The trailers for this movie had my hopes high. While the reviews have been decent overall I was quite disappointed in this movie, as I have been in so many this year.
The film starts interestingly enough, with a strong performance by the incredible Bryan Cranston. However, the groundwork, well laid, leads nowhere fast. Once Cranston exits the action, my interest exited as well.
The run time of 123 minutes seems like it should have been appropriate, but we don't actually see Godzilla until close to an hour in to the movie. Which made the build up tedious. Once the action starts we actually see more of the MUTO, secondary "monsters", then we do of Godzilla. Godzilla ends up fighting these clumsy moth-like creatures, with gangly limbs, and less then powerful or menacing characteristics, in very forgettable, darkly lit, uninspired fight sequences. Where the "monsters" come from, how they were reactivated, what they are trying to accomplish, where they are trying to go, and what the point is............it's all left murky at best. I found it hard to follow, or care about, the plot. The writing, the direction, the flow of the action sequences and fight scenes, and the acting were all poor. Other then that though...........
Our hero, Ford, played by relative unknown Aaron Taylor-Johnson, deserves special mention. He gives a performance that will soon be forgotten.... bordering on embarrassing. He seemed far out of his depth and I'm sure will go back to being unknown very soon. Most of the acting in this movie, apart from Cranston, was sub-par......... and that's being kind. Even the talented Ken Watanabe was made to appear wooden.
I have a million other little things that annoyed me about this movie, but I think I'll adhere to "if you don't have anything nice to say don't say anything at all".
Maybe X-Men?
Friday, July 4, 2014
The Amazing Spider-Man 2
Sadly, I think I may be getting to old to fully enjoy the comic book action movies. I'm finding it harder to be entertained and easier to be critical of this genre I've loved.
This new incarnation of Spider-Man, my favorite comic growing up, was a mediocre rehash of old material. I found nothing much new or exciting.
It seemed to be me that the director just assumed we all know the back story of Spider-Man and his relationship to Gwen Stacey (adequately played by Emma Stone) and to Oscorp. While it took quite a while for the action to build, it didn't feel like we really learned anything new or were made to care about the action to follow.
While Andrew Garfield is an acceptable Spider-Man, I didn't feel like he showed much range, for which I think we can blame the writing and direction. Spider-Man's characteristic sarcasm and humor was in evidence and enjoyable.... just not enough to make up for the other gaps. He's tormented by the loss of his parents and the strained personal relationships in his life, he's conflicted about the role Spider-Man has in the world, and yet there still seems to be little arc to his character. Such fertile ground and so little fruit. Still, he wasn't the problem.
I was most disappointed in Jamie Foxx. His character Max, felt a lot like a bad rip off of Eddie Murphy's character in "Bowfinger". His transformation to the villain Electro also left a lot to be desired. He was far from menacing and looked, if you'll forgive the pun, cartoonish. There was this odd bluish shimmer that was almost comical.
The typically spectacular Sally Field was completely wasted in her role as Aunt May. I think she was plugged in to a few awkward scenes just to justify a paycheck. Two young up and coming talents, Dane DeHaan and Felicity Jones (spectacular in "Like Crazy") could have been used more fully. Dane did as much as he could with the material and I did enjoy his performance over all. I do look forward to watching more of their work in the future.
There was also very little natural flow to this movie. The action seemed to jump around quite a bit. Much was assumed and taken for granted. While technically sound the Direction could have been far better. I am not impressed by Marc Webb at all.
However, I did find many of the action sequences to be excellent. The mixture of full speed hyper-kinetic action and slow motion was well used and inventive, if slightly over-used. I saw this movie in 3D, which is how I think it was intended to be seen. At least in the high flying, acrobatic, web swinging, action sequences the 3D worked very well and added to the sense of flight and magic.
Overall the movie was too long and too predictable. It wasn't horrible, but for me, not as good as previous versions.
Bring on X-Men.
This new incarnation of Spider-Man, my favorite comic growing up, was a mediocre rehash of old material. I found nothing much new or exciting.
It seemed to be me that the director just assumed we all know the back story of Spider-Man and his relationship to Gwen Stacey (adequately played by Emma Stone) and to Oscorp. While it took quite a while for the action to build, it didn't feel like we really learned anything new or were made to care about the action to follow.
While Andrew Garfield is an acceptable Spider-Man, I didn't feel like he showed much range, for which I think we can blame the writing and direction. Spider-Man's characteristic sarcasm and humor was in evidence and enjoyable.... just not enough to make up for the other gaps. He's tormented by the loss of his parents and the strained personal relationships in his life, he's conflicted about the role Spider-Man has in the world, and yet there still seems to be little arc to his character. Such fertile ground and so little fruit. Still, he wasn't the problem.
I was most disappointed in Jamie Foxx. His character Max, felt a lot like a bad rip off of Eddie Murphy's character in "Bowfinger". His transformation to the villain Electro also left a lot to be desired. He was far from menacing and looked, if you'll forgive the pun, cartoonish. There was this odd bluish shimmer that was almost comical.
The typically spectacular Sally Field was completely wasted in her role as Aunt May. I think she was plugged in to a few awkward scenes just to justify a paycheck. Two young up and coming talents, Dane DeHaan and Felicity Jones (spectacular in "Like Crazy") could have been used more fully. Dane did as much as he could with the material and I did enjoy his performance over all. I do look forward to watching more of their work in the future.
There was also very little natural flow to this movie. The action seemed to jump around quite a bit. Much was assumed and taken for granted. While technically sound the Direction could have been far better. I am not impressed by Marc Webb at all.
However, I did find many of the action sequences to be excellent. The mixture of full speed hyper-kinetic action and slow motion was well used and inventive, if slightly over-used. I saw this movie in 3D, which is how I think it was intended to be seen. At least in the high flying, acrobatic, web swinging, action sequences the 3D worked very well and added to the sense of flight and magic.
Overall the movie was too long and too predictable. It wasn't horrible, but for me, not as good as previous versions.
Bring on X-Men.
Wednesday, May 21, 2014
Draft Day- Select Netflix
The best thing I can say about this movie is that I didn't hate it. Draft Day is another Kevin Costner sports film but nowhere near the quality of "Field of Dreams", "Bull Durham", or even "Tin Cup". I know the reviews were pretty good, but the poor box office supports my overall disappointment in this film. As a huge sports fan I had high hopes.
Basically this is a story about Sonny, played by Costner, the Brown's general manager, facing the NFL Draft. The entire sports world and Cleveland are watching and criticizing his every move. He's under enormous pressure both externally, and internally. His owner and the Super Bowl winning coach are on his back, his love interest works with him, and even his Mom is pressuring him, along with seemingly everyone else.
I had issues with the lack of surprise and lack of believability. I never had a doubt that Sonny would come up aces in the end. I wasn't sure how, but I never once doubted the ultimate outcome. Now, knowing there will be a happy ending isn't exactly a rare thing but in this case it really muted the tone and suspense for me. I also knew, since we "met" so few athletes, that each would eventually have some meaningful part in the plot. Nobody is "just there".... Nobody to throw us off. No suspense.
My other issue was the complete lack of character development and chemistry between characters. The most interesting character, other then Sonny, was the team's owner, adequately played by Frank Langella. There was just too little of him. Sonny's Mom, and the issue surrounding his recently deceased father were poorly developed and merely distracting. A peripheral story-line adding nothing. Ellen Burstyn's performance was distractingly bad and contributed nothing to further the story. Denis Leary plays the coach who actually quits the team because he disagrees with Sonny's choices. As a sports fan this is beyond unbelievable. No NFL coach would quit because of a perceived bad draft. Of course he changes his mind in the end, but still......... Jennifer Garner, the love interest and the team's "capologist", newly pregnant with Sonny's baby, has her moments but overall is window dressing. The scenes involving her financial management role are interesting enough, but the pregnancy was just another peripheral story-line adding little. In general I don't find her to be all that talented and this role did nothing to change my mind about her. "Dallas Buyer's Club" was my favorite movie last year but she was my least favorite part of it. There was even a nerdy receptionist kid, who seemed to be an afterthought, again adding nothing. I guess he was supposed to be the Jonah Hill of this movie but he came across as simply silly. Costner himself was about what we've come to expect from him. Adequate acting and charm, but he can only go as far as the material allows.
In my opinion this was a poor rip off of "Moneyball", a far superior film. There was none of the intrigue, suspense, or insight. I never felt like I was getting the hoped for peek behind the curtain, the way I did in "Moneyball". So if you're a big Costner fan, or simply want to watch a sports movie, and have already seen "Moneyball" you can rent "Draft Day".
Basically this is a story about Sonny, played by Costner, the Brown's general manager, facing the NFL Draft. The entire sports world and Cleveland are watching and criticizing his every move. He's under enormous pressure both externally, and internally. His owner and the Super Bowl winning coach are on his back, his love interest works with him, and even his Mom is pressuring him, along with seemingly everyone else.
I had issues with the lack of surprise and lack of believability. I never had a doubt that Sonny would come up aces in the end. I wasn't sure how, but I never once doubted the ultimate outcome. Now, knowing there will be a happy ending isn't exactly a rare thing but in this case it really muted the tone and suspense for me. I also knew, since we "met" so few athletes, that each would eventually have some meaningful part in the plot. Nobody is "just there".... Nobody to throw us off. No suspense.
My other issue was the complete lack of character development and chemistry between characters. The most interesting character, other then Sonny, was the team's owner, adequately played by Frank Langella. There was just too little of him. Sonny's Mom, and the issue surrounding his recently deceased father were poorly developed and merely distracting. A peripheral story-line adding nothing. Ellen Burstyn's performance was distractingly bad and contributed nothing to further the story. Denis Leary plays the coach who actually quits the team because he disagrees with Sonny's choices. As a sports fan this is beyond unbelievable. No NFL coach would quit because of a perceived bad draft. Of course he changes his mind in the end, but still......... Jennifer Garner, the love interest and the team's "capologist", newly pregnant with Sonny's baby, has her moments but overall is window dressing. The scenes involving her financial management role are interesting enough, but the pregnancy was just another peripheral story-line adding little. In general I don't find her to be all that talented and this role did nothing to change my mind about her. "Dallas Buyer's Club" was my favorite movie last year but she was my least favorite part of it. There was even a nerdy receptionist kid, who seemed to be an afterthought, again adding nothing. I guess he was supposed to be the Jonah Hill of this movie but he came across as simply silly. Costner himself was about what we've come to expect from him. Adequate acting and charm, but he can only go as far as the material allows.
In my opinion this was a poor rip off of "Moneyball", a far superior film. There was none of the intrigue, suspense, or insight. I never felt like I was getting the hoped for peek behind the curtain, the way I did in "Moneyball". So if you're a big Costner fan, or simply want to watch a sports movie, and have already seen "Moneyball" you can rent "Draft Day".
Sunday, May 11, 2014
Captain America: The Winter Soldier
I saw this film with my 18 year old son. Afterwards I asked him what he thought, and an he informed me that he liked it a lot. I pressed him about what he liked exactly, hoping for some teen insight. He simply replied "it was entertaining".
Well, he didn't know it at the time, but he pretty much nailed my primary criteria for liking or disliking a movie. Was I entertained or not.
Quite simply Captain America: The Winter Soldier was entertaining, all 136 minutes of it. I have to admit that in general I'm a fan of comic book movies, and movies that have to do with special powers and abilities.
The film was shot in bright futuristic color yet with a very modern "this could be real" feel. The effects were believable but not so overwhelming as to feel stilted or overshadowing the action. I particularly enjoyed a scene in which an SUV was the star. The car responded to voice commands and "helped" Nick Fury, somewhat overacted by Samuel Jackson, survive an ambush.
To nit pick I did think some of the acting was weak. In addition to SJ's hammy performance I thought Robert Redford seemed uncomfortable at best. Chris Evans and Scarlett Johansson were adequate, even if the lines they were given were a bit Greeting Card. Captain America's goody two shoes overt "I never lie" persona got to be a bit tedious.
The Winter Solider aka Bucky Barnes, played by Sebastian Stan was pretty cool. His look and cold blooded assassin code, along with a metal arm, made him the ideal villain. I did think he looked a lot more intimidating and menacing with the veil like mask, which was discarded too soon.
I know good is supposed to prevail over evil, but this was so black and white it came across as corny. I like my hero's to have at least a bit of an edge. They don't have to be Wolverine, or even Spiderman, but Captain America would make Superman seem downright sinister.
So in a nutshell, it's a fun and entertaining movie. Now bring on Spiderman.
Well, he didn't know it at the time, but he pretty much nailed my primary criteria for liking or disliking a movie. Was I entertained or not.
Quite simply Captain America: The Winter Soldier was entertaining, all 136 minutes of it. I have to admit that in general I'm a fan of comic book movies, and movies that have to do with special powers and abilities.
The film was shot in bright futuristic color yet with a very modern "this could be real" feel. The effects were believable but not so overwhelming as to feel stilted or overshadowing the action. I particularly enjoyed a scene in which an SUV was the star. The car responded to voice commands and "helped" Nick Fury, somewhat overacted by Samuel Jackson, survive an ambush.
To nit pick I did think some of the acting was weak. In addition to SJ's hammy performance I thought Robert Redford seemed uncomfortable at best. Chris Evans and Scarlett Johansson were adequate, even if the lines they were given were a bit Greeting Card. Captain America's goody two shoes overt "I never lie" persona got to be a bit tedious.
The Winter Solider aka Bucky Barnes, played by Sebastian Stan was pretty cool. His look and cold blooded assassin code, along with a metal arm, made him the ideal villain. I did think he looked a lot more intimidating and menacing with the veil like mask, which was discarded too soon.
I know good is supposed to prevail over evil, but this was so black and white it came across as corny. I like my hero's to have at least a bit of an edge. They don't have to be Wolverine, or even Spiderman, but Captain America would make Superman seem downright sinister.
So in a nutshell, it's a fun and entertaining movie. Now bring on Spiderman.
Saturday, April 26, 2014
Noah: Ah-NO!
I am not a terribly religious person and do not know the ins and outs of doctrine. Therefore, I will not comment too much about the "historical" accuracy of "Noah". However, I do think if you're going to make a movie about something from history, a story many people know, there should be some attempt to accurately reflect that history.
Darren Aronofsky has taken on quite a task Directing the life of Noah, what lead him to build an arc, the inner conflict of serving God and watching the world drown, at odds with his wife and kids, and the actual construction of said arc. He has made some very interesting movies and had fertile ground for another. His movies tend to be character studies, focusing on the human condition. I wasn't a huge fan of "Requiem for a Dream" but was absolutely blown away by "The Wrestler" and "Black Swan". None of those films were what you'd call "effects" movies but did evoke strong feelings and reactions.
I had high hopes for "Noah", given the cast and Director, but was disappointed at every turn. The look of the movie was dark and at times cluttered. Earth had a "Mad Max" feel to it, with marauding gangs destroying whatever lay in their path. Tubal-cain, the primary villain, looked like he'd have been more then comfortable in the Thunder Dome. Horribly overacted and poorly written Ray Winstone plays Tubal-cain. His primary purpose, in addition to being a general menace, is to keep reminding us that "man makes the rules and controls his own destiny". He appears to be calling Noah a sissy for not not "manning up" enough.
I'm not sure what's going on with Russell Crowe either. After amazing performances, early in his career, he seemed bored in this role. What happened to the actor who brought to life "Gladiator", "A Beautiful Mind", "Cinderella Man", "L.A. Confidential", and the overlooked but most amazing performance in "The Insider"? Now he's the worst part of "Les Miserables", and going through the motions in "Broken City" and "Man of Steel". There was no passion in his performance, no spell binding speeches, or deeply felt monologues. There was so much potential for strong scenes. I mean for a man carrying out the will of God, and in conflict with his own family, you'd think he'd have something to say. Instead, he seemed to be brooding, scowling, and moping a good bit of the time. This probably has as much to do with the writing as with the acting. When great actors give poor performances you have to look to the script and to the Director.
Sadly none of the other actors came to his aide. Jennifer Connelly who is typically breathtakingly beautiful as well as talented, was suitably bleak, matching her surroundings. Emma Watson and the other "kids" were forgettable at best. I can't think of one scene that was memorable or believable. Even Anthony Hopkins looked lost.
Finally, Aronofsky created "Watchers" who were light-based, angle like beings, originally tasked to protect the garden of Eden. When the apple was eaten, having failed, they were punished with a rocky exterior, binding them to earth. They come to Noah's aide, serving as his protector and work crew. I have no idea who designed these creatures. To me they looked like arthritic, gimpy, broken down rock Transformers. They seemed to lunge and wobble awkwardly with every stride and movement.
So in a nutshell, "Noah" seems to be a fictional historical film, poorly written, thin on plot, flatly acted, dark to watch, and long....... Enjoy.
Darren Aronofsky has taken on quite a task Directing the life of Noah, what lead him to build an arc, the inner conflict of serving God and watching the world drown, at odds with his wife and kids, and the actual construction of said arc. He has made some very interesting movies and had fertile ground for another. His movies tend to be character studies, focusing on the human condition. I wasn't a huge fan of "Requiem for a Dream" but was absolutely blown away by "The Wrestler" and "Black Swan". None of those films were what you'd call "effects" movies but did evoke strong feelings and reactions.
I had high hopes for "Noah", given the cast and Director, but was disappointed at every turn. The look of the movie was dark and at times cluttered. Earth had a "Mad Max" feel to it, with marauding gangs destroying whatever lay in their path. Tubal-cain, the primary villain, looked like he'd have been more then comfortable in the Thunder Dome. Horribly overacted and poorly written Ray Winstone plays Tubal-cain. His primary purpose, in addition to being a general menace, is to keep reminding us that "man makes the rules and controls his own destiny". He appears to be calling Noah a sissy for not not "manning up" enough.
I'm not sure what's going on with Russell Crowe either. After amazing performances, early in his career, he seemed bored in this role. What happened to the actor who brought to life "Gladiator", "A Beautiful Mind", "Cinderella Man", "L.A. Confidential", and the overlooked but most amazing performance in "The Insider"? Now he's the worst part of "Les Miserables", and going through the motions in "Broken City" and "Man of Steel". There was no passion in his performance, no spell binding speeches, or deeply felt monologues. There was so much potential for strong scenes. I mean for a man carrying out the will of God, and in conflict with his own family, you'd think he'd have something to say. Instead, he seemed to be brooding, scowling, and moping a good bit of the time. This probably has as much to do with the writing as with the acting. When great actors give poor performances you have to look to the script and to the Director.
Sadly none of the other actors came to his aide. Jennifer Connelly who is typically breathtakingly beautiful as well as talented, was suitably bleak, matching her surroundings. Emma Watson and the other "kids" were forgettable at best. I can't think of one scene that was memorable or believable. Even Anthony Hopkins looked lost.
Finally, Aronofsky created "Watchers" who were light-based, angle like beings, originally tasked to protect the garden of Eden. When the apple was eaten, having failed, they were punished with a rocky exterior, binding them to earth. They come to Noah's aide, serving as his protector and work crew. I have no idea who designed these creatures. To me they looked like arthritic, gimpy, broken down rock Transformers. They seemed to lunge and wobble awkwardly with every stride and movement.
So in a nutshell, "Noah" seems to be a fictional historical film, poorly written, thin on plot, flatly acted, dark to watch, and long....... Enjoy.
Sunday, April 13, 2014
The Grand Budapest Hotel
I really, REALLY, wanted to like this movie. The reviews were through the roof positive, both from critics and viewers alike. Wes Anderson has made a few amazing movies that I loved. In particular "The Royal Tenenbaums" and "Fantastic Mr. Fox" were lively and hilarious. To a lesser extent I enjoyed "Rushmore" and "Bottle Rocket". However, I absolutely hated "The Darjeeling Limited" and "The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou", and I didn't much care for the more recent and widely lauded "Moonrise Kingdom".
Wes Anderson, like many Directors, has a very distinctive style. Both the look and feel of his movies are uniquely his. However, unlike other great Directors, I often get the "I've seen that before" feeling while watching his films. I think my "issue" with Wes Anderson is simply that I don't get, or I don't enjoy, his sensibility or his creative vision.... no matter how much I'd like to. Just as I don't enjoy certain types of music or other forms of art that others do find enjoyable. I suspect that's part of the beauty of film in general. It is an art form and every person can decide for themselves what is good and what is not. I know, based on public reviews, that I'm in the minority with my opinion, but I simply didn't enjoy this movie. His aesthetic is lost on me.
The film takes place in an imaginary country and in an imaginary hotel, where M. Gustave, played by Ralph Fiennes, is the concierge. Zero, his protege and Lobby Boy, is well played by Tony Revolori. There was good chemistry between the two. The mentoring relationship between them was often insightful, sweet, and authentic. I don't think I can sum up the plot adequately and I'm not sure the plot really matters. It's just a collection of mini adventures and absurd moments told mostly in flash back. Wes Anderson continues to command the respect of A-list actors, who seem to flock to his movies.... much in the way they do to Woody Allen films. He has he favorite collection of actors such as Bill Murray, Owen Wilson, Jason Schwartzman and Edward Norton. This time he adds F. Murry Abraham, Harvey Keitel, Jeff Goldblum, Jude Law, Adrien Brody, Willem Defoe and others. It was fun to see these great actors in such quirky roles, and I did find many small moments to be charming and entertaining. There just weren't enough of those moment.
One of my issues with this film, and other Anderson movies as well, is that his style or artistic vision doesn't seem to further the story or enhance the characters. Artsy for it's own sake feels hollow and pointless to me. The eccentric dress, the odd physical characteristics, the combination of cartoon and live action, seem more distracting then amusing to me. The absurdity of Zero using a pencil to draw on a thin line pencil mustache? Do we need to see an aging Harvey Keitel shirtless?
My other main issue is that the movie just felt plain silly most of the time. Not the kind of silly that makes you laugh, but more the silly that makes you groan, or maybe just scratch your head. I saw this film in the theater and I don't think there was a single outburst of laughter. I did chuckle a time or two and smiled here and there, but it was far from hilarious. I understand that the film is shot like a cartoon mixed with live action. I appreciated what he was trying to do, and even found some of the blending to be interesting and fun. But in the end, there were far too many silly moments. For example, there are convicts are in need of tools to help them tunnel out and escape. M. Gustave has tools smuggled in. When shown diligently, and seriously, using the tools, we see that they are tiny. Little hammers and picks no bigger then the palm of your hand.
Based on the number of A-list actors who seem eager to work with him there has to be something to his movies that I seem to be missing.
Wes Anderson, like many Directors, has a very distinctive style. Both the look and feel of his movies are uniquely his. However, unlike other great Directors, I often get the "I've seen that before" feeling while watching his films. I think my "issue" with Wes Anderson is simply that I don't get, or I don't enjoy, his sensibility or his creative vision.... no matter how much I'd like to. Just as I don't enjoy certain types of music or other forms of art that others do find enjoyable. I suspect that's part of the beauty of film in general. It is an art form and every person can decide for themselves what is good and what is not. I know, based on public reviews, that I'm in the minority with my opinion, but I simply didn't enjoy this movie. His aesthetic is lost on me.
The film takes place in an imaginary country and in an imaginary hotel, where M. Gustave, played by Ralph Fiennes, is the concierge. Zero, his protege and Lobby Boy, is well played by Tony Revolori. There was good chemistry between the two. The mentoring relationship between them was often insightful, sweet, and authentic. I don't think I can sum up the plot adequately and I'm not sure the plot really matters. It's just a collection of mini adventures and absurd moments told mostly in flash back. Wes Anderson continues to command the respect of A-list actors, who seem to flock to his movies.... much in the way they do to Woody Allen films. He has he favorite collection of actors such as Bill Murray, Owen Wilson, Jason Schwartzman and Edward Norton. This time he adds F. Murry Abraham, Harvey Keitel, Jeff Goldblum, Jude Law, Adrien Brody, Willem Defoe and others. It was fun to see these great actors in such quirky roles, and I did find many small moments to be charming and entertaining. There just weren't enough of those moment.
One of my issues with this film, and other Anderson movies as well, is that his style or artistic vision doesn't seem to further the story or enhance the characters. Artsy for it's own sake feels hollow and pointless to me. The eccentric dress, the odd physical characteristics, the combination of cartoon and live action, seem more distracting then amusing to me. The absurdity of Zero using a pencil to draw on a thin line pencil mustache? Do we need to see an aging Harvey Keitel shirtless?
My other main issue is that the movie just felt plain silly most of the time. Not the kind of silly that makes you laugh, but more the silly that makes you groan, or maybe just scratch your head. I saw this film in the theater and I don't think there was a single outburst of laughter. I did chuckle a time or two and smiled here and there, but it was far from hilarious. I understand that the film is shot like a cartoon mixed with live action. I appreciated what he was trying to do, and even found some of the blending to be interesting and fun. But in the end, there were far too many silly moments. For example, there are convicts are in need of tools to help them tunnel out and escape. M. Gustave has tools smuggled in. When shown diligently, and seriously, using the tools, we see that they are tiny. Little hammers and picks no bigger then the palm of your hand.
Based on the number of A-list actors who seem eager to work with him there has to be something to his movies that I seem to be missing.
Sunday, March 30, 2014
Divergent- Teen Strong
My youngest child is an avid reader. She's been anxiously awaiting this movie for months, having devoured all three books of the series. She's 12 and loved the film, informing me that is was close enough to the books and worth the wait.
Shailene Woodley, who amazed in "The Descendants" and "The Spectacular Now" is off to a great start to her career. She plays Tris, a teenager in this futuristic adventure. The world is regulated by five different factions, each championing a different virtue and serving a different function in society, without any cross over. Abnegation is all about selfless service to others, Dauntless is about bravery and physical strength, Erudite is the intelligentsia valuing academics and logic, Candor is about honesty and honor, and finally Amity is about peace and love (and farming). At a certain age each citizen if forced to choose a faction. When Tris chooses Dauntless, after having grown up in Abnegation, she faces her future alone in her new tribe, without contact with family or friends.
The world created by director Neil Burger is in some ways modern and futuristic, and in others a barren, run down, version of our current world. The future Chicago is surrounded by a wall, protecting us from some undisclosed threat. The buildings appear bombed out, the trains are rickety, and much of the clothing tatters. Yet there is sophisticated machinery and weaponry. The look and feel of this movie is consistent and interesting. I did find it odd that there seem to be no old people in the future. Ashley Judd, playing Tris's mother, was just about the oldest person on the planet.
My typical criticism about action movies is the lack of character and plot development. The action starts too quickly, without giving us time to get to know and care about the characters. The more we know, the more we care, and the more the action matters. "Divergent" was completely opposite. It felt as though the entire movie was a build up. We spent hours getting to know the characters, watching them grow and learn. Tris transitions from a meek girl to a strong and brave warrior, while falling in love with her mentor, Four, played by Theo James. The two share a wonderful chemistry and it's easy to root for them. However, after an entertaining set up that I did enjoy, the final action seems to fizzle. There is no true suspense and no satisfying payoff in the end. It's almost as if the director suddenly realized he already had two hours in the can but hadn't yet shot the final act, and only had 20 minutes left to wrap it up.
While there was an overly thorough and entertaining character development, I didn't feel that much attention was given to plot development. I do know that basically one faction was trying to overthrow another, under the guise of protecting the collective society. However, I'm still not exactly sure what the one faction did to put society at risk or why they had to be eradicated. The reasons for much of the action was vague at best. I suspect this is all made more clear in the books.
Overall this was an enjoyable film and I'm looking forward to a sequel. It was entertaining and well paced until the end. I do think it'll be enjoyed more by a younger audience.
Shailene Woodley, who amazed in "The Descendants" and "The Spectacular Now" is off to a great start to her career. She plays Tris, a teenager in this futuristic adventure. The world is regulated by five different factions, each championing a different virtue and serving a different function in society, without any cross over. Abnegation is all about selfless service to others, Dauntless is about bravery and physical strength, Erudite is the intelligentsia valuing academics and logic, Candor is about honesty and honor, and finally Amity is about peace and love (and farming). At a certain age each citizen if forced to choose a faction. When Tris chooses Dauntless, after having grown up in Abnegation, she faces her future alone in her new tribe, without contact with family or friends.
The world created by director Neil Burger is in some ways modern and futuristic, and in others a barren, run down, version of our current world. The future Chicago is surrounded by a wall, protecting us from some undisclosed threat. The buildings appear bombed out, the trains are rickety, and much of the clothing tatters. Yet there is sophisticated machinery and weaponry. The look and feel of this movie is consistent and interesting. I did find it odd that there seem to be no old people in the future. Ashley Judd, playing Tris's mother, was just about the oldest person on the planet.
My typical criticism about action movies is the lack of character and plot development. The action starts too quickly, without giving us time to get to know and care about the characters. The more we know, the more we care, and the more the action matters. "Divergent" was completely opposite. It felt as though the entire movie was a build up. We spent hours getting to know the characters, watching them grow and learn. Tris transitions from a meek girl to a strong and brave warrior, while falling in love with her mentor, Four, played by Theo James. The two share a wonderful chemistry and it's easy to root for them. However, after an entertaining set up that I did enjoy, the final action seems to fizzle. There is no true suspense and no satisfying payoff in the end. It's almost as if the director suddenly realized he already had two hours in the can but hadn't yet shot the final act, and only had 20 minutes left to wrap it up.
While there was an overly thorough and entertaining character development, I didn't feel that much attention was given to plot development. I do know that basically one faction was trying to overthrow another, under the guise of protecting the collective society. However, I'm still not exactly sure what the one faction did to put society at risk or why they had to be eradicated. The reasons for much of the action was vague at best. I suspect this is all made more clear in the books.
Overall this was an enjoyable film and I'm looking forward to a sequel. It was entertaining and well paced until the end. I do think it'll be enjoyed more by a younger audience.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)