Spoilers, but nothing you weren't expecting. Plus this movies from 2008 so does it really matter? The Hurt Locker is a glorious deconstruction. It's a war film that presents our heroes as bad-asses that can walk toward a bomb without batting an eye, and then rip them to their core with the situations they encounter. This is a film that makes American Sniper look like a sloppy director with nothing to say and got too much money to do what he wanted (I was way to lenient on that film it's more like a 6/10 not an 8/10, not that I really have anything against Clint Eastwood.) But still there's good war movies and bad ones, and The Hurt Locker is one of them. So The Hurt Locker is about a bomb squad, and the way that they are effected by the war effort focussing mainly on a Sgt. James, played by Jeremy Renner. It's his journey that really forms the arch of the film, and his deconstruction that makes it so great. The first time that we see him on screen he's a very confident person. He goes up to the sight of the bomb area, gets in the bomb suit, and just goes and does his job with a smirk to go with it. This is actually, I think, a super effective way of getting the audience to connect to him. Renner just oozes confidence in his early scenes, and at first when he's on screen the audience is given some comfort with him because of that. I think that's one of the film's real secret weapons. The confidence conveyed at first is so effecting to the audience that when Sgt. James and his comrades start to break under the stress of the more stressful situations, the change is also extremely palpable. You get a look into these guys heads, and by the end of the film, you can tell all of these men are broken, with each of them hitting a breaking point. James's is particularly affecting. But on one hand I could say that the deconstruction wasn't fully explored. The film plays everything really straight, which means as far as emotional connection or, well, "feeling the insanity" it can't reach the surreal heights of Apocalypse Now, but honestly I feel that's ok. The reason is that Kathryn Bigelow is one hell of a director, and the quick cut handheld cam that she utilizes throughout the entire film makes it work. It makes the film feel claustrophobic which is good, and that helps ramp up the tension of the entire thing. Bigelow is known more for doing action films, and I'm glad that she brought those chops to this film, making everything very tight and thrilling. The Hurt Locker is a blast of a war film. It's stuffed to the brink with tension, and the action is thrilling. But even more thrilling is the way it follows its characters fast downward spirals...even if I wish it hadn't played so straight. I give The Hurt Locker a 9 out of 10. Reviewed by Stephen Tronicek.
0 Comments
I know why a lot of people will not like Southpaw. It's a "boxing movie." There's a lot of cliches all over it, and when you get down to it, the film is not original at all. But the film subverts these cliches, and does it well because of the people working on it. Southpaw is about exactly what you think it is about. It's a boxing movie. There's a boxer who gets down on his luck, and then has to do a climactic fight. That's it. I can't really say more because you know exactly where this is going, but as said before, I still liked the film because of the way the people who worked on it bring it up. The first thing I would like to highlight is Antoine Fuqua. I think I once mentioned in The Equalizer review that Fuqua's direction style is not particularly interesting, but that's ok because good actors can build performances off of them. Denzel Washington did it twice in Training Day and The Equalizer, and Jake Gyllenhaal did it here — but back to Fuqua. Southpaw seems to prove me wrong in my conception of Fuqua's style. The boxing scenes in Southpaw are exhilarating, with the camera making nice use of still shots, and slow motion. There's a ferocity to the camerawork that fits the mood of the fight perfectly. It's definitely Fuqua's best work to date, and it's really insane to watch. But another reason that these fights work is that the actors sell the hell out of the whole film. Jake Gyllenhaal is back after Nightcrawler, and his physical appearance has taken a 180. He was skinny, and creepy in that film, and now he's buff as all hell. He's just as intense though, and much like Washington in The Equalizer, is great in his subtle touches. He very subtly creates a man who has anger issues, and is getting help from his wife to keep it under control. Rachel McAdams is great as his wife for as long as she's in the movie, and Oona Lawrence is really a new talent in the film business as Gyllenhaal's daughter. However, even with all the great stuff that comes with the actors, and the direction, the thing that I liked most about Southpaw is the way it subverts some of the cliches that it encounters. There's one scene where an older seasoned character, played by Forrest Whitaker, tells a story of why he left boxing. Then I realized, "Oh my gosh that was from Million Dollar Baby." But a few lines later he reveals he was lying, and I was both chuckling and clapping. Yes, Southpaw seem cliched, but it has fun with them and with its intense performances and direction, the film turns out much better than it could have been. I give Southpaw an 8 out of 10. THE TRAILER TO THIS MOVIE GIVES AWAY TO MUCH SO I HAVE NOT PUT IT DOWN HERE. The good films that bring me to the point of wanting to cry are the best ones, and I've had the luck of seeing quite a few of those. What I've never encountered though, is a film so unbelievably bad that I wanted to just stop watching movies and be done with them. It's a film that baits you with maybe a fun set piece, and then stomps your face into the ground for doing so — A film that made me so angry I wanted to cry. But now I have. I have now encountered a film that bad. A sexist, mean, load, and unfunny film. A film called Pixels. So as you can tell by that opening, I am not happy in reviewing Pixels. It's a horrible film with horrible jokes, horrible arches, horrible effects, and WHAT THE F... ok you get the idea. Honestly I probably should explain why all of this is so horrible, but that almost seems counter intuitive. This is a film that is so badly conceived and created that I wish I could just leave it there, all professionalism aside, but I can't. So here it goes. Pixels stars Adam Sandler (yeesh) who plays Sam Brenner (that last name might be wrong, but I really couldn't care less), a man who was good at playing video games in the 80's, and now installs gaming consoles in people's houses. His friend Chewy, played by Kevin James, is the president of the USA...hahahahahahahahaha. Kevin James hahahahahaha president. Ok ok I'm done. Ok, and aliens invade the earth in the form of old video games, and those two guys plus a cast of annoying stereotypes have to save the world. And actually, the movie doesn't even believe it's plot matters, because it just starts breaking it's world mechanics by the end. Congratulate my effort in explaining this stuff because I don't want to. With all that said, I can actually say one good thing about Pixels, and that would be the fact that during a few of it's action sequences it comes to life. The Centipede and Pac-Man ones are pretty cool, but action scenes can't save a movie, and the plot implications that come from these are so bad anyway that it all just sours by the end. I hated myself for feeling even the least excited during those sequences. The rest of the film is just the racist, and sexist humor that Adam Sandler is known for, and a running gag with Peter Dinklage's character wanting to have sex with Shaniah Twain, and Martha Stewart is particularly cringeworthy. None of this stuff holds up. None of it could, and on top of this the film is just loud. Honestly I don't want to talk about this film anymore. It is a piece of horrid shit that nobody should see, and deserves to be forgotten. I give Pixels a 2.5 out of 10. Reviewed by Stephen Tronicek. To those hopeful Paper Towns fans scourging the depths of the internet for reassurance that your new favorite movie is in fact the greatest thing ever...get out. I hate to say it, but get out. I am just as much of a fan of the book Paper Towns as you are, and if the person I described above is in fact you, you won't get anything you like out of this review. Why? Because I don't think Paper Towns is all that good of a movie. Paper Towns is about a senior named Quentin (Nat Wolff), who is in love with the girl across the street, Margo Roth Speigelman (Cara Delevingne). Margo is the adventurous type, and one evening she climbs into Q's window, and takes him on a wild revenge plot around town. Then Margo disappears, leaving clues for Quentin to find, leading to him and a few friends going on a trip to find her. The whole trick of the book is the fact that Quentin slowly started to realize that maybe the Margo that he though existed...didn't. Maybe the type of person that he fell in love with didn't exist, and that maybe she's just as conflicted and imaginary as the "paper towns" (something I will not say the function of). The whole book was a little disjointed because it's acts had identities of their own, but really tied up with a great ending. The movie however disregards any of the "Who is the Real Margo" stuff for a much more watered down shallow approach that, while still pretty funny, is unfortunately just bland. The whole mystery of Margo was at the heart of Paper Towns, and without it, the film is missing it's heart. It also causes the larger reveals that they try to pull from the novel to not make any sense, and therefore makes the film even more jilted then it could be. But I actually only caught notice of that at the end. The rest of the film was considerably charming, just enough to convince me throughout most of it's running time that it was a better movie then it really was. Now that can be attributed to the fact that the actors have a great chemistry...even if it's slightly disappointing when I realize that's all the movie had. But chemistry is chemistry, and charming is charming, and again I only started to notice the film's aimlessness near the very end of the film. You see Quentin has two friends, Ben and Radar, and when all three of them are on screen the film becomes really funny. Now it's mostly American Pie like jokes, which means it's not for everyone, but I thought it was really funny. Nat Wolff was pretty good as Quentin, but I feel Austin Abrams and Justice Smith equip themselves better. Wolff just keeps this half smirk throughout the entire film, and the others have lots of personality, with Abrams really bringing a great "class clown" routine. However, with that said Cara Delevingne was incredible. She has a subtlety to her that suits her better then the other cast members; in the parts that seem to shift the tone of the film, as well as bring in the big twist, she has a level of sincerity that might have made it work, but again the script seems all over the map. And honestly that's all I can say about Paper Towns. It's charming enough to convince the vapid teen audiences that it's a good movie, but it's in fact all over the place, even if it contains a few great performances. I give Paper Towns a 6.5 out of 10. I really don't have much to say as far as Ant Man. It's definitely good, but it's a plain type of good. It's definitely worth seeing, but I don't feel that there is anything drastically special to analyze in it. I've found that is becoming a problem with MCU films that are just plain good movies because they all seem very similar. So just like my Selma review I'm gonna just go ahead and list what does work, and what does not work. The Good: 1. Ant Man has much more personal stakes which allows the film to delve into the characters, which is a good thing because the characters are particularly strong. The actors playing them are also really standing out, with Michael Douglas, Paul Rudd, and Michael Pena. 2. The action is astounding. When Scott (our protagonist) shrinks down, the effects become astounding. There's a surprising sense of wonder to the proceedings with incredible and funny scenes of this tiny man fighting people, and trying not to get stepped on. 3. This film was directed by Peyton Reed, a comedy director, and it shows. The direction has the momentum that you usually see in a comedy (see Paul Feig's excellent Spy) which adds excitement to the action sequences, and allows the film to breeze by. This also benefits the film because it makes it wonderfully funny. Paul Rudd, and lot's of the cast are comedy actors, and they are pulling in fantastic work here. Michael Pena's comedic timing is for the ages. 4. The way this film brings the MCU into more cosmic territory is creative, and when you see some of the easter eggs you will be excited if you pay attention to that stuff (which I do). The Bad: 1. For all the strong characters, the story isn't particularly strong which makes the film seem shallow. Now the energy and pacing make up for that for the most part, but it feels to slow down a little with that. 2. Most of the side stories and arches are kind of up in the air during most of the film. It all stays fun enough to keep it's head above the water, but it's a disappointing fact that we didn't get more from them, especially Scott's arch with his daughter. 3. Both the villain Darren Cross (Corey Stoll) and the love interest named Hope, played by Evangeline Lily, are robbed of having much to do. They are given enough to do, with each going through a short arch, but Stoll's character is especially neglected with Cross just being bad because of a sloppy element that ended up in the script. But the energy of the film makes up for it, just like it makes up for the other story shortcomings. I give Ant Man an 8.5 out of 10. Reviewed by Stephen Tronicek I really like a good British period drama. The Imitation Game was my #3 pick of last year, and it was chalk full of the cliches, and false sentiment that, for the most part, infuriates people who hate these types of movies. I bring that up when I talk about Testament of Youth because I need you to know I'm not the most biased person when it comes to this stuff. Now that said, I can say that Testament of Youth just isn't a good movie — well, for the most part. It feels like a film that 2/3rd's through filming, the filmmakers realized they were making an ok, but not really engaging film, then decided that for the last 20 minutes of the film they would actually give a shit and try. Testament of Youth is based off of the memoir of Vera Britain, and is about her living through WW1 and the people that she lost in it. The film opts to split it's acts into before the war, during the war, and then after the war. You know you have a problem when only one of those acts is near interesting. So spoiler warning because I'm about to go into depth about how this film works and does not work. Act 1 is ok for the most part, but it's focussing on characters that are not that interesting. Vera (played actually really well for the most part by Alicia Vikander of Ex Machina, a film you need to watch because it's the best of the year) is not really that interesting, and from moment one feels very spoiled. Then again if my father got me a piano I would complain too. Vera does want to go to Oxford, and instead her dad got her a piano, but it still comes off as very spoiled because of the screenplay. Vikander is good, but not really given too much to do. But then the love interest comes into the film, and the first huge slip up of the film happens. The love interest is Roland. He is played by Kit Harrington who is overall a pretty good actor, but is much like Vikander left with nothing really to work with here. Their relationship is lifeless. There's no heat to it, and so many of the later actions made by Vera are based on this love that the second act is also harmed by this love story not working. Then the war comes, and of course Roland dies (something that you can see coming from a mile away), and Vera now feeling she would be best in the war effort goes to be a nurse in France. Now this part should be visceral and exciting because it gets super (and I mean super) violent. It doesn't though because it's not convincing because the reason she's there is the love story and that's not convincing. Then the third act happens, and for the most part it's all the same. Most of the emotions felt by Vera are based on people that she has lost, notably Roland, so we have no connection to her. But then suddenly about 20 minutes before the film ends it get's good - like, really good. The cinematography improves, and the screenplay does too. Vikander is given something to do, and there's a very emotional moment. And then it all ends... I give Testament of Youth a 5 out of 10. Terminator Genisys: Directed by Alan Taylor, Starring: Arnold Schwarzenegger, and Emilia Clarke7/3/2015 If there's one film that I can compare Terminator Genisys to, it's Jurassic World. Now that's not only in the fact that they are both revitalizations of old nostalgic franchises, but also because of the way that they approach this revitalization. Like Jurassic World, Terminator Genisys through aesthetic, feels like a fitting entry into the series — even though it's a much dumber and clunkier version of what came before. So I won't even bother explaining the story of Terminator Genisys. If there's one thing that the Terminator films never really relied on, it was the story because of the fact it's all super preposterous. The other reason I don't want to say anything is that if you've see one trailer to this movie, the spoilers have already hit you, and I have no interest in ramping them up. The point is, the Terminator films were always a lot more about the characters than the over arching story, and the life or death situation combined with likable enough characters is what really fueled the entire franchise. And that is something Terminator Genisys keeps up. This is a much more personal action film than one might expect, with all the characters being pushed to the front, and that at least makes them more engaging and likable. You care about these people, and there's a few moments where they connect and it's awesome. It's too bad that some of the actors didn't. That's not to say everybody does badly. Emilia Clarke equips herself very well as did Sarah Connor, and Schwarzenegger is the most fun I've seen him here. He's really embracing the whole back to action thing, and this time has the screenplay to do it (God I hate The Expendables). The writing for him this time around is really funny, with lots of jokes appearing just because he's being a badass. It was nice to see him in actually act in Maggie, but it's also great to see him back. But again, there are a few stumblers here and there. I have nothing against Jai Courtney, but he can't carry a movie. He's just not that engaging...ever. He can be a badass, but I never feel that he can tap into the vulnerability that you really need to be an admirable action hero. Jason Clarke is also not very well equipped here. He just seems out of place here, and isn't that fun to watch. John Connor should be a cool character, but the way that Clarke plays him is a mess, and just not that fun. Everyone else is just underutilized with J.K. Simmons showing up, but not really doing anything. But that often happens in action movies, and while important characters are only one element. The action is quite important too, and it's been a huge game changer in the Terminator films. Here it's definitely trying to imitate the action of old, but doesn't completely succeed. I'm glad to see the action go very much into practical effects (even though there's a lot of CG) like flipping a bus, and the stunts are really cool and thrilling, but it's all only engaging or thrilling enough to stay in your head for about 5 minutes. It's undeniably thrilling but ultimately forgettable. This could be attributed to the fact that I really didn't care for Jai Courney's character during these scenes, and Arnold's invincible so I only really felt for Emilia Clarke's, Sarah Connor. Action scenes require you to feel vulnerability for the characters, and only her's was believable. Still though, all of those elements mashed up worked for me. The personal characters, and thrilling but forgettable action are really fun. Too bad some of the characters are a mess, and so is the story. Overall it's a Terminator movie just it's a T-800 movie compared to the original movies which were T-1000's. <---That was a bad Terminator joke that if you don't get you need to watch T2. In fact you should watch T2 anyway. I give Terminator Genisys a 7 out of 10. |
Archive
December 2017
CategoriesAuthorHello welcome to FilmAnalyst. My name is Stephen Tronicek, and I really like movies. This is a way to get my opinions out to people. Thank you for visiting. |