Category Archives: Film Reviews
I’m not a Trekkie. I’ve only seen maybe three or four episodes of the original series – something I will hopefully amend in the near future – but I enjoyed J.J. Abram’s first venture into the Star Trek universe in the 2009 film quite a bit, so I was anxious to see the sequel, and I liked it. A lot.
Star Trek Into Darkness opens with a scene in which Captain Kirk of the USS Enterprise, played by Chris Pine, breaks several Starfleet rules and then lies about it, leading to a lecture from Admiral Pike (Bruce Greenwood) about how Kirk is careless, selfish, and over-confident. In the wake of his punishment, Starfleet is attacked by a mysterious man named John Harrison (Benedict Cumberbatch), leaving Kirk with no choice but to join his crew and track down this criminal. Along the way, Kirk struggles with making the right decisions and with protecting his crew from harm…and he can’t always do both.
The advantage that this film has over its predecessor is that it’s not an origin story, meaning that here we are dealing with the characters, their struggles, and their growth; the filmmakers didn’t have to establish their characters again because we as an audience are already familiar with them. That being said, Chris Pine does a fine job with communicating all of the conflict of his character to us, humanizing Kirk and showing that he is still a young man who can make mistakes – and makes plenty of them. Zachary Quinto as Spock also brings more to the table in this film; since Kirk and Spock are friends now, we see their relationship build and Spock make decisions based on that friendship rather than on logic. All of the familiar faces – Zoë Saldaña as Uhura, Karl Urban as Bones, Anton Yelchin as Chekov, Simon Pegg as Scotty, and John Cho as Sulu – do great jobs with their characters as well, with everyone building more on what was established in the first film. The newcomer, Benedict Cumberbatch as the villain John Harrison, brings all of the appropriate menace to the role, making him a formidable foe, and his acting chops are much, much better than Eric Bana’s were as Nero in the first film. I had seen Cumberbatch in Spielberg’s War Horse (my review) and in his BBC television series Sherlock (which is fantastic, by the way), but this was my first experience with him in a major film role, and it was definitely a positive one. His villain is very much multi-dimensional, and I even wondered at one point in the film if he was really the “bad guy” because of the incredible conviction that Cumberbatch plays him with.
The visual effects, as expected, are amazing, with the new worlds introduced to us ranging from bright and colorful to bleak and miserable, but all believable. While I’m normally indifferent to 3D, there was one moment while watching when it bothered me, which was in the very first scene when spears are being thrown in our faces…I think I actually tried to dodge one of them in my seat. However, the 3D is worth suffering through if you get the chance to see it in IMAX 3D – IMAX is always worth it, for any film. Seeing movies like this in IMAX, where everything is done on such a grand scale, only makes it even grander, which is wonderful. The music by Michael Giacchino, like his score to the first one (my review), and like any of his scores, is as expected – magnificent, intimate, and just awesome overall. But more on that later!
I must admit that, after walking out of the theater, I tried to figure out what the story was – how the villain became the villain, how this led to that, why this character did that, etc. I couldn’t tie the plot together…but I decided that I didn’t care. I walked out of that theater having had a blast, and that’s all that really matters to me in the long run…as long as there aren’t any huge problems with the movie elsewhere, and there weren’t. This movie, in my opinion at least, certainly improves upon its predecessor by giving us more – more character development, more destinations, more everything, and it’s entirely in a good way. I know there are lots of people out there who have concerns with J.J. Abrams directing the next Star Wars film, but, really, I think that if he can make such a fine science fiction space adventure film as Star Trek Into Darkness, it can’t turn out so bad. And with a cast that wants so badly to be better than they were in their previous film, succeeding in this attempt, I have high hopes for a Star Trek 3 in the future.
-Chad
Rating: 5 (out of 5)
MPAA: PG-13 – for intense sequences of sci-fi action and violence
1 comment | tags: IMAX, 3D, Star Trek, Michael Giacchino, War Horse, Steven Spielberg, Benedict Cumberbatch, j. j. abrams, jj abrams, trekkie, star trek into darkness, captain kirk, uss enterprise, starfleet, admiral pike, christopher pike, bruce greenwood, khan, john harrison, zachary quinto, spock, zoë saldana, uhura, anton yelchin, chekov, karl urban, bones mccoy, pavel chekov, nyota uhura, james t. kirk, james kirk, jim kirk, mister spock, mr. spock, leonard nimoy, montgomery scott, leonard mccoy, leonard bones mccoy, hikaru sulu, sherlock, bbc, nero, eric bana, imax 3d | posted in Film Reviews, Movies, Scores, Film, Entertainment, Music, 5
I first read F. Scott Fitzgerald’s classic book The Great Gatsby as a junior in high school. I didn’t particularly dislike it, but the fact that I had to write three essays over the green light and its symbolism didn’t make me like it either. My anticipation for this film was little; I like Leonardo DiCaprio well enough, but Baz Luhrmann as director and rapper Jay-Z as the man in charge of the soundtrack for a film set in the 1920s didn’t fly well with me. Despite this, I re-read the book two days before I saw the film and decided that I liked it a lot more this time around since I wasn’t having to read it for school. I became anxious…would the film do the book justice? Thankfully, I had little to worry about, as The Great Gatsby is a fine adaptation of Fitzgerald’s classic.
This story is told from the point of Nick Carraway, played by Tobey Maguire, who moves to Long Island in New York, where he is the neighbor of the alluring, illustrious Jay Gatsby, a man whose past is as mysterious as his parties are extravagant. Across the bay lives Nick’s cousin Daisy Buchanan (Carey Mulligan), who is married to Tom (Joel Edgerton), a man born into a rich family who is known to be in an affair with a woman from New York. As the summer goes on, Nick and Gatsby develop a friendship that leads to Gatsby revealing a secret: he is in love with Daisy and has been for five years. When Gatsby and Daisy reunite and pick up their relationship where it left off five years previously, chaos ensues as relationships become strained, accidents happen, and hope seems forever lost.
I hated the first 45 minutes of this movie. Everything seemed to be thrown into my face, one person after one event after one party after another, and I grew sick of it. The rap music fuels the parties, which I didn’t especially care for either. Of course, I can’t sit here and be unfair about all of this; every one of these aspects are results of creative decisions on the part of the director that make sense and probably worked for other people. This was the “Roaring 20s,” and all of this fast-paced delivery and bright color and extravagant music helps to emphasize the prosperity and free-spiritedness of the time. No, rap music wasn’t around in the 1920s, but I doubt that the inclusion of music from the 1920s would have communicated the wildness of these parties as well as the rap music does in this day and age, nearly 100 years later. I recognize all of this…but I just didn’t like it, and I was worried that the rest of the film was going to present itself in the same way.
But it didn’t. Once we become acquainted with Gatsby and move into his relationships with Nick, Daisy, and Tom, the film becomes a character study that I couldn’t get enough of. DiCaprio as Gatsby is perfect – he captures all of the optimism, all of the warmth, and all of the anxiety expressed by the character in the book, never going too far in an attempt to make the character believable. The other standout performance comes from Carey Mulligan as Daisy, who appeared on screen just the way I had imagined her in my head whilst reading. Tobey Maguire also does well as Nick Carraway, though I must admit that I was worried going into the film knowing that the story was told from his perspective…I had nightmares about Peter Parker doing the voice-over while we watched Gatsby throw his parties. But Maguire did fine and was thankfully not channeling his inner Peter Parker, though you could argue that he never did that in the Sam Raimi Spider-Man films either…ha! There’s not much to be said about Joel Edgerton’s performance as Tom Buchanan except that he did an admirable job and that I liked the way he played the character.
Having read the book less than 48 hours in advance of seeing the film, I can personally attest to its accuracy to the original book, with much of the dialogue being directly quoted from Fitzgerald’s text. In fact, I can’t think of anything off the top of my head that was significantly changed from the book, but the film still managed to not be a slave to the text, making itself stand apart as its own work of art while still capturing the themes of the novel. The symbolic green light, the light at the end of Daisy’s pier that Gatsby recognizes as the hope of being reunited with his lost love, is more present in the film than it is in the book, with it making several appearances throughout the duration of the movie. What’s more is that we hear the green light as well; every time it flashes in our view, we hear a single note swell from the instrumental score (composed by Craig Armstrong). One of my favorite parts of this film, though, is at the very end when we hear this note swell without seeing the green light – we’re hearing Gatsby’s flicker of hope that everything might still be alright in his future with Daisy, despite all that has just happened. It’s a powerful motif that resonates in both Gatsby and in the audience. The overall look of the film was dynamic and interesting, which I liked too.
Had the first 45 minutes of this film been different, so might my rating, but that doesn’t mean that this wasn’t a great film well worth your time. In all reality, I think that I’m in the minority of people who don’t care for the music in this film, with the obvious exception of Craig Armstrong’s instrumental score (which, sadly, isn’t being released as a purchasable album) and, curiously, a jazz-ified 1920s rendition of Beyoncé’s “Crazy in Love” that fits into the film quite well. DiCaprio’s performance is fantastic (though, sadly, I don’t think he’ll walk away with an Oscar for this one either), as is Ms. Mulligan’s, and it’s so true to the original themes of the book that any fan of Fitzgerald’s original novel should definitely give this a watch.
-Chad
Rating: 4 (out of 5)
MPAA: PG-13 – for some violent images, sexual content, smoking, partying and brief language
1 comment | tags: 1920s, baz luhrmann, beyonce, carey mulligan, Craig Armstrong, crazy in love, daisy buchanan, green light, jay gatsby, jay-z, joel edgerton, jordan baker, leonardo dicaprio, long island, New York, nick carraway, Peter Parker, rap music, roaring 20s, Sam Raimi, scott fitzgerald, Spider-Man, the great gatsby, tobey maguire, tom buchanan | posted in 4, Books, Entertainment, Film, Film Reviews, Movies, Music, Scores
Note: This will be as spoiler-free as I can possibly make it. If there’s something I just can’t avoid, I will warn you before you read on.
To say that Iron Man 3 was an anticipated film would be an incredible understatement. Marvel’s first follow-up to last year’s incredible The Avengers (my review), this film had quite the expectation to live up to. Did it? For the most part, I think so.
Iron Man 3 picks up presumably a few months after the events of The Avengers, with Tony and Pepper back home in Malibu, but something’s different…Tony can’t sleep. Haunted by the alien invasion in New York and determined to protect “the one thing [he] can’t live without,” Pepper, Tony spends all of his time designing and building new Iron Man suits and fighting off panic attacks. To put things in perspective, the suit in The Avengers was Mark VII, while his newest suit in this film is the Mark XLII (that’s 42, for those not versed in Roman numerals). When a terrorist calling himself The Mandarin (Ben Kingsley) hits Tony close to home, he must overcome his personal struggles in order to protect the woman he loves and to stop the imminent threat of The Mandarin. Along the way, we are introduced to blasts from Tony’s past, including Rebecca Hall as Maya Hansen and Guy Pearce as Aldrich Killian.
Much like Christopher Nolan’s final film in his Batman trilogy, The Dark Knight Rises (my review), this is an Iron Man film with more Tony Stark than Iron Man (in fact, there are quite a few comparisons that could be made to The Dark Knight Rises, but I’ll save those for another time) - but don’t worry, there are still plenty of great moments with the suit. I personally really enjoyed seeing more of Tony Stark as Robert Downey, Jr. Robert Downey, Jr. as Tony Stark, as we see a more humanized version of the character. He is a real person who struggles with real people problems just like you and me, bringing an interesting contrast between Tony Stark as Tony Stark and Tony Stark as Iron Man and a lot more to the table than just RDJ flying around in a suit behind a mask. He has a scene or two with Don Cheadle as Col. Rhodes in which both men are without their suits and are forced to rely on their own abilities and instincts to solve their problems rather than rely on their armor. RDJ’s likability in the role shines brightly throughout the film, with another side of the character coming out with the introduction of a new character, a boy named Harley (Ty Simpkins). Harley’s father left him seven years previously, and his mother works at night, so he is often alone. When Tony Stark steps into his life, he’s dragged into Tony’s mission. Stark treats Harley like an adult, which, though it sometimes means he makes snarky or “rude” comments (including a quip about how leaving is what fathers do and that he should man up and suck it up), it shows that Stark respects Harley enough to speak with him honestly and as an equal. The banter between these two characters works incredibly well, with their time onscreen together being some of the best moments of the film. Guy Pearce does an admirable job in his role, though I don’t want to delve too much into his character…spoilers and all that.
Almost every film comes with its disappointments, and Iron Man 3 is no exception. The funniest film of the three, I actually thought that the writers tried to bring too much humor to the table, with some of it feeling forced or unnecessary. I don’t want an Iron Man film that is taken 100% seriously, but I do think that the film as a whole could have survived with fewer attempts at getting a laugh. For reasons that I won’t list here, I was very disappointed with Ben Kingsley’s character, The Mandarin, and, while I thought that Guy Pearce did a decent job as a sort of supplemental villain, a better Mandarin would have been preferred. Lastly, Gwyneth Paltrow, though she does a fine job as a dramatic actress, is not an action star and should not have ever been given the opportunity. That being said, the chemistry between her and Downey, Jr. is palpable and never feels canned, instead flowing rather naturally between the two actors in a great way.
I didn’t fully flesh out my complaints due to spoilers, but, as I said, I enjoyed the film for the most part; in any case, it was a huge improvement over the awful Iron Man 2, so we should all rejoice for that. Six years after the release of the first Iron Man film, Robert Downey, Jr. continues to slip as effortlessly into the role now as he did then, and it manages to be a worthy followup to The Avengers. With decent performances all around and an enjoyable score from Brian Tyler, Iron Man 3 pleases for the most part and leaves me hoping that we see plenty more of Robert Downey, Jr. as Tony Stark in the future.
-Chad
Rating: 3.5 (out of 5)
MPAA: PG-13 – for sequences of intense sci-fi action and violence throughout, and brief suggestive content
1 comment | tags: aldrich killian, ben kingsley, brian tyler, Christopher Nolan, colonel rhodes, don cheadle, guy pearce, gwyneth paltrow, harley, Iron Man, iron man 2, iron man 3, jr., mark vii, mark xlii, Marvel, maya hansen, New York, NYC, pepper potts, rdj, rebecca hall, rhodey, robert downey, The Avengers, the dark knight rises, the mandarin, Tony Stark, ty simpkins | posted in 3.5, Entertainment, Film, Film Reviews, Movies, Music, Scores
We’ve all heard the criticisms of Michael Bay’s films, from Armageddon to Pearl Harbor to Transformers, but Pain & Gain looked like it just might break the typical Bay mold. Based on a true story of three men who kidnapped, tortured, and murdered several people in Florida in the 1990s, it seemed that this film might focus more on characters and story than on giant things that explode, and, for the most part, it does. Unfortunately, I would have preferred mindless explosions in another Transformers sequel to this incredibly vulgar film.
Here’s the gist of it: Mark Wahlberg plays Daniel Lugo, a bodybuilder working at the Sun Gym in Miami, Florida who wants more out of his life than his dull, lower standard of living. He wants success and money, and, after attending a motivational session by Johnny Wu (Ken Jeong), he decides to become a “do-er” in order to get what he wants. With the help of body-building friends Adrian Doorbal (Anthony Mackie) and Paul Doyle (Dwayne Johnson), he sets out to scheme one of Sun Gym’s members, Victor Kershaw (Tony Shalhoub), out of all of his money, a plan that sends these three men on a crash course that leads to more kidnapping, torture, and murder, ultimately ending with their arrest.
It had a lot of potential. For the most part, I think that the story aspect of this film is quite interesting; true story films always are. However, Bay has made almost a farce out of what is a tragic true story, making light of the actions of these criminals and the consequences of those actions. People died and lives were ruined, yet Bay tries to make it a comedy. While I don’t think that the whole thing should have necessarily been played with a straight face and that humor always has its place, I think that there should have been a cap on the humor presented in the film so that the whole thing is not played off as a joke. Aside from that, the jokes that were in the film never struck me as all that funny, though I must admit that I did laugh a few times.
I also must admit that the performance of the lead characters (the trio and Shalhoub) were admirable; they each played their characters quite well, though Johnson’s portrayal of a born-again Christian who thinks of himself as a gift from God is a bit bothersome to me. Wahlberg’s conviction in the role and occasionally (appropriately) over-the-top character is different from anything I have ever seen him do before, and Mackie’s character was also appropriately hyperactive.
Now I mustn’t get ahead of myself. My overall opinion of this film is negative, no matter what I thought of how interesting the plot could have been or how well the lead actors performed, and it’s all because of one thing: vulgarity. LOTS OF VULGARITY. Everything vulgar you could think of is present in this film: excessive bad language, gore, unnecessary sexual content (no sex, just nudity and toys), etc. All of this combined almost made the film completely unwatchable; the two people I watched it with absolutely hated the film, and, though I enjoyed bits of it, I will never again watch it willingly – that’s how bad it was.
You be the judge. If you can handle all of this vulgarity and don’t mind that Bay has made a joke of a serious series of events, you may enjoy this film, but I wouldn’t recommend it. As stated above, had this movie been a bit more on the PG-13 side of things, I might have walked out of the theater feeling a bit differently, but, Pain & Gain is a film that is definitely worth missing out on, especially if you can’t look past the overwhelmingly obscene aspects of the movie as a whole. Michael Bay started to take a step in the right direction, but I’ll take Transformers over this trash any day.
-Chad
Rating: 1 (out of 5)
MPAA: R - for bloody violence, crude sexual content, nudity, language throughout and drug use
1 comment | tags: adrian doorbal, anthony mackie, armageddon, daniel lugo, do-er, dwayne johnson, florida, johnny wu, ken jeong, Mark Wahlberg, miami, michael bay, pain & gain, paul doyle, pearl harbor, sun gym, tony shalhoub, transformers, victor kershaw | posted in 1, Entertainment, Film, Film Reviews, Movies
Joseph Kosinski’s first directorial effort was 2010′s TRON: Legacy, a film that, despite how much I enjoyed it, was only decent. His second directorial effort, as well as his first to write and produce, is Oblivion, which, due to my enjoyment of TRON: Legacy, I was actually looking forward to quite a bit, especially since I have been enlightened to the acting talent of Tom Cruise in the last year. I listened to the soundtrack for the film by M83 and Joseph Trapanese for a full week and a half in anticipation. I must admit that I still only expected this to be a decent film, but, thankfully, this was a rare instance in which my expectations were exceeded.
Oblivion tells the story of Jack Harper (Cruise) and his partner Victoria (Andrea Riseborough) as they live on a post-apocalyptic Earth. We are told that aliens invaded sixty years prior to the events of the film, but the humans won in nuclear war, leaving the Earth ravaged and forcing the humans to evacuate to Titan, one of Saturn’s moons. Jack is a repair technician who repairs drones that protect hydrorigs, which are sucking up Earth’s water to transport to Saturn, acting on orders rather than memory; he was forced to have his mind wiped fifteen years previously, though he still has vague recollections of a past that he doesn’t remember. He collects books that he finds and imagines what the world was like before all of this, but his partner is content to follow orders – two more weeks until the two of them get to join the rest of the human population on Titan. But when a space module crash lands and Jack pulls a survivor (Olga Kurylenko) from the wreckage before the “scavs” (remaining aliens from the war who sabotage the drones and hydrorigs) can get to her, he asks more questions than ever, throwing his and Victoria’s world into even further disarray.
Sound complicated? It is, a bit, but I never found the film’s complexities to be a burden. In fact, I sat on the edge of my seat the whole time, eagerly asking myself, “What’s going to happen next? How are they going to resolve this? Why did that just happen? What does this mean?” Cruise is the obvious highlight of this film, bringing his usual talent for action along with appropriate drama and a refreshing humanity that we don’t always see from him. Andrea Riseborough as Victoria, Harper’s partner and lover, gives a powerfully emotional performance as the sort of voice of reason, the one who is only interested in doing what she’s told rather than asking questions. Morgan Freeman’s brief but incredibly important role as Malcolm Beech, leader of an underground resistance, plays into Freeman’s typical “father figure” sort of role, but it doesn’t feel canned, and Olga Kurylenko as Julia, the survivor from the space module, gives a decent performance as well.
The story is somewhat reminiscent of Pixar’s Wall•E, though I won’t explain all the similarities here lest I spoil the film for you. The themes of asking questions/searching for answers and thirsting for knowledge vs. the fear of knowledge are powerful and well-represented here, with symbolism running rampant. For example, Jack Harper has a secret cabin on a plot of green earth near a pond that he found; this is where he stores the books that he finds, from medical dictionaries to Horatius to A Tale of Two Cities. This area is the obvious representation of the previously mentioned thirst for knowledge. There is also one moment where Harper presents Victoria with a can containing a flower that he has cared for, but she promptly tosses it out the window, citing regulation and contamination (there’s an obvious Wall•E parallel), which is representative of her fear of knowledge.
Ever since I walked out of the theater, I’ve been debating what rating to give this film. I knew it was at least a 4/5, though I thought it could easily be a 4.5 as well. I wanted to give it 5/5, though I know it’s certainly not a perfect movie. However, given my enjoyment of it, I think that a 5 is a perfectly reasonable rating; it’s got a smart script, a capable and talented cast, an appropriate score by M83 (assisted by Joseph Trapanese), and it asks questions that we can all learn from. Despite its flaws, Oblivion is a fantastic film, proving that 1) Cruise is not only a wonderful action star but also a capable dramatic actor and that 2) Kosinksi has a lot of future potential as a great film director.
-Chad
Rating: 5 (out of 5)
MPAA: PG-13 – for sci-fi action violence, brief strong language, and some sensuality/nudity
P.S. – Read my review of this film’s score, composed by M83, here!
2 comments | tags: a tale of two cities, andrea riseborough, horatius, hydrorig, jack harper, joseph kosinski, joseph trapanese, m83, moon, morgan freeman, nuclear war, oblivion, olga kurylenko, Pixar, post-apocalypic, saturn, titan, tom cruise, tron, tron legacy, wall-e | posted in 5, Entertainment, Film, Film Reviews, Movies, Music, Scores
I love baseball. I grew up playing baseball and have fond memories of attending Texas Rangers games with my family as a child, so I can always appreciate a good baseball film, whether it’s a baseball film that isn’t really about baseball (i.e. Moneyball), baseball films that ARE about baseball, or even cult classics like The Sandlot. After last year’s Trouble with the Curve left much to be desired (my review), I was quite excited to see 42, even from the very first trailer I saw for it last fall sometime. I desperately wanted it to be a great film, but, unfortunately, I was pretty disappointed.
42 tells the story of how Jackie Robinson (Chadwick Boseman) became the first African American baseball player to play in Major League Baseball in modern times. He’s now considered to be one of the greatest baseball players of all-time. His legacy continues in the form of Jackie Robinson Day, celebrated by players in the MLB every year on April 15 (which, not-so-coincidentally, is the date on which I’m typing up this review). Robinson was and continues to be a giant in the world of baseball; however, this film does a poor job of showing all of this.
Almost all of my complaints have to do with characters and dialogue. I understand the need to take liberties with history to make it fit into a movie that caters to its audience better, but 42 seems to me to be severely over-romanticized. The relationship shown between Jackie and his wife, Rachel (Nicole Beharie), is sickeningly sugar-sweet throughout, with there not being a single bit of conflict shown between the two of them. While “lack of conflict” is not a problem in and of itself, Rachel’s dialogue is disgustingly cutesy and over the top. Harrison Ford as Dodgers general manager Branch Rickey is strange; he talks in as low a voice register as possible, makes analogies that never make sense, talks at the rate of about seven words per minute, and constantly waves around a half-smoked, chewed-on cigar. As much as I love Harrison Ford in just about everything else he’s done, I really didn’t care for him here. Another character, a small African American boy who is apparently supposed to be younger version of someone who was inspired by Robinson in real life and eventually made it to professional baseball, has incredibly corny lines, namely one in which, after running after a train that Robinson is riding in, he places his head on the tracks and says to his friends, “I can still hear him!” It would have been perfectly achievable to show us that people were inspired by Robinson without this awful child character, and, in fact, that is done better later in the film when Rickey tells Robinson that he saw a little white boy pretending to be Robinson.
The only actor in this film who I can actually praise is Boseman, who plays the closest thing to a believable character to be found in the film. He never tries to be over-extravagant with his actions or emotions, and the moments in which his emotions ARE heightened never feel false. He plays the role admirably, which is a good thing considering the fact that the film is about him and we’re supposed to care about him; frankly, I didn’t care about any of the other characters. I liked some of the Christian statements made in the film by Rickey, who was known for his strong Christian beliefs, though I wasn’t overly fond of the bad language that often accompanied his biblical wisdom. I also liked some of the themes of struggle and equality that were present in the film, though I wasn’t overly fond of the characters who embodied these themes (i.e. Wendell Smith (Andre Holland), an African American journalist who wasn’t allowed to sit in the press box with the white journalists).
You can tell that I really didn’t enjoy this film, but you should also know that I didn’t hate it. Yes, it has its problems (including several that I didn’t mention here), but it’s still a decent baseball movie, and Boseman in the main role makes up for a lot of the film’s faults. I don’t claim to be a Jackie Robinson expert or even remotely knowledgeable on the subject, but I’d like to think that my points are valid and that I’m not the only one who thinks this way. 42 will certainly please casual moviegoers and those who may not be as bothered by the characters as I was, and hopefully fellow baseball lovers will find something to enjoy as well. After all, this movie is all about one person who just wanted to play the game.
-Chad
Rating: 2 (out of 5)
MPAA: PG-13 – for thematic elements including language
1 comment | tags: 42, african american, andre holland, baseball, branch rickey, brooklyn dodgers, chadwick boseman, dodgers, harrison ford, jackie robinson, jackie robinson day, major league baseball, mlb, moneyball, nicole beharie, rachel robinson, texas rangers, the sandlot, trouble with the curve, wendell smith | posted in 2, Entertainment, Film, Film Reviews, Movies
2012 was a fantastic year for film, and, for the first time, I’ve seen a majority of the nominated films, including all nine Best Picture nominees, all five Best Animated Feature nominees, all five Best Live Action Short Film nominees, and all five Best Animated Short Film nominees. I also own and have listened through all five nominated Best Original Scores. Needless to say, I feel relatively prepared enough to type out my own predictions list for this year’s Academy Awards, with a little help from various other people’s lists in the technical area. Just to clarify, though: this does not necessarily reflect my personal favorites (otherwise I wouldn’t have chosen Mychael Danna’s score to Life of Pi for Best Original Score), but it instead shows what I actually think will win.
I’ll give commentary for the first six awards and will simply list the rest.
-Chad
P.S. If something is linked, it’s a link to my personal review of that material, if you’re interested in reading.
Best Picture: Argo
When I first decided that I was going to type up one of these, I argued with myself for a long time over whether or not Argo would win the Oscar for Best Picture, but now I’m almost positive. In the entire history of the Academy Awards, there have only been three instances ever when the winner of the Best Picture Award did not also win the Best Director Award, so, since Ben Affleck isn’t nominated for Best Director, I was leaning more toward Lincoln/Spielberg for the Best Picture/Director awards, but Argo has gotten enough steam built up behind it to snatch the Oscar, and rightfully so.
Best Director: Steven Spielberg for Lincoln
Had he been nominated, I think that Ben Affleck would have won this award for directing what is sure to win Best Picture, Argo, but, since he’s not, Spielberg seems to be the best choice. He has a long history of bringing us excellent films, and Lincoln was no exception. However, I wouldn’t be terribly surprised if Ang Lee received the award for directing Life of Pi, but I don’t expect that’ll happen.
Best Actor: Daniel Day-Lewis in Lincoln
I wasn’t able to see The Master, but of the other four nominees there is no doubt that all four actors did fantastic jobs in their respective roles, but I think that Day-Lewis will take the cake after his incredible portrayal of President Abraham Lincoln in Spielberg’s latest film. I’ll be surprised if he doesn’t get the award, but, if I had to make a second guess, it’d be for Bradley Cooper in Silver Linings Playbook.
Best Actress: Jennifer Lawrence in Silver Linings Playbook
I may have this one completely wrong, as Jessica Chastain also seems to be a popular pick for her role in Zero Dark Thirty (which I don’t agree with), but I think that Lawrence was the definitely the best of those nominated. I must admit to not having seeing The Impossible, but I’m pretty sure that the winner will be either Lawrence or Chastain, and my hope is for Lawrence.
Best Supporting Actor: Christoph Waltz in Django Unchained
I’ve changed my mind about four times while trying to write this because both Christoph Waltz as Dr. Schultz in Django Unchained and Tommy Lee Jones as Thaddeus Stevens in Lincoln were fantastic and are deserving of the Oscar. However, I do believe that Waltz’s performance shines just a bit brighter than Jones’, putting him at least slightly ahead in my book.
Best Supporting Actress: Anne Hathaway in Les Misérables
I am almost completely confident that Anne Hathaway will win this award. While Sally Field was a great Mary Todd Lincoln and Jacki Weaver did a fine job in Silver Linings Playbook (I haven’t seen The Master or The Sessions, but I’m sure that Amy Adams and Helen Hunt were great as well), but I think that Hathaway’s stunning performance of the classic “I Dreamed a Dream” is reason enough to justify her receiving the Oscar.
Best Writing – Original Screenplay: Michael Haneke for Amour
Best Writing – Adapted Screenplay: Chris Terrio for Argo
Best Animated Feature: Wreck-It Ralph
Best Foreign Language Film: Amour
Best Documentary – Feature: Searching for Sugar Man
Best Documentary – Short Subject: Open Heart
Best Live Action Short Film: Curfew
Best Animated Short Film: Paperman
Best Original Score: Mychael Danna for Life of Pi
Best Original Song: Adele Adkins and Paul Epworth for “Skyfall”
Best Sound Editing: Zero Dark Thirty
Best Sound Mixing: Les Misérables
Best Production Design: Les Misérables
Best Cinematography: Life of Pi
Best Makeup and Hairstyling: Les Misérables
Best Costume Design: Anna Karenina
Best Film Editing: Argo
Best Visual Effects: Life of Pi
Leave a comment | tags: Sally Field, Academy Awards, Oscars, anne hathaway, best original score, Steven Spielberg, amy adams, wreck it ralph, john goodman, skyfall, adele, Lincoln, Abraham Lincoln, Mary Todd Lincoln, tommy lee jones, daniel day-lewis, thaddeus stevens, life of pi, jennifer lawrence, paperman, argo, bryan cranston, ben affleck, best picture, best supporting actor, alan arkin, zero dark thirty, jessica chastain, best actress, silver linings playbook, best actor, Bradley Cooper, les miserables, i dreamed a dream, amour, michael haneke, best animated feature, quentin tarantino, django unchained, christoph waltz, predictions, best live action short film, best animated short film, ang lee, the master, president, les mis, jacki weaver, the sessions, helen hunt, best director, best supporting actress, best original screenplay, best adapted screenplay, chris terrio, best foreign language film, best documentary feature, best documentary short, curfew, paul epworth, best sound editing, best sound mixing, best production design, best cinematography, best makeup and hairstyling, best costume design, anna karenina, best film editing, best visual effects, searching for sugar man, open heart | posted in Soundtrack Reviews, Film Reviews, Movies, Scores, Film, Entertainment, Music
The last film for me to see of the nine films nominated for Best Picture at the 85th Academy Awards was Beasts of the Southern Wild, a film that premiered at the Sundance Film Festival in January of 2012, so it’s been out for quite a while. This is another of those films that I knew nothing about until I actually saw it, and, now that I’ve seen it, I still can’t tell you much about it except that it’s touching.
For this film, it seems best to use the short summary found over on its IMDB page: “Faced with both her hot-tempered father’s fading health and melting ice-caps that flood her ramshackle bayou community and unleash ancient aurochs, six-year-old Hushpuppy must learn the ways of courage and love.”
Beasts of the Southern Wild takes place in a world outside of our own, where the people live off the land and have a sort of oneness with nature. After reading a bit about the film, I’ve learned that most (if not all) of the actors who appear have little to no previous acting experience, including the lead actress, Quvenzhané Wallis, who is nominated for the Academy Award for Best Actress. The lack of acting experience in the film may worry some, but I thought that it gave the movie a sense of authenticity; these are real people. We see everything through Hushpuppy’s (Wallis) six-year-old eyes, meaning that her imagination is ours. Her father, Wink, played by Dwight Henry, may have a “hot-temper,” but it’s shown throughout the film that he loves Hushpuppy and that he wants nothing more than for her to survive, especially if he’s not around to take care of her. The most touching scene in the film has Wink telling Hushpuppy that he’s not trying to get rid of her but that he can’t take care of her because he’s dying. She responds with, “Don’t be saying things about dying,” and, after he tells her that everyone’s daddies die, she responds with, “Not my daddy.” It’s her innocent outlook on life and her sense of responsibility in a world where she must learn to take care of herself that makes her such a passionate character that you love from the start.
One aspect of the film that I didn’t quite understand, though, is the “aurochs” mentioned in the IMDb summary above. They’re introduced early in the film as prehistoric creatures that are trapped in the melting polar ice caps, and the kids are told that the creatures will come and hunt them down once they finally thaw out. As the movie progresses, we see the ice caps melting, releasing these aurochs, and we see snippets of their travel as they make their way down to the little community of Bathtub. It seems to me that they are simply used as a device to point out the need for Hushpuppy to learn to fend for herself; with the population of Bathtub dwindling and her father being as sick as he is, the time is fast approaching, like the aurochs, for her to be able to survive alone. Nick over at TheMovieSpoiler.com (spoilers in link, obviously) points out that both Hushpuppy and the aurochs are beasts of a nearly extinct species, as the Bathtub community is dwindling.
I don’t want to spoil anything, so it’s best that I wrap it up. This film explores the importance of love, sacrifice, and being one with nature, and I imagine that it’d be hard for anyone to dislike it, though I’d understand if someone didn’t absolutely love it. The cast of unknowns brings a lot to the film, but no one does this better than the young Quvenzhané Wallis, who, at the age of nine, is the youngest actress to ever be nominated in the Best Actress category. I doubt she wins, but her performance as Hushpuppy is strong, brave, thoughtful, and inspiring. Even if you like nothing else about this film, Wallis will still touch your heart. Beasts of the Southern Wild has already grown on me, even in the short time its been since I watched it, and I won’t hesitate to watch it again. A. O. Scott with The New York Times calls it “a blast of sheer improbable joy”…while I’m not sure that “joy” is the right word, it’s still a fantastic film.
-Chad
Rating: 4.5 (out of 5)
MPAA: PG-13 – for thematic material including child imperilment, some disturbing images, language and brief sensuality
Leave a comment | tags: Academy Awards, auroch, bathtub, beasts of the southern wild, best actress, best picture, dwight henry, hushpuppy, imdb, polar ice caps, Quvenzhané Wallis, sundance, sundance film festival, the movie spoiler | posted in 4.5, Entertainment, Film, Film Reviews, Movies
My experience with Quentin Tarantino films is pretty limited. Before this, the only one of his films that I had seen was Inglourious Basterds, which, I admit, I don’t remember much of because I was working on homework and such while watching. Despite that, my current quest to see all nine Best Picture nominees for the 85th Academy Awards brought me to Django Unchained, a film that I had meant to see quite a while ago but only just managed to watch. And wow…it was worth the wait.
At the start of the film, Django (Jamie Foxx) has just been separated from his wife Brumhilda (Kerry Washington) after the two of them tried to escape from the place where they were slaves together. He is being taken to a new place to work, but plans change when a bounty hunter named Dr. King Schultz (Christoph Waltz) shows up looking for Django, who he believes can identify three men who have prices on their heads. Dr. Schultz doesn’t like the idea of slavery, so his relationship with Django is as more of a partnership, with him treating his new friend as a person with the same rights as he does. The pair embarks on a journey to first find these men and then others before they travel to the plantation of one Calvin Candie (Leonardo DiCaprio), who is Django’s wife’s new owner, where they come up with an elaborate scheme to buy Brumhilda back from Candie so that her and Django can be reunited and free together.
For me, the best part of this film beyond a doubt is Christoph Waltz as Dr. Schultz. His dialogue is fantastic, his character is fascinating, and his overall onscreen likability is fervent. From the very moment in the film when he first appears, he takes control of the situation, managing to show both his aggressive and compassionate sides from the start. Throughout the film, he treats white and black people with the respect they all deserve as humans, which is hugely admirable amid so much racism and hatred. Foxx’s character is likable as well, with his obvious passion for his wife acting as his motivation for everything that he does or, in some cases, what he doesn’t do. In fact, there are several points in the movie when Django “sees” his wife with him, such as when he is bathing in a hot spring or while riding his horse to Candie’s plantation. This sort of hallucination seems to serve as a reminder that everything he is doing, whether it’s killing men for a bounty or ignoring the plight of the enslaved black men around him, is done with the purpose of reuniting him with his wife. As for DiCaprio’s character, I don’t have much to say about him aside from the fact that DiCaprio did a wonderful job with it.
The action in Django is visually incredible, though it’s certainly overly bloody and gory. Bullets often pass completely through the recipient’s body in order to maximize the amount of blood spewed everywhere, and, while it’s certainly gruesome, it’s also quite a spectacle to behold. However, I do have one concern; in the last half hour or so of the film, all of the action is done as a mechanism of revenge from Django’s hand, and it certainly seems to be a bit overglorified. Django is supposed to be our hero, a man who would do anything for his wife, but the eventual acquisition of his wife (you knew it would happen, so I feel no guilt regarding spoilers) doesn’t stop the constant flow of killing and violence. It would have been nice to see him do what had to be done and then leave somewhat peacefully, but, of course, that doesn’t finish with enough of a bang for Tarantino, so he goes instead for something a little bit more…explosive.
This concern, while certainly something to consider, does not overshadow everything else that is great about this film, though, which can be summed up in one word: “fun.” I had a great time watching this film throughout, minus a couple of scenes that were obviously not intended to be enjoyable, but that is another part of what makes it so good: it provides commentary on such important topics as slavery, racism, revenge, and love without losing its entertainment value. The movie lacks a traditional film score (as all Tarantino films do), but the music composed for and used in the film is excellent, and the style of the film is much in the feel of a Sergio Leone spaghetti Western…there is even a song written by composer Ennio Morricone, who composed the scores for Leone’s films. Overall, Django Unchained is a fine film with important social criticism, a well-executed script, and a talented cast of actors who make everything come together in an exceptional way.
-Chad
Rating: 4.5 (out of 5)
MPAA: R – for strong graphic violence throughout, a vicious fight, language and some nudity
1 comment | tags: brumhilda, calvin candie, christoph waltz, django unchained, Ennio Morricone, inglourious basterds, jamie foxx, kerry washington, king schultz, leonardo dicaprio, quentin tarantino, sergio leone | posted in 4.5, Entertainment, Film, Film Reviews, Movies, Music, Scores
I’ll prepare you now: I’m about to give this film the lowest rating I’ve ever given. I didn’t really enjoy it at all. It is by far my least favorite film of 2012.
ParaNorman tells the story of Norman, a boy who can see and communicate with ghosts. He is constantly made fun of by his classmates, and his father consistently tries to stifle this gift. One day, Norman’s uncle, who he’s not supposed to talk to, shows up, telling him that he must save the town from the infamous “witch’s curse” that has plagued Blithe Hollow for 300 years. Norman decides to fulfill his duty and goes on a mission to stop this witch from laying waste to the city.
I suppose I can start with the good things…I thought that the animation is well-done and appropriately grotesque. I like that character design differs from person to person (i.e. facial structure, body shape, etc.), rather than all the characters essentially having the same build with only slight variations. The stop-motion in this film is done quite well also, though the style of it is certainly different from the other Academy Award-nominated film, Frankenweenie (read my review here).
I disliked pretty much everything else. The film was filled with what I thought to be pointless scenes (one in which Norman spends two minutes attempting to pry a book from a dead man’s hands comes to mind) and others that just left me asking “why?”, such as the scene in which his uncle’s ghost appears from a toilet in the stall of the school restroom that Norman happens to be occupying at the time…why the toilet? Why then? That’s not a question for the character but for the filmmakers. Everything in a film should have its reason for existing, and I simply can’t find the reason for that scene and for others. The humor found in the movie was typically very unfunny for me, and most of the characters were completely flat and uninteresting, including Norman. I didn’t care what happened to him, and I didn’t understand his motives for anything. Why would he choose to try to fend off this witch based on incomplete information given to him by his crazy uncle? As for the motivation of other characters, why do his sister and other friends suddenly make the decision to stand by his side when the time comes despite having done anything but that beforehand?
Maybe I’m looking too much into this. Maybe I should think, “oh, this is a kid’s film” and approach it appropriately. But kids’ films should be better than that. I don’t know why critics have given this film such favorable reviews, but I did not like it. To be fair, I will probably give this a second chance somewhere down the road…after all, I own it on Blu-Ray. And maybe I’ll change my mind about it, in which case I will let you all know. But for now, I think that ParaNorman is a movie that suffers from poor characters, lame humor, and a lackluster script. While it does contain positive messages about finding the good in people around you, not bullying others because they are different, and being who you are no matter what others say, it’s just not a film that I would recommend.
-Chad
Rating: 1.5 (out of 5)
MPAA: PG - for scary action and images, thematic elements, some rude humor and language
3 comments | tags: Academy Awards, best animated feature, frankenweenie, norman, paranorman, Tim Burton | posted in 1.5, Entertainment, Film, Film Reviews, Movies
