Romeo + Juliet

Directed by Baz Luhrmann. Written by William Shakespeare (play), Craig Pearce and Baz Luhrmann (screenplay). Starring Leonardo DiCaprio (Romeo), Claire Danes (Juliet) and John Leguizamo (Tybalt)

Bottom line: With so much of this movie relying on the visual and sound, it fell short of the mark because it didn't address the unique challenges of working with the Shakespearean lines, the miserable music and the lame acting.
2/4



I didn't want to dislike Romeo + Juliet. I like Romeo and Juliet a lot. I like the art style of this movie. I really liked the idea of using the original script with a modern day setting. But it just didn't work for me.

Remember the first time you read Shakespeare aloud? You are reading and reading and stumbling over words but, wait, there is an exclamation mark at the end of this word, THAT MEANS SHOUT, RIGHT?! The kids who knew what they were doing saw the exclamation before they starting reading so they built up to it.

The acting in Romeo + Juliet is kinda like that. Act 1, Scene 4, where Romeo and Mercutio are talking about dreams. Mercutio seems speak in playful jest but, at the drop of a hat, he is screaming in anger. So, really, it isn't so much an issue with acting but with language. I spent a good deal of time and energy trying to understand the words they are saying so I kinda miss the acting. Then I see yelling and shouting with a shift in music and I get all mixed up.

Pete Postlethwaite as Father Laurence was the exception. It isn't surprising that he was a member of the Royal Shakespearean Company. Even though I only picked up a part of his lines, I understand the sentiment by his consistent, smooth performance. I wish they had more of him and less of everyone else.

On a different note, I hated the music and silly direction this movie took. The first shooting scene could have been dramatic and intense but then goofy music was thrown in. It is an intense scene in the play (I think) so I don't see why we had to make it like a cartoon? Similarly, why do we have to have the maid screaming "whoo-liet!" even two seconds? Is it mildly racist comic relief?

I wonder what could have been done to make this a better movie. It is as if they said "Alright, we're using the original script so we don't have to worry about the dialogue. Let's make this movie a kaleidoscope!" They didn't seem to account for the fact that the Shakespearean lines aren't a piece of cake to follow. Unless I have some visuals to complement the dialog, I am going to be lost.

If you've ever watched a movie in another language with no subtitles, it poses a similar issue. I saw a Russian bootleg of Predators (2010). Granted, I don't think I was missing anything without dialogue but I still was able to grasp the concept of the plot. With Romeo + Juliet, the only way I was able to follow along was because I knew the story and it was in English (of sorts). Overall, visuals and dialogue should complement not be placed at odds with each other.

Paul Schrader NYFA Lecture

I just watched a video of Paul Schrader giving a lecture at the New York Film Academy. He spoke about screenwriting. Paul Schrader, if you aren't familiar, wrote the screenplays for Taxi Driver, Raging Bull, American Gigolo and a host of other films.

When you go to write a screenplay, how do you start? Schrader suggests you look at yourself. Look at a problem in your life and turn it into a metaphor. That metaphor, mind you, isn’t a replica of the problem. So, to use Schrader’s example, if you are an overweight Jewish girl, your metaphor can't be ‘an overweight Jewish girl’. Things are a little different if you are adapting something to film. Instead of developing a metaphor from your problem, you must pull the problem out of the metaphor. It is finding a problem in a text which you identify. He establishes that the core of his method is the idea of a metaphor and proceeds to explain how Taxi Driver came to be.

He was twenty-five and living in LA. He had been a movie critic and wrote a book but he was now, for the most part, out of work. His marriage and another relationship were failing. So he spent a lot of time in his car driving around the city. Patrons can sleep in adult movie theaters so because he spent a lot of time there. After a number of weeks, he checked himself into the hospital because he had horrible stomach pains. He had a stomach ulcer. At that point, that he realized that he hadn't spoken to anyone in weeks. He just drank and drove and watched porn. This image of a man driving a steel coffin came into his mind. Despite being surrounded by people, the man is alone. So this steel coffin is a metaphor for loneliness, his loneliness. For Schrader, screenwriting is an outlet. If he didn't write Taxi Driver, he feared he would become Travis Bickle.

The unique quality of Schrader's method is that he doesn't put too much emphasis on plot. Normally, as he notes, people are taught to start with the plot. Make a thesis statement of the film; one sentence which summarizes everything. According to Schrader, if you have a strong metaphor, plot just kinda follows. He relates this back to the simple enough plot of Taxi Driver. This lonely guy wants a woman he can't have and has a woman he doesn't want. He tries to destroy the father figure of one and fails but succeeds in killing the father figure of the other and, in doing so, inadvertently becomes a hero.

As another example, consider Jaws. A giant shark lurking off the coast of a New England town is the embodiment of anxiety. Now that the metaphor is established develop a plot. That's simple enough: the giant shark eats people and is, in turn, hunted.

Schrader's methodology is a perfect example of why I love film. Something very personal can be shared, viewed and appreciated by a community (whether that means theater-goers or critics or film makers).

Dark Knight Rises

Directed by Christopher Nolan. Written by Jonathan Nolan (screenplay), Christopher Nolan (story/screenplay) and David S. Goyer (story). Starring Christian Bale (Bruce Wayne), Tom Hardy (Bane) and Anne Hathaway (Selina)

Bottom Line: Dark Knight Rises is an action-packed blockbuster to give a very good, clean end to a solid trilogy. The characters are strong, the movie is thought out and it becomes a surprisingly short two hour forty minute movie.
3.5/4

I loved Dark Knight. I think just about everyone did. That said, I had my hopes low, nay, I was dreading Dark Knight Rises. Mixing an almost infinite budget and trying to use Bane could be a very bad idea. Not that I have anything against Bane, it's just a problem of translating his character to the screen without it becoming a stupid cartoon. In terms of the superhero equation, if the character is really smart, he's not going to be strong. Similarly, if he is really strong, he is going to be as dumb as a rock. On top of that, he will be following up the Joker. Sure, in a comic-book sense, Bane is a bigger villain but he isn't nearly as photogenic. Whew, alright, I'm done.

Dark Knight Rises is set about seven or eight years after Dark Knight. Batman has disappeared. Bruce Wayne just stays in the Wayne Manor. With the death of Harvey Dent/Two Face, the Dent Act was passed to keep the streets clean.
Enter Bane and his henchmen.
They were hired by a Wayne Enterprises board member for some economic scheme. Of course, Bane changes plans and steals a nuclear weapon to destroy Gotham. Batman returns to save the day with a helping hand (or claw) from Catwoman.

Alright, the story is your pretty standard fare in terms of superhero movies but the best parts come with the interpretation of the characters.

Bane is a really mean, smart, strong villain. He is so strong that when he punches something there is a kick of bass. I say smart because, well, I don't know. Maybe it is because I want him to be smart. He certainly wasn't stupid so we can assume he has was the mastermind behind this plan, right?

Bale gives another solid performance of Batman. Nothing particularly new with his character but it is fun to watch him in another adventure.

Catwoman is another thing I was dreading about Dark Knight Rises. Much to my surprise, Hathaway's performance is pretty darn good. I am trying to find another way to phrase it than "She wasn't a hyper-sexualized object" but that was a big part of why I liked her. She was a strong, capable character who added to the movie. Sure, she wasn't perfect; she tries to be the type of character who can't be a truly good selfless person but it comes across a little flat.

I can't quite tell what accent Joseph Gordon-Levitt was using (was he supposed to be from Brooklyn here and there) but Detective Blake is another surprisingly pleasant addition. He is a convincing bright-eyed idealistic rookie cop.

Michael Caine, as much as I hate to say it, was disappointing. He was in maybe four scenes and just spent the time crying. He almost had me choked up in the first scene but he wasn't fooling anyone by the end of the movie.

The Avengers

Directed and Screenplay by Joss Whedon. Starring Robert Downey Jr. (Tony Stark/Iron Man), Chris Evans (Captain America), Scarlett Johansson (Black Widow), Mark Ruffalo (Bruce Banner/The Hulk), Jeremy Renner (Hawkeye), Tom Hiddleston (Loki), Samuel L. Jackson (Nick Fury).

Bottom Line: Great CGI, solid jokes make Avengers a fun movie experience. I've seen it twice in 3D (once in IMAX 3D) and I wouldn't mind seeing it again.

3/4 stars

Super hero movies are like barbeque ribs. I can't say I'm generally the biggest fan but I've had some darn good ribs. The meat of the rib is the most important part. If it is tender and well cooked, the meat can stand alone; I've had some ribs without any sauce or extra spices and they’ve been lovely. But, if you add a little sauce or spice rub, you can make some really memorable ribs. Memorable, of course, can be a good or a bad thing.

The Avengers is a solid rack of ribs. The meat (the action and special effects) is wonderful. Even though the 3D effects were applied in post-production, they are well done, particularly the extreme long shots of Iron Man flying through the city.

The dialog is the sauce. The characters are distinct and they are fun to watch. The jokes are spot on and provide a pleasant break from the action. Even the cliché jokes are successful. For example, in the final battle, Captain America orders some police around, ‘Why should we listen to you’, some aliens jump out, Capt. America destroys them and, predictably, the cop turns around and follows orders. That joke must be in just about every action movie but, here, the cop’s delivery of the punch-line is executed perfectly.

The Avengers, as you may well know, is the result of a four year string of movies from Marvel. Each of the characters, Iron Man, Captain America, Black Widow, The Hulk, Hawkeye and Thor are brought together to form a team to protect the world from Thor's brother, Loki. The strong personalities of the heroes make the possibility of a team slim. Ultimately, they are persuaded but in ways which bring to light the film's questionable sense of morality.

In a lot of these types of movies, there is always “The Man”. The big government type of entity. They don’t understand, man, because they haven’t been out in the field. Here, this comes in the form of "The Council", which I assume is the UN. Alright. I'm fine with this. It’s nothing new.
Now Nick Fury (Jackson), the man in charge of the “Avengers initiative”, is in the field. So he ought to be a strong moral leader because he understands how hard it is for the soldiers.
But, what happens? Fury manipulates the emotions of the heroes so they form a team: “…he died believing a dream.” The message, then, is “the ends justify the means”. The Avengers do go on to save the world but it leaves me with a bitter taste in my mouth.

The moral ambiguity, fortunately, doesn't overshadow the great dialog and special effects. The Avengers is a movie that I was actually dreading. I was fully expecting the $200,000,000 budget to go to special effects at the expense of dialog but, to my great surprise that isn’t the case.