My wife surprises me from time-to-time and, when she told me she wanted to see the original RED when it came out in 2010, I thought she was either messing with me or didn’t fully understand what the movie was about. So, we went to the theater, watched it, and she actually liked it. She wasn’t ga-ga about it, but she had positive things to say. She didn’t bring it up too much and never pushed to buy a copy of it so I thought she tolerated it. However, when the first trailer for the sequel came out she immediately said we should see this one, too. Another surprise. It’s good when your spouse can keep surprising you.
The second was much like the first, lots of explosions, a lot of gunplay, people being killed indiscriminately, plenty of laughs, and a plot that requires a suspended sense of disbelief as a pack of retired CIA spooks trot the globe to find a missing nuclear weapon and the people who want to see it ignite a geopolitical incident. Though implausible, the script is well written, the actors seem to lose themselves in their roles and, in a film where everyone has license to overact, they all seem to share the screen equally well without one overshadowing anyone else. It’s a fun way to spend a couple of hours but don’t look for anything terribly original or groundbreaking. It’s a good ensemble film and the next one will probably be some sinful popcorn fun as well.
Most Valuable Actor: The strength of this cast is their ability to work well together but that also makes awarding this honor next to impossible. Willis is steady but unremarkable, Malkovich and Mirren are both wonderful but don’t get enough screen time to warrant the honor. Newcomer Byung-hun Lee adds a good element to the film but his character isn’t drawn as well as the others. This leaves Parker who is essentially Nancy Botwin in a different life in this film. Fuck it, they all get the honor.
During the summer months you may have the opportunity to see a movie in the park. If it’s as good as this one, I suggest you do not pass up on the opportunity.
Whenever James Bond returns to the big screen we are witnessing both a cinematic landmark as well as a bit of a resurrection. The epitome of the static character has found a new dimension with Craig that hasn’t been seen since George Lazenby‘s turn as the British super-spy and I am in the vocal minority of people who is glad to see its return. An emotional Bond, with flaws and the ability to be hurt or even killed, is infinitely more interesting from a character development standpoint and makes for a better film. However, with top-shelf writers and Sam Mendes at the helm, the world of a new, raw, and gritty Bond can mesh seamlessly with the archetype that has been developed over the last 50 years.
And with a new Bond we get a new breed of villain that still casts the traditional large shadow, but is also more devious and has more than just a single motive. With Skyfall, Bardem fills the role with the first Bond villain that is truly terrifying and a bit twisted to boot. His character is to the Bond universe as Heath Ledger‘s Joker was to the Batman universe and that was to push the protagonist to his mental limits, testing boundaries, and even dredging up the past to make a point. Bardem’s role raises him to the upper-eschelon of Bond villains but he is not the …
Most Valuable Actor: which goes to Judi Dench as M. Before she took the role during the Pierce Brosnan era, M was much like Charlie on Charlie’s Angels–appearing at the beginning to give Bond his assignment and at the end telling him good job right before the credits rolled. Dench made M something more and that is a major reason the character had a much larger role in this film. Only a terrific actor can shift a paradigm like this in a franchise that seems afraid of change.
Every now and then, I will find it necessary to break protocol to tend to my extremely large Netflix queue. This is one of those times.
This film is not what you expect it to be yet exactly what it needs to be at the same time. Director Joe Carnahan’s way of taking any kind of story and turning it into something that you don’t expect but enjoy nonetheless. Carnahan took a story of roughnecks who survive a plane crash in the Alaskan wilderness and makes it into a deeply personal and moving character study under the guise of a survival action/drama. What makes this a great film is that there is plenty of action and drama to satisfy even the pickiest movie fan.
It does help that Carnahan leans on one of the best dramatic actors in the business in Neeson, whose character is as rugged and unsuspecting as the wilderness he and his tenuous companions traverse to escape the pack of vicious wolves. His supporting cast was chosen, not for name recognition (Mulroney and Dallas Roberts were the only other two people I recognized) but for their ability to truly encapsulate their characters and make this film downright hard to watch at times because of its brutal realism. But, the journey was worth the payoff and the film ends with Carnahan’s usual understated elegance.
Most Valuable Actor: Carnahan has a knack of getting the best from every actor under his command and Neeson also seems to take it up a notch. The definite bookend of the film, Neeson’s chemistry and ability to “act small” in a dramatic situation and then turn and be big and dominant in an action sequence the next moment is quite remarkable. Dare I say, his work here eclipses his work in Taken.
In the time of reboots this franchise sets the standard. The first film paid it homage to the original series while striking out on its new, exciting journey that new Nerd King J.J. Abrams wants to take. For established fans (of which I count myself) the characters are familiar if only drawn with more detail. The stories are there, if only more exciting (a PG-13 rating on each helps with that), and all of the space adventure the science-fiction fan seeks is right where they left it. With its decidedly new slant on the original story with these established characters, why did I not feel like I was watching a Star Trek movie.
Probably because these both were action movies–very good action movies–starring the Enterprise crew. The original series of films were more of a thinking-person’s movie, forcing you into a battle of wits and not just photon torpedos. If you want to compare, watch Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (the overwhelming fan-favorite of the original series) and then watch the Abrams version, Into Darkness and notice the difference for yourself. Same characters, same villain with the same motives, but two films that couldn’t be more different. The original built on the suspense and wit that each character brought to it (including villains) while the newer ones, while feeling more organic, try and pack as much action into one film as there was in the six originals.
But, despite the action-packed pace of these newer films, I do have to say I like the character development better. With the old films, it was the Kirk and Spock show and everyone else was ancillary and expandable. In two films, Abrams has made us feel for every principle character (though Sulu’s part went MIA in the newest one) and the films are better for it. Sure, there are some character issues I don’t necessarily agree with but Abrams has made these characters flawed and his own, and that’s a gutsy move considering the fanbase. However, the products have spoken for themselves and these are two fine films, though they do not really fit in with the rest of the legacy.
Most Valuable Actor: As was clear in the latter original Star Trek films, Spock is a better character than Kirk because, despite being the definition of a static character, his is the only character that grows and changes throughout. Quinto’s portrayal of Spock expounds upon the character and the eternal struggle between his logical Vulcan side and his emotional human side.
Like on my other blog, I am looking to make these write-ups more concise and worthwhile so they do not loom in my mind as a major undertaking. So, starting with this post, I will be limiting myself to two paragraphs (because word counts suck) and that’s it. Enjoy!
There are many who give Wesley Snipes for being a bad Steven Seagal-esque actor with limited acting chops and only some serious martial arts abilities to fall back on. Though he will probably never win an Oscar for his work, Snipes does have a tendency to go for meatier roles that show ambition. In The Art of War, Snipes builds upon his ability to play a covert government operative that started in 1998’s U.S. Marshals opposite Tommy Lee Jones. The Art of War follows Snipes as a covert UN operative who is caught in the middle of an international incident that leads major global superpower to the brink of disaster. Not the most cerebral of plots, but it works.
This film seems like another pop-action flick with some roundhouse kicks and cheesy dialogue. While it delivers on both of those fronts it also provides some of the better character development and plot twists that seem to be missing from the contemporary cyber-thriller. Also, while the movie strives to be more than what it is it does a few things right, namely character development. In a film that could have made two-dimensional characters all-around the screenwriters put in enough into each character to make them realistic even if the events surrounding them lacked the realism. This movie holds up well under the weight of its ambition and, while not a classic, it is certainly not a waste of time.
Most Valuable Actor: Snipes is one of those actors who fizzled out before he reached his potential. Trouble outside of the box office didn’t help anything but I saw this as a step in the right direction for Snipes as he carried the movie in several parts.
I could write this review without even watching the movie again. Before I knew what good cinema could be and what a hack Michael Bay is this film became “my favorite movie of all time” in the summer of 1998, prior to my senior year of high school. It almost seemed serendipitous: the biggest film of the summer, starring one of my favorite actors (Willis), and backed by a song sung by the band I was infatuated with (Aerosmith), it was perfect.
I saw the film a few times in the theater, once on a date, and I got goosebumps every time. Seventeen year-old Sean enjoyed explosions, space travel, characters talking very sternly toward one another, and the illusion of nudity that Michael Bay has perfected. When this movie hit VHS (God, I’m old) I bought it and almost wore it out with repeated viewings almost every day when I came home from school. It was an instant classic in my mind.
Now, I’m standing here writing this and the film hasn’t even started playing in my DVD player. the memories are so vivid I kind of want to just leave it at that and write this out. But that wouldn’t be fair to you, me, and the film. So I’m going to go watch it and see how this film has aged: well, like a fine cheese or badly, like milk.
151 minutes later …
Well, it’s pretty much as I remembered. Bruce Willis is a grouchy yet lovable protagonist. Ben Affleck is begrudgingly amiable (don’t tell my wife I admitted that), the supporting cast is great, the script is crap, the special effects are amazing, and it left me walking a bit taller thinking that, just by watching this movie I somehow helped save the world in this fictitious alternate universe. Damn you, Michael Bay! *shakes fist*
As much as this movie stunk in the grand scheme of things I find I can still appreciate it for what it was: a Hollywood blockbuster that was heavy with laughs (Peter Stormare as the Cosmonaut still cracks my shit up) and explosions. Will it go down as a great action movie? Not really because the first two acts move pretty slow to build up the story. Will it go down as a great science-fiction movie? Probably not because of all of the macho posturing by the characters and the gross inaccuracies in the math (I wonder how Neil deGrasse Tyson would dissect this film). But i’s a fun ride.
Is the plot plausible? Of course not. Are the characters well drawn and believable? Not in the slightest (they all seem to be two-dimensional personalities). But it was a fun way to spend a Sunday evening. Now I feel like I need to read some James Joyce to counter-balance the amount of mind-numbing schlock I just witnessed.
Most Valuable Actor: It’s hard to argue with giving the nod to Billy Bob Thornton for this honor. The only actor in the lineup with Oscar-caliber acting chops, you wonder why in the hell he’s in this film in the first place. Well, instead of chewing the scenery like many other good actors would do, he injects life into his character making him someone who could truly walk off the screen and into real life. That’s an Oscar-worthy accomplishment for any Michael Bay film.
Every now and then, I will find it necessary to break protocol to tend to my extremely large Netflix queue. This is one of those times.
There’s the old standard that Literature teachers the world-over use in their classes: the book is always better than the movie. Being someone old enough to have made a good amount of mistakes it is hard for me to speak in such absolutes; I find it trite and, most of the time, easy to debunk. However, sometimes you do find the exception that proves the rule but, for the most part, the statements are usually weak and conflict becomes inevitable because it is a completely subjective view of the piece.
When the film was announced I sought out a synopsis of Suzanne Collins‘ novel and was immediately intrigued. I enjoy stories about a future too horrible to be true but, for the sake of the plot, are. I find they make the best character studies and the best ones are usually so disturbing because they are so plausible. Before the film was released I sought out and read the book and absolutely loved it. The characters were warm and well-defined, the plot was as disturbing as it was intriguing, and the tension was palpable and kept me turning the page. I also found myself thinking that the events lent themselves to be filmed rather easily and that this could be the rare exception that proves the rule: the movie that is as good as the book.
Sadly, I don’t know exactly what I just watched. It looked like The Hunger Games, the story was similar, the characters had the same names, and some of the events were the same, but that was on my screen wasn’t the story I fell in love with. Who were those people? They weren’t the well-rounded, flawed characters I admired and followed into the arena, the story was a whisper of what it had been in the book, and the resolution felt like an inevitability instead of something the characters earned.
One of the major obstacles of adapting a book into a film is the voice of the narrator, which in the book was Katniss (Lawrence), and her perspective on volunteering as a tribute of her district in the Panem‘s Hunger Games that pits 24 young people from the twelve district in the nation to fight to the death. The winner is an instant celebrity, the district is treated better, and it is all for entertainment. Think of it like The Running Man only with children. Katniss’ voice lends so much to the world, not only in her perception of it, but how the people and events are drawn. Without that voice and passion everything becomes two-dimensional and worthless. The bonds and the perceptions are broken and the tension is given to the events and not the psychological damage they cause. And all of this could have been remedied with a simple voice-over narration added into a film that was already well over 2-hours in length.
But the most insulting part was the manufactured conflict that replaced the well-structured events in the book. The filmmakers seemed to pick and choose what they wanted to include and it seemed that the trivial stuff made it while, the details that made the world so realistic and that much more frightening was left by the wayside. There was too much focus on the violence and not enough on the human factor. I imagine this was done to make the events more matter-of-fact but, coupled with the crappy cinematography, it was left in a jumbled mess that left you wondering what was happening and not why it was happening.
Lastly, and this is sad to say, the casting was a joke. Katniss is supposed to be a strong-fierce woman who, at the end, is supposed to become a convincing actress as she plays up her relationship with Peeta. Instead of obtaining an actress that could do this, they found Jennifer Lawrence who grumbles her way through the movie like it is the sequel to Winter’s Bone and is immensely unlikable. The reason for her attitude is explained in the books and becomes part of why she is a sympathetic character, but the movie withholds it and makes her seem like a brooding bitch. Peeta is supposed to be a warrior in the guise of a nice person but Josh Hutcherson turns him into a shallow boy-band wannabe without any real honor or believable emotion. Some might say that the characters are truly too complex for any young actor to undertake, but after hearing about how much the fillmmakers agonized over the casting, to see this product makes me wonder if they truly agonized enough.
Despite my education and credentials, I am not a fast reader. Saying that, it took me slightly longer to read the book than it did to watch the film. So, if you have a few hours some afternoon skip over this vastly disappointing movie and curl up with the book, which is available for purchase pretty much anywhere.
Most Valuable Actor: Woody Harrelson as Haymitch Abernathy, the District 12’s mentor and sole surviving Hunger Games champion, was the best part of this film despite the fact half of his role and impact on the story was left elsewhere. He was the only person on screen that did not physically appear to be struggling to keep in character and his portrayal was as close to the source as it could have been. Now, I want everyone to look at what Woody is doing and try to do it as well as him so Catching Fire isn’t a similar clusterfuck.
I rarely see movies in the theater. When I do, it’s usually for a landmark cinematic event or the wife wants to see something especially cute. This post is a document of the former.
First off, I want to make it clear that this first graf will be the only place I will mention the horrific shooting that occurred in Aurora, Colorado last Friday. It’s not that I have not been affected by the shootings, I’m from Aurora and have seen a couple of movies at that movie complex, but I feel that it has been covered sufficiently by outlets both local and national. If you want more of it please go here, here, here, here, or here to get your fill. This blog is about movies, not the actions of those people surrounding movies. For that kind of tabloid fodder, go here.
I want to step back in time to 2007, when the hype for The Dark Knight was ramping up. I was working at a company where I had pretty free-reign over my workday so, once my duties were fulfilled, I sat online and tried to absorb everything I could about the film, the stars, its production, and the insane viral marketing campaign that was starting almost a year in advance of this film. The tension was palpable and I had friends and co-workers who were as excited as I was to see the film. Opening weekend came and my wife (well, soon-to-be-wife) and I went to a Sunday matinee with a few hundred others and saw the film. I’m not going to go into detail about that film until I review it later but, in short, TDK failed to live up to the unbelievable hype.
Coming forward from there to last summer, when more and more details were coming out about The Dark Knight Rises I approached with more caution. I was still interested in everything about this movie, but I wasn’t going to be suckered into devoting a lot of time and energy into every step in this movie’s gestation. Perhaps it was because I didn’t want to be disappointed again, perhaps I knew I set my sights a bit too high for the last movie, but with this one I tread lightly. I swore in 2008 I would be at a midnight showing for the final movie in Christopher Nolan’s Batman opus, but four years later, I found myself seriously thinking about waiting a few weeks to see it. That would prove to be just a delusion as I saw it last night. In IMAX.
As plainly as I can put it, as I don’t want to give a detailed information about the movie for those who have not seen it, this movie lived up to, not only its own hype, but all the hype that was built up for its predecessor as well. the sheer scale of the story, the plot, the intricate and delicate character interactions, and the amount of pure emotion that was put into the film by each and every character. I’m not talking about over-acting, I’m speaking to the wealth of emotion that this story evoked from every character. Without this emotion, without the brilliant screenplay to wrap up the entire trilogy, and leave the audience on the edge of their seats from the first moment until the closing frame, this movie would have been another Spider-Man 3.
For the last week I have avoided any and all reviews of the film because most, if not all of them, have spoilers (especially the spoiler-free ones). However, I was able to discern that there were more than a few negative (or apathetic) reviews of the film. It was surprising to see this considering everything that was done to meticulously craft and polish the script and, based on the negative feedback from TDK, some of the faults of the previous movie were sure to have been remedied. These people did not seem to think so and I have no wish to taint my memory or the reaction to this movie with their negativity. The worst was my friend Nick who said TDKR was the “weakest of the trilogy.” Since he and I do not always seem to see eye-to-eye on movies, I took it with a grain of salt, but the doubt slowly crept in.
My biggest worry with the film was Bane. Not the character (because it didn’t look to be the same kind of Bane that was in Batman & Robin) or the actor playing him (Tom Hardy is quickly becoming a very noteworthy actor in his own right), but the voice. There were reports (one, two, three) after the prologue was released in theaters (a.k.a. the airplane scene) that Bane’s voice was an incomprehensible, garbled mess. As there were sound problems in TDK, I was hoping this was because the prologue wasn’t properly mastered or because it was shown in theaters with inadequate sound, but I had my worries. There were entire exchanges in TDK that were muffled and half-heard when I saw it the first time and I didn’t want to have that happen again. Thankfully, Bane’s voice was crystal clear to my nearly-deaf ears, despite the mask, voice effects, and Hardy’s gypsy-brawler-inspired accent and was almost horrifying to hear.
But the thing that really drew me in, again, was the cast. From top to bottom, the entire cast was exquisitely chosen and delivered on all levels from beginning to end. Every role had a purpose and there was no wasted dialogue. The journey in this massive film (2 hours, 45 minutes) was expansive but also very close to the chest. Nolan’s world drew you in and made you part of the story. You felt every twist, turn, hope, and heartbreak in this film as it made its way to a conclusion that was both inevitable yet satisfying. A truly masterful way to bring this brilliant and powerful story to a close.
There’s so much more I want to say about this film but it would be hard for me to expound without giving away major plot points. I will say that this film should win the Oscar for Best Picture to give homage to the entire trilogy much like when The Return of the King won it back in 2004. It is only fitting that Nolan and the entire cast be rewarded for these cinematic masterpieces. Also, if you want to engage in some chat in the Comments section please feel free but, be aware that I cannot be held accountable for any spoilers released in there. In fact, I’m hoping someone will want to start a comment dialogue about it instead of the usual comments about improving my SEO. This is a wonderful film that lived up to the hype and delivered on all levels. If only all trilogies were so lucky.
Most Valuable Actor: Joseph Gordon-Levitt as John Blake, the hot-headed, ambitious officer who becomes Gordon’s right-hand as they help Batman fight Bane. Though the entire cast was brilliant, JGL’s story and arc in the film was something rather exceptional. Despite the eye-roll-worthy quip near the end of the movie, his story and his character really was the glue that held all of the other exceptional characters and arcs together. For the male audience, his character was relatable and recognizable and gave even more realistic depth to the movie. Those who are unable to suspend disbelief in any film could find Blake the anchor of reality in this film and base everything from there.
As you may have guessed, I’m a sucker for a well-made action movie as well as moderately-made action movies (and even a few that aren’t so good). Air Force One is definitely a well-made action movie. It’s unsuspecting as how intricate and how brutal the movie truly is from the trailer, but the movie delivers so well that you almost have to look past the movie’s flaws to find something to hold onto.
I wouldn’t call myself a fan of Wolfgang Petersen’s work (although his submarine epic Das Boot is very good) just because he’s not a man suited to make contemporary action movies. He’s caught up with substance over style in an age where the more explosions and the more bullets fired equate to a better (or at least more popular) film. Sure, there’s a good amount of shooting in this film, but it’s not gratuitous. There’s a reason for every shot and it is so meticulously made that it is almost a beautiful movie. The tension is palpable and the action is well-suited for this kind of movie. Other directors would have made a movie into just another cinematic punchline (see: Gigli) but Petersen did well with this one.
But it was in no small part to the actors he got to stage this story. Harrison Ford has made questionable film choices this century, but in the 90s he was pure gold. With a supporting cast that shone in their own right, armed with role suited for their talents, this movie was a study of acting intensity and poise. Even Gary Oldman turns in a brilliant performance that may be remembered as his scariest.
Unfortunately, this movie still gnaws at me 15 years later and it goes back to the substance-over-style argument before. The end scene with the plan was so bad it is damn-near cringe-worthy. All of those directors who would have made this movie into a joke would have made that effect much better and much more realistic. So, it comes down to a question of whether it is better to suspend disbelief for a visually stimulating film, or have a well-crafted, well-thought out plot with some visual flaws. I know how I’m casting my vote, and I’m curious about your thoughts, which can be left in the comments section.
Most Valuable Actor: Glenn Close as Vice President Kathryn Bennett. It’s hard to find a female role that’s more intense and more commanding than Close. There are few female roles that are this challenging and she is one of few actresses that could do it. She didn’t go over-the-top like so many would (especially if it were a man in the role) but she did it with well-tempered intensity. Truly, a remarkable feat of acting. When you watch this movie, notice how she commands every scene she’s in, whether she is talking or not.
I rarely see movies in the theater. When I do, it’s usually for a landmark cinematic event or the wife wants to see something especially cute. This post is a document of the former.
This has been a long time coming. Even when Iron Man was just coming out there was talk about how it would be the first movie in a line of movies that would culminate with an Avengers movie. The studios wanted it, the fans wanted it, and it happened. Just under four years since Tony Stark burst into theaters worldwide, the Avengers have assembled ready to defend the Earth from a force that is more than once superhero alone could handle.
This movie was everything I expected it to be. The team assembles, they don’t really like each other, there’s tension, there’s lack of understanding, there’s the threat of dissolving, there’s tragedy, there’s the immense swallowing of pride, there’s the CG extravaganza, there’s the resolution, and the set up to the eventual sequel movies. I knew this formula before I even stepped foot into the theater on Sunday evening. I knew this formula from the trailers and the spoiler-free articles I have read online. I knew it all and it played out just as I had foreseen.
Despite it all, I really enjoyed this movie. You will find, as I have, that some of my favorite movies don’t have to be unpreditable, just well-executed. The Avengers was more than well-executed, it was almost poetic. Well, maybe not poetic, but it was well-written and well-visioned by director/screenwriter Joss Whedon. The events played out and they were so breathtaking that I didn’t care that I had predicted most of the peril and conflict in the movie.
I’m not saying I’m a know-it-all when it comes to movies. Honestly, there’s a lot of movies I have not seen that some would call commonplace for any film aficionado. But this film I was easily able to decipher and unlock before I sat down and I would see it all again in the theater. That is a testament to the way this movie developed characters that had entire films dedicated to them. Even Robert Downey Jr’s Tony Stark was able to grow further still even after two excellent movies. It is something to behold, for sure.
My wife went with my two friends and I to see this movie. She hasn’t seen any of the movies in the Marvel Cinematic Universe so she had really no understanding of any of these characters’ back-stories or motivations. But she loved it anyway because, in her own words, “It’s a comic book movie.” Sure, it may seem simplistic to people like her and I, but we still liked it. She came out wanting to watch all of the movies starting with Iron Man. I’m more than willing to oblige her in this respect. So, in the coming weeks, you may see the other movies in this series posted out of order. Those entries will be about what my wife thinks of them and the connections she will make to this movie. It’s going to be a fun ride. Now, if I can only get her to sit down and watch the Star Wars films with me.
Most Valuable Actor: Mark Ruffalo as Dr. Bruce Banner / The Hulk. I enjoy Edward Norton as an actor, but he was a terrible pick to portray Bruce Banner in 2008’s The Incredible Hulk. I think it may have to do with Norton’s inability to make me believe he could be a strong, silent scientist who is trying to keep a raging beast in check. Ruffalo, on the other hand, was able to do this in spades. He was calm, calculated, and actually played the role of a scientist very convincingly. Plus, for the first time in movie history, someone other than Lou Ferigno provided a speaking line for The Hulk, giving credence to Ruffalo’s ability to play this part.
Starring Bruce Willis, Mary-Louise Parker, and John Malkovich
Starring 
Starring 
Starring 
Starring 
Starring 
Starring 
Starring 
These Things I Have Seen 