There's an old adage: "When life gives you lemons, make lemonade." Well, Pixar and John Lasseter I think have a different take on that saying. When life gives you lemons, make them the baddies and make another wonderful movie out of them." (Oh, right, spoilers! The lemons are the baddies.) Now, for those of you who don't live, eat, and breathe cars (no, not the movie, the machines) and think that when I say lemon I mean a fruit, let me explain: a lemon is a bad car. And not just a bar car, but an AWFUL car. The ones that break down all the time, can't go more than 20 miles without breaking down, why in the name of sanity did I buy this piece if rubbish car. You know the ones I'm talking about. That being explained, for people not car savvy, you'll still enjoy this movie. Yes, yes, some jokes and visual gags ("Big Bentley," car-goyles) may go over your head, but it is still an wonderful little movie.
So, I shall explain the good (cars, characters, Mater, Lightening), the bad (Allinol, Jason Issacs), and the awesome (Michael Caine, visuals, music, message).
The good:
Oh, Lewis Hamilton and Jeff Gordon. I love that they agreed to do this and be in the movie. I also loved all the cars, and the car jokes, and how all the buildings and landscape are car-like. I love all the Range Rovers protecting the Queen, all the Audis, the Lambos--love it. So many cars. It made me very happy. And the cinematography concerning the race scenes was excellent. I loved it.
The characters were also good. Fin McMissile was wonderfully Bond like. And Holly Shiftwell was fun. Luigi and Guido were wonderful too. The scene where Lightning and their dad chat while they fight over the girls is adorable. Guido was adorable anyway. “Peet stop.” Speaking of Italians--Francesco was arrogant, a touch annoying, and great. Loved him too.
Mater and Lightening--oh. I love them. They have a fun bromance. I love it. But before that, their fighting was brilliant. Good place to arc from for Lightening. And Mater’s arc into accepting who he is was great. The both of them were touching and funny. However, there wasn’t enough Lightening. Really, there was too much Mater, not enough of any of the other characters. At least Mater was funny the whole time. Heh. The Japanese bathroom scene...aw, that’s jus’ too good.
The bad:
Okay. Now, I do like this movie. I really do, but--do you remember Abrams "Star Trek"? Remember the red matter? Remember how it was the mother of all plot holes? How it sounded great, but then you thought about it for five seconds and realized how weak it was? Yeah. Allinol is this movie's "red matter." It sounds really good. Renewable fuel source that has some little mirco particles that freak out when hit by an electro-magnetic ray gun that were discovered/made by a gas guzzler turned electric, and which is approved by Filmore, Lightning’s eco-friendly hippie van--sounds nice. It has a few issues though.
For starters it’s just gas with little micro-particles, something FIlmore would have known and not have kept quiet after he realized it in the beginning of the movie. Why wouldn’t he have said anything? Cos it would have been a massive conspiracy that a 60s/70s sort of hippie would have LOVED to expose.
Secondly, why wouldn’t the villain, who explained the micro-particle thing, have known about the fact that the Allinol is just gas? He would have said it when he explained it to gloat or whatever.
Thirdly, the gas guzzler, Axelrod, looked like he was probably a Range Rover of sorts. That is NOT a lemon. So why would a non-lemon team up with lemons after discovering a renewable source of energy that would not only make him LOADS of money, BUT would make him the planet’s hero? Would he do it for more oil? Debatable, but I think not.
Lastly, the “independent” panel would have discovered why Allinol is. And if not them, someone would have. Honestly. You couldn’t keep that secret for that long. Basically, Allinol is one terribly massive plot hole.
Now, for my other problem: Jason Issacs. There simply wasn’t enough of him and his voice. Yeah. That’s really all I have to say about him. Oooh. Him and Bruce Campbell. Not enough of either of them. Alas.
The awesome:
Okay. Michael Caine. I love him. He’s great. I mean, he’s Michael Caine. Can he make a bad movie? No. No, he can’t. He’s entertaining, funny, smooth, and, as usual, a bit sexy. He’s sort of Bond. I love him. I really enjoyed his performance because it wasn’t just funny, but caring and genuine. Yay, Michael Caine!
Ah, the visuals. The opening scene is on the water and I was impressed right off the bat by Pixar. And it just kept getting better. The facial expressions, the eyes, the landscapes, the skys--it was all excellent and beautiful. I am always impressed by how much better the visuals get with each movie. I recently was watching “The Incredibles” and I couldn’t help but notice how much better the graphics have gotten. They came fairly close to being realistic. Stellar. They were dazzling really. I mean, they put a lot of effort into making everything looking very impressive and they succeeded. They captured the glitz and glamour of “Towkyo,” the class and charm of Monte Carl--I mean Porto Corsa, and the..Englishness of London. Good job, Pixar; good job.
And now we come to Michael Giacchino. Right from the get-go it was great. Very fast, very Bond, but...perhaps a bit too major. Too happy. I dunno. It didn’t have enough tension in the music. But I did like how he took that theme and messed with it using different instruments and different styles. Very clever, sir. I enjoyed it. I actually will by this score on iTunes. That’s how much I liked it. Mind you, I don’t purchase a whole ton of scores (I am a college student--what do you want from me?) when I can listen to them on YouTube, so for me to want to spend money on this score means something. Will it win an Oscar? Well, no. If It gets nominated I shall be pleasantly surprised. But I liked it.
My last “awesome” part is the message. I loved it. It was about the importance of friendship and loving people for who they actually are. Mater and Lightening are fighting because Mater is bumbling about, embarrassing Lightening and then he lost Lightening the race--sort of. Anyway, by the end, Lightening and Mater realize that friendship is very important and worth fighting for. Moreover, Mater gets a girlfriend who love him for who is, not what he looks like. Great morals--makes me happy.
So, overall, I liked it. It had good characters, dialogue, music, visuals--the works; everything except for a really well worked-out plot. That being said, go see it. Go see it without your kids if you want. You will laugh and appreciate the jokes even without them. It is a phenomenal movie with a great message about friendship and love that everyone will like.
Grade: A-
Thursday, June 30, 2011
Thursday, June 23, 2011
"Kung Fu Panda 2" Review
SKADOOSH.
That being said, what I say about the movie now, may or may not be what I'll say in the coming days. Why? Well, the more I think about the movie, the more it grows on me. So, we'll first go through stuff then the bad then the good and then we'll wrap up.
The stuff: visuals, story, and acting.
So, after "How to Train Your Dragon" - one of my favorite movies EVER (no, but seriously, a serious contender for favorite movie of all time) - I expect nothing less than sheer brilliance from Dreamworks Animation in the visuals department. I'll really rave about the water visuals at the end, but I'll take this time to discuss the rest of them now.
I am thoroughly impressed with this film in how it looked. The hair was great, the details of the locations were great, the fire wasn't as good as I thought it would be (yeah, so I'm a critic), the cannon/fireworks/weapon/thing was both cool and cartoony, the lighting was very good, and I loved the actual cartoon sequences. It looked really brilliant. Gary Oldman's character was done brilliantly. Loved him a lot. Also, Master Shi Fu was GREAT. Quite good. And I love the ladnscapes. Very nice. So, over all, visually, the movie was grand.
Story: Confession time. I walked in late. I missed the set up so I Wikied it and read about the Shen-kills-the-pandas bit. Also, more confessions: I Wikied the story a few weeks ago when I was trying to figure out what movie to see. That being said, I cannot accurately say whether the movie is truly predictable or not. I will say that it arced properly. Po lost heart at the right time, he discovered his destiny bit at the right time, he beat the villain, and then did it again at the right times. It was good. The "inner peace" thing moved a bit quickly and the whole bit with Tigris and the "hardcore" thing was under developed. Also, Po's parents being alive at the end--what? Nooo. No, no, no. That's...meh. And how Shen tried to convince Po that his parents didn't love him wasn't handled properly. Was it because, what Shen was projecting his problems onto Po and trying to break him? Or did the writers just do a shoddy job? Whatever. However, I LOVED Po's "dad"--the stork. I loved it. I almost cried. It was touching. Overall, the story was fun, not deep, but fun.
Acting: Well, there's not much to say. It was good. Nothing too terrible. Admittedly, Jack Black was a bit flat at times, but that's about it. Angelina Jolie was okay. Again, a bit flat, but not bad. Dustin Hoffman was great, Gary Oldman--well, I'll rave later. It wasn't bad. I wasn't great, but it wasn't bad.
The bad: Let's talk dialogue.
So....yeah. Not great. In fact, it was a bit disappointing. It wasn't a very funny movie. I think I laughed more in "Super 8." It just wasn't...funny. Not even Jack Black was funny. The humor was just dumb. It wasn't very clever most of it; it was just stupid and ridiculous and ill-timed. That's not to say that their timing for delivery was off, but the timing of when the jokes were written. It was just...not great. The humor. Shen's dialogue was fine. Shi Fu's was fine, but Po's humor just wasn't great. I guess that my issue is not with the actual dialogue, but the humor. Meh.
The good: Let's talk music, water, and Gary Oldman.
Okay, so I have recently been on an anti-Zimmer kick. It's not a music problem per se, but more of a me-problem. Very complicated, don't ask. That being said, I still respect his music. He's very good even if he can't read music. He is still very good. Now, I LOVE John Powell. The "Dragon" score is amazing. I do cry on occasion when I listen to it. The song when Hiccup wakes up with the piano and the cello (sounds like a cello)--oh. Tears. But that's not what we're talking about. So when I remember that this is a Zimmer-Powell team-up, I'm thinking, "Brilliant. Zimmer's grandeur with Powell's depth--awesome." The score is not a deep as I would have made it though. Mind, that's just what I could hear while I'm watching the movie and I didn't notice the music a lot of the time; however, I liked it. It was big and bold and fun and Asian and grand! It was great! I would hear "Pirates" and, admittedly, "Dragon," but I can live with that. I liked it. I won't win an Oscar, but it was good.
Water. I mentioned this earlier when I talked visuals, but now I get to rave. The water was AWESOME. Now, for you who don't sit there watching the "how we made this" features on the DVDs like me, let me explain. Water is difficult. Let me reiterate: in a computer animated film, water is VERY difficult. "Finding Nemo" was just..goodness. In fact, they cut scenes in the "Incredibles" because of how difficult water is (the sequence when the plane went down). Now, I remember watching "Dragon" and seeing the water and thinking, "Nice. Verry nice, sirs." But in this movie I was impressed. Very impressed. How they dealt with the water on fur and clothing was great. And the reflections on the water were great. Loved it. I mean-YESSS. So. The water was, to use a phrase from a different film, "mint."
Now to Gary Oldman. Ah, Gary Oldman. So, his character was great. An unrelenting villain. No wishy-washy, "Oh, well, maybe I'll repent and turn good because my heart has been impacted by the goodness of the hero"--NO. "Happiness must be taken." BAM. Rubbish line, but great show of villainy. Love it. And his cool evilness. And that he is a peacock. YES. Visually, I love the red and the white and all the massive feathers. Excellent. Yeah, he got a bit kooky and crazy at the end, but he was great. And the accent--yes, please. His acting was, well, he;s Gary Oldman. It's difficult to go really wrong. I loved Gary Oldman--he was WONDERFUL.
In summation, visuals, story and acting: nice; dialogue/humor: meh--at best; and music, water, and Gary Oldman: great. It gets, well, see, here's the catch: when the movie ended I immediately thought, "meh. It gets a B." But now, I dunno. I mean, It's not an A. It's not THAT good. But I did like it. The more I think about it, the more I like it. Would I pay $7.50 to see it again? Well...no. Would I pay $3 to see it again? Well, maybe. So, I'm thinking, all things considered it gets a B+.
Also, I say again: SKADOOSH.
That being said, what I say about the movie now, may or may not be what I'll say in the coming days. Why? Well, the more I think about the movie, the more it grows on me. So, we'll first go through stuff then the bad then the good and then we'll wrap up.
The stuff: visuals, story, and acting.
So, after "How to Train Your Dragon" - one of my favorite movies EVER (no, but seriously, a serious contender for favorite movie of all time) - I expect nothing less than sheer brilliance from Dreamworks Animation in the visuals department. I'll really rave about the water visuals at the end, but I'll take this time to discuss the rest of them now.
I am thoroughly impressed with this film in how it looked. The hair was great, the details of the locations were great, the fire wasn't as good as I thought it would be (yeah, so I'm a critic), the cannon/fireworks/weapon/thing was both cool and cartoony, the lighting was very good, and I loved the actual cartoon sequences. It looked really brilliant. Gary Oldman's character was done brilliantly. Loved him a lot. Also, Master Shi Fu was GREAT. Quite good. And I love the ladnscapes. Very nice. So, over all, visually, the movie was grand.
Story: Confession time. I walked in late. I missed the set up so I Wikied it and read about the Shen-kills-the-pandas bit. Also, more confessions: I Wikied the story a few weeks ago when I was trying to figure out what movie to see. That being said, I cannot accurately say whether the movie is truly predictable or not. I will say that it arced properly. Po lost heart at the right time, he discovered his destiny bit at the right time, he beat the villain, and then did it again at the right times. It was good. The "inner peace" thing moved a bit quickly and the whole bit with Tigris and the "hardcore" thing was under developed. Also, Po's parents being alive at the end--what? Nooo. No, no, no. That's...meh. And how Shen tried to convince Po that his parents didn't love him wasn't handled properly. Was it because, what Shen was projecting his problems onto Po and trying to break him? Or did the writers just do a shoddy job? Whatever. However, I LOVED Po's "dad"--the stork. I loved it. I almost cried. It was touching. Overall, the story was fun, not deep, but fun.
Acting: Well, there's not much to say. It was good. Nothing too terrible. Admittedly, Jack Black was a bit flat at times, but that's about it. Angelina Jolie was okay. Again, a bit flat, but not bad. Dustin Hoffman was great, Gary Oldman--well, I'll rave later. It wasn't bad. I wasn't great, but it wasn't bad.
The bad: Let's talk dialogue.
So....yeah. Not great. In fact, it was a bit disappointing. It wasn't a very funny movie. I think I laughed more in "Super 8." It just wasn't...funny. Not even Jack Black was funny. The humor was just dumb. It wasn't very clever most of it; it was just stupid and ridiculous and ill-timed. That's not to say that their timing for delivery was off, but the timing of when the jokes were written. It was just...not great. The humor. Shen's dialogue was fine. Shi Fu's was fine, but Po's humor just wasn't great. I guess that my issue is not with the actual dialogue, but the humor. Meh.
The good: Let's talk music, water, and Gary Oldman.
Okay, so I have recently been on an anti-Zimmer kick. It's not a music problem per se, but more of a me-problem. Very complicated, don't ask. That being said, I still respect his music. He's very good even if he can't read music. He is still very good. Now, I LOVE John Powell. The "Dragon" score is amazing. I do cry on occasion when I listen to it. The song when Hiccup wakes up with the piano and the cello (sounds like a cello)--oh. Tears. But that's not what we're talking about. So when I remember that this is a Zimmer-Powell team-up, I'm thinking, "Brilliant. Zimmer's grandeur with Powell's depth--awesome." The score is not a deep as I would have made it though. Mind, that's just what I could hear while I'm watching the movie and I didn't notice the music a lot of the time; however, I liked it. It was big and bold and fun and Asian and grand! It was great! I would hear "Pirates" and, admittedly, "Dragon," but I can live with that. I liked it. I won't win an Oscar, but it was good.
Water. I mentioned this earlier when I talked visuals, but now I get to rave. The water was AWESOME. Now, for you who don't sit there watching the "how we made this" features on the DVDs like me, let me explain. Water is difficult. Let me reiterate: in a computer animated film, water is VERY difficult. "Finding Nemo" was just..goodness. In fact, they cut scenes in the "Incredibles" because of how difficult water is (the sequence when the plane went down). Now, I remember watching "Dragon" and seeing the water and thinking, "Nice. Verry nice, sirs." But in this movie I was impressed. Very impressed. How they dealt with the water on fur and clothing was great. And the reflections on the water were great. Loved it. I mean-YESSS. So. The water was, to use a phrase from a different film, "mint."
Now to Gary Oldman. Ah, Gary Oldman. So, his character was great. An unrelenting villain. No wishy-washy, "Oh, well, maybe I'll repent and turn good because my heart has been impacted by the goodness of the hero"--NO. "Happiness must be taken." BAM. Rubbish line, but great show of villainy. Love it. And his cool evilness. And that he is a peacock. YES. Visually, I love the red and the white and all the massive feathers. Excellent. Yeah, he got a bit kooky and crazy at the end, but he was great. And the accent--yes, please. His acting was, well, he;s Gary Oldman. It's difficult to go really wrong. I loved Gary Oldman--he was WONDERFUL.
In summation, visuals, story and acting: nice; dialogue/humor: meh--at best; and music, water, and Gary Oldman: great. It gets, well, see, here's the catch: when the movie ended I immediately thought, "meh. It gets a B." But now, I dunno. I mean, It's not an A. It's not THAT good. But I did like it. The more I think about it, the more I like it. Would I pay $7.50 to see it again? Well...no. Would I pay $3 to see it again? Well, maybe. So, I'm thinking, all things considered it gets a B+.
Also, I say again: SKADOOSH.
Monday, June 20, 2011
"Super 8" Review
So, I have a question for you: did you enjoy "Goonies"? Yes? Good. Brilliant. You'll love "Super 8." "Super 8" is essentially J.J. Abrams's homage to all things good about Spielberg. It's "Goonies," "Jaws," "Close Encounters," and "E.T." in one very fun, touching package.
Let's really try and dissect this though.
As per the usual Abrams film, it is technically quite good. I thought so anyway. (I am, however, a huge fan of Abrams.) Out of the box, the camera work if good. He draws your attention to what needs being drawn to while still have a lot of flair and style. It's not overly complicated, not overly artistic, but just comfortable. It's not spectacular, Oscar winning cinematography, but it is cleaner and overall, much better than "Star Trek."
Speaking of "Star Trek," let's talk lighting. Confession time: I like the lighting flairs in "Star Trek." I also think they were overused, but I liked the idea. That being said, they are still in "Super 8," but not to the ridiculous degree that they were in "Star Trek." The lighting most of the rest of the time is very natural and well done.
Continuing onward, let's talk effects. Mint. It was SO mint. The train crash was mint, Sebulba--I mean, the alien (heh) was mint, the little cubes were mint--SO MUCH MINT. (Also, I love that word and I shall endeavor to use it.) Are they flawless? Meh, I didn't notice anything really off, but that could be due to the fact that within 5 minutes of the movie, I was happily remembering my childhood watching "Goonies." I liked them. Will they win an Oscar for it? Well, it's hard to say. Nominated? Maybe? I mean, it was a story heavy film, not a special effects heavy film.
Let's see, what else. Let's talk about the train crash, if for no other reason that it was a major part of the film, and is an excellent way to discuss the film from basically all points (except the over arching story). First off, it starts off in the middle of the kids movie ("Production value!"), which was a wonderful subplot of the movie and a lot of fun. That bit shows off everyone's acting skills. Even the crash and how the kids dealt with it afterwards showed that Abrams and his casting director did good choosing these kids. They're believable (even for most regular actors and not just for child actors), endearing, charming, and wonderfully cute when needed. The pyro--oh, he was too cute, reacting to the explosion not in horror, but in awe of how it happened. That leads me to writing. The dialogue was great. It had a bunch of language, but for me, while annoying, reminded me of "Goonies." It worked well for each character as well for each scene, never feeling too forced or too odd (well, unless it was meant to--this movie does have that awkward pre-teen crush subplot). It wasn't perfect, but it was good. It was, dare I say, mint. In the train crash all the dialogue brought out the characters that much more. The pyro freaking out about how cool the explosion was, the director worrying about his camera, the girl worrying about the blood, and our main character trying to reassure her, explaining that it's not blood, but his stage make-up. Very good. The special effects in the train crash were---over the top and unrealistic. Not the point at all. (Okay, okay, yes, it's a point, but I liked it, I guess.) The scene after the train finishing crashing, the one with the fire and all that, was, okay, not perfect. The lighting felt a bit forced at times, but it was still not bad. The way it was shot too was, well, it didn't feel realistic. I kept thinking that they were on a sound stage somewhere, how it was done. So, it wasn't perfect, but it wasn't bad. Let's see what else about that scene. Oh. The old black guy in the truck. I jumped when he moved. I'll admit that I jumped a few times in the movie, if for no other reason that I was waiting for it. That's all I can think of in that scene to talk about to be honest. I mean, it's been a few days since I saw the movie, so cut me some slack. Heh.
Okay, let's talk story. J.J. Abrams, who also wrote the film, did a good job keeping you in the dark about the kid's mom and what happened with her. He let the mystery of the unfold naturally. That being said, the jerk dad who is sort of responsible was...lame and not good enough. Also, the main kid's dad was too easily convinced to forgive him. Granted, this isn't some grand narrative that is character driven, meant to tell a story of love and redemption, so I can't really complain. The zombie film subplot was also well done, driving some of the kids relationships as well as creating conflict for them that needed to be and was resolved. The romantic subplot was cute and had a seriously, awkwardly "Goonie" vibe, but in a great way. It was cute. I loved it. Now, the overarching alien plot was good. I mean, I know that for me, "Indy 4" murdered government-cover-up-of-aliens plots for me, and I am exceedingly pleased that Area 51 was not mentioned. Even so, something didn't sit well with me about the alien thing. I still liked it though. It still unfolded well. Abrams still got to talk love and forgiveness, which I love. Granted, the scene with the kid and the alien in the tunnel where he tell him that bad stuff still happens, but they we can still love was...a bit cheesy. I still liked it. (Mind, I was sitting there watching the movie feeling like a little kid again, so my opinion is a bit skewed.) Overall, I love the story. It flows well, it's touching, sweet, and easy to follow. No bizarre time-traveling issues, no Area 51, just a story about some kids, trying to make a movie while dealing with some seriously creepy issues in their small town.I loved it.
There was something else I wanted to mention. Oh. Right. Production value. I mean this two fold: 1. I LOVED the director kid. "Mint!" "Production Value!" He arced from the over-powering sort of controlling jerk into someone who cares and takes direction well. (Oh, also, I LOVED how he was about actors. If you've ever made a short film, or even a real one, you understand him.) 2. I don't know how J.J. Abrams did it, but somehow he managed to get all the best views of the sky in West Virginia. It was beautiful. Production value!
Now we come to the music. I knew it was Giacchino because I knew it was Abrams (I'm getting a sort of Spielberg-Williams vibe with them; that being said, Giacchino has a VERY long way to go before he gets that good), but even if I hadn't--10 seconds in, I kid you not, you knew who was composing. He did a good job. I mean, I didn't walk out humming the theme, but I didn't notice it in the film, which, in film, is usually a good thing. If you notice something in a film, if something stands out to you in a film, good of bad, and if you are NOT looking for it, nor have you been trained to look for it, then something is wrong.Generally speaking. (Exceptions being things like 90% of the shots in "Lord of the Rings.") I liked the score. It was a bit...well, perhaps out of place at the very end, but I liked it.
So, over all, it was wonderful. I say again, if you liked "Goonies," you will love this film.
Let's really try and dissect this though.
As per the usual Abrams film, it is technically quite good. I thought so anyway. (I am, however, a huge fan of Abrams.) Out of the box, the camera work if good. He draws your attention to what needs being drawn to while still have a lot of flair and style. It's not overly complicated, not overly artistic, but just comfortable. It's not spectacular, Oscar winning cinematography, but it is cleaner and overall, much better than "Star Trek."
Speaking of "Star Trek," let's talk lighting. Confession time: I like the lighting flairs in "Star Trek." I also think they were overused, but I liked the idea. That being said, they are still in "Super 8," but not to the ridiculous degree that they were in "Star Trek." The lighting most of the rest of the time is very natural and well done.
Continuing onward, let's talk effects. Mint. It was SO mint. The train crash was mint, Sebulba--I mean, the alien (heh) was mint, the little cubes were mint--SO MUCH MINT. (Also, I love that word and I shall endeavor to use it.) Are they flawless? Meh, I didn't notice anything really off, but that could be due to the fact that within 5 minutes of the movie, I was happily remembering my childhood watching "Goonies." I liked them. Will they win an Oscar for it? Well, it's hard to say. Nominated? Maybe? I mean, it was a story heavy film, not a special effects heavy film.
Let's see, what else. Let's talk about the train crash, if for no other reason that it was a major part of the film, and is an excellent way to discuss the film from basically all points (except the over arching story). First off, it starts off in the middle of the kids movie ("Production value!"), which was a wonderful subplot of the movie and a lot of fun. That bit shows off everyone's acting skills. Even the crash and how the kids dealt with it afterwards showed that Abrams and his casting director did good choosing these kids. They're believable (even for most regular actors and not just for child actors), endearing, charming, and wonderfully cute when needed. The pyro--oh, he was too cute, reacting to the explosion not in horror, but in awe of how it happened. That leads me to writing. The dialogue was great. It had a bunch of language, but for me, while annoying, reminded me of "Goonies." It worked well for each character as well for each scene, never feeling too forced or too odd (well, unless it was meant to--this movie does have that awkward pre-teen crush subplot). It wasn't perfect, but it was good. It was, dare I say, mint. In the train crash all the dialogue brought out the characters that much more. The pyro freaking out about how cool the explosion was, the director worrying about his camera, the girl worrying about the blood, and our main character trying to reassure her, explaining that it's not blood, but his stage make-up. Very good. The special effects in the train crash were---over the top and unrealistic. Not the point at all. (Okay, okay, yes, it's a point, but I liked it, I guess.) The scene after the train finishing crashing, the one with the fire and all that, was, okay, not perfect. The lighting felt a bit forced at times, but it was still not bad. The way it was shot too was, well, it didn't feel realistic. I kept thinking that they were on a sound stage somewhere, how it was done. So, it wasn't perfect, but it wasn't bad. Let's see what else about that scene. Oh. The old black guy in the truck. I jumped when he moved. I'll admit that I jumped a few times in the movie, if for no other reason that I was waiting for it. That's all I can think of in that scene to talk about to be honest. I mean, it's been a few days since I saw the movie, so cut me some slack. Heh.
Okay, let's talk story. J.J. Abrams, who also wrote the film, did a good job keeping you in the dark about the kid's mom and what happened with her. He let the mystery of the unfold naturally. That being said, the jerk dad who is sort of responsible was...lame and not good enough. Also, the main kid's dad was too easily convinced to forgive him. Granted, this isn't some grand narrative that is character driven, meant to tell a story of love and redemption, so I can't really complain. The zombie film subplot was also well done, driving some of the kids relationships as well as creating conflict for them that needed to be and was resolved. The romantic subplot was cute and had a seriously, awkwardly "Goonie" vibe, but in a great way. It was cute. I loved it. Now, the overarching alien plot was good. I mean, I know that for me, "Indy 4" murdered government-cover-up-of-aliens plots for me, and I am exceedingly pleased that Area 51 was not mentioned. Even so, something didn't sit well with me about the alien thing. I still liked it though. It still unfolded well. Abrams still got to talk love and forgiveness, which I love. Granted, the scene with the kid and the alien in the tunnel where he tell him that bad stuff still happens, but they we can still love was...a bit cheesy. I still liked it. (Mind, I was sitting there watching the movie feeling like a little kid again, so my opinion is a bit skewed.) Overall, I love the story. It flows well, it's touching, sweet, and easy to follow. No bizarre time-traveling issues, no Area 51, just a story about some kids, trying to make a movie while dealing with some seriously creepy issues in their small town.I loved it.
There was something else I wanted to mention. Oh. Right. Production value. I mean this two fold: 1. I LOVED the director kid. "Mint!" "Production Value!" He arced from the over-powering sort of controlling jerk into someone who cares and takes direction well. (Oh, also, I LOVED how he was about actors. If you've ever made a short film, or even a real one, you understand him.) 2. I don't know how J.J. Abrams did it, but somehow he managed to get all the best views of the sky in West Virginia. It was beautiful. Production value!
Now we come to the music. I knew it was Giacchino because I knew it was Abrams (I'm getting a sort of Spielberg-Williams vibe with them; that being said, Giacchino has a VERY long way to go before he gets that good), but even if I hadn't--10 seconds in, I kid you not, you knew who was composing. He did a good job. I mean, I didn't walk out humming the theme, but I didn't notice it in the film, which, in film, is usually a good thing. If you notice something in a film, if something stands out to you in a film, good of bad, and if you are NOT looking for it, nor have you been trained to look for it, then something is wrong.Generally speaking. (Exceptions being things like 90% of the shots in "Lord of the Rings.") I liked the score. It was a bit...well, perhaps out of place at the very end, but I liked it.
So, over all, it was wonderful. I say again, if you liked "Goonies," you will love this film.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)