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.

American Sniper

Dustin: 4.5 of 5 stars Nick: 3.5 of 5 stars Average: 4 of 5 stars (Live canary)

Dustin: 'Murican Sniper is the “true story” of the “most lethal sniper in U.S. military history,” Navy SEAL Chris Kyle. Bulked-up Bradley Cooper plays Kyle as he goes from a riding bulls as a rodeo cowboy through Navy SEAL boot camp and finally four tours in Iraq.

Nick: This film is surrounded in controversy for which I think is completely unwarranted. The film is somewhat a propaganda piece, but what do you think you are going to get when a film is based off a book written by the sniper who has no regrets in the many people he has killed. It’s told from one person’s point-of-view, not a country’s. As well, many of Chris Kyle’s stories from back home have either been proven false or just thought to be completely fabricated. http://mpmacting.com/blog/2014/7/19/truth-justice-and-the-curious-case-of-chris-kyle

Dustin: I haven’t followed the behind-the-scenes stuff much, so I can’t speak to that. I didn’t feel like this movie was propaganda. It portrayed Kyle and the SEALS in a positive light, but we also saw the damage it did to him mentally and to his family. I thought it was good from a narrative standpoint. The movie never really questions the Iraq war, and neither does Kyle. We see him go straight to Iraq after seeing footage of 9/11 on TV, then destruction in Iraq, but the film sort of sidesteps the political reasons for the war as we see Kyle’s obsessive drive to catch an al-Qaeda operative known as “the Butcher” and an enemy sniper, Mustafa.

Nick: I think the film chooses a side only because it’s told from its character’s perspective, rather than the country’s, and his perspective is definitely one-sided. It’s probably the first war film I’ve seen where there’s no sympathy for the other side or doubts about the war they’re fighting. This and how Kyle is portrayed as a faultless man make the film feel like propaganda. Kyle is the first one taking care of his buddies after they’ve been shot, he always hits his target with his first or second meaningful shot, etc., etc… But the one thing he had a fault with was being able to take care of his family after each time he came home, but that was wrapped up in the last scene to where he deserved a father-of-the-year trophy.

Dustin: He comes off as a bit of a superhero while in battle. That’s clearly his element. But he certainly wasn’t flawless. He refers to Iraqis as “savages,” like an old cowboys and Indians movie. He has trouble empathising with people who don’t share his vision of the war, or who are shell-shocked. He also isn’t fair to his family in his obsessive drive to keep going into Iraq to stop Mustafa.

Nick: He’s flawless from the perspective that he represents. As well in his mind he is fair to his family because he is saving them from the potential threat that those “savages” represent.  

Dustin: I guess what others would see as faults, he wouldn’t agree. I would say he’s consistent, if not faultless.

Nick: Another thing this film is getting heat for is the fake baby. Did you notice the fake baby?

Dustin: Yeah, and I was going to mention it. You know it’s bad when it is so obvious. I didn’t even know of the fake baby controversy before seeing it. But as soon as I saw Cooper pick up the baby, I was like, “That’s fake.” Then I was laughing as he used his thumbs to move the baby’s arm to make it look like it was real.

Nick: It really detracted from the intensity of the film. I was hoping maybe the children carrying bombs towards troops might suddenly turn out to be marionettes.

Dustin: In their defense, a real baby would be a pain-in-the-ass, especially if child labor laws were being applied.

Nick: The story is the first child was sick and the second was a no-show so then director Clint Eastwood just said grab that fake baby. This is the story that came out after everyone in the press was focusing on that.

Dustin: It is a detail, I think.

I read the Mustafa character, who was only in one part of the book, was drawn out in the movie to give Kyle motivation and create a story arc. It makes sense from a storytelling standpoint, but I wonder if it’s appropriate when telling a “true” story about a controversial war.

Nick: I think that adds to the propaganda standpoint. Plus in that one scene where the troops were treated to a meal by an Iraqi whose place they were holed up in I knew from that second he would be shown to be hiding something, and of course he who discovers this Iraqi is hiding something of course is Chris Kyle with his sixth-sense abilities. There wasn’t a single Iraqi they came in contact with who ended up being just an average person.

Dustin: He knew he was a sniper because he saw the chafing on the man’s elbows, indicating someone who spends a lot of time on his elbows looking throw the sights of a rifle.

Nick: I’m just pointing it out as part of his super heroics and that the one kind Iraqi ended up being not-so-kind (in terms of U.S.A. perspective).

Dustin: Again, this is Chris Kyle’s movie, as you said. He sees them as “savages,” his own words. I found I could get invested in the film, despite not sharing many of his views.

Nick: I did as well while not sharing a single view expressed within the film. I think that is a testament to Eastwood’s direction.

You should look up the many false things in the film compared to his book and also the truths compared to Chris Kyle’s boasts. It’s actually fascinating reading.

Dustin:  I read some of them. Still like the movie.

Nick: So did I… again.

Inherent Vice

Dustin: 4 of 5 stars Nick: 4 of 5 stars Average: 4 of 5 stars (Live canary)

Dustin: Inherent Vice is a stoner crime mystery based on the novel by Thomas Pynchon. It stars Joaquin “Leaf” Phoenix as Doc, a type of hippie physician PI involved in a caper to locate a missing real estate tycoon who was involved with Doc’s ex-girlfriend.

Nick: When I saw Inherent Vice the audience was so rambunctious it was hard to pay attention to anything. The funny thing with that is I feel this film wants to be confusing anyway. Told from a stoner’s perspective that keeps getting more complicated for him to be able to focus in on the first detail, let alone the four more he’s discovered within the past 48 hours.

Dustin: The audience I saw it with also lost it every time Doc smoked or snorted drugs. I felt lost from the first scene. I was able to get the gist of the movie, but didn’t fully understand it. I believe that was an artistic decision as well. It was like walking into the middle of an interesting conversation and always feeling somewhat behind.

I will say I enjoyed the movie enough that I would watch it again or read the book to really understand it. I have a feeling this movie has a lot more to discover the more you see it that will make it more enjoyable. I think I’d give it a higher rating after subsequent viewings, but I usually go with my first instinct when giving star ratings.

Nick: I stated the exact same thing to my friend after the film. The book would probably tie all these lovely parts that I caught together better than subsequent viewings of the film. Although I also want to see it again. The film never stopped making me laugh. Whether it was with subtle humor or over-the-top gags that were pulled off by great actors. Joaquin is one hell of a fantastic actor!

Dustin: Like a David O’Russell film, this is a movie where the performances carry it as the actors have fun with their roles. I especially loved Martin Short as the creepy, druggie dentist and Josh Brolin as the stone-faced narc. “Motto panucake-u!”

Nick: If a movie has David O. Russell or Paul Thomas Anderson’s name attached to it I would see it without ever questioning what the film is about. I tried to not watch the trailer for Inherent Vice because I was so stoked for, it but with all the movies I see it’s an almost impossible occurrence.

Did you think Joanna Newsom’s character was a figment of Doc’s imagination? She is the woman who is always giving him some shade of wisdom and only ever talks to Doc.

Dustin: She was the narrator also, right? That’s an interesting angle. I didn’t think of it, but now that you mention it, she is kind of a character that only exists around the protagonist, like Bruce Willis in Sixth Sense (spoiler alert!)

Nick: Yep, and she also exists to just spout out wisdom to Doc to try to reel him back in from his druggy haze. The film was constantly fun to the extent that no matter how much the audience tried to piss me off I was always in a curious and joyous mood. But the one part that was no fun at all was the sex scene between Doc and his former lover… Did you find the spanking disturbing? I did.

Dustin: Yes, it made me uncomfortable too. It kind of changed my opinion of Doc from a lovable stoner to kind of a creep. I was still engaged, but I thought of him differently.

Nick: I wouldn’t go as far as calling him a creep. She was naked and teasing him, but the aggressive way he acted once he was bent to her will was very disturbing. It could probably be explained from the pent up rage he has for her since she left him without so much as a word. Though that scene was so awesome. Did you notice it was one take? From the moment she appeared naked to the end of the sex scene. I wonder how many times they had to shoot the scene and what they were going for. Do you think they picked the one that was the most uncomfortable?

Dustin: What made it extra uncomfortable is a group of high school delinquents wandered into the theater right at that moment and burst out laughing. I felt like a dirty old man. And that’s not just because I was sitting in the back aisle wearing a trench coat.

Nick: Nothing but a trench coat?

Dustin: Pretty much.

Nick: The scene early on when Doc walks into the brothel and the names of the sex acts and how much each of them cost still has me laughing now. I found it that funny.

I would also like to point out how I so called Reese Witherspoon and Laura Dern being nominated for Oscars in our last blog entry for Wild. On how I knew, but didn’t understand why Reese would get one and how I wanted but didn’t know if Laura would be nominated. The Oscars these days, to me, don’t mean too much anyway.

Wild

Dustin: 4 of 5 stars Nick: 3.5 of 5 stars Average: 3.75 of 5 stars (Live canary)

Dustin: Wild stars Reese Witherspoon as a “wild” young woman, Cheryl Strayed, who is hiking some cross-country trail in order to deal with her inner demons. Along the way she encounters other hikers, colorful back-woods types, and a CGI fox for some reason.

Nick: A fox that is obviously CGI at that!

Wild is flawless, from my perspective, in a technical aspect. Editing would jump between images from different times in Cheryl’s life while throwing dream-like sequences in for good measure, which helped to bring some much needed sympathy for our lost main character. The cinematography was gorgeous and the score was unheard (which is how it should be).

Dustin: I thought it was very well done from a storytelling aspect, and the technical elements complemented that. There is the linear story of Cheryl hiking the trail, with flashbacks from various points in her life accounting for half the story. The flashbacks were integrated seamlessly into the story.

Did you ever get the feeling, though, that some of her background was exaggerated for cinematic effect?

Nick: Could you elaborate? Just because there are a lot of dream-like sequences strewn throughout.

Dustin: Mainly the stuff with the drugs and sleeping around, all the rock-bottom stuff. Cheryl has a very good vocabulary, and I’d say difficulty hiking a cross-country trail be filed under “white people problems,” and that just doesn’t quite match up for me to her background as a drug addict. I imagine it was somewhat true, but perhaps exaggerated for the story.

Nick: So you think the problems she faced in the desert “wild” is somewhat fiction while the problems in the city “wild” are real?

Dustin: No, the other way around. I think she may have experimented with drugs and cheated on her husband as depicted in the movie, but I wonder if it was as full-blown rock-bottom, or if that was heightened to make a more interesting film.

Nick: I completely agree with that. Whether it’s true doesn’t really matter, but because it feels so forced to the audience it kind of starts to wear thin. The degree of heroin usage does not comply, to me, when grieving over the loss of a mother. I wish we got images of her downfall. It seems that we saw her as her mother was dying and then one year later now a junkie and strumpet.  

Dustin: Perhaps it would have been wiser to suggest that stuff rather than show it. I know a storyteller should “show” rather than “tell,” but when they showed it my BS detector was kind of going off. But, like you said, for the purposes of the narrative, it’s fine. I just would take it with a grain of salt if this were sold as a 100 percent true story.

Nick: Well according to this week’s Entertainment Weekly, Wild is the most accurate biography of the many films currently in theaters. It says the one thing that is false was when Cheryl was driven to the desert by another female hiker when it was actually a man who did this. The reasoning for the switch was because the woman was a cameo of the real Cheryl Strayed. But I was curious if her book, which I have not read, is somewhat exaggerated. I only say that for how ridiculous some of it seems when given in the film.

Dustin: My mom read the book and met Cheryl Strayed, but I haven’t read it. She said one of her friends tried to read it, but gave up because she thought Cheryl came off as too self-absorbed. I said, “You mean someone who wrote a book about herself comes off as self-absorbed?!” I guess if no one was around other than Cheryl to witness everything, it would be hard to prove otherwise. But I have a hard time believing it is the most accurate biography currently in theaters. Did the writer of that EW article see Taken 3: TAK3N?

"It ends here." One can only hope

Nick: I do not know, but TAK3N was not involved in the article, but Selma was and that movie looks great.

One problem I have when watching films is judging actors. It’s easy at times, but also confusing at other times. I feel that Reese Witherspoon will be nominated for an Oscar, which I don’t care about to be honest, but it seems like she would just be nominated because She Is Reese Witherspoon and she has a fantastic track record. Many people could have performed her role and done just as good of a job. So yes, Reese did a good job. But Laura Dern on the other hand, as Cheryl’s mother, was fantastic and I couldn’t imagine a single other person in that part. She was impeccable. I was truly swayed by her and every single one of her lines brought some level of profoundness that lifted the material to something more memorable.

Dustin: This movie was Oscar bait through-and-through. I imagine it’ll be nominated for every relevant category.

Nick: Total Oscar bait. Was thinking it throughout the whole movie. Funny enough it was a crossword answer the next day! Any film that is a biography released in December or early January is an automatic nomination to the Oscar-bait category. We argued about whether or not Captain Phillips was Oscar bait, which it started off by being in the category, but hey, I also think it was nominated for five or so Oscars! Who called it, Son?!

Wild is always fascinating, sometimes because of the story, but mostly through its superb technical aspects and the director, Jean-Marc Valle, behind them.