Under the Skin

Jonathan Glazer is one of those filmmakers whose work tends to grab a hold of its viewers and never lets go. His first two films Sexy Beast and Birth enthralled audiences during the last decade, and then Glazer just vanished following the release of the latter.

Now ten years after the release of Birth, Glazer returns with Under the Skin. Loosely based on Michel Faber's novel, the film is a surreal portrait in every sense of the term. (I'm still trying to wrap my head around it.)

Starring in Under the Skin is Scarlett Johansson, who is very much showcasing her abilities as an actress here. She barely speaks, her face rarely alters...and all of this has you wondering what makes her character tick. What is the story behind her? It's a performance that simply does not leave your memory.

Likewise with the other aspects of the film. Whether it be Dan Landin's cinematography or the unbelievably chilling score from Mica Levi, they're guaranteed to stay ingrained in your mind for better or for worse. It's certainly one of the most aesthetic films I've seen in recent memory.

Under the Skin is both extremely bizarre and absolutely hypnotic. You're not sure what's happening and yet you can't help but watch. Thanks to Glazer's keen eye and Johansson's transfixing performance, Under the Skin is one of those films that people will be talking about in the years to come.

My Rating: *****

The Invisible Woman

I admire Ralph Fiennes' work as an actor whether it be his sinister work in Schindler's List or something more charismatic like Quiz Show. His first directorial effort Coriolanus, although leaving me distant, had me curious as to what else Fiennes had to offer behind the camera.

His new film The Invisible Woman left me absolutely spellbound. Based on a novel by Claire Tomalin (and adapted by the brilliant Abi Morgan), it's a quiet film about the budding secret relationship between famed author Charles Dickens (Fiennes) and actress Nelly Ternan (Felicity Jones).

It may feel as an odd film for Fiennes to be following Coriolanus with to some, but he makes a very beautiful film. It's also surprising to see Fiennes, usually in heavy dramas or more mainstream movies, in something relatively light.

And in many ways, The Invisible Woman is very reminiscent of Jane Campion's Bright Star. Not just because they revolve around a famed writer's love affair but also because of the restrained depictions of said affairs. No thrashing limbs, no bare flesh, just the physical and emotional closeness between the two lovers. It's something I think the truly skilled can depict, and Fiennes and Jones are two such people.

The Invisible Woman is a very gorgeous film. From Fiennes and Jones' performances to Morgan's script to Rob Hardy's cinematography, everything about it just equates to visual poetry. It's one of those films that I really hope people will seek out and watch.

My Rating: *****

Rush

Whenever Ron Howard makes a film based on real life events, the results can vary. Sometimes it's great (Apollo 13, Frost/Nixon), sometimes it's mixed (A Beautiful Mind). So where does his new film Rush rank?

Yes, it is written by Peter Morgan and like the last film he wrote for Howard, it focuses on the lives of its two subjects. But the subjects this time around aren't a disgraced former US President and a British talk show host. No, this time it's about two Formula One drivers: one British (Chris Hemsworth), one Austrian (Daniel Bruhl). And like the leads of Frost/Nixon, they're very different people.

James Hunt (the Brit) is very much a reckless figure. He drinks and sleep around, but he's incredibly fast on the race track. Adopting a British accent for the role, Hemsworth displays an air of charisma throughout the film. It's also an ideal part to prove he's more than just the God of Thunder, don't you think?

Niki Lauda (the Austrian), meanwhile, is very much a determined figure when it comes to racing. (No surprise he makes a few enemies.) In a way reminiscent of Vincent Karthesier's work on Mad Men, Bruhl plays Lauda as someone you can't entirely hate (especially not after a crash that nearly kills him). It's a very distinct piece of acting.

Now where was I? Oh yeah, where Rush ranks among Howard's other "based on a true story" films. Well, the performances from Hemsworth and Bruhl were solid. If only I could say the same for most of Morgan's dialogue, which was flimsy for the most part. This is basically a film that's more "show, don't tell" than anything else though it has its moments.

My Rating: ****

Dallas Buyers Club

When we first see Matthew McConaughey (and, to an extent, Jared Leto later on) in Jean-Marc Vallee's Dallas Buyers Club, it comes as a shock to see what his condition is. This isn't a measly ten or fifteen pounds lost. I'm talking Christian Bale in The Machinist kind of material.

And this is before Ron Woodruff (McConaughey) finds out he has AIDS. Bear in mind this film is set during the 1980s, the height of the AIDS epidemic (and not long after Rock Hudson was diagnosed). Suffice to say that Ron (who in his first scene is having sex with two women) doesn't take his own diagnosis very well.

What makes Dallas Buyers Club so captivating is how McConaughey plays Ron. Ron is depicted initially as a man who drinks like a fish, abuses various drugs (even after his diagnosis), willing to fuck anyone with breasts, and isn't afraid to speak his mind. (Fortunately he wises up.) And yet McConaughey has us feel sorry for Ron as we watch the disease eat away at him. It's an absolutely transfixing performance from him.

Likewise with the work from Leto and Jennifer Garner. Leto is nearly unrecognizable in his role, both physically and emotionally. (Many of his later scenes are absolutely heartbreaking.) Meanwhile, Garner shows her depths as an actress, proving she's more than just the wife of an Oscar-winning director. (She also has the most perfectly timed F-strike I've heard in a long time.)

Dallas Buyers Club is, quite simply put, a brilliant film. Everything about it just flows wonderfully: the pacing, the performances, the music, everything. This is a film that won't be forgotten for a long time.

My Rating: *****

In Secret

Infidelity. It's been around for as long as anyone can remember. In a number of cases, one or both halves of the affair divorce their respective spouses in order to get married. In more instances, divorce is the last thing on their minds.

This is what Charlie Stratton presents with his film In Secret. This isn't your standard infidelity drama. For starters, this is set during the 1860s rather than present day. And to set an apt frame of mind for the film, think of it as if Raymond Chandler was alive during the era of Jane Austen. (Yes, I know I'm off by half a century. Bear with me.)

I think what makes In Secret so fascinating to watch is what happens in the aftermath of the big moment. (I might have spoiled it in the introduction though.) Usually remorse from such an act is absent, but it starts to seep through in a particular character. (I might add they more or less agreed for it to happen.)

The actors are quite good. Oscar Isaac displays a devious charisma in his role. Tom Felton, meanwhile, is in a part very far from Draco Malfoy, showing a rather pathetic nature in his role. Jessica Lange at first embodies the mother-in-law from hell persona then slowly adapts into a broken shell of her former self. But this show belongs to Elizabeth Olsen. Her face just says everything.

In Secret starts off a simple costume drama then morphs into something more common for the present day. That is not a bad thing in the slightest. It's provocative. It's thrilling. And quite simply put, it's great...albeit a few small details. But either way, be sure to seek it out.

My Rating: ****1/2

Only Lovers Left Alive

In the aftermath of the Twilight craze, it's hard to take vampires seriously. Now Hollywood will only depict them as pale, moody figures that would make even Bryon cringe. When will the vampires be cool again?

Fortunately, the answer can be found in Jim Jarmusch's Only Lovers Left Alive. Gone is the angst found in other supernatural romances. Jarmusch enforces a sleek take on vampires, which is practically expected when said vampires are played by Tilda Swinton and Tom Hiddleston. (Seriously, they're the coolest vampires since Catherine Deneuve and David Bowie.)

As well as veering away from the brooding bloodsucker image, Jarmusch also shies away from the ravenous vampire image as well. (You know, where they spend every other scene trying to get their fill.) Instead, Adam (Hiddleston) and Eve (Swinton) simply depicted as normal people...who are only active at night and survive on blood.

I admire the contrast between Adam and Eve. She is shown in white clothing while he's always in black. She's often in harsh lighting while he's lurking in the shadows. She's adapted to the times while he's rather...out of date with some things. (Half of the technology in his house is from the 70s or 80s alone.) They're not kidding when they say opposites attract.

Only Lovers Left Alive is most definitely the film that'll make vampires cool again. There's some pretty solid supporting work from Mia Wasikowska, Anton Yelchin and John Hurt, but this show belongs to Swinton and Hiddleston (the latter I hope will get more roles of this nature). So be sure to see this when you get the chance.

My Rating: ****1/2

The Big Chill

There's always that one film that sums up an entire generation. The Graduate focused on the baby boomers as they join the real life. (Likewise with Frances Ha for this generation.) It could be the story that makes it relatable, other times the characters.

In the case of Lawrence Kasdan's The Big Chill, it's the latter. Following the suicide of a friend, a group of friends get together to remember and mourn their friend. And then there are personal secrets that get revealed during that weekend.

I'll admit there were parts in the film that manage to hit close to home for, particularly a scene very early on in the film. The rest of The Big Chill was also a bit reminiscent of the following months after that particular event. So this was a far more relatable film than I initially thought.

As I stated above, it's the characters that make The Big Chill work. And for that, you need the right actors and Kasdan got the best ones for it. The actors were so great, I simply can't pick a favorite. (Though I was rather fond of William Hurt's work.)

Anyway, The Big Chill was simply a great film. Everything about it just works beautifully. It's not just a film for and about baby boomers. It's a film that handles coping with death very maturely with a nice mix of handling with other personal issues. It's great.

My Rating: *****

MY TIFF Schedule

So guess who's in Toronto for a chunk of this month because they begged to go to a certain film festival?

This gal.

This is both my first time at a major film festival (hell, a film festival in general) and being out of the United States, so naturally I'm a bit excited. Anyway, to show how excited I am, I will now post which movies I will be seeing at the Toronto International Film Festival.

September 5

• The Big Chill
• Only Lovers Left Alive

September 7

• Therese

September 8

• Dallas Buyers Club

September 9

• Rush
• Under the Skin

September 10

• August: Osage County
• Rome, Open City

September 11 (my birthday!)

• Kill Your Darlings

September 12

• The Railway Man
• The Stag
• A Promise

September 13

• The Love Punch
• Prisoners
• Mandela: Long Walk to Freedom

September 14

• Dom Hemingway
• Labor Day
• 12 Years A Slave

So I'm basically seeing a good majority of my anticipated list for the rest of the year. I'm a little bummed out that I couldn't get tickets for The Fifth Estate and Gravity but they'll be in theaters in next month, so it's no skin off my nose.

Any of you jealous?

The World's End

It's that time of year again. The summer movie season is coming to an end, and this is when studios just basically dump certain releases. Often times, there are a few hidden gems amid the low-brow comedies and over-blown action movies.

What's one such movie from this year's roster? Edgar Wright's The World's End certainly qualifies. The third entry in his unofficial trilogy with Simon Pegg and Nick Frost (the other two movies, for those not in the know, are Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz), it's a fitting finale for a funny franchise. (Try saying that three times fast.)

I liked the small call backs to Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz throughout The World's End. (They're easy to catch if you've seen the other two.) In fact, the elements from Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz seem to have merged to make The World's End. (That's not a bad thing in the slightest.)

But there are a few distinct differences in The World's End that slightly separate it from Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz. For starters, there are the roles Pegg and Frost are in. Usually it's Pegg as the straight man with Frost providing most of the movie's humor. Here, it's the four other leads (Frost, Paddy Considine, Martin Freeman, Eddie Marsan) as the straight men while Pegg is practically bouncing off the walls. I like it.

Anyway, I really enjoyed The World's End though Shaun of the Dead is my favorite of the three. The ending may not work for some people I liked it. If you want to be a real sport, go and see this. You'll have a lot of fun with this one.

My Rating: ****1/2

BOOK VS MOVIE: The House of Mirth

In a drastic situation, one's true nature has the tendency to emerge. Whether a bitter person is actually quite sad or a meek person is more calculating than they appear, it can be a nice twist to the story.

Look at Lily Bart from The House of Mirth. Here is a woman that was raised to embrace wealth to the fullest and sabotages any chance of her leading a happy life. Then she becomes a target of a scandal in her social circle, and she realizes how self-centered New York high society really is.

Edith Wharton's novel has Lily speak with an air of arrogant grandiose from time to time. Alas, this is also present throughout the novel's general narration. You could view it as Wharton's way of conveying high society's true nature but all I saw was merely Wharton trying to sound impressive. (Then again, the novel is more or less from Lily's perspective, but still.)

Terence Davies' film captures both the opulence and flaws of Wharton's novel. And yet Davies manages to overcome Wharton's exuberant descriptions to make a mostly solid film. (The main selling point is Gillian Anderson in a role as far from The X-Files as possible.)

I wasn't won over by either the novel or the film very much but I will admit I was more fond of one than the other. The pluses and the negatives for both are relatively the same but it's not as severe in one. (Though I essentially stated which one it is.)

What's worth checking out?: The movie.