Plot Summary:
Princess Merida (Kelly Macdonald) is very determined to make her own path in life. Granted one wish by a witch (Julie Walters), Merida must rely on her archery skills and bravery to destroy a beastly curse that will ultimately change her fate.
The Positives:
Pixar is one of my personal favorite studios in the industry right now. Each movie they come out with is technically brilliant, original, and very well-made. That all changed last year when the studio released Cars 2, which became the studio's lowest point. While Brave is not Pixar's best film, it is easily an improvement over Cars 2.
I will start with the visuals of this film. The landscape of the world in this film looks all so beautiful, making this Pixar's best technical achievement currently. The look of the trees, water, animals, and the hair of the humans looked very realistic for an animated film, which is an achievement for this studio. The visuals get consistently better with each film they release.
I thought the voice cast was great for this film as well. Kelly Macdonald was a great Merida, her voice fit the character's spunky and tomboyish attitude. I also really enjoyed Emma Thompson, Billy Connolly, Craig Ferguson, and Robbie Coltrane in their respective roles. The Scottish accents sound weird at first, but as the film goes on you get used to them no problem.
For the most part I found this film to be entertaining. Unlike Cars 2, this film has a lot of entertaining moments that adults can enjoy as well. I thought the three little kids stole the show here, they were the main comic relief here. The film is not very long either, so it didn't overstay its welcome or bore the audience.
The Negatives:
Even though it's better than Cars 2, I had a lot of issues with Brave. The source of the problems with this film is the script. It had too many plotholes, cliche dialogue, and for the most part it felt like a typical film rather than going above and beyond. Pixar is known for having really well-written scripts, I wonder why this one felt so uneven.
I also felt the action scenes in the film were very disappointing. Although there weren't many, I thought they ended too quickly and were ultimately lame. The climatic fight at the end was extremely disappointing too, it ended too stupidly and I felt it could have been worked on a lot more.
The main issue with this film was the characters. Pixar is known for having characters with distinct personalities that you can easily fall for. Brave had none of that. I could care less about Merida and her problems, unlike Carl in Up who you could easily fall for in the first 10 minutes even though he's a grumpy old man. They also set up characters and subplots here that aren't mentioned later in the film, which is a huge problem for a film.
Conclusion:
While it is an improvement over Cars 2, I felt a little disappointed by Brave. Sure, the animation, voice cast, and entertainment value are great. However, the story and characters are weak, which is something I would not expect from a Pixar film. In the end, Brave is an ok film, one that kids will enjoy. However, this should have been much better.
Rating: 6.5 out of 10
Friday, June 22, 2012
Friday, June 15, 2012
Rock of Ages Review
Plot Summary:
In 1987 Los Angeles, Sherrie Christian (Julianne Hough) and Drew Boley (Diego Boneta) are two young people chasing their dreams in the big city. When they meet, it's love at first sight, but this love will face a series of challenges. Based on the Broadway musical of the same name.
The Positives:
While this is not the really good Adam Shankman's musical follow-up to Hairspray that I was expecting, this is still a fun one. I love all the music used in this film, I'm a huge 80's rock fan and the songs used were done well. It was fun seeing these songs put together in a cinematic way.
I also loved the production design and cinematography in this film. The sets were really put together and made it really look like 80's Los Angeles. The cinematography was a nice touch as well, making the musical numbers look good and helping the setting look nice.
I felt a huge strength of this film was the casting. Russell Brand, Julianne Hough, and Catherine Zeta-Jones do a great job acting-wise and musically as shown in previous films. However, the real show stealers are Tom Cruise and Paul Giamatti. Cruise is a true hidden diamond here, he's the most entertaining character in the film and does a really fantastic job singing. Giamatti plays a really fun villain here, any scene he's in is intriguing to watch.
There are many comedic moments in this film. Many fall through, but the ones that don't are really worth watching. Most of the good comedic moments are in musical numbers, so it really adds to the entertainment value.
The Negatives:
I was expecting a lot more from Adam Shankman after his great musical success that was 2007's Hairspray. One thing that Hairspray had that this film doesn't is a coherent and clear story. This film felt like a long compilation of music videos rather than a film. As a result, there is less time for story and more time for music. In my opinion, a musical should have equal time for story and music. This film focuses more on the music.
I said earlier that the casting was a huge strength of the film, there were two roles that I felt should have been casted differently. Alec Baldwin felt really out of place in this film. Every scene he's in he looks like he isn't having a lot of fun with the role and just wants to get each scene over with. Diego Boneta was a disaster as the main guy role. He just recites the line and his emotions act really fake. Not to mention, his voice doesn't fit in with the "rock" persona this film has, he has a consistent pop voice the entire time.
The source of the problems for this film was in the script. A majority of the comedic moments weren't funny, they were just typical slapstick if anything. That's what you'd expect from the guy who directed The Pacifier before doing musicals. There's hardly any dialogue, a majority of the film was the music. When there is dialogue, it really isn't that great, it's more cliche and overdone.
Conclusion:
Rock of Ages really tries to be a good musical, but it is more of a compilation of music videos if anything else. It's not a bad film, it's fun and nostalgic for people who like 80's rock. If Hairspray was Adam Shankman's Grease, than this would be his Grease 2. Not as good and could have been better. I don't believe Hairspray was a fluke and I want Shankman to continue to do musicals. But next time, please focus on the story. All in all, Rock of Ages is fun, but really nothing more.
Rating: 6 out of 10
In 1987 Los Angeles, Sherrie Christian (Julianne Hough) and Drew Boley (Diego Boneta) are two young people chasing their dreams in the big city. When they meet, it's love at first sight, but this love will face a series of challenges. Based on the Broadway musical of the same name.
The Positives:
While this is not the really good Adam Shankman's musical follow-up to Hairspray that I was expecting, this is still a fun one. I love all the music used in this film, I'm a huge 80's rock fan and the songs used were done well. It was fun seeing these songs put together in a cinematic way.
I also loved the production design and cinematography in this film. The sets were really put together and made it really look like 80's Los Angeles. The cinematography was a nice touch as well, making the musical numbers look good and helping the setting look nice.
I felt a huge strength of this film was the casting. Russell Brand, Julianne Hough, and Catherine Zeta-Jones do a great job acting-wise and musically as shown in previous films. However, the real show stealers are Tom Cruise and Paul Giamatti. Cruise is a true hidden diamond here, he's the most entertaining character in the film and does a really fantastic job singing. Giamatti plays a really fun villain here, any scene he's in is intriguing to watch.
There are many comedic moments in this film. Many fall through, but the ones that don't are really worth watching. Most of the good comedic moments are in musical numbers, so it really adds to the entertainment value.
The Negatives:
I was expecting a lot more from Adam Shankman after his great musical success that was 2007's Hairspray. One thing that Hairspray had that this film doesn't is a coherent and clear story. This film felt like a long compilation of music videos rather than a film. As a result, there is less time for story and more time for music. In my opinion, a musical should have equal time for story and music. This film focuses more on the music.
I said earlier that the casting was a huge strength of the film, there were two roles that I felt should have been casted differently. Alec Baldwin felt really out of place in this film. Every scene he's in he looks like he isn't having a lot of fun with the role and just wants to get each scene over with. Diego Boneta was a disaster as the main guy role. He just recites the line and his emotions act really fake. Not to mention, his voice doesn't fit in with the "rock" persona this film has, he has a consistent pop voice the entire time.
The source of the problems for this film was in the script. A majority of the comedic moments weren't funny, they were just typical slapstick if anything. That's what you'd expect from the guy who directed The Pacifier before doing musicals. There's hardly any dialogue, a majority of the film was the music. When there is dialogue, it really isn't that great, it's more cliche and overdone.
Conclusion:
Rock of Ages really tries to be a good musical, but it is more of a compilation of music videos if anything else. It's not a bad film, it's fun and nostalgic for people who like 80's rock. If Hairspray was Adam Shankman's Grease, than this would be his Grease 2. Not as good and could have been better. I don't believe Hairspray was a fluke and I want Shankman to continue to do musicals. But next time, please focus on the story. All in all, Rock of Ages is fun, but really nothing more.
Rating: 6 out of 10
Monday, June 11, 2012
Prometheus Review
Plot Summary:
A team of explorers in the year 2093 led by Dr. Elizabeth Shaw (Noomi Rapace) discovers a clue to the origin of mankind on Earth. This discovery leads them to a journey to the darkest corners of the universe. There, they must face an alien force that plans to destroy the Earth.
The Positives:
Most people know of this film as an unofficial Alien prequel. While it does have many traits of the original 1979 film, I feel it is worthy of being a standalone film from the franchise. Its thought-provoking questions it creates and the haunting atmosphere it has leads to a great science fiction film rather than a science fiction horror flick.
The casting was pitch perfect for this film. All of the actors did a wonderful job with the characters they were given, even Guy Pearce did great as an old man. The best performance in the film is easily Michael Fassbender's portrayal as the android David. The way he carries his motives and plans secretively brings out a captivating performance from Fassbender. He stole the show in last year's X-Men: First Class and does so also in this film, this man has a great career ahead of him.
The special effects were very well done also. The aliens/engineers looked really cool. The dark setting added to the suspense in the film, rather than taking advantage of it. This film uses visuals to assist the story, rather than over-the-top special effects becoming the story like most films have become nowadays.
I had doubts in Ridley Scott directing this film. I felt he had lost his touch over the years with his films, a recent example being the abysmal Robin Hood. I left the film rather impressed with his direction of it. He directs each scene carefully and beautifully, making sure each scene makes sense to the story.
I also really enjoyed the writing in this film. While it doesn't focus on the characters too much, it focuses more on questions about life and where we come from. Writing like this is similar to old fashioned science fiction literature rather than a modern blockbuster. While it doesn't answer every question, it leaves the audience with open interpretation to discuss the film afterwards. A film that does this in my opinion is one with successful storytelling.
The Negatives:
As I mentioned earlier, the characters are really not focused in the script. In fact, the only character I can think of that was developed was David. Also, the characters do constant dumb mistakes and motives throughout that if avoided, could have made the film more interesting. These are only minor flaws in my opinion.
Conclusion:
Prometheus is a well-done science fiction film. While it isn't quite what I expected, I left the film haunted and constantly thought about it. Its intriguing storytelling, dazzling visual effects, and wonderful performances easily make Prometheus one of 2012's top films and most memorable films. This is a film definitely worth seeing twice.
Rating: 9.5 out of 10
A team of explorers in the year 2093 led by Dr. Elizabeth Shaw (Noomi Rapace) discovers a clue to the origin of mankind on Earth. This discovery leads them to a journey to the darkest corners of the universe. There, they must face an alien force that plans to destroy the Earth.
The Positives:
Most people know of this film as an unofficial Alien prequel. While it does have many traits of the original 1979 film, I feel it is worthy of being a standalone film from the franchise. Its thought-provoking questions it creates and the haunting atmosphere it has leads to a great science fiction film rather than a science fiction horror flick.
The casting was pitch perfect for this film. All of the actors did a wonderful job with the characters they were given, even Guy Pearce did great as an old man. The best performance in the film is easily Michael Fassbender's portrayal as the android David. The way he carries his motives and plans secretively brings out a captivating performance from Fassbender. He stole the show in last year's X-Men: First Class and does so also in this film, this man has a great career ahead of him.
The special effects were very well done also. The aliens/engineers looked really cool. The dark setting added to the suspense in the film, rather than taking advantage of it. This film uses visuals to assist the story, rather than over-the-top special effects becoming the story like most films have become nowadays.
I had doubts in Ridley Scott directing this film. I felt he had lost his touch over the years with his films, a recent example being the abysmal Robin Hood. I left the film rather impressed with his direction of it. He directs each scene carefully and beautifully, making sure each scene makes sense to the story.
I also really enjoyed the writing in this film. While it doesn't focus on the characters too much, it focuses more on questions about life and where we come from. Writing like this is similar to old fashioned science fiction literature rather than a modern blockbuster. While it doesn't answer every question, it leaves the audience with open interpretation to discuss the film afterwards. A film that does this in my opinion is one with successful storytelling.
The Negatives:
As I mentioned earlier, the characters are really not focused in the script. In fact, the only character I can think of that was developed was David. Also, the characters do constant dumb mistakes and motives throughout that if avoided, could have made the film more interesting. These are only minor flaws in my opinion.
Conclusion:
Prometheus is a well-done science fiction film. While it isn't quite what I expected, I left the film haunted and constantly thought about it. Its intriguing storytelling, dazzling visual effects, and wonderful performances easily make Prometheus one of 2012's top films and most memorable films. This is a film definitely worth seeing twice.
Rating: 9.5 out of 10
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)