Viewed in
2013
Formats
HDTV
Premise
It's the Peter Parker story, this time with Andrew Garfield!
Liked
Charming cast.
Disliked
Not enough differentiation from Sam Raimi/Tobey Maguire entries.
Thoughts
In a vaccuum, this was a pretty entertaining Spider-Man origin story.
The best part was the cast. Garfield was very charming, whether he was web-slinging or struggling with high school bullies. A friend had a great point that this Spidey was better than Tobey Maguire's because he was more like the comic book version, more wise-cracking, minimal emo. The lovely Emma Stone was adorable as Gwen Stacy. Her chemistry with Garfield was very charming, even if the mumbly-awkward teenage dialog scenes felt really out of place with the rest of the slick movie.
As for the rest of the cast, Martin Sheen and Sally Field, as Uncle Ben and Aunt May brought their gravitas to the teenage angst scenes. Rhys Ifans was solid as Dr. Curt Conners, a sympathetic villain, a scientist obsessed with his lost limb, disguising it as doing it for the good of humanity.
Money was also well-spent on visual effects, from gravity-defying aerial skyscraper swinging, to Spider-Man's web-based Lizard-tracking, to a dizzying (in a good way) battle atop a tower. Having our hero Tarzaning around recklessly, sometimes missing his mark, was a nice touch to Parker's teenage exuberant charm. However, the lizard effects were very uneven. Often times the sewer-dwelling reptiles looked like obvious CGI sprites. Whenever Ifans transformed, he turned into a clunky hybrid of man-in-suit painted in computer graphics.
While there were "differences" between this and the Sam Raimi trilogy (Gwen Stacy instead of Mary Jane, Spider-Man's not-so-hidden identity, Parker's science background [much like some of the comic book incarnations], electric web-shooters), the movie still couldn't shake off the the factor of time. The origin story was still essentially the same, and characters still had to run through all-too-familiar plot points. Even though the Maguire never faced the Lizard, I couldn't help but view this villain as a combination of Alfred Molina's Doc Ock and Willem Dafoe's Green Goblin.
Other smaller flaws: some of the subplots felt more like set ups for sequels (Flash Thompson) than true complications with satisfactory payoffs. Also, with all the interesting/plausible sciencey science, they allowed Parker to get crystal-clear cell phone reception in the sewers of New York.
Look, I'm usually not one of those "it's all about the art" elitists, so I totally understand the financial/contractual reasons why Sony rebooted Spidey when it did. If I were in their shoes, I would've done the same thing. You don't walk away from money-machines.
I was just glad that they made the effort to-and mostly succeed-in making an entertaining summer flick that wasn't lazy or cynical. But just because I can accept the reboot's existence, doesn't mean I have to like it. The immediacy baggage of Spider-Man and Spider-Man 2 unfortunately worked against my enjoyment of The Amazing Spider-Man.
Showing posts with label 2012. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 2012. Show all posts
The Announcement
Viewed in
2012
Formats
HDTV w/ commercials
Premise
A documentary about Magic Johnson's experience before, during, and after being diagnosed with HIV in 1991.
Loved
Story-telling, compelling topics, emotional moments.
Liked
Wealth of interviews.
Thoughts
As a big Lakers fan, this was really emotional for me. But I have a feeling I would've been impacted no matter if I was a sports fan or not.
I was really young back then, and rumors and misinformation were spread pre-internet. Thanks to the honest interviews from teammates, coaches, family, I have been better educated about Magic's past. Even though I lived in the epicenter, there was still much that I learned, such as Len Rosen the friend (instead of just an agent), Karl Malone's truthfulness about his then-thought process, and Cookie's admirable resolve.
While such an era now feels as archaic as Salem Witch Trials, the film makers did a great job of illustrating how ignorant our society was about HIV, AIDS, and gays. Magic's decision to make his battle public was truly a game-changer.
While homosexuality was not a direct theme in Magic's saga, it was still a factor in the HIV world, and I agreed with Bill Simmons in pointing out that the documentary glossed over how even Magic succumbed to the unintentional gay-bashing back then. Specifically, the moment when Arsenio Hall asked him if he was gay, he replied no, and the audience applauded as if he was disease-free.
The Announcement was an incredible journey, emotionally, personally, and historically.
2012
Formats
HDTV w/ commercials
Premise
A documentary about Magic Johnson's experience before, during, and after being diagnosed with HIV in 1991.
Loved
Story-telling, compelling topics, emotional moments.
Liked
Wealth of interviews.
Thoughts
As a big Lakers fan, this was really emotional for me. But I have a feeling I would've been impacted no matter if I was a sports fan or not.
I was really young back then, and rumors and misinformation were spread pre-internet. Thanks to the honest interviews from teammates, coaches, family, I have been better educated about Magic's past. Even though I lived in the epicenter, there was still much that I learned, such as Len Rosen the friend (instead of just an agent), Karl Malone's truthfulness about his then-thought process, and Cookie's admirable resolve.
While such an era now feels as archaic as Salem Witch Trials, the film makers did a great job of illustrating how ignorant our society was about HIV, AIDS, and gays. Magic's decision to make his battle public was truly a game-changer.
While homosexuality was not a direct theme in Magic's saga, it was still a factor in the HIV world, and I agreed with Bill Simmons in pointing out that the documentary glossed over how even Magic succumbed to the unintentional gay-bashing back then. Specifically, the moment when Arsenio Hall asked him if he was gay, he replied no, and the audience applauded as if he was disease-free.
The Announcement was an incredible journey, emotionally, personally, and historically.
Argo
Viewed in
2012
Formats
Movie theater.
Premise
As the Iranian revolution reaches a boiling point, a CIA 'exfiltration' specialist concocts a risky plan to free six Americans who have found shelter at the home of the Canadian ambassador.
Liked
Unexpectedly funny scenes. Everything in general.
Thoughts
I was surprised by the amount of humor throughout the story. Most of it came from Alan Arkin as the bitter, grizzled movie producer who decides to help the CIA, but there was also some hilarious moments by the serious people due to the absurdity of the circumstances. I very much enjoyed the jabs at Hollywood, but it was also very restrained, never letting it get in the way of the plot.
This film literally had no weak points. The direction was clear and everything was easy to follow. Performances were strong, especially Arkin. Characters were fully fleshed-out. Obstacles were formidable and believable. For me, the opening sequence was when the film was at its best. It captured the time and place, set the table for what the protagonists were up against, and was flat out intense.
I wanted to love this movie, but couldn't. And honestly, I don't know why. The only thing I can think of was that I knew how it ended, so despite director Ben Affleck's best attempt to show how dire the mission was, I never got caught up in the suspense (aside from the opening).
Argo was a super-solid and very enjoyable film. I can see why it's got Oscar buzz, not that my heart agrees.
2012
Formats
Movie theater.
Premise
As the Iranian revolution reaches a boiling point, a CIA 'exfiltration' specialist concocts a risky plan to free six Americans who have found shelter at the home of the Canadian ambassador.
Liked
Unexpectedly funny scenes. Everything in general.
Thoughts
I was surprised by the amount of humor throughout the story. Most of it came from Alan Arkin as the bitter, grizzled movie producer who decides to help the CIA, but there was also some hilarious moments by the serious people due to the absurdity of the circumstances. I very much enjoyed the jabs at Hollywood, but it was also very restrained, never letting it get in the way of the plot.
This film literally had no weak points. The direction was clear and everything was easy to follow. Performances were strong, especially Arkin. Characters were fully fleshed-out. Obstacles were formidable and believable. For me, the opening sequence was when the film was at its best. It captured the time and place, set the table for what the protagonists were up against, and was flat out intense.
I wanted to love this movie, but couldn't. And honestly, I don't know why. The only thing I can think of was that I knew how it ended, so despite director Ben Affleck's best attempt to show how dire the mission was, I never got caught up in the suspense (aside from the opening).
Argo was a super-solid and very enjoyable film. I can see why it's got Oscar buzz, not that my heart agrees.
The Avengers
Viewed in
2012
Formats
IMAX 3D
Premise
Iron Man, Hulk, Captain America, Thor and company assemble!
Loved
Tom Hiddleston, Mark Ruffalo, the Hulk.
Liked
The rest.
Thoughts
Like most folks, I thoroughly enjoyed it.
My favorite moments were whenever characters interacted with each other. The chemistry and dialog was so good, I probably would've had a blast had it just been them zinging each other without explosions. Everyone had their time in the spotlight, and everyone delivered. As expected, Robert Downey Jr. and Gwyneth Paltrow were charming as heck, in fact, I wished there was more of her (but I shouldn't fret as Iron Man 3 is on the way). As someone who had seen all the five flicks leading up to this nerdasm, it was really cool to see Clark Gregg get some serious screentime and very funny/touching moments.
But really, the show belonged to Mark Ruffalo, his CGI alter ego, and Tom Hiddleston as the antagonist. One nitpick with the current run of Marvel Studio movies had been its lack of a memorable nemesis. Hiddleston finally created one. While he was interesting in Thor, he took Loki to an unexpected delicious level with an arrogant, gleeful, smirking performance.
General consensus said this was the best movie version of Hulk, and I agreed wholeheartedly. Ruffalo effortlessly brought the funny, brains and zen philosophy out of Dr. Banner. As a fan since You Can Count on Me, I was so happy for him to finally get recognized by the mainstream. Meanwhile, CGI Hulk had the most hilarious moments in the entire film, thanks to Whedon's quirky sense of humor. If I ever feel glum, I just think of the punchline of Hulk and Thor smashing things, or the meme-generating Rag Doll Loki scene.
Even though Scarlett Johansson and Jeremy Renner had the weakest subplots, I really liked how their relationship, history and baggage were never spelled out, as if there was an origin movie that existed in a different multiverse. Also, I was really surprised by Johansson's acting and comedy chops. Even though she was the only female of the superheroes, she wasn't a slouch, and in fact had a brilliant mind games scene with Hiddleston.
Much like how this string of Marvel flicks lacked memorable enemies, this film also lacked memorable action. There were some really well-produced skyscraper and minion destruction, and I dug the sick "one-take" shot of the camera flying from one battle to another to another. But overall, none of it blew me away as I had hoped for such an action flick. My friend blamed it on being too reliant on CGI, and I think he might be right. Even in IMAX 3D, my thoughts were mostly thinking "that's pretty cool".
After one viewing, I'm reluctant to place The Avengers in the pantheon of great comic book movies, but you could talk me into it. I'd rather have great characters and writing than just great action. While it's not exactly comparing apples-to-apples, but if I'm re-watching Matrix Reloaded, I'm fastfowarding to the ridiculous fight scenes and ignoring the rest. On the other hand, I'd gladly stick around to re-watch all of The Avengers because the characters were just so wonderful company.
The 3D and IMAX won't really make that big a difference, but I highly recommend The Avengers. Even though I'm not familiar with the original comic book creations, I did watch all the previous movies, and they contributed to the enjoyment of this one. I'm definitely curious to see how much people liked it if they haven't seen the first five Marvel flicks. Overall, I was glad the long-term gamble to create a tapestry of characters and origin tales to culminate in giant all-star explosion paid off financially and artistically.
2012
Formats
IMAX 3D
Premise
Iron Man, Hulk, Captain America, Thor and company assemble!
Loved
Tom Hiddleston, Mark Ruffalo, the Hulk.
Liked
The rest.
Thoughts
Like most folks, I thoroughly enjoyed it.
My favorite moments were whenever characters interacted with each other. The chemistry and dialog was so good, I probably would've had a blast had it just been them zinging each other without explosions. Everyone had their time in the spotlight, and everyone delivered. As expected, Robert Downey Jr. and Gwyneth Paltrow were charming as heck, in fact, I wished there was more of her (but I shouldn't fret as Iron Man 3 is on the way). As someone who had seen all the five flicks leading up to this nerdasm, it was really cool to see Clark Gregg get some serious screentime and very funny/touching moments.
But really, the show belonged to Mark Ruffalo, his CGI alter ego, and Tom Hiddleston as the antagonist. One nitpick with the current run of Marvel Studio movies had been its lack of a memorable nemesis. Hiddleston finally created one. While he was interesting in Thor, he took Loki to an unexpected delicious level with an arrogant, gleeful, smirking performance.
General consensus said this was the best movie version of Hulk, and I agreed wholeheartedly. Ruffalo effortlessly brought the funny, brains and zen philosophy out of Dr. Banner. As a fan since You Can Count on Me, I was so happy for him to finally get recognized by the mainstream. Meanwhile, CGI Hulk had the most hilarious moments in the entire film, thanks to Whedon's quirky sense of humor. If I ever feel glum, I just think of the punchline of Hulk and Thor smashing things, or the meme-generating Rag Doll Loki scene.
Even though Scarlett Johansson and Jeremy Renner had the weakest subplots, I really liked how their relationship, history and baggage were never spelled out, as if there was an origin movie that existed in a different multiverse. Also, I was really surprised by Johansson's acting and comedy chops. Even though she was the only female of the superheroes, she wasn't a slouch, and in fact had a brilliant mind games scene with Hiddleston.
Much like how this string of Marvel flicks lacked memorable enemies, this film also lacked memorable action. There were some really well-produced skyscraper and minion destruction, and I dug the sick "one-take" shot of the camera flying from one battle to another to another. But overall, none of it blew me away as I had hoped for such an action flick. My friend blamed it on being too reliant on CGI, and I think he might be right. Even in IMAX 3D, my thoughts were mostly thinking "that's pretty cool".
After one viewing, I'm reluctant to place The Avengers in the pantheon of great comic book movies, but you could talk me into it. I'd rather have great characters and writing than just great action. While it's not exactly comparing apples-to-apples, but if I'm re-watching Matrix Reloaded, I'm fastfowarding to the ridiculous fight scenes and ignoring the rest. On the other hand, I'd gladly stick around to re-watch all of The Avengers because the characters were just so wonderful company.
The 3D and IMAX won't really make that big a difference, but I highly recommend The Avengers. Even though I'm not familiar with the original comic book creations, I did watch all the previous movies, and they contributed to the enjoyment of this one. I'm definitely curious to see how much people liked it if they haven't seen the first five Marvel flicks. Overall, I was glad the long-term gamble to create a tapestry of characters and origin tales to culminate in giant all-star explosion paid off financially and artistically.
Battleship
Viewed in
2013
Formats
HDTV
Premise
"Based" on the game/toy.
Liked
Rihanna.
Hated
Pretty much everything else.
Thoughts
Well, that was a boring turd.
Best part was Rihanna. She was pretty much the only human who had some charm and knew how to play in a loud, bloated action flick. The only only cast member worth mentioning was Brooklyn Decker definitely succeeding in the eye candy department. Visually, I appreciated the top notch CGI, especially during in terms of water battles and general building destruction. Lastly, there was one good joke. After being bombarded with another dude's action-movie one-liners, the character quips, "who talks like that?"
The rest of the cast was forgettable, which wasn't a shock. What really frustrated me was that Liam Neeson was in it for like 10 minutes, where he spent that time giving speeches, then sitting on the sidelines in the battle for humanity. The first forty minutes were completely superfluous "character scenes", that tried to give us emotional investment into the brothers. But it was so uninteresting I just wanted those scenes to make way for the computer graphics.
Going in, I braced myself for lazy writing. But when the story feels like a Independence Day ripoff, you know you're in really bad territory. Not that I'm a Battleship-purist, but having to sit through 150 minutes for only one scene that kinda looked like the game was pretty lame. Instead, this movie felt like a fellow Hasbro flick, with giant CGI robots wrecking havoc, and using the same same composer and sound effects as the Michael Bay Transformers franchise.
Lastly, there was a super-cheesy scene when retired Navy soldiers pitch in to help our heroes. Arguably one of the most ridiculously laughable and infuriatingly insulting scenes of 2012.
I was bracing for bad in Battleship, but not this bad, with Rihanna as the only beacon of hope in this lumbering, nonsensical slop. I liked it better when it was called Transformers.
2013
Formats
HDTV
Premise
"Based" on the game/toy.
Liked
Rihanna.
Hated
Pretty much everything else.
Thoughts
Well, that was a boring turd.
Best part was Rihanna. She was pretty much the only human who had some charm and knew how to play in a loud, bloated action flick. The only only cast member worth mentioning was Brooklyn Decker definitely succeeding in the eye candy department. Visually, I appreciated the top notch CGI, especially during in terms of water battles and general building destruction. Lastly, there was one good joke. After being bombarded with another dude's action-movie one-liners, the character quips, "who talks like that?"
The rest of the cast was forgettable, which wasn't a shock. What really frustrated me was that Liam Neeson was in it for like 10 minutes, where he spent that time giving speeches, then sitting on the sidelines in the battle for humanity. The first forty minutes were completely superfluous "character scenes", that tried to give us emotional investment into the brothers. But it was so uninteresting I just wanted those scenes to make way for the computer graphics.
Going in, I braced myself for lazy writing. But when the story feels like a Independence Day ripoff, you know you're in really bad territory. Not that I'm a Battleship-purist, but having to sit through 150 minutes for only one scene that kinda looked like the game was pretty lame. Instead, this movie felt like a fellow Hasbro flick, with giant CGI robots wrecking havoc, and using the same same composer and sound effects as the Michael Bay Transformers franchise.
Lastly, there was a super-cheesy scene when retired Navy soldiers pitch in to help our heroes. Arguably one of the most ridiculously laughable and infuriatingly insulting scenes of 2012.
I was bracing for bad in Battleship, but not this bad, with Rihanna as the only beacon of hope in this lumbering, nonsensical slop. I liked it better when it was called Transformers.
Beasts of the Southern Wild
Viewed in
2013
Formats
HDTV
Premise
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.
Liked
Performances, distinct world, characters.
Disliked
Cinematography quality.
Thoughts
I liked it, but didn't love it.
The performances were strong, especially Quvenzhané Wallis as Hushpuppy and Dwight Henry as Wink. They were convincing as father and daughter living in this forgotten community. Their performances at times were haunting and visceral, although I thought Wallis' nomination was a bit gimmicky due to her age.
I also enjoyed the complex father-daughter relationship, strained to the edge from poverty, alcoholism, and being ignored by mainstream America. Both characters were multi-dimensional that added a lot of humanity to the story. Wallis' Hushpuppy was intelligent, tough, yet vulnerable on her path to coming-of-age. My favorite moments were when the audience got to dive into Hughpuppy's lonely imagination, as she talked to her imaginary mother.
The minor characters were a motley crew, evoking a family-like society in an isolated corner of the country. A lot of that mood was also due to the gorgeous set designs and real locations. That enhanced the stark contrast to the devastating, haunting hurricane aftermath scenes. I never felt like it was getting up on its soapbox about climate change, it just showed the local ecological effects in a very dramatic way.
To me, the story of how it got made contributed to its best picture nomination. From a story-telling standpoint, it seemed to wander quite a bit, and indulged itself into that (albeit unique and wonderous) world.
But the biggest issue for me was the inferior cinematography. Sure, the small budget with ambitiously epic visuals jacked up the degree of difficulty, but there's only so much of bad lighting and focus that I could excuse before it became a distraction. Last but not least, I also have to point out that the constant shaky-handheld camera was a thorn in my side.
Beasts of the Southern Wild was an impressive feat thanks to the incredible world it created with memorable characters and moments. Pity they weren't good enough to overcome the technical shortcomings.
2013
Formats
HDTV
Premise
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.
Liked
Performances, distinct world, characters.
Disliked
Cinematography quality.
Thoughts
I liked it, but didn't love it.
The performances were strong, especially Quvenzhané Wallis as Hushpuppy and Dwight Henry as Wink. They were convincing as father and daughter living in this forgotten community. Their performances at times were haunting and visceral, although I thought Wallis' nomination was a bit gimmicky due to her age.
I also enjoyed the complex father-daughter relationship, strained to the edge from poverty, alcoholism, and being ignored by mainstream America. Both characters were multi-dimensional that added a lot of humanity to the story. Wallis' Hushpuppy was intelligent, tough, yet vulnerable on her path to coming-of-age. My favorite moments were when the audience got to dive into Hughpuppy's lonely imagination, as she talked to her imaginary mother.
The minor characters were a motley crew, evoking a family-like society in an isolated corner of the country. A lot of that mood was also due to the gorgeous set designs and real locations. That enhanced the stark contrast to the devastating, haunting hurricane aftermath scenes. I never felt like it was getting up on its soapbox about climate change, it just showed the local ecological effects in a very dramatic way.
To me, the story of how it got made contributed to its best picture nomination. From a story-telling standpoint, it seemed to wander quite a bit, and indulged itself into that (albeit unique and wonderous) world.
But the biggest issue for me was the inferior cinematography. Sure, the small budget with ambitiously epic visuals jacked up the degree of difficulty, but there's only so much of bad lighting and focus that I could excuse before it became a distraction. Last but not least, I also have to point out that the constant shaky-handheld camera was a thorn in my side.
Beasts of the Southern Wild was an impressive feat thanks to the incredible world it created with memorable characters and moments. Pity they weren't good enough to overcome the technical shortcomings.
Brave
Viewed in
2012 (2)
Formats
Movie theater (digital), HDTV
Premise
Pixar's animated tale of a Scottish princess who wishes to change her fate, only to face the consequences.
Loved
Hair!
Liked
Strong daughter-mother relationship.
Disliked
Lack of great story.
Thoughts
The first thing that comes to mind walking out if the theater was how superlative Merida's red mane of awesomeness was. Years ago, Pixar wowed us with Sully's wonderful fur in Monsters Inc. In Brave, it was mesmerizing beyond words. Last year, Disney's Tangled had Rapunzel's gimmicky (yet still under utilized) hair. This movie put Rapunzel's hair to shame in CG gorgeousness.
Now as for the rest of the film, it was a strong rebound from Cars 2. It was full of heart and funny cartoony humor. I really liked the 2nd act, where the daughter-mother dynamic was taken to unexpected and creative heights. I was so glad that marketing did not reveal just how the lead's fate was changed, because I would've had different, more pessimistic, expectations of the movie. Kind a disappointed Ebert gave it away in his review.
Anyway, the middle section was the best written part, with interesting twist on familiar family-fairy tale tropes, while showing strong character relationships. This film definitely sported one of the cutest fictional mothers in a long time. I also found the dining hall scene to be really touching and emotional, even though it started of with a "what are you doing?!" moment.
Compared to Pixar's best, it lacked character and complexity. The moral of the story was simple, yet felt unclear and small stakes at the same time. While mother and daughter were fleshed out, everyone else were one-note, forgettable goofballs. There aren't enough movies with strong female characters, but did it have to be at the expense of no strong male characters? Also, while the twist of fate was interesting, it was predictable ten minutes in.
Despite the bright red hair and lush highlands, this was surprisingly heavy on dark cinematography. I heard some mixed reviews about the 3D, especially in terms of brightness, so I think this would've been a serious viewing issue for the audience. I was glad I didn't bother to find out, and just stuck with perfectly fine 2D. Having said that, I would love to have seen Merida's splendiferous locks in as many dimensions as possible.
Brave was a very good family-friendly movie. That tantalizing hair was almost worth the price of admission itself. However, when I think back to Pixar greats, I found it recommendable, but not must-see.
The Dark Knight Rises
Viewed in
2012
Formats
IMAX theater.
Premise
In the conclusion of the Christopher Nolan trilogy, Batman comes out of retirement upon emergence of a new threat in the form of Bane.
Loved
Full circle aspect.
Liked
Epic second half, satisfying conclusion.
Disliked
Spoilers.
Thoughts
I had to work really hard to lower my own over-hype, but in the end, it thankfully met my expectations.
The last hour or so was quite breathtaking in terms of execution and scope. There was something poetic about watching Batman and Bane duke it out in the snow, surrounded by thousands of clashing armies. Even with a batch of new toys, the Batcycle still took the cake in terms of coolness. Nolan's use of IMAX cameras and mostly practicals made me brace for dear life, engulfed in the action. It was totally worth the premium charge to see it on the largest screen possible.
I loved how the writing was able to bring back elements of Batman Begins. As I watched, I honestly couldn't tell if Bruce Wayne would come out of this alive, so the connections to the previous titles just added more emotional weight to every dire situation. This was especially true whenever Wayne interacted with Alfred or Commissioner Gordon. In fact, I believed that they should've gone further with the full circle angle; at a certain point, I began hoping Joseph Gordon-Levitt's character was the boy in the balcony from the first film.
One side effect of the great use of integrating the first movie was that it kind of diminished the The Dark Knight's relevance to Nolan's universe. Batman's epic battle with the Joker could almost be a stand-alone tale. While The Dark Knight Rises did incorporate Harvey Dent and Rachel Dawes a bit, I felt like they didn't do enough. I expected more direct consequences from Batman being blamed for Dent and more of Wayne suffering from losing Rachel.
The mainstays of the cast were excellent as usual, and Christian Bale's whispering voice was decipherable. Overall, the new blood was very good. Understandably they had gargantuan shoes to fill, following the late Heath Ledger's Joker, and given the circumstances they did their best. Marian Cotillard and Gordon-Levitt were perfectly cast. As a bigger fan of Anne Hathaway than most, I thought she definitely brought enough sexy and savvy to justify her casting. I enjoyed her performance (and outfit and goggles) very much, but frankly, it was not as great a presence as Michelle Pfeiffer's rendition. Poor Tom Hardy had the most difficult role, forced to act through a mask and laughably garbled voice box. He was flat-out imposing at times, but it was tough to get charm out of that villain. There were a couple of unexpected cameos that were quite awesome as well.
My biggest problem was the first hour and a half. There were too many new minor characters that had to be introduced and exposition to explain what had transpired in the eight years since Dent's demise. As much as I love JGL, his character and subplot was technically expendable. Also, in the unpopular vote, I found the open for this title rather underwhelming, even though I knew I was seeing something insane, it never felt like it. By comparison, The Dark Knight grabbed you by the balls in the first frame and never let go. This one took a while.
Some people found a key part of the plot impossible, and I disagree with them. It was plausible in that world to recover that quickly. If you're going to criticize how unbelievable a human body can withstand damage, then that should've been pointed out all the times people fell from great heights and lived from the first two titles.
Two aspects kind of soured my experience. Obviously, watching it the weekend of the Aurora tragedy, I couldn't help but have that sadness in the back of my mind, especially during the gunfights. I was never really able to escape into that wonderful, wicked world. The other aspect was that I was able to correctly guess the outcome of character arcs, thanks to studio carelessness early in pre-production (similar to what happened with Prometheus) and spoilers from a Twitter friend, whose attempt to make a non-spoiler joke actually did the opposite for me. Did it truly ruin the movie for me? No. Thankfully Nolan's a master story weaver, and he sprung a couple of nice surprises on me, including Wayne's ultimate ending. Having said that, I thought the ending was a little cheap and inconsistent. Having said what I just said, if the false ending was the true ending, that would've been kind of lame in terms of the how. Am I making sense yet?
It will take a while (and more re-watches) to determine where The Dark Knight Rises ranks. I will still put The Dark Knight as my favorite for actually exceeding, nay blowing away, my expectations. Whether it's #2 is hard to tell, since you need to watch Batman Begins to truly feel the emotional punches. Nevertheless, considering the Nolans already threw the kitchen sink in the second film, this was a very satisfying conclusion to the amazing trilogy. The list of quality third movies are short. This won't touch Toy Story 3, but it belongs in the pantheon with Goldfinger, Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, Return of the Jedi, and Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade.
2012
Formats
IMAX theater.
Premise
In the conclusion of the Christopher Nolan trilogy, Batman comes out of retirement upon emergence of a new threat in the form of Bane.
Loved
Full circle aspect.
Liked
Epic second half, satisfying conclusion.
Disliked
Spoilers.
Thoughts
I had to work really hard to lower my own over-hype, but in the end, it thankfully met my expectations.
The last hour or so was quite breathtaking in terms of execution and scope. There was something poetic about watching Batman and Bane duke it out in the snow, surrounded by thousands of clashing armies. Even with a batch of new toys, the Batcycle still took the cake in terms of coolness. Nolan's use of IMAX cameras and mostly practicals made me brace for dear life, engulfed in the action. It was totally worth the premium charge to see it on the largest screen possible.
I loved how the writing was able to bring back elements of Batman Begins. As I watched, I honestly couldn't tell if Bruce Wayne would come out of this alive, so the connections to the previous titles just added more emotional weight to every dire situation. This was especially true whenever Wayne interacted with Alfred or Commissioner Gordon. In fact, I believed that they should've gone further with the full circle angle; at a certain point, I began hoping Joseph Gordon-Levitt's character was the boy in the balcony from the first film.
One side effect of the great use of integrating the first movie was that it kind of diminished the The Dark Knight's relevance to Nolan's universe. Batman's epic battle with the Joker could almost be a stand-alone tale. While The Dark Knight Rises did incorporate Harvey Dent and Rachel Dawes a bit, I felt like they didn't do enough. I expected more direct consequences from Batman being blamed for Dent and more of Wayne suffering from losing Rachel.
The mainstays of the cast were excellent as usual, and Christian Bale's whispering voice was decipherable. Overall, the new blood was very good. Understandably they had gargantuan shoes to fill, following the late Heath Ledger's Joker, and given the circumstances they did their best. Marian Cotillard and Gordon-Levitt were perfectly cast. As a bigger fan of Anne Hathaway than most, I thought she definitely brought enough sexy and savvy to justify her casting. I enjoyed her performance (and outfit and goggles) very much, but frankly, it was not as great a presence as Michelle Pfeiffer's rendition. Poor Tom Hardy had the most difficult role, forced to act through a mask and laughably garbled voice box. He was flat-out imposing at times, but it was tough to get charm out of that villain. There were a couple of unexpected cameos that were quite awesome as well.
My biggest problem was the first hour and a half. There were too many new minor characters that had to be introduced and exposition to explain what had transpired in the eight years since Dent's demise. As much as I love JGL, his character and subplot was technically expendable. Also, in the unpopular vote, I found the open for this title rather underwhelming, even though I knew I was seeing something insane, it never felt like it. By comparison, The Dark Knight grabbed you by the balls in the first frame and never let go. This one took a while.
Some people found a key part of the plot impossible, and I disagree with them. It was plausible in that world to recover that quickly. If you're going to criticize how unbelievable a human body can withstand damage, then that should've been pointed out all the times people fell from great heights and lived from the first two titles.
Two aspects kind of soured my experience. Obviously, watching it the weekend of the Aurora tragedy, I couldn't help but have that sadness in the back of my mind, especially during the gunfights. I was never really able to escape into that wonderful, wicked world. The other aspect was that I was able to correctly guess the outcome of character arcs, thanks to studio carelessness early in pre-production (similar to what happened with Prometheus) and spoilers from a Twitter friend, whose attempt to make a non-spoiler joke actually did the opposite for me. Did it truly ruin the movie for me? No. Thankfully Nolan's a master story weaver, and he sprung a couple of nice surprises on me, including Wayne's ultimate ending. Having said that, I thought the ending was a little cheap and inconsistent. Having said what I just said, if the false ending was the true ending, that would've been kind of lame in terms of the how. Am I making sense yet?
It will take a while (and more re-watches) to determine where The Dark Knight Rises ranks. I will still put The Dark Knight as my favorite for actually exceeding, nay blowing away, my expectations. Whether it's #2 is hard to tell, since you need to watch Batman Begins to truly feel the emotional punches. Nevertheless, considering the Nolans already threw the kitchen sink in the second film, this was a very satisfying conclusion to the amazing trilogy. The list of quality third movies are short. This won't touch Toy Story 3, but it belongs in the pantheon with Goldfinger, Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, Return of the Jedi, and Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade.
Django Unchained
Viewed in
2012
Formats
Movie theater.
Premise
Quentin Tarantino's take on westerns, starring Jamie Foxx as a freed U.S. slave turned bounty hunter.
Loved
Channeling spaghetti westerns.
Liked
Cast, Tarantino style.
Disliked
Length.
Thoughts
I might be taking Tarantino flicks for granted. It was well-written, entertaining, a tad indulgent, and violent. There wasn't really much to write about.
As expected, the cast was inspired and fantastic. Jamie Foxx carried the film flawlessly with silent presence. Christoph Waltz was utterly charming as a bounty hunter. Leonardo DiCaprio was great with an entertaining against-type performance. While Kerry Washington got very limited screen time, she brought dignity to her role. Yet despite all these screen magnets, Samuel L. Jackson still stole the show as a cranky old slave, goofy makeup and all.
As a fan of John Wayne and Clint Eastwood flicks, I thought it did a great job of channeling the swashbuckling panache of the spaghetti westerns. Tarantino captured the mood and sense of fun with music, sound effects, cheeky camera movement, old school lettering, and explooging blood packets. A tribute and an excellent addition to a dead genre. Also, shout out to playing Tupac in a cowboy shoot out.
The biggest flaw was it was a bit too long, with one too many battles.
Unlike others, the slavery aspect and constant n-words didn't bother me much. I'm not smart enough to declare its impact on race-relations and black identity in America, but I viewed it as just style and a darkly fun twist on westerns.
Call me lazy, but Django Unchained felt like "Tarantino being Tarantino". You expect extreme violence, dark comedy, and moments that'll make you feel uncomfortable. As a fan of his works, I found it extremely enjoyable, though I don't think it was as ingenius as Inglorious Basterds.
2012
Formats
Movie theater.
Premise
Quentin Tarantino's take on westerns, starring Jamie Foxx as a freed U.S. slave turned bounty hunter.
Loved
Channeling spaghetti westerns.
Liked
Cast, Tarantino style.
Disliked
Length.
Thoughts
I might be taking Tarantino flicks for granted. It was well-written, entertaining, a tad indulgent, and violent. There wasn't really much to write about.
As expected, the cast was inspired and fantastic. Jamie Foxx carried the film flawlessly with silent presence. Christoph Waltz was utterly charming as a bounty hunter. Leonardo DiCaprio was great with an entertaining against-type performance. While Kerry Washington got very limited screen time, she brought dignity to her role. Yet despite all these screen magnets, Samuel L. Jackson still stole the show as a cranky old slave, goofy makeup and all.
As a fan of John Wayne and Clint Eastwood flicks, I thought it did a great job of channeling the swashbuckling panache of the spaghetti westerns. Tarantino captured the mood and sense of fun with music, sound effects, cheeky camera movement, old school lettering, and explooging blood packets. A tribute and an excellent addition to a dead genre. Also, shout out to playing Tupac in a cowboy shoot out.
The biggest flaw was it was a bit too long, with one too many battles.
Unlike others, the slavery aspect and constant n-words didn't bother me much. I'm not smart enough to declare its impact on race-relations and black identity in America, but I viewed it as just style and a darkly fun twist on westerns.
Call me lazy, but Django Unchained felt like "Tarantino being Tarantino". You expect extreme violence, dark comedy, and moments that'll make you feel uncomfortable. As a fan of his works, I found it extremely enjoyable, though I don't think it was as ingenius as Inglorious Basterds.
The Dream Team
Viewed in
2012
Formats
HDTV (w/ ads)
Premise
A documentary about the 1992 U.S. Men's Olympic basketball team, led by Michael Jordan, Magic Johnson, and Larry Bird.
Loved
Nostalgia factor.
Liked
Addressing Isiah Thomas and other controversies.
Disliked
It's brevity.
Thoughts
I guess it's as good as an 80 minute NBA-sponsored documentary about a team facing minimal adversity could get.
As a budding NBA fan in 1992, I didn't have the full appreciation for the star power and legacy that was the "Dream Team". This definitely helped walk me down memory lane, from the league's top dawgs of that era, to images I had forgotten, to hilarious 1990's fashion. It was also cool to see the NBA landscape at that time, like young Chris Webber and Grant Hill.
Best parts were stuff the public had never seen, such as more awesome quotes by Barkley during press conferences. The holy grail of basketball footage was of course the famous Monte Carlo scrimmage game. Watching some of the best players ever getting in each others' faces just made me giddy. My other favorite scene was the video of John Stockton "unwisely" taking a stroll in Barcelona with his family, only to discover that nobody recognized him.
As a NBA historian, I'm glad it did not gloss over some of the not so dreamy parts, especially Isiah Thomas' egregiously unjustified exclusion from the team. In addition, it also didn't shy away from Barkley's elbow, the fact they lost their first game to a bunch of college kids, or Jordan and Pippen's homicidal undressing of Toni Kukoc.
Being a pretty hardcore fan, I wanted more. More highlights, more game footage, more practice footage. I never felt like there was enough to help me further appreciate that team's will-never-happen-again talent. Frankly, my inner basketball geek just wanted to watch that Monte Carlo scrimmage in its entirety, uninterrupted.
Likewise, the controversies could've been explored further, but maybe there wasn't much there to begin with. Magic's HIV situation was hardly addressed, but it was thoroughly explored in his own documentary, The Announcement.
The Dream Team was slightly better than a puff piece. It had a strong selection of vintage footage and glimpses into the most interesting characters. It never delved too deep into any chapter, but it didn't skip any either. If I were channel-surfing and this was re-running, I'm automatically planting my butt on the couch for a re-watch. A definite a must-see for fans.
2012
Formats
HDTV (w/ ads)
Premise
A documentary about the 1992 U.S. Men's Olympic basketball team, led by Michael Jordan, Magic Johnson, and Larry Bird.
Loved
Nostalgia factor.
Liked
Addressing Isiah Thomas and other controversies.
Disliked
It's brevity.
Thoughts
I guess it's as good as an 80 minute NBA-sponsored documentary about a team facing minimal adversity could get.
As a budding NBA fan in 1992, I didn't have the full appreciation for the star power and legacy that was the "Dream Team". This definitely helped walk me down memory lane, from the league's top dawgs of that era, to images I had forgotten, to hilarious 1990's fashion. It was also cool to see the NBA landscape at that time, like young Chris Webber and Grant Hill.
Best parts were stuff the public had never seen, such as more awesome quotes by Barkley during press conferences. The holy grail of basketball footage was of course the famous Monte Carlo scrimmage game. Watching some of the best players ever getting in each others' faces just made me giddy. My other favorite scene was the video of John Stockton "unwisely" taking a stroll in Barcelona with his family, only to discover that nobody recognized him.
As a NBA historian, I'm glad it did not gloss over some of the not so dreamy parts, especially Isiah Thomas' egregiously unjustified exclusion from the team. In addition, it also didn't shy away from Barkley's elbow, the fact they lost their first game to a bunch of college kids, or Jordan and Pippen's homicidal undressing of Toni Kukoc.
Being a pretty hardcore fan, I wanted more. More highlights, more game footage, more practice footage. I never felt like there was enough to help me further appreciate that team's will-never-happen-again talent. Frankly, my inner basketball geek just wanted to watch that Monte Carlo scrimmage in its entirety, uninterrupted.
Likewise, the controversies could've been explored further, but maybe there wasn't much there to begin with. Magic's HIV situation was hardly addressed, but it was thoroughly explored in his own documentary, The Announcement.
The Dream Team was slightly better than a puff piece. It had a strong selection of vintage footage and glimpses into the most interesting characters. It never delved too deep into any chapter, but it didn't skip any either. If I were channel-surfing and this was re-running, I'm automatically planting my butt on the couch for a re-watch. A definite a must-see for fans.
The Expendables 2
Viewed in
2012
Formats
Movie theater.
Premise
The sequel to The Expendables, nuff said.
Loved
Over-the-top stupidity, Chuck Norris.
Liked
Pretty much everything else.
Disliked
Not enough Jet Li.
Thoughts
For most sequels, bigger is not always better. Here's the exception to the rule.
I was a very big fan of the bloated, botox-ed, bombastic band of brothers the first time around. Louder, more ridiculous and stupid were my expectations, nay, my demands. Pretty much the entire time I vacillated between snickering and laughing out loud. There were machine guns, explosions, wanton mayhem, roundhouse kicks, campy one-liners, decapitations, primal screaming, infinite henchmen spawning points, and "I now pronounce you man and knife".
Jean-Claude Van Damme was one of my favorites as the juicy baddie who kicks a knife into someone's heart while taking Corey Hart's signature song as his anthem. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Bruce Willis had bigger roles and were a hoot plagiarizing each others' catchphrases. Statham sneered, Stallone mumbled, Terry Crews yells, Couture did nothing, and Lundgren was just charming and bizarre. And I kind of geeked out when Cordelia of Buffy made a cameo.
But really, this movie belonged to Chuck Norris. The energy of the theater just went bonkers every time he appeared onscreen and wrecked havoc. I honestly believe that Norris meme-ing himself was not only worth the price of admission, but truly the pinnacle of film-making for all mankind.
Sadly, it wasn't perfect. I was little underwhelmed at times. Jet Li's appearance was more of a cameo, though he made the most of it by Jackie Chan-ing a kitchen. The female lead wasn't interesting/attractive/badass/understandable enough to hang with this crowd of legends. Sadly, everyone had hyped up the "a motorcycle flies into a helicopter" shot so much that it was doomed to disappoint me, dejectedly asking "that's it?" Part of the problem was they shot that in real-time, when it should have been in gratuitous slow-motion. Speaking of helicopters, how could they not fit in a "Get to the choppah!" into the movie?
So yeah, if you liked the first movie, you'll probably love The Expendables 2 even more.
2012
Formats
Movie theater.
Premise
The sequel to The Expendables, nuff said.
Loved
Over-the-top stupidity, Chuck Norris.
Liked
Pretty much everything else.
Disliked
Not enough Jet Li.
Thoughts
For most sequels, bigger is not always better. Here's the exception to the rule.
I was a very big fan of the bloated, botox-ed, bombastic band of brothers the first time around. Louder, more ridiculous and stupid were my expectations, nay, my demands. Pretty much the entire time I vacillated between snickering and laughing out loud. There were machine guns, explosions, wanton mayhem, roundhouse kicks, campy one-liners, decapitations, primal screaming, infinite henchmen spawning points, and "I now pronounce you man and knife".
Jean-Claude Van Damme was one of my favorites as the juicy baddie who kicks a knife into someone's heart while taking Corey Hart's signature song as his anthem. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Bruce Willis had bigger roles and were a hoot plagiarizing each others' catchphrases. Statham sneered, Stallone mumbled, Terry Crews yells, Couture did nothing, and Lundgren was just charming and bizarre. And I kind of geeked out when Cordelia of Buffy made a cameo.
But really, this movie belonged to Chuck Norris. The energy of the theater just went bonkers every time he appeared onscreen and wrecked havoc. I honestly believe that Norris meme-ing himself was not only worth the price of admission, but truly the pinnacle of film-making for all mankind.
Sadly, it wasn't perfect. I was little underwhelmed at times. Jet Li's appearance was more of a cameo, though he made the most of it by Jackie Chan-ing a kitchen. The female lead wasn't interesting/attractive/badass/understandable enough to hang with this crowd of legends. Sadly, everyone had hyped up the "a motorcycle flies into a helicopter" shot so much that it was doomed to disappoint me, dejectedly asking "that's it?" Part of the problem was they shot that in real-time, when it should have been in gratuitous slow-motion. Speaking of helicopters, how could they not fit in a "Get to the choppah!" into the movie?
So yeah, if you liked the first movie, you'll probably love The Expendables 2 even more.
Flight
Viewed in
2012
Formats
Movie theater.
Premise
Denzel Washington stars as a pilot who comes under investigation after a miraculous landing that saves most of the passengers.
Liked
Washington's performance, well-written story.
Disliked
Parts of the middle.
Thoughts
Usually when there's a movie that shouts "get this actor/actress an Oscar nomination!", it's all about the lead, with the story as dressing. Not here. In this film, Washington's performance and the story were equally compelling.
If Washington gets nominated for best actor, he deserved it. He was fantastic in his portrayal of a cool cat who's thinks he's in control of his alcoholism. This movie wouldn't have worked without him. Flanking him were strong performances, especially by Kelly Reilly, and a hilarious performance by John Goodman (probably will get best supporting nod).
It was a testament to John Gatin's screenplay in which the harrowing plane crash scene was only in the first act, yet the scenes of Washington battling inner demons and the impending pressure of investigation were what made this story so exciting. The opening was remarkably intense, and the climax was emotionally powerful. Haunting bookends.
However, the middle section could've used some trimming. It's not much of a spoiler, but Washington's character was clearly flawed in the alcohol department, and addiction was an important theme. While I understand that fighting addiction is a daily struggle, I felt like that message was repeated one too many times, sometimes in manipulative ways. They were extremely well done and Washington's acting sold each of those moments, so it wasn't boring, but still, I think addition by subtraction would've made the movie even better.
One last nitpick: Reilly's introduction was a tad weird. It made sense in the big scheme of her subplot, but it was pretty ballsy to intercut so much of a minor character into the first thirty minutes, forcing me to keep faith that she would be worth it.
Flight was a fantastic movie. It was more than a one-man show by Washington, thanks to very strong cast, writing and directing. Welcome back to live action features, Mr. Zemeckis!
2012
Formats
Movie theater.
Premise
Denzel Washington stars as a pilot who comes under investigation after a miraculous landing that saves most of the passengers.
Liked
Washington's performance, well-written story.
Disliked
Parts of the middle.
Thoughts
Usually when there's a movie that shouts "get this actor/actress an Oscar nomination!", it's all about the lead, with the story as dressing. Not here. In this film, Washington's performance and the story were equally compelling.
If Washington gets nominated for best actor, he deserved it. He was fantastic in his portrayal of a cool cat who's thinks he's in control of his alcoholism. This movie wouldn't have worked without him. Flanking him were strong performances, especially by Kelly Reilly, and a hilarious performance by John Goodman (probably will get best supporting nod).
It was a testament to John Gatin's screenplay in which the harrowing plane crash scene was only in the first act, yet the scenes of Washington battling inner demons and the impending pressure of investigation were what made this story so exciting. The opening was remarkably intense, and the climax was emotionally powerful. Haunting bookends.
However, the middle section could've used some trimming. It's not much of a spoiler, but Washington's character was clearly flawed in the alcohol department, and addiction was an important theme. While I understand that fighting addiction is a daily struggle, I felt like that message was repeated one too many times, sometimes in manipulative ways. They were extremely well done and Washington's acting sold each of those moments, so it wasn't boring, but still, I think addition by subtraction would've made the movie even better.
One last nitpick: Reilly's introduction was a tad weird. It made sense in the big scheme of her subplot, but it was pretty ballsy to intercut so much of a minor character into the first thirty minutes, forcing me to keep faith that she would be worth it.
Flight was a fantastic movie. It was more than a one-man show by Washington, thanks to very strong cast, writing and directing. Welcome back to live action features, Mr. Zemeckis!
Frankenweenie
Viewed in
2012
Formats
IMAX 3D
Premise
Based on Tim Burton's short, a young boy decides to reanimate his dead dog.
Liked
Characters, artistry, themes, shoutouts to monster flicks.
Disliked
Conventional ending.
Thoughts
Very cute and sweet with some interesting themes.
The characters were very charming, in animation and performance. It did a very good job of capturing the joy and love of boy and dog, lending much heart to the film. Burton's fingerprints were all over the character designs, with their bizarre but fun shapes and sizes. What got the biggest laughs from me was the psycho psychic girl with botoxed/goldfish eyes, and her equally hilarious cat.
Similar to ParaNorman, this had a ton of hilarious horror genre shoutouts, mainly in the monster flicks category, from Godzilla to Gremlins. The black and white cinematography and immersive 3D definitely enhanced the experience.
Story-wise, it was pretty strong. Not only was there the sweet plot of boy and dog, but it took risks to question the questioning of current science education in America. It was never preachy, but clearly the film makers worry if we're doing enough to inspire kids to embrace science. In addition, there was a nice allegory about using knowledge/technology for the right reasons. All in all, the writing appealed to my inner child and adult brain.
I don't think it was intentional, but this also felt like a tribute to Burton's legacy. The artists (and the director himself) probably couldn't help but to interject aspects reminding us of the visual wizard's career, including windmills, offbeat grotesque characters, goth eye shadows, idyllic small town, and holiday themes. You can't help but think of his works, from Edward Scissorhands to The Nightmare Before Christmas to Ed Wood.
My biggest problem was the ending. Clearly one of its themes was letting go of loved ones. The movie set things up perfectly for a very smart and potentially powerful ending, but instead it went the Hollywood route of playing safe.
Also, I was bugged by the unresolved subplot of the invisible fish. The screenwriter, John August, had a really cool thing of allowing fans to ask him questions directly via internet, and he was gracious enough to answer my question about the fish's fate. His reply was satisfactory, but didn't change how I felt about that subplot.
Rarely are movies derived from a short successful. Thanks to some creative writing and loving craftwork from the animators, Frankenweenie came off as a fun Burtonesque romp with some brains and heart, to go with the cutely grotesque monsters.
2012
Formats
IMAX 3D
Premise
Based on Tim Burton's short, a young boy decides to reanimate his dead dog.
Liked
Characters, artistry, themes, shoutouts to monster flicks.
Disliked
Conventional ending.
Thoughts
Very cute and sweet with some interesting themes.
The characters were very charming, in animation and performance. It did a very good job of capturing the joy and love of boy and dog, lending much heart to the film. Burton's fingerprints were all over the character designs, with their bizarre but fun shapes and sizes. What got the biggest laughs from me was the psycho psychic girl with botoxed/goldfish eyes, and her equally hilarious cat.
Similar to ParaNorman, this had a ton of hilarious horror genre shoutouts, mainly in the monster flicks category, from Godzilla to Gremlins. The black and white cinematography and immersive 3D definitely enhanced the experience.
Story-wise, it was pretty strong. Not only was there the sweet plot of boy and dog, but it took risks to question the questioning of current science education in America. It was never preachy, but clearly the film makers worry if we're doing enough to inspire kids to embrace science. In addition, there was a nice allegory about using knowledge/technology for the right reasons. All in all, the writing appealed to my inner child and adult brain.
I don't think it was intentional, but this also felt like a tribute to Burton's legacy. The artists (and the director himself) probably couldn't help but to interject aspects reminding us of the visual wizard's career, including windmills, offbeat grotesque characters, goth eye shadows, idyllic small town, and holiday themes. You can't help but think of his works, from Edward Scissorhands to The Nightmare Before Christmas to Ed Wood.
My biggest problem was the ending. Clearly one of its themes was letting go of loved ones. The movie set things up perfectly for a very smart and potentially powerful ending, but instead it went the Hollywood route of playing safe.
Also, I was bugged by the unresolved subplot of the invisible fish. The screenwriter, John August, had a really cool thing of allowing fans to ask him questions directly via internet, and he was gracious enough to answer my question about the fish's fate. His reply was satisfactory, but didn't change how I felt about that subplot.
Rarely are movies derived from a short successful. Thanks to some creative writing and loving craftwork from the animators, Frankenweenie came off as a fun Burtonesque romp with some brains and heart, to go with the cutely grotesque monsters.
Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance
Viewed in
2012
Formats
HDTV
Premise
Nicolas Cage returns as the titular Marvel comic book character.
Liked
Nicolas Cage doin' his thang.
Disliked
Not enough of Cage doin' his thang.
Thoughts
I had very low expectations, so it actually met them.
I just really wanted to relish Nic Cage Nic Caging it, and man, there was some fantastically campy entertaining moments in the second act. Ciaran Hinds, taking over for Peter Fonda as Roarke, pitched in some fun moments of scene-chewing. When in doubt, cast a British dude as the Big Bad.
2012
Formats
HDTV
Premise
Nicolas Cage returns as the titular Marvel comic book character.
Liked
Nicolas Cage doin' his thang.
Disliked
Not enough of Cage doin' his thang.
Thoughts
I had very low expectations, so it actually met them.
I just really wanted to relish Nic Cage Nic Caging it, and man, there was some fantastically campy entertaining moments in the second act. Ciaran Hinds, taking over for Peter Fonda as Roarke, pitched in some fun moments of scene-chewing. When in doubt, cast a British dude as the Big Bad.
Other cast included: dreamy Idris Elba joining Chris Evans in the "hey you can't be two different characters in the Marvel universe!" Club, Connor MacLeod and Rupert Giles both as mysterious priests. Poor Violante Placido, incredibly hot and eye-shadowed, went from the artistic The American to this.
While I wasn't looking for anything special visually, it had solid computer graphics and action, integrating stunts, CGI fire, and gratuitous slow-motion trickery. Best part was Cage turning a giant mining machine thingy into a giant fiery machine thingy.
Listing the movie's flaws would be a silly exercise, though I guess I should mention that I couldn't tell what the plot was about, and I didn't care about any of the characters. But the biggest problem would be its lack of enough charm or camp. There was some hilarious Cage over-acting, but I had to wait 25 minutes before I got any. Movies that try to be half-goofy/half-serious end up being neither.
Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance had some moments of stupid guilty pleasures and unintentional comedy, but not enough to be memorable. I recommend just fast-forwarding to when Cage starts "scraping at the DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOR!".
The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey
Viewed in
2012
Formats
IMAX 3D 48 FPS theater.
Premise
First part of Peter Jackson's trilogy based on The Hobbit and Return of the King appendices, Martin Freeman stars as Bilbo Baggins who joins Gandalf and 13 dwarves on an adventure to reclaim the dwarves' homeland.
Loved
Epic third act, cast.
Liked
Revisiting Middle Earth.
Disliked
Slow parts.
Thoughts
Long, but enjoyable.
The last hour nearly made it worth the price of admission. As a spectacle, there was just crazy good action of dwarves going H.A.M. on orcs with much panache and excitement. Sandwiched between orc-kill-fests was the famous Bilbo-Gollum showdown that was intimate and intense and lived up to the hype. The climax also had the most badassiest of badass slow-motion shots I've ever experienced that made me tingly below.
Once again the cast was impeccable. Freeman knocked it out of the park as our reluctant hero. Completely believable in action and comedy, owning Bilbo while subtly channeling Ian Holm and his inner Took. As expected Sir Ian McKellen and Andy Serkis reprieved their iconic performances as if it was only nine days since they shot Lord of the Rings. While I couldn't really tell the minor dwarves apart, Richard Armitage was a great addition as Thorin Oakenshield, a charismatic brooder with the weight of his lost kingdom on his shoulders.
It was definitely fun to return to that beautifully-realized world, although at times it was a bit too indulgent or fan-service-y. For example, there's the moment when Gandalf requests for help from the (BAMF) Eagles, but it's the same pace and shot as in Fellowship. We've seen that before, so repeating it doesn't exactly have the same bone-chilling effect. Every twenty minutes or so, the movie would pause to ominously remind us that very bad things might happen 60 years down the road. Less is more, and would've made the beginning go quicker. Having said that, I couldn't help but smile to see familiar faces like Frodo, Galadriel, Elrond, along with a few more surprise cameos.
Those wishing for a much more light-hearted affair akin to the book will probably halfway approve. When compared to the 2001-2003 films, it's much more of an adventurous romp, unafraid to chill for a little song or poetry, filled with dwarven shenanigans. But compared to the original source, it's still darker and more violent than expected, especially in the staggeringly large volume of CGI-orc dismemberment and decapitation department.
As for the controversial 48 fps 3D, I had mixed feelings. To call it stunning or crystal clear is an understatement, and it seemed to enhance the three-dimensionality of the format. The high-frame-rate was at its jaw-droppingly gorgeous best during epic wide shots of scenery and slow-motion shots, like the badass shot mentioned earlier. But for the most part, it felt like watching a video game (especially true in the CGI-heavy parts), British TV soap opera, or an video stream that's catching up from buffer lag. I found the intimate talking scenes unnatural.
One reason for my so-so experience was that my eyes never got used to the HFR. My friends (and neighboring strangers) got use to it very quickly, and were instantly won over. For me, my viewing vacillated from natural to unnatural. I don't think it's an abomination, after all, there's kids out there who grew up looking at 60 fps monitors, so imagine what they feel about 24 or 30. Now over time, maybe I can train my eyes, as more movies might come out in this format.
The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey as a stand alone was a pretty fun ride, thanks to the top-notch cast and spectacular last hour. It just took a bit of time and eye-conformity to get there.
2012
Formats
IMAX 3D 48 FPS theater.
Premise
First part of Peter Jackson's trilogy based on The Hobbit and Return of the King appendices, Martin Freeman stars as Bilbo Baggins who joins Gandalf and 13 dwarves on an adventure to reclaim the dwarves' homeland.
Loved
Epic third act, cast.
Liked
Revisiting Middle Earth.
Disliked
Slow parts.
Thoughts
Long, but enjoyable.
The last hour nearly made it worth the price of admission. As a spectacle, there was just crazy good action of dwarves going H.A.M. on orcs with much panache and excitement. Sandwiched between orc-kill-fests was the famous Bilbo-Gollum showdown that was intimate and intense and lived up to the hype. The climax also had the most badassiest of badass slow-motion shots I've ever experienced that made me tingly below.
Once again the cast was impeccable. Freeman knocked it out of the park as our reluctant hero. Completely believable in action and comedy, owning Bilbo while subtly channeling Ian Holm and his inner Took. As expected Sir Ian McKellen and Andy Serkis reprieved their iconic performances as if it was only nine days since they shot Lord of the Rings. While I couldn't really tell the minor dwarves apart, Richard Armitage was a great addition as Thorin Oakenshield, a charismatic brooder with the weight of his lost kingdom on his shoulders.
It was definitely fun to return to that beautifully-realized world, although at times it was a bit too indulgent or fan-service-y. For example, there's the moment when Gandalf requests for help from the (BAMF) Eagles, but it's the same pace and shot as in Fellowship. We've seen that before, so repeating it doesn't exactly have the same bone-chilling effect. Every twenty minutes or so, the movie would pause to ominously remind us that very bad things might happen 60 years down the road. Less is more, and would've made the beginning go quicker. Having said that, I couldn't help but smile to see familiar faces like Frodo, Galadriel, Elrond, along with a few more surprise cameos.
Those wishing for a much more light-hearted affair akin to the book will probably halfway approve. When compared to the 2001-2003 films, it's much more of an adventurous romp, unafraid to chill for a little song or poetry, filled with dwarven shenanigans. But compared to the original source, it's still darker and more violent than expected, especially in the staggeringly large volume of CGI-orc dismemberment and decapitation department.
As for the controversial 48 fps 3D, I had mixed feelings. To call it stunning or crystal clear is an understatement, and it seemed to enhance the three-dimensionality of the format. The high-frame-rate was at its jaw-droppingly gorgeous best during epic wide shots of scenery and slow-motion shots, like the badass shot mentioned earlier. But for the most part, it felt like watching a video game (especially true in the CGI-heavy parts), British TV soap opera, or an video stream that's catching up from buffer lag. I found the intimate talking scenes unnatural.
One reason for my so-so experience was that my eyes never got used to the HFR. My friends (and neighboring strangers) got use to it very quickly, and were instantly won over. For me, my viewing vacillated from natural to unnatural. I don't think it's an abomination, after all, there's kids out there who grew up looking at 60 fps monitors, so imagine what they feel about 24 or 30. Now over time, maybe I can train my eyes, as more movies might come out in this format.
The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey as a stand alone was a pretty fun ride, thanks to the top-notch cast and spectacular last hour. It just took a bit of time and eye-conformity to get there.
The Hunger Games
Viewed in
2012
Formats
Movie theater (digital)
Premise
Based on the first book, Katniss takes the place of her sister for the deadly Hunger Games.
Liked
Performances, cat-and-mouse action, the set up.
Disliked
Lack of heart in the relationships, loss of Katniss' unlikable personality from the books.
Hated
Shaky camerawork.
Thoughts
Given that I haven't read the novels at the time of this review (addition knowledge was passed on by a buddy), this was a promising and entertaining first act.
I really enjoyed the performances and the cast. Jennifer Lawrence was very likable and at times badass. Woody Harrelson was cool, although he was dangerously close to self-parody. Everyone else was solid, from the well-known Donald Sutherland, the semi-known Josh Hutcherson, to the unknown Amandla Stenberg. Elizabeth Banks's performance was bizarre, but I guess she was indicative of the elite class.
Story-wise, I could see hints of the larger world/conspiracy that I assume will unfold in the later titles. Yet these moments never bogged down the pace. The suspenseful action scenes were very good, especially the cat-and-mouse, even though I had to wait a while. The acting (especially the arrow through the apple scene) kept things going pretty well, though I admit I was getting a little antsy.
My buddy told me that the book was entirely through Katniss' point of view. And it appears the writers did a clever job of putting seemingly unfilmable stuff onscreen via performances and play-by-play commentators.
While I was intrigued by the love triangle, the film makers could've done a better job of making Hutcherson more likable. And I was already a big fan of his before the film. Basically, their reason for attraction was surviving such a harrowing experience together, but it never seemed to come off on screen. Instead, Liam Hemsworth made a better impression in just two scenes. My buddy told me that Katniss was more manipulative in the book, which may explain the odd onscreen chemistry of Lawrence and Hutcherson. Actually she felt like the love triangle was one of the weaker parts of the film.
Also, I had trouble feeling the emotions of the sisters, simply because there wasn't much screen time between them before Katniss volunteers herself.
As for changes from the book, my buddy and I wished that Katniss was more of an unlikable character. Not just in terms of her being calculating, but her inability to process emotions, basically not being nice but still sympathetic. My buddy said it best: "She's a deeply flawed person and we don't see enough protagonists like that in this kind of story." According to her, Gamemaster Crane was played up, while she wished Haymitch's arc wasn't reduced so much.
Enough has been said about the shaky handheld cinematography, so I'll just say that I hated it.
Bottom line, The Hunger Games was a well-acted, and according to my buddy, well-adapted, set up. Now we'll just have to see if the film makers can delivery the goods and payoffs.
2012
Formats
Movie theater (digital)
Premise
Based on the first book, Katniss takes the place of her sister for the deadly Hunger Games.
Liked
Performances, cat-and-mouse action, the set up.
Disliked
Lack of heart in the relationships, loss of Katniss' unlikable personality from the books.
Hated
Shaky camerawork.
Thoughts
Given that I haven't read the novels at the time of this review (addition knowledge was passed on by a buddy), this was a promising and entertaining first act.
I really enjoyed the performances and the cast. Jennifer Lawrence was very likable and at times badass. Woody Harrelson was cool, although he was dangerously close to self-parody. Everyone else was solid, from the well-known Donald Sutherland, the semi-known Josh Hutcherson, to the unknown Amandla Stenberg. Elizabeth Banks's performance was bizarre, but I guess she was indicative of the elite class.
Story-wise, I could see hints of the larger world/conspiracy that I assume will unfold in the later titles. Yet these moments never bogged down the pace. The suspenseful action scenes were very good, especially the cat-and-mouse, even though I had to wait a while. The acting (especially the arrow through the apple scene) kept things going pretty well, though I admit I was getting a little antsy.
My buddy told me that the book was entirely through Katniss' point of view. And it appears the writers did a clever job of putting seemingly unfilmable stuff onscreen via performances and play-by-play commentators.
While I was intrigued by the love triangle, the film makers could've done a better job of making Hutcherson more likable. And I was already a big fan of his before the film. Basically, their reason for attraction was surviving such a harrowing experience together, but it never seemed to come off on screen. Instead, Liam Hemsworth made a better impression in just two scenes. My buddy told me that Katniss was more manipulative in the book, which may explain the odd onscreen chemistry of Lawrence and Hutcherson. Actually she felt like the love triangle was one of the weaker parts of the film.
Also, I had trouble feeling the emotions of the sisters, simply because there wasn't much screen time between them before Katniss volunteers herself.
As for changes from the book, my buddy and I wished that Katniss was more of an unlikable character. Not just in terms of her being calculating, but her inability to process emotions, basically not being nice but still sympathetic. My buddy said it best: "She's a deeply flawed person and we don't see enough protagonists like that in this kind of story." According to her, Gamemaster Crane was played up, while she wished Haymitch's arc wasn't reduced so much.
Enough has been said about the shaky handheld cinematography, so I'll just say that I hated it.
Bottom line, The Hunger Games was a well-acted, and according to my buddy, well-adapted, set up. Now we'll just have to see if the film makers can delivery the goods and payoffs.
John Carter
Viewed in
2013
Formats
HDTV
Premise
Based on the Edgar Rice Burroughs book A Princess of Mars, Taylor Kitsch stars as a U.S. Civil War veteran who finds himself transported to wartorn Mars.
Liked
Martian dog.
Thoughts
Well, it didn't suck. Not a great compliment, but in a way it was given the negative buzz overload.
My favorite part was the Martian dog. He was an adorable, slobbering, reptilian piece of CGI. His unstoppable homing device gimmick was funny and cute.
As expected for a big budget spectacle, the visual effects were top-notch. Director Andrew Stanton showed strong command of action and computer graphics. Not surprising, given his Pixar track record. I got a good sense clashing armies, aerial battles, and high speed chases amid the red planet's lone vastness.
However, Stanton's command of directing human actors was not as strong. I found the acting to be wooden. Taylor Kitsch was okay as the lead, but not exactly charming with his incessant brooding and almost-comical gruff voice. Lynn Collins was quite badass. Not that it wins over the weak spots, but kudos to the film makers for casting someone who wasn't exactly "Hollywood skinny" for the romantic lead.
John Carter was decent popcorn entertainment. With its strong action sequences and cute Mars doggie, the hate and ridicule was unjustified. But they should've stuck to their guns and called it John Carter of Mars.
2013
Formats
HDTV
Premise
Based on the Edgar Rice Burroughs book A Princess of Mars, Taylor Kitsch stars as a U.S. Civil War veteran who finds himself transported to wartorn Mars.
Liked
Martian dog.
Thoughts
Well, it didn't suck. Not a great compliment, but in a way it was given the negative buzz overload.
My favorite part was the Martian dog. He was an adorable, slobbering, reptilian piece of CGI. His unstoppable homing device gimmick was funny and cute.
As expected for a big budget spectacle, the visual effects were top-notch. Director Andrew Stanton showed strong command of action and computer graphics. Not surprising, given his Pixar track record. I got a good sense clashing armies, aerial battles, and high speed chases amid the red planet's lone vastness.
However, Stanton's command of directing human actors was not as strong. I found the acting to be wooden. Taylor Kitsch was okay as the lead, but not exactly charming with his incessant brooding and almost-comical gruff voice. Lynn Collins was quite badass. Not that it wins over the weak spots, but kudos to the film makers for casting someone who wasn't exactly "Hollywood skinny" for the romantic lead.
Other flaws: I couldn't really tell characters apart, the politics confused me, and it didn't bring anything new to the table. That last one obviously came with an asterisk, given that the original material was considered a pioneer of science-fiction, but it had not aged well.
John Carter was decent popcorn entertainment. With its strong action sequences and cute Mars doggie, the hate and ridicule was unjustified. But they should've stuck to their guns and called it John Carter of Mars.
Les Miserables
Viewed in
2012
Formats
Movie theater.
Premise
Hugh Jackman, Russell Crowe, and Anne Hathaway star in the film adaption to the famous musical.
Loved
Samantha Barks, Anne Hathaway, music.
Liked
Most of the cast and performances.
Disliked
Shot selection.
Thoughts
Growing up listening to the original Broadway cast soundtrack throughout high school choir, it was impossible for me not to like this movie.
Going in, I expected to cry. A lot. And the cast delivered in spades. Hugh Jackman was very strong as Jean Valjean. As expected, Anne Hathaway just slayed me with so much emotional "oomph". Sasha Baron Cohen and Helena Bonham Carter brought something new to the table as the Thenardiers. But stealing the show was Samantha-freaking-Barks, coming out of (basically) nowhere and absolutely floored me with her insanely sympathetic Eponine performance.
Oh yeah, as a hardcore fan of the other cast, I went bonkers that Colm-effing-Wilkinson made as cameo as the bishop. He appeared about twenty minutes in, and the waterworks would not stop after that.
Now for the flaws. I hate to keep piling on poor Russell Crowe, but his song performance was disappointingly inconsistent, lacking the flair I had hoped for. Another performance that paled in comparison to everyone else's excellence was Eddie Redgrave's, unfortunately sounding too muh like Kermit the Frog.
Once again, I hate to keep piling on, but Tom Hooper's directing was extremely questionable, especially in terms of camera use. As usual, I'm not a fan of shaky handheld, and I was definitely not a fan of it for an epic musical. Hooper often chose closeups when they should be two-shots, or the other way around. This is a movie adaptation, and the whole screen is the canvas. Some flashbacks and fantasy visions during the songs could've expanded the scope and imagination of the moment.
Also, he lingered too long on actors trying to sing for the screen. Which made some of the performances feel little silly. Not to get too technical, but in live theater, you want actors to project, but in film, you want actors to act "within the frame". Actors usually dial down when they know it's a closeup so they look natural for that shot. When you linger on that shot for a long time, the actor is forced to trade stage panache for subtlety in songs meant to be belted out with passion and pain, in weird ways. Sometimes these one-take moments worked, but most of the time they did not.
Les Miserables was an awesome, emotional, nostalgic experience for me in the theaters. It was a rush to see it come to life on the big screen, to see Jackman and Hathaway take my breath away, to see Wilkinson take me down memory lane, and to see Barks take me by surprise. But Crowe's lackluster singing and Hooper's odd choices made it far from one of the year's best.
2012
Formats
Movie theater.
Premise
Hugh Jackman, Russell Crowe, and Anne Hathaway star in the film adaption to the famous musical.
Loved
Samantha Barks, Anne Hathaway, music.
Liked
Most of the cast and performances.
Disliked
Shot selection.
Thoughts
Growing up listening to the original Broadway cast soundtrack throughout high school choir, it was impossible for me not to like this movie.
Going in, I expected to cry. A lot. And the cast delivered in spades. Hugh Jackman was very strong as Jean Valjean. As expected, Anne Hathaway just slayed me with so much emotional "oomph". Sasha Baron Cohen and Helena Bonham Carter brought something new to the table as the Thenardiers. But stealing the show was Samantha-freaking-Barks, coming out of (basically) nowhere and absolutely floored me with her insanely sympathetic Eponine performance.
Oh yeah, as a hardcore fan of the other cast, I went bonkers that Colm-effing-Wilkinson made as cameo as the bishop. He appeared about twenty minutes in, and the waterworks would not stop after that.
Now for the flaws. I hate to keep piling on poor Russell Crowe, but his song performance was disappointingly inconsistent, lacking the flair I had hoped for. Another performance that paled in comparison to everyone else's excellence was Eddie Redgrave's, unfortunately sounding too muh like Kermit the Frog.
Once again, I hate to keep piling on, but Tom Hooper's directing was extremely questionable, especially in terms of camera use. As usual, I'm not a fan of shaky handheld, and I was definitely not a fan of it for an epic musical. Hooper often chose closeups when they should be two-shots, or the other way around. This is a movie adaptation, and the whole screen is the canvas. Some flashbacks and fantasy visions during the songs could've expanded the scope and imagination of the moment.
Also, he lingered too long on actors trying to sing for the screen. Which made some of the performances feel little silly. Not to get too technical, but in live theater, you want actors to project, but in film, you want actors to act "within the frame". Actors usually dial down when they know it's a closeup so they look natural for that shot. When you linger on that shot for a long time, the actor is forced to trade stage panache for subtlety in songs meant to be belted out with passion and pain, in weird ways. Sometimes these one-take moments worked, but most of the time they did not.
Les Miserables was an awesome, emotional, nostalgic experience for me in the theaters. It was a rush to see it come to life on the big screen, to see Jackman and Hathaway take my breath away, to see Wilkinson take me down memory lane, and to see Barks take me by surprise. But Crowe's lackluster singing and Hooper's odd choices made it far from one of the year's best.
Life of Pi
Viewed in
2012
Formats
Movie theater (3D)
Premise
Based on the novel, a movie about a young Indian man who finds himself stranded in the Pacific on a rescue boat, with a tiger.
Loved
3D second act.
Disliked
Pointless opening, underwhelming payoff.
Thoughts
I liked it, but didn't love it. In fact I found it a tad overrated. And that's coming from a sucker for 3D.
As a 3D experience, it was incredibly involving. Not surprisingly, James Cameron's 3D production team was listed in the credits. Every shot was well-composed and enhanced the story-telling. I felt the claustrophobic intimacy of being trapped in a small boat with a predator, but I also felt the disheartening vastness of being alone in an ocean. My favorite moment was the school of flying fish crashing into the characters/boat/screen. Other fantastic scenes involved the tiger's reintroduction to the story and epic shots of sheer vastness of ocean.
Obviously, I remember the last time director Ang Lee forayed into big-budget, CGI-heavy territory, and that... was... interesting... This time around, it was way more enjoyable. Lee was able to get charming performances out of his cast, especially Suraj Sharma and Irrfan Khan, while harnessing visuals for an epic adventure that was not brainless. The middle section engrossed me with its harrowing tale of survival and determination, much like Castaway did.
However, the first and last act didn't work at all. Thanks to marketing, I was (metaphorically) looking at my watch at the beginning, waiting for all these non-3D-friendly interview scenes of an older main character to end. I never read the novel, so this made me wait for the shipwreck to happen as well as know that he survived. It was mildly entertaining with amusing tales of our hero as a kid, with his name and religious identities.
But when paired with the third act, it just fell apart. Suddenly I was distracted by wondering what was real/lies, as well as not really getting a huge revelation. I did not feel the connection between the religious themes of the first act, and the intense struggles in the second act. Whatever the message it was trying to say, it wasn't expressed clearly. The result was a start about god, but that got pushed aside for 3D shipwreck stuff, and a messy resolution to tie things up.
Despite my unhappiness with the bookends, the second act of Life of Pi was visually/emotionally fantastic enough to recommend. As a whole, it fell short as a "best of the best" candidate.
2012
Formats
Movie theater (3D)
Premise
Based on the novel, a movie about a young Indian man who finds himself stranded in the Pacific on a rescue boat, with a tiger.
Loved
3D second act.
Disliked
Pointless opening, underwhelming payoff.
Thoughts
I liked it, but didn't love it. In fact I found it a tad overrated. And that's coming from a sucker for 3D.
As a 3D experience, it was incredibly involving. Not surprisingly, James Cameron's 3D production team was listed in the credits. Every shot was well-composed and enhanced the story-telling. I felt the claustrophobic intimacy of being trapped in a small boat with a predator, but I also felt the disheartening vastness of being alone in an ocean. My favorite moment was the school of flying fish crashing into the characters/boat/screen. Other fantastic scenes involved the tiger's reintroduction to the story and epic shots of sheer vastness of ocean.
Obviously, I remember the last time director Ang Lee forayed into big-budget, CGI-heavy territory, and that... was... interesting... This time around, it was way more enjoyable. Lee was able to get charming performances out of his cast, especially Suraj Sharma and Irrfan Khan, while harnessing visuals for an epic adventure that was not brainless. The middle section engrossed me with its harrowing tale of survival and determination, much like Castaway did.
However, the first and last act didn't work at all. Thanks to marketing, I was (metaphorically) looking at my watch at the beginning, waiting for all these non-3D-friendly interview scenes of an older main character to end. I never read the novel, so this made me wait for the shipwreck to happen as well as know that he survived. It was mildly entertaining with amusing tales of our hero as a kid, with his name and religious identities.
But when paired with the third act, it just fell apart. Suddenly I was distracted by wondering what was real/lies, as well as not really getting a huge revelation. I did not feel the connection between the religious themes of the first act, and the intense struggles in the second act. Whatever the message it was trying to say, it wasn't expressed clearly. The result was a start about god, but that got pushed aside for 3D shipwreck stuff, and a messy resolution to tie things up.
Despite my unhappiness with the bookends, the second act of Life of Pi was visually/emotionally fantastic enough to recommend. As a whole, it fell short as a "best of the best" candidate.
Lincoln
Viewed in
2012
Formats
Movie theater.
Premise
Daniel Day-Lewis stars as President Abraham Lincoln trying to end the Civil War and pass the 13th Amendment in Steven Spielberg's biography.
Loved
Powerful acting, cinematography.
Liked
Pretty much everything else.
Thoughts
It will probably win all the awards.
As expected, the MVP was Day-Lewis. This time he dominated the screen not through intensity, but with intelligence. He owned Lincoln with a quiet, sneakily jovial performance. Meanwhile, in the best supporting department, Tommy Lee Jones almost stole the show with a juicy performance unrivaled since The Fugitive (poor David Stathairn will be overlooked). Sally Fields should also get a supporting actress nod, playing Mary Todd not just as a crazy woman, but a mother full of grief and complexity. The rest of the cast was ridiculously deep, including the likes of Joseph Gordon-Levitt, James Spader, John Hawkes, Jackie Earl Haley and whoever else's name starts with J.
Kudos to Spielberg and Tony Kushner's script for crafting a story that made passing legislation easy to follow and intense. I'm not a history buff, so it was interesting to tag along the roller coaster ride of politics back then. One really fascinating aspect was it didn't shy away from Lincoln's administration buying votes to help the cause. The entire story was so compelling that any attempt to sugarcoat or slam the characters behaviors would've done the film a diservice.
What took me be surprise was the absolutely gorgeous cinematography. Every craggy face and history-rich room was lit and shot with such thoughtful detail, giving the whole movie a painter-like quality. I will be shocked if DP Janusz Kaminski doesn't get nominated.
My only nitpicks: editing and minor characters. At times I got a little lost trying to keep track of all the representatives, each with their own motives and needs. For the story's sake, I would've omitted or combined a couple of these characters, at the expense of history accuracy. This is a movie, not a play-by-play account.
I also found the editing to be a little off. It's hard to put into words, but the timing of cuts felt out of rhythm. Also I wished they used more close ups for key moments. It was as if Spielberg was a little too conscious about keeping a distance in the story-telling.
Lincoln was a classic Oscar film. It had great moments of steller performances, emotional scenes, strong writing and directing that enthralled the audience. Spielberg was able to tell an essential, painful, messy chapter of America in a compelling way, emotionally and intellectually. Throughout the film, I was either in tears or on the verge of shouting "America, F*** Yeah!"
2012
Formats
Movie theater.
Premise
Daniel Day-Lewis stars as President Abraham Lincoln trying to end the Civil War and pass the 13th Amendment in Steven Spielberg's biography.
Loved
Powerful acting, cinematography.
Liked
Pretty much everything else.
Thoughts
It will probably win all the awards.
As expected, the MVP was Day-Lewis. This time he dominated the screen not through intensity, but with intelligence. He owned Lincoln with a quiet, sneakily jovial performance. Meanwhile, in the best supporting department, Tommy Lee Jones almost stole the show with a juicy performance unrivaled since The Fugitive (poor David Stathairn will be overlooked). Sally Fields should also get a supporting actress nod, playing Mary Todd not just as a crazy woman, but a mother full of grief and complexity. The rest of the cast was ridiculously deep, including the likes of Joseph Gordon-Levitt, James Spader, John Hawkes, Jackie Earl Haley and whoever else's name starts with J.
Kudos to Spielberg and Tony Kushner's script for crafting a story that made passing legislation easy to follow and intense. I'm not a history buff, so it was interesting to tag along the roller coaster ride of politics back then. One really fascinating aspect was it didn't shy away from Lincoln's administration buying votes to help the cause. The entire story was so compelling that any attempt to sugarcoat or slam the characters behaviors would've done the film a diservice.
What took me be surprise was the absolutely gorgeous cinematography. Every craggy face and history-rich room was lit and shot with such thoughtful detail, giving the whole movie a painter-like quality. I will be shocked if DP Janusz Kaminski doesn't get nominated.
My only nitpicks: editing and minor characters. At times I got a little lost trying to keep track of all the representatives, each with their own motives and needs. For the story's sake, I would've omitted or combined a couple of these characters, at the expense of history accuracy. This is a movie, not a play-by-play account.
I also found the editing to be a little off. It's hard to put into words, but the timing of cuts felt out of rhythm. Also I wished they used more close ups for key moments. It was as if Spielberg was a little too conscious about keeping a distance in the story-telling.
Lincoln was a classic Oscar film. It had great moments of steller performances, emotional scenes, strong writing and directing that enthralled the audience. Spielberg was able to tell an essential, painful, messy chapter of America in a compelling way, emotionally and intellectually. Throughout the film, I was either in tears or on the verge of shouting "America, F*** Yeah!"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)