We Need to Talk About Kevin

The trailer seemed to show a psychological thriller, practically a horror film. The tension was set up so that the music and the motion would reach the deepest nerve levels in order to provide the viewer with the 'oh so intense' scary movie effect. As I am not a fan of horror films, the only reason why I chose to watch this film was the casting. Tilda Swinton and Ezra Miller are one of those Hollywood actors that I respect due to their work ethic and good choice, both in films, fashion (this applies to Tilda especially), image. To my great pleasure "We Need to Talk About Kevin" turned out to be far from a horror film. Ever seen Arronofsky's "Pi" or  Noe's "Irreversible"? The films that are supposed to scare and frighten you, however only superficially. In the mean time, they focus on psychological issues and are meant to teach the public. "We Need to Talk About Kevin" is one of those films. 

The story is amazingly simple, yet complex in its own way, especially emotionally. Eva (Tilda Swinton) is the mother of Kevin (Ezra Miller), a very troubled and rebellious child. All her life she tried to form a bond between them, but as the child could not open up himself to his mother, hatred between them formed. The film is set in the present time where Eva is already condemned for her 'behavior' with Kevin and Kevin's actions, and as the film continues, the viewer gets acquainted with the reason for her torture and despair. The finale is shocking and dramatic, yet it is well placed and is a perfect culmination of the story. In general, the story focuses on the mother-son connection and its complexity. The director herself noted that she wanted to capture what would it be like if a mother hated her own son, but was inclined to love him at the same time, for the unconditional mother's love still exists. 

What makes this film a psychological thriller (though it seems more of a psychological drama to me), is the image. The constant symbolism of the red colour, water, arrows, eyes, lips give the impression of every action being predestined. Constant close-ups and very long lasting shots of Eva's mundane life help to give importance to the over-ordinary life. The viewer senses that her life is far from being ordinary. The pace of the film is incredibly slow. If you cannot hold your attention too long then I cannot recommend this film to you. However, this particular pace is especially calculated since it portrays Eva's suffering, her guilt and her anguish. When you are constantly reminded of your wrong-doings, you cannot overcome them and break through and this is exactly what is meant by the film.
What cannot be forgotten is the cast. As mentioned before, the two main actors are the gems of Hollywood. The true masters of their craft. Tilda Swinton is absolutely brilliant in this film. Her blank look, which is seen in practically in every scene, is haunting and conveys perfectly her despair and loneliness. As for Ezra Miller, in this film he introduces his creepy side. The look from below with those dark wolf-like eyes are terrifying and very devilish. He is so fitting for this role. From the first glance he seems so lovable, not to mention extremely handsome, but when he talks in this monotone voice, without any hint of emotions, you just shiver and squeeze your pillow harder, waiting what this demon boy will do or say next. 

  

    The film's message is not entirely clear to everyone. Some say it is meant to educate parents to care for their children in their early age. Some say it is to portray the true hatred one can feel towards others. Some say it is about the mother-son connection and its complexity. Others proclaim that the film deals with guilt and loneliness. The side I would stand for is a mixture of all of the above and one of my own. The film also portrays love. The love that is only felt, unconditionally and without any explanation. The actual form of this love is desperate need of attention and warmth, but the expression is twisted in ways that it is not even regarded as love. The similarity of the 'demon boy' Kevin and his mother Eva proves to be the biggest obstacle in their relationship, however it is also the reason why they cannot live without each other. 

The film is rewarding both, emotionally and visually. It is a treat for the eyes and for the soul, giving birth to new ideas and new feelings. Definitely one of the films one must watch. 9/10

The Great Gatsby

Without a doubt one of the most anticipated films of 2013, The Great Gatsby, directed by Baz Luhrman, is sadly more of a letdown than a success. Even though it was said that the cast, the soundtrack, the costumes and the props were perfect, the particular 'feel' of the film, that the book was engulfed in, was terribly lacking. It was a very good adaptation of the book (even though missed some events and stretched some too much), but not a film.

The story revolves around Nick (Tobey Maguire), who happens to be a neighbour of a very rich man, Gatsby (played by Leonardo DiCaprio). The whole catch is that Nick's cousin Daisy (Carrey Mulligan) is Gatsby's long lost love. By living directly on the opposite side of the bay, Gatsby tries to attract Daisy's attention by throwing ravishing parties with as many guests as possible. Eventually Nick organises their meeting and things turn to unimaginable chaos as Gatsby desperately tries to steal Daisy away from her husband. 

This story is well-known. The book is one of the American classics and thus it is always risky to adapt such a popular novel. There will always be negative reactions. Obviously, with this film, the decision was to exaggerate the extravaganza of the 1920s, the parties and the fashion, the contrasts between the main characters. Sadly, the latter was executed poorly. Daisy was made to be a prostitute, with her low-pitched, deep voice, it always seemed she was voicing a porn film. Gatsby, who was supposed to be left mysterious to the very end, was portrayed as the calm yet extremely animated and comical, childish person. To be honest it looked ridiculous to see DiCaprio acting so dazed and confused (haha), immature. However, it is amusing to note that the scenes of Gatsby's lack of maturity were the funniest and the most entertaining. Which also proves the film's failure.

What I actually enjoyed, though, included the well organised budget and the overall acting. The props, the fashion and the soundtrack, as mentioned before, were outstanding. I am well aware of the fact that many disagreed with the utilisation of modern songs in the film, however for me they were well-suited and helped to form the atmosphere. The definition of luxury and the glamour has changed over the years and only by using the present definition the director could show the Greatness of Gatsby. The fashion and the props were absolutely perfect. Well, that's not surprising as the clothes were designed by the genius Miuccia Prada... Everything that concerns the environment, the stages was plotted with extreme accuracy and precision. In this sense the film gets an A+. However, as it is  noted  above, that does not make a film, that makes an adaptation, which is a misfortune and a miscalculation.

It's worth mentioning, though, that despite the director's sad work of deciding on the character of the main actors, they executed it perfectly. The hot-tempered Gatsby, even if it didn't fit in his role in the book, was very convincing and very inspiring. Even not being a real fan of Tobey Maguire, I can say that his role didn't annoy as much as in Spider man. Here, he seemed in place, with his dull and childish voice and indecisive actions. Carey Mulligan, even adopting a prostitute's voice, seemed lovable, not to mention pretty and glamorous, innocent and sexy. I wished to see more of the two other characters, Tom Buchanan and Jordan Baker, which were cast terrifically.  Sadly, only in a few episodes I could admire the actors' work.

What annoyed and surprised me was the direction of the film. Baz Luhrman chose an old fashioned way of storytelling, with scenes overlapping, characters explaining their emotions, and an exceeding amount of slow motion scenes followed by very rapid change of frequency. It was very disturbing to watch, it seemed inconsistent. Moreover, the director put too much emphasis on the symbolism of various things. The green light, the flowers, the mansion, the clothing, the cars, the glasses of the doctor on billboard - everything seemed to have a bigger meaning, yet again, not consistently expressed. It felt as if it was mentioned and needed to be very important, but not explained throughout thus losing its purpose.

Overall, the film is far from successful, however, it is very entertaining. I could not force myself to watch again sober, though.

5/10

Perks of Being a Wallflower

Even knowing of the books existence, I watched the film without reading it. From the trailer I was hoping for a lighthearted hollywoodish teenage movie about love and friendship, you know, the usual ‘weird outcast finally overcomes his fears, makes friends, gets the girl’ type of film. On one hand, yes, this is that kind of film, but on the other it also has this European feel to it. I don’t know whether it’s because of Emma Watson, or not, but it definitely has a different feeling.

The film has a darker lining. Charlie (Logan Lerman), the young protagonist, the school’s outcast, meets Sam (Emma Watson) and Patrick (Ezra Miller). The two help him come out of his shell, show his the world of music and life, friendship and love. 

Of course a love story is in the midst of Chalie’s self-discovery path. Sam, who is the wild, carefree yet caring and loving, not to mention astonishingly beautiful dream of every boy chooses to take care of Charlie and show him how to live properly. Her taste in music gradually influences the boy to look at the world differently. Their love story, followed by usual complications of their background and difficult experiences, is very heart-warming and cute. Probably because both of them, Emma and Logan are amazingly beautiful and have crazy chemistry.

However, the person who is the biggest surprise of the film is Ezra Miller. His character, Patrick, a gay and very rebellious student, is very dynamic, unbelievably interesting to watch. His adventurous nature makes him the most memorable character of the film and his acting leaves you guessing how can he be so unknown. Practically every scene is dominated by him and his charisma. I’m positive that we’ll be seeing much more of him in the future.

As mentioned before, this film created this lighthearted atmosphere with all the joyous and fun, yet rebellious car rides and soft rock music, but the dark side of the plot, which comes out eventually, seems a bit out of place. I know that it’s more a problem of the book, as this film is the adaptation and since I haven’t read the book, I don’t know what kind of atmosphere is created there. However, it didn’t feel right hearing about Sam’s rough childhood or about Charlie’s previous school year. Something was definitely off and it would have been much better to either darken the atmosphere to make it seem much more natural that *these* particular children have issues or somehow discard some facts that do not go well with the whole film. 

Nevertheless, the film is a huge success. The casting is perfect, the actors did an amazing job. The film’s atmosphere is so cute and cheerful and the atmosphere of the ’90s is so perfectly carried out. A perfect Friday evening film.

7/10

Life of Pi

Needless to say that the story is well-known. The adaptation of the book, telling the story of and Indian man, named Pi, who survived a storm in the Pacific ocean on a boat, is stranded there with a tiger, called Richard Parker, also makes the viewer experience a journey of faith and belief beyond words. This young man, who is so blindly led by his faith in God and in his will, fights for his life with the force of nature - the tiger. Eventually the two find a way to communicate and live side by side. 

The whole film keeps one guessing whether the story is real or whether it is just the fruit of Pi’s imagination, blocking real and traumatising events. However, if one chooses to believe in Pi’s magical story about friendship, understanding and the difficult, yet rewarding belief, he is in for a quite a lesson. 

Effortlessly mystical and surreal, this film takes the viewer to a different world full of optimism and hope, strength and will to live. It teaches patience and will-power to conquer one’s darkest fears. The biggest one yet - the fear of disobeying God, sinning and failing to lead the chosen religious path.

Though it is not only about religion. It is also about a naturally formed friendship. A human and a tiger, sharing only one boat and surrounded by an endless ocean, are forced to be together. It is up to the human to look out for the animal, who is perceived as the weaker one, even if, from the first glance, it might not seem so. 

The tiger, who definitely is the most charismatic character in the film, is frightening in the beginning. His wild and savage behavior startle and put one off but eventually this magnificent beast is understood especially with the help of his eyes, reflecting his thoughts (which is very emphasized throughout the film). You eventually fall in love with Richard Parker and sympathize with him until the very end when he chooses to leave you. 

Nevertheless, the magical, the ‘actually magical’, taste of the film somehow leaves a bitter aftertaste. At times the water just feels like fairy dust or some radioactive waste. The green and bluish colours constantly creating this luminescent sparkles do not play a fitting role in the film. It just leaves one guessing whether what is happening is real or not, and the point of the film is to portray the story as the ‘possibly surreal, but magnificent enough to believe in’. 

Overall, if you are looking for a film with a mystical feel and a touching story, that will leave you with a smile and a warm feeling, you should definitely consider watching it. On the other hand, if you do not enjoy constantly seeing water or mystified marine life on the screen, or even seeing a human and an animal bonding and trying to communicate and form a friendship, this is not a film for you.

7.5/10

Les Amants du Pont Neuf

Or The Lovers on the Bridge as the English have so wrongly translated. Pont Neuf (the Ninth Bridge) is the oldest bridge in Paris and it definitely takes this symbolic and romantic meaning as the ‘everlasting’ and the ‘mysteriously strong’.

The film takes place while this particular bridge is under construction. A young man Alex (Denis Lavant) is a homeless drug-addict who lives on the Pont Neuf with his older friend. The peaceful yet somewhat odd lifestyle of the two men is disrupted when a woman, Michele (Juliette Binoche), appears to express her wish to live on the same bridge. Alex immediately falls in love with Michele and a strangely magical, passionate and yet a very obsessive love story commences. 

What makes this film stand out is the crude reality of the whole situation the two lovers are thrown into. They are both the kind of people that just go along with what life has to offer and this is why their relationship is so intense. Alex’s blind love for Michele gradually turns into an obsession. 

I believe that this is the way that the French see love. You do not have to posses anything, yet you can give away anything, including yourself, to your beloved just be by his side. This extreme way of thinking and seeing is kind of mystical and magical to observe in our times and it somehow is perceived as ‘radical’. But in my opinion, Les Amants du Pont Neuf just sharpens the joy and the over-whelming ecstasy of discovering the person you desire. 

It is, without a doubt, one of the most simplistically ingenious films. As practically the whole film is filmed on the Pont Neuf, it might seem monotonous or boring, however, admittedly, it is a very rewarding location for a film. The wind and the water form this outstanding ambiance and the buildings of Paris along the riverside create this romantic, yet very realistically urban atmosphere. Not even once while watching, have I forgotten that they were living on the bridge in Paris, which, let’s repeat, is one of the most important aspects of the film that makes it very imaginary yet realistic at the same time. 

The overall pace of the film is quite slow. Scenes are long and not very lively. Therefore the few more dynamic scenes really stand out and are very well accepted. They do not seem out of place, on the contrary, they provide this touch of life and ecstasy that sometimes is what makes people feel alive. The complete scene of the 4th of July where the fireworks rise above the Pont Neuf and the two lovers dance intoxicated while the changing colours sparkle in the sky is one of the most impressive scenes I’ve seen captured on film. They capture this numb and primitive need to move and to feel, not something that has to be over-thought. 

Les Amants du Pont Neuf is truly a spectacular film that will inspire you to pursue your craziest dreams and to believe in the possibility of them being actually turned to reality. Amazingly simplistic, yet touching such fundamental truths. 9.5/10 :)

Decision Time: Starting a Film Review Blog!

I’ve been meaning to start up a film review blog for about a year now. Never actually had the time. Though I’m not saying that finally I’ve got a lot of free time. Quite the opposite ha. But somehow I had this crazy urge to create this blog and write about films that I’ve watched. Maybe someone will find it useful and enjoy it. 

hugs and kisses