Showing posts with label amy adams. Show all posts
Showing posts with label amy adams. Show all posts

Saturday, December 3, 2016

November Movies

Just looking at some films I've seen this past month that I didn't have enough thoughts on to post entire reviews, so here it goes:

Doctor Strange: This Marvel film was probably the biggest thing this season in terms of coverage and the amount of people who went to see it (obviously). The Doctor Strange character is rather unknown so I was happy to see that people will give lesser-known heroes a try, though the fact that it's all based on brand recognition is kind of a downer. The film had some very interesting visuals at times but nothing I would say is necessarily groundbreaking on any level.
There's plenty of forced, awkward humor (I think I only chuckled at two lines, and they were the more subtle lines in this film) and just bad Hollywood cliches (the useless random love interest is one that jumps to mind). I did appreciate the clever climax that wasn't just the villain and hero punching each other but overall the plot felt rushed, the villain was awfully contrived (and such a waste of the excellent Mads Mikkelsen), etc. Doctor Strange was a fun, schlocky superhero film but nothing more than just good. 6.5/10 stars.



Arrival: Denis Villeneuve is a newer talent that has now, year after year, proven himself as a terrific director and worthy of being selected for the Blade Runner reboot. I didn't love this film like his others, but it was a smart, subtle science fiction film that would've fit right into the catalog of slow burning, creative sci-fi films of the 1970s.
Amy Adams was effective in her lead role and I'm now very excited to see what she does in Nocturnal Animals. The cinematography isn't as jaw-dropping as in Sicario, but it is sweeping while being reined in, and while there were elements that felt reminiscent of his previous work (the muted and dour color scheme of Prisoners and one dream sequence felt right out of Enemy), it stands on its own and is far better than the majority of the alien invasion films of the past, focusing on a perspective rarely ever given a proper treatment which is that of communication with the aliens.
In keeping with that, I enjoyed how the film communicated story information to the audience; it does it in a not totally unique but very intriguing way which pays off in the end. Arrival is an innovative and fresh science fiction film that I would recommend to most everyone. 7.5/10 stars.

Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them: While I was excited as anyone to revisit the nostalgia and wonder of the Harry Potter series, I can't say this film delivered on that monumental promise. This year was one of disappointment for fans, as the abysmal Cursed Child play also was released this year and was panned by critics and die-hard followers alike, and I can't say this film makes up for that. Eddie Redmayne is very charismatic and quirky in his lead role as Newt Scamander, so he was one redeeming quality. The cast is stellar, and I have to say, I was surprised by the quality of acting from Dan Fogler and Alison Sudol (better known by her stage name Fine Frenzy), as Fogler is known for dumb comedies and Sudol for her music career. However, their love story was incredibly rushed and odd.
Katherine Waterson, Colin Farrell, Ezra Miller, and Samantha Morton are fine actors in their other works, but here, they all turn in one-note performances that I could predict where they would go from the moment they appeared on-screen. The resolution of the plot is very schlocky and rushed, and a lot of the acting, except for the lead four characters, if very wooden and/or the characters are one-dimensional. Like why would Jon Voight's son who is running for office (played by Josh Cowdery) belittle a bunch of religious protestors who are potential voters by calling them "freaks" to their faces?
The movie is kind of cute and fun but that's about it. It's nice for kids, and I tried to remind myself the original Potter films aren't particularly subtle or objectively great, either and this one really is more for families. I appreciated some of the humor and fun cameos (by Ron Perlman and Zoe Kravitz, especially), but the constant name-dropping of Potter lore and the very rushed and convenient climax (with some destruction scenes more reminiscent of a lazy summer film) made Fantastic Beasts a let-down. 5.8/10 stars.

Allied: Robert Zemeckis, like Ron Howard and Steven Spielberg, has been hit-or-miss as of late and is no stranger to schmaltz. With this, I appreciated a totally fictitious story set during a historical event (something you don't really see a lot, funny enough), but overall the story isn't interesting enough to fill the whole two hours. Brad Pitt and Marion Cotillard have decent chemistry and there are some well-done scenes of tension (there's a small battle towards the end, a scene with a Nazi SS officer in Casablanca, and a scene involving a phone booth early on that were all serviceable as suspense sequences), but the cast is failed by a poor script.
There's also a strange aside that Brad Pitt's character has a military sister (played by Lizzy Caplan), who is in an open lesbian relationship in 1940's London with Game of Thrones' Charlotte Hope, which didn't add anything to the story and felt very off as homosexuality was illegal in the U.K. at the time. The score is bland, the story is alright but very predictable, and the "tragic" ending is pretty lame- as it was hard to really connect with the characters all that much- but it was somewhat relieving that Allied's mystery and the final set-piece avoid the tired gun-fights and explosions so often seen in mainstream action/war climaxes these days. 5.8/10 stars.

Rules Don't Apply: I was expecting this to be just the run-of-the-mill Oscar bait film released on Thanksgiving (like Allied), but, although that may have been its intention, it was surprisingly funny and quirky and I appreciated that, even at his old age, Warren Beatty can still deliver an above-average performance (his adaptation of Howard Hughes is more comedic than Leonardo DiCaprio's but still exudes a lot of pain in the latter half), and uses more modern editing techniques to milk more humor out of the film. Lily Collins and Alden Ehrenreich have a nice little romance and they do have a pretty realistic argument at the film's "climax," though it's washed out by an overbearing and unnecessary score that could have been absent from that scene. Overall, the acting was good, the music was fine (the original song which shares the film's title was surprisingly sweet and touching), and the humor was better than expected. Rules Don't Apply may not break all the cliches of an Oscar bait film, but it has enough of a heart to actually be worth a viewing. 6.5/10 stars.



(Images: Wikipedia)

Tuesday, June 14, 2016

Batman v. Superman- Dawn of Justice: Bloated and boring, a review I don't want to write as much as I didn't want to see this movie but felt obligated to

I'm just trying to get this one over with.

Batman v. Superman, Dawn of Justice:
After the destruction of Metropolis at the conclusion of Man of Steel, the public is debating whether or not having Kal-El/Superman around is a good thing. Continuing his relationship with Lois Lane and job at the newspaper as Clark Kent, he is faced with a new challenger. The aging but still very active and violent vigilante Batman is operating in the neighboring city of Gotham. Batman, after first hand witnessing the fallout of Metropolis' demise, is determined to stop the overpowered alien visitor from causing any more havoc, even if it means having to take him down personally. All the while skeevy young tycoon Lex Luthor (Junior) is pulling the strings to get Superman out of the picture so he can rule Metropolis. Why is all this happening? Because DC needs a quick movie to catch up with Marvel.
    Everything about this film feels forced and purely corporate driven. It is far too early to cram this many heroes into one film as not each hero has been set up yet. Not necessarily saying everyone needs an origin movie, but at least a means of setting them up prior to the battle royale film. It took Marvel almost ten years since the original Iron Man to get to their Civil War film because it takes time to build these character relationships (however cliche) to get the audience to care about the conflict. This film barely can even find a reason for the two heroes to dislike each other, simply they have different approaches to dealing with completely different problems (i.e. Superman fights cosmic threats, Batman deals with street thugs and psychopaths).
    The problem was also adapting several different stories: they adapt The Dark Knight Returns and Superman: Doomsday simultaneously, while also doing a Justice League setup and Batman vs. Superman story. It is a jumbled mess that completely is tonally off. It is very clear that this film had extensive cuts made (solidified by the upcoming "Ultimate" R-rated cut) to keep it to the still draining 2 and a half hour runtime.
    Ben Affleck actually delivered fairly well as Batman, being dark and imposing, almost like a horror character, and really selling the idea that this is a vengeful person who puts the fear into criminals and cops alike. However, his "no killing" rule that has been so integral to his mythos for so long has been scrapped in favor of the militarized, borderline self-parodying Batman of the Frank Miller graphic novels that does not seem to wince at bloodshed or torture to achieve his goals of clean streets. Also, his motivation to hate Superman is staggeringly weak. For such a worldly and intelligent character as Batman is supposed to be, he sure jumps to xenophobia and paranoia quickly.
    The rest of the cast (at least the returners from Man of Steel) do fine but ultimately are just so droll and lifeless that they cease to be investing. Zack Snyder's casting now matches his visual palate: he's able to do such remarkable things with visuals, but always tends to suck out the color and energy in his films, surprisingly, given the comic medium's great strengths have always been a reliance strong visuals and striking colors.
    Callan Mulvey appears as KGBeast (only called by his name in this film), Scoot McNairy and Holly Hunter have new supporting roles, and Jeremy Irons is Alfred and all do okay, as none are given enough screentime to really develop (or in Mulvey's case, he's a one-dimensional henchman character who was only included to give comic fans the hope that more obscure villains will be used in the future).
     On a related note, Jesse Eisenberg as Lex Luthor was not all that bad. Sure, he had some off moments (probably due to those extensive cuts I mentioned), and many complained he's too chaotic for a Lex Luthor, but ultimately I thought the idea of turning him into a jittery, eccentric Silicon Valley-esque CEO was a fresh take, even though his dialogue was often hammy and over dramatic.
    The film's plot is drawn out and dull, and certain sequences stand out (namely the introduction of Batman, which was tense and surprisingly eerie), but a lot (the opening slow-mo sequence is just the same Batman origin scene we've seen a million times, with some added laughable religious symbolism) didn't amount to much and the real action set-pieces don't begin until the climax, at which point the movie shifts from overly brooding and grim (seriously, the charming Superman doesn't so much as crack a reassuring smile when he's saving people from danger) to a campy, silly CGI mess. Even the actual Batman vs. Superman fight felt overlong and didn't fit in this universe at all (Snyder's Kal-El went from disintegrating skyscrapers with minimal effort in the previous film to barely being able to dent Batman's armor here), and ultimately was just boring to watch because there was no investment in the characters.
    The overall choices made in the film were dismal (Jimmy Olsen, a beloved comics character, is not even named on screen and dies 30 seconds after he's introduced as Lois' CIA contact on a trip to a warzone; the odd release date in March; the extensive cuts and rush to get this film to theaters; the cramming of far too many characters and ideas into what should be just a Batman vs Superman piece; having Batman and Superman fight in only their second film together; not just making a Man of Steel sequel, etc.) If this is really DC's method of making films, then I think it's time for them to quit trying to catch up with Marvel (they're a near-decade behind them), and just stick to doing what they've always done best: standalone films. Or maybe, just maybe, slow their roll on this whole "cinematic universe" idea. Because judging by this film's reception, people aren't having it, and DC will tank if they keep this up. Zack Snyder should go back to adapting novels and remaking things because when he has to build a fresh script from the ground up, it never ends well, and his visuals are his strong point, not his storytelling abilities. 4/10 stars.

The two titular heroes, Batman and Superman, are confronting each other, with the film's logo behind them, and the film's title, credits, release date and billing below.                                                             (Image: Wikipedia)