Hello people!
I realize I’ve been away from the blog for a while, but I am back. I was busy doing many other things and working, but I’ll try to write reviews consistently again. There’s some good stuff coming out.
Andrew
I am extremely excited about this. The Walking Dead was my favorite TV show of 2010, and it’s my favorite ongoing comic book series. San Diego Comic Con is currently underway, and the new trailer debuted yesterday afternoon. The cast and crew still remain very tight-lipped about the upcoming season, but they did give us a couple of details. Season 2 will pick up about 5 seconds after Season 1 ended. Our group of survivors have narrowly escaped the explosion at the CDC, and now they are trying to get out of Atlanta. There have been talks that we might finally see the introduction to characters such as Tyrese, Michonne, The Governor, and possibly see the prison. However, none of these are confirmed at the moment. It is confirmed that we will arrive at Hershel’s Farm this season as it can be seen in the trailer towards the end. There is also a snippet that looked like it could possibly be the prison, but it is too soon to know for sure.
The trailer looks absolutely fantastic, and there seemed to be an emphasis on the character of Andrea, which is awesome. Hopefully, we will see her become the bad-a sniper this season. If you have not seen the first season, I implore you to pick it up. You won’t be disappointed. Even better, go pick up Volume 1 of The Walking Dead at Barnes and Noble.
“Mischief Managed”
Synopsis: Deathly Hallows pt. 2 picks up immediately after pt. 1 ended. The story has been set, and Harry, Ron, and Hermione return to Hogwarts to destroy the remaining Horcruxes in order to defeat Voldemort once and for all.
This is what every Harry Potter fan has been waiting for: the epic battle of Hogwarts and the defeat of You-Know-Who. This movie is pretty much non-stop action. If you’re looking for character development and story, go back and watch the last 7 films, because it’s spells and fighting galore in this one.
I’m going to keep this review very short because if you’re planning on seeing this, then you’ve most likely seen the other films and/or read the books, so you know what to expect already from this film. I will say this: the action is very well done. It’s by far the best looking of the whole entire series. The acting is also top-notch. It has about 90% of everything you needed from the book, and the percentage that is missing is detail. I thought they concluded the story quite well.
The only problem I really had with the movie was that it felt really rushed in certain areas, and it lacked the emotional punch that should have been there. Overall, however, the movie captured the intensity that Rowling brought to the series.
Deathly Hallows is already breaking numerous box office records, and it’s what every fan of the series has been waiting for, so I really don’t need to go on about this movie. If you’re a fan, go see it. It’s a very satisfying conclusion to a terrific story.
Rating: 4 and 1/2 cups out of 5
For years, I’ve considered Stanley Kubrick’s A Clockwork Orange, to be the most disturbingly violent film I had ever seen. A few years ago when I really started getting into film and world cinema, I discovered Man Bites Dog (C’est arrivé près de chez vous). This film now holds my #1 spot.
Synopsis: Man Bites Dog is a dark comedic Belgian mockumentary about Benoit Poelvoorde who is a charismatic serial killer. In the film, a crew of filmmakers follow Ben, recording his crimes for this documentary they are producing. At first dispassionate observers, they find themselves caught up in the increasingly chaotic violence. The style is the same of films such as The Blair Witch Project.
This film is as dark as black comedies can get. I honestly can not think of any film since A Clockwork Orange that has presented such an unflinching look at our views on violence. Man Bites Dog filters that through the lens of the media in a biting condemnation of our fascination with televised tragedy; the more real the better. Think you’re above such behavior? We all need only remember back 10 years ago to how we were all glued to the TV as the World Trade Center repetitively collapsed to remind ourselves that we’re all violence voyeurs at heart.
From scene one, Man Bites Dog affronts the senses and grabs you by the throat. Our Belgian antihero is first captured on film by the faux documentary crew following him as he strangles a girl to death on a train. We are then treated to his rules on how to properly weight a corpse so that it sinks when you throw it into the river. Women, the elderly, and midgets are all special cases. This is due to the differences in bone density. What makes this so hilarious is that he talks about it nonchalantly and in a very philosophical manner. The subject matter is extremely dark, but the way Ben interacts with the camera and crew is what makes it funny. Ben is unapologetic about his vocation (serial killer). In fact, he’s darn proud of it, and he aims to teach us a thing or two not just about the hard work of a madman, but about his racist, misogynistic, and generally misanthropic philosophy too.
Oliver Stone would try to repeat this mastery in 1994 with Natural Born Killers, but he ended up with a garish and headache-inducing mess. Stone’s movie is unreal to the point of laughability. Dog is so real it hurts: When Ben’s parents (Poelvoorde’s real folks) are interviewed about their son, they weren’t told that he was playing a mass murderer in the movie. Their comments are as shocking as they are oblivious. It’s as achingly funny as moviemaking gets (without fart jokes).
The movie was shot by four film students (who play Ben and the documentary crew) on virtually no budget. The amateurishness of the film is what makes it seem so real. Most people think that the use of the single hand camera in films and TV such as The Office, Cloverfield, Paranormal Activity, etc. began with The Blair Witch Project when it actually began with this film in 1992. The violence is so visceral and it even breaks Hollywood taboos such as killing children and the elderly. etter than killing children?
I feel that this movie achieved exactly what it set out to do: be extremely satirical and provide a meditation on society’s view on violence. It isn’t perfect though. There were a couple of scenes that I felt were a bit forced, and the acting at times wasn’t the greatest. However, on the hole, this movie is fantastic. This movie is definitely not for everyone or the squeamish, but I would highly recommend it if you are a fan of A Clockwork Orange or black comedies.
Rating: 4 and 1/2 cups out of 5
Another masterpiece for Terrence Malick? Check.
Synopsis: There really isn’t a conventional narrative exactly; it’s more of an experience (similar to a David Lynch film minus the creepy/bizarre imagery), so I will try my best to give a basic synopsis. The Tree of Life is an impressionistic story of a Texas family in the 1950s. The film follows the life journey of the eldest son, Jack, through the innocence of childhood to his disillusioned adult years as he tries to reconcile a complicated relationship with his father (Brad Pitt). Jack (played as an adult by ‘Sean Penn’) finds himself a lost soul in the modern world, seeking answers to the origins and meaning of life while questioning the existence of faith.
Here it is: my most anticipated film of 2011. Terrence Malick has completely blown me away with this extraordinary work of art. If you’re a movie buff like me, you should already know the name Terrence Malick. If not, let me give you some info on him. Malick is notoriously reclusive. He is the kind of guy that makes a movie, disappears off the face of the Earth for about 10 years, and then comes back with a new film. In fact, he has only made 5 movies in the last 40 years. He never gives interviews, and he didn’t even show up when The Tree of Life won the prestigious Palme D’Or Award at Cannes Film Festival last month. While he may stay out of the spotlight, every single film that he has released has been considered a masterpiece. This includes films such as Badlands, The Thin Red Line, and Days of Heaven. He’s considered to be one of the greatest directors in the history of cinema, and he has influenced many of today’s directors such as David Fincher and Christopher Nolan.
The Tree of Life made news last month at Cannes Film Festival. It took home the Palme D’Or award (Best Picture), but that’s not what received all of the media buzz. What was interesting was how the audience reacted after watching the debut screening. The film drew prolonged boos from a chunk of the audience while the other half held a sustained applause and cheer. The polar reactions aren’t too surprising given the heavily religious and scientific subject matter. It’s kind of like a visual sermon. There is a message here that Malick is trying to convey, but my mind is still processing everything right now so I don’t have a specific answer. Do I agree with all of the messages in this movie? No, I don’t. But that’s okay. I’m pretty sure Malick doesn’t expect everyone to agree with him. While I didn’t agree with some of the ideas presented, I still really enjoyed getting lost in this beautiful portrait of life and death.
In my opinion, the greatest audio/visual film ever created is Stanley Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Odyssey. It opened a new world for future cinematographers and directors as well as show what films are capable of being. In The Tree of Life, the camera shots of nature and the universe have been compared to the metaphysical questing of 2001. In fact, The Tree of Life often feels like a religious response to Kubrick’s cold, cerebral view of the universe. Malick opens the movie with an epigraph from the Book of Job: “Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? . . . When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?” Mr. and Mrs. O’Brien, the father and mother in the story, know their Bible and look to the Lord for guidance. Poetic voice-over from the central characters has become one of Malick’s signatures, and here it often takes the form of whispered prayer from the ethereal Mrs. O’Brien. At one point she holds a child to her chest, points up to the sky, and tells the little boy, “That’s where God lives!” Another lovely shot shows Mrs. O’Brien reaching up her hand and a butterfly lighting on it. Not only is this the most beautifully shot film I’ve seen this year, it is one of the most cinematically gorgeous films I have ever seen.
The performances are also mesmerizing. While Malick chooses to use visual clues as to what the characters are thinking more than spoken dialogue, the acting (particularly that of Brad Pitt) captivated me. I can see that Pitt is fighting extremely hard for the Academy Award for Best Actor after having been snubbed for his performances in The Curious Case of Benjamin Button and Inglourious Basterds. Brad Pitt has played so many sly or rascally characters that I wasn’t quite prepared for his sober, tight-lipped turn as Mr. O’Brien, a decent but angry man whose strict treatment of his sons is fueled by his own professional frustration and bitterness. An old-fashioned disciplinarian, he demands that his boys address him as “sir” and metes out punishments for every infraction of the household rules. He clearly loves his boys, but even his kisses and hugs feel oppressive. In one scene, as he and the eldest boy, Jack, part disagreeably at bedtime, Mr. O’Brien sternly asks him, “Do you love your father?” It’s a challenge, not an endearment, and the moody boy has no choice but to knuckle under: “Yes, sir.”
About 85-90% of the time, child actors annoy the crap out of me. Not in this case. The young actor who plays the eldest son, Jack, is quite brilliant. Malick has modestly structured his story around the boys’ accumulating life lessons, and as the movie progresses one can see Jack gradually acquiring an adult’s moral intelligence. By the end of the film, the heavy hitting message is about grace and reconciliation, and Malick plays on the audience’s emotion. In the final sequence of the film, I felt my heart beating very rapidly even though I’m not sure why, and when the final image of the movie is shown, I felt this incredible sense of calm come over me. Only a master director and his masterpiece can do that to me.
Finally, I have to talk about the score. Alexandre Desplat did a phenomenal job. The musical motifs manage to capture exactly what the film conveying: creation/birth, life, death, happiness, and sorrow. My favorite scores from 2010 were Inception’s and Black Swan’s. The Tree of Life could possibly top those. Uh-maze-ing.
I could spend hours talking about this movie, and I’m still trying to digest everything. This is an artistic masterpiece, but I don’t think it’s a movie that is for everyone. If you’re going into this movie with the intent to fully analyze it and ask questions, you will miss the point of this film. Like a David Lynch film, it is meant to be experienced, and you need to let it just wash over you.
This is one of the most beautiful, poetic, stunning, brilliant pieces of filmmaking that I have ever seen. I’m trying to think of something to criticize in the film, but I honestly can’t think of anything. Some people might call some of the scenes “pretentious” which I can kind of understand, but if you have the track record of Terrence Malick, I think you’ve earned the right to be a bit pretentious. I think it will be nominated for quite a few Academy Awards next year, but the ones that it should definitely win are Best Director, Best Original Score, and Best Cinematography.
To me, this movie is perfection.
Rating: *Kopi Luwak* (Perfection)
I am a pretty big fan of Green Lantern. He’s easily in my top 10 favorite superheroes and possibly in my top 5. This was one of my most anticipated movies for 2011, because I felt that DC/Warner Bros. needed to redeem themselves from that awful adaptation of Jonah Hex. Besides Batman, Superman, and Wonder Woman, the average person doesn’t really know who Green Lantern is; it’s kind of like how Iron Man was before Marvel released his debut movie. I got a bit nervous when I heard all of the critics slam this movie into the ground, but I decided to see it anyways. Did it live up to my expectations and use the source material as best as they could? No. However, I don’t think it was as bad as all of the critics made it out to be.
Synopsis: The story follows test pilot Hal Jordan who is recruited by an intergalactic order of warriors called the Green Lantern Corps who serve as protectors of peace and justice. Hal is the first human to ever join the Green Lanterns, and he must find the courage to overcome his fears, master the powers of his ring, and defeat the enemy Parallax who threatens the universe.
I’ll start with the positives of the movie. First, I really liked Ryan Reynolds as Hal Jordan. I know he’s a very talented actor (if you don’t believe me, see the film Buried), but I wasn’t sure how he would fit as Hal. He exceeded my expectations, and I actually liked him better in this role more so than Deadpool in X-Men.
Secondly, the characters and environments looked very nice. The suits looked better than they did in the trailers and I was really impressed with how well Sinestro looked. I wished they would have had him as the main villain in this film though. He’s an awesome villain.
Thirdly, I liked the whole theme of looking inside ourselves and finding that hidden strength we didn’t know we had and then using that newfound strength to overcome fears and difficulties.
Now for the negatives. The main problem with this movie was the writing. I felt they were trying to bring in way too much material, and they didn’t know how to deal with it so they just end it with a piece of dialogue. Dr. Hector Hammond is a cool villain from the Green Lantern series, but his role in the movie was pretty worthless, and it didn’t amount to anything in the end.
Secondly, the subplot dealing with Hal’s fears, which are revealed in flashbacks, became far too convoluted and then it abruptly ends with a piece of dialogue. The script was just an all-around mess which is a major problem to me.
Thirdly, the film suffers from pacing issues. There were quite a few times were we would go long stretches of boring dialogue scenes, and then we would have a short action scene which really didn’t do much to help the film recover.
All in all, the film simply suffers from poor writing. Plain and simple. If you want to go see a movie where you can just switch your brain off and relax, then I would say go ahead and see it. I didn’t hate this movie, but I don’t have a desire to go out and see it again. Also, I would recommend seeing it in 2D because SURPRISE! The 3D is completely worthless.
Rating: 2 and 1/2 cups out of 5
Fellow movie reviewer, Jeremy Jahns, reviews the trailer for the new Twilight movie and I couldn’t have said better myself. Enjoy.
