Star Trek Into Darkness is director/producer J.J. Abrams sequel to his enormously successful 2009 film Star Trek, which successfully rebooted Paramount Studio's ailing sci-fi franchise of the same name. In the 2009 film we were reintroduced to the original characters who filled the bridge of the starship Enterprise from the 1960's TV series. Star Trek brilliantly united both the old and the new in a thrillingly fun outing that set the stage for a Trek comeback.
Star Trek Into Darkness is the fulfillment of that comeback.
The plot is simple. When a mysterious terrorist (played ruthlessly by Sherlock's Benedict Cumberbatch) begins attacking Starfleet targets, Captain James T Kirk (Chris Pine) leads his crew on a mission to bring the man to justice.
The execution of that plot is far more layered and engrossing than one simple sentence conveys.
There's action a-plenty. And it's edge of your seat, pulse pounding sequences of complex scenarios. And there's effects. We're talking top-tier realistic effects that suck you into the picture, and wash you over with awe. But the core of the thrill in this film is the story. The story of relationships.
The driving force behind the movie is the relationship between Kirk, and his friend, the Vulcan science officer Spock (Zachary Quinto). Their character traits at once play perfectly against each other, and in harmony at the same time. And when crises moments arise you find yourself caring more about their friendship than any action occurring around them.
Thrown into the mix are communications officer Uhura (Zoe Saldana) whose relationship with Spock and longstanding friendship with Kirk is another driving force. Simon Pegg's Scotty has a vital role in this film as does Bruce Greenwood's Captain Pike from the previous film.
The rest of the crew is there, and all play important parts in the film. But there's some fascinating guest stars as well, including Robocop's Peter Weller as a no-nonsense Starfleet Admiral.
Into Darkness also deftly incorporates aspects of previous Trek films and story lines to keep the die hard fans not only satisfied, but happy with the twists and turns this film takes on those previous events.
All in all, a well acted, fantastically shot, energetically written story that will keep you enthralled and focused entirely on what happens next in the film. And you will find yourself gasping and cheering all along the way of this thrilling ride.
10/10.
Showing posts with label review. Show all posts
Showing posts with label review. Show all posts
September 9, 2013
June 16, 2013
Man Of Steel (2013)
I quite liked Man Of Steel. Mostly because of the story, which I thought was the film's strongest feature. I will reveal no spoilers here, but I will say I found no fault with the story or script. Goyer and Nolan are quite brilliant.
The casting was an accomplishment as well. Everyone except for Amy Adam's timid Lois Lane seems perfectly chosen for the part. I mean Kevin Costner as Pa Kent? Come on now, that's a match made in heaven. And Fishburne as Daily Planet editor Perry White was a nice choice too. Just the right amount of gruffness for his brief parts. I also enjoyed seeing Henry Lennox again for the first time personally since The Matrix sequels. I only wished there was a scene involving him barking orders at Fishburne, that would've made me squeal with delight. Russel Crowe, Michael Shannon, Diane Lane, and of course Henry Cavill all seemed like the only logical choices for their respective parts as well.
If it were up to the work of the screenwriters and actors alone, I would've rated this film a 9/10. I firmly expected the action and effects to send it into the 10 range. Oh how disappointed I was in that respect.
Goddamn the "shaky cam" and the effing "snap pan and zoom"! Those two overused and unnecessarily relied on techniques have ruined more movies for me than I can count. Now I don't fault Joss Whedon for developing the snap-pan and the snap-zoom. His use of them in Firefly was done with restraint and logic: only in action scenes and only for a purpose, not just for effect. I do however fault everyone else in Hollywood for not knowing how to use them correctly.
I also fault Paul Greengrass for bringing the shaky-cam to the blockbuster movies. Starting with his overuse of it in The Bourne Supremacy in 2004, Hollywood seems to be using it in action films (and even some dramas) almost as much as they jerk off! (I'll leave alone the plain implication of what they're up to behind the camera to get the effect.) The only director I'm aware of who can get away with the shaky-cam technique is J.J. Abrams. But he does the camera work himself, and he although he does it stylistically, he doesn't overdo it.
All that said, Snyder needs to leave these two techniques alone. He hasn't even used the shaky-cam before to my memory, and his inexperience shows plainly here. And while the comics are full of Sups and his enemy of the month smashing eachother through buildings and generally causing havoc, I was greatly disappointed with the overuse of the aforementioned camera techniques in those scenes. Because, while I was pleased to see those sequences included in the film, the only practical result was I couldn't really tell what the fuck was going on.
Also of note, my viewing of the film resulted in hearing loss. It was so loud in the action parts that not only couldn't I see what was going on, but I couldn't make out what they were saying either. Now, I'm not sure if that was due to The Warren's sound settings or due to the film's sound designer/editor being a deaf fuckass. I'll have to withhold this mark-up or mark-down until a subsequent viewing, a viewing wherein I will be bringing earplugs... just in case.
Overall, I'm going to rate this film an 8/10. A point lower solely due to the shitty camera work. When I see this movie again, should the sound also prove to be as shitty as it was this time. That rating is going down to a 7/10. You cant have an action movie that's just a blur of motion and a blare of noise, that's just fucking stupid.
8/10.
The casting was an accomplishment as well. Everyone except for Amy Adam's timid Lois Lane seems perfectly chosen for the part. I mean Kevin Costner as Pa Kent? Come on now, that's a match made in heaven. And Fishburne as Daily Planet editor Perry White was a nice choice too. Just the right amount of gruffness for his brief parts. I also enjoyed seeing Henry Lennox again for the first time personally since The Matrix sequels. I only wished there was a scene involving him barking orders at Fishburne, that would've made me squeal with delight. Russel Crowe, Michael Shannon, Diane Lane, and of course Henry Cavill all seemed like the only logical choices for their respective parts as well.
If it were up to the work of the screenwriters and actors alone, I would've rated this film a 9/10. I firmly expected the action and effects to send it into the 10 range. Oh how disappointed I was in that respect.
Goddamn the "shaky cam" and the effing "snap pan and zoom"! Those two overused and unnecessarily relied on techniques have ruined more movies for me than I can count. Now I don't fault Joss Whedon for developing the snap-pan and the snap-zoom. His use of them in Firefly was done with restraint and logic: only in action scenes and only for a purpose, not just for effect. I do however fault everyone else in Hollywood for not knowing how to use them correctly.
I also fault Paul Greengrass for bringing the shaky-cam to the blockbuster movies. Starting with his overuse of it in The Bourne Supremacy in 2004, Hollywood seems to be using it in action films (and even some dramas) almost as much as they jerk off! (I'll leave alone the plain implication of what they're up to behind the camera to get the effect.) The only director I'm aware of who can get away with the shaky-cam technique is J.J. Abrams. But he does the camera work himself, and he although he does it stylistically, he doesn't overdo it.
All that said, Snyder needs to leave these two techniques alone. He hasn't even used the shaky-cam before to my memory, and his inexperience shows plainly here. And while the comics are full of Sups and his enemy of the month smashing eachother through buildings and generally causing havoc, I was greatly disappointed with the overuse of the aforementioned camera techniques in those scenes. Because, while I was pleased to see those sequences included in the film, the only practical result was I couldn't really tell what the fuck was going on.
Also of note, my viewing of the film resulted in hearing loss. It was so loud in the action parts that not only couldn't I see what was going on, but I couldn't make out what they were saying either. Now, I'm not sure if that was due to The Warren's sound settings or due to the film's sound designer/editor being a deaf fuckass. I'll have to withhold this mark-up or mark-down until a subsequent viewing, a viewing wherein I will be bringing earplugs... just in case.
Overall, I'm going to rate this film an 8/10. A point lower solely due to the shitty camera work. When I see this movie again, should the sound also prove to be as shitty as it was this time. That rating is going down to a 7/10. You cant have an action movie that's just a blur of motion and a blare of noise, that's just fucking stupid.
8/10.
April 18, 2013
More DC Comics Animated One-offs
All-Star Superman (2011) starts with Superman trapped into being poisoned by Lex Luthor. His final days involve super-battles with a number of super-foes, finally revealing himself to Lois, and Luthor gaining Superman's powers for a day. Good animation and quality voice work in this one. The relationship with Lois was fleshed out nicely, but I really liked the scenes between Luthor and Clark Kent where Lex discusses his antagonism with Sups. 8/10.
Superman/Doomsday (2007) was just OK nothing more. I remember getting the graphic novel of this story back in the 90's when it first came out, and newspapers were running articles titled "The Death Of Superman". It ended up being a weak comic writing wise, and this movie is even weaker. Choppy, relatively cheap looking animation, with the storyline thinned out to the point of being melodramatic and anti-climactic. 5/10.
Justice League: The New Frontier (2008). This was a pretty fascinating concept. Basically a Watchmen like origin story of the League set at the height of the Cold War circa 1960, with an H.P. Lovecraftian enemy bringing the heroes and the world together. Neat animation style with character designs following the golden age comics' look and feel. Unfortunately it included the jingoism of the era. Not to mention a horribly miscast Jeremy Sisto as a gravelly Batman. All in all a pretty neat concept, but not done as well as it could have been. 6/10.
Justice League: Crisis On Two Earths (2010) has the Justice League going to a parallel dimension to battle evil versions of themselves alongside a good Lex Luthor. It felt kind of long, but the battles were above average. Some nice character touches on Bats and J'onn J'onnz, with the latter even getting his Martian freak-on with the parallel president's daughter. Having the parallel superbeings "Crime Syindicate" being modeled after and talking like the New York mob was a nice touch too. However, the voice casting was abhorrent. William Baldwin as a wispy voiced Batman? Mark Harmon as a stiff throated, slightly nasally Superman? Ugh! Good thing there were quality fights where not much talking was done. Plus the whole parallel Superwoman trying to make Bats her boy-toy thing was pretty cute. I liked it as a whole, but would've rated it higher with better voice work. 7/10.
Superman/Doomsday (2007) was just OK nothing more. I remember getting the graphic novel of this story back in the 90's when it first came out, and newspapers were running articles titled "The Death Of Superman". It ended up being a weak comic writing wise, and this movie is even weaker. Choppy, relatively cheap looking animation, with the storyline thinned out to the point of being melodramatic and anti-climactic. 5/10.
Justice League: The New Frontier (2008). This was a pretty fascinating concept. Basically a Watchmen like origin story of the League set at the height of the Cold War circa 1960, with an H.P. Lovecraftian enemy bringing the heroes and the world together. Neat animation style with character designs following the golden age comics' look and feel. Unfortunately it included the jingoism of the era. Not to mention a horribly miscast Jeremy Sisto as a gravelly Batman. All in all a pretty neat concept, but not done as well as it could have been. 6/10.
Justice League: Crisis On Two Earths (2010) has the Justice League going to a parallel dimension to battle evil versions of themselves alongside a good Lex Luthor. It felt kind of long, but the battles were above average. Some nice character touches on Bats and J'onn J'onnz, with the latter even getting his Martian freak-on with the parallel president's daughter. Having the parallel superbeings "Crime Syindicate" being modeled after and talking like the New York mob was a nice touch too. However, the voice casting was abhorrent. William Baldwin as a wispy voiced Batman? Mark Harmon as a stiff throated, slightly nasally Superman? Ugh! Good thing there were quality fights where not much talking was done. Plus the whole parallel Superwoman trying to make Bats her boy-toy thing was pretty cute. I liked it as a whole, but would've rated it higher with better voice work. 7/10.
March 10, 2013
Predator (1987)
So it had been years since I actually sat and watched PREDATOR. At least five years or more. For some reason I was inclined to rent it on Blu-ray today at Hastings.
It was awesome.
I remember first seeing this movie when I was like 9 or 10 years old. I was over at a friends house one night and his dad had rented it on VHS (this was like 88 or 89). I was terrified. It was the first bloody action/horror movie I'd seen. And it was the first one I'd seen with a scary alien. Basically I lost my R rated movie virginity to this flick. I had nightmares for days afterwords. But it was totally worth it.
And it still stands the test of time. I think largely because it's such a basic, primal story: hunters must survive being the prey of a monster. It goes way back to caveman times. And it's all put together in a way that's visceral and terrifying.
Now I'll admit that it's impact has been tamed by too many syndicated viewings on Saturday afternoon TV, complete with commercial interruptions. I'm sure many of you are like me and probably quit changing the channels when it comes on, cause it's always good to watch. So I suggest you try this. Get your copy off the shelf, or rent it, wait till dark and watch it alone, with no lights and with no interruptions. It's like seeing a totally different and far better film than the one they play on TV. Even if you don't get nostalgic terrors like I did, you'll treat yourself to one of the greatest action movies ever made.
10/10.
P.S. To wet your appetite, here's Alan Silvestri's theme from the movie. There's no mistaking it for any other piece of music.
February 2, 2013
House Of Cards (2013) [TV Series]
I don't write about television on my blog, but I'm making an exception.
House Of Cards is now available on Netflix to stream. It's their self produced series starring Kevin Spacey, part of their foray into original content. It's Amazing! Spacey plays Congressman Francis Underwood, and the series is about sausage making... or rather the inner workings of our federal government's leadership. I'm talking Congress, The Executive Branch; likely the Judicial Branch will even come into play at some point. It's dark, it's gritty, and it relishes the sadism of power. This is how DC works. The backstabbing, the power plays, the vengeance. It's the government as rotting corpse, draped with the American flag.
Cleverly written with subtle double meanings, foreshadowing, and character revelations, not to mention Kevin Spacey occasionally breaking the fourth wall to great effect. And that's just the pilot episode! David Fincher's black eye truly lends itself to the subject matter. Old Monk hand Jeff Beal turns in a perfectly toned score. The acting? Unspeakably good. They even threw in a reference to Alfred Hitchcock's Witness For The Prosecution, simply to allude to .
Brilliant. Watch it. Now. 10/10.
January 5, 2013
Cosmopolis (2012)
Based on a novel by Don Delillo concerning a billionaire businessman's trek through New York City in a limousine, this David Cronenberg adaptation was very good. I liked what I could grasp of it. However, all the existential stream-of-consciousness metaphors would have been easier to take with more Cronenbergian body horror involved. I guess he's graduated from that side of his filmmaking. Too bad, as it was my favorite aspect of his auterism.
I could decipher some of the dialogue and actions of the characters, but I'm afraid I'm too often lost with these kinds of writings. As far as film adaptations of idealistic novels go, I prefer non-figurative styles like Cloud Atlas. Nothing preachy, just a series of events and interactions that have higher related meaning. Too often novels/films like Cosmopolis simply seem pretentiously didactic. However I did finish the film feeling mentally stimulated.
Robert Pattinson surprised me by proving he's not a totally awful actor. He managed to not look completely out of his league with the other heavy hitters, though he still seemed to struggle on occasion.
Overall I liked it, which I primarily credit to Cronenberg.
7/10.
April 1, 2012
The Hunger Games (2012)
3/10. In a dystopian society, two children from each of twelve districts are sent to a ruling capitol to play in "The Hunger Games", a survival match to the death where there can be but one victor. To protect her sister, Katniss Everdeen volunteers to play.
This film had the biggest opening weekend gross for a non-sequel ever when it was released. It piqued my interest because of this fact. I thought I should check it out, for cultural relevance's sake. Hadn't seen any trailers, but I had an idea basically what it was about.
Saw it... didn't like it.
I didn't like it for two reasons:
First, the direction by Gary Ross. Specifically, his decision to use the deliberately-shaky-handheld-extreme-close-up shot favored by the last two Jason Bourne movies' Paul Greengrass. Only Gary Ross takes it to an all new, highly annoying level. Imagine the shakiest parts of the car chase scene from The Bourne Supremacy, multiply it by a shaky factor of two, zoom in to just their faces, and use this recipe when people are having a conversation or simply walking. Now use it for over half the movie. This should give you an idea of what it was like trying to watch this film in the theater.
Second, the juvenile and predictable script by the original novel's author Suzanne Collins and (again) Gary Ross. I don't fault the script as much as the direction, as it is already based off a juvenile and predictable trilogy of novels aimed at youth. But, not being a fan of, nor having ever read the novels, my eye was untarnished with any expectation of adherence to the source material. Thusly, I couldn't care less if the dialogue is just as dull as the novel, I just care that it's dull and that I can pretty much predict the whole movie after the first half hour.
The only reason that I didn't rate this movie a one or a two was the acting. All of the younger actors did a pretty damn good job with the material they were given, as did most of the adults.
If you're a fan of the books, wait for it to come out on video. This way you can at least marginally see whats going on during the shaky scenes and won't have a huge screen of blur to try and sort out.
If you're not a fan of the books, save your time an money and skip it.
This film had the biggest opening weekend gross for a non-sequel ever when it was released. It piqued my interest because of this fact. I thought I should check it out, for cultural relevance's sake. Hadn't seen any trailers, but I had an idea basically what it was about.
Saw it... didn't like it.
I didn't like it for two reasons:
First, the direction by Gary Ross. Specifically, his decision to use the deliberately-shaky-handheld-extreme-close-up shot favored by the last two Jason Bourne movies' Paul Greengrass. Only Gary Ross takes it to an all new, highly annoying level. Imagine the shakiest parts of the car chase scene from The Bourne Supremacy, multiply it by a shaky factor of two, zoom in to just their faces, and use this recipe when people are having a conversation or simply walking. Now use it for over half the movie. This should give you an idea of what it was like trying to watch this film in the theater.
Second, the juvenile and predictable script by the original novel's author Suzanne Collins and (again) Gary Ross. I don't fault the script as much as the direction, as it is already based off a juvenile and predictable trilogy of novels aimed at youth. But, not being a fan of, nor having ever read the novels, my eye was untarnished with any expectation of adherence to the source material. Thusly, I couldn't care less if the dialogue is just as dull as the novel, I just care that it's dull and that I can pretty much predict the whole movie after the first half hour.
The only reason that I didn't rate this movie a one or a two was the acting. All of the younger actors did a pretty damn good job with the material they were given, as did most of the adults.
If you're a fan of the books, wait for it to come out on video. This way you can at least marginally see whats going on during the shaky scenes and won't have a huge screen of blur to try and sort out.
If you're not a fan of the books, save your time an money and skip it.
March 29, 2012
A Dangerous Method (2011)
9/10. As Dr. Carl Jung takes on patient Sabina Spielrein in the newborn field of psychology, he consults with Dr. Sigmund Freud regarding her case.
Despite a terrible Russian accent, Keira Knightley has won my respect for her acting ability through her performance in this film. Playing Sabina Spielrein, her character's physical and mental contortions and pains are expertly portrayed.
The film as a whole may have surpassed Scanners as my favorite by Cronenberg. To see the founders of psychology laid bare as fallible human beings unable to overcome their natures and sins in spite of their awareness of them or their attempts to overcome them... it was riveting.
Simple direction and cinematography. Expertly written script. Subtle and nuanced acting. A near perfect film.
Despite a terrible Russian accent, Keira Knightley has won my respect for her acting ability through her performance in this film. Playing Sabina Spielrein, her character's physical and mental contortions and pains are expertly portrayed.
The film as a whole may have surpassed Scanners as my favorite by Cronenberg. To see the founders of psychology laid bare as fallible human beings unable to overcome their natures and sins in spite of their awareness of them or their attempts to overcome them... it was riveting.
Simple direction and cinematography. Expertly written script. Subtle and nuanced acting. A near perfect film.
December 22, 2011
Warrior (2011)
9/10. So I LOVE Rocky (1976). It's in my all time top ten movies. As far as fighting movies go, Warrior is now a close second.
It's mostly about two estranged brothers training and fighting their way through mixed martial arts battles (MMA), but the inter/intra-personal relationships are the real story here. Don't get me wrong the fights are intense and well choreographed, but they would fall flat without the drama going on behind the bouts.
Behind the camera, Miracle (2004) director Gavin O'Connor returns to the sporting world with a vengeance co-writing and directing a gritty movie about a broken family. Nick Nolte outdoes himself as the recovering alcoholic father of the two brothers. And like I said, the fighting sequences are excellently choreographed by J.J. Perry and are totally believable.
I'm shocked that this film bombed in the theaters only raking in $13 Million with a budget of $30 Million. I just hope that the DVD sales can make up for the loss because this film truly deserves recognition. Even critics like this movie, garnering it an 83% certified fresh rating on Rotten Tomatoes Tomatometer as of this posting.
And this movie has one of the best song placements of any film I've seen, climaxing with a live version of The National's "About Today". Listen to the song below, then watch the movie, I'm pretty sure the film will outdo whatever you picture going on in your head.
It's mostly about two estranged brothers training and fighting their way through mixed martial arts battles (MMA), but the inter/intra-personal relationships are the real story here. Don't get me wrong the fights are intense and well choreographed, but they would fall flat without the drama going on behind the bouts.
Behind the camera, Miracle (2004) director Gavin O'Connor returns to the sporting world with a vengeance co-writing and directing a gritty movie about a broken family. Nick Nolte outdoes himself as the recovering alcoholic father of the two brothers. And like I said, the fighting sequences are excellently choreographed by J.J. Perry and are totally believable.
I'm shocked that this film bombed in the theaters only raking in $13 Million with a budget of $30 Million. I just hope that the DVD sales can make up for the loss because this film truly deserves recognition. Even critics like this movie, garnering it an 83% certified fresh rating on Rotten Tomatoes Tomatometer as of this posting.
And this movie has one of the best song placements of any film I've seen, climaxing with a live version of The National's "About Today". Listen to the song below, then watch the movie, I'm pretty sure the film will outdo whatever you picture going on in your head.
December 11, 2011
Cowboys & Aliens (2011)
5/10. No surprises in this genre mash-up blockbuster.
You can read the synopsis of this film on basically any movie site, as it was one of this summer's biggest films.
I like Jon Favreau, I like Daniel Craig, I like Olivia Wilde, however this film was just too silly, I couldn't suspend my disbelief enough to go along for the ride. I blame this on the writing. It is my understanding that Cowboys & Aliens was in development hell for a long time, and went through many rewrites (this is evidenced by the writing credits), but even super-writing team Orci, Kurtzman and Lindelof couldn't save this exercise in ridiculousness. Favreau's directing was crisp, but if you're going to combine two drastically different genres into one film, you need an exceptional script to make it believable. This one fell flat.
I would not recommend this film to anyone, it was just a below average outing upped a notch by all the money they put into it. Even the actors seemed like they weren't really trying.
As an aside, I would like to vent my frustration with the new all CGI monster's that seem to all look the same in today's movies. I call them the "J.J. Abrams Monster", as I feel it all started with Cloverfield. Tell me the alien from Cowboys & Aliens below doesn't look like some rehashing of an Abrams monster from, say, Super 8. Who knows, maybe I should blame Andy Chung.
You can read the synopsis of this film on basically any movie site, as it was one of this summer's biggest films.
I like Jon Favreau, I like Daniel Craig, I like Olivia Wilde, however this film was just too silly, I couldn't suspend my disbelief enough to go along for the ride. I blame this on the writing. It is my understanding that Cowboys & Aliens was in development hell for a long time, and went through many rewrites (this is evidenced by the writing credits), but even super-writing team Orci, Kurtzman and Lindelof couldn't save this exercise in ridiculousness. Favreau's directing was crisp, but if you're going to combine two drastically different genres into one film, you need an exceptional script to make it believable. This one fell flat.
I would not recommend this film to anyone, it was just a below average outing upped a notch by all the money they put into it. Even the actors seemed like they weren't really trying.
As an aside, I would like to vent my frustration with the new all CGI monster's that seem to all look the same in today's movies. I call them the "J.J. Abrams Monster", as I feel it all started with Cloverfield. Tell me the alien from Cowboys & Aliens below doesn't look like some rehashing of an Abrams monster from, say, Super 8. Who knows, maybe I should blame Andy Chung.
December 4, 2011
The Turning Point (1952)
7/10. William Holden shines in this run of the mill fifties noir.
Edmond O'Brien heads up a city wide crime commission set to take down syndicate boss Ed Begley. William Holden is the cynical crime desk reporter who reluctantly joins the cause.
In all honesty this is a pretty forgettable story. a film that would have stood out a decade earlier, but was past it's prime on it's release. Aside from the well written dialogue, William Holden is this films saving grace.
Caught between his performances in Billy Wilder's Sunset Boulevard and Stalag 17, Holden outdoes everyone in this relatively unheard of noir. It's easy to see why, it's basically a rehash of early noirs, only with conservative camera work, and not-so-special art direction. The other players are well known but fail to offer anything exceptional. Maybe I'm prejudiced, as Holden is my favorite actor of his time, but he really earns the top billing he receives. I would have loved to see what could have been accomplished without what appeared to be director William Dieterle holding him back. I'm not badmouthing Dieterle, but he seemed to be running things like it was still the thirties or forties. It really took a modern innovator like Billy Wilder to let Holden cut loose and show his chops.
Oh and criminal standby Neville Brand makes a brief appearance as a hitman. Love that guy too.
So if you're a Holden fan like me, you should check this one out. If you're just looking for a good noir to watch, there's better stuff out there.
Edmond O'Brien heads up a city wide crime commission set to take down syndicate boss Ed Begley. William Holden is the cynical crime desk reporter who reluctantly joins the cause.
In all honesty this is a pretty forgettable story. a film that would have stood out a decade earlier, but was past it's prime on it's release. Aside from the well written dialogue, William Holden is this films saving grace.
Caught between his performances in Billy Wilder's Sunset Boulevard and Stalag 17, Holden outdoes everyone in this relatively unheard of noir. It's easy to see why, it's basically a rehash of early noirs, only with conservative camera work, and not-so-special art direction. The other players are well known but fail to offer anything exceptional. Maybe I'm prejudiced, as Holden is my favorite actor of his time, but he really earns the top billing he receives. I would have loved to see what could have been accomplished without what appeared to be director William Dieterle holding him back. I'm not badmouthing Dieterle, but he seemed to be running things like it was still the thirties or forties. It really took a modern innovator like Billy Wilder to let Holden cut loose and show his chops.
Oh and criminal standby Neville Brand makes a brief appearance as a hitman. Love that guy too.
So if you're a Holden fan like me, you should check this one out. If you're just looking for a good noir to watch, there's better stuff out there.
December 3, 2011
Cry Vengeance (1954)
6/10. Classic mid-fifties second-tier noir set in Alaska.
When ex-cop Vic Barron gets out of prison, he travels to Alaska seeking revenge on the mob boss whom he believes murdered his wife and child and framed him for bribery.
This film is Mark Stevens directorial debut. The actor best known for playing Olivia de Havilland's husband in The Snake Pit does an admirable job in helming his first feature, whilst portraying it's main role. There's nothing particularly memorable done on the back end of the camera, save some unique-for-it's-day aerial and dolly shots. The movie as a whole is probably pretty forgettable.
The cast does a standard job for mid-fifties noir. Skip Homeier stands out significantly as the despicable thug Roxey Davis, mostly due to his unique looks as opposed to any acting forte. The beautiful Martha Hyer does an average job portraying love interest Peggy Harding, but as I said before, nothing truly memorable. Mark Stevens is more stone-cold than anything, which is what the character called for.
The only real thing of note about this film is the fact that it's a noir story set in the lumberjack capitol of Ketchikan, Alaska. The two don't obviously go together in one's mind, but the writers manage to pull it off, primarily by having the central ensemble all hail from San Francisco.
SPOILER ALERT
I would have cared for this film much more had it followed classic noir and climaxed in a dismal ending. The writers however chose the happy route and all is resolved with no true consequences. So although this movie was noir in style, it was really just an average Hollywood thriller.
When ex-cop Vic Barron gets out of prison, he travels to Alaska seeking revenge on the mob boss whom he believes murdered his wife and child and framed him for bribery.
This film is Mark Stevens directorial debut. The actor best known for playing Olivia de Havilland's husband in The Snake Pit does an admirable job in helming his first feature, whilst portraying it's main role. There's nothing particularly memorable done on the back end of the camera, save some unique-for-it's-day aerial and dolly shots. The movie as a whole is probably pretty forgettable.
The cast does a standard job for mid-fifties noir. Skip Homeier stands out significantly as the despicable thug Roxey Davis, mostly due to his unique looks as opposed to any acting forte. The beautiful Martha Hyer does an average job portraying love interest Peggy Harding, but as I said before, nothing truly memorable. Mark Stevens is more stone-cold than anything, which is what the character called for.
The only real thing of note about this film is the fact that it's a noir story set in the lumberjack capitol of Ketchikan, Alaska. The two don't obviously go together in one's mind, but the writers manage to pull it off, primarily by having the central ensemble all hail from San Francisco.
SPOILER ALERT
I would have cared for this film much more had it followed classic noir and climaxed in a dismal ending. The writers however chose the happy route and all is resolved with no true consequences. So although this movie was noir in style, it was really just an average Hollywood thriller.
November 27, 2011
Citizen Kane (1941)
5/10. I watched Citizen Kane for the first time today. I must say it was a disappointment. Most likely this is because I had built it up in my mind my entire life. Loving movies, you can't not know about Citizen Kane's greatness in history.
As there are already so many reviews and studies of this film I'll just give my wholly subjective opinion.
I honestly didn't care for it. The movie made me feel four out of ten stars, but I'm bumping it up to a five simply because it is such an artistic feat. I can see it's groundbreaking style, it's camera work, special effects, dialogue and acting that was a grand avante-garde departure from it's contemporaries. However, despite all of this it left me feeling empty.
Perhaps that was Welles' intention. Perhaps it was meant to be a jumbled confusion of imagery and half remembered dreams... I don't know for sure. This is the only movie that I've ever marked higher than I subjectively felt it rated...
Would I watch this movie again? Probably. Would I watch it repeatedly and study it? Probably not. I'd prefer to study The Trial, Welles' masterpiece in his own book. An opinion of which I share. A film which I actually liked.
Perhaps I've been so conditioned for the "Hollywood Narrative" that I completely missed the train on this one? I just don't know.
I may post more on this film later. But as it stands as a first impression, I'm sticking with my above rating.
As there are already so many reviews and studies of this film I'll just give my wholly subjective opinion.
I honestly didn't care for it. The movie made me feel four out of ten stars, but I'm bumping it up to a five simply because it is such an artistic feat. I can see it's groundbreaking style, it's camera work, special effects, dialogue and acting that was a grand avante-garde departure from it's contemporaries. However, despite all of this it left me feeling empty.
Perhaps that was Welles' intention. Perhaps it was meant to be a jumbled confusion of imagery and half remembered dreams... I don't know for sure. This is the only movie that I've ever marked higher than I subjectively felt it rated...
Would I watch this movie again? Probably. Would I watch it repeatedly and study it? Probably not. I'd prefer to study The Trial, Welles' masterpiece in his own book. An opinion of which I share. A film which I actually liked.
Perhaps I've been so conditioned for the "Hollywood Narrative" that I completely missed the train on this one? I just don't know.
I may post more on this film later. But as it stands as a first impression, I'm sticking with my above rating.
Hugo (2011)
5/10. This review is a little late as I actually saw this movie three days ago on Thanksgiving Day with my sister and her fiancee. We saw it in 3-D as was intended and none of us really cared for it.
The story follows an orphan named Hugo who lives in a 1930s Parisian train station, and his efforts to find his place in the world. In the process he meets famed silent film director Georges Melies, and is introduced to early cinema.
This was really a labor of love by director Martin Scorsese. The sets are stunning and steampunk, and the recreations of early silent films are engrossing. However, the pace of the film is so unbearably slow that it will not be able to hold any child's attention for more than five minutes. It is also a preachy film, extolling the greatness of film preservation and the history of early cinema. It is quite poorly written, especially for a Scoresese feature, and the acting by all involved is expressionistic at best and tragically bad at worst. But as I stated before the pacing is the trick, and it will leave most viewers with boredom through it's majority.
Overall, this is a feature that rates simply as "okay" in my book, had it been tighter and shorter, it would have been much more enjoyable. If all you care about is 3-D effects and fantastic set design, then this is for you. But not even it's generous embellishments in that area can save it from being a visually stunning borefest.
Even my sister who is a film preservation major and serious movie buff disliked this film, so I'd have to recommend a pass on this one.
The story follows an orphan named Hugo who lives in a 1930s Parisian train station, and his efforts to find his place in the world. In the process he meets famed silent film director Georges Melies, and is introduced to early cinema.
This was really a labor of love by director Martin Scorsese. The sets are stunning and steampunk, and the recreations of early silent films are engrossing. However, the pace of the film is so unbearably slow that it will not be able to hold any child's attention for more than five minutes. It is also a preachy film, extolling the greatness of film preservation and the history of early cinema. It is quite poorly written, especially for a Scoresese feature, and the acting by all involved is expressionistic at best and tragically bad at worst. But as I stated before the pacing is the trick, and it will leave most viewers with boredom through it's majority.
Overall, this is a feature that rates simply as "okay" in my book, had it been tighter and shorter, it would have been much more enjoyable. If all you care about is 3-D effects and fantastic set design, then this is for you. But not even it's generous embellishments in that area can save it from being a visually stunning borefest.
Even my sister who is a film preservation major and serious movie buff disliked this film, so I'd have to recommend a pass on this one.
Crimson Tide (1995)
10/10. This was the first R rated movie I was allowed by my parents to see in the theater. I was 16. I literally had to beg them to let me, and it was wholly because the R rating was given due to the language and intensity of the film. My guess would be that it would have been rated PG-13 were it to be released today. I enjoyed the film so much that I went out and bought the soundtrack immediately after seeing it. I still consider it one of Hans Zimmer's best scores.
The plot of the movie is basically a standoff between the Captain of the USS Alabama nuclear submarine (Gene Hackman) and the Executive Officer of the same ship (Denzel Washington). This standoff is brought about by a convolution of Naval rules and regulations during a topside nuclear standoff between the US and Russian rebels. I won't reveal any more in case you haven't seen it, as it is most suspenseful the less you know beforehand.
The primary reason why I rate this film a ten is the script. It is so seamless and intense, with dialogue that matters and stands out. I later learned that no other dialogue heavy wordsmith than Quentin Tarantino was brought on to polish Michael Schiffer's script. I also learned that Tarantino had made the captain a racist who used the word "nigger" in heated arguments with the XO. This overt nature and the use of the n-word were removed at the insistence of Denzel Washington, and it makes for a far more interesting battle of wills.
The technical dialogue and plot points dealing with US Naval rules and regulations are engrossing as well, these I assume were brought onboard by the two retired Naval Captains who served as technical consultants on the film. And there is an interesting subplot involving the morality of nuclear war, and it's classification as war, when it is more accurate to classify as holocaust.
Tony Scott's direction is intense and crisp as usual, with realistic special effects when necessary, but mostly suspenseful pacing and claustrophobic angles that accurately convey what I must imagine serving on a submarine must feel like.
All actors involved, down to the bit parts, are wonderful in their performance, truly conveying the immediacy of the situations. I credit this partially to Tony Scott as well who never seems to overburden his actors, but allows them to work their own magic.
All in all a perfectly executed throwback to the Cold War genre, which I absolutely love even more so than when I first saw it in the theaters nearly twenty years ago. This was one of the movies that almost had me enlist in the US Navy to become a nuclear technician onboard a submarine.
As an interesting close to this post, here is a bit of trivia from IMDB's website:
The plot of the movie is basically a standoff between the Captain of the USS Alabama nuclear submarine (Gene Hackman) and the Executive Officer of the same ship (Denzel Washington). This standoff is brought about by a convolution of Naval rules and regulations during a topside nuclear standoff between the US and Russian rebels. I won't reveal any more in case you haven't seen it, as it is most suspenseful the less you know beforehand.
The primary reason why I rate this film a ten is the script. It is so seamless and intense, with dialogue that matters and stands out. I later learned that no other dialogue heavy wordsmith than Quentin Tarantino was brought on to polish Michael Schiffer's script. I also learned that Tarantino had made the captain a racist who used the word "nigger" in heated arguments with the XO. This overt nature and the use of the n-word were removed at the insistence of Denzel Washington, and it makes for a far more interesting battle of wills.
The technical dialogue and plot points dealing with US Naval rules and regulations are engrossing as well, these I assume were brought onboard by the two retired Naval Captains who served as technical consultants on the film. And there is an interesting subplot involving the morality of nuclear war, and it's classification as war, when it is more accurate to classify as holocaust.
Tony Scott's direction is intense and crisp as usual, with realistic special effects when necessary, but mostly suspenseful pacing and claustrophobic angles that accurately convey what I must imagine serving on a submarine must feel like.
All actors involved, down to the bit parts, are wonderful in their performance, truly conveying the immediacy of the situations. I credit this partially to Tony Scott as well who never seems to overburden his actors, but allows them to work their own magic.
All in all a perfectly executed throwback to the Cold War genre, which I absolutely love even more so than when I first saw it in the theaters nearly twenty years ago. This was one of the movies that almost had me enlist in the US Navy to become a nuclear technician onboard a submarine.
As an interesting close to this post, here is a bit of trivia from IMDB's website:
The disagreement between Cpt. Ramsey and Lcdr. Hunter over the origin of the Lipizzaner stallions throughout the movie foreshadows and illustrates the fundamental source of friction between the two men, both insisting that their mutually exclusive version of reality is the truth. Ironically, Cpt. Ramsey, (who believes the stallions are Portuguese) or Lcdr. Hunter (who says they are Spanish) are both incorrect. The Lippizaner stallions are in fact Austrian.
November 20, 2011
Life In A Day (2011)
8/10. In 2010 YouTube asked the Earth's residents to chronicle on video the day July 24th. The submitted footage was edited and produced into a documentary in the truest sense. No unifying narration by a third party voice, just the people of the world living their lives.
The resulting film is breathtaking in it's scope, really as a result of so many narrow fields of view being stitched together by director Kevin Macdonald. Some of the footage is poor, some is professional, but all of it captures one's attention.
I can safely say this is probably the most approachable and universally relatable documentary ever made.
The conclusion I can draw from this film is that, save cultural and material differences, we are really all the same. We all have the same fears and loves. We on this planet are really all one. And though we strive against each other to matter to ourselves, in the end we all do matter, we are all important.
The resulting film is breathtaking in it's scope, really as a result of so many narrow fields of view being stitched together by director Kevin Macdonald. Some of the footage is poor, some is professional, but all of it captures one's attention.
I can safely say this is probably the most approachable and universally relatable documentary ever made.
The conclusion I can draw from this film is that, save cultural and material differences, we are really all the same. We all have the same fears and loves. We on this planet are really all one. And though we strive against each other to matter to ourselves, in the end we all do matter, we are all important.
August 7, 2011
Sucker Punch (2011)
7/10. Thoroughly enjoyable comic-book-slash-video-game styled movie that every teenage boy will love.
Abbie Cornish plays Sweet Pea, an abused young girl who recruits some friends to help her escape from a mental institution before she is lobotomized. Fantasy action ensues.
This was a pleasant surprise of a movie, probably because I went in with such low expectations. No real acting heroics, no breathtaking screenplay, just alot of stylized action performed by girls in skimpy outfits. If this film were a comic it would be written by J.Scott Campbell as opposed to Alan Moore. No depth, just style.
Excellent soundtrack choices really propel the film along, and the visuals are amazing which is par for director Zak Snyder. You could tell this was his baby as the action takes center stage, and he executes it perfectly.
Lots of homages to the Matrix movies early on which obviously influenced Snyder. Though it produces a similar feel, it's definitely funner and more lighthearted than those.
So next time you can't get a date, check this out, the junior high schoolboy in you will appreciate it.
Abbie Cornish plays Sweet Pea, an abused young girl who recruits some friends to help her escape from a mental institution before she is lobotomized. Fantasy action ensues.
This was a pleasant surprise of a movie, probably because I went in with such low expectations. No real acting heroics, no breathtaking screenplay, just alot of stylized action performed by girls in skimpy outfits. If this film were a comic it would be written by J.Scott Campbell as opposed to Alan Moore. No depth, just style.
Excellent soundtrack choices really propel the film along, and the visuals are amazing which is par for director Zak Snyder. You could tell this was his baby as the action takes center stage, and he executes it perfectly.
Lots of homages to the Matrix movies early on which obviously influenced Snyder. Though it produces a similar feel, it's definitely funner and more lighthearted than those.
So next time you can't get a date, check this out, the junior high schoolboy in you will appreciate it.
July 31, 2011
The Wolfman (2010)
8/10. Great looking Gothic werewolf movie.
Benicio Del Toro plays English stage actor Lawrence Talbot, who while searching for answers to his brother's death near his wealthy father's estate, is bitten by a werewolf.
Great acting. Benicio is understated intensity as usual. As is Anthony Hopkins who plays his father. Emily Blunt is the beautiful fiancee of his late brother. And Hugo Weaving is the scotland yard inspector tasked with dealing with the werewolf issue.
Don't look to the script for the draw of this film. There's a little about prodigal sons and the thin line between man and beast, but this is mostly a visual movie. Joe Johnston directs somewhere in the middle of his hits and misses, and he plays this action heavy. The look of this film was the best feature in my opinion. A combination of light computer imagery, and perfectly designed and lit sets and landscapes totally evokes the Victorian Gothic feel of the original story. I was constantly reminded of Edward Gorey's illustrations when viewing this film, which always means "Gothic" to me.
The bloody action of the movie lets us know it's there. And when it's gory, boy is it intense. Decapitations, amputations, disembowelments, this ain't no Lon Chaney Jr. flick. Some cheap scares to make you jump, some terrifyingly bloody werewolf attacks, but it's all done in conjunction with the wonderful visual atmosphere of the film.
If you rent it. Watch it at night.
Benicio Del Toro plays English stage actor Lawrence Talbot, who while searching for answers to his brother's death near his wealthy father's estate, is bitten by a werewolf.
Great acting. Benicio is understated intensity as usual. As is Anthony Hopkins who plays his father. Emily Blunt is the beautiful fiancee of his late brother. And Hugo Weaving is the scotland yard inspector tasked with dealing with the werewolf issue.
Don't look to the script for the draw of this film. There's a little about prodigal sons and the thin line between man and beast, but this is mostly a visual movie. Joe Johnston directs somewhere in the middle of his hits and misses, and he plays this action heavy. The look of this film was the best feature in my opinion. A combination of light computer imagery, and perfectly designed and lit sets and landscapes totally evokes the Victorian Gothic feel of the original story. I was constantly reminded of Edward Gorey's illustrations when viewing this film, which always means "Gothic" to me.
The bloody action of the movie lets us know it's there. And when it's gory, boy is it intense. Decapitations, amputations, disembowelments, this ain't no Lon Chaney Jr. flick. Some cheap scares to make you jump, some terrifyingly bloody werewolf attacks, but it's all done in conjunction with the wonderful visual atmosphere of the film.
If you rent it. Watch it at night.
July 24, 2011
Transformers: Dark Of The Moon (2011)
7/10. Sam Witwicky (Shia Lebouf) helps the Autobots save mankind once more, this time from a robot technology that has been hidden for decades.
First off let me say this is the best use of 3D I've seen since Avatar, which makes sense as it was shot with the same PACE3D cameras that were used in that film.
The effects of course are mind boggling, which is on par for a Michael Bay film. There are some exceptionally mind blowing shots however during the climactic battles in Chicago.
Sam's new love interest (Rosie Huntington-Whiteley) is annoying, but not as much as Megan Fox was, so that's a plus. Patrick Dempsey plays a baddie, which is quite a turn for him. Leonard Nemoy voices one of the new Autobots, even throwing out some Wrath Of Khan dialogue before the climax. And all the old characters from the other movies make return appearances (save Megan Fox of course).
Over all though, the film was just too long. At almost three hours in length, the majority of time is taken up with seemingly endless robot battles of the second half of the film. These could really have been cut in half and no loss would have resulted. It's a fun popcorn movie if you want to spend the three hours on it, but if you go you must see it in 3D, otherwise you might as well wait for it's DVD/Blu-ray release.
On a nitpicky note: At the start of the film, the Apollo 11 crew discover a robot ship on the "dark side of the moon". This is impossible as the dark side of the moon always faces away from the Earth and the Apollo 11 crew landed on the Earthward side. So unless they hiked thousands of miles in 20 minutes to see the ship... the logic just falls apart. This is a constant frustration I have with Michael Bay movies, the ignorance of logic and science. For me this goes all the way back to the impossible logic of Armageddon (fires in space???). But, I'm used to it with him, so I just suspend my disbelief and enjoy the ride.
Also I think Rosie Huntington-Whiteley botoxes her lips.
First off let me say this is the best use of 3D I've seen since Avatar, which makes sense as it was shot with the same PACE3D cameras that were used in that film.
The effects of course are mind boggling, which is on par for a Michael Bay film. There are some exceptionally mind blowing shots however during the climactic battles in Chicago.
Sam's new love interest (Rosie Huntington-Whiteley) is annoying, but not as much as Megan Fox was, so that's a plus. Patrick Dempsey plays a baddie, which is quite a turn for him. Leonard Nemoy voices one of the new Autobots, even throwing out some Wrath Of Khan dialogue before the climax. And all the old characters from the other movies make return appearances (save Megan Fox of course).
Over all though, the film was just too long. At almost three hours in length, the majority of time is taken up with seemingly endless robot battles of the second half of the film. These could really have been cut in half and no loss would have resulted. It's a fun popcorn movie if you want to spend the three hours on it, but if you go you must see it in 3D, otherwise you might as well wait for it's DVD/Blu-ray release.
On a nitpicky note: At the start of the film, the Apollo 11 crew discover a robot ship on the "dark side of the moon". This is impossible as the dark side of the moon always faces away from the Earth and the Apollo 11 crew landed on the Earthward side. So unless they hiked thousands of miles in 20 minutes to see the ship... the logic just falls apart. This is a constant frustration I have with Michael Bay movies, the ignorance of logic and science. For me this goes all the way back to the impossible logic of Armageddon (fires in space???). But, I'm used to it with him, so I just suspend my disbelief and enjoy the ride.
Also I think Rosie Huntington-Whiteley botoxes her lips.
Where The Sidewalk Ends (1950)
8/10. Man, do I love these Golden Age film noirs.
Dana Andrews plays a cop with a temper trying to cover up his crime of murdering a suspect. It's only complicated by the fact that the crime is pinned on the victim's father in law, and the fact that he's falling in love with the victim's estranged wife played by Gene Tierney.
Dana Andrews plays against the honorable good guy type he was later known for, this time portraying an on the edge detective trying to break out of the shadow of his deceased criminal father. We've seen this type of cop before, but Andrews really captures the conflict or at least as much as can be expected in a film of this era.
Nice to see Andrews and Tierney together again. Their chemistry is undeniable, and it's understandable why the studios paired them up for a total of five films.
The usual class of noir character actors make appearances, including the thuggish Neville Brand (who I liken to today's Michael Madsen). And we get to see a young Karl Malden playing the by the book precinct lieutenant. Really though, this is Andrews' show, he makes a crooked cop really likable (I mean come on, it is Dana Andrews after all).
I will say it ends up bad for Andrews in the end, but it is the morally right outcome.
Dana Andrews plays a cop with a temper trying to cover up his crime of murdering a suspect. It's only complicated by the fact that the crime is pinned on the victim's father in law, and the fact that he's falling in love with the victim's estranged wife played by Gene Tierney.
Dana Andrews plays against the honorable good guy type he was later known for, this time portraying an on the edge detective trying to break out of the shadow of his deceased criminal father. We've seen this type of cop before, but Andrews really captures the conflict or at least as much as can be expected in a film of this era.
Nice to see Andrews and Tierney together again. Their chemistry is undeniable, and it's understandable why the studios paired them up for a total of five films.
The usual class of noir character actors make appearances, including the thuggish Neville Brand (who I liken to today's Michael Madsen). And we get to see a young Karl Malden playing the by the book precinct lieutenant. Really though, this is Andrews' show, he makes a crooked cop really likable (I mean come on, it is Dana Andrews after all).
I will say it ends up bad for Andrews in the end, but it is the morally right outcome.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)