Lingers on fanning the flames of grudges - ***

Batman vs Superman started filming in 2013 and was released internationally in March this year.  It is a follow up from the last Superman movie Man of Steel (2013) but takes its inspiration from the Batman movie The Dark Knight Returns.  This film received criticisms at the onset starting from its casting and bombed some more with the critics when it was finally released.

The film takes us back to the fight of General Zod (Michael Shannon) and Superman (Henry Cavill) causing citywide damages and injuring a lot of innocent people. The event destroyed the building that Bruce Wayne (Ben Affleck) owned that eventually killed a lot of the people that worked for him.  This stirred Batman's ire against Superman.  Clark Kent notices the doings of Batman as a rogue vigilante and decided that he is a threat to humanity as well.
Their mutual antagonism is much further aggravated by  Lex Luthor 's (Jesse Eisenberg) manipulation of events that eventually leads to their confrontation.

This film is a very important film particularly for the comic fans and it is a daring take on what the insiders call the DC Extended Universe where comic characters find themselves united in one material.  It is important because it sets the stage for Justice League (the movie) that brings together major characters in the DC comic franchise.  I like this film for its bravery, one for defying critics about their choice of actors, and then the final interpretation of the Wonder Woman character starting from its costume to its character.  It clearly veered away from the popular idea of how Wonder Woman should look like and then mostly for its decision to take some inspiration from the comic arc 'Death of Superman', whose outcome clearly shocked the movie public.

.Because this film is tasked to tell its story and to set up Justice League it became a lengthy two and a half hour running time.  I mostly didn't notice the time for I thought the scenes were essential except that some scenes could have been shorter.  For the most part it presents vignettes of reasons how people hate people, like how Batman came to hate Superman and vice versa, how the people of Metropolis came to hate Superman, but it failed to mention an important source of hate that really is the stem from which this story came from and it is the hate of Lex Luthor with Superman.  We are clearly caught in the middle of Lex's and Superman's relationship, but it does not benefit the non fanatics to be unaware of where Lex's anger is coming from.

A wacky interpretation of the golden era of Hollywood - ****

The Coen brothers have been doing films together since 1984 with more than 15 films under their belt.  They mostly write, direct and produce their films themselves which are generally characterized as 'genre-busting' and this current film Hail, Caesar is no different.

Eddie Mannix (Josh Brolin) is a manager of Capitol Pictures but also acts as a 'fixer' to manage their actors' good image to the press.  Dealing with a lot of different problems while their company is working on a couple of films, be that the disappearance of Baird Whitlock (George Clooney) from the set of the movie Hail, Caesar, the transition of a cowboy to a dramatic actor or the pregnancy of a talent out of wedlock, Eddie also had to deal with his won personal issues with family and career.

This film is funny in a lot of different ways. The way it exaggerates stereotypical Hollywood characters' behaviors and the way it interprets what was is moral during that time.  But what really awed me is the tribute it gave to famous actors of the time like Kirk Douglas,  Esther Williams, Kirby Grant and Gene Kelly particularly the water ballet of DeeAnna Moran (Scarlet Johansson) and the full production number of Burt Gurney (Channing Tatum).  Josh's Eddie is focused and his character tries to hold the story together.  Other formidable actors join in on the fun and I particularly like the character of  Ralph Feines (Laurence Laurentz) as the avant-garde director trying to work with an actor who can't speak well, Hoby Doyle (Alden Ehrenreich).

While there may be a lot of things that this movie wants to say, and there are a couple of subplots emerging from just about anywhere to add to either the entertainment factor or confusion, it seems that identifying of the message from this film is left to the audience to decide.  It loosely focuses on its message and the story and looked more into characters and scenes.  Overall, I enjoyed watching this film and I am happy that I sought this out even though the screening schedule is limited.

A sensitive story told in a unique way - ***1/2

Shot in 2014, this movie is based on a book by Irish-Canadian playright Emma Donoghue who wrote the screenplay herself.  The book itself won some prestigious awards while the movie has gained the attention of critics and award giving bodies particularly for the exemplary acting by the two main actors in the film.

The story takes you to Jack's (Jacob Tremblay) 5th birthday, celebrating it in the only the only world that he knows which is a shed.  Along with his mother, Joy (Brie Larson) who was abducted by Old Nick (Sean Bridgers)  they survive living in this little shed they call room for 7 years (for Joy) until their survival is challenged when Old Nick lost his job thus giving him difficulty to provide supplies and heat for the mother and son in captivity.

One thing that is unique about this film is that the story does not start in the beginning.  It takes you right in the middle of it and just allows every bit of mystery to unravel giving the audience the freedom to understand how it all began.  But the very strength of this film lies in the performance of Tremblay and Larson. The difficulty and emotional turmoil of a mother trying to raise a child that was born in captivity and the fear and acceptance of a son coping with a world he never knew existed.

Because the story is told thru the eyes and mind of Jack some bits of the story that might have been shocking or more dramatic if seen from the eyes of an adult became subtle and downplayed what could have a dramatic highlight or a shocking revelation.  In effect , it flattens the emotional journey of the audience and making the film a little bland. 

Cinematography and sound collaborate to create a crafty work of art - ****

The film is loosely based on a manuscript of the same title written by Michael Punke.  The development of this project started in August of 2001, but went through a long process until they started filming in October of 2014.  Many people were considered for the main part, from Samuel L.Jackson to Sean Penn and to Christian Bale until the role finally went to Leonardo di Caprio.

Set in the 1800s in Louisiana Purchase when pelts is a major industry,  a group of trappers led by Captain Andrew Henry (Domhnall Gleeson) was attacked by native Americans (Arikara) leading the survivors to retreat on foot upon the advice of  Hugh Glass (Leonardo di Caprio). Glass is an experienced hunter who has a half breed son Hawk (Forrest Goodluck) belonging to the Pawnee tribe. Hawk's presence is disconcerting to trapper John Fitzgerald (Tom Hardy) since he was once partially scalped by native Americans many years prior.  Fitzgerald did Glass a great injustice and the story revolves around Glass' struggle in exacting revenge.

Clearly this was not an easy film to make.  Watching it you wonder how the cast and crew actually even survive the harsh winters of  Canada and the United States.  The director did not want computer generated images to fill up his scenes and the cinematographer wanted natural lighting to get realistic and so they really need to be there where ever the story requires.   This is really a work of art in photography and scenery.  Music and sound also take on an active part in relaying a story.  Scenes are mostly shot in single takes with a wide angle lens to translate width and realism into the screen.

The story is the main reason why I am not giving this film a 5 star rating.  Though the plot is really simple, it also tries to depict the challenges of living around that time in American history, presenting the story as it is but not necessarily taking a stand.  It tries to say a lot of things on the side but not summarily making a point.  Thus rendering it a little pointless. 

'Brooklyn' shines in a spotless version of the world in the 1950s - ****

It is interesting how films made in the Hollywood golden era of the 1950s present the world as clean and crisp.  Actors are styled well and costumes seem to be well ironed and clean.  It might as well have been matched by the innocence that prevailed during that era and the idealism that people imbibe that help set up this escapist fictional style that these films adopted.  Brooklyn, the movie that was made in 2015 blends very well to that genre.

Brooklyn is really two love stories in one film.  It is about an Irish immigrant's struggle to find a life in America and her relationship with a working class Italian whom she met at a Brooklyn dance club.  Ellis (Saoirse Ronan) moved to America in 1952 to find a better life with the help of her bookkeeper sister who is staying in Southern Ireland to be with their mother.  She struggles with homesickness until she met Tony (Emory Cohen), an Italian immigrant working as a plumber.  Her sister Rose (Fiona Glascott) died of unknown cause that led her to come back home to comfort her mother (Jane Brennan). Back home she discovers a life that she nearly wanted before she went to America that led her to a crossroad.

So many things I liked about this film.  Cinematography and design lend themselves well to the escapist fiction that this movie pushes for.  Colors are bright and primary, lighting is crisp and styling is almost flawless. The direction sets the audience to an emotional ride, from sadness, to giddy to feeling romantic to feeling betrayed all these translates clearly from the screen with the help of such good actors, headed by Saoirse and very well supported by Emory, and the rest of the stunning support.

What really kept me from giving this film a perfect 5-star rating is the way the conflict was resolved.  The turning point at which Ellis came to a decision choosing from staying in Ireland or coming back to America either flawed her character or made the decision too easy.  Either way, it created a smudge in an otherwise shiny and spotless film.

Though the director employed a more traditional style of storytelling, it just made the presentation of the narrative clear and direct.  I truly enjoyed watching this film because it took me to a time when relationships are sacred and people are more respectful.  It reminded me of a time when America depended on immigrants to build their nation thus strengthening ties between countries and in effect erasing boundaries.