"Paranormal Activity" frustrates me. For a series that can be so smart with its scares and story, it continues to grow sillier and more juvenile, employing cliches and "twists" fans are irritated with. The first movie was supposed to barely make a ripple, but after its record-shattering profit ($190 million on a budget of $15,000), a franchise was born. Paranormal Activity 2 and 3 fleshed the story further, building the stakes. They revealed details little by little while still leaving the audience wondering what.The camerawork continued to do a lot with a little, finding new clever ways to scare. For a series meant to end after the first, these movies were smart. Then came number 4. The hectic "film-a-year" schedule showed its detriment, leaving me with an empty feeling. The developments padded out the story to fit studio demands, making unnecessary changes that felt lazy. The scares weren't strong enough to support the weak story and characters, so I regard it as my first real disappointment from the series. So now we come to "The Marked Ones", a placeholder while we wait for Paranormal Activity 5 in October. I feel this is what number 4 should have been, as the developments made here expand the story, the setting builds up the world, and the film continues to raise the stakes.
After graduating high school, Jesse (Andrew Jacobs) starts to enjoy his summer in Oxnard, CA. When a neighbor in the apartment below is mysteriously murdered, he explores the crime scene, finding hints of the dark acts done in her home. Days pass and Jesse feels changes in his body, leading to superhuman strength and levitation. At first overjoyed, Jesse begins to uncover more about where the nature of his blessing, realizing it may soon turn into a curse that can consume him.
(Most of the following commentary is for fans of the series; I'm not going to start spewing spoilers, but the criticism comes from a fan's point of view.)
The movie's urban community is a welcome change from the high-value suburban house we've been used to. Here, every scare and attack works in a wider context: more locations are explored, making the danger feel omnipresent. Previous films focus on the house being possessed: the people involved are simply victims while the house devolves into madness. Here, Jesse is the main focus so as a result, the story and scares are linked to him. Jacobs does well; he's not given the best material to work with but he plays it off naturally, his reactions work. Because the movie follows a character, the story is more linear, flowing easier from plot development to development instead of scare to scare.
This movie is less polished than every other entry in the series, which gives it a more realistic feel. The camerawork is all shot from Jesse and his friends' point of view, keeping true to the "found footage" genre's roots. The shaky cam is still an issue, but because the characters are running for their lives and aren't professional cinematographers, it didn't annoy me as much. The series has been known for expanding its variety in cameras. Number 4 showcased the motion capture camera of the Xbox Kinect and laptop webcams. "The Marked Ones" introduces the Go-Pro camera, and despite for a few scenes in the beginning, it's sadly underused. Where this lack of polish suffers is in the effects. To be fair, the levitation looks impressive, but most of the time, the effects look like a bad Photoshop job. It sucks me out of the picture when I can recognize an effect done on a trial program I've worked with. For a movie that's supposed to portray the events in it as real, the effects deliver a jarring contrast. It's one of the main problems with the film.
With all the changes made to the usual formula, one would think the scares would be creative in the same spirit. This is where "The Marked Ones" falters. I'm easily startled so jump scares get me a lot, but boy, are there a lot of opportunities. After a while, my startled yelps turned to irritated grunts. The rhythm of these scenes is borrowed from so many films, even people who don’t usually watch scary movies can predict when the payoff is coming. The effects, as I've mentioned, drag me out of the fear and atmosphere the movie creates, working against the film's intentions to shock.
Despite its faults, I still defend this film as better than "Paranormal Activity 4" simply because after it was done, I cared about where the story could go from this point. The developments made here are enough to keep me interested; it explored a side of the tale previously hinted at. It expanded the universe the series takes place in and raised the stakes even higher. I really can't imagine any movie past "Paranormal Activity 5" now; after this, I think the series has to end. However, that's the great thing about these movies: despite not being strong horror flicks, the film reveals just enough to where you're still wondering how it's all going to end. For now, I'm glad I saw it. If you don't like the other movies, this won't sway you. If you're starting fresh, start with the original trilogy. If you're a fan, this will make up for the mess 4 created. Thank you all once again for reading and I'm the Man Without A Plan, signing off.
"Paranormal Activity: The Marked Ones" Trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J39iyK_aqDE
Wednesday, January 8, 2014
Saturday, January 4, 2014
My Top 10 Favorite Movies Of 2013!
Well readers, it was a fun year, wasn't it? 2013 has come and left as does every new year when it runs its course. But now there's work to do. Every blogger, critic, and journalist has to come out of the woodwork, reflect on the year, muster their courage, stand their ground, and proclaim their favorite movies. So let's not waste any time. In the grand tradition of my forefathers in reviewing before me, here are my top ten favorite movies of 2013:
And now...the moment you've all been waiting for. My favorite movie of 2013 is...
10) Monsters University. When I was a kid, I had the privilege of watching an advance screening of "Monsters Inc." and I was enthralled. I loved the characters, comedy, drama, world-building. I was humming "Put That Thing Back Where It Came From, Or So Help Me!" at levels that don't reflect a normal functioning human brain, but what the hell. The movie was awesome, so when I heard Pixar was planning a prequel, I got hyped. So, "Monsters University" came out, and while I will say I don't think it's the highest of Pixar's caliber, I believe it to be on par with its (do I call this a predecessor cause of the date it was released or sequel cause of the chronology?). I love seeing Mike and Sulley in different roles; I like seeing their competitive sides come out. They're not always friendly to each other, which adds a rarely seen layer to their relationship. Besides the characters, the comedy is fast and top-notch: this definitely feels like "Animal House" for monsters. I love the way the story flows, love its moral. My generation grew up with the first movie, and being in college for this release, the film's relevance never shone clearer. Pixar showed its appreciation for the fans with a smart, funny, and touching prequel, definitely worthy of my number ten spot.
9) Prisoners. A real grim entry in my list this year, but this thriller/mystery hooked me in. For almost three hours, I was on the edge of my seat as Keller Dover (Hugh Jackman) searched every nook, cranny, and potential lead to find his daughter. I love how this movie's shot like a nightmare. It definitely is our world, but everything's dark, the colors are muted. Life feels hazy and as Keller's desperation consumes him, the way the film and world moves forward loses more and more control. A lot of people didn't like the violence, calling it "torture porn", but I think it fits by showing Keller's deterioration. As the movie goes on, he knows his actions are insane and probably won't get him anywhere, but this lead is his last hope. Beating whatever information he can out of the suspect is all he thinks he can possibly do, despite its increasing uselessness. This movie made me question the breaking point of a man's spirit and compassion; its story kept me hooked. With top-notch acting from Hugh Jackman and Jake Gyllenhaal, I'd say go see "Prisoners" as soon as you can.
8) Pacific Rim. This was SO much fun. A virtual Gundam Wing meets Godzilla blockbuster showdown. I fell in love with this bombastic action picture immediately. Idris Elba's General Pentecost has my undying love, I could hear him command our "canceling the apocalypse" all day. He and Rinko Kikuchi's Mako are the heart of this film, and never in a movie about giant robots fighting supersized aliens would I have thought I'd almost be shedding a tear. When not being sucked in by their relationship, I fell in love with the stylized action, the happy-go-lucky silly tone, and the inner workings of the robot mechanics. It satisfied every pore I could fill with testosterone and made for one of the most fun times at the movie theater last year.
7) Star Trek: Into Darkness. (Let me preface this by saying: I have not watched anything Star Trek except for the 2009 film and William Shatner's kidney-quavering cry of "KHAAAAAAN!") With the disappointments the blockbuster hype gave me this year (Iron Man 3, Man of Steel), I'm so glad this movie not only fulfilled my hype, but exceeded it. Benedict Cumberbatch's performance discomforts, scares, commands total confidence. The way he steals any scene is breath-taking and I fell for it hook, line, and sinker. This is a great villain and I love every second of hating him. This time around, the stakes were raised. The danger is ever-prevalent, the action grand and powerful. Our favorite characters come back, developed more and more as the plot advances. As Kirk, Spock, McCoy, Uhura, and Scotty adventure through the universe, I want to keep following them on the ride. This is a fun, smart action film.
6) The Wolf of Wall Street. This one has garnered its fair share of controversy, and I touched upon the nature of why I think it's evoked the response and why I feel it's important to make movies that act as catalyst for conversation. However, I feel I haven't touched on why I like it as a film, or if I have, not in the right detail. I love the acting: DiCaprio, Hill, Reiner, Robbie. Their characters leap off the screen and hook me in. It takes a lot to don these characters and these attitudes and these people pulled it off with aplomb, DiCaprio receiving my highest praise. The comedy elicits that "I'm going to hell for laughing at this" response, but with sharp writing and quick editing, it varies from just the shock humor, drawing from dialogue and fourth wall jokes that had me roaring. The touches to its time period fit well, melding in the dialogue and story. It's not there to be used as just dressing. This movie carries such an unshakable swagger that even though I don't agree with these characters' extravagance and morals, I admire the filmmakers for taking this task. As I've said, this movie grabs the audience's attention and refuses to let go until they've learned their lesson. Go see this now.
5) The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug. If there's a film other than "Star Trek: Into Darkness" that completely satisfied my hype and exceeded it, it's the 2nd part of the "Hobbit" trilogy, which excels at what a sequel should. It develops the characters we know further, introduces new welcome additions, drives the plot forward, and does it in a way that sets itself apart from the original without losing the charm. For a movie that takes three hours to finish, the plot meanders less, driving the action up a couple notches. The story is lean, energetic, and impacting. I fell in love with Benedict Cumberbatch's chops as a villain in Star Trek, but this role cemented it. His class and confidence shines through as an elegant, almost diplomatic villain. However, when he calls his wings "hurricanes", his teeth "swords", you buy it. This is someone you don't mess with. He commands respect and deserves it. Even without Smaug, the orchestration of these action scenes in the river, Laketown, the spiders' lair, it's a masterpiece. If a movie can take so long, and still leave a packed audience wanting even more, it has to be doing something really right. I'd say go see the first "Hobbit" to get your context, but stay anxious for this flick.
4) About Time. Here's a film I never thought I'd like as much as I did. I usually figure out which movie to review by putting my available choices (due to time, distance, and budget) in a random name selector and going from there. The selection of the time was "About Time" and the movie promised a cute romantic comedy where an awkward young man discovers he can travel back and forth through his lifetime, using this skill to woo and romance his lady love. Simple. Easy. Not going to take me long to review. By its placement on this list, you can tell I was dead wrong. This is truly a joy to watch: Domhnall Gleason and Rachel McAdams have perfect chemistry together; they act like a real couple and discuss whatever's on their mind, whether it be Kate Moss or the way work sucks. These conversations sound genuine, the characters feel alive. Give credit to director/writer Richard Curtis who manages to blend romance, comedy, drama, and time travel in a way that never feels forced or strained. My favorite thing about this film? It's just about life. Ignoring the time travel element, "About Time" is the story of one man's life and how it develops. It doesn't rely on cliche or any forced villain. It's just life, and even though we've seen the moral told in millions of movies before, it sounds sweeter here. Such a refreshing execution.
3) Inside Llewyn Davis. You know the great part about this entry in the list? I saw this movie on December 31st. It barely squeaked in, but you know what? That's the testament to a great movie, and "Inside Llewyn Davis" is a great film. The Coen brothers orchestrate another fantastic tale starring Oscar Issac as Llewyn Davis, a down-on-his-luck folk singer whom, after his music partner's suicide, tries to gain some sense of direction in life, either in success with his solo career or his relationships with old flames and old friends. Oscar Issac does a great job portraying both Llewyn's hopefulness and hopelessness; he's a cynic trying to find something to give his life meaning. The Coens tend to emphasize the journey rather than the destination, bringing in a row of colorful characters that aren't given too much screen time but the actors they cast leave a huge impression: Carey Mulligan as Llewyn's no-nonsense ex, Jean, John Goodman as the egotistical jerk Roland Turner, Stark Sands as the innocent Troy Nelson, Adam Driver as Al Cody or "outer space" as I like to call him. (You'll get it later, trust me.) The ending will turn people off, but it fits. I don't think it's the ending I wanted for this character, but after reflecting on his choices and attitude, it's an ending he deserves. It's a tight, emotional, heartwarming and heartbreaking film that worked on me in just the right way. Late addition, but a very welcome one.
2) Evil Dead. So how do I follow a critical darling with this?! Well, this is a favorites list, and I didn't have more fun than watching this bloody insane mess of a remake to one of my favorite horror films. Originally directed by Sam Raimi, "The Evil Dead" told the story of five teenagers who, on a weekend in a cabin in the woods, stumbled across the Book of the Dead, cursed literature with the power to summon demons if read out loud. Of course one of the teenagers reads the book and all hell breaks loose. The original film was balls-to-the-wall horror, the only relief coming in bursts of dark humor. For an eleven year old kid, this movie got me. So when I heard a remake was in the works, I rightly became skeptical. But after seeing Fede Alvarez's stylistic over-the-top vision, I was hooked. The sheer amount of blood and gore shook me to my core, keeping to the original's terrifying scares and terrible taste in humor while adding modern effects and sensibilities that work in the film's favor. I officially established my crush on Jane Levy; her portrayal of Mia is vulnerable and demented. She can play off so many emotions and does it so well, I fell in love. Individual scenes stick out in my head, each more twisted than the latter, and I think what it's like to watch this can be summed up in the scene where Mia has been possessed by a demon and locked in the basement for everyone else's protection. Her friend is going to get some water for another injured boy when she can hear Mia's voice crying for help from the basement door. (At this point, the audience I was with started screaming, "NO, NO, don't listen to her!) Of course, feeling pity, the friend slowly sneaks up to the basement door, where Mia's possessed and mutilated self pops up, dragging the poor girl into the basement. Now, any other movie would have just left the scare at that and cut to Mia's brother helping the injured friend, but not here. We see the friend in the basement. We see Mia pop back up, scaring her to death. She takes a blade to her tongue, slicing it deeper and deeper until it's split in two ways. The audience is already screaming at this point, but as if that's not enough, the demonic Mia starts forcibly making out with the friend, black sludge and blood drizzling into her mouth. Now THAT'S balls-to-the-wall. The movie's uncompromising and raises the bar on scares and shock all the way to the end. It's a bloodbath that stayed true to its predecessor while staying its own creation that rivals the mad genius of the original. (By the way, Deadites. If you still haven't seen this, wait until the end of the credits. Just...do it.)
And now...the moment you've all been waiting for. My favorite movie of 2013 is...
1) The Great Gatsby. Since this movie premiered in March, I knew it was going to be my favorite. I sat in the theater speechless as the credits rolled. This movie was a gem. From the visuals to the casting to the story, I was completely hooked. Baz Luhrmann needs to be put in a cage with a piece of paper and paintbrush, and with electrodes attached to his body, studied. If only so we can figure out his process of creating these spectacular sets and imagery. I feel this year was marked by bombast and extravagance and no movie basked and rolled around in it more. Every set is alive. Every set has a million things going on, a million colors and lights flashing and swirling around. "But so what?" you say. "Luhrmann's always done that kind of thing." Very true. But here, he finally learned the art of leaving the camera alone. The camera stays still for longer, allowing me to appreciate the sets and how beautifully made they are. The setups for character introduction blow me away, and I'm actually not referencing Leonardo DiCaprio's entrance as Jay Gatsby, but rather Carey Mulligan as Daisy Buchanan. Draped in soft silk curtains, the winds blows around, shrouding a beauty in mystery and suspense. The neutral color palette brings more attention to who could be behind these curtains laying on the couch. The scene's alluring, gentle, delicate, classy, and just as the tension can be built no more, she appears. I remember sitting in the theater, my mouth agape. It was a perfectly fitting entrance, wonderfully executed to fit the character's personality. The film nailed it, and speaking of nailing it, I love the casting. From DiCaprio's youthful charm as Jay Gatsby to Tobey Maguire's patient and quiet Nick Carraway, the casting here is perfect. These actors fit their characters like a glove, especially Joel Edgerton as Daisy's husband Tom Buchanan. When I read the book in high school, this image is what I had of Tom: a tall, cocky high-end brute who thought himself king of the world. He had style, but no class. As soon as I saw Joel Edgerton in the role, Tom Buchanan came to life. I was enthralled. I hear people complain about the movie in relation to the book; mainly I hear critics complain about the lack of attention to the American Dream and how this tragedy is an example of how the ideal fails. I think people wanted the movie to tell more and take more of a side against Gatsby's extravagance, but instead thought the film was just another romance, dressed in 1920's fashion. I don't see it this way. Gatsby believes the American Dream to be perfect, ideal. If one works as hard as they can, being smarter than everyone, taking the right risks and opportunities, they can achieve any goal they set their mind out to. While the advice works for Gatsby's financial success, it can't work to get Daisy. He's been groomed to believe he can control every aspect of life with determination and effort, but as he fails to receive the love he desires, he starts losing his mind. In desperate confusion, he accumulates more and more wealth because that's all he knows. The philosophy he centers his life around is failing him, and he can't cope. It's heartbreaking to see him scramble to make sense of it all, and we learn from this the American Dream isn't perfect. Like any other ideal, it has flaws; it doesn't always work. I don't have to hear a history lesson on the Roaring Twenties and the debauchery that occured in order to get the message. Gatsby's relationship with Daisy says it all. It's a movie that floored me when I first saw it. Everything blew me away, and continues to do so everytime I see it. It's my favorite movie of 2013.
Thank you all very much for these last couple months of reading and providing whatever feedback you have. I hope to continue on this little adventure, and get better at this reviewing thing with every movie and click-clack of my keyboard. I appreciate all the support and hope you all have an awesome 2014. Keep tuned, more reviews are on the way. As always, I'm the Man Without A Plan, signing off.
Thank you all very much for these last couple months of reading and providing whatever feedback you have. I hope to continue on this little adventure, and get better at this reviewing thing with every movie and click-clack of my keyboard. I appreciate all the support and hope you all have an awesome 2014. Keep tuned, more reviews are on the way. As always, I'm the Man Without A Plan, signing off.
Tuesday, December 31, 2013
"The Wolf Of Wall Street" Review
"The Wolf of Wall Street" is the filthiest and most deplorable movie I've seen in my life. It offends, shocks, makes me question how any human being could do these criminal, unethical activities without remorse. It made me feel dirty...and that is exactly why you must see it. (Now, before I go any further, I must forewarn: this is NOT a kid's film. I know there are parents who are lax on the rating system, but the bombardment of prostitution, violence, foul language, and drug use is just too much. It simply is too inappropriate for a child to be allowed to see.)
Jordan Belfort (Leonardo DiCaprio) tells the story of his rise as a stockbroker in 1980's New York. Infamously nicknamed the "Wolf of Wall Street", he denotes his ambitious beginnings, the meteoric success of his firm, and the debaucherous excess the Wall Street life allows.
Scorsese excels at making period pieces; one of my favorite films is "Gangs of New York", where Scorsese rebuilds post-Civil War New York with a size, scope, and attention to detail that blows me away. The same qualities apply here: stock footage is interwoven in monologues, Jordan shoots infomercials with VHS footage, and the less I say about Popeye, the better. The slick editing and playful cinematography mimics the over-the-top nature of 80's pop culture and fits the movie like a glove. I get immersed into a world that's equal parts realistic and glamorized.
Leonardo DiCaprio is firing on all cylinders; this is probably my favorite role of his. For Jordan's admirable wit, ambition, and awareness, his ego, pride, and greed infuriate me. This is a character DiCaprio engulfs himself in completely. He sells his philosophies, makes me laugh, and infuriates my sensibilities. Able to carry himself with impeccable confidence, flop around when dangerously high, and rage at the drop of a dime, my eyes were glued. He makes for a captivating performance.
My one issue is in the film's length. The beginning bombarded me with so many jokes, characters, and atmosphere of excess, when the movie slowed down, it felt like a massive crash after a drug trip. There were multiple scenes where characters would start riffing on a subject completely unrelated to the plot at hand. It reminded me of Tarantino, but where scenes like this in his movies felt off-the-cuff and spontaneous, this film felt like it was trying to make the audience laugh. All it did for me after the second time was bore me. The movie slowed to a halt at ninety minutes, and then shot back to life after twenty minutes of speeches. It was a chore.
I imagine after my initial statements about the movie's explicit nature, some of you are asking: "Daniel, when did you become the moral gatekeeper of America?" Simply put, I didn't. The movie didn't faze me after watching, but the group of friends I went with finished viewing with mouths agape in shock. Sitting in the theatre watching the credits, I couldn't quite place why not only this movie would shock them, but also why they, oddly enough, needed it. After the obligatory post-movie bathroom break, I came to a revelation.
We've all heard the saying, "pride goeth before the fall." From Antinous being shot through the neck while drinking from Odysseus' golden cup to Tony Montana's reign and furious dethroning as king of Miami, the story has been told and displayed many ways. "Scarface" is the first movie that comes to my mind when thinking of "The Wolf of Wall Street", and I see parallels. They both tackle the idea of blind ambition, greed, and the deterioration of an ideal American Dream into a flurry of excess and power mania. When "Scarface" was released, people regarded it as the benchmark for explicit. It shocked and offended many people, but as the years went on, the themes shown in the movie were talked about, analyzed. It got people thinking about how we define success and the American Dream. I believe "The Wolf of Wall Street" will be the same way. It shocks to get an audience's attention; the humorous tone sugarcoats the drama for a wider market.
Why does this film feel the need to be so explicit? Do audiences see "Scarface" as light fare now? When this barrage of images offends people, what does that say about our sensibilities? We can argue our society has fallen further into corruption and these types of films glamorize these morally deficient actions, but I think that's missing the point. These movies get dialogues started, they make us question the themes at hand. This interpretation of success has come back for us to re-evaluate, and if the story is constantly being repeated, it's probably cause we're not getting the right message and adapting it to our society. So if the execution needs to be over-the-top to get one's attention, I say go right ahead, because this conversation is important. So I say, go see this movie. It's quite the trip to take, but you're going to be thinking about what it's saying for a long time. Thank you all again very much for reading, I'm the Man Without A Plan, signing off.
"The Wolf Of Wall Street" trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pabEtIERlic
Jordan Belfort (Leonardo DiCaprio) tells the story of his rise as a stockbroker in 1980's New York. Infamously nicknamed the "Wolf of Wall Street", he denotes his ambitious beginnings, the meteoric success of his firm, and the debaucherous excess the Wall Street life allows.
Scorsese excels at making period pieces; one of my favorite films is "Gangs of New York", where Scorsese rebuilds post-Civil War New York with a size, scope, and attention to detail that blows me away. The same qualities apply here: stock footage is interwoven in monologues, Jordan shoots infomercials with VHS footage, and the less I say about Popeye, the better. The slick editing and playful cinematography mimics the over-the-top nature of 80's pop culture and fits the movie like a glove. I get immersed into a world that's equal parts realistic and glamorized.
Leonardo DiCaprio is firing on all cylinders; this is probably my favorite role of his. For Jordan's admirable wit, ambition, and awareness, his ego, pride, and greed infuriate me. This is a character DiCaprio engulfs himself in completely. He sells his philosophies, makes me laugh, and infuriates my sensibilities. Able to carry himself with impeccable confidence, flop around when dangerously high, and rage at the drop of a dime, my eyes were glued. He makes for a captivating performance.
My one issue is in the film's length. The beginning bombarded me with so many jokes, characters, and atmosphere of excess, when the movie slowed down, it felt like a massive crash after a drug trip. There were multiple scenes where characters would start riffing on a subject completely unrelated to the plot at hand. It reminded me of Tarantino, but where scenes like this in his movies felt off-the-cuff and spontaneous, this film felt like it was trying to make the audience laugh. All it did for me after the second time was bore me. The movie slowed to a halt at ninety minutes, and then shot back to life after twenty minutes of speeches. It was a chore.
I imagine after my initial statements about the movie's explicit nature, some of you are asking: "Daniel, when did you become the moral gatekeeper of America?" Simply put, I didn't. The movie didn't faze me after watching, but the group of friends I went with finished viewing with mouths agape in shock. Sitting in the theatre watching the credits, I couldn't quite place why not only this movie would shock them, but also why they, oddly enough, needed it. After the obligatory post-movie bathroom break, I came to a revelation.
We've all heard the saying, "pride goeth before the fall." From Antinous being shot through the neck while drinking from Odysseus' golden cup to Tony Montana's reign and furious dethroning as king of Miami, the story has been told and displayed many ways. "Scarface" is the first movie that comes to my mind when thinking of "The Wolf of Wall Street", and I see parallels. They both tackle the idea of blind ambition, greed, and the deterioration of an ideal American Dream into a flurry of excess and power mania. When "Scarface" was released, people regarded it as the benchmark for explicit. It shocked and offended many people, but as the years went on, the themes shown in the movie were talked about, analyzed. It got people thinking about how we define success and the American Dream. I believe "The Wolf of Wall Street" will be the same way. It shocks to get an audience's attention; the humorous tone sugarcoats the drama for a wider market.
Why does this film feel the need to be so explicit? Do audiences see "Scarface" as light fare now? When this barrage of images offends people, what does that say about our sensibilities? We can argue our society has fallen further into corruption and these types of films glamorize these morally deficient actions, but I think that's missing the point. These movies get dialogues started, they make us question the themes at hand. This interpretation of success has come back for us to re-evaluate, and if the story is constantly being repeated, it's probably cause we're not getting the right message and adapting it to our society. So if the execution needs to be over-the-top to get one's attention, I say go right ahead, because this conversation is important. So I say, go see this movie. It's quite the trip to take, but you're going to be thinking about what it's saying for a long time. Thank you all again very much for reading, I'm the Man Without A Plan, signing off.
"The Wolf Of Wall Street" trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pabEtIERlic
Friday, December 27, 2013
"47 Ronin" Review
This movie has an odd little dilemma to deal with; never has a film felt so much like it's made a deal with the Devil. In this case, the filmmakers wanted an actor with marquee value, a name they could use to bring people from all over in to see a story of samurai avenging the injustice their late master suffered at the hand of an evil lord. I assume the Devil smiled and said, "Ok, I'll give you an actor. But not only will he deliver an uninspired one-note performance, he'll steal the attention away from your hard work. Those who hate him will dismiss your movie as schlock, and you'll be destined to be a mediocre blip on the holiday move season." Now that's a case of choosing the lesser evil: smaller distribution or a weak top-billed actor. And as for the filmmakers' choice, I think Chris Rock said it best: "Now I'm not saying [they] should've done it, but I understand." Enter Keanu Reeves, and here's "47 Ronin."
"47 Ronin" takes place in ancient feudal Japan, where Lord Asano (Min Tanaka) rules the Ako region, protected by his loyal samurai. During a visit from the shogun (Cary-Hiroyuki Tagawa), Asano is enchanted by a witch (Rinko Kikuchi) under the employ of Lord Kira (Tadanobu Asano) from the northern provinces who desires Ako for himself. The witch clouds Asano's mind with visions of his daughter being attacked. He attacks the assailant but it turns out to be Lord Kira sleeping. The shogun sees Asano assaulting Kira in his bed and punishes him by forcing Asano to commit seppuku, a ritualistic suicide. Grieving over the death of his lord and furious about the injustice Asano suffered, his second-in-command Ôishi (Hiroyuki Sanada) vows to round up the rest of the samurai and avenge Asano's death by killing Kira and the witch, bringing honor and respect back to Ako.
Now, one may notice I didn't mention Keanu Reeves' character and what he's doing. I didn't forget anything. Reeves baffles me here; his character can be eliminated from the main plot and the story would flow fine. He plays the "halfblood" Kai, who is rescued as a child by Lord Asano after one of his samurai threatens to kill him. The samurai believed the marks on Kai's head resembling claws were from a demon, making Kai a demon himself. Asano thought otherwise and brought Kai into his region, where years later, he remains an outcast, ridiculed and rejected by people for his half-Japanese, half-white ancestry. (Racism is alive and well everywhere.) Kai can see through the witch's disguises and figures out the evil first, but outside of helping Ôishi with vengeance and romancing the shogun's daughter, Mika, (Ko Shibasaki) he has little screen time. And to be fair, I'm glad. I don't like to nitpick every idiosyncrasy, (though you can make a drinking game out of how often Reeves leaves his mouth hanging open) but his delivery is so monotone, his expressions blank. If the man can't be bothered to emote, why should I care about his character? His character seems fazed by little; he has a funny line or two and portrays humility well, but those are small details hidden in the grand blandness of his performance. If anything, Reeves' performance services the rest of the actors, who do much better jobs with their characters. However, the shame is because of Reeves' status in Hollywood, most people will base their opinion of the movie with their opinion of Reeves as an actor, not giving the movie a fair shake.
There are good things here, and plenty of them. For a type of movie associated with little budget and artistic flair, "47 Ronin" shows off a certain polish and creativity I admire. The designs are colorful and stand out, especially in the royals' costumes and palace. It's beautiful to watch; I'd recommend watching in 2D as the brighter format gives characters a warmer tone and lets the colors pop. The cinematography has fun showing off the world, whether it be outlining the character behind a shoji screen or showing off the forest home of the demons, giving the film its own rhythms that'll satisfy the fan of Japanese culture while introducing newcomers to the aesthetic.
Now, while I have problems with Keanu Reeves, I take no offense at the rest of the cast. They do their jobs well, having fun with their characters, showing off sides of the story one wouldn't expect. Ôishi's dedication to Lord Asano inspires; this lord-samurai relationship is fascinating in how engulfing it can be. Ôishi's respect for Asano is almost unbelievable, and it's not just Asano's life he fights to protect. Ôishi makes a point of making sure his master's memory and reputation isn't tarnished by history. Avenging his lord's honor isn't going to bring Asano back from the dead, but it will make sure to bring respect to his memory, fixing the damage done by Kira. It inspires me and I'm fascinated by his dedication. Speaking of Kira, he's another character for which you can tell Tadanobu Asano was just having fun. Kira is wonderfully over-the-top with a cocky sneer that won me over every time. I love to hate this guy; he's a simple jerk, but the actor carries so much confidence in the role. It makes me smile.
However, my prize award for favorite character has to go to the witch. In a movie that juggles subplots and emotionless side characters, it's such a refreshing change to see an evil character who seems to have no motive for what she does other than her enjoyment of evil. The movie shows her glee in transforming into monsters to destroy our heroes, using psychological warfare, and bewitching anyone she can. She just loves doing evil and takes pleasure in lighting samurai on fire. I cant help it, she keeps my eyes glued to the screen. My props to Rinko Kikuchi for infusing her character with personality and interesting traits.
Overall, do I hate this movie? Absolutely not. In fact, I admire it for taking a B-movie style plot and mixing it with so much creativity and polish. I admire the actors for having fun with their roles. I like the action and Japanese culture. Really, my problem just stems from Keanu Reeves, but I guess that's what one gets when making a deal with Satan. I'd say if you're to watch one or two movies for the holiday season, "47 Ronin" shouldn't be part of that theater experience, but I believe with word-of-mouth, it'll get a better life on DVD. There are good things here, and I can't ignore them. Go see it when available to rent; it's a fun addition to the samurai genre. Thanks for reading yet again, I'm the Man without a Plan, signing off.
"47 Ronin" trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j8cKdDkkIYY
"47 Ronin" takes place in ancient feudal Japan, where Lord Asano (Min Tanaka) rules the Ako region, protected by his loyal samurai. During a visit from the shogun (Cary-Hiroyuki Tagawa), Asano is enchanted by a witch (Rinko Kikuchi) under the employ of Lord Kira (Tadanobu Asano) from the northern provinces who desires Ako for himself. The witch clouds Asano's mind with visions of his daughter being attacked. He attacks the assailant but it turns out to be Lord Kira sleeping. The shogun sees Asano assaulting Kira in his bed and punishes him by forcing Asano to commit seppuku, a ritualistic suicide. Grieving over the death of his lord and furious about the injustice Asano suffered, his second-in-command Ôishi (Hiroyuki Sanada) vows to round up the rest of the samurai and avenge Asano's death by killing Kira and the witch, bringing honor and respect back to Ako.
Now, one may notice I didn't mention Keanu Reeves' character and what he's doing. I didn't forget anything. Reeves baffles me here; his character can be eliminated from the main plot and the story would flow fine. He plays the "halfblood" Kai, who is rescued as a child by Lord Asano after one of his samurai threatens to kill him. The samurai believed the marks on Kai's head resembling claws were from a demon, making Kai a demon himself. Asano thought otherwise and brought Kai into his region, where years later, he remains an outcast, ridiculed and rejected by people for his half-Japanese, half-white ancestry. (Racism is alive and well everywhere.) Kai can see through the witch's disguises and figures out the evil first, but outside of helping Ôishi with vengeance and romancing the shogun's daughter, Mika, (Ko Shibasaki) he has little screen time. And to be fair, I'm glad. I don't like to nitpick every idiosyncrasy, (though you can make a drinking game out of how often Reeves leaves his mouth hanging open) but his delivery is so monotone, his expressions blank. If the man can't be bothered to emote, why should I care about his character? His character seems fazed by little; he has a funny line or two and portrays humility well, but those are small details hidden in the grand blandness of his performance. If anything, Reeves' performance services the rest of the actors, who do much better jobs with their characters. However, the shame is because of Reeves' status in Hollywood, most people will base their opinion of the movie with their opinion of Reeves as an actor, not giving the movie a fair shake.
There are good things here, and plenty of them. For a type of movie associated with little budget and artistic flair, "47 Ronin" shows off a certain polish and creativity I admire. The designs are colorful and stand out, especially in the royals' costumes and palace. It's beautiful to watch; I'd recommend watching in 2D as the brighter format gives characters a warmer tone and lets the colors pop. The cinematography has fun showing off the world, whether it be outlining the character behind a shoji screen or showing off the forest home of the demons, giving the film its own rhythms that'll satisfy the fan of Japanese culture while introducing newcomers to the aesthetic.
Now, while I have problems with Keanu Reeves, I take no offense at the rest of the cast. They do their jobs well, having fun with their characters, showing off sides of the story one wouldn't expect. Ôishi's dedication to Lord Asano inspires; this lord-samurai relationship is fascinating in how engulfing it can be. Ôishi's respect for Asano is almost unbelievable, and it's not just Asano's life he fights to protect. Ôishi makes a point of making sure his master's memory and reputation isn't tarnished by history. Avenging his lord's honor isn't going to bring Asano back from the dead, but it will make sure to bring respect to his memory, fixing the damage done by Kira. It inspires me and I'm fascinated by his dedication. Speaking of Kira, he's another character for which you can tell Tadanobu Asano was just having fun. Kira is wonderfully over-the-top with a cocky sneer that won me over every time. I love to hate this guy; he's a simple jerk, but the actor carries so much confidence in the role. It makes me smile.
However, my prize award for favorite character has to go to the witch. In a movie that juggles subplots and emotionless side characters, it's such a refreshing change to see an evil character who seems to have no motive for what she does other than her enjoyment of evil. The movie shows her glee in transforming into monsters to destroy our heroes, using psychological warfare, and bewitching anyone she can. She just loves doing evil and takes pleasure in lighting samurai on fire. I cant help it, she keeps my eyes glued to the screen. My props to Rinko Kikuchi for infusing her character with personality and interesting traits.
Overall, do I hate this movie? Absolutely not. In fact, I admire it for taking a B-movie style plot and mixing it with so much creativity and polish. I admire the actors for having fun with their roles. I like the action and Japanese culture. Really, my problem just stems from Keanu Reeves, but I guess that's what one gets when making a deal with Satan. I'd say if you're to watch one or two movies for the holiday season, "47 Ronin" shouldn't be part of that theater experience, but I believe with word-of-mouth, it'll get a better life on DVD. There are good things here, and I can't ignore them. Go see it when available to rent; it's a fun addition to the samurai genre. Thanks for reading yet again, I'm the Man without a Plan, signing off.
"47 Ronin" trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j8cKdDkkIYY
Tuesday, December 17, 2013
"The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug" Review
(A public service announcement before this review: when going to see this movie, bring a pillow for your rear. This one is long.)
Bilbo Baggins (Martin Freeman) presses on in his journey with the Dwarves in "The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug." After being enlisted by the wizard Gandalf (Ian McKellan) to accompany 13 dwarves in a quest to reclaim their mountain home Erebor from the dragon, Smaug, the last movie left the Hobbit, Bilbo Baggins, the victor in a game of riddles against the monster Gollum, stealing his magical, mysterious ring in the process. This sequel finds the group moving forward, fighting off creatures, adventuring through the Elf Kingdom, and confronting the monster who stole their home.
The movie hits the ground running. While the first "Hobbit" gathered complaints for taking too long to get started, the sequel has no problems pushing forward. It has more in common with the "Lord Of The Rings" films in its constant energy and movement. While newcomers to the franchise can get lost in this combination of length and high-energy, I feel this movie strikes a better balance. Its linear story helped me step back and map each part of the journey when I needed to refresh my understanding.
All our favorite characters are back and the film introduces some welcome new additions to the cast. Evangeline Lilly plays the Elf warrior Tauriel whose skills rival (and even surpass at times) Legolas (Orlando Bloom) from the "Lord Of The Rings" series. Tauriel is a seasoned, opinionated warrior with a level of curiosity and interest for the world outside her kingdom, cultivated here by one of the Dwarves, Kili (Aidan Turner). Another great addition is Bard (Luke Evans), a smuggler who helps sneak the Dwarves into Laketown, a village next to the mountain. I really can't place why I like him so much. This "rugged woodsman" archetype usually irritates me. However, where other portrayals make the character seem self-absorbed and incapable of any emotional interaction, Bard has something to lose and a lot to prove, his origins and actions giving an interesting counterbalance to the main story.
The introduction of new characters is good and all, but what of the characters we've come to know? This sequel develops the main leads well; I love following these characters and keeping track of their progression. Bilbo is more sure of himself, playing a bigger role in the group, using the Ring to his advantage in sneaking past enemies. His wit is set on high and I enjoy every second he's on screen. Thorin (Richard Armitage) simultaneously struggles and excels with the expectations that come with being the heir to the Dwarf throne. While he gets chances to show off diplomacy with the Elves and the citizens of Laketown, his noble quest and character gets placed to the test due to the legacy of his greed-driven grandfather. Legolas returns from "Lord Of The Rings" and it's interesting to see his development before that series begins. His skills still impress, taking out legions of enemies with the slightest effort, but it's good to see him in situations that don't make him just the perfect archer. He shows a romantic interest in Tauriel. He discusses the state of the homeland with his father, the King. Legolas harbors a racial distaste for the Dwarves, looking down on them like animals. Each aspect plays to different facets of his personality and fleshes out the character.
Well, it's time to address the elephant in the room. Actually he's bigger than that. After a couple trailers had people concerned, I'm happy to say: Smaug (Benedict Cumberbatch) is a tour-de-force. From his chilling introduction to his unrelenting rage, the dragon steals the show. Smaug blends menace and charm, reminding me, oddly enough, of Shere Khan from the Jungle Book. His presence is built up as high as the movie can, and Smaug, like the tiger, carries himself with a supernatural confidence in his power. He can't be reasoned with, but he takes amusement at anyone's attempts. As he professes his strength and destructive capabilities, I believe it, and am in genuine awe. Cumberbatch plays great villains, and in 2013, he not only gave us a great Khan in Star Trek, but a stellar villain in Smaug.
While Smaug on his own is a selling point, he's not all the film has going for it. The action, while keeping a livelier, less gritty tone, are a lot of fun. The choreography is fast-paced and fluid, the cinematography takes risks, and the payoffs are satisfying, even if they can be over-the-top. My favorite bit of action has to be the chase down the river. It's a pretty lengthy action scene, but builds up in just the right increments, throwing a variety of camera techniques and combat styles. I like the way the Dwarves fight alongside each other and use teamwork to take down their foes; I like Bilbo's use of stealth. The action is just a joy to watch.
The problems I have with "The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug" is really one problem when you boil it down: some subplots are unsatisfactory. From this, I complain about the length of the movie, the padding of scenes, the confusion with some characters, the glossing over of others. If some of these subplots were to be removed or rewritten, we'd have an even tighter film. Instead, we have to muddle through Gandalf interacting with the Necromancer, mentioned in the last film. This spot feels cobbled together to create continuity between this series and the "Lord Of The Rings". While not horrible, it drags out the story, and would be better left alone. The other main offender is a "love triangle" between Legolas, Tauriel, and Kili. When watching this plot, it definitely didn't fit. It wasn't supposed to be here, and to my surprise (and slight joy), I found out it wasn't. Evangeline Lilly mentioned in an interview the filmmakers didn't want to include the love triangle, but had to do so at the studio's request. The subplot isn't so overblown; it's handled subtly, but it comforts me to know the filmmakers were working on a tighter film, and my blame shouldn't wholly be directed at them.
Overall, my problems are few and my praises many. This is a fantastic entry in the series, ramping up the action, the adventure, and the characters. When the movie ended at the screening I went to, the audience collectively went, "Awww!" They wanted more! After two hours and forty minutes, the movie had us so invested in this story and these characters, that we still wanted more. If a movie can do that, it's definitely doing something right. If you're a fan of the series, it's a must-see. Even if you're not a fan, watch the first movie if only to get context for this one. "The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug" is a great sequel and I'm ecstatic to see how the story will close out next year. Until then, thank you all very much for reading. I'm the Man Without A Plan, signing off.
"The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug" trailer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fnaojlfdUbs&feature=youtube_gdata_player
Bilbo Baggins (Martin Freeman) presses on in his journey with the Dwarves in "The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug." After being enlisted by the wizard Gandalf (Ian McKellan) to accompany 13 dwarves in a quest to reclaim their mountain home Erebor from the dragon, Smaug, the last movie left the Hobbit, Bilbo Baggins, the victor in a game of riddles against the monster Gollum, stealing his magical, mysterious ring in the process. This sequel finds the group moving forward, fighting off creatures, adventuring through the Elf Kingdom, and confronting the monster who stole their home.
The movie hits the ground running. While the first "Hobbit" gathered complaints for taking too long to get started, the sequel has no problems pushing forward. It has more in common with the "Lord Of The Rings" films in its constant energy and movement. While newcomers to the franchise can get lost in this combination of length and high-energy, I feel this movie strikes a better balance. Its linear story helped me step back and map each part of the journey when I needed to refresh my understanding.
All our favorite characters are back and the film introduces some welcome new additions to the cast. Evangeline Lilly plays the Elf warrior Tauriel whose skills rival (and even surpass at times) Legolas (Orlando Bloom) from the "Lord Of The Rings" series. Tauriel is a seasoned, opinionated warrior with a level of curiosity and interest for the world outside her kingdom, cultivated here by one of the Dwarves, Kili (Aidan Turner). Another great addition is Bard (Luke Evans), a smuggler who helps sneak the Dwarves into Laketown, a village next to the mountain. I really can't place why I like him so much. This "rugged woodsman" archetype usually irritates me. However, where other portrayals make the character seem self-absorbed and incapable of any emotional interaction, Bard has something to lose and a lot to prove, his origins and actions giving an interesting counterbalance to the main story.
The introduction of new characters is good and all, but what of the characters we've come to know? This sequel develops the main leads well; I love following these characters and keeping track of their progression. Bilbo is more sure of himself, playing a bigger role in the group, using the Ring to his advantage in sneaking past enemies. His wit is set on high and I enjoy every second he's on screen. Thorin (Richard Armitage) simultaneously struggles and excels with the expectations that come with being the heir to the Dwarf throne. While he gets chances to show off diplomacy with the Elves and the citizens of Laketown, his noble quest and character gets placed to the test due to the legacy of his greed-driven grandfather. Legolas returns from "Lord Of The Rings" and it's interesting to see his development before that series begins. His skills still impress, taking out legions of enemies with the slightest effort, but it's good to see him in situations that don't make him just the perfect archer. He shows a romantic interest in Tauriel. He discusses the state of the homeland with his father, the King. Legolas harbors a racial distaste for the Dwarves, looking down on them like animals. Each aspect plays to different facets of his personality and fleshes out the character.
Well, it's time to address the elephant in the room. Actually he's bigger than that. After a couple trailers had people concerned, I'm happy to say: Smaug (Benedict Cumberbatch) is a tour-de-force. From his chilling introduction to his unrelenting rage, the dragon steals the show. Smaug blends menace and charm, reminding me, oddly enough, of Shere Khan from the Jungle Book. His presence is built up as high as the movie can, and Smaug, like the tiger, carries himself with a supernatural confidence in his power. He can't be reasoned with, but he takes amusement at anyone's attempts. As he professes his strength and destructive capabilities, I believe it, and am in genuine awe. Cumberbatch plays great villains, and in 2013, he not only gave us a great Khan in Star Trek, but a stellar villain in Smaug.
While Smaug on his own is a selling point, he's not all the film has going for it. The action, while keeping a livelier, less gritty tone, are a lot of fun. The choreography is fast-paced and fluid, the cinematography takes risks, and the payoffs are satisfying, even if they can be over-the-top. My favorite bit of action has to be the chase down the river. It's a pretty lengthy action scene, but builds up in just the right increments, throwing a variety of camera techniques and combat styles. I like the way the Dwarves fight alongside each other and use teamwork to take down their foes; I like Bilbo's use of stealth. The action is just a joy to watch.
The problems I have with "The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug" is really one problem when you boil it down: some subplots are unsatisfactory. From this, I complain about the length of the movie, the padding of scenes, the confusion with some characters, the glossing over of others. If some of these subplots were to be removed or rewritten, we'd have an even tighter film. Instead, we have to muddle through Gandalf interacting with the Necromancer, mentioned in the last film. This spot feels cobbled together to create continuity between this series and the "Lord Of The Rings". While not horrible, it drags out the story, and would be better left alone. The other main offender is a "love triangle" between Legolas, Tauriel, and Kili. When watching this plot, it definitely didn't fit. It wasn't supposed to be here, and to my surprise (and slight joy), I found out it wasn't. Evangeline Lilly mentioned in an interview the filmmakers didn't want to include the love triangle, but had to do so at the studio's request. The subplot isn't so overblown; it's handled subtly, but it comforts me to know the filmmakers were working on a tighter film, and my blame shouldn't wholly be directed at them.
Overall, my problems are few and my praises many. This is a fantastic entry in the series, ramping up the action, the adventure, and the characters. When the movie ended at the screening I went to, the audience collectively went, "Awww!" They wanted more! After two hours and forty minutes, the movie had us so invested in this story and these characters, that we still wanted more. If a movie can do that, it's definitely doing something right. If you're a fan of the series, it's a must-see. Even if you're not a fan, watch the first movie if only to get context for this one. "The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug" is a great sequel and I'm ecstatic to see how the story will close out next year. Until then, thank you all very much for reading. I'm the Man Without A Plan, signing off.
"The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug" trailer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fnaojlfdUbs&feature=youtube_gdata_player
Thursday, December 5, 2013
"Homefront" Review
Texas’ reign of freezing terror is in full swing, and aside from the necessary hours of work, sleep, and scraping ice off my windshield, I like to partake in America’s favorite rainy-day sport: watching bad action movies on Netflix! I don’t know; there’s just something so comforting about lying in bed, indulging one’s laziness with junk food for the mind. So yesterday, while in the middle of watching “Sharknado”, I asked a question I never thought possible to ask while watching a movie called “Sharknado”: “Why am I bored?” There were explosions, natural disasters, and shark dismemberments aplenty, but I was falling asleep. I came to the conclusion that with “Sharknado”, and really, any bad action film, the movie cares not for its characters, and so neither do we. That being said, when these characters are put through thrilling dangers, we don’t know these people and couldn’t care less whether they make it or not. The tension is unraveled. The movie dissatisfies. Luckily, this week’s movie “Homefront” cares enough to share its characters with the audience, and while the movie’s not perfect, I enjoy these characters and want to follow them through the story’s turns.
Jason Statham plays Phil Broker, a DEA agent who, on an undercover mission, bears witness to the brutal murder of a drug lord’s son by the SWAT team. Haunted by the event, Phil retires and moves to rural Louisiana with his daughter for a fresh start. Little does he know the past has a way of catching up with people, and its consequences may be lurking closer than anyone could expect.
I like watching these characters interact and give good performances. Statham intimidates, empathizes, jokes around. He plays a range of roles with Phil’s character: the loving father, the vengeful man, the remorseful offender, handling each aspect well. Kate Bosworth is noteworthy as the drug-addicted mother of one of the daughter’s classmates. Her portrayal doesn’t come off as a cautionary tale or activist prop: her physical deterioration and inability to handle her emotions around her family and Broker subtly nod to the damage her character suffers as a result of her lifestyle. She’s convincing in the role and I give my props. However, my biggest kudos goes all the way to James Franco. He plays a meth cook operating in the town, but the way he carries himself, you’d think he was a drug kingpin. From paying off the police to having hitmen do his dirty work, he owns the town: omnipresent and omnipotent. This guy is gut-wrenching. The grime that comes out of his voice is disgusting, and his sneaky, creepy manner keeps my eyes glued. Because he’s sly doesn’t make him unafraid to get physical; he approaches the prospect of breaking bones with glee. Franco plays this villain wonderfully; he’s the guy I love to hate.
“Homefront’s” strength lies in its first half, developing relationships, atmosphere, and tension, building the stakes in just the right increments. Broker’s relationship with his daughter is heartfelt: she carries a lot of his no-nonsense approach to self-defense but he understands when it’s best to teach her something opposite what he’s usually used to. They play and joke with each other; their love carries much of the emotional weight of the film. Louisiana carries many vibes: New Orleans’ liveliness, the swamp’s isolation, its neighborhoods’ comfort and tight-knit nature, and the forests’ majesty (aerial shots of the forests and swamps in particular are presented well).The cinematography works with each location, serving the scene’s intended atmosphere just right. The action is visceral, with emphasis placed on the weight of damage. When someone gets hit, you hear and feel it. When they drop, you believe they hit the ground and if they know what’s good for them, they won’t get up. The choreography is stellar, showing off each step of Broker’s process without sacrificing momentum. Broker uses his surroundings to his advantage, integrating them seamlessly. These fight scenes, as a result, are very creative and a lot of fun to watch.
Unfortunately, for such a smart and effective buildup, the latter half of the movie is lackluster. “Homefront” rushes, tying up its ends as fast as possible, so characters make dumb decisions and initial tension-builders don’t get the payoff they deserve. The action and choreography are still excellent, but a shaking camera and unfocused editing makes it harder to see. The ending is my main issue; my first opinion of the climax was that it was weak, but after tying in the movie’s themes and methods of approaching it, I was able to forgive the climax. However, the ending scene takes the climax’s idea and tosses it out the window, so in this mixed turn of tone, I’m confused and upset. I left the theater with a bad feeling about it all, and while the second half did not ruin the whole experience, its clumsiness is a huge disappointment.
The real shame of “Homefront” is that it started off so well and ended so weak. Despite my disappointment, I don’t hate the movie; I don’t even dislike it. I like the characters, the action is creative, the story builds at a great pace. I had fun watching Phil Broker beat up bad guys and I cared for him and his daughter. I wanted to see them get through the danger ok, and that’s more than I can say for “Sharknado.” I’d say take a couple friends to see it and enjoy it for the action, or just wait for a freezing cold rainy Netflix kind of day. Thank you all again for reading; I’m the Man without a Plan, signing off.
"Homefront" trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tjSOj8b804U
Tuesday, December 3, 2013
"Frozen" Review
Hello all, and welcome back! The Man Without A Plan here, and I’ve returned triumphantly (or so I hope) with another movie review! Well, it’s officially December in Texas. The cold sticks to my bones in the mornings and leaving work in the wee hours of the morning, I’ve had to scrape ice off my windshield thrice. So I guess it’s only appropriate to see a movie that starts off the winter season. When you’re looking for that criterion, I guess you really can’t get a better title than “Frozen.”
On her coronation day, Queen Elsa (Idina Menzel) of Arendelle fears revealing her childhood secret to the kingdom: she has the power to create and manipulate ice. When an argument between Elsa and her sister, Princess Anna (Kristen Bell), goes too far, Elsa accidentally shows her powers, nearly harming the crowd. Scared of her inability to control her powers, she runs away and unbeknownst to her, she freezes the whole kingdom in an eternal winter. Now it’s up to Anna, with the help of mountain man Kristoff (Jonathan Groff) and magical snowman Olaf (Josh Gad) to find Elsa and figure out how to stop the winter before it’s too late.
When watching “Frozen”, I was drawn to compare it to the last two Disney Princess movies Walt Disney Animation Studios had done, “The Princess And The Frog” and “Tangled”. The former came from a demand to bring back the “classic” Disney movie: people wanted a return to fairytales, princesses, and hand-drawn animation. The movie was successful, garnering Oscar nominations and making over $250 million worldwide, but both critics and audiences said it was just a nice homage to Disney’s “Golden Age”. So when deciding what movie to do next, it’s hard to see “Tangled” as anything but a direct response. Not only was Rapunzel the first CGI Disney princess, but the movie uses modern dialogue, placing an emphasis on the adventure rather than the drama. The changes to the formula paid off; Tangled made $590 million, and both critical and audience word-of-mouth were positive. I bring these two up because “Frozen” takes the appeal to Disney’s classic style and the success of adapting to the current scene and puts it together. Its ambition is its greatest strength and shortcoming.
The penalty suffered from “Frozen’s” ambition is in the pacing. It feels the movie’s trying to cram every joke and character and action scene they could think of. Now, some of these moments hit bulls-eyes, (meeting the owner of a summer equipment store still makes me chuckle,) but I don’t get to slow down and soak it all in. As a result, some reactions seem uncharacteristically glossed over and I never get enough time to bask in the film’s world.
I must give credit, for a movie that rarely stays still, it develops fun, interesting characters. Anna is your typical optimist; she’s playful, clumsy, and awkward, but never to the point where I think she’s dumb or irritating. She’s always ready to go where she’s needed, wishing to be helpful and do the right thing. Kristen Bell emphasizes Anna's good nature over her naïveté and she's a joy to watch. Anna ropes in the ice salesman Kristoff and his trusty reindeer steed Sven to help her up the mountain to find Elsa, and while I think Sven lacks the charisma the royal horse Maximus from “Tangled” has, Kristoff makes up for it by, how do I explain this? He’s the first woodsman, shuns-society loner type I’ve seen in a movie that I believe is genuinely happy existing outside of society. It’s almost a benign misanthropy; he sings a song about how he’d rather eat carrots with his reindeer buddy and be alone with him in the woods than deal with people. (He does put Sven’s smell in consideration while making this decision.) His joyful, yet sarcastic demeanor makes me laugh. He’s my favorite character.
Next to Anna, Elsa is the main character of “Frozen” and one of the more interesting I’ve seen Disney do. She’s a contrast to Anna’s less-controlled naïveté, but never so much she appears curmudgeonly. At least, never without a reason. I admire her motives; she doesn’t look for love or “something more”. She just wants to get her powers under control, and while we do see her artistry and the joy that comes from creating beautiful ice shows, there’s a darker, more destructive side. There’s a scene where something bad has happened to the sisters. Anna wants her sister’s support, but Elsa’s door is closed off. She cries in front of her room, but the next shot shows Elsa’s room in shambles with what looks like scorch marks radiating from where’s she’s crying on the floor. It’s a distressing scene that suggests how dangerous she can be when pushed to her limits. Elsa’s a character that kept me glued to the screen every time she’s on.
The last aspect I must note is the music. “Frozen” packs in as many elements as it can, and the music is no exception. It feels like an operetta. Like the rest of the movie, the songs are hit-or-miss: the best are atmospheric, allow the characters to express their individuality and inner thoughts, and above all, make me hum the melody incessantly while walking out of the theater. The misses…are filler. They pad out their scenes, but even though they annoy, they’re never loathsome. There’s a dark humor underlying the snowman’s song about how happy he’d be to experience summer for the first time, and there are a few of us who may be going to hell for laughing. My favorites include the intro song, “For The First Time In Forever”, “Let It Go”, and for simple laughs, “The Reindeer Song”.
As I wrote this review, I’ve realized I liked “Frozen” more than I originally did. If I’d had more time to breathe and appreciate what I enjoyed while in the theatre, I might’ve liked it more on arrival. Nevertheless, there are creative characters, catchy songs, and good comedy. It does work on fairy-tale logic, which takes the film down a notch, but if you come in with a childlike suspension of disbelief, you’ll find something to like. Thank you very much for reading, I’m the Man Without A Plan, signing off.
On her coronation day, Queen Elsa (Idina Menzel) of Arendelle fears revealing her childhood secret to the kingdom: she has the power to create and manipulate ice. When an argument between Elsa and her sister, Princess Anna (Kristen Bell), goes too far, Elsa accidentally shows her powers, nearly harming the crowd. Scared of her inability to control her powers, she runs away and unbeknownst to her, she freezes the whole kingdom in an eternal winter. Now it’s up to Anna, with the help of mountain man Kristoff (Jonathan Groff) and magical snowman Olaf (Josh Gad) to find Elsa and figure out how to stop the winter before it’s too late.
When watching “Frozen”, I was drawn to compare it to the last two Disney Princess movies Walt Disney Animation Studios had done, “The Princess And The Frog” and “Tangled”. The former came from a demand to bring back the “classic” Disney movie: people wanted a return to fairytales, princesses, and hand-drawn animation. The movie was successful, garnering Oscar nominations and making over $250 million worldwide, but both critics and audiences said it was just a nice homage to Disney’s “Golden Age”. So when deciding what movie to do next, it’s hard to see “Tangled” as anything but a direct response. Not only was Rapunzel the first CGI Disney princess, but the movie uses modern dialogue, placing an emphasis on the adventure rather than the drama. The changes to the formula paid off; Tangled made $590 million, and both critical and audience word-of-mouth were positive. I bring these two up because “Frozen” takes the appeal to Disney’s classic style and the success of adapting to the current scene and puts it together. Its ambition is its greatest strength and shortcoming.
The penalty suffered from “Frozen’s” ambition is in the pacing. It feels the movie’s trying to cram every joke and character and action scene they could think of. Now, some of these moments hit bulls-eyes, (meeting the owner of a summer equipment store still makes me chuckle,) but I don’t get to slow down and soak it all in. As a result, some reactions seem uncharacteristically glossed over and I never get enough time to bask in the film’s world.
I must give credit, for a movie that rarely stays still, it develops fun, interesting characters. Anna is your typical optimist; she’s playful, clumsy, and awkward, but never to the point where I think she’s dumb or irritating. She’s always ready to go where she’s needed, wishing to be helpful and do the right thing. Kristen Bell emphasizes Anna's good nature over her naïveté and she's a joy to watch. Anna ropes in the ice salesman Kristoff and his trusty reindeer steed Sven to help her up the mountain to find Elsa, and while I think Sven lacks the charisma the royal horse Maximus from “Tangled” has, Kristoff makes up for it by, how do I explain this? He’s the first woodsman, shuns-society loner type I’ve seen in a movie that I believe is genuinely happy existing outside of society. It’s almost a benign misanthropy; he sings a song about how he’d rather eat carrots with his reindeer buddy and be alone with him in the woods than deal with people. (He does put Sven’s smell in consideration while making this decision.) His joyful, yet sarcastic demeanor makes me laugh. He’s my favorite character.
Next to Anna, Elsa is the main character of “Frozen” and one of the more interesting I’ve seen Disney do. She’s a contrast to Anna’s less-controlled naïveté, but never so much she appears curmudgeonly. At least, never without a reason. I admire her motives; she doesn’t look for love or “something more”. She just wants to get her powers under control, and while we do see her artistry and the joy that comes from creating beautiful ice shows, there’s a darker, more destructive side. There’s a scene where something bad has happened to the sisters. Anna wants her sister’s support, but Elsa’s door is closed off. She cries in front of her room, but the next shot shows Elsa’s room in shambles with what looks like scorch marks radiating from where’s she’s crying on the floor. It’s a distressing scene that suggests how dangerous she can be when pushed to her limits. Elsa’s a character that kept me glued to the screen every time she’s on.
The last aspect I must note is the music. “Frozen” packs in as many elements as it can, and the music is no exception. It feels like an operetta. Like the rest of the movie, the songs are hit-or-miss: the best are atmospheric, allow the characters to express their individuality and inner thoughts, and above all, make me hum the melody incessantly while walking out of the theater. The misses…are filler. They pad out their scenes, but even though they annoy, they’re never loathsome. There’s a dark humor underlying the snowman’s song about how happy he’d be to experience summer for the first time, and there are a few of us who may be going to hell for laughing. My favorites include the intro song, “For The First Time In Forever”, “Let It Go”, and for simple laughs, “The Reindeer Song”.
As I wrote this review, I’ve realized I liked “Frozen” more than I originally did. If I’d had more time to breathe and appreciate what I enjoyed while in the theatre, I might’ve liked it more on arrival. Nevertheless, there are creative characters, catchy songs, and good comedy. It does work on fairy-tale logic, which takes the film down a notch, but if you come in with a childlike suspension of disbelief, you’ll find something to like. Thank you very much for reading, I’m the Man Without A Plan, signing off.
"Frozen" trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TbQm5doF_Uc
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)