June 2013 Summer Action Flicks

World War Z

• The crowning achievements in World War Z are its beginning and end.  The middle is all zombie-filled, choppily edited mush.  Thankfully, the first and third acts are actually quite good so the film is all-in-all entertaining.  There are several supporting characters whose screen time was cut too short (i.e. the virologist and his "mother nature as a serial killer" dialogue) and some missed opportunities to explore some potentially interesting subplots, but I suspect they might resurface in the inevitable sequel(s).  Brad Pitt has a pretty amazing track record and can carry even a narratively messy film on his shoulders, even with that pseudo-mullet of his.  I thought the story (didn't read the book) came up with a pretty ingenious method to combat the zombie epidemic and offered one of the most creative solutions to beating the undead I have seen.  Without giving away too much, the idea of the "camouflage" and the final sequences in the WHO research facility in Wales were pretty stellar and weighed heavily on my impression of the film.  The notion of a global epidemic has been an interesting cinematic topic in recent years (i.e. Soderbergh's Contagion) and one which I find quite compelling on screen.  If you overlook the numerous plot holes and the jumble that is the film's second act, you'll find a satisfying zombie summer action movie with a few nice surprises.
• Rating: 4 / 5

Man of Steel

• Thank the comic book movie gods Russell Crowe was in this movie.  The aussie's presence was the highlight of this promising-but-somewhat-of-a-letdown take on the Superman lore.  In Man of Steel, Superman surprisingly doesn't really get the hero status that he deserves.  The film is littered with frequent flashbacks that serve to highlight his backstory but unfortunately also prevent us from connecting with Henry Cavill's portrayal of the titular superhero.  I'm curious what percentage of Superman lines belonged to the young actors portraying young Clark Kent and what percentage belonged to Mr. Cavill.... The opening sequences are impressive, but the film then falters when the setting changes to Earth.  Too many things are being attempted at once and none really works.  It's difficult to make a Superman movie and truly make audiences feel a sense of danger for our beloved hero.  This one succeeds in terms of visual spectacle, but altogether feels like it should've been much grander than the final product.
• Rating: 2.5 / 5

SEE IT or SKIP IT?

I'm back!

After a several month hiatus buried in my optometric studies, I finally had some time to sit down and write up some quick movie reviews.  I condensed some thoughts about recent films below.

Enjoy!


NOW PLAYING...

"I like things that look like mistakes."

• Frances Ha
• Noah Baumbach's latest film is my favorite of his canon of quirky independent films.  Frances finds it home somewhere between French New Wave cinema & modern indie filmmaking.  Greta Gerwig turns in a pretty unforgettable performance as the ever-awkward, "undateable" title character.  The film oscillates deftly between sincerity and hilarity in its collection of vignettes.  And I love black & white.
• Rating: 5/5
• SEE IT

• Star Trek: Into Darkness
• The newest edition to the Star Trek franchise doesn't quite measure up to its immediate predecessor in many respects.  However, it surpasses the 2009 Star Trek in one key aspect - its villain.  Benedict Cumberbatch turns in a phenomenal performance as the brilliant, powerful, badass baddie in the film.  That performance alone makes the film worth seeing. As with the 2009 film, the best sequence here features one in which main characters are hurled towards a small landing area through space (recall the drilling sequence in the previous film).  Despite lacking some of the WOW-I-never-was-into-Star-Trek-but-this-is-awesome factor that greatly benefitted the previous film, there's plenty of good in this go around to make the voyage back to the Starship Enterprise well worth it. 
• Rating: 4/5 ...recommended in 3-D, especially because of Alice Eve :)
• SEE IT

• Now You See Me
• Now You See Me is a film that promises big surprises and a grand finale throughout the first two acts, but can't seem to fully deliver in the final act.  Unlike other "magic" movies of recent years (i.e. The Prestige, The Illusionist), Now You See Me stumbles a bit during its third act reveal.  The film isn't totally predictable and does feature some clever, well thought out sequences.  The cast does seem to be having fun in their roles, and a number of likable actors/actresses are involved.  If the film posed more so as good old-fashioned summer fun rather than taking itself just a little too seriously (with the promise of "something that's really going to amaze") I probably would've enjoyed it more.
• Rating: 2.5/5
• SEE or SKIP?

• The Purge
• When the highlight of the film is its opening sequence and the rest is downhill, that tends to be a little disappointing.  Such is the case here.  The opening sequence to The Purge features "found footage" of people "purging" (basically a nationwide annual catharsis for pent up rage & aggression) while set to the tune of the Clair de Lune, which happens to be a commonly used classic piece of music which I'm very fond of.  So I'm on board at this point.  90 minutes later, I'm not.  The film has a few good ideas which it beats over the head throughout its runtime (i.e. the motorized toy hidden camera, the homeless man with questionable motives, the juxtaposition of rich vs. poor).  However, all the film can think to do with its plot is divert into sustained sequences of violence.  We're trapped in the main characters' house being tormented along with them, hoping for some glimmer of originality or innovation.  But all we get is torture porn and recycled cliches.  What a shame that a potentially interesting commentary on violence & poverty in society became a part of it rather than a reflection on modern culture.
• Rating: 1.5/5
• SKIP IT!!!

• The Great Gatsby (2013)
• This is perhaps the most flamboyant, outlandish version of The Great Gatsby that will ever be made, and it's this fact that will determine whether you like or hate the film.  I fall somewhere in between.  I can say with confidence that this is not what I had in mind while reading the classic F. Scott Fitzgerald novel, but that's not to suggest that I hated the end result.  At times, the crazy world created by director Baz Luhrman is a little too much to handle, but at others it's too fun to resist.  I actually enjoyed the film's soundtrack which nicely blends old school sounds with modern beats - an idea which I suspect the film as a whole was attempting.  I'm not quite sure that goal was fully realized.
• Rating: 3/5
• SEE or SKIP?

ON DVD...

• Pitch Perfect
• The film is essentially a over-sized episode of Glee with very little substance or entertainment value.  If you enjoy Glee, you may enjoy this one.  Maybe.
• Rating: 1.5/5

• Sinister
• While certainly creepy, atmospheric, & assuredly disturbing, much of the film feels borrowed from other movies with similar horror themes.  It has its moments, but overall doesn't quite have the chops to stand on its feet as a modern horror classic.
• Rating: 3/5

Note: I don't own the rights to any of the photos on this website.  They're copied here from Google images for entertainment purposes only.

• 
  

Sequels, Prequels, and Re-Imaginings: The Hollywood Cash Cow

Oz the Great & Powerful got me thinking about an interesting subject - that of sequels, prequels, and re-imaginings.  Even if the stories aren't really anything particularly interesting, audiences are still drawn to them because they love the original so much.  It's an intriguing phenomenon, and Hollywood undoubtedly understands the psychology behind this.  Since the 1980's, sequels or similar re-imaginings usually dominate the Top 10 Grossing films of the year.  Do we really need 4 or 5 Shrek or Die Hard films?  No, but we've already spent so much money on the other films that we're at least curious what happens to our beloved characters.  

Some sequels slotted to be released in 2013 (left to right, top to bottom): Red, Scary Movie, Monsters Inc., Iron Man, The Hobbit

It's no wonder why many talented filmmakers have shifted their efforts towards television (ex. AMC = American Movie Classics, known mostly for their award-winning TV series).  With a television series, we follow a group of characters through various different plot lines week to week.  We stay tuned for one reason: curiosity.  What's going to happen next episode?  What hilarious Dwight prank will Jim pull off on "The Office" next?  What will Rick & the gang be faced with next on "The Walking Dead"?  We get to know the characters and care about what happens in their fictional lives.  Movies can do the same to the point where we "can't wait!" for the next movie in a series to come out.  We all experience this.  Hollywood producers have adopted a pseudo-TV-style method of operating - they generate sequels to create interest and then satisfy that interest.

Top Grossing Films of 2012 (from Wikipedia):

1. The Avengers = "sequel" to Iron Man, Thor, etc.
2. Skyfall = sequel
3. The Dark Knight Rises = sequel
4. The Hobbit = prequel 
5. Ice Age: Continental Drift = sequel
6. Twilight: Breaking Dawn pt. 2 = sequel
7. The Amazing Spider-man = reboot
8. Madagascar 3 = sequel
9. The Hunger Games = first in a series based on a book
10. Men in Black 3 = sequel

Top Grossing Films of 2011 (from Wikipedia):

1. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2 = sequel
2. Transformers: Dark of the Moon = sequel
3. Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides = sequel
4. Twilight: Breaking Dawn pt. 1 = sequel
5. Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol = sequel
6. Kung Fu Panda 2 = sequel
7. Fast Five = sequel
8. Hangover pt. 2 = sequel
9. The Smurfs 
10. Cars 2 = sequel

Top Grossing Films of 2001 (from Wikipedia):

1. Harry Potter = start of series
2. LOTR: Fellowship = start of series
3. Monsters, Inc. = sequel on the way
4. Shrek = start of series
5. Ocean's 11 = start of series
6. Pearl Harbor
7. The Mummy Returns = sequel
8. Jurassic Park 3 = sequel
9. Planet of the Apes = reboot
10. Hannibal = sequel

Movies are increasingly being made more available to the public than each year before it.  Many years ago (in the times before blu-rays, DVDs, and VHS), if you missed a movie in the theater, it  meant you missed the movie.  There were no re-screenings or take home versions until years later.  It, therefore, made no sense for Hollywood to start thinking about generating films that featured "returning" characters.  With the ever quickening availability of films on Netflix, Red Box, and the like, it becomes a race to generate the next film in the series as fast as possible... then get it out to the public quickly in all forms of media possible!  While convenience and availability are certainly on the rise, are originality and innovation taking the back seat?  In some cases, yes.

I certainly do not hate every sequel or re-imagining of a classic movie ever made.  I do think that many of them are complete crap and are designed to be purely cash cows.  The Harry Potter series is anomaly - a movie series that was based on a book series where each film was strong, respectful of the source material, but also unique enough experience to make it an amazing series... which still made a boat load of money!  Quality films can make money, and quality films can result in a quality movie series.  But often times, it's the factory-generated, assembly line sequels that make the most dough.

Joey Kane

04/06/2013

Note: I don't own the rights to any of the photos on this website.  They're copied here from Google images for entertainment purposes only.

  

April 2013 Movie Reviews

"Hold on to your butts."

Jurassic Park - 3D IMAX

• I've honestly been looking forward to seeing this since I heard they were doing it.  Jurassic Park has always been one of my favorites, and it's back in theaters again with one helluva IMAX 3D conversion.  Many people (like me) who never saw the 1993 film on the big screen will likely to flock to see the big dinos on screen bigger than ever before.  For those who have never seen the film, I envy you - you're in for a treat.  The special effects were innovative 20 years ago and hold up today.  It was great sitting in a fully packed theater on 7:00 PM in Boston on Friday for the release.  Audience members sat back and enjoyed the journey to Isla Nublar set to John Williams' brilliant overture, lovingly chuckled at the dated technology in the film (look at that "state-of-the-art" interactive CD-ROM!), screamed during the velociraptor's big on-screen introduction, laughed at the Ian Malcolm quips, and, of course, marveled at the T-rex in 3D.  Jurassic Park is without a doubt the one film I have seen the most.  It's a classic.  Spielberg's film is a masterpiece  of sheer spectacle juxtaposed with intense sci-fi terror.  I would've still been at the theater even if it wasn't in 3D, but for fans of the film, the conversion makes it well worth the journey back to the island.
• Rating: 5 out of 5

"Spring breaaaaaak."

Spring Breakers

• Spring Breakers will likely be the most polarizing film of the year.  People will love it or hate it.  I gravitate more towards the former.  Aside from the gratuitous amount of young adult skin put on display in various obscene ways, the film is brilliantly shot and scored.  The original soundtrack (mainly by Skrillex and Cliff Martinez, who also composed the Drive soundtrack) is phenomenal.  Often, the film intentionally drifts into the realm of music video, with extended shots of partying with the soundtrack roaring away.  I've heard people call our generation (20-something and under) the "music video generation" - favoring quick cuts over long shots, immediate pleasures over long-term loves, the instant answer over the learned knowledge.  Spring Breakers seems to reflect this notion.  The main characters reject any form of structure, formal education, or "civilized" society in favor of violence (including robbery at gunpoint), promiscuity, drugs, and wearing bikinis (or less) throughout almost the entire movie - even during their inevitable court appearance.  The girls oscillate between their various dangerous pleasures until they finally latch onto the one person they feel some sense of connection to - "Alien" (whose name is no accident).  James Franco provides some of the much needed dark comic relief in a powerhouse performance that is guaranteed to be a fan favorite.  It makes for an immensely unique visual & auditory spectacle to say the least, but there's a lot more going on than sheer bikini candy.  Spring Breakers will be appreciated by two types of audience members: those looking for the aforementioned bikini candy (it delivers), and a cult following that will enjoy the film for its combination of music, cinematography, and character study of a reckless lifestyle that when mixed together results in one of the most provocative films in recent cinema.
• Rating: 4 out of 5

"You don't know much about witches, do you?"

Oz the Great & Powerful

• Here's James Franco again in a slightly different role!  The prequel-ish Oz the Great & Powerful makes for a fun, visually delicious that nicely blends elements of the classic Wizard of Oz with modern CGI and 3D technology.  My favorite moments were the old school storytelling and visual trickery techniques that director Sam Raimi adds to the film.  Without them, the film would just be another attempt to recycle a classic movie and modernize it (click here for my discussion of sequels/prequels).  Oz makes for an entertaining beyond-the-yellow-brick-road way of examining the world of Oz.  I really did not buy Mila Kunis in her 2nd/3rd act role at all; it certainly made sense for her character's development so I let it slide a bit.  Overall, it's a fun experience going back to Oz through a different lens.
• Rating: 3 out of 5

Note: I don't own the rights to any of the photos on this website.  They're copied here from Google images for entertainment purposes only.

A Dangerous Method (2011) - Review

Dry, boring, and an overall squandering of talented actors and director.  The film isn't so much a dissertation on the founders of psychoanalysis as it is a sleep test (i.e. try not to fall asleep while watching the film).  What a shame.

1 out of 5


Note: I don't own the rights to any of the photos on this website.  They're copied here from Google images for entertainment purposes only.

Oscars 2013

Which film will win BEST PICTURE this year?

• Amour - the only nominated film I haven't seen this year (I still would like to).  Doubt it will win.  I don't understand why foreign films or animated films are allowed to be nominated for Best Picture.  It seems to be an insult to the other films nominated for Best Foreign Language Film or Best Animated Feature - how would they stand a chance?
• Argo - this seems to be gathering the most steam with other award shows.  The fact that Affleck wasn't nominated for Best Director is interesting, but my money is on this one to win the big prize sunday night.
• Beast of the Southern Wild - this was my personal favorite film of 2012.  If ever a movie could be considered alive, it would be Beasts of the Southern Wild.  The film is bursting with life, filled with originality, and amazingly creates genuine emotion in the midst of a magical fable about a little girl named Hushpuppy and her daddy Wink.  Totally original and completely innovative.  My heart wants it to take home the Oscar, but it's more of a dark horse than a front runner.
• Django Unchained - what's imperfect for Tarantino is still better than most other directors' works.  But if Pulp Fiction couldn't bring QT the Oscar for Best Picture, I don't think Django can either. 
• Les Miserables - the film's structure (live recording) will likely prove influential for the musical genre.  But can this clunky, epic musical snag Oscars?  If your name is Anne Hathaway, I'd say yes.
• Life of Pi - probably the biggest long-shot to win.  It was visually stunning, but part of the punch from the novel's parable structure was lost on me with its transition to the big screen.
• Lincoln - right up there at the front of the pack with Argo.  Daniel Day Lewis is almost assured an Oscar for his portrayal of the former president.  The film showcases delicate storytelling centered around strong characters and historical relevance.  It all screams Oscar bait.
• Silver Linings Playbook - this movie belongs to its actors who all shine in their respective roles.  That's not to discredit the role Director David O. Russell and the writers played.  I thoroughly enjoyed the film, but don't think it will win the big prize.
• Zero Dark Thirty - the film is impressive and Kathryn Bigelow has a recent Oscar film under her belt.  Will this one be her second in less than 5 years?  Maybe, but I doubt it.  

• BEST DIRECTOR:
• Prediction: Steven Spielberg
• My vote: Benh Zeitlin
• BEST ACTOR:
• Prediction: Daniel Day Lewis
• My vote: same 
• BEST ACTRESS:
• Prediction: Jennifer Lawrence
• My vote: It would be AMAZING to see Quvenzhane Wallis win.
• BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR:
• Prediction: Tommy Lee Jones
• My vote: same
• BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS:
• Prediction: Anne Hathaway
• My vote: same
• BEST ANIMATED FEATURE:
• Prediction: Brave
• My vote: I didn't see any of them this year :(
• CINEMATOGRAPHY:
• Prediction: Life of Pi
• My vote: SKYFALL! :) (even though Life of Pi was pretty amazing...)
• COSTUME DESIGN:
• Prediction: Les Mis 
• My vote: same
• DOCUMENTARY: 
• Did not see any of them this year :(
• FILM EDITING:
• Prediction: Argo
• My vote: same
• FOREIGN LANGUAGE FILM:
• Prediction: Amour is going to win. Period.
• My vote: did not see any of them :(
• MAKEUP AND HAIRSTYLING:
• Prediction: Les Mis
• My vote: same
• MUSIC:
• Prediction: Argo or maybe Lincoln
• My vote: Skyfall
• BEST ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY:
• Prediction: Zero Dark Thirty
• My vote: Moonrise Kingdom
• BEST ADAPTED SCREENPLAY:
• Prediction: Argo
• My vote: Beasts of the Southern Wild
• SOUND EDITING / MIXING
• I hope Skyfall takes them both.

Note: I don't own the rights to any of the photos on this website.  They're copied here from Google images for entertainment purposes only.

Zero Dark Thirty - Review

The woman behind the so-called "greatest manhunt for the world's most dangerous man."

Zero Dark Thirty is a story.  It's not meant to serve as a 100% factual representation of the events leading up to and including Osama Bin Laden's death.  Rather, it's a stylized exercise in strategic planning and military intelligence that ultimately resulted in a manhunt that has been cemented in the history books.  The heart and soul of the film is clearly Jessica Chastain (who seems to me to be Director Kathryn Bigelow's doppelganger... or maybe it's the other way around...).  At any rate, Chastain's character strikes the right balance between intellect, tenacity, and guts.  She's an intriguing character based on a real person, and Chastain's portrayal of her reveals various facets of her personality throughout the film.

The film features some striking sequences that underscore the shaky situation these military and intelligence operatives were faced with.  And the film's final act is completely captivating.  Years of hard work and due diligence are condensed into a slightly bulky 2.5ish hours... but it all comes down to that final sequence at Bin Laden's compound.  We all know the bare bones of the story because we lived through it.  Zero Dark Thirty operates on similar filmmaking strategies that made The Hurt Locker such a success.  While ZDT gains some power from its basis in "reality", I enjoyed Hurt Locker more.  However, both films represent different cinematic approaches to a topical subject and are worth checking out. 

Zero Dark Thirty 3.5 / 5

Note: I don't own the rights to any of the photos on this website.  They're copied here from Google images for entertainment purposes only.