Last year, I put “The Fault in Our
Stars” on my list of favorite films of 2014. And why not? The film
had fantastic acting, strong direction, and solid writing behind it.
Based on the book by John Green, the script was written by Scott
Neustadter and Michael H. Weber, the duo behind the scripts for “The
Spectacular Now” and “(500) Days of Summer,” the latter of
which is my all time favorite film. Romantic dramas seem to really be
their specialty at this point, as they always have such interesting
and witty stuff for their characters to say in each scene. So you can
imagine that I was excited to see their newest film, based on another
John Green novel, “Paper Towns.”
“Paper Towns” tells the story of
Quentin Jacobson, a high schooler always fascinated by his neighbor,
Margo Roth Spiegelman. After she takes him to get revenge on her
friends after finding out her boyfriend cheated on her, Margo
vanishes the next day, so Quentin and his friends go on a journey to
find her as their last adventure before high school ends.
How is the film? Well, I think it's
pretty damn good. I didn't like it as much as “The Fault in Our
Stars,” but it was still something I greatly enjoyed watching. The direction by Jake Schreier is
done very well, and really lets the audience be engrossed in the
interactions between characters.
Speaking of which, the cast does a
fantastic job in this film. Nat Wolff as Quentin does a fantastic
job, also marking his second performance in a John Green adaptation
after playing Isaac in “The Fault in Our Stars.” I'd dare even
say that this is his best performance as an actor, and it really
shows his growth as since working on “The Naked Brothers
Band.” He's awkward, but soon builds his confidence and
determination with finding Margo, showing a sense of growth as a
character throughout the film. Austin Abrams and Justice Smith as the
best friends, Ben and Radar, also give out great performances, being
supportive, growing in confidence, and don't stick to being
stereotypes. The chemistry between these three is probably the best
part about the film, because you do buy that these guys are long-time
friends, especially during the scene where they sing the “Pokemon”
theme song.
Halston Sage and Jaz Sinclair as the
friends' love interests, Lacey and Angela, do have some really strong
scenes in the film. They have enduring moments, but at the same time
have very funny moments as well. Originally in the book, Angela had a
smaller part, but for the the film's sake, they wrote more stuff with
her involved, which turned out pretty nicely. Cara Delevingne
gives a great performance as Margo, playing a very ambitious
character who essentially becomes just as mysterious as the journeys she
takes part in. I think Delevingne is a great actress here, and I hope
she does give out her best as the Enchantress in "Suicide
Squad."
Now
with all that said, what didn't I like about the film? Well, the only
complaint that I do have with the film is the chemistry between
Quentin and Margo. Don't get me wrong, it's not bad, far from it...it
just didn't feel as strong as the friendship between Quentin, Radar,
and Ben. I get that it's the intention of the story, the mystery of
Margo, but I would have liked a couple more scenes between the two
before the disappearance happens. After hearing that the film had to
be rushed while filming in North Carolina, it definitely feels like that in some parts. If they took their time a
little bit more, then it probably would have turned out a little more
even. But I'm no producer, so what do I know?
Aside
from that, "Paper
Towns" is still a really damn good film that I highly recommend
watching when you get the chance. The characters are likable, the
dialogue is great, and the acting is solid. If you liked "The
Fault in Our Stars,"then there's a chance you'll enjoy this one.
I've said it before and I'll say it
again: Jake Gyllenhaal is one of the finest actors of our generation.
Last year, he starred in “Nightcrawler,” a thriller about a man
making a living off filming crimes and accidents on the streets of
L.A. The year before in “Prisoners,” he played a detective trying
to help two couples try and find their daughters. Those two films
showcased Gyllenhaal at his finest, and you become fully engrossed in
those two characters, and yet the Academy didn't nominate him for
either performance, which is criminal. Gyllenhaal more than deserved
a nomination, and yet he gets shelved aside for other performances
that you look at and question how THAT got a nomination, yet he
didn't. And from how things are looking here, it'll take a miracle
for the academy to give him the long overdue nomination for his
newest film, “Southpaw.”
The film tells of famous light
heavy-weight boxer, Billy Hope, who's life spirals out of control
after his wife is shot and killed during his conflict with
smack talking boxer, Miguel “Magic” Escobar. With his home,
fortune, title, and daughter taken from him, he finds employment from
former boxer, Titus “Tick” Wills, who trains him to get his life
back on track.
For a story about a boxer's comeback
after his fall from grace, Antoine Fuqua directs it to its peak. The
boxing matches are handles very strongly, adding so much grit and
intense flare to it, yet it flows in a way that feels natural. I also
love how he used the shaky cam technique right, having it used for
P.O.V. shots and making us see through the dizzy fatigue that the
fighters have in their line of sight. Major props to Mauro Fiore for
his excellent work as Fuqua's go-to cinematographer.
Jake Gyllenhaal, once again, gives it
his all in this film. His performance as a man who struggles with
pulling his life back together is heartfelt and fantastic with each
passing second. I also loved how they didn't make his character sink
to an even deeper low, when he hunts down his wife's murderer, and
sees that he has a family of his own. That scene, while it doesn't
last long, is still very effective. It may not be as good as his
performance in “Nightcrawler,” but it's still one that I would
definitely say is worth a Best Actor nomination. Oona Laurence as his
daughter, Leila, was equally as touching, and I'm hoping she gets a
nomination for Best Supporting Actress, especially at her age. She
goes through that emotional point in her life, blaming her dad for
all of the bad things that happened, which is normal for kids to do
that. The scenes with her and Gyllenhaal are very touching and the
most emotional part of the film and easily the best acted.
I also give props to Forest Whitaker
as Tick, another performance in the film that's worth an Oscar
nomination for Best Supporting Actor. Sure, he's the Mickey Goldmill
of the film, but Whitaker handles it in such a graceful and dignified
way, that it stands out as its own thing. And as the film goes on, he
and Gyllenhaal start to grow on each other, learn how the other
thinks and how they can put a proper fighting strategy into play for
the greater good. Miguel Gomez as Magic was another great highlight
of the film, playing a character that we love to hate. He's a
smart-ass you want to see get punched in the face, and to our
satisfaction, he does. Other cast members like Naomi Harris, Rachel
McAdams, 50 Cent, Skylan Brooks, Beau Knapp, Victor Oritz, and Clare
Foley, are all very enjoyable onscreen.
The script was written by Kurt Sutter,
best known as the creator of “Sons of
Anarchy.” For his first feature film, he pulled through and gave us
one of the best boxer films in a while. And from the looks of it, it
looks like “Creed” has some competition.
Lastly, I want to talk about the
incredible score composed by James Horner. His skills really set the
mood and allowed the music to be apart of the atmosphere in the film,
something he was always best at. It's sad that he died earlier this
year, but thankfully his legacy will live on, no matter what. This
was truly his swan song of a musical score. Rest in peace, good sir.
Overall, “Southpaw” is one of my
favorite films of the year, and while I know it won't happen after
the reception this film received, I'm still going to cross my fingers
for this film to get nominated for it's performances. It's intense,
it's heartfelt, and it's both physically and emotionally brutal.
In 1990, Nick Park introduced the
world to the claymation duo of Wallace & Gromit, in their Oscar
nominated debut, “A Grand Day Out.” It caught on quick, garnering
much love from critics and audiences alike, and because of their
success, the two returned in two new shorts, “The Wrong Trausers”
and “A Close Shave.” In the latter short, we had more characters
introduced, one of which was Shaun the Sheep. Starting off as a
supporting character in the short, Shaun's popularity with the masses
grew with each passing year, and in 2007 was given his own TV show.
It featured Shaun as the leader of a flock of sheep on a farm and
their many shenanigans. Simple, but it works.
With how successful the show was doing
on BBC, surely it must have been enough to garner a movie, right?
Luckily, it did. Earlier this year in February, “Shaun the Sheep
Movie” was released in the UK, and recently made it's way to
audiences world wide.
In the film, Shaun becomes tired of
the usual day to day schedule, so he comes up with a plan to have the
farmer sleep in his trailer and let the flock have a rule free day.
However, when the farmer's trailer rolls into the city and he loses
his memory, it's up to Shaun and the gang to find him, all the while
being chased by animal control.
One of the key elements that both the
show and movie has is that there isn't any dialogue. My friend, Noah,
says that the types of films that he loves to make are visual films,
where you can put it on mute and still understand what's going on
perfectly. That's what “Shaun the Sheep” is: a visual film.
Speaking of which, the animation is spectacular to look at. It's
always a treat to see a stop-motion animated film on the big screen,
especially from Aardman studios. The design is recognizable, the
sight gags are hilarious, and the interactions between characters are
very genuine.
I think the only complaint I have with
the film is that there wasn't as much done with the villain, A.
Trumper of animal control. Not that he was a bad villain, but I just
felt like there should have been a bit more with him. Aside from
that, there isn't anything else in the film that I didn't like.
Overall, “Shaun the Sheep Movie”
is a very likable film to sit back and relax to. It's not the kind of
film that's trying to be deeper than it is, it's just a film that
does it's job right. It's entertaining, it's funny, and it's great to
look at. Not much to say on this one, except go and give it a watch.
So after the Sony hacking back last
Christmas, Marvel and Sony have come to a deal to let Spiderman be
allowed into MCU, and another reboot is planned to be released in
July of 2017. Honestly, I'm not looking forward to the new film...at
all. Not because they canceled on “The Amazing Spiderman 3” and
“The Sinister Six,” or the fact that Spiderman will be played by
another actor instead of Andrew Garfield (although, those reasons are
up there). No, I'm not looking forward to the new movie because the
script is being written by the guys who wrote and directed
“Vacation.”
For those who don't know, “Vacation”
is the fifth film in the “Nation Lampoon's Vacation” series,
about the Griswold family and their vacation time going horribly
wrong in almost every way. The first and third film hold up
especially well today, thanks to John Hughes style of writing and the
likable charm that Chevy Chase brought to the screen as Clark
Griswold. The rest are kind of “meh”...but when you compare them
to this recent installment, they're fucking masterpieces.
In “Vacation,” we follow a grown
up Rusty Griswold, who works as an airplane pilot and is married with
two boys. When it comes time for their vacation, instead of going to
the log cabin they usually go to, Rusty decides to take them to
Walley World, just like in the original film. Along the way,
shenanigans happen...or in this case, “shit-nanigans.”
You remember last year how unbearable
“Sex Tape” was? This film is actually worse on
almost every level! The jokes in this film-oh wait, THERE ARE NO
JOKES! All this film consists of is one awkward moment after
another, with the cast reacting to it in either an overactive way and/or
completely unrealistic way! The film also makes meta-jokes,
referencing the original film and trying to poke fun at itself. But
where it was done in “22 Jump Street” and it worked, this film
does it just because? There's a line in the film saying, “some
may not remember the original vacation, but the new one will stand on
its own”...no it won't, don't lie to me, movie.
Ed Helms as Rusty Griswold was so damn
obnoxious, he actually gave me a headache. From the minute we see
him, you know exactly how the humor's going to play out, with him as
a bumbling idiot who is also a complete windbag. I could have seen
this work well as a supporting character, and see Jason Sudekis do it
better, but then I would feel bad for Jason Sudekis being in this
movie. I like Ed Helms fine, but as the leading man, he just doesn't
have that charm to him. I feel sorriest for Christina Applegate as
his wife, Debby. Throughout the entire film, she has that look on
her face that spells out“Why am I here? Please, somebody shoot me!”
I mean, I would have that look too if I was told to do an obstacle
course puking, swim in sewage, and pretend to care about three such
aggravating people for an hour and forty minutes.
Leslie Mann is in the film, playing
Audrey Griswold, with Chris Hemsworth playing her husband, Stone. The
so-called “highlights” of their scenes consist of their sexual
passion (referencing faucets), a lot, Hemsworth keeping Mann from
getting a job, and a pointless scene where Hemsworth checks up on
Helms and Applegate, while he has a huge boner. Okay movie, you need
to learn something here: boners aren't funny. They're not. There can
be reactions to said boner, those are funny. But, if the main joke is
for some guy to walk in and out of a scene with a hard on, that's not
actual humor. Which, by the way, YOU NEED TO LEARN!!
And if knowing that Chris Hemsworth is
in the film wasn't insulting enough, we have surprise cameos from
other talented people who apparently don't care about dignity!
Keagan-Michael Key and Regina Hall play the Griswold's neighbors,
with Key having a playful/psychotic relationship with his son, and
Hall being an uptight bitch who complains about people not liking her
photos on Instagram. Okay, first off, I don't think anybody would
give a shit if one person didn't like a photo on social media...okay,
maybe SOME people, but not everyone! And two...how do you put
Keagan-Michael Key in a movie and not have him be funny?! Seriously,
how do you screw something like that up?!
In another string of cameos, we have a
scene at the Four Corners, where Michael Pena, Nick Kroll, and
Kaitlin Olsen play cops from each different state. Oh, and Tim
Heidecker's there too, which begs another question: why the fuck is
that unfunny talentless hack still getting work?! But it doesn't
matter anyway, since the scene is unfunny.
Hell, not even Chevy Chase and Beverly
D'Angelo, who reprise their roles as Clark and Ellen Griswold were
funny. They're only there for a short amount of time, but come
on! This is the third sequel Chevy Chase has appeared in, where it's
a complete insult to its predecessors (the other two being “Hot Tub
Time Machine 2” and “Caddyshack 2”). I feel like he
did this film for the same reason he did those other films: money
was involved.
The only moment in this entire film
that made me laugh was with Charlie Day. He plays a river rafting
guide who's fiance breaks up with him, so he tries to kill himself
during the raft trip. Day knows how to make anything
worthwhile...it's just too bad the scene was ruined, when they show
that he survived falling off a waterfall...way to ruin the only
moment of comedy you had, you bastards.
The film also shoehorns in a villain,
played by Ron Livingstone, who only appears twice in the entire film.
Why? No reason. He's supposed to be Rusty's rival, as this sort of
bachelor pilot, but there's no build-up to this at all! He shows up
once in the beginning, then appears at the end for no other reason
than to pad the film out for another five minutes!
Skyler Gisondo plays the eldest
Griswold son, James, who is such a spineless dork that it's insulting. He makes Greg Heffley from “Diary of a Wimpy
Kid” look like James Dean for God's sake! That, and he also gets
bullied by his hellspawn of a little brother. And when I say
“hellspawn,” I mean that in the harshest way possible. Steele
Stebbins as Kevin Griswold was the worst thing about this movie, and
is without a doubt the worst child character I have ever seen in a
movie. He constantly, CONSTANTLY bullies his brother, ruining his
stuff, invading his privacy, and just insulting him without context.
In a scene where the family is cracking jokes to lighten up the mood,
he ruins it by just saying “James is a piece of shit,” as bluntly
as anyone could. That, and he also makes death threats to him, saying
he was going to shoot him if he got his hands on his uncle's guns,
and also tried to suffocate him...TWICE!! And the audience thought
this was funny? ARE YOU PEOPLE MENTAL?!!
However, the most
insulting thing about this movie, was the dedication at the end, to
Harold Ramis, the director of the first “National Lampoon's
Vacation.” To the makers of this film, John Daley and Jonathan
Goldstein, what did Harold Ramis ever do to you? Did he not tip you
when you valet parked his car or something? Harold Ramis would never
want to be associated with a film that was this mean-spirited, this
childish, and this forced, no matter how much you try to pay him.
This was the most painful experience
of a film that I've had in a movie theater this summer, and I thought
it couldn't get any worse than “Hot Pursuit!” I severely wanted
to walk out on this film, but in the back of my head, I knew I was
going to have to finish it one way or another, so I figured it was
best to just get it done and over with, and never have to come back
to it. I thought I was in a nightmare, looking at the audience
laughing at every sad attempt at humor. I wanted to give this film a chance. I
was really hoping two of the writers of “Cloudy with a Chance of
Meatballs 2” and the “Horrible Bosses” films would give out
something decent as directors. Then again, even someone like
Robert Zemeckis has a “Mars Needs Moms” under his belt. But even
with all that, the film does have some good to it, like...the seat I
was in was comfy. Okay, there isn't anything good.
The year was 1981. A young film maker
by the name of James Cameron had just released his directorial debut
film, “Piranha II: The Spawning,” and it was a critical and
commercial failure. Nobody thought that a director like him would be
able to get another job in Hollywood ever again. Then all of a
sudden, in 1984, during the month of October, every single one of
those people who doubted him, were eating their words after the
release of “The Terminator.”
The film told the story of the
futuristic war on Skynet, in a time when the machines reigned
supreme, and the human race was fighting back as much as they could.
Skynet's best option to take out the rebellion's leader, John Connor,
is to send a terminator, namely a T-800 model, to go back in time and
assassinate John's mother, Sarah Connor, before the war begins. In
response, John sends his second in command, Kyle Reese, back to the
past to find Sarah, and stop the T-800.
“The Terminator” not only paved
its way to becoming one of the best science fiction films ever made,
but one of the greatest films of all time. It pulled Cameron out of
the ashes of his already doomed career, showing us his true
capabilities, and also brought Arnold Schwarzenegger into more of the
mainstream eyes after “Conan the Barbarian.” The film managed to
combine action, sci-fi, and horror, into one neat little package that
very few films could have done at the time.
It's sequel, “Terminator 2: Judgment
Day” released in 1991, features another terminator, sent back in
time to hunt John Connor down, while his mother is in custody. The
new terminator, the T-1000, is a liquid metal robot unlike any other,
and in response, a reprogrammed T-800 is sent back to help John and
Sarah, giving them further help to become the warriors that are known
in the past and future.
“Terminator 2,” along with
Cameron's previous film “Aliens,” are both regarded by many as
two of the best sequels ever made. And why shouldn't they? They took
their previous counterpart, and made them into the very best intense
action films of their respected decade, that featured very powerful
female action leads, and iconic creatures that were equally as
powerful. While the first “Terminator” may be my favorite, I do
agree with everyone that “T2” is the best of the series. It was a
fantastic film on several thousand levels.
Then came “Terminator 3: Rise of the
Machines”...and boy, was this a misfire. After getting around the
fact that James Cameron wasn't attached, this film doesn't try
anything new, and just comes off as a rip-off of the last film. John
Connor is chased down by a terminator in the past, and a T-800 is
sent back to help protect him. The difference? The new terminator,
the TX, is a lady terminator, played by the actress who played
Bloodrayne, and Sarah Connor wasn't featured in the film. Linda
Hamilton actually explained in an interview, that she turned down
this movie, because they would kill her off halfway through, without
mourning her death, making the character disposable. After that, I'm
glad that she didn't come back for this film. Despite it being a
success at the box office, and a mass majority of critics liking it,
it didn't stick well with me.
Six years later, we got “Terminator
Salvation,” directed by McG. This was one that people absolutely
hated, calling it a disgrace to the franchise, and not a true
“Terminator” film. Personally, I thought the film was pretty
good. I mean, it's no masterpiece, but it was definitely better than
“Terminator 3.” Instead of getting another film that involves
traveling back in time to save the Connors, we got something we
haven't gotten yet: a film in the series that entirely takes place
during the Skynet war. Yeah, for a film that shows us the war several
times in the beginning, we finally have a film dedicated to the
battles of said war. I also thought that Anton Yelchin did a very
good job at playing a younger Kyle Reese, not letting an ounce of
intensity slip out of the character. Michael Biehn would be proud, if
you ask me. Hell, I even liked Christian Bale as John Connor, despite
the taped rants that were shown later on. Sam Worthington as Marcus
Wright, I thought did a pretty good job as well, playing a terminator that helps out the rebellion. My only gripe is that I
wished the trailers didn't give that away so quickly, because that
just shows you how bad marketing campaigns are getting these days.
But overall, “Terminator Salvation” was a good time, being my
third favorite of the series.
Plans for a fifth film have been
buzzing around years, especially when Arnold announced his
return to acting after his term as Governor of California ended. And
after appearing in “The Expendables Trilogy,” “The Last Stand,”
“Escape Plan,” and “Sabotage,” the chances were higher and it
seemed it was going to be a reality...however, something being a
reality doesn't always turn out for the better.
This time around, we go right back to
the time travel, all the way back to when Kyle Reese is sent back to
1984 to save Sarah Connor. However, once Kyle is there, things are
drastically different, as he encounters a T-1000, only to be
saved later by Sarah and a T-800, who has been her guardian since she was
9. Hoping to finally put an end to Judgment Day and the war
completely, they must then travel to 2017, when a program called
Genisys becomes the Skynet they know in the future, only one of their
obstacles now is John Connor as a new kind of terminator, the T-3000.
The best way to describe this film is
that it's the “Star Trek (2009)” of the “Terminator”
series...but done poorly. It's trying to be a reboot, but at the same
time be a continuation of the series. But where as “Star Trek
(2009)” managed to handle the time travel/alternate reality aspect
in a much better light, this one does the exact opposite. There are
constant moments that bring up moments that happened in the first
film, that it really gets distracting and doesn't make sense, since
this takes place in an alternate time-line. If this is an alternate
universe, and the events that happened to Sarah Connor in the first
film are obsolete, why does she even keep bringing them up? I mean,
yeah she had the T-800 to fill her in on events when it was sent back
to save her, but who sent the T-800 to begin with? We assume it was
John Connor, but the film doesn't make light of that at all. Trust
me, there are several other problems that don't make sense in this
film, so let's move on.
While the action scenes themselves are
fine, the special effects don't impress me that much. They don't look
any better than “T2,” which is really pathetic if you ask me.
We've been advancing the shit out of technology in film for several
decades now, making a big jump with CGI thanks to “T2” and
“Jurassic Park,” and yet there are still mainstream blockbusters
that don't look any better than that of those from the 90's. The
worst effects in the film by far, are with John Connor's regeneration
abilities as the T-3000. Seriously, I have seen PlayStation 1 games
with better graphics than that!
The casting is incredibly hit and miss
here. I mean, Arnold is fine as always as the T-800, so that doesn't
bother me, and I was okay with how they explained his aging look in
the film. Emilia Clarke did a fine job, playing a young Sarah Connor,
even if it was a Linda Hamilton impression. I did find it odd how she
did look younger than Linda from the first film, but since it's an
alternate timeline, I could let that go. Jason Clarke as John Connor
did as good a job as he could, but the way his character was directed
wasn't really that appealing. The idea of John being the villain was
bold, but the way it was done didn't seem to work.
Then we get to Jai Courtney as Kyle
Reese...*sigh*...look, I mean no disrespect to Jai Courtney, I'm sure
he's a nice guy in real life, but I just don't think he's a good
actor, let alone a good choice to play Kyle Reese. This is the 6th
film in a row that I've seen him in where his performance is just
shit. His acting style is so wooden, that it really makes it hard to
feel any emotion for the character he's portraying. As John McClane's
son in “A Good Day to Die Hard,” he was awful. In “I,
Frankenstein,” he was awful. In “Unbroken,” he sucked. In both
“Divergent” films, he sucked. And now in “Terminator Genisys,”
he was a poorly done Kyle Reese. I mean, I will admit he was better
in this, than the others, but that's not much of a compliment. To
this day, the only film I've liked him in was “Jack Reacher,” but
that's only because his character was SUPPOSED to be an emotionless
assassin. I wouldn't mind it if he played a terminator, but as Kyle
Reese...it doesn't work. And no, I'm not looking forward to seeing
him as Captain Boomerang in “Suicide Squad.”
Did I forget to mention that J.K.
Simmons and Matt Smith are in this movie? Yeah, you read that right. The recent Oscar winner, and Doctor Who himself, are in
this movie. And what do they do? HARDLY. ANYTHING! Yeah, Simmons
helps them out in a couple moments, helping prove Kyle and Sarah's
innocence in one scene, but you could have easily cut him out of the
film, and it wouldn't have made a difference. He was useless here!
This is NOT on my tempo, movie!! And Matt Smith, he plays Skynet,
taking over the role previously played by Helena Bonham Carter in
“Salvation.” Sure, he has that moment in the Skynet war, turning
John into a villain...but that's the only big contribution his
character has. The rest of the time, he appears as a hologram, simply
saying they're going to lose, but he's not doing anything. Here's an idea:
why couldn't he just be the villain? Why couldn't he have just killed
John, and then go into the past to stop Kyle and Sarah? Seriously,
think about it. He would have been a far more interesting threat,
since he was the one who turned John into a terminator to begin with,
and could have had his own ARMY of terminators at his disposal right then and there!
We've seen what he's capable of, what's to stop him?!
The film was directed by Alan Taylor,
the same man who directed “Thor: The Dark World,” which I admit
to loving a lot. I don't know if that film was just a fluke, or if he
had trouble working with the script, which was written by Laeta
Kalogridis and Patrick Lussier. James Cameron said that this film was the true third “Terminator”
movie, but I have to disagree with him completely. With
how big of a clusterfuck this movie is, I can easily say that this
film...is the worst installment of the “Terminator” franchise.
Folks...I really wanted to like this
movie. I REALLY wanted this to prove me wrong, and turn out to be a great
film, or at the very least decent, but I can't for the life of me
recommend seeing it. It answers questions only to raise more of them
(too many of which to bring up), the special
effects aren't that impressive, the story is all over the place, and
the performances are either mixed or just wasted. Do yourself a
favor, and don't bother watching this film. There are much better
films out in theaters right now that are worth your time, so just go
watch those. Or better yet, spend the day watching the first two "Terminator” films and “Salvation.”
“Jurassic Park” is one of the greatest and most iconic films ever made. Based on the Michael Crichton novel of the same name, it follows the story of Alan Grant and Ellie Sattler, a paleontologist and paleobotanist, who are invited by John Hammond to his private island in Central America, where he has had a team of scientist successfully clone dinosaurs into modern times. The film was a gigantic hit with both critics and audiences, and at the time was the highest grossing film ever made. It had action, horror, great characters, and ground-breaking special effects. This film, along with “Terminator 2: Judgment Day,” helped perfect the capabilities that CGI could do, letting us be engulfed in the epic adventure that director Steven Spielberg and Michael Crichton wanted us to embark on. However, unlike almost EVERY action film today, the film didn't always need to use CGI, only using it for when it was especially necessary, and having the rest be done with practical effects. Even then, the film is a classic, and still remains one of the highest grossing films of all time.
The sequels, however, not so much. “The Lost World: Jurassic Park” was pretty much the sequel that divided up most fans, whether they liked it for the entertainment value, or hating it for the butchering of Michael Crichton's novel. As for me...I'm half and half with it. It's no where near as good as the first film, but I do remember quite a lot of moments from it, like the finale with the T-Rex in San Diego. Aside from that, nothing that special.
“Jurassic Park III,” this time directed by Joe Johnston, decided to do their own thing with the franchise, since there wasn't a third book to adapt. This is one of those films, where I honestly don't remember much of. That's pretty much all I can say about this one; it's the worst of the series, because of how forgettable it was.
Now the idea of a fourth film has been buzzing around so much, but has been going through development hell for so many years. Scripts were being axed, directors where changing, and cast members weren't even assembled yet. It wasn't until the start of the new decade that we finally got word of the film truly happening, and the film being directed and co-written by Colin Trevorrow.
Over twenty years after the events of the first movie, scientists have been able to find a way to not only stabilize the park, but make it into a much bigger success, Jurassic World. When the park's newest attraction, a genetically modified dinosaur, breaks loose, it's up to Owen Grady, a velosiraptor trainer, and Claire Dearing, the park operations manager, to try and take out the beast, before the park falls apart and everyone on the island is killed.
Let's get the obvious out of the way, how does the film stand? Well...It's not really a film I'd want to see again, let alone in theaters, but it has its highlights. For starters, Chris Pratt does a great job at playing Owen, our main hero. He's quirky, he's likable, and knows what he's doing, which is what I come to expect from him as an action hero. Bryce Dallas Howard also gave a decent performance as Claire, so no faults on her acting. One thing that did seem to bug me is her being able to run in heels throughout the entire movie. I mean, for a film about dinosaurs, I can only extend my suspension of disbelief so far. I also liked the idea of seeing what the park would look like if it actually did open and succeed in its success. It also adds self-awareness to the genetically altered dinosaurs, saying that most audiences are bored with plain dinosaurs and want something new, so tickets can skyrocket. It is a logical explanation, and it perfectly represents the common practices that most business go through. There are also a few action scenes that are fun to watch, having an intense feel to it for the most part.
As good as those highlights are, there is also a lot of shit in it that didn't seem to work for me. For one, the CGI was overused, and I do mean overused. I didn't think the movements of the dinosaurs, particularly with the raptors, wasn't believable, and the stuff with that glass roller ball ride was a bit hokey. I would have let it go, if it wasn't for the fact that the film makers didn't claim that they were going back to the classic roots of the franchise, only to reckon it with the finished product. But even if they did, it wouldn't have been the same anyway. Something about the original film and what a landmark it was in terms of effects, it's like we can't go any further than that with dinosaurs, so there isn't as much magic as their usually was.
The rest of the cast, I couldn't care less about. They're pretty stock cliched characters, but not in the good sense. Vincent D'Onofrio is pretty weak as the villain who wants to use dinosaurs as weapons, and the way he goes out isn't that satisfying. He wasn't enjoyable enough to where I wanted more of the guy, but he also wasn't aggravating enough to where I wanted him out as quickly as possible. He was just a blank slate that could have been played by anyone. The kids who are Claire's nephews, Zach and Gray, also weren't enjoyable. Whenever they may have had a touching moment of character development, they immediately brush it off later on in the film, never mentioning it again. It could easily be a mistake on the director for rushing it, but the acting from the kids doesn't help either. You could have cut them out, and it wouldn't have made that much of a difference. B.D. Wong reprises his role as one of the scientists from the original film, Henry Wu, but he's pretty forgettable. Sure, there's the whole deal with D'Onofrio's character, but it's not really that important. Again, you could cut this character out, and it would make no difference.
The built up new dinosaur, which is called Indominus Rex, wasn't really that special to look at. For an experiment like this, that has camouflage and the intelligence of a raptor, the look of it isn't really impressive. With the other genetically modified dinosaurs, I expected the I-Rex to have the mixed designs of multiple dinosaurs, but what did it look like? Just a blue T-Rex...lame. I will admit, the raptor training was a bit off to me, but when it got to the third act, I kind of got where it was going...up until the climax of the film. Not going to spoil it, but by the end of this film I thought to myself, “Did they seriously put that in the script?” If you've seen the film, you know what I'm talking about.
However, my biggest problem with the film is that it's BORING. Yeah, not gonna lie, for a film about a theme park featuring dinosaurs, and a FOURTH ONE at that, it feels very lackluster. Granted, it IS a better film overall than the other two sequels, but not by a whole lot. The only scenes that actually did feel exciting, were the escape from the Jurassic Park graveyard, the pterodactyl attack on the park, and the finale, the latter of which was the best part of the film. Other than that, the film feels uneventful. I mean, Chris Pratt's fun to watch, but with the scenes without him, who's suppose to keep the film entertaining? D'Onofrio? The kids? Some other jackasss I don't give a damn about? Yeah, I don't think so.
Overall, “Jurassic World,” while not the worst of the franchise, is a film that doesn't really deserve all the hype and praise it gets, and isn't something I'd pay to go see in theaters, let along more than once. If you're interested, I'd say wait until it's on TV or up for rental. Be glad that I didn't have that much hype for this film to begin with, otherwise I would have given it a much more than it deserves.
Brad Bird is one of those directors
who always puts great effort into his work. Being most commonly known
for his work in animation on “The Simpsons” and directing films
like “The Iron Giant,” “Ratatouille,” and “The
Incredibles,” he's also had his share of dabbling into live action
very well, directing the fourth “Mission Impossible” film,
“Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol.” Since he's still got a
strong connection with Disney, he was then tasked with helming one of
their newest films, “Tomorrowland.”
Now the idea of making a film out of a
Disneyland attraction isn't anything new. The “Pirates of the
Caribbean” franchise is a prime example of this risky move being
successful, with each installment garnering from $600 million to $1
billion at the box office. However, that's not to say there are
downfalls, as while the sequels are still enjoyable, they never did
match up to the strength the first film brought. But hey, at least
they're not as bad as “The Haunted Mansion” starring Eddie
Murphy...that's still the lowest point to hit.
So now the main question here is, does
“Tomorrowland” have the same appeal as “Pirates,” or is it
another “Haunted Mansion?” The answer is, the former.
The film tells of Casey Newton, a
young girl who's trying to stop the dismantling of the NASA launch
pad in Cape Canaveral. After she's arrested and bailed out, she finds a pin that shows her a vision of a futuristic utopia known as
Tomorrowland. Desperate to learn more about, she meets up with the
android, Athena, as they set out to find Frank
Walker and return to Tomorrowland, with the hope that Casey might be
the answer to stopping a world calamity.
Now what exactly works in this film?
Well...pretty much everything. Not only does this work as one of Brad
Bird's best films, I would even say this is one of the best
science-fiction films I've ever seen. I saw the film opening weekend,
and I had a blast watching it. It's an action adventure film, that
really knows how to blend humorous moments together with the more
touching elements. The intro may have been a weird way to start out,
but at the same time didn't really bother me as much as it could
have.
Casey is played by Britt Robertson,
and she does a great job portraying this character. She's a quick
thinker, she's rebellious, free-spirited, and has some great moments
that let her shine out. I'm hoping that after this, she does get more
work in the future. Raffey Cassidy plays Athena, who easily takes the
honor of being the funniest character in the film. Her dialogue,
her antics, and just the amount of visual jokes that the film does
with her are downright hilarious. Her best scene involves her getting
hit by a car, and it hardly even fazes her for a minute, before she
gets up and starts chasing another. That was brilliant. Frank Walker
is played by George Clooney, giving us another damn good performance.
Frank is a character who you really feel the most sympathy for, when
you finally get through the whole film. I think my favorite scenes
with him are when he's interacting with Athena, which can either be
very funny, or very sad, which the film handles nicely on both sides.
Hugh Laurie plays David Nix, the leader of Tomorrowland and the
film's villain. However, what separates David from other villains, is
that you actually do buy his reasons for being how he is. Not going
to go into detail here, because then I'd be going into spoiler
territory.
One of the major things I loved about
the film, was the message, which talks about defying the future and
standing up to change destiny. We live in a world where we always
feel helpless in disastrous events happening in our world, that not
as many people are actually taking a stance to do something about it.
Global warming, the war in different countries, the extinction of
animals, shit films being made, whatever the case may be. We just
give up and accept it, letting others who aren't as experienced to
handle it. Thank you, Brad Bird, for letting a message like this be
delivered.
Overall, “Tomorrowland” did not
disappoint in the slightest. It was greatly directed, perfectly
acted, brilliantly written, and is one of the best science-fiction
films that I've seen. It's a shame that this film is bombing as badly
as it is, because this doesn't deserve to. It especially pisses me
off that “Maleficent” got to be such a big hit, grossing over
$700 million worldwide, and yet this DIDN'T?! I call bullshit on
that, Disney!!...*sigh*...oh well, at least Brad Bird will be
directing “The Incredibles 2” as his next film.
