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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)