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
Sunday, September 22, 2013
Friday, September 20, 2013
"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
"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
Tuesday, September 10, 2013
"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’ 35th 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
Monday, September 9, 2013
"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 9th
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
"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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)