Throwback Thursday: Midnight in Paris

Midnight in Paris, 2011
Director: Woody Allen
Starring: Owen Wilson, Rachel McAdams
IMDB
Rotten Tomatoes

Midnight in Paris is a move that I absolutely loved from the first moment I saw it. It is about an American writer, Gil (Wilson), and his fiancée Inez (McAdams) who are visiting Paris with her parents. Gil is a screenwriter and is pretty successful in Hollywood. However his true dream is to write a novel while living in Paris. Inez doesn't understand his nostalgic romanticism for the city and as a result Gil finds himself going for walks alone. One night he's transported back to the 1920s and he meets up with some of his heroes: Cole Porter, Scott and Zelda Fitzgerald, Gertrude Stein, Ernest Hemmingway, and many more.

Gil's novel has a character who wants to open a nostalgia shop; a sort of store for memories of a time and place that one has never visited. This mirrors his own nostalgia for the "golden age" of Paris in the 1920s and at first he's so overwhelmed that he can barely take it all in. As the story progresses, Gil becomes more confident and starts to believe in himself and his dream thanks to the people he's meeting in the past. But this comes with a cost: his relationship with Inez. He's forced to re-evaluate his entire life thanks to his trips to the 1920s.

The story itself isn't too complicated once you get past the time-travel-at-midnight concept and I appreciated the simplicity. Gil just wants someone to read his book and tell him that he's a good writer but is afraid to let anyone read it in case they say he's awful; he is afraid to take the risk. So he stays with what he knows, even though it isn't making him happy. Haven't we all felt that way at one point?

It's hard for me to put into words exactly why I enjoyed Midnight in Paris so much but I think it comes down to atmosphere. The imagery, the historical figures, the costumes, and the music all come together to create a perfectly nostalgic and romantic version of the most romantic city in the world. Speaking of the music, I own the soundtrack and I highly recommend it to anyone who likes to go for quiet walks because most of the music comes from moments where Gil is walking. The music can transport you to your very own version of Paris as you walk through the snow or the rain or the sunshine.

I highly recommend Midnight in Paris to anyone who appreciates a visually beautiful, quiet film with a great soundtrack and Woody Allen humour. Don't let the fact that Owen Wilson is the star put you off because he is fantastic in this movie. He uses his natural excitement and enthusiasm to his advantage and it works so well because Gil is thrilled to be in Paris and Wilson always sounds thrilled about everything when he talks. I promise that by the end of this movie you'll be just as excited as he is to visit the City of Light.

Skyfall: A Sequel, A Prequel, and A Reboot

Skyfall

Starring: Daniel Craig, Judi Dench, Javier Bardem, Naomie Harris, Ben Wishaw

Director: Sam Mendes

I am not what you'd call a Bond fan and I'm even less of a Daniel Craig as Bond fan. I was bored with Casino Royale and didn't even bother seeing Quantum of Solace so I was hesitant to see Skyfall because I was expecting more of the same old-same old. Instead I saw a movie so meta it actually reboots a series by being it's own prequel. Mind. Blown. 

Before I go too far I want to warn you that this is not a review of the movie but my thoughts on why Skyfall could be the best Bond movie. (Check out a review of the film here).

Remember: there will be spoilers. 

Sequel

It isn't hard to see how Skyfall is a sequel in the James Bond series. From the opening chase scene to the title sequence complete with theme song to the one-liners to the larger-than-life villain to beautiful women, Skyfall follows the very predictable path of every Bond movie. It's the same characters in the same world with the same objective: save England, save the world, get the girl, and look great doing it (preferably while driving the latest Aston Martin). 

Reboot
You're probably thinking that I'm late to the party on this one because usually it's the first movie with a new actor that signals the rebooting of Bond. Each actor who plays the super-spy brings something new to the role and Craig is no different. He's been a less posh, less refined, and more rough-and-tumble Bond which some people thought was too much of a departure from the classic portrayals. I say that this change is to remove Bond from it's own legacy; much like the Dark Knight trilogy has returned Batman to his more complicated roots, so too has Skyfall returned Bond to his roots. This Bond is stripped of his trademark gadgets and must rely on his wits and his fists to get through. In fact, the only two items that Bond receives from Q branch are a radio and a gun, though it is a special gun that will only fire for him. (Shame he loses it in the first fight in which he tries to actually use it.) I appreciate how the new Q (Wishaw) acknowledges this shift in Bond tradition by asking if we were expecting an exploding pen - which we were, of course, but we don't get it. As he says, Q branch doesn't really go in for that any more.

The Aston Martin is arguably the symbol of the James Bond series and this time the car isn't the state of the art, gadget-filled model we've come to expect. In fact it's an older model more in line with the 60s Bond than  the modern movies. When Bond and M drive away it's the first time we the audience get to hear the classic Bond musical riff - again linking the past with what we're seeing now. We even get to see the famous machine-gun headlights - right before the car is destroyed. Bond drove that car, the symbol of the series, to his childhood home (Skyfall), where the car and the house are both burned beyond recognition thanks to Silva (Bardem). The past, Bond's past, both literally and figuratively, are destroyed for him and for us as the viewer. We all get to start fresh from the ashes of Skyfall and the loss of M (Dench). Her passing suggests a new era for the 00 agents program and therefore for Bond.

Prequel
This brings us to the end of the movie, and the revelation that the Daniel Craig series of Bond movies are, in fact, a prequel to the series that started with Dr. No and Sean Connery. First, Bond is angrier, more physical, less comedic than we've previously seen because he's still maturing into the Bond we've previously seen. We can see this in the scene at the Macau casino where he has just ordered his signature drink and quips "perfect" as he sips. It's as though he's finally found the best way to have a martini and now will only drink one shaken, not stirred.

Secondly, we are only introduced to his long-time flirting partner, Ms. Eve Moneypenny, at the end of the movie, which I believe is a significant choice. We see that this woman is capable of being in the field, fighting, and even firing a shot that could (and at least for a while, did) kill 007 himself. By showing us that Ms. Moneypenny is able to keep up with the Bond we know, her choice to be behind a desk is more interesting because it means that she is choosing a different life, just as James could as well. Yet it opens the door for a more modern Moneypenny who is, and likely will, come out from behind the desk and help out when the plot requires it.

And finally, what is perhaps the greatest moment of the entire series: the final scene with M and James in that iconic office. It's just like the office in which the Bonds of old would receive their brief for the next assignment, down to the tufted leather walls and layout of the furniture. In this moment, we've come full circle and returned to the James Bond of Dr. No.

That's why James Bond had to be from Scotland  - because Sean Connery is Scottish. And if James Bond from Skyfall is a prequel to the Bond of Dr. No, it couldn't have happened any other way.

Trailer Tuesday - Scary Movie 5

Last weekend at the theatre, we were treated to this trailer. I thought it was a joke. But no one was laughing and it turned out to be real.

Check out the trailer for Scary Movie 5 (yes, you read right: FIVE!):

I don't even know where to begin with this one.

Let's start with the casting as I feel it's pretty obvious who is missing from this film. This is the first Scary Movie film to not feature Anna Faris and Regina Hall (Cindy and Brenda) who appeared in the first four films. That should be the first red flag for the production company and now audiences that this film is not going to be good. Though the series hasn't had a good installment since the second film, and even that one wasn't that good!

So let's take a look at who will be in the film: Ashley Tisdale and Simon Rex will star as a married couple who started to experience strange activity when they bring their newborn baby home. And then the parodies begin. Other stars include: Molly Shannon, Heather Locklear, Jerry O'Connell, and Jasmine Guy. All actors that used to be popular and this is the only film they can book nowadays. Then we have cameos from the bottom of the A-List barrel: Charlie Sheen, Lindsay Lohan, and Mike Tyson.

I'm not going to go too much further into this trailer because honestly, it's a waste of time.

If for some reason you are interested in learning more about this crapfest of a film, check out the wikipedia page here.

Oscars 2013

Last night was the big night for the film industry. The 85th Academy Awards were held and numerous actors, films and the ones who helped create them, were honoured.

Let's get one thing out of the way first: the Oscars have their own distinctive criteria for what constitutes a "good" film. Sometimes that coincides with the general public's likes, but most times it does not. Though The Academy has become more accepting of some of the more popular films released over the years, they still generally favour the lesser known, more artistic films in the industry.

Here at Don't Sit Next To Us, we have our own ideas of what are good and bad films. And although we have our favourites for each category, we wanted to give you our reaction to the winners of last night's awards show.

Best Supporting Actor

Winner: Christoph Waltz
Who Should Have Won: Christoph Waltz

It's unusual for a past winner, who has recently picked up the same award less than five years prior, to walk away the winner again. Especially when the category is made up of well-deserving actors. However, Christoph Waltz struck gold once again with the role of Dr. King Schultz in Quentin Tarantino's masterpiece, Django Unchained. He has seemed to find his lucky charm in Tarantino, previously winning the Oscar for his role in Inglorious Basterds. Like that role, Waltz took a supporting character and somehow made them the most captivating part of the film without over-taking the entire story.

Arlaine

Check out our review for Django Unchained here.


Best Supporting Actress

Winner: Anne Hathaway
Who Should Have Won: Sally Field

From the announcement of the nominees, it was clear that Anne Hathaway would be crowned the winner in this category. Her performance as the destitute and desperate Fantine in Les Miserables was heartbreaking and heartwarming all at the same time. Add in the fact that she had to sing live during filming and you have a recipe for an Oscar win. It was a great performance, but we felt that it wasn't deserving of the award; at least not this year.

Sally Field, who was nominated for her portrayal of Mary Todd Lincoln in Lincoln, was utterly breathtaking. She was strong, yet fragile. Dominate, yet shy. She held her own against the incomparable Daniel Day-Lewis and helped carry a film that was centered around the president. Like The King's Speech, Lincoln featured scenes with only the actors demonstrating their abilities, and Field did this in spades.

Arlaine

Check out our review of Les Miserables here and the Lincoln review here.

Best Actress

Winner: Jennifer Lawrence
Who Should Have Won: Jennifer Lawrence and Jessica Chastain

This one was really only ever between Lawrence and Jessica Chastain, in my opinion. With both the oldest and the youngest ever nominees in the category competing in the same year, it seems to me they were being honoured through the nominations rather than with a real shot at the award. Jessica Chastain gave an incredible performance in Zero Dark Thirty as Maya, the American federal agent who devoted herself to finding Bin Laden but as Americans I imagine that the voting Academy had a much different relationship to this movie than we did here at Don't Sit Next to Us. Lawrence's somewhat unusual romantic role of Tiffany Silver Linings Playbook is a much safer option for the Academy to single out as the winner. And did she ever deserve it - I know I was taken by surprise at just how connected I felt to the characters in this movie.

Christine

Check out our review of Silver Linings Playbook here and stay tuned for our Zero Dark Thirty review.

Best Actor

Winner: Daniel Day-Lewis
Who Should Have Won: Daniel Day-Lewis

We called the winner back in our review of Lincoln and we weren't alone. Daniel Day-Lewis has made history with his third win for Best Actor and we believe he's earned it. Having seen four of the five films from which this year's nominees were drawn I think we can safely say that while Day-Lewis took home the award, Denzel Washington and Bradley Cooper gave fabulous performances but weren't likely winners. (The Master, with Joaquin Phoenix, was not released in theatres in our area so I can only trust the Academy nominators recognized an excellent performance from him as well). Both Washington's character in Flight and Cooper's character in Silver Linings Playbook were the flawed anti-hero who has to deal with unwanted fame and attention. Yet Day-Lewis' portrayal of President Lincoln presented audiences with a man who was trying to achieve greatness for his country by reuniting it, stopping the war, and fighting for equality. In comparison with Zero Dark Thirty, Lincoln is a positively cheerful feel-good movie and Day-Lewis' performance was one that Academy voters and audiences could support.

Christine

Best Director

Winner: Ang Lee (Life of Pi)
Who Should Have Won: Steven Spielberg (Lincoln)

I don't get it. I really don't. It's like James Cameron being nominated best director for Avatar. Sure, it's amazing and beautiful what Ang Lee helped create with Life of Pi. But can you really compare to the work Steven Spielberg did with Lincoln? Or to be honest, any of the other directors nominated? But perhaps the Academy is making up for snubbing Cameron in the same category in 2010. (Kathryn Bigelow took home the award for directing The Hurt Locker). Though the majority of the praise for Lincoln was given to its actors, the work that Spielberg put into this film should not go unnoticed. In development since the early 2000s, Lincoln has been without a doubt, the best film that Spielberg has put out in almost 10 years. That being said, Spielberg has a long list of work that should have helped sway the Academy in his direction. But sometimes the Academy just gets it wrong and there's not much we can do about it.

Arlaine

Best Picture

Winner: Argo
Who Should Have: Argo

He wasn't nominated for the directing category. We've all heard the jokes. But Ben Affleck did get to take home the award for Best Picture which is arguably the biggest award of the night.This was a tough category, and one that could not have been more diverse. Each film on the list was outstanding in it's own way. This was one of our most successful years here at Don't Sit Next To Us in terms of being able to see the majority of the films nominated in this category (six out of nine) and we enjoyed every one we saw. What made Argo stand out just a little bit ahead of the others was it's simplicity. It didn't have to rely on CGI to create its background and characters. It didn't have to have an elaborate script. It didn't have to be based on a historic character. It was a good story about something that really happened but wasn't overdone or told. I think it also had a "wow" factor in the sense that the majority of audiences probably did not expect the film to be as good as it was. As well, Affleck starring in the film was a risk but it paid off as he was pretty decent in the role. (He's not critically successful with the majority of his acting roles - and let's please remember that he is an Academy Award winner...FOR WRITING! - Good Will Hunting).

This isn't Affleck's first great turn at directing (Gone Baby Gone and the The Town were fantastic) and it won`t be his last.

Arlaine

Did you watch the Oscars this year?

What were your thoughts on the night's big winners? 

Throwback Thursday What's Eating Gilbert Grape

What's Eating Gilbert Grape
Director: Lasse Hallstrom
Starring: Johnny Depp, Leonardo DiCaprio, and Juilette Lewis
Released: 1993
Box Office Gross: $9,170,214 (USA)
Throwback Review

After watching director Lasse Hallstrom's latest work (Safe Haven - check out a review by Don't Sit Next To Us here) I wanted a refresher on his previous good work. And with that criteria in mind, I came across What's Eating Gilbert Grape.

The film stars Depp as the title character, who lives in a small town in Iowa with his family including two sisters, a mentally challenged younger brother, Arnie (DiCaprio) and a morbidly obese mother, Bonnie. Gilbert's father committed suicide several years earlier, leaving the family in a less than ideal financial situation and Bonnie battling depression and unable to care for herself or the family. Gilbert has taken responsibility of Arnie and fixing the family's farmhouse all while working at the local grocery store.

Adding to Gilbert's woes are his secret love affair with a housewife (Mary Steenburgen) and a new supermarket chain that has opened in the small town, that threatens to make all the local businesses, including the grocery store where Gilbert works, redundant. A young woman named Becky (Lewis) and her grandmother get stranded in town when their truck and trailer break down. Becky quickly becomes close with both Arnie and Gilbert, eventually engaging in a romance with the older Grape brother.

Gilbert struggles to embrace a private life while dealing with his family's overbearing needs.

What's Eating Gilbert Grape is a character film at its finest. You get two for the price of one with this film: a performance by Depp that solidifies his status as an A-list actor and a star-making performance by a young, relatively unknown DiCaprio. And surrounding these two strong performances is a supporting cast that holds their own as the dysfunctional family and townspeople in Gilbert's life.

Depp manages to easily command and steer the film with his meek and endearing performance as the lead character. This is the Depp that we need to see to be reminded that he is an actor with some serious talent. There's not much in terms of plot line for Depp to work with, but there is tones of character development and he takes all that he can of the troubled Gilbert and runs with it. Not many actors these days could deal with this amount of character development and still turn out a critically acclaimed performance.

Speaking of critically acclaimed performances, the role of Arnie Grape gave DiCaprio his first Oscar nomination (Best Actor in a Supporting Role). As the mentally challenged young Grape brother, DiCaprio shone brightly in this film. It was no easy part, and DiCaprio sure made it look effortless. He took you on an emotional rollercoaster with this role: at one point you're smiling and laughing with Arnie as he's playing with his siblings, the next you're crying alongside him when he's being reprimanded by Gilbert. His dedication to the character paid off in spades; he began receiving lead roles soon after this film was released and soon Leo-mania was upon us.

Final Verdict: See it. A must in my opinion. Although the plot is fairly predictable, the performances more than make up for it. It's amazing to see the chemistry between Depp and DiCaprio and it makes me wonder if there is a film that could handle this pairing again. We can only hope someone will be brave enough to tackle that feat. (Burton, Scorcese...Tarantino??? I'm looking at you!)

Rotten Tomatoes

Safe Haven Or Sleeping With The Enemy: The Remake

Safe Haven
Director: Lasse Hallstrom
Starring: Josh Duhamel, Julianne Hough, and Colbie Smulders
New Release Review

Last Thursday was Valentine's Day so what does that mean for the film industry? It's time to adapt another Nicholas Sparks novel! This year that adaptation was Safe Haven. *Side note: this was the best way to spend Gal-entine's Day with some excellent company - thanks girls!*

In this latest Sparks adaptation, the focus is on a young woman named Katie (Hough) who has escaped her troubled past to wind up in a small North Carolina town where she meets Alex (Duhamel), the manager of the local general store. At first Katie is guarded, refusing to allow any one to get to know her. She slowly opens up to her neighbour Jo (Smulders) and eventually Alex who is a widow with two children. As Katie starts to put roots down in the small town and begin a romantic relationship with Alex, her past catches up with her.

Not much to this predictable love story. We've seen this story time and time again (most notably, this film resembles Julia Robert's 1991 film, Sleeping With the Enemy) and unfortunately, not much has changed in this version. Director Lasse Hallstrom (who has directed critically acclaimed films What's Eating Gilbert Grape, The Cider House Rules, and most recently Salmon Fishing in the Yemen), takes on his second Sparks' film (the first being Dear John). Not much different from his previous work with Sparks. Still as pleasantly appealing, visually, however, with the smart choice of not telling the audience the whole truth behind Katie's past. This leaves the audience guessing a little and allows the film to not be a "one-trick pony". It's not a lot of thinking, but it's thinking nonetheless.

The story is your typical Sparks' romance, where two strangers, (who seem destined to be together) meet and fall in love. Something happens in their pasts that stop them from living happily ever after right away (whether it's a death, illness, bad previous relationship, etc.), but they end up together in the end. No spoilers here - just plain, predictable storylines.

There was a slight twist in this film that is a little different from Sparks' previous film adaptations and I guess that was a nice change. But again, it was predictable.

Hough was all right in her first non-singing/dancing role. She was likable as the troubled Katie and had a decent amount of chemistry with Duhamel. The only issue I had with her performance was the lack of emotional depth. The tears, anguish and heartache you would expect from a character such as hers, was not there.

Duhamel was fine. And by fine I mean FINE! But all jokes aside, he was okay in this role. Not much to work with in terms of showing acting range. He was believable as the small town father of two. And he definitely appeals to the female audience. All in all, a great casting choice.

Final Verdict: Skip it. If you are in the mood for a good romance film from Nicholas Sparks, check out The Notebook or A Walk to Remember. Not his finest story, and not the greatest film, it accomplishes exactly what it sets out to be - a romance film to appeal to the masses on Valentine's Day. It was a light (in terms of story depth), cheesy, romantic, pretty film. It put a smile on my face (mainly from the two young actors who played the children of Duhamel's character) and it made me want to go to North Carolina. Not worth running to the theatre to see. 

Rotten Tomatoes

Trailer Tuesday - The Great Gatsby

The newest trailer for this summer's sure-to-be-blockbuster The Great Gatsby has made me want to see this film even more than I did before (if that was even possible). Check it out and see what I mean:

WOW! What a beautifully made trailer! Even if you weren't interested in this film before, you can't deny that this trailer makes you more intrigued with the film.

The first trailer gave us a mere glimpse of what director Baz Luhrmann has in store for us this May. The newest trailer shows us that he is pulling out all the stops to bring the classic tale of the mysterious millionaire Jay Gatsby to the big screen. We've already seen what he can do with a classic tale (William Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet) and a story of his own creation (Moulin Rouge!) so it's safe to say we are in for quite the ride with Luhrmann's latest work.

The trailer depicts a bright and colourful world where the wealthy live a glamourous life but have some serious secrets to bare. The film takes place during the roaring 20s so the costumes, props and sets are going to be spectacular. And what this trailer solidifies for the audience is that the soundtrack is going to be fantastic. It's a 3D movie that really shouldn't be one but I actually can't wait to see it in this format.

Luhrmann has a very unique way of telling a story through film. And one of the tools he uses to tell his story is through music. Like fellow director Quentin Tarantino, Luhrmann ensures that each song used in his films help to set the tone of the story and aid to the overall depiction of each scene. In this trailer, like the one before it, we are treated to several great song choices: "No Church in the Wild" by Jay Z, Kanye West and Frank Ocean, "Bedroom Hymns" by Florence and the Machine, and the eerie rendition of "So Happy Together" by Filter. This cover of a light, happy song, by Filter is the perfect fit for this trailer and I hope it is setting up for the tone of the film. It is quite possibly the best song choice for a trailer I have seen lately (just narrowly beating Jay Z's Brooklyn We Go Hard used in the trailer for 42 - check out that trailer review here).

For those of you who question Luhrmann's song choices for the upcoming Gatsby, let me remind you of his two films that were mentioned earlier in this post. Luhrmann has a knack for incorporating modern music into his films that generally take place in a time before the songs (or even their genres) were created. Trust his instincts as they are usually bang on. And if you need further proof, check out this clip from Moulin Rouge!:

The Great Gatsby, pushed back from it's original December 2012 release, is set to hit the big screen on May 10, 2013.

For more information on the film, check out the wikipedia page or the film's official page.