Rating: 4.25 of 5  

Marvel’s Phase Two shows obvious signs of being post-Avengers. And not just in the characters and the ramifications they have to deal with (Tony Stark, perhaps most of all) but in the studio and writers and directors who have seen what a Joss Whedon superhero movie is and now have to be . . . → Read More: Iron Man 3]]>

Rating: 4.25 of 5  

Marvel’s Phase Two shows obvious signs of being post-Avengers. And not just in the characters and the ramifications they have to deal with (Tony Stark, perhaps most of all) but in the studio and writers and directors who have seen what a Joss Whedon superhero movie is and now have to be that good.

Iron Man 3, as the first film in Phase Two, is funny and surprising and the action is inventive and the script is so smart it can survive in a post-Avengers universe. And I have a ton of great things to say about it. But I can’t say any of it without also saying – they learned that from Joss and this and here and here and over there. I don’t know how much hand he actually had, as Marvel’s consultant, on the script, but his influence is all over the place.

Rating: 3.75 of 5  

I don’t think anyone would deny that Quentin Tarantino is a talented filmmaker. He also has a style so when you go to one of his movies you pretty much know what you’re getting yourself into.

So, I can’t say that Django Unchained surprised me, especially after seeing the panel at Comic . . . → Read More: Django Unchained]]>

Rating: 3.75 of 5  

I don’t think anyone would deny that Quentin Tarantino is a talented filmmaker. He also has a style so when you go to one of his movies you pretty much know what you’re getting yourself into.

So, I can’t say that Django Unchained surprised me, especially after seeing the panel at Comic Con this past year.

It’s bloody and violent and even though I was expecting it, it still kind of surprised me in the beginning and a few other times.

There’s course dialog but also a lot of wit and unexpected, smart lines. I do like dry humor so I laugh more at Tarantino than most comedies. It’s sometimes a little crude for me to laugh but not to recognize how well it’s written.

The performances, I thought, were also good. It’s odd to see DiCaprio as the villain, but there were shades of some of his other characters in there; in Candie’s naivete and when he was confronting Django and Schultz. I can’t put my finger on it but that yelling and that need for approval were familiar shades of him.

Christoph Waltz is amazing and pulled off a very soft and good but also ruthless character. (And this is a fantastic interview discussing Waltz’s character and how that drives the story). Jamie Foxx and everyone else were also good. Each of the characters were so distinct, so remarkably unique and the actors distinguished them well. Foxx balanced adaptable and hardened with innocent and fearless. In fact, I think it was the contradictions in their character that made each of them sort of fascinating. But I think I empathized with Kerry Washington the most because even though she had a relatively small role it was so crucial and so much was asked of her. I think she was kind of amazing.

That’s what I think what intrigued me most – this is how Quentin Tarantino does a love story. He lays it all out there for you in naming Broomhilda and then giving the viewer the German story in the middle. Django is going to go through the fires of hell and it’s Tarantino so you know fairly well what that’s going to look like. But it wasn’t just the bloody shoot-out; the fires of hell for his character was also about becoming something he despised without flinching; convincing Candie he was cruel and merciless. But you could also see his vulnerability and the way he and Hildi cared for each other and were devoted to one another. The through-line of this bloody mess is the love between these two people.

But Tarantino is a man of many words and layers and subtext and themes so telling a love story doesn’t keep this from also pointing a hard, cold finger at the inhumanity of slavery and what men are capable of doing to one another. The mandingo fight was perhaps the most unsettling moment in the film not because of its violence but because of the horrible, horrible brutality of seeing these men not only living as property of someone else but being forced to fight in such a raw, savage way and ultimately to kill one another. I could feel that moment stealing their humanity and it was awful.

And yet, I have to admit, no matter how talented Tarantino is; how skilled and sharp and nuanced of a filmmaker he can be, I don’t have fun the way I delight in watching other films. I recognize how good he is. I can talk about how well he’s done various things. I can rate all the elements mostly well. But it makes me wish I had a score that reflects how much I enjoyed a movie. Since I don’t I can’t quite bring myself to rate things as highly as maybe they would have otherwise been rated.

Rating: 3.5 of 5  

This is a harder movie to review than it should be.

Because Robert Downey Jr. is incredibly sharp and entertaining. He pulls off the eccentric but brilliant character with a flare that seems realistic however stylized it is. Jude Law as Watson is a strong enough counterpoint to ground Sherlock and make . . . → Read More: Sherlock Holmes: Game of Shadows]]>

Rating: 3.5 of 5  

This is a harder movie to review than it should be.

Because Robert Downey Jr. is incredibly sharp and entertaining. He pulls off the eccentric but brilliant character with a flare that seems realistic however stylized it is. Jude Law as Watson is a strong enough counterpoint to ground Sherlock and make both characters more interesting.

It handles more of the Sherlock lore than the first one, introducing elements like Mycroft which broaden the world nicely.

The plot is less convoluted than the first one (at least to me).

The action is cool, but I can’t help feeling less impressed. Because we’ve seen this before and it’s stylized but no longer innovative.

A few months ago I would have said it’s entertaining and intriguing; that Robert Downey Jr. is a fantastic bit of fun. But a few months ago I hadn’t seen the tv show, Sherlock.

And as I was watching the movie I couldn’t help but think that the tv show is so much more elegant. The characters are more subtle but there’s more depth and authenticity to them. The way the show reveals Sherlock’s process is less hurried and revealed more clearly.

They’re obviously different creatures, but the show makes the movie seem sharp and flashy and like it’s racing through the story. Which makes the movie less palatable, as unfair as that is.

Rating: 4.25 of 5  

Peter Jackson is not Tolkien.

I know I’m stating the obvious there but after seeing The Hobbit I’m not sure Peter Jackson is aware of this fact.

He’s a talented filmmaker, to be sure; dedicated and visionary and able to produce amazing, epic films. But he isn’t the storyteller Tolkien was . . . → Read More: The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey]]>

Rating: 4.25 of 5  

Peter Jackson is not Tolkien.

I know I’m stating the obvious there but after seeing The Hobbit I’m not sure Peter Jackson is aware of this fact.

He’s a talented filmmaker, to be sure; dedicated and visionary and able to produce amazing, epic films. But he isn’t the storyteller Tolkien was and his imprint on the Hobbit is obvious and the film’s most grievous flaw.

You may not notice if you haven’t read the books. maybe. It’s been years since I read it and while there are things I remember clearly there’s also plenty I do not. But from bulbous goblin kings to vendetta driven orcs the material that is Jackson’s stands out because it has the feel of trite fantasy movies we’ve derided for years (somebody please save me from Orc subtitles!). I know that sounds harsh and it’s just for a moment or a scene but it’s there and it’s hollow.

Because Tolkien’s story resonates. It has abided for so many years and is so beloved because it means something. There is significance in his words and in his story and that is an element that Peter Jackson lacks. And has lacked, even with the LOTR in The Two Towers and Return of the King. That significance and meaning is something Jackson just can’t seem to grasp.

So, of course I was wary when it was announced the movie would be so much longer than the book. I was mollified somewhat with Jackson’s explanation that it was simply because so much of the book has scenes that are only two or three pages and he wanted to delve into those moments in the story more. I’d enjoy that. And in a lot of ways that’s exactly what he did. He strayed from the book, concocting a fight where there was only discourse, but he never betrayed the book because he always brought the scene back to where it should be. It’s the elements he invented rather than embellished that are so bothersome.

Everything else, of course, is amazing. The production design and cgi and colors and costumes evoke Middle Earth splendidly. The performances are excellent. I liked the dwarves more than I expected (Kili being my favorite, I think) and particularly enjoyed the way they threw things around. I wish I’d seen more of that in battles rather than just with the dishes. I’m pretty sure it was there in a few places but there was so much going on it didn’t stand out enough to really appreciate.

I liked the tone of the film, that it was lighthearted and there was a sense of fun that didn’t undermine the purpose of their journey. Granted it was a little slow in some parts and a little long overall. Editing it a little tighter would have helped considerably. Lee Pace as Orlando Bloom’s father was kind of an amusing idea, but Pace makes a great elf. And I loved the head butt between Balin and Dwalin because it recalled the stunt greeting from LOTR (watch the Two Towers extended edition special features). I liked Thorin well enough. I liked his strength and the way he’s able to lead the company with such confidence but still be flawed. And Martin Freeman as Bilbo holds the whole film together with such a light touch it’s wonderful.

There were a lot of things to really enjoy about this film, not the least of which was the music – because that was amazing! But I understand now, if I was a part of the Tolkien estate, where I might not appreciate Peter Jackson so much. No matter how talented a filmmaker he is.

Rating: 2.5 of 5  

I have to admit, I guess from the top, that I’ve never seen the original Red Dawn. But I actually didn’t think this movie was half bad.

I mean, it was pretty clear from the trailer that this wasn’t going to be a great film. Good trailer, but without much substance to . . . → Read More: Red Dawn]]>

Rating: 2.5 of 5  

I have to admit, I guess from the top, that I’ve never seen the original Red Dawn. But I actually didn’t think this movie was half bad.

I mean, it was pretty clear from the trailer that this wasn’t going to be a great film. Good trailer, but without much substance to back it up.

And it’s a remake of an 80s movie so I half expected some of the cheesy 80s action movie aura to seep through. I think it makes it easier to enjoy a film when you go into it expecting it’s flaws.

I feel like I don’t even need to say that the plot is formulaic because, being an 80s remake, that should be a given. There isn’t a sense of time at all in this film. These kids become an adept fighting force in the course of a monologue. There’s some cheesy lines. There’s plenty of ploys hoping to manipulate your emotions rather than genuinely engage them.

But I liked the characters and it’s surprising, I guess, how far likability will take you. I didn’t love them, so it didn’t hurt when they died. It was ok, though, because the moments where the action stopped and the characters were just talking weren’t cheesy. And you can roll your eyes at the stunts and the gun play all day long, but as long as you don’t roll your eyes when they’re just talking it works. Well enough, at least.

Surprisingly, Josh Hutcherson really stood out in a secondary roll. His character had an arc and it was as much a formula as the plot, but there the beats of change were there and by the end he’d managed to transform from a very young, weak boy into something of a man and that progression of maturity and strength was subtle but good. Adrienne Padalicki was as good as she could be. I want to like her but I know she’s another Jessica Beal. Chris Hemsworth was engaging in a tough, stoic role and it was interesting to see the moments where he let that down. It really wasn’t Jeffrey Dean Morgan’s show, but he delivered his snarky lines as only he can.

The directing was good enough. There were a few times when the action was too fast and it was hard to track. But there were also a few decent stunts. The DP, however was really impressive. The lighting and color was fantastic.

Rating: 3.25 of 5  

When the two Snow White movies were coming out last year, I was curious about both. Mostly I thought Snow White and the Huntsman would be the more enjoyable (though I wasn’t sure about Kristen Stewart) and I thought Mirror, Mirror would be more laughable because I don’t have a lot of . . . → Read More: Mirror, Mirror]]>

Rating: 3.25 of 5  

When the two Snow White movies were coming out last year, I was curious about both. Mostly I thought Snow White and the Huntsman would be the more enjoyable (though I wasn’t sure about Kristen Stewart) and I thought Mirror, Mirror would be more laughable because I don’t have a lot of esteem for Tarsem Signh.

Color me surprised, then, when Kristen Stewart was actually able to decimate Snow White and Mirror, Mirror was actually a good balance of campy playfulness without being cheesy.

Julia Roberts, of course, was fantastic as this ridiculous, vain queen. I could see in the trailer that she navigated the dangerous waters of a silly character without making her absurd. It’s actually a really difficult performance, to say ridiculous things without it descending into a really bad b-movie caricature. But she handles it brilliantly. She’s mean and playful and silly while being just serious enough.

Lily Collins was decent as the princess; a little too soft spoken and innocent in the beginning to her performance felt like she was trying a little too hard. Also, please, someone, fix her eyebrows. She’s a beautiful girl who ends up looking like a troll. Other than that, she totally looked the part and was sweet.

Armie Hammer was fantastic. I always think I don’t like him him and then he surprises me with how good he actually is. Maybe it’s because I
don’t like his wife because she’s kind of annoyingly brazen (probably something he likes a great deal about her) so I tend to dismiss him. But he completely looks the part and he gives a really good performance that balances that vulnerable, silly but still earnest prince and it comes across as sincere rather than foolish.

The dwarves were a lot of fun. The ending didn’t surprise me at all. The costumes were ludicrous but really well made, because if you’re going to go for that sort of crazy look you have to do it well. Mostly it’s just a fun, playful movie. And there aren’t that many that are really well done these days.

Rating: 3 of 5  

I don’t even know what to say. And it’s not because I was shocked by the twist ending because I was surprised at how it manifest itself but I was also expecting something. spoiler »As soon as Jasper died I knew it wasn’t real. I mean, maybe they could get away with . . . → Read More: The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn Part 2]]>

Rating: 3 of 5  

I don’t even know what to say. And it’s not because I was shocked by the twist ending because I was surprised at how it manifest itself but I was also expecting something.

First, and foremost, the real shock of this movie isn’t that ending. It’s the Kristen Stewart isn’t bad. I’m not saying she’s brilliant but she actually wasn’t bad. It’s like the world has turned inside out and I’m not sure I know how to review a Twilight movie if I can’t make fun of her bad acting. When did she learn to act? (And why didn’t she then employ that skill on Snow White and the Huntsman?) I mean, the single defining adjective used about Kristen Stewart in these movies and in real life and in every interview she’s given for four years is awkward. But somehow she managed to shed that and actually embody this graceful, sharp, contained and controlled, powerful vampire. I don’t even know how to make sense of those words and I’m the one saying them. But all of the actors were actually good. (I kind of loved Edward when Bella found out about Jacob.)

You could make the argument that the improvements are a result of the change of Bella’s character; that suddenly it opens up the world and the characters differently which would alter performances by default. And that’s a valid point. These are characters finally enjoying themselves and it was fun to watch.

But you can also make the corresponding point that what this movie really does is highlight what a bad job Catherine Hardwick really did; that in the hands of a better director these actors are actually capable of interesting performances and even some of the more difficult moments from Twilight could have been less painful and awkward.

There’s another thing keeping me from deciding if I really enjoyed this movie or not. Because all the other Twilight films have their flaws (none of them rate higher than a 2.75 on my star scale and some would say I’m even being generous). But despite their flaws this is an engrossing saga and the movies are fun to watch. They’re full of romance and angst and all sorts of powerful emotions. And this one… wasn’t. I don’t think. And I think it goes beyond the obvious fact that these are character living in their happily ever after so there isn’t a lot of conflict (all the angst is gone and so is a lot of the romance). Because there could have been all sorts of emotion. This is the culmination of a “saga” after all but I didn’t feel any elation. And even in their happily ever after, everything is changing with Renesmee in their lives and Bella learning to be a vampire and Jacob and Charlie finding out and there’s a lot of things to explore and immerse the audience in. Then you add the threat of the Volturi and the coming together of eighteen actual bloodsuckers and there should be conflict and hope and fear; desperation and the survival of romance in the midst of danger, even if there isn’t angst. Because that’s been the appeal of these films from the beginning. Instead, more so than 2, 3 or 4, it felt like it was just progressing from one scene in the book to the next. More like Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix than a Twilight film. And like that Harry Potter I wanted more time in this world; more immersion in the experience of these characters. My sister said it perfectly, about fifteen minutes longer and more substance. I wanted substance and emotion and I got plot.

The other thing is, this is a story that doesn’t focus on the main three characters and in diverting that time and story attention it’s less engaging. We’ve watched these movies for Bella and Edward and Jacob. A scene with the Volturi in London with some random vampire doesn’t give the audience anything except a chance to see Alec’s power. It wastes time that could have been spent with the characters I already care about or getting to know characters I’m supposed to come to care for.

Speaking of caring, I didn’t for Renesmee. And that isn’t to say that Mackenzie Foy didn’t offer up a nice little performance. She had less than a dozen lines but her eyes are pretty expressive and, like Stewart, she looks the part. But the story didn’t spend any time investing me in this character and why she needed to live and why they all loved her so much. They just expected it to come by default since she’s Bella’s and Edward’s child so of course they love her. But I don’t. Or maybe I just read too many interviews of everyone saying how amazing Mackenzie Foy was and then I just found her to have so little substance in the film. It didn’t justify why they had to have her or why they spent all the money on facial replacements.

Which were all done really badly, by the way. It’s not a new technology and I’ve seen it done so much better on much less expensive movies so I was really disappointed by the fact that baby Renesmee looked like an alien. Even the kid in the e-vestment-whatever commercials has better cgi. And there were other green screens that were done badly (and by badly I mean anytime I can tell it’s a green screen because if it’s done right I shouldn’t notice). There’s one I won’t point out because once you see it, you can’t unsee it and I don’t want to ruin anything for anyone. And it wasn’t super badly done. I probably wouldn’t have noticed if I hadn’t been actively looking for how they made this shot. But it was completely unnecessary. They could have edited around it and no one would have thought twice about it. So it kind of felt like they were too impressed with how clever they figured out they could be. The other was the meadow at the end, which I assume they used a green screen because the time of year they shot it wasn’t blooming the way they needed it to. Still, I would have put more money into that shot and less into fake babies and other things. Or even filmed in the meadow but added the flowers instead of faking the whole thing.

The vampires, though, were really well done. Probably the best of the franchise. It was really good. The production score would have been lower if that hadn’t pulled it up a little.

So, I’m left unsure. How do you make sense of a movie where Kristen Stewart is actually good? Where babies look like aliens and the characters we’ve spent so much time with are relegated to the sidelines? And what do you do when the saga’s biggest strength is that it delivers unadulterated emotion when the movie doesn’t deliver that? I don’t know. But the second or third time I see it should clarify things some.

ETA: Also, this great quote from Variety’s review:

[Billy] Burke, as the ever-quizzical Charlie, can do more with a raised eyebrow than most of his younger co-stars manage with whole mouthfuls of exposition.

Rating: 3.5 of 5  

Argo is one of those hard movies to analyze because a lot of things were really well done without having a significant impact, at least on me.

Everyone always raves about period pieces – the dramatic costumes, the make up or sets or whatever it takes to make us believe we’re in . . . → Read More: Argo]]>

Rating: 3.5 of 5  

Argo is one of those hard movies to analyze because a lot of things were really well done without having a significant impact, at least on me.

Everyone always raves about period pieces – the dramatic costumes, the make up or sets or whatever it takes to make us believe we’re in that era. They don’t pay as much attention when it’s only 30 years ago but the level of detail and authenticity that goes into a slightly historic movie, I think, is almost more impressive. Because it’s so close to us in time it’s easy to take things for granted. Cars were different and phones were different and people thought differently about time and problems. For me Argo’s greatest strength is its authenticity, not only to the time period but to the texture of the world back then.

The plot is definitely interesting, but its pretty much handed to you in the trailer. In the beginning some of the political discussions were a little too fast and I don’t get the allusions in politics the way I get the Hollywood terms so I know there were things I didn’t follow. But it didn’t hurt the story because why didn’t matter so much as just knowing what was going on. And, again, I knew that from the trailer. What gives the writing its strength is the unexpected humor; especially the Hollywood jokes which were really funny.

The acting was all so solid that it was almost unnoticeable. These people were these characters, seamlessly. I didn’t love them all but they were real people in a very real situation and there wasn’t a false moment anywhere.

The trouble isn’t that Argo is a poorly made movie from any angle; it’s that I sort of didn’t care. I wasn’t invested emotionally in these 6 people surviving. I didn’t get to know them. I got to know Ben Affleck mostly and I had enough of a connection that I wanted his character to be successful. But that’s very different than wanting these other people to survive. I liked the Hollywood guys a lot. If they were suddenly kidnapped I would have cared. But I didn’t root for the people actually in danger. I knew from the trailer how it was going to end and they never took the time to make me care about them as individuals; to care about her because I liked her or latch onto him because he made me laugh or… I never needed these people to be safe, I just hoped they didn’t die without every worrying that they really might.

And it’s not that it’s not a dramatic film. Ben Affleck as the director keeps the tension ramped up again and again until the last second and it’s well done. I recognize that this story was well executed, but I wasn’t affected by it.

Rating: 4 of 5  

There are so many things I want to say about Looper I don’t even know where to start.

The thing about good movies is that you can analyze them inside and out. You can draw out narrative parallels that maybe were or were not actually intended. You can talk in circles about . . . → Read More: Looper]]>

Rating: 4 of 5  

There are so many things I want to say about Looper I don’t even know where to start.

The thing about good movies is that you can analyze them inside and out. You can draw out narrative parallels that maybe were or were not actually intended. You can talk in circles about character resonance or the way certain elements are achieved without having to hammer them into the audience. Looper stands up to that kind of scrutiny because it’s really well written, even though riddled with paradox, and well acted.

The thing that works so well about it is the authenticity. Emotionally, the way these characters react to these situations is very honest and sometimes funny and doesn’t pull any punches. Which makes the story not only believable but engaging.

So engaging that it’s easy to forgive the aforementioned paradoxes. I didn’t even notice until after the movie when I started thinking logically about it how things really didn’t add up. But even then it didn’t matter. Because the narrative is fascinating. All of the parallels between Joe and Cid, the fact that who the bad guy and good guy are changes so often but you always know in that moment who is who, the way elements are layered in so casually you forget about them until they matter immensely is what works so well. And I usually try not to get into specifics but I just so want to with this film.

But all of that only exists and is worth discussing at length because this is a sci-fi / action film with depth. And it has that depth because it doesn’t neglect the characters for the sake of action or a fast plot of cool special effects, which most action and sci-fi movies do even when the genres don’t cross.

In Looper, the characters mattered. And because the characters mattered, because there was emotional resonance in the film, moments that could have been glanced over were disturbing. Because the characters matter choices have consequences that don’t just change the plot they change the characters and they change the audience’s relationship with the characters. Because the characters matter they have reasons for doing things which makes the plot believable even when it doesn’t make sense.

Looper is so much more than the preview would make it seem. Which is fantastic because even though it’s an intriguing, action packed preview it ends up being a film with a lot of depth. It isn’t entertaining in the sense that I would watch it again and again for fun. But it’s a good movie and really well made on a small budget and I’d watch it again.

Rating: 3 of 5  

Maybe I don’t watch enough dramas, but Trouble with the Curve feels a little like a more traditional sports movie, like from the 80s and 90s. The kind that don’t exist anymore. Maybe it’s because it has all the elements of an old school sports movie (like I knew exactly how it . . . → Read More: Trouble with the Curve]]>

Rating: 3 of 5  

Maybe I don’t watch enough dramas, but Trouble with the Curve feels a little like a more traditional sports movie, like from the 80s and 90s. The kind that don’t exist anymore. Maybe it’s because it has all the elements of an old school sports movie (like I knew exactly how it was going to play out to the degree where I was a little bit frustrated some things took so long). And maybe because it seems like all Hollywood makes these days are either giant tentpoles or really dark, indie dramatic dramas. This is a nice, mid-range sports movie and it works.

It’s a little slow in the beginning. The first 30-45 minutes sets the story up nicely, but it’s not that interesting until the characters come together. Then it has the fun and the turmoil and the charm that’s in the preview.

Clint Eastwood plays an old, broken man who is still really good at his job well. He’s a good actor.

Amy Adams is decent. I know she’s a good actress because of other roles, but in this one she created a very simple, straight-forward character that doesn’t seem like it required any effort or an exercising of her talent. She’s serviceable but nothing special.

Justin Timberlake really brings life to the story. More often, a character like his that affects all the other characters and makes them more interesting by interacting with them does it through conflict. But his Johnny supports the other two characters and they become more vibrant and interesting. He’s charming and funny which brings a lot of the energy they channeled in the pilot.

The directing was decent and the production was decent. There’s nothing exceptionally well done about any of it but it’s a good movie.

Which is what good mid-range movies are. They aren’t breathtaking and don’t win awards. They’re cheap but they make money. They’re entertaining. They’re comforting when you happen upon them on tv. Even though this was probably developed as more of an indie, the characters aren’t that dynamic or difficult or compelling, the story odd enough or dramatic enough. It’s just a straight up, nice little sports movie that plays out pretty much exactly as you expect.