Off the Cuff Reviews Corpse Bride (2005)

It just so happened to work out that this review and yesterday's review compliment each other nicely. That might sound really weird, especially if you didn't read the last review, and in general I try to avoid heavy references from previous posts (unless it's a marathon) but I feel like I need to for this one. I'll go into more detail on that a little later, but for now, just know that Corpse Bride (2005) was a really good movie. There's not a lot more I can add to that. It was really good. Starring Johnny Depp as Victor Van Dort, Helena Bonham Carter as Emily the Corpse Bride, Emily Watson as Victoria Everglot, Albert Finney as Finis Everglot, Joanna Lumley as Maudeline Everglot and Christopher Lee as Pastor Galswells.

Corpse Bride (2005)

Okay, the easy stuff first: this movie is gorgeous. I really wish stop-motion animation wasn't so easily replaced with CGI; this style has never not looked fantastic to me. This also really feels like a story that could only have been told in this style, which is always a good combination. The macabre elements of the story really come to life (so to speak) through this medium. The character designs, especially in the world of the dead, are really interesting and unique, and the world itself is a fairly interesting one. At this point, we've seen the 'separate worlds for living and dead' story done a few times now, but this was a good take on it. The use of muted colours and greys in the world of the living, I initially thought would bore me, but it ended up working really well. It was a really nice touch to use the colour gradient to highlight the drabness and, well, lifelessness in the world of the living, when compared to the vibrant nature of the world of the dead. Of course, given this juxtaposition, you think you know how the movie's going to end, but you'd be wrong, in what was honestly one of the more compelling elements of the story as a whole.

Johnny Depp as Victor

Since, for as much as I've praised the world so far, the story itself is fairly basic. I mean, a human accidentally marrying a zombie is pretty out there, but there are a lot of familiar elements and tropes that do drag it down a bit. You've got the shy protagonist, the forced wedding, the pompous a**hole villain who wants money; with the villain it's especially disappointing, since Richard E. Grant is an amazing actor who deserves meatier roles than this. The first half of the movie also runs on tragic miscommunication, which is always fun. The fact that Victor never even tries to explain his mistake and instead just tries to run away without explanation is really annoying in places. I also feel like the film needed to devote a bit more time into its romances. For as much as Victor and Victoria (super original names, by the way) were saying 'What if I don't love him?' or 'I don't even know her', they sure fell in love really quick. The same goes for Victor with Emily. He goes from 'There's been a mistake' to 'I'll kill myself to be with you' almost instantly. In some ways, I don't necessarily blame the movie for this, as I feel like a lot of these problems could have been fix if the movie was, maybe, 15 minutes longer. As it is, the film barely sneaks in as a feature, but a longer running time really would have allowed them more time to expand a lot of these stories, make the villain more interesting, give the relationships more time to develop, and then this could have been an incredible story. As it stands, despite how much I've gone on about its problems, it's just an okay story, told about as effectively as it could have been given the length of the movie.

Emily Watson as Victoria

The characters are very likeable, which is a big saving grace. I didn't mention it earlier, but I love how disgustingly British the world of the living is, even with those characters we're meant to like. Victoria, for example, is incredibly posh and prim, but she's so likeable. I don't know if it's the character designs and how varied they are and how well they do conveying the emotion of the characters, but I think it's also with how they're written. Using Victoria as an example again, when Victor is taken away by Emily, her first thought isn't 'I have to get my love back', it's 'I have to save him'. Both of these actions get you the same result, but one is definitely a stronger character than the other. Getting Christopher Lee to play a strict, aggressive priest is also brilliant, but let's just get to the elephant in the room, or elephants: Johnny Depp and Helena Bonham Carter. Yes, this is a Tim Burton movie, of course they're in this. The thing is, though, I think a lot of people forget that there was a time these two actors gave really strong and varied performances, before they found a niche playing crazy eccentrics. I don't necessarily blame them for this; it's like how Bruce Willis gets typecast in action movies even though he can do comedy really well. When Hollywood finds something that works and is popular, they'll exploit it and exploit it until it's burnt out. It's true of genres and franchises, and it's true of actors as well. Without giving them something juicy to sink their teeth into, they'll just go back to what's been proven to work until it doesn't. This movie gives both actors a lot of really good material, and it shows in the performances. Johnny Depp is almost unrecognisable as Victor and Helena Bonham Carter gets some really powerful moments as Emily. 2005 was long before these actors hit their 'stride' in the familiar Burton typecasts we know them for, and it shows in this film.

Helena Bonham Carter as Emily

Alright, getting back to the point I raised in the opening paragraph: how is Corpse Bride a nice compliment to Brazil (1985), the movie I previously reviewed? Both films represent different types of audiences, and are really two sides of the same coin. Let me explain. Brazil was an incredibly unique movie, it took a lot of risks and it attempted to be something completely different that an audience wouldn't have seen before. The problem is that it occasionally fell a little short of the mark and had a few problems; problems which stand out a lot more in a film like that. Corpse Bride, on the other hand, plays it a little safer, relying on familiar tropes and plot elements to tell its story. It doesn't do anything wrong for what it is, but as a result it doesn't stand out as much beyond its unique medium (the stop-motion), which is enough for some people, but not everyone. So, which kind of movie is better? The movie that takes more risks but gets it wrong occasionally, or the movie which plays it safe and doesn't really falter as a result? These are the different audiences. Some want to be challenged, some really don't, and I don't disparage either side. It's all personal preference at the end of the day, and I tend to jump back and forth between the two camps.

Scraps

Corpse Bride (2005) was a beautiful and entertaining film. Had the script been revised a couple of times or taken a few more risks, it could have been a downright brilliant movie, but it is what it is, and what it is is definitely worth a watch. 8/10.

Off the Cuff Reviews Brazil (1985)

Here's the thing: I've seen a lot of movies; I've reviewed at least 140 of them by this point. I've been around the block, I like to think I know what I'm doing. I generally have a good grasp of most movies and what they're trying to do. This one... this one took a while. I was enjoying it, it was a good time. Once it ended, however, it did take me a bit to put together what was going on. Brazil (1985) is one of those movies that you can't really take at face value. I'm really impressed by it, I liked it a lot, but still... it was a lot to take in. Starring Jonathan Pryce as Sam Lowry, Robert De Niro as Archibald Tuttle, Katherine Helmond as Mrs. Ida Lowry, Ian Holm as Mr. Kurtzmann, Bob Hoskins as Spoor, Michael Palin as Jack Lint, Ian Richardson as Mr. Warrenn, Peter Vaughan as Mr. Helpmann and Kim Greist as Jill Layton.

Brazil (1985)

It's rare that I have to do this, but I really need to take this movie act by act in order to properly explain my opinions of it. The opening third of this movie has a very distinct 'Monty Python' feel to it, which is only natural since Terry Gilliam made the film. A lot of the humour feels like it's coming from a very British demeanor, and it generally works. I love the juxtaposition of the mundane with the bizarre, the bureaucracy with the ridiculous. Breaking into someone's home to take them captive and asking their wife to sign for a receipt; stuff like that is really funny to me, and there's a lot of that throughout the film, though it's mostly present in the first half. The world itself is a fairly interesting one; it feels like an absurdist's take on Blade Runner, which is really something I wish more people would try with the dystopian, cyberpunk stories. It's all well and good to have a story set in that kind of world and have it take itself seriously and discuss themes relevant to our reality today like all good sci-fi should do, but every now and then, you need something a little different to spice things up. The film does address themes that are relevant to our society, but it goes about it in a different manner. This is a world where one little bureaucratic error leads to a ridiculous amount of carnage; there's definitely themes there, but it's also hilariously stupid. The film tries to blend these two ideas throughout the entire movie, and when it's done right, it's wonderful. When it's not... well, I'll get there.

Jonathan Pryce as Sam Lowry

In the second act, we get the main bulk of the story: our main character attempting to save someone who gets accidentally caught up in the scandal and branded a terrorist. It's here I'll mention that Jonathan Pryce is absolutely incredible in this movie. He himself has called this role one of his favourites he's ever taken on, and I can certainly see why. He plays the 'everyday man' really well, but can easily flip the switch and play the fish-out-of-water-going-mad when he needs to. You just feel for him; he never had any ambitions out of life, and the film does a good job of not portraying that as a character defect, you just want him to have a quiet life. I particularly love his dynamic with Michael Palin, who, incidentally, is a criminally underrated member of the Monty Python crew. I've always loved the way he plays his characters; he rarely goes too over-the-top, and he plays it incredibly believably: even in this ridiculous world, I can believe someone like that exists. The middle section of the movie is also where the relationship between Lowry and Jill is developed, though not nearly as much as I would have liked. Lowry's obsession I can understand, especially after Jill's life is threatened, but Jill herself jumps onboard way too quickly. She goes from 'You're an asshole' to 'We're in love' almost instantly, and by the end of the movie I genuinely don't think we learned a single thing about who she is as a person.

Michael Palin as Jack

The final act of the movie... I can't even begin to describe it. I won't dare try to tell you what happened, not just because of spoilers, but because I'm not confident in my ability to accurately use my words to sum it all up. I'm sure it makes sense in retrospect, and I think I get it now, but that's the problem. For a solid 30 minutes or more, I was really struggling to keep up with what was going on. It's this insane rollercoaster of... things happening, and especially in a film's climax, you really want your audience to be able to follow it. In that sense, I felt the movie was perhaps 20 minutes too long. I don't know, it's just that everything I've talked about in this paragraph felt like it happened after the film had already wrapped up, which just led to more confusion. Of course, had the movie ended where I thought it was going to, I would have had a problem with that as well, so I don't know; I guess this movie can't win in that regard. It's just a case of now that I know what they were going for I can appreciate it, but it was one of the most confusing movie experiences I've ever had while it was happening. This is what I was talking about earlier with the film not being able to blend its two style effectively enough. Where the movie ends in terms of its tone is significantly different from where the movie began, and because of the segmented nature of the acts, the pacing felt slightly off as a result. It wasn't as seamless as the movie would have liked it to be.

Kim Greist as Jill

I don't want it to sound like I didn't like this movie, because I genuinely do. Like I said, a lot of the issues I have with the movie were resolved in retrospect, even (partly) the nature of the relationship between Lowry and Layton. There's a lot to love about this movie besides. The production value is wonderful, the sets are teeming with detail, and you can really tell this movie inspired a lot of other films that came after. Tim Burton took inspiration from this movie when he was making his original Batman movie, which was the first film I ever reviewed, so I feel like I'm contractually obliged to love this film. The acting across the board is great, even from the minor actors like Jim Broadbent, and Robert De Niro stole the show any time he was on screen. In general, this feels like a movie I would appreciate more on a second viewing, which is a fancy way of saying that this is a very intelligent movie. Amidst all the chaos, there's a great story with great themes and characters, as well as a world that really feels like it was thought out and developed as much as it could have been. It's a mindf*** in places, but the movie itself is very likeable. I liked it.

Robert De Niro as Tuttle

Brazil (1985) is not my favourite movie, but it's far from bad. Far from perfect, as well, but there's too much good stuff in here for me to not recommend it. Just be aware that it's not one of those 'turn your brain off' movies. You'll need your brain for this one.God help you. 8/10.

Off the Cuff Reviews Amélie (2001)

I'm always a little hesitant going into a new kind of movie that's unfamiliar territory for me. This is the first film I've reviewed that I would consider a foreign film (that one anime I did notwithstanding), and I was worried about certain elements of the movie being lost in translation. Amélie (2001) ended up being one of the most relatable movies I've ever seen; I'm genuinely surprised by how much I liked this movie. Starring Audrey Tautou as Amélie Poulain, Mathieu Kassovitz as Nino Quincampoix, Rufus as Raphael Poulain and Serge Merlin as Raymond Dufayel, the Glass Man.

Amélie (2001)

One thing I'll say about this movie right off the bat is that's definitely... how can I put this... very French. Stylistically, it's unlike any movie I've seen, with the narration and the editing and the story in general. It really feels like a gratuitously French movie, yet this is one of the film's biggest strengths. I dare say this movie would not have worked nearly as well had it been made in any other country. It's a movie that flourishes with the stylistic editing, that loves its big sweeping shots of France, a movie that frankly would not be nearly as effective without the narrator both going into too much detail and not telling us anything about our characters. The narration specifically goes a long way to setting the tone for the movie, and the characters as a whole, very effectively, though I'll come back to that in a second. I can just feel that had an American production team taken a shot at this kind of story, it would have been so pathetically by-the-numbers for an American rom-com that it would have just sucked out all the charm. This is a movie that thrives on charm, and it has it in spades.

Audrey Tautou as Amelie

The titular Amélie, of course, goes a long way to adding charm to the movie. Amélie is such a great character; Audrey Tautou plays her wonderfully, and she had a lot of work to do. Tautou essentially needs to carry the entire movie on her shoulders, and she does so effortlessly. She plays this introverted character almost too well; I see a lot of people I know in real life in the character of Amélie, myself included. In fact, all of the characters are really well-grounded and feel real, even when they're playing to the extremes, like with Amélie's parents. The Glass Man is a great concept, and I like his friendship with Amélie. When they start talking about 'the girl with the glass' and Amélie is holding a glass of water and the entire time they're clearly talking about Amélie and it's not subtle but the characters know it as well... Didn't mean to ramble about that, but that entire subplot was wonderful, I think I audibly said 'Well done' to the movie the first time they set that up. Like I said, it's not subtle, but it's not mean to be subtext. The characters are painfully aware they're using the painting as a framing device for Amélie and they just roll with it. See what I was talking about with the charm?

Serge Merlin as Dufayel

The plot is, I'll admit, somewhat by-the-numbers, but the way the film presents it stops it from seeming that way. A big part of that is down to the comedy, which is this really unique French humour that I adored. There were moments that were lost-in-translation, but they were few and far between. But, there were a lot of genuine laughs here, and the general style helps this plot seem original. Even if it's not, it's just so wholesome. It's about someone making everyone's lives better for no personal gain, it couldn't not be wholesome. The movie does seem a little front-loaded, in that the narrator goes rapid-fire through all the characters right at the start so when certain elements from those characters show up again an hour later, you're left there for a bit wondering which character they're talking about, which doesn't help. And, the fact that there is such a big ensemble, there are a few characters that didn't really get resolutions that I feel really needed them. Georgette and Lucian, for example; I feel like their plots just got dropped because the film was wrapping up. Even seeing them for a bit in the montage ending would have been helpful.

Rufus as Raphael

At the end of the day, however, I can overlook a lot of these nitpicks due to one factor this movie excels at which I mentioned in the beginning: relatability. Holy crap, this movie is relatable. I mentioned earlier that I saw a lot of people I know, including myself, in the character of Amélie, and that wasn't hyperbole. The really interesting and unique person that isn't good with people and is super shy but wants to make people happy yet can't bring themselves to allow that for themself? That just spoke to me on such a personal level, and a lot of the situations Amélie is in; I found myself mirroring those moments with stuff that happened to me in my own life. What a way to get around the 'lost-in-translation' fear; I feel like this movie could speak to almost anyone on the planet. The movie does such an amazing job of making you care for Amélie, you want her to be happy, so when she's got the opportunity right in front of her and she walks away, you're right there with her saying 'Nooooo, why?!' Again, it's just so relatable, and that extends to the romance as well. Something I usually hate in a movie, where two people who barely know each other fall in love; here it just works. I'm not sure why, maybe it's the French factor or maybe it's that the movie does an amazing job of showing us these characters on their own and letting us make the connection that they'd be great together. In that sense, the movie lets us play matchmaker, watching two people who clearly like each other but aren't together and you're there saying 'Go on, just do it, you're made for each other' which, again, is a situation that is very familiar for me, and a lot of other people. It all comes back to the relatability.

Mathieu Kassovitz as Nino

Honestly, I could drive this point home forever, but it comes down to this: Amélie (2001) is a hilarious and charming movie with themes that will speak to just about anyone and absolutely everyone should watch it. There are one or two things that stop this from being a 'perfect movie', if such a thing exists, but subjectively speaking, this is one of my favourites I've seen. 9.5/10.

Off the Cuff Reviews Brave (2012)

It's time like this I'm reminded how few Pixar films I've reviewed; a fact which must be remedied in the near future. I've seen the majority of them, and I like them all in different ways. To that end: a confession. This wouldn't have been the film I started my Pixar re-watches with. I've seen Brave (2012) once before; shortly after it came out on DVD and, I'll be honest, I didn't care for it. I didn't think it was bad, but it just didn't compare with a lot of Pixar's catalogue of greatness. I think I appreciated it a bit more on this rewatch, and I was able to see a lot more of the good than the bad, but there's a fair bit I do have issues with. Starring Kelly Macdonald as Merida, Emma Thompson as Queen Elinor, Billy Connolly as King Fergus, Julie Walters as The Witch, Robbie Coltrane as Lord Dingwall, Kevin McKidd as Lord MacGuffin and Craig Ferguson as Lord Macintosh.

Brave (2012)

I'll start out by saying that I can easily see why a lot of people might really love this movie, which is a far higher opinion than I had of it before this rewatch. A lot of this movie works because of the general atmosphere surrounding the world that the film creates. The opening titles evoke a 'Lord of the Rings'-esque tone, and while the fantasy world of the movie can never quite measure up to that bar, it doesn't do too bad. The scenery is breathtaking in parts, especially for 7 years ago, but what really sells it for me is the soundtrack. Some of the background music is like silk on the ears, and the handful of actual songs the movie features are actually really good, and fit the tone of the movie perfectly. Talking of the atmosphere, I really like the idea of the Wisps, and they have a great design, but their impact is lost on me somewhat by the fact that they're really only used as a vessel to get Merida where she needed to for the plot to happen. They're more of a plot device than they are an actual, living part of the world, and for being one of the movie's only real 'fantasy' elements, that's a problem.

Kelly Macdonald as Merida

Speaking of Merida, let me be frank for a moment here. On my first viewing of the movie, I didn't end up liking Merida all that much. I thought she was entitled, whiny and the fact that she refused to take responsibility for what she'd done really irked me. On a rewatch, I ended up really appreciating those aspects of her character. They made her feel like a real person, which is a lot more than can be said about a lot of the other 'Disney princesses', and I'm always inclined to like a flawed protagonist more than a perfect one, since those are always more interesting to tell stories about. It was more than that, though. I liked her more subdued moments a lot, like the little comments she'd make with her father, or how afraid she clearly gets when her mother takes a harsher tone with her; that's real s*** right there. Kelly Macdonald plays the character really well, and manages to keep the audience on her side even in the character's more 'bratty' moments, for lack of a better word. On of the few criticisms I have from my first watch that still holds true is that for as much as they built up her archery skills, including in all of the promotional material, they didn't seem to matter all that much by the end of the movie. For as much as the movie was talking about 'taking control of your fate', having Merida use her established skills to solve the crisis would have been more fulfilling than a rock just sort of falling on Mordu (who I'll get to in a minute). In the end, the moment Merida ends up refering to in regards to taking control of your fate is the ill-conceived plan that almost ruined everything, which feels a bit off.

Emma Thompson as Queen Elinor

And, for as much as I've gushed over the movie so far, I do need to address more of my issues; many of which have been solidified after repeat viewings. Because, yes, while the general atmosphere make this feel like one of Pixar's most unique films, it doesn't help that basically nothing else about the movie is unique. Putting aside the 'Disney film in which someone turns into a bear' story which must be incredibly familiar to you, let's just examine the kind of story this is. It's about a rebellious, forward-thinking teenager attempting to break from tradition despite their upbringing by a strict, by-the-book parent figure. I just described about a million movies with that one sentence. It's a tired story, and a lot of the regular beats are hit here. You've got the 'this isn't fair' moments, the characters being unable to talk to each other, the character taking things too far and immediately regretting it trope; it's just so tired by this point. From practically the moment the film begins, you can basically predict exactly how the movie's going to go, and for a company as original as Pixar, that's a real problem. The main obstacle of the story is set up through miscommunication, which is always annoying, and, finally, Mordu is far from the most interesting villain. By his very nature, he's just a bear, and the angle of 'this is what Elinor will become' isn't explored nearly as much as the film needs to in order to make this work. The way his death is handled, beyond not utilising Merida enough, is actually pretty nice though, as we get to see the real Mordu may not have been as evil as the legends told. Little moments like that where the Pixar charm shines back through are what really save this movie in parts.

Billy Connolly as King Fergus

I usually save the last paragraph for things I didn't like about the movie, but I've sort of already done that, for some reason, so let me just go over basically everything else about the film. Emma Thompson is great as the Queen, even if her character is the same 'over-bearing parent' figure we've seen a million times before. Billy Connolly is, as always, incredibly likable in his role, and, speaking of which, the film handles its comedy really well for the most part. They manage to squeeze a lot of great physical comedy out of Elinor as a bear, and her facial expressions are incredibly vivid. The Witch is by far the best character in the movie, and she's criminally underused, which sort of feeds into my last comment about the movie: it should have been longer. Take that as praise or criticism as you will, but you'll notice at several points in my review, I've mentioned that certain elements of the movie, such as the Wisps or Merida's archery, aren't as developed as I'd have liked them to be, and could have been had the movie been given a longer runtime. The same goes for Mordu and The Witch; they weren't nearly as fleshed out as the movie wanted them to be. A lot of that just stems from the genre; it's hard to tell a fantasy-epic in under 90 minutes, but you can't make a kids' film too long either. It's a tough balance to strike, which is probably why Pixar haven't attempted something like this since. I will say, having rewatched the movie, I do appreciate the fact that it exists a lot more than I used to, which is, believe it or not, very high praise indeed.

Julie Walters as The Witch

So, yeah, Brave (2012) may not be the strongest Pixar movie, but it's definitely a good time. It's not as unique or ground-breaking as would like to be, or maybe should have been, but it has its audience, and I can see why. 7.5/10.

Off the Cuff Reviews Patton (1970)

I'm always a little hesitant going into a slightly older movie like this. There are those who campaign for 'the classics', but I'm personally of the opinion that newer films of today refined and perfected what the older films did, and some older movies have dated pretty significantly since their release. I feared Patton (1970) would be one of those movies, yet I wound up having a pretty good time with this one. It did things I didn't expect it to, took itself in a direction which kept me guessing, and I walked away having had a surprisingly great film experience. Starring George C. Scott as General George S. Patton, Karl Malden as Major General Omar N. Bradley, Michael Bates as General Bernard Montgomery and Edward Binns as Lieutenant General Walter Bedell Smith.

Patton (1970)

Right off the bat, I'll address the direction the movie took that I didn't see coming, since everything else is fairly simple stuff to talk about. Given the nature of the time period, and the fact that we're focusing on a US WWII hero, you'd think this would be a war movie. This isn't the case, as it's actually structured a lot more like a political drama. The war stuff is in there, and I'll get to that later, but the movie actually focuses a lot more on Patton as a person than anything he actually did in the war itself. This is a clever approach, since focusing primarily on the war wouldn't lead to all that much tension, since basically everyone knows the outcome to WWII. Putting the attention on the controversy surrounding Patton himself allows for not only a more unique story, but also just functions better as a movie.

Karl Malden as Bradley

Another cool thing the movie does is not treat General Patton as some messianic figure who could do no wrong. I was already to slam this movie for being too patriotic and 'America!' and therefore being incredibly dull, but that's not true. The movie shows the ugly side of General Patton, which is the far more interesting side to focus on. What was the line... "I'm here because I'm trained to be here, you're here because you love it". That's such a compelling line, as is the idea of the soldier being unable to live without a war. I was initially frustrated that the movie didn't show anything from Patton's life before WWII, but that feeds into the 'Without war, he's nothing' angle the movie pushes, which is so much more interesting if we only know him through the war as well. It's nice and meta that way, and when the film eventually does bring it up, you find yourself wholeheartedly agreeing.

Michael Bates as Montgomery

It's not all perfect, however. There's a lot in this movie that I do take issue with. For one thing, the movie takes a long time to really get going. After the opening speech, which I will get back to, the pace of the movie slows to a snails-pace. It's important that the movie take it's time to establish everything, but it does feel like it was a bit gratuitous here. There's an awful lot of establishing shots, maybe too many, and they last way too long. The movie might also have benefited from showing us some of Patton's exploits in battles past; before signing on to the 3rd Army. We never see him in the field, and that's a little important when basically all we see him do in the movie is send other people to their deaths. Additionally, the movie only really has the one music track that plays throughout the movie, and while it is a nice piece of music, and works at certain key moments, it does get repetitive very quickly.

Edward Binns as Smith

The actors are all fine here, and each one serves their purpose well. I do like how the movie does let you see from all points of view; both Patton and those who disagree with Patton. Speaking of Patton, and I've been dancing around talking about this for the entire review, but I've been saving it for last: George C. Scott is absolutely incredible in this role. I could listen to him talk forever. The opening speech is, of course, iconic, but there are so many similar moments like that in the movie. It's Scott's performance that really helps get him on your side by the end, even after some of his harsher moments. You really get a sense of his passion and, really, love for the war, and the fact that he's incredibly well-spoken despite not being great with people makes for an interesting combination; one that I haven't seen often.

George C. Scott as Patton

Patton (1970) ended up being a good time, even though I wouldn't consider it perfect. I certainly think it's worth checking out, and I'd probably see it again. i'd just have to strap myself in for a long one. 8/10.

Off the Cuff Reviews Her (2013)

See, this is what good sci-fi can do. Sure, everyone loves the outer space adventures and journeying to planets vastly different than our own, and I even love those stories as well, but I've always been more intrigued by the personal stories. The ones that reign themselves in and dilute their focus on a single element, or even a single person. Her (2013) is one of those stories. It's a movie that just reels you in and reels you in and keeps dragging you in and by the end you're just so enthralled with it. Starring Joaquin Phoenix as Theodore, Amy Adams as Amy, Rooney Mara as Catherine, Olivia Wilde as Blind Date, Chris Pratt as Paul and Scarlett Johansson as Samantha.

Her (2013)

I'll say off the bat that the premise of this movie is genius. I don't know how original it is, or was, at the time, and I think I've heard a few different versions of this story in a few different things before watching this movie, but this is by far the most intelligent take on this premise I've seen. If I was writing this story, I don't think I could help myself from going off the rails and turning it into some big uprising story about the machines taking over, and while that would have been fine, I'm sure, this is a more grounded story. It approaches this relationship, for the most part, as if it were an actual relationship. They go through the motions, it's up and down, and it's written in a very believable way. The characters talk to each other as if they were actual people in a relationship. I'd go so far as to say that this relationship between a human and an AI is written more believably than the majority of human-human relationships I've seen in a lot of other things. I meant to save this point for the end, but I'm already addressing it now and I can't be f***ed re-editing the review as it is, but it does what a lot of great sci-fi does, which is shine a light on the human condition by getting as far away from it as possible. At the end of the day, this is a story about a couple slowly growing apart, and that's a very relatable story. It just decides to tell that story through the framework of an AI.

Amy Adams as Amy

This leads into the other aspect of the movie, and I'm not sure how correct I am about this, but I feel like the movie is also presenting an allegory for how attached we're becoming to technology in general, which is extremely relevant in the modern era. Putting aside the romance, the world of the movie is in and of itself incredibly dependent on technology, but not so dependent as to make it seem like a world that exists incredibly distant from our own. It feels like a world that could very much come to be in the next decade or so, and that's a balance not a lot of sci-fi can nail. You can see it in the opening scenes, before the AI even comes into it, people on the train, on the street, etc, are silently talking to themselves and their 'phones'. It's a world where people are intrinsically attached to their technology, which becomes even more apparent when you add back in the extra layer of the romance. 'Attached to technology' indeed. The film isn't necessarily saying it's a bad thing, since the romance, for the most part, was a good one, and was extremely beneficial to Theodore. In this way, it does something else good sci-fi does, which is raise a question about our modern world without really answering it. To that end, the audience is left to draw their own conclusions. It's smarter that way. The effect is obvious. The first half of this review has just been me talking about the themes that the movie explores, which is a rarity for my reviews. Normally I just go into 'this looked good, this person acted well, this was awful, the music was nice, etc'. This is a smarter movie. I'd wager it's a movie that just gets better over time. I'm probably going to have a stronger opinion of this movie tomorrow once I've given it time to really sit with me, I can feel it.

Joaquin Phoenix as Theodore

Anyway, getting back to my normal structure, Joaquin Phoenix was excellent in this role. The movie did such a great job of endearing you to him almost immediately, and something else I noticed was how well the movie did of bringing you into his emotional state; a credit to the excellent direction at work. The movie needs you to feel happy; the scenery is beautiful and Theodore is outwardly beaming. The movie needs you to feel on edge; Theodore trips over himself as he's running along the pavement. The movie needs you to feel calm and relaxed; the entire scene is one long shot of Theodore's face as he's lying in bed talking to Samantha completely content. I could go on and on, and here I am once again going into more depth about this stuff than I normally do, but this is honestly the stuff I noticed immediately. I didn't even have to go looking for it; not only is the movie intelligently written, but it's intelligently directed as well. Phoenix, to his credit, delivers basically every line in exactly the right way, and it's just such an interesting character. Someone that can vocalise the feelings and expressions of other people but has trouble doing it for himself? It's a struggle to pull that off without it being creepy, and Phoenix does it expertly.

Rooney Mara as Catherine

Opposite Phoenix, Scarlett Johansson is also wonderful as Samantha. This was another thing the movie needed to get right, as it needed to convey that these OS softwares are more than just, well, software. If they don't feel real and alive, the movie completely fails, and since I've gushed on and on about the movie so far, it's safe to say they get it right. All the little inflections and lilts and character choices from Johansson are perfect and it made Samantha really feel like a living, breathing character, which only enhances the romantic angle the movie's going for and stops it from being so creepy. Amy Adams is also great, as she is in most things. Chris Pratt does his job well as the comic relief, Olivia Wilde was great in her appearance... Guys, at the end of the day, I really can't think of anything I didn't like about this movie. Everything in it worked for the movie's benefit, there was nothing that was out of place. It is a little slow, but I'm glad that it is, since it just gives you more time to engross yourself in the world. I wasn't blown away by the end of it, but I just know that the more I think about this movie the better it's going to get. It's one of those 'thinking man's' movies that I'm sure will just continue to improve on each repeat viewing.

Chris Pratt as Paul

It may not be terribly exciting or suspenseful or action-packed, but Her (2013) is one of the best reflections of humanity I've seen in a film. Normally I end the review by saying something like 'I'm glad I saw it' or 'You should check it out' or 'Don't see it'. So, when I use the kind of language like 'Everyone needs to see this movie at least once', just know how big a deal that is. Everyone needs to see this movie at least once. 10/10.