Easy A (2010)
★★★ / ★★★★
Olive (Emma Stone) was invisible like most of us when we were in high school. But when a false secret that she confidentially told her best friend (Alyson Michalka) was overheard by a Jesus fanatic (Amanda Bynes) in the ladies restroom, word traveled around the school like a virus that she was willing to sleep with anyone and everyone. Her newfangled reputation made her popular, which Olive admitted she enjoyed at first, but soon she began to feel harrassed by her peers and adults. “Easy A” had an effervescent charm and edge that most teen flicks could only wish they had. It caught me by surprise because I thought it would be another raunchy movie about teens with nothing on their minds but attaining empty sexual encounters. Or worse, the teens ending up as the jokes’ punchline instead of the situations in which they were thrown into. Instead, we had a bona fide main character with a brain, a sense of humor, and effortless charisma. The film’s heart was immediately established within its first few minutes so we willingly stood by our lead character as she attempted to navigate the uncharted waters of high school rumors and ugly backstabbing in which a friend was readily able to betray. We may not always agree with her actions but we like her all the way through. Stone injected buckets of enthusiasm and made the material better than it should have been. I liked that she was very sarcastic, fully equipped with references to teen movies of the ’80s, and came with progressive parents (the hilarious Patricia Clarkson and the sublime Stanley Tucci) who seemed to await the opportunity to share way too much information with their kids. The picture had a very funny rising action as Olive explained to us, through a video blog, what had happened and why she eventually came to regret her decisions. She even had time to explain to us the plot of Nathaniel Hawthorne’s “The Scarlett Letter” and why it was relevant to her life. It was a good decision on the writer’s part because I was one of those students who only pretended to read the book in high school. I thought it was unfortunate that the movie’s swift pace came to a screeching halt when Olive started to acknowledge her feelings toward the sensitive guy under the school mascot (Penn Badgley). I thought that aspect of the movie was unnecessary because it shouldn’t have been about her finding a man. The film’s message about owning up one’s actions and being free of labels were somewhat muddled by “the first romance” angle. Directed by Will Gluck, “Easy A” might have dealt with sexuality and the power that comes with it in a commercial way but it needed to because its intended audiences are teenagers. It worked because the script was full of rat-tat-tat witticisms, self-awareness, and even small ironic touches adults might l enjoy.
★★★★ / ★★★★
The film started off with General George Patton Jr. (George C. Scott) delivering a speech about war and the importance of winning being embedded in the American culture with the gigantic United States flag on the background. It was probably one of the most patriotic scenes I’ve seen portrayed on screen, but at the same time I felt that the picture was making fun of itself. The scene aimed to establish our main character: He was intimidating because he was obsessed with discipline and excellence. His reputation as being one of the feared generals, especially by the Nazis, was well-earned because he was an uncompromising man. Fear sometimes generates respect. The film was beautifully shot. In war pictures, I find it uncommon that I notice the environment because, to me, at least with the more recent war movies I’ve seen, the environ is simply a template where we get to see bombs exploding like there’s no tomorrow. But in “Patton,” I found the second scene outstanding because it featured a peaceful landscape in the Arabian desert where American soldiers’ bodies laid lifeless as Arabian people stole the soldiers’ clothes and other belongings. Again, there was the theme of duality. On one hand, it was sad to see those dead and rotting soliders. On the other hand, we could look at the Arabian people and see that looting was their chance for survival because they obviously didn’t have much. The film is different than other war movies. With “Patton,” we don’t follow any soldier in the battlefield or realize any of his personal struggles. It simply followed the general during his glory days as he tried to compete against British Field Marshal Sir Bernard Law Montgomery (Michael Bates), attempted to outsmart German Field Marshal Erwin Rommel (Karl Michael Vogler), his probation because he slapped a soldier around for complaining about being afraid of the sounds of war, up until he regained his footing in the military. Throughout his journey, we learned so much about him such as his passion for poetry and penchant for history. The latter was his strength but at the same time it was his weakness. His enemies who didn’t know much about history often lost but those who were knowledgeable thought Patton was predictable and almost pretentious. Naturally, his strongest enemies were the ones who were just as smart as him. No one can argue against Patton’s biggest weakness being his mouth. He had no filter; he didn’t think he needed one so he was prone to saying the most inappropriate things during the most inopportune time. “Patton,” directed by Franklin J. Schaffner and partly written by Francis Ford Coppola, won seven Oscars (including Best Picture and Best Actor) not only because of its epic scale but also because of its small details that made this biopic all the more personal.
As Luck Would Have It (2002)
★ / ★★★★
“Le hasard fait bien les choses” or “As Luck Would Have It,” directed by Lorenzo Gabriele was about a closeted professor (Jean-Claude Brialy) who had the unlucky circumstance to be assigned by the law as a guardian for a troublesome teenager (Julien Bravo). Since he didn’t want the responsibility, he decided to appeal the case but in order to be deemed as an unfit guardian, a social worker had to assess his personal life. The professor had to then hide certain truths such as him being still legally married to a woman (Sabine Haudepin) and dating a much younger man (Antonio Interlandi) in order to preserve his reputation as a respected professor. My main problem with this movie was the fact that everything had to be exaggerated. The acting was painfully obvious, the story was weak and the way everything came together was very predictable. I wished that there was a character I could root for in order to make the experience more bearable but everyone only thought of themselves. I thought the wife was really annoying because she failed to recognize the seriousness of the orphan being passed around from one household to another. Instead, she was too hung up on the guy she used to date and was too busy trying to make him jealous. Out of anyone, she should have been the one that could have identified with the boy right away because she felt like no one wanted her. Her character’s lonelinesss could have been the unifyng theme of the picture but I suppose the writers and director failed to highlight that emotion. By the end of the movie, I thought she was just desperate and a classic attention-seeker. As for the professor, I understood his fears of coming out of the closet but he created his own distractions. He constantly complained about how his life became that much more complicated ever since the orphan came into his life but he neglected the fact that things in life always come up and if we don’t do anything about them, ignoring such problems won’t make them go away. For a supposedly smart character, he didn’t make the best decisions. The script lacked punch because it didn’t try to offer anything new to the table. The direction lacked sophistication. I felt like the movie was never going to end because nothing much happened on screen aside from the complaining and obvious attempts at laughter. “Le hasard fait bien les choses” desperately needed subtlety and intelligence. Even if the story was nothing new, I would have been more accepting if the characters were able to look outside of themselves and realize that their situations were not as bad as it seemed.
Mean Streets (1973)
★★★★ / ★★★★
The thing I like most about Martin Scorsese’s films is that he always gives his audiences the full package: great ear for dialogue, main characters that are very conflicted, astute use of color and settings that reflect a particular mood or attitude. This is one of the finest examples of Scorsese’s amazing career as a director. Harvey Keitel is wonderful to watch as a man who wants to acquire a respectable reputation in a mob in New York City’s Little Italy. However, his loyatly is torn in many different directions: the mob boss (Cesare Danova), his girlfriend (Amy Robinson), the church and his best friend (Robert De Niro). Keitel’s character is a man who wants to please everybody to the point where he ends up having too many worries in his mind. Those unfinished business that run about in his head breed frustration and anger inside him until he can no longer make everyone happy. However, this is not the kind of film that aims to teach audiences a valuable life lesson. Its goal is to simply observe this one man trying to keep his head above water while sharks surround him. My favorite scenes in this picture are all of the scenes when Keitel and De Niro would talk to each other. Each scene that they have whenever it’s just the two of them is so crucial because both of them reveal something that the audiences don’t know about them–usually something that is hidden whenever they’re around “tough guys” that run all over Little Italy. Some of the scenes really touched me because even though they are best friends that experience all the ups and downs, they’re more like brothers to each other. Even though De Niro’s character is irresponsible and immature, it’s not hard to tell that he loves Keitel unconditionally. On the outside, people may label this as a gangster film because of all the swagger of each character, but I consider this an ultimate character study. I admired Scorsese’s use of camera angles and quick cuts because they add to the movie’s overall feel. This film, without a doubt, influenced some of Quentin Tarantino’s best work such as “Reservoir Dogs” and “Pulp Fiction.” So if you enjoyed those pictures, you’re most likely going to enjoy “Mean Streets.” I would like to see De Niro, Keitel and Scorsese team up in a modern film to see how much their chemistry has changed.
★★★ / ★★★★
Some people say that the portrayal of the US Naval Academy was unrealistic, but I really wasn’t looking for realism when I decided to see this film. I went to see it to gauge James Franco’s acting ability in his lesser-known or less critically-acclaimed movies. I love stories about underestimated people who dream of big things but are born in poor families. This is a perfect example of that and, aside from some of its overdramatic scenes (especially before a boxing match), pretty much everything worked. I thought it was interesting how the filmmakers related life to a boxing match–how a strong person gets hit countless times and sometimes falls but is never defeated unless he decides to not stand back up. And throughout this picture, that’s the overall tone: a challenge is presented to Franco’s character, how he learns to deal with those challenges and build a reputation between his peers and higher officers. It’s also about learning to ask for help and when it’s the right time to help others even if they don’t want any help. I thought Donnie Wahlberg is brilliant as a higher officer who believes in Franco even though he doesn’t have that many scenes. In a way, he seemed like a father figure who provides support but is also there to provide some tough love. Jordana Brewster as Franco’s love interest is surprisingly effective because the two of them actually have chemistry. She managed to balance sensitivity and toughness well. As for Tyrese Gibson, at first I thought he was going to be an archetypal baddie but over time, we learn that he had to be tough because of the things he experienced in the past; even though he ultimately cares, it’s difficult for him to portray what he’s really feeling–a trait that a lot of people have. I think a lot of critics were harsh on this film because it does have elements from other (better) movies about a person who overcomes challenges in the Academy/military. For me, it’s more important to treat a movie as its own instead of comparing it to similar movies that came before (especially if it’s not a sequel or a part of a series).