"The Wolf Of Wall Street" Review

"The Wolf of Wall Street" is the filthiest and most deplorable movie I've seen in my life. It offends, shocks, makes me question how any human being could do these criminal, unethical activities without remorse. It made me feel dirty...and that is exactly why you must see it. (Now, before I go any further, I must forewarn: this is NOT a kid's film. I know there are parents who are lax on the rating system, but the bombardment of prostitution, violence, foul language, and drug use is just too much. It simply is too inappropriate for a child to be allowed to see.)

Jordan Belfort (Leonardo DiCaprio) tells the story of his rise as a stockbroker in 1980's New York. Infamously nicknamed the "Wolf of Wall Street", he denotes his ambitious beginnings, the meteoric success of his firm, and the debaucherous excess the Wall Street life allows.

Scorsese excels at making period pieces; one of my favorite films is "Gangs of New York", where Scorsese rebuilds post-Civil War New York with a size, scope, and attention to detail that blows me away. The same qualities apply here: stock footage is interwoven in monologues, Jordan shoots infomercials with VHS footage, and the less I say about Popeye, the better. The slick editing and playful cinematography mimics the over-the-top nature of 80's pop culture and fits the movie like a glove. I get immersed into a world that's equal parts realistic and glamorized.

Leonardo DiCaprio is firing on all cylinders; this is probably my favorite role of his. For Jordan's admirable wit, ambition, and awareness, his ego, pride, and greed infuriate me. This is a character DiCaprio engulfs himself in completely. He sells his philosophies, makes me laugh, and infuriates my sensibilities. Able to carry himself with impeccable confidence, flop around when dangerously high, and rage at the drop of a dime, my eyes were glued. He makes for a captivating performance.

My one issue is in the film's length. The beginning bombarded me with so many jokes, characters, and atmosphere of excess, when the movie slowed down, it felt like a massive crash after a drug trip. There were multiple scenes where characters would start riffing on a subject completely unrelated to the plot at hand. It reminded me of Tarantino, but where scenes like this in his movies felt off-the-cuff and spontaneous, this film felt like it was trying to make the audience laugh. All it did for me after the second time was bore me. The movie slowed to a halt at ninety minutes, and then shot back to life after twenty minutes of speeches.  It was a chore.

I imagine after my initial statements about the movie's explicit nature, some of you are asking: "Daniel, when did  you become the moral gatekeeper of America?" Simply put, I didn't. The movie didn't faze me after watching, but the group of friends I went with finished viewing with mouths agape in shock. Sitting in the theatre watching the credits, I couldn't quite place why not only this movie would shock them, but also why they, oddly enough, needed it. After the obligatory post-movie bathroom break, I came to a revelation.

We've all heard the saying, "pride goeth before the fall." From Antinous being shot through the neck while drinking from Odysseus' golden cup to Tony Montana's reign and furious dethroning as king of Miami, the story has been told and displayed many ways. "Scarface" is the first movie that comes to my mind when thinking of "The Wolf of Wall Street", and I see parallels. They both tackle the idea of blind ambition, greed, and the deterioration of an ideal American Dream into a flurry of excess and power mania. When "Scarface" was released, people regarded it as the benchmark for explicit. It shocked and offended many people, but as the years went on, the themes shown in the movie were talked about, analyzed. It got people thinking about how we define success and the American Dream. I believe "The Wolf of Wall Street" will be the same way. It shocks to get an audience's attention; the humorous tone sugarcoats the drama for a wider market.

Why does this film feel the need to be so explicit? Do audiences see "Scarface" as light fare now? When this barrage of images offends people, what does that say about our sensibilities? We can argue our society has fallen further into corruption and these types of films glamorize these morally deficient actions, but I think that's missing the point. These movies get dialogues started, they make us question the themes at hand. This interpretation of success has come back for us to re-evaluate, and if the story is constantly being repeated, it's probably cause we're not getting the right message and adapting it to our society. So if the execution needs to be over-the-top to get one's attention, I say go right ahead, because this conversation is important. So I say, go see this movie. It's quite the trip to take, but you're going to be thinking about what it's saying for a long time. Thank you all again very much for reading, I'm the Man Without A Plan, signing off.

"The Wolf Of Wall Street" trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pabEtIERlic

"47 Ronin" Review

This movie has an odd little dilemma to deal with; never has a film felt so much like it's made a deal with the Devil. In this case, the filmmakers wanted an actor with marquee value, a name they could use to bring people from all over in to see a story of samurai avenging the injustice their late master suffered at the hand of an evil lord. I assume the Devil smiled and said, "Ok, I'll give you an actor. But not only will he deliver an uninspired one-note performance, he'll steal the attention away from your hard work. Those who hate him will dismiss your movie as schlock, and you'll be destined to be a mediocre blip on the holiday move season." Now that's a case of choosing the lesser evil: smaller distribution or a weak top-billed actor. And as for the filmmakers' choice, I think Chris Rock said it best: "Now I'm not saying [they] should've done it, but I understand." Enter Keanu Reeves, and here's "47 Ronin."

"47 Ronin" takes place in ancient feudal Japan, where Lord Asano (Min Tanaka) rules the Ako region, protected by his loyal samurai. During a visit from the shogun (Cary-Hiroyuki Tagawa), Asano is enchanted by a witch (Rinko Kikuchi) under the employ of Lord Kira (Tadanobu Asano) from the northern provinces who desires Ako for himself. The witch clouds Asano's mind with visions of his daughter being attacked. He attacks the assailant but it turns out to be Lord Kira sleeping. The shogun sees Asano assaulting Kira in his bed and punishes him by forcing Asano to commit seppuku, a ritualistic suicide. Grieving over the death of his lord and furious about the injustice Asano suffered, his second-in-command Ôishi (Hiroyuki Sanada) vows to round up the rest of the samurai and avenge Asano's death by killing Kira and the witch, bringing honor and respect back to Ako.

Now, one may notice I didn't mention Keanu Reeves' character and what he's doing. I didn't forget anything. Reeves baffles me here; his character can be eliminated from the main plot and the story would flow fine. He plays the "halfblood" Kai, who is rescued as a child by Lord Asano after one of his samurai threatens to kill him. The samurai believed the marks on Kai's head resembling claws were from a demon, making Kai a demon himself. Asano thought otherwise and brought Kai into his region, where years later, he remains an outcast, ridiculed and rejected by people for his half-Japanese, half-white ancestry. (Racism is alive and well everywhere.) Kai can see through the witch's disguises and figures out the evil first, but outside of helping Ôishi with vengeance and romancing the shogun's daughter, Mika, (Ko Shibasaki) he has little screen time. And to be fair, I'm glad. I don't like to nitpick every idiosyncrasy, (though you can make a drinking game out of how often Reeves leaves his mouth hanging open) but his delivery is so monotone, his expressions blank. If the man can't be bothered to emote, why should I care about his character? His character seems fazed by little; he has a funny line or two and portrays humility well, but those are small details hidden in the grand blandness of his performance. If anything, Reeves' performance services the rest of the actors, who do much better jobs with their characters. However, the shame is because of Reeves' status in Hollywood, most people will base their opinion of the movie with their opinion of Reeves as an actor, not giving the movie a fair shake.

There are good things here, and plenty of them. For a type of movie associated with little budget and artistic flair, "47 Ronin" shows off a certain polish and creativity I admire. The designs are colorful and stand out, especially in the royals' costumes and palace. It's beautiful to watch; I'd recommend watching in 2D as the brighter format gives characters a warmer tone and lets the colors pop. The cinematography has fun showing off the world, whether it be outlining the character behind a shoji screen or showing off the forest home of the demons, giving the film its own rhythms that'll satisfy the fan of Japanese culture while introducing newcomers to the aesthetic.

Now, while I have problems with Keanu Reeves, I take no offense at the rest of the cast. They do their jobs well, having fun with their characters, showing off sides of the story one wouldn't expect. Ôishi's dedication to Lord Asano inspires; this lord-samurai relationship is fascinating in how engulfing it can be. Ôishi's respect for Asano is almost unbelievable, and it's not just Asano's life he fights to protect. Ôishi makes a point of making sure his master's memory and reputation isn't tarnished by history. Avenging his lord's honor isn't going to bring Asano back from the dead, but it will make sure to bring respect to his memory, fixing the damage done by Kira. It inspires me and I'm fascinated by his dedication. Speaking of Kira, he's another character for which you can tell Tadanobu Asano was just having fun. Kira is wonderfully over-the-top with a cocky sneer that won me over every time. I love to hate this guy; he's a simple jerk, but the actor carries so much confidence in the role. It makes me smile.

However, my prize award for favorite character has to go to the witch. In a movie that juggles subplots and emotionless side characters, it's such a refreshing change to see an evil character who seems to have no motive for what she does other than her enjoyment of evil. The movie shows her glee in transforming into monsters to destroy our heroes, using psychological warfare, and bewitching anyone she can. She just loves doing evil and takes pleasure in lighting samurai on fire. I cant help it, she keeps my eyes glued to the screen. My props to Rinko Kikuchi for infusing her character with personality and interesting traits.

Overall, do I hate this movie? Absolutely not. In fact, I admire it for taking a B-movie style plot and mixing it with so much creativity and polish. I admire the actors for having fun with their roles. I like the action and Japanese culture. Really, my problem just stems from Keanu Reeves, but I guess that's what one gets when making a deal with Satan. I'd say if you're to watch one or two movies for the holiday season, "47 Ronin" shouldn't be part of that theater experience, but I believe with word-of-mouth, it'll get a better life on DVD. There are good things here, and I can't ignore them. Go see it when available to rent; it's a fun addition to the samurai genre. Thanks for reading yet again, I'm the Man without a Plan, signing off.

"47 Ronin" trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j8cKdDkkIYY

"The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug" Review

(A public service announcement before this review: when going to see this movie, bring a pillow for your rear. This one is long.)

Bilbo Baggins (Martin Freeman) presses on in his journey with the Dwarves in "The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug." After being enlisted by the wizard Gandalf (Ian McKellan) to accompany 13 dwarves in a quest to reclaim their mountain home Erebor from the dragon, Smaug, the last movie left the Hobbit, Bilbo Baggins, the victor in a game of riddles against the monster Gollum, stealing his magical, mysterious ring in the process. This sequel finds the group moving forward, fighting off creatures, adventuring through the Elf Kingdom, and confronting the monster who stole their home.

The movie hits the ground running. While the first "Hobbit" gathered complaints for taking too long to get started, the sequel has no problems pushing forward. It has more in common with the "Lord Of The Rings" films in its constant energy and movement. While newcomers to the franchise can get lost in this combination of length and high-energy, I feel this movie strikes a better balance. Its linear story helped me step back and map each part of the journey when I needed to refresh my understanding.

All our favorite characters are back and the film introduces some welcome new additions to the cast. Evangeline Lilly plays the Elf warrior Tauriel whose skills rival (and even surpass at times) Legolas (Orlando Bloom) from the "Lord Of The Rings" series. Tauriel is a seasoned, opinionated warrior with a level of curiosity and interest for the world outside her kingdom, cultivated here by one of the Dwarves, Kili (Aidan Turner). Another great addition is Bard (Luke Evans), a smuggler who helps sneak the Dwarves into Laketown, a village next to the mountain. I really can't place why I like him so much. This "rugged woodsman" archetype usually irritates me. However, where other portrayals make the character seem self-absorbed and incapable of any emotional interaction, Bard has something to lose and a lot to prove, his origins and actions giving an interesting counterbalance to the main story.

The introduction of new characters is good and all, but what of the characters we've come to know? This sequel develops the main leads well; I love following these characters and keeping track of their progression. Bilbo is more sure of himself, playing a bigger role in the group, using the Ring to his advantage in sneaking past enemies. His wit is set on high and I enjoy every second he's on screen. Thorin (Richard Armitage) simultaneously struggles and excels with the expectations that come with being the heir to the Dwarf throne. While he gets chances to show off diplomacy with the Elves and the citizens of Laketown, his noble quest and character gets placed to the test due to the legacy of his greed-driven grandfather. Legolas returns from "Lord Of The Rings" and it's interesting to see his development before that series begins. His skills still impress, taking out legions of enemies with the slightest effort, but it's good to see him in situations that don't make him just the perfect archer. He shows a romantic interest in Tauriel. He discusses the state of the homeland with his father, the King. Legolas harbors a racial distaste for the Dwarves, looking down on them like animals. Each aspect plays to different facets of his personality and fleshes out the character.

Well, it's time to address the elephant in the room. Actually he's bigger than that. After a couple trailers had people concerned, I'm happy to say: Smaug (Benedict Cumberbatch) is a tour-de-force. From his chilling introduction to his unrelenting rage, the dragon steals the show. Smaug blends menace and charm, reminding me, oddly enough, of Shere Khan from the Jungle Book. His presence is built up as high as the movie can, and Smaug, like the tiger, carries himself with a supernatural confidence in his power. He can't be reasoned with, but he takes amusement at anyone's attempts. As he professes his strength and destructive capabilities, I believe it, and am in genuine awe. Cumberbatch plays great villains, and in 2013, he not only gave us a great Khan in Star Trek, but a stellar villain in Smaug.

While Smaug on his own is a selling point, he's not all the film has going for it. The action, while keeping a livelier, less gritty tone, are a lot of fun. The choreography is fast-paced and fluid, the cinematography takes risks, and the payoffs are satisfying, even if they can be over-the-top. My favorite bit of action has to be the chase down the river. It's a pretty lengthy action scene, but builds up in just the right increments, throwing a variety of camera techniques and combat styles. I like the way the Dwarves fight alongside each other and use teamwork to take down their foes; I like Bilbo's use of stealth. The action is just a joy to watch.

The problems I have with "The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug" is really one problem when you boil it down: some subplots are unsatisfactory. From this, I complain about the length of the movie, the padding of scenes, the confusion with some characters, the glossing over of others. If some of these subplots were to be removed or rewritten, we'd have an even tighter film. Instead, we have to muddle through Gandalf interacting with the Necromancer, mentioned in the last film. This spot feels cobbled together to create continuity between this series and the "Lord Of The Rings". While not horrible, it drags out the story, and would be better left alone. The other main offender is a "love triangle" between Legolas, Tauriel, and Kili. When watching this plot, it definitely didn't fit. It wasn't supposed to be here, and to my surprise (and slight joy), I found out it wasn't. Evangeline Lilly mentioned in an interview the filmmakers didn't want to include the love triangle, but had to do so at the studio's request. The subplot isn't so overblown; it's handled subtly, but it comforts me to know the filmmakers were working on a tighter film, and my blame shouldn't wholly be directed at them.

Overall, my problems are few and my praises many. This is a fantastic entry in the series, ramping up the action, the adventure, and the characters. When the movie ended at the screening I went to, the audience collectively went, "Awww!" They wanted more! After two hours and forty minutes, the movie had us so invested in this story and these characters, that we still wanted more. If a movie can do that, it's definitely doing something right. If you're a fan of the series, it's a must-see. Even if you're not a fan, watch the first movie if only to get context for this one. "The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug" is a great sequel and I'm ecstatic to see how the story will close out next year. Until then, thank you all very much for reading. I'm the Man Without A Plan, signing off.

"The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug" trailer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fnaojlfdUbs&feature=youtube_gdata_player

"Homefront" Review

Texas’ reign of freezing terror is in full swing, and aside from the necessary hours of work, sleep, and scraping ice off my windshield, I like to partake in America’s favorite rainy-day sport: watching bad action movies on Netflix! I don’t know; there’s just something so comforting about lying in bed, indulging one’s laziness with junk food for the mind. So yesterday, while in the middle of watching “Sharknado”, I asked a question I never thought possible to ask while watching a movie called “Sharknado”: “Why am I bored?” There were explosions, natural disasters, and shark dismemberments aplenty, but I was falling asleep. I came to the conclusion that with “Sharknado”, and really, any bad action film, the movie cares not for its characters, and so neither do we. That being said, when these characters are put through thrilling dangers, we don’t know these people and couldn’t care less whether they make it or not. The tension is unraveled. The movie dissatisfies. Luckily, this week’s movie “Homefront” cares enough to share its characters with the audience, and while the movie’s not perfect, I enjoy these characters and want to follow them through the story’s turns.

Jason Statham plays Phil Broker, a DEA agent who, on an undercover mission, bears witness to the brutal murder of a drug lord’s son by the SWAT team. Haunted by the event, Phil retires and moves to rural Louisiana with his daughter for a fresh start. Little does he know the past has a way of catching up with people, and its consequences may be lurking closer than anyone could expect.

I like watching these characters interact and give good performances. Statham intimidates, empathizes, jokes around. He plays a range of roles with Phil’s character: the loving father, the vengeful man, the remorseful offender, handling each aspect well. Kate Bosworth is noteworthy as the drug-addicted mother of one of the daughter’s classmates. Her portrayal doesn’t come off as a cautionary tale or activist prop: her physical deterioration and inability to handle her emotions around her family and Broker subtly nod to the damage her character suffers as a result of her lifestyle. She’s convincing in the role and I give my props. However, my biggest kudos goes all the way to James Franco. He plays a meth cook operating in the town, but the way he carries himself, you’d think he was a drug kingpin. From paying off the police to having hitmen do his dirty work, he owns the town: omnipresent and omnipotent. This guy is gut-wrenching. The grime that comes out of his voice is disgusting, and his sneaky, creepy manner keeps my eyes glued. Because he’s sly doesn’t make him unafraid to get physical; he approaches the prospect of breaking bones with glee. Franco plays this villain wonderfully; he’s the guy I love to hate.

“Homefront’s” strength lies in its first half, developing relationships, atmosphere, and tension, building the stakes in just the right increments. Broker’s relationship with his daughter is heartfelt: she carries a lot of his no-nonsense approach to self-defense but he understands when it’s best to teach her something opposite what he’s usually used to. They play and joke with each other; their love carries much of the emotional weight of the film. Louisiana carries many vibes: New Orleans’ liveliness, the swamp’s isolation, its neighborhoods’ comfort and tight-knit nature, and the forests’ majesty (aerial shots of the forests and swamps in particular are presented well).The cinematography works with each location, serving the scene’s intended atmosphere just right. The action is visceral, with emphasis placed on the weight of damage. When someone gets hit, you hear and feel it. When they drop, you believe they hit the ground and if they know what’s good for them, they won’t get up. The choreography is stellar, showing off each step of Broker’s process without sacrificing momentum. Broker uses his surroundings to his advantage, integrating them seamlessly. These fight scenes, as a result, are very creative and a lot of fun to watch.

Unfortunately, for such a smart and effective buildup, the latter half of the movie is lackluster. “Homefront” rushes, tying up its ends as fast as possible, so characters make dumb decisions and initial tension-builders don’t get the payoff they deserve. The action and choreography are still excellent, but a shaking camera and unfocused editing makes it harder to see. The ending is my main issue; my first opinion of the climax was that it was weak, but after tying in the movie’s themes and methods of approaching it, I was able to forgive the climax. However, the ending scene takes the climax’s idea and tosses it out the window, so in this mixed turn of tone, I’m confused and upset. I left the theater with a bad feeling about it all, and while the second half did not ruin the whole experience, its clumsiness is a huge disappointment.

The real shame of “Homefront” is that it started off so well and ended so weak. Despite my disappointment, I don’t hate the movie; I don’t even dislike it. I like the characters, the action is creative, the story builds at a great pace. I had fun watching Phil Broker beat up bad guys and I cared for him and his daughter. I wanted to see them get through the danger ok, and that’s more than I can say for “Sharknado.” I’d say take a couple friends to see it and enjoy it for the action, or just wait for a freezing cold rainy Netflix kind of day. Thank you all again for reading; I’m the Man without a Plan, signing off.

"Homefront" trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tjSOj8b804U

"Frozen" Review

Hello all, and welcome back! The Man Without A Plan here, and I’ve returned triumphantly (or so I hope) with another movie review! Well, it’s officially December in Texas. The cold sticks to my bones in the mornings and leaving work in the wee hours of the morning, I’ve had to scrape ice off my windshield thrice. So I guess it’s only appropriate to see a movie that starts off the winter season. When you’re looking for that criterion, I guess you really can’t get a better title than “Frozen.”

On her coronation day, Queen Elsa (Idina Menzel) of Arendelle fears revealing her childhood secret to the kingdom: she has the power to create and manipulate ice. When an argument between Elsa and her sister, Princess Anna (Kristen Bell), goes too far, Elsa accidentally shows her powers, nearly harming the crowd. Scared of her inability to control her powers, she runs away and unbeknownst to her, she freezes the whole kingdom in an eternal winter. Now it’s up to Anna, with the help of mountain man Kristoff (Jonathan Groff) and magical snowman Olaf (Josh Gad) to find Elsa and figure out how to stop the winter before it’s too late.

When watching “Frozen”, I was drawn to compare it to the last two Disney Princess movies Walt Disney Animation Studios had done, “The Princess And The Frog” and “Tangled”. The former came from a demand to bring back the “classic” Disney movie: people wanted a return to fairytales, princesses, and hand-drawn animation. The movie was successful, garnering Oscar nominations and making over $250 million worldwide, but both critics and audiences said it was just a nice homage to Disney’s “Golden Age”. So when deciding what movie to do next, it’s hard to see “Tangled” as anything but a direct response. Not only was Rapunzel the first CGI Disney princess, but the movie uses modern dialogue, placing an emphasis on the adventure rather than the drama. The changes to the formula paid off; Tangled made $590 million, and both critical and audience word-of-mouth were positive. I bring these two up because “Frozen” takes the appeal to Disney’s classic style and the success of adapting to the current scene and puts it together. Its ambition is its greatest strength and shortcoming.

The penalty suffered from “Frozen’s” ambition is in the pacing. It feels the movie’s trying to cram every joke and character and action scene they could think of. Now, some of these moments hit bulls-eyes, (meeting the owner of a summer equipment store still makes me chuckle,) but I don’t get to slow down and soak it all in. As a result, some reactions seem uncharacteristically glossed over and I never get enough time to bask in the film’s world.

I must give credit, for a movie that rarely stays still, it develops fun, interesting characters. Anna is your typical optimist; she’s playful, clumsy, and awkward, but never to the point where I think she’s dumb or irritating. She’s always ready to go where she’s needed, wishing to be helpful and do the right thing. Kristen Bell emphasizes Anna's good nature over her naïveté and she's a joy to watch. Anna ropes in the ice salesman Kristoff and his trusty reindeer steed Sven to help her up the mountain to find Elsa, and while I think Sven lacks the charisma the royal horse Maximus from “Tangled” has, Kristoff makes up for it by, how do I explain this? He’s the first woodsman, shuns-society loner type I’ve seen in a movie that I believe is genuinely happy existing outside of society. It’s almost a benign misanthropy; he sings a song about how he’d rather eat carrots with his reindeer buddy and be alone with him in the woods than deal with people. (He does put Sven’s smell in consideration while making this decision.) His joyful, yet sarcastic demeanor makes me laugh. He’s my favorite character.

Next to Anna, Elsa is the main character of “Frozen” and one of the more interesting I’ve seen Disney do. She’s a contrast to Anna’s less-controlled naïveté, but never so much she appears curmudgeonly. At least, never without a reason. I admire her motives; she doesn’t look for love or “something more”. She just wants to get her powers under control, and while we do see her artistry and the joy that comes from creating beautiful ice shows, there’s a darker, more destructive side. There’s a scene where something bad has happened to the sisters. Anna wants her sister’s support, but Elsa’s door is closed off. She cries in front of her room, but the next shot shows Elsa’s room in shambles with what looks like scorch marks radiating from where’s she’s crying on the floor. It’s a distressing scene that suggests how dangerous she can be when pushed to her limits. Elsa’s a character that kept me glued to the screen every time she’s on.

The last aspect I must note is the music. “Frozen” packs in as many elements as it can, and the music is no exception. It feels like an operetta. Like the rest of the movie, the songs are hit-or-miss: the best are atmospheric, allow the characters to express their individuality and inner thoughts, and above all, make me hum the melody incessantly while walking out of the theater. The misses…are filler. They pad out their scenes, but even though they annoy, they’re never loathsome. There’s a dark humor underlying the snowman’s song about how happy he’d be to experience summer for the first time, and there are a few of us who may be going to hell for laughing. My favorites include the intro song, “For The First Time In Forever”, “Let It Go”, and for simple laughs, “The Reindeer Song”.

As I wrote this review, I’ve realized I liked “Frozen” more than I originally did. If I’d had more time to breathe and appreciate what I enjoyed while in the theatre, I might’ve liked it more on arrival. Nevertheless, there are creative characters, catchy songs, and good comedy. It does work on fairy-tale logic, which takes the film down a notch, but if you come in with a childlike suspension of disbelief, you’ll find something to like. Thank you very much for reading, I’m the Man Without A Plan, signing off.

"Frozen" trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TbQm5doF_Uc

"The Hunger Games: Catching Fire" Review

Well, I ignored it for “About Time”, didn’t want to be too predictable. I finished that review and went back to the movies. Like always, I didn’t check what showtimes were available and decided to see the closest showing of whatever movie I hadn’t seen before. Fate brought our paths together that day and lo and behold, it looks like its day in court has come. This time the Man without a Plan takes a look at “The Hunger Games: Catching Fire”.

Katniss (Jennifer Lawrence) and Peeta (Josh Hutcherson) return as victors of the 74^th Hunger Games, a competition held by Panem’s elite where the children of the lower districts are chosen to fight to the death as the districts’ punishment for a rebellion against the government. A boy and a girl are chosen from each of the 12 districts, and the children kill each other till one is left standing. At least, it was so before Katniss and Peeta. Their refusal to kill each other along with Katniss’ compassion and bravery has inspired people in the districts to talk of revolution, leaving the leader, President Snow (Donald Sutherland), to target her, Peeta, and all previous victors in a new kind of Hunger Games to qualm the struggle before war breaks out.  

With this sequel, I feel I should describe what I think of the original and the series as a whole. (Disclaimer: I haven’t read the books.) I think the premise is fascinating. The idea of children being offered as sacrifice for the entertainment of the victors of war is horrifying, yet fascinating. It gives an opportunity to show how the media affects society and how easy it can be to forget about the ramifications of war when one is far away from its reality. For a generation of kids born in a post-9/11 society, whose darkest exposures were the latter Harry Potter books, this series takes risks and trusts its audience to be mature. However, the filmmakers understand kids will watch this movie and doesn’t scare them without purpose. The images are violent and hard to watch, but in the end, Katniss’ bravery and compassion pulled us through. My main problem with the first movie is that I don’t have that big of an understanding of the world of Panem. I understand this takes place in America after a war, but save for a few blurbs, I don’t know much about this war, the major players, why it happened and why the post-war society places so much emphasis on makeup, fashion, and entertainment. I feel the first “Hunger Games” sets up the questions ok, but if I didn’t know there was going to be a sequel, I’d feel lost, confused, and a bit annoyed. Too much action, not enough story.

I entered into the sequel with quite a bit of hype and expectation. I hoped this movie would expand on Panem, show more of its history. I wanted to see more psychology, wanted to see the story progress, grow grander and heavier. The sequel has good ideas…but ultimately disappointed me. From what I’ve heard and read from fans online, they appreciate “Catching Fire” for sticking very close to the book, as any fan would want from its adaptation. For me, “Catching Fire” retreads familiar ground, losing its initial intensity. The movie drags and overall, it bored me.

The decision to put Katniss and Peeta back in the Hunger Games is the weakest aspect of the film. Save for some creative new obstacles (the birds and fog come to mind), the intensity is dialed down. The movie tries to add in chase after chase and danger after danger, but I’ve seen this all before. The Hunger Games worked in the first film because it threw us into the world without any mercy, similarly to how the Capitol broke the innocence of the children, forcing them to face real danger and trouble when they were clearly unable to. It set up the horror, giving Katniss a vantage point that would help her understand fully what she’s fighting for. However, instead of exploring the Games’ effect on her mind and the ramifications of her effect in this revolution, the movie puts her back in the same situation. She isn’t allowed to progress as far as she could in the first one and it feels like a step backwards.

I wouldn’t be as disappointed to have Katniss put back in the Hunger Games if the movie didn’t ignore the secondary cast yet again. We get nuggets of their thought progress: Katniss’ best friend Gale (Liam Hemsworth) gets more active in the revolution, her sister Prim (Willow Shields) lives with the weight of increased army presence, inheriting Katniss’ no-nonsense personality without sacrificing hope for better days, and President Snow focuses his efforts in squashing any thoughts of rebellion and any symbol of hope. The problem is these characters aren’t as looked into as they should be and while they should be intriguing, the movie doesn’t give them a chance.

However, the award for biggest character disappointment goes to the king of Terabithia. Peeta is downright useless in this movie. I know Katniss is supposed to be empowering and a good role model for girls, and she is. But with Peeta, we just swap gender roles in the damsel-in-distress scenario. Was it really this hard to give Peeta the ability to carry his own weight? It feels like all he does in this movie is fall on his face and get saved by Katniss and the rest of their crew. I wouldn’t mind it once or twice, but it got to the point where I was in the theater, laughing at how inept this guy is. It’s not like the first movie treated him the same way, it established Peeta’s skills as a master of disguise and showed off his physical strength. He has the ability to stand for himself but the ways in which he gets in trouble don’t fit the character. It grates on my nerves.

Ok, I don’t want to bash this film and make it seem unwatchable, because there are aspects to admire. The design is refined from the first movie: the presentation of the city and its extravagant elements blows me away. There’s a scene where Katniss and Peeta attend a party before the Games and the color scheme just pops. Backgrounds dazzle in their subtle way and the symmetry strengthens the foundation of the overall look. The first movie looked duller: all we saw externally of the Capitol was the muted silver buildings, which while pristine and modern in its architecture, didn’t stand out from any other futuristic movie. Here, the camera shows off a little more; it looks better this time around.

I’m going to blame culture shock for my lack of appreciation for the costumes and makeup in the first movie. The emphasis on it felt more like a distraction than anything, and while I still don’t quite understand it, this time around I expected it, and could turn off my brain to fathom how much work and effort went into these elements. For a new character, Johanna, she wears a dress resembling her forest home. The top's pattern looks like a tree and the texture looks eerily real; I feel if I touched it, the dress would be feel like bark. The attention to detail is exquisite. For Effie Trinket (Elizabeth Banks), Katniss' publicist, her style starts out enveloped in the Capitol's fashions. Big hair, bold colors, lots of layers. It begs for attention. But as her character develops, her wardrobe develops with it. The color scheme gets warmer and the layers are less emphasized. Katniss' outfits definitely fit in the Capitol's fashions: angular dresses and a lot of volume, but they don't get too extravagant, fitting her down-to-earth personality. The costumes can be overlooked by many in movies, but here, they play an important part in showing off the characters and they look great.

It’s really a shame this movie isn’t as great as it could have been. The secondary cast is tossed to the side when they could’ve been looked at more, Katniss and Peeta go through the same motions when the movie could’ve explored the extent of their celebrity and how media can distort and mess with people. Katniss shows a little bit of how the Hunger Games affected her mind and her habits; she has ethical dilemmas, but the movie only tosses hints of how she deals with it. The movie looks great, and some of the new characters (primarily Johanna) are nice introductions to the series, but in the end, it feels like a weaker re-telling of the original. The ending is satisfying; I want to see how the series ends, but it was an ordeal getting there. If you’re a big fan of the first movie or the book series, you’ll probably like it, but if you’re casual to the series, I’d read the plot summary and wait for “Mockingjay: Part 1” to come out next year. As always, thank you all for reading. I’m the Man Without a Plan, signing off.

"The Hunger Games: Catching Fire" trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=keT5CRhhy84

"About Time" Review

Hello all, the Man Without A Plan here, doing yet another movie review. This time, I take a look at “About Time”, the new film from Richard Curtis, the writer of Love Actually and Notting Hill. (Yes I forwent doing the new Hunger Games movie, decided to be spontaneous, y’know?) When lonely introvert Tim turns 21, his father discloses the family secret: all the males in his family can travel back in time to any moment in their lives. Overjoyed with his newfound skill, Tim fixes his mistakes and tries to find a girlfriend, but life and love are always hard to navigate, no matter how super you are.

What’s a shame about the movie is that due to the marketing, it comes off as your typical romantic picture. Immediately, the male demographic takes off in the opposite direction and people like to write it off as just a “chick flick”. There are two problems with this: First off, just because a movie’s marketed towards women doesn’t make it bad. There’s this ridiculous classifying of “chick flicks” that implies that if a movie is meant to appeal to women, it should be held to a lower caliber than any other film. You hear critics talking about movies like “Bridesmaids” like, “if this is a “chick flick”, then call me a chick” or “this isn’t a “chick flick”, this is hilarious”. When did the appeal to gender matter more than whether it’s entertaining or effectively dramatic? Second off, and more logically: the movie doesn’t spend all its focus on the romance. At its core, “About Time” is about Tim’s life, his relationship with his family and friends, and the twists and turns his life takes, for better or worse. It’s a simple story about an ordinary man, and you know what? It’s refreshing!

Rare is a movie that doesn't feel the need to add in conflict for the sake of sparking up drama, but About Time does it well by delivering a great cast and top-notch writing. I love this cast; the main supporting ensemble feels like a real family. They talk about their problems, help each other, have fun. This is a family that really loves each other and from the absent-minded Uncle Desmond (Richard Cordery) to the spontaneous free-spirited Kit Kat (Lydia Wilson) and Tim's relaxed but playful father (Bill Nighy), I fell in love with them all. This is an ensemble cast that works.

Domnhall Gleason (Bill Weasley in the latter Harry Potter movies) plays Tim as the "adorable nerd". He balances that spectrum well: he has the fumbling charm of a Michael Cera with the sarcastic wit of a Jesse Eisenberg, never playing one or the other too far. The movie gives him a lot to work with and he handles it all, from the highest bliss to heart-wrenching tragedy. Tim is simple: he just wants to enjoy life and find love and the performance is endearing. He's very easy to root for.

Mary (Rachel McAdams) plays Tim's love interest and she's a great fit. She's cute and shy, insecure but never afraid to try something a bit off the wall. Her and Tim's chemistry is a lot of fun to watch: they banter and flirt, but the time travel element lets them play around with reactions, making for different scenarios and interaction. They enjoy each other and from beginning to end, it's fun to see them go through life together.

Now, the actors play their parts well, but a good actor does not a good character make. So who do you get to write these characters? Well, the guy who did "Black Adder" and "Mr. Bean" is a fair choice. Similar to those projects, Richard Curtis gives these characters wit and playful energy. There's a moment when Tim and Mary are walking around London when she tells him about her job as a professional reader for a publishing company, and as idiotically blunt (but funny) as he is, he asks if after a while, reading for fun loses its edge, like sex for a prostitute. Oh, does she have him done for! She gets him for it hard, and I was laughing all the way. Curtis plays his build-up smart, the punchlines aren't always obvious and the surprise makes for great comedy.

The problem with time travel in a lot of movies is that the rules for how time travel works and how one can affect their lives while doing so is either inconsistent, confusing, or both. Back To The Future, Quantum Leap, Free Birds: these ones made the notion easy to understand. Even in Back to the Future 2, when multiple timelines are strong together, the movie takes its time and it's not hard to follow. About Time works the same way. The initial rules are easy to understand and while the process for actually doing the time-travel is a bit random, (I just realized if Tim found a blue police box, it would fit the guidelines) it's simple and helps set up some funny punchlines. The rules get a little more complicated as the film goes on; it's definitely weird, but serves a purpose. To quote Captain Barbossa in the first Pirates of the Caribbean: "they're more like guidelines than actual rules." Time travel doesn't take up a focus in the film, but it does lend itself to a different kind of conflict. It's Tim's greatest ally and antagonist.

Overall, About Time is heart-warming, funny, dramatic, and above all, natural. The moral's one we've heard before but following these characters and the way they go about learning that lesson feels like a journey, not an after-school special. The acting's great, the writing is funny and intelligent, the movie makes you feel good. What more can you really ask for? Thank you, as always, for reading, and  I'm the Man Without A Plan, signing off.

"About Time" trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T7A810duHvw

"Ender's Game" Review

"He's back so soon?" You're damn right I am! Hi, I'm the Man Without A Plan, returning for yet another movie review. This time, we've got "Ender's Game", an adaptation of the beloved sci-fi classic by Orson Scott Card. The story features Ender Wiggin (Asa Butterfield), a boy who lives in the distant future. He's chosen for his strategic ability to go to a school for gifted children that teaches them skills for battle and leadership to prepare them for a potential future attack against an alien race who nearly wiped out humanity years before. Colonel Graff (Harrison Ford) leads the "Battle School" and wants to train Ender to be the ultimate one-man army. He believes Ender has the potential to command the entire interstellar fleet and wants to keep him isolated to focus on his training and the destruction of the aliens, but his assistant Major Anderson (Viola Davis) wishes to keep Ender's innocence and humanity intact. After all, he's just a kid. Ender tries to balance these opposing ideas while learning how to become the greatest commander the world has ever known. Little does he know he may get his chance to prove himself sooner than he thinks.

I really like this kid. Butterfield plays the "chosen child" archetype with enough confidence to set himself apart from the rest of the kids, but he always feels like a kid. He's playful, mischievous, compassionate. It's rare that I see a main lead that really, you know, leads the movie. So often I see a row of colorful, interesting characters having to make up for the everyman routine the main lead gives off. Here, Ender's charm and wit shines through; he carries the movie superbly.

The "Battle School" is cool too. The design itself is your typical sci-fi: space suits, large shuttles, futuristic technology, etc. However, the slick cinematography and quick editing gives the film an overall crispness that feels stylish. Enough time is spent learning about how the school functions that the sets don't just feel like backgrounds; the film creates a world of its own. The students play through simulations that test their skills in strategy and command. It's kind of like playing laser freeze tag in zero gravity. The object of the game is for one team to get at least one player through their opponent's base. If they manage to get one person through, they win. However, if a player is shot by one of the lasers, they're frozen and move around aimlessly. It's fun to see the kids' different plans and how they're executed. Each game is different from the last and each strategy varies depending on the opponents and conditions applied. This livens up the action and is enjoyable to watch.

Ender struggles between compassion and aggression. Whether it be fighting the aliens, bullies, or even the Colonel at times, he balances between being diplomatic and using brute force to overcome. Unlike movies like "Avatar" or "Independence Day" where one side is advocated over the other, "Ender's Game" chooses to introduce a third overlying option: strategy. Instead of acting right away, Ender tries to look at as many factors he can before making a decision. Inaction doesn't equal indifference here: his reactions to a situation change if new information is introduced. Circumstances matter, especially in conflict, and sometimes a missing piece of the puzzle can make all the difference. A change in reaction doesn't make the choice invalid: he makes the best with what he's got, but it's refreshing to see a movie where its course of action isn't seen as the only right one. The movie gives a scenario and offers the viewer options for interpretation. It realizes that not only is the choice important, but the reason why it's made and how it's executed is important as well, if not even more crucial. I think this is a good idea to introduce, especially to kids, who are developing their processes for dealing with conflict every day. This movie gives them an option to explore that isn't as explored in other movies, showing its ability to be used in real life.

I have few problems in dialogue and an occasional imbalance of tone, but "Ender's Game" was a lot of fun to watch. It's a breath of fresh air in the sea of "man vs. alien" films, exploring the decision-making process of battle and the psychological ramifications of those choices in a way that appeals to a younger demographic without dumbing it down. I really enjoyed this flick, check it out. I'm the Man Without A Plan, signing off.

"Ender's Game" trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2UNWLgY-wuo

"Thor 2: The Dark World Review"

Hello all, and welcome back! I'm the Man Without A Plan, here to do another movie review. This time I'm taking a look at "Thor 2: The Dark World", a film that ramps up the humor and action of the original, but drapes it over a plain story.

The Dark World is the home of the Dark Elves, a race existent before the universe in an era of total darkness. Desperate to return to that state, the Elves' leader, Malekith (Christopher Eccleston) planned to use a weapon called the Aether to destroy the universe and return to the original state. However, when Malekith was about to use it, the Asgardians caught wind of the plan and waged a war, ravaging the Elves and their home, stealing the Aether in the process. They buried the weapon underground, while Malekith escaped, vowing to find the Aether and wreak vengeance on Asgard.

Thousands of years pass and while researching an interdimensional anomaly, Jane Foster (Natalie Portman) an Earth astrophysicist and Thor's love, is accidentally transported to the burial spot and comes across the Aether, which melds itself inside her body, acting like a symbiote, violently defending itself from anyone who tries to harm her. Concerned for Jane's safety, Thor (Chris Hemsworth) returns to Earth and takes her to Asgard, determined to find a way to rid her of the Aether and destroy it once and for all, unaware Malekith senses the weapon and is on the hunt to retrieve it.

"Thor 2" suffers from what I call "sequel-itis." Because of the major successes that were the first "Thor" and "The Avengers", pressure is placed on the filmmakers from the studio to make another movie for the franchise, quickly. What usually happens is that the movies end up having plain stories but the elements that draw people in, such as action, humor, and special effects are ramped higher. People already recognize and love the characters, so not as much time is used to develop them. It makes the movie feel like a campfire lit with lighter fluid: more flash and bang, but the wood doesn't burn steady for long.

The success of "The Avengers" and the universe it set up separates "Thor 2" from being too far gone. One of the movie's strengths is in how it portrays its main lead. Because of the first movie and "The Avengers", Thor isn't as playful, cocky, or quick to the draw. He's become tempered by the weight of his guardianship of Earth and the Nine Realms. He doesn't jump into violence at the first glance, he looks at the situation from the vantage point of the people he's trying to protect, putting their needs first. He doesn't lose all personality; he has fun with Jane and Loki. In fact, the brotherly bantering is my favorite part of the movie. However, you can see a maturity in Thor he didn't have at the start. He's learned strategy, teamwork, and how to lead from his experiences, using those lessons to make smart choices here. While Thor isn't as dynamic of a character in this particular story, one can see the results of his progress and admire his overall growth. Because "The Avengers" required so much to tie in from the other movies and will require the same from these sequels for its sequel, "Thor 2" has elements in its story that tie back and foreshadow to events in the larger universe. When the movie steps out and shows the big picture, it's impressive. When the movie gets back to its story though...it falters.

A part of the blame does lie on Malekith as a character. Eccleston has the vice and command to play a strong villain (the Daleks can back me on this) but the character stays in the background a lot of the time, often making the monologues or being shrouded in shadow. The actor does a fine job, but he's not given a whole lot to do.

However, I would say that most of the blame for the lack of story lies in the same cause for the movie's strength: the success of "The Avengers." Before that film, the Marvel movies made, while some better felt like independent stories. They could fit in a bigger universe, but each movie never felt like they owed something to that bigger story. They could exist and breathe on their own. Ever since "The Avengers" came out, the focus has shifted. Now, the idea of a bigger story is in the public consciousness so the newer movies like "Iron Man 3" and "Thor 2" end up feeling less like their own concrete piece and more like a piece of the puzzle. Whenever I see Thor's world in peril or Iron Man's house being destroyed, in the back of my mind I'm aware there's a larger narrative at stake, so the stakes levied by these individual tales carry less weight. I'm logically not as invested. The developments in the characters' relationships with each other and themselves aren't as focused on to fit the model for sequel-itis, but since there's a bigger story in play, these new elements don't carry as much impact because I know this won't matter in the long run.

This doesn't mean that the action isn't creative or the new additions are all bad. The pacing of the action is done better here in the original "Thor." It has more variety, going through different stages and layers before giving clever, exciting payoffs. A great new addition is Malekith's main henchman, who is infused with the power of the Aether, becoming a monstrous soldier. He's a fresh addition: menacing and powerful. When he's on screen, I knew he meant business and I was worried for how Thor would win against him. He's fun to watch, and overall, I say the movie's fun to watch.

Call it heightened expectations, because the movie doesn't evoke the same kind of blockbuster excitement as "The Avengers", but on its own, "Thor 2: The Dark World" is a decent action film, with enough razzle-dazzle to entertain fans and newcomers alike. The story is plain and the investment isn't high, but what's executed well is executed well. I like it, go check it out. This is the Man Without A Plan, signing off.

Thor 2: The Dark World trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3bFZJ-3zNFg

"Gravity" Review

 The more I think about Alfonso Cuarón’s “Gravity”, the more I see it as a mixed bag. On the one hand, it’s a visual experience immersing the audience in space in a way unlike anything I’ve ever seen before. On the other hand, I think it falls short of greatness by adhering to crowd-pleasing elements that distract from the tone and weight of the premise and story.

Sandra Bullock stars as Ryan Stone, a doctor-turned-astronaut who, while on a spacewalk to set up a deep-space scanning program she invented, gets stranded when debris destroys the ship, leaving her and the commanding officer Matthew Kowalski (George Clooney) to struggle for survival and a way home against all odds.

Where “Gravity” succeeds is in creating an experience. Never have I felt as close to being in space as I did here. The attention to detail with movement, sound, and visuals is phenomenal. Whether it be the way Ryan enters a room in a space station upside down, the lack of sound whenever she and Kowalski are in space, or the glow of the sunrise creeping on the earth, the movie creates this environment realistically.

This is one of those movies I’m going to have to see the behind the scenes features for; some scenes just made me stroke my chin wondering, “I wonder how they achieved this effect,” or “Think of all the storyboarding this must have taken to plan!” There’s a soothing scene where Ryan takes a breather in the space station, floating in the middle of the airlock for a few minutes. Her movement is so smooth; it makes you believe she’s really floating in zero gravity. Of course, I don’t know for sure if the filmmakers shot that scene in a zero gravity simulator of some kind, but the effect works so well, it makes me want to know how it was done. Did she stay still and the room moves around her? Were there wires involved, and if so, how was the wirework executed in order to simulate the movement? Scenes like this reveal the filmmakers’ creativity and dedication to the environment, it makes me admire all the work that went into it.

One of the points people have brought up with this movie is its use of 3D. I think the main problem with 3D is that when using it the old way, for shock and pop-up effects, it looks hokey and gimmicky. When using it the new way, to increase depth, the actors end up looking like paper puppets. 3D is intended to break the boundaries of reality and fiction. The line doesn’t end at the screen; the audience can become enveloped in the story with this illusion. This is where “Gravity” gets it right. The 3D is used to stretch the limitations of space, expressing its infinite nature. The IMAX screen is an advantage here because 3D glasses tend to limit the scope of vision. IMAX usually gets the audience to sit farther back to see everything, so the 3D can use depth without sacrificing the audience’s vision. Overall, the effect helps the visuals; I’d recommend spending the extra money.

So what are my problems with “Gravity”? I think my main issue is tone. At some points, “Gravity” seems like an art film; the importance is placed on experience and mood rather than the narrative. However, there are enough comic relief and pop-out 3D effects to make it more palatable for the Hollywood crowd. The first couple times, these kinds of choices don’t distract too much from the story, but after the 3^rd time Ryan nearly misses the spacecraft while being dragged into space, the effect wears thin and it gets irritating. George Clooney can be a bit much playing Kowalski; his inability to be fazed is an interesting quality, but decreases the value of the heavy stakes at hand. Most of the comic relief is attributed to him and save for a couple scenes, his jokes fall flat. Whenever the movie tries to be more like an action film, it pulls away from the experience and it ends up bringing the movie down a notch.

Despite its faults, “Gravity” is a visual masterpiece, using its attention to detail and its effects to create the most realistic depiction of space I’ve seen. The visuals are a showstopper, but balance well to serve the story, which enthralls and weaves tension in a story of trying to survive at all costs. I definitely recommend it, especially in IMAX 3D. Take a view and let your perception play around. I’m the Man without a Plan, thanks for reading, and join me next time for another movie review.

"Gravity" trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OiTiKOy59o4

"Runner Runner" Review

Hello all, I’m the Man without a Plan, returning yet again with another movie review. This time I’m taking a look at “Runner Runner”, where Justin Timberlake stars as Richie Furst, a Princeton grad student and gambling marketer who, when he finds out an online poker website cheated him out of his tuition, travels to Costa Rica to meet with the CEO, Ivan Block, played by Ben Affleck, and get his money back. Block is generous, rewarding his efforts and civility with not only the refund, but a job in his company, working as a senior affiliate. Richie thinks he’s living the highlife, but little does he know Block may have other sinister motives in mind.

Richie Furst is a severely weak character. He’s a Princeton grad student going for a Master’s degree in finance. He’s presented as exceptionally intelligent, analyzing many pools of data in no time. His hope is to become a broker on Wall Street, making lots of money, living the good life. So when Richie needs to find a way to pay off his college debt, why would he feel the need to resort to gambling?

He praises gambling’s intent to be purely fair; everyone has the same chances of winning. This may be true, but he forgets that not everyone has the same stakes to lose. He’s cemented in a position that could put him on the road to solving his problems and fulfilling his dreams, but is risking all his tuition and academic career for a chance at a quick fix. However, not only does he consider it a smart idea to gamble his money away, but also thinks it wise to travel to a foreign country, gain an audience with the head of a multi-million dollar company, and convince him to give his money back. How many average customers get to walk up to an office with complaints and get to speak with the head of management, no questions asked? Isn’t this what human resources departments are meant for? This plan carries no weight in the real world and serves as just a way to get Timberlake from point A to point B. Now, I wouldn’t blame Timberlake for most of this; he plays naïve and dumb convincingly enough, but the character is so inconsistent, it’s hard to take him seriously.

The rest of the cast is hit and miss. For the most part, the secondary characters are bland: the love interest is just a love interest, the corrupt politicians hammy, but not enough so to be memorable. Anthony Mackie delivers some laughs as an over-the-top FBI agent; his intense delivery of the typical cop dialogue gets chuckles out of me, especially the scene where he first threatens Richie with jail time and exile from the U.S. Ben Affleck has fun as Ivan Block. He’s laid-back and suave, but shows enough glee with his evil to resemble a decent Bond villain. Affleck’s having some fun here, and I rooted for him most of the film.

“Runner Runner” is intriguing. I haven’t seen a movie this jumbled in a long time. The plot seems to be pushed along, spitting out whatever ties can connect the dots and keep the movie going. Much of the dialogue relies on gambling puns and lingo not many people outside of the poker scene would understand, and unlike a movie like “21”, it doesn’t bother to help explain these complicated statistics and concepts to non-aficionados. By doing so, the scenes drag and the movie bores quickly. It tries to create suspense with its action scenes, but they ultimately feel weak, without much consequence. It tries to be dramatic, but interjects silly moments in-between that draw the audience out of the scene. Well, if it ends up silly, could I call it a comedy? Not at all, for the most part, the movie takes itself too seriously to seem self-aware. Overall, I think this is an exercise in trying to string together a quick thriller with some in-demand actors that ends up being forgettable and irritating. Some of the sets are appealing and the soundtrack works well, but it’s not worth the boredom. I’d say skip it.

Thank you very much for reading, I’m the Man without a Plan, and I’ll see you all later on the next movie review.

"Runner Runner" trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HAz_oUxUuDg

"Prisoners" Review

Greetings, all! I'm the Man without a Plan, back again with another movie review. This time I'll be taking a look at "Prisoners", a thrilling drama that brings captivating performances and strong suspense, drawing influence from noir and horror. This movie kept me on the edge of my seat, enthralling me from beginning to end.

The movie stars Hugh Jackman as Keller Dover, a prudent father whose six-year-old daughter, Ana, is kidnapped on Thanksgiving. Jake Gyllenhaal plays Detective Loki, the officer assigned to their case. He remains professional, trying to solve the case as quickly as possible while keeping Keller calm and patient, but when the only suspect is released, Keller grows furious, taking matters into his own hands. The lines between justice and vengeance blur and twist in the search to find Ana and bring her home safely.

Jackman is a tour de force. His portrayal is equally menacing and sympathetic; his resolve to do whatever's necessary to find Ana inspires and terrifies. For a man whose strength is the ability to prepare for everything, this situation catches him off guard, leaving him desperate and weak. His reactions are rushed, instinctive, even primal to an extent. All the while, however, he prays constantly, trying to keep his faith, struggling between his desperate rage and faithful righteousness. Jackman's portrayal of this conflict drives the movie; when he's on screen, he draws every bit of attention with his intensity and drive.

Jake Gyllenhaal also does well playing Detective Loki. He and Keller are a study in contrast: while Keller is desperate and willing to cross whatever line to find his daughter, Loki is more controlled and objective. That's not to say he's immune to emotion; he's aware of how much time he has, poring through any lead for even a shred of information. He'll go above the call of duty (and his boss's orders), but Loki has better-set boundaries for what can be allowed in order to find the truth, serving as a strong foil for Keller. Gyllenhaal does a great job leading the way through each step of the mystery, intriguing with his dedication and fervor.

"Prisoners" has quite the running time: at two hours and 33 minutes, it approaches "Lord Of The Rings" territory, but in no way is this time wasted. The movie gives enough detail and time to balance Keller and Loki's stories while letting each character have their moments to pause, breathe, and reflect on how the situation affects them. I never felt the movie was hurrying exposition and details; it flowed at a good pace. The film never felt long, the porridge was just right.

The length also helped in building suspense. Unlike many movies (mainly horror), which break up the tension with false payoffs or jump scares, "Prisoners" takes time in its setups. The scenes moved steady, and the longer they went on, the quieter the theater got, the tighter my chest clenched. The payoffs were unpredictable, complimenting the nature of our main leads well. Some reveals which I originally bemoaned worked later in the big scheme of keeping me on my toes, not knowing exactly what to expect. It worked effectively, throwing me for loops with every twist and turn.

Of course, suspense isn't only built by drawing out time: the cinematography helped out. Some scenes hearkened back to horror films, where the shots would be composed to draw one's eye to a specific point, whether one wanted to or not. The camera got intimate without feeling too claustrophobic (I'm looking at you, "Getaway"), expressed discomfort without turning annoying, and was framed well when used to slow a reveal down to build tension.

To sum it all up, "Prisoners" is excellent. Its strong characters, nerve-wracking suspense, and intelligent story meld near-flawlessly. It questions the line between justice and vengeance, tests the breaking point of man's faith, and creates an exhilarating mystery. I'd definitely recommend you check this out. I'm the Man without a Plan, and thanks for reading.

"Prisoners" trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sfRckdHq--c

"Austenland" Review

Hello all, and welcome back to another movie review. This week, I took a different venture as far as what kind of movie I wanted to see. Also, I only had about a two-and-a-half hour time window to watch a movie on Tuesday, so instead of going to a Cinemark or an AMC, I went indie. Here in Dallas, the Angelika Film Center offers independent films (and the occasional showing of "This Is The End") for around the same price, or cheaper, than bigger multiplexes. I decided to head over there and it is here where I saw "Austenland".

"Austenland" stars Keri Russell as Jane Hayes, a woman smitten with the works of Jane Austen, primarily "Pride And Prejudice." Actually, to say she's smitten is an understatement: a life-size cutout of Mr. Darcy stands as the crown jewel of her living room, she recites every line as the BBC movie plays, and of course, she rocks the "I <3 Mr. Darcy" purse. After a bad breakup, she longs for that type of simple romance, so she takes a vacation to Austenland, a fantasy camp where she can experience life in the setting of Austen's novels and even have the chance to live out her Darcy dream. However, as she spends more time in the camp, she finds there may be a reason why those kinds of novels don't always translate well in the real world.

"Austenland" takes influence from romance novels, but while trying to channel "Pride and Prejudice", it draws more from harlequin romances that the book inspired. By doing so, the movie takes its appreciation and parodies the romance genre as a whole, not just Austen's novels. For the most part, the exaggeration works. The overstuffed sets and over-the-top characters create an anachronistic trip that helps convey the general setting and mood of the source material while also pointing out the flaws and oddities of such a genre. For comedy, it works well.

However, the problem with exaggeration is its ability to imbalance. Throughout the first half of the movie, the exaggeration of characters and setting is the focus. Less time is spent with Jane and her reactions to being in her own view of paradise; rather, the movie spits out overly pompous dialogue and comic relief. The stereotypes take over, leaving Jane to observe everyone naively in the corner. There is a scene where Jane steps into a ballroom and imagines herself dancing in the ball. Before this scene, Jane's been relatively quiet, mostly observing the zaniness of the other guests and workers at the camp. However, she has time now to start getting involved in her fantasy, start building her dream come true. She gets to dance and imagine for about a minute...and then it's over. Cut to a scene of everyone eating. That's it? She barely gets any time to invest herself in this setting and become swept up in the fantasy, so since the audience is following Jane through the story, the audience doesn't get a chance to vicariously become invested and swept up in the world.

"Austenland" is adapted from the Shannon Hale novel, and I feel it suffers the main problem many adaptations face. The movie feels as if the screenwriter looked at the novel and decided to take just the scenes that would suffice in telling the story as bare-boned as possible. By doing this, the movie lacks transition, feeling choppy. It flows less like a full narrative and more like a slideshow, jumping from scene to scene with no time for the characters (and audience) to breathe and take in the full scope of what's been developing. For comedy, the fast pace and exaggeration works relatively well, but when it's overdone, the pacing of the story suffers, leaving me bored for a good chunk of the middle of the movie.

I wouldn't say "Austenland" is a horrible flick by any means. The romantic parodies got a couple laughs out of me, Keri Russell is enjoyable as Jane develops through the latter half of the movie, and there are some damn funny side characters, that while distracting, helped out with the slower parts (in particular, check out Colonel Andrews (James Callis), he's a fabulous riot). If you're a fan of Jane Austen novels, romantic comedies, or even like taking that same genre down a couple notches, come in with the right frame of mind, and I think you'll like it okay.

"Austenland" trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KbHr8YyjSlg

"You're Next" Review

Hello and welcome, all. I’m the Man Without A Plan, here to take a look at “You’re Next”, the new horror film directed by Adam Wingard and written by Simon Barrett. “You’re Next” blends dark comedy, over-the-top action, and smart twists to make an entertaining no-holds-barred rollercoaster of a flick that made me jump, laugh, and at the end of it all, clap for a love letter to 1980’s horror.

The movie follows Erin (Sharni Vinson) and Crispin (AJ Bowen), a couple going to celebrate Crispin’s parents’ 35^th wedding anniversary with the rest of his family in the parents’ woodland home. As the family sits down for dinner, one of the guests is abruptly murdered by a mysterious assailant, leaving the rest of the family to figure out who’s hunting them as well as how to make it out of the house alive.

Erin is such a breath of fresh air: she’s the horror movie character we claim we would be. She’s resourceful, intelligent, quick to act, and not afraid to get her hands dirty when needed. I don’t remember a moment when I felt the need to yell at the screen in a vain hope for her to listen to my advice; she’s a survivor (and a hell of a lot better at it than me). Another honorable mention is Drake, Crispin’s older brother (Joe Swanberg). He’s a smug, insensitive jerk, but due to some gut-busting writing, fantastic reactions (his “Doy?” face had me crying), and a certain scene with a knife I won’t dare spoil, he turned out a fun side character to watch.

The thing that surprised me about this movie’s release was when I asked my friends and co-workers, many of whom I could claim as horror fans, if they were excited to see it: most had never even heard of the film. In a way, I can understand; the only mentions I’d gotten were when I went to the movies and saw the trailer, but I couldn’t understand why other movies this year such as “The Purge” and “The Conjuring” managed to grab more attention while keeping the level of marketing the same.  

As I watched “You’re Next”, I managed to understand why. I wasn’t sure what to expect. The balance of both scares and story made the pacing feel lopsided with many scares and overused techniques strewn together in the beginning to get the ball running. Similarly to spraying lighter fluid on a campfire, it starts the movie out flashy but the effect fizzles quickly. However, as the movie progressed, the pacing evened out, allowing for more time to appreciate each scare’s setup and the way the story moved along.

Despite “You’re Next” coming out alongside “The Purge” and “The Conjuring,” I would compare it more to movies like the “Evil Dead” series and “The Cabin In The Woods.” It has a dark layer of comedy and self-awareness separating it from any horror film willing to just splatter gore and make a quick buck. It pays homage to movies from the 70’s and 80’s in tone and feel: the soundtrack sounds right at home in a Nightmare to Elm St. sequel, the consistency of the blood looks almost exactly like Carrie, I could even note the use of models in the same manner as in something like Return of The Living Dead. These kinds of special effects rejuvenate old tricks and I couldn’t be happier with the results. “You’re Next” takes its shots at newer movies too; its use of the shaky camera and slow-motion borders on parody, mocking the big trends of the late 90’s and 2000’s. It’s playful and mischievous; the filmmakers were having a lot of fun.

At the end of the day, that’s my final word on the film. It’s fun. It takes old tricks and brings them in a new light for a murder mystery that throws in blends of comedy, smart characters, and the over-the-top action horror fans love. I laughed hard, I jumped at the obvious scares, and I had a great time letting the movie tell its story. It’s a love letter to a previous generation, and it’s definitely worth a watch.

"You're Next" trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ufUQWpEkbf0

"The Perks Of Being A Wallflower" Review

The Perks of Being a Wallflower

I am uncomfortable. My stomach pangs in the way it does when you’re forced to face the truth, either when you have to confess to stealing a toy car or when you hold the girl you’ve been seeing for a couple months and for the first time, her kisses taste bitter, and you realize they’ve always been bitter. Watching “The Perks of Being a Wallflower” made me uncomfortable.

The movie stars Logan Lerman as Charlie Kelmeckis, a shy, lonely teenager about to start his freshman year of high school. He wants to start fresh and improve his standing, along the way finding friendship, first loves, and the glory that is the Rocky Horror Picture Show.

As an audience member to Charlie's story, I noticed he’s a character whose experiences are so particular, yet completely understandable. It doesn’t take me having to stand up in the bed of a truck or leaning against the wall at a school dance to understand every single feeling he has. I relate to every twinge of regret, loneliness, bliss, and innocence. That’s the gift of a great narrator: they take their shoes off and somehow find the way to make your feet fit in them perfectly.

Whether I read the book or in this case, the movie, his innocence always astounds me. He starts as someone who has seen so much a 9^th grader shouldn’t have seen, but yet carries the weight blindly. He knows nothing about how to interpret the events in his life and how to fit them in the puzzle of his own. As the movie progresses, he meets the stepbrother/sister duo of Patrick and Sam (Ezra Miller and Emma Watson), who begin to help him fit the pieces in together, beginning with the piece of Charlie himself. Charlie learns to become as much an active part of his life as he is an observer or an intellectual. As much as he plans and reflects on his experiences and reactions, through Patrick and Sam’s inclusion into their friendship and the events that follow, he learns to remain connected and become comfortable with living his life as it’s happening. The movie doesn’t abandon the idea of reflection altogether, though, it seeks balance, revealing a time and place for reflecting on one’s experiences but also knowing that in order to reflect on life, life needs to happen.

Is it the most technically brilliant movie? No. Its cinematography fits the mood well enough, but I wouldn’t call it wizardry anytime soon. Does the narrative flow smoothly? The first half is jumpy; for someone who’s read the book, this feels like a smattering of the most important scenes without the extra information and day-to-day events that help smooth and transition. Do I feel the movie can preach on with its speeches about life, pain, and the grand meaning of it all? At times, yes. However, through its comedy, tragedies, and stories about growing up, I am forced to face a truth. Life is meant to be lived consciously aware of each moment. It’s not bad to reflect on the choices we’ve made or on the people we love, but too much is too much. I am uncomfortable, and I think that’s one of the best compliments I can give a film.

"The Perks Of Being A Wallflower" trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n5rh7O4IDc0

Extending My Hand To You

Hello, those of you reading. I'm The Man Without A Plan, and I review films. I'm currently working on a goal to review movies for a living and so while I find myself in a strange transitional period from old adolescent to young adult, I decided, "Eh, why not?" and started this blog in order to offer my opinions on old movies, new movies, and the art of film in general. I find sort of a strange obsessing fascination with art as a whole, so I may comment on whatever music, literature, or artistic piece I discover. However, my main point is to hopefully express the joy I feel when walking into the cineplex on a Friday night. I think it's pure magic; the movies entertain, teach, shock, and change us, as art should. So if you'd like, grab on to my hand and let's walk together.