Welcome to another episode of Lights....Camera....Popcorn!
Today's review is Jack Reacher.
Written & Directed by Christopher McQuarrie.
Based on the novel "One Shot". Written by Lee Child.
Review #198
MPAA Rating: Rated PG-13 for violence, language and some drug material.
Run Time: 130 min
Cast
Tom Cruise...Reacher
Rosamund Pike...Helen
Richard Jenkins...Rodin
David Oyelowo...Emerson
Werner Herzog...The Zec
Jai Courtney...Charlie
Vladimir Sizov...Vlad
Joseph Sikora...Barr
Michael Raymond-James...Linsky
Alexia Fast...Sandy
Josh Helman...Jeb
Robert Duvall...Cash
When this movie was announced, there was quite an uproar. The initial disdain surrounding Jack Reacher was focused entirely on Tom Cruise. The outrage was due to the fact that the character in the books is apparently a super stud, behemoth of a man standing well over 6 feet. Where as Mr. Cruise is not even close to that height. It's no secret that Cruise is one of the shorter actors in Hollywood. He's had to wear lifts in his shoes to "improve" his height when the character he's playing requires a larger stature. To make a big stink about how an actor doesn't look like a character in a book is not uncommon in fandom. There's just one problem with the fan's outrage.
They should have been more pissed at how GOD AWFUL this movie was.
Plot
A homicide investigator digs deeper into a case involving a trained military sniper who shot five random victims.
Here's the best way I can describe how much this movie sucked. The theater I was in made a mistake and the projector started playing The Hobbit instead of Jack Reacher. The first 10-15 minutes were playing until someone was notified and the problem was fixed.
After it was over, I wished they left The Hobbit playing.
This movie can be described in one word....JOKE!
Because every single thing about this train wreck was laughable. All of the characters were silly and stupid. The dialogue was even worse and the plot? Don't get me started. After seeing this film I now realize why fans of the books series were so annoyed with casting Cruise. This has nothing to do with the height issue. This is directed toward his performance. It was dreadful. The character of Jack Reacher is supposed to be some kind of above the law super sleuth.
Think The A-Team meets Sherlock Holmes.
That's the biggest problem. I've seen better iterations of The A-Team and Sherlock Holmes before. They were called The A-Team and Sherlock Holmes.
The fact that Jack Reacher was sort of modeled like that in the film was just beyond any realm of stupidity I can comprehend. What's even worse was that Reacher never gave me the impression that he was above the law or willing to do whatever it took to solve the case. There was never a moment where he crossed the line of civil obedience. How in the world can you build up a character that supposedly answers to no one and never show him defying the established order in grand fashion.
Pathetic.
Now we get to the Sherlock Holmes aspect of his character.
After he examines the crime scene several scenes that follow show Reacher recapping the event with Helen. As she is mapping out theories, Reacher shoots them down and comes up with the most absurd alternative that requires the biggest leap of faith in the world. Then, not even being shy about it, the film "borrows" the flashback montage that Guy Ritchie used in his Sherlock Holmes films. It's not a direct rip off but it was the first thing that popped into my head as I was watching it.
Now the flashbacks were pretty absurd at times in the Holmes films but you accept them because that's how the character has always been. You know him as the man who finds the details that no one else sees which then leads to the bigger clue. Here it was just a mess of thoughts that could make sense but in the long run provided more apathy than attention.
The rest of the film plays on like a paint by numbers action, mystery, thriller. Unfortunately Jack Reacher was light on the last two elements. The action was decent. Not good enough to spark any more good vibes from me however.
I HATED this movie!
More importantly, I hated how this movie had the balls to pretend it was something it's not. I've read other reviews of this film and I was stunned to read how enjoyable it was for them. I would love to know what I missed here. I realize that everyone's opinion is different and they are entitled to have it just as I am entitled to have mine. But my god this was such an insult to films of this genre that I fail to see anything worth a positive mention.
Save one exception.
The opening sequence was pretty thrilling. One of the main villain's proceeds to go on a sniping spree near PNC Park in Pittsburgh where the Pirates play. If I was a Pirates fan I'd go on a rampage too. Sorry Bucs fans, had to go there. Anyway, that sequence was very well executed, shot and cut together. This was the ONLY thing worth it's weight from an otherwise horrible film. This film sucked so much that I now have another entry in the child punishment catalog. If your kids start acting up and you want to punish them. Make them watch Prometheus and Jack Reacher. That should straighten em right up.
I know I never want to see those two movies again and I didn't do anything wrong except go see them in the first place.
On the 5 star scale. Jack Reacher gets the goose egg. 0 stars with a "For The Love of God Stay Home!" recommendation.
That's a wrap for today. Up next is Django Unchained.
Until Next Episode...."I'll Save You A Seat!"
"D"
Hitchcock
Welcome to another episode of Lights....Camera....Popcorn!
Today's review is Hitchcock.
Directed by Sacha Gervasi.
Written by John J. McLaughlin.
Based on the novel "Alfred Hitchcock and the Making of Psycho". Written by Stephen Rebello.
Review #197
MPAA Rating: Rated PG-13 for some violent images, sexual content and thematic material.
Run Time: 98 min
Cast
Anthony Hopkins...Alfred Hitchcock
Helen Mirren...Alma Reville
Scarlett Johansson...Janet Leigh
Danny Huston...Whitfield Cook
Toni Collette...Peggy Robertson
Michael Stuhlbarg...Lew Wasserman
Michael Wincott...Ed Gein
Jessica Biel...Vera Miles
James D'Arcy...Anthony Perkins
Richard Portnow...Barney Balaban
Kurtwood Smith...Geoffrey Shurlock
Ralph Macchio...Joseph Stefano
When it comes to suspense in cinema. There is only person that has truly mastered it.
Hitchcock.
One of motion pictures most heralded and respected auteurs. His work has influenced many of the games top film makers and if he hasn't then it's time for these people to go back to school. Hitchcock was a visionary not to mention a controversial director. A lot of his choices and style were met with scrutiny and resistance from what was back then the MPAA. Otherwise known as the censor bureau. My only regret is that he isn't alive today. Mystery and suspense films would be so much better compared to the crap that's made in this day and age. Since he isn't with us anymore we are now being treated to bio pics of the man behind some of the best films in horror, mystery and suspense history.
Plot
A love story between influential filmmaker Alfred Hitchcock and wife Alma Reville during the filming of Psycho in 1959.
This isn't the only Hitchcock film made this year. HBO presented us with The Girl. It was very similar to this film. The difference between the two is that in The Girl, the focus was predominantly on Hitchcock's fascination with Tippi Hedren during the filming of The Birds. Hitchcock on the other hand delves more into Hitch's attempt to make Psycho and the pitfalls that surrounded it. Both films are both good but they also have the same problem.
Believability.
I'm not going to get into a review of The Girl so this will be my last mention of it. The parts of The Girl and Hitchcock that make it both compelling and odd is the fact that the main issues that Hitch had with his leading ladies are never confirmed to actually have happened. They are just big time Tinseltown folklore. No one actually has proof that Hitch was obsessed with beautiful blondes. Or how he used his sexual tension and attraction with them to "manipulate" the talent so he could get the performance he needed. This made the film tough to read because deciphering fact from fiction required some suspension of disbelief. It's really a shame because Anthony Hopkins plays Hitchcock with the right amount of mystery and intimidation to make you unsettled just enough to buy what he's selling.
This is the shining light of the movie. Hopkins was awesome as Hitchcock. The resemblance isn't as spot on like Daniel Day Lewis' Lincoln but it was close enough. What sold me more than the looks was Hopkins portrayal. He carried himself like Hitchcock. The walk and body demeanor was like I remembered from old interviews and clips I've seen. The movie always stalled when Hitch wasn't on the screen. I enjoyed his performance. Another good performance was Helen Mirren as Alma. She was unquestionably the yin to Alfred's yang.
I never knew this but she ghost wrote on a lot of the films that he directed. Including Psycho. The disconnect between the two became evident when Psycho was being produced and it all comes to a head in a very well done scene when Alma stands up for herself after Hitch complains of lack of support from her. Alma also showed off her considerable power that many thought she didn't have. The scene where this happens will be obvious.
The rest of the cast is serviceable. Nobody else stands out. Scarlett Johannson might be the only one as Janet Leigh. She looked nothing like her but her performance takes you away from that fact. She was actually pretty good. Considering that I don't think she's a good actress by any stretch of the imagination.
The biggest problem I have with Hitchcock is a recurring theme between Hitchcock and the inspiration for both the film and book, Psycho. Ed Gein. That name should sound familiar to you horror nuts. He's also the inspiration for the Texas Chainsaw Massacre series. In Hitchcock, for some odd reason, Hitch imagines Gein in his mind during portions of filming or at home. Like a voice in his head. This was very weird and poorly presented. Were we to think that Hitch and Gein knew each other? Were Gein and Hitch connected unconsciously in some way? Is that how Hitch gets his motivations for his films?
All of these questions were rumbling through my head as the film was playing and it was unclear what the answer was if one even existed. It looked like a way to keep this film from being a straight laced by the numbers account of how Hitch made Psycho. The problem is that should have been the way to go. The film plays so well when seen in that mode. Taking the titular character to parts unknown throws the balance off and con volutes the story. There was no need to go that way. There was plenty of intrigue and mystery surrounding the main characters to last the run time. I wonder of the book this film was based on had Hitch's same imaginary friend. If it did I'm sure it would have been a better read, cause it didn't work for me on the screen.
On the 5 star scale. Hitchcock gets 2.5 stars. With a "Netflix It!" recommendation.
That's a wrap for today. Up next is Jack Reacher.
Until Next Episode...."I'll Save You A Seat!"
"D"
Today's review is Hitchcock.
Directed by Sacha Gervasi.
Written by John J. McLaughlin.
Based on the novel "Alfred Hitchcock and the Making of Psycho". Written by Stephen Rebello.
Review #197
MPAA Rating: Rated PG-13 for some violent images, sexual content and thematic material.
Run Time: 98 min
Cast
Anthony Hopkins...Alfred Hitchcock
Helen Mirren...Alma Reville
Scarlett Johansson...Janet Leigh
Danny Huston...Whitfield Cook
Toni Collette...Peggy Robertson
Michael Stuhlbarg...Lew Wasserman
Michael Wincott...Ed Gein
Jessica Biel...Vera Miles
James D'Arcy...Anthony Perkins
Richard Portnow...Barney Balaban
Kurtwood Smith...Geoffrey Shurlock
Ralph Macchio...Joseph Stefano
When it comes to suspense in cinema. There is only person that has truly mastered it.
Hitchcock.
One of motion pictures most heralded and respected auteurs. His work has influenced many of the games top film makers and if he hasn't then it's time for these people to go back to school. Hitchcock was a visionary not to mention a controversial director. A lot of his choices and style were met with scrutiny and resistance from what was back then the MPAA. Otherwise known as the censor bureau. My only regret is that he isn't alive today. Mystery and suspense films would be so much better compared to the crap that's made in this day and age. Since he isn't with us anymore we are now being treated to bio pics of the man behind some of the best films in horror, mystery and suspense history.
Plot
A love story between influential filmmaker Alfred Hitchcock and wife Alma Reville during the filming of Psycho in 1959.
This isn't the only Hitchcock film made this year. HBO presented us with The Girl. It was very similar to this film. The difference between the two is that in The Girl, the focus was predominantly on Hitchcock's fascination with Tippi Hedren during the filming of The Birds. Hitchcock on the other hand delves more into Hitch's attempt to make Psycho and the pitfalls that surrounded it. Both films are both good but they also have the same problem.
Believability.
I'm not going to get into a review of The Girl so this will be my last mention of it. The parts of The Girl and Hitchcock that make it both compelling and odd is the fact that the main issues that Hitch had with his leading ladies are never confirmed to actually have happened. They are just big time Tinseltown folklore. No one actually has proof that Hitch was obsessed with beautiful blondes. Or how he used his sexual tension and attraction with them to "manipulate" the talent so he could get the performance he needed. This made the film tough to read because deciphering fact from fiction required some suspension of disbelief. It's really a shame because Anthony Hopkins plays Hitchcock with the right amount of mystery and intimidation to make you unsettled just enough to buy what he's selling.
This is the shining light of the movie. Hopkins was awesome as Hitchcock. The resemblance isn't as spot on like Daniel Day Lewis' Lincoln but it was close enough. What sold me more than the looks was Hopkins portrayal. He carried himself like Hitchcock. The walk and body demeanor was like I remembered from old interviews and clips I've seen. The movie always stalled when Hitch wasn't on the screen. I enjoyed his performance. Another good performance was Helen Mirren as Alma. She was unquestionably the yin to Alfred's yang.
I never knew this but she ghost wrote on a lot of the films that he directed. Including Psycho. The disconnect between the two became evident when Psycho was being produced and it all comes to a head in a very well done scene when Alma stands up for herself after Hitch complains of lack of support from her. Alma also showed off her considerable power that many thought she didn't have. The scene where this happens will be obvious.
The rest of the cast is serviceable. Nobody else stands out. Scarlett Johannson might be the only one as Janet Leigh. She looked nothing like her but her performance takes you away from that fact. She was actually pretty good. Considering that I don't think she's a good actress by any stretch of the imagination.
The biggest problem I have with Hitchcock is a recurring theme between Hitchcock and the inspiration for both the film and book, Psycho. Ed Gein. That name should sound familiar to you horror nuts. He's also the inspiration for the Texas Chainsaw Massacre series. In Hitchcock, for some odd reason, Hitch imagines Gein in his mind during portions of filming or at home. Like a voice in his head. This was very weird and poorly presented. Were we to think that Hitch and Gein knew each other? Were Gein and Hitch connected unconsciously in some way? Is that how Hitch gets his motivations for his films?
All of these questions were rumbling through my head as the film was playing and it was unclear what the answer was if one even existed. It looked like a way to keep this film from being a straight laced by the numbers account of how Hitch made Psycho. The problem is that should have been the way to go. The film plays so well when seen in that mode. Taking the titular character to parts unknown throws the balance off and con volutes the story. There was no need to go that way. There was plenty of intrigue and mystery surrounding the main characters to last the run time. I wonder of the book this film was based on had Hitch's same imaginary friend. If it did I'm sure it would have been a better read, cause it didn't work for me on the screen.
On the 5 star scale. Hitchcock gets 2.5 stars. With a "Netflix It!" recommendation.
That's a wrap for today. Up next is Jack Reacher.
Until Next Episode...."I'll Save You A Seat!"
"D"
Silver Linings Playbook
Welcome to another episode of Lights....Camera....Popcorn!
Today's review is Silver Linings Playbook.
Written & Directed by David O. Russell.
Based on the novel "Silver Linings Playbook". Written by Matthew Quick.
Review #196
MPAA Rating: Rated R for language and some sexual content/nudity.
Run Time: 122 min
Cast
Bradley Cooper...Pat
Jennifer Lawrence...Tiffany
Robert De Niro...Pat Sr.
Jacki Weaver...Dolores
Chris Tucker...Danny
Anupam Kher...Dr. Cliff Patel
John Ortiz...Ronnie
Shea Whigham...Jake
Julia Stiles...Veronica
Brea Bee...Nikki
David O. Russell has a pretty impressive filmography in both writing and directing. Some of his best hits include Spanking the Monkey, Three Kings, I Heart Huckabees and The Fighter. One thing Russell seems to do in all of his films is take the material as seriously as possible, whether he wrote the script or not. He also finds a way to bring some levity into a very dramatic situations. His finest example of that is this film here.
Plot
After a stint in a mental institution, former teacher Pat Solitano moves back in with his parents and tries to reconcile with his ex-wife. Things get more challenging when Pat meets Tiffany, a mysterious girl with problems of her own.
Silver Linings Playbook looked like a run of the mill football rom-com. That's what it appeared on the surface. It was also marketed that way to get butts in the seats. What this movie actually is is a deeper statement on how people handle loved ones with mental problems. While watching I became disappointed in what I was seeing. In hindsight I was thrilled that I was. This film was so much better than I expected, I just gave up on any expectations and just soaked in all of the drama and intrigue these characters provided in the two hours I was in my seat.
Bradley Cooper headlines the performances in what can easily be considered his breakout and best role of his career. He plays Pat with a wounded yet focused mindset. His goals are both realistic and a pipe dream. It was tough to watch him fall into denial about his situation. Then see him explode with rage when he feels cornered while everyone around him is trying to support him. Those scenes were not pretty but they painted Pat's picture to a tee.
Then comes the stunning and ferociously hot Jennifer Lawrence to throw a monkey wrench into Pat's ultimate plan. Tiffany is also dealing with "problems" of her own that have given her a nasty reputation. The combination of these two would seem toxic and ill advised but as the saying goes. "It takes one to know one." That boys and girls is the rub of this movie. While everyone in Pat and Tiffany's life try to help them get "better" they end up doing it themselves by being around each other.
The relationship between these two get compounded dramatically when outside influences make their presence known. Namely Pat's dad and one of Pat's friends. The intentions are good but they are also self serving which cause disruptions with Pat and Tiffany's mutual recovery. This is where the film loses me a bit. I wasn't a fan of Pat Sr's interference in Pat's life in order for his own personal benefit. To be that selfish with your son who's battling major demons was reprehensible to me. That being said it provided a nice segue to the end of the film when everyone and everything comes to a head.
The film follows the same rom-com blueprint from act two to act three but feels so different due to the main component with the lead characters. It's not everyday you see a film about the budding relationship between two people that are considered nuts. The only other objection I had with Silver Linings Playbook is it's classification. This movie is more of a dramedy than a straight up comedy. This continues to be a tactic used by the "brain"trust at the studios to stir audience interest. Sometimes it works but I think for this film it may backfire. There's always the chance that people are going into this one expecting something completely different from what they actually get. Then you have to deal with the fallout.
Always a risky gamble but then again what gamble isn't.
All in all. Silver Linings Playbook is a really good film with some kinks along the way. The best part is that those kinks don't derail the point this movie is trying to make.
And that's always a good thing.
On the 5 star scale. Silver Linings Playbook gets 4 stars with a "Go See It!" recommendation.
That's a wrap. Up next is Hitchcock.
Until Next Episode...."I'll Save You A Seat!"
"D"
Today's review is Silver Linings Playbook.
Written & Directed by David O. Russell.
Based on the novel "Silver Linings Playbook". Written by Matthew Quick.
Review #196
MPAA Rating: Rated R for language and some sexual content/nudity.
Run Time: 122 min
Cast
Bradley Cooper...Pat
Jennifer Lawrence...Tiffany
Robert De Niro...Pat Sr.
Jacki Weaver...Dolores
Chris Tucker...Danny
Anupam Kher...Dr. Cliff Patel
John Ortiz...Ronnie
Shea Whigham...Jake
Julia Stiles...Veronica
Brea Bee...Nikki
David O. Russell has a pretty impressive filmography in both writing and directing. Some of his best hits include Spanking the Monkey, Three Kings, I Heart Huckabees and The Fighter. One thing Russell seems to do in all of his films is take the material as seriously as possible, whether he wrote the script or not. He also finds a way to bring some levity into a very dramatic situations. His finest example of that is this film here.
Plot
After a stint in a mental institution, former teacher Pat Solitano moves back in with his parents and tries to reconcile with his ex-wife. Things get more challenging when Pat meets Tiffany, a mysterious girl with problems of her own.
Silver Linings Playbook looked like a run of the mill football rom-com. That's what it appeared on the surface. It was also marketed that way to get butts in the seats. What this movie actually is is a deeper statement on how people handle loved ones with mental problems. While watching I became disappointed in what I was seeing. In hindsight I was thrilled that I was. This film was so much better than I expected, I just gave up on any expectations and just soaked in all of the drama and intrigue these characters provided in the two hours I was in my seat.
Bradley Cooper headlines the performances in what can easily be considered his breakout and best role of his career. He plays Pat with a wounded yet focused mindset. His goals are both realistic and a pipe dream. It was tough to watch him fall into denial about his situation. Then see him explode with rage when he feels cornered while everyone around him is trying to support him. Those scenes were not pretty but they painted Pat's picture to a tee.
Then comes the stunning and ferociously hot Jennifer Lawrence to throw a monkey wrench into Pat's ultimate plan. Tiffany is also dealing with "problems" of her own that have given her a nasty reputation. The combination of these two would seem toxic and ill advised but as the saying goes. "It takes one to know one." That boys and girls is the rub of this movie. While everyone in Pat and Tiffany's life try to help them get "better" they end up doing it themselves by being around each other.
The relationship between these two get compounded dramatically when outside influences make their presence known. Namely Pat's dad and one of Pat's friends. The intentions are good but they are also self serving which cause disruptions with Pat and Tiffany's mutual recovery. This is where the film loses me a bit. I wasn't a fan of Pat Sr's interference in Pat's life in order for his own personal benefit. To be that selfish with your son who's battling major demons was reprehensible to me. That being said it provided a nice segue to the end of the film when everyone and everything comes to a head.
The film follows the same rom-com blueprint from act two to act three but feels so different due to the main component with the lead characters. It's not everyday you see a film about the budding relationship between two people that are considered nuts. The only other objection I had with Silver Linings Playbook is it's classification. This movie is more of a dramedy than a straight up comedy. This continues to be a tactic used by the "brain"trust at the studios to stir audience interest. Sometimes it works but I think for this film it may backfire. There's always the chance that people are going into this one expecting something completely different from what they actually get. Then you have to deal with the fallout.
Always a risky gamble but then again what gamble isn't.
All in all. Silver Linings Playbook is a really good film with some kinks along the way. The best part is that those kinks don't derail the point this movie is trying to make.
And that's always a good thing.
On the 5 star scale. Silver Linings Playbook gets 4 stars with a "Go See It!" recommendation.
That's a wrap. Up next is Hitchcock.
Until Next Episode...."I'll Save You A Seat!"
"D"
The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey
Welcome to another episode of Lights....Camera....Popcorn!
Today's review is The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey.
Directed by Peter Jackson.
Written by Peter Jackson, Fran Walsh, Philippa Boyens & Guillermo Del Toro.
Based on the novel "The Hobbit". Written by J.R.R. Tolkien.
Review #195
MPAA Rating: Rated PG-13 for extended sequences of intense fantasy action violence, and frightening images.
Run Time: 169 min
Cast
Ian McKellen...Gandalf
Martin Freeman...Bilbo
Richard Armitage...Thorin
Ken Stott...Balin
Graham McTavish...Dwalin
William Kircher...Bifur / Tom Troll
James Nesbitt...Bofur
Stephen Hunter...Bombur
Dean O'Gorman...Fili
Aidan Turner...Kili
John Callen...Oin
Peter Hambleton...Gloin / William Troll
Jed Brophy...Nori
Mark Hadlow...Dori / Bert Troll
Adam Brown...Ori
Ian Holm...Old Bilbo
Elijah Wood...Frodo
Hugo Weaving...Elrond
Cate Blanchett...Galadriel
Christopher Lee...Saruman
Andy Serkis...Gollum
Sylvester McCoy...Radagast
The Lord of The Rings was and remains today the finest example of fantasy in every possible sense of the word. The books are stunning and detailed down to the last blade of the grass in the shire. Then the films came and if there was ever a way to transport the written page to the silver screen, Peter Jackson and his brilliance gave us a trilogy of films that were as majestic as they were magical.
There are some gripes with the trilogy. Most of them fall along the films run times. Anyone who complains about that aren't true Rings fans. The only way to properly capture the expansive universe of Middle Earth is by giving us as much as humanly possible. The balance may have been tipped over a bit but it was for the greater good as we were treated to some of the closest page to picture translations that has ever been attempted.
Fast forward 8 years after The Lord of The Rings: The Return of The King, we all get to take another journey back to Middle Earth with the story that started it all.
Plot
A younger and more reluctant Hobbit, Bilbo Baggins, sets out on a "unexpected journey" to the Lonely Mountain with a spirited group of Dwarves to reclaim a their stolen mountain home from a dragon named Smaug.
I have to be honest. While I was glad and very excited that The Hobbit was being made, I prefer The Lord of The Rings by a very wide margin. This is with the knowledge that my favorite character in all of the books, Gandalf is more prominent in The Hobbit than in The Rings. The Hobbit though fun and adventurous doesn't have as many rich characters or compelling story lines. This is the first thing that you experience while watching this film.
Since this is technically a prequel to The Lord of The Rings, having seen what happens to Middle Earth 60 years after the events of The Hobbit kind of washes away the shine that this film should have. In fact it's quite similar to the Star Wars saga with one MAJOR exception. The prequels didn't and won't suck major ass!
OK. Let's get the director out of the way. Believe it or not, Peter Jackson was not hired to direct The Hobbit. That assignment was given to super mega geek Guillermo Del Toro. He was writing the script and was going to direct two Hobbit films. This scared a lot of people because Jackson had declined to do more Middle Earth movies. I wasn't one of these people. I, for one was thrilled that Del Toro was going to give this a shot. He's one of my favorite directors who's just a massive geek that can tell the hell out of a story.
Need proof? I have two words for you.
Pan's Labyrinth.
Case closed.
Sadly scheduling and denied budget conflicts forced Del Toro to back out of the project. This left New Line Cinema scrambling to find someone to take over. The names bantered about where in a word scary. Michael Bay, Stephen Sommers, McG, Sam Raimi just to name a few. Things looked somewhat bleak until finally the man himself was convinced to get back in the chair and take us all back to the land of Hobbits, Dwarves, Wizards and Elves.
Though I would've loved to have seen what Del Toro would have done with the material, the fact remains that Peter Jackson is truthfully the only man for the job. He did such an amazing job with the Rings trilogy that it would be impossible to see anyone else taking the reigns of the franchise. Having said that you have to be careful what you wish for because you might get it. What we get is more of the same from Jackson which is both good and bad.
First the good.
Jackson hasn't lost a step. This film looks and feels exactly like I remembered 11 years ago when The Fellowship of The Ring came out. The scenery was stunning. The characters that overlap both books were a sight for sore eyes and the new characters were a treat also. The action was tremendous. There were quite a few wonderful action set pieces here that rival what was seen and done in the previous three films. The special effects were of course top notch. WETA workshop is by far the best FX house in the world.
I can't wait to see what Smaug looks like in full form.
Just like the other Rings films. The Hobbit is full of wonderful performances by some top notch actors. Sir Ian McKellen is now and forever will be Gandalf. The man oozes wizard. Martin Freeman does a very good job giving us a sense of what Bilbo was like as a younger more adventurous hobbit. Hugo Waeving, Cate Blanchett & Christopher Lee all shine as Lord Elrond, Galadriel and Saruman respectively. However, the star of this show is Thorin Oakenshield played by Richard Armitage. Just like The Fellowship of The Rings establishes Frodo. The Hobbit establishes Thorin. He's the driving force of this film in more ways than one. He provides the leadership and motivation for the dwarves to try and take back their home from Smaug. I could be wrong he seemed a little more angry and prejudiced towards Bilbo as I remember from the book. This may have been a plot device to get Bilbo more involved since Thorin is the main man here.
Here's where a little of the bad comes in. Because The Hobbit has to introduce new characters to the audience, Jackson spends a lot of time, A LOT of time going through story exposition and flashbacks. All designed to get us through the events led up to where we are now. In The Fellowship of The Ring that took about 5-10 min right at the top. It was the fastest condensed display of several chapters of the book that I have ever seen. The point is that they pulled it off well and The Hobbit doesn't. It just drags. The film doesn't pick up until the group heads out for their quest and that's a good 30 plus minutes in.
That's way too long to get things going.
The rest of the film is full of story exposition but it's designed to set up the future installments of this new trilogy. Which segues nicely into the decision late in production to turn The Hobbit from initially two films to three. As much As I love these movies (and I do LOVE these movies) there is such a thing as too much of a good thing and Jackson and co are testing the fans acceptance and tolerance level. This plan of attack worked for The Lord of The Rings for the obvious reason that it was a trilogy of books. The Hobbit is just one book and a rather short book at that. I have no idea how they are getting three films out of this. The argument can be made that dividing it up into three parts gives them a chance to flesh out smaller characters and plot lines. That was very evident in chapter one of this new trilogy.
That philosophy makes sense but there comes a time where you have to know when to cut your losses and move the story along. This is the "problem" of having a director who's such a fan of the material. Jackson wants to show everything and that's just not possible. I admire and appreciate the passion and attempt but you also have to cater to the non rings fans just as much and the true fans if not more so. The true fans will already be there and show up in droves. The opening weekend's take of $84.6 million beans is proof of that. You have to appeal to the lesser known crowd and if you make a film that times out at just under three hours, you are skating on very thin ice.
This was more evident here than in the other films. I think it's because the material though rich in it's own rights just isn't deep enough to spread across three films. I'm willing to hold out judgement until I've seen the final two. I just hope the dragon is seen before reel three of the final film.
All told. The Hobbit was a very good film and it was great to see Middle Earth again. I just hope that the next two entries do what The Two Towers and The Return of The King did for Lord of The Rings. They enhanced the experience and put a bow on the adventure.
We'll find out December 13, 2013 and as always....
I'll be ready!
On the 5 star scale. The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey gets 4 stars with a "Go See It!" recommendation.
That's a wrap for today. Up next is Silver Linings Playbook.
Until Next Episode...."I'll Save You A Seat!"
"D"
Today's review is The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey.
Directed by Peter Jackson.
Written by Peter Jackson, Fran Walsh, Philippa Boyens & Guillermo Del Toro.
Based on the novel "The Hobbit". Written by J.R.R. Tolkien.
Review #195
MPAA Rating: Rated PG-13 for extended sequences of intense fantasy action violence, and frightening images.
Run Time: 169 min
Cast
Ian McKellen...Gandalf
Martin Freeman...Bilbo
Richard Armitage...Thorin
Ken Stott...Balin
Graham McTavish...Dwalin
William Kircher...Bifur / Tom Troll
James Nesbitt...Bofur
Stephen Hunter...Bombur
Dean O'Gorman...Fili
Aidan Turner...Kili
John Callen...Oin
Peter Hambleton...Gloin / William Troll
Jed Brophy...Nori
Mark Hadlow...Dori / Bert Troll
Adam Brown...Ori
Ian Holm...Old Bilbo
Elijah Wood...Frodo
Hugo Weaving...Elrond
Cate Blanchett...Galadriel
Christopher Lee...Saruman
Andy Serkis...Gollum
Sylvester McCoy...Radagast
The Lord of The Rings was and remains today the finest example of fantasy in every possible sense of the word. The books are stunning and detailed down to the last blade of the grass in the shire. Then the films came and if there was ever a way to transport the written page to the silver screen, Peter Jackson and his brilliance gave us a trilogy of films that were as majestic as they were magical.
There are some gripes with the trilogy. Most of them fall along the films run times. Anyone who complains about that aren't true Rings fans. The only way to properly capture the expansive universe of Middle Earth is by giving us as much as humanly possible. The balance may have been tipped over a bit but it was for the greater good as we were treated to some of the closest page to picture translations that has ever been attempted.
Fast forward 8 years after The Lord of The Rings: The Return of The King, we all get to take another journey back to Middle Earth with the story that started it all.
Plot
A younger and more reluctant Hobbit, Bilbo Baggins, sets out on a "unexpected journey" to the Lonely Mountain with a spirited group of Dwarves to reclaim a their stolen mountain home from a dragon named Smaug.
I have to be honest. While I was glad and very excited that The Hobbit was being made, I prefer The Lord of The Rings by a very wide margin. This is with the knowledge that my favorite character in all of the books, Gandalf is more prominent in The Hobbit than in The Rings. The Hobbit though fun and adventurous doesn't have as many rich characters or compelling story lines. This is the first thing that you experience while watching this film.
Since this is technically a prequel to The Lord of The Rings, having seen what happens to Middle Earth 60 years after the events of The Hobbit kind of washes away the shine that this film should have. In fact it's quite similar to the Star Wars saga with one MAJOR exception. The prequels didn't and won't suck major ass!
OK. Let's get the director out of the way. Believe it or not, Peter Jackson was not hired to direct The Hobbit. That assignment was given to super mega geek Guillermo Del Toro. He was writing the script and was going to direct two Hobbit films. This scared a lot of people because Jackson had declined to do more Middle Earth movies. I wasn't one of these people. I, for one was thrilled that Del Toro was going to give this a shot. He's one of my favorite directors who's just a massive geek that can tell the hell out of a story.
Need proof? I have two words for you.
Pan's Labyrinth.
Case closed.
Sadly scheduling and denied budget conflicts forced Del Toro to back out of the project. This left New Line Cinema scrambling to find someone to take over. The names bantered about where in a word scary. Michael Bay, Stephen Sommers, McG, Sam Raimi just to name a few. Things looked somewhat bleak until finally the man himself was convinced to get back in the chair and take us all back to the land of Hobbits, Dwarves, Wizards and Elves.
Though I would've loved to have seen what Del Toro would have done with the material, the fact remains that Peter Jackson is truthfully the only man for the job. He did such an amazing job with the Rings trilogy that it would be impossible to see anyone else taking the reigns of the franchise. Having said that you have to be careful what you wish for because you might get it. What we get is more of the same from Jackson which is both good and bad.
First the good.
Jackson hasn't lost a step. This film looks and feels exactly like I remembered 11 years ago when The Fellowship of The Ring came out. The scenery was stunning. The characters that overlap both books were a sight for sore eyes and the new characters were a treat also. The action was tremendous. There were quite a few wonderful action set pieces here that rival what was seen and done in the previous three films. The special effects were of course top notch. WETA workshop is by far the best FX house in the world.
I can't wait to see what Smaug looks like in full form.
Just like the other Rings films. The Hobbit is full of wonderful performances by some top notch actors. Sir Ian McKellen is now and forever will be Gandalf. The man oozes wizard. Martin Freeman does a very good job giving us a sense of what Bilbo was like as a younger more adventurous hobbit. Hugo Waeving, Cate Blanchett & Christopher Lee all shine as Lord Elrond, Galadriel and Saruman respectively. However, the star of this show is Thorin Oakenshield played by Richard Armitage. Just like The Fellowship of The Rings establishes Frodo. The Hobbit establishes Thorin. He's the driving force of this film in more ways than one. He provides the leadership and motivation for the dwarves to try and take back their home from Smaug. I could be wrong he seemed a little more angry and prejudiced towards Bilbo as I remember from the book. This may have been a plot device to get Bilbo more involved since Thorin is the main man here.
Here's where a little of the bad comes in. Because The Hobbit has to introduce new characters to the audience, Jackson spends a lot of time, A LOT of time going through story exposition and flashbacks. All designed to get us through the events led up to where we are now. In The Fellowship of The Ring that took about 5-10 min right at the top. It was the fastest condensed display of several chapters of the book that I have ever seen. The point is that they pulled it off well and The Hobbit doesn't. It just drags. The film doesn't pick up until the group heads out for their quest and that's a good 30 plus minutes in.
That's way too long to get things going.
The rest of the film is full of story exposition but it's designed to set up the future installments of this new trilogy. Which segues nicely into the decision late in production to turn The Hobbit from initially two films to three. As much As I love these movies (and I do LOVE these movies) there is such a thing as too much of a good thing and Jackson and co are testing the fans acceptance and tolerance level. This plan of attack worked for The Lord of The Rings for the obvious reason that it was a trilogy of books. The Hobbit is just one book and a rather short book at that. I have no idea how they are getting three films out of this. The argument can be made that dividing it up into three parts gives them a chance to flesh out smaller characters and plot lines. That was very evident in chapter one of this new trilogy.
That philosophy makes sense but there comes a time where you have to know when to cut your losses and move the story along. This is the "problem" of having a director who's such a fan of the material. Jackson wants to show everything and that's just not possible. I admire and appreciate the passion and attempt but you also have to cater to the non rings fans just as much and the true fans if not more so. The true fans will already be there and show up in droves. The opening weekend's take of $84.6 million beans is proof of that. You have to appeal to the lesser known crowd and if you make a film that times out at just under three hours, you are skating on very thin ice.
This was more evident here than in the other films. I think it's because the material though rich in it's own rights just isn't deep enough to spread across three films. I'm willing to hold out judgement until I've seen the final two. I just hope the dragon is seen before reel three of the final film.
All told. The Hobbit was a very good film and it was great to see Middle Earth again. I just hope that the next two entries do what The Two Towers and The Return of The King did for Lord of The Rings. They enhanced the experience and put a bow on the adventure.
We'll find out December 13, 2013 and as always....
I'll be ready!
On the 5 star scale. The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey gets 4 stars with a "Go See It!" recommendation.
That's a wrap for today. Up next is Silver Linings Playbook.
Until Next Episode...."I'll Save You A Seat!"
"D"
Life of Pi
Welcome to another episode of Lights....Camera....Popcorn!
Today's review is Life of Pi.
Directed by Ang Lee.
Written by David Magee.
Based on the novel "Life of Pi". Written by Yann Martel.
Review #194
MPAA Rating: Rated PG for emotional thematic content throughout, and some scary action sequences and peril.
Run Time: 127 min
Cast
Suraj Sharma...Pi Patel
Irrfan Khan...Adult Pi Patel
Ayush Tandon...Pi Patel (11 / 12 Years)
Gautam Belur...Pi Patel (5 Years)
Adil Hussain...Santosh Patel
Tabu...Gita Patel
Ayan Khan...Ravi Patel (7 Years)
Mohd Abbas Khaleeli...Ravi Patel (13 / 14 Years)
Vibish Sivakumar...Ravi Patel (18 / 19 Years)
Rafe Spall...Writer
Gérard Depardieu...Cook
James Saito...Older Insurance Investigator
Jun Naito...Younger Insurance Investigator
Andrea Di Stefano...Priest
Shravanthi Sainath...Anandi
Ang Lee....Where have you been? It's been a while since you've made a film. He's almost becoming the Daniel Day Lewis of directors. To be honest I'm not complaining because the films he's making are good ones. Really good ones.
This includes Hulk for all you haters.
My personal favorite is obviously Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon. That film was a masterpiece in every sense of the word. The writing, the acting, the visuals and of course the fight choreography. The entire film was a true work of art that got royally SCREWED by the Academy in 2000. I don't care what you say, to suggest that Gladiator was a better film worthy of Best Picture is absurd. That inferior picture won on a technicality. The Academy was never going to give a foreign language film Best Picture especially when there's a Best Foreign film category.
It's a tragedy and a travesty that I clearly have not let go because I never hesitate to rant about this.
Nevertheless, Lee's work has ranged from Martial Arts spectacles to Comic Books to his specialty. Drama. He now adds a new genre to his library.
Adventure.
Life of Pi falls into that category but in a ways that you might not be accustomed to. It doesn't matter because this was a fabulous film.
Plot
A young man who survives a disaster at sea is hurtled into an epic journey of adventure and discovery. While cast away, he forms an unexpected connection with another survivor ... a fearsome Bengal tiger.
There is a very important thing to remember here. The film is such a visual masterpiece that it's very easy to get swept away in it and lose touch of the story Life of Pi is trying to tell. This film revolves around three words.
Survival. Faith. Hope.
These words may seem simple but are far more complex in the context Life of Pi presents them. Pi's journey begins with his many faiths and what they mean to him. Instead of questioning the many forms god takes, he embraces them and accepts them as part of him. This of course creates confusion amongst his family as they were raised to believe the god that's based from their religion. Pi never saw it that way and it comes back to help him later on.
After the ship sinks Pi is left in the middle of the Pacific Ocean with a life boat and a group of animals. A Zebra, hyena, orangutan and last but not least. Richard Parker. The bengal tiger. I'll get to his name in a minute. The scenes that follow with Pi and the animals all feature one common thread. Survival of the fittest. One by one the animals face of against each other displaying their wild and animalistic behaviors. Then Richard Parker emerges from the boat upsetting the established order and taking control of the area. This forces Pi to fend for himself in other ways to keep himself alive.
Once it's Pi and Richard Parker left behind the survival arc surrounded Pi avoiding dying of hunger, thirst and the tiger. Being well educated, Pi comes up with ways to avoid Ricahrd Parker tearing him to pieces while adjusting to the elements and violent nature of the ocean. The constant battles between Pi and Richard Parker tests Pi's immense faith. The film does a terrific job of putting Pi through situations that any normal person of faith would waver at. Yet he continues on in believing he will be saved. Finally as he manages to co habitate with the tiger things begin to look bleaker than they already seemed. This sends Pi down a very dark place where he begins to give up any hope of a rescue.
This is what made this film such a joy to watch. You are transported into Pi's world and feel everything he feels. As you see all of the obstacles and situations that Pi is forced to deal with, you start to question if you would have been able to survive in the same scenario. I know I did and I know I would not have made it to the lifeboat let alone staying on one with a bengal tiger. This is helped by the stunning visuals that Lee and his team created. When a good majority of the movie is spent with a teenager and a tiger, there clearly isn't much opportunity for dialogue so the scenery has to act as it's own character.
That clearly happens here. This film had a beautiful story. Combine that with equally beautiful scenery and visuals then you got something going.
Ang Lee has hit another one out of the park here. His filmography is quietly or not so quietly becoming very impressive. He is an excellent story teller that has a flare for the eye, mind and heart. He knows how to manipulate them to get his point across. He keeps this up and he might become a serious powerhouse name.
If he isn't one already.
On the 5 star scale. Life of Pi gets. 4 stars with a "Worth Every Penny!" recommendation.
That's a wrap for today. Up next is The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey.
Until Next Episode...."I'll Save You A Seat!"
"D"
Today's review is Life of Pi.
Directed by Ang Lee.
Written by David Magee.
Based on the novel "Life of Pi". Written by Yann Martel.
Review #194
MPAA Rating: Rated PG for emotional thematic content throughout, and some scary action sequences and peril.
Run Time: 127 min
Cast
Suraj Sharma...Pi Patel
Irrfan Khan...Adult Pi Patel
Ayush Tandon...Pi Patel (11 / 12 Years)
Gautam Belur...Pi Patel (5 Years)
Adil Hussain...Santosh Patel
Tabu...Gita Patel
Ayan Khan...Ravi Patel (7 Years)
Mohd Abbas Khaleeli...Ravi Patel (13 / 14 Years)
Vibish Sivakumar...Ravi Patel (18 / 19 Years)
Rafe Spall...Writer
Gérard Depardieu...Cook
James Saito...Older Insurance Investigator
Jun Naito...Younger Insurance Investigator
Andrea Di Stefano...Priest
Shravanthi Sainath...Anandi
Ang Lee....Where have you been? It's been a while since you've made a film. He's almost becoming the Daniel Day Lewis of directors. To be honest I'm not complaining because the films he's making are good ones. Really good ones.
This includes Hulk for all you haters.
My personal favorite is obviously Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon. That film was a masterpiece in every sense of the word. The writing, the acting, the visuals and of course the fight choreography. The entire film was a true work of art that got royally SCREWED by the Academy in 2000. I don't care what you say, to suggest that Gladiator was a better film worthy of Best Picture is absurd. That inferior picture won on a technicality. The Academy was never going to give a foreign language film Best Picture especially when there's a Best Foreign film category.
It's a tragedy and a travesty that I clearly have not let go because I never hesitate to rant about this.
Nevertheless, Lee's work has ranged from Martial Arts spectacles to Comic Books to his specialty. Drama. He now adds a new genre to his library.
Adventure.
Life of Pi falls into that category but in a ways that you might not be accustomed to. It doesn't matter because this was a fabulous film.
Plot
A young man who survives a disaster at sea is hurtled into an epic journey of adventure and discovery. While cast away, he forms an unexpected connection with another survivor ... a fearsome Bengal tiger.
There is a very important thing to remember here. The film is such a visual masterpiece that it's very easy to get swept away in it and lose touch of the story Life of Pi is trying to tell. This film revolves around three words.
Survival. Faith. Hope.
These words may seem simple but are far more complex in the context Life of Pi presents them. Pi's journey begins with his many faiths and what they mean to him. Instead of questioning the many forms god takes, he embraces them and accepts them as part of him. This of course creates confusion amongst his family as they were raised to believe the god that's based from their religion. Pi never saw it that way and it comes back to help him later on.
After the ship sinks Pi is left in the middle of the Pacific Ocean with a life boat and a group of animals. A Zebra, hyena, orangutan and last but not least. Richard Parker. The bengal tiger. I'll get to his name in a minute. The scenes that follow with Pi and the animals all feature one common thread. Survival of the fittest. One by one the animals face of against each other displaying their wild and animalistic behaviors. Then Richard Parker emerges from the boat upsetting the established order and taking control of the area. This forces Pi to fend for himself in other ways to keep himself alive.
Once it's Pi and Richard Parker left behind the survival arc surrounded Pi avoiding dying of hunger, thirst and the tiger. Being well educated, Pi comes up with ways to avoid Ricahrd Parker tearing him to pieces while adjusting to the elements and violent nature of the ocean. The constant battles between Pi and Richard Parker tests Pi's immense faith. The film does a terrific job of putting Pi through situations that any normal person of faith would waver at. Yet he continues on in believing he will be saved. Finally as he manages to co habitate with the tiger things begin to look bleaker than they already seemed. This sends Pi down a very dark place where he begins to give up any hope of a rescue.
This is what made this film such a joy to watch. You are transported into Pi's world and feel everything he feels. As you see all of the obstacles and situations that Pi is forced to deal with, you start to question if you would have been able to survive in the same scenario. I know I did and I know I would not have made it to the lifeboat let alone staying on one with a bengal tiger. This is helped by the stunning visuals that Lee and his team created. When a good majority of the movie is spent with a teenager and a tiger, there clearly isn't much opportunity for dialogue so the scenery has to act as it's own character.
That clearly happens here. This film had a beautiful story. Combine that with equally beautiful scenery and visuals then you got something going.
Ang Lee has hit another one out of the park here. His filmography is quietly or not so quietly becoming very impressive. He is an excellent story teller that has a flare for the eye, mind and heart. He knows how to manipulate them to get his point across. He keeps this up and he might become a serious powerhouse name.
If he isn't one already.
On the 5 star scale. Life of Pi gets. 4 stars with a "Worth Every Penny!" recommendation.
That's a wrap for today. Up next is The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey.
Until Next Episode...."I'll Save You A Seat!"
"D"
Red Dawn
Welcome to another episode of Lights....Camera....Popcorn!
Today's review is Red Dawn.
Directed by Dan Bradley.
Written by Carl Ellsworth & Jeremy Passmore.
Based on the screenplay "Red Dawn" written by Kevin Reynolds & John Milius.
Screen story by Kevin Reynolds.
Review #193
MPAA Rating: PG-13 PG-13 for sequences of intense war violence and action, and for language.
Run Time: 114 min
Cast
Chris Hemsworth...Jed Eckert
Josh Peck...Matt Eckert
Josh Hutcherson...Robert Kitner
Adrianne Palicki...Toni Walsh
Isabel Lucas...Erica Martin
Connor Cruise...Daryl Jenkins
Edwin Hodge...Danny
Brett Cullen...Tom Eckert
Alyssa Diaz...Julie
Julian Alcaraz...Greg
Will Yun Lee...Captain Cho
Jeffrey Dean Morgan...Tanner
Fernando Chien...Lt. Pak
John Milius has had an interesting film career. He's written and directed for Film, TV and even Video Games. Some of his highlights include Apocalypse Now, Medal of Honor: European Assault (VG), Rome and of course Conan the Barbarian. Another film he's responsible for is 1984's Red Dawn. This was nothing special. It wasn't a great movie. In fact it might be hard to call it a good movie. The one thing it is however is a cult favorite. The premise though ridiculous as it sounded was feasible in the eyes of an audience that could care less about details and just wanted to have fun. So what does Hollywood do 28 years later?
Let's remake it.
I've given up complaining about this particular topic. Remakes will forever be linked to this generation of film making. Sadly due to the lack of vision or just plain blatant apathy. Originality and creativity is stifled and suppressed by the opportunity to make a quick buck.
It's an inevitable fact.
Now some remakes have worked. True Grit, King Kong (2005), Dawn of the Dead, Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, The Fly and Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1978) are a few off the top of my head. So there is proof that remakes can be good and even on the rarest occasions make you prefer the updated version over it's predecessor. That being said, for all the good ones there are dozens of bad ones. Real bad ones. Really really real bad ones. Where does this new Red Dawn fit? Here's a hint.
It's not on the good list.
The biggest component with all failed remakes revolve around one thing. A severe lack of attention to the original source material. The powers that be insist on trying to be original with an idea that's already been out. The way they do that is tweak some story points some major some minor. Or change the motivations of some of the main characters. This is what puts their own stamp on a film that's already been made. It's a cry for attention by egotistical Tinseltown wimps who never had a creative or original thought in their lives. This applies to all factions of the film making world. Writers, Producers and Directors are all guilty of this and should all be spanked. More importantly it's just stupid.
Clearly the phrase "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" doesn't apply to these pioneers of the motion picture industry.
What I would love to know is what goes through the heads of the people responsible for the changes that are made and who approves them. Godzilla, Psycho (1998), Swept Away, The Pink Panther and Clash of the Titans are some examples. All of them fall victim to the let's change what worked so well for the originals syndrome. What's worse is the changes that were made were so awful that these films have no chance of redemption.
What's my point you may ask? Red Dawn's biggest change was necessary to get the film made.
It's also the reason why it fails.
Plot
A group of teenagers look to save their town from an invasion of North Korean soldiers.
The original Red Dawn wasn't a revolutionary piece of film making. What it was was relevant. The film was made during a time of political unrest between The US and Russia. Hollywood took full advantage of that and cashed in on hometown pride by making Russia every film's villain. It's very similar today when you see a film and a former soldier is coming home from Iraq or Afghanistan. With North Korea being the antagonists this time around (with an assist from Russia of course) the feel isn't the same as the original.
More importantly I just didn't care.
So with the story and the villain's motivations not working out. Hopefully the action will be able to pace the film through it's typical robotic plot devices right?
NOPE!
The action was bland and uninspiring. Some slack has to be given here considering the warriors in this picture are kids or young adults who've never held a gun in their lives. This was a fact that the people behind this remake failed to capitalize. It would have given Red Dawn a bigger sense of realism if these kids were more reckless or off the mark with their weapons or tactics. Of course in this HDD generation we live in, there's no time to properly develop the training of these kids. Instead we get the always popular montage to cheat the passage of time as these knuckleheads hone their skills in the art of tactical warfare.
The end results are just pitiful and even worse nonsensical.
I realize I'm being a bit rough on this film when major liberties must be taken to watch this one. That being said the biggest crime this remake commits is that it cheats. What I mean by that is Red Dawn sets up an obstacle for the Wolverines that seems impossible. Like trying to get to a certain area unseen that's crawling with bad guys for example. And like all films loaded with lazy writing or direction, instead of devising a feasible way to solve the problem the next cut is our heroes magically at the place they needed to get to with no explanation or shots of how they got there.
They must have gone to the Damon Lindelof school of screenwriting.
These are things I can't forgive. Even for a film as silly as this one. Now the obvious response I hear is "If you're so smart Damien, How would you have done it differently?" My answer is always the same. I would NEVER put my characters in a situation that I couldn't write them out of in a plausible way. Everyone's got an imagination but it's important to reign that in to a certain degree so story integrity can be maintained. That doesn't happen here at any point and the movie falls apart because of it. The rest of the subplots also just feel thrown in to give the characters some form of humanity but it doesn't work when they don't feel human before hand.
I will give this film one piece of credit. They had the balls to throw a major twist to one of the main characters. I have to admit I didn't see it coming and for films this bad I can spot what happened a mile away.
All told. Red Dawn was a waste of time and made at the wrong time. Then again, there's never a good time to make a bad film.
On the 5 star scale. Red Dawn gets .5 stars with a "Save The Loot!" recommendation.
That's a wrap for today. Up next is Life of Pi.
Until Next Episode...."I'll Save You A Seat!"
"D"
Today's review is Red Dawn.
Directed by Dan Bradley.
Written by Carl Ellsworth & Jeremy Passmore.
Based on the screenplay "Red Dawn" written by Kevin Reynolds & John Milius.
Screen story by Kevin Reynolds.
Review #193
MPAA Rating: PG-13 PG-13 for sequences of intense war violence and action, and for language.
Run Time: 114 min
Cast
Chris Hemsworth...Jed Eckert
Josh Peck...Matt Eckert
Josh Hutcherson...Robert Kitner
Adrianne Palicki...Toni Walsh
Isabel Lucas...Erica Martin
Connor Cruise...Daryl Jenkins
Edwin Hodge...Danny
Brett Cullen...Tom Eckert
Alyssa Diaz...Julie
Julian Alcaraz...Greg
Will Yun Lee...Captain Cho
Jeffrey Dean Morgan...Tanner
Fernando Chien...Lt. Pak
John Milius has had an interesting film career. He's written and directed for Film, TV and even Video Games. Some of his highlights include Apocalypse Now, Medal of Honor: European Assault (VG), Rome and of course Conan the Barbarian. Another film he's responsible for is 1984's Red Dawn. This was nothing special. It wasn't a great movie. In fact it might be hard to call it a good movie. The one thing it is however is a cult favorite. The premise though ridiculous as it sounded was feasible in the eyes of an audience that could care less about details and just wanted to have fun. So what does Hollywood do 28 years later?
Let's remake it.
I've given up complaining about this particular topic. Remakes will forever be linked to this generation of film making. Sadly due to the lack of vision or just plain blatant apathy. Originality and creativity is stifled and suppressed by the opportunity to make a quick buck.
It's an inevitable fact.
Now some remakes have worked. True Grit, King Kong (2005), Dawn of the Dead, Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, The Fly and Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1978) are a few off the top of my head. So there is proof that remakes can be good and even on the rarest occasions make you prefer the updated version over it's predecessor. That being said, for all the good ones there are dozens of bad ones. Real bad ones. Really really real bad ones. Where does this new Red Dawn fit? Here's a hint.
It's not on the good list.
The biggest component with all failed remakes revolve around one thing. A severe lack of attention to the original source material. The powers that be insist on trying to be original with an idea that's already been out. The way they do that is tweak some story points some major some minor. Or change the motivations of some of the main characters. This is what puts their own stamp on a film that's already been made. It's a cry for attention by egotistical Tinseltown wimps who never had a creative or original thought in their lives. This applies to all factions of the film making world. Writers, Producers and Directors are all guilty of this and should all be spanked. More importantly it's just stupid.
Clearly the phrase "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" doesn't apply to these pioneers of the motion picture industry.
What I would love to know is what goes through the heads of the people responsible for the changes that are made and who approves them. Godzilla, Psycho (1998), Swept Away, The Pink Panther and Clash of the Titans are some examples. All of them fall victim to the let's change what worked so well for the originals syndrome. What's worse is the changes that were made were so awful that these films have no chance of redemption.
What's my point you may ask? Red Dawn's biggest change was necessary to get the film made.
It's also the reason why it fails.
Plot
A group of teenagers look to save their town from an invasion of North Korean soldiers.
The original Red Dawn wasn't a revolutionary piece of film making. What it was was relevant. The film was made during a time of political unrest between The US and Russia. Hollywood took full advantage of that and cashed in on hometown pride by making Russia every film's villain. It's very similar today when you see a film and a former soldier is coming home from Iraq or Afghanistan. With North Korea being the antagonists this time around (with an assist from Russia of course) the feel isn't the same as the original.
More importantly I just didn't care.
So with the story and the villain's motivations not working out. Hopefully the action will be able to pace the film through it's typical robotic plot devices right?
NOPE!
The action was bland and uninspiring. Some slack has to be given here considering the warriors in this picture are kids or young adults who've never held a gun in their lives. This was a fact that the people behind this remake failed to capitalize. It would have given Red Dawn a bigger sense of realism if these kids were more reckless or off the mark with their weapons or tactics. Of course in this HDD generation we live in, there's no time to properly develop the training of these kids. Instead we get the always popular montage to cheat the passage of time as these knuckleheads hone their skills in the art of tactical warfare.
The end results are just pitiful and even worse nonsensical.
I realize I'm being a bit rough on this film when major liberties must be taken to watch this one. That being said the biggest crime this remake commits is that it cheats. What I mean by that is Red Dawn sets up an obstacle for the Wolverines that seems impossible. Like trying to get to a certain area unseen that's crawling with bad guys for example. And like all films loaded with lazy writing or direction, instead of devising a feasible way to solve the problem the next cut is our heroes magically at the place they needed to get to with no explanation or shots of how they got there.
They must have gone to the Damon Lindelof school of screenwriting.
These are things I can't forgive. Even for a film as silly as this one. Now the obvious response I hear is "If you're so smart Damien, How would you have done it differently?" My answer is always the same. I would NEVER put my characters in a situation that I couldn't write them out of in a plausible way. Everyone's got an imagination but it's important to reign that in to a certain degree so story integrity can be maintained. That doesn't happen here at any point and the movie falls apart because of it. The rest of the subplots also just feel thrown in to give the characters some form of humanity but it doesn't work when they don't feel human before hand.
I will give this film one piece of credit. They had the balls to throw a major twist to one of the main characters. I have to admit I didn't see it coming and for films this bad I can spot what happened a mile away.
All told. Red Dawn was a waste of time and made at the wrong time. Then again, there's never a good time to make a bad film.
On the 5 star scale. Red Dawn gets .5 stars with a "Save The Loot!" recommendation.
That's a wrap for today. Up next is Life of Pi.
Until Next Episode...."I'll Save You A Seat!"
"D"
Lincoln
Welcome to another episode of Lights....Camera....Popcorn!
Today's review is Lincoln.
Directed by Steven Spielberg.
Written by Tony Kushner.
Based in part by the book "Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln" written by Doris Kearns Goodwin.
Review #192
MPAA Rating: PG-13 for an intense scene of war violence, some images of carnage and brief strong language.
Run Time: 147 min
Cast
Daniel Day-Lewis...Abraham Lincoln
Sally Field...Mary Todd Lincoln
David Strathairn...William Seward
Joseph Gordon-Levitt...Robert Lincoln
James Spader...W.N. Bilbo
Hal Holbrook...Preston Blair
Tommy Lee Jones...Thaddeus Stevens
John Hawkes...Robert Latham
Jackie Earle Haley...Alexander Stephens
Bruce McGill...Edwin Stanton
Tim Blake Nelson...Richard Schell
Joseph Cross...John Hay
Jared Harris...Ulysses S. Grant
Abraham Lincoln is unquestionably one of American history's most polarizing figures. No matter what side of the fence you stand on that last statement. The fact remains that it's a fact. Plain and simple. The problem with history in general is that it's very hard to prove or disprove what took place during that time.
It reminds me of two sayings that have stuck with me when it comes to history.
1) History is written by the winners.
The second one comes from the film The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance starring Jimmy Stewart.
2) When the legend becomes fact, print the legend.
That one's my favorite because it's the truest expression and explanation of history. We've all heard stories about historical figures or events that were "tweaked" to improve or weaken the strength of the story and the people involved.
No historical dignitary is immune to this practice. Including one of this countries most famous president's. From the accounts of his height to him slaying vampires. Honest Abe has become a form of pop culture. OK, I was kidding about the vampires. My point is that thanks to three people. Steven Spielberg, Tony Kushner and Daniel Day Lewis.
We all have a movie about Lincoln worth watching.
Plot
As the Civil War continues to rage, America's president struggles with continuing carnage on the battlefield and as he fights with many inside his own cabinet on the decision to emancipate the slaves.
So what is is about this film that makes it watchable? Three words.
Daniel Day Lewis.
Of course you all should have seen that coming.
The two-time Oscar winner is known as one of the most selective actors in the film industry, having starred in only five films since 1997, with as many as five years between roles. Does this carry any specific meaning? Yes and no. The bigger point to make is because of Lewis' picky nature, if he does decide to be in your film you are going to get the absolute best out of him. That will automatically give your project some serious credibility. Now I'm not suggesting that he's the only actor that goes the extra mile when performing or taking roles. I am saying that a man who's as talented as he is surely in the highest demand and to be in the position to just sit back and have scripts handed to you is a power that very few in the business carry. It's a power that he deserves to have after turning in some of the finest performances in recent memory.
I'm still scared to death of Daniel Plainview and the man doesn't exist.
As he's done with all of his roles, Lewis completely and absolutely immerses himself in the character. The man truly was Abraham Lincoln in almost every conceivable detail. From his deliberate gait, to the slight hunched over posture to his imposing stature when he does stand at attention. It's as close as you can get to the real man. But the finest part of Lewis performance came from his ability to express impeccable patience in the face of adversity. Adversity that came at him from all fronts. His administration, his family and the dueling parties.
The scene that best exhibits this is one of the many meetings Lincoln has with his people and representatives of the Democratic party. After letting the warring parties go back and forth Lincoln finally loses it and makes his point in as forceful a manner as you could get without flipping over the table in the room. He reminds everyone that even though he needs bi partisan support to get the 13th amendment passed that he's still the commander in chief. He does that with one simple line that resonated through me as he uttered it.
"I'm the president of the United States, clothed in immense power!"
Awesome.
Of course none of this is possible without the support and performances of the rest of the cast. On both sides of the argument, both parties make cases for their support or opposition of the 13th. This is what ultimately drives the film. Lincoln can only do so much here. The momentum of the film is carried through the "fighting" government bodies. What made this movie so good was the feeling of a running clock. Lincoln wanted and needed the amendment to be passed by a certain date. I won't say why but if you remember your history you know the reason. That hustle to get it done was felt throughout the film that at times gets very slow.
Slow in this case doesn't necessarily mean dragging. We're not talking about that horrendous vampire hunter film. Apart from some quick scenes of the civil war going on, there was no action in this film. The true action in Lincoln came from the infighting between political parties and the back alley games that are played to gain or lose favor with swing voters. If the film drags at all, you could make the case that it does when the characters make speeches. The dialogue in Lincoln gets preachy at times. Lincoln among other high profile men pontificate when making their points. It felt like a bit of over kill at some spots but you forget about that when seeing the performance behind the monologue.
If there's a gripe to be had concerning the plot. I would say it's the lack of attention to some other sub plots that play through the main story. This is mainly focus at the mini drama surrounding Lincoln and his family. He has a crisis of conscience when dealing with his oldest son wanting to join the army. The dynamic runs it's course but it feels short changed while the debate over the 13th amendment rages on.
This was a tricky path because Spielberg's latest batch of films all had that one draggy stretch in them that brought down the film's overall stock. Lincoln isn't exempt but it felt like it was. Perhaps it was the subject matter or the time period but it didn't have the same sensation. Another aspect of the film that I really enjoyed was the music or lack of to be more exact. John Williams is one of the best composers in this industry. Having said that Spielberg tends to let his music drive through scenes that in my opinion don't need them. I can't explain why that is other than personal preference but in this case the score was very limited and it did the film a major service. The energy and emotion of some of the scenes that were score less were so compelling that I shutter to think how they would have sounded with Williams' orchestral tones flowing through it.
Bottom line, I liked Lincoln a lot more than I expected to. It's surely in line for Oscar consideration. Best Picture, Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Director and Best Actor are most likely candidates. Normally I would go ahead and anoint Lewis as the Best Actor winner but it's way too early to make that call. H's probably the front runner right now but we all know there's a hidden gem out there that could unseat the favorite. It was a fabulous performance but not the best of his career. He's already had that with Daniel Plainview.
Regardless, this was a film worth watching for Lewis' performance and the sweeping story that surrounded him throughout. Spielberg went back to some of his old school tricks that made him the film maker he is today and it paid off big time here.
On the 5 star scale. Lincoln gets 4 stars with a "Worth Every Penny!" recommendation.
That's a wrap for today. Up next is Red Dawn.
Until Next Episode...."I'll Save You A Seat!"
"D"
Today's review is Lincoln.
Directed by Steven Spielberg.
Written by Tony Kushner.
Based in part by the book "Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln" written by Doris Kearns Goodwin.
Review #192
MPAA Rating: PG-13 for an intense scene of war violence, some images of carnage and brief strong language.
Run Time: 147 min
Cast
Daniel Day-Lewis...Abraham Lincoln
Sally Field...Mary Todd Lincoln
David Strathairn...William Seward
Joseph Gordon-Levitt...Robert Lincoln
James Spader...W.N. Bilbo
Hal Holbrook...Preston Blair
Tommy Lee Jones...Thaddeus Stevens
John Hawkes...Robert Latham
Jackie Earle Haley...Alexander Stephens
Bruce McGill...Edwin Stanton
Tim Blake Nelson...Richard Schell
Joseph Cross...John Hay
Jared Harris...Ulysses S. Grant
Abraham Lincoln is unquestionably one of American history's most polarizing figures. No matter what side of the fence you stand on that last statement. The fact remains that it's a fact. Plain and simple. The problem with history in general is that it's very hard to prove or disprove what took place during that time.
It reminds me of two sayings that have stuck with me when it comes to history.
1) History is written by the winners.
The second one comes from the film The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance starring Jimmy Stewart.
2) When the legend becomes fact, print the legend.
That one's my favorite because it's the truest expression and explanation of history. We've all heard stories about historical figures or events that were "tweaked" to improve or weaken the strength of the story and the people involved.
No historical dignitary is immune to this practice. Including one of this countries most famous president's. From the accounts of his height to him slaying vampires. Honest Abe has become a form of pop culture. OK, I was kidding about the vampires. My point is that thanks to three people. Steven Spielberg, Tony Kushner and Daniel Day Lewis.
We all have a movie about Lincoln worth watching.
Plot
As the Civil War continues to rage, America's president struggles with continuing carnage on the battlefield and as he fights with many inside his own cabinet on the decision to emancipate the slaves.
So what is is about this film that makes it watchable? Three words.
Daniel Day Lewis.
Of course you all should have seen that coming.
The two-time Oscar winner is known as one of the most selective actors in the film industry, having starred in only five films since 1997, with as many as five years between roles. Does this carry any specific meaning? Yes and no. The bigger point to make is because of Lewis' picky nature, if he does decide to be in your film you are going to get the absolute best out of him. That will automatically give your project some serious credibility. Now I'm not suggesting that he's the only actor that goes the extra mile when performing or taking roles. I am saying that a man who's as talented as he is surely in the highest demand and to be in the position to just sit back and have scripts handed to you is a power that very few in the business carry. It's a power that he deserves to have after turning in some of the finest performances in recent memory.
I'm still scared to death of Daniel Plainview and the man doesn't exist.
As he's done with all of his roles, Lewis completely and absolutely immerses himself in the character. The man truly was Abraham Lincoln in almost every conceivable detail. From his deliberate gait, to the slight hunched over posture to his imposing stature when he does stand at attention. It's as close as you can get to the real man. But the finest part of Lewis performance came from his ability to express impeccable patience in the face of adversity. Adversity that came at him from all fronts. His administration, his family and the dueling parties.
The scene that best exhibits this is one of the many meetings Lincoln has with his people and representatives of the Democratic party. After letting the warring parties go back and forth Lincoln finally loses it and makes his point in as forceful a manner as you could get without flipping over the table in the room. He reminds everyone that even though he needs bi partisan support to get the 13th amendment passed that he's still the commander in chief. He does that with one simple line that resonated through me as he uttered it.
"I'm the president of the United States, clothed in immense power!"
Awesome.
Of course none of this is possible without the support and performances of the rest of the cast. On both sides of the argument, both parties make cases for their support or opposition of the 13th. This is what ultimately drives the film. Lincoln can only do so much here. The momentum of the film is carried through the "fighting" government bodies. What made this movie so good was the feeling of a running clock. Lincoln wanted and needed the amendment to be passed by a certain date. I won't say why but if you remember your history you know the reason. That hustle to get it done was felt throughout the film that at times gets very slow.
Slow in this case doesn't necessarily mean dragging. We're not talking about that horrendous vampire hunter film. Apart from some quick scenes of the civil war going on, there was no action in this film. The true action in Lincoln came from the infighting between political parties and the back alley games that are played to gain or lose favor with swing voters. If the film drags at all, you could make the case that it does when the characters make speeches. The dialogue in Lincoln gets preachy at times. Lincoln among other high profile men pontificate when making their points. It felt like a bit of over kill at some spots but you forget about that when seeing the performance behind the monologue.
If there's a gripe to be had concerning the plot. I would say it's the lack of attention to some other sub plots that play through the main story. This is mainly focus at the mini drama surrounding Lincoln and his family. He has a crisis of conscience when dealing with his oldest son wanting to join the army. The dynamic runs it's course but it feels short changed while the debate over the 13th amendment rages on.
This was a tricky path because Spielberg's latest batch of films all had that one draggy stretch in them that brought down the film's overall stock. Lincoln isn't exempt but it felt like it was. Perhaps it was the subject matter or the time period but it didn't have the same sensation. Another aspect of the film that I really enjoyed was the music or lack of to be more exact. John Williams is one of the best composers in this industry. Having said that Spielberg tends to let his music drive through scenes that in my opinion don't need them. I can't explain why that is other than personal preference but in this case the score was very limited and it did the film a major service. The energy and emotion of some of the scenes that were score less were so compelling that I shutter to think how they would have sounded with Williams' orchestral tones flowing through it.
Bottom line, I liked Lincoln a lot more than I expected to. It's surely in line for Oscar consideration. Best Picture, Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Director and Best Actor are most likely candidates. Normally I would go ahead and anoint Lewis as the Best Actor winner but it's way too early to make that call. H's probably the front runner right now but we all know there's a hidden gem out there that could unseat the favorite. It was a fabulous performance but not the best of his career. He's already had that with Daniel Plainview.
Regardless, this was a film worth watching for Lewis' performance and the sweeping story that surrounded him throughout. Spielberg went back to some of his old school tricks that made him the film maker he is today and it paid off big time here.
On the 5 star scale. Lincoln gets 4 stars with a "Worth Every Penny!" recommendation.
That's a wrap for today. Up next is Red Dawn.
Until Next Episode...."I'll Save You A Seat!"
"D"
Rise of the Guardians
Welcome to another episode of Lights....Camera....Popcorn!
Today's review is Rise of the Guardians.
Directed by Peter Ramsey.
Written by David Lindsay-Abaire.
Based on the book "The Guardians of Childhood" written by William Joyce
Review #191
MPAA Rating: PG for thematic elements and some mildly scary action.
Run Time: 97 min
Cast
Chris Pine...Jack Frost (voice)
Alec Baldwin...North (voice)
Jude Law...Pitch (voice)
Isla Fisher...Tooth (voice)
Hugh Jackman...Bunny (voice)
Dakota Goyo...Jamie Bennett (voice)
Santa Claus, The Tooth Fairy, The Easter Bunny, The Sandman and Jack Frost. At some point in your lives, you believed in some or all of these characters. In one form or another. These characters have become necessities in children's lives. Of course commercialism has tainted the actual power these characters truly wield.
Rise of the Guardians wonderfully reminds you of the true purpose they serve.
Belief.
Plot
When the evil spirit Pitch launches an assault on Earth, the Immortal Guardians team up to protect the innocence of children all around the world.
Belief is a very powerful thing. It can shape the way a child or adult for that matter will act for the rest of their lives. This is the main staple of Rise of the Guardians. The belief in the existence of the the good guys and the bad guys as well. What makes this film work so well is not just it's message and visual majesty. It's the "adjustment" to the look and feel of the main characters.
Have you ever thought of Santa Cluas as a dual sword wielding Russian? How about The Easter Bunny as a boomerang tossing warrior? These were some of the changes made to these classic characters and they all worked to perfection. The guardians are employed to protect children's belief in them. If that belief is threatened then what better response is there but to fight for it and them.
This looked like a very crazy and risky concept but the writers did the smart thing and maintained each characters core components. No matter how different they look, sound or act we all still know who they are because we are given the chance to see all of them in their natural "habitat". It keeps their spirits alive and makes sure that you never forget what they are all about. I really wished I could get deeper into the characters but that would divulge some big story points so I have no choice but to stop here. Rest assured that everything with these figures fit like a glove. It makes this film no pun intended.
Magical.
As always, the animation is stellar and full of excitement. I thankfully saw this in 2D so I have no idea what the 3D version had to offer but I got a pretty good idea. Rise of the Guardians is full of fast and furious action that doesn't involve violence or fighting. There are quite a few scenes that has sweeping camera moves and POV flying. It was a treat to watch. I could tell that the 3D version would have made great use of these actions. This was another plus the film makers deserve credit for. Clearly they followed the source material and realized that if they were going to make this in detestable 3D. It was vital to take full advantage of the gimmick and give the audience their money's worth.
Rise of the Guardians is a fantastic, enchanting, wonderful film that the kids should love. It feels more like a Christmas film but releasing it just before Thanksgiving is just as good. The holiday feel is throughout this one. See this one.
You will believe again.
On the 5 star scale. Rise of the Guardians gets 4 stars with a "Worth Every Penny!" recommendation.
That's a wrap for today. Up next is Lincoln.
Until Next Episode...."I'll Save You A Seat!"
"D"
Today's review is Rise of the Guardians.
Directed by Peter Ramsey.
Written by David Lindsay-Abaire.
Based on the book "The Guardians of Childhood" written by William Joyce
Review #191
MPAA Rating: PG for thematic elements and some mildly scary action.
Run Time: 97 min
Cast
Chris Pine...Jack Frost (voice)
Alec Baldwin...North (voice)
Jude Law...Pitch (voice)
Isla Fisher...Tooth (voice)
Hugh Jackman...Bunny (voice)
Dakota Goyo...Jamie Bennett (voice)
Santa Claus, The Tooth Fairy, The Easter Bunny, The Sandman and Jack Frost. At some point in your lives, you believed in some or all of these characters. In one form or another. These characters have become necessities in children's lives. Of course commercialism has tainted the actual power these characters truly wield.
Rise of the Guardians wonderfully reminds you of the true purpose they serve.
Belief.
Plot
When the evil spirit Pitch launches an assault on Earth, the Immortal Guardians team up to protect the innocence of children all around the world.
Belief is a very powerful thing. It can shape the way a child or adult for that matter will act for the rest of their lives. This is the main staple of Rise of the Guardians. The belief in the existence of the the good guys and the bad guys as well. What makes this film work so well is not just it's message and visual majesty. It's the "adjustment" to the look and feel of the main characters.
Have you ever thought of Santa Cluas as a dual sword wielding Russian? How about The Easter Bunny as a boomerang tossing warrior? These were some of the changes made to these classic characters and they all worked to perfection. The guardians are employed to protect children's belief in them. If that belief is threatened then what better response is there but to fight for it and them.
This looked like a very crazy and risky concept but the writers did the smart thing and maintained each characters core components. No matter how different they look, sound or act we all still know who they are because we are given the chance to see all of them in their natural "habitat". It keeps their spirits alive and makes sure that you never forget what they are all about. I really wished I could get deeper into the characters but that would divulge some big story points so I have no choice but to stop here. Rest assured that everything with these figures fit like a glove. It makes this film no pun intended.
Magical.
As always, the animation is stellar and full of excitement. I thankfully saw this in 2D so I have no idea what the 3D version had to offer but I got a pretty good idea. Rise of the Guardians is full of fast and furious action that doesn't involve violence or fighting. There are quite a few scenes that has sweeping camera moves and POV flying. It was a treat to watch. I could tell that the 3D version would have made great use of these actions. This was another plus the film makers deserve credit for. Clearly they followed the source material and realized that if they were going to make this in detestable 3D. It was vital to take full advantage of the gimmick and give the audience their money's worth.
Rise of the Guardians is a fantastic, enchanting, wonderful film that the kids should love. It feels more like a Christmas film but releasing it just before Thanksgiving is just as good. The holiday feel is throughout this one. See this one.
You will believe again.
On the 5 star scale. Rise of the Guardians gets 4 stars with a "Worth Every Penny!" recommendation.
That's a wrap for today. Up next is Lincoln.
Until Next Episode...."I'll Save You A Seat!"
"D"
Flight
Welcome to another episode of Lights....Camera....Popcorn!
Today's review is Flight.
Directed by Robert Zemeckis.
Written by John Gatins.
Review #190
MPAA Rating: R for drug and alcohol abuse, language, sexuality/nudity and an intense action.
Run Time: 138 min
Cast
Denzel Washington...Whip Whitaker
Nadine Velazquez...Katerina Marquez
Tamara Tunie...Margaret Thomason
Brian Geraghty...Ken Evans
Kelly Reilly...Nicole
Bruce Greenwood...Charlie Anderson
John Goodman...Harling Mays
James Badge Dale...Gaunt Young Man
Don Cheadle...Hugh Lang
Peter Gerety...Avington Carr
Garcelle Beauvais...Deana
Justin Martin...Will
Melissa Leo...Ellen Block
For as long as I can remember. Denzel Washington has played likeable characters. Even his character in Training Day has some likeable qualities. I can't think of a role Washington played where he was just a bad person throughout.
Until now.
Plot
An airline pilot saves a flight from crashing, but an investigation into the malfunctions reveals something troubling.
The trailers don't accurately cover what actually goes on in this film. That was both a good and bad thing. Focusing on the plane crash and the subsequent investigation was a small sampling of Flight. The movie deals primarily with Washington's character and his personal demons before, during and after the plane crash. This was also both a good and bad thing. Centralizing the film around Whip was necessary. However, in doing so the rest of the film gets cheated and loses it's chance to develop around Whip's "issues".
In addition, Flight employs some supporting characters that in the grand scheme of things were important but don't play so well. There was a disconnect somewhere between taking us on Whip's journey with the people that surrounded him as he goes through it. Some of the issues that Whip goes through also border on the absurd at times. Again, some of the craziness is necessary and part of the character but the timing and some of the actions feel a bit over the top.
You'll see where. It's obvious.
There is a lot to like with Flight. The first being the plane crash. It was one of the most intense and surreal crashes I have seen in a very long time. It reminded me of the crash in Cast Away. Another Zemeckis film. The image of Tom Hanks looking in fear as the plane is about to slam into the ocean is as terrifying as you can get. Flight captures that same intensity and fear. You get an amazing view of the plan nose diving toward the ground surrounded by houses and people.
The scene was also perfectly timed as Whip and the co pilot communicate with air traffic control with the chaos going on with the passengers and crew. The scene also showed Whip's ability to handle a crisis under pressure. His co pilot is freaking out and he continues to bark directions in a calm, smooth & deliberate tone. The most chilling and realistic part of that scene was so subtle it sent chills down my spine. Whip tells one of the flight attendants to tell her son that she lovers her so the black box can record a final message in case they don't make it.
High drama at it's finest.
That may have been the visual highlight of the film but the best part of Flight is the debate it brings up.
How much forgiveness does a heroic act buy a person who's the exact opposite of how he's being portrayed?
It's a fascinating question that Flight does a terrific job exposing. Whip is to be nice flawed person. He as responsible as Honey Boo Boo's mother. The man lives for himself and looks to enjoy what he can when he can and deal with the consequences later. Seeing him as the film progresses you dislike him more and more. The fact that he could care less about the welfare of his passengers on the flight tells you all you need to know about his character.
Personal demons be damned.
Then just as the film leans toward you going against Whip, the page is flipped and stresses how his uncanny skills saved 90% of the people on that plane. Your opinions of him being to waver just a bit. Just a bit. After you start to rethink your position concerning Whip he returns to his old self and whatever sympathy he may have earned goes right out the window.
The final act of the film sets itself up for a predictable finish. What made the ending worthwhile for me at least was that there was no redemption. It gives Flight the closure it needed. The problem here is that it doesn't completely redeem the film. The movie overall is mired in subplots and underdeveloped supporting characters that don't add enough to the story for me to stay with it. Denzel and John Goodman were as expected but the rest of the cast though impressive at times just felt in the way.
Flight was a good film that took it's main character to some pretty deep places and I loved the question the film posed. I felt there was too much underdevelopment in other areas. This prevents the film from being something special.
On the 5 star scale. Flight gets 2.5 stars with a "Go See It!" recommendation.
That's a wrap for today. Up next is Rise of The Guardians.
Until Next Episode...."I'll Save You A Seat!"
"D"
Today's review is Flight.
Directed by Robert Zemeckis.
Written by John Gatins.
Review #190
MPAA Rating: R for drug and alcohol abuse, language, sexuality/nudity and an intense action.
Run Time: 138 min
Cast
Denzel Washington...Whip Whitaker
Nadine Velazquez...Katerina Marquez
Tamara Tunie...Margaret Thomason
Brian Geraghty...Ken Evans
Kelly Reilly...Nicole
Bruce Greenwood...Charlie Anderson
John Goodman...Harling Mays
James Badge Dale...Gaunt Young Man
Don Cheadle...Hugh Lang
Peter Gerety...Avington Carr
Garcelle Beauvais...Deana
Justin Martin...Will
Melissa Leo...Ellen Block
For as long as I can remember. Denzel Washington has played likeable characters. Even his character in Training Day has some likeable qualities. I can't think of a role Washington played where he was just a bad person throughout.
Until now.
Plot
An airline pilot saves a flight from crashing, but an investigation into the malfunctions reveals something troubling.
The trailers don't accurately cover what actually goes on in this film. That was both a good and bad thing. Focusing on the plane crash and the subsequent investigation was a small sampling of Flight. The movie deals primarily with Washington's character and his personal demons before, during and after the plane crash. This was also both a good and bad thing. Centralizing the film around Whip was necessary. However, in doing so the rest of the film gets cheated and loses it's chance to develop around Whip's "issues".
In addition, Flight employs some supporting characters that in the grand scheme of things were important but don't play so well. There was a disconnect somewhere between taking us on Whip's journey with the people that surrounded him as he goes through it. Some of the issues that Whip goes through also border on the absurd at times. Again, some of the craziness is necessary and part of the character but the timing and some of the actions feel a bit over the top.
You'll see where. It's obvious.
There is a lot to like with Flight. The first being the plane crash. It was one of the most intense and surreal crashes I have seen in a very long time. It reminded me of the crash in Cast Away. Another Zemeckis film. The image of Tom Hanks looking in fear as the plane is about to slam into the ocean is as terrifying as you can get. Flight captures that same intensity and fear. You get an amazing view of the plan nose diving toward the ground surrounded by houses and people.
The scene was also perfectly timed as Whip and the co pilot communicate with air traffic control with the chaos going on with the passengers and crew. The scene also showed Whip's ability to handle a crisis under pressure. His co pilot is freaking out and he continues to bark directions in a calm, smooth & deliberate tone. The most chilling and realistic part of that scene was so subtle it sent chills down my spine. Whip tells one of the flight attendants to tell her son that she lovers her so the black box can record a final message in case they don't make it.
High drama at it's finest.
That may have been the visual highlight of the film but the best part of Flight is the debate it brings up.
How much forgiveness does a heroic act buy a person who's the exact opposite of how he's being portrayed?
It's a fascinating question that Flight does a terrific job exposing. Whip is to be nice flawed person. He as responsible as Honey Boo Boo's mother. The man lives for himself and looks to enjoy what he can when he can and deal with the consequences later. Seeing him as the film progresses you dislike him more and more. The fact that he could care less about the welfare of his passengers on the flight tells you all you need to know about his character.
Personal demons be damned.
Then just as the film leans toward you going against Whip, the page is flipped and stresses how his uncanny skills saved 90% of the people on that plane. Your opinions of him being to waver just a bit. Just a bit. After you start to rethink your position concerning Whip he returns to his old self and whatever sympathy he may have earned goes right out the window.
The final act of the film sets itself up for a predictable finish. What made the ending worthwhile for me at least was that there was no redemption. It gives Flight the closure it needed. The problem here is that it doesn't completely redeem the film. The movie overall is mired in subplots and underdeveloped supporting characters that don't add enough to the story for me to stay with it. Denzel and John Goodman were as expected but the rest of the cast though impressive at times just felt in the way.
Flight was a good film that took it's main character to some pretty deep places and I loved the question the film posed. I felt there was too much underdevelopment in other areas. This prevents the film from being something special.
On the 5 star scale. Flight gets 2.5 stars with a "Go See It!" recommendation.
That's a wrap for today. Up next is Rise of The Guardians.
Until Next Episode...."I'll Save You A Seat!"
"D"
Skyfall
Welcome to another episode of Lights....Camera....Popcorn!
Today's review is Skyfall.
Directed by Sam Mendes.
Written by Neil Purvis, Robert Wade & John Logan
Based on the "James Bond" character created by Ian Fleming.
Review #189
MPAA Rating: PG-13 for intense violent sequences throughout, some sexuality, language and smoking.
Run Time: 143 min
Cast
Daniel Craig...James Bond
Judi Dench...M
Javier Bardem...Silva
Ralph Fiennes...Gareth Mallory
Naomie Harris...Eve
Bérénice Marlohe...Sévérine (as Bérénice Lim Marlohe)
Albert Finney...Kincade
Ben Whishaw...Q
Rory Kinnear...Tanner
Ola Rapace...Patrice
The Bond franchise has gone through countless changes. Whether it's the actors who play the super spy. Or the directors who make the films, the franchise has seen it's ups and downs. The Bond universe is currently enjoying a very nice up swing and there's no surprise why. The powers that be have realized that audiences today are a bit more sophisticated and while the laser equipped necktie and Aston Martin loaded with missiles and machine guns are fun. It doesn't play today as well as it used to back in Bond's hey day. So what did they do? In my opinion, they took a page from Christopher Nolan's Batman series.
They didn't just take a page. They plagiarized the whole book.
Plot
Bond's loyalty to M is tested as her past comes back to haunt her. As MI6 comes under attack, 007 must track down and destroy the threat, no matter how personal the cost.
The last three Bond films have a lot in common with Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy. The first being the actors who play the main characters. Daniel Craig and Christian Bale are phenomenal talents who are not known for comedic roles. They have played action heroes and dramatic figures. They have also played two of pop culture's most iconic characters. I don't care who you are, everyone has heard of James Bond and Batman.
Secondly, the choice of these actors to play these roles signified something very important. That being the overall tone of the films. We all know the campy nature of the Bond films and while at first Tim Burton gave us a darker version of the caped crusader. The character in the last two films morphed more into a toy making tool than completing a series of feature films. The last two Batman films were so horrendous that rebooting the franchise was not just a good idea.
It was necessary.
Nolan stripped away the cheese and started from scratch. The end result is his Batman trilogy is regarded as the only Batman series worth talking about in the annals of Tinseltown. The producers of the Bond films followed Nolan's lead and did the same thing. After Pierce Brosnan's departure, The character was taken apart and rebuilt from the ground up with fresh faces. The only holdover being Judi Dench as M. It was a bold move because there was a risk of alienating fans of the campy, silly Bond films.
The move paid off.
Casino Royale gave Bond fans of all types what they wanted. The story and villain Le Chiffre was typical of Bond's usual rogue's gallery. Only both he and his plot was modernized and grounded. This appealed to fans on both sides of the coin. That's what made it work for me. It didn't help that Craig despite his non Bond appearance played the part perfectly. He wasn't supposed to be the dashing master of espionage. He was the newly minted 007 who was still adjusting to his freshly granted license to kill. It was a great approach to the character. Craig played Bond with a lot more reckless abandon which is exactly what the franchise and the character needed. They also took Bond to a territory that hasn't been seen in a long time if ever.
Bond fell in love.
That was a major breakthrough for the character. Up until the day he met Vesper Lynd. Bond was the prototypical ladies man. No attachments to women of any kind other than pleasure. His job had a lot to do with that but he never had legitimate feelings for some one of that scale. Remember, he quit MI6 after Le Chiffre was killed and the money was returned. It was only finding out that Vesper betrayed him that he went back to work. Then in Quantum of Solace his entire motivation was finding and destroying the organization that had a hand in his girl's death. These were major changes to Bond's persona that made him more human than super human. It set things up for a promising sequel.
But then....
Quantum of Solace was not as well received as Casino Royale. I personally loved it but I do see why fans felt it was a poor sequel. Once again the suits rolled the dice and went with a sequel that maintained a form of continuity. Quantum of Solace literally begins right after Casino Royale and continues the story. It was a great idea. It just wasn't executed to it's fullest potential. So when Skyfall was announced I was wondering if they were still going to follow the thread of the first two films and blend the principal story together. They didn't.
What they did do was far more BRILLIANT!
The plot of Skyfall does something that I haven't seen from other Bond films. They took bits and pieces from other films and crafted the main story around the scraps. Here are the films that I came up with that Skyfall has elements of.
The Dark Knight
Mission Impossible
The Bourne Identity
Goldeneye
Normally I would be killing the film makers for cheating and not being original but I'm not this time for two reasons.
1) The blending of those films worked very well.
2) The original parts of Skyfall was so DAMN GOOD that it didn't matter the rest of the film was full of recycled material.
Skyfall deals specifically with M and Bond and the biggest factor that every person in the espionage business has to deal with.
Age.
This Bond film actually has the balls to suggest that the greatest spy in the entire galaxy is getting old. It's a concept that never crossed your mind before but Skyfall makes Bond, M and you come to grips with the fact that sooner or later the game will come to an end. Just like Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace, Bond remains defiant in the face of adversity. No matter who or what is causing it. This time though, M is also part of the equation because the motives of the villain revolve completely around her.
This is where Skyfall begins to establish the plot points that we've seen before. The motivation of the characters are plain as day but again, somehow they inexplicably work. The film begins to drag these been there done that themes for a while when suddenly it takes another surprising and fresh turn. I won't say exactly what.
Let's just say Bond goes home.
This was a great addition to the history and mystery of the character. It gave you a different perspective of what Bond goes through. What motivates him. Why is he so detached. Why he's always the perfect man for the job.
Of course no James Bond will would be complete without action set pieces. Skyfall doesn't disappoint in that area either. The opening sequence while bordered on the absurd (what else would you expect from a Bond film) was awesome to watch. Rest assured I'm never riding a train that I know has a bulldozer attached to it. The best part about the action was that it maintained the underlying theme of the film. Bond seemed to be a bit slow in certain parts of the fights and chases. This was a tell tale sign that the old man was losing a step.
Again another ballsy move. Nobody wants to see our heroes falling from grace. Nolan did the same thing with The Dark Knight Rises. He knew his Batman saga was going to end. So short of killing him he did the next logical thing. He made him vulnerable. That doesn't completely happen here but the signs are there. Another bold move was the "resignation" of a prime character. If you pay attention you can see it coming but it still felt original. This was the only way to go with the story and all the events around it so I applaud Mendes for taking the shot.
Finally, Skyfall introduces some classic characters to the series that we didn't see in the previous Craig starred films. This obviously guarantees a few more sequels on the way. In fact it was reported recently that John Logan who had his hand with this film will write the next two Bond scripts. It will be interesting to see what he comes up with. He's already said that the next two will be one story. A tricky concept but we'll see what happens.
All told. Skyfall was a treat to watch and the best Bond film of the Daniel Craig era. Some critics have labeled this the best Bond film ever. That's just nuts in my opinion. This new set of films have been terrific but Goldfinger is still the undisputed champion. If this direction continues, Daniel Craig might (and I say this very very carefully) supplant Sean Connery as the true James Bond.
He's got a long way to go but the future is very bright for the franchise.
On the 5 star scale. Skyfall gets 4.5 stars. With a "Worth Every Penny!" recommendation.
That's a wrap for today. Up next is Flight.
Until Next Episode...."I'll Save You A Seat!"
"D"
Today's review is Skyfall.
Directed by Sam Mendes.
Written by Neil Purvis, Robert Wade & John Logan
Based on the "James Bond" character created by Ian Fleming.
Review #189
MPAA Rating: PG-13 for intense violent sequences throughout, some sexuality, language and smoking.
Run Time: 143 min
Cast
Daniel Craig...James Bond
Judi Dench...M
Javier Bardem...Silva
Ralph Fiennes...Gareth Mallory
Naomie Harris...Eve
Bérénice Marlohe...Sévérine (as Bérénice Lim Marlohe)
Albert Finney...Kincade
Ben Whishaw...Q
Rory Kinnear...Tanner
Ola Rapace...Patrice
The Bond franchise has gone through countless changes. Whether it's the actors who play the super spy. Or the directors who make the films, the franchise has seen it's ups and downs. The Bond universe is currently enjoying a very nice up swing and there's no surprise why. The powers that be have realized that audiences today are a bit more sophisticated and while the laser equipped necktie and Aston Martin loaded with missiles and machine guns are fun. It doesn't play today as well as it used to back in Bond's hey day. So what did they do? In my opinion, they took a page from Christopher Nolan's Batman series.
They didn't just take a page. They plagiarized the whole book.
Plot
Bond's loyalty to M is tested as her past comes back to haunt her. As MI6 comes under attack, 007 must track down and destroy the threat, no matter how personal the cost.
The last three Bond films have a lot in common with Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy. The first being the actors who play the main characters. Daniel Craig and Christian Bale are phenomenal talents who are not known for comedic roles. They have played action heroes and dramatic figures. They have also played two of pop culture's most iconic characters. I don't care who you are, everyone has heard of James Bond and Batman.
Secondly, the choice of these actors to play these roles signified something very important. That being the overall tone of the films. We all know the campy nature of the Bond films and while at first Tim Burton gave us a darker version of the caped crusader. The character in the last two films morphed more into a toy making tool than completing a series of feature films. The last two Batman films were so horrendous that rebooting the franchise was not just a good idea.
It was necessary.
Nolan stripped away the cheese and started from scratch. The end result is his Batman trilogy is regarded as the only Batman series worth talking about in the annals of Tinseltown. The producers of the Bond films followed Nolan's lead and did the same thing. After Pierce Brosnan's departure, The character was taken apart and rebuilt from the ground up with fresh faces. The only holdover being Judi Dench as M. It was a bold move because there was a risk of alienating fans of the campy, silly Bond films.
The move paid off.
Casino Royale gave Bond fans of all types what they wanted. The story and villain Le Chiffre was typical of Bond's usual rogue's gallery. Only both he and his plot was modernized and grounded. This appealed to fans on both sides of the coin. That's what made it work for me. It didn't help that Craig despite his non Bond appearance played the part perfectly. He wasn't supposed to be the dashing master of espionage. He was the newly minted 007 who was still adjusting to his freshly granted license to kill. It was a great approach to the character. Craig played Bond with a lot more reckless abandon which is exactly what the franchise and the character needed. They also took Bond to a territory that hasn't been seen in a long time if ever.
Bond fell in love.
That was a major breakthrough for the character. Up until the day he met Vesper Lynd. Bond was the prototypical ladies man. No attachments to women of any kind other than pleasure. His job had a lot to do with that but he never had legitimate feelings for some one of that scale. Remember, he quit MI6 after Le Chiffre was killed and the money was returned. It was only finding out that Vesper betrayed him that he went back to work. Then in Quantum of Solace his entire motivation was finding and destroying the organization that had a hand in his girl's death. These were major changes to Bond's persona that made him more human than super human. It set things up for a promising sequel.
But then....
Quantum of Solace was not as well received as Casino Royale. I personally loved it but I do see why fans felt it was a poor sequel. Once again the suits rolled the dice and went with a sequel that maintained a form of continuity. Quantum of Solace literally begins right after Casino Royale and continues the story. It was a great idea. It just wasn't executed to it's fullest potential. So when Skyfall was announced I was wondering if they were still going to follow the thread of the first two films and blend the principal story together. They didn't.
What they did do was far more BRILLIANT!
The plot of Skyfall does something that I haven't seen from other Bond films. They took bits and pieces from other films and crafted the main story around the scraps. Here are the films that I came up with that Skyfall has elements of.
The Dark Knight
Mission Impossible
The Bourne Identity
Goldeneye
Normally I would be killing the film makers for cheating and not being original but I'm not this time for two reasons.
1) The blending of those films worked very well.
2) The original parts of Skyfall was so DAMN GOOD that it didn't matter the rest of the film was full of recycled material.
Skyfall deals specifically with M and Bond and the biggest factor that every person in the espionage business has to deal with.
Age.
This Bond film actually has the balls to suggest that the greatest spy in the entire galaxy is getting old. It's a concept that never crossed your mind before but Skyfall makes Bond, M and you come to grips with the fact that sooner or later the game will come to an end. Just like Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace, Bond remains defiant in the face of adversity. No matter who or what is causing it. This time though, M is also part of the equation because the motives of the villain revolve completely around her.
This is where Skyfall begins to establish the plot points that we've seen before. The motivation of the characters are plain as day but again, somehow they inexplicably work. The film begins to drag these been there done that themes for a while when suddenly it takes another surprising and fresh turn. I won't say exactly what.
Let's just say Bond goes home.
This was a great addition to the history and mystery of the character. It gave you a different perspective of what Bond goes through. What motivates him. Why is he so detached. Why he's always the perfect man for the job.
Of course no James Bond will would be complete without action set pieces. Skyfall doesn't disappoint in that area either. The opening sequence while bordered on the absurd (what else would you expect from a Bond film) was awesome to watch. Rest assured I'm never riding a train that I know has a bulldozer attached to it. The best part about the action was that it maintained the underlying theme of the film. Bond seemed to be a bit slow in certain parts of the fights and chases. This was a tell tale sign that the old man was losing a step.
Again another ballsy move. Nobody wants to see our heroes falling from grace. Nolan did the same thing with The Dark Knight Rises. He knew his Batman saga was going to end. So short of killing him he did the next logical thing. He made him vulnerable. That doesn't completely happen here but the signs are there. Another bold move was the "resignation" of a prime character. If you pay attention you can see it coming but it still felt original. This was the only way to go with the story and all the events around it so I applaud Mendes for taking the shot.
Finally, Skyfall introduces some classic characters to the series that we didn't see in the previous Craig starred films. This obviously guarantees a few more sequels on the way. In fact it was reported recently that John Logan who had his hand with this film will write the next two Bond scripts. It will be interesting to see what he comes up with. He's already said that the next two will be one story. A tricky concept but we'll see what happens.
All told. Skyfall was a treat to watch and the best Bond film of the Daniel Craig era. Some critics have labeled this the best Bond film ever. That's just nuts in my opinion. This new set of films have been terrific but Goldfinger is still the undisputed champion. If this direction continues, Daniel Craig might (and I say this very very carefully) supplant Sean Connery as the true James Bond.
He's got a long way to go but the future is very bright for the franchise.
On the 5 star scale. Skyfall gets 4.5 stars. With a "Worth Every Penny!" recommendation.
That's a wrap for today. Up next is Flight.
Until Next Episode...."I'll Save You A Seat!"
"D"
Cloud Atlas
Welcome to another episode of Lights....Camera....Popcorn!
Today's review is Cloud Atlas.
Written & Directed by Lana Wachowski, Andy Wachowski & Tom Tykwer.
Based on the novel "Cloud Atlas" by David Mitchell.
Review #188
MPAA Rating: R for violence, language, sexuality/nudity and some drug use.
Run Time: 172 min
Cast
Tom Hanks...Dr. Henry Goose / Hotel Manager / Isaac Sachs / Dermot Hoggins / Cavendish Look-a-Like Actor / Zachry
Halle Berry...Native Woman / Jocasta Ayrs / Luisa Rey / Indian Party Guest / Ovid / Meronym
Jim Broadbent...Captain Molyneux / Vyvyan Ayrs / Timothy Cavendish / Korean Musician / Prescient 2
Hugo Weaving...Haskell Moore / Tadeusz Kesselring / Bill Smoke / Nurse Noakes / Boardman Mephi / Old Georgie
Jim Sturgess...Adam Ewing / Poor Hotel Guest / Megan's Dad / Highlander / Hae-Joo Chang / Adam / Zachry Brother-in-Law
Doona Bae...Tilda / Megan's Mom / Mexican Woman / Sonmi-451 / Sonmi-351 / Sonmi Prostitute
Ben Whishaw...Cabin Boy / Robert Frobisher / Store Clerk / Georgette / Tribesman
Keith David...Kupaka / Joe Napier / An-kor Apis / Prescient
James D'Arcy...Young Rufus Sixsmith / Old Rufus Sixsmith / Nurse James / Archivist
Xun Zhou...Talbot / Hotel Manager / Yoona-939 / Rose
David Gyasi...Autua / Lester Rey / Duophsyte
Susan Sarandon...Madame Horrox / Older Ursula / Yusouf Suleiman / Abbess
Hugh Grant...Rev. Giles Horrox / Hotel Heavy / Lloyd Hooks / Denholme Cavendish / Seer Rhee / Kona Chief
Brody Nicholas Lee...Javier Gomez / Jonas / Zachry's Older Nephew
After their failed adaptation of Speed Racer, the Wachowski's went AWOL for a couple of years. Instead of making films they lent their talents in the producer capacity. Then came the surprising news that Larry Wachowski became Lana Wachowski. He had the transgender procedures done after Speed Racer. This could have explained the 4 year hiatus. Nevertheless. It's great to have them back because with the help of Tykwer.
They created one of the best films I've seen this year!
Plot
An exploration of how the actions of individual lives impact one another in the past, present and future, as one soul is shaped from a killer into a hero, and an act of kindness ripples across centuries to inspire a revolution.
Before I dig into this review I have three words of advice if you decide to see this film.
STAY WITH IT!
Cloud Atlas does it's absolute best to make you hate it by applying confusion and a feeling of it never ending. This was an unfortunate result for 2 people that were in the theater with me. They didn't last 25 minutes. It's really too bad cause not only did they just burn $13 apiece.
They missed out on amazing adventure.
As always, I try to not reveal too much plot info in my reviews. Rest assured that won't happen with Cloud Atlas. Not because I care about the integrity of the plot or keeping thins spoiler free. It's because I have no idea how to describe it. The general plot that's highlighted in this review doesn't come close to cover everything that happens in this movie. And it's that fact that makes this movie such a joy to watch.
There have been many reviews and opinions that say Cloud Atlas falls into my coined S.O.S category. That is a valid point but I venture to guess that some of the critics that feel this way didn't see the same film that I did. That's not their fault. Like I mentioned earlier, the movie doesn't make it easy for you to get a grasp on and follow. Cloud Atlas requires two very important things.
Patience and bladder control.
At just under 3 hours, this film makes you feel it. This is where Cloud Atlas falls a bit for me. Now I have nothing against long films when they are paced properly. This movie lacks in that department. A lot of that can be attributed to the length of some scenes. The movie jumps around between the different time periods and characters. As a result you will not get a lot of continuity. Adding to the "broken" feel of the narrative, some of the scenes will vary in length which can also mess with your mental puzzle construction. However, if you follow my advice, your patience will be rewarded because the film comes full circle in the end. Tying all of the stories and time periods together and wrapping them all up to a satisfying conclusion.
Moving on to the other part of the opinions the critics had of this film.
The visuals in Cloud Atlas are stunning. Particularly in the future world of Neo Seoul. The world created there is just amazing to look at. The rest of the film has magnificent set pieces and locations as well. In a film like this that travels all over the world and time for that matter needs to display a large degree of authenticity. That happens in massive quantities here. Every time period and locale was well designed and presented down to the smallest detail. This is a quality that the Wachowski's are known for. They pay attention to the little things because it's those things that can make or break as scene.
The cast in this film is remarkable. Not just in their performance but in the number of characters they play. This is also a testament to the incredible makeup department. I dare you to tell me that you knew Halle Berry was the Korean doctor. OK. Minor spoiler. Sue me. It won't take away from your viewing experience. Speaking of Koreans the show stealer in this one was unquestionably Doona Bae. Her performance as Sonmi-451 was captivating. Her character requires her to be very subdued and introverted so her eyes have to tell most of the story and she pulls it off beautifully. It didn't hurt that she was easy on the eyes either.
It's really a shame that Cloud Atlas is flopping. By most accounts it will take a miracle for the film to recoup it's $100 million plus budget. The Wachowski's and Tykwer showed some serious balls and made a movie that's not considered down the beaten path. They deserved some attention for the effort because the effort was a valiant one.
The problem is what makes Cloud Atlas so strong also makes it weak.
If the film had been shaved by at least 30 minutes then perhaps it might have been better received. That's saying a whole lot when I'm suggesting to cut out the equivalent of an entire third of a "normal" film's running time. Cloud Atlas may not have gotten it's desired response. It got one out of me.
I loved this film and I will continue to support it and be in it's corner.
On the 5 star scale. Cloud Atlas gets 4 stars. With a "Worth Every Penny!" recommendation.
That's a wrap for today. Up next is Skyfall.
Until Next Episode...."I'll Save You A Seat!"
"D"
Today's review is Cloud Atlas.
Written & Directed by Lana Wachowski, Andy Wachowski & Tom Tykwer.
Based on the novel "Cloud Atlas" by David Mitchell.
Review #188
MPAA Rating: R for violence, language, sexuality/nudity and some drug use.
Run Time: 172 min
Cast
Tom Hanks...Dr. Henry Goose / Hotel Manager / Isaac Sachs / Dermot Hoggins / Cavendish Look-a-Like Actor / Zachry
Halle Berry...Native Woman / Jocasta Ayrs / Luisa Rey / Indian Party Guest / Ovid / Meronym
Jim Broadbent...Captain Molyneux / Vyvyan Ayrs / Timothy Cavendish / Korean Musician / Prescient 2
Hugo Weaving...Haskell Moore / Tadeusz Kesselring / Bill Smoke / Nurse Noakes / Boardman Mephi / Old Georgie
Jim Sturgess...Adam Ewing / Poor Hotel Guest / Megan's Dad / Highlander / Hae-Joo Chang / Adam / Zachry Brother-in-Law
Doona Bae...Tilda / Megan's Mom / Mexican Woman / Sonmi-451 / Sonmi-351 / Sonmi Prostitute
Ben Whishaw...Cabin Boy / Robert Frobisher / Store Clerk / Georgette / Tribesman
Keith David...Kupaka / Joe Napier / An-kor Apis / Prescient
James D'Arcy...Young Rufus Sixsmith / Old Rufus Sixsmith / Nurse James / Archivist
Xun Zhou...Talbot / Hotel Manager / Yoona-939 / Rose
David Gyasi...Autua / Lester Rey / Duophsyte
Susan Sarandon...Madame Horrox / Older Ursula / Yusouf Suleiman / Abbess
Hugh Grant...Rev. Giles Horrox / Hotel Heavy / Lloyd Hooks / Denholme Cavendish / Seer Rhee / Kona Chief
Brody Nicholas Lee...Javier Gomez / Jonas / Zachry's Older Nephew
After their failed adaptation of Speed Racer, the Wachowski's went AWOL for a couple of years. Instead of making films they lent their talents in the producer capacity. Then came the surprising news that Larry Wachowski became Lana Wachowski. He had the transgender procedures done after Speed Racer. This could have explained the 4 year hiatus. Nevertheless. It's great to have them back because with the help of Tykwer.
They created one of the best films I've seen this year!
Plot
An exploration of how the actions of individual lives impact one another in the past, present and future, as one soul is shaped from a killer into a hero, and an act of kindness ripples across centuries to inspire a revolution.
Before I dig into this review I have three words of advice if you decide to see this film.
STAY WITH IT!
Cloud Atlas does it's absolute best to make you hate it by applying confusion and a feeling of it never ending. This was an unfortunate result for 2 people that were in the theater with me. They didn't last 25 minutes. It's really too bad cause not only did they just burn $13 apiece.
They missed out on amazing adventure.
As always, I try to not reveal too much plot info in my reviews. Rest assured that won't happen with Cloud Atlas. Not because I care about the integrity of the plot or keeping thins spoiler free. It's because I have no idea how to describe it. The general plot that's highlighted in this review doesn't come close to cover everything that happens in this movie. And it's that fact that makes this movie such a joy to watch.
There have been many reviews and opinions that say Cloud Atlas falls into my coined S.O.S category. That is a valid point but I venture to guess that some of the critics that feel this way didn't see the same film that I did. That's not their fault. Like I mentioned earlier, the movie doesn't make it easy for you to get a grasp on and follow. Cloud Atlas requires two very important things.
Patience and bladder control.
At just under 3 hours, this film makes you feel it. This is where Cloud Atlas falls a bit for me. Now I have nothing against long films when they are paced properly. This movie lacks in that department. A lot of that can be attributed to the length of some scenes. The movie jumps around between the different time periods and characters. As a result you will not get a lot of continuity. Adding to the "broken" feel of the narrative, some of the scenes will vary in length which can also mess with your mental puzzle construction. However, if you follow my advice, your patience will be rewarded because the film comes full circle in the end. Tying all of the stories and time periods together and wrapping them all up to a satisfying conclusion.
Moving on to the other part of the opinions the critics had of this film.
The visuals in Cloud Atlas are stunning. Particularly in the future world of Neo Seoul. The world created there is just amazing to look at. The rest of the film has magnificent set pieces and locations as well. In a film like this that travels all over the world and time for that matter needs to display a large degree of authenticity. That happens in massive quantities here. Every time period and locale was well designed and presented down to the smallest detail. This is a quality that the Wachowski's are known for. They pay attention to the little things because it's those things that can make or break as scene.
The cast in this film is remarkable. Not just in their performance but in the number of characters they play. This is also a testament to the incredible makeup department. I dare you to tell me that you knew Halle Berry was the Korean doctor. OK. Minor spoiler. Sue me. It won't take away from your viewing experience. Speaking of Koreans the show stealer in this one was unquestionably Doona Bae. Her performance as Sonmi-451 was captivating. Her character requires her to be very subdued and introverted so her eyes have to tell most of the story and she pulls it off beautifully. It didn't hurt that she was easy on the eyes either.
It's really a shame that Cloud Atlas is flopping. By most accounts it will take a miracle for the film to recoup it's $100 million plus budget. The Wachowski's and Tykwer showed some serious balls and made a movie that's not considered down the beaten path. They deserved some attention for the effort because the effort was a valiant one.
The problem is what makes Cloud Atlas so strong also makes it weak.
If the film had been shaved by at least 30 minutes then perhaps it might have been better received. That's saying a whole lot when I'm suggesting to cut out the equivalent of an entire third of a "normal" film's running time. Cloud Atlas may not have gotten it's desired response. It got one out of me.
I loved this film and I will continue to support it and be in it's corner.
On the 5 star scale. Cloud Atlas gets 4 stars. With a "Worth Every Penny!" recommendation.
That's a wrap for today. Up next is Skyfall.
Until Next Episode...."I'll Save You A Seat!"
"D"
Wreck It Ralph
Welcome to another episode of Lights....Camera....Popcorn!
Today's review is Wreck It Ralph.
Directed by Rich Moore.
Written by Phil Johnston & Jennifer Lee.
Screen Story by Rich Moore, Phil Johnston & Jim Reardon.
Review #186
MPAA Rating: PG for some rude humor and mild action/violence.
Run Time: 101 min
Cast
John C. Reilly...Ralph (voice)
Sarah Silverman...Vanellope (voice)
Jack McBrayer...Felix (voice)
Jane Lynch...Calhoun (voice)
Adam Carolla...Wynnchel (voice)
Alan Tudyk...King Candy (voice)
Mindy Kaling...Taffyta Muttonfudge (voice)
Joe Lo Truglio...Markowski (voice)
Ed O'Neill...Mr. Litwak (voice)
Dennis Haysbert...General Hologram (voice)
Edie McClurg...Mary (voice)
Raymond S. Persi...Gene / Zombie (voice)
Video games is a multi billion dollar industry. They are not only entertaining but contain some of the best stories that you will ever see. There are seriously creative people behind these games. It makes me scratch my head to no end how the film industry never follows the model the game creators use to make these amazing adventures. Oh wait, I know why they don't follow the model.
IT'S BECAUSE THEY'RE STUPID!!!!
Since the video game boom, there have been hundreds upon hundreds of film options and adaptations. Of those many films I can only think of two that even come close to being good enough to watch. Mortal Kombat and Resident Evil. Those two films were pretty close to the games origin and had some popular characters for us all to enjoy. Ironically they were both written and directed by Paul W.S. Anderson who by most accounts (including mine) is one of the WORST directors in the WORLD!
So here we are with another video game movie. With a twist. Instead of adapting a popular game, an original story was created which surrounded classic games around it.
What a novel idea.
Plot
A video game villain wants to be a hero and sets out to fulfill his dream, but his quest brings havoc to the whole arcade where he lives.
The first thing I realized that while watching this movie was that while it was made for kids. It was made for kids like me. Meaning this film appeals to the days when I used to go to the arcade and play games like Q Bert, Pacman, Street Fighter and Mortal Kombat. Many characters from these classic games appear in this movie. Kids today have no idea who these characters are but they are funny so it works for them. It was nostalgic for me which gave the film a much bigger impact and entertainment value.
What made this film so cool was the simplicity of it's concept. Video game characters actually live in the game and act like it's a job until the arcade closes. It's such a simple idea it's brilliant.Watching the characters live like us. Going to bars and hanging out among each other was so cool to see. Just picture Ryu fighting Ken from Street Fighter then just as Ryu throws a dragon uppercut, the arcade closes. The fight stops then Ryu asks Ken if he wants to have a beer and they casually walk off the screen together. That scene was in the movie and made my heart sing. My only gripe is that I wished there were more scenes like that. The game characters are spread throughout but are seen sparingly. This is obviously because they needed the time to get the main story involving Ralph going.
Moving on to the main story. Again this was a simple yet really cool concept. Imagine a video game villain who doesn't want to be one anymore. Now the trailers depict the film as that plot point being the main portion of the story. It's only the motivation and jumping off point for what happens the rest of the way. In many respects Ralph is the supporting character with Vanellope being the main one. The movie shifts from Ralph's motivations to what Vanellope deals with and how Ralph plays a role in her quest.
As always in films like this, the animation is top notch. Fast and smooth. The character designs are really detailed and defined. This gives them a more life like quality which makes the voice acting crucial. The cast does a really good job bringing these characters to the world they're supposed to be a part of and injecting life into them. John C. Reilly and Sarah Silverman highlight the cast. Since the film revolves around their characters it's important they own their characters and they do. John C. Reilly doesn't do anything special to Ralph's voice. He pretty much reads his dialogue naturally but his voice is so comical in nature anyway that it works which is very rare.
The film does it's predictable turn which sets up the heoric finale. However, like it's concept, the final act feels and plays fresh and new. It also brings the story full circle whcih felt a bit draggy in the middle. Wreck It Ralph doesn't redefine the genre of CG animated movies. It does however give fans of the genre like me excitement that future homages of old school stuff that I used to like as a kid resurfaces. The opportunities are limitless.
On the 5 star scale. Wreck It Ralph gets 4 stars with a "Worth Every Penny!" recommendation.
That's a wrap for today. Up next is Cloud Atlas.
Until Next Episode...."I'll Save You A Seat!"
"D"
Today's review is Wreck It Ralph.
Directed by Rich Moore.
Written by Phil Johnston & Jennifer Lee.
Screen Story by Rich Moore, Phil Johnston & Jim Reardon.
Review #186
MPAA Rating: PG for some rude humor and mild action/violence.
Run Time: 101 min
Cast
John C. Reilly...Ralph (voice)
Sarah Silverman...Vanellope (voice)
Jack McBrayer...Felix (voice)
Jane Lynch...Calhoun (voice)
Adam Carolla...Wynnchel (voice)
Alan Tudyk...King Candy (voice)
Mindy Kaling...Taffyta Muttonfudge (voice)
Joe Lo Truglio...Markowski (voice)
Ed O'Neill...Mr. Litwak (voice)
Dennis Haysbert...General Hologram (voice)
Edie McClurg...Mary (voice)
Raymond S. Persi...Gene / Zombie (voice)
Video games is a multi billion dollar industry. They are not only entertaining but contain some of the best stories that you will ever see. There are seriously creative people behind these games. It makes me scratch my head to no end how the film industry never follows the model the game creators use to make these amazing adventures. Oh wait, I know why they don't follow the model.
IT'S BECAUSE THEY'RE STUPID!!!!
Since the video game boom, there have been hundreds upon hundreds of film options and adaptations. Of those many films I can only think of two that even come close to being good enough to watch. Mortal Kombat and Resident Evil. Those two films were pretty close to the games origin and had some popular characters for us all to enjoy. Ironically they were both written and directed by Paul W.S. Anderson who by most accounts (including mine) is one of the WORST directors in the WORLD!
So here we are with another video game movie. With a twist. Instead of adapting a popular game, an original story was created which surrounded classic games around it.
What a novel idea.
Plot
A video game villain wants to be a hero and sets out to fulfill his dream, but his quest brings havoc to the whole arcade where he lives.
The first thing I realized that while watching this movie was that while it was made for kids. It was made for kids like me. Meaning this film appeals to the days when I used to go to the arcade and play games like Q Bert, Pacman, Street Fighter and Mortal Kombat. Many characters from these classic games appear in this movie. Kids today have no idea who these characters are but they are funny so it works for them. It was nostalgic for me which gave the film a much bigger impact and entertainment value.
What made this film so cool was the simplicity of it's concept. Video game characters actually live in the game and act like it's a job until the arcade closes. It's such a simple idea it's brilliant.Watching the characters live like us. Going to bars and hanging out among each other was so cool to see. Just picture Ryu fighting Ken from Street Fighter then just as Ryu throws a dragon uppercut, the arcade closes. The fight stops then Ryu asks Ken if he wants to have a beer and they casually walk off the screen together. That scene was in the movie and made my heart sing. My only gripe is that I wished there were more scenes like that. The game characters are spread throughout but are seen sparingly. This is obviously because they needed the time to get the main story involving Ralph going.
Moving on to the main story. Again this was a simple yet really cool concept. Imagine a video game villain who doesn't want to be one anymore. Now the trailers depict the film as that plot point being the main portion of the story. It's only the motivation and jumping off point for what happens the rest of the way. In many respects Ralph is the supporting character with Vanellope being the main one. The movie shifts from Ralph's motivations to what Vanellope deals with and how Ralph plays a role in her quest.
As always in films like this, the animation is top notch. Fast and smooth. The character designs are really detailed and defined. This gives them a more life like quality which makes the voice acting crucial. The cast does a really good job bringing these characters to the world they're supposed to be a part of and injecting life into them. John C. Reilly and Sarah Silverman highlight the cast. Since the film revolves around their characters it's important they own their characters and they do. John C. Reilly doesn't do anything special to Ralph's voice. He pretty much reads his dialogue naturally but his voice is so comical in nature anyway that it works which is very rare.
The film does it's predictable turn which sets up the heoric finale. However, like it's concept, the final act feels and plays fresh and new. It also brings the story full circle whcih felt a bit draggy in the middle. Wreck It Ralph doesn't redefine the genre of CG animated movies. It does however give fans of the genre like me excitement that future homages of old school stuff that I used to like as a kid resurfaces. The opportunities are limitless.
On the 5 star scale. Wreck It Ralph gets 4 stars with a "Worth Every Penny!" recommendation.
That's a wrap for today. Up next is Cloud Atlas.
Until Next Episode...."I'll Save You A Seat!"
"D"
The Man With The Iron Fists
Welcome to another episode of Lights....Camera....Popcorn!
Today's review is The Man With The Iron Fists.
Directed by The RZA.
Written by Eli Roth & The RZA.
Screen Story by The RZA.
Martial Arts Choreography by Corey Yuen.
Review #185
MPAA Rating: R for bloody violence, strong sexuality, language and brief drug use.
Run Time: 95 min
Cast
RZA...Blacksmith
Rick Yune...Zen Yi, The X-Blade
Russell Crowe...Jack Knife
Lucy Liu...Madam Blossom
Dave Bautista...Brass Body
Jamie Chung...Lady Silk
Cung Le...Bronze Lion
Byron Mann...Silver Lion
Daniel Wu...Poison Dagger
Zhu Zhu...Chi Chi
Chia Hui Liu...Abbott (as Gordon Liu)
Kuan Tai Chen...Gold Lion
Grace Huang...Gemini Female
Andrew Lin...Gemini Male
Pam Grier...Jane
Dennis Chan...Dragon Innkeeper
Terence Yin...Governor
The Wu Tang Clan is now and will forever will be one of my favorite rap groups. When they burst on the scene back in 1992, they changed the rap game with their ingenious blend of hypnotic beats and rhymes with old school kung fu films.
Pure entertainment at it's utter finest.
One of the architects of the Clan was The RZA. He designed practically every beat The Wu spit to. They are iconic rhythms. The influx of 70's kung fu films also added a fresh perspective to a very specific genre of music. It was evident that the groups love of kung fu films permeated throughout their records. They sampled audio clips of some of the genre's most iconic films. From 5 Deadly Venoms to Lone Wolf and Cub to The 36th Chamber of Shaolin. These guys were not just using the films to promote their unique group.
They were aficionados.
Fast forward 20 years and while sadly The Wu no longer exists, the master still continues to influence other artists in both the studio and screen. The RZA has gone on to produce tracks and beats for many of hip hop's best and after doing some light acting. He's taken a crack at film making. Which brings us to his writing and directing debut of The Man With The Iron Fists. An appropriate title for his first film. It resembles so many of the movies that inspired the amazing music and albums that he helped produce.
There's just one problem.
If he was trying to make a movie that was worthy of being mentioned in the same breath as the classic kung fu wu xia films of yesteryear.
He FAILED miserably.
If he was trying to homage those films while putting his own touches on it then he SUCCEEDED.
Plot
On the hunt for a fabled treasure of gold, a band of warriors, assassins, and a rogue British soldier descend upon a village in feudal China, where a humble blacksmith looks to defend himself and his fellow villagers.
There were some glaring issues with this film. The first was RZA casting himself as the blacksmith. Putting his acting skill aside. He just didn't look the part. There was very little life to his character. The blacksmith was by nature under the radar but you combine that with RZA's lack of emotion the character becomes more cardboard then stoic.
Secondly, the story is a bit disjointed. Particularly concerning the blacksmiths back story. It felt very out of place. Here he is in this world of fighters and warlords and his origins come from a completely different place that takes you away from the cool world that he created. It's a small flashback scene but it takes you out of the setting that makes the film interesting. The other parts of the story is pretty self explanatory and quite weak. The motives of the villain are pretty transparent which is no surprise when dealing with a film of this genre.
The cast was pretty impressive. Including some old school kung fu heavyweights which was a nice sight to see. This was one part of the film that RZA got right. He employed some names from the past that brought some validity and authenticity to the film. I only wished that they had more screen time. Most of these actors were subjected to cameos during fights or quick exposition scenes.
Shame.
There was another thing that RZA got right. Or half right. He got a Hong Kong veteran to choreograph the action. Corey Yuen is a major name in the industry. Having gone to the same Peking Opera School as Jackie Chan, Sammo Hung and Yuen Biao. He went on to direct and choreograph some of the genres finest films.
The part that went wrong was that Yuen's talents were wasted here.
The fights were well choreographed but they at times were too stylized to the point that all you saw was mass chaos. It was reminiscent of Hackael Bay's Transformers fights. Just a mass of metal fighting, destroying things. All you saw was the explosions and broken glass. There was an element of that here. Instead of seeing a nicely executed one on one battle full of intricate moves and sequences. You got a sliver of that then mass hysteria followed. Chaos aside you do see blood. A TON of blood. The violence is ramped up here as to be expected so don't wear white to the theater.
It's really too bad because even the non martial artists like Lucy Liu, Rick Yune, Byron Mann, Russell Crowe and RZA himself all made a grand effort to look the part. The editing was also choppy and whimsical. This was something that surprised me a little. RZA of all people knew what kung fu films were famous for. Bad ass fights and sharp crisply edited fights. That was not the case in either avenue and that is unacceptable for a true fan of the genre.
The characters with exception of the blacksmith were very cool. The coolest being Brass Body. RZA clearly nailed this part of the film. He realized that this type of kung fu film throws all logic out the window when it came to the characters' abilities and fighting styles. Brass Body was the embodiment of that philosophy and it gave the film a nice look and attitude.
For a first effort. RZA did a good job. He wasn't trying to reinvent the wheel here. He was trying to make a film that resembled the ones he knows and loves. He accomplished his mission in that regard. If he had only taken a few more steps and followed the blueprint a little more to the letter. We could have been talking about a new age Shaw Bros entry.
So close yet so far.
On the 5 star scale. The Man With The Iron Fists gets 3 stars. With a "Go See It!" recommendation.
That's a wrap for today. Up next is Wreck It Ralph.
Until Next Episode...."I'll Save You A Seat!"
"D"
Today's review is The Man With The Iron Fists.
Directed by The RZA.
Written by Eli Roth & The RZA.
Screen Story by The RZA.
Martial Arts Choreography by Corey Yuen.
Review #185
MPAA Rating: R for bloody violence, strong sexuality, language and brief drug use.
Run Time: 95 min
Cast
RZA...Blacksmith
Rick Yune...Zen Yi, The X-Blade
Russell Crowe...Jack Knife
Lucy Liu...Madam Blossom
Dave Bautista...Brass Body
Jamie Chung...Lady Silk
Cung Le...Bronze Lion
Byron Mann...Silver Lion
Daniel Wu...Poison Dagger
Zhu Zhu...Chi Chi
Chia Hui Liu...Abbott (as Gordon Liu)
Kuan Tai Chen...Gold Lion
Grace Huang...Gemini Female
Andrew Lin...Gemini Male
Pam Grier...Jane
Dennis Chan...Dragon Innkeeper
Terence Yin...Governor
The Wu Tang Clan is now and will forever will be one of my favorite rap groups. When they burst on the scene back in 1992, they changed the rap game with their ingenious blend of hypnotic beats and rhymes with old school kung fu films.
Pure entertainment at it's utter finest.
One of the architects of the Clan was The RZA. He designed practically every beat The Wu spit to. They are iconic rhythms. The influx of 70's kung fu films also added a fresh perspective to a very specific genre of music. It was evident that the groups love of kung fu films permeated throughout their records. They sampled audio clips of some of the genre's most iconic films. From 5 Deadly Venoms to Lone Wolf and Cub to The 36th Chamber of Shaolin. These guys were not just using the films to promote their unique group.
They were aficionados.
Fast forward 20 years and while sadly The Wu no longer exists, the master still continues to influence other artists in both the studio and screen. The RZA has gone on to produce tracks and beats for many of hip hop's best and after doing some light acting. He's taken a crack at film making. Which brings us to his writing and directing debut of The Man With The Iron Fists. An appropriate title for his first film. It resembles so many of the movies that inspired the amazing music and albums that he helped produce.
There's just one problem.
If he was trying to make a movie that was worthy of being mentioned in the same breath as the classic kung fu wu xia films of yesteryear.
He FAILED miserably.
If he was trying to homage those films while putting his own touches on it then he SUCCEEDED.
Plot
On the hunt for a fabled treasure of gold, a band of warriors, assassins, and a rogue British soldier descend upon a village in feudal China, where a humble blacksmith looks to defend himself and his fellow villagers.
There were some glaring issues with this film. The first was RZA casting himself as the blacksmith. Putting his acting skill aside. He just didn't look the part. There was very little life to his character. The blacksmith was by nature under the radar but you combine that with RZA's lack of emotion the character becomes more cardboard then stoic.
Secondly, the story is a bit disjointed. Particularly concerning the blacksmiths back story. It felt very out of place. Here he is in this world of fighters and warlords and his origins come from a completely different place that takes you away from the cool world that he created. It's a small flashback scene but it takes you out of the setting that makes the film interesting. The other parts of the story is pretty self explanatory and quite weak. The motives of the villain are pretty transparent which is no surprise when dealing with a film of this genre.
The cast was pretty impressive. Including some old school kung fu heavyweights which was a nice sight to see. This was one part of the film that RZA got right. He employed some names from the past that brought some validity and authenticity to the film. I only wished that they had more screen time. Most of these actors were subjected to cameos during fights or quick exposition scenes.
Shame.
There was another thing that RZA got right. Or half right. He got a Hong Kong veteran to choreograph the action. Corey Yuen is a major name in the industry. Having gone to the same Peking Opera School as Jackie Chan, Sammo Hung and Yuen Biao. He went on to direct and choreograph some of the genres finest films.
The part that went wrong was that Yuen's talents were wasted here.
The fights were well choreographed but they at times were too stylized to the point that all you saw was mass chaos. It was reminiscent of Hackael Bay's Transformers fights. Just a mass of metal fighting, destroying things. All you saw was the explosions and broken glass. There was an element of that here. Instead of seeing a nicely executed one on one battle full of intricate moves and sequences. You got a sliver of that then mass hysteria followed. Chaos aside you do see blood. A TON of blood. The violence is ramped up here as to be expected so don't wear white to the theater.
It's really too bad because even the non martial artists like Lucy Liu, Rick Yune, Byron Mann, Russell Crowe and RZA himself all made a grand effort to look the part. The editing was also choppy and whimsical. This was something that surprised me a little. RZA of all people knew what kung fu films were famous for. Bad ass fights and sharp crisply edited fights. That was not the case in either avenue and that is unacceptable for a true fan of the genre.
The characters with exception of the blacksmith were very cool. The coolest being Brass Body. RZA clearly nailed this part of the film. He realized that this type of kung fu film throws all logic out the window when it came to the characters' abilities and fighting styles. Brass Body was the embodiment of that philosophy and it gave the film a nice look and attitude.
For a first effort. RZA did a good job. He wasn't trying to reinvent the wheel here. He was trying to make a film that resembled the ones he knows and loves. He accomplished his mission in that regard. If he had only taken a few more steps and followed the blueprint a little more to the letter. We could have been talking about a new age Shaw Bros entry.
So close yet so far.
On the 5 star scale. The Man With The Iron Fists gets 3 stars. With a "Go See It!" recommendation.
That's a wrap for today. Up next is Wreck It Ralph.
Until Next Episode...."I'll Save You A Seat!"
"D"
Seven Psychopaths
Welcome to another episode of Lights....Camera....Popcorn!
Today's review is Seven Psychopaths.
Written & Directed by Martin McDonagh.
Review #184
MPAA Rating: R for strong violence, bloody images, pervasive language, sexuality/nudity and some drug use.
Run Time: 110 min
Cast
In order of apperance
Michael Pitt...Larry
Michael Stuhlbarg...Tommy
Sam Rockwell...Billy
Colin Farrell...Marty
Abbie Cornish...Kaya
Christopher Walken...Hans
Linda Bright Clay...Myra
Harry Dean Stanton...Man in Hat
Joseph Lyle Taylor...Al
Kevin Corrigan...Dennis
Woody Harrelson...Charlie
Gabourey Sidibe...Sharice
Zeljko Ivanek...Paulo
Long Nguyen...Vietnamese Priest
Olga Kurylenko...Angela
Dark/Black comedies are in my opinion one of the toughest films to write. You have to carefully balance the drama and droll. They aren't that funny but they are. It's quite a skill to pull off. The last good one I saw was The Guard with Brendan Gleeson and Don Cheadle. Martin McDonagh has managed to write and direct two of the best dark comedies I have seen in the last 10 years. If not of all time. His first was In Bruges also headlined by Colin Farrell. With Brendan Gleeson and Ralph Fiennes. Walking into this one. I expected the same kind of seriousness that In Bruges gave me. That was a very big error in judgement. It's one that I'm glad I made because this film was so much better.
Plot
A struggling screenwriter inadvertently becomes entangled in the Los Angeles criminal underworld after his oddball friends kidnap a gangster's beloved Shih Tzu.
The first thing to remember here is that Seven Psychopaths and In Bruges are two entirely different films. Almost in every possible way. Tone, depth and comedy. In Bruges was a much more subdued film with a smaller cast. Seven Psychopaths has a great ensemble cast with a plot that is expansive and at times a bit puzzling. Surprisingly, the puzzling parts of the story help make it so entertaining. The problem is that you have to get through the whole film and then it kicks in on you. That is probably the only flaw I saw and it's a minor one. I won't mention what the puzzling parts were but they are obvious.
What separates McDonagh's latest effort from his previous one is the scale and size of Seven Psychopaths. The cast is larger and as such the story gets bigger in spite of it's concise premise. Another aspect is the comedy. This film was much funnier than In Bruges and had more subtle jokes as well. There even were a few jokes that were so bleak that you felt bad for laughing at them. Of course that's the purpose of a black comedy. The high comedy of the film belongs to Sam Rockwell. Billy is so dumb yet brilliant and bad ass that it makes you wonder if he's a real person or a cartoon. Rockwell plays Billy with a subtle craziness that you wait for that snapping moment but what comes next is the punchline. The rest of the cast plays off the tone that Billy sets. It gives the film a nice flow and feel.
The movie is a tad on the violent side but like the rest of the film it's over the top. It can get a bit gratuitous but with the premise the film has, the body count needs to be high anyway.
Overall, Seven Psychopaths is a really good film that is right on par with some of the best dark comedies out there right now. Martin McDonagh is 2 for 2.
On the 5 star scale. Seven Psychopaths gets 4 stars with a "Worth Every Penny!" recommendation.
That's a wrap for today. Up next is The Man With The Iron Fists
Until Next Episode...."I'll Save You A Seat!"
"D"
Today's review is Seven Psychopaths.
Written & Directed by Martin McDonagh.
Review #184
MPAA Rating: R for strong violence, bloody images, pervasive language, sexuality/nudity and some drug use.
Run Time: 110 min
Cast
In order of apperance
Michael Pitt...Larry
Michael Stuhlbarg...Tommy
Sam Rockwell...Billy
Colin Farrell...Marty
Abbie Cornish...Kaya
Christopher Walken...Hans
Linda Bright Clay...Myra
Harry Dean Stanton...Man in Hat
Joseph Lyle Taylor...Al
Kevin Corrigan...Dennis
Woody Harrelson...Charlie
Gabourey Sidibe...Sharice
Zeljko Ivanek...Paulo
Long Nguyen...Vietnamese Priest
Olga Kurylenko...Angela
Dark/Black comedies are in my opinion one of the toughest films to write. You have to carefully balance the drama and droll. They aren't that funny but they are. It's quite a skill to pull off. The last good one I saw was The Guard with Brendan Gleeson and Don Cheadle. Martin McDonagh has managed to write and direct two of the best dark comedies I have seen in the last 10 years. If not of all time. His first was In Bruges also headlined by Colin Farrell. With Brendan Gleeson and Ralph Fiennes. Walking into this one. I expected the same kind of seriousness that In Bruges gave me. That was a very big error in judgement. It's one that I'm glad I made because this film was so much better.
Plot
A struggling screenwriter inadvertently becomes entangled in the Los Angeles criminal underworld after his oddball friends kidnap a gangster's beloved Shih Tzu.
The first thing to remember here is that Seven Psychopaths and In Bruges are two entirely different films. Almost in every possible way. Tone, depth and comedy. In Bruges was a much more subdued film with a smaller cast. Seven Psychopaths has a great ensemble cast with a plot that is expansive and at times a bit puzzling. Surprisingly, the puzzling parts of the story help make it so entertaining. The problem is that you have to get through the whole film and then it kicks in on you. That is probably the only flaw I saw and it's a minor one. I won't mention what the puzzling parts were but they are obvious.
What separates McDonagh's latest effort from his previous one is the scale and size of Seven Psychopaths. The cast is larger and as such the story gets bigger in spite of it's concise premise. Another aspect is the comedy. This film was much funnier than In Bruges and had more subtle jokes as well. There even were a few jokes that were so bleak that you felt bad for laughing at them. Of course that's the purpose of a black comedy. The high comedy of the film belongs to Sam Rockwell. Billy is so dumb yet brilliant and bad ass that it makes you wonder if he's a real person or a cartoon. Rockwell plays Billy with a subtle craziness that you wait for that snapping moment but what comes next is the punchline. The rest of the cast plays off the tone that Billy sets. It gives the film a nice flow and feel.
The movie is a tad on the violent side but like the rest of the film it's over the top. It can get a bit gratuitous but with the premise the film has, the body count needs to be high anyway.
Overall, Seven Psychopaths is a really good film that is right on par with some of the best dark comedies out there right now. Martin McDonagh is 2 for 2.
On the 5 star scale. Seven Psychopaths gets 4 stars with a "Worth Every Penny!" recommendation.
That's a wrap for today. Up next is The Man With The Iron Fists
Until Next Episode...."I'll Save You A Seat!"
"D"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)