DAVID DUNN

Jul 16 2013

Reviews

“THE LAST STAND” Review (✫✫)

Stuff blowin’ up real good in Redneck City.

The Last Stand is an actioneer’s action movie, a film so overstuffed with explosions, gunshots, profanity and testosterone that it might have been more appropriate as a video game rather than a movie. I had a friend of mine describe the movie as being “The guyest guy guy movie you’re ever going to see”. That much is true. Whether its the best one, or even a good one, is up to you.

Sheriff Ray Owens (Arnold Schwarzeneggar) has been the sheriff of Summertown for many years now after having quit his profession of being a cop in Los Angeles. Summertown is a quiet place, a small town where crimes range from the Mayor parking his car in a fire lane to deputies firing at slabs of meat during lunch time. In a small, quiet town such as this, Ray finds little excitement in his day to day routines and he is perfectly fine with that.

But one day, he receives unwelcome news from the FBI: a nation-wide criminal named Gabriel Cortez (Eduardo Noriega) escaped from the FBI’s hands and is fast on his way to the Mexican border, where he will be out of the FBI’s reach. The only thing blocking his path: Summertown, which also sits on the United States border to Mexico. Owens now has to rise up to the challenge to defend his home. To defend its citizens. This is the last stand.

This is Arnold’s first lead role after his 10 year hiatus as California’s governor. Before that hiatus, Arnold was a standout in a slew of memorable action roles, including (but not limited to) Predator, Total Recall, True Lies, Last Action Hero, and my personal favorite, The Terminator and its sequel. All of those movies are memorable, exciting, suspenseful, and sport great blockbuster entertainment.

Now look at The Last Stand. This movie cannot help but look shoddy compared to those titles because of its plot, its only inconsistently funny and exciting, and whats worse, it depends on the forumula of repetitive action. Wonderful. We certainly don’t get enough of those, now do we?

Let’s take a deeper look at Arnold real quick. The man has had a great career. Before going into office, he was asked to be in these tense, highly riveting action roles, and he was damn good in all of them. Now, he’s been dilluted to just standing tall and read lines as everyone else turns to him asking what to do when a drug cartel is ready to tear through his town. Guys, come on. This is the 42nd governor of California, not Angus MacGyver.

The rest of the characters aren’t really that helpful or compelling. Zach Gilford portrays Officer Jerry, a guy who wants to see more action than he does but then gets his nose broke by the recoil of a gun. Luis Guzman plays as a chubby mexican officer, and he’s so stereotypical he might as well have been portrayed by Anthony Anderson. Rodrigo Santoro and Jaimie Alexander share a forced romantic conflict in the middle of all the bullets and gunfire, and while they’re coincidentally dodging all of the bullets amist their kissing, all I could think to myself was “Hey kids! Find a shower!”

The worst miscalculation, however, is in the film’s villains: Eduardo Noriega as Gabriel Cortez and Rodrigo Santoro as his goatee, ponytail lackey. Noriega is worthless as the main villain, and is just stuck to driving a car recklessly for more than two-thirds of the movie until the last 20 minutes where the climax calls for a chase scene. But even worse is his lackey, who seems completely lacking basic motivation of reasoning behind his actions.

Take a look at the only three things he does in the movie: kill a farmer, build a bridge over to Mexico, and strike a raid across Arnold’s town. Explain to me A) Why he killed the farmer and clued the detectives into his plan, considering the construction of the bridge was nowhere near the farmland, B) How the bridge to Mexico only took around 24 hours to complete, C) Why waste resources building a bridge when he can just bring in a helicopter for the escape, and D) What is the relevance for attacking the town when it means nothing toward Cortez’s escape? His actions seem senseless, almost like his decisions are delegated by the script just for the sake of action sequences and explosions. Why must an action film like this seem so mindless, so pointless in its structure and so artificial in its writing?

The film’s most entertaining character is a man named Lewis Dinkam, portrayed by Jackass star Johnny Knoxville. Highlight, embolden, and underline Jackass. This guy is the opitimy of stupid, most of it portrayed humorously so. This guy is an absolute psycho, shooting off pistols and machine guns named “Betty” and “Nazi Killer” with his pajamas on and tearing off electric polls by climbing them and chainsawing the electric wire. Is he the smartest character in the bunch? No, but he is the funniest, although I don’t understand why he’s wearing a woolly hat in the middle of the summer.

Ultimately, I’m at a loss with The Last Stand. There’s no doubt entertainment value here, but it is severrely misguided, almost like a misfired Colt. Half of the film is used to just set up its premise with predictable scripting and bad acting, while the other half is used for repetitive and monotonous action, gunshots, and F-bombs.

“But David”, one fellow viewer pointed to me, “That’s entertainment! People need entertainment because real life sucks!” This is true that people need entertainment, and The Last Stand will satisfy some viewers. For others however, they will be left yearning for a better story, more original action, and a more worthwhile experience. In the meantime, what you see is what you get: if its action you want, boy oh boy, it action what you’re going to get.

Tagged Action, Adventure, Angus MacGyver, Arnold Schwarzeneggar, Blockbuster, Comedy, Drama, Drug Cartel, Jackass, Johnny Knoxville, Last Action Hero, Mexican Border, Movie, Predator, Suspense, Terminator, Thriller, Total Recall, True Lies

Jul 16 2013

2 Comments

Reviews

“AMERICAN PSYCHO” Review (✫)

Sex, murder, and the decrease of the human condition.

American Psycho is a vile, sickening experience, a gruesome and aching film incapable of human thought, feeling, comfort, or emotion. This shouldn’t come as too much of a surprise considering the book in which it is based on inspired this same controversy. Regardless, its achievement cannot be denied: the filmmakers have somehow concocted an experience as brutal, uncomfortable, disturbing, half-lapsed, misogynic, and morally reprehensible as this that they’ve come to completely disconnect with their audience. I rarely feel this upset about a movie like this.

American Psycho follows the story of Patrick Bateman (Christian Bale), a successful businessman who works in his high-level office by day and parties fiendishly with his friends by night. On the surface, Bateman looks like a normal upper-class bachelor. He eats out at expensive restaurants, drinks exquisite martinis, has sex with beautiful women, enjoys swearing gleefully with his friends, and listens to a variety of experimental music. In appearance, Bateman is the visible representation of the upper class: stoic, upright, eloquent, fashionable, and spoiled.

As the plot progresses, however, we come to understand more about the darker side of Bateman’s personality. He doesn’t just have sex with beautiful women: he mutilates them. He tortures them and fantasizes about killing them in horrible ways and playing with their bodies after he’s done dismembering them. His kitchen pantry contains axes, blades, and tools he uses for his killings. He draws his victims in a notebook he leaves at work. A female head sits next to his ice cream in the freezer. If there wasn’t wine in his alcohol bottles, it would probably be blood.

Ugh. Just talking about the premise nauseates me. Why do we need to experience this? Bateman is a sickening character, a man who would dismember the head of one unfortunate female and chew off the genitals of another. Why? For what purpose? His motivations are never explained in the movie and his reasonings for murdering women are a mystery to us. Is there a reason for this? Is there a reason for being so non-inclusive with your audience? Why must everything be shrouded in secrecy?

This is the film’s biggest problem, besides the violence and the sexuality: Patrick Bateman is a deplorable character, difficult to understand and impossible to sympathize with. You might think its impossible to sympathize with a murderer of women anyway, but it isn’t really. We’ve ben asked to sympathize with deplorable characters before, including a psychotic war veteran in Taxi Driver to ruthless murderers and drug dealers in Goodfellas. Sympathy and interest worked with those characters because one character was struggling to find a line of morality and righteousness to follow, and another was hesitant and even regretful over the actions that he’s done.

Bateman doesn’t regret his decisions nor chooses to change them. He kills instinctively, almost like he’s trying to prove some territorial point to the people around him. To put it out there in gruesome, violent fashions like this though is just torturous. Who wants to sit there, eyes on the screen, watching him laughing as a petite blond girl in front of him cries pleading for her life?

But American Psycho isn’t just sickening, repulsive, and pungnent: the film’s logic is half-lapsed, incomplete, and flawed, incomprehensible to the viewer and extremely frustrating to those trying to figure out.

I’ll give you an example. There’s one scene where’s Bateman is chasing one of his victims through the hallways of a hotel, half naked, screaming manically, and revving his chainsaw like Leatherface from Texas Chainsaw Massacre. Someone explain to me how no one from the hotel hallway heard the ruckus from outside their rooms, or anyone from the two floors above and beneath him? Here you have Jack Torrence running through the hallways screaming at the top of his lungs with a lawn mower, and nobody even bothers to call the police. What? Are the wooden doors sound-proof? Who knows, maybe they’re afraid of poking their heads out the door so that they won’t get their heads chopped off.

Due to a revelation revealed later on in the plot, one could argue this is a “dream sequence”, or a “vision” Bateman had. But how is there any way to know? With Bateman’s maniacal, wretched mind, dreams feels like reality and reality feels like dreams. How is there any way to read the subtext when you’ve made your narrative so damn hard to figure out?

And this is a movie that is being hailed as a dark comedy. A comedy for what, exactly? The film is two graphic hours of bloody, sickening, gruesome violence and pornography. When, at any point, is it set up to inspire laughs? In movies like Pulp Fiction and Fight Club we are at least given subtle moments of clever dialogue to clue us in to the humor, and even though stomach-curling things are happening on screen, we are able to suspend that briefly in order to enjoy the humor.

American Psycho is not subtle, smart, clever, humorous, or any of the related adjectives. There’s a point director Mary Harron is trying to express through the film, but that point is convoluted, vague and shockingly illiterate. As a result, what we’re ultimately watching is an idle, pointless, and misconstrued film, and our reward for watching is hours of punishment, nudity, sexual immorality, blood, torture, macabre violence, and sickening indecency. To be fairly honest, I probably need a second viewing in order to fully understand the picture, but the plain fact is that the movie doesn’t deserve a second viewing. If I end the film feeling as punished and as mutilated as Bateman’s unfortunate victims, why on earth would I want to subject myself to that again?

At the end of the film, Bateman himself admits that he finds neither closure nor catharsis for his bloody, violent, sexually immoral and murderous journey. For that matter, neither do we.

Tagged American Psycho, Blood, Brent Easton Ellis, Christian Bale, Comedy, Crime, Drama, Gore, Horror, Lionsgate Pictures, Mary Harron, Misogyny, Murderer, Mystery, Patrick Bateman, Psychological, Reese Withersoon, Satire, Scary, Sex, Suspense, Thriller

Jul 03 2013

1 Comment

Trending

Steven Spielberg Interested In Planting A New “Grapes of Wrath”

Okay, I don’t know how to feel about this.

Deadline has recently reported that critically-acclaimed filmmaker Steven Spielberg is interested not only in producing a remake for the 1940 John Ford classic The Grapes Of Wrath, but may also be interested in directing it as well. Full announcement below:

“Dreamworks is in talks with the estate of author John Steinbeck to make a new version of ‘The Grapes of Wrath’. The novel was turned into a classic 1940 film by John Ford, the director who won one of two Oscars out of the seven nominations the picture received. I’d heard this suddenly became a hot movie property, and that Steven Spielberg swooped in to take it off the table over other bidders.”

The first moment I hear any sentence with “Steven Spielberg” in it, my ears pop up in anticipation and excitement. He’s the iconic filmographer behind movies such as Jaws, E.T., Indiana Jones and Schindler’s List, and the credible producer behind hundreds of other films including Back To The Future, Who Framed Roger Rabbit, Men In Black, Super 8, and Transformers. The work he directs is consistently masterful and the majority of his productions pretty solid. You can typically expect anything with his name attached to be a good movie.

At the same time though, do we really need a remake of The Grapes of Wrath? That film was among the greatest visualizations of the great depression, and it accurately portrayed the many tragedies and conflicts families had to go through during that terrible time of american history. Is it really necessary to remake that film? Really? We might as well remake The Godfather and Casablanca while we’re at it.

I could just be a stooge about this. I know some Americans have yet to see the movie, so if nothing else this might breathe a new relevant awareness into theaters. What do you guys think? Are you happy to hear cinema master Steven Spielberg interested in a Grapes Of Wrath remake? Or should the treasure just remain honored and buried?

Comment below, let me know.

At the very least, let’s be happy about one thing: that Michael Bay isn’t going through with his plans to remake Alfred Hitchcock’s The Birds. Now that would have sucked.

-David Dunn

Source: Deadline, The Atlantic Wire

Jul 02 2013

Leave a comment

The Scope

DC Versus Marvel: Why “The Justice League” Will Not Be As Successful As “The Avengers”

Well, this’ll ruin your morning coffee. Due to recent developments, I am now convinced that no matter what DC does, that the much-speculated Justice League movie will not be as unique or outstanding as Joss Whedon’s The Avengers was, is, and always will be. Why all the pessimism? Call it intuition. Before The Avengers cinematic universe was conceived, Marvel had a wider grasp of successful projects to boast of, including (but not limited to) Spiderman, X-men, Blade, Wolverine, Kick-Ass, and Men In Black. DC, in comparison, only has Superman, Batman, and arguably RED and Watchmen as their most successful properties. Also, I have an unhealthy amount of OCD. Just thought you should know.

Believe me, I would like nothing more than to see a well-made Justice League movie hit the horizon. There are as many characters that are as creative and dynamic in the DC universe as there are in the Marvel universe, many of them with memorable stories and villains of their own. While I want to see a movie eventually, I now believe it will not happen, and if it does, it will not hit the mainstream success that The Avengers did.

Why am I so convinced of this? DC has every inconvenience against them, and they have to deal with issues Marvel never had to face while producing The Avengers. I’m not saying Marvel had it easy while making The Avengers. Lord knows you’ll have a fair amount of doubt and backlash when you try to combine five comic-book properties into one high-adrelanine, action-packed adventure. Regardless, DC is facing a lot of issues Marvel didn’t have to worry about, including competitive release with The Avengers in itself.

Let’s face facts: When The Avengers was released, we didn’t know what to expect. All we knew was that it was incorporating six superheroes into one movie, they would be mostly featuring the same actors, the writer/director of “Firefly” was at the helm, and we were hoping it wouldn’t turn into the Saturday Morning Power Hour. It didn’t, and now we have the exciting, exhilerating, witty, and entertaining Hulk-box-office-smash that The Avengers was.

This is the biggest issue that DC has over Marvel: the comparison game. If DC would have thought of a plan similar to this ahead of Marvel and released Justice League incorporating elements from multiple DC universe movie properties at once, they would then have had a substantial edge over Marvel and would give them reason to compete for their box office revenue. But the plain simple fact is that Marvel beat them to it, and now we have something to compare to when Justice League hits the theaters. How big of a catastrophe is that? What could possibly compete with The Avengers as far as box-office superheroes go? I’ll name a few just for facetious effort: X-men, Fantastic Four, and Watchmen. Now be honest with yourself: do any of those movies stand out in your mind at the level of enjoyment as The Avengers does?

If you’re being honest, it probably doesn’t, and what’s worse is that DC is now pressured into that because Marvel did it first. But like I said, DC has a lot of issues against them, and many of them have to deal with their very own properties. Take the following franchises as an example:

THE DARK KNIGHT TRILOGY

If we were talking about the movies by themselves, there’s no reason for concern. The Dark Knight trilogy is among the greatest trilogies ever released into theaters, and it not only pleased long-time fans of the caped crusader: it pleased moviegoers who were not associated with the comic books. The Dark Knighttrilogy isn’t only one of the best comic book movies of all time: they one of the best movies of all time, period. Very few bad things are said about that franchise as a whole.

Which would enhance excitement to the fans when they think this same character will be incorporated into the Justice League, right? Wrong. Producer/Director Christopher Nolan and screenwriter David S. Goyer have stated multiple times that the Batman in the new Justice League is not associated with Nolan’s trilogy. The quote from Goyer pulled from IGN says it all:

“…Zack has said that Bruce Wayne exists in this universe. It would be a different Bruce Wayne from Chris’ [Nolan] Dark Knight trilogy, and it would be disingenuous to say that Zack and I haven’t had various conversations on set, around ‘what if’ and ‘moving forward'”.

On top of that, Christian Bale himself admitted to Entertainment Weekly that not only will he not be portraying Batman in the upcoming DC team-up film: he doesn’t even know about a release date.

“I have no information, no knowledge about anything. I’ve literally not had a conversation with a living soul. I understand that they may be making a Justice League movie, that’s it”.

So what is their plan? End a movie series in 2012, release a Superman movie in 2013, and reboot the character only a few years later? Don’t they remember how many people saw those movies? How much people praised them? How those movies stuck out in people’s minds when someone mentioned the word “Batman”? What are they thinking? How on Earth do they think can they replace that?

Now, someone could offer the argument by saying Nolan’s universe was meant to be seen as realistic, whereas the rest of the DC universe wouldn’t be. To which I respond that as hogwash. Snyder also saidMan Of Steel was meant to be seen as realistic too, but we all know how realistic it is for an alien from outer space to get super powers on earth, or having a guy dress up in a halloween costume to beat criminals to near death. The thought of superheroes in itself is fictitious, with powers or without. So why are we trying so hard to differentiate in between reality and fiction?

Another possible argument someone could make is that The Dark Knight trilogy has ended, and there would be no way to revive the character for the Justice League. To which I would say you are half right. If we are talking about the Batman after The Dark Knight Rises then yes, that Batman is no more with us. But what about the Batman in between movies? There is a two-year split in between Batman Begins andThe Dark Knight, and a five-year split in between The Dark Knight and The Dark Knight Rises. Surely, someone could find room to fit Nolan’s Batman into the JL somewhere in that time stamp?

So, already you have your greatest property and you’re sending it out the window. That’s great. What else could go wrong?

MAN OF STEEL

I’m just going to go ahead and say this: Man Of Steel was a great film. It had depth, it had character, it had development, and it had plenty of high-octane turbulent action. It was a great reboot for Superman, and it was a great jump-off point for a possible Justice League series. That much I will give to Snyder and his crew.

The complications with the Justice League universe, however, are plenty. The biggest issue right now is their speculated release dates. As many of you might expect, Warner Bros. has been trying to push for the Justice League movie to be released in 2016, to be released competitively with The Avengers 2 andStar Wars: Episode VII. The original plan was to release Man Of Steel this year, release a possible sequel in 2014-2015, and then release the Justice League movie

That puts a great amount of pressure on Man Of Steel, and I don’t think it can handle it. Again, not to play the comparison game with Marvel (even though I am), but like Man Of Steel, Iron Man was a great jump-off point for The Avengers, even though it was more charismatic and down-to-earth than Man Of Steel was. It was a great film. Great enough to jump right into The Avengers though? Absolutely not. It had to release four more movies before the buildup to the Avengers was complete and the excitement was at its highest.

Like Iron Man, Man Of Steel is a great film to set up its expanded Universe. Enough to jump right into aJustice League movie though? Not even close. Another sequel, maybe, but to jump right into the DC-team-up film would be suicide. The announcement of a JL movie that this point wouldn’t be an anticipation: it would be a surprise. How is that a good setup for a box-office smash?

Also, many other audience members felt the tone was too serious and did not fit into the joyous, silly veins of the original Christopher Reeve series. To which I would say quit being a stooge and enjoy the movie for what it is. People who wanted Green Lantern to be fun and silly got what they asked for, and look at how that movie faired with the moviegoing audiences.

Speaking of which…

GREEN LANTERN

Many people hated this movie, and their hate was warranted. Green Lantern was silly, stupid fun, and that’s all it needed to be. I for one enjoyed the movie and appreciated it for its confidence, its stellar visual effects, and its smirking charisma. Others, however, obviously do not share my opinion, and ultimately their opinion as a whole matters more than mine does.

To which I know disregard and ask this: what are you going to do with him now for the Justice League? They can’t bring this same character in and have him do the same thing he did the first time: that will resurrect everything audiences hated the first time they watched the Martin Campbell film. What are they going to do then? Are they going to revamp him? Recast him? Reboot him? Maybe even cut him out entirely? Batman has a great story behind his success and Superman a great following. Green Lantern has none of that. So what can DC do to the character to give him a new spin and a spirit on the franchise?

The list of issues goes on and on. How are they going to incorporate Wonder Woman into it? What about the Flash? Martian Manhunter? Who would they cast? Who would be the villain? And how on Earth are they going to make Aquaman not look stupid???

Bottom line: Justice League will not be as good as The Avengers. DC just isn’t prepared for it. There is the off-chance that it can still be good, exciting, and entertaining blockbuster fun, but I’m convinced that there’s no way that DC can give these characters the same treatment Whedon did for The Avengers solely because they won’t be as recognized as those characters have. Even if you do give each Justice Leaguer his own movie and give time to set up each character: how do you know you’ll be as successful as The Avengers was? Won’t you be following a formula at that point?

Of course, there is the off-chance that I’m completely wrong and that the Justice League will be vastly more successful than The Avengers will be. I’m going to see it regardless of what RottenTomatoes says, and I hope it’ll at least be as good as Man Of Steel is. But that’s unlikely, and no matter how it turns out, lets just be grateful that Robert Schwentke won’t be directing, writing, or having anything to do with the movie. The last thing we need is a PG-13 version of RED.

Oh, wait a minute.

Source: EMPIRE, Entertainment Weekly, IGN

Tagged Action, Adventure, Batman, Blade, Captain America, Christian Bale, Christopher Nolan, Comic Books, David S. Goyer, DC, EMPIRE, Entertainment Weekly, Graphic Novel, Green Lantern, Hulk, IGN, Iron Man, Justice League, Kick-Ass, Man Of Steel, Marvel, Men In Black, Movie, RED, Spider-man, Superhero, Superman, Suspense, The Avengers, The Dark Knight, Thor, Walt Disney, Warner Bros., Watchmen, Wolverine, Wonder Woman, X-men, Zack Snyder

Jul 01 2013

Leave a comment

Reviews

“PAN’S LABYRINTH” Review (✫✫✫✫)

The perfect blend of fantasy and reality.

Now here’s one you’re not going to be expecting. Here is a spanish-language fantasy film that blends elements of reality and war drama with that of horror and psychological thrillers. It’s rated R with a healthy amount of blood, violence, and language, it has a child as its lead character, and it is a fantasy film with no cuddly creatures and no misplaced sense of optimism. It’s also in spanish, one of my most frustrating languages. And it is also probably one of the best films of its kind. Maybe the only one of its kind.

Written and directed by spanish filmmaker Guillmo Del Toro, Pan’s Labyrinth is a post-Spanish civil war story about a young girl named Ofelia (brilliantly portrayed by Ivana Bacquero), who is fascinated and enticed by the many stories and fables she finds in her books and novellas. Her mother, Carmen (Ariadna Gil) is pregnant with her unborn brother, and they have been ordered to move to an outpost located on the outskirts of Mexico so the boy can be born next to his father: Captain Vidal (Sergi Lopez), a cruel and heartless product of war that knows nothing of decency, morality, kindness, or human life. This is a man who would kill a father and his son thinking that they lied about being hunters, and a second later pulls out their quarry in the bottom of their knapsack.

This is the situation Ofelia is trapped in: the cruelty and strictness of Captain Vidal, and the negligence and weakness of her pregnant mother. In the stories that she reads, however, Ofelia finds escape: she soon discovers a cave hidden deep within the gardens of the outpost, unnoticed to the human eye. It is here deep within the cave where she finds odd inscriptions, a plethora of fairies, and even an anonymous Faun (Portrayd by Doug Jones, voiced by Pablo Adan), who informs her of her true destiny: that she is the lost princess Moanna of their sacred kingdom, and she must complete three specific assignments tasked by the Faun in order to become a princess once again.

This is the kind of story Pan’s Labyrinth is: the kind that deftly blends elements of wondrous fantasy with that of tragic reality. This is rare treasure for foreign-language cinema: a film that while it is visually expressive, it is also a deep and personal commentary on the tragedies of war and its effects on a torn country. Del Toro has elaborated on such subjects before: his 2001 film The Devils Backbone also took place during the Spanish Civil war, and it also featured a child in great distress. Here though, I feel that he has a better handling of his premise, and if it is not better, it is at least more creative and dynamic in approach.

The visuals reach out in stellar, gritty, and striking details, the fairies light and whimsical, the faun towering, ancient, and brutish. There are so many visually stunning scenes in this movie, at times it is overwhelming. Del Toro, with the help of his cinematographer Guillermo Navarro, do something rare here: they paint a world here as fascinating as it is dangerous, a mesmerizing and gripping world that hypnotizes you with its appeal and its imagination. One might say Pan’s Labyrinth is an adult version of Alice In Wonderland: I disagree with that. I think this is the realistic version of Alice In Wonderland.

Why do I say this? It might be because the movie is very deserving in its R rating. Besides the occasional F-word uttered in spanish, there is a great deal of gore and violence in the movie, some of it aimed towards children. I’ll be the first to admit, Pan’s Labyrinth is heavy on violence. People are shot frequently in the film, often in very bloody manners. People’s limbs get cut off. In once scene, a man smashes a farm boy’s nose in with the butt of an alcohol bottle. And in one terrifying scene, Ofelia is fleeing capture from a pale man-eating monster, who proves his monstrosity by biting the heads off of the fairies assisting her. Don’t take your kids to this, folks: the movie is extremely violent.

While I would normally take points of a film for using excessive violence, here I believe it is warranted. Through every gunshot, through every murder, and through every droplet of blood, Del Toro is saying something provocative about war and innocence, most of it being things we need to hear of. I don’t believe Pan’s Labyrinth is just memorable, stunning, and poignant entainment: I believe it is relevant storytelling.

And at last, we come to the films conclusion, which is so mesmerizing and emotionally overpowering that we don’t know what to make of it. Did Ofelia complete all of her tasks? Was the Faun telling the truth? Did she become the fabled princess? Was it all a ruse? Or did she simply become a victim of the earthly world from which she was born of? The ending is eloquent, vast, and beautiful, open for many possible interpretations. You decide which one fits you best once you see the movie.

Tagged Alice In Wonderland, Books, Captain Vidal, Carmen, Drama, Fairies, Fairy Tales, Fantasy, Faun, Fiction, Guillermo Del Toro, Hellboy, Hermano, Mexico, Novels, Ofelia, Pale Man, Pan, Pan's Labyrinth, Spanish Civil-War, Stories, The Devils Backbone, Tragedy, War

Jun 28 2013

Leave a comment

Reviews

“MONSTERS UNIVERSITY” Review (✫✫✫)

Class is now in session. Please open your fright books to page 237.

Boy, will this bring back memories for you when you’re seventy. Monsters University does a rare thing with its premise that Pixar does with all of their movies: it incorporates real-world ideas and principles and relates them to the simplistic joys of a kids movie. Pixar isn’t alien to this concept: with WALL-E, you witness the effects of industrialism, with Up and Toy Story 3, the truth of loss and growing up. With Monsters University, we are given yet another truth, a truth about changing dreams and the pursuit of a higher education. It’s not as potent as Monsters Inc., but that’s another issue.

Taking place years before the events of Monsters Inc., Monsters University opens on a young Mike Wazowski (Billy Crystal), a punky little eyeball who dreams of growing up to be a scarer for Monsters Incorporated. His gateway into that dream lies in Monsters University, a college mostly known for its Scaring Program. This college is intimidating, a buidling filled with dark curtains, creaky floors, and echoed hallways, the perfect place for Scare students. I’d hate to see what the Art Department looks like on this campus.

So Mike Wazoswki immerses himself in his studies and in his bookwork, determined to be the best scarer at the University. There’s only one obstacle in his way: James P. Sullivan (John Goodman), a cocky, overly-confident jock who thinks getting through college is about a big name and a big roar, which is about the only two things he’s got. In their first semester at Monsters University, Sully is showing Mike up in every single scare opportunity, and Mike shows Sully up on every test and oral exam. Monsters University chronicles their adventures together, from their chance introduction, to their rivalrous exchanges between each other, and finally, the unlikely friendship that forms in between them.

Here is a movie that features the typical staples of a Pixar film: a good concept with a well-written plot, all forming together with fluid animation and wonderful voice-acting. Directed and co-written by Dan Scalon (The other two writers being Robert Baird and original Monsters Inc. writer Daniel Geirson), Monsters University is a story that combines clever, witty humor with that of a conventional, enjoyable story, even if it is at times a tad predictable. It’s easy to appreciate the humor in the film: even the names of Monster fraternities are enough to utter a chuckle. Admit it: how can you not smile when hearing the names “Roar-Omega-Roar”, or “Oozma Kappa”?

This is the kind of cleverness in Monsters University: the kind that takes real-world truths and facts and parodies them in a children’s cartoon. I’ve always appreciated this about Pixar: they’ve always made their work smarter and more profound than other animated films, therefore allowing adults to enjoy their films just as much as the kiddies do. Whenever you see a slug-like monster rushing at slug-like speed trying to get to class, or seeing a brush0like monster put paint in his hair and go “Ker-Splat!” on a canvas, the cleverness and the humor cannot help but shine through the brightly-colored and textured animation in this film. Here, the monsters come in all shape, sizes, and breeds in University, and they plop, bang, clang, sneak, slither, and scare in all forms chaos and hilarity on the screen. Crystal and Goodman, of course, need no comment about the liveliness of their roles. You only need to see the first Monsters movie to understand how perfect they are in their voice acting.

The important thing to remember here is that Monsters University is not Monsters Inc., and I mean that sincerely as a compliment. There is no doubt bits and pieces of Inc. that we can piece together in University; it’s charisma is intact, its wit and cleverness in-diminishable, and it cares just as much for its characters as Inc. does.

What its missing, then, is not intelligence or technical efficiency: what its missing is heart. Or at least, as much as Monsters Inc. has. To illustrate my point, I bring up a pivotal scene from the original Monsters movie: remember the scene where Sully had to say goodbye to Boo? Do you remember the scene where he frightened her? Do you remember Sully playing with her in her room, telling her in his deep baritone voice “Kitty has to go”? Do you remember that when her door was torn to shreds, he kept one little piece as his reminder of Boo? And do you remember Mike piecing the door back together, turning it on, and letting Sully open it to find a little girl whispering “Kitty” on the other side? Do you remember the emotion? The heartbreak? The happiness?

That “Aww” moment in Monsters Inc. is nowhere to be found in University. I’m not saying there isn’t emotion in there: there are plenty of deep and convincing moments of well-made drama between characters, and they are done well enough for us to be compelled to care for them. I’m saying the emotion isn’t done as well, or as effectively, as it was in Inc. to the point where I felt a deeper connection to the characters, almost as if I was in the room saying goodbye to my best imaginary friend. Someone might think I’m being unfair by comparing this prequel to the original, but that’s the game Pixar is playing here. Didn’t they know people would automatically look to the original when trying to decide which one is their favorite?

But I digress. Monsters University is fun, intelligent, and dare I say it, relevant entertainment. The animation is as stellar as always, it makes its characters compelling, it sets them up properly in line for their inevitable trip to Inc., and it makes a funny connection in between the audience and their own college years. I strongly recommend you sign up to join the student body at Monsters University. Just make sure you stay away from the Art Department.

Tagged Animation, Billy Crystal, Boo, College, Comedy, Dan Scalon, Disney, Mike Wazowski, Monsters Inc., Monsters University, Pixar, Prequel, Randall, Scare Program, Sully

Jun 28 2013

1 Comment

Trending

Channing Tatum To Direct “Magic Mike 2” with Steven Soderbergh (sorry, Peter Andrews) as Cinematographer.

This is a joke, right? Please tell me this is a joke? Is it? No?

Uggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh……

It has been reported a few hours ago that there is a possible Magic Mike 2 in the works. No surprise there, considering it featured a lot of skin and abs from the physically appealing Channing Tatum. What’s interesting is that the director of the first film, Steven Soderbergh, won’t be returning to direct. Word is that Tatum will take up the director’s chair, while Soderbergh (possibly under his pseudonym Peter Andrews) will be the director of photography. Pulled quote from the Hollywood Reporter is below:

“He has said he would shoot it; he would DP it. And there’s another thing: Is that good? Because he is such an opinionated and talented man, if he wants to do a five-minute tracking shot through a forest, you don’t want to doubt him.”

Ugh. Channing Tatum. What’re you doing man? You were so good in Side Effects and G.I. Joe Retaliation, where your characters essentially died in the first 20 minutes and were cut out from the rest of the movie. You were so great at those roles! Couldn’t you just stick to those for the rest of your career?

All joking aside, I’m not all hyped up for this bit of news. For one thing, I am not a fan of Channing Tatum (obviously. Unless he’s dying in a movie, that is), and I can only imagine his directing to be as bad as his acting is. I am also not a fan of male strippers taking off their clothes down to their baby-smooth-skin, so again I don’t look forward to watching this.

Post-Script: Admittedly, I have yet to see the first one, but you can understand me avoiding it. Hopefully I’ll be able to review it before the release of its sequel.

What perplexes me the most is this: Steven Soderbergh is the cinematographer. Only the cinematographer. He has donned the position as DP for all of the feature films that he’s directed (including his Oscar-winner Traffic and the recently released Side Effects), and to see him act only as cinematographer with no more input is greatly unusual indeed. Why the change? It might have to do with his allegations of taking a hiatus from film a year ago, but does he really want to take orders from Channing Tatum? Why on earth would he subject himself to that kind of torture?

Do you guys feel the same? I know plenty of you lovely ladies out there can’t wait to hear about this, but is there anyone else who really does not want to see this happen?

Either way, comment below, let me know.

-David Dunn

Source: The Hollywood Reporter, The Guardian

Jun 23 2013

Leave a comment

Reviews

“THIS MEANS WAR” Review (✫1/2)

Spy vs Spy in the most imbecilic way possible.

I hate formula movies. I hate em, I hate em, I hate em. They are predictable, repetitive, and annoying in nature, deafening and forgettable by default. It doesn’t matter what genre its from: if it follows the formula, premise, or plot-line of another film, it is automatically doomed for failure. You’ve never heard of Mac and Me because it isn’t E.T., and you don’t remember The Mummy because it isn’t Indiana Jones. Why on earth, then, would we remember this when we already have movies like Rush Hour, Lethal Weapon, and Men In Black?

This Means War is one of those movies that follows its formula so strictly, it treats its premise like its their only chance of survival. Imagine the movie like the sinking Titanic, and the small plank of wood (the formula) is the actor’s only hope of survival. Director McG should have actually seen Titanic though: the plank of wood didn’t have the strength to support its two leads. What makes McG think that here it would support three?

This Means War follows the story of two CIA agents: partners, allies, goody-goody beer buddies. FDR (Chris Pine) is an active womanizer who is always on the lookout for new jailbait. Tuck (Tom Hardy) is his less-lucky friend who is divorced, has a son, and struggles to even find a date. Lauren (Reese Witherspoon) is a bold, intelligent, and beautiful product-testing agent who struggles to find love. Oh boy.

These are our characters: one of them a pleasure-seeking playboy and the other two romantically hopeless until they discover online dating. And when Tuck arranges for a date online with the beautiful, yet oblivious, Lauren, their date leads to another coincidence encounter that could only happen in a movie: FDR, who just happened to be looking for a video in the rental store when he ran into Lauren. From there, you can predict what the movie is: a spy-romantic-action-“comedy” about two expert CIA agents fighting over the same girl.

Har har har, hee hee hee. How original. Hasn’t this been done before? How many times have we seen movies, television shows, novels, and even comic books about competing love interests? I’m all for the buddy-cop-turns-rivalrous-romance gag, but the material in the story must be funny and/or clever in order for it to back up its lack of originality.

Expect none of that humor, wit, or emotion in this movie. This Means War is mind-numbing, a sterile, unfunny, and idiotic film that tries to win us over with confidence and charisma, but instead rubs us off with immaturity and annoyance. There’s no reason to care for these characters. The emotion is artificial. All of the jokes are unfunny, and they dilute to topics as silly and insignificant as alcohol in a baby’s bottle, or sex jokes involving Cheetos. No, that was not a typo. Think of how many jokes you can make about a small, orange, stubby-shaped object. I’ll bet Chester was happy to hear about the product placement, though.

The greatest hinderance of this movie is its writing, where every single line of dialogue carries over its insincerity and its dependency on its paper-thin premise. The dialogue is so shockingly dumbfounded that I wanted to rub my fingernails on the chalkboard owned to whoever taught these screenwriters how to write. The smartest lines of dialogue in the film include something like “What do you do when you don’t know what to do?” or “You have the intelligence of a fifteen year old boy!”. Well, at least we’re on the same page here.

The only redeeming factor of this movie is the cast, who at times deliver their lines with whimsicality and good humor. Even then though, their roles are wasted. Their characters are so stupid, half-witted, and immature that they could only be artificial. Take, for instance, Reese Witherspoon’s character. How is it that a woman like her gets all of these advances and radical emotional changes from both of these guys, yet she continues to remain so clueless and oblivious like she’s out on a first date? Explosions go off and these guys go kung-fu on each other and you still think they’re just travel agents? Sorry, I’m not buying that.

Do I really need to elaborate any more here? I’ve already said why This Means War is terrible, and I hope my point is made. The chemistry is flat, plastic, and unbelievable, the dialogue, even more so. The plot is stock, unoriginal, and lifeless. The visual effects are so bad, you can see the CG on a car when it goes flying from an explosion. The villains, especially, are extremely lackluster and uninspired. What is more stock, for instance, than a Russian baddie trying to get revenge at two secret agents who killed his brother?

This, from the same guy who gave us We Are Marshall. What happened to McG? He was so great with that film, filling it with so much life and emotion. Terminator Salvation, preposterous as it may be, was also darkly atmospheric and marginally entertaining. Now, he’s here scraping the bottom of the barrel with This Means War, giving us no sanctuary from conventionalism, but instead, wooden planks to float on it. Let it sink, McG. Please. Let it sink.

Tagged Action, Buddy-Cop, Chris Pine, Comedy, Explosions, FDR, Film, Lauren, McG, Movie, Reese Witherspoon, Romance, Russian, Satire, Spy, Terminator Salvation, This Means War, Tom Hardy, Tuck, We Are Marshall

Jun 17 2013

Leave a comment

Trending

“The Amazing Spiderman” Has Just Metamorphed From A Trilogy Into A Quartet.

Really? We’re rushing into the sequels when the second one hasn’t even come out yet? Is that what we’re doing? Really?

Apparently so, and I’m not happy about that one bit. With the release of The Amazing Spiderman 2 coming up in May of next year, Sony is planning on gearing up for more of the web-slinging web-head. According to multiple sources, Sony has just announced the release dates of their next two Spider-man movies, which we’re going to call Spidey 3 & 4. The Amazing Spider-man 3 will be released on June 10th, 2016 and The Amazing Spider-man 4 will be released on May 4th, 2018.

My distaste for this could not be more scathing. Fourth installments of movies (I’m going to call them Four-quels) typically are uninspired, lackluster movies, and normally don’t measure up to the greatness of the originals that inspired them. There are a few minor exceptions: Harry Potter and the Goblet Of Fire and Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol, for example, were excellent four-quels that helped expand on their already-extensive universes. There are typically, however, more failures than successes. Pirates of The Carribbean: On Stranger Tides. Jaws: The Revenge. Indiana Jones And The Kingdom Of Crystal Skull. Do I even need to mention Batman and Robin?

On top of that, why are they so quick to rush into the sequels? The Amazing Spider-man 2 doesn’t even have a trailer out yet. I can understand why they’re anxious to explore more stories and villains in the Spider-man universe, but why are they so eager to rush into it when they don’t even know how the second one will fair yet? Don’t they want to hold off for just a little bit until they get an idea of the audience’s reception?

Either way, it doesn’t matter. Sequels are inevitable regardless.

What do you guys think? Are you guys excited for the news, or are you like me and prefer more patience? Comment below, let me know.

-David Dunn

Source: IGN, USA Today, Empire

Film Critic. Analyst. Devotee.