"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
Tuesday, December 31, 2013
Friday, December 27, 2013
"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
"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
Tuesday, December 17, 2013
"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
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
Thursday, December 5, 2013
"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
Tuesday, December 3, 2013
"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.
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)