Showing posts with label Rooney Mara. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Rooney Mara. Show all posts

October 16, 2020

Her.

Review #1566: Her.

Cast:
Joaquin Phoenix (Theodore Twombly), Scarlett Johansson (Samantha), Amy Adams (Amy), Rooney Mara (Catherine Klausen), Olivia Wilde (Blind Date), Chris Pratt (Paul), Matt Letscher (Charles), and Luka Jones (Mark Lewman) Directed by Spike Jonze (#1308 - Being John Malkovich and #1533 - Adaptation)

Review:
“There’s definitely ways that technology brings us closer and ways that it makes us further apart — and that’s not what this movie is about. It really was about the way we relate to each other and long to connect: our inabilities to connect, fears of intimacy, all the stuff you bring up with any other human being.”

If you make four feature films in the span of fourteen years, one can only yearn to have the breadth of curiosity and interest generated by the ones done by Spike Jonze. Filmmaker in features, short films, music videos, this is the fourth feature film (and most current as of 2020) for the director that are interesting for their distinct features in terms of genre that nevertheless verge on the point of yearning to connect with something or someone. Jonze was inspired to do the script in part on the experiences that he had briefly involving a website where one could exchange messages with an artificial intelligence program - and he wanted to capture the excitement of that moment of interaction between person and AI that he wanted to see play out longer than a few minutes. To me, it reminds me of Cleverbot, which I remember getting a brief kick out of having a "conversation" with a program that relies on human input to do said speech (of course one could also just find familiarity with Siri, but one does not engage in references to Apple). In any case, what could be a starting point for some sort of farce or something strange with AI on the loose is actually a film not about the technology but instead about the connections we have and don't have in the modern sense.

What we have is a film about what it means to have romance in an age of technological differences that make it clear about just how one can square a romance up into a neat little package ready for delivery. In other words, finding something to appreciate and care for is one thing, finding someone to connect with and find a place in is another. Love can be passionate, fleeting, star-crossed, or all the other words to draw upon when making their own love story for film. None could have gone as strangely or as off-kilter as this could have been, and none prove as interesting to see play out in most of its execution as this film does. It isn't exactly the best feature that Jonze has made, but it certainly proves a worthy curiosity for what it sets out to do with its lived-in look and color scheme that creates an intriguing challenge for its main star and voice to prove worthwhile without being a weird duck. If one can find themselves making pen-pals with people miles away from them or find friends on the Internet in certain communities, I can see where you can go with a virtual assistant that can either just be an organizer of your stuff or have it grow into something more. 2013 and 2020 are more than just years to say in a sentence when it comes to connectivity versus what really goes on in the little hole we make for ourself and hopefully for others, perhaps now more than ever, where numbness could almost be thought of as fashion sense. With all of that in mind, Phoenix is exactly the one to make this come across with the instinct and integrity required here, one that is meshed in clay of numbness that grows upon a path with romance that we do at least see some sort of connection to - loving the voice from a box is more than that when you share a smile that isn't a pained movement. Johansson was brought in to replace Samantha Morton (who Jonze liked, but he felt that the film needed someone different) - she does what is needed in terms of running the vocal gamut that is quite caring and useful in carrying the film in gentle marvel without having to even bat an eye. Others contribute to the other degree of varying connectivity, whether that means a sparkful Adams or an honest Mara (when compared to what we view and then hear of her) and brief interludes with television presence Wilde and Pratt. What we have here is a film structured on what we see and believe when it comes to feelings that can be consuming just as quickly as they seem fleeting, and there really are no easy answers beyond trying to keep growing and not become stuck with all the other voices of other lost souls. With a 126 minute run-time, it surely makes for an interesting original work that will leave the viewer by its ending with a chance to go out and find their own place to sit upon and connect the dots for themselves.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

August 23, 2016

Kubo and the Two Strings.


Review #836: Kubo and the Two Strings.

Cast
Art Parkinson (Kubo), Charlize Theron (Monkey/Kubo's mother), Matthew McConaughey (Beetle), Ralph Fiennes (Raiden the Moon King), Rooney Mara (the Sisters), George Takei (Hosato), Cary-Hiroyuki Tagawa (Hashi), and Brenda Vaccaro (Kameyo) Directed by Travis Knight.

Review
In the two films I've reviewed done by the studio Laika (#189 - Coraline and #240 - Paranorman), they were both enjoyable and wonderfully made animated movies. Fortunately, this film continues that trend. This is an exquisite piece of work that manages to establish (and maintain) a dark sense of adventure and fantasy, with a fair cast of characters and gorgeous imagination and animation. Parkinson does a fine job in the lead role, giving this character the needed weight and depth to make him more than just a typical fantasy kid lead. Theron and McConaughey are also exceptional, managing to keep the movie on its heels, with a few moments of laughs between the trio as a whole. It's a fun movie, complete with enough of everything for everyone; mot to spoil anything, but this is also a movie that pulls enough strings and twists correctly as well. The stop-motion animation is wonderful to watch, managing to help make the world the movie builds to life perfectly, such as when the movie utilizes origami paper (a miniature warrior created by the paper is with the group for most of the film) to great advantage. Fiennes isn't in the movie until the last half of the film (with Mara being seen more often, playing the two sisters wickedly well), but he makes for a fine enough villain, with a climax that is pretty spectacular to watch as well. At 102 minutes, this is a fine film to watch, with exceptional marks in almost every subject. It's clear that there was a lot of labor and love put into this film, and I applaud them for making a movie as fun as this. Despite the limited amount of people at the theater for the film, this was still a good time.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

April 23, 2015

Movie Night: The Social Network.


Review #705: The Social Network.

Cast
Jesse Eisenberg (Mark Zuckerberg), Andrew Garfield (Eduardo Saverin), Justin Timberlake (Sean Parker), Armie Hammer (Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss), Max Minghella (Divya Narendra), Rooney Mara (Erica Albright), Brenda Song (Christy Lee), and Rashida Jones (Marylin Delpy) Directed by David Fincher (#586 - Alien 3)

Review
Yes, business is rough. Yes, it seems a lot of people love this movie. Yes, it is true that a lot of people use Facebook, even you (the reader) might as well. I do too. I still don't love the movie. The fact this was made when everyone involved was still alive and the fact that the writer admit that the book the movie was based off is played slightly fast and loose with only makes up the pile of tedium that this movie is for me.  Actually, you could recut this movie into a horror film, especially with the soundtrack, and especially with our main character. It's sad, because the movie is actually well-acted, the problem is the fact that barely any of these characters are ones you want to root for, which makes for a boring clod. By the end of it, you are wondering if the movie you have seen is mainly for people who are into characters of snark or just a big giant joke. Ultimately, this is a movie that left me cold and mostly stoic. But my dilemma is how to rate this movie. Do I give it a high rating for its acting/music/thrills and feel guilty, or do I give it a low rating for the general tedium it gave me that seems harsh? In a way, that is what anyone who watches this movie must do. Either they like the movie, or they grow sick of it. It's really hard to stay in the middle. For once, I won't be too generous with a rating, though I do recommend seeing it just to see if you'll like it any better than I did.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

July 27, 2011

Movie Night: A Nightmare on Elm Street (2010).

Review #048: A Nightmare on Elm Street.

Cast
Jackie Earle Haley (Freddy Krueger), Kyle Gallner (Quentin Smith), Rooney Mara (Nancy Holbrook), Katie Cassidy (Kris Fowles), Thomas Dekker (Jesse Braun), Kellan Lutz (Dean Russell), Clancy Brown (Alan Smith), Connie Britton (Dr. Gwen Holbrook), and Lia D. Mortensen (Nora Fowles) Directed by Samuel Bayer.

Review
This film is...I don't know, what's the word for bad? This film tries to be scary, but it actually makes you bored. The acting is predictably standard (Except for Haley, who does try to act his best), as this film doesnot much scare factor. The makeup looks awkward on Freddy, making him look like melted cheese. With the original Freddy (From what I've seen), he actually looks like a burn victim. Here, he looks like he got into a cheese fight. It's predictable with it's attempts at scares, it has a predictable end scene, and it just bores you. It's not fun to watch, even though Haley tries his best, but in the end, it's a predictable stale horror film that makes you want to watch the original.

Overall, I give it 4 out of 10 stars.