Weeeeee.
It's funny, I really thought that Michael Cera would be incapable of playing this character, but looking at these trailers, I get goosebumps at how true to the character he is. The whole thing seems like a great service to C. D. Payne's masterpiece.
Can't wait.
Thursday, November 26, 2009
Monday, November 23, 2009
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
Review: 2012
So Roland Emmerich got tired of destroying Manhattan and decided to do the same to the rest of the world. I can safely say he does a much better job when he thinks in larger proportions. 2012 is the Godfather of disaster movies; earthquakes destroy Los Angeles and half of California with it; a volcano erupts and consumes most of the Midwest; tsunamis consume the Himalayas, and the Earth takes an 180˚+ turn turning Michigan into the South Pole! (I'm not joking this actually happens). Of course Emmerich does not expect us to believe this could actually happen, which is good since last time he spent too much time on the "sciency/I want to make this plausible" bullshit it kind of ruined The Day After Tomorrow. 2012 does have "scientific" briefings, which is a bit of a shame but I will get to that later. But first thing's first.
2012 is the most satisfying summer blockbuster that did not come out this summer. Unlike the movies over the summer, and other Roland Emmerich films, 2012 actually makes us care for the characters or at least enough that we care about their survival. Admit it; none of us cared what happened to Megan Fox in Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen, or to the main Joe in G.I. Joe. Here we actually want Jackson Curtis (John Cusack with the most bizarre character name since Ace Ventura) and his dysfunctional family. Also, unlike most blockbusters this summer, 2012 actually has actors playing the lead roles and not CGI characters with real people’s faces. Yes, there is a lot of CGI and the cast probably spent most of their time in front of a green screen but the point is that by having the real actors play their parts the film feels somewhat - I wouldn't say real - personal. However like any movie of its kind 2012 sacrifices a good amount of plot for thrills and special effects. The former is your average end-of-the-world movie scenario involving a dysfunctional family, a scientist no one believes in, selfish world leaders, compassionate world leaders, a greedy Russian, a hot blonde, and a black President (note: Deep Impact had one first). Some of them make it, some of them don't. As for the thrills and special effects, these are top notch. You get thrills that can challenge any rollercoaster ride; it would not surprise me of some of the sequences are adapted into rides themselves. And the special effects... well that's the most realistic tsunami over the Himalayas I have ever seen; it is likely that I will never see one again unless I re-watch this film.
Are there things that disappointed me about the film? Yes, there are a few. For one I am a bit tired of the pseudo-scientific briefings in all disaster movies; there is no plausible way that what happens in this film could happen. So why even bother wasting screen time on neutrinos, magnetic fields, tectonic plates, etc? If we are going to be lectured on anything, I'd rather be lectured on the implications of such an event; "Dude, the world is ending! What the hell are you going to do in your last day on Earth?" or "Why God; what did we do to deserve this?" Stuff like that seems more important. Also by skipping the explanations you save the movie from logic loopholes such as: “If the neutrinos are deadly enough to melt the Earth’s core, how come they don’t fry the surface first? They should at least affect cell-phone signals?” The answer is – because cell phones are needed for the plot to advance. Another flaw, also shared by most disaster films, is the death of characters whose death we did not need and the survival of some whose death would have been much more interesting. But if these were reversed then the film would challenge our preconceived notions of the disaster genre and the average movie going audience wouldn’t get it (this is one of the reasons why Knowing flopped earlier this year).
I could probably list a few more flaws. But why ruin the fun? When it comes down to it 2012 is a solid disaster movie, and a five star action packed ride. That is what it promised to be, and that is what it is.
More like a 4.5. But only because I hope that other films push the genre further to drop 2012 from the top spot. Now that would be a challenge.
Monday, November 16, 2009
Review: A CHRISTMAS CAROL
Ok, so here's the thing. This is easily my favorite version of the story I've ever seen. It's really, really good.
But I'm just so sick of this story!
I realized this about halfway through the movie. After a really great opening scene, I couldn't help but think that I now knew every single thing that was going to happen for the rest of the movie. And I was right. I spent the rest of the movie curious as to how exactly director Robert Zemeckis would present this tale.
Do I really even need to talk about the story? If you don't know anything about Charles Dickens' classic story, it's about time you decided to become a functioning member of society. If you do, then there is no need to explain it here.
Here's what I can talk about: the visuals. First off, let me make this clear. THE TRAILERS DO NOT DO THE VISUALS IN THIS MOVIE JUSTICE. For some reason every single trailer shows this movie with the most god-awful rendering I have ever seen. This is totally not the case in the movie. This is some of the most amazing animation and rendering I have EVER seen. Absolutely fantastic. Of course, it's Motion Capture, but it still blew me away. The thing I liked the most was that, unlike Zemeckis' last two films in which he basically rotoscoped the actors 100%, they actually took the time to make these characters into characters. As a result this feels a lot more like an animated movie, and you feel like you are watching people rather than actors. Of course in all of Carrey's characters you can see him, but as for the rest - it's more difficult. Cary Elwes is absolutely unrecognizable. This whole effect allowed me to become more invested in the characters, and actually feel for them.
I didn't see this in 3D, and I actually wish I did. That's something I thought I would never say, but it's true. The visuals were so incredible it seems a shame I missed an even richer experience. And I happen to know that, for the most part, Disney doesn't really use their 3D as a gimmick, but rather as a way to enhance the story. At least, that's what I've heard.
And speaking of Disney, this is a dark adaptation! As the film progresses, I can only imagine little kids would be a little freaked. The Ghost of Christmas Yet to Come is downright scary. I especially love what Zemeckis did with that character.
This more than makes up for Beowulf. Zemeckis is truly a visionary director. As I left the theater, I remembered why he is still my absolute favorite director. And even though I really liked the movie, there's one thought I just couldn't get out of my mind. The movie was great, the acting was great, the visuals were great, BUT:
I've seen this story ten zillion times. There was no sense of wonder as movies should have. I almost felt like I was waiting for it to end. Movies shouldn't be like that. A seriously valiant attempt everyone, but give me something new.
Bah humbug.
Friday, November 13, 2009
Review: THE BOX
Well I'm definitely going to have to watch this one again.
Once again, Richard Kelly has given us a total experiment in how much the mind can handle in a film. Fans of his infamous cult film, Donnie Darko, will be in for a treat as they watch The Box take them on a long, twisting track of a movie that only leaves you with one thought at the end.
"Well I'm definitely going to have watch this one again".
The Box is the story of the ultimate social experiment. Norma and Arthur Lewis (Cameron Diaz and James Marsden) live a quiet life in Langley, Virginia with their son Walter (Sam Oz Stone). One day, a man who looks like he was in the same building as Two-Face named Arlington Steward (Frank Langella) shows up with a mysterious box containing what he calls "the button unit". He explains to Norma, in the most charming and endearing way possible, that if she presses it, one person somewhere in the world who she does not know will die. In return, she will receive a payment of one million dollars. Cash. She has 24 hours to decide.
That's all I'm going to say about the plot. Like Donnie Darko, it is nearly impossible to explain and demands that you pay attention to every single second.
I enjoyed the movie for the most part. It's not the most amazing film I've seen in years, but it certainly does make you think, and leaves you with a message. An extremely bleak message, but a message nonetheless.
The movie is shot exactly like Kelly's previous films. This may or may not drive audiences insane. I like it personally. It is reminiscent of Kubrik's The Shining. Lots of zooms, long shots, and incredibly creepy performances.
Diaz and Marsden are both very good. They are by no means the performances of a lifetime, but they serve the movie well. Langella and Stone are also very good, though I never want to see Langella play a character this creepy again.
The music is also not bad, but it chimes in at weird times, and it's just so... how do I put this... creepy.
I guess that's the best way to sum this movie up. It's plain creepy. It's creepy in concept, it's creepy in the acting, and it's creepy in the message.
If you liked Donnie Darko and Southland Tales, go see this. If you want to see a movie that is certainly not the norm, and look at a filmmaker who is on his own level of style, go see this. But if you want to see a movie that relays a positive message about ourselves as a people... you may want to avoid it.
I guess the real question comes down to this: Would you kill someone you didn't know for one million dollars?
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
