Viewed in
2014
Formats
HDTV
Premise
Robert Redford stars as a man stranded on his crippled sailboat in the middle of the Indian Ocean.
Liked
Redford, fascinating premise, and patient story-telling.
Thoughts
Pretty entertaining thanks to strong acting, interesting premise, and realistic story.
Much like Castaway or Gravity (which incidentally came out the same year as this), the star power of its lead was vital. With a compelling life-or-death premise, accompanied with the challenge of essentially a dialog-less narrative, you need someone the audience will want to root for as the hero goes through the drudgery of survival. Redford, being the sole name on the cast, carried the film effortless with his craggy, yet dignified face and ageless presence.
I also liked that the plot was very believable, with a lot of waiting in the sun. The film makers let the story unfold, without the pressure of forcing something "exciting" in every scene. In between the couple of storm sequences, the movie took its time to show the minutiae and resourcefulness required to survive, such as him salvaging his ship as it slowly sank, or using navigation tools to plot his path into shipping lanes. His difficulties in hailing a ship were fascinating and heart-breaking. The ambiguous ending was a nice touch to his journey.
It was great to see a living legend like Redford, back onscreen, still bringing his A-game, especially inhabiting an interesting challenge of a movie like this. Had it been released one year early/later, All is Lost might've gotten more attention, which it definitely deserved.
Showing posts with label 2013. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 2013. Show all posts
American Hustle
Viewed in
2013
Formats
Movie theater.
Premise
Christian Bale, Amy Adams, Bradley Cooper, Jeremy Renner, and Jennifer Lawrence star in a story of a 1970's con man forced to help the FBI take down corrupt politicians.
Loved
Acting, 1970's hair, Adams' cleavage, Bale's gut, Louis C.K.'s subplot.
Liked
Visual flair, watching sleazeballs out-conning each other, Adams-versus-Lawrence scene.
Disliked
Confusing plot, underwhelming ending, Cooper's casting.
Thoughts
Man, was this a lot of fun.
There was a great panache that celebrated the ridiculousness of the 1970's glamour, from music to outfits, to that gorgeous, gorgeous hair. Seriously, there needed to be an award for best movie hair. Every character was fascinating to look at. Bale, known for taking on physically punishing roles, beat his sex appeal to a pulp with a combover and gigantic gut. But the scene-stealer was Adams' where-did-that-come-from-?! cleavage.
With all this cinematic candy, it was not surprise that the film was crammed with indulgent shots, which occasionally slowed the momentum, like the disco scene.
Oh yeah, the acting was very good too. It was a joy to sit back and watch a bunch of sleazebags out-conning each other. Nothing will ever match Robert DeNiro-Al Pacino showdown from Heat, but the Amy Adams-Jennifer Lawrence dance club encounter came pretty darn close. Louis C.K.'s subplot about his fishing story was inspired irreverence. Lastly, the cameo was obvious but brilliant at the same time.
I would agree that director David O. Russell needed to add more substance to the overflowing style. While the con games were fun, I sometimes couldn't tell who had the upper hand in every situation. By the end, I was confused enough to find the climax unexciting.
Another issue was Cooper as the wild FBI agent. When he was a douchebag or idiot, Cooper knocked it out of the park hilariously, but I didn't buy into his serious/smart side. So half of the time, he seemed oddly miscast.
American Hustle's visual flair was undeniably great, and battle of the wits was tantalizing in the moment. The problem was after the credits rolled, I wondered if any of the characters actually had a brain. Considering its overrated accolades, keep your expectations lower so you won't feel scammed.
2013
Formats
Movie theater.
Premise
Christian Bale, Amy Adams, Bradley Cooper, Jeremy Renner, and Jennifer Lawrence star in a story of a 1970's con man forced to help the FBI take down corrupt politicians.
Loved
Acting, 1970's hair, Adams' cleavage, Bale's gut, Louis C.K.'s subplot.
Liked
Visual flair, watching sleazeballs out-conning each other, Adams-versus-Lawrence scene.
Disliked
Confusing plot, underwhelming ending, Cooper's casting.
Thoughts
Man, was this a lot of fun.
There was a great panache that celebrated the ridiculousness of the 1970's glamour, from music to outfits, to that gorgeous, gorgeous hair. Seriously, there needed to be an award for best movie hair. Every character was fascinating to look at. Bale, known for taking on physically punishing roles, beat his sex appeal to a pulp with a combover and gigantic gut. But the scene-stealer was Adams' where-did-that-come-from-?! cleavage.
With all this cinematic candy, it was not surprise that the film was crammed with indulgent shots, which occasionally slowed the momentum, like the disco scene.
Oh yeah, the acting was very good too. It was a joy to sit back and watch a bunch of sleazebags out-conning each other. Nothing will ever match Robert DeNiro-Al Pacino showdown from Heat, but the Amy Adams-Jennifer Lawrence dance club encounter came pretty darn close. Louis C.K.'s subplot about his fishing story was inspired irreverence. Lastly, the cameo was obvious but brilliant at the same time.
I would agree that director David O. Russell needed to add more substance to the overflowing style. While the con games were fun, I sometimes couldn't tell who had the upper hand in every situation. By the end, I was confused enough to find the climax unexciting.
Another issue was Cooper as the wild FBI agent. When he was a douchebag or idiot, Cooper knocked it out of the park hilariously, but I didn't buy into his serious/smart side. So half of the time, he seemed oddly miscast.
American Hustle's visual flair was undeniably great, and battle of the wits was tantalizing in the moment. The problem was after the credits rolled, I wondered if any of the characters actually had a brain. Considering its overrated accolades, keep your expectations lower so you won't feel scammed.
Anchorman 2: The Legend Continues
Viewed in
2013
Formats
Movie theater.
Premise
In the sequel, Ron Burgundy takes on cable news of the 1990-2000's.
Liked
Massive cameos.
Disliked
Not as funny as the original.
Thoughts
With the crazy amount of marketing and publicity, it was inevitable that the movie itself would be a letdown.
Probably the best part was the countless cameos, from Harrison Ford to Kanye West to John C. Reilly.
However, the entire film was just a nostalgic remix of Anchorman; the only thing missing was "Afternoon Delight". While it was fun to see Burgundy clueless, Brick Tamland's IQ dropping every minute, and even another full-scale news team battle royale, none of them could create big laughs like the original.
I think the reason was because the first film was built around the theme of sexism, which fueled all the characters' actions and comedic tensions. Meanwhile, the sequel's plot was a Forrest Gump of 24-hour cable news. They tried to mock it, but to paraphrase Lewis Black, it's hard to make jokes when the headlines are the punchlines.
Anchorman 2: The Legend Continues was a semi-fun stroll down memory lane, but with its high expectations and so-so writing, it only got chuckles and smirks, instead of side-splitting laughs and timeless quotes.
2013
Formats
Movie theater.
Premise
In the sequel, Ron Burgundy takes on cable news of the 1990-2000's.
Liked
Massive cameos.
Disliked
Not as funny as the original.
Thoughts
With the crazy amount of marketing and publicity, it was inevitable that the movie itself would be a letdown.
Probably the best part was the countless cameos, from Harrison Ford to Kanye West to John C. Reilly.
However, the entire film was just a nostalgic remix of Anchorman; the only thing missing was "Afternoon Delight". While it was fun to see Burgundy clueless, Brick Tamland's IQ dropping every minute, and even another full-scale news team battle royale, none of them could create big laughs like the original.
I think the reason was because the first film was built around the theme of sexism, which fueled all the characters' actions and comedic tensions. Meanwhile, the sequel's plot was a Forrest Gump of 24-hour cable news. They tried to mock it, but to paraphrase Lewis Black, it's hard to make jokes when the headlines are the punchlines.
Anchorman 2: The Legend Continues was a semi-fun stroll down memory lane, but with its high expectations and so-so writing, it only got chuckles and smirks, instead of side-splitting laughs and timeless quotes.
Before Midnight
Viewed in
2013
Formats
Movie theater.
Premise
We revisit Ethan Hawke and Julie Delpy nine years later, where we find them together with children in Europe.
Loved
Pretty much everything.
Hated
That I'll have to wait another nine years to see the next chapter.
Thoughts
I adore this film series (it sounds too unartistic to call it franchise). It's been a long time since I've seen Before Sunrise and Before Sunset, but this one might be my favorite. Also, I might've missed some poignant shout outs to the first two films.
Much in the vein of the previous titles, it's mumblecore-like, but infinitely better because of character, themes, and execution. Every conversation/argument either pushed their relationship, revealed character, or explored the theme of love's impermanence. Sometimes it would do all three in intriguing ways.
Because what the couple talked about was full of truth and thought, the elongated one-take conversations transcended from gimmick to brilliance. Director Richard Linklater and crew's technical execution was marvelous, creating a stimulating, intimate window into Hawke and Delpy's chemistry as they flirt, bicker, reminisce, cross-examine, and push each other.
My favorite scene was the drive back from the airport. It deftly gave the audience backstory, set up complications, peeled layers off the leads, and delivered gut-busting parental slice-of-life as they argued whether to turn back around to a missed tourist stop because their daughters were napping.
Another fantastic part was the dinner scene with friends, as couples of different generations opened up about their various stages of romance in funny and heart-breaking ways.
But it's all about the hotel scene. First off, it's inspiring to watch a 40-ish woman in a non-Hollywood physique baring her body and soul to serve the story. What a lovely actress. But the true magic of the hotel scene was how genuine, honest, hilarious, painful, and hypnotizing it was to watch two flawed lovers fight. I've never been in a complicated-enough relationship to truly relate, but it sure felt like the real thing, as momentum shifted back-and-forth and unabated emotions crashed like a tidal waves. That moment as Hawke poured win. Oof.
While not for everyone, Before Midnight was brilliant. Thought-provoking, heart-tugging, and technically sublime. I wished I could time-jump nine years so I could see what was in store for these unforgettable characters in the next stage of their lives. It's a clear frontrunner for my favorite movie of the 2013.
2013
Formats
Movie theater.
Premise
We revisit Ethan Hawke and Julie Delpy nine years later, where we find them together with children in Europe.
Loved
Pretty much everything.
Hated
That I'll have to wait another nine years to see the next chapter.
Thoughts
I adore this film series (it sounds too unartistic to call it franchise). It's been a long time since I've seen Before Sunrise and Before Sunset, but this one might be my favorite. Also, I might've missed some poignant shout outs to the first two films.
Much in the vein of the previous titles, it's mumblecore-like, but infinitely better because of character, themes, and execution. Every conversation/argument either pushed their relationship, revealed character, or explored the theme of love's impermanence. Sometimes it would do all three in intriguing ways.
Because what the couple talked about was full of truth and thought, the elongated one-take conversations transcended from gimmick to brilliance. Director Richard Linklater and crew's technical execution was marvelous, creating a stimulating, intimate window into Hawke and Delpy's chemistry as they flirt, bicker, reminisce, cross-examine, and push each other.
My favorite scene was the drive back from the airport. It deftly gave the audience backstory, set up complications, peeled layers off the leads, and delivered gut-busting parental slice-of-life as they argued whether to turn back around to a missed tourist stop because their daughters were napping.
Another fantastic part was the dinner scene with friends, as couples of different generations opened up about their various stages of romance in funny and heart-breaking ways.
But it's all about the hotel scene. First off, it's inspiring to watch a 40-ish woman in a non-Hollywood physique baring her body and soul to serve the story. What a lovely actress. But the true magic of the hotel scene was how genuine, honest, hilarious, painful, and hypnotizing it was to watch two flawed lovers fight. I've never been in a complicated-enough relationship to truly relate, but it sure felt like the real thing, as momentum shifted back-and-forth and unabated emotions crashed like a tidal waves. That moment as Hawke poured win. Oof.
While not for everyone, Before Midnight was brilliant. Thought-provoking, heart-tugging, and technically sublime. I wished I could time-jump nine years so I could see what was in store for these unforgettable characters in the next stage of their lives. It's a clear frontrunner for my favorite movie of the 2013.
Behind the Candelabra
Viewed in
2014
Formats
HDTV
Premise
Michael Douglas and Matt Damon star as Liberace and (one of his many) lover Scott Thorson, respectively.
Loved
Rob Lowe's honked up face.
Liked
Performances, art design.
Disliked
Predictable story.
Thoughts
Pretty enjoyable biography that didn't succumb to hero-worshipping.
I'm not familiar with Liberace, aside from obvious stuff, so it was an interesting peak into what he and his world was like. Douglas was believable as the flamboyant performer. Full of disarming charm who will sucker-punch you with his vanity and mind games.
His dark side was fascinating and disturbing, especially his need to remake his lovers/proteges into his image. In addition, so was the ridiculous material extravagance, which seemed to permeate the 1970's and every scene.
Matt Damon was sympathetic as Thorson, as his character succumbed to addiction and replacement, and looked great shirtless. Dan Aykroyd had some funny moments as Liberace's manager. So did Debbie Reynolds as his critical immigrant mother. But the scene-stealer belonged to Rob Lowe's outrageous, hilarious, hideous face as the plastic surgeon. Looking like a shrink-wrapped Kato Kaelin, I could not look away.
While the performances, visuals, and music were interesting, the story wasn't. The foreshadowing was laid on a bit thick, making the demise of the couple's relationship easy to spot.
Overall, Behind the Candelabra was pretty entertaining that didn't shy away from Liberace's blemishes.
2014
Formats
HDTV
Premise
Michael Douglas and Matt Damon star as Liberace and (one of his many) lover Scott Thorson, respectively.
Loved
Rob Lowe's honked up face.
Liked
Performances, art design.
Disliked
Predictable story.
Thoughts
Pretty enjoyable biography that didn't succumb to hero-worshipping.
I'm not familiar with Liberace, aside from obvious stuff, so it was an interesting peak into what he and his world was like. Douglas was believable as the flamboyant performer. Full of disarming charm who will sucker-punch you with his vanity and mind games.
His dark side was fascinating and disturbing, especially his need to remake his lovers/proteges into his image. In addition, so was the ridiculous material extravagance, which seemed to permeate the 1970's and every scene.
Matt Damon was sympathetic as Thorson, as his character succumbed to addiction and replacement, and looked great shirtless. Dan Aykroyd had some funny moments as Liberace's manager. So did Debbie Reynolds as his critical immigrant mother. But the scene-stealer belonged to Rob Lowe's outrageous, hilarious, hideous face as the plastic surgeon. Looking like a shrink-wrapped Kato Kaelin, I could not look away.
While the performances, visuals, and music were interesting, the story wasn't. The foreshadowing was laid on a bit thick, making the demise of the couple's relationship easy to spot.
Overall, Behind the Candelabra was pretty entertaining that didn't shy away from Liberace's blemishes.
Blue Jasmine
Viewed in
2014
Formats
HDTV
Premise
Cate Blanchett stars as a formerly-rich widow forced to live with her poorer sister after her crooked husband left her destitute. Written and directed by Woody Allen.
Liked
Charming performances, comedic messiness in second act.
Thoughts
Another enjoyable, and slightly unique, entry from Allen.
Blanchett definitely deserved all the praise. She brought her A-plus game in an unforgettable performance blending madness and snobbery that was inspired and evoked many laughs from me. Sally Hawkins, playing her exasperated sister, was also very deserving of her nomination. Meanwhile, the rest of the movie was littered with very fun performances from all sorts of dudes, from Bobby Cannavale, Andrew Dice Clay(!), Louis C.K., and Alec Baldwin (perfectly cast as the immoral husband).
My favorite section was the middle, as Blanchett's vapid, conceited outlook on men rubbed off on Hawkins, leading to a very humorous tangle of webs of lies, infidelity, and false impressions. I adored the scene of Blanchett yammering on about herself while her sister's kids watched dumbfounded.
While some aspects of this movie was very Woody Allen-esque, like the parade of jazz songs, it actually wasn't as chatterboxey as some of his previous works. I also appreciated that he went out of his comfort zone by leaving the Big Apple, setting the story in San Francisco. But why was everyone in the Bay Area talking in New York accents?
There were other issues with the movie. Dice Clay's impact on the third act was a bit too convenient of a reveal. And while I enjoyed her performance, I usually find it hard to enjoy movies as a whole where the main character doesn't learn their lessons.
Overall, Blue Jasmine succeeded not just on Blanchett's acclaimed acting, but also on the surrounding cast, and a fun second act.
2014
Formats
HDTV
Premise
Cate Blanchett stars as a formerly-rich widow forced to live with her poorer sister after her crooked husband left her destitute. Written and directed by Woody Allen.
Liked
Charming performances, comedic messiness in second act.
Thoughts
Another enjoyable, and slightly unique, entry from Allen.
Blanchett definitely deserved all the praise. She brought her A-plus game in an unforgettable performance blending madness and snobbery that was inspired and evoked many laughs from me. Sally Hawkins, playing her exasperated sister, was also very deserving of her nomination. Meanwhile, the rest of the movie was littered with very fun performances from all sorts of dudes, from Bobby Cannavale, Andrew Dice Clay(!), Louis C.K., and Alec Baldwin (perfectly cast as the immoral husband).
My favorite section was the middle, as Blanchett's vapid, conceited outlook on men rubbed off on Hawkins, leading to a very humorous tangle of webs of lies, infidelity, and false impressions. I adored the scene of Blanchett yammering on about herself while her sister's kids watched dumbfounded.
While some aspects of this movie was very Woody Allen-esque, like the parade of jazz songs, it actually wasn't as chatterboxey as some of his previous works. I also appreciated that he went out of his comfort zone by leaving the Big Apple, setting the story in San Francisco. But why was everyone in the Bay Area talking in New York accents?
There were other issues with the movie. Dice Clay's impact on the third act was a bit too convenient of a reveal. And while I enjoyed her performance, I usually find it hard to enjoy movies as a whole where the main character doesn't learn their lessons.
Overall, Blue Jasmine succeeded not just on Blanchett's acclaimed acting, but also on the surrounding cast, and a fun second act.
Captain Phillips
Viewed in
2014
Formats
HDTV.
Premise
Based on a true story, Tom Hanks stars as an American captain of a cargo ship that is hijacked by Somali pirates.
Loved
Hanks' performance, Barkhad Abdi, cat-and-mouse plot.
Liked
Clarity in directing.
Disliked
Handheld cameras.
Thoughts
When I first saw the trailer, I thought this would be the typical "get this guy an Oscar!" movie, where the lead actor shined, and the rest of it would be average. That sound you hear is me eating crow.
Don't get me wrong, Tom Hanks was incredible. He was instantly likable and believably intelligent. But where he truly earned his paycheck was the last ten minutes, when he just hit the perfect notes of emotions, resulting in an unparalleled, powerful catharsis. It was a virtuoso performance that frankly should've been nominated for Best Actor.
As mentioned, Hanks was not the only star of the film. Newcomer Abdi was fantastic as the lead pirate, Muse. Not only did he have a unique face, but his presence put him on equal footing with Hanks' character. He was as cunning and resourceful and determined to succeed. In fact, the title of just Captain Phillips does injustice to the two opposing captains.
This compelling battle of the brains and strategy wouldn't have been fully realized without strong writing from Billy Ray and lucid directing from Paul Greengrass. The suspenseful action was easy to understand, Muse's crew were easily distinguishable, and you really felt the seesaw struggle for control of the upper hand and for command of the ship. At the same time, the story was an intricate, fascinating look into the how's of modern piracy, piracy-defense tactics, and Navy/SEAL protocols.
All this technique, thought, and detail hooked me into the harrowing tale, and the fantastic performances uppercutted me with a great emotional payoff.
If I had to nitpick, it would be the incessant handheld camera. It worked great for the action sequences, but they needed to calm down during the quiet moments of a movie. It wasn't nauseating as some other movies, and I could understand most of the scenes took place on the ocean, but still.
Also, I thought the score was a bit too bwongy for the film, and lo and behold, Hans Zimmer was given special thanks in the credits. Lastly, it was amusing to hear that Bill Simmons thought Hanks' Boston accent was so forced that it ruined his viewing experience. I, on the other hand, never thought twice about the accent.
Captain Phillips was one of the year's best, thanks to clear-cut writing and directing, powerful acting, especially Abdi and Hanks, culminating in an unforgettable finish.
2014
Formats
HDTV.
Premise
Based on a true story, Tom Hanks stars as an American captain of a cargo ship that is hijacked by Somali pirates.
Loved
Hanks' performance, Barkhad Abdi, cat-and-mouse plot.
Liked
Clarity in directing.
Disliked
Handheld cameras.
Thoughts
When I first saw the trailer, I thought this would be the typical "get this guy an Oscar!" movie, where the lead actor shined, and the rest of it would be average. That sound you hear is me eating crow.
Don't get me wrong, Tom Hanks was incredible. He was instantly likable and believably intelligent. But where he truly earned his paycheck was the last ten minutes, when he just hit the perfect notes of emotions, resulting in an unparalleled, powerful catharsis. It was a virtuoso performance that frankly should've been nominated for Best Actor.
As mentioned, Hanks was not the only star of the film. Newcomer Abdi was fantastic as the lead pirate, Muse. Not only did he have a unique face, but his presence put him on equal footing with Hanks' character. He was as cunning and resourceful and determined to succeed. In fact, the title of just Captain Phillips does injustice to the two opposing captains.
This compelling battle of the brains and strategy wouldn't have been fully realized without strong writing from Billy Ray and lucid directing from Paul Greengrass. The suspenseful action was easy to understand, Muse's crew were easily distinguishable, and you really felt the seesaw struggle for control of the upper hand and for command of the ship. At the same time, the story was an intricate, fascinating look into the how's of modern piracy, piracy-defense tactics, and Navy/SEAL protocols.
All this technique, thought, and detail hooked me into the harrowing tale, and the fantastic performances uppercutted me with a great emotional payoff.
If I had to nitpick, it would be the incessant handheld camera. It worked great for the action sequences, but they needed to calm down during the quiet moments of a movie. It wasn't nauseating as some other movies, and I could understand most of the scenes took place on the ocean, but still.
Also, I thought the score was a bit too bwongy for the film, and lo and behold, Hans Zimmer was given special thanks in the credits. Lastly, it was amusing to hear that Bill Simmons thought Hanks' Boston accent was so forced that it ruined his viewing experience. I, on the other hand, never thought twice about the accent.
Captain Phillips was one of the year's best, thanks to clear-cut writing and directing, powerful acting, especially Abdi and Hanks, culminating in an unforgettable finish.
Despicable Me 2
Viewed in
2013
Formats
Movie theater.
Premise
Gru is recruited by the good guys to go undercover in a shopping mall.
Loved
Minions. Gru's adorable daughters.
Liked
Non-stop comedy.
Thoughts
A solid sequel that delivered big time on laughs.
Much like the first one, it was chock full of cartoony slapstick violence that harkened back to the Looney Tunes days, with a bit of James Bond parody, and a pinch of pop culture gags. Pretty much every joke hit, from fart guns to spy fails to "annoying" kid behavior to Minion madness. Each character got their moment of comedy that was either zany or spot-on.
There were at least three great moments that brought me to tears. One was Gru's camera belt that resulted in ridiculous pelvic thrusts, another was the Minions' fire alarm where an axe-wielding firefighter wantonly ploughs through everything. But the shout out to a certain 1990's music group put the Backstreet Boys cameo in This is the End to shame, and actually made my stomach hurt from laughter.
Look, the Minions were easily the most identifiable/marketable characters, and the film makers could've easily fallen into the trap of just having them hijack the sequel. Instead, they made an effort in not going hog-wild, keeping the focus on Gru, his love for his daughters, his new love interest, and spying. Gru remained incredibly likable as a tamed antihero, and his daughters remained as the heart of the franchise, with very funny subplots, though the middle child (much like real life) got the least attention.
The key word here was "made an effort". Underneath the zany jokes and adorableness, the plot wasn't really much. It lacked character arc and the mystery lacked intrigue. Having said that, it didn't really bother me, as the sheer amount of humor and charm kept me entertained throughout.
One thing that bummed me out was that I didn't get to see this in 3D. It was obvious that they'd done a much better job of giving the visuals even more juice with gravity-defying cinematography and gratuitous in-your-face shots.
But the bigger bummer (personally) was that it set the bar really high for the Minions spinoff and the rumored Raving Rabbids movie. As a huge fan of the twisted video game franchise, I can already see people calling those demented bunnies a ripoff of the yellow pills of slapstick, even though the Rabbids existed (in video game form) years before.
Despicable Me 2 was a joy to watch. I had many laughs and squees from the grumpy Gru, adorable girls, and maniacal Minions. I highly recommend it for its offbeat cartoony comedy and better-rendered zombie scenes than World War Z.
2013
Formats
Movie theater.
Premise
Gru is recruited by the good guys to go undercover in a shopping mall.
Loved
Minions. Gru's adorable daughters.
Liked
Non-stop comedy.
Thoughts
A solid sequel that delivered big time on laughs.
Much like the first one, it was chock full of cartoony slapstick violence that harkened back to the Looney Tunes days, with a bit of James Bond parody, and a pinch of pop culture gags. Pretty much every joke hit, from fart guns to spy fails to "annoying" kid behavior to Minion madness. Each character got their moment of comedy that was either zany or spot-on.
There were at least three great moments that brought me to tears. One was Gru's camera belt that resulted in ridiculous pelvic thrusts, another was the Minions' fire alarm where an axe-wielding firefighter wantonly ploughs through everything. But the shout out to a certain 1990's music group put the Backstreet Boys cameo in This is the End to shame, and actually made my stomach hurt from laughter.
Look, the Minions were easily the most identifiable/marketable characters, and the film makers could've easily fallen into the trap of just having them hijack the sequel. Instead, they made an effort in not going hog-wild, keeping the focus on Gru, his love for his daughters, his new love interest, and spying. Gru remained incredibly likable as a tamed antihero, and his daughters remained as the heart of the franchise, with very funny subplots, though the middle child (much like real life) got the least attention.
The key word here was "made an effort". Underneath the zany jokes and adorableness, the plot wasn't really much. It lacked character arc and the mystery lacked intrigue. Having said that, it didn't really bother me, as the sheer amount of humor and charm kept me entertained throughout.
One thing that bummed me out was that I didn't get to see this in 3D. It was obvious that they'd done a much better job of giving the visuals even more juice with gravity-defying cinematography and gratuitous in-your-face shots.
But the bigger bummer (personally) was that it set the bar really high for the Minions spinoff and the rumored Raving Rabbids movie. As a huge fan of the twisted video game franchise, I can already see people calling those demented bunnies a ripoff of the yellow pills of slapstick, even though the Rabbids existed (in video game form) years before.
Despicable Me 2 was a joy to watch. I had many laughs and squees from the grumpy Gru, adorable girls, and maniacal Minions. I highly recommend it for its offbeat cartoony comedy and better-rendered zombie scenes than World War Z.
The Family
Viewed in
2013.
Formats
Movie theater.
Premise
Robert DeNiro and Michelle Pfeiffer are mafia-turned-snitch parents whose witness protection program takes them and their kids to a small town in France.
Liked
Tony Shalhoub.
Disliked
Pretty much everything else.
Thoughts
My one word review: *yawn*.
The only good part was seeing Tony Shalhoub as an evil hitman, mugging every scene with a menacing grin.
I think what made it a yawnfest was that it tried too hard to be too many things. There was mobster suspense in the form of Shalhoub hunting them down, family-driven drama in the form of kids trying to fit in, coming-of-age in the form of the daughter falling in love for the first time, dark comedy in the form of Pfeiffer's anger management, and action flick in the form of obligatory shootout finale. All these shallow themes and nowhere subplots just failed on all ends.
Unless you really really love Shalhoub, stay away from this bore of a movie. Shockingly, The Family came from Luc Besson, who at the very least, usually creates compelling characters.
2013.
Formats
Movie theater.
Premise
Robert DeNiro and Michelle Pfeiffer are mafia-turned-snitch parents whose witness protection program takes them and their kids to a small town in France.
Liked
Tony Shalhoub.
Disliked
Pretty much everything else.
Thoughts
My one word review: *yawn*.
The only good part was seeing Tony Shalhoub as an evil hitman, mugging every scene with a menacing grin.
I think what made it a yawnfest was that it tried too hard to be too many things. There was mobster suspense in the form of Shalhoub hunting them down, family-driven drama in the form of kids trying to fit in, coming-of-age in the form of the daughter falling in love for the first time, dark comedy in the form of Pfeiffer's anger management, and action flick in the form of obligatory shootout finale. All these shallow themes and nowhere subplots just failed on all ends.
Unless you really really love Shalhoub, stay away from this bore of a movie. Shockingly, The Family came from Luc Besson, who at the very least, usually creates compelling characters.
Fast & Furious 6
Viewed in
2013
Formats
Movie theater.
Premise
The Rock reunites Vin Diesel, Paul Walker and the gang to take down international mercenaries.
Loved
Laugh out loud movie logic.
Liked
The cast, Tyrese' comedy skills.
Thoughts
Big, loud, and dumb, and that's way I like it.
Let's start with the awesomely bad physics, mostly during "vehicular warfare" (TM Ludacris) scenes. There were so many people jumping from one moving vehicle to another from great heights with precision that it made Luke's Death Star exhaust port shot look like a slam dunk. My favorite was Diesel launching himself across a freeway to catch airborne Michelle Rodriguez as she was launched by a tank, they land perfectly onto a different car, merely breaking cracking the windshield without whiplash/concussion/broken bones.
Yes, I mentioned a tank, which was in the trailer, but it was more than that. Much like how the big-ass plane gave birth to a muscle car in the trailers, a military semi gave birth to said tank. They must have fantastic roads in Europe, because their bridges, hundreds of feet over a ravine, was able to hold a 40-ton tank wrecking havoc. Not to mention Diesel's crew trying to use another car as an anchor to drop the tank off the bridge. Oh, and their airport runways must be 25 miles long because that jet spent a long time trying to take off while dragging five cars on its wings.
If all this sounds like a fun time, and a great reminder of bad 1980's and 1990's action flicks, this will satiate. I didn't even have to elaborate on Diesel-Rock's modified Doomsday Device move, or the fact that Diesel spoke like every sentence belonged in a Michael Bay movie trailer. I was surprised by Tyrese Gibson's comedy chops, he pretty much had all the (intentionally) funny moments.
I think I liked Fast 5 just a tad better because the action sequences felt more stunt-oriented, and less CGI-ish than Fast & Furious 6. But really, there's no point in much analysis while Gina Carano's triangle-choking dudes, the writers played the amnesia card (oops, spoilers), and vehicles are giving birth.
2013
Formats
Movie theater.
Premise
The Rock reunites Vin Diesel, Paul Walker and the gang to take down international mercenaries.
Loved
Laugh out loud movie logic.
Liked
The cast, Tyrese' comedy skills.
Thoughts
Big, loud, and dumb, and that's way I like it.
Let's start with the awesomely bad physics, mostly during "vehicular warfare" (TM Ludacris) scenes. There were so many people jumping from one moving vehicle to another from great heights with precision that it made Luke's Death Star exhaust port shot look like a slam dunk. My favorite was Diesel launching himself across a freeway to catch airborne Michelle Rodriguez as she was launched by a tank, they land perfectly onto a different car, merely breaking cracking the windshield without whiplash/concussion/broken bones.
Yes, I mentioned a tank, which was in the trailer, but it was more than that. Much like how the big-ass plane gave birth to a muscle car in the trailers, a military semi gave birth to said tank. They must have fantastic roads in Europe, because their bridges, hundreds of feet over a ravine, was able to hold a 40-ton tank wrecking havoc. Not to mention Diesel's crew trying to use another car as an anchor to drop the tank off the bridge. Oh, and their airport runways must be 25 miles long because that jet spent a long time trying to take off while dragging five cars on its wings.
If all this sounds like a fun time, and a great reminder of bad 1980's and 1990's action flicks, this will satiate. I didn't even have to elaborate on Diesel-Rock's modified Doomsday Device move, or the fact that Diesel spoke like every sentence belonged in a Michael Bay movie trailer. I was surprised by Tyrese Gibson's comedy chops, he pretty much had all the (intentionally) funny moments.
I think I liked Fast 5 just a tad better because the action sequences felt more stunt-oriented, and less CGI-ish than Fast & Furious 6. But really, there's no point in much analysis while Gina Carano's triangle-choking dudes, the writers played the amnesia card (oops, spoilers), and vehicles are giving birth.
Frozen
Viewed in
2014 (2)
Formats
Movie theater, HDTV
Premise
A Disney musical about two royal sisters (one with icy powers), and trouble arises when one is crowned queen and the other falls in love.
Loved
"Let It Go", "Do You Want to Build a Snowman?", wintery visuals.
Liked
Themes of sisterhood, coming of age, twists on Disney princess tropes.
Thoughts
This movie definitely took me by surprise, even with all the hype from my friends.
It's been a long time since I've seen a Disney musical with memorable songs, and this had two that gave me goosebumps and feelings. "Let It Go" and "Do You Want to Build a Snowman?" were catchy, haunting, and great character reveals. The former a powerful, multi-layered celebration of self-love and womanhood. The latter a bittersweet allegory of unspoken sibling relationships.
Meanwhile, the illustrators, animators, computer graphics created a beauteous wonderland. I thought snow would be boring, but these artists proved me wrong, sculpting ice and snow as glittery, fluffy, aged, majestic, oppressive, and threatening.
The heart of the movie belonged to the two sisters. Not only was it cool that the two leads were females, but both were fleshed-out characters, with fully-realized needs, flaws, fears, and complexity. Despite the fantasy universe they inhabited, their relationship was universal.
I was definitely transported to a magical place in the first third. The rest of the film was pretty strong, especially as the plot eventually turned more cliches upside-down, and Olaf happened. In a vacuum, I find Josh Gad's voice annoying. But as the talking snowman, his earnest performance, and morbidly hilarious cluelessness of bodily harm and melting quickly won me over. Also, the rock trolls were super-cute.
After wracking my brain, I don't know why I didn't love the last two-thirds of the movie, even though it was still very funny, full of heart, contained surprising writing, and was aesthetically dazzling. Maybe the first third was so magical, it just couldn't sustain itself.
Another nitpick: I thought Idina Menzel's performance of "Let It Go" was underwhelming. Shocking because it was goosebumpy, and she clearly has the chops. The song had such a strong theme of liberation, that it really needed to belted out, and instead, her voice was surprising restraint. I don't know if it was more director or actor's fault.
It was shocking how poor the marketing was for Frozen. It was non-existent, and the movie poster was confusing (Really? A decapitated Olaf as your centerpiece?!). I was glad word-of-mouth convinced me to watch this gorgeous, thoughtful, creative, well-paced, haunting, empowering, near-masterpiece.
Random
I loved the "boogers disclaimer" in the credits. But what the heck was the credit for "Caffeination"?
People have pointed out the similarities between Marshmallow and Star Wars Rancor. My sister pointed out the similarities between Sven and Chewbacca, including their grunts.
2014 (2)
Formats
Movie theater, HDTV
Premise
A Disney musical about two royal sisters (one with icy powers), and trouble arises when one is crowned queen and the other falls in love.
Loved
"Let It Go", "Do You Want to Build a Snowman?", wintery visuals.
Liked
Themes of sisterhood, coming of age, twists on Disney princess tropes.
Thoughts
This movie definitely took me by surprise, even with all the hype from my friends.
It's been a long time since I've seen a Disney musical with memorable songs, and this had two that gave me goosebumps and feelings. "Let It Go" and "Do You Want to Build a Snowman?" were catchy, haunting, and great character reveals. The former a powerful, multi-layered celebration of self-love and womanhood. The latter a bittersweet allegory of unspoken sibling relationships.
Meanwhile, the illustrators, animators, computer graphics created a beauteous wonderland. I thought snow would be boring, but these artists proved me wrong, sculpting ice and snow as glittery, fluffy, aged, majestic, oppressive, and threatening.
The heart of the movie belonged to the two sisters. Not only was it cool that the two leads were females, but both were fleshed-out characters, with fully-realized needs, flaws, fears, and complexity. Despite the fantasy universe they inhabited, their relationship was universal.
I was definitely transported to a magical place in the first third. The rest of the film was pretty strong, especially as the plot eventually turned more cliches upside-down, and Olaf happened. In a vacuum, I find Josh Gad's voice annoying. But as the talking snowman, his earnest performance, and morbidly hilarious cluelessness of bodily harm and melting quickly won me over. Also, the rock trolls were super-cute.
After wracking my brain, I don't know why I didn't love the last two-thirds of the movie, even though it was still very funny, full of heart, contained surprising writing, and was aesthetically dazzling. Maybe the first third was so magical, it just couldn't sustain itself.
Another nitpick: I thought Idina Menzel's performance of "Let It Go" was underwhelming. Shocking because it was goosebumpy, and she clearly has the chops. The song had such a strong theme of liberation, that it really needed to belted out, and instead, her voice was surprising restraint. I don't know if it was more director or actor's fault.
It was shocking how poor the marketing was for Frozen. It was non-existent, and the movie poster was confusing (Really? A decapitated Olaf as your centerpiece?!). I was glad word-of-mouth convinced me to watch this gorgeous, thoughtful, creative, well-paced, haunting, empowering, near-masterpiece.
Random
I loved the "boogers disclaimer" in the credits. But what the heck was the credit for "Caffeination"?
People have pointed out the similarities between Marshmallow and Star Wars Rancor. My sister pointed out the similarities between Sven and Chewbacca, including their grunts.
Gravity
Viewed in
2013 (2)
Formats
Real 3D theater, IMAX 3D theater.
Premise
Sandra Bullock and George Clooney star as NASA astronauts who must find a way back to Earth after their space shuttle is destroyed by deadly debris. Directed by Alfonso Cuaron.
Loved
Roller coaster sensory overload, Bullock, Cuaron's stupendous "one take" scenes, immersive 3D, the first two-thirds of the film.
Liked
Out-of-this-world visuals and physics, Clooney.
Thoughts
Definitely deserved to be seen on the biggest, best, 3D theater.
Pretty much from the outset, I was hooked. Cuaron's "one take" scenes really helped make it feel like I was there with the characters as disaster struck, often-times in real-time. Unlike his masterpiece, Children of Men, which had a handful of one-takers, this whole feature was a series of them. Oddly enough, there were so prevalent, and they were so lengthy/involving, it made the cuts extremely jarring.
For the most part, the overuse of this style never felt distracting, instead they felt integral to the suspense and jacked-up intensity. Cuaron knew how to make use of space (yeah, I know, bad pun). There was an inspired amount of freedom in the cinematography. The sheer manpower of pre-planning and pre-visualization must have been mind-boggling. All that hard work was a gift to the audience. Every shot was an interesting angle, with a genuine sense of zero-gravity floatation. I imbibed the epic, desolate, vastness of space, as well as intimate, intense fight of survival. All the while, the one-takers gripped you like a face-hugger, daring you to blink when you can't.
Of course, all the visuals in the world would be useless without sound. Here, they also came up with unique ways to throw you into that scary world. By keeping the aural experience intimate, as you hear the vibrations of the mechanical drills, the breath of the astronauts, but not the soundless explosions across the void, it further entrenched you into the story.
Yes, you can curse Hans Zimmer for the deluge of BWONG music, but in this case, I thought it fit. A bit more noticeable than I would've liked it, but overall it added to the suspense without being a distraction.
What I didn't expect was the caliber of acting. Bullock was the heart of the movie. While some of the dialog and moments were kind of cheesy and on-the-nose, it takes a certain skill to sell those moments so they didn't feel like it. Again, I can't imagine the degree of difficulty in performing through the labyrinth of technology, but she made you root for her to survive, beyond a "life-or-death" level. Through vulnerability, there exuded strength. Probably her best performance ever.
Not to be looked over was Clooney's performance. I'm afraid he'll get glossed over for his "stay in your lane" performance as the charming chatterbox. But again, just because it was so effortless, doesn't mean it wasn't important to the film.
It was fascinating to see/interpret all the references to other famous space movies, from 2001: A Space Odyssey, to Alien, to Apollo 13 (hi! Ed Harris casting!), to WALL-E. I don't know how much was intentional, but I viewed it as a great tribute to those works of art.
If I had to nitpick, the last act felt anti-climactic and heavy-handed. Note that this was less of an issue on my second viewing. At the two-thirds mark of the thrill ride, you pretty much know how it should end, after an hour of turning your guts into knots. Any twist ending at this point would feel undeserved. Meanwhile our hero's final crucible just felt unnecessary with its bizarre pro-[redacted] visuals. But by this time, I was so sold, so it didn't really take me out of the moment.
As the great Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson pointed out, there was actually a lot of "movie physics" despite how realistic the way our heroes floated and bounced around. Everything could be picked apart, from space station visibility, to how tears behave in zero-gravity, but you know what, who cares? The visual motion felt so unique, it didn't matter.
Lastly, I was shocked to discover that there was a discernible difference in the different types of 3D. I saw the Real3D, with the active-3D technology, first. Then I saw the IMAX (passive) version. While sound and screen size was superior in IMAX, it was fascinating to realize my first experience had the better 3D, so much to the point that it made the IMAX version feel a bit flat. As much as I harp about sound's underratedness, I kind of recommend the Real3D, with the flickering glasses, for the better dimensions.
I had unreasonably high anticipation for this roller coaster, and I was giddy to find out that it actually exceeded my expectations a bit. Even the second viewing was just as gripping and haunting. I highly recommend Gravity for its virtuoso direction, visceral visual/aural experience, and Sandra Bullock's brilliant performance.
2013 (2)
Formats
Real 3D theater, IMAX 3D theater.
Premise
Sandra Bullock and George Clooney star as NASA astronauts who must find a way back to Earth after their space shuttle is destroyed by deadly debris. Directed by Alfonso Cuaron.
Loved
Roller coaster sensory overload, Bullock, Cuaron's stupendous "one take" scenes, immersive 3D, the first two-thirds of the film.
Liked
Out-of-this-world visuals and physics, Clooney.
Thoughts
Definitely deserved to be seen on the biggest, best, 3D theater.
Pretty much from the outset, I was hooked. Cuaron's "one take" scenes really helped make it feel like I was there with the characters as disaster struck, often-times in real-time. Unlike his masterpiece, Children of Men, which had a handful of one-takers, this whole feature was a series of them. Oddly enough, there were so prevalent, and they were so lengthy/involving, it made the cuts extremely jarring.
For the most part, the overuse of this style never felt distracting, instead they felt integral to the suspense and jacked-up intensity. Cuaron knew how to make use of space (yeah, I know, bad pun). There was an inspired amount of freedom in the cinematography. The sheer manpower of pre-planning and pre-visualization must have been mind-boggling. All that hard work was a gift to the audience. Every shot was an interesting angle, with a genuine sense of zero-gravity floatation. I imbibed the epic, desolate, vastness of space, as well as intimate, intense fight of survival. All the while, the one-takers gripped you like a face-hugger, daring you to blink when you can't.
Of course, all the visuals in the world would be useless without sound. Here, they also came up with unique ways to throw you into that scary world. By keeping the aural experience intimate, as you hear the vibrations of the mechanical drills, the breath of the astronauts, but not the soundless explosions across the void, it further entrenched you into the story.
Yes, you can curse Hans Zimmer for the deluge of BWONG music, but in this case, I thought it fit. A bit more noticeable than I would've liked it, but overall it added to the suspense without being a distraction.
What I didn't expect was the caliber of acting. Bullock was the heart of the movie. While some of the dialog and moments were kind of cheesy and on-the-nose, it takes a certain skill to sell those moments so they didn't feel like it. Again, I can't imagine the degree of difficulty in performing through the labyrinth of technology, but she made you root for her to survive, beyond a "life-or-death" level. Through vulnerability, there exuded strength. Probably her best performance ever.
Not to be looked over was Clooney's performance. I'm afraid he'll get glossed over for his "stay in your lane" performance as the charming chatterbox. But again, just because it was so effortless, doesn't mean it wasn't important to the film.
It was fascinating to see/interpret all the references to other famous space movies, from 2001: A Space Odyssey, to Alien, to Apollo 13 (hi! Ed Harris casting!), to WALL-E. I don't know how much was intentional, but I viewed it as a great tribute to those works of art.
If I had to nitpick, the last act felt anti-climactic and heavy-handed. Note that this was less of an issue on my second viewing. At the two-thirds mark of the thrill ride, you pretty much know how it should end, after an hour of turning your guts into knots. Any twist ending at this point would feel undeserved. Meanwhile our hero's final crucible just felt unnecessary with its bizarre pro-[redacted] visuals. But by this time, I was so sold, so it didn't really take me out of the moment.
As the great Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson pointed out, there was actually a lot of "movie physics" despite how realistic the way our heroes floated and bounced around. Everything could be picked apart, from space station visibility, to how tears behave in zero-gravity, but you know what, who cares? The visual motion felt so unique, it didn't matter.
Lastly, I was shocked to discover that there was a discernible difference in the different types of 3D. I saw the Real3D, with the active-3D technology, first. Then I saw the IMAX (passive) version. While sound and screen size was superior in IMAX, it was fascinating to realize my first experience had the better 3D, so much to the point that it made the IMAX version feel a bit flat. As much as I harp about sound's underratedness, I kind of recommend the Real3D, with the flickering glasses, for the better dimensions.
I had unreasonably high anticipation for this roller coaster, and I was giddy to find out that it actually exceeded my expectations a bit. Even the second viewing was just as gripping and haunting. I highly recommend Gravity for its virtuoso direction, visceral visual/aural experience, and Sandra Bullock's brilliant performance.
The Heat
Viewed in
2014
Formats
HDTV
Premise
Sandra Bullock and Melissa McCarthy star as mismatched cops forced to work together.
Loved
Comedic chemistry between the two leads.
Disliked
Cliched plots, uncomfortable use of violence.
Thoughts
This movie was simply fueled with laughs generated by applying McCarthy's over-the-top Oscar to Bullock's flustered Felix. Both actresses brought their A-game, elevating each other and the film itself. As a big fan of Bullock, it was fun to hear her character devolve into f-bombs as her tactless partner wore her down.
I was also amused that the family scenes with McCarthy's annoyingly-caricatured New England relatives were like anti-While You Were Sleeping scenes. And as a fan of bad puns, I highly approved of the facepalm-worthy "tongue-in-cheek" joke.
Of course, underneath the veneer of comedy, it was very much an average story, with too many indistinguishable bad guys to keep track of, and obligatory buddy-cop tropes of moles, "you're off the case", and partners de-partnering.
Another aspect I didn't like was the inconsistent tone of violence. I had a hard time grasping whether I should be laughing or not during these scenes. One moment, you had cartoony silliness like accidentally dropping a perp out of a three-story building, but one second later, you had non-cartoony gunfights with explicit bullets to the head, blood sprays, and neck-stabbing. Just pick one style and stick with that.
The Heat was silly, energetic fun, solely from Bullock and McCarthy throwing comedy fastballs. If you like either actress, or better yet you like both, you'll forgive the movie's predictability and have a hoot.
2014
Formats
HDTV
Premise
Sandra Bullock and Melissa McCarthy star as mismatched cops forced to work together.
Loved
Comedic chemistry between the two leads.
Disliked
Cliched plots, uncomfortable use of violence.
Thoughts
This movie was simply fueled with laughs generated by applying McCarthy's over-the-top Oscar to Bullock's flustered Felix. Both actresses brought their A-game, elevating each other and the film itself. As a big fan of Bullock, it was fun to hear her character devolve into f-bombs as her tactless partner wore her down.
I was also amused that the family scenes with McCarthy's annoyingly-caricatured New England relatives were like anti-While You Were Sleeping scenes. And as a fan of bad puns, I highly approved of the facepalm-worthy "tongue-in-cheek" joke.
Of course, underneath the veneer of comedy, it was very much an average story, with too many indistinguishable bad guys to keep track of, and obligatory buddy-cop tropes of moles, "you're off the case", and partners de-partnering.
Another aspect I didn't like was the inconsistent tone of violence. I had a hard time grasping whether I should be laughing or not during these scenes. One moment, you had cartoony silliness like accidentally dropping a perp out of a three-story building, but one second later, you had non-cartoony gunfights with explicit bullets to the head, blood sprays, and neck-stabbing. Just pick one style and stick with that.
The Heat was silly, energetic fun, solely from Bullock and McCarthy throwing comedy fastballs. If you like either actress, or better yet you like both, you'll forgive the movie's predictability and have a hoot.
Her
Viewed in
2014
Formats
Movie theater.
Premise
A lonely writer (Joaquin Phoenix) develops an unlikely relationship with his newly purchased operating system (voiced by Scarlett Johansson).
Loved
Theodore and Sam's heartfelt journey, subtle visual flair, unique world-building.
Liked
Amy Adams.
Thoughts
Thoughtful, creative, heartfelt, haunting. One of my favorites of 2013.
Going in, I figured it would be weird. Walking out, all I could think about was the wonderful couple that Spike Jonze and company crafted. Scarlett Johansson, possibly her best work yet, was absolutely winning as Sam the OS. Her earnestness, curiosity, and childlike thirst for learning was infectious. Joaquin Phoenix was fantastic, as expected, effortlessly blending loneliness and sensitivity.
After the adorable meet-cute, the writing dived into the tender blossoming of a relationship, the complexities of maintaining one, and the inevitable threat of wilting. A lot of the insightful conversations and themes reminded me of another great relationship-driven film, Before Midnight. Like the other film, I really loved the contradictory temperance/permanence of love. As the couple's relationship propelled through different, interesting, revelatory, and dark phases, I too was propelled, rapt. I also enjoyed the explorations into monogamy maintenance and the painful process of letting go. The end result was a memorable, relatable couple who you want to hang out with forever.
While Johansson and Phoenix were the leads, I wanted to give a big shoutout to Amy Adams for a very underrated performance as Phoenix's adorable neighbor. The video game that cusses back at you was underrated too.
Now onto the weird, which really wasn't that weird. Jonze mostly let the unique story and characters do the heavy lifting, while his eye helped paint a world as believable and unique as the relationships. I truly admire the attention to detail in the world building. Every frame, he subtly reminded me of how important a director's decision-making matters. Take the art design. The specific choices of steampunk monitors and belt-less grandpa pants each contributed to creating the unforgettable autumn-toned/colored universe begging to be visited.
All decisions carry risk, regardless of how weird. Picking Arcade Fire to score the movie could've backfired, like Radiohead's Johnny Greenwood's super-distracting music in There Will Be Blood. Thankfully, it was a very strong fit tonally and thematically. It was risky to cast Phoenix. His baggage, plus the odd mustache, was almost detrimental to the movie, giving the impression of a creepy weirdo loner before his genuine sweetness and complexity won me over. There were some random moments, like camera crossing the line when Phoenix talked with Johansson through the monitor. A little distracting, but interesting.
The surprise ending twist of Her was spoilered beforehand, but the payoff still worked emotionally. As a science-fiction fan, the twist was brilliantly executed; totally logical yet creative. Perhaps I was robbed of being blown away by the moment due to being spoilered?
No matter. It didn't stop me from loving this haunting movie. I didn't stop me from immersing in Spike Jonze' distinct vision. It didn't stop me from loving Theodore and Sam's wonderful, sad, unique, universal relationship.
Random
Was it my imagination or one of the cityscape shots flipped? It seemed like traffic was going the wrong direction (to Americans).
2014
Formats
Movie theater.
Premise
A lonely writer (Joaquin Phoenix) develops an unlikely relationship with his newly purchased operating system (voiced by Scarlett Johansson).
Loved
Theodore and Sam's heartfelt journey, subtle visual flair, unique world-building.
Liked
Amy Adams.
Thoughts
Thoughtful, creative, heartfelt, haunting. One of my favorites of 2013.
Going in, I figured it would be weird. Walking out, all I could think about was the wonderful couple that Spike Jonze and company crafted. Scarlett Johansson, possibly her best work yet, was absolutely winning as Sam the OS. Her earnestness, curiosity, and childlike thirst for learning was infectious. Joaquin Phoenix was fantastic, as expected, effortlessly blending loneliness and sensitivity.
After the adorable meet-cute, the writing dived into the tender blossoming of a relationship, the complexities of maintaining one, and the inevitable threat of wilting. A lot of the insightful conversations and themes reminded me of another great relationship-driven film, Before Midnight. Like the other film, I really loved the contradictory temperance/permanence of love. As the couple's relationship propelled through different, interesting, revelatory, and dark phases, I too was propelled, rapt. I also enjoyed the explorations into monogamy maintenance and the painful process of letting go. The end result was a memorable, relatable couple who you want to hang out with forever.
While Johansson and Phoenix were the leads, I wanted to give a big shoutout to Amy Adams for a very underrated performance as Phoenix's adorable neighbor. The video game that cusses back at you was underrated too.
Now onto the weird, which really wasn't that weird. Jonze mostly let the unique story and characters do the heavy lifting, while his eye helped paint a world as believable and unique as the relationships. I truly admire the attention to detail in the world building. Every frame, he subtly reminded me of how important a director's decision-making matters. Take the art design. The specific choices of steampunk monitors and belt-less grandpa pants each contributed to creating the unforgettable autumn-toned/colored universe begging to be visited.
All decisions carry risk, regardless of how weird. Picking Arcade Fire to score the movie could've backfired, like Radiohead's Johnny Greenwood's super-distracting music in There Will Be Blood. Thankfully, it was a very strong fit tonally and thematically. It was risky to cast Phoenix. His baggage, plus the odd mustache, was almost detrimental to the movie, giving the impression of a creepy weirdo loner before his genuine sweetness and complexity won me over. There were some random moments, like camera crossing the line when Phoenix talked with Johansson through the monitor. A little distracting, but interesting.
The surprise ending twist of Her was spoilered beforehand, but the payoff still worked emotionally. As a science-fiction fan, the twist was brilliantly executed; totally logical yet creative. Perhaps I was robbed of being blown away by the moment due to being spoilered?
No matter. It didn't stop me from loving this haunting movie. I didn't stop me from immersing in Spike Jonze' distinct vision. It didn't stop me from loving Theodore and Sam's wonderful, sad, unique, universal relationship.
Random
Was it my imagination or one of the cityscape shots flipped? It seemed like traffic was going the wrong direction (to Americans).
The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Viewed in
2013
Formats
Movie theater (High Frame Rate 3D).
Premise
Bilbo, Thorin and their band of dwarves continue their march to the Lonely Mountain to reclaim it against Smaug the Dragon.
Loved
River-barrel scene, Bilbo-versus-Smaug.
Disliked
Feelings of Lord of the Rings-redux.
Thoughts
Pretty entertaining, despite its flaws.
One of the two moments I loved was the river escape via dwarves in barrels. I heard of some brouhaha over the buoyancy plausibilities, but it was so much fun, who the hell cares? The pacing was incredible, with a patient crescendo from amusing kiddie log ride to intricate chaotic dance of speed and combat and pure swashbuckling. This was probably one of the closest in spirit to the book.
Another great scene was a cat-and-mouse of epic proportions between the invisible hobbit and the magnificent, monstrous Smaug. Benedict Cumberbatch's performance plus the colorful dialog, as Smaug taunted and toyed with Bilbo, bordered on cinematic poetry. It definitely reminded me of the enthralling battle of the wits between Bilbo and Gollum in the first movie.
Last time, I didn't enjoy my high-frame rate experience. This time around, the 48 fps was much more palatable, probably as a combination of technical improvements and my building a tolerance. It was still noticeable and slightly video-gamey, but the amount of detail was exquisite during the discombobulating river chase, and the sheer difference in scale inside the Lonely Mountain was wonderfully expressed in 3D.
Despite it being nearly half-an-hour shorter than the first entry, the movie still felt long. I couldn't care for Evangeline Lilly nor Gandalf's subplots. The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey had an identity issue between adapting the lyrical aspects of the book and maintaining epic action. This time around, they sadly cut out the "slow parts", further removing it from the levity of the original source. The end result? While the action sequences were superior to the first trilogy, it felt much like "been there, done that".
Personally, I felt like Peter Jackson and company should've gone the other direction, not just for the sake of Tolkien's original tone, but also to differentiate this trilogy from The Lord of the Rings films. Having said that, The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug had its moments of cinematic beauty and fun, with a better HFR experience for me.
2013
Formats
Movie theater (High Frame Rate 3D).
Premise
Bilbo, Thorin and their band of dwarves continue their march to the Lonely Mountain to reclaim it against Smaug the Dragon.
Loved
River-barrel scene, Bilbo-versus-Smaug.
Disliked
Feelings of Lord of the Rings-redux.
Thoughts
Pretty entertaining, despite its flaws.
One of the two moments I loved was the river escape via dwarves in barrels. I heard of some brouhaha over the buoyancy plausibilities, but it was so much fun, who the hell cares? The pacing was incredible, with a patient crescendo from amusing kiddie log ride to intricate chaotic dance of speed and combat and pure swashbuckling. This was probably one of the closest in spirit to the book.
Another great scene was a cat-and-mouse of epic proportions between the invisible hobbit and the magnificent, monstrous Smaug. Benedict Cumberbatch's performance plus the colorful dialog, as Smaug taunted and toyed with Bilbo, bordered on cinematic poetry. It definitely reminded me of the enthralling battle of the wits between Bilbo and Gollum in the first movie.
Last time, I didn't enjoy my high-frame rate experience. This time around, the 48 fps was much more palatable, probably as a combination of technical improvements and my building a tolerance. It was still noticeable and slightly video-gamey, but the amount of detail was exquisite during the discombobulating river chase, and the sheer difference in scale inside the Lonely Mountain was wonderfully expressed in 3D.
Despite it being nearly half-an-hour shorter than the first entry, the movie still felt long. I couldn't care for Evangeline Lilly nor Gandalf's subplots. The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey had an identity issue between adapting the lyrical aspects of the book and maintaining epic action. This time around, they sadly cut out the "slow parts", further removing it from the levity of the original source. The end result? While the action sequences were superior to the first trilogy, it felt much like "been there, done that".
Personally, I felt like Peter Jackson and company should've gone the other direction, not just for the sake of Tolkien's original tone, but also to differentiate this trilogy from The Lord of the Rings films. Having said that, The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug had its moments of cinematic beauty and fun, with a better HFR experience for me.
The Hunger Games: Catching Fire
Viewed in
2013
Formats
Movie theater.
Premise
In part two of the Mockingjay franchise, Jennifer Lawrence and company return as past champions are forced to compete in the Quarter Quell, as hints of revolution continue to bubble up.
Loved
Lawrence crushing every scene.
Liked
Interesting character development, second act's themes and intensity, wealth of strong performances.
Disliked
Anticlimactic ending.
Thoughts
There was a lot to like.
As expected, Lawrence's magnetism, pathos, and conviction carried the film, expanding Katniss' badassery, awareness, and doubts. Tons of fantastic actors surrounded her, each with their chance to shine. I very much enjoyed Woody Harrelson's nuanced performance, and Stanley Tucci's incessant mugging. Newcomers Jeffrey Wright and Amanda Plummer shook things up in the middle act.
One reason why the acting was so strong was because the story gave most of the actors interesting character developments. This time around, the love triangle amongst Kat, Peeta, and Gale was more fleshed out, complex, and believable. Prim's growth was cool too. But the biggest surprise was Elizabeth Banks' character. Previously, I thought she was a super-annoying one-off. Now, my impression of Effie has changed.
A lot of these cool moments occurred during the enthralling middle section. This was my favorite part of the story. We were exposed to a fascinating, expanding world, plus allegories to celebrity culture, class warfare, government repression, even a tinge of racism. As Katniss' awareness of revolution and feelings toward Peeta complicates, the movie hurled into super-entertaining pace, full of emotional intensity.
Sadly, the movie couldn't keep the momentum. Saddled with the obligation of a "part two" cliffhanger, the ending was very anticlimactic and sudden. Also, while the late, great Philip Seymour Hoffman brought a new danger element, his role was a little underwhelming.
Without any knowledge of the books, The Hunger Games: Catching Fire was a very strong sequel, thanks to interesting growths in characters, performances, universe, subplots, and themes. Too bad the ending wasn't executed better.
2013
Formats
Movie theater.
Premise
In part two of the Mockingjay franchise, Jennifer Lawrence and company return as past champions are forced to compete in the Quarter Quell, as hints of revolution continue to bubble up.
Loved
Lawrence crushing every scene.
Liked
Interesting character development, second act's themes and intensity, wealth of strong performances.
Disliked
Anticlimactic ending.
Thoughts
There was a lot to like.
As expected, Lawrence's magnetism, pathos, and conviction carried the film, expanding Katniss' badassery, awareness, and doubts. Tons of fantastic actors surrounded her, each with their chance to shine. I very much enjoyed Woody Harrelson's nuanced performance, and Stanley Tucci's incessant mugging. Newcomers Jeffrey Wright and Amanda Plummer shook things up in the middle act.
One reason why the acting was so strong was because the story gave most of the actors interesting character developments. This time around, the love triangle amongst Kat, Peeta, and Gale was more fleshed out, complex, and believable. Prim's growth was cool too. But the biggest surprise was Elizabeth Banks' character. Previously, I thought she was a super-annoying one-off. Now, my impression of Effie has changed.
A lot of these cool moments occurred during the enthralling middle section. This was my favorite part of the story. We were exposed to a fascinating, expanding world, plus allegories to celebrity culture, class warfare, government repression, even a tinge of racism. As Katniss' awareness of revolution and feelings toward Peeta complicates, the movie hurled into super-entertaining pace, full of emotional intensity.
Sadly, the movie couldn't keep the momentum. Saddled with the obligation of a "part two" cliffhanger, the ending was very anticlimactic and sudden. Also, while the late, great Philip Seymour Hoffman brought a new danger element, his role was a little underwhelming.
Without any knowledge of the books, The Hunger Games: Catching Fire was a very strong sequel, thanks to interesting growths in characters, performances, universe, subplots, and themes. Too bad the ending wasn't executed better.
Iron Man 3
Viewed in
2013
Formats
IMAX 3D.
Premise
In the third entry of the Robert Downey Jr. era, Tony Stark tries to deal with post-Avengers jitters while being attacked by the Mandarin, played by Ben Kingsley.
Loved
Exciting action sequences, the good guy cast.
Liked
Surprisingly entertaining kid sidekick subplot.
Disliked
Misuse of Mandarin character.
Thoughts
I'm pretty much in agreement that this was a nice rebound from Iron Man 2.
There weren't enough superlatives to justify how charismatic and disarming Downey was as Tony Stark. He owned it. Gwyneth Paltrow also mastered Pepper Potts, and together their back-and-forth chemistry was lovely to watch. Actually, pretty much Downey's interactions with any cast member energized the film. Paul Bettany's voice over as snarky Jarvis was hilarious. (Apologies for mistaking your voice with Jude Law's. Again. For a third time.)
As a Don Cheadle fan, I was glad to see him get plenty more screen time. In fact his witty banter with Downey during action scenes was reminiscent of Lethal Weapon (not surprising given that was written by director Shane Black). Normally, child sidekicks are annoying and cheesy. Here, not only was Stark's brief team-up with a kid (played flawlessly by Ty Simpkins,) plausible, but also brought some of the biggest laughs. Jon Favreau was hilarious in a small role as the zealous security guard, recently promoted to head of security.
While his portrayal brought umbrage from hardcore Iron Man fans, Sir Ben Kingsley was a solid presence. Shout out to James Badge Dale from 24 as a henchman.
Aside from The Avengers, I always thought the Marvel Studios films were lacking in fight sequences. Here, director Shane Black finally broke the trend for the Iron Man franchise with not one, but two memorable action pieces. The climactic battle between an army of Iron Men and super-soldiers on a freighter was epic and exciting, an elaborate choreography of CGI and sweeping cinematography, with Stark jumping in-and-out of various suits throughout the mayhem. Another great scene was the breathtaking skydiving rescue. Both moments were excellent in IMAX 3D. I also enjoyed Downey MacGyvering his way into an enemy compound, followed by his battle with just a power glove and boot.
The weakest link was the story. There were interesting scenes, popping dialog, and big laughs (ten bucks says Joss Whedon ghostwrote the bus gag). However, Stark's character lacked an arc, the Mandarin's masterplan never made sense, Guy Pearce (while solidly acted) wasn't compelling, and Rebecca Hall's subplot was flat out confusing.
It's a pity Disney kiboshed adapting "Demon in a Bottle" arc from the comics. Replacing alcoholism with possible PTSD might've been intriguing for Downey Jr., but I never felt like the story dived into Stark's psychological demons interestingly/deep enough. At least when I watched it for the first time. My friend, psychologist Andrea Letamendi PhD, had a great article about trauma (and possible consequences) in the Iron Man franchise and she was very positive about the movie's believable portrayal of such symptoms. I think an expert's analysis overruled my initial feelings.
Another friend also had a good point about Paltrow's twist at the end wasn't believable given her character's lack of experience. If I didn't love Stark and Potts so much from three movie's worth of goodwill and witty banter, there wouldn't have been anything at stake during the climax. The good thing was that these flaws were minimal, and frankly negligible as a popcorn flick.
For my thoughts on the nerd rage controversy, go to Spoilers section at the end.
Overall, I had a blast watching Iron Man 3. It had lovable characters, winning performances, and unforgettable popcorn action scenes that was immersive in IMAX 3D. The meandering story was forgivable, and once you get used to the differences from the comic book canon, it's definitely re-watchable fun. Probably my second favorite of the three Downey Jr. flicks to date.
Spoilers
I'm sure most aren't too concerned about the alterations to Extremis serum and Iron Patriot. And I'm fine with the fact that changes are necessary when adapting from one medium to another. But the Mandarin thingy is fascinating, because I sympathize with both sides.
We know characters/stories are retconned all the time in comic books, but it's different when you remove the essence of a character. The Mandarin is Iron Man's greatest nemesis, and to use him like that in the movie was disrespectful to the legacy. I wouldn't care as much if it was a less-important minor character, like Stilt-Man. But if you made such a choice with Batman's Joker, Superman's Lex Luthor, or Sauron from Lord of the Rings, I think an uproar from the fans is justified because the adaption has subverted the spirit of the original source.
The movie makers took a gigantic risk. As a film buff who likes artists taking risks, I do admire their willingness to change the Mandarin dramatically for the sake of the story. The Downey Jr. era franchise has always been grounded in science and technology. Mandarin's powers from the comic books would've contradicted the rules of that universe. Not to even mention the character's racial insensitivity (Iron Man 3 was heavily funded by Chinese investors). A valid counter-argument to "grounded in tech" would be that once the supernatural events of The Avengers occurred, then the rulebook has been irrevocably thrown out.
I admired the daring choices made for the Mandarin (and I might've been won over if the antagonists/story were more compelling), but overall it was a disservice to the character and Iron Man's comic book legacy.
2013
Formats
IMAX 3D.
Premise
In the third entry of the Robert Downey Jr. era, Tony Stark tries to deal with post-Avengers jitters while being attacked by the Mandarin, played by Ben Kingsley.
Loved
Exciting action sequences, the good guy cast.
Liked
Surprisingly entertaining kid sidekick subplot.
Disliked
Misuse of Mandarin character.
Thoughts
I'm pretty much in agreement that this was a nice rebound from Iron Man 2.
There weren't enough superlatives to justify how charismatic and disarming Downey was as Tony Stark. He owned it. Gwyneth Paltrow also mastered Pepper Potts, and together their back-and-forth chemistry was lovely to watch. Actually, pretty much Downey's interactions with any cast member energized the film. Paul Bettany's voice over as snarky Jarvis was hilarious. (Apologies for mistaking your voice with Jude Law's. Again. For a third time.)
As a Don Cheadle fan, I was glad to see him get plenty more screen time. In fact his witty banter with Downey during action scenes was reminiscent of Lethal Weapon (not surprising given that was written by director Shane Black). Normally, child sidekicks are annoying and cheesy. Here, not only was Stark's brief team-up with a kid (played flawlessly by Ty Simpkins,) plausible, but also brought some of the biggest laughs. Jon Favreau was hilarious in a small role as the zealous security guard, recently promoted to head of security.
While his portrayal brought umbrage from hardcore Iron Man fans, Sir Ben Kingsley was a solid presence. Shout out to James Badge Dale from 24 as a henchman.
Aside from The Avengers, I always thought the Marvel Studios films were lacking in fight sequences. Here, director Shane Black finally broke the trend for the Iron Man franchise with not one, but two memorable action pieces. The climactic battle between an army of Iron Men and super-soldiers on a freighter was epic and exciting, an elaborate choreography of CGI and sweeping cinematography, with Stark jumping in-and-out of various suits throughout the mayhem. Another great scene was the breathtaking skydiving rescue. Both moments were excellent in IMAX 3D. I also enjoyed Downey MacGyvering his way into an enemy compound, followed by his battle with just a power glove and boot.
The weakest link was the story. There were interesting scenes, popping dialog, and big laughs (ten bucks says Joss Whedon ghostwrote the bus gag). However, Stark's character lacked an arc, the Mandarin's masterplan never made sense, Guy Pearce (while solidly acted) wasn't compelling, and Rebecca Hall's subplot was flat out confusing.
It's a pity Disney kiboshed adapting "Demon in a Bottle" arc from the comics. Replacing alcoholism with possible PTSD might've been intriguing for Downey Jr., but I never felt like the story dived into Stark's psychological demons interestingly/deep enough. At least when I watched it for the first time. My friend, psychologist Andrea Letamendi PhD, had a great article about trauma (and possible consequences) in the Iron Man franchise and she was very positive about the movie's believable portrayal of such symptoms. I think an expert's analysis overruled my initial feelings.
Another friend also had a good point about Paltrow's twist at the end wasn't believable given her character's lack of experience. If I didn't love Stark and Potts so much from three movie's worth of goodwill and witty banter, there wouldn't have been anything at stake during the climax. The good thing was that these flaws were minimal, and frankly negligible as a popcorn flick.
For my thoughts on the nerd rage controversy, go to Spoilers section at the end.
Overall, I had a blast watching Iron Man 3. It had lovable characters, winning performances, and unforgettable popcorn action scenes that was immersive in IMAX 3D. The meandering story was forgivable, and once you get used to the differences from the comic book canon, it's definitely re-watchable fun. Probably my second favorite of the three Downey Jr. flicks to date.
Spoilers
I'm sure most aren't too concerned about the alterations to Extremis serum and Iron Patriot. And I'm fine with the fact that changes are necessary when adapting from one medium to another. But the Mandarin thingy is fascinating, because I sympathize with both sides.
We know characters/stories are retconned all the time in comic books, but it's different when you remove the essence of a character. The Mandarin is Iron Man's greatest nemesis, and to use him like that in the movie was disrespectful to the legacy. I wouldn't care as much if it was a less-important minor character, like Stilt-Man. But if you made such a choice with Batman's Joker, Superman's Lex Luthor, or Sauron from Lord of the Rings, I think an uproar from the fans is justified because the adaption has subverted the spirit of the original source.
The movie makers took a gigantic risk. As a film buff who likes artists taking risks, I do admire their willingness to change the Mandarin dramatically for the sake of the story. The Downey Jr. era franchise has always been grounded in science and technology. Mandarin's powers from the comic books would've contradicted the rules of that universe. Not to even mention the character's racial insensitivity (Iron Man 3 was heavily funded by Chinese investors). A valid counter-argument to "grounded in tech" would be that once the supernatural events of The Avengers occurred, then the rulebook has been irrevocably thrown out.
I admired the daring choices made for the Mandarin (and I might've been won over if the antagonists/story were more compelling), but overall it was a disservice to the character and Iron Man's comic book legacy.
Lone Survivor
Viewed in
2014
Formats
Movie theater.
Premise
Based on true events, the harrowing tale of four American Navy SEALS in Afghanistan, in their doomed mission to take out a top Taliban leader in 2005.
Loved
Emotional pathos at the end.
Liked
Easy to understand battle scenes, interesting mountain fights, realistic violence.
Disliked
Distracting score.
Thoughts
A really well-done, and violent, film. War movies tend to be confusing and nauseating; by nature, soldiers are meant to look similar, and gunfights can fall victim to over-editing or violent handheld cameras. I was relieved that this was not the case.
Thanks to thoughtful writing, directing, and casting, it was pretty easy to distinguish between the four brothers-in-arms.
Director Peter Berg also did a very good job of story-telling the chaotic battles that took place throughout the treacherous mountains and forests of Afghanistan. My inner filmmaker was in awe of the technical detail that went into the precarious choreography between the actors, stunts, and camera operators to create shots that perfectly captured the realistic, gritty frenzy of battle.
And boy, was the grittiness turned up to ten. There were no unscathed superheroes in the skirmishes, uniforms got dirty, wounds kept bleeding, line of sight was non-existent, and gravity brought the pain. Yup, gravity. On steep mountains. The steep terrain played such a huge part of the skirmishes in ways I had never seen on screen before. Kudos to the makeup department for maintaining the consistency as lacerations, contusions, burns, and broken bones accumulated on the distressed characters.
There was an interesting turn which involved a SEAL in a tumultuous village without translators or communication. It had a subplot with a young village kid. In a lesser-written movie, this could've gone badly, probably with a patronizing tone. Instead, it was realistic, and unexpectedly funny.
Upon the incredible resolution, very much like Captain Phillips, I couldn't help but burst into a cathartic release of tears.
The biggest flaw was Berg's music choice. He's had magic with Explosions in the Sky previously, but the band's poetic, ethereal score was a bad fit amongst the sequences of unrelenting violence and uneasy quiet moments.
Lone Survivor was intense, intimate, and interesting. Its uncompromising vision and tone soberly reminded me of the one many costs of war, while paying tribute to those who sacrificed for our country. In the end, I felt grateful, and not just for excellent filmmaking.
2014
Formats
Movie theater.
Premise
Based on true events, the harrowing tale of four American Navy SEALS in Afghanistan, in their doomed mission to take out a top Taliban leader in 2005.
Loved
Emotional pathos at the end.
Liked
Easy to understand battle scenes, interesting mountain fights, realistic violence.
Disliked
Distracting score.
Thoughts
A really well-done, and violent, film. War movies tend to be confusing and nauseating; by nature, soldiers are meant to look similar, and gunfights can fall victim to over-editing or violent handheld cameras. I was relieved that this was not the case.
Thanks to thoughtful writing, directing, and casting, it was pretty easy to distinguish between the four brothers-in-arms.
Director Peter Berg also did a very good job of story-telling the chaotic battles that took place throughout the treacherous mountains and forests of Afghanistan. My inner filmmaker was in awe of the technical detail that went into the precarious choreography between the actors, stunts, and camera operators to create shots that perfectly captured the realistic, gritty frenzy of battle.
And boy, was the grittiness turned up to ten. There were no unscathed superheroes in the skirmishes, uniforms got dirty, wounds kept bleeding, line of sight was non-existent, and gravity brought the pain. Yup, gravity. On steep mountains. The steep terrain played such a huge part of the skirmishes in ways I had never seen on screen before. Kudos to the makeup department for maintaining the consistency as lacerations, contusions, burns, and broken bones accumulated on the distressed characters.
There was an interesting turn which involved a SEAL in a tumultuous village without translators or communication. It had a subplot with a young village kid. In a lesser-written movie, this could've gone badly, probably with a patronizing tone. Instead, it was realistic, and unexpectedly funny.
Upon the incredible resolution, very much like Captain Phillips, I couldn't help but burst into a cathartic release of tears.
The biggest flaw was Berg's music choice. He's had magic with Explosions in the Sky previously, but the band's poetic, ethereal score was a bad fit amongst the sequences of unrelenting violence and uneasy quiet moments.
Lone Survivor was intense, intimate, and interesting. Its uncompromising vision and tone soberly reminded me of the one many costs of war, while paying tribute to those who sacrificed for our country. In the end, I felt grateful, and not just for excellent filmmaking.
Man of Steel
Viewed in
2013
Formats
Movie theater.
Premise
Henry Cavill stars in the Zack Snyder reboot of Superman.
Loved
Battle of Smallville.
Liked
Hans Zimmer earwormy score, strong performances.
Disliked
On-the-nose symbolisms, the inconsistent themes of morality.
Hated
Disturbing 9/11 visual references.
Thoughts
Well, it was definitely epic.
Director Zack Snyder's CGI eye candy was in full effect, making a lot of the action sequences breath-taking and kinetic. Even though he used the handheld shaky cam style while characters fought at subsonic speeds, Snyder managed to make these potentially chaotic sequences very lucid, very easy to follow.
My favorite part was the middle section. The combination of strong performances, Snyder's visual flair, and Hans Zimmer's thrilling score really gave Kal-El's identity/morality issues and his superhuman rescues a great emotional punch. Obviously, the battle in Smallville harkened to Superman II, but was way more memorable, not just because of updated technology and sensibilities, but because the stakes were so much higher.
As I mentioned, the cast was very strong. Cavill was convincing in the soul-searching brooding way, as there wasn't much Clark Kent-ish scenes for him. Michael Shannon was good. Not as memorable as Terence Stamp, but pulled off the menacing act well. As for the rest, I really liked Russell Crowe and Diane Lane, but Kevin Costner and Amy Adams really stood out. None of them upstaged Cavill, yet all still were able to bring the emotional thunder in their (what I call) "earn your paycheck" scenes.
Some of the updating of story and sensibilities was nice. I loved that the film makers never bothered with the "will Lois know that Clark and Superman are the same?" angle, which put Adams' talent to better use. More Russell Crowe was a good move as well, allowing the Kryptonian father-son dynamic to be better spread throughout the movie. I found the jailbreak scene with Lois and Jor-El's avatar to be thrilling.
Now much of the nerd rage was that Superman was not a boy scout. But I kind of knew that he was going to be (Christopher) Nolan-ized. I found it interesting that they pushed him further than they were able to with Batman (and Cavill's reaction to the last act's resolution was fantastically layered). I wasn't outraged, granted I'm not the biggest Supes fan, I just accepted it for what it was. Like anything else pop culture, the pendulum will swing in movie franchises, whether it's Batman or James Bond. They will vacillate, between gritty/morally ambiguous and clean-cut/good vs evil, incarnation to incarnation.
What bugged me more was the non-stop 9/11 imagery as Metropolis got extirpated. Yes, they're not the first blockbuster to do disaster-porn, but it's an annoying trend. Not only was I reaching a critical mass, but it didn't serve the story. It perverted the blatant Jesus allegories, contradicted the realistic grittiness (by not addressing the collateral loss of life), and it forced a useless Laurence Fishburne survival subplot upon us that killed momentum.
Oh, did I mention allegories? Look, I'm an agnostic with minimal bible knowledge, but you could really make a drinking game out of the on-the-nose Jesus references (I suggest something light for every mention of the number 33). Symbolism much?
I'll always be a bigger fan of the more cheerful Christopher Reeve movies, despite their dated cheesiness. But if you like comic book action spectacles with a darker edge, Man of Steel was a strong beginning to the Henry Cavill era.
2013
Formats
Movie theater.
Premise
Henry Cavill stars in the Zack Snyder reboot of Superman.
Loved
Battle of Smallville.
Liked
Hans Zimmer earwormy score, strong performances.
Disliked
On-the-nose symbolisms, the inconsistent themes of morality.
Hated
Disturbing 9/11 visual references.
Thoughts
Well, it was definitely epic.
Director Zack Snyder's CGI eye candy was in full effect, making a lot of the action sequences breath-taking and kinetic. Even though he used the handheld shaky cam style while characters fought at subsonic speeds, Snyder managed to make these potentially chaotic sequences very lucid, very easy to follow.
My favorite part was the middle section. The combination of strong performances, Snyder's visual flair, and Hans Zimmer's thrilling score really gave Kal-El's identity/morality issues and his superhuman rescues a great emotional punch. Obviously, the battle in Smallville harkened to Superman II, but was way more memorable, not just because of updated technology and sensibilities, but because the stakes were so much higher.
As I mentioned, the cast was very strong. Cavill was convincing in the soul-searching brooding way, as there wasn't much Clark Kent-ish scenes for him. Michael Shannon was good. Not as memorable as Terence Stamp, but pulled off the menacing act well. As for the rest, I really liked Russell Crowe and Diane Lane, but Kevin Costner and Amy Adams really stood out. None of them upstaged Cavill, yet all still were able to bring the emotional thunder in their (what I call) "earn your paycheck" scenes.
Some of the updating of story and sensibilities was nice. I loved that the film makers never bothered with the "will Lois know that Clark and Superman are the same?" angle, which put Adams' talent to better use. More Russell Crowe was a good move as well, allowing the Kryptonian father-son dynamic to be better spread throughout the movie. I found the jailbreak scene with Lois and Jor-El's avatar to be thrilling.
Now much of the nerd rage was that Superman was not a boy scout. But I kind of knew that he was going to be (Christopher) Nolan-ized. I found it interesting that they pushed him further than they were able to with Batman (and Cavill's reaction to the last act's resolution was fantastically layered). I wasn't outraged, granted I'm not the biggest Supes fan, I just accepted it for what it was. Like anything else pop culture, the pendulum will swing in movie franchises, whether it's Batman or James Bond. They will vacillate, between gritty/morally ambiguous and clean-cut/good vs evil, incarnation to incarnation.
What bugged me more was the non-stop 9/11 imagery as Metropolis got extirpated. Yes, they're not the first blockbuster to do disaster-porn, but it's an annoying trend. Not only was I reaching a critical mass, but it didn't serve the story. It perverted the blatant Jesus allegories, contradicted the realistic grittiness (by not addressing the collateral loss of life), and it forced a useless Laurence Fishburne survival subplot upon us that killed momentum.
Oh, did I mention allegories? Look, I'm an agnostic with minimal bible knowledge, but you could really make a drinking game out of the on-the-nose Jesus references (I suggest something light for every mention of the number 33). Symbolism much?
I'll always be a bigger fan of the more cheerful Christopher Reeve movies, despite their dated cheesiness. But if you like comic book action spectacles with a darker edge, Man of Steel was a strong beginning to the Henry Cavill era.
Monsters University
Viewed in
2013
Formats
Movie theater (3D)
Premise
In this prequel of Monsters, Inc. Mike and Sully meet for the first time in college, forging their careers and friendship.
Liked
Mike and Sully's rivalry, balancing mythos with new elements.
Thoughts
Once again, my unreasonably high standards for Pixar probably got in the way of this solid film.
The film makers did a good job of finding a tale worth telling, giving Mike and Sully plausible origins that created a rivalry that eventually led to respect and brotherly love. Though Sully's transformation felt more compelling than Mike's.
For the most part, the writers did a good job of expanding the monsters' universe while still keeping the first movie's legacy intact. It was kind of amusing to see their naivety about "humans are toxic" and "scream power", but at the same time, it made me miss Boo. Comedy-wise, they got good mileage out of ragtag underdog monsters and the leads' antagonistic relationship, but none of the jokes were as memorable.
Here's an example of how much I've taken Pixar for granted. There was subplots that used familiar tropes from movies about underdogs and campus life, and they were executed in entertaining ways. Yet, I felt underwhelmed because they were still tropes. The one part that really stood out was a great moment of revelation after the underdogs won (was there ever a doubt?) that masterfully melded story and character and creativity. This was Pixar at its best. Unfortunately, my unreasonably demanding self wanted more than just one great moment out of the story.
Lastly, I felt this movie contradicted some parts of the legacy in terms of the "humans are toxic" rules during the climax. But take this critique with a giant slab of salt since it's been a decade since I've seen the 2001 title.
Overall, you can't go wrong with Pixar, even if your cynical antennae are on alert for yet another sequel/prequel. The characters were fleshed out, and the world building was fun. At a certain point, I've got to decide when can I finally enjoy solid titles like Monsters University without holding Pixar's expectation baggage against it.
2013
Formats
Movie theater (3D)
Premise
In this prequel of Monsters, Inc. Mike and Sully meet for the first time in college, forging their careers and friendship.
Liked
Mike and Sully's rivalry, balancing mythos with new elements.
Thoughts
Once again, my unreasonably high standards for Pixar probably got in the way of this solid film.
The film makers did a good job of finding a tale worth telling, giving Mike and Sully plausible origins that created a rivalry that eventually led to respect and brotherly love. Though Sully's transformation felt more compelling than Mike's.
For the most part, the writers did a good job of expanding the monsters' universe while still keeping the first movie's legacy intact. It was kind of amusing to see their naivety about "humans are toxic" and "scream power", but at the same time, it made me miss Boo. Comedy-wise, they got good mileage out of ragtag underdog monsters and the leads' antagonistic relationship, but none of the jokes were as memorable.
Here's an example of how much I've taken Pixar for granted. There was subplots that used familiar tropes from movies about underdogs and campus life, and they were executed in entertaining ways. Yet, I felt underwhelmed because they were still tropes. The one part that really stood out was a great moment of revelation after the underdogs won (was there ever a doubt?) that masterfully melded story and character and creativity. This was Pixar at its best. Unfortunately, my unreasonably demanding self wanted more than just one great moment out of the story.
Lastly, I felt this movie contradicted some parts of the legacy in terms of the "humans are toxic" rules during the climax. But take this critique with a giant slab of salt since it's been a decade since I've seen the 2001 title.
Overall, you can't go wrong with Pixar, even if your cynical antennae are on alert for yet another sequel/prequel. The characters were fleshed out, and the world building was fun. At a certain point, I've got to decide when can I finally enjoy solid titles like Monsters University without holding Pixar's expectation baggage against it.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)