Justin's (new) Review Thread
→ in Movie Reviews
Reply to Topic
Project X (Nima Nourizadeh,2012)
Project X is certainly a product of its time. Filled with sex, crude humor, alcohol, rap music and teenagers behaving poorly—yes, it does sound like a Girls Gone Wild video. Though to be fair, It’s pretty funny. However, as I was walking out of the movie, it had me thinking: the end suggests living in the moment, rather than for the future. Is this really a great value for people? Ridiculous ending aside, the ending itself is sort of a sham. The ending almost ruins the entire movie. What was the point? If this was meant to be a comedy filled with montages and crazy teenagers, it might as well have been on MTV. But it’s not: it’s a movie that has a purpose. Project X provides us with a half- baked idea about ‘living in the moment’ and it ultimately left me cold and uncaring.
This is indeed another ‘found-footage’ movie. In this case, however, the people are not dead. Instead, it is told from the perspective of several ‘loser’ high schoolers who long for the popularity of other students. They want the alcohol, the women and the crazy parties. Thomas Mann plays Thomas, who’s birthday is today. Costa, played by Oliver Cooper, wants to throw a big party, despite Thomas’ reservations. But, of course, it happens anyway—and you know the rest. They hope that this party will launch them into the ‘elite’ group of ‘popular, cool’ kids. Problematic and atypical as the premise may be, it manages to serve up some laughs along the way. Project X could have been something more than the sum of a few laughs along the way, but it isn’t. In fact, it’s a lot less.
Much of the drama actually occurs much later in the film, only a little after the party has erupted into an uncontrollable mass of teenagers. This is where it actually works to some degree: a man from across the street wants them to call off the party and put everything to rest. It slams on the breaks shortly after and again falls into relentless montage. Project X, really, struggles to be dramatic in any real sense. This is a case of ‘style and idea over execution and substance’. Director Nima Nourizadeh forgets to add the substance into the mixture—it’s all style, but no drama. Quick fix after quick fix. In one scene, Thomas is finally coming to terms that this party has gotten out of control, to the point of no-return, only for his friend, Costa, to offer him ecstasy, which then he takes and all is ‘normal’ again. Nima has some opportunities for some solid, dramatic material with the friends, but squanders it with simple solutions.
That’s merely the tip of the iceberg for Project X’s problems. Thomas, Costa and the little-seen, goofy JB, are all utterly without note. They serve the story so the party can erupt, but afterwards, they merely fall into the backdrop as events unfold. In the beginning, we see Thomas as a loser—his dad even to some degree thinks he is—and not much else. Shallow characterizations and caricatures. Is Thomas more than a loser? Well, maybe, but in this case, he’s a loser who can throw a really big party. He has no personality that Nourizadeh cares to share with us. No one, including myself, is insisting that this be some deep, thoughtful character-driven piece, but some character is required to make a film endearing in any real way.
Nourizadeh isn’t a bad filmmaker by any measure, but Project X feels more like a music video. In a way, I guess it sort of is. As inventive and interesting as the production was, (apparently it was shot with flip phones and other handheld devises), it would’ve worked better as a short film, but as a feature it lacks the dramatic emphasis of a real film. Funny as it may be, it feels more like it should have been a YouTube video rather than a film playing at the cinema. Project X is an enjoyable, but unfulfilling experience. Your time might be better spent elsewhere.
Project X is certainly a product of its time. Filled with sex, crude humor, alcohol, rap music and teenagers behaving poorly—yes, it does sound like a Girls Gone Wild video. Though to be fair, It’s pretty funny. However, as I was walking out of the movie, it had me thinking: the end suggests living in the moment, rather than for the future. Is this really a great value for people? Ridiculous ending aside, the ending itself is sort of a sham. The ending almost ruins the entire movie. What was the point? If this was meant to be a comedy filled with montages and crazy teenagers, it might as well have been on MTV. But it’s not: it’s a movie that has a purpose. Project X provides us with a half- baked idea about ‘living in the moment’ and it ultimately left me cold and uncaring.
This is indeed another ‘found-footage’ movie. In this case, however, the people are not dead. Instead, it is told from the perspective of several ‘loser’ high schoolers who long for the popularity of other students. They want the alcohol, the women and the crazy parties. Thomas Mann plays Thomas, who’s birthday is today. Costa, played by Oliver Cooper, wants to throw a big party, despite Thomas’ reservations. But, of course, it happens anyway—and you know the rest. They hope that this party will launch them into the ‘elite’ group of ‘popular, cool’ kids. Problematic and atypical as the premise may be, it manages to serve up some laughs along the way. Project X could have been something more than the sum of a few laughs along the way, but it isn’t. In fact, it’s a lot less.
Much of the drama actually occurs much later in the film, only a little after the party has erupted into an uncontrollable mass of teenagers. This is where it actually works to some degree: a man from across the street wants them to call off the party and put everything to rest. It slams on the breaks shortly after and again falls into relentless montage. Project X, really, struggles to be dramatic in any real sense. This is a case of ‘style and idea over execution and substance’. Director Nima Nourizadeh forgets to add the substance into the mixture—it’s all style, but no drama. Quick fix after quick fix. In one scene, Thomas is finally coming to terms that this party has gotten out of control, to the point of no-return, only for his friend, Costa, to offer him ecstasy, which then he takes and all is ‘normal’ again. Nima has some opportunities for some solid, dramatic material with the friends, but squanders it with simple solutions.
That’s merely the tip of the iceberg for Project X’s problems. Thomas, Costa and the little-seen, goofy JB, are all utterly without note. They serve the story so the party can erupt, but afterwards, they merely fall into the backdrop as events unfold. In the beginning, we see Thomas as a loser—his dad even to some degree thinks he is—and not much else. Shallow characterizations and caricatures. Is Thomas more than a loser? Well, maybe, but in this case, he’s a loser who can throw a really big party. He has no personality that Nourizadeh cares to share with us. No one, including myself, is insisting that this be some deep, thoughtful character-driven piece, but some character is required to make a film endearing in any real way.
Nourizadeh isn’t a bad filmmaker by any measure, but Project X feels more like a music video. In a way, I guess it sort of is. As inventive and interesting as the production was, (apparently it was shot with flip phones and other handheld devises), it would’ve worked better as a short film, but as a feature it lacks the dramatic emphasis of a real film. Funny as it may be, it feels more like it should have been a YouTube video rather than a film playing at the cinema. Project X is an enjoyable, but unfulfilling experience. Your time might be better spent elsewhere.
Last edited by Justin; 06-13-12 at 12:09 AM.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
The Hunger Games (Gary Ross,2012)
On buses, in stores, and in libraries, you’ve seen them being read. The Hunger Games is becoming something of a phenomenon. Like Twilight, it is manufactured primarily for young adults (or YA) and does its best to deal with ‘serious’ subjects. But this is precisely where I find both of them to be disturbing and completely unnecessary. The Hunger Games, for those uninitiated, is about a post-apocalyptic future where adolescents and teenagers are pitted against each other for a battle to the death. Indeed, Battle Royale did it before, but there’s a big different between what the latter did and what The Hunger Games is doing right now. In the case of Hunger Games, we have an author and filmmaker who are seeking to sell this pasteurized, ironed out science-fiction world, where all of the real disturbing nature of what’s actually happening has been cleaned up and removed so it can be sold easily and digested by young adults and 20-somethings alike.
Katniss Everdeen, played by Jennifer Lawrence (blander than she’s ever been before), lives in complete poverty in a district ominously named District-12. She resides in a future-world named Panem, what was once North America. She does her best to take care of her mother and younger sister with the use of her terrific hunting and marksmanship with a bow—and like in all futuristic societies, there’s an overbearing, almost totalitarian regime that does their best to keep all of the districts in line and impoverished. The Capitol— the hub of the rich and well-off— host an event called Hunger Games. It’s an annual event that brings together all of the districts, as two contestants are selected from each one. Katniss’ younger sister is chosen, but in order to save her from the games, Katniss nominates herself instead.
Director Gary Ross gives the film a gritty, handheld aesthetic that works for the most part, considering the rugged, earthy tones while in District-12. And the world is indeed very believable, especially the districts. But the problems are the cast of characters we have here. Katniss, indeed, is a strong female protagonist. However, she proves herself to be completely without personality, right alongside everyone else. A majority of the contestants in The Hunger Games event prove themselves to be faceless, nameless people merely set in place for the kill. One of the best examples is the band of one- dimensional, ‘evil’ teenagers. Cato (Alexander Ludwig) is the alpha-male leader by default. They are never given much sympathy. In fact, they are almost completely deranged. And yes, there are several others characters whose names they share with people of the Ancient Roman Empire—as if the symbolism wasn’t heavy-handed enough.
It doesn’t get much better. Katniss slowly falls for her fellow District-12 member, Peeta (Josh Hutcherson), who loves her dearly. This is where it starts to show its teeny-bopper roots. Unbelievable and underdeveloped, the romance works as only a gimmicky way for us to show some sympathy towards the two. It could have benefited from some extra breathing room for the characters to bond. There’s barely any time for that. The Hunger Games does flow well, though. It moves at a brisk pace despite the long running time (142 minutes). It does commit a few faults, which include numerous deus ex machina. Katniss, of course, is miraculously saved time and time again by the author/screenwriter rather than her own skills and abilities.
Okay, well, I’ll admit, I’m being very harsh towards it. It’s not a bad film—it’s well-made and the sense of foreboding and suspense are certainly there. It also shows some signs of intelligence. Katniss illustrates her warm-hearted nature by refusing to kill, and when she finally does, she expresses her anguish by attempting to wash the blood from her hands. Does this make up for the rest of the bloodshed? What about all of the other teenagers who were needlessly killed, manipulated and discarded for no reason? Katniss expresses her sadness when a loving, sweet character dies—but what about everyone else? Gary Ross and Suzanne Collins, as good as their intentions may be, created a film that exploits and relishes in the fight to the death of innocent kids. And I realized, as I looked around the theater and as the ‘games began’, that people were— ironically enough—excited about seeing the bloodshed. This can’t have been what they wanted, right?
On buses, in stores, and in libraries, you’ve seen them being read. The Hunger Games is becoming something of a phenomenon. Like Twilight, it is manufactured primarily for young adults (or YA) and does its best to deal with ‘serious’ subjects. But this is precisely where I find both of them to be disturbing and completely unnecessary. The Hunger Games, for those uninitiated, is about a post-apocalyptic future where adolescents and teenagers are pitted against each other for a battle to the death. Indeed, Battle Royale did it before, but there’s a big different between what the latter did and what The Hunger Games is doing right now. In the case of Hunger Games, we have an author and filmmaker who are seeking to sell this pasteurized, ironed out science-fiction world, where all of the real disturbing nature of what’s actually happening has been cleaned up and removed so it can be sold easily and digested by young adults and 20-somethings alike.
Katniss Everdeen, played by Jennifer Lawrence (blander than she’s ever been before), lives in complete poverty in a district ominously named District-12. She resides in a future-world named Panem, what was once North America. She does her best to take care of her mother and younger sister with the use of her terrific hunting and marksmanship with a bow—and like in all futuristic societies, there’s an overbearing, almost totalitarian regime that does their best to keep all of the districts in line and impoverished. The Capitol— the hub of the rich and well-off— host an event called Hunger Games. It’s an annual event that brings together all of the districts, as two contestants are selected from each one. Katniss’ younger sister is chosen, but in order to save her from the games, Katniss nominates herself instead.
Director Gary Ross gives the film a gritty, handheld aesthetic that works for the most part, considering the rugged, earthy tones while in District-12. And the world is indeed very believable, especially the districts. But the problems are the cast of characters we have here. Katniss, indeed, is a strong female protagonist. However, she proves herself to be completely without personality, right alongside everyone else. A majority of the contestants in The Hunger Games event prove themselves to be faceless, nameless people merely set in place for the kill. One of the best examples is the band of one- dimensional, ‘evil’ teenagers. Cato (Alexander Ludwig) is the alpha-male leader by default. They are never given much sympathy. In fact, they are almost completely deranged. And yes, there are several others characters whose names they share with people of the Ancient Roman Empire—as if the symbolism wasn’t heavy-handed enough.
It doesn’t get much better. Katniss slowly falls for her fellow District-12 member, Peeta (Josh Hutcherson), who loves her dearly. This is where it starts to show its teeny-bopper roots. Unbelievable and underdeveloped, the romance works as only a gimmicky way for us to show some sympathy towards the two. It could have benefited from some extra breathing room for the characters to bond. There’s barely any time for that. The Hunger Games does flow well, though. It moves at a brisk pace despite the long running time (142 minutes). It does commit a few faults, which include numerous deus ex machina. Katniss, of course, is miraculously saved time and time again by the author/screenwriter rather than her own skills and abilities.
Okay, well, I’ll admit, I’m being very harsh towards it. It’s not a bad film—it’s well-made and the sense of foreboding and suspense are certainly there. It also shows some signs of intelligence. Katniss illustrates her warm-hearted nature by refusing to kill, and when she finally does, she expresses her anguish by attempting to wash the blood from her hands. Does this make up for the rest of the bloodshed? What about all of the other teenagers who were needlessly killed, manipulated and discarded for no reason? Katniss expresses her sadness when a loving, sweet character dies—but what about everyone else? Gary Ross and Suzanne Collins, as good as their intentions may be, created a film that exploits and relishes in the fight to the death of innocent kids. And I realized, as I looked around the theater and as the ‘games began’, that people were— ironically enough—excited about seeing the bloodshed. This can’t have been what they wanted, right?
Last edited by Justin; 06-13-12 at 12:10 AM.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
The Grey (Joe Carnahan,2012)
Let me start off with the plain and obvious: The Grey is a B-movie, of sorts. One of those releases that goes straight-to-video. But does that make it a bad movie, necessarily? Not at all. For what it’s worth, it’s undeniably silly and suspenseful at the same time. Liam Neeson’s performance is achingly real. As I see it, The Grey is precisely caught in the grey area between B-movie and a movie like The Edge (horrible pun aside). Despite its goofy but interesting premise, it’s a surprisingly thrilling ride into the heart of the wilderness, and man. Poetic, yet unrelentingly brutal, The Grey is a must-see film for those who long to see a classic existential, survival thriller. Oh, and the wolves are pretty badass, too.
A team of low-lives are on their way to a barren portion of Alaska to drill for oil. This is the type of group that one would probably send on a mission such as this: ex-cons and marginalized people with little connection to the outside world. This is primarily where the film works the best. Each actor does very well with what they’re given. Though we’re only provided with snippets of each individual’s life, the empathy, I felt, was surely there. Liam Neeson plays Ottway, a hunter who’s haunted by memories of his girlfriend. He’s an accomplished marksman. His existence is pretty shoddy, and at the beginning of the film he’s contemplating suicide.
As you might have guessed, before they can arrive, the plane crashes in a horrible storm. There are very few survivors. This has to be one of the most frightening, disorienting plane crashes I’ve ever seen. But on the contrary, the cinematography of the Alaskan north is beautiful and majestic. It’s big, open and at times still and somber. Since we’re often in the mind of Ottway, all throughout the film we are reminded of a poem that Ottway’s alcoholic father wrote, which is quite beautiful. It goes something like this,”Once more into the fray. Into the last good fight I’ll ever know. Live and die on this day. Live and die on this day.” The melancholic tone of the poem seems perfectly fit for the somber, grim tone of the film. Mix that with flashes of his girlfriend and we have a some very depressing imagery.
Though Ottway is a hunter, he’s never been the one being hunted. In the wild, there are no real weapons. His rifle was destroyed in the plane crash, so essentially all they have left are sticks and some useless rifle bullets. Ottway is the only real woodsman the group has to rely on. Some of the most unnerving scenes are the ones at night. A howling can be heard from not far off. These wolves don’t really seem like ordinary wolves. They are huge and unintimidated by man. Director Joe Carnahan holds nothing back when showing how brutal nature can be.
The Grey does slip into silliness from time to time, namely in the scenes where the team is devouring a wolf carcass and teasing the pack. Nevertheless, Liam Neeson brings his A-game into every scene. One of the best scenes in the entire movie is where Ottway is screaming for a savior, yelling into the sky, but to his remorse, no one answers. This leaves us with a lot of questions about Carnahan’s intentions with his film. It may be that he simply provides us with no easy answers. The Grey certainly offers us just that in ample doses.
Let me start off with the plain and obvious: The Grey is a B-movie, of sorts. One of those releases that goes straight-to-video. But does that make it a bad movie, necessarily? Not at all. For what it’s worth, it’s undeniably silly and suspenseful at the same time. Liam Neeson’s performance is achingly real. As I see it, The Grey is precisely caught in the grey area between B-movie and a movie like The Edge (horrible pun aside). Despite its goofy but interesting premise, it’s a surprisingly thrilling ride into the heart of the wilderness, and man. Poetic, yet unrelentingly brutal, The Grey is a must-see film for those who long to see a classic existential, survival thriller. Oh, and the wolves are pretty badass, too.
A team of low-lives are on their way to a barren portion of Alaska to drill for oil. This is the type of group that one would probably send on a mission such as this: ex-cons and marginalized people with little connection to the outside world. This is primarily where the film works the best. Each actor does very well with what they’re given. Though we’re only provided with snippets of each individual’s life, the empathy, I felt, was surely there. Liam Neeson plays Ottway, a hunter who’s haunted by memories of his girlfriend. He’s an accomplished marksman. His existence is pretty shoddy, and at the beginning of the film he’s contemplating suicide.
As you might have guessed, before they can arrive, the plane crashes in a horrible storm. There are very few survivors. This has to be one of the most frightening, disorienting plane crashes I’ve ever seen. But on the contrary, the cinematography of the Alaskan north is beautiful and majestic. It’s big, open and at times still and somber. Since we’re often in the mind of Ottway, all throughout the film we are reminded of a poem that Ottway’s alcoholic father wrote, which is quite beautiful. It goes something like this,”Once more into the fray. Into the last good fight I’ll ever know. Live and die on this day. Live and die on this day.” The melancholic tone of the poem seems perfectly fit for the somber, grim tone of the film. Mix that with flashes of his girlfriend and we have a some very depressing imagery.
Though Ottway is a hunter, he’s never been the one being hunted. In the wild, there are no real weapons. His rifle was destroyed in the plane crash, so essentially all they have left are sticks and some useless rifle bullets. Ottway is the only real woodsman the group has to rely on. Some of the most unnerving scenes are the ones at night. A howling can be heard from not far off. These wolves don’t really seem like ordinary wolves. They are huge and unintimidated by man. Director Joe Carnahan holds nothing back when showing how brutal nature can be.
The Grey does slip into silliness from time to time, namely in the scenes where the team is devouring a wolf carcass and teasing the pack. Nevertheless, Liam Neeson brings his A-game into every scene. One of the best scenes in the entire movie is where Ottway is screaming for a savior, yelling into the sky, but to his remorse, no one answers. This leaves us with a lot of questions about Carnahan’s intentions with his film. It may be that he simply provides us with no easy answers. The Grey certainly offers us just that in ample doses.
X
User Lists
The Hunger Games (Gary Ross,2012)
On buses, in stores, and in libraries, you’ve seen them being read. The Hunger Games is becoming something of a phenomenon. Like Twilight, it is manufactured primarily for young adults (or YA) and does its best to deal with ‘serious’ subjects. But this is precisely where I find both of them to be disturbing and completely unnecessary. The Hunger Games, for those uninitiated, is about a post-apocalyptic future where adolescents and teenagers are pitted against each other for a battle to the death. Indeed, Battle Royale did it before, but there’s a big different between what the latter did and what The Hunger Games is doing right now. In the case of The Hunger Games, we have an author and filmmaker who are seeking to sell this pasteurized, ironed out science-fiction world, where all of the real disturbing nature of what’s actually happening has been cleaned up and removed so it can be sold easily and digested by young adults and 20-somethings alike.
Katniss Everdeen, played by Jennifer Lawrence (blander than she’s ever been before), lives in complete poverty in a district ominously named District-12. She resides in a future-world named Panem, what was once North America. She does her best to take care of her mother and younger sister with the use of her terrific hunting and marksmanship with a bow—and like in all futuristic societies, there’s an overbearing, almost totalitarian regime that does their best to keep all of the districts in line and impoverished. The Capitol— the hub of the rich and well-off— host an event called The Hunger Games. It’s an annual event that brings together all of the districts, as two contestants are selected from each one. Katniss’ younger sister is chosen, but in order to save her from the games, Katniss nominates herself instead.
Director Gary Ross gives the film a gritty, handheld aesthetic that works for the most part, considering the rugged, earthy tones while in District-12. And the world is indeed very believable, especially the districts. But the problems are the cast of characters we have here. Katniss, indeed, is a strong female protagonist. However, she proves herself to be completely without personality, right alongside everyone else. A majority of the contestants in The Hunger Games event prove themselves to be faceless, nameless people merely set in place for the kill. One of the best examples is the band of one- dimensional, ‘evil’ teenagers. Cato (Alexander Ludwig) is the alpha-male leader by default. They are never given much sympathy. In fact, they are almost completely deranged. And yes, there are several others characters whose names they share with people of the Ancient Roman Empire—as if the symbolism wasn’t heavy-handed enough.
It doesn’t get much better. Katniss slowly falls for her fellow District-12 member, Peeta (Josh Hutcherson), who loves her dearly. This is where it starts to show its teeny-bopper roots. Unbelievable and underdeveloped, the romance works as only a gimmicky way for us to show some sympathy towards the two. It could have benefited from some extra breathing room for the characters to bond. There’s barely any time for that. The Hunger Games does flow well, though. It moves at a brisk pace despite the long running time (142 minutes). It does commit a few faults, which include numerous deus ex machina. Katniss, of course, is miraculously saved time and time again by the author/screenwriter rather than her own skills and abilities.
Okay, well, I’ll admit, I’m being very harsh towards it. It’s not a bad film—it’s well-made and the sense of foreboding and suspense are certainly there. It also shows some signs of intelligence. Katniss illustrates her warm-hearted nature by refusing to kill, and when she finally does, she expresses her anguish by attempting to wash the blood from her hands. Does this make up for the rest of the bloodshed? What about all of the other teenagers who were needlessly killed, manipulated and discarded for no reason? Katniss expresses her sadness when a loving, sweet character dies—but what about everyone else? Gary Ross and Suzanne Collins, as good as their intentions may be, created a film that exploits and relishes in the fight to the death of innocent kids. And I realized, as I looked around the theater and as the ‘games began’, that people were— ironically enough—excited about seeing the bloodshed. This can’t have been what they wanted, right?
On buses, in stores, and in libraries, you’ve seen them being read. The Hunger Games is becoming something of a phenomenon. Like Twilight, it is manufactured primarily for young adults (or YA) and does its best to deal with ‘serious’ subjects. But this is precisely where I find both of them to be disturbing and completely unnecessary. The Hunger Games, for those uninitiated, is about a post-apocalyptic future where adolescents and teenagers are pitted against each other for a battle to the death. Indeed, Battle Royale did it before, but there’s a big different between what the latter did and what The Hunger Games is doing right now. In the case of The Hunger Games, we have an author and filmmaker who are seeking to sell this pasteurized, ironed out science-fiction world, where all of the real disturbing nature of what’s actually happening has been cleaned up and removed so it can be sold easily and digested by young adults and 20-somethings alike.
Katniss Everdeen, played by Jennifer Lawrence (blander than she’s ever been before), lives in complete poverty in a district ominously named District-12. She resides in a future-world named Panem, what was once North America. She does her best to take care of her mother and younger sister with the use of her terrific hunting and marksmanship with a bow—and like in all futuristic societies, there’s an overbearing, almost totalitarian regime that does their best to keep all of the districts in line and impoverished. The Capitol— the hub of the rich and well-off— host an event called The Hunger Games. It’s an annual event that brings together all of the districts, as two contestants are selected from each one. Katniss’ younger sister is chosen, but in order to save her from the games, Katniss nominates herself instead.
Director Gary Ross gives the film a gritty, handheld aesthetic that works for the most part, considering the rugged, earthy tones while in District-12. And the world is indeed very believable, especially the districts. But the problems are the cast of characters we have here. Katniss, indeed, is a strong female protagonist. However, she proves herself to be completely without personality, right alongside everyone else. A majority of the contestants in The Hunger Games event prove themselves to be faceless, nameless people merely set in place for the kill. One of the best examples is the band of one- dimensional, ‘evil’ teenagers. Cato (Alexander Ludwig) is the alpha-male leader by default. They are never given much sympathy. In fact, they are almost completely deranged. And yes, there are several others characters whose names they share with people of the Ancient Roman Empire—as if the symbolism wasn’t heavy-handed enough.
It doesn’t get much better. Katniss slowly falls for her fellow District-12 member, Peeta (Josh Hutcherson), who loves her dearly. This is where it starts to show its teeny-bopper roots. Unbelievable and underdeveloped, the romance works as only a gimmicky way for us to show some sympathy towards the two. It could have benefited from some extra breathing room for the characters to bond. There’s barely any time for that. The Hunger Games does flow well, though. It moves at a brisk pace despite the long running time (142 minutes). It does commit a few faults, which include numerous deus ex machina. Katniss, of course, is miraculously saved time and time again by the author/screenwriter rather than her own skills and abilities.
Okay, well, I’ll admit, I’m being very harsh towards it. It’s not a bad film—it’s well-made and the sense of foreboding and suspense are certainly there. It also shows some signs of intelligence. Katniss illustrates her warm-hearted nature by refusing to kill, and when she finally does, she expresses her anguish by attempting to wash the blood from her hands. Does this make up for the rest of the bloodshed? What about all of the other teenagers who were needlessly killed, manipulated and discarded for no reason? Katniss expresses her sadness when a loving, sweet character dies—but what about everyone else? Gary Ross and Suzanne Collins, as good as their intentions may be, created a film that exploits and relishes in the fight to the death of innocent kids. And I realized, as I looked around the theater and as the ‘games began’, that people were— ironically enough—excited about seeing the bloodshed. This can’t have been what they wanted, right?
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
Post Mortem (Pablo Larrain,2012)
Set during the coup d’etat by General Pinochet in 1970’s Chile, Mario (played by Alfredo Castro), a civil servant who makes a living typing reports for a morgue, is caught in the crossfire. He’s not involved in the politics, nor does he really have anything directly at stake during the takeover—but a woman he falls in love with, a burlesque dancer, named Nancy Puelma (Antonia Zegers), is indirectly involved with an underground communist party that seeks to have Pinochet and his regime ousted. Directed by Pablo Larrain, this piece of art-house filmmaking is top-notch in quality, but lacks the dramatic and narrative energy of other of the same ilk—like The Lives of Others—even though the last 20 minutes are gripping, touching and even terrifying. In Post Mortem, Larrain chooses to inject the film with a lot of dark humor and touching humanism, like Mike Leigh, but as a piece of drama, it doesn’t quite make it.
Mario is your lonely, awkward protagonist. Like most art house or independent films, the central character is usually encumbered by his or her inability to communicate with the world around him/or her. This is Mario’s dilemma. It’s not without its humor, though. But despite his inhibitions, he gives it a go and before he knows it, he’s out driving with her. With Mario, it’s difficult to say whether he merely has traits of the archetype or he’s just a cliche—he does have his moments of being harsh, or cruel, but his vulnerability is hidden behind it all. Surprisingly enough, this isn’t really a romance. It’s only getting started. It slowly turns into a drama when Nancy disappears, and Mario’s world is turned upside down. Even though the Pinochet coup was the backdrop, it slowly takes on more prominence as the film goes on—whether it really adds up to a whole or not is questionable.
Post Mortem takes its time getting to the second and third act (if this film ‘technically’ follows the three act structure, that is). I’ve never had a problem with slow boiling movies; rather, I find it to be more of a relief since it allows us to breathe and take in the environment and characters—Larrain is in no rush to get to the ‘point’. However, in this case, Larrain seems split on what kind of film he really wants to make. One side being the darkly humorous romance set in a tumultuous time in history (which seems strangely contradictory to the dark and violent time period) and the other side being a drama bent on suspense and the fear of being caught. Unfortunately, these pieces of the puzzle do not fit together properly.
Larrain has a strong directorial vision, and it’s even more evident with his wonderful cinematography and direction of the actors/actresses. As a character study, it is certainly interesting. Like the film, Mario is a mess of contradictions. It makes him likable as well as a little off-putting. This is what gives the film its life. He feels compelled to lie about his profession and turn away those who seem to really like him. One woman in the film, Sandra, (Amparo Noguera), genuinely likes him, and he rebuffs her with no remorse and it makes for a surprising and even cruel scene. And in the last 20 minutes, the characterizations come full circle and almost make the movie. Sandra, a mortician’s aide, is the most vocal character in the end. Her reaction to a mass slaughter is horrific and real.
Pablo Larrain’s interesting Post Mortem is flawed but definitely worth the price of admission for those accustomed to this ‘type’ of film. It needed more focus, and a better sense of what it is—rather than what it really wants to be. Larrain is terrific with characterization and could have made an entire movie with just Nancy, Mario and Sandra. It ultimately ends up feeling like another movie. Mario surprises us in the end, when a shocking reveal throws him over the edge. In this case, the term ‘civil servant’ almost seems contradictory. All the while, I found myself wondering if Mario was in fact sealing himself off from the world, pushing out the fear of persecution and war—instead, retreating back into his own solemn, lonely life at the morgue.
Set during the coup d’etat by General Pinochet in 1970’s Chile, Mario (played by Alfredo Castro), a civil servant who makes a living typing reports for a morgue, is caught in the crossfire. He’s not involved in the politics, nor does he really have anything directly at stake during the takeover—but a woman he falls in love with, a burlesque dancer, named Nancy Puelma (Antonia Zegers), is indirectly involved with an underground communist party that seeks to have Pinochet and his regime ousted. Directed by Pablo Larrain, this piece of art-house filmmaking is top-notch in quality, but lacks the dramatic and narrative energy of other of the same ilk—like The Lives of Others—even though the last 20 minutes are gripping, touching and even terrifying. In Post Mortem, Larrain chooses to inject the film with a lot of dark humor and touching humanism, like Mike Leigh, but as a piece of drama, it doesn’t quite make it.
Mario is your lonely, awkward protagonist. Like most art house or independent films, the central character is usually encumbered by his or her inability to communicate with the world around him/or her. This is Mario’s dilemma. It’s not without its humor, though. But despite his inhibitions, he gives it a go and before he knows it, he’s out driving with her. With Mario, it’s difficult to say whether he merely has traits of the archetype or he’s just a cliche—he does have his moments of being harsh, or cruel, but his vulnerability is hidden behind it all. Surprisingly enough, this isn’t really a romance. It’s only getting started. It slowly turns into a drama when Nancy disappears, and Mario’s world is turned upside down. Even though the Pinochet coup was the backdrop, it slowly takes on more prominence as the film goes on—whether it really adds up to a whole or not is questionable.
Post Mortem takes its time getting to the second and third act (if this film ‘technically’ follows the three act structure, that is). I’ve never had a problem with slow boiling movies; rather, I find it to be more of a relief since it allows us to breathe and take in the environment and characters—Larrain is in no rush to get to the ‘point’. However, in this case, Larrain seems split on what kind of film he really wants to make. One side being the darkly humorous romance set in a tumultuous time in history (which seems strangely contradictory to the dark and violent time period) and the other side being a drama bent on suspense and the fear of being caught. Unfortunately, these pieces of the puzzle do not fit together properly.
Larrain has a strong directorial vision, and it’s even more evident with his wonderful cinematography and direction of the actors/actresses. As a character study, it is certainly interesting. Like the film, Mario is a mess of contradictions. It makes him likable as well as a little off-putting. This is what gives the film its life. He feels compelled to lie about his profession and turn away those who seem to really like him. One woman in the film, Sandra, (Amparo Noguera), genuinely likes him, and he rebuffs her with no remorse and it makes for a surprising and even cruel scene. And in the last 20 minutes, the characterizations come full circle and almost make the movie. Sandra, a mortician’s aide, is the most vocal character in the end. Her reaction to a mass slaughter is horrific and real.
Pablo Larrain’s interesting Post Mortem is flawed but definitely worth the price of admission for those accustomed to this ‘type’ of film. It needed more focus, and a better sense of what it is—rather than what it really wants to be. Larrain is terrific with characterization and could have made an entire movie with just Nancy, Mario and Sandra. It ultimately ends up feeling like another movie. Mario surprises us in the end, when a shocking reveal throws him over the edge. In this case, the term ‘civil servant’ almost seems contradictory. All the while, I found myself wondering if Mario was in fact sealing himself off from the world, pushing out the fear of persecution and war—instead, retreating back into his own solemn, lonely life at the morgue.
Last edited by Justin; 06-13-12 at 12:11 AM.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
Nice review Justin 
thanks 
thanks
__________________
Health is the greatest gift, contentment the greatest wealth, faithfulness the best relationship.
Buddha
Health is the greatest gift, contentment the greatest wealth, faithfulness the best relationship.
Buddha
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
The Raven (James McTeigue,2012)
Edgar Allen Poe’s mysterious last few days are unknown to everyone, which only makes his enigmatic, often controversial figure even more intriguing. Full of contradictions, vitriol and self-praise, he was one of a kind. Poe jumped from horror stories with a philosophical spin to everyday mystery novels that could be enjoyed by critics and audiences alike. He spawned a majority of the genres we take for granted today. The Raven is none of these things. It’s even less: Poe is almost like a caricature, despite John Cusack’s acting prowess, which leads me to believe that James McTeigue is largely to blame. McTeigue hasn’t impressed me since V for Vendetta. It was indeed a really good movie, but the writing has not been solid since then (the Wachowskis were responsible for the screenplay in V for Vendetta). Silly plot line aside, since it doesn’t take itself seriously, The Raven never even touches the bounds of being a fun, entertaining drama. It takes for granted Poe’s sad, melancholy disposition and turns it into a goofy, over-acted piece of undramatic storytelling.
The Raven is as silly as it sounds: Poe’s stories are brought to life by a serial killer. Quite literally. A murderer is reacting his stories, even going so far as to include The Pit and the Pendulum. Somehow it manages to sound completely ridiculous, yet undeniably fun at the same time. It only manages to live up to one of those, and not the ‘fun’ part. Plot holes and messy storytelling aside, Cusack fails to sell the role. In the opening scene, where Poe is in the bar trying to grab a drink, he’s given the opportunity to steal the show and make the scene, but McTeigue sends him into an almost cringe-worthy rant. I don’t even know how this made the final cut. Nevertheless, Poe is summoned by the police force to assist in solving the case—seeing as he has some sort of mental advantage, even though he simply just wrote the stories. Like The Grey earlier this year—which I enjoyed—this film feels more like a made-for-TV movie. The SyFy channel premise gives even more credence to what I’m saying here.
Poe’s character in The Raven isn’t exactly the same Edgar Allen Poe you’d imagine. Instead, he’s more of a Poe-lite. His gloominess is played out as an ‘angsty drama’, and his sense of individualism and character are also missing. In The Raven, he almost comes across as a cartoon character rather than a real person with real problems—it almost makes a joke of the actual person. Why was he developed this way? McTeigue has never been a director skilled with subtlety and this makes it even clearer. Detective Fields (Luke Evans), who is partnered with Poe, plays the same note through the entire movie. He’s the gruff police officer bent on justice, essentially every stereotype imaginable. But what was perhaps most disappointing was the lack of chemistry between Cusack and Alice Eve, who plays Poe’s love interest, Emily Hamilton.
Severely disappointing on every level. You have an incredibly interesting figure in history and reduce him to a few cliches and make him overact to try and compensate. The Raven also slowly loses steam going into the third act and attempts to add on a twist that you could’ve guessed from the beginning. In other thrillers with a ‘gothic’ edge, like Seven, it worked because of the dark, disturbing atmosphere and unrelentingly brutal way in which the story progresses. Here, it feels like someone trying to do the same exact thing but not having the will to go much further. Needless to say, this one is a big miss.
Edgar Allen Poe’s mysterious last few days are unknown to everyone, which only makes his enigmatic, often controversial figure even more intriguing. Full of contradictions, vitriol and self-praise, he was one of a kind. Poe jumped from horror stories with a philosophical spin to everyday mystery novels that could be enjoyed by critics and audiences alike. He spawned a majority of the genres we take for granted today. The Raven is none of these things. It’s even less: Poe is almost like a caricature, despite John Cusack’s acting prowess, which leads me to believe that James McTeigue is largely to blame. McTeigue hasn’t impressed me since V for Vendetta. It was indeed a really good movie, but the writing has not been solid since then (the Wachowskis were responsible for the screenplay in V for Vendetta). Silly plot line aside, since it doesn’t take itself seriously, The Raven never even touches the bounds of being a fun, entertaining drama. It takes for granted Poe’s sad, melancholy disposition and turns it into a goofy, over-acted piece of undramatic storytelling.
The Raven is as silly as it sounds: Poe’s stories are brought to life by a serial killer. Quite literally. A murderer is reacting his stories, even going so far as to include The Pit and the Pendulum. Somehow it manages to sound completely ridiculous, yet undeniably fun at the same time. It only manages to live up to one of those, and not the ‘fun’ part. Plot holes and messy storytelling aside, Cusack fails to sell the role. In the opening scene, where Poe is in the bar trying to grab a drink, he’s given the opportunity to steal the show and make the scene, but McTeigue sends him into an almost cringe-worthy rant. I don’t even know how this made the final cut. Nevertheless, Poe is summoned by the police force to assist in solving the case—seeing as he has some sort of mental advantage, even though he simply just wrote the stories. Like The Grey earlier this year—which I enjoyed—this film feels more like a made-for-TV movie. The SyFy channel premise gives even more credence to what I’m saying here.
Poe’s character in The Raven isn’t exactly the same Edgar Allen Poe you’d imagine. Instead, he’s more of a Poe-lite. His gloominess is played out as an ‘angsty drama’, and his sense of individualism and character are also missing. In The Raven, he almost comes across as a cartoon character rather than a real person with real problems—it almost makes a joke of the actual person. Why was he developed this way? McTeigue has never been a director skilled with subtlety and this makes it even clearer. Detective Fields (Luke Evans), who is partnered with Poe, plays the same note through the entire movie. He’s the gruff police officer bent on justice, essentially every stereotype imaginable. But what was perhaps most disappointing was the lack of chemistry between Cusack and Alice Eve, who plays Poe’s love interest, Emily Hamilton.
Severely disappointing on every level. You have an incredibly interesting figure in history and reduce him to a few cliches and make him overact to try and compensate. The Raven also slowly loses steam going into the third act and attempts to add on a twist that you could’ve guessed from the beginning. In other thrillers with a ‘gothic’ edge, like Seven, it worked because of the dark, disturbing atmosphere and unrelentingly brutal way in which the story progresses. Here, it feels like someone trying to do the same exact thing but not having the will to go much further. Needless to say, this one is a big miss.
Last edited by Justin; 06-13-12 at 12:12 AM.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
The Secret World of Arrietty (Hiromasa Yonebayashi,2012)
Hayao Miyazaki is something of a wonder. His worlds have captured and stimulated the minds of young children and adults alike. From Spirited Away to Ponyo, his worlds are magical, lush and beautiful pieces of animation that are filled with secrets and mystery. Though he didn’t direct The Secret World of Arrietty, his spirit and soul can be found all over the film, from the environment to the characters.That’s not taking anything away from first-time director Hiromasa Yonebayashi, who has functioned as a key animator on just about all of Miyazaki’s films. But Miyazaki’s hand is so prominent that it’s like he directed it himself. The sense of delicacy and touching understanding of the human condition are palpable and very Miyazaki. This is a must-see film for all audiences.
Based on the story The Borrowers, Arrietty tells the story of a young Borrower, named Arrietty (voiced by Bridgit Mendler) and a sick boy named Shawn (David Henrie). She is among the few Borrowers remaining (tiny people who borrow things people won’t miss). Their code has long been “to not be seen by humans”. In this case, however, Arrietty’s curiosity gets the best of her. She longs for interaction with the outside world and to join her father, Pod (Will Arnett) in his Borrowing. They live under Shawn’s great aunt’s house, who has always had the feeling “little people” lived under her home. Shawn is sick, but his illness is only hinted at by several mentions of “heart troubles”. Despite her efforts, Arrietty is seen by Shawn, and events take a different turn. Her world is in danger now, with the threat of Hara, the irritable, nosy house keeper, looming over.
A lot has been said about the glorious, hand-drawn animation, but there’s much more to Arrietty than that. It’s a somber, elegant story which moves at a leisurely pace, like a fairytale. Though Shawn and Arrietty face their own dangers, the tale keeps a sense of melancholy. Miyazaki’s stories have always been surreal, magical and enchanting, but his characters are what have always shined through. Shawn is sick, as I mentioned. His operation is supposed to happen in a week’s time, and his hopes are sinking. Arrietty, by comparison, is youthful, exuberant and hopeful. Their interactions are touching. One of the most emotional moments in the entire film is when we see another side of him—a side that is withdrawn and depressed. For a cartoon, it’s pretty heavy stuff.
Perhaps the most surprising part of Arrietty is the bittersweet ending. It certainly harkened back early feelings that I had for another animated film, The Illusionist (Sylvain Chomet,2010). It caught me off guard. Then again, Miyazaki has never been one for the ordinary. Through all of Arrietty, he surprises us with new elements of his world: a “hunter”-like character named Spiller (Moises Arias), who glides through the air with ease, crickets that chirp, a cat that pounces on everything in sight and a crow that flies into a window, Arrietty’s raucous mom, named Homily (Amy Poehler) and so on and so forth—his worlds are full of vibrant creatures. Both Chomet and Miyazaki have proven themselves to be the two best animators in the world, and their worlds speak for themselves.
Needless to say, The Secret World of Arrietty is a treasure. What’s wonderful is that not all problems are resolved, but spirits are lifted, and much of the world is still left a mystery. Yonebayashi’s directorial debut is impressive. It’s clear that his tutelage under Miyazaki is working wonders for him. I encourage everyone to see this film, as it’s one of the few pieces of pure, original animation left. It feels lively, new and refreshing. CGI, indeed, dominates the market, especially the animated film market now. But this is evidence enough that hand-drawn animation can absorb a viewer into the world without 3-D or anything else. A good story, strong characters and beautiful animation do that for you—and that’s exactly what The Secret World of Arrietty accomplishes.
Hayao Miyazaki is something of a wonder. His worlds have captured and stimulated the minds of young children and adults alike. From Spirited Away to Ponyo, his worlds are magical, lush and beautiful pieces of animation that are filled with secrets and mystery. Though he didn’t direct The Secret World of Arrietty, his spirit and soul can be found all over the film, from the environment to the characters.That’s not taking anything away from first-time director Hiromasa Yonebayashi, who has functioned as a key animator on just about all of Miyazaki’s films. But Miyazaki’s hand is so prominent that it’s like he directed it himself. The sense of delicacy and touching understanding of the human condition are palpable and very Miyazaki. This is a must-see film for all audiences.
Based on the story The Borrowers, Arrietty tells the story of a young Borrower, named Arrietty (voiced by Bridgit Mendler) and a sick boy named Shawn (David Henrie). She is among the few Borrowers remaining (tiny people who borrow things people won’t miss). Their code has long been “to not be seen by humans”. In this case, however, Arrietty’s curiosity gets the best of her. She longs for interaction with the outside world and to join her father, Pod (Will Arnett) in his Borrowing. They live under Shawn’s great aunt’s house, who has always had the feeling “little people” lived under her home. Shawn is sick, but his illness is only hinted at by several mentions of “heart troubles”. Despite her efforts, Arrietty is seen by Shawn, and events take a different turn. Her world is in danger now, with the threat of Hara, the irritable, nosy house keeper, looming over.
A lot has been said about the glorious, hand-drawn animation, but there’s much more to Arrietty than that. It’s a somber, elegant story which moves at a leisurely pace, like a fairytale. Though Shawn and Arrietty face their own dangers, the tale keeps a sense of melancholy. Miyazaki’s stories have always been surreal, magical and enchanting, but his characters are what have always shined through. Shawn is sick, as I mentioned. His operation is supposed to happen in a week’s time, and his hopes are sinking. Arrietty, by comparison, is youthful, exuberant and hopeful. Their interactions are touching. One of the most emotional moments in the entire film is when we see another side of him—a side that is withdrawn and depressed. For a cartoon, it’s pretty heavy stuff.
Perhaps the most surprising part of Arrietty is the bittersweet ending. It certainly harkened back early feelings that I had for another animated film, The Illusionist (Sylvain Chomet,2010). It caught me off guard. Then again, Miyazaki has never been one for the ordinary. Through all of Arrietty, he surprises us with new elements of his world: a “hunter”-like character named Spiller (Moises Arias), who glides through the air with ease, crickets that chirp, a cat that pounces on everything in sight and a crow that flies into a window, Arrietty’s raucous mom, named Homily (Amy Poehler) and so on and so forth—his worlds are full of vibrant creatures. Both Chomet and Miyazaki have proven themselves to be the two best animators in the world, and their worlds speak for themselves.
Needless to say, The Secret World of Arrietty is a treasure. What’s wonderful is that not all problems are resolved, but spirits are lifted, and much of the world is still left a mystery. Yonebayashi’s directorial debut is impressive. It’s clear that his tutelage under Miyazaki is working wonders for him. I encourage everyone to see this film, as it’s one of the few pieces of pure, original animation left. It feels lively, new and refreshing. CGI, indeed, dominates the market, especially the animated film market now. But this is evidence enough that hand-drawn animation can absorb a viewer into the world without 3-D or anything else. A good story, strong characters and beautiful animation do that for you—and that’s exactly what The Secret World of Arrietty accomplishes.
Last edited by Justin; 06-13-12 at 12:13 AM.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
I liked V for Vendetta and I don't remember much of anything from From Hell. I'll have to rewatch it.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
Nice review, as per usual Justin. I was already pretty intrigued by the premise of this film, think I'll watch it some time.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
I liked V for Vendetta and I don't remember much of anything from From Hell. I'll have to rewatch it.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
James McTeigue did direct both V for Vendetta and The Raven, but I felt that was as far as it went. One was a well-written action movie while the other was more like a cheap made-for-TV movie.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
He was refering to their comicbook origins and style, but you obviously don't agree, so you have, in fact, answered the question without knowing it. 
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
I thought there was a Cabin in the Woods review here?
__________________
"A laugh can be a very powerful thing. Why, sometimes in life, it's the only weapon we have."
Suspect's Reviews
"A laugh can be a very powerful thing. Why, sometimes in life, it's the only weapon we have."
Suspect's Reviews
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
Ahh, I usually just write the review and don't bother checking for errors. Which is why my inbox is usually full of people pointing out stupid spelling mistakes. 
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
Hah, well, I must be getting lucky then. Because mine are usually chock full of half-completed thoughts and typographical errors.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
Meh, mistakes shmishtayksh.
I thought your Cabin review was ok. Anyway, I'm a right stickler for correcting bad grammar but once I've sat for 30 minutes writing a review, I can't be bothered correcting half of my spelling.
My last review bad enough, I even missed out the last letter of some of the words lololol!
I thought your Cabin review was ok. Anyway, I'm a right stickler for correcting bad grammar but once I've sat for 30 minutes writing a review, I can't be bothered correcting half of my spelling.
My last review bad enough, I even missed out the last letter of some of the words lololol!
__________________
Rodent's Reviews: Delivering The Good, The Bad, And The Ugly In Film
Rodent's Reviews: PART DEUX!
Rodent's 1950-Present Sci-Fi And Futuristic Fantasy Movies
Rodent's Reviews: PART DEUX!
Rodent's 1950-Present Sci-Fi And Futuristic Fantasy Movies
Resident Evil: Retribution was my one-pointer
Last edited by The Rodent; 05-11-12 at 04:07 AM.
Reason: SPELLING ERROR :D
X