Jamie Daily

Gravity (2013) Review | Jamie Daily

Gravity (2013)
86th Academy Awards 2014
5/5 Stars
Nominated for 10 awards, of which it won 7.
Nominated for Best Picture (Alfonso Cuarón, David Heyman), Best Actress (Sandra Bullock), and Best Production Design (Andy Nicholson, Rosie Goodwin, Joanne Woollard).
Won Best Cinematography (Emmanuel Lubezki), Best Director (Alfonso Cuarón), Best Film Editing (Alfonso Cuarón, Mark Sanger), Best Original Score (Steven Price), Best Sound Editing (Gienn Freemantle), Best Sound Mixing (Chris Munro, Christopher Benstead, Niv Adiri, Skip Lievsay), and Best Visual Effects (Chris Lawrence, David Shirk, Neil Corbould, Tim Webber).
Watched April 7, 2014.

 

What was undoubtedly this year's overall "winner" at awards night, Gravity is a huge accomplishment in all areas of filmmaking.  To get ten nominations is impressive enough, but to walk away at the end of the night with seven wins is a testament to the skills behind this piece.  If that isn't enough, the movie even lives up to the hype.  From story and casting to visuals and sound, the film is a feast for your senses.

 

Ryan Stone (Sandra Bullock) is a medical engineer on her first space mission.  While out on a routine space walk making repairs, their shuttle is hit by debris and Ryan finds herself detached from the shuttle and spinning helplessly into space.  Luckily, her colleague Matt Kowalski (George Clooney) who is vastly more experienced, was attached to thruster jets when disaster hit and he is able to tether Ryan to himself and begin a horrifying orbit around the earth towards a space station.  Every breath is terrifying as Ryan's space suite constantly reminds her how little oxygen she has left.  She has to learn to overcome her fears and must refuse anything but survival as a possibility.  

 

We know very little about the characters, but the back story that is revealed about them gives all we need to know.  The story is not simple and predictable, although it has the possibility to be that.  While Clooney's performance is simple and to the point, his character is exceedingly impressive and calm.  Bullock commands attention, adding to the crescendo of sound and visuals that make Gravity hard to look away from.  Her nomination was extremely well deserved.  

 

The film does not make a grand statement.  It revolves around the ideas of "you never know who might be listening" and that space is not able to be conquered--that life in space is impossible.  Almost right away Ryan says, "I hate space," which sets up her character for what she is about to experience.  You might laugh, you might cry, and you will definitely be sitting at the edge of your seat.  I can only imagine what the film was like in the theatre in 3D, but even on my HD 47inch it was to die for.  

 

Director, writer, and editor Alfonso Cuarón paired with cinematographer Emmanuel Lubezki are unstoppable.  I cannot rave enough about the imagery and the lighting.  To be fair, there was no weak link.  All of the puzzle pieces fit.

 

Clearly I would highly recommend this film.  It is one of the best films out of Hollywood in a long time.

 

Snow White and the Huntsman (2012) Review | Jamie Daily

Snow White and the Huntsman (2012)
85th Academy Awards 2013
3/5 Stars
Nominated for 2 awards.
Nominated for Best Costume Design (Colleen Atwood) and Best Visual Effects (Cedric Nicolas-Troyan, Michael Dawson, Neil Corbould, Philip Brennan).
Watched February 26, 2014.

 

Snow White and the Huntsman is an entertaining film worthy of its nominations--no more, and no less.  Recently we have been treated to new spins on old tales and for the most part, this rendition of Snow White is pretty good.

 

Snow White (Kristin Stewart) is supposed to be incredibly beautiful, not just in appearance.  Her mother the queen was well loved and poured that love out to her daughter.  When the queen dies, the king remarries (fairly quickly) to an incredibly beautiful woman who kills him immediately and takes the throne.  Ravenna (Charlize Theron) is perhaps the best part of this film.  She clings to her beauty and must take the youth of young virgins in order to maintain it.  Otherwise her skin sags, her hair thins and grays, and she loses all beauty.  Her magical mirror informs her always what she must do to remain the fairest in the land.

 

Snow White is kept prisoner in her own castle and when she comes of age, she must escape to save her own life.  The Huntsman (Chris Hemsworth) is brought before the queen and ordered to track Snow White and bring her back.  This is the twist of the film--the Huntsman has a strong part to play, and he soon falls under the charm of Snow White, just as the dwarves and other rebels of the land.  In this rendition, there is still an apple and a prince charming, but there is also war and evil knights made of glass shards.  

 

As much as I loved this movie, I would not give it five stars.  Charlize Theron was brilliant, although I think she was riding the edge of the knife between "perfect crazy" and "too much crazy" the whole movie.  A lot of the focus of the film was displaying just how crazy she was.  I did love, however, how discontent she was.  From fits of rage to silent tears, her range of emotions was amazing.

 

Another downer was, of course, Kristen Stewart.  To be honest, I do think she's pretty--not necessarily fairest of the land pretty, but pretty.  Her method of acting came in handy when it came to her wandering through the dark forest.  She was confused, scared, disoriented--I think she played that part well.  I also thought she did a good job during her monologue at the end.  However, I did not have much faith in her character.  She not only represents life, but in actuality IS life.  Snow White was a challenging character in comparison with Bella from "Twilight," but I do not think that Stewart pulled it off.  She was not believable as Snow White.  She was instead a girl running around in a big medieval dress, trying to be a great beauty.  Snow White is supposed to capture everyone's heart, but Kristen Stewart did not capture mine.

 

My personal favourite was, of course, The Huntsman.  Chris Hemsworth--tall, muscular, brunette (yeah, I missed the blonde hair too), and with a Scottish accent.  Whether you are male or female, you should have a crush on this man.  I thought he did a good job with "Thor," but when he did his monologue in "Snow White," I could tell we are going to be seeing good things in his future filmography.  Hopefully he will not just be the brawny action star who plays the same role all the time.

 

I loved the special effects.  I expected more of the glass-demon knights we all saw fighting in the previews.  I was a little disappointed they had such a small role.  I didn't notice the editing, which must mean it was good because trust me, I notice when it is bad.  The symbolism was blatantly obvious--death versus life, red apples being eaten, etc.  I liked the cinematography.  I think my favorite aspect was probably character development.  Before the end of the film, I knew who each of the characters were and understood their decisions.  We were given enough information about their pasts to understand their present.  While rooting for the good guys, I had a sick desire to see the queen succeed because Theron captured me with her crazy ways.

 

If you are not looking for a deep film, or even a frivolous film, I would definitely recommend Snow White and the Huntsman for a Friday night entertaining movie.  It is rated PG-13 so it is certainly not as kid friendly as the original Disney animation, but other than that it is a good family film.

 

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (2012) Review

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (2012)
85th Academy Awards 2013
4/5 Stars
Nominated for 3 awards.
Nominated for Best Production Design (Dan Hennah, Ra Vincent, Simon Bright), Best Makeup (Peter Swords King, Rick Findlater, Tami Lane), and Best Visual Effects (David Clayton, Eric Saindon, Joe Letteri, R. Christopher White).
Watched November 13, 2013.

 

Over ten years ago, The Lord of the Rings films swept over the world and created fanatics and returning obsessors of the famed and well written (although overly detailed) works by J.R.R. Tolkien.  Now, director and producer Peter Jackson is back at it, this time dividing The Hobbit into three parts.

 

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is the first installment.  The next, The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug is out this month and I have high hopes that it will redeem the first film's slightly disappointing results.  

 

One of the great contrasts in story between The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit is at their core, their morality and grand stories are very different.  The Lord of the Rings largely explored good versus evil and how the worst evil can poison even the best of us.  The Hobbit explores lust and the unexplainable want of the wealthy to retain and maintain what they consider theirs, even if they never actually used it.  These moral explanations are overly simplified at best, but at their very core, that is what they are.  Perhaps The Hobbit's morality is less obvious or creates less of an impact.  This, combined with the more adventurous, lighthearted story as well as the long-winded three-part film idea, leaves critics disappointed.  In The Lord of the Rings, the good versus evil was obvious, the quest was epic, the seriousness and adult story telling nature created a complex world that will captivate for generations.  Although The Hobbit is first and foremost a children's book, this reality is lost on many viewers and critics alike.

 

The story is set some sixty years before The Lord of the Rings but stars a good friend of ours, Bilbo Baggins, this time portrayed by Martin Freeman.  He is visited by a strange wizard whom he does not remember and refuses quite sensibly to indulge the old man's proposal of an adventure.  Galdalf (Ian McKellen), of course, thinks Bilbo will be perfect for the job, and it is because of this that a large unexpected party shows up on the hobbit's doorstep soon afterward, expecting food and speaking of dragons and treasure.

 

The party of dwarves were once one of the richest clans.  They had dug so deep and so far that they had discovered the heart of the mountain.  However, the dragon Smaug ran them from their home, and now just this small group of 12 is willing to fight their way back home.  They have come to Gandalf for help, who has come to Bilbo, for they are in want of a burglar.  

 

The film dwells quite a long time in setting up the story, and the dinner scene itself takes up almost a full third of the film.  It is funny and there are two musical numbers.  Gandalf's performance is a bit more waspish and fun loving than the desperate man we have grown accustomed to previously.  Bilbo refuses to be their burglar but a bit of sleep and a quiet house in the early morning light seems to change his mind and he runs after the group.

 

The rest of the film is almost just setting up the story, with a few adventures in-between.  Bilbo is an outsider of the group, and King Thorin (Richard Armitage), who is remarkably good looking for a dwarf, is the most unwilling to accept him.  There are orcs, goblins, giants, and trolls that interupt their journey.  They even make a pit stop in Rivendel where Gandalf has a show stopping (not in a good way) discussion with Saruman and some other key players where they discuss the dark signs of the land and whether or not they should support the dwarves' vain adventures.

 

Probably the best scene in the entire film is when Andy Serkis returns once again to embody Gollum, the once Hobbit like creature who lives in the dark and has an unhealthy obsession with his Precious.  If you aren't familiar with Gollum, he plays a very large role in The Lord of the Rings and his meeting with Bilbo signifies a great shift in the fate of Middle Earth.  The motion capture work and animation in this scene are unreal.  Serkis is exquisite and Gollum is perfectly chilling in his schizophrenic performance in their game of riddles, which should hopefully capture the hearts of fans and newcomers alike.  Although the scene slows the pace of the film almost to a stand still, one can hope that new viewers won't get lost but can appreciate what a perfect scene it is.

 

For the most part, An Unexpected Journey is an excellent film.  Is is the first part, therefore it is not resolved, the adventure is not over, and there is much more yet to come.  I would advise watching this film before watching The Lord of the Rings and not the other way around.  I did that last year and was sorely disappointed, but in doing the reverse this year I can appreciate The Hobbit much more for what it is.  The 3D and 48 frames per second makes it a bit too realistic and much less magical than one might like, but the views of New Zealand will never grow old.  Peter Jackson wanted very much for the world to seem bigger than ever, but I'm not quite sure that happened in most cases.  

 

If you can accept that An Undexpected Journey is based off of a children's book and is the first in a three part series, I think that it is much easier to see the good in it than to nit-pick at the bad.  The performances are solid, the music is stunning, the camera work is top notch, and the special effects are out of this world.  The comedy is somewhat childish, the story wanders a bit from its main goal, and it takes an awfully long time for Thorin to loosen up.

 

I would one hundred percent highly recommend this film to anyone.  It will one day soon be a part of my own home library and I will watch it multiple times in the not too distant future.  If you can take my advice and perhaps lower the expectations that The Lord of the Rings trilogy created in you, I hope that you will not be disappointed.

 

Prometheus (2012) Review

Prometheus (2012)
85th Academy Awards 2013
4/5 Stars
Nominated for 1 award.
Nominated for Best Visual Effects (Charley Henley, Martin Hill, Richard Stammers, Trevor Wood).
Watched October 28, 2013.

 

Photo Source: Splatter: On Film

Reviewing Prometheus is one giant spoiler alert waiting to happen.  Even its trailers did a good job of keeping the target audience in the dark, which is perhaps why everyone thought it was going to be much more groundbreaking than it actually turned out to be.  With all of the potential and the execution from the talented special effects team, one hopes that the story of Prometheus could step up and deliver an unexpected sci-fi plot, but alas, Riddley Scott employs the same story-telling techniques from the 70s and falls short of expectations.

 

That being said, coming from someone who loves sci-fi but hates aliens, I really enjoyed Prometheus for what it is.  A small team of miss-matched people have been hired to embark on a trillion dollar expedition to an unnamed planet in 2093 because a couple scientists have found some prehistoric drawings in caves around the world.  Dr. Elizabeth Shaw (Noomi Rapace) is what they call a true believer.  She, her partner Charlie Holloway (Logan Marshall-Green), and the ancient man funding the trip are searching for answers behind humanity's existence.  

 

The beginning of the film is slow.  It explains things well, introduces a few key characters, and lets everyone in on the purpose of their trip.  You can tell everyone is there for a different reason, but for most of them it's just the money.  They find a place to land their ship pretty quickly--nature doesn't build in straight lines--and find a giant dome structure where they spend the majority of their time on the planet.

 

Without revealing too much, things obviously go a little wrong while on the planet and the movie only answers a few questions about the cosmos and humanity, while leaving the rest unexplained.  Certain characters like Janek (Idis Elba) have a small but important role as captain, others like Meredith Vickers (Charlize Theron) are woefully underused.  David (Michael Fassbender) is the resident android and he quickly steals the show, seconded by Dr. Shaw.  

 

I thought the acting was good, the special effects were seriously phenomenal, and the story had potential.  I enjoyed that it left questions unanswered but it either tried too hard to be a horror film or didn't try hard enough to be a sci-fi exploration film.  There were certain elements that were executed well and I liked the dynamic between David and Shaw quite a lot.  Maybe it is because androids rarely play the good guy but I was wary of David from the beginning.  I won't reveal what side he's on and the reasons for his actions, but he is certainly a scene stealer.  

 

Although Life of Pi won Best Visual Effects, Prometheus one hundred percent deserved its nomination.  While character development and plot were a B-grade film at best, the special effects were A plus all the way.  

 

If you enjoy sci-fi, I would definitely suggest Prometheus.  It was just enough suspense for my taste and had a good pace that never left me looking at my watch.  A couple characters and performances make up for some of the other downfalls as well.  Even if you can't handle movies like Alien, you might be alright watching this film, although if you're looking for more of a thrill you might be a bit disappointed.

 

  

Marvel's The Avengers (2012)

Marvel's The Avengers (2012)
85th Academy Awards 2013
4/5 Stars
Nominated for 1 award.
Nominated for Best Visual Effects (Dan Sudick, Guy Williams, Janek Sirrs, Jeff White).
Watched April 15, 2013.

Photo Source: Spill 

The Avengers is a drama (with a huge budget) dressed up as an action flick.  The first time I saw it in theaters, everyone around me left wiping the drool off of their faces, but I felt a little perplexed.  Don't get me wrong, it's skillfully done with gorgeously comedic wit and timing as well as off the charts visual effects, but what I expected to be a non-stop fight was in fact slowed down over and over again to make room for dialogue.  At the time I had little appreciation for these pauses, especially for a 142 minute film that I saw late at night.  Now, however, I find a lot more to love in these moments that we get with our characters.

 

The Avengers is perhaps one of the most built up epics of all time with multiple prequels designed to entertain, yes, but more importantly introduce all of the main characters.  One can't deny that a stand alone film with all of the personalities unintroduced would reach a much narrower audience.  Although The Avengers comics and their fated heroes are well known and revered by many, there is a much bigger audience out there that had little to no idea who Captain American and Thor were before the first Marvel films began to come out.

 

That being said, it is a lot easier to navigate a story when most of the characters have already had at least one film dedicated to their own story.  For those who have less background, such as Black Widow (Scarlett Johansson) and even more so Hawkeye (Jeremy Renner), The Avengers spends a little more time developing their characters, whereas Iron Man needs no introduction.  

 

So why, then, does such a possibility for an action film feel so free to become calm and still so frequently?  Because we can't get enough of these characters, and a constant fight from beginning to end isn't enough.  This film isn't designed to be 100 percent blockbuster, although it is pretty close.  It wants to get into the psyche of everyone, even the bad guy whose motivation might seem a bit shallow.

 

Loki, Thor's half brother is back and serving up some revenge on his big brother.  He wants to bring the people of earth to their knees, but S.H.I.E.L.D. doesn't really care for that idea.  The Avengers Initiative was tanked years ago when Nick Fury (Samuel Jackson) and his associates decided that big personalities and big powers don't play well together.  With Loki as a threat, however, they become pretty desperate and call in the big guns.

 

Loki has gotten ahold of the Tesseract, an ancient artifact you might recognize from Captain America as a glowing cube that the Nazis used to create crazy weapons of mass destruction.  He intends to take over planet earth by using the cube's powers, not to mention a little help from some aliens that commissioned the take over.  

 

Inevitably, all of the heroes step up to help, and Thor even makes the journey from Asgard to tell off his little brother.  Iron Man, Captain America, Hulk--you name them, they are there and eager.  With the constant slow down in the plot, we get a lot of downtime with the personalities.  Over two hours of Tony Stark on Steve Rogers bantering gets a little much, and the constant tiptoeing around Bruce Banner (Mark Ruffalo) as the Hulk also turns a little redundant.  

 

The Avengers runs its plot and its characters into the ground, pulling out all the stops.  One wonders what they're going to do in the next film, because they seem to have used it all up in the first one.  However, if the third Iron Man just out this summer is any evidence, the Marvel films have a lot more left to say.

 

I gave the film four out of five stars for the statements above--that if some of the banter and drama could have been left out it would have still been a great film.  One of the first rules you learn in filmmaking is that less is more--if you have already showed a shot or a conversation once, you don't usually want to show it agian.  Marvel's The Avengers is entertaining, well made, and a feast for the eyes.  The only problem is that I wasn't sure if it was trying to be a drama or an action film, because it wasn't fully one or the other.

 

I would definitely recommend the film.  It is a great one to watch with friends and I look forward to seeing the next installment in theaters.

 

Life of Pi (2012)

Life of Pi (2012)
85th Academy Awards 2013
5/5 Stars
Nominated for 11 awards, of which it won 4.
Nominated for Best Picture (Ang Lee, David Womark, Gil Netter), Best Adapted Screenplay (David Magee), Best Music, Song "Pi's Lullaby" (Bombay Jayashri, Mychael Danna), Best Sound Editing (Eugene Gearty, Philip Stockton), Best Sound Mixing (D. M. Hemphill, Drew Kunin, Ron Bartlett), Best Production Design (Anna Pinnock, David Gropman), and Best Film Editing (Tim Squyres).
Won Best Director (Ang Lee), Best Original Score (Mychael Danna), Best Cinematography (Claudio Miranda), and Best Visual Effects (Bill Westenhofer, Donald R. Elliott, Erik-Jan De Boer, Guillaume Rocheron).
Watched April 12, 2013.

 

Photo Source: Subscene

Life of Pi is based off the award winning book by Yann Martel.  I have loved the book for years and was ecstatic when I heard about the film, but when the movie actually came out, other lovers of the book told me that they were really disappointed in it, so I decided not to see it in theaters.  Low and behold, I should NOT have listened to them!  Opinions about the film vary, which is understandable, from both those who have read the book and those who have not.  From my perspective, not only does the film follow the book incredibly well, but its execution stands up to Martel's vision and I would love to watch it as often as I read the book… which is very often.

 

Life of Pi can be broken into three parts.  Pi Patel (Irrfan Khan) is living in Toronto when an author (Rafe Spall) comes to him in search of a story--a story that is said to make you believe in God.  With a knowing smile, Pi begins at the beginning.  He was raised in Pondicherry as a zookeeper's son.   The beginning is very family friendly--with silly humor including an overly buff and disproportionate swim instructor and Pi's exploration of many religions.  The beginning almost feels disconnected with the rest of the film, but it is also necessary in order to set up the rest of the story.  

 

Encountering some difficulties, Pi's family decides to move to Canada where they will sell the animals and begin a new life.  Their Japanese ship never sees shore again because during a terrific storm, it sinks to the deepest part of the sea and Pi finds himself alone in the ocean, apart from the giant tiger Richard Parker.  This is when the story picks up and things get good.  Pi must find the strength to fight for his life, as it is being attacked from all angles.  His faith is challenged, and because he spends over 270 days at sea, he is left with nothing but faith by the end.

 

Because Pi is telling his story to the author, we know the outcome, and for those who have not read the book, this is perhaps a let down.  However, the book reads the same way and therefore Ang Lee, who directed, took no liberties in that regard.  Although there are a few weak links in the production, as a whole, the entire cast performs very well, and one could argue that the three who carried the film were Ang Lee, Claudio Miranda (the cinematographer), and Suraj Sharma, who plays Pi for the majority of the film.  

 

Ang Lee has directed many award winning films in his time.  His wins with Life of Pi are well deserved.  Miranda's work is exquisite, and combined with the visual effects, the screen becomes candy to the eyes.  When the heavens reflect so perfectly in the waters that it seems Pi and his raft are floating in midair, I wasn't sure where to look because I wanted to look at everything at once.  Richard Parker, the tiger, is 100% animated and there is very little within the film that indicates this.  Sharma does a magnificent job acting and reacting to his tiger-less circumstances and I am pretty shocked the Academy gave him no recognition.  

 

There is love, humor, sadness, and fear.  The end delivers the best moment of the film by Sharma and although many reviewers dislike the conclusion, feeling as if it is a bit tacked on, I found it wrapped everything up nicely.  It is a film that causes one to think rather than just something that entertains.  Although I'm not sure if Pi's story would cause one to believe in God, I really enjoyed it.

 

I would definitely recommend this film.  Hands down, no arguments against it.  It can be slow at times and the three parts of the film can feel a bit disjointed, but as a whole it is a beautiful film and one that I would love to own.

  

Rise of the Planet of the Apes (2011)

Rise of the Planet of the Apes (2011)
84th Academy Awards 2012
3/5 Stars
Nominated for 1 award.
Nominated for Best Visual Effects (Dan Lemmon, Daniel Barrett, Joe Letteri, R. Christopher White).
Watched April 7, 2013.

Photo Source: Horror.com 

Rise of the Planet of the Apes should have been awarded Most Awkward Title, but like Real Steel, turns out to be a pretty entertaining blockbuster, although this one did try to have some depth to its story.  

 

Sometime in the not too distant future, James Franco… I mean Will Rodman is trying to find the cure for Alzheimers, particularly because his father is suffering from the devastating disease.  Like most drugs, he is testing on apes, and within the first few minutes there is promise and hope--one of the apes, Bright Eyes, is finally showing potential.  Will knows he's on the right track, and rather hastily gets his reluctant boss, Steven Jacobs (David Oyelowo), to let him pitch the drug to the board.  Inevitably, things go wrong, and it seems like it's back to the drawing board… except when Will finds Bright Eyes' baby boy.  Not able to put him down like Jacobs wants, Will smuggles the baby chimp home and notices almost right away that the chimp is hyper-intelligent.

 

Many years pass, which include experiments and growth, both on humans and chimps alike.  Will's father Charles (John Lithgow), whom Will has been giving the experimental drug for Alzheimers, has improved drastically, and as the chimp Caesar has grown, so has his intelligence.  Will is teaching him to sign, and because of his affection for the primate, grabs himself a vet for a girlfriend, Caroline (Freida Pinto).  Her role is rather pointless and I'm never actually sure why she's there, except to dab Caesar's occasional boo-boo and to lend an emotional support for traumatized Will. 

 

Because Will does become traumatized towards the end of the film.  First Caesar is sent away, and then things get real crazy.  As this film is a prequel for the two before it, the ending is rather inevitable, but the journey revealing and entertaining.  Caesar is a sweetheart whose brain eventually gets the better of him.  Taking him away from Will is probably the worst decision the human race has ever made.  

 

Rise is nominated for its visual effects, and they are definitely impressive.  Although the apes are clearly animated, their facial expressions and movements are fluid and realistic, and at times it is easy to forget their animation.  The story and over-all execution is drastically less campy than the previous films, even Tim Burton's 2001 version.  Humans aren't portrayed as all-out bad guys.  There are definite sour fruits all throughout the film, but Will and his family represent the good guys, and they do it well.  It is hard not to root for Caesar and his companions, but if one has seen or knows of the previous Planet of the Apes films, it is impossible not to root for the survival of humanity.  

 

Fun fact for the fans, there is a brief, although significant clip of the first manned shuttle to Mars, but if you don't understand that reference, move right along.

 

If you're looking for a blockbuster that semi-successfully goes a bit deeper into morality and life questions than your typical summer hit, this would be a good one to try out.  However, if you're more into films like The Artist or Pina, I would highly doubt that Rise of the Planet of the Apes is your cup of tea--but you knew that already.

 

Real Steel (2011)

Real Steel (2011)
84th Academy Awards 2012
3/5 Stars
Nominated for 1 award.
Nominated for Best Visual Effects (Erik Nash, John Rosengrant, Danny Gordon Taylor, Swen Gillberg).
Watched April 3, 2013.

 

"Behind it all is a collective fantasy of invulnerability, omnipotence and eternal life.  "Real Steel" at least acknowledges that machines require maintenance to be superhuman" (NY Times). 

 

Photo Source: Beyond Hollywood

Real Steel is your basic entertaining blockbuster with an out of this world budget supported by a fairly incredible cast and with very little depth behind its predictable, albeit likable character arcs.  It doesn't try to be more than it is, and although it is a bit long of a film, it brings us a different kind of sport movie, complete with a feel-good montage sequence, thats heroes are robots--not humans.

 

Don't get me wrong, the focus is definitely more about the character growth of the humans than the robots.  This isn't your typical sci-fi thriller where the robots are terrifyingly intelligent, they outthink us, and try to take over the world.  In fact, it almost seems as if director Shawn Levy was careful not to dwell too long on any robot's face, lest we get the feeling that there is something going on in its brain.  The robots in Real Steel are innocent, despite what their human owners are using them for.

 

It is sometime in the future and human boxing has become obsolete, something that Charlie Kenton (Hugh Jackman) is trying to forget.  Robots have taken over in the ring, and despite the fact that Charlie is clearly bitter about not being in there himself, he is a robot fighter, bringing his dilapidated monsters around to underground fights where big league rules don't apply.  Things aren't going well for Charlie--he keeps losing and is behind on his rent.  He lives in the old gym where he used to train, and the daughter of his now deceased coach, Bailey Tallet (Evangeline Lilly) owns it, as well as fixes up his bots.  After a lot of bad luck, things seem to turn around when Charlie's old fling turned baby mama dies (we don't know how) and Charlie could stand to earn a lot of money if he plays his cards right.  The kid, Max (Dakota Goyo) shows little emotion toward his mom's passing, but is remarkably like Charlie, and figures out pretty quickly that Charlie sold him to his aunt.  

 

Through some turn of events, Max has to stay with Charlie for the summer, and inevitably, because heis the carbon copy of his dad, he falls in love with robot boxing.  He finds a robot in a junk yard--an old second generation sparring bot named Atom, and essentially falls in love, like a kid would fall in love with a dog.  Using his giant eyes of persuasion, he gets Charlie to help him out, and Atom's incredible ability to take a hit instantly skyrockets them to fame and eventually onto the big stage where they take on the biggest professional fighters of the day.

 

The special effects are out of this world.  I usually completely forget that the robots are computer generated, and although we all know that Atom has zero brain functions, it's hard to not root for him.  It's a lot easier to root for Max--he has a fiery personality that travels right alongside his innocence.  Charlie is a tough cookie and has a lot of issues he has to get through, but by the end he is a lot more endearing.   

 

One of the last scenes is my absolute favourite, although I wouldn't say watching the entire movie is worth it just to get to that place.  If you're looking for an entertaining, well made blockbuster, this is definitely a good option.  It's not particularly something I would want to watch over and over again, but it has a feel-good quality that I quite enjoy, and the ending is uplifting and joyful, which is a good feeling to walk away with after watching it.  If you haven't seen this one and you're into sport-type movies, I would recommend it.  However, if you're looking for something with a certain level of depth, this would be one to stay away from.

 

  

Transformers: Dark of the Moon (2011)

Transformers: Dark of the Moon (2011)
84th Academy Awards 2012
2/5 Stars
Nominated for 3 awards.
Nominated for Best Sound Editing (Ethan Van der Ryn, Erik Aadahl), Best Sound Mixing (Greg P. Russell, Jeffrey J. Haboush, Peter J. Devlin), and Best Visual Effects (Scott Farrar, Scott Benza, Matthew E. Butler, John Frazier).
Watched March 11, 2013.

 

"'Dark of the Moon' is one of the few recent 3-D movies that justify the upcharge.  Mr. Bay clearly enjoys playing with the format, which is also to say that he takes it seriously." (NY Times)

 

Photo Source: DB Covers

Unfortunately, I did not see Transformers: Dark of the Moon in 3-D.  I saw it in 2-D, once in theaters and once in my home.  Both times I came to the same conclusion--the third film in the series is leaps and bounds better than the second, but despite its amazing effects and sound, it cannot touch the first, and nor will any of the three ever been on my Top 10 list.  

 

The cast in this film is pretty stacked.  From the reoccurring Shia LeBeouf as Sam Witwicky (who is always the same, but I love him) and the hilarious John Turturro as Simmons, to the new Patrick Dempsey (Dylan), John Malkovich (Bruce Brazos), and Ken Jeong (Jerry Wang).  Megan Fox was fired for her mouth and the new girlfriend is Victoria's Secret model Rosie Huntington-Whiteley as Carly.  Like Fox, she's not a very good actress, but Michael Bay tends to care more about aesthetics than talent in the Transformers flicks.  

 

Once again, the Autobots must save the world from the Deceptecons, but this time they almost flatten the whole city of Chicago.  The plot is simple, but it meanders while trying to get from point A to point B.  Sam is struggling to find a job out of college and is bitter that he can't fight alongside the Autobots.  Inevitably, after something Decepticon inspired goes down at his new office, he weasels his way back into the middle of the fight and ends up rallying everyone together to save the day by the end.  

 

Carly only serves the purpose of looking good and being a distraction for Sam, both in the fight and in normal life.  His parents make an appearance (this time in a Winnebago and matching track suits), the incredible Alan Tudyk has a small role as Dutch, and the list goes on.  Despite the small story, the experienced actors bring life and humor to their roles and I enjoyed them individually.  

 

The special effects combined with the sound were beyond breathtaking.  Few instances appeared contrived, even when a whole building was collapsing on its side and being eating by a Decepticon.  President Obama even makes a brief appearance (and by an appearance I mean that he was completely animated).  Subtleties are not Bay's directorial strong point, but his attention to effect details is paramount to the success of his vision.  Despite this achievement, the story and many times the acting do not measure up to the aesthetic feast on screen.

 

I know a few people who absolutely swear by the Transformers franchise and would watch the films night and day if they could.  If you are one of these people, I don't need to suggest that you see the film because you probably already have it memorized.  If you enjoy amazing special effects, or can appreciate a good sound mixing, this could be the meal you have been waiting for.  If story is more your thing, I would look elsewhere, unless you are planning on spending the next two and a half hours turning your brain to mush.

 

Hugo (2011)

Hugo (2011)
84th Academy Awards 2012
4/5 Stars
Nominated for 11 awards, of which it won 5.
Nominated for Best Picture (Graham King, Martin Scorsese), Costume Design (Sandy Powell), Directing (Martin Scorsese), Film Editing (Thelma Schoonmaker), Music-Original Score (Howard Shore), and Writing-Adapted Screenplay (John Logan).
Won Best Cinematography (Robert Richardson), Best Art Direction (Dante Ferretti, Francesca Lo Schiavo), Best Sound Editing (Philip Stockton, Eugene Gearty), Best Sound Mixing (Tom Fleischman, John Midgley), and Best Visual Effects (Rob Legato, Joss Williams, Ben Grossman, Alex Henning).
Watched January 4, 2013.

 

photo source: Scarlett Cinema

In a machine, there are no extra parts.

 

Hugo is a family movie, despite its length, that brings humor and reality to a world of magic.  The plot seems to begin in one place, but before you know it you are headed in almost a completely different direction.  

 

It is a film about Hugo Cabret (Asa Butterfield) who lives in a train station in France.  He once lived with his father (Jude Law), a clockmaker who passes away in a museum fire.  Hugo is then taken to the train station, where his Uncle Claude (Ray Winstone) takes care of the clocks.  Once Hugo knows how to do his Uncle's job, his Uncle disappears and he is left to somehow survive on his own.  He steals food and maintains the clocks so that no one suspects his Uncle has gone.  The Station Inspector (Sacha Baron Cohen), the almost childish comic relief, is notorious for catching boys and sending them to the orphanage, therefore Hugo must always watch his step.  

 

Hugo is in possession of an automation that he and his father were repairing.  While trying to pilfer supplies for the repair from the station's toy merchant (Ben Kingsley), he is caught and his notebook with is father's drawings of the automation is taken.  This throws him into an adventure, one which he doesn't really care for until the merchant's goddaughter Isabelle (Cloë Grace Moretz) gets involved.  She reintroduces him to books, he introduces her to movies, and together they seek out the notebook while fooling the Station Inspector left and right.  

 

In a machine, there are no extra parts, and as Hugo Cabret sees it, if the world is a machine, then he must be there for a purpose, and so must Isabelle.  They soon discover that maybe, for now, their purpose is to give a man back his life.  Once Isabelle is introduced to the magic of movies, the plot turns and the two adventurers discover a secret about her Godfather.

 

photo source: A Potpourri of Vestiges

The performances in this film are pretty standard.  Many reviewers rave over Moretz but are a little wavy on Butterfield's performance in comparison.  On the contrary, I thought Moretz fell a bit short of her past appearances but this is perhaps more because of the story and the intention of being a family movie.  Her enthusiasm often felt a bit unreal, but then again, isn't the magic of movies a bit unreal itself?  Butterfield did an adequate job for a family movie, on the same level as Moretz.  I loved the supporting cast and fell quite in love with Ben Kingsley's on screen wife, Helen McCrory.  Sacha Baron Cohen, also, was much different from what you might remember him as in his past roles, and I found that it fit him quite well.  His story was a bit unnecessary to the rest of the plot, but again, it is a children's film and therefore requires a little bit of unnecessary humor to maintain everyone's attention for two hours.

 

The cinematography, art direction, sound, and visual effects were all absolute magic.  Everything combined beautifully to create such a visual feast that even in 2D format it was incredible.  I have heard that nothing can touch the original 3D format and it is said that although there is a lot of shoddy 3D work happening in the industry right now, Scorsese has the sense to respect the viewers and understand that if you are going to do something, you must do it right.  He also brings his own passion for maintaining film history to the story and perhaps wishes to help the younger generation understand the magic of film so that they too can respect it and pursue it, whether in career or simply pastime.  

 

Hugo might not be for everyone, but if you are looking for a family film with a bit more depth than usual, and an incredible visual display, I would definitely suggest you sit everyone down to enjoy this Scorsese masterpiece.  

 

 

Sources: A Potpourri of Vestiges, Scarlett Cinema, IMDB, Rotten Tomatoes, Movies on Film, The Guardian, Films According to Chris Wyatt, Picturenose, The Best Picture Project, John Likes Movies