Category Archives: Movie Review

Movie Review: Scott Pilgrim vs. the World

3 Replies

There are some movies that, no matter their subject matter, just give you a new sort of energy after walking out. With its hilariously gimmicky comic book inspired universe, “Scott Pilgrim vs. the World” did just this.

“Scott Pilgrim vs. the World” felt so fresh and inviting because it simply did its best in trying to achieve so many things. It made use of action and comedy quite effectively because it comes from a director who can mash both genres like few others working today.
To like “Scott Pilgrim” and Scott Pilgrim, it is your task to throw away all of your hatreds you may have toward the film’s star. The titular hero is portrayed by Michael Cera. Scott Pilgrim is a timid bassist playing for a struggling Toronto band. Pilgrim doesn’t have as much trouble getting girls, as he does keeping them.
Pilgrim can’t get over the horrible way his last relationship ended. His relationship with a girl (Ellen Wong), who’s quite a bit younger is a bit troubling. But then, Scott sees Ramona Flowers (Mary Elizabeth Winstead) and knows he has found the one.
Ms. Flowers doesn’t come easy though. The girl with the constantly changing hair color has also had quite a number of bad breakups in the past. In order to win her over, Scott must battle her seven evil ex-boyfriends. With such competition as skateboarder Lucas Lee (Chris Evans), tough lesbian Roxy (Mae Whitman), and powerful record producer Gideon Graves (Jason Schwartzman), the task will prove to be just as hard as it sounds.
I wouldn’t call “Scott Pilgrim” flawless (some scenes ran on slightly longer than they needed to), but I still found so few things I could complain about. Everyone involved, whether writer, director, or actor, fulfilled their roles to the highest of their abilities. When this happens, a strange sort of tangible magic occurs. It is one that can’t easily be broken.
Cera made a name for himself early on as the teenager who’s too awkward for words. From “Arrested Development” until “Juno,” this image worked in his favor. Then of course, the backlash formed. Anyone who won’t give “Scott Pilgrim” a chance because they think it’s just another awkward performance will miss the point entirely. Cera has been developing a new character since “Youth in Revolt.” It’s basically a slightly deeper extension of his old one. It is awkward with a mix of pretentiousness and a lack of respect for both himself and others. Cera is no longer just playing himself. He knows how to be a comedic actor.
While the film is all about Scott Pilgrim, it is not just centered on him. “Scott Pilgrim” does an excellent job developing its entire ensemble. All of the characters have very well established backgrounds and traits. Each band member and everyone else in Scott’s life have at least one certain odd defining characteristic.
Aside from Cera, some of the cast highlights include Kieran Culkin as Scott’s gay and gossipy roommate Wallace. He manages to steal every scene he’s in. Then there’s Anna Kendrick, who manages to prove herself a better actress with every role. Aubrey Plaza, as the always present Julie Powers, continues to find a perfect dry humor in her monotone voice and even more monotone attitude toward life.
“Scott Pilgrim” is following a new series of graphic novel adaptations that are almost jokes on the whole comic book genre itself. In addition, its the first comic book movie I’ve seen that truly felt like a comic come to life.
This story is complete with onomatopoeic sounds bursting out in word form. Just like a comic book, the audience sees every Boom! and every Bam! The characters can see every one of these effects as well, giving the film a much more self aware element.
The film also ties in elements from video games. Every evil ex is like a level from a video game. “Scott Pilgrim” could best be described as “Mortal Kombat” meets “Kick-Ass.”
I hope to credit as much of this as possible to the film’s co-writer and director, Edgar Wright. Wright has garnered a great reputation over the years for tongue-in-cheek satire of various entertainment genres. Perhaps he’s so good at it because he truly seems to know his stuff. Within all of the jokes about video games and comic books, Wright infuses a dose of satire of everything from the typical action film to the tired rom-com.
Like his past efforts, Wright shows great talent for getting big laughs out of such small details. To really laugh at an Edgar Wright film, one must have a very keen eye for detail. Take for instance one moment in “Shaun of the Dead,” where if you look close enough in the background, you might spot a homeless man about to eat a live pigeon.
Wright also constantly challenges what the human brain can laugh at. Wright can hurt his characters without being mean and tell jokes about gay people without seeing homophobic in the slightest bit.
The action in “Scott Pilgrim” is directed in a way that is both silly and serious. As hilarious as it can be, it is also a feast for the eyes. So much effort was put into every little shot. Much of the action feels like a hybrid between a video game and a comic book, which isn’t necessarily a bad thing.
In this way, the action can be seen as a comment on our current fast-paced, video game obsessed culture. It’s better though to ignore this fact and just see the film as the hilarious product of entertainment that it truly is.
For a film that is so unique and inventive, “Scott Pilgrim” ends almost exactly the way anyone could have predicted. Yet, how it gets to that moment is a bit surprising, and extremely mature for a film like this. “Scott Pilgrim” is a film that truly cares about its characters. Think of it as the most thoughtful video game movie ever made.
To all of you die hard “Arrested Development” fans out there, watch out for a few very good references.

Inception: On Backlashes, Second Viewings, and Dead Cats

Leave a reply

Warning: Do not read on unless you have actually seen “Inception.” And even if you don’t care about spoilers, I command you to proceed with caution.

So, here we are. “Inception” has officially been in theaters for two weekends. It’s also been a little over a week since I first laid eyes on it and made it out to be a magnum opus unlike any we’ve ever seen (or, unlike any we’ve seen since Kubrick or Scorsese and Coppola in their prime). Since then, the film has made a killing at the box office, and has been called both an epic masterpiece and an overrated piece of crap.

Yes, many have dared to call “Inception” overrated. Others have dared to call it resistant to criticism. This just shows how no one seems to know what “Inception” really is. And let’s hope it stays that way.

I am going to assume that most everyone who has decided to read this article has either already seen “Inception” or just doesn’t care if anything gets spoiled at all. I will be light on the spoilers, but a little more specific than last time. I don’t know if I’m qualified enough to write about “Inception” again. Even after seeing it again, and I feel like I understand a great deal more, I still feel like I know nothing. Yet “Inception” is just one of those movies you have to talk and write about as much as possible after viewing them.

It is safe enough to say that “Inception” has received an overwhelmingly positive response. Some make legitimate arguments. Others are just hating for the sake of being contrarian. Others are exposing everything that is wrong with modern film criticism.

Inception

It is not just one group of people who are causing the problems. The haters seemed ready to hate “Inception” since before it was even released. This goes even beyond Armond White, the now notorious critical contrarian. I won’t spend too much time on White, but I will say that it’s one thing to not like a movie because it is flawed, and another to not like it because you feel it has enough love already.

And then there are those people who think that “Inception” should be shielded from all criticism. These people seem to think just because it is so unique that nobody should be allowed to point to its problems. Well, everyone has a right to their opinion, and in a time where the art of film criticism is in danger, telling a critic to shut it seems kind of dangerous. As much as I love Rotten Tomatoes, I might have to blame this on them. There is a sort of feeling these days that if a movie doesn’t receive a perfect 100%, then it is no good. Right now, “Inception” stands at 87%. Most movies would dream to have that much approval.


But enough with the triviality of reality. It’s time to delve into the world of movies. Specifically, the world of “Inception.” And what a world it is. Even on a second viewing, there was still something amazingly unique about it. While some movies that are full of surprises feel less surprising on a second viewing, “Inception” is still filled with new things.

If you’ve only seen “Inception” once, chances are you are really confused. It makes sense why anyone would be confused after just one viewing, but the funny thing is that no one should be. With a close listen to the dialogue, you can see that almost everything is totally spelled out for you. Almost every single line of the film is pure exposition. Yet, it seems even breezier and more fascinating on a second listen. Exposition can be fine if it’s actually interesting.


I found on a second viewing that I was paying less attention the spectacle and more attention to the actual story. Yes, the folding city and zero gravity fighting are still awesome, but there’s nothing quite like seeing scenes like that fresh. But when you look at the scenery, you really can miss the depth. Many have found “Inception” to be weakest in its story. That might be thought of in one viewing. But there really is more than meets the eye.

What really stood out now were the film’s themes. The central question goes well beyond is this reality or a dream. It is more like when does reality start and subconscious set in, and vice versa. The question could even extend to whether or not one or the other doesn’t even exist, or whether they exist in the same place.

This can be seen when paying very close attention to Mal (Marion Cotillard). She’s more than just a projection, she is Cobb’s totem. While Cobb is constantly spinning the top to see if he is dreaming or not, that was Mal’s totem. In that sense, he doesn’t use it so much to see whether or not he is in a dream, but whether or not he will get to see his wife again. Perhaps the reason he didn’t even pay attention to whether or not the top was going to fall in the end was because he had totally let go of his wife. Whether or not she showed up was irrelevant.

In the relationship between Cobb and Mal lies the film’s true heart. And while others didn’t notice, it is beating. In addition, despite the fact that the scene where Fischer (Cillian Murphy) confronts his dying father was imagined, there was something extremely satisfying about the revelation reached at the end of it. Fischer, like Cobb, could not function on his own without getting rid of the weight of his troubled past. Dreams are where we go to escape our troubled pasts, and our even more troubled presents.


Something that is harder to notice is the film’s very keen sense of humor. Most of the jokes are quick enough that only someone who has viewed the movie twice can really catch them. They also manage to work well in part of the actors. Tom Hardy as the forger Eames added a dry sense of playful British humor to every scene he was in.

But the second time around, one laugh I didn’t expect came at the end. After waiting in anticipation to see the fate of the spinning top (even though I knew the ending, I was still at the edge of my seat), the whole audience began to laugh once the screen turned black. They weren’t laughing at the movie, but rather with it. Perhaps Nolan actually intended that ending to be a sick joke. Maybe the moment the screen faded to black the top either fell or kept spinning.

Yes, that final shot is just one tiny shot. But it really needs to be discussed. It is more of a paradox than the infinite staircase. Yet, at that point, it almost didn’t seem to matter whether or not Cobb was dreaming or awake at that point. The last shot was a sort of Schrodinger’s Cat: the ending is both relevant and irrelevant at the same time.

The top is so important because this tiny toy encapsulates the whole point of the movie. Perhaps the most important line in the film is when Mal tells Cobb there are three options in life: what you believe, what you want to believe, and what you know is real. In the case of whether or not the top keeps spinning or collapses, I could say I believe that Cobb is in reality, I want to believe that Cobb is dreaming, and I know that it’s impossible to ever know which one it actually is. Any of these three answers, even the one about what is real, can be altered in some way. Just like dreams have different meanings to different people, the whole of “Inception” can mean so many different things. By opening up the possibility to us that nothing we saw took place in reality, Nolan was in effect performing inception on the audience.

That leads to a theory that’s been widely discussed and is extremely plausible: “Inception” is a metaphor for the act of filmmaking itself. Each person who serves a role could also serve on a film set. Both involve artists meticulously creating worlds from scratch and keeping them from falling apart.

For one more second, back to that ending. There is indeed proof of multiple conclusions. Notice how the light in Cobb’s house shines in the same way it did when him and Mal woke up. Notice also that this time, his children turned around while in his dreams they never did. Then again, maybe that’s because he never bothered looking in his dreams.
So maybe it is too early to call “Inception” one of cinema’s greatest. “Citizen Kane” wasn’t called the best film in 1941. I’m not saying “Inception” has quite the impact on filmmaking as “Citizen Kane” did. But I do know that it will forever effect the way I watch and process film. It truly did push boundaries both visually and narratively. It simultaneously achieved mirror-breaking self-reflexiviness and it also became an allegory for the world we live in. I don’t think I’m over-analyzing when I say that “Inception” reflects a world where people are more interested in creating their own worlds than fixing the one they actually live in.
Now, who here is ready for round three?

Movie Review: Inception

5 Replies

Dreams are not reality. Movies are not reality. They are both part of what he have in life, and mostly what we really want. That’s why they’re constantly a focus in movies. Though the whole “it was all a dream” ending had worn out its welcome. That is until “Inception” landed in theaters and completely redefined reality and imagination.

“Inception” is a film that’s been hyped up for months. It brilliantly showed us gripping footage while keeping us totally in the dark. For once in your life, you’ll feel like you walked into a movie not knowing a single thing about what it really is. It’s more than the thriller you thought it would be. It’s, well, maybe you should be kept in the dark about that.
I will give you something, maybe slightly more than you could get from some commercials. “Inception” brings us to what may or may not be a futuristic dystopia. Or else it is a slightly altered version of our own time. In this world, technology exists that allows one to enter the human mind through dreams and use that to gather and manipulate ideas. It’s called Inception. Two “architects,” Cobb (Leonardo DiCaprio) and Arthur (Joseph Gordon-Levitt), are experts at this. Cobb is addicted to exploring the world of dreams, so much so that it causes strains between him and his family.
Cobb and Arthur are hired by a shady businessman (Ken Watanabe) to find some information for them. The two team up with a bright, young student (Ellen Page) to embark on a mind-bending, possibly dangerous journey into the human subconscious.
It’s hard to know where to begin with “Inception.” The way to enjoy “Inception” is to suspend reality and be engrossed into the many worlds you are introduced to. That’s why the set pieces and camera are so crucial. This is a rare film that actually uses its sets properly. And much of what you see is done without the aid of CGI. Christopher Nolan decided to go the old-fashioned way and actually build real sets. For that, I applaud him.
Every location and every shot of the film feels so authentic, and so imaginative. The laws of gravity and physics no longer apply. Cities runoff into the sky. People can float. Objects can move at any pace they want. This is a world without rules.
With the infinite possibilities that lie within dreams, Nolan is given the freedom to bring the story into whatever direction he wants. Most directors seem to stop at certain points because they don’t want to lose their audience. Nolan doesn’t care if you’re following or not. He’ll go as far as he wants, for however long he wants to.
Nolan though is trying to unite two different crowds: those who want a thought-provoking movie, and those who want high-class entertainment. “Inception” amazingly caters to both needs.
As an action movie, “Inception” keeps you in constant suspense and constant shock. Fight scenes, whether real or imagined, are given time and detail. They aren’t filled with the insanely fast cuts that made movies like “The A-Team” almost unwatchable. Nolan lets the audience savor every blow delivered.
The one action piece you won’t stop thinking about involves a hallway and a lack of gravity. Any amount of description I provide can’t possibly ruin it for you. It looks accurate enough to have been a green screen.
“Inception” proves a conclusion that has already been reached: Nolan is a master. He knows how to turn spaces into haunting visual nightmares. The looming shots of Tokyo and other metropolises might as well be Gotham City. He can then take those landscapes and fill them with incredibly complex stories.
Nolan’s narrative techniques are as interesting as his directing. Much of the dialogue in the film is expository, but hearing every step of the process is so fascinating that you won’t mind. Intertwined is some enlightening discussion about the nature of dreams and the human mind. It’s the kind of information that must’ve taken years of research. How Nolan could fit all that in while making two “Batman” movies is a mystery to me.
The plot of “Inception” unfolds very slowly. As the characters enter deeper levels into the dream world, new layers of plot unfold. Strangely, the more chaotic things get, the clearer the story becomes.
It’s kind of hard for any one actor in this film to truly shine, as Nolan and the visuals totally steal the show. That’s not to say there isn’t some fine acting. “Inception” boasts a few of the most talented young actors working today. With both “Inception” and “Shutter Island” this year, DiCaprio has proven himself an actor responsible of mature and psychologically complex roles. He knows how to play people so torn up that they can barely even function as humans. He is starting to become the DeNiro of our generation. Gordon-Levitt and Page meanwhile, provide a perfect counterbalance of wit and charm along with both understanding and total confusion.
All of this leads me to say that beyond all of the action, “Inception” is truly a human story. It is about loss and regret and the dream being an outlet to both conceal and confront the darkest parts of our lives. Dreaming can be a means of both escape and confrontation.
“Inception” reminded me for the first time in a long time what a true moviegoing experience is like. The theater exists for a reason. That reason is when you have a story this complex and sprawling, you need a gigantic screen to fill the room and truly take in everything being shown. It is in a space like this where we are most able to suspend reality. Plus, when you have a film this good on a screen big enough, it can truly suck you into the story. At a time like this in a film like this, 3D seems irrelevant. Your mind creates the illusion of being in a third dimension.
To call “Inception” the best movie made in a very long time would be an understatement. Nothing has changed the rules of cinema this much since “The Matrix.” It combines so many genres into one mesmerizing whole. At so many points it could’ve fallen apart but Nolan keeps it intact.
“Inception” is a thriller of the mind that won’t leave your mind. After some movies end, you immediately know you have to see it again. Only with “Inception” will you know that from the very first scene.
If You Liked this Movie, You’ll also Like: Memento, Mulholland Dr., The Dark Knight, 2001: A Space Odyssey, The Matrix, Shutter Island, Fight Club, Blue Velvet, Blade Runner
For more awesome mind-bending movies, check this out.

Movie Review: The Kids Are All Right

2 Replies

Face it, all romantic films turn out the same. In that light, it doesn’t matter what happens in the end, but rather how you get to that end point. That could include the events that occur throughout the film, or the larger context in which those events happen. In a world where romance seems dead, “The Kids Are All Right” is there to kick that notion right in the butt.

As much as people like to make fun of where the Indie genre has gone, give it credit for continuing to make common ideas seem fresh. “The Kids Are All Right” is a mixture of suburban boredom with teen angst and sexual confusion. The centerpiece couple is lesbians Nic (Annette Benning) and Jules (Julianne Moore). Nic takes on the uptight parent role, while Jules is more open-minded. However, they are both equally motherly.

Jules and Nic have two children: the brainy and sexually repressed Joni (Mia Wasikowska) and the just plain confused Laser (Josh Hutcherson). After discovering their origins, the two become curious about who their real father is. They find out he is a semi-hippie named Paul (Mark Ruffalo). Despite being a college dropout, Paul now runs a successful organic farming business and restaurant. The kids meet Paul, and they get along quite well. Something about Paul might seem strange, but Ruffalo’s constantly calm and always reassuring voice quells all fears.

The rest of “The Kids Are All Right” is one of those films whose story doesn’t stem off of a major event but rather a person. Every action that happens in the rest of the film happens as a direct result of the family’s contact with Paul.

“The Kids Are All Right” goes at two contradicting paces. First off, it goes slow. It takes its time and enjoys itself while doing so. At the same time, it feels so energetic and lively. Even if you can feel the running time, you’ll never feel bored. The film definitely chews up the beautiful Southern California scenery.

The music that director Lisa Cholodenko chose also fits in perfectly. The film’s opening track is Vampire Weekend’s “Cousins.” I am usually irked when films use recent, popular music. It can feel like they’re just capitalizing off of something popular rather than actually choosing the right songs. However, “Cousins” is well chosen. It projects both a strangely happy mood as well as a sense of the twisted family troubles on the horizon.

Once again, “The Kids Are All Right” doesn’t contain the lightning-fast storytelling common place in most films made today. Even though I could definitely feel every moment, I would’ve been fine with sitting in the theater for another two hours with these characters. That’s what good storytelling does: it puts you into a convincing universe and lets you out whenever it damn well feels like letting you out. “The Kids Are All Right” ended where it wanted to end because it earned the right to.

This film contains an ensemble worthy of a SAG Award. Benning shows so many flared up, mixed emotions both through her words and even more powerfully, body expressions. Moore is a powerhouse of warmth and motherly humor. Then there’s also Wasikowska. I thought she showed potential in “Alice in Wonderland,” but she just needed a project that was actually, well, good. After “The Kids Are All Right,” she has proven herself ready to take on even more challenging roles.

Along with great acting, “The Kids Are All Right” certainly has one of the best screenplays this year. It’s so insightful and downright hilarious. It embraces awkwardness at all the right moments.

But beyond its witty and thoughtful dialogue there lies something within the film that is almost groundbreaking. For one of the first times, a gay couple was portrayed just like any other couple would be portrayed. The film so truthfully shows what it would feel like to have two moms. That opening dinner scene felt so unbelievably real in the way the characters interact with each other. The “L word” isn’t in site at any point. In an ever troublesome world, “The Kids Are All Right” is a sign of the times that actually makes me feel good about the time I’m growing up in.

Even though you know where the makers of “The Kids Are All Right” lean, this film never at one point tries to make a political statement. It is simply trying to tell a good story, which it does quite well. In its exploration of the meaning of family and the troubles of sex, it evokes the best social commentaries of the 1970s as well as such other great films as “Juno” and “American Beauty.” “The Kids Are All Right” proves that maybe the kids will turn out all right. Hopefully, more movies will follow in its footsteps and turn out all right, too.

Movie Review: Despicable Me

1 Reply

Hey everyone, Pixar doesn’t have to be the only studio allowed to make animated films. Competition begets creativity. In the case of animated competition, Illumination Entertainment gave us “Despicable Me.” It might feel a little less grown up than “Toy Story 3″ but that doesn’t stop it from being entertaining and even a little touching.

I don’t mean to keep comparing “Despicable Me” to Pixar, because it deserves to seen as its own separate entity. It reminded me a little bit of “The Incredibles” for the world of super villains. It’s all about Gru (Steve Carell). Gru has a reputation for being the world’s greatest villain. He’s bald, has something of a hunchback, and has a creepy French accent that makes him sound a bit like Tommy Wiseau.
Gru’s status as greatest villain is threatened. The young and clumsy Vector (Jason Segel) impresses the world of evil by stealing the Pyramids. This also puts a damper on some of Gru’s biggest plans. Gru does what any evil genius would do: adopt three innocent little girls to secretly undermine for your operations. This works fine, until you begin to feel compassion.
“Despicable Me” doesn’t quite look as well polished as some of the other big animated films. Yet, there’s something about its animation that is both realistic and eye-poppingly alive. The animated world around the characters is more than convincing enough for the audience to totally buy it.
Even the characters come with a convincing reality to them. A few flashbacks make Gru’s evil seem a little more understandable. Who said a movie for children couldn’t have a little depth to it?
Another thing that adds to the characters is the excellent voice talent. Usually, recording a role for an animated film doesn’t require much effort. However, the actors here actually add some personality to their roles. Segel weirdly feels like the awkward guy he always plays. Carell’s never really played a villain before, yet he manages to pull of some of his dorky and lovable qualities that he’s so good at.

What can make a children’s movie go from children’s movie to family film is how universal its story and themes are. “Despicable Me” gets that down right. It provides a framework that makes room for endless imagination. It has fun showing off both Gru’s crazy inventions (which involve a ridiculous car and a shrink ray) and his pension for evil. While some animated films can get carried away with visual gags, the best jokes of “Despicable Me” come as a result of the imagery. At times though, you just have to look closely, or you might miss it.


Probably the highlight of the movie are the little Minions, Gru’s assistants. What species they are is never stated, but they look like talking yellow Mike and Ikes. They speak a strange language and do nothing but cause problems. They seem like the kind of characters who would get their own short film before a big movie starts. Their running time was extended, with great results.

“Despicable Me” has a heart and a message to it that’s beyond the typical “don’t judge others” and “be nice” that you get from most children’s movies. “Despicable Me” is about the value of family, and how much different life can be when you have someone to care for, and someone else who actually cares for you. This is so much more than you might get from say, “Shrek” or “Shark Tale,” so why did it have to go with the typical dance sequence ending? “Despicable Me,” you are better than that.

Besides that little hiccup, even if you don’t have a kid, have a little heart to check this movie out. Hey, it probably has one of the more original stories this summer.

Movie Review: Aliens

Leave a reply

It’s time to put on your geek hat and forget for a moment the notion that all sequels suck. Just step back in a time machine and relive the days when summer blockbusters used to be really good, and sequels were more about completing stories than making more money. Today’s sampling: “Aliens.”

“Aliens” might’ve come from a time before advanced CGI, but still holds up as well as any older action film could. “Aliens” leaves off 50 years after “Alien” ended. The last surviving member of the Nostromo, Ellen Ripley (Sigourney Weaver), has been asleep and floating through space for the past five decades.
Unfortunately, Ripley is not given a hero’s welcome upon returning to Earth. Rather, no one believes her story and she loses her pilot’s license. To top it all off, she is still haunted from the horrible events that happened on that ship (a.k.a. more excuses to show aliens popping out of people’s stomachs).
Humans still remain ignorant of the dangers these creatures pose, and decide to colonize their planet. After some disturbances, Ripley is sent to the planet to investigate the problem. While there, she befriends a brave little girl (Carrie Henn) who’s entire family has been killed, and runs into hundreds of the man-eating aliens. Ripley, it’s time to get back into badass mode.
One thing I sometimes don’t like about sequels is how most times they’re the exact same story as the original, in a slightly altered package. “Aliens” is the rare sequel interested in actually continuing its original story and allowing for further character development. For example, this certainly is not the same Ripley from the first movie. She is at first more vulnerable, and less prepared. It gives her new levels of emotional depth to explore.
Perhaps the main differences between “Alien” and “Aliens” lies in its two very different directors. The original was helmed by Ridley Scott, and the sequel by James Cameron. Both men are infamous perfectionists, but Scott’s filmmaking goes at a much slower pace. His action was less flashy, and it took much longer to build up to it. Cameron, meanwhile, loves to go all out. That is why “Aliens” is so much more of an action driven film.
I don’t mean this to be a bad thing, as Cameron is a master at large-scale filmmaking. Look no further at his future work on “Titanic” and “Avatar.” The action and the violence of “Aliens” are most definitely stunning. Cameron just knows how to elevate everything, from emotions to sound, to make everything more and more tense. Throughout the film you might hear a constant, creepy dripping of water. Or in another scene, when the background score is heard at different volumes in different rooms.
Cameron, like Scott, proves himself a master at utilizing space. The characters of “Aliens” don’t inhabit a space as vast as Pandora. Cameron uses this to create a tighter, more tense mood. The space is also so complex, that the aliens could literally be anywhere.
What also makes Cameron so great is his attention to tiny details. He turns perfectionism into art. He lets the audience pay very close attention to metal bars falling apart when touched to a flame. He also seems endlessly fascinated and obsessed with the weapons his characters use. Small details like this are all a part of universe building. He manages to do this while still maintaining his story.
Before watching “Aliens,” I wondered why Scott wouldn’t come back to complete his own story. It makes sense though, this is Cameron’s type of story. “Alien” was all about mystery; “Aliens” is all about intrigue. Since Cameron loves those details, he’s great with exploring what exactly these aliens are and what they want with us. This comes even more in handy when we finally encounter the angry, bloodthirsty queen.
All of this contributes to a great sci-fi film because part of great sci-fi is the mythology behind it. There is the mythology of both the dystopian future humans have built, and the habits of the aliens. This is something that will continue to make the “Alien” series standout from most other sci-fi.
Some may view James Cameron as a filmmaking God. But he cannot be because if God exists, he would be flawless. Cameron is in serious need of taking some writing classes. The dialogue here is not as bad as in, say “Avatar.” The movie does have its fair share of memorable lines, one in particular when Ripley faces the Queen.
However, there is so much excess dialogue. A perfectly good battle sequence could be ruined by Bill Paxton’s running commentary of every alien he’s just killed. Sometimes, the only sound we should hear are bullets banging and bombs exploding.
The dialogue is just a tiny little dent in a great product. “Aliens” also has something else most sci-fi movies lack: great acting. Mainly, that’s done by Weaver. She exemplifies a great action hero: tough with a soft spot, and endlessly relentless. She’s both hero and human.
Movies have changed much since “Aliens” first premiered, but it still remains a fine model. If more movies tried to be like “Aliens,” then maybe filmmakers could finally find that perfect balance between intelligent and action packed. It’s possible. To all those who forgave the stupidity of “The A-Team” because of its entertainment value, watch “Aliens” to discover that brains and entertainment can mix quite well.

Movie Review: Cyrus

Leave a reply

And now everyone, time to breath that collective sigh of fresh air. “Cyrus” has arrived. It’s a comedy that’s not too ridiculous, and a drama that’s not too, well, overly dramatic; it’s just right. But then again, it’s also ever so wrong.

“Cyrus” is a little less of the screwball comedy you might’ve been hoping for. It’s humor is dark and very, very awkward. Cyrus, the man of the movie, isn’t even the main character. Rather, it’s John (John C. Reilly). John has been divorced from his ex-wife, Jamie (Catherine Keener), for seven years. While Jamie has happily recovered, John remains alone and devastated. After Jamie convinces him to go out one night, he meets Molly (Marisa Tomei).
At first, Molly seems perfect. She’s made John the happiest he’s been in years. But something must be wrong. Yep, there’s a problem. Molly has a grown son, the titular Cyrus (Jonah Hill). Cyrus was home schooled and he maintains a too-close-for-comfort relationship with his mother. He’s prone to panic attacks, and behind his sweet cover, he’s quite the sociopath.
Cyrus is no fan of John. He wants his mother back, and he’ll do anything to do so. John needs Molly, but he’ll have to get by Cyrus first.
“Cyrus” is not quite the movie I was expecting. I don’t mean this in a bad way. I mean that it’s more genuine, and more emotionally moving than I ever thought it would be. It handles a lot of characters that walked a thin line between character and caricature. Yet, each one fell into the former category. Despite the title, each character is handled with similar care, and each get their own sort of moment to stand out.
It might be emotional with all of the various character revelations. But don’t get me wrong, “Cyrus” is better comedy than almost anything that’s come out in some time. The laughs sometimes come from the dialogue, which often seems improvised. But it really derives from every character, and to truly get the humor of the film, you must become invested in the characters.
The story of “Cyrus” is bettered further by excellent acting. After a string of great comedic performances, Reilly returns to more dramatic form, while bringing in much comedic voice. He brings to his role some extra awkwardness, as well as this often child-like sense of vulnerability. Yes, you could totally see how this is the same actor from “Step Brothers.” Just think of it as another great comedic actors bending their comic acts into dramatic territory. Think of Adam Sandler in “Punch Drunk Love,” or Ben Stiller in “Greenberg.”
Someone who manages to be even better is Hill. Yes, he’s that good. Like Reilly, he packs in so much awkwardness. But his performance is also so dark, and so haunted. The point of his character is that his true motives are so hidden. He manages to be so sheltered, yet at times so open and honest. At times, he’s creepy beyond belief. Other times, you feel like you just want to sit down with him and sympathize. And the other great performance comes from Tomei. Between this, “My Cousin Vinny,” and “The Wrestler,” she proves she can play any character.
“Cyrus” embodies the newer genre known as Mumblecore. It’s basically exactly what the word suggests: quiet, and delightfully aimless. For a dialogue driven film, it certainly contains a handful of quiet moments that suggest much more beyond the surface. So please, pay very close attention to those facial expressions. You might see a smile, but look closer, and maybe you’ll see much suppressed anger.

The Duplass Brothers have mastered a style of both extreme awkwardness and a dominant feeling of being uncomfortably real. You can see that by their very odd yet innovative camera style. The camera never quite stays still. Even when focusing on one character, it still jiggles around and constantly goes in and out of focus.

It is also worth noting how the film’s title character isn’t even given a first person perspective. However, he may very well be the main character. Perhaps the film is about how all of these different people see “Cyrus.” Or maybe it’s about how Cyrus’s horrible actions cause people’s lives to fall apart. One thing is certain though: his character is too mysterious, and his inner workings too creepy, to be given a first person voice. It’s more entertaining to try and understand his thoughts and motives as the rest of the characters do.

As you watch more and more movies, even when watching a good one, you still get a sense that you can take past films as precedent and know exactly where the movie you’re watching is headed. “Cyrus” is resistant to that. It’s not trying to impress, and it’s not even trying to get you to like the characters. That comes out of your own opinion. It doesn’t even end on a note of certainty. There is a feeling of certainty that we know what will happen to the characters next, but we don’t need to see it. It will just…happen.

“Cyrus” is as real and funny as the people you know, or the people you never wanted to know. It proves that a raunchy joke, or a grown man standing in nothing but a t-shirt and holding a giant knife, can be funny and sophisticated. Oh, and I’ll emphasize once again that it’s weird. However, it’s the kind of weirdness that feels so unique. More directors should be like the Duplass Brothers: not afraid of throwing away Hollywood convention in order to tell a perfectly good story.

Movie Review: Winter’s Bone

Leave a reply

For a moment, let’s take the word ‘hillbilly’ out of our dictionary. Let’s also take the word ‘hick’ out, and all those other words. Let’s just call them, well, people. For the sake of understanding, and truly appreciating “Winter’s Bone” at least.

“Winter’s Bone” is a nice little movie. Well, not nice in the sense that it’s at all happy or uplifting. Just in the sense that it feels like a movie that is rarely released at this time of year.
“Winter’s Bone” is not much about big events or big thrills, it’s just about people and a story. The film takes place in an extremely remote area of the Missouri Ozarks in a small, tightly knit community. 17-year-old Ree (Jennifer Lawrence) is quite a story. She’s forced to take care of her ailing, pill-addicted mother and two younger siblings.
Why does she have to do this? Ree’s father is a meth cooker on the run from the law. He’s expected to appear in court, so he puts his house up for bond. This means that Ree and the family, already money troubled enough, will be forced to live on the street. Or in there case, the woods. As protector, Ree now must find her father, and save what remains of her family. The results aren’t pretty.
“Winter’s Bone” is nothing like what your expectations would have you believe it to be. It’s set up like a thriller. It’s lit up like a horror film. Yet, it’s simply a character study. It’s an examination of how people react to a crumbling society and deteriorating morals. The story is strangely told in such a simple way, yet in that simplicity lies a deep complexity.
Every good character study needs good actors, and “Winter’s Bone” has just that. Here, Lawrence is basically expected to hold down the fort. Just as Ree carries the weight of her family’s sins and shortcomings on her shoulders, she carries much of the film. She projects a style that is never panicked, and never over-the-top. She shows much and ambivalence, and even more realism. An excellent supporting performance comes from John Hawkes as Teardrop. He turns this character into a sometimes frightening, and always unpredictable, ball of rage.
“Winter’s Bone” might just be one of the best made films I’ve seen in a while. The cinematography is nothing short of masterful. Every shot looks drained of color, and devoid of the goodness in life. It helps feed into the film’s great usage of the Missouri landscape. Those patches of snow, the sagging trees, and of course that lake in the film’s shocking climax all contribute to the establishing mood excellently.
All of this reminded me much of the recent “Frozen River,” which coincidentally told a similar story of people in the country fighting for survival. I could pinpoint several other films this one reminded me of. That country band that played as Ree is violently abused might bring up bad memories of “Deliverance” (especially that banjo). And though this might be a stretch, the lake scene had a very similar vibe to the one that marked Fredo’s end in “The Godfather: Part II.”
At times the film even feels like a novel. I guess it’s something with the rhythm and feel of the conversations. No surprise there, it was adapted from one.
All I can say about “Winter’s Bone” is that it’s not the movie you’d expect to see in theaters everyday. It’s the kind of film that should be going into, and then getting released from, Sundance more often. Even at its darkest parts, there is always the optimistic spirit of the struggle for survival. Not to mention, an amazing view of humans at their most self-sufficient.
“Winter’s Bone” is one of those films that forces us to forget about all of our thoughts and stereotypes of other people and see a new perspective on life first hand. No matter where one comes from, life can be hard, and we can all somehow connect because we all have our struggles. Though, not everyone has to deal with severed hands.

Movie Review: Toy Story 3

1 Reply

How rare it is to find a sequel that’s not looking to sell a new toy line, or even another three sequels. How nice it is when a sequel would rather continue telling a story, than capitalize off of it. That rare day has come with “Toy Story 3.”

Then again, this should’ve been expected by this point. Pixar cemented its status as the greatest animation creator since Walt Disney years ago and they proved they could handle sequels when “Toy Story 2″ was released 11 years ago.
Rather than start directly where it last left off, “Toy Story 3″ takes place in the present day. Andy is now 18 and heading off to college. He hasn’t played with any of his toys in years. While he means to keep them stored in the attic, the toys end up being donated to a day care center by accident. What seems at first like paradise with a benevolent bunch of toys, including Lotso (Ned Beatty) and Ken (Michael Keaton), turns into a living hell for deserted toys. The mission, once again, is to get back to Andy.
Despite being locked up in a chest for years, the toys haven’t changed at all. Woody (Tom Hanks) remains the most loyal friend in the world. Buzz (Tim Allen) still believes he’s a real space cadet. Jesse, Mr. and Mrs. Potato Head, Rex, Hamm, and even the little red monkeys, are all still there. And let the nostalgia begin.
When the original “Toy Story” was released in 1995, it ushered in an era of computer animation. It’s incredible to see how far the genre has come since then with the characters that started it. By this point, “Toy Story 3″ doesn’t even look like it was created on a computer. It might as well have been shot on real Hollywood sets. Well, it might just look even more real than that.
“Toy Story 3″ also has the benefit of 3D. That’s right, I said benefit. The only other movie I’ve seen that’s benefited from 3D is “Avatar” (the wine cork scene from “The Final Destination” doesn’t count). What works with the 3D in “Toy Story 3″ is that its not gimmicky. Nothing pops out at you. The characters and settings pop out of the screen organically. If more filmmakers could harness 3D in appropriate ways like this, then I might just hop on board.
“Toy Story 3″ certainly doesn’t hide behind its visuals. Who needs them with a story this good? The movie might be a slightly basic variation of the first two (toys get lost, toys try to get back from Andy), but that doesn’t mean it’s not original. Most sequels usually lazily ripoff their predecessors. Pixar is too good for that.
Not only does the story feel fresh, but so does every individual moment. That’s another rarity. For example, “Shrek 2″ tried to teach important lessons like its predecessor. Yet, they were basically the same as the original, and therefore felt nowhere near as effective. However, every little poignant moment in “Toy Story 3″ feels so new.
And once again, Pixar proves it amazing ability to bring human qualities to the nonhuman. Sure, its not too hard to feel sympathetic for a fish, or even a kind rat. But making the audience care for inanimate objects is no easy task. Once again, this task is pulled off perfectly. What we see is that a toy can be just as good a friend as any person.
To classify “Toy Story 3″ as a kids’ movie would be a gross inaccuracy. It is a family movie, meaning any member of a family, at any age, will get something out of this movie. Children will learn the value of friendship and commitment. They will also get an exciting story. Teens and adults might even get a more enriched experience. Some of the humor involves a keen sense of observation, and some film knowledge (spot the “Cool Hand Luke” reference). This movie should finally teach the haters that animation is not purely kiddie junk.
Now, I’m going to do something I don’t normally do. Rather than discuss “Toy Story 3″ for what makes it such a great movie, I’m going to discuss what this movie means to me. The “Toy Story” series will always hold a special place in my heart, and this sequel certified it. How amazing it is that the creators coincided Andy’s life with both the beginning of mine, and my entry into adulthood. Pixar doesn’t always deal much with its human characters, but Andy’s college angst feels too familiar. “Toy Story 3″ made me want to rediscover my childhood.
This also helped make every character even more meaningful to me. There is a moment toward the end, which I obviously won’t fully reveal. It was handled so maturely, and it’s so dark, that I’m shocked the studio didn’t alter it. Yet, it shows us the unbreakable friendship between the toys. After all these years, they’re still together. After all these years, I still want to be a part of their journey.
As a friend lamented once the movie ended, “‘Toy Story 3′ represents the end of my childhood.”* Pixar bookmarked the start and end of my childhood. It was one of the first movies I remember seeing, and one of the last ones I’ll see before I walk down graduation isle. As the film’s conclusion showed, it’s not just about the end of one phase of life, but the beginning of a new one. And if this new beginning might also signal more time with Woody, Buzz, and the gang, then count me in.
*Quote attributed to Reverend Doctor Eric H. Wessan

Movie Review: The A-Team

Leave a reply

I hate the existence question. This is when a critic ponders why the movie being reviewed even exists. Every movie has a purpose, whether it is to entertain, provoke thought, or simply steal your money. However, when it comes to remakes of old TV shows, I feel it is totally appropriate to ask, “why must this exist?”

For proof of this, I turn to “The A-Team.” No reason, really. Studio must’ve needed a script quickly and didn’t feel like coming up with a new idea. This movie is a result of Hollywood’s continued lack of ingenuity.
“The A-Team” reminded me a lot of those times when you walk up to a group of kids and one of them says some weird word. Once everyone starts laughing you say, “what’s so funny?” Then, some kid responds by saying “inside joke.” You feel uncomfortable not understanding what is going on and even more annoyed that some joke is so important that it can’t be shared with the rest of the world.
This leads us to the film’s opening. Even though it introduces every single character, there still seems to be something lacking from the backstory. The only way to truly understand what is going on is to have seen the 80s TV series. But who has time for that?
Anyway, our film begins somewhere around the American-Mexican border. While under some intense kidnapping conditions, we meet the team. There’s the cigar smoking Hannibal Smith (Liam Neeson), the wily Lt. Peck (Bradley Cooper), mentally disturbed Murdock (Sharlto Copley), and conflicted killer B.A. Baracus (Quinton ‘Rampage’ Jackson).
That whole opening scene becomes pretty much pointless, as the film suddenly transitions eight years later from Mexico to Iraq (I guess director Joe Carnahan thought it went better, since both places have sand). Despite so many successful missions, nobody in the military trusts the A-Team because, hey, this is a Hollywood action film. The team is sent on a covert mission to stop some bad business involving counterfeiting Iraqi money. They are setup for murdering a general and wrongfully imprisoned. The rest of the film is them proving their innocence and finding the real bad guys.
What follows is a fairly ridiculous assault on the brain. If the explosions don’t get you, then the extremely twisted (and not in a good way) story lines will. “The A-Team” wants to be a film that relies on twists for good storytelling. The only problem is that it relies on many rather than a few. Sometimes, they occur so closely together that they get tangled. Other times, they just seem to have no reason to be there, except to be really annoying.
Not only does it try to handle so many twists, but it also tries to tackle so many stories. It wants to be both a continuation of the show and an origin story. I can’t speak for how it made fans feel, but all I can say for people new to this story is that it left us in the dark. Should this film even be taken as a serious drama, or a comedy?
At this point, I shouldn’t really expect much story. However, I do expect some production value. While the film certainly looked like it had a budget, it doesn’t look like much of it was used wisely. The film opts for the typical, shaky-cam shot action sequences. Why do action directors love shaky-cam? It creates more nausea than thrills. Have we become so A.D.D. that even a shot that lasts more than two seconds feels long?
Most of the action feels like video game violence. Everything else is so poorly edited that it often feels more like an extended trailer than a feature length film. It just puts “A-Team” into part of this horrible trend of mainstream movies that seem to be marketing products and sequels over actual stories.
What continues to annoy me about the film is some of its underlying smugness. That’s probably because of Carnahan, who also directed “Smokin’ Aces.” “Smokin’ Aces” did Tarantino much worse than it actually thought. Likewise, “A-Team” does corny 80s action much worse than it thinks.
Despite this litany of problems, the film manages to find a few bright spots in the ensemble. Neeson and Cooper just seem to be playing Neeson and Cooper. While it’s hard to ever complain about Neeson’s acting, it’s time for Cooper to find a new character. But it was the other half of the team that was most engaging. This is only Copley’s second performance, but he already knows what kind of an actor he wants to be. He brought to Murdock the same dimwitted charm that made Wikus both so likable and hatable in “District 9.” Jackson does a great job playing Mr. T about as well as Mr. T ever could. His character is also the closest the film comes to creating a sort of satire of a certain archetype.
What “The A-Team” ultimately represents is a death of creativity in Hollywood. It also shows that the moviegoing audience has suddenly lost interest in good ideas. Why couldn’t the inspired take on 80s action in “MacGruber” take hold but the uninspired mess based on an 80s TV show could? For those looking for just a good throwaway experience, this is your movie. For those wanting action with a little more watchability, “Inception” is just a few weeks away.