I saw "Push" last week. Its the story about how precociously street-wise Dakota Fanning is, and there's something about powers thrown in too. She can apparently see the future, but she kinda sucks at it. Also, she gets drunk. How adorable.
In all actuality, it wasn't that bad. It was no cinematic feat, but I've seen much worse and enjoyed movies much less. There were a few interesting powers, though I could have done without the "Bleeders," these really annoying guys who yell like punks and make your ears bleed. I don't see why they couldn't behave like respectable Chinese characters and use martial arts to make you bleed. It would have been twice as cool, and 30 million times less annoying than that stupid yelling.
Final score: See it if you like superpowers and have super low standards. If you're still watching Heroes, this is a movie for you. (For the record, I still watch Heroes.)
Monday, February 16, 2009
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Dual Movie Review - Bolt and Inkheart
Bolt
In a year with "Wall-E" and "Kung-Fu Panda," it's easy to overlook a movie like "Bolt." Disney's most recent venture sans Pixar finds a dog who has been led to believe he is actually the superhero he portrays on television. When he accidentally finds his way from Hollywood to New York, he must return home to rescue his person.
This is standard Disney fare. Blah blah blah friendship blah blah blah love blah blah blah be yourself. It's all pretty standard, but its wrapped in a shell that is just fun enough to be entertaining. The colors are bright and crisp, which seems to be a theme in the new non-Pixar Disney movies, if "Meet the Robinsons" is any indication. The voice acting was excellent, as well. Within a few minutes, I had forgotten that I was listening to John Travolta and was instead listening to Bolt. With a distinctive voice like his, that's a pretty big feat, one helped a lot by the pacing of the story and the visual effects.
I don't think "Bolt" would rank any higher on my list that any Pixar movie, even a weaker showing like "Cars," but it is an enjoyable film that kids will love and an adult will enjoy while its on.
Inkheart
"Inkeart" takes us to a world where Brendan Frasier's character has the power of the "silvertongue," which causes the things he reads aloud from a book to be transferred from the book into the real world. When one of the villains he accidentally read out wants him to do some more reading, Frasier and his daughter have to save the day.
You may notice that I didn't put the name of any of the characters above. That's because I forgot them, which is really representative of the entire movie. It is mostly forgettable. With that said, there are some cool aspects. The visuals were pretty spectacular, with the exception of the minotaur. All the animals in the menagerie of half-read animals were realistic looking, but the minotaur looked like an oversized muppet. The CGI was impressively decent, given the quality of the rest of the film.
On the other hand, it felt like the movie could never decide what tone it wanted. There were little comedic bursts awkwardly placed throughout what was mostly a dramatic second and third acts, and the prostestations of the great-aunt were over the top most of the time. Of course, some of this can be forgiven since this film seems largely made for children, but the issues are there all the same.
This is a movie that I should have loved. I love books, I love reading, and I love all things "Wizard of Oz" (which in this movie includes flying monkeys and the twister). Unfortunately, it could never find its legs and present anything memorable. I don't think it was a particular waste of time, but it sure wasn't a good use of 90+ minutes.
In a year with "Wall-E" and "Kung-Fu Panda," it's easy to overlook a movie like "Bolt." Disney's most recent venture sans Pixar finds a dog who has been led to believe he is actually the superhero he portrays on television. When he accidentally finds his way from Hollywood to New York, he must return home to rescue his person.
This is standard Disney fare. Blah blah blah friendship blah blah blah love blah blah blah be yourself. It's all pretty standard, but its wrapped in a shell that is just fun enough to be entertaining. The colors are bright and crisp, which seems to be a theme in the new non-Pixar Disney movies, if "Meet the Robinsons" is any indication. The voice acting was excellent, as well. Within a few minutes, I had forgotten that I was listening to John Travolta and was instead listening to Bolt. With a distinctive voice like his, that's a pretty big feat, one helped a lot by the pacing of the story and the visual effects.
I don't think "Bolt" would rank any higher on my list that any Pixar movie, even a weaker showing like "Cars," but it is an enjoyable film that kids will love and an adult will enjoy while its on.
Inkheart
"Inkeart" takes us to a world where Brendan Frasier's character has the power of the "silvertongue," which causes the things he reads aloud from a book to be transferred from the book into the real world. When one of the villains he accidentally read out wants him to do some more reading, Frasier and his daughter have to save the day.
You may notice that I didn't put the name of any of the characters above. That's because I forgot them, which is really representative of the entire movie. It is mostly forgettable. With that said, there are some cool aspects. The visuals were pretty spectacular, with the exception of the minotaur. All the animals in the menagerie of half-read animals were realistic looking, but the minotaur looked like an oversized muppet. The CGI was impressively decent, given the quality of the rest of the film.
On the other hand, it felt like the movie could never decide what tone it wanted. There were little comedic bursts awkwardly placed throughout what was mostly a dramatic second and third acts, and the prostestations of the great-aunt were over the top most of the time. Of course, some of this can be forgiven since this film seems largely made for children, but the issues are there all the same.
This is a movie that I should have loved. I love books, I love reading, and I love all things "Wizard of Oz" (which in this movie includes flying monkeys and the twister). Unfortunately, it could never find its legs and present anything memorable. I don't think it was a particular waste of time, but it sure wasn't a good use of 90+ minutes.
Sunday, November 30, 2008
Twilight (or The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly)
With this inaugural post on my new blog, I have a confession: I'm a fan of the Twilight books.
I first heard of them when Breaking Dawn came out and all the fuss was happening. Somehow I managed to miss it for years, though I admit to not being quite "on the pulse" of young adult literature. Once I had learned of it, I decided that I should give it a chance, since so many people went so crazy for it. Within a week I had read the series and enjoyed it thoroughly. It is almost guaranteed to be flash-in-the-pan writing, forgotten nearly as quickly as it was discovered, but most books are like that. This one at least had the advantage of being enjoyable.
The movie came out about a week ago, and I finally got a chance to see it. I wasn't particularly looking forward to this (bad memories of The Golden Compass dance through my head), but I was interested enough to seek it out. Having seen it, I have a few thoughts.
Cinematography/Videography
The camera work in this film was absolutely atrocious. At its best it's standard Hollywood fare with nothing particularly special going for it. At its worst, it actually distracts from the film. There are at least two instances of cheesy "bedroom shots," (though I believe both of these are in a forest) in which the camera pans up and away from the characters as though something were getting ready to happen that they couldn't show. Neither the facts from the book nor the context clues of the movie support any such claim and, in fact, directly contradict it. They may as well have used a PowerPoint-style screen wipe to switch to the next scene.
Score
The score started out fine, but went downhill very quickly. In conjunction with the "bedroom shots" I just mentioned, the music would swell and emphasize a point that just wasn't there. This, in itself, is not an unforgivable crime, but when the choice of music is so bad, there is little mercy left in my heart. It sounded as though they had ripped off a Lifetime movie's soundtrack for its instrumentals.
Special Effects
This was one area in which this movie could have truly shined. I may be mistaken, but I believe there have been action scenes in the past which have made use of CGI to great effect, right? I'm not just imagining that? Honestly, I've seen better effects in SciFi specials (for the uninitiated, those are notorious for their bad effects). Had the movie been made for less, I would have understood and accepted this as a budgetary constraint. This movie cost $37 million to make, and it looks like they just put Pattinson on a skateboard in front of a green screen. Even in a fantastical situation like this, there's nothing natural about it.
Acting
Serviceable. Nobody brought their A-game, but it didn't look like anybody phoned it in either. As the /Filmcast said, the best performance came from Pattinson's hair, which also seems like where most of the money went.
In spite of all that, I actually enjoyed the movie. I like seeing a story I know shown on film. If I hadn't read and enjoyed the books, I doubt I would have liked this even a little bit, but as it is, I thought it was a perfectly fine movie. I'll probably see it again one day in the not-to-distant future.
Until next time, have fun.
-Nathan
I first heard of them when Breaking Dawn came out and all the fuss was happening. Somehow I managed to miss it for years, though I admit to not being quite "on the pulse" of young adult literature. Once I had learned of it, I decided that I should give it a chance, since so many people went so crazy for it. Within a week I had read the series and enjoyed it thoroughly. It is almost guaranteed to be flash-in-the-pan writing, forgotten nearly as quickly as it was discovered, but most books are like that. This one at least had the advantage of being enjoyable.
The movie came out about a week ago, and I finally got a chance to see it. I wasn't particularly looking forward to this (bad memories of The Golden Compass dance through my head), but I was interested enough to seek it out. Having seen it, I have a few thoughts.
Cinematography/Videography
The camera work in this film was absolutely atrocious. At its best it's standard Hollywood fare with nothing particularly special going for it. At its worst, it actually distracts from the film. There are at least two instances of cheesy "bedroom shots," (though I believe both of these are in a forest) in which the camera pans up and away from the characters as though something were getting ready to happen that they couldn't show. Neither the facts from the book nor the context clues of the movie support any such claim and, in fact, directly contradict it. They may as well have used a PowerPoint-style screen wipe to switch to the next scene.
Score
The score started out fine, but went downhill very quickly. In conjunction with the "bedroom shots" I just mentioned, the music would swell and emphasize a point that just wasn't there. This, in itself, is not an unforgivable crime, but when the choice of music is so bad, there is little mercy left in my heart. It sounded as though they had ripped off a Lifetime movie's soundtrack for its instrumentals.
Special Effects
This was one area in which this movie could have truly shined. I may be mistaken, but I believe there have been action scenes in the past which have made use of CGI to great effect, right? I'm not just imagining that? Honestly, I've seen better effects in SciFi specials (for the uninitiated, those are notorious for their bad effects). Had the movie been made for less, I would have understood and accepted this as a budgetary constraint. This movie cost $37 million to make, and it looks like they just put Pattinson on a skateboard in front of a green screen. Even in a fantastical situation like this, there's nothing natural about it.
Acting
Serviceable. Nobody brought their A-game, but it didn't look like anybody phoned it in either. As the /Filmcast said, the best performance came from Pattinson's hair, which also seems like where most of the money went.
In spite of all that, I actually enjoyed the movie. I like seeing a story I know shown on film. If I hadn't read and enjoyed the books, I doubt I would have liked this even a little bit, but as it is, I thought it was a perfectly fine movie. I'll probably see it again one day in the not-to-distant future.
Until next time, have fun.
-Nathan
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)