the comic book universe’s larger-than-life heroes and putting them all in one fun, explosive and action-packed movie. With the help of guru of all things geek Joss Whedon, Marvel served up one of the biggest, most entertaining films of the year. Funny, dramatic, exciting and playful, it’s a testament to how big and bold films can be, especially when colorful characters like the Avengers are involved. With so many egos to balance, there needed to be a solid script and the right cast of characters to pull off a film on such a grand scale. Not only did the film need to introduce some new faces, but it also needed to develop the existing ones in new ways. And the film accomplishes that without ever belaboring the point.
The film features people clad in funny-looking costumes, but there’s never a time when audiences question that. We accept this as reality, because not only are the actors convincing, but the script seems grounded. This marriage of the extraordinary with the humanizing of superheroes results in a film that makes one feel like a kid again. We believe in these superheroes, but we also know that in many ways they are like us. The usually unflappable Tony Stark is revealed to have a heart, the boy scout Captain America is literally out of his element in this brave, new world he’s in, and Dr. Banner has to come to terms with the fact that no matter how much he tries to do normal things and help people, he’ll never really be average. How Whedon and company were able to convey these to audiences without dwelling too much on character development is quite a feat. But the best thing about The Avengers is that is makes you believe in heroes again. In a film industry saturated with superhero movies, it’s remarkable that Marvel and Whedon were able to craft just the right blend of genres to entertain even the haughtiest of movie critics.
Everything about The Avengers is big, big, big, and almost to a fault. A sequel would do well to focus on something a little bit more intimate, which will undoubtedly be more of a challenge. That said, it would have been easy to dismiss The Avengers as just another mindless superhero romp were it not for the incredible attention to detail and magnetic performances that shine in the film. There’s some very nuanced pieces in the film that would delight hardcore comic book fans without alienating those who aren’t as invested in the material. The witty banter between characters and elaborate action sequences cater to both fanboy whims and casual viewers, resulting in an endlessly entertaining film that never bores. The Avengers is an adrenaline-pumped action film that audiences are only too willing to go along for the ride because it’s just pure fun.
Holy Motors - written and directed by Leos Carax. Starring Denis Lavant, Edith Scob and Eva Mendes.
Holy Motors is a mesmerizing odyssey of disguise and performance, one minute strangely melancholy, the next bursting with movement and excitement. Leos Carax paints a world that is odd but deeply alluring, full of intrigue and mystery. It’s a story about the beauty of the act; a day in the life of an actor who has become a master of disguise, so much so that the lines begin to blur between what is real and what is imaginary. “Who are we, who were we, when we were who were back then?” Kylie Minogue’s character sings in a scene in a dilapidated building littered with mannequins and costumes, remnants of a time when it was apparent when something was an act. Now even the actors themselves don’t quite know how to function in the real world without giving a performance. Even audiences aren’t quite sure how to distinguish between what’s play or what’s real, begging the question: is an actor’s performance ever really over when the director yells “Cut!” and the camera turns off? After all, in this day and age, the cameras never really stop rolling, do they?
Denis Lavant’s Oscar plays the main focus of this frenetic piece, showing off his incredible chameleon-like talents as he morphs from one character to the next. A mysterious white limousine transports him from location to location for the various appointments he has throughout the day. As he roams the streets of Paris in a colorful array of different costumes, the only time audiences get a tiny glimpse of the man behind the mask is when he wearily collapses on the limousine seats. It’s absolutely entertaining watching Lavant transform from one disguise to the next, at one point dressed as a hunchbacked old beggar woman, the next as a tracksuit-clad, knife-wielding gangster. Although Oscar may seem weary of his work, with every character he is given he puts on quite the show. The film itself has a sense of humor about its own story, at one point making an American photographer exclaim “It’s so weird! It’s so weird!” multiple times, almost echoing what audiences are undoubtedly thinking.
There are hints of a larger entity at work: an agency that employs these actors for performances in real world settings, but it’s one that is never really explored in the film, cementing emphatically an air of off-kilter mystery. It’s uncomfortable and all over the place, but in a manner that always seems intentional, from its haunting score all the way down to the derisive humor apparent in one scene at a cemetery where the tombstones read: “Visit my website”. It’s a great homage to theater and film, while also a lament of the ever-changing times and media. It seems to be a celebration of the transformative power of cinema, and how it can sometimes feel all-consuming for those involved in its development, from actors to directors. There’s an element of science fiction weaved throughout the film, with engaging imagery that is reminiscent of a funhouse. Most of all, Holy Motors has an entrancing atmosphere that feels very old world while at the same time also strangely futuristic. Thought-provoking and creative, Leos Carax’s Holy Motors is a surrealist tale that is an interesting combination of self-awareness and theatrical drama.
![DJANGO UNCHAINED (2012)
Holy drawn out and overindulgent Batman, Quentin Tarantino’s Django Unchained was all over the place and then some. That seems to be what most have come to expect from a Tarantino film, but it wasn’t always that way. Overindulgent doesn’t necessarily spell trouble for a film, especially when Tarantino is concerned. In fact, when done right, it can be wildly entertaining, as has been the case with most of the auteur’s earlier films, such as True Romance and Pulp Fiction. The over-the-top nature of those films seemed appropriate for the world the characters were in. In True Romance, Clarence Worley (Christian Slater) gets entangled in the seedy criminal underbelly of Detroit when he meets Alabama (Patricia Arquette). So the shenanigans that follow make sense and feel genuine once those circumstances are taken into account. Unfortunately with Django, Tarantino was unable to strike the perfect balance between endlessly witty and trying too hard, instead meandering around the same tired jokes that resulted in a terribly contrived picture of the world he was trying to paint. He also failed to bring the unnecessarily drawn out story to a fulfilling climax, which was disappointing considering the film clocked in at a whopping 2 hours and 35 minutes. Not all was lost, however, since the ever charming Christoph Waltz managed to snap me out of my stupor during certain moments (which I can assure you, were very few and far between). His character, Dr. King Schultz, was a breath of fresh air amidst a hot mess of a film.
[[MORE]]
The film follows an eccentric bounty hunter named King Schultz (Waltz) who rescues a black man, Django (Jamie Foxx), from slavery so he can assist Schultz in finding wanted criminals. Set a few years before the civil war, the film explores the unlikely friendship between the two characters as they gallivant across various southern states (including South Carolina and Mississippi) in search for bounty and, ultimately, Django’s wife Broomhilda (played by Kerry Washington), who is a slave under the notoriously ruthless plantation owner Calvin Candie’s (Leonardo DiCaprio) employ. It’s a pretty straightforward story that’s part Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid and Scarface, but pretty lacking in the character development department and rife with racial stereotypes that were intended to be funny but due to overuse became increasingly tiresome.
What started out as a pleasant buddy cowboy film devolved into a blundering mess around the halfway mark, resulting in what seemed like a slapped together ending after a long, horribly drawn out affair. It’s interesting to me that no one seems to be complaining about the unnecessary length of this movie, especially when films like Skyfall and The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey have been chastised for the same thing, when those films seem to have their lengthy durations justified. Django, on the other hand, was unnecessarily drawn out and yet didn’t exactly pay off. I very rarely feel an urge to leave the theater, but Django certainly had me itching to be somewhere else. When one feels the urge to check their watch or suddenly finds the palm of their hand a much better sight than the film before them, it’s usually a pretty good indication that something’s not going well.
Tarantino excels in instances when he can rein himself in, which may seem like an odd thing to say considering his trademark is overindulgence. But it seems that as the years have progressed, he has only been getting more self-indulgent instead of more focused or refined, which is an interesting development. With Death Proof, a film I love to hate, we see Tarantino going overboard with his dialogue, never knowing when it’s appropriate to stop after getting a point across. But in past films, Tarantino has been able to balance his unique dialogue with a sensible storyline. Inglourious Basterds was over the top, especially with its violence and dialogue, but it suited the ridiculousness of the situation the characters were in. And more importantly, the humor worked. With Django, Tarantino couldn’t find that perfect balance between witty and grating. This movie was made with a very heavy hand and could have really benefited from some serious editing. There were plenty of unnecessary scenes that, had they been cut, would have resulted in a leaner, more streamlined story that wasn’t overwrought or exhausting. Django’s dialogue, instead, is a little too in love with itself, made evident in Candie’s ostentatious pronouncements and Schultz’s lofty speeches.
While the lofty speeches certainly worked for Schultz, it was really Christoph Waltz’s delivery that endeared the character to audiences rather than Tarantino’s dialogue. Waltz was the clear standout in this film - a rare gem amid a steaming pile of shit, if you will. His Dr. King Schultz was a quirky, lovable character, much like his Col. Hans Landa from Tarantino’s far superior Inglourious Basterds. But in a way, the fact that Waltz’s character seemed to be the main attraction in a film named after Jamie Foxx’s character, the slave Django, somehow became problematic. It seemed as though more care was given to cementing Schultz’s character than in crafting Django’s. A shame, considering Jamie Foxx is a solid actor who did well with what little he was given to work with. Another person who was impressive in the film was Kerry Washington, who in the few scenes she was in really showed off her acting chops. It’s a shame that her character was pretty simplistic, despite all the colorful traits given to her to make her seem more unique. Her character’s back story was pretty interesting, but she ultimately only served the purpose of being a goal for our protagonists to attain, not a fully-formed character with her own motivations. But the scenes written for her character ranged from being either a damsel in distress or alluring ingenue. Another honorable mention was Justified’s Walton Goggins, who was criminally underused and whose character wasn’t blessed with a whole lot of good lines. Again, like Foxx, he wasn’t given much to work with despite the real talent possessed by the actors.
Even the seemingly indomitable Leonardo DiCaprio couldn’t save this film from being mildly irritating at best. His Calvin Candie, while certainly a magnetic and endlessly interesting character, just didn’t seem as complete to me as Schultz’s was, and some of the lines written for him just seemed really contrived, like they were written for a character instead of an actual person. Not that authenticity is something we associate with Tarantino; this is, after all, a man who likes to borrow from different genres to create his amalgam-like films. It just makes one wonder: for someone who likes genre-bending as much as Tarantino does, in Django he chooses to stick to conventions when he should be challenging them. Much as I loved King Schultz, considering the film was named after Jamie Foxx’s character Django, more should have been devoted to crafting his back story and relationship to his wife than on the triumphs and travails of the two bounty hunters. Django instead seemed to almost be a supporting character to King Schultz. Foxx did a good job in the film, but was unfortunately saddled with a predictable arc that was neither blessed with good execution or fulfillment.
The whole movie just felt contrived, save for a few genuinely great pieces. The film really did start off well, and that’s mostly to Waltz’s credit, although the dialogue in the first half of the film was certainly entertaining, I’ll give Tarantino that. There were certainly scenes that were funny, including a hilarious scene involving a group of Klu Klux Klanners planning a raid, only to be sidetracked by an argument about the masks made of white pillowcases crafted by one member’s wife. Mostly the humorous parts of the film had to do with how gleefully Christoph Waltz played his character. Everything else just seemed obnoxious, unfunny or trying too hard. The overall poor quality of Django’s screenplay really surprised me. It seemed like something an amateur would come up with. There was a sense of wouldn’t-it-be-funny-if, multiplied by a thousand, where Tarantino just got carried away with trying to paint this picture of 1850s America by littering it with as many overblown stereotypes he could come up with. The script wasn’t as sharp as we’re used to with past Tarantino films, and often, as mentioned earlier, the same tired punchlines were recycled. As for the action, there were some parts that were well done, other parts that just came off as schtick. If Michael Bay played hip-hop music over a slow motion action sequence he would be criticized for being a tool. For some reason Tarantino gets way with it, but personally I found it ridiculous; a decision a high schooler editing in iMovie would do. Slow motion action sequence involving hard-hitting gunfire against a backdrop of hip-hop music isn’t edgy, just desperate. I will say, however, that the rest of the soundtrack was pretty awesome, including tracks from John Legend and legendary composer Ennio Morricone.
What I found particularly problematic in the film, however, was that it seemed the main antagonists of the film really weren’t the white folks who were enslaving black people, but the black people who were portrayed as traitors to their own kind. This is exactly the kind of revisionist history about slavery that white filmmakers tend to do. The whole theme of how white folks are bad but black folks are worse seemed to resonate in this film and leave a bad taste in my mouth. Samuel L. Jackson’s character was a testament to this; he plays Stephen, somewhat of a caretaker of Calvin Candie’s property who oppresses the slaves under his watch, punishing those who run away and even going so far as to expose Schultz’s and Django’s plot to rescue Broomhilda from Candie’s possession. It’s problematic because the film is being hailed as a creative and refreshing take on America’s history with slavery, but it portrays black people as both the victims and the criminals. Black people in this film are either too scared to rise up and be agents of their own freedom, or they become complacent and instead turn into puppets for white plantation owners to wrap around their little fingers so they can oppress their own kind. At least with Candie, he’s given a bit of a reprieve because we can see him being kind to some of the slaves in his own twisted, parasitic way. Jackson’s character, on the other hand, is worse because he’s painted in black and white (literally and figuratively). He’s a man who oppresses his own kind for selfish reasons and because he doesn’t believe that all men are created equal. Like Candie, he’s been made to believe in the idea that white supremacy is inevitable because white people are simply inherently better than everyone else. That kind of social Darwinism was indeed prevalent among many people in those times, but it’s irksome that Tarantino is being hailed for his revisionist history when he’s actually not really telling any new stories about black people. In fact, he sticks pretty close to the stereotypes we see in most blaxploitation films, and not in a way that challenges the genre but adheres to it. In the end, while Django ultimately rises up and liberates his wife, he would never have been able to do so had it not been for Schultz’s help, which is a very typical, white point of view and representation of the story of slavery in films.
While it was interesting to see Tarantino’s homage to the western, ultimately the film came off as though Tarantino was a kid at a Candie store. He got a taste for the genre and run off with it, and not in a good way. And this is what troubles me about the film, really, is that it seems as though there were choices made for authenticity that weren’t even necessary. For example, there were so many racial slur jokes that were supposed to be “okay” because they were reflective of the times, but after the twentieth racial slur, I’m pretty sure the audience got it. We get it. Django’s black, he’s a slave, all these black folks in the films are slaves, the white folk refer to them as niggers, is there really a need to remind us of this every ten seconds? “Look, a black guy on a horse” was seriously a repeated joke several times in the film, and while it was funny at first, eventually it just started getting old. The overuse of racial slurs just rubbed me the wrong way, because after the nth time a racial slur was brought up, it didn’t seem like an attempt at authenticity anymore, but almost like an excuse to just say as many to see how one could get away with it. Ironically Tarantino gets a pass for his overuse of pejoratives because he hides behind the genre of blaxploitation, when really his black characters are every bit as unoriginal as the stereotypes new blaxploitation films like these claim to parody. I’ve heard many defend Tarantino’s methods because they say that it’s an authentic representation of the times, meaner things have been said, yada yada yada, however there’s a difference between using harsh dialogue as a way to illustrate a time period and culture and using harsh dialogue pointlessly, which I felt Django did quite a lot. In this case, I can see why Spike Lee would have a problem with Tarantino’s use of racial slurs because particularly in Django, it had a sense of inappropriate levity.
Overall, while Django Unchained may have been new territory for Tarantino, it wasn’t his best effort. It was gimmicky and shockingly unfunny in many parts, incredibly drawn out and just overall way too pretentious. I’ve heard and read many reviews praising the film as revolutionary in its treatment of the story of slavery, but I disagree. Django is as much a breakthrough storytelling effort about slavery as The Help was revolutionary (read: it’s not). But that aside, even the film’s attempt at campiness with regards to the Western as a genre was pretty lacking. The dialogue was taxing and the characters simplistic. I’m disappointed, considering this was one of the films I was most anticipated in seeing this year and it turned out to be a major letdown. It wasn’t even that I was expecting something amazing, but I was just shocked at how hackneyed the whole thing turned out to be. Overall it isn’t a movie I would recommend nor something I particularly care to see again.](http://25.media.tumblr.com/354d5fd7086267d0f3f0fb011ed8e514/tumblr_mfr8riGQaU1qg4blro1_1280.jpg)
DJANGO UNCHAINED (2012)
Holy drawn out and overindulgent Batman, Quentin Tarantino’s Django Unchained was all over the place and then some. That seems to be what most have come to expect from a Tarantino film, but it wasn’t always that way. Overindulgent doesn’t necessarily spell trouble for a film, especially when Tarantino is concerned. In fact, when done right, it can be wildly entertaining, as has been the case with most of the auteur’s earlier films, such as True Romance and Pulp Fiction. The over-the-top nature of those films seemed appropriate for the world the characters were in. In True Romance, Clarence Worley (Christian Slater) gets entangled in the seedy criminal underbelly of Detroit when he meets Alabama (Patricia Arquette). So the shenanigans that follow make sense and feel genuine once those circumstances are taken into account. Unfortunately with Django, Tarantino was unable to strike the perfect balance between endlessly witty and trying too hard, instead meandering around the same tired jokes that resulted in a terribly contrived picture of the world he was trying to paint. He also failed to bring the unnecessarily drawn out story to a fulfilling climax, which was disappointing considering the film clocked in at a whopping 2 hours and 35 minutes. Not all was lost, however, since the ever charming Christoph Waltz managed to snap me out of my stupor during certain moments (which I can assure you, were very few and far between). His character, Dr. King Schultz, was a breath of fresh air amidst a hot mess of a film.
![LES MISÉRABLES (2012)
It would be an understatement to say that attempting to adapt one of the most popular and longest running musicals of all time for the big screen is an incredibly daunting task, but Tom Hooper sure is the man for the job. The King’s Speech director approached the film adaptation of the much-loved musical in a way that married the best of what broadway has to offer with the magic and grandiosity of film. The power of theater is in its authenticity; with actors conveying emotions directly to an audience without the filters of editing and special effects that can sometimes distract from the genuineness of the material. The magic of cinema, on the other hand, is in its capacity to take something to an entirely new level in scale. Everything is bigger, bolder, and brighter, yet without entirely sacrificing the intimacy offered by broadway. With Les Mis, Hooper was able to offer audiences the best of both worlds, and he was extremely fortunate to be blessed with a marvelous and multitalented cast consisting of Hugh Jackman, Anne Hathaway, Russell Crowe, Eddie Redmayne, Amanda Seyfried, Samantha Barks, Aaron Tveit, Sacha Baron Cohen and Helena Bonham-Carter, to name a few. Not only were these actors gifted with amazing voices, but their performances perfectly matched the evocative music and story.
[[MORE]]
It can be said that Les Misérables is the feelgood movie of the year, because the characters in the film experience such misery that the audience ends up feeling good about themselves. The story, based on the novel by Victor Hugo, revolves around Jean Valjean (Hugh Jackman), who has just been released from prison after stealing a loaf of bread. Rejoining society isn’t very easy; the social stigma of being a convict becomes too much of a burden to many, including Valjean, who has a difficult time finding honest work and shelter because of his criminal record. Add to that the fact that he has captured the dogged interest of police chief Javert (Russell Crowe), who has made it his life’s mission to make sure Valjean never forgets that he is a criminal. Valjean almost gets sent back to prison after he steals from a church, but the priest who took him in decides not to press charges against him, in effect giving Valjean another chance at life. This act of kindness brings an epiphany to Valjean, and he realizes that he needs to make a real effort to change his life, else he will never get out of the hole he dug himself into. Years pass and Valjean is now a successful businessman, owning a textile factory and even going on to become mayor of a small town. One of his factory workers is a woman named Fantine (Anne Hathaway), who struggles with odd jobs to make ends meet for her young daughter, Cosette (Isabelle Allen). Fantine’s good looks earn the envy of her coworkers, who turn against her and accuse her of being a troublemaker, leading her to be thrown out and left in the streets. Desperate, Fantine turns to a brothel, where she sells her hair and teeth for money to send to the Thénardiers (Sacha Baron Cohen and Helena Bonham-Carter), husband and wife innkeepers who are looking after Cosette in Fantine’s absence. In Fantine’s line of work as a prostitute, she becomes extremely sick and one night, Valjean happens upon her on the street and takes her in. Fantine’s sickness overwhelms her and she dies, but not before Valjean promises that he will take care of her daughter Cosette. Javert discovers that Valjean has been living under an alias and confronts him at the hospital. Valjean pleads for Javert to give him a few days so that he can fulfill his promise to Fantine and make sure Cosette is looked after. Javert refuses, so Valjean flees and goes to the Thénardiers, where he pays them a hefty sum of money to release Cosette.
Fast forward a few years and Cosette is all grown up (played by Amanda Seyfried). She and Valjean have managed to live a quiet life together, but one day Valjean runs into the Thénardiers, who now scam people for money and realize that they could have asked Valjean for more in exchange for Cosette. A ruckus erupts and Javert rides in and discovers Valjean and Cosette, but before he has a chance to capture Valjean, they escape. Marius (Eddie Redmayne), a young revolutionary, sees Cosette during this rumble with the Thénardiers. He is instantly smitten and convinces his friend, Éponine (Samantha Barks), to help find her. Éponine is in love with Marius, but as his friend she helps him find Cosette. Unfortunately Cosette and Marius’ reunion is short-lived, as Valjean is too unsettled by his run-in with Javert to stay at the same location. He and Cosette flee and Marius goes off to join the revolutionaries. I’ll end the synopsis here, but the rest of the film culminates in a battle between the revolutionaries and French army.
The story has multiple themes, from salvation and second chances to paying it forward, idealism and the harshness of the world we live in. Being kind to another human being is seeing God’s face in theirs, as the song goes. The story is called Les Misérables (French for “the miserable ones” or “the wretched/unfortunate/poor ones”) for a reason, and it’s because it’s one filled with strife, struggle and survival, all in different stages of people’s lives. Valjean’s struggles are one of redemption - one mistake turned his life upside down and his whole life has since been dedicated to righting this wrong. Fantine’s struggle is one of sheer misfortune; a single mother with no one to care for her and her child, she had to make sacrifices to ensure that her daughter wouldn’t end up like her. In the later half of the story, these individual struggles combine to form the story of the many citizens of France, who have suffered in poverty and oppression for so long that they have decided they’ve had enough. There’s a nice arc to the story that makes the individual stories matter even more when looking at the bigger picture. That said, it’s no wonder that a story like Les Mis’ has captured the fascination of fans and filmmakers around the world. It’s a universal story that everyone can relate to, but what makes it truly special is that when put against the backdrop of soaring music and melody, the story takes on a whole new meaning and evocativeness.
One can say that music is a universal langage; even without understanding a word, one can feel the emotion a song tries to convey. And without a doubt, Les Mis’ epic story is hammered home by music that appeals to those emotions. With songs such as “I Dreamed a Dream”, “On My Own” and “Empty Chairs at Empty Tables”, capturing the misery, longing and sorrow of each of the characters, the film is taken to new and even more compelling heights. The musical performances in the film were brilliant; from Anne Hathaway’s fragile, heartbreaking rendition of “I Dreamed a Dream”, to the jolly, humorous “Master of the House”, featuring Sacha Baron Cohen and Helena Bonham-Carter. What made their performances stand out was that they were recorded live, with the actors singing and acting at the same time. Traditionally when musicals are adapted for the big screen, actors lip sync to a pre-recorded track (usually recorded in a studio). The problem with this is that it leaves little room for flexibility for the actors; they have to keep time with a pre-recorded track while acting at the same time. Instead, with Tom Hooper’s decision to have the actors sing live, it gives them the freedom to sing in a way that matches each moment in their character’s story. The result is an authenticity never before seen in musicals adapted for the screen; this method captured the magic of a broadway performance while elevating the performance with the tools cinema has to offer. For example, in a scene involving Anne Hathaway’s Fantine, the audience can hear the turmoil in Hathaway’s voice when she sings about shattered dreams and endless misfortune. At the same time, we get the benefits of close-up shots showing each tremble of the lips, every flutter of eyelids, along with every flash of agony in each character’s eyes. The effect is that audiences feel like they are right in there with the characters, feeling everything they are feeling and living through all of the trauma that they are in.
One of the things that especially impressed me with this film was how certain scenes were shot in a much more intimate way than others, without a whole lot of camera work, save for the steady cam shots trained on the characters when they are singing. In Eddie Redmayne’s rendition of “Empty Chairs at Empty Tables”, his character Marius is simply standing in the middle of a barren room of a dilapidated building, but the tension and sadness is thick in the air, all a product of very minimalistic camera work and a brilliant, moving performance from Redmayne. When he sings of fallen comrades, the audience isn’t burdened with distractions of shots that cut away, but we see Marius’ expression change with every line he sings, making his emotions seem all the more raw and uninhibited. Similarly, when Anne Hathway is singing “I Dreamed a Dream”, all we see is the expression on her character’s face, which is a mixture of self-pity, shame and woe. It’s great that Tom Hooper trusted his actors enough to convey the character’s story by giving them the camera’s full attention. While scenes like these were decidedly more intimate, there were others that certainly took advantage of the epic scale of the film. The opening scene of Valjean and prisoners singing “Look Down” as they tug a ship to shore was a showcase of how big a film like this could be. The elaborate costumes and set designs were also aspects of the film that capitalized on the bigness of the medium.
Performance-wise, the clear standouts in this film were Redmayne, Hathaway, Samantha Barks, Aaron Tveit and Jackman, whose voices and acting were the most impeccable. Redmayne’s performance in “Empty Chairs at Empty Tables” alone was worth the price of admission, for he sung it with an unbelievable sense of vulnerability that it made me weep. Hathaway also nailed every scene she was in; bringing audiences to tears with her raw rendition of “I Dreamed a Dream”. The part where she almost snarled the line “He took my childhood in his stride,” startled me because of how much meaning she put into it. There was a lot of nuance in her performance that I felt really made it compelling and deeply affecting. Of course, the rest of the soaring music was performed admirably. Standouts include Samantha Barks’ “On My Own” (Barks’ voice was as smooth as butter and was so pleasing to listen to, especially during the “A Little Fall of Rain” duet with Eddie Redmayne’s Marius), “ABC Cafe/Red and Black”, performed by the revolutionary crowd and led by Aaron Tveit (whose voice was full-throated and amazing), and the lovely ditty “Castle on a Cloud” by Isabelle Allen. Jackman did a great job with the acting, as well as with a lot of Valjean’s songs, but melodically they just didn’t appeal to me as much as the others did. Jackman did a solid job with the new song “Suddenly”, as well as “One Day More” and “Bring Him Home”. As for Russell Crowe, I would say did a good job as well, though his voice wasn’t as evenly matched compared to all the other performers. However, I thought that was actually a good thing. I liked that Javert didn’t sound flawless or amazing, because I felt it made audiences more astute to the kind of character he was portraying - someone stuffy, closed-minded and haughty. His dogged pursuit of Valjean was, I felt, matched perfectly by Crowe’s singing. “Stars” was a great number for Crowe. I also felt that the presence of Helena Bonham-Carter and Sacha Baron Cohen brought some much-needed levity to what would have been an otherwise dour and depressing story. Their portrayal of the cockroach-like Thénardiers was pretty terrific, and I thought they made a fine pair.
Performances aside, there were some things that could have been a lot better. I felt that Amanda Seyfried’s voice at times sounded a little too shrill. There were also some scenes that made unnecessary use of the Dutch angle, which I found rather distracting. I also wished there was a little bit more time devoted to Cosette and Marius, because their romance was supposed to be the one good thing that came out of such abysmal circumstances, and yet there wasn’t enough of their love involved, although Redmayne and Seyfried certainly took advantage of every single minute they had together to make it seem as though they really were two star-struck lovers. Marius’ infatuation with Cosette is infectious, certainly enough to make audiences swoon and empathize with his lovesick character. Finally, and this one is probably just a matter of personal preference, but I would have liked the film better had some of the lines in certain songs been uttered instead of sung. To me, a lot of Javert’s, Valjean’s and Cosette’s lines sounded strange when they were sung, as if they were either out of tune or just that they didn’t fit the scene they were performing. I know that these songs have been performed countless times on stage without them coming off oddly, so perhaps it was simply a matter of difference in the way they were sung. Other than that, I thought the film was really well done.
For a lot of musicals adapted for the big screen, there is a tendency for performances to come off as over-the-top and exaggerated. The great thing about Les Mis is that it knows it’s playing to audiences from behind the screen, so there’s no overexaggeration in terms of acting, but at the same time scenes feel just as intimate as if viewers were watching it on stage from a mere few feet away. I liked that there was a sense of control of where the action erupted and where scenes could get quiet, which made the emotional impact of the film much stronger. It’s a great skill for a director to have to be able to rein in acting or any other movement on screen in favor of a stillness that results in a much more compelling overall effect.
Les Misérables is one of the must-see films of the year, because it not only features amazing performances from its remarkable cast, but it pays a respectable homage to the novel and the broadway musical that so many love. There are a lot of breathtakingly pretty shots, amazing sets and delightful numbers with some whimsy (such as the Thénardiers’ “Master of the House”, which brought a lot of lighthearted fun into an otherwise melancholy set). While the majority of the story is extremely bleak, there are certainly parts of it that are welcome because of the sense of hope they bring. Marius and Cosette’s romance is a lovely rose amid a sea of thorns, and the relief of death from a wretched life is a sad but ultimately fulfilling end for some of our characters. You’d have to be stone-hearted to come away from Les Misérables with a dry eye. It’s an evocative film with a lot of memorable performances, particularly from Redmayne and Hathaway, and finally, a fitting adaptation for a much-loved musical.](http://25.media.tumblr.com/04ac956bc3e3acf3ad09f341feacfd7c/tumblr_mffb4sxdiw1qg4blro1_1280.jpg)
LES MISÉRABLES (2012)
It would be an understatement to say that attempting to adapt one of the most popular and longest running musicals of all time for the big screen is an incredibly daunting task, but Tom Hooper sure is the man for the job. The King’s Speech director approached the film adaptation of the much-loved musical in a way that married the best of what broadway has to offer with the magic and grandiosity of film. The power of theater is in its authenticity; with actors conveying emotions directly to an audience without the filters of editing and special effects that can sometimes distract from the genuineness of the material. The magic of cinema, on the other hand, is in its capacity to take something to an entirely new level in scale. Everything is bigger, bolder, and brighter, yet without entirely sacrificing the intimacy offered by broadway. With Les Mis, Hooper was able to offer audiences the best of both worlds, and he was extremely fortunate to be blessed with a marvelous and multitalented cast consisting of Hugh Jackman, Anne Hathaway, Russell Crowe, Eddie Redmayne, Amanda Seyfried, Samantha Barks, Aaron Tveit, Sacha Baron Cohen and Helena Bonham-Carter, to name a few. Not only were these actors gifted with amazing voices, but their performances perfectly matched the evocative music and story.
JACK REACHER (2012)
Based on the book series by Lee Child, Jack Reacher is about an ex-military cop who emerges from a life of recluse when a shooting spree in broad daylight leaves five people murdered. Reacher’s unorthodox services are enlisted by a lawyer, played by Rosamund Pike, in order to get to the bottom of what turns out to be a bigger conspiracy than a random murder spree. Also starring Richard Jenkins, Werner Herzog and Robert DuVall, the film is an awkward mix of mystery and action, with Reacher more of a rain man-type detective than a Jason Bourne. Nothing wrong with that, exactly, except when you know absolutely nothing about Child’s series and you base all of your expectations on the film’s trailer, you’re probably going to come away from the film disappointed. Despite my love of Tom Cruise, nothing could save Jack Reacher from a hopelessly mediocre script and painfully slow pacing, especially for something marketed as an action film.
It’s surprising that a film like this couldn’t have turned out better. After all, you’ve already got a big name like Tom Cruise attached to the main character. The problem with Jack Reacher is that it doesn’t quite know how to match the title character’s extraordinary skills with a remotely challenging plot. Instead Reacher, with his no-nonsense, devil may care demeanor and a can of whoop-ass for a weapon of choice, spends the majority of the film running around looking for clues to a conspiracy that is neither masterful nor threatening. Even with Werner Herzog playing a fingerless villain (his back story is rather amusing) with a cold, dead eye, the film lacked a sense of urgency usually propelled by a mildly interesting antagonist. With too much talking and not much doing, Jack Reacher suffers from B movie sickness, where larger-than-life characters are dragged down by a plot the audience could care less about.
Tom Cruise actually did a good job with a character who wasn’t exactly meant for him, spouting off off-color jokes that we normally wouldn’t associate with the Maverick. But I couldn’t help but feel that Reacher was more suited for a Jeremy Renner-ish type actor; not a big name one who brings a lot of expectations along with him, but one who could pass for a ghost who could beat a man to a pulp in ten seconds flat. Believability contributed a little to why Reacher wasn’t successful. And it’s not that Tom Cruise hasn’t done enough action films to warrant a status of biggest badass in Hollywood; after all he’s proved many times with Top Gun and Mission: Impossible that he can carry an action drama type of film. It’s more to do with the type of character Jack Reacher is, and Cruise not fitting the persona of a rough-around-the-edges type of guy. Regardless of this, I thought Cruise did an okay job; Reacher’s problem had more to do with a very ho-hum storyline and dull supporting characters. There wasn’t enough action, and what little action was in the film was not choreographed very well. While Rosamund Pike also did a solid job, overall I felt the actors were too good for the story they ultimately set out to tell.
Again, it’s rather unfortunate that this wasn’t a better movie. Jack Reacher as a character is interesting, with his unique brand of vigilante justice. But the film suffered from an unbearably cheesy script and really terrible pacing, with some audience members nodding off in the middle of the film and then snorting themselves awake during the good parts (there weren’t very many, so some had a pretty good nap). When you have a puzzle to solve, audiences need to care about the various moving parts in the film so that they can marvel at whatever grand conspiracy one sets out to untangle. With Jack Reacher, it was difficult to really care about a story that didn’t feel urgent or weighty, and characters who never feel like they are really in any sort of mortal danger. If this is what director Christopher McQuarrie has to offer, a lukewarm, painfully dull story and unimpressive action scenes, I’m a little worried about Mission: Impossible 5, which he is slated to direct. At least this Tom Cruise fan still has the upcoming Oblivion to look forward to, and here’s hoping that one blows everyone away.
WARM BODIES (2013)
If the world ends right on schedule, what better film to ease your armageddon-dreading woes than one about finding love in the middle of a zombie apocalypse? If the undead can do it, we sure can! And that’s what Warm Bodies is all about - puppy love so strong it can kickstart the coldest, deadest of hearts. Based on a book of the same name written by Isaac Marion and directed by 50/50 filmmaker Jonathan Levine, Warm Bodies stars Nicholas Hoult as R, a zombie teenager who meets the love of his life, Julie (played by Kristen Stewart doppelgänger Teresa Palmer), while attempting to devour her boyfriend. The pair strike up an unlikely romance while fleeing zombie hordes and “bonies”, a special breed of zombie that eats anything with a beating heart. Turns out having eaten people’s brains does not preclude one from being welcomed back into human society, so when R discovers that he becomes increasingly more human the more time he spends around Julie, the pair try to convince the rest of the human survivors that the cure for the zombie apocalypse is as simple as the pitter-patter of a heart.
While this film certainly doesn’t take zombies seriously (looking for 28 Days Later? You won’t find it here), it’s not as edgy as some might expect it to be. Some parts are funny, especially R’s self-aware musings, narrated in angsty glory by Hoult. Comedy staple Rob Corddry is also part of the film, with his character delivering some of the humor. Other parts are pretty mediocre, with no real danger to fear despite the bony menace that hunts R and Julie around. The film definitely comes off as a sanitized version of the dark humor that can sometimes be characteristic of horror parodies (like Shaun of the Dead and even Buffy the Vampire Slayer), but I can’t help but think it would have been better served had it been marketed towards adult audiences instead of the teenage crowd.
The film is essentially Zombieland-lite; a humorous take on the popularity of zombies with a bit of a romantic twist. It’s no surprise that many have drawn comparisons to Twilight; not only is the film made by the same production company behind the teen vampire series (Summit Entertainment), but its leading lady is the spitting image of Kristen Stewart. The resemblance was so uncanny, that at times I forgot that it was Palmer in front of me. After a while, however, one gets used to Palmer’s acting, and she appears to be a sunnier, more likable version of Stewart. Comparisons aside, Warm Bodies is a lot more clever than Twilight, with its tongue-in-cheek approach to zombie romance a welcome change.
While there were certainly some laughs, the rest of the film was largely uneventful, save for perhaps the gross negligence of one John Malkovich, who was also in the movie, albeit in a much more limited capacity than we’re used to seeing of him. Malkovich was severely underutilized in the film and I felt that there was some real potential to make him a much more interesting character, but this was ultimately squandered. Apart from a solid soundtrack (which was largely showcased in a series of hipster-inspired scenes), Warm Bodies doesn’t have too much to boast for, except perhaps the charm of its leading man. Hoult did a great job with his role, appearing both awkward and endearing at the same time. His character pretty much carried the entire movie.
Admittedly the film’s marketing is pretty clever, with a well done trailer and some witty posters. While it’s nothing groundbreaking in the zombie genre, it certainly doesn’t pretend to be, which is what makes it entertaining. Overall, not a film I’d probably pay to see in theaters, but something I’d wait for on DVD instead. Warm Bodies is a fun popcorn movie to see with your friends on a boring Saturday night, but while it does offer a few laughs, ultimately it’s just not exciting or different enough to be memorable.
BACHELORETTE (2012)
Quite possibly one of the most obnoxious films of the year, if not ever, Bachelorette stars Kirsten Dunst, Isla Fisher and Lizzy Caplan as three friends who get invited to a mutual friend’s (Becky, played by Rebel Wilson) wedding, which goes horribly awry when in a drunken frenzy, the bride’s dress is ripped and a hellish night of trying to fix things ensues. Sounds like fun, right? It’s not. Bachelorette is a steaming pile of awful, which is surprising, considering the film’s cast has so many likable points between them that it should be damn near impossible to dislike anyone or anything in the film. However, despite the presence of comedy favorites like Confessions of a Shopaholic’s Isla Fisher, Parks and Recreation’s Adam Scott, and the ever charming James Marsden, Bachelorette not only suffers from a mind-blowingly unfunny script but manages to make all these lovely people completely vapid and obnoxious.
Not only does nothing meaningful transpire in the film, no character arcs or moments of enlightenment dawn on any of the supposed protagonists, making it 90 minutes of girls calling each other bitches, whores and various other names. Neither of the male characters are any better, with Marsden’s character a walking encyclopedia of misogyny, and Adam Scott’s character, well, I don’t even know how to describe his character to be quite honest. There’s a way to develop a film around a character who is initially unlikable. Young Adult, for instance, is an example of such a film, with Charlize Theron’s character, Mavis, being a mean girl who never got over her teenage cattiness. The difference is that in Young Adult, Mavis’s blemishes are at once both endearing and embarrassing. Sadly, the same thing can’t be said of Bachelorette, where all of the characters are just so irritating, I’m shocked at how I managed to survive the whole film without pulling my hair out. Kirsten Dunst’s character is a type A control freak, Isla Fisher’s a type B hot mess who loves drugs, and Lizzy Caplan’s is a vulgar kleptomaniac. I’m all for antiheroines, but even these characters were hard to root for because their motivations were completely absent in the film. If that was the point of the movie, how insufferable characters can be, then a job well done on that end.
Story-wise, however, Bachelorette is certainly nothing new. It tried to be Bridesmaids and The Hangover at the same time, but failed in that no part of the script ever came off as funny. It was exhausting to watch the women squabble in every single scene. The problem with Bachelorette is that it’s not only pointless - the audience learns nothing new of the characters and they in turn don’t learn anything themselves - but it doesn’t quite know what it is. Is it a romantic comedy? If so, there was no romance or comedy to be had. There were no couples to root for and no mushy scenes to feel all warm and fuzzy about. Overall, Bachelorette is a complete waste of time and one of the worst films of the year.
