Please enable javascript to view this site.

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

Movie Reviews

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
Jack Rico
0

By

2012/11/03 at 12:00am

Reviews

The Man with the Iron Fists

11.3.2012 | By |

The Man with the Iron Fists

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 Tarantino putting 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.

 

“The Man with the Iron Fists” has one evident earmark too hard to ignore and that is RZA’s involvement. This is obviously a vehicle to infiltrate himself into the Hollywood universe, since he is not an actor by trade, evident in the film (he was god awful). If no one will hire him, he’ll hire himself by being the director, writer, composer and co-lead in his own film. He did have help from fellow journeyman Eli Roth who produced, co-penned the script with him and made an undetectable cameo as a Wolf Clan member, according to the production notes, regrettably he offers little help here.

 

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. 

Wreck-It Ralph
Jack Rico
0

By

2012/11/02 at 12:00am

Reviews

Wreck-It Ralph

11.2.2012 | By |

Wreck-It Ralph

There is a difference between doing a movie based on a video game and a movie about a video game. Films like “Doom,” “Super Mario Bros,” “Resident Evil,” and “Max Payne,” are prime examples of the former, and films such as “Gamer,” “Tron,” “eXistenZ” and “WarGames,” depict the latter description. But Disney’s animated 3D film “Wreck-It Ralph” is by far the best film about a video game ever done. This comment doesn’t necessarily mean that it is the best animated movie of the year – “Frankenweenie,” “Rise of the Guardians,” “Paranorman” and “Brave” might have something to say against that, but it should be amongst the favorites at the Oscars in 2013. Nevertheless, it is visually nostalgic, sensorially exuberant, vivaciously mirthful and emotionally moving. 

 

The plot is simple and has been done before, but it is always about the execution. For decades, Ralph (voice of John C. Reilly) has been overshadowed by Fix-It Felix, Jr. (voice of Jack McBrayer), the good-guy star of their game who always gets to save the day. Tired of playing the role of a bad guy, Ralph takes matters into his own massive hands and sets off on a journey across the arcade through multiple generations of video games to prove he’s got what it takes to be a hero. On his quest, Ralph meets tough-as-nails Sergeant Calhoun (voice of Jane Lynch) from the first-person action game Hero’s Duty, and feisty misfit Vanellope von Schweetz (voice of Sarah Silverman) from the candy-coated cart-racing game Sugar Rush, who may just be his first real friend. But everything changes when a deadly enemy is unleashed, threatening the entire arcade and Vanellope herself. Ralph finally gets his chance to save the day—but can he do it in time? 

 

For anyone who has ever played video games circa 1980’s and 90’s, novice film director Rich Moore, a cartoon veteran, does a magnificent job in getting his animators to reproduce the exact Nintendo and arcade images of yesteryear. It almost felt like it was 1988 in the movie and outside of the theater. He managed to capture vast inside references and minutiae like kids placing their quarters against the front border of the arcade to gesture that they were next to play, etc. It is that attention to detail that makes a difference in the emotional cinematic experience of the spectator. 

 

The 3D is surprisingly subtle, I’d actually say too subtle for a film of this nature. Instead of seeing pixels fly out of the screen, I had to lift my glasses to make sure I wasn’t watching 2D. When the result is this uneventful, the extra investment is completely unnecessary. 

 

This is a movie hard not to enjoy. Adults will appreciate it because it’ll remind them of their youth when they would run home from school to play ‘Q*bert,’ along with all the inside references and retro cliche’s, and kids today will have fun with it because it possesses all the color, fast paced imagery and gags they come to expect from today’s animated assemblage.

 

Latinos, the highest movie going demographic in the United States, love animated movies more than any one else. They’re sure to make this movie a #1 hit at the box office!

Flight
Karen Posada
0

By

2012/10/29 at 12:00am

Reviews

Flight

10.29.2012 | By |

Flight

The word that best describes ‘Flight’ is: intense; not only because of its beginning but ultimately because of its subject matter. This is one of the most solid movies I’ve seen all year, which although it’s a compliment at the same time it makes me think that it played everything mostly safe enough to be likeable. This two hour plus long movie delivers one of the most intense flight scenes I’ve ever experienced, making that alone a good reason to pay to see it; fortunately the rest of the film although it mainly rotates around the main character it takes us on a interesting yet depressing unexpected journey.

 

After veteran pilot Whip Whitaker (Denzel Washington) saves a malfunctioning airplane from crashing, he goes between being called a hero and placed under scrutiny when alcohol is found in his blood. With the help of his old friends Charlie (Bruce Greenwood), Harling (John Goodman) and lawyer Hugh Lang (Don Cheadle) he will try to clean up his name, while entertaining a relationship with Nicole (Kelly Reilly).

 

Director Robert Zemeckis has been focusing on PG movies for a while now, but here he certainly decided to get out of that mold with a hard rated R film. He’s made movies such as ‘Cast Away’ and ‘Forrest Gump’, which weren’t only extremely successful, but like this one, also placed a spotlight on the main character. Zemeckis doesn’t disappoint carrying the audience on a story about this Pilot’s present, without getting overly dramatic or boring. Although there’s a key element missing about his past to explain why he’s become this troubled being, which might stem from either his father’s death or his divorce and estranged relationship with his family; it is never clear.  

 

Washington has to receive some Oscar recognition for his terrific performance here, as he’s able to convey a character that could easily be disliked by those of us watching, but somehow he has us rooting for him. Goodman takes some tension out of the film in the few scenes he appears, as a hippie friend who’s the only one to understand the main character. Cheadle and Greenwood also add a good steady touch to the film, inserting some hard reality into the life of an arrogant man. A lot of the time romance seems pushed on films and although here it has a rocky kind of surreal beginning, it’s able to become more real as it progresses because a big chunk of the film would be missing without Reilly’s involvement.

 

Speaking of romance, this film encounters interracial relationships, something that Hollywood tends to avoid at times; Washington is seen with a Caucasian woman as well as Puerto Rican actress Nadine Velazquez who has quite a shocking role. The film begins with full frontal nudity; Velazquez’ role might seem minor but she carries more weight than expected. Even though she doesn’t have much of a speaking or acting role, this might be her real breakthrough into the world of Hollywood.

 

One of the things that bothered me about the film was how much God was mentioned, but seeing how it takes place in the South, to be more specific in Georgia; perhaps it’s showing the religious roots. Maybe, also because whenever there’s a disaster people try to find an explanation through what they believe in. The film touches upon the belief of “everything happens for a reason” and that some people think we don’t have control of our own lives; despite of the religious angle it takes at times, it’s quite interesting. There’s some comedy in it though not only talking about religion, but also with James Badge Dale character.

 

The film is able to give its public a complete experience, which although it’s mainly depressing and tough to watch at times, it’s entertaining. This isn’t the story of flight 1549 when pilot Chesley Sullenberg landed safely on New York’s Hudson River, saving everyone on board; it’s far from it, but it might remind you a little of it although it was written before this event. So, fasten your seatbelts and enjoy a movie that’s able to use many tools to make you leave the movie theater somewhat uplifted.   

Cloud Atlas
Jack Rico
0

By

2012/10/26 at 12:00am

Reviews

Cloud Atlas

10.26.2012 | By |

Cloud Atlas

‘Cloud Atlas,’ the seemingly eternal artistic disaster, is an ambitious cinematic project that is both beautiful and mismanaged. It boasts some arresting scenes, heavyweight performances from a veteran cast led by Oscar winners Tom Hanks and Halle Berry and visually stunning cinematography, but its perpetual duration and its disjointed narrative provide for an unfulfilling experience, ergo, a few huffed yawns. For anyone paying the price of a $14 ticket, at least in New York, you are going to end up having to spend perhaps another $28 in multiple viewings just to fully “get it”.

 

According to the production notes, the movie, based on the novel by author David Mitchell, is about a single story that unfolds in multiple timelines over the span of 500 years. Characters meet and reunite from one life to the next. Born and reborn. As the consequences of their actions and choices impact one another through the past, the present and the distant future, one soul is shaped from a killer into a hero, and a single act of kindness ripples across centuries to inspire a revolution.

 

In other words, this almost 3 hour film, tells the tale of 6 stories in 6 different eras, in the past, present and future, where the characters actions have either damaging or beneficial consequences in the future. 

 

Directors Lana Wachowski, Andy Wachowski and Tom Tykwer have made a movie with an immeasurable intellectual arc that defies the popular and cultural taste of the times. Fast paced, straight lined plots with coherent plot twists is what most moviegoers want for the price of their movie ticket. When it is too much to decipher, they’re enjoyment fizzles out. You have to ask yourself, what type of moviegoer are you? Only then can you make a wise decision of whether to see this film or not.

 

David Mitchell’s book is already confusing to many readers, so I’m not surprised the adaptation is as fuzzy as it is. What most affects me is the order in which the six stories are presented. They are conveyed in a structure full of flashback and flash-forwards that can easily exasperate more than a few spectators. Some of the stories are soporiferous and the dialogue in others are down right undecipherable. Overall, you don’t know which parts are continuous or an which ones aren’t. Tack on to that, some tawdry makeup and the directors have “a hole lot of esplainin’ tu du.”

 

The saving grace of ‘Cloud Atlas’ are the magnificent performances. No matter how puzzling the film is, this movie is an actor’s dream. Hanks along with other cast members perform multiple roles, even those of Asian characters which have raised the ire of Asian organizations. Why are Jim Sturgess and James D’Arcy, caucasian British actors, playing the parts of Asians? The same happened with Latinos. There was a scene where Hugo Weaving asked a “Mexican woman” where a certain character had hidden. The “Mexicana” in question was South Korean actress Doona Bae who was under heavy latex makeup. The question we all ask is – why couldn’t we use native actors to play those roles? Obviously, this wasn’t something personally directed at Asians and Latinos. The filmmakers deliberately wanted the lead actors to resemble the diverse characters in order for the audience to know they were reincarnated. To me it worked, but it was distracting and a bit off. Nevertheless, the cast must’ve had a ball playing so many people. 

 

Halle Berry actually was given some Spanish dialogue that was subtitled with her she exchanged with Doona Bae. Berry did well and her pronounciation was clear. I get a kick out if it when non Hispanic actors speak my language. Some butcher it, but some others do it well, such as Berry.

 

Because of the way the money was raised, ‘Cloud Atlas’ is considered an independent movie, perhaps the most expensive in film history with an estimated 100 million tag. I don’t see it winning any Oscars. You can argue it might get nominated in the visuals and special effects category, but even that is a tough battle knowing “The Avengers” is the favorite. It is unfortunate but this will be an enormous and extensive flop that many involved in will be reeling from for a long period, including your time and money. 

Follow SBC

Select a Page