R.E.D. 2 - Critical Analysis 7/19/13

I'll admit before going knee deep into this one, that I don't really remember the first R.E.D.(Retired Extremely Dangerous for those unaware) outside of a few memorable scenes that I won't recount to you. I just know that I laughed quite a bit, and enjoyed the film overall.

It's sequel, released today, on Friday, July 19th, feels very much in the same vein as the first film. So, if you found entertainment from the first film, you will no doubt you will find something in it's sequel.

Red 2(for my own ease, I will drop the periods and capital letters) is essentially a tale whose own overblown ridiculousness is held tight by the credibility of its ensemble cast. It's absurdness is held back only by the entertaining screen interactions between it's obviously aged cast, which consists of returning players Bruce Willis, Mary Louise Parker, Helen Mirren, John Malkovich, and that Russian guy who really only shows up for like five minutes, who didn't really feel important enough to recall his name, and newcomers Anthony Hopkins, Catherine Zeta-Jones, as well as Byung-Hunn Lee. They tend to cris-cross one another in such a rapid manner that you don't really have enough time to realize any one of them is ever really off the screen at any given moment.

The plot of Red 2 isn't even really what's important, regarding the digging up of some silly weapon of mass destruction hidden in Russia during the height of the Cold War. What's really important is that it upsets the Americans(Bruce, Mary, and John), the British(Mirren and eventually Hopkins), the Russians(Zeta-Jones) into a chase that ties in both Interpol agents and a contract killer from Hong Kong(Lee). That's all you really need to know to draw yourself into this film from a plot perspective.

If you're not already sold on said plot summary and cast list, and didn't already enjoy the original film adaptation of Red, then I fear there isn't much for you in Red 2. I really don't have much more to say, other than I laughed a lot, and I never really got bored throughout the film's running time.

Pacific Rim - Critical Analysis 7/15/13

Today I did something I rarely do. I messaged my cousin on facebook, asked him to go see a movie with me, and hours later, I sat down in the local Imax here in Rochester for a screening of Pacific Rim. What makes this a rare occasion is the fact that I had almost no desire to see this movie. The trailers were bland and made it look like it was going to be another Transformers-esque type of romp with a heavy anime influence from classics like Gundam and Neon Genesis Evangelion, and none of those three pieces really stirred me to leave my house and return to the local Digital Imax. What drove me there was the idea that a mildly interesting original science fiction film was coming to the theaters that wasn't a sequel, or had a big name star driving it. It was like a blockbuster full of people I wouldn't have even thought about being in a sci-fi disastery movie like this. And also, reddit freaking rammed this movie down my throat, and I felt I had to see this movie just to understand the ridiculous gushing it had provoked.

So I trucked out on my trusty ten-speed and arrived for the 1:15 showing of Pacific Rim expecting to be disappointed, or even just mildly amused by the box-office disappointment of the summer that was hyped by so many, and seemingly marketed so poorly.

My opinion? It was surprisingly awesome.

Now, before you greet me with skepticism, I didn't think it was great because it had a incredibly deep story, or heavily relied on an important moral element or anything. Hell, I may not even remember the plot in a month, or recall the joy I had seeing it in the Imax. But that's not a reason to disregard this film. You need to give it a chance based on my one realization: this is the most entertaining sci-fi flavored blockbuster I've seen since I first saw Independence Day as a youngster in 1997(I was two!) It is pure escapism, a movie so fantastical that it couldn't possibly work if you sat down and thought about it. This is the quintessential "check your brain at the door" film, and if you are capable of doing so, you will find everything your heart desires in Pacific Rim. If you can't, then you should probably stray away, this isn't necessarily a thinking man's movie. But I digress. Onto the actual movie:

Pacific Rim tells the story of a war that starts after a hole is torn open deep beneath the Pacific Ocean, connecting two universes together: our own, and that of the kaiji, a race of well, giant monsters. These monsters are hell bent on annihilating our race in order to take what they want and leave. In order to combat them, we constructed giant robotic suits that are designed to be run by two people, conjoined through a neural link to one another. These suits engage the kaiji and kill them, using any means necessary. The story focuses on a younger pilot, who must take up arms after a tragic accident to help the human race take down the kaiji for good. That's about as deep as I can go without giving up most of the important plot points, and since I think this movie was so gosh darn good, I would like to keep the spectacle element of the film as tightly restrained as possible.

The film is essentially a long string of special effects sequences with little bits of vague character development in between. The special effects, to this reviewer's eyes seemed quite competent, with nothing looking very dated. The overwhelming use of CGI during scenes involving destruction seemed very well animated, and very life like. The acting, while not the most exciting performances of the year, is very competent, if not intentionally campy at times. The three leads of the film, Charlie Hunnam, Idris Elba, and Rinko Kikuchi, all lead with confidence and add a level of credibility to a movie that could easily falter under the fantastical elements of itself.

The last thing I have to say is this: this movie was the first movie I've been to in a long time that truly made me feel like a kid again. There were no bad guys who tore down our heroes, or had overly complex plans. There was no twist that ruined the film. It was a big action spectacle on the same level as older films such as Independence Day and Armageddon. It was just plain, simple fun. I wholeheartedly recommend you go out and see this one before it leaves the theaters. It may not the the world's most original movie, but it is easily my top blockbuster of the summer so far. 

Cleopatra - A Look Into the Past

It's no secret that I'm a huge fan of the epics of yesteryear, the Ben-Hurs, the Lawrences of Arabia. Heck, I even fall head over heels for stuff like The Ten Commandments. Anything shot on larger format films, like 35mm Vistavision, or 70mm Todd-AO and Super Panavision makes we swoon, and instantly draws me inwards as if I'm a small child in a toy store. So it came as no surprise that when I found a copy of the restored 50th Anniversary release of Cleopatra, and it mentioned that it was photographed in Todd-AO, I had to have it. It didn't occur to me that there would be any obvious issues with the film, as I was blinded by the idea of a Blu Ray mastered from 70mm film, my favorite.
To start things off, this film sits at an extravagant 248 minutes, counting the Overture, Entr'Act, and Exit music. Now, I know this may be the hyperkinetic modern film fan speaking from within me, but this just felt so overly long and drawn out. I'm not sure what you could cut out, but the film really needed to be a half hour, or maybe even an hour shorter. I almost felt bored at times during some of the extended dramatic scenes, as they just stretched along for ages it felt like, and just kept going and going. Perhaps I'm nitpicking, but it took me four sittings to complete Cleopatra, mostly because of my own time constraints, but also because it was so tiring to sit through such an extended film.
But the length is not the least of the film's worries. What helps to drag this film down is a lack of serious dramatic power. Over the length of the four film, we focus on two romances, one between Julius Caesar and Cleopatra, and one between Marc Antony and Cleopatra, and neither of them really feel like realistic, grounded relationships that I'm supposed to care about. Especially with Julius Caesar's bit in the film, I felt like their relationship was rather forced, and was really, really shallow. I felt like both of these men fell in love with Cleopatra's beauty, and they only hung around as long as they could be captivated with sex and good looks, both leaving when they had exhausted their fill. I just didn't care about the love either of them claimed to feel for Cleopatra, it just felt insincere and unbelievable. It really takes a strike at the quality of the film.
My last real criticism of the film is that the climactic battle between Antony and Octavius didn't feel climactic. The entire sequence just felt lifeless, with Burton's acting sort of dragging the battle along, all the while I really never felt like anyone was in danger throughout the entire sequence. I just didn't feel sold on the massive sea battles. It should have been more exciting like Ben-Hur, but it felt mostly like an extended game of battleship. It just wasn't a very pretty site for this viewer's eyes.
In the film's defense, the sets are lavish, the general photography is lush and beautiful, and most large scale scenes, with huge crowds and massive sets seem to work really, really well. Parts of this film are totally on the same level as that of Ben-Hur and The Ten Commandments, but that's just it. Only parts of the film are good as this, and with a large portion of the film feeling rushed and less than cohesive as an experience, I would not recommend this to anyone but the most diehard 70mm film lovers in 2013. It's big, but very uneven, and at times, simply exhaustive. If I was to give this a number rating, for those who appreciate such a method, I would probably give it a solid 6. Not bad, but it could certainly have something more to it.
I really, really wanted to like Cleopatra more than I did. I went in with extremely high expectations, and unfortunately came out a little scorned. Elizabeth Taylor's beauty couldn't save this movie, and neither could it's extreme 40 million plus dollar budget. It's just a big, bloated, expensive mess. Case closed. 

The Lone Ranger - Critical Review 7/5/13

To start things off right, I'm going to come clean. I've never seen any classic Lone Ranger stuff. I didn't know anything about The Reids or Tonto before I walked into the theater, so I'm not a preexisting fan of any of this stuff.
What I can say was that I was familiar with Gore Verbinski's work on the Pirates of the Carribbean trilogy, and a moderate fan of Johnny Depp. Throwing these two into a western essentially meant to me that this was to be an all over the place film with lots of fun action sequences and hopefully some chemistry between the leads. And that's just what I learned from the trailer.
After taking my sister to see the film with me, I can only say this. If you liked Curse of the Black Pearl and At World's End, the first and third Pirates of the Carribbean movie, you will love this movie. Stop reading right now, and head to the theater - this film borrows a lot, stylistically and plot structure wise from those two movies if I was to make a comparison. For those who aren't sold, read ahead.
The Lone Ranger tells the story of John Reid, a straight man of the law, who witnesses his brother's death and teams up with a Comanche Native American to find the outlaw who did said murder, and details their lengthy journey to the end of the story. At the basic core, that is essentially all there is to the movie, no more, no less. It's not very exciting, and it doesn't reinvent the wheel, but it's a perfect fit for a lazy summer blockbuster, and that's what I could tell this aimed to be from the very first scene.
Instead of providing us with deep investments into the characters, we get brief glimpses into each character, which is enough for the plot, but not really enough to make us care. They supplement said development with lots of well choreographed action, such as shootouts in a burning barn, train raids, and a massive action set piece set around a bridge and dueling trains, which makes for fun entertaining segments, but ultimately nothing you will remember six months from now. The action isn't bad, it just isn't going to top other 2013 blockbusters such as Star Trek Into Darkness, or even certain sequences in the dreadful Man of Steel.
What does work well however, is the on screen interactions between our main duo of characters. Johnny Depp and Armie Hammer have such natural friendly chemistry that builds throughout the film, that I can't wait to see where they head off to next as a team. They're funny, and play off so well against each other, that it felt very reminiscent of some of the character interactions in the Curse of the Black Pearl, and gave the film an almost childish sense of humor that, for some reason, really clicked with me. One prominent scene even stars.....horse droppings, and I, as an 18 year, even managed to let out a chuckle. Unfortunately, the rest of the cast seems rather forgettable. Helena Bohnam Carter was given fairly high billing, and she's hardly in the movie for more than 6 or 7 minutes, which seems almost like a waste of potential. Add to that a cast of characters such as "the bad guy gangster who play the same role in Batman Begins" and "the ugly gang of outlaws who managed to escape from the Flying Dutchman's ship" and you pretty sum up the entire movie. Oh yeah, and there's some lady and her son who sort of become cheap plot direction characters, but seeing as I almost forgot to mention them, they can't have left much of an impact on me.
So, what we have here is a string of well directed action sequences, held afloat by good lead chemistry, and a cast of forgettable supporting characters. But you know what, unlike how I felt after leaving Man of Steel, I actually wanted to see more. I felt good walking out of the Lone Ranger. I felt really good.

My Rating: Better than Cowboys and Aliens, but not quite True Grit (2010)