tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-60166707168673151892024-03-13T18:30:08.791-07:00The Silver ScreenersMichaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04508432901960651084noreply@blogger.comBlogger41125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6016670716867315189.post-56626633091030987872014-08-15T19:01:00.002-07:002014-08-15T19:01:24.143-07:00Guardians of the Galaxy (2014)<i>Forgettable fun. </i><br />
<br />
<img height="425" src="https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/nSZPMsG_7tw3c-le70UEM1Fo42bkb6dVQ8Dd1GKYSoU2xog3-QccvgzVdFXmv-5R7mWVyiLdog_gLmf-ETDAG1eov5llmVgz1JDW8bqmNhwpPp1GaPiLwCLuDaUQA8WaOA" width="640" /><br />
<br />
I’ve said before that I don’t really care for action movies. I should probably rephrase. I don’t care for movies that feature big action scenes unless backed by a good story, compelling characters, and believable dialogue. I’ve seen some great action movies this summer (<i>X-Men: Days of Future Past; Dawn of the Planet of the Apes</i>) and I’ve seen some bad ones (<i>Godzilla; Transformers: Age of Extinction</i>). <i>Guardians of the Galaxy</i> falls somewhere in between. <br />
<br />
It’s 1988 and young Peter Quill’s mother has just died. Filled with grief, he races out of the hospital and, for reasons unknown, is suddenly abducted and taken to space. Now, twenty-six years later, Quill is a space-roving bounty hunter of sorts, finding artifacts and selling them to the highest bidder. On one such quest, Quill comes across a mysterious orb that is highly sought after by the villainous Ronan, who is determined to use the orb’s power to destroy the universe. After a haphazard series of events, Quill ends up in prison and forms a bond with four other prisoners. There’s the assassin Gamora, seeking to avenge her parent’s death, the anthropomorphic raccoon Rocket and his talking, tree-creature sidekick Groot, and the violent and volatile Drax, determined to make the killer of his wife and daughter pay. These characters each have their own motivations but they all share the same goals: find Ronan, get the orb, save the galaxy. <br />
<br />
When setting up a science fiction movie, it is necessary to set up rules: the way the universe runs, the creatures that inhabit it, the sci-fi “laws” of what is possible and what isn’t. But <i>Guardians</i> doesn’t bother with the details, instead thrusting the audience into a new world with no explanation, no rules, and the feeling that anything is possible. That might sound fun, but it presents a huge problem cinematically. In a world without boundaries, it’s near-impossible to portray any real danger or conflict. Sure, the villainous Ronan is powerful, but that’s okay! Our not-so-super-heroes can actually do anything! This problem is most apparent in the action scenes. Because anything can happen in this universe, it’s hard to feel that the characters are ever truly in peril. As a result, giant action scenes feel boring and arbitrary, necessary only to propel a fairly weak plot. <br />
<br />
The visuals, however, are pretty fantastic. Alien character design is unique, space technology is impressive, and the special effects are awesome. An arrow-like weapon that dispatched an entire horde of enemies in seconds induced “wow's.” The fleet of Nova Corps airships that bond together to create an impenetrable wall is extremely impressive. <br />
<br />
In addition to its stunning visuals, the film makes you fall in love with its characters. Chris Pratt, known for his comedic character-acting easily slips into his first leading-man role, giving a truly star-making performance as the kind-hearted, wisecracking Quill. Bradley Cooper’s personality is on full display in the voice of the hilariously irreverent Rocket Raccoon. WWE wrestler Dave Batista plays the straight man incredibly well, his character incapable of understanding metaphors. “Nothing goes over my head,” he growls. “My reflexes are too fast.”<br />
<br />
But while you care about the characters, their development lacks severely. One moment the bunch is at odds, the next, they are partners. Another moment they all hate each other, the next, they are an unstoppable team of super friends. Getting from here to there is clearly of no concern to the filmmakers, who figure you’ll be so caught up in the pure comedic joy and fun, you won’t stop to notice that everything is very rushed. They’re mostly right. <br />
<br />
Perhaps the film’s main highlight is its soundtrack. It features several classic hits from the 70’s and 80’s, superbly setting the film’s overall tone. It’s light, it’s fun, and it never takes itself too seriously. From “<i>Hooked on a Feeling</i>” to “<i>Ain’t No Mountain High Enough</i>,” I was tapping my toes throughout the film. <br />
<br />
I was surprised by the amount of ribald content in this “family-friendly” Disney movie. Characters parade around in skimpy outfits, make obscene gestures towards one another, and use a fair amount of profanity, including lots of sexual slang and euphemisms. It’s definitely the edgiest of the Marvel superhero films to date.<br />
<br />
At one point, Drax asks Quill what happens next. Quill's response is an unintentional summary of the film: "Something bad. Something good. A little bit of both." <i>Guardians</i> doesn’t raise any important life questions or beg any contemplation or thought. But you won’t care: it’s ridiculously entertaining to watch. Although you’ll probably forget about it moments after leaving the theater.Michaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04508432901960651084noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6016670716867315189.post-88839135997109493812014-08-10T13:31:00.000-07:002014-08-10T15:23:09.507-07:00The Fault in Our Stars (2014)<img height="360" src="https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/S09vuP0P49xOfvkyKPcvArSfywqgjgxELuvMKqJBfJd1Rp26LrFHq_JSxFDBEDuFVlzXlp06pxufYlEqgJ9Eo2IPbGS3K7DqrXCd2SfEjoNd-JaFFDo7yaJRm8yaR_ZDTQ" width="640" /><br />
<br />
<i>"That’s the thing about pain. It demands to be felt."</i><br />
<br />
*<i>Spoilers Ahead*</i><br />
<br />
This, one of the opening lines of <i>The Fault in Our Stars</i>, foreshadows what's in store. It pains—immensely. But amidst the pain there is also purpose. <br />
<br />
Hazel Grace Lancaster (Shailene Woodley) is a cancer patient. She's not in any immediate risk of death, but the stage IV cancer that ravaged her lungs left her severely weakened, her ability to breathe made difficult without the help of a nasal cannula. Augustus Waters (Ansel Elgort) is a cancer survivor. Aside from the fact that he hobbles about on a prosthetic metal leg, his bout with the disease left him mostly unscathed. Hazel and Gus meet at a cancer support group and quickly begin a friendship, bonding over their mutual love for Hazel's favorite book, "<i>An Imperial Affliction</i>." Their friendship quickly deepens and their mutual attraction is apparent. But Hazel, understanding that the experimental drug that is keeping her lungs working will likely fail one day, is hesitant to form any deep relationships in her life. Gus, on the other hand, wants nothing more than to love and be loved.<br />
<br />
Unlike most young adult adaptations that have been recently rushed into theaters, <i>The Fault in Our Stars</i> features no zombies, vampires, werewolves, or dystopian government regimes. Instead, it focuses on the struggles of the hero and heroine who battle with perhaps an even greater foe—the ever-present shadow of death. While experiencing the illness may be unfamiliar to the audience, the struggles wrestled with are widely relatable. Gus grapples with his fear of oblivion, worrying that he will become meaningless in the grand scheme of existence. Hazel fears opening up to others, afraid of committing to love, worried that when the grenade of her life finally explodes all she will leave behind is devastation.<br />
<br />
As the characters grow in affection for each other, they help each other to process their fears. Gus illustrates to Hazel that her emotional isolation deprives her of genuine affection without protecting anybody. In turn, she helps him to come to grips with the fact that his life may never reach Mozart-level proportions of fame.<br />
<br />
Although <i>The Fault in Our Stars</i> stays quite faithful to John Green's novel of the same name, some subplots were omitted—the swing-set sold on Craigslist was the most disappointing—and some of the less tidy elements of the book were trimmed. Gone is the back-story of Gus's previous romance, the tension between Gus and his parents over the trip to Amsterdam, and some of Hazel's darker emotional moments. These omissions make the movie neater, less complicated, but also less realistic, weakening its impact. <br />
<br />
Similar to the novel, the characters are wise beyond their years, precocious in their dialogue. As a result, they sometimes sound too clever for their own good. These portrayals seemed rather unrealistic to me, the dialogue coming off at times as too smart or downright cheesy. Gus places an unlit cigarette between his lips and declares, "It's a metaphor, see: you put the killing thing right between your teeth, but you don't give it the power to do its killing." His lines demonstrate an idealized view of the intellect of youth, the way young people see themselves and truly want to be. But it works for their characters, and as the movie progresses, their clever expressiveness becomes less and less distracting and more endearing. <br />
<br />
Morality is a murky subject in <i>The Fault in Our Stars</i>. Drawing a diagram in the sand, Gus bemoans his virginity. The big circle, he says, represents 18-year-old virgins; inside it is an even tinier one—representing 18-year-old virgins missing a leg. Gus and Hazel's attraction grows and so does their physical intimacy. Hand-holding and hugging soon turn into kissing. And before you know it, both are awkwardly consummating their relationship, a tangle of oxygen tubes and prosthetics. Their encounter begs applause: a cheer for these two imperfect beings finding true love. But beneath the manipulation lies the subtext that sex is fine as long as you're in love. <br />
<br />
The film will make your eyes water, both during its tragic moments and its sweet ones. Hazel eulogizes Gus at his “pre-funeral” with heartbreaking imagery. As she describes their relationship as just a "tiny infinity," she attacks Gus's fears of oblivion head-on. She teaches him that life is not defined by great notoriety or broad public impact. Hazel tells Gus that even the most famous will be forgotten and reminds him that life is defined by those you love and who love you. That is all that will ever last. The message here isn't groundbreaking, but it's told with incredible poignancy. And though there is tragedy, it’s bittersweet. <br />
<br />
<i>The Fault in Our Stars</i> draws you in, forcing you to care about these characters, willing them to find a "happily ever after"—while foreshadowing that this is not meant to be. The pain portrayed on screen is brutally felt by its audience and the film captures this emotion with devastating beauty. You may not feel happy when the credits roll, but you will not feel hopeless. Michaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04508432901960651084noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6016670716867315189.post-13104179751228814992014-07-27T17:01:00.000-07:002014-07-27T17:01:57.662-07:00Boyhood (2014)<i>A maddening masterpiece. </i><br />
<br />
<img src="https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/tbzQm_V5QPmdvSeqKYGgqWB2dB1DAZMXcINgpasCj_-TsIX_2n25t37IE_hfS3IPdHNEwQ5LWWRrvCzanm7TQSBDx8CzwCyP6Z-sQYpZ7eVJMxwk19A3T_1fGKdxMDhraw" /><br />
<br />
<i>I have seen everything that is done under the sun, and behold, all is vanity and a striving after wind.</i> (Ecclesiastes 1:14, ESV)<br />
<br />
<i>Boyhood</i> is the vivid portrayal of the boy Mason’s (Ellar Coltrane) life over twelve years, from five to seventeen. Living with his mother (Patricia Arquette) and unbearable sister, but spending the weekends with his absentee father (Ethan Hawke), Mason watches as his mom falls in and out of love with several new father figures, struggles with the people and places fading in and out of his life, grapples with his own complacency and lack of purpose, and seeks to find meaning in his life.<br />
<br />
<i>Boyhood</i> was long in the making, scenes being shot once a year as Coltrane aged. This fact is, by far, the film’s most impressive offering: it is truly a wonder to watch as Mason grows up on screen, the camera never shying away from his awkward teenage years or his raging acne.<br />
<br />
But because of its twelve years, the film is better described by its process than its plot. It offers little in the way of a cohesive story, following no three-act structure, bouncing around from year to year and happenstance to happenstance, without any real purpose or overall story. Characters are introduced, questions are raised, and scenarios are started. Few of these fragments ever find closure; the one story that does reach an ending becomes one of the movie’s cheesiest scenes, grasping—too late—for the audience’s empathy. While the creativity of <i>Boyhood’s</i> concept offers an outrageous amount of potential, the film never capitalizes on it. By the end, I felt like I'd been watching a documentary, not a movie.<br />
<br />
<div>
<i>Boyhood</i> has its good points. Coltrane shines as Mason in every scene, disappearing into his role. Hawke is phenomenal, and his character’s progression is believable and fascinating. The dialogue is good, always genuine and heartfelt, although unfortunately riddled with strong profanity. There are many story fragments and arcs, some falling flat but others intriguing. The storyline revolving around Mason’s mother’s second husband is the most fascinating; watching Bill transform from occasional drinker to abusive alcoholic is painful, even terrifying, in its realism. The film’s soundtrack is also a highlight. The progression of years is emphasized by the familiar sounds of that year’s hit; from Coldplay’s “<i>Yellow</i>” to Gotye’s “<i>Somebody That I Used to Know</i>” to Arcade Fire’s recent “<i>Deep Blue</i>,” the songs not only encapsulate the mood of the film, but the tenor of the passage of time.<br />
<br />
But for all the good, there was even more bad. Two scenes towards the film’s end illustrated its ultimate hopelessness. In one, Mason, recently heartbroken, asks his father, "What is the point of all this?" His impassioned plea for answers only elicits an "I don't know, son." In the other, Mason’s mother bemoans her son’s departure for college. She wails, "I just thought there would be more!" These scenes illustrate the film’s fatal flaw. While the characters continue to age, they never actually grow. They mature, but never become better. They leave the audience without hope.<br />
<br />
Mason started the movie as a precocious five-year-old who hates school and has no drive or motivation. Despite the many attempts of those around him, Mason ends the movie as an aimless, complacent 17-year-old, still falling trap to the same patterns that plagued him from his childhood. This is probably what the director intended, to demonstrate that sometimes people are duds, their lives never transcending their own mediocrity.<br />
<br />
Watching <i>Boyhood</i> unfold gave me a clear picture of writer and director Richard Linklater’s worldview. In his perception, life doesn’t operate like the movies. Rather, it’s a combination of tiny events—lacking a true conflict or villain—that form a complete life. Hidden behind this premise lies a true hopelessness. Linklater denies any eternal meaning or greater purpose, mocking any contrary position. The various teachers, employers, and relatives who try to encourage Mason, urging him to do more with his life, are shrugged off as foolish or played for laughs—portrayed as redneck hicks pounding Bibles and shooting guns. <i>Boyhood</i> rejects any promise of hope or the thought that there might be something more to life.<br />
<br />
While Linklater’s temporal outlook may have been shared by most of the audience, it presents a problem cinematically. Movies have meaning. Movies have a purpose. Movies give hope. And the reactions of the audience around me demonstrated that they were expecting more. We would gasp when foolish boys engaged in dangerous dares, when Mason recklessly picked up a saw. We would tense when Mason looked at his cell phone—or took a swig from a flask—while driving. We all expected something to happen, but nothing ever did—or at least nothing that left a meaningful impact in the overall scope of the film.<br />
<br />
<i>Boyhood</i> is an undeniable masterpiece—but a messy, maddening one. As the credits rolled, I felt totally empty—frustrated that I had spent almost three hours watching what amounted to total nothingness. The lack of any growth or redemption left me feeling grieved, saddened instead of hopeful. But that was its point: life is empty and meaningless, offering no catharsis to its audience. The film is stuck on its rejection of purpose and meaning, wallowing in its own hopelessness.<br />
<br />
As I tried pinpointing my frustration with the film, Solomon came to mind. He also wrestled with life’s purpose and meaning. But instead of a resigned complacency to hopelessness, Solomon concluded differently: <i>The end of the matter; all has been heard. Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the whole duty of man. For God will bring every deed into judgment, with every secret thing, whether good or evil.</i> (Ecclesiastes 12:13-14, ESV)<br />
<br />
<i>Boyhood</i> rejects this perspective, missing out on the ultimate point of life. Life does have meaning. Life does have purpose. By rejecting this premise, it frustrates and grieves, falling short as both a social commentary and as a film.</div>
Michaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04508432901960651084noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6016670716867315189.post-15086476674785359842014-07-22T19:10:00.000-07:002014-07-22T19:10:08.644-07:00Edge of Tomorrow (2014)<img src="https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/6NjtkWlbpiUGTt7mZHa9Pp_x_7lEQhwTzqc2llBi4kG0jqQTlKDOxPcSEkkCpSphK2nUe7cykiVE1BS5d-1Ukw_U35WZfGT2lRdq-Z90WguYHgeNaysHjsfO1QwlWobFVw" /><br /><br /><i>“Through readiness and discipline we are masters of our fate.”</i><br /><br />A staccato of television news clips and grainy video shows that central Europe has been overrun by a sudden and fast-spreading alien invasion of “Mimics.” When comfort-loving media relations officer for the United Defense Forces Major William Cage (Tom Cruise) reports to western command, he is assigned without reason and despite a lack of specific combat training to take part in the front wave attacks on the French coast. The optimistically-named Operation Downfall is a total failure: the highly adaptable Mimics, several millions of brute many-tentacled creatures with the speed of striking snakes, engulf the legions of soldiers, decimating them. Major Cage’s unit is hit while still in the air and before the troops have drop-landed; the falling hovercraft crushes a war-hungry fellow GI; the soldiers stumble disorientedly through the surf and dunes; and Cage himself is immediately confronted by the Mimics. Scrabbling to the ground, he clumsily manages to set off a personnel mine, surviving only scant seconds on the battlefield before blasting the nearest Mimic into a gory explosion of blood that snuffs out his own life as well.<br /><br />Then he wakes up, to a nightmarish repeat of the catastrophic day. Every insignificant event unfolds exactly as before—the master sergeant’s monologue on the power and beauty of war, the interrupted poker game of the J Squad, his introduction to the soldiers, the deployment and drop—until the bewildered major lands again on the beachhead to helplessly witness the slaughter of his comrades and lock in mortal combat with the inescapable Mimics.<br /><br />Again, again, and again the day repeats, until Cage knows the rhythm of every movement and moment like a macabre choreography, can predict with precision each Mimic as it mechanistically appears and is mechanically mowed down by his weapons, each time surviving a few seconds longer before inexorably falling in the unmitigated massacre. In this hellish cycle of life and quickened death, he comes across the war heroine and mascot of the unified resistance, Sergeant Rita Vrataski (Emily Blunt), and endeavors to extend her life with his short-lived omniscience. But when the shocked Vrataski sees his abilities, she stops fighting and throws her weapon to her feet; above the chop of the hovercraft and the scream of artillery, she shouts out to Cage—“Find me when you wake up”—and is consumed in an explosion.<br /><br />
<i>Edge of Tomorrow</i>’s premise invites comparison to other time loop films, like Bill Murray’s <i>Groundhog Day</i> (1993), but beyond the motif of the repeated day (and a supporting heroine named Rita), similarities are scarce. <i>Groundhog Day</i> suggested a cosmic concern with the protagonist’s self-centeredness and ends redemptively as he finally saves lives and shows genuine concern for others. Conversely, <i>Edge of Tomorrow</i> portrays a naturalistic, uncaring, and almost rigidly deterministic world devoid of any butterfly effect and where every step and misstep can be precisely learned and eventually predicted. Cage’s selection as unwilling hero is pointedly random, and the army’s portrayal as supersoldiers suggests both futuristic power and transcendent impersonality. While Cage does overcome his initial cowardice (“there is no courage without fear,” claims his master sergeant) and dutifully devotes his repeated lifetimes to the salvation of his race, his character only barely evolves rather than experiencing some single moment of metanoia.<br /><br />The film is careful not to repeat sequences unnecessarily, avoiding irritating predictabilities and constantly upending the pace and direction to keep action and plot at a run. The warzone scenes are rapid but not erratic, raining destruction on man, machine, and Mimic alike in a blaze of explosions and rifle fire, but largely avoiding gratuity in the carnage. Cruise is characteristically delightful in both the high-action sequences and in his conversational quips, while also capable of showing a more humane side as Major Cage learns abouts and attempts to save his quirky (and sometimes unlikeable) squad mates, or cares for a wounded Vrataski before sorrowfully failing to shield her, yet again, from a death only he will remember.<br /><br />In a reversal of tradition, it is Vrataski, the female soldier, who fills many of the typically masculine roles in the film: as armored war hero, leader, mentor, protector, and (late in the movie) romantic initiator to the combat-shy media relations officer. When Cage is wounded, Vrataski emotionlessly (and repeatedly) “resets” her acolyte’s day with a bullet—in a manner harshly dissonant to Cage’s later tenderness in her final moments. But the contrast is often subtle in the overall desperation of the film’s war; Vrataski is not the only woman in the predominantly-male military forces, and her relentless warrior ethos perhaps reflects only the dehumanizing potential of war.<br /><br />In any case, the film does not mire in questions of the human condition and our response. In true Cruise fashion, it is fast-paced, exciting, and gloriously (some might say mindlessly) entertaining. While the picture and score engage, it is the plot and characters that drive the story. Only the echoes of its running theme—of a random Joe plucked from the humdrum and suddenly required to weigh questions of age-defying importance—might yet ring in our ears and bid us look beyond a rapturous two hours, past the edge of tomorrow.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6016670716867315189.post-41418006248866122282014-07-16T21:25:00.000-07:002014-07-16T21:25:02.550-07:00Chef (2014) / Begin Again (2014)<i>Are these indie films just buying into a formula?</i><br /><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgtvZeIVMAHclVUUnFbaZ5mvJF1WunFWnLjzq8o48IMfDhVJavmYRoo7PFdsajru4ID9lSGVxu3pdhQxUi5W0LT-1BU3dudBqhlDq2ggxZXszhjyHJiHPupJTUb0VlyLMZxcNQa-aZXAuw/s1600/851433-chef-movie-poster.jpg"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgtvZeIVMAHclVUUnFbaZ5mvJF1WunFWnLjzq8o48IMfDhVJavmYRoo7PFdsajru4ID9lSGVxu3pdhQxUi5W0LT-1BU3dudBqhlDq2ggxZXszhjyHJiHPupJTUb0VlyLMZxcNQa-aZXAuw/s1600/851433-chef-movie-poster.jpg" /></a><br /><br /> Last weekend I saw two movies. Both were critically acclaimed independent films. Both celebrated the awakening of the senses. Both were undeniably enjoyable and worth repeat viewings. But I noticed something else: <br /><br /><i>Both were exactly the same. </i><br /><br />(Mild spoilers follow.)<br /><br /> A cinematic celebration of food, <i>Chef</i> tells the story of Carl Casper (played by Jon Favreau—who also wrote and directed the film), a once-brilliant chef who falls out of grace with his admirers, has an emotional breakdown, and tanks his career in a social media debacle. With the help of his ex-wife (Sofia Vergara) and a generous benefactor (Robert Downey Jr., in a hilarious supporting role), Carl opens a food truck and rekindles his love for good food. And as he drives cross-country, he reconnects with his estranged son. <br /><br /> An ode to good music, <i>Begin Again</i> (directed by John Carney of <i>Once</i> fame) tells the story of Dan (Mark Ruffalo), a once-brilliant music producer who falls out of grace with his business partner, has an emotional meltdown, and tanks his career and future prospects. Through the help of his ex-wife (Catherine Keener) and a generous benefactor (Cee Lo Green), Dan is able to rekindle his love of music by helping recently heartbroken Gretta (Keira Knightley) record an album in the midst of New York City. Oh, yeah...and he repairs his relationship with his estranged daughter.<br /><br /> As I watched these films back to back, I couldn’t help but become frustrated at how truly identical the stories were, even down to the most minute subplots. But while the cinematic tropes rehashed by both these films are common and formulaic, these stories transcend their own predictability to become something truly special. Each of these films feature moments that excite and awaken the senses. An early scene in <i>Chef</i> features Carl making a grilled-cheese sandwich for his son. I was tantalized with the precision by which he buttered the bread, placed the cheese, heated the griddle, and watched attentively as the cheesy delight slowly melted and the bread browned on both sides. It’s a scene that enlivens the tastebuds and demonstrates the true love that the director has for its cinematic <i>plat du jour</i>.<br /><br /> In <i>Begin Again</i>, Gretta sits on a stage in a crowded bar, strumming a guitar and singing one of her new compositions. The patrons in the bar are unimpressed, and, sensing this, Gretta lapses into an ever more soulless performance. But then the scene shifts, replaying from the perspective of a clearly inebriated Dan. He doesn’t hear the solitary guitar or melancholy voice; rather, in his ears, the guitar is joined by invisible musicians in the arrangement: the piano riffing, the high-hats clanging, and the stringed instruments crooning—a mediocre song becoming great in the mind of the rapt listener. <br /><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh9KcQEyD-OXbp-984zSSpQujHs4_LMLO9GWPCEQg4SPGQTdheNwUqNyJZxAOMkNSVxSjCvS4VRXyhSJ48lDIZxIz_z4AkGoNqHH0-QjocVxElawld-5LvUIoMjVovQifgdPwEyJd0_Op0/s1600/Begin-Again-Movie.jpg"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh9KcQEyD-OXbp-984zSSpQujHs4_LMLO9GWPCEQg4SPGQTdheNwUqNyJZxAOMkNSVxSjCvS4VRXyhSJ48lDIZxIz_z4AkGoNqHH0-QjocVxElawld-5LvUIoMjVovQifgdPwEyJd0_Op0/s1600/Begin-Again-Movie.jpg" /></a><br /><br />Music is the focus of <i>Begin Again</i> and the soundtrack does not disappoint. Adam Levine (lead singer of Maroon 5) does a reasonable job in his first acting role and his chart-topping vocal ability is a major addition to the song set—“<i><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vyT-oGDnMqE">Lost Stars</a></i>” and “<i><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQqRX0GC_6I">Step You Can’t Take Back</a></i>” being the standout hits. Similarly, <i>Chef</i> does its job in making its audience ravenous. Dish after dish was filmed with such beauty that my mouth watered the entire time. While the good outweighs the bad, both films aren’t without their demerits. Of biggest issue is the lack of originality: there were no plot twists or character developments that couldn’t be called from a mile away. Apart from that, the only things keeping these films from being friendly to all audiences were the frequent profanities and occasional innuendos. However, these detractions only slightly sour an otherwise perfect movie-going experience.<br /><br /><div>
I remember when an “indie” movie guaranteed originality, unknown names, quirky characters, original plotlines, and a general departure from Hollywood formula. But as independent films become more mainstream, so do the plotlines, actors, characters, and formula. These two movies, watched back to back, painfully illustrate this paradigm shift. Upon close reflection, you may realize that the food is occasionally too salty and processed and that the song is a little too overproduced and familiar. But the predictability (and foul language) aside, both these films will leave you with a sweet taste in your mouth and a song in your heart.</div>
<!-- Blogger automated replacement: "https://images-blogger-opensocial.googleusercontent.com/gadgets/proxy?url=http%3A%2F%2F3.bp.blogspot.com%2F-Kkh1h6JCdGI%2FU8dLuREl0uI%2FAAAAAAAAFvs%2FtrT_6_G36mA%2Fs1600%2FBegin-Again-Movie.jpg&container=blogger&gadget=a&rewriteMime=image%2F*" with "https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh9KcQEyD-OXbp-984zSSpQujHs4_LMLO9GWPCEQg4SPGQTdheNwUqNyJZxAOMkNSVxSjCvS4VRXyhSJ48lDIZxIz_z4AkGoNqHH0-QjocVxElawld-5LvUIoMjVovQifgdPwEyJd0_Op0/s1600/Begin-Again-Movie.jpg" --><!-- Blogger automated replacement: "https://images-blogger-opensocial.googleusercontent.com/gadgets/proxy?url=http%3A%2F%2F3.bp.blogspot.com%2F-lT_7Etsalpw%2FU8dLltnMvlI%2FAAAAAAAAFvk%2FtAkqOQ3KtwA%2Fs1600%2F851433-chef-movie-poster.jpg&container=blogger&gadget=a&rewriteMime=image%2F*" with "https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgtvZeIVMAHclVUUnFbaZ5mvJF1WunFWnLjzq8o48IMfDhVJavmYRoo7PFdsajru4ID9lSGVxu3pdhQxUi5W0LT-1BU3dudBqhlDq2ggxZXszhjyHJiHPupJTUb0VlyLMZxcNQa-aZXAuw/s1600/851433-chef-movie-poster.jpg" -->Michaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04508432901960651084noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6016670716867315189.post-30792406566668646342012-04-03T11:03:00.002-07:002012-04-03T11:03:47.557-07:00The Hunger Games (2012)<b><i>A better-than-average action film thanks to a strong lead, suspenseful pacing, and unsettling themes.</i></b><br /><br /><div style="text-align: center;">
<img src="https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/XQpx2lQ_WLnRKbUuAxcWY6b5ltxIJErB-EEQ_tkMRn7BXIkbWIDXvcVnOUbHUx7AGtqiqX5BxBEsBoXph6xM4BNCgSldXn23dJevhAwnPzlJjJMHBYk" /></div>
<br />I disliked Suzanne Collins’s novel, “The Hunger Games.” I found the plot predictable, the characters paper-thin and the writing style simply terrible. I was ambivalent towards the protagonists and could care less about the outcome. But the film was a different story. The plot, while still predictable, translated incredibly well to screen. The characters were rich, giving me heroes I could root for and a conclusion I cared about. <br /><br /><i>The Hunger Games</i> tells the story of a totalitarian government that, in order to keep its subjects in line, forces each of its districts to send a boy and a girl tribute to compete in a gladiatorial event where all will fight to the death. In District 12, Katniss Everdeen volunteers as tribute, taking the place of her sister. Katniss is thrust into the competition and must not only contend for her life but wrestle with feelings for her male counterpart, Peeta, and her hometown boyfriend, Gale. The film generally stays close to the original plotline but makes a few minor changes which significantly improve on the novel. <br /><br />What I immediately appreciated about the film was its raw emotion. The early moments that Katniss shares with her little sister, Prim, are beautiful. My favorite scene, where Katniss volunteers to take her sister’s place in the games, is heartbreaking. Katniss also shares some short, yet heartfelt, moments with Hunger Games ally Rue. Jennifer Lawrence brings life to the character of Katniss, her eyes conveying depth and maturity. This is not the shallow and annoying character from the book. But other than Katniss, the characters had little development—most evidently, Josh Hutcherson’s Peeta. The scene stealers were Stanley Tucci as Hunger Games emcee and Woody Harrelson as drunken mentor Haymitch. <br /><br />The film raises some interesting questions involving situational ethics, murder, self defense, and rebellion against government. If Katniss is to win the games, she must kill, but should she? The film causes the audience to identify with Katniss and forces them to agonize along with the heroine as she’s forced to make these difficult decisions. Ultimately, the film gives no answers. <br /><br />The shaky, handheld camerawork severely detracted from the film. Shaky cam is a cheap way to [try to] generate excitement. The constant motion was headache-inducing and made it difficult to follow the action at times. This was most evident in the climactic scene with the rabid dogs. The camera shook and jumped about so much it was difficult to follow the action on screen, causing annoyance. Instead of bolstering suspense, it diminished it. <br /><br />James Newton Howard’s score stood out as painfully generic. The cues are lifeless and there’s nothing new or creative. It’s a disappointing offering from one of cinema’s greatest composers. <br /><br />The violence is this film’s only cautionary element; there’s very little in the way of bad language and no sexual content. But, unlike most films, the violence is never glorified or even cathartic. Many violent films produce catharsis, for example, at the death of a villain, at the moment of perfectly executed vengeance or when a character gets what’s coming to them. This is not the case here. The participants in the Hunger Games are forced to kill, and only a small minority of participants relish this fact. The characters never revel in the killing, nor does the audience. There is no glee in these deaths, only sadness. Tribute after tribute falls to the violence, and while the fatalities are not graphic, they are haunting. The brutality of the film stuck with me for hours after the end credits. <br /><br />This is the rare film that drastically improves upon its source material (although that’s not saying much). The story works much better on film, due mostly to its solid pacing and strong acting by its lead. The film has some flaws, mostly its shaky camera, a few weak performances, occasionally weak dialogue and generic score but provides two and a half hours of escapist entertainment. Happy Hunger Games, everyone.Michaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04508432901960651084noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6016670716867315189.post-58732514677522680832012-02-13T11:29:00.000-08:002012-02-13T11:29:06.351-08:002011 Best Pictures in Few WordsFor six years, an R-rated film has won the Best Picture award, and since 2005 at least 60% of nominees were rated R (100% in 2006 and 2008). But this year only one of the nine nominees is rated R. The R-rated hopefuls of the year were almost entirely overlooked in favor of mostly-“clean” PG-13 and PG films.
<br />
<br />
We now review, in short, the Best Picture nominees that we’ve seen (so far).
<br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj3XCpz5XY8fnI3k4SJnOSHyXEH7pFRQbsZSS0JV5MKwlJ3IosYE25pkWR2kQ-9ylJqz4DhVdji7qELszLxz6zDUEOBdAioXruA0mKEo0bkZ9HlSB3uSZumqgLrBpYLyAEog07vo3gcKCc/s1600/midnight-in-paris-movie-poster.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj3XCpz5XY8fnI3k4SJnOSHyXEH7pFRQbsZSS0JV5MKwlJ3IosYE25pkWR2kQ-9ylJqz4DhVdji7qELszLxz6zDUEOBdAioXruA0mKEo0bkZ9HlSB3uSZumqgLrBpYLyAEog07vo3gcKCc/s200/midnight-in-paris-movie-poster.jpg" /></a>
<br />
<b><a href="http://silverscreeners.blogspot.com/2011/09/midnight-in-paris-2011.html">Midnight in Paris</a></b>
<br />
<br />
A struggling writer is transported back into artistically-inspiring 1920s Paris, where he meets a pretty girl and must choose between past and present. Owen Wilson’s constantly whiny delivery makes an otherwise excellent film unbearable.
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: right;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjYIb4s2LUhZs4Sw532ybGA8A4gyofUHEwd6zoCBoIQyecyYzBModIsntj7o7B_IjvFqW2pLTMER-qegiUwihVF6TCco4_AaizKgt4_3nrAPShhOf7R4HKG7KLk3MChpiDm5nUOo595lc8/s1600/the-tree-of-life_510.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjYIb4s2LUhZs4Sw532ybGA8A4gyofUHEwd6zoCBoIQyecyYzBModIsntj7o7B_IjvFqW2pLTMER-qegiUwihVF6TCco4_AaizKgt4_3nrAPShhOf7R4HKG7KLk3MChpiDm5nUOo595lc8/s200/the-tree-of-life_510.jpg" /></a>
<br />
<b>The Tree of Life</b>
</div>
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
A mother seeks answers from God about her son’s death and a brother seeks to connect with his Creator. Half-hour interludes filled with nothing but music and scenery will either bore or enrapture in this incredible film.
</div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiN1G-43NtWxlpdUwxkpSgKd3bLQZtsoQwYxHN70-Hucj9wiUxMpimnTPyjqVdEyF4lv23E5RQ3UUM-cGEMPNJZ7rNHcLhsdEFpZS31UMCvCjK3kV5p9judoFbOqPCI_Wzohk6LLl8fqRk/s1600/The-Help-poster-550x814.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiN1G-43NtWxlpdUwxkpSgKd3bLQZtsoQwYxHN70-Hucj9wiUxMpimnTPyjqVdEyF4lv23E5RQ3UUM-cGEMPNJZ7rNHcLhsdEFpZS31UMCvCjK3kV5p9judoFbOqPCI_Wzohk6LLl8fqRk/s200/The-Help-poster-550x814.jpg" /></a>
<br />
<b><a href="http://silverscreeners.blogspot.com/2011/09/help-2011.html">The Help</a></b>
<br />
<br />
A spunky young Southerner seeks to stop segregation and racism by writing a book from the perspective of the servants. Spot-on scripting, award-worthy performances and some delicious comedy make this a must-see.
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: right;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiNR_O-C2LsEHEj8cGws_PiJ3LdP2qz7C6gSpem-mXf5WHmIhs4pNreE907f9X8ilr8i_zT3fo85Y0o6sMalDas6kWaBHQTIC2zVzwrCLCyr4d-gcWnFJiE6gnnHRSDqiVpgTRd3SgtvOU/s1600/moneyball-movie-poster-02-550x814.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiNR_O-C2LsEHEj8cGws_PiJ3LdP2qz7C6gSpem-mXf5WHmIhs4pNreE907f9X8ilr8i_zT3fo85Y0o6sMalDas6kWaBHQTIC2zVzwrCLCyr4d-gcWnFJiE6gnnHRSDqiVpgTRd3SgtvOU/s200/moneyball-movie-poster-02-550x814.jpg" /></a>
<br />
<b><a href="http://silverscreeners.blogspot.com/2011/11/moneyball-2011.html">Moneyball</a></b>
</div>
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
A losing Oakland Athletics team decides to revolutionize baseball by playing the odds instead of good looks, and pulls out shocking wins. A lack of heart and interesting characters keeps this true story from hitting a home run.
</div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhQ0n06iYQXhdP79tUDnO2qBqN1eHE10q0B6Fpz2uym_q6LZMQQsA1at72eZD0ncD-BT76xdiShyB8kejbTzE9YO0Gf5n_Qjhme5oh6EtZNUR7HmxZWdn3QSsCm-weI7RXAIyLT-AHjR6w/s1600/the-descendants-movie-poster.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhQ0n06iYQXhdP79tUDnO2qBqN1eHE10q0B6Fpz2uym_q6LZMQQsA1at72eZD0ncD-BT76xdiShyB8kejbTzE9YO0Gf5n_Qjhme5oh6EtZNUR7HmxZWdn3QSsCm-weI7RXAIyLT-AHjR6w/s200/the-descendants-movie-poster.jpg" /></a>
<br />
<b>The Descendants</b>
<br />
<br />
A father seeks to reconnect with his daughters after finding out that his now-comatose wife had been cheating on him. Outstanding performances, redemptive story, and stellar, albeit profane, scripting make this a favorite.
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: right;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhbm2hYrC4Op8rpPuk5fAHkdJSppV0ofKQhhtvbxQJgDh6HBOmBOTTJE4WzcB6ezKN8vOtu5u_60Xmud_APcKbvOS9HxaIpcgPhQnflCgZgHlr0g3kNZ8MIRs4tJMjk1WN3uq7UIIiagYE/s1600/hugo_movie_poster.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhbm2hYrC4Op8rpPuk5fAHkdJSppV0ofKQhhtvbxQJgDh6HBOmBOTTJE4WzcB6ezKN8vOtu5u_60Xmud_APcKbvOS9HxaIpcgPhQnflCgZgHlr0g3kNZ8MIRs4tJMjk1WN3uq7UIIiagYE/s200/hugo_movie_poster.png" /></a>
<br />
<b>Hugo</b>
</div>
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
A young boy lives in a Paris train station where he encounters film legends, cute girls and angry constables. A truly gorgeous film with brilliant direction but weak where it really counts with story and character.
</div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi5uElAfWjVyVk1LxwfG2yIGqD8zVRNeevWlSzvY7u_CEtYEY-1FLaosEnAJgtlYlJc0M4r6joGxKWKgsErCxO3Trv8uc4uK0qqen7GLkyAuxqbDmFbdqpQIpIvbB7wnTKgeZlSEqkbp5U/s1600/the+artist+poster.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi5uElAfWjVyVk1LxwfG2yIGqD8zVRNeevWlSzvY7u_CEtYEY-1FLaosEnAJgtlYlJc0M4r6joGxKWKgsErCxO3Trv8uc4uK0qqen7GLkyAuxqbDmFbdqpQIpIvbB7wnTKgeZlSEqkbp5U/s200/the+artist+poster.jpg" width="135" /></a><br />
<b>The Artist</b><br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
An egotistical silent-movie star copes with the loss of fame and fortune as “talking pictures” captivate Hollywood. This daring silent film overflows with nostalgia and boasts a dramatic but heartwarming story and gorgeous soundtrack. It’s this year’s Oscar front-runner. <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br /></div>Michaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04508432901960651084noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6016670716867315189.post-13284611307731946312012-01-12T08:36:00.000-08:002012-01-12T08:36:53.424-08:00Angels & Demons (2009)<b><i>Provoking dialogues and beautiful settings enhance a constantly twisting plot and great action. </i></b><br />
<div>
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<img src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/k8Jg-E-O0WmTI35xnObREodeA2giqXPp9eibTPosKRsmimrPdfh93mFnImslILAT1YdtywC7lQuvRdE9GNtKhp7XfiKR98aGv4mJyZb38YdtOHu30Yk" /></div>
<br />
When I first saw advertisements for <i>Angels & Demons</i>, I completely wrote it off. I hated <i>The</i> <i>Da Vinci Code </i>and a sequel held no interest for me. At the urging of a friend, however, I rented it. I’m glad I did. <i>Angels & Demons</i> is nothing like its predecessor, replacing the troublesome theological themes with thought-provoking commentary and the poor film-making with taut pacing and direction. <br />
<br />
The pope has died and the College of Cardinals has congregated in the Sistine Chapel to appoint a new Holy Father. When the Preferiti (the top choices for pope) are kidnapped and Vatican City is put under threat of destruction, the Swiss Guard turn to Robert Langdon for help. Langdon is swept into a world of intrigue, lies and secret societies—less than eight hours to rescue the kidnapped priests from death and stop an explosion that will destroy Vatican City. On his quest, Langdon uncovers a conspiracy permeating the highest echelon of Vatican hierarchy and realizes that he can trust no one. <br />
<br />
The plot reminded me greatly of (while far surpassing) <i>National Treasure</i>. There are riddles to solve, treasures to hunt, betrayals by close allies and a completely shocking twist ending. Yes, it’s often ridiculous and preposterous but the film is so entertaining that there’s no time to think about how far-fetched it is. The characterization is strong; each player is constantly ambiguous as to motive and allegiance, making the whodunit a continuous guessing game.<br />
<br />
The cast as a whole did a fine job. Ewan McGregor delivered an outstanding performance as the Camerlengo. The character was kind and wise and I immediately rooted for him. I also greatly enjoyed Stellan Skarsgaard, commander of the Swiss Guard. His character was vague and suspicious—I was never sure which side he was on. Tom Hanks was unusually average as Langdon; there was nothing at all special about his performance. <br />
<br />
Hans Zimmer has no trouble churning out great action themes. The main theme was a reimagining of <i>Chevaliers De Sangreal</i> from the first film. Zimmer fleshed out the cue with rousing violin solos from the talented Joshua Bell. Much of the soundtrack added suspense with high strings, low bass and pounding drums. It’s great both with and apart from the movie. <br />
<br />
The cinematography is amazing, highlighting some of the most famous sights in Rome and Vatican City. The setting is perfectly suited to wide sweeping panoramas and the filmmakers took full advantage of the beauty of both locales. The action scenes were also well filmed, exciting while never jumpy or confusing. An enormous explosion towards the end of the film was stunning. <br />
<br />
Another great thing about this film is that there is incredibly little bad language and no sexual content. It’s rated for violence which was, at times, graphic and grotesque. Probably most troubling for many about <i>The Da Vinci Code</i> was the one-sided view of religion, targeting especially God, Jesus, Christianity, and Catholicism. While none of these escape the film unscathed, God is not so much attacked as is man’s view of Him. Cardinal Strauss left me with a profound thought: “Religion is flawed, but only because man is flawed. All men. Even this one." <br />
<br />
Like all men, <i>Angels & Demons</i> is also flawed, mostly because of average acting, sometimes clunky dialogue and a preposterous plot. But these flaws are insubstantial while watching the film—you’ll be too caught up in finding out what happens next. The mystery kept me guessing, the action kept me on the edge of my seat, and the themes kept my mind engaged. I was surprised to enjoy this one as much as I did. Recommended.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>Michaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04508432901960651084noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6016670716867315189.post-89628633112061319412012-01-01T21:18:00.000-08:002012-01-03T18:16:07.850-08:00The Secret World of Arrietty (2012)<b><i>Magical, fanciful and sweet.</i></b><br />
<div>
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<img src="https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/pUbtPJYrCnranREmTmjU4X7zvijtBQthWzAeS8uicO3i-UsdnSaWdJDRAnlPsyFRFga39xL_wRxvoyMCwpJVZ_Z90pWLMFlosZBO9mwKnrPsSKlsUtA" /></div>
<br />
<i>Arrietty</i> marks my first journey into the world of anime, and I’ll definitely be making a return trip. The film has already been released in Japan and the UK, to massive critical acclaim, and will be released in the US later this year. I had the great privilege of attending an advance screening of the American version and I immensely liked what I saw. <br />
<br />
<i>The Secret World of Arrietty</i> (loosely based on “The Borrowers”) tells the story of a family of miniature people that lives under the floorboards of a residence. At night, the little people venture out into the dangerous world of human beings to “borrow” things that nobody will miss—a cube of sugar, a tissue, or a small strand of thread. Arrietty violates her parent’s wishes and befriends a young human boy, Sean, living in the house above. When the boy’s caretakers find out about the little people, they will stop at nothing to capture them. <br />
<br />
There’s not a whole lot going on with this narrative, no shocking twists, no crazy subplots, but the story is charming and the ending managed to be different than I expected. The interactions between the characters is innocent and sweet and the film hearkens back to a more classic age of animation—an age with no pop-culture jokes, no crude comments, and no sexual references, just kindness and love. <br />
<br />
Arrietty and Sean share some beautiful dialogues about the purpose of friendship, family and life. Their conversations are touching and emotional, tugging—though not manipulatively—upon the heartstrings. The rest of the supporting characters are, unfortunately, one-dimensional; more character development would have really improved the film. I was also irritated by the decision to redub the dialogue with American actors. Their voices didn’t fit the characters (with the exception of Arrietty) and they distracted from the story. <br />
<br />
The animation is superb. Having never before seen a full-length anime feature, I had no idea what to expect. The vivid animation captured my imagination. The character detail was often minimalistic, but this only added to the vibrancy of the film. The rich colors of Arrietty’s world dazzled my eyes with stunning backgrounds and settings, evidencing meticulous attention to detail. The animators tell the story from the perspective of tiny Arrietty and there are some inventive visuals that reflect this—stamps being used as wall paintings, a pin as a sword, tissues as blankets. The animation is gorgeous and inventive and the film is worth seeing just to appreciate its artistry. <br />
<br />
I was also blown away by the sound mixing. Recorded from the perspective of our miniature heroine, the sounds of the human world are magnified, making the giant universe seem menacing, daunting and unknown. The sound of each raindrop is amplified exponentially and ambient noise, such as the hum of a refrigerator, is magnified to near-deafening levels. It’s an experience worth hearing. <br />
<br />
Also worth hearing is the perfectly fitting soundtrack. The delightful piano and harp-driven score is punctuated with riffs of acoustic guitar and airy strings. The score is also mixed with original songs written by Cécile Corbel, French-Breton singer and Celtic harpist. Her vocals fit seamlessly in with her soundtrack and add a fanciful, magical feel to the film. <br />
<br />
<i>The Secret World of Arrietty</i> is a beautiful film. The storyline is shallow but it’s sweet and heartfelt. The film features some incredible animation, creative sound mixing and an outstanding soundtrack. Watching this movie is a real treat and one that shouldn’t be missed.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>Michaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04508432901960651084noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6016670716867315189.post-28548080444866221502012-01-01T20:44:00.000-08:002012-01-01T20:44:16.035-08:00Carnage (2011)<b><i>Relentless bickering makes it awkward to watch and hard to stomach.</i></b><div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<img src="https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/8ynHVgvpiO5zJ1fAaACBUKwhgD3rVKH2jyp53AGQyJ-6hV0h-5MMYvXNPPJVABnS-J8iPxbePwF4KEkYydd2j3jGr3YNfiMzcSD0Uyb5y5Eo8bJ5GkU" /><br /><br />I had a childhood friend whose parents would constantly argue. I would go over to his house and feel intensely awkward watching these altercations unfold. And that’s exactly what director Roman Polanski forces us to do: watch people fight. Even with the enjoyable dark, subversive humor, this movie made me uncomfortable. It’s an interesting movie to watch, but not a fun movie to enjoy. <br /> <br />Based on the play “God of Carnage,” <i>Carnage</i> tells the story of couples Alan and Nancy, and Michael and Penelope. Their sons brawled leaving Michael and Penelope’s boy with two missing teeth and some potentially serious nerve damage. As a show of good faith, Michael and Penelope invite Alan and Nancy over to determine a rational solution and restitution. Alan and Nancy defend their son while Michael and Penelope demand punishment for the harm he’s caused. Soon their friendly meeting turns into a full-out brannigan. <br /> <br />The film feels less like a film and more like a play. It takes place at one location and features only four on-screen characters. The shots are often extended, giving time for the actors to really have at each other. The film moves at a brisk pace, clocking in at only 75 minutes. Honestly, I was glad it wasn’t longer. I could only handle so much of the verbal fracas and towards the end of the film, it began to feel tedious. But this tedium was countered by four outstanding performances, a snappy script and some genuinely hilarious moments.<br /> <br />Christoph Waltz and Kate Winslet play Alan and Nancy, the uppercrust couple whose son did the attacking. John C. Reilly and Jodie Foster play Michael and Penelope, the parents of the attacked. Even in the short time the cool facades are erased, the dark inner characters slowly revealed. The dialogue is quick and the back-and-forth never feels overly scripted. The interactions are organic and watching the film gives you the feeling you’re a fly on the wall in these people’s lives. <br /><br />But is it something you really want to see? I suppose it is a tribute to the filmmakers that the film does feel so awkward. This was obviously their intent: making everyone uncomfortable at the shenanigans taking place on the screen. But the result isn’t fun; it’s painful and shamelessly embarrassing.<br /> <br />There are some hilarious moments that lend much-needed comic relief. The humor was good but I wouldn’t have minded even more. Running gags about an abandoned hamster, fruit cobbler and an incessantly ringing cell phone were truly hysterical. Some of the funniest gags involve the chaos that ensues as the delicate Nancy becomes increasingly, and explosively, sick after sampling Penelope’s most prized recipe. <br /><br />While there’s no sexual content or violence, the film earns its R rating with strong profanity. As the argument escalates, so does the language. Towards the end of the film, the obscenities fly in a constant barrage. The coarse verbiage fits the characters as their true, despicable natures are revealed. <br /><br /><i>Carnage</i> is an interesting little art-house film. It makes the audience feel awkward by forcing them to watch an intense hour-long fight. By the end, it had become tedious and I’d had enough. It is somewhat redeemed by outstanding performances, snappy dialogue and genuine hilarity and great chemistry between the characters. It’s a well made film, I just didn’t particularly love it. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>Michaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04508432901960651084noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6016670716867315189.post-60197688162531878202011-12-30T11:44:00.000-08:002011-12-30T11:44:50.084-08:00Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows (2011)<b><i>Die-hard Doyle fans will be miffed, but the acting, synergy and action make it great.</i></b><br /><br /><img height="403" src="https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/mLggFk20bQ-M9Ila349Uw_5exO1zE4IvXWGkkpElfBRIueTKS8041tl6KiQsdx78o7fXrQOLAq0axn3QWxuTl-xK4MtekiMnz6RXoLJmky2rwoo3WWU" width="640" /><br /><br />Were Sir Arthur Conan Doyle alive today, I’m sure he would hate the film adaptations of his mystery classics. Unlike Doyle’s subdued and contemplative Holmes, this Holmes, while equally brilliant, is brash, violent and more action star than investigator. Fans of the novels will find this film frustrating, a caricaturization of a beloved hero, streamlined and beefed up for a modern generation. But for those who don’t care, or who can simply pretend it’s not really a Sherlock Holmes story, it’s a supremely fun and surprisingly deep film. <br /><br />In <i>A Game of Shadows</i>, Sherlock Holmes investigates a random series of bombings around Europe. Anarchist groups are blamed, but Sherlock suspects a deeper conspiracy, revolving around Professor Moriarty. Holmes dons multiple disguises, interrupts Watson’s honeymoon, teams up with a gypsy woman and travels around the world to stop Moriarty. If Sherlock fails, Moriarty will unleash terror upon the entire world. <br /><br />The filmmakers took some really good risks with the plot, killing off key characters early on. I was kept guessing the whole time, unsure how the mystery would play out. While more a globe-trotting adventure than a typical Sherlock mystery, there are still some signature elements that are reminiscent of its source material. As always, Sherlock’s wit is sharp and his powers of observation keen. Through the wonder of cinema and creative camera tactics, I was let in on Holmes’s deductive processes allowing me to share in his “AHA!” moments.<br /><br />The plot is bolstered by great performances and witty dialogue. Robert Downey, Jr.’s Holmes and Jude Law’s Watson exude personality and their perfect on-screen synergy results in many hilarious exchanges. But the real show-stealers are the interactions between Holmes and Moriarty (excellently portrayed by <i>Mad Men’s</i> Jared Harris). The final showdown between the two is riveting, as much a battle of wits as a battle of strength, their minds so alike, yet one completely evil and one unabashedly good. The constant repartee between the characters elevates this movie above a typical action film. <br /><br />But the action scenes are also very good. There are loads of chases, gunfights and explosions. Some of these scenes are a bit jumpy and hard to follow, but they are still exciting and fun to watch. Holmes demonstrates his prowess at hand-to-hand combat in an early scene, taking on four huge thugs. While typically this would seem absurdly unrealistic, Holmes’s narration demonstrates that with a little observation, dispatching these men is effortless. <br /><br />The look and feel of the Holmes films is quite unique. The color palette is dark, hued in blues and greys. It’s a perfect fit for the European setting, giving everything a brooding, Gothic feel. Director Guy Ritchie did a fine job giving the film its own style, unlike any other action film I’ve seen. <br /><br />Hans Zimmer’s <i>Sherlock Holmes</i> theme is perhaps his most bizarre and original composition. Game of Shadows adds in additional cues, mostly quick-paced gypsy numbers. It’s a fun and catchy soundtrack guaranteed to get stuck in your head. <br /><br />There are a few cautions preventing a blanket recommendation. In an intensely awkward scene, a character walks around naked, his delicate areas only mostly covered by well-placed props. Apart from that, there is violence, a few mild profanities, some double entendres and cross-dressing (played for laughs). <br /><br /><i>Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows</i> is an exceedingly entertaining film that surpasses the first. It’s the complete package of great plot, character, dialogue and action. It’s not your typical Sherlock Holmes story, but it works well. Should you see this one? The answer is...elementary. <div>
<br /></div>Michaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04508432901960651084noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6016670716867315189.post-53145333289171720232011-12-01T09:50:00.001-08:002011-12-01T09:52:41.999-08:00The Debt (2011)<i><b>A stressful spy thriller with more than enough plot, character and action.</b></i><br />
<br />
<img height="384" src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/RreINs3S9D1exs0JnE-9MN-ieosFhCd5Q8O8Mn-3ygSHLKpHXdvenf5yqZEY-hupRJeeRYa-79ItIOv7a9F-ks6Fi9Yar_MShWpfFDaOBnhRYpSagU8" width="640" /><br />
<br />
If a movie can stress me out, it’s done a good job. Stress denotes my undivided attention and apprehension at the film’s unexpectedness and unpredictability. I can honestly say that <i>The Debt</i> raised my stress levels to dangerous proportions, providing one of the most exciting and suspenseful rides I’ve had at the movies in quite some time. <br />
<br />
<i>The Debt</i> tells the story of three Mossad agents, Stephan, David and Rachel, sent to kidnap and extradite Doktor Bernhardt, brutal killer of Jews in World War II. But the kidnapping is irreparably botched, the mission is compromised and, while waiting for new orders, the agents are forced to keep the doctor hostage in their apartment. While in captivity, the monstrous doctor spews anti-semitic hate, subversively getting into the agents’ heads and under their skin. The mental and emotional strain of the situation pushes them over the brink of sanity. Disastrous decisions are made, ones that will haunt them for the next thirty years. Now, in the present, Stephan, David and Rachel are forced to confront their past and right their wrongs. <br />
<br />
The story is riveting, shifting seamlessly between flashbacks and present day action. The intricate plot forced me to pay close attention in order to catch the nuances and subtexts. Several times I thought that I had the film figured out and, without fail, each time something completely shocking would happen. I was immersed in the film’s world from the opening titles and could only breathe a sigh of relief when the credits rolled. It was an unrelenting ride filled with constant stress. <br />
<br />
The dialogue was gritty and real, deepening the characters and given great weight by the strong performers delivering it. A subplot involving a love triangle is perfectly balanced with the rest of the plot, never overshadowing the characters or the story. My favorite scene of the film, set against the soothing sounds of Beethoven’s ‘Moonlight Sonata,’ portrays the agony (and ecstasy) of the agents as they sort through their emotions for each other. <br />
<br />
Jessica Chastain stands out amongst this stellar cast, delivering a powerhouse performance as Rachel. Helen Mirren perfectly captures the Rachel of the present, and the usual continuity pitfalls of different actors portraying the same character are completely avoided. The same can be said, although to a slightly lesser degree, for the other leads. The teams of Worthington/Hinds and Csokas/Wilkinson are great as David and Stephan, young and old. <br />
<br />
As usual, Thomas Newman’s signature cadence and choice of instruments borders on unoriginal. Regardless, the lack of creativity doesn’t detract and the score works well in the film, ratcheting up the stress levels with loud and repetitive drum beats. <br />
<br />
The film easily earns its R rating with language, violence and sexuality. The language is strong, exclamatory and harsh and the violence is brutal, even though never graphically shown. There are two scenes of implied sex and an extended and disturbing scene involving a gynecological exam. While there is no nudity, the scene feels intrusive and invasive.<br />
<br />
This film stressed me out. It’s completely unpredictable, unbearably suspenseful and unquestionably brilliant. It’s well plotted, well scripted, incredibly acted and beautifully shot. It’s cautions are few, but significant in areas of strong language, brutal violence, disturbing scenes and sexual content. It’s a nail-biting, white-knuckle thriller and one I can’t wait to see again and again. You owe it to yourself to see this movie. <br />
<br />Michaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04508432901960651084noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6016670716867315189.post-3697498827796628292011-11-21T23:40:00.001-08:002011-11-21T23:55:02.955-08:00Real Steel (2011)<b><i>Another forgettable and painfully predictable sports movie.</i></b><br />
<div>
<b><i><br /></i></b><img height="298" src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/Q5LbVTq6m9ahO34WB5mbWgtwZr9dn3f8LHsX-5pti9F18a77Ct_PfuVvU0iET2MZsG9jo6fLGmJFITi3yLnYmiKqYG5AYXTphhqUBDA3uRI8fEudess" width="640" /><br />
<br />
Formulaic sports films upset me. There aren’t any surprises, unexpected twists, deep plot points that require concentration—just two hours rooting for the underdog, leading up to a completely predictable conclusion. To make matters worse, as a general rule the more inevitable the plot, the more predictable the scenes, and the more uplifting the ending, the less cinematic the film. That’s the case here. Any attempts at bucking the formula in favor of cinematic greatness are completely absent leaving the audience with an occasionally entertaining, but incredibly mediocre, film. <br />
<br />
In the futuristic world of <i>Real Steel</i>, human boxing has been abandoned in favor of mechanical pugilism. It’s more violent, more intense and each round ends with more carnage. Former champion boxer Charlie Kenton is a small-time promoter, building and fighting scrap robots. His luck is bad and his gambling debts are piling up. When Charlie is forced to take custody of his 11-year-old son, Max, he sees this as only another liability. But when Max finds a sparring robot named Atom, he convinces Charlie to book Atom a fight. Against all bets, Atom wins. Charlie sees this as his chance at a comeback, and an opportunity to rebuild his relationship with his son.<br />
<br />
The plot is as expected—obvious, the outcome of each scene determined at its outset. The father-son storyline was cute, sometimes even touching, but there were never any surprises. Bad father-son relationship at the beginning; family harmony at the end. The sports scenes were the same, the result of each round a sure bet before the ring of the starting bell. <br />
<br />
Hugh Jackman isn’t a great actor. Yet there’s something about him that makes him an instant hero. Even when Charlie was still a loser, I couldn’t help but cheer for him. His charm made up for his lack of talent. Evangeline Lilly, on the other hand…not so much. Her acting was robotic, lifeless and pathetic; her character felt forced and fake. Young Dakota Goyo was cheeky as Max, but the character was such a brat that I couldn’t really stand watching him. The acting is paltry, reflecting the overall quality of the film.<br />
<br />
To be fair, the actors had little to work with, script-wise. The dialogue was populated by countless platitudes and clichés—typical sports movie fare. But the incessant corniness made the exchanges painful to listen to. All the dialogue was devoid of any nuance, talking down to its audience by explaining every single detail. <br />
<br />
As is the case with most sports films, the sports scenes were the most anticipated and the most exciting. <i>Real Steel</i> doesn’t disappoint in this area. Underdog Atom rises to fame in glorious and inspiring fashion. The robot boxing scenes are beautifully made with special effects so lifelike, the robots could actually be real. But these scenes were too few and far between, spread out over two hours of unbearable filler. <br />
<br />
One surprise was the fact that this film, marketed towards families, featured frequent profanity. The language was never strong, but it was regular, salty and crude. More surprising is that much of the bad language was uttered by the 11-year-old protagonist. The inclusion of such crudities was likely an attempt to ratchet up the rating in order to attract older teens and adults.<br />
<br />
Like a boxer who only knows one punch, <i>Real Steel</i> has one strength: robot boxing. But take away these scenes and all that’s left is a weak story, pathetic acting, awful dialogue and a disappointing score. The film is a piece of cinematic trash at its worst, a guilty pleasure-waste of two hours at best. Not worth the waste of time. </div>Michaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04508432901960651084noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6016670716867315189.post-67003083464198093402011-11-10T11:18:00.001-08:002011-11-10T11:20:03.609-08:00Moneyball (2011)<b><i>It lacks the human touch that would have made it great. </i></b><div>
<b><i><br /><div style="text-align: center;">
<img height="424" src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/Clf3ae41FsuAloCwo-Nh64alykx0AqajnaXsfLZYMeWZsm81WNc7H3sTxtIJNyy2X8s7oASNafXQgjsZRQfJ09NC1WIo59_ZGfnekLvpckWuDtLM2oI" style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal;" width="640" /></div>
</i></b><br />He hits the ball, hard, into center field. His habit is to always stop at first but, in the moment, he rounds the bag, running to second. He’s horrified as his worst fear is realized. He’s slipped and fallen, sliding in the dirt. In a panic, he writhes on the ground, arms extended, reaching for the safety of the white first-base bag. As he desperately scrambles for first, he hears the basemen laughing at him. He’d hit a home run and he didn’t even know it. <br /><br />So goes the story of Billy Beane, General Manager of the Oakland Athletics. His revolutionary methods changed the way baseball is played forever. Yet, while the world recognized his greatness, he couldn’t see it. He lamented his failures, unable to see he’d hit a home run. <br /><br />The A’s of the 2002 season are losers. They have a small budget and their three biggest stars have just left for more prestigious ball clubs. Billy becomes increasingly frustrated with his coaching staff, the managers crudely evaluating possible new players. But when Billy meets Peter Brandt, the game changes. Peter suggests a new type of tactic, a roster focused less on appearance and appeal and more on the ability to drive in runs. Baseball is, after all, a game of statistics. Billy and Peter assemble their motley crew of misfit ball players and are met with skepticism, mockery and scorn. But the A’s, against everyone's expectations, start winning. <br /><br />By all statistical measurements, this film should have been great—inspirational true story, great cast, sports scenes, family turmoil and drama. By all odds, it should have been a winner. But it wasn’t great. In fact, it was barely average. The reason for this? The film failed to connect with my heart. I never felt inspired by or attached to the lives of the characters. Even when the drama escalated, Billy finding it increasingly difficult to manage a team and maintain a relationship with his daughter, I felt detached. Even when the film tried to further deepen Billy’s character by sporadic flashbacks, highlighting his failed career as a player, I never felt involved. <br /><br />The acting and characterization were strong but, at times, I didn’t believe the actors. Brad Pitt seldom was Billy Beane. I never connected with him or the others on an emotional level. Frankly, I didn’t really care. Compared to Aaron Sorkin’s last, Oscar-winnining screenplay for <i>The Social Network</i>, this one flagged. I wished that, as in <i>The Social Network</i>, the characters would have been stronger, the dialogue snappier and the comedic interludes not so far apart. The interplays between Billy and Peter are heartfelt, sometimes amusing, but still they neglected the personal touch that the film so desperately needed. <br /><br />For a sports film, <i>Moneyball</i> spends little time on the field. Instead, much of the screen time is given to statistical figures flashing across the screen. But the time spent showing America’s pastime is worth the wait. Highly stylized, well scored and beautifully choreographed sequences give an ethereal feeling to the game. The lighting during these sequences stood out, a perfect example of modern chiaroscuro. Only these scenes provided the desired sports film catharsis I longed for. I couldn’t resist rooting for the underdog A’s. Truly, these were the only scenes that really made me care. <br /><br /><i>Moneyball</i> never hits a home run. It has strong characters, a solid, inspirational story and some great sports action; statistically speaking, this film should have been great. But without characters or dialogue that make the audience care, it’s only average.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>Michaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04508432901960651084noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6016670716867315189.post-3287538953236026322011-10-27T21:35:00.000-07:002011-10-28T12:10:17.827-07:00Puss in Boots (2011)<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<b><i>Puss gets his own film, but can't carry it. </i></b></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<b><i><br />
</i></b></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<img border="0" height="310" src="http://thepeoplesmovies.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/pnbootscrop.jpg" width="640" /></div>
<br />
I was initially interested in <i>Puss in Boots</i> because of my love for the <i>Shrek</i> franchise (or at least the first two films), but the trailer looked pretty painful. Sadly, the trailer does the film justice. Its art and animation are its only strengths. <br />
<br />
Puss teams up with former partner Humpty Dumpty and the seductive Kitty Softpaws to steal magic beans, grow a beanstalk, ride the beanstalk up to the castle in the clouds and steal some golden eggs, making them forever rich. Along the way they encounter adventure, revenge and romance as well as a host of marauding outlaws, vicious beasts and an angry monster. <br />
<br />
As I was watching, it became apparent that <i>Puss in Boots</i> hoped to ride <i>Shrek’s</i> success and launch a brand new franchise. But Puss lacks any of the charm that made the first <i>Shrek</i> movies so delightful. Gone are the witty cynicisms, the backhanded slams of fairy tale characters and conventions. Gone are the hilarious pop culture references and the sarcastic one-liners. Instead, all that’s left are weak attempts at humor consisting of potty jokes and a few puns that try to support a film mostly devoid of laughs. <br />
<br />
To its credit, there were a few solid moments of genuine comedy. The filmmakers did their research on feline behavior, which they exaggerated in hilarious fashion. Anyone with a cat will appreciate as Puss chases light reflections, performs a litter box dance, and brings a dead bird to his human “mother” as a present. These gags worked while others fell flat, often reverting to tasteless bathroom humor and innuendo. An early scene takes place in “Dance Club” (an attempt to spoof “Fight Club”), where Puss and Kitty dance to the death. The scene is long, cheesy and unnecessary, failing to satirize one of film’s most iconic locales. <br />
<br />
In an attempt to manufacture character, emotion and concern for our feline hero, a long flashback highlights his early years. I realized that I was supposed to be rooting for him, but I was unimpressed. Puss is amoral, committing all manner of villainy as he earns a bad reputation in his attempts to—ironically—maintain his good name. The characters of Humpty and Kitty were likewise shallow and undeveloped. <br />
<br />
Despite the weak characters and sub-par narration, the nonstop action was plain fun. There were some incredible chase scenes, my favorite being one over the rooftops of Mexico’s quiet streets. The horse-carriage race through the desert deserves mention for its stunning effects, brilliant choreography and sheer entertainment value. The film pops in 3D and is, to date, the best 3D I’ve seen. <br />
<br />
The animation is Dreamworks’ finest work, far surpassing even that of this year’s <i>Kung Fu Panda 2</i>. The detail is incredible: the characters’ fur is very realistic, while Humpty’s face was eerily photorealistic—making him look creepy and out of place in a cartoon. The backgrounds are vivid and the sets gorgeous. The animators also did a fine job picking their “shots,” taking the film to a new level of cinematic artistry; my favorite was when Puss stood on a roof in Mexico, his profile silhouetted against the full and milky-white moon. <br />
<br />
<i>Puss in Boots</i> is a film that barely entertains while watching. The animation is gorgeous and the action scenes are riveting. However, the story was predictable, pointless and gave me no character to care about. The humor was generally infantile and the good laughs too few and far between. This one is for the dogs.Michaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04508432901960651084noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6016670716867315189.post-41948497121862883392011-10-18T14:09:00.000-07:002011-10-18T14:09:56.997-07:00Drive (2011)<b><i>Surprisingly slow-paced yet unrelentingly brutal. </i></b><br />
<br />
<img height="424" src="https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/7Ze4eVFBSoOUcXJZbxIaZdW3gz1qOlpQc2ROjGs98Mq4BOvL_t-Ap1oQxv_Mm4ePIcXEfa5aMkqsmrWDyG88zKewvdUhYNgyyxopBvSDsyZnlcSeL7U" width="640" /><br />
<br />
<i>Driv</i>e is unique. It’s so different that one enraged film-goer is suing Hollywood to stop showing “misleading previews,” while another, inspired to do something “courageous and epic,” threw a hot dog at Tiger Woods during a golf match. With all this buzz, it seemed like a film I should watch—and review. <br />
<br />
What makes <i>Drive</i> different? My first hint that the film would not be as expected was the opening scene, a riveting—yet lackadaisical—car chase through downtown L.A. It captivated me in a way that no car chase ever has. The atypical song playing in the background; the utter calm and cool of the driver in the midst of such a stressful situation. I was immediately immersed—a feeling that stayed with me for the rest of the film.<br />
<br />
The unnamed hero (Ryan Gosling) is a stunt car operator and mechanic who moonlights as a getaway car driver. He meets the girl next door (Carey Mulligan); they fall in love; life is good. But when the girl’s husband comes home from prison, in debt to thugs, our paramour offers to help satisfy the husband’s debt. He volunteers to drive the getaway for a burglary that will clear the debt—but the heist goes horribly awry, someone ends up dead, and he narrowly escapes. Now on the run from the mob, and intent on protecting himself and the one he loves, he fights back. <br />
<br />
Ryan Gosling is incredible. His face and expressions exude such a mix of boyish charm and grandfatherly sageness that he melts into his character and you can’t help but root for him. Forget the fact that his character is a criminal and eventually a murderer. You like him. You want him to live. You want him to win. The supporting cast also performs very well, notably Carey Mulligan and Bryan Cranston.<br />
<br />
The plot is strong—complex but never confusing. The dialogue is incredibly sparse and much of the story and emotion is carried by the non-verbal action on screen. Long silences, extended slow-motion shots and awkward and unnatural pauses add a certain ethereal quality. The soundtrack is unexpected, a blend of 80s styles and electro-pop score. These attributes all combine to give the film a unique feel—a bizzare, highly stylized indie action flick with no flashy CGI, big explosions or elaborate set pieces. Its minimalism is its greatest strength.<br />
<br />
Even though I had been warned, the violence was brutal and disturbing. The last half of the movie presents death after death, killing after killing. The shift from atmospheric drama to wild action movie is jarring, kicking my pulse into overdrive. Heads explode, skulls are bashed in and knives slash in an unrelenting and shockingly bloody assault.<br />
<br />
The little dialogue is polluted by plenty of profanity, usually uttered in long spurts by the most vile characters. It’s unnecessary but not glaringly out of place as it fit with the characters’ despicable villainy. One scene in a strip club, I’m told, shows some nudity, but I can’t tell you any more than that—I fast forwarded.<br />
<br />
<i>Drive</i> is slow-paced yet frenzied; laid back yet it will quicken your pulse. It’s bloody, it’s graphic, it’s unrelenting, and it’s stylistically unlike any other film I’ve seen. It's brilliantly engineered but difficult to stomach.Michaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04508432901960651084noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6016670716867315189.post-22351198317591764282011-10-09T19:36:00.000-07:002011-10-09T19:36:35.042-07:00Limitless (2011)<i><b>Imaginative visuals, an absorbing storyline, and a disquieting topic make it a trip.</b></i><br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><img border="0" width="90%" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/SU9Vp8hcpBYa7J2DgazLDzq52FUsDutt0x46mxmD2uTVxU_Qxpk-TVCTPOfUkqEW-Hjnfa6f9ppOgHDI3uBkmbXBq2yztVIbobJGIy3Mz-RPNuYUxKA" width="320" /><br />
</div><br />
<i>Limitless</i> is part action, part geeky—too introspective to really belong in the first category, but too frenetic and fast-paced for the latter. The fourth movie to be directed by relative unknown Neil Burger, it has some rough edges—although, on the whole, I was positively impressed.<br />
<br />
Eddie Morra (Bradley Cooper) is both protagonist and first-person narrator, and the sequence of the movie follows closely the personal details of his sometimes vivid, often hazy, and occasionally schizophrenic life. The story opens some twenty stories high, with Eddie poised on the edge of a rooftop, his toes hanging over the brink—but instead of the cinematic freefall I expected, the film kept me continually on edge.<br />
<br />
The crux of the tale is thus: never-do-well Eddie comes across a super-drug, NZT-48, which unlocks the unused potential of his brain, allowing him to learn new skills, put details together in unimagined ways, and maintain a surge in creativity. But like all drugs, it has side effects—and this particular one includes relentless thugs and Russian mafia who won’t hesitate to kill to get the pills. Eddie suddenly is confronted by the temptations and threats of limitless achievement, imminent self-destruction, determined enemies, and a limited stock of NZT-48.<br />
<br />
The camera-work was phenomenal. A signature effect was the mile-long zoom down city streets, through windows and cars, in and out of crowds, beyond mirrors. When Eddie first took the NZT-48, everything became crisp and clear, shadows faded away, light spread. Colors melded, melted, blurred and blazed. His view of his surroundings expanded like the widening lens of a camera, obscure details reorganizing into useful patterns and prompts—and pictures skipped crazily as hours disappeared in seconds. The visual effects alone are worth seeing.<br />
<br />
Cooper is an able and enjoyable actor. From the unkempt man on the street to the almost superhuman Wall Street consultant, he always appeared comfortable in his role(s), yet never lost his unique style. The supporting actors also fit excellently: as Eddie’s on-again-off-again girlfriend (Abbie Cornish), as the sharp investment broker (Robert De Niro), as the accented mafioso who rued his minced vocabulary (Andrew Howard). While these secondary characters were somewhat one-sided and incompletely developed, they were also human and feeling.<br />
<br />
The movie’s score was largely trash, too often harsh and strident, psychedelic trance composed of electronic drum machines and an eternally recurrent refrain—which harmonized with the narcomanic nature of the movie’s theme, but earned no place in my off-screen playlist. It didn’t jar; it just didn’t impress.<br />
<br />
Brief flashes of disturbing material complicated my general liking for the movie: a series of fleetingly passionate sexual encounters; a couple shots of disarmed hands hacked off their owners; PG-13’s one escalation of vulgarity in a verbal confrontation; and one disgusting yet hypnotic scene where a man struggles to lap from a drug-rich pool of blood as it horribly spreads its perimeters. In any case, these segments were emphasized more by their scarcity than their abundance.<br />
<br />
While the plot showed numerous incoherencies, all were scruples; none detracted from my viewing. The story was at times predictable and unexpected; controversial and tame; hackneyed and original; maddening and mentally provocative. It was strange, but not too strange; striking, but not staggering. With reservations, I couldn’t help but like it.<br />
<br />
Maybe most unnerving was its elevation of the highs of the central substance; I felt an uncomfortable tension between the allure of NZT’s potential and the poison of its sting. In the upside-down world of the drug, Eddie’s aspiring spirals sometimes seemed like tailspins. If the movie was making some broad statement about narcotics, its interpretation is limitless.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6016670716867315189.post-65332696912639888102011-09-28T12:49:00.000-07:002011-09-28T12:57:41.456-07:00Contagion (2011)<i><b>Shocking, grotesque, claustrophobic, paranoid, terrifying. A must-see.</b></i><br />
<br />
<i><b> </b></i><img height="353" src="https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/YY7ZM3oIOY8JzWICrXSGHtP-XOiwmq6gYbBtRKu-aRx2MSy09lqcVzdCwn4W8wUSPUQ6oVwfZa8McKw2alVFLRhK4dS0HvoFFIqf2JH82B-vwr6oTM4" width="640" /><br />
<br />
My eyes twitch. My throat tightens. I feel a cough coming on. I fight the impulse to rub, cough or blink. Is this the byproduct of my hypochondria, or the paranoia of the film I’m watching? Maybe both? All I know is that I dare not touch my face, my body or the package of M&M’s sitting on my lap. Disease is everywhere. The knob of a door, the rail in a bus, the armrest of a chair, the kitchen counter, the human hand, and don’t even get me started on airplanes. <br />
<br />
This is a horror film like no other. I shudder as a man touches a handrail, a waitress hands a patron a cocktail glass, a mother feeds her child a cookie. These everyday actions become menacing, dangerous, deadly. <br />
<br />
But that’s how it starts. “The average person touches their face three to five times every waking minute. In between that we're touching door knobs, water fountains, and each other.” These “fomites” (objects capable of transferring infection between individuals) are all potentially festering with viral plague, waiting to mutate and start an epidemic. <br />
<br />
<i>Contagion.</i> <br />
<br />
People contract fevers, have seizures and die. Within 48 hours, cases of the virus all over the world are reported. Panic runs rampant. The CDC and the World Health Organization scramble for answers, desperate to identify the virus and find a cure. But this takes time. Weeks pass and the dogged determination of medicine’s best minds can’t keep up with the rising death toll. One in twelve will die; the whole world is infected. <br />
<br />
But against this epic backdrop of worldwide panic and devastation come several stories, stories of people we grow to love and loathe. The father (Matt Damon) desperately trying to keep his daughter safe, devastated by the loss of his wife and son. The CDC director (Laurence Fishburne) attempting to control the publicity, manage panic, find a cure, and protect his loved ones. The rogue blogger (Jude Law) intent on perpetuating frenzy and making a buck. The doctor (Jennifer Ehle) working tirelessly to find a cure. The field agent (Kate Winslet) risking infection daily to save lives. The WHO operative (Marion Cotillard) taken hostage by townspeople hoping to be the first to receive the vaccine. <br />
<br />
Steven Soderbergh deftly handles his ensemble cast, drawing out significant emotion and character from each despite limited screen time. Ehle, Fishburne and Winslet stand out amongst a stellar cast, bringing the best performances of the film. Only Cotillard’s story seemed ancillary—there was little development and the ending was dissatisfying. The plot takes risks, killing off big name actors without thought. No character is safe and several plot twists added to the feeling of unstoppable terror. <br />
<br />
The score is a pulsating mix of synthesizers. The constant pounding enhanced the feeling of panic and terror. The camera shakes and zooms, giving the claustrophobic feeling that you’re actually in the movie. These techniques are incredibly effective in ratcheting up the suspense. <br />
<br />
Don’t talk to anyone. Don’t touch anyone. Stay away from other people. <i>Contagion</i> is not a fun film-going experience. It’s intensely disturbing and grotesque. This is a horrifying film, a frighteningly plausible look at what could happen if such events actually took place. The results are grim. Yet through the grimness there is hope. A cure can be found, relationships can thrive, forgiveness can be granted. The plot, cast and direction elevate this above the normal thriller. An effective and outstanding film.Michaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04508432901960651084noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6016670716867315189.post-24879338932718897662011-09-24T18:05:00.000-07:002011-09-24T18:14:17.700-07:00Midnight in Paris (2011)<div style="text-align: center;"><div style="text-align: left;"><i><b>Enamors with glimpses of Paris past and present but otherwise falls flat. </b></i></div><br />
<img height="424" src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/Xj87PgAJQuI0cKDtlupOErApFi-urKJDrpAFIMo6mvGVCi-qRFom63JATlE8hyzowcQ_rgnIv6aBTRR59hxlTdDhK_IsU4JiDy3fhyLoTNtpyP-oc-Q" width="640" /></div><br />
I’ve never been much of a Woody Allen fan. I enjoy watching him act—his personality and witticisms crack me up—but his films have never grabbed me. He’s a critical darling (<i>Annie Hall</i> for Best Picture? Really?), so the 92% on the “Tomatometer” shouldn’t have elevated my expectations as much as it did. But as one of the highest rated movies of the summer—and set in one of my favorite cities—I thought I’d give it a shot.<br />
<br />
Gil (Owen Wilson) is looking for inspiration. He’s bored churning out screenplays and instead yearns to complete his first novel. He’s almost finished but it lacks…something. Seeking inspiration, Gil accompanies his fiancée Inez (Rachel McAdams) and her parents to Paris. Immediately Gil is enamored by the city’s charm and fantasizes about a future there. Walking the streets at midnight, he is magically transported back to the Paris of the 1920s where he fraternizes with musical, artistic and literary luminaries such as Cole Porter, Ernest Hemingway, Pablo Picasso and Salvador Dali. He also falls for the glamorous and mysterious Adriana (Marion Cotillard). His new friends give him perspective and insight into his novel, and Gil wonders if he might stay with them forever.<br />
<br />
Owen Wilson ruined this movie for me. His attempt to channel the quirky and hilarious persona of Woody Allen fails miserably and instead he comes off as whiny and annoying. His nonstop talking grated my ears. He cannot carry a movie as the leading man and should stick to comedies and cameos. The supporting cast, however, boasts some outstanding performances. Marion Cotillard is cute and charming as Adriana, and Adrien Brody is spot-on as the surrealist Dali. In one hilarious scene, a confused Gil attempts to explain his midnight teleportations to Dali and his friends, but is frustrated when the artist is unperturbed and paints Gil as a rhinoceros, sad in spirit, lips melting off his face. <br />
<br />
The story is shallow yet enchanting. The plot seemed unfocused and the moral tacked on: try and make the best of the time that you live in. But while the film falls short as a drama, it shines as a fun look at the historical City of Light. The scenery is beautiful and the mood of Paris’ streets and sights is captured so well on film, it is perhaps the best cinematic depiction I’ve seen. The glimpses of what the city must have been like in the ’20s were delightful, the energy electric and the glamour undeniable. The accordion score channeled Parisian but the constant repetition of the sole theme irritated. It’s a soundtrack I never wish to revisit.<br />
<br />
There is little profanity and the sexual content is mild compared to Allen’s other films. Yet there are still some descriptions and discussions of sex, prostitution and homosexuality. An amoral attitude towards sex permeates the screenplay—Gil is encouraged in his romancing of Adriana in the 1920s, even while he continues his relationship with Inez in 2010.<br />
<br />
<i>Midnight in Paris</i> could have been great. It was fanciful and sweet, perfectly capturing the allure of Paris, both present and past. But Owen Wilson’s ridiculous acting, the shallow plot, and the <i>blasé</i> attitude towards morals nearly cripple the film. It’s an average movie, neither good nor great. Enjoy it for the setting alone, or not at all.<br />
<div><br />
</div>Michaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04508432901960651084noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6016670716867315189.post-57734931937170529842011-09-06T13:52:00.000-07:002011-09-06T13:52:10.614-07:00The Help (2011)<b><i>This is not a comedy. It is a serious but realistic look at the devastating effects of racism.</i></b><div><br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><img src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/k1MzgSDM_a0AAxNdu-zxlXYMWjJs_9V0m5-ulgp7yVC09WLYrm-MEDPq4TNBq8PL4OoLB4DgzzVeXn8UUzEAgpo7Uv2CXgKWfysLkc-X_BnKfuknz6w" /></div><br />
When I first saw the trailer for <i>The Help</i>, I had absolutely no desire to ever see the film. It was marketed as a comedy, a light and airy romp about a young girl’s quest to fight bigotry. It looked trite, schmaltzy and saccharine. But a friend convinced me I shouldn’t miss it so, still skeptical, I dragged family and friend to the theater. We all loved it. <br />
<br />
<i>The Help</i> is set in Jackson, Mississippi in the early 1960s. Racism is prevalent and colored people are still treated almost as slaves. They live difficult lives and can find work only as maids, cooks and factory workers, for which they are paid almost nothing. Eugenia “Skeeter” Phelan, disgusted by her friends’ ignorant prejudice, seeks to effect a change by writing a book told from the perspective of “the help.” Barely able to survive on their piddling incomes, the maids fear the repercussions of getting involved. But as racial unfairness burgeons, the help decides that it is time for people to hear their story. <br />
<br />
This film is not a comedy. Sure, some comedic moments had me roaring, but it is definitely a drama—a serious, disheartening and sometimes disturbing film about the destructiveness of racial prejudice. Tears came more readily than laughs as I shared in the characters’ trials and heartaches. It’s moving and sentimental, and it deals head-on with bigotry, unfairness and physical abuse.<br />
<br />
The film ran over two hours but never felt overlong. Flashbacks and back stories made the characters more real. In one especially heartbreaking scene, the maid Aibileen recalls the death of her son after brutal mistreatment by his white employer. The dialogue is mostly good, often great, but sometimes tacky. The film was occasionally cliché and “sweet,” but these moments were brief and sparse. The ending made no attempt to be happy; I was given the impression that the worst was yet to come. <br />
<br />
Viola Davis gives an award-worthy performance as Aibileen, the film’s narrator and the first maid willing to come forward with her stories. Emma Stone does a fine job in the role of Skeeter but I felt the casting wasn’t a perfect fit. Bryce Dallas Howard portrays the hateful Hilly, a crusader with a shocking animosity towards blacks and their “strange diseases.” Octavia Spencer is hilariously sassy as Minny and provides great laughs while supporting an emotional subplot. <br />
<br />
Bad language is sporadic but sticks out like a sore thumb. While some of it fits within the context of the story, especially in a highly comedic running gag about human waste, mostly it feels out of character and unnecessary. There are a few discussions of sexual activity. One bloody scene shows the aftermath of a miscarriage, but nothing graphic. There is some brutal violence which, while never shown, made me sick to my stomach.<br />
<br />
The cinematography is bright and colorful, in stark juxtaposition to the dark undertones of <br />
the film. The costume was authentic and the locations made me feel like I was in ‘60s Mississippi. Newman’s score was gorgeous, often light and sweet, driven by high notes of the piano. This was accompanied by an eclectic assortment of songs appropriate to the era. Cash’s <i>Jackson</i> appears in an early scene, a nod to the film’s setting. <br />
<br />
<i>The Help</i> is my kind of film. It had an outstanding plot that delved into deep and serious themes, boasted an outstanding cast, had great character development and humor, and educated its audience about the horrors of racial intolerance. This film does an excellent job portraying one of the darkest times in American history, and I was disturbed to realize that all this happened so recently. The film is already generating much-deserved Oscar buzz. Put it at the top of your to-see list.</div><div><br />
</div>Michaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04508432901960651084noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6016670716867315189.post-39956533894129945582011-08-22T17:50:00.000-07:002011-08-22T18:40:22.808-07:00The Adjustment Bureau (2011)<b><i>A well-made movie that raises intriguing questions, but gives no answers.</i></b><br />
<div> <br />
<img src="https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/Ej-JWNmQjOWode0Vjb54W-0CXNtA9PgrSWms76z-zHnCRvUGmcfnx3bXg4-edIbBmpqyh0TseVKsv-8hNspMZflg4W6EjVzivF2SNnGJAyDcGEdxDIU" /><br />
<br />
<b>Enforcer:</b> <i>You don't have free will, David. You have the appearance of free will.</i><br />
<br />
<b>David Norris:</b> <i>You expect me to believe that? I make decisions every day.</i><br />
<br />
<b>Enforcer:</b> <i>You have free will over which toothpaste you use, or which beverage to order at lunch. But humanity just isn't mature enough to control the important things.</i><br />
<br />
Free will or predestination? I was surprised to find such a timeless question at the forefront of this big-budget Hollywood film. It’s a difficult discussion that no filmmaker could possibly develop in 100 minutes, but <i>The Adjustment Bureau</i> provides both a thought-provoking plot and an entertainingly slick production.<br />
<br />
David Norris (Matt Damon) has just lost the senatorial election by a landslide. He walks into the deserted men’s bathroom to practice his concession speech, but his impassioned rehearsal is interrupted by Elise (Emily Blunt), a woman hiding from security in a stall. Though their meeting is awkward, the electricity between them is undeniable. But their love is not meant to be. Their lives are [supposed to be] on different paths, orchestrated by the Adjustment Bureau, an organization that painstakingly ensures that each person’s appropriate destiny takes place. David fights back against the Bureau, wanting above anything to be with Elise. But as the fight escalates, he quickly learns that gaining Elise will mean losing everything. <br />
<br />
Contrary to the trailers’ suggestion, this is not an action film. This is a slowly paced drama with only a few thrilling sequences; interest is mostly kept by a mysterious, supernatural plot and some unexpected twists. Every supernatural thriller and sci-fi film has the difficult task presenting a new universe where new “rules” apply. Sometimes this is done seamlessly, the audience lured into suspending their disbelief. But in this film, the “rules” of David and Elise’s fictional reality appear arbitrary, unbelievable, and even downright ridiculous. And since these rules are necessary to propel the story, the plot itself irritated me on several points—such as the Adjustment Bureau’s inability to function around water, or the necessity that all operatives wear hats. It drove me crazy.<br />
<br />
The acting is generally good from Damon and Blunt, and Terence Stamp unnerves as the creepy and soulless Thompson, the Bureau’s top enforcer. The dialogue had some good comedic moments, relaxing the tense atmosphere, but at times it felt awkwardly unnatural and forced, as though there was a lack of real chemistry between the leads. The dialogue was also frequented by profanities, and sex was used to propel character development as the lovers slept together in a steamy (yet non-explicit) scene that distracted from the true beauty of their relationship.<br />
<br />
The score was fitting but not extraordinary. Thomas Newman’s orchestrations are simple, relying heavily on simple piano themes, soft strings, and the gentler percussion instruments. The score added depth to each scene and reflected the emotion of the moment.<br />
<br />
<i>The Adjustment Bureau</i> raises interesting questions and forced me to ponder and really contemplate the ideas behind its story. The conclusions are theologically troubling, as the story analogizes the Adjustment Bureau to God and angels, but it does provide fodder for discussion. I won’t be changing my worldview because of it, but the viewing caused me to re-examine my own thoughts on the issue of free will versus destiny.<br />
<br />
But despite its questions, the movie never provided any real answers. Perhaps the filmmakers didn’t know how to properly tackle such a huge subject; perhaps they were purposely vague to promote independent thought. The film generates good discussion starters and features a strong cast and bold, if underdeveloped, storyline. It had amazing potential. But instead of greatness it is just okay. I didn’t love it; I didn’t hate it. Watch it and decide for yourself.</div>Michaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04508432901960651084noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6016670716867315189.post-23838071956804798512011-08-15T16:00:00.000-07:002011-08-15T16:00:54.352-07:00The Lincoln Lawyer (2011)<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><b><i>Not a family film, but a true legal thriller with strong characterization and a complex plot.</i></b><br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><img src="https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/3PQDO3dOSXPKITCzSGhpvGrQ_q2R94vaRKq_4ubdTB6dximiiigNJVnsOl24CruO2JcmMjqBLvf4WNI-Kgt2nof2MA73AflxDzeow_uFt50_EI7XJH8" /></div><br />
As both a fan of film and a student of the law, I’m always on the lookout for a good legal thriller. Good lawyer movies are hard to find, lawyers generally being the villains rather than heroes. Since I enjoyed the novel, I was excited to see the critically acclaimed film adaptation of <i>The Lincoln Lawyer</i>.<br />
<br />
Mickey Haller is a slimebag defense attorney willing to do whatever it takes to get his clients off the hook, even if it means bribery or bending truth. He’s presented with the opportunity of a lifetime to represent Louis Roulet, a rich and famous realtor who has been accused of sexually assaulting a young woman. As the representation progresses, Roulet maintains innocence but Mickey begins to sense that there’s more to this case than meets the eye. Mickey develops a conscience and seeks to do what’s right as he’s caught up in a deadly game of cat and mouse with a dangerous killer, the body count rising at every turn. <br />
<br />
The plot is complex and features a collection of characters all somehow interconnected. It forces the audience to think and put pieces together for themselves, never taking a second to pause and explain what’s happening. It’s bold and bound to cause some confusion, but if you can follow the story it’s a fun yet somewhat far-fetched thriller.<br />
<br />
I was sucked in immediately by the film’s energy. The cinematography is kinetic; the camera pans and jerks about, constantly zooming in and out. The colors are bright and each shot feeds off the urban beauty and electricity of downtown L.A. The soundtrack also echoes this, the pulsating beats of hip hop and rap accentuating the aggressiveness in the film.<br />
<br />
The film boasts some very strong acting, with standout performances from Ryan Phillipe as Louis Roulet and Michael Pena as Mickey’s former client, Jesus Martinez, who is currently serving time but still claiming innocence. Matthew McConaughey is comfortable in his role as attorney and he looks natural and poised inside and outside the courtroom. The acting by William Macy and John Leguizamo, however, is quite disappointing.<br />
<br />
The dialogue between the characters feels natural and sincere, much of it taken directly from the novel. The scenes between Mickey Haller and Jesus Martinez are perfect, charged with emotion, anger and regret. Unfortunately the interactions are also laced with strong profanity. The language is frequently vulgar and crass and, due to the nature of the plot, sex is a common topic. There is also a sex scene, with no nudity.<br />
<br />
What I loved most about the book were the courtroom scenes as Haller fights all odds to free his client. Generally, lawyer movies spend little time in the courtroom for fear of boring their audience; this is not the case here. The trial scenes are riveting and I was glued to the screen. The direct examinations bolster; the cross examinations devastate. The scenes feel over-dramatic and totally Hollywood but they work very, very well.<br />
<br />
<i>The Lincoln Lawyer</i> is everything an attorney movie (and a book adaptation) should be. The plot is complex and suspenseful, the acting strong, the characters rich and the courtroom scenes exciting. But a recommendation is hampered by heavy profanity, crass dialogue (within the context of the plot) and a sex scene. It’s a solid film but one to view with discretion.<br />
Michaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04508432901960651084noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6016670716867315189.post-39041751764754853832011-08-02T17:58:00.000-07:002011-08-02T19:13:23.057-07:00Cars 2 (2011)<b><i>Stops short of Pixar’s normal Bluebook value, but the animation is in excellent condition.</i></b><br />
<br />
<img height="358" src="https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/OvNzTdq-FgnQ9C47Khv4_kzXy75pddoSP3TKl5UbPeRFaf3SNFcEKnSQNPOvd5DsVIL677TtMiefCIcyBR9CdbYdNS8F_hBPcx8vRgcRG_YPtbXgHR8" width="640" /><br />
<br />
In 1997, Pixar delivered its first smash hit,<i> Toy Story</i>. Not only did the film boast ground-breaking computer animation but it was a deep emotional narrative with lots of heart and humor. Since this release, Pixar has become a powerhouse of entertainment, consistently raising the bar of animated movies and delivering eleven acclaimed films. So when the negative reviews started pouring in for <i>Cars 2</i>, I thought that this time Pixar had truly delivered its first lemon.<br />
<br />
Lightning McQueen, world renowned racing champion, is ready for some time off. He’s headed back to Radiator Springs, seeking to relax and refuel after winning his 4th Piston Cup. But his vacation stalls when he accepts a challenge to race in the World Grand Prix, taking place in Tokyo, the French Riviera, and London. Mater tags along and, after being mistaken for a secret agent, is caught up in a dangerous international spy game. It’s now up to Mater, and British spies Sally Shiftwell and Finn McMissile, to save Lightning from a flaming burnout.<br />
<br />
The plot is fun but it’s no match for the narrative genius of Pixar’s other films. It was, however, surprisingly far superior to the first (and, I thought, somewhat lackluster) <i>Cars</i> movie. The story wove in twists and turns, much like the grand prix racetrack itself, and although the outcome was never in doubt, the road getting there was always suspenseful. The story was bogged down, however, by some oft-tread clichés, including themes of being true to yourself and being a good friend.<br />
<br />
These infantile themes also reflect the majority of the humor of the movie. The jokes were definitely geared toward a younger audience, slapstick comedy taking the front seat. But there was still much humor to enjoy—the subtle references to other Pixar films (the drive in theater playing “The Incredimobiles”), the dialogue between Lightning and arch-rival Francesco Bernoulli, the hilarious moment at the Arch de Triumph roundabout, and the always-subtle car puns.<br />
<br />
Giaccino’s music paid tribute to old James Bond scores—brassy blasts and percussion-heavy motifs punctuating each scene. It works well in the film but it’s too bombastic to be enjoyed on its own.<br />
<br />
The real showstoppers here are the animation, car races and action scenes. From the beginning, my eyes were dazzled by an explosion of color. I would hasten to say that this is some of the most stunning and gorgeously vivid animation I have ever seen. The palette was brightest during the opening race in Tokyo, the neon greens, blues and reds splashing the screen with jaw-dropping brilliance.<br />
<br />
Pixar animators are truly innovative craftsmen when it comes to car race and action scenes. These are beautifully choreographed as Mater, Sally and Finn often make narrow escapes by utilizing Bond-like gadgets to escape. The unique scenes kept the suspense revved up and made for one exciting ride.<br />
<br />
I left the theater wondering why the majority of critics (and friends) hated this film so much. Yes, the narrative is weaker than past Pixar gems, and it is often burdened by clichés, but the plot still manages to be a lot of fun. The humor is often immature and geared for a younger audience, but there are still plenty of laughs for more sophisticated audiences to enjoy. The flaws are far outweighed by the strengths, especially the creative action, exciting racing scenes and, above all, brilliant animation. While not up to normal Pixar standards, this is a strong sequel, outclassing its predecessor in almost every way. Ignore the critics; this is no lemon.Michaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04508432901960651084noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6016670716867315189.post-73080456068489081652011-07-29T12:59:00.000-07:002011-07-29T12:59:55.990-07:00Cowboys & Aliens (2011)<b><i>It boasts great scenery but ends a disappointing mess of too much plot, too little action.</i></b><br />
<div><br />
<a href="http://www.daemonsmovies.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/cowboys-and-aliens-movie-photo-01.jpg"><img border="0" height="272" src="http://www.daemonsmovies.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/cowboys-and-aliens-movie-photo-01.jpg" width="640" /></a><br />
<br />
I appreciate the title <i>Cowboys & Aliens</i>. It has no pretense and puts the viewer on immediate notice of what to expect. I was tantalized by the promise of cowboys and aliens duking it out in the Old West and excited to see this film. But sadly the film completely missed its mark. <br />
<br />
Jake Lonergan awakens in the desert with no memory and an odd contraption around his wrist. He swaggers into town and is immediately put in jail after his face is recognized from a “wanted” poster. That evening, the small town of Dispatch is attacked by alien ships, many townspeople are abducted, and the town is almost completely destroyed. Lonergan, with the help of the device on his wrist, destroys one of the the alien vessels. Seeking answers about his past, he agrees to join an expedition to find the aliens and recover the lost. <br />
<br />
The plot is the film’s main fault. The basic premise is solid, fresh and interesting. However, the screenwriters stuffed the two hours with countless sub-plots, bogged down with emotional transformations and touching interludes, all of which fall completely flat and lead to a ridiculous conclusion. The lack of cohesive plot and story makes the film feel frustratingly pointless.<br />
<br />
The concept is further hampered by weak characters and development, who continually take actions and make decisions completely inconsistent with their roles. Many moments intended to warm the audience’s souls, such as the awkward softness from the hardened rancher, felt completely out of place. The lack of depth left me indifferent to the characters and the predictable outcome.<br />
<br />
However, the acting from Daniel Craig and Sam Rockwell is fairly solid; had their characters been properly developed, they would have provided a strong emotional core for the film. Both performances stand out amongst the others—Craig as the amnesiac outlaw seeking to rediscover his past and Rockwell as the timid bartender willing to do anything to save his wife. The acting from Harrison Ford, unfortunately, is a different story. Ford trots about the screen, growling each line, his performance as one-dimensional as the character he portrays: the loathsome rancher seeking to rescue his son. It’s quite sad and disturbing to see such a talented actor being squandered in that role. <br />
<br />
Many of the characters spew rather frequent profanities, and also engage in making crude and sexual comments. Another caution-worthy scene suggests complete nudity although nothing is actually shown. <br />
<br />
The action scenes are fun, but shockingly sparse. I definitely was expecting much more fighting. The climactic battle is only somewhat satisfying as it barely generates any suspense.<br />
<br />
But the film looks outstanding, like a true piece of cinematic art. Every shot is beautiful. Barren desert landscapes fill the screen, the shots of reddish sandstone, covered in sparse shrubbery, contrasting sharply with the azure sky. Strong special effects help maintain interest, and the aliens were well-animated and looked creepy and vile. <br />
<br />
Harry Gregson-Williams’ score is excellent. The cadence of the pieces is familiar, echoing the scores of Westerns past—but with a twist. The opening track stood out in particular as the twang of the banjo was replaced by the sound of synthesized guitars. The retro themes mixed with the modern instruments fit perfectly with the theme of Old West meets outer space. <br />
<br />
<i>Cowboys & Aliens</i> is a mess. The story could have been campy and fun but instead it’s overloaded, incomprehensible and frustrating. The acting is uneven from great stars and the character development is non-existent. There is also very little action. It irks me to see such a great concept wasted in such a fashion. Miss it. <br />
</div>Michaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04508432901960651084noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6016670716867315189.post-75735782117556861362011-07-21T15:16:00.000-07:002011-07-21T16:26:30.806-07:00Romancing the Stone (1984)<i><b>A fun ride through remote jungles: robust action, rollicking humor, and facetious romance.</b></i><br />
<br />
<div style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><img src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/--MY5biBTgzA/Tiik9uKHTII/AAAAAAAAAFw/-O5nKNnD8ZI/s1600/romancingthestone.png" width="90%" /></div><br />
I <i>told</i> my roommate that I preferred action to comedy. I thought we all understood that romance wasn’t even an option. But as he read the disheartening list of movie titles, only one stood out.<br />
<br />
<i>Romancing the Stone</i> had piqued my interest ever since I stumbled across the abject DOS game <i>Paganitzu</i> (1991), bastard progeny of the movie. I later heard that the film was an early pioneer in the resurgence of the jungle-adventurer genre that also spawned the Indiana Jones storyline. So when I was further informed that <i>Romancing</i> holds a respectable 86% rating on Rotten Tomatoes, I agreed to break my film fast.<br />
<br />
The story opens into the curiously mundane life of Joan Wilder (Kathleen Turner), romantic novelist, who pours her heart and hopes into the pages she pens. Unlike her heroines, Joan’s personal life is uncaptivating and unkempt—until her sister in South America calls and begs Joan to ransom her from kidnappers. Instructed to bring an old map, Joan sets off for Columbia, bravely bumbling through the foreign culture and fearsome jungles, followed by thieves and thugs, and finally guided by the moody and nomadic Jack T. Colton (Michael Douglas). Suddenly living her own novel adventure, she begins to wonder, and worry, whether Jack could be its missing hero.<br />
<br />
I did not expect the movie’s comical abundance. Joan’s abysmal life contrasts in amusing contradiction to her romantic heroines’. Jack’s apt and astute answers to each dilemma created unintentional hilarity; at his every pause and silence, his deadpan sarcasm kept me wondering what humorous remark he would make next. The villains, constantly challenged in their attempts to follow Joan’s unpredictable itinerary, and outmatching expertise with effort, act as comic foils to each other, sometimes coldly cruel, other times absurdly clumsy, though not ridiculous. The story is riddled with genuine gags and laughter, but is also cringingly cliché (albeit laughably) at times.<br />
<br />
Nor does the action disappoint. Flash floods and perilously plunging falls, gun battles, bus crashes, standoffs and jeep chases punctuate the film without overwhelming it. The movie opens in a Western setting with a well-thrown knife, but involves more traditional shootouts and a lively machine-gun battle. But while the action is explosive, the violence is (almost) never bloody or macabre. As they wend their way, the heroine and anti-hero drive, tramp, slide, trudge, ride, and jump from rainforest to river, hovel to hotel, and cave to castillo.<br />
<br />
The film is a veritable child of the eighties, from the big hair to the Model 2500 telephones. Alan Silvestri’s awfully inappropriate score of synthesized saxophones and slap bass hearkens back to a formidable history of the decade’s television shows and theme songs. Even the outrageous and overblown action and violence bears its birthmark. While sometimes sadly dated, these aspects made the movie even more merrily entertaining.<br />
<br />
My only regret, besides the lamentable music, was the quantity of profane language. Jack in particular is frequently irascible and irreverent, though never obscene, and a few of the other characters sometimes indulge. There are also two brief displays of dishabille (one with the leading duo in apparent full undress), but I thought them neither excessively prolonged nor overtly lurid.<br />
<br />
I appreciated the movie, finding it a remarkable but mostly pleasing blend of comedy, action, and romance, in just balance. I’m not an eighties fan by any means, but I thought the era’s influences were more amusing than annoying. The movie was just enough over the top to entertain, but always avoided going too far. I enjoyed it entirely; it is definitely worth a watch.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com0