The Fault in Our Stars

Director: Josh Boone
With: Shailene Woodley, Ansel Elgort, Nat Wolff, Laura Dern, Sam Trammell, Willem Dafoe

I am one of the lucky ones who didn't read the book so I was spared from the ~feelings~ the readers-turned-fans or whatever have experienced from it.

But even without reading it, it's a given that someone's going to die and it's going to be a major tearjerker so I consider myself prepared for that and I also sort of want to test myself if it's going to break me.

Well, it didn't.

But sweet mother of dramas, it's undeniably and highly emotional. It's a simple movie but it's the simplicity that got me caught up in it. Simple, intimate and poignant. The movie experience is very comparable to the same metaphor Hazel gave to herself, a grenade. That I tried my hardest to detach myself from the characters in hopes of evading the sadness I knew it would provide but it's sort of impossible because the evil duo John Green and Josh Boone ensured that it would make you vulnerable to the point where it's difficult for anyone not to detonate.

The characters Hazel Grace Lancaster and Augustus 'Gus' Waters are so well-written they would suck you up to feel what they feel for each other. But they're never going to work tremendously if not for Shailene Woodley's aesthetic and Ansel Elgort's (jacket) charisma whose screen presence reminds me of a young Ryan Phillippe. Their eye-to-eye contacts, exchanges of smiles, okays and okays and other sweet nothings, add up the gratifying number of awesome soundtracks, are like traps that make you invest your feelings into them gripping your hearts until they melt. And you lose yet you feel like a winner because you got the essence of their relationship and more importantly the movie. Point is, I really like the characters and how they were portrayed that I refuse to talk about the technicalities of the film thoroughly.

It's also hard not to mention the story of my audience but everyone ate it up from beginning to end. It's kind of hilarious and quite a refreshing movie experience. The squeals when the movie started were so eye roll worthy until I found myself slowly syncing with them eating every cheese and romance of the movie. Halfway through the film, things went differently when I could hear giggles turning into sniffs. I assume these are the readers who already knew what's gonna happen reliving the pages that made them love the story.

But even without those wimps :3, my friend beside me was already bawling her eyes out that it felt like she already shed all the tears my eyes could possibly shed for the film. There's no more left for me because she brought the tears into a whole different level. Poor thing because I told her to buy a pack of tissues but decided not to because she might get disappointed in case the film failed. But it didn't, so she settled for the tissue she got from T.G.I.Fridays. It's priceless and sort of ironic because this is the same person who I went with to watch The Conjuring and didn't show any ounce of fearful emotions while I was busy being scared shitless.

It's pretty obvious that this film pleased most of its fans because of the reaction it got. I must say that the nonreaders were also quite pleased because for one, it didn't reach the point of annoyingness even if the characters are teenagers and it talks about romance. I was moved even if I was quite skeptic about it.

Although it's certainly not for everyone. It's unremarkable especially if you don't open yourself with its romance and grievance. I personally like the first half than the second because it got too dark and sad and awww :(. It's  also not as unpredictable as others claim it to be. But at the end of it all, we can all agree that it's a pretty nice film reminiscent of the classic A Walk to Remember. That a few years from now, I foresee that this would be considered as one of the classic tearjerkers of this generation.

The Grand Budapest Hotel

Director: Wes Anderson
With: Ralph Fiennes, Tony Revolori, F. Murray Abraham, Edward Norton, Mathieu Amalric, Saoirse Ronan, Adrien Brody, Willem Dafoe, Léa Seydoux, Jeff Goldblum, Jason Schwartzman, Jude Law, Tilda Swinton, Harvey Keitel, Tom Wilkinson, Bill Murray, Owen Wilson

The only movie I've seen directed by Wes Anderson was Moonrise Kingdom and he immediately enticed me with his distinct style of direction--marvelous production designs that seem like straight out of a children's story book, sweetest color palettes that triggers allurement to the screen, quirky characters wearing neat designed costumes and a great ensemble to give justice to them. The Grand Budapest Hotel is nothing short of these aspects. In fact, it's way more extravagant and a way better experience than the former.

It's a thrilling ride that follows the story of a previously young lobby boy Zero Moustafa (Tony Revolori) who worked under Gustave H (Ralph Fiennes), a charismatic yet strict concierge of a grandiose hotel called 'The Grand Budapest Hotel'.

The film consists of well-known actors and actresses but Budapest's storytelling is so fast that it swallows these actors' prominence and instead focuses on the characters they're playing. Anderson's characters are so quirky and distinct to each other that even though the film boasts of a number of heroes and villains, everyone remained memorable.

Everyone worked their characters very well and while all of them delivered, Ralph Fiennes stood out the most as the primary carrier, or should I say 'concierge' of the film - both as an actor and as a character. Gustave H is undeniably likable, a stubborn hero, a nefarious protagonist, he's an unsung hero reminiscent of classic playful Old Hollywood characters. It worked for him that he's not playing a kind-hearted goody goody hero because we knew him as an actor who played iconic villains. He was Lord Voldemort and he was monstrous. He was Amon Goeth and he was despicable. But Ralph Fiennes redeemed himself for playing this character that's just so ironically likable, even touching at times. Honorable mention is Willem Dafoe. As one of the characters with a brief role, he notably injected himself as the bulldog-looking scoundrel who's funny and awful at the same time.

In my viewing experience of Moonrise Kingdom, as much as I was highly fascinated by Anderson's work, there were times when it felt a little lethargic. But the slowness of the former, he makes up for the bold and quick pacing of Budapest. It never rests in entertaining the hell of its viewers. What made it more fun is that it's a movie with a world straight from a creative and unconventional imagination, youthful in its colors and execution albeit containing mature stories and characters.

I also just want to mention how Alexandre Desplat scored the hell out of this movie. It's kind of funny because it seems like he's scoring every other movie I watch this year. No complains here because he's a fantastic musical composer and he made Budapest more whimsy and playful.

Its humor is both verbal and visual. Its pacing is something most movies should have. I'd give this film 5 plums in a New York minute for its richness, creativity and astounding viewing pleasure but I just wish it connected more emotionally.

Even then, The Grand Budapest Hotel is a must-see film that somehow will remind you of the fulfillment one earn in watching quality movies.

Nymph()maniac Vol. I and Vol. II

Director: Lars von Trier

With: Charlotte Gainsbourg, Stacy Martin, Stellan Skarsgård, Shia Labeouf, Christian Slater, Uma Thurman, Sophie Kennedy Clark, Connie Nielsen, Hugo Speer, Felicity Gilbert, Jamie Bell, Willem Dafoe, Mia Goth, Michaël Pas

Let me start this writeup by sharing their ridiculous chant: "MIA VULVA MIA MAXIMA VULVA"

That and more is in store for you in this film.

This movie is manufactured for every sexually driven person...NOT. If you're interested to see this because of sex and explicitness then think again. You won't get disappointed because it's filled with naked people having sexual intercourse, but trust me when I say that it will be overwhelming and definitely not in a good way. That is unless if you're into hardcore mindfuckage and madness, but if you're not, I've warned you. You better prepare if you're curious about the film.

I should have seen this coming because after all, it's directed and written by Lars von Trier. But prepared or not, I think it would astound a lot of people.

Not devoid of art for sure. It has a lot of intriguing and absurd metaphors, a chockful of gimmicks are present as well, but other than that it's extremely painful to watch. People are saying that Steve McQueen's Shame is hard to watch? Try this because it's nothing compared to this. And to be quite honest, I don't find Shame that dark anyway so I guess it isn't a good comparison but both tackled sex addiction as their theme except this one is in a whole new level.

It's pure visual sadism. If you want to experience visual sadism (which I just made up), then this is the party for you.

Pretty sure that this would easily make Buzzfeed and other websites' lists of most disturbing films. I knew I would if I'd make any. It's up there with Salò and Cannibal Holocaust. So... :/

Nymph()maniac Volume I

Volume I is more bearable than the second. It focused on the first half of the life of Joe, the protagonist of the film. Joe is a girl by the way, and the young Joe was portrayed by a modelesque actress Stacy Martin who is very reminiscent of Eva Green in The Dreamers.

The whole movie is about Joe's life as a nymphomaniac and it was being narrated by the old Joe played by LVT's "depression trilogy" muse, Charlotte Gainsbourg. She's telling her story to Seligman played by Stellan Skarsgård. Seligman took Joe to his loft after seeing her beat up in an alley.

When Joe regained her energy and sense, her and Seligman talked. A self-diagnosed nymphomaniac, she started her story from the beginning of her sexual awakenings to what got her in the alley. Seligman matched it with questions and his own stories as well. Joe provided the nympho story and Seligman provided the metaphorical heavy aspect of the film.

I must say that they have good chemistry. It turned out be necessary for the build up of their character's relationship which peaked in the second volume. I thought Gainsbourg's way of narration was kind of more suitable in a documentary film though, so I wasn't totally impressed. Her acting chops was showcased well however in Volume II.

Gotta love Joe's story when she was young. Love the Lust vs Love aspect and how she struggled to cope up with it. It channels a little sexiness to the film's horrific vibe.

Another thing it has are familiar actors and I like that. It has young Philomena and ironically she's a slut in this film. From being a saint-like character to this, way to go! LOL But she's a gorgeous slut and a decent actress. It also has Uma Thurman who acted her ass off. Her character is ridiculous and crazy and I love it. Spilling the truthpaste everywhere she goes. She had one of the fewest airtime in this film but she managed to be my favorite in this huge ensemble.

This volume also has a penis montage and it's plain cringeworthy and disgusting. I felt like LVT was trolling at this part of the film. I mean, why??? He's obviously torturing his viewers. Very unnecessary but like I said, he's a troll.

Its ending defined my judgment of the film. Great but just not my cup of tea. It has a great impact but it's nothing compared to Volume II's ending.

Nymph()maniac Volume II

Volume II is much more powerful to me but that doesn't say much because I'm not really into both of these films. Its ending, like I mentioned earlier, defined the entire movie. It's one that would stay in you like a nightmare which I think is LVT's sinister plan for the film.

On one hand, I appreciate the fact that it provided a huge impact but on the other hand, I don't like the impact. Tewewew.

Volume II gives a lot of light to what happened to Joe at the end of Volume I and yes, I used the term light but what occurred to her was actually dark and depressing. The actions Joe took to solve her itch for lustful sensation was barbarous. It would challenge you if you're going to continue or just get over it. It would make you question yourself why you are watching it.

If you're a fan of Jamie Bell then you might like this volume because he took a distinctly strong but kind of insane character in this film, something completely different and he was very impressive in committing to that role. His character is an instrument to Joe's sanity but he treats her like a slave during the process. I must say that his chapter is one of the hardest chapters to watch because it involves graphic sadism. It was disgusting just thinking about it.

But other than Jamie Bell's chapter, everything about this volume is actually brutal but all of them serve as a great buildup to the end of the film which ironically also gives sense to the beginning of the whole movie.

And I keep on gushing about the ending but it's really the part that made this whole torturous movie have sense. It's like the reward for the neverending explicit scenes except not really, because the sense I'm talking about is probably the most haunting part of this whole thing.

It's disturbing but it's also the reason why I have an ounce of appreciation for this film. Reminds me of Martyrs' ending, a completely different movie but both have great disquieting effect that makes you want to discuss it with people.

LVT's intention and vision was solid and clear throughout the film for this ending to work so well. It's really like an April Fool's joke thinking about it but I appreciate it. It's a good and memorable twist. Would I sit through this film again? Probably not. Would I recommend it to my friends? I guess so but I'll let them know to take into consideration that this would corrupt their beautiful minds in an ugly way.