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.
Saturday, July 30, 2011
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)