Transcendence

*Random side note*
This is my 100th post! Whoop! : )

Transcendence (2014)
Directed by Wally Pfister.

Only one more of these to go after this one and I'll finally be caught up for now! (yay)

So this actually wasn't a bad movie. Pretty much everybody has said it was, and even I am saying that...a little.

What caused audiences and critics to say such mean things about this film is that we expected it to be a Christopher Nolan film. And it wasn't. (For those who don't know, Wally Pfister has been Nolan's cinematographer for forever, shooting Inception [for which he won an Oscar], Nolan's Batman trilogy, and Momento.)

Was that an unrealistic expectation? Of course. And there was no way Transcendence could survive that.

Sure, it was an extremely visually intriguing film. I would even call it a beautiful film. But the performances were lackluster, the premise was pretty flimsy, and it just wasn't very well made overall.

This just goes to show that movies need more than great visual effects.

2.5 out of 5 stars.
Viewed at Cinema 6 in Mt. Pleasant, TX on April 18, 2014.

Thanks for Sharing

Thanks for Sharing (2012)
Directed by Stuart Blumberg.

Part three of me trying to get caught up on reviews. This was a more spur of the moment viewing with the War Department, and I was mainly interested in the film because of Mark Ruffalo and Gwyneth Paltrow's involvement. They were pretty great. The rest of the film...well not so much.

I'm still not sure whether I liked the structure of the film. On paper it sounds good to focus on three couples connected by an addict support group.   However, in execution the number of loosely related story lines became distracting from the real heart of the story.

I think the story would have worked better, not to mention have a more emotional impact, if it had focused more on Ruffalo and Paltrow's characters and their relationship struggles. The other characters would still be important and have their place in the story, but the film would have been more cohesive if they were there to service the main story line rather than detract from it.

Obviously the filmmakers were trying to make as realistic of a film as possible. I think they did a good job for the most part. They captured the gritty, uncomfortable, sometimes painful, yet also beautiful reality of life, and they did it three times in somewhat intertwined story lines. But they overlooked that a film usually functions best with one main story line. The structure of this film works in real life. It even works in novels. But it falls apart on film.

One third of this film was very good and made me care about the characters. I wish the whole film had accomplished that.

2.5 out of 5 stars.
Viewed September 27, 2013 at LOOK Cinemas Prestonwood in Dallas, TX.

Riddick

Riddick (2013)
Directed by David Twohy.

I'm not going to try to compare this film to Vin Diesel's first two Riddick installments because it has been a long time since I saw them. But I can say that I went in to the film with low expectations and I wasn't too disappointed.

My biggest complaint is that not much happens during the nearly two hour long movie. Riddick gets stranded and must survive in a hostel environment. Riddick fights mercenaries. Riddick fights scary (and pretty well designed) creatures. And the most interesting part of the story, his reign as Lord Marshall and eventual betrayal by Karl Urban's Vaako, is glossed over with just a short flashback. I would have liked to see much more of that part of the story, and much less of Diesel crawling through the desert.

My second complaint is the film's bad special effects. Riddick's $38 million production budget is pretty low for a sci-fi action CGI-fest, but that still should have been enough for the effects to be more consistent. The creature animation and the practical effects were well done, but most of the green-screened landscapes just didn't mesh well enough with the real elements of the scenes. The worst effects shots of the film were when the characters were using their hover bikes. Essentially every shot with a hover bike was cringe worthy.

On the other hand, the film did have some good fight scenes, and the action was well-paced throughout the film (except for at the end.) And while not all of the acting is superb, it is obvious that the actors, especially Diesel, enjoyed making the movie. So if you're a guy who enjoys action flicks but doesn't require them to have much of a plot, then you'll probably enjoy Riddick, especially since you'll get to see a lot more of Katee Sackhoff then she let you see in Battlestar Galactica.

Riddick opened in about thirty countries this weekend and earned around $26 million worldwide. That's only $12 million short of its production budget, so this should end up as a modest win for Universal. It seems Riddick was able to survive after all, and we will probably see more of him sometime in the future.

Loved it? Hated it? Share your thoughts in the comments below!

2.5 out of 5 stars.
Viewed September 8, 2013 at LOOK Cinemas Prestonwood in Dallas, TX.

The Fifth Element

The Fifth Element (1997)
Directed by Luc Besson

If I had seen this sometime during the nineties, I am positive that it would have been one of my favorite movies ever.

Unfortunately I didn't see it until 2012.

To say whether I liked or didn't like the film would be a grossly oversimplified explanation of how I felt while watching it. So instead of doing that, I'll make a list of the things I did like, and another of what I did not like.

Likes:

Milla Jovovich (And not just for that reason, you perverts...)

Fight sequences

Editing

Anti-likes:

Most of the dialogue

Creature design

Music

Costumes

90% of the CG

Gary Oldman

Gary Oldman's hair

Gary Oldman's accent

Apparently I disliked more about this film than I liked about it. However, it was still an entertaining film to watch.

So it's not my favorite movie ever. But is it yours? Share why (or why not) below!

2.5 out of 5 Stars
Viewed September 7, 2012 on DVD.

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