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
Thursday, March 27, 2014
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)