Change Your Image
kcastro3
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
Kumaré (2011)
Kumare may be false, but "Kumare" is truly beautiful
"Kumare" is a documentary starring filmmaker Vikram Gandhi. He sets out into Arizona pretending to be a Guru from India named Kumare. He begins his journey by growing his hair and beard, adopting a fake Indian accent, and going out with this fake persona. Along the way he meets many people that all believe in him and his "powerful ways". He even collects fifteen devoted followers that continue in his teachings even after he has left them. Kumare's main teaching is that followers do not need a Guru, because the truth and whatever else they are searching for comes from within.
At first sight this might sound rather funny. It sounds very similar to "Borat" or "Bruno" or whatever Sasha Baron Cohen alter ego. But it isn't. Not at all. Baron Cohen is mean spirited and goes out to make fun the people he meets. When you see him in interviews he doesn't realize the consequences of his actions. The people that he offended. Vikram as Kumare is the polar opposite. While you're watching you see how connected he is with these people. How he really does believe in what he is teaching. He believes in them and he just wants them to have faith in themselves.
The point of the documentary was to show that anyone can be a Guru (of sorts). When people are lost and confused they seek out understanding and direction. This is why they'll turn to a man, a false prophet, a fabricated Guru. Kumare listened to their problems and assured them that they had all the tools to fix their problems. He told them that they didn't need him. They just needed to seek that light within themselves, get hold of it, and use it.
I'm a firm believer in Christ and still I found Vikram's teachings profound and real. People will believe in anyone who appreciates them. Someone who can listen to their problems and love them the same. It was painful to see these people fall deeper in love with Kumare. Then in the end he has to tell everyone the truth of who he really is...I was just as deep in the lie and thus shared his fear and anxiety. If anything else this shows great storytelling.
The big picture, this is a spectacular documentary. It's evenly paced, shot well, with an intriguing plot. It's not gritty, pretentious, or sardonic. It doesn't pretend to be anything that it is not. (I did not mean for that to be nearly as ironic as it sounded). Some might be offended and hate this film, but to that I'd say they are looking to closely at the small picture and should broaden their horizons to see the real world application. Isn't that what a great documentary does? Puts life in perspective by showing the heart and flaws of humanity. Kumare may not be real, but "Kumare" is a true expose of faith, love, and humanity.
The Great Gatsby (2013)
Phenomenal Novel, Spectacular Film
It's hard to judge a film when it is based off of a novel. It is even harder when that novel is the spectacular, stupendous, highly acclaimed "The Great Gatsby". Granted this is not the first time the novel has been adapted, but I wasn't born when Robert Redford played the infamous Jay and so it has no bearing on my opinion. Consequently I had to force the notion of the text as transcribed in the book from my mind as I sat in the theater and though I didn't fully succeed in doing so I did so just enough to judge the film solely on its own merit. I'm happy to say that this film is aesthetically appealing and perfectly paced with amazing actors.
For those who have seen Baz Luhrmann's previous works (i.e. "Moulin Rouge") and have enjoyed his unique style, you will not be disappointed. His quirky and eccentric camera angles swoop from the individual out to the surrounding world. From the beginning of the film we see Nick walking through the streets of New York and in an instant we are staring at the whole of New York with its bright lights and tall buildings. Although sometimes distracting, it is very Luhrmann-ian and thus has to be appreciated. Another Luhrmann-ian aspect is his overlapping of animation-esque sequences. Nick is seen hovering over his typewriter, or looking into Gatsby's eyes, and across the bottom of the screen you'll see the transcript of the scene being described verbally from Nick (and taken verbatim from the novel). It plays off of the idea that what is being narrated to the audience is actually being written by the Character Nick (in the movie) for a future novel. We are peering into his world, a world that is very much real (and currently in development). To try to describe Luhrmann's film style to someone who hasn't seen it before is like trying to explain color to a blind person. All I can really say it that it does not fall short of what is expected.
I have two more points that I'll keep brief. First, the film was extremely well paced. The novel is not long, but there are many plot lines being explored and that alone can take hours to explain. The two hour twenty minute length doesn't drag the audiences into slumber nor does it do any injustice to the story. Second, the acting was tremendous. Of course nothing but excellence is anticipated when you throw in academy award nominee Leonardo DiCaprio (whom, on a side note, is so sexy in this film) as Gatsby, critically acclaimed Carey Mulligan as Daisy, and Spider-Man (aka Tobey Maguire) as Nick. Phenomenal performances all around.
I am not too proud to admit that I cried frequently throughout the film. But what shocked me was what proceeded after I left the theater. Slightly speeding in the rain on the freeway listening to Adele on blast, I noticed how I was still very upset. How could Daisy do that to Jay? He loved her. HE LOVED HER! It was she, not George Wilson, that killed the hopeful dreamer that was Jay Gatsby. How could she do that? But I knew this was going to happen. I'd read the book. I knew the end. So why am I still so frustrated? It was because this film kept to the heart of the novel and upped the ante. The best part of film adaptations is the ability to breathe life into the story. And that is exactly what Luhrmann did. He used everything at his disposal (great actors, a wonderful individual style, a great script) to make an enticing and heart-wrenching film. He could have easily ruined a classic novel, but I'm glad to report it was far from failed.
So see the film. If not for the crazy beautiful soundtrack, the splendor that is the Luhrmann style, or for the sexy DiCaprio then see it to feel. Hope. Pain. Love. Loss. What I had to realize is that there are two things this story can teach: 1. The world is full of spiteful and cruel people who will crush your spirits and make your hope nonexistent, or 2. Dreamers have to try to make their hopes a reality despite what the outside world says or does to prove them false. We must dream. We must hope. And above all we must try. Begin with this film and then be inspired to embark on the voyage of the dreamer.
Celeste & Jesse Forever (2012)
About As Interesting As The Title
"Celeste And Jesse Forever" is a film starring Andy Samberg and Rashida Jones (who also wrote the screenplay). The two star as best friends who became lovers turned spouses turned exes. After six years of marriage the two have split up, but attempt to remain best friends. It's clear from the beginning of the film that the two are still deeply in love with the other thus showcasing that this film is about the end of relationships not love.
Personally I was thrown by what I expected to see and what the film turned out to be. When I first watched the trailer I thought I was going to see a movie about Jones nursing a heartache while carefree Samberg, not intentionally, dug the knife deeper and deeper. This was not the case at all. Celeste broke up with Jesse, because she couldn't see him one day being the father of her kids (something you think she would think about before marrying him). Meanwhile Jesse is so painfully in love with her that he jumps at the chance to build her a bookshelf in the middle of the night just in hopes that she'll take him back. And once Jesse has "moved on" (I will not spoil the plot twist) and Celeste realizes that she wants him back it's hard to care. I don't feel sorry for her. In fact I'm upset with her for about eighty percent of the film. She is an uptight business woman who has no doubts about how beautiful she is. And whereas women such as Audrey Hepburn and Grace Kelly wear this confidence sophisticatedly, Celeste is just a tacky "Rom Com" Katherine Heigl archetype. So pushing past my preconceived notions of the film and my frustration of how unrelatable the character of Celeste was, I have to say that this film is pretty decent. The script, while not entirely witty, carried out a consistent story from beginning to end. It didn't lose sight of the role or emotions of the characters and that is a hard task to accomplish. The direction of this film was breathtaking. Lee Toland Krieger used camera angles, scenes without script, and dramatic cinematography to exasperate the agony and torment of love lost. The scene were Celeste allows a costumed stranger to hug her in some sketchy neighborhood at night broke my heart. He was the true star of this film.
There was a great exchange between Celeste and Riley (an overrated pop star played by Emma Roberts) that truly encapsulates the film. Riley, also nursing a broken heart, cries out that she thought life was supposed to get better when you got older. Celeste reassures her that it doesn't, but you do. Life is harsh and cruel and sucks, but along the line you get better at figuring out how to deal by fixing it or moving on. This is the films true message. Of course you replace life with love, but I think it works the same.
Overall I can't say that this movie wasn't worth watching or the $1 you'd spend picking it up at Redbox. And I am sure that out there are Celeste type women who will find this film the epitome of how they feel. But a few cautious words before you watch the film: 1. This is not a love story. 2. This is not a funny movie. 3. This is not a particularly inspiring movie. With the right frame of mind this could actually be an enjoyable movie experience.
Oz the Great and Powerful (2013)
Oz: The...Nope.
I'd like to premise this review by saying that my expectations of this film were surprisingly low. Also, I should state that the movie screen went blurry quite a few times consequently impairing my movie going experience and possibly my reaction to the film as a whole. Yet I stand firmly in my initial response to the film. "Oz: The Great and Powerful" is a dud, a drag, and the antithesis of a "must see" film.
First and foremost the visuals were disappointing. I believe that half of what Disney was trying to sell the audience on was the enchanting and advanced visual effects. This, however, did not translate well from trailer to full theatrical film. The special effects were so artificial that it was borderline tacky. I understand that Oz is in itself a mystical and magical place, but if they were going to undertake the challenge of transforming it into a believable universe for the audience then they should have stepped up their game. I'm not sure if it was the cinematographers, the graphics department, or Sam Raimi (the director) who dropped the ball, but it wouldn't surprise me if it turned out to be every single creative mind involved. And if this feat was too much for Disney then they should have minimized the usage of green screens. If the effects had been bettered executed the film may have been more bearable.
The other half of what Disney so heavily marketed this film on was the story. This was a prequel to "The Wizard of Oz", a film that is adored and revered generation to generation. "Oz: The Great and Powerful", however, will have no such luck being remotely remembered once gone from the theaters. My biggest issue with the storyline had to do with that fact that the writers took the first five minutes of Dorothy entering Oz and stretched it to 130 minutes. There is an evil green witch with flying monkey minions, a sister, and a hatred for Oz (the land and the wizard). There was nothing incorporated into this film that added any depth to the original story. (This is what I imagine die-hard "Star Wars" fans thought of "Episode III".) "Wicked" (the novel turned Broadway musical) epitomizes the right way to produce a prequel. It flipped what the audience thought they knew, created a whole new tale, and still respected and paid homage the original. The biggest plot twist in this movie, Glinda is
the good witch. In the current times of Hollywood where we are so severely lacking any new insightful story lines that "The Hobbit" needed to be cut into three separate films, I could see why this movie was made. Did it, however, need to be? Not really.
If the writing and acting had been flawless, maybe I wouldn't be as frustrated. Too bad this is not the case. I've already touched upon the writing in relation to the story. What I would like to further expand on is the humor (or lack of). I should note that while sitting in the theater, before the film started, I made myself laugh with a joke about two talking muffins. I don't posses a highbrow sense of humor, but even I found the jokes and one-liners in the movie to be immature and silly. One of the biggest laughs was initiated from a sneezing monkey. A sneezing monkey. It's an infant's sense of humor; the equivalent of someone closing his eyes then opening them and shouting "peek-a-boo". And though I would never want to be the comedy police, telling anyone what is and is not funny, I would go as far to say that this wasn't the strongest comedic writing.
The acting was even worse. James Franco was even more intoxicated and out of it then he was in "Pineapple Express". He was all over the place. In the beginning his "wink, wink, nudge, nudge" at being a conman was too much. Then midway through the film he became so commonplace and boring that he fell into the background. Usually I love Mila Kunis, but her over the top wickedness and portrayal of a woman scored made Sylvia Plath and Virginia Wolfe look sane. And the only thing more painful to watch than Michelle Williams's performance was the hideous chicken feathered costume she wore. They all lacked conviction and it seemed as though the actors enjoyed acting in the film as much as I did watching it.
I give this film a D+. This saddens me. Not because I was hoping for it be better, but worse. The last thirty minutes of the movie were so campy and ridiculous that it created a false sense of entertainment. Something happens when a movie crosses the line of "bad film" to "tragically terrible film". People will rally behind the latter and lovingly title them "cult classics". "Attack of the Killer Tomatoes" anyone? In my humble opinion Disney should have committed to the campiness of it all. Alas this was neither great, nor powerful.
The Croods (2013)
"Crood", But Definitely Not "Crude"
"The Croods" is a Dreamworks animated film about a dysfunctional prehistoric family fighting to live to tomorrow. The all-star cast includes Nicholas Cage as the extremely overprotective father, Emma Stone as the angsty teenage daughter, Ryan Reynolds as the mysterious and handsome dreamer, and Cloris Leachman as the crazy old granny. Combining humor, heart, and wit this epitomizes the picturesque family film.
I'm just going to start off with the comment that'll show my presumptuous liberal arts education to get it out of the way. For a good majority of the film there are two reoccurring pieces: the cave that keeps them safe from the outside world and the newly devised tool
fire. The father, Grug, made the family spend day after day in the cave in order to protect them from the creatures and dangers of the outside world. To the family it was totally fine, because that was all they knew. Then this good-looking drifter appears, Guy, with his tangible sun (fire) and explains to them that there is more to the life they are living (the promise of tomorrow). Is this a reference to Plato's Allegory of the Cave? I cannot be the only person to make this connection
Alas I have nothing insightful to add here except to say that if the screenwriter and creators of the film had Plato's Allegory in mind when writing this they are going far beyond any children's movie I've seen. Bravo!
The basis of the plot, although not entirely innovative, was rather creative. Whenever writers pen an other worldly story they have the ability to create whatever fantastical and imaginative universe they want. This prehistoric realm was truly impressive. Carnivorous birds. Land whales. Moving greenery. And without a great animation team this world would fall flat. Thankfully the art was majestic, entrancing, and magical. Every piece fell seamlessly into place manifesting this marvelous land of wonder.
The true story has much less to do with the prehistoric backdrop, and more to do with the family that is living in it. It just proves that families were insane and oppositional from the beginning of time. Without exposing too much of the film, there are very profound family centric values that are explored. An overbearing father who will do anything to protect his family. A daughter that is completely embarrassed of her family and still wholly loves them. Many animated films attempt to reach this profundity and fall short. These writers, however, did an inexplicable job at adding such depth to the story that even my salty and bleak heart ached.
I don't know if there will ever be a way to explain how affected I was by this film. Visually it was beautiful. The story went far beyond miniscule themes of "be kind" and "love one another" to a plane of tenets that are difficult to grapple even as an adult. And on top of all of this it was rather funny. Don't let the title mislead you. This film is far from crude.