Super 8 Review

J.J. Abrams’s Super 8 certainly pays homage in its visual style to early Steven Spielberg films, for it is full of eerie night scenes, kids wandering around on bicycles, and flashlights that form visible beams in the air (this is particularly fitting since Spielberg was a producer for this movie). Taking place in a small town in Ohio, the story poses as a toss up between The Goonies and E.T. Even though elements of other films are used in this feature, it does not deviate from its creativity and entertainment value.

The film is centered on a group of kids who are trying to make a zombie movie with a Super 8mm camera (hence the title). The two heads of the gang are Joe (Joel Courtney), who is dealing with the death of his mother, and Charles (Riley Griffiths), an intense kid that will do almost anything to get this zombie flick accomplished. On one of their nights of shooting, they film at an old train station. By chance, a train happens to come along the tracks. For “production value,” Charles shouts, “Action!” and the child actors try to deliver their lines over the thunderous locomotive. Joe briefly turns his head and notices a truck driving erratically. It rides onto the train tracks and collides head-on into the locomotive. Then follows the longest crash sequence ever. Train compartments fly and smash into one another like dominoes as the kids desperately run, dodging debris and explosions. With the surround sound system on in my house, this was a treat to watch and listen—no doubt the SFX editors had a blast in creating this scene.

After the train crash, there is a loud bang; a compartment door flies off, landing in front of Joe. What caused this, we don’t know. Shortly thereafter, strange occurrences arise; people begin to vanish, packs of dogs run away from their homes, electricity lights flick on and off, and mysterious military personnel show up at the crash site, who are obstinate to inform the town’s people what is really happening. Joe and his friends begin their investigation. Joe’s indifferent father (Kyle Chandler), who is the deputy of the town, also begins his inquiries. Here is where the meat and potatoes of the story appear. I will not delve further into the plot; for it is that good.

Much of the success in Super 8 is the characters. There are human elements added to them, which makes them thoroughly developed and likable. We feel for Joe as he tries to cope with the death of his mother alone. We also feel for the relationship that he develops with Alice (Elle Fanning), who happens to be the daughter of the man that is in part responsible for his mother’s death. There is a particular touching scene where Joe applies zombie makeup to Alice’s face. Not many words are exchanged in this moment, but the emotions that Joe and Alice convey show that they deeply care for one another. It is also hard to resist the comic nature of the rest of the kids, especially Cary (Ryan Lee), with his obsession of blowing things up, and Martin (Gabriel Basso), with his tendency of losing his food every time something horrible occurs.

Though the kids are the main focus of this film, the few adults that are present do a decent job. Ryan Chandler as Joe’s father meshes into the role well as a man that does not know how to cope with his wife’s death, nor is able to control, much less understand his son. Ron Eldard as Alice’s father is extremely limited in screen time, but he plays a good drunk that is plagued by his past sins.

In short, director J.J. Abrams is not interested in blatant visual effects (unlike a Michael Bay film). He is more concerned with unraveling a wonderful, well-paced story that has believable, compelling characters and intertwining the elements of action, suspense, mystery, humor, and drama all into one entertaining flick. My final opinion, Super 8 is the reason why I go see movies!

The Descendants Review

The Descendants is not meant to be an entertaining movie, nor is its goal to be a pure tearjerker (thought this film has elements of both). Instead, its objective is to reflect a family dealing with a tragedy and the repercussions it causes. Keeping the film’s plot to a minimum, it is about Matt King (George Clooney), a Hawaiian land baron whose wife ends up in a coma via a boating accident. While trying to a close a deal that could get him rich, he tries to take care of his two rambunctious daughters, 17-year old Alexandra (Shailene Woodley) and 10-year old Scottie (new comer Amara Miller). In addition, he has to handle estranged family members and also learns the truth that his wife was having an affair.

This movie sounds like a typical family drama along the lines of Robert Redford’s Ordinary People, which also happens to be a movie about a family dealing with tragedy. Even so, The Descendants is nothing like Robert Redford’s film, for its focus is not on a messed up teenager, but on a parent who is clueless about his family life. As Matt King says in his voice-over, “I’m the backup parent…I never took care of my kids, that was my wife’s job.” Now, Matt has to be the parent. As a result, he is both baffled and terrified.

As Matt King, George Clooney delivers a rollercoaster of emotions without going over the top or remaining bland and distant. There are so many great scenes in this movie that show this man’s talent. One that comes to mind is when he learns the news that his wife was going to die. Shock, despair, disbelief, and even a hint of anger develop on his face. He maintains these emotions so well that in this scene that I no longer see the great movie star George Clooney. I see a middle-aged man who’s thrown into a situation that any person can and possibly may have experienced…a tragic loss of a loved one. I consider this to be his greatest performance of all time and the best of 2011.

Though the lead, Clooney is not the only driving force. There is a great supporting cast. Shailene Woodley steals the show as 17-year old Alexandra. She at first comes off as a foulmouthed, belligerent teen, but as the plot progresses, her character grows and matures as she helps her dad in not only keeping the family together, but also assist in trying to find the man who had an affair with her mother. I am very disappointed that she was not nominated for an Oscar in the supporting actress category.

Amara Miller plays a good brat as Scottie, yet she maintains a hint of likeness as a comic relief. This is apparent in a scene where she shouts, “You mother loving whore!” When her father scolds and demands where she learned such language, Scottie merely points at her older sister Alexandra. Nick Krause as Alexandra’s boyfriend, Sid, comes off at first as an ass, but like Alexandra, he matures as the plot progresses and becomes an unlikely ally for the King family. In one pivotal scene, Sid ends up giving Matt parental advice from the experiences his father had shared with him. This is very surprising from someone who laughs at a woman with dementia.

Though slow moving at time, the film’s story never gets dry or uneventful. Director Alexander Payne makes sure of this with his witty screenplay and beautiful composition shots, whether it is the tight close-ups or beautiful landscapes. The music creates a nice undertone and feel for the movie, but I could have done without the Hawaiian vocals. One thing that I wish Alexander Payne put into this movie was the perspective of the comatose wife. I think it would have made this movie even more impactful if there were flashbacks of tension between her and the family, as well as how she was driven into the arms of another man. Since there is no back-story in her character, I feel nothing for her. She’s just a body lying in a hospital bed, as shown vividly in this film. This may have extended the length a bit, but it certainly would have made it a better feature in my opinion. Then again, Alexander Payne’s objective is to focus on those affected by her condition, not her.

The Descendants is one of those movies you’ll want to leave the kids at home and go see. Purely an adult movie, it’ll play with your emotions and may strike home to those of you who have ever lost a loved one. It certainly made me shed tears.

Black Hawk Down Review

Years ago, I read Mark Bowden’s novel Black Hawk Down. I found it engaging, powerful, and emotional. What made the novel such a successful was how well the author described the perspectives of the men who fought that long day battle in Somalia. Though it is usually unfair to compare the book to the movie (since the book is generally better), the film Black Hawk Down is a visually gripping adaptation. Like the novel, the sum of movie’s story is about how things go to hell in a handbag. This film is unlike most other war pictures. There is no hidden, anti-war propaganda like in Platoon. Nor is it even about heroism like Spielberg’s Saving Private Ryan. Instead it is about trying to survive from the gates of hell, and working as a team to do so.

It is 1993. The Somali leader holds an iron fist over his people. 123 soldiers are sent to capture a warlord and his lieutenants. The operation is supposed to take no more than an hour. The mission immediately goes wrong when one of the soldiers falls from one of the helicopters. Medics rush in to take the injured soldier out of action. As this happens, the entire city turns on the US ground troops. Within less than an hour of fighting, two helicopters are shot down. It then becomes a game as to which platoon of soldiers can reach the crashed choppers and rescue any potential survivors. The phrase “No man left behind” took on a new meaning for me as more and more soldiers attempt to rescue these survivors (as well as the dead) at the expense of their own lives. In the end, the 19 American soldiers are dead and another 70 are wounded.

Like the novel, the movie has the tendency of jumping around a bit. This is intentional, for as the battle gets worse, the divisions of soldiers become separated and lost within a sea of hostiles. This puts our confusion with the characters. We feel for them for we don’t know what is going to happen next. Most of the time, we do not even know where they are within the city. The lack of radios and walkie talkies make it harder for the soldiers to communicate with another and the limited gear, such as no night vision goggles, body armor, or canteens, makes it all the worse.

Cinematographer Slawomir Idziak gives us the grittiness of the situation. The use of the handheld camera makes you feel as if you are right with the soldiers as bullets and RPGS whiz by. The various color filters used throughout the movie reiterates the grim and sad experience of death and destruction. For instance, the opening sequence of the dead and dying Somalis has a tungsten (blue) setting. This is an unusual filter to use for a desert location. It would seem more suitable to use bright, highly saturated colors. However, the use of the bluish tint creates a very forlorn, almost dreamlike experience. The green tint that is used during the night fighting in Mogadishu is not only reminiscent to night vision goggles, but it also creates a chilling feeling as the American soldiers desperately fight to survive.

The sound design puts a heavy emphasis on the gunshots and explosions. When an RPG is fired, you know when it is time to duck. The movie does not shy away from bloodshed either. Though not nearly as bad as Saving Private Ryan there are many grisly images. One that still sticks to my mind is when a soldier is blown in half by a RPG. Even worse, the man is still alive when he should not be. This was vividly described in the novel and it is more alarming to see on a TV screen. Scenes like these are not meant to make us feel nauseated, but rather it depicts the inhumanity of war. It is an emotionally draining experience as we watch such brutality.

The final shot of the film shows all the caskets of the soldiers who lost their lives. This poses an important question to the audience. Why? Why did this happen? Why didn’t the strategists plan for such an ambush? Why were we in Somali in the first place? By the end of the film, you cannot help but think of the lunacy as to why all these men were maimed and killed.

Braveheart Review

Braveheart is not noted for its historical accuracies, for in the early 1300s, Scotsmen did not wear kilts and the Battle of Stirling was on a bridge (not an open battlefield). Even so, director Mel Gibson’s intent is not to retell 14^th century Scottish history. His focus is on a romanticized version of the Scottish folklore legend of William Wallace, who led a rebellion against the English king Edward the Longshanks.

The movie opens with Wallace as a young boy. Along with his father and older brother, he finds dozens of Scottish corpses hanging in a barn. Here, this quickly shows the violent tone that surrounds the film. Shortly thereafter, his father and brother are killed, and he is sent off to live with his uncle. He later returns as an adult in hopes of raising crops and a family. He is reunited with his childhood friend Murron, whom he deeply falls in love with. He then marries in secret to evade the English law that allows nobles to rape Scottish brides on their wedding day.

Wallace and Murron’s relationship is set like a romantic fairy tale; it is love at first sight for them and it is easy to sympathize and care for their romance. The love scene is particularly engaging, set at night with beautiful, chiaroscuro lighting that outlines their bodies as they passionately make love to one another in the forest. Like Romeo and Juliet, it is all too good to be true. Murron is brutally murdered and Wallace seeks revenge. This then leads to what I consider the most powerful scene in the film. Wallace rides into town, his arms outstretched as if surrendering, with melancholy painting his face. The constant shifts of close up shots between the faces of Wallace and the guards (who are to take him into custody), as well as the slow-motion of the horse’s hooves beating the muddy ground, and the emphasis of sound and music builds a sense of tension. When one of the guards stands before Wallace, grasping his horse’s reins, the expression of melancholy is replaced with rage as Wallace strikes the man in the head with a ball and chain. From here on, the romantic fairy tale is over. Violence and the brutal barbarity that we saw in the start of the film reappear with a vengeance. I found myself enjoying Wallace’s slaughter against the English guards. Why? Because I sympathize with Wallace’s rage. As a viewer, it makes you wonder on what you would do if you lost a loved one.

Though Braveheart may present as a revenge story, there is more to it than that. Wallace’s personal revenge starts an uprising in the village that soon leads to a rebellion against the English tyranny. This movie clearly shows the power and influence that one man can have over many. Like Wallace, the Scottish fighters want revenge for the atrocities that the English have forced upon them. They also want to be free from Longshanks tyranny. This is why I enjoy Braveheart so much—the concept of making a stand and fighting for what you believe in. As Wallace says before the Battle of Stirling, “They may take our lives, but they’ll never take our freedom!”

With a simple, graspable theme, Braveheart is supported by gritty set pieces, elaborate costume designs, and some of the most epic battle scenes ever delivered to cinema. The fact director Mel Gibson used thousands of extras (versus the CGI ants we see running around in Troy) makes such moments visually stunning. He is not afraid to shy away from bludgeoning, skewering, and beheadings either. His direction is beautifully done (with the help of cinematographer John Toll) who uses countless aerial views of the fair land of Scotland. This pulls the viewer right into the film's romantic vision of a wonderful land that is plagued by violence. In terms of music, James Horner’s choice of strings and mournful bagpipes is enough to create sentimentality to the viewer’s ears. The music fits the story well; creating a powerful flow that deepens into something amazing. In short, Braveheart is a Hollywood, epic masterpiece that puts films like Spartacus to shame.

The Bride of Frankenstein Review

The Bride of Frankenstein is a very misleading title for this film. The story picks up from where the first Frankenstein movie left off (as told by author Mary Shelley). The monster survives the wood mill fire and once again goes on a rampage against the small town. Meanwhile, the mysterious Dr. Pretorious seeks to recruit Dr. Frankenstein for another unorthodox experiment—to make a bride for the monster. Dr. Frankenstein is reluctant to this scheme, for he is now married and he wants to be rid of his past life. Dr. Pretorious is persistent on the matter. He takes extreme measures to force Frankenstein into his doings, whether it be kidnapping his wife or having people murdered. In one pivotal scene, he shows Frankenstein a collection of small persons in lab jars to persuade him. Pretorius is amused by his creations. He remarks, “Sometimes I wonder if we are all devils.” This shows not only his disregard to religion, but also his obsessed desire to play God.

Though the crazed scientist plays a part in this movie, the primary focus is on the monster. While the prequel focuses on the terror the monster unleashes, this film sheds a whole new light on him. Rather than a relentless murderer, he is depicted as a confused child. When people scream at him, he does not know how to react. As a result, many of the people he kills are either by accident or in self-defense. The monster is also misunderstood. In one scene, he jumps into a pond with the intent of saving a young woman from drowning. As soon as she screams, nearby bystanders see him as attacking her rather than saving her. From this misinterpretation of the townspeople, the monster becomes a hapless victim.

The only person he finds any solace in is an old blind hermit that lives in the forest. Not being able to see what the monster looks like, he takes him in with open arms. Though the hermit cannot literally see the monster, he sees what is beneath the disfigured bulk…a lost, tormented soul that seeks friendship. Their first encounter is very moving, especially when the hermit professes to God that he has “brought two of thy lonely children together.” Both shed tears, revealing their unconditional joy of finding a friend in one another. Additional power that relies in this moment is an orchestrated version of Ave Maria. It is subtle; yet present enough to build more emotion in such an important part of the film.

The scene that follows is touching. The hermit teaches the monster how to talk, smoke cigars, drink wine, and even identify what is good or bad. I will note that it is humorous to watch as the monster speaks, for his words are rudimentary and slowly delivered like the alien in Spielberg’s E.T. Even so, this is a newly changed monster. He is more human than creature. Eventually, he is torn away from his new friend and ends up under the influence of Dr. Pretorius. Frankenstein and Pretorius do succeed in making the monster’s bride, but proves to be a bad delivery. When the bride lays eyes on the monster, she shrieks, terrified of him.

His bride proves that love and friendship cannot be created in a lab. Friendships are made by individuals who can accept you for who you are, not what you look like. The bride also proves that man’s power to play God leads only to failure. These are the essential themes to this film. This is what makes The Bride of Frankenstein a great movie. Its plot and hidden messages go beyond the typical 1930s horror flick.

Rashomon Review

The film Rashomon is a relatively simple story about the recollections of four individuals who testify to a rape of a woman and a samurai’s murder. There’s the bandit (Tishorio Mifune), the samurai (Masayuki Mori), the samurai’ wife (Machiko Kyo), and the woodcutter (Takashi Shimura). Each of their own perspectives is told through flashback, and leads the viewer down a path of wonder and keen interest. When the film draws to a close, the plot does not resolve itself. We do not know who is telling the truth. Nor do we know the fate of the accused bandit and the helpless widow. It is entirely up to the viewer to decide which character is telling the truth (if they even are). That’s the beauty of this film. I have my own theory of what happened, but another viewer may not agree with me. That’s the lesson director Akira Kurosawa successfully makes with this film. Every person has his or her own perspective. As a result, each individual will see something different within this movie.

Unlike some of Kurosawa’s later work like The Seven Samurai or The Hidden Fortress, Rashomon is not a fast-paced movie. Much of the slow pace has to deal with Kurosawa’s famous use of the long take. There are many shots in which the camera lingers on one character as he or she delivers some form of action. One scene that comes to mind is when the bandit is shown killing the samurai. As he slowly creeps towards his victim, the camera tracks him until he makes his final deathblow. Some may argue that the long take, especially in this scene, draws out the action much longer than necessary. In my opinion, it works very well. The use of the long take in this scene emphasizes the tension and intensity that the bandit experiences right before he murders the samurai. His gritted teeth and bulged eyes show that he is not very accustomed to murder, despite his profession as a thief.

The acting is pretty thorough when it comes to Tishorio Mifune and Masayuki Mori. Mifune is an icon for exaggerated emotion. His over the top, devilish laugh, and his intense facial expressions work perfect for him as the merciless bandit. Masayuki Mori is subtler as the samurai. He does not have many lines, but much of his accomplishment derives from his facial expressions. This is particularly noteworthy when he watches as his wife is being violated before his eyes. There is such an anger and passion in his face during this scene that it borders on frightening. I was not impressed with Machiko Kyo as the samurai’s wife. This is very apparent when she taunts both the bandit and the samurai as being weak. Her constant screeches and ridiculous laughter in this scene was enough to make me feel nauseated. Takashi Shimura as the woodcutter did not do much for me either. He merely told his side of the story and adopted an abandoned infant at the end of the film.

A bigger problem I had with this movie is the fight scenes. I understand that this film was made sixty years ago, but the choreographed battles between the bandit and the samurai are laughable. It is pretty bad to watch as both a bandit and a samurai constantly fall over during a duel as if they were drunk. It is even harder for me to watch as they throw leaves at one another. Weren’t samurai supposed to be skilled martial artists as well as brilliant swordsmen? I guess not for this movie.

In my concluding opinion, Rashomon is a decent film. It is not for the average audience, for there is little action and even less humor. It is not popcorn-loving entertainment. Rather, Rashomon makes the audience think about the plot’s ambiguity and decide for themselves what is true and false.

For the Love of Movies Review

For the Love of Movies is an insightful documentary about film critics. It explores from the early 1900s of cinema to the present day. The most memorable critics the documentary lingers on are Pauline Kael and Andrew Sarris as well as their little war between one another over the auteur theory. In all honesty, director Gerald Perry depicts Kael as an antagonist and Sarris as a victim. The footage shown of Kael gives me the impression that she is pompous, arrogant, and full of herself. The fact that Andrew Sarris mentions that Pauline Kael personally attacked his writing via a written letter makes her anything but admirable. Unfortunately, she cannot defend her opinions since she has been dead for some time. We can only hear the opinions of other critics. Many loved her while others despised her.

A bigger issue the documentary brings to light is the fate of film critics via the Internet. I’ve known for years that print media is going away and film critics along with it. Multiple magazines and newspapers have gone out of business because of the Internet. Even so, the documentary poses the question: what is the fate of movie critics? Due to the Internet, any individual can start a blog and write about a film he/she loves or hates. As an IMDB member, I am one of those millions of people. I consider myself a film critic, but I am not a paid professional. I write about movies because I love them! As a result of this, the line between amateur and professional is blurred. Which type of critic should the masses read and believe in?

The documentary also reveals that more youthful individuals are replacing the older critics like Roger Ebert and Gene Shalit. In part, this is because many of these older generations of critics have written pulverizing reviews of successful films. For instance, Roger Ebert gave Armageddon a very negative review, despite the fact that it was a huge draw for the public. This implies that older critics cannot keep up with or understand the new generation of movies and as a result, more youthful critics are replacing them. This has been seen before back with the 1967 release of Bonnie and Clyde. Many old time critics in that period bashed it because of its graphic depiction of violence. However, young critics at the time like Pauline Kael loved it. This shows that the cycle of movie critics has to change and realign with the current zeitgeist of cinema. If a critic cannot do this, then he or she is outdated. This once again blurs the line of which type of critic a person should believe in, the young blogger or the old, esteemed critic.

The documentary itself is well done. It has a variety of interview subjects and gives a thorough, in-depth analysis of the reign of the movie critics. I particularly like the tight close up shots of the interview subjects. This creates a sense of closure and intimacy with the interviewee. If the interviews were composed of medium or long shots, there would have been a sense of distance. This feeling of intimacy that I experienced would have been non-existent.

There are some minor technical quirks that I had problems with. Some of the sound recordings in the interviews were a bit hot, especially the Jonathan Rosenbaum interview. I could hear what he was saying, but his voice bordered on being distorted. The editor also used the fade to black technique too much. This was very unnecessary for it creates false endings; each one made me think the movie was over. Only one fade to black is needed, and that is for the very end.

Despite these technical faults, For the Love of Movies is an informative, well thought out, and fun documentary. It goes at a slow, steady pace, but it is not dull. I learned much from it and I was also entertained by it. For film buffs, movie historians, and any other individual who has an interest in cinema, this is a real treat.