If there are two filmmakers currently in Hollywood that I cannot stand, it is the work of Michael Bay and Roland Emmerich. How these two were able to make more than one movie in Hollywood is beyond me.
Michael Bay is known for his many box office smash hits, including “Armageddon,” “The Rock,” the “Bad Boyz” movies and the Transformers film series. While Roland Emmerich is the guy that brought us “Independence Day,” “The Day After Tomorrow,” “Godzilla” and “White House Down.”
The reason I group them together is because they’re quite similar in their approach to making movies: Appealing to the lowest common denominator. They get success because they make their films flashy and filled to the brim with eye candy. Story, characters and logic take a back seat in their films, instead focusing on explosions and action sequences.
I feel it is because of this line of logic that has led to the deterioration of the summer blockbuster. Studio executives are looking at how successful the Transformers films are doing at the box office and believe that this style of filmmaking works, and thus use it for many other movies. This is what created films like “Battleship” which looks and feels like a Michael Bay film without Bay’s influence.
Here’s the thing about eye candy in cinema: Even though film is a visual medium and relies heavily on its images, that should not be the only thing to admire. If there is no substance to what I’m looking at, then it is the filmic equivalent of junk food. It might taste good while you’re feasting on it, but once you’re done you feel empty. You eat too much of it and you feel sick to your stomach and ultimately regret your decision.
Bay and Emmerich’s films mostly exist just to get to the action sequences. I give Emmerich a little more respect, because at least his action sequences can be comprehended. Bay, on the other hand, usually has the camera moving so rapidly and edits his shots so much that it is sometimes impossible to tell what is going on.
This is especially worse in the Transformers films, when many of the giant fighting robots are all the same color, gray or slightly darker gray. The only Transformers that can be identified in an action sequence is Optimus Prime, whose primary colors are red and blue, and Bumblebee, who is yellow.
If you can’t tell which giant robot is which, then your movie sucks. If you don’t even bother to give half of your robots names and personalities, you fail as a filmmaker.
Not to mention, most of the “comedy” in Michael Bay’s films are questionable at best. Most of it just makes me tilt my head, wondering why anyone would laugh at Shia LaBeouf’s mom accidentally eating a pot brownie and getting high. Or showing us John Turturro’s butt. Or worst of all, useless sidekick robots that only serve to dish out the most racist personalities since Jar Jar Binks.
The fact that Michael Bay’s movies make so much money is not so much infuriating as it is fascinating, in an ironic way. I get little to no enjoyment out of his film, but I can understand why others would enjoy them. What I can’t fully understand is the truckloads of money they continue to rack in, all because they appeal to the lowest common denominator.
Instead of making a compelling story, or giving us relatable characters with a struggle that is all too real to many people or just giving us an interesting world can be both terrifying and awe-inspiring, Michael Bay is all about the eye candy in an attempt to make some money. And it works.
This is almost like anti-filmmaking. Where instead of the creators doing it for the passion and love of cinema, Bay is handling it like a business, only interesting in the money.
While the reason Hollywood continues to make movies for all the dough they create, the existence of well-made movies and quality products shows that not everyone is in it for money. Some just want to make a film that others will remember after they leave the theater. They don’t just want their money, but their hearts and mind as well.
My personal favorite animation company is Pixar. Not because they released many of my favorite animated films of all time, but because they’re consistent and promote a free-flowing work ethic that has produced amazing results. The company has yet to produce something that wasn’t either a financial juggernaut, a glorious piece of art, or both.
They’ve been in a bit of rut lately with works such as “Cars 2” and “Brave” but they showed there are many ideas and adventures they can explore with “Monsters University.”
With fourteen full-length movies under their belts, I feel there is enough room for a top ten list. These are the films which I feel best present Pixar and their ideals. They not only appeal to a wide range of audiences but stick with you long after the film is finished. These are my top ten Pixar films.
Ten: “Brave” (2012)
This one had some interesting ideas and great dynamic between the main character, Merida and her mother, the Queen. Merida just wants to be a warrior and enjoys hunting, but was essentially born the wrong gender and despises everything girly. Her mother not only wants what is right for her daughter, but for the kingdom as well. She cares enough about Merida to let her continue her pursuits of archery but still wants to be prepared for when she will take the throne.
As such, Merida hates her mother and wishes that she didn’t have to deal with. She gets her wish, but not exactly how she thought.
My problem with the film is everything else. The comedy is fart humor, most characters only serve as comic relief of said fart humor and the plot is standard. Which is why it gets the number ten spot. It has some elements going for it, but not enough to keep it above an “okay.”
Nine: “Monsters Inc.” (2001)
The one major complaint I have with this film is that its idea of monsters having day jobs is a idea that has been done to death, even when the film came out. We’ve seen that kind of story already, and this one didn’t necessarily do anything new.
Well, okay, it did have some unique ideas with how the monster world works compared to our world. The idea of using doors to transport between the two worlds is kind of neat, especially when we see it in action. It especially comes to a head during the climax of the film and there are thousands of these doors.
Monsters being afraid of humans certainly isn’t new, but when it is treated like a nation wide epidemic, then it suddenly becomes hilarious to watch, especially from side characters and seeing their reactions.
Finally, the relationships between Sully and Boo works well and even lead to some emotional moments. Sully and Boo have a simple relationship that starts out with Boo being curious and Sully being terrified but overtime the two have some genuine heartfelt moments and the two grow closer, leading to the final moment when Sully has to say goodbye.
Not the best Pixar film, but it was an enjoyable one.
Eight: “Ratatouille” (2007)
It took me a long time to finally sit down and watch “Rataouille.” Not because I thought it would be bad, but because I felt like no much would come from it. Of the Pixar films, this one has the smallest scope. The world feels so tiny and unexplored. We get to see many kitchens and Paris, which is beautifully animated, but that’s about it.
When I did sit down to watch it, there was that initial connect that I get with all Pixar films. The characters are beautifully fleshed out and immediately relatable that you feel like you’ve known them for years. From the background rats to the major players in the kitchen, they all have distinct personalities and each one is distinguishable.
The real clincher for me was the food critic, voiced by Peter O’Toole. Not only is a cynical take on the exciting world of cooking, not only is voiced by a wonderful actor with an impressive range (especially when he’s creepy), but he also has one of the best movie speeches in recent memory. That speech of his near the end of the film has been burned into my memory and will stick with me. As a critic, I appreciate and respect the honesty and credibility. As a person, I love the passion and heart behind his words.
It is a beautiful movie with many likable characters and an outstanding speech that will go down as one of the best speeches in film history.
Seven: “Monsters University” (2013)
The reason this film gets ahead of its predecessor is for a few reasons. One of them being how it was able to flesh out the monster world so much more than the first film. We get to see how much being a scarer means to these creatures and how many different levels there are being them. The hierarchy is impressive to say the least, as well as expansive and detailed.
Another being that the relationship between Mike and Sully is much more believable in this one. The two start off as rivals, but grow to like each other after bonding over how much they love to scare. This grows into respect and eventually friendship and what we saw in “Monsters Inc.” In that film, there friendship was cemented from the beginning and it didn’t really go anywhere. Here, it is fun to see the twists and turns and where their respect for each other came from.
Finally, this one speaks to an audience on a much deeper level than the first film did. While “Monsters Inc.” was emotional, this one was more reflective on one’s desires in life and how working as hard as you can still might not get you what you want. For a children’s film to discuss those issues is spectacular.
Six: “A Bug’s Life” (1998)
This one doesn’t get noticed that much these days. Mostly because a similar film, “Antz” came out around the same time and people naturally got the two mixed up. Both are about living in an ant colony and the kids who adored “Toy Story” were probably very confused to find two ant movies at the same time.
For what its worth, “A Bug’s Life” is the better film. Taking a much more comedic spin on films like “Seven Samurai” and “The Magnificent Seven,” this film is paired up with an impressive scope and a great performance from the always-awesome Kevin Spacey.
You feel like you’re on the same level as the ants, but still conscious that they’re tiny and insignificant compared to us. We see events like rain and tiny birds and how they’re all terrified of these creatures. Seeing their reactions is what makes the film worth it, as well as building legends around things that we take for granted.
The film feels tiny yet massive at the same time.
Five: “Finding Nemo” (2003)
Now we get to the really good ones.
This one hits all the marks of a great Pixar film. Wonderfully touching story, relatable characters, timeless comedy and an expansive world that is just as interesting as any character.
It is hard to make the ocean a compelling character, yet “Finding Nemo” was able to do that with ease. From sharks, to fields of jellyfish, to sea turtles that sound like surfers to massive whales, this one has an enormous scope that trumps any other previous Pixar work.
The real heart of the film lies in Marvin’s determination to get his son back. Every other scene, Marvin must endure dangerous tasks with insurmountable odds, escaping by the skin of his teeth. Pixar has a thing for making grumpy characters go through these sprawling adventures that turn them into fun-loving people that want to get the most out of life. Marvin was the first, though certainly not the last, and one of the best.
Four: “The Incredibles” (2004)
A family of superheroes. As if that idea wasn’t great already, then you add in the comedic stylings of Brad Bird from “The Simpsons.” How can you not like this one?
This is the first Pixar film that is focused on human characters as opposed to animals or inanimate objects, but that doesn’t make these people any less interesting. These are probably the most relatable characters in any Pixar film, due to their quarrels yet willingness to forgive one another. They feel like a real family, especially when stranded on an island full of hostile threats.
Honestly, it is a good sign when the scenes of Mr. Incredible and Helen are some of the more memorable scenes, even more so than the action sequences. Not to the action sucks, but that the two arguing about why they continue to fight crime is so heartfelt and touching that its hard not to get invested.
It falls into the same category of “Finding Nemo” of being that Pixar film which hits all the right notes and is a fun ride from start to finish.
Three: “Up” (2009)
All you need is the first fifteen minutes of this film. That sequence is utterly perfect.
If there was ever a way to sum up life and all of its happiness, struggles, bitterness, sadness and regret, it would be the opening sequence in “Up.” No dialogue, just the marriage and life of Carl and Ellie. That is cinema at its most powerful, especially when you’re able to communicate so much with so little.
The rest of the film is still wonderful though. It takes a while to grow on you, but once you get past the fact that the highlight of the film is at the beginning, most scenes are enjoyed for their beauty, comedy and reflections of Carl’s life. What he should have done and why he feels he messed up.
It is a story of reclaiming the glory of life, at any costs. Whether its Carl making his time with Ellie count or Charles Muntz finding the bird that ruined his life. “Up” hits all the right notes and gives us one of the most memorable scenes in film history.
Two: The Toy Story Trilogy (1995, 1999, 2010)
Okay, I’m kinda cheating with this one. To be honest, I couldn’t pick one film in the series that I thought was better than the others. All three are excellent films and come together to form one of my personal favorite film trilogies.
The whole idea of all three films is to ask, “What would the life of a toy be like?” These three films examine that to its full potential, with each film analyzing a different period of a toy’s life. Because much like the children who play with these toys, they grow up and move on at some point. “Toy Story” was the point in which Woody realized that being someone’s favorite plaything will not last forever, while Buzz’s story was one of coming to grips with being a toy.
In “Toy Story 2” the situations are reversed, with Woody believing that he could have a better life if he stopped being a plaything and became an icon, only to realize that he’d much rather Andy play with him for a few more years instead of be in a museum for the rest of his life. To be a toy instead of just a hunk of plastic.
Then it all comes to a head in “Toy Story 3” when that dreaded moment comes: Andy doesn’t need Woody and Buzz anymore. Not only does this one have the most emotional moments of the series, but it brings the story of these group of toys to a close, rounding out their journey to find their purpose.
Much like the original “Star Wars” trilogy, these three films come together to tell one solid story over a long time. Watching all three films consecutively, you begin to notice over-arcing plot points and the character progression, specifically in Woody and Buzz. It gives us an aspect of life that many had never considered and gave new meaning to our toys.
Now you’re probably wondering what could possibly top all three “Toy Story” films, especially since all three are great films. Well, to me, there is one definitive Pixar film that trumps all other projects. Let’s take a look at it...
One: “WALL-E” (2008)
If “Toy Story” is the film that created the ideas and environment of Pixar, then “WALL-E” is the film where those ideas are perfected. This is the one type of film that was missing from Pixar’s library to make it an unbelievable: a masterpiece.
I’ve talked about how “Finding Nemo” had an utterly massive scope. Well, the scope in “WALL-E” makes “Finding Nemo” look like a puddle. Not only does it encompass the entire planet, but it goes through the cosmos and beyond just to see how far humans have come...only to immediately revert to babies because technology is so far advanced that we don’t even need to stand up.
An interesting companion piece to “WALL-E” is “2001: A Space Odyssey.” Comparing the two, you begin to see many similarities which I believe makes both films stronger, especially “WALL-E.” Namely the use of technology. In “2001” our tools were the instruments that led us out of our docile and cowardly state and into outer space. Now in “WALL-E” our tools have not only become self-aware, but our abuse of said tools has made us nothing but giant lumps.
I don’t believe “WALL-E” is necessarily saying technology is bad, but that if we continue to go down the path we are heading, we would be relying so much on technology that we would never have to lift a finger, which is contradictory to how humans are supposed to live.
I feel the movie can be summed up in one line and it has now become one of my favorite lines of dialogue.
There’s a difference between “survival” and “living.” To rely on technology too much would only be for surviving. To go out, attempt to make your life matter and explore would be to live. To do something fun and new with your life. We do it, not because it’s easy, but because that’s what living is for.
In “WALL-E” we could travel anywhere in the galaxy, have robots for any occasion, hover crafts so that children and the elderly can be just as capable as the rest of us. Yet we only use them for selfish gain. That’s not technologies fault, that is our fault.
I could go on for hours about why “WALL-E” is one of the best movies I’ve ever seen. It has gorgeous animation, the fact that the first third of the film has no dialogue but gives you a perfect picture of how this world operates, the romance between WALL-E and EVE is one of the strangest yet most captivating romances I can think of, the continued similarities to “2001” and the characterization of WALL-E, his personality and how simple yet complex he can be.
Not only is “WALL-E” my pick for the greatest animated film, but it just might be my pick for the best film of the 2000s. Each time I watch the film, I catch something that I missed and I end up loving the film even more. That is a true test of staying power when the film gets better every time you watch it.
When I look at films like the recent remakes of “The Nightmare On Elm Street” or “Friday The 13th” or even the “Paranormal Activity” series, I see one thing that they all have in common: They rely way too heavily on jump scares.
A jump scare is exactly what it sounds like. It is something that comes up out of no where, is completely unexpected, and is meant to make the audience yelp in horror.
Here’s the thing about jump scares. They are not scary. They are startling. It is the movie equivalent of me grabbing your ear and yelling as loud as I can into it.
That is not horrifying, just unexpected. While catching the audience off guard is part of horror, that is far from the only aspect.
Two of the most terrifying movies I can think of are Ridley Scott’s “Alien” and John Carpenter’s “The Thing.” Both of which deal with similar circumstances: An alien is stalking a group of humans who cannot escape and have no chance of rescue. The difference between the two is not only the type of alien that is stalking the characters, but also how they go about making the alien the most unnerving creature imaginable.
“Alien” does this by presenting him as the ultimate killing machine. Acid blood, two sets of jaws to rip you apart, lightning fast and can hide in the ducts, and is just as smart as any human but only designed to kill. This is made even worse when he is hiding in a gigantic spaceship with thousands of places to hide. The alien could literally be hiding around any corner, waiting to strike, and you would never know. We have no way of understanding it or communicating with it, because it is alien to us.
“The Thing” is takes a rather different approach, by making its alien a shapeshifter. It is essentially a collect of cells that work as a virus, infecting other living organisms and adding to its collect. He can take whatever form he chooses to, including other humans that it has assimilated. As such, most of the film relies on paranoia and mistrust. Who is the alien and who is human? How can we know for sure? What is the alien’s true intentions? Why does it want to assimilate all the humans? And what would happen if it were released on a major city?
The great thing about both of these films? Little to no jump scares. These movies are scary through atmosphere, tension and making you care about the characters who are being hunted.
That’s another thing about recent horror films: The characters serve little to no purpose other than to be a body count for the monster. They’re designed to be despised, so that when they do eventually die, you cheer and thank the movie for killing off an annoying character.
Except that by doing so, the movie is no longer horror. It falls more in line with being a comedy. You are literally rooting for the bad guy with the machete or chainsaw to continue his murder spree. Something is just not right about that.
The best example I can think of what is wrong with modern-day horror comes from Alfred Hitchcock. He gave an example of his form of suspense by comparing it to some gentlemen playing poker at a table, when suddenly a bomb explodes from underneath the table. That is a surprise that you didn’t see coming. Now, take the same situation, but show the audience the bomb underneath the table before it blows up and show some kind of countdown. Suddenly, that is suspenseful and thrilling.
It is not the explosion or the dead bodies that makes a film worth seeing. It is the situations and dilemmas that the characters would get into, and asking, begging the audience if these people will walk out of this or not. It is the threat of danger and destruction that makes us want to see more, but necessarily the destruction itself.
Most modern-day horror films would be more tempted to just show the explosion rather than build it up, which is why most of them are so predictable and boring. You know exactly what’s going to happen before the trailers have even finished.
It is sad that we have come so low that our primary way of scaring audiences is by yelling “Boo!” really loud and hoping that will spook them.
“The wind is rising...we must attempt to live!” ~ Paul Vareri
This is the quote which Hayao Miyazaki’s “The Wind Rises” opens up on and continues to live by during every frame of the film.
If there is one film studio which can give Pixar a run for its money, it would be Studio Ghibli. You may not have always heard of the name, but if you care about animated movies, then you’ve watched their films, which include “My Neighbor Totoro,” “The Grave Of The Fireflies,” “Princess Mononoke,” “Howl’s Moving Castle” and “Spirited Away.”
Their films, like Pixar, are able to reach a multitude of audiences, while entertaining people of all ages with ease. Their stories are timeless and the characters are relatable without resorting to cliche. The difference between Pixar and Ghibli though is that Pixar wishes to tell stories about particular characters and their adventures, while Ghibli focuses on the world within the film and builds their stories around it.
The mastermind behind most of the Studio Ghibli films is Hayao Miyazaki, who has said that his most recent film, “The Wind Rises,” will be his last film. I have my reservations to doubt Miyazaki, as this is the third time in his long career that he as announced retirement. He didn’t mean in the past, so can we really trust that he’ll keep to his word this time?
Well, if he does indeed retire after this film, he would be going out on the highest note possible. “The Wind Rises” ranks up there as one of the best films Miyazaki and Studio Ghibli has ever produced, as it presents an experience that is more mesmerizing and captivating than anything I’ve seen in a long time.
Jiro Horikoshi is a young Japanese boy who is absolutely fascinated with planes and aviation, even going as far as to buy an American plane magazine and translate it with a dictionary. However, due to his poor eyesight, he could never be a pilot. Jiro instead decides to build the most wonderful planes imaginable, dedicating his entire life to building his dream plane. With vivid dreams of discussing aviation with other world-renowned architects, like the Italian Caproni, Jiro has an interesting life ahead of him.
I avoided giving names of voice actors this time around, because in most places where “The Wind Rises” is playing, they are showing both the Disney-dubbed version with actors like Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Emily Blunt, as well as the original Japanese version with English subtitles. I saw the dubbed version, but I’m tempted to see the subtitled version just to see if there are any differences.
I find it is best to watch a film as it was originally intended, by the film’s creators. So even if it is a foreign film, I feel that subtitles are the best way to go.
The best way to describe “The Wind Rises” is as an experience. It isn’t so much a movie as it is putting you in a state of mind. Films usually attempt to tell a story with conflict, rising action, falling action, a climax and revelations. There are rare instances where a movie puts the story to side and just lets the images speak for themselves.
“The Wind Rises” is akin to films like “2001: A Space Odyssey” and “Gravity” in that regard. Not as much about the characters as it is experiencing the wonders of flight in a poverty-stricken area like Japan.
There is a plot to film, but it takes its time to show just how wonderful planes and idea of flying can be. The dream sequences are the best example of this, as in each on Caproni has a new flying machine that he wishes to show to Jiro. They serve as his inspiration, but each device is bigger and more overwhelming than the last. From fighter planes, to a sea plane with three sets of wings to a cargo plane that can fit endless amounts of people.
The true visual spectacles come to the land itself. There is a scene fairly early on in which Tokyo is hit with an earthquake, and steadily the landscape is set ablaze. First it looks like nothing happened, then puffs of smoke appear in the distance, soon followed by huge flames. Later on, we see a barren city. It is breathtakingly haunting and a reminder that the earth could swallow us up at any moment.
If you’re not into that, the film has plenty more to offer. Scenes of watching the rain fall heavily on Jiro as it soaks through his umbrella stand out, because it leads to him finding a rainbow, something which he says he hasn’t seen in a long time. This sense of wonder becomes even more beautiful when we see Jiro’s planes burst through the clouds and glide along them with ease.
You really get a feel for the land of Japan and just what it feels like to live there. How difficult it is to be a plane architect when they’re twenty years behind everyone else. That the land is so fragile but the sky is so tempting that you wish you could reach up and touch it. Perhaps that is why Jiro wants to build planes.
Of course, an underlining point of the film is how the military wishes to use Jiro’s planes as weapons of war. It isn’t stated often, but it is in the back of Jiro’s mind. He says that he only wants to build marvelous planes and does not care how they are used, but we see that does indeed care. His initial plan is to build his crowning achievement so that it would be impossible to install guns on it.
His statement is laughed off by his coworkers.
“The Wind Rises” is based off of the life of Jiro Horikoshi, who created the design for the Japanese fighter jets used in WWII. War is lurking in the background of this film, and shapes the world in which Jiro lives in. He may not want to use his designs for war, but that won’t stop others from doing it.
This is what I mean by Studio Ghibli creating films around the world they create. You get a sense of exactly how this poor and desperate land works. They want to be strong again, but still have their dreams and ambitions still in tact. The world may be ugly sometimes, but they must attempt to live.
“The Wind Rises” is unlike any other Studio Ghibli film I’ve seen. Not only is it based off of an actual person, but it trades in the other world mystical sense of “Spirited Away” and “My Neighbor Totoro” for a sense of wonder and exciting. It doesn’t go out of its way to be fancy, but just offer up visuals that feel at home. Like the planes throughout the film, it glides smoothly and with grace, like a flock of birds after a rain storm.
Matthew McConaughey has had one hell of an interesting career. Starting out with the body of an Abercrombie & Fitch catalogue model is one thing, but he made his way up the proverbial Hollywood food chain, working from dumb and sappy Romantic Comedies like “Failure To Launch” and “Fool’s Gold” to action/adventure flicks like “Reign Of Fire.”
If you told me three years ago that Matthew McConaughey would win the Academy Award for Best Actor, I would have never stopped laughing. Yet here we are. McConaughey has transformed himself into an award-winning actor and has started in several acclaimed films, including “Mud,” “Magic Mike” and now “Dallas Buyers Club.”
I believe the reason I was so hesitant to watch “Dallas Buyers Club” was for a few reasons. One, I am one of the few people to not care for McConaughey as an actor, even after his transition. I’ve yet to see the man in a role where I cared about his struggle and could relate to him.
The second reason arose while I initially watched the trailer and some clips before the films release, and the plot of the film became clear.
Ron Woodruff (McConaughey) is a man who lives with no rules. He’s a part-time bull fighter, yet always seems to gamble any money he wins on other bull fighters or card games. Either that or spend it on hookers, booze and drugs. This all changes in the blink of an eye when Ron is diagnosed with the HIV virus and is given thirty days to live.
Ron, perplexed by how he could have gotten this disease that makes him look like a homosexual, is initially against finding any sort of treatment and only wishes to keep on living his life as he wants, crazy and uninhibited. Soon, his condition gets worse and he seeks to find relief. However, the only way he can find such a thing is through drugs that have not been approved in America. Thus Ron must resort to illegal and underhanded tactics to stop the HIV virus from killing him and possibly thousands of others.
Now, in the story’s own right, that is a fine idea. A man who has thrown away his entire life, not necessarily living, given a death sentence. Now he must make his last few days of living matter and do at least one meaningful act before his mortality ends.
My problem with that is I’ve seen this before, and done flawlessly in Akira Kurosawa’s “Ikiru.”
In that film, which takes place in post-WWII Japan, Kanji Watanabe has spent the last thirty years of his life doing the same job of shuffling papers between different departments. The man has essentially been dead for thirty years and he didn’t even know it. It wasn’t until he was diagnosed with cancer that he realized this, and so he seeks to make his life matter in the last six months he has left.
“How tragic that man can never realize how beautiful life is until he is face to face with death,” says a novelist that Watanabe meets.
The emotional core of “Ikiru” lies here, and its something that I believe everyone on the face of the earth can relate to and understand. No matter your ethnicity, age or gender, there is something in “Ikiru” for everyone to latch onto. We are all like Kanji Watanabe. We seek meaning and fulfillment. We fear death and what it will bring about. We strive to make our lives matter.
If you loved “Dallas Buyers Club” then you will be blown away by “Ikiru.”
Now to be fair, for what “Dallas Buyers Club” is attempting to do, McConaughey is a great fit. The cowboy who would rather die with his boots on than lie in a hospital bed and let death slowly take over. He wants to make a difference and to make sure that the stigma of HIV and AIDS fades away. If he can make some money on the side, then all the better.
The real star of the film was Jared Leto, who plays Rayon, a gay transvestite who has also contracted the virus. This doesn’t stop Rayon from being who he is though. He is open towards everyone and is always willing to help out others, even if those people are frightened by him. Not only does Leto nail being both male and female, but no matter what he is, Rayon is independent, smart, clever and kind. I had a much easier time relating with Leto than I did with McConaguhey’s gruff, selfish and greedy personality.
Not to mention there wasn’t a character like Rayon in “Ikiru” so he offers up a wonderful divergence from that.
My other complaint is that “Dallas Buyers Club” feels like two entirely different films. The first half is about Ron’s struggle to come to grips with his own mortality and his transition to getting illegal drugs to help those with HIV into America. Once that has been achieved, the film takes a strange turn and becomes more of a biopic about how badly people with HIV and AIDs were treated when the epidemic broke out.
The film stops being about Ron Woodruff and spends most of its time talking about a dark time in U.S. history, where homosexuals were shunned and couldn’t get proper medical treatment. A respectable time to discuss and I applaud the filmmakers for not sugarcoating it, but to go from one story to the other is jarring and removes emotional investment in characters.
Overall, I’m not sure how to feel about “Dallas Buyers Club.” On one hand, the acting was wonderful, especially from Leto. On the other hand, the film reminded me way too much of “Ikiru” and comes across like two films combined into one. I do respect the film for its portrayal of how badly we treated the AIDs epidemic, much like how “12 Years A Slave” was brutally honest in depicting slavery. Neither film holds back, even if the subject matter is a touchy affair.
McConaughey has made a wonderful transition and has shown he can handle a multitude of roles and this film is proof of that. Even if “Dallas Buyers Club” had problems in its story and pacing, none of that blame can be put on Matthew.
.jpg)
