Change Your Image
FilmGamer
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Lists
An error has ocurred. Please try againReviews
Don't Look Up (2021)
A Boring Movie as Wasteful as thing it satirizes.
Poorly paced obvious film. It's the worst movie Leonardo DiCaprio has ever made. Bad wigs, unfunny bad CGI, the movie has zero intelligent points to raise yet smugly wants credit for pointing out how big media ruins our life. It is such a waste of resources its basically the thing it criticizes.
The Wolf of Wall Street (2013)
Excess vs. Access
The Wolf of Wall Street is funny, coming from the much respected Martin Scorsese, a director I appreciate more and more as I get older it comes as a bit of a surprise. It's never meant to be taken too seriously, so if you're in the mood for something heavy and dark in subject matter and mixed with equal parts laughs humour, I have 3 hours for you to spend at the cinema. It doesn't really deserve any Oscar consideration (not that it matters), but it is a very well made film that will continue to exist, so you might as well sit down and enjoy it before it gets shoved in your face by the end of awards season.
Leonardo DiCaprio gives a wonderfully physical performance that is a lot more over the top than anything he's done before, you still never forget you're watching DiCaprio, as is with Jonah Hill, but because their off- screen chemistry comes together on-screen there are no complaints in the acting category, though a nice bit of observation. In playing Jordan Belfort in his 24-36 year old period, it feels like the first time the baby-faced actor is playing too young. The Hollywood golden boy is finally showing physical signs of having grown up. This isn't something I'd dock the movie for, rather I see it as a positive indicator for DiCaprio's career arc.
The only major complaint I would have about the film overall is that in being 3 hours of self-indulgence, and Scorsese and company being very aware of the themes of excess running throughout Jordan Belfort's life, the film almost doesn't feel worth the time the audience spends involved. It's a filmmaking paradox, which means it achieves it own means sometimes at the audiences' expense. This in turn is a major crime, that like the whole of the film and point of it, doesn't prove to be a major consequence.
Rating: B/ +2
The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug (2013)
Light Entertainment, Laid on Thick
"The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug" is an okay movie, some nice fantastical elements, quite overlong, but provides great escapism. It is held back from greatness by wrapping its story around arguably the most pointless trilogy ever manufactured by large scale cinema and comfortably dawdling in the shadow of another great franchise it should only occasionally pay homage to.
Before I continue I will say that the only Middle earth lore that I have read is the prologue "Concerning Hobbits, and other matters" from "The Fellowship of the Ring". I am strictly a film fan of the series, and my opinion of watching "The Journey Begins" was that it felt like a bit of a drag. Going into this installment knowing that the four screenwriters had written some original material outside of Tolkien's novels to go along with the movie got me a bit excited. I have to say I was a bit let down, it seemed like the filmmakers weren't really challenging themselves here.
Getting my general complaint out of the way quickly is that at this point the series feels formulaic. — "Where's Bilbo?" Bilbo shows up, demonstrates courage, saves the day, cue Howard Shore's gently uplifting recycled Oscar winning score. None of the die-hard fans or at least the kind that represents the vocal minority on the internet seem to really be bothered by the way in which this adaptation is being treated into 3 somewhat-mediocre films rather than a singular focused masterpiece, and I don't blame them for wanting to stay in this richly drawn world for as long as possible, but for the filmmakers who are even fans themselves, I would ask for more quality over quantity.
Here is Warner Brothers, sitting on a pile of money.
My older brother pointed out to me once while watching "King Kong" that he thought director Peter Jackson seemed to rely a bit too much on CGI. I for one here would initially think that with "The Hobbit" aimed towards a less gritty adult style than "Lord of the Rings", the CGI would serve the lighter tone of the film better, but in the manner it's done here it comes across as lazy and inconsistent, with occasionally sub-par CGI used on some orcs (or parts of them) and not others it serves as a distraction.
Speaking of distractions every single callback to the "The Lord of the Rings" that lasts more than a few seconds ruins the pacing and tone of the movie by getting in the way of the main plot, which I'm aware of but not quite as clear as I should be on. Fan-service doesn't serve a film very well when you refer to a brewing yet rather unrelated conflict that the audience knows was already solved in another film series a decade ago next Tuesday. Funnily enough for some reason, I didn't think the time-keeping in Middle Earth followed the Gregorian calendar.
The screenplay for the film is a slight weak point, as it takes its time understandably it doesn't develop the dwarfs in any interesting or compelling way to justify its running time. There are sparks of interest that lie in each of the supporting characters but it is left at that. For Tolkien fans I suppose that'll do, since I imagine what was or was not presented in books was properly left to the imagination, but here much of what is feels like a waste or a wasted opportunity. I can't quite remember the names of all the dwarfs but considering the amount of screen time they've had so far you'd think they'd talk about something interesting other than the journey. These are the most focused characters I have ever seen on screen, five and a half hours in and they haven't bothered to really let themselves or the audience get to know one another.
Maybe its because they were as taken aback by the sheer spectacle of Middle Earth as I was. The action in the film is more varied and plentiful than it was in the last film but of course much is still saved for the finale, and with a high production value I understand why Peter Jackson doesn't want to leave, the whole thing looks like a soft coloured painting. The scenery is brightly lit and beautiful, such a visually resplendent treat that it makes sense to sit and take it in, not for 2 hours and forty one minutes though. A little precious indulgence now and then isn't too hurtful, but it can lead to audience neglect and unintentionally boring periods of desolation.
The Spectacular Now (2013)
Current and Timeless
The Spectacular Now is the best movie I've seen this week. And saying that in comparison to Prisoners last Saturday followed by Fruitvale Station on Wednesday as a critic I think really means something. I only decided to see it 48 hours ago, brother Sam raved about it and I checked the show times for a movie that premiered in July (á la Fruitvale) and low and behold it was showing at a theatre that is due to close by the end of the year. I asked a lot of people to go see this movie with me (as I have with everyone all week) and preferably ones that wouldn't ruin the movie by talking, but no dice. I am in the middle of one of the best cinematic streaks I've experienced (completely opposite to the rough one I had in April) and I'm experiencing it alone. But I must say it is great running to theatre, not waiting on anyone or worrying about them bugging you, or you annoying them, its not awkward but a pleasant experience. But the one disadvantage to that scheme is that you have no one to experience the film with. Not someone to agree or disagree with, or talk to about it afterwards, you can only sit around and tell someone how great this is and that they're missing it, and hope that they listen enough to take that opportunity to go see the best film I've seen all year.
Maybe its because I'm getting older and my taste is maturing but two things are changing for me in the realm of movies right now; I'm more excited for the fall prestige films than the summer blockbusters, and as I see more and more films I find less the point at which your staring at the screen for awhile and you forget that your watching a movie. You don't think about the technical stuff, the cinematography, the music or overall direction, the performances don't get in the way and you don't think to yourself how he or she (the actor) is doing. In that moment you are completely absorbed in the now. These spectacular moments are for me what filmmaking should strive for and is all about. And it is completely present in this film.
I always have reservations going in, anyone who knows me knows about my constant over thinking and sometimes overbearingly specific expectations. I thought that going in that I was too old for this story about two young lovers graduating high school. I've never had a girlfriend, I can't relate. Its past that moment for me I thought. And the set up to that story very much is, as I am in fact older than that and have graduated high school. But in the casting of older experienced actors: Shailene Woodley (21) and Miles Teller (26), the writers are able to tell a mature story that has gravitas and a weight attached to it. I found myself able to relate to the main character a whole lot, and I was completely surprised and shocked at one point to realize just how emotionally entangled I was. It grabbed me and held on for just the right amount of time, and when it let go the movie was over.
If your wondering or really even care to know, I will add as a side note to this review that everyone is well cast; Bob Odenkirk as the mens store manager and boss to the protagonist (a subtle metaphor) and Kyle Chandler as a runaway father to Teller both perform in small but crucial supporting roles for this coming of age drama. Jennifer Jason Leigh, who after seeing her name in the credits of so many movies I've watched but never bothered to look up I'm realizing now was the mother in the film. I'll give her her due, she's always a character and never an actor.
The writers behind this movie have taken everything that was terrible or badly executed from their previous effort and moved it 500 Days of Summer away, in the right direction- under James Pondsolt. They decide not to tell you a story but show you one instead. And it is very Spectacular. The best Romantic drama I have ever seen.
Rating: +3/ A+
-3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3
Furious 6 (2013)
Furious Frenzy
My mind almost exploded many times throughout this movie. Myself as well as most of the folks at Universal I'm sure are surprised this franchise has made it to the sixth installment. There is now a huge ensemble of characters from various films to keep track of as well as new ones being introduced, so it comes as a huge compliment to say I was never confused throughout 'Furious 6' (the opening title). I have not been this giddy while watching a movie in theatres since 'Transformers'. It's probably Tyrese.
Granted, these are two franchises who have hardly ever tried to court realism. This movie is so Ludicrous that the audience I was with was laughing at what was being portrayed on screen. 'To think this series used to centre around street racing', I thought as a cargo plane is coming down on a military base rife with explosions.
This move is accomplished several times throughout the movie. It is no less thrilling the fourth time.
Vin Diesel is passable, Paul Walker is the same as usual (kinda boring). The screen time is well divided among the entire cast with everyone getting their own moments. Tyrese has become the series comic relief which I don't mind. The fights, chases and races are superbly choreographed, top notch and the best part is the movie seems pretty self-aware. It irks me to find out that the next installment will be without its main director (Justin Lin, on board since the third).
There are a few faults with the movie of course as no movie is without them. The decisions made by some of the characters make almost no sense. The plausibility angle is stretched beyond breaking point, even for the series. It wasn't revealed what the McGuffin that was driving the plot was until the last 30 minutes. I imagine the writers getting so far ahead of themselves that they resorted to one upmanship handing over the script of the last scene trying to screw each other over.
This is just me nitpicking though, because in a way I found it all just so confounding what was happening on screen that I couldn't help but be engaged. A series that is able to get this far while standing on its shaky and genre shifting pillars deserves to be commended. See it in theatres!
Rating: +3
-3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3
Silver Linings Playbook (2012)
A Feel Good Romantic Comedy
I went into Silver Linings Playbook with a sense of optimism. I had gotten free tickets to this through a promotional deal so I had no personal investment going in. Being advertised as the feel good movie of the year I must say that this movie totally delivers, it wasn't even until I left the theatre that I realized I was watching a romantic comedy. The movie walks a thin line between adult-oriented family drama, and romantic comedy. It is a tricky tone to establish if any major department comes up short. Fortunately, the writing clicks, the direction is solid, and the actors have enough chemistry to make you forget your watching a movie; at least until the curtains come up.
I usually don't like Bradley Cooper (38) as he often plays too much of a jerk in his movies; typecast as a cocky womanizer in most of his other roles, but I was surprised he was able to put together a performance where he was just crazy enough for the audience to relate to, but not too far gone to be alienating.
Having just seen "The Hunger Games", I initially figured Jennifer Lawrence (22) was far too young to play a widow, but she is often able to bring a certain amount of maturity to the roles she takes on. This is vital to a film that casts to lead actors with 15 years between them to carry on a chemistry that is believable and it mostly works.
As for the rest of the acting Robert De Niro seems to have more life in him in this role than we've seen in years. I particularly loved the scene where he is speaking to Bradley Cooper's character asking him to spend some quality father and son time watching a football game with him. The emotions of disappointment wash over his face in one of the films standout moments.
The remaining cast acts as filler serving the main performances. You get fills Jacki Weaver acting as a stereotypical old age mother, and have Chris Tucker also pops in for a few funny scenes to sport extra comic- relief. Overall the ensemble works just as it should with performances that slightly elevate standard rom-com material.
In a crowded holiday season, I like to look for a real gem and this movie stands out as one of the better films of 2012, and will most likely get Oscar attention from the academy come awards season.
Overall Grade: +2/ B+
Now You See Me (2013)
Oh No You Don't
Review: I believe anything is worth seeing at least once, especially so for an original idea; magicians that rob a bank, how has this not been done before? Which is why I was particularly excited to go see "Now You See Me". However, I am somewhat superstitious when it comes to watching movies in theatres, every time during a movie when someone leans over and whispers to me something like "this is actually pretty good", my expectations start to dip, and with that they are met. It's almost a self fulfilling prophecy I think a film is about to head down hill and it does.
"Now You See Me", is a perfect analogy for Common's film career, as well as his starring role in the movie. The scenes that lead the audience through the first two acts of this movie are all very enjoyable. The action is of course fun to watch and well staged, and the characters, though all mostly one dimensional are played by good looking (the women anyway) and very charismatic actors, and the film has many funny moments. I felt duped though as the magicians themselves are pretty much sidelined, and the majority of the screen time is given to Mark Ruffalo. It's the Ruffalo show! His romantic sub-plot with Melanie Laurent really doesn't go too far or is that compelling, which is ridiculous. Because it seems Mark Ruffalo phones it in here, yet how can you not fall in love with Melanie Laurent? (shown below) In short on that matter, I'll just say its not on the "13 Going On 30" level of romantic tension.
Oooh stop it! Melanie Laurent you are too cute! The Director can't quite pull all the threads in this film together. The whole film hypes up its ending as something to amaze, but it seems to lack any meaningful resolution or conclusion in my opinion. I mean it all comes together, just not with much sense A lot of it just kind of happens, entertaining but meaningless. As the credits suddenly rolled I was left disappointed and bewildered knowing the marketing team got the slight of hand on me. Overall Scale: +1
World War Z (2013)
Quality and Fiction vs. Reality
Bias: Free-Advanced Screening/ Warry of production woes/ Not having read the source material for comparison.
Review: Just like any audience member all that I want is a good return on investment; time wise, money wise or some combination of both. A feature film a film can succeed if its critically acclaimed or commercially successful, but money is usually the bottom line in Hollywood. Fortunately in both cases, my advanced screening of World War Z was free, it wasn't overly long and as a bonus I felt quite entertained.
What sells me this film initially as a moviegoer is the mystery surrounding the film both narrative and production wise; and the questions it poses , what is the source of the outbreak? How is this effecting everyone and how are certain countries dealing with it? What is the cure? Is there a cure? What perplexes me as an industry analyst is why certain decisions were made regarding the production of the film. Why, for instance would you hire an indie director with only a little mainstream experience (Quantum of Solace) to direct such a large scale film? Or why on earth would you hire Damon Lindelof to write something that needed an ending? Not all these questions get answered but the film is sufficient enough.
There hasn't ever been a zombie film on this scale before so this is something at least slightly new and ambitious. I can't say I respect the choice made for it to be an adaptation in name only because I have yet to read the book, and the original script was so well heralded. At least the political subtext lives on in the original source material, and can be be adapted later into a perhaps better film, that maybe shouldn't be tailor made for a mainstream blockbuster audiences. I wouldn't call this a big dumb zombie movie either as it seems like a cheap oversimplification. Funny enough that is what the movie is in regards to its source material.
Brad Pitt tries to help Daniella Kertesz keep it together as he's in over his head at 30,000 feet. There were a lot of compromises made for this film, as evidenced by the script doctor leaving the film, the entire third act being replaced, and various re-shoots. The political subtext is nowhere to be found, and various characters are introduced and never show up again. All this was meant to be done in service of the movie and for the most part works. Each character feels real and two dimensional or is at least interesting, the film is well paced. It isn't glaringly obvious this film has holes unless you decide to sit back and think about it after the film is done. There are no major tonal issues or character defects here, but the film does change direction and speed a bit. I have two gripes about this film; one is the Lindelof trademark of characters either getting caught in stupid situations or making stupid decisions to advance the plot, which isn't as annoying as it was in 'Prometheus' or 'Star Trek Into Darkness' but enough to make you roll your eyes. The other gripe is that because this is a straight-forward action-thriller there is nothing for your brains to feast on afterwards. This is digestible B-Level entertainment.
Steven Spielberg and George Lucas recently spoke at a USC conference predicting a film industry implosion. Production companies are spending more and more money on fewer and fewer films, and all its going to take is a few of them to bomb before everything comes crashing down (Say for instance; this film, The Lone Ranger, and Pacific Rim). The problem with this film is that quality wise it is not a great return on investment for it's 200 million+ Hollywood price tag or a $15 theatre ticket for the audience, I wouldn't pay full price for this movie in pointless 3D, but I'm sure a compromise of some sorts can be worked out.
Verdict: B/+1/ Worth seeing on cheap Tuesday but not in 3D
The Dark Knight Rises (2012)
Gotham In Ashes
(Spoiler Free): Filmmakers usually find trilogies hard to do. After you figure out what worked so well in the original and improve on it in the sequel there is not ever too many places to go. You have to be able to find a way to raise the stakes and tie up loose ends all in one movie. Thankfully this film is just good enough to join the ranks of its predecessors.
You can't really top the Joker, but when you move time forward and get an aged Batman and then match him against a strong physical and mental adversary and add in Catwoman on the side you come pretty close. The screen time given to all the characters in the last film was incredibly well balanced and co-operated with the strong pacing. This time the amount of characters aren't as well balanced and your left time to think and wonder where they are, which hurts the film quite a bit.
I admire the direction of this film being so ambitious. The scale and the massive size of Gotham as a city in conflict makes for a cool looking film that feels as big as it's supposed to be. As for performances, I really liked Tom Hardy as Bane. I thought he was an effective adversary whose performance was limited to his physicality in his movements and his chilling voice. Another very good performance came from Anne Hathaway. I was curious as to how she would figure into this universe (her inclusion was Jonathon Nolan's idea), and I'm happy to say this is the best Catwoman we've seen and the best Anne Hathaway performance I've seen.
My criticisms for the film are that the pacing needs work. There were some character's that were left in the dust or off screen for too long and some that weren't given enough. This all could have been edited but with the amount of time the director had I'm sure he did better than I could. The story feels like it fit into a major arc that was hidden in the past two films. It's very clever. There are some things thrown in there for audience satisfaction in the end that I thought were cheesy and unnecessary that hurt my enjoyment of the movie. They aren't too much a valid complaint so I'll leave you to decide as they are things that the producers probably added so that the audience finds the film an easier pill to swallow. Just a personal thought, but I won't ruin the review with it.
Don't read too much into this, as obviously you will go see this film yourself and decide. For a conclusion this is a solid piece of filmmaking that sits under the same roof as "Batman Begins" and "The Dark Knight" if only a few floors down.
Overall Grade: +2 / B+
Portal 2 (2011)
Thinking With Portals
"Aha!" that is the word you will be saying most to yourself as you progress through Portal 2's nine chapters in the single player campaign. These test chambers or individual puzzles you progress through are so cleverly designed, that once your about to give up you find the perfect piece of information you were missing in order to solve the puzzle.
The game starts off as you awake from suspended animation, several hundred years after the events of the first game. You play as the same silent protagonist "Chell", and are broken out of containment from an artificial personality core named "Wheatley" in an attempt to escape the Aperture Science facility while accidentally awaking GLaDOS (Genetic Lifeform and Disk Operating System), the chief antagonist of the franchise in the process. Eventually your put through another series of test chambers but things take an interesting turn in the second act which I won't spoil.
The gameplay from the first installment remains mostly the same with developer Valve adding several new elements to freshen things up. First off, the art style has changed with the setting of the Aperture Science Facility having been dilapidated for so many years. Overgrown vegetation and ruined architecture freshen up the scene as well. Tools such as Repulsion and Propulsion gels, Excursion funnels, Aerial Faith Plates, Thermal Discouragement Beams add a new level of complexity to the puzzles, but the development team does a really great job of introducing you to these new elements, allowing you to master them before they hand you a new thing to play with. It's all great fun!
Graphics wise, the eleven year old source engine that the game is powered on continues to be updated with some great lighting effects and animations with a mostly steady frame rate, but the loading zones should definitely be trimmed, especially for a game this late into the console life cycle. The audio work is fantastic helped by the hilarious dialogue voiced by Stephen Merchant, Ellen McLain and J.K. Simmons. This is truly the funniest game I've ever played!
The game is well worth its sixty dollar retail price with an equally long two player Co-operative mode (which wasn't available at the time of this review due to PlayStation Network being down) and developer commentary throughout the single player story mode. The PlayStation 3 version (which I recommend over the Xbox 360 version) comes with Valve's SteamWorks support, a popular service on computers which allows for cloud saving and automatic updates not previously available on consoles. Two people are able to play with each other cross-platform from the PS3 over to PC or Mac, which is a fun bonus.
The take away from this experience is the atmosphere of the world you are re-introduced to. The game trains you in solving puzzles based on the physics of forward momentum allowing you to walk away from this game feeling smarter than before. The themes of isolation and science as a main priority above all else, are minor messages scrolled into the background, similar to the environmental storytelling you will find written on the wall of the game world, in one of the best games of this year.
Rating: A
The Hunger Games (2012)
Review and Analysis: "Hey Katniss, how about that kiss?"
Bias: Having read the book a year ago, I am more likely to fill in plot holes and character development mentally.
When this movie was announced I expected it to be down the line studio filmmaking at its most mediocre like many lesser book adaptations, but came out quite impressed with how the film turned out. This movie stands on its own so you don't get any of that "Well it makes sense if you've read the book". As far as the adaptation goes this movie maintains every major plot point from the book without much change. The movie is limited by its format running time pushing everything in at a faster than preferred pace, but takes advantage of the third person narrative showing a few welcome and crucial scenes. Reactions outside the arena from the nation's districts, Katniss' hometown, and one on one's between Head Game Maker Seneca Crane and President Snow offer better and less obvious character development than the book.
21 Year-Old and Rather Attractive Oscar Nominee Jennifer Lawrence as 16 Year-Old Katniss Everdeen The acting in the film is strong all across the board. Obviously the major role of Katniss Everdeen carries the film and Jennifer Lawrence who though seems just a tiny bit too old to play sixteen humanizes the strong female protagonist very well. Small roles like Effie Trinkett, Cinna, Haymitch and Gale (a major character later in the series) are played really well and put to good use. Though my favourite had to be Stanley Tucci in the fun role of Caesar Flickerman. I thought Game Maker Seneca Crane is set up better here as the main antagonist than in the book and looks cool. Josh Hutcherson (who like Lawrence is also a fan of the series) is the only one I would have a complaint about, as he is less charming here than depicted in the book ("Hey Katniss, how about that kiss?"). My guess is that he either played to his limitations, was cut from much of the film, or it was decided he was to be taken more seriously as a love interest, but this might make him lack as a strong alternative later in the series. Which could get interesting.
Minor criticisms I would make are that the adaptation should have been even more bold venturing outside its faithful route (The character of Foxface though necessary in the novel is a fun distraction that doesn't add a whole lot to the film). The climax of the film lacks a truly strong payoff that the book had but also trades that in for planting the seeds for a series. There is nothing truly remarkable or stand out about this film that led me to think much about it afterwards, other than the fan fervor of counting the proceeds of its success. Many complaints of the film stem from the use of shaky cam. Though the film could use more wide shots, as it is beautifully filmed, I find it actually adds to the frenetic pacing of being in the arena, and is not as annoying or overused as in other such films as "The Bourne Ultimatum". It also should be known that this was one of the tactics employed by the producers to cut the film for a PG-13 rating, both to exercise more money and stay true to the authour's request. The rating is really played to the edge as it is still very bloody so I actually applaud the studio for maintaining the books vision as well as being consistent and not limited by its rating.
In my opinion I thought the themes left unexplored in the novel aside from; Personal Independence and Satirization of the Media especially Reality Television, were hinted at but unused to their full extent, which would highly elevate the material. This includes comparisons to the Holy Roman Empire and French Revolution, Poverty, Class Warfare, Governnent Oppression, "Big Brother" a la George Orwell (though that's pretty overdone nowadays). The bright side is that there is plenty of this to play around with in the series' future.
Bottom line This is a very strong solid film with great execution that is worth seeing in theatres, and deserves the praise its getting. The groundwork is strong for a series and it overall is a very good time. It's just not the R-rated magnum opus I would have it be having taken more risks.
Ridiculous comparisons: Better than "John Carter", "X-Men", "Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone" and "Mission: Impossible III". On par with "21 Jump Street", "50/50", "Inception" and "Spider-Man". Not as good as "Lord of the Rings: Fellowship of the Ring", "Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire", or "Batman Begins".