*
Dir. Jonathan Liebseman
Well, there's 90 minutes of my life I'm never getting back. Jonathan Liebseman makes movies that are as pathetic and obnoxious as Michael Bay's, and this garbage is no exception. The sequel to the already atrocious 2010 Blockbuster Clash of the Titans is nothing more than poorly executed visual effects and a virtually nonexistent plotline.
Liebseman and screenwriters Dan Mazeau and David Johnson continue the story of Zeus' son Perseus (Sam Worthington), in a time where the power of the gods is quickly diminishing. Having chosen the simple life of a mortal, the mighty Kracken slayer realizes he cannot escape his destiny, as great peril stirs within the Underworld. The humans lose faith in the gods, and Zeus (Liam Neeson) and Poseidon (Danny Huston) find themselves unable to stand their ground against the forces of Ares (Édgar Ramírez), the god of war.
As if the "plot" isn't watered down and underdeveloped as it is, but the way it's presented makes the experience of watching this disaster feel like torture. The characters from the previous installment are reintroduced, and from there we see a series of terribly executed action sequences up until the credits. Combine the essence of Transformers and the Twilight saga, and that'll give you a pretty good idea of what this excuse for a movie is like.
The cast is really the only element that strives to save this epic failure. Between Worthington, Neeson, Ralph Fiennes as Hades, and Rosamund Pike as Perseus' love interest, they each make an effort to combat the long list of mistakes in this film. Yet despite their best attempts, it's difficult for any actor when they have a script and director like this to work with.
Furthermore, the cinematography is a reflection of the garbage CGI used in this "film". We've seen other films related to Greek mythology such as Troy and various Odyssey adaptations that are much more gripping, and it's pretty sad that this falls in the same genre. I have seen worse, but it's movies like these that are made for people without any intellectual approach to the cinema.
Saturday, April 28, 2012
Friday, March 23, 2012
Act of Valor
***
Dir. Mike McCoy, Scott Waugh
The nature of war films has changed dramatically over the last twenty years with pictures such as Saving Private Ryan and Courage Under Fire.
In Act of Valor, directors Mike McCoy and Scott Waugh go the extra mile to honor our armed forces by using active U.S. Navy Seals as the stars of the movie. The film tells the story of a special forces unit that fight to prevent a large-scale terrorist plot, after rescuing a federal agent from a band of foreign mercenaries. Screenwriter Kurt Johnstad's script tells a great story of honor, justice, and freedom which we as American citizens too often take for granted.
As far as pacing, it does lack a certain essence most viewers would expect. McCoy and Waugh structure it more like an independent film, an aspect I was quite fond of. While I've seen other war pictures that are more character driven, there were many aspects in this one which I found to be quite compelling.
The way the action scenes are shot make it look almost like a reenactment of U.S. missions. I would compare it with films like The Hurt Locker, which I felt did a great job of capturing the reality and essence of war, something that many million dollar budget Hollywood movies have failed to do.
While the acting is pretty sorry, given that these are military men, not theatre majors, it's a unique film nonetheless. Watching it will help viewers acquire a deeper respect for the men and women serving in our armed forces (and hopefully get all the hippies out there to shut up and show some respect for their country!). God bless America!
Dir. Mike McCoy, Scott Waugh
The nature of war films has changed dramatically over the last twenty years with pictures such as Saving Private Ryan and Courage Under Fire.
In Act of Valor, directors Mike McCoy and Scott Waugh go the extra mile to honor our armed forces by using active U.S. Navy Seals as the stars of the movie. The film tells the story of a special forces unit that fight to prevent a large-scale terrorist plot, after rescuing a federal agent from a band of foreign mercenaries. Screenwriter Kurt Johnstad's script tells a great story of honor, justice, and freedom which we as American citizens too often take for granted.
As far as pacing, it does lack a certain essence most viewers would expect. McCoy and Waugh structure it more like an independent film, an aspect I was quite fond of. While I've seen other war pictures that are more character driven, there were many aspects in this one which I found to be quite compelling.
The way the action scenes are shot make it look almost like a reenactment of U.S. missions. I would compare it with films like The Hurt Locker, which I felt did a great job of capturing the reality and essence of war, something that many million dollar budget Hollywood movies have failed to do.
While the acting is pretty sorry, given that these are military men, not theatre majors, it's a unique film nonetheless. Watching it will help viewers acquire a deeper respect for the men and women serving in our armed forces (and hopefully get all the hippies out there to shut up and show some respect for their country!). God bless America!
The Lorax
****
Dir. Chris Renaud, Kyle Balda
I was able to see an advanced screening of this adaptation of the Dr. Seuss classic, and was quite impressed by what I saw. Directors Chris Renaud and Kyle Balda do a fantastic job of bringing this story to the big screen, in a way that captivates a wide variety of audiences. The animation is very reminiscent of "Horton Hears a Who" and other films of that genre, and is just as visually gripping.
Screenwriters Ken Daurio and Cinco Paul compose a great script, which includes a string of original songs that you'll find yourself singing along to. I especially recommend parents to take their kids to this film, as it examines a wide range of ethical issues; such as capitalism, humanity's lust for power, and the nature of ambition. Furthermore, the voice talents of Danny Devito, Zac Efron (this is probably the only time I'll compliment the star of that garbage Disney Channel franchise), Taylor Swift, Ed Helms, and Betty White make the picture all the more intriguing.
Films like these not only provide good family entertainment, but more importantly invoke the imaginative spirit within a person. I did like it in 3-D, but again, it doesn't enhance the cinematic quality of a film, just makes the viewing experience slightly different. Hence, I would definitely recommend this one for viewers of all ages.
Dir. Chris Renaud, Kyle Balda
I was able to see an advanced screening of this adaptation of the Dr. Seuss classic, and was quite impressed by what I saw. Directors Chris Renaud and Kyle Balda do a fantastic job of bringing this story to the big screen, in a way that captivates a wide variety of audiences. The animation is very reminiscent of "Horton Hears a Who" and other films of that genre, and is just as visually gripping.
Screenwriters Ken Daurio and Cinco Paul compose a great script, which includes a string of original songs that you'll find yourself singing along to. I especially recommend parents to take their kids to this film, as it examines a wide range of ethical issues; such as capitalism, humanity's lust for power, and the nature of ambition. Furthermore, the voice talents of Danny Devito, Zac Efron (this is probably the only time I'll compliment the star of that garbage Disney Channel franchise), Taylor Swift, Ed Helms, and Betty White make the picture all the more intriguing.
Films like these not only provide good family entertainment, but more importantly invoke the imaginative spirit within a person. I did like it in 3-D, but again, it doesn't enhance the cinematic quality of a film, just makes the viewing experience slightly different. Hence, I would definitely recommend this one for viewers of all ages.
Saturday, February 4, 2012
The Iron Lady
***
Dir. Phyllida Lloyd
After seeing this film, I say the Oscars should just go ahead and give Meryl Streep best actress for this year.
A stirring and emotionally gripping portrayal of former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, director Phyllida Lloyd and screenwriter Abi Morgan illustrate the true nature of the craft in The Iron Lady. Centered around the events surrounding Thatcher's political career as well as her personal life, the film does a remarkable job of depicting this historical figure in a unique and intriguing manner. I really liked how it went back and forth between the past and present, and I thought the transitioning was very well executed.
Lloyd really utilized various cinematic techniques to present the story, including implementing actual footage at certain points. Furthermore, the score by Thomas Newman (The Shawshank Redemption) really complimented Lloyd's artistic vision for the film. Yet the highlight was definitely Streep's performance. Not that she isn't great in all her films, but the way she embodied the character in this one was absolutely fantastic. Having been a theatre student for seven years now, I could see her applying methods by acting teachers such as Constantin Stanislavski and Uta Hagen. Her physicality and diction really makes viewers believe her presentation of the character. All in all, this was a truly invigorating film, which I hope to see take something away at the Academy Awards.
Dir. Phyllida Lloyd
After seeing this film, I say the Oscars should just go ahead and give Meryl Streep best actress for this year.
A stirring and emotionally gripping portrayal of former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, director Phyllida Lloyd and screenwriter Abi Morgan illustrate the true nature of the craft in The Iron Lady. Centered around the events surrounding Thatcher's political career as well as her personal life, the film does a remarkable job of depicting this historical figure in a unique and intriguing manner. I really liked how it went back and forth between the past and present, and I thought the transitioning was very well executed.
Lloyd really utilized various cinematic techniques to present the story, including implementing actual footage at certain points. Furthermore, the score by Thomas Newman (The Shawshank Redemption) really complimented Lloyd's artistic vision for the film. Yet the highlight was definitely Streep's performance. Not that she isn't great in all her films, but the way she embodied the character in this one was absolutely fantastic. Having been a theatre student for seven years now, I could see her applying methods by acting teachers such as Constantin Stanislavski and Uta Hagen. Her physicality and diction really makes viewers believe her presentation of the character. All in all, this was a truly invigorating film, which I hope to see take something away at the Academy Awards.
Sunday, January 1, 2012
War Horse
***
Dir. Steven Spielberg
Between this and Tintin, it seems as though Spielberg is competing with Scorsese and Eastwood for another Oscar. Although this film lacks a certain essence that makes his classic works so captivating, it is very well done nonetheless.
War Horse tells the story of a farm boy named Albert (Jeremy Irvine) seeking to reunite with his beloved horse Joey, after the creature is recruited by British forces at the start of WW1. When Joey's second master is killed in action, he is then rescued by a young French girl and her grandfather. From there, the plot merges these stories together until fate returns the adventurous horse to his faithful master and friend.
The central problem with this, the Broadway musical, and the novel, is that the plot is an overtly outlandish sob story that tries to present itself as a compelling drama. Despite being dragged across the European continent and coming close to death more than once, the horse still manages to magically find its owner in the midst of a battleground at the conclusion. Then there's the fact that Albert's not that interesting a character. Other Spielberg films like E.T. explore misunderstood adolescents much more effectively. This guy is a mopey-dopey wimp lacking a lot of depth and intrigue.
However, from a cinematic standpoint, Spielberg once again demonstrates his innate ability as a visual storyteller. The best scenes are at the end when he gives a great depiction of trench warfare, much in the same manner as Saving Private Ryan and Band of Brothers. His methods of immersing audiences into the setting are executed brilliantly. Having teamed up with long time producer Frank Marshall once more, the team utilizes a very artistic vision to make this film.
And of course, a Spielberg picture wouldn't be complete without a great soundtrack by John Williams. The legendary composer's work here enhances the mood very effectively, and is definitely one of the movie's highlights.
Being one of the most celebrated and iconic directors in film history, it's only natural for Spielberg to make a just okay picture every now and then. Although the quality of this one is high, it's certainly no classic or masterpiece.
Dir. Steven Spielberg
Between this and Tintin, it seems as though Spielberg is competing with Scorsese and Eastwood for another Oscar. Although this film lacks a certain essence that makes his classic works so captivating, it is very well done nonetheless.
War Horse tells the story of a farm boy named Albert (Jeremy Irvine) seeking to reunite with his beloved horse Joey, after the creature is recruited by British forces at the start of WW1. When Joey's second master is killed in action, he is then rescued by a young French girl and her grandfather. From there, the plot merges these stories together until fate returns the adventurous horse to his faithful master and friend.
The central problem with this, the Broadway musical, and the novel, is that the plot is an overtly outlandish sob story that tries to present itself as a compelling drama. Despite being dragged across the European continent and coming close to death more than once, the horse still manages to magically find its owner in the midst of a battleground at the conclusion. Then there's the fact that Albert's not that interesting a character. Other Spielberg films like E.T. explore misunderstood adolescents much more effectively. This guy is a mopey-dopey wimp lacking a lot of depth and intrigue.
However, from a cinematic standpoint, Spielberg once again demonstrates his innate ability as a visual storyteller. The best scenes are at the end when he gives a great depiction of trench warfare, much in the same manner as Saving Private Ryan and Band of Brothers. His methods of immersing audiences into the setting are executed brilliantly. Having teamed up with long time producer Frank Marshall once more, the team utilizes a very artistic vision to make this film.
And of course, a Spielberg picture wouldn't be complete without a great soundtrack by John Williams. The legendary composer's work here enhances the mood very effectively, and is definitely one of the movie's highlights.
Being one of the most celebrated and iconic directors in film history, it's only natural for Spielberg to make a just okay picture every now and then. Although the quality of this one is high, it's certainly no classic or masterpiece.
Friday, December 30, 2011
The Adventures of Tintin
****
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)