Change Your Image
starsandpopcorn
Reviews
Reality Queen! (2020)
It's Dumb, But It's Supposed to Be
Look, I'm not going to say that Reality Queen! is a good movie. However, it is hilarious. It definitely goes for low hanging fruit, but it also isn't afraid to get on a ladder and reach from time to time. It's an Onion article come to life and even thought I knew most of what I was seeing on screen was stupid, I honestly could not stop laughing at just how good it was at being dumb. Then again, that's the whole point and exactly what it's making fun of.
Don Jon (2013)
Sex, love and pornography.
As if Joseph Gordon-Levitt couldn't get any better. The former child star has turned into quite the up-and-coming young actor as he's worked to re-brand himself as something more than that kid from 3rd Rock From the Sun. Over the years, he's starred in such films as Brick, The Dark Knight Rises and Looper, and has proved to be the type of actor whom everyone loves - and who actually deserves that love. However, his most impressive performance to date might just be the one he gave behind the camera with Don Jon.
The film marks Levitt's first time writing and directing a feature- length film, and it makes one hell of an impression, especially because he tackles the lead role as well. Don Jon is one of those movies that has plenty of laughs and a few heartfelt moments, and it's certainly entertaining. But it also touches on a few interesting social issues. I think I'll just go ahead and say it, but Joseph Gordon-Levitt gives away a few trade secrets, much to the horror of men everywhere: Don Jon touches on that dreadfully embarrassing fact that every guy is terrified will come out. What secret is that? Well, it's probably best to put it in the words of the protagonist, Jon, himself: "Every guy looks at porn, every day."
Well, that last part might be a bit of an exaggeration, but Don Jon does bring up the point that pornography has become so readily available through the internet and even television that it's just simply within arm's reach at every single second of every single day, and every guy now and then reaches out to take a handful. However, society still treats it as something shameful and embarrassing, rather than a fact of life.
Don Jon doesn't treat the use of pornography as something that should destroy relationships or cause significant others to fly off the handle in fits of jealousy. In fact, the movie seems to indicate, it's a habit that's probably pretty healthy. That isn't to say that Jon has a healthy habit, as he's reduced to having to look at pornography constantly throughout the day, even after sex, but you know, that's an extreme example.
Then again, maybe it isn't. Maybe the film offers a bit of a warning about how a little pornography is perfectly normal, but a lot can create a monster. Too much porn can make it so that it's nearly impossible to connect with someone else on a meaningful level. After all, watching too much sex can create expectations that are as unrealistic as the ones the romantic comedies create.
What really impressed me about Don Jon, though, are the performances that Levitt pulls out of his co-stars. I've honestly never seen Scarlett Johansson give a better performance than she did as Jon's trashy New Jersey girlfriend, Barbra. She's absolutely despicable as she slowly begin to reveal her true intentions and tries to paint Jon as the bad guy when she discovers his addiction. On top of that, Tony Danza gives a side-splitting performance as Jon's hot-headed father who gets into dick-measuring contest with his son every Sunday night (figurative, people, come on).
However, the most impressive of them all is Levitt himself, who has repeatedly proved that he is one hell of an actor and one who has earned my trust as a moviegoer. The role is something so far from what I would have ever pictured him portraying, but he pulls it off beautifully as he plays the scumbag good-guy stereotype.
Now for the hard part. I really enjoyed Don Jon. It strikes as a solid balance between art and entertainment, it's filled with lots of laughs and it touches on a sensitive topic in a way that doesn't seem preachy. The ending is a little weak, but everything up until that is golden. However, I'm not sure if it's what one would call a date movie, since it will probably lead to inquisitive stares during a quiet car ride home afterward. And honestly, that's really too bad. For the people that are willing to embrace the fact that everyone looks at porn, this movie is well worth the price of admission. However, I'm not sure if most of its value comes from the first viewing. It's no Shame, but there's really no shame in that.
Rush (2013)
It has a little trouble shifting gears, but it sure is fun to watch.
Ron Howard has a thing for movies based on true stories (see Apollo 13, Frost/Nixon and A Beautiful Mind), but none has been quite as high- octane as Rush, which has a very different feel from his previous work. I'm not saying that's a bad thing. After all, Howard is arguably one of the most consistent directors working today as far as quality goes, and Rush is a high-quality film. However, it feels like it's lost somewhere between a drama and an action movie. There are a lot of scenes representing both genres, but the two somehow seem out of sync. Something holds Rush back from being a truly great film.
Being that it's Ron Howard in the director's chair, I had high expectations for the movie, especially because it stars Thor himself, Chris Hemsworth, who is quickly becoming a household name and is deserving of a role in which he can flex his acting muscles rather than his biceps. For the most part, he does a convincing job as Formula 1 driver James Hunt. This is probably because he has Daniel Brühl to work with as his arch rival, Niki Lauda, who shares tremendous chemistry with Hemsworth. And yet, the two are comically different from each other. Hunt is the playboy, partying it up and living each day to the fullest, while Lauda is cold and calculating, as finely tuned as the machines he drives. Really, it would have been next to impossible for these two not to be rivals, and indeed that's the focus of Rush.
The film takes a firm look at what it takes to be a champion and, more importantly, the cost that such a drive can have on a man. The best example is the brutal car crash Lauda experiences mid-season, from which he miraculously recovered in order to return and finish the last of the races that year. While Niki's cost was more physical, James has quite an emotionally driven journey as well, as he literally destroys his life in pursuit of that championship title. Really, it's as though the two drivers represent different aspects of one person, and the movie represents the personal tragedy from which all great tales are built.
Visually speaking, this is Ron Howard's most unique film to date. It's a lot more visceral than his previous films, with sex scenes and even a few stomach-churning wrecks (Niki Lauda suffers horrifying injuries as a result of his crash). It's also a lot bolder than his previous works. Howard adopts a style meant to mirror the high-adrenaline lifestyle that these two men enjoy, with plenty of slow motion and tight editing. With all this, though, I have to ask: "Why does it feel so slow at certain parts?" I'm not normally the type of guy who shrugs off a movie's story, but I couldn't help feeling impatient waiting for the dialogue to end and the racing to begin. This is one reason I don't feel like Rush was a truly great film.
I'm not saying that it's a bad film, though; quite the contrary, Rush is a very good movie, and probably one of the best racing movies ever made. It pretty much gives the audience everything they expect, and in some cases even more (props to Hemsworth for being so much more that a pretty face). I'm almost positive that it will pop up for some sort of award during the Oscars. For me, though, the film never really shifts into high gear. It doesn't cross that line into greatness, and I'm pretty sure I wont remember much about it when 2014 rolls around. That doesn't mean that it isn't worth seeing, though, and I would actually highly recommend it. After all, it's a very human tale, and it's one about which I can imagine everyone finding something to enjoy. It's just not something that echos with the viewer after the end credits.
Gravity (2013)
The New 2001: A Space Odessey?
Few cinematic experiences are quite as immersive or as complete as Gravity, the tightly developed and much-hyped space drama by writer/director Alfonso Cuarón – and the director's first movie since 2006's highly acclaimed Children of Men.
With Gravity, Cuarón gives audiences a vastly different experience than he has before, one so unique in its presentation that it's curious any studio would finance it (to the tune of $80 million) and give it a wide release. Warner Bros. took that chance, and early buzz indicates it might pay off.
And yet there's something familiar about Gravity, especially within the science fiction genre. Anyone who has enjoyed a small-cast science fiction film – say, the Sam Rockwell vehicle Moon, or the horror classic Alien – will similarly like Gravity, which epitomizes the sub-genre. It follows a medical engineer on her first mission to low-Earth orbit (Sandra Bullock) and a nearly retired veteran astronaut (George Clooney) as they struggle to survive floating untethered in space after a barrage of debris violently destroys their spacecraft. A title card in the film's opening frames sets the stakes: "Life in space is impossible."
Except for a few transmissions with mission control (voiced by Ed Harris) and some quick, jarring shots, Bullock and Clooney comprise the film's full cast. It's just the two of them in stark contrast with the infinite and hostile vastness of space, low on oxygen and fuel, struggling to make it to safety. Turns out there isn't a lot of that in space.
The film begins with a single extended shot that lasts – so I've read; I didn't time it – some 17 minutes. Cuarón is a master at the extended shot (the one-take war shot near the end of Children of Men was one of the last decade's best scenes), and Gravity is full of them, but the beginning is striking. It starts quietly, serenely, with gorgeous shots of Earth and space, as Cuarón plays with the lack of stable perspective inherent in zero-G, but once the action starts, it doesn't stop. There are plenty of nerve-wracking moments and a number of shocks and surprises, with some of the tensest moments saved for the final scenes. But to say much more would diminish the fun of this movie.
Gravity is a technical masterpiece on all fronts, an all-out sensory blitz with deft, cleverly utilized sound editing and production. (My favorite touch was at a moment when Bullock hits her head hard, followed by several stressful seconds of ringing.) And the attention to detail is mesmerizing, with Cuarón making only a few minor physics missteps – mostly necessary, even intentional, in order to advance the plot. Clocking in at just 90 minutes, the film doesn't spend a lot of time ruminating on philosophy, which is perhaps a missed opportunity. But it feels tight: Every scene, every frame, is necessary to tell the story, and every aspect of the film's production works in concert to create one of the most engrossing films audiences are likely to see.
But it's the film's astonishing visuals that make it so thoroughly captivating, thanks to some amazing special effects and the camera-work of frequent Cuarón and Terrence Malick collaborator Emmanuel Lubezki. Astronauts who have caught early screenings have said that Gravity is the closest they have felt to being in orbit without leaving Earth. If you lean back and let yourself get lost in the cinematography, you'll feel the same. I've never felt so immersed in a film as I did watching Gravity. This is definitely a movie to catch in 3D.
It's still early in awards season, but I wouldn't be surprised to learn that Bullock, Clooney and Cuarón were expanding their award shelves in anticipation. On many fronts, Gravity is probably the year's best movie to date, and if you don't pick too many nits about orbital physics, you will likely agree. Just get lost in the experience, and be sure to unclench your fists when the credits start rolling.
Mortal Kombat (2011)
Quick to the inter-webs!
Everyone remembers the old Mortal Kombat games, and to a certain degree fans try really hard not to remember the movies that resulted from them. For the most part, Hollywood hasn't been too great at adapting fighting games (or most video games for that matter). Funny that you-tube was able to make it work after all these years.
Fans are no strangers to web series taking over where Hollywood has abandoned them, and probably the most well done series I've had the pleasure of watching is Mortal Kombat Legacy, which just released its second season. Of course, it features everyone's favorite characters from the games (and even a couple of obscure ones nobody liked playing with), but it manages to breathe new life into them while remaining faithful to what fans loved most about the original games. Essentially, the entire series is updated without being butchered, which was no small task, considering just how ridiculous the original premise actually was. Legacy though manages to offer an original story with new twists on the characters (just wait until you meet the new Liu Kang).
Legacy is directed by Kevin Tancharoen and produced by Warner Bros. Digital Distribution, which means that it's not really an indie project, but it's still a pretty big step as far as taking advantage of the potential for releasing series online. The episodes themselves are pretty short and chapter-esque, usually only lasting about ten minutes or so. The thing is, that Legacy manages to pack those minutes with some pretty impressive features. The fight scenes are awesome, and the series has even featured a few well known action stars like Michael Jai White (guess who he plays). Even the effects and the costuming would be impressive for a feature film, much less a web series.
The thing that has bugged me about the first two seasons is how many characters changed actors. Sure, there was almost two years between seasons, but I'm pretty unhappy about Casper Van Dien taking over as Johnny Cage (I actually kind of liked Matt Mullins and his washed up portrayal of the former action star). The other casting changes though are relatively unnoticeable since characters like Stryker didn't play much of a part in the first season. However, I'm not sure I like this direction of them changing actors, especially with season three rumored to be heading toward production.
The reason why Legacy is such a success is because it is basically fan service. It knows what Mortal Kombat fans want and it tries to give them exactly that (I say "tries" because "real" fans are never satisfied for some reason), and despite the fact that each chapter manages to stand on its own two feet, it's a very addicting web series and easy is very easy to watch. That being said, it's still a series about Mortal Kombat, which means that it's not exactly high art. Don't get me wrong, it certainly pushes the envelope at times with its strong vision and astounding execution, and really does deserve the utmost praise. However, it's not something that stays with the viewer after the credits have rolled. I really liked Mortal Kombat Legacy, but I wasn't exactly fawning over it the next day. I guess that means I'll just have to watch it all over again, and you know what? I'm alright with that.