I wasn't much of a fan of the first 1/3 of the film, tonally, although it featured some nice "camerawork" showing us the setting of where such a kingdom and the surrounding woods where the story of Snow White and the 7 Dwarves would take place. I knew director Tarsem with his keen visual eye and flair would make for an interesting looking film, but he plays it close to the vest, as it's targeted to being a family film to be shared by young children and parents alike.
The queen (hammily played by Julia Roberts) has siphoned off as much from her subjects in the nearby township, and is in need of marrying for more money and status, as her king disappeared 10 years ago. Snow White (Lily Collins), sole heir to the kingdom (born of another queen before this current queen), has been kept out of sight for the decade, but it's now her 18th birthday, and she yearns to explore her surroundings, and that she does. The queen has a special mirror which reflects upon her the cost of appearing to be desirable through the dark powers of magic, and its continued use. Prince "Charming" as it were, turns out to be Prince Alcott (Armie Hammer) from a place plenitful in all things the queen needs, and is ambushed by the dwarves, outfitted with magical stilts, and left hanging upsidedown along side his assistant. Speaking of assistants, Nathan Lane puts in a small, but nice performance of being the queen's primary underling, though the role is quite underwritten for his talent.
The rest of the film finally gains a footing in the 2nd act as Snow White meets up with the 7 dwarves, and she gets her own little training montage of self-sufficiency, while bringing in a moral compass to the dwarves, who had been getting by through outright banditry. The dwarves were written to provide comic relief, and most of them did quite well, bringing levity and visual campiness to even out the murderous designs by the queen. Lily Collins looked quite lovely as a princess early on in the film, but in the woods, with the dwarves, she appeared to look even more like a combination of a Jennifer Connelly and Audrey Hepburn in their younger years, quite fetching, I might say.
Being directed for a younger audience, I thought the film was fine, it could have a little more bite to it, but that would have brought in far more cynicism than the story should have been saddled with, so I enjoyed the last 2/3 moreso than the opening act.
I give it 2.75 stars, or a grade of B-.
Wednesday, March 1, 2017
Wrath of the Titans
Overall, this followup to "Clash of the Titans" is briskly paced, featuring quite a lot of action, mythological creatures reigning fire on humans, while the gods find themselves at critical time in their own existence. While the film plays out familial relationships between fathers and sons (gods and half-gods/half-humans), it doesn't quite flesh out Perseus's half-brother Ares (Zeus being their father) in this story, while also introducing us to Agenor (son of Poseidon) and Andromeda. With the rumblings of the chief Titan, Cronos, threatening to lay waste to humanity, as it were, the gods were the ones who held the Titans in check, but humanity's need for self-reliance provided a double-edge sword in weakening the gods and allowing the titans rise in power once more. Humanity's hopes lie in Perseus and other half-gods/half-humans to ward off such major threats.
The film doesn't really allow the story to breathe, as it moves quickly from one set piece to another as the plot has Perseus and the gang to retrieve the parts needed to ward a defense against Cronos and his wrath. There are some column-bruising fight scenes that seem to play out far longer than necessary at times, and a lot of chaos comes from the creatures set loose by Cronos on the humans. The dialogue is clunky, but they do a decent job of reminding us that Perseus's greatest strength is his courage under fire as he suffers wounds quite easily as a normal human, but presses on the fight.
The door is open for a sequel, but it wouldn't surprise me if it did happen.
I give it 2.5 stars, or a grade of C+.
The film doesn't really allow the story to breathe, as it moves quickly from one set piece to another as the plot has Perseus and the gang to retrieve the parts needed to ward a defense against Cronos and his wrath. There are some column-bruising fight scenes that seem to play out far longer than necessary at times, and a lot of chaos comes from the creatures set loose by Cronos on the humans. The dialogue is clunky, but they do a decent job of reminding us that Perseus's greatest strength is his courage under fire as he suffers wounds quite easily as a normal human, but presses on the fight.
The door is open for a sequel, but it wouldn't surprise me if it did happen.
I give it 2.5 stars, or a grade of C+.
21 Jump Street
The cinematic treatment and update of "21 Jump Street", featuring Jonah Hill and Channing Tatum, was fairly entertaining. In keeping with the theme of sending in young-looking police officers to work undercover as students at a high school to ferret out the new potent drug before it spreads to other high schools, both Hill and Tatum have some fun with their characters, and the freaky Friday mix-up of their undercover identities, which land both of them in uncharted social circles, and the results are pretty funny.
The script even makes some meta-fun at the generic send-up of making movies out of old TV shows, and cliched movie genre moments (car chases and the inevitable explosions from collisions). Both Hill and Tatum have decent on-screen buddy-buddy chemistry, and the film moves along quite well, and provides laughs in most of the scenes.
I give it 3 stars or a grade of B.
The script even makes some meta-fun at the generic send-up of making movies out of old TV shows, and cliched movie genre moments (car chases and the inevitable explosions from collisions). Both Hill and Tatum have decent on-screen buddy-buddy chemistry, and the film moves along quite well, and provides laughs in most of the scenes.
I give it 3 stars or a grade of B.
The Hunger Games
I thought the film was okay, with the first 2/3 of the film more compelling than the actual "Hunger Games" in the final act of the film. I didn't think the film did a good job with characterizations, but like most of the Harry Potter films, it's a nice companion piece to the actual books. Having not read the book, I didn't have enough information to fill in the characterization holes that the book(s) obviously fill in. When the actual games commence, I found some plot developments to stretch credulity when it came to survival of certain characters, and why ruthless characters didn't take opportunities to be ruthless at certain moments when it was opportune to do so. It focused far too much on Katniss's predicament when other characters should have been fighting for their own survival amongst the rest of the tributes. It just seemed to be inattentive screenwriting where characters are plot devices and not characters with their own internal motivations. I dislike that sort of screenwriting in this sort of film where it should be every person for themselves, as there is only one victor in the annual Hunger Games. This is why the 3rd act just didn't do it for me, it was just too "meh" of a conclusion. Of course, it didn't help that I did have foreknowledge of 2 more books in the trilogy, so some of the dramatic tension wasn't all that high (doubt it was all that suspenseful for those who had read the book). I just wished it had a stronger 3rd act.
But even with my misgivings of the film's concluding act, the film's pacing was good for most of its running time, with solid casting, though I've been told Jennifer Lawrence was probably too old and well-fed to play the part of Katnisss, but sometimes you just have to put in someone with acting ability and push on with the movie-making.
I give it 2.75 stars, or a grade of B-. I suspect those who read the books will grade it somewhat higher, which is perfectly fine.
But even with my misgivings of the film's concluding act, the film's pacing was good for most of its running time, with solid casting, though I've been told Jennifer Lawrence was probably too old and well-fed to play the part of Katnisss, but sometimes you just have to put in someone with acting ability and push on with the movie-making.
I give it 2.75 stars, or a grade of B-. I suspect those who read the books will grade it somewhat higher, which is perfectly fine.
Project X
The plot is fairly straight forward: for the 17th birthday for teen Thomas, his father and mother go away for a long weekend to celebrate their own wedding anniversary, leaving Thomas without parental supervision and hanging out with Costa and JB, two of his friends who rank pretty low on the social order in high school. Costa has visions of throwing a party at Thomas's house, getting a ton of people to show up, and moving the 3 of them up on the social ladder at school. Well, the party gets out of hand, plenty of hilarity and hijinks ensue.
Overall, it was fairly fun to watch this downward spiral of teenage irresponsibility comes to its conclusion, amidst all of its debaucherous moments, of which there are plenty of them to witness and enjoy.
I give it 2.75 stars, or a grade of B-.
Overall, it was fairly fun to watch this downward spiral of teenage irresponsibility comes to its conclusion, amidst all of its debaucherous moments, of which there are plenty of them to witness and enjoy.
I give it 2.75 stars, or a grade of B-.
Tuesday, February 28, 2017
John Carter
For anyone who's gotten a whiff of the trailer, it's no mystery that earthman "John Carter" somehow shows up on Mars, with extraordinary physical abilities (the most obvious one is the ability to jump high, very high and far, and land without hurting himself too much due to the lower gravity on Mars, similar to Hulk's jumping abilities), as a movie, it does a lot of the technical stuff well, showing us 3 different sets of Martians, with 2 sets of humanoids at war for a long time, and the taller, green-skinned 4-armed Tharks, who pretty much stay on the sidelines. John Carter, himself scarred by the conflicts his military service entailed in the mid-1800s, wants no part of this Martian war, and appears to be emotionally bottled up at the start of his Martian adventures.
There's a lot of material to cover in this film, but the script causes the film to sputter in the middle, and the motivations of the various characters are threadbare, and not quite involving. I'd say the film over-reached on the politics of Mars, and the plot developments don't quite unravel in a natural manner, which lends to itself to a lazy meandering energy level in terms of intensity of the stakes involved for Carter (I blame this lazy tone on the direction of Andrew Stanton), and the 2 humanoid factions at war with one another.
Due to the initial reddish white balance of the Martian atmosphere at the start of Carter's arrival on Mars, it's not quite all that pleasing to the eye, but there is a lot to stare at, as far as the Martian terrain goes, as well as the cities, the set designs, the technology designs, so I can't say it's really boring, just that the film never finds a groove to settle in. With much of the film's Martian terrain scenes shot on location (not in a studio with green screens), the film oddly has a hazy nondescript, unfocased look to it, rendering it less interesting than I had thought it would look.
Taylor Kitsch's casting as John Carter might have been a mis-step, he simply doesn't quite have disarming charm at his disposal as an actor, and comes across far too one-note for most of the film (the reluctant warrior, always looking to avoid physical conflict, but never quite managing to escape them), and has a difficult time raising his game as an actor, but it was like the director was afraid for push Kitsch, so his acting was average. I think it limited director Stanton's choices for camera angles, as he rarely pushed in on actors to rev up the emotional components that propelled the plotlines. Lynn Collins as Dejah Thoris was actually okay for me, I wasn't thrilled with her casting (plus it being a Disney film, I knew her wardrobe would be much more modest than the source material previously alluded to for her character), but she won me over for the most part, even with an accent that moved around from scene to scene.
The 3D is pretty much a non-factor in this film, I put the credit/blame at Stanton's feet, so if you want to save a few $$$$, go for the 2D showing.
I give it 2.5 stars, or a grade of C+.
There's a lot of material to cover in this film, but the script causes the film to sputter in the middle, and the motivations of the various characters are threadbare, and not quite involving. I'd say the film over-reached on the politics of Mars, and the plot developments don't quite unravel in a natural manner, which lends to itself to a lazy meandering energy level in terms of intensity of the stakes involved for Carter (I blame this lazy tone on the direction of Andrew Stanton), and the 2 humanoid factions at war with one another.
Due to the initial reddish white balance of the Martian atmosphere at the start of Carter's arrival on Mars, it's not quite all that pleasing to the eye, but there is a lot to stare at, as far as the Martian terrain goes, as well as the cities, the set designs, the technology designs, so I can't say it's really boring, just that the film never finds a groove to settle in. With much of the film's Martian terrain scenes shot on location (not in a studio with green screens), the film oddly has a hazy nondescript, unfocased look to it, rendering it less interesting than I had thought it would look.
Taylor Kitsch's casting as John Carter might have been a mis-step, he simply doesn't quite have disarming charm at his disposal as an actor, and comes across far too one-note for most of the film (the reluctant warrior, always looking to avoid physical conflict, but never quite managing to escape them), and has a difficult time raising his game as an actor, but it was like the director was afraid for push Kitsch, so his acting was average. I think it limited director Stanton's choices for camera angles, as he rarely pushed in on actors to rev up the emotional components that propelled the plotlines. Lynn Collins as Dejah Thoris was actually okay for me, I wasn't thrilled with her casting (plus it being a Disney film, I knew her wardrobe would be much more modest than the source material previously alluded to for her character), but she won me over for the most part, even with an accent that moved around from scene to scene.
The 3D is pretty much a non-factor in this film, I put the credit/blame at Stanton's feet, so if you want to save a few $$$$, go for the 2D showing.
I give it 2.5 stars, or a grade of C+.
The Vow
Inspired by true events, "The Vow" features Rachel McAdams as Paige, and Channing Tatum as Leo, a young married couple who experienced an accident which left Paige without her memories for the past handful of years, a span of time before she changed college plans/careers, jilted her then-fiance, became estranged from her family, met and fell in love with Leo. Obviously Leo bares the brunt of knowing how good they were together, only to have Paige understandably be wary of him, as she views Leo as practically a total stranger to her due to her memory loss. Her parents use this event to welcome her back into the family, causing Leo much consternation and heartache.
The plotline goes through Paige's struggles to fill in the gaps, re-connect with the life she once knew from 4-5 years ago, catching up with people important to her then (and uncomfortably in the present at times), and uncovering the reasons why her life changed.
McAdams is perfectly fine in a role she can do in her sleep, but she puts into an earnest effort in portraying Paige's re-discovery of her past and the confused emotional undercurrents she experiences along the way. Tatum is still sort of a lovable lunkhead, but his portrayal of Leo does stretch his acting talents a bit, and his own emotional responses to his wife's condition are equally as ernest, even if their journey as a couple hits quite a pothole and they have to sort through the aftermath.
I give it 2.75 stars, or a grade of B-.
The plotline goes through Paige's struggles to fill in the gaps, re-connect with the life she once knew from 4-5 years ago, catching up with people important to her then (and uncomfortably in the present at times), and uncovering the reasons why her life changed.
McAdams is perfectly fine in a role she can do in her sleep, but she puts into an earnest effort in portraying Paige's re-discovery of her past and the confused emotional undercurrents she experiences along the way. Tatum is still sort of a lovable lunkhead, but his portrayal of Leo does stretch his acting talents a bit, and his own emotional responses to his wife's condition are equally as ernest, even if their journey as a couple hits quite a pothole and they have to sort through the aftermath.
I give it 2.75 stars, or a grade of B-.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)