Belle

Belle_MovieDefinitely one of the best movies of the year! If you’re a fan of period romantic-drama, then you must see this movie. This film focusses on an area that is the source for the affluence of Jane Austen’s many characters but is never spoken of. Slavery and the slave trade in England. Like last year’s Lee Daniel’s The Butler, this movie will likely fly under the radar and see not a major win or nomination from motion picture awards. However, it is the first movie of the year that seriously deserves consideration for an accolade or two, including Best Actress, Best Picture, and Best Supporting Actor. Although, the placement of the movie in the calendar year puts it at a disadvantage compared to “Oscar” season, which is typically the Fall and Holiday Season.

Belle is inspired by the true story of Dido Elizabeth Belle Lindsay, the illegitimate mulatto daughter (born of one white and one black parent) of Admiral Sir John Lindsay. Through a series of events, Dido (as she is referred to 99% of the movie) comes to live at Mansfield Park with Lindsay’s uncle and aunt–Lord Chief Justice and Lady Mansfield. Dido’s aristocratic blood heritage affords her many privileges, not even the lower class white citizens of England enjoy as part of their lives; however, her mulatto racial status prevents her from the full life she is entitled to based on the traditions of the noble class social system. While her cousin Elizabeth chases suitors for marriage, Dido is left on the sidelines wondering if she will ever find love. After meeting an idealistic young vicar’s son bent on changing society, he and Dido help shape Lord Mansfield’s role as Lord Chief Justice to end slavery in England.

One of the most astonishing elements of this movie is the impeccable acting from nearly all the cast, and definitely the leads. Not that other elements aren’t worth highlighting first; but, of all the elements that make up a movie especially a period piece, the acting is key to the movie’s overall success at the box office. Playing the title role of Belle, actress Gugu Mbatha-Raw, portrays the character of Dido (Belle) passionately and with breathtaking grace. Her delivery and commitment to character is outstanding. After watching her performance in this movie, this newest actress of color’s career should be followed very closely. Unsure whether it’s director Asante’s ability to coax this powerful performance out of her or her inherent talent, there is no doubt that her screen presence in this film is huge. Although the central character is Dido, the most defined character arc and dynamic performance belongs to Tom Wilkerson in his portrayal of Lord Mansfield. Very few performers in the past have shown they can as effectively navigate the vast array of the character’s conflicted sentiments, as Wilkerson has demonstrated, throughout the course of his character’s transformation in the film. In addition to the stellar performances delivered by Dido and Lord Mansfield, they are supported by a cast equally committed to the authentic preservation of character.

Written by Misan Sigay, this romantic drama transcends the predictable outcome of love triangles often associated with period romance films–much in the vain of an Austen or Bronte adaptation. That thread is supplemented by the recurring themes of liberty and restriction. Director Amma Asante is a newcomer, but proves her ability to effectively craft a beautiful work of cinema in this film. Although some of the shots she chooses are to be expected and even cliche, they are outweighed by the many other shots and scenes she uses and the direction of the characters. But, she serves as a shining reminder that women, like Kathryn Bigelow, can be strong directors and take their movies to new heights. However, while Belle is of undeniable interest in many respects, its overall execution restricts it from being quite as engaging as it wants to and could have very well been. But, can serve as a solid foundation from which Asante can correct her short-comings and improve throughout her bright career.

From the moment the movie opens, it packs way too much into the first few minutes–to the point it feels rushed. However, the quick pace of the opening scenes to pave the way for a pace that will eventually settle into a nice rhythm. If you’re looking for a powerful dynamic period story of love and socio-political intrigue, this is the movie for you. In addition to having a solid story, you also get all the other requisites of a well-executed period drama: a strings-heavy score, lavishly designed costumes, and characters that show the flaws of humans and how they can change.

Hello, Dolly!

Hello Dolly“Hello, Dolly!” starring Barbra Streisand, in the title role, is the film adaptation of the Tony Award-winning Broadway show by the same name. Produced for the screen by Earnest Lehman, the music and lyrics of Broadway legend Jerry Herman are showcased in a larger-than-life musical for the big screen that would dwarf all other film musicals up to the time of its release. Garnering four Oscar wins and four Oscar nominations, including Best Picture, “Hello Dolly!” is one of the most successful film musicals in cinema history (however, not successful in terms of tickets sold).

One of Barbra Streisand’s most beloved performances, after “Funny Girl,” is that of the loud, boisterous, glamorous, ostentations, matchmaker Dolly Levi. It’s turn-of-the-last-century Yonkers, New York, where an ambitious young widow for a penchant for arranging, matchmaking, and organizing nearly anything has an idea for a perfect match—for herself! Horace Vandergelder is a millionaire and merchant who deals in chickens and other groceries who is the father of a young lady, coincidentally in love with someone he does not approve of, and manager of two innocent, but fun-loving, clerks. Dolly arrives in town in time to hear that Vandergelder has found a potential match. It’s all Dolly can do to not blow her cover for her actual feelings for him, and keep him from tying the knot with a friend of hers who is the owner of a hat shop. Convincing Vandergelders two clerks and his daughter, with beau, to travel to New York City to find and consummate their matches is all part of Dolly’s underhanded plan to land the millionaire Vandergelder. Comedy ensues as all the characters interact with each other and fumble around trying to find love. But through it all is the indomitable and memorable Dolly Levi.

More infamous for bringing Fox financially to its knees than for being the last major musical directed by Gene Kelly, “Hello, Dolly!” is a bull in a china shop. The film cost nearly as much to produce as “Cleopatra” and made far less at the box office, thus earning the film its reputation as one of Hollywood’s foremost financial flops; but the film continues to endure today and capture the hearts of millions who love the memorable songs and beautiful period costumes.

Like with any masterpiece of cinema, “Hello, Dolly!” is not without casting controversy. But, more than any other film to date (and even up to today, minus Disney’s “Into the Woods” being released later this year), the ones is the prime example of miscasting the lead role. Now, I absolutely love Barbra Streisand; however, she may have had the voice, but the rest of her was not the best for the most coveted female role at that time in Hollywood. The role of Dolly Levi was originally made immortal on Broadway by Carol Channing; but 20th Century Fox cast Streisand shortly after the premiere of “Funny Girl” the prior year to capitalize on her fast-moving and successful career; a smart business decision to cash in on Streisand’s star power. Dolly is supposed to be middle aged, and last checked, 27 is not middle aged. Dolly Levi is supposed to be in her 50s or even 60s. The very essence of the character of Dolly was lost in Barbra’s ability to open her mouth to produce the magic that is her voice.

Critical to a film adaptation of a Broadway musical is that the dialog, musical numbers, and performances need to be played to those sitting in the dark in the confines of the temple, that is the cinema. “Hello, Dolly!” consistently throughout the entire extravaganza plays to the back row of the house. The choreography, the performances, the set decoration, the dialogue, everything about “Hello, Dolly!” is nearly too big and loud for the screen; but again, would be fine on the stage. On an anamorphic widescreen, close-ups tend to be more frightening than mirthful. And, it is hard to believe that the actor playing Cornelius Hackl is the same man who will forever be immortalized as Webber’s original Phantom.

“Hello, Dolly!” is actually a lot closer to “Xanadu” than it is to Gene Kelly’s other masterpiece “Singin’ in the Rain.” The movie is equally over-directed and undernourished. Dolly first emerges from a “studiously” recreated set of New York City, circa 1890, and already she’s fighting for attention with a gigantic set and with her own ostentatious costume. It says everything about Gene Kelly’s priorities and costumer Irene Sharaff’s exhibitionist tendencies that we’re introduced to Dolly’s shoes and hat before we see her face. Because the musical numbers are all scaled somewhere on the spectrum of overstuffed grandiosity, what fun there is in Dolly obtains mostly in Streisand’s loopy line readings—a real comic aplomb that her recent near-desertion of acting has made harder to remember—or else in the kinesthetic leaps and bounds in famed choreographer Michael Kidd’s dance routines. On the other hand, the explosive effusion that characterizes even these stray highlights—zany comic banter, waiters somersaulting over champagne buckets—just reminds us that “Hello, Dolly!” is driven at all times, except in its feeble story structure, by the credo of More Is More.

“Hello, Dolly!” is a prime example of an integrated film musical. It uses the musical/dance numbers to advance the plot and offer some exposition into the plat and the character development of the characters. At times, the music is coming from off-screen somewhere—the soundtrack of a character’s mind—and other times, the music is coming from a band on the screen with a given character. Analytically speaking, the terms for the music coming from somewhere off screen is non-diogetic music, and the term for music coming from some source within the movie is diogetic music. In musicals, the instrumental accompaniment often comes from a source somewhere else, temporarily causing the audience to suspend their disbelief that a character’s songs come with an accompaniment. Sometimes, the source for the accompaniment comes from a source within the movie.

There are also some socio-political undertones in the movie; and like with many musicals, the messages are often subtle (although, not always). Crucial to the development of the modern film musical is blackfaced minstrelsy. And, even in 1969, there are remnants of this practice in the movie. Louis Armstrong is forever captured in Technicolor for a few brief moments during the musical’s title song, which comes toward the end of the musical. Like the minstrels of old, he plays the role of a smiley, fun, vibrant, and comedic orchestra leader at the Harmonia Gardens. Traditional relationships also play a huge role in the film. Dolly’s very existence is that of a matchmaker, glorified as she may be, and she spends her time pairing men with women. The movie also alludes to the fact that men require women and vice versa. Fortunately, the movie does showcase women owning their own businesses and being in some control over their lives—moreso than musicals and movies of the past.

Regarded as one of the greatest film musicals of all time, “Hello, Dolly!” will continue to serve as a tribute to the grand film musical extravaganzas at the end of Hollywood’s golden era. Regardless of which Dolly one prefers in the title role, Dolly Levi is an immortal character in the world of cinema and Broadway. The movie is also a testament to the fact that Broadway musicals do not always transfer to the screen extremely well. But, at the end of the day, the movie served its purpose to entertain and create a place in the heart of all who watch it.

X-Men: Days of Future Past

X-Men: Days of Future PastSuch an incredible super-hero movie and kick-off to the Summer Blockbuster season. Spider-Man 2, X-Men, and the upcoming Maleficent are excellent movies to usher in the second biggest box office season of the year (second to the Holiday season). It’s also refreshing to see a movie that depicts a dark–very dark–bleak dystopian future that has the opportunity to be prevented. With a cast featuring Sir Ian McKellen, Sir Patrick Stewart, Hugh Jackman, Halle Berry, Jennifer Lawrence, and more, the movie will keep you on the edge of your seat the entire time. Director Bryan Singer has succeeded in topping his previous X-Men movies with the biggest installment in the 14-year, seven-movie X-Men franchise. But, just a word of caution, you probably want to bring along a teenager or comic book fan to decipher some of the plot points and guide you through the time-traveling pretzel-like plot.

In the most recent installment in the X-Men franchise, we are introduced to a Manhattan ravaged by war and destruction caused by the Sentinels on their quest to destroy all mutants–looks a lot like present Detroit. In their quest to destroy all mutants, the human race is all but eradicated as well. Held up in an ancient Chinese mountain fortress, a small band of mutants, including Storm, Wolverine, Xavier, and Magneto are taking their “last stand” against the indestructible adversary. Frenemies Xavier and Eric join together to develop a plan to save the mutants and humans from total destruction. Just goes to show that a common enemy can cause two other enemies to join forces. Wolverine’s conscious is sent back in time to 1973 in order to stop Mystique (Lawrence), who’s essentially gone rogue, from killing Trask, the inventor of the Sentinels–an event that caused the Sentinel program to evolve into the destruction of humanity.

There are many ways and plenty of opportunities for this film to have gone the way of “Spider-Man 3” (original trilogy), but thankfully it surpassed any and all expectations for this sequel/prequel/reboot, or whatever we are going to call it now. After a hiatus from the franchise, it is clear that the series has missed Singer, and what a triumphant return! After the failed “Wolverine” and “X-Men: Last Stand,” I was ready to write this franchise off as something that will merely be produced every three years in order for Fox to withhold the film rights from falling into the gloves of a Mouse. Through “X-Men: First Class” and today’s “X-Men: Days of Future Past,” Singer has been able to save the franchise and redirect its course of action for a bright future that will undoubtedly boost Fox’s pull at the box office. However, it will be difficult to join the masses that are enjoying this movie if you have not seen the, for good or bad, previous films in the franchise.

Lately, it seems like the producers and writers of the superhero genre films have finally figured out that a truly successful superhero movie will not only have amazing action sequences, eye-popping visual effects, but excellent acting and emotional pull (otherwise known as heart). And, this film has the aforementioned in spades. Everything from the cinematography to the writing, from the directing to the acting is done flawlessly. Although some of the characters do not get near the screen time as some of the others, they play an important part in the story. Instead of a kid’s comic come-to-life, we have an excellent work of cinema that honestly keeps the balance between narrative and stunning visual effects. For those with younger ears and eyes that may want to watch the movie, there is a quick shot of Jackman’s backside and an F-bomb. Unlike, the “Transformers” franchise, “X-Men” provides the audience with awesome action sequences, characters that the audience can fall in love with, and a story with passion.

If you haven’t seen the movie, and have seen the six previous films, definitely plan some time over the holiday weekend to watch it. And, if you have a friend who’s familiar with the comics, you should take them along. Sorry, Disney, I don’t think you are getting the rights to the X-Men characters any time soon, especially after the wild success of this most recent installment that has made up for all the cinema sins committed by many of the previous films.

The Amazing Spider-Man 2

(c)2014 Columbia Pictures

(c)2014 Columbia Pictures

If you haven’t seen the “Amazing Spider-Man 2” yet, definitely make time to see this dynamic super-hero/action genre film. I’ve seen a lot of superhero movies, especially in the last decade, and none can quite compare to the ability of Andrew Garfield (Peter Parker/Spider-Man) and Emma Stone (Gwen Stacy) to capture the array of emotions in the way the characters were able to in this roller coaster of a movie. Although Director Mark Webb overstuffed the 2.5hr movie with multiple plot lines, villains, and changing sets, the chemistry between Garfield and Stone attempt to, and are successful at, giving this movie heart and soul.

Webb’s spring blockbuster is the sequel to the reboot of the movie adaptation of the original Marvel comic-books, which is another way of saying it’s a copy of a copy. But if the Spider-Man tale is about anything, it’s about gawky youth and surging powers. And the film-makers know this and keep the tone skittish and fresh. In this installment of the latest Spider-Man franchise reboot, Columbia Pictures (Sony) takes the audience on the ride of their lives. And, that isn’t even counting the experience one receives in the 3D version (for your information, I watched the standard definition version).

The movie opens, as supplemental installments in a superhero franchise often do, in the middle of a hot pursuit. No surprises there. Parallel to attempting to apprehend a foreshadowed villain, Spider-Man is close to missing his high school graduation and his girlfriend’s valedictorian speech. Coming of no shock, he is able to swing onto the stage just before his name is called to walk across it. In addition to the fast-paced, thrilling ride the audience experiences during the entire movie, Peter and Gwen experience an emotional roller coaster of their own. Facing his most powerful villain to date, Spider-Man must outsmart Electro (played by Jamie Foxx), a mutant who’s ability to control electricity makes him seemingly unstoppable. Everywhere electricity is, there is he. The origin of Electro seems reminiscent of Kathy Bate’s character in the classic Stephen King novel set to film “Misery.” Is Spider-Man able to outwit his nemesis? You will just have to watch the movie to find out. And, like any good orphaned superhero, Peter’s iconic Aunt May (beautifully played again by the accomplished Sally Field) finally tells his the true story about his parents’ death. During the third act of the movie, however rushed, we are introduced to one of the most famed villains in the Spider-Man franchise, the Green Goblin. The close of the movie will likely have you in tears. Honestly, I think this is the only superhero movie that caused me to cry.

New Yorkers can definitely appreciate the sequel for highlighting the metropolis that is so vital to the Spider-Man story. The “Amazing Spider-Man” (first one) felt confined too often to Peter’s bedroom, his high school and the Oscorp skyscraper, neglecting the city. Essentially this latest installment is one long series of postcards of famous NYC landmarks, one right after another; from the Williamsburg Bridge to Columbus Circle, even taking in forgotten subway stations once frequented by a certain US President. Until the third act of the movie, the majority of the scenes take place outdoors from Chinatown to Park and 56th. For those who have not been to New York City, there is so much more to the metropolis than midtown, which is often all anyone ever sees of the city in movies.

In truth, none of the many subplots or action sequences, have as much combustible power as the scenes featuring Peter Parker/Spider-Man and Gwen, benefiting here as did the previous film from the fizzy, tangible chemistry between Garfield and Stone. It helps that they’re also individually such interesting performers, both nervous fidgeters who always seem so giddy in each other’s presence, even when Peter gets all worried about keeping his promise to dead Captain Stacy (Denis Leary) to stay away from Gwen for her own safety and tries to split up with her. Hence, the roller coast of emotions throughout the movie as I mentioned earlier. Unfortunately, the movie suffers from being overloaded with subplots that cannot be fully developed and executed effectively to the satisfaction of the audience in a timespan of nearly 2.5 hours. This is most evident in the origin and development of Green Goblin, whose story seems stuck in the middle of acts two and three, just to quickly introduce him in order to save time in the next film. And, as much fun as it is to see Paul Giamatti’s charismatic character on screen, he too should have been left out to fully develop in future installments.

All-in-all, “The Amazing Spider-Man 2” will thrill audiences everywhere, even the ardent comic book fans who line up every Wednesday morning for new comic book day (this is a shout out to my friend Derek). Although it is nearly impossible to expect a 2.5 hour movie, or even a trilogy (or more) to be all inclusive of the information in the comics, Webb appears to do an excellent job at combing the best of what the comic books offer with the additional elements to tell a story visually on screen.

Oculus

Oculus PosterDefinitely one of the scariest horror movies in recent years. “Oculus” is the feature film from Blumhouse that is based upon a short film by the director. The plot centers in and around an ominous gilded mirror whose origin is sketchy, at best. According to legend and circumstantial evidence, it is allegedly responsible for nearly 50 deaths in approximately 400 years. Two young adults who crossed paths with the mirror 11 years prior, must face “it” again in order to destroy the mirror. Having been recently released from a mental facility, Timmy reunites with his older sister Kayleigh on a dangerous mission to send the mirror back from whence it came. The audience will be totally engrossed in this spine tingling journey into the world of the mirror and its affect upon the reflection of the mind.

This movie could’ve just as easily been subtitled “Through the Looking Glass” or “Alice in Horrorland.” Unlike the recent movies such as “Insidious” or “The Conjuring,” “Oculus” does not rely upon jump scares to curdle the blood and cause the heart to race. It takes a much more Hitchcockian approach–the fear is in the mind of the audience. Hitchcock once said, “greater is the fear in the mind than the fear on the screen.” And, director Mike Flanagan has “suspense” in spades. Not that “Oculus” is without an ominous presence materializing behind a character; but the film is successful in creating legitimate fear in the minds and stomachs of the audience without having to result to cheap parlor tricks. The writers did an excellent job at blending the elements of a psychological thriller/suspense with some visceral body horror. However, there is little blood in the movie compared to many of its contemporaries. Unlike a typical horror movie, the enemy is an intimate object with molevalent powers of “perception.” Throughout the entire movie, you will ask yourself if what you are seeing is real or are you seeing what the mirror wants you to see.

Are their demons in the movie? Yes AND no. This is part of what gives this movie a unique blend of horror and suspense. And yes, I am aware of which “there” I used in the previous sentence. Within the context of the movie, the demons (never mentioned directly) are both real and objects of perception in the mind of the characters based upon their troublesome past (hence, the usage of “their” earlier). You only get a glimpse of apparitions throughout the movie…and seldom a clear one until the very end. The movie plays with both perception and memory. What the audience actually sees, what the audience thinks they see, and what the mirror wants you to see. Yes, this movie engages the audience nearly as much as it engages the main characters. You are definitely along for the ride from the moment the movie opens to the close. Turn after turn, the mirror thwarts any and all attempts to destroy it. But, it needn’t even move from the wall upon which it is hung. The question of whether the mirror is actually haunted or used as a dwelling place for evil is minimally explored–though, it is definitely cleverly answered at one point. Throughout the movie, the mirror is used as a “reflection” of the human condition in a macabre allegory.

Memory is a tangled web; it’s often rewritten or clouded by hidden terrors, fantasy, or that which we wish were true. We see what we are willing, programmed, or prepared to see and we are often psychologically “stuck” in certain moments from our childhood, events which we find a way to replay in a loop as our lives progress. Kayleigh has been metaphorically “trapped”, frozen in that childhood trauma until she must literally relive it. Mark Twain wrote in his book “Innocents Gone By” that we see what we want to see. It’s not so much what the mirror does to you, as much as it is a reflection of the damage we reap on our selves and others when rooted in dark and sinister fear. The mirror will have you second-guessing every move you make; and like a magician, while you are looking one way, it is screwing with your very conscious till you don’t know what is real and fantasy. Although the movie does an excellent job at developing the present and past story lines, at one point they converge; and, it does get a little confusing following the separate narratives. This could very well have been intended by the writers; but it would have been nice to have more clearly defined what time period each scene is in. Fortunately, the decor and furniture does help some to clarify this.

Like Hitchcock, Flanagan knows that the greatest fear he can create in a movie is to move the fear from the screen and place it in the minds and stomachs of the audience. But, “Oculus” is not without its faults. It was shot quickly and with a minimal budget. And, that shows through in the final cut of the film. It does not benefit from the lavish sets build for big budget horror films. However, this makes what it was able to achieve even more impressive, than had it benefitted from a big budget. Unlike “Psycho,” “Oculus” will not likely linger in your mind for a long period of time, and it will likely achieve its greatest success on Netflix, or another video-on-demand equivalent in the coming months. The movie is creepy and designed to give an audience a couple hours of sinister pleasure. There are many unanswered questions following the close of the movie. And, to get into all the questions would ruin the movie for those who have not seen it. But, one main questions that an audience should ask themselves when watching a movie with a typical villain (or evil presence) is what drives them to commit the atrocities they do? There needs to be some method to the madness. Even in “Saw,” there was a reason why Jigsaw was out to kill. And, in “Silence of the Lambs,” Jamie Gum had a desire to become a woman by building a human suit. The audience in “Oculus” is left wondering why the mirror does what it does. What drives it?

What will drive audiences to see this movie is what typically drives those who love to be scared. This movie will take many by surprise; because the audience is as much a part of the action, as are the characters on the screen whilst they battle the malevolent force of the looking glass. Everyone who watches this movie will take a journey, much like Alice, through the looking glass into a world of perception, reflection, and deathly memories.