The following review, while containing no major spoilers, may reveal some plot details. If you’ve yet to see the movie, read at your own risk.
Man of Steel has been a divisive movie. A quick look at the movie's Rotten Tomatoes scores reveals a pretty big gap between critics' (56% fresh) and the general audience's (82% fresh) scores. Even within the two groups, reactions range from awesome to awful. But I think we can all agree on one thing: Henry Cavill is a very attractive man.
There’s some enjoyment in just watching an attractive man on the big screen, and Henry Cavill certainly provides that. With a dashing performance and good looks, Cavill is the perfect Superman, and that’s a pretty big part of the puzzle when you’re making a superhero movie. However, it’s not the only piece of the puzzle, and Man of Steel falters when it came to some of the other pieces.
One aspect that Man of Steel struggles with was tone. With its muted, gritty color scheme and somber atmosphere, it seems that director Zack Snyder intended to bring the gravity to Superman that Christopher Nolan brought to Batman (interestingly, Nolan is given story credit for Man of Steel). That’s no easy task, particularly when you consider the sci-fi alien campiness of Superman, and Man of Steel doesn’t quite pull it off. For example, it’s hard to take Cavill’s faces of joy during Clark Kent’s first flight as Superman or Superman’s signature suit seriously. With a lighter tone, I could just laugh with the movie’s campiness, but with its attempt at being serious, I more often felt like I was laughing at it. Even the somber dialogue often sounds unnatural and stilted coming out of the actors’ mouths. There are a handful of jokes in the movie, but they feel out-of-place, as if they were cobbled in from another movie.
In fact, the movie as a whole feels like several stitched together, and the result lacks cohesiveness. The opening to the movie that reveals Clark’s origins is an apocalyptic, sci-fi tale. Flashbacks to his childhood are a somber reflection on the past of an outcast. The main plot is often stodgy, with suppressed campiness lurking beneath the surface. One moment, in which Zod hacks into televisions across the world, is like something from a genuinely scary thriller. The end of the movie could have easily come out of a Michael Bay film.
Some of these parts are more interesting than others. The movie shines in the flashbacks to Clark’s childhood and the television-hacking scene (if the rest of the movie had managed to capture the terror of the television-hacking scene, the darker tone might have actually worked). However, even if each portion had been executed flawlessly, they would still feel disjointed from each other.
While romance wasn’t a particularly large part of Man of Steel, it does have a presence in the movie. While not necessarily a traditional choice, Amy Adams was a decent Lois Lane. However, she was horribly cast as Superman’s love interest simply because she and Cavill have zero chemistry. There couldn’t have been less of a connection between the two if one was replaced with a cardboard cutout. Funnily enough, Cavill actually has more of a spark with Zod’s lieutenant Faora (who, by the way, is kind of awesome).
With a lengthy run-time of 143 minutes, Man of Steel is somewhat bloated, at times veering towards boring. A good chunk of that time could have probably been cut out with tighter editing.
Despite my laundry list of complaints, I still enjoyed Man of Steel. It was an okay movie. I even though it had a decent plot. I just feel there was a great movie in there somewhere that didn't quite shine through. It needed a more consistent focus, a less problematic tone and some serious paring down. Still, Henry Cavill was fun to look at, and that might be enough to draw me to the sequel when it eventually comes out.
Showing posts with label movie reviews. Show all posts
Showing posts with label movie reviews. Show all posts
Tuesday, June 18, 2013
Monday, July 30, 2012
Movie Review: The Amazing Spider-man
While I was watching The Amazing Spider-man, I was plagued with a problem common to movie-goers. As Peter Parker searched Bing and Gwen Stacy rocked a seemingly endless supply of knee-high boots, a baby in the audience provided seemingly endless crying and cooing. There was a brief moment when the mother left the theater, and I thought that I could finally enjoy the rest of the movie in peace. When she returned five minutes later, however, it was clear that it was just a bathroom break.
Additionally, the power shut down about five minutes before the movie was over. So if the quality of those last few minutes affected the movie greatly, this review isn't going to reflect that.
It's kind of ironic, considering that I rank fairly high on the arachnophobia scale, but I really like Spider-man. There's something appealing about the fact that he's just a relatively normal, kind of dorky high school kid who stumbles into superpowers. I enjoyed Spider-man and Spider-man 2 a lot. I'm not much of a comic book reader, so they were really my first foray into the Spider-man world. When I heard that the series was being rebooted, I was skeptical, but after Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone were cast, I knew I'd probably end up going to see it.
The comparisons between 2002's Spider-man and this year's The Amazing Spider-man are inevitable. They cover a lot of the same ground, and because the first Spider-man was generally well-received, a remake wasn't exactly necessary. That doesn't mean, however, that it was entirely unwarranted. It's been a while since I've actually seen Spider-man, so I'm not the best person to compare the two. That doesn't mean, however, that I'm going to refrain from making them. Some major differences between the two stand out such as a change in love interest, an alternative villain, and a much sassier Spider-man. These differences between the two movies in addition to my enjoyment of origin stories meant that I really didn't mind watching some of the elements repeated from the first Spider-man film.
Excellent casting is one of the biggest strengths of The Amazing Spider-man. Andrew Garfield made an wonderful Peter Parker. Admittedly, most of my Spider-man knowledge is derived from the first trilogy, and I don't really know how Peter is depicted in the comics. However, I really enjoyed Garfield's performance. I also found the writing of the character to be interesting; rather than depicting Peter as complete nerd as the 2002 version did, this movie portrayed him as a slightly awkward teen who only ran into trouble with the school bully when he tried to help out another student. I thought that characterization was a nicely realistic approach to the character.
Emma Stone was another wise casting choice. While some real-life couples seem to lack on-screen chemistry, she and Andrew Garfield worked well together. They didn't share a moment quite as iconic as the upside down kiss between Mary Jane and Spider-man, but they were a fun couple to watch. I also appreciated Gwen Stacy as a character. She wasn't the most developed character ever, but she was smart and could hold her own.
While there was a lot I liked about The Amazing Spider-man, it wasn't perfect. I liked the Andrew Garfield/Emma Stone combination better than the Tobey Maguire/Kirsten Dunst one, but I felt that the Aunt May and Uncle Ben of The Amazing Spider-man were quite a downgrade from the original characters. They weren't casted or written terribly in The Amazing Spider-man, but they were spot on and much more likable in Spider-man. While I suppose it was omitted to distance the two movies, I particularly disliked the absence of the "with great power comes great responsibility" line in The Amazing Spider-man
The movie's biggest weakness was probably its villain. Lizard wasn't a terrible villain, but he was somewhat lackluster. I even had to look up his name as I was writing this review because I'd just been calling him "lizard man." The villain portion of the movie felt a bit rushed, and Lizard seemed to mostly be there out of a necessity for the movie to have a villain.
While I had a few qualms with it, I really enjoyed The Amazing Spider-man. I was thoroughly entertained throughout the whole movie and was surprised to find out that it was over two hours long because it felt much shorter, even considering the few minutes I missed at the end.
Additionally, the power shut down about five minutes before the movie was over. So if the quality of those last few minutes affected the movie greatly, this review isn't going to reflect that.
It's kind of ironic, considering that I rank fairly high on the arachnophobia scale, but I really like Spider-man. There's something appealing about the fact that he's just a relatively normal, kind of dorky high school kid who stumbles into superpowers. I enjoyed Spider-man and Spider-man 2 a lot. I'm not much of a comic book reader, so they were really my first foray into the Spider-man world. When I heard that the series was being rebooted, I was skeptical, but after Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone were cast, I knew I'd probably end up going to see it.
The comparisons between 2002's Spider-man and this year's The Amazing Spider-man are inevitable. They cover a lot of the same ground, and because the first Spider-man was generally well-received, a remake wasn't exactly necessary. That doesn't mean, however, that it was entirely unwarranted. It's been a while since I've actually seen Spider-man, so I'm not the best person to compare the two. That doesn't mean, however, that I'm going to refrain from making them. Some major differences between the two stand out such as a change in love interest, an alternative villain, and a much sassier Spider-man. These differences between the two movies in addition to my enjoyment of origin stories meant that I really didn't mind watching some of the elements repeated from the first Spider-man film.
Excellent casting is one of the biggest strengths of The Amazing Spider-man. Andrew Garfield made an wonderful Peter Parker. Admittedly, most of my Spider-man knowledge is derived from the first trilogy, and I don't really know how Peter is depicted in the comics. However, I really enjoyed Garfield's performance. I also found the writing of the character to be interesting; rather than depicting Peter as complete nerd as the 2002 version did, this movie portrayed him as a slightly awkward teen who only ran into trouble with the school bully when he tried to help out another student. I thought that characterization was a nicely realistic approach to the character.
Emma Stone was another wise casting choice. While some real-life couples seem to lack on-screen chemistry, she and Andrew Garfield worked well together. They didn't share a moment quite as iconic as the upside down kiss between Mary Jane and Spider-man, but they were a fun couple to watch. I also appreciated Gwen Stacy as a character. She wasn't the most developed character ever, but she was smart and could hold her own.
While there was a lot I liked about The Amazing Spider-man, it wasn't perfect. I liked the Andrew Garfield/Emma Stone combination better than the Tobey Maguire/Kirsten Dunst one, but I felt that the Aunt May and Uncle Ben of The Amazing Spider-man were quite a downgrade from the original characters. They weren't casted or written terribly in The Amazing Spider-man, but they were spot on and much more likable in Spider-man. While I suppose it was omitted to distance the two movies, I particularly disliked the absence of the "with great power comes great responsibility" line in The Amazing Spider-man
The movie's biggest weakness was probably its villain. Lizard wasn't a terrible villain, but he was somewhat lackluster. I even had to look up his name as I was writing this review because I'd just been calling him "lizard man." The villain portion of the movie felt a bit rushed, and Lizard seemed to mostly be there out of a necessity for the movie to have a villain.
While I had a few qualms with it, I really enjoyed The Amazing Spider-man. I was thoroughly entertained throughout the whole movie and was surprised to find out that it was over two hours long because it felt much shorter, even considering the few minutes I missed at the end.
Thursday, May 31, 2012
Movie Review: Don't be afraid of Don't Be Afraid of the Dark
Warning: There are a few mild spoilers in this review such as a description of the creatures, but nothing that I feel ruins the movie.
Despite the command issued in Don't Be Afraid of the Dark's title, I actually am a little afraid of the dark. I don't quiver in fear every time I turn the lights out, but I do occasionally leave the television on as I go to sleep. In fact, I'm kind of a scaredy cat in general. I've literally jumped at my own shadow (on multiple occasions). If I spot something flying around during the summer, I assume it's a wasp or bee and go running. There's a certain completely ridiculous and implausible urban legend that shall remain unnamed (here's a hint: it deals with mirrors) that genuinely terrifies me and haunts my mind every time I start thinking about it. Worse than any of that, the Nancy Drew computer games scare me (as in, I run from the computer if something freaky starts happening). I enjoyed the games when I was younger (despite my terror), and during a bout of nostalgia, I recently replayed one thinking that I was long past my days of fearing a video game made for kids. Nope, but I did do a little less running away.
I'm telling you all of this not to completely wreck your opinion of me but so that you'll believe me when I tell you that, other than a couple of jump scenes, Don't Be Afraid of the Dark really isn't that scary of a movie.
As I type Don't Be Afraid of the Dark, I keep wanting to type Are You Afraid of the Dark?. I find the similarity between the two titles interesting because I could almost see Don't Be Afraid of the Dark as a children's horror movie. The opening scene is kind of gruesome, there's another scene that's probably a little bloody for kids, and overall, the movie might give kids nightmares. Still, Don't Be Afraid of the Dark captures the tone of silliness tinged with slight scariness that's present in the scary movies and shows geared towards children. While the rat-like monsters would be nothing to laugh at if they were to appear in real life, they're just not that scary in the world of movies and seem like a higher-budget version of something that would appear on Are You Afraid of the Dark?. Frankly, the drawings of them shown in the movie are much scarier than the actual creatures. The unveiling of these lackluster monsters comes early in the movie (although they're not really that scary when they're just voices in the vent repeating everything) and really takes away from the scare factor.
Don't Be Afraid of the Dark also suffers from the "girl please" phenomenon that's common to horror films. The "girl please" phenomenon means that I was "girl pleasing" the characters of the movie for their decisions and had a hard time understanding their decision making processes. Why is the little girl cool with creepy voices coming from her vent? Why is the groundskeeper so closed-mouthed? Why do the little creatures wait so long to attack? I'm sure you could come up with explanations for these things, but everyone in the movie just seemed a little bit dense.
After watching the trailer for Don't Be Afraid of the Dark, I was under the impression that Katie Holmes was the main hauntee and character of the movie. In actuality, her character's boyfriend's daughter Sally takes both of those roles (yet another reason why I feel like this is almost a kid's movie). Bailee Madison (who's been in several projects you might recognize, most recently Once Upon a Time as the young Snow White) portrays the sullen child Sally. Sally was the subject of the majority of my "girl pleases" because I believe that even a child should know not to respond to creepy voices in their vent. Perhaps my expectations are too high. Still, Madison does a pretty good job, and I warmed to Sally once she realized that the creatures were not her friends.
Don't Be Afraid of the Dark was far from the movie I expected it to be, but it's not completely terrible. I found it pretty entertaining, and there's a couple of moderate thrills towards the beginning of the movie (in particular, there's a monster-under-the-covers scene that really did creep me out). Still, it's the kind of movie that I didn't mind talking during, and I didn't pause it when I walked out the room for minute. And thrillwise? I still find Nancy Drew games much scarier.
Despite the command issued in Don't Be Afraid of the Dark's title, I actually am a little afraid of the dark. I don't quiver in fear every time I turn the lights out, but I do occasionally leave the television on as I go to sleep. In fact, I'm kind of a scaredy cat in general. I've literally jumped at my own shadow (on multiple occasions). If I spot something flying around during the summer, I assume it's a wasp or bee and go running. There's a certain completely ridiculous and implausible urban legend that shall remain unnamed (here's a hint: it deals with mirrors) that genuinely terrifies me and haunts my mind every time I start thinking about it. Worse than any of that, the Nancy Drew computer games scare me (as in, I run from the computer if something freaky starts happening). I enjoyed the games when I was younger (despite my terror), and during a bout of nostalgia, I recently replayed one thinking that I was long past my days of fearing a video game made for kids. Nope, but I did do a little less running away.
I'm telling you all of this not to completely wreck your opinion of me but so that you'll believe me when I tell you that, other than a couple of jump scenes, Don't Be Afraid of the Dark really isn't that scary of a movie.
 |
| I actually really liked the style of the opening credits. |
As I type Don't Be Afraid of the Dark, I keep wanting to type Are You Afraid of the Dark?. I find the similarity between the two titles interesting because I could almost see Don't Be Afraid of the Dark as a children's horror movie. The opening scene is kind of gruesome, there's another scene that's probably a little bloody for kids, and overall, the movie might give kids nightmares. Still, Don't Be Afraid of the Dark captures the tone of silliness tinged with slight scariness that's present in the scary movies and shows geared towards children. While the rat-like monsters would be nothing to laugh at if they were to appear in real life, they're just not that scary in the world of movies and seem like a higher-budget version of something that would appear on Are You Afraid of the Dark?. Frankly, the drawings of them shown in the movie are much scarier than the actual creatures. The unveiling of these lackluster monsters comes early in the movie (although they're not really that scary when they're just voices in the vent repeating everything) and really takes away from the scare factor.
Don't Be Afraid of the Dark also suffers from the "girl please" phenomenon that's common to horror films. The "girl please" phenomenon means that I was "girl pleasing" the characters of the movie for their decisions and had a hard time understanding their decision making processes. Why is the little girl cool with creepy voices coming from her vent? Why is the groundskeeper so closed-mouthed? Why do the little creatures wait so long to attack? I'm sure you could come up with explanations for these things, but everyone in the movie just seemed a little bit dense.
After watching the trailer for Don't Be Afraid of the Dark, I was under the impression that Katie Holmes was the main hauntee and character of the movie. In actuality, her character's boyfriend's daughter Sally takes both of those roles (yet another reason why I feel like this is almost a kid's movie). Bailee Madison (who's been in several projects you might recognize, most recently Once Upon a Time as the young Snow White) portrays the sullen child Sally. Sally was the subject of the majority of my "girl pleases" because I believe that even a child should know not to respond to creepy voices in their vent. Perhaps my expectations are too high. Still, Madison does a pretty good job, and I warmed to Sally once she realized that the creatures were not her friends.
Don't Be Afraid of the Dark was far from the movie I expected it to be, but it's not completely terrible. I found it pretty entertaining, and there's a couple of moderate thrills towards the beginning of the movie (in particular, there's a monster-under-the-covers scene that really did creep me out). Still, it's the kind of movie that I didn't mind talking during, and I didn't pause it when I walked out the room for minute. And thrillwise? I still find Nancy Drew games much scarier.
Tuesday, May 22, 2012
Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol: Good, But Needs More Sawyer
Confession #1: I've never seen the any of the first three Mission Impossible movies. I entered this movie with a couple of tidbits of knowledge (the theme song, the "your mission should you choose to accept it" bit, etc.) about the series, but I didn't know much about it. I didn't even know Tom Cruise's character's name (It's Ethan Hunt, by the way.).
Confession #2: Having recently seen the fantastic The Avengers, I couldn't help but compare Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol to it. I know they're not really that alike (one takes place in a world of superheroes and aliens, and the other at least pretends to maintain a facade of realism), but, in my defense, both are action films. Plus two weeks after seeing it, The Avengers is still pretty fresh on my mind.
Despite all of that, I really enjoyed Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol. It's not like gadgets and fighting sequences take a lot of back story to figure out. Sure there was a bit of a story in the movie, but it was just there to provide a framework in which to put the aforementioned action and gadgets.
The actors that made up the main team (Tom Cruise, Paula Patton, Simon Pegg, and Jeremy Renner) had nice chemistry and worked well together. I especially appreciated that there wasn't much of a romance storyline among the cast. There are mentions of outside romances that tie into the story and one flirty moment, but there's not much of a featured love story to dilute the action. I can definitely enjoy love stories in action films if they're done well (the one in Captain America springs to mind), but it was refreshing to see an action film that's content to simply be an action film.
I'm probably not the best person to judge the action in Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol because I'm not the biggest action movie buff, but I thought it was really well done. There were plenty of fun sequences, and I found the action to be really exciting. The movie is fairly long at a 133 minute run time, but its quick pace and almost non-stop action make those minutes go by quickly. There were several moments where I thought "that looks really cool." The same train of thought applies to the gadgets. I found it kind of funny that a lot of the gadgets were Apple-based, but the Apple logos did somewhat help to give the gadgets a realistic feel.
Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol's biggest weaknesses are in its non-action related moments. Most of the quips and funny moments didn't really work for me. They weren't terrible, but they weren't particularly good. In The Avengers (sorry guys, but you had to know I was going to mention it again), the dialogue and jokes were just as strong as the action. There were a plethora of quotable lines, and the movie got plenty of laughs from me. I'm not sure I laughed once in Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol, but if I did it was probably at the visual humor of one of the stunts.
Probably my biggest disappointment with Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol was Josh Holloway's lack of screen time. This is a silly personal qualm, but I was really expecting him to have a bigger role. I'm pretty sure I saw him doing promo for the movie, but that's ridiculous considering he couldn't have had more than a few minutes of screen time. What can I say? I'm a Sawyer fan.
In all seriousness, Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol is a fun blockbuster that makes a great summer film. Is it a deep film? No. Does it offer much beyond gadgets and action? No. Is it as good as The Avengers? A world of no. But it is a solid action movie that's well worth watching.
Confession #2: Having recently seen the fantastic The Avengers, I couldn't help but compare Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol to it. I know they're not really that alike (one takes place in a world of superheroes and aliens, and the other at least pretends to maintain a facade of realism), but, in my defense, both are action films. Plus two weeks after seeing it, The Avengers is still pretty fresh on my mind.
Despite all of that, I really enjoyed Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol. It's not like gadgets and fighting sequences take a lot of back story to figure out. Sure there was a bit of a story in the movie, but it was just there to provide a framework in which to put the aforementioned action and gadgets.
The actors that made up the main team (Tom Cruise, Paula Patton, Simon Pegg, and Jeremy Renner) had nice chemistry and worked well together. I especially appreciated that there wasn't much of a romance storyline among the cast. There are mentions of outside romances that tie into the story and one flirty moment, but there's not much of a featured love story to dilute the action. I can definitely enjoy love stories in action films if they're done well (the one in Captain America springs to mind), but it was refreshing to see an action film that's content to simply be an action film.
I'm probably not the best person to judge the action in Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol because I'm not the biggest action movie buff, but I thought it was really well done. There were plenty of fun sequences, and I found the action to be really exciting. The movie is fairly long at a 133 minute run time, but its quick pace and almost non-stop action make those minutes go by quickly. There were several moments where I thought "that looks really cool." The same train of thought applies to the gadgets. I found it kind of funny that a lot of the gadgets were Apple-based, but the Apple logos did somewhat help to give the gadgets a realistic feel.
Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol's biggest weaknesses are in its non-action related moments. Most of the quips and funny moments didn't really work for me. They weren't terrible, but they weren't particularly good. In The Avengers (sorry guys, but you had to know I was going to mention it again), the dialogue and jokes were just as strong as the action. There were a plethora of quotable lines, and the movie got plenty of laughs from me. I'm not sure I laughed once in Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol, but if I did it was probably at the visual humor of one of the stunts.
Probably my biggest disappointment with Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol was Josh Holloway's lack of screen time. This is a silly personal qualm, but I was really expecting him to have a bigger role. I'm pretty sure I saw him doing promo for the movie, but that's ridiculous considering he couldn't have had more than a few minutes of screen time. What can I say? I'm a Sawyer fan.
In all seriousness, Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol is a fun blockbuster that makes a great summer film. Is it a deep film? No. Does it offer much beyond gadgets and action? No. Is it as good as The Avengers? A world of no. But it is a solid action movie that's well worth watching.
Wednesday, April 11, 2012
Contagion: A hypochondriac's worst nightmare
 |
| ©2011 Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. |
With the semi-recent zombie craze (Is that still going on? I feel like it has kind of puttered out.), it's nice to see a movie that approaches the idea of a worldwide pandemic that doesn't turn people into cannibalistic monsters. While this isn't a completely original idea (the TV show Survivors springs to mind), I like the realistic approach that Contagion takes to the issue. It's an interesting idea because it taps into a "this could really happen" type of of fear. I don't know how accurate Contagion is, but I'm sure (well, pretty sure) it's much more realistic than an outbreak of zombies.
While I liked the realistic approach, Contagion is a little too dry at some points. I got out my laptop three or four quick times during the movie's more boring parts. As a whole, it's not a boring movie, and I certainly never wanted to leave at any point; there are just a few moments at which it becomes kind of dull.
Contagion doesn't devote a lot of time to character development. I'm don't want to complain too much about this aspect because the movie chooses to be plot-driven rather than character-driven. However, it would have enhanced the movie if I'd cared a little bit more about the characters. Most of my feelings towards them were simply derived from my feelings towards the actors (which was, I must say, helped by good casting).
In addition to somewhat weak characters, the characters' storylines feel really spread out, and I was hoping that they'd end up connecting better than they actually do. I understand that the movie wants to cover the many different viewpoints of a viral outbreak, but the end result is a disjointed effect. It would have been a poor move to force the characters together in a contrived manner, but I feel that a little more connection between the characters would go a long way in helping to balance the multiple storylines.
While Contagion does a fairly good job at creating a no-nonsense, realistic atmosphere, there are a few lines that stick out as particularly cheesy. The one that springs to my mind is a line about not having to weaponize the bird flu "because the birds are already doing that." The thought behind the line isn't bad, but its phrasing and delivery seemed to scream "this was written to sound cool in the trailer."
My biggest issue with Contagion was its ending. I'm going to try and refrain from spoilers, but the ending was very underwhelming. The movie ends fairly abruptly, and I found myself thinking, "That's it?" Contagion felt somewhat under-baked, and several of the storylines felt lacking in conclusion or depth. I feel like several of the stories could have taken more interesting turns, but instead, they just seemed to putter out without much purpose.
Contagion was okay movie that I mostly enjoyed, but I was expecting a lot more from it. I feel like there was a lot of wasted potential in it, and I have to wonder if it would have helped to drop a storyline or two so more time could have been devoted to the others. Now, excuse me while I go wash my hands, get out the Lysol, and move to Madagascar.
Thursday, March 22, 2012
Orphan
Most of us have had it happen to us. You're browsing online when you accidentally come across a spoiler for a movie you've been looking forward to. Typically you're disappointed, and your desire to see that movie may even fade away. Then sometimes you come across a spoiler for a movie you have no plans to see, and it's so ridiculous that you decide that you need to see that movie. The latter is what happened to me with the movie Orphan.
I suppose my need to see Orphan really wasn't that urgent because I read the spoiler when the movie came out in 2009, and I didn't see the movie until three years had passed. Still, when I saw that Orphan was airing on TV, I didn't hesitate to record it to my DVR (although it still took me another month or two to watch it).
Orphan focuses on Kate and John Coleman, a couple who are dealing with the miscarriage of their third child. They decide to adopt a child and come home with Esther. At first Esther seems like the perfect child, but because this is a horror movie rather than a Hallmark movie, Kate soon starts to suspect that Esther's not quite as perfect as she appears to be.
I think that the mindset with which one approaches Orphan plays a big role in the way he or she will view it. If I had gone into Orphan expecting a serious, scary thriller, I probably would have thought it was terrible. Instead, I expected a ridiculous movie about an evil orphan that I could laugh at, and I was thoroughly entertained.
While I was probably more laughing at the movie than I was laughing with it, Orphan was at least a little bit higher in quality than I expected. The acting was nothing amazing, but it was decent. The little girl who played the daughter of the family was especially adorable and well cast. The back story wasn't particularly original, but it worked well for the movie.
Before watching Orphan, you should be aware that it's really not scary at all. There are a couple moments that might be described as creepy, but they're campy enough that they'll probably just make you laugh. There are a couple jump scenes, but most of them fall flat. In fact, the photography as a whole was kind of wonky. Some of it worked, but there were several instances of strange shots that almost felt like student experimenting.
Overall, Orphan is a hard movie to take seriously, but with the right mindset, it's a decent little thriller. I wouldn't recommend going to much trouble to watch it, but if you catch it on TV, you might want to give it a shot. Personally, I think knowing the twist made the movie ten times more fun to watch. So I'm putting a spoiler in this review (just click the button below), but I'll leave it up to you if you want to read it.
I suppose my need to see Orphan really wasn't that urgent because I read the spoiler when the movie came out in 2009, and I didn't see the movie until three years had passed. Still, when I saw that Orphan was airing on TV, I didn't hesitate to record it to my DVR (although it still took me another month or two to watch it).
Orphan focuses on Kate and John Coleman, a couple who are dealing with the miscarriage of their third child. They decide to adopt a child and come home with Esther. At first Esther seems like the perfect child, but because this is a horror movie rather than a Hallmark movie, Kate soon starts to suspect that Esther's not quite as perfect as she appears to be.
I think that the mindset with which one approaches Orphan plays a big role in the way he or she will view it. If I had gone into Orphan expecting a serious, scary thriller, I probably would have thought it was terrible. Instead, I expected a ridiculous movie about an evil orphan that I could laugh at, and I was thoroughly entertained.
While I was probably more laughing at the movie than I was laughing with it, Orphan was at least a little bit higher in quality than I expected. The acting was nothing amazing, but it was decent. The little girl who played the daughter of the family was especially adorable and well cast. The back story wasn't particularly original, but it worked well for the movie.
Before watching Orphan, you should be aware that it's really not scary at all. There are a couple moments that might be described as creepy, but they're campy enough that they'll probably just make you laugh. There are a couple jump scenes, but most of them fall flat. In fact, the photography as a whole was kind of wonky. Some of it worked, but there were several instances of strange shots that almost felt like student experimenting.
Overall, Orphan is a hard movie to take seriously, but with the right mindset, it's a decent little thriller. I wouldn't recommend going to much trouble to watch it, but if you catch it on TV, you might want to give it a shot. Personally, I think knowing the twist made the movie ten times more fun to watch. So I'm putting a spoiler in this review (just click the button below), but I'll leave it up to you if you want to read it.
Thursday, March 8, 2012
The Artist
 |
| Credit: The Weinstein Company |
As of late, this blog has been a lot more focused on the small screen than the big screen. That's probably not going to change any time soon, but I thought it would be nice to write a post that fits into the movies portion of the blog. I finally saw The Artist on Monday; as it is not only a movie but also this year's Best Picture winner, I thought a review of it would be a suitable topic.
Most of you are probably aware that the The Artist is a black-and-white silent movie. Those of you who've only seen the trailers may not be aware of the film's plot. Going into the movie my knowledge of The Artist didn't go much farther than that it is a black-and-white silent movie with a largely-French cast and Uggie. For those of you who's knowledge falls somewhere along those lines, I'll start with a brief synopsis.
The Artist begins with a focus on George Valentin (Jean Dujardin), a silent movie star in the 1920s who becomes enchanted with aspiring actress Peppy Miller (Bérénice Bejo). When "talkies" or talking pictures start to replace silent movies, George feels out of place in the new era of cinema, but Peppy's career takes flight.
When I think of The Artist, the first word that comes to mind is charming. From the bouncy music to the adorable dog, the film brings charm in spades. It's the kind of movie that made me want to smile as I watched it. Without this charm, I don't think the The Artist would have worked well at all; although I was surprised at how much of a story The Artist was able to convey, it was still a film with a good deal of fluff. With this charm, however, it was quite enjoyable.
One of the biggest sources of this charm was the cast. While there were a few familiar faces in the cast (John Goodman and Missi Pyle, for example), most of the cast, including the leads, were relatively unknown actors, at least in the United States. This was a wise choice because recognizable leads, even likable ones, would have taken away from the nostalgic feel of the movie. Additionally, Dujardin and Bejo were perfectly cast, and it's hard to image anyone else doing a better job in their roles. Dujardin is dashing as George and Bejo is utterly endearing as Peppy.
As great Dujardin and Bejo are in The Artist, the true breakout star of the film is Uggie. Uggie plays the role of George's faithful canine companion. He's absolutely adorable, and his scenes are the ones that brought the most laughs. I'm not the only one who's been enchanted by Uggie. There was even a tongue-in-cheek campaign to "Consider Uggie" for an Oscar.
Although I found the movie charming, there were a few times during The Artist that my mind began to wander. The lack of voices was a bit jarring, and I have to admit that I'm used to having both audible dialogue and visuals to hold my attention. Additionally, there were a couple of small moments near the end of the movie where I felt it began to drag slightly. Still, for the majority of the film I was entertained.
The Artist is a fun, fluffy film that stands out due to its presentation and charm. If you're willing to watch a black-and-white silent film, I'd recommend giving it a shot. If nothing else, you'll probably come out with a new-found or renewed appreciation of Uggie.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)