La La Land

Damien Chazelle's follow up to his acclaimed 2014 film Whiplash follows along with his theme of trying to achieve your dreams in the entertainment industry, but with a lot more in the way of singing and dancing. Chazelle also makes a comment about the nature of Hollywood and the way that it treats the young people who go there looking for stardom. As we saw with Whiplash, he is also more than capable when it comes to putting music in movies.

Mia (Emma Stone) is an aspiring actress struggling to get even small roles as she drifts from audition to audition with girls who look exactly like her. She goes to Hollywood parties in the hopes of being spotted by a producer. Mia keeps running into Sebastian (Ryan Gosling), a jazz pianist who is trying very hard to be taken seriously despite playing Christmas carols at bars and 80s pop songs at parties. Eventually the pair strike up a relationship and soon deviate from their respective dreams as they realise life works differently than they intended.

La La Land is an amazing movie that despite being set in the modern day, has the feeling like it could be set in any time period as the story it tells is one that started when Hollywood was born. The dream of making it in Hollywood is one that so many have tried and a lot more have failed than succeeded. Chazelle based this film on his own experiences he had when he first moved to Hollywood and the struggles he had. I'm glad that the romantic elements of this film aren't made a priority, because while they are a good way to movie the story forward, it would be a bore to have this film be about the romance. In a way, both characters are more in love with their dreams than they are with each other. This is the third time that Emma Stone and Ryan Gosling have starred together and their chemistry is undeniable. Both play wholly enjoyable characters who are a delight to watch,

Chazelle is fantastic at integrating music into his films, so it is only reasonable that he try his hand at making a musical (although it isn't fully a musical). Justin Hurwitz's score beautifully compliments the big song and dance numbers and while there are basically only three different music variations (apart from the songs), they just work so well. There is also some amazing camera work done during the songs and they play exactly like a Hollywood musical from the 50s or 60s. I do have a few gripes with the musical aspect of this film. The third act is largely devoid of any musical numbers and relies solely on regular story in tying up the film. I get that it was the darker period for the characters, but you can still convey that through song. The other thing is that singer-songwriter John Legend has a small role in the film and I felt like he could have had more songs, because the ones he did have didn't display his talents.

La La Land is just a fun and enjoyable movie, especially to see at the end of a year that hasn't been too good. It is joyful and optimistic right up to the end, where it gets a little heartbreaking as we see the whole movie through the eyes of what might have been.

Irrational Man

Every time I go and see a Woody Allen movie, I go in with a preconceived notion based on past experience what that film is going to be, but he always throws me for a loop. The movies of his that really stick out to me are the ones where he makes a sharp right hand turn not long into the movie, for example time travel in Midnight In Paris. Because of this, that is why Irrational Man sticks out for me.

Abe Lucas (Joaquin Phoenix) is a philosophy professor who has lost all will to live. He is alcoholic and teaches his classes only halfheartedly. He develops a relationship with fellow teacher Rita (Parker Posey) and a friendship with student Jill (Emma Stone). Because of a reputation that precedes him everyone believes that he and Jill are having an affair, including Jill, despite his active efforts against one. One day while eating at a diner with Jill, they both eavesdrop into a conversation being had about a crooked judge and a child custody case. It is in that moment that Abe is lifted from his bad mindset when he decides to kill the judge.

With this movie, Allen is setting out to make his own adaptation of Alfred Hitchcock's thriller Rope, a movie where two university students attempt to pull off the perfect crime and in a way it works quite well. It definitely has resemblance to an Allen film, but at the same time it is fun and refreshing. Yes, the main character is self absorbed and neurotic, but he is also self aware about the situation he is in, often spouting forth philosophy tenants to match his feelings.

Allen also throws in some big moments that make you jump in delight or fear at what is going on. I like the films when he does this because it really throws me off guard. The last film of his I saw was Blue Jasmine and that was a rather tame self-reflective piece. When he shakes his own formula, it is really quite enjoyable for the audience.

Emma Stone is quite obviously becoming Allen's new muse and I think is doing a good job at inspiring him to tread new ground. Her character couldn't be further from that in Magic in the Moonlight, here she is just playing an archetypical college girl, Emma Stone if you will. Joaquin is fantastic and funny as Abe Lucas and it is amazing to see the transformation his character goes through. It is also amazing to see his dedication to gaining the weight for this role.

Irrational Man is such a refreshing new Woody Allen movie that would be perfect for any jaded fans of his like I was, it is filled with fun moments and funnier performances.

Birdman

Riggan Thomson (Michael Keaton) is a fading movie star who was famous two decades. Fearing that he is losing relevance, he decides to star in a stage adaptation of Raymond Carver's story "What We Talk About When We Talk About Love" that he is also directing, producing and has written. Riggan's best friend and attorney, Jake (Zach Galifianakis), is hoping for Riggan's sake that the play is a success, as his daughter and assistant Sam (Emma Stone).

This film has a lot to say thematically. The method of acting is explored in great depth, with a lot of focus on how actor's draw a solid performance from themselves, as well as which reality is real for an actor. Edward Norton's character Mike Shiner has trouble being honest in real life, but when he is on the stage, all his emotions are real. Riggan also has the same problem. Due to being thought of as Birdman for his whole career, he starts to believe that he actually is Birdman. Of course this fact draws a lot of comparison between Riggan and Michael Keaton, whose most famous role is undoubtably that of Batman in the Tim Burton films.

Riggan is also disgusted by the dominance of superhero movies that proliferate the real world of the movie. Seeing Downey Jr. on TV talking about Iron Man and hearing that he is unable to get actors for his play because they are acting in these types of films. It also has to do with Riggan (read: Keaton) being the precursor to the current crop of superhero franchises. The film also discusses the relationship between creators and critics, with Mike Shiner commenting to a critic that people only become critics when they can't produce something of their own. This comment made me laugh, due to this reviewer straddling the world between creativity and criticism.

Iñárritu has created a superbly technical film. Birdman is simulated to make it seem like the film is one single take. This makes the film feel not only more real, but adds to the sensation of being on the stage as the camera explores the St. James Theatre where the movie was filmed. Antonio Sanchez's drum score is perfect at building the tension that so many of the scenes have and it is perfectly placed.

All of the performances are mind blowing. Keaton flows from being manic to in control to being at his wits end and just all out insane so perfectly. Edward Norton's Mike Shiner is simultaneously loveable and extremely hatable for both his arrogance and brutal honesty. Emma Stone gives Riggan's daughter such depth and humanity that she feels like a real person. Both Naomi Watts and Andrea Riseborough play superb actresses who are just excited to be in a broadway play and Zach Galifianakis is so far removed from his regular idiot persona, here he is closer to his stand-up self, and his performance just feels refreshing.

Verdict: An amazing look at acting for the stage, whilst saying so many other things. Iñárritu is superb at making stunning and technical films as well as drawing the best from his actors. A must see.

First look at Emma Stone in "Cabaret"

Okay, I know this isn't at all movie news, but Emma Stone is one of my favourite actresses (for obvious reasons). Stone will be appearing in the upcoming Broadway run of the musical Cabaret, where she will play the role of Sally Knowles.

The role is currently being played by Michelle Williams and was made famous by Liza Minelli in the 1972 film.

She will be starring alongside Alan Cumming as the Emcee. Cumming won a Tony in 1998 for his performance in the same role. Stone will start her run on November 9.

Magic in the Moonlight

Well after nearly fifty years of his career and nearly fifty films written & directed (quite an achievement on it's own), Woody Allen is still going strong with his latest film, the romantic period piece, Magic in the Moonlight

In 1928, Stanley Crawford (Colin Firth), the renowned illusionist, fraud de-bunker and supreme egotist is called upon by fellow performer and childhood friend Howard (Simon McBurney) to expose a spiritualist named Sophie (Emma Stone) who has won over a rich American family, the Catledges, on the French riviera, nearby to where his Aunt Vanessa lives. However, surrounded by loud-mouthed Americans whilst attempting to catch her in the act several times, Stanley faces a problem, he starts to believe that she could be the real thing.

The story, again written by Allen, is like most of his films both clever and hilarious, with genuine characters that draw you in. If I had any criticisms of it, it's that the characters views morph just a bit too readily, which can sometimes be a bit jarring. However you could argue that this is just Woody having a crack at the immutability of our beliefs.

Both Firth and Stone absolutely shine in their roles. Despite his callousness, pessimism and extreme ego, Stanley is actually quite a likable character, and supremely funny, both of which come down to Firths strong performance. Stone is both charismatic and believable as Sophie. The supporting cast are also very good in this, especially Marcia Gay Harden as Sophie's unwaveringly supportive mother and Eileen Atkins as Aunt Vanessa, whose sassy wit is a joy to hear.

I find with period pieces, especially those that are set in this era, that you can often tell that it's just a facade. Here though, this is not the case where a lot of passion and care has gone into the overall design. The late 20's really come to life with the accurate costumes, lavish sets and vintage cars, all of which blossom with colourful character off the screen. All of this is complemented by a well chosen mix of period music and classical pieces.

Judging by it's current reception, not everybody enjoyed this film as much as I did. But one of the brilliant things about movies is that they're only what each and every member of the audience makes of them, and I found this to be genuinely funny, impeccably directed and surprisingly touching in parts. I really enjoyed this one.

The Amazing Spider-Man 2

I am still undecided in my feelings toward the newest iteration of the Spider-Man film franchise. He is my favourite superhero and I grew up with the Sam Raimi/Tobey Maguire films. I loved those movies as a teenager because they had all the things a Spider-Man film needed. When the first of these new films came out, I was very reluctant to see it because I didn't know what they could change from before. I watched that film a week ago, so that I could understand the new angle that was being put forth and I wasn't blown away or disappointed by the film but I understood the new direction. That way was toward the comics on which it was based.

Of course there are a lot of things that has been created for the films, but the character of Peter Parker is much more like in the comics. Andrew Garfield (The Social Network) trash talks the perps he is chasing. He is fun and bubbly when he is in the suit and moody when he isn't. One aspect that Garfield doesn't really portray is the nerdiness that comes with Peter Parker, a trait that Maguire had down-pat.

In this film Peter's relationship with his girlfriend Gwen Stacy (Emma Stone) is pushed to the limit, as Spidey promised her dying father that he wouldn't let any harm come to her. That is a one of the big themes in this film; Peter's relationships with all the other characters, whether as Peter or Spider-Man.

Of course this film also has some action in it, with some new villains as well as a new twist on an old favourite. First up is Jamie Foxx as Electro, a former Oscorp employee who gains electrical powers after an accident involving some electric eels. His genesis was very reminiscent of one of the Batman movies of the 90s, the villains were always falling in toxic chemicals back then. I feel as though Foxx wasn't able to flex his acting prowess in this film, rather just shouting through every scene.

I was also disappointed with the inclusion of Paul Giamatti as Aleksei Sytsevich or The Rhino. He appears only briefly in the film at both the beginning and the end and is underused completely, especially having such a fantastic actor as Giamatti playing him. My only hope is that he makes another appearance in the next film.

James Franco did such an amazing job as Harry Osborn and was such a good character in all three films, so I was understandably shocked with Dane DeHaan's amazing portrayal of the character. Harry is dying of a rare genetic disease which he inherited from his father Norman (Chris Cooper) and believes that Spider-Man's blood will save him. This is where the plot gets too convoluted for me. (Also quick side note before I go on, who thought it was a good idea to cast Chris Cooper as Norman Osborn. Willem Dafoe is the only person who should ever play that character).

Now, the convoluted plot elements come from including Richard and Mary Parker, Peter's parents, in this film. (Also isn't Richard Parker a tiger, or did Spidey's dad come first?) I understand putting them in the first film to make sense of Peter's relationship with The Lizard, but in this one it really just slows down the pace. There is one scene between Peter and Aunt May where bringing up his parents is needed, but that's it.

Verdict: I am still unsure what the point of having this new series of films is or what it's leading to, but these need to get a little better in the story department. We needed to see more of the Green Goblin and Rhino in their suits.

Movie 43

Please don't watch this movie. Don't see it at the cinema, don't buy the DVD, don't even download it, it's not worth the bandwidth. My friend who was with me at the time, walked out twenty minutes in and I would've have well if I didn't have to review it. I feel as though my IQ has halved. And I wanted to give this movie a chance.

Now I've got that out of my system, let me tell you about it. The plot begins with a filmmaker (Dennis Quaid) pitching a movie to a studio exec (Greg Kinnear). Okay, of to a good start, no problem there, that is until we get to the first short about Kate Winslet going on a blind date with Hugh Jackman. In a regular movie that would be a great set up for a romantic comedy until it all goes south when we find out that Hugh Jackman has balls hanging from his chin, fully grown male testicles. What am I ten, who would find this funny. It obviously doesn't appeal to Greg Kinnear's character either because he immediately wants to put an end to the meeting.

But still Dennis Quaid goes on with his pitch, with stories ranging from an extremely dirty mouthed Emma Stone (who is going to have to work extremely hard to regain my love) sucking on Kieran Culkin's (Macaulay's brother) finger to a sketch about a product called iBabe (a naked female that functions like an iPod) made by a company headed by Richard Gere. Other sketches include Liev Schreiber and Naomi Watts telling their new neighbours about the disgusting ways that homeschool their son (some of which are borderline incestuous). I am sure their son will grow up to be a mass murderer. Another short involved young Chloe Grace-Moretz getting her first period, with all the men in the house freaking out.

One storyline I did like (I use that term insanely loosely) was called Gotham City Speed Dating. In this short, Robin (Justin Long) is at a speed dating night, only to be humiliated by Batman (Jason Sudeikis), who shows up because a bomb has been planted at the venue by the Penguin. Kristen Bell is Supergirl and Uma Thurman is Lois Lane. Superman is portrayed as some kind of perverted sex fiend. The only reason I "liked"this segment is because Jason Sudeikis played Batman similar to his character Schmitty from It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia and that's only because his character in that is a dick.

As the film progresses, we find out that Dennis Quaid isn't some big director, but instead some crazy guy who has wandered in of the street with the hopes of getting his film made. But then in an insane twist, at the end we find out that the camera that was filming this was just a behind the scenes camera all along.

I don't know what the makers of this film were thinking, the same thing with the actors. Was Peter Farrelly trying to make some bold statement about the future of film? I don't think so. Were the actors, keep in mind that these are Oscar and Golden Globe worthy actors, just doing this movie as a bit of fun? Maybe, we'll never know. Two particularly offensive performances come from Stephen Merchant (Ricky Gervais best mate) who ends up with plastic surgery that has turned him Asian a la Mickey Rooney in Breakfast at Tiffany's and Terrance Howard (as in Terrance Howard from Crash, a Best Picture winner) plays a coach of an all black basketball team in 1959, who convinces his team that they can win purely because they are black. Come on, that's more racist than the whole of Django Unchained.

Verdict: It's unfunny, racist, disgusting and just plain horrible. Avoid at all costs. Go see any other movie.

Gangster Squad

Gangster movies have long been a staple of my movie diet. Since a young age I have enjoyed movies such as Goodfellas, Scarface, Reservoir Dogs and countless other crime flicks. I have always been drawn in by the glamour of the lives that these men lead, but I have also taken away the message of these movies, that although you may have a great life it never ends well. And boy, doesn't it end badly for Mickey Cohen, the main bad guy in Gangster Squad. It seems to me that whenever a something is set in 1940s LA, the go to bad guy is Mickey Cohen. He has been featured in everything from film, books and even video games.

Gangster Squad is the story behind the crusade to bring down real life LA kingpin Cohen, played perfectly and ruthlessly by a stellar Sean Penn. Josh Brolin's John O'Mara is charged to put together an outfit to bring down Cohen, who's been running LA for years. The team is quickly assembled and they have to work outside the law to bring down Cohen, because he has most of LA's cops in his pocket. They destroy racket after racket to flush out Cohen, which eventuates in a classic hotel shootout, but it is one we have seen a million times.

Josh Brolin is excellent as the crusading cop and this is the first movie that I've seen with him since the Coen Brother's True Grit, but the stars that everyone has come to see in this are Ryan Gosling and Emma Stone. It's no secret that I am in love with Emma Stone, every guy who has seen her feels the same way, but her casting in this feels like nothing more than a marketing ploy. Everyone loved her and  Gosling in Crazy, Stupid, Love, but she didn't get enough screen time for me to make a meaningful connection to the character and although she's no ditzy blonde, she seemed like she was only there as motivation for Gosling's character. Although I am a huge fan of Ryan Gosling (he should have won some award for Drive and I am immensely looking forward to The Place Beyond The Pines), he seems like he should stick to being the indie hero that he is. When he stars in these big budget movies I feel as though he doesn't get to be the actor that he can be when you see him in indie films.

Sean Penn's Cohen reminded me a lot of the character he played in Colors and although he played a rookie cop in gangland LA in that one, I couldn't help getting the feeling that he was channeling the motivations he had as that character all those years ago. Of course the real life Cohen didn't share the same fate as Sean Penn did in this movie. Like many of those gangsters all that time ago, he was put away for tax evasion.

For me the real star of this movie was the city of LA. Ruben Fleischer (the director) put together a stunning recreation of the city in the 40s. Now I have to say I am a huge fan of this time period. It was the golden age of Hollywood, jazz music was on the rise, art deco was what everyone wanted. This movie really does do that justice.

Ruben Fleischer, however, maybe wasn't the best choice of director. His previous two films were Zombieland and 30 Minutes or Less, two comedies that both featured Jessie Eisenberg. They are both hilarious movies and this film is by no means a comedy. There was a few jokes early on that were played highly upon, but I felt that they weren't all that necessary.

The action in this movie is stylised and you could read how most of the gunfights were going to play out on their predetermined course. The car chase in the old Cadillacs was a highlight though.

Verdict: This movie is full of the same old cliches and archetypes of the 40s LA gangster film. There were some good performances and the city looked amazing, but in the end it was a film that I won't stick with me too long.