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.
Sunday, January 29, 2012
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)