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"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)