Cinderella

Dustin: 3 of 5 stars Nick: 2.5 of 5 stars Average: 2.75 of 5 stars (Woozy canary)

Dustin: Kenneth Branagh’s take on the well-known (overtold?) fairy tale is pretty much a live-action, frame-by-frame remake of Disney’s animated version of the tale. This version has updated special effects and spends a little more time developing Prince Charming, but it will appeal mainly to little girls.

Why the hell are we reviewing this?

Nick: Because It Follows isn’t released yet where we live. Though I see there is A showing Saturday.

This is one of those films that’s purely for children, and I honestly don’t know whether I would’ve liked it as a child. There’s not much fun. It’s very moody, and a lot of people falling over crying. The single scene I remember being any fun is when the Fairy Godmother transforms Cinderella. I was obviously bored.

Dustin: I was bored through most of the first half, and things sort of picked up during the Prince’s ball. I blame part of this on the fact the story is so familiar there isn’t much room for suspense. But I’m not entirely sure that’s the case. There’s a small handful of movies I can watch over and over and find something new to like. The main reason the first half was boring is because it rushed through Cinderella’s backstory and just injected the elements in the least-imaginable way possible. It felt more like a summary of her life rather than an actual story.

Nick: I think if the wicked stepmother’s backstory was touched upon a bit more the film would have been better served.

Dustin: The movie had us laughing a lot, though unintentionally, because we’re both so jaded. This would have made for some good Mystery Science Theater 3000 moments, but some things have to be muttered rather than blurted out because of the children in the audience.

Watching this as an adult, the plot holes stand out more from the original story. For example, why don’t the glass slippers disappear at midnight along with the rest of the gifts from the Fairy Godmother? Also, if the Fairy Godmother really wanted to help Cinderella, why didn’t she just waste the evil stepmother and stepsisters? Or at least clean the house for Cinderella with a wave of her wand so she doesn’t have to spend every day doing menial labor?

Nick: Beyond the montage we really don’t see Cinderella cleaning too much. I was laughing a lot because whenever the Prince asked her a question and she answered with a silent look, one of the little girls in the crowd would say, “Yes!” for her. It was unbearably cute.

Dustin: I think my favorite element of the film was the casting of Cinderella and the evil stepmother. Cate Blanchett was perfect as the stepmother. She has a certain class about her that makes you believe she could be a woman used to status and wealth. Once she has fallen on hard times, she quickly turns vile. At times her performance gave me the creeps, and she was a believable character. We all know someone who is a kiss-up, kick-down sort. And Cinderella (Lily James) was hot!

Nick: My favorite part was recognizing most of the actors from two of my favorite shows. Lily James and quite a few of the other actors either star or have appeared on Downton Abbey, while the Prince and a few others, including his best friend, either star or have appeared on Game of Thrones. So it was fun to see TV actors get their chance at film. I think they all did a great job especially, Nonso Anozie as the captain.

Dustin: I also appreciated Helena Bonham Carter as the Fairy Godmother. Seeing her wave her wand around sort of recalled her performance as Bellatrix Lestrange in the Harry Potter movies, which was fun for me.

Nick: So all in all, we pretty much just enjoyed seeing actors that we knew from other things we love.

This film did intrigue me as it was filmed by Kenneth Branagh whose Shakespeare adaptations I absolutely fawn over. While Cinderella is better and closer to his older material than his last movie that I saw, Thor: The Dark World, it’s still very forgettable with not even the visuals standing out.

Dustin: I’d recommend this movie strictly to families who want to take their little ones to see a well-made children’s movie. This isn’t a revision of the fairy tale and doesn’t really have much to add to it. Not even ironic nudges to adult audience members. But at least it has high production value and doesn’t insult children’s intelligence the way so many other upcoming movies will (you’ll see plenty of trailers for those before this film, however).

Uzumasa Limelight

Dustin: 3.5 of 5 stars Nick: 3.5 of 5 stars Average: 3.5 of 5 stars (Live canary)

Dustin: Uzumasa Limelight is a Japanese film about an elderly movie extra struggling to find work as the samurai genre loses popularity and he faces ageism in finding other roles. He takes a fresh-faced rising star under his wing and teaches her the art of acting with swords.

Dustin: The title refers to the Charlie Chaplin film Limelight, which is also about an actor nearing the end of his career, and the film contains several references to the Tramp.

Nick: It took five minutes for me to automatically love Uzumasa Limelight. The simplicity of the story, the subject matter, and the nuanced performance by the lead actor, Seizo Fukumoto, all attracted me to a film. The subject matter being that of Samurai dramas, which I love. I’ve recently acquired the criterion box set of Zatoichi: The Blind Swordsman!

Dustin: This was a bit like Jiro Dreams of Sushi in that it showed an elderly expert who dedicates himself completely to his craft. This is a very Japanese characteristic. Americans typically don’t pursue one craft with the Zen-like singlemindedness some Japanese do.

Nick: It had a very corny third act. Events either went sour or turned around in an extremely easy manner. All of a sudden the producer, who was the reason we even have this story since he is ageist, decides at the end when Kamiyama (Fukumoto) can’t complete his job he should no longer be ageist and stick up for him.

Dustin: The movie did a good job with the comedic bits though. The young generation of directors and actors are depicted as comically entitled and out-of-touch. After our hero’s show has been canceled, it’s replaced with a misguided interpretation of the life and times of Oda Nobunaga, called Oda Nobu!, with anime-like wigs and over-the-top action sequences. The title would have been more appropriate for a series about Oda Nobunari.

Nick: The technical aspects of the film were superbly done. Every shot made me gasp for some reason or another. Either the lighting was perfect in every shot or the camera would be straight or tilted to show a loss or gain of power from Kamiyama’s standpoint. The story might have been simple, but the film as a whole was well thought out.

Dustin: I actually didn’t care for the technical aspects. To me, it looked and felt like a TV movie. I’ve come to accept this from Japanese movies from the past 20 years, but it’s disappointing to me that a once vibrant film industry has devolved to such low production values.

Nick: The production did not  seem low to me. Do you mean moneywise? Because everything is lit and shot cheaply, but its done so in a very good way.

Dustin: I think the director understood the “language of film” and used it well, but the overall production felt cheap. Obviously, this didn’t need to be a big-budget movie. But I would have liked it to look like a movie.

Obviously I wasn’t really offended by this. It’s not like they spent millions of dollars to film at a faster frame per second, only to make it look like a soap opera about dwarfs (The Hobbit).

Nick: One thing I noticed very quickly in one of the first scenes of the film within the film was the scene would cut between multiple cameras, but whenever it jumped out of their film there was never more than one camera. So I’m curious to how they were using one camera, but had so many angles being shot.

Dustin: Maybe they were trying to create a stylistic difference between what was on the show within the film and what was the real life depicted in the film. It’s also possible they could only afford to use one camera and did their best within that limitation.

Nick: The latter is definitely my position.

Dustin: I thought they were wise to use unknowns in the movie, since recognizable faces would have taken us out, because they characters are all movie extras or newbies climbing from the bottom rungs of their career. I actually own several movies Seizo Fukumoto but I didn’t recognize him. Probably because his parts in those movies were so small. And they’re also like 40 years old.

One criticism I had, though, was the backstory about some love lost in the past. It wasn’t really fleshed out and I didn’t understand it. They brought something from it into the conclusion, but that just confused me even more. I would have liked it better if that was just left out, and maybe we just see the picture of the woman on his dresser without explanation. The audience can guess what the significance was.

Nick:  My large criticism is of the third act. It should all be scrapped and replaced with an act that the rest of the movie deserves. There are so many ups and downs in the last 30 minutes that it’s really quite ridiculous. Though I do have a question for you… Did the film fast forward a year or two when I went to the bathroom?

Dustin: I felt the exact same way when I went to the restroom! I was gone, what, one minute? Ninety seconds? I had no idea what was going on when I got back. The girl had gone to Tokyo and became a star, and there was some dramatic scene with the young actor. I didn’t really recover and had to fill in the blanks in my mind.

Nick: There was so much unexplained and unnecessary needed drama in the last third. Like, why was the young actor you mentioned all up in Kamiyama’s grill? Actin’ like a lifetime of being an extra had given him some pull or something. The movie was stunning until the climax.