I'm noticing a trend in the movies I watch lately. From watching 2001: A Space Odyssey in class to Her and even the upcoming Lucy, a focus is being placed on the evolution of man. Whether it be the result of alien interference, artificial intelligence, or super serums, we obsess over progress and how we can gain a stronger connection to the rest of the world. In this time of discovery, it makes sense for a movie like Transcendence to come out. It explores the battle between man and machine asking who reigns superior: creator or creation? And is there even a middle ground? All these questions are answered (somewhat).
Will Caster (Johnny Depp) is an artificial intelligence researcher, whom, after developing terminal cancer, undergoes a dangerous procedure in which his consciousness is copied via electric brain signals into a rudimentary AI, merging the two sentient beings together, essentially saving Will's mind. The procedure is a total success and with this new power, Will, along with his wife Evelyn (Rebecca Hall) must learn how to survive and grow, influencing the world in the process.
This movie is the directorial debut of Wally Pfister, known as a cinematographer for Christopher Nolan's biggest films, including the Dark Knight trilogy, Memento, and Inception. And boy, does it show. This movie is gorgeous. From the bright colors to imaginative effects and striking use shadows, the film is a visual delight. The camera moves exceptionally smooth: as soon as the movie uses shaky cam, the contrast is startling. As someone annoyed to death with the shaky cam trend, I'm glad to see it going away.
I mention Christopher Nolan not only to give a frame of reference, but because I see his watermarks over the film. Pfister attempts to copy Nolan's non-linear style, but the end result seems choppy, breaking up expected continuities with pieces of filler. Any chance we get to see Johnny Depp look sad is great, I guess? The dialogue feels very "Nolan-ized" as well. Supporting characters stop being characters halfway through the movie, instead spewing exposition and thematic speeches. In something like The Dark Knight, the performances and dialogue strengthen the weight of the action. Here, it drags the movie out into melodrama.
And melodrama is my biggest fault with the movie. It takes itself so seriously while interjecting silly imagery I'd expect in a young adult novel. Transcendence introduces an antagonist group called the RIFT, who oppose the expansion of artificial intelligence. From the platinum blonde manic leader Bree (Kate Mara) to their cult-like philosophies and terrorist actions, they are obvious bad guys: rooted in their ways, unable to listen to reason, and I'm bored. For issues as complex as human evolution, one would think the movie would shape its characters in more reality, but in a film where the army uses antique cannons against Johnny Depp's Skynet, I guess I can't be too upset.
I'm not upset at all, actually. In a way, I feel endearment towards Transcendence, kind of like reading a short story written by a kid. You know it has severe faults and a juvenile understanding of storytelling, but you can't help but appreciate the effort. The cast does ok, Johnny Depp does his best Keanu Reeves impersonation, and Morgan Freeman wins my heart like usual. (I find him to be the movie's representation of the audience, with a look that simply says "what the..?" Left me in stitches.) It looks great, it's stylish, but ultimately ends up in Nolan-lite territory. I'd say wait for a DVD release and in the meantime, pop in Inception again. Thank you all for reading yet again, I'm the Man Without A Plan, signing off.
Transcendence trailer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QheoYw1BKJ4
Tuesday, April 15, 2014
Wednesday, April 9, 2014
"Captain America: The Winter Soldier" Review
Chris Evans leaps back into action as Captain America in the new movie, Captain America: The Winter Soldier, the sequel to the 2011 movie. I love the original for its stellar production design and old-school comic book feel, but this film changes in tone, falling more in line with a Jason Bourne movie. It offers politics, espionage, treachery, but never deviates too much to lose sight of its camp value. Whether this floats the boat or not, I feel depends on one's expectations for the film.
Steve Rogers (Chris Evans), or Captain America, as many Americans know him as, is adjusting to modern life, living in Washington D.C. as a permanent member of the top-secret homeland security branch S.H.I.E.L.D. An original citizen of the 40's, he tries to catch up, learning about the developments he missed while frozen in ice due to a plane crash. And while he's adjusting to the technology, he struggles to find where he belongs.
However, when he and colleague Black Widow (Scarlett Johannson) uncover a sinister plot brewing in S.H.I.E.L.D.'s secret underbelly threatening millions, it's up to them to save the world, facing betrayal, tragedy, and the rise of a new enemy known as the Winter Soldier.
While the end of the first movie and The Avengers focuses on the shock value of being thrust into a unfamiliar modern society, this movie shows a Captain America who, despite not knowing everything, is well-adjusted enough to function.
Because of this, the movie abandons the nostalgia of a period piece, taking its cues from political thrillers. The lines are blurred, motives are questioned, Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson) tells Cap to "not trust anyone." Unlike the first film, the point of contention comes from ideologies, not labeled so colorfully: the need for personal freedom vs. the need for societal order. At first, the mystery creates suspense, but as soon as the second half comes around, the movie straightens the line, bringing it back to familiar "good vs. evil" territory. It's not executed poorly, but I would've liked to have seen this path explored; this is a topic debated since the dawn of human grouping, and a realistic debate would've fit well with a more realistic tone.
Nick Fury, the badass eyepatch-wielding leader of S.H.I.E.L.D., plays a larger role than in previous movies. While S.H.I.E.L.D. has been an enforcing agency over superheroes, keeping them in line, this movie puts them to the test, watching the watchmen, so to speak. More details of both their and Nick's past are revealed, including his relation to Alexander Pierce (Robert Redford), the visionary senior S.H.I.E.L.D. official. Samuel L. Jackson does great as usual; he adds an extra layer of humanity to Nick's snappy wit and no-nonsense attitude.
The other main development introduced in the film is the Winter Soldier. A mysterious long-haired cross between Prince of Persia and the Terminator, he proves a formidable match for Captain America, meeting him blow for blow. (The image in the trailer where he catches Captain America's shield looks phenomenal on the big screen.) His story ends up getting put on the back-burner, but provides one of the surprisingly best emotional anchors of the film.
The rest of the movie kind of fares like one would expect it: the action is okay, the side characters funny and charming. Captain America remains our heroic main lead; this is the role that will define Evans' career going forward. His humor, good-natured personality, and unrelenting pursuit of justice is infectious. (Let's see Henry Cavill try to pull off half the charisma he has.)
Ever since The Avengers' reveal, Marvel's masterwork lays in the back of our minds. We pay more attention to detail, the nerds point out connections between series, and Stan Lee's cameos are funnier every time. However, since The Avengers, I have to wonder if our expectations are now skewed. Iron Man 3 and Thor 2 underwhelmed me, and I can't help but wonder if this is because Marvel is placing its efforts on the next Avengers movie. It's already hooked its audience, so these movies have less to prove. As a result, I feel these movies take less risks, feeling like shells of their inventive counterparts, who tested what audiences could and would accept with their off-kilter heroes, design, and genre. (A Norse god with a rainbow bridge in the era of The Dark Knight? Unthinkable!)
It's this line of thinking that Captain America: The Winter Soldier falls under. It's not bad, by any means. I'm invested in the story; never did I feel the movie overstayed its welcome. Comparing it to its counterparts Iron Man 3 and Thor 2, I'd place this film on top. It's just not up to par with the original. If you're looking for a satisfying two-hour superhero/action film, I'd recommend it. Thank you all for reading, STAY FOR THE CREDITS!
I can't believe that you people STILL leave after the movie's over! It's a Marvel movie; there ARE after-credits scenes. Not only are these scenes fantastic teasers, they provide last-minute insight into the characters' stories. I'm not sure if people just take to YouTube to watch the scenes later, but I find that in a world, where patience is rarely rewarded in a timely manner, Marvel movies always do it for me. Just my advice: stay till the end, there are two credit scenes, not just one. stick around. Thank you all for sticking around until the end of this review. I'm the Man Without A Plan, signing off.
Captain America: The Winter Soldier trailer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7SlILk2WMTI
Steve Rogers (Chris Evans), or Captain America, as many Americans know him as, is adjusting to modern life, living in Washington D.C. as a permanent member of the top-secret homeland security branch S.H.I.E.L.D. An original citizen of the 40's, he tries to catch up, learning about the developments he missed while frozen in ice due to a plane crash. And while he's adjusting to the technology, he struggles to find where he belongs.
However, when he and colleague Black Widow (Scarlett Johannson) uncover a sinister plot brewing in S.H.I.E.L.D.'s secret underbelly threatening millions, it's up to them to save the world, facing betrayal, tragedy, and the rise of a new enemy known as the Winter Soldier.
While the end of the first movie and The Avengers focuses on the shock value of being thrust into a unfamiliar modern society, this movie shows a Captain America who, despite not knowing everything, is well-adjusted enough to function.
Because of this, the movie abandons the nostalgia of a period piece, taking its cues from political thrillers. The lines are blurred, motives are questioned, Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson) tells Cap to "not trust anyone." Unlike the first film, the point of contention comes from ideologies, not labeled so colorfully: the need for personal freedom vs. the need for societal order. At first, the mystery creates suspense, but as soon as the second half comes around, the movie straightens the line, bringing it back to familiar "good vs. evil" territory. It's not executed poorly, but I would've liked to have seen this path explored; this is a topic debated since the dawn of human grouping, and a realistic debate would've fit well with a more realistic tone.
Nick Fury, the badass eyepatch-wielding leader of S.H.I.E.L.D., plays a larger role than in previous movies. While S.H.I.E.L.D. has been an enforcing agency over superheroes, keeping them in line, this movie puts them to the test, watching the watchmen, so to speak. More details of both their and Nick's past are revealed, including his relation to Alexander Pierce (Robert Redford), the visionary senior S.H.I.E.L.D. official. Samuel L. Jackson does great as usual; he adds an extra layer of humanity to Nick's snappy wit and no-nonsense attitude.
The other main development introduced in the film is the Winter Soldier. A mysterious long-haired cross between Prince of Persia and the Terminator, he proves a formidable match for Captain America, meeting him blow for blow. (The image in the trailer where he catches Captain America's shield looks phenomenal on the big screen.) His story ends up getting put on the back-burner, but provides one of the surprisingly best emotional anchors of the film.
The rest of the movie kind of fares like one would expect it: the action is okay, the side characters funny and charming. Captain America remains our heroic main lead; this is the role that will define Evans' career going forward. His humor, good-natured personality, and unrelenting pursuit of justice is infectious. (Let's see Henry Cavill try to pull off half the charisma he has.)
Ever since The Avengers' reveal, Marvel's masterwork lays in the back of our minds. We pay more attention to detail, the nerds point out connections between series, and Stan Lee's cameos are funnier every time. However, since The Avengers, I have to wonder if our expectations are now skewed. Iron Man 3 and Thor 2 underwhelmed me, and I can't help but wonder if this is because Marvel is placing its efforts on the next Avengers movie. It's already hooked its audience, so these movies have less to prove. As a result, I feel these movies take less risks, feeling like shells of their inventive counterparts, who tested what audiences could and would accept with their off-kilter heroes, design, and genre. (A Norse god with a rainbow bridge in the era of The Dark Knight? Unthinkable!)
It's this line of thinking that Captain America: The Winter Soldier falls under. It's not bad, by any means. I'm invested in the story; never did I feel the movie overstayed its welcome. Comparing it to its counterparts Iron Man 3 and Thor 2, I'd place this film on top. It's just not up to par with the original. If you're looking for a satisfying two-hour superhero/action film, I'd recommend it. Thank you all for reading, STAY FOR THE CREDITS!
I can't believe that you people STILL leave after the movie's over! It's a Marvel movie; there ARE after-credits scenes. Not only are these scenes fantastic teasers, they provide last-minute insight into the characters' stories. I'm not sure if people just take to YouTube to watch the scenes later, but I find that in a world, where patience is rarely rewarded in a timely manner, Marvel movies always do it for me. Just my advice: stay till the end, there are two credit scenes, not just one. stick around. Thank you all for sticking around until the end of this review. I'm the Man Without A Plan, signing off.
Captain America: The Winter Soldier trailer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7SlILk2WMTI
Sunday, April 6, 2014
"Noah" Review
One of my biggest weaknesses in procrastinating comes from the TV screen; no matter where I am, if a movie is playing, I have to watch. So while writing this review in the waiting room of the doctor's office, "Evan Almighty" played in the background. Oh, the coincidence...how exquisite. Let's talk about Noah.
Russell Crowe stars as the titular character in an adaptation of the Biblical story. Noah is a righteous man, commanded by the Creator to build an ark and take his family and a pair of each animal onboard before a flood wipes out humanity, whose sins have cursed the Earth, convicing the Creator to wipe the slate clean and start anew. Opposed by his family's desires, an evil tyrant, and his perceptions of humanity and himself, how will he complete this seemingly impossible task?
Before I go into the movie, I feel I must add a disclaimer (as if there weren't a surplus of those attached to this film). This is NOT a strict Biblical interpretation, and it's not trying to be. Characters are added, liberties are taken. While some Biblical ideas are explored (humanity's sinful nature), the spirit of the story differs from its source material. Oh, and there are CGI Rock Biter look-alikes from The Neverending Story.
The film was criticized by Christian groups for these differences to the point that Paramount Studios had to adapt the trailer to include this disclaimer: "The film is inspired by the story of Noah. While artistic license has been taken, we believe that this film is true to the essence, values, and integrity of a story that is a cornerstone of faith for millions of people worldwide. The biblical story of Noah can be found in the book of Genesis."
At first glance, Darren Aronofsky seems an odd choice for this kind of project: he doesn't seem the kind of director to spearhead such a colossal story. I'd expect a Ridley Scott or hell, even Spielberg. However, after seeing the final product, Aronofsky captures the story's Biblical scope perfectly. From the landscapes to the exodus of animals to the flood, I found myself feeling very small. Humanity feels shrunken down, ruled by forces too big to fathom. Even the tyrant Tubal-cain (Ray Winstone) comes off less a formidable force and more like Scrappy Doo painfully unaware of his limitations. The film is bigger than our characters, and while time is spent developing them, the film is quick to put them in perspective with the big picture.
The film is a visual wonder: from gorgeous mountain shots to time lapses of a river, each effect and shot has context, purposefully placed to elicit an emotional reaction. Noah's instructions from the Creator are shown in dreams; they flash from image to image, abstract and stylized. These images are subject to interpretation and Aronofsky's re-interpretations of these as the story progresses create some of the highlights of the film: subtle, clever, and perfectly contextualized.
Russell Crowe's Noah fascinates me: he carries a sense of hopeless devotion. Everything he does, as painful as it can be, he does out of dedication and loyalty to the Creator. Crowe treats Noah like a puppet aware of the strings: he knows his place in the universe and acts with the big picture constantly in mind, no matter if it hurts him or those he loves. While other actors would carry the stony-faced appearance and leave it at that, Crowe allows vulnerability to slip through the cracks. It's the self-sacrifice that drives his character and makes me admire him.
Now, this movie is in no means perfect; the story can get a little too soap-opera at times, jumbling between simple sub-plots. Also, Anthony Hopkins' Methuselah, while hilarious and charming, becomes a human Deus ex machina, used to clumsily resolve a plot or move the story along. While Aronofsky fills the first half with visual splendor, as soon as the cast goes in the ark, the sets and imagery get choked off. The film could've used a little more consistency in that regard.
I'm sure some of you are reading saying, "Daniel, this review is nice and all, but what the hell are you talking about? Rock Biters?!" Don't worry, my dears. I've saved the best for last. I refer to the Fallen Angels who descend from heaven in order to teach the basics of industry and technology to humanity. Betrayed by the sinful humans, the Fallen Angels hide away, returning only to help Noah build the ark (what? how else would a middle-aged man, his wife, three sons, and adopted daughter build a 450 foot long boat in a reasonable amount of movie time?).
I like the Fallen Angels' design: the movie explains that because of their disobedience in interfering with humanity's development, the Creator curses their celestial form, covering them with rock and mud, pinning them to the Earth. The image conveys a fall from grace, humbling the previously heavenly beings, tying their fate to that of humanity and the rest of the world. As characters, they're not too fleshed out but their faithfulness and lumbering power makes me really like them. Simply put, I want one.
Noah is one of those movies where my expectation turns a 180. I walked in thinking big-budget mediocrity. I left praising a visual masterpiece. Aronofsky takes advantage of the medium, letting the images tell the story over dialogue. While not perfect, I found myself blown away by the spectacle, fascinated by Noah, and impressed by the interpretation of a tale I've been familiar with since childhood. It definitely puts an old story in a new light, and I highly recommend it. Thank you all for reading, I'm the Man Without A Plan, signing off.
Noah trailer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6qmj5mhDwJQ
Russell Crowe stars as the titular character in an adaptation of the Biblical story. Noah is a righteous man, commanded by the Creator to build an ark and take his family and a pair of each animal onboard before a flood wipes out humanity, whose sins have cursed the Earth, convicing the Creator to wipe the slate clean and start anew. Opposed by his family's desires, an evil tyrant, and his perceptions of humanity and himself, how will he complete this seemingly impossible task?
Before I go into the movie, I feel I must add a disclaimer (as if there weren't a surplus of those attached to this film). This is NOT a strict Biblical interpretation, and it's not trying to be. Characters are added, liberties are taken. While some Biblical ideas are explored (humanity's sinful nature), the spirit of the story differs from its source material. Oh, and there are CGI Rock Biter look-alikes from The Neverending Story.
The film was criticized by Christian groups for these differences to the point that Paramount Studios had to adapt the trailer to include this disclaimer: "The film is inspired by the story of Noah. While artistic license has been taken, we believe that this film is true to the essence, values, and integrity of a story that is a cornerstone of faith for millions of people worldwide. The biblical story of Noah can be found in the book of Genesis."
At first glance, Darren Aronofsky seems an odd choice for this kind of project: he doesn't seem the kind of director to spearhead such a colossal story. I'd expect a Ridley Scott or hell, even Spielberg. However, after seeing the final product, Aronofsky captures the story's Biblical scope perfectly. From the landscapes to the exodus of animals to the flood, I found myself feeling very small. Humanity feels shrunken down, ruled by forces too big to fathom. Even the tyrant Tubal-cain (Ray Winstone) comes off less a formidable force and more like Scrappy Doo painfully unaware of his limitations. The film is bigger than our characters, and while time is spent developing them, the film is quick to put them in perspective with the big picture.
The film is a visual wonder: from gorgeous mountain shots to time lapses of a river, each effect and shot has context, purposefully placed to elicit an emotional reaction. Noah's instructions from the Creator are shown in dreams; they flash from image to image, abstract and stylized. These images are subject to interpretation and Aronofsky's re-interpretations of these as the story progresses create some of the highlights of the film: subtle, clever, and perfectly contextualized.
Russell Crowe's Noah fascinates me: he carries a sense of hopeless devotion. Everything he does, as painful as it can be, he does out of dedication and loyalty to the Creator. Crowe treats Noah like a puppet aware of the strings: he knows his place in the universe and acts with the big picture constantly in mind, no matter if it hurts him or those he loves. While other actors would carry the stony-faced appearance and leave it at that, Crowe allows vulnerability to slip through the cracks. It's the self-sacrifice that drives his character and makes me admire him.
Now, this movie is in no means perfect; the story can get a little too soap-opera at times, jumbling between simple sub-plots. Also, Anthony Hopkins' Methuselah, while hilarious and charming, becomes a human Deus ex machina, used to clumsily resolve a plot or move the story along. While Aronofsky fills the first half with visual splendor, as soon as the cast goes in the ark, the sets and imagery get choked off. The film could've used a little more consistency in that regard.
I'm sure some of you are reading saying, "Daniel, this review is nice and all, but what the hell are you talking about? Rock Biters?!" Don't worry, my dears. I've saved the best for last. I refer to the Fallen Angels who descend from heaven in order to teach the basics of industry and technology to humanity. Betrayed by the sinful humans, the Fallen Angels hide away, returning only to help Noah build the ark (what? how else would a middle-aged man, his wife, three sons, and adopted daughter build a 450 foot long boat in a reasonable amount of movie time?).
I like the Fallen Angels' design: the movie explains that because of their disobedience in interfering with humanity's development, the Creator curses their celestial form, covering them with rock and mud, pinning them to the Earth. The image conveys a fall from grace, humbling the previously heavenly beings, tying their fate to that of humanity and the rest of the world. As characters, they're not too fleshed out but their faithfulness and lumbering power makes me really like them. Simply put, I want one.
Noah is one of those movies where my expectation turns a 180. I walked in thinking big-budget mediocrity. I left praising a visual masterpiece. Aronofsky takes advantage of the medium, letting the images tell the story over dialogue. While not perfect, I found myself blown away by the spectacle, fascinated by Noah, and impressed by the interpretation of a tale I've been familiar with since childhood. It definitely puts an old story in a new light, and I highly recommend it. Thank you all for reading, I'm the Man Without A Plan, signing off.
Noah trailer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6qmj5mhDwJQ
Thursday, March 27, 2014
"Sabotage" Review
When you think of Arnold Schwarzenegger, what comes to mind? Explosions, one-liners, bombastic action, and a carefree bad-ass charisma. We don't watch Schwarzenegger films to see masterpieces (excluding "Terminator 2"). Films like "Commando", "Predator", and "End Of Days" are ridiculous, overblown, cheesy action pictures; it's Schwarzenegger's tough yet happy-go-lucky demeanor that appeals us to him. His movies are silly fun, that's what we love. So based on this analysis, what's the worst sin a Schwarzenegger film can commit? Boredom. Let's talk about Sabotage.
Schwarzenegger plays John "Breacher" Wharton, a DEA agent in charge of an elite team of soldiers. They do drug busts, repossess illegally-obtained money, capture high-profile criminals, the works. On one of their missions, $10 million is taken from the scene, the DEA interrogating the team mercilessly. They deny it all, but after one of the agents is brutally murdered, it's up to Wharton and an investigative officer (Olivia Williams) to find the money and murderer before it's too late for the rest.
The premise isn't my problem: I enjoy the idea of Schwarzenegger in a team. Movies like "The Expendables" series show the potential for a team of macho men saving the day from the bad guys, and with established stars Sam Worthington, Terrence Howard, and Joe Manganiello, the idea can work. The problem lies in execution.
The first ten minutes and the last ten minutes feel like a Schwarzenegger film: high-octane action, car chases, one-liners, lots of posing. The rest plods through a mix of Clue and a buddy-cop film, following the officer and her wise-cracking partner (Harold Perrineau) as they muddle through DEA bureaucracy and whatever scraps they can find to piece together the mystery. We sit through long stretches of dialogue, meandering from crime scene to office to DEA building, occasionally getting to see Wharton and his team as they sling expletive humor at each other. The few scenes breaking up monotony either provide anti-climactic action or crime scenes caked in gore. The former bores me, the latter isn't given emotional context, meant only for a cheap audience gasp.
Now, as I mentioned, the first and last ten minutes of the film stick to the formula we know and love, and for the most part, it's executed well. The team blows holes through the bad guys, electric guitars blare as punches fly, a bullet storm rocking the room, missing their heads by a fraction of an inch. The last battles build adequately, utilizing different cinematography to give the scenes a grittier feel. By all means, the climax is the best part; it got the audience to cry a unison "OH!" These scenes satisfy the action junkie in me. It's too bad I had to sit through an hour and twenty minutes of an uninspired plot to get to them.
And ultimately, that's the problem. Sabotage is an hour and forty-nine minutes long that feels like three. A confused, meandering plot, awkward editing, and lackluster acting leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I wanted to get it over with, and while the cast seems like they were having fun, it wasn't enough. I don't think you need the influence to skip this one, but by all means, do. Thank you all for reading, I'm the Man Without A Plan, signing off.
Sabotage trailer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sVOCbK3s8Yo
Schwarzenegger plays John "Breacher" Wharton, a DEA agent in charge of an elite team of soldiers. They do drug busts, repossess illegally-obtained money, capture high-profile criminals, the works. On one of their missions, $10 million is taken from the scene, the DEA interrogating the team mercilessly. They deny it all, but after one of the agents is brutally murdered, it's up to Wharton and an investigative officer (Olivia Williams) to find the money and murderer before it's too late for the rest.
The premise isn't my problem: I enjoy the idea of Schwarzenegger in a team. Movies like "The Expendables" series show the potential for a team of macho men saving the day from the bad guys, and with established stars Sam Worthington, Terrence Howard, and Joe Manganiello, the idea can work. The problem lies in execution.
The first ten minutes and the last ten minutes feel like a Schwarzenegger film: high-octane action, car chases, one-liners, lots of posing. The rest plods through a mix of Clue and a buddy-cop film, following the officer and her wise-cracking partner (Harold Perrineau) as they muddle through DEA bureaucracy and whatever scraps they can find to piece together the mystery. We sit through long stretches of dialogue, meandering from crime scene to office to DEA building, occasionally getting to see Wharton and his team as they sling expletive humor at each other. The few scenes breaking up monotony either provide anti-climactic action or crime scenes caked in gore. The former bores me, the latter isn't given emotional context, meant only for a cheap audience gasp.
Now, as I mentioned, the first and last ten minutes of the film stick to the formula we know and love, and for the most part, it's executed well. The team blows holes through the bad guys, electric guitars blare as punches fly, a bullet storm rocking the room, missing their heads by a fraction of an inch. The last battles build adequately, utilizing different cinematography to give the scenes a grittier feel. By all means, the climax is the best part; it got the audience to cry a unison "OH!" These scenes satisfy the action junkie in me. It's too bad I had to sit through an hour and twenty minutes of an uninspired plot to get to them.
And ultimately, that's the problem. Sabotage is an hour and forty-nine minutes long that feels like three. A confused, meandering plot, awkward editing, and lackluster acting leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I wanted to get it over with, and while the cast seems like they were having fun, it wasn't enough. I don't think you need the influence to skip this one, but by all means, do. Thank you all for reading, I'm the Man Without A Plan, signing off.
Sabotage trailer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sVOCbK3s8Yo
Monday, March 24, 2014
"Divergent" Review
In a futuristic Chicago, the city's leaders divide the population into five factions: the brave (known as Dauntless), the smart (Erudite), the selfless (Abnegation), the truthful (Candor), and the kind (Amity). Tris Prior (Shailene Woodley) is a teenager who participates in a ceremony where she decides which faction she'll remain for the rest of her life. Insecure about the decision, she takes a personality test to show her which faction she should choose. However, what happens when the results are inconclusive? Tris becomes "Divergent", which society mandates she must be cast out of the system. The faction-less are undesirables, the lowest of the low, and for fear of being thrown aside, she keeps her results a secret, choosing to become part of the Dauntless. As she struggles to fit into this new group, led by the stern, mysterious Four (Theo James), she begins to uncover the sinister underbelly of the seemingly perfect system.
As one can tell, there's quite a bit going on in this film: self-actualization, government conspiracies, psychological debate, an underdog story, and I almost forgot to mention the romance. Divergent is jam-packed, and it's one of the film's weaknesses. It simply is too long. Coming in at almost two and a half hours, I found myself losing interest more than a couple times throughout, tricked by more than a couple false endings. The story focuses on Tris' rise through the ranks, and if the film cut a bit of filler (a tattoo scene comes to mind), it could spread out the development of romance and villain's plan instead of squeezing it into the third act.
I also found myself confused at the premise. If this personality test is simply meant to help one decide which faction they'll go into, why is it such a big deal if the results are inconclusive? Either way, they'll have to choose a place to go into. The movie establishes if one doesn't succeed in the initiative process, they'll be cast out, faction-less. The consequence is already set; the test results are presented as this do-or-die device that really shouldn't make a difference. I haven't read the book, so I assume this scenario is executed with more time and explanation there, but a confusing introduction here almost lost me.
However, despite the shaky introduction, I pressed on, and the rest of the film balances out well. Woodley, while less impressive than her contemporaries, carries the film well, capturing the character's insecurity, growth, and satirical wit. I'm indecisive about Theo James; his character can come off as wooden, but he has his moments (note the Ferris wheel and the duo-minded practice session). The rest of the cast work well: Zoe Kravitz as Tris' sweet best friend, Miles Teller as her snarky rival, Jai Courtney as a ruthless overseer, Ansel Elgort as Tris' brother Caleb (it's going to be a bit awkward now to see him and Woodley romance it up in The Fault In Our Stars this June). Their characters, while versed in archetype, leave an impression. I grew attached to them, which is more than I can say for other films of this type (*cough cough* Mortal Instruments).
The visuals work well: There are scenes where Tris enters a hallucinatory practice space to conquer her mental fears. Similarly to Nightmare On Elm Street, there are moments of ill clarity as to what's real or not. From Tris leaning against a glass wall to suddenly becoming encased in a glass tank of water, the film has fun messing with perception and expectation. I found these hallucinations to be the most fun and engaging part of the film.
Divergent took a while for me to understand, but once I got through the more shaky parts, I grew to appreciate this world and characters. I actively wanted to see what happened next; the movie presents its sequel to be an expansion of the story, not just a retread. And while The Hunger Games disappointed me on that front, I have hope for this series. It's not as impressive or emotionally gripping, but for what I was given, I liked it fine. I'd say if you're a fan of dystopian tales, check it out. Thank you all for reading, I'm the Man Without A Plan, signing off.
Divergent trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sutgWjz10sM
As one can tell, there's quite a bit going on in this film: self-actualization, government conspiracies, psychological debate, an underdog story, and I almost forgot to mention the romance. Divergent is jam-packed, and it's one of the film's weaknesses. It simply is too long. Coming in at almost two and a half hours, I found myself losing interest more than a couple times throughout, tricked by more than a couple false endings. The story focuses on Tris' rise through the ranks, and if the film cut a bit of filler (a tattoo scene comes to mind), it could spread out the development of romance and villain's plan instead of squeezing it into the third act.
I also found myself confused at the premise. If this personality test is simply meant to help one decide which faction they'll go into, why is it such a big deal if the results are inconclusive? Either way, they'll have to choose a place to go into. The movie establishes if one doesn't succeed in the initiative process, they'll be cast out, faction-less. The consequence is already set; the test results are presented as this do-or-die device that really shouldn't make a difference. I haven't read the book, so I assume this scenario is executed with more time and explanation there, but a confusing introduction here almost lost me.
However, despite the shaky introduction, I pressed on, and the rest of the film balances out well. Woodley, while less impressive than her contemporaries, carries the film well, capturing the character's insecurity, growth, and satirical wit. I'm indecisive about Theo James; his character can come off as wooden, but he has his moments (note the Ferris wheel and the duo-minded practice session). The rest of the cast work well: Zoe Kravitz as Tris' sweet best friend, Miles Teller as her snarky rival, Jai Courtney as a ruthless overseer, Ansel Elgort as Tris' brother Caleb (it's going to be a bit awkward now to see him and Woodley romance it up in The Fault In Our Stars this June). Their characters, while versed in archetype, leave an impression. I grew attached to them, which is more than I can say for other films of this type (*cough cough* Mortal Instruments).
The visuals work well: There are scenes where Tris enters a hallucinatory practice space to conquer her mental fears. Similarly to Nightmare On Elm Street, there are moments of ill clarity as to what's real or not. From Tris leaning against a glass wall to suddenly becoming encased in a glass tank of water, the film has fun messing with perception and expectation. I found these hallucinations to be the most fun and engaging part of the film.
Divergent took a while for me to understand, but once I got through the more shaky parts, I grew to appreciate this world and characters. I actively wanted to see what happened next; the movie presents its sequel to be an expansion of the story, not just a retread. And while The Hunger Games disappointed me on that front, I have hope for this series. It's not as impressive or emotionally gripping, but for what I was given, I liked it fine. I'd say if you're a fan of dystopian tales, check it out. Thank you all for reading, I'm the Man Without A Plan, signing off.
Divergent trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sutgWjz10sM
Monday, March 17, 2014
"The Single Moms Club" Review
How simple writing the review versus watching the film is, is usually an inverse relationship. With a movie I love and enjoy, I find my mind cluttered with a myriad of scenes and blurs; it's difficult to focus in and sum it all up concisely and accurately. With a movie I hate? I'm laser-guided, focused, marking particular scenes and aspects of the film that drive me up the wall, starring the rage-inducing moments. My review becomes easier to write at the sacrifice of my theater experience. Lucky me. So, with that in mind, let's talk about "The Single Moms Club".
Tyler Perry directs, writes, and stars in a story about five single mothers: Jan (Wendi McLendon-Covey), a workaholic who places her job above her daughter, May (Nia Long), an aspiring writer with a rebellious son, Hilary (Amy Smart), newly divorced and worried about how to be a good mother, Esperanza (Zulay Henao), struggling with independence under the thumb of her controlling ex-husband, and Lytia (Cocoa Brown), an overprotective mother working to secure a bright future for her youngest son.
When their children are disciplined for vandalism, the school requires the mothers to organize a school fundraiser. Irritated at first, the women end up finding friendship, love, and strength in their creation of a support group for each other, entitled "The Single Moms' Club".
After a couple days of reflection, one problem remains at the forefront: this screenplay is a mess. The choices made as to what drives a scene forward, how characters respond, and where the movie goes confuse at best, disgust at their worst. There's a scene where Hilary babysits all the kids while the rest of the moms go to the movies. May's kid sneaks out in the middle of the night, and after Hilary calls, the moms rush back, frantic and horrified. What do they do now? They each go home. Esparanza has a touching conversation with her boyfriend, Lytia playfully kisses her date, Jan drives home, and Hilary's hot neighbor comforts her with cliché dialogue ("Oh, it's not your fault!).
Excuse me, but there's a missing child! How can you all, as mothers, not even lift a finger to help look? Is the state of your relationships so important we have to spend screen time developing them as opposed to this major dramatic bomb? This movie makes sure to tell us how important it is to have a support group, how hard it is to feel alone raising a child, but when problems arise, the support magically vanishes.
If Perry wants to develop each woman's romantic relationship, fine. If he wants to add a scene where the woman talk about how their children feel neglected and ignored, fine. Here's the problem: the characters don't exist in their little bubbles. Characters have to react appropriately to the action right in front of them, and in no way would a real mother learn a child was missing, and not drop everything in order to help search. Perry planted this situation in the middle of the movie as a simple catalyst, a means to an end. A catalyst is fine, but when it ends up contradicting the personalities and priorities of the characters, it doesn't work. This sloppy writing is lazy and insulting.
Many of the side characters serve as simple catalysts: most of the men either vapidly utter sweet nothings, or they make a point to devalue the women. Give the movie this credit: the casting for these jerks is great. Each person inspires an itching desire to punch them in the teeth. These men express every sexist, abusive stereotype in the book without any semblance of character outside of antagonist. (Except for Tyler Perry. He, of course, has to be the sexiest, sweetest man to ever walk the face of the Earth.)
Surprisingly, the children are worse. Where we're supposed to feel pity for their misfortunes and neglect, I feel disgust. The conversations with the mothers become so mean-spirited, with insults and disrespect. Again, I wouldn't mind this as much if the kids got any screen time oriented to making them sympathetic, but they're so busy beating up on their mothers, they come off as horrible.
Ultimately, this movie leaves a sour taste in my mouth. While the women can be very funny, providing heartwarming performances, the mean-spirited tone and bad writing choices end up ruining the whole experience. The more I think about it, the worse I feel. I enthusiastically recommend tossing this one to the side. I'm the Man Without A Plan, signing off.
"The Single Moms Club" trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQNOvfixtpo
Tyler Perry directs, writes, and stars in a story about five single mothers: Jan (Wendi McLendon-Covey), a workaholic who places her job above her daughter, May (Nia Long), an aspiring writer with a rebellious son, Hilary (Amy Smart), newly divorced and worried about how to be a good mother, Esperanza (Zulay Henao), struggling with independence under the thumb of her controlling ex-husband, and Lytia (Cocoa Brown), an overprotective mother working to secure a bright future for her youngest son.
When their children are disciplined for vandalism, the school requires the mothers to organize a school fundraiser. Irritated at first, the women end up finding friendship, love, and strength in their creation of a support group for each other, entitled "The Single Moms' Club".
After a couple days of reflection, one problem remains at the forefront: this screenplay is a mess. The choices made as to what drives a scene forward, how characters respond, and where the movie goes confuse at best, disgust at their worst. There's a scene where Hilary babysits all the kids while the rest of the moms go to the movies. May's kid sneaks out in the middle of the night, and after Hilary calls, the moms rush back, frantic and horrified. What do they do now? They each go home. Esparanza has a touching conversation with her boyfriend, Lytia playfully kisses her date, Jan drives home, and Hilary's hot neighbor comforts her with cliché dialogue ("Oh, it's not your fault!).
Excuse me, but there's a missing child! How can you all, as mothers, not even lift a finger to help look? Is the state of your relationships so important we have to spend screen time developing them as opposed to this major dramatic bomb? This movie makes sure to tell us how important it is to have a support group, how hard it is to feel alone raising a child, but when problems arise, the support magically vanishes.
If Perry wants to develop each woman's romantic relationship, fine. If he wants to add a scene where the woman talk about how their children feel neglected and ignored, fine. Here's the problem: the characters don't exist in their little bubbles. Characters have to react appropriately to the action right in front of them, and in no way would a real mother learn a child was missing, and not drop everything in order to help search. Perry planted this situation in the middle of the movie as a simple catalyst, a means to an end. A catalyst is fine, but when it ends up contradicting the personalities and priorities of the characters, it doesn't work. This sloppy writing is lazy and insulting.
Many of the side characters serve as simple catalysts: most of the men either vapidly utter sweet nothings, or they make a point to devalue the women. Give the movie this credit: the casting for these jerks is great. Each person inspires an itching desire to punch them in the teeth. These men express every sexist, abusive stereotype in the book without any semblance of character outside of antagonist. (Except for Tyler Perry. He, of course, has to be the sexiest, sweetest man to ever walk the face of the Earth.)
Surprisingly, the children are worse. Where we're supposed to feel pity for their misfortunes and neglect, I feel disgust. The conversations with the mothers become so mean-spirited, with insults and disrespect. Again, I wouldn't mind this as much if the kids got any screen time oriented to making them sympathetic, but they're so busy beating up on their mothers, they come off as horrible.
Ultimately, this movie leaves a sour taste in my mouth. While the women can be very funny, providing heartwarming performances, the mean-spirited tone and bad writing choices end up ruining the whole experience. The more I think about it, the worse I feel. I enthusiastically recommend tossing this one to the side. I'm the Man Without A Plan, signing off.
"The Single Moms Club" trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQNOvfixtpo
Thursday, March 13, 2014
"300: Rise of an Empire" Review
Hello all and welcome! I'm the Man Without A Plan, back with another movie review! Now, I haven't been active for a bit (college, work, money woes, life), and I've been itching to get back in the groove of things, so I don't wanna waste any time. What's on the slab this time? 300: Rise of an Empire.
Based on the Frank Miller graphic novels, the 300 series centers around the Greco-Persian Wars from 500 to 479 B.C. The first 300 film tells the story of the Battle of Thermopylae, where King Leonidas (Gerard Butler) leads 300 Spartans in defense of their homeland against Xerces and the Persian Empire, sacrificing their lives in the process.
The events of Rise of an Empire start in the middle of 300. Instead of the Spartans, the movie focuses on the Athenians, primarily the general Themistokles (Sullivan Stapleton), who wishes to unite the city-states of Greece, presenting a strong naval front in hopes to repel the Persians.
300: Rise of an Empire differs from its predecessor. Athens and Sparta have one of history's greatest contrasts: Athens' reputation is one of democracy and discussion, Sparta's militant, a society quick to the draw, unwavering in their defense of total autonomy. Nowhere is the difference more present than in the comparison of our two leads. Leonidas is hot-blooded, idealistic, defiant. Themistokles, for the most part, subdues these qualities under cunning and careful diction. As a politician, he uses rhetoric to get the Athenian assembly to support the naval campaign. As a general, he develops strategies that make up for his fleet's lack of strength and size. As a result, the movie slows down, allowing strategy and discussion more time over emotional bursts of violence.
So is this change of pace a good thing? Yes...and no. It gives the film a bit of variety, keeping it from feeling like a total retread, however, the movie doesn't go all the way with the idea. Fans want a bloodbath, they want bombast, so this movie obliges. The action isn't bad, in fact, the slower camerawork allows us to see the choreography better. Every hit builds up to mini-payoffs before the big payoff; the movie's creativity shines in the battles' use of location and context. However, with the renewed focus on discussion, we get longer stretches in-between shorter battles. The movie, while 15 minutes shorter, than the original, ends up feeling about 40 longer (a fake cliffhanger doesn't help).
As of now, my feelings are mixed, but two words lift my opinion and spirits: Eva Green. She steals the show as Artemisia, Xerces' main general. Ruthless, insidious, bloodthirsty, and enjoying every second of it. This villain kept me glued to the screen every second she was on, intimidating and fascinating me more and more. Where many action films under-develop their antagonists, Artemisia carries her weight, almost getting more screen time than Themistokles. As much as she expresses rage, the movie allows moments of vulnerability which ends up having me empathize and to an extent, sympathize with her actions. We see her through joy, bloodlust, surprise, hatred. Unpredictable and menacing, Artemisia almost carries the movie singlehandedly. She's the best part of the entire movie.
300: Rise of an Empire ultimately leaves me without a concrete judgment. It's not as much epic, grand fun as the original, but there's enough here to justify its existence. The best I can say is, if you're a fan of the world 300 created and would like to see more of the war and the players involved, this movie does its job adequately. If you're a fan of 300's carnage and campy nature, this movie waters it down. It's a mixed opinion, but for me, I'm glad I saw it, and would like to see a sequel.
Thank you all once again for reading, I hope to get back on track with future reviews, but for now, I'm the Man Without A Plan, signing off.
300: Rise of an Empire trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G3Rzy7YqUVU
Based on the Frank Miller graphic novels, the 300 series centers around the Greco-Persian Wars from 500 to 479 B.C. The first 300 film tells the story of the Battle of Thermopylae, where King Leonidas (Gerard Butler) leads 300 Spartans in defense of their homeland against Xerces and the Persian Empire, sacrificing their lives in the process.
The events of Rise of an Empire start in the middle of 300. Instead of the Spartans, the movie focuses on the Athenians, primarily the general Themistokles (Sullivan Stapleton), who wishes to unite the city-states of Greece, presenting a strong naval front in hopes to repel the Persians.
300: Rise of an Empire differs from its predecessor. Athens and Sparta have one of history's greatest contrasts: Athens' reputation is one of democracy and discussion, Sparta's militant, a society quick to the draw, unwavering in their defense of total autonomy. Nowhere is the difference more present than in the comparison of our two leads. Leonidas is hot-blooded, idealistic, defiant. Themistokles, for the most part, subdues these qualities under cunning and careful diction. As a politician, he uses rhetoric to get the Athenian assembly to support the naval campaign. As a general, he develops strategies that make up for his fleet's lack of strength and size. As a result, the movie slows down, allowing strategy and discussion more time over emotional bursts of violence.
So is this change of pace a good thing? Yes...and no. It gives the film a bit of variety, keeping it from feeling like a total retread, however, the movie doesn't go all the way with the idea. Fans want a bloodbath, they want bombast, so this movie obliges. The action isn't bad, in fact, the slower camerawork allows us to see the choreography better. Every hit builds up to mini-payoffs before the big payoff; the movie's creativity shines in the battles' use of location and context. However, with the renewed focus on discussion, we get longer stretches in-between shorter battles. The movie, while 15 minutes shorter, than the original, ends up feeling about 40 longer (a fake cliffhanger doesn't help).
As of now, my feelings are mixed, but two words lift my opinion and spirits: Eva Green. She steals the show as Artemisia, Xerces' main general. Ruthless, insidious, bloodthirsty, and enjoying every second of it. This villain kept me glued to the screen every second she was on, intimidating and fascinating me more and more. Where many action films under-develop their antagonists, Artemisia carries her weight, almost getting more screen time than Themistokles. As much as she expresses rage, the movie allows moments of vulnerability which ends up having me empathize and to an extent, sympathize with her actions. We see her through joy, bloodlust, surprise, hatred. Unpredictable and menacing, Artemisia almost carries the movie singlehandedly. She's the best part of the entire movie.
300: Rise of an Empire ultimately leaves me without a concrete judgment. It's not as much epic, grand fun as the original, but there's enough here to justify its existence. The best I can say is, if you're a fan of the world 300 created and would like to see more of the war and the players involved, this movie does its job adequately. If you're a fan of 300's carnage and campy nature, this movie waters it down. It's a mixed opinion, but for me, I'm glad I saw it, and would like to see a sequel.
Thank you all once again for reading, I hope to get back on track with future reviews, but for now, I'm the Man Without A Plan, signing off.
300: Rise of an Empire trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G3Rzy7YqUVU
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)