12/26/2014 0 Comments 'Unbroken' Movie ReviewNot being a fan of Angelina Jolie's acting, I was naturally weary when it was announced that she would direct the World War II drama, Unbroken. Fortunately, however, the director Jolie shows great promise.
The true story follows Louie Zamperini (Jack O'Connell), an Olympic track star who, while serving in the U.S. Air Force, is shot down in his plane by Japanese fighters over the Pacific Ocean. With the company of his comrades, Zamperini manages to survive hazardous conditions at sea aboard a life raft, until becoming prisoners of war in Japanese war camps. This being his first major project, O'Connell definitely shows strong potential. While he likely won't be getting an Oscar nomination for his performance, there's nothing terrible about it, either. He manages to capture Louie's raw determination to endure trial after trial, even if his personality is often defined solely by a strive to defeat his oppressors, as opposed to overcoming his life's tribulations for his own satisfaction (a fault I credit the writers with and not the actor). The Oscar contender here is newcoming Japanese actor Takamasa Ishihara as war camp leader Watanabe, known to his captives as "the Bird." Watanabe evokes a simply chilling atmosphere about him, personifying the word "intimidating" and singling out and bullying Zamperini to the point of pure torment. The film's storytelling methods are its largest shortcoming, but even my complaints here are limited to nitpicks, the biggest of which being that on paper, the film almost feels like three movies: an Olympic sports movie, a stranded-at-sea adventure, and a war drama. The result demands that more attention be given to some stories than others, making the less-explored plots feel almost unnecessary. While not perfectly executed, the film's story is such a good one that it's difficult to complain too much about, and it's strong enough to leave an impact with its inspirational scenes. I give Unbroken three and a half out of four stars.
0 Comments
As the conclusion of the Hobbit trilogy, the transition into the Lord of the Rings trilogy, and director Peter Jackson's last foray into the beloved fantasy world of Middle Earth, The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies has a lot to live up to. But does it meet the hype?
The story thus far: a hobbit named Bilbo Baggins (Sherlock's Martin Freeman) has been recruited to join a party of dwarves, as well as the famed wizard Gandalf (the always magical Ian McKellen), to travel to a solitary mountain peak and slay the dragon that has taken their home under the mountain. Now, with the dragon slain and the kingdom under the mountain reclaimed, the dwarves find themselves having to defend their home from armies of orcs, elves, and other such creatures seeking to claim its bountiful treasure for themselves. Freeman is as great as ever as the titular hobbit, capturing the spirit of a quiet homebody, perfectly content with his books and armchair, who has slowly grown into his own as an adventurer. Quick on his feet and resourceful, Bilbo is up to any situation, and benefits as much from the company of the dwarves as they do from him. Unfortunately, the dwarves don't benefit as much from the script, save for their charismatic leader, Thorin Oakenshield (Richard Armitage). The overwhelming majority of the dwarves are just too underwritten, and are only around to increase the group's headcount. After two prior movies with these characters, I barely feel like I know any of them, save for Bilbo and Thorin. Thorin, meanwhile, wants the best for his people, but ends up getting consumed by his own greed, an endeavor that, while well-acted, tries to give the movie extra layers, but just comes off as filler due to its painfully obvious symbolism. Another subplot that doesn't carry any weight is the love triangle between dwarf Kili and elves Tauriel (Evangeline Lily) and Legolas (Orlando Bloom, reprising his iconic Lord of the Rings role). Again, you can tell that the writers are trying to make the movie more than just a giant, long fight scene, but since the characters aren't developed enough to have a romance, it's just distracting plot padding. As for the titular battle itself, it's undoubtedly the point at which the film peaks. Not only is the action exciting without being overdone, but the computer-generated effects are highly impressive (though the over reliance on CG leaves me missing the days of yore, when the Lord of the Rings films mixed computer and makeup effects flawlessly). For Middle Earth fans, The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies is the perfect send off to the world they've come to love, giving every important character and story a satisfying end. For everyone else, it's an epic (and surprisingly short) showdown between orcs, elves, dwarves, and the best of fantasy mythos. For me, it's an entertaining climax, but lacks the grandeur of the Lord of the Rings finale, mainly due to the fact that what we have at the end of the day is Storage Wars: Midieval Edition. I give it two and a half stars out of four. 12/12/2014 0 Comments 'Exodus: Gods and Kings' Movie ReviewGoing into Exodus: Gods and Kings, I wasn't expecting it to surpass classic retellings of the book of Exodus, such as The Ten Commandments or The Prince of Egypt. All I really wanted was for it to be better than Noah. And while it is that, the question still remains: is it worth seeing?
Raised as the son of a pharaoh, Moses (Christian Bale) learns of his true heritage as a Hebrew and, by the guidance of God, accepts his destiny to lead his people out of slavery and into freedom. How's the acting? Bale goes all out as Moses, no longer the peaceful shepherd whose faith is founded on a rock. This time around, he's not afraid to question or even turn away from God when he worries about something like the results of the plagues. His portrayal focuses heavily on the psychological weight of his leadership position and the effect it has on him (fans of The Walking Dead will identify this Moses with troubled leader Rick Grimes). My praise for the casting stops there, however, as the rest of the characters are either too underdeveloped or under acted. For example, you get to see big names like John Turturro, Sigourney Weaver, and even Ben Kingsley fill out the supporting cast, but since their roles don't leave an impact on you, all you remember is the almost-distracting appearance of the actors. Ramses (The Great Gatsby's Joel Edgerton) is a bigger issue. He's the true pharaoh's prince and a major player in the story, but he's written off as the brat who would inevitably rule Egypt. Very little about him stands out, and a grand opportunity was missed for a relationship between him and Moses (given that they were raised as brothers). The visuals are this movie's saving grace. It looks amazing, particularly for a setting as potentially bland as the desert. Ramses' palace in no way succumbs to modesty, and the sweeping shots of its towering monuments are truly impressive. The plagues sent by God are also something to behold, treated as a realistic and grisly endeavor, and the parting of the Red Sea, while not as huge as it could have been, still looked amazing. Now, I know what you're probably wondering: what did I take from this movie as a Christian? As expected, the writers took a few creative liberties and strayed from the path on a few occasions, but whereas Noah strayed so far from the Bible that it strayed from common sense, Exodus' alternate routes still plausibly could have happened within the context, so I was able to buy them. That is, with the exception of director Ridley Scott's portrayal of God. Without giving too much away, it's definitely not what one would expect, and it's very clear that Scott thought he had the superior vision. As a movie, Exodus: Gods and Kings is a fairly acted, occasionally dragging, but commendable attempt at telling such a huge story. As a Christian movie, there have been better versions, and while there were aspects I certainly disagreed with, there was nothing that I was appalled by. Overall, Exodus can be entertaining, it just takes an open mind. I give it three out of four stars. |
|