People love a crazy true story. So when Ben Affleck decides to make a movie about a real CIA operation involving tricking Iran into thinking that American fugitives are a Canadian film crew, people tend to pay attention. And when he attaches an all-star cast to it, and you might get a good movie out of the deal. You'll get something like Argo.
Argo is about "The Canadian Caper", a CIA operation in which escaped members of the US Embassy in Iran were smuggled out of the country in an elaborate ruse involving a fake sci-fi movie. Ben Affleck, besides already pulling double duty as producer and director, also plays the film's protagonist, Tony Mendez. In the aftermath of a riot in Tehran that culminates in the raid of the US embassy and the kidnapping of its workers, Mendez devises a plot to rescue six escaped embassy employees that have fled to the Canadian embassy. While the film isn't going to win any awards for historical accuracy, Affleck finds a good balance between the realms of Hollywood thriller and historical drama. Including some shot-for-shot reenactments of actual footage from the crisis, Argo does a great job at capturing the cultural tensions and urgency of the situation.
The biggest draw of Argo by far is its cast of characters. While Affleck's turn as Mendez is a bit boring, John Goodman and Alan Arkin shine as make-up artist John Chambers and producer Lester Siegel. While the character of Siegel is fictitious, that isn't stopping Arkin from being nominated for Best Supporting Actor at the Oscars. The actors playing the embassy employees were also all fantastic.
My only problem with Argo is that it's just not mind-blowing. There's nothing really wrong with it, but I guarantee that people will be forgetting about this film in five years. There's nothing to it that really makes it remarkable, and for being so laden with accolades, I was expecting something more.
I don't expect Argo to make any real waves at the Oscars tonight, but in a few hours I may eat my words. Regardless, it is a good way to spend two hours of your time. Just don't expect it to be your new favorite movie. I give Argo 8 incredibly tense scenes of downtown Tehran out of 10.
Sunday, February 24, 2013
Thursday, February 21, 2013
Zero Dark Thirty
Kathryn Bigelow has an affinity for keeping her finger on the pulse of the War on Terror. After winning Best Director and Best Picture in 2009 for The Hurt Locker, Bigelow has apparently decided she isn't done with the subject. Keeping with the style used in The Hurt Locker, Zero Dark Thirty is a personal, semi-fictitious chronicle of Osama bin Laden, and if the Academy feels the same way Sunday as they did in 2009, it's lined up to do very well. It deserves it.
The first thing that struck me about Zero Dark Thirty was its brutal frankness. The first scene of the movie, involving rookie CIA agent Maya (Jessica Chastain) and her more experienced partner (Jason Clarke) interrogating a terrorist is simultaneously gut-wrenching and captivating. It also set the tone of the film: nothing is going to be held back. Starting with that 2003 interrogation, the film follows Maya as she works the hunt for bin Laden, transforming from a naive rookie agent into a relentless manhunter with an incredible intensity that upholds my thought that Chastain might be one of the greatest actresses of our generation. Her supporting cast in no slouch, either. Clarke is a chillingly captivating standout as Dan, a ruthless CIA interrogator that nonchalantly calls terrorists "bro" while waterboarding them for information. His lack of nomination as Best Supporting Actor is an abysmal mistake.
What makes Zero Dark Thirty stand out from every other movie about the war on terror, for better or for worse, is its sense of pacing. The movie spans a total of eight years, and that leaves a lot of ground to cover. The scenes in the movie are all very intense, which makes watching every individual one an emotional experience that is so often lacking in war movies. Unfortunately, a running time of over two and a half hours means that all of those intense scenes that follow every minute aspect of the hunt start to get taxing after a while.
Zero Dark Thirty is not for everyone. Those looking for an action movie need to look elsewhere, as the only action takes place in the last 20 minutes. However, if you're idea of a good war movie involves the dramatic minutiae of undercover operations and intelligence gathering, then this might be the best war movie you've ever seen. I give Zero Dark Thirty 9 shady intelligence deals out of 10.
The first thing that struck me about Zero Dark Thirty was its brutal frankness. The first scene of the movie, involving rookie CIA agent Maya (Jessica Chastain) and her more experienced partner (Jason Clarke) interrogating a terrorist is simultaneously gut-wrenching and captivating. It also set the tone of the film: nothing is going to be held back. Starting with that 2003 interrogation, the film follows Maya as she works the hunt for bin Laden, transforming from a naive rookie agent into a relentless manhunter with an incredible intensity that upholds my thought that Chastain might be one of the greatest actresses of our generation. Her supporting cast in no slouch, either. Clarke is a chillingly captivating standout as Dan, a ruthless CIA interrogator that nonchalantly calls terrorists "bro" while waterboarding them for information. His lack of nomination as Best Supporting Actor is an abysmal mistake.
What makes Zero Dark Thirty stand out from every other movie about the war on terror, for better or for worse, is its sense of pacing. The movie spans a total of eight years, and that leaves a lot of ground to cover. The scenes in the movie are all very intense, which makes watching every individual one an emotional experience that is so often lacking in war movies. Unfortunately, a running time of over two and a half hours means that all of those intense scenes that follow every minute aspect of the hunt start to get taxing after a while.
Zero Dark Thirty is not for everyone. Those looking for an action movie need to look elsewhere, as the only action takes place in the last 20 minutes. However, if you're idea of a good war movie involves the dramatic minutiae of undercover operations and intelligence gathering, then this might be the best war movie you've ever seen. I give Zero Dark Thirty 9 shady intelligence deals out of 10.
Wednesday, February 13, 2013
Les Miserables
Two-and-a-half-hour long movies are not for everyone. Two-and-a-half hour long musicals appeal to even less. Make that 150+ minute musical a period piece and you're appealing to a sort of niche market. So if those things are not what you're looking for in a movie-going experience, we can stop right here. Les Miserables is not for you, and you're not going to like it.
However, if you're still reading this, this indicates that you're probably interested in those things, and to you, I say this: you're going to really like Les Miserables.
A film adaptation of the immensely popular musical, Les Miserables is the story of Jean Valjean (Hugh Jackman), a successful businessman who is on the run, physically and metaphorically, from his dark past as a felon. Pursuing him doggedly is Inspector Javert (Russell Crowe), a French policeman who will stop at nothing to bring Valjean to justice. Along the way, matters get complicated with a destitute factory worker (Anne Hathaway), her daughter (Amanda Seyfried), meddlesome innkeepers (Sascha Baron Cohen and Helena Bonham Carter), and a young French Revolutionary (Eddie Redmayne). If it sounds like a lot to keep up with, you're right. It kind of is. But it is so worth it.
Les Miserables is being especially noted in the musical film world because it does not rely on vocal tracks. That means that there are no dubovers of flubbed notes or lip-synching involved. Although it sounds like nothing more than a novelty, it has a direct effect on the power of the film's emotions. The movie's entire script is in song, so it is incredibly important that the music tells the story of the characters' thoughts and emotions. The live taping of the actors' voices keeps their characters in the moment, making the audience feel everything the characters do.
That being said, there are things that keep Les Miserables from being a perfect movie. Like most musicals, the runtime is disproportionately long to the amount of content in the story. When everything is sung, musicals tend to spend more time than need be to convey a thought. This film is no exception. I found myself not paying attention at times because a song had spent so much time on one idea that I was just waiting for it to be over.
Despite its marathon running time, Les Miserables is a fantastic movie. Every actor pulls their weight (even poor Russell Crowe, who has a subpar singing voice, was awesome), and the filmography is just beautiful. I will be honestly surprised if Anne Hathaway does't win Best Supporting Actress at the Academy Awards next week. I give Les Miserables 8 and a half emotional ballads full of strife out of 10.
However, if you're still reading this, this indicates that you're probably interested in those things, and to you, I say this: you're going to really like Les Miserables.
A film adaptation of the immensely popular musical, Les Miserables is the story of Jean Valjean (Hugh Jackman), a successful businessman who is on the run, physically and metaphorically, from his dark past as a felon. Pursuing him doggedly is Inspector Javert (Russell Crowe), a French policeman who will stop at nothing to bring Valjean to justice. Along the way, matters get complicated with a destitute factory worker (Anne Hathaway), her daughter (Amanda Seyfried), meddlesome innkeepers (Sascha Baron Cohen and Helena Bonham Carter), and a young French Revolutionary (Eddie Redmayne). If it sounds like a lot to keep up with, you're right. It kind of is. But it is so worth it.
Les Miserables is being especially noted in the musical film world because it does not rely on vocal tracks. That means that there are no dubovers of flubbed notes or lip-synching involved. Although it sounds like nothing more than a novelty, it has a direct effect on the power of the film's emotions. The movie's entire script is in song, so it is incredibly important that the music tells the story of the characters' thoughts and emotions. The live taping of the actors' voices keeps their characters in the moment, making the audience feel everything the characters do.
That being said, there are things that keep Les Miserables from being a perfect movie. Like most musicals, the runtime is disproportionately long to the amount of content in the story. When everything is sung, musicals tend to spend more time than need be to convey a thought. This film is no exception. I found myself not paying attention at times because a song had spent so much time on one idea that I was just waiting for it to be over.
Despite its marathon running time, Les Miserables is a fantastic movie. Every actor pulls their weight (even poor Russell Crowe, who has a subpar singing voice, was awesome), and the filmography is just beautiful. I will be honestly surprised if Anne Hathaway does't win Best Supporting Actress at the Academy Awards next week. I give Les Miserables 8 and a half emotional ballads full of strife out of 10.
Thursday, January 31, 2013
Lincoln
When I watched Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter last year, I walked away from it with two thoughts running through my head. The first was that I was kind of disappointed in how it turned out, and the second was that I was ready for the real film about Lincoln's life to come out. A few months later, Steven Spielberg releases his Oscar-bait biopic Lincoln, with an all-star cast that includes Daniel Day-Lewis, Sally Field, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, and Tommy Lee Jones. After watching it, I want the vampires back.
There's a very distinct culprit making Lincoln an awful film. The blame falls entirely on the writing staff hired to write the drivel that I had to sit through. Firstly, anyone who expects to see a biopic about the life of Lincoln will be sorely disappointed. The movie should be called The 13th Amendment, seeing as how it only takes place during the period of Lincoln's life in which the House of Representatives were debating the passage of the amendment. But a misleading title is the least of this film's problems. Not only is the script a mockery of history, it seems to move like a gritty reboot of Mr. Rogers Neighborhood. I started to get a feeling that every piece of dialogue was just an excuse to have Daniel Day-Lewis or Tommy Lee Jones eventually give a monologue about how great our country is or how racism is bad. It's not that I disagree with those ideas, but I got the point thirty monologues ago. Can we move on, please?
The only thing I can say positively for this movie is that the acting and wardrobe departments were fantastic. Day-Lewis gave the most amazing portrayal of Lincoln that's ever been captured on film, and the rest of the cast delivered their roles well. That being said, there's still a lot of overhype for some of the performances. Daniel Day-Lewis rightfully won a Golden Globe and a Critic's Choice award for his role, but the performances by Sally Field and Tommy Lee Jones should never have been nominated in the first place. Field's portrayal of Mary Todd Lincoln was cartoonish at best, and Tommy Lee Jones played...well, he played Tommy Lee Jones, and I don't see him getting any accolades for Men in Black 3.
After I left the theater, I felt like someone had played a cruel joke on me. Abraham Lincoln's life is one of the more interesting pieces of American history, so why this piece of garbage was made instead of a proper biopic is beyond me. I wanted to give this film a zero, but Daniel Day-Lewis was good. Really good. If you ever find yourself faced with the task of watching this film, take solace in that. So congratulations, Lincoln. I give you 3 trite morality speeches out of 10.
The only thing I can say positively for this movie is that the acting and wardrobe departments were fantastic. Day-Lewis gave the most amazing portrayal of Lincoln that's ever been captured on film, and the rest of the cast delivered their roles well. That being said, there's still a lot of overhype for some of the performances. Daniel Day-Lewis rightfully won a Golden Globe and a Critic's Choice award for his role, but the performances by Sally Field and Tommy Lee Jones should never have been nominated in the first place. Field's portrayal of Mary Todd Lincoln was cartoonish at best, and Tommy Lee Jones played...well, he played Tommy Lee Jones, and I don't see him getting any accolades for Men in Black 3.
After I left the theater, I felt like someone had played a cruel joke on me. Abraham Lincoln's life is one of the more interesting pieces of American history, so why this piece of garbage was made instead of a proper biopic is beyond me. I wanted to give this film a zero, but Daniel Day-Lewis was good. Really good. If you ever find yourself faced with the task of watching this film, take solace in that. So congratulations, Lincoln. I give you 3 trite morality speeches out of 10.
Friday, January 18, 2013
Beasts of the Southern Wild
With the announcement of the Academy Award nominees this past Friday, I started my annual tradition of trying to cram in as many of them as I possibly can until the awards show on February 24th. So when I saw the relatively unknown Beasts of the Southern Wild was one of the candidates, I did some research.
Dozens and dozens of award nominations and accolades? Check. Topical plotline about the plight of southern Louisiana bayou communities? Check. The youngest nominee ever to be nominated for Best Actress? Check.
Naturally, I had to watch it. I'm pretty glad I did.
If you've never heard of Beasts of the Southern Wild, I don't really blame you. This is the first feature film by most of the people involved and, despite making a huge splash in several acclaimed film festivals, saw only a limited release in theaters. It wasn't until after I had seen its several nominations (Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Actress, Best Director and Best Picture) that I was even aware of its existence. But one quick trip to Redbox had me glued to my television watching an intriguing, if not overly artsy, portrayal of a unique father-daughter relationship in one of the most exotic locations in the country.
Beasts of the Southern Wild is about Hushpuppy (Quvenzhané Wallis), a 5 year-old girl who lives in the fictional Louisiana community called "The Bathtub" with her father, Trip (Dwight Henry). The Bathtub is an isolated bayou community, cut off from the rest of the country by a levee, and the film follows the trials and tribulations of Hushpuppy and the members of her community after a storm devastates their home. Although it sounds like a run-of-the-mill natural disaster flick, the film breaks the mold in a couple of neat ways. The first is that the film's focus isn't really on the storm itself. The core of the story is Hushpuppy and her unique relationship with people and nature. What the audience sees as a result of that is a mixture of child-like naivety and timeless wisdom that rightfully earned Wallis a nomination for Best Actress.
The film isn't without its flaws. Early in the story, Hushpuppy's teacher tells her class about Aurochs, ancient beasts that lived during the time of cavemen. The story apparently sticks with Hushpuppy, because it is used as a heavyhanded metaphor for the entirety of the film. Although the film isn't terribly long, I felt that my time was being wasted every time it cut away to the Aurochs. I get the metaphor of savage beasts bearing down her neck as calamity ensues, but all it did was make my eyes roll.
I honestly think this film will walk away on Oscar night empty-handed. The only shot that it has is if Wallis win Best Actress, something I'm actually rooting for. It's an interesting film and mostly well-done, but it's just entirely too forgettable. It's not the weakest contender for the Oscar race, but its indie roots might not hold. I give it 7 crazy bayou dwellers shooting shotguns at hurricanes out of 10.
Dozens and dozens of award nominations and accolades? Check. Topical plotline about the plight of southern Louisiana bayou communities? Check. The youngest nominee ever to be nominated for Best Actress? Check.
Naturally, I had to watch it. I'm pretty glad I did.
If you've never heard of Beasts of the Southern Wild, I don't really blame you. This is the first feature film by most of the people involved and, despite making a huge splash in several acclaimed film festivals, saw only a limited release in theaters. It wasn't until after I had seen its several nominations (Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Actress, Best Director and Best Picture) that I was even aware of its existence. But one quick trip to Redbox had me glued to my television watching an intriguing, if not overly artsy, portrayal of a unique father-daughter relationship in one of the most exotic locations in the country.
Beasts of the Southern Wild is about Hushpuppy (Quvenzhané Wallis), a 5 year-old girl who lives in the fictional Louisiana community called "The Bathtub" with her father, Trip (Dwight Henry). The Bathtub is an isolated bayou community, cut off from the rest of the country by a levee, and the film follows the trials and tribulations of Hushpuppy and the members of her community after a storm devastates their home. Although it sounds like a run-of-the-mill natural disaster flick, the film breaks the mold in a couple of neat ways. The first is that the film's focus isn't really on the storm itself. The core of the story is Hushpuppy and her unique relationship with people and nature. What the audience sees as a result of that is a mixture of child-like naivety and timeless wisdom that rightfully earned Wallis a nomination for Best Actress.
The film isn't without its flaws. Early in the story, Hushpuppy's teacher tells her class about Aurochs, ancient beasts that lived during the time of cavemen. The story apparently sticks with Hushpuppy, because it is used as a heavyhanded metaphor for the entirety of the film. Although the film isn't terribly long, I felt that my time was being wasted every time it cut away to the Aurochs. I get the metaphor of savage beasts bearing down her neck as calamity ensues, but all it did was make my eyes roll.
I honestly think this film will walk away on Oscar night empty-handed. The only shot that it has is if Wallis win Best Actress, something I'm actually rooting for. It's an interesting film and mostly well-done, but it's just entirely too forgettable. It's not the weakest contender for the Oscar race, but its indie roots might not hold. I give it 7 crazy bayou dwellers shooting shotguns at hurricanes out of 10.
Wednesday, January 9, 2013
Django Unchained
This being my first post in a while, I want to say a few things before I get to this review:
1) I'm sorry I've been gone so long.
2) Go see The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey. Just do it.
3) I'm definitely back though. For real this time.
It kind of makes me sad that it's taken me this long to come back, but I don't think I would have wanted to come back to pick apart any other film than this one. Quentin Tarantino draws critics to his films like moths to flame, and Django Unchained is certainly no exception.
Tarantino is known for paying homage to his favorite styles of film. The Kill Bill series and Inglourious Basterds are his tributes to kung fu and World War II films, and now he's taking a stab at spaghetti westerns with Django Unchained. Set two years before the Civil War, the film follows a slave named Django (Jamie Foxx) and his dentist-turned-bounty-hunter owner/partner Dr. King Schultz (Christoph Waltz) as they hunt fugitive slave-handlers and attempt to rescue Django's wife from the clutches of wealthy plantation owner Calvin Candie (Leonardo DiCaprio). If you have any prior knowledge of Tarantino, then you should automatically assume that a premise like that is going to be gruesomely violent, highly laden with vulgar language, and overall a fantastic cinematic experience. I am pleased to announce that your assumption is correct.
Although this is not my favorite one of Tarantino's works (that title belongs to Inglourious Basterds. You can tell me how wrong I am that it's not Pulp Fiction or Reservoir Dogs in the comments. It's not going to change my mind), Django still impresses, doing everything it sets out to do with the same lopsided mixture of bloody action, unique characters, and quote-worthy dialogue that we have come to expect from Tarantino's off-kilter universe. Therefore, the burden is carried mostly by the performances of the cast, all of which were perfectly placed. Jamie Foxx's turn as the title character is an amazing mix of a man haunted by his brutal past and a gunslinger who is enjoying his job a little too much. DiCaprio is captivating as a plantation owner who is as repulsively vile as he is completely oblivious as to how evil he truly is. Even Samuel L. Jackson's relatively small role as head house slave Stephen is perfectly balanced between comedic relief and scheming cretin. But the runaway role goes once again to Christoph Waltz as bounty hunter King Schultz. Inglourious Basterds had us see Waltz as an actor who could play an incredible villain, even earning an Academy Award for his part as Nazi colonel Hans Landa. Django Unchained shows us that he is just as capable of playing the good guy. Waltz sells his character as a gunslinging man of the law who is willing to live and die by his altruistic moral code. The breakout character of the movie yet again, I will be truly surprised if he doesn't get nominated again this year.
The other facet of the film that really impressed me was its pacing. Quentin Tarantino is not known for making short movies, and Django is no exception, clocking in at right under three hours. Unlike most of his other films, however, it never feels quite like it. There is never a dull moment, from the first moments of the movie where we see Django being transported by slavers across the Texas desert to the film's explosive finale, as Tarantino never makes us feel like we spent all afternoon in a dark theater.
So if this movie is so good, why does it not make my top spot as my favorite Tarantino flick? The answers are very nitpicky. Although the characters are all played expertly by the actors, none of them (save maybe Waltz's character) are nearly as memorable as some of the characters we've seen in his prior films. Django is also a more action-packed movie than the others, which diverted some of the attention away from the tense wordplay that has become associated with Tarantino's work. And frankly, I just didn't like the ending. Sue me.
Django Unchained is a fantastic movie. It's not perfect, but it's pretty close, and anyone who isn't easily offended by gore or language needs to make seeing this movie a priority. I give it 9 and a half learning-how-to-be-a-better-shot montages out of 10.
1) I'm sorry I've been gone so long.
2) Go see The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey. Just do it.
3) I'm definitely back though. For real this time.
It kind of makes me sad that it's taken me this long to come back, but I don't think I would have wanted to come back to pick apart any other film than this one. Quentin Tarantino draws critics to his films like moths to flame, and Django Unchained is certainly no exception.
Tarantino is known for paying homage to his favorite styles of film. The Kill Bill series and Inglourious Basterds are his tributes to kung fu and World War II films, and now he's taking a stab at spaghetti westerns with Django Unchained. Set two years before the Civil War, the film follows a slave named Django (Jamie Foxx) and his dentist-turned-bounty-hunter owner/partner Dr. King Schultz (Christoph Waltz) as they hunt fugitive slave-handlers and attempt to rescue Django's wife from the clutches of wealthy plantation owner Calvin Candie (Leonardo DiCaprio). If you have any prior knowledge of Tarantino, then you should automatically assume that a premise like that is going to be gruesomely violent, highly laden with vulgar language, and overall a fantastic cinematic experience. I am pleased to announce that your assumption is correct.
Although this is not my favorite one of Tarantino's works (that title belongs to Inglourious Basterds. You can tell me how wrong I am that it's not Pulp Fiction or Reservoir Dogs in the comments. It's not going to change my mind), Django still impresses, doing everything it sets out to do with the same lopsided mixture of bloody action, unique characters, and quote-worthy dialogue that we have come to expect from Tarantino's off-kilter universe. Therefore, the burden is carried mostly by the performances of the cast, all of which were perfectly placed. Jamie Foxx's turn as the title character is an amazing mix of a man haunted by his brutal past and a gunslinger who is enjoying his job a little too much. DiCaprio is captivating as a plantation owner who is as repulsively vile as he is completely oblivious as to how evil he truly is. Even Samuel L. Jackson's relatively small role as head house slave Stephen is perfectly balanced between comedic relief and scheming cretin. But the runaway role goes once again to Christoph Waltz as bounty hunter King Schultz. Inglourious Basterds had us see Waltz as an actor who could play an incredible villain, even earning an Academy Award for his part as Nazi colonel Hans Landa. Django Unchained shows us that he is just as capable of playing the good guy. Waltz sells his character as a gunslinging man of the law who is willing to live and die by his altruistic moral code. The breakout character of the movie yet again, I will be truly surprised if he doesn't get nominated again this year.
The other facet of the film that really impressed me was its pacing. Quentin Tarantino is not known for making short movies, and Django is no exception, clocking in at right under three hours. Unlike most of his other films, however, it never feels quite like it. There is never a dull moment, from the first moments of the movie where we see Django being transported by slavers across the Texas desert to the film's explosive finale, as Tarantino never makes us feel like we spent all afternoon in a dark theater.
So if this movie is so good, why does it not make my top spot as my favorite Tarantino flick? The answers are very nitpicky. Although the characters are all played expertly by the actors, none of them (save maybe Waltz's character) are nearly as memorable as some of the characters we've seen in his prior films. Django is also a more action-packed movie than the others, which diverted some of the attention away from the tense wordplay that has become associated with Tarantino's work. And frankly, I just didn't like the ending. Sue me.
Django Unchained is a fantastic movie. It's not perfect, but it's pretty close, and anyone who isn't easily offended by gore or language needs to make seeing this movie a priority. I give it 9 and a half learning-how-to-be-a-better-shot montages out of 10.
Friday, July 6, 2012
The Amazing Spider-Man
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.
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, 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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)