Pokematic Reviews La La Land

Oh the award winning La La Land, almost the best picture but no.

If it's not a good game or catholic...who do you call?...why Pokematic "hi."

Before I get into this, I need to start by saying "I'm not a big fan of musicals." I don't have anything against them; I was in the pit for 42nd Street and really enjoyed Wicked as well as The Music Man. I'm just not a big connoisseur of them like I am with say, animated or super hero films. However, La La Land really got my attention when it won all those awards, and almost won best picture. So as an "internet critic" and fan of good films, I felt like I had to see it. Well, after renting it at my local video store (yes I still have one), I feel like I have to tell you about how great it is.

Right off the bat, I need to say that the story and characters are kind of, meh. The story is a 2 parter, where the first half is a falling in love plot and the second half is a chase your dreams plot. Emma Stone is an actress who's looking for her big break and Ryan Gosling is a jazz musician who wants to make it as a traditional jazz musician who doesn't want to have jazz get all synthesized and what not. The first half is rather predictable and the second half is kind of boring. I don't want to "spoil" act 1, but, predictable. Draw your own conclusion. Act 2 just kind of jumps around between Ryan and Emma trying to chase their dreams, while also trying to get a steady pay check (starving artist and all). I can see why the academy would love it, since they probably lived it. It's not that it's "bad," just not really on the level of "Oscar."

As for the characters, Ryan Gosling and Emma Stone just aren't that interesting. As I said earlier, Emma is an actress looking for her big break and Ryan wants to make it as a traditional jazz musician. Emma is a barista at a coffee shop and has some stage fright, and Ryan does small gigs. I won't go into their adventures in act 2, but it's nothing to really write home about. I gotta say, I never really found myself caring for these characters.

But don't turn away now, because what this movie lacks in story telling, it MORE than makes up for in technical elements, like the music. Now maybe it's just because I don't watch a lot of musicals, but for a "musical," there wasn't a lot of music. I mean, there was a score and what not, but there was only like 2 or 3 songs that the actors sang with "musical logic" (music comes out of nowhere, actors start singing, random strangers join in, etc.) Not that I'm "complaining" necessarily, I just expected more than your typical Disney animated movie. But those musical numbers are great. Like, top top notch, with great choreography and great singing. Ryan and Emma are REALLY talented when it comes to singing and dancing. But what REALLY stands out is the tap ballet number, where Emma and Ryan fall in love as they tap dance to a song that tells how they fell in love with a single continuous shot. It was REALLY impressive. I knew both of them were talented actors, but I never knew they could sing and dance. Which, back to the "acting," is impressive. Sure, both of them are probably playing "themselves at one point in their career," but it's still pretty great acting, mixed in with singing, dancing, and in Ryan's case, piano playing.

Next I need to talk about the costumes. Normally when watching movies, I don't really notice the costumes. They're just kind of "there," if you catch my drift. With this one however, I just had to notice them. Everyone wears bright colors. Emma wears bight colored dresses and Ryan wears bright colored suits. Both actors wear costumes that make them look really good and capture the feeling they're going for. It's really good. Everyone else wears good costumes too, but it's Emma and Ryan that really stand out.

Now there's the set design. You might think it would be kind of "basic" since they're just in a city, but you'd be wrong. Yes, there's some simple restaurant settings, and other slightly impressive jazz club and stage performance sets, but there's something "different" about the sets when they do musical numbers. When they do musical numbers, the sets become, less realistic, in a good way. During musical numbers, the sets look a bit like stage sets, like it's a stage play (except for the opening song, that's just a shut down free way). This really takes me back to my days in theater (emphasis on DAYS, I didn't do it very long), and I can tell that's the feeling they want to evoke. OK, maybe not nostalgic feels about spending hours at the high school working on the show, but it's definitely going for a theater feeling. And I think that's a very interesting feeling to evoke. Like, this is a multi-million dollar production with A-list actors, and they're dancing on a set that looks like it's from a college production. I love it.

Before I get into the spoiler end scene, I need to talk about the camera work. It's great. There are 2 very different types of camera work goring on; 1 for the talking and 1 for the music. With the talking, it's your typical "steady camera" with some quick change cuts. There are some scenes with a somewhat more dynamic camera, but it's still pretty static with jump cuts. When it's a musical number, the camera is more flowing and dynamic, with more continuous shots. They aren't single shots like with birdman (which also had Emma in it), but they are more continuous and flowing. This just really exemplifies the talent of Ryan and Emma, as they will do full shots and any actor will tell you that single shots are super hard to do. Granted, I'm a novice, but it's just a fact that it's easier to just do a 2nd 5-second take and try again. With shots that last for minutes, those are significantly harder to do as 1 screw up near the end means having to redo everything.

Now here's the spoiler in the final scene I want to talk about. Skip this paragraph if you don't want it spoiled, but the ending scene is so interested I just need to talk about it. OK, spoiler now. As you may or may not know (depending on how you handled my spoiler warning), Emma and Ryan don't get together in the end. That was unexpected. Like, I expected them to get together, because predictable, and how we see them in their lives apart. Then there's that imaginary kiss, where we get the "what would have been" montage, and boy was it creative. It's all "stage musical" set, with them dancing from set to set. It's also a "what could have been had they been more supportive of each other." Oh was it amazing seeing this "what could have been" story. It hits pretty much all the same notes of act 2, except there isn't the tension between them due to unsportiveness, that ultimately leads to major happiness. Then it goes back to real life, where they're still happy, just happy alone.

OK, spoilers over. This is a great movie. I'm not sure I'd necessarily recommend this to someone who doesn't know film critique, since it's rather bland from a conventional story telling perspective. However, from a technical stand point, it's amazing with a high recommendation. If you are or were a film student, or are/were a theater kid, you will appreciate this film. This has been Pokematic, signing off, and bu-bye.

Pokematic Reviews The Grand Budapest Hotel

It won like 4 awards, so it should be good. But is it?

If it's not a good game or catholic...who do you call?...why Pokematic "hi."

So I rented The Grand Budapest Hotel. I had no interest in seeing it until I saw that it was essentially this year's Gravity; won almost all awards nominated except best picture. It was no Gravity, but for different reasons, reasons I'll get into. No, I won't compare it to Gravity, because they are very different movies. That would be comparing Apples to Steaks. Enough stalling, here's my review of The Grand Budapest Hotel.

First, how's the story? Well, it's good. It's about a guy who's a lobby boy, Zero, who gets taken under the wing of the rather eccentric concierge, Gustave, of The Grand Budapest Hotel. This concierge has a thing for old, blond, rich, women as stated in the movie. This gets him into a rather crazy situation involving stolen art and murder. However, to go into further detail would be spoilers, and while it's not very twist and turns, it's still best left unspoiled. I will say this though, the pacing is quite fast, like the fastest that's possible for the viewer to understand the first time. This then brings me to the acting.

Now the acting is what really shines. There are 2 main characters, Zero and Gustave. Zero is a mostly mute character because Gustave doesn't shut up. They play off each other perfectly. Zero emotes a lot of things through facial expressions. However, when he does talk, it's very strait forward and very good. Then there's Gustave, he doesn't shut up, and he speaks quite fast. The story moves so fast because Gustave speaks so fast. However, it's a perfect speed. Unlike Zuckerberg in The Social Network, who speaks so fast that you can't understand him, Gustave speaks fast enough that the story moves quite fast but slow enough that you're able to understand him. There's also a wide cast of high profile actors, like Edward Norton, Bill Murray, and Owen Wilson. Well those are the 3 that I picked up on, and they were very small parts. It was very well acted.

Speaking of well made, there's also the the cinematography. When I first loaded the movie, it says "set your monitor to 16:9," and that's because the movie is best watched on 16:9 due to the changing aspect ratio. See, the movie is done with multiple aspect ratios; I believe 2:1 movie super extended for present day, 4:3 for flashback, and 16:9 for the lady reading the book of The Grand Budapest Hotel. But that's not all, there's a lot of optical tricks and things that happen that I wouldn't associate with an academy award wining movie. Like, in the present day part, they use super wide angle and slight fish eye. Personally I hate the fish eye lens because it distorts the edges and makes strait lines curved. When I first saw it I had to do double takes to see "are they REALLY using a fish eye?" Indeed they were. And you know what, it worked. Surprisingly, it showed off the remarkable sets with a super wide angle only capable of being seen with a fish eye lens. I guess the reason I hate fish eye so much is because I've never seen it used properly. Used properly, it looks pretty good. Then there was this thing where they straitened a painting and the camera lens changed. Like, I saw the slight changes in the picture and I'm like "they changed the lens to coincide with the painting being straitened, great work there."

This segues into the editing. Now I don't claim to be an expert editor, I'm a noob at best, but I have an appreciation for great editing. Now with this movie being so fast paced, the editing needs to be VERY tight and spot on. The editors that made this movie a reality, spot on, excellent job. The humor would not be good without your skills at the editing desk.

Oh yeah, this movie is a comedy. It's definitely a dark comedy, drawing it's humor from some dark places, but it's also very light hearted and bubbly. Even the darker stuff, like a guy getting his fingers chopped off before being murdered is done in a very light hearted tone and is quite funny. The scene where there's a shoot out, it's the funniest part of the movie because it's just so ridiculous, but not so much that it's silly. It's hard to describe because the humor is just so foreign, and I know a lot of different humor. There's even a scene where the CG is done rather poorly for comedic effect, and done quite well might I add.

Bottom line, you should see The Grand Budapest Hotel, provided you're fine with an R-rated comedy. I mean, it's on the boarder of R and PG-13. If they took out the scene with the topless old lady, Gustave receiving oral sex, some of the images of nudity and gore, and a couple fewer swear words, it would have easily been PG-13. Oh, and score, costume design, and make-up was good too. Whatever, it's a really good movie. Well, this has been Pokematic, signing off, and bu-bye.

Pokematic Reviews, Boyhood (It took 12 years to make)

This is a 2 part series. If you haven't already done so, please read my review of Birdman. Without any further ado.

If it's not a good game or catholic...who do you call?...why Pokematic "hi."

"Boyhood, it took 12 years to make. It's a movie that follows a boy as he grows up to an adult, and it was filmed over a 12 year period."

OK, so that's kind of the pitch for Boyhood. It was nominated for best picture of the year, and it lost to Birdman. It's big gimmick is that instead of getting actors that look like each other over a 12 year span, it used the same actors over an actual 12 year span, so, what is a movie that took 12 years to make like? I'm just going to say it right now, it's down right amazing. This is the best movie I've seen this year. It is a masterpiece. How can I say this?

Well lets start out with the story. It follows young Mason from about ages 6 to 18, and all the things that go along with growing up. And that's basically it. There's no "end game," no "final goal," no "overarching plot," just "a boy grows up and we watch him mature." When I boil it down like that, it sounds pretty boring. But on the contrary, it's one of the most interesting movies I've seen, ever. It's very unpredictable, because life is unpredictable. Will Mason's dad stay a big part of his life as he grows older? Will his mom's new husband be his new father figure? Will his parents get back together? Will his dirty pictures he got from his friend get found? Will the buzz cut help him socially at school or hurt him socially? We don't know. It's not like "crazy plot twists," just "we don't know what will happen because life is unpredictable." And that's what's really so powerful about this. As someone who was once Mason's age, at all points of the movie, there are a lot of things that are relatable. Anyone who was ever a boy will probably find something to relate to. It's a coming of age story, and since there are so many different stories in it, you can probably find something that either you or a close friend went through. It really hits close to home.

Before I continue on, there are some plot threads that are left unfinished. Some ends remain loose. I won't spoil them, but they are present. Now this could be interpreted as bad story telling. Like "well what ever happened to that?" Well, that's how life is. We constantly have things in our lives that don't receive any closure. This happens more in the early years than in the later years, but that's in part because Mason learns how to get closure due to him having more control over his surroundings. Remember how as a kid you didn't have much control over what happened in your life, and you didn't have a lot of say as to if you had closure or not? Well, that feeling is conveyed in this movie as well. Somethings leave our lives as fast as they entered, and some story elements leave the movie as fast as they entered as well. Additionally, we aren't really left wondering for long, because Mason moved on, much in the same way that we moved on with things we never got closure with.

Next I should cover the acting and characters. The story follows Mason, a 6-18 year old boy/man as he grows up. He has his friends, his step dads, his biological parents and siblings, and stuff like that. He's a creative kid and he lets his creativity overtake his schooling. He's not the most "interesting" character ever, but he's probably the most relatable. Chances are, we've all gone through something he's facing at any moment, be it moving away from friends, not liking school, parents saying "my house my rules," chores, young love, schoolwork that just doesn't seem useful, applying for college, trying to find who you are, having a strong relationship with your parents, etc. We aren't exactly like Mason, but we've had experiences like Mason. And Mason plays it really well. I'm guessing it's not that hard to play a boy when you are a boy, but it has it's moments.

His sister Sam, dad Mason Sr. and Mom are all there. Similar to Mason, they are there for Mason, and aren't anything super special, but super relatable. Of the supporting characters, Mason Sr is probably the most flushed out. Mason and Sam primarily live with Mom, and we start with the though of "dad is kind of in the picture, but not really, only every other weekend" sort of a deal. And it is like that for the first couple of years, but as the movie goes on, Mason Sr. and Jr. really bond, and Mason Sr. grows with Mason. At the start of the movie, he's kind of the "cool, immature, more of an older but responsible brother" kind of father; but as the movie progresses, Mason Sr. grows into a "real dad" sort of character. The transformation is pretty impressive. Sure, the actor had 12 years to grow, but it's quite impressive. Sam and Mom are there, and they do their best to be there for Mason, and they are. Mom is protective of Mason when she needs to be but she lets him make his own mistakes and Sam is there as much as an older sister needs to be. There's no cheesy "help me learn about girls" sort of things, but she's a presence none the less.

Now for some technical aspects. Since we are watching him grow up, changes would naturally be subtle. Like I think about people that I've known and been close with for many years. I don't necessarily notice them changing unless I haven't seen them in a while. Each "act" I'll call it takes place in kind of each year of Mason's life. The main thing that they use to signal a difference is his hair. His hair changes style and length based on the point in his life. Other things such as piercings, acne, and clothes also signal changes, but it's mostly the hair that signals change. Over the 2.75 hours of movie, we watch him change from a young boy into a young man, and it does a good job of showing the small changes from year to year. Being filmed in the relative present, all technology and styles are accurate, and it works really well.

Now one thing that this movie gets made fun of for is that "it's the movie that took 12 years to make." Red Letter Media apparently made a supercut of every time the director says "it took 12 years to make" or something like that. I just heard it from my friends, I don't really watch Red Letter Media, I think they're generally to cynical. Anyways, there's a big reason for that. It's not a movie that has an amazing 1 sentence pitch. Lets look at some other movies.
Star Wars: farm boy has to learn the magical way of the force to take down the evil galactic empire.
Indiana Jones Raiders: archeologist races against the Nazis to get the arc of the covanant
Birdman: crazy type-casted actor has to prove to the world that he's a real artist
Harry Potter: young boy learns magic to defeat the evil lord Voldimort
Jurassic Park: scientists bring dinosaurs back to life for a zoo like theme park only to find out that they aren't that easy to control

And then there's Boyhood: watch a kid grow up.

It's not an easy sell. Sure, it's amazing in practice, but it's boring on paper. The thing that will get people in the seats are "this took 12 years to make, these are the same actors as they age over a 12 year period," and then they stay in their seats for a rather realistic and relatable portrayal of a boy growing into a man.

The bottom line, this movie is amazing. I absolutely loved it. Coming of age stories are a little hard to do right in my books, because it's all based on the audience being able to relate to the situation. Well, Boyhood offers enough situations that anyone who was once a boy can find relatable. I think anyone who was once a boy should see Boyhood, and anyone who was around a boy that was growing up in front of them should see it as well. Basically anyone who is mature enough to handle the realistic R-rated portrayal of growing up should see this movie. Yes, it is rated R, there is a fair amount of swearing, some domestic violence, teen drinking and drug use, and 1.5 instances of sexual/suggestive content, but it's all part of growing up. Everything is done very tastefully. Well, this has been Pokematic, signing off, I hope you enjoyed this dual review, and bu-bye.

Pokematic Reviews Birdman

If it's not a good game or catholic...who do you call?..why Pokematic "hi."

As a fan of movies, I watched the 2014 Oscars, and while I haven't sen many of the movies that were nominated, I tend to look them up after the fact. Well, I was at my local video rental store and I decided to pick up Birdman and Boyhood. These were the 2 Oscar nominated films that they had out, and of them, those 2 and The Grand Budapest Hotel are the 3 that I was most interested in seeing. I'll discuss Boyhood in a sort of "Part 2" of this series, because I want to see what an "Oscar best picture, single shot" movie is like.

Before I start, I will not be using the "character names" in my typical style since the movie never really gave me much reason to learn their names. This is in case you are new here.

OK, so I'll start this out with my typical "go over the plot/story." The basic story is that Birdman is a former actor in the super hero movie franchise Birdman, and he's trying to prove to the world and himself that he can do more than just play the big budget super hero by writing, directing, and staring in a play. Throughout the movie, he deals with internal and external demons that are trying to impede him. Some of these demons involve his past, his daughter that has a bit of a wild streak, Edward Norton upstaging him, and his "super powers." The story is interesting, and tells of a world that is much like our own but we as the audience typically don't live in. We all know about the stars, and we will occasionally see them try to break from their type-cast. This shows us what it might be like to be an actor in that situation, and I theorize that that's a main contributor to why this won best picture. I theorize that so many people on the academy voting panel saw this and said "this really hits close to home, best picture." For me personally, I thought it was good, but not great.

Next I need to talk about the camera work. The entire movie is shot to look like it's one continuous camera shot. Conventional camera work is such that you hold a shot steady and when you need to change position, you make a cut to the new position. Here however, the camera flows from one scene to the other, and we follow the characters as they move. When we need to change perspectives, the camera pans to shift perspective. Obviously they didn't shoot the entire movie in 1 shot. There are some very subtle "cuts" for passage of time, and one shot where we are staring at an empty hall way for like a minute, but it's very believable. The feeling I think they were going for was "being there, like you are watching it unfold," and you could feel it. It's a marvel of cinematography.

Next I need to talk about the characters. There's only really 3.5 important characters; Emma Stone, Edward Norton, Birdman, and Birdman's crazy side. I'll start with Birdman, and his crazy side. As I said before, this is the story of how Birdman is trying to prove to the world and himself that he's an artist. He's not just a guy that can put on a costume and do mindless action scenes, he's a real artist. However, his crazy side believes that his best is the Birdman character, that all he will ever be good at is Birdman. The struggle is real. Also, he may or may not have super powers. We're shown that he can move objects with his mind and fly, but no one ever sees him and if they do it's like it didn't actually happen/matter. This is not a Scott Pilgrim universe where super powers are common place, this is real life, so we are kind of left not knowing. Then there's Edward Norton. I don't know how to really explain his character. He's a great actor, and it shows, but then there's all these complex things about his life that are never explained. We know he has some marital issues, but we don't know what they are. He kind of has a thing for Emma, but that thing never goes anywhere outside of causing some drama for Birdman. Emma is similar. We don't know a whole lot about her other than she was a drug addict and is recently out of rehab, and she does this art piece on toilet paper. While the characters are a little under developed, I think that was the point. This is told kind of through the eyes of Birdman. Most of the time the camera is following him around, and we're looking over his shoulder. He doesn't know all that is going on, so neither should the audience. It's a little annoying having main characters that we don't know much about, but it is what it is. There are other characters, but they aren't worth mentioning, outside of Zoey from Nurse Jackie making an appearance as stage manager.

Next is the acting, and I have to say, it's pretty great. These actors handle a wide range, from happy, to sad, to angry, to drunk, to everything. It feels very believable, like they are actually undergoing the stress of the theater and the crazy things that accompany it. From an exposition stand point, we know very little about the characters except for Birdman, but we know how they feel about their backstory and who they are. But Birdman is the best. He does an amazing job as a crazy, washed up star trying to get people to like him, not the character. Like, if this was a real story and I was reviewing his play, he would try to get me to refer to him as "Riggan" (had to look that up lol) instead of as "Birdman," similar to what I am doing now. For a real life example, check out my Juno review where I refer to Michael Cera's character as "Scott." Then he has these conversations with his crazy side like "you're not real, you are not me," and then he's playing that as well. It's really impressive. I also think that this inflated the results a little, because people on the voting board probably experienced this themselves, but whatever.

If there is anything that I have trouble with, it's the title. Like, even after watching it, I still can't stop assuming it's a super hero movie. Like, I get that it's about a guy that played a super hero, but I still want it to be a super hero movie. Plus I keep thinking this birdman.

Also, they missed a great opportunity to use a great jazz song, birdland. Played it all the time in jazz band in high school. Here's a version I found that's closest to what we did.


All in all Birdman is a good movie. Is it the best movie I've seen this year? No. I'd say it's definitely worth a rental if you enjoy movies and want to see a movie about a type-casted actor trying to distance himself from an old character. It's also very technically impressive, so cinematography buffs will enjoy it as well. Well, this has been Pokematic, signing off, and check out my Boyhood review and keep the fun going.