Tag Archives: Romance

Mar 31 2021
Leave a comment
Lists, The Scope

Top 10 Worst Movies Of The Decade

Does anyone else feel like 2021 isn’t so much a new year as much as it is an epilogue to 2020? In just three months, we saw our former President incite an attack on the United States Capitol, got kicked off of Twitter, impeached again by the House of Representatives, only to later be acquitted by his loyalists in the Senate, then banished into private life, only resurfacing once or twice to send out one of his idiotic would-be tweets via press release. That’s not even accounting for all of the crazy things going on down here in Texas such as all businesses opening up 100%, the mask mandate being lifted, and oh yeah, a bloody SNOWSTORM crippled the state’s power grid, leaving millions without power for several days and killing over a hundred Texans from hypothermia. But hey, at least Ted Cruz was nice and warm in his private jet to Cancun. Thank you AOC, for doing Ted’s job for him.

Regardless of all of the crazy 2021 has offered so far, it does have its positive points. For one thing, Joe Biden’s presidency was certified for the 60th time, so yes QAnidiots, Joe Biden is in fact your duly elected President. And thanks to the unlikely election of Jon Ossoff and Raphael Warnock (which Georgia Republicans are desperately trying to overturn), everybody received $1,400 stimulus checks, so thank you Georgians for having some common sense for a change. And thanks to the fast-acting response from the current administration, millions of Americans are getting vaccinated from COVID-19 daily, so it’s possible we’re going to reach the 200 million threshold very soon. With all of these wins after a year as dismal and pathetic as 2020, I might be lucky enough to go back to a movie theater soon, though I’m knocking on wood when I say that.

Either way, 2020 is behind us, and there’s no better way to celebrate than by looking at the absolute worst the last decade had to offer. So without further adieu, here are my 10 most hated films from the last decade.

– David Dunn

Tagged , , , , , , , , ,
Aug 08 2016
Leave a comment
Reviews

“SUICIDE SQUAD” Review (✫✫✫)

Worst. Heroes. Ever.

If you do not like superhero movies, do not watch Suicide Squad. I’m warning you now. It’s a haphazard, off-the-wall, ridiculous superhero/villain exercise that is psychotic and gleeful in every way imaginable. I highly doubt that your chess club or church study group would enjoy seeing this movie. To enjoy it is possible, but it has to be from a fan of the material.

I myself am a fan superhero movies, but only when they are confident and competent with their vision and purpose. DC’s earlier Man of Steel was one of those movies, and while many spoke out against the controversial changes to the character, the movie at least understood those changes and how importantly they played into the greater mythos of Superman. The more recent Batman V. Superman: Dawn of Justice, comparatively, was neither confident or competent, hopping around everywhere, having no clear focus or clarity, and was more interested in setting up its future installments rather than developing its current story or characters. If you are looking for the potential of superhero movies, you need look no further than DC’s own successes and failures. 

And yet, Suicide Squad doesn’t fall anywhere between being masterful or disastrous. It finds solid middle ground between action and absurdity as its villains fight, shoot, punch, breathe, feel, emote, joke, and laugh maniacally at each other’s antics. The movie fulfills every insane requirement that you expect it to have and then some.

Following up after the events of Batman V. Superman, Suicide Squad shows government official Amanda Waller (Viola Davis) playing a dangerous gamble with national security. After seeing the world’s most important hero bite the dust, Waller wants to assemble a task force to protect the world from supernatural threats. This team would consist of imprisoned supervillains Waller would have under her control. If they succeed in doing what she says, they get time off from their prison sentences. If they rebel, a microchip in their neck explodes, killing them in a heartbeat.

These villains are no joke. Floyd Lawton, a.k.a. Deadshot (Will Smith) is a master assassin who hits his target with every pull of the trigger. Harley Quinn (Margot Robbie) is a mad woman who is insanely in love with her fellow baddie the Joker (Jared Leto), whom she affectionately refers to as “Puddin'”. There’s the heathen thief Digger Harkins, a.k.a. Captain Boomerang (Jai Courtney), the reptilian-looking beast Waylon Jones, a.k.a. Killer Croc (Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje), and the repenting Chato Santana, a.k.a. El Diablo (Jay Hernandez), who can emit flames from his body. These villains-turned-sorta-heroes are forced together to do greater good, whether they like it or not.

Suicide Squad reminded me of another superhero film I watched earlier this year, one that also had a simple, straightforward plot, was unorthodox in nature, and featured a character that frequently crossed the line. I’m referring to Deadpool, which like Suicide Squad, took joy in its characters and frequently mocked genre cliches in its fellow superhero movies. They’re not quote-unquote “good guys”, and that allows them to break the mold of the typical action movie. It lets them be much more loose and flexible in their morality, and by that definition, it also lets them be more fun.

The differences with Deadpool and Suicide Squad, of course, lie with its parodist style. Deadpool called out superhero conventions with the middle finger and a dirty mouth. Suicide Squad inhabits these conventions while at the same time not playing to their nature. You can argue back and forth which is the better film, but there is one thing you cannot argue: the divisive nature of its fans.

Oh, to say this movie got mixed feedback is a strong understatement. Suicide Squad is currently at 26 percent on Rotten Tomatoes, 40 out of 100 on Metacritic. “A clotted and delirious film” is what Peter Bradshaw wrote for The Guardian. “Clumsy and disrupted” is what Ignatiy Vishnevetsky wrote for The A.V. Club. Perhaps the worst criticism comes from Kyle Smith from The New York Post: “What promised to be a Super Bowl of villainy turned out more like toddler playtime.”

I get that these movies aren’t necessarily geared towards critics, but at the same time, I also understand who these movies are trying to appeal to. Critics don’t bring box office numbers. Fans do. And they don’t care about a film’s direction, artistry, uniqueness, genre conventions, cliches, or anything else that critics are normally concerned about. They care about how fun it is and how faithful the movie interprets their favorite comic book characters.

With that criteria in mind, Suicide Squad is all sorts of fun and faithful, with the chemistry of its actors colliding into each other like the most dysfunctional supervillains you’ve never seen. The best thing about this movie is easily its cast, who inhabit their roles so fluidly that you take their villainy at face value without judgement or questioning. Margot Robbie in particular stands out as Harley Quinn, who has an enthusiastic wackiness and infectious personality to her that you can’t help but fall in love with. She’s a fun yet tragic character, the squad member who easily has the most life to her twisted laugh and dark humor. Robbie does a lot more than merely portray Harley Quinn: she is Harley Quinn, just as much as Hugh Jackman is Wolverine, Ryan Reynolds is Deadpool, dare I say it, as Heath Ledger is the Joker.

But she’s not the only one that impressed me so much. The entire cast have their moments, and whether it was major or minor scenes, they inhabited the nuances of their characters with skill and brilliance. Smith, who normally gets stuck in a routine of portraying the stock action hero, switches it up a little bit here by bringing his “Fresh Prince of Bel-Air” personality to lighten the movie’s mood, and the tone is surprisingly fitting. Jai Courtney, who to date has never impressed me from A Good Day To Die Hard to I, Frankenstein, fully embodies his role as this dirty, loud-mouthed, unappealing mass of redneck. Even Karen Fukuhara, who makes her debut as sword-wielding warrior Katana, provides a performance so versatile that she could be powerful and intimidating in some scenes, yet fragile and intimate in much smaller moments. This was a great debut for her talents, and I eagerly wait to see what her next role is after this.

Sadly, my least favorite character is the one that I was most eager to see: Jared Leto’s Joker, who plays a smaller role in the movie than people may expect. The problem is not Leto’s performance, who throws every bit of his energy and effort into this role. It’s how the character is written. If you take away the green hair, the makeup, the tattoos, and the grilled teeth, what you would have left is not the Joker. You would have a stock movie gangster that is obsessed with guns, knives, torture, slick cars, and violence, with no demeanor of his resembling that of a clown or a twisted comedian. The Joker we have in this movie is not the anarchist you’ve come to know him for. He’s a mob boss, and that is an absolute waste on the character’s potential. The Joker is a much more interesting villain than that, and Leto deserves so much better than just portraying Scarface with makeup on. If this Joker is going to reappear in future DC installments, they will need to rewrite the character in order to make him more accurate to his origins.

I can easily name a few other flaws from the movie. A few character’s motivations make no sense. The editing in the first act was choppy and erratic. And the action, while fun and stylish, was at times long and overbearing. None of this changes the odd-baldish chemistry the actors share, the unique spin the movie itself has on the superhero genre, the compelling dichotomy between the characters, or the fact that this is one of the most exciting movies I’ve had the pleasure to sit through this summer. Many more critics will no doubt discount this movie as supervillain trash, but this movie was not made for them. This movie was made for me. And I will say without batting an eye that Suicide Squad is sickeningly entertaining.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
May 13 2016
Leave a comment
Reviews

“CAPTAIN AMERICA: CIVIL WAR” Review (✫✫✫✫)

A war of humans, not heroes. 

I’m going to make a bold claim here. Captain America: Civil War is the best MCU movie to be made to date.

I know, I know, I’m probably a little overzealous when I say that. Except that I’m not. I’m fully aware of what its competition is. There are two other Marvel movies that I can compare Captain America: Civil War with. Those two are Iron Man and The Avengers. All three of them are exciting, suspenseful, nail-biting, eye-widening entertainment that are just as fun and memorable as they are emotional and meaningful. They’re not just great superhero dramas. They’re great human dramas.

But Captain America: Civil War is especially unique to even these entries. How? The biggest reason is because it isn’t formulaic. In Iron Man and The Avengers, we had our heroes, our villains, and they went at each other like rock-em sock-em robots. Granted, there’s deeper insight and perspective than just the two-dimensional hero/villain foreplay, but you can’t deny the framework that’s there. There’s a clear cut good guy and bad guy, as there is in most superhero movies.

But that black-and-white sense of morality isn’t well defined in Captain America: Civil War. In fact, there isn’t really an established sense of right and wrong in the picture, just characters whose ideals and values clash violently with each other. You can argue that there is a quote-unquote “villain” in the movie, but he’s more of a viewer than an active participant to the conflict involved. If we have to go by titles in this movie, what we have then is hero against hero, Avenger against Avenger, and friend against friend. The ensuing action is nothing else but thrilling, thought-provoking, mind-blowing, and heartbreaking.

In this sequel to both Captain America: The Winter Soldier and Avengers: Age of Ultron, Steve Rogers, a.k.a. Captain America (Chris Evans) leads a new team of Avengers, consisting of Black Widow (Scarlett Johannson), War Machine (Don Cheadle), Falcon (Anthony Mackie), Vision (Paul Bettany) and Scarlet Witch (Elizabeth Olsen). After an international event involving the Avengers ends in high casualties, General Thaddeus Ross (William Hurt) and Tony Stark, a.k.a. Iron Man (Robert Downey Jr.) step in to introduce the Sokovia Accords, which states that the Avengers would no longer be a private organization, but instead will be employed and assigned missions by a United Nations panel.

There are two perspectives to the Accords. On one hand, the Accords would give a new level of accountability to the Avengers. They would be restricted in where they could go and what they could do, and the public casualties in turn could be lessened. Plus, the Avengers would now get paid for all of their superheroing. On the other hand, this could put a level of control and interference on the Avengers that would prevent them from doing the most good. Plus, being assigned to report to a panel leaves them vulnerable for manipulation, forcing them to do things that they wouldn’t otherwise.

Iron Man leads the side that’s for the Accords: Cap leads the side that’s against it. But regardless of both sides, there’s another player in the field whose looking to manipulate both sides to his advantage. And neither side realizes it until its too late.

The second Marvel movie to be directed by brothers Anthony and Joe Russo and the fourth to be written by Christopher Markus and Stephen McFeely, Captain America: Civil War is a superhero movie ripe with context, a movie that asks uncomfortable questions that we would much rather remain unanswered. Just like how The Winter Soldier related its plot to today’s world of government control, survaillance, and corruption, Civil War also relates to real-world issues that appeals just as much to reality as they do to fantasy.

Take, for instance, the introduction of the Sokovia Accords. These documents, much like the connection between S.H.I.E.L.D. and H.Y.D.R.A. in The Winter Soldier, presents the theme of government interference and how those implications affect our world. Yes, the Accords would impose an element of control and responsibility over the heroes, but at what cost? This is a situation where civil liberties are being traded for security, and the question is raised on whether its a good trade or not. Juxtaposing this idea of control in between our heroes raises very important questions: questions that are startlingly resemblant of our world abundant with government surveillance and manipulation.

But the movie doesn’t suffer under its philosophical weight. This is still one of those fast-paced, funny, exciting Marvel movies that you’ve come to love. It’s just now a fast-paced, funny, exciting action movie that has deeper insight and drama than the previous entries did. The issues involved draw us deeper into the film’s conflict and to each of the outcomes that these characters face.

There are two of these characters that I haven’t mentioned yet. One of them is the rebooted Peter Parker/ Spider-Man, who is played here by Tom Holland as opposed to the recently discontinued Andrew Garfield. Holland’s appearance in the film is brief yet significant, and while he doesn’t serve a role as important as the others, his charisma, immaturity, and innocent charm makes him for a very entertaining and memorable character, one who sticks out in my mind just as much as Captain America and Iron Man. To be rebooted in just two years time is definitely too soon, and part of me wonders how well Garfield would have done if he had been given the same opportunities as Holland was. That doesn’t take away from the fact that Holland still wins us over and sticks out in our minds just as strongly as Garfield and Toby Maguire does. He makes me very excited to see what’s in store for him for his eventual return in Spider-Man: Homecoming.

The other character is T’Challa, a.k.a. the Black Panther (Chadwick Boseman). If there is a neutral side in this conflict, it is in T’Challa, although at one point he does fight on Iron Man’s team. He’s so great because unlike Iron Man or Cap, his perspective is the most human out of the other players. He is the citizen Cap and Iron Man are fighting to protect. He is the one that faces the most casualty out of any of the other players. This natural perspective into the film is so important, because it demonstrates an investment that isn’t coming from another superhero: it’s coming from the victim of both sides of the conflict. That pain and confusion is so important to understand Captain America: Civil War not just as a Marvel movie, but as a complex drama on its own two legs.

The performances, the action, the visual effects, and the direction all accumulate masterfully, and the Russo brothers demonstrate a better understanding of their characters than they did in Captain America: The Winter Soldier. What we have left, then, is an unchallenged masterpiece, a moral dilemma packaged as a superhero blockbuster that excites us just as much as it challenges us. Iron Man and The Avengers both challenged themselves morally and ethically, but not so much to the point where it’s entire plot was founded around it. There was still a right or wrong in those movies. There isn’t in Captain America: Civil War, and that makes it just as compelling as it is entertaining. The one downside to this film’s success: now the Russo brothers have to follow this up with Avengers: Infinity War. I don’t know how they’re going to do it. I would personally guess that they can’t do it. But I’ve been wrong before.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Apr 18 2016
Leave a comment
Reviews

“IRON MAN 2” Review (✫✫✫)

Literally, two Iron Men.

Let me stop your expectations right there. Iron Man 2 is not as good as Iron Man. It just isn’t. Granted, making anything better than Iron Man is damn near impossible. I think the only recent movie that can compete is The Dark Knight, albeit for very different reasons.

All the same, just because Iron Man 2 is not as good as Iron Man doesn’t mean it isn’t good at all. It just depends on what you’re looking for when you enter the theater, and what expectations you’re having that would affect your view of the picture.

I myself went in expecting a subpar sequel to Iron Man. I got just that. But just because it is subpar doesn’t mean it isn’t fun, and believe me: Iron Man 2 is all sorts of fun. Whether it’s in the action, the comedy, or in the performances, I was never bored, and I quite enjoyed seeing Robert Downey Jr. suit up a second time in the suit, even if it was less meaningful this time around.

Iron Man 2 picks up right after the events of the first Iron Man, where Tony went into a press conference and stupidly told everyone that he was Iron Man. I banged my head into my seat multiple times when that happened in Iron Man, and I repeated this action when Tony dropped out of a helicopter, flied around next to fireworks, and landed in a convention center, only to unmask himself in front of thousands of fans at the beginning of Iron Man 2.

I have one word for a person that would act like this in real life. The first half of that word rhymes with bass. The other half is hole.

This time around, Tony is pitted up against not one, but TWO bad guys. The first is Ivan Vanko (Mickey Rourke), a Russian technician who holds a deep resentment against Tony considering his family’s history with the Starks. The other is Justin Hammer (Sam Rockwell), a wickedly genius business man who has all of Tony’s ego, but none of his charm. These two together make a terrible team that Tony needs to take down alongside his friend James “Rhodey” Rhodes (Don Cheadle), who suits up next to Tony as the War Machine.

…you get it? Iron Man 2? Two Iron Men? Ha ha ha.

The best thing about Iron Man 2 is also the best thing from the first Iron Man. Robert Downey Jr. once again proves how great of an actor he is both inside and outside the Iron Man armor. At this point, he is Tony Stark. It doesn’t even seem like he’s putting on a performance anymore. He’s inhabiting the character so naturally that he feels like he’s reacting more than he is acting. His mannerisms and expressions are on point, his line delivery acute, and his comedic timing perfect. Downey Jr. never falters in the film. Not even once.

And the action scenes are just as strong as they were in the first film. Well, maybe not as well. The first movie, after all, did have Tony fighting terrorists and war mongers, and carried more weight to it as it appealed more to reality than it did to fantasy.

Still, the action is fun and fast-paced. My particular favorite moment was when Tony and Rhodey team up to take on an army of Iron Man armor copycats. This scene was exciting to watch because really, this is the first time we see Tony facing a large-scale threat that aren’t fragile human beings. It was exciting and interesting to see Tony and Rhodey fighting with larger stakes in the midst. It shows that the Marvel universe knows how to grow and build upon its original elements.

So Downey Jr., the comedy, and the action is retained from the first movie. What isn’t? Well, for one thing, the tone is off. Iron Man 2 is more silly and less serious, and while it does make for a fun movie, it also makes for a less meaningful one. The movie has this strange sub-plot involving Tony’s mortality and his complicated history with his father. These are serious subjects that should have a lot of gravitas and weight to it, yet it feels removed and out of place here. We don’t care about Tony personally like we did in Iron Man. We just like watching him suit up and shooting snarky quips at his supporting cast.

I wonder, where exactly did director Jon Favreau go wrong? I think his mistake was focusing more on the plot and less on the character. The first Iron Man was a great character study, as well as an exciting action movie. That was due in part both to Robert Downey Jr.’s personification and Favreau’s understanding of the character. Then Iron Man struck a chord and was suddenly universally praised from both critics and fans alike. How on Earth was Favreau going to top that?

I think that, in the midst of production stress and unrealistic expectations, Favreau panicked and tried to force a story onto the character, rather than allowing the character to create the story himself. This is a movie that knows the notes, but it doesn’t know how to play them. It’s more interested in setup rather than payoff, and you can see that with all of the Easter eggs stuffed in the film, but with all of the underdeveloped characters in there as well.

Overall, I enjoyed Iron Man 2 and I had fun with it, but it was not as worthwhile an experience as Iron Man was. Isn’t that to be expected though? Sequels are a dominant force in today’s industry, and most of them are not only disappointment to their predecessors, but are just bad movies overall. Be grateful that we’ve got a few laughs and thrills and can enjoy Iron Man 2 for what it is.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Apr 04 2016
Leave a comment
Reviews

“THE DARK KNIGHT” Review (✫✫✫✫)

Two madmen at war with each other and themselves.

Editor’s note: I was originally going to hold off on publishing this review due to an upcoming in-depth article I’m working on. However, upon learning that today would have been Heath Ledger’s 37th birthday, I couldn’t miss the opportunity to honor the late actor’s magnificent work. So, without further adieu, here is my review for the magnificent superhero epic that is ‘The Dark Knight.’

The Dark Knight is a moral dilemma about two madmen trying to make sense out of their own worlds. One hides his madness with a mask. The other demonstrates it proudly with a crooked smile and a demented laugh. We define one as “good” and the other as “bad”, but really, what’s the real difference between these two? They are both traumatized by tragedies they’ve experienced at very young ages, and one was clearly more devastating than the other. Just switch around Bruce Wayne’s childhood with that of the Joker’s for a second. Is it really that far-fetched to think that they could have grown up to become the other person?

It’s difficult to draw such similar parallels between a film’s protagonist and antagonist, especially in a superhero movie where everything is supposed to be so cut and dry. But Christopher Nolan orchestrates his characters masterfully here in The Dark Knight, a film that feels more like a Shakespearean tragedy than it does as a superhero blockbuster. It isn’t a film that is driven by big-budget fights and special effects, although those technical elements definitely don’t suffer in the movie all the same. This is a movie driven by character’s ambitions, desires, loss, and pain. Rarely does a film reach into such dark depths and have such outstanding payoff.

This movie is, of course, the sequel to Nolan’s highly praised 2005 prequel Batman Begins, which too succeeds in showing Bruce Wayne not as a comic book icon, but as a human being, reliably portrayed by Christian Bale with his own complexions and regrets. The Dark Knight continues Bruce’s story, but takes focus off of Batman and puts a larger focus on Gotham, the city Bruce is sworn to protect. In doing that, Nolan inadvertently creates another character in the Batman story, and you only need to look at its citizens to see what the character is like. It’s manipulative, murderous, deceitful, selfish, and crooked, with the only evidence of decency in only a handful of citizens wanting to do the right thing.

Heath Ledger’s Joker, of course, sees the sick nature of Gotham and imposes his own version of justice upon the city. From a different perspective, could the Joker be considered the hero of the story? Both Batman and the Joker are vigilantes in their own ways. The difference is who they see as the main poison to Gotham.

Like any other superhero, Batman sees the criminals and mob bosses as the biggest culprits to Gotham’s decay. The Joker, however, sees it differently. He sees the city’s politicians, judges, police officers, and commissioners as the real criminals. Technically, neither is wrong. All of these people are responsible for the state that Gotham is in, and Batman and Joker are just picking two different sides to the same coin. Our instinct tells us to root for Batman, mostly because we are the everyday regular citizen he’s fighting to protect. But the Joker has been hurt day-in and day-out by regular citizens. So has Batman. His parents were killed by a citizen of Gotham. The Joker forces citizens to kill each other in The Dark Knight. In witnessing all of this murder and corruption taking place, you can’t help but ask yourself one question: are we even worth saving?

This gloomy idea of morality has been explored by Christopher Nolan before. Indeed, his career has been defined by character’s questioning ethics in 2000’s Memento and 2006’s The Prestige. Look at those films and how eerily similar they are to The Dark Knight. Look at the parallels not just in character and theme, but in tone and aesthetic. Look at how closely they are shot. Look at how tightly the action is edited together, yet coherent enough to understand everything we need to. Look at the character’s conflicts that test them and, in some cases, even break them. Look at their state of mind and security, and how quickly they decay in the midst of crippling loss, paranoia, and distrust.

This is why The Dark Knight is almost universally seen as the best comic book movie of all time: because it is not a comic book movie. Nolan didn’t film it like a comic book movie. He didn’t want to make a comic book movie, or at least, in the conventional sense. Everything involved with this movie, from the writing to the framing to the visual effects to the acting, was constructed with the idea that Nolan and Warner Bros. were making something much more than a comic book movie. They were making a crime film, a psychological drama, and a visual poem in disguise as a superhero blockbuster.

Just to clarify, I’m not knocking the superhero genre. Some of the greatest movies of all time spawned out of that genre, and if done right, it can be the best out of any of the other film genres. Christopher Reeve’s Superman and Superman II humanized a superhero that was anything but human. Spider-Man made an ordinary character extraordinary. X2 embedded a message of prejudice into an action-fueled sci-fi thriller.

Great superhero movies have come before The Dark Knight, and many more will come after. But what makes The Dark Knight unique is not its status as a quote-unquote “superhero” movie. It is its mirroring psychology that makes you question what is truly right or wrong. Superhero movies don’t normally do that. They normally provide our hero and our villain and have them go at each other in fun, comic-booky fashion. But that wasn’t enough for The Dark Knight. It needed to ask why they were going after each other, and what was at stake if they didn’t do so? This is one of the rare action movies that questions if our hero is actually doing the right thing, and if he’s fighting this labeled villainy in the right way.

In these characterizations, the performances are key, and Bale and Ledger alike to brilliant work in not just bringing their characters to life, but their beliefs as well. Ledger has received all the acclaim and the Academy Award for best supporting actor as the Joker, and he’s right to. He’s delivered a downright chilling portrayal of a mentally disturbed madman: a brilliant finish to a long and successful career up until his death in 2008. Yet, I don’t think many people notice Bale’s nuanced performance as a man struggling to know and do the right thing. That’s genuinely a shame, because the movie is a success due to their acting together, not just one performance over the other. Again, they treat their characters not as superheros and supervillains, but as competing complexions, battling each other not for the sake of justice, but for the sake of proving their own personally defined morality. At the end of the day, isn’t the battle of morality more powerful than any physical battle can ever be?

The film builds up to it’s highly-anticipated climax in classic Nolan fashion. The final battle, however, is not between our hero and villain, but instead between the two sides of Gotham. One side has been convicted by the law. The other has been convicted by God. And in their convictions, both sides are forced to make a choice. I won’t spoil what happens, but I will say this: they make the right one.

Batman and Joker are not two different people. They are two sides to the same coin. We too exist on a coin and have the equal potential of being either Batman or the Joker. It’s only a matter of what we choose to be.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Mar 25 2016
Leave a comment
Reviews

“BATMAN V SUPERMAN: DAWN OF JUSTICE” Review (✫✫)

How’s does the peach tea taste, Mr. Wayne?

Let’s start with the obvious: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice is the worst title for a superhero movie since Superman IV: The Quest For Peace. And yet, it’s so appropriate for a movie like this. The title is on-the-nose, hokey, ridiculous, and clearly unfocused, just like the movie itself is.

Taking place a few years after the events of Man of Steel, Batman v…. screw it, I’m not going to repeatedly spell out a bad title. BvS: DOJ picks up in the aftermath of the disaster that struck Metropolis during the battle between Superman (Henry Cavill) and the Kryptonian army. The city is dismantled. Hundreds of casualties have been named. A memorial that evokes the tragedy of 9/11 sits in the heart of the city, right next to a monument dedicated to the superhero that saved everyone. It is a tense time for Metropolis as they’re trying to rebuild, and everyone has one question on their minds: Is Superman doing more harm than good?

Enter billionaire Bruce Wayne (Ben Affleck), who unequivocally sees Superman as mankind’s enemy. During the day of the attack, Superman fought inside of one of Wayne’s corporate buildings, which had many of his employees still inside when it fell. Wayne took the hit very hard. He’s too familiar with losing a family, and here he lost his second one. Now, he once again adopts his criminal-fighting personality of Batman with one focus: to kill the Superman.

Let me start with the positives. First of all, Ben Affleck was incredible as Bruce Wayne and Batman. That genuinely surprises me, because A) Christian Bale’s Batman is still fresh on my mind, and B) Ben Affleck isn’t normally a great actor, minus the movies that he’s written or directed. This movie is a game changer for him. He’s playing Batman with a more grim facade; an older, meaner, more coarse attitude that is even more distrusting of people than The Dark Knight’s Batman was. This is not the same Batman that you’re familiar with. His psychological trauma and torture tactics have intensified, and he isn’t above killing criminals. This might be maddening for some comic purists out there, but I found it to be a refreshing take on the caped crusader. After all, in a DC Universe where you’re fighting for your life against space aliens and Frankenstein monsters, I think it’s reasonable to say that the stakes have been raised on all fronts.

And the Batman/Superman dynamic was equally amazing. The thing I liked most about this movie, and what I think most fans were looking forward to, was the contrasting nature between Batman and Superman. I’m not talking about the fight itself, although the buildup and the payoff to that sequence definitely did not disappoint. I’m talking about the real conflicting ideals of Batman versus Superman. Batman is a mortal who has faced cuts, bruises, and bloodshed all his life. Superman is an indestructible alien from outer space. Batman believes torture and intimidation are effective tactics for fighting crime. Superman finds those things to be disturbing and unnecessary. Batman sees a Kyryptonian alien as mankind’s greatest threat. Superman sees it as a vigilante that answers to no one. I was expecting their ideals to clash in this movie, but I wasn’t expecting to be rooting for them both when the film built to its climactic titular fight. The fact that we’re engaged in a superhero beatdown between our two protagonists and we can understand where both are coming from is the evidence of strong, smart writing, and Affleck and Cavill alike do very well in bouncing their personalities off of each other to make a strong, rivalrous relationship between the two.

Unfortunately, as far as positives for the movie goes, it ends there. Where do I start with the mistakes of Batman v Superman? First of all, its editor David Brenner needed to be fired. Either him or director Zack Snyder, depending on which one decided this movie needed to be two hours and 30 minutes long. There were so many unecessary scenes in the movie, so many sequences that added nothing and truly took away from the larger conflict between Batman, Superman, and our mischievous third player Lex Luthor (Jesse Eisenberg). Don’t worry, we’ll get to him in a bit.

Look at the first act as an example of the film’s poor editing. If Brenner knew what he was doing, he would open the film right on the destruction going on in Metropolis, with Bruce frantically driving and running around in a quickly collapsing city trying to save as many people as he can. That was a great scene that showed Bruce’s vulnerability, and even more rarely, his fear. We didn’t start with that though. We start with the same sequence we’ve seen in every Batman movie now, which is the death of Bruce’s parents. Why? Why do we need to see this again? Haven’t we seen it enough in Tim Burton and Christopher Nolan’s Batman movies? What is the purpose in showing this again? And also, when a younger Bruce falls into the cavern and becomes enveloped in bats, is there any reason to show him as a levitating Bat messiah floating to the top of the cave?

I’m blaming Brenner because he didn’t cut the sequence out, but the truth is it is just as much Snyder’s fault as it is Brenner’s. Why did he choose to even film these scenes in the first place? Didn’t either of them see that these scenes weren’t necessary? That the dream and hallucination sequences added nothing to the plot, that the easter eggs to the DC Universe did nothing to develop the story, or that the epilogue of the film was sappy and dragged out? There were so many stupid scenes in this movie that made no sense and formed no coherency with the greater ideas of the film. You could have cut 30 minutes from the film, make it shorter than The Dark Knight, and have a better movie.

And then we get to Eisenberg. Ugh. Remind me again why he is Lex Luthor? I get that he’s a great actor and that he was enthusiastic for the role. That doesn’t make him right for it, and he’s definitely not right for it.

I’ll give Eisenberg this: he tried. But he tried too hard. We’re not seeing Lex Luthor here as much as we are seeing a B-grade Joker or Riddler. He’s not the smart, calculated supervillain you remember. He’s ecstatic, chaotic, and impulsive, which makes him a good villain archetype, but not a good Lex Luthor. Eisenberg throws himself into the role and succeeds in portraying it, but it’s not his portrayal that’s the problem. It’s the way him and Snyder envision the character, as a psychotic messenger of doom rather than the intelligent, well-crafted, yet connivingly evil gentlemen that he’s supposed to be. If Batman was my favorite part of the movie, Lex Luthor was my least favorite. He’s that far off of the map from what Superman’s arch-nemesis is supposed to be.

What we end up having then, is an out-of-focus movie that does a lot of things right, and then equally does a lot of things wrong. That’s the most disappointing thing about this movie, is seeing its potential and how wasted it is by stupid editing and even stupider characters. And this is the movie that’s supposed to set up the Justice League films. Pray that those movies display smarter storytelling and editing. And a better title.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Mar 14 2016
Leave a comment
Reviews

“CLOVERFIELD” Review (✫✫✫)

Turn the camera on.

Why is it when we think of monster movies, we remember the larger-than-life creatures more easily than we do the main characters? For instance, we don’t remember Ann Darrow as easily as we remember King Kong. We don’t remember Hideto Ogata over Godzilla. It’s simpler to remember Frankenstein’s monster rather than Dr. Frankenstein himself. And it’s easy to see why too: the monsters are more interesting than their human co-stars are. We all know someone like Ann, Hideto, or Victor because they’re all human beings, just like us. King Kong, Godzilla, and Frankenstein’s monster have never existed and can never exist. Perhaps that’s why they fascinate us so much: because they play on fantasy rather than reality.

Let Cloverfield, then, be the monster movie to flip the genre on its head. Not only do we not know the name of the monster that is tearing apart New York City, but our focus is poured almost entirely into the human survivors. It’s just as well too. Cloverfield is one of those rare movies that blends entertainment with art, method with innovation, fantasy with reality.

So yes, if you happened to miss the highly talked-about teaser trailer before the movie’s release, Cloverfield is another monster movie. There’s a big baddie, there’s a city, and chaos and destruction ensues. That’s how far the similarities extend. The difference in its approach this time around lies is its execution. While King Kong and Godzilla are framed and staged on a massive scale as monsters clobber each other and throw each other into buildings and landmarks, Cloverfield instead focuses on a smaller scale as found footage off of a New York City regular’s camcorder. This New Yorker is named Rob (Michael Stahl-David), and he is accompanied by his friend Hud (T.J. Miller) and his lover Beth (Odette Annable), of whom he has a complicated past with. Great time to have relationship problems, isn’t it? In the middle of a destroyed New York City while a monster is obliterating everything in sight.

Here is a movie that succeeds more as an experiment than it does as a film. Cloverfield is a movie that takes genre conventions and throws them out the back window, taking any direction it wishes as it propels its humans through the chaos of a quickly collapsing New York City. The risks it takes both pays off for itself and then doesn’t. Most of the time, the movie’s intentions shine clear and have a strong payoff for its audience. At other times, it’s shaky and unstable, much like this movie’s handheld shooting method.

I’ll start with the positives. First of all, it’s different. That much is a compliment you don’t hear too much nowadays in corporate Hollywood, which pushes out sequels and remakes like the happy meals at McDonalds. Yes, Cloverfield’s overall premise has been used and reused, but it’s originality comes from its forced perspective towards these human characters. Here’s a question for you: out of all of the horror movies you’ve seen, how many characters have you been able to relate to on a personal level? No, I’m not talking about relating to them in the sense that they’re running away from giant monsters or psychotic axe murderers. Sure, we like to root for Ellen Riply in Alien or Sally in The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, but take them out of their own movies for a second. How many of them can you relate to as people rather than as movie characters?

Cloverfield is one of those rare movies that understands its characters before it understands its visual effects. This is in credit to both screenwriter Drew Godard and cinematographer Michael Bonvillain, who both understand that for this story to work, we need to relate to the characters as regular people rather than as survivors. Them taking the time to change their focus and build on exposition works. After a very brief introduction, we understand who these characters are, their motivations, and their relationships to each other. When they die, it’s genuinely heartbreaking. It means something when they’re killed, as opposed to being just another number for the monster’s kill count. Because of our investment into Rob, Beth, Hud and others, we’re scared for them and with them as they’re running through a violently torn apart New York City, desperately searching for the people they love most. By making that the focus, Cloverfield works not just as a horror or monster movie, but also as a tragedy. Such deepness is rare for disaster pictures nowadays, but Cloverfield pulls it off well, unlike most of today’s big-budget blockbusters.

Of course, with this “found-footage” method of shooting, it also raises some problems for this production. For one thing, there is not a single steady shot in the movie. The camera is always shaking back and forth, which didn’t bother me as much, but I know it will cause motion sickness for some unfortunate viewers. Another problem is that with this shaky-cam method of shooting, some of the action flow is incoherent, or sometimes, lost altogether in a tense disaster scene. Most of the time, Bonvillain handles the camera well enough to capture important moments, like to focus on the tail of the monster or on a character when they are wounded. Sometimes though, Bonvillain’s method of shooting exceeds his talent on the camera. For instance, what do you see during a chase scene? A lot of the camera rocking back and forth between the motion of a character’s legs as they’re trying to get away.

The sad part is that Bonvillain is almost powerless to do anything about this. Making this a steady shot would do nothing to convince us that this was really happening, considering the camera is being supposably held by a movie character that A) Doesn’t know how to shoot, and B) Is in the middle of a literal disaster. But then again, the shakiness doesn’t do any favors for our eyesight either. You’re screwed either way.

I’ve repeatedly went back and forth on this movie, bobbling the pros and cons around in my head, trying to decide on which element beats out the others. There’s good cases to both sides. We identify with our heroes as people rather than as movie characters, and that humanity makes their crusade all the more important to us. The sense of mystery, eeriness, and hopelessness plays out perfectly like an H.P. Lovecraft novel. The scares and the thrills are all there. That much the movie has going for it. On the opposite end, though, we have a shaky camera that makes people want to vomit, a few genre cliches that the movie can’t escape from, and a pathetic, lackluster ending that just suddenly cuts off and leaves an empty, unfulfilled feeling for its desperately hungry audience. I have no problem whether a character lives or dies for the sake of drama, but when you’re stuck not knowing, that’s just dangling a hook in front of your audience that they’re never going to reach.

I’m giving the movie a thumbs up for one reason: it tried. It experimented. It did something different, and it partially worked out for itself. That’s a thumbs up not for the movie itself, but for the movie-making business.

Years ago, aspiring filmmakers dreamed of big visions in their heads. They experimented, they failed more times than they succeeded, but they took steps towards creating their visions, and their reward was seeing their beautiful, breathtaking ideas playing on the big screen. Filmmakers these days lack that creation or that aspiration, and they prefer piggybacking off of other people’s creations just for the big buck. The creators behind Cloverfield need to be honored not necessarily for their movie, but for their aspiration to create. They sought to make something all their own, and whether you like it or not, that’s exactly what they did.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Feb 27 2016
Leave a comment
Reviews

“GODS OF EGYPT” Review (Half of a star)

But not our Egypt though, just to be clear.

The world is round, not flat. This is common knowledge to most people, but apparently not to the people behind Gods of Egypt, who portray our planet in the film as a floating, circular disc spinning around in outer space. Such is one mistake among many that I noticed in Gods of Egypt, a terrible, loud, obnoxious, illogical, mind-numbing, headache-inducing travesty that may as well rip out our eyes like Set rips out Horus’ in the Egyptian legend. If the Egyptian Gods really do exist, they’d be disappointed at their representation here.

In case you didn’t already guess, Gods of Egypt is an adaptation of the classic Egyptian tales that were filled with vision and wonder, which the movie promptly sucks up and vomits into the nile. In this timeline, Gods co-exist with humans, and are taller, stronger, and smarter than them. Oh, and they bleed gold, which could be a useful skill, if you’re at the market and you forgot your wallet. If I were an Egyptian God, could you imagine how much I would have to bleed in order to pay off my college loans? There’s a thought worth having.

Most of the story goes about as you would expect. The evil desert God Set (Gerard Butler) kills Horus’ (Nikolaj Coster-Waldau) father, gouges out Horus’ eyes, takes his throne, his woman, and his land, then banishes him out to the far reaches of Egypt. That much of the story I already knew. What I didn’t know is that there were two humans named Bek (Brenton Thwaites) and Zaya (Courtney Eaton) who rediscovered Horus’ eyes, steals them back in Egyptian-caper style, then teams up with the Gods to dethrone Set and put Horus back on the king’s seat once and for all. Whoop-de-doo.

You can probably tell my enthusiasm wasn’t very high for this movie before its release. Can you blame me though? The trailers made it look like a stupid, CGI-heavy action fare, and that’s exactly what I was expecting up until when I took my seat. But I had a slight glimmer of hope right before I left for the theater. I looked up this movie’s credits on iMDB, and found that Alex Proyas was directing. Alex Proyas! Alex Proyas for Brandon Lee’s magnus opus The Crow. Alex Poryas for the fascinating and mesmerizing Dark City. Alex Proyas for the exciting and compelling sci-fi mystery I, Robot. At hearing that Proyas was directing, it excited me and gave me hope that this wasn’t going to be as bad an experience as I thought.

Oh, I was wrong. I was horribly, horribly wrong. This movie is bad on all fronts, from the acting to the story to the technical production. I don’t know how Proyas could make deftly smart and intelligent films for most of his career, then shrink down and make a movie as stupid and incomprehensible as this. It took him from a 9 director to maybe a 5.

What was so bad about this movie? For one thing, the story is completely ridiculous. Screenwriters Matt Sazama and Burk Sharpless make no attempt at making their story grounded or compelling, which would have helped them a lot considering how detached and uninteresting the movie feels. How many times have we had this tired escapade of a family drama mixed with fantasy and mythology? How many times have we seen tales of betrayal, defeat, rise, and redemption done and redone over and over again in Hamlet, Gladiator, Braveheart, Thor, The Odyssey, and so on and so forth? I am sick of not only seeing the same recycled plot, but of also seeing the same recycled plot redone poorly. This script is so run-of-the-mill that you wonder how the mill hasn’t broken down yet.

What’s most confusing is that just like its writers, Alex Proyas makes absolutely no effort to make this story realistic or even slightly convincing. In fact, he’s gone on record earlier in the year saying that this story doesn’t take place in ancient Egypt, and in fact, never really even took place at all. Then what was the freaking point of telling this story? Yeah, I kinda got that you weren’t going for a realistic Gods of Egypt the minute I saw the flat Earth. The question is why? Why did you feel this obstinate need to make a movie so obviously preposterous, silly, and over-the-top that it works better in promotions than it does in storytelling? I mean, would that really have hurt the entire premise of the movie if you did something so basic as making the Earth round?

The actors are all typecast and not even worth mentioning. At an exasperating two hours, this movie was way too long, and it’s hard to make a case that it was even edited. I wish I could say the movie was at least a cool visual spectacle, but even the visual effects were garbage. Everything is gold-plated and shiny, which means you’re squinting for two hours because the light is reflecting too brightly off of the golden surfaces. The Gods are obviously artificially manipulated to look bigger than the humans, resulting in a very photoshopped appearance where the Gods are proportionally bigger, but their weight and dimension makes them look flat and unconvincing next to their smaller human counterparts. Gods transform into golden robo-Gods in really bad CGI conversions. Gods fly and fight so fast at each other that you see their blurs more often than the smaller details of their robo-suits. I can go on and on. Normally, the visual effects are the best things in bad movies. It’s the worst thing here. In fact, the visual effects look so distant and bland that I think I would rather read the script and imagine the picture myself rather than have the movie give it to me. It’s that awful.

I liked only one thing about this movie, and that was the wondrous and exciting score provided by composer Marco Beltrami. The movie could have done with more of that wonder and excitement. Fantasy films come and go frequently in today’s age, but this movie didn’t even try to be unique or clever. Proyas should have done his audience a favor and gouged out his own eyes before starting filming. He may have even been able to provide better direction that way too.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Feb 13 2016
Leave a comment
Reviews

“DEADPOOL” Review (✫✫✫)

Featuring guest writer Wadey Wilson!!!

Hi! Deadpool here, just in time for the release of my own movie! I know this article says that some schmuck named “David” wrote this, but he won’t be joining us today because he’s kind of, well, dead. I’ll be writing in his place because I’m sooo much better at writing than he is! Winky face 😉

Sooooo, what do you need to know about my movie? Well I’m in it, I’m playing Ryan Reynolds, I’m after some douchebag that named himself after dish soap… oh, and there’s women. And nudity. And boobs. Lots and lots of boobs. And blood. Not boobs and blood together, because that would be very unsanitary. But what do I care?! This movie is great!

In your dreams, wise guy.

What the–?! Who are you and what are you doing in between my paragraphs???

I’m the guy you put a spork through his neck while eating a curled bean burrito.

GASP! It– it can’t be! DAVID DUNN???

Yep.

But— but how???

My words exist in my writing, Deadpunk. Even if you kill me, my opinions still exist through them.

Aw, dangit! But your opinion is wrong!

Believe me, Wade, your movie is all sorts of wrong. Did you even wait long enough to hear my opinion before you stabbed me? 

Hell yes, I did! You said you didn’t like my movie!

Wrong. I said I didn’t know if I liked your movie. But while rolling around in my grave, I finally decided that I actually did.  

…

That means you stabbed me for no reason. 

Killing me. 

Officially preventing me from getting my diploma in the fall. 

… do you take food stamps as an apology?

Idiot.

ARGH! IT’S YOUR OWN FAULT! HOW COULD YOU NOT KNOW IF YOU LIKED MY MOVIE OR NOT?!?!

To be fair, you gave me a good case for why your movie was both entertaining and macabre. On one hand, you’ve rightfully earned your title as “the merc with a mouth”, Wade. You’re funny, witty, self-aware, and you’re not afraid to make fun of yourself and the movies. You’re incredibly in-cheek, and that’s a rarity for superhero movies nowadays. 

Hehehe, well I don’t like to brag, buuuuuuuuut you’re kinda right.

But waitaminute. What didn’t you like about my movie then?

You’re equally as vulgar, violent, and idiotic as you are funny.

LIAR! LIAR LIAR, PANTS ON FIRE! Go ahead, name one example where I was any of those things. I’ll bet you can’t even name ONE.

You masturbated while staring intensely at a stuffed unicorn. 

Do you blame me? That stuffed unicorn was HAWT.

Unfortunately, I’m not sexually attracted to stuffed animals. So I’m just thinking you’re a sick person. 

Okay, okay sourpuss. Any other moments that wriled your panties up in a bunch?

Oh, plenty. You stuffed a hot car lighter into someone’s mouth and told them not to swallow. You made fun of a woman for her blindness and for being addicted to cocaine. You spelled out someone’s name using dead bodies and severed heads and limbs. I can go on and on. The violence, nudity, sex, and language are all the most deplorable elements of the picture, and you should be ashamed for having them in there.

Sorry broseph; I don’t know the definition of “ashamed,” and I also don’t own a dictionary. Just to clarify, you said you liked my movie, correct?

Yes, I did. 

What the ******* **** you ******-******* piece of ****. After all that ********, why the **** do you like my movie?

For one reason, and one reason alone. Every time I thought about your movie, I laughed. I smiled. I laughed again as I recalled moments where you made me grin from ear to ear. Deplorable and revolting as your movie is, it was equally unique and clever, and I would be lying if I said I didn’t have a good time watching it. That probably says more about me than about you, but there you have it. 

… I love you.

Oh God. 

So you, uh, doing anything later?

Get away from me. 

Don’t be scared, baby. I’m gentle.

That’s it, I’m out. I’m going to heaven to ask God’s forgiveness for liking your movie. Don’t worry, I’ll put in a good word for you. You’ll need it. 

Oh! Oh! Say hi for me when you see him! I sent a couple of buddies of mine his way during a runtime of 100 minutes! Or am I thinking of somebody else?

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Feb 04 2016
Leave a comment
Reviews

“THE HUNDRED FOOT JOURNEY” Review (✫✫)

Plus a few hundred feet more.

There are a few films that can take you out of one moment and immerse you into another, such as the fine aromas and delicacies of a French cuisine resteraunt. The Hundred Foot Journey is not one of those movies. By the time the movie ends, you find yourself thinking less about the main course and more about the half-cooked ingredients that went into it.

The plot follows one Hassan Kadam (Manish Dayal), a young Indian chef who was forced to flee from his home after it was destroyed in a political riot. After gathering together his family, which includes his hard-headed Papa (Om Puri) and his four siblings, they pursue the legendary city of France, only to have their brakes suddenly stop working a few miles out of the city. “Brakes break for a reason,” his father tells them, words that we can take away as the best piece of dialogue out of the entire movie.

They soon meet Madame Mallory (Helen Mirren), a stubborn French connoisseur who owns the one star French resteraunt that is exactly 100 feet across from their home. (Ahhhhh, now you get the title. “The Hundred Foot Journey,” har-dee har-dee har.) Now with Hassan’s family working to open their own Indian resteraunt, a rivalry forms between the two resteraunts as both of their cultures and cuisines clash with one another.

I’m sorry, did I make this sound relentlessly boring? I didn’t mean to, but hey: at least you’re getting an accurate depiction of my experience. The Hundred Foot Journey starts with a lack of interest and ends with just as much a lack of interest. Like many failed feel-good dramas, this movie meanders from point A to point B to point C, D, E, and so on and so forth until you’ve reached the end of the alphabet. There’s nothing in this story to compel you to care for the characters, no great sense of conflict or urgency that draws you in to its setting or premise.

Waitaminute, I take that back. There is one thing: Manish Dayal, the young actor who portrays Hassan. He handles his portrayal with genuity and earnesty, the only actor to do so out of the entire production. He’s the curious sort, an eager and passionate young chef who is drawn to all tastes of the senses, whether it is Indian or French. He demonstrates the most versatility in the picture, showing an excitement and enthusiasm so pure that we (briefly) slip into his mind to feel what he is feeling before the rest of the film rips us out of it. He’s a talented young actor, and his presence makes me eager to see how the rest of his career pans out. That is, once he finds better material than The Hundred Foot Journey. 

The rest of the cast members are paper-thin and forgettable. Yes, that includes the talented and charismatic Helen Mirren, who can’t help but look and feel like she’s phoning it in here. I suppose that’s not entirely a bad thing, considering I’d rather forget a mediocre performance rather than remember a bad one. But the plain fact of the matter is I don’t care about these characters, and their performances don’t help remedy my disinterest in the slightest. The most tragic case comes in French actress Charlotte Le Bon, who portrays Hassan’s love interest with a cute smile and sweet laugh to bump. Her performance is not the problem, it’s the one that she’s asked to portray. And she’s asked to portray a ditzy, typecast love interest that would be more entertaining if it were a Chef Barbie doll instead of a live actor.

The actors can’t help but give such bland performances. It’s not their effort that’s the problem, its the material that they’re given. The screenplay, written by Eastern Promises scribe Steven Knight, is complacent and predictable, and asks us to simply go through the motions instead of challenging us by making new ones. The direction by Lasse Halstromm is especially mediocre, as it seems the most involvement he had in directing was just pointing the camera and saying “action” to his castmembers. 

Halstromm’s involvement isn’t so much surprising as it is disappointing. He’s done great movies before (What’s Eating Gilbert Grape, The Cider House Rules, Hachi), and yet, he’s equally had many lackluster ones as well (Dear John, Safe Haven, Salmon Fishing in the Yemen). What is with this guy? Does he make one great movie, then decide he’s on break for the next three? He can draw out great performances from his actors. He’s not only done before in previous movies, but in this one too. In one scene, after finding massive success as a professional chef, Hassan tastes a friend’s fried curry, and the spices and the freshness of the tastes brings him back to the memories of his home, his family, and the joy he once found in cooking. This was the most magical moment from the picture, as the tears Dayal gives in the scene feel genuine, honest, and real. Why couldn’t the rest of the movie be like that? What excuse does Halstromm have to make one great scene, then five bad ones after that? Is it just plain lack of effort? If that is the case, then that is the most pitiful excuse for the state of this movie. Many ambitious filmmakers can’t make the films they wanted simply because of a lack of budget or resources. To have the budget and resources and not skillfully use them is a slap in the face for all of the up-and-coming filmmakers out there.

There was one moment in the film where Madame Mallory dipped her spoon into one of Hassan’s sauces, took one taste, then threw the entire meal in the trash. Helen Mirren should have done the same thing to the script.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
← Older posts