Ten years ago, my dad took my 12 year-old self and my little brother to go see Spider-Man in theaters. That movie was single-handedly responsible for my current love of superhero movies. So it was a bittersweet moment when I saw The Amazing Spider-Man. On one hand, it was definitely the end of an era. On the other, it was time for that era to end (I think I can speak for all of us when I say that Spider-Man 3 was really bad). I went into this movie with a lot of hope and a lot of fear, and I was pleasantly surprised with the outcome.
This being a reboot of the series, The Amazing Spider-Man is helmed by a new director (Mark Webb) and an entirely new cast. A few of the big characters return from the old movies, albeit with new faces. Andrew Garfield (The Social Network) plays Peter Parker, with Martin Sheen and Sally Field playing his Uncle Ben and Aunt May. That's where the similarities end, though. Instead of Mary Jane Watson being Peter Parker's love interest, the film stays truer to the comics and has Emma Stone as Peter's high school sweetheart, Gwen Stacey. There's no J. Jonah Jameson and no Osborne family (that's ever really seen), but the functions of some of those characters stays intact. Instead of Jameson being the loud-mouthed newspaper editor bent on making a villain out of Spider-Man, we have Gwen's dad, police captain John Stacey (Denis Leary), making Spider-Man out to be a dangerous masked vigilante. And although Norman Osborne is more of a shadowy figure in this film, Peter still finds a scientist role model/villainous arch-nemesis out of Rhys Ifans' portrayal as Curt Connors/The Lizard.
That's where the similarities end, however, because The Amazing Spider-Man sets a much different tone than its predecessor. Aside from its nods to its comic book origins (Gwen Stacey, using webshooters), this film is a lot darker than the ones that came before it. There's a lot of backstory to the sudden disappearance of Peter's parents, which is one of the two things that makes this version's Spider-Man much more interesting than the previous incarnation. The other thing that makes it more interesting is the fact that the casting choices in the leads were much better this time around. Andrew Garfield is a better Peter Parker in every respect, and I much prefer Emma Stone as the love interest than Kirsten Dunst. My chief complaint with the casting choices comes in with Uncle Ben and Aunt May. Some of the strongest performances in the 2002 film came from Cliff Robertson and Rosemary Harris as Peter Parker's elderly uncle and aunt. Although they opted for some higher-profile names in this reboot (Martin Sheen and Sally Field), the roles of Uncle Ben and Aunt May were largely disappointing, especially from Sheen.His portrayal of the single most influential figure in Spider-Man's life was hokey and uninspiring, a far cry from Robertson's endearing performance.
The only other big complaint I have with this film is the pacing. There was a lot of story to cover, and although the movie clocks in at a little over two hours long, it still feels like some of the relationships were rushed. It shows the most when they develop the character of Curt Connors (Rhys Ifans). The idea was to try and portray him as a misguided scientific mind who gets corrupted by his own creation (think half of all of Spider-Man's villains), but what we got instead was a hurried and rushed explanation and it makes the character less sympathetic and more unbelievable.
Sony and Marvel have already announced that The Amazing Spider-Man is the first in a new trilogy of Spider-Man movies. They're off to a good start with strong leads, an interesting new purpose for Oscorp (think shadowy corporate titan), and a cliffhanger that's better than any other Marvel movie to date. If they tighten up on the eye-rolling cheesiness of Uncle Ben and Aunt May and take a little more time developing the supporting cast, I think we may have on our hands the best movie series Marvel has ever had a part in. I give The Amazing Spider-Man 8 1/2 power-discovery montages out of 10.
Friday, July 6, 2012
Friday, June 22, 2012
Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter
I'm not going to lie: I've been waiting for this movie for quite some time. I first learned of the existence of Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter when it came out as a novel back in 2010, and since the first announcements of a movie, my interest was instantly piqued. Written by Seth Grahame-Smith, the same author of Pride and Prejudice and Zombies, Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter is portrayed as the secret journal of Abraham Lincoln, and uncovers the "secret truth" about how all of the actions in his life were dictated by the existence of vampires and his lifelong obsession with killing them. It's an absolutely absurd, yet incredibly entertaining premise, and the film adaptation brings the oddball charm of the book to life.
Despite Tim Burton producing and Wanted's Timur Bekmambetov in the director's chair, Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter has plenty of relatively unknown actors making up the cast. Benjamin Walker plays our 16th president from his teenage years into adulthood, and by his side is Scott Pilgrim vs. The World's Mary-Elizabeth Winstead as Mary Tood Lincoln. Walker and Winstead are both surprisingly good at playing both the youthful and energetic Lincolns of youth and the burdened family at the head of a war-torn nation. Also rounding out the main cast is Dominic Cooper as Henry Sturgess, Lincoln's mysterious vampire-hunting mentor, and Rufus Sewell as Adam, the head of all vampire operations in the United States. For a summer blockbuster action movie, all of the main cast is surprisingly good, and the depth of every character is explored through the choices the actors make.
Unfortunately, the great acting is not complimented by a very good script. The action scenes in the movie are amazing, but the script is painfully cheesy, and not in a good, let's-laugh-at-this kind of way. The voiceovers are ridiculously dramatic, the montages are predictable and cliche, and the chemistry between the leads is only about one step up from the train wreck that was Star Wars Episode III. On a personal note, I was sad that they left out his adventure with Edgar Allen Poe, but it was an understandable cut for an already long movie.
Overall, I was immensely entertained by the film, and yet incredibly disappointed at what it had the potential to be. The fight scenes are awesome, and it makes a great action movie, but it wasted some great talent on a very clumsy script that could be painful to watch when Lincoln wasn't swinging an axe through a vampire's face. It's not a wonderful movie, but it's a great movie to turn your brain off and thoroughly enjoy. I give it 6 and a half silver-coated axeheads out of 10.
Despite Tim Burton producing and Wanted's Timur Bekmambetov in the director's chair, Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter has plenty of relatively unknown actors making up the cast. Benjamin Walker plays our 16th president from his teenage years into adulthood, and by his side is Scott Pilgrim vs. The World's Mary-Elizabeth Winstead as Mary Tood Lincoln. Walker and Winstead are both surprisingly good at playing both the youthful and energetic Lincolns of youth and the burdened family at the head of a war-torn nation. Also rounding out the main cast is Dominic Cooper as Henry Sturgess, Lincoln's mysterious vampire-hunting mentor, and Rufus Sewell as Adam, the head of all vampire operations in the United States. For a summer blockbuster action movie, all of the main cast is surprisingly good, and the depth of every character is explored through the choices the actors make.
Unfortunately, the great acting is not complimented by a very good script. The action scenes in the movie are amazing, but the script is painfully cheesy, and not in a good, let's-laugh-at-this kind of way. The voiceovers are ridiculously dramatic, the montages are predictable and cliche, and the chemistry between the leads is only about one step up from the train wreck that was Star Wars Episode III. On a personal note, I was sad that they left out his adventure with Edgar Allen Poe, but it was an understandable cut for an already long movie.
Overall, I was immensely entertained by the film, and yet incredibly disappointed at what it had the potential to be. The fight scenes are awesome, and it makes a great action movie, but it wasted some great talent on a very clumsy script that could be painful to watch when Lincoln wasn't swinging an axe through a vampire's face. It's not a wonderful movie, but it's a great movie to turn your brain off and thoroughly enjoy. I give it 6 and a half silver-coated axeheads out of 10.
Wednesday, June 20, 2012
J. Edgar
When I heard that a biopic about J. Edgar Hoover was being made, I, as a history major, was a bit wary. Hoover was a controversial and polarizing figure, and his secretive nature made documents regarding his personal life rare and incomplete, and it would be all too easy to play to some of the more scandalous rumors that surrounded him, regardless of their accuracy. On the other hand, when I heard it was going to be directed by Clint Eastwood and stars Leonardo DiCaprio, I was excited at how well-made I knew it was going to be.
Well, I was pretty much right.
J. Edgar is a historically flawed, but otherwise impressive film. DiCaprio plays the title character as he tells his life story to a stenographer shortly before his death. His supporting cast is pretty impressive as well. Naomi Watts plays Helen Gandy, Hoover's personal secretary, and Judi Dench plays Hoover's mother, whose controlling nature hovers over Hoover for his entire life. The breakout actor in this film, though, is Armie Hammer, who most people would recognize as the actor who played both of the Winklevoss twins in The Social Network. In this film, he plays Clyde Tolson, Hoover's longtime friend, confidant, and rumored lover. Tolson is the most human character in a movie filled with cold-hearted bureaucrats, and Hammer is excellent at showing the struggle that is dealing with Hoover's abrasive personality in both a professional and personal sense.
Although it was well-acted and well-paced, I did have a couple of problems with the film. Probably the most glaring flaw of the film was the make-up. I'm not exactly sure what went wrong here, but the people responsible for aging DiCaprio and Hammer did one of the worst aging jobs I've ever seen. It was...it was just terrible. My other gripe is the aforementioned exploitation of the Hoover mythos. Whether Hoover was secretly gay or not is a mystery that might not ever be fully explained, but I hated the fact that it was not only conveyed as a fact, but became central to the movie's plot. As someone who has a soft spot in his heart for historically accurate movies (Public Enemies is one of my favorites for that reason), I had a really big problem with something that controversial being taken as canonical information on his life.
Overall, J. Edgar is a pretty fantastic film. Historically inaccurate, with glaringly fake age make-up, but otherwise incredibly well-done. The acting is fantastic, the pacing is great, and even the smaller directing choices, like angles and lighting, all do their part to tell the story of one of the most secretive public figures of 20th century America. I give it 8 blackmail files on public officials out of 10.
Well, I was pretty much right.
J. Edgar is a historically flawed, but otherwise impressive film. DiCaprio plays the title character as he tells his life story to a stenographer shortly before his death. His supporting cast is pretty impressive as well. Naomi Watts plays Helen Gandy, Hoover's personal secretary, and Judi Dench plays Hoover's mother, whose controlling nature hovers over Hoover for his entire life. The breakout actor in this film, though, is Armie Hammer, who most people would recognize as the actor who played both of the Winklevoss twins in The Social Network. In this film, he plays Clyde Tolson, Hoover's longtime friend, confidant, and rumored lover. Tolson is the most human character in a movie filled with cold-hearted bureaucrats, and Hammer is excellent at showing the struggle that is dealing with Hoover's abrasive personality in both a professional and personal sense.
Although it was well-acted and well-paced, I did have a couple of problems with the film. Probably the most glaring flaw of the film was the make-up. I'm not exactly sure what went wrong here, but the people responsible for aging DiCaprio and Hammer did one of the worst aging jobs I've ever seen. It was...it was just terrible. My other gripe is the aforementioned exploitation of the Hoover mythos. Whether Hoover was secretly gay or not is a mystery that might not ever be fully explained, but I hated the fact that it was not only conveyed as a fact, but became central to the movie's plot. As someone who has a soft spot in his heart for historically accurate movies (Public Enemies is one of my favorites for that reason), I had a really big problem with something that controversial being taken as canonical information on his life.
Overall, J. Edgar is a pretty fantastic film. Historically inaccurate, with glaringly fake age make-up, but otherwise incredibly well-done. The acting is fantastic, the pacing is great, and even the smaller directing choices, like angles and lighting, all do their part to tell the story of one of the most secretive public figures of 20th century America. I give it 8 blackmail files on public officials out of 10.
Sunday, June 10, 2012
Carnage
A while back, a friend of mine sent me the trailer to this movie, and I got very excited. A Roman Polanski film starring four talented actors, set entirely in one apartment, about the devolution of civility in the face of adversity? Sign me up, right? Well, after a virtually nonexistent theatrical run (in limited markets, nonetheless), Carnage finally hit DVD, so I was very excited to go pick it up. I was thoroughly expecting to get blown away by a dream team of creative talent, but I have to admit, I was a little disappointed with what I watched.
Carnage is based off of the French play God of Carnage, and is centered around two sets of parents who meet to discuss an altercation between their sons. The Cowans (Christoph Waltz and Kate Winslet) are invited to the home of the Longstreets (John C. Reilly and Julianne Moore) to meet and civilly talk through what happened and how to remedy the problem. As the conversation continues, conflict arises, and we get to watch what happens as the barriers of politeness slowly deteriorate. All four of the actors in the movie are on point, but the standout performance has got to be from Reilly. Constantly trying to diffuse the tension, his character seems weak at first, but as the passive aggression builds and the anger boils over, his character starts to lose his grip, and that's when we really get to see his serious acting chops.
My main gripe with Carnage is the pacing. It's a two hour movie set entirely in one location and focuses on one subject for the entirety of the film. While compelling in its own right, and a definite change of pace from the A.D.D.-friendly choppiness so rampant in modern film, it drags very badly in the middle third of the movie, as we watch the characters get fed up with one another at a snail's pace. The tension builds far too slowly, and it's dreadfully boring to sit through to get to the payoff that is the final third of the movie.
I walked away with the impression that Carnage is definitely a screenplay that is more fun to perform in than to watch. The characters have plenty of depth and nuance, the subject matter is compelling, and the chance to perform with that much emotional range is very alluring. However, the movie is about a half-hour too long and starts to feel repetitive at times. Carnage is a good film, it's just not the great one I was expecting. I give it 7.5 interrupting cell phone calls out of 10.
Carnage is based off of the French play God of Carnage, and is centered around two sets of parents who meet to discuss an altercation between their sons. The Cowans (Christoph Waltz and Kate Winslet) are invited to the home of the Longstreets (John C. Reilly and Julianne Moore) to meet and civilly talk through what happened and how to remedy the problem. As the conversation continues, conflict arises, and we get to watch what happens as the barriers of politeness slowly deteriorate. All four of the actors in the movie are on point, but the standout performance has got to be from Reilly. Constantly trying to diffuse the tension, his character seems weak at first, but as the passive aggression builds and the anger boils over, his character starts to lose his grip, and that's when we really get to see his serious acting chops.
My main gripe with Carnage is the pacing. It's a two hour movie set entirely in one location and focuses on one subject for the entirety of the film. While compelling in its own right, and a definite change of pace from the A.D.D.-friendly choppiness so rampant in modern film, it drags very badly in the middle third of the movie, as we watch the characters get fed up with one another at a snail's pace. The tension builds far too slowly, and it's dreadfully boring to sit through to get to the payoff that is the final third of the movie.
I walked away with the impression that Carnage is definitely a screenplay that is more fun to perform in than to watch. The characters have plenty of depth and nuance, the subject matter is compelling, and the chance to perform with that much emotional range is very alluring. However, the movie is about a half-hour too long and starts to feel repetitive at times. Carnage is a good film, it's just not the great one I was expecting. I give it 7.5 interrupting cell phone calls out of 10.
Monday, June 4, 2012
Men in Black 3
Ten years is a long time to wait to revive a franchise, especially without a reboot. Typically, after a few years of inactivity, it's a pretty safe bet to say that a franchise is either dead or being rebooted. But then you have your other franchises that come out of hibernation to give it one last hurrah, and that hurrah usually sucks. Look at the piece of garbage that was Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull and tell me I'm wrong. But, as with any rule, there are always exceptions, and fortunately, Men in Black 3 made the franchise worth reviving.
When we last left Agent J and Agent K in 2002, they had fought through a weak sequel and no one was clamoring for a third film. Well, after a few cast shake-ups, they finally came out with a solid offering that outshines the second film in almost every respect. Gone are some memorable characters (Agent Zed, Frank the talking pug), but are replaced with some new endearing characters. Emma Thompson's turn as Agent O, the new head of the Men in Black, is a nice change of pace from Rip Torn's portrayal of Agent Zed, and Jemaine Clement from Flight of the Conchords is surprisingly good at playing Boris the Animal, a powerful, brutal alien criminal bent on destroying Agent K. But the runaway performer of the film is definitely Josh Brolin, who plays a young Agent K. The film deals mostly with Agent J discovering K's past, and Brolin does a really good job at playing the young version of an iconic character in the series.
Stylistically, the movie feels right at home next to the first two. The relationships between the MIB and the aliens, the CGI effects, and the offbeat humor is very much in the style of the first two. Barring the obviously cheesy scenes designed for 3D, it's pulled off with the same kind of cool as the original, making you feel like barely any time has passed between the sequels at all.
All in all, Men in Black 3 is a very solid sequel to a popular movie franchise. It's not quite as good as the original, but miles ahead of the second one in nearly every aspect. The humor is on point, the action scenes are tense and fun, and some of the acting is surprisingly well done. I'm not expecting it to win any awards, but any fans of the Men in Black series would do themselves a favor by watching this movie. I give it 7 time-traveling mishaps out of 10.
When we last left Agent J and Agent K in 2002, they had fought through a weak sequel and no one was clamoring for a third film. Well, after a few cast shake-ups, they finally came out with a solid offering that outshines the second film in almost every respect. Gone are some memorable characters (Agent Zed, Frank the talking pug), but are replaced with some new endearing characters. Emma Thompson's turn as Agent O, the new head of the Men in Black, is a nice change of pace from Rip Torn's portrayal of Agent Zed, and Jemaine Clement from Flight of the Conchords is surprisingly good at playing Boris the Animal, a powerful, brutal alien criminal bent on destroying Agent K. But the runaway performer of the film is definitely Josh Brolin, who plays a young Agent K. The film deals mostly with Agent J discovering K's past, and Brolin does a really good job at playing the young version of an iconic character in the series.
Stylistically, the movie feels right at home next to the first two. The relationships between the MIB and the aliens, the CGI effects, and the offbeat humor is very much in the style of the first two. Barring the obviously cheesy scenes designed for 3D, it's pulled off with the same kind of cool as the original, making you feel like barely any time has passed between the sequels at all.
All in all, Men in Black 3 is a very solid sequel to a popular movie franchise. It's not quite as good as the original, but miles ahead of the second one in nearly every aspect. The humor is on point, the action scenes are tense and fun, and some of the acting is surprisingly well done. I'm not expecting it to win any awards, but any fans of the Men in Black series would do themselves a favor by watching this movie. I give it 7 time-traveling mishaps out of 10.
Thursday, May 24, 2012
Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close
Eight down, one to go. My quest to see all nine of the Academy Award nominees is drawing closer to its end, and now I get to scratch Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close off the list. Based off the book of the same name by Jonathan Safran Foer, it's the story of a boy who is searching for a lock that fits a key he finds among his father's belongings after his father dies in the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center. I went into the movie expecting it to be a little dependent on its link to 9/11 and bracing myself for two hours of the emotional exploitation of a national tragedy, but I came away from it pleasantly surprised.
Don't get me wrong: Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close really had no place being honored as one of the best movies of the year. It's good, but there were plenty of other films that had more going for them. This movie is all about playing your emotions like a fiddle and making you feel extremely sorry for the main character. Thomas Horn plays Oskar Schell, an eccentric boy who idolizes his father (Tom Hanks). When his father dies in the World Trade Center, Oskar tries to cope with his loss, and while looking through his father's possessions a year later, comes across a mysterious key to a lockbox and a single word written on the envelope. This launches a citywide adventure for Oskar, who uses the adventure as an opportunity to combat his own social awkwardness and connect with people from all walks of life. If that brief description doesn't scream "emotional roller coaster" enough for you, factor in a mute old man and a grieving mother as his accomplices and tell me that doesn't sound like one of the most bittersweet movies you'll ever watch. And I'll tell you you're right.
The saving grace in this movie is the acting. It's easy to ride the emotional wave of the story alone, but the actors in this film really do sell the movie and make it seem a little more real. Horn does an amazing job, especially since this is his first role in a feature film. Add in Tom Hanks as the father, Sandra Bullock as the mother, and supporting roles by Octavia Spencer, John Goodman, and Max von Sydow (who was nominated for Best Supporting Actor for his role as the mute Renter), and you have a very strong group of talent that takes an otherwise forgettable movie and makes it something worth watching.
All in all, Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close is an okay movie, but not too much more than that. I see the appeal, and I compare the feeling you get from watching this to watching The Blind Side, but just because it made me feel warm and fuzzy inside doesn't necessarily mean it was great. It kind of drags, and the story just seems a little too warm and fuzzy to be believable. I recommend watching it, but don't get your hopes up for it being fantastic. I give it 6 1/2 heartwarming connections between racial and economic barriers out of 10.
Don't get me wrong: Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close really had no place being honored as one of the best movies of the year. It's good, but there were plenty of other films that had more going for them. This movie is all about playing your emotions like a fiddle and making you feel extremely sorry for the main character. Thomas Horn plays Oskar Schell, an eccentric boy who idolizes his father (Tom Hanks). When his father dies in the World Trade Center, Oskar tries to cope with his loss, and while looking through his father's possessions a year later, comes across a mysterious key to a lockbox and a single word written on the envelope. This launches a citywide adventure for Oskar, who uses the adventure as an opportunity to combat his own social awkwardness and connect with people from all walks of life. If that brief description doesn't scream "emotional roller coaster" enough for you, factor in a mute old man and a grieving mother as his accomplices and tell me that doesn't sound like one of the most bittersweet movies you'll ever watch. And I'll tell you you're right.
The saving grace in this movie is the acting. It's easy to ride the emotional wave of the story alone, but the actors in this film really do sell the movie and make it seem a little more real. Horn does an amazing job, especially since this is his first role in a feature film. Add in Tom Hanks as the father, Sandra Bullock as the mother, and supporting roles by Octavia Spencer, John Goodman, and Max von Sydow (who was nominated for Best Supporting Actor for his role as the mute Renter), and you have a very strong group of talent that takes an otherwise forgettable movie and makes it something worth watching.
All in all, Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close is an okay movie, but not too much more than that. I see the appeal, and I compare the feeling you get from watching this to watching The Blind Side, but just because it made me feel warm and fuzzy inside doesn't necessarily mean it was great. It kind of drags, and the story just seems a little too warm and fuzzy to be believable. I recommend watching it, but don't get your hopes up for it being fantastic. I give it 6 1/2 heartwarming connections between racial and economic barriers out of 10.
Wednesday, May 16, 2012
The Rum Diary
It seems a little odd, but sometimes I really love a movie even when it's not good. I'm not talking about so-cheesy-that-you-must-watch-how-bad-this-is movies, I'm talking about movies that are, on a critical level, not so great or so terrible, but at the same time they're so fun that you can't help but love them anyway. Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl was not, in my opinion, a great film, at least by many of the standards that I usually gauge movies with, but I had a blast watching the exploits of Captain Jack Sparrow anyway. The same goes, at least with me, for 2010's The A-Team remake or the Men in Black series. Well, The Rum Diary is definitely another film I can add to that group.
In Johnny Depp's second role in a film adaptation of a Hunter S. Thompson piece, he plays Kemp, a journalist based largely on Thompson's early career. Kemp is a struggling author who moves to Puerto Rico to work for The San Juan Star, and The Rum Diary is largely the story of all of the shenanigans he gets into during his short stay there. Sure, there's a story involving shady land deals by a sleazy land baron (Aaron Eckhart), a love affair with his fiance (Amber Heard), and the eventual climax of the movie involving real journalism and cockfighting, but honestly, you're not going to watch this movie for the plot. If you are, you're going to be sorely disappointed.
The good part is this: everyone, on and off camera, really sells this movie. It's incredibly absorbing. From the second he arrives in his dump of a newspaper office to the ending montage, I felt very drawn in to the world they were creating. The acting was solid, the scenery was beautiful, and the escalating amounts of trouble that Kemp finds himself in is incredibly fun to watch. Unfortunately, the story is an absolute pain to try and figure out. The film is set up to where we will see two or three different scenes, only one of which will actually be important to the plot later. The other two will be throwaway scenes involving Kemp and his associates getting themselves into trouble over some sort of cultural faux-pas or drunken misadventure. While fun to watch, it makes the flow of the story incredibly disjointed and hard to follow. Also, Amber Heard has the acting capacity of a cardboard box. Enough said about that.
I obviously cannot stress enough how much fun this movie is to watch. Yes, the flow of the story is almost frustratingly askew (and not in a good, Tarantino-ey way), but I almost didn't care at all. The Rum Diary is one of those movies that can, despite its glaring misgivings, still draw you in by just being incredibly fun, and that is what saved it from an abysmal score. I give it 7 misadventures involving Puerto Rican moonshine out of 10.
The good part is this: everyone, on and off camera, really sells this movie. It's incredibly absorbing. From the second he arrives in his dump of a newspaper office to the ending montage, I felt very drawn in to the world they were creating. The acting was solid, the scenery was beautiful, and the escalating amounts of trouble that Kemp finds himself in is incredibly fun to watch. Unfortunately, the story is an absolute pain to try and figure out. The film is set up to where we will see two or three different scenes, only one of which will actually be important to the plot later. The other two will be throwaway scenes involving Kemp and his associates getting themselves into trouble over some sort of cultural faux-pas or drunken misadventure. While fun to watch, it makes the flow of the story incredibly disjointed and hard to follow. Also, Amber Heard has the acting capacity of a cardboard box. Enough said about that.
I obviously cannot stress enough how much fun this movie is to watch. Yes, the flow of the story is almost frustratingly askew (and not in a good, Tarantino-ey way), but I almost didn't care at all. The Rum Diary is one of those movies that can, despite its glaring misgivings, still draw you in by just being incredibly fun, and that is what saved it from an abysmal score. I give it 7 misadventures involving Puerto Rican moonshine out of 10.
Friday, May 4, 2012
The Avengers
I just want to preface this by saying that it's really exciting to be up at 3:30 in the morning writing a review for a movie that I just saw the midnight premiere of. Now, on to the regularly scheduled review.
It's now May, and that means one big thing for moviegoers: summer blockbuster season is upon us. And this year kicked off with a bang: The Avengers. Since Marvel created its own studio and debuted with Iron Man in 2008, their pet project was tying together all of their subsequent movies (The Incredible Hulk, Iron Man 2, Thor, Captain America: The First Avenger) into one climactic mega-film that will generate a lot of hype, a lot of excitement, and a lot of cash. Well, their efforts have finally come to fruition, and, for all of the legendary hype surrounding it, it did about as well as anyone could expect.
It's very hard to live up to the expectations that The Avengers was burdened with. All of the aforementioned movies (with maybe the exception of Iron Man 2) were greeted with both financial and critical acclaim, and so a movie featuring all of these iconic characters was bound to have a lot of pressure riding on it. Well, I feel that it fell a little short of the mark, but it didn't miss completely.
Let's start with the good: The Avengers does not short you on laughs or action. The movies leading up to The Avengers had a trademark wit to them that made them much more enjoyable than many of the droll, terrible Marvel films that preceded them (I'm looking right at you, Daredevil). The Avengers kicked it up a notch, though, and I found myself laughing a lot more than I expected to at a superhero movie. It's not a comedy by any means, but it has enough witty one-liners sprinkled throughout to keep you on your toes. If the comedic timing doesn't keep you on your toes, however, the action sequences certainly will. As the Marvel superhero movie to end all Marvel superhero movies, The Avengers does not skimp on fight scenes. Every major character has his or her time to shine, and all of them rocked. As far as edge-of-your-seat action is concerned, this movie has some of the most spectacular and well-choreographed/animated sequences out there.
With the good highlighted, there must come the downsides of the movie. For starters, it's 2 hours and 23 minutes long, and the time isn't always put to good use. I would understand the long runtime if a lot of the time was spent developing characters past where we left them in the prequels. Instead, we get a little more development out of Captain America and Loki, and the rest is spent blowing things up and listening to Iron Man spout one-liners. While certainly entertaining, it grows old after a while, to the point of predictability. I was never expecting The Avengers to have an award-winning script, but I certainly wished that it had a little more originality to it.
Overall, The Avengers is certainly not a bad way to kick off a summer blockbuster season. With a few almost certainly terrible films on the horizon (i.e. Battleship, G.I. Joe: Retaliation), it's nice to start off with a movie that can be entertaining visually and not be an absolute pain to sit through. I give it 7 HULKSMASH's out of 10.
It's now May, and that means one big thing for moviegoers: summer blockbuster season is upon us. And this year kicked off with a bang: The Avengers. Since Marvel created its own studio and debuted with Iron Man in 2008, their pet project was tying together all of their subsequent movies (The Incredible Hulk, Iron Man 2, Thor, Captain America: The First Avenger) into one climactic mega-film that will generate a lot of hype, a lot of excitement, and a lot of cash. Well, their efforts have finally come to fruition, and, for all of the legendary hype surrounding it, it did about as well as anyone could expect.
It's very hard to live up to the expectations that The Avengers was burdened with. All of the aforementioned movies (with maybe the exception of Iron Man 2) were greeted with both financial and critical acclaim, and so a movie featuring all of these iconic characters was bound to have a lot of pressure riding on it. Well, I feel that it fell a little short of the mark, but it didn't miss completely.
Let's start with the good: The Avengers does not short you on laughs or action. The movies leading up to The Avengers had a trademark wit to them that made them much more enjoyable than many of the droll, terrible Marvel films that preceded them (I'm looking right at you, Daredevil). The Avengers kicked it up a notch, though, and I found myself laughing a lot more than I expected to at a superhero movie. It's not a comedy by any means, but it has enough witty one-liners sprinkled throughout to keep you on your toes. If the comedic timing doesn't keep you on your toes, however, the action sequences certainly will. As the Marvel superhero movie to end all Marvel superhero movies, The Avengers does not skimp on fight scenes. Every major character has his or her time to shine, and all of them rocked. As far as edge-of-your-seat action is concerned, this movie has some of the most spectacular and well-choreographed/animated sequences out there.
With the good highlighted, there must come the downsides of the movie. For starters, it's 2 hours and 23 minutes long, and the time isn't always put to good use. I would understand the long runtime if a lot of the time was spent developing characters past where we left them in the prequels. Instead, we get a little more development out of Captain America and Loki, and the rest is spent blowing things up and listening to Iron Man spout one-liners. While certainly entertaining, it grows old after a while, to the point of predictability. I was never expecting The Avengers to have an award-winning script, but I certainly wished that it had a little more originality to it.
Overall, The Avengers is certainly not a bad way to kick off a summer blockbuster season. With a few almost certainly terrible films on the horizon (i.e. Battleship, G.I. Joe: Retaliation), it's nice to start off with a movie that can be entertaining visually and not be an absolute pain to sit through. I give it 7 HULKSMASH's out of 10.
Sunday, April 22, 2012
Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy
I'm not going to lie, I really hyped myself up for this movie. When I heard that Gary Oldman, Colin Firth, Tom Hardy, Benedict Cumberbatch, and Mark Strong are all going to be in the same movie, and that movie is going to be a 1960's spy drama, I became insanely excited. My heart sank a little when I learned it was going to only be a limited release in theaters and come nowhere close to here, but the DVD release came around and I soon found myself sitting on my couch and eagerly pressing play on my Xbox to begin the movie. What happened next was something I was completely unprepared for: mediocrity.
Don't get me wrong: Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy is not a bad movie. It has some really fantastic performances by all of the aforementioned actors, some of which really compelled me to respect them more as actors. The movie's protagonist is George Smiley (Oldman), a retired spy who is called out of retirement to find a mole that has infiltrated the head of MI6. His investigation takes him through a recollection of events by other spies and uncovers a plot that weaves intricately through the East and West. Oldman was nominated for an Academy Award for Best Actor, but I honestly don't think he gave the best performance in the film. The real talent in this movie lies with Tom Hardy and Mark Strong, two of the spies whose stories comprise the backbone of Smiley's investigation. Hardy, who is known by many as Eames from Inception and his upcoming role as Bane in The Dark Knight Rises, plays a young spy who is in way over his head. Considering that the majority of roles I've seen him in are fairly confident characters, it's pretty cool to see that he can play characters that are shaken and haunted just as well as he can pull off cool and confident. Strong, whose famous roles are typically no-nonsense, villainous characters (Sherlock Holmes, Kick-Ass), takes a unique turn in this film as a repatriated spy whose endearing, fatherly bond with an outcast in his elementary French class sets a stark contrast with his former life as a deep-cover agent in Hungary, and he does a really great job. Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy's greatest strength is that everyone in the cast gives an excellent performance, but Hardy and Strong were by far the most powerful and effective.
If acting is Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy's strong suit, then its weakest link is in its pacing. Despite what the past 20-30 years have conditioned you to believe, a "spy drama" does not equal an "action movie," but that's not what my complaint is. Rather, I really enjoyed that fact. The problem is that the story that is told moves at a snail's pace. Some of it can be explained away as character development, but much of the detail shown in the movie slows it down more than it helps with immersion into the world of the film. It sounds like a relatively minor complaint compared to the fantastic ensemble of actors, but the pacing is really bad enough to keep it from being a great movie.
As an actor, I really loved Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy. The performances by everyone in the cast were absolutely astounding, and it's very rare that you will find another movie with the same caliber of talent. As a movie-watcher, however, that sense of amazement was tempered by a frustratingly boring pace that kept the great acting and bay and sucked all of the suspense out of an otherwise suspenseful tale of international espionage. I give Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy 7 and a half haunting flashbacks to the Eastern Bloc out of 10.
Don't get me wrong: Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy is not a bad movie. It has some really fantastic performances by all of the aforementioned actors, some of which really compelled me to respect them more as actors. The movie's protagonist is George Smiley (Oldman), a retired spy who is called out of retirement to find a mole that has infiltrated the head of MI6. His investigation takes him through a recollection of events by other spies and uncovers a plot that weaves intricately through the East and West. Oldman was nominated for an Academy Award for Best Actor, but I honestly don't think he gave the best performance in the film. The real talent in this movie lies with Tom Hardy and Mark Strong, two of the spies whose stories comprise the backbone of Smiley's investigation. Hardy, who is known by many as Eames from Inception and his upcoming role as Bane in The Dark Knight Rises, plays a young spy who is in way over his head. Considering that the majority of roles I've seen him in are fairly confident characters, it's pretty cool to see that he can play characters that are shaken and haunted just as well as he can pull off cool and confident. Strong, whose famous roles are typically no-nonsense, villainous characters (Sherlock Holmes, Kick-Ass), takes a unique turn in this film as a repatriated spy whose endearing, fatherly bond with an outcast in his elementary French class sets a stark contrast with his former life as a deep-cover agent in Hungary, and he does a really great job. Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy's greatest strength is that everyone in the cast gives an excellent performance, but Hardy and Strong were by far the most powerful and effective.
If acting is Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy's strong suit, then its weakest link is in its pacing. Despite what the past 20-30 years have conditioned you to believe, a "spy drama" does not equal an "action movie," but that's not what my complaint is. Rather, I really enjoyed that fact. The problem is that the story that is told moves at a snail's pace. Some of it can be explained away as character development, but much of the detail shown in the movie slows it down more than it helps with immersion into the world of the film. It sounds like a relatively minor complaint compared to the fantastic ensemble of actors, but the pacing is really bad enough to keep it from being a great movie.
As an actor, I really loved Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy. The performances by everyone in the cast were absolutely astounding, and it's very rare that you will find another movie with the same caliber of talent. As a movie-watcher, however, that sense of amazement was tempered by a frustratingly boring pace that kept the great acting and bay and sucked all of the suspense out of an otherwise suspenseful tale of international espionage. I give Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy 7 and a half haunting flashbacks to the Eastern Bloc out of 10.
Thursday, April 19, 2012
50/50
One of the things I like the least about the Academy Awards is that they can sometimes overlook some really great movies. Certainly there are some movies, such as Midnight in Paris or Hugo, that deserve all of the recognition they got. Other movies, like Moneyball or especially Bridesmaids, don't deserve nearly as much attention as they were given, if any at all. I will go ahead and say that it is one of the Academy's greatest injustices that Bridesmaids was nominated in two categories (Best Original Screenplay and Best Supporting Actress for Melissa McCarthy) while 50/50 was nominated for absolutely nothing. They overlooked one of the best movies of the last year, and I'm kind of disgusted with them for it.
50/50 is the fifth movie by director Jonathan Levine and stars Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Seth Rogen, Bryce Dallas Howard, and Anna Kendrick. Gordon-Levitt is Adam Lerner, a radio journalist who develops a rare form of spinal cancer, of which he has a 50% chance of survival, at the young age of 27. As he learns how to cope with his condition, we're brought into his life as well as the lives of his girlfriend (Howard), therapist (Kendrick), and best friend Kyle (Rogen). Gordon-Levitt and Rogen are both absolutely amazing. Gordon-Levitt has cultivated quite a reputation for himself over the past few years as one of Hollywood's most promising young talents, and I expected that he would give the good performance that he did. The actor that really blew me away with this one was actually Seth Rogen. While his character is not really a stretch for him, he brings a certain level of humanity to this character that is often is missing from his other roles, and I feel that if Jonah Hill, who was incredibly unimpressive in Moneyball, could have been even considered for Best Supporting Actor, then they really messed up by not giving Rogen the credit he deserves for what is easily the best performance of his career to date.
One of the things I love the most about this movie is how quickly it moves without rushing through anything. Clocking in at only 100 minutes, it takes us from the introduction of the characters, through the stages of dealing with cancer and psychological effects it has on not just Adam, but on his friends and family as well. This is often done through subtle scenes where much of the emotion is implied, but it's done in a way that makes it way more effective than a drawn-out, possibly tedious scene, while also making it feel much more realistic. The most powerful moments of the entire movie are largely the most subtle ones, and that is one of this film's greatest strengths.
50/50 is a stark and unforgiving film, but at the same time sweet and cheerful. It's soul-crushing and uplifting all at the same time. Much like the duality of its name implies, 50/50 is a roller coaster of emotions through good times and bad times. But unlike so many other movies that aim for that effect and fail miserably, it maneuvers through the triumphs and pitfalls with a deftness that is very rarely found. I give it 9 oddly sweet bro-out moments out of 10.
Wednesday, April 11, 2012
Bridesmaids
Up to this point, I've never really written a negative review. A few people have complained about it, actually. I've found redeeming qualities in every movie I've watched so far, and even when I gave The Tree of Life a low score, I still spent a fair amount of time highlighting what was good about the movie. Well, the streak is finally broken. After much hype, I sat down and watched Bridesmaids, and man, what a mistake that was.
Bridesmaids' biggest problem is that it's a day late and a dollar short. A raunchy comedy revolving around a maid of honor's misadventures, it's essentially the female version of The Hangover. Kristen Wiig plays Annie, a failed entrepreneur-turned-jewelry store worker that has been asked to be the maid of honor at her best friend's wedding. Standing in the way of her duties is a series of increasingly-outlandish pitfalls surrounded by an equally-outlandish cast of characters, from snobby rich-girl Helen (Rose Byrne), to vulgar sister-of-the-groom Megan (Melissa McCarthy). Shenanigans ensue, the age-old cliches surrounding marriage are lampooned, and I couldn't have been more bored. The jokes were predictable, the characters were all two-dimensional, and the storyline was nothing special at all.
I really feel like I'm missing something. This movie was nominated for two Academy Awards: Best Original Screenplay and Best Supporting Actress for Melissa McCarthy, who admittedly was the funniest part of this movie. I get that there aren't that many raunchy comedies featuring a strong female cast, and I'm glad that they were able to make a successful one, but it doesn't excuse the fact that the movie simply wasn't very good. It's terribly cliche and boring, and I expect so much better out of the cast that was assembled. They could have made a great movie, but they just didn't. I give this movie 3 ruined bridesmaids activities out of 10.
I really feel like I'm missing something. This movie was nominated for two Academy Awards: Best Original Screenplay and Best Supporting Actress for Melissa McCarthy, who admittedly was the funniest part of this movie. I get that there aren't that many raunchy comedies featuring a strong female cast, and I'm glad that they were able to make a successful one, but it doesn't excuse the fact that the movie simply wasn't very good. It's terribly cliche and boring, and I expect so much better out of the cast that was assembled. They could have made a great movie, but they just didn't. I give this movie 3 ruined bridesmaids activities out of 10.
Wednesday, March 28, 2012
21 Jump Street
Movie remakes are typically a tedious and formulaic affair. Studios get the rights to an old TV show, turn it into a comedy/action/action-comedy movie, throw a couple of famous actors into the mix, and voila! Instant money. While they're almost always successful, remakes are typically lacking in sustainable quality. They may be entertaining and make you wax nostalgic for the original. Or they could be flat-out horrible. But the universal thread that binds them together is that they're also typically forgotten a few months after their DVD release. Movie remakes of classic TV shows are flashes in the pan of the movie industry. The best we can hope for is that the ones we watch are at least entertaining.
Fortunately, 21 Jump Street is captivating enough to be classified as a good remake. One of the better ones, in my opinion. Actually a continuation of the television show, 21 Jump Street follows Greg Jenko (Channing Tatum) and Morton Schmidt (Jonah Hill), two cops who are assigned to the recently-reopened Jump Street program and tasked with bringing down a synthetic drug ring. Tatum and Hill, while surprisingly good at playing off each other, are character archetypes for action-comedy buddy cop movies. Tatum plays a dumb, handsome jock while Hill is the smart and nerdy outcast who falls for a girl way out of his league. On the other hand, one of the things that I appreciated about this movie the most, and what makes the movie fresh, is how the writers flip the high school caste system on its head. I won't go too far into it, but it's a novel approach that makes it stand out among other high school comedies.
There's another very good reason for you to go see 21 Jump Street, and it's only two words: Channing Tatum. Normally, this would be a deterrent for me, but I could not stop laughing every time he was on screen. Part of the humor does come from the fact that he's breaking from his typical cheesy romance-novel heartthrob role, but part of it is also because he's genuinely a funny guy. I gained a little more respect for him. The rest of the cast plays their tried-and-true characters: Jonah Hill plays Jonah Hill, Rob Riggle plays Rob Riggle, Elle Kemper plays Elle Kemper, and so on and so forth. It's an R-rated action comedy. It wasn't meant to be a challenge.
At the end of the day, 21 Jump Street is funny, raunchy, and entertaining. If you're looking for an R-rated comedy to pass the time, there are a lot of worse options than this. But it is still a TV movie remake. I enjoyed it, but I know that I'll have a hard time remembering it a year from now. I give it 7 misread Miranda rights out of 10.
Fortunately, 21 Jump Street is captivating enough to be classified as a good remake. One of the better ones, in my opinion. Actually a continuation of the television show, 21 Jump Street follows Greg Jenko (Channing Tatum) and Morton Schmidt (Jonah Hill), two cops who are assigned to the recently-reopened Jump Street program and tasked with bringing down a synthetic drug ring. Tatum and Hill, while surprisingly good at playing off each other, are character archetypes for action-comedy buddy cop movies. Tatum plays a dumb, handsome jock while Hill is the smart and nerdy outcast who falls for a girl way out of his league. On the other hand, one of the things that I appreciated about this movie the most, and what makes the movie fresh, is how the writers flip the high school caste system on its head. I won't go too far into it, but it's a novel approach that makes it stand out among other high school comedies.
There's another very good reason for you to go see 21 Jump Street, and it's only two words: Channing Tatum. Normally, this would be a deterrent for me, but I could not stop laughing every time he was on screen. Part of the humor does come from the fact that he's breaking from his typical cheesy romance-novel heartthrob role, but part of it is also because he's genuinely a funny guy. I gained a little more respect for him. The rest of the cast plays their tried-and-true characters: Jonah Hill plays Jonah Hill, Rob Riggle plays Rob Riggle, Elle Kemper plays Elle Kemper, and so on and so forth. It's an R-rated action comedy. It wasn't meant to be a challenge.
At the end of the day, 21 Jump Street is funny, raunchy, and entertaining. If you're looking for an R-rated comedy to pass the time, there are a lot of worse options than this. But it is still a TV movie remake. I enjoyed it, but I know that I'll have a hard time remembering it a year from now. I give it 7 misread Miranda rights out of 10.
Saturday, March 24, 2012
The Artist
The words "movie-going experience" are heard at least once during the opening trailers to any given movie. It's a phrase that's been overused to such a point that it means nothing to audiences. The Artist is one of those few films where the word "experience" is actually the appropriate term to use.
The Artist is a silent film, and it was, needless to say, the only silent movie playing when I walked into the theater this afternoon. This was very cool because, being 22 years old and living in central Louisiana, I don't really get many opportunities to see a silent film on the big screen. I was pleasantly surprised with how the experience played out. Story-wise, The Artist's plot is very reminiscent of Singin' in the Rain: a tale of the transition from silent film to "talkies" and its subsequent upset in the balance of old Hollywood power. The story follows George Valentin (Jean Dujardin), an immensely popular silent film actor who is upstaged by the new generation of actors and struggles to cope with his life outside of the limelight. It's a classic story of a successful man's fall from grace and subsequent redemption. What makes it stand out from the countless others like it is entirely in the style.
From an acting perspective, this movie is unlike anything else you'll be seeing in theaters. Being a silent movie, the story has to be conveyed entirely through the movement and facial expression of the actors. And they all deliver. Dujardin is on point in showing Valentin's triumphs and pitfalls, and his supporting cast does an excellent job at sustaining the world in which he operates. Stylistically, the movie is all about evoking nostalgia. From the old practice of showing extended credits at the start of the film to the glamorous over-exaggeration of every emotion, The Artist is definitely an homage to the silent film era and the glamour of old Hollywood.
That being said, The Artist is more about the spectacle than anything else. Had the movie not been silent, it would have likely suffered for its cliche story and its campy style. The Artist is a well-crafted novelty, and should be treated as such, but it is not a movie that really brings anything new to the table . It is a unique movie-going experience, and a fun one, but it was really little more than that. I give it 7 over-exaggerated camera mugs out of 10.
From an acting perspective, this movie is unlike anything else you'll be seeing in theaters. Being a silent movie, the story has to be conveyed entirely through the movement and facial expression of the actors. And they all deliver. Dujardin is on point in showing Valentin's triumphs and pitfalls, and his supporting cast does an excellent job at sustaining the world in which he operates. Stylistically, the movie is all about evoking nostalgia. From the old practice of showing extended credits at the start of the film to the glamorous over-exaggeration of every emotion, The Artist is definitely an homage to the silent film era and the glamour of old Hollywood.
That being said, The Artist is more about the spectacle than anything else. Had the movie not been silent, it would have likely suffered for its cliche story and its campy style. The Artist is a well-crafted novelty, and should be treated as such, but it is not a movie that really brings anything new to the table . It is a unique movie-going experience, and a fun one, but it was really little more than that. I give it 7 over-exaggerated camera mugs out of 10.
Monday, March 19, 2012
Hugo
When I first read that Martin Scorcese was directing a family film, I could hardly believe my eyes. The man responsible for Goodfellas, Casino, and The Departed was going to make a movie for children? I knew it was going to be interesting. And it is. Hugo is a truly unique cinematic experience for anyone remotely familiar with the family film genre of the 21st century. Unlike its many contemporaries, Hugo isn't a film made to sell merchandise or create a franchise. Instead, it focuses on the things that are truly important in movie-making: acting, cinematography, story, and emotion.
Hugo is the story of Hugo Cabret, a Parisian orphan who lives in the walls of a train station and maintains the station's clocks. His only comfort is a broken automaton, his late father's pet project and Hugo's only remaining bond to his memory. After getting caught trying to rob a toy store owner to get the parts needed to finish the project, Hugo is whisked into a decades-old mystery involving the automaton, the toymaker, and the advent of the film industry. Asa Butterfield plays the titular character, and I was totally blown away by his performance. Expect to see great things from him in the future. His supporting cast is filled out wonderfully, from Ben Kingsley as the mysterious toymaker, to Chloë Grace Moretz as Hugo's friend Isabelle, and Sacha Baron Cohen as the film's antagonist: a comical, yet strangely tragic security guard that crusades against the orphans that inhabit the station. Every character fits right in with the movie's tone: whimsical, with just enough darkness and pain in it to let the audience connect it with the real world.
Visually, this is one of the most stunning movies I've ever seen. Everything, from the early 20th century grandiosity of the train station to the montages detailing the silent film creation process, is shot in such a way that every bit of the visual story perfectly compliments the audio story that the actors and score tell. Everything from the camera angles to the color of the costumes is so meticulously perfect that it's visually moving in a sense unlike anything else I've ever seen. It won its Oscar in cinematography for a very, VERY good reason.
Hugo is, without question, one of the best family movies I've ever seen. It can be a bit slow at times, and its lack of constant hectic stimulation make it an odd fit in the world of SpongeBob Squarepants and those awful Alvin and the Chipmunks movies, but it's definitely a family film that won't put the parents in agony. If anything, they'll probably like it more than the kids will. I give it 9 dramatic camera-zooms through clockwork out of 10.
Hugo is the story of Hugo Cabret, a Parisian orphan who lives in the walls of a train station and maintains the station's clocks. His only comfort is a broken automaton, his late father's pet project and Hugo's only remaining bond to his memory. After getting caught trying to rob a toy store owner to get the parts needed to finish the project, Hugo is whisked into a decades-old mystery involving the automaton, the toymaker, and the advent of the film industry. Asa Butterfield plays the titular character, and I was totally blown away by his performance. Expect to see great things from him in the future. His supporting cast is filled out wonderfully, from Ben Kingsley as the mysterious toymaker, to Chloë Grace Moretz as Hugo's friend Isabelle, and Sacha Baron Cohen as the film's antagonist: a comical, yet strangely tragic security guard that crusades against the orphans that inhabit the station. Every character fits right in with the movie's tone: whimsical, with just enough darkness and pain in it to let the audience connect it with the real world.
Visually, this is one of the most stunning movies I've ever seen. Everything, from the early 20th century grandiosity of the train station to the montages detailing the silent film creation process, is shot in such a way that every bit of the visual story perfectly compliments the audio story that the actors and score tell. Everything from the camera angles to the color of the costumes is so meticulously perfect that it's visually moving in a sense unlike anything else I've ever seen. It won its Oscar in cinematography for a very, VERY good reason.
Hugo is, without question, one of the best family movies I've ever seen. It can be a bit slow at times, and its lack of constant hectic stimulation make it an odd fit in the world of SpongeBob Squarepants and those awful Alvin and the Chipmunks movies, but it's definitely a family film that won't put the parents in agony. If anything, they'll probably like it more than the kids will. I give it 9 dramatic camera-zooms through clockwork out of 10.
Tuesday, March 6, 2012
Drive
I love it when a movie is far better than it initially looks. It's a rare treat, but there's that occasional movie that comes in and exceeds all of your expectations. The trailers for Drive make it look like little more than car-oriented action flick, but the first fifteen minutes of the movie lets you know that this isn't the movie experience you thought it was going to be. It's going to be much better.
Drive is the first US film by Danish director Nicolas Winding Refn, and stars Ryan Gosling, Carey Mulligan, Albert Brooks, Ron Perlman, Bryan Cranston, and Christina Hendricks. Gosling plays the titular Driver, a nameless stuntman and mechanic who moonlights as a getaway driver. I know, the character sounds like an action movie archetype, but Gosling's performance will blow away any preconceived notions you might have. I don't want to ruin anything for the audience, but I will say that the Driver is one of the most unique film characters to have come out in quite some time. Backing Gosling is a solid cast, from Bryan Cranston's role as a sleazy auto-shop owner to Albert Brooks' unique take as a Jewish mob boss and Carey Mulligan as the struggling mother next door whose family is ravaged by underworld politics.
The other pleasant surprise that Drive offered was how well the story is pieced together. For a movie called Drive, there's a surprisingly small amount of time that anyone spends in a car. The movie finds an excellent balance of giving the testosterone-driven action movie masses what they want in the form of super-violent fight scenes and bloody Mafia dirty dealings while still fleshing out the characters in subtle ways that speak louder than you would initially think. And it does it all in less than two hours.
I was honestly blown away by this movie. It's one of my favorite movies of 2011. I caution the faint of heart against this movie for some graphic violence, but if you're looking for an action movie with real talent behind it, I can't recommend any movie more highly. I give it 9 and a half scorpion jackets out of 10.
Drive is the first US film by Danish director Nicolas Winding Refn, and stars Ryan Gosling, Carey Mulligan, Albert Brooks, Ron Perlman, Bryan Cranston, and Christina Hendricks. Gosling plays the titular Driver, a nameless stuntman and mechanic who moonlights as a getaway driver. I know, the character sounds like an action movie archetype, but Gosling's performance will blow away any preconceived notions you might have. I don't want to ruin anything for the audience, but I will say that the Driver is one of the most unique film characters to have come out in quite some time. Backing Gosling is a solid cast, from Bryan Cranston's role as a sleazy auto-shop owner to Albert Brooks' unique take as a Jewish mob boss and Carey Mulligan as the struggling mother next door whose family is ravaged by underworld politics.
The other pleasant surprise that Drive offered was how well the story is pieced together. For a movie called Drive, there's a surprisingly small amount of time that anyone spends in a car. The movie finds an excellent balance of giving the testosterone-driven action movie masses what they want in the form of super-violent fight scenes and bloody Mafia dirty dealings while still fleshing out the characters in subtle ways that speak louder than you would initially think. And it does it all in less than two hours.
I was honestly blown away by this movie. It's one of my favorite movies of 2011. I caution the faint of heart against this movie for some graphic violence, but if you're looking for an action movie with real talent behind it, I can't recommend any movie more highly. I give it 9 and a half scorpion jackets out of 10.
Sunday, February 19, 2012
Chronicle
It's hard to find movies with original ideas. Producers like to place safe bets, so movies are typically made to have a certain amount of familiarity with audiences. Sometimes, though, a movie comes along that takes a couple of those reused ideas and creates something that is more than the sum of its parts. Chronicle takes the video-camera point of view made popular by The Blair Witch Project, Cloverfield, and Paranormal Activity and matches it up with the superhero genre to make a movie that feels simultaneously familiar and fresh.
Despite the fresh take on the superhero genre, the rest of the movie is pretty mediocre. The special effects are pretty good, and the acting is decent, but a lot of my grievances with the movie come from the story. I know that ideas are used and reused, but this story is painfully predictable. I don't want to give anything away, but if you've ever seen a movie (or, more commonly, children's superhero cartoons) where the villain is a bullied kid who gains superpowers, then you know exactly where this movie is going to go after the first ten minutes.
The saving grace is that the movie is still really fun to watch. The video camera POV gets a fresh update from other movies that you've seen, the actors all give solid performances, and the special effects are really top notch. Had they made the plot a little better, this would be a really great movie. As it stands, though, the cliche-ridden script chains the movie down to mediocrity. I give it 6 silly telekinetic pranks out of 10.
Monday, February 13, 2012
The Descendants
The Descendants is one of those movies that are obviously tailored to garner critical acclaim. They take a tried-and-true plot (my wife is cheating on me!), add a unique tragic twist to it (but she's in a coma!), take an actor that's very good at both drama and comedy (George Clooney) and put him as the lead, and unleash it upon the viewing public in the last couple of months leading up to Oscar voting. It's a formulaic process that Hollywood goes through every fall and winter, but it doesn't make it any less enjoyable to watch.
Although I knew The Descendants would be good, I had no idea it would be this well-done. One of the things that jumped out at me the most was how perfectly the movie was cast. Clooney plays Matt King, a Hawaiian lawyer with the weight of the world on his shoulders, juggling work, family, and the tragic news that his wife is dying. His older, troubled daughter is played by Shailene Woodley, who I had only known from the commercials to The Secret Life of the American Teenager. Knowing her only from that made me cringe at first, but after about 30 seconds of screentime, I understood perfectly why she was put in this movie. Clooney and Woodley play incredibly well off of one another, skirting the line between rebellious animosity and familial codependency with an amazing sense of honesty.
The story, like I said, is standard-fare Oscar screenwriting: formulaic, but good. It flows very well from one instance to the next, developing all three of King's struggles fairly evenly without losing the audience. It drags a little in parts, and some of the scenes can be a bit cliche, but it's overall a very solid storyline. The cinematography is unique in that it captures Hawaii from the point of view of the characters. At the beginning of the movie, King states that the beauty of Hawaii becomes the norm, and it gets kind of lost on the people that live there. The cinematography captures this by showing the beauty of the setting, but not overemphasizing on it until the moment is right.
Overall, The Descendants is a fantastic film. It could have been a little tighter in the middle, but overall, I think it's a huge contender for Best Picture. I give it 9 awkward father-daughter confrontations out of 10.
The story, like I said, is standard-fare Oscar screenwriting: formulaic, but good. It flows very well from one instance to the next, developing all three of King's struggles fairly evenly without losing the audience. It drags a little in parts, and some of the scenes can be a bit cliche, but it's overall a very solid storyline. The cinematography is unique in that it captures Hawaii from the point of view of the characters. At the beginning of the movie, King states that the beauty of Hawaii becomes the norm, and it gets kind of lost on the people that live there. The cinematography captures this by showing the beauty of the setting, but not overemphasizing on it until the moment is right.
Overall, The Descendants is a fantastic film. It could have been a little tighter in the middle, but overall, I think it's a huge contender for Best Picture. I give it 9 awkward father-daughter confrontations out of 10.
Thursday, February 9, 2012
The Ides of March
My personal record with political thrillers has been very lukewarm. I've watched plenty of them over the years, but they're so forgettable that hardly any ever stick out. The Ides of March is an entirely different experience. An adaptation of the play Farragut North, The Ides of March is the third film directed by George Clooney and stars himself, Ryan Gosling, Evan Rachel Wood, Paul Giamatti, and Philip Seymour Hoffman.
Gosling plays Steven Meyers, a young, idealistic deputy campaign manager who, while campaigning for presidential candidate Mike Morris (Clooney), uncovers a potential career-ending scandal and learns the ugly truth about the dirty underbelly of political campaigning. Gosling is absolutely amazing, portraying the shift between starry-eyed naivety and cold political shark with fantastic skill. And with Clooney's smooth-talking politician, Hoffman's gruff campaign manager, and Wood's overwhelmed intern, the supporting cast is an actor's dream come true.
The story is a pretty standard-fare political drama affair. The concept of a hotshot newcomer being disillusioned by the gritty behind-the-scenes work of politics is something that's been done again and again. What makes this story stand out though is the impeccable sense of pacing. The movie goes by quickly, but they pace it enough to make sure it doesn't leave the audience feeling like they've missed something.
At the end of the movie, I was angry that it didn't get as much critical commendation as it should have. It's nominated for only one Academy Award (Adapted Screenplay) and was nominated for four Golden Globes, where it went home empty-handed. I think it's one of the best movies of 2011. I give it 9 shady political meetings out of 10.
The story is a pretty standard-fare political drama affair. The concept of a hotshot newcomer being disillusioned by the gritty behind-the-scenes work of politics is something that's been done again and again. What makes this story stand out though is the impeccable sense of pacing. The movie goes by quickly, but they pace it enough to make sure it doesn't leave the audience feeling like they've missed something.
At the end of the movie, I was angry that it didn't get as much critical commendation as it should have. It's nominated for only one Academy Award (Adapted Screenplay) and was nominated for four Golden Globes, where it went home empty-handed. I think it's one of the best movies of 2011. I give it 9 shady political meetings out of 10.
Wednesday, February 1, 2012
Moneyball
It seems that every year at least one good sports movie comes out and garners a lot of praise and awards. In 2010, The Fighter released to a lot of good press and won two Academy Awards for Christian Bale and Melissa Leo. The year before that, The Blind Side garnered a lot of accolade and gave Sandra Bullock her first Academy Award. This year's Oscar-bati sports offering, Moneyball, is nominated in six categories, including Best Picture, and Brad Pitt and Jonah Hill are both nominated for awards for Best Actor in a Leading Role and Best Supporting Actor, respectively.
Moneyball is the story of Billy Beane (Pitt), the Oakland A's general manager that used the concept of sabermetrics to create a winning team with a very limited budget and pioneered a new way of player scouting in professional baseball.Yes, it's the classic Cinderella story that is seen so many times in sports dramas, so what makes Moneyball so special? The answer: superior writing and acting. Moneyball is unique because it's a baseball movie where baseball isn't the true focal point of its story. You're really watching the story of a man, what makes him run, and how he survives in an environment that has stacked the deck heavily against him. It's not a movie about trying to beat the other team. It's a movie about a man trying to validate himself in his own eyes and in the eyes of those he loves.
Of course, a main reason that the story is so powerful is due to the powerful performance by the lead. Brad Pitt delivers a great performance and fully deserves his nomination for Best Actor. Philip Seymour Hoffman plays Art Howe, the manager of the A's that serves as Beane's foil for the majority of the movie, and Jonah Hill rounds out the main cast as Peter Brand, the Yale graduate in economics that introduces the idea of sabermetrics to Beane. Hill is nominated for an Academy Award for his performance, and I have no idea why. The character is done well and is a nice fit for the movie, but it's the same character Jonah Hill uses in every movie he's ever been in. If anyone is excited to see this movie because they think his nomination represents a stretch out of his comfort zone, they will be sorely disappointed.
There are a few minor complaints I have about the film. First, the middle of the movie starts to drag immensely. I feel like it could have been easily a half-hour shorter. The second thing was a minor annoyance, and that's the fact that Pitt's character seemed to overturn things a lot when he was angry. Phone call didn't go so well? Throw my desk. My player is dancing after a game we lost? Overturn the watercooler. I've been sitting in silence too long? Chuck the chair out of my office. It's very overused. But aside from those minor complaints, Moneyball really is an excellent film for sports fans and non-sports fans alike. I give the film an overall 8 overturned desks/chairs/watercoolers out of 10.
Of course, a main reason that the story is so powerful is due to the powerful performance by the lead. Brad Pitt delivers a great performance and fully deserves his nomination for Best Actor. Philip Seymour Hoffman plays Art Howe, the manager of the A's that serves as Beane's foil for the majority of the movie, and Jonah Hill rounds out the main cast as Peter Brand, the Yale graduate in economics that introduces the idea of sabermetrics to Beane. Hill is nominated for an Academy Award for his performance, and I have no idea why. The character is done well and is a nice fit for the movie, but it's the same character Jonah Hill uses in every movie he's ever been in. If anyone is excited to see this movie because they think his nomination represents a stretch out of his comfort zone, they will be sorely disappointed.
There are a few minor complaints I have about the film. First, the middle of the movie starts to drag immensely. I feel like it could have been easily a half-hour shorter. The second thing was a minor annoyance, and that's the fact that Pitt's character seemed to overturn things a lot when he was angry. Phone call didn't go so well? Throw my desk. My player is dancing after a game we lost? Overturn the watercooler. I've been sitting in silence too long? Chuck the chair out of my office. It's very overused. But aside from those minor complaints, Moneyball really is an excellent film for sports fans and non-sports fans alike. I give the film an overall 8 overturned desks/chairs/watercoolers out of 10.
Sunday, January 29, 2012
The Tree of Life
So I know I haven't posted in some time. I apologize. However, I am back, and I'm back with a real mind-bender of a film. The Tree of Life is the latest movie by Terrence Malick and stars Brad Pitt, Jessica Chastain, and Sean Penn. It is an Oscar nominee for Best Picture, and, quite frankly, if it wins, I will lose a lot of faith in the Academy.
Don't get me wrong. It's a wonderfully acted and a visually beautiful movie. Pitt and Chastain play Mr. and Mrs. O'Brien, a suburban couple in 1950's Waco that are raising three sons. The chief protagonist of the movie is their eldest son, Jack. Jack's memories comprise the majority of the movie, and it is through his eyes that we understand how his relationship with his parents define the person that he is in the present. The visuals are amazing. Malick incorporates a lot of surreal imagery into the movie, spanning from a montage illustrating the beginning of life on Earth, to a dream image of Jack's mother floating above the ground while dancing, and beyond. They were very instrumental in illustrating the main character's thoughts.
My chief complaint with this movie is the storytelling. Malick uses a very non-linear approach to the story, but that's not the problem. The problems I had dealt primarily with the way information was delivered. He didn't want to just spell everything out for the viewer, but what he opted for instead was a very roundabout way of conveying ideas that just felt like more trouble than it was worth. Also, there are a LOT of montages in this movie. I would say that a good third of the movie is made out of various montages, something that grated on my nerves after the fifth or sixth montage.
Also, just a word of caution for anyone that is planning on seeing the movie: if you bear through the weird intergalactic montage thing close to the beginning, it WILL make sense. I was very confused at first, but it makes more sense as the scene goes on.
In short, the movie was well-acted and visually stunning, but the storytelling is disjointed and unique to a fault, making the movie too much work to actually enjoy. I give it four high-minded visual metaphors out of ten.
Don't get me wrong. It's a wonderfully acted and a visually beautiful movie. Pitt and Chastain play Mr. and Mrs. O'Brien, a suburban couple in 1950's Waco that are raising three sons. The chief protagonist of the movie is their eldest son, Jack. Jack's memories comprise the majority of the movie, and it is through his eyes that we understand how his relationship with his parents define the person that he is in the present. The visuals are amazing. Malick incorporates a lot of surreal imagery into the movie, spanning from a montage illustrating the beginning of life on Earth, to a dream image of Jack's mother floating above the ground while dancing, and beyond. They were very instrumental in illustrating the main character's thoughts.
My chief complaint with this movie is the storytelling. Malick uses a very non-linear approach to the story, but that's not the problem. The problems I had dealt primarily with the way information was delivered. He didn't want to just spell everything out for the viewer, but what he opted for instead was a very roundabout way of conveying ideas that just felt like more trouble than it was worth. Also, there are a LOT of montages in this movie. I would say that a good third of the movie is made out of various montages, something that grated on my nerves after the fifth or sixth montage.
Also, just a word of caution for anyone that is planning on seeing the movie: if you bear through the weird intergalactic montage thing close to the beginning, it WILL make sense. I was very confused at first, but it makes more sense as the scene goes on.
In short, the movie was well-acted and visually stunning, but the storytelling is disjointed and unique to a fault, making the movie too much work to actually enjoy. I give it four high-minded visual metaphors out of ten.
Monday, January 16, 2012
We Bought a Zoo (Spoilers!)
Okay, I know what you're thinking: why would I even waste my time on a movie that looks as cheesy as We Bought a Zoo? To be perfectly honest, I saw it because a) my girlfriend loves things with cute animals in it, and b) because Matt Damon told me to on The Daily Show. He was very upfront in explaining that it would be a good movie despite the obvious misgivings a lot of people would have, and his honesty in confronting those issues gave me enough respect for him to go see it. I'm actually glad I did.
We Bought a Zoo is based loosely on the true story of Benjamin Mee (Damon), a writer who, while coping with the death of his wife, decides to buy a rundown zoo on the edge of town and revitalize it. Accompanied by his two children, he moves on to the property and establishes a quick rapport with the employees of the zoo, strikes up a flirty relationship with the head zookeeper (Scarlett Johansson) and ultimately saves the zoo from being shut down by the mean inspector. Cut-and-dry feel-good family movie, I know.
What made We Bought a Zoo work for me was the caliber of performances I got from the actors. Matt Damon is great, and Thomas Haden Church steals all of his scenes as Benjamin's older brother Duncan. Maggie Elizabeth Jones is absurdly cute as Rosie, Benjamin's seven year old daughter, and all of the zoo employees, from ScarJo's head zookeeper to Elle Fanning as her sheltered younger cousin, are on point the entire movie. Their performances were exactly where they needed to be to keep this movie from being the absolute cheese-fest it certainly could have been.
Now, just because this isn't a complete cheese-fest doesn't mean that it's not a cheese-fest. The story is still just as cookie-cutter of a feel-good movie as you can get. Rash decision turns into an inhuman amount of work, but through love, everyone bands together and wins. Even fate smiles kindly on strong family-man, and some disasters get averted through sheer luck. I know it's based on a true story, and it's supposed to be a feel-good film, but come on.
If I was to give a one-sentence review of this movie, it's this: We Bought a Zoo is a feel-good movie you'll roll your eyes at, but it's a movie you'll enjoy rolling your eyes at. I give it 6 adorable shots of zoo animals out of 10.
Now, just because this isn't a complete cheese-fest doesn't mean that it's not a cheese-fest. The story is still just as cookie-cutter of a feel-good movie as you can get. Rash decision turns into an inhuman amount of work, but through love, everyone bands together and wins. Even fate smiles kindly on strong family-man, and some disasters get averted through sheer luck. I know it's based on a true story, and it's supposed to be a feel-good film, but come on.
If I was to give a one-sentence review of this movie, it's this: We Bought a Zoo is a feel-good movie you'll roll your eyes at, but it's a movie you'll enjoy rolling your eyes at. I give it 6 adorable shots of zoo animals out of 10.
Tuesday, January 10, 2012
The Help (Spoilers!)
With all of the buzz that real critics have generated about The Help, I knew that I eventually had to see it. Also, my girlfriend really wanted to see it, so we rented it and that was the real reason I watched it. Of course, this movie is intended to be Oscar-bait. Based off the 2009 novel of the same name by Kathryn Stockett, it is a fictional account of the lives of black maids and a white reporter who chooses to write a book about their stories.
In a nutshell, the movie's theme is how people can find commonalities in people they never expected to. It's a subject that's been covered over and over again in any movie where racism is a central conflict, but The Help steers away from the normal fold by not having the characters strive to make a dramatic change in the status quo. What makes The Help stand out from other movies that deal with the subject of racism during the Civil Rights movement is that the characters try their very hardest to deal with the situation fairly. Both sides are capable of good and evil, and it makes the characters much more human. Of course, it doesn't hurt that the casting choices were all excellent.
Emma Stone plays Skeeter, an Ole Miss journalism graduate that dreams of being a novelist. Her idea manifests itself as a project compiling the stories, good and bad, of "the help," a term used to categorize the black maids and other domestic workers employed by the middle- and upper-class white community in Jackson, Mississippi. Her main co-conspirators are Abilene (played by Viola Davis) and Minny (Octavia Spencer), and the movie follows their triumphs and pitfalls as they try to anonymously publish the book while Skeeter and Abilene hide their activities from alpha mean-girl Hilly (Bryce Dallas Howard) and Minny learns that there is such a thing as a kind employer from the well-meaning but bumbling Celia (Jessica Chastain).
While the movie's story is charming and the acting is spot-on (Oscar prediction: Emma Stone will be nominated for an Oscar), I kind of liked the movie better when I thought it was based on a true story. Some facets of the stories, including the end, were realistic enough (read: sad) to make you feel like it was realistic, but some of the stories that were told, especially Minny's shit-pie episode, kind of felt like the outcome worked out a little too neatly. It's really nothing especially terrible or unbelievable, but it was something that irked me all the same.
Overall, I think this is a contender for the Best Picture award at the Oscars, and Emma Stone is definitely going to be a contender for Best Leading Actress, and I wouldn't be surprised to see Davis or Spencer (or both) in the running for Best Supporting Actress. I give it 9 out of 10 heart-warming stories.
Wednesday, January 4, 2012
Fright Night
Oh man. I really do not know how I feel about Fright Night. A remake of the 1985 film of the same name, it's a big-budget horror/adventure movie starring a bunch of actors I like (Anton Yelchin, David Tennant, Christopher Mintz-Plasse) that should have been something I really enjoyed. Instead, it almost perfectly weighs its good and bad elements into a movie that should be the textbook definition of a mediocre movie.
First, the good stuff: in the land of Twilight and The Vampire Diaries, it's nice to see vampires as being scary and evil again. Colin Farrell plays the movie's villain, a vampire named Jerry that preys on the population of Las Vegas while living in a suburb next door to high school student Charley Brewster (Yelchin) and his single mother (Toni Collette). After his buddy Ed (Mintz-Plasse) notices the disappearances, they must battle Jerry with the help of famed vampire enthusiast and Vegas showman Peter Vincent (Tennant). Adventure, pitfall, plenty of old-school vampire lore. Yelchin is a likable hero, and David Tennant steals every scene he has as the self-absorbed magician.
Now we must address the bad: namely, the fact that, despite all of the great ingredients listed above, it still doesn't sit quite right. Mainly, it's because the characters, despite being cast well, are not nearly as detailed as they should have been. They felt more like slapped-together caricatures of standard horror movie archetypes. You had the angry nerd, the hot girlfriend, the lonely single mom, the arrogant alcoholic celebrity, and the good, rounded protagonist that just wants to be normal. This is fine when you're creating characters that are going to be killed off quickly, but all of these characters stick around for most of the movie, and a little character development would have gone a long way in making the movie feel less two-dimensional (Yes, this was released in 3d. No, that wasn't a pun.)
Fright Night was worth the $1.20 I paid to watch it. Had I paid anything more for it, I probably would've felt cheated. In keeping with its perfect mediocrity, I give it a perfectly mediocre score. 5 wooden stakes out of 10.
First, the good stuff: in the land of Twilight and The Vampire Diaries, it's nice to see vampires as being scary and evil again. Colin Farrell plays the movie's villain, a vampire named Jerry that preys on the population of Las Vegas while living in a suburb next door to high school student Charley Brewster (Yelchin) and his single mother (Toni Collette). After his buddy Ed (Mintz-Plasse) notices the disappearances, they must battle Jerry with the help of famed vampire enthusiast and Vegas showman Peter Vincent (Tennant). Adventure, pitfall, plenty of old-school vampire lore. Yelchin is a likable hero, and David Tennant steals every scene he has as the self-absorbed magician.
Now we must address the bad: namely, the fact that, despite all of the great ingredients listed above, it still doesn't sit quite right. Mainly, it's because the characters, despite being cast well, are not nearly as detailed as they should have been. They felt more like slapped-together caricatures of standard horror movie archetypes. You had the angry nerd, the hot girlfriend, the lonely single mom, the arrogant alcoholic celebrity, and the good, rounded protagonist that just wants to be normal. This is fine when you're creating characters that are going to be killed off quickly, but all of these characters stick around for most of the movie, and a little character development would have gone a long way in making the movie feel less two-dimensional (Yes, this was released in 3d. No, that wasn't a pun.)
Fright Night was worth the $1.20 I paid to watch it. Had I paid anything more for it, I probably would've felt cheated. In keeping with its perfect mediocrity, I give it a perfectly mediocre score. 5 wooden stakes out of 10.
Tuesday, January 3, 2012
Midnight in Paris (Spoilers!)
So the other night I watched Midnight in Paris, Woody Allen's latest writing and directing venture, starring Owen Wilson and featuring an ensemble cast that, if written down, would make you leave this page before you finished the list. So I'll just hit the high points. Owen Wilson plays Gil, a Hollywood writer who idolizes the Lost Generation of the 1920's. He and his fiance Inez (played by Rachel McAdams) vacation to Paris with her parents, where they meet up with some of Inez's old friends, one of which is an old flame of hers. Hating everything about the experience, Gil decides to start taking long walks by himself at night, where he discovers that he can travel to 1920's Paris by being picked up in a particular spot by an antique car at midnight every night. He travels and meets F. Scott and Zelda Fitzgerald, Ernest Hemingway, Pablo Picasso, Gertrude Stein, Salvador Dali, and others while falling in love with a French girl named Adriana. His two lives eventually start careening towards each other, and shenanigans ensue. The end.
Now, if this sounds like a standard romantic comedy-fantasy to you, that's because, on paper, it kind of is. The ingredients are all there, from the snooty, successful antagonist (a perfectly douchey Michael Sheen) to the hopeless love triangle created by Wilson, McAdams, and Marion Cotillard's Adriana. What stands this apart, at least in my eyes, is the fact that this movie is only about half romantic comedy. The other half is a character study of what makes Gil tick as a person. He comes face-to-face with Hemingway and Fitzgerald, has his novel looked at by Gertrude Stein, and immerses himself in an era he has idolized. Woody Allen does something interesting with Gil's travels by reversing the traditional portrayals of the characters. Typically, the characters of the past are caricatures of the personality traits they were famous for, and the modern characters would be more grounded and realistic. This is the opposite in Midnight in Paris. All of the modern day characters are modern-day stereotypes: the Tea Party rich dad, the disconnected rich mother, the spoiled daughter fiance, the pseudo-intellectual ass. In the past, however, the surly Hemingway is over-the-top, yet grounded enough to let you believe he is a real person. Adriana isn't just some promiscuous Parisian girl. She's a real person with hopes and dreams, triumphs and pitfalls. This reversal is supposed to portray Gil's greater attachment to the 1920's than to the modern day and as a result he comes to understand the timelessness of the human reaction to nostalgia and the damaging effects of living in the past.
All in all, Midnight in Paris is a standard-fare romantic comedy, but a good character-driven film. I give it 6 obscure art references out of 10.
Now, if this sounds like a standard romantic comedy-fantasy to you, that's because, on paper, it kind of is. The ingredients are all there, from the snooty, successful antagonist (a perfectly douchey Michael Sheen) to the hopeless love triangle created by Wilson, McAdams, and Marion Cotillard's Adriana. What stands this apart, at least in my eyes, is the fact that this movie is only about half romantic comedy. The other half is a character study of what makes Gil tick as a person. He comes face-to-face with Hemingway and Fitzgerald, has his novel looked at by Gertrude Stein, and immerses himself in an era he has idolized. Woody Allen does something interesting with Gil's travels by reversing the traditional portrayals of the characters. Typically, the characters of the past are caricatures of the personality traits they were famous for, and the modern characters would be more grounded and realistic. This is the opposite in Midnight in Paris. All of the modern day characters are modern-day stereotypes: the Tea Party rich dad, the disconnected rich mother, the spoiled daughter fiance, the pseudo-intellectual ass. In the past, however, the surly Hemingway is over-the-top, yet grounded enough to let you believe he is a real person. Adriana isn't just some promiscuous Parisian girl. She's a real person with hopes and dreams, triumphs and pitfalls. This reversal is supposed to portray Gil's greater attachment to the 1920's than to the modern day and as a result he comes to understand the timelessness of the human reaction to nostalgia and the damaging effects of living in the past.
All in all, Midnight in Paris is a standard-fare romantic comedy, but a good character-driven film. I give it 6 obscure art references out of 10.
Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows (Warning: Spoilers!)
Okay, to start things off, I am a confessed fan of the following: Robert Downey, Jr., Guy Ritchie, and Sherlock Holmes. The stories of Sherlock Holmes and Dr. John Watson started with Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's A Study in Scarlet in 1886 and hasn't stopped since. It's been told and re-told in every which way, and I've got to say that this incarnation has been one of my favorites. Ritchie and Downey stylize Holmes as a character that is simultaneously real and over-the-top, and I love that because it makes the character totally unbelievable, but at the same time you want him to be real so very badly. Their version brings out both the good and the bad in Holmes: his uncanny skills at forensics, deduction, combat blah blah blah we know all of this, but it also shows the flaws that have been there since the original stories but have been largely overlooked in the past: a complete and utter lack of care for his own health, his social ineptitude, and even allusions to his self-destructive drug habit. More importantly than depicting Holmes as the flawed character as he is, Guy Ritchie has made Sherlock Holmes relevant in the 21st century, and that's kind of a hard thing to do.
The acting was great. Robert Downey, Jr. and Jude Law have their buddy-dynamic down to a science. Rachel McAdams and Karen Reilly,both back from the first movie as Irene Adler and Mary Watson (formerly Mary Morstan) got to show more range with their characters, and in my opinion did very well. We finally got to see how Irene Adler acts when she's confronted by the one man who really scares her, and the new Mrs. Watson goes from playing victim to Holmes' schemes to actively participating in them. Series newcomers Noomi Rapace, Stephen Fry, Jared Harris, and Paul Anderson round out the main cast of the movie, and man, do they all do great. Stephen Fry never fails to be funny, and he brings his A-game while playing Sherlock's older, more eccentric brother, Mycroft. Noomi Rapace plays Madam Simza Heron, a gypsy fortune-teller from France whose brother is involved in Professor Moriarty's nefarious plot to cause a world war. And speaking of Moriarty, Jared Harris does an AWESOME job playing the Napoleon of Crime. The interactions between Holmes and Moriarty are so dripping with venom that you squirm in your seat as the two try to outhink the other.
As far as the technical aspects of the movie are concerned, it's SOOO Guy Ritchie. Much more so than the first movie. It has more of the quick, choppy asides that are more characteristic of his earlier films, and the seemingly inconsequential actions from earlier in the film are of the utmost importance in the final act. But my complaints aren't with the acting or the directing. It's mainly with the story. There's one main instance in the story that illustrates what my problem is: Moriarty's men are on a train trying to assassinate Dr. Watson and Mary on their honeymoon, and fortunately Holmes has boarded the train as well to assist in their escape. At one point, Holmes, disguised in drag, has planted a lipstick tube filled with phosphorous in one of the bandoliers of one of the assassins. When the assassins have finally cornered Holmes and Watson, the assassin had just so happened to have placed the lipstick tube in his rifle, causing it to backfire on him and allowing the two to escape. My problem with this is that Holmes takes credit for that being part of his grand design, but there was no way for him to know that his contraption would be used at that particular moment, especially since this is after several shootouts. The placement of the lipstick tube at that moment was sheer luck, but both the character and the movie chalk it up to Holmes' brilliance. I know it seems kind of nitpicky, but the movie is kind of full of this, so I'm really not being hypercritical of a particular point.
All in all, though, any fan of the first movie should go see this. It's a little more scattered, as it has to keep up with more characters at once, but it's all worth it to watch the exchanges between Holmes and Moriarty.
I give it 8 out of 10 slow-motion fight scenes.
The acting was great. Robert Downey, Jr. and Jude Law have their buddy-dynamic down to a science. Rachel McAdams and Karen Reilly,both back from the first movie as Irene Adler and Mary Watson (formerly Mary Morstan) got to show more range with their characters, and in my opinion did very well. We finally got to see how Irene Adler acts when she's confronted by the one man who really scares her, and the new Mrs. Watson goes from playing victim to Holmes' schemes to actively participating in them. Series newcomers Noomi Rapace, Stephen Fry, Jared Harris, and Paul Anderson round out the main cast of the movie, and man, do they all do great. Stephen Fry never fails to be funny, and he brings his A-game while playing Sherlock's older, more eccentric brother, Mycroft. Noomi Rapace plays Madam Simza Heron, a gypsy fortune-teller from France whose brother is involved in Professor Moriarty's nefarious plot to cause a world war. And speaking of Moriarty, Jared Harris does an AWESOME job playing the Napoleon of Crime. The interactions between Holmes and Moriarty are so dripping with venom that you squirm in your seat as the two try to outhink the other.
As far as the technical aspects of the movie are concerned, it's SOOO Guy Ritchie. Much more so than the first movie. It has more of the quick, choppy asides that are more characteristic of his earlier films, and the seemingly inconsequential actions from earlier in the film are of the utmost importance in the final act. But my complaints aren't with the acting or the directing. It's mainly with the story. There's one main instance in the story that illustrates what my problem is: Moriarty's men are on a train trying to assassinate Dr. Watson and Mary on their honeymoon, and fortunately Holmes has boarded the train as well to assist in their escape. At one point, Holmes, disguised in drag, has planted a lipstick tube filled with phosphorous in one of the bandoliers of one of the assassins. When the assassins have finally cornered Holmes and Watson, the assassin had just so happened to have placed the lipstick tube in his rifle, causing it to backfire on him and allowing the two to escape. My problem with this is that Holmes takes credit for that being part of his grand design, but there was no way for him to know that his contraption would be used at that particular moment, especially since this is after several shootouts. The placement of the lipstick tube at that moment was sheer luck, but both the character and the movie chalk it up to Holmes' brilliance. I know it seems kind of nitpicky, but the movie is kind of full of this, so I'm really not being hypercritical of a particular point.
All in all, though, any fan of the first movie should go see this. It's a little more scattered, as it has to keep up with more characters at once, but it's all worth it to watch the exchanges between Holmes and Moriarty.
I give it 8 out of 10 slow-motion fight scenes.
Welcome to my blog!
Hello, reader!
This is my new blog, one that I will actually be updating. This is because I will be writing reviews for every movie I watch this year, starting with my next blogpost. Some of these movies will be new ones that have just been released in theatres. Some will be ones that have just been released on DVD. Some will be movies that I've just never gotten around to seeing. My only rules are that I won't write about any movie I have previously seen, and I will only write a review if I watched the entire thing from beginning to end in one sitting.
As with all movie reviews, it will be comprised mainly of my own opinions, and of course this is where we shall differ. Please let me know how we differ in the comments. It won't change my mind, but this is America, and we have comments sections here, so freedom your speech up, homeboy.
Of course, that which won't be made of opinion will be made of fact, and if I get those wrong, PLEASE let me know in the comments so I can stop looking like an idiot. I would like to keep my inflammatory offenses to opinion only.
This is my new blog, one that I will actually be updating. This is because I will be writing reviews for every movie I watch this year, starting with my next blogpost. Some of these movies will be new ones that have just been released in theatres. Some will be ones that have just been released on DVD. Some will be movies that I've just never gotten around to seeing. My only rules are that I won't write about any movie I have previously seen, and I will only write a review if I watched the entire thing from beginning to end in one sitting.
As with all movie reviews, it will be comprised mainly of my own opinions, and of course this is where we shall differ. Please let me know how we differ in the comments. It won't change my mind, but this is America, and we have comments sections here, so freedom your speech up, homeboy.
Of course, that which won't be made of opinion will be made of fact, and if I get those wrong, PLEASE let me know in the comments so I can stop looking like an idiot. I would like to keep my inflammatory offenses to opinion only.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)