6/26/2015 0 Comments 'Jurassic World' Movie ReviewThe Jurassic Park series has surely had its ups and downs, but with the first film being etched into cinematic history, it's natural to be curious about a new installment. So how does the fourth entry, Jurassic World, hold up? Like the series itself, it has its ups and downs.
The story: twenty-two years after the catastrophic events of the original film, the tropical island of Isla Nublar is now home to a fully functioning theme park resort with living dinosaurs. The only problem is the park has been operating for so long that the public has become accustomed to dinosaurs, and no longer gets that "wow" factor from seeing them in person. So, in order to spike attendance, the geneticists at Jurassic World have created a whole new dinosaur. Meet the Indominus Rex, a behemoth designed in every way to outdo the T-Rex. But when the Frankenstein creature escapes from its containment, it's up to the park's proprietor, Claire (Spider-Man 3's Bryce Dallas Howard) and raptor trainer Owen (Guardians of the Galaxy's Chris Pratt) to stop the monster before it can wreak havoc on the resort. The dinosaurs in this movie are just as awesome as expected, and the action is even more awesome. With the opening of the dino park comes an array of exciting new creatures, such as a massive sea monster that inhabits a Sea World-like attraction. And it's this scene, wherein all of the monster's spectators are instead distracted by their phones, that perfectly showcases the film's message: something new is only exciting for a second, and then we need something bigger. However, if there's anything negative to be said for the creatures, it's that the CGI used to create them is painfully obvious. It's predictable to have computer-generated effects in a summer movie this day and age, but there should be a balance between computerized and practical effects. The original Jurassic Park implemented animatronic dinos and used CGI to polish them, not create them. Even though they weren't real, they were really there, and that makes a big difference in putting the audience on the edge of their seats, which just wasn't the case this time around. But what good are dinosuars if the characters who run from them aren't worth following? Fortunately, this film's cast of dino prey offers (for the most part) a pretty well-rounded dynamic. Pratt perfectly nails his role and is easily the best part of the film, developing a surprisingly emotional bond with his raptors. Everything about his up-for-anything attitude feels like a young Indiana Jones, but he's not out of his mind, either. In fact, he's practically the only character who cautiously respects the danger at hand. Dallas Howard is also impressive, getting blinded by her own ambitious vision for the park and feeling reminiscent of the original film in a way that doesn't rip it off, but rather pays tribute. But then there's Claire's young nephews, Zach and Gray, who, while not poorly acted, hardly have any connection to the rest of the film. They spend the majority of the film exploring the park on their own, and since they don't have any emotional connection to the rest of the characters, they feel as though they inhabit an entirely different movie. But no clearer does Jurassic World become an entirely different movie than when the plot spearheads into a mission to stop the Indominus. When it shifts our focus away from the park to fight the big monster, it feels more like a Godzilla movie than a Jurassic Park movie, and honestly, the monster isn't even that interesting. While the film goes out of its way to establish that the other dinos have animal instincts, the Indominus is just a one-note killing machine, and when all she does is kill, it gets old pretty fast. Beyond that, fans of the original films have been waiting for years to see a fully operating dinosaur theme park, and we hardly get to spend any time in it. I'm not asking for a guided tour or anything, but the creature in the Sea World tank is a perfect example of the ingenuity and creativity we only saw a brief glimpse of. We're here on the island, let's explore it and have some fun, and then let the terror creep in. While it may sound like I have a lot to complain about, the truth is that I had fun with Jurassic World. It's just that I had fun with it specifically as a monster movie. As a Jurassic Park movie, it falls short in a few areas. Sure, the characters are mostly fun to follow along with and the dinosaurs themselves were exciting, but there were so many instances where the film was good, and could have been great. Similar to the series' second installment, The Lost World: Jurassic Park, I do respect the film for trying new things, but I can't deny when it tries and fails. Fans of the original film will relish the script's subtle references to older characters, while those seeking something more will be sadly disappointed. Overall, Jurassic World is a mostly fun ride, just not fun enough to justify a ticket price. I'm giving it two and a half stars out of four.
0 Comments
During one of the action sequences in Mad Max: Fury Road, a character can be heard exclaiming, "Oh, what a day! What a lovely day!" What a lovely day, indeed. Mad Max: Fury Road is everything an action movie should be.
In the fourth entry in director George Miller's Mad Max series, the script treats the titular Max Rockatansky (The Dark Knight Rises' Tom Hardy) as a Forrest Gump of sorts: while he is the character that we follow, he's not what the story is about. It's about everything that he experiences. Those experiences largely encircle a woman named Imperator Furiosa (Charlize Theron), who is on a mission to transport the five wives of the villainous Immortan Joe (Hugh Keays-Byrne, who starred as an antagonist in the original Mad Max) across the desert to a fabled "Green Place" where vegetation thrives and they will be safe. Naturally, Joe is dissatisfied at this, and sends his forces after Furiosa, who has recruited Max to aid her in her venture. While this is the fourth in a series of films, it's not necessarily required that you see the original three beforehand. Those who have will find plenty of subtle references strewn about the script (such as costume and vehicle designs that feels reminiscent of The Road Warrior), whereas newcomers will find that the story wastes no time relying on prior knowledge of the series, and jumps right into the action. And when it does, oh boy, it never lets up. From the first frame of film to the last, everything is moving with ferocity. The action is absolutely non-stop and over the top, but it never feels as though it's being overdone, because there's a goal at the end of the road. So when a truck flips over or a car explodes (most of which is actual, green screen-free stunt work, which makes an unbelievable difference), it holds weight and meaning. It's often been said that when you have an action scene, you're taking a break from progress, and while this is often the case, it doesn't have to be. Similar to Speed, this is an example of using action to drive the story forward. And it doesn't stop there. While Fury Road may come off as a down-and-dirty testosterone-fest on the surface, the driving theme is surprisingly feministic. The overarching theme of the film is human objectification, particularly concerning the Joe's five wives. He views them and their unborn children as his property, as well as his "warboys," a pack of crazies whom he keeps loyal to him by controlling their water supply. He sees them as his own, and by providing them with fresh, green food and water, of course they would be so loyal to him! Even Max falls victim to the film's theme, being strapped to a car and acting as a bloodbank for a sickly warboy named Nux (Nicholas Hoult, who absolutely takes his role and runs with it). And while all of that is good and well, I'll bet I know what you're really wondering: does Tom Hardy measure up to Mel Gibson's portrayal of Max? Well, no. Gibson had a great deal more personality, whereas Hardy comes off more as the strong and silent action hero. But to his advantage, his character is much more fleshed out by the script. This is the lowest we've seen Max in the entire series, and the result offers a thorough examination of his psychological scars, not through abrupt scenes of dialogue, but through his actions. Honestly, though, it is okay that Max isn't oustanding, because as stated earlier, this isn't really his movie. It's Furiosa's, he's just along for the ride. And I'm just going to say it, Charlize Theron is completely riveting in the role. She effortlessly carries the weight of the film, and what's most astounding about her is that, refreshingly, nobody makes a big deal about the fact that she's a woman. Due to the urgency of the situation at hand, Max doesn't have time to marvel at a woman who's more capable than him. The two work on equal ground because that's what it takes to survive. They're not men and women, they're just people working toward the same goal. She's not a strong female character, she's a strong character, period. That's how it's done here, and that's how it should be done overall. I've heard this film be compared to "action milestones" such as The Dark Knight or Raiders of the Lost Ark, and while that sounds brash at first, it does everything a great action movie should do. It's well-acted, it boasts exhilerating action with phenomenal on-location stunt work, and is given weight by the story's understanding of human objectification and ownership. Mad Max: Fury Road may not be for everyone, but for me, I give it four out of four stars. 6/2/2015 0 Comments 'Tomorrowland' Movie ReviewIf you're familiar with director Brad Bird, you probably know that he has a pretty impressive track record, ranging from animated hits such as The Iron Giant and The Incredibles to a stunning live-action debut with the fourth Mission: Impossible. So does Bird's newest live-action entry, Tomorrowland, live up to the director's name? Is it an unmitigated masterpiece? No, but it is good.
The story follows teenager Casey Newton (Britt Robertson), who is fascinated with space travel and is disappointed at the cancellation of the space program. She rebelliously spends her evenings sabotaging a NASA launch platform in hopes of delaying its deconstruction, until she comes across a mysterious pin. Whenever she touches the pin, Casey is transported to a futuristic utopia known as Tomorrowland. In search of answers, Casey must now team up with an enigmatic robot named Athena (Raffey Cassidy) and a man who has actually visited Tomorrowland named Frank Walker (George Clooney) to discover the meaning of the mysterious utopia and why she is meant to go there. As far as newcoming actors go, Robertson does a pretty good job of carrying the movie. Similar to young female leads such as Spirited Away's Chihiro or Alice in Wonderland's Alice, Casey is new to everything she experiences, and the audience is right there with her, so her acting shocked for the majority of the film is pretty believable. She shares excellent onscreen chemistry with costar Cassidy, who also carries out her role with exuberant energy. She nails all of the logical reasoning that a robot character would and should have, but still packs in those emotional punches necessary to be endearing. The only one among the three leads who stands out is Clooney, who is introduced as a bitter man haunted by his past. The result creates a hardened shell around the character, which certainly sounds interesting enough to be entertaining. Unfortunately, it's exceedingly hard to buy into Clooney as a crotchety curmudgeon, given his natural charm. Where Robertson and Cassidy guide the story with their hopeful optimism, Clooney unexpectedly and begrudgingly acts as a wet blanket over the group. Then there's Hugh Laurie as the villain of the picture. Without giving away too much, he doesn't offer a lot, either. He arrives shortly before the climax ensues and doesn't make a big impression in his small amount of screentime. Plus, this movie is already driven so strongly by its theming that it doesn't even need a villain. So what is the film's theme? Again, while trying not to give away too much, it's a cautionary tale about the environment. Now I know what you're probably thinking: I've seen that countless times before, and I've seen it preached to no end. Well, I can tell you that Tomorrowland doesn't succumb to that issue, being that it saves all of its environmentalism for the last third of the film. And when the film finally does get there...it does get a bit preachy. It uses dialogue to address the issues at hand directly (as opposed to adhering to the traditional rule of "show, don't tell"), but like Elysium, like Avatar, like Ferngully before it, what it's saying does hold relevance, and at least it has something to say at all. Until that point, you'll notice a more glaring issue with the story, one which will seem familiar if you've seen National Treasure: the leading group goes on a journey of checkpoints. We go to a location where we learn a bit of crucial information that leads to another checkpoint, where he group makes a miraculous discovery. Rinse, repeat. There's only so many times that an eye-popping set piece can be uncovered before the effect loses its flair. In a sense, the film should be called Journey to Tomorrowland, since the titular utopia isn't revealed until the final act. But in a way, I can see this plot strategy working on some people; Tomorrowland is largely kept under wraps, and the big reveal is more than worth all of the suspense. I just personally feel that the journey could have used a little bit more variety in the meantime. But what about those visual effects? This is partially a sci-fi movie, after all. Well, they're good, but not in the way one might expect. The movie relies heavily on computer-generated effects, and is very effective at creating a large spectacle, such as far away shots of the Jetsons-like utopia Tomorrowland, or an exhilarating aerial view of flying a jetpack through the skies. The imagination behind scenes like this is just simply uncanny. But when it comes to up-close effects, such as towering robots that try to do battle with the characters, are a little too obviously computerized, and the result is slightly distracting. It doesn't make giant robots any less cool, just a little bit less believable. In the end, you could say that Brad Bird has a collection of great movies under his belt, and Tomorrowland is his first good movie. It may not reach for every star it shoots for, but you certainly can't fault it for trying. In every scene, the effort of the director, writers, and cast can be felt, and no greater is this notion prevalent than in the fact that this is an original movie. Not a remake, sequel, prequel, reboot, spin-off, or other such tie-in to something else already established. A product entirely its own, and that alone is worth giving Tomorrowland a fighting chance. I encourage you to watch it yourself and draw your own conclusions. As for me, I found the experience to be admirably entertaining (just don't expect perfection). I give Tomorrowland three stars out of four. |
|