Change Your Image
monizusa
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
Stranger Things (2016)
At its heart, this is a very well done nostalgic show about childhood, adolescence, and going on adventures with your friends
Stranger Things is a lot of things. It's a series about monsters; a science fiction story about secret government testing; it's about a mother searching for her missing son and dealing with grief; it's the awkward teen romance; it's also a story about childhood friendship. At its heart though, this is a show about childhood and adolescence. When you are growing up, a young person's life revolves around the small world he/she creates for him/herself. One doesn't think about the hard realities or question the boundaries of what is and isn't possible. And Stranger Things really excels at taking you back and making you experience that childhood nostalgia. I often felt, that I was watching an X-Files episode, Super 8, or a Spielberg movie.
Usually in family oriented TV shows revolving around adults and kids, what ends up happening is that the story is often told from the perspective of the parents'. "We,"the audience, experience the kids through the lens of their parents, or any other adults in the story. We see the hardships and joy adults face dealing with kids. But, here, radically enough for 8 episodes, the three kids in the story Lucas, Dustin, and Mike are in charge of their own world. They are legitimate, willful agents of their own story. Their parents are at best bystanders; sometimes watching the antics with disinterest or mild frustration, and other times wholly ignorant of the adventures these kids go through.
One never doubts, that Stranger Things is a story of the kids, as they unravel the mystery of their missing friend Will, and make a new friend with Eleven. The adults exist in the minds of the kids' in the murky periphery; not always as allies or confidantes, in fact the adults are only vaguely visible, coming in and out of focus.
For more visit www.artspeaksy.com
Captain America: Civil War (2016)
Captain America: Civil War is a fun, action-packed movie, but it doesn't charter new territory or transcend its superhero genre
Captain America: Civil War is the third directorial venture by the Russo brothers who helmed the fantastic Captain America: The Winter Soldier – not only a good superhero movie but an exemplary spy thriller in its own right. Needless to say, I was pretty excited to watch this movie when it came out last month. I was particularly interested to see how the Russo brothers would balance the intimate personal connections, which they excelled at in their last movie, and how they would handle a bigger, meaner blockbuster movie with multiple superheroes and plot-lines coming together. So what is the verdict? Did Captain America: Civil War excel at juggling multiple characters, create enough tension, and still manage to be entertaining while keeping superhero fatigue at bay?
Yes, for the most part Captain America: Civil War does meet most of the expectations, but it doesn't transcend the genre. In that way, its more like the Avengers: Age of Ultron which was a fun blockbuster summer movie, but easily forgettable for non-comic book fans.
The Russo brothers manage to create intimate moments of real bonding between characters. One of my favorite scenes is when Vision cooks for the first time to alleviate Scarlet Witch's homesickness. Though not human, Vision does something very human-like for Scarlet. I also liked the dynamic between Capt. America and Black Widow. While I'm personally disappointed that Marvel chose not to pursue a romance between the two, it is endearing to see that even as they fight on opposite sides, Black Widow came to support Capt. America at a moment when he was emotionally compromised. It just shows how well these two understand each other.
Although this film deals with weighty topics, I was surprised to see how the directors incorporated humor into the film, and created lighter moments to punctuate the moral, ethical dilemmas its characters face. You know what was fun? All the scenes with Spider Man, it felt right to not have a long origin story for Spider Man (yeah, how many Spider Man movies do we have already?), and just let the scene surprise you when you realize it's just a normal, scrawny kid who is concerned with school and getting good grades. In a fictional world where the adults are pondering on weighty matters, the way Peter Parker cuts through the thick air and brings some lightness and humor into the proceedings is a breath of fresh air. Spider man is there for a short time, but he and Ant-Man brings some much-needed humor to Civil War.
Ultimately, Civil War is bogged down with multiple characters that constantly fight for screen time. There are too many big action sequences that look good, but just don't carry a lot of emotional heft (an exception would be the fight between Capt. America, Bucky, and Iron Man near the end). I felt, as if I was running from one action sequence to another, before getting a breather to figure out: what the hell is going on? The movie could have easily cut 1 or 2 sequences, and still tell the same story. It also doesn't help that there are a dizzying number of different locations the film takes us to. What is with the strange choice of enlarged font sizes to show locations? At some points, I felt that I was watching a Mission Impossible, Bourne, or a Bond movie where the hero is constantly changing locations.
In Civil War, I rooted for Capt. America as he stood for his principles and protected his dear friend Bucky Barns, alternatively, I also felt bad for Iron Man at some parts, when it seemed like he had lost half his adopted family in this moral debate on security vs. civil liberty. But the conflict, what is really at stake never feels fully realized. I kept waiting to find out if the international coalition of countries wanting to curb the powers of the Avengers at the beginning was part of an evil, self-interested group, but that storyline never appeared. Instead we get a weak, preposterous antagonist. The villain's motivations as explained at the end of the movie did not seem very convincing. All this stealth and mayhem caused by the antagonist, played by an understated Daniel Bruhl seems pointless; the length to which he goes, in order to acquire the red book and animate the Winter Soldier, and for what? Is this a parable of misguided suicide bombers who cause mass destruction as a way to cope with loss?
See full review at: http://www.artspeaksy.com/captain-America-civil- war-movie-review/
Deadpool (2016)
Deadpool is an excellent mash-up of action, romance, and comedy
Deadpool is a very, very funny movie. It takes the overexposed superhero genre, mixes it with comedy and romance to create an entertaining and very funny film for adults. It's hilarious from the start with the tongue-and-cheek introductory montage scene. You get "a British villain", "a CGI character", produced by some "asshat production." Talk about being self-aware! I mean this movie knows exactly what it is, and it delivers on that! While the first 20- 30 minutes is very action heavy and has some awesome action pieces, it's ultimately a love story between Wade Wilson aka Deadpool (Ryan Reynolds) and his girl. Before this movie came out, I was very confused as to why a superhero movie was coming out so early in the year given that usually not so good movies come out during this period? In seeing Deadpool, it makes perfect sense! Because ultimately the movie's plot revolves around: boy meets girl, boy falls in love, loses girl, and then tries to win back the girl. Oh did I mention evil research scientist, mutants, and X-Men characters including Colossal, Negasonic Teenage Warhead, and mention of Wolverine? (There are so many throughout the movie that you begin to wonder if there is something going on between Deadpool and Wolverine besides plain rivalry).
Things I didn't particularly like:
1. My biggest gripe with the movie is with the girlfriend's character. Vanessa (Morena Baccarin). Initially when Wilson meets her, she is portrayed as a strong female character, but are we really supposed to believe that she just accepts her boyfriend back after he leaves are suddenly without saying anything, and disappears for 2 years (?) during which time she assumes him to be dead?!! Really??? I just can't help but feel her character was objectified in the movie. Apart from being the perfect girlfriend material, and being "the thing" that drives Deadpool's motivations and actions, she doesn't have much else to do here. Her character was disappointingly one-dimensional. It's a shame because Morena Baccarin is so good here. But apart from having a lot of skin show, we don't get to see other sides to her character.
2. I didn't really care for the blind landlord lady. I don't think their scenes were particularly funny given the level of comedy in the rest of the film. I found their relationship just way to awkward for my taste.
3. I didn't like the way the only Indian character in this movie was portrayed. Why must an Indian be portrayed as either a science/tech person or a taxicab driver? Why? Yes, Dopinder (Karan Soni) and Deadpool's scenes in the taxicab were all very funny, but can't we move away from over generalization and perpetuating the same stereotypes of ethnicity? Couldn't the writers come up with something a little more inventive?
See full review on: http://www.artspeaksy.com/deadpool-movie-review/
Joy (2015)
Warm-hearted, inspirational film that will have particular resonance with women of all ages
The story line is based on true life of a female entrepreneur named Joy Mangano, who goes on to invent the retractable mop. While that sounds a tad boring, the movie is so much more than that. It's about finding your calling in life, sticking to your gut even when your life seems to be falling apart and your family creates additional obstacles for you, and following what it is, that you believe in. It is about perseverance. While there are lots of biopics on entrepreneurs, I can't remember seeing one specifically about a female inventor and entrepreneur. What's also refreshing is, it's not treated as a biopic which often have a documentary styled tone that takes itself too seriously, but is treated as a story about a dysfunctional family, where a young woman is struggling to keep it together, with her two young children, divorced husband still living in the basement of her house, her sad, socially withdrawn mother, and her philandering father, all living under the same roof. She is a woman trying to survive, and find that part of her that she had lost, the dreams of her childhood which she lay dormant given the circumstances of her life: shouldering the responsibilities of looking after parents, making a living to support her children, and taking care a house that always seems to fall apart. (i.e. the mundane and all too real responsibilities of adulthood.) Amidst the sacrifices she had made for her family, she had neglected the dreams of her childhood.
What is a David O. Russell movie without the dysfunctional dynamics of a family?! I found the movie had a good balance between showing the tragedy of certain characters and their situations, and punctuating with some lightness. I was actually surprised by the amount of humor that's here, because the trailer gave no indication of any joy in the film. In fact, I had actually joked about the irony of the trailer, where Jennifer Lawrence's character never actually smiled, given the name of the movie. A character in this movie also makes a reference about Joy not being so joyous.
It's also poignant without being too soppy, particularly in the treatment of its female characters. For example, I responded to Joy's mother who seemed to have given up on life, and confined her life to living in her bedroom with her beloved soap operas; choosing to engage with characters from soapbox, than the people around her. Don't we know people like that in real life? Russell infused some outrageous scenes, costumes, and dialogues from Joy's mom's beloved TV soap into the film, to make light of the circumstances.
It was also refreshing to see Joy's relationship with her ex-husband without the drama and hiccups. I thought it was wonderfully done, and I loved the line about being "the best divorced couples". I also appreciated the fact, that her character wasn't romantically entangled with anyone in the movie, and the director made a point about emphasizing that she doesn't need a prince to come rescue here.
See full review: http://www.artspeaksy.com/joy-movie-review/
The Revenant (2015)
Must watch for cinematography!
The Revenant (2015) directed by Alejandro González Iñárritu is about survival in the extreme wilderness. It's also about: revenge, a man coming back from the dead, a historical interpretation of the first settlers in America with the French and Americans encroaching upon Native American territories, and an exploration of what it means to live, and why we live?
Watching this is a completely different experience from Iñárritu's last movie, Birdman (2014). Whereas the majority of Birdman was shot in narrow spaces with tight frames following around the central protagonist through narrow corridors and the backstage – which created a feeling of claustrophobia – here it's the complete opposite. The Revenant creates is expansive, with a lot of wide shots and sweeping images of nature, mountains, rivers, waterfalls, the woods, and demonstrates the awesome power of nature in comparison to humans. In some ways the Revenant reminded me of another of my favorite, Terrence Malick's Tree of Life (2011), particularly in the way sometimes beautiful random shots of nature interjects the film for a few seconds, but unlike that movie, Revenant contains a cohesive narrative structure that's much easier to follow. (Note: turns out my instincts were correct on the visual resonance to The Tree of Life. On checking IBDb it turns out that the cinematographer for this movie is Emmanuel Lubezki, who was also the director of photography for The Tree Life and multiple other Terrence Malick projects.)
My favorite parts of the movie contained shots of nature where a character, usually Hugh Glass (Leonardo DiCaprio) was alone in the wilderness. They were without any dialogues, accompanied by just the sound of nature like a roaring waterfall, or sound of melting snow from treetops, or instrumental sounds (especially the drum beats) evoking something very primal. The use of drums in a few key scenes during the later half of the movie, sounded like it did in Iñárritu's Birdman (must be his signature style). Although, I think it's far more effective in The Revenant, since sound is used so sparingly that when it is utilized, you pay attention. For example, the thumping of the drums reminded me of racing heartbeats during crucial moments of life and death.
In this movie, the director constantly experiments with perspectives and innovative camera-work. A lot of the perspectives in this movie is really unusual. In the beginning, during an important battle, I found the camera angle so unsettling – it felt like the viewer was a child, standing very close and looking up to the characters. The shots were taken from the waist, and from an uncomfortably close proximity, as arrows flung, and people fell to their deaths unexpectedly. Also, a lot of the violence in the movie is captured from up-close that it looks real, and the viewers also experience the pain, shock, and surprise. This is a visceral, immersive cinematic experience. I also appreciated the fact, that you can literally see the camera lens get foggy when the camera zooms in at least 3- 4 from what I counted, and the viewer knows that it's really, really cold in actuality and the shot is not some CGI trick. I loved the soundtrack; combined with the visuals, it's probably the best marriage between video and audio I have heard in a long time. The Native American languages spoken in this movie, also sounded very melodic to me.
The cinematography with it's sweeping landscapes, and the exceptional soundtrack need to be experienced on a big screen to appreciate the grand scale of nature. If you are a student of photography, you will love this movie. I was so engrossed in the visuals of this movie, particularly the landscapes, and the way the cinematography captures the changing seasons that I kept missing some minor events that were happening to the characters in the movie.
For full review see: http://www.artspeaksy.com/the-revenant-movie-review/
The X Files: Mulder & Scully Meet the Were-Monster (2016)
Episode 3 "Mulder & Scully Meet the Were-Monster" is the first true standalone episode
In essence the episode is a satire on modern life. Mulder tries to grapple with technology, as he learns how to use the camera app on his smart phone that constantly malfunctions taking random shots as he is chased by a monster. Instead of using his eyes to glean the crime scene, Mulder looks at the evidence through the lens of his captured photos, cleverly suggesting how cellphones and other forms of technology remove us from the sensory experiences of physical proximity, and experiencing the horror of violence. Mulder also tries to wrap his head around gender fluidity, and while empathetic, he is genuinely confused and frustrated trying to figure out the politically correct terms for a transgender woman in the episode.
The story for this week revolving around a two or three eyed monster that kills people in a small town, is essentially a commentary on modern American life that has become a rat race: getting a job, paying off your student loans, earning money so you can afford a consumerist lifestyle buying ridiculous, expensive smart phones, and worrying about whether there is enough money in your retirement account. It's a soulless rut, that takes a cute puppy and some stiff drinks to make tolerable, if only temporarily.
The monster played by a New Zealander actor, Rhys Darby is very, very good. He is earnest, funny, bewildered, and also very sympathetic. This episode, takes the standard X-Files monster of the week format that X-Files series had established itself, and challenges that paradigm. While the TV episode is titled "Mulder & Scully Meet the Were-Monster" the episode is quite novel as it subverts the definition of a monster. Who is the real monster here? It's a smart and thought provoking idea, and one I'm sure Mulder never thought about quite this way before. Suddenly, the monster-of-the- week seems far more humane than all the human characters combined in the entire episode. No wonder seeing the cruelty and absurdity of this world, the monster wanted to escape reality through any possible means.
It's a comedy of the absurd, disguised as a commentary on our current lifestyle. It is also the funniest, laugh out loud episode in the season, and maybe the entire season. A funny scene, I really enjoyed was when Mulder and Scully are in the oh so obviously inspired Bates Motel from Psycho, and Mulder has this great monologue in front of Scully, as he basically goes through every line of defense, that the logical, rational, scientific Scully would have argued without letting her say a single line. It's so clear, how closely Mulder and Scully know and understand each other, and the bond they still share. The scene is also a nice homage to the iconic scenes from earlier seasons of the X-Files, when we used to see the two agents staying in random motel rooms as they investigated cases in small towns. Gillian Anderson clearly plays the supporting role in this episode. Here Scully remains the voice of reason and the pillar of strength while Mulder breaks character, and it's good that she remains within reason, allowing the episode to be playful and absurd while her character still reminds the audience that this is still The X-Files. The director and the writers also have fun with this episode and spoof their own show. In one scene Scully suddenly becomes the temptress, seducing a character in a fantasy sequence, and in turn satisfies the fantasy of X-Files fans by showing Scully actually having sex. (Shock! Horror!)
It's cool to see Mulder and Scully having fun and letting loose for a change, and the actors and creators not taking themselves too seriously. So while this episode is somewhat disappointing for a long time fan of the series, who really wanted to just experience the nostalgia of the X-Files from its heydays, the episode is a good reminder of how much the times have changed since 1993, when the first episode aired on TV. But next week, I want my X-Files to be back!
For full review see: http://www.artspeaksy.com/x-files-season-10-episode-3-review/