Here is a quick list of the films I plan to see in the month of May:
The Avengers
Duh. We already have tickets to see the midnight release.
The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel
Sounds a little odd, but check out the trailer. Maggie Smith, Judi Dench, Bill Nighy, Tom Wilkinson, and the kid from Slumdog Millionaire star in a quirky British comedy. What more could you want?
Dark Shadows
Burton + Depp = almost every good film ever made. Amiright?
Moonrise Kingdom
Wes Anderson. Need I say more?
Fish Tank and Melancholia
Two films I missed out on during their theatrical releases which are now on Netflix.
One tells the story of an angry teenaged Londoner who treats the world the same way it treats her. Co-starring Michael Fassbender and a horse (insert inappropriate joke here).
The other tells the story of an angry woman whose wedding day gets overshadowed by the end of days. Not your typical angry bride film though, as it is directed by the previously mentioned Lars von Trier.
Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy
Yes I saw it in the theater, but I've been needing to practice being patient. And Gary Oldman should win the Best Badass in Glasses Oscar every year.
That's about all that I can think of for now.
Have a suggestion of a film for me to watch? Please share below!
Sunday, April 29, 2012
The Avengers
The Avengers (2012)
Directed by Joss Whedon
Waiting (not as) anxiously (as my girlfriend) for the midnight premier.
We bought tickets about a year ago.
Will it be awesome?
Will it be another $250 million flop?
Will ScarJo get Jossed?
Will Loki look less ridiculous?
Will I fall asleep 2/3 of the way through?
Only time will tell!
What about The Avengers excites you the most?
Sound off below!
To be viewed May 4, 2012.
Directed by Joss Whedon
We bought tickets about a year ago.
Will it be awesome?
Will it be another $250 million flop?
Will ScarJo get Jossed?
Will Loki look less ridiculous?
Will I fall asleep 2/3 of the way through?
Only time will tell!
What about The Avengers excites you the most?
Sound off below!
To be viewed May 4, 2012.
The Hunger Games
The Hunger Games (2012)
Directed by: Gary Ross
I must admit that when I first heard that this film was going into production, I was less than excited about it. Having not read the book, the thought of children being forced to fight to the death brought back too many memories of Battle Royale. My opinion at the time was that an Americanized, PG-13 version of Battle Royale was most definitely in poor taste. Fortunately, a good friend of mine convinced me to read the book. I was still worried that the film might have trouble communicating the book's theme of the struggle against political and socio-economic oppression to a teenaged audience, but I knew it was present and expressed clearly in the book.
My biggest critique of the film is a stylistic one. Especially at the beginning, I felt that the film couldn't decide if it wanted to be an indie art film or a major studio blockbuster. The cinematography in the opening scenes invoked a feeling of chaos and distress, which was appropriate for District 12, yet didn't match at all with the rest of the film. It almost felt to me like the film had two DPs, one for the first half our and another for the rest. The film did have a cyclical progression from chaos to order, which occurs twice, but the cinematography of the return to chaos during the Games was too different from the beginning to maintain continuity.
Obviously the non film school brats of the world weren't bothered by this, which is evidenced by its current worldwide gross of over $600 million. Did I mention that the production budget was a mere $78 million?
You probably think the above critique was me just picking nits. Its true. That's what I do, especially to the films I enjoy watching. If I hadn't liked the film then I would have just said so and saved myself the trouble of typing out this review.
Lionsgate took a deep and complicated novel and created a deep and complicated film, with brilliant acting (Katpee anyone?), better special effects than John Carter, and even some social commentary. Oh and then there are the other two books.
The odds are definitely in Lionsgate's favor.
Who's ready for Catching Fire?
4.5 out of 5 stars
Viewed March 23, 2012
Directed by: Gary Ross
My biggest critique of the film is a stylistic one. Especially at the beginning, I felt that the film couldn't decide if it wanted to be an indie art film or a major studio blockbuster. The cinematography in the opening scenes invoked a feeling of chaos and distress, which was appropriate for District 12, yet didn't match at all with the rest of the film. It almost felt to me like the film had two DPs, one for the first half our and another for the rest. The film did have a cyclical progression from chaos to order, which occurs twice, but the cinematography of the return to chaos during the Games was too different from the beginning to maintain continuity.
Obviously the non film school brats of the world weren't bothered by this, which is evidenced by its current worldwide gross of over $600 million. Did I mention that the production budget was a mere $78 million?
You probably think the above critique was me just picking nits. Its true. That's what I do, especially to the films I enjoy watching. If I hadn't liked the film then I would have just said so and saved myself the trouble of typing out this review.
Lionsgate took a deep and complicated novel and created a deep and complicated film, with brilliant acting (Katpee anyone?), better special effects than John Carter, and even some social commentary. Oh and then there are the other two books.
The odds are definitely in Lionsgate's favor.
Who's ready for Catching Fire?
4.5 out of 5 stars
Viewed March 23, 2012
John Carter
John Carter (2012)
Directed by: Andrew Stanton
Let's begin with how huge of a box office bomb John Carter turned out to be. For a film produced on a $250 million budget, with at least $100 million spent on P&A, and countless millions on distribution, to have not yet reached $70 million domestically after seven weeks is just sad. Even when accounting for its $200 million overseas gross, Disney expects to lose at least $200 million. I enjoyed most of the film, but as a filmmaker I can't comprehend how so many people could let something go so wrong. Rich Ross is definitely partially to blame, but he probably shouldn't have been the only person forced to resign.
To me, the scariest thing about this film is the fact that mistakes like this are allowed to happen. How can an industry survive that produces John Carter, Mars Needs Moms, Green Lantern, Hugo (which I absolutely love, but still lost almost $100 million), and many more big budget films that flop? Yes the industry is buoyed by the Harry Potters and the Hunger Games, as well as low budget and modestly profitable films, DVD sales, rentals, merchandizing, licensing, etc., but the primary function of films has been, and in my opinion should always be, its theatrical release. Yes that viewpoint is archaic and unrealistic, but the cinema is a place for dreaming, whether that be of faraway lands, wizards, figurative chess matches, or the human condition.
</rant>
On a different note, as soon as my girlfriend figured out and whispered to me that Willem Dafoe was voicing Tars Tarkas, all I could think about was the terrible, awful, sickening, yet beautifully made film from Lars von Trier. If you don't know what I'm talking about, DO NOT go look it up. Please. I'm begging you. It's for your own good.
2.5 out of 5 stars
Viewed March 15, 2012
Directed by: Andrew Stanton
Let's begin with how huge of a box office bomb John Carter turned out to be. For a film produced on a $250 million budget, with at least $100 million spent on P&A, and countless millions on distribution, to have not yet reached $70 million domestically after seven weeks is just sad. Even when accounting for its $200 million overseas gross, Disney expects to lose at least $200 million. I enjoyed most of the film, but as a filmmaker I can't comprehend how so many people could let something go so wrong. Rich Ross is definitely partially to blame, but he probably shouldn't have been the only person forced to resign.To me, the scariest thing about this film is the fact that mistakes like this are allowed to happen. How can an industry survive that produces John Carter, Mars Needs Moms, Green Lantern, Hugo (which I absolutely love, but still lost almost $100 million), and many more big budget films that flop? Yes the industry is buoyed by the Harry Potters and the Hunger Games, as well as low budget and modestly profitable films, DVD sales, rentals, merchandizing, licensing, etc., but the primary function of films has been, and in my opinion should always be, its theatrical release. Yes that viewpoint is archaic and unrealistic, but the cinema is a place for dreaming, whether that be of faraway lands, wizards, figurative chess matches, or the human condition.
</rant>
On a different note, as soon as my girlfriend figured out and whispered to me that Willem Dafoe was voicing Tars Tarkas, all I could think about was the terrible, awful, sickening, yet beautifully made film from Lars von Trier. If you don't know what I'm talking about, DO NOT go look it up. Please. I'm begging you. It's for your own good.
2.5 out of 5 stars
Viewed March 15, 2012
This Means War
This Means War (2012)
Directed by: McG
I usually don't like the glossy, plastic emotion, fake explosion feel of the films of McG et al, so This Means War was a pleasant surprise. The explosions still looked fake and the premise of a woman falling in love with two best friends isn't exactly my cup of tea, but the film works due to the great onscreen chemistry between all three of the leads.
War begins with Chris Pine and Tom Hardy's characters, FDR and Tuck, on a mission in Hong Kong to prevent a stereotypical baddie from getting his hands on some super powerful weapon. The mission goes awry and the baddie escapes, but his little brother gets killed. The baddie vows to avenge his brother's death. This inciting action gets FDR and Tuck benched, forcing them to reflect upon their lives. FDR the perennial one-night-stand womanizer convinces straight laced divorcee Tuck to join a dating website where he meets the beautiful yet boring Lauren (Reese Witherspoon). Their first date goes well and they decide to have another. However, Lauren coincidentally runs into FDR at the video store right after leaving her date with Tuck. Lauren is put off by FDR's flirting style, but she agrees to go on a date with him to get him to stop causing havoc at her job. Lauren is morally opposed to dating two men at once, but she quickly gets past that with help from the sage advise from her sex-crazy and soaked in alcohol friend Trish (Chelsea Handler). Surprisingly (or not), FDR and Tuck quickly realize that they are dating the same woman. Rather than fight over her, they agree to not tell her that they know each other and to let her decide who to continue to date. This works for a little while, but they begin to use their spy skills to try to influence Lauren's decision. This part of the film is my favorite, as the competition lets the chemistry between the actors shine. But the second act is almost over, which means the baddie has to reappear with his evil plot to kill FDR and Tuck. Tuck is on a date with Lauren at the time, and FDR has to warn them that the baddie is after them. Unfortunately this requires informing Lauren that they are best friends (and spies), which is understandingly a surprise for her. She leaves as FDR and Tuck have an epic fight that destroys the inside of the restaurant while the baddie conveniently kidnaps Lauren and Trish. FDR and Tuck must now work together to save Lauren, which they do, and narrowly avoid driving over the edge of an unfinished stack interchange (look it up on wikipedia). Lauren chooses FDR, FDR and Tuck make amends, Tuck's ex-wife discovers that he was distant during their marriage because he was a spy, they get remarried, and the baddie dies in a massively fake-looking explosion.
Unlike its fellow recently released spy film cousin Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy, War has zero aspirations of receiving a golden statuette. If Tinker is an infinitely layered cake of complex tastes that have to be appreciated slowly with the entirety of the palette, then War is a box of Twinkies. I like Twinkies, but I start to get sick after downing the first few.
3.5 out of 5 stars
Viewed February 18, 2012
Directed by: McG
Unlike its fellow recently released spy film cousin Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy, War has zero aspirations of receiving a golden statuette. If Tinker is an infinitely layered cake of complex tastes that have to be appreciated slowly with the entirety of the palette, then War is a box of Twinkies. I like Twinkies, but I start to get sick after downing the first few.
3.5 out of 5 stars
Viewed February 18, 2012
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)