Scorsese Spotlight: The Aviator (My Reel POV)

I’ve had quite a few distractions lately but I’m going to finally try to get back on track with my Scorsese Spotlight series.  So far we’ve had nine different reviews from eight different bloggers, and more are coming in.  Today’s entry comes from Claire over at My Reel POV.  Claire’s fondness for review subtitles is something we share, but aside from that she’s also a very talented and funny writer who you should follow if you aren’t already.  Here is Claire’s review of Scorsese’s Howard Hughes biopic; The Aviator.

220px-The_Aviator_posterI don’t think I knew what I was letting myself in for when I settled down to watch The Aviator. It really can be classed as an epic at just under three hours long, but the story itself is one that really captured my imagination. This biopic stars Leonardo DiCaprio as the famous Howard Hughes, film maker, philanthropist, aerospace engineer and aviator among other things, following him through the early years of his prolific and controversial career. The story spans around 20 years starting in the late 1920′s when Hughes was setting the record for the most expensive film ever made – ‘Hells Angels’. Scorsese focuses on all aspects of his life through these years, including his love affairs, film making, feats of aerospace engineering and perhaps most significantly his mental health.

The first part of The Aviator is pretty exciting and fast paced. Whilst the scenes revolving the making of the Hells Angels picture grab your attention, the best bit for me is the images (1)development between Hughes and Katharine Hepburn – played by Cate Blanchett in one of her best roles to date. Blanchett oozes charisma and I loved the relationship her and DiCaprio pull off, pretty moving stuff! Perhaps a little too animated at first but once you learn about Hepburn’s character she softens just as Hughes does. These early stages of the film also introduce key characters, John C. Reilly as Noah Dietrich – Hughes’ right hand business adviser Alec Baldwin playing Juan Trippe, airline entrepreneur and founder of Pan American World Airways and Kate Beckinsale as actress Ava Gardner.

Whilst Hughes was known for his Hollywood career and wealth, he was little known other aviator_wideweb__430x293than for his relationship with Katharine Hepburn, until he beat a world record – flying around the world in 3 days. This rocketed him to fame in a way that was not highlighted as well as it could have been in the film. Scorsese looks more closely at Hughes’ personal relationships than that of his public one. Quick flashes of newspaper headings and photographs depict his relative fame, just as it would to the public I suppose. Now I think about it, that makes sense! Clever man.

Hughes’ passion for speed propels him to spend millions on his air-crafts as well as film making, his perfectionism is heightened by his overwhelming and seemingly worsening imagesmental health. Suffering from OCD, hypochondria, anxiety, paranoia as well as being partly deaf all takes its toll and his suffocating need to be in control ruins all of his relationships eventually (despite having many of them!). DiCaprio does a brilliant performance, and manages to develop the role across the 20 year time span quite believably. Apart from a thrilling plane crash, the film slows a little after Hughes’ near fatal accident. Upon recovery he becomes a hermit, sitting in a germ free zone watching his films for months on end. There are some fantastic shots though showing the torment Hughes is going through, projecting images of his own obsessions on him while he has a mental breakdown in the dark room – some great directing which has really stuck in my head since.

Luckily, the film picks up again when Hughes is forced to a public hearing in order to defend himself from investigations made by the government, influenced by his rival Trippe images (3)(Baldwin!). Here he captures the interest of the public again by sticking it to the man and going ahead with his record breaking Hercules, the biggest plane to ever fly. I was really routing for him at this point and despite the film having been on for 2 and a half hours already I wasn’t ready for it to end. There is a climactic sequence which would have been a good point to have the credits roll, but Scorsese pulls the hero, and audience, back to reality and ends on a dark note. Much to my enjoyment! It left me wondering whether Scorsese was paying tribute to a great man living the American Dream? Or something much darker about the ‘human condition’. That’s reading into it too much I suppose, as a film, it’s pretty damn good!

Unfortunately due to the vast time line and Hughes’ crazy life, some story lines seem rushed and under developed. Beckinsale’s character was a near miss for me, and cameo’s from Jude Law, Gwen Stefani and Adam Scott didn’t bring much to the table. The real talent shone through Blanchett and DiCaprio in this one.

Such a complex story though must have been incredibly hard to condense even into the 2 the_aviator_movie_71391-1600x1200hours 50 minute running time. There are some interesting things that got missed out though, such as Hughes’ generosity. At age 19 he declared in his will that should he die his money would go into setting up a medical foundation. Hughes also paid all expenses and medical bills for his good friend Gene Tierney’s severely disabled daughter, despite all of his romantic advances being rebuffed. On the flip side, Hughes killed a man due to dangerous and reckless driving, only to have all witnesses change their story and charges against him dropped. A powerful and incredibly interesting man!

Scorsese managed to piece together a lot of events without the film feeling too fragmented and fast paced, giving a great insight into the character. A brilliant film for those interested in a biopic of this nature, but perhaps a little long winded for those seeking pure entertainment.

The Verdict: 8/10 

You can check out Claire’s site at My Reel POV or follow her on Twitter at @MyReelPOV
About these ads
Posted in Reviews | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Hangover: Part III Review: PETA’s Going To Be Pissed

the-hangover-3-poster3There are some movies that you enter into thinking “I’d better hate this like everyone else”.  With some movies, that concern is valid.  If you liked Scary Movie 5 or A Haunted House, that’s probably something best kept to yourself.  What’s sad to me is that The Hangover: Part III has now become one of those movies that, as a critic, I feel like I’m not supposed to like.  The Hangover: Part II was a disappointingly lazy attempt to squeeze more money out of its audience, and now that it’s succeeded why would Part III be any different?  I always try my best to stay completely away from any sort of reviews for a new release until after I’ve seen it, but I had unintentionally glimpsed the Rotten Tomatoes score while checking theater times (Damn you Flixster!) so I was fully prepared for a disappointing experience.  Now, I’m a pretty cynical person and usually that cynicism applies itself to comedy as much as any other genre, yet the further I got into this movie the more I found myself wondering “Why do people hate this so much?”  Because of this, I’ll be doing my best to defend this film in the following review, so if that doesn’t sound like something you’d be interested in reading I completely understand if you’d like to stop here.  It’s still nowhere near the same level of fun that the original movie was, but a refreshingly new(ish) plot and a new emphasis on referencing the first film without copying it earns The Hangover: Part III a solid, if not entirely enthusiastic, recommendation from yours truly.

The Plot: 6/10

This time, there’s no wedding. No bachelor party. What could go wrong, right? But when the Wolfpack hits the road, all bets are off.

To be fair, if this were the plot of any other movie I’d probably be fairly unimpressed.  The Hangover: Part III has the added bonus of just how low the previous movie set the bar in 23HANGOVER-articleLargeterms of plot, seeing as it was almost exactly the same as the first movie.  As a result, anything even mildly original would have pleased me here, and in my opinion that’s what the plot of Part III is; mildly original.  Sure, some aspects are kept the same (crazy hijinx done in the name of saving Doug, being strong-armed by a violent criminal in order to obtain Chow) but those elements are tweaked enough that they don’t feel like complete knock-offs.  For one thing, there is no “Hangover” this time, and as such the movie doesn’t rely on the “Retracing your steps” frame keep things rolling along.

The Writing:  6/10

Honestly, I thought the writing for the characters was perfectly serviceable, and the only reason I’m scoring this section as low as a 6 is that it’s more or less the same kind of writing images (4)we’ve been seeing for the entire series.  Most of the comedy in the film doesn’t rely on the writing so much as it does the character interactions, with Phil and Stu’s normal-guy-characters reacting to whatever weird personality quirks Alan puts out on display.  That being said, the writing definitely doesn’t get in the way of those reactions so I guess you can at least give it that.

In terms of character development, you’re really not going to get much with the exception of one arc involving Melissa McCarthy and Alan (who are strangely perfect for each other). That being said, who the hell was walking into this movie expecting character development in the first place?  The Hangover series has always revolved around the random, off-the-wall things that happens to The Wolfpack, not about how they grow together as human beings.

The Acting: 7/10

Once again, everything in this department is pretty similar to what we’ve seen before, but I thought that for whatever reason it just worked better this time around.  Stu (Ed Helms) VD-The-Hangover-Part-III----408x264is still angry, Phil (Bradley Cooper) is still frustrated yet slightly aloof, and Alan (Zach Galifianakis) is… Alan.  Of all three, I thought that Galifianakis was the one who felt the most… let’s say evolved for lack of a better word.  In Part II he just felt like a weak, silly copy of his hilariously odd character in the first film, but here he has a few more dimensions added to him that make him feel a bit more rounded.  Specifically, I thought he felt more opinionated and almost cocky at times, especially in his confrontation scenes with Helms.  The scenes with McCarthy were also a nice touch, it let us see an almost sweet side of Alan that we haven’t seen much of before.

Aside from The Wolfpack, there’s the usual abundance of cameos along with a few that specifically call back to the first film (Baby Carlos is back!), but they feel more obligatory ken-jeong-the-hangover-part-3-630x390-581x360than anything.  I was a bit disappointed by how flat of a role Goodman was given, the man has tremendous comic talents and to see them go unused was a bit sad.  Now I knew that Leslie Chow (Ken Jeong) would feature pretty heavily into this one, and while I like Mr. Jeong in Community and The Hangover, I wasn’t exactly psyched about that fact.  Luckily, Chow is still funny if you enjoy his character, though I was more impressed with the fact that he actually feels like a legitimate criminal this time.  In the last movie, he felt more like a coke-addled idiot who is randomly decent at evading InterPol.  This time, though, there are a few scenes in which he feels like an actual dangerous man, especially near the film’s climax.

The Comedy: 8/10

When it comes down to it, Comedy is a hard genre to argue about.  You can come up with justifications for why a story is derivative or why the writing is lazy but ultimately, the only imagesthing that matters is whether or not the movie made you laugh.  In that department, The Hangover: Part III was a success for me.  All of it made me remember what it was that made me like The Hangover so much in the first place, even if wasn’t quite able to have the “Out-of-nowhere” factor that that movie had going for it.  In any case, if you didn’t like this movie it’s probably because, for whatever reason, it didn’t make you laugh.  If it didn’t, I won’t try to change your mind, but if it did, you shouldn’t have to be ashamed about it.

As a final note, the one thing I won’t let slide is that the movie makes a clumsy and obvious ripoff of an iconic Zoolander bit.  Hands off my Blue Steel, you damn dirty writers!

The Verdict: 7.0/10 – Good

+ While similar in many ways, the plot isn’t an exact copy of Part I like Part II was

+ Galifiankis has his character down pat, which is good seeing as he’s now officially typecast

+ What can I say, I laughed a lot and left the theater pretty happy with the experience

- There’s almost nothing here that’d make you like the franchise if you didn’t already

Critical Consensus:

IMDb:  6.9/10

Rotten Tomatoes: 29 %

Metacritic: 35/100

Other Reviews: 

Coming…

This will surely place among the ranks of Hansel and Gretel: Witch Hunters as the biggest disagreements I have with my critical peers in 2013.

Posted in Comedy, New Releases, Reviews | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 11 Comments

Biggest Comedy of 2013: Predictions

Let’s face it, so far 2013’s been a pretty damn weak year for comedy.  So far, the only representatives of the genre have ranged from mediocre (21 and Over, The Incredible Burt Wonderstone) to the absolutely appalling (Movie 43, Scary Movie 5, The Big Wedding).  In terms of Box Office numbers, it seems that audiences seem to have taken note of this fact; only two out of the ten 2013 Comedy wide releases have made it past $50 million, with some failing to even make it past the double digit mark.  Identity Thief currently holds the title for the #1 Comedy of the year, but the year is far from over.  In the meantime, here’s a quick look at the biggest Comedies of the past ten years.

2003 – Elf

 elf_poster

Domestic Gross: $173.4 Million

Worldwide Gross: $220.4 Million

Rotten Tomatoes: 84%

Metacritic: 64/100

2004 – Meet the Fockers

 meetthefockers_poster

Domestic Gross: $279.1 Million

Worldwide Gross: $516.6 Million

Rotten Tomatoes: 38%

Metacritic: 41/100

2005 – Wedding Crashers

 weddingcrashers_poster

Domestic Gross: $209.3 Million

Worldwide Gross: $285.2 Million

Rotten Tomatoes: 75%

Metacritic: 64%

2006 – Tallageda Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby

talladeganights_poster Domestic Gross: $148.2 Million

Worldwide Gross: $163.0 Million

Rotten Tomatoes: 72%

Metacritic: 66/100

2007 – Alvin and the Chipmunks

 alvinandthechipmunks_poster

Domestic Gross: $217.3 Million

Worldwide Gross: $ 361.4 Miilion

Rotten Tomatoes: 26%

Metacritic: 39/100

2008 – Sex in the City

 sexandthecity_poster

Domestic Gross: $152.7 Million

Worldwide Gross: $415.3 Million

Rotten Tomatoes: 50%

Metacritic: 53/100

2009 – The Hangover

hangover_poster Domestic Gross: $277.3 Million

Worldwide Gross: $467.5 Million

Rotten Tomatoes: 79%

Metacritic: 73/100

2010 – Grown Ups

 grownups_poster

Domestic Gross: $162.0 Million

Worldwide Gross: $271.4 Million

Rotten Tomatoes: 9%

Metacritic: 30/100

2012 – The Hangover: Part II

hangover2_poster Domestic Gross: $254.5 Million

Worldwide Gross: $586.8 Million

Rotten Tomatoes: 34%

Metacritic: 44/100

2012 – Ted

 ted_poster

Domestic Gross: $218.8 Million

Worldwide Gross: $549.4 Million

Rotten Tomatoes: 69%

Metacritic: 62/100

2013 – ???

As you can see from some of the movies above, when it comes to comedy bigger doesn’t always translate to better.  A lot of the best comedies of the past 10 years aren’t on this list, and it’s more than likely that 2013 won’t be much different.  Many, like myself, would love to see Edgar Wright’s The World’s End come away with the prize, but barring some act of God, that isn’t going to happen with competition like The Hangover: Part III, Anchorman II and Grown Ups 2 coming up.

What do you think will be the biggest comedy of 2013?  

Posted in Reviews | Tagged , , , , , , , | 13 Comments

Much Ado About Nothing Review: Whedon, The Chameleon

images (8)As many of you know, I got the chance to see this film on the opening night of the Seattle International Film Festival several days ago, and I’ve been trying to find a moment here or there to put the finishing touches on the review.   The movie itself comes out on June 7th in select cities around the country, and as you might guess from the following review I strongly recommend that you give it a try.  Having seen it, I have now reached the conclusion that there is truly nothing Whedon can’t do.  From Buffy the Vampire Slayer to Cabin in the Woods to Firefly to The Avengers, the man seems to be more genre-proof than any other person in Hollywood right now.  Seeing him handle Shakespeare just as well as he’s handled Sci-Fi Westerns and Horror Comedies leaves me wanting to see him fill in the rest of his genre punch card just to prove that he can.  That being said, about the only thing left to be covered is Romantic comedy, and depending on your definition that might even be covered by the film at hand.  General audiences might find the direct use of the original text to be a bit hard to follow, but a wonderfully talented cast combined with the innate comic sensibility of Whedon’s direction make Much Ado About Nothing the most purely enjoyable Shakespearean adaptation I’ve ever seen.

The Plot: 9/10

A modern retelling of Shakespeare’s classic comedy about two pairs of lovers with different takes on romance and a way with words.

Because of the issues with the dialogue I’ll go into below, I confess that it took me a while to understand a great deal was going on in the film.  I had not read or seen the play before muchadoaboutnothingx400_0and, consequently, had to often rely on context to let me know what was going on.  However, once you do start catching up with what everyone is saying, the plot begins to serve as a reminder as to just why Shakespeare is still considered to be one of the greatest creative writers of all time.  Watching each character weave their way through devious plot after devious plot can be amusing, exciting, and ominous all at the same time.  All of it builds towards an ending that may be the most satisfying of the year thus far.

The Writing: 6/10

I’d like to reinforce the fact that my low score here does not mean that I think the writing was “Bad” or anything of the sort.  On the contrary, the amount of wit in nearly every line much-ado-about-nothingis unparalleled in most modern writing.  The issue here is that, for better or for worse, the English language has changed quite a bit in the past several hundred years, and as a result the words the characters are speaking might be nearly as difficult to follow for many modern viewers as a foreign language might be.  I personally have read a respectable amount of Shakespeare yet I often found myself struggling to understand what the people on screen were talking about.

The frustrating thing is that the dialogue itself is so tightly packed with wit and sardonic humor that nearly half of the lines in a given scene might occupy some elaborately constructed metaphor for what is going on with that character.  When you’re already maantrying to remind yourself of things like “‘Twixt’ actually means ‘Between’” and “‘Thee’ actually means ‘you’”, it can be very difficult to understand the meanings of the script’s ongoing parade of wordplay, double meanings and thinly veiled sarcasm.  This gripe would of course be much less of a concern if you have had previous experience with the source material in some way or another, so if you were thinking about giving the original text a go then doing so before watching this movie wouldn’t be the worst idea in the world.

The Acting: 9/10

When you boil the film down to it’s most basic components, there are two main reasons whedon-acker-denisof-much-ado-about-nothingwhy it works so well;  Joss Whedon’s direction, and the overwhelming charm of the cast.  Having only seen him as Sandy Rivers in How I Met Your Mother previous to this film, I was incredibly surprised by how well Alexis Denisof fit into his role as the hilariously puffed-up Benedick.  Equally fun to watch is Amy Acker’s belligerently independent Beatrice, though I personally thought that her strongest moments came from the character’s more dramatic scenes.

There isn’t enough room to adequately recognize the rest of the supporting cast, but I’d like to at least mention a few stand-outs.  First, we have Clark Gregg as Leonato, the father much-ado-about-nothing-nathan-fillionof the bride and host of the entire affair.  Maybe this is just me talking, but I thought that Gregg felt the most natural in his modern day delivery of the Old English lines.  As Leonato’s soon-to-be-son-in-law we have Fran Kranz, who proves that he’s not going to be easily typecast by his admittedly amazing role in last summer’s Cabin in the Woods.  My personal favorite though has got to be Nathan Fillion as Dogberry, the well-intentioned yet bumbling law man overseeing the ceremony at hand.  Fillion might not show up until the last half of the movie, but his delivery of his lines has the perfect combination of pride and “I have no idea what I’m doing”.

The Comedy: 8/10

Again, some of the comedic potential of the script will inevitably be lost on the vast majority of audiences because of it’s sheer verbosity (I always love using that word when complaining about something being too complicatedly written).  Thankfully, the humor is images (9)still abundant even when the script is removed all together, and anyone who has seen Whedon’s previous works will realize how much of a hand he has in this.  The man has this seemingly effortless gift for creating physical comedy that doesn’t rely on slapstick.  Whether it’s placing a character next to a child’s dollhouse while giving a serious monologue, having the main villain doggie-paddle away from the main character after saying something sinister in a swimming pool, or punctuating a witty Shakespearean conversation with a fist bump; it really is admirable how much Whedon is able to do with simple staging to achieve laughs without compromising the integrity of the subject matter.

The Verdict: 8.0/10 – Pretty Damn Great

+ The plot is full of devilish twists and turns, all of which result in a truly beautiful finale

+ The cast is filled with incredible levels of charm and chemistry twixt one another

+ Whedon’s sense of comic timing, ironic staging and more are easy to appreciate

- The Old English will undoubtedly make it hard for many people to follow along at times

Critical Consensus:

Coming Soon…

Other Reviews: 

Coming Soon…

Posted in Comedy, New Releases, Reviews, Romance | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 15 Comments

Star Trek: Into Darkness Review: It… Has… TRIBBLES!!!!!!!!

images (17)A few months ago, I put out a list of my Top 10 Anticipated Movies of 2013.  Of those 10 films, four have now been released and the returns have been pretty wildly inconsistent (Thank you very much, Good Day to Die Hard).  After receiving new hope from Iron Man 3, I had every finger crossed for Star Trek: Into Darkness, aka my Number 1 entry on the list, to hold up to expectations.  Like J.J. Abrams, it took me some time to warm up to Star Trek.  As a kid, I experimented a bit with the crew of The Next Generation but all in all I was always more of a Star Wars fan than anything.  The more that time has gone on, though, I’ve found myself absolutely falling in love with Shatner’s Kirk, Nimoy’s Spock, and the rest of the original crew of the U.S.S Enterprise.  When Abrams came out with his sleek, modernized reboot of the franchise in 2009, I was absolutely floored by how well the end product turned out.  Finally, we had a Star Trek that made the rest of the population understand why we love the franchise so much while still preserving the spirit of the series that us dedicated fans expect.  As a result, Into Darkness had a lot to live up to in order to prove that Star Trek (2009) was more than a fortunate anomaly.  While it might borrow a little too much from the original series for the uninitiated to appreciate or even understand,  Star Trek: Into Darkness is an extremely entertaining new chapter in the series that does even more than its predecessor to reward true Trekkies.

The Plot: 8/10

After the crew of the Enterprise find an unstoppable force of terror from within their own organization, Captain Kirk leads a manhunt to a war-zone world to capture a one man weapon of mass destruction.

My one and only issue with the plot is that the pacing is occasionally a little jagged, which makes the movie feel fairly long once you get closer to the end.  That being said, I images (7)thought the story line did an excellent job at keeping me guessing, though parallels between the film and it’s alternate timeline will allow most Trekkies to see where things are going far before they actually get there.  Speaking of the alternate timeline mechanic, I was incredibly impressed with how well the film worked that angle in when it came to referencing the original series and films.  There are a lot of aspects of this that I can’t talk about here, but as I said before they all come together to produce an extremely rewarding experience for fans of the series.

The Writing: 9/10

The film’s writing, specifically its dialogue, feels very much in line with the overall theme the movie has of bringing things back to the feel of the original series.  The characters star-trek-into-darkness-scene-600x337all feel much closer to their counterparts than they did in the previous film, and the writing is the biggest reason why that shift works so well.  A lot of these elements worked in the original series because of the campiness of it all, but Into Darkness doesn’t have that cult-status forgiveness that the original series does.  Some of the aspects of the universe it occupies and the characters themselves (i.e. Spock’s calculating dialogue) could easily come across as silly in this day and age, but the writers once again proves their ability to avoid that reaction, without compromising the characters, by injecting a hearty level of wit into every line.

Some reviews I’ve read have criticized film’s efforts to tie things back in with the original series, stating that it makes it feel like Abram’s Star Trek is simply adopting the identity of its predecessors instead of creating an identity of its own.  To that I would argue that SpockxUhura-Star-Trek-Into-Darkness-spock-and-uhura-33109647-1920-800the characters in both franchises are intended to be the same people.  Sure, they’ve had different things happen to them and as a result have slightly different attitudes and quirks, but at the end of the day they’re still two copies of the same design.  The alternate universe concept might act as something of an open door to allow Abrams to take the franchise in new directions without re-writing its history, but creating parallels between the events and characters of the two universes allows the film to explore how even alternate history may be doomed to repeat itself.

The Acting: 8/10

Across the board, the crew of the enterprise is just as great as they were in the last film.  If anything stands out as substantially different, I thought that Into Darkness did a better job movies_star-trek-into-darkness (1)of giving each character a chance to shine in a meaningful way.  Sure, the last film gave some time to each character, but most of those scenes involved some skill or ability that crew member brought to the table (i.e. Chekov’s technical skill, Sulu’s piloting/fighting ability)  This time, each character is given something to do that doesn’t solely involve them doing something they’re really good at.  I would like to specifically mention Zachary Quinto, who does a better job than ever of conveying Spock’s internal conflict between his Human side and his Vulcan side.

images (5)Every light casts a shadow, however, and as you might expect that shadow is quite a large one here.  Benedict Cumberbatch is just as great in his role as you’d expect him to be, and the way his character is handled in the plot allows him to explore the character in a much more complex way than I would have expected.  John Harrison is cold, calculating, and absolutely ruthless, but he’s still a human being at the end of the day.  Among all of his action-oriented scenes, however, I still thought that his brief sparring with Spock was one of the best moments of the entire film.

The Sci-Fi: 10/10

This is Star Trek, so anything below a 10/10 in this category would have been some level of disappointment.  Thankfully, that’s not the case here.  On top of the klingon-star-trek-into-darkness-220aforementioned alternate universe mechanics, the other Sci-Fi aspects of the film are absolutely spectacular.  The visual effects are incredible (I saw it in 2D and was more than happy with that choice), the scale is bigger than ever, and the fact that we finally get to see some f*cking Klingons certainly doesn’t hurt.  The action sequences are just plain cool, the highlights of which include a Debris Field obstacle course and a heart-pounding chase scene through future San Francisco.  The only thing I would have like to see more of is large-scale space battles, but it’s entirely possible that Abrams is waiting to play that card until the next film.

Oh yeah, did I mention there are Tribbles?  Honestly, that should be all I need to say to get any remaining fellow Trekkies off of their asses and into a nearby movie theater.

The Verdict: 9.0/10 – Incredible

+ A reinforced connection to the original films and series that will delight most Trekkies

+ Action sequences are as beautiful as they are exciting

+ Cumberbatch is just as ruthlessly awesome as you’d expect him to be

- Viewers unfamiliar with the original films won’t be able to appreciate most references

Critical Consensus:

IMDb:  8.4/10

Rotten Tomatoes:  87%

Metacritic: 73/100

Other Reviews: 

The Devil’s Advocates: 5/5

Cutting Edge Creativity: A

Tim’s Film Reviews: 96%

Fogs’ Movie Reviews: A-

Dan the Man Movie Reviews: 9/10

The Velvet Cafe: 4.5/5

CinEnemA: 4.5/5

Amonymous Reviews: 4.5/5

Fast Film Reviews: 4.5/5

The Focused Filmographer: 4.5/5

FlixChatter: 4.5/5

Keith and the Movies: 4.5/5

Hard Ticket to Home Video: 4/5

Black Sheep Reviews: 4/5

Committed to Celluloid: 4/5

Terry Malloy’s Pigeon Coop: 4/5

The Code is Zeek: 3/5

KCG Movie Reviews: 3/5

Average: 8.6/10 – Impressive

Posted in New Releases, Reviews, Sci-fi | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 15 Comments

SIFF Opening Night Recap: Pictures Included

Euphoria: a feeling of happiness, confidence, or well-being sometimes exaggerated in pathological states as mania.

images (4)Last night I was given the unique opportunity to attend the Opening Night of the Seattle International Film Festival, featuring an advanced screening of Joss Whedon’s upcoming Shakespearean adaptation Much Ado About Nothing.  Along with the screening, The Almighty Whedon himself would give an on-stage Q&A session along with several members of the cast.  As passionate fans and financially impulsive college students, my friend Ali and I had gone the extra mile to purchase Red Carpet VIP passes to the event in pursuit of even the slightest of chance to meet those hallowed few who would be in attendance.  While I will soon be posting my review of the film itself, I wanted to take a quick moment to share my experience with all of you.

We arrived at McCaW Hall in Seattle Center at about 5:30 in full awareness of the contradiction between our fancy attire and the 1996 Volvo Station wagon in which we had 2013_FEST_RedCarpet_440x300driven there (Her name is Daenerys and I’d choose her over any Benz, any time, any day). After passing through the gauntlet of volunteers and dutiful cameramen on the Red Carpet, we proceeded to the “VIP Lounge” and its promises of an open bar and unlimited hors d’oeuvres.  It soon became clear that college students did not make up the usual population of that particular ticket level, and it was hard not to feel the slightest amount of awkward self-consciousness while surrounded by a roomful of people easily twice if not three times our age.

Once 6:30 rolled around, people started milling into the theater itself (which was not so much of a movie theater as it was a large performance hall, complete with Opera Boxes and  images (3)multiple levels of seating).  For about half an hour, the audience gave its due diligence and applauded a series of different award presenters and recipients related to the festival itself.  Among these were the Seattle Mayor, Mike McGinn, and the departing director of the Film Festival, Debra Pearson.  To be completely honest, I respect the accomplishments of these people and acknowledge their right to at least some recognition in front of an audience of that size, but my eagerness to see the feature presentation made it hard not to think back to Monty Python and the Holy Grail as time went on; “Get On With It!”

Finally, Joss himself came out with star Alexis Denisof to briefly introduce the film, at which point the lights finally extinguished themselves and the show began.  Once again, I will be posting my full review of the movie later today, so I won’t touch on any specifics here.  What I will say is that, despite some Old English related hang ups, I was absolutely giddy with enjoyment by the time the credits started rolling.  By the sound of the audience around me, I wasn’t alone either.  After the applause died down, the Q&A session with Whedon and cast members Alexis Denisof, Nathan Fillion, Amy Acker, and Clark Gregg began.  Here are some of the highlights of that discussion.

  • The entire movie was shot in 12 days, exclusively using Whedon’s own house as the set
  • Clark Gregg wasn’t even formally asked to take part until the day before shooting
  • The Police Station scenes were shot in the Dance Studio Whedon has in his basement
  • The project was Whedon’s self-described method of “unwinding” from the ordeal of shooting The Avengers
  • Cinematographer Jay Hunter received a nasty head wound from a stray camera while shooting, only to patch it up himself with “A towel, some ice and a belt” and continue filming on that same day
  • When asked about his plans for future projects, Whedon answered with what he said were his three favorite words; “I Don’t Know”

263231_10151627584328919_25059380_nIn general, the Q&A gave a really great sense of how well these people get along in real life. With nearly every member of the cast having previously appeared in one or more of Whedon’s previous projects (Fillion on Firefly, Acker and Denisof on Angel, Kranz in Cabin in the Woods, Gregg in Avengers, etc.) the chemistry between the performers was easily visible in the film itself.

Finally, the show was over and the quest to meet the cast and crew began.  We soon found that none of the staff really knew when or where the guests would be making their appearances, so we set out to find out ourselves.  On the way, we passed through the packed after-party, the less packed secondary VIP Lounge, and more, all the while grabbing up as much free stuff as possible along the way (Once again, we’re poor college students, it goes against our DNA to pass up free anything).  For all of our searching, we came up empty on the famous-person front.  Feeling slightly defeated, we decided to look for our gift bags back near the first VIP lounge which we had awkwardly shared with our much older, much wealthier fellow guests.

And then we saw them…

Sure, maybe I’m being a bit over-dramatic but it felt pretty appropriately dramatic at the time.  As I mentioned yesterday, I’ve never met anyone remotely famous in person, and I really didn’t know how to act.  How do you express years of appreciation of someone’s work in the 5-10 seconds before you have to let someone else take their turn?  Well, I still don’t quite have a perfect answer to that question but, it turns out, you don’t need one when the person you’re meeting is as friendly and open as these people were.  When you get approached by the same people over and over with the same sort of frenzied excitement, it would be easy to get a little cynical and aloof over time.  That being said, it’s important for celebrities to put themselves in their fans’ shoes and realize how that kind of routine experience for them could be such a meaningful experience for the people who are fawning over them.  I have a new level of respect for the people pictured below for this sort of respect they showed myself and the people around me.  Luckily, Ali and I were able to preserve these moments of barely-controlled Fan-gasm in the pictures below.

Warning: Possible side effects of these images may include jealousy, nerd rage, heavy salivating, and, in Nathan Fillion’s case, overwhelming increase of Sex Drive.

258795_10200151758496185_492472351_o

977706_10200151758216178_1360904596_o

964911_10200151758696190_1300466430_o

As you can see from my face, when I say “Barely Controlled Fangasm” I mean Barely.  I did at least keep my composure up to congratulate each person for the film and express my appreciation of their work in a brief manner.  I also managed to tell Clark Gregg that I look forward to seeing his return to directing later this year with Trust Me, co-starring Gregg himself alongside Sam Rockwell, Molly Shannon, Allison Janney and more.

Well, I’ve rambled along for a while now but I’d like to thank you if you’ve made it this far down the page.  I’ll leave off with this; if you EVER get the chance to meet one of your idols, whether it be an actor, a director, a musician, or whatever your fancy, TAKE IT.  Even if you have to shell out a few extra bucks for a VIP pass, the experience will likely be one that you will never forget.  I’d like to thank Mr. Whedon, the cast members, and the event coordinators at the Seattle International Film Festival for one of the best nights I’ve had in years.

 

Posted in Editorials | Tagged , , , , , , , | 16 Comments

Seattle International Film Festival: Opening Night

images (17)Tonight is something as a big night for me as a fan and as a blogger.  I have been given the unique opportunity to attend the Red Carpet Opening of the Seattle International Film Festival, featuring an advanced screening of Joss Whedon’s new Shakespearean adaptation, Much Ado About Nothing.  Not only will I be able to see the film in advance of its release date (June 7th in the U.S), but I am also going to be attending the Cocktail Hour and Post-Film party before and after the screening.

The real kicker here is that aside from the open bar, hor d’oeuvres and other assorted images (4)pageantry, the event will be attended by Joss Whedon himself, along with several other members of the cast including Nathan Fillion, Clark Gregg, Amy Acker, and Alexis Denisof. While I am excited to meet any if not all of these people, I confess that I’ve been more than a little nervous about the experience.  After all, I’ve never met anyone even remotely famous, let alone the likes of Malcolm Reynolds or Agent Coulson in the flesh.  I have a few questions I’d like to ask each person, but I still honestly have no idea how any of it will go so I will simply do my best to keep my fan-boy exuberance to a comfortable minimum.

While I can’t say whether or not I’ll come out of the night with some pictures to remember it by (my friend is bringing her digital camera so it’s entirely possible), I can guarantee that the experience will be one I will remember for a very long time.  That being said, I’ve double checked with the event coordinators and I WILL be able to post my review of Much Ado About Nothing after the show, so I look forward to at least sharing that part of the evening with all of you.

Here goes nothing!

Posted in Reviews | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments

The Great Gatsby Review: Baz the Great and Powerful

You all have before you a stirring indictment of the modern American education system; a high school graduate who has never read F. Scott Fitzgerald’s classic The Great Gatsby.  MV5BMTkxNTk1ODcxNl5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTcwMDI1OTMzOQ@@._V1_SX214_Now, this shouldn’t be so much of a negative reflection on my AP English teachers as it is an issue with the limitations on how much reading you can assign a child before they graduate.  Had I dedicated some of my own free time to educating myself to the likes of Lord of the Flies or The Grapes of Wrath I might have been able to flesh out my literary awareness, but all of that went downhill once I discovered how awesome movies were.  After all, how can you beat a medium of storytelling that lets you experience character development and eat chicken wings at the same time?  In any case, perhaps you can think of this ignorance of mine as a unique opportunity to hear from someone who can’t just brush off the film with the typical manta of someone who’s read the source material; “The book was soooo much better”.  Because of this, I will be focusing almost entirely on the film itself during this review and NOT on the comparison with the text that it is pulled from.  Luhrman fans will be more than pleased with the director’s latest exercise in opulence, but for many of the rest of you it will be hard to feel any sort of real connection with the flashy, highly-stylized melodrama that dominates The Great Gatsby.

The Plot: 6/10

A Midwestern war veteran finds himself drawn to the past and lifestyle of his millionaire neighbor.

I know this is my ignorance talking, but isn’t the primary focus of The Great Gatsby supposed to be materialism?  If I were to base my entire understanding of the book’s imagesmessage on Luhrman’s interpretation, I would have guessed that The Great Gatsby is first and foremost a romance.  As a result, I would have been left wondering just what is so “classic” about that romance as a lot of it feels like a slightly elevated version of your typical Soap Opera story arc.  The movie focuses too much on the scandal of it all and too little on the more interesting elements of Gatsby’s corruption and rise to power, the latter of which is hinted at in so many scenes yet is never fully confronted in a dramatic way.  All of this comes together to make the movie’s two and a half hour run time feel far longer than it actually is.

The Writing: 7/10

The sad thing is, it’s easy to tell from the more transparent scenes of the movie why The 130513_CBOX_gatsbysanitorium.jpg.CROP.rectangle3-largeGreat Gatsby is considered such a great American novel.  Nick’s voice-overs (which I am told are largely made up of direct quotations from the text) are beautifully written and often give the film a sort of poignancy that the rest of it never seems able to measure up to.    I can’t tell if the characters here are restrained by their respective parts in the book or elevated by them, but whatever the cause the effect is that people on screen just didn’t feel very real.

THE GREAT GATSBYThe worst by far is Daisy, who is given an incredibly central role to the story itself only to spend all of it being tossed around back and forth between the male characters of the film like some sort of doll.  If the message of the film is supposed to be that people use material goods to substitute for the feelings that truly drive the emptiness inside them, Daisy’s behavior would almost seem like a ringing endorsement of materialism.

The Acting: 7/10

Whenever the movie really shines, it is a result of one of two things; Luhrman’s flares for visual extravagance or the performances of the leading cast.  Despite my frustrations with the_great_gatsby_a_lhis character’s fixation on Daisy, I fully acknowledge how great of a job DiCaprio did with the titular role.  He takes the sort of raw passion we’ve seen from many of his roles in various shapes and sizes and adds in some of the Howard Hughes-esque eccentricities that he perfected in The Aviator, and I can’t think of many other people who would have been better for the part.  Similarly, my issues with Daisy’s character don’t blind me to the fact that Mulligan’s performance is just as admirable as DiCaprio’s.  If anything, her trademark innocent sweetness makes her a bit too likable at times and adds to the jarring nature of her developments in the later part of the film.

Now I have never been and likely never will be a fan of Tobey Maguire, and I fully great-gatsby-movie-image-tobey-maguire-leonardo-dicaprioanticipated his presence being the weakest aspect of the movie.  For the majority of the movie he’s just as annoying and dorky as ever.  However, I was pleasantly surprised by how well he fit into the dead-eyed future version of Nick, retelling the entire story a psychiatrist at a mental institution.  It seems that for Maguire, the less emotions the better.

As a final note in the acting category, I’d like to tip my hat to Joel Edgerton, who overcomes his slimy role and delivers one of the most surprisingly touching moments of the film in a moment of grief in the third act.  Bravo, sir.

The Style: 6/10

When it comes down to it, the biggest determinant of whether you like this movie or not is whether or not you like Baz Luhrman.  There are few people who great-gatsby-2013-sp-500x250divide critics quite like Mr. Luhrman does, and The Great Gatsby has done nothing to change my position on him. To be fair, there were a lot of things the director did here that I enjoyed and the production value is clearly visible throughout the film.  The thing is, my issues with Luhrman stem far more from his preference for melodrama over real drama, and no amount of gorgeous costuming or artful scene changing is enough to make up for that.

I’d also be remiss if I didn’t mention the movie’s soundtrack.  I actually liked almost all of the music that was used in the film, but the way that music was used just didn’t work for Jay-Gatsbys-House-in-The-Great-Gatsby-2013me.  In a lot of ways, the 1920′s are a perfect setting for Luhrman’s showmanship in all of their gaudy, disproportionate-wealth-filled glory.  When you take all of that and set it to Jay-Z, it just takes you out of the scene in a very unnecessary way.  Some of the best uses of music in the film come from George Gershwin’s Rhapsody in Blue, and I can’t help but feel like a similar musical backdrop for the rest of the movie would have been less distracting.

The Verdict: 6.5/10 – Perfectly Adequate

+ Sure to please Luhrman’s fan base

+ Great performances from DiCaprio, Mulligan and Edgerton

-  An exasperating amount of focus on scandal and melodrama

- The modernized soundtrack is more distracting than anything

Critical Consensus:

IMDb:  7.5/10

Rotten Tomatoes:  48%

Metacritic: 55/100

Other Reviews: 

CinemaWolf: B+

The Cinematic Katzenjammer: 7.6/10

The Cinema Monster: 7/10

The Code is Zeek: 3.5/5

FlixChatter: 3.5/5

Fogs’ Movie Reviews: B-

Dan the Man Movie Reviews: 6/10

The Focused Filmographer: 3/5

Black Sheep Reviews: 3/5

Cynicritics: C-

Fast Film Reviews: 2/5

Average: 6.4/10 – Perfectly Adequate

Posted in Drama, New Releases, Reviews, Romance | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 24 Comments

Pixar Sequels: Failing to Recognize the Exception

 Another post I wrote for Moviepilot, which should be online over there shortly.  In the mean time, I figured I’d give you all a look at what I put together.  I’ve talked a lot about this topic, but I thought I’d take a different angle this time and look at the Pixar/Disney situation from a more practical angle.  I should also be able to re-post my review of Monsters University here soon, so keep an eye out for that!

images (17)A few weeks ago, I was lucky enough to see an advanced screening of Pixar’s Monsters University, the upcoming prequel to the studio’s beloved Monsters, Inc.  While Disney’s current review embargo prevents me from telling you anything specific about the film itself, the experience prompted me to return to an issue that has been on my mind since I learned of Pixar’s acquisition by the media giant which has now come to ownership of both Marvel and Lucasfilm as well.  That issue is the new direction Disney has been leading the company down in terms of the studio’s reliance on sequels.

Over the past 18 years, Pixar has released 13 feature length films, of which only three have been sequels.  In comparison, two out of the four upcoming films the studio has announced are sequels to existing material, a ratio which looks to be Disney’s planned new norm for Pixar’s future.  What this means for the future remains to be seen, but judging by the incredibly wide gap between the quality of the studio’s existing sequels (Toy Story 2, Toy Story 3 vs. Cars 2) the results could either be a modest step forward or a monumental step back.

Let’s take a look at two things; why Disney is pushing for more sequels from Pixar and why that push is wrong for both the studio itself and the people who love its products.

At this point, the general view of sequels seems to be that they are an expression of Hollywood Greed and little more.  Franchises like Shrek stand for many as an example of how studio executives will do whatever it takes to milk the a film’s cash cow until it is financially and qualitatively dry.  What people seem to often forget or ignore is that the movie industry is a business, and like any business it would not exist without consistent images (6)profitability.  Movies aren’t cheap to make, distribute or market, and as a result studios require a certain amount of assurances of the returns on a project before they pump millions of dollars into its creation.  Unfortunately, in this sense the movie business and the entertainment industry as a whole is comparable to meteorology; even the best Weather Man is going to be wrong half the time, and even the most conscientious studio executives are going to finance a bomb or two.  When these decisions carry burdens of upwards of $100 million dollars, the difference between a 50%  and 60% probability of a film’s success can be huge.  It remains a statistical fact that sequels produce more consistent returns on investment than original projects do, and therefore carry a lower amount of risk.  Bottom line, referring to a sound business decision as “greed”  makes no sense for anyone who recognizes what kind of world we live in.

Having said all of that, sequels aren’t always the slam-dunk that studios hope for them to be.  After all, people go to see movies because they intend on enjoying the experience.  When a movie is well made, people enjoy the experience more, leading to more positive images (4)word of mouth, overall higher grosses for that movie and therefore increased likelihood for future sequels.  This is a harsh reality that Pixar encountered when it released Cars 2 back in 2011, also known as the film that broke Pixar’s infamous winning streak.  The thing is, for a film that was intended to ride its sequel status to higher Box Office numbers, its earnings were less than spectacular.  When adjusted for inflation, Cars 2 finished off its run with the lowest domestic gross of Pixar’s history, its final tallies failing to even match the $200 million production budget.  Admittedly this was offset by the increased merchandising revenue the film brought in, but nowhere near enough to make up for the damage done to the supposedly infallible Pixar brand.

Finally, this brings us to the subject of this article; why Pixar is the exemption to the Sequel Rule.  The reason is that rather than Cars, or Finding Nemo, or even Toy Story, it was Pixar that people kept coming back for.  Other movies might reel people back in with their favorite actors, their favorite characters, or any number of other franchise specific offerings, but the star of every one of Pixar’s first eleven films was the studio itself.  After all, even your favorite actors or directors have had their weak outings, yet Pixar had not a single significant blemish on its record.  The amount images (7)of trust this gave audiences for the studio is the reason why it was consistently able to take some of the weirdest and least relatable material imaginable (i.e. Ratatoullie, Wall-E, Up) and turn them into box office smashes beloved by critics and audiences alike.  We felt like Pixar could take any premise and turn it into a great experience, and as a result we were willing to follow the studio wherever it planned on taking us.  It’s that sort of creative freedom that felt completely absent in Cars 2 and, without serious work, will continue to feel absent if upcoming sequels like Monsters University and Finding Dory follow the same path.  No matter how well made those films may be, the simple fact that we’ve already been to each of those worlds will never recreate the magic of experiencing them for the first time.

With all of that in mind, I’d like to leave off on a happier note.  That happier note is that I can say from first hand experience that Monsters University is about as close of a return to form for Pixar as I could have hoped.  It may not be enough to change my mind about the subjects above, but it’s at least enough to keep me coming back for more.  I highly recommend that you give it a try when it comes out this June.

Now I’d like to hear from all of you; what do you think of Pixar’s sequel-filled future?  Are you looking forward to seeing the characters you love or are you afraid that their legacy might be soiled by unneeded sequels?

Posted in Editorials | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | 23 Comments

Are Midnight Openings Becoming a Thing of the Past?

Recently, I was approached from a representative from Moviepilot, a site designed to connect bloggers and fans together in discussion over various aspects of upcoming films.  I have been looking for an outlet for opinion pieces for some time and Moviepilot has turned out to be a wonderful place to do just that for an audience of like-minded readers beyond anything I’d be able to build on my own.  I encourage you all to check out the site and/or my post for the following article which can be found here.  Without further ado, here’s the piece itself.
 

ImageProxy (1)Over the course of the past year, movie theaters across the country have been experiencing a broad shift in the way they premier movies.  For as long as I can remember, a midnight premier was the ultimate litmus test for whether or not a movie could be counted as a “big deal”.  In my small home town’s movie theater, only  upper echelon of blockbusters were afforded the luxury of a midnight release.  Along with that luxury came an immense increase in excitement from the moment you found your place in line to the moment you walked out of the theater.  The moment the clock struck midnight, it felt like the gates flew open with the official passage into the film’s opening day, allowing everyone to experience it for the first time as God and their calendars intended.  

Those midnight showings may soon become a thing of the past, though.  Since early 2012, many national theater chains, including AMC and Regal Crown Theaters, have been transitioning from midnight releases for event films to Thursday night openings for nearly movie-theater-hangout-shutterstock-99435824every new release.  This change offers a great deal of practical benefits for the theaters themselves, such as increased regularity in staffing requirements by eliminating the need for employees to work late on the nights of midnight releases.  In addition, many movies that cater to smaller yet more enthusiastic audiences gain the benefit of the excitement levels of an early release.  For example, under the old system many theaters would not have spent the extra staffing wages to give Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World a midnight release, while the new system would allow dedicated fans the chance to come together for that unique groups experience rather than being spread out across the opening day itself.

From a consumer standpoint, the selling points are a bit of a mixed bag.  On the one hand, being able to see a movie for the first time at 9:00 PM instead of at midnight allows those 9-00-mdwho work on Fridays to partake in a premier without losing out on precious sleep.  For the more impatient/excited fans, it also never hurts to have three hours less to wait to see the movie you’ve already been waiting so long for.  On the other hand, many viewers feel that by taking away the midnight component of a movie’s release, audiences are missing out on a great deal of the atmosphere of excitement that made midnight releases an event in the first place.  For many of these people, the aspect of staying up late for a premier and lining up for hours before is an important part of tradition itself.  With the current system, the night of a release functions just like any other night of going to the movies, requiring no overdose of coffee and red bull whatsoever.

It should be noted that many theaters are still offering midnight screenings for many releases, which would make it seem like fans still have the option to choose which option suits them best.  The problem is, as you can imagine, the point of a midnight premier is to ImageProxysee a movie before anyone else does.  When you wait in line for four hours only to watch people emerge from the film you’re waiting for before the midnight premier has even started, every feeling of exclusivity goes straight out of the window.  As I walked out of my 9:00 PM showing of Iron Man 3 last night, I couldn’t help be feel a small amount of nostalgia for the days when the word “Premier” had some real meaning to it.  Luckily, that feeling was mostly drowned out by an overwhelming surge of superiority as I looked out on  the hundred plus people still waiting to see a movie I had already seen.

Now I’d like to hear what you think.  Will you miss the ritual of midnight releases, or will you be happier for the hours of sleep you’ll save when work comes around the following day?  

Posted in Editorials | Tagged , , , , , | 16 Comments