Please enable javascript to view this site.

Image Image Image Image Image Image Image Image Image
Select a Page

Movie Reviews

Les Misérables
Jack Rico
0

By

2012/11/26 at 12:00am

Reviews

Les Misérables

11.26.2012 | By |

Les Misérables

‘Argo’ beware. ‘Les Misérables’ is now the the favorite to win Best Picture at the 2013 Oscar Awards. Director Tom Hooper has created a cinematic masterpiece drenched in powerful performances, both acting and singing, a stunning cinematography, memorable camerawork and a haunting score sure to provoke tears of joy and sadness. 

 

Based on what is widely considered to be one of the greatest novels of the nineteenth century, and the world’s longest-running theatrical musical, Victor Hugo’s French book ‘Les Misérables,’ first published in 1862, is set against the backdrop of 19th-century France. It’s the enthralling story of broken dreams and unrequited love, passion, sacrifice and redemption – a timeless testament to the survival of the human spirit. Hugh Jackman plays ex-prisoner Jean Valjean, hunted for decades by the ruthless policeman Javert (Russell Crowe) after he breaks parole. When Valjean agrees to care for factory worker Fantine’s (Anne Hathaway) young daughter, Cosette (Amanda Seyfried), their lives change forever.

 

I speak for many when I say, a great deal of people did not expect this film to be the masterpiece it is, nor to overshadow ‘Argo’s’ acclaimed and hyped campaign. ‘Argo’ had such a fantastic operation going on that it needed a titanic tour-de-force to derail it… and ‘Les Misérables’ did exactly just that. 

 

Principally, what makes this movie so extraordinary, in this particular year, is the presentation of so much emotional heft on screen for such a prolonged time. No other movie, with the exception of Spaniard director Juan Antonio Bayona’s ‘The Impossible,’ can manhandle your emotions as forcefully. When you add the majestic scale of the production and the stylish cinematography, it truly becomes a sensorial experience. 

 

After his 2011 Best Picture Oscar film, ‘The King’s Speech,’ director Tom Hooper has managed to elevate his filmmaking craft to another level. Perhaps his biggest impact to the film, and ultimately his legacy to modern filmmaking, was his decision to have the vocals from the actors sung live on set as opposed to lip-synch playback. This technique allowed the actors to change inflections and include impromptu emotions into their roles. Hooper also utilized many close-ups to capture and play up the affecting  singing scenes of the lead actors. But what brought everything to life was the cinematography from Danny Cohen. The vivid color hues of red and blues were just icing on the cake on what is a beautiful looking film. It truly is blissful to watch. 

 

When you think of the central characters on a film, one usually thinks of the actors, but in this particular film – a musical – the songs and score were the protagonists. The actors themselves were only the vehicles to Alain Boublil, Claude-Michel Schönberg and Herbert Kretzmer’s magical lyrics, music and libretto, which literally permeates every single frame. If you’re a thespian that can act and sing well, this is the role of a lifetime. Some of the most rousing and indelible scenes happen early in the film, as Jackman and Hathaway transcend the performances of “What Have I Done?” and “I Dreamed a Dream”, respectively. They sung it with so much pain and affliction, that it is hard to not be moved to tears by them. Expect both to be recognized with nominations, and even wins in the Best Actor and Supporting Actress categories throughout the award circuit. Overall, the music is as mellifluous and euphonious as you can get and the vocal performances by many of the leads are heart-wrenching and haunting.

 

This is not to say that everyone sounded as beautifully as Samantha Barks did in “On My Own”. There were misses such as Russell Crowe in the role of Javert, the villain and antagonist of Jean Valjean. His unmelodious singing and monotonous tone could have almost wrecked this work of art. I also wasn’t praising Eddie Redmayne as Marius. Nice kid, just thought Hooper could have done better. Moreover, a must know before seeing this film is that there is no dialogue. The words are sung for the entirety of the movie. This can be vexing to many who are not used to it, like myself when I experienced on Broadway the very first time. It’s an acquired taste and not for everyone. 

 

Compared to the other contemporary musicals (Evita, Chicago, Nine, Phantom of the Opera, etc), ‘Les Misérables’ is in a league of its own. You could say it is the best modern movie musical done so far. It is also the best movie of 2012. Nothing else rivals its combination of acting, music, direction and storytelling. Not ‘Argo,’ not ‘Lincoln,’ and definitely not ‘Silver Linings Playbook,’ which is now out of the race, even if Harvey Weinstein is involved. ‘Les Misérables’ isn’t for everyone because it uses an unconventional storytelling method that the normal moviegoer might be averse to. But if you can put your personal tastes to the side, you will be introduced to a new experience that will move you like you haven’t been before. The music stays with you to the very end and the performances linger in the crevices of your mind and heart. ‘Les Misérables’ is, without a doubt, an experience you will cherish for years.

Rise of the Guardians (Movie Review)
Jack Rico
0

By

2012/11/23 at 12:00am

Reviews

Rise of the Guardians (Movie Review)

11.23.2012 | By |

If you pay money to see ‘Rise of the Guardians’ in 3D, you most likely will be watching the film that will win the Oscar for Best Animated Feature Film of the Year (Disney’s ‘Wreck-it-Ralph’ is a very close second). It’s simpatico characters, wondrous-action-packed universe and crisp-immersive 3D, make this a fun and overwhelming joy to watch with adults, teens and young children, not kindergarden kids.

The story is very similar to the Avengers – a group of the most powerful childhood legends, called The Guardians (Jack Frost, Santa Claus, The Easter Rabbit, Tooth Fairy and Sandman), assemble to put an end to The Bogeyman, a villain that has attained ultimate darkness and whose mission is to erase the Guardians from existence by robbing children of their hopes and dreams. Jack Frost, a reluctant new recruit who’d rather enjoy a snow day than save the world is who the film revolves around.

‘Rise of the Guardians’ is an epic animation with loads of adventure, touching moments, humor, and some twists to keep you sharp. The voice actors, formed by Alec Baldwin (Santa Claus), Hugh Jackman (Easter Bunny), Chris Pine (Jack Frost), Isla Fisher (Tooth fairy) and Jude Law (Bogeyman), do a commendable job. The best voice actors are those whose voice changes enough to not discern who they are immediately. Law doesn’t quite live up to those standards, yet his is a pleasing and soothing voice worth listening to. The rest of the cast provide are enjoyable vocal performances and don’t overshadow the visuals. 

Speaking of visuals, this film is a 3D spectacle. I am not a technical graphics animator, but I can recognize when my eyes and mind have a psychogenic orgasm. I remember seeing ‘Avatar’ and not feeling as wowed by the 3D as James Cameron had promised, but here, for the first time in my life I felt I was actually inside a movie. The skin texture of the characters, the universe where they reside in, the color richness, lighting, and cinematography were just sublime. Perhaps the greatest cinematographer Hollywood has is Roger Deakins and he served as the visual consultant to the production in selecting and composing the shots that would best be suited to 3D. The 3D technology used here is called “Tru 3D” – it’s a standard in all DreamWorks Animation films – and is utilized here in an organic way that was integral to the story, not as a stunt or an afterthought. As a result, the movie has a sense of wonder and magic, not to mention a lustrous feel to it all. The best moments to appreciate the 3D are during Jack Frost’s scenes. The snowflakes falling from the sky feel like they’re falling inside the theater and the characters close-ups look like they’ve popped out of the screen. Just wonderful.

Worthy to mention, award-winning, Mexican filmmaker Guillermo del Toro, who collaborated with DreamWorks Animation as a creative consultant on “Megamind” and was an executive producer on “Kung Fu Panda 2” and “Puss in Boots,” returns as an executive producer for the movie. 

Overall, ‘Rise of the Guardians’ is an ambitious, visually stunning and sophisticated animation that has a wonderful message at its core – a quest to never stop believing in goodness. If there is one family movie to see this year it’s this movie… and in 3D. 

[youtube id=”yd71LWhCO4s”]

Hitchcock
Jack Rico
0

By

2012/11/22 at 12:00am

Reviews

Hitchcock

11.22.2012 | By |

Hitchcock

Sacha Gervasi’s ‘Hitchcock’ is a fun, amusing film for fans of “The Master of Suspense” director Alfred Hitchcock and those familiar with his movie ‘Psycho’ in particular. It’s an enjoyable experience because we are provided so much of the movie we revere and the man we already want to know more of. That in itself makes it a success. Add memorable performances by Anthony Hopkins, Helen Mirren and James D’Arcy, some pleasing humor and enlightening facts, and you have yourself a movie worth paying to see. Now the problem would be if you never saw ‘Psycho’ and could care less about Hitchcock. 

 

Contrary to what the title says, ‘Hitchcock’ is actually a complex love story, not a biopic of the life of director Alfred Hitchcock. Lurking behind Alfred Hitchcock (Anthony Hopkins), cinema’s horror icon  known for  orchestrating some of  the most intense experiences of menace and intrigue audiences have ever seen, was a hidden side: his creatively and explosive romance with his supportive wife and filmmaking collaborator, Alma Reville (Helen Mirren) – many say the secret to his success. Acting as a backdrop to the Hitchcock’s love life is the making of the hair-raising 1960 thriller, ‘Psycho,’ which would become the director’s most controversial and legendary film. When the tumultuous, against-the-odds production  was over, nothing about movies would ever be the same – but few realized that it took two to pull it off.  The story is rife with surprises, comic ironies and dark twists in the Hitchockian tradition.  But at the heart of the film lies not only the obsessions and fears of two people but the distinctively tenacious love that drove Hitchcock’s art behind the curtain.

 

Cinematically, Gervasi seeps the film with Hitchcockian clichés and quirks that serve as winks to fans of Hitchcock, his films and his television show. For example, the opening of the film has Hopkins giving an introduction to the movie as if it was an episode of “Alfred Hitchcock Presents.” Very clever and cool. The whole movie is sprinkled with moments like this. Gervasi also manages to provide us with an insightful look at how difficult it was to make ‘Psycho,’ both financially and marketing-wise. Furthermore, the MPAA wouldn’t allow it a release at first, and when it did, the editing wasn’t up to par, in particular, the shower scene. Go figure.

 

The script by John J. McLaughlin is tight and moves quickly, but the choice of a love story, based on the book by Stephen Rebello “Alfred Hitchcock and the Making of Psycho,” isn’t what I necessarily wanted to see. As much as Alma was a part of his life, she wasn’t in ours, the public. More interesting are the moments that take place on the set and how the film was made. Alas, Hollywood always feels we need a love story, but I was fine without one.

 

The acting is superb. Anthony Hopkins nailed Hitchcock as we remember him, even if he might have been a bit cartoonish with him at times. Helen Mirren is wonderful and commands the screen as she usually does, but I thoroughly enjoyed James D’Arcy performance of actor Anthony Perkins, Norman Bates himself . Not only did he look like him, he embodied his essence. One blunder that was evident, but fortunately didn’t become a detriment to the film was the miscast of Scarlett Johansson’s as Janet Leigh. She was Scarlett Johansson trying to act like someone else. The true indication of a great actor is when they can make you forget the star they are in the public eye and immerse you in the character they’re inhabiting. This was not the case for Johansson and not sure if I have ever really seen her do that in her young career.

 

Despite the aforementioned minor oversight, ‘Hitchcock’ is a must see movie for anyone curious in having a front row seat to the movie making process of Alfred Hitchcock, his idiosyncrasies and the type of husband he was. If none of this tickles your fancy, your best advised to invest your time and money in something more traditional and commercial. 

Lincoln
Jack Rico
0

By

2012/11/22 at 12:00am

Reviews

Lincoln

11.22.2012 | By |

Lincoln

Imagine being able to travel back in time and see history unfold before your very eyes when Abraham Lincoln, arguably the best President in US history, fought to abolish slavery no matter the opposition, dirty politics or the burden of seeing thousands massacred for the cause. That is what master director Steven Spielberg has provided us in ‘Lincoln,’ a beautiful, powerful and lasting film that is the definitive Lincoln movie ever made. Daniel Day-Lewis not only plays Lincoln, it feels like he is Abraham Lincoln. It is almost eery.

 

If you think ‘Lincoln,’ is a movie about his life, think again. Astutely, Spielberg limits the action only to the 16th President’s tumultuous final months in office where a nation was divided by war and the strong winds of change. Due to the perpetual torment the country was going through, Lincoln was obligated to pursue a course of action designed to end the war, unite the country and abolish slavery. His choices during this critical moment is where the movie begins.

 

Spielberg has not lost his directorial touch at all. Even ‘War Horse,’ which was nominated Best Picture at the Oscars earlier this year, was aesthetically and expertly directed. But without doubt, ‘Lincoln’ is his best film since ‘Saving Private Ryan’. By using Tony Kushner’s adaptation of Doris Kearns Goodwin’s book, ‘Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln’ as a template, Spielberg was able to meticulously capture that period in the White House and return us to what it would have been like if we were a fly in the Oval Office. Amongst all of its virtues, the one thing that this film won’t be recognized for is for its rousing emotional fulfillment. It won’t be met with a thunderous applause or a profusion of enthusiasm the way ‘Rocky’ or even 1984’s ‘The Karate Kid’ made one feel. You’ll be a witness to history, but with mixed emotions for the  way that Lincoln had to achieve the liberty of blacks. 

 

The performances of the cast for ‘Lincoln’ are the best of the year. Expect SAG and Critics Choice awards for the ensemble. Day-Lewis is sure to win the Oscar for Best Actor, as well for other award galas, for his strong and memorable portrayal of Lincoln. Also worthy of mention is Sally Field, as Lincoln’s volatile wife, who I have not seen deliver an emotional acting punch in years, if not decades. The rest of the cast is fantastic including Tommy Lee Jones, David Strathairn, John Hawkes, and Joseph Gordon-Levitt. It truly is the best ensemble cast of 2012. 

 

There are so many ways to have wrecked a biopic of a historical figure like ‘Lincoln’. All you need as proof is Clint Eastwood’s ‘J. Edgar’. Soporific is one word to describe that film, not to mention overly-acted and melodramatic at times. We are fortunate to have seen a biopic, like this one, done the right way. I feel Lincoln himself would not have objected. 

Life of Pi
Karen Posada
0

By

2012/11/20 at 12:00am

Reviews

Life of Pi

11.20.2012 | By |

Life of Pi

‘Life of Pi’ is one of those stories that takes us on an amazing adventure with its tale full of fantasy and spirit. The movie is based on Spanish born novelist Yann Martel’s book, with a shaky start it became a best-seller, has wan a number of literary awards and was adapted to the big screen by director Ang Lee who’s done a bunch of diverse and memorable films such as ‘Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon’, ‘Hulk’ and ‘Brokeback Mountain’. With this one the director uses all of his previous background to produce a film that’s mainly all heart, full of beautiful images and a surreal story.

 

A young Indian boy, nicknamed Pi (Suraj Sharma) survives a shipwreck and is left with a Bengal tiger as a companion. This isn’t only a story about survival, but also self-discovery and adventure.

 

The story’s main drive is spirituality because Pi is a curious boy who grows up to be just as curious about everything and he finds some comfort in God, no matter which religion or form it comes to him. This might strike a cord with many believers and might be a bit annoying to non-believers, but no matter how you see it this is an extraordinary story and there’s an interesting take when speaking about the different religions. The movie has a steady pace, it does get stretched out and slowed in the middle, but it’s bearable because of the added hallucinations or florescent images we see.

 

I saw the film in 3D, it did have images that popped out and the colors are majestic, but I don’t deem it necessary although it’s definitely an added bonus. There are countless breathtaking shots of the ocean whether it is of its computerized creatures, freak storms or of Pi’s suffering. I’m assuming the tiger used for the film is CGI, but it looked so real that you can easily feel scared for the main character every time he’s in the tiger’s presence. Being that some of the film takes part in India, it’s interesting to see how westernized Pi’s family is because that’s not something many of us would think when we think of India and its culture. There’s a brief explanation about the India, Hinduism and its culture and Pi’s life there, which gives us a good picture of it all. The colors we think about when we think of India are all there shining brighter than ever, hypnotizing the audience in more than one scene.

 

19-year-old Indian actor, Suraj Sharma is amazing, he only breaks character once, but for the majority of the film he’s able to convey the struggle this boy is in not only physically but also mentally. So much so that there’s sometimes comedy in his suffering and his reflections easily can make you shed a tear. Peter Parker aka the tiger is obviously important to the story, because without him the film wouldn’t be the same; he gives a necessary dose of danger and the interesting connection between the two. Irrfan Khan who plays older Pi, narrating the story is also key because he gives us much more than a narration; he provides extra emotion to connect the public to the film.

 

There’s a lot of fantasy in this film and it poses a question that might make some think afterward. Every scene has stunning images that will keep your eyes glued to the screen. This can be a family film for older kids who will surely enjoy the story as well as the adults of course. The plot’s push for spiritualism or God is frustrating at points, but knowing the background of it and the connection the audience gets with Pi can help you oversee that. This is certainly a very unique film, with an exceptional story that might make you shed a tear or two but will also make you smile.   

Silver Linings Playbook
Karen Posada
0

By

2012/11/19 at 12:00am

Reviews

Silver Linings Playbook

11.19.2012 | By |

Silver Linings Playbook

‘Silver Linings Playbook’ is an eccentric, unexpected, crazy fun experience; there are some trying moments but the “silver linings” make it all worth it. This movie is certainly intense and it goes from one extreme to the next, you never quite know what to expect from the characters or situations and that’s what makes it so entertaining and unpredictable, which is the key to the whole story. It’s safe to say that most people don’t know anyone like these characters, most have serious emotional damage that makes them be socially awkward, but that’s their charm and intended or unintended humor. Director David O. Russell certainly knew how to tap into the story’s potential and use it in a way to draw in the audience.

 

Pat Solitano (Bradley Cooper) is struggling after spending some time at a mental institution and trying to better himself in order to get back with his wife. He starts from zero moving in with his parents: Pat Sr. (Robert De Niro) and Dolores (Jacki Weaver), who are trying their best at helping him. Another challenge presents itself when Tiffany (Jennifer Lawrence) a woman who has also had some rough times shows up in Pat’s life.

 

The camera work is yet another interesting thing about the film, it zooms in an out in certain scenes and it tends to sometimes do a 360 of an actor adding originality to the film. The script has different analogies and outlooks shown mainly in the form of awkward dialogues, which help explain the plot and give substance to the film while giving us something to think about. The story develops in such a fascinating way that we can easily see why Pat is the way he is, because of his unique parents and household practices as well as his friends.

 

Everyone is fantastic; Cooper combines his charm, good looks, humor and sometimes jerk like personality to give us a man struggling to find the right footing. Lawrence at such a young age (22) acts way beyond her years, this is definitely one of the best roles I’ve seen her in. De Niro who hasn’t given much to talk about in years here is an important part of the film, as it wouldn’t be the same without him, he’s a combination of the psycho in his character of ‘Meet the Fockers’ with a twist of reality in a character much up to our expectations. I can sit here and describe how great Weaver, Chris Tucker, Anupam Kher, Paul Herman and Shea Whigham were; but all I will say is that each one of them truly added necessary parts to the story.

 

I have to talk about John Ortiz who plays Ronnie, Pat’s best friend and is coupled up with Julia Stiles (it was a pleasure seeing her in this film!). Despite Ortiz’s character being outside of the family, he’s just as crucial and demented as the rest of them, maybe even more. His character gives diversity to the film and shows us the angle of a man many would think sane and normal because he has conformed to society’s standards and demands by settling down and having a baby, but he easily provides us with some more extra laughs showing us how stressful “normal” can be.    

 

Sometimes there’s too much going and you just want to scream at the screen to calm everyone down, but perhaps that’s a good thing. I was left with one or two unanswered questions, which bothered me, although it didn’t change how I felt about the film.

 

I enjoyed the strangeness, awkwardness and downright craziness of this movie; most of these people should definitely be locked up! But that’s what made them so entertaining. I have a number of favorite scenes and moments from all the ups and downs, but mainly ups the movie gives us. This certainly is a dramedy to enjoy and recommend, because no matter how sane some of us think we are there’s no such thing as a perfect person or perfect family.

The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn – Part 2
Karen Posada
0

By

2012/11/15 at 12:00am

Reviews

The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn – Part 2

11.15.2012 | By |

The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn - Part 2

Well it is finally here, the end of ‘The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn -Part 2’, something the fans of the books have been waiting for seven years when the first “Twilight” book came out, for the movie fans it has been a four year investment. This series has taken the world by storm and it certainly goes out with a bang. Bill Codon who also directed ‘Part 1’ improves the story almost making it his own with the help of scriptwriter Melissa Rosenberg.  The people in the theater I watched the movie with couldn’t contain their excitement, they began cheering when the credits began to roll in the introduction and I knew it would be hard for them to walk out of the theater hating the outcome of the film. This is the best movie out of the whole franchise, for the fans of both the books and the movies this will not be a disappointment, the director is truthful to the source material while enhancing some of the scenes for the good of the film.

 

The movie picks up right after Renesmee’s (Mackenzie Foy) birth, Bella (Kristen Stewart) is starting her new life as a vampire and her husband Edward (Robert Pattinson) couldn’t be more thrilled. After dealing with some issues with Jacob (Taylor Lautner), The Cullens and the wolves live in harmony, but not for long. Once again they find themselves in trouble with the Volturi who threaten to harm Renesmee. In order to save her The Cullens decide to call upon their acquaintances for support. 

 

The fourth book(half already explained in Breaking Dawn-part 1) has the most concepts that are far-fetched and hard to accept, so seeing them play out in the big screen makes many people laugh although that’s not their purpose; I admit a lot of them are ridiculous and this coming from someone who loved all four books. It tries to explain imprinting, superpowers, immortal children and some vampire history. The tension some scenes are meant to have are laughable, because of the soap opera element the series has always held and although these actors have shown they can act in other movies, here they haven’t improved much as a lot of the lines they deliver feel flat and emotionless. Since the story gets more complicated Bella becomes a narrator throughout the movie, which is a little off-putting but does help, especially for those not familiar with the books. Renesmee is a computerized baby and as weird as she looks I understand why they couldn’t use a real baby, since she’s described as a unique child and she’s more advanced than a regular baby. But as she grows they continue to use a computerized face, which I thought was unnecessary because they seemed to be using Foy’s body, but finally towards the middle of the film we get to see Foy’s real face.

 

If you are seeing this final chapter then you are clearly a fan and are willing to open your mind to the new concepts. There’s just not comparison with the first film of the franchise and this last one, as they both have completely different budgets and directors, and it shows. The introduction to the film is a blend of beautiful white and red backgrounds that set the stage for the film. The camera work does a great job at showing the different world Bella lives in and how acute her senses are. It perfectly shows how Bella feels and the audience had fun laughing at things that were expected and are overacted such as an argument between Bella and Jacob, because of his imprinting. This has a lot more intended and unintended humor than the other films and everyone seemed to enjoy that. This is no longer a film for teenagers but more so for young adults, the sex scenes get even hotter than the last film and the jokes are also a bit more mature.

 

Everyone was excited about seeing their favorite vampires once more, The Cullens: Carlisle (Peter Facinelli), Esme (Elizabeth Reaser), Alice (Ashley Greene), Jasper (Jackson Rathbone), Emmett (Kellan Lutz) and Rosalie (Nikki Reed). This movie introduces a whole new set that the audience was just as static about, I won’t name all, but the ones that certainly stood out were: Irina (Maggie Grace), Jane (Dakota Fanning), Elazar (Christian Camargo) and Zafrina (Judith Shekoni). Seeing them all come together is what makes this movie, their preparation for the stand off against the Volturi is entertaining, but the final scene when the tension builds and no one knows what will happen will take everyone in the theater by surprise.

 

I couldn’t have imagined a better way for the franchise to end, although I read the books it was refreshing to see what the director did with what he was handed. The crystal clear images of the beautiful setting add a nostalgic and memorable tone to the film. There are some scenes where you can clearly see the CGI, but they are easy to overlook, the baby is one of the toughest ones to get used to though. For anybody that’s ever enjoyed this story whether it was in print or the big screen, get ready to live out this last chapter in a more sophisticated, fun and thrilling way than all the other chapters.  

Anna Karenina
Karen Posada
0

By

2012/11/13 at 12:00am

Reviews

Anna Karenina

11.13.2012 | By |

Anna Karenina

Period pieces can be quite enchanting especially those that are based on well-known books beloved by many, as could have been the case with ‘Anna Karenina’, but unfortunately it didn’t take me anywhere I wished to escape to. Honestly I’ve never had the opportunity to read the book, so I can’t speak of similarities or lack there of but what I do know is that screenwriter Tom Stoppard decided to focus only on the love stories of the book by Leo Tolstoy, which might have been a mistake. Director Joe Wright who has made period pieces such as ‘Atonement’ and ‘Pride and Prejudice’ decided to go a different route with this one making it theatrical. So, the movie is set almost entirely in a theater where you can see the different scenario changes and props, which didn’t work for me among other things.

 

This story is set in Imperial Russia during the late 19th century where in an image based society the aristocrat Anna Karenina (Keira Knightley) who is married to affluent Alexei Karenin (Jude Law) and lives in St. Petersburg, unexpectedly meets Count Vronksy (Aaron Taylor-Johnson) in a trip to Moscow and a passionate affair begins which will change Anna’s life forever.

 

I enjoy going to the theater but here the experience of seeing a play carried out in a film wasn’t so entertaining; the different scenario changes are distracting and confusing. Some scenarios are lavish and well crafted and would do well in an actual theater, but here I found the stage act to be pretentious and tedious. The main love story itself is captivating up to a certain point, then it just becomes overly dramatic and unbearable. There are about four different love stories that come into play, each with different importance and significance, but none interesting enough to keep me engrossed in the film.

 

The acting is actually pretty good and it was one of the few things I liked about this film. Knightley shows a difference side to herself as a demented, passionate woman who will fight against gossip and society’s standards, although her character gets annoying I blame that on the script. Law gives a very artistic, compassionate performance as a loving husband and Taylor-Johnson is perfect for his part as heartthrob that only listens to his heart and he’s ever so yummy even with his ridiculous mustache and messed up hair.   

 

Every single actor involved really give wonderful performances and give the movie a well rounded feel which could have made it enjoyable, but the script and format did not do it for me. Towards the end of the 130 minutes I felt like I was being tortured and could not wait to leave the theater. As it progress it kept getting more pretentious, dramatic and boring.

I’ll give credit to the love scenes that are artistically beautiful as are some of the scenarios and shots. The costumes are beautiful and there’s a dance scene that’s elegant and captivating.

 

So, therefore the aesthetic look of this film is beautiful but the heart of the movie aka the story is torturous and very hard to enjoy. This movie is wrapped up in a beautiful shiny shell that would make you think and imagine it would be epic but it’s completely empty and shallow in the center leaving you upset, bored and annoyed.

Skyfall
Jack Rico
0

By

2012/11/08 at 12:00am

Reviews

Skyfall

11.8.2012 | By |

Skyfall

“The… Best… Bond… Ever!” so says one reviewer from England whose zeal is so fervent, it is hard to take him or his review seriously. In my professional and less ardent opinion, “Skyfall” falls short of Daniel Craig’s quintessential Bond film, “Casino Royale,” a 007 motion picture which I think is unrivaled in its action, intensity, stunning cinematography and arresting plotline. That film, is in my mind, the ‘Best Bond Movie’ Craig has done, and, one of the Top 5 action movies I have ever seen. But by no means does my preferred choice signify that “Skyfall” is not worth watching. Au contraire, “Skyfall” is entertaining cinema worthy of multiple views, except it possesses two defects that lessen its acclaim.

 

“Skyfall” starts with Bond going on his latest assignment which goes gravely wrong and several undercover agents around the world are exposed, MI6 is attacked, thus, forcing M to relocate the agency. These events cause her authority and position to be challenged by Mallory (Ralph Fiennes), the new Chairman of the Intelligence and Security Committee.  With MI6 now compromised from both inside and out, M is left with one ally she can trust: Bond.  007 takes to the shadows – aided only by field agent, Eve (Naomie Harris) – following a trail to the mysterious Silva (Javier Bardem), whose lethal and hidden motives have yet to reveal themselves.

 

The issue I have with “Skyfall” is that Sam Mendes – cheered on by Craig – tinkered with the Bond universe in such away that ‘I’ feel violated. The two worst offenders are: aging Bond and the reduced role of the Bond Girl. How could he have done this!? Doesn’t he comprehend that by developing a real aging gene to the 007 character, you are in essence, MAKING HIM HUMAN! Bond does not age. He’s been in his prime for 50 years! Now all of a sudden “he shouldn’t be ashamed to lose a step,” voiced to Bond by Gareth Mallory (Ralph Fiennes) in a tense scene. By Mendes opening up this Pandora’s box, this travesty sets in motion Bond’s eventual demise because of his future elder age. The producers would then have to reboot the series in its entirety with 007’s unknown son or new young agent, 008, similar to the way the ‘Bourne’ franchise did when they transitioned from Matt Damon to Jeremy Renner. Do you see what has been done?

 

Also, the selection of the Bond Girl is not just a carnal passage for Bond, but a symbol of long-lasting prestige for any woman in film. In “Skyfall,” Bérénice Marlohe is only a brief incident that is dealt with an anticlimactic shower scene and a quick dismissal. Naomi Harris’ character is an agent of the MI6, not a real Bond Girl, in the true sense of the term. These two grave and awful decisions have ramifications down the line for the franchise and I am aghast that many critics have not accentuated the discrepancies. 

 

The aforementioned blemishes ultimately were too distracting for me to suspend disbelief. It kept on haunting me, not allowing me to immerse myself in this new universe. Bond didn’t even ask the bartender for a “martini shaken, not stirred,” because the bartender supposedly knew the drill. The Heineken scene was had in a beach. Against the philosophies of Craig and Mendes, they need to understand that these are the classic elements fans look forward to in every movie. They endure because they work, that is why they become classic moments, every 2-4 years. We want to ascertain what new and creative ways they will approach it and we want to smile heartily at them. In “Skyfall,” they severed off those memorable and cherished cinematic souvenirs we anticipated so much. Hopefully, they will bring it back in all of their full glory one day.

 

Despite my vexing remarks, they do not apply to the grand production, the ambitious entertainment value and the multi-dimensional layers that James Bond is draped in. I will not be mentioning references of ‘best,’ but I will highlight reasons why you should still see “Skyfall”. The opening action sequence is once again one of the reasons you can’t come late to a 007 movie. Car chases, tractors, guns, trains and deadly jumps, devise a most energetic beginning. Adele’s sultry and enchanting opening number is Grammy and Oscar deserving. If you can dismiss the bumps on the road, ergo, my previous critical observations, Craig gives an affecting performance that blends the better parts of his acting in ‘Casino’ and ‘Quantum’. 

 

Then we enter Javier Bardem, the first Hispanic actor to ever play a Bond villain. As he made history by playing the effeminate and demented Raoul Silva (according to Bardem himself, Silva is Portuguese), Bardem holds his own against the pantheon of memorable evil adversaries Bond had to kill. He’s not as good as Anton Chigurh, the role he won the Oscar for “No Country for Old Men”, but he is nonetheless intimidating.

 

As an action movie, “Skyfall” works. It holds a sense of danger and peril not associated to the other films. I’ll give it that. Yet, I felt that 2012 offered better action with “The Raid: Redemption” and “The Dark Knight Rises” (who can forget its opening airplane scene!). 

 

“Skyfall” is not a masterpiece movie. It is better than average and has a lot to applaud, but not enough to revere. So go ahead and buy your ticket, watch it, enjoy it, but know that there are better out there. 

The Man with the Iron Fists (Movie Review)
Jack Rico
0

By

2012/11/03 at 12:00am

Reviews

The Man with the Iron Fists (Movie Review)

11.3.2012 | By |

So you saw the trailer to “The Man with the Iron Fists” and it adrenalized you to see it. I mean, it has all the elements you personally like such as: martial arts movies that are impressively choreographed, violently-bloody-driven action sequences, hokey jokes from the villains and heroes, Russell Crowe who is one of your favorite actors and one who adds credibility to the cast, a hip hop infusion from the respected Wu-Tang’s RZA to make it “cool” and Quentin Tarantinoputting his name and reputation on it. Yes, I thought the exact same thing too until… I saw the movie.

The story is an action-adventure martial arts throwback film, inspired by the kung-fu classics from the 80’s such as “Fury of the Dragon,” “Black Samurai,” “Godfather of Hong Kong,” “Fists of Double K” and “Five Deadly Venoms”. It tells the story of warriors, assassins and a lone outsider hero who all descend on one fabled village in China for a winner-takes-all battle for a fortune in gold. 

On paper, it’s hard for any studio to dismiss this movie, but, not everything that is on paper works. Not to bog you down with sports analogies, but look at the powerful offensive minded New York Yankees who were swept in the playoffs by the Detroit Tigers for exactly not hitting, and your Los Angeles Lakers, who by far have the best starting lineup in basketball history, are 0-3 to start the season. So how does one explain these things? Chemistry. When you have great film elements at your disposal, it is the director’s job to have them flow seamlessly amongst each other, and not live individually. This is where you have to blame tyro helmer and screenwriter RZA (real name Robert “Bobby” Fitzgerald Diggs) for not having the experience to recognize the devil in the details. Is it all bad? No, but as a result, the movie is lifeless.

Visually, the movie is top notch. It is the jokes that aren’t funny and the acting as a whole is just abominable. All your left with then is the action to propel the film forward. In this regard, the martial arts sequences are intricate and ambitious. It truly is the movie’s only saving grace. 

Overall, “The Man with the Iron Fists” doesn’t have that much to offer on the inside. It’s just flash, all steak and no sizzle. Do yourself a favor and save your money if you can. I recommend you catch a better selection of contemporary martial arts classics on Bluray/DVD that will surely provide you with a superior and more memorable cinematic experience:

– “The Raid: Redemption” (this year’s best action film marked by its harshly gruesome Indonesian martial arts sequences)

– “Ong-back” (no wires, stunt doubles, or CGI, just beat downs in every sense of the word)

– Tarantino’s “Kill Bill” 1 & 2 (they’re intense, engrossing, filled with rib-cracking laughs and you just can’t seem to get enough from them)

– Ang Lee’s “Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon” (one of the best of all time)

– Jackie Chan’s “The Legend of Drunken Master” (this is one of Chan’s career defining works)

– “Kung Fu Hustle” (perhaps the most entertaining movie on this mini list because of it’s bizarre, outlandish humor and exciting action kung fu scenes)

– “Chocalate” (a rarely talked about gem featuring a female fighter), “Hero” (some say better than ‘Crouching Tiger’)

– “Fearless” (one of, if not, Jet Li’s finest work)

As of the posting of this movie review, “Ong-bak” and “Fearless” are currently on Netflix streaming, thus allowing you watch these immediately. 

 

Rated: Rated R for bloody violence, strong sexuality, language and brief drug use
Release Date: 2012-11-02
Starring: Eli Roth, RZA
Official Website: http://www.ironfists.com/

Follow SBC

Select a Page