Friday, January 1, 2016
Friday, November 13, 2015
Review: 'The Peanuts Movie'
First and foremost, this is not a great movie, which may seem a bit disappointing. But that is not a bad thing in the slightest. When you remember the original Peanuts classics we know and love, was there really such greatness there to begin with? In one sense, maybe. But for the most part, there was a very simple amount of substance offered, with basic little morality tales you could get from a variety of sources. So if that's the case, then why do we cherish these characters so dearly? Well one reason I believe why is because they are so simple. Most everything else is always searching for meaning, grandeur and greatness, over exceeding it's grasp. But these guys aren't the Looney Tunes (though nothing against them at all); with the Peanuts, you were always able to just relax and observe. Almost the cartoon equivalent of watching clouds pass by in a clear blue sky. You experienced the holidays with them, the difficulties of school or hardships with your friends, and countless other everyday relatable problems. And each tale ending with a simple message, reminding us of our true greatness.
When I first saw that the animation was going to be three-dimensional, I got a little nervous. But now having just seen the movie, I was pleasantly surprised by how well they made it look. Even though it is computer animated, it manages to capture that two-dimensional, hand drawn quality and even jerkiness that we all remember. And there is even a few snippets of hand drawn animation here and there for good measure. So yes, the look of the film is great.
Charlie Brown's always been an interesting icon to have grown up with, for me that is. I've always felt the same way he has, being the socially awkward one, occasionally down on himself, the world itself seemingly pressing him down. But that's what always made his character so great and always nice to return to. Charlie Brown always had something positive come around in the end. It may not have always been what he had hoped for, or anticipated, but it always reassured him that there was always tomorrow to look forward to.
Like I said before, there is no real "greatness" in this movie attempt at the Peanuts, as far as storytelling is concerned. If you've seen a few of the original animated cartoons before, you've technically already seen this movie. But that does not mean that this movie is not worth seeing. It's the way they retell all these stories and update them for modern audiences that makes this film a real treat. To make us all feel young again.
Charles Schulz himself believed in wholesome, valued entertainment. In this day and age, that's something that is deeply missed. And this movie is a fresh drink of water, one that Schulz himself would surly be proud of.
When I first saw that the animation was going to be three-dimensional, I got a little nervous. But now having just seen the movie, I was pleasantly surprised by how well they made it look. Even though it is computer animated, it manages to capture that two-dimensional, hand drawn quality and even jerkiness that we all remember. And there is even a few snippets of hand drawn animation here and there for good measure. So yes, the look of the film is great.
Charlie Brown's always been an interesting icon to have grown up with, for me that is. I've always felt the same way he has, being the socially awkward one, occasionally down on himself, the world itself seemingly pressing him down. But that's what always made his character so great and always nice to return to. Charlie Brown always had something positive come around in the end. It may not have always been what he had hoped for, or anticipated, but it always reassured him that there was always tomorrow to look forward to.
Like I said before, there is no real "greatness" in this movie attempt at the Peanuts, as far as storytelling is concerned. If you've seen a few of the original animated cartoons before, you've technically already seen this movie. But that does not mean that this movie is not worth seeing. It's the way they retell all these stories and update them for modern audiences that makes this film a real treat. To make us all feel young again.
Charles Schulz himself believed in wholesome, valued entertainment. In this day and age, that's something that is deeply missed. And this movie is a fresh drink of water, one that Schulz himself would surly be proud of.
My rating: 3 / 4
Wednesday, October 21, 2015
Review: 'The Martian'
Under an hour before walking into this movie, I was walking around looking for a decent resteraunt to grab a quick bite to eat. I ate fairly little that day (an egg sandwich and small bowl of cereal that morning) and was pretty hungry. The only place near the theatre was crowded and there was no way I'd be able to eat then get to the movie on time. So I didn't eat. After the movie started, Matt Damon's character becomes stranded on Mars, with very little food. The only thing for him though is there's no diner around the rocky corner on the red planet. So every grumble in my stomach, during the movie, made me grateful to be in the position I was in (not his).
I'm a sucker for survival movies. They just usually seem to get me glued to my seat. Not only are the main character(s) faced with challenges testing them to their limit, but you yourself strangely are put in the wannabe survivors shoes. You yourself start thinking about what you will do in a precarious situation. Sometimes the outcome depicted in the movie is different from what you might have thought, and sometimes it's exactly the same. Whether you would've done something differently or not, it doesn't matter. In the end, you have a fair idea and blueprint planted in your head, possibly in case you would ever need to use the information yourself in a life or death situation (only I highly doubt any of us will be stranded on another planet any time soon). Some people choose romantic comedies of musicals, I choose these.
This is Ridley Scott's best film in years, and that's saying a lot. Most of his other films that weren't in the "science" realm have, for some reason, been of no particular interest to me. Science-Fiction, or Fact, just seems to be his genre of expertise. And he does it extremely well
The main fascination with this movie is the supposed realism. Every bit of science used and said, every technical feature you see on a ship or rover, it's all very believable. Everything, to a non-scientist, feels very accurate. Well (Spoiler Alert!) maybe flying in space like Iron Man is a bit of a stretch. But then again, artistic licensing has to be used for the sake of a good story and edge-of-your-seat finale. And I think it was a worthwhile addition.
Probably my main critique is this: At first, you do feel this slight sense of isolation, after Matt Damon's character has been stranded. But as the film moves on, you lose that feeling of loneliness with constant cutting back and forth from Mars, to Earth, then Mars, then back to Earth and little bit more of Earth... Then back to Mars. I'm not saying I don't appreciate the scenes on Earth, they're absolutely essential and great. I just think that more than half of the focus should have been back at the situation on Mars. Basically, like Cast Away, when you're literally on the island with Tom Hanks the entire time he's on the island. No hint of what's going on in the outside world.
I'm a sucker for survival movies. They just usually seem to get me glued to my seat. Not only are the main character(s) faced with challenges testing them to their limit, but you yourself strangely are put in the wannabe survivors shoes. You yourself start thinking about what you will do in a precarious situation. Sometimes the outcome depicted in the movie is different from what you might have thought, and sometimes it's exactly the same. Whether you would've done something differently or not, it doesn't matter. In the end, you have a fair idea and blueprint planted in your head, possibly in case you would ever need to use the information yourself in a life or death situation (only I highly doubt any of us will be stranded on another planet any time soon). Some people choose romantic comedies of musicals, I choose these.
This is Ridley Scott's best film in years, and that's saying a lot. Most of his other films that weren't in the "science" realm have, for some reason, been of no particular interest to me. Science-Fiction, or Fact, just seems to be his genre of expertise. And he does it extremely well
The main fascination with this movie is the supposed realism. Every bit of science used and said, every technical feature you see on a ship or rover, it's all very believable. Everything, to a non-scientist, feels very accurate. Well (Spoiler Alert!) maybe flying in space like Iron Man is a bit of a stretch. But then again, artistic licensing has to be used for the sake of a good story and edge-of-your-seat finale. And I think it was a worthwhile addition.
Probably my main critique is this: At first, you do feel this slight sense of isolation, after Matt Damon's character has been stranded. But as the film moves on, you lose that feeling of loneliness with constant cutting back and forth from Mars, to Earth, then Mars, then back to Earth and little bit more of Earth... Then back to Mars. I'm not saying I don't appreciate the scenes on Earth, they're absolutely essential and great. I just think that more than half of the focus should have been back at the situation on Mars. Basically, like Cast Away, when you're literally on the island with Tom Hanks the entire time he's on the island. No hint of what's going on in the outside world.
When the movie almost ended, a thought came to my mind.
So the film is claimed to be mostly accurate, as far as space-travel/science is concerned. Astrodynamics, spacecraft designs and technicalities, habitations, etc. And NASA clearly must approve of most of the film's depiction(s). Why else would they allow their name and brand labeled everywhere on screen.
So if there is so much effort in developing all of this technology for a mere movie (And it's been more than 4 decades since we went to the moon), then why do we still have no human beings on Mars? Why has there not been more time spent, as far as we know now, on developing actual missions to Mars?!
So the film is claimed to be mostly accurate, as far as space-travel/science is concerned. Astrodynamics, spacecraft designs and technicalities, habitations, etc. And NASA clearly must approve of most of the film's depiction(s). Why else would they allow their name and brand labeled everywhere on screen.
So if there is so much effort in developing all of this technology for a mere movie (And it's been more than 4 decades since we went to the moon), then why do we still have no human beings on Mars? Why has there not been more time spent, as far as we know now, on developing actual missions to Mars?!
I'm sure I'm digging too deep into this, but those are my thoughts.
My rating: 3.5 / 4
Wednesday, July 8, 2015
Review: 'Terminator: Genisys'
Believe me, I'm the last person who wanted another Terminator sequel. The first two Terminator films I hold in the highest regard as the best of their kind, both as sci-fi/action movies and movies in general.
So after having seen 'Terminator: Genisys', to my surprise, I actually kind of liked it. It's a guilty pleasure, to say the least.
I found that, despite all the tongue-in-cheek references to the original films, meaning the first two, I was amazed at how much more giddy I was by them than it was cringe-inducing. Particularly the recreation of key scenes from the 'The Terminator' (1984). You know Hollywood is un-inspired when they feel the need to make a sequel to something and then include a quarter of the movie with shot for shot remakes of certain sequences from the original. But at the same time, I didn't mind it that much at all. Being a huge fan of the first two movies, and seeing how this movie payed much respect to them and no thought to the third and fourth film, was all the more admirable to me. Like the Terminator himself says in this movie: "Old, not obsolete."
When there were moments and incidents introduced that would have led the movie into the realms of stupidity, it was smart enough to take a fresh detour here and there. And, when all else fails, at least use elements (or cliches) that are overdone, but still fun nonetheless. Once again: "Old, not obsolete."
The casting was also relieving. Literally, at first I thought half the casting choices were a bad idea. Judging by all the trailers, Jason Clarke (John Connor) seemed more infantile and less prophetic like the brief instance you see of him in the opening sequence of 'Terminator 2'. Emilia Clarke (Sarah Connor), although a very attractive woman, seemed merely to be there just for the sex appeal (and still was in certain scenes). And Jai Courtney (Kyle Reese), well he didn't look or seem like the Kyle Reese I remember at all. But after seeing the movie, all actors did their jobs thankfully well. And yes, of course Arnold was the Terminator we all know and love.
Is it a really good, or great movie. Absolutely no! Is it still an unnecessary sequel? For the most part, yep. But if you love the first two James Cameron epics, you should at least give this movie a watch.
So after having seen 'Terminator: Genisys', to my surprise, I actually kind of liked it. It's a guilty pleasure, to say the least.
I found that, despite all the tongue-in-cheek references to the original films, meaning the first two, I was amazed at how much more giddy I was by them than it was cringe-inducing. Particularly the recreation of key scenes from the 'The Terminator' (1984). You know Hollywood is un-inspired when they feel the need to make a sequel to something and then include a quarter of the movie with shot for shot remakes of certain sequences from the original. But at the same time, I didn't mind it that much at all. Being a huge fan of the first two movies, and seeing how this movie payed much respect to them and no thought to the third and fourth film, was all the more admirable to me. Like the Terminator himself says in this movie: "Old, not obsolete."
When there were moments and incidents introduced that would have led the movie into the realms of stupidity, it was smart enough to take a fresh detour here and there. And, when all else fails, at least use elements (or cliches) that are overdone, but still fun nonetheless. Once again: "Old, not obsolete."
The casting was also relieving. Literally, at first I thought half the casting choices were a bad idea. Judging by all the trailers, Jason Clarke (John Connor) seemed more infantile and less prophetic like the brief instance you see of him in the opening sequence of 'Terminator 2'. Emilia Clarke (Sarah Connor), although a very attractive woman, seemed merely to be there just for the sex appeal (and still was in certain scenes). And Jai Courtney (Kyle Reese), well he didn't look or seem like the Kyle Reese I remember at all. But after seeing the movie, all actors did their jobs thankfully well. And yes, of course Arnold was the Terminator we all know and love.
Is it a really good, or great movie. Absolutely no! Is it still an unnecessary sequel? For the most part, yep. But if you love the first two James Cameron epics, you should at least give this movie a watch.
My rating: 3 / 4
Friday, June 19, 2015
Review: 'Jurassic World'
"Pointless, but fun", was what I immediately thought after 'Jurassic World' had ended. Now, over an hour later, I would say it's actually even more pointless than fun.
'The Lost World' is still personally a better sequel, to me at least. At least that film did things differently. This film, the only remotely new and interesting thing is the functionality of the 'world'. Yet even then it introduces some ridiculous scenarios.
There was nothing that truly Wowed me or surprised me in Jurassic World. It's real sad how we've come more than 20 years later since 'Jurassic Park', and the effects in the original surpass this movie by a landslide. Even in this movie's admittedly Awesome, Incredible finale, when T-Rex shows up to save the day, I didn't believe one bit that he was there. One of the best things about the original 'Jurassic Park' were the perfect animatronic effects of the dinosaurs, particularly involving the T-Rex. In 'Jurassic World', it's all CGI. The CGI effects look so fuzzy and pixelated, compared to when they first started out two decades earlier. I've asked this before, and I'll ask again: What happened?!
It's kind of a roller coaster of mixed emotions. I felt like that once I was starting to give up on hope for this movie, something briefly comes up that sparks my interest, but then it immediately goes back into generic territory. Then it shows me something kind of cool and interesting again, but decides not to fully focus on that, and goes back to being bland. There's clearly little sense of direction or inspiration here.
Bigger is almost never better. There's more dinosaurs, but less wonder and awe. There's more action and violence, but much less build up and suspense.
There are cool moments here and there. Like the scenes with the velociraptors being tamed and going on the hunt. And, Spoiler Alert: T-Rex, the king (or queen) itself, coming to save the day from 'Inconceivable'-Rex is the most epic of fight scenes. I know 'Inconceivable'-Rex has got a different name in the movie, but that's what I prefer to call it... Everything else is phoned in. The majority of all else in the movie is just so stupid and cliche that it overshadows the really cool stuff.
This also brings up probably my main problem with the movie: The sheer, unbelievable stupidity of creating an entirely new, carnivorous dinosaur from scratch. And making it bigger, badder and even more lethal than any other. Which is all for publicity? And Chris Pratt's character, of course, who does Not work in the hybrid-Rex department, ironically is the only one with a brain stem telling these "scientists" how to do their jobs. The idea that the original park never worked out in the first place, so they just decide to make an even bigger, therefore more lethal and dangerous park (What's the worst that could happen?), is downright insulting to both me and the audience's intelligence.
It's almost shameful, to me, to think that this movie is in honor of the brilliant 'Jurassic Park', when it didn't even recollect the very words of Ian Malcolm (Jeff Goldblum) from the original movie: "You've stood on the shoulders of geniuses, to accomplish something as fast as you could. And before you even knew what you had, you patented it and packaged it, slapped it on a plastic lunch box. And now you're selling it, you wanna sell it!" Or better yet, on the thought process of whether or not to make this movie: "You're so preoccupied with whether or not you could, that you didn't stop to think if you should."
'The Lost World' is still personally a better sequel, to me at least. At least that film did things differently. This film, the only remotely new and interesting thing is the functionality of the 'world'. Yet even then it introduces some ridiculous scenarios.
There was nothing that truly Wowed me or surprised me in Jurassic World. It's real sad how we've come more than 20 years later since 'Jurassic Park', and the effects in the original surpass this movie by a landslide. Even in this movie's admittedly Awesome, Incredible finale, when T-Rex shows up to save the day, I didn't believe one bit that he was there. One of the best things about the original 'Jurassic Park' were the perfect animatronic effects of the dinosaurs, particularly involving the T-Rex. In 'Jurassic World', it's all CGI. The CGI effects look so fuzzy and pixelated, compared to when they first started out two decades earlier. I've asked this before, and I'll ask again: What happened?!
It's kind of a roller coaster of mixed emotions. I felt like that once I was starting to give up on hope for this movie, something briefly comes up that sparks my interest, but then it immediately goes back into generic territory. Then it shows me something kind of cool and interesting again, but decides not to fully focus on that, and goes back to being bland. There's clearly little sense of direction or inspiration here.
Bigger is almost never better. There's more dinosaurs, but less wonder and awe. There's more action and violence, but much less build up and suspense.
There are cool moments here and there. Like the scenes with the velociraptors being tamed and going on the hunt. And, Spoiler Alert: T-Rex, the king (or queen) itself, coming to save the day from 'Inconceivable'-Rex is the most epic of fight scenes. I know 'Inconceivable'-Rex has got a different name in the movie, but that's what I prefer to call it... Everything else is phoned in. The majority of all else in the movie is just so stupid and cliche that it overshadows the really cool stuff.
This also brings up probably my main problem with the movie: The sheer, unbelievable stupidity of creating an entirely new, carnivorous dinosaur from scratch. And making it bigger, badder and even more lethal than any other. Which is all for publicity? And Chris Pratt's character, of course, who does Not work in the hybrid-Rex department, ironically is the only one with a brain stem telling these "scientists" how to do their jobs. The idea that the original park never worked out in the first place, so they just decide to make an even bigger, therefore more lethal and dangerous park (What's the worst that could happen?), is downright insulting to both me and the audience's intelligence.
It's almost shameful, to me, to think that this movie is in honor of the brilliant 'Jurassic Park', when it didn't even recollect the very words of Ian Malcolm (Jeff Goldblum) from the original movie: "You've stood on the shoulders of geniuses, to accomplish something as fast as you could. And before you even knew what you had, you patented it and packaged it, slapped it on a plastic lunch box. And now you're selling it, you wanna sell it!" Or better yet, on the thought process of whether or not to make this movie: "You're so preoccupied with whether or not you could, that you didn't stop to think if you should."
My rating: 1.5 / 4
Sunday, May 10, 2015
Review: 'The Avengers: Age of Ultron'
After having just barely seen Marvel's latest escapade, 'The Avengers: Age of Ultron', to be perfectly honest, I'm not really sure what I thought of it. Whereas the first Avengers movie took me on a fun, exciting trip, this new one simply left me confused, limiting at least a quarter of the enjoyment I should have been having. And I really was enjoying it. It was fun, but only to an extent.
Problem number One is the plot. And the overall storyline. In the first Avengers, the plot was relatively simple: The earth is under threat of invasion, so assemble a team of superheroes to protect it. Sounds cliche and old-fashioned, right? Well, it is. But what made it so great was how fresh and new they made it feel. With 'Age of Ultron', at least half of it was completely convoluted. The pacing felt really rushed in certain places, making it hard to keep up, especially when in the very next scene there would be even another subplot and character introduced to us. Most notably, the introduction of Ultron himself. That plot point quite literally pops up out of nowhere, with little exposition, and then voila. What you thought you were paying attention to at first has now completely shifted gears. It basically seemed like it got to the point where it was strictly aimed towards the comic book readers, which I clearly am absent from in that department. This movie felt too rushed, to me.
It's funny really, and ironic, that 'The Avengers' (2012) brought me to a high level of appreciation and admiration for Marvel that I never had in the past, and then 'The Avengers: Age of Ultron' has brought me back down a bit, if only just slightly. I don't know, maybe I wasn't in the proper mindset this time around. I'll definitely have to see the movie again in order to receive a better understanding of it. In fact, I'm sure I will be seeing it again. But for now, as far as first impressions go, this one is a dud. Unfortunately though, I certainly will say.
This movie had so much potential, but got a little lost along the way. I will also say though that you do get to spend a lot more quiet time with the Avengers themselves a bit more than in the first movie. But even then, it's still few and far between compared to the all the action sequences and confusing plot-points.
Problem number One is the plot. And the overall storyline. In the first Avengers, the plot was relatively simple: The earth is under threat of invasion, so assemble a team of superheroes to protect it. Sounds cliche and old-fashioned, right? Well, it is. But what made it so great was how fresh and new they made it feel. With 'Age of Ultron', at least half of it was completely convoluted. The pacing felt really rushed in certain places, making it hard to keep up, especially when in the very next scene there would be even another subplot and character introduced to us. Most notably, the introduction of Ultron himself. That plot point quite literally pops up out of nowhere, with little exposition, and then voila. What you thought you were paying attention to at first has now completely shifted gears. It basically seemed like it got to the point where it was strictly aimed towards the comic book readers, which I clearly am absent from in that department. This movie felt too rushed, to me.
It's funny really, and ironic, that 'The Avengers' (2012) brought me to a high level of appreciation and admiration for Marvel that I never had in the past, and then 'The Avengers: Age of Ultron' has brought me back down a bit, if only just slightly. I don't know, maybe I wasn't in the proper mindset this time around. I'll definitely have to see the movie again in order to receive a better understanding of it. In fact, I'm sure I will be seeing it again. But for now, as far as first impressions go, this one is a dud. Unfortunately though, I certainly will say.
This movie had so much potential, but got a little lost along the way. I will also say though that you do get to spend a lot more quiet time with the Avengers themselves a bit more than in the first movie. But even then, it's still few and far between compared to the all the action sequences and confusing plot-points.
My rating: 2.5 / 4
Friday, November 7, 2014
Review: 'Interstellar'
'Interstellar' is that experience you wish to get every time you walk in to a movie theatre, which sadly only happens a quarter of the time. The film may exceed its grasp, yes, but it's for something you're willing to cling on to. It may contain elements we have seen in countless films prior, but somehow it finds a way to make it feel fresh. That's one of the many brilliant aspects that makes Christopher Nolan 'Christopher Nolan'.
Our ambitions as a human race are so grand that it's a true wonder we haven't continued in our expeditions of the cosmos. As one character notes in the film (and I paraphrase) 'We spend less time looking up to the stars and more time to the dirt.' If we are meant to learn and to grow in this mortal existence on this tiny planet Earth, why do we remain in destroying our reputation with warring conflict on other nations? Why do many people refuse to believe and wonder at the fact that mankind has flown to the moon and back? Are we alone in the universe? When will we continue in our explorations for answers to our age-old questions?
The film's musical score is a genuine treat for the ears. Listening to it, I had no choice but to reminisce flying over desert landscapes and soaring through nighttime city skyscrapers as depicted in 'Baraka' (1992) and 'Koyaanisqatsi' (1982), the latter being composed by Phillip Glass. So when I saw that the score for 'Interstellar' was done by none other than Hans Zimmer, I was pleasantly surprised. With a reputation for booming scores recently, equipped with cellos, trombones and horns of every kind, the introduction of Glass's euphoric-styled organ was mesmerizing.
To say anything about the plot would ruin surprises the film has in store for you, you the tiny insignificant viewer in this infinite universe of ours which we haven't even begun in scratching the surface of.
Also, to compare this movie to that of '2001: A Space Odyssey', like other critics are, would be like comparing a lake to an ocean. There may indeed be similarities, but what this film does is play out more as a legacy of the filmmaking traits Like that of Stanley Kubrick. This movie, quite honestly, reminded me more of 'Contact' (1997). And that movie's co-star, Matthew McConaughey, may only be a coincidence. Or maybe not.
Lastly, see 'Interstellar' in IMAX. If it's filmed on IMAX cameras, made for projection on giant sized screens and earthquaking surround-sound, then you wouldn't limit the experience for your living room, would you?
Our ambitions as a human race are so grand that it's a true wonder we haven't continued in our expeditions of the cosmos. As one character notes in the film (and I paraphrase) 'We spend less time looking up to the stars and more time to the dirt.' If we are meant to learn and to grow in this mortal existence on this tiny planet Earth, why do we remain in destroying our reputation with warring conflict on other nations? Why do many people refuse to believe and wonder at the fact that mankind has flown to the moon and back? Are we alone in the universe? When will we continue in our explorations for answers to our age-old questions?
The film's musical score is a genuine treat for the ears. Listening to it, I had no choice but to reminisce flying over desert landscapes and soaring through nighttime city skyscrapers as depicted in 'Baraka' (1992) and 'Koyaanisqatsi' (1982), the latter being composed by Phillip Glass. So when I saw that the score for 'Interstellar' was done by none other than Hans Zimmer, I was pleasantly surprised. With a reputation for booming scores recently, equipped with cellos, trombones and horns of every kind, the introduction of Glass's euphoric-styled organ was mesmerizing.
To say anything about the plot would ruin surprises the film has in store for you, you the tiny insignificant viewer in this infinite universe of ours which we haven't even begun in scratching the surface of.
Also, to compare this movie to that of '2001: A Space Odyssey', like other critics are, would be like comparing a lake to an ocean. There may indeed be similarities, but what this film does is play out more as a legacy of the filmmaking traits Like that of Stanley Kubrick. This movie, quite honestly, reminded me more of 'Contact' (1997). And that movie's co-star, Matthew McConaughey, may only be a coincidence. Or maybe not.
Lastly, see 'Interstellar' in IMAX. If it's filmed on IMAX cameras, made for projection on giant sized screens and earthquaking surround-sound, then you wouldn't limit the experience for your living room, would you?
My rating: 3.5 / 4
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)