Director: Francis Lawrence
Starring: Jennifer Lawrence, Josh Hutcherson, Elizabeth Banks, Phillip Seymour Hoffman
Release Date: November 22, 2013
Running Time: 146 minutes
Rating: 4/5
In some ways, The Hunger Games: Catching Fire almost exceeds its predecessor. It provides more depth to the characters and the world they live in, and gives us a clearer view of the decadence of Capitol society and the larger political ramifications of the games. Still, the first movie in the trilogy presented the same social-moral themes, albeit more subtly. Let me give a quick recap for those who aren't in the know: there has been a remarkable surge of young adult novels built around the "dystopia", and of these The Hunger Games has been the most prominent- I don't follow modern literature too much, so I, like many others, was introduced to the series through the films. Basically, The Hunger Games takes place under a totalitarian government where a nationwide televised tournament pits children against each other in a fight to the death until one emerges as a winner. If you think you recognize this storyline from somewhere else, we should talk later. Our hero Katniss, in a complex turn of events, winds up making it into this tournament, and in an even more complex turn of events, winds up making it out alive. Now it's important not to confuse the series that started the trend with the string of low-quality rip-off book-to-movie adaptations that followed- The Hunger Games is legitimately good. But while the first film was simple, organized, and coherent, the second one struggles to not seem like a re-hash of the first film. The characters in the film seem just as tired as we do when they learn that they'll have to do it all over again (the 75th annual Hunger Games draws from the pool of existing winners). But while it repeats many of the events of the first film with slight changes, it also addresses more of the central ideas behind the series; we have the characters talking about the impending necessity for a revolt, and we see more and more of a reflection of our own sensationalist society in this chapter. In short, while I am not happy that the third book is being split into two films, I can say that the second movie is immensely worthwhile and that seeing the ending will make it impossible to not see the saga's conclusion.
Director: Joss Whedon
Starring: Amy Acker, Alexis Denisof, Nathan Fillion, Clark Gregg, Fran Kranz, Sean Maher
Release Date: June 21, 2013
Running Time: 108 minutes
Rating: 4/5
I don't believe that there's any Shakespeare film adaptation more beloved by audiences as Kenneth Branagh's Much ado About Nothing, so I was surprised to see that Joss Whedon would attempt to make another silver screen version of the same play. And I'll have to say that I was even more surprised that the film manages to bring something new to the play- not only is it shot in a crisp, cool black and white that contrasts starkly with the colorful jovial atmosphere of the 90's version, but on top of that, it's arguably a more faithful adaptation. Although the older film is dreadfully clever and certainly feels more Shakespearean, the newer Much ado About Nothing seems to me to be more in the spirit of Shakespeare and his work. Of all Shakespeare's plays, this is the one that I have been the most exposed to, in both written, staged, and cinematic form. And what becomes clear to me about it is that, much like most of Shakespeare's comedies, there's a lot of serious subject material included as well. In Kenneth Branagh's version, the romantic comedy element of Benedick and Beatrice is emphasized so much that the seriousness of the Claudio and Hero subplot gets a bit downplayed, whereas the more recent retelling bears a darker, more dramatic tone to show us how high the stakes really are, yet keeps the sharp comedy at a good level as well to balance things out. What's more is that Joss Whedon's direction adds depth to some of the minor characters that were two-dimensional in the older one. The black and white adds to the film, creating a very sleek, elegant and sexual mood to the film, but the genius acting for all the more comical scenes of the film never fails to lighten things up. Both films are stylish, yes, but this film is stylish in its own way, and that's all to Shakespeare's benefit, as it brings out his play's core themes in a manner that's far more powerful and resonant than a mere theatrical version could. Shakespeare would be bewildered and proud.
Director: Alexander Payne
Starring: Bruce Dern, Will Forte
Release Date: November 15, 2013
Running Time: 114 minutes
Rating: 4/5
Nebraska, if it could be summed up in a simple sentence, is both a bleak and sardonic look at senility and a quirky peek at midwestern American culture. The tale centers on Woody Grant, an old man who believes he has won a sweepstakes for a million dollars, when in fact, his supposed "winning" slip of paper is nothing more than a misleading advertisement. His family members all try to dissuade him from his misguided belief, but as he stays strong and persistent, walking out of the house every chance that he can get to march out to Nebraska (where he believes his prize awaits him). Finally his son finally decides to put an end to the madness and drive him out to Nebraska himself to show his father that there was no prize after all. For what it's worth, there are a lot of interesting moments in this movie, though the story itself is intentionally very empty. There's some level of resolution in it, but the cynicism towards humanity is almost overbearing, though it remains charming enough to result in some great humor. One moment in the film that particularly stands out to me is the dialogue between Will Forte's character David and his two hillbilly cousins, in which he tells them that it will take at least another day to get to Nebraska, when they respond that they can get there in an hour. "That's over 200 miles," he responds. "Okay," they mutter in correction, "an hour and a half." Nebraska is well-crafted, and though it's almost as colorless emotionally as it is visually, it still packs in an enjoyable experience as a satirical drama.
Director: Joseph Kosinski
Starring: Tom Cruise, Andrea Riseborough, Olga Kurylenko, Morgan Freeman
Release Date: April 19, 2013
Running Time: 124 minutes
Rating: 4/5
While it's far from an instant classic, Oblivion is not a bad science fiction film, despite its unoriginality. The story takes place in a future where humanity has left earth and is now using large futuristic devices to transport water from its old home Earth to its new home, somewhere near Jupiter. Tom Cruise stars as the blandly named Jack (Dear Hollywood, if you must consistently force Tom Cruise's characters into the everyman stereotype, at least stop being so obvious about it). Jack is a maintenance worker who makes sure that everything is running smoothly down on Earth, co-running things with his partner Becky. However, when a small drone is sabotaged, a chain of events is set in motion that prompts Jack to break some of the rules, where he finds that all is not as it seems- and by that, I mean that his whole life is a lie. The story behind Oblivion is that it was adapted from director Joseph Kosinski's unpublished graphic novel, so the real pièce de rèsistance in this film is the stunning visual design, which appears in both the stylish space station where Jack and Becky live, and also in the ruins of a city submerged in sand. Things aren't presented to you so fast that you can't take them in, which I feel is becoming a norm in sci-fi today. Instead, it gives you time to absorb its designs, and you really gain an appreciation for every single motorbike, helicopter, and future gadget that you see. It has its own unique look. But the story takes somewhat of a back seat to these impressive visuals, which themselves are kind of improbable if you look at them too closely. You could claim that Oblivion rips off of the cult indie sci-fi flick Moon; but I would say that Oblivion merely takes some of the ideas of Moon and updates them: it applies them on a grander scale and made me have a kind of empathy for the characters and their circumstances that I didn't have while watching Moon. The twist has more or less been done before, but it doesn't feel completely cheap, and it builds up to a good climax with a decent conclusion. You can easily feel invested in the action sequences, but even more so in the fast-paced plot, which personally, I feel never skips a beat. In closure, it just might be a little underrated. Sure, Oblivion may be a bit sloppy around the edges, but it never really falls apart.
Director: James Ponsoldt
Starring: Miles Teller, Shaliene Woodley
Release Date: August 2, 2013
Running Time: 95 minutes
Rating: 3.5/5
One thing that I find dreadfully annoying about teen films is how teenagers seem to exist in an encapsulated mindset where college does not exist- in Ferris Bueller or Mean Girls, all of the characters seem to care exclusively about the high school experience, unaware that a future outside of high school. High school nostalgia has made high school a world of its own. The Spectacular Now is unique as a teen coming-of-age film in that it focuses on two seniors (Miles Teller, Shaliene Woodley) who are more than aware of their impending graduation and are grappling with the desire to near-sightedly focus on the high-school world and lose themselves in it, whilst an adult life bears down on them with great rapidity. While the movie is barely memorable at all for its story, it will probably be remembered in years to come as the breakout performance for both Teller and Woodley, who, on their own are fantastic, but together really put the power into this film. This was the film that really brought them to the attention of critics and audiences alike, mainly through the help of a script penned by Scott Neustadter and Michael H. Weber (500 Days of Summer). Within protagonist Sutter Keely we find a struggle of maturity- that struggle being a decision of whether or not to mature, as he juggles school, work, feelings for his ex, fear of the future, and a new love interest. The love interest Aimee Finicky is more assured of her life's direction and self-accepting, as opposed to what her name suggests. If she fears anything, she fears for Sutter, perhaps that he will not commit or mature, or perhaps that she will be brought down by him. As said before, while nothing much happens, the plot moves over the events of their senior year naturalistically, not sugar-coating things, but not over-dramatizing them either. If anything does make this movie succeed, it is the relatable dialogue as channeled through the two main leads, who work in perfect chemistry. This, along with the poignant screenwriting, bring together a picture that is warm, clever, and honestly in touch with its contemporary teen audience, despite that target audience group's disinterest in a film as honest as this one.
Director: Ben Stiller
Starring: Ben Stiller, Kristen Wiig, Adam Scott, Sean Penn
Release Date: December 25, 2013
Running Time: 114 minutes
Rating: 3.5/5
I found it endearingly strange when I looked at the Wikipedia page for this film and saw The Secret Life of Walter Mitty described as a "cult film." Can you seriously ascribe cult status to something that's only been around for two years? And yet, somehow, that makes sense. The Secret Life of Walter Mitty didn't get a particularly good reception when it first came out... yet, truth be told, I haven't met a single person who disliked it- one of my college friends loved it enough to make it the basis of their year-end project. On top of that, when I saw it in theaters myself, there was nothing I saw that you could really beat the film down for. Granted, the tone of the film felt a bit off and incoherent at times, particularly during a few brief fantasy sequences at the beginning of the movie, which go so far in their CGI ridiculousness that they pass the barrier of being funny and just wind up being odd. But that's a small flaw in a movie that is, in all other regards, very stylishly directed with a cool color palette and excellently framed shots. Perhaps it's that critics just don't like Ben Stiller. Stiller's eponymous character is of course the central focus of the picture, so perhaps watching him onscreen for that long a period of time would make some folks a bit antsy- yet, I don't think even that's the case. Stiller is surprisingly, not obnoxious in this role. He doesn't clown around, trying to please us with a series of endless antics. Rather, he shows us a character traveling on a very personal journey through an environment that kind of provides the humor for him- and it is the heartfelt tenderness that the role presents that allows us to see the personal nature of the film for Stiller himself. His heart is in every part of this movie. So... why did critics not like it? I suppose I can provide some resolution to this question, and I believe that a large part of it has to do with the reason that it became so popular with its audience. Walter Mitty is a dreamer- he lets other people call the shots in his life, while he sits by and simply wishes for purpose. At the end of the first act of this movie, he decides to break out of that. He makes the impulsive decision to go out into the world and go after what he wants, catching a plane to Iceland to track down a lost photograph. This is a kind of character and a kind of story that is so infuriatingly formulaic to critics, yet so ridiculously attractive to audiences- this is a movie that takes a dreamer-turned-doer story arc that makes us feel good about the countless movies we've seen it in, and strips it down to its basics, polishes it up, and releases it on the screen as the definitive go-to "feel good" movie. It is a cheap trick. A very cheap trick. But by God, it works. While I have to denounce this movie for its gimmicky formula, hipster soundtrack, and awkward fantasy scenes, I still have to celebrate it for what it's become: an endlessly lovable staple film of this generation. Ben Stiller, you win this round.
Director: J. C. Chandor
Starring: Robert Redford
Release Date: October 25, 2013
Running Time: 105 minutes
Rating: 3.5/5
Somehow, most all movies about survival at sea seem the same to me. Most all stories about survival at sea seem the same to me. The problem with All is Lost is that it fits the criterion for these kinds of stories exactly: from smooth sailing, to disaster, to waiting, to rations, to rescue- or, at least, we hope there will be rescue. It treads on a damning paradox: if our nameless survivor finds rescue, the film will be predictable. If he does not, the film will be pointless. The film only has a few qualities that aim to make it stand out from similar narratives. J.C. Chandor's direction certainly does nothing to be noticed- instead, I refer to the raised stakes, and Robert Redford's role. All is Lost does nearly everything to make the survival story more intense- reducing our character to blinding sunlight and dreadful hunger and dehydration, pushing everything to both the limits of the character, the limits of our imagination, and the limits of the narrative. There is virtually no dialogue, save a distress call and a few expletives. All other story elements are carried on the shoulders of Robert Redford's acting- which is good, if you like Robert Redford in particular. But the movie fails if it means to use the talents of such an actor as a beacon to call people to this movie, or a steady foundation to save it. Despite its tense plot, it doesn't necessarily avoid tedium- it's scarcely begun when you want it to be over. Movies about characters in situations the character seeks to escape will often bring audiences a similar feeling of a desire to escape, to the point where I myself constantly sought escape from the film itself. But for the patient few, the tense "will he or won't he" dilemma should hold up. But is this movie little more than a desperate grab for a bunch of awards? I think not.
Director: Lake Bell
Starring: Lake Bell, Fred Melamed, Michaela Watkins, Ken Marino, Demetri Martin
Release Date: August 9, 2013
Running Time: 93 minutes
Rating: 3.5/5
In animation, when you try too hard to make people seem real, you can easily reach a state of "almost real" that is known as the "uncanny valley." In live action, this can be achieved as well, through characters that are too realistic to be complete caricatures, but with dialogue so staged and personalities so exaggerated that the illusion of believability isn't really achieved, and there's a greater amount of suspension of disbelief required to make us feel that these are real people. In a World... does this, creating an "uncanny valley" where the lines are quirky and the acting is good, but the characters themselves are more sociopolitical mindsets than actual people- and this happens at the expense of the humor, the story, and the feminist message this movie is trying to get across. Lake Bell writes, directs, and stars as leading character Carol Solomon, daughter of famed voice actor Sam Sotto (Fred Melamed). Carol aspires to be a voice actress herself, but she consistently lives in the shadow of her father, and finds herself competing with the cocky Gustav Warner (Marino) for her place as her father's heir. There are some funny moments in this movie, granted, but it doesn't really function as a comedy. This film is a satire of the entertainment industry, first and foremost. But making a good satire is like walking a tightrope, only harder. You either push things so far into exaggeration that they become totally outlandish, (by way of Team America: World Police), or, you can take the more difficult route: create complex characters and realistic situations, and have all of the social commentary appear within the subtle, poignant dialogue of the characters (Annie Hall, I guess?). In a World... walks about halfway between these two sides of satire- I'm not saying that the characters aren't likable, it's just that they're in the embryonic stage of personality development. The good guy is clearly the good guy (or in this case, the good girl), while her father and Gustav Warner are both so two-dimensionally dickish. There's one scene where Gustav tells Sam that he slept with the girl that was competing for his job, and Sam congratulates him. Later, Sam figures out that this girl just happens to be his daughter Carol... Sam is for some reason more distraught that his daughter is voice acting than he is that Gustav bragged to him about deflowering his daughter. I do acknowledge that there are some bad fathers out there, but even this somehow stretches my disbelief- and there are many similar moments that did this for me. Don't even get me started on the romantic subplot. No, not the romantic subplot with Carol and the cute guy, I mean the romantic subplot between Carol's sister and her partner- I cannot be dissuaded from the fact that every scene involving Carol's brother-in-law was thrown into the film as a time filler. Still, what talent is lacking in story and characters is made up for in intelligence and wit, qualities that shine through in small moments throughout. Lake Bell is smart and can certainly deliver a mildly entertaining movie. But until her stories can take themselves more seriously, she will never be as thought-provoking as she hopes to be.
Director: Clio Barnard
Starring: Conner Chapman, Shaun Thomas, Sean Gilder
Release Date: October 25, 2013
Running Time: 91 minutes
Rating: 3.5/5
The Selfish Giant is by far the most bleak, cruel, and heartless portrayal of childhood I have ever seen. So naturally, it's been universally acclaimed. Looking back at the movies that I've given stellar reviews, I'm surprised at how many coming-of-age films I've been ecstatic about. Perhaps a good coming-of-age film is more than a simple coming-of-age film, it's part of the coming-of-age experience itself. But what am I talking about? I clearly don't think The Selfish Giant deserves to be honored in the way that classics like The 400 Blows and Stand by Me are, so why even mention these movies here? Because you can make a good, serious, and "real" film about growing up without portraying the most degenerate parts of humanity. Not to say that lower-class Scotland is the most degenerate part of humanity; I'm sure there are plenty of other parts of the world that are better suited to being the butt of that joke. No, I mean that the characters in this movie represent the worst of humanity- Arbor and Kitty, specifically. If you're intrigued by the title, it's a reference to an Oscar Wilde fairy tale that the film bears little to no resemblance to- the film probably only uses the name to twist the kind-hearted story into a sick subversion of itself. However, if we are to draw anything from the title and the story's "inspiration", it is that the real "selfish giant" of the story is Kitty, the oddly-named junkman who illegally employs two local kids, Arbor and Swifty, to go around collecting scraps of metal and industrial cable. In Rahmin Bahrani's Chop Shop, a child in a similar situation is there because his socio-economic position forces him into it. In The Selfish Giant, Arbor scraps because he wants to. He sees school as a waste of time and willfully abandons the possibility of a higher-paying more rewarding job in the future because he sees scrapping as a way of easy money for the present. And frankly, we don't actually see him spending any of the money that he earns on anything, nor does he give much of an intimation of what he plans on using it for. His best friend Swifty, in contrast, is more dedicated towards his future, but abandons school because of his friendship. Swifty's slow gentle nature is a counter to Arbor's hyper-activity, and thus he is easily persuaded to questionable activities by Swifty's aggressive personality. Yet the real manipulator might be the scrap-man himself, who, though not the instigator of the kids' interest in the trade, stops discouraging them when he realizes they're useful to him, he continues to use them at the expense of their own safety. Is The Selfish Giant a good movie? Of course; it's got style, craft, and good acting, and its gloomy atmosphere of garbage, power lines and nuclear plants is a pleasure to look at. But you don't really profit from watching it. The Selfish Giant is dark and cold, but it doesn't say much besides "humanity and life in general are dark and cold". If that's what's critically acclaimed, so be it. But while I'm all for an cold and cruel representation of humanity in movies, I strongly believe that the end result has to still provide something extra, to balance and satisfy. And for all this movie's worth, it doesn't have that.
Director: Goro Miyazaki
Starring: Sarah Bolger, Anton Yelchin, Ron Howard, Jeff Dunham, Gillian Anderson
Release Date: March 15, 2013
Running Time: 92 minutes
Rating: 3.5/5
From Up on Poppy Hill is beautifully animated, I can't deny- but I also can't deny that it had no reason to be animated. The same story could have been done in live action, and probably to the story's benefit. The most visually interesting thing we see in this movie is the a club-house built by high-school nerds, and even that we only see for a few minutes. But even if we put the whole live-action vs. animation issue aside, it's still the most boring Studio Ghibli movie I've ever seen (this is taking into account The Wind Rises was a plodding two hours while this was only 92 minutes). It really feels more like a bittersweet painting of post-war Japan than a tale of events in characters' lives- and to be clear, that's not a bad thing. It fully captures the silence that's on everyone's lips after a war that they were on the wrong side of, yet it also shows the optimism of recovery, hinting at the bright future that lies beyond what happens within the narrative. But as for the characters themselves, I can't say much. Firstly, they fail to be original- second, they fail to make me really care. The story never really ascends above the level of high-school drama. And it's not even a good, active high-school drama- it's more of a gentle, cutesy romance with a piano-laden soundtrack. There's some semblance of a mystery, but somehow the revelations that come about as the past unfurls itself to these two lovestruck teenagers never really surprise. "Slightly bemused" would be a better description. I saw it less than two years ago, and half of what happened escapes me. Something related to school spirit, something related to family ties, something related to signal flags, maybe. The bottom line: there's nothing inherently wrong with a film invoking the spirit of a lazy summer afternoon. And if you would define a lazy summer afternoon as simply a pretty backdrop for lemonade with friends (though tedious to get through if you don't have knitting needles), then I would say From Up on Poppy Hill captures that pretty well.
Director: Joel Coen, Ethan Coen
Starring: Oscar Isaac, Carey Mulligan, John Goodman
Release Date: December 6, 2013
Running Time: 105 minutes
Rating: 3.5/5
I was told recently during a conversation about Christopher Nolan's Following that I shouldn't need to pick "least favorites" with directors I like. Of course, my response was that I usually don't need to pick a "least favorite" until a director I like releases a film that can qualify as such. And sadly, Inside Llewyn Davis stands up to the occasion, right when I needed it to. Inside Llewyn Davis subtracts all of the soul and vibrancy of the Greenwich folk music scene and turns it into a depressing Oscar-bait drama. Yes, it is very well put-together. Yes, the Coen brothers are amazing directors. Yes, their fantastic direction and screenwriting are both evident in this film. So, what's the problem? Some people have proclaimed a great love for this movie, and yet I boldly proclaim a firm dislike for it, and there are a number of reasons why I refrain from recommending it to other people. For one thing, a movie shouldn't make you wish that the main character would just kill himself and get the story over with. In Inside Llewyn Davis, everything and everyone seems to be against folk singer Llewyn Davis. His "ex-girlfriend" (Carey Mulligan) hates him and, though she is married, threatens to abort her child just because of the small chance that it might be his. Her clueless husband seems to have no idea. His family wants him to stay away from them and his record company isn't giving him enough money to pay his own rent, so he's been sleeping on a different friend's couch every night. So considering all odds are against him, this is the guy we root for, right? And considering that he's the guy we root for, he should be a pretty likeable character, right? Actually, no- to be frank, Llewyn Davis is an enormous jerk who deserves pretty much everything that happens to him. Well, sure, his ex Jean is a little harsh on him, but if everyone hates him, chances are he's done something to warrant their treatment of him- and we see him do this stuff all throughout the movie, so it gets to a point where we hate him. The movie has its perks- every joke involving the cat or John Goodman's character (Goodman plays an eerily obnoxious traveller) was fantastic. But when I go to a Coen brothers movie, I have an expectation that I'll get some degree of enjoyment from it due to a consistent element of fun that they infuse their films with. That element was entirely absent in this film's formula, and it all goes to show so tragically how people assume that a film must be dull and depressing for it to be considered "artsy." Granted, it is a good and well-developed chapter in their repertoire, but all of the more pleasing movies that they made were just as artistically refined as this punishment of a motion picture, which has about as much charm as a frozen piece of roadkill.
Director: Shane Black
Starring: Robert Downey, Jr., Gwenyth Paltrow, Guy Pearce, Ben Kingsley
Release Date: May 3, 2013
Running Time: 130 minutes
Rating: 3.5/5
Iron Man 3 is a fairly decent superhero movie. Is it better than most other Marvel movies I've seen? That's a long shot. Is it better than the first Iron Man? Probably. But is it something that I would watch a second time? Not a chance. Iron Man 3 relies on a single premise, and that is that it promises to examine the man behind the suit- to throw Tony Stark into a situation where he must get by on his wits alone. The trailer particularly promised something more soul-searchy than our usual snarky Iron Man fare, but sadly, we don't really see any of that at all in the new film. There are some very intense moments, don't get me wrong. Tony Stark's entire house comes crashing down, and so does his world. His girlfriend barely makes it out alive and she only escapes that to get caught in more trouble in the movie's second half. (Actually, the movie shows us that Pepper really does have just as many badass skills as Tony does, which is another laudable feature). Tony is stranded without his technology- for maybe fifteen minutes of screen-time. Things build up to an anticlimax, and then build up again to the final climax. Some would argue that the anticlimax halfway through the film is the big disappointment, while others argue that the movie's greatest flaw is in its goofy fire-people bad guys. First, I don't really know how to respond to the half-human half lava-person people that our hero is pitted up against- it's ridiculous. But neither that, nor Ben Kingsley's special appearance, is the big letdown of this movie. Though I've really only seen parts of the second film, I feel pretty safe saying that this is the best Iron Man film yet because it challenges Tony the most- it's pretty enjoyable in that it delivers in that. But it had more potential. We were expecting to see a man save himself without his technology, and throughout the movie, Tony Stark uses ingenuity, but also a whole lot of technology to save the day. And then after that he decides to retire the technology altogether (these are spoilers, but they're vague spoilers, so I guess I half-apologize). What would have made a lot more sense: Stark proves he can save the day without technology, and then keeps the technology. But this clearly didn't happen. Lots of people complain that Iron Man 3 makes it look like Stark is retiring. My complaint is that I expected to see some evolution in Stark's character, and other than overcoming PTSD from his last movie, Stark is the same man at the end of the movie that he is at the beginning. His radical decision isn't a bad one- it just doesn't seem like there's any emotional warrant for him to make it. Sure, wrapped up in a pretty little package, Iron Man 3 is probably a harmless and enjoyable summer superhero film. But whatever information about your favorite characters it presents you with, it's not anything that you didn't know already, or needed to know in the first place.
Director: Gavin Hood
Starring: Asa Butterfield, Harrison Ford, Viola Davis, Abigail Breslin, Ben Kingsley
Release Date: November 1, 2013
Running Time: 114 minutes
Rating: 3.5/5
I'd venture maybe half the movies you see out there derive themselves from some sort of literary source. And in the case of maybe about half of those movies, people don't really care how well the movie adapts from the book because most of them haven't read the book. Yet the other half of the time, a studio will decide to adapt something from a really popular or important book, and- well, long story short, they'd do well to know how dangerous it is to tread that kind of water. Ender's Game is one of the latter cases. It is a book practically everyone I know has read. I was practically forced to read it by a group of emphatic friends. (Reading: it's the grave consequence of private school peer pressure). So I knew that Ender's Game would either stay close to the book and be a huge success, or stray from the book and infuriate everyone in its audience. And what happened was kind of worse than either of these outcomes, as it kind of wound up being a mix of the two. It stayed so true to the book that no one could say they really hated it, but then again it went so far from the book that no one really felt comfortable watching it. This was its fatal mistake: case in point, it's only been a year or two and already everyone's forgotten about it. Now, in regards to all of the primary parts of the film, such as plot and characters, I actually have few complaints. The whole Ender story is carried across pretty well: a kid has peculiar strategic talent, so he is sent to space to play war games as part of an elaborate training operation. This could not have been done without the brilliant decision to cast for the lead Asa Butterfield, who brings Ender to life in a very real, familiar way. Namely, I have one complaint: Peter and Valentine, the most freaking interesting part of the book, were left almost entirely out of the movie. They have an entire separate story going on that was actually a huge deal- while Ender is up doing battle-training in space, Peter and Valentine are basically blogging for the fate of the world (okay, in the modern day and age, this actually is really implausible, but it's still a huge part of the story that I want to see onscreen, darn it). Heck, throwing in a few more Valentine scenes in this movie might have saved Abigail Breslin's dying career as an actress. But for the first time my main problem is actually with the visual presentation of the film- it's a failure in atmosphere. Every science fiction adaptation of anything nowadays tries to give you the same visual feel: everything is shiny, sleek, and clean- we have nice clothes and touch-screen computers- everywhere! The design of this film deceives itself into thinking that it's a modern "update" of the book's technology, when really, it's not. Notions of what's "futuristic" change from decade to decade, and when people look back at this movie, they won't be wowed by the "shiny update"- they'll pass it off as dated. The only movies that won't appear dated are the ones that, like Star Wars or Brazil, are unique enough to stand out with their own aesthetic design- and sadly, Ender's Game doesn't do that. What would have been cool is if it had stayed true to the 80's notion of what the future looked like- can't you imagine this whole thing taking place on the spaceship from Aliens or one of its contemporaries? Instead, it had to rip off of a visual style that we've all seen a hundred times before because it wasn't imaginative enough to do otherwise. If there are any people still talking about this movie, trust me, they won't be in twenty years. The film misses its chance of even gaining a cult following, because everyone who would be part of the movie's cult following is already a fan of the book series- so frankly, the film comes off as only an unnecessary leech to the literary franchise.
Director: Woody Allen
Starring: Cate Blanchett, Sally Hawkins, Alec Baldwin, Louis C.K.
Release Date: August 23, 2013
Running Time: 99 minutes
Rating: 3.5/5
The transition from film to digital was not kind to Woody Allen. Granted, Midnight in Paris was a lot of fun, but Allen's presence in the dialogue of the movie was almost invisible. In Blue Jasmine, he removes himself even further from the equation, producing a movie that is smart and refined, but totally unfunny and... totally uninteresting. Let me be clear: I am a huge fan of Martin Scorcese's The Aviator and yet I still honestly will say that Blue Jasmine is the best performance of Cate Blanchett's career. Every Cate Blanchett fan should see it as punishment for being a Cate Blanchett fan. Firstly, she is the focal point of the film, so we get more delicious screen time of her than any other movie could possibly give us. Secondly, her role requires her to suppress her British accent and hence the cool, refined sophistication that is usually associated with her roles are here replaced with an naive psuedo-sophistocated American on a neurotic journey through menopause-land. Woody Allen aims to present two themes in this movie: the first and more obvious theme laid out before us is that of class difference, as protagonist Jasmine (Blanchett) is forced to live with her lower-class sister Ginger in Los Angeles, abandoning her former opulent life with her husband (Alec Baldwin) in New York, who has committed suicide in prison after being convicted of large-scale fraud. The second theme in the film is that of Jasmine's quest for relevance: her life prior to the opening of the film is defined by dependency. In her shift towards a different lifestyle, she struggles with independence and ultimately crumbles. She is surrounded by fake people (her husband) and yet she is terrified by real people (her sister)- she needs a kind of validation from someone who can show her that she isn't fake, but in a world where it's actually more natural for women to get by independently, she's in a boat without a paddle, from her perspective. And on top of that, she's also torn with guilt from- well, it's best not to get too deep into spoiler territory. If you really really enjoy picking apart complex character-driven dramas, then you'll probably enjoy Blue Jasmine. But if you're not the dry, dull drama kind of person, then please don't be deceived by the label "dark comedy" into thinking that this movie is entertaining. Over the years, Woody Allen's maturity in craft has transformed him from the star to the narrator to the fly on the wall- he is now the puppeteer, not the magician, and his comedy is used sparingly on a stage that is currently set up for a tragedy. Neither realism nor tragedy are bad things, don't get me wrong- but Woody Allen's realism is bland. Rather than make Jasmine endearing or relatable, he has painted her out as a cathartic heroine drowning in hubristic narcissism. And I can tell you straight off the bat which kind of character most people prefer.
Director: Andrew Bujalski
Starring: Patrick Reister, Wiley Wiggins, Myles Paige
Release Date: July 17, 2013
Running Time: 92 minutes
Rating: 3/5
Computer Chess has its flaws, yes, but it also has some good redemptive qualities. Here we are presented with indie film at its nerdiest: a period piece about nerds in the 80's competing against each other in a computer chess tournament that at times feels like a mockumentary, and at other times just seems like a bizarre drama. While the film focuses primarily on the chess tournament itself, it also strays off in some strange directions, as it follows the programmers as they each develop their own subplots while meandering through the hotel they're stuck in for a majority of the film. Some of them battle their own virginity, some of them spill fascinating anecdotes about their computer-related experience- and then there's Michael Papageorge, a man who we feel is one of them, but somehow doesn't have a hotel room, and spends most of his time searching the hallways for someone to mooch a bed off of. His fate is perhaps the strangest of any of the characters, as he travels not only out of the hotel, but also the time-space continuum as we know it- possibly. Expect a Jarmuschian narrative- that is, a film that is practically without a narrative, but is rather focused on small treats for the audience in little scenes, here and there. And boy, does this movie have a lot of them. We are even allowed a brief look at a cultish group therapy session that's going on in the room next door. Yet though it tries so hard to be delightfully offbeat, I really feel like it loses its rhythm altogether- this could probably be attributed to the fact that a clear majority of it was completely improvised. There's no clear flow of things, and while the film may start out interesting, the pacing really slows down and picks up sporadically throughout the rest of its duration. Parts of it are entertaining, but other parts of it are long and dull, not to mention confusing, and though it has some shining moments of funny, the overall brand of humor in the film is too quirky to be intelligible- finding the joke, at times, is like trying to find a lost shoe in a rainy bog. So Computer Chess works- but barely.
Director: Peter Berg
Starring: Mark Wahlberg, Taylor Kitsch, Emile Hirsch, Ben Foster
Release Date: December 25, 2013
Running Time: 122 minutes
Rating: 3/5
If you see Lone Survivor, expect to see four soldiers face up against innumerable odds in an epic survival story of modern warfare, adapted faithfully from the accounts of the real-life survivors. However, don't expect to be moved emotionally, don't expect to be mentally challenged, don't expect to be shocked by the brutality of war, don't expect to feel involved with any of the characters, don't expect to be entertained, and above all, don't expect to learn much more about the Marcus Luttrell story than you did in in the first sentence of this review. I mean, that does sound a bit overkill, and truth be told, it's not all bad. Like I said, it is faithful to its source material. The story is adapted pretty well, and it's a true story. But that doesn't really make it worth your time because it doesn't really provide any payoff- that is, you're not rewarded with any levels of complexities beyond seeing a few soldiers fall into a trap and kick-ass their way out of it. Not to say that this is an action film: this is a very serious movie, about real people who actually died doing what they did. And I take these events very seriously. But if all of the attempted pathos falls short, then watching it becomes a chore- you're only seeing it out of respect for the soldiers who died and out of a sense of duty to learn about modern warfare. But if that's your motivation, why not just watch a documentary about it? Learning about the hardship of slavery is hopefully not the only reason that people go see 12 Years a Slave, or else they'd be watching a Ken Burns film or something. Educational value is the only thing that gives this movie its value (which isn't to say it's not technically refined and structurally solid - it is), but even then the information that the film gives you about the war in Iraq doesn't extend beyond one anecdote. The film is really the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the war on terror, there are a lot of things it doesn't begin to touch on, namely, some of the main reasons our soldiers are over there in the first place. To cap off, Lone Survivor is a lot like its hero: it's strong and well-oiled, but in the end, it just barely makes it out as being OK.
Dishonorable Mentions
Director: Baz Luhrmann
Starring: Leonardo DiCaprio, Tobey MacGuire, Carey Mulligan
Release Date: May 10, 2013
Running Time: 142 minutes
Rating: 2.5/5
I'm not gonna lie, The Great Gatsby was a lot of fun, as is every Baz Luhrmann film. It would be a fantastic movie in its own right if it didn't have to attach itself to some source material- that is to say, it functions pretty well as a movie, but it functions terribly as an adaptation of the F. Scott Fitzgerald novel. When I was first seeing clips from this film, everything about the movie looked, perfect, thrilling, mysterious- and yet- that's not Fitzgerald's "Gatsby." There will always be movie adaptations of this book, but it will always just be better as a book. And that's because it's more than just characters and dialogue and events- it's poetry. Any film that adapts poetry has to dig into the layered motives of its heroes and also reflect visually the linguistic brilliance of its original work. All of the advertising for this film reflected a different movie altogether- a movie with violence, intrigue, conspiracy, passion, and secrets. If Luhrmann had made a movie like that, in the same time period, with the same costume and set design, but with a different story- it would be excellent. That's the movie that I wanted to see when I started watching this one. But the "Gatsby" story (which Luhrmann actually sticks to pretty faithfully) ruins any chance of that, and so all of these fantastic visuals which imply a winding crime thriller are wasted on a romantic drama- and the romantic drama itself doesn't have the right visuals to perfectly accentuate its mood. The style and the story would both be great individually, but the combination of the two devalues both of them. What makes me more upset than anything about all this is the fact that it might have worked if the acting pulled it through and brought out the depth and pathos of the novel through its characters. And it was so close. You see, I was enormously excited for this movie on account of its leads: Leonardo DiCaprio, Tobey MacGuire, and Carey Mulligan. I've been a fan of Tobey MacGuire since... always, and Leonardo DiCaprio seemed perfect for Gatsby, and I was just beginning to appreciate Carey Mulligan as an emerging actress. And yet, onscreen, they become living proof that good actors are nothing in the hands of a bad director. That isn't to say that Baz Luhrmann is a bad director... he is an amazing director when it comes to production value, camera tricks, set up, and overall effect. Yet the acting in his films- this one, particularly- comes out as flat and melodramatic. If the film is good at one thing, it would be in how true it stays to the original story: this would make an excellent film to display in high school English classrooms to reward the students after they'd finished the book. But watching it in any other setting, say, by yourself or with friends- is both confusing and distressing. You want this film to be good, you do want it so badly to succeed and really pull through as a good movie, and it almost almost does that; but what it promises is so much and what it delivers is so near to being acceptable that its failure is not only disappointing: it's tragic.
Director: Sam Raimi
Starring: James Franco, Mila Kunis, Rachel Wiesz
Release Date: March 8, 2013
Running Time: 130 minutes
Rating: 2.5/5
Wow... hmmm... umm... wow. It's always difficult reviewing a movie that has just as many good things about it as bad things. On one hand, Oz the Great and Powerful is beautiful and imaginative and fun for the whole family. On the other hand, it's campy, loose around the edges and is lacking in substance of any value. I'm not mad at what's wrong with this movie. I'm mad because the people who made this movie clearly knew everything that was wrong with it, yet they slapped a bow on it and passed it off to the audience as a better movie than it actually is, thinking that sure, we can forgive the sloppiness. Family movies like this have happened since forever, and Oz the Great and Powerful, just a hair shy of being a rewarding experience, is a wake-up call that we shouldn't accept this kind of garbage anymore. Just a little more brainstorming could have made the plot better. Just a little more editing could have made the script better. Just a little more effort could have made the CGI better. And yet what we have in the story is a convoluted double-take, an awkwardly forced romance, a landslide of coincidence, a rushed buildup, and a contrived conflict. What we have in the script is a long series of half-funny lines followed by smirks from James Franco. I'm don't even want to mention the CGI- it's like a Tim Burton film- it's still fun to look at, but the more stuff that they do CGI for, the less real it looks. And when the illusion of it is gone, then so is half of the fun. If they used a little more restraint and used a combination of real sets and CGI, that would be great. It's the good things about this movie that really hurt me. There are so many redeeming elements that tug at my heart, demanding for me to love the film, but they don't really win out, and that's a pity. Describing what happens would be pointless- it's an origin story for the wizard himself; starting off with Franco as a magician who is ashamed that his magic is fake, and ending with a magician who is proud that his magic is fake. But as good a story as that sounds, the bumps, pitfalls, and eye-rolling moments of the whole thing make you question if it's really worth the ride.
Director: J. J. Abrams
Starring: Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto, Benedict Cumberbatch
Release Date: May 16, 2013
Running Time: 133 minutes
Rating: 2/5
Do you love science fiction? Do you love Star Trek? Do you love Benedict Cumberbatch? Even if you answered "yes" to all three of these questions, this movie will most likely still be a waste of your time. If a movie is made in an effort to be good and please audiences, then it's easier to pardon if it's bad. If a movie is constructed off of an existing franchise, marketed to look cool, and makes half a billion dollars while delivering nothing more than a hastily thrown-together plot and a handful of guns and explosions- that's a travesty, because we've all been cheated. I don't feel like I've been cheated out of ten bucks. I feel the pain of the audiences of America who have lost half a billion dollars collectively. Is it just me, or do movies like this keep getting made because people just shrug them off and accept them as flawed but harmless action movies. Does anyone else see how offensive it is to us when they suck all of the heart and soul out of Star Trek and expect us not to notice that? Within Star Trek: Into Darkness we see young alternate-universe Kirk encounter a rogue bad-guy Khan, a psychopath ("ooooh.... psychopaths... that's like... evil times ten!") whose somewhat justified motives and ruthless intelligence are pitted against Kirk's rash decision-making and overall jerkish-ness. Kirk deserves to not be demoted and fired. He screws up pretty much everything he does in some way, he's obnoxious, and we the audience are forced to root for him simply because... he's Kirk? Yeah, sure. Bad mistakes are totally forgivable if you pin them on a character that everybody loves. Good strategy. Khan is evil, yes, but somehow the Enterprise is also fighting against the Federation in this movie? But, why? The explanations for the motives of every party in this movie is not only confusing, but it's also pointless. There is nothing that happens in this movie during the first act that makes you care about the characters, so everything that happens during the rest of the movie doesn't even have a frame of reference- it doesn't matter what they're up against or why, so at the end of the movie nobody even remembers what anyone was fighting about, only that there was a big battle and a ship came crashing down into the middle of a city and there was a lot of explosions and some good hand-to-hand combat. Mission, purpose, and space exploration are replaced with alien sex and an unnecessary gratuitous moment- you know the one I mean. The only attachment that you can have to the people that you're seeing on screen comes from pre-existing knowledge of the Star Trek universe- and that's probably what Paramount Studios was banking on.
Director: Peter Jackson
Starring: Martin Freeman, Ian McKellan, Benedict Cumberbatch, Evangeline Lily
Release Date: December 13, 2013
Running Time: 161 minutes
Rating: 2/5
Enough about the movie that cheated us half a billion dollars: here's the movie that cheated us out of a billion dollars. After seeing The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, I had no doubt that Peter Jackson was utterly ruining the book by stretching it into three movies. Still though, I looked forward to the possibility that I might be entertained by the next two movies. The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug stopped any chance of that happening, and has helped me become more clear on my position on these films: that firstly, Peter Jackson doesn't really care about the movies that he's making anymore, secondly, that he's only relying on the success of the Lord of the Rings trilogy to trick us into giving him our money, and thirdly, no one should give him any money any more, until he apologizes in the form of a good movie. Like Star Trek: Into Darkness, the main evil in the movie is not played by Benedict Cumberbatch- rather, the evil abides in the hearts of the makers of the film, that they destroy a beloved story and have the audacity to think they can get away with it. The problem with the one book to three movies adaptation isn't as evident in the first film, but within The Desolation of Smaug the entire gimmick falls apart and we see all of the holes and frailties and flaws with the entire trilogy. First things first: what happens within this film? Twelve dwarves walk through the forest, get captured by elves, wind up in lake town, journey to the mountain, and awaken the dragon to have a ridiculous battle sequence with him. What could easily take one hour takes up two and a half, due to a ridiculously slow pacing, bland and extended dialogue, and an enormous amount of unnecessary subplots. Time that could be spent developing minor peculiarities of each dwarf is instead spent introducing people that we don't care about and time-filling arcs that don't benefit to the larger story. Necromancer? Sauron? This is Peter Jackson's self-indulgent narcissism, his desire to achieve continuity at the lack of coherency. By the end of the movie, we're so tired of it all that even if we saw the dragon flambé half of the dwarves alive it probably wouldn't make a difference to us, and it would probably be more interesting. Smaug is a good enough villain for one movie, but his evil-ness most certainly cannot hold out for three. The Hobbit is supposed to be a fun, treasure hunting romp, but Peter Jackson has turned it into a gloomy wasteland that takes itself so seriously that even when the funny moments come up we find them infuriatingly ridiculous rather than charming, because they show up in a world that's so full of awfulness that the slightest bit of humor seems entirely unwelcome. So without the humor, the enjoyability, the frolic of the quest archetype, the entire "adventure" quality to the movie is completely gone. It's just become some sepia-tone Ridley Scott medieval dark fantasy- there's no magic in it, at least, not the good kind. Hence, it's not only lost its quality of interest: it's lost its quality of fun.
-Julian Rhodes
No comments:
Post a Comment