It's such a kick watching a megabudget movie done well, but what "Avatar" entails is one of the monumental films of the decade. Although I would have enjoyed seeing "Up in the Air," "Precious," or "Inglourious Basterds" win Best Picture (an honor that "The Hurt Locker" grasped), I still think this is a movie that needs to be seen. I was skeptical about seeing a perfect movie re-released into theaters less than a year later, this version feels even better than the previous one.
I do have to say, you know exactly where the movie is going within about 15 minutes. That's just something that you have to accept. It's really not the story that's the movie's strong point but the experience on the whole. In 3D, I felt that I was watching something that's basically required viewing, like "The Silence of the Lambs" or "The Lord of the Rings" trilogy.
As you can probably tell, I'm having some difficulty writing this review. Let's go with the story now. In 2154, a Marine who has lost the ability to use his legs gets an impossible opportunity- his twin brother, a scientist set for the avatar program, dies. The Marine, Jake Sully, starts the avatar program and basically answers our questions about it. He is briefed by Colonel Miles Quaritch (Stephen Lang, slime incarnate) that he is to take his brother's avatar and learn the culture of the Na'vi, a 12 foot-tall race of peace-loving people who live on Pandora, a planet unsustainable for us humans. He meets a fascinating local girl named Neytiri (Zoe Saldana, having a wonderful year with this and "Star Trek") and begins to learn and respect their spiritual love for the land. All of this hits the fan when a rich guy (Giovanni Ribisi) finds out that the mineral 'unobtainium' (it is what it sounds like) is located extensively below the Na'vi's Hometree, where they feel a deep connection. He could stand to make a ton of money by forcing them off their tree.
The lead, played by Sam Worthington, is quite a wonderful tight-rope act. He's fairly abrasive ("Kiss the darkest part of my lily white..."), he must act in both human form in a wheelchair and avatar form which in itself is a physical challenge, we have to root for him throughout the movie, and his character is developed at great length during action sequences. His sense of humor helps us root for him, and his bull-headed determination satisfies our curiosity of the world. It's a well-written character played by a very talented actor.
The rest of the film consists of intense action sequences, cutting edge CGI, supporting characters that could carry a movie of their own, and a big, blue (or green, rather) heart. There are several heartbreaking moments, but they work because you actually care about these people, not just the circumstances.
I have to mention the fact that it is in 3D. Often times, 3D is used to lure audiences because, well, it looks cool. In "Avatar," the 3D actually enhances the storytelling because it's not a gimmick here. You are able to see the world, the people, and the story play out in a very convincing way instead of having sticks, bullets, and water thrown at you throughout. It really makes the entire movie look even better mostly because of the lighting. Usually, 3D makes the colors more saturated and darker, but in the jungles of Pandora, you never have trouble telling what's happening.
If you haven't yet, you need to see this movie. It is on DVD now, but that's just the 2D version, and unless you have an awesome TV and Blu-Ray Player, you'll probably be underwhelmed. Well James Cameron, you've knocked another homerun. I can't wait to see it again.
Rated PG-13 for intense epic battle sequences and warfare, sensuality, language, and some smoking.
Check your local theater for showtimes.
Wednesday, September 1, 2010
Friday, August 20, 2010
Piranha 3D - *** out of ****
"Piranha 3D" is an event film for a select audience. Although the 3D was added as an afterthought (something I'm strongly against), this time it seems to have worked very well. Body parts fly across the screen, tequila puke flies into your face, and, as promised, killer piranhas flood the screen. Sometimes it seems muddled (especially when underwater), but when making an event film, you have to give people a reason to see this with an audience. I'm sure that if "Snakes on a Plane" was released this summer, it would go for the same idea, being released in 3D.
I think I'll just spit out the plot and get it over with- a believably extinct race of cannibalistic piranhas are freed from their cave when an earthquake causes a shift. In the meantime, it's Spring Break, and tons of horny frat boys and sorority girls chug whatever alcohol is present and disobey the sheriff (Elisabeth Shue, an often forgotten treat). Also, a sleazy, coke-snorting 'director' of an adult video series called 'Wild Wild Girls' (try to guess the reference) takes the sheriff's son along as a local who knows the area. And there, reader, is your excuse for piranha victims and female nudity.
I was very surprised at how much the movie got away with. Supposedly, 8-9 minutes of footage was cut to obtain an R rating, but it will no doubt show up on the Unrated DVD. People lose many limbs (including the ironic loss of a certain reproductive organ), there is sometimes naked girl-on-girl action (motorboting and kissing, if you were wondering), the body count is probably over 100, and the lake runs almost as red as the fountains in "Kill Bill: Volume 1."
And there you have it- a fun little escapist summer movie that may have some kind of moral in it, but I wasn't paying any attention. Maybe when the sheriff and Ving Rhames tell you to get out of the water because of an emergency, you should. Or wait for the Unrated DVD. Or don't see it at all. It's up to you.
Rated R for sequences of strong bloody violence and gore, graphic nudity, sexual content, language and some drug use.
Check your local theater for showtimes.
I think I'll just spit out the plot and get it over with- a believably extinct race of cannibalistic piranhas are freed from their cave when an earthquake causes a shift. In the meantime, it's Spring Break, and tons of horny frat boys and sorority girls chug whatever alcohol is present and disobey the sheriff (Elisabeth Shue, an often forgotten treat). Also, a sleazy, coke-snorting 'director' of an adult video series called 'Wild Wild Girls' (try to guess the reference) takes the sheriff's son along as a local who knows the area. And there, reader, is your excuse for piranha victims and female nudity.
I was very surprised at how much the movie got away with. Supposedly, 8-9 minutes of footage was cut to obtain an R rating, but it will no doubt show up on the Unrated DVD. People lose many limbs (including the ironic loss of a certain reproductive organ), there is sometimes naked girl-on-girl action (motorboting and kissing, if you were wondering), the body count is probably over 100, and the lake runs almost as red as the fountains in "Kill Bill: Volume 1."
And there you have it- a fun little escapist summer movie that may have some kind of moral in it, but I wasn't paying any attention. Maybe when the sheriff and Ving Rhames tell you to get out of the water because of an emergency, you should. Or wait for the Unrated DVD. Or don't see it at all. It's up to you.
Rated R for sequences of strong bloody violence and gore, graphic nudity, sexual content, language and some drug use.
Check your local theater for showtimes.
Thursday, August 12, 2010
Scream 3 - *** out of ****
With "Scream 4" filming at this time, perhaps I should try to get you up to speed about the first three. "Scream" was a refreshing breath of fresh air and a perfect example of a parody by showing you how the slasher genre is done while poking fun at the logical fallacies inherent in the genre. I would give it no less than ***+, and the only reason I hesitate to give it that extra half would be the fact that the movie feels a little dated. Perhaps this is because every slasher movie made since its release uses it as an example, but from the classic opening sequence to the smart finale, "Scream" is seriously fun, quite scary, and tongue-in-cheek hilarious.
"Scream 2" wasn't quite as good, but what saves the film is the brilliant ending twist. It's something you can't predict but seems obvious when you think about it. There's a great kill scene in broad daylight on a crowded campus, a scary 'yell-at-the-screen' opening, and most of all, it features Neve Campbell in her role. I say that it's her role because apart from "Wild Things," I never watched or even heard of a single film she's done. Although she may be making a comeback with "Vivaldi," which is in pre-production, she will always be known as The Scream Actress.
And now onto "Scream 3." I have to say that I was disappointed, otherwise I would be lying to myself. I wanted to enjoy it, but it felt like, as most critics have said, the movie that "Scream" was parodying. There is some great humor in the situations, such as an actress' encounter with Ghostface in prop storage, played well I must say by Jenny McCarthy. There are some throwaway gags (one 'point-at-the-screen' joke involving two comic heroes), but it's really the most fun the less you think about it. I decidedly turned off my brain and just let the movie flow over me, but you know what to expect when the movie shows one single camera shot of something seemingly meaningless or tries to make you think who the killer is. I didn't predict the killer, but I knew what was going to happen at many parts.
Predicting the killer is easy for some people who know the twists. You've watched enough movies to know some of the cliches, including suspecting the person who has the least screentime, the person who is wrongly accused, and the person who may not be quite dead. I won't say who it is in this review, but needless to say, one of those three cliches in the last sentence is true.
"Scream 3" doesn't have any grotesquely gory parts, so if you're hoping to see Casey Becker's guts again, you'll be disappointed. This isn't a flaw within the movie because usually when a movie tries to keep the focus on the suspense, situation, or drama instead of what bodily fluids could be shown, the director wants to say something. Maybe not in every case, but think about it. The main reason people I talk to want to see the new "Saw" movies isn't because of the villain but because of the disgusting ways victims are tortured/killed using unnecessary silly machines. Why would you create a device like a reverse bear trap to shove in someone's mouth? Why would you make a heavy necklace with shotgun shells? Why would you want to show a device that breaks someone's limbs one at a time? I guess someone never heard of Alfred Hitchcock or the word 'subtlety.'
"Scream 3" is worth seeing because of its focus on the people, the past, and the suspense instead of the gore. I do wish some nail-biter scenes were drawn out more, and I would have liked a better surprise ending (if you're going to make an ending that doesn't quite make sense, go for the gold). I feel like a pain complaining about Wes Craven's best work (yes, I liked the trilogy better than the original "Nightmare on Elm Street"), so I'm going to end my review here. It's not the best one by far, but it came with the Scream Triple Pack I picked up, so I watched it. Buy it for the first two, and on a boring night, throw in the third. Maybe if "Scream 4" is fun, get up-to-date.
Rated R for strong horror violence and language.
Buy it here.
"Scream 2" wasn't quite as good, but what saves the film is the brilliant ending twist. It's something you can't predict but seems obvious when you think about it. There's a great kill scene in broad daylight on a crowded campus, a scary 'yell-at-the-screen' opening, and most of all, it features Neve Campbell in her role. I say that it's her role because apart from "Wild Things," I never watched or even heard of a single film she's done. Although she may be making a comeback with "Vivaldi," which is in pre-production, she will always be known as The Scream Actress.
And now onto "Scream 3." I have to say that I was disappointed, otherwise I would be lying to myself. I wanted to enjoy it, but it felt like, as most critics have said, the movie that "Scream" was parodying. There is some great humor in the situations, such as an actress' encounter with Ghostface in prop storage, played well I must say by Jenny McCarthy. There are some throwaway gags (one 'point-at-the-screen' joke involving two comic heroes), but it's really the most fun the less you think about it. I decidedly turned off my brain and just let the movie flow over me, but you know what to expect when the movie shows one single camera shot of something seemingly meaningless or tries to make you think who the killer is. I didn't predict the killer, but I knew what was going to happen at many parts.
Predicting the killer is easy for some people who know the twists. You've watched enough movies to know some of the cliches, including suspecting the person who has the least screentime, the person who is wrongly accused, and the person who may not be quite dead. I won't say who it is in this review, but needless to say, one of those three cliches in the last sentence is true.
"Scream 3" doesn't have any grotesquely gory parts, so if you're hoping to see Casey Becker's guts again, you'll be disappointed. This isn't a flaw within the movie because usually when a movie tries to keep the focus on the suspense, situation, or drama instead of what bodily fluids could be shown, the director wants to say something. Maybe not in every case, but think about it. The main reason people I talk to want to see the new "Saw" movies isn't because of the villain but because of the disgusting ways victims are tortured/killed using unnecessary silly machines. Why would you create a device like a reverse bear trap to shove in someone's mouth? Why would you make a heavy necklace with shotgun shells? Why would you want to show a device that breaks someone's limbs one at a time? I guess someone never heard of Alfred Hitchcock or the word 'subtlety.'
"Scream 3" is worth seeing because of its focus on the people, the past, and the suspense instead of the gore. I do wish some nail-biter scenes were drawn out more, and I would have liked a better surprise ending (if you're going to make an ending that doesn't quite make sense, go for the gold). I feel like a pain complaining about Wes Craven's best work (yes, I liked the trilogy better than the original "Nightmare on Elm Street"), so I'm going to end my review here. It's not the best one by far, but it came with the Scream Triple Pack I picked up, so I watched it. Buy it for the first two, and on a boring night, throw in the third. Maybe if "Scream 4" is fun, get up-to-date.
Rated R for strong horror violence and language.
Buy it here.
Saturday, August 7, 2010
Rendition - **** out of ****
"Rendition" is an unusually mindful and well-made thriller as well as a slap-in-the-face to senseless politicians more concerned about their jobs than what they know to be right and wrong. Although it does have a political message, it still has the elements of a memorable thriller. It opens with a mystery. An Egyptian man named Anwar El-Ibrahami (Omar Etwally, a talented newcomer) boards a flight back to America from South Africa but isn't shown to arrive back in the states. As a matter of fact, the record of him boarding the plane vanishes. His very pregnant wife, Isabella (Reese Witherspoon, with determination), shows up at the airport with their 6 year-old son and assume that there is a mix-up. There is, and there isn't.
Isabella comes into contact with the aid to Senator and an old fling, Alan Smith (Peter Sarsgaard, performing excellently once again). Smith works with an older Senator (Alan Arkin, wonderfully cast) who doesn't react well to this news. The two resolve that his disappearance must have been known by CIA Corespondent Corrine Whitman (Meryl Streep in a vile-filled role played expertly). These people bring us into the knowledge of several others whose roles would spoil some of the 'fun' of the movie.
I do act as if this thriller isn't fun, but this really belongs in a not easily-distinguished category of serious thrillers. There is some humor in moments, but it's not like we're watching "Serenity" or "Casino Royale." The elements are all in place, but how the material is handled is quite different than many other notable thrillers. This isn't a light-hearted journey either. This is something that needs to be studied and debated.
I'm amazed about how much fire seems to be flowing through my fingers as I type this review. I certainly agree with the politics behind the film against our interrogative tactics, and this is not an issue I take lightly. We seem to have a belief that if you continuously torture someone who might be guilty, then eventually they'll become guilty despite reasonable doubt. I think of this as the opposite of justice because people are presumed guilty when accused of terrorism. And since when is that even a valid excuse? The damage done when we're wrong greatly outweighs what we believe to be done that is good. You can try to call me soft, a sympathizer, and even wrong but I'm sure you wouldn't willfully accept your Freedom Torture.
Movies like "Rendition" are important because they comment on the times in which we live as well as develop a coherent and involving story. I cared for the characters not because they were political pawns or because the movie told me to but because I genuinely did. This is not easy to do, especially in a political piece, but it is done here. There are around a dozen key players and each have their own clear motives as well as wonderful dialogue. Another plus is that there isn't really a twist ending. Sure, it's not quite what you expected, but for this film, it's perfect.
I wonder how many people would think differently about torture tactics if they just watched "Rendition." It becomes clear that these methods are outdated and only produce the results we assign to them. Terrorism is a real threat both abroad and, unfortunately, one that is commonly manufactured by our government and then called patriotic. We're even told how many lives are saved because of them when in reality, the majority of the time it ruins others' lives. Don't people just know that if someone is being cut, drowned, and electrocuted that they will tell you what you want to hear? How woeful and pessimistic this makes me.
Rated R for torture/violence and language.
Buy it here.
Isabella comes into contact with the aid to Senator and an old fling, Alan Smith (Peter Sarsgaard, performing excellently once again). Smith works with an older Senator (Alan Arkin, wonderfully cast) who doesn't react well to this news. The two resolve that his disappearance must have been known by CIA Corespondent Corrine Whitman (Meryl Streep in a vile-filled role played expertly). These people bring us into the knowledge of several others whose roles would spoil some of the 'fun' of the movie.
I do act as if this thriller isn't fun, but this really belongs in a not easily-distinguished category of serious thrillers. There is some humor in moments, but it's not like we're watching "Serenity" or "Casino Royale." The elements are all in place, but how the material is handled is quite different than many other notable thrillers. This isn't a light-hearted journey either. This is something that needs to be studied and debated.
I'm amazed about how much fire seems to be flowing through my fingers as I type this review. I certainly agree with the politics behind the film against our interrogative tactics, and this is not an issue I take lightly. We seem to have a belief that if you continuously torture someone who might be guilty, then eventually they'll become guilty despite reasonable doubt. I think of this as the opposite of justice because people are presumed guilty when accused of terrorism. And since when is that even a valid excuse? The damage done when we're wrong greatly outweighs what we believe to be done that is good. You can try to call me soft, a sympathizer, and even wrong but I'm sure you wouldn't willfully accept your Freedom Torture.
Movies like "Rendition" are important because they comment on the times in which we live as well as develop a coherent and involving story. I cared for the characters not because they were political pawns or because the movie told me to but because I genuinely did. This is not easy to do, especially in a political piece, but it is done here. There are around a dozen key players and each have their own clear motives as well as wonderful dialogue. Another plus is that there isn't really a twist ending. Sure, it's not quite what you expected, but for this film, it's perfect.
I wonder how many people would think differently about torture tactics if they just watched "Rendition." It becomes clear that these methods are outdated and only produce the results we assign to them. Terrorism is a real threat both abroad and, unfortunately, one that is commonly manufactured by our government and then called patriotic. We're even told how many lives are saved because of them when in reality, the majority of the time it ruins others' lives. Don't people just know that if someone is being cut, drowned, and electrocuted that they will tell you what you want to hear? How woeful and pessimistic this makes me.
Rated R for torture/violence and language.
Buy it here.
Wednesday, August 4, 2010
The Pianist - **** out of ****
"The Pianist" begins and ends with Frederick Chopin's 'Nocturne in C# Minor.' It is interrupted by many bombs, and as Wladyslaw Szpilman (Adrien Brody) runs to be with his family during the beginning of the Nazi invasion of Poland, the piece seems to be the perfect choice. Chopin was of polish ancestry, an expert pianist of the romantic era, and towards the end of his life couldn't afford many practical expenses, including his physician. The 'Nocturne' was published after Chopin's death, and the irony of Wladyslaw Szpilman performing it for Polish radio is that neither Chopin nor Szpilman knew their futures and fates during the period of composition and performance. While these factoids may or may not interest you or have any bearing on your interpretation of the film, I feel that in a movie about someone who only has his music and blind luck, what he is able to turn to in his darkest hours (but alas cannot quite do) is extremely important.
Adrien Brody is a fine actor, and this performance is one of nuance and subtlety, not something exactly emphasized in the 'Transformers' and 'Twilight' days. Why should you spend two and a half hours in such dark territory when there's a new 3D movie showing practically every weekend? The answer to that isn't one that is universal, but you must understand that Roman Polanski intertwines this story with some of his own personal experiences during Nazi rule. This isn't a movie that is designed to make you feel depressed but instead launch you into a state of thoughtfulness. What I left feeling was a bittersweet gratitude, as the one who engaged in the most suffering is able to do what he loves most but someone in a higher position who helped him took his probably fate from him. Perhaps not every single Nazi was as evil as we think. This is touched upon, but what the majority did, as we all know, was beyond deplorable. You ask the question, 'why?' and get answered with a bullet in your brain. You drink mildewed water (if you're lucky enough to find it), eat when and if you find food, family members are murdered in front of you and you cannot grieve until you're left in silence, and you hardly ever sleep in the same place two nights in a row. These things are not, by any means, elements meant for cheap dramatic gain but instead are facts. The drama lies in the character, not the situation.
Any story of survival in this time is worth hearing, but this one isn't filled with a life lesson about survival and staying strong; instead, what leads to Szpilman's survival is mostly his fortunate luck of being in the right place at the right time. Unfortunately, luck is what caused many to survive. Of course, I feel strange using the word 'luck' in a review of a movie about the holocaust.
Szpilman was given the opportunity to join the other side but refused. Perhaps he always knew the Nazi position was temporary, perhaps he didn't wish to leave his family, or perhaps he simply knew right from wrong. Whatever the cause, Szpilman went into the war with everything and left with only his music and his love for music. Many people wish they had as much as Szpilman had.
Rated R for violence and brief strong language.
Buy it here.
Adrien Brody is a fine actor, and this performance is one of nuance and subtlety, not something exactly emphasized in the 'Transformers' and 'Twilight' days. Why should you spend two and a half hours in such dark territory when there's a new 3D movie showing practically every weekend? The answer to that isn't one that is universal, but you must understand that Roman Polanski intertwines this story with some of his own personal experiences during Nazi rule. This isn't a movie that is designed to make you feel depressed but instead launch you into a state of thoughtfulness. What I left feeling was a bittersweet gratitude, as the one who engaged in the most suffering is able to do what he loves most but someone in a higher position who helped him took his probably fate from him. Perhaps not every single Nazi was as evil as we think. This is touched upon, but what the majority did, as we all know, was beyond deplorable. You ask the question, 'why?' and get answered with a bullet in your brain. You drink mildewed water (if you're lucky enough to find it), eat when and if you find food, family members are murdered in front of you and you cannot grieve until you're left in silence, and you hardly ever sleep in the same place two nights in a row. These things are not, by any means, elements meant for cheap dramatic gain but instead are facts. The drama lies in the character, not the situation.
Any story of survival in this time is worth hearing, but this one isn't filled with a life lesson about survival and staying strong; instead, what leads to Szpilman's survival is mostly his fortunate luck of being in the right place at the right time. Unfortunately, luck is what caused many to survive. Of course, I feel strange using the word 'luck' in a review of a movie about the holocaust.
Szpilman was given the opportunity to join the other side but refused. Perhaps he always knew the Nazi position was temporary, perhaps he didn't wish to leave his family, or perhaps he simply knew right from wrong. Whatever the cause, Szpilman went into the war with everything and left with only his music and his love for music. Many people wish they had as much as Szpilman had.
Rated R for violence and brief strong language.
Buy it here.
Saturday, July 31, 2010
The Indiana Jones Quadrilogy - **** out of ****
The very first "Indiana Jones" movie I ever watched was actually "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull." I wasn't allowed to watch the earlier three landmark movies as a kid because they were feared by my parents to be too violent and to cause nightmares. Perhaps that is true, but what I lost from not being able to enjoy these cinematic masterpieces is that of a hero. Oh-so typical of an idea, a fictional hero helps the evolving youth we were develop into what we are today. We need standards, ideas, and I still have such desires in my life. They truly just don't make movies like Speilberg did anymore.
"Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" received a fairly lukewarm reception, only being liked by few, loved by even less, and the object of disappointment by everyone else. You have to understand the movie like I did, stepping into the franchise fresh and new. What Indiana Jones shows all of us is that you need not gain a 6-pack and be able to lift a small house to be an action hero; all you really need is intelligence and mild physical stamina. Yes, Harrison Ford is in great shape (you can tell by his shirtlessness throughout all four films), but what makes him just so irresistible and what gives me the desire to be him are the moments that are just human.
"Raiders of the Lost Ark" is an action/adventure masterpiece. His female counterpart, Marion Ravenwood, is simply a wonderful creation. She can be described by many words such as intelligent, driven, bull-headed, and determined. Her sweet alto voice makes her occasional obligatory whining comedic and realistic at the same time (not an easy feat by any means). "Raiders" allows Speilberg to attack the Nazis, show us who an action hero really should be, thrill and excite us, and teach us a valuable lesson about dabbling where we shouldn't. The climactic scene where Indiana and Marion are tied to a pole while the Ark of the Covenant is opened is timeless, plain and simple. The pacing, music, and dialogue all work together to create this wonderful tapestry juxtaposing the supernatural, philosophy, logic, and pure horror. It's sensationally scary and altogether fascinating.
"Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom" keeps its focus on Asian and Indian culture. The tribal rituals shown are disturbing in their matter-of-fact flow by those performing aforementioned rituals. The heroine was something that seems like a cliche now, but at the time of its creation was entirely new and original. Willie Scott (Kate Capshaw, Speilberg's wife) was a singer who unwillingly gets drawn into the messy, disgusting, creepy-crawly, and altogether un-feminine journey with Jones' young sidekick, Short Round. She and Jones fall for each other in scenes as delicate and choreographed as a classic ballet and as comedic as a Charlie Chaplin routine. You get the best of a sequel wherein you receive just want you want and are given more in the areas where you want more, put in the most elementary way possible. In the end, there is a child worker uprising, a long, heart-stopping mine cart chase, some PG-13 violence, and the looks of another sequel. This was my least-favorite of the four, but let's face it- it's still a head and shoulders above most anything else.
The final of the first three (and the last I watched) would be "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade." Adding Sean Connery into the mix, plenty of humor was added, letting the energy constantly stay high despite there not being many major chase scenes like the other three films have. Indiana Jones ventures to find the Holy Grail (yes, THAT Holy Grail) after his father (Connery) goes missing. I don't really know what I could possibly tell you about this movie except for the golden line, 'He chose...poorly.' The femme fatale is a nice addition, defying the formula and not turning Indiana Jones into the womanizer James Bond is. To be honest, in my opinion, Marion Ravenwood has yet to be topped as the female counterpart to a male hero (and this does include all Bond girls), so it was wise of Speilberg to let the chemistry of Harrison Ford and Sean Connery to exist rather than be undeveloped.
Perhaps there is a flaw in "Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" being released so many years later, and (minor spoiler) truth be told, I enjoyed the plot development about extraterrestrials. It may feel out of place, but if you think about it, Indiana Jones movies serve to balance good old-fashioned action/adventure with something supernatural. The first contained the Ark of the Covenant, the second had Asian/Indian tribal rituals, and the third followed The Bible, so what was there next? Aliens do seem to fit in (in my eyes at any rate), so why not? I advise you to just roll with it and not throw too much logic into the movie- it is a popcorn movie, not the action classic the originals were.
I say that the fourth is a popcorn movie and the first three are classics yet I give every movie four stars...why, oh why? The popcorn movie is an essential in our lives; this time of year, that's what we want to see. We want action, comedy, fun, and periods of illogic while the whole isn't composed solely of pieces that don't make sense. The movie does actually make sense in its storytelling, but I doubt the same characters would just happen to run into each other, things would happen as they do, and all that unnecessary crap. As movies go, I feel that the fourth doesn't rape Indiana Jones (in the words of Trey Parker and Matt Stone) but instead place the hero in a context typical for a summer blockbuster. If the character names had been different and had some other developments, I'm sure the movie would have been one of my favorites of the year. Because it happened to fit into an Indiana Jones adventure made it even better for me.
My finale will basically just say that if Stephen Speilberg hadn't been a filmmaker, we would live in a very sad world today. "Close Encounters of the Third Kind" is a movie I just re-visited tonight, and I would never change or update a single moment of it. "ET: The Extra Terrestrial" has already been updated, and although it is still a masterpiece, some of its charm of its time was lost in the translation. It was great for some of these old-school graphics to be updated for our further enjoyment, but I'd stop after that. "Saving Private Ryan" is an immortal film of unmentionable power and is something that is studied in film classes by those wishing to ever make a great movie. "Schindler's List" is Speilberg's only movie to win Best Picture (if I'm wrong, I will correct that statement immediately) and is a drama worth study by all, not just film students. "Jaws" is every bit as tense and horrifying as it was when it was created. "Jurassic Park" opened a whole new world of fantasy for teens and adults alike. "Munich" was an exceptional dramatic thriller with a profound political statement. I could go on to talk about "Minority Report," "Catch Me if You Can," "The Terminal," "A.I.: Artificial Intelligence," "Amistad," and the "War of the Worlds" update, but the last few are the only ones that seemed to contain any flaws in filmmaking, as believed by a fraction of their viewers.
Indiana Jones serves to me as a beacon of hope, like that treasured toy everyone had as a kid. You were able to understand its creative function, but what you did with it was quite different. You could take your Matchbox Cars on trips across the world, picking up your friends, doing good, or just being awesome. Barbie could live her life as a glamorous woman with everything she could ever have and just be happy. Where Indiana Jones fits into this little rant is that the character as well as his journeys teach us many life lessons, but I can never settle for enough. As long as Speilberg is thinking and making movies, I want him to take me to another world, show me the one of the past, or critique the one of the present. I can never get enough of this guy.
Buy them here.
All 'Indiana Jones' movies are rated PG-13 for adventure violence, mild language, and the like.
"Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" received a fairly lukewarm reception, only being liked by few, loved by even less, and the object of disappointment by everyone else. You have to understand the movie like I did, stepping into the franchise fresh and new. What Indiana Jones shows all of us is that you need not gain a 6-pack and be able to lift a small house to be an action hero; all you really need is intelligence and mild physical stamina. Yes, Harrison Ford is in great shape (you can tell by his shirtlessness throughout all four films), but what makes him just so irresistible and what gives me the desire to be him are the moments that are just human.
"Raiders of the Lost Ark" is an action/adventure masterpiece. His female counterpart, Marion Ravenwood, is simply a wonderful creation. She can be described by many words such as intelligent, driven, bull-headed, and determined. Her sweet alto voice makes her occasional obligatory whining comedic and realistic at the same time (not an easy feat by any means). "Raiders" allows Speilberg to attack the Nazis, show us who an action hero really should be, thrill and excite us, and teach us a valuable lesson about dabbling where we shouldn't. The climactic scene where Indiana and Marion are tied to a pole while the Ark of the Covenant is opened is timeless, plain and simple. The pacing, music, and dialogue all work together to create this wonderful tapestry juxtaposing the supernatural, philosophy, logic, and pure horror. It's sensationally scary and altogether fascinating.
"Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom" keeps its focus on Asian and Indian culture. The tribal rituals shown are disturbing in their matter-of-fact flow by those performing aforementioned rituals. The heroine was something that seems like a cliche now, but at the time of its creation was entirely new and original. Willie Scott (Kate Capshaw, Speilberg's wife) was a singer who unwillingly gets drawn into the messy, disgusting, creepy-crawly, and altogether un-feminine journey with Jones' young sidekick, Short Round. She and Jones fall for each other in scenes as delicate and choreographed as a classic ballet and as comedic as a Charlie Chaplin routine. You get the best of a sequel wherein you receive just want you want and are given more in the areas where you want more, put in the most elementary way possible. In the end, there is a child worker uprising, a long, heart-stopping mine cart chase, some PG-13 violence, and the looks of another sequel. This was my least-favorite of the four, but let's face it- it's still a head and shoulders above most anything else.
The final of the first three (and the last I watched) would be "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade." Adding Sean Connery into the mix, plenty of humor was added, letting the energy constantly stay high despite there not being many major chase scenes like the other three films have. Indiana Jones ventures to find the Holy Grail (yes, THAT Holy Grail) after his father (Connery) goes missing. I don't really know what I could possibly tell you about this movie except for the golden line, 'He chose...poorly.' The femme fatale is a nice addition, defying the formula and not turning Indiana Jones into the womanizer James Bond is. To be honest, in my opinion, Marion Ravenwood has yet to be topped as the female counterpart to a male hero (and this does include all Bond girls), so it was wise of Speilberg to let the chemistry of Harrison Ford and Sean Connery to exist rather than be undeveloped.
Perhaps there is a flaw in "Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" being released so many years later, and (minor spoiler) truth be told, I enjoyed the plot development about extraterrestrials. It may feel out of place, but if you think about it, Indiana Jones movies serve to balance good old-fashioned action/adventure with something supernatural. The first contained the Ark of the Covenant, the second had Asian/Indian tribal rituals, and the third followed The Bible, so what was there next? Aliens do seem to fit in (in my eyes at any rate), so why not? I advise you to just roll with it and not throw too much logic into the movie- it is a popcorn movie, not the action classic the originals were.
I say that the fourth is a popcorn movie and the first three are classics yet I give every movie four stars...why, oh why? The popcorn movie is an essential in our lives; this time of year, that's what we want to see. We want action, comedy, fun, and periods of illogic while the whole isn't composed solely of pieces that don't make sense. The movie does actually make sense in its storytelling, but I doubt the same characters would just happen to run into each other, things would happen as they do, and all that unnecessary crap. As movies go, I feel that the fourth doesn't rape Indiana Jones (in the words of Trey Parker and Matt Stone) but instead place the hero in a context typical for a summer blockbuster. If the character names had been different and had some other developments, I'm sure the movie would have been one of my favorites of the year. Because it happened to fit into an Indiana Jones adventure made it even better for me.
My finale will basically just say that if Stephen Speilberg hadn't been a filmmaker, we would live in a very sad world today. "Close Encounters of the Third Kind" is a movie I just re-visited tonight, and I would never change or update a single moment of it. "ET: The Extra Terrestrial" has already been updated, and although it is still a masterpiece, some of its charm of its time was lost in the translation. It was great for some of these old-school graphics to be updated for our further enjoyment, but I'd stop after that. "Saving Private Ryan" is an immortal film of unmentionable power and is something that is studied in film classes by those wishing to ever make a great movie. "Schindler's List" is Speilberg's only movie to win Best Picture (if I'm wrong, I will correct that statement immediately) and is a drama worth study by all, not just film students. "Jaws" is every bit as tense and horrifying as it was when it was created. "Jurassic Park" opened a whole new world of fantasy for teens and adults alike. "Munich" was an exceptional dramatic thriller with a profound political statement. I could go on to talk about "Minority Report," "Catch Me if You Can," "The Terminal," "A.I.: Artificial Intelligence," "Amistad," and the "War of the Worlds" update, but the last few are the only ones that seemed to contain any flaws in filmmaking, as believed by a fraction of their viewers.
Indiana Jones serves to me as a beacon of hope, like that treasured toy everyone had as a kid. You were able to understand its creative function, but what you did with it was quite different. You could take your Matchbox Cars on trips across the world, picking up your friends, doing good, or just being awesome. Barbie could live her life as a glamorous woman with everything she could ever have and just be happy. Where Indiana Jones fits into this little rant is that the character as well as his journeys teach us many life lessons, but I can never settle for enough. As long as Speilberg is thinking and making movies, I want him to take me to another world, show me the one of the past, or critique the one of the present. I can never get enough of this guy.
Buy them here.
All 'Indiana Jones' movies are rated PG-13 for adventure violence, mild language, and the like.
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
Pirate Radio - *** out of ****
Movies aren't defined by their soundtracks. The music should always work to enhance the overall feel of the film. The closest I think a movie can come to defying this concept would be in the case of "Pirate Radio." This movie has what I think to be the best soundtrack I may have ever experienced. The sounds of The Kinks, The Who, John Fred and His Playboy Band, Jimi Hendrix, The Turtles...if you don't recognize any of those artists, then this movie is probably not for you.
In the 1960's, one of my favorite decades, the British government worked to ban rock & roll from the radio and possibly throughout the country. The music, they believe, is sinful and encourages people to act immorally. As we know today, that isn't true. The music helped to define a generation and laid the foundation for some of the greatest musicians of all time, including The Beatles (the DVD and poster covers mimic their White Album quite excellently). We hear what they play, listen to the characters discuss their feelings about it, and what the movie works to show us is a group of rebellious 'pirates' who work to broadcast this music 24/7. They would die for the privilege to show people this brilliant 'new' music. Actually, they would think dying for it would be a privilege.
The guys and girl on the boat live out on sea where they broadcast their music. The residents aboard include The Count (Philip Seymour Hoffman, giving one of his trademark brilliant performances), Angus Nutsford (Rhys Darby, a walking punchline), Doctor Dave (Nick Frost, Simon Pegg's sidekick in "Shaun of the Dead" and "Hot Fuzz"), Midnight Mark (Tom Wisdom), Quentin (Bill Nighy, giving amazing acting and nailing every single joke), and later Gavin Canavagh (Rhys Ifans, wonderful), and a whole bunch of others. You may or may not remember every single character later (I sure as hell can't), but I wouldn't call that one of the film's weaknesses. Some others do, but it seems to be the nature of the music to be surrounded by very different, eccentric people.
That's really about it. The movie is hilarious, fun, and truly rocks. The ending is a little muddled, but the final note is one that leaves you feeling great. I can't really imagine a better way to spend your time than to leave a movie with the feeling I left after seeing "Pirate Radio."
Rated R for language, and some sexual content including brief nudity.
Buy it here.
In the 1960's, one of my favorite decades, the British government worked to ban rock & roll from the radio and possibly throughout the country. The music, they believe, is sinful and encourages people to act immorally. As we know today, that isn't true. The music helped to define a generation and laid the foundation for some of the greatest musicians of all time, including The Beatles (the DVD and poster covers mimic their White Album quite excellently). We hear what they play, listen to the characters discuss their feelings about it, and what the movie works to show us is a group of rebellious 'pirates' who work to broadcast this music 24/7. They would die for the privilege to show people this brilliant 'new' music. Actually, they would think dying for it would be a privilege.
The guys and girl on the boat live out on sea where they broadcast their music. The residents aboard include The Count (Philip Seymour Hoffman, giving one of his trademark brilliant performances), Angus Nutsford (Rhys Darby, a walking punchline), Doctor Dave (Nick Frost, Simon Pegg's sidekick in "Shaun of the Dead" and "Hot Fuzz"), Midnight Mark (Tom Wisdom), Quentin (Bill Nighy, giving amazing acting and nailing every single joke), and later Gavin Canavagh (Rhys Ifans, wonderful), and a whole bunch of others. You may or may not remember every single character later (I sure as hell can't), but I wouldn't call that one of the film's weaknesses. Some others do, but it seems to be the nature of the music to be surrounded by very different, eccentric people.
That's really about it. The movie is hilarious, fun, and truly rocks. The ending is a little muddled, but the final note is one that leaves you feeling great. I can't really imagine a better way to spend your time than to leave a movie with the feeling I left after seeing "Pirate Radio."
Rated R for language, and some sexual content including brief nudity.
Buy it here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
