Home reviews: Anna Karenina

Anna Karenina 2012

Production (Directing, Editing, Music) 4-5 very, interesting set pieces

Story (Plot) 4-5 compelling, but subject matter is a little dry

Characters (Likability, Acting) 3-5 most characters are not like-able, but that is the point, you feel bad for the “villains”

Writing (Dialogue, Cleverness)4-5  dialogue hard to follow sometimes, subtle and timely

Emotions (Was it; Fun, Scary, Sad, Do I care)3-5 The last act drags on for a while, losing momentum

Over all score 18-25 worth a watch, once.

World War Z

Zombies! They have been hot for a few years now. They make me much less sick than the whole “vampire craze”, that is thankfully dieing. Thanks to Twilight going the way of the dodo, we can now move on to apocalyptic-violence-filled-terror-and survival-films. I have thought about how our society has been obsessed with these types of stories for the past few years, and do we all want life to come to an end? Do we all secretly hate this mundane existence of drudgery? We just want to be pushed to the brink of survival, and have to fight the easiest enemies we can pick, slow moving-idiots, that just want to “consume”? Since 28 days later, we have seen new kind of zombie, the “running zombie”, little harder to get away from them now isn’t it?

Story (Plot)3-5 World War Z is based loosely on a book by Max Brooks, by the same name. The plot has changed a bit from the book. You guessed it, there is an outbreak, and people need to run for their lives from the crazed undead. Brad Pitt plays a U.N. investigator that must solve the mystery of this deadly outbreak, to find a way to stop it. Purists are upset that they changed the plot so much from the book, that the movie only shares “Zombies”. I think there is one key thing that the film and the book share, the idea of hope.

Production (Directing, Editing, Music) 4-5 Something that is really good about this movie, is that it is fun. The action scenes are visceral and make you cringe. The zombies are genuinely scary. They are so many, that they are like a wave of death, sweeping over everything. Never has a zombie film shown so many zombies, and with such veracity. The theme by Marco Beltrami, does it’s job, it is both ominous and fun. But is does lack some emotion. The connection between Brad and his wife could have been heightened, with the right music.  

Characters (Likability, Acting)4-5 Brad does a great job, and he is very enjoyable to watch, as ever. But what I really enjoyed in this film is the side characters. The characters that make tough choices to save Brad’s life. They ones that are holding it all together in this crazy world of the undead. The soldiers that save his life, the young scientist, the female Israeli soldier that does not quite. The no name side characters make this movie fun and enjoyable to watch. Brad is just icing on the cake.

Writing (Dialogue, Cleverness) 4-5 They say “zombies”! This is unheard of in the zombie genre. Very few movies characters ever know what the undead are let alone call them this. It’s so taboo, that Shaun of the dead film makes fun of the fact Nick Frost’s character calls them that. I think it’s an interesting idea, and I am ok with the rule being broken. The cleverness in this film lies in seeing how the world responds to this outbreak. You don’t just the family man, trying to survive with his family in the crazy. You see how the military responds. They are ready to evacuate and fight back. It might be far-fetched, but it is a nice refresher in a played out storyline.

Emotions (Was it; Fun, Scary, Sad, Do I care) 4-5 This film does many things very right. They make you feel the gravity of what’s going on, but not sacrificing the role of one man in all of it. I think this movie is just pure rollercoaster, sure it’s got some tropes and unbelievable-ness to it. But it’s a summer blockbuster thrill ride! I never was not engrossed and felt exactly what they wanted me to feel.

Overall score 19-25 This film is just another money grab for something that is hot right now. But in the zombie genre is it something fun and enjoyable to watch. Versus all the bleak and death in zombie films, this film has heart and hope. Some people might think that is lame or optimistic, but I liked it. People are fixated on the end of the world, sometimes, and it’s nice to think that there are people out there that will fight back and not turn into crazed-selfish-murders, in a world filled with zombies, that don’t like us either.

Man of Steel

I was always not a big fan of superman. He always seemed like kind of a simple character, and like most, I felt like he was overpowered. How can you get the humanity of character that is so far from being human? He can’t feel things as simple as love and a sense of duty. I always felt his thought process was like “ I have super powers, I must use them for good”, pretty boring right? You never feel like he asks the question of, “Why should I use my powers?”

Story (Plot)4-5 Man of Steel seemed to be the same sort of film. Superman will get into trouble and he will have to make tough choices and fly around and stop things that will be superhuman. The story goes in a direction that I was not expecting. There is the normal superman origin, with Kryptone dieing and parents sending him off to live on Earth. Baby Superman being found by Kansas farmers, all sounds very familiar. But the way that the story is structured and told throughout the film, you are not bored or impatient through these scenes. Never feeling like you are waiting for the new story to come along.

Production (Directing, Editing, Music)4-5 This really comes down to fantastic editing, knowing the audience is familiar with the story, but you still have to tell it. You can either retell the story and bore half the audience, or not tell the it and have the other half lost. I am please with how Zach Snyder , the director, handled this. Get right into the meat of the story and have flashbacks to tell his origin. Fantastic choice, and doesn’t stop the plot moving forward. This movie had another great score by Hans Zimmer, for the first time, they are going away from the original score by John Williams. Hans does a great job as ever, and although I enjoy the original score, it was nice to hear something fresh and new. After all this movie is just that.

Characters (Likability, Acting) 5-5 Henry Cavill plays Kal-El/Superman/Clark Kent. I think he does a decent job of it.  Amy Adams was fantastic as Lois Lane, and just what you would expect from a smart pushing reporter. After all what is Superman without her leading lady. Something that is unique to Superman is his relationship with Lois, and these actors make you feel like they are close and understand each other. In my eyes who really steals the show is Russell Crowe and Kevin Costner, the two parts of Superman’s father hood. These two seasoned actors really bring heart and love to their performances. You understand who they feel about their son and their hopes and dreams for him.

Writing (Dialogue, Cleverness)5-5 I have to say this was top notch the whole way. The dialogue felt fresh and free of silliness. You feel like they can be serious and humorous, without skipping a beat. They really make you understand the root of who superman is as a person. You can see and feel the tough choices we has to make. I really have never felt like I understood Superman’s character better because of the writing and the ideas they portray. You think about past Superman films and they pale in comparison. This film is dealing with some next level ideas of who superman is and why he fights for humanity.

Emotions (Was it; Fun, Scary, Sad, Do I care)5-5 This film has the heart

that makes you care for the characters as well as gets you pumped up when action starts. They intensity of some action scenes are so amazing. You are on the edge of your seat for the last hour. Your heart pumping and eye dazzling with the splendid adventure of it. This film has those moments that make you pump your fist into the air, cheering for the good guys to win.  I had so much fun watching this movie, I got out of the theater and immediately wanted to watch it again.

Overall score 23-25 There is an interesting twist in the storytelling that I did not realize till afterwards. There is no scenes of Superman getting cats out of trees or stopping a bank robbery. The only things he has to deal with are life or death. Superman is not the superhero that deals with the little stuff. As Superman has been portrayed before. He is a force for good. For mankind and the protection of “american Ideals” Freedom and protection of those who can’t protect themselves. He is a man raised to fight for good, who just happens to be Super.

The Hangover Part 3

When I heard they were making a Third Hangover movie, my first thought was, milk it for all it’s worth guys. I am a firm believer that the first hangover was a flash-in-the-pan-hit. It tapped into some desire in our society to party like you don’t care, get into misadventures, and make mistakes without any real consequences. The first hangover had something to it with the characters, charm. You loved these kooky dumb guys, who got into a crazy situation. Situations that they did to themselves. People can relate to these characters, they might have their own friends that are crazy while partying, and they can laugh at these guys trying to make sense of a crazy night on the town.

The Hangover Part 2 main problem is that it is basically a repeat of the first film. One of the guys is getting married, a night of drinking before the big day, wake up to try and figure out what happened. The big problem with the second hangover film was that it was set in Bangkok, not that it was a repeat. American audiences could not relate to the crazy time in Bangkok, like they could to a crazy night in Vegas. It fit a formula, that fit the Hangover franchise.

The Hangover Part 3 breaks this formula. The Hangover 3 starts out with Allen (Zach Galifianakis) needing to go to rehab, because he’s insane and needs to take his meds. I don’t think that is how it works writers. On their way to the clinic, they get attacked by a gangster and told they need to find Chow (Ken Jeong). The gangster is going to take Doug and kill him if they don’t find Mr. Chow in 3 days. I think this is a miss opportunity. By changing this movie formula they lose the audience again. This is no longer a character film about crazy adventures you get in while drunk, this is now a film about a man hunt. That happens to have crazy people involved in it.

In retrospect I think the film could have gone another way that would have worked better. They get kidnapped by the gangster, they get sent on their mission, but then drugged so they would forget what they had done. Having to retrace their steps again. Waking up in Vegas not knowing how they got there, or what had happened. Same formula, but people can understand it, and it is what people are expecting from a Hangover movie. Bring the story back to something people can relate to. Not this, overreaching-never-going-to-happen-to-them-gangster-kidnapping-movie. The first films are about fun that got out of hand, now we take those characters go do insane stuff, that does not fit their characters at all.

The funniest character in these films is Galifianakis. He is just an idiot that causes a bunch of trouble, and we all sort of wish, he was part of our lives, to add some spice to it. The charm of his character is pretty much lost in this film, with just a few scenes that are the exception. His Character, that was more idiot charming in the first two films, now I just found him brash and annoying. Many of his silly rants falling flat in the theater. The writing in this film is pretty awful, thinking more about shock factor, that actual cleverness.

There are a few gems in this movie, the last scene is pretty good and funny. With a few awkward laughs thrown in the middle. There is very little actual humor in this film, but scenes that make you feel so uncomfortable that you laugh. That seems to be Todd Phillips’ Modus operandi, shock you into submission until you laugh, because it hurts so much. I think this film would have been a better second film, with them coming back to the formula in the third film. Instead they lost the audience. I honestly think the first film was a mistake success. They tapped into some idea about people they were not expecting. The idea that we are all normal, but sometimes we need to party and get crazy, then spend the next day picking up the pieces.

The Rating System

Production (Directing, Editing, Music) 3-5

Story (Plot) 2-5

Characters (Likability, Acting) 3-5

Writing (Dialogue, Cleverness)2-5

Emotions (Was it; Fun, Scary, Sad, Do I care)3-5

Overall score 13-25

Star Trek Into Darkness Review

J.J. Abrams might be the greatest filmmaker of our generation. He has made four awesome movies so far: Mission Impossible 3, Star Trek, Super 8, and the latest, Star Trek Into Darkness. He has now been given the reins of the new Star wars trilogy. When I first heard about this, I was not like most. I was not excited. I thought J.J. Abrams was a good fit for Star Trek, and I was looking forward to more great Trek films. Will he be able to do both? Do we as fans want that?

The Star Trek and Star Wars camps have been at odds for years. Are you a Trekkie or (for lack of a better Star wars geek moniker) a Jedi? Why can’t we like both? I have simplified Trek and Wars in my head, to try and figure out why some fans prefer one or the other. Trek is about humanity, all that we could be. Peaceful, not full of greed or corruption. Trek is about humans pursuit of science and discovery. Traveling the stars in search of amazing places and new civilizations. The protagonists are humans. Although it is far fetched sometimes, it is still “science.”

Star Wars is about people in a galaxy, far far away. These are not humans. Wars is a fantasy story, same as is Lord of the rings or Willow. They even have magic, The Force, and swords of great power: lightsabers. The heroes are even called Knights. This is not what we will become. It might as well be set in another dimension. Humanity will never have the Force, or see these planets, just the same as we will never go to Middle earth, or use magic. We love Wars because it is a fun adventure, and it is pure escapism. Do we really want one man having power over these two very different worlds? I have no doubt that J.J. Abrams will make a great film, but I am still unsure about if he can make a good Star Wars film.

Star Trek Into Darkness is holy-crap-bad-ass! This movie is a roller coaster start to finish. But what makes this movie great is the plateaus in the middle of the ride that build actual characters. The last hour is pretty much one giant battle. These are not just mindless computer generated, explosions in space, the characters are faced with tough choices and tell you who they are. They all have interesting perspectives and influence each other, almost like they are real people.

The films plot is pretty straightforward with some twists and turns that I will not ruin. John Harrison (Benedict Cumberbatch) attacks the Federation, and Kirk (Chris Pine), Spock (Zachary Quinto), and the Enterprise’s crew are charged with bringing him to justice. There are some very serious moral choices to make about apprehending him dead or alive. It’s a simple setup, but Into Darkness does not feel simple. The complexity grows with the characters. The plot does very much thicken. Cumberbatch steals the show; you both love him and hate him. He is so intense and frightening. You can’t stop watching him for fear that he could turn and murder you at any moment. The tension is fantastic. There is a scene that really makes you feel like Cumberbatch could do anything, and you would believe him. I really hope to see him in more films.

Very mild spoilers to follow. My only real problem with this movie is that they pull from previous Trek content. The first film, besides the main characters, had pretty much a fresh plot and villain. The story in the first Star Trek was about shaking things up. Into Darkness seemed to me more about paying homage to past films. For that, you as Trek fans will get some repeat content. It is good and bad, playing up on your nostalgia, but also not fresh or new. I am torn about how I feel about his. I think it hurts the film more than helps it. End Spoilers  

I noticed far less “lens flares” than Star Trek had. I was never really bothered by it, but I think the fans ripping on getting blinded every few seconds. They were kind of silly. What I found interesting in the style of the film was the close up intensity of shots. These were then contrasted with distant shots, to make you really feel the weight of objects in space. Especially certain shots at the end of the film, which make you feel like you could be a distant observer. You are then flown right back into the thick of the action, showing all of the elements of the events that are transpiring. I stay obscure about this, to stay spoiler free.

It is a very interesting thing having a Star Trek movie without a show. With the past Trek films, you knew the crew, you had been with them through the galaxy, getting to know them as the show unfolded. We know the crew from the original series, but these are new actors, with their own take on their characters. Chris Pine as Kirk is not trying to be William Shatner Kirk. No one has delivery like Shatner. So we have a very short time to get to know these sort-of-new- characters, and I feel like they do a great job, without boring you with filler. The story and the character arcs are intertwined like many movies seem to forget these days. Not sacrificing one or for the other. I really thought this movie was great and I will be looking forward to more Trek films, but now I do not know what the future holds for the franchise. Thank you, JJ Abrams, you have entertained me.

The Rating System:

Production (Directing, Editing, Music) 4-5

Story (Plot) 4-5

Characters (Likability, Acting) 5-5

Writing (Dialogue, Cleverness) 5-5

Emotions (Was it; Fun, Scary, Sad, Do I Care) 5-5

Overall Score 23/25

Iron Man 3 review

Whenever you hear that there’s a new director on a series of films, it can’t be good. I think that the first two Iron man movies were good, and the second one was more “meh”, but still good. Jon Favreau directed the first two, and I was sad to see him go. I had actually heard of the new director, Shane Black, from a film he did a few years ago, Kiss Kiss Bang Bang. This film, also starring Robert downey Jr, was a very funny film-noir type murder/mystery. It’s a favorite of mine, so I was looking forward to seeing Iron Man 3, although I was still skeptical. After all, I am not sure what kind of tone Shane Black would set for the Iron Man series.

The film takes place after the events of The Avengers; Iron man seems to be struggling with how these events affected him. He is doing what he does best: building Iron Man suits. The new villain, The Mandarin, (Ben Kingsley) is doing bad stuff. In the comic, The Mandarin has ten rings which he got from a crashed alien spaceship. Each have “magic abilities,” they are advanced alien science that would appear as magic to the common observer. I was kind of wary of this choice of a villain. The Iron Man series, up until this point, had some plausibility to it. Yeah, its a guy wearing a metal suit, flying around, but it still just advanced science, not magic alien rings.

I am talking like a purist; someone who has read the comics, and has some idea about how things should be in the film. So my opinion is screwed. I have some expectations before entering the movie theater. One of the story lines in the film also revolves around Extremis, one of the best modern Iron Man stories. It changed the character of Iron Man very much. It had this hard edge element to it. I am sorry, maybe my expectations for this story have made me disappointed with this film. They do not hold true to many aspects of this great superhero story, and are instead just cherry picking some ideas, forgetting KEY elements that made it great.

All in all, the tone of the film is just silly. Gone is the character that has some edge to him. He is just a funny jokester that has too many Iron Man suits. Even something dark about the plot is ruined with the use of some silliness to lighten things up. All I am going to say, is shadows on the wall. Look for it. The idea that Iron Man is a man struggling to handle all this craziness that he has now experienced is a subtle part of the character development. It just seems kind of secondary, and later in the film is just forgotten. I guess he just gets over it. It feels like lazy storytelling. The “character development” felt like something that was tacked on so that they had something emotional to talk about in between the action. I have to say, the action felt weak. Remember that moment in the first Iron Man, when he shoots the tank and walks away as it blows up? You felt like Iron Man was a badass. It might have been over the top, but it was fun. I felt none of that in this movie; never once did I feel like Iron Man was awesome. That is disappointing, because the character is nothing but.  

The story seemed weak and puerile, and in some parts completely pointless or unnecessary. I could think of many directions the plot could have gone but didn’t, and the result is bland. I feel like Shane Black is someone that knows how to make movies, but is not a comic book fan. He missed the key elements of the characters and the universe he inherited. I am probably making this film sound worse than it is. It has some fun parts, and I laughed at Robert Downey Jr. He is still great to watch, but sometimes he just doesn’t have the presence  he had in the other films. If you are going into this film with no comic book knowledge, or don’t care, you might enjoy this film. I, unfortunately, did not.

The Rating System

Production (Directing, Editing, Music)4-5

Story (Plot)2-5

Characters (Likability, Acting)4-5

Writing (Dialogue, Cleverness)4-5

Emotions (Was it; Fun, Scary, Sad, Do I care)3-5

Over all score 17-25

Oblivion Review

I am a big fan of Tron:Legacy. I was very excited to see that movie and, although it is not a “great” movie, it’s extremely visually and musically stimulating. I am huge soundtrack nerd, and Tron: Legacy’s soundtrack was awesome. It was done by Daft Punk! I really enjoyed the film, and noticing it was by a first time director, Joseph Kosinski. I made a mental note of his name to be used at a later date.  I was looking forward to Oblivion, not for the big actors in the film, Tom Cruise and Morgan Freeman, but for this potential new bad ass director. Can Joseph make a second fun awesome science fiction film? Let us see.

There is a little bit of a “mystery” in this film’s plot, so I do not want to give anything away (and no, telling you there is a mystery is not giving anything away). Go watch the trailer, and you will understand. There are crazy plot twists ahead. I will only tell you what Tom Cruise narrates in the first few minutes. An alien race, the Scavengers, comes down and blows up the moon, screwing up earth big time. Big battle happens, we use nuclear weapons, and earth is more messed up. Humans win, but we all leave earth, for Titan (my little astronomy self got excited). Jack (Tom Cruise) and Victoria ( Andrea Riseborough), are on Earth to repair robot drones. The drones protect water pump things, from the remaining “Scavs”. Soon Jack and Victoria will be done, and they can go live on Titan with the others. YEA!

So here is my problem with this film, Morgan Freeman. No, I love Morgan Freeman, and he is really great in this film, but it’s Morgan Freeman. You go into this film waiting for him to show up. He’s in the trailer, saying “ It’s time you know the truth.” I understand they are trying to grab you, but this totally ruins the first part of the movie. You keep waiting for Morgan Freeman to show up and give you the answers.You know that everything that is said before Morgan Freeman shows up is a lie.  You do not accept your reality, and so when they finally pull the rug out from under you, you were expecting it. So, I think they should have not had Morgan Freeman say that in the trailer, or not show him at all. I know he is a big box office pull, but I think the film would have benefited from someone else being in the role, so you don’t see it coming as much.

This film was very beautiful, and all the special effects look perfect. The transition between computer animation and physical props, you never question. Tom Cruise is a crazy person in real life, but he is still an awesome actor, and very entertaining to watch. The music of this film, by M83, orchestra and synth, fit the setting and felt perfect. I enjoyed it very much, and I listened to it as I wrote this.

This movie has a solid beginning, and an interesting resolution. The middle of the film drags on a little; they take far too long to resolve the mystery. There is 40 minutes in the middle where they start to answer and pull you along until it’s resolved. This made me feel impatient, “get to the point already!” I think this movie was pretty good, but not great. Kind of like Tron: Legacy, but without the Tron nostalgia to keep me interested. I think that Joseph might not be an amazing director, but he does make solid “popcorn films” and I love his taste in composers. All-in-all I enjoyed the film and would watch it again, but the flaws and mixed feelings that the film creates make it not as good as it could be.

The Rating System

Production (Directing, Editing, Music) 4-5

Story (Plot)4-5

Characters (Likability, Acting)4-5

Writing (Dialogue, Cleverness)3-5

Emotions (Was it; Fun, Scary, Sad, Do I care)3-5

Overall score

18-25