The Tree of Life - 3 stars out of 10
What do Brad Pitt, dinosaurs, piano music, bb guns, and evolution have to do with each other? Just ask the writers of "The Tree of Life." This perplexing avant-garde work finds itself torn between a lesson in parenting and demonstration in cool, old-school special effects. This film would have made so much more sense to me without the 20-minute formation of the solar system. While it is visually stunning, it seems completely out of place. It's a shame because the visuals of this sequence were probably my favorite part of the film (especially the views of Saturn and Jupiter), but I didn't enjoy them because I spent the entire time on Wikipedia, trying to figure out why it was being shown. The story of the O'Brien family is moving and upsetting, finding the ability to key in on my emotions through questionable parenting and its adverse effect. But the tone set forth by the existential/evolutionary beginnings were unnecessary to put forth the ideas of grace (nurturing) vs. nature (authoritarian). Although parts of this story appealed to me, I was also confused by the presentation, like watching time-lapse photography of a family's life. There aren't really any scenes in this movie - Just snippets separated by cut-away shots. The end product is a long coming-of-age montage and though I typically enjoy this sort of montage for 3-5 minutes to quickly further a plot, a 135-minute montage is a bit much. It is difficult to even comment on the quality of acting since, with the longest single shot lasting 10 seconds, it is like a bunch of images instead of a flow of dialogue and acting. I certainly cannot comment on Sean Penn, who could not have had more than 6 minutes of screen-time. The only exception is Brad Pitt, who really stepped out of his typical nice and comical role. His character made me feel very uncomfortable because this role is so uncharacteristically upsetting and yet, this is what makes his performance so impressive. It is frustrating to see this child turn into his father. It must be because both of my parents exhibited "grace" and that's what I was raised to believe is the proper way to live, but this is a great example of how circumstances can shape a child into a mean-spirited human. It is no surprise that the premier of this film was met with boos and cheers from the audience. Its visual beauty will draw your eyes and the fate of these children (at the hands of their father) will pull on your heart - the only problem is that these features have nothing to do with each other and just make for a boring, confused piece of art. The combination of the odd musical score and seemingly random visual images turns this into that stereotypical artsy film so often portrayed in cartoons. A proper ending could have pulled everything together but instead, it left me scratching my head and wondering how this film was nominated for a Best Picture Oscar.
Saturday, February 4, 2012
The Last Song - 3 stars out of 10
The Last Song - 3 stars out of 10
I couldn't have cared less about this love story (or the first 75 minutes of this film, for that matter). Miley Cyrus's laugh is like nails on a chalkboard. And that voice... how can you like a character that sounds like a goose sliding over a cheese grater? I don't understand how two characters could fall in love after two dates or why her love interest had to have his shirt off so much. But then, as the story takes a slightly predictable turn, Miley Cyrus brings the emotional depth necessary to partially redeem this film and her performance. Her emotional argument with Will on the beach toward the end showed impressive acting chops, as well as her interactions with her father following the twist. Greg Kinnear is probably the best actor in this film, playing the role very naturally. I understand that the love story sets up the final events (aka the good part), but it just doesn't create entertainment in any form. As much as I hated the majority of "The Last Song," in the end the stained glass made me shed a few tears and the composer in me appreciates the final song (which by definition is actually a "piece," since a "song" has to have words). The beauty of the piece creates the perfect atmosphere for that scene (trying to avoid spoilers here) and I love the significance of the piece in relation to the entire story. Now that I know the whole story, if I were to watch this again I would just find something else to do until the final half-hour and then begin watching intently. This film really strives to be "A Walk To Remember" but I'd gladly watch that one twice before watching this unoriginal coming-of-age film again.
I couldn't have cared less about this love story (or the first 75 minutes of this film, for that matter). Miley Cyrus's laugh is like nails on a chalkboard. And that voice... how can you like a character that sounds like a goose sliding over a cheese grater? I don't understand how two characters could fall in love after two dates or why her love interest had to have his shirt off so much. But then, as the story takes a slightly predictable turn, Miley Cyrus brings the emotional depth necessary to partially redeem this film and her performance. Her emotional argument with Will on the beach toward the end showed impressive acting chops, as well as her interactions with her father following the twist. Greg Kinnear is probably the best actor in this film, playing the role very naturally. I understand that the love story sets up the final events (aka the good part), but it just doesn't create entertainment in any form. As much as I hated the majority of "The Last Song," in the end the stained glass made me shed a few tears and the composer in me appreciates the final song (which by definition is actually a "piece," since a "song" has to have words). The beauty of the piece creates the perfect atmosphere for that scene (trying to avoid spoilers here) and I love the significance of the piece in relation to the entire story. Now that I know the whole story, if I were to watch this again I would just find something else to do until the final half-hour and then begin watching intently. This film really strives to be "A Walk To Remember" but I'd gladly watch that one twice before watching this unoriginal coming-of-age film again.
Friday, February 3, 2012
The Jackie Robinson Story - 2 stars out of 10
The Jackie Robinson Story - 2 stars out of 10
"The Jackie Robinson Story" falls flat in comparison to most other baseball films out there, fictional or non-fictional. I respect the fact that Jackie Robinson played himself in the lead role, but that is the only reason that I gave this movie a chance. It does feel a bit gimmicky since his acting is expectedly below Hollywood standards and this definitely seemed more like a made-for-tv movie than something that people paid to see in the theaters. His story is an amazing one, but it feels very rushed with its 76-minute runtime. This film is an important preservation of history and the racism that our country once faced, but if I were recommending a baseball film, this wouldn't even be mentioned in the same breath as "Pride of the Yankees" or "Field of Dreams."
"The Jackie Robinson Story" falls flat in comparison to most other baseball films out there, fictional or non-fictional. I respect the fact that Jackie Robinson played himself in the lead role, but that is the only reason that I gave this movie a chance. It does feel a bit gimmicky since his acting is expectedly below Hollywood standards and this definitely seemed more like a made-for-tv movie than something that people paid to see in the theaters. His story is an amazing one, but it feels very rushed with its 76-minute runtime. This film is an important preservation of history and the racism that our country once faced, but if I were recommending a baseball film, this wouldn't even be mentioned in the same breath as "Pride of the Yankees" or "Field of Dreams."
The Grapes of Wrath - 6 stars out of 10
The Grapes of Wrath - 6 stars out of 10
"The Grapes of Wrath" is a sad look at the Great Depression as a desperate family leaves behind their home in search of work in California. This is a highly critically acclaimed movie and is famous for its strong acting performances by Henry Fonda and Jane Darwell, though it moves pretty slow and if I had to pick a grape movie, I would have rather watched "What's Eating Gilbert Grape?" A few of the more memorable scenes are John Qualen's flashback about everybody being forced off of their land, the elderly grandfather (Charley Grapewin)'s refusal to leave his home, and just about any dialogue delivered by Ma Joad (Darwell). I don't know that I would rank her performance as Oscar-worthy, but she is the first thing to come to my mind when I think about this film. Even though the film is lauded for its acting, my enjoyment stems from John Steinbeck's story. The screenplay writers sacrificed a lot of tragedy by changing some of the ending events but the film still captures the helpless situation of Great Depression victims. The loss of humanity in this situation stuck out to me, as families are desperately searching for work to support their families and business men take advantage of their desperation. It may not be my favorite, but I'm not surprised that "The Grapes of Wrath" appears on a lot critics must-see lists and find it to be a historically relevant film that should be experienced.
"The Grapes of Wrath" is a sad look at the Great Depression as a desperate family leaves behind their home in search of work in California. This is a highly critically acclaimed movie and is famous for its strong acting performances by Henry Fonda and Jane Darwell, though it moves pretty slow and if I had to pick a grape movie, I would have rather watched "What's Eating Gilbert Grape?" A few of the more memorable scenes are John Qualen's flashback about everybody being forced off of their land, the elderly grandfather (Charley Grapewin)'s refusal to leave his home, and just about any dialogue delivered by Ma Joad (Darwell). I don't know that I would rank her performance as Oscar-worthy, but she is the first thing to come to my mind when I think about this film. Even though the film is lauded for its acting, my enjoyment stems from John Steinbeck's story. The screenplay writers sacrificed a lot of tragedy by changing some of the ending events but the film still captures the helpless situation of Great Depression victims. The loss of humanity in this situation stuck out to me, as families are desperately searching for work to support their families and business men take advantage of their desperation. It may not be my favorite, but I'm not surprised that "The Grapes of Wrath" appears on a lot critics must-see lists and find it to be a historically relevant film that should be experienced.
Wednesday, February 1, 2012
The Hindenburg - 2 stars out of 10
The Hindenburg - 2 stars out of 10
Interesting concept, poor execution. I watched "The Hindenburg" for one reason - I wanted to see the blimp burn. After sitting through a fairly interesting story that wasn't told very well (in spite of its big names), I realized that I could have just youtubed the actual footage and saved myself two hours. The idea of anti-Nazi forces sabotaging this Zeppelin was one that I had never heard but managed to pique my interest. The mystery of which passenger was the saboteur should have been thrilling; unfortunately, the combination of underdevolped static characters and a plot that moves slower than the blimp led me to focus my attention on anything but the film. Most of the production staff should have been FIRED (Get it? The blimp burst into flames...) or they should've just gone for a rewrite. The only redeeming feature were the vivid shots that brought this blimp to life (from a scale model that is now in the Smithsonian) and the scene where the singer (played by Roy Thinnes) mocked the Nazis. Outside of that... the rest was rather deflating. Names like Anne Bancroft, Burgess Meredith, and George C. Scott should be an indication of a well-acted film but the poorly written characters hindered their ability to entertain. Even the disaster sequence, which was really good at first, managed to disappoint me as it constantly paused on half-way zoomed images for no apparent reason. In the end, we were just left with a story full of hot air (or... hydrogen). I hope that you enjoyed all of these blimp jokes because they surely provided more entertainment than this film can. And if you didn't enjoy them, think of how much you would despise "The Hindenburg."
Interesting concept, poor execution. I watched "The Hindenburg" for one reason - I wanted to see the blimp burn. After sitting through a fairly interesting story that wasn't told very well (in spite of its big names), I realized that I could have just youtubed the actual footage and saved myself two hours. The idea of anti-Nazi forces sabotaging this Zeppelin was one that I had never heard but managed to pique my interest. The mystery of which passenger was the saboteur should have been thrilling; unfortunately, the combination of underdevolped static characters and a plot that moves slower than the blimp led me to focus my attention on anything but the film. Most of the production staff should have been FIRED (Get it? The blimp burst into flames...) or they should've just gone for a rewrite. The only redeeming feature were the vivid shots that brought this blimp to life (from a scale model that is now in the Smithsonian) and the scene where the singer (played by Roy Thinnes) mocked the Nazis. Outside of that... the rest was rather deflating. Names like Anne Bancroft, Burgess Meredith, and George C. Scott should be an indication of a well-acted film but the poorly written characters hindered their ability to entertain. Even the disaster sequence, which was really good at first, managed to disappoint me as it constantly paused on half-way zoomed images for no apparent reason. In the end, we were just left with a story full of hot air (or... hydrogen). I hope that you enjoyed all of these blimp jokes because they surely provided more entertainment than this film can. And if you didn't enjoy them, think of how much you would despise "The Hindenburg."
Tuesday, January 31, 2012
Midnight in Paris - 10 stars out of 10
Midnight in Paris - 10 stars out of 10
Shame on me for doubting Woody Allen. After about 15 minutes, my distaste for Owen Wilson made me consider shutting off "Midnight in Paris"... but I should have known that Woody would only cast this typically annoying actor if he was perfect for the role (kind of like in "Marly and Me"). Woody Allen's unmatched witty dialogue finds its perfect fit in this throwback to the cultural icons of the 1920's. A familiarity with the artists, musicians, and literary world of 1920's Paris is a prerequisite for enjoying this film. As the main character travels back in time at midnight each night, he is immersed into the world of these historical figures. A knowledge of their lives, accomplishments, and even stereotypes elevates this script that is filled with allusions. The idea of time-travel seems rather random for the majority of the film, until it perfectly ties in with the main theme of never being satisfied with the present and always looking back to 'better days. In fact, this entire premise is far-fetched yet entirely believable and I never questioned it for a moment during the story. Highlights of the film include Adrien Brody as Salvador Dali, which provided some of that traditional Woody Allen humor, as well as the fate of the French detective, who we forget about until the final few minutes of the story. Kathy Bates is stunning as Gertrude Stein and who can resist the lovely and sophisticated Marion Cotillard. Woody pokes fun at some of the trends of the time, such as when Wilson describes his time travel to a group of surrealists that see nothing illogical about his plight. I found myself growing very angry with Rachel McAdams when I realized that she played this role so perfectly. She is the X-factor that explains why Gil is always searching for a better age to live in, and the subtlety in her childish actions led me to be as annoyed as the main character. This was a great way to create empathy for the main character. I love that, amidst the clever and humorous atmosphere of this film, Woody really makes a bold statement about appreciating the setting in which we live and the misconception that the grass is greener on the other side. Combined with a catchy 1920's score full of old favorites and beautiful shots of Paris, it is no surprise that I was left with a big, cheesy smile on my face as the end credits began to role.
Shame on me for doubting Woody Allen. After about 15 minutes, my distaste for Owen Wilson made me consider shutting off "Midnight in Paris"... but I should have known that Woody would only cast this typically annoying actor if he was perfect for the role (kind of like in "Marly and Me"). Woody Allen's unmatched witty dialogue finds its perfect fit in this throwback to the cultural icons of the 1920's. A familiarity with the artists, musicians, and literary world of 1920's Paris is a prerequisite for enjoying this film. As the main character travels back in time at midnight each night, he is immersed into the world of these historical figures. A knowledge of their lives, accomplishments, and even stereotypes elevates this script that is filled with allusions. The idea of time-travel seems rather random for the majority of the film, until it perfectly ties in with the main theme of never being satisfied with the present and always looking back to 'better days. In fact, this entire premise is far-fetched yet entirely believable and I never questioned it for a moment during the story. Highlights of the film include Adrien Brody as Salvador Dali, which provided some of that traditional Woody Allen humor, as well as the fate of the French detective, who we forget about until the final few minutes of the story. Kathy Bates is stunning as Gertrude Stein and who can resist the lovely and sophisticated Marion Cotillard. Woody pokes fun at some of the trends of the time, such as when Wilson describes his time travel to a group of surrealists that see nothing illogical about his plight. I found myself growing very angry with Rachel McAdams when I realized that she played this role so perfectly. She is the X-factor that explains why Gil is always searching for a better age to live in, and the subtlety in her childish actions led me to be as annoyed as the main character. This was a great way to create empathy for the main character. I love that, amidst the clever and humorous atmosphere of this film, Woody really makes a bold statement about appreciating the setting in which we live and the misconception that the grass is greener on the other side. Combined with a catchy 1920's score full of old favorites and beautiful shots of Paris, it is no surprise that I was left with a big, cheesy smile on my face as the end credits began to role.
Monday, January 30, 2012
Ocean's Twelve - 6 stars out of 10
Ocean's Twelve - 6 stars out of 10
When you create an incredible film, it's tough to make a sequel without it inevitably letting down every member of the audience. This is the story of "Ocean's Twelve." Creating a cast from the "Who's Who in Hollywood Pop Culture" list, this entertaining group acts well but finds itself in the midst of a story inferior to its predecessor. I think that the writers tried to be a little too tricky. While it definitely makes you scratch your head when the group has to pull off the heist while most are in prison, the end resolution elicited a sarcastic "Really?" from my mouth. On a positive note, they use the plot from the previous installment to explain why this millionaires could possibly need to pull off another heist. I also love that they aren't the only ones trying steal the egg. Vincent Cassel was a great villain and a great opponent for Ocean's crew, though the whole dance sequence (you know, the one through the lasers that went on forever?) was way cheesy and way long. As always, Brad Pitt, George Clooney, Matt Damon, Julia Roberts, Don Cheadle, et al are awesome. They just come off as a little "too cool" in an unrealistic way, not to mention that they aren't as fun when they are sitting in prison. The highlight of the film is Julia Roberts posing as herself. Her interaction with Bruce Willis is actually very sophisticated, taking on the role of a normal person impersonating a celebrity and trying to hide their overwhelming excitement. The writers also did a great job of setting it up - "Did you ever notice that she kind of looks like--" "Never bring that up." The film is worth watching for that sequence, but the rest falls somewhere between average and confusing. "Ocean's Twelve" is a necessity if you want to see the third film in the series and it really is a decent movie - just don't try to compare it to the first.
When you create an incredible film, it's tough to make a sequel without it inevitably letting down every member of the audience. This is the story of "Ocean's Twelve." Creating a cast from the "Who's Who in Hollywood Pop Culture" list, this entertaining group acts well but finds itself in the midst of a story inferior to its predecessor. I think that the writers tried to be a little too tricky. While it definitely makes you scratch your head when the group has to pull off the heist while most are in prison, the end resolution elicited a sarcastic "Really?" from my mouth. On a positive note, they use the plot from the previous installment to explain why this millionaires could possibly need to pull off another heist. I also love that they aren't the only ones trying steal the egg. Vincent Cassel was a great villain and a great opponent for Ocean's crew, though the whole dance sequence (you know, the one through the lasers that went on forever?) was way cheesy and way long. As always, Brad Pitt, George Clooney, Matt Damon, Julia Roberts, Don Cheadle, et al are awesome. They just come off as a little "too cool" in an unrealistic way, not to mention that they aren't as fun when they are sitting in prison. The highlight of the film is Julia Roberts posing as herself. Her interaction with Bruce Willis is actually very sophisticated, taking on the role of a normal person impersonating a celebrity and trying to hide their overwhelming excitement. The writers also did a great job of setting it up - "Did you ever notice that she kind of looks like--" "Never bring that up." The film is worth watching for that sequence, but the rest falls somewhere between average and confusing. "Ocean's Twelve" is a necessity if you want to see the third film in the series and it really is a decent movie - just don't try to compare it to the first.
Sunday, January 29, 2012
Hugo - 7 stars out of 10
Hugo - 7 stars out of 10
I am a bit perplexed by "Hugo." The trailer creates an impression of a children's adventure film but the movie that I saw contained very little for kids. I am so happy to see a family-friendly film nominated for the Oscar for Best Picture but "family-friendly" does not mean "made for families." In fact, the teenager sitting in front of me (who was so bored that she texted through the second half of the movie) leaned over to her mom after about 90 minutes and loudly whispered "This movie sucks." Putting that annoying girl's impressions aside, I did enjoy many aspects of this film. I thought that second half of the film, from Georges Méliès' flashback of his famous films until the end, was fantastic. The way that they brought the filming of "Le voyage dans la lune" and other early 1900's films to life was magical and nostalgic. The lives of early filmmakers are often overlooked and it was fascinating as they revealed Papa Georges' past and his fate as a result of World War I. But why did the first hour of this film have to be so painfully boring? I understand that the storytellers were looking for an interesting and curious way to tell the story of Méliès, but it really seemed like a stretch for an hour+ of Hugo's story to coincidentally connect to a brief telling of Méliès' story. I feel that it was filmed well, particularly from that non-cut away opening sequence of Hugo running through the gears and the nightmare of the famous Gare Montparnasse train derailment. But again, the train crash has nothing to do with the story until they very loosely tied it in at the end. I really enjoyed the comedic moments of Sacha Baron Cohen like his conversations about the one man's pregnant wife and the problems caused by his leg brace, but they were so sporadic that they seemed out of place. Add in the fact that this was directed by Martin Scorsese and it seems even more obscure. The performances of Ben Kingsley, Helen McCrory, and Baron Cohen were all very good while Asa Butterfield didn't match his performance in "The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas" and Chloë Grace Moretz has been better in "Let Me In" and "Kick-Ass." When I watch this film in a few years, I know that I will enjoy it more since I know how it ends, but the first time through left me struggling to connect an orphan, and automaton, a bookworm, an old filmmaker, a runaway train, and a comic doberman.
I am a bit perplexed by "Hugo." The trailer creates an impression of a children's adventure film but the movie that I saw contained very little for kids. I am so happy to see a family-friendly film nominated for the Oscar for Best Picture but "family-friendly" does not mean "made for families." In fact, the teenager sitting in front of me (who was so bored that she texted through the second half of the movie) leaned over to her mom after about 90 minutes and loudly whispered "This movie sucks." Putting that annoying girl's impressions aside, I did enjoy many aspects of this film. I thought that second half of the film, from Georges Méliès' flashback of his famous films until the end, was fantastic. The way that they brought the filming of "Le voyage dans la lune" and other early 1900's films to life was magical and nostalgic. The lives of early filmmakers are often overlooked and it was fascinating as they revealed Papa Georges' past and his fate as a result of World War I. But why did the first hour of this film have to be so painfully boring? I understand that the storytellers were looking for an interesting and curious way to tell the story of Méliès, but it really seemed like a stretch for an hour+ of Hugo's story to coincidentally connect to a brief telling of Méliès' story. I feel that it was filmed well, particularly from that non-cut away opening sequence of Hugo running through the gears and the nightmare of the famous Gare Montparnasse train derailment. But again, the train crash has nothing to do with the story until they very loosely tied it in at the end. I really enjoyed the comedic moments of Sacha Baron Cohen like his conversations about the one man's pregnant wife and the problems caused by his leg brace, but they were so sporadic that they seemed out of place. Add in the fact that this was directed by Martin Scorsese and it seems even more obscure. The performances of Ben Kingsley, Helen McCrory, and Baron Cohen were all very good while Asa Butterfield didn't match his performance in "The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas" and Chloë Grace Moretz has been better in "Let Me In" and "Kick-Ass." When I watch this film in a few years, I know that I will enjoy it more since I know how it ends, but the first time through left me struggling to connect an orphan, and automaton, a bookworm, an old filmmaker, a runaway train, and a comic doberman.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)