Saturday, June 2, 2012

Men in Black III (2012)



Genre: Action, Adventure, Comedy, Sci-Fi

Released: May 25, 2012




My Rating:  
(Click here for more info on my rating scale)



Men in Black III is not a great movie or anything, but it's okay.  It's smart, funny, goofy, entertaining, witty, and, in my opinion, just as good as the first Men in Black movie.





It's been fifteen years since the entertaining first Men in Black film, and ten years since the flawed yet still slightly enjoyable sequel Men in Black II.  Now comes the third installment in the series, Men in Black III.  Of course, this sequel, like any sequel of this kind, especially having been made a decade after its last predecessor, gave me a few doubts before watching it.  However, I finally saw it in the theater today, and I enjoyed it.  Agent J (Will Smith) and Agent K (Tommy Lee Jones) have returned to the screen, and they deliver some nice and witty entertainment.

The film starts out on a prison on the moon, called Lunarmax (which is next to the original lander and American flag from the Apollo mission), from which the antagonist, Boris the Animal, escapes.  In 1969, Boris encountered Agent K, who shot his arm off and had him arrested, and also set up some sort of defense system to protect the earth from any invasions by Boris' alien race.  Boris, having escaped from prison, travels back in time to this incident and kills K, altering the MIB agency and putting earth in danger (the protection system no longer exists - Boris stopped it from getting set up in the past).  So now, in the present, Agent J must travel back in time to prevent Boris from causing all this and restore the real timeline.  There's more to the story, but I won't spoil it.

Luckily, Men in Black III isn't just a typical modern generic blockbuster.  I even had a feeling that the movie was going to try and skate by with great effects but a thin story, but luckily it didn't.  Yes, it is a blockbuster, but it does retain the imaginatively and wit of the original Men in Black.  The movie has a lot of the tone that the original MIB films had, and some things haven't changed, and a lot of things have.  For example, the character Zed has recently died, and female Agent O has taken his place.  Even Danny Elfman's music is a bit different, although it does retain the main themes of the series.  The special effects are better than ever, and we even have a few new things of technology, such as interesting and awesome single-wheeled vehicles (as seen in the still above), and (obviously) the time travel technology.  And best of all are the characters and their relationships and interaction, which is where the real magic, and humor, of the movie is.  In his journey in this movie, J meets the younger K of 1969 (played by Josh Brolin).  Another character that I like is Griff, an alien who is able to see 4-dimensionally, and can see the many possible timelines that the future can follow.  We even have a brief scene at the end of the film that adds a new and somewhat emotional dimension to the relationship of J and K, but I won't spoil it.

Like I said in my review of The Avengers, I'm now going to the theater more often.  I started of my summer with The Avengers, and now I've seen my second film for this summer.  Men in Black III does have a few flaws, but they're not worth discussing, and they really didn't bother me.  The 106 running length of the movie pretty much flew by.  The film is not great or anything (it's definitely only a three-star film, in my opinion), it's only okay, but it's pretty entertaining.  Performances are good, and the actors really bring out their characters.  Danny Elfman's music score is good.  And, like I said before, the special effects are great, and they contribute effectively to the story and the film overall.  The technology in the film is nice, and the aliens and monsters, especially the villain, were well designed and excellently goofy and bizarre, like they're supposed to be.  And yes the film is a comedy, and it lives up to that name - the humor is good and smart.  As for the time travel, it's not completely accurate, but that's typical in this movie, and it can be forgiven because of it's wit and likable characters, among other things.  This sequel is unnecessary, yes, and it could have been disappointing, but luckily it wasn't.

It may sound like I loved the movie, but I didnt.  I just though it was okay.  But still, it's smart, funny, goofy, entertaining, witty, and, in my opinion, just as good as the first Men in Black movie.  I'm glad I saw it in the theater.




Cast and Credits:


Agent J: Will Smith
Agent K: Tommy Lee Jones
Young Agent K: Josh Brolin
Boris the Animal: Jemaine Clement
Agent O: Emma Thompson
Griffin: Michael Stuhlbarg
Young Agent O: Alive Eve

Columbia pictures presents
A film directed by Barry Sonnenfeld
Music by Danny Elfman
Running time: 106 min.

Rated PG-13 for sci-fi action violence, and brief suggestive content

Thursday, May 31, 2012

How to Train Your Dragon (2010)





Genre: Adventure, Animation, Comedy, Fantasy

Release Date: March 26, 2010




My Rating:      
(Click here for more info on my rating scale)

How to Train Your Dragon a great family film, it's very entertaining, touching, good-hearted, and visually beautiful.  It combines elements of The Iron Giant and Avatar, and breathes new life into old, exhausted clichés.



I never saw How to Train Your Dragon in the theater.  However, I did watch it when it came out on DVD.  Having not heard much about the film and not knowing anything about its story or any of that, I didn't have any expectations prior to watching it.  However, I ended up loving it.  In fact, in my opinion, DreamWorks has surpassed Pixar with this film.

The story is set in and around a Viking village up north called Berk, which often gets attacked by dragons.  The protagonist is Hiccup (Jay Baruchel), a teenage Viking who wants to be like his father and the other Vikings and wants to kill dragons.  Unfortunately, however, while he's smart and nice, he's scrawny and weak, not to mention socially awkward.  And he often ends up inadvertently causing trouble.  Because of this, he's pretty much considered a loser is his society.  Early one morning during a dragon raid (the opening scene of the movie), Hiccup goes out and shoots down a young dragon, specifically a Night Fury, but nobody believes he actually did so.  He goes out and finds the dragon he shot down.  It's a young dragon, about Hiccup's age, but Hiccup can't bring himself to kill it, so he frees it.  He and the dragon, whom he calls Toothless (due to his retractable teeth), begin to develop a forbidden friendship, and Hiccup realizes that his people have misjudged the species, and that there's more to the creatures than he and his people originally thought.

The story is very simple, predictable, derivative, and clichéd, and it's a total retread of basic cinema clichés, but it works, and I found it entertaining and immersive.  There is not much depth, story development, or character development, but it's still pretty effective as it is.  Also, the wonderful animation helps contribute to the emotion and energy of the story.  So, overall, to sum this up, this film works in many of the same ways that James Cameron's Avatar worked, and in fact it works much better.  They both consist of simple, predictable, and clichéd stories.  They don't have much depth, story development, or character development (like I just said above).  However, the stories are sufficient, well-structured, well-paced, and coherent, and they flow and make sense.  The characters are not developed much, but they are sufficient and very likable.  Also, both use brilliant visuals and keen detail to tell their stories and bring emotion into them.  Although I do have to admit that HTTYD has a somewhat better script and better dialogue.  Also, like Avatar, HTTYD doesn't go much into the depth and backgrounds of the characters, or much into any of that stuff, but a lot of that stuff - character background, personality, relationships, etc. - are evident in the detail.  So, given all of this, I think it would be safe to say that, in many ways, HTTYD is the Avatar of 2010.

Now, HTTYD doesn't have a new world, like Pandora, but it does have beautiful scenery all the same. Also, it has the lovable dragon Toothless, who is a full character in the film.  He was excellently designed, and is very cute and lovable.  In addition to excellent physical design, has a great personality, is smart, and has an excellent balance between that of a person and that of an animal.  He is a great character, and, in fact, the most memorable character in the film.  The voice actors all put on good performances, and they really help bring out their characters with their voice.  Jay Baruchel did a very good job as Hiccup.  A lot of people say that his voice is annoying, but I personally disagree.  I actually kind of like his voice, and it's just right for the character in the movie, Hiccup, who is very likable.  The other voice actors did an equally good job with their characters too, such as Gerard Butler as Stoick the Vast, America Ferrera as the likable and beautiful Astrid (Hiccup's love interest), Jonah Hill as Snotlout, and some others.

Like I said before, the animation is absolutely beautiful.  John Powell composed and excellent music score for the film.  As for the target audience: everyone - in many ways, it's like a kids movie, but in others it's pretty mature.  Also, being a good comedy, it has some good humor.  But it doesn't let the humor get too abundant.  The humor is spaced out throughout the film and given at appropriate intervals, and is balanced excellently with the story, drama, emotion, and moral messages, much like The Iron Giant was.  In fact, the film has a lot of similarities to The Iron Giant, and it works for many of the same reasons that movie works.  Everything about the movie is very well balanced.

Overall, I love this movie.  It's a great family film, it's very entertaining, touching, good-hearted, and visually beautiful.  It combines elements of The Iron Giant and Avatar, and breathes new life into old, exhausted clichés.  Also, it has great staying power - it's one of those movies, like Ghostbusters, that never really gets old on repeated viewings.  Unfortunately, DreamWorks plans to make a sequel to it.  Wow, way to go, DreamWorks, ruining the best film you've ever made.  Please don't make that sequel.  This is the type of movie that's just best left alone.  Leave a good thing alone.

One final note: I've only seen this movie in 2-D.  I've never seen it in 3-D, and guess what?  I don't want to.  Aside from the usual fact that 3-D is unnecessary, this movie is so awesome that it doesn't need 3-D.





Cast and Credits:
Hiccup: Jay Baruchel
Astrid: America Ferrera
Stoick: Gerard Butler
Gobber: Craig Ferguson
Snotlout: Jonah Hill
Ruffnut: Kristen Wiig
Tuffnut: T. J. Miller
Fishlegs: Christopher Mintz-Plasse
Spitelout: David Tennant


DreamWorks Animation presents
A film directed by Dean DeBlois and Chris Sanders
Music by John Powell
Running time: 1 hour and 38 minutes

Rated PG for sequences of intense action and some scary images, and brief mild language

Sunday, May 20, 2012

The Avengers (2012)





Released: May 4, 2012

Genre: Action, Adventure, Sci-Fi




My Rating:      


In my opinion, The Avengers is a pretty good and entertaining movie, and it's a good theatrical experience.  James Berardinelli wrote in his review, "The Avengers kicks ass."  I agree.




I saw The Avengers on Thursday (May 17), one day after I finished my second semester of my freshman year of college.  I don't go to the theater that often, but I do plan on seeing a lot more movies in the theater, mostly sci-fi, over the summer.  In fact, I'm already planning on seeing Men in Black III and Prometheus, among other things.  And so I have begun my summer with The Avengers; to reward myself for finishing the semester, and to relax after studying for and taking my final exams, I went and saw this movie in the theater.  Personally, I'm not much of a superhero fan, but I quite enjoyed the movie.  In my opinion, The Avengers is a pretty good and entertaining movie, and it's a good theatrical experience.  James Berardinelli wrote in his review, "The Avengers kicks ass."  I agree.

Over the last few years, five movies have been made - Iron Man, Iron Man 2, Thor, The Incredible Hulk, and Captain America - which have built up to, and became prequels to, The Avengers.  There were even things in those movies that hinted at them all being connected, and now this movie confirms it.  The Avengers are all assembled in this film: Iron Man, Captain America, Thor, the Hulk, the Black Widow, and Hawkeye.  Yes, they're all played by the same actors, and they have the backgrounds that have been established for most of them in the "prequels" mentioned above.  The villain in the movie is Loki, who was the villain in Thor, and who now plans on using the Tesseract, a powerful energy cube, to open a portal to another part of the universe and attack the earth with a powerful army.  The Avengers are called together by Nick Fury, who runs an agency called S. H. I. E. L. D., and they must stop Loki from carrying out his plans.  There's more to the story, but I won't give any more away.

I'm sure there are things that can be criticized about the movie.  However, it's really not worth it, given there are so many good things about the movie, and the entire experience is very enjoyable, so I'm not going to bother with an in-depth review/criticism.  In a way, the film is sort of critic-proof (for lack of a better term).  So here's my advice: don't dissect or overly analyze the movie.  Just sit back and enjoy it.  That's not to say that it's a total Transformers-like junk movie or anything.  It's actually halfway decent.

The actors put on a good performance and really bring out their characters, and the interactions between the characters are good - the gathering of the different superheroes is handled pretty well.  The story is pretty solid, and it's coherent and appropriately paced.  The visual and special effects and action scenes are great.  Alan Silvestri composed an effective score for the movie.  Overall, the movie is halfway decent, it's smart, and it's entertaining, and, unlike many junk films like Michael Bay's, it actually allows for sufficient blockbuster emotional involvement, and it has a good, wise balance between story and action/effects.  The two-and-a-half hour running length of the movie pretty much zipped by for me.  So, while I don't think this movie is great, it's definitely entertaining and worth seeing, and it's a very good theater experience.




Cast and Credits:
Tony Stark / Iron Man: Robert Downey, Jr.
Steve Rogers / Captain America: Chris Evans
Thor: Chris Hemsworth
Bruce Banner / The Hulk: Mark Ruffalo
Loki: Tom Hiddleston
Clint Barton / Hawkeye: Jeremy Renner
Natasha Romanoff / Black Widow: Scarlett Johansson
Nick Fury: Samuel L. Jackson

Paramount Pictures presents
A film directed by Joss Whedon
Running time: 143 min.

Rated PG-13 for intense sequences of sic-fi violence and action throughout, and a mild drug reference

Wednesday, May 16, 2012

Avatar (2009)











Genre: Action, Adventure, Fantasy, Romance, Sci-Fi

Release Date: December 18, 2009

My Rating:         
(Click here for more info on my rating scale) 



Overall, I think Avatar is an okay movie, with a beatiful new world, an okay story, likable characters, good themes, some heart, and good entertainment.


I missed the initial theatrical release of Avatar in Devember of 2009.  I finally bought the DVD the following July, and watched the movie on my television at home.  Yes, I had heard a few various things about the movie, about the hype surrounding it, and positives and negatives from both lovers and haters.  The big overall negative thing I've heard is that the the visual effects are brilliant and revolutionary, but all the rest is garbage - simple predictable, unoriginal, boring, etc., and a ripoff of Pocahontas and Dances With Wolves - and even the visuals are far less impressive if not seen on the big screen and in 3-D.  However, when I watched it that July on my television, I was quite blown away.  I even gave the movie a full four star rating.  Between that time and now, my liking for it has decreased.  Well, how I feel about the story, characters, and everything else about the movie is pretty much exactly the same as how I felt about it when I saw it the first time, but to a lesser degree (I've changed my rating to a three-star rating); instead of loving it, I personally like it a bit, and I just think it's okay overall.

The story is set in the year 2154, and it involves an RDA mission to an earth-sized moon called Pandora.   We enter this new world through the eyes of Jake Sully, a paraplegic ex-marine who goes on this mission on short notice, with no training, to fill in for his murdered twin brother.  The RDA is strip-mining the planet for a special ore, and the natives, the Na'vi, are not happy at all about the strip-mining.  For a while, the humans, especially Dr. Grace Augustine (Sigourney Weaver) have had some success in interacting with the Na’vi via “avatars”, remote-controlled bodies that work just like the robots in Surrogates, but instead of robots, these are living, breathing, organic bodies. Grace has even succeeded in teaching some of the natives the natives some English.  However, relations between the natives and the human have turned bad, and all interactions between them stopped.

Out in the jungle, after accidentally being separated from the group he was with, Jake meets the natives after his life is saved by Neytiri, the princess of the local Na’vi tribe, the Omaticaya.  This pleases Grace, Quaritch, and Selfridge.  For Grace, this is a way to get back into Na’vi society, and the military and corporate leaders of the operation - Colonel Miles Quaritch (Stephen Lang) and Parker Selfridge (Giovanni Ribisi), respectively - see it as an opportunity to get the natives to move out of their current home so that they can mine the ore there.  The Omaticaya’s lifestyle is based around nature, respecting and living in harmony with their environment and all the living creatures they share it with.  Jake learns the ways of these people, and he falls in love the new world, the Omaticaya tribe, and especially Neytiri (she is sexy and good-hearted, an excellent mix).

The truth is, we’ve all seen this story a million times, but never like this.  The story could be considered a sci-fi version of Pocahontas or Dances With Wolves, set in a new fantasy world.  Just like in Star Wars (the original trilogy, Eps. IV - VI; not the prequels), Avatar brings some new life into old clichés, and it has not-fully-developed yet likable characters.  In my opinion, the original Star Wars trilogy does a much better job at these things, but Avatar (again, in my opinion) does an okay job at it.  James Cameron also borrows ideas from some of his own previous films, especially Aliens (military/technology) and Titanic (the love story, and the way the movie is structured).  Just as in Dances, our military underdog hero is transformed by his experiences and eventually ends up fighting back against his own people to protect the new world and culture he has learned to call his home.

Let's get the obvious out of the way: the movie is a breakthrough in special effects.  The CGI is brilliant, visually stunning, and almost flawless.  In fact, the movie goes beyond having great visual and special effects.  It is set in, and introduces, a wonderful new world.  What we see of the world in the movie is mostly jungle, but it's very beautiful.  In many ways, the jungle looks very much like a jungle here on earth, but twice the size.  It has a lot of earth-jungle-like characteristics.  However, there are also a lot of creative and exotic characteristics in the jungle as well, and even within the familiar characteristics as well.  The result of the mixing of the familiar and new characteristics is a wonderful and exotic new world.  For lack of a better term, it's a visual orgasm, especially during the night scenes.

Cameron brilliantly designed ecosystems and individual species, and he gave them all names and whatnot (which can be found in Avatar fan material - although I really have no interest because I'm not a fan).  And everything is connected by bioelectrical signals forming a connection controlled by an all-great consciousness (or deity) that the natives call Eywa, who protects the balance of life on the planet.  No, it's not superstitious, it's actually in the biology of the planet (well, part of it, at least).  Overall, it's something we've all seen before, yet never seen before at the same time; simultaneously old and new.  And it's all portrayed excellently with brilliant scope and spectacle.  In fact, I felt almost like I was actually looking at a new world instead of just CGI.

The same is true about the natives, and the avatars.  These are some of the best CGI characters I've ever seen.  Like the new world, they are portrayed excellently with the CGI, and they look real, and they look like individuals.  The natives are humanoids, but they're ten to twelve feet tall, blue-skinned, and golden-eyed, and they even have tails.  They even have a physical bond on their ponytails that they actually use to connect with their horses, their birds, and Eywa.  Overall, they are an interesting blend of human, alien, and feline.  The same is true about the avatars, except for a few minor differences, such as the avatars having five fingers on each hand and the natives only having four.  The Na'vi were well designed, especially Neytiri, who is absolutely beautiful.  I found Jake and Neytiri to be very likable characters, and a great couple, and their combined physical appearance (Jake in his avatar, of course) and personalities give them a likability that pierces through the special effects.

That's not to say that everything about the film is perfect.  The story is extremely basic, and it's extremely predictable, clichéd, and derivative, and even a bit corny.  The characters, aside from Jake, Neytiri, and Grace, are pretty shallow, especially the villains, who are very one-dimensional, almost cartoonishly evil.  Also, the dialogue is very clichéd and a bit corny, and it's almost like something out of a kids movie.  However, despite these flaws, the movie works.  The story is simple, predictable, etc., but it's coherent, it flows, it's well-structured, it's well-paced, and it's effective and it works.  In fact, I’m going to quote James Berardinelli, "the traditional film elements - story, character, editing, theme, emotional resonance, etc. - are presented with sufficient expertise to make even the 2D version an engrossing 2 1/2-hour experience."  I pretty much agree.

The characters, although lacking a bit in development (mostly the villains), are effective, and they felt real to me instead of wooden.  The villains, especially the main one, Quaritch, are very thin, yes, but they did evoke the hate I needed to feel for them in the second half of the movie.  The minor good characters are very thin too, but they are definitely a bit better than the villains, and they are effective, too.  And best of all, we have Jake, Neytiri, and Grace, who, although, still lacking somewhat in development, are developed adequately, and are very effective, in my opinion, and offer true emotion and likability.  They should have been better, but they are dimensional and likable up to a point at which I was able to have a sufficient emotional attachment to them and the relationships between them.  Even the dialogue, weak as it is, is tolerable, and it gets its job done.

Also, the new world isn't simply in the movie to look nice.  In my opinion, it actually feels alive, and it's pretty much a character (and a story) itself in the film.  I must admit that without the new world and great CGI, I would have found the movie to be boring, flat, emotionless, and dumb, despite the coherent and well-structured storyline.  But with the visuals and new world, I actually enjoyed the movie, and I found the story to be okay.   I want to make it clear that I'm not stupid, and I was not fooled or anything; I was not duped or blinded by the visuals.  I just can't stare at good CGI for two-and-a-half hours.  I would be very bored.  I felt that Cameron actually used the visuals and new world to evoke emotion, and also used them as part of the story itself.  In terms of the script, the storytelling is not the best - it's basic, by the numbers, etc. - but I also felt that a lot of the storytelling was within these great visuals and the world, and in the way it was combined into the story.   The effects helped me get immersed into the new world and helped me care about the characters and the story and everything.

Also, I felt that a lot of what made the story enjoyable was within the simplicity, and in the details.  And, while a lot of things in the movie that were not explained should have been explained and allowed to shine and whatnot, the movie does hint at it, and at its depth and subtext, in the details (and yes, while I personally don't feel that the movie has all that much depth, I do feel that it does have some, and that it's not shallow or flat).  And, in my opinion, while the film doesn't have much intelligence, it does have some, which very few other movies like this have.  It's actually a halfway decent blockbuster overall, and it does not contain the obnoxiousness and imbecility of films like Michael Bay's films.  Unlike those films, Avatar actually has some heart and soul, and characters that the audience can care about.  Also, the film has great sound - the sound quality, sound effects, sound editing, etc. is all great.  I also liked the score that James Horner composed for this movie, which, in my opinion, is some of the best work of Horner's career.  These sound aspects also added a bit to the emotion and immersive effects of the story.

Another thing I like about Avatar are it's moral and political messages, and it's excellent use of symbolism throughout.  Some of the messages seem simple and cliché - environmentalism, etc. - but they're strong and true.  "Avatar" shows, through a fictional tale, just how strong and important these environmental messages are - the extremes to which they can drive people, both good and bad, and the choices people can make on what to keep and what to destroy.  The Na'vi symbolize what can result from respecting and living in harmony with the world, and the good things that result.  The humans, on the other hand, made some very bad and arrogant choices on that matter and are suffering the consequences back on earth.  We, in real life, are headed exactly the same way if we don't wake up soon and start making some good, wise choices and start fixing things.  This is not the only major theme though.  There are also other major themes/messages in the movie, all very well symbolized.  One of these themes/messages is that who one is is not completely decided by your physical self (body, etc.), but by you, your spirit; this can be summarized as follows: "spirit is all that matters."  Another one is the difference between seeing a new world from the outside, through a window, a TV, etc. as opposed to getting out there and experiencing the world - exploring, feeling, tasting, experiencing, etc. -for what it really is.  There are also lots of little themes as well, which can be seen if you look for them (again, details).

Remember, what I'm writing here is just how I personally felt about the film, and it's in no way related to my intelligence (I'm not stupid - I'm smart - but that's completely irrelevant here).  Now for the overall summary (based on my own opinion, of course).  From all of what I've said above, it may sound like I love the movie.  I don't.  I just think it's okay.  Visually, James Cameron’s Avatar is amazing, in both 2-D and 3-D.  It's a visual orgasm.  This CGI is used excellently to portray the Na’vi and the new world in the movie, Pandora, which is the true star/character in the movie and helps bring the story of the movie to life.  The story effectively combines elements of Pocahontas, Titanic, Braveheart, Star Wars, and even The Matrix.  A lot of haters feel that there are nothing really memorable about the film.  I disagree; I didn't find anything about the film as memorable as, say, Star Wars, but, in my opinion, there are quite a few memorable things about it (relating to the new world, characters, story, etc.).  And overall, while I don't think the movie is great or anything, it's definitely unforgettable, and it has a distinct uniqueness about it (in a good way).  A lot of haters also feel that in addition to unoriginality, the film was bad within itself, namely, the the story was not told poorly.  Again, I disagree, but hey, that's just my opinion.  Yes, there are definitely several things that can be criticized - the simple storyline, the clichés, the hammy dialogue, and the one-dimensional villans - but a lot can be said in defense of the movie's story aspects.  Besides, these flaws are typical of blockbusters (which is what this film is), and they're not even that bad; and, like I said, it's effective (in my opinion, anyway).

Also, like Titanic, while the story is almost completely predictable, there are also smaller things along the way that aren't.  Like I said before, we’ve all seen this story a million times, but never like this.  Despite being a bit lame, I actually did enjoy the story somewhat, and I did feel that it had some emotion, enough to make it entertaining, and with likeable protagonists (Jake and Neytiri), and good moral messages (they're extreme, but our society really needs these messages).  The film is not as good or emotional as it should be, but it’s still sufficiently emotional and entertaining to make the film enjoyable even in 2-D as a blockbuster.  But I do hope that if Cameron makes the sequels, which I think he should'nt do, the scripts will be better - he shouldn't try to scrape by with another blockbuster.

I thought the movie was okay.  I found it sufficiently emotional and entertaining.  However, the movie that revolutionizes cinema??  No way.





Cast and Credits:
Jake Sully: Sam Worthington
Neytiri: Zoë Saldana
Dr. Grace Augustine: Sigourney Weaver
Colonel Miles Quaritch: Stephen Lang
Norm Spellman: Joel David Moore
Trudy Chacon: Michelle Rodriguez
Parker Selfridge: Giovanni Ribisi
Mo’at: CCH Pounder
Tsu’tey: Laz Alonso
Eytukan: Wes Studi
Dr. Max Patel: Dileep Rao

Twentieth Century Fox presents
A film Written and Directed by James Cameron
Produced by James Cameron and John Landau
Music by James Horner
Running time: 2 hours and 42 minutes

Rated PG-13 for intense epic battle sequences and warfare, sensuality, language and some smoking

Monday, May 14, 2012

District 9 (2009)



Genre: Action, Sci-Fi, Thriller

Released: August 14, 2009





My Rating:      




To put it mildly, District 9 is a smart, entertaining, creative, and emotional sci-fi film.  I wouldn't say that it's great, but it's pretty darn good.



Personally, I am a bit of a science fiction lover.  I have seen tons of sic-fi films, from fun and lighthearted popcorn flicks to deep and emotional ones.  I've seen clichéd and basic-formula ones, and ones that have a distinct uniqueness about them - new worlds, unique scientific concepts, memorable scientific technology and what not, and much more; and, best of all, unique twists on stories.  District 9 is one such unique science fiction film.  It has several obvious clichéd and borrowed aspects, but overall it's an original and creative film, and pretty memorable, too.  I didn't see it when it came out, and, in fact, I had never even heard of it until sometime last year.  So, after reading a bit about the film, yet still not knowing much about it, I decided to give it a try, and I'm glad I did.

District 9 eludes many expectations of a sic-fi audience.  The film is set in an alternate timeline, where, in 1982, a spaceship appeared over Johannesburg, South Africa (instead of a usual sci-fi setting).  The aliens on board, instead of being evil and strong with an urge do kill, are helpless and in weak condition.  The aliens, unable to operate the ship anymore, are taken to a temporary camp on the ground underneath where the ship is hovering.  Unfortunately, due to the the high population of these aliens, and to typical political flaws, over the years, the temporary camp eventually turns into a giant slum segregated from the rest of Johannesburg.  Also, the initial welcome wears off, and humans begin to discriminate against the aliens, nicknamed "prawns" due to their ugly appearance.  Finally, in 2010, the Multi-National United munitions corporation is sent to evict these prawns from the slum, with Wikus van der Merwe in charge.  In the process, Wikus is exposed to a strange alien chemical, at which point his personal nightmare begins and everything changes drastically for him, and the story really starts to get going and unfold.  I won't give anything else away about the story after this last thing: along the way, Wikus befriends an alien, and his small son.

District 9 combines dosages of the man-befreinds-other-race-and-turns-against-his-own-people theme, the don't-judge-a-book-by-it's-cover moral, political elements, elements of racism, segregation, and discrimination, and a bit of E. T. and some other themes.  It uses its running time wisely and tells its story very effectively.  Some of the film is in documentary-style, and part of it is in regular style, and there are even some shots seen here and there from security cameras, and things like that.  Visually, the film has a gritty, ugly look about it, adds brilliantly to the tone of the film, and gives it a bit of a more realistic feel to it.  Even the aliens themselves are pretty ugly, but they are very well portrayed with top-notch CGI.  In fact, all of the special effects in the film are very good.  Clinton Shorter composed a very effective score for this film.  It's not a great score or anything, but it does help bring out the tone and emotion of the film, just like the special effects do.

There is not a single actor in the film whom I have heard of before seeing this film.  However, the actors' performances are pretty good.  The actors really bring out their characters very well.  I liked the characters.  They are strong and dynamic.  Wikus is a good protagonist, and I really cared about him while watching the film.  I also came to like the aliens he befriends - they may be ugly, but I really felt true emotion for them and their inner characters, who they really are inside, especially the big one (the father).  I know hardly anything about director Neil Blomkamp, but he did a very good job with this film.  There are definitely some things that he could have done better, and the overall film was not great, but Blomkamp did a good job overall, and gave us a pretty good film.

So, overall, while District 9 is, in my opinion, not quite an iconic or classic science fiction film, it's still pretty unique, and it has some pretty memorable things about it.  It's not really something I might remember immediately many years from now as a classic film or anything, but, like I said before, it's pretty memorable.  It's a smart, emotional, and entertaining science fiction film, and it's definitely worth seeing at least once.



Cast and Credits:
Wikus: Sharlto Copley
Christopher: Jason Cope
Koobus Venter: David James
Tania: Vanessa Haywood
Fundiswa Mhlanga: Mandla Gaduka

TriStar Pictures presents
A film directed by Neil Blomkamp
Running time: Approx. 112 minutes

Rated R for bloody violence and pervasive language

Tuesday, April 17, 2012

Psycho (1960)




Genre: Horror, Mystery, Thriller

Released: August 10, 1960



My Rating:      
(Click here for more info on my rating scale)



            Psycho is a good, memorable film.  I don't love it, but I do like it; it's a good piece of cinema and is notable for many things.  First of all, the black-and-white cinematography is good, and it really contributes to the tone and mood of the film.  There are several great camera shots and sequences.  The music is good too, and it also contributes to the tone of the film, probably even more so than the cinematography.  Finally, and probably most importantly, the film is noteworthy for its storytelling.  Alfred Hitchcock broke several Hollywood cinema traditions of the time, and created a film that contains elements that can be easily recycled, yet at the same time is very unique, and is a good mystery horror thriller.
            The story starts off with Marion Craine, an office worker in Phoenix who desperately wants to be with her lover.  When her employer entrusts Marion to bank $40,000, Marion leaves town, steals the money, and goes on the lam.  Along the way, she encounters a used car salesman and a policeman, who notice her somewhat nervous behavior, which she is not good at hiding.  Eventually, tired of her long drive and caught in a storm, she exits the main highway and pulls into the out-of-the-way Bates Motel to spend the night.  The motel is run by a young man called Norman Bates, who seems to be dominated by his twisted mother.  Events of the night change the course of the film afterwards starting, with an excellent and unforgettable sequence in which Marion is murdered in her shower, and her journey, therefore, comes to an end.  Soon after, others come to the motel searching for Marion, including Loomis, private investigator Arbogast, and Marion's sister.  They make shocking discoveries.
            The story isn't all that great, but what makes it good and involving is the way it develops and unfolds.  There are a lot of aspects of the movie that are not so special, and ones that have been used again and again over the years.  There are some things about the movie that seem cliché, and possibly a bit cheesy.  However, despite all this, after all these years, Psycho still has a uniqueness that is memorable and ultimately not copied to this day.  Like I said, it's not the most extraordinary story, but it's structured in a great way.  It tampers with some traditional narrative elements.  It starts out seemingly normal in terms of narrative.  Then, we are shocked at the movie's midpoint as Marion, our protagonist for the first half of the movie, is killed, and the course of the film is drastically changed, and what follows is a series of (like I said before) shocking discoveries and twists.  The audience's expectations keep being flouted, especially in the second half of the film, especially in two major ones, the second of which I won't spoil for those who haven't seen the film.  It doensn't have great story or character complexity, but yes, it's strong.
            The stark black-and-white cinematography used in the film is very good, and even further contributes the the tone of the film.  Also, by far one of the most important aspects of the film is the music.  Bernard Herrmann composed an excellent score for the film.  The film works fine with its narrative alone, but the music really brings it all to life and supports everything.  The music consisted of all string instruments, and the music is consistently dissonant and tense.  The music, like everything else about the film, can be easily recycled in movies, but, like I said before, Psycho still has a level of uniqueness that really can't be matched.
            Overall, it's an important landmark in the history of cinema, and it's still a good film, even to this day - not at a four-star level, but still very good.  I found it to be a very good movie experience.  If you haven't seen it, I recommend you do.

Cast and Credits:
Norman Bates: Anthony Perkins
Marion Crane: Janet Leigh
Lila Crane: Vera Miles
John Gavin: Sam Loomis
Det. Milton Arbogast: Martin Balsam

Directed by Alfred Hitchcock
Black and White
Approx. 109 minutes

Tuesday, March 27, 2012

Citizen Kane (1941)




Genre: Drama, Mystery

Released: September 5, 1941


My Rating:  
(Click here for more info on my rating scale)




I wouldn't call Citizen Kane the greatest movie ever made, but, even to this day, it's definitely a great piece of cinema and a wonderful example of storytelling.





          Citizen Kane has been lauded the best film ever made by many people.  Do I particularly agree?  No.  But nonetheless, I think it is a great movie.  It has some of the dated characteristics of cinema of it's period, the 1940's, but a lot of it's characteristics are still strong nowadays.  I understand that the plot has some parallels to the real life story of William Randolph Hearst, but I don't know all that much about him, so I'm going to talk about only the film, which is great itself.  The film is an important figure in the history of cinema, technologically and it terms of storytelling.
          The story is really not all that complicated, but the way it unfolds is great and engaging, and almost makes it seem complex, and it's told from a number of perspectives.  The film opens up with the death of Charles Foster Kane (Orson Welles), the owner of the Inquirer, a New York newspaper.  Just before dying, Kane utters the word "Rosebud".  Then an approximately ten minute long newsreel summarizes the story of Kane, representing the public's view of him, and an overview of the story.  Then, for the rest of the film, we are shown more details and depth of the story via flashbacks as news reporters go around and obtain information about Kane and his life.
          For those of you who haven't seen the film, I won't fully spoil it for you.  I'll just give an overview.  Kane achieved success and rose to power, but eventually suffered a major blow to his reprutation, and he crashed.  Along the way, he even gets married and divorced twice.  With the aid of his closest friend, Jedediah Leland (Joseph Cotten), Kane starts builds a nationwide newspaper empire.  He is ruthless as he achieves this, yet generous at the same time in a few ways, such as being willing to lose a million dollars a year to gain more newspaper circulation.  Eventually, he runs for a political position, but his success to this is lost as his rival uncovers his afair with a "singer", and after this, his reputation is destroyed and his life's success declines.  There is more to the story, but, like I said, I'm only giving a summary; I'm not giving the full story away, for those of you who haven't seen the film.
          All the while, we, the audience, and the reporters in the film, wonder who Kane really was, not just the story of the events of his life, from his rise to his fall, but who he really was underneath.  They believe that a key to finding this out lies in his dying word, "Rosebud".  At one point in the film, a reporter, Thompson, says, about the word, "Maybe Rosebud was something he couldn't get, or something he lost."  At another point, someone (I don't remember who) says, "I don't think one word can describe one man's life".  The entire movie is a puzzle, a puzzle of Kane's life, and not just that, but of who he really was (for lack of a better, deeper term).  "Rosebud" is just one piece, a missing piece, of that puzzle, but it may be an important piece.  Although, then again, maybe not.  We do eventually find out what the word represents and what its origin is, and it represents one of the important messages of the movie, but I won't spoil it for, again, those of you who haven't seen the film.
          The film is great in terms of its storytelling.  In additon to its storytelling, the film is also an important point in cinema in terms of a few other factors, such as cinematograpy.  One of the most striking of the cinematographic effects is ths stark contrast between brightness and darkness.  Also notable are the camera angles - which create many unique shots throughout the film - and the use of deep focus, emnabling images both in the back ground and the foreground to stay clear in focus.  I also liked the music score.  Bernard Herrmann, who also composed the score for Psycho (1960), created an effective score with very good combinations and uses of harmony, orchestration, melody, and other musical elements, and really supports the drama and moods of the film.
          So, in summary, while I personally don't think Citizen Kane is the best film ever made, I did find it to be great.  Watching it was a very good experience for me.  It's great in terms of storytelling and technical aspects, and, overall, like I've said, it's a great piece of cinema, and an important landmark in cinema history.

Cast and Credits:
Charles Foster Kane: Orson Welles
Jedediah Leland: Joseph Cotten
Susan Alexander: Dorothy Comingore
Walter Parks Thatcher: George Coulouris
Jim Geddes: Ray Collins
Mrs. Kane: Anges Moorehead
Emily Norton: Ruth Warric

Directed by Orson Welles
Black and White
Approx. 120 minutes

No MPAA rating.