Category Archives: Morgan Freeman

Movie Review: Oblivion

According to “Oblivion,” as well as most other dystopian sci-fi films, the future is filled with white rooms and white furniture. This feels less like an ode to Minimalism and more like a director and crew that were too bored to hash out all the details. That’s what “Oblivion” is: the possibility of an original sci-fi property wrapped up in a generic shell.

“Oblivion” begins with a voiceover describing the end of the world. Tom Cruise, who once again plays a man named Jack, delivers a bland monologue, which works much better when it is explained in a scene later on. Jack, along with Victoria (Andrea Riseborough) are part of a “mop-up crew” who stay in a swanky apartment (as described above) and are assigned to patrol what remains of Earth. Writer-Director Joseph Kosinski decided to hit Earth with a whole array of disasters: aliens invade, the moon is destroyed, and earthquakes and tsunamis tear the world asunder. The best thing that can be said about “Oblivion” is how striking and well thought out the world looks. While the set design is stale, the world is well detailed. The creative minds behind this film certainly spend a lot of time thinking about the end of the world.

However, if the film’s poster reminded you a lot of “I Am Legend,” that’s because the two films are a little too close for comfort. “Oblivion” feels like a mash up of a lot of sci-fi films, both great and mediocre. The film’s main villain (or at least I think it is, more on that soon) evokes a much less frightening version of HAL from “2001: A Space Odyssey.” Also, the film’s use of paintings and old texts for blatant symbolism felt like “The Book Of Eli,” another post-apocalyptic film with a lot of problems. “Oblivion” is derivative of films that were derivative of other films.
While people like to give Tom Cruise flack, there’s a reason the man became so big in the first place: he is an incredibly talented actor who can take on Spielberg blockbusters and Cameron Crowe romances. At his best, Cruise can feel like an everyman even though he is clearly a movie star. At his worst, he is distant and unemotional. The latter describes his performance in “Oblivion.” While he is supposed to be a cold, highly trained killer here, he didn’t even make sense as that. For somebody with such a haunted and confused past, it clearly didn’t seem to bother him at all.

The biggest problem that “Oblivion” faces is a script filled with stilted dialogue and underdeveloped characters. Just look at the Morgan Freeman. He comes in, almost saves the movie, and then disappears again for an hour. They say that a movie is as good as its villain. Jack and the resistance spend most of “Oblivion” fighting a bunch of orbs that shoot things out of them. And that’s about it. There are no confrontations or motivations to create intrigue or raise the stakes. A better villain probably would have made “Oblivion” more entertaining.

The film’s villain problem highlights the real issue of “Oblivion”: it’s just plain boring. The action sequences have absolutely no life in them. With all of the money spent on this film, couldn’t there have been a little more life injected into them? Every battle feels like it was won with no difficulty at all. The director seems to enjoy taking every convenience possible whenever a storyline can’t work out (for example: Jack’s bike breaking down).

“Oblivion” is set to a score that sounds like the “Inception” soundtrack mixed with the music from those Carnival Cruise commercials. This is just a small example of the film’s inability to both find the right tone and faithfully pay tribute to the much better films than it rips off. I really wanted to like “Oblivion,” because every original sci-fi film that Hollywood produces is a mini blessing in disguise. Maybe it sold because it wasn’t so original after all. What “Oblivion” lacks is spirit. You could get a lot more entertainment out of watching a group of five-year-olds reenact their favorite scenes from “Minority Report.”

Note: There are multiple story lines that I didn’t get into. That is partly because I don’t want to spoil anything, and partly because I had barely any idea what was going on at all during this film.

If You Don’t Want to See the Watered Down Version, See the Original: Moon, Source Code, Minority Report, 2001: A Space Odyssey, Inception, Cloud Atlas, Looper

The Shawshank Redemption: On Life in Prison and Life in General

Warning: Spoilers Ahead.

Thanks to AMC, which would be the best movie station on TV if not for all the f—ing bleeps, “The Shawshank Redemption” has been playing nearly every week this summer. Despite being the banner image of this blog for well over a year, “The Shawshank Redemption” has not gotten its moment in the sun here. It’s time for that to change.
“The Shawshank Redemption” has earned its place among cinema’s finest. That’s a huge feat for a movie that was critically and commercially shunned upon initial release. Today, it is famously ranked as the greatest movie of all time on IMDB’s Top 250; just one notch below “The Godfather.” The legacy of “Shawshank” has increased over the years. That is in large part because of its emotional impact. This is one of the few movies that could make a grown man cry. You might get teary eyed from Brooks’s final monologue. Or, perhaps it will hit you after that last shot, as the gentle Pacific and the endless stretch of beach frames two friends reuniting for the first time, finally free. That’s the one that always gets me.
Much of the film’s emotion comes from Frank Darabont’s incredibly human direction. He lives by the rule that what can’t be seen is more powerful than everything we do see. During the aforementioned scene in which Brooks says his final goodbye to the world, the camera makes his suicide all the more devastating. We never actually see him hang himself, but instead we see the pieces of wood coming off the wall as he writes “Brooks is Here,” and finally we see his the table fall from under him as his feet shake, and then remain in a still, and eerily peaceful, state.
“Shawshank” is a film that carries strong ethos to match its pathos. Its story of a corrupt prison is as much about a corrupt prison as it is about corrupt society as a whole, and how the human mind and soul fit in.
Before we get into that, let’s start from the beginning. Andy Dufresne (Tim Robbins) is a banker sentenced to life in prison after his adulterous wife is found dead, and he is found guilty of the murder., despite his claim of innocence. Dufresne is a quiet man, and this makes people misinterpret him as a cold man with no remorse. Really, his silence hides an intelligence far beyond most others. Andy is sent to the corrupt Shawshank Prison, where forms a friendship with Red (Morgan Freeman) during his two decade imprisonment. Red tells Andy that he is “the only guilty man in Shawshank.”
It seems customary at this point that every film about a life of imprisonment must have a lead character who doesn’t belong. In “One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest,” R.P. (Jack Nicholson) wasn’t actually insane (like most of the other men at the hospital). And while Luke from “Cool Hand Luke” actually did commit a crime, he has a spirit too big for the hellish southern prison he’s been placed in. Perhaps it is through all of these eccentric characters that we see that these institutions offer punishment, but no rehabilitation, for any of the people that are sent to them.
In “Shawshank,” prison is more than a dehumanizing place. It is an industry, and a world of its own. In this industry though, cigarettes are used as currency.
It makes sense that a place as isolated as prison would become a world of its own. What is so interesting about “Shawshank” is that it mirrors the creation of society. The men are supposed to enter from the real world with something of a blank slate, as they are expected to eventually feel guilt and want to change as a result of their prison sentences. There are many ways to “save” men. The Warden (Bob Gunton) believes salvation is found through Jesus Christ. Every man who wants to follow this path seems to do it just as a cover up for wrongdoing. Then, there is Andy’s way of thinking. During the scene in which he plays Mozart over the loud speaker, he is exposing the deprived prisoners to culture. None of the prisoners understand what the woman is saying in the song, but they know that it is moving. There is a sort of universal language that runs through every work of art, a kind of language that those obsessed with power are too blind to understand. Andy is not a machine, he is a record player: he has the cheerful, care-free flow of great music constantly flowing through him.
In these respects, “Shawshank” is about the relationship between the powerful and the powerless. Darabount uses this idea to give, well, sympathy to some people who don’t really deserve it. The scene in which Bogs (Mark Rolston), Andy’s tormentor, gets what is coming to him ends up being more painful than cathartic. That is because Bogs is literally dragged into his own cell by the ruthless Captain Hadley (Clancy Brown). Even if someone is bad, once they become helpless, you immediately feel for them. This is a case of “A Clockwork Orange” Syndrome: no fight is fair if both sides cannot stand up for themselves. It is someone’s right to choose whether they want to defend themselves. Once that right is taken away, that man ceases to truly live.
And that is what the redemption of “The Shawshank Redemption” truly is: gaining freedom. It is not just the freedom to return to the outside world. The outside world is a place that “got itself in a big damn hurry.” It is about achieving inner freedom: the freedom to explore, learn, and make decisions for oneself.
“The Shawshank Redemption” is many more things that a few more viewings might help me find. It uses religion as a way to raise its hero into savior status, all while showing the ways that religion can be linked to the triumph of evil. It is a brilliant choice of letting Red, rather than Andy, narrate the story. This is not just because Morgan Freeman is the only person who could emulate what God would probably sound like, but because it adds a narrative complexity. Andy is a mystery. So is his overall escape mission. If the film were told from Andy’s perspective, the mystery would be gone. Andy also doesn’t quite seem to understand why he is so unique. Only an outsider could explain why. Another brilliant narrative technique? The fact that the clothing worn by three different women (Rita Hayworth, Marilyn Monroe, Raquel Welch) marks the passage of time in the film.
I don’t take much credence in the IMDB Top 250, but the fact that “The Shawshank Redemption” tops the list gives me some faith in it. Even if it isn’t the greatest film of all time, this top spot shows that the next generation that will control the movies, and the common opinion of movies, actually has some good taste. Perhaps, “The Shawshank Redemption” will one day be considered as timeless as “Casablanca” and “Citizen Kane.” I don’t think anyone would really mind.

Movie Review: Invictus

After seeing “Invictus,” I thought of a scene in “Barton Fink” where a greedy studio executive informs Fink his wrestling picture won’t work because the real drama takes place in the ring, not outside of it.

Somehow, “Invictus” manages to strike a rare balance of both; making the action in the story as intense on the action on the field. Then again, I expect nothing less from Clint Eastwood.
“Invictus” comes entirely from a true story. It is slightly a biopic on Nelson Mandela (Morgan Freeman). However, it’s not a rise and fall story of his entire life. Instead, it tells of the years when he became president of a post-Apartheid South Africa. Once Apartheid ended, all of the country’s racial tensions had not ended. To reunite the torn country, he looks for help in the most unlikely place: South Africa’s rugby team. In order to reunite the country, he befriends the team’s white captain (Matt Damon) and inspires the team to win the World Cup. Here is where sports and social conflict collide.
You could call “Invictus” a mix of two very different genres: inspiring biopic, and inspiring sports flick. It manages to be unconventional, but not necessarily groundbreaking in both. As a biopic, it manages to show its subject as an amazing person without necessarily deifying it. As a sports flick, it manages to be uplifting without being schmaltzy. Of course, this shouldn’t come as a surprise, as the film is directed by Eastwood.
Even at the age of 79, Eastwood remains as alive and energetic as he was at 29. Here, he shows off his talent for amazing, simple human interactions. Some philosophical life conversations that take place in the movie feel similar to those in say, “Million Dollar Baby.” Meanwhile, the brilliantly shot rugby sequences feel as engrossing and brutal as a real game of rugby. Eastwood puts in the same energy of mastering the technique of a rugby game as he did with a battle sequence in “Letters from Iwo Jima,” a boxing match in “Baby,” and a shootout between gunslingers in “Unforgiven.” Simply, this man can do anything.
Another man who can do (or in the case, play) just about anything is Freeman. He’s the first person that comes to mind when I think of a good candidate for Mandela, and here he proves why. He doesn’t just play Mandela, he is Mandela. Any person who doesn’t know a thing about Mandela will walk out of this movie understanding why this man deserves a movie. He underlines his amazing quality of forgiveness, but also his outgoing, always humorous personality. His performance goes along with the screenplay, as he plays Mandela as not just an inspiring public figure, but also a man could faint from too much work, and a man who could also have family problems.
The film’s other star, Damon, gives something of a mixed performance. While he gave a career best performance earlier this year in “The Informant!” this performance is a slightly bigger challenge, as the South African accent is a hard one to nail. Sometimes, he gets it right. Other times, it leans towards Australian with a mix of American. Damon is a talented actor, and I admire him for trying. However, his imperfect accent didn’t serve as a distraction from the film’s higher points.
“Invictus” might just be the perfect sports movie for this day and age. It’s one of those films that provides both makes you face reality, and allows you to escape it. It engrosses you in the power of the game, but it also uses the game as a way to represent South Africa’s social problems. It represents the power of something as seemingly insignificant as a sporting event as being one of the greatest uniters of all. It is also a great sports flick for the way the game is shot. Eastwood puts you inside the huddles, forcing you immediately inside the action. Meanwhile, each kickoff is incredibly suspenseful. Even if you know the outcome, you can’t help but feel like you don’t.
Only someone like Clint Eastwood could get away with showing one of the most significant turning points in modern human history through sports. Here, he has also shown his new world view, which is leaning away from the depravity of mankind and leaning toward the idea of how even one life can inspire so many. The title “Invictus” comes from a poem that Mandela read during his years in prison about man triumphing over his soul and his destiny and in the end, conquering great obstacles. “Invictus,” like Mandela himself, will inspire many, and leave no audience member unmoved. This is one of the year’s best films.
Below is a picture of the real Nelson Mandela with the real Francois Pienaar