Monday, December 9, 2013
Saturday, December 7, 2013
Finding God in Cinema: Pulp Fiction
 |
| Jules tells Ringo why he is going to spare his life |
God works in the most mysterious ways. He no longer chooses to reveal Himself physically to us, as He did back in ancient times, but that does not mean that He no longer chooses to reveal himself at all. God can be found everywhere, most of all in the Bible, the supreme force for which He reveals himself to us today. But not every Christian has become a follower of God solely through the reading of Scripture. Many have their eyes opened to the glory of God through other things in this world such as the beauty of nature, the complexity of science, or a miraculous event. This brings me to the subject of film. There is no denying that movies have become one of the top tentpoles in popular culture. Even in recent years when our nation's economy is struggling, it seems that movies make more and more every year. Since it is very likely that millions of people will see the newest blockbuster being released, it is common for directors to put their world views and ideas into their movie (just as an author puts their thought/ideas into their books). This is why I've been inspired to write this series of articles titled, "Finding God in Cinema."
The Matrix, Finding Nemo, X-Men, The Conjuring, these are examples of films that believers and unbelievers alike may not expect to find elements of God's truth in. Whether directors know it or not, God is using them as a tool to showcase his glory through the art of movie-making. Now I am not saying that one viewing of Pulp Fiction will result in conversion to Christianity. What I am saying is that the ideas and elements of truth that are to be found in a film like this can lead to discussion and questions that may challenge the viewer the think more deeply about the film and its meaning. Movies are modern-day parables. To those who are not Christians, they have the capability to be a seed that God plants in their hearts that one day could blossom into faith. To those who are Christians, these films can act as methods of discussion among believers and can challenge us to make these connections between movies and Scripture. Now onto Pulp Fiction.
To give a very brief plot summary of this film (if that is even possible), Pulp Fiction is told in chapter and revolves around three main characters, and a couple secondary characters. For the sake of this article I will only be focusing two of the three main characters. Vincent Vega (John Travolta) and Jules (Samuel L Jackson) are two enforcers that work for a ruthless mob boss. In the events of the film, Vince is asked to "baby sit" the boss' wife, while Jules realizes that he needs to stop being a criminal.
There are two major scenes that really stick out to me containing elements of truth and Christianity, each revolving around one of the two characters mentioned above. One is more obvious, one is more subtle, but they are both surprisingly profound for a Tarantino action movie. First for the more subtle one. Near the start of the film, Vincent and Jules are having a debate concerning where the line is with adultery. This conversation is prompted by a rumor that their boss threw a man out a window for giving his wife a foot massage. Jules thinks that nothing is wrong with a foot massage, claiming that something as "simple" as that has no meaning behind it. He goes on to say that he believes adultery only occurs when the two engage in a sexual act. Vincent believes quite the opposite. He insists that something as little as touching her feet is wrong, even thinking about another man's wife is wrong. In his argument he says to Jules that acts like that mean something, "We act like they don't but they do."
And this line stood out to me. Isn't that what we tell ourselves when we sin. Isn't that how we try to reassure ourselves that we will be fine and that no consequences will arise. We lie to ourselves, thinking that these "little sins" don't mean anything.
"Oh it was just a little bit of someone else's work I used on that paper, the professor will never notice."
"I just wont tell my wife that I had took my female co-worker out to dinner last night, I don't want her to think anything of it."
"I'll never see that girl that I slept with again, everything's fine."
We act like our sins don't mean anything but they do. We hind in our own deceit instead of accepting that we have done wrong and asking God, and those we have wronged, for forgiveness. Proverbs 28:13 states:
"Whoever conceals his transgressions will not prosper, but he who confesses and forsakes them will obtain mercy."
One of the hardest things for us as sinners to do is to admit that we have done wrong. But how comforting it is to know that when we admit to our sins and ask for forgiveness, we are doing so in the loving arms of our heavenly Father who has shown us mercy.
The second scene (actually a couple scenes) that is of importance is near the end of the film and I was so surprised in what I saw. Tarantino, whether he knows it or not, has provided an example of special revelation through the character of Jules. This occurs after Jules and Vince are about to leave a room of men they have killed when suddenly, another guy jumps out from behind a closed door and shoots off an entire round point from his pistol right in front of the two...but he misses all of the shots. Jules cannot wrap his head around how all of those bullets missed, and this event has a profound impact on him when. After thinking on it for the remainder of the film he decides that he has witnessed a miracle. This is when Jules and Vincent get into another debate. Vincent argues that what they witnessed is simply and "occurrence," while Jules insists that they witnessed a miracle. And this is when Jules says two key lines:
"Whether or not what we experienced was an 'according to Hoyle' miracle is insignificant. What is significant, is that I felt that touch of God. God got involved."
"You can choose to be blind but my eyes are wide open."
This event has a profound impact on Jules, so much so that he decides right then to stop being a criminal and pursue a good life. He is willing to give up everything from his job, to his home, to his money because he has felt God intervene in his life. This is also the first time that Jules actually thinks on a Bible verse that he recites whenever he kills the men his boss tells him to kill, Ezekiel 25:17.
Throughout the film, Jules never thinks about what the verse actually means, he just likes it because it "sounds cool." But for the first time in his life, he wants the one that "Shepherds the weak through the valley of darkness," not the one who kills with "Great vengeance and furious anger." In the final scene he even tells a man who is threatening him that if this was any other day, he (Jules) would have no problem blowing his head off. But then Jules tells him that this isn't any other day. Instead, he tells him that, "I am trying really hard to be the Shepherd." This miraculous event has caused a complete 180 degree turn in Jules' character, showing just how much of an impact God's power can have over a person.
Believe it or not, there is a lot more that can be discussed about parallels between Pulp Fiction and Christianity. I was so surprised with what I was able to pick up on in my 2nd viewing of the film and I would encourage everyone who is interested to watch it with these things in mind to maybe gain even more appreciation for the film. Why did I choose to write on Pulp Fiction first? Because honestly is it one of the last films I would think of when trying to think of films with Christian themes and lessons. And that is why it was so interesting to dissect these scenes and discover the messages that they tell. For those of you who would look at a trailer for this film and dismiss it as just the same old Tarantino movie with senseless violence with bad language, I would challenge to "not judge a book by its cover"...God works in mysterious ways.
**Keep in mind that I am not saying that every film should be watched because you can find God's truth in it (ie don't watch Saw 7 and Project X to find what they say about Christianity). Just as films can be good to watch, many films (probably the majority of films) can also be harmful to the mind and soul to watch. This is a time where a friend or even the internet can be a useful tool in knowing what is in a film before you watch it.
Thursday, November 14, 2013
Noah Official Trailer (HD) Russell Crowe, Emma Watson
http://www.youtube.com/v/FRTlT3DEydU?version=3&autohide=1&feature=share&autoplay=1&autohide=1&attribution_tag=kyDogVTPYOodkYXgGwHW-g&showinfo=1
Wednesday, August 7, 2013
Trailer Showcase: Thor: The Dark World, The Muppets: Most Wanted, Kick Ass 2 Red Band Feature
Thor: The Dark World: A great new trailer has been released for November's sequel about the God of Thunder. The new footage showcases the film's more epic scope and shows more of the evolving relationship/team-up between Thor and the ever-so-loveable Loki.
The Muppets: Most Wanted: I was a huge fan of the "first" Muppets film in 2011. Not only was it hilarious but it was clean, clever, and just made me extremely happy ever time I watched it. That is why I am very excited for the sequel due out next year. The new film stars Ricky Gervais, Tina Fay, and Ty Burrell. While this doesn't give us much in terms of story, it's good to see the Muppets again.
Kick Ass 2 Behind the Scenes Video (Red Band): The first Kick Ass is one of the most creative, original, and violent (plus crude) super hero films to date, plus it featured a surprisingly great performance by Nick Cage. The sequel is due out August 16th so check out this video showing new footage and cast interviews. (Warning: Language)
Friday, August 2, 2013
Citrus County Graduate Miles Teller Being Eyed for Fantastic Four Reboot
Many would argue that "The Fantastic Four" series does not need a reboot, but somehow the Superhero genre continues to get more and more popular and therefore 20th Century Fox sees a potential money maker. It is for that reason that in 2015 we will see the return of the Fantastic Four with an entirely new cast. A couple months ago it was reported the Michael B. Jordan was being eyed to play The Human Torch, and now the rumors are swirling around that Miles Teller (who graduated from Lecanto High School) is being eyed to play Mr. Fantastic. Teller first gathered notice when he appeared in "Footloose" and "21 and Over." Now he is getting ready to star in a potential franchise starter opposite Shailene Williams in "Divergent" next year.
While I have never actually seen Teller in any of his films, I'm not sure how I feel about Mr. Fantastic being played by a 26 year old. But, if they are wanting to truly do a reboot then maybe a fresh, unexpected cast is the right way to go.
Thursday, August 1, 2013
Finding the Heart of Cinema
PLEASE NOTE: THIS IS A "FAREWELL ARTICLE" WRITTEN TO MY NEWSPAPER THANKING THEM FOR SUPPORT AND LEAVING THEM WITH WHAT I BELIEVE TO BE THE MOST IMPORTANT ASPECT OF FILM. I WILL STILL BE UPDATING THE BLOG AFTER THIS TIME.
Just over five years ago, I was on a bus headed home from a mission's trip to Belize. On that bus I was speaking with a man about my favorite subject...movies. And at some point in this conversation the man said to me, "Well you really know your stuff, have you ever though about making a website or a blog and writing about film on it?"
I never had thought of it, but it seemed like a fun idea. So when I arrived home the first thing I did was go to the computer and look up how to make a website. Within twenty minutes I had designed a blog using google and was looking for a name for it. My mind first thought of my oldest middle/high school nickname, Cashmoney, and so I named the blog "Cashmoney Movies" (it seemed to have a nice ring).
I then went on to write my first movie critique on a movie that I had just seen. The film was "The Dark Knight," one of my favorite films of all time. The whole review was a single paragraph and, looking back, pretty embarrassing. But I eventually picked up on more things to think on in these reviews: character development, pacing, predictability. And not long after that my dad came home and told me that he was talking to Mr. Mulligan about my site and that he wanted me to send a review of mine to The Chronicle for possible publication. I was thrilled of course, and I sent in what I believed was my best review up to that point. Then a few more months down the road, on March 20th, 2009, I published my first review with The Chronicle.
That was about four and a half years ago, and since then I have written numerous reviews for the paper on some of the greatest cinematic achievements of the past couple of decades: "Avatar," "Harry Potter," "The Artist," "Les Miserables," and many more. But now, as I am preparing to leave for college a few weeks from now, and I am very sad that my time with The Chronicle has come to an end. My last review will be on "The Wolverine," a good film to end with in my critical opinion, being that he is my favorite super-hero (and the film was great). The opportunity to write for this paper has not only allowed me to share my passions with others on a weekly basis, but it has given me an incredible experience that will help me immensely throughout the rest of my life.
I would like to thank Mr. Mulligan for giving me the chance to write for the Citrus County Chronicle. Without his generosity and encouragement, I would have never been able express my love for journalism and cinema like I have been doing. I would like to thank Cheri Harris (who no longer works at the Chronicle) for guiding me in the beginning of my time with the Chronicle, and giving me friendly advice and tips for my writing. And finally, I wish to thank the readers of the Chronicle, who over the years have offered numerous accounts of encouragement, compliments, and even debate (which is the fun part).
But before I sign off, I want to give a final word on what I believe to be the greatest thing the world of the silver screen has given us. I have always tried to stress in my reviews that the key aspect of film that will make it or break it, is the story. No matter how much action, or suspense, or laughs there are in a film, it will never amount to anything if there is not a good story. A good story has the power to reach the farthest corners of our imaginations, as we smile in awe at the story of a girl with ruby slippers, trying to find her way back to Kansas. A good story has the power to tug on our heartstrings and make us cringe and sigh at the tragic story of a man who wants nothing more than to escape from being pulled in to the family business, but through unfortunate events is forced to be a ruthless Godfather. A good story has the power to make us cheer and rejoice at the triumph of good, as two little hobbits, against all odds, finish the task they set out to accomplish.
A good story stands the test of time, and when you look inside the story, when you dig just a little bit deeper, you find something even greater. This is not something you can find without looking, it's not something that just presents itself on screen, and when and if you find it then you will see the true greatness of a film...it's heart. It's message. It's truth. The greatest of films act as parables of of our time. They are stories with messages that teach us, inspire us, and challenge us. There have been countless super hero films over the last thirteen years but when you break them down they are all about the same thing: they are about one person who has been called to stand up and pursue goodness, to defy the darkness around them. Isn't that what we all want? To pursue goodness, to make a difference, to be a light in a dark world? No wonder these films are so popular.
It is the message of a film that makes it stand out. These films teach us things. They show us that there is a difference between what is right and what is easy, that with great power comes great responsibility, and that there is still some good in this world that is worth fighting for. Lessons like these can shape an individual.
So I leave you with a challenge: the next time you walk into a movie theater and watch a great story, try to dig a little deeper. Find something that is really worth talking about, worth remembering, worth believing in. Because when you find the heart of a film and the truth it tells, then you will be able to appreciate it's greatness even more.
Just over five years ago, I was on a bus headed home from a mission's trip to Belize. On that bus I was speaking with a man about my favorite subject...movies. And at some point in this conversation the man said to me, "Well you really know your stuff, have you ever though about making a website or a blog and writing about film on it?"
I never had thought of it, but it seemed like a fun idea. So when I arrived home the first thing I did was go to the computer and look up how to make a website. Within twenty minutes I had designed a blog using google and was looking for a name for it. My mind first thought of my oldest middle/high school nickname, Cashmoney, and so I named the blog "Cashmoney Movies" (it seemed to have a nice ring).
I then went on to write my first movie critique on a movie that I had just seen. The film was "The Dark Knight," one of my favorite films of all time. The whole review was a single paragraph and, looking back, pretty embarrassing. But I eventually picked up on more things to think on in these reviews: character development, pacing, predictability. And not long after that my dad came home and told me that he was talking to Mr. Mulligan about my site and that he wanted me to send a review of mine to The Chronicle for possible publication. I was thrilled of course, and I sent in what I believed was my best review up to that point. Then a few more months down the road, on March 20th, 2009, I published my first review with The Chronicle.
That was about four and a half years ago, and since then I have written numerous reviews for the paper on some of the greatest cinematic achievements of the past couple of decades: "Avatar," "Harry Potter," "The Artist," "Les Miserables," and many more. But now, as I am preparing to leave for college a few weeks from now, and I am very sad that my time with The Chronicle has come to an end. My last review will be on "The Wolverine," a good film to end with in my critical opinion, being that he is my favorite super-hero (and the film was great). The opportunity to write for this paper has not only allowed me to share my passions with others on a weekly basis, but it has given me an incredible experience that will help me immensely throughout the rest of my life.
I would like to thank Mr. Mulligan for giving me the chance to write for the Citrus County Chronicle. Without his generosity and encouragement, I would have never been able express my love for journalism and cinema like I have been doing. I would like to thank Cheri Harris (who no longer works at the Chronicle) for guiding me in the beginning of my time with the Chronicle, and giving me friendly advice and tips for my writing. And finally, I wish to thank the readers of the Chronicle, who over the years have offered numerous accounts of encouragement, compliments, and even debate (which is the fun part).
But before I sign off, I want to give a final word on what I believe to be the greatest thing the world of the silver screen has given us. I have always tried to stress in my reviews that the key aspect of film that will make it or break it, is the story. No matter how much action, or suspense, or laughs there are in a film, it will never amount to anything if there is not a good story. A good story has the power to reach the farthest corners of our imaginations, as we smile in awe at the story of a girl with ruby slippers, trying to find her way back to Kansas. A good story has the power to tug on our heartstrings and make us cringe and sigh at the tragic story of a man who wants nothing more than to escape from being pulled in to the family business, but through unfortunate events is forced to be a ruthless Godfather. A good story has the power to make us cheer and rejoice at the triumph of good, as two little hobbits, against all odds, finish the task they set out to accomplish.
A good story stands the test of time, and when you look inside the story, when you dig just a little bit deeper, you find something even greater. This is not something you can find without looking, it's not something that just presents itself on screen, and when and if you find it then you will see the true greatness of a film...it's heart. It's message. It's truth. The greatest of films act as parables of of our time. They are stories with messages that teach us, inspire us, and challenge us. There have been countless super hero films over the last thirteen years but when you break them down they are all about the same thing: they are about one person who has been called to stand up and pursue goodness, to defy the darkness around them. Isn't that what we all want? To pursue goodness, to make a difference, to be a light in a dark world? No wonder these films are so popular.
It is the message of a film that makes it stand out. These films teach us things. They show us that there is a difference between what is right and what is easy, that with great power comes great responsibility, and that there is still some good in this world that is worth fighting for. Lessons like these can shape an individual.
So I leave you with a challenge: the next time you walk into a movie theater and watch a great story, try to dig a little deeper. Find something that is really worth talking about, worth remembering, worth believing in. Because when you find the heart of a film and the truth it tells, then you will be able to appreciate it's greatness even more.
Bryan Singer Tweets Picture of Himself Next to Sentinel.
Holy cow! There have been several images released through twitter and viral sites of the giant robots that will be giving the young and old versions of Professor X and Magneto trouble in next summer's mega sequel "X-Men: Days of Future Past," but this time we get a clear look at the design of the Sentinel and just how tall it will be! Keep in mind that this is just a practical model and that no CGI can be seen (so it's possible it will look a lot more high tec and intimidating on screen) but there is still a giant robot with a big gun on his right arm! If you want to learn more about the Sentinels and their creator Bolivar Trask (being played by Game of Thrones star Peter Dinklage) head on over to the Trask Industries Website. X-Men: Days of Future Past is set for release on May 23, 2014.
#TRUTHINJOURNALISM
Any comic book fan should check out this new (unofficial) short film about the classic Spider-Man villain Venom! Be sure to watch for some other Marvel easter eggs throughout!
Monday, July 29, 2013
The Wolverine
Back in 2000, Bryan Singer directed the first "X-Men" movie, which marked the start of the Marvel comic movie age (following the next year with Spider-Man). The film not only marked a new beginning for comic book movies, but it also launched the career of its leading actor, Hugh Jackman. And for thirteen years, Jackman has faithfully portrayed the character who is now arguably the most recognizable super-hero in Hollywood--the fierce, clawed mutant Logan, but you probably know him better by his other name...Wolverine.
Yes there has already been a solo Wolverine film that was released four years ago, but we all know how that turned out (and if you don't know then consider yourself lucky). But this time director James Mangold (Walk The Line, 3:10 To Yuma) has teamed up with Jackman to bring us a new story based on the very popular 1982 limited series comic.
In this film, which takes place some time after the events of "X-Men: The Last Stand," Logan has abandoned his role as the heroic X-Man and sworn off of violence forever (which is a long time considering he is immortal). This "vow" is in response to the final events of the 3rd X-Men film when he was forced to kill the love of is life Jean Grey (Famke Janssen), who still haunts him in his sleep. Well as one might expect, this "swearing off violence" doesn't exactly pan out when a group of hunters come into a Canadian forest where Logan is living and use illegal means to kill a bear.
But before he gets the chance to finish his revenge on these hunters, he is found by a lady named Yukio (Rila Fukushima). Yukio has tracked him down to bring him to Japan, where her boss wants to thank Logan for saving his life back in WWII. Of course this is not all the dying man wants from Logan, he also wants for him to pass on his immortality to the man because he does not want to die. When Logan refuses, the man warns Logan that his daughter, Mariko (Tao Okamoto) needs to be protected from people who want her dead.
And those people show up the next day at the man's funeral, and Logan takes it upon himself to protect her. There is only one problem, somehow his ability to heal has been hindered and for once in his life Logan can be killed if he isn't careful. What follows is an engaging story full of suspense, romance, and lots of claw stabbing (and ninjas).
A line that was included in most of the advertising for "The Wolverine" said that this film was, "The Wolverine movie you have been waiting for." And the film makers were dead on with that statement. For the first time in the "X-Men" series, we really get a deep look into the heart and soul of Logan. The problems that he struggles with--the burden of having to live forever, the sadness of watching anyone you love eventually dying as you never age, and now the fear of death surrounding him--these issues are brought to the front of the viewers attention and used to drive the narrative. And we also get a lot more of what comic fans love about Wolverine: his sarcasm, blunt remarks, and classic one-liners.
But the credit of the success of this intricate character development has to be given to the incredible work of Hugh Jackman. His sixth time portraying the character, Jackman has never done a "bad" job of playing Wolverine (not even in the painful "X-Men Origins"), but the script and storyline of this film has allowed him to dive even deeper into the character. When he needs to thoughtful, he is, when he needs to be conflicted, he is, and when he needs to look incredibly angry as he slices and dices the bad guys...he does! The X-Men films would not be the same without Jackman as Wolverine.
Now earlier I mentioned the engaging story of the film. To elaborate on that point, "The Wolverine" gets big bonus points for doing something that most sequels (let alone the fifth sequel) fail to do. Instead of speeding things up with action and big set pieces, this time things are slowed down, more-so than your average comic-book film. There is a lot of time given to the characters and the story in this film. The director took a risk with boring audiences with the amount of "down time" between action scenes. But it pays off and the film manages to really engage the audience (and then a big battle comes at the end).
And don't worry action junkies, this is a Wolverine film after all, so there is action to be found. And when there is, it is terrific and thrilling, especially an amazing sequence that takes place on top of a bullet train. The fight scenes aren't just mindless and explosive like they were in "Man of Steel", they move the story along like everything else in the movie, and the balance between action and drama is perfect.
This movie is called "THE Wolverine" for a reason. It is about THE character. It's not about the action, the explosions, or the ways to top other super-hero films, it is about THE character. "The Wolverine" doesn't try to be the next Avengers, and it doesn't try to have the action included in Man of Steel. Instead, its goal is the goal that every movie should have...to tell a great story. And it succeeds on all fronts, drama and action in all, which is why "The Wolverine" ends up being the most well-crafted super-hero film of the year (so far). I give it three and a half stars out of four.
"The Wolverine" has a running time of 126 minutes and is rated PG-13 for sequences of intense sic-fi action and violence, some sexuality and language.
Yes there has already been a solo Wolverine film that was released four years ago, but we all know how that turned out (and if you don't know then consider yourself lucky). But this time director James Mangold (Walk The Line, 3:10 To Yuma) has teamed up with Jackman to bring us a new story based on the very popular 1982 limited series comic.
In this film, which takes place some time after the events of "X-Men: The Last Stand," Logan has abandoned his role as the heroic X-Man and sworn off of violence forever (which is a long time considering he is immortal). This "vow" is in response to the final events of the 3rd X-Men film when he was forced to kill the love of is life Jean Grey (Famke Janssen), who still haunts him in his sleep. Well as one might expect, this "swearing off violence" doesn't exactly pan out when a group of hunters come into a Canadian forest where Logan is living and use illegal means to kill a bear.
But before he gets the chance to finish his revenge on these hunters, he is found by a lady named Yukio (Rila Fukushima). Yukio has tracked him down to bring him to Japan, where her boss wants to thank Logan for saving his life back in WWII. Of course this is not all the dying man wants from Logan, he also wants for him to pass on his immortality to the man because he does not want to die. When Logan refuses, the man warns Logan that his daughter, Mariko (Tao Okamoto) needs to be protected from people who want her dead.
And those people show up the next day at the man's funeral, and Logan takes it upon himself to protect her. There is only one problem, somehow his ability to heal has been hindered and for once in his life Logan can be killed if he isn't careful. What follows is an engaging story full of suspense, romance, and lots of claw stabbing (and ninjas).
A line that was included in most of the advertising for "The Wolverine" said that this film was, "The Wolverine movie you have been waiting for." And the film makers were dead on with that statement. For the first time in the "X-Men" series, we really get a deep look into the heart and soul of Logan. The problems that he struggles with--the burden of having to live forever, the sadness of watching anyone you love eventually dying as you never age, and now the fear of death surrounding him--these issues are brought to the front of the viewers attention and used to drive the narrative. And we also get a lot more of what comic fans love about Wolverine: his sarcasm, blunt remarks, and classic one-liners.
But the credit of the success of this intricate character development has to be given to the incredible work of Hugh Jackman. His sixth time portraying the character, Jackman has never done a "bad" job of playing Wolverine (not even in the painful "X-Men Origins"), but the script and storyline of this film has allowed him to dive even deeper into the character. When he needs to thoughtful, he is, when he needs to be conflicted, he is, and when he needs to look incredibly angry as he slices and dices the bad guys...he does! The X-Men films would not be the same without Jackman as Wolverine.
Now earlier I mentioned the engaging story of the film. To elaborate on that point, "The Wolverine" gets big bonus points for doing something that most sequels (let alone the fifth sequel) fail to do. Instead of speeding things up with action and big set pieces, this time things are slowed down, more-so than your average comic-book film. There is a lot of time given to the characters and the story in this film. The director took a risk with boring audiences with the amount of "down time" between action scenes. But it pays off and the film manages to really engage the audience (and then a big battle comes at the end).
And don't worry action junkies, this is a Wolverine film after all, so there is action to be found. And when there is, it is terrific and thrilling, especially an amazing sequence that takes place on top of a bullet train. The fight scenes aren't just mindless and explosive like they were in "Man of Steel", they move the story along like everything else in the movie, and the balance between action and drama is perfect.
This movie is called "THE Wolverine" for a reason. It is about THE character. It's not about the action, the explosions, or the ways to top other super-hero films, it is about THE character. "The Wolverine" doesn't try to be the next Avengers, and it doesn't try to have the action included in Man of Steel. Instead, its goal is the goal that every movie should have...to tell a great story. And it succeeds on all fronts, drama and action in all, which is why "The Wolverine" ends up being the most well-crafted super-hero film of the year (so far). I give it three and a half stars out of four.
"The Wolverine" has a running time of 126 minutes and is rated PG-13 for sequences of intense sic-fi action and violence, some sexuality and language.
Saturday, June 15, 2013
Man of Steel
Most would agree that DC comics do not have that great of a track record when it comes to getting their super heroes on the screen. With the exception of the mega-popular "Dark Knight" trilogy, all attempts to bring characters such as Superman, Green Lantern, Wonder Woman, and others have been met with disappointment and failure. But after the huge success of Marvel's "The Avengers", DC decided to try again with their superheroes so that they can make a Justice League film (like the Avengers but with Batman, Superman, Wonder Woman, and Green Lantern). The first step in this road is "Man of Steel" which DC got Christopher Nolan, the writer and director of "The Dark Knight" trilogy, to produce. And with visionary director Zack Snyder, and a strong cast including Russell Crowe, Kevin Costner, Amy Adams, Michael Shannon, and of course, Henry Cavill, things looked very promising for this reboot of the Man of Steel. But does it break the long line of DC disappointments?
The beginning of "Man of Steel" shows us a place that, for some odd reason, the other Superman films never bothered to show. This is of course the planet where Superman and his people came from, Krypton. The prelude on Krypton tells how Kal-El (Henry Cavill) was rocketed off to Earth as his home planet was dying. His father, Jor-El (Russell Crowe) knows that Krypton is about to blow up, so he sends his son off with the planet's Codex, which holds all the knowledge of the planet and its people in its programming. The military leader of Krypton, General Zod (Michael Shannon) wants to codex for himself to rebuild the fallen world on another planet, and he vows to find Kal-El and retrieve the Codex from him, by any means necessary.
The hunt for the Codex brings Zod to Earth, where Kal-El has been living for 33 years under the name Clark Kent, a name given to him by his human parents (played by Kevin Costner and Diane Lane) that found him as a baby when his ship crashed. Clark has been keeping his true identity a secret from society because he fears they are not ready to accept such as powerful individual (the weaker atmosphere and younger sun has given him his super-powers of flight, strength, laser vision, etc). But when Zod threatens to destroy human life if Clark does not give himself up, Clark is forced to reveal himself to the world and become the symbol of hope that his father always meant for him to be...Superman.
Right off the bat I want to say that this is the best Superman film that has ever been made, and I've seen them all. Now that I have established that, I can go into the details that made this the best Superman film.
A big thing that sets "Man of Steel" apart is that it dives into details that had never really been explained before. For starters, in past films, the people of Earth never really questioned Superman's existence, where he came from, etc. Instead it was just assumed that, "Oh, another super hero is here to save us." In this film, the makers really focus us on the question of what would happen if an alien came to our planet and had a major impact on our way of life. I already mentioned how we really get a look at the planet Krypton for the first time and it is a dazzling place, and the focus on the alien life of these people and Superman really add a lot to the story.
Of course what most will notice is the heavy amount of action in "Man of Steel," something that has also been absent in past entries in the franchise. Believe it or not, none of the past live action Superman films (except for Superman II) have included an actually brawl between the hero and his foe. That's kind of disappointing to think about when you realize that Superman is the most powerful hero ever created and has many different powers.
Well thankfully Zack Snyder has realized that the viewers would like to see the Man of Steel do more than just fly around with his shinny cape (such as punch someone in the face) and he delivers amazing set pieces and action sequences. Finally we see Superman slam people through buildings, punch enemies through the sky, and perform sonic boom neck breaks. The action in this film showcases how it would actually be if two really powerful beings clashed in a giant city, with building blowing up and falling down, etc. To finish this point let me say with full confidence that the final fight between Superman and General Zod is the greatest one-on-one fight that has ever been created in a film. It is epic, intense, and thrilling.
Now many things have been said about the actor playing Superman about his inspiring work ethic as an actor, his workout regimen for the role, his charm, good looks, and so on. And while all of these things are admittedly impressive, he is also an impressive actor, who gives Superman a deeper emotional side and helps make him feel a little more human than past actors have. His greatest achievement though is helping make his character more relatable to the viewers through his actions and the questions and challenges he faces, something that past Superman films have also failed to do.
He is aided by a great cast surrounding him. Crowe and Costner play his two different fathers from different worlds and both will capture your heart with their words of wisdom and inspiration. And Michael Shannon is menacing and vicious as the vengeance seeking General Zod who is evil from start to finish, although part of his character could make you feel a little sorry for him.
But the true heart of "Man of Steel" lies with the messages that are spread throughout it. The tale of Superman is a tale of hope, of purpose, and of faith. It teaches of the ability in every person to be a force for good, and it asks us to think about our purpose as human beings. Never has a Superman film possessed such strong emotional, philosophical, and even theological themes and messages. When you can mix this with a great script, strong performances, thrilling actions, and another truly beautiful score from the talented Hans Zimmer which plays powerfully throughout the whole film, then you have a great super hero film...and an outstanding Superman film. I give it three and a half stars out of four.
"Man of Steel" has a running time of 143 minutes and is rated PG-13 for intense sequences of sic-fi violence, action and destruction, and for some language.
The beginning of "Man of Steel" shows us a place that, for some odd reason, the other Superman films never bothered to show. This is of course the planet where Superman and his people came from, Krypton. The prelude on Krypton tells how Kal-El (Henry Cavill) was rocketed off to Earth as his home planet was dying. His father, Jor-El (Russell Crowe) knows that Krypton is about to blow up, so he sends his son off with the planet's Codex, which holds all the knowledge of the planet and its people in its programming. The military leader of Krypton, General Zod (Michael Shannon) wants to codex for himself to rebuild the fallen world on another planet, and he vows to find Kal-El and retrieve the Codex from him, by any means necessary.
The hunt for the Codex brings Zod to Earth, where Kal-El has been living for 33 years under the name Clark Kent, a name given to him by his human parents (played by Kevin Costner and Diane Lane) that found him as a baby when his ship crashed. Clark has been keeping his true identity a secret from society because he fears they are not ready to accept such as powerful individual (the weaker atmosphere and younger sun has given him his super-powers of flight, strength, laser vision, etc). But when Zod threatens to destroy human life if Clark does not give himself up, Clark is forced to reveal himself to the world and become the symbol of hope that his father always meant for him to be...Superman.
Right off the bat I want to say that this is the best Superman film that has ever been made, and I've seen them all. Now that I have established that, I can go into the details that made this the best Superman film.
A big thing that sets "Man of Steel" apart is that it dives into details that had never really been explained before. For starters, in past films, the people of Earth never really questioned Superman's existence, where he came from, etc. Instead it was just assumed that, "Oh, another super hero is here to save us." In this film, the makers really focus us on the question of what would happen if an alien came to our planet and had a major impact on our way of life. I already mentioned how we really get a look at the planet Krypton for the first time and it is a dazzling place, and the focus on the alien life of these people and Superman really add a lot to the story.
Of course what most will notice is the heavy amount of action in "Man of Steel," something that has also been absent in past entries in the franchise. Believe it or not, none of the past live action Superman films (except for Superman II) have included an actually brawl between the hero and his foe. That's kind of disappointing to think about when you realize that Superman is the most powerful hero ever created and has many different powers.
Well thankfully Zack Snyder has realized that the viewers would like to see the Man of Steel do more than just fly around with his shinny cape (such as punch someone in the face) and he delivers amazing set pieces and action sequences. Finally we see Superman slam people through buildings, punch enemies through the sky, and perform sonic boom neck breaks. The action in this film showcases how it would actually be if two really powerful beings clashed in a giant city, with building blowing up and falling down, etc. To finish this point let me say with full confidence that the final fight between Superman and General Zod is the greatest one-on-one fight that has ever been created in a film. It is epic, intense, and thrilling.
Now many things have been said about the actor playing Superman about his inspiring work ethic as an actor, his workout regimen for the role, his charm, good looks, and so on. And while all of these things are admittedly impressive, he is also an impressive actor, who gives Superman a deeper emotional side and helps make him feel a little more human than past actors have. His greatest achievement though is helping make his character more relatable to the viewers through his actions and the questions and challenges he faces, something that past Superman films have also failed to do.
He is aided by a great cast surrounding him. Crowe and Costner play his two different fathers from different worlds and both will capture your heart with their words of wisdom and inspiration. And Michael Shannon is menacing and vicious as the vengeance seeking General Zod who is evil from start to finish, although part of his character could make you feel a little sorry for him.
But the true heart of "Man of Steel" lies with the messages that are spread throughout it. The tale of Superman is a tale of hope, of purpose, and of faith. It teaches of the ability in every person to be a force for good, and it asks us to think about our purpose as human beings. Never has a Superman film possessed such strong emotional, philosophical, and even theological themes and messages. When you can mix this with a great script, strong performances, thrilling actions, and another truly beautiful score from the talented Hans Zimmer which plays powerfully throughout the whole film, then you have a great super hero film...and an outstanding Superman film. I give it three and a half stars out of four.
"Man of Steel" has a running time of 143 minutes and is rated PG-13 for intense sequences of sic-fi violence, action and destruction, and for some language.
Saturday, June 8, 2013
Monday, May 20, 2013
Star Trek Into Darkness
Hiss if you must, but I never watched any of the older Star Trek TV shows or films. In fact, my first experience with the franchise was with 2009's reboot directed by JJ Abrams. And boy was it great! I was actually reminded of its greatness when I watched it just before the new sequel as part of a double feature that the Crystal River Regal Cinemas offered. After the first film finished, I had an hour until midnight, when I would see JJ Abram's second Trek film "Star Trek Into Darkness. In that hour I was thinking to myself (with the first film fresh in my mind), "Wow there is no way the second will could be better than that." But did Abrams prove me wrong?
Before I tell you, let's go over a quick preview of the plot. We are taken back to the Starship Enterprise on another adventure to some distant planet. Unfortunately for Captain Kirk (Chris Pine) his actions on this mission result in him being stripped of his position as Captain and his ship is given back to Commander Pike (Bruce Greenwood). Well obviously this can't last for long, because a dangerous new threat presents itself when a man named John Harrison (Benedict Cumberbatch) makes deadly strikes against Starfleet. Kirk is quickly reinstated so that he, Spock (Zachary Quinto), and the rest of the crew of the Enterprise can go after this terrorist and bring him to justice, dead or alive.
One of the great things that has always existed for Star Trek is what you hear in the iconic monologue that includes these words, "To explore strange new worlds, to seek out new life and new civilizations, to boldly go where no man has gone before." This is one of my favorite parts about watching these movies. The set design and costume design is always incredible. JJ Abrams and his team of writers never fail to create beautiful and intriguing environments for these characters to explore and the creativity behind these worlds is exciting.
And of course it is all done with top notch visual effects. Today, with films like "Transformers" and "Avatar" it is difficult to really stand out in the visual effects game. But "Into Darkness" succeeds in doing so. And not just with the different planets and alien creatures. The shots of space, the big battles between ships, everything looks spectacular.
But now onto the heart of the film--the characters. One of the great things about 2009's Star Trek was that it did a wonderful job of introducing all of the classic characters, with their one-liners and all. It was such a big part of the film and was key in its success. Here, in this sequel, there is no need to introduce any of the characters so many of them, such as Uhura, Bones, Scotty, and Chekov take a backseat and are not seen or developed nearly as much as they were in the first film.
That being said, the dynamic relationship between Kirk and Spock is as entertaining and interesting as it always is. Even after years and years of the franchise's existence, it seems that writers continue to develop these characters in ways that never fail to hold an audience's attention. Of course this is helped by the two great performances by the leading actors...which brings me to my next point.
Two words: Benedict...Cumberbatch! Words can barely describe how talented this man is. I mean, can he please play every villain for the rest of time? I am convinced that just the sound of his powerful voice could send Darth Vader running. And while I could probably write a whole other review just about his portrayal of John Harrison, a villain with a mysterious past (which some of you may have guessed from previous speculation) I think you get the point. His acting was incredible, perhaps the biggest and best reason to see this film.
In my opinion, the sci-fi genre is the best out there. The story telling is usually top-notch, the characters are exciting, and the action is entertaining to say the least. "Star Trek Into Darkness" is no exception. It has everything a Trek fan could want and more, and you certainly don't have to be a fan to enjoy this great piece of sci-fi storytelling. And while it may not be as fresh and original as its predecessor, it is still well worth your time. I give it four stars out of four.
"Star Trek Into Darkness" has a running time of 132 minutes and is rated PG-13 for intense sequences of sci-fi action and violence.
Before I tell you, let's go over a quick preview of the plot. We are taken back to the Starship Enterprise on another adventure to some distant planet. Unfortunately for Captain Kirk (Chris Pine) his actions on this mission result in him being stripped of his position as Captain and his ship is given back to Commander Pike (Bruce Greenwood). Well obviously this can't last for long, because a dangerous new threat presents itself when a man named John Harrison (Benedict Cumberbatch) makes deadly strikes against Starfleet. Kirk is quickly reinstated so that he, Spock (Zachary Quinto), and the rest of the crew of the Enterprise can go after this terrorist and bring him to justice, dead or alive.
One of the great things that has always existed for Star Trek is what you hear in the iconic monologue that includes these words, "To explore strange new worlds, to seek out new life and new civilizations, to boldly go where no man has gone before." This is one of my favorite parts about watching these movies. The set design and costume design is always incredible. JJ Abrams and his team of writers never fail to create beautiful and intriguing environments for these characters to explore and the creativity behind these worlds is exciting.
And of course it is all done with top notch visual effects. Today, with films like "Transformers" and "Avatar" it is difficult to really stand out in the visual effects game. But "Into Darkness" succeeds in doing so. And not just with the different planets and alien creatures. The shots of space, the big battles between ships, everything looks spectacular.
But now onto the heart of the film--the characters. One of the great things about 2009's Star Trek was that it did a wonderful job of introducing all of the classic characters, with their one-liners and all. It was such a big part of the film and was key in its success. Here, in this sequel, there is no need to introduce any of the characters so many of them, such as Uhura, Bones, Scotty, and Chekov take a backseat and are not seen or developed nearly as much as they were in the first film.
That being said, the dynamic relationship between Kirk and Spock is as entertaining and interesting as it always is. Even after years and years of the franchise's existence, it seems that writers continue to develop these characters in ways that never fail to hold an audience's attention. Of course this is helped by the two great performances by the leading actors...which brings me to my next point.
Two words: Benedict...Cumberbatch! Words can barely describe how talented this man is. I mean, can he please play every villain for the rest of time? I am convinced that just the sound of his powerful voice could send Darth Vader running. And while I could probably write a whole other review just about his portrayal of John Harrison, a villain with a mysterious past (which some of you may have guessed from previous speculation) I think you get the point. His acting was incredible, perhaps the biggest and best reason to see this film.
In my opinion, the sci-fi genre is the best out there. The story telling is usually top-notch, the characters are exciting, and the action is entertaining to say the least. "Star Trek Into Darkness" is no exception. It has everything a Trek fan could want and more, and you certainly don't have to be a fan to enjoy this great piece of sci-fi storytelling. And while it may not be as fresh and original as its predecessor, it is still well worth your time. I give it four stars out of four.
"Star Trek Into Darkness" has a running time of 132 minutes and is rated PG-13 for intense sequences of sci-fi action and violence.
Wednesday, May 8, 2013
Iron Man 3
Marvel Studios hit the jackpot back in 2008. Thanks to the supremely well-casted Robert Downey Jr., the first "Iron Man" became a blockbuster hit and kicked off Marvel's long road that ended (kinda) with last year's "The Avengers" which now holds the record for most money made in the opening weekend (over 200 million). Now Marvel is entering what they call Phase 2, the period between The Avengers and The Avengers 2 which opens in 2015. The first film in Phase 2 is the third installment of much loved Iron Man series. But with a director change and high expectations from The Avengers, can Iron Man 3 succeed?
Well as I just said, the events of The Avengers have impacted the world big time, and the billionaire hero Tony Stark (Downey) isn't coping very well. Instead the events, which included him nearly dying by flying through a wormhole into space, have caused Tony to have some serious problems with post-dramatic stress and nervous breakdowns. And as unfortunate timing would have it, there is a terrorist who calls himself The Mandarin (Ben Kingsley) who has begun to attack the US and other countries with vicious bombings. Plus, he might be in leagues with a scorned business rival of Tony's, Aldrich Killian (Guy Pearce) whose nanotechnology has the power to create super powered individuals. It's a nasty combination, and when Tony is stripped of all his armor he must go back to his inventive and cunning roots to help him remember that, suit or no suit, he is Iron Man.
Now let me say first to not expect to see any of Tony's teammates from the Avengers present in this film...this is all Tony Stark's story. And that is a good thing. Marvel needs to prove that they can make films about just one of their characters that can be just as interesting as when all the heroes are together, and I believe that they accomplished that with "Iron Man 3." This film is without a doubt one of the most characters driven comic-book movies in years. It's not focused on the action or CGI set pieces, but the character of Tony Stark, and it's wonderful how much his character was able to be developed in his fourth appearnce in a movie.
Yet, there is a little problem for me, and that problem is this: Tony Stark is a different character. After the Avengers he has really changed. He is no longer the fun-loving, care free playboy that we met in the first Iron Man. Now he is more serious and in the end, it's harder to enjoy the character because of it. The way they handled his feelings post-Avengers was smart with his post dramatic stress, etc. but the Tony Stark in the first two Iron Mans and The Avengers is who we fell in love with...not this Tony Stark.
But for all of those action junkies out there who are reading this wondering if there is any action...there is. In fact there is more action than in the other two, which is impressive seeing that there was also a lot of character development (of course the film was about 30 minutes longer than the others as well). Indeed there are a few exciting action sequences including an explosive finale that far outdoes the finales of the previous two.
And Robert Downey Jr. does shine once again as the leading man. His quick, witty dialogue and more seriousness than before continued to bring life into the Iron Avenger. Beside him are two very well casted villains, Kingsley and Pearce. Kingsley gave it his all (as usual) in the role as the mysterious Mandarin and Pearce brings a memorable and sinister persona to his character.
Here to my biggest issue with the film. And it's hard to really explain myself in my point because to really explain it would spoil a few surprises, and one big surprise, that is in store for the viewers. So I will just say this: when you have over fifty years of comic book history to draw from...DON'T take a popular character and totally butcher them with new ideas and DON'T make up new characters when you have perfectly good ones from very successful comic book lore. Iron Man 3 did this in several different cases...and I didn't like it.
At first it was hard to come up with a clear answer to what I thought of Iron Man 3 because it is so radically different from the first two films. It has what may seem to some like a different Tony Stark, a few unneeded plot twists, and absolutely no AC/DC. But the positives began to go through my head. The film boasts great performances by all, a surprising amount of character development, and satisfying action. Perhaps Marvel is seeking to make their sequels in Phase 2 more unique than the traditional super hero film. Iron Man 3 certainly was...and I can appreciate that (but please Joss Whedon bring the original Tony back for The Avengers 2). I give it three stars out of four.
Iron Man 3 has a running time of 130 minutes and is rated PG-13 for intense sci-fi action and violence throughout and brief suggestive content.
Well as I just said, the events of The Avengers have impacted the world big time, and the billionaire hero Tony Stark (Downey) isn't coping very well. Instead the events, which included him nearly dying by flying through a wormhole into space, have caused Tony to have some serious problems with post-dramatic stress and nervous breakdowns. And as unfortunate timing would have it, there is a terrorist who calls himself The Mandarin (Ben Kingsley) who has begun to attack the US and other countries with vicious bombings. Plus, he might be in leagues with a scorned business rival of Tony's, Aldrich Killian (Guy Pearce) whose nanotechnology has the power to create super powered individuals. It's a nasty combination, and when Tony is stripped of all his armor he must go back to his inventive and cunning roots to help him remember that, suit or no suit, he is Iron Man.
Now let me say first to not expect to see any of Tony's teammates from the Avengers present in this film...this is all Tony Stark's story. And that is a good thing. Marvel needs to prove that they can make films about just one of their characters that can be just as interesting as when all the heroes are together, and I believe that they accomplished that with "Iron Man 3." This film is without a doubt one of the most characters driven comic-book movies in years. It's not focused on the action or CGI set pieces, but the character of Tony Stark, and it's wonderful how much his character was able to be developed in his fourth appearnce in a movie.
Yet, there is a little problem for me, and that problem is this: Tony Stark is a different character. After the Avengers he has really changed. He is no longer the fun-loving, care free playboy that we met in the first Iron Man. Now he is more serious and in the end, it's harder to enjoy the character because of it. The way they handled his feelings post-Avengers was smart with his post dramatic stress, etc. but the Tony Stark in the first two Iron Mans and The Avengers is who we fell in love with...not this Tony Stark.
But for all of those action junkies out there who are reading this wondering if there is any action...there is. In fact there is more action than in the other two, which is impressive seeing that there was also a lot of character development (of course the film was about 30 minutes longer than the others as well). Indeed there are a few exciting action sequences including an explosive finale that far outdoes the finales of the previous two.
And Robert Downey Jr. does shine once again as the leading man. His quick, witty dialogue and more seriousness than before continued to bring life into the Iron Avenger. Beside him are two very well casted villains, Kingsley and Pearce. Kingsley gave it his all (as usual) in the role as the mysterious Mandarin and Pearce brings a memorable and sinister persona to his character.
Here to my biggest issue with the film. And it's hard to really explain myself in my point because to really explain it would spoil a few surprises, and one big surprise, that is in store for the viewers. So I will just say this: when you have over fifty years of comic book history to draw from...DON'T take a popular character and totally butcher them with new ideas and DON'T make up new characters when you have perfectly good ones from very successful comic book lore. Iron Man 3 did this in several different cases...and I didn't like it.
At first it was hard to come up with a clear answer to what I thought of Iron Man 3 because it is so radically different from the first two films. It has what may seem to some like a different Tony Stark, a few unneeded plot twists, and absolutely no AC/DC. But the positives began to go through my head. The film boasts great performances by all, a surprising amount of character development, and satisfying action. Perhaps Marvel is seeking to make their sequels in Phase 2 more unique than the traditional super hero film. Iron Man 3 certainly was...and I can appreciate that (but please Joss Whedon bring the original Tony back for The Avengers 2). I give it three stars out of four.
Iron Man 3 has a running time of 130 minutes and is rated PG-13 for intense sci-fi action and violence throughout and brief suggestive content.
Tuesday, April 30, 2013
Pain and Gain
Throughout the years of reviewing films, there have not been many movies that ended up confusing me. Now I don't mean plot wise, there have been many films such as "Inception," "Total Recall," or "Minority Report" and have provided plenty of my confusion in my mind. I mean the film as a whole being confusing to me. Being confused by decisions made by directors or screenwriters, confused by ways an actor attempts to portray a character, or, in the case of "Pain and Gain," confused why a movie
even exists.
The very scattered plot of director Michael Bay's latest action comedy is based around a true story in which three Miami body builders led by Daniel Lugo (Mark Wahlburg) attempt to rob a rich client of his wealth so that they can help "make America a better place." After a few failed attempts, the three kidnap him and interrogate him until he signs away his riches to the three men. The later half of the film then shows how they use this new acquired wealth and how in the end, it leads to their very downfall (don't worry, from the very beginning you know how the film is going to end).
But make no mistake, this is no Robin Hood story, quite the opposite actually. In fact, allow me to give a little more insight on the true story around which Bay has created his new piece of popcorn eye-candy. The film is based off of newspaper articles from 1999 that told that story of the "Sun Gym Gang." This gang brutally kidnapped, tortured, and murdered several victims in order to steal their money. Not a nice thing to hear about right? Well, Michael Bay must have thought the opposite because in his film, he tries to make the story of these criminals (two of which are currently on death row in Florida) into a comedy and tries to make these killers into heroes. That is more disturbing then anything I saw in the film...which is saying something.
Now I will give Bay a little credit because "Pain and Gain" does have a little more thought and commentary than the "Transformers" films that he has spent his time on for the majority of the last decade. The film serves as a commentary on the American Dream and many of the ideas and dialogue spoken by the characters can give way to some discussion on work ethic and the idea of the American Dream itself and how to properly and improperly work to attain it. Unfortunately, the fact that the film contains little to no redemptive value all but ruins the value of any commentary that film seeks to provide.
It isn't the case of bad acting, Dwayne Johnson does a great job of playing a Jesus-loving ex-convict that steals every scene he is in with his jokes and persona. It isn't that the script if full of cliches or corny dialogue, in fact the script itself was clever. But while there are a lot of little problems with "Pain and Gain," problems that seem present in every Bay film (the plot drags thirty minutes too long, the story is plagued with unnecessary and vulgar sexual content and humor, uneven pacing etc.), the real problem lies in the heart of the film...or lack thereof. Though this film is billed as a comedy, I could only leave it feeling more disturbed than humoured. And yes...the whole film is still just confusing to me. I give it one star out of four.
"Pain and Gain" has a running time of 129 minutes and is rated R for bloody violence, crude sexual content, nudity, language throughout, and drug use.
Tuesday, April 2, 2013
G.I. Joe Retalliation
The first modern "G.I. Joe" film that was released back in 2009 had a few things going for it. It had some great action sequences, an awesome ninja, and a "rising star moment" for the now very popular Channing Tatum. Overall though, the cheesy popcorn flick was critically panned and only moderately successful. Therefore I was relatively surprised when they announced a sequel. However I was very excited by the news that Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson and Bruce Willis would help reinvent this sequel into a possible improvement on the original. But did they succeed?
Plot wise, "G.I. Joe: Retaliation" seems to pick up right where the first film left off. Zartan, one of the leaders of the evil organization known as Cobra, has used nano-technology to disguise himself as the President of the United States (both of these characters are portrayed by Jonathan Pryce). In his plan to break Cobra Commander out of prison, Zartan must first use his Presidential influence to wipe out the G.I. Joe division by framing them with treason. And after a deadly missile strike, all of the G.I. Joes are left dead....except for three, one of them being Roadblock (Dwayne Johnson). Along with his two companions that do nothing to move the plot along, the three remaining Joe's must stop this new plan of Cobra before they unleash devastating nuclear weapons.
Now "Retaliation" is almost like watching two films because while all of this is happening, the amazingly awesome ninja known as Snake Eyes (Ray Park) is on a mission of his own to hunt down his enemy, Storm Shadow(Byung-hun Lee). Storm Shadow, who is also a member of Cobra, is responsible for breaking Cobra Commander out of prison and he might know things that could help the Joes get the upper hand. These two plot lines of Roadblock and Snake Eyes eventually come together in the end of the film.
Now first off, props to Dwayne Johnson for being the go to guy for starring in sequels to films and making them better. Johnson's appearance in the fifth "Fast and Furious" film helped give the franchise its most successful entry in years, and later he appeared in the sequel to "Journey to the Center of the Earth" and that movie also outperformed its predecessor. It seems that Johnson has done it again with "G.I. Joe." He is a great action star and brings the same likability and intensity that he usually brings with him to the role of Roadblock as well (even though he does not speak in rhyme like his character did).
The Rock is one reason to see the film, the other reason is Snake Eyes. This silent ninja is one of the coolest action characters out there which is why it is a shame he wasn't in more of the film. Every action scene with his character is a thrill to watch and it's always great when a character makes an impression without speaking a word of dialogue.
Unfortunately for the most part, my thoughts on this sequel are very similar to my thoughts on the original. The action might be a lot of fun by it is help captive to several elements, the first being over-the-top plot elements. Now I can handle a lot of things in a popcorn flick, but when Cobra Commander blows up the entire city of London, and probably towns around it, that is when I start shaking my head in disapproval.
Another thing that got on my nerves were pointless characters...way too many of them. I already mentioned how Roadblock's two companions are pretty much useless and do nothing to move the story along, I wish it had just been Roadblock and Bruce Willis' General Joe who really was not in that much of the film (much like "Expendable 2," he was used more for ticket sales). And on the Cobra side of things, I know they needed a "big guy" to fight the Rock, I just wish it could have been a more interesting character than Firefly...I wish it could have been Destro.
Which brings me to my next point, perhaps the thing that for some reason annoyed me the most. For some crazy reason, the director decided to give poor old Destro the cold shoulder and not even include him in the film. He gets a second of screen time, being held inside a tube beside Cobra Commander, only to be told by the Commander, "You're out of the band," a line that made my cringe and wonder if that was really Cobra Commander under the mask. Well, hopefully "G.I. Joe 3" which has already been announced, will see the return of the number two cobra baddie.
And yes the dialogue is cheesy, but you know what, it's the same way with"Transformers" saga, "Van Helsing," and a bunch of other action films that I still enjoy anyways. I can put aside the cheesiness, and most of the other problems with the film (except for Destro not being in it). In the end, I did not walk out of "Retaliation" feeling disappointed, nor did I walk out particularly impressed. It is an action film that stations itself in the realm of Hollywood mediocrity. But kids will love it, and if you love some great action you will have a good time as well. I give it two stars out of four.
"G.I. Joe: Retaliation" has a running time of 90 minutes and is rated PG-13 for intense sequences of combat violence and martial arts action throughout, and for brief sensuality and language.
Plot wise, "G.I. Joe: Retaliation" seems to pick up right where the first film left off. Zartan, one of the leaders of the evil organization known as Cobra, has used nano-technology to disguise himself as the President of the United States (both of these characters are portrayed by Jonathan Pryce). In his plan to break Cobra Commander out of prison, Zartan must first use his Presidential influence to wipe out the G.I. Joe division by framing them with treason. And after a deadly missile strike, all of the G.I. Joes are left dead....except for three, one of them being Roadblock (Dwayne Johnson). Along with his two companions that do nothing to move the plot along, the three remaining Joe's must stop this new plan of Cobra before they unleash devastating nuclear weapons.
Now "Retaliation" is almost like watching two films because while all of this is happening, the amazingly awesome ninja known as Snake Eyes (Ray Park) is on a mission of his own to hunt down his enemy, Storm Shadow(Byung-hun Lee). Storm Shadow, who is also a member of Cobra, is responsible for breaking Cobra Commander out of prison and he might know things that could help the Joes get the upper hand. These two plot lines of Roadblock and Snake Eyes eventually come together in the end of the film.
Now first off, props to Dwayne Johnson for being the go to guy for starring in sequels to films and making them better. Johnson's appearance in the fifth "Fast and Furious" film helped give the franchise its most successful entry in years, and later he appeared in the sequel to "Journey to the Center of the Earth" and that movie also outperformed its predecessor. It seems that Johnson has done it again with "G.I. Joe." He is a great action star and brings the same likability and intensity that he usually brings with him to the role of Roadblock as well (even though he does not speak in rhyme like his character did).
The Rock is one reason to see the film, the other reason is Snake Eyes. This silent ninja is one of the coolest action characters out there which is why it is a shame he wasn't in more of the film. Every action scene with his character is a thrill to watch and it's always great when a character makes an impression without speaking a word of dialogue.
Unfortunately for the most part, my thoughts on this sequel are very similar to my thoughts on the original. The action might be a lot of fun by it is help captive to several elements, the first being over-the-top plot elements. Now I can handle a lot of things in a popcorn flick, but when Cobra Commander blows up the entire city of London, and probably towns around it, that is when I start shaking my head in disapproval.
Another thing that got on my nerves were pointless characters...way too many of them. I already mentioned how Roadblock's two companions are pretty much useless and do nothing to move the story along, I wish it had just been Roadblock and Bruce Willis' General Joe who really was not in that much of the film (much like "Expendable 2," he was used more for ticket sales). And on the Cobra side of things, I know they needed a "big guy" to fight the Rock, I just wish it could have been a more interesting character than Firefly...I wish it could have been Destro.
Which brings me to my next point, perhaps the thing that for some reason annoyed me the most. For some crazy reason, the director decided to give poor old Destro the cold shoulder and not even include him in the film. He gets a second of screen time, being held inside a tube beside Cobra Commander, only to be told by the Commander, "You're out of the band," a line that made my cringe and wonder if that was really Cobra Commander under the mask. Well, hopefully "G.I. Joe 3" which has already been announced, will see the return of the number two cobra baddie.
And yes the dialogue is cheesy, but you know what, it's the same way with"Transformers" saga, "Van Helsing," and a bunch of other action films that I still enjoy anyways. I can put aside the cheesiness, and most of the other problems with the film (except for Destro not being in it). In the end, I did not walk out of "Retaliation" feeling disappointed, nor did I walk out particularly impressed. It is an action film that stations itself in the realm of Hollywood mediocrity. But kids will love it, and if you love some great action you will have a good time as well. I give it two stars out of four.
"G.I. Joe: Retaliation" has a running time of 90 minutes and is rated PG-13 for intense sequences of combat violence and martial arts action throughout, and for brief sensuality and language.
Wednesday, March 6, 2013
Jack The Giant Slayer
Continuing in the trend of fairy tale reimagineings, director Bryan Singer has created a somewhat new take on the classic story of "Jack and the Beanstalk." Except in this tale, known as "Jack The Giant Slayer," there is a whole army of angry giants, a magical crown that controls them, and a lot more action than I remember in the original tale.
But the heart of the story is the same. At the center of it all we have a farm boy named Jack (Nicholas Hoult) who has always loved the tale of the great King Erik, who used his magical crown to stop the army of giants from destroying the kingdom of Cloister. Living with his uncle and stuck on the farm, Jack has always longed for adventure that is out of his reach. But this adventure will come sooner than he thinks when he comes into the possession of magical beans that create an enormous beanstalk, connecting our world to the realm of the giants.
Unfortunately for Jack, the fateful night that the beanstalk grows out of his house just so happened to be the night that a runaway princess Isabelle (Eleanor Taylor) seeks shelter with him. When she is taken up to the giants in Jack's house, he must venture up with the King's men who include Elmont (Ewan McGregor), the leader of the king's guard, and Isabelle's evil suitor, Lord Roderick (Stanley Tucci). But loosing his grip on the day-long climb up the beanstalk is the least of Jack's worries, because though he doesn't know it yet, it will be up to him to stop the giants from coming back to destroy the kingdom.
Now as one might expect, there needs to be some pretty great CGI nowadays in a movie about large giants and an even larger beanstalk. Luckily for "Jack The Giant Slayer," the film as a whole is visually remarkable. So many scenes still stand out to me that blew me away, particularly the sequences where the main beanstalk comes crashing down over miles and miles of land. Crushing everything beneath.
And of course the giants look incredible, especially when the whole army of them comes jumping out of a forest chasing after the humans. The attention to detail is spot-on and a good thing too, because CGI that isn't the best would drag a film of this kind down.
But the human characters deserve credit as well...for the most part. While I'm still not convinced of Nicholas Hoult's ability to be the leading actor in a film, he is aided by a great supporting cast. Ewan McGregor has the perfect balance of wittiness, silliness, and a little seriousness to create a lovable character. And Stanley Tucci makes for a entertaining villain, something that actually surprised me a little bit.
In the end, "Jack The Giant Slayer" may not live up to imagination of the recent "Alice and Wonderland" or the epic scale of "Snow White and the Huntsman" but it still manages to stand out as a sign of the continuing success of these fairy-tale reimagineings going through Hollywood...and it has some remarkable CGI. Kids will love it for the magic, adults will love it for the action and acting, try to check this one out if you get the chance. I give it three stars out of four.
"Jack The Giant Slayer" has a running time of 114 minutes and is rated PG-13 for intense scenes of fantasy action violence, some frightening images, and brief language.
But the heart of the story is the same. At the center of it all we have a farm boy named Jack (Nicholas Hoult) who has always loved the tale of the great King Erik, who used his magical crown to stop the army of giants from destroying the kingdom of Cloister. Living with his uncle and stuck on the farm, Jack has always longed for adventure that is out of his reach. But this adventure will come sooner than he thinks when he comes into the possession of magical beans that create an enormous beanstalk, connecting our world to the realm of the giants.
Unfortunately for Jack, the fateful night that the beanstalk grows out of his house just so happened to be the night that a runaway princess Isabelle (Eleanor Taylor) seeks shelter with him. When she is taken up to the giants in Jack's house, he must venture up with the King's men who include Elmont (Ewan McGregor), the leader of the king's guard, and Isabelle's evil suitor, Lord Roderick (Stanley Tucci). But loosing his grip on the day-long climb up the beanstalk is the least of Jack's worries, because though he doesn't know it yet, it will be up to him to stop the giants from coming back to destroy the kingdom.
Now as one might expect, there needs to be some pretty great CGI nowadays in a movie about large giants and an even larger beanstalk. Luckily for "Jack The Giant Slayer," the film as a whole is visually remarkable. So many scenes still stand out to me that blew me away, particularly the sequences where the main beanstalk comes crashing down over miles and miles of land. Crushing everything beneath.
And of course the giants look incredible, especially when the whole army of them comes jumping out of a forest chasing after the humans. The attention to detail is spot-on and a good thing too, because CGI that isn't the best would drag a film of this kind down.
But the human characters deserve credit as well...for the most part. While I'm still not convinced of Nicholas Hoult's ability to be the leading actor in a film, he is aided by a great supporting cast. Ewan McGregor has the perfect balance of wittiness, silliness, and a little seriousness to create a lovable character. And Stanley Tucci makes for a entertaining villain, something that actually surprised me a little bit.
In the end, "Jack The Giant Slayer" may not live up to imagination of the recent "Alice and Wonderland" or the epic scale of "Snow White and the Huntsman" but it still manages to stand out as a sign of the continuing success of these fairy-tale reimagineings going through Hollywood...and it has some remarkable CGI. Kids will love it for the magic, adults will love it for the action and acting, try to check this one out if you get the chance. I give it three stars out of four.
"Jack The Giant Slayer" has a running time of 114 minutes and is rated PG-13 for intense scenes of fantasy action violence, some frightening images, and brief language.
Wednesday, February 20, 2013
A Good Day to Die Hard
After several years, New York City cop John McClane is back on the big screen. One of America's favorite "cowboys" is back in another explosive outing, this time taking place in the streets of Russia. The fifth film in the "Die Hard" series, action star Bruce Willis has established a successful franchise with sequels that are, arguably, all worthy predecessors to the original (though none of them have managed to be better). Does "A Good Day to Die Hard" live up to the series' iconic name?
McClane's son Jack (Jai Courtney) has gotten into a bit of trouble during a special ops mission in Moscow. In the process of trying to crack a terrorist plot, Jack is taken into custody by the Russian police. But no worries, because daddy McClane is going on a "vacation" to Russia in order to relax, lay by the pool, and....wait, that's not right. He's going on "vacation" to find his son, kill a bunch of "scumbags", and create some big explosions. And that is all you need to know for the simple plot of this movie.
But it's ok for films to have simple plots at times. Look at the original "Die Hard" back in 1988, the whole film revolved around a cop taking down a bunch of bad guys with guns, and it all took place in a building...great film. And the other "Die Hard" films were very similar in plot structure. Unfortunately, this film's big problem (of several) was that it tried to be more like other films.
First, "Die Hard 5" tries to be like James Bond. I thought this during the very first scene of the film when the jazzy spy music started playing. Nice cars were paraded everywhere, attractive females in nice dresses were walking around...it was very Bond-ish. And if that was not enough, the plot tried to stock up on these plot twists such as those found in spy-thrillers. Unfortunately it was a sloppy attempt at story-telling.
At one point of the film, I actually asked one of the people with me what was going on...he did not know, and neither did the others. At this point I said to myself, "This is TOO MUCH thinking for a Die Hard film." I don't watch Die Hard for a plot-twisting mystery film, I watch Die Hard to see John McClane beat up tons of guys (more on that later) and make sarcastic remarks.
Second, "Die Hard 5" tries to be like "The Fast and Furious" films. This film is only 90 minutes, and so there is not a lot of time to establish a plot and characters in that time period. Since the film doesn't even do that, there is even more time for some great actions sequences full of guns and fists. Instead I got a drawn-out, car chasing sequence that felt like it lasted for a half hour...it was entertaining for the first five minutes. And I could have let that go, except that the other action scenes were increasingly sub-par that I was left only remembering all the cars crashing into each-other. Where is the gun-shooting, punch throwing goodness of all the other films? It is scarce in this film.
The heart of the flaw of "A Good Day to Die Hard" is this: the film tried to be more than a "Die Hard" film, it tried to create a new formula. The problem is...there was never a problem with the old formula to begin with. The Die Hard films had a good track record...until this point. This new installment strays so far away from the original's heart and soul in its attempt to create something new. And that something is a mess full of cheesy dialogue, an unnecessary and weak story, and surprisingly enough...not enough action worthy of the series. I give it one star out of four.
"A Good Day to Die Hard" has a running time of 97 minutes and is rated R for violence and language.
McClane's son Jack (Jai Courtney) has gotten into a bit of trouble during a special ops mission in Moscow. In the process of trying to crack a terrorist plot, Jack is taken into custody by the Russian police. But no worries, because daddy McClane is going on a "vacation" to Russia in order to relax, lay by the pool, and....wait, that's not right. He's going on "vacation" to find his son, kill a bunch of "scumbags", and create some big explosions. And that is all you need to know for the simple plot of this movie.
But it's ok for films to have simple plots at times. Look at the original "Die Hard" back in 1988, the whole film revolved around a cop taking down a bunch of bad guys with guns, and it all took place in a building...great film. And the other "Die Hard" films were very similar in plot structure. Unfortunately, this film's big problem (of several) was that it tried to be more like other films.
First, "Die Hard 5" tries to be like James Bond. I thought this during the very first scene of the film when the jazzy spy music started playing. Nice cars were paraded everywhere, attractive females in nice dresses were walking around...it was very Bond-ish. And if that was not enough, the plot tried to stock up on these plot twists such as those found in spy-thrillers. Unfortunately it was a sloppy attempt at story-telling.
At one point of the film, I actually asked one of the people with me what was going on...he did not know, and neither did the others. At this point I said to myself, "This is TOO MUCH thinking for a Die Hard film." I don't watch Die Hard for a plot-twisting mystery film, I watch Die Hard to see John McClane beat up tons of guys (more on that later) and make sarcastic remarks.
Second, "Die Hard 5" tries to be like "The Fast and Furious" films. This film is only 90 minutes, and so there is not a lot of time to establish a plot and characters in that time period. Since the film doesn't even do that, there is even more time for some great actions sequences full of guns and fists. Instead I got a drawn-out, car chasing sequence that felt like it lasted for a half hour...it was entertaining for the first five minutes. And I could have let that go, except that the other action scenes were increasingly sub-par that I was left only remembering all the cars crashing into each-other. Where is the gun-shooting, punch throwing goodness of all the other films? It is scarce in this film.
The heart of the flaw of "A Good Day to Die Hard" is this: the film tried to be more than a "Die Hard" film, it tried to create a new formula. The problem is...there was never a problem with the old formula to begin with. The Die Hard films had a good track record...until this point. This new installment strays so far away from the original's heart and soul in its attempt to create something new. And that something is a mess full of cheesy dialogue, an unnecessary and weak story, and surprisingly enough...not enough action worthy of the series. I give it one star out of four.
"A Good Day to Die Hard" has a running time of 97 minutes and is rated R for violence and language.
Wednesday, January 30, 2013
Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunter
J.J. ABRAMS, THE DIRECTOR OF STAR TREK, IS DIRECTING THE NEXT STAR WARS! YES! Ok, on to my review.
It seems that Hollywood has recently went into a phase that I particularly like. This new phase involves taking classic fairy tales and revamping them in unique ways for the big screen. This started with Tim Burton's "Alice in Wonderland" a few years ago, and has continued with other films such as "Red Riding Hood" and "Snow White and the Hunstman" that have reimagined classic characters in more intense ways. The latest film to follow this trend is "Hansel and Gretle: Witch Hunters," an intense action flick that tells the story of the classic siblings when they have grown up.
But of course the film begins with the classic tale. The brother and sister get lost in a forest until the come across a house made of candy. It is only when they step inside the house that they realize its inhabitant is a man-eating witch. You know the rest...witch tries to eat kids, kids burn witch, happily every after...but not quite. It turns out that Hansel (Jeremy Renner) and Gretle (Gemma Arterton) have made a prosperous career of hunting down witches and turning in their corpses for gold.
The movie really begins when the two witch hunters come to a small village where almost all the children have been taken by...you guessed it...witches. But these witches are a little more powerful because they have discovered a plan to make them immortal, and if they suceed it would mean bad news for humans everywhere...plus no paycheck for Hansel and Gretel.
There are three words that I can use to sum up this film in a nutshell....big, bloody fun. Now allow me to elaborate. I went in to this film expecting a cheesy, popcorn action film with lots of guns and explosions...and I got my wish. "Hansel and Gretel" is what many would refer to as a Guilty Pleasure film. You don't really want to like it, and you don't want to tell people you liked it, but in your heart...you like it a lot. The most recent example of a guilty pleasure I can share was "Van Helsing" with Hugh Jackman. A film with terrible dialogue, over the top plot lines, and great action...but I love it. "Hansel and Gretel" is very much the same.
But in terms of cheesy factor, this film is really not as bad as I expected. Ok, so the main characters are carrying shotguns, automatic crossbows, and Gatling guns in fairy tale world (not to mention spewing f-bombs). However, there was barely any of what I would call "cringe-worthy" dialogue and no plot-lines and set pieces that were wildly over-the-top. And because of that I can totally enjoy watching an automatic crossbow fire away at witches as they expload...in 3D.
Again let me stress, this film is not for those who want to hear some complex story complete with engaging character development. This film is made for a specific audience, an audience who want 90 minutes of fast-paced, fun action sequences that have a lot of guns and a lot of witches that bite that dust, some in more brutal ways that other.
And if this kind of film sounds good to you, then I will guarantee that you will thoroughly enjoy yourself in "Hansel and Gretel: Witch Hunters." It's an intense, comedic spin on a classic fairy tale, but in terms of all the action films released on a yearly basis...it's a forgettable guilty pleasure at most. I give it two stars out of four.
"Hansel and Gretel: Witch Hunters" has a running time of 88 minutes and is rated R for strong fantasy horror violence and gore, brief sexuality/nudity, and language.
It seems that Hollywood has recently went into a phase that I particularly like. This new phase involves taking classic fairy tales and revamping them in unique ways for the big screen. This started with Tim Burton's "Alice in Wonderland" a few years ago, and has continued with other films such as "Red Riding Hood" and "Snow White and the Hunstman" that have reimagined classic characters in more intense ways. The latest film to follow this trend is "Hansel and Gretle: Witch Hunters," an intense action flick that tells the story of the classic siblings when they have grown up.
But of course the film begins with the classic tale. The brother and sister get lost in a forest until the come across a house made of candy. It is only when they step inside the house that they realize its inhabitant is a man-eating witch. You know the rest...witch tries to eat kids, kids burn witch, happily every after...but not quite. It turns out that Hansel (Jeremy Renner) and Gretle (Gemma Arterton) have made a prosperous career of hunting down witches and turning in their corpses for gold.
The movie really begins when the two witch hunters come to a small village where almost all the children have been taken by...you guessed it...witches. But these witches are a little more powerful because they have discovered a plan to make them immortal, and if they suceed it would mean bad news for humans everywhere...plus no paycheck for Hansel and Gretel.
There are three words that I can use to sum up this film in a nutshell....big, bloody fun. Now allow me to elaborate. I went in to this film expecting a cheesy, popcorn action film with lots of guns and explosions...and I got my wish. "Hansel and Gretel" is what many would refer to as a Guilty Pleasure film. You don't really want to like it, and you don't want to tell people you liked it, but in your heart...you like it a lot. The most recent example of a guilty pleasure I can share was "Van Helsing" with Hugh Jackman. A film with terrible dialogue, over the top plot lines, and great action...but I love it. "Hansel and Gretel" is very much the same.
But in terms of cheesy factor, this film is really not as bad as I expected. Ok, so the main characters are carrying shotguns, automatic crossbows, and Gatling guns in fairy tale world (not to mention spewing f-bombs). However, there was barely any of what I would call "cringe-worthy" dialogue and no plot-lines and set pieces that were wildly over-the-top. And because of that I can totally enjoy watching an automatic crossbow fire away at witches as they expload...in 3D.
Again let me stress, this film is not for those who want to hear some complex story complete with engaging character development. This film is made for a specific audience, an audience who want 90 minutes of fast-paced, fun action sequences that have a lot of guns and a lot of witches that bite that dust, some in more brutal ways that other.
And if this kind of film sounds good to you, then I will guarantee that you will thoroughly enjoy yourself in "Hansel and Gretel: Witch Hunters." It's an intense, comedic spin on a classic fairy tale, but in terms of all the action films released on a yearly basis...it's a forgettable guilty pleasure at most. I give it two stars out of four.
"Hansel and Gretel: Witch Hunters" has a running time of 88 minutes and is rated R for strong fantasy horror violence and gore, brief sexuality/nudity, and language.
Wednesday, January 23, 2013
Mama
Over the past fifteen to twenty years, the "horror" genre has gathered a less than stellar reputation. Now, when someone says a horror film, the first thing that many including myself think of is endless amounts of gore, coupled with senseless violence and other crude perversions that have been made infamous by films such as "Saw," "Hostel," and "Texas Chainsaw Massacre." It is rare now to see a horror film that actually puts effort into story, character development, and old school jump scares. Of course there are some great recent exceptions such as "The Woman In Black" and "The Cabin in the Woods." And "Mama," produced by Guillermo del Toro, is yet another example of a scary movie done right....for the most part.
It's a well known fact that creepy children make one creepy movie, and that's the case yet again with "Mama." The film begins with two girls being found in a shack in the woods by their uncle Jeffry (Nikolaj Coster-Waldau) and his girlfriend, Annabel (Jessica Chastain). These two girls had been surviving on their own for several years and the two do not understand how, but they adopt the girls and bring them to their new home (which of course kind of looks creepy on the outside).
But the one who was helping the girls survive in the wilderness does not like that they have been taken from her, or it, whatever you would call and undead ghost mother, and thus the haunting begins. As the monster begins to make itself more and more known in the house, Jeffry and Annabel must try to discover not only what this thing haunting them is, but why it is here and what it wants, and that quest comes with plenty of fun plot twists and scares.
As I said before, many horror films nowadays rely on gore and mutilation for their "scares," but not "Mama." This film is old school. There is no extreme violence, I don't recall there even being any blood (the film itself is only PG-13). Instead, the makers of the film relied on some great techniques and camera angles, accompanied with eerie music to catch the audience off guard with jump scares. Of course there is a lot of stuff that just creeps the viewer out such as someone walking through the house in the dead off night, hearing noices where there shouldn't be noises, and the younger sister playing tug of war with her older sister (OH WAIT! Her older sister just walked out of another room....oh no!).
But of course no movie is anything without a good plot, something that most scary movies lack. Guillermo del Toro has proven himself a great storyteller when it comes to these kind of films and he has proved himself yet again. This is a mystery film. You are trying to understand this monsters backstory, why its haunting people, what it's looking for. But it's not just a story about the monster, its a story about family. A story contrasting two mothers, one who is trying to be a good , loving mother when she has no expirence and another who will stop at nothing to keep her "daughters" emmeshed and in her possession. And the movies shows the pros and cons of both of these mothers and how they view their children. A plot line with this much effort was great to see in a film in this genre.
Unfortunately, the film's story is not perfect, especially when it comes to the ending. Many films are ruined by having a disappointing ending and I fear this is the case for "Mama." The film had such promise, such complexity, and really good scares but the climax relied too heavily on indeed CGI and an overexposure of the film's monster (she looked creepy at first but the creepiness is lost after twenty minutes of screen time). The end didn't make sense and didn't justify everything that led up to that point.
But still I applaud "Mama" for breaking the stereotype of modern day horror films. It presents old school scares, a mostly impressive story, and a impressive performance by recent Golden Globe winner Jessica Chastain as well. It's a treadgy that an ending can make the overall product a disapointment, but "Mama" will still be a good choice if you want to watch a scary film late at night. I give it two and a half stars out of four.
"Mama" has a running time of 100 minutes and is rated PG-13 for violence and terror, some disturbing images, and thematic elements.
Tuesday, January 8, 2013
Les Miserables
In the summer between 6th and 7th grade, my school's required summer reading book was Victor Hugo's "Les Miserables." Looking at the book I feared it would be tough to read, not only was it the longest book I had ever read to that point but it was full of lavish description that I was not yet used to in a book. Five years later, it is still, and will always be, my favorite book I have ever read. Then, this past January, I got to see the musical adaptation of the book on stage..it is one of my favorite shows I have ever seen. So as you can imagine, I was ready to pass out when I learned that Academy Award winning director Tom Hopper ("The King's Speech") would be bringing the musical to the big screen. And when the casting list was released, when I saw that one of my favorite actors (Hugh Jackman) would be playing Jean Valjean, I had no words. Would this new film come to hold such a high place in my heart as the book and the show?
It is the year 1815, and prisoner Jean Valjean (Jackman), who has been a prisoner for nineteen years after stealing a loaf of bread, has just been released on parole. Everywhere he goes he is rejected by those who look down on him, until a bishop offers him shelter for the night. It is this bishop that shows Valjean the grace and love of God. It is this revelation that compels Valjean to become a new man as he breaks his parole and sets off for an honest life.
Eight years later and he is the mayor of a town and owner of a factory. But his seemingly happy life is soon plagued with problems. The first starts when Valjean notices a man in his office, the Inspector Javert (Russell Crowe), who once ruled over him in prison, is ruthlessly hunting Jean Valjean because he skipped parole. His second problem arises when he encounters a miserable lady in the streets.
Fantine (Anne Hathaway) was a worker in the factory until she was fired when they discovered that she had an illegitimate child named Cosette. Now, trying to scramble together money to provide for her child by selling her hair, teeth, and body, she does not know how to go on. That is when Valjean comes to her and promises to take her child into his care. The remainder of the film tells of Valjean and his lifelong struggle to outrun Javert and take care of Cosette in the city of Paris where revolution is brewing.
The first question I had when I was thinking ahead to this film concerned the amount of singing. Many know that the stage musical has no lines of spoken dialogue, it is all singing. Well I was happy to see that the movie is almost the same way. Ninety-nine percent of the film is sung, only a very small part is spoken, and I love it. All of the conversations, monologues, and songs that the characters sing by themselves, to another, or to a crowd just wraps you in to the story and mesmerizes you every step of the way.
But the songs would feel empty if not for the powerful performances behind them, and Hugh Jackman has given a performance perfectly worthy of his first Academy Award. The passion and emotion that he brings to the beloved character bring Jean Valjean to life like never before. His voice is incredible and his great effort makes this character one of the most memorable in the past decade.
However, it is Anne Hathaway that steals every scene that she is in. We have heard her version of "I Dreamed A Dream" in the trailers for the film, but in context, in it's entirety, the song is heartbreakingly beautiful. And every note she hits is beautiful. Her acting is so powerful and so real, I was asking myself "Where did that come from?" Look to her to sweep the Best Supporting Actress awards this year.
The love story between Cosette (Amanda Seyfried) and the revolutionary leader Marius (Eddie Redmayne) is another major story arc of the film. Thankfully for us. Their voices harmonize greatly. Seyfried hits two of the highest notes in the whole film and Redmayne gets my award for best voice (which is saying something).
Then there is Russell Crowe. Let me make it clear that I am NOT saying that Crowe has a bad voice by any means. However, when you compare his voice to every other voice in this film, he is obviously the weakest link, which is not the best thing to be when you have to portray the movie's conflicted protagonist. There were times when I was very happy with Crowe's performance such as his solo in "Stars," one of my favorite songs in the movie, but there were other times where his voice made me cringe. That being said, his acting make up for it, and I would not have wanted another actor to portray Javert.
All of the performances in "Les Mis" are noteworthy: the perfectly casted Thenardiers (Sacha Baron Cohen and Helena Bonham Carter), the revolution leader Enjolras (Aaron Tveit), the beautiful Eponine (Samantha Barks), buts what makes the movie truly spectacular is the compelling story. The story of an angry man who, through the grace and mercy of God, has transformed his life into a life of putting the needs of others above himself, and has learned the supreme power of love. And that transformation, portrayed so well by Jackman, is inspiring.
The story of Jean Valjean is one of the greatest in all literature. It will touch the hearts of every one who gives themselves over to the musical epic. Tom Hopper has created another masterpiece, full of lavish sets, epic scope, and brilliant performances. Never before has a blockbuster film had its actors sing live on camera in a film that is singing from beginning to end. Because of this, "Les Miserables" is a grand achievement in cinema, and one of the greatest accomplishments and films to ever grace the screens. I give it four big stars out of four.
"Les Miserables" has a running time of two hours and thirty three minutes and is rated PG-13 for suggestive and sexual material, violence, and thematic elements
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)