- Alphabetical
- Most Reviews
- Most Views
- Top Rated
- Least Recent
- Most Recent
/</gidiv class="entry-body field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden field-bundle-review"/>/gi
div class="field-items" Most film critics or general movie lovers prefer a film that makes them do a little thinking. There are only so many dumb, predictable films out there already. But on the other hand, it's not much fun when a film requires you to do too much thinking. And you're very likely to feel mentally exhausted after watching Trance . Here is the basic plot of the film, before it goes in a million different directions. Simon, played by James McAvoy , is an art auctioneer who becomes mixed up with a group of criminals trying to steal an expensive painting. The painting gets lost. Simon knows where it is but suffers amnesia after being knocked unconscious during the heist. Since he is the only one who knows the location of the painting, the criminals resort to using hypnosis on him. Rosario Dawson plays the hypnotist hired to help him gain his memory back. From that point on it's hard to tell what's real, what's not, and who's playing who. It is entertaining for a good while... trying to figure everything out and hoping for some satisfying conclusion. Everybody likes a good plot twist. But there are points in the film where you feel one twist has occurred, and then you find out that wasn't the case at all. There's too much blurring between the lines of reality and what might only be in Simon's head. The fact that I'm still not entirely sure what happened isn't exactly fulfilling, and there's already debate between people who've seen it proposing different theories as to what really happened. So credit goes to the film for engaging discussion. Yet I feel that the main reason I'd ever be encouraged to watch it again would be just to figure out what happened. At the same time though, the movie did keep me very interested throughout. But if you're not even sure whether you actually liked the movie or not once it's over, that means it still could have been better.
/</gidiv class="entry-body field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden field-bundle-review"/>/gi
div class="field-items" There have been less and less movies with original ideas released over the last few years, with superhero adaptations and sequels being so in demand. Luckily, science fiction is one genre where there's always room for new ideas to be filmed. It's not based in reality, so the possibilities are endless for what stories can be made. The latest entry in the sci-fi genre is Oblivion . The movie takes place in the future after Earth has been attacked by aliens. Tom Cruise plays a technician trying to extract the planet's remaining resources for a colony where the rest of the survivors reside; he's told that he will join them after fulfilling his duties. Cruise narrates the film explaining this to the audience since we're not shown exactly what happened. But as the film progresses, we see that what he has told us may not be entirely true. Morgan Freeman shows up almost halfway through the film to inform him of this. It's great casting because the audience has followed Cruise's character and all that he's been saying, but now there's a possibility that he's been wrong about everything. After all, what other actor are you going to believe in a movie over Morgan Freeman? Cruise spends the rest of the movie trying to figure out right from wrong as we follow him combing the planet for answers as well as engaging in Star Wars style spaceship shootouts. There are a couple of surprises here and there, but the twists in this film are more feasible than that of the last movie I reviewed, Trance . Remember, sci-fi can get away with a lot more. There are elements of the film which can be compared to a smaller film from a few years back called Moon , but Oblivion has a more complex premise and also differs in that it's a visually stunning film. The sound and cinematography are excellent. The problem with the film is that it's very slow-moving. And even near the end when it resorts to a typical mindless battle scene (as so many smart sci-fi films unfortunately tend to do), it made me miss the slow parts just because they were still better to look at. But Tom Cruise gives as good of a performance as he can; another actor without Cruise's intensity wouldn't be able to carry a film like this where he's in pretty much every scene. This isn't a sci-fi classic by any means but it's good enough to at least watch once just for the sake of seeing a film with its own unique look.
/</gidiv class="entry-body field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden field-bundle-review"/>/gi
div class="field-items" When a movie makes a lot of money, the studio who made it automatically starts thinking about a sequel. Such was the case with Iron Man . They could have made one sequel and let that be it. But the folks at Marvel Studios decided to go bigger and make movies starring other characters from their comic book universe. They put them together in The Avengers and broke all kinds of records. So why not go ahead and make another Iron Man film? It was the one that gave Marvel the whole Avengers idea in the first place. The problem is... this 3rd installment was completely unnecessary. Iron Man 3 brings back Robert Downey Jr. as Tony Starks, the successful engineer who decides to become Iron Man. It also brings back Gwyneth Paltrow as Pepper Potts who has become his love interest, and Don Cheadle as his military buddy Rhodes. Rhodes became "War Machine" in Iron Man 2 but now goes by the less threatening moniker, "Iron Patriot". What Iron Man 3 doesn't bring back though are any original ideas. What made the first film so enjoyable was seeing a superhero with such wit and smart-ass humor. But by the 3rd time around, you got to bring something new to the table - and this film doesn't. As all superhero movies do, it introduces us to another villain in "The Mandarin". While it's certainly not a dangerous sounding name, he's portrayed as an Al-Qaeda-like terrorist bombing various parts of the United States. But having 69 year-old Ben Kingsley play the role doesn't make him seem like too much of a match for Iron Man. Even with an added twist thrown in later, the villain here isn't as menacing as Mickey Rourke was in the previous sequel. Of course, the film has tons of over-the-top special effects and the sound is incredible. But non-stop action doesn't make up for a weak storyline. While the constant action may keep things moving, the ridiculously cheesy ending was the nail in the coffin for me as far as giving the film a good review. The big climactic battle at the end even takes place at a giant cargo ship which has been the same setting for many movie endings before. It's not even the first movie with Robert Downey Jr. to end there ( U.S. Marshals - the sequel to The Fugitive )! Not to mention, some of the CGI scenes started to feel like they were ripping off the far superior Terminator 2: Judgment Day . The lack of originality in this film makes me lack ever wanting to sit through it again.
Gerard Butler gained fame in the United States as the lead character in the supremely macho film 300. Since then, his films haven’t fared too well, especially when he’s branched out into romantic comedy territory. There’s nothing wrong with branching out. But the new film Olympus Has Fallen proves that “tough guy” is still the role he plays best. In the film, the White House is taken over by terrorists. Butler plays an ex-Special Forces operative who becomes the one person inside that the terrorists aren’t aware of. It’s a big house after all. The plot may sound a bit ridiculous. But early scenes showing the strategic takeover are done extremely well and demonstrate the possibility of how such a thing could happen if executed properly. Ultimately, the film plays out much like Die Hard set in the White House. That film is considered the greatest action film of all time by many. This movie doesn’t quite match the awesomeness of that one but it’s still a pretty fun ride all in all. And Butler excels in the art of kicking butt on film. Morgan Freeman plays the Speaker of the House who becomes acting president once the actual president is held hostage by the terrorists. Aaron Eckhart plays the president. Freeman adds some gravitas to what’s a pretty straightforward action film, even if he’s not given too much to do here. It’s not a film that will stand out in your memory years down the road, except for the fact that it was released just 3 months before a similar movie called White House Down. But lovers of the action film genre will be given plenty to enjoy about it. Olympus Has Fallen opens on March 22.
Back in 2003, Jim Carrey was a huge movie star whose film Bruce Almighty grossed almost $250 million in the U.S. alone. But after seeing that film, people started talking about another name. Steve Carell played his rival newscaster in the film and many said he had the funniest scene in the whole movie, stealing a bit of Carrey's thunder. 10 years later, it's Carell who has become the bigger star and Carrey's fame has been declining. The two of them must have stayed friendly as they both appear in the new film The Incredible Burt Wonderstone . And it's Carell in the starring role this time around with Carrey popping up here and there. Here's the bad news though: the movie's not that good. It's about two childhood friends (Carell and Steve Buscemi) who grow up to be famous magicians. But the fame turns one of them into a pompous egomaniac. That would be Burt Wonderstone. His arrogance causes a rift between the two which causes them to part ways. To make matters worse, people start turning their attention to a street magician named Steve Gray. The character is a parody of Criss Angel who had his own successful television show called Mindfreak. Burt Wonderstone decides to continue his magic show as a solo act and watches his audience become smaller and smaller. This is because he continues to do the same old tricks which can't compete with the more eye-popping and dangerous spectacles displayed by Steve Gray. The movie plays out with the two magicians trying to outdo one another, much like a silly version of The Prestige (a far superior film). Steve Carell gets credit for trying something a little different by playing someone who's pretty much a douchebag for most of the movie. But it doesn't help when that douchebag is the central character of the film. What's really nice to see is Jim Carrey back in true form with some genuinely funny scenes. It would have been too much if he was the focus of the film, but we get just the right dose of his over-the-top character as this time Carrey gets to steal scenes back from Steve Carell. Carrey hasn't had the chance to play the kind of roles that made him famous in quite a while, but this one is more in sync with what fits him best. The Incredible Burt Wonderstone opens on March 15. It's really only worth it for some of Jim Carrey's scenes and that's it. Otherwise, save your money.
Zombies and vampires seem to have taken over Hollywood. From The Walking Dead to The Vampire Diaries to the Twilight films and so on, they've been everywhere. The trend has gotten pretty tiresome. So if they're going to keep doing this, they should at least put a fresh twist on it. That's what Warm Bodies aims to do. The film is a fresh take on Romeo and Juliet with humor... and zombies. Whereas some films like Shaun of the Dead already combined the genre with humor, this one also adds an aspect of romance. Nicholas Hoult plays R, a young zombie who we follow around at the beginning of the film as he narrates his inner thoughts to us. Apparently, zombies still have thoughts. They do need to find food and survive. It's just that their version of food is people. They don't remember much from the time they were alive. That's why he goes by R; he can only remember the first letter of his name. The zombies just strut around looking for the living and don't really speak. As we all know, they just grunt here and there. This film gives some additional explanation for the eating of humans. When the zombies eat their brains, they collect some of that person's memories. So it's implied that the zombies still have a bit of humanity and some purpose. Far worse off are the "bonies" which are zombies who have degenerated to the point of becoming skeletons. They've abandoned their humanity altogether and become complete killing machines. When R and some fellow zombies find some surviving humans to attack, he immediately becomes enamored with one girl and decides to save her. He becomes her protector and attempts to get to know her. She struggles at first to understand why he's keeping her safe. But soon enough, through awkward communication, they get to know each other. Not only does he slowly gain the ability to speak to her but he also seems to become more in touch with humanity again. This revelation makes them realize there's hope for all zombies. However, it puts them much more at risk with the merciless bonies. This brings about the Romeo and Juliet aspect in that the girl must convince her military father (John Malkovich) that not all zombies are bad. He's the head of a militia that's set on wiping them all out. Humans and zombies are the Montagues and Capulets of the film while R and his new love are caught in the middle. It's safe to say that R probably stands for Romeo. And the girl - her name is Julie. There's even a scene that takes place on a balcony just like in the original story. Warm Bodies manages to put a weird, apocalyptic but humorous twist on an old classic. There are funny moments in watching a zombie try to impress a human girl and not come off too creepy. We get that mixed with scenes of brains being eaten like a delicacy. So it's not for everyone, yet it stays interesting to say the least. Julie is played by Teresa Palmer who looks and acts just like Kristen Stewart with blonde hair. But there's more personality in these characters than those overserious brooding ones of the Twilight movies. That's right, there's more liveliness in this undead corpse than in the Twilight characters.
Jack Reacher is based on the character from a popular series of books by Lee Child. There are 17 books in total. The character is 6’5” tall and weighs between 210 and 250 pounds. Playing Jack Reacher in this film is Tom Cruise who stands at 5’7”. Loyal readers had a problem with the casting at first, but if anyone knows how to play a character like this it’s Tom Cruise. We’ve seen him kick ass in movies like Mission: Impossible and he’s the kind of guy who always incorporates intelligence into the action. He’s best at playing trained, highly skilled experts at their craft and that’s exactly what Reacher is. What’s different about this character is that he avoids using standard day-to-day devices that everyone else uses. He has no phone. He doesn’t own a car. He pays for everything in cash. This is why he’s impossible to find. He’s a ghost, living completely off the grid. As the film demonstrates, he can’t be found unless he wants to be. So when a former army sniper who he used to work with is accused of killing 5 random people, Reacher shows up to investigate. He not only has military skills, he has the analytical skills of a detective as well. It’s his intellect that makes Jack Reacher such an interesting character and keeps this from being a standard action movie. It rises above others in that we get to see the main character help solve many problems while also beating up the bad guys in a fun way. This guy is smarter than James Bond. There’s a pretty authentic-looking car chase which seems grittier than most as well. And as usual, Cruise did all his own stunt driving. None of the other actors stand out too much, though that could because of Cruise’s dominant screen presence. Of course he gets all the cool one-liners and the entertaining fight scenes. It’s a bit unfortunate that the last 20 minutes or so delve into a more typical action-movie climax which takes away from what’s ultimately a smart thriller (films like District 9 and Avatar are guilty of this too). But the mystery involving the sniper does come to a satisfying conclusion. All in all, this is probably the best Tom Cruise film in at least the past 5 years.
In my opinion, Quentin Tarantino has never directed a truly cohesive film in which all the parts really work. Sure his movies have some unique and interesting scenes, but there are always other scenes that are flat and boring or have characters discussing the most non-relevant things for 20 minutes at a time. It’s like he just throws things in that are interesting to himself; I sometimes wonder if he really cares about the viewers watching his films or if it’s just about his own self-indulgence. His movies are full of scenes that probably should’ve been left on the cutting room floor. Well I’m happy to say that Django Unchained is his first truly complete film (and yes, that includes the overrated, all over the place Pulp Fiction). For once, he’s made a movie that follows one story and sticks to it without veering off into some other unnecessary character’s backstory just to take up time. Sure there are a couple of flashback scenes but they’re very brief and often essential to the plot. As for the plot itself, that’s typical Tarantino. Has he ever made a film that doesn’t deal with revenge in some way? Jamie Foxx stars as Django, a slave who was sold separately from his wife and obviously has not seen her since. When a bounty hunter named Dr. Schultz comes along and takes him from his current owners, Django soon realizes there’s an opportunity to find his estranged wife. The bounty hunter is trying to find and kill some men that he knows Django can identify since Shultz doesn’t know what they look like. Since Django is technically no longer a slave, he wants to do whatever he can to find his wife. So if helping this man out can in turn help him accomplish this, of course he’ll go along for the ride. Since this is a Tarantino film, you can believe there will be blood and guts. While there’s plenty of action and violence, the acting is really good too. Christoph Waltz plays the bounty hunter with sort of a playful delight while other stars make their presence known later in the film. Kerry Washington plays Django’s wife and effectively shows why she’s worth risking his life for. Leonardo DiCaprio is the ruthless plantation owner who owns Django’s wife, and Samuel L. Jackson is his head house slave. Jackson’s character has it better than all the other black people in the film which makes him abuse his own power against them. It brings ironic humor to the film but also shows how classism can overpower racism. He seems to hate the other slaves more than many of the white characters do. Quentin Tarantino is no stranger to controversy so you can count on him to always push the envelope. And for once, he’s done it right. Only he can turn a movie about slavery into a spaghetti western shoot-‘em-up. The very end of the film is a bit corny and clichéd, especially for him, but overall this is his most complete film to date. It runs a lengthy 2 hours and 45 minutes. But if you have a few hours to spare, you might as well watch an entertaining flick where a slave gets to shoot a bunch of racist slave owners.
Life of Pi is one of the most beautiful movies you will ever see. It starts slow and takes a little while to get going, but once you get to the heart of the story it really captivates you. Pi is a young boy who's so interested in different religions that he subscribes to more than one at a time. Hinduism, Christianity, and Islam have all affected him. This is what he says as an adult to a writer who has come to find out about the great story Pi has to tell about his life. The various religions were of great interest to him as a child. But it's while he's a teenager that he has the greatest experience of his life. Pi's family runs a zoo in India but decide to move to Canada once they begin to struggle financially and realize their various animals are worth much more outside of their homeland. While traveling overseas, a terrible storm causes a shipwreck killing his family along with the ship's crew. Pi is the lone survivor. Well, he's the lone human survivor. A Bengal tiger manages to make it to the same lifeboat which Pi is on. A few different animals had also lived through the disaster but - thanks to survival of the fittest - it's only the tiger who remains. This now leaves Pi with the additional struggle of surviving against the tiger along with the already difficult perils of being stranded at sea. As we know from the movie Cast Away, living a solitary life removed from all other people can really change a person and make them go a little crazy. Well at least Tom Hanks had an island to himself. How about being stuck on a lifeboat for 227 days? Much of the time, Pi can't even be on the boat due to the tiger's presence. He uses a small raft made out of flotation devices which he keeps tethered to the boat. But during this long stretch of time, Pi learns more about himself than he ever could have otherwise. He also learns a way to relate to the tiger and survive for such a long time, all while maintaining some sense of hope. In such an extraordinary situation, the average person would certainly begin to ponder certain things such as the existence of a divine power or some kind of god. Pi's early interest in this matter and a development of spirituality is what helps guide him through the ordeal. Director Ang Lee (Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, Brokeback Mountain) puts the viewer right there in the boat with the tiger so we can feel Pi's fear and identify with his struggle. The film is based on a very popular book that many people felt could never be turned into a major motion picture. But Lee pulls it off and manages to use 3D to great effect. From reflections in the water to the sun gleaming in the sky, everything is vibrant and visually stimulating. This is the first movie role for Suraj Sharma, the actor playing teenage Pi, and he carries the film handily. Life of Pi may not star any well-known actors, but don't let that keep you from seeing it. It's a unique story which makes for an even more unique movie.
Daniel Day-Lewis has easily established himself as one of the greatest actors of our time. But does that mean that he can make any movie he stars in enjoyable? No. An example of this was his previous movie, Nine, which was a flop. The new film Lincoln has already generated much more attention due its subject being one of our country's greatest presidents. But I must say the film itself is a bit of a bore. The entire film focuses on Abraham Lincoln's struggle to pass an amendment that would ban slavery. The Civil War has been going on for years and the president is constantly being told that he can either end the war or end slavery, but he can't do both. So throughout the film we watch Lincoln and his staff try to figure out a way to pass the amendment. This involves persuading those whom they know will oppose it to somehow switch sides. And the movie doesn't hide the fact that the president resorted to bribery in some cases. What's interesting though is that in today's political climate it would be Republicans who would oppose such a thing as abolishing slavery. But in the 1860's, it was clearly the Democrats who did not want to free the slaves. The one other side story thrown into the film is that Lincoln had a son who clearly wanted to serve as a soldier in the war. But both the president and his wife try to keep him from doing so. Aside from that, the whole movie is about passing the amendment. Of course, the end of slavery was a landmark moment in U.S. history. But to watch a 2 1/2 hour film entirely about the negotiations of it can be quite a drag, no matter how good the actors may be. I was reminded of The King's Speech, another movie with great acting but I pray that I will never have to sit through ever again. Day-Lewis is not as showy here as he has been in other roles; if anything, he down-plays Lincoln as a very calm and collected man who's not easily rattled by others. But time after time over the course of the film, he goes into some very long stories just to make a point or impart a bit of wisdom on those who are listening. Director Steven Spielberg (who just hasn't been making the same kind of quality films over the last 5 years) repeatedly pulls the old trick of slowly zooming the camera closer to Lincoln so that we feel like what he's saying is something monumental. But there's a moment in the film when he begins another long story and one of his fellow Republicans is so tired of them that he walks out of the room. By that point, I felt the exact same way.
Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs is a movie about a young inventor who makes it possible for food to fall from the sky. That kind of sums it up, there’s not much else to really say about this kiddie flick. Bill Hader of Saturday Night Live provides the voice for the inventor. The movie is based on a popular children’s book. I guess it’s popular because… what kid wouldn’t want it to rain food? I’m an adult and I’d like for it to rain food one day. Unfortunately, there’s not much else that takes place in the movie though. Things go wrong when it rains too much food and overloads the city. So the inventor and some others try to stop it and save the town. I got pretty sleepy watching this movie. There’s a little message about the young guy trying to bond with his father, but that’s pretty much overshadowed by the vision of food constantly falling from the sky. It looked nice and the animation was pretty crisp, but that’s about it. I must say though… food always looks so perfect and delicious in cartoons. The movie made me kind of hungry.
Robert Zemeckis has directed some of the best movies to come out of the 80's and 90's such as Back to the Future and Forrest Gump. But for the past 12 years he's only made films using motion-capture technology (The Polar Express, Beowulf, A Christmas Carol). This is the process of filming real actors but then digitally animating over them to get a more realistic-looking form of animation. It's a technique that Avatar executed successfully; yet Zemeckis's films came off looking a bit hokey. So it's a relief to see him return to directing real actors without any kind of animation in the film Flight . The movie begins with a horrific airplane crash, one of the most well-done crash scenes you'll see on film. While Zemeckis takes us into the cockpit to watch the pilot navigate through the ordeal, we simultaneously watch the passengers and crew scream with horror as death increasingly seems imminent. But the pilot, Whip Whitaker, lands the plane... barely. There are a few deaths, but the majority of the 100-plus passengers are saved. That pilot is played by Denzel Washington. Surprisingly, he seems rather poised while attempting to land the plane, keeping his cool as his co-pilot is clearly terrified. This is because the cockpit is the one place where he truly has things under control. It's the rest of his life that's pretty much a mess. Whip is an alcoholic who's constant heavy drinking has caused a strained relationship with his ex-wife and his son in particular. While the harrowing crash scene may be hard to watch, it's the drunken stupors which Whip continues to have that may be even harder. Once it's discovered that he was drinking the night before the flight, he must prove that it had nothing to do with the cause of the plane going down. Yet the heavy burden of the situation, along with the impending consequences, just causes him to drink even more. Washington shows more range than usual in his performance. While he often plays very self-assured characters - and he still does here - we get to see him play a man hitting rock bottom too. He is at times a boozing playboy and in other moments overcome with sadness and loneliness. The addition of a character attempting to recover from drug addiction may seem to prolong what already feels like a long movie at points, but the character is important because it's the one person Whip truly bonds with throughout the film. It shows that he's not entirely self-indulgent and can care about others besides himself. Denzel Washington is the main reason for seeing this film. Had another actor been cast in the role, it may have resulted in a rather boring film once you get past the crash. But he carries the film in what becomes a very realistic portrayal of an alcoholic. Rather than using flashy editing or elaborate set pieces, the director focuses the camera on Washington and pulls us into his pain and anguish. Along with an atypical ending that you may not expect, the film ultimately serves as an in-depth character study of a man who can be deemed both a hero and a failure.
Silver Linings Playbook is kind of a Jerry Maguire for 2012. There's a lot of talk about love and a lot of talk about sports - well, football mostly. And it involves two emotionally wounded characters at the forefront. But these two have way more issues going on than Jerry Maguire ever did. Bradley Cooper plays Pat, a man who just spent 8 months in a mental institution. He's technically married but problems with his marriage are part of what led him to the institution, and he doesn't know if his wife has any intent of even seeing him again. His best friend tries to hook him up with his wife's sister, Tiffany, even though Pat's main focus is to work things out in his marriage. Tiffany certainly has a dark side, which Pat fails to realize is actually fitting for him. His own wife is scared of him after all. But he's the kind of guy who obsesses on whatever he focuses on. So when he realizes that Tiffany can speak to his wife for him, he starts to pay her more attention. It's apparent that Pat gets both his temper and his obsessive ways from his father. His dad (Robert De Niro) is a hardcore sports fan who seems to care about nothing more than his hometown football team, the Philadelphia Eagles, winning. In his superstitious mind, any little thing can affect the outcome of a game. And that can include his son's well-being and even who he's dating. So Pat generally feels a lot of pressure on him, and much of the film is about his attempts to cope with his surroundings as well as making an effort to better himself as a person. Jennifer Lawrence shines as Tiffany, showing an acting range well beyond her years. It's not only her and Bradley Cooper's finest acting to date, it's also the best acting Robert De Niro has done in at least 10 years. The film even manages to bring a funny Chris Tucker out of seclusion who hasn't been in a movie not named Rush Hour in 15 years. The fact that the film was actually shot in Philadelphia is very beneficial. (Bradley Cooper is also a native.) The movie truly captures the Philly mentality and attitude better than I've ever seen on film before. And as someone who lives in Philadelphia, I know just how crazy the Eagles fans in particular can be; there's no embellishing that here. The movie's got a little something for everyone. Die-hard sports fans can appreciate it as much as those who like a good "chick-flick". But for everyone who watches, they'll see that no matter how bad things get, they can always find another path to get back on track. Silver Linings Playbook opens on November 21.
No word describes the movie Cloud Atlas any better than epic . The nearly 3-hour film takes place in 6 completely different settings... all different in both place and time. They span from the 1800's on a slave boat to a post-apocalyptic Hawaii in the distant future. Nearly all of the main actors in the film play a different character in each story as well, many of them not recognizable at all. The different characters they play often transcend the actor's race and even gender at times. Other films have gone back and forth between separate yet related stories as well, such as Pulp Fiction. But in those films, each story is usually told all at once - or at least a large amount of time is spent on each before switching to another. Here, you may see a 20-second scene in one century and then you're watching another scene in the present day for a minute; then all of a sudden you're back to the previous setting again. In other words, there's a lot of editing and it's sometimes done at a fast pace. So you're really following all 6 stories at the exact same time. Some scenes may last 5 or 10 minutes at the most before you're transported back or forward in time. This isn't necessarily a bad thing. If anything, it's what sets Cloud Atlas apart from just about any other film and gives it such a unique feel. It just takes almost half the film for the viewer to really get settled in and follow the multiple plotlines that are going on. You could say that Tom Hanks and Halle Berry are the leads in the film as they're the most famous, but there are a few others who seem to have just about as much screen time. It's nice to see such actors as Hanks play characters who vary from good to evil in personality though. Some of the characters are brief and only appear for a moment. The makeup and effects are often done well, but there are some missteps. When the lead Asian actress makes a brief appearance as a Mexican woman in one story, it still just looks like an Asian woman in a pile of unrealistic makeup. The same goes for when that same actress pops up as a white woman in another story; she just looks like an Asian woman with red hair and freckles. There's a point to all of this though. The film aims to show that we're all connected in some way. You can view it as re-incarnation if you choose. But the central theme is really that one small act at any point in time can have a grand effect on others, even if it's in another lifetime. Pretty heavy for sure, but this is coming from the same team that brought you The Matrix films. Cloud Atlas could be one of those films that made little impact upon release but is eventually looked upon as a classic, or it could just wind up being an overambitious flop. It will certainly divide people. Some will hail it as a historic achievement in modern filmmaking; others will say it's pretentious and self-indulgent. I'd have to say I agree with both notions in certain aspects. But I lean towards the former opinion more. Obviously the film is trying hard to make a very bold statement. It touches on homosexuality, racism, and sexism among its many themes. But aside from the epic scale of the movie, it's basically telling you to be a good person. Do good things and they will benefit mankind as a whole. And I don't find that message to be self-indulgent at all.
Some movie plotlines sound too ridiculous to be true. The CIA fakes shooting a science-fiction movie in order to rescue hostages from Iran - that's the plot of the movie Argo . It's based on a factual event though. If it hadn't been, you wouldn't believe it. It happened back in 1979 and was kept a secret until President Clinton declassified the information some 20 years later. When Iranian revolutionaries overtook the American embassy there, six people escaped to hide out at the residence of the nearby Canadian ambassador. When word of this got to the CIA, they had to come up with a plan to rescue them while not endangering the Canadian ambassador's life. Enter Tony Mendez, an exfiltration expert who happens to have some key Hollywood contacts. Ben Affleck, who directed the film, plays Mendez in full 70's mode with an unflattering haircut and beard. It's Mendez who comes up with one idea when no one else can. The Middle East has become a popular area to shoot movies that take place in desert locations. Capitalizing on the success of Star Wars (which was partially shot in Tunisia), he comes up with a scenario of shooting a fake sci-fi movie in Iran as a way to extract the six Americans. The idea sounds a little silly but it's the most feasible one they can come up with. Mendez heads to Iran pretending to be a film producer. This is once he's obtained an actual script for the film and everything. When he meets the American refugees, he gives them aliases and complete fictional background stories. They must learn everything about their fake personas in order to pull this off. One wrong move and they will be killed. As a director, Ben Affleck is good at staging the intensity of such a situation, especially in a nail-biting scene at the airport amidst Iranian security. But he does stretch things in order to make it an entertaining film. There's one of those cliché moments where one of the Americans' plane ticket doesn't work at the airport but then just happens to be fixed at that very second by the CIA. Had the Americans arrived there 5 minutes earlier, it wouldn't have worked and they'd never get through. While Affleck has proven himself behind the camera with films like Gone Baby Gone and The Town, I'd much rather sit through those films again than this one. This is the one that's going to get him all kinds of accolades because those were films that took place in his home town of Boston while this one is a historical account on a national level. But regardless of if those other ones dealt with the area he was most familiar with, they were far more entertaining movies. Nevertheless, Argo is a good film for anyone wanting to know the true story of an American hero and the unique way he went about saving lives.
» = New Post(s)