skip to main |
skip to sidebar
I dont think it's any surprise to anybody that Megadeth happens to be my all-time favorite metal band. Everything about Megadeth's first four albums, to me, are near flawless. They definitely hit their peak with "Rust In Peace". And up until about 4 years ago, I was a 90's Megadeth snob ("Rust In Peace" excluded). I wouldn't touch the material with a blind man's cane. But one fateful intoxicated night, I decided to give the albums a shot. Lo and behold, I came to, and realized that there are some gems in said material. I've since come to terms that there are only 2 Megadeth records I DON'T like ("Risk" &"United Abominations"). Are the 90's albums full-fledged Megadeth records? No. But they do have a lot to offer in terms of melody, hooks, and Mustaine-isms. You're probably thinking, "Isn't this a "Super Collider" review?". Fuck you, it is. But with any conversation, you need a little context. Im giving you a lot.
Fast-forward to 2005, Megadeth (or MegaDave) made their return with "The System Has Failed". I loved it, and still do to this day. For me, it was a combination of classic Megadeth (see: "Kick the Chair & "Back In The Day") and 90's Megadeth (see: "Scorpion" & "Of Mice & Men"). Then came along "United Abominations"... A total dud. THEN came "Endgame". Awesome. Then came "Th1rt3en". Weak. I still like "Th1rt3en", but it's very weak in comparison to "Endgame". But there is a trend: Great, lame, Great, weak. "Super Collider" should be great, right? Im still not sure. It's weak now, but when "Endgame" first came out, I wasn't all too big on it. It wasn't until a few spins of the disc later that I realized that it was truly a return to form.
Without further ado... "Super Collider".
The first track is "Kingmaker". This was the second single release, and frankly, it should have been the first. This is typical fast Megadeth-fare. It's a step above being totally mediocre, but a notch below being great. I guess the classification would be "good"? The chorus is the best part of the song (the case with most songs off this album). There is also one guitar part ripped right out of "Sweating Bullets". You'll know it when you hear it.
Second is the title-track "Super Collider". And a VERY weak title-track it is. This was the first single released, and got a massive backlash upon release. And understandably so. I actually do like this song, but this is not the song to sell a Megadeth album to Megadeth fans. It may cause some Foo Fighter fans to open their wallets, though. It also has themes borrowed from "I'll Be There" which is strange to me considering the song is called "Super Collider". The lyrics have almost NOTHING to do with a super collider. With a title like "Super Collider", it should be fast, heavy and aggressive. AND... It's the title-track. When you have a weak title-track, you know have a problem. Having a great title-track that is hard to compete with is a good problem to have. Having a weak one that almost any song can compare to, not so much.
The third track is "Burn!". This track is fun, but nothing special. It opens with a fairly-forced guitar solo intro. The verse riff reminds me a lot of "Burning Bridges" (and no pun is intended). And the chorus may turn some people off due to the cheesy nature, but sometimes Mustaine can pull off cheese (see: Sweating Bullets).
Next up is "Built for War". This song pisses me off a bit. The vocal pattern used by Mustaine just doesn't work. He drags out the verses and injects "Built for War" between each one. The only section that works for me is the choir-like chant Mustaine does about midway into the song.
The fifth track is "Off The Edge". For the most part, the song is pretty generic. But it's the chorus that saves the song for me. The riff almost makes you want to dance, and the vocal pattern used by Mustaine compliments the riff as well.
"Dance In The Rain" is the sixth track, and is composed of classic Megadeth themes (lyrically). It's essentially about big brother, the monitoring of Americans, corporate handouts, etc. Nothing specifically new, but like I said, classic Megadeth themes. Musically it's interesting, but nothimg special. It does however, transition into a shredding-fast riff but doesn't take off from there. There isn't a coherent beat. It's mostly a series of fills. This is also the track that David Draiman from Disturbed does guest vocals on. Because every Megadeth fan was waiting for the day he would appear on a Deth album. All cunting aside, he's not even that noticeable. They have what appears to be a megaphone effect on his vocals that makes him sound distant. The further the better, the further the better.
Next we have "Beginning of Sorrow". Nothing about this song stands out. Like, at all. Maybe the unlikable chorus? I guess.
"The Blackest Crow" is the eighth track, and is an interesting one. Fucking Willie Nelson did guest banjo on this track. If I had to compare, this would be similar to "Have Cool Will Travel", except much darker. Does this achieve being a good Megadeth song? Im not too sure. But I do enjoy it due to the eerie cajun elements injected into the song.
"Forget to Remember" is track 9, and may quite possibly be my favorite track on the album. There are a lot of songs I can compare this to. Two of which are Megadeth's "Black Swan" and Sodom's "Buried In The Justice Ground". This isn't a particularly heavy or fast Megadeth song, but could easily be on "Youthanasia" or "Cryptic Writings". The chorus (again) is the most outstanding part of the song. Personally, I love it. It's almost uplifting an sad at the same time. Kudos.
And the last original song on the album is "Don't Turn Your Back". Not a strong song, but enjoyable. And yet, ANOTHER song in which the chorus is the outlier.
Lastly, we have a cover of Thin Lizzy's "Cold Sweat". And sadly, it's the second-best song on the album. Aside from it being a killer cover, Mustaine's vocals are what shine here. The chorus calls for a grunt-like vocal chant. And not only does Mustaine do it flawlessly, it's something you've never heard him do before either.
At this point, I wish I could say I loved "Super Collider", but I'd be lying. There aren't enough moments to warrant it being "really good". I kinda' like it, but that's about it. It has the same problem "Th1rt3en" did. Though, the one improvement over "Th1rt3en" was the production. Which is odd, because they went with the same producer this time around. It's also unfortunate about Dave Mustaine's vocals. On "Th1rt3en" and now "Super Collider", he growls more so than sings. And I am not going to fault him for it. Reason being, it's all due to the neck surgery he had done years back. They told him he would lose some singing ability, and that's evident. But what I WILL fault him with, is his lyric-writing. The previous two record's lyrics were so simple, predictable and cheesy. I know he still has it. Just look at "Endgame".
Click here to read the full article...
I would be lying if I said I was a gigantic Star Trek fan. After 2009, I noticed a slew of people who have supposedly always loved Star Trek. Quite frankly, I think that's a heaping pile of shit. After franchise reinvigorations like this, there always seems to be people who claim they've always been fans. I assure you, I am not one of them. Did I always appreciate the show for what it was? Of course. But I could just never fully become enthralled with the show. And that is part of the reason why I believe I enjoy Abrams' Star Trek films. He grew up a non-fan of Trek as well. And it wasn't until he was brought on board to tackle the first film that he became a Trekkie. The approach he took with the first film was interesting. It felt fresh without feeling as if it had to fit inside a specific mold. To sum up the first film, he reinvented iconic characters, injected a new visual style and ran with the rest.
With Star Trek Into Darkness, Abrams managed to delve into classic dark second-installment territory, but without losing the popcorn fun that the first film had achieved. With Into Darkness, there are stakes involved that feel not only high but very real. With the first film, you almost knew no one significant was going to die due to being the kick starter to a newly-restored franchise. But with Into Darkness, I had myself thinking, "Shit, maybe he IS gonna' bite the dust...". The casting with these films are near-perfect. Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto, Zoe Saldana, Simon Pegg, Karl Urban, and the rest of the cast do a solid job. But there are two particular actors that were added to the cast that COMPLETELY owned the film. And I speak of Peter Weller and Benedict Cumberbatch. First and foremost, let me just say that it is FUCKING AWESOME to see Peter Weller in a major role again. He's not just a footnote in this film as you may expect. He's got some pretty decent screen time in this. And his character is not a simple character. He's complex as you may or may not expect. But I am sure all eyes will be on Benedict Cumberbatch. And any attention he does get after this is well-deserved.
When actors play villains, I always feel that if they do it well, they have hit their peak at an acting standpoint. When playing a villain, I believe it can become an outlet for most. From numerous interviews that I have seen and read, most actors tend to lean towards the "everyone has a dark side to them" remark. And by channeling that side, you create a character so unrecognizable and memorable that (again, if done well), it's hard to top. Look at DeNiro in Cape Fear, Heath Ledger in The Dark Knight, etc. Those characters work because it's rare for those actors to play characters, let alone, villains like that. But then you look at Jack Nicholson. You associate the word "villain" or "crazy" with him. And because of that, it has very little punch. Reason being, it's Jack Nicholson playing... Jack Nicholson. What Benedict Cumberbatch does with this character is incredible. I've only seen the actor in one role, but his talent is sure as hell displayed in this film. And much like Peter Weller's character, he's complex as well. He's not The Joker. There's a dynamic. Is what he is telling you really his motive? Or is there an alternative one? His "John Harrison" character is a very effective one. Far better than Eric Bana's Nero in the first film. He is unexpectedly brutal as well. Unexpectedly, because the guy is about 5' 11" and slender, but he has a very tactical combat style. It almost hurts to watch him assault the enemy. The violence in this borders PG-13 and R. Do you see anything? Not really, but there are some damn effective shooting and editing tricks pulled in this film. For instance, Harrison crushes a man's skull. You don't see any of it, but you HEAR all of it. And I've got to be honest, it's pretty damn brutal.
The first film successfully re-invented the iconic Trek characters, and this film only develops them more. Some characters are tested, and react in a way you wouldn't expect them to, and some do what may come to expect in a science fiction film. There are a few convenient devices used in the film to propel the dramatics, but nothing utterly eye-rolling. Amongst the crew, the most impressive character development was Simon Pegg's Scotty. He was the comedic do-what-you-ask figure in the first, and is mostly that in this film. But there is a pivotal scene where Kirk is instructed by Star Fleet to bring aboard torpedoes onto the USS Enterprise. Scotty strongly suggests that Kirk does not bring them on board. Kirk refuses to listen to Scotty, and Scotty resigns (temporarily, of course). To me, that defiance was necessary and much-needed. It makes you wonder who else may defy Kirk's orders, and what may come of the situation due to it.
Now to the more technical of things. First and foremost, the FX. The FX work in this is GREAT. I cant recall a scene with sketchy CG. Almost every scene had a fantastic marriage of practical sets and CG. And the 100% CG shots looked fantastic as well. Depending on what the rest of the year brings, Into Darkness should win the best Visual FX Oscar. This film is MASSIVE. That's partly due also to IMAX. The film has been released in IMAX 3D and is very impressive. Unfortunately it was not shot in native 3D, and was post-converted, but select scenes were shot in the native IMAX format. If you haven't already seen it, see it in IMAX 3D. And if you already have seen it, see it again in IMAX 3D. I can't say the 3D is phenomenal, but it IS good. The only option you have to see it in IMAX is IMAX 3D. And a little tidbit for you: If you're turned off by 3D due to the brightness levels, IMAX 3D films run off of 2 projectors with 2 bulbs as opposed to a regular 3D theatre that runs 3D films with only 1 projector and 1 bulb. With 2 projectors and 2 bulbs, you don't lose any brightness (the glasses are the only element that diminish the brightness).
Michael Giacchino is a composer who absolutely knows what he's doing with the films he scores. Star Trek Into Darkness is no different. He did a damn good job with the first film, and excels with this one. He has a very genuine traditional style. Nothing feels nudge-nudge about his work. Of course he plays around with some classic Star Trek themes (which is mandatory), but he blends his original material with the classic material seamlessly.
The only gripe I held onto walking out? The humor. The humor doesn't fail miserably, it just fell flat most of the time. Which is a bummer, considering that the humor was a very strong point in the first film. Dont get me wrong, there was nothing embarrassing, the humor was just generic.
JJ Abrams' Star Trek Into Darkness? Easily the best movie of the year so far. The only question now is... What will JJ Abrams' Star Wars Episode VII bring?
Click here to read the full article...
To be fair, I actually expected The Last Stand to be better. But it wasn't. With Bullet to the Head, I expected the generic end result that I got. The various delays the film received did not bode well for the film. The trailers didn't help either. They were poorly edited, they had horrible musical choices, and just didn't sell the film well enough for me to say, "That looks ace!". Look, if Stallone is in it, Im watching it. It does NOT always mean Im going to like it.
Bullet to the Head was directed by Walter Hill (The Warriors, 48 Hours & Red Heat). The man may have directed some great films back in the day, but if this film is any indication, he may have lost any "special sauce" he once had. He hasn't directed a feature film since 2002. In that time, you either get hungry, or you get rusty. I think he got the latter. There are a lot of elements that can make or break a film. Story, casting, acting, editing, musical choices, etc. Aside from story, everything else is wrong with this film. Howabout I go one by one? Yes? Okay.
Let's talk story. I am absolutely okay with the story. Stallone plays a ruthless hit man whose partner is killed, and seeks revenge. Awesome. He partners up with a cop trying to investigate the murder, and naturally, they hate each other. Stuff happens, shit blows up, people get shot... In the face... A lot, and more stuff blows up. Okay, the story is out of the way. Moving on...
Casting. This film suffers the same casting problem The Last Stand did. You have your iconic action hero. In this case, Stallone. And you surround him with sub-par or little-known actors. Who else is in this? That Asian guy from Fast & The Furious 8, the black guy from The Thing remake, the neanderthal from the Conan The Barbarian (2011) atrocity... And Christian Slater. At least The Last Stand had Forest Whitaker, an oscar-winning actor. There really is not much else to be said about the cast. Reason being... Who the fuck are they?!
The editing was a huge issue for me. Walter Hill suffers what I call T.S.E.S. (Tony Scott Editing Syndrome). Both are (were, rather. Scott is dead) 60 year-old film makers trying to make "hip" new films. Tony Scott would throw in a really obnoxious CSI: Miami-esque edit/filter, or include some semi-ambient techno-esque music track. And it's ALWAYS horrible. Which is unfortunate, because I can strip the film of all of that, and see something good. But it IS apart of the film, so I can't classify it as "good". Walter Hill does the same shit with Bullet to the Head. Except the only difference is, it's ABSOLUTELY unnecessary. For instance, the scene would transition, and for no reason, the frame would shake and have a quick overlay of orange. There are a lot of strange and terrible editing choices in this film. A lot of the landscape shots of the city were sped up, again, much like CSI: Miami does. Fuck...
Music is a crucial component in a film for me. Look at Tron: Legacy. That film was pretty lame, in my opinion. But the score was phenomenal. And because the score was so great, every time I listen to the score, I always want to give the film another shot. Had this film had a better score, I may have enjoyed it a lot more. What did we get? A piss-poor, gloomy, and drum-driven rock song. It sounds like they snuck into the editing room of Taxi Cab Confessions, and stole their soundtrack files. I think Stallone may be through with wearing both the actor and director's hat for one production, but when he did, he got some pretty great fucking scores! Rocky Balboa, Rambo, The Expendables 1 & 2. Hill's music direction for this was very poor.
Another VERY VERY picky component of the film that bothered me, the format. Walter Hill shot this movie in flat. For those of you uneducated in the format options. You have 2 formats. Scope and flat. Scope is usually at the ratio of 16:9, and flat is at a ratio of 4:3. An easier way of putting it is scope is more rectangular, and flat is more square. Scope is wider, therefore you get more picture captured in one frame. Scope is aptly-named. Because when you watch a scope film, for the most part it feels bigger in size. When you watch a flat film, it feels smaller (and less cinematic, in my opinion). The poor editing and editing effects made the film feel straight-to-video enough, but the format REALLY makes it feel cheap. And just because a film is shot in flat, doesn't mean it's always going to feel sized-down (The Avengers was shot in flat, and that film is gigantic). But in Bullet's case, it doesn't help it.
Believe it or not, I do have great things to say about the film. The violence. The film gets pretty fucking brutal. Nothing you haven't seen before, but it feels real. A lot of R-rated action films that come out nowadays just have CG blood-spray/splatter and a couple curse words. Bullet to the Head earns it's title. It's brutally violent. Stallone causes some serious damage. And it's all believable because he is in incredible shape. There is one scene in a bath house that showcases his physical shape and physical ability at age 66. The man is a fucking beast.
Bullet to the Head. Is the film as good as it's title? Sadly, no. Had there been a bigger budget in place here, we could have gotten a better cast, better direction, and a better film. After The Last Stand and this, Im hoping Schwarzenegger & Stallone make it up with their next film together, The Tomb in September. Until then, there's always... Die Hard 5. Just kidding, that's gonna' blow hard... 5.
Click here to read the full article...
There are two very gigantic larger-than-life icons of action. And those two are Sylvester Stallone and Arnold Schwarzenegger. It's very hard to top them. Yes, you have Bruce Willis. But he was the counter-part to them. The anti-action hero. But with Stallone and Schwarzenegger, you had films that overcame practically everything. And it's not only fun to watch them do so, it can also being inspiring, no matter how ridiculous the circumstance. THAT is what made these two men action icons.
They ruled the 80's. After that, things started to crumble. But only for one. The 90's for Stallone were only decent. His average total box office gross was between $30-40 million. Which in comparison to Rambo: First Blood Part II's $150 million and Rocky IV's $127 million, it doesn't sound great at all. Schwarzenegger on the other hand, 4 of his films crossed the $100-million mark (one of which crossed $200 million [T2]). Come early 2000, though, Schwarzenegger hit the patch Stallone hit the decade prior. Then he did Terminator 3, it did $150 million (though it cost $200 million to make). Schwarzenegger then ran for governator, got elected, and has been out of the leading-man game until now.
When it was announced that Schwarzenegger was making his return with The Last Stand, I actually thought it was a perfect comeback-vehicle for him. An aging Sheriff taking on a drug dealer fleeing to the Mexican border, but has to pass through his town to do so? Perfect. Only... It wasn't so perfect.
When the films starts, it sets up what Schwarzenegger's character Ray Owens is up against. And for the most part, I was on board. Then it transitions into Owens' introduction. And you would think that after getting Arnold Schwarzenegger (fully) returning to acting, you would have a grander entrance. Unfortunately, it was almost like they were introducing a secondary character. And I understand his character isn't larger-than-life, but he still deserved something more... Powerful. But then again, maybe the problem lied in the writing.
The Schwarzenegger-less lead-up to watching Arnie destroy men with bullets wasn't as painful as I expected. They tried to give the heel of the film a back-story and development, which I appreciated. Did I really just want to get to Schwarzenegger cutting people in half with bullets? Yes. But the time between wasn't painful. 20 minutes later, it got to the action. Therein lies a lot of issues. First and foremost, Schwarzenegger is looking his age when he runs. I fucking HATE to say it, but he is. And to be fair, he always ran kind of awkwardly due to his size. He was mostly a gigantic fighting man in film. Not a running man. Despite the fact that he did indeed star in... The Running Man. In The Last Stand he just moves... Old.
Because he moves more lethargic, it tones down the action. Which is unfortunate because this is not a toned-down action film. It' R-rated. There is blood and violence. And a lot of the violence is brought forth because of Schwarzenegger... With a gun. And to be honest, it doesn't take a lot to fire off a gun. It's not until the very end that he gets really physical. And only for a couple minutes at that.
Im sure this isn't going to be a big issue for most, but it was one for me. The acting. Schwarzenegger isn't renowned for his acting abilities. I understand that. Do I think he's horrendous? No. He isn't fantastic, but in a lot of films, his delivery is pretty decent. It's just like Schwarzenegger talking like Schwarzenegger. The problem with this, his line-delivery is very awkward. And not in an awesomely-awkward way. More-so in a "holy-fuck-youre-rusty-as-fuck" awkward way. And it's a shame, because if this film is any indication of the rest of his career... Sheesh.
To the more technical problems of the film. A lot of the shots were an issue for me. In action films, I feel the shots should just flow. Whether they cut really fast, or cut every 15-20 seconds, they should flow. In this, every other 6 shots would seem "off". And who knows, maybe that is due to editing. But some seemed very amateur-esque. And I understand the director who created this film doesn't speak English and needed a translator on set. But maybe THAT was the reason for most of the flaws with the film (and maybe explains Arnold's awkward line-delivery).
The director of the film was Jee-Woon Kim. He's a South Korean director and was responsible for films such as The Good, The Bad, and The Weird and I Saw The Devil. And I can honestly say I haven't seen any of his films until The Last Stand. And unfortunately, I feel the language barrier may have gotten in the way with an American production like this one.
I also think that if the supporting cast had been a little stronger, it would have helped a great deal. Forest Whitaker was a good casting. As was Peter Stormare (who doesn't love that guy?!). But having Johnny Knoxville and Luis Gusman as your sidekicks? You can do better than that. If Michael Caine can be someone's butler and do not a damn thing in 3 films, Arnold fucking Schwarzenegger can get some radical sidekicks.
Before I go into my rant about how aging actors still "having it", I guess I'll conclude on The Last Stand. As a film, it's fun. Is it terrible. Not quite. Is it close to being incredibly awesome dumb fun? Unfortunately, it doesn't even achieve that. It's just... Fun.
In a couple weeks we have Stallone's Bullet to the Head coming to theatres. Am I sold on the film? Yes. Do the trailers help? No. Personally, I hate the trailers. But Im trying to see past the generic modern-metal soundtrack that raped the 2 minutes and 30 seconds of the trailer. And I see a 66 year-old man beating the shit out of people and believable so. I only bring this up because of The Last Stand. Had Schwarzenegger KILLED it in The Last Stand, this review would have ended with "... And we have Stallone's Bullet to the Head to look forward after this". But due to The Last Stand being an underwhelming effort, I have to resort to displaying a true exibit of how a 60+ year-old man can present himself as relevant.
You look at Stallone and you may think too much facial surgery. That's fine. I agree. Do I think he's grown into it? Sure. It looks a little better now then it did before. But one thing that is almost flawless: His body. The motherfucker is in Rocky III-shape. And if you need to be reminded, that was the peak of Stallone's physical shape. And because of his feats today, I proudly say that I am a Stallone-fanatic. And I totally understand that Schwarzenegger had the biggest state to govern for 8 years, so the shape he's in now is due to that. But to be honest, he started losing it even before he even began to think about running for governor.
Arnie has a slew of films lined up in the next coming years. The Tomb (with Stallone), Ten, Unknown Soldier, The Legend of Conan, Terminator 5 and more. Im hoping that he just needed wipe the dust off his soldiers with The Last Stand. Because the amount of films that he has lined up in the short amount of time they're set to be released, I can only seeing it slowing him down.
Click here to read the full article...
For the most part, I was spot-on with what I thought I was going to enjoy. Yes, there were some duds. But it just wouldnt be Hollywood without 'em! But what may possibly be the best part about a retrospect of film are the surprises. More than half of the films on my top 10 were films I didnt believe were going to be nearly as good as they were.
I only got around to doing a handful of reviews for the films (don't forget, Im a movie theatre manager, so when Im not WATCHING the movies, Im RUNNING them). But any that I have reviewed, the link will be listed.
Enough dicking around. Wolves, tigers and Bane, oh my!
1. The Expendables 2
For most of you reading this, the chance of surprise was probably at -39%. Let's face it, this film improved on almost everything than the first film. On a TECHNICAL level, I think the first is superior. And Im not saying that either are pristine examples of film making, but at least most of the first film's shot weren't blurry. Now that's not to say the shots themselves were poor choices (too much shaky cam), but the actual quality of the film stock was just better. But it improved on character-involvment (WIllis and Schwarzenegger in combat), scope, villians, and of course raised the bar with it's cast. Can The Expendables 3 top #2? Bring me the casting of Kurt Russell, and a discussion will be had.
Read my Expendables 2 review HERE.
2. Get The Gringo
If you haven't seen this yet. Do so. It's available on Netflix Instant. And if you're a fan of Payback, then you definitely need to see this. It is literally like a Mexican-based sequel to Payback. Mel Gibson is batting 3 and 3 since his comeback in 2009. Edge of Darkness, The Beaver and now Get The Gringo.
This was a film that was painful to wait for due to it being shelved since 2009/2010. Originally titled "How I Spent My Summer Vacation", it was stalled soon after Gibson's incredible telephone rant. Which is unfortunate because most critics and audiences loved it. So had it gotten a theatrical release, it would have found it's audience in a wide sense.
The film is a terrific debut from director Adrian Grunberg. He was Mel Gibson's assistant director on Apocalypto, so we can see where he got some of his directing chops from. There is so much to love about the film. The locations, the naturalistic quality of it, the balance of comedy, violence and drama, practically everything.
It was basically filmed in the slums of Mexico. You can practically smell it in the air. It's gritty, sweaty and just raw. The location was a perfect one for a fish-out-of-water film. For those of you unaware as to what the film is about... Mel Gibson plays a con man who stole a giant lump sum of cash from someone inside the US, tries to get away and crashes the car across the Mexican border. He gets arrested by the corrupt Mexican Policia and tries to con his way out of the Mexican prison, certain problems arise and it takes off from there.
The last two films Gibson did didn't give him an opportunity to really show off his action chops again, but this sure does. Everything about him is impressive in this. His acting abilities are brought to the foreground in this as well. Because to be a convincing con man, you have to be a convincing actor. And he showcases that for sure in this.
The violence in this is radical. It isn't toned down whatsoever. And you know what? Had this gotten a theatrical release, I feel as if it may have been toned down. There are some killer Mexican stand-off sequences in this. Well, actually only really one. But a lot of western-esque battles. The body-count rises, the blood sizzles in the sun, and Mel Gibson... 'Nuff said.
3. Prometheus
This is a film that for the most part, I feel the same about as everyone else. Some people say it was a let-down and a pile of garbage. But most people had a dual-response. They were let-down, but still liked it at the same time. I am the center of the "those people" and "loved it" venn-diagram. I liked it more than most, but was still a tad disappointed. My issue with the film was the issue most people had with it. The stupidity. A lot of the characters do retarded things non-retarded humans shouldn't be doing. I have no problem with the abiguity of the story, and the altering of Alien-mythology. I mean, in a sense, that is kinda' what a prequel fucking is. Otherwise, what's the damn point? And yes, an argument can be made by saying, "Then don't do it". Okay, fine. But if you ARE going to do one, throw a fucking curveball at me, instead of showing me what I already know.
It's a fucking gorgeous film. If you watch the 3 hour+ "making of" documentary, you'll see how much went into building all of the practical sets, and mumbo jumbo that goes into making a truly gorgeous-looking film. Im going as far as to say that it should have an Oscar nomination/win for set design. It's outstanding.
Read my Prometheus review HERE.
4. The Dark Knight Rises
Unlike the previous two films, my stance on this film has changed quite a bit on this film. My initial review kind of scathed it. And for good reason. All the reasons why I initially scathed it, I still have problems with. But the film really did grow on me. And it's not like I tried to convince myself that it was good, because that isn't the case. I like Batman, and like the Nolan films, but I dont obsess over them as much as other people tend to do (in fact, I wonder if they even like Batman or just love to slob Nolan's knob). Anyway...
With TDKR, there really are a lot of things that work in the film. At a film making standpoint, it looks great, has great performances, a great score, and great characters. But a little weak with some of it's pacing and story-points. Though... They could have knocked it off with the 2nd-rate Clint Eastwood-impressionist voice...
Read my Dark Knight Rises review HERE.
5. Life of Pi
This is a film that really cannot be sold in a trailer or a clip. I watched the trailer, I've seen clips, and even walked into 10 minutes of the film when I was working. There was really nothing about it that demanded that I see it. Until one day I woke up and said, "Fuck it, I'll go into work a couple hours early to catch a movie before my shift". The only one that was over before my shift was Life of Pi 3D.
The movie starts off okay. It introduces everything necessary to the story. His family, the origin of his Pi's name, his reason for believing multiple religions, etc. The first half hour is only slow because you've seen the trailers, and you know most of this film takes place on a boat. So you just want the story to acheive getting to the boat. But like I said, it's a necessary slow half-hour.
Without really handing the story to you on a silver platter, I'll give you the gist. The story starts with Pi, a young Indian boy whose family owns a zoo. Years later, they run into some financial issues and have to move their zoo to Canada to stay afloat (no pun intended). Upon their trip across the Mariana Trench, a horric storm practically wipes out the ship. Thus leaving only Pi and a tiger on a life boat. From there on, watch for yourself.
There are so fucking many qualities that I love about this film. I'll start with the most important to the story, it's message. Pi doesn't believe in one religion, he believes in many. And that is what I love about it. The film doesn't preach, it doesn't denounce one religion for another. It simply says, "What you believe in is what is most important". If his faith is what enables him to survive the grueling months out at sea with nothing but a life boat and a tiger, then so be it.
I'll put it out there plain and simple. If there is a film involving animals as the a main character in a movie, chances are... I'll cry. And Im not a shamed one bit. This film is absolutely no exception. There are TWO scenes that completely ruined me. The relationship formed between Pi and the Richard Parker (the tiger [watch the fucking movie, you'll understand]) is frustrating and ultimately heartbreaking. Did I just reveal what happens to the tiger? No, I didn't.
Ang Lee isn't a film maker Im particularly a fan of. But I don't dislike him. He's just a film maker that I don't have a whole lot of interest in. This film changed that. Reports said that a dozen directors passed on this film because the novel it was based on was "unfilmable". I don't understand how it was "unfilmable". That isn't to say that Lee didn't do a phenomenal job with it. I just don't understand why so many directors passed on the film thinking it was unfilmable. But Im glad they did, because I couldn't be happier with the final product that Ang Lee gave to us. The visuals were incredible, the 3D was great, almost everything worked in this film.
6. Jack Reacher
This was another surprise for me. Tom Cruise has picked some pretty decent projects in the past few years, so I was looking forward to this. But I wasn't eager with anticipation. I thought the trailer was decent enough, but hoped it would be better than what the trailer implied. Surely enough, it was.
Eversince last year's Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol, I've been on a Tom Cruise kick. Not only does the man know how to choose projects, he knows how to give his all in them. Though, Jack Reacher wasn't his most physically demanding, you can tell he trained quite a bit to excel in other areas that weren't his height. Cruise got a lot of flack for not fitting the 6' 5" build due to him only being 5' 7". But if you've seen the film, you'll realize he owned that character. Tall or not. It's odd, it's a Cruise character you've seen before, but haven't. He's smart, but not always right. He's dominant in almost every way, but has weaknesses.
One of the absolute best things the film has going for itself is the humor. This isn't an Expendables 2 elbow-nudge action film. It has very dry humor, and at times has some very black humor. All of which is the best humor to have in an action film like this. The action in the film is great. It isn't wall-to-wall action, but when there is action, it fucking rules. All that needs to be said is: The car chase. It's so fucking well-done. It obviously harkens back to the car chases of the late 60's & early 70's (especially Bullit).
All in all, Jack Reacher is a damn solid film. A great follow-up to M:I:4.
7. Django Unchained
Tarantino, you redeemed yourself after Intolerable Basterds. I wanted to like that film, but when you threw 20-minute talking table scene after 20-minute talking table scene, I just couldn't take it anymore. Luckily, your follow-up hit the mark.
Django Unchained is Tarantino's first straight western (even though he refers to it as a "Southern"). Kill Bill Vol. 2 was close enough, but not quite. Inglourious Basterds had a lot of elements, but Django Unchained was his first full-on western.
My relationship with Tarantino's films is love/hate. For the most part, I really enjoy his films. But he bothers me because not only does he take someone else's lesser-known material and try to pass it off as his own, but I feel as if he imitates himself in the process. With Django, not much is different. But it's a whole lot more fun.
No matter what movie, rest assured, the cast will rule. In this case, he strayed away from some of his regulars and introduced new actors into the Tarantino filmography. First and foremost for me was... Don Johnson. He was the whole reason I wanted to see the damn film. He was fucking hilarious. In the film, there's a gag that involves a Klan-meeting in which they complain about the hole-sizes in their hoods. Johnson OWNS that scene. My second favorite? Leonardo DiCaprio. He plays a fantastically despicable villian. Something that is hinted about his character that isn't fully expanded upon is incest. How he acts toward his sister is pretty creepy. Though, I do believe it is intentional and provokes your mind to wonder.
One of my favorite things about Tarantino is his use of practicality. Everything from the bloodshed to the landscapes. He doesn't cheat you out of your squibs and scenery. The blood in this is killer. It's almost too red (like Dawn of the Dead). It's ridiculously fun.
8. Cloud Atlas
This was yet another surprise. But unlike some of the films on this list, I didn't expect to even watch the film due to who directed it. I never liked The Wachowski's, and can't really say Im going to be looking forward to their next film. But they did a damn fine job with Cloud Atlas (along with co-director Tom Tykwer). It's odd that the one film I did enjoy from The Wachowski's bombed at the box office, but the ones I despise (The Matrix films) did ridiculously well. I guess there's common ground: Speed Racer.
Read my Cloud Atlas review HERE.
9. The Grey
This was a fucking movie. After the abomination that was The A-Team, I didn't think I would ever associate "Joe Carnahan" and "watchable film" together again. But he shut me up. Very few films acheive what he achieved with The Grey. You have plenty of survival films, but nothing like this. You almost literally feel the frigid air while watching the film.
The whole film is solid, but there is one particular scene that has stuck in my head for a year now, and that's the plane crash scene. When I say this, I am 100% serious. It literally feels like a horror film. It's fucking terrifying. It made me feel so uncomfortable due to the sheer intensity of the scene. And the way Carnahan tinkers with your nerves in that scene, he applies that to all the scenes with the wolves. The Grey could almost be classified as a survival horror film. It becomes such an assault on the senses. Much like what having to survive in below-zero weather would be like.
My hat's off to Joe Carnahan. If he can stick to film making like this, and avoid big blockbuster fare, I may become loyal to the defiler of The A-Team.
10. Dredd
And lastly, we have yet ANOTHER shocker. There was absolutely NO REASON for this film to be as good as it was. That isn't to say it's a fantastic film, but it was really good considering it was on the shelf for 2 years and was yet another crack at a Judge Dredd feature film.
FIrst of all, let's get to the production of the film. Technically, this was an independent film. It was independently financed and produced. And Im sure that was the reason it sat on a shelf for 2 years. It wasn't until Lionsgate picked the film up, that's when we started to get a taste of the film. But sadly, Lionsgate did a piss-poor job marketing it. Did some cool shit at Comic-Con, but that audience is already built-in. They did next to nothing to attract the mainstream audience.
Enough about Lionsgate and their poor marketing strategies. The film itself is reminicent of a Paul Verhoeven film. And that is VERY much a good thing. It's not so much the style and shots themselves that share similarities, it's how the director went about the violence. As any Judge Dredd adaptation SHOULD be, it's ultra-drokking-violent (shame shame, Stallone). Shots through the cheek, head, leg, legs, cheeks, hand, hands, just about anything that can be penetrated with a bullet. And from what I could tell, it was mostly practical squibs.
Another surprisingly effective aspect of the film was the 3D. I say that because for the first time, the 3D was actually integrated into the story. There is a drug in the film called Slo-Mo that slows time down for the consumer. So when Dredd breaks down a door to the apartment of drug addict criminals and shoots 'em up, it looks AWESOME. Reason being, you're seeing what the addicts are seeing. Slo-mo blood flow. You can't beat it.
And there you have it. 2012. Though, there were a few films I didn't get to catch that I wanted to see such as Lawless, ParaNorman, Flight, and Lincoln. But fuck it... Netflix.
Click here to read the full article...
Cloud Atlas was a sudden and unlikely film for me to look forward to. Reason being, I hate the directors and their films. Well, two thirds of the directors anyway. The Wachowski's, until now, have not created ONE film worth-while for me. I hate all 3 Matrix films, and Speed Racer looked HORRID. I mean, HORRID. I walked into 15 or 20 minutes of that "film" at the theatre. Sheesh. But this isn't about bashing The Wachowski's for the terrible films they've made. It's about praising them for the good one they have made.
This film is something that hasn't been done before. And for that, I give immense credit to The Wachowski's and Tom Tykwer. Even if this failed on all levels, I would have still given them an "A" for effort. It's an ambitious project. And a massive undertaking.
For those of you who are unaware as to what the film is generally about, it's a film that takes place between a span of about 4 different time periods and places. You have the 1800's, the 70's, present-day, and the distant-future. Some scenes take place in San Francisco, Korea, a few native islands, and a lot of oceanic scenes. And due to this, that is why it's ambitious and a tough sell. And on top of all that. All of the lead actors each play around 4 or 5 different characters, give or take 1 or 2.
What I particularly love about the film are the themes that intertwine. To be honest, I didn't realize many of them until I started writing this review. That's the kind of film this is. It's a 3-hour time machine. You're not going to register everything in 3 hours. Believe me. I usually watch films after-hours with a good 15 beers in my system, and another 8 or 9 DURING the film. Had I done that with this film... Jesus. But I decided to watch this during hours of operation at my theatre... Sober. Like I said, It'll take a while to register everything.
To delve into the story would be... A task. None of the stories particularly connect from end to end. But as a whole, they're all connected. Which is what the film's tagline suggests "Everything is Connected". You wouldn't use that tagline with a film like Pulp Fiction. Why? Because when you watch Pulp Fiction, it's about four or five different characters who directly connect. With Cloud Atlas, they connect indirectly. The lover of the one character in the 1800's is the keeper of nuclear information to another character in the 1970's. But that "other character" is connected to an assassin whose daughter in the 1800's marries a man who freed a slave who was the father of the "other character" in the 1970's. It seems complex, and it is. But what eases the complexity of it all is that they don't play the same characters in each time. SOME do, but most dont. I think the idea here is re-incarnation. The idea that in this life you're a cold-blooded killer, and in the next, youre a hero. But it doesn't always have to differentiate. You can be freeing slaves in the 1800's, and in the distant-future, you can be freeing slaves that of a different race.
The actors. This is a film that brings together an ensemble of quality actors without just throwing their names on the poster, and having them just stand there and talk like many ensemble/non-Expendables films do. In fact, it goes above and beyond. Instead of casting Tom Hanks as one character, fuck it... Let's cast him as 5! The film makers did such an incredible job with who they wanted to play what characters, that at the credits of the film, they show you all the characters the actors played. Because some of them are unrecognizable. Some actors play women, some actresses play men, some black actors play white characters, some white actors play asian characters. And it's all done pretty fucking good.
I always mention the music in a film. But with Cloud Atlas, it's especially important. Partially due to the fact the film's title is strictly derived from a piece of music written in the film. It's called "The Cloud Atlas Sextet". It may very well be the thread through out the film. But as I mentioned before, there's a lot to think about with this film. "The Cloud Atlas Sextet" is a piano piece written by one of the main characters. And this may give you more of an understanding as to what the tagline "Everything is Connected" means. An elderly composer hires a younger composer to translate this song he keeps hearing in his dream because he can't translate music to paper anymore. They don't quite get it. It wasnt until the boy played a piece of his original music, and the old man says, "That's the music from my dream!". It's a beautiful moment in the film. Because it goes to show you that things are much more than what they seem. What was once just piece of music written was a man's dream for months and months.
There is one thing that I particularly love about this film. The trailer. There are a couple trailers out there. But there are really only two. The regular 2 minute and 30 second trailer, and the 5 minute and 42 seconds trailer. The latter is INCREDIBLE. That is what sold me on this film. I watched it stubborn and not really giving a fuck. It ended. "Okay, that looked dumb and... Okay". Then I caught myself watching it again and again. Did I really just spend the past 20 minutes re-watching this trailer? Why did I do that? Because it's THAT FUCKING GOOD. Watch the trailer, and listen to the voice-over dialogue. It sums up the film perfectly. "One day I was headed in one direction... Today I am headed in another". That is what life consists of. A series of events (minor or major) altering the course of your life. Second by second, it's altering as I type.
With this film, there are 3 directors. And I can understand the need and reason for that. Though, I have seen The Wachowski's films, I have never seen any of the other director, Tom Tykwer's films. But I could tell what he did direct, due to difference in style and humor. For instance, Im sure he directed a lot of the smaller comedic scenes. Most of the scenes I could guess who directed what, but there is one time-frame I KNOW The Wachowski's directed. And that was the futuristic scenes. Because it felt very Matrix-y. And because of that, I guess that was my least favorite time-period/setting of the film. But at the same time, it was the most important. For obvious reasons (and maybe not-so-obvious, because it's all over the place), I can't really go into WHY it's so important.
In the end, this is a film that deserved an audience, but sadly never got it. Im writing this 2+ weeks later because I really wanted this to settle in my brain. And honestly, I dont think It'll really settle until repeat viewings. Is this film flawless? No. It has many flaws. But I can see it being nearly flawless in years to come. Because this is not a film that is cut and dry.
Before I get any drunker and spill beer on my computer, let me say this: Watch the film, and try to enjoy it. I say that about any film, unless it was directed by Paul W.S. Anderson or Zack Snyder (and even The Wachowski's [But Cloud Atlas exists, so they're off this list]).
Click here to read the full article...
Jesus. Fucking. Christ. Sylvester Stallone. Arnold Schwarzenegger. Bruce Willis. Dolph Lundgren. Jason Statham. Jet Li. Chuck Norris. Randy Couture. Terry Crews. Jean-Claude Van Damme. Go fuck yourself if that list doesnt impress you. And if you decide not to fuck yourself... They surely will do the dis-honor for you.
First of all, let's set some things straight. I really enjoyed the first Expendables film. It gets a lot of heat for a lot of things. Some deserving, some not so much. You can read my review HERE. But most importantly, it brought together the guys you loved in one film. The only difference with EX2 is... There is no excuse to dislike this film. Okay, well maybe a couple (but more on that later). This not only has the best guys from the first film, but it brings in even MORE! A big thing in the first film was the scene with Sly, Arnie and Bruce. Granted, it was only a spoken-word scene. But then again, the first time you saw DeNiro and Pacino in a scene together was a dinner scene in Heat. No guns, no shots, no violence. With The Expendables 2, it brings expanded roles for Arnie and Bruce. And with that, there are guns, there are shots, there is VIOLENCE.
Lets get to the "story". There are 3 classifications of story-types. "Original", "unoriginal" and "no story". This is a combination of the latter two. The story here is that The Expendables are again, hired guns. Except in this one, they're after Jean-Claude Van Damme's character (aptly named "Jean Vilain"). He's mining for Plutonium for financial gain. But when he kills one of their own, they're motives shift from "mission" to "revenge".
Now to the beginning of the film. From the first 5 minutes, the film already proves that it was crafted much better than the first. My problem, I think, with the first film was that Stallone was wearing too many hats on the production (in which I give immense credit). But when you spread yourself that thin, it'll take a toll. And it most definitely did. I mean, the dude not only stayed in shape for the film, but he produced it, wrote it, and directed it. A LOT to carry on your shoulders. So getting another director was a great choice. And you know what? The dude directed Con Air, so he knows how to handle an ensemble cast (not one of this magnitude), but an ensemble cast nonetheless.
Some technical improvements over the first? No shaky cam. The problem Stallone made with EX1 was that he didn't play on some of the classic 80's fight sequences. He tried to be too modern with the way things were shot instead of running with a traditional approach. And this had plenty of that! And honestly, when it comes to an action film, how its shot and edited counts for 60% of it. Action mostly plays on your nerves, not emotion. So the trickery involved must be executed flawlessly.
Alright, enough about the pesky "film-making", lets get to the meat and potatoes... THE CAST.
Stallone. Probably the only man capable of assembling this cast. Stallone in this was... Stallone. And I dont mean that in a bad way. Stallone's Barney Ross isnt much different than in the first. He's still cold, cynical, and chock full of one-liners. The only problem with his character in this is... His hair. Facial hair that is. In the first Expendables he had a goatee. Okay, fine. Looked good on him. The first scene in the second film? Goatee. Another shot a minute later in the same scene? Handle-bar mustache. Then during each scene the mustache would get shorter, then longer, thinner, then thicker. I really dont understand why he couldnt just keep the goatee. Its a lot easier to maintain, continuity-wise, and it just looked better. All-in-all, Stallone was Stallone. Though, he did give a few more "emotionally-driven" performances in this, in which I did like.
Schwarzenegger. Unlike the first film, he was actually able to blow people to fucking hell in this film. He traded his governorship for an AA-12 rifle/shotgun. And Im oh so glad her did! Now to be honest, Schwarzenegger is a little rusty in this. He's no Stallone (nor will anyone be at his age). But still... It's Schwarzenegger. And it still is a cameo-bit part. But what I do like, is that he's not a one-scene cameo. He appears a couple times. And it's quite... AWESOME. The banter between him, Stallone and Willis is hilarious.
Willis. Bruce pretty much plays the same character he played in the first film. Really no addition to his character aside from more screen time.
Lundgren. Okay, I still remember being completely bombed out of my mind during the first Expendables. And I remember when Dolph "died". Well a little known (or widely known?) fact... I actually cried. Not because the film was THAT enticing. But because I fucking love the fuck out of Dolph Lundgren, and did not want to see him die. Surely enough, Stallone hit him "a couple inches above the heart", therefore he lived toward the end of the film, and there was balance in the world. And I was positive my heart was going to be broken for a second time for The Expendables 2. And SPOILER ALERT! It wasnt. In fact, they added MORE Dolph in this one. BONER. In the first film, he was an unreliable drug addict. In this one, he's just a drunk. My kind of guy. Dolph is fucking HILARIOUS in this! He steals every scene that he's in. He's so fucking odd and hilarious.
Norris. Yes, Chuck Norris. Alright, I need set another record straight. I never found the Chuck Norris facts trend funny. I never had anything against Norris. He became a victim of his own "legend". But here's the thing... Norris rules in this. Midway through the movie, Stallone and company are battling shitheads, shit goes wrong, theyre out-numbered. Then all of the sudden, fuckers are getting blown to bits. Who's doing all this? Chuck Norris. They meet up, and guess what? He tells a Chuck Norris fact. But in the way of a story. AWESOME. Unless you're programmed as a communist... You'll laugh.
Van Damme. Hollywood please. PLEASE give Van Damme more villainous roles. He was too fucking good playing a villain in this. My main issue with it was he wasn't featured enough in the film. And call me crazy, but I think Van Damme's real-life bi-polar disorder has something to do with his performance. Because his performance was very difference from anything you woud expect from Van Damme. There are little nuances that his character would do that seemed a little "off", but all the while making it that much better. And Im fairly certain those nuances were mostly improv. For instance, there is a scene towards the end where he smacks his neck with a knife a couple times. The way he does so, it just makes him look insane. All in all, he did a fantastic job with the role. It's just a shame he wasn't featured in the film as much as I would have liked.
And the rest of the crew were damn good too. Statham, Crews, Couture. But I actually felt that most of the rest of the "Expendables" were given smaller roles this time around. All except for Lundgren (they must have gotten all my fan mail). But Im not complaining, because they did what they needed to do... Blow the fuck out of stone and flesh! There were two new additions, though. Liam Hemsworth and Yu Nan. Liam Hemsworth was pretty much "the new kid". But he held his own in the film. He was the "heart" of the film. Young, in love, and wanting to move on from the mercenary business. And you know what? It worked. The secondary addition, Yu Nan, is the first female "Expendable". She was forced upon the team by Bruce Willis' character. And of course the team is hesitant to have a pesky female on the team, but she proves herself. And as a character, it took me a second time to see it to realize, she was absolutely necessary. She almost served as perfect fodder for the gang, in terms of humor and change of pace. At one point they hint a what-could-be love interest between her and Stallone. And the connection (or lack thereof) between her and Ludgren's Gunnar? Absolutely fucking hilarious. Again, another worthy addition to the team. And for the Jet Li fans, he's not in this film all too much. He's only in the first sequence. But really, the shit he does in the little time he's in the film utilized his skills FAR better than in the whole first one. He's not sorely missed through out the rest of the film, but it would be nice to get him back for the third Expendables.
And now to the rest of the film. Some improvements over the first one? Well, pretty much everything. First, the blood. There was a lot of CG blood in the first. And there's still a lot of CG blood in this one as well. But it's rendered a lot better than the FX in the first one. Also, there are some cool Rambo-esque head shots in EX2. Which is cool, because an exploding head is always a good thing. The direction is also much better in this one than the first. And as I said previously, that's all due to Stallone not having to wear so many hats on this production. The director could focus on directing, and Stallone could focus on acting, er... Making explosions.
The aspects of the film that I DIDN'T care for? Well, the blood again, was still an issue. I did notice they used more practical squib FX. Most noticeably when there were close-ups near glass windows and such, but a lot of the blood during some of the knife scenes with Jason Statham were clearly added in post. But something that bothered me even more than the CG-blood? In a lot of scenes there was not enough coverage shots. And by that I mean, if Stallone and Statham fall from a zip-line into a jungle, and randomly soldiers surround them, there should be shots of the soldiers running up to them. As opposed to them just showing up the next shot. It's choppy scenes like that. And one other thing that bothered me, though I did understand why it was done, was a scene where Stallone, Schwarzengegger, Willis, Norris, Lundgren, Statham, Crews, Yu and Couture are ALL standing in front of a helicopter with guns waiting for Van Damme to arrive (picture below). In the scene they crop out Chuck Norris because they gave him a reveal during the shootout AFTER Van Damme arrives. And in the heat of the moment, it's a far cooler re-introduction for Norris. But unfortunately, when they cropped him out of the "choppa" scene, it made the picture blurry, due to having to zoom in to maintain the same aspect ratio. And those are some of my only nitpicks, really. Because everything else comes with the territory (corny dialogue, etc.).
CLICK TO ENLARGE
The score to the film was pretty damn good as well. But I wouldn't expect anything less from Brian Tyler. He did an incredible job on Rambo, a great job on the last Expendables score, and just as good a job on this one. Naturally, he keeps all the great themes of the first one, but introduced one really cool one, Van Damme's theme. It's a very ominous theme. And it suites Van Damme's character very well. It has those really eerie low violin notes that just sound evil. It works very well.
In the end, The Expendables 2 was EVERYTHING I hoped it would be and more. And Im happy a lot of the reviewers are finally accepting this franchise for what it really is. FUN. I know, you dont have to be stupid to have fun. But sometimes its fun to be stupid. So when you're watching this film, or even the first, just remember, this film would have only existed when you were a child, on the floor, playing with your T-800, Rambo and Rocky action figures. And yes, the dialogue may very well be written by an actual child, but god fucking damnit... Have some fun, you goddamn communist.
Click here to read the full article...
“The Legend Ends”. That is the tagline for The Dark Knight Rises. And with most trilogies, the third installment is usually the weakest. And despite what most “In Nolan We Trust” Christopher Nolan fan boys will say, TDKR is NOT an exception.
Let me explain myself a little with the love/like relationship I have with Christopher Nolan. I absolutely LOVE some of his films. I thought Memento was great, I thought Insomnia was okay (I did last see it 9 years ago), Batman Begins was pretty cool, I have not yet seen The Prestige, The Dark Knight was GREAT, and Inception was okay. And I still need to watch Following (which has been sitting in my Netflix queue since I’ve had the damn subscription). But anyway, back to why TDKR is a disappointment.
With any movie, hype is ALWAYS going to help and hurt the film. It helps, because it puts people’s asses in those seats, and makes the money. It hurts because, most people already made up their minds as to what they want to see. And when the film doesn’t deliver what’s in their mind, it automatically sucks. But that isn’t the case with this for me. I got a different feel from The Dark Knight that I was expecting, and I liked that. The film SHOULD feel different. I mean, hell, it HAS been 8 years since TDK in this film. But what I wasn’t expecting was how the film was crafted.
When I watch TDK, the story moves along smooth enough to really engage what is going on. And almost anything that happens is tied directly with The Joker and his plans for Gotham. His “social experiment” as it were. With TDKR, it just feels overly choppy and messy.
First off, the opening pretty much sets how the rest of the film is cut. It opens with Gordon praising Harvey Dent and all that he has done at the anniversary of his funeral. Then it cuts to the introduction of Bane’s character from the IMAX prologue before Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol back in December. What I liked about TDK? It just said, “Here. This is the fucking Joker.”. That’s all we needed for Bane. “This is who Bane is. Fuck off.”.
Once Bane is introduced, we get a plethora of re-introductions and new introductions. We now learn Bruce Wayne is broke, then we meet Joseph Gordon-Levitt’s character, then we meet Selina Kyle/Catwoman, then we learn how she plays into all of this. Most of it worked, but something just didn’t feel right. And I wasn’t sure what that was until it really started picking up.
Essentially what Bane wants to do, is break Batman and destroy Gotham. And for the most part, he pretty much pulls it off. But once he does that, it goes somewhere that doesn’t seem to quite fit. For about 15/20 minutes it goes back to a Batman Begins-esque sequence. And that isn’t necessarily a bad thing, it just didn’t feel as if it fit. And unfortunately, I cant really go into what happens due to it being spoiler territory.
Okay, lets get to the more positive notes about the movie. First, Bane. I really liked the Bane character in this film. Casting has been half of each Batman film, and TDKR isn’t an exception. Just to set the record straight, Tom Hardy’s Bane is not better than Heath Ledger’s Joke. But that isn’t to say he isn’t fucking rad. When he was first cast, I was pleased because I had already started to like him as an actor. I liked him in Inception, he was great in Bronson, and from what I heard in a Mel Gibson interview, he said Hardy was the perfect choice to play the new Mad Max Rockatansky in the fourth installment of Mad Max (you get Gibson’s approval , you get mine). But I did have one reservation. His size. I grew up with the hulking, venom-filled, beast-of-a-man Bane. But I knew I had to wave goodbye to that interpretation, and embrace the newer “Nolan-verse” Bane. But after seeing the film, I can get past his size, because he was still a brute force to be reckoned with. I remember there was one scene in particular that showcased his strength, and it probably didn’t even register to most people. But there is a scene where he’s fighting Batman, throws him over a railing, and climbs down a chain after Batman. The way he climbed down the chain just looked inhuman. Almost spider-like, rather. Like I said, it was small, but very effective.
One thing I WILL defend that most people are nitpicking: Bane’s voice. Personally, I thought it was rad. It does have a few elements that are a little silly, but they all come together well, I think. It has a nice eerie robotic tone to it, but without losing the commanding power that his voice has. And yes, it is a little hard to understand at times, but think about… His character is wearing a mask afterall. If it was crystal clear, it was be known as a “goof” on IMDb trivia or something. It’s REAL. The only nitpick that serves as a double-edged sword is when his voice has a higher tone. Sometimes it sounds really creepy, and sometimes it’s very cartoonish.
Catwoman/Selina Kyle. Going in, I was VERY weary as to how her character would play out for me. We already had Bane, so where did Catwoman fit in? That was one major flaw that The Dark Knight had, it crowded the last half with The Joker and Two-Face. The Joker was all you needed. Two-Face could have had his own film. The same goes for Bane. He was fine by himself. But surprisingly enough, she was pretty decent. I think Anne Hathaway served the character well. That isn’t to say she NEEDED to be in the film, but that’s something entirely different. Her Selina Kyle was spot-on. In fact, I thought she was better as Selina Kyle than as Catwoman. But that isn’t to say that I thought her Catwoman was terrible.
Hans Zimmer's score. As always, Zimmer delivers. In fact, the score for this film is probably the most flawless aspect of the film. Zimmer's Batman film scores are always very percussion-driven. And it's no different here. Bane's theme alternates from this eerie Bernard Herrmann Psycho-esque theme to this very heavy percussion section that got me amped everytime it would appear. And of course "The Fire Will Rise" chant that plays through out is incredible. But one theme that surprised the hell out of me, was Selina Kyle's theme. It's another eerie section. It's this piano bit that plays during the reveal of her character. It almost reminds me of something Zimmer composed for his Hannibal score for Ridley Scott. It works really well! And of course all the other themes used through out the previous installments find their way into TDKR.
Aaaaaaaaannd... Back to what doesn't work about the film. I dont want to say it gets too big for it's own good, it just didn't feel as if it co-existed with the rules Nolan created for his previous two installments. And again, Im not going to spoil anything, but there is a device used in TDKR that seems like it should only appear in The Avengers or another Marvel film. I don't want to say it was silly... But... It was silly.
Another issue: The duel between Batman and Bane. The trailers sold the battle as the gold at the end of the rainbow. Guess what? That's the half-way point of the film, and the fight sequence was poorly done. It's literally just Bane and Batman punching each other, then Bane punching Batman a little more, then Bane punching Batman a lot more. The only action sequences revealed in the trailer that lived up to how they sold them, was the "cops vs. criminals" showdown, and most of Bane's terrorist attacks. I thought then New York Stock Exchange kidnapping was killer, and the football field sequence was just as badass as in the trailers.
In the end, the film is GOOD. Just not NEARLY as good as it should be. And it's a VERY good thing that Nolan called it quits after this entry, because I dont think there was anywhere for him to go after this film. Especially given the world he created.
Click here to read the full article...
Welcome back, Ridley Scott. It's been 30 years since you've picked up your space gun. Though, you've made some great films in between that time, you've managed to leave a HUGE imprint in the sci-fi universe (pun intended). And yet, you've only made 2 sci-fi films. But what you've managed to do with those 2 films, THAT is why we, as nerds, eagerly awaited your return to the sci-fi arena.
For some, this will be a minor disappointment, for others, it will be a major disappointment, and well, for me, it ruled. Everyone going into this film has their brain set to their own nerd setting. Whether it's that they want a straight-up Alien prequel, a return to sci-fi for Scott, a gory space film, whatever. I just wanted it to be GOOD.
What Ridley and company managed to do here, I enjoyed A LOT. For those of you who are unaware as to how we got where were at, a quick crash-course. 2009, Avatar was released. The 3D and the world Cameron created was so rich and awe-inspiring, that it gave Ridley Scott that itch to do sci-fi again (which is a complete reversal than what happened from 1979 to 1986 when Cameron took over for Scott on Aliens). Ridley Scott said that after Avatar, he was dying to do a science fiction film again. Enter: The Alien Prequel. After a few drafts of the script for the Alien prequel were made, Damon Lindelof was brought on board, and what he turned the script into, it was veering off the "Alien prequel" path, and into "original idea" territory. So from there on out, it was said that it was no longer an Alien prequel, but more so a sci-fi film with the Alien DNA. Okay, class dismissed.
Let's get into plot of the film. A crew of 17 scientists travel to a planet (or moon), after discovering a half-dozen cave drawings in various locations on Earth that all point to a specific star-map. The reason for their expedition? To find human's engineers. Now, therein lies one of my favorite aspects of this film. It's ambition. And it's not a pretentious science fiction blockbuster. It's Ridley Scott. It's a film that IS something entirely different than the robot-dick-punching blockbuster fare we're used to. The film dances on the issues of fact and faith, science and religion. And that can be an issue for some, but for most it's admirable. It's not afraid to ask those questions. But it doesn't necessarily answer them either. There's a line from the movie that sums it up perfectly. David (an android played by Michael Fassbender) asks Dr. Shaw (Noomie Rapace), "Do you still believe in your god now?" (or something along the lines of that. And he asks this after they discover the DNA of us (humans) and them (the engineers) are a match. And to which she replies, "Well... Who made them?". And THAT is the single thread that ties this film together from beginning to end. And the vagueness of the answers we get to the questions were asking is what helps and hurts the film.
Obviously, with any film, you still want a sense of mystery to be prevalent. Because by the end of the 2 hours, if you get answers to all the questions, it's there. Fact. Set in stone. Nothing else to discuss. But when you get a film like Prometheus, the discussion could go on for hours and hours on end, without a single explanation given. And that is why Ridley Scott is a genius in my eyes. He doesn't just throw something in there to have it there. Case in point: The Space Jockey. When you watch the first film, Alien, you see the Space Jockey for maybe 3 minutes of the film. Who is he? Don't know. Why was he there? Fuck if I know. When did he get there? Fuckin got me. What happened to him? Shit. Absolutely NOTHING is explained about the Space Jockey in that film. But Scott already had his backstory and reasoning for being there mapped out. Time-jump 30 years: Prometheus. Ridley Scott basically saying, "Here. Here's your fucking answer.". BUT... In the nature of a Ridley Scott science fiction film, it leaves you with MORE questions.
The characters. I have been reading a couple reviews, and there are a lot of complaints about the characters. And I can see why. But, that doesn't mean I didn't care for the characters. The way I would sum them up is that they're "more than serviceable". They were not characters you'll be quoting left and right, but they were neither cardboard cutouts. Im content with them. But there is always that exception. And that exception was Michael Fassbender. Each Alien film, as you may know has an android. Alien had Ash, Aliens had Bishop, Alien3 had... Wait, do you care about Alien3? Anyway, Prometheus has David. And if I had to choose one element from Prometheus that DID hold up as well as Alien and Aliens, it was David. Fassbender played him with such charm, yet at the same time, he was nailing the portrayal of an android perfectly. But that charm that his character had also translated to "wait, can you trust him?". And characters like that keep you guessing through out the course of the film.
The visuals. If someone walks out of the film, and you hear them say the film lacked in plot points and characters, eh, whatever. But you hear a single complaint about the visuals. Find the nearest battle axe and/or chainsaw, and murder that person. The visuals in this were phenomenal! And Im not only speaking of the CGI, Im speaking of the incredible to-scale sets. What most directors do wrong in gigantic films like this is that they RELY on CGI. Not only is the CGI in this some of the best I've seen, but there is no reliance here. Certain sequences you're going to have to resort to CG. But when a scene calls for a set to take up most of the sound stage, that is just plain awesome. And the marriage of CG and practical is almost seamless.
The 3D. Not only is the 3D really fucking good in this, but some of the hologram scenes in this are like nothing I've ever seen. One scene in particular is a holographic/dream sequence. And the sequence itself is nothing special, but the way the visuals are designed, HOLY FUCK. I highly suggest watching this in 3D. And another benefit, it was shot in 3D. I saw this twice, once in Real-D 3D and the second in IMAX 3D. Both have trade-offs. Real-D 3D, for me, is a lot better than IMAX 3D, but with IMAX, you get the bigger picture, which is a HUGE plus. But you also have to be seeing in the g-spot of the theatre, which is center/center. If you can't make it to an IMAX, no biggee, you'll get better 3D in a regular theatre, but be sure to watch it in 3D regardless.
Unfortunately, with a film like Prometheus, to write a non-vague review, you'd have to spoil a lot of scenes (or all), and Im not going to do that. I dont even want to mention scenes you've seen in the trailer, because a lot of those aren't what you think they are. But I will say this. There is one scene that is NOT in the trailer (well maybe just a quick shot), but it is AWESOME. Though, it might give you a stomach ache.
All in all, am I happy with the film? Yes. I like this film VERY much. Am I a LITTLE disappointed? Maybe a little, but I need to let it settle and get a few more answers through discussions to really make my final judgment call. And I would like to see a sequel to Prometheus, but there is a lot of time between the end of this film and the beginning of Alien. And that brings me to what the writer Damon Lindelof said, "This has the DNA of Alien, but it is not a direct prequel. If Alien is X through Z, Prometheus isn't A through W.". Meaning, the sequel to Prometheus isn't Alien. It would be Prometheus 2.
Click here to read the full article...
2011, much like last year, was very tame and not all too exciting. Like every year, there’s disappointments, and there’s pleasant surprises. Was Super 8 as good as I hoped it was? No. Was Shark Night 3D the stupid fun I hoped it was? No, it was a boring turd. Does a GOOD Captain America film exist now? Yeah! Is it possible for a GOOD horror film after 1995 to exist? Yes! I didn’t think I could even compile a list of 10 for 2011, but once I really thought about it, it was feasible.
1. The Beaver
The Beaver is one of those films where I don’t think could work without the talent involved. And by talent, I mean, Mel Gibson. Don’t get me wrong, Jodie Foster did a great job, in terms of direction. It’s just that Gibson steals each and every scene. And really invested himself into the role. Though, many would say it didn’t take a whole lot for him to portray an insane schizophrenic. I am one of those people. Let’s face it. No one does crazy like Mel. THE BEAVER REVIEW
2. Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol
Here’s a film that was EXACTLY what I wanted, and delivered on the level that I wanted it to. The Beaver exceeded my expectations. But it wasn’t exactly what I thought it was going to be (and that’s partially due to the original score [hey, music can alter a film drastically]). Not saying I didn’t love the score. It’s just that it really altered what I was expecting. With M:I 4, it delivered exactly what I expected. A sleek, high-octane, stunt-spectacular train of a film. Once it starts, it never lets up, and I couldn’t ask for more. MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE - GHOST PROTOCOL REVIEW
3.The Muppets
Here’s one of the many films that really surprised me! For a franchise that has laid dormant for over a decade, they delivered one helluva film. There is so much to love about The Muppets. The characters, the jokes, the music, the zaniness, everything! First of all, the film is self-aware of the declined interest in the franchise. It pretty much serves a “Blues-Brothers-getting-the-band-back-together” entry into the franchise. And I have absolutely no problem with that. And make no mistake, this is not a “kids movie”. Yes, it’s for kids, but its for adults too. It’s the quintessential family film. And to be a family film, you have to have jokes and themes for everyone. For instance, in the film, there’s a character called “80’s Robot”. His job is to pretty much make the teens and adults laugh. From references to montages to dial-up internet connections. That’s all stuff that goes over the head of a 10, 11, or 12 year-old. And then there’s of course corny jokes for the kids that still makes you laugh. It all works. Maybe the only thing hurting the film is it’s run-time? But that would be my only gripe if I had to have one. And I don’t have to have one. So, rather than me back-spacing, just forget I typed that.
4. The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo
Unlike most “remakes” (I quote that for a reason, but Ill get to that in a second), I have usually seen the original first. That is not the case with The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo. And I kind of wanted it that way. Look, it’s David Fincher. And unlike many directors working today, his worst is usually better than most director’s best. But with his adaptation of Dragon Tattoo, I knew he was going to work closer from the book than the original Swedish film. And that leads me back to the whole argument as to whether or not it’s a remake. For me, if you make a film based off of an original movie, THAT is a remake. But if you make a film derived directly from the source material (I.E. novel), then that is simply just another adaptation. And having finally watched the Swedish version, I can honestly say I like Fincher’s adaptation more. I think his film is a darker, colder and a better photographed film. Many people have been complaining about it not having enough personal touches. But I disagree. It doesn’t require any personal touches. This isn’t a complicated love story. It’s an eerie murder mystery with a dash of romance. And the amount of human emotion thrown into the film is enough. Enough to actually give two fucks about the two main characters, but not to the point where it gets sappy.
And like I said, this film is shot beautifully. Some scenes make you feel cold, some scenes give you the creeps, and some are just downright raw. And a lot of that is due to the colors and camera placement. If you’re reading this, you probably already know there is a rape scene. And while many directors would have the camera shaking to build on the tension already happening, Fincher knows when a scene’s content is enough to make you feel uncomfortable.
5. Puss In Boots
Okay, Im a cat person. And I know I’m destined to grow up to be a crazy cat lady. And that might be 50% of the reason why I love Puss In Boots. The other 50%?... Well, more cat jokes. So I guess in actuality, this film is humor for the clinically insane. Dreamworks makes films for the clinically insane. That’s my review. And the 3D was fantastic. Fantastic 3D for the clinically insane.
6. Transformers: Dark of the Moon
Michael Bay. Robots. Robot-dick-punches. ‘Splosions. I think Ive got that covered HERE and HERE.
7. Rango
Rango is one of those films that is disguised as a “kids film”, but is really for adults. Really, this film is basically Chinatown. But replace Jack Nicholson with a lizard with a Hawaiian t-shirt. This is, I think maybe the best animated film of the year. Even though I think Puss In Boots might be better, the ANIMATION in this is incredible. This is ILM’s first foray into 100% CG-animation. And honestly, it looks better than Pixar. The direction Gore Verbinski went with this was great. When I say the animation looks real, I mean it looks photo-realistic. The designs of the characters are outrageous, yes, but the rendering of the textures look so damn real. But I wouldn’t expect less from Verbinski. Ive watched all the Pirates making-of doc’s, and he’s a hard ass when it comes to CG. And more directors need to be that way. But then again, not all directors were visual FX artists prior to directing.
8. Don’t Be Afraid of the Dark
You know, it’s surprises like Don’t Be Afraid of the Dark that restore my faith in horror for 3.6 seconds. I expected NOTHING from this film. But once I watched it, I was pleased to find out that it wasn’t a heaping pile of shit. It played like a classic gothic haunted house story. Except instead of ghosts, they’re disgusting rat-like asshole… Things. I know this is a remake of the 1970’s made-for-TV-movie (which I hear is damn good), but this one worked. It didn’t try to modernize the film too much. Enough to simply take place today. No distracting references to Facebook or any of that horse shit that is commonly popular in horror today. It just plays as a straight “what-goes-bump-in-the-dark” horror film. The creature designs are fucking creepy, the story is pretty interesting, and the score wasn’t too bad either. Had I been anticipating the film, I probably wouldn’t have been impressed with the film too much. But that’s what happens when you go into a film with no expectations.
9. Captain America: The First Avenger
Who would have thought Captain America would have actually been… Cool? Certainly not I. Im sorry, I always found the character to be incredibly corny. Even his name is ultra-hokey. But what Joe Johnston managed to do with the character worked, and because of that, the film exceeded my expectations. Joe Johnston is one of those directors I can respect because of his accolades. This guy has worked on Star Wars, The Empire Strikes Back, Return of the Jedi, and Raiders of the Lost Ark. I don’t know about you (nor do I care), but I could die happy having just been apart of those films. But Johnston has never been a very good DIRECTOR. Honey, I Shrunk The Kids was a fun film as a kid, Jurassic Park III was a mess, and The Wolfman… Well, I hear it was pretty much a dud. But with Captain America, he actually made a good film! And Im happy, because I knew he had it in him.
He managed to take a character I dislike, and make me like him. But I do have to say, there is one particular element that he injected into the film that was an easy “they’ll love this!”. And that’s Indiana Jones. Johnston doesn’t necessarily make makes nods to the Indy films, as much as he uses the overall tone in his film. And much like most superhero films, the villain in 50%. The Red Skull was awesome. I want to set the record straight. I HATE NAZIS, I think they’re scum, and simple-minded sub-humans. BUT… You throw an S.S. uniform on anybody, they instantly look badass. The contrast of The Red Skull’s… Red skull, and his black leather S.S. uniform? You really cannot fucking beat it.
Is Captain America an amazing film? I don’t think so. But it definitely showcases Johnston’s ability to direct. Give him enough preparation time, a decent budget, faith, and artistic freedom… And you have a solid film.
10. Drive
Everyone loves The Big Lebowski, correct? Correct. Everyone is sick of hearing hipsters brag about their “The Dude Abides” shirts and their “Dude” sweaters, right? I know I am. Yes, I own a couple Lebowski shirts, and I really don’t get the urge to wear them too often because of the frameless hipster ass wipes. But I will not let them ruin the film for me. Because if they do, the terrorists win. The same will go for Drive.
Drive is a film that has already become a “cult classic”. I really enjoyed Drive (hence, why it’s on this fucking list). But I see people already wearing that white jacket with the yellow scorpion on the back. The same people incidentally have frameless glasses. Hmmm…
Drive really is a good film, and doesn’t deserve to be ruined via hipsters. The film is very simple and very minimalistic. It replaces action for contained ultra-violence, and has a sick sense of humor. I was really surprised at the level of ultra-violence there was. A scene would play, you’d sense “Oh, maybe this girl is going to die”. Okay, shot in the chest, scene over. Nope. Let’s have a shotgun headshot in slow-motion. You know, just so you can take in all the blood, brain & skull fragments at a slower rate. Is that anything new? No. I just thought it was rad because it wasn’t expected. I wasn’t expecting ultra-violence. Drive has a cool score, some damn good acting, and some awesome car chases.
And that was 2011 for me. That’s not to say there weren’t any other films I enjoyed. I thought The Skin I Live In was a bizarre and unique film. The Adventures of Tin Tin was enjoyable. Great animation, fun inebriated humor, and another Indiana Jones-esque film. Hugo was really good. Excellent film-making, great performances, the 3D was incredible, and what else? Oh! That’s right! It’s Martin Scorsese. So I guess the list would be shorter if I listed what DIDN’T work with Hugo. Cowboys & Aliens was a fun western/sci-fi fusion. X-Men: First Class and Rise of the Planet of the Apes were surprisingly good. And aside from the aforementioned films, most films were either A) a disappointment (Super 8) or B) Just irredeemable shit (Conan).
2012, please don’t let me down. Id like The Expendables 2, The Dark Knight Rises, Prometheus, The Avengers, and Bullet To The Head not to suck.
Click here to read the full article...
I’ll put it out there. Im not the biggest Mission: Impossible fan. I’v never caught an episode of the original television series. But I have seen all 3 films. But by the end of it, it’s a fairly decent action franchise. The first was okay. The second was a mess. And the third? Well, Id say the third was the best… Until now.
Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol manages to take the best aspects of its 3 predecessors, and even build on them. But what it doesn’t do, is it doesn’t depend on them, as many sequels tend to do. A hint here, a nod there, a reference over there. That isn’t to say it doesn’t bring back a couple characters, but it certainly does not rely on them.
First off, I want to address the director, Brad Bird. This is his first live action film. But that isn’t to say it’s his first film. Most people would know Bird from his animated films The Iron Giant, The Incredibles, and Ratatouillie. But what he does with M:I:4, I wonder… Why has Hollywood been hiding this guy behind a computer screen for all these years? Seriously, this his is freshman live action film, and it feels like a seasoned veteran directed this. And Im not even speaking in terms of the action in the film. Im talking the pacing, the humor, and hell, even the IMAX format.
You would think that you would be content with shooting in 35MM for your first live action film, test it out, then graduate to the fancier formats (3D, IMAX, etc.). Nope. Brad Bird managed to create an EXPERIENCE, and not just the fourth entry in an action franchise.
The film opens with Ethan Hunt in a Russian prison. Okay, this should be interesting. Obviously, the objective is to escape. What's he in there for? You find that out later. All that matters at this point is the “how”. How is Ethan Hunt going to get out of this mess? Well with the help of his team members at the IMF. Basically, it’s a very strong opening. All the jail cells are opened, Russian convicts litter the halls, destroy prison guards, its just chaos. So as Hunt is trying to escape, he has to fend off not only prison guards, but the inmates as well. And the use of music works really well too. The Dean Martin song "Ain't That A Kick In The Head" playing over the loud-speakers. So not only is the action great, the choice of song is great. What else is thrown into the mix? Successful humor. Humor isn’t always successful in action films. In fact, it’s usually terrible. EVERYTHING works in this film.
The basic gist of the film is this: Ethan Hunt and his team are given another mission by the IMF. The mission? To track down the Russians who possess the launch codes to nuclear missiles. The catch is, they’re the only 4 left of the IMF. So… No back up. That is what makes this mission a little heavier. And I know what you’re thinking, “That plot seems a little thin”. Well here’s the thing, like with any espionage/spy film, there are always more twists and turns and subplots. And with a lot of espionage/action films, too much usually gets in the way. If you have a film that is predominately a spy/thriller/drama, the action can sometimes get in the way of the actual story. And if you have a film predominately action, complexity of story can sometimes get in the way of the action. Action doesn’t always have to be dumb, but it doesn’t always have to be “calculus-smart” either.
The action/story in M:I:4 is, in my opinion, perfect. There was nothing in terms of story that had me scratching my head saying, “Really? That’s all there is to it?”. It just suites the action perfect. Because in the end, the M:I films are ACTION films. M:I:4 is set piece after set piece after set piece. And it manages to pace it at a rate where you can breath between, take in all the information you need to follow the story as it progresses, and brace yourself for the next action scene. And the action is shot perfectly. Geographically, you know where you are in each scene. There are very few shaky-cam shots. Shaky-cam, people forget, is something that is unavoidable in an action film. Whether its used for 5% of the film, or 80% of the film, it’s in practically everything you watch. Its just less noticeable in certain movies. And M:I:4 is one of those movies.
Speaking of shots, lets talk about IMAX. Brad Bird has gone on record by saying that 25-30 minutes of the film was shot in IMAX. And all of it looks fantastic. There was one issue I had going in that I hoped was going to be addressed and corrected. And that was the aspect ratio change. And it was indeed corrected. I didn’t see Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen in IMAX, but I heard there was a major issue involving the constant switch-over from 35MM to 70MM in a single scene. With Ghost Protocol, there is no issue. Once the IMAX-shot sequence begins, it consistently fills the screen until the scene is over. So if there is a close-up dialogue cut, it’s shot in IMAX, and doesn’t subtract the scope of the scene. And I love the transition from 35MM to 70MM back to 35. Its edited in a way in which it feels as if a top and bottom curtain are being lifted to expose the whole picture. As opposed to just cutting to the IMAX-shot sequence harshly.
Every IMAX sequence is great. But the one that is the most impressive is indeed that climbing of the Burj Khalifa. You know, the one that they’ve used in ALL the marketing. And for good reason! Its fucking INCREDIBLE! Not only is it the greatest sequence in any of the Mission: Impossible films, but it’s one of the best sequences in any action film in the past 10 or 15 years. There are so many damn elements that make that scene work so fucking well. Ill just list ‘em as I go. First off: Tom Cruise. The fact that this man (who doesn’t need the money, mind you) was willing to climb the world’s tallest building (a half a mile high), without a stunt man, is just incredible. I wish I could buy the guy a shot right now. And it’s one thing to just go out on a harness 2700 feet in the air. But it’s another thing to run down the building, run across the building, and plunge yourself from one side to the other. Secondly, the scope of IMAX. As you watch Tom Cruise hanging onto the side of the building, you actually feel as if you’re going to fall into the screen. Granted, this film isn’t in 3D, but it sure as hell pulls you in. And when Cruise slips and falls, your stomach drops with him. Thirdly, the score really enhances the scene’s energy. When the main Mission: Impossible theme enters, you get goosebumps. Maybe you wont, but I did. I get ‘em just thinking about it. And as if the scene wasn’t dangerous enough, along with the height, he also has to fear the dreadful sandstorm heading his way. The scene is just perfect. And that’s only the half-way point of the movie. There are still even 3 of 4 more action sequences after that!
The rest of the film, I don’t feel I should even write about due to the fact that the studio doesn’t really reveal too much of it in the ads and trailers. Which is great! For once, you can go into a movie and actually see something you DIDN’T see in the trailer. For the most part, the TV spots and trailers showed you most of the action sequences from Moscow and Dubai. For the last quarter of the film they go to India, and what happens? Well, watch the fucking movie.
The team. You have Benji, the computer-tech. Jane, the female agent. And Brandt, the new guy/secret commando. And of course, Ethan Hunt. And surprisingly enough, it’s a very strong team. Benji obviously serves as most of the comic relief for the film. And for the most part, he is hilarious. Jane was pretty badass in the was that wasn’t too forced. I mean, she did kick a girl’s ass, then knock her out a window. That’s pretty rad. And with Brandt, you might think this is a spoiler, but it’s not. They reveal it in the trailer. Brant APPEARS to be just an analyst from D.C., but as the story progresses, it’s revealed that he’s a soldier who can hand your ass to you. So that made for an interesting touch. But what makes it so interesting is that, for once in the M:I franchise, someone who isn’t who they say they are is actually GOOD. Usually the guy who you thought was good, was playing for the other team. The one thing that I DON’T like about Brandt actually has nothing to do with his character. It’s the direction they want to go in the next installments of the franchise. From what I heard, Jeremy Renner (who plays Brandt) is supposedly going to be passed the torch from Tom Cruise to be the new leading man in the M:I films. Hey, I liked his character in Ghost Protocol, but Mission: Impossible is Cruise’s franchise. This isn’t Bond.
All in all, Brad Bird, Tom Cruise, producer J. J. Abrams, and the rest of the crew did one helluva job on this film! Its amazing that the fourth film in a series can surpass its predecessors ten-fold almost 17 years after the initial film. But this only makes me wonder, how can you top Ghost Protocol? The Burj Khalifa scene alone is hard to top! We’ll see. If this is Brad Bird’s FIRST live action film, what the hell is he going to do next?!
Really though, see it in IMAX. Or fuck off.
Click here to read the full article...
