Welcome to another episode of Lights....Camera....Popcorn!
Today's review is The Bling Ring.
Written & Directed by Sophia Coppola.
Based on the Vanity Fair article "The Suspects Wore Louboutins" written by Nancy Jo Sales.
Review #219
MPAA Rating: Rated R for teen drug and alcohol use, and for language including some brief sexual references.
Run Time: 90 min
Hulk Spoils Hollywood Podcast Page
Cast
Katie Chang...Rebecca
Israel Broussard...Marc
Emma Watson...Nicki
Claire Julien...Chloe
Taissa Farmiga...Sam
Georgia Rock...Emily
Leslie Mann...Laurie
Carlos Miranda...Rob
Gavin Rossdale...Ricky
Lost in Translation was a long time ago. Sofia Coppola's 2003 smash hit catapulted her into the thoughts of everyone in the industry as a legitimate film maker. Not Francis Ford Coppola's daughter. Since that film predictions for her career were the sky's the limit. Well it appears her sky has a ceiling because liker her recent group of films, The Bling Ring falls short.
Plot
Inspired by actual events, a group of fame-obsessed teenagers use the
internet to track celebrities' whereabouts in order to rob their homes.
The major issue with this film is not the script, direction or performances. It's time. The Bling Ring is old news. To be honest I didn't care about them when they were news and I care less about them now after seeing this film. I realize that there have been films made about actual events that took place years, sometimes decades before the film adaptation but for me it was the subject matter that didn't do it for me. Full disclosure, I didn't follow a second of coverage when these kids were the news of the day. I had much more important things to concern myself with than entertaining the exploits of teenagers robbing spoiled celebrities. So why did I go see this film? Quite simply, despite her recent string of under performing films, I'm a fan of Coppola and I truly felt that if someone could make a film with this paper thin subject matter interesting it would be her. I was wrong and I think it stems from some of the tweaks she made to the kids and their stories.
These are the real kids.
Clockwise from the top left. Diana Tamayo, Jonathan Ajar, Alexis Neiers, Nick Prugo, Courtney Ames, Roy Lopez Jr. Not pictured Rachel Jungeon Lee.
For some reason, Coppola changed all of their names and some of their roles in the group. It's quite possible that the name changes were due to the fact that during filming, some of these people were still dealing with legal issues or were still incarcerated. I'll buy that but the role reversal for two specific characters I didn't get. The film gives it a realistic feel but I question the necessity of the change in the first place. A more reoccurring problem with The Bling Ring is the repetitiveness. These kids go to a house, rob the place then go party. Next scene, they go to a house, rob the place, then party. Next scene, they go to a house, rob the place, then party.
Get the picture.
It's not Coppola's fault. She had a very thin subject to work with so what could she do? Because of this the rest of the film had some elements that felt fabricated just to increase the run time. It's an unfortunate side effect. Sofia Coppola is a talented film maker who in my opinion has lost her footing after Lost In Translation. The Bling Ring is not a terrible film. There just wasn't enough substance behind this story to give her the punch she needed to make a good film. If you want a more entertaining version of this story. I recommend looking up and reading the Vanity Fair article this film was based on. It was an interesting look into the lives and motivations of these Hollywood wannabe's.
On the 5 star scale. The Bling Ring gets 2 stars. With a "Netflix It!" recommendation.
That's a wrap for today.
Until Next Episode...."I'll Save You A Seat!"
"D"
World War Z
Welcome to another episode of Lights....Camera....Popcorn!
Today's review is World War Z.
Directed by Marc Forster.
Written by Matthew Michael Carnahan, Drew Goddard & Damon Lindelof.
Screen Story by Matthew Michael Carnahan & J. Michael Straczynski.
Based on the novel "World War Z" written by Max Brooks.
Review #218
MPAA Rating: Rated PG-13 for intense frightening zombie sequences, violence and disturbing images.
Run Time: 116 min
World War Z Trailer: Courtesy of Apple's Trailer Page
Hulk Spoils Hollywood Podcast Page
Cast
Brad Pitt...Gerry Lane
Mireille Enos...Karin Lane
Daniella Kertesz...Segen
James Badge Dale...Captain Speke
Ludi Boeken...Jurgen Warmbrunn
Matthew Fox...Parajumper
Fana Mokoena...Thierry Umutoni
David Morse...Ex-CIA Agent
Elyes Gabel...Andrew Fassbach
Peter Capaldi...W.H.O. Doctor
Pierfrancesco Favino...W.H.O. Doctor
Ruth Negga...W.H.O. Doctor
Moritz Bleibtreu...W.H.O. Doctor
Sterling Jerins...Constance Lane
Abigail Hargrove...Rachel Lane
Fabrizio Zacharee Guido...Tomas
Books and Movies.
Each have their own defining qualities. Having said that, Tinseltown has not been able to crack the mystery of properly adapting popular books into popular films. There have only been a handful that have stood the test of time.
Jaws
The Shining
The Green Mile
Rita Hayworth and The Shawshank Redemption A.K.A The Shawshank Redemption
Fight Club
In God We Trust: All Others Pay Cash A.K.A A Christmas Story
The Godfather
The Exorcist
American Psycho
These are a few examples. I can promise you that no matter how many more good ones exist. There are countless more that were just GOD AWFUL! Why is this the case? It's not that easy to pin down. I like to think it's studio ego. Some studio heads think they know everything and instead of working directly with the book's writer they employ a writer to read then adapt the book. It's not a death sentence plan. A few of the films I mentioned above worked without the influence of the books writer so it can be done.
World War Z falls into this category with an asterisk. A very scary asterisk. This film was adapted without consultation from the novel's writer. The script also went through a considerable amount of rewrites and polishes. Including a work over from a writer that I DESPISE with EVERY fiber of my being.
Damon Lindelof.
With this in mind I had VERY low expectations for this film. I'm really glad I did because World War Z was pretty good.
Plot
United Nations employee Gerry Lane traverses the world in a race against time to stop the Zombie pandemic that is toppling armies and governments, and threatening to destroy humanity itself.
This film had a lot going against it. The biggest factor is the realization that the zombie genre has run it's course. After a slew of remakes and re imaginations of the genre, zombies have in effect "died" out in the cinema. Then to add insult to injury, a little show on AMC has redefined what a zombie apocalypse looks and feels like. Finally, after the well documented issues with the film's script. The project seemed as doomed as the world the film presents. For some reason this film worked for me which is baffling since there is no weight behind it.
World War Z is basically a 116 minute chase around the world.
Maybe that's why I enjoyed this film. Brad Pitt spends 90% of this film going across the globe searching for the origin of this undead outbreak. Historically, films with this plot spend the majority of it's time in a centralized location. Not here. This is truly a global epidemic. Having not read the book I have no idea why the "hero" of this story is a U.N. investigator but it was a nice change to the standard cop, fireman or retired military tough guy. Making the protagonist a detective was a smart way to go. If he's tapped of figuring out how this happened, it would be nice if he possessed the skills and training to get the job done.
The next thing this film did well was leave Lane's family AT HOME! Movies like this always and I do mean ALWAYS flop when the hero has to save the world and his family at the same time. The writers seem to put them in situations that take the man of the moment away from his real mission. Then to make matters worse the families tend to be the most annoying people on the planet. Half the time you are rooting for their demise instead of their defense. World War Z was approaching this territory until the film got wise and kicked the wife and kids to the curb.
After Lane sets out to discover the cause of this zombie attack, World War Z kicks into high gear in the action department. This was both a good and bad thing. The good was the speed of the action. I have heard several complaints about the zombies being faster than how they were portrayed in the book. This is a valid argument. However I counter with this point. Audiences are not going to buy zombies that can be out run by 400lb people. That may have worked in the 60's and 70's but it's just not scary anymore. 28 Days Later and Zack Snyder's Dawn of The Dead remake proved that fast undead/zombies can be both practical and scary. World War Z follows suit and it works.
Until it doesn't.
The action and speed of the undead fails and fails miserably with their CGI doppelgangers. For a film with an estimated $200,000,000 budget, they could have made better looking CGI zombies. I know Pitt costs a ton of money but where did the rest of the $$$ go? I remember watching the trailer and seeing the scene that pictured above and cringing at how poor the special effects looked. Then I assumed that the studio released this trailer with unfinished effects. This is common for big budget films that are CGI heavy. These shots take a long time to finish and render so to get the trailer out for promotions they are cut in refined just enough to get past the audience. It didn't get past me and I figured it would be finished later.
Nope.
What I saw is what I got and that was a crying shame. This is precisely the reason why you never see a close up CGI zombie. This then begs the question. Why in the world use CGI zombies in the first place. If you only see them in wide/high shots to establish the vast numbers the undead feature, why not get a couple hundred or thousand extras, throw some zombie makeup on them and turn them loose on the people. I'd have to imagine it would have been much cheaper than creating millions of computer zombies that look faker than a porn star's boobs. If you're able to get past the cheesy zombies which is no easy task, the film concludes with a pretty clever solution to surviving the exposure to the zombies.
This takes place when Lane is at a W.H.O office. He discovers what he thinks would help "mask" the zombies interest in the people. It was a very cunning and sensible hypothesis that I haven't seen or heard before in zombie films. The problem is when we get to this scene it follows the same blueprint that all zombie films employ. One thing World War Z touches on is the zombies when in a dormant state stay that way unless triggered by sound or loud noise. This is the ONLY time the film gives you a sense of tension and then it goes away thanks to some idiot who makes a loud bang which gets the attention of the undead.
I don't understand why EVERY zombie film feels they have to do this. You already have a great scene setting. The people have to traverse through a labyrinth full of zombies and your best weapon against them is silence. That to me carries more weight and excitement than seeing everyone run at top speed avoiding a herd of rampaging zombies. To make matters worse, World War Z already gave us this kind of scene earlier in the film. We didn't need it here. It was one of the drawbacks of a film that until that point had me still with it.
The performances in this film were by the numbers. Nobody stood out good or bad. Finally, the ending was a bit lukewarm. It gave a sense of a potential sequel which I sincerely hope DOESN'T happen. Not because the film sucked but because of the mystery surrounding the cause of the apocalypse. Want to know more. Listen to my podcast episode of this film for a much more in depth take on my thoughts of how it ended.
Shameless plug I know. Sue me!
Bottom line is World War Z was a run of the mill zombie film that wasn't bad. The rewrites are felt though not crushing to the project. Does it belong in the zombie film Hall of Fame. It doesn't get my vote but the effort was there and that counts for something.
Even with Lindelof attached to the project.
On the 5 star scale. World War Z gets 2.5 stars with a "Go See It!" recommendation.
That's a wrap for today.
Until Next Episode...."I'll Save You A Seat!"
"D"
Today's review is World War Z.
Directed by Marc Forster.
Written by Matthew Michael Carnahan, Drew Goddard & Damon Lindelof.
Screen Story by Matthew Michael Carnahan & J. Michael Straczynski.
Based on the novel "World War Z" written by Max Brooks.
Review #218
MPAA Rating: Rated PG-13 for intense frightening zombie sequences, violence and disturbing images.
Run Time: 116 min
World War Z Trailer: Courtesy of Apple's Trailer Page
Hulk Spoils Hollywood Podcast Page
Cast
Brad Pitt...Gerry Lane
Mireille Enos...Karin Lane
Daniella Kertesz...Segen
James Badge Dale...Captain Speke
Ludi Boeken...Jurgen Warmbrunn
Matthew Fox...Parajumper
Fana Mokoena...Thierry Umutoni
David Morse...Ex-CIA Agent
Elyes Gabel...Andrew Fassbach
Peter Capaldi...W.H.O. Doctor
Pierfrancesco Favino...W.H.O. Doctor
Ruth Negga...W.H.O. Doctor
Moritz Bleibtreu...W.H.O. Doctor
Sterling Jerins...Constance Lane
Abigail Hargrove...Rachel Lane
Fabrizio Zacharee Guido...Tomas
Books and Movies.
Each have their own defining qualities. Having said that, Tinseltown has not been able to crack the mystery of properly adapting popular books into popular films. There have only been a handful that have stood the test of time.
Jaws
The Shining
The Green Mile
Rita Hayworth and The Shawshank Redemption A.K.A The Shawshank Redemption
Fight Club
In God We Trust: All Others Pay Cash A.K.A A Christmas Story
The Godfather
The Exorcist
American Psycho
These are a few examples. I can promise you that no matter how many more good ones exist. There are countless more that were just GOD AWFUL! Why is this the case? It's not that easy to pin down. I like to think it's studio ego. Some studio heads think they know everything and instead of working directly with the book's writer they employ a writer to read then adapt the book. It's not a death sentence plan. A few of the films I mentioned above worked without the influence of the books writer so it can be done.
World War Z falls into this category with an asterisk. A very scary asterisk. This film was adapted without consultation from the novel's writer. The script also went through a considerable amount of rewrites and polishes. Including a work over from a writer that I DESPISE with EVERY fiber of my being.
Damon Lindelof.
Plot
United Nations employee Gerry Lane traverses the world in a race against time to stop the Zombie pandemic that is toppling armies and governments, and threatening to destroy humanity itself.
This film had a lot going against it. The biggest factor is the realization that the zombie genre has run it's course. After a slew of remakes and re imaginations of the genre, zombies have in effect "died" out in the cinema. Then to add insult to injury, a little show on AMC has redefined what a zombie apocalypse looks and feels like. Finally, after the well documented issues with the film's script. The project seemed as doomed as the world the film presents. For some reason this film worked for me which is baffling since there is no weight behind it.
World War Z is basically a 116 minute chase around the world.
The next thing this film did well was leave Lane's family AT HOME! Movies like this always and I do mean ALWAYS flop when the hero has to save the world and his family at the same time. The writers seem to put them in situations that take the man of the moment away from his real mission. Then to make matters worse the families tend to be the most annoying people on the planet. Half the time you are rooting for their demise instead of their defense. World War Z was approaching this territory until the film got wise and kicked the wife and kids to the curb.
After Lane sets out to discover the cause of this zombie attack, World War Z kicks into high gear in the action department. This was both a good and bad thing. The good was the speed of the action. I have heard several complaints about the zombies being faster than how they were portrayed in the book. This is a valid argument. However I counter with this point. Audiences are not going to buy zombies that can be out run by 400lb people. That may have worked in the 60's and 70's but it's just not scary anymore. 28 Days Later and Zack Snyder's Dawn of The Dead remake proved that fast undead/zombies can be both practical and scary. World War Z follows suit and it works.
Until it doesn't.
The action and speed of the undead fails and fails miserably with their CGI doppelgangers. For a film with an estimated $200,000,000 budget, they could have made better looking CGI zombies. I know Pitt costs a ton of money but where did the rest of the $$$ go? I remember watching the trailer and seeing the scene that pictured above and cringing at how poor the special effects looked. Then I assumed that the studio released this trailer with unfinished effects. This is common for big budget films that are CGI heavy. These shots take a long time to finish and render so to get the trailer out for promotions they are cut in refined just enough to get past the audience. It didn't get past me and I figured it would be finished later.
Nope.
What I saw is what I got and that was a crying shame. This is precisely the reason why you never see a close up CGI zombie. This then begs the question. Why in the world use CGI zombies in the first place. If you only see them in wide/high shots to establish the vast numbers the undead feature, why not get a couple hundred or thousand extras, throw some zombie makeup on them and turn them loose on the people. I'd have to imagine it would have been much cheaper than creating millions of computer zombies that look faker than a porn star's boobs. If you're able to get past the cheesy zombies which is no easy task, the film concludes with a pretty clever solution to surviving the exposure to the zombies.
This takes place when Lane is at a W.H.O office. He discovers what he thinks would help "mask" the zombies interest in the people. It was a very cunning and sensible hypothesis that I haven't seen or heard before in zombie films. The problem is when we get to this scene it follows the same blueprint that all zombie films employ. One thing World War Z touches on is the zombies when in a dormant state stay that way unless triggered by sound or loud noise. This is the ONLY time the film gives you a sense of tension and then it goes away thanks to some idiot who makes a loud bang which gets the attention of the undead.
I don't understand why EVERY zombie film feels they have to do this. You already have a great scene setting. The people have to traverse through a labyrinth full of zombies and your best weapon against them is silence. That to me carries more weight and excitement than seeing everyone run at top speed avoiding a herd of rampaging zombies. To make matters worse, World War Z already gave us this kind of scene earlier in the film. We didn't need it here. It was one of the drawbacks of a film that until that point had me still with it.
The performances in this film were by the numbers. Nobody stood out good or bad. Finally, the ending was a bit lukewarm. It gave a sense of a potential sequel which I sincerely hope DOESN'T happen. Not because the film sucked but because of the mystery surrounding the cause of the apocalypse. Want to know more. Listen to my podcast episode of this film for a much more in depth take on my thoughts of how it ended.
Shameless plug I know. Sue me!
Bottom line is World War Z was a run of the mill zombie film that wasn't bad. The rewrites are felt though not crushing to the project. Does it belong in the zombie film Hall of Fame. It doesn't get my vote but the effort was there and that counts for something.
Even with Lindelof attached to the project.
On the 5 star scale. World War Z gets 2.5 stars with a "Go See It!" recommendation.
That's a wrap for today.
Until Next Episode...."I'll Save You A Seat!"
"D"
This is The End
Welcome to another episode of Lights....Camera....Popcorn!
Today's review is This is The End.
Directed by Evan Goldberg & Seth Rogen.
Written by Evan Goldberg & Seth Rogen
Screen Story by Evan Goldberg & Seth Rogen.
Based on the short film Jay and Seth vs The Apocalypse by Jason Stone.
Review #217
MPAA Rating: Rated R for crude and sexual content throughout, brief graphic nudity, pervasive language, drug use and some violence.
Run Time: 107 min
This is The End Traliers: Courtesy of Apple's Trailer Page
Hulk Spoils Hollywood Podcast Page
Cast
The best bits came from the improvisation. When these guys are interacting with each other you can tell when they're following what's on the page and when they're not. It's noticeable but not a deal breaker. In fact I was laughing so hard at times that it didn't matter that the dialogue back and forth was at times unscripted. All of these performers are gifted comedians who know how to shoot from the hip and take a scene to the next level.
In fact there were several standout performances. Namely Michael Cera and Danny McBride. I'm not that big a fan of McBride. I can handle him in small doses but Cera to me is a genius. His dry wit smacks you in the face. Then to see him play the character he plays here was an absolute treat.One of the best parts about This Is The End is the balance each character gets. The film is set in James Franco's house party and is full of celebrities and for the most part they all get a chance to show off their comedic abilities.
If I had one gripe about this film is how crazy it gets at the end. I realize that's saying a lot considering what it's about but towards the end of Act 3, This Is The End goes for the grand finale and it plays a little over the top. McBride's character takes a strange turn which doesn't help the film's cause but overall the lunacy that the ending gives us is not as bad as I might be making it to be. At this point anyway you're already laughed out and expecting the film to finish up.
I really enjoyed this film a whole lot. Rogen and Goldberg recaptured the slick fast talking comedy that Superbad had in spades. I just hope that they're able to keep this going. Only time will tell.
On the 5 star scale. This Is The End gets 4 stars with a "Worth Every Penny!" recommendation.
That's a wrap for today.
Until Next Episode....I'll Save You A Seat!
"D"
Today's review is This is The End.
Directed by Evan Goldberg & Seth Rogen.
Written by Evan Goldberg & Seth Rogen
Screen Story by Evan Goldberg & Seth Rogen.
Based on the short film Jay and Seth vs The Apocalypse by Jason Stone.
Review #217
MPAA Rating: Rated R for crude and sexual content throughout, brief graphic nudity, pervasive language, drug use and some violence.
Run Time: 107 min
This is The End Traliers: Courtesy of Apple's Trailer Page
Hulk Spoils Hollywood Podcast Page
Cast
James Franco...James Franco
Jonah Hill...Jonah Hill
Seth Rogen...Seth Rogen
Jay Baruchel...Jay Baruchel
Danny McBride...Danny McBride
Craig Robinson...Craig Robinson
Michael Cera...Michael Cera
Emma Watson...Emma Watson
Mindy Kaling...Mindy Kaling
David Krumholtz...David Krumholtz
Christopher Mintz-Plasse...Christopher Mintz-Plasse
Rihanna...Rihanna
Martin Starr...Martin Starr
Paul Rudd...Paul Rudd
Channing Tatum...Channing Tatum
Kevin Hart...Kevin Hart
Aziz Ansari...Aziz Ansari
When it comes to comedies. The duo of Seth Rogen and Evan Goldberg have been either a huge hit or a resounding miss. Their first collaboration was Superbad which was hysterical. Since then they hit a wall. Pineapple Express was OK. The Green Hornet was a DISGRACE and The Watch was appallingly bad. So expectations for This Is The End were VERY VERY low. I didn't get sucked into the trailers and clips that they released to promote the film and I though I did want to see it. It would not have crushed me if I missed it.
After seeing it. I would have been crushed if I missed it because this was one of the funnier films I've seen in years.
After seeing it. I would have been crushed if I missed it because this was one of the funnier films I've seen in years.
Plot
While attending a party at James Franco's house, Seth Rogen, Jay
Baruchel and many other celebrities are faced with the apocalypse.
This movie has a ton of what you'd expect from a cast like the one assembled for this one. Dick and fart jokes up the wazoo. But the smartest thing This Is The End did was have the cast play themselves in this fictional world. It gave the film a lot more reality to a story that deals with the end of the world. There were stories that claimed a lot of this film was improvised. It shows and that is a good thing. A film with this subject matter and a cast playing versions of themselves wouldn't have worked with a script shackling the comedy.
This movie has a ton of what you'd expect from a cast like the one assembled for this one. Dick and fart jokes up the wazoo. But the smartest thing This Is The End did was have the cast play themselves in this fictional world. It gave the film a lot more reality to a story that deals with the end of the world. There were stories that claimed a lot of this film was improvised. It shows and that is a good thing. A film with this subject matter and a cast playing versions of themselves wouldn't have worked with a script shackling the comedy.
I really enjoyed this film a whole lot. Rogen and Goldberg recaptured the slick fast talking comedy that Superbad had in spades. I just hope that they're able to keep this going. Only time will tell.
On the 5 star scale. This Is The End gets 4 stars with a "Worth Every Penny!" recommendation.
That's a wrap for today.
Until Next Episode....I'll Save You A Seat!
"D"
Man of Steel
Welcome to another episode of Lights....Camera....Popcorn!
Today's review is Man of Steel.
Directed by Zack Snyder.
Written by David S. Goyer.
Screen Story by David S. Goyer & Christopher Nolan.
Based on the DC Comics character Superman created by Jerry Siegel & Joe Shuster
Review #216
MPAA Rating: Rated PG-13 for intense sequences of sci-fi violence, action and destruction, and for some language.
Run Time: 143 min
Man of Steel Trailer: Courtesy of Apple's Trailer Page
Hulk Spoils Hollywood Podcast Page
Cast
Henry Cavill...Clark Kent / Kal-El
Amy Adams...Lois Lane
Michael Shannon...General Zod
Diane Lane...Martha Kent
Russell Crowe...Jor-El
Antje Traue...Faora-Ul
Harry Lennix...General Swanwick
Richard Schiff...Dr. Emil Hamilton
Christopher Meloni...Colonel Nathan Hardy
Kevin Costner...Jonathan Kent
Ayelet Zurer...Lara Lor-Van
Laurence Fishburne...Perry White
Dylan Sprayberry...Clark Kent (13 Years)
Cooper Timberline...Clark Kent (9 Years)
We all know that there's only one man that's ever been The Man of Steel.
But even the great and incomparable Christopher Reeve couldn't stop the production of two horrendous sequels that he had the misfortune of appearing in. After the demise of Superman Lives (and thank god that project did in fact die) Warner Bros. decided to try and continue the continuity set by Richard Donner's films and go forward with the ridiculous and disappointing Superman Returns otherwise known and Superman 2.0.
To say that idea was a failure is being kind at best.
Seven years later after a series full of Marvel films and three new Batman films. The Man of Steel has finally come back to a theater near you, and let me tell you.
It was worth the wait!
Plot
A young itinerant worker is forced to confront his secret extraterrestrial heritage when Earth is invaded by members of his race.
It always struck me how Tinseltown constantly had problems continuing Superman's filmography with the same amount of success that Donner's films had created. We all know the almighty $$$ rules all of Hollywood but with a character so recognizable and bankable as Superman (it's been said that the "S" on his chest is the most well known symbol next to Jesus on the cross) it's just plain stupid to not be able to "cash" in on the world's most popular superhero. Of course that wasn't the case. Clashing visions combined with clashing ego's led to this drought.
Enter Zack Snyder and Christopher Nolan.
These are the two men responsible for saving the man that has spent a lifetime saving everyone else. While Batman Begins was in production, Nolan and writer David S. Goyer began talking about The Man of Steel and seeing how the character can be revived. After The Dark Knight Rises, Goyer got to work writing and with the inclusion of Snyder and his visual style. We have been given a Superman film that is "strong" enough to step out of the gigantic shadow Superman 1978 and Superman II cast over the character and the franchise. This is not your father's Superman movie. Man of Steel breaks free from the mold the franchise had cast over the character. Unfortunately I can't say why. What I can elaborate on is some of the touches they employed here that made this film it's own.
The biggest thing they did was continue to remind us that Superman is an alien.
It's very easy to lose sight of that fact. He looks human, he acts human and feels just like a human. He adopts a human name and personality to keep his true identity a secret. But he's no more human than my cat. General Zod expressed this best in one of the 10,000 trailers this movie had. "Your world has sheltered one of my citizens. He will look like you, but he is not one of you." Man of Steel never lets you forget that which was essential to the story and how the rest of the film plays out. Kal El has to cope with his newly found abilities while trying to navigate around the world's view of him. Is he friend or foe? This was a dynamic that never played a role in the character's earlier interpretations. Superman comes out of the sky, saves someone or stops a crime and instead of questioning his motives he's welcomed. This was an excellent view of the character that instantly separates the film from it's predecessors.
The next example is how the story is told. The film begins just as the original did. On planet Krypton just before it's destruction. After that, Man of Steel does something very smart. The rest of the film plays out in a non linear fashion that gives it a much better pace and feel. It was a brilliant way to present his upbringing and growth. This film is a re imagining of the character. When Clark is an adult, he's a well built, sure of himself man. Instead of playing the bumbling idiot, Clark spends his time working odd jobs from place to place. He intentionally stays off the grid for fear that someone may discover who he really is. This instantly reminded me of another famous super hero that spent a good part of his life avoiding people and relationships for fear of being noticed or captured.
Can you figure out who I'm talking about?
Here's a hint.
He's big, green and very very ANGRY!
There was a scene in the film where after Clark rescues someone he's trying to find new clothes to wear because he looks like this....
If that doesn't remind you of what Bruce Banner looks like after a Hulk Out. Nothing will.
This segues nicely into my next point. One of the trickier things that happen when retelling Superman's story is balancing the time you take from his landing on earth to his first moment in the suit. No offense to Clark Kent but we didn't pay to see him. We paid to see Superman fly in the suit and cape. So the time it takes from point A to point "S" is critical. Man of Steel does a fantastic job of doing this. How did they do this? Compromise. What does that mean exactly? You have to see the film and you'll know what I'm talking about. Finally, they did something that I didn't expect.
It concerns General Zod.
For the first time in the Superman franchise. The villain was relate able. In Superman II, General Zod played by Terrence Stamp was hell bent on destroying Superman because he was the son of the man who imprisoned him. His motives were based on retribution. In Man of Steel, Zod's motives are much different and sensible. This film humanizes it's antagonist while maintaining the character's core nature and purpose. You understand exactly what Zod is trying to do and why. You sympathize with his intentions. It's a total reversal from what we got when Zod first graced us with his presence back in 1980. This normally would be something I would reject based on the simple premise that any villain is not supposed to be sympathized with.
Especially General Zod.
He's not there to be friends with Superman. He's there to ensure the demise of our beloved hero. So why did this tactic work? Quite simply, this film though a reboot in nature is also an origin story as well. Man of Steel plays with the notion that Kal El and his enemies are adjusting to the new world they have discovered. Superman though fully grown is by no means a man. He's constantly learning and evolving with his powers. Zod and his warriors experience this as well. Because this is where they went with the characters and the story, it made Zod's feelings for Kal El and his intentions toward Earth all the more understandable.
This is why Zack Snyder was the right choice to direct this film. He knew that just washing over the same old story of Superman was not going to go over. So he went another way. He gave us all a Superman that holds true to what we all know and love about the character while giving is a fresh perspective. Not an easy task but pulled off expertly. Snyder and company took major gambles by doing this. Including casting a "unknown" to play the Man of Steel himself.
Henry Cavill is no Christopher Reeve. He's not Brandon Routh either. He's better than both of them. Before you rip my head off let me explain. Like I mentioned up top. Reeve is irreplaceable but if he were alive today, he would have never been able to play Superman in this kind of imagining of the character. Cavill was perfect because like him, this film is treading on undiscovered ground. This film doesn't work if Brad Pitt or Tom Cruise played the part. They had to go outside the box to make this work. Cavill gives both Clark and Superman a dignity and stoicism that both Reeve and Routh didn't. Not because they couldn't but because they weren't supposed to. That's why this film works. Having said all of this. Man of Steel isn't perfect. I do have one gripe.
It's with the action.
Man of Steel has PHENOMENAL action. The fights in this film are so powerful. They really captured the superiority these beings have over the people of earth. My beef is at times in their attempt to properly display these characters overwhelming abilities, it was hard to make out what was happening. It pains me to say this but it reminded me of what Hackel Bay did with the Transformers films when it came to the robots fighting. The CG was so chaotic that all you saw on the screen was destruction and noise. The action in this film has traces of that same problem. It's nowhere near as awful as Transformers but it was too noticeable to ignore.
The bottom line here is Zack Snyder, Christopher Nolan and David S. Goyer took a HUGE roll of the dice with Man of Steel and it PAID OFF BIG TIME! This film was worth waiting for. Worth all of the trailers, posters, commercials and promotion that was thrown at us to create excitement. If this film is any indication of the future of this character moving forward.
Then Superman has finally RETURNED!
On the 5 star scale. Man of Steel gets 4.5 stars. With a "Worth Every Penny!" recommendation.
That's a wrap for today.
Until next episode...."I'll Save You A Seat!"
"D"
Today's review is Man of Steel.
Directed by Zack Snyder.
Written by David S. Goyer.
Screen Story by David S. Goyer & Christopher Nolan.
Based on the DC Comics character Superman created by Jerry Siegel & Joe Shuster
Review #216
MPAA Rating: Rated PG-13 for intense sequences of sci-fi violence, action and destruction, and for some language.
Run Time: 143 min
Man of Steel Trailer: Courtesy of Apple's Trailer Page
Hulk Spoils Hollywood Podcast Page
Cast
Henry Cavill...Clark Kent / Kal-El
Amy Adams...Lois Lane
Michael Shannon...General Zod
Diane Lane...Martha Kent
Russell Crowe...Jor-El
Antje Traue...Faora-Ul
Harry Lennix...General Swanwick
Richard Schiff...Dr. Emil Hamilton
Christopher Meloni...Colonel Nathan Hardy
Kevin Costner...Jonathan Kent
Ayelet Zurer...Lara Lor-Van
Laurence Fishburne...Perry White
Dylan Sprayberry...Clark Kent (13 Years)
Cooper Timberline...Clark Kent (9 Years)
We all know that there's only one man that's ever been The Man of Steel.
But even the great and incomparable Christopher Reeve couldn't stop the production of two horrendous sequels that he had the misfortune of appearing in. After the demise of Superman Lives (and thank god that project did in fact die) Warner Bros. decided to try and continue the continuity set by Richard Donner's films and go forward with the ridiculous and disappointing Superman Returns otherwise known and Superman 2.0.
To say that idea was a failure is being kind at best.
Seven years later after a series full of Marvel films and three new Batman films. The Man of Steel has finally come back to a theater near you, and let me tell you.
It was worth the wait!
Plot
A young itinerant worker is forced to confront his secret extraterrestrial heritage when Earth is invaded by members of his race.
Enter Zack Snyder and Christopher Nolan.
These are the two men responsible for saving the man that has spent a lifetime saving everyone else. While Batman Begins was in production, Nolan and writer David S. Goyer began talking about The Man of Steel and seeing how the character can be revived. After The Dark Knight Rises, Goyer got to work writing and with the inclusion of Snyder and his visual style. We have been given a Superman film that is "strong" enough to step out of the gigantic shadow Superman 1978 and Superman II cast over the character and the franchise. This is not your father's Superman movie. Man of Steel breaks free from the mold the franchise had cast over the character. Unfortunately I can't say why. What I can elaborate on is some of the touches they employed here that made this film it's own.
The biggest thing they did was continue to remind us that Superman is an alien.
It's very easy to lose sight of that fact. He looks human, he acts human and feels just like a human. He adopts a human name and personality to keep his true identity a secret. But he's no more human than my cat. General Zod expressed this best in one of the 10,000 trailers this movie had. "Your world has sheltered one of my citizens. He will look like you, but he is not one of you." Man of Steel never lets you forget that which was essential to the story and how the rest of the film plays out. Kal El has to cope with his newly found abilities while trying to navigate around the world's view of him. Is he friend or foe? This was a dynamic that never played a role in the character's earlier interpretations. Superman comes out of the sky, saves someone or stops a crime and instead of questioning his motives he's welcomed. This was an excellent view of the character that instantly separates the film from it's predecessors.
The next example is how the story is told. The film begins just as the original did. On planet Krypton just before it's destruction. After that, Man of Steel does something very smart. The rest of the film plays out in a non linear fashion that gives it a much better pace and feel. It was a brilliant way to present his upbringing and growth. This film is a re imagining of the character. When Clark is an adult, he's a well built, sure of himself man. Instead of playing the bumbling idiot, Clark spends his time working odd jobs from place to place. He intentionally stays off the grid for fear that someone may discover who he really is. This instantly reminded me of another famous super hero that spent a good part of his life avoiding people and relationships for fear of being noticed or captured.
Can you figure out who I'm talking about?
Here's a hint.
He's big, green and very very ANGRY!
There was a scene in the film where after Clark rescues someone he's trying to find new clothes to wear because he looks like this....
This segues nicely into my next point. One of the trickier things that happen when retelling Superman's story is balancing the time you take from his landing on earth to his first moment in the suit. No offense to Clark Kent but we didn't pay to see him. We paid to see Superman fly in the suit and cape. So the time it takes from point A to point "S" is critical. Man of Steel does a fantastic job of doing this. How did they do this? Compromise. What does that mean exactly? You have to see the film and you'll know what I'm talking about. Finally, they did something that I didn't expect.
It concerns General Zod.
For the first time in the Superman franchise. The villain was relate able. In Superman II, General Zod played by Terrence Stamp was hell bent on destroying Superman because he was the son of the man who imprisoned him. His motives were based on retribution. In Man of Steel, Zod's motives are much different and sensible. This film humanizes it's antagonist while maintaining the character's core nature and purpose. You understand exactly what Zod is trying to do and why. You sympathize with his intentions. It's a total reversal from what we got when Zod first graced us with his presence back in 1980. This normally would be something I would reject based on the simple premise that any villain is not supposed to be sympathized with.
Especially General Zod.
He's not there to be friends with Superman. He's there to ensure the demise of our beloved hero. So why did this tactic work? Quite simply, this film though a reboot in nature is also an origin story as well. Man of Steel plays with the notion that Kal El and his enemies are adjusting to the new world they have discovered. Superman though fully grown is by no means a man. He's constantly learning and evolving with his powers. Zod and his warriors experience this as well. Because this is where they went with the characters and the story, it made Zod's feelings for Kal El and his intentions toward Earth all the more understandable.
This is why Zack Snyder was the right choice to direct this film. He knew that just washing over the same old story of Superman was not going to go over. So he went another way. He gave us all a Superman that holds true to what we all know and love about the character while giving is a fresh perspective. Not an easy task but pulled off expertly. Snyder and company took major gambles by doing this. Including casting a "unknown" to play the Man of Steel himself.
It's with the action.
Man of Steel has PHENOMENAL action. The fights in this film are so powerful. They really captured the superiority these beings have over the people of earth. My beef is at times in their attempt to properly display these characters overwhelming abilities, it was hard to make out what was happening. It pains me to say this but it reminded me of what Hackel Bay did with the Transformers films when it came to the robots fighting. The CG was so chaotic that all you saw on the screen was destruction and noise. The action in this film has traces of that same problem. It's nowhere near as awful as Transformers but it was too noticeable to ignore.
The bottom line here is Zack Snyder, Christopher Nolan and David S. Goyer took a HUGE roll of the dice with Man of Steel and it PAID OFF BIG TIME! This film was worth waiting for. Worth all of the trailers, posters, commercials and promotion that was thrown at us to create excitement. If this film is any indication of the future of this character moving forward.
Then Superman has finally RETURNED!
On the 5 star scale. Man of Steel gets 4.5 stars. With a "Worth Every Penny!" recommendation.
That's a wrap for today.
Until next episode...."I'll Save You A Seat!"
"D"
Now You See Me
Welcome to another episode of Lights....Camera....Popcorn!
Today's review is Now You See Me.
Directed by Louis Leterrier.
Written by Ed Solomon, Boaz Yakin & Edward Ricourt.
Screen Story by Boaz Yakin & Edward Ricourt.
Review #215
MPAA Rating: Rated PG-13 for language, some action and sexual content.
Run Time: 115 min
Trailer: Courtesy of Apple's Trailer Page
Cast
Jesse Eisenberg...J. Daniel Atlas
Mark Ruffalo...Dylan Rhodes
Woody Harrelson...Merritt McKinney
Isla Fisher...Henley Reeves
Dave Franco...Jack Wilder
Mélanie Laurent...Alma Dray
Morgan Freeman...Thaddeus Bradley
Michael Caine...Arthur Tressler
Michael Kelly...Agent Fuller (as Michael J. Kelly)
Common...Evans
Why is magic so much fun?
We all know it's fake, it's designed to make us all look and feel stupid yet we can't stop watching. Even you magic haters out there. You must have a shred of wonder of how these people do what they do. I love magic because it's flat out entertaining. That's the point. The magician's ability to misdirect and mystify is a skill that takes years to master. It's a dedication to a craft that's forever changing due to it's long standing bout with staleness and lack of originality.
Why is this important for this review?
Quite simply, the movie biz is also dealing with the same issue of originality and staleness. This goes double for films that employ magic in them. Films like The Prestige, The Illusionist and The Incredible Burt Wonderstone to name a few have had to deal with a subject matter that's been done before live on stage so the approach has to be fresh to present on screen. The Prestige and The Illusionist went the serious drama route while The Incredible Burt Wonderstone went for the laughs. Now You See Me went a much different way and for reasons I still can't explain.
It worked.
Plot
An FBI agent and an Interpol detective track a team of illusionists who pull off bank heists during their performances and reward their audiences with the money.
Since Tinseltown already did drama and comedy with magic films. The next logical step is to go the heist route. If you think about it, it makes perfect sense. Who better to pull off robberies than people who's sole profession and expertise involves trickery and manipulation. Now You See Me does this in every way and then some. This could have been a huge drawback for me but the film saves itself by doing something a lot of films fail to do.
What I mean is since the film is based in the world of magic, the use of misdirection and twists is a necessity to drive the story. This film has so many that it's easy to get a bit lost which is the last thing a film like this needs to happen to it's audience. Then it does the right thing by first bringing you back to the twist then showing you the solution. In a nutshell they show you the magic trick then show you how it was done. Normally that's a killer in the magic world but in the film world it helps immensely. A lot of films with this kind of plot device don't do that. Instead they leave things unresolved or partially execute the resolution which in most cases is worse than no resolution at all. Now You See Me does a good job of balancing the twist with it's reveal. It's sophisticated enough to play with your mind yet simple enough to understand once the secret is revealed.
The film does a pretty good job with presenting the magic tricks even though they are all the same. The thing that makes this different is the fact that Now You See Me is in reality an action film at heart. There are quite a few chases and fight scenes that ramp up the intensity of the story. These scenes do the exact opposite of their intention. In an action film, the scenes that precede and follow said action scene are used to get the audience going and give them a chance to recover respectively. In this film, the action scenes are employed to give us a break from the magic and investigation scenes that take place. It was a cute twist (no pun intended) to the action movie formula.
Of course, what would a heist film with magicians be without a final abracadabra finale. This film is no different. In fact the end of this film would on any other occasion send me into a hulk smash rage. Why? Because of the cheap reveal. The last 10 minutes give us the final behind the curtain moment and as it's playing out it feels so shabby. However, like I said in the beginning, it worked here. Mostly for two reasons. One, the film provides reasonable solutions to all of the mysteries they give us. Secondly, Now You See Me doesn't take itself seriously. The film plays exactly how it was made. It's a simple, fun, action film full of the same devices that the magic world is known for. This film is by no means perfect. If you're looking for perfection here then you were better off taking the money you paid for your ticket and setting it on fire. If you're in the mood for an entertaining ride then check this out one.
On the 5 star scale. Now You See Me gets 3 stars with a "Go See It!" recommendation.
That's a wrap for today.
Until Next Episode...."I'll Save You A Seat!"
"D"
Today's review is Now You See Me.
Directed by Louis Leterrier.
Written by Ed Solomon, Boaz Yakin & Edward Ricourt.
Screen Story by Boaz Yakin & Edward Ricourt.
Review #215
MPAA Rating: Rated PG-13 for language, some action and sexual content.
Run Time: 115 min
Trailer: Courtesy of Apple's Trailer Page
Cast
Jesse Eisenberg...J. Daniel Atlas
Mark Ruffalo...Dylan Rhodes
Woody Harrelson...Merritt McKinney
Isla Fisher...Henley Reeves
Dave Franco...Jack Wilder
Mélanie Laurent...Alma Dray
Morgan Freeman...Thaddeus Bradley
Michael Caine...Arthur Tressler
Michael Kelly...Agent Fuller (as Michael J. Kelly)
Common...Evans
Why is magic so much fun?
We all know it's fake, it's designed to make us all look and feel stupid yet we can't stop watching. Even you magic haters out there. You must have a shred of wonder of how these people do what they do. I love magic because it's flat out entertaining. That's the point. The magician's ability to misdirect and mystify is a skill that takes years to master. It's a dedication to a craft that's forever changing due to it's long standing bout with staleness and lack of originality.
Why is this important for this review?
Quite simply, the movie biz is also dealing with the same issue of originality and staleness. This goes double for films that employ magic in them. Films like The Prestige, The Illusionist and The Incredible Burt Wonderstone to name a few have had to deal with a subject matter that's been done before live on stage so the approach has to be fresh to present on screen. The Prestige and The Illusionist went the serious drama route while The Incredible Burt Wonderstone went for the laughs. Now You See Me went a much different way and for reasons I still can't explain.
It worked.
Plot
An FBI agent and an Interpol detective track a team of illusionists who pull off bank heists during their performances and reward their audiences with the money.
Since Tinseltown already did drama and comedy with magic films. The next logical step is to go the heist route. If you think about it, it makes perfect sense. Who better to pull off robberies than people who's sole profession and expertise involves trickery and manipulation. Now You See Me does this in every way and then some. This could have been a huge drawback for me but the film saves itself by doing something a lot of films fail to do.
What I mean is since the film is based in the world of magic, the use of misdirection and twists is a necessity to drive the story. This film has so many that it's easy to get a bit lost which is the last thing a film like this needs to happen to it's audience. Then it does the right thing by first bringing you back to the twist then showing you the solution. In a nutshell they show you the magic trick then show you how it was done. Normally that's a killer in the magic world but in the film world it helps immensely. A lot of films with this kind of plot device don't do that. Instead they leave things unresolved or partially execute the resolution which in most cases is worse than no resolution at all. Now You See Me does a good job of balancing the twist with it's reveal. It's sophisticated enough to play with your mind yet simple enough to understand once the secret is revealed.
The film does a pretty good job with presenting the magic tricks even though they are all the same. The thing that makes this different is the fact that Now You See Me is in reality an action film at heart. There are quite a few chases and fight scenes that ramp up the intensity of the story. These scenes do the exact opposite of their intention. In an action film, the scenes that precede and follow said action scene are used to get the audience going and give them a chance to recover respectively. In this film, the action scenes are employed to give us a break from the magic and investigation scenes that take place. It was a cute twist (no pun intended) to the action movie formula.
On the 5 star scale. Now You See Me gets 3 stars with a "Go See It!" recommendation.
That's a wrap for today.
Until Next Episode...."I'll Save You A Seat!"
"D"
After Earth
Welcome to another episode of Lights....Camera....Popcorn!
Today's review is After Earth.
Directed by M. Night Shyamalan.
Written by Gary Whitta & M. Night Shyamalan.
Screen Story by Will Smith.
Review #214
MPAA Rating: Rated PG-13 for sci-fi action violence and some disturbing images.
Run Time: 100 min
Trailer: Courtesy of Apple's Trailer Page
Cast
Jaden Smith...Kitai Raige
Will Smith...Cypher Raige
Sophie Okonedo...Faia Raige
Zoë Kravitz...Senshi Raige (as Zoe Isabella Kravitz)
Glenn Morshower...Commander Velan
Kristofer Hivju...Security Chief
Sacha Dhawan...Hesper Pilot
Chris Geere...Hesper Navigator
Diego Klattenhoff...Veteran Ranger
David Denman...Private McQuarrie
I wish I could explain myself better but when it comes to films made by people that I don't like, I continue to give them the benefit of the doubt. I constantly hold out hope that maybe this one time they'll get it right or return to the form that once made them a success.
M. Night Shyamalan is undoubtedly one of these filmmakers.
He is a tragic example of lightning in a bottle. We all know the success he had with The Sixth Sense and to a lesser extent Unbreakable (A film I prefer over The Sixth Sense any day and twice on Sunday). Then something unexpected and very disappointing happened. He started making HORRIBLE films that were panned by both the public and the professionals. Shyamalan's rise and fall from Hollywood grace is a story of legend.
There are so many accounts that chronicle why and how his film career has deteriorated over time. Many believe that studio interference and conflicting vision led to not only his poor track record but his dismissal from Disney/Touchstone Pictures. Then there's the version that I think is true. He started to feel himself a bit too much and thought he was beyond studio control. There were several stories that detail Night's refusal to change his scripts or give writing control to someone else and just have him direct.
In a nutshell it was pure ego.
There are only two people who know the truth. That's Night and God and neither one is going to tell us so the speculation rages on. The one thing that doesn't need clarification is Night's latest batch of films. They've been poorly written, acted and directed. Night lost his mojo and needs to get it back quick or he will find himself becoming a punchline instead of a cinema prodigy.
So with his latest entry I instantly rejected the thought of seeing this film. Then I changed my mind thanks to two factors. The first being he didn't write this film on his own. The second was the Will Smith factor. I was confident that if Night thought he was going to walk in and take control he had another thing coming. Will Smith is one of the more powerful entities in Tinseltown. Like it or not, the man's got juice and the bankroll to back it up.
So did these factors change my mind about Shyamalan?
HELL NO! But this time he's not the only one responsible. This flat film was a true team effort.
Plot
A crash landing leaves Kitai Raige and his father Cypher stranded on Earth, 1,000 years after events forced humanity's escape. With Cypher injured, Kitai must embark on a perilous journey to signal for help.
After Earth has a pretty good premise and presentation.The scope and world that's created for this film was not bad at all. The biggest problem with this film is the script. Mainly in one critical area.
The relationship between Cypher and Kitai.
The story revolves around the disconnected relationship between the heroic warrior father and the wannabe rebellious son. After Earth does a decent job when it comes to Kitai's disappointment that he's not like his father and Cypher's equal disappointment in Kitai not being like him. What fails here is the reason for Cypher's detachment from Kitai. It's only told in bits and pieces through flashbacks. It wasn't fleshed out enough. Normally I abhor needless exposition but in this case it was a necessity. The script makes it clear that Cypher doesn't believe in his son by his actions and attitude towards him.
What was sorely lacking was showing us why.
It was essential to the flow and feel of this this film that we identified with the struggles of both of these characters. Especially since we were going to spend 85% of the film with them. It wasn't here and that was a missed opportunity of epic proportions. This falls on Whitta, Shyamalan and Will Smith. He was given a story credit for this film. If this film came from his head then he should have known better to include more strife and conflict between him and his son or mandate that to the writers.
Instead we got a coming of age tale that underperformed in every way.
The failure of After Earth doesn't just lie with the underdeveloped script. It also fails with the performance of the two leads. Both Will and Jaden Smith were terrible. The premise and motivation for Cypher's character was to be emotionless and methodical but that doesn't mean to act like a robot. Jaden wasn't much better. The film tried to establish Kitai's defiance for the rules while training to be a ranger. How do we see this? With a scene where he's being told he's not going to be a ranger because of his reckless behavior. How about seeing an example of that? Would it be so hard to show this kid act like the brat he was supposed to be portrayed as?
Nah. That would make too much sense.
After some very slow moving scenes we get to the very predictable finale that would have been more rewarding had we been more invested in these two characters. Since I didn't care about these people. I cared less about what happened to them at the end. This is all Shyamalan's doing. He co wrote this film. He needed to know that if you were going to tell a story that contained plot elements that have been done before and much better I might add. He had to find a way to make this his own. This is what he accomplished with The Sixth Sense and Unbreakable. He made two genre films and found a way to make them his own with some creativity and originality.
That doesn't happen here and hasn't happened with his films since.
On the 5 star scale. After Earth gets 1 star with a "Netflix It!" recommendation.
That's a wrap for today.
Until Next Episode...."I'll Save You A Seat!"
"D"
Today's review is After Earth.
Directed by M. Night Shyamalan.
Written by Gary Whitta & M. Night Shyamalan.
Screen Story by Will Smith.
Review #214
MPAA Rating: Rated PG-13 for sci-fi action violence and some disturbing images.
Run Time: 100 min
Trailer: Courtesy of Apple's Trailer Page
Cast
Jaden Smith...Kitai Raige
Will Smith...Cypher Raige
Sophie Okonedo...Faia Raige
Zoë Kravitz...Senshi Raige (as Zoe Isabella Kravitz)
Glenn Morshower...Commander Velan
Kristofer Hivju...Security Chief
Sacha Dhawan...Hesper Pilot
Chris Geere...Hesper Navigator
Diego Klattenhoff...Veteran Ranger
David Denman...Private McQuarrie
I wish I could explain myself better but when it comes to films made by people that I don't like, I continue to give them the benefit of the doubt. I constantly hold out hope that maybe this one time they'll get it right or return to the form that once made them a success.
M. Night Shyamalan is undoubtedly one of these filmmakers.
He is a tragic example of lightning in a bottle. We all know the success he had with The Sixth Sense and to a lesser extent Unbreakable (A film I prefer over The Sixth Sense any day and twice on Sunday). Then something unexpected and very disappointing happened. He started making HORRIBLE films that were panned by both the public and the professionals. Shyamalan's rise and fall from Hollywood grace is a story of legend.
There are so many accounts that chronicle why and how his film career has deteriorated over time. Many believe that studio interference and conflicting vision led to not only his poor track record but his dismissal from Disney/Touchstone Pictures. Then there's the version that I think is true. He started to feel himself a bit too much and thought he was beyond studio control. There were several stories that detail Night's refusal to change his scripts or give writing control to someone else and just have him direct.
In a nutshell it was pure ego.
There are only two people who know the truth. That's Night and God and neither one is going to tell us so the speculation rages on. The one thing that doesn't need clarification is Night's latest batch of films. They've been poorly written, acted and directed. Night lost his mojo and needs to get it back quick or he will find himself becoming a punchline instead of a cinema prodigy.
So with his latest entry I instantly rejected the thought of seeing this film. Then I changed my mind thanks to two factors. The first being he didn't write this film on his own. The second was the Will Smith factor. I was confident that if Night thought he was going to walk in and take control he had another thing coming. Will Smith is one of the more powerful entities in Tinseltown. Like it or not, the man's got juice and the bankroll to back it up.
So did these factors change my mind about Shyamalan?
HELL NO! But this time he's not the only one responsible. This flat film was a true team effort.
Plot
A crash landing leaves Kitai Raige and his father Cypher stranded on Earth, 1,000 years after events forced humanity's escape. With Cypher injured, Kitai must embark on a perilous journey to signal for help.
After Earth has a pretty good premise and presentation.The scope and world that's created for this film was not bad at all. The biggest problem with this film is the script. Mainly in one critical area.
The relationship between Cypher and Kitai.
What was sorely lacking was showing us why.
Instead we got a coming of age tale that underperformed in every way.
The failure of After Earth doesn't just lie with the underdeveloped script. It also fails with the performance of the two leads. Both Will and Jaden Smith were terrible. The premise and motivation for Cypher's character was to be emotionless and methodical but that doesn't mean to act like a robot. Jaden wasn't much better. The film tried to establish Kitai's defiance for the rules while training to be a ranger. How do we see this? With a scene where he's being told he's not going to be a ranger because of his reckless behavior. How about seeing an example of that? Would it be so hard to show this kid act like the brat he was supposed to be portrayed as?
Nah. That would make too much sense.
After some very slow moving scenes we get to the very predictable finale that would have been more rewarding had we been more invested in these two characters. Since I didn't care about these people. I cared less about what happened to them at the end. This is all Shyamalan's doing. He co wrote this film. He needed to know that if you were going to tell a story that contained plot elements that have been done before and much better I might add. He had to find a way to make this his own. This is what he accomplished with The Sixth Sense and Unbreakable. He made two genre films and found a way to make them his own with some creativity and originality.
That doesn't happen here and hasn't happened with his films since.
On the 5 star scale. After Earth gets 1 star with a "Netflix It!" recommendation.
That's a wrap for today.
Until Next Episode...."I'll Save You A Seat!"
"D"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)