Noteworthy: Martin Scorsese's Direction in 'The Wolf of Wall Street' (2014)

             Martin Scorsese’s approach and execution in The Wolf of Wall Street is comparable to driving a car with warp speed backwards against heavy traffic with nothing short of full control and confidence. From minute 1 to 180 (Yes, 3 hours but don’t worry, it feels like 1), Scorsese’s latest film is as much an energetic high as the one experienced by the characters on screen. The best way for me to describe The Wolf of Wall Street is “controlled chaos”. Scorsese never takes his foot off the gas not just for entertainment reasons but also to make his point.

Some would argue that Jordan Befort’s actions are romanticized in The Wolf of Wall Street but that’s not how Scorsese presents the stock broker’s actions in the film. Constant drugs, prostitutes and an arrogant Belfort all while the FBI is hot on his tail doesn’t just make up a large majority of the film, it is the film. Sure, none of this sounds all that pleasant on paper but it is no secret that the power of film can make these things look like hell or it could look better than a day at the beach. So the question is what approach does Scorsese take?

Before I answer that, it may be important to briefly address the entrainment value of the film. Is Scorsese’s take on the rise and fall of real life stalk broker Jordan Belfort entertaining? Yes and I can say that with absolute ease. I haven’t read the book by Belfort that the film was adapted from but from what I have heard it is presented in a humorous manner so the overall mood of the film could very well just be following its source material. With this said, getting to the question concerning Scorsese’s approach, the director never really allows you to honestly say that you want the life that Belfort and associates are living on screen. This has a lot to do with the confrontational, high speed pace that will have your head spinning uncontrollably.

While each scene is clean cut and nearly perfectly constructed, the mannerisms and actions of the characters in the film are far from it. The paranoia, the trouble, the suffocating holds and just loudness in general that is happening to these characters is amped up just enough by Scorsese to come off as a complete circus of a life. Belfort, when focusing on the presumed feelings of the character, appears disturbed to say the least. He comes right out and speaks about his paranoia but to Scorsese’s, Writer Terence Winter’s and Leonardo DiCaprio’s credit, Belfort appears to be tortured with in by his own actions and power. He uses his talents in a way that help him but harm him twice as much. This is ultimately what you take away from the film.

Of course, the actions and activities of Belfort in his downfall are much more undesirable than those of his rise but his downfall is a direct cause of his rise which forces the audience to ask the question: Was it all worth it? Scorsese’s approach only makes this question even more unavoidable. His approach also makes it easy to answer. Again, this is seen in the films darker second half but there is a scene at the end of the film that features the FBI Agent Patrick Denham (Kyle Chandler) that was belittled and underestimated but at the same time secretly feared by Belfort. This scene shines light on the person that is reasonable and humble in their actions. As it relates back to something Belfort says to the agent, it is the most powerful scene of the film and nicely wraps all the chaos up and pulls everything together.

At this point in his career I couldn’t think of a more appropriate approach for Scorsese to take. Seen as a master of his craft for decades now, with The Wolf of Wall Street, Scorsese, depending on how one saw him before, prove or reiterates that as a filmmaker, he knows exactly what path to take when telling a story and is more than capable of fully relaying his message through that chosen path which puts in him in complete control of the cinema he immerses himself in. Because of this, he can gain an audience member’s full trust, a goal of any good filmmaker. 

Review- Thor: The Dark World (2013)

              Currently the most interesting thing about the intertwined films making up the huge marvel universe is the difference in approach between the studios phase one (films introducing characters that were included in The Avengers) and phase two. Phase one featured plenty of humor and overall was light hearted but the last three films in the mega franchise, beginning with The Avengers, have gotten away from character depth or growth and have not only displayed extended action sequences but have amped up the humor as it seems like nearly every character is now primarily comic relief.

Marvel’s latest phase two installment, Thor: The Dark World, easily follows this trend as it is hard to tell at times if it wants to be an action film or a full out, slap stick comedy but this is not whats so frustrating about the film. Thor: The Dark World actually begins to focus on the emotions and complexity of its characters (most notably Loki) and by doing so, lays the grounds work for some of the most compelling moments of not just the Thor Franchise but the entire Avengers franchise. Unfortunately, these moments are quickly thrown away as decisions are made that go against all logic due to underdevelopment of the situation created.

Thor: The Dark World takes off where both Thor and The Avenger ended. With Thor (Chris Hemsworth) destroying the Bifrost (the bridge between realms) at the end of Thor, war has broken out between the nine realms. Because of this, the Thor led Asgard warriors must restore order by going to battle with other realms. While this is taking place, Thor’s brother Loki (Tom Hiddleston) has been imprisoned for his action in New York (the focus of The Avengers). On earth, astrophysicist Dr. Jane Foster (Natalie Portman) becomes reunited with Thor when she falls into some kind of super natural teleportation hole. It is here that she comes in contact with the Aether, a highly dangerous weapon that was hidden years ago so that the Dark Elf Malekith (Christopher Eccleston) would not use it for destruction. This actually awakens Malekith which causes even more problems for Thor, Jane and all of Asgard.

Unlike Iron Man 3, when it comes to plot, Thor: The Dark World plays more like a sequel to its predecessor Thor than The Avengers. As one can see from the brief plot description given, the events that transpire in Thor are addressed in The Dark World. Even Loki’s motives to take over Asgard are revisited. If it can be looked at as only a part of the Thor franchise, than it works but other than a cameo by Chris Evans as Captain America and constant mentioning of New York (setting of The Avengers), Thor: The Dark World does very little to move along the Marvel film universe. However, when it comes to the massive amount of energy that allowed for humor, Thor: The Dark World is shares more similarities with both The Avengers and Iron Man 3 than Thor.

Since The Avengers, it has been obvious that Marvel wants to make an already light hearted franchise, into a 50/50 blend of action and humor. Thor: The Dark World not only continues this approach but takes it to a whole new level as it seems a like it wants to be a full out, slap stick comedy at times. Nearly every character is used as comic relief. For example, even though she plays a much larger role this time around, Natalie Portman’s Jane is rarely given any dialogue or moments that does not involve humor. This could be frustrating for those looking for deeper characters but I do know that in a scene where Thor hangs his hammer on a hook for a coat, the audience members in the sold out theater I was in absolutely erupted in laughter.

            

             One of the biggest differences between Thor and Thor: The Dark World is Director Alan Taylor taking over the helms from Kenneth Branagh. Under Taylor’s direction, action sequence possess an appropriate pacing that matches the urgent moments they depict unlike the slow motion, out of place sequences featured in the first film. In fact, for the most part the film moves along smoothly as transitions from Asgard to earth or different realms may not be seamless but work to say the least. Also helping this is the grand feel that film has at times. Even the though Thor: The Dark World can easily be described as corny, the music used along with these moments works very well at times. With that said though, like Thor, it is the special effects and back drops that get in the way at times. There is nothing seamless about it as actors stick out in front of it in such a way that it becomes a distraction from what is really going on. Because of this I couldn’t help but think a resemblance to the Star Wars prequels. Not only the fake look but the overall design along with some of the sounds used are very similar to Episode II and III.

            

               Maybe one of the most disappointing aspects of Thor: The Dark World is the little use of the title character. Chris Hemsworth as Thor was arguably the most entertaining character of Thor but in this sequel is given little to work with here as he is basically used as merely the films protagonist (really not even that at times). In scenes featuring Thor and Jane, Jane does the up staging. In scenes with Thor and Loki, Loki is the one you are supposed to focus on. Is this any real surprise though? Thor and The Avengers made it clear that Loki is an important part of what Disney and Marvel are creating but Thor: The Dark World goes beyond this to say that he is the center piece which is where things start to get a little overwhelming.

            

               Clearly Loki has been established as a villain in both Thor and The Avengers but in his latest appearance a more vulnerable Loki is found. There is nothing to complain about here as this causes for arguably the most emotionally appealing character since Iron Man. In a scene immediately following the death of Thor and Loki’s mother, Loki is clearly emotionally drained, giving more layers to the character and making for a really good scene. Not soon after this, Loki is seen helping Thor, adding even more to the character. All of this though proves to be nothing due to multiple unearned plot twist.

            

            With these twists and the final scene of the film, it is made clear that Marvel wants Loki to stick around and wants him to be true villain. Who can blame them? The last time I checked, a jealous brother and son filled with powerful rage can be chalked up as a respectable villain. To go along with this, Tom Hiddleston only enhances the character as he brings both a high level of energy and eeriness to the table. So why not let him go full out villain instead of using him as comic relief like he is a majority of the time in Thor: The Dark World.

           

             Why not go as far as giving Loki his own film? With the way he is used in previous films, it has been made clear that he can carry a film on his own. With the help of Hiddleston, Loki is a respectable character that may just make for a movie that would be a fresh addition to a Marvel franchise that has and will be releasing third and fourth installments. With that said though, does appear that Disney is attempting to bring new elements and characters it’s this Marvel universe. Who knows if the upcoming Guardians of the Galaxy along pre-production of Dr. Strange and Ant Man films will work but from what has been revealed, it is clear that it is a fresh attempt to bring new to series that has been taking somewhat of a ‘phoned-in’ approach.          

Grade: C+  

Review: Mr. Peabody and Sherman (2014)

DreamWorks Animation

Mr. Peabody and Sherman is one those films that doesn’t fully reach the two sets of audience members in attendance. For kids, there are a few small minded jokes that may go over well but the overall pace is not fast or goofy enough to keep them interested.  For parents, the historical references may be amusing along with feelings of nostalgia (this may apply more to grandparents) but the story is just too weak and messy to care. Mr. Peabody and Sherman is not a total disappointment but as the film moves along it becomes more and more clear that it would work better in the medium it came from: television.

In the most entertaining sequence of the film, Mr. Peabody and Sherman opens with Sherman (voiced by Max Charles) and his adoptive, genius, canine father, Mr. Peabody (voiced by Ty Burrell), finding them self’s in the midst of the French revolution after using the time traveling machine that Mr. Peabody invented, the WABAC machine to get to the time period. With things reaching such a drastic level, Mr. Peabody has to quickly escape the fatal slash of a guillotine blade before he and Sherman can return to present day.

Believe it or not, real trouble arises when the summer ends and Sherman has to go back to school. Not long into the new school year, Sherman bites classmate Penny (voiced by Ariel Winter) after she continues to torment him about his dad being a dog (yes, considering the circumstances, not the smartest thing for Sherman to do but the film makes it perfectly clear and will not let you forget that he is not the brightest). So in an effort to, patch up things between Sherman and Penny, Mr. Peabody invites Penny and her parents (voiced by Stephen Colbert and Leslie Mann) over to the house. Everything is going well until Sherman and Penny do the one thing Mr. Peabody says not to: use the WABAC.   

The most enjoyable aspects of Mr. Peabody and Sherman are the historical references. I already mentioned my admiration for the opening scene that is set in the midst of the French Revolution but the involvement of some of history’s most prominent figures and moments not only adds smarts to an extremely outlandish concept but also makes for the films largest source of energy and entertainment. Leonardo da Vinci (voiced by Stanley Tucci), Mona Lisa (voiced by Lake Bell) and Albert Einstein (voiced by Mel Brooks) all make for entertaining appearances but it is King Agamemnon (voiced by Patrick Warburton) and his army in the middle of the Trojan war that’s makes for the most memorable character in the film. Yes, this could be completely contributed to the pure joy I get from hearing Warburton’s voice (his voice work in The Emperor’s New Groove should be experienced by EVERYONE and NEVER forgotten) but it is a voice that is perfect for the tough guy role not to mention the humor he and the character brings to the table hits on all levels.    

Mr. Peabody and Sherman is one of those movies that can filed in the “thanks for trying” category as it clearly makes an effort to be more than just cute movie for kids but doesn’t quite pull it all together. This is not because this is a story about a brilliant dog who fathers a human boy. It’s not like we haven’t been moved before by the unreal. If living, breathing toys, wooden puppets and toasters can invoke emotion and care, then there is no reason that Mr. Peabody raising Sherman as a son can’t do the same. The problem isn’t believability of the concept, it’s how the concept is handled. The issue at hand in Mr. Peabody and Sherman is that the school that Sherman attends does not believe that Sherman can behave like a human if he is being raised by a dog. It easy to see how this would be a real concern but the problem is that the only way that it is tied into the time traveling concept is with a brief monologue about making mistakes from Sherman at the end of the film. The story may work better if the fact that a dog raising a human is seen as normal by the characters in the film and a different storyline is used to better accompany the time travel concept. In all honesty the story would work better if it only focused on time travel. The perception of Mr. Peabody and Sherman’s relationship would not be needed.

Given that the best parts of Mr. Peabody and Sherman is the historical references and that time travel storylines are over used, it is easy to come to the conclusion that this idea may be better in its original format: a television segment titled Peabody’s Improbable History. With a television or short story format, education and humor can be executed without having to wrap it into a film by tying on unrelated moral values and unneeded characters. If you really want to revive Peabody, why not bring back the television show or maybe even some kind of program that can be used in school systems. It’s not that a film version can’t work, it’s just that Mr. Peabody and Sherman is unable to pull everything together while failing to fully appeal to both children and adults.    

Grade: C-        

Review: 300: Rise of an Empire (2014)

Warner Brothers

When it was officially announced a few years ago that there would in fact be a sequel to the wildly successful 2007 film, 300, I couldn’t help but think that essentially a remake of 300 would be the end result. When trailers, posters, photos and any type of marketing started to surface, I was not convinced otherwise that the sequel to 300, 300: Rise of an empire, would not dare to wonder too far off the same path its predecessor took. When I saw the final product, the actual film 300: Rise of an Empire, I walked out of theater feeling, with really no disappointment or surprise, that I had just watched a remix or version 2.0 of 300. Other than the new players, an actual antagonist and 3D blood, 300: Rise of an Empire is not much more than a retelling of a film released seven years ago and I’m sure if I was seventeen like I was back then, I would have been blown away.                                                                                                                                        

With Queen Gorgo (Leah Headey) narrating, 300: Rise of an Empire begins by explaining that Athens General Themistocles (Sullivan Stapleton) earned is place among Greek war legends by killing the king of Persia, Darius (Yigal Naor). Shortly after this, the audience is informed that Darius’s son Xerxes (Rodrigo Santoro), now the king of Persia, was pushed by Persian naval commander, Artemisia (Eva Green) to become stronger or to become God like so he is sent across the dessert to a cave where he emerges as a “God-King”. This is the same Xerxes that is seen in the first film. When he returns to Persia, Xerxis, with his new found abilities and status, declares war on Greece. This makes way for the rest of the film to be devoted to a showdown between Greek and Persian armies at sea led by Themistocles and Artemisia.

If director Noam Murro is attempting his best Zack Synder impression with 300: Rise of an Empire, he absolutely nailed it. The pace, cinematography and chorography is nearly an exact replica of 300 but did you expect anything different? Given the script and Synder’s involvement as a writer and producer, Murro probably wasn’t given much of a leash. However, this doesn’t mean that there are not any added aspects. The battles scenes take place on ships at sea. This could offer endless opportunity but with the aquatic battle field, ships crashing together time and time again are really all the environment has to offer when it comes to these scenes.

Due too little involvement, Xerxes, the main antagonist in 300, could barely be described as a villain (which is a shame because of he is arguably the most interesting character of the franchise). In the form of Artemisia, 300: Rise of an Empire offers up more of a chief villain. Do not get me wrong, she is no Nurse Ratchet but the character is somewhat interesting and Green is respectable in the role. Artemisia, originally from Greece, saw her mother killed by Greek solders as a child. She rose to the top of the Persian military by killing for King Darrius. This is all seen in brief montage and in some of her actions and characteristics throughout the film. This can be credited to Green who does all she can with a sub-par script and brings confidence and control to the character.

The most satisfying aspect of both Artemisia and Greens performance is her interactions and involvement with Themistocles. It is never revealed but it becomes clear that there is a history between Artemisia and Themistocles through not just what is said but also with actions and expressions. There is a moment in the final 10 minutes of the film that is easily the most compelling moment of the film due to Greens non-verbal actions and a line delivered by Stapleton. Both Green and Stapleton also play well off one another and because of this, the film is at its most entertaining and tense when the two are on screen together.    

When it’s all said and done though, when Black Sabbath accompanies the credits, like many sequels, it becomes clear that 300: Rise of an Empire is not a sequel that adventures to far from what 300 did seven years ago. This is interesting not because it resembles its predecessor but the time frame. 300 became somewhat of a cult classic but seven years is more than enough time for the flame of a film phenomenon to soften or even go out. It’s also enough time for an audience member to personally change. So why not factor this in when making a film so many years after the first? With a rough, opinion infused estimate, I would say the target audience for 300 is age 14 to 22 males (not factoring in genre preferences) and given that the majority of this target demographic is no longer in this group, why not target the old and new? Use some the same (keyword being some) aspects that attracts the 14 to 22 age range and then put more focus on characters and story for the now older, more mature target demographic of the first film.

Sure, a year or two after the first film something very similar to the first film may be just fine. In fact, given that the events of 300: Rise of an Empire takes place during the same time frame as the events in 300, a sequel could be at its most successful if it was released 6 months to a year after the first. Seven years later may be the perfect excuse to step outside the box a bit. It’s interesting how the age old expression ‘if it’s not broke, don’t fix it’ applies to the film industry in that sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn’t so it is never easy to decide what needs fixed and what doesn’t. 300: Rise of an Empire certainly doesn’t make it clear that the 300 style is broken but given that its best features are the few (underutilized) things that 300 doesn’t have, the style definitely does not have the same bang it once had.    

Grade: C