Starring: Ben Affleck, Bryan Cranston, John
Goodman, Alan Arkin
Plot: The joint-venture secret operation
of the CIA, Hollywood and Canada to extract six diplomatic employees of have
managed to remain hidden after the taking of the US embassy in a revolutionary
Iran in 1979.
“The truth and nothing
but the truth”: Going beyond the praise and the
obvious statement that Ben Affleck is a better director than he is actor (to be
fair let me use a past tense on the “actor” part), we have a movie that
delivers what has been lacking in the big screen for some years now: a
top-notch spy thriller with a lot of action involved (with the latter part
being absent from “Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy” (2011) ). Maybe the movie had an
amplified effect on me, being a die-hard fan of the post-Watergate era movies
of the 1970’s; but the box-office numbers show that perhaps I’m not the only
one.
Affleck was able to turn the uneven pace found
on his last entry “The Town” (2010), from a weakness into a strength in “Argo”,
going from a fast paced first act, to a slower second act to finally top if off with a third act climax
that will forever haunt my memory.
But the true essence of the movie’s success lies
in the supporting cast. Affleck himself delivers a good performance, but hardly
one that will get him on of the five slots at the Academy Awards. Alan Arkin,
John Goodman and Bryan Cranston to name a few are the true reason why the movie
works so well, with a special praise to both Arkin and Goodman who are able to
turn a set of clichéd Hollywood stereotypes and jokes into a somewhat refreshing
portrayal of what goes on at Tinseltown. (The fact that there’s a montage
including Van Halen’s “Dance the Night Away” was an added bonus to me).
What makes this story so compelling is that old
expression “truth is stranger than fiction”: Both the CIA and the extractor and
the brain behind the whole idea, Tony Mendez (Affleck) develop a preposterous
plan to shoot a Star Wars-like production (and God only knows how many rip-off
were produced during the late 70’s and early 80’s) in Iran. This would allowed
to extract the six Americans, by making them pass as a Canadian film crew on
location scouting. The whole tension and “stranger in a strange land” feeling among
the six members of the diplomatic personnel who have successfully avoided being
captured by the Iran forces is almost reminiscent of a mix between the Anne
Frank story and “The Invasion of the Body Snatchers” (1978).
So, in a nutshell “Argo” is a successful
combination of comedy bits with a tense portrayal of the years in which
American pride wasn’t being displayed as it used to in the past and you can see
it. It’s a criticism to both sides of a war, with both the excesses of the political
reign of the Ayatollah Khomeini and the impotence of Jimmy Carter analyzed
under the microscope with a dash of drama that only adds interest to a real
event.
It’s pretty much a serious version of “Charlie
Wilson’s War” (2007), a brilliant piece of revivalism and to me simply one of
the best, if not the best movie, I’ve seen the whole year.
“Money-Shot”: The whole final sequence at the
airport. Hands-down, the best sequence of the year and one of the best I’ve
ever seen ranking up there with the execution of the heads of the other four
families in “The Godfather” (1972), for example.
Bottom-Line:10/10. A political/spy/comedy/thriller action paced movie
that is easily one of the best, if not the best, movies of the year. A must-see
for those who have enjoyed “Charlie Wilson’s War” (2007) and those who enjoy
political thrillers altogether.
But of course, this is just my opinion, I could
be wrong…
Starring: Christian Bale, Tom Hardy, Michael
Caine, Anne Hathaway, Morgan Freeman
Plot: Eight years have gone by after the
events of the “The Dark Knight” (2008), Batman has disappeared being blamed for
the crimes and death of “Gotham’s Savior”, Harvey Dent. With a period of
apparent peace numbing the city’s ability to react, Gotham falls under the
attacks of Bane, a “law enforcer” carrying out the mission of the League of
Shadows, requiring the Dark Knight to rise once again.
“The truth and nothing
but the truth”: The concept of “zeitgeist” is tossed
around so lightheartedly these days that its meaning and the examples that are
assumed to be encompassed by it lose their relevance. However, a clear example
of a work of art that captures the gist of the present is “The Dark Knight
Rises”. A far superior superhero movie with the depth and relevance, only
achieved by a restricted number of movies, regardless of the genre.
The movie deals, among other aspects, with the
current financial crisis (well…duh) and the ultimate effects of the capitalist
system (with the levels of subtlety used in the analysis varying throughout the move). But instead of providing a totally biased
portrayal of the “evils of the western civilization” and greed, Nolan showed
the other side of the coin by representing the downside of the exact opposite
ideological point, a “Dictatorship of the proletariat” if you will, in a
sequence that resembles the excesses committed by the people during the Russian
revolution, and thus displaying a chance of redemption and catharsis for
society as we know it (thumbs up for Capitalism!). Nolan’s overall study of the
effects of “Social Darwinism” and the corruption associated to it, while a
constant throughout his saga, take a completely different turn in this entry.
The enemy, or rival if you will, presented on
this entry is far different from both Dr. Jonathan Crane (a.k.a The Scarecrow)
and the Joker, two villains who enforced the mind and ideals over physic
strength, and ultimately couldn’t be eliminated (the ending of “The Dark Knight”
left the Joker alive, and Dr. Crane continues to roam around Gotham) and thus
representing the notion that all the evil seems to live forever (Yes, the song “Only
the Good Die Young” by Iron Maiden just came to mind). Anyways, Bane is the
first villain who combines the two types of aforementioned strengths: the
belief on an ideal (no matter how distorted the notions associated to said
ideal are) and physical power, a threat that didn’t menaced Batman in the
previous movies.
Tom Hardy delivers a believable performance (No
comparisons to “Batman & Robin” nor Heath Ledger’s Joker should ever be
made) albeit not one free from criticism (and surprisingly enough not all came
from Republicans [
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505270_162-57474527/batman-and-politics-the-bane-bain-name-game/ ]): from his dictation being incomprehensible to
his pose that mirrors a folk dancer or a really smug villain holding his
suspenders. I for one tend to compare Tom Hardy’s Bane in some specific moments,
such as his speech at the stadium, to Sean Connery’s campy character in “The
Avengers” (1997) (no…not that one).
For all it’s worth, Hardy manages to transform Bane
into a human like character, with the ability to display weakness and emotions
and (SPOILER!) that ultimately can be eliminated as opposed to the previous
villains (END SPOILER!)
The supporting cast is strong and consistent
with Oldman’s Commissioner Gordon and Freeman’s Lucius Fox taking the spotlight
from Caine’s Alfred. Alfred’s absence in a considerable portion of the movie
contributes to the increase of the significance and impact of his character and
also allows the viewer to ultimately experience the dependence relationship
that exists between him and Bruce Wayne.
The scene stealer is of course Anne Hathaway’s
Selina Kyle/ Catwoman, the perfect counterpart to Bruce Wayne/Batman and a more
than optimal “replacement” for Rachel. While I have to admit that I had
reservations towards how Hathaway would handle a role that was near-perfected
by Michelle Pfeiffer in “Batman Returns” (1992), but she managed to handle the
task combining sexy and tough in a way only Pfeiffer could.
Marion Cotillard’s Miranda Tate, at first, just
seems to tag along and fulfilling her purpose to the story and while comic book
fans surely saw the twist coming from miles away, I for one was pleasantly surprised
as the character revealed its true significance.
Bale gives a great performance and truly
captures the essence of wounded hero. His recluse version of Bruce Wayne is, in
many ways reminiscent of the eccentric millionaire Howard Hughes (Nolan
had always planned to do a biopic about him but after Scorsese’s “The Aviator”
(2004) the idea was dropped). He really matured as an actor, settling the
ancient doubt I had about him when I first saw “American Psycho” (2000): is he
really a good actor or the fact that the character he’s playing, Patrick
Bateman, happens to encompass the traits of his acting: wooden and aloof?
While the excessive hype may have endangered
it’s potential success, the movie is by all means a masterpiece. I address the
criticisms, mainly fuelled by misguided expectations and safely state that it
was never Nolan’s intention to surpass the previous entry. Each movie is
simultaneously linked with the remaining parts of the saga and an independent
movie with its individual and unique message, allowing the story not only to
move forward but also to come full circle. And there lies the beauty of Nolan’s
saga.
Focusing on the on-going “The Dark Knight” vs.
“The Dark Knight Rises” comparisons, such analysis is futile and the viewers
who expect a carbon copy of former with a different villain will be disappointed.
For me, like its predecessor, this movie required
a second viewing and along with all of his prior works cement Nolan as the best
director currently working. A must-see. Let’s hope his contribution to the
Superman reboot “Man of Steel” (2013) yields such a satisfying outcome.
“Money-Shot”: The whole movie is the money shot, but the final
wrapping up sequence is worth of mention, simply because it will be the last
time we will see it for the first time.
Bottom-Line:10/10. It’s more than a blockbuster. It’s an event. I urge
anyone to watch this epic in a movie theater and give it without reservations
the exact same grade I gave “The Dark Knight”. The best movie of the year, so
far.
But of course, this is just my opinion, I could
be wrong…
Starring: Mark Wahlberg, Mila Kunis, Seth
MacFarlane
Plot: During a particular tough childhood,
John Bennet (Wahlberg) befriends a teddy bear, who ends up becoming his best
friend. Now, with 35 and with the negative effects of Ted and John’s mutual
influence clearly showing, John is forced to choose between moving on with his
life or getting stuck on an arrested development condition.
“The truth and nothing
but the truth”: When the news that, after some buzz
for some years, Seth MacFarlane finally decided to direct a movie, the first
concerned that crossed my mind was that we, the audience, would end up watching
something along the lines of “Family Guy: The Movie”. Despite being a fan of
the aforementioned show (as well as “American Dad”) for several years I stopped
watching it in 2010 because the humor had ran dry. Let’s face it: MacFarlane is
a one trick pony relying on a mix of pop-culture and “fart jokes” source of
humor, which is abundant in today’s airwaves.
Still, with “Ted”, he is able to reinvent
himself without needing to make major adjustments to the sources that made him
famous. And while on TV it looks over saturated, on the big screen it looks
fresh and new.
Despite some flaws, “Ted” picks up on a regular
rom-com blueprint adds a certain dose of stoner comedy and tops it of with a
great CGI lead, and the output is a successful combination of all of the above.
Regarding performances, Mark Wahlberg delivers
a believable character and the best relationship with a full CGI character
since Bob Hoskin’s in “Who Framed Roger Rabbit?” (1988) and is also one of the
movie’s main strengths. Mila Kunis as Lori adds little much to what we have
already seen from her on last year’s “Friends with Benefits” (2011), but still
plays out a decent and likeable character.
There’s room for some drama, but the director
and the characters successfully prevent it from damaging the pace of a story that doesn’t take itself
too seriously set in a light hearted environment.
The backdrop stories and the secondary
characters are interesting and don’t feel unrelated to the main plot, avoiding
to excessively dragging out: from Ted’s girlfriend Tammy Lynn to the psychotic
villain Donny (played by Giovanni Ribisi) and not forgetting Lori’s sleazy
boss. In a way they work as more thoughtful cutaway gags, which are the
cornerstone of both “Family Guy” and “American Dad”.
The comedy is there but lies on a very specific
demographic: I had the misfortune of getting stuck in a row in front of a bunch
of kids who certainly didn’t catch the humor on the “blink and you’ll miss it”
Indiana Jones reference, the Pink Floyd lyrics joke, Tiffany’s cheesy video
clip and of course Tom Skerrit, among others. But still in a sea of cultural
references, any movie that does a frame by frame reenactment of one of the best
comedies ever made ( “Airplane” (1980) ) has to be a great movie.
And for a movie that puts so much emphasis on a
long-running sketch about “Flash Gordon” (1980) and is still able to maintain
an entire audience interested, the only conclusion we can retrieve is that it’s
a success.
That being said “Ted” is the best comedy of
this summer and one of the best of the year.
A word to the wise: for every “Purple Rain”
(1984) there’s an “Under The Cherry Moon” (1986) and for every “Borat” (2006)
there’s a “Bruno” (2009). So before venturing on a sequel or your following
project, plan extremely well what your next step will be, Mr. MacFarlane.
“Money-Shot”: From the “Flash Gordon” slo-mo entrance to the
“Thunder Song” there are plenty of great moments that will surely make you want
to see this movie a second or even third time.
Bottom-Line:8/10. To put it simply, the best R-rated Comedy since “The
Hangover” (2009). Delivers the laughs and belongs to my definition of “a feel
good movie”. If you’re not easily offended and you believe that “The Dictator”
(2012) fell short on the expectations, then this is your movie.
But of course, this is just my opinion, I could
be wrong…
Starring: Kris Kristofferson, Isabelle Huppert,
Christopher Walken, John Hurt, Jeff Bridges
Plot: Set in 1890’s, the movie tells the
story of Johnson’s County Wars in Wyoming, a conflict involving the rich cattle
owners and the immigrant settlers. Between them lies Sheriff James Averill, a
renegade privileged man who sets out to defend the European immigrants and
fight for the values he believes in.
Along the long line of great American cinema
epics arrives “Heaven’s Gate” (1980), Michael Cimino’s very own take on the Old
West. With the ambition set on creating the next “Gone With the Wind” (1939),
Cimino set out to implement every single step mentioned on the “How to Create Your
Own Epic” rulebook (to the point of even including an “Intermission”).
Unfortunately, he appears to have engaged in that myth called “speed reading”
and ended up missing a step or two. The result is an infamous reel of film,
whose process of making is more notorious than the movie itself. From the
delayed schedules, the excessive number of takes, to the “screened for a few” 5
hour long version of the movie which included a battle sequence that lasted the
same as your average movie, and the overall stubborn and megalomanous behavior
that puts Cimino a grey suit and cat away from becoming a quintessential
1960’s James Bond villain.
Until this day, “Heaven’s Gate” is a movie that
polarizes critics: from the trashy remarks voiced by the American critics to
the somewhat pedantic approach taken by European reviewers who state that the
movie is a misunderstood piece of art.
But let’s start from the beginning…
“The truth and nothing
but the truth”: Fresh from his two hits “Thunderbolt and
Lightfoot” (1974) and the Academy Award winning “The Deer Hunter” (1978), Cimino
had the credibility to pursue his most personal and most ambitious project
yet. United Artists executives lay down
the terms: the movie had to premiere at Christmas 1979 (As if…). When an
additional extension on the budget was required those very same executives were
copasetic with the request. After this single action, things started to get out
of hand, with Cimino indulging himself and playing with the studio, leading
them believe that they had a potential “Apocalypse Now” on their hands: a
costly but worthwhile labor of love. This couldn’t be further from the truth…
Without going too much into detail on the
production process, I must state that I’m not a movie intellectual (The fact
that I can get a couple of laughs at “Police Academy 4: Citizens on Patrol”
(1987), immediately disables me from belonging in such a category). With that
being said, I can safely write that a considerable share of sequences that
comprise Cimino’s third outing as a director are simply boring. (See Exhibit
A).
Exhibit A
The movie is a result of the director’s very
own vision, and that same vision insists up on itself for the whole 3 hours and
40 minutes, or what he calls “The Directors Cut”. The cinematography is
outstanding, but it appears that the notion “nothing exceeds like excess” is
taken too seriously. The clearest example that immediately comes to my mind to
illustrate my point is that of a lengthy trip I took in Norway to the fjords
near Bergen: the first few are truly amazing and are an impressive
landscape…after that it’s more of the same. That’s exactly what happens with
this movie. In addition, the sepia tone adopted in key moments of the movie
somewhat misses its purpose and contributes for a set of poorly executed
scenes, an aspect I find strange given Cimino’s perfectionism. The bottom-line
feeling I got from this movie was that the first hour could easily be trimmed
down to half an hour, without any loss of storytelling effect.
But besides length and an uneven space, I
hereby point the additional two main problems I have with the movie: Kris Kristofferson
and Isabelle Huppert. I have only seen two movies starring Kristofferson, and
coincidence or not both got him nominated for a Razzie (“Heaven’s Gate” (1980)
and “Rollover” (1981)). He delivers a wooden performance and he’s simply
unconvincing. While the negative impact of his acting his is minimized on the
latter, he causes some serious damage on the former. Either De Niro or Beatty
would have been suitable alternatives, both being able to carry a cast of such
extension on their very own shoulders.
Isabelle Huppert is also a major flaw, both on
acting (at least on this movie) and as a key component of the storyline: the
notion that a heavy French accent actress can portray a non-French character is
simply laughable. She chews the scenery with an excess of emotions and
Huppert’s Ella Watson simply fails to interact with either of the main
characters.
David Mansfield soundtrack is uneven at best.
Sometimes, it just feel straight out of place.
But there are some redeeming aspects towards
this film. Deep within this mess there’s a good story to be told. As you
probably picked up from the resumed plot, this is not your traditional Western.
The label of “Anti-Western” is usually associated to this movie. Never have
John Wayne or Clint Eastwood starred on something like this. The political tone
and message conveyed in this movie are a portrayal of something we still see
today: Kristofferson’s James “Jim” Averill, is a rich and privileged Harvard
graduate and somewhat of an authority figure in Johnson’s County, Wyoming.
Unlike his peers, he attempts to use his influence to improve the situation of
the poor European immigrants who have settled on the land. He’s a flawed person
but one with strong and high morals and a defender of the values in which he
believes. In his character I find similar traits to the ones found in several
Democrat figures such as John F. Kennedy, Gary Hart and John Kerry (Ironically,
John Wayne, a hard core Republican, was the first choice for the role of Jim
Averill during the early stages of the project in the 1970’s). Diametrically
opposed to Averill, we have Christopher Walken’s Nate Champion, an aspiring and
ambitious gunmen hired by the Cattle Owners Association elite to eliminate
those who occupy the land. Champion is the sort of self-made man, and
represents an excessive and biased portrayal that liberals make of a
Republican. Their social aspirations and personal agendas conflict, a conflict
which is extended on their common interest, the whorehouse madam, Ella Watson.
The main action is complemented by the backdrop
story: The class struggle between the aforementioned elite and the poor who
fall victim of injustice and termination, which transforms this wanna-be epic
in what I personally call “Karl Marx’s Wild Wild West”. Still, a very
interesting story (with great potential, if told correctly) even for
non-socialist viewers such as myself.
Picking up on this particular point, critics
and viewers alike have blamed, in recent years, the timing of this release,
using it as a scapegoat to justify both its flop 32 years ago and their recent
reappraisal. While this is a compelling argument, one must take into account
the release of another epic “Reds” (1981): a mix between documentary and biopic
about the life of John Reed, the American Communist and author of the book “Ten
Days That Shook The World”. Directed by Warren Beatty and nominated for 10
Academy Awards, this controversial movie was met with excellent reviews and
strong box-office revenues. Come to think of it, this was far more
controversial than “Heaven’s Gate”. The success of “Reds” is a tool that allows
to dismantle the previously written argument.
Speculating that releasing this movie several
years before or after is…well…just pure speculation.
Another strong point that saves this movie’s
grace is the supporting cast: Billy Irvine (Hurt), the physical representation
of wasted potential, a lush and former Harvard valedictorian, who idly sits by
and condemns the actions of his counterparts without doing nothing to prevent
them, Frank Canton (Waterston), Averill main antagonist and the true source of
power behind the Cattle Owners Association, John Bridges (Bridges), the sheriff’s
main communication channel with the people. Three strong performances that make
this movie worth watching.
With the potential to be a powerful story,
“Heaven’s Gate” stands, for better and for worse, as a monument to the
excesses, partly represented by the ballooning budget which went from $7.5 M to
reportedly $50 M (some sources say $44 M), around $ 148 M in 2012 USD, and as a
movie whose failure drove United Artists into bankruptcy and ended once and for
all the “New Hollywood” era: The loonies no longer controlled and managed the
asylum (By the way, for those of you interested I recommend Peter Biskind’s
“Easy Riders and Raging Bulls”, a book that chronicles this particular period
of movie history).
For those of you who cannot relate to classic
epics produced by Hollywood, just think of “Heaven’s Gate” as a less artificial
and a more “should-have-worked” feeling than that awful Baz Lurhmann’s “Australia”
(2008).
Despite being a hit in Europe, it was Cimino’s
last act as a Hollywood A-List director.
Perhaps, it was for the best: Had “Heaven’s Gate” been a hit, Michael
Cimino had already a couple of projects on the pipeline, each of them more
ambitious and riskier than what was his last attempt to make an epic. Among
them a remake of the adaption of Ayn Rand’s “The Fountainhead”, which
ironically would have been suitable for the director as the book deals with the
principles of Objectivism, one of them being the praise for the individual and
his vision and also an Indian Western titled “Conquering Horse”, a movie that
would have been filmed in Sioux language with subtitles.
Althought his career was over he was still able
to produce a crime classic that has aged well and overcame the criticism it was
subjected to at the time of its release, “The Year of the Dragon” (1985)
starring Mickey Rourke, who has a cameo in “Heaven’s Gate”, a movie superior to
this one and personal favorite of mine (Oh…and a guy named Quentin Tarantino
also thinks it’s awesome).
“Money-Shot”: Without doubt a sequence that was still
perfect clearly in my mind after the movie ended was the first killing carried
out by Nate Champion. Impressive to say the least. The depressing message delivered
in the final scene of the movie, resorting to minimal dialogue and strongly
depending on image remains a sample of what the movie could have been.
Bottom-Line: 7/10. A missed out epic that will
forever remain part of cinema history. There is a great story beneath the
somewhat messy collection of frames that compose this work that embodies Cimino’s
vision of the real West. Worth a shot for all of those who enjoy bold epics and
who are willing to give this movie a shot (pardon the pun).
But of course, this is just my opinion, I could be wrong...
Starring: Andrew Garfield, Emma Stone, Rhys
Ifans, Martin Sheen, Sally Field
A little introduction to my personal feelings towards
comic book adaptations is required before proceeding with this review. My opinions
and thoughts on this particular genre are best compared to the relationship
between Ronald Reagan and air traffic controllers. From a critical standpoint,
I’m biased as during my childhood I always preferred to play outside rather
than reading superhero comics and, as a result, the whole mythology and
affection displayed by the fans passes me by. Still, I have seen my fair share
of superhero movies and contributed to the monstrous box office grosses that,
for the last decade have taken over Hollywood.
To me 90% of the superhero action movies are
seen as mere last resort source of entertainment and enjoyment on a slow Summer
day, and as such aren’t subjected to any meticulous analysis from my part.
However, there are exceptions: Some weeks ago I
heard about a concept I was oblivious to, and a personal trait I possessed and
did not know of: I am an assumed “Nolanite”. A person who praises Christopher Nolan
as the man who single handedly revolutionized a whole genre and created a
superhero saga to the those that aren’t particularly fond of those type of
movies, while at the same time delivering the goods for the comic book aficionados.
And yes, during the process with both “The Prestige” (2006) and “Inception” (2010) he was able to create
what can be called of “Elite Popcorn Blockbusters”: the kind of movies filled
with action but also with content and a storyline that allows one to sound and
look smart while discussing the movie with friends.
Anyways, I always take the enthusiastic reviews
of a non-Nolan superhero movie with a grain of salt, and that’s what happened
with “The Avengers” (2012) earlier this year. Sure it is a great entertainment
movie, with good action sequences, funny performances by most of characters and
it captures, without a doubt, the whole essence of what Summer Blockbuster
should be. But the fans, the industry
and the critics are taking it way too seriously (BEST PICTURE OF THE YEAR?
Yeah, sure…). Movies like “The Avengers” should be seen and perceived like
“Independence Day” (1996) was: good fun, improbable plots, a couple of flaws,
millions at the box-office, and NOT TAKING ITSELF TOO SERIOUSLY. (The latter
point being completely missed by the excessively high praises from fans and
critics alike)
Now don’t get me wrong, every two years I need
my “Iron Man/Robert Downey Jr.” shot of sarcasm , good humor and AC/DC riffs,
but somehow “The Avengers” is taken a step further, seriousness-wise, than it
should. (Still a 7/10, in my opinion and a superior movie within its genre).
AND NOW, for the actual review…
Plot: Average teenager Peter Parker is on
the lookout to find out the truth about the mysterious departure of his
parents, and while attempting to find out more on a file left by his father, at
the Oscorp HQ is bitten by genetically modified spider. While discovering the
use and range of his newly acquired abilities he bumps into Dr. Curt Connors
mutated self, the Lizard: a result of a failed genetic enhancement experience.
“The truth and nothing
but the truth”: It
doesn’t take a math genius to understand that when the revenues of a product
decline and the cost of producing said product increases, the profit margin you
get from it grows thinner. While in most industries the average product is made
extinct, in Hollywood a new solution exists: areboot. This is exactly what
happened to Sam Raimi’s Spider Man trilogy (2002,2004,2007), a record breaking,
mixed opinion generating, studio Summer tent pole, revenue generating set of
movies which made Sony executives smile harder than Ash whenever he killed a
“Deadite” (Those who have seen Raimi’s less profitable and more modest “Evil
Dead” (1982) will know what I’m talking about).
10 years after the release of “Spider Man”
(2002), now comes “The Amazing Spider Man” (2012), a new and improved version
correcting all the “bugs” and inaccuracies of the prior version AND presented
to your fully enjoyment in the glorious splendor of 3D! (That Tony Stark
sarcasm shot starts to reveal its effects).
Let me tell you something: back in 2002 I had
no idea of what critics and fans thought about “Spider Man”, because back then
I couldn’t care less, and thus I went to see it anyway. Apparently it was
inaccurate and flawed in a way that it distorted the facts presented in the
comic books. I guess the $130 M budget wasn’t enough to settle the fact that
Peter Parker’s first crush was Gwen Stacy and not Mary Jane and I guess it
takes an additional $100 M ($230 is the reported budget for this movie) to set
the record straight.
With the previously written statement proving
to be implosive the reader finally gets to my problem with the whole reboot
story: Why didn’t the writers, the director and the whole creative team got it
right, 10 years ago?
While, some clear improvements on the original
story are noticeable, even for a comic book heretic like me, it’s still not
enough to overcome the fact that I’ve seen this before and not so long ago.
The casting of Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone
is an upgrade and both deliver solid performances, with Garfield being able to
deliver a hipster/modern version of Peter Parker that most audiences will immediately
associate with a familiar face and Stone delivering an impressively believable
performance of Gwen Stacy. Martin Sheen and Sally Field add some panache to the
supporting cast and Denis Leary’s Capt. Stacy interaction with Parker providea
much needed and well-suited comic relief (See the “Godzilla remarks”)
Some overall points, concerning the storyline,
can be raised, indulging my own belief that this new version is in some aspects
superior to Rami’s and to the overall movie genre outputs that reach theaters
on a worldwide scale: For once, Spidey doesn’t catch the man who killed Uncle Ben
(a SPOILER WARNING! shouldn’t be required here, I think), leaving some room for
this issue on the upcoming sequelS. Also, like in Nolan’s Batman, (SPOILER) the
villain isn’t killed at the end of the movie, a standard practice on this
particular genre that gives everyone the “wrapped up story” good feeling when
leaving the movie theater.
Among the major downsides, is the villain: Dr.
Curt Connors / The Lizard is an adequate villain but while there could be some
room for a deep and intense transformation process in the style of Jeff
Goldblum in David Cronenberg’s “The Fly” (1986), the story prefers to award
style over substance, and still manages to fail by delivering a Lizard that is
a serious candidate for “The Most Overused Meme in 2012” Award.
Moreover, the “new” Spider Man acts, talks and
walks like a cross between David Lee Roth circa 1986 and Sam J. Jones in “Flash
Gordon” (1980), and even in some moments the supehero’s action have drawn my
memory to that campy and dreadful sequence in “Spider Man 3” (2007). (THE
HORROR!)
The proverbial “plot device”, which on this
case is an actual device, is a bit too “in your face” and the explanation of
its use and obvious relevance dumbs down the viewer.
Sure, there are several values well represented
in the movie such as the role of science vs. religion, with the Oscorp building
being a clear representation of the “Tower of Babel”. The notions of
redemption, power and responsibility (exhaustively used in the original
trilogy) are vaguely represented, but in a movie so self-obsessed with the
visuals, there’s few room for further development on this field. Still, fans
who over analyze the movie will, I’m sure, find new and deeper meanings in some
moments. (Apparently, now viewers state that there’s an anti-corporation
message hidden in “The Avengers”. Again, TAKING IT WAAAAY TO SERIOUSLY)
Still, and despite the aforementioned aspects,
“The Amazing Spider Man” is a balanced effort and an average superhero movie
that amuses you as long as it lasts. There’s a lot of potential for this entry
to be perceived as a build-up for a greater and bigger thing, that years from
now will be seen as a landmark within the genre. Sadly, I won’t be around any
movie theater to see it happen, unless the rumors of having either Jon Hamm or
John Slaterry from “Mad Men” (2007-) as Norman Osbourne prove to be true.
“Show Me The Money”: With a six-day earning of $ 137,022
M, the movie fell short of the prior’s entry results for the same period. With decreases of 38%, 49% and 62%
(historical values) for each entry of Raimi’s trilogy, respectively, an expect
fall of around 50% over this 6 day period amount can be expected for next
weekend (with projected earnings between $65-70M), implying that it’s almost a
given fact that this movie will be cruising the $200 M revenue line, next
weekend, and breaking even (with the reported budget) sometime along the week
after that. The premiere of “Ice Age 4: Continental Adrift” (2012) won’t pose
as a threat, as this movie will likely open in #2, counting with the majority
of its revenue coming from international markets, since this release will be
met in an condensed market that is currently being served by “Madagascar 3”
(2012) and “Brave” (2012). The main conclusion to be retrieved here is that
“The Amazing Spider Man” has two weeks to make the big bucks before “The Dark
Knight Rises” premieres and takes over the box office. So in a nutshell, if,
and that’s a big IF, it crosses the $300 M line it will still be the lowest
entry of the Spider Man saga.
“Money-Shot”: The overall sequences of Spider Man
cruising New York are always a good sight. And, I’m afraid that’s all there is
to say here….
Bottom-Line:6/10. An average entertaining movie, that doesn't add or
deliver as much as it could simply because of the existing oversaturation (but
apparently that's just my percption) of the market associated with this
specific genre along with the short time span, since the original was released.
Still, it will be a crowd pleaser that packs a strong enough punch that will
ensure a couple of sequels before this decade ends.
But of course, this is just my opinion, I could
be wrong…
Starring: Roy
Scheider, Bruno Cremer, Francisco Rabal
Friedkin’s swan
song was released after the tremendous success and acclaim of both “The French
Connection” (1971) and “The Exorcist” (1973), which earned him two Golden
Globes and one Academy Award. These three movies, as a whole, represent the
director’s finest achievement and display his storytelling skills in dealing
successfully with a wide range of themes. “Sorcerer” is his homage to the
French cinema: his main source of inspiration (the movie is a remake of Henri-Georges
Clouzot’s “The Wages of Fear” (1953)) and, perhaps due to that fact, it is also
the best movie he believes he ever directed.
Plot:Four men with different backgrounds escaped from the problems they faced in
their own lives and are currently living in South America. From an American oil
company comes very risky mission that is offered to them, one that would
allowed them to regain the honor and former lives but carries a heavy collateral
fee: their lives.
“The truth and nothing but the truth”:Before going on
about the different aspects of the movie that had a positive impact in me, like
in past reviews, I must state the main negative point the affects the movie:
Roy Scheider. Yes, yes he’s a two time Academy Award nominee and one of those
nominations was on a leading role, but Scheider can’t hold the main billing on
an action movie. He played second to Hackman in “The French Connection” and
shared the leading task with Robert Shaw and Richard Dreyfuss in “Jaws” (1975).
Friedkin’s original choice for the lead was Steve McQueen, an actor who cannot
be compared to anyone else of today’s Hollywood elite who can pass by an action
hero actor. Sadly, McQueen passed on the movie and we are stuck with Scheider,
who cannot live up to the character he’s playing and who fortunately was wise
enough to pass on the main role in “The Deer Hunter” (1978) to Robert DeNiro.
That being said,
this movie is the perfect example of what the “New Hollywood Era” (1967-1980)
produced. A time when the Altman’s, Lucas, Spielberg’s, Scorsese’s, Friedkin’s,
Cimino’s etc. etc. etc. indulged their own visions and ideas at the
expense of the studios.
Having not watch
the French original, I’m biased on my opinion and therefore I’ll refrain from
using the expression “one of the best remakes ever made” on this review (I use
it freely whenever I mention “The Thing” (1982), though)
The movie
represents a first time a truly international cast is assembled a fact that
perhaps wasn’t well received by general audiences back in the US. Also, the
fact that one week later a small movie called “ Star Wars” (1977) was released
and drove audiences wild, and led Friedkin to utter the following remark (not a
direct quote, but along the lines of…): “Star Wars did to Movies what McDonalds
did to food: the taste to real food is gone”, slightly hurt this movie’s
chances.
Anyway, the
storytelling is intense (SPOILER !) with the Israel bombing sequence being filmed actually in Jerusalem and
featuring actual footage of an explosion that occurred during the crew’s stay (END
SPOILER!) and after the introduction of the four main characters
and the allocation of the crew into the two trucks it’s non-stop suspense
throughout the whole ride. The interaction among the characters who actually
find out that they aren’t so different from one another is quite satisfying.
The true scene stealer is Bruno Cremer’s Victor Mazon (a.k.a. Serrano), who
perhaps had the most easily situation one could possible identify with.
Of course
there’s your certain dose of symbology, starting with the movie’s title, which
according to the director aims at reflecting the values of fate, future and
uncertainty along with the comprehension of life, freedom, past, uncertainty,
and the ultimate price one pays for his own mistakes are very well exemplified
in this movie, (to a further extent than in “Runaway Train” (1985), my prior
review).
The great
soundtrack by the German instrumental group, Tangerine Dream, adds the final
flavor to an already tense movie and is one of the highlights of this
masterpiece. Moreover, the two year location scouting carried out by the
director is visible on the outstanding visuals yielded by the backdrop of the
South American jungle (actually it was filmed in the Dominican Republic).
Unfortunately,
an underrated movie which “bombed” at the box-office due mostly to timing, as
was already said. After this Friedkin made some poor choices with “To Live and
Die and LA” (1985) his best effort since “Sorcerer”. The beginning of the end
of era which terminated with the studio-wrecking creative fiasco of Cimino’s
“Heaven’s Gate” (1980).
Currently some
disagreements between the director and the studios withhold the released of
this classic on DVD, but hopefully in the near future the fans will be treated
with a special edition with the extras and commentaries that they deserve.
“Money-Shot”:The sequences involving the trucks and the suspended
bridge are exhilarating. An outstanding example of filmmaking without resorting
to any excessive special effects and still able to deliver a realistic scene
that drives the viewers to the edge of their seats.
Bottom-Line:8/10. An excellent movie that ranks as Friedkin’s last masterpiece. Recommended
to those who can really appreciate an action movie with some real storytelling
and can overcome the few slow paced scenes that are contained on this movie. A
dark and gritty movie that reflects the directors very own style.
But of course,
this is just my opinion, I could be wrong…
Starring: Jon
Voight, Eric Roberts, Rebecca De Mornay
Don’t get me
wrong, I’m a fan of action movies, but lately (“lately” as in for the last 10
years) overproduction has taken over and very little innovation as occurred. So
it’s hard to come by with an action classic that can overcome the benchmark
that is “Die Hard” (1988), which would actually be described by a former
teacher of mine as “an action movie withpanache”.
Anyways,
“Runaway Train” carries a concept diametrically opposed to your typical action
movie.
Plot:Two escaped convicts from a prison in Alaska attempt make their way into
freedom by entering an out-of-control freight train. With the local authorities
in pursuit, both convicts find themselves trapped in a vehicle that is both
their salvation and also their death.
“The truth and nothing but the truth”:After browsing
around the plot, the viewer will think: “Been there, done that, paid $10 to see
“Unstoppable” (2010) and felt ripped off”. Having not seen the aforementioned
movie (but read a bit about it), I won’t be able to draw comparisons between
the two, but I felt it was a similar concept movie to which readers who have
failed yet to watch “Runaway Train” can set their expectations upon.
For starters,
the movie is based under a script penned by Akira Kurosawa, the master behind
“Seven Samurai” (1954) and “Ran” (1985). How many action scripts have actually
been created by one of the best directors and storytellers of all the time?
Well, “The Fast and Furious Part 6: More Fuel, Sucka!” is still under wraps so
we still may be surprised and find Paul Thomas Anderson delievering the script.
While the
opening sequences at the prison havede rigeurscenes
played out a million times before , they are extremely effective in introducing
Manny (Voight) and pointing out the motivation of a complex character unlike
nothing he had played out before or since. Not being a Jon Voight fan (and
basing my judgement on “Deliverance” (1972), “Coming Home” (1978) and “Ali”
(2001)), I do feel that in this role he deserved his Academy Award nomination
and his Golden Globe win.
The two prisioners and the crew member (De
Mornay) are locked into a runaway vehicle, and while feeling trapped and
powerless inside the train, they realize that what they hoped that would be
there waiting for them at the end of the line isn’t the desired redemption but
a continuance of what they felt at jail and now within the train. Manny and
Buck’s dialogue about what the limited options they have in life is simple
groundbreaking.
The police follows in pursuit with the prison’s
warden following his very own personal vendetta against Manny. While this
pursuit pales in comparison with the one’s witnessed in, say “The Fugitive”
(1993), the storyline isn’t hurt by it, as that is not the main focus of the
movie, and the existing sequences are very well directed.
Finally, we have the backdrop story of the
railway controllers whose main goal is to keep the vehicle going and reaching a
final and safe destination. Not much is added from this storyline that hasn’t
been seen in a row of movies from “Cassandra’s Crossing ” (1976) to “Speed”
(1994).
The action is non-stop, from the prison break
early in the movie to the train sequences, all set under the Alaskan wintery
backdrop with an outstanding cinematography as well as premium stunt action. Moreover, Trevor Jones delivers a good
soundtrack more synth-sound oriented, an 80’s must, and far from his superior work heard in Sylvester Stallone’s
“Cliffhanger” (1993). The ending scene is simply breathtaking and it’s simply
sad that the director couldn’t replicate his craft throughout his following
movies.
“Money-Shot”: One of the many attempts to stop
the train that drives Buck (Roberts) out of the train while attempting to jump
from one train wagon to the next under strong adverse weather conditions.
Suspense at its best
Bottom-Line:8/10. Since “Sorcerer” (1977), one of my all time favorite
movies, haven’t I seen such combination of action and storytelling. Of course,
I do not recommend this movie to everyone, especially all of those action movie
aficcionados who felt that “The Killer Elite” (2011) was robbed from the
Oscars. Still any fan of “Die Hard” should give this one a try….~
But of course, this is just my opinion, I could
be wrong…
Starring: Noomi Rapace, Michael Fassbender,
Charlize Theron, Tom Hardy
Two things the readers must know before going
further into this post:
1) I
liked “Alien” (1979). For all it’s worth, I think that “Alien” is an excellent
movie. But…I like “Aliens” (1986) best.
2) My personal opinion towards the director,
Ridley Scott. He is an irregular director with an inconsistent work portfolio.
He can easily deliver an outstanding piece of work (“Alien”, “Blade Runner”
(1982), “Gladiator” (2000), “Black Hawk Down” (2001)) and also deliver sub-par works that have bombed with the critics and the audiences alike (“1492”
(1992), “Kingdom of Heaven”(2005)). He fails to connect with general audiences
most of the times and while some of his earlier movies now-called all time
classics, such as “Blade Runner”, which initially underperformed at the box
office, have manage to evolve into becoming fans and critics favorites, the
same cannot be said about most of his recent body of work. That being said we
now move to the review itself:
Plot: A trillion dollar worth expedition
led by the Weyland Corporation takes a team of scientists across the universe
on the spaceship “Prometheus”, on the search for alien life form who is
believed to have contact humans throughout the ages.
“The truth and nothing
but the truth”: After
a tremendous hype, assumptions and connections with the original Alien saga and
even a remark from Scott himself, who stated the idea of filming “Prometheus”
as a two part movie the expectations were huge. The movie itself tries to be a stand-alone
work and for most of its run it actually achieves it, but throughout the movie several
moments recall you of the first time you actually watched “Alien” and that
actually hurts the movie, as for example in several shots Rapace’s Elizabeth
Shaw actually passes by as an Ellen Ripley 2.0 (BTW, pay special attention to
the fact that the two aforementioned movies take place in completely different
planets, a fact that was wildly ignored by several viewers and critics alike).
While the polarized masses state there are plot holes, I can’t help but feel
that those were deliberately put there by Ridley Scott as a “food for thought”
device, and while this allows viewers to individually experience the movie in
different ways it would be nice to actually have a few more hints on how to
guideline our thoughts and avoid over-analyzing and seeing things that aren’t
actually there. “Prometheus” is a movie about aliens as much as
“The Deer Hunter” (1978) is about Vietnam. The movie is about beliefs,
creation, faith and God and well…a bit about aliens as well.
(SPOILERS AHEAD!) The Engineers themselves are pretty much
human-like in the same fashion that Bible states WE were created in GOD’s
image. The final confrontation between the superior beings and the Nostromo…ermm….Prometheus
crew, in which David (Fassbender) actually talks to one of the Engineers is, in
my opinion, a remarkable scene, where according to my interpretation the
creator sees the creation achieving an equal level breaking the stipulated
hierarchy and disrupting the power balance, implying that the creation has
actually become too powerful and therefore must destroyed.
A “Deckard is a replicant or not?”-like debate
also arises in this movie, this time about Theron’s Meredith Vickers. My
opinion: No, she isn’t a robot (and No Deckard isn’t a replicant in “Blade
Runner”).
(YOU MAY RETURN TO THE READING!) Regarding performances, kudos to
Michael Fassbender, who is able to deliver an excellent performance standing
out from the rest of the cast. As this is a plot-driven movie, not much
character development occurs within the movie (pretty much like in “Alien”).
Still the overall performances aren’t passed on as dull or static with some
considerable interaction occurring between some team members.
The atmosphere seen back in 1979 was a dark,
claustrophobic and deep down scary, with the Nostromo commercial carrier being
the perfect set for the action. The combination of Dan O’Bannon’s screenplay,
Scott’s direction and Jerry Goldsmith’s soundtrack were perfect and are the
reason behind the movie’s success (See the teaser for “Alien” below)
“Prometheus” doesn’t replicate the same
atmosphere and all in all isn’t able to present a hostile environment that
leaves you on the edge of your seat, but a more calm and less threatening environment
oriented towards exploration and not towards escape. Still the slow-paced
development seen in “Alien” is clearly witnessed here.
A proposed sequel would actually be a problem:
viewers complain about lack of information and apparent plot holes and lack of
sense. A sequel would either:
a)Ram
down explanations at a fast pace that would stupefy the first movie and audiences (and not
necessarily by this order)
b)Leave
more questions unanswered (recall that the script was written by Damon Lindelof,
the guy from the TV Show “LOST” (2004-2010) and we all know how that turned out
to end)
Either way, a sequel is a bad idea. The point
is: the movie has flaws and one of them is actually leaving the audience to
guess much of the movie. But viewers cannot expect the “Meaning of life
according to Ridley Scott” in less than 3 hours, so any addition to what has
already been done would actually ruin not only one but two movies.
“Money-Shot”: In my opinion, the defining moment
of the movie lies in the opening scene, which sets the tone for the whole
movie, and leaves you wondering right before the credits have started to play.
“Show me the Money”- Regarding the US box-office
performance, with a somewhat strong opening weekend ($ 51.050.101, source:
boxofficemojo), at par with your typical summer season opening and benefiting
from the overcharged 3D tickets, the movie still didn’t manage to hold the top
spot losing it to “Madagascar 3”, a heavy decline of about 45% can be expected
on the second weekend and with the openings of the R-rated comedy “Ted”, Pixar’s
“Brave”, and the latest “Spider-Man” entry all premiering until the end of the
month the following weekends won’t be kind on “Prometheus”, as the summer audiences
aren’t looking for a head scratcher unless there’s a Christopher Nolan tag
associated to it (See “Inception” (2010)).
My final number guess is: Between $ 95 mil. - $
120 mil. on US box office (with a long-shot of actually breaking even with its
estimated $120 mil.-$130 mil. budget) with an additional $ 120 mil. - $ 150
mil. on Overseas Revenue.
Bottom-Line:7/10. A movie that will generate discussion for years to
come and will polarize audiences on a worldwide scale. While I found it a thrilling experience, a bittersweet taste at the end and the feeling that the movie was 10-15 minutes away from excellence led me to give this movie a solid "7". A clear division between
viewers who have actually watched “Alien” before “Prometheus” and those who
have watched it after it. My advice is to you consists in watching the original
“Alien” while at the same time avoiding (if possible) any trailers or teasers
or even clips of associated with this movie. Then, gather all your friends and
discuss away the movie (specially with a drink or two on the table).
But of course, this is just my opinion, I could
be wrong…
Well I finally did it. I created my own blog.
The reason behind such action that occupies a small portion in the wide world
of the web is simple: because I can. And from that’s as good a reason as any.
Another key aspect that led me to this lies in the fact that very often my
friends and family come to me and ask what did I think about a given movie, and
the answer is a 2 hour analysis of the goddamn movie, it’s box office performance
and my very own input about how could I have improved it if I had directed it.
15 minutes after I have started talking, 90% of the “audience” has actually
dozed off. So, the creation of a blog poses as an adequate solution, as it
would allow anyone to actually select what they really want to know about my
opinion regarding a given movie (assuming they actually WANT to hear about it
in the first place).
Regarding the scope of movies reviewed, not only will I
analyze the most recent releases but also any recently seen movie I have found
relevant to comment on.
I’ll bottom-line my final appreciation of the
movie with a quick conclusion at the end of each analysis (allowing you to skip
the big text) and grade it with a classic 0-10 scale (with 10 being the highest
and 0 the lowest). Comments and feedback will be deeply appreciated.
