Much
like how “Harry Potter” and “Twilight” gained popularity, having studios adapt
another adult book series to gain recognition, it’s now “The Hunger Games” turn
to take over the spotlight. With 2013, we had “Ender’s Game” take a crack at
it, but sadly due to the author’s political views, the film was a bomb at the
box office, so it looks like there won’t be a sequel. Now for this spring, we
have another possible candidate to pass on the torch, Veronica Roth’s
“Divergent.” Now keep in mind, I haven’t read the book, so I’ll only be looking
at this as a standalone film only.
“Divergent”
tells the story of Tris Prior, a girl who lives in a post-apocalyptic world, where
humans are tested to be part of a certain district in life. Those districts are
Abnegation
(selfless), Amity (peaceful), Candor (truthful), Erudite (intelligent) and
Dauntless (brave). Tris comes from a family in the Abnegation district, but has
had interest in what goes on with the Dauntless. Because of this, when she
takes the test, she comes out as inconclusive, meaning she’s a Divergent, one
that refuses the system. However, nobody knows about this, except for her
tester, and decides to choose Dauntless as her path. Now she goes on to prove
she can be a Dauntless, or she’ll be left to the slums with no redeems.
Now, the big question is did I
like this movie? Well…surprisingly, yes. Is a masterpiece? Hell no, but we’ll
get to that soon. What really works for the film here, much like “Ender’s Game,”
is her trying to fit in with the other Dauntless member rookies, which is
something that we don’t really get that much from these kinds of stories. We
tend to see films where a protagonist is a special force that exists in this
world and then do the whole “savior is powerful” cliché many times over; but
here, we see her just trying to fit in, just so she can live a life she chose
on her own free will. She could have easily picked out a simple life with her
parents, but her choice of going as a warrior, despite not having any fighting
knowledge, added to the investment of the film, as we see Tris turn into this
calculative fighter. It actually felt like I was watching “Captain America”
which had similar elements to it. In fact, the Divergent plot doesn’t really
come into true play until the third act, so there’s time to develop the
characters, rather than just one idea.
Shailene Woodley plays Tris, and
she does a great job in this film. Her reactions and determination in the film
really set the mood and tone for the kind of character she was playing. Not
only that, but she actually does well for someone in an action film for the
first time. Woodley has really proven herself as a great young actress,
especially in her previous performances in “The Spectacular Now” and “The
Descendents.” I really do wish they kept her as Mary Jane Watson in “The
Amazing Spiderman” series, even though she won’t be in the second film. We also
Theo James as Four, a Dauntless veteran and Tris’s mentor/possible lover; while
there is a romance between the two, it doesn’t really come into play until the
near end, but it only happens because they’re chemistry and that they’re both
Divergent hiding. He does add to the film, unlike how most romances between
student and mentor are just tacked on without much reason. I actually did have
some investment in the two, and I really wanted to see much more of it. We also
get some good supporting from other cast members, such as Tony Goldwyn as
Tris’s father, Ray Stevenson as the president of the city, Kate Winslet as a
business organizer and villain, and even from up-and-coming actors like Miles
Teller, Zoe Kravits, and Ben Lloyd-Hughes.
The one actor I wasn’t 100% about was Jai
Courtney as the head of Dauntless. For one, he’s the clichéd dick leader (named
Eric), and his performance is just SO WOODEN. I mean, if you thought he was
pathetic in “A Good Day to Die Hard,” just take a look at the guy here.
Whenever he was onscreen, he really brought the film down. Not only that, the
biggest problem I have with the film is that the third act was a DRAG to get
through, and it got really boring. For a film that’s two hours and twenty
minutes, you could have easily cut a half hour from the film, and it would have
been fine. It made the film which was good, to being less than what it could
have been. But does that make the film bad? No, just not as good as it could
have been.
The film was directed by Neil Burger, who also
directed “Limitless” with Bradley Cooper and Robert de Niro. That film
showcased his talents to a strong extent, with its action, story, and
characters. I can see bits and pieces of it in this film, here and there, but
not too much. I do want to see this film get a sequel though, so I can see much
more of this world and its characters.
Overall, “Divergent” is an okay film to watch.
It’s not the best, but I do wish to see more of it, if they know how to improve
some of the little details. It has a good cast, some entertaining action, and
doesn’t go to some of the old clichés we’ve seen time and time again.
About
two and a half years ago, the Muppets made a MASSIVE comeback, with a film that
showed a lot of heart, dedication, and passion for what made them good, back in
the days of Jim Henson. Director James Bobin, and co-writer and star Jason
Segal showed how big fans they were of these iconic characters, and brought
forth a new light for them, with children of this generation finally getting to
experience what their parents grew up with at the time.
Thankfully,
the film did well enough to warrant a sequel, under the title “Muppets Most
Wanted.” This time around, Kermit and friends sign on to do a world tour with
an agent named Dominic. What they don’t know is that this is all a plan to lure
Kermit closer to a criminal doppelganger, named Constantine, and take his place
to steal the crowned jewels of England. With Kermit behind bars, and
Constantine in his place, it’s now up to Walter and a few others to find
Kermit, and stop Constantine from his dastardly plans. Yeah, it’s another one
of those movies, only it’s with the Muppets this time. But despite being a
cliché plot, it still manages to keep its audience’s attention with great humor
and songs.
The
cast members that are in most of the movie are Ricky Gervais, Ty Burrell, and
Tina Fey. Ricky Gervais plays Dominic Badguy, also known as ‘The Lemur’ and ‘Number
Two,’ because he’s the 2nd best criminal mastermind. It’s the
typical “right-hand man wanting to step out his boss’s shadow,” but at least
Gervais manages to keep the character funny and investing enough, especially at
the end. Ty Burrell plays a European detective who’s working with Sam Eagle,
searching for ‘the Lemur,’ and putting the Muppets as prime suspects. To me,
these two were the best part of the whole film, as their chemistry was
absolutely brilliant and chaotic, that I couldn’t get enough of them. While
there is the joke about Gervais trying to outdo Constantine, Burrell’s
laid-back personality, clashing with Sam’s constant determination is brilliant,
as both are trying to outdo each other, just to see who is more professional for
the job, leading into some really great jokes. Then we have Tina Fey, as the
Russian prison warden that’s keeping Kermit locked up. She’s pretty much the
stern warden character, but she knows every escape in the book to keep her
criminals locked up. Even though she knows that Kermit isn’t Constantine, she
still keeps him locked up, which you need to see the movie if you want to know
the joke. The only problem with her is that, if she’s running the most secure
prison in the world, then how could she not see Kermit’s successful escape,
when she knew every other one of them. We also get great cameos from Chloe Grace Moretz, Christoph Waltz, Tom Hiddleston, Ray Liotta, Danny Trejo, James McAvoy, and Jermaine Clement, which are all very funny appearances.
As for
the Muppets, they still keep in the good spirit they’re in, especially with
Walter as the newest member. I do get the fact that Walter already had his
story arc in the first film, but I think it still would have been nice to see a
bit more of him work off of the other characters. There were some bits that
didn’t seem to click in as well as they did, but I didn’t think it got to me as
much as it could have.
Overall,
“Muppets Most Wanted” is…well, a good Muppet movie. If you like the Muppets,
then you’ll like this film. It’s not quite as good as the last film, but it’s
still to watch.
WARNING: The following contains mature language and
descriptions of imagery not suitable for sensitive ones. If you're under the
age of 17 or uneasy about said imagery or language, then I suggest you click
back to a different page.
Oh who am I kidding,
you'll read this anyway.
Quentin
Tarantino is hands down my favorite filmmaker. Ever since the early 90's he's
become the only director today that still makes original films, as well as
adding his personal blend of hardcore violence and twisted black comedy. Some
say he's a sick motherfucker, but I say he's a sick motherfucker with TALENT.
He knows how to get the right shots, create such quirky and well developed
characters, and have a story that adds a lot of suspense, drama, and comedy in
one film alone. I could go on for hours explaining why guys like me appreciate
him as the definitive worker in Hollywood, and the kind of person only hacks
like John Moore and Paul W.S. Anderson wish they could be him, but I feel I
should do something that isn’t AS straining. So to celebrate the birthday of
Mr. Tarantino himself, it’s time I finally talk about which of his films I find
to be least good to his absolute best. Depending on how these films are ranked,
here are the following rules:
#1: Story - While all his films have great stories, not all
of them have a strong pulling sensation that gets me into it immediately. They
do show much interesting details to them, and it’s only through how well it’s
told that it gets us sucked in.
#2: Characters – Tarantino has made some really memorable
characters since day one, having dialogue that’s just as memorable as they were
since. Depending on how memorable they are and how they contribute to
the story will determine where the film stands as a whole.
#3: Keep in mind that this is all MY opinion. If you have
different selections, then that’s fine, but don’t go and trash me, just because
there’s one film lower than the other. Besides, it doesn’t take away from the
fact this man is a genius. Why would you want to
complain about that?
#4: I'm only counting films he's written…and DIRECTED. If I
include films he had ANY involvement in, then I'd have some mean things to say
in a list that's positive (I'm looking at you Hostel!). Sadly, that means I'm
not going to be talking about “From Dusk 'Till Dawn,” “Four Rooms,” “Sin City,”
and “True Romance.”
But without
further ado, let's count down the Top 7 Films of Quentin “Motherfucker”
Tarantino!
X X X X X X X X X X
#7: Death Proof – Back in the 60’s and 70’s, there was a
subgenre of films, called exploitation films, that were incredibly infamous for
their amount of violence and sex, and usually shown as midnight screenings in
theaters called “Grindhouses.” And what better way to pay tribute to it, than
with a double feature of modern day Grindhouse flicks; one of them, was “Death
Proof,” a slasher film that features a stuntman killing people in and out of
his car. And let me just say, it sounds better than it really is. This is the
film that Tarantino admits to being his worst film, and it really does show. I
know that’s the intention of a Grindhouse flick, that it’s suppose to be
bad…but the main problem is it's BORING. That’s the best way I can describe most of
the movie. The conversations that go on between characters aren’t
the least bit interesting, half of the time I left to get something, there
wasn’t anything that I missed that was important.
There’s also a point in the film where it doesn’t feel
consistent with the film format; it starts out looking grainy as hell, like a
typical Grindhouse flick, but then it switches that for a black & white
look, only for them to switch to the typical look of today just five minutes
after. It really does get distracting, and I wished they had just stuck to the
grainy format, if it wants to keep being a Grindhouse tribute. It also feels like two separate films, with one side being a slasher film, and the other being about strong female characters, but doesn't know which side to truly stick with.
But despite it being boring, is there anything enjoyable
about it? Luckily, there is. We do occasionally get some funny lines from the cast, who they themselves give good performances. One of those
people happens to be the killer, Stuntman Mike; and let me just say, Kurt
Russell owns this role. His charm, demeanor, and everything about him spells out that he’s having fun with this character with every second. Originally,
Sylvester Stallone was consulted for the role, but Russell got it and made the role work
at its finest. That, and the car chases in this film are absolutely stunning.
These scenes really make up for most of the pointless dialogue. The way
characters are killed, and the fact that Zoe Bell is actually hanging for dear
life on that car, make the scenes all the more tense as it goes on. It really
does stand as the best movie car chase in a long time.
If you plan on watching this movie, I recommend getting it on
either the “Grindhouse: Double Feature” blu-ray, or the “Tarantino 20 Years of
Filmmaking Celebration” box-set. Trust me, either one is worth having as part
of your collection…at least for the good parts.
#6: Inglorious Basterds – A film about American Jews hunting
down Nazis? Yeah, that sounds awesome! And that’s how I’d describe “Inglorious
Basterds,” because it’s the fantasy that many Jewish people dream of doing, if
time travel became possible. What makes this film work is just how much the
people are having fun with this film. It’s basically Tarantino’s way of saying
“Fuck history, I can have Hitler shot by Eli Roth if I want!” The attitude and
sheer joy that these people have in their eyes is simply great; or should I say
it’s…GLORIOUS?
There are some really memorable scenes to pick out from this
film, and it has a great ensemble cast to perform it in. You got Michael
Fassbender, Diane Krueger, Mike Myers, and Til Schweiger, all giving
performances that really shine through, adding more to how insane some of these
situations can get. Not to mention, Brad Pitt plays a lead in the movie that I
DON’T hate.
There are about three characters in this movie that stand
out the most here: One is Eli Roth as “the Bear Jew,” and boy does he have fun
here. I find it weird, because this character was originally written for Adam
Sandler, which to be honest, I’m glad he turned it down. Mostly for one reason:
if you’re going to have a psycho Jew beating the shit out of Nazis, you can’t
think of anyone who enjoys torturing people, better than Eli Roth. Another
character that stands out is Melanie Laurent, who plays a surviving Jew that
plans to wipeout the heads of the Third Reich in one go. How does she do it?
Burn them alive in a movie theater, that’s how. With how she handles her
character, it shows different sides of the battle. However, the role that
steals it all is Christoph Waltz as Hans Landa, the Jew Hunter. Where do I even
begin with this guy? He’s slimy, he’s crooked, he’s polite, and he enjoys the
game that he’s in. He’s a character that is aware he’s a scumbag, but has fun
with it, each passing second. I completely understand why this guy was given
the Oscar for this role, and there was no one else who was just as good that
year.
My only complaint with the film is amount of foreign
speaking. Don’t get me wrong, that’s not a bad thing at all, in fact it does
make me want to go study German, French, and Italian; the problem I have is
that for most of the film I’m reading the subtitles. I know it’s a bit of nitpicking,
but when you have scenes of the actors suddenly switched over to English
without notice, it gets distracting, especially when some of the scenes drag on
too long. Aside from that, nothing else is that bad about the film, as it still
has some of the classic trademarks of Tarantino. The witty dialogue, the
violence, and the feet of women…oh yes…the feet.
#5: Jackie Brown – In 1997, Tarantino unleashed something
that will seem rare to his audiences later on: the only film he’s
made that’s an adapted screenplay. Based on Elmore Leonard’s “Rum Punch,” this
film is a tribute to black-sploitation films of the 70’s, as well as giving it
a modern feel to it. “Jackie Brown” is a really slick film that showcases how
good a writer Tarantino can be when it comes to adapting novels to the big
screen. Out of all the films that he’s made, it may in fact be the least bloody, as half of the kills are off screen, off in a distance, or has something blocking the body. When you
look at Tarantino’s filmography today, there’s always a great body count and
maximum carnage there, except for this one. But when you start to think about
it that may be the film’s strong point. It’s a film that focuses more on the
reality of situations such as these, instead of making a big Hollywood
spectacle climax that everyone is used to. It uses its dialogue and characters
to move the story, rather than graphic imagery and violence, and we wonder why
he hasn’t attempted to do that again. Not only that, but the soundtrack is
simply a sugar rush through your ears, with the song “Across 110th
Street” opening and closing the film.
The casting is incredible, as they really delivered some
very heartfelt and entertaining performances. Pam Grier as Jackie Brown does a
magnificent job, and she steals the show with her attitude, the way she handles
the situations around her, and just how she always knows how to get through
really enduring problems when given the right chance. The fact that Tarantino
specifically wrote the screenplay just to work with her, along with the fact
that it revived her career into many other things since then, just shows you
how much passion someone will go just to work with you. Robert Forster as Max
Cherry delivers a performance that was most definitely worth the Oscar
nomination, as the film shows that he’s capable of helping his clients if he
feels that it works the best way. In fact, the best part about this film is the
on-screen chemistry between Grier and Forster, as the two work off each other,
line after line, seeing the development build. I have to give credit to
Tarantino for making the ending so mixed, but at the same time incredibly
satisfying. Now, we can’t have a great Tarantino film without our main man,
Samuel L. Jackson. He plays Ordell, the black market gun salesman, and he
delivers a great performance as always, giving out a really antagonistic
performance, which we don’t see too often from him. To see BMF Jackson take on
the role of a sort of bad-guy is as enjoyable as it can get, showing no mercy
to whoever tries to weasel him out.
We also get to have some great moments, featuring Bridget
Fonda and Robert DeNiro’s characters, as it ranges from them either smoking
weed to kitchen sex, and just waiting for DeNiro to reach that breaking point in
the third-act. Not to mention, we also get Michael Bowen and Batman himself,
Michael Keaton, as they play the duo of cops that tend to harass Jackie on
whether or not she’ll help them on catching Ordell red-handed.
So after I’ve said this film has many elements that do work
from Tarantino’s excellent film-making to the on-par cast, what didn’t I like
about the film? Just one thing: the pacing. The pacing in this film feels
unbalanced, making it feel slow and dragging on for far too long. It’s
disappointing, since the film does have genuinely memorable moments that stick
out strongly, but for a film that’s two and a half hours long, it feels like this could have done better if it was shorter. Now don’t get me wrong,
this doesn’t make the film bad, far from it; it just means it’s not as great as
I expected it to be. I haven’t read “Rum Punch” and I hear it’s an excellent
book, so maybe my opinion might change after I do, as it’ll give me a better
standard of how well the film stayed true to the source material. But even
then, it’s still amazing, no matter the flaws.
#4: Kill Bill – After the hiatus he took when he finished
Jackie Brown, Tarantino's return became a 6-month long event that could not be
missed, featuring not one but TWO films. It is the same movie, but split into
two separate volumes, hence the titles of “Volume’s 1 & 2.” But when you
put the two together, or you prefer one volume over the other, you can’t deny
that “Kill Bill” is one of the biggest homage films you will ever see in your
life. The reason for it is that it pays tribute to almost everything, from
martial arts movies, to anime, even to old western flicks.
The saga is all about revenge…pure, sweet, agonizing,
revenge. After being gunned down by her former boss and partners, Beatrix Kiddo
re-awakens from her four year coma, and goes on a journey to hunt the people
who took away her baby. And soon after, it’s great scene after another. One of
the biggest complaints I’ve heard about this film was that it feels out of
order, as they throw you into the story without explanation, only to have the
blanks filled in at Vol. 2. While that is true, I feel like it fits for what
they were going for. Remember, Tarantino IS the man who started out the trend
of taking turns and twists with formulas, so I just go with the decisions made.
What really makes it interesting is that this is the only
film that has no true connection to the Tarantino universe, other than being a
movie. In fact, this is rumored to be the pilot that Uma Therman’s character in
“Pulp Fiction” worked on. And that’s what really pulls this story to its
fullest, being Uma Therman as Beatrix Kiddo. For most of the film, she has this
stone-cold look on her face and a deadly stare, to where if she looks at you,
you’re already dead. Then there’s David Carradine as Bill, who really showcases
his talents here, without doing much until the end. It really is a shame he
left us, because I could have seen him do so much other work with not just
Tarantino, but films in general. There’s also great work from Michael Madsen,
Daryl Hannah, and Lucy Liu as well. The only one I didn’t get much out of was
Vivica A. Fox, who was good as well, but I would have loved to have seen more
of her.
Other than that, the saga is still a blast. From what I’ve
heard, there are no plans for a “Kill Bill Vol. 3,” which to some is a
disappointment. Honestly, I’m okay with the decision, since it’ll allow
Tarantino to give out much more original work in the future.
#3: Reservoir Dogs – That’s right, the film that started off
the Tarantino generation had to be at least in the top 3. “Reservoir Dogs” is a
film that shows no restraints, as it starts off the trends of disregard for
simple storytelling, and has the film in an order that may seem a little
disjointed at first, really kick in once you reach the thirty-minute mark. And
it’s a very small premise too: a mobster wants to pull a heist, he hires some
men, and then shit hits the fan.
For the most part, this film really only focuses on three
guys, as their given the most descriptive stuff to them. For example, Orange is
a cop, White’s an old friend, and Blonde’s a jail bird. Other than that, we’ve
also got some intriguing mystery to other characters as well, particularly Mr.
Pink, played by Steve Buscemi. You never find out his name, or any of that kind
of stuff; all you know is that he does his job the way it needs to be done, and
that his book reads “survival” every stretch of the way. Let’s not forget, we
also have Mr. Blonde, better known as Victor Vega, played by Michael Madsen.
Dear God, this guy is psychotic; by that, I mean he goes the extra mile just to
get someone out of the picture, even if it means burning them alive or cutting
off their ears. It’s brutal, but just how it’s performed is unintentionally
hilarious. For a film that started out the trend of Tarantino’s traits of
memorable dialogue and characters, it set off the future for what will soon be
an Oscar winning writer. Speaking of which…
#2: Pulp Fiction – Yeah, you knew this was coming, and how
could you not? This film became a landmark for all things that cinema will be
willing to follow for the rest of the time past this film. Let’s go over the
list: Memorable characters? Check. Scene after scene of fascination? Check.
Quotable dialogue that almost everyone would get in almost any conversation? Was
there any doubt? “Pulp Fiction” is a film that has an aura of amazement and
ground-breaking achievement that up until then hasn’t been seen in films.
The cast in the film is one of the best ensembles I’ve seen,
as they showcase their talents at their fullest. The biggest surprise to me in
that regard was John Travolta as Vincent Vega, the brother of Vic Vega in
“Reservoir Dogs.” This film gave me a second glance at Travolta as an actor,
and is one of the few times I feel he deserved the award nominations he got…the
good ones that is. However, it’s not just he who does extremely well in the
film, but everyone else. We all know this is the film that really defined Sam
Jackson’s career, despite appearing in a few Spike Lee films and “Jurassic
Park”; the Bible preaching, the philosophy talks, and the amount of “fucks”
that come out of his mouth is all in glorious Sam Jackson magnificence. It’s
too bad he hasn’t received an Oscar yet, because he has showcased how talented
he can be aside from the big budget blockbusters. Not to mention, Uma Therman
also had a big jumpstart for her career as well, getting both Oscar praise and
roles in future films, such as the Bride in “Kill Bill.” There’s also Ving
Rhames, Eric Stotz, Bruce Willis, Christopher Walken, Tim Roth, Amanda Plummer,
and at one point, Phil LaMarr.
Now some may argue that Tarantino didn’t necessarily direct
this film, as he just let the actors just do their shtick without that much
restriction. In that regard…you’d be right. But my response is, “is it really
that bad thing?” When you look at it, it’s not that often you get to see a film
where you see actors really calm with what they do, and just feel free to let
the moment direct itself. The main purpose of “Pulp Fiction” is its dialogue,
as it’s what really makes a Tarantino film, which is why that might be the
reason he got the Best Screenplay Oscar and not one for directing. For some of
his other films, that’s where I think he should have gotten more recognition
for it. However, whatever way you look at it, it doesn’t take away the fact
that the film is an instant classic that’ll go down in history with greats,
such as “Citizen Kane,” “Casablanca,” and “Vertigo.”
Now I know what some of you are thinking: If neither “Pulp
Fiction” or “Reservoir Dogs” is #1, then does that mean...? And the answer is “yes.”
#1: Django Unchained – While some you might be outraged on why this
is at the top, here's my response:
How could this NOT be number one?! This film just brings out almost everything that makes it an entertaining,
tense, and well-developed story that makes it irresistible and exciting to watch. Even
though I'm a person whose not to fond of the subject of slavery and usage of
the 'n' word, Tarantino found a way to make it
work for such a film as this. His style of film making shows the best written characters that he could possible write, especially for a story like this. It’s a revenge
story, plain and simple, and we’re taken on the journey that Django and Dr.
King Schultz travel along, killing some of the most ruthless of wanted men.
Jamie Foxx, Christoph Waltz, Leon DiCaprio, Kerry Washington,
and Samuel L. Jackson really give it their all here, being either smart
3-Dimensional heroes, or just the most evil sons of bitches you'll ever see on
film. Foxx has really evolved as an actor, showcasing he can do more than just
impersonate Ray Charles. He’s cold, blood hungry, and the type of guy who will
take advantage of his freedom to kill the men that wronged him in every
possible way. Waltz also returns after winning his Oscar in “Basterds,” and
honestly, I don’t think he’ll be able to top this performance. He always has
words of wisdom about bounty hunting, and manages to always have an ace, or in
this case a gun, under his sleeve in many situations. Not only that, but I’m
really jealous of his beard; I mean, LOOK at that thing. While Kerry Washington
isn’t in the film as much, she still manages to leave an impression on us,
simply through her expressions than dialogue. We see the torment she goes
through in her eyes, and it leaves us to the imagination of what torment she’s
been put through off screen. Then there’s Leo; oh god, this performance he
gives is quite possibly his best. He chews the scenery so much, that I couldn’t
believe there was any of it left. This is also one of the few times that he’s
given a performance that actually scared me out of my seat; I mean, the guy slams
his hand onto a glass, it’s bleeding all over, and he STILL goes on his rant.
That’s what I call dedication. Then we got Samuel L. Jackson once again, and he
really brings up his a-game here. Honestly, since he’s in his 60’s, some
actually figured this is what his age is supposed to make him look like. And
that’s what really makes him intimidating, is that even though he’s an old man,
he can really get under your skin and bring up the worst of fears in you, just
from that cold-blooded stare of his. It really makes you think who the true
villain is, DiCaprio or Jackson, and I was really disappointed none of them
were nominated for an Oscar for these performances. Then again, it was a tough
year, so I can’t blame them.
There's also the fantastic soundtrack, which out of all of
the others on this list, this one fits the mark the best. It's a mix of old
Western themes, two-in-one remix, and much more. This is the Tarantino film
where I can’t find any scene in it that’s the least bit boring, and I feel that
future viewings will prove the same.
In fact, all these films that he’s made prove that to me,
even if there are some complaints that I have with them. I hope people can see
why guys like me enjoy directors like him, and how much of an influence he can
have on people.
Also, Mr. Tarantino, if you’re reading this, I hope these
words will let you change your mind about “The Hateful Eight.” Even if the
first draft was leaked, you can still change it around and still surprise
people. If not, then I do hope that whatever you do next turns out as
spectacular as ever.
I’m Eric Turpel, and my favorite Western of all time, is
“Django Unchained.”
Back in
2011, when I started originally doing film reviews on Deviant Art, one of my
first films to talk about was “Unknown, starring Liam Neeson and directed by
Jaume Collet-Serra, who made that awful remake of “House of Wax.” It was a film
that while had great action, was more focused on the suspense, thrills, and
mystery aspect that it brought up. In that film, Neeson played Martin Harris, a
man who arrives in Berlin with his wife, but when he goes to get his ID back
from the airport, he gets into a car accident. When he wakes up, he realizes
there is another man who claims he’s Martin Harris, and now Neeson needs to
find out what’s going on, as he’s been hunted by people trying to subdue him.
It was in my opinion Neeson’s best film in a long time, in the ways of
portraying an action star, more so than “Taken.”
Now
this time around, Collet-Serra and Neeson are working again, this time with the
film, “Non-Stop.” The film tells of Bill Marks, an Air Force Marshall, who starts
getting texts on a flight by someone threatening to kill a passenger every 20
minutes, unless a payment of $150 million is forwarded to an account. Marks
tries to find out who it is, but soon finds out that the account number is in
his name, and now Mark is framed for hijacking the plane, as he desperately
tries to clear his name, before the plane crashes. Much like “Unknown,” the
film brings the focus away from the action, and goes for the suspense and
thrills. And for a film in a plane the whole time, there is only about 3 action
scenes total, as well as lasting about three to five minutes at most. But that’s
what I felt worked, was that there wasn’t much action to begin with, since it’s
in a plane, and you can’t do much anyway.
As
always, Neeson brings a captive presence to him, playing a former New York cop,
turned Air Marshall, after life changing events. Yeah, there are clichés, but I
didn’t let them bother me, since he’s proven to make it work extremely well. To
this day, Neeson has proven to not only be a great actor, but a great action
star at that, even in his 60’s. We also have Julianne Moore in the film,
playing the lady friend that he meets on the plane. She does have a likable
character to her, being someone who does tend to get close and help, even if
she’s just a typical everyday woman. There’s also good performances from other
people on the plane, like the doctor, the main stewardess, the partner of
Neeson, and the pilots. We also have some great work from, now Oscar winner
Lupita Nyong’o. As for the twist with the culprit, I won’t spoil it for you,
but with the motivations made, it does make sense. It actually makes the
culprit more relatable, as it would be something I would do myself, if driven to
that point.
Does
the film have flaws? Only a few. There were at times when certain moments felt
out of place, like how Neeson’s partner was able to smuggle cocaine onto a
plane (that does happen), but I managed to find a few reasons that were left
out probably get the better of me. Other than that, nothing much really
bothered me that badly, or got me confused.
Now the
big question is, how did this hold up against “Unknown?” does Well, as much as
I do enjoy this film with what it does, “Unknown” is still the better film in
my opinion, as it had much more enjoyable mystery and suspense to it, with
enough action to balance it out and make it just as investing as any typical
filmgoer would find.
Overall,
“Non-Stop” still manages to prove that Liam Neeson is still a badass, and that
this director CAN do good movies. If you’ve got time, definitely take a look at
this and have a blast with it.
Back in
2007, before his fans were divided by all the talk of “Man of Steel,” Zack
Snyder was best known for two movies: the remake of “Dawn of the Dead,” and the
adaption of Frank Miller’s “300.” Based on Greek history, the film tells of the
Battle of Marathon, in which King Leonidas and his Spartan army go up against
the Persian army lead by Xerxes…and that’s it. Sure, there’s Queen Gorgo trying
to recruit back up for the battle, but there really isn’t much plot to be said.
All the film is is stylized action scenes, accompanied by tremendously cheesy
moment after moment in-between and slow-motion shots, to make the film seem
more epic. While this does seem like a film that IS up my alley, I didn’t think
it was as investing as everyone says. It could be from either expecting a bit
too much, or because I saw the film four years after its popularity went down
for a while. But despite it all, I did think it was entertaining, especially
since we don’t get that many R rated action films now-a-days.
It wasn’t
until years later that they decided to make a sequel to it. It had been in the
works for quite some time now, and had many delays added to it for quite some
time. The original release date was set for the first weekend of last August,
which was also set to compete with the “Robocop” remake’s original release
date, but then both were pushed back. Snyder was originally set to direct, but
he declined to direct “Man of Steel,” so it went to Noam Murro after he turned
down to direct “A Good Day to Die Hard.” And let me just say, this film ALREADY
proved itself to be a much better film than that travesty.
In this
new film, we learn the back-story of Xerxes and how he became the true ruler of
the Persians, after his father had been killed by Themistocles, General of
Athens. When brought to present time, Themistocles and his army of Athens start
to go up against the Persian army on the sea sides, lead by Artemisia.
Technically, the film is more of a parallel film to the last one, as the events
of the first movie are brought up at times, cutting to stock footage indicating
that it is happening. I thought this was a clever way to expand this story
further. From what I heard, this film is supposed to be based on Frank Miller’s
sequel comic, “Xerxes,” which is what certain points of this story are taken
from.
In
terms of casting, I found them enjoyable. Lena Headey and Rodrigo Santoro
reprise their characters from the first film as Gorgo and Xerxes, despite the
lack of screen time they have, as the focus is more put on the war going on.
With the new cast, Themistocles is played by Sebastian Stapleton, and for a
replacement for Gerard Butler, he manages to pull through in a different tone. Whereas
the Spartans and Persians are more focused on winning the battle, Athens and
the rest of Greeks do have remorse over the loss of their men, which fits the
position that Themistocles is in.
As for
the rest of the cast, none of them really do stand that out as much, as they do
seem to mostly be the same stock character; that is, except for the main villain
of the film, Artemisia. Oh my god, Eva Green’s performance in this movie is
absolutely STUNNING. She is so crazy, so bold, and downright reasonably evil; I
could not take my eyes off her whenever she was on-screen. With how the film
has similar elements that could be recycled from the first movie, they do have
the negotiation scene between generals, only it’s a sex scene. All I have to
say is, this is what the sex scene from “Dark Shadows” SHOULD have been like,
if they simply made it an R rated film. Movie still would have sucked, but it
would have at least made it more interesting. And it makes it all worthwhile,
when Themistocles and Artemisia have their final battle, resulting in one of
the best insults I’ve heard in film for a long time.
The
action scenes, keeping in the same style of the first film with blood and slow-mo,
do keep the film entertaining at times. The only problem is that there are moments
that seem to drag on and slow down the pace the film is going. I wouldn’t be so
harsh about it, but it drags it to where I almost fell asleep, or until it
actually got to Eva Green again. If it weren’t for her, the film wouldn’t have
been as good as it was.
Overall,
“300: Rise of an Empire” is pretty much like the first film. If you didn’t like
the first film, then I have no doubt you’ll like this one, unless you go just
for Eva Green’s performance.
Rating: 6/10
Tune in next time, and I'll be talking about "Non-Stop."
Jay
Ward is considered by many as one of the pioneers of television cartoons.
Reason for it is with the iconic success of “Rocky & Bullwinkle,” a show
about a moose and flying squirrel going on many adventures that stop the
persuasive plots of Potsylvanian spies, Boris Badinov and Natasha. This show
was made around the times of the Cold War, so it was basically a satire on
that, but that wasn’t all the show had to offer. There were other cartoon
shorts, such as “Fractured Fairy Tales,” “Dudley Do-Right,” and today’s
subject, “Peabody’s Improbable History.” This is pretty much the educational
segment of the show, as it features the smartest dog in the world, Mr. Peabody,
and his adoptive son, Sherman, going back in time with an invention called the
WABAC. They use this to go back to historical events in history, and show what
happened during this time and see how it unfolds. It was pretty much the
segment kids usually went to go get snacks or use the bathroom, as it has been
deemed the weakest of the bunch.
And much
like “Rocky & Bullwinkle” and “Dudley-Do Right,” “Mr. Peabody & Sherman”
was turned into a theatrical film for modern day audiences. Now when I heard
news about this, I wasn’t the least bit interested, even when trailers started
to pop up, I thought it was going to suck royally. I mean, let’s face it, “R&B”
and “Dudley Do-Right” rightfully bombed due to the lack of loyalty, and the
only good thing about it was the casting. Say what you will about Jason
Alexander, at least he did better justice to Boris more so than Robert DeNiro
did to Fearless Leader. Bottom line, I had low expectations for this movie. And
even if it was helmed by acclaimed director, Rob Minkoff, the man behind “The
Lion King,” it still didn’t do it for me. Don’t forget, this was the same guy
responsible for “The Haunted Mansion” starring Eddie Murphy, so it could go in
either direction. So, as I pulled a triple feature, I started the day out with “Mr.
Peabody & Sherman.” And let me just say…It surprisingly didn’t suck. It’s
no masterpiece, but it does manage to be a charming kid’s movie.
The
film tells the origins of Mr. Peabody and Sherman, as they return back from one
of their past adventures for Sherman to start school. However, after he gets
into a fight with a bully named Penny, Peabody must now try to make peace with
the family, if he wants to keep Sherman in his custody. Disaster strikes when
Penny tricks Sherman into showing her the WABAC and getting stuck in time, leading
to shenanigans. The plot, while a bit generic, doesn’t stray from what keeps
the charm of the original cartoons. In fact, it may be one of those rare occasions
of a film adaptation being loyal and superior to its source material; it pulls a
reverse with the cartoons, where “Rocky & Bullwinkle” and “Dudley Do-Right”
have the superior cartoon, but inferior film adaption.
While
the cast is full of on-screen voice actors, I thought they did an okay job
here. Ty Burrell as Mr. Peabody does a good job at portraying the character,
showcasing his smarts in the simple tone of his voice. Granted, he’s no Bill
Scott, but I digress. I also enjoyed the work done with Sherman, played by Max
Charles, who you may remember as young Peter Parker in “The Amazing Spiderman.”
I was glad they DID get a kid who DOES have acting chops to play Sherman, and I
hope to see more of Charles’s work in the future, in both film and animation.
We also get appearances from other great talents, such as Leslie Mann and
Stephen Colbert as the Petersons, Mel Brooks as Albert Einstein, and even voice
actors such as Patrick Warburton as Agamemnon and Jess Harnell as George
Washington, Abe Lincoln, Isaac Newton, and Bill Clinton.
The
humor in the film, while modern, does make sense. I mean, think about it, it’s
a film that involves Time Travel, so something like that could take place at
any given time and it would work out if done right. While there were some jokes
that felt tacked on, the rest of it does keep in tone of the cartoon, like
Peabody making historical puns. And in all honesty, I’d take bad puns over bad sophomoric
humor, which is too common nowadays. Not only that, but the film manages to get
in a few touching moments, and I do feel they have a good impact on you when
they happen. I am glad to see that Dreamworks has been improving with their
animated films as of recent, because this one does hit the spot decently.
Now is
there anything I didn’t like in this film? Yes, and one of them is with one
character, but a big one at that. The girl in this movie, Penny Peterson,
played by Ariel Winters. Don’t get me wrong, Winters did a good job voicing
this character; I just felt that they made this character too unlikable when
they introduced her. In fact, she bullies Sherman just for being raised by a
dog, and thus she starts treating him like one. Now I would have been okay with
this, but she went WAY too far, and I felt like that was too harsh. Not only
that, there were moments that felt SO damn corny, that it took me out of the
film for a second, with a prime example being that clichéd “I'm Sparticus” speech that is seen a lot of films. Aside from that, nothing else
really bothered me that much.
Overall,
“Mr. Peabody & Sherman” is a charming little movie that manages to have
good humor, wonderful animation, and seems to appeal to audiences of this
generation. If you have kids to take to this movie, then I’d recommend seeing
it, if “The Lego Movie” isn’t playing, or you already saw it. Trust me, you won’t
be bored.
Rating: 7/10
Oh, and you know that triple feature I mentioned? Well, next
reviews are on the other two, coming soon.
If
there is a man that defines legend, it’s Hayao Miyazaki. This man has been one
of the biggest inspirations of the animation department for over forty years,
getting his start of business with the first “Lupin the Third” series back in
the 70’s. Since then, he’s made classics such as “Castle in the Sky,” “Kiki’s
Delivery Service,” “Ponyo,” “Howl’s Moving Castle,” “Princess Mononoke,” and “Spirited
Away,” all of which are some of my favorite films of all time. He really knows
how to capture some of the most breathtaking visuals and create such
magnificent worlds that have inspired other great film makers and animators
alike.
Sadly,
he’s announced that he’s finally putting a close to his career, and finally retiring…for
real this time. So to end it out, he’s chosen to give us the Academy Award
nominated film, “The Wind Rises.” And let me just say, if this film was
released in the U.S. the same time it was in Japan, I would have IMMEDIATELY
put it up with my favorite films of the year list.
“The
Wind Rises” tells of Jiro Horikoshi, a young boy who dreams of becoming one of
the finest plane mechanics who ever lived. During his time growing up, he works
down to the bone to deliver a creation that will showcase Japan’s talents and
get them up to date with technology. However, what he’ll soon realize is that
the planes he’s designing will be of usage to the Nazis during World War II.
While
not a 100% biography of Jiro, as there are moments that do feel romanticized,
it doesn’t take away from what it’s trying to tell here. It’s telling the story
of a boy who tries to hold onto the dreams he’s had since childhood. For the
most part, the film mostly focuses on Jiro trying to find the way to make his
dream come properly, without it falling to pieces in the test run, even if he’s
told to go as far as learn some designs from Nazi engineers. While Miyazaki has
stuck to making stories for families of all ages, this one is a pure adult
film. It’s not an R rated film, heavens forbid, but it does manage to treat the
audience like adults here, showing the struggles a man has gone through for his
work, especially when he finally finds love that he knows will be taken from
him. In my mind, it may be Miyazaki’s most realistic film, despite a few goofy
moments.
The American
voice cast is filled with good choices in my book; when it comes to Studio
Ghibli films being dubbed in English, they really know how to get on-screen
actors to perform excellently well here. Emily Blunt, John Krasinski, Martin
Short, William H. Macy, Stanley Tucci, and Elijah Wood really pull through
here, really capturing their characters as if they WERE these characters. We
also have an appearance from Mae Whitman, who was the only true voice actress I
caught in this film, and I thought that was a nice touch there. However, what
really worked for me was Joseph Gordon-Levitt as Jiro. Throughout a majority of
the film, or hell the entire movie; I completely forgot that was him in the
role. His quiet tone and subtlety made this performance work especially well.
This is the best voice acting job I’ve seen him do since “Treasure Planet.”
As for
the animation, do I even need to say anything about? I mean, it’s Miyazaki,
traditional hand-drawn animation, and it is absolutely magnificent. I almost
thought I was going to cry, knowing that this will probably be the last film I’ll
ever see by such a great artist. But at the same time, I’m glad he’s doing it,
because we all knew it would happen sooner or later; and if I DIDN’T see this
in the theater, I would have regretted it immensely. I just hope that future
generations will be able to appreciate not just the legacy of this man, but the
impact of traditional animation as a whole, since it’s becoming a dying art.
If you’re
a longtime Miyazaki fan, like me, then there is no reason for you to not see “The
Wind Rises.” It’s a beautiful work of art, and is a true swan song to quite
possibly the greatest animator who ever lived. With it nominated for an Academy
Award tomorrow night, I wouldn’t be surprised if it managed to win. And if it
doesn’t, I’m at least glad it was given the nomination.
