Change Your Image
thedriver829
Lists
An error has ocurred. Please try againReviews
She-Hulk: Attorney at Law (2022)
What Happens When Your Focus Is On Trolling Trolls And Not On Telling A Good Story
She-Hulk has been a show that I have been putting off watching for a while now. I wasn't really impressed with any of the promotional material and the bad word of mouth kind of soured me out of wanting to give it a chance. However, recently my wife and I decided to try and catch up on some Marvel shows and movies we hadn't gotten to see yet, and we went ahead and did this one. And while there are certainly good parts within this series, I overall am in agreeance with people who say that this is probably the MCU's worst entry (it took a decade, but Iron Man 3 has finally been dethroned).
The issue with She-Hulk is that it is so focused on trying to troll the trolls who complain about female superheroes that it sacrifices good storytelling. Instead of tackling the struggle of women in the workplace in an organic and compelling way, it instead focuses way too much on cliched sexism and forced commentary about the treatment of female characters online. It's not that the issue itself is a bad thing to talk about, but the way it is presented feels overly preachy and condescending.
On top of that, the story ultimately leads to nowhere. Everything that is set up is essentially disposed of as a literal joke about Marvel's reliance on big budget endings. The season finale is an absolutely idiotic attempt to be satirical about the MCU, one that is not only not funny but instead makes us wonder why we wasted our time watching this show to begin with.
On top of that, the CGI is absolutely terrible. She-Hulk just does not look good at all, and gave me flashbacks of the 2003 Hulk. There's a particular bit of CGI use toward the end of the series involving another character that is even worse. The action scenes, save for one (I'll get to that in a moment) aren't really all that interesting, and the humor is ultimately hit or miss with a lot more miss than hit.
There are positives, of course. Tatiana Maslany is likeable in the role, and you can tell that she is having fun with it. There are some fourth wall breaks that are genuinely funny. By far the best part of this show is the episode involving Daredevil. They managed to get the character right while integrating him into the MCU very well. The one fight scene I liked in this show was the one involving him in the hallway. There are also hints of good character development for She-Hulk as she wrestles between her normal life and her new powers, but unfortunately those don't really go anywhere by the end.
Overall, She-Hulk is a blundered attempt to self-parody the MCU all while lacking anything that made the MCU great. It's not funny. It's not clever. It's not subtle with its commentary. It's just a bad show, and in an age where the MCU is on a decline, this is a perfect example of why that is the case.
Everything Everywhere All at Once (2022)
Visually Stunning But Overly Weird And Can't Get Behind The Message Of The Movie
Everything Everywhere All At Once had me intrigued from the first trailer. Adding to that was the Oscar buzz that surrounded the movie, from its various nominations to its major wins - including Best Actress, Best Supporting Actor/Actress, and Best Picture. I finally sat down and watched it the other day, and despite being impressed by the visuals of the movie, I was left feeling a little underwhelmed, both by the movie's over-obsession with being weird and its message of positive nihilism.
The performances are pretty good. Michelle Yeoh and Ye Huy Quan definitely earned their Oscar wins in here, delivering really great performances. Jamie Lee Curtis was fine in the role, but I don't necessarily think she shined over some other nominations from the Oscars that year (Angela Bassett, anyone?). Stephanie Hsu is good in her respective role as well.
Visually the movie does have plenty of interesting cinematography. There's good use of color and editing, especially in sequences where Michelle Yeoh is passing through multiple multiverses. There's definitely a lot of creativity on display here.
However, at the same time, I felt like some of the creative choices were a little too weird and out of place - there for being weird and nothing else. A character fights someone with two dildos seemingly out of nowhere, the everything bagel thing, a man shoves a trophy shaped like a sex toy up his butt, etc. There's just some weird stuff that just is there for the sake of being weird, and it takes me out of the movie.
On top of that, what drags this movie down for me is its message. Essentially what this movie comes down to is that, nothing matters in the vast universe, so you can make your life and existence anything you want it to be and that gives it meaning. As a Christian, I don't agree with this: I believe there is a purpose and there is meaning in our lives, and that there's no way to justify morality, good, and kindness apart from God's standard. I believe the message the movie gives across is a little dangerous, as what is good to one person will be evil to another.
At the end of the day, this is a well-made movie, and I do think there's a lot of creativity on display. I appreciate directors going out and making something that is completely their vision. However, at the same time, I do think they went overboard with the strangeness of the concept, and I don't agree with the message the movie tries to give off.
That all being said, give Raccooconie his own movie. That animatronic raccoon deserved an Oscar.
Oppenheimer (2023)
The Destroyer Of Worlds
Oppenheimer is a movie that, in many ways, should be boring. It's a three hour drama, most of which consists of people sitting in rooms talking. Yet, it is movie that consistently keeps you on the edge of your seat, gripping you from beginning to end.
It's no surprise that Christopher Nolan knows how to make a great movie - he's done that many times, and even his lesser works are still commendable. Here, you could make an argument that this movie is his masterpiece. While I wouldn't say that it's my favorite Nolan film (there are at least four other movies of his that I would put ahead of this one), it is certainly an achievement in cinema and a masterclass in doing a lot with only a little.
What do I mean by that last sentence? Well, like I said, this is a three hour drama; there's not a lot of "action" in it, and yet it plays with the intensity of an action film. There are various moments shot in IMAX that feel large in scale, yet they're used in council meeting scenes. We never see the actual bombing of Nagasaki or Hiroshima, yet we feel the impact of it throughout the duration of the film. Again, it's taking what seems like little and doing a lot with it.
Visually, the movie is gorgeous to look at. Hoyte van Hoytema continues to shine as Nolan's cinematographer, showing once again that he is more than just Wally Pfister's replacement. There are many shots, some involving just an array of colors, that really catch your eye. This is complemented by Ludwig Goransson's fantastic score, which is definitely an Oscar contender. There's also the perfect balance of colored film and black-and-white, with the colored portions being from Oppenheimer's perspective and the black-and-white portions being outsider viewpoints of Oppenheimer.
This leads to my next praise: this movie creates a perfect character study of J. Robert Oppenheimer, detailing his complicated nature. He's both proud of his accomplishments and haunted by them. He has clear moral dilemmas, and yet he's also a womanizer. It humanizes him without completely slandering him. The movie also does a good job of putting you in his head.
The performances here are outstanding. Cillian Murphy gives a grade A performance as Oppenheimer, and no doubt should be in the conversation for Best Actor. Robert Downey Jr. Also does a good job, proving once again that he is more than just "Iron Man." There's a slew of other great actors - Matt Damon, Alden Ehrenreich, Josh Hartnett, and Rami Malek - who all give top notch performances here.
If there's one complaint I have for the movie, it's how the two main female characters are portrayed in the film. Emily Blunt plays Oppenheimer's wife and Florence Pugh plays his lover, and neither characters are really given the depth that I feel that they should have had. They hint at aspects of their characters, but don't flesh them out like they should. It's not that Blunt and Pugh didn't do a good job in the movie - they certainly did, but I feel like they could have dug into their characterization a little better.
Overall, Oppenheimer is a must watch. It's an engaging character study executed like a tense thriller, one that keeps you invested and shocks you with its closing moments. You leave the movie feeling less safe in the world, and yet it's a movie that you long to go back to and experience again. I'm excited to see what Nolan does next.
Eega (2012)
A Masterclass In Over-The-Top Absurdity
Eega is a movie that is completely self-aware; it knows it's absolutely ridiculous, and it commits to it with every single frame of film. The story is about a man named Nani who gets murdered by a wealthy industrialist and comes back as a fly, seeking revenge. Reading that sounds like the plot of the worst B-movie of all time - yet S. S. Rajamouli manages to somehow take this crazy, absurd idea and does it in a way that makes us not only laugh and bewilder at the sight of it all, but keeps us invested for the entire 134 minute runtime. There are so many silly and over-the-top moments that leave you going "What the heck was that?" but in the best possible way. I don't know how to describe it. It's all over the place, yet it manages to come together perfectly. It's a walking contradiction of a movie - one that somehow avoids being so bad its good to just being a good movie that is absolutely bonkers. I don't know if I'd make the effort to watch it again, but it is certainly one I will never forget and one that I will always recommend.
Roma (2018)
It's a Masterpiece That I Probably Won't Revisit Anytime Soon
I'm a fan of Alfonso Cuaron's work. I haven't seen every movie of his, but the ones I have seen I've really enjoyed. My first introduction was through Harry Potter, but as I grew older I discovered movies like Children of Men, which is one of my favorite movies ever, and Gravity, which was in my top ten for 2013. So when Roma was announced, I was very excited to see what was in store. Having seen the movie twice now, I can say without a doubt that this has all the makings of a masterpiece - one meticulously put together with passion to be found in every single frame - but it is also one that I personally didn't connect with as much as other movies in Cuaron's filmography.
Based on Cuaron's own life experiences, Roma is set between 1970 and 1971 and follows Cleo, a housekeeper for an upper-middle-class family in the Colonia Roma Neighborhood of Mexico City. The film explores the everyday life of Cleo as she watches the family struggle to stay together, as well as dealing with her own unexpected pregnancy from a man who wants nothing to do with their child.
As is to be expected from Cuaron, the cinematography is immaculate. This time it is done by Cuaron himself, taking a page out of longtime collaborator Emmanuel Lubezki's handbook, as many of these shots seem very reminiscent of Lubezki's style. The shots look great, with plenty of long takes and gorgeous lighting. It's a beautiful looking movie, even in black and white.
The movie also has two moments that hit you hard, one of which I couldn't even finish watching the second time around. Emotionally the movie does hit those soft spots. I also think it does a great job of putting you in Mexico City in 1970. It's a very immersive movie that sets you into this timeframe in Mexico and leaves you there throughout the 135 minute runtime. It's a slower-paced movie that takes its time to portray the events of the narrative.
In some ways, however, that is part of why I don't see myself revisiting this movie anytime soon. Because the movie is slow in nature, there are moments were it feels like it drags a little. Story-wise, this feels like it would have been better at around 100 minutes in length. I recognize, however, that the reason for this is because this is all based on Cuaron's childhood and events that take place in there. But as a result, there are some scenes that come across a little strange and out of place at times (such as the scene of the Norwegian man singing during a forest fire), and some that go on for way too long. The movie also deals with events that, if you're not familiar with modern Mexican history, can leave you feeling confused and unsure of what is going on. I understand that he was also trying to show life in a realistic fashion, but like in real life, those moments can come across a little mundane.
By no means am I saying that Roma is a bad movie. It is, objectively speaking, a masterpiece. It's beautifully shot, well-acted, and hits you in the feels in quite a few places. It is a movie about beauty in the midst of hardship. It's just not a movie I connected with on the same level as Cuaron's other films. That being said, I do recognize and respect Cuaron for going out and making a personal film and doing it exactly the way he wanted to, regardless of who connected with it or not. Because of just how excellent the filmmaking on display is, I cannot give this movie any less than an 8/10, but at the same time, it's not my favorite Cuaron film and it's definitely one that I respect more than I love.
Children of Men (2006)
A Masterpiece That Deserves More Love Than It Has Received
In 2011, when I was sixteen years old, I sat down to watch Alfonso Cuaron's post-apocalyptic thriller Children of Men. I didn't know much about it - only that it was directed by the guy who did Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban and that it was about someone becoming pregnant in a time where all women were infertile. I was not prepared for how incredible this movie is, and to this day, I still say it has not received the love and adoration that it truly deserves.
The year is 2027. The world has collapsed, with only Great Britain soldiering on. Illegal immigrants are being chased down and sent back to their countries, freedom fighters are popping up everywhere, and worst of all, humanity is infertile, unable to have children. This all changes, however, when Theo Faron (played by Clive Owen) is commissioned by his ex-wife Julian (Julianne Moore), who leads a freedom fighter group known as the Fishes, to help a refugee named Kee reach shelter. However, after Julian is murdered during the transportation, Theo soon learns that Kee is pregnant, the first to be so in eighteen years, and that Fishes are behind the assassination in an effort to use Kee's baby for political gain. Theo and Kee escape, seeking to find a ship that will take Kee to the Human Project, an organization that will keep Kee safe.
Children of Men captures your attention from the very beginning, literally starting with a bang. It makes clear how bad things are in the world and clearly presents the stakes at play. It is unsurprising, given the decade that this movie came out, that this movie deals a lot with illegal immigration and how unfairly people can be treated, but it never comes across as preachy or overbearing. Rather, it feels like a natural extension of the world created in the film. You feel the weight of everything throughout the duration of the movie. Some have called the movie depressing, and while there are certainly heartbreaking moments throughout the movie, it is also a movie built on hope - hope for humanity, hope for survival, and hope for the future.
The movie also does an interesting job of incorporating Christian allegories into its storytelling. While not a faith-based movie by any means (I'm not sure where Cuaron stands on religion, except that he was raised Catholic), there are certain parts that seem to resemble the story of Christ's birth as a means to which we can describe the gravity of this miracle of a new child being born. It's a great way visually to project those ideas, presenting Christian allegory without being overly preaching and also not being blasphemous with it.
The cinematography by Emmanuel Lubezki is immaculate. Cuaron is typically know for utilizing long takes, and this movie is no different. There are at least three that stand out, including a heart-pounding six-and-a-half minute take toward the tale end of the film. The use of hand-held camera work really puts you into the scene, making it feel more realistic without divulging into the nauseating shaky cam we've seen in other movies.
Everyone delivers on the emotion of this movie. I've never been a huge Clive Owen fan, but he definitely shines in the lead role, and seeing him go from a depressed alcoholic with no hope to someone protecting the only hope humanity has is super satisfying. Michael Caine is also a standout, and even though he isn't in the movie much, his performance will make you both laugh and weep. Clare-Hope Ashitey is great as Kee, a character whom we care about despite her rough edges, and Chiwetel Ejiofor is a great antagonist. Pam Ferris also stands out as Kee's midwife, offering an insight into what life was like prior to humanity's inability to procreate.
The film is also an emotional rollercoaster from beginning to end. There are so many moments throughout this picture that hit you straight in the feels. By far the one stands out the most is the ending scene, where in the midst of chaos and warfare, everyone on all sides of the spectrum - army men, adversaries, and civilians - everyone stops and recognizes that a miracle has happened. It makes me tear up every single time I watch it.
Children of Men is a masterpiece, plain and simple, and is my favorite Alfonso Cuaron film that I've seen so far. Honestly, I don't think anything will beat it. The fact that this movie isn't in the top 250 here on IMDb is a crime, and the fact that this movie only made $70 million on a budget of $76 million is a tragedy. This is a movie that must be experienced, no question about it. It is one of the best movies of the century.
The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power (2022)
Imperfect, but Definitely Not the Disaster the Fandom Want You To Believe It Is
I have to admit, I slept on Rings of Power for a few weeks, not really starting the show until it had almost wrapped up. While I had some reservations going into the show already, such as them not sounding very distinct from the Jackson film (shooting in New Zealand, using most of the same characters, etc.), most of my reasoning had been due to the negative reception online. However, the more I looked into it, I realized a lot of that negativity was stemming from frankly asinine reasons, complaints that the show was taking liberties with the source material (which all adaptations do) and the fact that the show was "woke" because of a female lead and POC characters (which is just stupid).
So I decided to finally give The Rings of Power a shot, and despite a few flaws, I have to say that this show well exceeded my expectations, and is definitely not as much of a disaster as the rabid Tolkien fans on the internet would like you to believe.
Visually this series is breathtaking to look at. When you hear that this series cost a billion dollars to produce, you expect this to look fantastic, and Rings of Power definitely lives up to that expectation. The visual effects, lighting, production design, costumes and makeup, and cinematography are absolutely astounding. This is exactly the type of production quality you need for a show as epic as this.
There's also some great performances and character work here. I had some reservations about Morfydd Clark as Galadriel at first, but as the show progressed and she really came into her own. I bought her desire to track down Sauron and found her compelling enough to carry the show as a whole. Robert Aramayo was great as Elrond; I like their portrayal of him as a politician and found his companionship with Durin (another standout performance here) to be compelling. There are newer characters, ones who don't exist in the books (much to Tolkien fanboys' dismay) who are fine additions to the story. There's not a single weak performance here.
The action sequences are solid and enjoyable to watch. If you go in expecting to see some of the more memorable moments from the Jackson films, like Legolas taking down an elephant or surfboarding down a flight of stairs while shooting arrows, you'll probably be disappointed, but on their own they are pretty enjoyable and engaging sequences.
The biggest complaint that could be made comes down to the pacing. The story is deliberately slow, with many storylines going on at once. I didn't mind the slower pace because I was waiting to see what it was all building towards, and overall I think it all leads to a compelling climax. But the slowness is definitely felt here. Despite that, oddly enough, I felt as though the stuff involving the rings of
Power themselves to be a tad rushed, and would have liked a little more about it throughout the season. There are also a few lines of dialogue here or there that I was huge on, but they were far and few between.
Overall The Rings of Power is a solid show that has the potential of getting better from here. It may suffer from a slow pace and a somewhat lack of momentum, but it makes up for it with its beautiful production value, compelling storylines, and likeable characters. I'm looking forward to seeing the following seasons and seeing where the story takes up and how everything will tie together.
8/10.
Blade Runner 2049 (2017)
A Sequel That Both Builds And Improves Upon Its Predecessor
*This review contains mild spoilers for Blade Runner 2049*
It took me a while to appreciate the original Blade Runner. I watched it when I was still a teenager and found it slow and boring. It wasn't until a decade or so later that I found myself appreciating it and recognizing why so many people consider it a masterpiece, despite it not being quite at that same level for me.
Around the time that the film's sequel Blade Runner 2049 was coming out, I still was not a fan of the original, but I was interested in seeing the film based solely on Denis Villeneuve's reputation as a filmmaker. Even though I hadn't seen any of his movies up to that point, I figured that he would be able to pull this off based solely on the praise of his previous movies. So I went to see Blade Runner 2049 in theaters, and I can say without a doubt that this movie is one of those sequels that not only builds upon the original, but improves upon it as well.
Set 30 years after the events of the original Blade Runner, this film follows K (Ryan Gosling), a Replicant Blade Runner tasked with hunting down older Replicant models and retiring them. However, during one of his normal routines, he discovers a secret that could shake the very fabric of what it means to be human and what it means to be a Replicant. He sets out to discover the answers behind this mystery, ultimately discovering that it may have to do with former Blade Runner Rick Deckard (Harrison Ford), the protagonist of the previous film.
One of the things that Blade Runner 2049 does so well is that it manages to capture the tone, atmosphere, and vibe of the original while simultaneously expanding the world and its progression since the first film. A lot of long-belated sequels nowadays attempt to recreate the original film without actually continuing the story forward thematically (*cough* The Force Awakens *cough*). But Blade Runner 2049 shows an expansion of technology and worldbuilding within the Blade Runner universe - all while feeling in continuity with the original.
On top of that, this movie also expands upon the themes of the original but in a new and exciting way. The fact that our lead character is a Replicant really changes the way we view the themes of humanity and what it means to be human from the previous entry. Ryan Gosling knocks it out of the park as K, and his struggle with being a Replicant and whether or not that means he has feelings or a soul is as heartbreaking as it is engaging. His relationship with his holographic girlfriend Joi, played wonderfully by Ana De Armas, is especially gripping as we question whether these feelings are real or just part of their programming.
Like the previous film, this movie does move at a slower pace, but it never feels boring or overbearing despite its three hour runtime. The performance all around are fantastic, including Harrison Ford, once again playing Deckard, who definitely brings his A-game despite not being in the film for very long. The cinematography by Roger Deakins is fantastic and deserving of the Oscar he won for it. The score by Hans Zimmer and Benjamin Wallfisch is well made and definitely in vein of the first film, and the action sequences are well shot and edited.
If there is anything I can criticize Blade Runner 2049 for, its that there are a few parts of the third act that don't get resolved in the most satisfying way. For example, Jared Leto's Niander Wallace is set up as the villain of the film, but doesn't play that much of a role in the film's finale and there's no real closure with him. There's also a rebellion group that is set up but there's no payoff for them either. I think they may have planned to use both these plot points for a sequel, but judging by the film's unfortunate box office returns, it seems unlikely that these areas will be explored, so they're just kind of left up in the air.
But regardless of that fact, Blade Runner 2049 is an incredible sequel, one that, in my opinion, is better than its predecessor. Unlike the first Blade Runner, where I had to watch the movie a few times in order for fully appreciate it, I immediately fell in love with Blade Runner 2049 and thought it was spectacular. Even if you didn't like the original film, this is one you should definitely check out.
Blade Runner (1982)
Not A Perfect Masterpiece, But One I've Grown To Appreciate More Overtime
The first time I watched Blade Runner was when I was 16 years old, and I absolutely hated it. I found it boring, slow, and pretentious, and for the life of me could not understand the hype surrounding it. And for about a decade or so, I maintain that same position, even after watching and really enjoying the film's sequel, Blade Runner 2049.
However, a few months ago, the Final Cut of the movie appeared on Netflix and I decided to give it another try. I found it more enjoyable the second time around, but still wasn't huge on the movie's final act, which I admittedly didn't understand. After another viewing yesterday, and after digging deeper into the meanings and interpretations behind the film, I can say that, while I don't consider this to be the perfect masterpiece that so many others do, I've grown to truly appreciate and respect Blade Runner for what it is.
Loosely based on Philip K. Dick's "Do Androids Dream Of Electric Sheep?", Blade Runner is set in a futuristic 2019 and follows Rick Deckard, a police detective known as a Blade Runner, whose job is to hunt down humanoid robots known as Replicants and "retire" (i.e. Kill) them if necessary. At the beginning of the movie he is commissioned to hunt down four Replicants who are on Earth illegally seeking more life from their creator Tyrell. Along the way, he meets Racheal, a Replicant who doesn't know she's a Replicant, and begins to develop feelings towards her.
Visually this film is stunning. The cinematography coupled with the atmosphere and tone of the setting really suck you into the world of Blade Runner, not to mention the score by Vangelis which gives the film a very noir feeling while coupling it with futuristic soundscapes. There are great performances, specifically Harrison Ford and Sean Young, and Rutger Hauer (RIP) delivers a more interesting and two-dimensional villain than we are often accustomed to in sci-fi. While the slow pace was a turn off for me during first viewing, I actually didn't find the movie to be slow or boring on repeated viewings. I actually think the movie is perfectly paced for what it is, and what little action is included in the movie is well orchestrated.
Of course what really sells Blade Runner are its themes regarding humanity and what it means to be human. It's very deep and rich in these themes, exploring how these Replicants behave and whether or not they truly feel or have motivation behind their actions. This is especially present in the film's climax, with the famous "Tears In Rain" speech, which is one of the movie's highlights.
There is one scene of course that knocks the film down a couple of pegs, and that is the love scene between Deckard and Rachael. To be perfectly blunt, it comes across as creepy and, for lack of a better word, rapey. I don't think that was the intention of the filmmakers, and maybe things were different in the 80s than they are now, but this scene has not aged well and probably never will. I also wish there was a little bit more backstory as to why Earth is the way it is in the movie, but it isn't necessarily vital to the story.
Overall, Blade Runner is a really great film that gives you a fully realized world, deep themes, and below the surface characterization. The flaws mentioned above keep it from getting a higher rating, but now I can kind of see why so many people consider this to be a masterpiece in a way that I didn't before. I recommend it if you're a fan of sci-fi; just know that it may take a little while before it clicks with you. It sure did for me.
Saving Private Ryan (1998)
An Experiential War Film That Set The Stage For Those That Follow
Saving Private Ryan is one of the first war movies I ever saw, and it is by far the one that stuck with me the most. While Schindler's List remains Spielberg's masterpiece and by far my favorite from his filmography, this is a close second, depicting the war in a way that no other war film had up to that point. The first twenty minutes of the film, which details the D-Day invasion of Omaha Beach in 1944, perfectly set the stage for the viewer, making it clear that this isn't a war film where the violence is glamorized and glorified; this is a pure, unadulterated look at what war looks like.
Many claim that the following two and a half hours do not live up to the first twenty or so minutes, but I have to disagree. What remains is a story about a group of soldiers searching for a private whose brothers were killed in action and has a chance to return home. Along the way we get to know each of these characters - all of which feel fleshed out and perfectly characterized - as they set out for this task while facing many obstacles and constantly asking the question - is this all worth it to save one guy?
What really sets Saving Private Ryan apart from a lot of the war films that came before it is that it is able to drop you right into the heart of the war, making you really feel its weight and intensity throughout the entirety of the runtime. The cinematography, acting, and sound mixing all do a great job of putting you into the action, making you feel like you are there in the middle of the battle. The cinematography specifically captures this through its use of shaky camera techniques and longer takes.
The performances are spot on here, and each of the characters we go on this journey with are perfectly realized and have traits that make them stand out, even in little details. The drama is never silly or cheesy, despite Spielberg's reputation of being overly-schmaltzy, and the emotional moments hit every time.
In many ways, Saving Private Ryan is the reason why we have other experiential war films like Dunkirk and 1917. Not only does it put you into the action and portray the brutality of war, it's able to do so with a compelling story, great characterization, and impeccable cinematography, all with a great John Williams score to boot. If you are a fan of war movies and you haven't seen Saving Private Ryan, do yourself a favor and check this one out.
Eragon (2006)
A Film Plagued By Wasted Potential
On my 11th birthday, I remember the first gift I opened before I went to school was the book Eragon. As a kid who loved Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings (and still do to this day), I was excited to read into this newer fantasy book. I enjoyed it very much as a kid, and to this day I still think it is a good book despite a few flaws I've noticed more now that I'm older.
And of course, around the time I read the Eragon book, the film adaptation was getting ready to come out. I was so excited. I was expecting a film on par with The Lord of the Rings and The Chronicles of Narnia. Sadly, two things started to discourage me as the film's release grew closer: 1) The film's MPAA rating was PG and 2) the film's running time was only 104 minutes. This got me worried, and the reviews for the film by critics and fans didn't exactly help. Needless to say, I was disappointed by this adaptation, but not just because it took out some of my favorite parts from the book, but because it wasn't a good movie either.
For those of you who are not familiar with the book, Eragon is based off the book by Christopher Paolini, who started writing it when he was only 15 years old and got it published when he was 18. The story is set in the magical world of Alagaesia, which was once ruled by a group of warriors known as the Dragon Riders. However, one day a rider named Galbatorix betrays the riders and kills them all, making himself king over Alagaesia. Fast forward a few hundred/thousand years later and we meet a young boy named Eragon, who stumbles upon a magical blue stone while hunting in the wilderness. He originally thinks that he can use it to buy meat for his family, but he quickly learns that the stone is actually a dragon egg. And when the dragon egg hatches, Eragon becomes the next dragon rider.
As you can tell by reading the synopsis, this story is very similar to other fantasy films such as Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, etc. Of course, this was also a criticism of the book as well, but at least it had likable characters, epic action scenes, and a great level of detail that brought the world to life. These things were at least present in order to make the story compelling, even if it is beat by beat the story of Star Wars. This film version has barely any of that. The characters aren't fleshed out enough to where you care about them. The action is dumbed down in order to create a PG fantasy film for children. Alagaesia itself isn't set apart from any other fantasy worlds we've seen before. The movie just feels like no effort was really put into it except when it came to the visual effects, which are almost too good for this movie.
This is mostly due to a really poor script. I'm not just talking about the dialogue, which is some of the worst I've ever heard ("I'm the rider and I say we go"), but the way the story is set up feels like they just took a few scenes from the book and slapped it together to make a movie that was under two hours so they could make a quick buck. Characters appear that have very little screen time and ultimately feel pointless. Even characters that provide importance to the later books are minimized or just simply don't appear at all. It's not structured well, and you can tell that the passion for the source material that fueled the makers of LOTR and Harry Potter is not here at all.
Even the action sequences are not all that spectacular. Part of me wants to blame the film's PG rating, but we've seen other movies with this rating that were able to create epic and enjoyable action scenes. The only part that is really enjoyable and entertaining is the final confrontation between Eragon and Durza, the film's main antagonist, which also leads to an scene afterward that had quite a bit of emotion to it. However, anyone expecting epic battle sequences on par with LOTR are probably going to be as disappointed as I was.
As far as the acting goes, there are actually a few good performances here, the best of which being Jeremy Irons as Brom. You can tell that he was having fun with the role and was doing his best with the material he was given. Ed Speleers also does a fair job as Eragon, and had this film actually been successful, I would have been interested in seeing him star in more films. Djimon Honsu is also good in his brief role as Ajihad, and Rachel Weisz does a decent job as the voice of Saphira. Most of the other actors fall flat, with the two worst performances coming from John Malkovich, who looks like he's ready to stop shooting and get his paycheck, and Robert Carlile, who takes what could be a compelling villain and makes him absolutely silly.
Ultimately, Eragon is wasted potential. It's a movie that could have been great had they put more effort into everything other than the visual effects and handled the adaptation process a little more seriously. I'm not saying that a movie has to be 100% faithful to the source material, but in this case, it would have worked better for the movie and for the potential sequels that could have come from it. In the end, it's not one of the worst movies ever made, but it is definitely one that was disappointing to me and other fans of the book, as well as those looking for the next LOTR or Harry Potter.
Schindler's List (1993)
A Beautiful, Haunting Masterpiece That Will Stick With Me For A Long Time
Out of all the movies I've seen in my lifetime, Schindler's List will always be a staple in my mind. The first time I watched it, I was just left in complete silence as the closing credits began to role. After the movie was completely finished and cut to black, I realized that I had watched what I consider to be the greatest movie ever made.
This movie really is an experience. Not only does it suck you into the time and place which it is set in, it makes you feel like you're there experiencing it all. You feel like you are here witnessing these events take place. The violence feels real, and the hand-held camera sequences give a reality and a look of how it must have felt to be there during this dark time in our nation's history. It's powerful and hits hard, especially during the liberation of the ghetto and the ending where we see Schindler break down because he feels like he could have saved more lives.
Liam Neeson gives what is probably his best performance still to this date as Oskar Schindler, and you really see his evolution as a character and his change in view as he watches the violence committed against these people. In the beginning he doesn't seem to care; he simply sees them as an opportunity to make money off of business. But as he sees these events unfold, and as we watch them as well, you see how much this impacts him, particularly when he sees the girl with the red coat in one of the movie's most famous scenes. Ben Kingsley also gives a powerful performance as Itzhak Stern, Schindler's adviser, and Ralph Fiennes gives a stunning performance as the menacing, hateful Amon Goeth, a merciless SS Officer. There are also some fine performances sprinkled across the supporting cast and many of the Jewish characters, and there is not a single poor performance here.
Some may feel that the 3 hour running time will be monotonous, but Schindler's List completely captures the viewers' attention throughout the entire motion picture. The situations these characters go through, the characterization of Schindler and Stern and their collaboration together, and simply seeing the brutality and merciless nature the movie depicts are all enough to keep one occupy, not to mention move them emotionally and thoughtfully. The black and white cinematography looks beautiful and helps with putting you in 1940s Poland, and the script and dialogue are so perfectly written by Steve Zaillian. Not to mention Steven Spielberg's direction on this is flawless. He pieces everything perfectly together, wraps it up in a bundle, and gives us an absolute masterpiece of a film.
Schindler's List is my favorite film. There has not been a single film that compares to my experience watching it. There has not been a single movie that has moved me and left me speechless like this movie has. The only movie that has come close to impacting me like this was Alfonso Cuaron's Children Of Men, and even that by comparison doesn't add up to how Schindler's List impacted me. I know some people will say "You need a movie that you can watch over and over again that is fun and enjoyable. How can you have something so depressing as your favorite movie?" Some will even say it's too obvious a choice. Well, you know what? It is an obvious choice, because it is obvious that this is a powerful, beautiful, and incredible film experience that excels in pretty much everything it has to offer. It's an incredible achievement and I can't wait to watch it again. Well done, Spielberg.
Noah (2014)
A Twist On The Noah Tale That May Not Be For Everyone, But Still Delivers An Impact Of Biblical Proportions
There has been a lot of Christianity-based films released here in 2014 (Son Of God, Exodus: Gods And Kings), but none of them have spawned as much controversy than Noah. Darren Aronofsky's take on the Old Testament depiction of the flood that wiped out humanity definitely takes its liberties, inserting more fantastical elements such as fallen angels made out of rock and subplots involving Noah and his questions about the morality of humanity and whether it deserves to survive after the flood. These changes may and have driven a lot of folks away, but they don't stop Noah from being an epic film of biblical proportions.
Though it's his first tackle with a big budget Hollywood film, Noah still carries Darren Aronofsky's signature style, particularly in its visuals. The effects are big and spectacular (though some of the animal effects could have been worked on), the locations look outstanding, and the cinematography looks absolutely outstanding. There are shots shown in silhouette that look like a work of art, and the film does carry some of the grim tones that Aronofsky is known for.
While many may complain that the movie is too liberal with its changes to the story, it never feels as though these changes were made in order to be blasphemous or to anger Christians. Instead, they keep the viewer interested, unknowing, wanting to know what is going to happen next. And while these additions are prevalent, the movie never sacrifices themes commonly found in the Bible, such as mankind's depravity and the hope for redemption.
The acting is also top notch in this movie, with not a single weak performance. Russell Crowe gives one of his best performances, and plays the tortured character of Noah perfectly. Anthony Hopkins, for the little that he is in here, is mesmerizing as Methuselah, Noah's grandfather. Emma Watson really shines her, continuing to show that she is more than just Hermione from Harry Potter. Ray Winstone also gives a compelling performance as the film's main villain Tubal- Cain.
Noah may not be the most biblically accurate movie ever made (which what movie in Hollywood is?), but it's certainly a compelling, investing, and well-made film worthy of Darren Aronofsky's continually-amazing filmography. It makes changes to the story while still retaining its message, provides fantastic performances and visuals, and keeps the viewer guessing and gets their mind thinking long after the film. It's not going to touch with everybody, but as a film, it succeeds in bringing us an epic but thought-provoking piece of work.
Troy (2004)
A Flawed But Entertaining Epic
I've never really understood the immense hatred that Troy received. Even in a year where we had failed epics like King Arthur and the atrocious "Alexander," people still considered this to be a terrible attempt at adapting Homer's The Iliad. While I certainly agree that the movie could have fixed a few things, I can't help but have a lot of fun every time I watch this.
The biggest thing I loved about this movie was that it felt like a tribute to the epic sword and sandals movies of the 50s and 60s. Everything from the sets, costume design, and even the running time of the movie screams epic. There are incredible battle sequences that never seize to amaze, and Brad Pitt does a good job playing the almost invincible hero Achilles. Even when the movie was at its downtime, I was still invested in its characters and story.
The actors all do an excellent job. As I mentioned, Brad Pitt does a very good job, and definitely fills the presence of an unstoppable fighter. Eric Bana does a great job as Hector, and Peter O'Toole almost steals the show as King Priam, for the little bit that he is in the movie. I also really liked the performances of Rose Byrne as Bruseis and Sean Bean as Odysseus.
And like I said, everything technical about this movie is stunning. The sets, particular those set in Troy, are beautiful to look at, and you can definitely see the attention to detail there as well as in the costume and weapon design. The musical score by James Horner is pretty good, though it can feel a little too bombastic at times (there is a loud female shout every once and a while). And the action sequences are perfectly choreographed and entertaining on many levels.
Unfortunately we do have to touch on where the movie gets it wrong, and largely it seems to stumble when it comes to its dialogue. A lot of the dialogue here does come off a little clichéd and cheesy, and some of the actors aren't able to live up to their co-stars. Orlando Bloom, for example, seems like he is struggling to show himself as intimate and a boy in love, which may be because of how he's gain this persona as a elf warrior badass from Lord Of The Rings. Diane Kruger is a little stale as Helen, and sometimes Brian Cox feels a little over the top in his acting. Some of the death scenes also come off a little awkward, particularly the aftermath of Paris and Menelaus' one on one battle.
Still, while these flaws are prevalent, Troy still is able to succeed due to its attention to artistic detail, entertaining action sequences, and solid actors whose characters we can connect with and enjoy watching. As far as epics go, this one isn't among the Bravehearts and Ben-Hurs of the world, but it still is better than a lot of the more recent epic action films we've seen as of late. I recommend checking this one out.
The Hunger Games: Mockingjay - Part 1 (2014)
A Franchise That Continues To Get Better And Better
The first Hunger Games completely surprised me. I didn't expect it to be as good as it was. And then Catching Fire really surprised me with where it took the series, ending with perhaps one of the best twists from last year. And the cycle continues to repeat itself, in the very best of ways, with Mockingjay - Part 1.
What I love about this entry to The Hunger Games franchise, and what might turn some people off about this movie, is that it takes us out of the games and into the resistance. And I thought it was really cool what they gave us, and how they explored the build-up of this rebellion against the Capitol. I also enjoyed seeing what they've done with Katniss' character, showing how she is losing grip of her mental state and could lose it at any moment. It was nice to see her vulnerability in those moments, but it was also sweet to see her become a member a symbol of the resistance and take on that responsibility. She has her motivational moments and they are really effective, even to the point where you would want to fight with her. And I felt that Jennifer Lawrence gave an incredible performance (as per usual).
One thing I noticed also is that this movie wasn't the most action- packed of the franchise, but it never bothered me because the intensity was so high. This had me on the edge my seat from beginning to end, and really took the franchise to what I think is at its best so far. Of course don't take that as there is no action in here. There's plenty to keep you going and there are some pretty sweet moments found here.
There are also some noteworthy performances from Julianna Moore, Elizabeth Banks, and the late Phillip Seymour Hoffman (they put a tribute to him at the end credits of the movie, which was nice to see). It was also nice to see where they took the character of Peeta, which I won't spoil here but let's just say it will definitely be a shock. And I was surprised at the fact that the ending felt like it had some sort of resolution while still pumping you up for the next installment, which I'm sure is going to be one heck of a finale.
Overall, The Hunger Games: Mockingjay - Part I continues to lead The Hunger Games down the path that has made it so successful so far. It's intense, engaging, has some really great performances that I wasn't expecting, and I liked how it was able to keep us invested without having to rely on the anxiety of the games. It sucks that we have to wait another year to see the next one, but for now The Hunger Games continues to get better and better, and it shows no signs of stopping.
American Hustle (2013)
Well Acted, Stylish, but Also Self-Indulgent and Disjointed
Hype can be a major killer when it comes to movies, and American Hustle is a huge example of this. There was a lot to be excited about here. The cast was huge, with big named, really incredible actors brought on board. It has David O. Russell in the director's chair, coming off his back-to-back critically acclaimed movies "The Fighter" and "Silver Linings Playbook." It has the feel of a Scorsese film, with the music that feels like a throwback to the 70s. And it holds a 95% on Rotten Tomatoes; that alone garners this movie a chance. So why did I walk out of this movie dissatisfied?
Largely it has to do with the overall structure of the movie. It has everything that it needs to put together a fantastic movie, but feels very disjointed, like they didn't know how to put that puzzle together. It also feels like it has a touch of self-indulgence thrown into the mix, like O. Russell wanted to make his own version of Goodfellas, only without the flow and consistency of that film. And ultimately it ends up feeling very jumbled, very inconsistent, and very unsatisfying.
Of course there is still a lot that this movie can be praised for. All the actors do a tremendous job, the two main standouts being Christian Bale and Bradley Cooper. Amy Adams does a good job as well in the main female lead role, and Jennifer Lawrence does a great job as well (even though I feel like she is completely miscast and not as incredible in this movie as everyone makes her out to be). There's also some great dialog, great editing as well. The overall tone is fun and it definitely keeps you interested in what's going on. I just felt if they had found a much better way to bring all of this together, it would have succeeded a lot more than I felt it did. Hopefully next time, O. Russell remembers that to back up his great actors, settings, costumes, soundtrack, and dialog with a solid and stable story.
12 Years a Slave (2013)
Captivating, compelling, frightening, often hard to watch, but in the end completely rewarding
It's hard to review a movie like 12 Years A Slave, considering the amount of love this movie has gotten. It's the Best Picture winner for 2013. It's sitting at a 97% on Rotten Tomatoes, among the highest rated movies by critics and audiences. What more can be said, other than the fact that all of these accolades are not only well deserved, but completely justified?
12 Years a Slave is a phenomenal piece of work. It's captivating, compelling, frightening, often hard to watch, but in the end completely rewarding. It shows slavery in its true form and never sugarcoats or turns its back on the message it is trying to deliver.
There are some great performances here, many of which were nominated for and one of which won the acting Oscars. Chiwetel Ejiofor completely carries this movie and you long so much for him to get out of the situation he is in. Michael Fassbender plays the role of a sadistic slave owner, who you loathe every single time he is present on screen. One of the biggest surprises comes from Lupita N'Yongo, who at only 16 minutes of screen time becomes one of the most memorable characters in the whole story and proves that she deserved the Oscar she won. There are many other actors who show up briefly, such as Benedict Cumberbatch, Brad Pitt, and others, and they all do fantastic as well.
As I mentioned above, 12 Years a Slave is a really realistic portrayal of slavery. As a result, many scenes are hard to watch. There is no holding back. The two whipping scenes in this movie are tough, the latter all captured in one take lasting about 4 minutes, and almost reach a "Passion of the Christ" level. There is also a lot of other horrific moments, such as hangings and rape, that will definitely be hard for the viewer to experience. However, at the same time, they are powerful and really puts you in that experience.
And everything technical about this movie is fantastic as well. Steve McQueen really impressed me with "Shame" back in 2011, and continues to show his potential of becoming one of this generation's best filmmakers. The camera work is excellent, sometimes going on long takes that submerge you into the setting. The production and costume designs look authentic, the writing is great, the musical score is engrossing and moving; 12 Years a Slave really excels in its technicality. However, it still keeps us rooted in its story which keeps up invested and looking for resolution until the very end.
Overall, 12 Years a Slave is a fantastic and powerful film, and could easily be this decade's "Schindler's List." It examines slavery in a realistic, albeit graphic approach, has great actors that keep you invested in the characters, and is structured and directed perfectly. It's a wonderful and moving movie, and while some may not be able to handle it, this will no doubt go down as one of the most powerful and thought-provoking movies to come out in a long time.