****
Dir. Steven Spielberg
From the visionary minds of director Steven Spielberg and producer Peter Jackson, The Adventures of Tintin is storytelling at its best.
Based on the comic book series by Hergé, this film features pirates, a lost treasure, a canine companion, and many more elements that captivate audiences of all ages. When young Tintin (Jamie Bell) purchases a model of a 17th century pirate ship, he comes across other characters who are after the same object. Among these is Rackham (Daniel Craig), a dastardly villain seeking an ancient treasure which the ship holds a clue to, and to avenge his long time rival Captain Haddock (Andy Serkis). When Tintin and his faithful dog Snowy join forces with Haddock to find the lost treasure, they find themselves on the adventure of a lifetime.
I'll go ahead and confess that this is one comic which I have yet to read; but it is certainly on my list nonetheless. Yet whether or not you are familiar with these characters, the screenplay by Steven Moffat, Edgar Wright and Joe Cornish does an effective job of chronicling the events depicted. Tintin is an inquisitive journalist with an adventurous spirit, eager to unravel mysteries and exploit the corrupt. The manner in which the story is structured is very well executed, providing the basis for Spielberg and Jackson's vision.
For a film like this, excessive CGI is inevitable. Spielberg and Jackson stated early on their intentions of stepping outside the 2-D world of the comics, in order to do animation similar to that in Robert Zemeckis' Beowulf and Polar Express. While I'm typically not a big fan of modernized animation, this one's an exception. Although there's heavy emphasis on the technical aspects, I didn't think that it undermined the story. Rather, it complimented the fantasy world created by Hergé. Yeah, there's too much action, but that's expected for an adventure picture like this. This film proves that digitalized effects have their place in cinemas, when used appropriately.
The voice-over performances were another highlight. Bell exemplified the youthful complexion of the character's spirit, and the scenes between him and Haddock were great. Listening to Serkis, viewers wouldn't even recognize the Gollum in there. He instead plays a drunk, washed up sailor, providing the film with a nice element of humor. Craig presented Rackham as a sort of Jason Isaacs type villain, perfect for the tone of the story. The film also features the iconic duo of Simon Pegg and Nick Frost as a pair of slapstick detectives.
Furthermore, John Williams' score is right up there with his classics. All in all, I think it's fair to call this film the Indiana Jones of this generation.
Friday, December 30, 2011
Thursday, December 22, 2011
Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows
***
Dir. Guy Ritchie
Robert Downey Jr. and Jude Law return in the sequel to the 2009 reboot of Arthur Conan Doyle's classic series. I came out of it with the same feelings as the first installment. Is this a decent action film? Yes. Is it consistent with Doyle's vision in the books? No.
With political turmoil, a rival mastermind, and the fate of his world upon him, the stakes are high for the famous detective. As nationalism and imperialism sweep across pre-WW1 Europe, Holmes (Downey Jr.) and Watson (Law) are caught in the middle of this conflict. Beyond this, the maniacal and brilliant Professor James Moriarty (Jared Harris), a long time opponent of Holmes, seeks to destroy Watson and his new wife while constructing his empire.
Like its predecessor, this film is overtly modernized so as to present itself as a flashy action movie. While there's definite originality, it nonetheless fails to capture the essence of the story and deliver it properly. Ritchie knows how to produce an effective thriller with solid visual effects; but both his direction and the script do only a decent job of exploring the depths of the character.
Jared Harris' performance was for me the highlight of this blockbuster. His mannerisms and expressions reflected the villainous attributes of Moriarty, as envisioned by Doyle. Downey Jr. and him had definitive chemistry, which was well communicated to audiences. Law also brought to life the inquisitiveness and humorous elements of Dr. Watson, as he did in 2009.
In terms of cinematography, it was well executed and correlated well with Ritchie's vision. But again, the over emphasis on fast-paced action only works part of the time. The lighting and other visual elements created a shadowy feel, as dictated by the title.
This is a series which is being made and remade way too much. Although it's nice to see different interpretations, there's a point where directors make the story too outlandish; so as to appeal to younger audiences with too short attention spans to actually read the source material. This to me is a primary example.
Dir. Guy Ritchie
Robert Downey Jr. and Jude Law return in the sequel to the 2009 reboot of Arthur Conan Doyle's classic series. I came out of it with the same feelings as the first installment. Is this a decent action film? Yes. Is it consistent with Doyle's vision in the books? No.
With political turmoil, a rival mastermind, and the fate of his world upon him, the stakes are high for the famous detective. As nationalism and imperialism sweep across pre-WW1 Europe, Holmes (Downey Jr.) and Watson (Law) are caught in the middle of this conflict. Beyond this, the maniacal and brilliant Professor James Moriarty (Jared Harris), a long time opponent of Holmes, seeks to destroy Watson and his new wife while constructing his empire.
Like its predecessor, this film is overtly modernized so as to present itself as a flashy action movie. While there's definite originality, it nonetheless fails to capture the essence of the story and deliver it properly. Ritchie knows how to produce an effective thriller with solid visual effects; but both his direction and the script do only a decent job of exploring the depths of the character.
Jared Harris' performance was for me the highlight of this blockbuster. His mannerisms and expressions reflected the villainous attributes of Moriarty, as envisioned by Doyle. Downey Jr. and him had definitive chemistry, which was well communicated to audiences. Law also brought to life the inquisitiveness and humorous elements of Dr. Watson, as he did in 2009.
In terms of cinematography, it was well executed and correlated well with Ritchie's vision. But again, the over emphasis on fast-paced action only works part of the time. The lighting and other visual elements created a shadowy feel, as dictated by the title.
This is a series which is being made and remade way too much. Although it's nice to see different interpretations, there's a point where directors make the story too outlandish; so as to appeal to younger audiences with too short attention spans to actually read the source material. This to me is a primary example.
Thursday, November 24, 2011
Hugo
*****
Dir. Martin Scorsese
Scorsese's latest film is nothing short of a masterpiece, marking itself as one of the most cinematic experiences of the 21st Century. While the legendary director is known for his classic gangster pictures like Goodfellas and Casino, this family-oriented movie is arguably his best work.
Based on Brian Selznick's book The Invention of Hugo Cabret, the story is about a young orphan living in a train station in 1930s Paris. Having escaped the clutches of his drunken uncle, Hugo (Asa Butterfield) finds himself entangled in a mystery involving his late father's machine. Upon getting into trouble with a cranky toy shop owner in the station named Georges (Ben Kingsley), the fates of these two become intertwined; as the machine which Hugo yearns to fix has a history which the young lad would never imagine.
The screenplay by John Logan (Gladiator, The Aviator) provides the basis for Scorsese's vision. This adventurous tale explores the early days of filmmaking, as this subject is at the heart of the mystery which Hugo and Georges' goddaughter Isabelle (Chloë Grace Moretz) seek to unravel. The amount of depth given to both the story and characters is remarkable. Few family films have such rich dialogue that increase the picture's quality by a long shot.
Both the newly introduced child actors and the legends teamed up to make a superb cast. Butterfield and Moretz gave performances which made them more than worthy to stand next to Kingsley and Christopher Lee in this film. I've never seen a pair of twelve year olds demonstrate such a deep and provocative level of characterization. Watching Kingsley develop from a washed up old man to rediscovering his passion is a great experience, and he'll no doubt be up for an Oscar. Lee masters the role of the elderly librarian, and Helen McCrory is equally captivating as Georges' faithful wife. Then there's Sacha Baron Cohen as the stiff Station Inspector, providing the perfect amount of humor to this entrancing tale.
Scorsese's vision allows for one of the best depictions of early twentieth century European society. Audiences don't even need to see it in 3-D to appreciate the artistic quality of the picture. Between the layers of the train station and the shots of Paris, Scorsese demonstrates genuine cinematic brilliance in this film. From the moment viewers first lay eyes on this visually spectacular setting to the spellbinding conclusion, the picture immerses audiences in this fantastical world which reflects the aesthetic principles of cinema.
It's a shame there aren't more movies today like this. I really can't find a single criticism because it's such a compelling picture which will awaken the deepest layers of the viewer's imagination.
Dir. Martin Scorsese
Scorsese's latest film is nothing short of a masterpiece, marking itself as one of the most cinematic experiences of the 21st Century. While the legendary director is known for his classic gangster pictures like Goodfellas and Casino, this family-oriented movie is arguably his best work.
Based on Brian Selznick's book The Invention of Hugo Cabret, the story is about a young orphan living in a train station in 1930s Paris. Having escaped the clutches of his drunken uncle, Hugo (Asa Butterfield) finds himself entangled in a mystery involving his late father's machine. Upon getting into trouble with a cranky toy shop owner in the station named Georges (Ben Kingsley), the fates of these two become intertwined; as the machine which Hugo yearns to fix has a history which the young lad would never imagine.
The screenplay by John Logan (Gladiator, The Aviator) provides the basis for Scorsese's vision. This adventurous tale explores the early days of filmmaking, as this subject is at the heart of the mystery which Hugo and Georges' goddaughter Isabelle (Chloë Grace Moretz) seek to unravel. The amount of depth given to both the story and characters is remarkable. Few family films have such rich dialogue that increase the picture's quality by a long shot.
Both the newly introduced child actors and the legends teamed up to make a superb cast. Butterfield and Moretz gave performances which made them more than worthy to stand next to Kingsley and Christopher Lee in this film. I've never seen a pair of twelve year olds demonstrate such a deep and provocative level of characterization. Watching Kingsley develop from a washed up old man to rediscovering his passion is a great experience, and he'll no doubt be up for an Oscar. Lee masters the role of the elderly librarian, and Helen McCrory is equally captivating as Georges' faithful wife. Then there's Sacha Baron Cohen as the stiff Station Inspector, providing the perfect amount of humor to this entrancing tale.
Scorsese's vision allows for one of the best depictions of early twentieth century European society. Audiences don't even need to see it in 3-D to appreciate the artistic quality of the picture. Between the layers of the train station and the shots of Paris, Scorsese demonstrates genuine cinematic brilliance in this film. From the moment viewers first lay eyes on this visually spectacular setting to the spellbinding conclusion, the picture immerses audiences in this fantastical world which reflects the aesthetic principles of cinema.
It's a shame there aren't more movies today like this. I really can't find a single criticism because it's such a compelling picture which will awaken the deepest layers of the viewer's imagination.
Tuesday, November 22, 2011
"You either die a hero, or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain": Path of the Antagonist
One of the most intriguing aspects of a film is the antagonist. Viewers are captivated by a good villain; one that is both unique and sinister. But how do the bad guys that we all know and love become who they are? How does a war-hero like Michael Corleone turn into the spitting image of his Crime Lord father? How does a boy slave like Anakin Skywalker grow up into the most tyrannical being in the galaxy? Does power alone corrupt the individual who possesses it? When observing the nature of these iconic evildoers, there are two important factors to consider: a trauma that occurred in their lifetime, and a mentality they develop to formulate an ideal civilization.
When looking at the origin of a villain, it's crucial to look at an event in this character's life that left him or her scarred. Most of the time, this event is the death of a loved one. In The Dark Knight, Two-Face suffers the death of the woman he loves at the hands of a homicidal maniac. In Star Wars, Anakin watches his mother die after being in captivity for a month. The J.J. Abrams Star Trek features Nero justify his war with the Federation and the destruction of Vulcan after having watched Romulus explode. However, this external force does not always produce villains, for heroes are faced with the same traumas. Batman, Luke Skywalker, Harry Potter, and countless other protagonists have family members that were killed without mercy. Hence, the correlation between emotional suffering and heroes and villains, means that there is a choice every individual under these circumstances must make. This one decision will come to define them. The villain pursues vengeance, while the hero seeks justice. Furthermore, the circumstances surrounding the time and place of the character's trauma play a part in the path he or she takes. One of the key aspects of Batman's origin is that the young Bruce Wayne is coming out of a Zorro film when his parents are murdered. The heroic swashbuckler figure serves as an inspiration to Bruce to fight evildoers and protect the innocent. Had he gone to see something like Dirty Harry instead, using a gun to fight criminals might've been more appealing to the Dark Knight. Prior to Anakin Skywalker's transformation into Darth Vader, he has a graphic and terrifying vision of his wife's death. Having had dreams that have come true before, he intends to stop at nothing to keep this one from becoming reality. Being rash, hot-headed and determined, he is easily seduced by his seemingly harmless friend Palpatine. In the textbook I use for AP Psychology, author David G. Myers states in chapter 15, "Behavior emerges from the interplay of external and internal influences" (Myers, 624). Myers couldn't have put it better. Countless examples in cinema and literature illustrate this concept. In the graphic novel Batman:The Killing Joke, a Joker origin story which Tim Burton and Christopher Nolan used as a major source of inspiration for their films, Jack Napier is a failed comedian desperately trying to provide for his family. Coming from a rough childhood, his economic and social status are extremely low. With nowhere else to turn, he agrees to do a job for the local mafia in order to put food on the table, taking on the persona of the Red Hood. But when Batman shows up at the scene, one thing leads to the next and Napier falls into a vat of acid, where he is transformed from the inside and out into the legendary maniac. Yet it is the psychological aspects of this character that unleash the smiling menace. Therefore, a traumatic event that a character experiences, combined with the internal and external influences surrounding it, is an essential factor in the development of an antagonist.
The best villains are the ones that think they're the heroes. They conceive philosophies and ideas that they see will benefit the world they are in. Some of the most thought provoking lines in The Dark Knight are when Joker and Two-Face voice their mentalities. Joker believes in anarchy, "I'm not a schemer. I try to show the schemers how pathetic their attempts to control things really are"; while Two-Face bases his principles on fairness, "The world is cruel. And the only morality in a cruel world is chance. Unbiased, unprejudiced, fair". A fundamental aspect of a villain is his or her determination. The antagonist seeks to create what is in his or her mind, an ideal, utopian society, and will remove anyone that stands in the way. Lord Voldemort strives to unify wizards and witches of "pure blood", and rid the world of all he sees as unfit. Despite the evil and treacherous acts of violence he commits, he sees them as necessary. And again, internal and external influences play a crucial role in the formation of the villain's mentality. After years of ceaseless fighting in the Clone Wars, young Skywalker sees the Empire as an intriguing and logical idea. With the lack of trust he receives from the Jedi Council, and his desperation to save Padme, Palpatine becomes more and more convincing. After losing his family to a murderer who goes unpunished, Ra's al Ghul strives for a better world, and abandons the laws of society. Seeing the corruption within the bureaucratic system, he devises his own form of government. But unlike his opponent Batman, he believes human lives are necessary losses in order to return civilization to the Garden of Eden. As the villain's mentality develops, it consumes the individual's character, to the point where no external force can dissuade him or her from pursuing that course. In The Godfather, the final scene before the Don's death features a classic father and son conversation. As Vito Corleone reflects on his life and the state of his empire, he says to his son Michael, "I never wanted this for you". But do these words challenge the new head of the Corleone family to turn from his murderous ways? No. The once admirable, noble war-hero oversees the brutal murders of his enemies while watching his Godson's baptism, and taking an oath on Holy Bible. Once the mind of the villain takes it's form and corrupts the individual, it becomes nearly impossible for the character to turn from the path of evil. Yet there are instances nonetheless. Darth Vader's redemption at the conclusion of Return of the Jedi illustrates a very Christian view of the nature of good and evil. While few antagonists overcome the demon within them, the ones that do are the most interesting. To see a character fall, and over time return to the light is incredibly powerful. But for such a transformation to take place, the antagonist's overarching mentality must be challenged. Hence, the villain must possess a mentality that he or she believes will change the world for the better.
From Don Vito Corleone to Darth Vader to Joker, villains are some of the most influential characters in film and literature. Beyond a classic evil laugh or punchline, a bad guy has the power to challenge one's perception of society. Two fundamental aspects of the antagonist are: a traumatic experience that takes place at some point in his or her lifetime, and a mentality the character develops to formulate an ideal society. It is these elements that make monsters out of everyday people.
Sunday, November 13, 2011
J. Edgar
****
Dir. Clint Eastwood
Clint Eastwood's latest film is a stirring and controversial depiction of former F.B.I. director John Edgar Hoover (Leonardo DiCaprio), and one of the better dramas of the year.
Chronicling everything from the beginning of Hoover's career to his final days, the film focuses particularly on the relationship between him and his partner Clyde Tolson (Armie Hammer). Regardless of whether or not they had a romance, history proves that Hoover had a very mysterious personal life, and Eastwood makes use of this in order to drive the story. For me, the most compelling aspect of Dustin Lance Black's script were the scenes between Hoover and his over-bearing mother Annie (Judi Dench). She says at one point, "I would rather have a dead son than a daffodil for a son". Moments like these illustrate the risqué portrayal of these historical figures.
A major highlight of the film was the manner in which the make-up designers aged DiCaprio, which was worthy of comparison to that of Orson Welles in Citizen Kane. Furthermore, the Hollywood icon's performance was his best yet. I was never crazy about the actor, but he demonstrated genuine artistic work in this picture. His best works are this, The Departed, Blood Diamond, and Inception. The supporting cast was equally effective. Hammer gave Clyde's character a good amount of depth, enhanced by the manner in which he and DiCaprio worked together. Then Dench is virtually flawless, mastering the cold-hearted persona of Annie Hoover in a provocative way.
It's clear that Eastwood didn't think highly of this man, but the film focuses more on the public image of him rather than his personal views. This enhances the dramatic components, and makes it much more interesting. There's as much emphasis on Hoover's political career as there is on his personal life. It's this that provides the story with depth, and opens room for interpretation. Like Eastwood's other films, there's artistic production value; and everything from costumes and sets to lighting and cinematography are superb.
There are few other films bold enough to portray a historical figure that's considered both a hero and tyrant, and capture the significance of his life so effectively. This is one of the year's best.
Dir. Clint Eastwood
Clint Eastwood's latest film is a stirring and controversial depiction of former F.B.I. director John Edgar Hoover (Leonardo DiCaprio), and one of the better dramas of the year.
Chronicling everything from the beginning of Hoover's career to his final days, the film focuses particularly on the relationship between him and his partner Clyde Tolson (Armie Hammer). Regardless of whether or not they had a romance, history proves that Hoover had a very mysterious personal life, and Eastwood makes use of this in order to drive the story. For me, the most compelling aspect of Dustin Lance Black's script were the scenes between Hoover and his over-bearing mother Annie (Judi Dench). She says at one point, "I would rather have a dead son than a daffodil for a son". Moments like these illustrate the risqué portrayal of these historical figures.
A major highlight of the film was the manner in which the make-up designers aged DiCaprio, which was worthy of comparison to that of Orson Welles in Citizen Kane. Furthermore, the Hollywood icon's performance was his best yet. I was never crazy about the actor, but he demonstrated genuine artistic work in this picture. His best works are this, The Departed, Blood Diamond, and Inception. The supporting cast was equally effective. Hammer gave Clyde's character a good amount of depth, enhanced by the manner in which he and DiCaprio worked together. Then Dench is virtually flawless, mastering the cold-hearted persona of Annie Hoover in a provocative way.
It's clear that Eastwood didn't think highly of this man, but the film focuses more on the public image of him rather than his personal views. This enhances the dramatic components, and makes it much more interesting. There's as much emphasis on Hoover's political career as there is on his personal life. It's this that provides the story with depth, and opens room for interpretation. Like Eastwood's other films, there's artistic production value; and everything from costumes and sets to lighting and cinematography are superb.
There are few other films bold enough to portray a historical figure that's considered both a hero and tyrant, and capture the significance of his life so effectively. This is one of the year's best.
Saturday, September 24, 2011
Moneyball
*****
Dir. Bennett Miller
Like many other genres, sports movies have had some very compelling dramas and some cheesy, artificial films. Moneyball is among the best, demonstrating the impact of a quality script and the disregarding of conventional elements to drive a story.
Director Bennett Miller tells the true story of Billy Beane (Brad Pitt), general manager for the Oakland Athletics. After suffering a prolonged series of miserable failures, Beane struggles with the mistakes of his past, and worries deeply about the futures of both himself and his team. Yet his existentialist mentalities change when he meets an Economics major from Yale named Pete Brand (Jonah Hill). This corky genius, who has no experience with any kind of athletics, assures Beane that he can select the perfect team using a series of mathmatical formulas. Much to the dismay of the teams' manager Art Howe (Philip Seymour Hoffman), this pair of unlikely heroes ends up taking a bunch of no-names to the longest winning streak in American League history.
The most defining aspect of this film is the script. Aaron Sorkin (A Few Good Men, The Social Network) and Steven Zaillian (American Gangster, Gangs of New York) do a fantastic job of adapting Michael Lewis' novel. The characterization is flawless, and the plot is very well-composed as it contains a solid culmination of internal and external conflicts. The dialogue is naturally dictated and artistically formulated so as to examine the depths of Beane's character.
As far as the acting goes, this is some of Pitt's best work; right up there with Fight Club. Even Jonah Hill was a surprisingly good pick, as this was probably his first film not centered around sexual humor and allowed audiences to actually observe his ability as an actor. Then there's Hoffman as Beane's old-school, cranky boss; with his performance utilizing a sort of Jack Nicholson persona to create a nice deal of tension between these characters. Robin Wright also has a nice supporting role as Beane's ex-wife, portraying the character very effectively.
Miller directs with a realist vision which presents a more independent style of filmmaking. Between opening with a Mickey Mantle quote, and using actual footage from the 2001-2002 season, this is how sports movies should be made. Utilizing the terrific cinematography by Wally Pfister (The Dark Knight, Inception), there's an almost noir feel which reflects the complexities of the story. Not only is there the overarching conflict between Beane and the old-school American League, there's also the internal conflicts within his character.
Movies like this tend to take a true story, and ruin it with a string of Hollywood elements so as to bring in as many dollars as possible into box offices. That is not the case with Miller's work here. A beautifully composed film with a deep level of intrigue, this is definitely one to see.
Dir. Bennett Miller
Like many other genres, sports movies have had some very compelling dramas and some cheesy, artificial films. Moneyball is among the best, demonstrating the impact of a quality script and the disregarding of conventional elements to drive a story.
Director Bennett Miller tells the true story of Billy Beane (Brad Pitt), general manager for the Oakland Athletics. After suffering a prolonged series of miserable failures, Beane struggles with the mistakes of his past, and worries deeply about the futures of both himself and his team. Yet his existentialist mentalities change when he meets an Economics major from Yale named Pete Brand (Jonah Hill). This corky genius, who has no experience with any kind of athletics, assures Beane that he can select the perfect team using a series of mathmatical formulas. Much to the dismay of the teams' manager Art Howe (Philip Seymour Hoffman), this pair of unlikely heroes ends up taking a bunch of no-names to the longest winning streak in American League history.
The most defining aspect of this film is the script. Aaron Sorkin (A Few Good Men, The Social Network) and Steven Zaillian (American Gangster, Gangs of New York) do a fantastic job of adapting Michael Lewis' novel. The characterization is flawless, and the plot is very well-composed as it contains a solid culmination of internal and external conflicts. The dialogue is naturally dictated and artistically formulated so as to examine the depths of Beane's character.
As far as the acting goes, this is some of Pitt's best work; right up there with Fight Club. Even Jonah Hill was a surprisingly good pick, as this was probably his first film not centered around sexual humor and allowed audiences to actually observe his ability as an actor. Then there's Hoffman as Beane's old-school, cranky boss; with his performance utilizing a sort of Jack Nicholson persona to create a nice deal of tension between these characters. Robin Wright also has a nice supporting role as Beane's ex-wife, portraying the character very effectively.
Miller directs with a realist vision which presents a more independent style of filmmaking. Between opening with a Mickey Mantle quote, and using actual footage from the 2001-2002 season, this is how sports movies should be made. Utilizing the terrific cinematography by Wally Pfister (The Dark Knight, Inception), there's an almost noir feel which reflects the complexities of the story. Not only is there the overarching conflict between Beane and the old-school American League, there's also the internal conflicts within his character.
Movies like this tend to take a true story, and ruin it with a string of Hollywood elements so as to bring in as many dollars as possible into box offices. That is not the case with Miller's work here. A beautifully composed film with a deep level of intrigue, this is definitely one to see.
Tuesday, August 23, 2011
The Great Filmmakers of Our Time
When you have guys like Michael Bay and Stephen Sommers making movies, it makes you wonder if there are any moviegoers today who even care about a good story. However, amidst all the crazy special effects and extreme emphasis on CGI, there are a few filmmakers today who demonstrate genuine imagination in there work. Three in particular stand out to me: Christopher Nolan, J.J. Abrams, and Peter Jackson.
From Batman Begins to Inception, there hasn't been a Nolan film that hasn't blown me away. What really stands out about him is how he is able to manipulate viewers in a powerful way. The first time I saw The Prestige, I was amazed at how he utilized the story to capture my attention, and used so many great tactics to invoke a deep level of emotion within the viewer's imagination. He does such a superb job of bringing these fictional worlds to reality and ensuring that every viewer believes his characters. Look at Inception. We never learn how dream-sharing was discovered or who developed the concepts of Extraction and Inception, but you become so captivated and entranced by the story and characters nevertheless. That is the mark of a good filmmaker. One who leaves you with unanswered questions, but you remain blown away by the presentation of the story. Even in The Dark Knight, which is heavily based on comics such as Batman: The Killing Joke and Batman: The Long Halloween, he still brought his original touch to keep it from being strictly an adaptation. As a director, producer, and screenwriter, Nolan is a pure genius.
Most notable for the Star Trek reboot and his recent work Super 8, J.J. Abrams is another favorite filmmaker of mine. Watching five minutes of any of his pictures, you can tell that he values story above anything else. My favorite moment in Super 8 is at the very end when Joe and all the main characters are watching Cooper return home. The build-up to it is remarkable combined with the incredible score. Not only does the cinematography in his films blow your mind, but the way in which he composes each scene demonstrates his brilliance. That wow factor in his movies really makes him the next Steven Spielberg (which is cool because Spielberg produced Super 8).
Last but not least, Peter Jackson is a superhero among nerds. I honestly don't think J.R.R. Tolkien ever expected his classic fantasy series to be made into one of the greatest movies of all time. The Lord of the Rings trilogy is a cinematic masterpiece which brings to life Tolkien's extraordinary tale. Jackson's visionary mind is demonstrated in every aspect of it. From costuming to visual effects to extraordinary screenwriting, the film is more than a favorite among nerds. The detail in Jackson's pictures combined with his use of every element of film makes him such an excellent storyteller.
Despite the typical American perception of film, and the average viewer's content with good effects and explosions, there are still those today who really care about a good story.
From Batman Begins to Inception, there hasn't been a Nolan film that hasn't blown me away. What really stands out about him is how he is able to manipulate viewers in a powerful way. The first time I saw The Prestige, I was amazed at how he utilized the story to capture my attention, and used so many great tactics to invoke a deep level of emotion within the viewer's imagination. He does such a superb job of bringing these fictional worlds to reality and ensuring that every viewer believes his characters. Look at Inception. We never learn how dream-sharing was discovered or who developed the concepts of Extraction and Inception, but you become so captivated and entranced by the story and characters nevertheless. That is the mark of a good filmmaker. One who leaves you with unanswered questions, but you remain blown away by the presentation of the story. Even in The Dark Knight, which is heavily based on comics such as Batman: The Killing Joke and Batman: The Long Halloween, he still brought his original touch to keep it from being strictly an adaptation. As a director, producer, and screenwriter, Nolan is a pure genius.
Most notable for the Star Trek reboot and his recent work Super 8, J.J. Abrams is another favorite filmmaker of mine. Watching five minutes of any of his pictures, you can tell that he values story above anything else. My favorite moment in Super 8 is at the very end when Joe and all the main characters are watching Cooper return home. The build-up to it is remarkable combined with the incredible score. Not only does the cinematography in his films blow your mind, but the way in which he composes each scene demonstrates his brilliance. That wow factor in his movies really makes him the next Steven Spielberg (which is cool because Spielberg produced Super 8).
Last but not least, Peter Jackson is a superhero among nerds. I honestly don't think J.R.R. Tolkien ever expected his classic fantasy series to be made into one of the greatest movies of all time. The Lord of the Rings trilogy is a cinematic masterpiece which brings to life Tolkien's extraordinary tale. Jackson's visionary mind is demonstrated in every aspect of it. From costuming to visual effects to extraordinary screenwriting, the film is more than a favorite among nerds. The detail in Jackson's pictures combined with his use of every element of film makes him such an excellent storyteller.
Despite the typical American perception of film, and the average viewer's content with good effects and explosions, there are still those today who really care about a good story.
Saturday, July 30, 2011
3-D: Revolutionary or Overrated?
Since the release of James Cameron's Avatar in 2009, 3-D has become very widespread, marketing itself as a very popular viewing option for moviegoers. But does it really serve a cinematic purpose? Or is 3-D just a way for the box office to make some extra cash?
Critics like Roger Ebert are very opposed to this film technique. You can read about it in his article "Why I Hate 3-D (and You Should Too)". He sees it as a dimension that contradicts the very fundamentals of cinema. While I'm not as radically opposed to it as he is, I have a problem seeing it everywhere. Before we know it, romantic comedies are gonna be using it and some stupid CGI effects. There are some films where the cinematography is better appreciated two-dimensionally. When people say 3-D is a way of enhancing the director's vision from a visual standpoint, it makes me wonder what exactly people look for in movies today. It's as if audiences depend on the flashiest techniques out there to draw them in. A good filmmaker should be able to capture the attention of the viewer in a powerful way without all the big, flashy, Hollywood tactics.
That's what I love about Christopher Nolan. He never uses CGI, and while his films are blockbusters and popular among younger audiences, he defies the Hollywood trend for moviemaking. If you have the Inception Blu-Ray combo-pack, I encourage you to watch the Extraction Mode feature, and look at how Nolan displays genius cinematic techniques. It just goes to show you that you can make a groundbreaking film, and a science fiction one for that matter, today without 3-D to utilize it from a visual standpoint.
What I'm getting at here is that I don't hate 3-D, but I don't love it either. There are directors like Michael Bay who rely way too much on it to enhance their visual effects. You'll see shots in Transformers 3 that were made just for 3-D, and were terrible with or without it. The widespread popularity of this dimension makes me concerned about the future of cinema, and if people ten years from now are even gonna care about a quality story.
Critics like Roger Ebert are very opposed to this film technique. You can read about it in his article "Why I Hate 3-D (and You Should Too)". He sees it as a dimension that contradicts the very fundamentals of cinema. While I'm not as radically opposed to it as he is, I have a problem seeing it everywhere. Before we know it, romantic comedies are gonna be using it and some stupid CGI effects. There are some films where the cinematography is better appreciated two-dimensionally. When people say 3-D is a way of enhancing the director's vision from a visual standpoint, it makes me wonder what exactly people look for in movies today. It's as if audiences depend on the flashiest techniques out there to draw them in. A good filmmaker should be able to capture the attention of the viewer in a powerful way without all the big, flashy, Hollywood tactics.
That's what I love about Christopher Nolan. He never uses CGI, and while his films are blockbusters and popular among younger audiences, he defies the Hollywood trend for moviemaking. If you have the Inception Blu-Ray combo-pack, I encourage you to watch the Extraction Mode feature, and look at how Nolan displays genius cinematic techniques. It just goes to show you that you can make a groundbreaking film, and a science fiction one for that matter, today without 3-D to utilize it from a visual standpoint.
What I'm getting at here is that I don't hate 3-D, but I don't love it either. There are directors like Michael Bay who rely way too much on it to enhance their visual effects. You'll see shots in Transformers 3 that were made just for 3-D, and were terrible with or without it. The widespread popularity of this dimension makes me concerned about the future of cinema, and if people ten years from now are even gonna care about a quality story.
Thursday, July 28, 2011
What to Look Forward to in DC Animation
From Justice League: The New Frontier to Batman: Under the Red Hood, DC Animation has produced some really remarkable films in recent years. I grew up watching the 90s Batman cartoon, and Justice League. The work of Bruce Timm, Alan Burnett, Sam Register, Lauren Montgomery and so many others continue to get better and better.
Since the conclusion of Justice League Unlimited, DC Animation has worked on adapting critically acclaimed graphic novels into 75 minute films. Their most recent works are Superman/Batman: Apocalypse and All-Star Superman.
This October, they are releasing Batman: Year One, based on Frank Miller's classic graphic novel. Christopher Nolan used this work as heavy inspiration for Batman Begins. It was written in 1987, and gives a more in-depth look at the origins of The Dark Knight. It's a great depiction of the first meeting between Batman and Gordon, and the fantastic art by David Mazzuchelli provides a great basis for the film's animation. Also, Breaking Bad's Bryan Cranston is doing the voice of Gordon, which I think will be one of the highlights. The DVD/Blu-Ray release date is October 18.
Next year, the big news is that one of the most groundbreaking graphic novels in comic book history, The Dark Knight Returns, is being adapted into a two-part film. TDKR is also a work by Frank Miller, and its sheer grit changed the face of the comic book medium forever. It's a futuristic story depicting an aged Bruce Wayne who must come out of retirement to take back Gotham from vile street gangs and psychopaths. The stakes are high as the Mutant Gang strikes terror into the hearts of citizens, and The Joker is being recognized as legitimate by doctors at Arkham. While there aren't many details regarding the film at this point, it's rumored that Kevin Conroy and Mark Hamill will return to do the voices of Batman and Joker. On a side note, if the film stays true to its source material, I wouldn't be surprised if this will be the first R-rated Batman film. In terms of story, it's one of the most intense and gritty in DC history. There are things they could tone down to make it PG-13, but it's certainly not one for the kids. The release date is not known at this time.
Lastly, Justice League: Doom, based on Mark Waid's JLA: Tower of Babel, will also be released next year. This is a great story, as it deals with the ethics of trust v.s. caution. Years before the story takes place, the League was under mind-control, and after it was all over, Batman put together files detailing the strengths and weaknesses of every member as a precaution. Yet when extremist Ra's al-Ghul gets hold of this information, the entire League is put in jeopardy. An extraordinary piece with great visual art, I look forward to its adaptation in 2012.
So that's a preview of DC Animation's upcoming projects. If you read this post and knew what I was talking about, I commend you. You are a true nerd.
Since the conclusion of Justice League Unlimited, DC Animation has worked on adapting critically acclaimed graphic novels into 75 minute films. Their most recent works are Superman/Batman: Apocalypse and All-Star Superman.
This October, they are releasing Batman: Year One, based on Frank Miller's classic graphic novel. Christopher Nolan used this work as heavy inspiration for Batman Begins. It was written in 1987, and gives a more in-depth look at the origins of The Dark Knight. It's a great depiction of the first meeting between Batman and Gordon, and the fantastic art by David Mazzuchelli provides a great basis for the film's animation. Also, Breaking Bad's Bryan Cranston is doing the voice of Gordon, which I think will be one of the highlights. The DVD/Blu-Ray release date is October 18.
Next year, the big news is that one of the most groundbreaking graphic novels in comic book history, The Dark Knight Returns, is being adapted into a two-part film. TDKR is also a work by Frank Miller, and its sheer grit changed the face of the comic book medium forever. It's a futuristic story depicting an aged Bruce Wayne who must come out of retirement to take back Gotham from vile street gangs and psychopaths. The stakes are high as the Mutant Gang strikes terror into the hearts of citizens, and The Joker is being recognized as legitimate by doctors at Arkham. While there aren't many details regarding the film at this point, it's rumored that Kevin Conroy and Mark Hamill will return to do the voices of Batman and Joker. On a side note, if the film stays true to its source material, I wouldn't be surprised if this will be the first R-rated Batman film. In terms of story, it's one of the most intense and gritty in DC history. There are things they could tone down to make it PG-13, but it's certainly not one for the kids. The release date is not known at this time.
Lastly, Justice League: Doom, based on Mark Waid's JLA: Tower of Babel, will also be released next year. This is a great story, as it deals with the ethics of trust v.s. caution. Years before the story takes place, the League was under mind-control, and after it was all over, Batman put together files detailing the strengths and weaknesses of every member as a precaution. Yet when extremist Ra's al-Ghul gets hold of this information, the entire League is put in jeopardy. An extraordinary piece with great visual art, I look forward to its adaptation in 2012.
So that's a preview of DC Animation's upcoming projects. If you read this post and knew what I was talking about, I commend you. You are a true nerd.
My Thoughts on Reboots
Remaking is an art within itself that should not be taken lightly. Over the last few decades we've seen some really good reboots (J.J. Abrams' Star Trek, Christopher Nolan's Batman, Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland) and some bad ones (The Day the Earth Stood Still, Alien V.S. Predator).
We are now in an age where it seems like all Hollywood can come up with is remaking classics or doing as many sequels as possible. I'm especially disturbed by the Spider-man reboot, "The Amazing Spider-Man", set to release in theaters next summer. This is a project I've known about for a few months now and I'm very opposed to it, mainly because it doesn't fit my qualifications for a reboot. The Sam Raimi Spider-Man was only released about ten years ago, and its last sequel was in 2007. That's just not a big enough time span for a reboot to be necessary. Which brings me to my next point. A reboot has to have a legitimate purpose. I really don't see the point in doing one for Spider-Man. The first one was great. It did a fantastic job of chronicling the origins of Peter Parker, was good from a cinematic standpoint, and appealed to a wide range of viewers. Sure the third one was pathetic, but if they made a good fourth one or just left the series alone for a while, it'd be fine.
Then you've got a franchise like Superman, which also has a reboot coming in the next few years. That I completely see the reason for. Don't get me wrong I love the classic Richard Donner version, but Nolan and Snyder (Christopher Nolan will be writing/producing, Zak Snyder will be directing) want to both appeal to a modern audience, and to base the story on more modern comics and graphic novels, so as to really delve into the seriousness of the character. There you've got a good amount of time in between this and the original, and a definite purpose.
Then you've got some series that just need to be left alone. I recently read an article that George Lucas has been planning to remake all six Star Wars films since the release of Revenge of the Sith, and to use James Cameron's Avatar as heavy inspiration for how it will be filmed. Meaning 3-D, modern effects, everything. ARE YOU KIDDING ME! A New Hope is a cinematic masterpiece! There is no reason it should be messed with. Come on Lucas, have some sense and leave your greatest work as it is!
I'm also seeing stuff about a Batman remake once TDKR is out. NO! Nolan's work glorifies Batman and demonstrates brilliant filmmaking. Dark Knight is this generation's Empire Strikes Back. Stuff like this makes me concerned about the future of Hollywood and about what modern audiences look for in movies.
We are now in an age where it seems like all Hollywood can come up with is remaking classics or doing as many sequels as possible. I'm especially disturbed by the Spider-man reboot, "The Amazing Spider-Man", set to release in theaters next summer. This is a project I've known about for a few months now and I'm very opposed to it, mainly because it doesn't fit my qualifications for a reboot. The Sam Raimi Spider-Man was only released about ten years ago, and its last sequel was in 2007. That's just not a big enough time span for a reboot to be necessary. Which brings me to my next point. A reboot has to have a legitimate purpose. I really don't see the point in doing one for Spider-Man. The first one was great. It did a fantastic job of chronicling the origins of Peter Parker, was good from a cinematic standpoint, and appealed to a wide range of viewers. Sure the third one was pathetic, but if they made a good fourth one or just left the series alone for a while, it'd be fine.
Then you've got a franchise like Superman, which also has a reboot coming in the next few years. That I completely see the reason for. Don't get me wrong I love the classic Richard Donner version, but Nolan and Snyder (Christopher Nolan will be writing/producing, Zak Snyder will be directing) want to both appeal to a modern audience, and to base the story on more modern comics and graphic novels, so as to really delve into the seriousness of the character. There you've got a good amount of time in between this and the original, and a definite purpose.
Then you've got some series that just need to be left alone. I recently read an article that George Lucas has been planning to remake all six Star Wars films since the release of Revenge of the Sith, and to use James Cameron's Avatar as heavy inspiration for how it will be filmed. Meaning 3-D, modern effects, everything. ARE YOU KIDDING ME! A New Hope is a cinematic masterpiece! There is no reason it should be messed with. Come on Lucas, have some sense and leave your greatest work as it is!
I'm also seeing stuff about a Batman remake once TDKR is out. NO! Nolan's work glorifies Batman and demonstrates brilliant filmmaking. Dark Knight is this generation's Empire Strikes Back. Stuff like this makes me concerned about the future of Hollywood and about what modern audiences look for in movies.
Captain America: The First Avenger
****
Dir. Joe Johnston
This is a character I've looked forward to seeing on the big screen for quite some time now. While Iron Man is still my favorite Avengers movie so far, I was very pleased with director Joe Johnston's adaptation of the classic Marvel Comic.
First off, I thought it was very well casted. Chris Evans really brought the character of Steve Rogers to life for both fans and non-fans as well. He had that innocence in his voice and facial expressions, as well as that firm patriotism that defined him. However, from a comic fan standpoint, he did lack that lion-like leadership ability that makes him the Superman of the Marvel Universe. I mean in Civil War, the Cap leads the superhero rebellion in response to the Registration Act, and ends up slamming Iron Man to the ground. But overall, Evans' performance was very well executed. But the best was Hugo Weaving as Red Skull. What he brought to the character combined with the outstanding costume design was brilliant. While it saddens me that for many this was their first and only look at the iconic characters, I really like how they were depicted here.
As far as how Johnston structured the story, I thought he and the screenwriters did a really good job of chronicling the key events. It was not an easy task given the amount of material they had to cover. In addition with the Cap's background, they also had to explain the origins of H.Y.D.R.A. and S.H.I.E.L.D.
Another really good aspect about the film was that it maintained the WW2 feel throughout, and did a good transition at the beginning and end when Nick Fury rescued Steve from the iceberg in the present day. The action scenes were very well done. Nothing mind-blowing, but solid visual effects that correlated with the mood of the story. However, the fight between the Cap and Red Skull wasn't as climactic as it could've been. It felt a little too rushed because Johnston wanted to get to the crash and confrontation between Steve and Col. Fury. Perhaps length and more sound effects would've enhanced its intensity. Overall though, I was very pleased with Johnston's adaptation and really look forward to Avengers this spring.
Dir. Joe Johnston
This is a character I've looked forward to seeing on the big screen for quite some time now. While Iron Man is still my favorite Avengers movie so far, I was very pleased with director Joe Johnston's adaptation of the classic Marvel Comic.
First off, I thought it was very well casted. Chris Evans really brought the character of Steve Rogers to life for both fans and non-fans as well. He had that innocence in his voice and facial expressions, as well as that firm patriotism that defined him. However, from a comic fan standpoint, he did lack that lion-like leadership ability that makes him the Superman of the Marvel Universe. I mean in Civil War, the Cap leads the superhero rebellion in response to the Registration Act, and ends up slamming Iron Man to the ground. But overall, Evans' performance was very well executed. But the best was Hugo Weaving as Red Skull. What he brought to the character combined with the outstanding costume design was brilliant. While it saddens me that for many this was their first and only look at the iconic characters, I really like how they were depicted here.
As far as how Johnston structured the story, I thought he and the screenwriters did a really good job of chronicling the key events. It was not an easy task given the amount of material they had to cover. In addition with the Cap's background, they also had to explain the origins of H.Y.D.R.A. and S.H.I.E.L.D.
Another really good aspect about the film was that it maintained the WW2 feel throughout, and did a good transition at the beginning and end when Nick Fury rescued Steve from the iceberg in the present day. The action scenes were very well done. Nothing mind-blowing, but solid visual effects that correlated with the mood of the story. However, the fight between the Cap and Red Skull wasn't as climactic as it could've been. It felt a little too rushed because Johnston wanted to get to the crash and confrontation between Steve and Col. Fury. Perhaps length and more sound effects would've enhanced its intensity. Overall though, I was very pleased with Johnston's adaptation and really look forward to Avengers this spring.
Wednesday, July 27, 2011
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2
****
Dir. David Yates
This franchise, like many others, has had its ups and downs. Goblet of Fire was unwatchable, and 5 and 6 were filled with disappointments as well. However, I'm glad that the series came to an admirable conclusion and was fitting for fans of the books and movies alike.
Picking up right where Part 1 left off, this film chronicles the final battle between Harry and Voldemort for the Wizard World. Seeking to locate the last of the Horcruxes, Harry (Daniel Radcliffe) must return to Hogwarts which is now under the control of Voldemort (Ralph Fiennes). As he embarks upon this quest, the origins of the young sorcerer are fully revealed; and fate will come to determine the boy's destiny. With stirring visual effects and a good amount of emotional depth, this is hands down the best of the epic saga.
Yates is a superb visual storyteller, and his direction provides the basis for the gritty feel of this film. Drawing on elements of classic horror, he immerses audiences in the shadowy atmosphere of this universe. By juxtaposing images from previous films with that of the bleak reign of the Dark Lord, significant contradictions are made so as to emphasize the now distorted reality.
The script is for the most part a strict adaptation of the second half of the novel. While it contains some corny dialogue here and there (not as bad as previous installments), it captures the vision of J.K. Rowling in an effective manner. Snape's death scene was for me the most compelling, as it gave Alan Rickman the opportunity to give a really emotionally gripping performance.
Looking at the battle scenes, Yates did an effective job of making it graphic enough but not overly so. There are bloody images to enhance the eery tone of the story, much different from how the series began. Voldemort was done justice here, as Fiennes' acting complimented the vision of Yates so as to present the character as the manifestation of terror.
As far as the rest of the cast, they came together to really demonstrate solid ensemble work. Radcliffe was never great, but decent enough to where he could express the internal conflicts of the character. The best acting was of course done by the other British actors in their supporting roles. As mentioned above, Rickman embodied Snape's tormented spirit even more powerfully than in the past. Then there's Dumbledore, Lupin, and a host of others who are brought to life beautifully.
Harry Potter swept across the globe from its beginning as a literary phenomenon, and will continue to have a long lasting impact no doubt. While the film adaptations have been mixed with successes and failures, the series went out with an artistic film that will penetrate the hearts of fans everywhere. Good work Yates.
Dir. David Yates
This franchise, like many others, has had its ups and downs. Goblet of Fire was unwatchable, and 5 and 6 were filled with disappointments as well. However, I'm glad that the series came to an admirable conclusion and was fitting for fans of the books and movies alike.
Picking up right where Part 1 left off, this film chronicles the final battle between Harry and Voldemort for the Wizard World. Seeking to locate the last of the Horcruxes, Harry (Daniel Radcliffe) must return to Hogwarts which is now under the control of Voldemort (Ralph Fiennes). As he embarks upon this quest, the origins of the young sorcerer are fully revealed; and fate will come to determine the boy's destiny. With stirring visual effects and a good amount of emotional depth, this is hands down the best of the epic saga.
Yates is a superb visual storyteller, and his direction provides the basis for the gritty feel of this film. Drawing on elements of classic horror, he immerses audiences in the shadowy atmosphere of this universe. By juxtaposing images from previous films with that of the bleak reign of the Dark Lord, significant contradictions are made so as to emphasize the now distorted reality.
The script is for the most part a strict adaptation of the second half of the novel. While it contains some corny dialogue here and there (not as bad as previous installments), it captures the vision of J.K. Rowling in an effective manner. Snape's death scene was for me the most compelling, as it gave Alan Rickman the opportunity to give a really emotionally gripping performance.
Looking at the battle scenes, Yates did an effective job of making it graphic enough but not overly so. There are bloody images to enhance the eery tone of the story, much different from how the series began. Voldemort was done justice here, as Fiennes' acting complimented the vision of Yates so as to present the character as the manifestation of terror.
As far as the rest of the cast, they came together to really demonstrate solid ensemble work. Radcliffe was never great, but decent enough to where he could express the internal conflicts of the character. The best acting was of course done by the other British actors in their supporting roles. As mentioned above, Rickman embodied Snape's tormented spirit even more powerfully than in the past. Then there's Dumbledore, Lupin, and a host of others who are brought to life beautifully.
Harry Potter swept across the globe from its beginning as a literary phenomenon, and will continue to have a long lasting impact no doubt. While the film adaptations have been mixed with successes and failures, the series went out with an artistic film that will penetrate the hearts of fans everywhere. Good work Yates.
Transformers: Dark of the Moon
*
Dir. Michael Bay
To say that Michael Bay sucks at making movies is an understatement. There's better quality in the crap they play on Disney Channel than in any of his "films". I didn't think it was possible to make something even more pathetic than the epic failure of Revenge of the Fallen, but Bay never ceases to amaze me.
The "story" of this sequel is not only undeveloped and lacking even a hint of originality, but it is virtually absent altogether. Not only does the film fail to engage viewers with an apocalyptic tone and make this bogus world Bay has created even remotely interesting, but it has absolutely no characterization. I was even looking at my watch during the "thrilling" final battle, which consisted of nothing more than a prolonged series of explosions.
There's also a series of pathetically executed close-up shots which serve no purpose whatsoever. Like when Sam's new girlfriend (who was even worse than Megan Fox) is just standing in the middle of the city while everything around her is exploding, and we get to watch her Barbie expressions for a painful 30 seconds. When the camera's not directed at her cleavage, it's pointing at giant robots battling the big bullies of outer space. Then we see Sam and Colonel Annox are hanging from a rope attached to Starscream, looking like idiots.
And then there's the fact that Optimus, Megatron and all the other aliens hardly got any screen time outside the battle. I could care less about the stupid human drama, show me the characters in the title! Beyond this, a 5 year-old could've easily written a better screenplay. It's probably the most unnatural dialogue I've ever heard.
I would venture to say that a person could lower his or her intelligence just by watching this mess.
Dir. Michael Bay
To say that Michael Bay sucks at making movies is an understatement. There's better quality in the crap they play on Disney Channel than in any of his "films". I didn't think it was possible to make something even more pathetic than the epic failure of Revenge of the Fallen, but Bay never ceases to amaze me.
The "story" of this sequel is not only undeveloped and lacking even a hint of originality, but it is virtually absent altogether. Not only does the film fail to engage viewers with an apocalyptic tone and make this bogus world Bay has created even remotely interesting, but it has absolutely no characterization. I was even looking at my watch during the "thrilling" final battle, which consisted of nothing more than a prolonged series of explosions.
There's also a series of pathetically executed close-up shots which serve no purpose whatsoever. Like when Sam's new girlfriend (who was even worse than Megan Fox) is just standing in the middle of the city while everything around her is exploding, and we get to watch her Barbie expressions for a painful 30 seconds. When the camera's not directed at her cleavage, it's pointing at giant robots battling the big bullies of outer space. Then we see Sam and Colonel Annox are hanging from a rope attached to Starscream, looking like idiots.
And then there's the fact that Optimus, Megatron and all the other aliens hardly got any screen time outside the battle. I could care less about the stupid human drama, show me the characters in the title! Beyond this, a 5 year-old could've easily written a better screenplay. It's probably the most unnatural dialogue I've ever heard.
I would venture to say that a person could lower his or her intelligence just by watching this mess.
Tuesday, July 26, 2011
Green Lantern
**
Director Martin Campbell
"In brightest day, in blackest night, no evil shall escape my sight. Let all who worship evil's might, beware my power, Green Lantern's light!"
Director Martin Campbell brings the classic DC Comic character to the big screen. Starring Ryan Reynolds, Blake Lively, and Geoffrey Rush, this blockbuster superhero movie was another box office hit.
However, despite its popularity, there were many disappointing aspects about it. This film had the potential of being the Star Wars of DC, but the quality was very low, even for a summer Blockbuster.
I'll go ahead and list the problems with it before I say what I liked. The heart of the problem was in the script. It left many characters undeveloped, and contradicted aspects of the plot. Like when Hal just shows up to stop Sinestro from putting on the yellow ring. How would someone who's new to the Corps know about the dangers of it? Then, the Guardians were too quiet. The scene where Sinestro goes before them and expresses his radical views, they should've been more condemning towards him. And while I liked that Amanda Waller was finally introduced, I also think it was more to please fans, and did little for the story. The whole flashbacks of her past were completely irrelevant.
As far as Campbell's direction goes, there were really good aspects about the cinematography, especially with the scenes in Oa, but the fight scenes on Earth weren't as impressive. Also, Reynolds and Lively wouldn't of been my first picks if I were the casting director. Chris Pine would've nailed the role of Hal. The acting wasn't bad, but could've been much better.
Now for the good stuff. For hard-core fans and for those new to the story, the Green Lantern Corps itself was very well depicted. It was easy to see how it operated, and its intergalactic purposes. The overall story remained pretty true to the work of Geoff Johns and many of the other writers. While I was surprised that Sinestro wasn't the villain, I really liked how his character was portrayed. Viewers definitely got an idea of his extremist mentalities, and intentions of reforming the Corps. It's pretty much a given that he'll be the antagonist in the second one. Tamor Re and Kilawag were also very well done. Overall, this one's worth seeing, but could've been much better. I think if Abrams does the sequel it'll make up for it.
Director Martin Campbell
"In brightest day, in blackest night, no evil shall escape my sight. Let all who worship evil's might, beware my power, Green Lantern's light!"
Director Martin Campbell brings the classic DC Comic character to the big screen. Starring Ryan Reynolds, Blake Lively, and Geoffrey Rush, this blockbuster superhero movie was another box office hit.
However, despite its popularity, there were many disappointing aspects about it. This film had the potential of being the Star Wars of DC, but the quality was very low, even for a summer Blockbuster.
I'll go ahead and list the problems with it before I say what I liked. The heart of the problem was in the script. It left many characters undeveloped, and contradicted aspects of the plot. Like when Hal just shows up to stop Sinestro from putting on the yellow ring. How would someone who's new to the Corps know about the dangers of it? Then, the Guardians were too quiet. The scene where Sinestro goes before them and expresses his radical views, they should've been more condemning towards him. And while I liked that Amanda Waller was finally introduced, I also think it was more to please fans, and did little for the story. The whole flashbacks of her past were completely irrelevant.
As far as Campbell's direction goes, there were really good aspects about the cinematography, especially with the scenes in Oa, but the fight scenes on Earth weren't as impressive. Also, Reynolds and Lively wouldn't of been my first picks if I were the casting director. Chris Pine would've nailed the role of Hal. The acting wasn't bad, but could've been much better.
Now for the good stuff. For hard-core fans and for those new to the story, the Green Lantern Corps itself was very well depicted. It was easy to see how it operated, and its intergalactic purposes. The overall story remained pretty true to the work of Geoff Johns and many of the other writers. While I was surprised that Sinestro wasn't the villain, I really liked how his character was portrayed. Viewers definitely got an idea of his extremist mentalities, and intentions of reforming the Corps. It's pretty much a given that he'll be the antagonist in the second one. Tamor Re and Kilawag were also very well done. Overall, this one's worth seeing, but could've been much better. I think if Abrams does the sequel it'll make up for it.
Monday, July 25, 2011
Super 8
*****
Dir. J.J. Abrams
Explosive, cinematic, brilliant. Amidst all the big blockbusters this summer, I was really hoping for a solid, original story. This film reminds me why I love movies.
From visionary writer/director J.J. Abrams, Super 8 tells the story of a group of middle-schoolers making a movie for their friend Charles to enter in a film contest. As they're shooting near a railroad track, a sudden and massive explosion sets them on the journey of their lives. A series of strange events take place following the crash, and they become entangled in an extraterrestrial plot which transforms these kids into a band of unlikely heroes.
While the film involves aliens and science-fiction, the emphasis is on the human spirit. The main character Joe Lamb (Joel Courtney) has a strained relationship with his father (Kyle Chandler), a deputy sheriff, following the tragic death of his mother. The scenes between them are some of the most compelling, and they play a pivotal role in the conclusion.
Then there's the kids. Each have unique and corky personalities which culminate into an array of subplots which enhance the story. Joel is the somewhat quiet special effects guy; Charles is the chubby and bossy young filmmaker. There are others who provide both humor and contribute to Abrams' spirited vision.
Abrams is a gifted storyteller and filmmaker. The way he manipulates viewers and utilizes the cinematography is what makes this movie so intriguing. Following the structure and pacing of a classic Spielberg film (which is cool since Spielberg is a producer of this film), Abrams not only tells a terrific and original story, but manages to instill a sort of youthful spirit within viewers. This method invokes a passionate response among a wide range of audiences.
I also loved how the human conflicts paralleled that of the extraterrestrial Cooper (voiced by Bruce Greenwood). Both the main character Joe and Cooper are incredibly misunderstood, which makes the scene between them in the end so emotionally gripping.
And one of my favorite moments in the film is at the very end (I wanna avoid spoilers so I'm not gonna tell you what happens). Michael Giacchino's score has such a powerful effect, and it compliments the incredible cinematography displayed in the shot. While this film had some unnecessary language, Abrams' vision for it made it one of the year's best.
Dir. J.J. Abrams
Explosive, cinematic, brilliant. Amidst all the big blockbusters this summer, I was really hoping for a solid, original story. This film reminds me why I love movies.
From visionary writer/director J.J. Abrams, Super 8 tells the story of a group of middle-schoolers making a movie for their friend Charles to enter in a film contest. As they're shooting near a railroad track, a sudden and massive explosion sets them on the journey of their lives. A series of strange events take place following the crash, and they become entangled in an extraterrestrial plot which transforms these kids into a band of unlikely heroes.
While the film involves aliens and science-fiction, the emphasis is on the human spirit. The main character Joe Lamb (Joel Courtney) has a strained relationship with his father (Kyle Chandler), a deputy sheriff, following the tragic death of his mother. The scenes between them are some of the most compelling, and they play a pivotal role in the conclusion.
Then there's the kids. Each have unique and corky personalities which culminate into an array of subplots which enhance the story. Joel is the somewhat quiet special effects guy; Charles is the chubby and bossy young filmmaker. There are others who provide both humor and contribute to Abrams' spirited vision.
Abrams is a gifted storyteller and filmmaker. The way he manipulates viewers and utilizes the cinematography is what makes this movie so intriguing. Following the structure and pacing of a classic Spielberg film (which is cool since Spielberg is a producer of this film), Abrams not only tells a terrific and original story, but manages to instill a sort of youthful spirit within viewers. This method invokes a passionate response among a wide range of audiences.
I also loved how the human conflicts paralleled that of the extraterrestrial Cooper (voiced by Bruce Greenwood). Both the main character Joe and Cooper are incredibly misunderstood, which makes the scene between them in the end so emotionally gripping.
And one of my favorite moments in the film is at the very end (I wanna avoid spoilers so I'm not gonna tell you what happens). Michael Giacchino's score has such a powerful effect, and it compliments the incredible cinematography displayed in the shot. While this film had some unnecessary language, Abrams' vision for it made it one of the year's best.
X-Men: First Class
****
Dir. Matthew Vaughn
After Marvel's failure with X-Men Origins: Wolverine, director Matthew Vaughn was bold to take on this project. Yet to my surprise, this turned out to be my favorite of the four big superhero movies this summer.
When I found out that this film was not going to feature the famous five (Cyclops, Jean, Beast, Iceman, Angel), I was rather disappointed. However, First Class chronicles an even better story: the origins of Xavier and Magneto. Set during the Cold War, global tensions are all the more enhanced when the age of mutants comes upon humanity. Striving to integrate mutants into society, Charles Xavier (James McCavoy) marks himself as a critically acclaimed scientist from Oxford. As he becomes entangled in world affairs in an attempt to prevent World War 3, he meets Holocaust survivor and fellow mutant Erik Lehnsheer (Michael Fassbender). From there, the two friends form a specialized team of super humans to save the planet, and thus the X-Men are born.
Not only was the film very cinematic in its structure, but what I was most intrigued by was McCavoy and Fassbender's performances. Both were dynamic in bringing the characters of Charles and Erik to life. While there were a few characters that could've been more developed, which is a problem I've seen throughout the X-Men franchise, the two big ones were done justice.
Vaughn does an excellent job of utilizing the cinematography to produce great action scenes, and just good visual effects overall. The only problem with it from a cinematic standpoint was that it had too much of a modern feel, despite its taking place during the Cold War. Nevertheless, I felt Vaughn did a great job in progressing the plot, and in building up to the key climactic moments.
The pacing of this film is just right. There's plenty of fast-paced action, but Vaughn uses it appropriately and really emphasizes character development to drive the story. There's grittiness, political intrigue, romance, and an array of supernatural powers; everything you want in an X-Men movie.
This franchise has had its fair share of ups and downs, but Vaughn does some really solid work in this installment. While it's no Dark Knight, it's definitely one for nerds everywhere.
Dir. Matthew Vaughn
After Marvel's failure with X-Men Origins: Wolverine, director Matthew Vaughn was bold to take on this project. Yet to my surprise, this turned out to be my favorite of the four big superhero movies this summer.
When I found out that this film was not going to feature the famous five (Cyclops, Jean, Beast, Iceman, Angel), I was rather disappointed. However, First Class chronicles an even better story: the origins of Xavier and Magneto. Set during the Cold War, global tensions are all the more enhanced when the age of mutants comes upon humanity. Striving to integrate mutants into society, Charles Xavier (James McCavoy) marks himself as a critically acclaimed scientist from Oxford. As he becomes entangled in world affairs in an attempt to prevent World War 3, he meets Holocaust survivor and fellow mutant Erik Lehnsheer (Michael Fassbender). From there, the two friends form a specialized team of super humans to save the planet, and thus the X-Men are born.
Not only was the film very cinematic in its structure, but what I was most intrigued by was McCavoy and Fassbender's performances. Both were dynamic in bringing the characters of Charles and Erik to life. While there were a few characters that could've been more developed, which is a problem I've seen throughout the X-Men franchise, the two big ones were done justice.
Vaughn does an excellent job of utilizing the cinematography to produce great action scenes, and just good visual effects overall. The only problem with it from a cinematic standpoint was that it had too much of a modern feel, despite its taking place during the Cold War. Nevertheless, I felt Vaughn did a great job in progressing the plot, and in building up to the key climactic moments.
The pacing of this film is just right. There's plenty of fast-paced action, but Vaughn uses it appropriately and really emphasizes character development to drive the story. There's grittiness, political intrigue, romance, and an array of supernatural powers; everything you want in an X-Men movie.
This franchise has had its fair share of ups and downs, but Vaughn does some really solid work in this installment. While it's no Dark Knight, it's definitely one for nerds everywhere.
Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides
*
Dir. Rob Marshall
This is one of those series that started off great, and got progressively worse. On Stranger Tides was so bad that I would've walked out of it if my little cousin wasn't there with me. The thing about this movie was its lack of believability. Now I am all for far-fetched stories, but it's the director's job to make me believe it.
The plot of this fourth installment is pretty jacked up in the first place, but it's made all the worse by Marshall's turning these well established characters into slapstick comedians. Picking up where the unwatchable At World's End left off, Jack Sparrow (Johnny Depp) sets out to find the Fountain of Youth (even though he's been shot and stabbed countless times, he's still not immortal for some reason). On the way, he comes across a seductive woman from his past (Penelope Cruz), who plays a part in his origin. Then, just when I thought Hollywood couldn't get even more pathetic, they bring in (you ready for this) Blackbeard (Ian McShane)! Viewers are then forced to suffer through a subplot involving Mermaids, which look more like something out of a crappy horror film. A group of 12 year-olds could have constructed a better story.
Even the effects in this one sucked. The fight scenes were completely unoriginal, and dragged on way too long. It felt like Marshall was attempting to torture moviegoers because everything about this "film" was pathetic!
The essence of The Curse of the Black Pearl that made it so great was completely stripped away in this sequel. When you have a movie like this, comedic relief is necessary, but should not be the only element. That feeling of adventure and espionage so evident in Gore Verbinski's installments wasn't at all present in this one. There are a few blockbusters this summer that weren't great, but good enough to rent. Don't even waste your time with this garbage.
Dir. Rob Marshall
This is one of those series that started off great, and got progressively worse. On Stranger Tides was so bad that I would've walked out of it if my little cousin wasn't there with me. The thing about this movie was its lack of believability. Now I am all for far-fetched stories, but it's the director's job to make me believe it.
The plot of this fourth installment is pretty jacked up in the first place, but it's made all the worse by Marshall's turning these well established characters into slapstick comedians. Picking up where the unwatchable At World's End left off, Jack Sparrow (Johnny Depp) sets out to find the Fountain of Youth (even though he's been shot and stabbed countless times, he's still not immortal for some reason). On the way, he comes across a seductive woman from his past (Penelope Cruz), who plays a part in his origin. Then, just when I thought Hollywood couldn't get even more pathetic, they bring in (you ready for this) Blackbeard (Ian McShane)! Viewers are then forced to suffer through a subplot involving Mermaids, which look more like something out of a crappy horror film. A group of 12 year-olds could have constructed a better story.
Even the effects in this one sucked. The fight scenes were completely unoriginal, and dragged on way too long. It felt like Marshall was attempting to torture moviegoers because everything about this "film" was pathetic!
The essence of The Curse of the Black Pearl that made it so great was completely stripped away in this sequel. When you have a movie like this, comedic relief is necessary, but should not be the only element. That feeling of adventure and espionage so evident in Gore Verbinski's installments wasn't at all present in this one. There are a few blockbusters this summer that weren't great, but good enough to rent. Don't even waste your time with this garbage.
Thor
**
Dir. Kenneth Branagh
Well, this has been a blockbuster summer, and I wanted to start my reviews by going back to the first big box office hit.
Director Kenneth Branagh (who Harry Potter fans know better as Gilderoy Lockheart) takes the god of thunder and one of the legendary Avengers to the big screen. Yet while there are good aspects of it, Marvel has done better work in the past.
The story is too formulated to really engage viewers, and the script contains some poorly written dialogue. Destined to one day rule the kingdom of Asgard, Thor (Chris Hemsworth) is at the beginning a hot-headed heir and warrior, eagerly awaiting to strike down the vicious Frost Giants, and unheeding of his father's instruction. Upon launching an attack on his enemies without consent, the god of thunder is banished to Earth by Odin (Anthony Hopkins) and stripped of all his powers. The only way he can redeem the throne is by proving himself worthy of it; all the while his brother Loki (Tom Hiddleston) is busy plotting his siege of the kingdom.
From a cinematic standpoint, it's decent but not anything great. Branagh is a solid visual storyteller, as demonstrated by his version of Hamlet; but this one relies too heavily on CGI to the point where viewers feel like they're in a video game. The action sequences are unoriginal and overtly digitized. While there are some really good shots overlooking Asgard, the Hollywood components of this film overshadow anything good about it.
What made other Marvel movies like Iron Man and Spider-Man some of the better comic book movies was their emphasis on classic mythology, and their ability to deliver a story with solid character development. Thor was made on the premise of bringing in big bucks to the box office, and fails at really evoking the imaginative spirits of audiences young and old.
Dir. Kenneth Branagh
Well, this has been a blockbuster summer, and I wanted to start my reviews by going back to the first big box office hit.
Director Kenneth Branagh (who Harry Potter fans know better as Gilderoy Lockheart) takes the god of thunder and one of the legendary Avengers to the big screen. Yet while there are good aspects of it, Marvel has done better work in the past.
The story is too formulated to really engage viewers, and the script contains some poorly written dialogue. Destined to one day rule the kingdom of Asgard, Thor (Chris Hemsworth) is at the beginning a hot-headed heir and warrior, eagerly awaiting to strike down the vicious Frost Giants, and unheeding of his father's instruction. Upon launching an attack on his enemies without consent, the god of thunder is banished to Earth by Odin (Anthony Hopkins) and stripped of all his powers. The only way he can redeem the throne is by proving himself worthy of it; all the while his brother Loki (Tom Hiddleston) is busy plotting his siege of the kingdom.
From a cinematic standpoint, it's decent but not anything great. Branagh is a solid visual storyteller, as demonstrated by his version of Hamlet; but this one relies too heavily on CGI to the point where viewers feel like they're in a video game. The action sequences are unoriginal and overtly digitized. While there are some really good shots overlooking Asgard, the Hollywood components of this film overshadow anything good about it.
What made other Marvel movies like Iron Man and Spider-Man some of the better comic book movies was their emphasis on classic mythology, and their ability to deliver a story with solid character development. Thor was made on the premise of bringing in big bucks to the box office, and fails at really evoking the imaginative spirits of audiences young and old.
Hello True Fans of Cinema
Welcome. If you've checked out this site, I hope your view of movies is different from the average American who only seeks mindless entertainment. I believe film is a medium that can do so much more than produce explosions and slapstick comedy. This site is for viewers who enjoy in-depth analysis, and who will post intelligent comments in regards to my reviews. I don't expect you to agree with all my opinions on the movies I review, nor do I want you to. I welcome disagreements on this site, so long as you post legitimate comments. I won't allow any profanity or other inappropriate content to be posted on this site. This is simply a place where film lovers can share opinions with each other.
I rate movies one to five stars, and don't use half stars. The criteria is as follows.
*=Sucked, hated it
**=Meh, not good
***=Liked it, good but not great
****=Really liked it, exceptional
*****=Outstanding, loved it
Just to give you a heads up, I'm big on science fiction and comic book movies, so the majority of the ones I review will be in that category. Thank you for your visiting this site and I look forward to hearing from you.
I rate movies one to five stars, and don't use half stars. The criteria is as follows.
*=Sucked, hated it
**=Meh, not good
***=Liked it, good but not great
****=Really liked it, exceptional
*****=Outstanding, loved it
Just to give you a heads up, I'm big on science fiction and comic book movies, so the majority of the ones I review will be in that category. Thank you for your visiting this site and I look forward to hearing from you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)