Frida.

Review #1822: Frida.

Cast: 

Salma Hayek (Frida Kahlo), Alfred Molina (Diego Rivera), Geoffrey Rush (Leon Trotsky), Mía Maestro (Cristina Kahlo), Ashley Judd (Tina Modotti), Antonio Banderas (David Alfaro Siqueiros), Edward Norton (Nelson Rockefeller), Diego Luna (Alejandro Gonzalez Arias), Margarita Sanz (Natalia Sedova), Patricia Reyes Spíndola (Matilde Kahlo), Roger Rees (Guillermo Kahlo), and Valeria Golino (Lupe Marín) Directed by Julie Taymor.

Review: 

If one wants to hear about an entertainer director that made marks in both film and stage, Julie Taymor would be a useful start. Born in Massachusetts, Taymor developed an interest in theatre from a young age, complete with study with L'École Internationale de Théâtre Jacques Lecoq before moving onto Oberlin College (where she studied mythology and folklore). She honed her interests through masks and dance while first serving as director in New York theatres in 1974. She would make a variety of plays such as Shakespeare productions before having her prime moment with her production of The Lion King on Broadway, which was one of the most popular productions of its day in 1997, complete with Tony Awards for Taymor. Meanwhile, Taymor also did ventures into filmmaking, having her first directorial effort with an American Playhouse-produced film with "Fool's Fire" (which both premiered at the Sundance Film Festival and aired on PBS). Her feature debut was Titus (1999), which received fair marks (particularly with costume design). In her film career, she has made five films in over two decades of work. You might be surprised to hear that this film went through a lengthy development hell, with a plethora of considerations considered that involved Madonna, Jennifer Lopez, and Robert De Niro at different points. Hayek (who had slowly built a presence in Hollywood in the mid-1990s) had been interested in doing the role for a number of years, and by that time the works of Kahlo was attracting further interest from art folks, but it only came around in 2001 with Miramax alongside a variety of producers (seven credited) and four credited screenwriters (Clancy Sigal, Diane Lake, Gregory Nava, Anna Thomas) that listed Hayden Herrera's Frida: A Biography of Frida Kahlo as adaptation material, as championed by book editor/literary agent-turned-executive Nancy Hardin.

Admittedly, I had considered watching this film for a number of years, if only because one is always curious about art (no matter how "mediocre" or bad one is at it, as I can attest to). I think most of us at least know about the works of Frida Kahlo (born of German and Mexican heritage), if only because of how striking her art is. With a runtime of 123 minutes, I think the movie does a spectacular job in capturing the artist with enough strokes in style and engagement to make a solid biopic, one that runs through a number of interesting events in the life of Kahlo (and Rivera) with useful patience that never seems to collapse into easy generalizations. It captures the essence of someone with growing pain and talent for a fitting capture of an artist with such a vibrant personality that honors the art without falling into hagiography. With a useful ensemble like this, it should only make sense that Hayek (who received a plethora of award nominations for her role) leads the way with suitable timing, having a burning sense of self that lives through two great accidents (a trolly and Diego Rivera) with honesty. The chemistry between her and Molina sears through with confounding energy, one that endures with the quality of a bird and an elephant that is endearingly watchable, and Molina makes a good showman to pair with Hayek. The rest of the group come and go with varying strokes that hone interest for what is needed when looking upon history with general interest, with Rush and Norton probably being the most notable of the historical presences that compare interestingly when played against Hayek (of course, Golino is quietly effective in small moments spent with Hayek too). The clash of visions (ideological or not) collides for an engaging movie that elevates its subject (complications and all) for a curious biography worth watching from a director engaged with making entertaining projects with style to accompany it.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Next Time: To end our month of Women Directors...we end with Marie Antoinette (2006).

Wander Darkly.

Review #1662: Wander Darkly.

Cast: 

Sienna Miller (Adrienne), Diego Luna (Matteo), Beth Grant (Patty Healy), Aimee Carrero (Shea), Tory Kittles (Liam), and Vanessa Bayer (Maggie) Written and Directed by Tara Miele.

Review: 

“I think as humans, story is our deepest faith, right? Story is how we make sense of the world. And I do think at the end of the day, they have to meet in the middle in this place, right?"

You are probably wondering the same question that I had when I looked at it the first time: What? Who? I have to admit that this film figuratively came out of left field, as it is the latest beneficiary of timing and attracting interest on the shelf circuit (I said shelf circuit, not streaming circuit), and March seemed exactly right for this kind of movie. This also happens to be the first work of Tara Miele to reach a certain kind of attention, since it premiered at the Sundance Film Festival in early 2020 (remember that year?); it serves as the fourth feature film for the Long Island native, as she had started her feature career with the indie film The Lake Effect (2010) after entering films with a couple of shorts (beginning with Miss Gentilbelle in 2000); she has also done some work in television. The impetus for this film came out of a car accident that Miele and her husband suffered several years ago (occurring during an argument with their kids in the car that left her with a concussion). She wanted to explore the parallels that come from one's perception after suffering an injury and the cycle of grief that all experience at some point in time. So basically, one is experiencing the fragility of life through narrative therapy that will involve flashbacks and dreams while one faces the truth about what it means to be alive.

I imagine there are two extremes one can fall into when thinking about the experience they had with the film: one will either find it to be an interesting look upon the fragility of life and memories that make for a surreal and soothing experience...or they simply will not care for its maneuvers into therapy that seems like a clunky gimmick for those who don't have the kind of patience for what it wants to say about things that might seem obvious. It really depends on just how much one goes with its existential question of what makes life worth living and all the wanderings that come from. For me, I thought it was an okay movie, because its main duo is the one sticking point that keeps things afloat when it comes to charisma in a film that practically wears "indie" on its sleeve. It aims for some sort of hope in the face of grief and manages to get a marginally useful experience out of it, in that it kept the attention going for 97 minutes without falling prey to all the clunky clichés of the surreal...in that it only gets to pick from the bag of tricks a few times, right down to trying to play with just who is exactly leading the other from the realm of the dead in a love story that I'm sure you've seen before and will see coming yet again. It is strange, because there are small moments that work much more handily in keeping one on the toes rather than the handful (i.e., hands and hands) of exchanges between Miller & Luna saying what is/what is not real in memory - consider a sequence involving our lead checking the baby in its cot, one that is not breathing or moving that alarms her before one realizes what exactly is up. At any rate, Miller and Luna are tasked with matching the other in naturalism that have distinct qualities that draw/repel each other. Miller sells it a bit better, one that expresses the doubts and fear that come from new-found purgatory nightmares that is quite captivating, wandering into terror with fair enough timing that drive the film, whether that means stuck by oneself or stuck wondering how she and Luna were ever a thing to begin with. As for Luna, he does well with what is given on the other side of the coin in terms of striking doubts and tense tenderness, and one could see the film from his perspective just as well as one could do with Miller without thinking either is overplaying their hand in drama or the inevitable argument of who seems more right (to which I shrug my shoulders). Grant and the others in the small cast play the moments with our main folks just fine with no puppetry required. The climax might prove the most interesting or the most "okay, sure" in terms of what it ends up doing in maneuvering the logical end-point for this procession of memories and grief and moving forward, which for me is mostly in the latter category - at least it isn't a complete cheat or something silly, because at the end of the day the movie wants one to end on a poignant moment and that I suppose is enough. At the end of the day, it is an okay movie, curious in its little moments spent with memory and grief that will stick with you if it connects with you after it ends or it will just pass on by with the curiosity of two decent actors to help lead it by - in that sense, being okay with a writer/director having their perspective told for a passion project is not a bad place to be.

And so we close Women's History Month. It was an interesting time trying to do fifteen reviews that would (in my mind) celebrate the month within female directors and stars, particularly in the differences that came out from era to era in perspective. As always, I hope you folks enjoyed this little series of reviews and I will see what will be done in the months ahead to keep up interest in what makes film so fun to write about.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

The Book of Life.

Review #1571: The Book of Life.

Cast: 

Diego Luna (Manolo Sánchez), Zoe Saldana (María Posada), Channing Tatum (Joaquín Mondragon Jr), Ice Cube (The Candle Maker), Ron Perlman (Xibalba), Kate del Castillo (La Muerte), Christina Applegate (Mary Beth), Héctor Elizondo (Carlos Sánchez), Ana de la Reguera (Carmen Sánchez), Danny Trejo (Luis Sánchez), Grey Griffin (Grandma Anita Sanchez), Carlos Alazraqui (General Ramiro Posada / Dali / Chuy), and Plácido Domingo (Jorge Sánchez) Directed by Jorge R. Gutierrez.

Review: 

"From day one, I felt the weight of all of Mexico behind me, but it’s sort of a weight I’m used to carrying. That’s what I’ve always done in my career; I’ve always wanted to showcase my culture"

Mexico has resulted in a variety of filmmakers over the prevailing decades, ones who aspire to get out into the world and make their own projects over time, whether that means in live action or animation. Jorge Gutierrez was born in Mexico City and raised in Tijuana, and he had a clear love of his culture that carried over to his work in animation, which included study at the California Institute of the Arts; his 3D short Carmelo (2000) was a breakthrough in some respects. He did character design alongside writing on a variety of animated series before getting the chance to do his own series with the Adobe Flash-animated El Tigre: The Adventures of Manny Rivera, which ran for one season. Gutierrez developed the idea for this film over the span of a decade, with original plans of optioning at Dreamworks before it fell into the hands of Reel FX Creative Studios (behind features such as Cirque du Soleil: Worlds Away), with 20th Century Fox Animation serving as a fellow producer. Others would join soon after to help produce, such as Guillermo del Toro. He wanted to make sure he made a movie about the culture of Mexico with his own brand of magic, to the point that he mandated that the animation crew not go to Mexico for research, believing that they would only find things that would make a "tourist version of a culture." 

It could be inevitable to think about this film in relation as one of two animated features released worldwide dealing with the Day of the Dead, both involving trips to the underworld alongside trying to avoid being kept under (or worse yet forgotten about), with the other being Coco (2017). One can watch either before the other and still find plenty to find satisfaction with however, regardless of the clear distinct difference in quality. It might seem a bit unfair to pick on this film, because it is a nice looking movie, achieving the basic ambition set out by its director to capture vivid animation within Día de los Muertos (Day of the Dead). Its picking of cast that mixes familiar voices here and abroad do fine in keeping a good head above underworld waters, at least for the most part. Luna does fine with what he is offered, which namely involves a bit of posturing and silly moments. Saldana does alright with balancing some humor involving this main trio, taking charge that surpasses Tatum, who seems a bit miscast in actually lending the right degree of banter to go with the others. Ice Cube fares about as much as one could expect from casting first-time voice acting meant for comedy - decent, but curiously placed in a film that desires something more involving. Perlman and del Castillo do make a fair pair together, while Applegate tells the story with patient timing. The others are alright, but one basically tries to lose themselves in the animation before being reminded of a silly joke or songs that come along for the ride, which again could have worked with more original songs. It has nice designs at times (such as with La Muerte), and a case could be made that it doesn't overstay its welcome at 95 minutes, and that will surely be more than enough for some. It is the structure that comes from the film in trying to have both a world of creative whimsy and ties with clichés from other films of its ilk that clouds the overall result, particularly when it comes to its unnecessary singing to tell new threads in an old-fashioned fable that could do with more mystery and less wringing overall (telling the story to an audience is one thing, literally showing an audience of kids being told this is another), which goes down from overcoming fears and achieving your own distinct destiny and yada yada yada you know where it's going from there. Ice cream can come in many flavors, but if you find it a bit runny, it isn't going to make the result better than the ice cream truck down the road. I thought the film was fine when it stuck to depicting a view upon a culture that Gutierrez obviously has a passion for with charm and vibrant nature, and if that seems more than enough for young audiences, it likely will hit the note needed for a watch. It isn't anything great, but it suits the basic needs for those who desire said enjoyment from a fable of old and new cloth.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Rogue One.

Review #888: Rogue One.

Cast:
Felicity Jones (Jyn Erso), Diego Luna (Cassian Andor), Ben Mendelsohn (Orson Krennic), Donnie Yen (Chirrut Îmwe), Mads Mikkelsen (Galen Erso), Alan Tudyk (K-2SO), Riz Ahmed (Bodhi Rook), Jiang Wen (Baze Malbus), Forest Whitaker (Saw Gerrera), Jimmy Smits (Bail Organa), Alistair Petrie (General Draven), Genevieve O'Reilly (Mon Mothma), and Ben Daniels (General Merrick) Directed by Gareth Edwards (#582 - Godzilla)

Review:
If you are wondering why I didn't review this film earlier, it's because I didn't feel the need to go to another opening night premiere of a Star Wars film (done one year earlier - #769) without letting some of the talk about the movie come and go. Was I excited? Of course. It's not so much that it's easy to get me excited about certain films, the fact remained that I wanted to install some sort of thought process that would keep a balanced system of bias, where I didn't put too much weight on it being a prequel (good and bad) with characters of a different cloth from the rest.

At any rate, how is the movie? It is easy to say this is the best Star Wars prequel, and it is also easy to say this is the first of the franchise that's really like a war film. I'm not saying it's the first war film of the franchise (look at the title of the franchise after all), but it's the first one to really show its effects on a true scale, with a varying degree of grit. It is a dark movie at times, but it also manages to have its moments of charm one would expect from this franchise. Jones does a fine job at making this character relatable and someone easy to root for, while having a fair amount of chemistry with Luna, who also has his own qualities that work for the film. Mendelsohn is an adequate enough villain, not too smarmy nor too out of the way. Yen and Wen are pretty good together, having a good enough repertoire when it is needed. The rest of the cast is serviceable, with Tudyk being a good source for quips.

The effects are pretty good, in the sense that they do not feel too distracting. There are some excellent shots (such as the Star Destroyer coming out of the dark, just before the Death Star does as well) in a movie that also has a good deal of grit that works with the tone really well. The effects also have an impact when it comes to certain character such as Tarkin. I have to admit, I was curious to see how the effect would look, with Peter Cushing's likeness being inserted over someone else' body, with Stephen Stanton voicing Tarkin. The effect is a bit jarring, but at least it doesn't entirely distract from the movie too much, with there being some use to Tarkin being there. The same could be said for Darth Vader, who plays a significant role that Jones does well. There are other links to the original film, but the movie doesn't smother itself too much in nostalgia. It has a look that works for the intent of the movie, but it doesn't entirely forget to have its own vision as well. I didn't find it as good as The Force Awakens (#769, in part because I felt a bit more for the characters in that one), but I did find to be as consistent as the other film. On the whole, the movie is fairly good at establishing quick atmosphere and characters, with a consistent tone. It's not a great film nor is entirely without flaws, but it is at the very least an enjoyable if not bittersweet movie.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.