Change Your Image
jacobclark512
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Lists
An error has ocurred. Please try againReviews
Finding Dory (2016)
Pixar hits my nostalgia button, and it works.
If you're around my age, there's a pretty good chance that Finding Nemo was a part of your childhood, and there's also a good chance that you really enjoyed it both then and now. It is an incredibly heartfelt and emotionally rich story that just happens to be incredibly well-animated. It also stands quite well on its own.
So, naturally, when Disney announced that they were making a sequel entitled Finding Dory, I was more than a little skeptical of how they were going to proceed. Finding Nemo to me was so self-contained that there wasn't much of anywhere to go with the story. I mean, I know that Pixar has done some good work with sequels before, but they've also misfired big time (anybody else remember Cars 2 or Monsters University?).
Thankfully, Finding Dory definitely fits into the better half of Pixar's filmography. It is surprisingly engaging and a natural progression of the first film's story, and also has some of the best animation Pixar has done yet.
How does Pixar make this story work, you ask? It's quite simple (and quite spoiler-free as well): everything revolves around Dory's condition of short- term memory loss. There's not a real villain or even a mild antagonist anywhere to be found in the entire film. This makes it a much lighter and simpler journey than Finding Nemo, but it also makes character development suffer a little bit. Granted, there's plenty of good characters that are developed quite well in the film, in particular an octopus named Hank as well as Dory herself. I'm just of the opinion that an antagonist makes a good character into a great one. That being said, for the kind of film that Finding Dory is trying to be, it actually kind of works and is not something noticed while actually watching it.
This is mostly because of the stellar voice acting. Pixar has always had a knack for finding great voices to fit their characters, but Finding Dory has some particularly good choices. Ellen DeGeneres as Dory was a great choice in Finding Nemo, and seeing the back-and-forth between her and Albert Brooks as Marlin is quite refreshing and quick-witted. As far as new characters are concerned, all of them have great casting behind them. In particular, I enjoyed Ed O'Neill as the aforementioned Hank, Ty Burrell as Bailey, a beluga whale, and Kaitlin Olson as Destiny, a near-sighted whale shark. All of them had great emotion and really made their characters come alive.
What always sets Pixar's films apart from every other animation studio's is the quality of the animation. Finding Nemo was so gorgeous when it was released and remains an incredibly groundbreaking step in animated technology. Finding Dory takes this even further. The sheer quality, depth, and texture of the animation present here is astonishing. It might be their best-looking film to date, which even to someone who understands how far computer animation technology has advanced in the past few years might be surprising.
You might be asking yourself at this point whether or not I'm going to find any significant flaws in Finding Dory. As hard as I try, I can't; however, that doesn't mean it's perfect. It's mostly just really, really good all around. It never quite reaches the stellar narrative heights of the best Pixar films that have come before it and can't seem to tug on my heart as much either, but that doesn't diminish it as a standalone film. Even though it's not the best thing Pixar has ever made (which at this point would be an incredibly hard thing to make), Finding Dory is a well-animated and emotionally tugging film that will entertain both children and their parents that bring them to see it.
Grade: 89
Inception (2010)
Artistic, thought-provoking, and original. I can't ask for more.
My number one reason for liking Inception might seem fanboyish, but I'll say it anyway: it's a Christopher Nolan film.
Now, my reasons for liking Nolan's films are too numerous to count, but I'll say this: he is one of the very few directors who makes artistic, thoughtful films on a blockbuster budget. Starting out as an indie director with Memento, Nolan really hit his stride when he inherited the Batman franchise and made his Dark Knight trilogy (which I will cover later in this series). However, he always had a knack for taking original content such as the magician-focused novel The Prestige or creating his own original ideas.
This is where Inception comes in. How many films can you say have been made about the subconscious of the human mind? And how many of those got the budget of Inception? Nolan is ambitious, I'll give him that. Thankfully, he uses his ambition and passion together, making what seems as one pet project after another. His devotion to his craft is rare in today's industry. Inception evidences this beautifully: Nolan wrote his own script and, as is typical for his films, never allowed second unit filming, directing every single shot himself. He is also very particular about his effects, opting for practical, real stunts and visuals instead of generating them on a computer. Inception has less CG shots than even Batman Begins, which is quite obviously mostly real in its effects. This grounds his films in reality and makes them more fun to watch.
Speaking of visuals, let's talk about Inception's aesthetic. Most of Nolan's films are worked on by cinematographer Wally Pfister, and while he has done excellent work in all of his Nolan collaborations, this is his best. The way he changes the color palette through each layer of the dream is quite subtle but very effective, helping us keep track of where we are throughout the complicated climax. Other scenes, particularly in the lowest dream level, show us an excellent knowledge of scale and scope on Pfister's part. The best parts, however, are when he uses high-speed cameras to slow down the film to reflect the time changes between the levels. It ties everything together beautifully and helps us understand how that process works.
That moves us right on to the best aspect of Inception: the story. I can't really go into detail here without spoilers because this is one of the more complex plots I've ever seen. Just know this: repeat viewings are almost required. This is not for comprehension, but rather to pick up on all the nuances that are here. There is so much to this plot that I am still picking up nuances upon watching Inception for the ninth time and enjoying the film even more. In case you can't tell, this is not a movie where you can turn your brain off and slip mindlessly into another world. You have to pay attention or you will lose track of what's happening.
To keep this short, I'll say only one thing about the score and then move on: Hans Zimmer is the best film composer today. This film gave him that title.
Inception's cast is almost as big as I've seen in any film. Leonardo DiCaprio is the top-billed star, but that is incredibly misleading as this film is a true ensemble piece. He also doesn't steal the show in Inception like he usually does, leaving others a lot of room to work. The one thing that is starting to get to me about DiCaprio is that, as good as he is, all of his characters seem the same. They all struggle with their inner demons extensively throughout the course of the film, and Cobb is no different. Outside of DiCaprio, the acting is equally stellar, with Tom Hardy and Cillian Murphy stealing the show. Hardy plays Eames, a forger for Cobb's job who is one of the very few characters with any kind of comic relief. He really shows his range here and proves that he can help carry a film. Murphy plays the subject of the final job, Robert Fischer. I feel that he best embodies how we react to ideas in our subconscious and really made Inception relatable to the audience.
Inception is a masterpiece, and an original one at that, from the man responsible for some of the best films of this century to date. Christopher Nolan really knows how to bring all the elements of a film together into one coherent vision, from the story to the casting to the aesthetic to the score. Every part of this film contributes to the overall vision. Inception is one of my favorite films because it challenges the mind and makes it think. In a world of escapist entertainment, this film makes us explore our minds and our ideas in a way I've never seen before.
Mad Max: Fury Road (2015)
Oh, what a film...what a lovely film!
Well, that was exhilarating.
Honestly, Mad Max: Fury Road might be the most fun I've had at the movies in quite some time. I spent the last couple weeks catching myself up on George Miller's action franchise after seeing how well Fury Road was doing critically. Long story short, the original films are now some of my favorite action movies.
Flash forward thirty years, and Miller is back at it again, making the fourth Mad Max film. Without Mel Gibson. Skeptical?
Don't be. If there's one thing George Miller knows how to do, it's direct an action film. Save for ten minutes in Beyond Thunderdome, he made three action films that centered around the action. In today's world, most action films try to go for emotional depth and complex scenarios only to drag themselves down with unnecessary clutter. While Fury Road does add narrative heft and some emotional backstory, it augments the action and doesn't distract from it.
The one complaint I have with Miller's approach in doing this is that it can leave the viewer somewhat confused about who people are, what they are doing, and why they are doing it. This is a hallmark of the Mad Max franchise, for better or for worse. The most prominent example I can think of in Fury Road is the main villain. I loved his look, I loved his voice, and I loved the character all around, but I can't for the life of me remember the guy's name!
Speaking of the villain, let's talk about the look of this film. Miller's franchise has gone from understated and simple with the first film to progressively more grotesque and strange as the budgets have increased. The third of the original films, Beyond Thunderdome, had a budget of approximately $20 million with today's US dollar value. Fury Road has a budget over nine times that. Needless to say, it is by far the most glamorous of the franchise. It largely retains the aesthetic present in the first three films while adding a lot of new, cool stuff possible with modern technology. The CG present is really well done; however, the practical stunt effects are what steal the show. Miller himself said that 90% of the effects were practical. This adds a realism and heightens the suspense during the absolutely jaw-dropping stunt sequences. My favorite part of Miller's direction is how he manipulates the frame rates to make the action remain coherent or seem slightly less so. That single thing made the film incredibly unique and quite fun to watch.
Moving to the acting, Tom Hardy is an excellent replacement for Mel Gibson. Most people say that acting doesn't really matter in action films. That's garbage. When someone as talented as Tom Hardy does any role, it's noticed. He really embodies the chaos going on inside Max's head and also that stark coldness that Gibson brought to the character. Charlize Theron is also a good choice for Furiosa, as she shows the more caring nature that her character brought to the film.
Overall, Mad Max: Fury Road is the breath of fresh air that action films need in 2015. Most in the genre are either old, worn out franchises (Live Free or Die Hard, Terminator Genisys, etc.) or featuring old, worn out actors (The Expendables). George Miller expertly crafts a film that looks both back and forward at the same time, retaining the unique aesthetic of the original films while also integrating new technology that makes the stunts that much more exciting. Fury Road is a non-stop thrill ride that will entertain almost any moviegoer with its intensity and technicality.
The Interview (2014)
This Movie Isn't Supposed to Be Serious, So Don't Make It Serious
Sometimes, movies can surprise you. Other times, they don't.
Strangely, the latest creation of Evan Goldberg and Seth Rogen, The Interview, does both. On one hand, it definitely had a B-movie feel and was supposed to be campy, overdone, and exaggerated all around. On the other hand, I was surprised at how deftly it delivered blows through its satire.
I'll confess that I'm generally not a fan of comedies these days. Most films placed in the genre just seem to be unfunny and stale (I'm looking at you, Adam Sandler). However, The Interview was one of the first films in a long time that I can say was genuinely funny. Granted, there are your lion's share of crude jokes that somewhat repeat throughout the film, but the delivery and timing of James Franco and Seth Rogen is impeccable. From the opening scene, every single viewer can tell that this is going to be a ridiculous movie, and that's exactly what it is. It's exaggerated, improbable, outlandish, and somewhat predictable; but it takes itself seriously, and that's exactly what makes The Interview hilarious. The ending of the film retains this feel as well, but I won't spoil it for you. Just know that it's a little out there and ridiculous.
This exaggerated nature carries over to the acting. James Franco is drop-dead hilarious as Dave Skylark, a tabloid news journalist. His character is just plain dumb at times which would usually rub off on me the wrong way; however, he is a perfect foil to Seth Rogen's Aaron Rapoport, the producer of Skylark's show who wants to be taken more seriously by his peers. Their chemistry on-screen is electric, making even the overused jokes funny. Randall Park as Kim Jong-un is good as well, making his character seem pretty likable. Overall, the acting in The Interview is over the top: exactly like it has to be.
I also feel like the films delivers its satirical blows at the news media quite well. You might be asking if The Interview pokes fun at the government. Well, it doesn't. Most of the jokes about North Korea are a caricature and not really satire. The United States government as a whole is left high and dry here too. It is Skylark's news program that does the most damage. It invites celebrity guests such as Eminem, Rob Lowe, and Joseph Gordon-Levitt to be interviewed about their personal lives. It pokes fun at how distracted the news media want us to be from real issues and focus on pointless fluff instead. The satire is subtle but easily discovered by those looking for it. I love a good satire, and while The Interview wasn't completely focused on that aspect of itself, it was well-delivered and quite comical. The character of Dave Skylark in general is good at poking fun at the news, as he is just plain dumb sometimes and takes himself very seriously while acting very stupid.
However, it isn't all good news for The Interview. The plot and direction cannot mask its biggest flaw: the film's second act. When the CIA show up at Skylark's home to ask them to assassinate Kim Jong- un, the movie takes a turn for the worse. It develops a more serious tone which really takes away from the comedy and satirical aspects of the film. Devolving into a spy comedy was not a smart move, as it just sucked all the life out of this otherwise good plot. This section of the film also tends to drag quite a bit, ruining the fast-paced feel of both the beginning and end. Despite this, there are still some clever moments regarding their mission, particularly when they screw up while in North Korea and at the film's conclusion. In general, the tone remains light enough for The Interview to still be an easily entertaining film.
Overall, The Interview is not the most memorable film of the year outside of its controversy. It is entertaining enough, but its midsection drags it down with generic spy-thriller sequences. Also, there could have been some more satire and a more poignant message; however, The Interview is still well worth your time for its many good laughs and just to see what all the fuss is about.
The Hunger Games: Mockingjay - Part 1 (2014)
A Good Setup for the Finale
My first reaction to Mockingjay Part 1: wow, this is going to be long.
My second: wow, this is good.
Those two thoughts pretty much sum up my experience viewing Mockingjay Part 1. I really didn't care for Mockingjay the book as much as the first two parts of The Hunger Games trilogy, so when I heard it was being split into two parts, I knew this was a good possibility. Taking the same cast and crew as Catching Fire plus a few additions was a good idea, but making Mockingjay into two movies made me think of other young adult series that have suffered the same fate and not turned out as well as they could have if it was one film.
That being said, Mockingjay Part 1 gets off to a good start for this two-part epic, mostly because of the script. The pace is a little deliberate, and there's not much action; however, the film turns into a war film shortly after it opens and begins poking fun (in a completely legitimate satire kind of way) at propaganda films. This makes it the darkest of The Hunger Games movies yet, which suited me quite nicely. This being the first of the series without the actual Hunger Games, it felt like a natural step forward for the franchise, and I quite enjoyed its highly political themes. Many times, Mockingjay Part 1 feels more like a political exploration of war and its logistics rather than a battlefield epic, making it quite interesting and thought-provoking. I am fairly confident in saying that Part 2 will have far more of the battlefield epic fans expect and less of this "boring logistical stuff"; however, Part 1 works very well as a setup for an action- packed conclusion.
Speaking of being dark, Mockingjay Part 1's aesthetic is very dim. Most of the film is set in the tunnels and underground chambers of District 13 or takes place at night. I personally felt that District 13 was a more than adequate adaptation of Collins's world from the book that also blended in with Panem as we are familiar with it in the films. The outlandish costuming and extravagant makeup is gone; however, this is the way it is supposed to be, so I didn't mind it one bit.
The acting in Mockingjay Part 1 is solid to say the least. Jennifer Lawrence once again commands the film in her role of Katniss; however, she and Donald Sutherland as President Snow are the only characters who actually remain static from Catching Fire to this film. Josh Hutcherson's Peeta is very different (sorry, no spoilers), Woody Harrelson's Haymitch is sober for the first time since his youth, Elizabeth Banks's Effie Trinket is deprived of her Capitol fashion, and Philip Seymour Hoffman's Plutarch is less double-crossing and more commanding. Liam Hemsworth also gives one of the better performances of his career as Gale due to his increased role. The various newcomers from District 13 perform admirably as well, especially Julianne Moore as President Coin. However, I sometimes feel that Haymitch and Katniss are not given enough moments to shine in Mockingjay Part 1, making this film not quite as enjoyable as it could have been.
The direction of Mockingjay Part 1 is very similar to Catching Fire, mostly due to the retention of the latter's director, Francis Lawrence. The cinematography brings a little of the first film's shaky camera-work, but it's just the right amount, making the film feel a little more raw and personal. While I didn't think I would like this, it was done in a very tasteful manner. The pace feels a little off sometimes, especially in the beginning; however, as a rule, this is a well-directed film that sets up its sequel well.
Overall, Mockingjay Part 1 is a good film. It's not a drastic improvement on its source material (and definitely not its predecessor Catching Fire), but it does what any first-half movie is supposed to do in setting up the ending. Fans of the Hunger Games franchise should like it; however, those unfamiliar should at least view the previous two films before seeing this one. It does feel a little long at times; however, Mockingjay Part 1 is a delightful political war film that beautifully sets up the finale to the Hunger Games saga.
The Hunger Games (2012)
A Solid Adaptation of a Great Book
Any devoted fan of a book series would be delighted to hear that their favorite book was going to appear on the big screen. For me, however, The Hunger Games was different. As a novel, it dealt with intense political themes and was a very well-rounded story. Then it became a film. Like every adaptation of a book, The Hunger Games changed some things, and I knew this entering the theater. The book, to me, seemed too complex to fully develop in a two hour running time.
But then details started coming out, like the casting decisions, the crew, and their experience in film. This made me think that Lionsgate was really trying to make this a good film. Hiring actors such as Jennifer Lawrence, Woody Harrelson, and Donald Sutherland made me excited. I knew these names, and other people did too, making this movie more attractive to outsiders that were not already fans. But names don't make a movie. How would this adaptation of a book beloved by millions turn out?
The first key to nailing a book like this on-screen is the script, and The Hunger Games has a good one. The dialogue has an appropriate balance of plot exposition, comic relief, and serious emotion. This also makes the pacing of the story better. The film is not just one long crescendo; rather, it rises and falls in a similar way to the novel. There are also very few notable omissions from the story: those there, while some are considered important, do not change the characterization, the essential message of the film, or the end result. These aspects of The Hunger Games are due to Suzanne Collins, the author of the novels, participating in the screen writing process. When the author of your source material has a say, things suddenly go better in the script and story.
Thematically, The Hunger Games is intense but never seems to nail one specific message down. Some say it is a commentary on the class struggle. Others, an anti-authoritarian film. Still others claim that it is a feminist take on the sci-fi genre. It could very well be all of these at the same time. There is so much room in this film for good themes; however, I personally see it as a commentary (and sometimes satire) of our culture's glamorization of violence. The way the Games are televised and promoted in the Capitol show that they are immune to the effects of immense and immoral bloodshed. At the same time, we are also shown a former victor committing suicide after he wins. This juxtaposition shows us that what the cultural center believes is permissible is not always beneficial.
The visual aspect of The Hunger Games is a solid depiction of Panem, a nation with twelve districts and a central Capitol. When we are shown District 12, Katniss's home, it is portrayed as a poverty-stricken mining community. This aesthetic is done beautifully, with very rustic buildings, landscapes, and costuming. When we arrive in the Capitol, however, it is clear who is on what end of the socioeconomic scale. The extravagant buildings, clothing, and makeup both mesmerize and depress the viewer because, while they are visually impressive, they are also reminded of the depravity of the outer districts, bringing the class warfare discussion back into the ring.
The first less-than-stellar part of The Hunger Games is the acting. Granted, with names such as Jennifer Lawrence, Woody Harrelson, and Donald Sutherland, it can't be that bad. However, the biggest flaw in the acting is not the quality, as we see stellar performances from Harrelson, Sutherland, and Elizabeth Banks: it is the on-screen time these roles get. Harrelson's performance as Haymitch Abernathy, a drunken mentor to Katniss and Peeta, would be Oscar-worthy if he had more time to exploit his character. The major chunk of screen time is given to Josh Hutcherson and Jennifer Lawrence as Peeta and Katniss, respectively. They are both solid choices for their roles, but Lawrence is clearly the better talent, as Hutcherson seems uncomfortable for most of the film. Lawrence also has a command of the film and is not afraid to carry it on her back single-handedly. This unrelenting determination she has suits the role of Katniss well, and it is because of this that the film gets its tone largely right.
Speaking of the tone of The Hunger Games, this is one thing director Gary Ross gets right. His down-to-earth and simplistic style suits the nature of the novel. His use of traditional film over digital is also well-noted; however, it is his cinematography that is the most divisive part of this film. He employs a hand-held camera for most of his shots, and while this can work well for portions of the film where the perspective of the characters is needed and appreciated (i.e. Katniss boarding the train to the Capitol after the reaping), it doesn't always add up. Many times throughout the film, this hand-held camera work is trying to capture a running character with a running cameraman. This looks very shaky and can be almost nauseating, detracting a lot from the film. This shakiness permeates other sections of the film where it has no place whatsoever, tainting the beautiful scenes otherwise present.
Overall, I enjoyed The Hunger Games. Though it has its rough points (especially in the cinematography), it nails the tone, plot, and themes of the novel. The acting also keeps us invested in the characters and is solid in its own right, with the actors interpreting their characters well. This is a rare type of film: one that isn't necessarily the best but will appeal to all types of people. Action fans, dystopia fans, sci-fi fans, and some romance fans will be at least partially satisfied by The Hunger Games due to its broad narrative scope. Yes, its rough around the edges, but in the end you'll look past that to enjoy a good movie.
Boyhood (2014)
The Most Unique (and Maybe the Best) Movie I've Ever Seen
Sometimes, I see a movie that is not like anything else I have ever seen. A list of these films for me would include Gravity, Inception, (believe it or not) Les Miserables, and Flight.
I guess I'll be adding Boyhood to that list as well.
However, unlike the other films on this list, what makes Boyhood unique is not its story, its characters, or its themes: it's the production. As some of you may know, Boyhood was shot in less than fifty days over twelve years with the same cast and crew. Talk about a gamble. There was no telling what would happen if one of the principal actors just suddenly died or if the director's own daughter, playing Mason's sister, decided not to be in her dad's movie anymore. Thankfully, the entire cast and crew stayed together for all twelve years of production, making one of the most unique films of all time. Without this method of production, we wouldn't have the unique story, deep characters, or the rich themes present in Boyhood.
So, what is the unique story of Boyhood? Believe it or not, the story in itself is not unique at all: the film's plot consists of a traditional coming-of-age story about a boy (Mason) growing up with a constantly changing dysfunctional family unit. However, the specifics of what Mason would be interested in and what challenges he would deal with were developed throughout production, making it appear like we are not as much watching a movie as we are real life. Director Richard Linklater said that he was "totally ready to adapt the story to whatever he (Ellar Coltrane, the actor who plays Mason) is going through." This really shows in lots of little moments like when Mason being bullied or when he starts hanging out with the wrong crowd. Yes, these may appear to be a little clichéd, but they are perfectly placed in the grand scheme of things.
That is another area where Boyhood really succeeds. It has this second, more complex layer that underlies its seemingly simple story and characters. Most of the characters may seem archetypal at first: Olivia, the single mom struggling to make ends meet; Mason, Sr., the absentee biological dad who just seems to want to have fun. However, they change drastically throughout the story, with all of them undergoing many transformative experiences. For example, Mason, Sr., really gets his life together by the film's conclusion. I can't go into many more details because they could spoil the ending, but I can tell you that there are countless examples of this second, deeper layer to Boyhood.
The acting of this film is also incredible and natural. Granted, this is to be expected with the production method of the film. However, both Patricia Arquette as Olivia and Ethan Hawke as Mason, Sr., do award-worthy work. Arquette shines through in many of the more jarring scenes, especially when dealing with an abusive, alcoholic husband. Hawke, meanwhile, is a chameleon, constantly reminding us that his character is not who we think he is. The rest of the principal cast is highly deserving of acclaim as well, as Ellar Coltrane and Lorelei Linklater do phenomenal work, never once letting us believe that they are not their characters.
Thematically, Boyhood will resonate with almost everyone who watches it. Why is this, you ask? Simple: it is dealing with the universal process of growing up. It also covers both genders well, as we watch Mason and his sister Samantha grow up simultaneously. The process of growing up deals with many themes in itself such as sibling rivalry, addiction, dysfunctional families, teen substance use, sex in high school, and going off to college. I don't think that any other movie covers all of these in one sitting and does it this well.
Boyhood is the best film I have ever seen. Period. There's a lot of technicality to it, but what makes it a winner is its rich themes and beautiful construction of Mason. It is one of the very few films in which we feel like we are watching real life and not a film. And that's the reason to watch it.
Godzilla (2014)
Fun to Watch, Even with the Flat Characters and Plot
Have you ever expected something totally different than what you got when seeing a movie? I have on several occasions, the most recent being Godzilla. The first trailer I saw for it was very involving and well- done and made me want to see the film until I saw the title. I know next to nothing about the legendary monster and was not very eager to learn anything about him either. However, after noting the goals for the tone and feel of the film, I decided to give it a go.
I could not have been more surprised with what I got. I expected the military to be hunting Godzilla, trying to destroy him before he destroyed the entire eastern seaboard. Instead the plot almost acknowledges Godzilla with the reverence of a god. Ken Watanabe's character, Dr. Ishiro Serizawa, has been searching for him for quite some time and constantly urges the military to let Godzilla be the hero (spoiler: they do) and kill the two MUTOs, or massive unidentified terrestrial organisms, that have been terrorizing various cities in their search for radioactive material to feed on. He also believes that Godzilla is a balancing force of nature, not a destroyer. This is shown when he is on his way to San Francisco to confront the MUTOs. The military practically escorts Godzilla in an effort to control him; in return he never attempts to antagonize the military and always tries to not take human life. This antihero presentation of the monster is in stark contrast to the little knowledge I had of him; however, I greatly prefer this story treatment to the classic man versus monster plot. It allows for some epic monster versus monster battle scenes that destroy most of Honolulu and San Francisco that allow the audience to almost sympathize with Godzilla.
However, the story does fit many of the stereotypical characteristics of monster movies, particularly in the characters. Nearly all of the characters and their respective actions are two-dimensional and incredibly predictable, with only two notable exceptions. Dr. Ishiro Serizawa, who has been previously discussed, is one exception. Ken Watanabe's acting is appropriately mysterious and complex and is easily the standout performance of the film. The other exception is Bryan Cranston's performance as Joe Brody, a nuclear physicist and conspiracy theorist. His suspicions about the incident at the nuclear power plant he managed are confirmed, and Cranston adds enough emotion and depth to make a standard character enjoyable. However, he is not in the film long enough to correct the poor acting of the rest of the cast. Aaron Taylor- Johnson and Elizabeth Olsen, in particular, are far too flat to be enjoyable. The fact that they are the two predominant actors on screen does not help their mediocrity at all. The story shares these same sentiments on the whole, remaining slightly interesting while never really jumping out as anything more than mediocre.
The visual effects are, as expected, the best seen in any Godzilla film thus far. The monster himself seems akin to the original Toho version in design rather than Roland Emmerich's version from the late 1990s bomb. I thoroughly enjoyed watching the various scenes showing how large Godzilla really is, particularly while the military is monitoring him on the ocean. He is massive and quite impressive to view. The MUTOs are very original and resemble something out of Jurassic Park. Overall, the creatures are very intricate in design and fun to watch, even if they do tear down most of downtown San Francisco. The rest of the film's visual appeal is high and retains a realistic and serious tone throughout. It differs from the original Toho films almost as much as Batman Begins differs from the 1960s Batman TV series, adding a heaping of grit and really helping the story along.
Overall, I enjoyed Godzilla. Though it feels extremely flat in the story and character departments, the new take on the legendary monster and the impressive visual effects make him come roaring back to life. This film is definitely not all it could be, but it feels exactly like what it should be. A couple story flaws don't completely tear it down and set the stage for a future franchise. I just hope that it does not turn into the monster versus military conflict that so often occurs in the older Toho films.
Captain America: The Winter Soldier (2014)
The Most Impressive Marvel Film to Date
The Marvel movie machine is an unstoppable force that will earn its money whether or not they produce good films. Thankfully, they have a high standard for their films that makes them critically successful as well as commercially. However, that standard has been slipping as of late, with Iron Man 3 and Thor: The Dark World drawing in some of the poorest reviews of the series. Does the second installment of the Captain's story bring Marvel back to its former heights?
In short, yes. The Winter Soldier succeeds where the recent Marvel films have not: the story. Writers Christopher Markus and Stephen McFeely make The Winter Soldier's story suspenseful yet thematically rich at the same time. Like The Dark Knight trilogy, it mixes political undertones and themes prevalent in our world today with incredible action sequences and tense, chaotic moments, propelling the movie through its 150-minute running time quite quickly. It never lets up on its relentless pace, making it quite a thrill ride. In traditional Marvel fashion, plot twists and witty dialogue abound; however, the character development takes more of a front seat this time in a similar fashion to Iron Man or The Amazing Spider-Man. The Winter Soldier answers many of the questions asked in The First Avenger, while also making Steve Rogers more brutish and less innocent.
The cast takes this phenomenal story and runs away with it. Chris Evans adjusts more to playing Steve Rogers, adding the dark, haunted side of the character this time around. He also gets enough quality screen time to show that he can make Cap work in the modern world. Scarlett Johansson, meanwhile, delivers her best work to date, offering up a complicated Black Widow that has a witty side as well. Samuel L. Jackson delivers once again as Nick Fury but adds slight sympathy to the character while reminding the audience that he can be one of the good guys. Robert Redford stands out here, however, as he is cast against type yet gives one of the best performances in recent Marvel movies. The rest of the cast does well as a whole, with very few blemishes in the film.
Visually, The Winter Soldier combines the look of Iron Man 3 with the effects of The Dark Knight trilogy. Its gritty, intimate cinematography allows the performances to be showcased, but the lack of CGI effects helps ground the film in reality rather than fantasy. In stark contrast to the warm, aged look of The First Avenger, The Winter Soldier relies on more close angles and colder colors, allowing it to reflect the cold, harsh reality of Steve Rogers's new world. The use of traditional stunt-work over computer spectacle brings more finesse to the film, allowing the characters to not be obscured by amazing visual effects.
Overall, Captain America: The Winter Soldier is a great improvement to Marvel movies, taking the franchise to new heights while reminding us of why we grew attached to the series in the first place. It has everything a great movie needs: riveting action, impressive performances, and a smart script. These great components make it a film for everyone to love, and I mean everyone. No one will be turned off by this installment in the Marvel canon.
Noah (2014)
Noah Brings Biblical Epics into Today, and Does It Well
Noah is the first Biblical epic in quite some time to be a good film. It focuses on bringing a heavenly story from over 4,000 years ago into the modern age of film, and it does so quite well. The acting is impeccable, and the great ensemble cast exceeds expectations. Russell Crowe delivers one of his best performances as Noah, making him gritty and realistic enough to relate with. The entirety of Noah's family also has good performances, especially Emma Watson and Logan Lerman as Ila and Ham, respectively. Meanwhile, Anthony Hopkins delivers as Methuselah, Noah's primary mentor, making him very similar to Odin in the Thor movies. Ray Winstone also has a fantastic performance as Tubal-Cain, being both physically and mentally imposing as the antagonist. Overall, a beautifully acted movie that will get overlooked come next awards season, as all early releases are.
Noah is fantastic visually as well. The direction from Darren Aronofsky shows a personal touch that is often missing in so many big-budget films. The visual style is far from the usual grandiose look that biblical films often have; instead Aronofsky opts for a gritty look, in a similar way that 2013's Man of Steel did to differentiate itself from the original Superman movies. This is compounded by the choice of Iceland as the location chosen to shoot the film, as the lush landscapes of the Fertile Crescent are replaced with the harsh Icelandic landscape. The cinematography makes Noah look fantastic, further adding to its realism and grit. The set design of the ark is phenomenal and abandons all previous incarnations of the famed vessel, opting for a box instead of any resemblance of a boat. The visual effects also bring the animals and ocean to life, making an already good movie even better. The best part about the visual aspect of Noah is that nothing distracts from the film itself; instead, it simply adds another dimension to it.
Noah is also well-written by Aronofsky and Ari Handel. Now, before you start calling me out for blasphemy, let me tell you that this is not a literal Bible-to-screen adaptation. That being said, the liberties taken with the original Genesis account are mostly slight and do not detract from the original meaning of the story. Some are more noticeable than others; for example, Ila even being in the story is more noticeable than Lamech's death or Cain's descendants robbing the earth's resources in their constant imperial expansion. The only true element of artistic license that detracted from Noah for me was the scene where Noah recounts the creation story to his family. The story itself is accurate; however, the footage accompanying it risks being downright offensive to believers of any of the three faiths that believe in the Great Flood (Islam, Judaism, and Christianity) because it depicts theistic macro- evolution as the way God created the world. This is inexcusable, even if Aronofsky himself is an atheist. Please be sensitive to your target audience, Hollywood.
I won't go into any of the other inaccuracies because I truly want you to see this movie. Noah is a very good start to this year's blockbuster season and arguably rises above almost every other Biblical epic made. Its superb acting and direction, along with some traditional yet enthralling Hollywood embellishment, make it a film for everyone to enjoy. Highly recommended.
Dallas Buyers Club (2013)
Incredible Acting, Incredible Story
There are some films you watch for entertainment, and others you watch for a deeper meaning. Dallas Buyers Club is definitely one of the latter. Its themes range from survival to corruption to cooperation. The story, while a little raucous, shows how humans have an instinct to survive at all costs. It also shows how money trumps all, especially in the United States and how people who would normally think badly of each other can be driven together by corruption and survival to do what is right and do it selflessly.
The acting is also very impressive among the leads. Matthew McConaughey gives the best performance of his career as Ron Woodroof. His tenacity and boldness carry the film almost single-handedly. Jared Leto alleviates some of the burden, as does Jennifer Garner. Both do stellar jobs in their supporting roles. The rest of the cast adds very little to the film; however, they do not detract either, shifting the focus onto the leads.
The overall look of the film strives for realism. The cinematography is a little too shaky at times; however, it mostly adds to the film, breaking down a barrier between the actors on-screen and the audience. Overall, Dallas Buyers Club is not for the faint of heart. However, it is an emotionally rewarding film that will please almost all of its viewers.
Hugo (2011)
A Heartwarming Film for All
It is clearly evident in Hugo that Martin Scorsese has made this to be a very personal film in its design. No effort was spared in visual effects, production design, or cinematography. The visual effects are exciting and awe-inspiring, especially for those dazzled by color and intricacy (read: children). The production design is incredibly immersive, inviting us into an incredible new world. The cinematography is very good as well, capturing all the actors' emotions with pristine clarity. The film itself is very warm and heart-warming all around, making it very inviting and easy on the eyes.
The visual dazzle of Hugo draws the viewer into a heart-warming story about an orphaned boy searching for his father and a retired filmmaker searching for his former passion. The crossing of their paths will change both of their lives forever. This story is well-conveyed by Asa Butterfield and Ben Kingsley, as the chemistry between the two only adds to the impact on the viewer's emotions. The supporting cast is just as good, adding dimension and liveliness to the movie.
The only criticism I have of Hugo is its length. It feels like a very long film even though it is only 125 minutes. This dragging feeling has a chance of alienating most of its potential audience: families. However, Hugo is a film that even the most stingy of critics will like due to its emotional journey and warm, inviting character that allows all to enjoy it.
Psycho (1960)
The Perfect Horror Film
Psycho is a "less is more" type of film. The minimal budget allotted to Hitchcock made him simpler and more restrained in his film-making. This allowed the story and acting to shine through instead of the big names and huge flair of earlier films like North by Northwest. Janet Leigh is stunning as Marion Crane and ensures that we remember what little screen time she has. The rest of the supporting cast is memorable to a point and adds emotional depth to the story; however, it is Anthony Perkins who steals the show. His performance as Norman Bates is one of the most stunning performances of all time. Perkins also hides the film's twist well throughout the entire movie, adding to Psycho's suspense. The score by Bernard Herrmann is excellent and adds incredibly to the suspense, especially during the infamous shower scene. That single scene is perhaps the defining scene of Hitchcock's career. It not only serves as the single catalyst for the plot, it also shows the attention to detail he gave to his movies. Psycho is the best horror film ever made for its reliability on every other factor besides gore to create suspense. It revolutionized the genre, along with Hitchcock's career, to be more focused on substance rather than style.
The Hunger Games: Catching Fire (2013)
More Confident, More Polished, and Much Improved
After seeing The Hunger Games, I wanted desperately to see the sequel, Catching Fire. There was so much potential for the franchise after the first film, and as I liked Catching Fire better than the first novel, I had high hopes. When I heard Lionsgate had replaced Gary Ross with a new director, Francis Lawrence, I was even more excited for this film. In my mind, a new director was just what this franchise needed.
I'll start with the script and story, as their quality was largely unaltered from the first film. Even though the series's author Suzanne Collins would not stay on to write the script for Catching Fire, it largely stayed true to the novel. The largest changes mainly highlighted the political undertones of the series in a good way, bringing the Games out to be a more political statement than perhaps Collins wanted. However, these moments between Plutarch Heavensbee and President Snow added a lot of thematic depth and really made the film all that much better. They better explained the motivations of President Snow and kept us guessing about Plutarch and what his actual motivations were. Also, these scenes along with several others make it clear that the film's message is one of overthrowing the oppression of tyranny, making a more coherent film throughout. Overall, the changes made to the script of Catching Fire enhanced, not detracted, from Collins's original work.
Visually, Catching Fire has improved from the first film. In the story, the Capitol has spared no expense on the 75th Hunger Games; likewise, the visuals feel and look more extravagant and special. Many times, we are reminded of this fact: many scenes from the arena take descriptions from Collins's book and bring them to life in a magnificent way. This is truly a visual masterpiece, even for its seeming lack of special effects, as it brings Collins's world to life in incredibly vibrant ways.
The acting of Catching Fire is much improved from its predecessor. Jennifer Lawrence and Josh Hutcherson feel more confident in their lead roles of Katniss and Peeta, respectively, while the characters that were truly stellar in the first film are given more of an opportunity to shine. Haymitch and Effie both are given the time needed to be considered major supporting roles, allowing Woody Harrelson and Elizabeth Banks to excel in their respective roles. The additions to the cast perform admirably as well, especially Philip Seymour Hoffman as Plutarch. He makes us keep guessing about where his character's allegiances lie until the end, just as his character does in the book. Donald Sutherland is another highlight, as he makes us want to hate President Snow with a passion. Overall, a solid group of actors produces a solid group of performances that seem straight out of the novel.
The direction of Catching Fire is arguably the greatest improvement of the film. Francis Lawrence is unafraid to take the reigns and show us how a no-name director can make a splash. He ditches the shaky camera-work of Gary Ross and replaces it with smooth, steady shots from mounted cameras. This is a marked improvement in many of the more exciting scenes, as they seem more coherent on screen. The use of IMAX cameras in the arena also helps us further distinguish it as its own world from the rest of Panem. However, the best part of the cinematography is that it remains very personal, despite it not being hand-held. This makes it never be missed and gives a more polished look to the film.
Overall, Catching Fire is a marked improvement over its predecessor. It feels more confident and more polished as a whole, and this extra shine makes it a much more enjoyable film and a better one. This film would probably be placed in my top 20 overall. It's that good. There's not a single bad component to this film. Some things could be better, but they're so small you'll hardly notice. A fine job by the cast and crew to make Catching Fire a very, very good film.
Gravity (2013)
Technical Dazzle Matched by Real Film-making
Gravity is the most technically astounding and visually stimulating film I have ever seen. The immersive cinematography by Emmanuel Lubezki lays the building blocks for fantastic visual achievement. It is built upon by amazing editing that makes the film seem seamless, with multiple- minute shots quite common. The awe-inspiring visual effects are laid on top, creating an incredibly accurate picture of space. The sound editing also accounts for the fact that no sound can be heard in space, as we only hear what the astronauts themselves can hear. This allows the film's score to take center stage, and it does just that. The score creates another immersive facet of this film due to its eerie tone and sudden stops. The production design is also top-notch, accurately portraying all of the spacecraft the astronauts utilize.
Now, all of this would be for naught if the story and acting were lackluster in any way. Thankfully, they both excel. The story has a very deliberate pace that excels at balancing character development and suspenseful action sequences. Because the movie is short, it never truly drops its pace, allowing it to pack quite a punch. The acting is truly impeccable. Sandra Bullock gives arguably the best performance of her career, while Clooney supports her nicely as Bullock's foil. Clooney, playing the more experienced astronaut, remains calm during the crises on screen; Bullock panics quite often and is always tense, being the rookie. Subtleties like these manifest themselves quite well on screen and fill in several unspoken pieces of character background. In conclusion, Gravity's technical dazzle is completely matched by its highly competent story and acting, creating a groundbreaking masterpiece.
Life of Pi (2012)
Visually Stimulating, Emotionally Stirring
Life of Pi is not solely a visual masterpiece. Its heart is in an emotionally stirring tale of God's redemption and grace through strange means and persons, in this case a tiger named Richard Parker. The animation that brings the tiger to life is more spectacular than any other effects sequence in the movie and allows us to form an emotional bond with the tiger. The reckless courage that Pi embodies is perfectly portrayed by newcomer Suraj Sharma. He brings an emotional depth that does not leave the movie stranded in its ocean of visual amazement (yes, pun intended). Ang Lee has created a masterpiece that is both emotionally rewarding and visually perplexing at the same time--a feat that is often not even attempted by most current directors. This is the best kind of movie and the most impressive as well. Kudos to you, Mr. Lee. Please continue to amaze us.
Babel (2006)
Incredible Thematic Depth
Thematically, Babel is one of the richest films I have ever seen. Its four narratives revolve around two themes: cause and effect and language. The language barrier is involved to varying degrees in the different narratives. In Morocco, Richard is unable to get help for his wife Susan after she is shot because he knows no Arabic. Meanwhile, in Japan Chieko is a deaf-mute that struggles communicating with anyone except her friends. She often internalizes her difficulty and is lonesome, longing for a sexual relationship. In Mexico, Santiago is unable to reason at all with a border officer and, as a result, has to risk the lives of his aunt Amelia and the children in her care. All of these narratives are weaved together by one cause: Susan's shooting. Amelia never would have needed to take the two children (who are Richard and Susan's) to her son's wedding in Mexico if it weren't for them not being able to come home from Morocco. Chieko never would have revealed her inner struggle to a police officer if he hadn't come looking for her father, whose rifle was used in the shooting. And two Moroccan boys would never have been able to shoot Susan if it weren't for Chieko's father giving one of their father's friends his gun. However, these connections make the film's plot hard to follow at times, making the viewer strain to see the relation.
Every other aspect of the movie is top-notch. The cinematography is excellent and accurately captures the different tones of each individual story. The script is excellent because of it multilingualism, as four languages are used: English, Spanish, Arabic, and Japanese. The score also captures the location of each narrative, with the local musical preference being used for each location. The acting is also stupendous, with Brad Pitt giving the best performance of his entire career. Honestly, this is one amazing movie. It's definitely not for everyone because of its depth, but those who can read between the lines will love this one. I know I did.
Captain Phillips (2013)
Perfect Biopic
Captain Phillips continues a long association with biopics for Tom Hanks. He has arguably the best performance of his career as the titular character, a cargo ship captain. Hanks never once loses poise in his role, always remaining calm and collected. His heroics are impeccable, and he truly propels the film forward. No one else could have done this well in this role. The rest of the cast also performs well, with Barkhad Abdi delivering a stunning debut as Muse, the pirates' ringleader.
Paul Greengrass does not get in the way of these wonderful performances with his direction. Instead of opting for grandiose editing, he focuses on making Captain Phillips realistic and down-to-earth above all else. His great cinematography makes the film feel like a documentary due to its slight shakiness and occasional sharp cuts. There are also many close angles used to allow the actors' subtle features to be seen. Overall, Captain Phillips is a stirring biopic that will be a treasure to almost every moviegoer because of its incredible acting and non- distracting direction.