Archives for 2012

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

December 31, 2012 By Austin.Takahashi

Rating:

Let me get things straight first. I enjoyed “An Expected Journey” as I was viewing it. From the film’s first half hour, I could tell that it wasn’t going to be an event as grand and glorious as any of the “Lord of the Rings” movies, which was just fine by me. Though weighed down by several substantial flaws, I felt a mild satisfaction when the credits started to roll. The verdict of a movie reviewer should always be based on the immediate experience, and on that notion I should label “An Unexpected Journey” a success. But my later convictions overruled the other, and I realize that I cannot award a positive rating to a movie that could have easily been great but chose not to.

The three volumes that comprised Tolkien’s “The Lord of the Rings” were made into three different films. That’s over 1,300 pages translated into nine hours of film. And while “An Unexpected Journey”, 2013’s “The Desolation of the Smaug”, and 2014’s “There and Back Again” are the components of another planned trilogy, there are all based on a single Tolkien novel, 1937’s “The Hobbit”, which is only around 300 pages long. Does Peter Jackson really have enough material for a trilogy? We don’t know yet, but judging on this first installment, it seems that he will stretch his way to his second billion-dollar franchise. Every single sequence in this introductory film is prolonged, and several other scenes feel unnecessary. The story itself is compelling, but the deadweight pacing prevents us from being compelled.

Time winds back as dear Bilbo Baggins recalls the period of his life when he joined a group of homesick Dwarves, accompanied by the wise and helpful Gandalf (Ian McKellen), in an adventure too dangerous for a hobbit. Opening Narrations always do a good job in setting up the background for a plot, and old Bilbo tells us of Erebor, the realm of the Dwarves that is filled with precious gold. The citizens of Erebor are left with no choice but to abandon their kingdom the moment Smaug flies in and takes control of it. Smaug is of course the greedy dragon with a fetish for gold, of all things. If dragons like Smaug roam in today’s world, and if they pillage great cities blessed with endless treasures, then the Philippines would be one of the safest places on Earth Just sayin’.

Anyway, the Dwarves are steadfast in their mission to reclaim their homeland, and Gandalf convinces their leader, Thorin (Richard Armitage), to take young Bilbo (Martin Freeman) with them, right after they invade his privacy, trash his house, and eat his food. (You would not want to have Dwarves for neighbors. Elves would be more fun.) Other than our main protagonists, the rest of the members of the pack are interchangeable, carrying no distinct characteristics. This is a disappointment. The heroes in the LOTR were memorable in the way that they were diverse and well-developed. Each character came from different races, was introduced with different back stories, and was driven by different motivations. By the time you finished watching “Fellowship of the Ring”, you already knew each character by name. There was Aragorn, Frodo, Sam, Legolas, Gimli, and Boromir. I’m trying to make a mental list of the fellowship in “An Unexpected Journey”, and this is what I’ve got so far: Gandalf, Bilbo, Thorin, Bald Dwarf, Fat Dwarf, Skinny Dwarf, Old Dwarf, and Other Dwarf.

The progression of their adventure takes us through some memorable sequences and some not so amusing ones. Divided by extended periods of tedious walking and plot setting, the most enjoyable parts of the film involve hungry, towering trolls, battling stone giants, and a high-stakes riddle game between Bilbo and Gollum. (Spoiler!) It’s disappointing how all of this comes down to a climax located at the edge of a cliff, on top of a tree. At this point of the film, we see our heroes climb a tree, clump together, and throw pine fireballs to fend off those blasted orcs. A weak way to end such a movie, but there you go. (End Spoiler) This non-climax will feel all the more disappointing when you remind yourself that you spent a massive 150 minutes to get there.

All of my complaints would not have been so if they simply decided to make one darn movie. There are discussions in “An Unexpected Journey” regarding the return of a devilish Necromancer, and we are only treated to small, quick peeks to Smaug the dragon. How much better things would have been if these elements were maximized in this film instead of reserving them for Parts 2 and 3? Did Peter Jackson pushed for this idea, or did “The Hobbit” fall into the hands of greedy Hollywood Producers/Smaugs who want to make more money for the sake of more money? Hollywood’s obsession with franchising everything it touches is getting out of hand. Will the world ever be ready for a Three Little Pigs Trilogy?

MOVIE JOURNAL: Wreck-It Ralph and Take Shelter

November 28, 2012 By Austin.Takahashi Leave a Comment

School has been a real asshole. I know, I know. My first post since July, and I open with a grumble? I can explain. Time is so darn precious, and much of it is required by the job I have to attend to and this blog that I have to raise. That I’ve only been able to write one review (The Dark Knight Rises) since school started should give you an idea of how endlessly busy I’ve become. Such is my distress, but I find inspiration in the immortal words of Mark Twain: “I have never let my schooling interfere with my education”. Ah, yes.

But of course the quote is only applicable if you are an extremely intelligent person… or if your school is incompetent by world record standards. I’m not a very smart person, and that should be enough of a hint. Which brings me back to my opening sentence. But never mind. I’m scheduled to graduate in April of next year. That’s five more months. I persevere.

Though April 2013 isn’t as far away as it seems, I can’t wait that long to start posting actively here again. That is why I’ve decided to start this Movie Journal. Despite my soul-sucking schedule, I’m still able to watch around two to four movies a week. It’s the reviewing part that I don’t have time for anymore. So much opportunity has already gone to waste, and I hope that this Journal will be the beginning of a steady revival. Films that I saw and wanted to write about but did not end up reviewing include “Argo”, “Looper”, “Skyfall”, “The Avengers”, “The Muppets”, “We Need to Talk About Kevin”, “The Bourne Legacy”, and many, many more.

I plan to post a Journal entry about once a week or every other week, depending on my requirements form school and work. (This will be my routine until I graduate college, reclaiming sweet freedom.) Each post will feature (1) a brief intro regarding my current status and future plans and (2) a short discussion of about two to three movies that I watched within that week; think of it as a collection of Quick Reviews gathered to make one long post. For this first post, I’ll talk about two movies that I’ve recently seen, movies that I’m very enthusiastic about. And they are as follows.

Wreck-It Ralph – Rating:

I’ve long complained about how many movies of today are constructed to flow like a banal, routine video game. Who would have thought that flipping this notion could produce a place that is so dazzlingly original? “Wreck-It Ralph” is a video game that functions like a Real Movie. Sure, it retains the usual Disney elements of the Misunderstood Good Guy and his Spirited Sidekick, but their journey unfolds within such a beautifully imagined universe that everything it surrounds is given a fresh feel. The story takes place inside arcade games where its characters are able to move independently when no human is in sight. I’m sure our pals at “Toy Story” can relate.

Much of the fun from “Wreck-It Ralph” comes from the ingenious logic used by Disney to connect the games of the arcade. We learn that the adaptor of the extension cord is the central station where famous video game characters like Donkey Kong, Sonic, and Mario could bump into each other and exchange High Fives. Characters can visit other games by travelling through the cord’s wires (Duh!), which are conveniently labeled by game. This allows the story to instantly shift from one dimension to another that’s completely different in genre, design, and graphics. We follow the lives of Ralph, the villain of a 30-year-old game called Fix-It Felix, Jr., and Vanellope von Schweetz, the glitch from a racing game called Sugar Rush.

I cared for Ralph (John C. Reilly) and Venellope (Sarah Silverman). In fact, this is the most I’ve shown affection for a pair of animated characters since I was first introduced to Carl and Ellie Fredricksen in “Up”. I did not want the movie to end. There were too many games left to explore, and there was a lot more video game characters that I wanted to meet. But oh well. “Wreck-It Ralph” represents the most creative use of animation in years, and the Academy would commit a shameful injustice if it doesn’t award this gem the Oscar for Best Animated Feature.

Take Shelter – Rating:

“Take Shelter”, the most overlooked Great Movie of 2011, is an apocalyptic thriller that transpires entirely inside the afflicted mind of a man trapped in an agonizing fear. This man is Curtis (Michael Shannon), a simple construction worker who lives in a small town in Ohio with his wife Samantha (Jessica Chastain) and their deaf, six-year-old daughter, Hannah. Curtis greatly loves his family, is happy with his job, and is working hard to earn for an expensive operation that could restore Hannah her hearing. Everything is going alright for Curtis until he is plagued by nightmares and hallucinations about a monstrous storm that, according to his visions, will arrive without warning and rain destruction upon the helpless town.

Without deliberation and approval from his wife, Curtis decides to build a storm shelter that he can’t afford with time that he doesn’t have. The townspeople, and later even Samantha, think that the storm shelter is a stupid idea, and that Curtis’s efforts are futile. We, on the other hand, as the film’s audience, are able to empathize with Curtis because we experience every nightmare and hallucination that Curtis goes through. The obvious observation here is that Curtis building the shelter is an act of sheer paranoia, which is not the case. More perceptive moviegoers will identify Curtis’s actions as a fulfillment of his unconditional love towards his family. He risks his employment, his reputation and at some points even his marriage just to make sure that his family is safe from a threat that may not actually end up happening.

With this fact, we feel a subtle suspense, and the final twenty minutes of “Take Shelter” is something to hold in high regard; I was completely in a state of awe during the film’s final scenes. Michael Shannon’s performance here is the most powerful and convincing acting I have witnessed since Daniel Day-Lewis drank our milkshake in 2007’s “There Will Be Blood”. And that’s saying a lot.

The Dark Knight Rises

July 26, 2012 By Austin.Takahashi 3 Comments

Rating:

Christopher Nolan influenced a rare and astonishing phenomenon back in 2008: He united Critics and Fanboys in glorious, peaceful accordance. Few would argue with the notion that “The Dark Knight” is the greatest superhero movie ever made. No other comic book movie even comes close. None. To compare “The Dark Knight” with lesser films like “Thor”, or “Captain America”, or “The Amazing Spiderman”, is like comparing Michael Jordan with Kobe Bryant. Why even bother?

But it seems that the overwhelming success of “The Dark Knight” has placed Nolan in an interesting position. His masterpiece left a hungry audience with rising expectations, which is a reasonable effect. Wouldn’t it be weird to walk in a screening of “The Dark Knight Rises” and expect the second greatest superhero movie ever made?

Whether this closing chapter is better than its predecessors is not a major concern. All three Batman movies are exhilarating and memorable, and it can be said that they belong in a league of their own. As an artist who is constantly propelled to challenge our minds, Christopher Nolan adapts the superhero genre but does not conform to its traditions. He constructs a dark and ominous world that’s very close to our own, a world separated from the detached, happy-go-lucky playground occupied by the heroes of “The Avengers”.

Gotham is not merely utilized as a canvass for fighting and a backdrop for explosions. Nolan perceives the city’s citizens as more than just curious onlookers or helpless victims. He understands that their knowledge and opinion of Batman greatly affects his actions and limitations, and Nolan puts this principle to good use, especially during the moral chaos instigated by The Joker in “The Dark Knight”. The scale of the series is vast and involving. That the story requires the presence of Real Actors (Morgan Freeman, Michael Cane, Gary Oldman) reveals that there is more to see here than trivial action. In an age where Michael Bay has repeatedly hammered our brains to a pulp, Mr. Nolan has been diligent in rewarding us with movies that give us a jump start.

So Nolan’s Batman Trilogy is an enormous triumph, but, contrary to my previous paragraphs, I am here to review an individual movie, not a trilogy. “The Dark Knight Rises” gave me conflicting emotions as I found myself standing between the line of Satisfaction and Disappointment. I felt satisfaction in the fact that I just saw the finest summer blockbuster of 2012; disappointment slowly emerged as I acknowledged that, out of the three Batman films by Nolan, this was the most flawed and problematic. So much of the movie could have been so much better.

There is a swarm of characters here – old ones, new ones, unnecessary ones, dead ones… You name it. The tragedy is that Bruce Wayne (Christian Bale) and other key characters are robbed of quality screen time in order to develop new supporting characters that only function as nonessential plot devices in a convoluted script. Take, for example, the addition of a suspicious philanthropist named Miranda Tate (Marion Cotillard). What’s a girl like here doing in a movie like this? Here’s a rule I’d like to propose: Anyone who claims to be a philanthropist in a comic book movie is a Plot Twist waiting to be revealed. Why did Nolan feel the need to invest a lot of time and effort for a twist so apparent and insipid? His films have always been ambitious, but this is his first movie where I got the impression that he may be trying too hard. Maybe the insane hype that “The Dark Knight” left him with a lot of pressure.

And now we move on to Bane (Tom Hardy). His opening sequence, which is one of the film’s most spectacular moments, establishes him as both freakishly strong and extensively intelligent. His immense physique, fearsome and menacing, makes him overqualified for “The Expendables”. His master plan, to annihilate Gotham City via nuclear explosion, forces the troubled and defeated Bruce Wayne to revive his alter-ego, despite the bad publicity. Both Hero and Villain were mentored by Ra’s Al Ghul (Liam Neeson), but we are warned by the always concerned Alfred that Bane may be too much for Batman to handle. Imagine a villain so powerful that he gives Batman a year’s worth of physical punishment in five minutes. He reveals himself to be a monster of no mercy and sadistic humor when he dumps the half-dead Bruce in a hellish prison just for the lulz. No doubt Bane is an effective villain, but he doesn’t make up for an entertaining character. His intimidating presence wears off in the later scenes, and the movie eventually discards him completely in order to highlight needless twists.

I mentioned earlier the threat of a fusion bomb. We are informed that the bomb is set to detonate in, if I’m not mistaken, five months. This incredibly long countdown causes countless of exchanges between characters where they update each other, and the audience, regarding the bomb’s state. “Three months ‘til detonation!” “We have two weeks to stop that bomb!” “Twelve hours left! We have to do something!” “One hour to go before that thing goes off! We don’t have much time!”

This causes the suspense of the threat to die down. One element of the plot is delayed so the slower parts of the story could catch up. Can a heavily injured Batman make a full recovery and defeat Bane if the bomb has a countdown of 45 minutes? Try to recall the ferry sequence in “The Dark Knight”. Because the passengers of the two ferries only have 15 minutes to decide, the suspense is magnified, the action is immediate, the possibilities are many, and the moral issue is fascinating. As we sit in eager anticipation, we can easily visualize The Joker blowing up both of the ferries because everyone else chose to do the right thing. Can we really imagine the city of Gotham as a giant pile of ash?

Does my review of “The Dark Knight Rises” feel like a negative one? If yes, then I should make it clear that the flaws are forgivable; the movie has a lot more things going for it than against it. I enjoyed it and recommend it to anyone who wants their intelligence to participate in the theater. We don’t get a lot of Summer Blockbusters with a brain in its head. I predict that it will reach the billion dollar milestone in the box office. The DVD version, once released, will also sell millions and millions of copies, for it will feature those magic white words that should be able to decipher the mysteries surrounding Bane’s dialogue.

Wrath of the Titans

April 10, 2012 By Austin.Takahashi 3 Comments

Rating:

You don’t have to observe real hard to notice that there’s actually just one titan in “Wrath of the Titans”. That would be the fearsome Kronos, a monstrous being who can be best summarized as a walking volcano with arms, legs, and a face. In the film’s latest moments, smoke, ash and lava violently erupt from his crevices, which is exactly the sight you’d expect from someone who had just risen out from the hellish underworld.

Before we get into anything else, let’s do a quick background check. Kronos is the father of Zeus, Hades and Poseidon. Zeus (Liam Neeson) has a son named Ares, who like his father is also a god. Everything seems rather normal until Zeus decides to get in bed with a human. The woman then gives birth to Perseus, a half-god half-human fisherman. So this would make Kronos the grandfather of Perseus? But what about Helius, the son of Perseus? Can he be considered as one-forth god? You know what would have been a lot more interesting than this movie? A documentary about these characters having a family reunion.

Anyway, the underworld prison of Tartacus can no longer contain its captives. Zeus calls for a meeting with his brothers to address this issue. Where do they agree to hold their meeting? The Underworld, the home of Hades (Ralph Fiennes). So Poseidon gets killed and Zeus becomes a prisoner of Hades. Unfortunate, but things like that tend to happen when you decide to hold your meeting in the Underworld. Perseus goes on a mission to rescue his father. He must be quick though, because Hades plans to drain the power of Zeus to awaken Kronos.

And that’s the last plot point you will read from this review. To further discuss the plot would be pointless. The movie, even within the context of fantasy, features ludicrous situations of zero substance. And because the film’s director is the clueless Jonathan Liebesman (Battle: Los Angeles), even the action sequences offer no consolation. Somewhere inside an elaborate labyrinth, Perseus battles a Minotaur, or something like that. I’m not sure. We never get a clear shot of the darn beast. It’s just brief shots of a huge, ugly head covered with a lot of froth and… and rage. Perseus uses his right fist, followed by his left one, and the next thing we know, the monster is dead on the ground. I have seen fights at The Jerry Springer Show that have more cohesion and impact.

What else can I recall? Remember Ares, the other son of Zeus? He gets into a brawl with Perseus. Ares, who is a god, is winning the battle against the lesser strength of Perseus. Ares is about to attain victory until… until Perseus is able to put the Sleeper Hold on him. You know, like in wrestling. Ares passes out. Perseus kills him. But wait. How effective can the Sleeper Hold be? Did the screenwriter forget that Ares is a god?

Now back to where we started. Awakened Kronos has escaped Tartacus. Not only is he sweating lava all over place, but he’s also punching the ground to create mini-earthquakes. According to one of the characters, Kronos intends to destroy the world. My dilemma with giant villains is there lack of efficiency. They all look so slow and sluggish and easy to hit. If Kronos had no one to stop him, it would take him around 8-10 years to fully destroy the world. Approximately.

The Hunger Games

March 29, 2012 By Austin.Takahashi 1 Comment

Rating:

As the early minutes of the movie unfolded, it seemed to me that its principal premise was assembled by prominent ideas that came before it. When the story reveals to us that young men and women would have to slaughter each other for survival’s sake, we cannot help but be reminded of the infamous Japanese cult classic, “Battle Royale”. And later, when we learn that the bloodshed is to be controlled and televised by a game master, “The Truman Show” comes to mind. We can sit here and try to draw parallels between these different worlds, but no. Any discussions regarding the film’s possible influences would end in useless futility. “The Hunger Games” is independent in its desires and ambitions. It has a life of its own.

This adaptation of Suzanne Collins’s bestseller takes us to a dystopian future where the North America of today has become, in a word, kaput. Wars have destroyed democracy, and out of their wreckages the nation of Panem comes into being. The poor and powerless are distributed in the destitute 12 Districts while all the douchebags and oddballs can be found in the thriving, dominating Capitol. I like how the movie ignores the common vision of how people in the future dress in bland costumes. The citizens of Capitol have fascinating taste; their daily lives are spent with hairstyles and clothing that would startle cosplay addicts. The fashion trend there is so perplexing that if Lady Ga Ga lived during that era, she would easily blend in.

The rulers of Capitol exercise their superiority against the 12 Districts through The Hunger Games, an annual event that features teenagers, weapons, murders, and live television. (Disturbing, yes, but not as disturbing as that TV show about the Kardashian folks.) Here is how the event goes: One boy and one girl from each district are randomly selected. Once drafted, the chosen district members, called Tributes, are brought to the Capitol. That they undergo special training is not really a surprise. What intrigued me were the movie’s subtle examinations regarding both ends of reality television. How much of a Tribute’s identity is sincere when it is broadcasted through the lens of the media? Where do the viewers of The Hunger Games find the entertainment in its mindless violence?

The story starts off with the happenings leading to the 74^th Hunger Games. Most of our attention is focused on District 12’s Katniss Everdeen, who is impeccably played by Jennifer Lawrence. The movie demonstrates patience in the way it builds the Katniss character. Before she is thrown into the game’s deadly arena, we are given a chance to study her thoughts and memories, fears and feelings, strengths and weaknesses. As the movie progresses from District 12 to the Capitol, we realize that she’d rather be with a bow and arrow than with a camera and an interviewer. Though she is at first shy and awkward, she makes her way in the hearts of a number of people. When she finally steps foot in the arena, we see her more than just another participant in a televised bloodbath.

While the movie was still in the process of casting, I heard rumors that my love, Saoirse Ronan, was one of the actresses that were being considered to play Katniss. Without thinking of actress/character compatibility, I rooted for her. And now that I’ve seen the film, I realize that the role was made for Jennifer Lawrence. Ms. Lawrence is slowly becoming one of those tremendous talents that should always be aiming for high challenges. She played Mystique in last year’s “X-Men: First Class”, but that character didn’t deserve Lawrence. (If you’ve seen her in the excellent “Winter’s Bone”, then you know exactly what I’m talking about.) I’m glad that they chose a real actress to play Katniss. Imagine if Katniss was portrayed by Selena Gomez or Vanessa Hudgens. LOL.

I mentioned earlier that two Tributes are selected from each district. Katniss is joined by the sympathetic Peeta Mellark (Josh Hutcherson); he specializes in camouflage and cheesy dialogue. His special feelings for her have remained hidden for years, but The Hunger Games have provided him an opportunity to finally express his love. Teenagers will be teenagers. A romance is expectedly developed. Most girls will disagree with me on this, but I thought that the romance was far too overworked. To attract a bigger audience, the movie sacrifices a lot of its compelling content in exchange for more common ones. If you’ve read my review of “Real Steel”, then you know exactly what I’m talking about.

Another downside in “The Hunger Games” that isn’t exactly the fault of the filmmakers is the movie’s exaggerated hype. It’s a satisfying movie, but it won’t match the impossible expectations set by its fanatical fans. Lower your standards for “The Hunger Games”, and you should have a jolly good time. On a similar note: Lower your standards for “The Dark Knight Rises”, and you should enter Movie Paradise.

John Carter

March 21, 2012 By Austin.Takahashi Leave a Comment

Rating:

Once upon a time, the folks at Disney wanted to make a movie that combines the qualities of Westerns, War Epics, and Science Fiction. 250 million dollars later, and we are introduced to the vast and zealous vision of “John Carter”. Here is a concept that’s big enough to spawn its own franchise. Heck, I’m already saving up for the Happy Meal collectibles it will inspire at McDonalds. The movie’s franchise-sized idea holds good potential, but too much set-up is dedicated into this one movie that there is isn’t anything in it except for those darn set-ups.

The film follows the journey of John Carter (Taylor Kitsch), a Civil War Veteran from Virginia who isn’t in good terms with the local authorities. His attempts to elude imprisonment lead him to a cave with a well-dressed alien loitering within it. He knocks the bastard down. It instinctively pulls out a glowing medallion and starts reciting something in its native language. Carter grabs the medallion, and before he could sell it to the nearest pawnshop, he is transported to Mars. It is there where he comes across with the green-skinned, four-eyed Tharks. Fascinating creatures these Tharks are. If a giant caterpillar and a tall NBA player ever had a love child, it would look something close to a Thark.

Like all beauty pageant contestants, what the Tharks really want is world peace, but their influence is limited by their meager population and inferior technology. A great war between the mighty cities of Helium and Zodanga is at its peak. This issue is expanded with heavy exposition: The people from Helium are the good guys, and it’s Zodanga that’s causing all the trouble. They want to seize Helium so they could win the ultimate prize: Mars, a wasteland the size of a planet. Of all the citizens of Helium, it is its princess, Dejah Thoris (Lynn Collins), that is most fearful of defeat. If their army is unable to fight off the soldiers of Zodanga, she will be forced to marry its leader, Kantos Kan. One thing I like about Dejah Thoris is the fact that she is one helluva scientist. We finally meet an intelligent woman in a Summer Blockbuster Movie, and she’s from another planet.

Besides John Carter’s encounters with the Tharks, and besides the dispute between Helium and Zodanga, and besides the efforts of the princess to prevent her forced marriage, is a subplot involving the shape-shifting Therns. Equipped with great powers that can vaporize any structure and being, they hide. Of course. Anyway, there’s also this story about a plan to conquer… but why continue? “John Carter” is all introductions and explanations and discussions separated by brief and generic action sequences. John Carter himself is a dull and bland character; he is one of those heroes who is defined by their special ability. But even that part is underwhelming. The lower Martian gravity allows him to leap at great lengths, but so what? I like Roger Ebert’s observation: “When it is possible to teleport yourself from Earth to Mars, why are you considered extraordinary because you can jump really high?”

There is a 30-second span in the film where John Carter slashes his way through dozens and dozens of towering aliens. In a later scene, we see him use a chain to hurl a large boulder against a monster. How is this possible for a Civil War veteran from Virginia? Did the change in gravity also grant him super strength? Some more observations: Where do the Martians get all the materials to build their complex space ships and gadgets? Since there is no vegetation in sight to supply oxygen, what keeps John Carter alive? Why won’t the Therns use their vaporizing weapons when needed? Why do the citizens of Helium and Zodanga look like… Americans? If they are Earthlings who arrived before John Carter, then why is their blood blue?

I’m sure everything in the movie is better explained in “A Princess of Mars”, the book from which “John Carter” is based upon. Maybe it’s one of those novels that doesn’t translate well in film. Books contain more space for plotting and characterization. 132 minutes is quite long for a film, yet it wasn’t enough for the broad story of “John Carter”. I mean, if Mr. Carter and Ms. Thoris got married, and they had children, and they scratched their arm, will purple blood come out?

Great Movie Posters (Volume 1)

March 7, 2012 By Austin.Takahashi Leave a Comment

Hugo

February 22, 2012 By Austin.Takahashi 2 Comments

Rating:

“Movies touch our hearts and awaken our vision, and change the way we see things. They take us to other places, they open doors and minds. Movies are the memories of our lifetime. We need to keep them alive.” –Martin Scorsese

No director loves movies more than Martin Scorsese. Knowing that he has spent the past four decades declaring his affection for the movies, you won’t be considered foolish to presume that good ‘ol Marty has finally started to calm down. But you would presume wrong. His voice has never been louder and clearer. Founded on Scorsese’s lifelong love affair with the movies, “Hugo” is a dazzling and magical gem that embraces the very essence of film itself. You can sense an irony in how it uses the latest 3-D technology to remember the earliest existence of filmmaking, but there is a more profound explanation behind this technique:

As a majestic tribute to silent films and a landmark in 3-D filmmaking, “Hugo” acknowledges the eternal significance of the past while simultaneously providing needed hope for the future.

A great portion of Hugo is set in the Montparnasse station of 1931 France. Hidden within the station’s giant clock is Hugo Cabret (Asa Butterfield), an orphaned 12-year-old with a talent for fixing things. When Hugo’s not tightening the screws and adjusting the levers of the clock, he’s sneaking his way through the crowded spaces of Montparnasse, stealing food from bakeries and fruit carts. The boy has no choice. The only thing that his father (Jude Law) left him was the broken automaton that they were determined to rebuild. Holding on to the belief that the machine contains a valuable message from his departed father, Hugo intends to finish the work that he and his dad had started.

With zero resources, Hugo is forced to steal machine parts from an old, cranky toymaker named George Melies, played by Ben Kingsley. His delinquencies are inevitably discovered by the old man. But that’s okay, cause this leads Hugo into forming a friendship with the affable Isabelle (Chloe Moretz), George’s goddaughter. Eventually, the two youngsters work together in an attempt to uncover the secrets of the toymaker’s past, which is unknown to few and forgotten by many. About halfway through, the movie slowly delves into its deeply emotional core. And because this journey is seen through the eyes of eager children, we feel the sense of wonder that was poured in its creation.

Audience members who are not knowledgeable with the early days of cinema will be as surprised as Hugo and Isabelle when it’s revealed that the toymaker is actually one of the first pioneers of film. “Hugo” credits the Lumiere Brothers as the inventors of motion pictures, but it knows that George Melies was the first to see its potential for greatness. As the first filmmaker to apply special effects, Melies found a way to convey our dreams to the screen. Sequences that showcased his movies moved me in a way that I did not anticipate. While seeing some of the oldest films projected on the big screen, I felt like I had just been transported back in time. I was enlightened by the experience.

During these moments, it becomes clear to us why Martin Scorsese decided to take a risk in making his first family film. Here is an artist obsessed with movie history and committed to film preservation. He must not have been able to resist the opportunity of spreading the legacy of George Melies. After witnessing the joy and innovation that went into the projects of Melies, we feel a great loss in the fact that most of his movies were lost forever. His story will encourage film organizations to increase their effort in preserving great movies. They could start with the works of Keaton, Kurosawa, Herzog, Hitchcock, Bergman, etc.

As long as people dream, there will be movies. They’ve been with us for over 120 years, and yet they remain to be the most powerful of all the art forms. They enhance our thinking. They broaden our awareness of the world around us. They can make us laugh in the loneliest of nights and they can give us hope in the most desparate of times. Surely, we need to keep them alive.

Note: And oh, I should state the fact that “Hugo” contains the best and brightest use of 3-D I’ve ever seen. In 1902, George Melies was the first to utilize magic in film. And over a century later, in 2011, Martin Scorsese becomes the first man to effectively use 3-D for a live-action movie. (Most of what we see in Avatar is computer-generated.) I am opposed to this technology, but if this is the future of 3-D, then I might one day welcome it with open arms.

George Melies (1861-1938)

The Vow

February 17, 2012 By Austin.Takahashi 2 Comments

Rating:

“The Vow” is a badly written, poorly executed, and weakly acted melodrama about how amnesia allowed a married couple in Chicago to relive the early memories of their love. The only thing that’s going for this inept love story is its release date. No doubt that the season of Valentine’s Day will lead thousands of couples into watching movies like this, no matter how terrible they are. Last year’s “Valentine’s Day” made over 200 million dollars, despite an 18% score on Rotten Tomatoes. I present to you a rating so low, Michael Bay hasn’t even been there (yet).

“The Vow” is currently holding on to a 30% rating, yet it made over 40 million dollars on its opening weekend in the United States. After discovering the statistics I just posted, I’m no longer sure why I’m still writing a review for this, since chick flicks are guaranteed to be box office hits when released near Valentine’s Day. But I press on. Right now I think to myself, “If this review causes a single person to cancel his or her plans regarding seeing this movie, then I’ll have peace knowing that I have done something good for a fellow human being.”

So Paige (Rachel McAdams) and Leo (Channing Tatum) are driving along the snowy streets of Chicago. Because they are madly in love with each other, they convince themselves that it would be real fun to make out inside their car whilst parked in the middle of the road. To no surprise, a truck crashes into them from behind; Paige breaks through the windshield and is knocked unconscious. If only she was wearing seatbelts. Leo, who only suffered minor injuries, is shocked to find out that his wife has lost all memory of their relationship. The accident has erased Leo from Paige’s memories; she can’t remember that she’s married to him. But Leo is determined to fix their marriage. He must make his wife fall in love with him all over again. Awww.

The idea sounds cute, but the movie is so busy with other issues and subplots that it rarely ever gets a chance to fulfill its premise. Notice how “The Vow” takes too long to move on from the common routines that are used to deal with a person with amnesia. Within its interminable running time of 104 minutes are multiple scenes – most of which are needless and prolonged – where Paige questions certain things about her “forgotten life”. Leo graciously provides her with all the answer she needs. She often responds with doubt or insecurity, leading to recycled monologues regarding identity and existentialism. At times, the tragedy of Paige’s accident evolves into a case study for someone like Friedrich Nietzsche, which is too much for the husband to handle.

Speaking of the husband, poor Leo is played by the guy from “Step Up”, or Channing Tatum. I’m sure that the ladies love him just the way he is, and production companies will keep casting him for his physical appeal. But the guy cannot act. Every character played by Channing Tatum feels nothing more the sight of Channing Tatum posing under a different name. I hear the same monotone voice and see the same wooden personality. You know you’re watching a bad movie when the lead actor looks more confused than the woman with amnesia.

The plot for “The Vow” is said to be founded on the lives of Kim and Krickitt Carpenter. Their testimony is inspiring, and it’s a suitable story to share on a Valentine’s Day. Surely, they deserve to be featured on some famous magazine. An interview at a late night talk show would be just fine. But I don’t think their story is enough for a full-length movie. The few things it has to say should only be seen on Greeting Cards: “Love your spouse.” “Treasure your memories.” “If you must make out in your car whilst park in the middle of the road, wear your seatbelts.”

Chronicle

February 7, 2012 By Austin.Takahashi Leave a Comment

Rating:

The three teenage heroes of “Chronicle” are strangely drawn to the baffling hole in the woods. From deep within this crater comes eerie sounds, and the little light that gleams from it is unexplained. In neglect of the human instinct of self-preservation, the boys jump right in. It wouldn’t be unnatural to fear that these kids would end up injured, missing, or trapped, especially if you’ve seen too many episodes of Man vs. Wild. But what do you know? They not only survived their stunt, but also gained telekinetic superpowers as a result. Lucky bastards.

“Chronicle” adapts the idea of the Superhero Origin story and operates it within the immature and naive world of teenagers. The boys are grateful to have acquired their amazing abilities, but their nature doesn’t lead them to save lives and fight crime. Heck, they’re probably not even old enough to win a battle against their own hormones. The film’s first half gives a depiction on what would happen if astonishing powers where granted to immature beings. Shoppers at malls become victims of telekinetic practical jokes. Leaf blowers are mentally activated in front of pretty girls with short skirts. The scenarios are small-scale and simple-minded, but they’re also amusing and believable, and certainly more original and entertaining than most of the comic book movies of last year.

We are at an age where dozens and dozens of movies are sucked out of materials we’ve already encountered before. And in this pile of sequels, remakes, and rip-offs, we notice this elegant little film that can be distinguished by its desire to be different. “Chronicle” cleverly fuses three genres of distant qualities: the Superhero Origin, the High School Drama, and the Found Footage Narrative. This is a bold and risky artistic approach from director Josh Trank and writer Max Landis, knowing that this is their debut project in Hollywood. Some newcomers are often crammed with dreams and visions, while some run out of steam after a few good movies. (What in the hell happened to M. Night Shyamalan?) I think the movie has provided Trank and Landis with a good start the same way “The Sixth Sense” provided a good start for Shyamalan. My hope is that 20 years from now, “Chronicle” will only be seen as the stepping stone of their careers, and not as the highlight.

The same thing could be said for its leading actors, since “Chronicle” has provided them with their first major role in a widely distributed motion picture. That they didn’t choose a slasher film as a “Career Starter” is a great sign. Slasher flicks have become the go-to genre for young actors hoping to be “discovered” by bigger studios. A problem with this method is that its actors don’t have much space to shine. All you really have do is act stupid and be killed, like the doomed kids in the Final Destination movies. The three boys in “Chronicle” are real characters portrayed by actors whose plans for themselves exceed the thought of being sliced onscreen. Alex Russell and Michael B. Jordan play Steve and Matt, two of three three boys who jumped into the hole. They are average students with normal lives, and can handle the weight of having superpowers.

The third kid is Andrew (Dan DeHann). His complicated life slowly darkens the film’s comical atmosphere. If we discard the superhero elements, we would be left with a concerned observation regarding teenage depression. The movie monitors how his isolated loneliness has boiled into suppressed anger. There are many kids like Andrew: abused and bullied, but chooses to keep it private. Fantasies of revenge run through their minds. This is harmless by itself, but all of this can translate into real danger once you give these kinds of people a power to fight back. When a furious Andrew discovers that his telekenisis can do more than just practical jokes, I became reminded of the troubled teens responsible for the Columbine High School Massacre.

Teenagers will have fun with the early scenes of telekinetic experiments, and if they pay closer attention, they might even learn to have a broader awareness of the people in their age group. I think the special effects were brought up to attract the movie’s target audience. How many teenagers would watch a quiet high school drama about isolated loneliness? Only a few, for sure. The rest would be busy looking for a good excuse to see the 5^th, or 6^th, Resident Evil movie.

Archives for 2012

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

MOVIE JOURNAL: Wreck-It Ralph and Take Shelter

The Dark Knight Rises

Wrath of the Titans

The Hunger Games

John Carter

Great Movie Posters (Volume 1)

Hugo

The Vow

Chronicle

Subscribe to Local Movie Review

Recent Reviews