Dawn of the Planet of the Apes (2014) - Review

Not much to say in preface, other than I love the "Planet of the Apes" franchise. I love the originals (even though they got campy and more silly as the movies progressed) and I even really like the Tim Burton attempt at a reboot (minus the ending that is so WTF, even Burton can't explain it). So when they attempted a 2nd reboot I met it with a mix of apprehension and geek glee, I mean it is rare for Hollywood to reboot something and it work with very few glaring exceptions like the Ocean's movies, Batman, and Star Trek. I loved it though. For a mainstream movie it was thoughtful, meaningful, and touching. So I met this new one with a bit of trepidation. Would it continue the first's thought provoking kind of story or would it fall to the pressure of being a summer blockbuster with lots of action and nothing to say (which will be the focus of an upcoming post)? Let's find out.

Summary from IMDB:

"In the wake of a disaster that changed the world, the growing and genetically evolving apes find themselves at a critical point with the human race."

Dawn of the Planet of the Apes (2014)

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2103281/?ref_=nv_sr_1 

Technical (4.5) - An almost flawless action flick. This is a major credit to Matt Reeves who has only really done three features: 1 rom-com ("The Pallbearer") and two low-budget horror movies ("Cloverfield" and "Let Me In"). Granted they were all decent enough, but no one would have believed he coulda pulled off such a effects heavy movie so well. Speaking of effects, they are fantastically realized with natural movement of the apes, the sets which I'm sure were mostly CGI don't look it, and the action sequences are well staged and realized. The musical score is absolutely AMAZING with its major nods to the music in the original. Every penny of the rather large budget was well spent and seen on the screen. The only real issue here I had, and therefore the .5 deduction, is the sound. Now I saw it in a Dolby Atmos theater which was absolutely amazing with the natural surround sound, so it wasn't the effects, it was the voices of the apes. Not the way they were realized either, but the levels and how unnatural they seemed in the flow of the movie. It was a little too obvious that they were either completely recorded separately or recorded at the same time, but altered considerably before hitting the screen. Just took me out almost every time they spoke.

Script/Dialogue (4.5) - The real star of the film. It is intelligent, organic, and heartfelt. There are lots of parallels between the apes and humans that are subtly drawn and everyone acts in a way that makes sense for their position. Conversations flow naturally and smoothly with no one acting out of character. There are several nods to the original movies, though as with "Rise" they are kind of veering slightly from cannon, but it makes loads more sense than how the original dealt with the origins of the overthrow. I think they are basically treating it as if the sequels never existed and just treating the original "Planet of the Apes" as the endgame. Which is fine with me, they got kinda campy and nonsensical as things went on. It does, however, continue the original's tradition of being deep and meaningful beyond what is overtly the storyline. My only issue with the story is that they humans are not as fleshed out as I would like. We spend loads more time with the apes and how their relationships are defined than with the humans. I feel like there was way more written, but they started having to cut out parts and had to use way more shortcuts to the character's motivations like the slightly out of place break down by Gary Oldman at one point after finding a picture. Just rings of having to truncate for time.

Acting (4) - Honestly there's not much going on with the acting. The humans are basically just passable. No one really is that great. Gary Oldman is solid as usual, but he doesn't have loads of screen time and the only other one I think is slightly above average is Kirk Acevedo as the resident untrusting asshole. Otherwise they aren't amazing, but aren't bad. They serve their purpose and that's about it. The apes really steal the show with Andy Serkis in the center as Caesar. Someone please give this man an Oscar, because he acts more with a rubber suit and dots all over him than 99% of Hollywood. I doubt they will ever change the rules and allow him to be nominated in anything that isn't a technical award, but he deserves way more. I'm sure he'll eventually get some sort of special award, but that isn't really fair.

Tilt (5) - I enjoyed the hell out of the movie. It isn't perfect, but it damn sure is one of the best movies of the year so far. Never once did I look at my watch or nod off (and I've been working overnights, so I'd only had about 2 hours of sleep in the previous 24 hours). It really is that good. It wasn't perfect, but sometimes it can't be. I think the only way to make the movie they really wanted to would have been to make it over 3 hours. Not that I would have cared, but the studios rarely will allow over 2.5. Definitely see it, but watch "Rise" one more time before you go, there are several things that reference it.

Total Score: 4.5

The Amazing Spider-Man 2-Review

Yes, I finally saw it. You will quickly see that I really didn't like it, so let's just get that out of the way. I think the world is realizing it too, because when your tent-pole movie gets beaten in its second week (after a 60% drop, btw) by a comedy with Zac Efron (nothing against him or the movie which I've heard is really funny) then you have a problem. Sony is really going to have to re-evaluate going forward after this.

What I find most intriguing, however, is how people I talk to say it was "ok" or "good", but then when we start talking details, they really didn't like it as much as they thought they did. That just goes to prove that it is not an awful movie, but has major glaring issues that most moviegoers quickly forget because of the pretty, shiny parts.

I'm going to try and limit spoilers here to things that are at the very least inferred in the trailer, but when you're doing a negative review people are going to want examples so you have been forewarned.

Summary from IMDB:

"Peter Parker runs the gauntlet as the mysterious company Oscorp sends up a slew of supervillains against him, impacting on his life."

The Amazing Spider-Man 2 (2014)

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1872181/ 

Technical (2) - I had a difficult time with the scoring here because much of the fault of the movie falls into this category, but so does some of its triumphs. Like I said above, the faults get super-ceded by the wins by most people, but that doesn't mean they aren't there. To me, the editing was a huge problem. Especially early on, the scenes jump frenetically from one to another without much breathing room or time to absorb what you've just seen. I feel like they made a 3+ hour movie, then realized it was way too long and then started to cut out anything that wasn't absolutely necessary to the set-up (not of the main plot, mind-you, but another type of set-up which we will talk about in script). Not good.

Another thing that got annoying quickly was product placement. I've said before that it is just part of movie making, but when you're only showing one brand of product it is noticeable so much faster. Any frame they can do it, the SONY (or VAIO) logo is prominently displayed. I was a little surprised that they didn't shoe-horn in some other products that didn't flow organically into the story, but maybe they realized the mistake in doing that a few movies ago.

There's more problems, but the one that immediately took me out of the movie was the CGI. It actually is really well done for most of the movie. Especially when he's web-slinging around New York. The webs he shoots really look real now (except for one silly moment towards the end) and most of the action sequences look pretty good. There were at least 2 incidences, however, where the CGI was just unbearably bad. I'll only mention the face of Rhino in his suit looks badly photoshopped in. UGH.

Script/Dialogue (1) - This one is just bad. Here's the thing: this is a 2+ hour set-up for The Sinister Six and many other Spider-Man related movies for the unforeseen future. Sony knew this one would make money after the success of the first one, so they just crammed as much name-checking as they could into it. What purpose did Rhino serve in the plot? Nothing. Why was B.J. Novak in the movie? To set up for a future villain. Green Goblin shows up for all of 10 minutes and only serves to do the one thing we all knew was going to happen in this movie and then set-up for The Sinister Six. Electro just kinda flails around causing destruction, but isn't really given a clear motivation or even a reason why all of the sudden he hates Spider-man. Plus, his origin is eerily reminiscent of Riddler in Batman Forever.

Speaking of Electro, why is he suddenly Dr. Manhattan? And how did he suddenly get a costume with lightning bolts on it 10 minutes after his escape? The mind boggles. And don't get me started on the eye-rolling way they come up with to eliminate the threat of Electro. He just absorbed the entire power grid of New York and you are gonna get rid of him how again?

My biggest problem with this iteration of Spider-man is the absence of "With great power comes great responsibility". Yet again, they dance all around it without saying it. And this all-consuming quest to find out what his father did shouldn't be the driving force of who he is, it should be the guilt of not stopping his uncle's killer. Why is GWEN STACY'S FATHER'S ghost haunting him instead of Uncle Ben? GRRRRRRRRRR.

I will say that the Gwen Stacy/Peter Parker love story is actually done fairly well and sets up the payoff at the end pretty good, but there's so much other ridiculousness surrounding it, that it gets lost. Don't get me wrong, I don't mind the camp. I can thoroughly enjoy camp done right and even welcome it in a comic book movie (since we're so used to the "realistic" comic book movie now), but this stuff is just plain silly.

Oh, and Peter Parker was never the cool kid. EVER. Period.

Acting (3) - I've been droning on and on, so I will try and keep this portion pretty short because most everyone is decent except Dane DeHaan as Harry Osborn (I always want to add an 'e' as in Ozzy) who chews the scenery like crazy, overacting every scene he is in and looks terrible as the Green Goblin to boot. And while the chemistry between Emma Stone and Andrew Garfield is riveting (giving lots of life to the actual drivel they are reciting) the scenes between DeHaan and Garfield have the opposite effect, just showcasing how idiotic it is that these two guys who haven't seen each other in almost 10 years would call each other besties. Dumb.

Sally Field is great as always (even though she's terribly miscast and Aunt May is not used to correct effect); Jamie Foxx is passable; Colm Feore as always is great, but completely under-utilized; ditto for Paul Giamatti and B.J. Novak; and the rest of the support cast works their roles fine.

Tilt (3) - Can't say I completely hated it. I rolled my eyes and pleaded with the screen saying "oh come on!" more than once, but it wasn't an absolutely awful movie. I had to take it as it was, a set-up for the future. As was the first one. Sony needs to stop thinking with their wallets entirely and if the performance of this movie (which echoes the performance of Spider-man 3, though not with even as strong an opening weekend) isn't enough of a wake-up call for them, I don't know what will be.

Total Score - 2.25

Review-Frozen

I already know that I will (and already have) get flak for this review, but I stand by what I say. Maybe someone will have a point I missed, but that really doesn't change much about my feelings about the movie. I must say that much of the issue stems from people over-praising it before I saw it, so that may have had an impact on my feelings, but the more I think about the movie, the more firm I am about said opinion.

Here we go.

Summary from IMDB:

"Fearless optimist Anna teams up with Kristoff in an epic journey, encountering Everest-like conditions, and a hilarious snowman named Olaf in a race to find Anna's sister Elsa, whose icy powers have trapped the kingdom in eternal winter."

Frozen (2013)

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2294629/?ref_=nv_sr_1

Technical (4) - A beautiful film. I will absolutely give it that. With touches that echo the time and area the film is supposed to be in without going too overly ornate and overblown, the backgrounds and costumes are really well done. The textures are amazing with leather looking like real leather and metallics having a realistic sheen (and the lighting moves realistic as well). Character's skin looks the most natural I've ever seen with real looking freckles and flushing from the cold and embarrassment looks natural as well. Of course the ice and particle effects are done flawlessly (as they better be in a movie called Frozen).

I found it interesting that in the special features that they make reference to one of the original Disney animators pushing for this story ("The Snow Queen" from Hans Christian Anderson) to be made into a movie AND feature at Disneyland, but that the makers of the film obviously didn't use any of his work because they didn't know about it until after the fact. Some stuff coincidentally looks similar, but that's about as far as that goes. I kinda wish they'd done some research and pilfered some of it, because it was AMAZING.

The music, which is a main feature of the film, is decent if not particularly memorable. I did find it a little disappointing that there was just so damn much of the singing and, with the exception of 2 songs (which I will discuss in the script part more), are mostly forgettable songs (more on that in script as well).

Script/Dialogue (1) - Here's where it all just falls apart for me. And here be the spoilers. There are lots of plot holes (and yes I realize this is a kid's movie, so this is all a moot point). Where to start. I guess at the beginning. I was kinda disappointed in the establishment of the sisters at the beginning. You can just say that they short-handed them as sisters, but you don't really get why Anna holds Elsa in such regard. They didn't show much of their relationship before "the incident" and they didn't interact much after that except for Elsa saying "no" to the quick engagement. So why would Anna be so quick to defend Elsa? She has no real reason to do so.

There's no real "villain" of the movie in the Disney sense, but basically Elsa takes on the role. Sure there's Hans (which we will get to in a minute), but she is the main antagonist here. I get the whole "misunderstood" part, but here's the thing: they don't establish very well the whole premise that she shouldn't stifle and hide who she is because the big song that everyone loves highlights when she runs away and hides. "Let It Go" is not a bad song, just placed in the wrong part of the movie. It highlights her running from the problems and shutting herself away. Great message for kids. And speaking of bad messages for kids during songs, the only other song in the movie that is memorable is "Fixer Upper" which gives little girls the impression that he's not perfect, but you can change him (or her). Overlook those glaring flaws, because he's gonna be so capable of change. I get that they're referring to smaller flaws, but is a kid really going to distinguish?

And lastly, Hans. Hans, Hans, Hans. His motivations just don't quite gel with his actions. Why did he go after Elsa at all? She was gone and her reputation was completely shattered. What did he gain by going after her? The whole thing is a little secondary as well. It serves only one decent point: don't rush into anything too quickly.

Oh, and one more thing. Poor Sven is horribly under-utilized, as was Kristoff.

There's probably more, but I'm tired of writing.

Acting (5) - All the voice acting is pretty damn good especially for most of them being relative unknowns (except on Broadway and "Glee"). I was really surprised how well Kristen Bell can sing! I'm also glad Idina Menzel is getting some recognition, because she is really good. I really don't have much else to say on this front because there isn't much more to say.

Tilt (3) - Despite me railing against it quite a bit here, I didn't HATE it. I just think it isn't nearly as good as everyone made it out to be ("Brave" was a helluva lot better). I'm sure the hype around the movie really colored my perceptions, but it still wasn't that great. An average movie at best, but watch "Despicable Me", "Tangled", or "Wreck-It Ralph" instead. LOL.

Total Score - 3.25

Review-Captain America: The Winter Soldier

I know, I know. Been a year since I posted last. I've been thinking of starting it up again for a while, but really didn't have something I really wanted to talk about. I thought overall it was a weak year for movies last year, so I wouldn't have had very many reviews (not enough movies drew me to the Theater, good or bad). This year looks to be much better and I have some nagging thoughts I want to vent here. I'll pop a few reviews in from last year here and there that people need to see.

To the topic at hand, I want to start by saying I really loved this one. I have a hard time deciding if this one or the first "Captain America" was better, but I certainly can say that after much reflection, both are decidedly better than "The Avengers". I don't want to get into it here, but I'm starting to really despise "The Avengers" for being called the greatest comic book movie ever (Next post will be more on that).

Summary from IMDB:

"Steve Rogers struggles to embrace his role in the modern world and battles a new threat from old history: the Soviet agent known as the Winter Soldier."

(I will say that that very last line is not clearly defined in the movie)

Captain America: The Winter Soldier (2014)

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1843866/?ref_=hm_cht_t1

Technical (5) - Almost flawless. Especially considering the pedigree of the directors (Community and You, Me, and Dupree?!?), this is a phenomenal feat. I only had a small quibble with editing in one small scene that stuck in my head, but otherwise everything here works like gangbusters. The CGI is top-notch, the action sequences are well staged and edited, and the pacing (which somewhat has to do with scripting, too) is great. They know where to speed up and when to slow down. This isn't a non-stop action movie; there's room to breathe and get to know these characters and their motivations a little more. What's most interesting is the shift in tone and style from the first movie. It is really amazing that it works as well as it does. You go from a retro, sepia-tone, weekly serial style movie to a modern stylish action movie with a darker, more sinister tone and deliberate nods to the past movie that don't feel forced. It works very well and adds to the idea that Steve is a man out of time. I was slightly bothered by Cap's new uniform as the movie opened (star, but no red and white stripes like some of the comics), but there was a deliberate reason for it (you'll have to see it to know why I say that). So if you haven't seen the movie, give details like that a little time and it will make sense in the end.

One other little quibble that I can't fault the movie for because it has become so commonplace is product placement. There were several instances of blatant product placement (at least they were all American companies in a Captain America movie!) to the point where it made my eye twitch, but it didn't kill the movie. Mebbe I will post about that at a future date.



Script/Dialogue (5) - This is a really tight script from start to finish. I've heard some issues raised about the titular Winter Soldier missing for chunks of the movie, but I disagree. I think he's used sparingly in the beginning very deliberately as he is described as a "ghost". I was a bit disappointed that they didn't hold his identity secret in the lead-up (even though I'd figured it out from the first trailer) so the impact is not the same for the big reveal, but there are a couple of other surprises and twists that make up for that. The dialogue is not frivolous and some things that you think are come up later in the story. The conversations make sense and are not forced or silly. What works best is that there are honest and frank discussions of how war and peace is conducted in modern times, but it really doesn't ever get preachy and what is being said makes perfect sense for each character involved. I will say that feel quite a few echos from The Dark Knight in the script which may or may not be a bad thing.

Acting (5) - All these actors are good in their roles. Probably the weakest link here is actually Scarlett Johansson. Someone mentioned to me that they are surprised that they don't have Black Widow with a Russian accent. You can easily say that it is all part of her spy craft, but I wonder if she just can't pull one off worth a damn. I've never thought she was an exceptionally good actress. The real winner here is actually Chris Evans. He embodies Steve Rogers so completely, he gives RDJ a real run for his money as the star of this whole enterprise. I feel like if Cap didn't work, "Phase 2", as Marvel calls it, wouldn't work. You've got an awesome pedigree here of the older and newer generation of actors and they work terribly well together.

Tilt (5) - Great movie. I don't really have much else to say than that. Really wild ride. I never looked at my watch and LOADS of stuff happened. Pacing really helped with that.

Total Score -5

 

Freaky Friday - Evil Dead

I don't think I've ever reviewed a movie on here the day it came out partly because it's a rare occasion anymore when I see a movie on day one and I also like to ruminate for a few days before I come to a definite conclusion. Not so today.

Summary courtesy of IMDB:

"Five friends head to a remote cabin, where the discovery of a Book of the Dead leads them to unwittingly summon up demons living in the nearby woods. The evil presence possesses them until only one is left to fight for survival." 

Evil Dead (2013)

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1288558/?ref_=sr_1

Technical (4.5) - After you see the first 10 minutes of this "remake" you'll realize this isn't "The Evil Dead" you remember, but that's a good thing. This one falls somewhere in between the "Psycho" and "Fright Night" remakes as far as what comes along from the source material. It isn't a shot for shot remake and it doesn't throw the whole thing in the garbage and begin again with just character names. In fact, none of the character names are the same, just there will be some similarities that are slightly skewed for a modern audience, but more on that in a minute. Let's talk about the visuals instead. As one of the friends I went to see this pointed out, when special effects are done in-camera and done well they have a much more visceral effect. Horror movies should only use cgi as a last resort because you can always tell and it removes you from the movie. I'm happy to report that this movie uses it so sparingly you might swear it has none at all (we argued a bit over one scene, I still say it was cgi), These actors must have gone through some hell and for a first time director, Fede Alvarez did a wonderful job drawing you in and ratcheting up the tension slowly but surely through the whole film. You can definitely see traces of the original and I even saw several elements of
"The Exorcist" which actually added greatly to the movie. I had to deduct a half point for editing out one scene they're using a bunch in the promos (that I really thought was eerie) and a few continuity errors I noticed. Nothing as glaring as in the original, but still.

Script/Dialogue (4.5) - Anyone heading into this expecting the dark comedy of "Evil Dead II" might be sorely disappointed (two people in front of us left during the movie, guys no less), but I wanted a flat out horror movie and got one. It wasn't necessarily scary per se, so the tag line in the poster above isn't quite accurate, but it was an enjoyable ride none-the-less. They started by changing the main plot device of why they are there from a fun weekend in the woods to helping a friend detox which adds more reality to the proceedings and instead of casting someone as Ash, they kind of chopped his character up and distributed him between a few of the characters. The Necronomicon plays a bigger part too as it not only begins the whole fiasco, it helps drive the whole movie along with several references back to it. The dialogue isn't particularly groundbreaking and a couple of the characters might as well have "deadite fodder" tattooed on their heads from the start since we get no real character development from them, but this is a damn horror movie, not "Gone With the Wind". I don't expect a whole lot there. It serves its purpose: to get us from one dead person to another. There's an odd plot point involving the dog (which always irritates me when they use a pet like that) that actually ends up tying in at the endgame which was a nice touch. There are also just a couple of kinda cheesy lines towards the end that I rolled my eyes at, hence the half point.

Acting (4) - Again, this is a horror movie, so I'm not expecting "King Lear" here. Jane Levy shines as Mia who they've brought to the cabin to kick her heroin habit. She's really good here. I didn't quite think she had it in her from watching "Subugatory" (which I love for being live action "Daria"), but this girl can scream with the best of them and has this wide-eyed look of fear that will give you chills. Easily the best of the bunch. Everyone else is passable. Lou Taylor Pucci is Eric who has the look of the "stoner", but ends up having the "geek" trait too from these types of movies. He stands out to me as the most wooden of the performances. Shiloh Fernandez plays Mia's brother David and to be honest stands out just as too much of a pretty boy for this kind of movie. He's not bad in the role, he just doesn't connect to you emotionally as he should for a couple of the scenes. Would have been a 3 except for how good Levy is. Elevates the whole movie.

Tilt (5) - I loved it. Didn't have much expectations going in and ended up blown away. It was derivative of the original while at the same time being very imaginative and pushing all sorts of buttons where you will squirm and suck in breath. I actually said "OUCH!" out loud several times. Like I said, not really scary in an "Exorcist" kind of way, but not the torture porn that "Saw" movies became either. Don't be surprised if  Alvarez (and maybe Levy too) gets asked to direct an "Exorcist" remake. I hope that never happens, though, it's an untouchable movie for me. Just be sure to stay past the credits if you're an original "Evil Dead" fan. I promise you'll love it. Otherwise, you'll probably be confused.

Total Score - (4.5)

Freaky Friday - Rosemary's Baby

WARNING: Minor Spoilers May Occur!

I'm trying to mix it up some, but basically October is going to be Horror Month. What's funny is, you might think, then, that December will be Christmas month, but I like horror way more than any Christmas movie save one. Anyone that knows me will know what that one is.

Having just watched my yearly viewing of "Rosemary's Baby," I thought it appropriate to review that one. Yes I know it's an old one, but dammit, it's a good one. The review will get into this in more detail, but this is subtle horror. You don't really see anything, but it is that claustrophobic atmosphere and impending gloom that hangs over the movie that just makes it so good.

Summary courtesy of IMDB:

"A young couple move into a new apartment, only to be surrounded by peculiar neighbors and occurrences. When the wife becomes mysteriously pregnant, paranoia over the safety of her unborn child begins controlling her life."

Rosemary's Baby (1968)

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0063522/

Technical (4.5) - Roman Polanski's pièce de résistance. Although he's done some amazing work since ("Chinatown") this is definitely his defining movie. Its full of subtle nuance that could have easily been over worked and over blown. Michael Bay was working on a remake a few years back that thankfully got cancelled, you can imagine what kind of overblown crap that would have been ("and then we can make the car EXPLODE!!! 'splosions, 'Splosions, 'SPLOSIONS!!!"). He made the right decision to make it character and actor driven more than anything. Most of the movie takes place in the apartment and Rosemary (Mia Farrow) is in every scene. It is her movie and how she's dealing with the conspiracy against her is central. There are some odd things surrounding the "conception" scene that are very avante garde, but given the time this was filmed I think it was very contemporary and it may have been in the novel this is based on, so I have to overlook it somewhat. The half point deduction goes for the camera work that sometimes gets a little shaky. I understand it wasn't shot on a soundstage (it was in an actual apartment so they couldn't make tracks everywhere to do it conventionally) and stedicam hadn't been invented yet, but it gets really distracting at times.

Dialogue/Story (5) - I'm not going to say much here because I might give too much away, but sufficed to say, it is very well written and the dialogue is pretty realistic. Granted they had a novel to work from, but you can cut too much or not enough and have a choppy and uneven movie. Again, it is terribly subtle and nuanced. Like Rosemary cooking a steak for about 1 second a side and then eating it. Just creepy, eerie stuff. They struck the tone just right and were able to make this whole thing believable.

Acting (4.5) - As I said above, this is Mia Farrow's movie. Her husband at the time, Frank Sinatra, divorced her for doing this role against his wishes. And she's all the more famous for doing it. She plays sweet and innocent so well, but pulls off the blood curdling screams and freakouts with the best of them. The secondary actors are amazing too. Guy (John Cassavettes), her husband, is such a shit (excuse the language) and even in the background of the scenes you can see his struggle and angst over what he has done. The Castevets (Ruth Gordan and Sidney Blackmer) are the neighbors and while Gordan won and Oscar for her role (and you can totally see why, your eyes are drawn to her every scene she's in) it is Blackmer that kinda draws the acting down a bit. You can see he's acting in many scenes. Something that I just can't stand.

Tilt (5) -  If you couldn't tell by previous posts, I love this movie. I watch it every year in preparation for Halloween.

Total Score - (4.75)

Freaky Friday - Prometheus

With the home video release just about a week and a half away, I thought it would be good time to do a review of "Prometheus" since you can download the digital copy right now and some stores are giving the digital copy free to download today when you pre-order (hint: one of them is where I work). Anyway, I'll get a little more into this during the review, but yes Virginia, this is a prequel to "Alien" no matter how you look at it.

Summary courtesy of IMDB:

"A team of explorers discover a clue to the origins of mankind on Earth, leading them on a journey to the darkest corners of the universe. There, they must fight a terrifying battle to save the future of the human race."

Prometheus (2012)

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1446714/

Technical (5) - All hail Ridley Scott's return to Sci-Fi! Seriously, though, this is the man that made two of the most influential Sci-Fi movies ever ("Alien" and "Blade Runner") and he hasn't returned to the genre in 30 years. And it's too bad, because the man knows how to make the most memorable movies. Go look at a list of the movies he's made and try and tell me you don't vividly remember something from almost every one even if you haven't seen them in a while. Sorry to ramble, but I have to say Scott is one of my all-time favorite directors. This movie is no exception. From the opening scenes, you know that you're watching magic being made. The cinematography is breathtaking, the music is flawless, and the set designs are just awesomely done. I really love the nods to the original "Alien" in almost every design, but then they are updated and changed to be more in-line with where the technology is headed. It also shows the dichotomy between the ship and crew of "Alien" being set for mining and "Prometheus" being a scientific expedition that was greatly financed. Yes CGI was used to great effect, but I love the fact that Ridley (we're on a first name basis now, didn't you know?) used old school prosthetics and animatronics to achieve his vision as well.

Dialogue/Story (4.5) - Here's where it can get a bit sticky. Again, this is a prequel, but not in the traditional sense of this one ends where "Alien" begins. In fact, "Prometheus" is a movie that gives you answers, but then gives you more questions. I think this is why so many people were disappointed in it. They wanted it all wrapped up in a neat little bow and that's just not what happened. We get to see who created the aliens and to what purpose, but the "why" is still a mystery. All the while you have human mistakes and heroism that show us for who we really are and an android that for once, doesn't want to be human. He's perfectly happy in who he is. The dialogue is very natural and flows well. I think because Ridley allowed and encouraged ad-libbing on the set. I have to dock some for a section about 3/4 through the film where it all seems a bit rushed which I blame on the studio. I'm sure the Director's Cut when it inevitably comes out will flow better.

Acting (5) - Superb. Everyone is really great in this. Even not Tom Hardy (Logan Marshall-Green) who I've been dubious about in the past was really good here. To me, the two that out shined everyone else, though, were Michael Fassbender as David the Android and Idris Elba as Janek the pilot. They both embodied their respective roles completely. And again, here was proof that Ms. Theron was not to blame in "Snow White" because she's very understated and not at all over acting in this one. Not much else can be said other than Noomi Rapace is a great successor to Sigourney Weaver's throne as a Sci-Fi queen (sorry though, Noomi, she's not giving it up easily).

Tilt (5) - I really loved it. When I saw it in the theater I had some reservations, but after seeing it again a couple of nights ago, I realized most of them were unfounded. I still think the studio screwed with what could be a complete masterpiece, but time will tell. Ridley's Director's Cuts are always so much better than the original release of the film, so why do they continue to make cuts to his movies? Ugh.

Ta-ta for now meatheads.

Freky Friday-The Cabin In The Woods

Today's review is probably going to be pretty short because I don't want to give anything away about this movie since spoiling anything would take away 1/2 the fun of the movie. I regrettably did not see this movie in the theaters and after seeing it on BluRay, I kick myself.

Summary courtesy of IMDB:

"Five friends go for a break at a remote cabin in the woods, where they get more than they bargained for. Together, they must discover the truth behind the cabin in the woods."

The Cabin In The Woods (2011)

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1259521/

Technical (4.5) - A little bit of a back story on this movie. It was actually made in 2009 for a measly $30 Million, which is about average for a horror film, but not for one of this caliber. This was the directorial debut of a Joss Whedon prodigy (Drew Goddard) from his "Buffy" days, but you'd never know he'd never directed before (I'm sure Joss helped quite a bit, but he wasn't always there) because it is really masterfully done. Then Lionsgate shelved the project to do a post-convert to 3-D against Whedon and Goddard's wishes. Eventually they saw the error of their ways and put it out, probably in no small part because of Chris Hemsworth's sudden rise to fame. As I said, this is horror film making at it's best. Especially because they didn't use a whole mess of CGI unless they had to. That's where it struggles a bit towards the end is when the CGI parts start happening and hence the .5 deduction, but otherwise it's done very well. There's also something that I should put here, but I'll put it in the next section because there won't be a whole lot to write there lol.

Dialogue/Story (5) - Here's where "Cabin" shines the most. I can't say much, but it really turns your the tropes and stereotypes of a horror movie on its head and is pretty funny to boot. Think of how "Scream" did it and you'll get the idea. Another thing that was really awesome was the myriad of references to other horror movies that just seem to be everywhere. The most obvious and pervasive is that of "Evil Dead", but you'll get "Hellraiser", "Wrong Turn", "Night Of The Living Dead", and even a quick "The Shining" reference. It is obvious that it was written by horror fans for horror fans. "Cabin" always seems to be an homage and never a caricature which is a hell of a feat considering the style, tone, and scope of this film.

Acting (4) - Ok, this is where it gets a little odd. Watching a horror movie for the acting is like watching a porno for the acting. It's just stupid. There's some great names in this one, though, and they all bring their "A" game. Brad Whitford and Richard Jenkins are just superb and really, really funny. Hemsworth is pretty damn good, but the rest of the "kids" are only ok. Nothing to write home about. A surprise cameo towards the end will have Geeks squealing and is done pretty well.

Tilt (5) - I thoroughly enjoyed this movie. Especially while playing "Spot the reference"! "Cabin" surely isn't for everyone, but if you like horror movies and enjoy an interesting story instead of just buckets and buckets of blood and torture devices this is a movie you're going to want to see.

Total Score - (4.63)

I think that's the 2nd highest yet!

Review-Snow White & The Huntsman

I decided to do "The Cabin In The Woods" tomorrow as a Freaky Friday, so today you get "The Wooden Girl And The Hun...Snow White & The Huntsman"! This is one of those rarities when I bought a movie having not seen it on the recommendation of others. See how that went in the tilt.

Here we have a retelling of the classic Snow White tale just with a take that makes it easier to swallow for modern audiences, so I won't bore you with a summary of the plot.

Snow White & The Huntsman (2012)

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1735898/

Technical (4) - A competent job from the director, although I feel like we've tread much of this ground before. At times it reminds you of LOTR and others Harry Potter (the Queen is a Dementor!) which is ok, just those movies did it so much better. I absolutely have to dock a whole point for something I will discuss in the Acting section, but I have to place the blame on the director. The costume design and set design are really spectacular, especially on the Queen. What really makes it stand out is the CGI. It is really well done and has some very intriguing and inventive things going on like the "glass warriors" and the Dwarves.

Dialogue/Story (3) - Everything here is pretty competent if not a little random and overly sappy in parts. There are a few holes such as: If all she's gotta do is suck some girl dry, why is she old and crumpled on the floor until she just up and remembers "The Dungeon!"? Or why didn't she try this shape shifting crap earlier? What the hell is this unicorn and what the hell is it to tell us that Snow White is actually Neo? Minor quibbles, but stuff I think about none-the-less.

Acting (2) - Here's where it all kinda falls apart. You have a great cast of actors (including some really great people as the Dwarves) with one glaring exception, but they're told by the director to "ham it up" or "over act". That's the only explanation I can understand, because with the exception of Hemsworth and Stewart (more on that in a sec), that's what you're getting. It's especially notable in Theron who is known for being understated and never over-the-top campy. Here she's chewing scenery like she absolutely needs it to survive. Stewart is actually kinda refreshing here because she shows TWO EMOTIONS!!! That's right people! SHE SMILES...TWICE. And then broods most of the rest of the time. Bitch can't even look scared when she's supposed to. Ugh. I can't with her anymore.

Tilt (3) - Despite all this, I really didn't think the movie was all that bad. It was what it was meant to be: a "popcorn flick". Something you watch to pass the time and then forget once it's over. Not meant to be scrutinized. So that's why I'm pissed I bought it. I won't watch it again. And how the hell are they gonna make 3 of these?

Total Score (3)

And for the record, I haven't seen "Mirror, Mirror" yet. But I will.

Late Freaky Friday: Brotherhood Of The Wolf

 

This week is a two-fer! Not only is it a horror movie, but it's a foreign film too! It was made in France with several American actors and fairly well known French Actors. Most you won't know by name, but you'll know their face. It's also one of the very few movies I can watch dubbed into English and not want to shoot myself. They use the original actors for the dub, so it works pretty well. I don't want to give away too much, so I'll just say that it is kind of a "Hound Of The Baskervilles" story with some Martial Arts and Mystical stuff thrown in for good measure.

Here's the gist of it courtesy of IMDB:

"In 18th century France, the Chevalier de Fronsac and his native American friend Mani are sent by the King to the Gevaudan province to investigate the killings of hundreds by a mysterious beast."

Anymore would give it all away.

Brotherhood of the Wolf (2001)

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0237534/

Technical (4) - "Brotherhood" is an interesting movie in that it is a period piece, but has elements of horror, odd action sequences (Martial Arts???), and a mystery all rolled into one. The director, Christophe Gans, hasn't really done much of note for American audiences except for the "Silent Hill" movie which actually wasn't too bad for a video game adaptation, but here he shows some real skill in balancing them all. The sets, costumes, and music are all stellar. The special effects aren't too bad until he uses some CGI that hasn't aged very well. I also have to deduct for the excessive use of slow motion (nowhere near Zack Snyder level, but still).

Dialogue/Story (5) - The story here is really amazing and doesn't seem to lose anything in translation like sometimes foreign films do. It is written to where some things you think have no bearing on the larger story end up having some sort of reasoning in the end. There is alot of dialogue that is long conversations where there is no action or excessive drama, so it is not the type of movie someone with ADHD should watch, but these conversations are rich with subtext and ideas that may not come to fruition until much later. My kinda movie.

Acting (4) - This is an all-star French cast that just doesn't have the same star power in the U.S., but that doesn't mean they aren't good. Monica Bellucci ("Matrix Reloaded", "Brothers Grimm")  and Vincent Cassel ("Ocean's 12", "Black Swan"), who are husband and wife btw, turn out great performances as does Mark Dacascos ("Iron Chef: America" lol) even though he doesn't quite fit in, but that's much of the point since he is supposed to be a Native American. My biggest problem is the actual star of the movie, Samuel Le Bihan. He's not bad, but he just gets out shone in ever scene by everyone else. He's supposed to be very low key, which I get, but to me he seems more out of place than Dacascos even though he's an actual Frenchman.

Tilt (4) - As you can tell, I thoroughly enjoy this movie every time I watch it. It's one of those that would be pretty good for people who have never seen a foreign movie to start getting into them. It has some American sensibilities, but still is odd enough to be French. If you've never seen it, watch it.

Total Score: (4.25)

Next time a movie that I don't care for...promise. LOL

Freaky Friday: Donnie Darko

I thought I'd, once again, try and get a rhythm and structure to the week by having some things done weekly. Thus begins the Freaky Friday segment of our show. This will be every Friday and will be a review of a horror, sci-fi, or foreign (let's face it, they're usually freaky to us) film. Usually it will be an older movie because there isn't much in the way of good horror or sci-fi that has come out in the last 10 years as far as I'm concerned and I'm not going to subject myself to some horrendous trash again just to do a review.

So to start things off, I'm going to review a movie that is a bona fide cult "classic". I use classic loosely because it isn't at least 25 years old which is where I draw the "classic" line. A little arbitrary, but I heard it once somewhere and it stuck. Which means, for anyone out there that is my age this will mean something, Nirvana (and most of the grunge era) is about to hit "classic" status. Ugh. I digress. I'm reviewing "Donnie Darko" which I knew nothing about until we got a crapload of them as a new release when it came out on DVD, so I instantly wanted to know what it was. I watched it and...well read on.

And here's the synopsis from IMDB because I will give something away if I try and do it myself: "A troubled teenager is plagued by visions of a large bunny rabbit that manipulates him to commit a series of crimes, after narrowly escaping a bizarre accident." Large bunny rabbit...lol...this isn't "Harvey" let me tell you.

Donnie Darko (2001)

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0246578/

Technical (4.5) - This one is fantastically done and even more impressive is that this was Richard Kelly's full-length feature debut made for a paltry $4.5 million. It never feels like it is either of those things. I guess part of the reason he was able to pull it off is setting it in high school in the '80s. I'm sure most of the budget went to the cast and securing the rights to some of the music (Tears for Fears and Duran, Duran mostly) which is absolutely appropriate for the time period. The song at the end is one of the best covers ever. There are a few special effects scenes which are done very well with the exception of one part that has always seemed unnecessary and a bit silly, hence the .5 deduction (it involves a beckoning hand). Otherwise it is edited in a way that adds to the uneasiness and slow unhinging of the tile character, has fantastic pacing, and doesn't ever shy away from the subject at hand. I feel bad for Kelly, though. His Freshmen effort was so good (and the Director's Cut even better) that everything else he's tried has not done so well, despite good casts and stories that aren't badly written. I think with "Southland Tales" he tried something WAY too conceptual for the general public and "The Box" could have tied better to what I assume was the inspiration: "The Monkey's Paw".

Dialogue/Story (5) - I'm not gonna dwell too much here because I will give something away if I do. It is a tight, well-written script that even though you sometimes think it is meandering, it is always moving the story forward. This is one of those movies that can definitely make your head hurt the first time you see it, but on subsequent viewings, you understand it more and more. The Director's Cut is a little easier to understand, but either way, at the end of it you will invariably go "Whaaaaa?" that first time. You're left with more questions than answers, but, unlike "The Hunger Games" you want to find answers and there are clues to give you answers. Nothing is too spelled out and the whole point of the ending is for you to draw your own conclusions. Immediately after the credits start rolling you want to start it over and call a buddy to talk it out with. I LOVE that kind of movie (the "Inception" effect).

Acting (5) - This is an absolutely AMAZING cast. Jake Gyllenhaal as Donnie just embodies the troubled, moody teenager in a way rarely seen. The way he stands, the way he sits, the way he walks, the psychotic smile sometimes, even the way he reaches for the popcorn...all just punctuate the issues he's dealing with. But not to say he outshines all the other cast. I can't imagine how much everyone got paid, but there are lots of people in this movie. Drew Barrymore (who executive produced, so I'm sure some of these were favors she called in), Noah Wyle, Jena Malone, Mary McDonnell ("Battlestar Gallactica"!), Patrick Swayze (awwwww), Maggie Gyllenhaal, and even an appearance by a young Seth Rogan. There are others in the cast that you'll go "Hey! That guy!" or "That lady!". Everyone pulls their own weight here so it never seems out of balance.

Tilt (5) - If you haven't guessed it by now, I LOVE this movie. I've bought at least 4 different versions of it since it's release (VHS, DVD, DVD Director's Cut, & BluRay) and I watch it at least once a year. Every time I watch it, I glean something new which to me is the sign of a great sci-fi movie. If you've never seen it, it's on Netflix (the original theatrical anyway) and if you like it, go out and buy it so you can see the Director's Cut. Don't bother with the sequel "S. Darko" though. It's pure crap. Kelly had absolutely nothing to do with it.

Total Score (4.88)