Movie Review: "Mud"

Set in Arkansas on the banks of the Mississippi River, Mud plays kind of like a Southern coming-of-age fable that tries to be like a modern Tom Sawyer, and for the most part director Jeff Nichols' film succeeds.

In the film, Matthew McConaughey portrays a convict on the run, who hides out on an island in the middle of the Mississippi River.  Here is found by two boys exploring one day.  The two boys take a liking to McConaughey's lovestruck charisma as the man simply known as Mud, who manages to recruit them to help him rebuild a broken down boat in order for him to make his escape.  Of course, Mud doesn't want to leave until he can retrieve the love of his life, Juniper, portrayed by Reese Witherspoon.

What I found the most enjoyable about this film was the relationship between Mud and the more prominent of the two boys, Ellis, who is played by Tye Sheridan.  Mud's devotion to Juniper and his philosophies on love inspire Ellis at a malleable moment in his life when his parents are separating and he is having his first brushes with girls.  While it is a story about a convict trying to escape police, it's really a story about this boy's coming-of-age and how this unlikely man transforms him into what I hope will become a good young man.

McConaughey steals every scene he is in through sheer charisma, and Sheridan's quiet performance is every bit the opposite, being one of those great acting jobs where most of everything is internalized and in the eyes.  While the film has some logic gaps that at times don't make much sense in a real world story such as this, not to mention the fact that I'm tired of movies representing the South as trailer parks and thick Southern drawls, at the end of the day, Mud is one fine movie.

I give Mud an A-!

Movie Review: "The Great Gatsby"

You know, I've never been the biggest fan of both F. Scott Fitzgerald and director Baz Luhrman, so when Luhrman announced he was adapting Fitzgerald's classic, The Great Gatsby for the bigscreen, I had very low expectations, and in those regards I was surprised by the film, but it still does not make me a fan of Luhrman or Fitzgerald.  The film stars Leonardo DiCaprio as the titular Gatsby, and he's charming and does his usual Leonardo DiCaprio thing here, but it's a fairly safe performance by an actor who is capable of far more reaching material, however, part of the reasoning for that is that this film never really takes flight.  This is an emotionally cold story, and it's hard to relate to rich people lavishing in their own extravagance when very few people are actually that wealthy.  Not to mention the fact that all of the melodrama comes across as trite and soap opera-like in our more modern time where we've seen just about every genre cliche this films features hundreds of times before.  Even still, this is a visually sumptuous film that is vibrant and energetic in its style, with some solid performances from the cast.  It's just one of those films that if you aren't already a fan of the book or the director's previous works, you will find very little to latch onto here and enjoy.

I give The Great Gatsby a D!

Are Hollywood Actors Over-Paid?

Are Hollywood actors over-paid?  This is a question that has been on my mind ever since I read this article yesterday from Deadline Hollywood about the contract squabbles going on over at Marvel Studios right now involving The Avengers 2 and its cast.

It's been widely reported that Robert Downey, Jr., made over $50 million off The Avengers alone, and supposedly that didn't sit well with every cast member, with certain of the main cast members getting paid as low as $200,000, compared to Downey's astronomical sum (though the article never says who).  As per usual in Hollywood, everyone wants an equally-sized slice of the pie and as contract negotiations are just now beginning for The Avengers 2, the word is that these negotiations are getting fairly heated in many quarters, with many of the stars rallying behind Robert Downey, Jr., and asking for more and more money, or they walk.  Is it just me or are actors just big prima donnas nowadays?

Actor Chris Hemsworth, who portrays Thor, is quoted as saying, "Go ahead," when the idea of recasting was brought up by Marvel if the negotiations were to break down, with Deadline's article stating, "I hear Hemsworth especially wasn't anxious to go back into that arduous diet and training regimen and subsist primarily on egg whites."  Uh, you play Thor, suck it up.  And while I don't know if Hemsworth was the actor to receive only $200,000 or not, for the sake of the argument, let's say he was.  $200,000 is more money than most average Americans make in three or four years, so pardon me if I don't feel sympathy for your getting in excellent physical shape with Hollywood trainers when so many Average Joe's are struggling with their weight and health issues, while still getting a payday for five to six months worth of work that exceeds what many make in four years.

Personally, I do feel it's unfair that one actor gets payed $50 million, when an actor who has equal billing only gets $200,000, but where do you draw the line?  You can't pay all of the actors $50 million.  Common sense would just say pay all of the main cast members the same salary, especially in an ensemble film like this, but then when you have Robert Downey, Jr., in your movie, he automatically wants more money than everyone else because he's a "bigger" star.  The annoyance here is that these actors feel they're irreplaceable, as is evidenced by Hemsworth's statement of saying, "Go ahead," in regards to Thor being recast.  While it is true that there would probably be a backlash in the fan community if Iron Man or Thor were recast, if there is anything that the multiple incarnations of Batman, Superman, and now Spider-Man, have proven, is that audiences and fans alike will embrace new actors in these iconic roles as long as it's done well.

I think what frustrates me so much about this side of Hollywood, is that Hollywood actors are getting paid more money than I've ever seen in my life to do something that I would gladly do for $200,000.  I want to make movies not for the money (though I wouldn't complain if someone offered it to me), but because I love movies and it's my passion.  While film is a business, and it is how I plan to make a living in the future, I just wonder why these actors are sitting here whining and griping about how many millions of dollars they get paid to have fun and do what they're passionate about?  You know how many people out there hate their jobs and wish they could be doing what they love to do?  I'm assuming that if you became an actor, you became one because it's what you love doing, so why are you acting like such a diva, when everyday you get to drive home in one of your five Mercedes and sleep in one of your three mansions you own just for tax purposes?

The bottom line here is, first it was wrong for Marvel to pay the actors such differing salaries when they all received equal billing, but secondly, and probably most importantly, actor salaries for movies are just getting wildly out of control.  What Robert Downey, Jr., got paid for The Avengers was more money than most movies made in any given year cost to make.   That is just flat-out ridiculous.  I don't care who you are, how famous you are, or how important your participation is to the success of the film.  No one, not even a director like Steven Spielberg, deserves a $50 million payday for just one movie.  I mean, think about it, The Avengers had a budget of $220 million according to boxofficemojo.com, and $50 million of that went to pay one actor?  From a business standpoint, that's ridiculous.  I don't know how much of that budget went to pay the actors, but it's safe to assume that it was at least $70 million or more, considering the star power the film had.  That means the actual production itself only cost around $100-150 million.  This is why I think actor salaries are out of control.

Say you have an ensemble movie with seven characters with equal billing and you do pay all seven the same salary of $50 million.  That's $350 million!  Your movie is already in the red before it even gets made, this is why actor salaries are ridiculous and need to be more reasonable, to where one star isn't getting payed astronomical amounts, while another is getting very little in comparison (though, that is debatable to your everyday person).  Personally, I feel $5 million for a leading role in a big blockbuster like The Avengers is reasonable.  That would first off cut the amount of money spent on the actors almost in half, and would allocate more money for the production to be of a higher quality and be that much better of a movie.  The challenge is getting actors who are accustomed to astronomically high paydays to agree to a lower pay.  Thing is, though, can anyone seriously tell me if someone like Robert Downey, Jr., will ever live long enough to spend all of the money he probably has made just from the past five years of acting alone?  It's just flat-out insane what actors are being paid, and I think Hollywood needs to stop catering to the whims of the actors and pay salaries that are reasonable and fair, and not clearly showing favoritism towards one actor over the other.

As for right now, we'll see where these negotiations go.  Currently the only cast member signed up for The Avengers 2 is Chris Evans, who plays Captain America.  With recent reports that Marvel will be introducing new heroes in the form of Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver in The Avengers 2, it's entirely possible that Marvel and writer/director Joss Whedon are preparing for the possibility of certain characters not reappearing in The Avengers 2.  Even so, this type of stuff almost always happens with big budget sequels in Hollywood.  I am willing to bet every actor from the first film will be back, so if you're a fan of The Avengers, I see no need to worry.  The franchise is so big, I personally don't see Marvel severing ties with actors, even though they have done it before with Edward Norton as Bruce Banner, recasting him for The Avengers with Mark Ruffalo instead.  Even still, I think the actors will recognize that these films are once in a lifetime career opportunities and they wont let them go to waste.

To Twist, or Not to Twist?

Darth Vader revealing he's Luke' Dad in The Empire Strikes Back

(Beware, this post will include SPOILERS from recent movies.)

There is nothing more amazing than the well executed movie twist, where everything is going one way and then the entire game is changed through the actions and reveals of just one scene.  Everyone remembers the great movie twists:  Darth Vader revealing he's Luke's father, Kevin Spacey actually being Keyser Soze, Norman Bates is really his mother, etc.  However, nowadays it seems that the movie twist has become a prerequisite in almost every major blockbuster.

I recently saw Iron Man 3 and that movie featured a twist so big, that as a fan of the comics, I just couldn't bring myself to stomach it.  In the movie, Iron Man is hunting down this Bin Laden-like terrorist calling himself the Mandarin.  In the comics, the Mandarin is one of Iron Man's fiercest foes, wearing ten rings of power on his fingers that each grant him a different super power.   Iron Man 3 producer Kevin Feige and writer/director Shane Black have said in interviews that they were trying to ground this latest Iron Man installment in reality, and that was why the Mandarin would not have any super powers in this movie (a good argument if every other bad guy in the movie didn't seem to have super powers, or the fact that Tony Stark's suits are getting more and more outrageous, but back on topic). 

Sir Ben Kingsley as the Mandarin in Iron Man 3

In the movie, the film starts out building the Mandarin character as Bin Laden's evil twin, but when Tony Stark finally meets the Mandarin face-to-face in the movie -- SPOILER ALERT -- he learns that the Mandarin is just an actor hired by the real bad guy, Aldrich Killian, to create panic.  The Mandarin is actually an alcoholic buffoon, nothing like the comic book bad guy that Iron Man has tangled with so many times, and I'm sorry, but this movie twist just felt like a cheap shot to me, revealing that the villain is in fact not really bad and is just an idiot.  I would be more forgiving if this wasn't the first time in recent memory that such a cheap twist was employed in superhero moviemaking.

Last year's The Dark Knight Rises featured what I believe to be one of the most offensive superhero movie twists ever, by revealing that Joseph Gordon Levitt's character, John Blake, who had no basis in the comic books, had the middle name of Robin.  It was "their" version of the Robin character, and as a lifelong fan of every incarnation of the Robin character in the comic books, I was ticked.  I know they wanted to keep the idea that he was going to follow in Bruce Wayne's footsteps and become a vigilante a secret, but this was one of those times where playing it straight would have benefited the story much better.  By doing it the way they did it, it made fans like me furious.  It might have been jaw dropping to a nine-year-old, but to me it was offensive.  Had they simply made his character Dick Grayson, sure everyone would have seen the ending coming, but at least they wouldn't have tarnished the entire movie with their little reveal.  I just don't get why filmmakers can't just play it straight anymore.

Case and point, Iron Man 3 would have been a far better film had they simply made the Mandarin really be the Bin Laden-like terrorist that he was first represented as, rather than doing their twist.  By doing the twist, I felt the film traipsed into farcical territory, where nothing was serious anymore and all of the threat disappeared.  Why can't filmmakers realize how detrimental a movie twist can be to their films?  Have they not taken a look at M. Night Shyamalan lately?

A scene from The Sixth Sense

Shyamalan was known for always having a twist ending to every movie, this started back with the brilliant twist at the end of The Sixth Sense, revealing that Bruce Willis was actually a ghost the entire movie.  The problem was, after having such success with that one twist, he tried to be clever in every movie that followed with a twist in almost each movie, and the twists just became more and more preposterous, and it's hurt his career. 

Shyamalan's latest movie, After Earth, comes out at the end of this month, but if you've seen the trailers, you would not know it's an M. Night Shyamalan movie, cause none of the trailers are advertising his name.  There has not been a single trailer that says, "An M. Night Shyamalan film," or even, "From the Director of The Sixth Sense and Signs," reminding us that he once made good movies.  The thing is, he's no longer seen as a marketable director because he did one twist too many.  He's not a trustworthy deliverer of entertainment anymore.  No one would see the movie if they knew he directed it, and they're simply trying to sell it based on Will Smith and the story, and not by Shyamalan being involved.  The thing is, Shyamalan's a talented guy, he just tried to get too clever a few too many times, and he got burned for it, rather than just playing it straight, which is what After Earth is doing.  It's already been confirmed that there are not twists to the movie, what you see in the trailers is what you're gonna get.  Now, with all this said, I still believe a good movie twist can't be beat, but it has to be justified and hard won.

Movie Poster for The Sting

I recently saw the Robert Redford, Paul Newman film, The Sting, for the first time, and I absolutely loved it.  I was genuinely surprised by the twist ending.  I did not know how the film was going to end, because I had never heard anyone talk of its ending before, so when I finally saw it, I was blown away.  The thing is, what made this movie twist work, was that it felt organic to the nature of the story.  The whole movie is about con men.  The characters are intentionally acting to deceive, and so when the twist occurs, you realize it was all part of the con from the beginning, and you, the audience, feel conned as well, but in a way that is genuinely satisfying.  The same thing with the twist ending to The Usual Suspects.  The whole movie has been narrated by a con man, an unreliable narrator, so when the twist comes, it is just natural.  What makes a twist feel unnatural is when it comes out of left field simply to make a joke that destroys what the film was building towards, like Iron Man 3, or when filmmakers try to shoehorn something in as an Easter Egg thinking, "Fans will love this," as they did with The Dark Knight Rises.  News flash, fans hated it.

Ultimately, I hope I've argued my point well enough.  To twist, or not to twist is an all important question with any movie script, and while I understand wanting to surprise an audience and keep them on their toes, as writers, directors, or producers, sometimes you need to weigh out the benefits of such a twist versus simply playing it straight.  If the story would be more impactful and more successful without the twist, then don't do it just to be clever.  At least, that's how I feel.

Movie Review: "What Maisie Knew"

What Maisie Knew is in the same vein as a Kramer vs. Kramer.  It's the heartbreaking story of the end of a relationship told through the eyes of a little girl.  What makes this film different and highly emotional, is that the film is not about the separation necessarily, it's just the catalyst for what the story is really about.

Maisie's parents (played by Steve Coogan and Julainne Moore) are breaking up.  They're both self-centered people who are the sole reason as to why they have issues, and poor Maisie gets caught up in the middle of their self-centered battles.  However, there is a shimmer of light for Maisie when both parents get remarried and Maisie's new stepparents are thrust into having to care for this girl who has been neglected for so long by her biological parents.

I think what this film illuminates so well, is that just because someone is a child's biological parent, does not mean that they are actually a mother or a father, it takes someone who is genuinely special to fill that role.  While the film never gives us much closure, and often dips into melodrama, as a whole, this is a film made by the sweetness of the relationships between Maisie and her stepparents, and a large part of this is due to Onata Aprile's wonderfully innocent performance as Maisie.

I give What Maisie Knew an A-!