New Reviews for Foxcatcher, Big Eyes, Into the Woods,and The Imitation Game are coming up.12/31/2014 I saw all of these film this week,and reviews for them will be on the site soon. It's taking a little bit of time though. If you saw any of these please film comment on what you thought of them.
0 Comments
Since you've now seen my list I would like to present the results our your voting. Thank you to those who voted,and comment about what you all voted as the best,and worst of the year. Lets start with the Worst: Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: There is hope for humanity in the fact that you all voted this piece of shit the worst film of the year. I completely agree. And your Best Movie of the Year is.... Interstellar: I am not at all surprised. This was an incredible work of science fiction that moved me as well as all of you it seems. The special effects are astounding,and Christopher Nolan continues his run as one best modern directors we have. Guys thank you for voting. Remember to comment,and tell me what you thought of these movies,and more. I'm looking forward to what will be your best,and worst next year.
The promotional spots,and trailers for Unbroken the hero Louie Zamperini first being an Olympic athlete, then being in a war, then being trapped on a liferaft for days, and finally ending up in a POW camp. This all sound inspiring. Unfortunately it's not. As Unbroken begins we see the main character Louie Zamperini in a bomber with a few other men. They are attacked. At this moment oddly I felt kind of thankful. The entire thing was shot very well,and lacked the shaky camera that pops into most modern action movies. It was missing music to bring it together though,and it was oddly not very stimulating. About 10 minutes later I figured out this is what the entire film was going to be like. The biggest problem that pops up in Unbroken is that it is ultimately unexciting, a problem that stems from the fact that you really don't get to know the main character. I will hand it to Jack O'Connell for trying his best, but the screenplay doesn't allow us to get connected to him enough to really care. The Olympic Games sequence is rushed over, and comes off uninteresting. The time on the raft offers some great cinematography, but fails to offer up meaningful drama. And after all that we get to the prison camp. This is interesting at first. I don't want to sound horrible, but that fact is what makes this interesting is the brutal treatment of the characters. This abuse actually adds an interesting haze of suspense that takes hold of you. This is ultimately helped when the film’s next really good actor, Takamasa Ishihara, comes in; unfortunately, his a role doesn't quite click. Now I really need to hand it to him because when he is first on screen he really has a presence. This film pushes its PG-13 rating in the level of violence it deals out, and this guy is the person dishing it out. His commanding performance (among other things I'll get to) keeps the film going. The haze of suspense, though, eventually fades, and what was left went something like this: main character gets hit a few times, show him with the other men in misery. This is a cycle that continues to repeat, adding little to no character development to the film. It's really unfortunate because the film did grab me for just a second, and then spent it all away. This all said, I really can hand it to Angelina Jolie for at least directing it well. When the material was uninteresting the thing that grabbed me was the direction. There is a particularly cheesy part of the film in which Zamperini has to lift a log that is very heavy to save himself from getting shot. It's a (sorry for using such a trivial word) stupid scene. But it is paced well and drawn out, allowing us to at least get used to and accept the corniness of the entire thing. The beautiful cinematography done by the master Roger Deakins also helps these types of things work. The technical work is really good here, and the problem is really the material. To wrap up... I actually don't have a wrap up. The film hasn't actually stuck with me too much. However, as I said good direction and cinematography, but the material is just not very good. I give Unbroken a 6.5 out of 10. I realize that this film will be condemned by a lot of people,and yet I liked it. I will be the first person to admit the fact that it's not a perfect movie. But this is an undeniably fun movie. The best dumb action movie of the year with "dumb" only being used to highlight the fact that most of it is action,and the story has kind of hit a wall. But again it's fun,and well worth the price of admission. I don't exactly know if it's a perfect movie to close all of the Middle Earth films on,but in it's own right I enjoyed watching it. The Battle of the Five Armies starts with Smaug the dragon destroying Laketown. This is one hell of a sequence,and I was glad to see Smaug for the small amount of time he got in this film. Unfortunately he is not given much to do,and is killed in the first 10 minutes of the film.Then it's on to wrap up all the stories,and stage a big battle with all the characters. The film doesn't succeed in doing this completely, but feels epic enough and the battle's actually engaging. Actually I find the reason why the whole movie has the ability to hold it's narrative (what little it may have) together is the fact that the entire thing carries the "Peter Jackson" feeling to it. Sure there's flaws,but this guy is just throwing everything at the screen. And he's doing it with unmatched determination. This does give the film the aforementioned "dumb" feeling,but it's just too exciting to really collapse on itself. There's fantastic sequences of Elrond,and the other powerful Middle Earth characters fighting Nazgul. Also the battle against an Orc army with dwarves, and elves fighting side by side is really cool. It's not smart,but it holds together through a giddy sense of just how fun the battle is. What also holds it together is there is quite an emotional punch to the film. It has a lot of stories to wrap up,and most of them at least have some emotion to them. Especially the one with Taurial and Kili. Yeah that one really hits you. The cast is surprisingly game for the entire thing as well. Martin Freeman kind of falls into the back of the film,but suits himself well as Bilbo. Richard Armitage is still the best part of these films as Thorin. Luke Evans as Bard is also a good supporting character. Weta Digital has also brought their a game with some fantastic effects. It all looks a little animated at times,but that doesn't take to much from the film. All of this just snowballs up building momentum, and keeps everything together. There are some problems though. Some large ones, however a film should distract you from those,and this one as everything above says does,but some of it obviously slips through. The plot of the film is kind of over by now which is disappointing, and the film feels a little like the entire thing is winding down at times. There are quite a few unnecessary moments in the film,but all of them are still fun. The whole resurrection of Sauron story that the film has ends with one of these,and it's a little jarring. Also there's a plot line having to do with Thorin being corrupted by a treasure called the Arkenstone that could have used more screen time it feels a bit rushed. Oh,and Legolas has one moment in this film that is one of those hilarious "invincible" moments. However I felt this to be outweighed by the good things in the film. The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies may not be the best Middle Earth movie in fact it's far from it,but it's not a bad movie. It's consistently engaging,and has an emotional punch to it at least. It's big and even a little dumb and it's gonna piss some people off, but I stand behind my opinion that it's still an enjoyable film. I give The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies an 8 out of 10. And P.S. I saw the film in 3D,and it's actually not that bad. It took a while to get used to it. Once I did it was actually quite impressive. Exodus Gods and Kings: Directed by Ridley Scott, Starring: Christian Bale, and Joel Edgerton.12/14/2014 Two things make up Exodus: Gods and Kings. These two things fight each other during the entire film,and it's obvious which one beat out. The two things are the technical stuff,and the acting and storytelling. Exodus: Gods and Kings is of course the Moses story. Christian Bale is Moses,and Joel Edgerton is Ramses... yeah guys I know there's a lot of controversy on that,but I'm must say while I'm aware that is a problem I am judging the film for what it is. Exodus is a fantastic looking film. The cinematography is spectacular,and the film takes advantage to swoop over the characters. The energy that this brings to the film is actually quite good,and whatever the film can do to benefit itself is a good thing. There are some impressively filmed scenes in the film, mainly the parting of the Red Sea. A lot of people have given credit to the Ten Plagues sequence,and I'll get into those later so trust me the main set piece is the Red Sea. All of the battles (or at least the ones that end up being battles) are nice as well. This is all stuff that Ridley Scott is great at. There are some great scenes of the Hebrew slaves working that are very epic. The desert sequences also are filmed quite well,and that at least brings some color to these sequences. Oh and while we're on the good stuff Christian Bale doesn't mess up as Moses. He doesn't believe at first,and the reluctance builds his character. Not to say he's perfect,but he's not cashing it in. Buuuuuuuuut... and oh boy there's a but. The other half. The story half. The at times bland, uninteresting,but still somewhat coherent half. So the story of the film is not horrible. It really isn't. I had a good time with it still,but there are numerous flaws. First there is the fact that the film seems to be missing something. This reminds me of Scott's own Kingdom of Heaven which was much like this one was a pretty good movie that would be great if only there were a few scenes in there. Kingdom of Heaven got a director's cut that was very well received. That is what Exodus needs. It needs a couple of extra scenes to clear certain story problems. One of these problems comes in the form of sometimes characters address information that the audience did not know about or get a chance to acknowledge. Again why the film seems to missing scenes. Also Gods a kid,and it's odd how he comes off. He seems to assertive,and mean. The Ten Plagues is the best example of this. If you feel bad for the villain than that's not good. I felt bad for Ramses (a somewhat unmemorable, but OK Joel Edgerton) throughout the Ten Plagues part. Don't get me wrong they are portrayed in fantastic fashion, but they come off really mean. Rivers turning to blood, flies tormenting the people of Egypt,and the murder of all the first children. It's all really rough actually. Which is okay in someways. They are visually stunning,and the fact that they are so scary,and effecting is actually helps drive home the horror that they were. However we don't get enough sympathy for the slaves that are working,and building the large structures for the Plagues to actually be as horrible as they are. They just seem to go out a little too much. The action is kind of the opposite. These just don't go all out. There's a moment where a battle is ripe to happen,and it doesn't happen. It's disappointing. However with all of this the film still coheres,and I did enjoy it. I know I criticized it pretty badly,but the film is not horrible. There is some great,and epic parts,yet there are some horrible flaws. I give Exodus: Gods and Kings a 7 out of 10. Sorry I haven't posted in a while,but I really haven't seen much worth talking about. I will however try to get out to Exodus: Gods and Kings this Saturday,and I hope I can because I am quite a fan of Ridley Scott. Expect a review then. This is an emotional sci-fi film that is fueled by emotionally charged moments of beauty,and a very soft,and rich performance. It's a film that has all the beauty that the surrealist masters like Terrence Malick,and Stanley Kubrick could harness,but it also has context.This is surreal,but not to the point of only being beautiful. This film has a story, just one that rather then being driven by dialogue is driven by imagery. This is a good thing though. It's a simple story that could have been ruined if over explained. Rather it presents creative,and interesting images that enticed me,and engrossed me.They did this enough to the point that with almost no dialogue I understood the motives of each character,and what they were. The cinematography is spectacular,and there's one shot that includes the a helper of our alien protagonist doing his job that is all in one take that actually for as simple as it was dazzled me. But then again that just couldn't be the only thing. Oh no. To get an audience to connect to a film you have to have other things to entice,and the film has those in spades. The music especially when something sinister is happening is haunting,and fits perfectly with the tone of the film. The film also is in actually many ways like a horror film,and the scenes that highlight this actually scare. The imagery combined with these scary parts keep the film intense,and engrossing even when it slows down. Also what the film has is Scarlett Johansson. Her performance is mainly done in her facial expressions because while the alien does talk a little bit it doesn't much. That's not to say it's a silent creature, actually much of the film is made up of her talking to the men that she picks up,and then in surreal moments captures,and devours (yep). Johansson does spend most of the film silent though,and her face tells all. It's a moving performance. But you know the film isn't all scary,and such. There is a variety of lovely moments in Under the Skin as well. The beginning where the naive little life form starts pronouncing words for the first time, the time when the thing figures out that it has a certain body part it did not know it had, and a time when it shows some kindness to a certain human being. Of course these moments aren't straight forwardly shown,but once you figure out what they mean they are nice. These moments actually had me thinking that maybe this creature was becoming more human than is thought is was. It seems as if it throughout the film has started to find itself as human. This is a nice thought that maybe the alien isn't so evil. There's a moment when the alien realizes it liked being human after something horrible breaks in cover,and it is heartbreaking. It all adds to the excitement, and the fact that they are there helps balance out the intense stuff which trust me the film needs. I did have one problem with the film though. The very ending is a punch in the gut that is devastating,but it doesn't bring out the amount of emotion I wanted it to. Sure the imagery held it together,but I think that it could have been edited a little bit better. Now that is the very end of the film so I can't mark the film down much for that though this problem is there. I give Under the Skin a 9.5 out of 10. It is a haunting,and beautiful film that should not be missed. P.S.: This film is not for everybody. If your a fan of blockbusters,and films that can be understood easily, don't waste your time. If not enjoy! Don't forget to comment! Sin City: A Dame to Kill For, Starring: Mickey Rourke, Jessica Alba, Eva Green,and Josh Brolin.12/1/2014 I got exactly what I came for in Sin City: A Dame to Kill For,but not much else. This is a good film that again utilizes the black and white to color parallels well. It's just not as impressive as the first one. I enjoyed the new characters,and while the film is a little disjointed I enjoyed it. The film is very much the same type of movie that we got with the first Sin City. We get a couple of colorful, disgusting,and violent stories in Sin City, and get to know the place through the characters. A few stories are at least interesting,and the titular story A Dame to Kill For is particularly enjoyable due to one character,but the really life blood is the black and white that the film is shot in. Also most of the sets are CGI like the first one making the film look spectacular in every shot. The glimpses of color that pop up really make the film look beautiful. I know that this is not enough to make a movie good,and this is not the greatest movie. There are a few other things including the graphic violence which makes the film pop,and it's nice to see the recurring characters, but it's the new character that really impressed. I mentioned in a 300: Rise of an Empire review that Eva Green stole that movie. Now looking back at it that was nothing. I'm not sure she gave a great performance in this film, but she was interesting. Plus there are some specific scenes that she is in that this being a somewhat trashy B-movie applied to me quite a bit. The A Dame to Kill For story isn't the only good story. There's one with Joseph Gordon Levitt that is a lot of fun,and Levitt as usual is quite good. This story also highlights the real villain which is a mayor that is corrupt played by Powers Boothe who has quite a bit of fun with the role being the slimiest person in Sin City even with all the other horrible people around him. That is all good stuff in this film,but again this isn't too great of a film. It's very uneven,and unlike the first film not all the stories are distinct,or strong enough to work against each other. The Eva Green,and Joseph Gordon Levitt stories are fun,but the final one including Jessica Alba doesn't come off as inciting like the others,but it comes off awfully boring. This I think is because this specific story feels much more like a normal action movie,and doesn't have the richness of the stories that the others have. It just comes off flat. Then again there's a bit of this film that feels more like a boring action movie,and could have used more of the rich style and atmosphere that all the good Sin City stories possess. This film is mostly good,but it has quite a few flaws. I still enjoyed it though for the black and white as well as the few stories that were really fun. I give Sin City: A Dame to Kill For 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. |