Wrath of the Titans

An enjoyable, fun movie.

My rating: 3 1/2 reels out of 5

I saw the predecessor to this film only once and didn’t think too highly of it. When I saw the trailer for this film, it felt like it had some potential. Wrath of the Titans met my expectations and is a better film than the first one, which wasn’t hard to beat anyway.

Perseus must travel to the underworld to save his father, Zeus, from his other son, Ares, and brother Hades who have unleashed the ancient Titans upon the world. If you’ve never seen the first film or you don’t quite remember from the first film, Perseus is half-god and half-human, played by Sam Worthington. In the first film, it really bothered me that he was the only one with short hair in the movie. So I was pleased when he had longer hair in this one, it just seems like he fit in more with the times rather than looking like a marine transported back to ancient times. Reprising their roles as Zeus and Hades are Liam Neeson and Ralph Fiennes. This time around, they were not as lazy with their acting. They were a little bit more into their roles. Although, it did get a little cheesy at some points.

I really don’t have much else to say about the film. Overall, the film was a solid effort. Everything was done well from the acting, to the cinematography, down to the special effects. The characters were fun and likeable. Wrath of the Titans is just a simple action, don’t rack your brain, film. However, if you are learned in Greek mythology, it’s probably best you throw that knowledge out the window and go into the film open minded.

Rampart

Good actors in a mediocre movie.

My rating: 2 reels out of 5

Set in 1999 Los Angeles, veteran police officer Dave Brown, the last of the renegade cops, works to take care of his family, and struggles for his own survival.

When you are sitting in the theater and you are thinking about leaving, it’s usually a sign that the movie is not very good. Rampart has a choppy storyline that makes it hard to follow and it’s one of those movies where they talk about things more than they show. Some movies are done well when they just talk, but this one was just not done well. As mentioned before, my mind drifted off. It was hard to get a good read on the main character Douglas Brown. Not sure if we are supposed to empathize with the main character or not. It was played well by Woody Harrelson. Overall, the problem with the movie is that it did not have a clear direction of where it was going.

The editing and cinematography were too distracting for me. It kept reminding me that I was watching a movie. There is one scene that tries to be creative. The camera is constantly panning to the right in every shot on every person. It’s not one continuous shot, but several cuts. There was really no use for the pan and it was more distracting and nauseating to watch than anything.

Rampart is a case of good actors in a mediocre movie.

This is the first thing that comes to mind when I hear “Rampart.”

The Hunger Games

May the odds be ever in your favor.

My rating: 4 1/2 reels out of 5

I recently read the books in the last two months. So it was still fresh in my mind when I saw this movie. I tore through the books so quickly, all three in a week, so it’s a little hard to remember the fine details about the book but I do remember the major points of the book. After finishing the book, I thought the book was a pretty good read but nothing outstanding. I was excited more for the movie after finishing and just looking at the trailer, I thought it looked like it would be a good adaptation. It’s hard for a film maker to adapt a popular book to film, there’s going to be someone who did not like what you did. From a film maker’s perspective, I probably would’ve made almost all of the exact same choices.

The Hunger Games is about a dystopian society in the remnants of what used to be the United States. The Capital chooses one girl and one boy from each of the 12 districts and forces them into a death match as a sign of forgiveness and as a reminder to never rebel against the capital again. Katniss Everdeen, a young woman in District 12, does what she can to support her mother and younger sister. She illegally hunts in the woods with her friend, Gale, to provide food and to trade for other food or supplies. When Katniss’ younger sister is picked for the games, she volunteers to take her place.

Katniss is played by Jennifer Lawrence. Jennifer Lawrence is probably best known for her role as Mystique in the X-Men: First Class movie, but gained recognition at Sundance in the award-winning film, Winter’s Bone. A role that is somewhat similar to her role in Hunger Games. A girl who does what it takes to protect her family. Jennifer Lawrence is a very good actress and brings the character Katniss to life. The character of Peeta is played by Josh Hutcherson. A solid choice for the role of Peeta. Peeta is what you would call a nice guy. Other excellent choices for their roles, I thought: Donald Sutherland as President Snow; Stanley Tucci as show host, Ceasar Flickerman; Lenny Kravitz as stylist, Cinna; and even Elizabeth Banks as Effie Trinket. On the opposite side of the coin, I’m not completely in love with Woody Harrelson as former Hunger Games winner, Haymitch Abernathy or Liam Hensworth as Gale. Woody Harrelson does a decent job, but it’s probably because I expected more out of the relationship between Haymitch and Katniss. It felt like there should’ve been more conflict between the two. Most of the time, the problem with adaptations is that their isn’t enough time to build relationships and you hope that you got your point across.

This movie is a pretty good adaptation of the book. It hits the most important points of the book. The movie runs 142 minutes and not a single second is wasted. Every scene sets up for the next scene and every scene is trimmed down to its bare essentials. Different from the book was the choice to show the view of the games from the control booth of the Game makers and from the capital and the outlying districts. A step that was necessary without the use of exposition to explain the mentality of the game makers and aspects of the arena such as what tracker jackers are. It’s hard to adapt a book to screen. The vision may not fit what a fan may have envisioned. And stuff that fans took from the book may have been left out. Now that I read the book, I’ll never know what it’s like without reading the book. It’s funny how your perspective a movie can change after you read the source material.

Cinematography. The camera is shaky, real shaky. But not like Doug Liman-Bourne Identity shaky. Through the camera movement and the look of the movie, added and supplemented the tone of the film. Music for the film did not overpower anything. In fact, it seemed like music was rarely used. The plus of doing it that way, is you let the audience choose how they feel before letting music dictate how they should feel. With little use of music, director Gary Ross let his actors take over the film. No music draws attention to performances and adds to the tone of the film that a film maker may be looking for.

Overall, I enjoyed the film. I watched the film with two friends who never read the books and they thought it was pretty good. It’s a movie that is accepted among the majority movie fans and fans of the book. As a film maker, I could related to this film a lot.

You’ll probably enjoy this film if:

1. You liked the books.

You’ll probably not like this film if:

1. You really, really loved the books.

There have been some comparisons to Twilight. Aside from the sharing some of the same demographic, I assure you that this movie is nothing like Twilight.
Why ‘Hunger Games’ is NOT the new ‘Twilight’

21 Jump Street

Pretty dumb, but some funny moments.

My rating: 3 reels out of 5

I never watched the series that this movie is based on. All I know is that it had Johnny Depp in it and it had a catchy theme song. My first impression was that this movie looked really stupid. Then I started hearing reports on how good or really funny this movie is. After watching it, considering I had low expectations, it was better than I expected.

A pair of underachieving cops are sent back to a local high school to blend in and bring down a synthetic drug ring. The two cops are played by Jonah Hill and Channing Tatum. It’s a newly revamped Jonah Hill, he went on a diet and started exercising. He’s still a little doughy…particularly in his big fat head, but despite a new look everything else about him is still the same. He’s still humorous. As Officer Schmidt, he may not be in the best physical shape to be a cop but when he’s partnered with the physically fit, not-so-smart Jenko (Channing Tatum), they almost resemble one okay police officer.

The movie is actually done quite well. The story is very formulaic though, but there are parts of this movie I did enjoy. I liked the movie’s ability to make fun of itself, remakes, and other action movies. I laughed at about half the jokes in the movie. The jokes I didn’t laugh at were just too dumb, was in the previews, or it took too much time to try to set it up. I didn’t expect much from this movie, but the odd couple pairing of Hill and Tatum was enough to keep me entertained.

You’ll probably enjoy this movie if:

1. You like Jonah Hill and Channing Tatum movies.
2. You enjoy dumb, raunchy movies.

John Carter

What some would call a good popcorn movie.

My rating: 4 reels out of 5

Some things that makes a good movie experience for me: a good sound system, a good trailer pack right before the movie starts, and little to no audience annoyances. That’s what I got when I watched John Carter in IMAX last night. 12,000 watts of sound, a trailer pack of all the movies I want to see this year, and no one talking during the movie or lighting up their cell phone to make a text. It was a perfect movie going experience for me. But was John Carter a perfect movie? No, but it was entertaining and fun.

I’ve never heard of the Edgar Rice Burroughs books, much less read them. I’ve come to find out the same author is the same person behind creating Tarzan. Also found that these books have influenced such stores as Superman, Star Wars and Indiana Jones. I find myself tempted to look more into these books and find out more about this John Carter. John Carter is based on Edgar Burroughs’ first book of the series, The Princess of Mars. Transplanted to Mars, a Civil War vet discovers a lush planet inhabited by 12-foot tall barbarians. Finding himself a prisoner of these creatures, he escapes, only to encounter a princess who is in desperate need of a savior.

The biggest problem people are going to have with this story is the plot. Different factions are at war with each other on Mars and one side, under the power and guidance of beings with incredible power, is given the power to rule the planet. The logic and motivation behind why and how Mars should be conquered raises more questions than are answered.

The main character, John Carter, is played by Taylor Kitsch. He is most famous for his portrayal of Tim Riggins from the TV show, Friday Night Lights. As far as acting goes, he doesn’t stray too far from what he knows. I’m half tempted to call this movie Tim Riggins of Mars but John Carter is not a drunk (haha!). If anything, he’s eye candy (in particular, for the ladies), along with everything else about the movie. Among Taylor Kitsch is a slew of actors that most people have seen in movies but probably don’t know their names: Lynn Collins, Mark Strong, Ciarán Hinds, Dominic West, and Samantha Morton. And ones that most people will probably know: Bryan Cranston, Willem Dafoe, and Thomas Haden Church. Although Willem Dafoe and Thomas Haden Church play computer generated characters. I thought everyone did a good job with their roles.

Everything about the cultures and people of Mars, I found interesting. Thanks to the art direction and costume design, there was a depth and history about Mars that you were curious about. In short, I thought the filmmakers did a good job in building a different world that somehow felt fresh yet familiar at the same time. There is a scene involving the barbarian tribe, the tribe of Thark, that discovers and imprisons John Carter. It showed how their culture produced and raised children. It was a good character building scene not just for some key characters, but it built character behind a whole culture.

There is going to be some divide on what people think about this movie. Some are going to think it’s stupid and others will have fun with it. I for one, enjoyed the movie.

You’ll probably enjoy this movie if:

1. You’re a science fiction fan.
2. You go to movies for the fun of it.

Project X

The Party You’ve Only Dreamed About

My rating: 3 and 1/2 reels out of 5

Project X is a realistic look at a party that most would only dream about. The story of 3 high school kids throwing a party only to have it spiral out of control. Shot documentary style through cameras on scene, it’s a style that shouldn’t be used all the time but it fits the style and mood of this movie. Chronicle was a movie earlier this year that utilized the same shooting style, but it felt more natural in this movie. It probably felt more natural because Project X covers one day while Chronicle covers several days. Unlike most high school movies, this one is more gritty and has a sense of realism. The characters are familiar but have some depth to them and the actors do a good job. The story is structured and formulaic for the occasional movie goer, but overall this movie was a fun time for those interested in watching it.

You’ll probably enjoy this movie if:

1. You enjoy movies with boobs, drinking, and drugs.

Oscar Predictions 2012

Billy Crystal returns to host the Academy Awards

“Now I know how a Pez dispenser feels”

Tonight is movie’s biggest night. It was a year that was less memorable than most but there was some diamonds in the rough, although most of the ones I really liked were not recognized too much by the Academy. It was a year that looked back at the old days of Hollywood. Hugo celebrates in a modern way by looking back on the life of a important film maker. The Artist celebrates by introducing the silent film to generations who have probably never experienced a silent film before. There are elements to The Artist that made it differ from all silent films and its those differences that I found predictable, but nevertheless we’re going to see something we haven’t seen since 1929…a silent film winning best picture.

My picks for who will probably win:

• Best Short Film (live action) – Raju
• Music (Original Song) – Man or Muppet
• Documentary Feature – Paradise Lost 3: Purgatory
• Visual Effects – Hugo
• Sound Mixing – Hugo
• Sound Editing – Hugo
• Short Film (animated) – The Fantastic Flying Books of Mr. Morris Lessmore
• Writing (Adapted Screenplay) – The Descendants
• Animated Feature Film – Rango
• Foreign Language Film – A Separation
• Documentary Short – God is the Bigger Elvis
• Film Editing – The Artist
• Cinematography – The Artist
• Art Direction – Hugo
• Writing (Original Screenplay) – Midnight in Paris
• Costume Design – The Artist
• Makeup – The Iron Lady
• Music (Original Score) – The Artist
• Actress in a supporting role – Octavia Spencer
• Actor in a supporting role – Christopher Plummer
• Actress in a leading role – Viola Davis
• Actor in a leading role – Jean Dujardin
• Directing – Michel Hazanvicius
• Best Picture – The Artist

 

Who I would rather see win in select categories:

• Cinematography – I would really like to see Guillaume Schiffman receive an award for Tree of Life, but the use of old the aspect ratio and black and white of The Artist might overshadow it.
• Film Editing – The film editing award usually goes hand in hand with the best picture winner. And Thelma Schoonmaker is easily my favorite editor and I would like the award go to the work for Hugo. But The Artist has the momentum, and like the its use of cinematography, it uses editing techniques that are rarely used anymore.
• Best Picture – The Artist is a well done film and charming but my biggest gripe about the film is that it felt familiar and predictable. I would rather see my favorite film of the year win, Hugo.

I suppose if everyone agreed on the best picture winner, then we wouldn’t really have much to debate about. Movies, as always, are based on tastes and view points. Show me a movie that everyone likes and I’ll show you a movie that brain washes people. Enjoy the Oscars!

Jack Nicholson’s DNA reconstituted into a body of gorilla.
“Oh you like that one, Jack?”

The Grey

One of those movies you’re either going to love or hate.

My rating: 4 reels out of 5

If you are going in expecting Liam Neeson to kick mother nature’s ass, prepare to be disappointed. The movie is certainly intense, but it’s not a movie to be taken as an action packed thrill ride. It’s more of a psycho-analytical look of people who are stuck in the wild with fear running through their minds and little hope to survive.

In Alaska, an oil drilling team struggle to survive after a plane crash strands them in the wild. Hunting the humans are a pack of wolves who see them as intruders. Among the survivors, is a troubled character named Ottway, played by Liam Neeson. It’s Ottway’s job to protect the crew from dangerous animals. In particular, wolves, which he has trained himself on about their nature. There is a sort of parallel between what the survivors represent and the wolves that hunt them. Every wolf pack has an alpha dog and Ottway is the alpha dog to the pack of humans.

There are really intense moments in this movie. The film makes it very clear that these wolves are not to be messed with. There are explosive bits of violence that’s gory and shows the brutality of the wolves. At times, you can almost feel the fear the characters are going through.

There’s really not much about this movie I can say without giving too much away. There seems to be a divide on how people see this film. I’m going to put it in a broad sense, I think people who see the film for literally what it is, will probably not enjoy the film. And the people who let their feelings dictate a movie and disregard the illogical, might enjoy the film a little more. I fall in the latter. I did enjoy this movie, but I can’t fully recommend it to anyone.

You’ll probably hate this movie if:

1. You hate ambiguous endings.

Warrior

Totally underestimated how good this movie could’ve been.

My rating: 4 1/2 reels out of 5

When the trailer for this movie first came out, my first thought was that I don’t have to watch the movie now because I just pretty much watched the whole movie. The trailer does give away key points in the movie, but what the trailer doesn’t do is capture the emotion and heart that the cast captures in their performances.

When the youngest son of an alcoholic former boxer returns home, he begins training for a mixed martial arts tournament that puts him on a collision course with his older brother. The cast includes Tom Hardy (Inception), Nick Nolte (The Thin Red Line, 48 hours), and Joel Edgerton (probably most famous for his role as the young Uncle Owen from the Star Wars prequels). Tom Hardy is becoming one of my favorite actors, he’s versatile. In his role as Tommy Conlon, he is able to portray his character simply through body language and when he does deliver lines, he owns his lines and his character. Nick Nolte doesn’t leave any doubt that he deserves an oscar nomination for his portrayal as a father trying to get his sons back. Not a performance worthy of winning, but worth recognition.

There are some cliches in Warrior, but overall there’s something new and fresh about this movie. We’ve never really seen a movie completely centered on mixed martial arts like this movie does. There is some truth behind the physics teacher who struggles with money and has to work more than one job. And there was a sense of mystery behind Tom Hardy’s character that you can probably guess but is not fully answered until the third act. And how often do you have two likable characters facing each other in the final match. Who exactly do you cheer for? The trailer definitely lays out the whole movie for you, but it’s the stuff in between those points that make this movie worth watching.

You’ll probably like this movie if:

1. You enjoy watching or partaking in MMA.
2. You enjoy emotional sports dramas.

Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance

Nicholas Cage is crazy…

My rating: 3 1/2 reels out of 5

I’m not too familiar with the Ghost Rider comics, so I can’t say if the comic book fans will like it. But easily this film is better than the first Ghost Rider film. Directors Mark Neveldine and Brian Taylor are a good fit for this movie, they have a little fun with this movie. There was some interesting choices made that worked for this film. The camera work is documentary style with lots of low angle shots, zoom-ins and out, and close-ups of characters that I felt really brought the audience more into the film. And there is a play on light that signifies the power of supernatural beings in the film. Although there was one shot in the film that was distracting, there was two abrupt zoom outs in the same shot that really seemed unnecessary. Besides that one amateur looking move, I enjoyed the camera work.

Usually when i pay attention to the editing in a movie, it usually means I’m not focused enough on the movie. But I couldn’t help notice the play on speed. The slowing down and speeding up of a shot. The use of it portrays the mental and physical feelings of what it would really be like in encountering a spirit like the Ghost Rider. Like it is a terrifying and mesmerizing experience at the same time. The editing helped dictate the flow of the movie, but it was key in helping paint the picture of the character, The Ghost Rider.

Speaking of characters, I imagine Nicholas Cage is quite the character in real life. The directors let Cage get full-blown Cage crazy in this film. At times, hilariously cheesy and somtimes, over the top. So if you are a Cage hater, it might be best to stay away from this film, especially if you wonder what’s up with his hair or how much Botox he uses. Cage is surrounded by a good cast. The most interesting character he is surrounded by is Moreau, played by Idris Elba (Thor, Rock n Rolla).  His character is complete when you see him, but I wanted to know more about him, what his story is. Unfortunately, there wasn’t enough screen time of him.

Ghost Rider is what you would call a “fun film” or a “good popcorn movie.” Sometimes cheesy, sometimes over the top entertainment.

You’ll probably like this film if:

1. You like the directing styles of Mark Neveldine and Brian Taylor (Crank, Crank 2, Gamer, Jonah Hex).

You probably won’t life this film if:

1. You don’t like the craziness that is, Nicholas Cage.