Brave (2012) - 8 stars out of 10
700th Review
"Brave" is not your average Pixar film. It has the breath-taking visual animation that you would expect and incredible voice acting, but it is much darker than previous Pixar films. This is the company's first telling of a fairy tale and it is easy to see that they chose to tell it in the style of Hans Christian Anderson instead of taking a light-hearted approach. While the story is interesting, this is not a ground-breaking Pixar film like "Toy Story" or "Finding Nemo." As far as the Disney canon is concerned, I don't even like it as much as "Tangled" (it's computer-animated Princess equivalent). And yet, there is something special about "Brave" that sets it apart from other films, and it is simply its originality. Despite the obvious parallel to "Brother Bear," this film uses a unique Scottish setting, a great musical score to match, a kick-butt heroine (contrasted by some anti-prince-charmings), and a focus on the mother-daughter relationship that we don't often see in animated films. The script does an amazing job of building tension between the two from the very start (without us really noticing) so that when they have their big fight, neither party seems guilty and all actions seem reasonable. They then use the repercussions of that fight to create an overwhelming amount of empathy for the characters. The audience's emotional progression is very methodical by the writers and so effective that you are bound to cry at one of two scenes (or probably at both...) Interestingly, I was disappointed with this story 45 minutes into the movie and never predicted that I would feel any attachment to these characters, and definitely did not see myself crying at the climax of the film. The use of comedy in the script is also different than your typical Disney film. Most Disney animated features are comedies with several dramatic moments that build suspense and emotion, but this film is definitely not a comedy. Instead, I would classify this film as a drama that uses several humorous moments to break the tension before returning to its dramatic focus. As always, the animation is impeccable, particularly the stunningly detailed Scottish setting, the slow-motion shooting of arrows, and Merida's curly red hair. Even though the characters aren't the most memorable (I can't really even tell you the names of the majority of them), they are just really cool and fun to watch on screen. Kids will enjoy the jokes and the three little brothers, adults will enjoy the character development and mother-daughter themes, and the whole family is sure to love this tale-as-old-as-time that has now been told for the first time, "Brave."
Saturday, August 18, 2012
Friday, August 17, 2012
Under the Boardwalk: The Monopoly Story - 6 stars out of 10
Under the Boardwalk: The Monopoly Story - 6 stars out of 10
"Under The Boardwalk" is a two-fold documentary that tells the history of Monopoly and also follows several players competing in the Monopoly National Championship. Although this board game may not seem like the most exciting subject matter in the world, the documentary never drags on or has an opportunity to get boring because it is constantly interspersing segments about the competitions, history, and quirky players of Monopoly. It is definitely a film that all viewers can relate to, since this is essentially a part of every person's childhood. After seeing "Word Wars" (a similar documentary about Scrabble), I am so thankful that this film is G-rated and does not contain so much profane language that it is nearly unwatchable. It is interesting to see how the places on the board were determined, the original intent of this game, and how it eventually was picked up by Parker Brothers, but my personal favorite segment of the film is the one entitled "Collectors." This segment brings attention to the people who take Monopoly fandom a step (or three) too far. Nothing beats that Monopoly bathroom! Whether it means to or not, the segments about the people who treat Monopoly as a lifestyle provide the comic relief that prevents the film from dragging on like the actual game often does. Regardless of your interest in the game, this documentary provides a unique insight into the history and modern world of Monopoly and is definitely worth a watch.
"Under The Boardwalk" is a two-fold documentary that tells the history of Monopoly and also follows several players competing in the Monopoly National Championship. Although this board game may not seem like the most exciting subject matter in the world, the documentary never drags on or has an opportunity to get boring because it is constantly interspersing segments about the competitions, history, and quirky players of Monopoly. It is definitely a film that all viewers can relate to, since this is essentially a part of every person's childhood. After seeing "Word Wars" (a similar documentary about Scrabble), I am so thankful that this film is G-rated and does not contain so much profane language that it is nearly unwatchable. It is interesting to see how the places on the board were determined, the original intent of this game, and how it eventually was picked up by Parker Brothers, but my personal favorite segment of the film is the one entitled "Collectors." This segment brings attention to the people who take Monopoly fandom a step (or three) too far. Nothing beats that Monopoly bathroom! Whether it means to or not, the segments about the people who treat Monopoly as a lifestyle provide the comic relief that prevents the film from dragging on like the actual game often does. Regardless of your interest in the game, this documentary provides a unique insight into the history and modern world of Monopoly and is definitely worth a watch.
Thursday, August 16, 2012
Rope - 8 stars out of 10
Rope - 8 stars out of 10
"Rope" may not be the best story of all time, but it is darn impressive. Hitchcock manipulates the screen into a stage with this film that creates the illusion of a single take. Special effects and camera tricks have no place in this film as the story is told from a single camera angle taking place in an apartment. "Rope" is unlike any other film that you will ever see. It is amazing how much suspense develops without ever leaving the room. This film is all about good acting. Like "Twelve Angry Men," the film's energy relies on the delivery of lines and subtle acting gestures. John Dall's stutter is nothing short of genius, while Phillip Morgan's shifting eyes continually remind us of his guilt and paranoia at hosting this dinner party with a dead body in the room. The subtlety of Jimmy Stewart picking up the wrong hat to solve the mystery is perfection, as no action is out of place in this film. It is such a typical party, but so much more is going on. Joan Chandler is lovely as Janet, the sweet but spunky fiancee, but my favorite character is definitely the flighty Mrs. Atwater. Constance Collier brings the perfect amount of charm and confusion to the role. The film is slow at times, often times using one-on-one dialogue to give the other actors a moment to rest before the long and uncut scene continues, but it still manages to tell this philosophical murder story in a room filled with people. It must have been a sight to see, actors navigating over wires, walls moving in and out, and a crew constantly manipulating the set in a madly choreographed dance, all while the camera continued to roll. Even though the film uses a single set, the skyline in the background is incredible with a sky that progresses from afternoon to night, clouds that move and change shape eight times throughout the film, and chimneys with smoke rising from them. It also provides some symbolism as their master plan progresses from pure excitement to being caught, with the blinking light from the sign outside eventually illuminating them in red. The film only allows for a few of Hitchcock's cool visuals, like when the door swings open and we see Dall dropping the rope into the drawer, but you can feel his hand on every inch of the film as his signature dark tone looms over the entire film. Some might refer to this single take illusion as a gimmick, but it is just another testament to Hitchcock being one of the most innovative directors in the history of cinema.
"Rope" may not be the best story of all time, but it is darn impressive. Hitchcock manipulates the screen into a stage with this film that creates the illusion of a single take. Special effects and camera tricks have no place in this film as the story is told from a single camera angle taking place in an apartment. "Rope" is unlike any other film that you will ever see. It is amazing how much suspense develops without ever leaving the room. This film is all about good acting. Like "Twelve Angry Men," the film's energy relies on the delivery of lines and subtle acting gestures. John Dall's stutter is nothing short of genius, while Phillip Morgan's shifting eyes continually remind us of his guilt and paranoia at hosting this dinner party with a dead body in the room. The subtlety of Jimmy Stewart picking up the wrong hat to solve the mystery is perfection, as no action is out of place in this film. It is such a typical party, but so much more is going on. Joan Chandler is lovely as Janet, the sweet but spunky fiancee, but my favorite character is definitely the flighty Mrs. Atwater. Constance Collier brings the perfect amount of charm and confusion to the role. The film is slow at times, often times using one-on-one dialogue to give the other actors a moment to rest before the long and uncut scene continues, but it still manages to tell this philosophical murder story in a room filled with people. It must have been a sight to see, actors navigating over wires, walls moving in and out, and a crew constantly manipulating the set in a madly choreographed dance, all while the camera continued to roll. Even though the film uses a single set, the skyline in the background is incredible with a sky that progresses from afternoon to night, clouds that move and change shape eight times throughout the film, and chimneys with smoke rising from them. It also provides some symbolism as their master plan progresses from pure excitement to being caught, with the blinking light from the sign outside eventually illuminating them in red. The film only allows for a few of Hitchcock's cool visuals, like when the door swings open and we see Dall dropping the rope into the drawer, but you can feel his hand on every inch of the film as his signature dark tone looms over the entire film. Some might refer to this single take illusion as a gimmick, but it is just another testament to Hitchcock being one of the most innovative directors in the history of cinema.
Wednesday, August 15, 2012
Stuart Little - 5 stars out of 10
Stuart Little - 5 stars out of 10
"Stuart Little" is definitely geared for kids, but it does so in impressive fashion. The computer animation is impressive by today's standards, and it is hard to believe that they were able to make a film that so seamlessly integrated CGI into a real-world atmosphere in 1999. You couldn't find a better voice for Stuart than Michael J. Fox... although every time that the mouse says "George" (which is quite often), you can't help but think of "Back to the Future." But the voice perfectly fits the image, full of animation and kid-like quality. And then Nathan Lane as the cat! That was a very unexpected surprise, on top of Hugh Laurie and Geena Davis in live-action roles. Jonathan Lipnicki is not as good as he was in "Jerry Maguire," but the presence of Jeffrey Jones (Principal from Ferris Bueller) and Steve Zahn's voice as Monty distracts from the areas of the film that lack refined acting skill. The casting really is great, as the directors chose actors whose voices perfectly match the visual characters that they play. The plot is definitely that of a kids movie, but some of the humor in the script (like the cream of mushroom soup dialogue was just awesome) will keep adults watching. The film is overly cheesy at times, but in the end it's good for all ages to be reminded of the important lesson that it doesn't matter if you are different - the key to love is having a big heart.
"Stuart Little" is definitely geared for kids, but it does so in impressive fashion. The computer animation is impressive by today's standards, and it is hard to believe that they were able to make a film that so seamlessly integrated CGI into a real-world atmosphere in 1999. You couldn't find a better voice for Stuart than Michael J. Fox... although every time that the mouse says "George" (which is quite often), you can't help but think of "Back to the Future." But the voice perfectly fits the image, full of animation and kid-like quality. And then Nathan Lane as the cat! That was a very unexpected surprise, on top of Hugh Laurie and Geena Davis in live-action roles. Jonathan Lipnicki is not as good as he was in "Jerry Maguire," but the presence of Jeffrey Jones (Principal from Ferris Bueller) and Steve Zahn's voice as Monty distracts from the areas of the film that lack refined acting skill. The casting really is great, as the directors chose actors whose voices perfectly match the visual characters that they play. The plot is definitely that of a kids movie, but some of the humor in the script (like the cream of mushroom soup dialogue was just awesome) will keep adults watching. The film is overly cheesy at times, but in the end it's good for all ages to be reminded of the important lesson that it doesn't matter if you are different - the key to love is having a big heart.
Monday, August 13, 2012
Iron Man 2 - 9 stars out of 10
Iron Man 2 - 9 stars out of 10
"Iron Man 2" is a worthy successor to its predecessor. While it can't compare to its origin story (as few superhero sequels can), it packs an awesome punch with just as much attitude and intensity as the first one. The special effects are incredible (particularly the road race carnage and then the "briefcase" that installs itself on Tony Stark's body as the Iron man suit) and the script is fresh so that this doesn't feel like "another Iron Man movie," but the thing that resonates the most with me is the cast of awesome actors. This isn't your cheesy superhero film from the 70's. It is a dramatic presentation of characters who have depth and evolve from the beginning of the film through the end. Of course Robert Downey Jr.'s arrogance is a perfect match for this character and Gwyneth Paltrow is the perfect choice for Pepper, taking responsibility and fixing all of his mistakes. But the great thing about these two is their chemistry. You just want them to be together so bad, even when he is a jerk. Then when you add Don Cheadle in a supporting lead where he gets to kick some butt, and Scarlett Johansson who ALSO gets to kick some butt (in a very attractive way, if I may add), you just gain a certain energy from the intensity of their acting. Mickey Rourke makes a very frightening villain and facilitates the government doubting Iron Man's ability to be a savior, which opens up several other plot lines that the film explores. And finally, Sam Rockwell brings that sneaky, cowardly approach that makes you hate him, but you hate him because he acts it so well. This story creates an interesting adventure for Iron Man, develops the characters, and addresses the issue of the palladium in Tony Stark's system, all while setting us up for "The Avengers." The first "Iron Man" is slightly better, just because you can't beat a good origin story, but this is a solid film that can be easily understood, even if you haven't seen the original.
"Iron Man 2" is a worthy successor to its predecessor. While it can't compare to its origin story (as few superhero sequels can), it packs an awesome punch with just as much attitude and intensity as the first one. The special effects are incredible (particularly the road race carnage and then the "briefcase" that installs itself on Tony Stark's body as the Iron man suit) and the script is fresh so that this doesn't feel like "another Iron Man movie," but the thing that resonates the most with me is the cast of awesome actors. This isn't your cheesy superhero film from the 70's. It is a dramatic presentation of characters who have depth and evolve from the beginning of the film through the end. Of course Robert Downey Jr.'s arrogance is a perfect match for this character and Gwyneth Paltrow is the perfect choice for Pepper, taking responsibility and fixing all of his mistakes. But the great thing about these two is their chemistry. You just want them to be together so bad, even when he is a jerk. Then when you add Don Cheadle in a supporting lead where he gets to kick some butt, and Scarlett Johansson who ALSO gets to kick some butt (in a very attractive way, if I may add), you just gain a certain energy from the intensity of their acting. Mickey Rourke makes a very frightening villain and facilitates the government doubting Iron Man's ability to be a savior, which opens up several other plot lines that the film explores. And finally, Sam Rockwell brings that sneaky, cowardly approach that makes you hate him, but you hate him because he acts it so well. This story creates an interesting adventure for Iron Man, develops the characters, and addresses the issue of the palladium in Tony Stark's system, all while setting us up for "The Avengers." The first "Iron Man" is slightly better, just because you can't beat a good origin story, but this is a solid film that can be easily understood, even if you haven't seen the original.
Sunday, August 12, 2012
The Reef - 3 stars out of 10
The Reef - 3 stars out of 10
"The Reef" succeeds at building suspense but fails at delivering the thrills that we expect in a shark horror film. The scripting of this film seems very confused, almost improvisatory. They spent the first 5 minutes trying to develop the characters, then they just sort of gave up on that. Then they took the tension approach, but the "reaching into a dark hole trying to find something so that the audience thinks that a shark is about to bite their hand off but they just end up pulling out the thing that they were looking for" gag got old after the third time. Then there is also the lack of sharks. I mean, it took a solid 45 minutes for the first shark to appear. Since the character development was basically non-existent and the first half of the movie is "Our ship just wrecked... should we stay on board or attempt to swim for safety?", I would actually really like to give this film a second try, starting at the 40-minute mark and just watching the second half when all of the good stuff occurs. The reason that I'm not completely writing this film off is because its sharks are much more realistic than "Shark Night 3D" and the circumstances are much more feasible (like, no Deliverance hicks that are filming shark attacks for Shark Week on the Discovery Channel). "The Reef" stays true to the old philosophy that "the unseen is scarier than what you do see." It builds suspense through the paranoia of its victims and then only needs to show the shark for a few seconds at the climax of the attack. This film is built on tension, but it lacks the characters, storyline, and bite of "Jaws." I would stay away from "The Reef" unless you decide to just watch the second half for a few shark thrills.
"The Reef" succeeds at building suspense but fails at delivering the thrills that we expect in a shark horror film. The scripting of this film seems very confused, almost improvisatory. They spent the first 5 minutes trying to develop the characters, then they just sort of gave up on that. Then they took the tension approach, but the "reaching into a dark hole trying to find something so that the audience thinks that a shark is about to bite their hand off but they just end up pulling out the thing that they were looking for" gag got old after the third time. Then there is also the lack of sharks. I mean, it took a solid 45 minutes for the first shark to appear. Since the character development was basically non-existent and the first half of the movie is "Our ship just wrecked... should we stay on board or attempt to swim for safety?", I would actually really like to give this film a second try, starting at the 40-minute mark and just watching the second half when all of the good stuff occurs. The reason that I'm not completely writing this film off is because its sharks are much more realistic than "Shark Night 3D" and the circumstances are much more feasible (like, no Deliverance hicks that are filming shark attacks for Shark Week on the Discovery Channel). "The Reef" stays true to the old philosophy that "the unseen is scarier than what you do see." It builds suspense through the paranoia of its victims and then only needs to show the shark for a few seconds at the climax of the attack. This film is built on tension, but it lacks the characters, storyline, and bite of "Jaws." I would stay away from "The Reef" unless you decide to just watch the second half for a few shark thrills.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)