Change Your Image
TyTanner
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
Jupiter Ascending (2015)
The Wachowski siblings have tarnished their reputation
It's hard to imagine how the same directors and writers of the timeless Matrix movies and the bold and engaging endeavour that is Cloud Atlas can produce something as impotent and poor as Jupiter Ascending.
Lana and Andy Wachowski shot to fame after releasing what has become a cult classic - The Matrix (1999). While Reloaded and Revolutions were never going to meet the standards set by the original film, they still formed a unique and memorable trilogy.
Cloud Atlas (2012) was a brave project with a plot, soundtrack and visuals neatly described by one word: compelling. While it is based on a book (no originality), it remains thought-provoking and involved, keeping the viewer captivated and eager to watch it again after a digestion period of maybe five to six months.
But with two recent flops in a short period of time (2008's Speed Racer and now Jupiter Ascending), you begin to question just how good Lana and Andy truly are at making films.
Jupiter Ascending has one of the weakest protagonists you'll come across in a movie, a plot so unoriginal it makes 2013's Man of Steel seem innovative, non-existent character development and acting as laughable as Pierce Brosnan's SOS number in Mamma Mia (2008).
A 'space opera' set in the modern day, alien dynasties living in far away galaxies bid to own planets, with Earth being one of the most valuable. The evolved inhabitants of these other planets are harvested to produce a youth serum which allows the other-worldly species to live for millennia after millennia.
Jupiter Jones (Mila Kunis) lives on Earth, and is the reincarnation of the matriarch of the Abrasax family - the richest and most powerful empire of all the alien dynasties.
The mother's will stipulates Earth be passed on to her genetic reincarnation, but her three children; Balem (Eddie Redmayne), Kalique (Tuppence Middleton) and Titus (Douglas Booth), all vie to claim it for themselves, thus having to capture Jupiter and find a way to take away her inheritance.
In a classic Cinderella story, Jupiter, an innocent girl slaving away at a dirty job, is swept in to space by Caine; her knight in shining armour (Channing Tatum) - a genetically engineered hunter constantly saving Jupiter from impending danger. Destined to become a princess, she ultimately returns to Earth as the rightful owner (unbeknownst to all other humans living on Earth), as good triumphs over evil.
An initially plain and boring protagonist, chosen to save the world - sound familiar? Also akin to The Matrix, the humans on Earth are used as 'batteries' to fuel the aliens/robots life - it appears the Wachowski siblings have truly run out of novel ideas.
Kunis and all the other actors give expressionless and emotionless performances, looking to finish their jobs and get paid as quickly as possible.
Eddie Redmayne, who plays Balem, has in recent roles forced the viewer to request subtitles to understand his dialogue. While an almost incoherent speaking voice was necessary to portray Stephen Hawking's debilitating disease in The Theory of Everything, why he was again cast with a barely understandable voice in Jupiter Ascending is beyond me, unless he thought it could score him another Oscar nomination?
With unnecessary and possibly even insulting tributes to other movies such as Star Wars, Soylent Green, The Graduate, Star Trek, Back To The Future and Brazil, Jupiter Ascending deservedly turned over a poor $98.3 million at the box office, and holds a pretty spot-on rating of 23% with Rotten Tomatoes.
Audience members and critics carry on about the cutting edge special effects and the visually stunning planet, city and other-worldly settings, but with a $176 million budget and access to today's CGI technology, is it really that impressive?
When you're halfway through the film working out what time it will finish if it started at 9.50pm, you know the $28 spent on a ticket, medium popcorn and a Coke could have been put to better use. I've never walked out of a movie I've seen in cinemas, but I can count on one hand how many I would have liked to - Jupiter Ascending is the second, after Looper (2012).
Lana and Andy Wachowski have seemingly damaged their reputation beyond repair. Jupiter Ascending makes us question their artistic value, and it can even force us to go back and re-evaluate their cult classic, The Matrix. Still one of the most boundary-pushing movies in recent history, were there other underlying factors which made it such a success?
One theory, as noted by J. Wesley Judd (Can Jupiter Ascending change the way we feel about The Matrix? Feb, 2015), suggests The Matrix was so successful because the Wachowski siblings capitalised on the public's fear about a millennial apocalypse (of the year 2000), creating a film which portrayed a modern day dystopia society.
That hypothesis certainly holds merit. Regardless, with action sequences far too long and lacking any commitment, Jupiter Ascending can be quickly cast aside, but certainly not forgotten (for all the wrong reasons).
The Lego Movie (2014)
A Heavily Involved Film - Both Good and Bad
The 1949 popular line of construction toys – Lego – has made it on to the big screen. It only took 65 years. Actually, that's not true: Lego-based series such as Bionicle, Hero Factory, Lego Star Wars, the short animation of Monty Python and the Holy Grail in Lego, and the film Lego Batman: The Movie - DC Super Heroes Unite, have all preceded The Lego Movie, so the concept is not exactly fresh. It is however, the first big Hollywood blockbuster – only a matter of time – and it won't be the last (The Lego Movie 2 has been approved for release in 2017).
There are few iconic films these days born from original ideas – most are recycled ideas given new angles. So because the recycled style of film is what audiences have come to expect, we are instinctively impressed when an idea has been effectively reconditioned. The Lego Movie falls in to that 'automatically stimulated' category for many viewers, because yes, it's directed, produced and written well, but it's not new. Here's why it warrants three stars out of five (or 6/10 for IMDb).
No animated film is without a villain, conflict, and some degree of fighting, but The Lego Movie's violence stood out – most noticeably the scene where Vitruvius is decapitated, along with the arrest of several civilians who are electrocuted, shouting in pain, not to mention the whole 'destruction of the city' theme, and the plan to destroy everyone with permanent glue.
While all violence is 'Lego violence' intended to be taken ever so lightly, and is predictably, the imagination of Finn - a real person (Jadon Sand) - it's the fact it is the imagination of a child which is of concern. Will Ferrell's eight-year-old kid, crafts the whole 'President Business is destroying the world' premise based on his father's (President Business's) actions. Ferrell is stifling his kid's (the Lego people's) imagination, and is adamant to maintain control over his world. This is unnerving on a couple of levels – the fact a father is so steadfast in not allowing his son to play with toys designed for children (and adults), and also that Finn concocts such a vehement storyline as a result of this.
So was the transition to the live action scenes necessary?
For younger viewers, the parallel of the two story-lines is something they wouldn't understand to great effect. But for young adults and anyone older, a message about the degree of which adulthood imposes itself over childhood – initially as a discouragingly and damagingly force – is an issue which gives us something to contemplate.
Emmet, the film's protagonist, journeys from an ordinary character to a 'special' individual - much like a child with a clear mind which becomes filled with the experiences of a maturing adult. And Lego itself does possess that unique quality of breaking the confines of age.
But the overpowering idea of the majority of the film about the negative imposition of parents over their children (a.k.a. the Big Brother supremacy over its people) is certainly noteworthy, maybe even alarming. And although we have our mainstream and compulsory happy conclusion, emphasising individual thought and family values above all, almost the entire movie gives us a somewhat disconcerting view of the adult values in a child's upbringing – but maybe this is a good issue to bring to the forefront?
That being said, the foreseeable switch to the live action was a let down, anyway. Maybe this part was too involved for its own good.
The film does do a good job however, of giving rise to other involved ideas. Lord Business is the epitome of current day capitalism and commercialism, and at the same time the entire concept places firm roots in George Orwell's classic 1984 novel – a dystopian world of enduring war; pervasive government surveillance; and public manipulation; controlled by an elite political group which oppresses independent thinking.
Looking at distinctive scenes in the film, such as punishment for not following instructions, and cutting ties between parent and child (when Bad Cop freezes his folks), there are many more specific parallels to be drawn between this movie and 1984. So here, the film does exceptionally well in recapturing Orwell's timeless, not-so-fictional- novel, for a new generation of viewers.
Adult-specific cultural references and jokes made within the film are constructed well too, as are the parodies of other movies.
How about 'Cloud Cuckoo Land' - one of the realms featured in the movie - a land with no rules and reached by travelling up a rainbow. Maybe a cultural reference to the concept of heaven? A reference that could imply such notions invented through various religious groups are in fact cuckoo? Or am I drawing a long bow here?
The concluding triumph of individual creations and breaking free from vanilla instructions over a Nanny state is also in direct contrast to what the actual Lego product is all about – a company which wants you to build structures according to very specific guidelines.
So does this movie, which at first brings up the serious issue of the degree to which adulthood enforces its values on childhood experiences, then comes to a resolution of individual thought, actually follow its own advice and think for itself? Not so much. Although its recycled ideas certainly do work to an extent.
From a pure child's perspective, if those few acts of hostility were left out, as well as the switch to the real people, it could have been better, but that would have changed the dimensions of some of the adult references.
Having said that, The Lego Movie had opening weekend figures in Australia over $5.7 million, a figure second only to Captain American: The Winter Soldier. And it will no doubt do wonders for the sales of those colourful building blocks... I forget what they're called.
Don's Plum (2001)
A Hidden Gem
Remarkably, but at the same time not surprisingly, my critique is just the thirteenth review on IMDb of Don's Plum.
Shot in six days but over a span of two years, this black and white low-budget drama has been the subject of litigation in America.
Briefly summarised, actors Leonardo DiCaprio and Tobey Maguire, stars in this film along with an ensemble cast, sought to prevent the film's release by claiming it wasn't intended to be viewed as a big-screen movie, rather it was done as a favour for a friend for an acting exercise.
Two law-suits later, one by the producer David Stutman and the other by John Schindler (who both claimed DiCaprio and Maguire intentionally interfered with the distribution of the movie) and this film can not be shown commercially in the US or Canada, but it was released everywhere else.
So it's fair enough why such a movie has little recognition.
But it is also puzzling why there aren't more evaluations of this title considering in this day and age you can download movies with the press of a button, and also because the movie features two of Hollywood's highest-grossing actors of all time.
Independently filmed in the mid-90s but not released until 2001 (because of the law-suits), Don's Plum is a hidden gem. Shot in a similar fashion to that of Swingers (starring Vince Vaughn, 1996), Don's Plum has a type of raw energy that needs to be seen in order to be appreciated.
Shot almost exclusively in a Los Angeles diner (no prizes for guessing the name of the diner), you could be pardoned for thinking this black and white 90-minute feature might fail to keep you engrossed in the story-line.
But you should think twice, because captivated you will be.
Centred around a group of four twenty-something-year-old friends who attempt to lure girls to join them down at Don's Plum each Saturday night, the dialogue, topics of conversation, raw passion and events that arise over coffee and fries are authentic and vivid portrayals of the human condition.
Each character has a unique personality and all execute classic performances of obnoxious, smart aleck, attention-seeking, but sensitive, vulnerable and innocent youths shouldering issues and struggles which make life and our subsequent social behaviour so fascinating to watch and scrutinise.
The other minor characters whom come and go during the duration of the film add further depth and potency, as does the retro-style soundtrack.
Throughout the film, we witness cuts to the diverse but comparable characters' retreats to the diner's bathroom where each initiates conversation amongst themselves in the mirror, reflecting (pun intended) on their own plights, qualities and thoughts about what is going on.
This offers not only a break from the continuous conversation and bantering around the table, but an insight in to the characters' own lives too.
Dialogue (largely improvised) with obscene language about sex, masturbation, drugs and family problems amongst a group of juveniles is surprisingly and extremely compelling and perceptive; a great credit to each of the characters.
It would be my recommendation for you to find a copy of this film to view just how good some independent and low-budget features can be.
It may even be beneficial that this film has little acknowledgement as that means only the people willing to search for this feature will have the privilege of witnessing its quality.
Drive (2011)
Not enough substance
Drive is considered an art-house action drama feature, a tribute to car film's of a bygone era and is inspired by many other retrospective films.
Writing and directing these types of movies like Drive (which pay respect to older features) is always high risk but handsomely pay off if they are produced well and have their potential fully realised (for example: Quentin Tarantino's Death Proof).
Somewhat regrettably, Drive did not work to great effect as a stylish, neo-noir film inspired by Grindhouse influences, because it lacked true substance.
I wanted to like the movie because one; it was recommended to me and two; because I rate director Nicolas Winding Refn very highly for his host of good films. For me, this wasn't his best, but I don't blame him entirely, in fact I blame in most part, the writer.
Drive has some terrific moments no doubt, which include some fantastic graphic scenes rich of violence and gore and a soundtrack that has a retro-stylish and 80s theme to it.
But I believe the film was too scarce and deficient in substance. When I say substance, I am referring to the interest in the story/plot, the characters and their development and the overall engagement with the film's audience.
I failed to connect with the characters, had little if no interest in what happened to them and was unmoved and uninspired by the story, which is a shame.
So this is where I blame the writer for not developing the characters enough. And I also blame the actors for not selling their part. It might be harsh but I believe it to be true. Unfortunately, I did not even feel much sympathy for the wife/mum Irene (Carey Mulligan) or her young son Benicio (Kaden Leos).
I didn't think too highly of The Diver's (Gosling's) performance either and that may have been due to the fact he was given very little dialogue. Gosling's limited dialogue worked in some scenes, but not in the most part because he failed to build any kind of relationship with me (the audience).
If you desire to see a superb Gosling performance, may I suggest Refn's 'Only God Forgives' which he both wrote and directed. Hint, hint. Now that film is a true visual masterpiece and draws you in brilliantly. Compelling viewing, to say the least. I also recommend watching 'The Place Beyond the Pines,' directed by Derek Cianfrance. Gosling is still a stunt driver but far more convincing in his role, and the movie itself is brilliant.
But I digress.
The styles and influences that Drive employs (including film noir and comic gore) have been quoted as "a bizarre concoction... reminiscent of David Lynch's Mulholland Drive... and Quentin Tarantino's Pulp Fiction, (reviews from the Cannes International Film Festival).
Really?
Mulholland Drive (a surrealist neo-noir film) and Pulp Fiction (a non linear, stylized black comedy/crime) are two masterpiece films that deserve to be recognised, as I'm sure they are, in their own right. Drive may attempt to draw on some of the styles and cinematic techniques from those two features, and does well in some aspects, but is not exactly reminiscent of them.
I have given Drive a rating of 6, one; because it does deliver some well orchestrated scenes, builds tension and is backed by a good soundtrack (credit to Cliff Martinez) and two; because you can't give half-ratings on IMDb. Ideally, I would have given it 5.5 but I am feeling generous today. Tomorrow I might have given it a 5.
Looper (2012)
A senseless and irrational dream
We've all had convoluted dreams we thought could potentially make brilliant movies but know would never really work because of their irrational nature, however it seems director Rian Johnson has actually endeavored to make his vision in to a big Hollywood blockbuster.
Well that was a mistake.
Looper is basically an attempt to resolve some kind of senseless dream Johnson may have had one night that was based around time travel in a cornfield and also had some telekinetic premise to it. And he though he should cast two Hollywood heroes to give his movie a bit more credibility.
This attempted science-fiction/action/thriller is disjointed and perverse. It tries to be clever but in doing so becomes a complete joke and fails to capture the audience's attention.
It does a poor job at trying to deal with time travel and after the first half of the movie is complete, it tries to regain the viewer's interest by bringing in a telekinetic sub-plot and a kid with extra-ordinary powers.
There are so many inconsistencies and plot holes that it is not worth listing them in this review. A complex sci-fi movie should not allow it's viewer to drift off, have time to leave the cinema, get some more popcorn, come back in and miss absolutely nothing.
Moreover, the length of the film is ridiculous. Two-hour movies should be reserved for powerful, intriguing and information-packed features, and Looper is none of the above. The movie goes on for far too long about nothing in particular and when it finally comes to an end, the two main characters become completely futile.
Pierce Gagnon who plays Cid, the child 'rainmaker,' is the only good thing to come out of the movie in that he is a fine young actor and deals with some difficult scenes surprisingly well.
With some pointless characters (the dim-witted Kid Blue), a couple of dreadfully time-consuming and uninteresting monologues between Joe (Gordon-Levitt) and Sara (Emily Blunt) and the fact that it'd be so much easier for the crime lords to kill their victims in the future then send them back to the past (avoiding any hassles with an escape and even eliminating the need for a Looper) or sending the victim back to the Middle Ages (seeing as though they have this time travel thing operating so efficiently), Looper makes the list of 'the worst movies I've had the privilege of watching in cinemas.'
But don't let that stop you from going to see it and making up your own mind about a film that should have remained in Johnson's mind as a messed up and illogical dream he once had.