Well, at least he lost the white face paint...
"Transcendence" is a new movie starring Johnny Depp that, get this, is NOT directed by Tim Burton and is therefore a palatable piece of media. Johnny Depp portrays Dr. Will Caster, a brilliant mathematician and computer researcher who is targeted by the anti-technology group RIFT and is rapidly dying as an effect of an assassination attempt. As his body decays, his wife Evelyn (Rebecca Hall) constructs a computer to replicate his brain patterns and preserve his mind.
The movie follows the course of Will, in computer form, as his mind expands and becomes more powerful, controlling much of the internet's power and building an underground research complex to continue experimentation and technological developments. Will soon becomes near omnipotent and the military, allied with RIFT, attempts to shut him down.
The film is well-paced and thrilling, but the intrigue of the film does not come from the spectacle of CGI or the brief battle scenes, but rather from the chaotic mind of Will. The film adeptly serves as both a sci-fi movie and a psychological thriller as Will's mind is brought into question. The main question that hangs over the entire film is whether Will's mind was successful transferred into the computer or is the AI simply pretending to be him? However, the larger question is whether a computer can successfully replicate a human mind to the point that there is no difference between the replication and the original. Can a human mind truly be created? These questions culminate in one of the final scenes of the movie which brings into the question the motivations of every major character. The final moments of the movie indicate the tiniest glimmer of hope imaginable but leaves the film with a resonant sense of completion.
"Transcendence" earns a "Watch It" for surprising philosophical questions exemplified in an engaging sci-fi thriller. I must confess, as soon as I saw Mr. Depp's face on the poster of this film I set my expectations as low as possible and came out shockingly impressed.
As always, please leave your comments below and let me know what you thought of "Transcendence."
Sunday, April 27, 2014
Friday, February 14, 2014
The Truman Show-Well, Now I'm Paranoid
I feel like this was just a short documentary on Jim Carrey's real life.
"The Truman Show" shows the life of one man is exists as entertainment for the rest of the world. Everyday Truman Burbank lives his life and ignores dozens of hints that the world around him is not real. The world has been watching Truman's life from birth, 24 hours a day for 30 years. Truman is an overly cheery and quirky man who seems to have a spring attached to the bottoms of his feet with each step.
The film follows Truman's suspicions as he begins to accept that the idyllic world in which he is enveloped cannot be real and everyone that he meets on the street is a facet of the world that has been pulled over his eyes to blind him from the truth.
Woah. It just got pretty Matrixy in here. They both seem to pull from similar source material, namely the Allegory of the Cave, and both movies fail to grasp the lesson to be gained from this thousand year-old parable. At the end of the movie, Truman, with the help of his Morpheus character, a woman with whom he had a brief fling in college, finally reaches the point where he has escaped the all-seeing eyes of the cameras that surround him and finds the edge of the false world in which he has been imprisoned for his entire existence. Truman has been deeply programmed to fear water and boats, but overcomes this to sail to the painted blue wall that made up the sky above the horizon. He finds the exit leading to the real world and opens it as he is once again found by the cameras. Truman stands before the door.
The creator of Truman's world, Christof, speaks to Truman from the heavens of the domed reality and tells Truman that he is on TV but will not leave his world because he is afraid. Truman turns to the camera, giving his signature "Good afternoon, good evening, and good night" before exiting through the open door to Christof's surprise. As he leaves the television forever, the viewing world cheers, happy that Truman has finally found peace and has been given the chance to enter reality.
This is where "The Truman Show," like the Matrix before it, fails to grasp the Allegory of the Cave. One man has the possibility to leave the cave and become exposed to the outside world, but as soon as he attempts to release the rest of the cave dwellers from their prison, he finds that they are so deeply ingrained in the system that they cannot possibly accept any other truth. Truman was born into the cave, but he manages to bring the entire viewing audiences into the cave with him. The viewers are more involved with Truman's life than their own, and the film has multiple depictions of parents neglecting to feed children and obsessed fans wasting away in blithering happiness in front of the television set. I guess Ray Bradbury was right. When Truman exits the cave, he forces the viewing audience to exit with him, entering a new reality where Truman will no longer be on the screen to comfort them and entertain them at all hours. Mere minutes after Truman left the show, there would be riots in the streets. People unable to cope with such a drastic change to their lives would commit mass suicides and society as a whole would grind to a halt. We would like to believe that Truman would meet up with his lost lover, but in reality she would be killed before he could even reach her. Truman himself would be destroyed attempting to leave his cave, as his own life was an idyllic wonderland and reality is filled with millions of wild, destructive people thirsting for his blood.
Even if the hellish uprising of millions of distraught fans did not happen, Truman could never have a normal life. He would be swamped by thousands of fans every day who know every intimate detail of his life. Truman would either become a Messiah or a destroyer of worlds.
Despite the radical implications of the story, "The Truman Show" is an entertaining ride. I give it a "Watch It" for a unique story and great, over-the-top cheesy acting.
Disagree with me? Great! Let me know in the comments below.
"The Truman Show" shows the life of one man is exists as entertainment for the rest of the world. Everyday Truman Burbank lives his life and ignores dozens of hints that the world around him is not real. The world has been watching Truman's life from birth, 24 hours a day for 30 years. Truman is an overly cheery and quirky man who seems to have a spring attached to the bottoms of his feet with each step.
The film follows Truman's suspicions as he begins to accept that the idyllic world in which he is enveloped cannot be real and everyone that he meets on the street is a facet of the world that has been pulled over his eyes to blind him from the truth.
Woah. It just got pretty Matrixy in here. They both seem to pull from similar source material, namely the Allegory of the Cave, and both movies fail to grasp the lesson to be gained from this thousand year-old parable. At the end of the movie, Truman, with the help of his Morpheus character, a woman with whom he had a brief fling in college, finally reaches the point where he has escaped the all-seeing eyes of the cameras that surround him and finds the edge of the false world in which he has been imprisoned for his entire existence. Truman has been deeply programmed to fear water and boats, but overcomes this to sail to the painted blue wall that made up the sky above the horizon. He finds the exit leading to the real world and opens it as he is once again found by the cameras. Truman stands before the door.
The creator of Truman's world, Christof, speaks to Truman from the heavens of the domed reality and tells Truman that he is on TV but will not leave his world because he is afraid. Truman turns to the camera, giving his signature "Good afternoon, good evening, and good night" before exiting through the open door to Christof's surprise. As he leaves the television forever, the viewing world cheers, happy that Truman has finally found peace and has been given the chance to enter reality.
This is where "The Truman Show," like the Matrix before it, fails to grasp the Allegory of the Cave. One man has the possibility to leave the cave and become exposed to the outside world, but as soon as he attempts to release the rest of the cave dwellers from their prison, he finds that they are so deeply ingrained in the system that they cannot possibly accept any other truth. Truman was born into the cave, but he manages to bring the entire viewing audiences into the cave with him. The viewers are more involved with Truman's life than their own, and the film has multiple depictions of parents neglecting to feed children and obsessed fans wasting away in blithering happiness in front of the television set. I guess Ray Bradbury was right. When Truman exits the cave, he forces the viewing audience to exit with him, entering a new reality where Truman will no longer be on the screen to comfort them and entertain them at all hours. Mere minutes after Truman left the show, there would be riots in the streets. People unable to cope with such a drastic change to their lives would commit mass suicides and society as a whole would grind to a halt. We would like to believe that Truman would meet up with his lost lover, but in reality she would be killed before he could even reach her. Truman himself would be destroyed attempting to leave his cave, as his own life was an idyllic wonderland and reality is filled with millions of wild, destructive people thirsting for his blood.
Even if the hellish uprising of millions of distraught fans did not happen, Truman could never have a normal life. He would be swamped by thousands of fans every day who know every intimate detail of his life. Truman would either become a Messiah or a destroyer of worlds.
Despite the radical implications of the story, "The Truman Show" is an entertaining ride. I give it a "Watch It" for a unique story and great, over-the-top cheesy acting.
Disagree with me? Great! Let me know in the comments below.
Sunday, January 5, 2014
Saving Mr. Banks-From This Psychotic Control-Freak
I'm probably going to get angry just writing about this woman.
Mrs. Travers, played by Emma Thompson, is the author of the beloved Mary Poppins series of children's books and proud owner of a stick so far up her ass that it has long since ceased to be a stick and has grown into a mighty oak tree. From her first moments on screen, Travers manages to alienate herself with the audience as well as every single person she encounters. Travers has been resisting the efforts of Disney to buy the rights to her books for 20 years but finally needs the money. Travers flies to California to meet with Walt Disney and the writing team to work on the script for the upcoming movie.
From the start, it is clear that Mrs. Travers has no clue what the film is supposed to be, insisting on "no animation" and "no songs." She also does her best to drive the Disney team insane so that the movie is never made, insisting things such as "no red" in the film. This, however, is merely an accentuation of her normal unbearable personality. Walt Disney, played by Tom Hanks, suffers every torment of the author because he made a two decade-old promise to his daughters to bring Mary Poppins to the big screen. Walt is portrayed as a childish, energetic business man who, above all, truly believes that he is creating magic in the form of his theme parks and movies. No mention is made of Disney's antisemitism.
It is not a sin for a movie to attempt to be Oscar-bait if the production can truly capture the hearts and minds of the audience and make adults feel young again, children feel inspired, etc., etc., but "Saving Mr. Banks" falls a bit short. Primarily, the attempt at creating an award-winning movie is far too transparent by the fact that Tom Hanks is in it and it's a movie about making a Disney movie. I can hear the accolades now. Regardless, Emma Thompson's character is not only unlikable but impossible to relate to due to her commandeering manner coupled with latent senility and relentless criticisms. It's like they tried to personify everyone's mother, but rather than the loving figure we come to respect in adulthood, they show the mad tyrant we see as a child, but without the part where she feeds and provides for us. Tom Hanks isn't much better, as his character is little more than a lavish business man who happened to create a product that is very close to the hearts of children and adults in the audience. The actual portrayal is a paper-thin character with a funny voice. Without Tom Hanks filling the shoes, the character of Disney would have seemed like a sentimental banker who tricked a starving writer into forking over the rights to his movie. Though both actors fill their roles to perfection, the roles themselves are highly flawed.
The main backbone of the story centers around Travers' relationship with her father back in Australia. Her father, like Mr. Banks, was a banker, but the similarities seem to stop there which is why it seems odd that this man inspired the character. Travers' father suffered from heavy alcoholism which lent itself to him playing with the children jovially and guiding them through magical worlds of imagination while also getting fired from his job. Travers' aunt, the inspiration for Mary Poppins, shows up when the father of the house turns ill and whips the family into shape, just like her character would later do for the Banks'.
Travers' father was a dancing, happy, foolish alcoholic who needed to straighten up and take care of his family. Mr. Banks is a straight-backed, aristocratic banker who needed to learn how to have fun and take care of his children emotionally, though he was already supporting them financially. How did Mrs. Travers learn the completely opposite lesson from her own life experiences? The scene in the movie that finally softens her up to the audience and the tormented writing crew was "Let's Go Fly A Kite," which comes about when Mr. Banks finally chooses to behave more like a child and have fun Mrs. Travers loves the song, despite her previous assertions that Mary Poppins is meant to show children the hard reality of life and do the same for Mr. Banks. Unless the Disney crew completely switched the motivations for every major character in her book, Mrs. Travers doesn't understand her own life story.
All this confusion makes the film seem very disjointed and emotionally mixed-up. The aforementioned "softening" scene for Mrs. Travers is borderline ridiculous in its execution and downright wrong in its motivations. I still can't understand why a woman with her personal back story would right a book that dictates how a father should be more playful and childish rather than more serious about supporting his wife and children. All in all, the flashbacks to Mrs. Travers screwed-up childhood do little more than confuse the issues of the movie they are making, which is why it was a poor decision to make these flashbacks the center of the entire plot. "Saving Mr. Banks" earns a "See It" if you enjoy the always remarkable Tom Hanks and a cute story based on an entirely dark and disturbing story.
As always, if you agree or disagree with my biased and rambling opinions, please let me know in the comments!
Mrs. Travers, played by Emma Thompson, is the author of the beloved Mary Poppins series of children's books and proud owner of a stick so far up her ass that it has long since ceased to be a stick and has grown into a mighty oak tree. From her first moments on screen, Travers manages to alienate herself with the audience as well as every single person she encounters. Travers has been resisting the efforts of Disney to buy the rights to her books for 20 years but finally needs the money. Travers flies to California to meet with Walt Disney and the writing team to work on the script for the upcoming movie.
From the start, it is clear that Mrs. Travers has no clue what the film is supposed to be, insisting on "no animation" and "no songs." She also does her best to drive the Disney team insane so that the movie is never made, insisting things such as "no red" in the film. This, however, is merely an accentuation of her normal unbearable personality. Walt Disney, played by Tom Hanks, suffers every torment of the author because he made a two decade-old promise to his daughters to bring Mary Poppins to the big screen. Walt is portrayed as a childish, energetic business man who, above all, truly believes that he is creating magic in the form of his theme parks and movies. No mention is made of Disney's antisemitism.
It is not a sin for a movie to attempt to be Oscar-bait if the production can truly capture the hearts and minds of the audience and make adults feel young again, children feel inspired, etc., etc., but "Saving Mr. Banks" falls a bit short. Primarily, the attempt at creating an award-winning movie is far too transparent by the fact that Tom Hanks is in it and it's a movie about making a Disney movie. I can hear the accolades now. Regardless, Emma Thompson's character is not only unlikable but impossible to relate to due to her commandeering manner coupled with latent senility and relentless criticisms. It's like they tried to personify everyone's mother, but rather than the loving figure we come to respect in adulthood, they show the mad tyrant we see as a child, but without the part where she feeds and provides for us. Tom Hanks isn't much better, as his character is little more than a lavish business man who happened to create a product that is very close to the hearts of children and adults in the audience. The actual portrayal is a paper-thin character with a funny voice. Without Tom Hanks filling the shoes, the character of Disney would have seemed like a sentimental banker who tricked a starving writer into forking over the rights to his movie. Though both actors fill their roles to perfection, the roles themselves are highly flawed.
The main backbone of the story centers around Travers' relationship with her father back in Australia. Her father, like Mr. Banks, was a banker, but the similarities seem to stop there which is why it seems odd that this man inspired the character. Travers' father suffered from heavy alcoholism which lent itself to him playing with the children jovially and guiding them through magical worlds of imagination while also getting fired from his job. Travers' aunt, the inspiration for Mary Poppins, shows up when the father of the house turns ill and whips the family into shape, just like her character would later do for the Banks'.
Travers' father was a dancing, happy, foolish alcoholic who needed to straighten up and take care of his family. Mr. Banks is a straight-backed, aristocratic banker who needed to learn how to have fun and take care of his children emotionally, though he was already supporting them financially. How did Mrs. Travers learn the completely opposite lesson from her own life experiences? The scene in the movie that finally softens her up to the audience and the tormented writing crew was "Let's Go Fly A Kite," which comes about when Mr. Banks finally chooses to behave more like a child and have fun Mrs. Travers loves the song, despite her previous assertions that Mary Poppins is meant to show children the hard reality of life and do the same for Mr. Banks. Unless the Disney crew completely switched the motivations for every major character in her book, Mrs. Travers doesn't understand her own life story.
All this confusion makes the film seem very disjointed and emotionally mixed-up. The aforementioned "softening" scene for Mrs. Travers is borderline ridiculous in its execution and downright wrong in its motivations. I still can't understand why a woman with her personal back story would right a book that dictates how a father should be more playful and childish rather than more serious about supporting his wife and children. All in all, the flashbacks to Mrs. Travers screwed-up childhood do little more than confuse the issues of the movie they are making, which is why it was a poor decision to make these flashbacks the center of the entire plot. "Saving Mr. Banks" earns a "See It" if you enjoy the always remarkable Tom Hanks and a cute story based on an entirely dark and disturbing story.
As always, if you agree or disagree with my biased and rambling opinions, please let me know in the comments!
Saturday, November 30, 2013
Hunger Games: Catching Fire-Better Than A Battle Royale Ripoff
Seems like an awful lot of water for a title like that...
Hunger Games is an interesting series. It's taken a lot of flack for appearing to be little more than a knockoff of a Japanese thriller, but regardless the books have garnered enough success to enlist the acting talents of the incomparable Jennifer Lawrence, Woody Harrelson, Elizabeth Banks, and Josh Hutcherson. I have not written a formal review of the first Hunger Games movie, but personally I found it to be remarkably average. Nothing really stood out to me about this relatively faithful, plain-Jane adaptation of an interesting book series. I enjoyed the series myself, but the movie failed to deliver on the premise of the book, partially by its unwillingness to be bloody enough to make even the most weak-hearted of preteens cringe.
"Catching Fire" is a different story. It seemed to broach most of the conflicts of the book with the subtlety and tenderness of a freight train, showing the truly torrid love triangle of Katniss, Peeta, and Gale in a way that the first movie fell short of accomplishing. Katniss is recovering from the trauma of the Hunger Games in her home town when she is forced back into the spotlight with Peeta on their tour around Panem. Katniss, like every "victor" that survives the Games, has severe PTSD from the whole ordeal and finds comfort in sharing her struggle with Peeta. Katniss is also forced to continue her fake romance with Peeta in order to convince the country that her defiance of the Capital at the last Hunger Games was prompted by love rather than rebellion. All this makes her relationship with Gale strained to say the least.Despite their best efforts to convince the world that their love is real and the Capital is the rightful governing body, the country begins falling into rebellion. To stop the spread of Katniss' symbol of rebellion, President Snow has the surviving victors thrown back into the arena for the 75th Hunger Games.
I'm starting to become worried for Lawrence, as she seems to thrive in the role of emotionally damaged yet dangerous woman caught in bizarre relationships, as she has already shown in "Silver Linings Playbook." Lawrence has truly come into her own with Katniss, and every scene that doesn't involve the character's customary stony stare is a powerhouse of emotion. Woody Harrelson is fantastic as always in delivering on the comic relief that a story this depressing desperately needs. In addition to the acting, the visual effects of this film elevate it even further, though the classic orange/blue contrast is starting to become a little tired.
My only issue with this movie would have to be the same that I had with the new "Les Miserables" movie. My issue is that I do not understand the appeal of a close-up so close that I can look up the nostrils of an A-list Hollywood actress. Yes, Ms. Lawrence is quite beautiful, but I'm pretty sure that I would be able to distinguish her emotions from a distance of several feet instead of inches. Close-ups can be nice, but when the actor's entire head no longer fits on the screen it seems excessive. The film even ends on an extreme close-up and cuts to black, and I think it might have been a bit more intriguing had I not seen the same camera angles of the same actors a dozen times previously.
"Catching Fire" earns a See It for great acting, visual effects, and a story with twists and turns that will keep anyone who hasn't already read the books wondering what will happen next for the entire run time.
Until next time, what are your thoughts on the movie? I love to hear the opinions!
Hunger Games is an interesting series. It's taken a lot of flack for appearing to be little more than a knockoff of a Japanese thriller, but regardless the books have garnered enough success to enlist the acting talents of the incomparable Jennifer Lawrence, Woody Harrelson, Elizabeth Banks, and Josh Hutcherson. I have not written a formal review of the first Hunger Games movie, but personally I found it to be remarkably average. Nothing really stood out to me about this relatively faithful, plain-Jane adaptation of an interesting book series. I enjoyed the series myself, but the movie failed to deliver on the premise of the book, partially by its unwillingness to be bloody enough to make even the most weak-hearted of preteens cringe.
"Catching Fire" is a different story. It seemed to broach most of the conflicts of the book with the subtlety and tenderness of a freight train, showing the truly torrid love triangle of Katniss, Peeta, and Gale in a way that the first movie fell short of accomplishing. Katniss is recovering from the trauma of the Hunger Games in her home town when she is forced back into the spotlight with Peeta on their tour around Panem. Katniss, like every "victor" that survives the Games, has severe PTSD from the whole ordeal and finds comfort in sharing her struggle with Peeta. Katniss is also forced to continue her fake romance with Peeta in order to convince the country that her defiance of the Capital at the last Hunger Games was prompted by love rather than rebellion. All this makes her relationship with Gale strained to say the least.Despite their best efforts to convince the world that their love is real and the Capital is the rightful governing body, the country begins falling into rebellion. To stop the spread of Katniss' symbol of rebellion, President Snow has the surviving victors thrown back into the arena for the 75th Hunger Games.
I'm starting to become worried for Lawrence, as she seems to thrive in the role of emotionally damaged yet dangerous woman caught in bizarre relationships, as she has already shown in "Silver Linings Playbook." Lawrence has truly come into her own with Katniss, and every scene that doesn't involve the character's customary stony stare is a powerhouse of emotion. Woody Harrelson is fantastic as always in delivering on the comic relief that a story this depressing desperately needs. In addition to the acting, the visual effects of this film elevate it even further, though the classic orange/blue contrast is starting to become a little tired.
My only issue with this movie would have to be the same that I had with the new "Les Miserables" movie. My issue is that I do not understand the appeal of a close-up so close that I can look up the nostrils of an A-list Hollywood actress. Yes, Ms. Lawrence is quite beautiful, but I'm pretty sure that I would be able to distinguish her emotions from a distance of several feet instead of inches. Close-ups can be nice, but when the actor's entire head no longer fits on the screen it seems excessive. The film even ends on an extreme close-up and cuts to black, and I think it might have been a bit more intriguing had I not seen the same camera angles of the same actors a dozen times previously.
"Catching Fire" earns a See It for great acting, visual effects, and a story with twists and turns that will keep anyone who hasn't already read the books wondering what will happen next for the entire run time.
Until next time, what are your thoughts on the movie? I love to hear the opinions!
Sunday, November 10, 2013
Scott Pilgrim vs. the World-So Many Numbers...
Saying "stylized Edgar Wright movie" is like saying "violent Quentin Tarantino movie," but "Scott Pilgrim" takes it to a whole new level. Pun intended.
Our story follows the daily life of slacker bassist and "lady-killer jerky jerk face" Scott Pilgrim as he struggles with life, love, and insane, over the top visual effects. Scott was dumped by his girlfriend a year earlier and is still struggling to cope with the loss through dating and cruelly dumping women, including a seventeen year-old Chinese high school student. Scott meets Ramona Flowers, edgy-hipster-girl-with-dyed-hair-and-a-dark-past extraordinaire and falls head over heels. Unfortunately he must fight her seven evil exes to earn the right to date her. So, you know standard stuff.
From the beginning of the movie, I felt a little left out because I have never read the graphic novel series that the movie was based on. I am a strong advocate that movies should be able to establish their own world without the crutch of any source material, and "Scott Pilgrim" accomplishes this admirably. My issue, however, was with the character of Scott. Is he really this much of a whiny piece of shit in the books? I usually find it easy to separate actor from character, but all I could see for the first hour was Michael Cera being Michael Cera: seemingly soft-spoken and intelligent with a bit of wit and sarcasm, undercut by deep psychological trauma that makes him an insufferable asshole. I can only assume that they picked Cera because he matched the character perfectly but damn it if it doesn't seem like he didn't have to put in an hour of work on this one.
Aside from the pitiful character of Pilgrim for the first half of the movie, the rest of the cast and characters form a delightfully tangential world among themselves. Every character seems to have their own desires and emotions rather than being a uniform backdrop to the kitschy nightmare that I feared at the movie's start. Many noteworthy and entertaining actors jump in and out of the narrative at will but few of them can exit a room without tossing a quip over their shoulder. The humor is spot-on, the acting is great, and the entire atmosphere, as in many of Wright's films, is fast-paced and fun enough that we, the audience, can disregard some of the bat shit insanity. Though I wouldn't put the film on the same level as "Shaun of the Dead," Edgar Wright's brilliant directing is still very apparent throughout the film.
The visual effects can be jarring and unsettling, but I found myself right at home. That being said, I have strange sensibilities such that tossing around a few Zelda sound bites can bring me to the edge of my seat. That being said, Edgar Wright does a fantastic job engrossing the viewer into the manic world of Scott Pilgrim. It begins subtly, with just a dash comic book-esque onomatopoeia thrown in for flavor, but this rapidly changes after the first battle. As Scott begins to fight with a strength and speed that seem unlikely for a twenty-something Canadian bassist, surrounded by enormous glowing hit counters and high scores, reaction shots of the audience looking around in disbelief help keep the world in check. Fighting like Greek gods hurling lightning bolts at each other is not normal in this world, but that doesn't prevent it from happening shockingly often. After the first fight, the video game styled effects come fast and loose, popping up at every opportunity, but by this point I was hooked. The style is charming and flashy and, as I mentioned before, I'm a sucker for video game references.
I'm having trouble quantifying my feelings for "Scott Pilgrim vs. the World" but, being the reviewer, it is my solemn duty to soldier on through all adversity. I thoroughly enjoyed the movie because I have an unusually high tolerance for Michael Cera and a Pavlovian response to pixel art and big, glowing numbers. Many people, however, are not as easily charmed by these things as I and I must make my decision for the masses...or at least the masses of fans and friends of fans and average moviegoers who have already seen it. "Scott Pilgrim vs. the World" earns a "Watch It" for excellent acting, well-paced action, and the pure style, humor, and brilliant editing that we have come to expect from Edgar Wright.
Until next time, what are your thoughts on the movie? I love hearing the opinions!
Our story follows the daily life of slacker bassist and "lady-killer jerky jerk face" Scott Pilgrim as he struggles with life, love, and insane, over the top visual effects. Scott was dumped by his girlfriend a year earlier and is still struggling to cope with the loss through dating and cruelly dumping women, including a seventeen year-old Chinese high school student. Scott meets Ramona Flowers, edgy-hipster-girl-with-dyed-hair-and-a-dark-past extraordinaire and falls head over heels. Unfortunately he must fight her seven evil exes to earn the right to date her. So, you know standard stuff.
From the beginning of the movie, I felt a little left out because I have never read the graphic novel series that the movie was based on. I am a strong advocate that movies should be able to establish their own world without the crutch of any source material, and "Scott Pilgrim" accomplishes this admirably. My issue, however, was with the character of Scott. Is he really this much of a whiny piece of shit in the books? I usually find it easy to separate actor from character, but all I could see for the first hour was Michael Cera being Michael Cera: seemingly soft-spoken and intelligent with a bit of wit and sarcasm, undercut by deep psychological trauma that makes him an insufferable asshole. I can only assume that they picked Cera because he matched the character perfectly but damn it if it doesn't seem like he didn't have to put in an hour of work on this one.
Aside from the pitiful character of Pilgrim for the first half of the movie, the rest of the cast and characters form a delightfully tangential world among themselves. Every character seems to have their own desires and emotions rather than being a uniform backdrop to the kitschy nightmare that I feared at the movie's start. Many noteworthy and entertaining actors jump in and out of the narrative at will but few of them can exit a room without tossing a quip over their shoulder. The humor is spot-on, the acting is great, and the entire atmosphere, as in many of Wright's films, is fast-paced and fun enough that we, the audience, can disregard some of the bat shit insanity. Though I wouldn't put the film on the same level as "Shaun of the Dead," Edgar Wright's brilliant directing is still very apparent throughout the film.
The visual effects can be jarring and unsettling, but I found myself right at home. That being said, I have strange sensibilities such that tossing around a few Zelda sound bites can bring me to the edge of my seat. That being said, Edgar Wright does a fantastic job engrossing the viewer into the manic world of Scott Pilgrim. It begins subtly, with just a dash comic book-esque onomatopoeia thrown in for flavor, but this rapidly changes after the first battle. As Scott begins to fight with a strength and speed that seem unlikely for a twenty-something Canadian bassist, surrounded by enormous glowing hit counters and high scores, reaction shots of the audience looking around in disbelief help keep the world in check. Fighting like Greek gods hurling lightning bolts at each other is not normal in this world, but that doesn't prevent it from happening shockingly often. After the first fight, the video game styled effects come fast and loose, popping up at every opportunity, but by this point I was hooked. The style is charming and flashy and, as I mentioned before, I'm a sucker for video game references.
I'm having trouble quantifying my feelings for "Scott Pilgrim vs. the World" but, being the reviewer, it is my solemn duty to soldier on through all adversity. I thoroughly enjoyed the movie because I have an unusually high tolerance for Michael Cera and a Pavlovian response to pixel art and big, glowing numbers. Many people, however, are not as easily charmed by these things as I and I must make my decision for the masses...or at least the masses of fans and friends of fans and average moviegoers who have already seen it. "Scott Pilgrim vs. the World" earns a "Watch It" for excellent acting, well-paced action, and the pure style, humor, and brilliant editing that we have come to expect from Edgar Wright.
Until next time, what are your thoughts on the movie? I love hearing the opinions!
Monday, July 29, 2013
The Wolverine-Days of the Future Referencing the Past Looking In A Mirror
Wait, so now WHO is the bad guy?
"The Wolverine" is the latest summer blockbuster that has allowed Hugh Jackman to don the trademark sideburns and wife beater for the fifth time...Jesus, he must want to get away from this by now. The fact is, Jackman has been playing this character for about a decade-and doing a fine job of it-and the impact of the character is starting to dilute, in my opinion.
"The Wolverine" starts with the titular character living alone in the North American wilderness, having taken a vow to never hurt anyone again. This vow lasts about five minutes into the movie, as expected, and he seems to have no problem slicing through dozens of people later on. Logan is plagued nightly by the centuries of memories he's lived through including the ghost of Jean Gray, who appears in his bed most nights to taunt his thoughts and actions. The movie starts with a flashback to Nagasaki, where Logan rescues an officer named Yashida in a scene that is about as pleasant as you would expect for viewing an atomic bomb devastate a country.
Back in present day...meaning the future, I guess...it's never really established, which is kind of a trope for X-Men at this point. Anyway, back in the future, Logan is picked up by a Japanese mutant working for Yashida, one of the most powerful men in Japan. Yashida wishes to thank Logan for saving his life, as well as making him a strange offer. Yashida seems to understand what Logan has been through, and offers him a release from his immortal life. Logan refuses and Yashida dies, unable to convince Logan further. However, Logan is attacked in the night and finds the next day that he is not healing as well as before when Yashida's funeral is attacked and Logan is put in charge of protecting Yashida's granddaughter.
From the title, I thought this would be a sequel of sorts to "X-Men Origins: Wolverine." However, it is more like a sequel to "X-Men: The Last Stand," as it takes place an undisclosed amount of time later. It is a spiritual successor to "Origins," in that it focuses entirely on Wolverine and his life, as well as answering the question "How many times can we murder Wolverine in the most gruesome ways possible, just to have him heal again?" Also, "How many times can this dude fall in love with every girl he meets?"
This is one of those movies where there are three acts that are so vastly different that they don't seem to be driving towards any sort of goal. Also, there are a bunch of random villains and even after the movie was over I'm still not sure who the main antagonist was because there are so many surprise enemies. It starts with Logan being brought to Japan. Then he is protecting Yashida's granddaughter at a small cottage in a quiet village. Then he is attacking an enormous facility wherein a giant mech suit of adamantium was built. There are so many twist and turns that half of the movie I was wondering who were the real bad guys and what was their motivation.
The plot kind of peters out halfway through the movie and is replaced by standard save-the-girl movie bullshit. Wolverine is simply too damn powerful to ever be killed, though they come pretty damn close. As with the latest Die Hard movie, I am tempted to say that fans of the series would enjoy watching it, but that is too cheap for a blog with such integrity as this one!
"The Wolverine" earns an Avoid It rating for lackluster writing, poor pacing, and confusing storytelling. Despite some memorable acting performances, including those of Mr. Jackman and the enormous veins in his arms, this movie ultimately fails to deliver.
Until next time, please leave your thoughts on the movie in the comments. I love to hear the opinions!
-kmaker
"The Wolverine" is the latest summer blockbuster that has allowed Hugh Jackman to don the trademark sideburns and wife beater for the fifth time...Jesus, he must want to get away from this by now. The fact is, Jackman has been playing this character for about a decade-and doing a fine job of it-and the impact of the character is starting to dilute, in my opinion.
"The Wolverine" starts with the titular character living alone in the North American wilderness, having taken a vow to never hurt anyone again. This vow lasts about five minutes into the movie, as expected, and he seems to have no problem slicing through dozens of people later on. Logan is plagued nightly by the centuries of memories he's lived through including the ghost of Jean Gray, who appears in his bed most nights to taunt his thoughts and actions. The movie starts with a flashback to Nagasaki, where Logan rescues an officer named Yashida in a scene that is about as pleasant as you would expect for viewing an atomic bomb devastate a country.
Back in present day...meaning the future, I guess...it's never really established, which is kind of a trope for X-Men at this point. Anyway, back in the future, Logan is picked up by a Japanese mutant working for Yashida, one of the most powerful men in Japan. Yashida wishes to thank Logan for saving his life, as well as making him a strange offer. Yashida seems to understand what Logan has been through, and offers him a release from his immortal life. Logan refuses and Yashida dies, unable to convince Logan further. However, Logan is attacked in the night and finds the next day that he is not healing as well as before when Yashida's funeral is attacked and Logan is put in charge of protecting Yashida's granddaughter.
From the title, I thought this would be a sequel of sorts to "X-Men Origins: Wolverine." However, it is more like a sequel to "X-Men: The Last Stand," as it takes place an undisclosed amount of time later. It is a spiritual successor to "Origins," in that it focuses entirely on Wolverine and his life, as well as answering the question "How many times can we murder Wolverine in the most gruesome ways possible, just to have him heal again?" Also, "How many times can this dude fall in love with every girl he meets?"
This is one of those movies where there are three acts that are so vastly different that they don't seem to be driving towards any sort of goal. Also, there are a bunch of random villains and even after the movie was over I'm still not sure who the main antagonist was because there are so many surprise enemies. It starts with Logan being brought to Japan. Then he is protecting Yashida's granddaughter at a small cottage in a quiet village. Then he is attacking an enormous facility wherein a giant mech suit of adamantium was built. There are so many twist and turns that half of the movie I was wondering who were the real bad guys and what was their motivation.
The plot kind of peters out halfway through the movie and is replaced by standard save-the-girl movie bullshit. Wolverine is simply too damn powerful to ever be killed, though they come pretty damn close. As with the latest Die Hard movie, I am tempted to say that fans of the series would enjoy watching it, but that is too cheap for a blog with such integrity as this one!
"The Wolverine" earns an Avoid It rating for lackluster writing, poor pacing, and confusing storytelling. Despite some memorable acting performances, including those of Mr. Jackman and the enormous veins in his arms, this movie ultimately fails to deliver.
Until next time, please leave your thoughts on the movie in the comments. I love to hear the opinions!
-kmaker
Saturday, July 20, 2013
A Good Day to Die Hard-Is It Really?
Since I just wrote about a crappy movie trying to be Die Hard, a Die Hard movie should be a treat, right?
There is a fantastic author for Cracked.com by the name of Daniel O'Brien. He has written multiple articles about Die Hard as a movie, as a series, and as a way of life and I recommend you go read some of them now. He has taught me what Die Hard is and what Die Hard means, as well as how Die Hard has been corrupted. Basically what it boils down to is the fact that "Die Hard" has one of the most well-structured plots in action movies and shows that the protagonist doesn't have to be super soldier Jason Bourne saving the world from ultimate destruction. John McClane was just a New York cop trying to reconnect with his wife and stop a terrorist from killing one room full of hostages nothing more.
Now, John McClane is a super soldier immortal, killing machine, iron-legged, bullet-dodging, super hero saving the world. He is no longer the Die Hard we fell in love with. And this sad.
"A Good Day to Die Hard" is kind of a mess, to be honest. John McClane goes to Russia to see his estranged son who is locked in Russian prison only to find his son escaping from Russian prison while being chased by Russian terrorists. This plot may seem simpler than the bizarre cluster fuck that the fourth movie was, but it gets crazier.
Nothing is ever established in this movie. We see Jack McClane, John's son, talking to some sort of headquarters about some mission that we don't understand, and we later learn that the headquarters is a group of spies and the mission is to find a file, but we never really to get to understand why this spy group even exists. It's even stranger that John, who saw his son just a few years earlier, had no clue that his son was involved in any kind of "spy shit" as he calls it.
This movie immediately goes off the rails, quite literally. Jack is being chased by Russian terrorists with John in pursuit of them. John has no idea what any of the back story or motives for any of the people involved in this chase, he just knows that his son has escaped from jail. Hell, for all he knows, the people chasing his son are the Russian police. However, John McClane immediately steals several cars to tear through Russian traffic costing millions in damages and countless civilian lives, because he's Die Hard and he feels entitled to being Die Hard by this point. Honestly, at one point in the movie a sniper is firing upon them and Jack immediately hits the ground to crawl away while John stands up straight, grabs a machine gun, and blows away two dozen attackers as they run through the door with their own weapons. He freaking knows he's immortal. And that is no fun.
The plot is just bonkers. There are secret agents, double agents, triple secret agents, terrorists everywhere, prisoners that turn out to be terrorists, and plenty of explosions that only seem to kill innocent bystanders and not people that have names. Nothing about the story is restrained or concise, so the storytelling loses everything that made the original great.
The action sequences are insane and rapid, but for the most part they could be considered memorable, if watching twenty explosions in a row is memorable to some people. A few unexpected twists come here and there, but most of the movie is just predictable, over-the-top action fodder.
As much as I have been tearing down this movie, it does have a spark of life that I can't deny. I love Die Hard, and I can't help but notice the little elements that make it special int he world of action movies. Die Hard has always been a family man, so it was nice that they actually allowed significant pauses in the action for John and Jack to talk. These are not teary, emotional diatribes, but rather little hiatuses that allow for some character development. Unfortunately, this is diluted by the fact that most of the dialogue between John and Jack takes the form of standard, snappy Die Hard one-liners.
Standard, snappy Die Hard one-liners are in great supply, another element that helps to make this movie still feel like a Die Hard movie. This includes plenty of one-liners that John says in the company of absolutely no one, in classic Die Hard style. There are a few references to the first movie, including John's uncanny ability to recognize undercover terrorists, and a beautiful shot of a man falling off the side of a building with the exact expression used by Alan Rickman just twenty-five years ago.
"A Good Day to Die Hard" is an insane, over-the-top, ADD-driven action movie, and despite the deep love I have for Die Hard and all he stands for, this movie cannot overcome the sins of the previous movie and the sins of all modern Hollywood action movies. Avoid It. Though it hurts me to say.
Until next time, please share your thoughts on the movie in the comments!
-kmaker
There is a fantastic author for Cracked.com by the name of Daniel O'Brien. He has written multiple articles about Die Hard as a movie, as a series, and as a way of life and I recommend you go read some of them now. He has taught me what Die Hard is and what Die Hard means, as well as how Die Hard has been corrupted. Basically what it boils down to is the fact that "Die Hard" has one of the most well-structured plots in action movies and shows that the protagonist doesn't have to be super soldier Jason Bourne saving the world from ultimate destruction. John McClane was just a New York cop trying to reconnect with his wife and stop a terrorist from killing one room full of hostages nothing more.
Now, John McClane is a super soldier immortal, killing machine, iron-legged, bullet-dodging, super hero saving the world. He is no longer the Die Hard we fell in love with. And this sad.
"A Good Day to Die Hard" is kind of a mess, to be honest. John McClane goes to Russia to see his estranged son who is locked in Russian prison only to find his son escaping from Russian prison while being chased by Russian terrorists. This plot may seem simpler than the bizarre cluster fuck that the fourth movie was, but it gets crazier.
Nothing is ever established in this movie. We see Jack McClane, John's son, talking to some sort of headquarters about some mission that we don't understand, and we later learn that the headquarters is a group of spies and the mission is to find a file, but we never really to get to understand why this spy group even exists. It's even stranger that John, who saw his son just a few years earlier, had no clue that his son was involved in any kind of "spy shit" as he calls it.
This movie immediately goes off the rails, quite literally. Jack is being chased by Russian terrorists with John in pursuit of them. John has no idea what any of the back story or motives for any of the people involved in this chase, he just knows that his son has escaped from jail. Hell, for all he knows, the people chasing his son are the Russian police. However, John McClane immediately steals several cars to tear through Russian traffic costing millions in damages and countless civilian lives, because he's Die Hard and he feels entitled to being Die Hard by this point. Honestly, at one point in the movie a sniper is firing upon them and Jack immediately hits the ground to crawl away while John stands up straight, grabs a machine gun, and blows away two dozen attackers as they run through the door with their own weapons. He freaking knows he's immortal. And that is no fun.
The plot is just bonkers. There are secret agents, double agents, triple secret agents, terrorists everywhere, prisoners that turn out to be terrorists, and plenty of explosions that only seem to kill innocent bystanders and not people that have names. Nothing about the story is restrained or concise, so the storytelling loses everything that made the original great.
The action sequences are insane and rapid, but for the most part they could be considered memorable, if watching twenty explosions in a row is memorable to some people. A few unexpected twists come here and there, but most of the movie is just predictable, over-the-top action fodder.
As much as I have been tearing down this movie, it does have a spark of life that I can't deny. I love Die Hard, and I can't help but notice the little elements that make it special int he world of action movies. Die Hard has always been a family man, so it was nice that they actually allowed significant pauses in the action for John and Jack to talk. These are not teary, emotional diatribes, but rather little hiatuses that allow for some character development. Unfortunately, this is diluted by the fact that most of the dialogue between John and Jack takes the form of standard, snappy Die Hard one-liners.
Standard, snappy Die Hard one-liners are in great supply, another element that helps to make this movie still feel like a Die Hard movie. This includes plenty of one-liners that John says in the company of absolutely no one, in classic Die Hard style. There are a few references to the first movie, including John's uncanny ability to recognize undercover terrorists, and a beautiful shot of a man falling off the side of a building with the exact expression used by Alan Rickman just twenty-five years ago.
"A Good Day to Die Hard" is an insane, over-the-top, ADD-driven action movie, and despite the deep love I have for Die Hard and all he stands for, this movie cannot overcome the sins of the previous movie and the sins of all modern Hollywood action movies. Avoid It. Though it hurts me to say.
Until next time, please share your thoughts on the movie in the comments!
-kmaker
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)