Fifty Shades of Grey (2015)

2/5

Fifty Shades of Grey is a surprisingly successful movie about a college graduate (Johnson) who begins a dominance/submission relationship with a young business magnate (Dornan). It originally started out as fan fiction for Twilight, with the titular Christian Grey originally written as a non-vampire billionaire version of Edward Cullen in an alternate universe. It makes sense, then, why the writing feels particularly amateurish and the bare-bones plot feels long and drawn-out. It also makes sense why it feels so much like a fantasy, a dream-like series of events filled with tension and delayed gratification devoid of any actual content.

Despite the awful writing and acting, this was not a 1 star movie. It largely succeeds at stimulating the audience's imagination with its BDSM eroticism, exposing flesh right to the edges of the screen. And although it tries too hard to be provocative, I actually appreciated how it forces non-traditional ideas about sex and pleasure into the mainstream. I did, however, find all the side comments about the main character being gay alarming because it conflates all non-heterosexual experiences as "not normal."

As a side note, I have never been more embarrassed in my life than when I asked for 2 tickets to see Fifty Shades of Grey. I hope you never have to go through something like that.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2322441/

Into the Wild (2007)

3/5

Sean Penn's Into the Wild is a touching story poorly told. Penn recounts, with a reckless abandonment of cinematic intelligence, young Chris McCandless's own reckless attempt to abandon society and live on his wits in the wild. The emotions he feels, the adventures he experiences, the people he encounters--all are striking and make this film as moving as it is. The rest is overlong dreck. The whole thing feels like one long montage, with little backbone to ground and support the story. While the cinematography was breathtaking, the editing was so rapid and hectic that it was hard to fully comprehend what was going on. Scenes extend for far too long or have no point. The music, excellent in its own right, often ruins the mood by coming in and out at times it shouldn't have. It always, and I mean always, seems out of place. Oh, and the acting was really good for the most part.

There is an extraordinary amount of inane voice-over narration that tries to make some sense out of the mess that is this movie, but it fails at that and simply pains the ears. Penn clearly does not know how to adapt, because its literary roots show in the frequent uncinematic moments that might work in a book but clearly fail in this movie. Still, it was enjoyable every now and again, and had the potential to really move an involved viewer, but it should have been 90 minutes instead of 150 and written (and directed) by someone who knows how to. Watch it if you're already interested, but I wouldn't go out of my way to recommend it to someone.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0758758/

Miller's Crossing (1990)

4.9/5

Miller's Crossing is exquisitely detailed, exceedingly complex, and fully realized from start to finish. Darkly comic, this crime movie set in the Prohibition-era 30's tries to be a film noir in dialogue and a gangster movie a la The Godfather in content. Instead of fitting well into either category, it ends up being a fresh blend of both. Filled with double crosses, hidden agendas, and snappy dialogue, the plot can get quite confusing at times, but never out of reach for the attentive viewer. It envelops you in its own world, where every word has meaning if you know how to hear it right. The atmosphere is so real you're breathing the same air they are. My favorite aspect of this movie, and what keeps me coming back for more, is the abundance of subtle nuances left in the background for the especially watchful to pick up on. While the movie does explain the main story, it leaves a lot of important side stories and relationships open for the audience to chew over and realize on their own, which makes it much more engaging and memorable for those watching.

Onto the technical specifics. The acting was unerringly precise from all parties. The editing was terrific, milking every shot and scene for all they're worth while still maintaining mood and environment. The script itself is so rich and multi-layered in plot alone that it could stand up to analysis from a dozen different angles and produce different results each time. The dialogue is pithy and smart, as only the Coens know how to make it, although it does sometimes feel a bit "written." And it requires a very sensitive ear and very active mind to pick up on everything.

I remembered it being prettier, and was a little disappointed seeing it again and noticing rather bland colors and flat shots. While brilliant in composition and framing, the actual execution itself was not up to my expectations. The sound design as well made it a bit difficult to hear what the characters were saying, although perhaps the accents and word choice added to that problem. The dialogue doesn't quite succeed as a 40's noir, but the fervent and dedicated attempt more than make up for it. The music felt extremely out of place, specifically the choice of the main theme and also the times at which it would crop up, almost as if by accident. Also, some of the violence was a bit too exaggerated and almost laughable, although I'm pretty sure it's intentional. Very highly recommended, for any Coen brothers fan, Byrne fan, or gangster/noir fan. I will leave you with my two favorite lines from the movie.

"Nobody knows anybody. Not that well."

--"Look in your heart, look in your heart!"
--"What heart?"

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0100150/