- 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" 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.
The new film Looper takes place in 2 different years: 2044 and 2074. It’s a sci-fi film that involves time traveling after all. The set up for the film is this: time traveling has been invented in the future but is immediately banned. However, an organized crime syndicate uses it as a means to dispose bodies of those that they kill. Apparently in the future this has become much harder to do. They send people back 30 years in the past where someone whom they’ve hired, known as a “looper”, waits to kill the person and get rid of the body. The problem for the looper though is that eventually it will be himself that will one day be sent back to him to be killed. So a looper at some point winds up killing his future self but knows he still has 30 years left to enjoy his life until that ultimate final day. Joseph Gordon-Levitt, in his 3 rd of 4 movies he has out this year, plays a looper named Joe and Bruce Willis plays his future self. You wouldn’t think of these 2 actors to play the same character in a film, but Gordon-Levitt went through 3 hours of makeup each day to look like a younger version of Willis - and he does a great job at capturing all of his mannerisms as well. Joe is not a good guy obviously. He’s paid by the mob to kill random people; plus, he has a real tough-guy attitude that you can’t imagine is liked by too many people around him. It’s fitting of course though for a character played by Bruce Willis. This is one of the least admirable characters that Gordon-Levitt has played, who’s often cast as an honorable and likeable guy (such as in The Dark Knight Rises). But he’s convincing in the role nonetheless. Something goes wrong when Joe’s future self appears for him to kill, and the film then becomes kind of a chase after the Bruce Willis character. But it’s more than that because young Joe must decide whether to go through with killing himself or letting him go, which would lead to lots of running and hiding (from the mob obviously). The older Joe also hints at an incident that can change his life for the better as an incentive for his younger version to not go through with the kill. The film raises many questions about time travel in general and the consequences that come with it, much like some films such as Back to the Future have. But this one operates on a much deeper level. And similar to another film that Levitt was in, Inception, it can get very confusing as well. It is nice though that the movie doesn’t get too heavy on action. It’s more of a well-written film that makes you think. Though there is a good scene of Bruce Willis in full-on Die Hard mode going on a bit of a killing spree. Altogether, Looper stands on its own as a pretty fresh take on the time-travel genre. And it doesn’t pretend that the future is a vastly different world like some films do; just the same place with some advancements in technology of course. Still though, it leaves you wanting a little more. It does feel long at times and it’s the type of film that may require repeated viewings to fully comprehend. A movie like that needs to be a little more eye-popping and exciting to make you want to sit through it again.
It’s not often that sci-fi movies come along which are as ambitious as Prometheus . Most just introduce us to some new creature or place we haven’t seen yet. Prometheus includes both of those elements, but also asks the question “why”. Why do other parts of the universe exist and what does their existence say about us? It addresses how little we really know. Many people wonder about whether other beings exist outside of Earth, but most of us are content not really knowing the answer. Furthermore, if there is a God, it’s easy to question why that God would only create life on this one planet. But what if our creation is due to something that exists on one of these other planets? Of course, the film takes place in the future when we might actually have the technology to physically investigate these questions. Prometheus is the name of the spaceship sent to the place believed to explain the origins of the universe. A crew of 17 people is assembled which includes scientists, geologists, doctors, and even a robot created in the likeness of man. The robot’s purpose of being there is that it’s truly more useful than any of the humans. It can translate any language and answer questions that most people can’t. The film is directed by Ridley Scott who directed Alien. So naturally, you can expect some scares in the film – this being his most similar film since, it was also rumored to be related to that one. There’s always the suspense of what you’re going to find when exploring uncharted territory. Aliens can wind up being peaceful or malevolent. Malevolent usually makes for a much more exciting movie though. The action scenes and special effects are sufficient for handling that aspect of the film. But what’s not sufficiently answered is the “why” that I mentioned earlier. We’re given some tidbits of information that point to an answer of “how” we got here, but the final act of the film still leaves some things unexplained. These types of films like to keep you clamoring for a sequel. There’s nothing wrong with a bit of mystery – we shouldn’t need everything to be spelled out for us – but when the central aspect of the film is not given any closure, it leaves you wanting more. The best performance in the film is that of Michael Fassbender who plays the robot, David. Playing something that is not human is always a daunting task for an actor, and he pulls it off well. There’s always the suspicion of the robot possibly turning on its human colleagues, knowing that it has the greater knowledge to overpower them, similar to H.A.L. in 2001: A Space Odyssey. In fact, the experts aboard the ship do not seem nearly as intelligent as you’d expect them to be on a mission like this. Flaws aside, this is the kind of large-scale epic movie that goes a little farther than the average sci-fi film does.
The Hunger Games is based on the book of the same name. Though it was considered a "young adult" novel, it is more violent than one would expect from that genre. Just the concept in general is pretty malevolent. The Hunger Games refer to an annual event in which a group of 12 to 18 year-olds kill each other until one survives. It takes place in a post-apocalyptic world where a government metropolis, known as the Capitol, holds power over its nation by initiating such extreme laws such as these mandatory games. The focus of the film is on Katniss who actually volunteers to represent her district in order to replace her younger sister who has been chosen. Luckily, Katniss is very skilled in the art of hunting due to living in one of the poorest districts and often needing to find food on her own. Each district sends one boy and one girl to the Hunger Games, and she is partnered with a boy named Peeta who seems much less skilled. Once the movie shifts its setting to the Capitol, it becomes a feast for the eyes. It's a very advanced looking metropolis, and most of the inhabitants and spectators wear outrageous costumes along with heavy makeup. Even their hairstyles are often extreme and have varied colors. This is all new to Katniss and Peeta, who are put in lavish penthouse suites and treated to top cuisine. But it's hard to get excited over such things when your impending death is near. After all, you only have a 1 in 24 chance of surviving the Hunger Games. The games are set in the wilderness though which is perfect for Katniss. However, some participants have advantages and may be more well-equipped for survival; the wealthier districts train their children specifically for the event. Katniss and Peeta are seen as underdogs due to where they come from. The whole country watches it as a spectacle, almost like it's the Super Bowl. It's pretty sickening when you think about it. It's one thing to root for who will survive, but that involves the slaying of all the other children. There have been similar movies such as The Running Man with Arnold Schwarzenegger. But even in that, the people were watching convicts get hunted, not innocent children. The film has also been compared to the Japanese movie Battle Royale which has the exact same concept and came out over 10 years ago. That showed a lot more violence and gore though. The Hunger Games manages to cut back on a lot of its violence with quick editing which allows it to have a PG-13 rating. We see children die but there's not much blood, and the deaths usually occur very quickly. There are quite a few problems with the storyline though. We're told at the beginning that the games were initiated as punishment for a recent uprising against the government. But there's not much else said about that. The film avoids making any real social commentary that it could have seized upon. And it's hard to rationalize a future where our own government executes innocent children and the citizens watch it like a sport. It's also not fair that the Capitol interferes so much in the games and somehow even create deadly predators out of thin air to carry out their own preferences of who should win. We can't expect government to always be fair, but it certainly takes away from the premise of the children eliminating each other in order to survive. And what about the age range of 12 to 18? Obviously the 12 year-olds are at a great disadvantage against the older kids. Aside from these missteps with the story, the film is executed as well as possible. It has a great cast that brings this futuristic society to life. The camera work is intentionally shaky at times which intensifies many of the scenes. It's an all-around entertaining film as much as it may be hard for some to watch due to its disturbing plot. And there are 2 more books in the series so you can expect sequels in the near future. I'll take these over the Twilight series any day.
Here’s another one of those “found footage” type movies where we follow someone’s recordings with a hand-held camera. But don’t worry, this one stands out. Chronicle is simply better than its premise sounds. It’s about 3 high school teenagers who come across a deep hole in the woods; they venture down the hole to find something that basically gives them supernatural powers. Over a matter of weeks, they each get stronger and learn to perfect their powers. The film focuses mostly on Andrew, played by Dane DeHaan, who looks like he could easily be Leonardo DiCaprio’s kid brother. He’s always been an outcast at school, too shy to try and fit in with others. He starts hanging out with his less awkward cousin Matt. It’s with him and his popular friend Steve that he comes across the hole. The powers they obtain eventually bring the 3 guys closer together, as they can now do things that no other person can. Luckily, it doesn’t seem to get to their heads. They don’t walk around school acting superior to their “normal” friends, but they do seem to be having way more fun. There’s a constant feeling though that while the guys feel free and less inhibited than ever, something could go wrong at anytime. When regular people gain the power to move cars and even fly, you just know they’re going to take it too far and people might get hurt. Andrew, in particular, seems like a ticking time bomb just due to his status alone. He has an abusive father and gets bullied at school. It’s only natural that he’s going to show off what he’s capable of in order to gain some popularity. Some people are never satisfied though. They gain popularity due to something they’ve inherited and then realize that their new friends don’t admire them for who they are as a person. Whether it’s money, a physical makeover, or in this case extraordinary powers, those friends weren’t appreciative of who they were before gaining these things. It’s interesting to watch Andrew try to come to terms with his new popularity as Matt and Steve try to keep him grounded. The film is similar to 2008’s Cloverfield in that it has a relatively small budget yet features great special effects. And while that film was also shot in the hand-held camera style, this one excels because it has much more story going on. It also includes a cast of unknowns, but don’t let that keep you from seeing this film. It’s fun and exciting with plenty of eye candy for even the most restless moviegoer.
Filmmaking as an art, or how it is with any form of art, can be surprisingly divisive when confronted with the unusual, the unconventional, and the extreme. But sometimes the sole motivation of some filmmakers, and all artists, is to put art as a form of personal expression to the sidelines in order to be replaced by radical and alienating imagery as well as cynical and gritty themes for their sake alone. One such artist (a loose term, yet appropriate at times) is the Danish filmmaker Lars Von Trier whose works have sought to push comfort boundaries intentionally, from the graphic sexually violent imagery in Antichrist and The Element of Crime to the stretching of protagonist mental or physical states such as in Breaking the Waves or Dancer in the Dark . With a Von Trier film there is always an expectation that the film in question will challenge any reserved sensibilities that you might possess, which is at once a compliment to Von Trier as a unique filmmaker but is also a detriment to grabbing audiences in sharing your vision when the film is equally alienating in presentation, theme, and style. Von Trier’s latest piece entitled Melancholia is contemplation on the apocalypse focusing on two sisters, in two parts, facing impending doom in drastically different and telling ways. The style throughout Melancholia is reminiscent of the Dogma 95 era or the experimental independent era started by John Cassavetes where clarity of image or clean technical achievements is replaced with a flatter tone and cinema vérité camera movement. This is, of course, juxtaposed with an enticingly beautiful opening where a series of mesmerizing yet odd images flash before the screen to a resounding score. It’s such a displaced segment that you long for the beginnings lack of dialogue and focus of stunning visuals the more you get delve in to the unsympathetic and disparagingly alienating character focused plot that is Melancholia . To give Von Trier the benefit of the doubt that he is an artist of personal expression, it seems he has chosen to focus on the destruction of earth in Melancholia to reveal his own pessimistic view of the human race. “The Earth is evil,” states Kirstin Dunst with a tonally complimentary delivery of the film’s heavy and emotionless style. There is no reflection on a potential meaning of life, but rather the nihilistic approach that alone we are and alone we stand. This wouldn’t necessarily be an unapproachable or estranging topic if it wasn’t handled in such an exasperatingly languid pacing. The film, while robust with an extreme pessimistic concept, dwindles as the uninteresting and bland characters fill the screen with meaningless interaction after meaningless interaction. It can be argued that Von Trier has purposely made his film so inaccessible and truly uninteresting in its presentation of characters to drill home his point that if the world happened to end it would just end all the trivial relationships and nothingness that we experience in our lives. He uses this film to denounce tradition and mock the fear of death as though they are irrational inconveniences to experiencing a true form of purely rational apathy. But that flies in the face of actual human experience making Melancholia a truly alien experience, never convincing an audience that its cynicism is admirable or even relevant. This is the idea of taking extreme positions for the sake of extreme positions, something Von Trier practices constantly as evidenced in his personal interactions with the media. There are moments of visual brilliance that are unfortunately overshadowed by the languorous pace and the completely negative script that includes a plethora of contemptuous characters. If Kirsten Dunst’s (who unfortunately is no Emily Watson or Nicole Kidman) presentation of the character Justine is the tonal expression of the film than we can truly say that even though she might bring home the film‘s theme of loneliness and apathy to light, it isn’t necessarily a position we’re invited to share or even could recognize as a convincing narrative. Compliments are always bestowed upon Von Trier and his pretentious followers who swear he can do no wrong. This attitude is stemmed from being awestruck by someone who defies film conventions from the technical to the emotional for its sake alone. It seems Von Trier has an increasingly condescending attitude towards those who can’t see or understand his contempt for the boundaries or those who feel he should at least try and speak with his audience, rather than speak to his audience. Not all of his films are emotionless arduous journeys but Melancholia must certainly be described as that. This is a film for dedicated Von Trier fans or those who view something slightly different as a form of genius when it’s rather just a form of playing the devil’s advocate to positions that most people don’t take. His uniqueness should be complimented and there are true moments of inspiration, especially his opening montage of surreal and subjective apocalyptic imagery. But Melancholia as an inviting film or one that possesses the ability to drive home a particular theme falls short through its flat tone, stone-like acting, and languid pacing. While there is no hope that Von Trier will ever adopt the regular conventions of storytelling there is hope that he could return to experimenting with a tighter film length ( Europa ), a more inviting and sympathetic protagonist ( Breaking the Waves ), and a unique presentation rather than the tired and slow cinema vérité style (sets of Dogville , style of Elements of Crime ).
Fellini’s Satyricon (Federico Fellini, 1969) The films of Federico Fellini always have been intriguing and mysterious because every first viewing of his films I feel like I’m entering in a different world than mine. Not only the imagery but also the narrative and the acting. It is always like the feeling of being in a dream-like universe. The first film from Fellini I saw was his Casanova with Donald Sutherland. It’s time for an anecdote: when I came back from my one month trip in Italy in 2006 my flight from Paris to Montréal had a special passenger: Mr. Donald Sutherland. The funniest thing about this little moment was that I knew who he was and I loved his presence in Casanova , Don’t Look Now, 1900, etc. But everyone was shouting this is Jack Bauer’s father! For Odin’s sake’s this man is a living legend don’t insult him by saying that he is the father of the flavour of the moment! Recognize the man at least! I discovered many Fellini films before I started this blog, so this is why this is one of the first reviews about his work. Satyricon was the first film of Fellini I ever bought, the Antic Roman settings and the name of the movie (I am a fan of the band of the same name) were the two magnets that got me and my hard earned money. Opposed to many Italian and American peplums that tried to recreate with precise details the past, Fellini’s Satyricon is the perception of the Roman Empire by Fellini himself. This is his fantasy about this time and age. It may sound a little pompous but for the neophytes out there Federico or affectively Fefe had an incredible imagination and his creations are inimitable. This creativity is characterized by a childish approach to everything, many of his imagery is taken from his memories and his impressions as a kid on how he used to perceive and see life. Far from being his most accessible work, Satyricon did not have standard narration neither does it have appealing characters. It looks like a freak show set in Ancient times. It is raw, bizarre, and beautiful at the same time. But like many unique films, this Fellini is a masterwork of cinematic brilliance and mise en scène. Even if it’s not considered as a major work from his oeuvre I still think that film has a special aura of greatness and weirdness. Moreover, Satyricon is a very personal film made by the genius vision of Federico Fellini. http://cinephiliaque.blogspot.com/2011/09/satyricon.html
Le charme discret de la bourgeoisie (Luis Buñuel, 1972) This is by far one of my favourite film of all time. Buñuel has always been a one of a kind director contributing with Salvador Dali on the surrealism with his Un chien andalou and L’Âge d’or , two masterpieces of moviemaking and dreamlike sequences that every self-respected cinephile should have seen. The symbolism of these instinctive films as so many levels of understanding and such depth that a simple essay on them isn’t enough to crack their codes. Let’s get back to Le charme discrèt de la bourgeoisie made almost fifty years after Buñuel’s first films! What strikes you the most is how the surrealism that characterized his first films is still omnipresent but even more mastered than ever. Le charme discret de la bourgeoisie is the culmination of Buñuel’s work : the perfect surrealism film. The uses of symbolism and camera techniques is really subtle and Buñuel doesn’t need to slice the eye of a woman or get a cow in the bed of two lovers. The many situations of Le charme ... are already overly enough and the closer to realism it gets the better it is. The dreamlike sequences that always feel like if you were in reality but finally you weren’t at all embarks the viewer on a trip with the bourgeois that are trying to get diner together and enjoy a nice evening. This series of events is packed with humorous dialogues and situations. Just like Woody Allen, another admirer of Buñuel’s work, I feel that this kind of hybrid film where humour and reflection means entertainment and Cinema. It is a smart film where subtlety uncovers the hypocrisy, the fears, and the vices of the bourgeois characters populating the film. The uniqueness unity of Le charme ... brings you in common places and then just when the viewer thinks he knows how the situation will turn out Buñuel gets a bunny out of his hat. This master has many tricks in his bag. You have to see the film to fully understand the reach of the whole thing. In 1972, there were many big successes: The Godfather , Cabaret , Deliverance , What’s Up Doc? , The Getaway , Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Sex (But Were to Afraid to Ask) , but in my opinion Le charme discret de la bourgeoisie along with Aguirre: The Wrath of God was the greatest film of that year. Unfortunately other films mentioned earlier will always make shadows on Buñuel’s greatest achievement. http://cinephiliaque.blogspot.com/2011/09/le-charme-discret-de-la-bourgeoisie.html
Bridesmaids (Paul Feig, 2011) First, don’t ever read the chosen critics lines on movie posters. Second, always learn to read a review and/or a critic until the end. Third, one liners are lame and even if it says “It’s the female version of The Hangover ” or “The Best Comedy of the Year!” don’t listen to them and learn to read more than one review about a film. I do not pretend to possess the ultimate knowledge and no one should be neither. Especially in the case of Bridesmaids , almost fully casted by current and former SNL players; Kristen Wiig, Maya Rudolph, etc. It was a good cast and the idea, even if it sounds like a female The Hangover , well it is so not the case by the way, falls flat on many levels. The weakness of the script is that it travels between absurd comedy, rom-com, existential drama, and bathroom jokes. It literally shoots on too many ducks at one time. Even if the target isn’t missed every time it is hard to follow the lead here because every scene is like a sketch and maybe it lacks of links or should had had a stronger director to hold the glue together... But, many situations are too long and the comedy slowly becomes a malaise for the viewer that tries to identifies with Wiig’s character that constantly fells deeper and deeper. I wouldn’t say that this movie is “awful” as my compatriot Kevyn Knox noted in his capable review but I would say that it was quite a light comedy that even if the laughs aren’t as frequent as they should be, it wasn’t a torture either. However, I fully agree with Mr. Knox on the fact that producer Judd Apatow is wrongly recognized as the new guru of Hollywoodian comedies. The pedestrian humour and the bathroom jokes even if efficient, I really don’t understand the public sometimes, are simply bad taste and could be excised from the script. The greater laughs I’ve heard in a theatre were when I first saw The Great Dictator by Charles Chaplin circa 2002. It was clear honest laughs of clever humour about one of the most important moments in the History of humanity. I’m not comparing Bridesmaids with The Great Dictator but I am saying that to be funny a film doesn’t need to be vulgar or disgusting. A lesson Apatow must learn and apply in his movies.
From an off-branch of the Judd Apatow School of Crude Yet Heartfelt Humor comes Bad Teacher , the story of an inebriated gold-digging middle school teacher looking for the easiest way down the Yellow Brick Road. Cameron Diaz, whose sense of humor is much better than people give her credit for, sleazes slickly through the role of Elizabeth Halsey, whose moral ambiguity makes her character's profession all the more unsettling (and one will often wonder exactly how she managed to become and stay a working certified professional). Her foe, the disturbingly (and realistically) perky teacher Amy Squirrel (Lucy Punch), adds much "zany" humor to the story, as well as bringing a more down-to-Earth perspective of middle school life (i.e. she actually teaches). Jason Segal, the greasy yet earnest pursuer of Diaz's character, is essentially every other character he's played, except now he's a gym teacher. However, he is good at what he does. The Achilles heel of this film is Justin Timberlake, whose character seems to have suffered a severe head trauma at some point. Playing the thick-headed new teacher in school, who happened to be born into a very wealthy family, Timberlake breezes dumbly through the movie, overly-oblivious to Diaz's character's ulterior motives, innocent to the point of man-childish. His character is too underdeveloped to be realistic- one would feel that he is not responsible enough to take care of himself, much less a class of 7th graders. Even with Diaz's character being a master manipulator, he falls too easily into her thinly veiled schemes, as if he has no self-guard or sense of preservation. Partly the fault of Timberlake, and mostly the fault of the writing, Timberlake's character seems to be there only to represent Diaz's character's ultimate goal- to snag a dumb-rich man that will pay for the rest of her life. However, while this movie has an Achilles heel, it certainly is no Achilles. It's more like the Mets of movies (no offense to Mets fans)- it tries, it works well, but in the end, no cigar. There are humorous bits (Diaz's drunk, clueless roommate was a source of humor) and there are dry bits (the Illinois State Test Score theft seems especially superfluous), but in the end, it averages out to be worth a $9 afternoon; if one were to pay any more to see this film in theaters, one would feel slightly cheated. It doesn't touch on too deep an emotional point, the character does not experience an alternating emotional catharsis (although she does make some minor changes, which seems more realistic), and there is no CGI overstimulation to give the movie-watcher a shallow thrill. It's simply an OK comedy that profiles was Diaz (as well as a colorful assortment of side characters) can do. Rent it on Discount Days at your local friendly video store, if that store still exists. It's worth a cheap laugh.
Cowboys and Aliens is a cross genre film based off a graphic novel, starring Harrison Ford and Daniel Craig. Craig’s character wakes up not knowing who he is, or how he got a strange metal object attached to his wrist. He soon gets captured and learns he was a wanted outlaw. As he’s about to be taken away spaceships fly through the night sky and start attacking the town and abducting people. At this point he realizes the device on his hand can fight the aliens, and joins the townspeople in trying to get their loved ones back. The neat thing about this movie is it’s a cowboy movie first, and a science fiction film second. It has all the tropes of a western, Cowboys, Indians, bandits, saloon brawls, etc. It also has the beats of the UFO phenomenon, alien abduction, lost memories, cattle mutilations, but also the aliens methods (they basically lasso people to abduct them) and their overall plot fit in perfectly with western mythology. Along the way there are nice character beats for the various townspeople, including the dorky saloon owner and his search for respect. Despite the somewhat goofy title the premise is played completely straight. My sole complain is that, while it has some suspense, it should have/could have been outright scary. One really interesting thing to me was that, unlike most movies of this type, it left no room for a sequel. It has a definitive ending, and is a neat experiment in cross genre film. 8.5 out of ten.
Rise of the Planet of the Apes is a reboot of the 5 film series of the 1960s/70s, which in turn was based off the 1963 French Novel. This film sets out to tell the very beginnings of the Ape revolt. It starts with San Fransisco scientist Will Rodman researching a cure for Alzheimers, which has stricken his father (John Lithgow). He tests a drug on apes made to repair brain cells. Through a series of circumstances Will ends up raising a baby monkey at home who displays heightened intelligence. Will’s father, who was a cultured man in life, names the monkey Caesar. Years later, the course of events lead Caesar to being kept in a shelter with other monkeys, where he is not accepted at first. He’s very depressed and lonely, until he comes to attain leadership among the captive apes. Unlike what’s considered “typical” summer franchise flair, Apes is primarily a character piece. We follow Will and his despair over his ailing father, who Lithgow plays wonderfully. We also see his ethical struggles and the conflicts that come from the business side of medicine. The strongest part of the movie is Caesar himself. We follow him through his joys and his despair, share his concern when he wonders to Will if he’s a pet, and ultimately cheer for the Apes as they revolt against, well us. Rise of the Apes is perhaps the only movie with a CGI character (not counting full CGI movies like Toy Story or Shrek) that I truly cared about. He was definitely a better character than say, any of the Transformers or Star Wars characters of the last ten years. Action comes at the end as we see the Apes outsmart the humans on the Golden Gate Bridge. It’s a great scene that shows in one shot why Caesar will become a mythical hero to be remembered by the Apes for all time. It’s interesting to see that the Apes don’t intend to rule the planet, (In fact even in combat Caesar is purposefully non-lethal) and that it’s not necessarily the Apes that wipe humanity out. For Easter egg specialists one of the humans who mistreats the Apes says that line “Get your hands off me you dam dirty Ape,” which is what Charlten Heston said in the original film. Also there’s passing reference to the Icarus space ship, which is from the films and original novel. Apparently in this movie it had a manned mission to Mars and gets lost. That’s all I know of as I haven’t seen the old films. Rise of the Apes is one of the better reboots made, which hopefully will lead to a great film series. 9.8/10.
Steven Spielberg and writer / director J.J. Abrams comes the latest in the U.S. Summer blockbusters. Set in the summer of 1979, Super 8 follows a group of school kids shooting a zombie film on Super 8mm in the hopes of getting it into the amateur film festival. During a night of guerrilla film making they witness the crash of a U.S Air Force freight train travelling through their town in the cover of night. Over the next few days a series of unexplained events begin to occur and despite their best efforts the kids are landed smack bang in the middle of a fight between the government and whatever has escaped from the train wreck. I was hoping that Super 8 would be a return to the 80's kids movies I grew up with (E.T, The Goonies and Stand By Me) and in some ways it is a homage to them, but the film is targeted to a more adult audience, which makes me question why the main characters are school kids? It is not difficult to spot that J.J Abrams was influenced by the early 80's and more specifically the films of Steven Spielberg, take for example that the two leads come from broken homes, they live in a small town where there is very little for them to do and that the whole film is basically an action movie version of E.T. As was usual for these films the adults take a back seat and let the kids drive for a change and the performances and casting of the kids is spot on. The two main leads Joel Courtney and Elle Fanning give believable and engrossing performances, whilst the rest of the geeky crew slip into their roles with relative ease. During the second half the film turns into more of a creature feature and it is during this time that it suffers most. Whilst it has become somewhat cliche to hide your creature from the audience until the last minute (again we can thank Mr. Spielberg for that!) Super 8 gives us a fairly good look at what exactly is causing all of this destruction and mayhem, but by doing so takes some of the mystery away from us. The last 20 minutes or so seem a little rushed and the explanation for what exactly is going on seems a little forced. Having said all of that, Super 8 is still quite the adventure and certainly provides the sort of thrill-ride Hollywood used to give is with its Summer blockbusters and whilst it may not be the most original thing out there so far this season it is refreshing reprieve from comic book adaptations and sequels.
Transformers 3 achieves something possibly unprecedented in the history of the film franchise. It is the third entry in the series, and it is better than the first two. Often the third entry of a series begins the decline in quality, but thankfully not in this case, as the first two Transformers movies were so infamously scorned. I hated the first Transformers movie (in 2007 I hated almost every movie). I almost walked out of that scene where the Autobots were at Spike’s house (who was completely unlikeable), because I didn’t pay 8000 won to see a dog pee on Optimus Prime. I refused to see the second one in the theater, and only rented it because a friend was an extra, and I wanted to see that part where they walk out of the Smithsonian Institute and into the Nevada desert. So I had no plans to see the this movie, but then I saw the ads. Wait, this looks good! How could this be? On to the review. Transformers 3 opens with the only film sequence I’ve seen worthy of being in 3D (I saw Avatar in 2D). It is a battle on Cybertron and it looks fantastic. Cut 1961, when the US discovers an alien ship has crashed on the moon. JFK (who is shown on screen but looks a little off, we also see Nixon and Obama) then orders a moon mission, hence we have a secret reason for the space race. Cut 1969 with actual news footage of Walter Cronkite as the moon mission is underway. What is not televised is the secret recon mission to investigate the alien space ship on the moon (Later revealed to be the Ark, which was in the cartoon). So far the first two scenes of this movie are better than the entire first two movies put together. Then we get to Sam, who is frustrated as no one knows he’s saved the world twice, and is struggling to find a job and feels the pressure from his parents. He has a new girlfriend, the impossibly hot Carly, who was his girlfriend in the cartoon. However, she’s not an M.I.T. student as in the cartoon and sounds British for some reason. Spike’s dealings with the Transformers put a strain on their relationship, as she has lost a brother who served in the military and is worried for him. Spike is also jealous of her hot shot car collecting boss. Now this relationship is hardly one of the silver screen’s great romances, but it has a tiny bit of dept to it, which is much more than what he and Megan Fox had. Next we get the real reason behind the Chernobyl incident, as the villains unveil their plot. It involves growing a rift between the humans and the Autobots, hence the villains live up to their name of Decepticons. There’s a betrayal part way in, but that left me wondering why said plot didn’t happen sooner. Leonard Nimoy does a voice of a Transformer, and there’s a few Star Trek jokes, and a clip of he old show, apparently it’s the one where Spock “goes nuts.” There’s also a neat scene where Megatron takes the giant Lincoln statue in Washington off its seat, and sits in the seat himself. Megatron did that in one episode of the old cartoon. Thankfully there’s not jokes about pot and masturbation like the first two. Spike’s mom makes a joke about his manhood, but it’s real fast and subtle. Also one of the Autobots almost says clusterf&*k. The problem this one has, is a similar problem for the whole series. We don’t get much of the Transformers personalities. Shockwave appears and has no personality, he’s just another grunt, not the cold logical warrior. (Maybe Nimoy should have played him instead) He also has this big tentacle thing, I couldn’t tell if this was a Decepticon being or just some weapon. Bumblebee still hasn’t had his voice repaired yet, how long has it been now? Finally the big action scene at the end mostly has the humans fighting the Decepticons. Now I like seeing some of this, and I like knowing humans can take them down, but we’re paying to see robots fight. For instance we get told that a bunch of Autobots got captured, but we don’t see that happen at all (And one part where Optimus fights actually looks like it’s framed wrong). It’s strange because most fx movies that fail do so because they focus on the fx and not the characters, but with this franchise the fx are the characters. Still it is an incredible improvement over previous entries. It leaves us with a sense that the series could end here. Looking back, it’s so disappointing how the series turned out. There’s such a rich mythology to this franchise. To me it always made perfect sense to have the first movie on earth, the second on Cybertron, and the third have Unicron, the giant robot planet. I don’t know what the future holds for this series. Maybe in 5 years it will be rebooted into something greater. (Personally I’m hoping for a Hasbro Cinematic Universe similar to Marvel’s, with Transformers, G. I. Joe, M.A.S.K. and Inhumanoids, but that probably won’t happen.) No matter what happens, we’ll at least have this one. 8/10
Green Lantern is Warner Brothers’/DC Entertainment’s attempt to start another superhero franchise outside of Superman and Batman. (Past attempts included Catwoman, Jonah Hex, Steel, and the aborted Wonder Woman TV show) I’m going to do this differently from my other reviews, I’m just going to break down the good and the bad, because there’s plenty to be said for both. The Good: Like the best FX/Franchise/Blockbuster movies, the story tries to be about something other than action and FX. The main theme of Green Lantern is fear, and how we face up to it. The main character, Hal Jordan, puts up a front of never showing fear, which originates with his relationship to his father. Of course under the surface he’s filled with fear, which hurts his relationships with his family and potential love interest. Hal’s victory over Parallax, the main villain, is at least partly based on facing his fear, as opposed to mere fisticuffs. The basic concept of the Green Lanterns is explained in a brief opening monologue, almost reminiscent of the Superman movies exposition scenes with Marlon Brandos’ Jor-El. There’s an earthbound villain that, in classic superhero style, has parallels with the hero, regarding father figures, and failing to live up to expectations. The story makes basic sense, in that Parallax is using fear, and the Green Lantern Corps’ (aliens who also have the super-powered rings that are used to keep the universe safe) failure to deal with that lead to Hal Jordan becoming the first human ring bearer. The Bad: My biggest complaint is that, for as much money was spent on special effects, some of the effects looked really goofy. Both villains heads looked goofy, the council of the Corps looked really goofy, and many of the outer-space scenes looked like a video game. This is the inherent problem in scenes that are %100 CGI, it takes you out of the movie. As opposed to say Thor, which had actual built sets with accompanying CGI. Also, Hal’s debuts his heroics on earth by stopping a disaster that’s almost laugh out loud funny. Hal Joran was not unlikeable enough in the beginning. We see he’s a tad irresponsible, but that’s not enough. He’s nowhere near the total jerk that Tony Stark is, nor is he AS arrogant as Thor, or as selfish as Spiderman was initially. His romance wasn’t strong enough, we’re not rooting for them as much as a couple. Also we see Hal’s family in one early scene, then we completely forget about them. Finally there’s little things in the plot that don’t make sense. Hal fights the Earthbound villain, then the two are separated for no good reason. Did Hal just let him go? We see there are thousands for Corps members, but only a few (of the best) go to fight Parallax (and die). Wouldn’t thousands and thousands of Corps members be able to beat him? Also, early on we are told, TOLD, that Parallax destroyed 2 planets or something like that. Why did the TELL us this, why did they not SHOW us? That could have put Parallax over as a dreadful villain. Speaking of which, for a villain that is based around fear, he brings no sense of dread to the screen. There’s a really great movie hidden somewhere in Green Lantern, but it just doesn’t get there. I’ve always been a Marvel fan, but I don’t dislike DC. DC comics has great characters. Green Lantern is a great character with a rich mythology. In a way it’s like Star Wars with superheroes. I want to see DC make other film franchises besides Superman and Batman. I’ve wondered for years why we don’t see a DC Cinematic Universe to compete with Marvel’s. Unfortunately Green Lantern is just not going to do it. By the way, to the best of my knowledge, there were no references to anything else in the DC Universe, nothing about Gotham, Metropolis, Martian Manhunter, New Gods, etc. Green Lantern is a combination of the traits of a really great film, mixed with the traits of a really bad film. I’ve never seen anything quiet like it actually. 7/10
» = New Post(s)