|Posted by jesskroll on December 7, 2012 at 10:25 AM||comments (0)|
With three films, ranging from excellent to decent, Affleck has truly found his place as a reliable, workman-like director. His third effort, Argo, is very good in almost every respect, without being particularly great in any of them. The result is an immensely enjoyable, fast-paced, suspenseful yet amusing thriller that is highly entertaining to watch but doesn’t linger in memory - precisely the type of film Oscar voters love, complete with the lonely hero missing his son and plenty of self-important Hollywood insider material.While the opening and closing sequences, and a few between, are excellently built, tense but never in question, the movie crew angle adds a welcome balance of fun, particularly through Arkin and Goodman’s supporting performances. In fact the only questionable choice is Affleck as star. Nonetheless Argo is such a success that it makes a compelling argument for Affleck to remain behind the camera rather than in front of it.
|Posted by jesskroll on November 18, 2012 at 3:00 AM||comments (0)|
3.5 / 5
It’s impossible to watch Being Elmo without remembering the false accusations against Kevin Clash and the true admission which resulted. Of course, none of that is addressed here, and it’s not necessary, yet the documentary feels superficial. We learn of Clash’s journey to stardom, how he turned a childhood passion into deserved success, but we still don’t know the person behind the profession. Clash’s story is an inspiring one, from idolizing Jim Henson, to working with him, to singing for his memorial (a truly moving scene), yet he is barely defined beyond his work. Clash the puppeteer is highlighted, Clash the man is not. But maybe that’s how he is. While inspiring in his journey, there is sadness in its completion. The job he loves keeps him from the daughter he also loves. For all his success, he’s still merely the man working the puppet. The puppet gets the attention, the man is forgotten.
|Posted by jesskroll on November 16, 2012 at 9:45 AM||comments (0)|
4.5 / 5
Early in Looper a character watches his own extremities disappear. The scene is intense, shocking, among the most horrifying in recent cinema, and undeniably amazing. Looper has a sense of innovation and inventiveness that makes every new revelation pure enjoyment. It’s rare that an American filmmaker would be so assured or brave but Rian Johnson’s true achievement here, as ugly, brutal and vicious as it is, is twisting the heroes so drastically that, for once, the two sides of the same coin face each other. Granted the film goes a little action crazy and plot holes appear, as they do in any time travel story, but there is so much to love that these slight miscues are acceptable. Although predictable, the movie isn’t about the future so much as the path which takes us there. And that path, like those of Moon and Children of Men, is what all 21st century sci-fi should follow.
|Posted by jesskroll on November 10, 2012 at 9:55 AM||comments (0)|
4 / 5
Since their reboot in Casino Royale, the Bond movies have added some much need toughness. This time there’s a bit of heart as well. Daniel Craig is typically stone-faced, but Judy Dench finally receives screen time befitting her. Similarly, it’s been a long time since we’ve seen a great Bond villain and Javier Bardem is it: dangerous, intelligent, driven, believable, in some ways admirable, and with two very memorable scenes including a long introductory shot displaying a cinematic artistry not commonly found in the franchise. That’s where Sam Mendes deserves credit. While Skyfall would never be American Beauty or Jarhead, this is likely the best looking Bond film ever, from the chiaroscuro-like silhouetted action of Shanghai to the incredible finale, Mendes works light and composition to the fullest. Although, as with many Bonds, the globe-trotting middle portion drags, Skyfall is all the expected fun of the best Bonds, with a surprising amount of depth.
|Posted by jesskroll on October 31, 2012 at 6:00 AM||comments (0)|
|Posted by jesskroll on October 19, 2012 at 9:55 AM||comments (0)|
Magic Mike, 2012
2 / 5
I am secure enough as a heterosexual male to watch Soderbergh’s male stripper movie, open-minded enough to try to appreciate it as art and honest enough to say, as with subject, I am perhaps not in the film’s target audience. The focus is on Channing Tatum, who proves again that he’s unlikely to take first place in a Channing Tatum impersonation contest, leaving the rest of the cast to pick up the considerable heft which remains. While there are a handful of lively exchanges, and a few token stabs at the state of the American dream, aligning Magic Mike with Soderbergh’s other economics of flesh film The Girlfriend Experience, the characters lack any pull and the story inevitably spirals into a series of wild life clichés so dull that even Soderbergh’s gift for composition and artful lens flares can’t make it any more than tedious. But then perhaps I am not the target audience.
|Posted by jesskroll on October 6, 2012 at 9:15 PM||comments (0)|
3.5 / 5
The difference between (most) literary science fiction and (most) cinematic sci-fi is the depth of ideas portrayed in the material, as well as the use of specific visuals and not the audience’s imagination. Prometheus begins with a standard but solid literary SF premise, scientists searching for the origin of life, but ends in a typically sci-fi fashion. Between these are some of the most stunning visuals yet in scifi. Computer generated imagery has finally allowed movie effects to mimic the realism and detail of the human imagination, save for Guy Pearce’s horrible old man makeup. Unfortunately once the opening and thematic question is abandoned the film becomes, essentially, (spoiler) a retread of Alien. Certain setpieces are tremendous, the surgery is unrealistic but intense and innovative, but too much of the plot is intentionally held back for the obvious sequel. While the visuals may approximate the depth of human imagination, the ideas remain millennia behind.
|Posted by jesskroll on October 1, 2012 at 7:45 AM||comments (0)|
Cabin in the Wood, 2011
3 / 5
Caution, may contain spoilers. There are two potential ways to view Cabin in the Woods, and two ways in which it may have been constructed, as entertainment or as criticism. Cabin in the Woods attempts to make the most of both and, unfortunately, is less for it. The concept of the film, established in the opening scene, makes the first half feel pointless as characters stereotyped by other characters play out a pattern called predictable by those same characters. While this is clever as criticism it’s not entertaining. Meanwhile knowing that such characters exist as criticism, which is the only interesting element of the first half, makes the second half, which is more interesting, less entertaining by ruining the reveal. Instead of becoming a clever, unexpected twist on the horror genre, Cabin begins with a clever twist and then follows a predictable pattern. Granted, a pattern of its own choosing, but a pattern nonetheless.
|Posted by jesskroll on September 2, 2012 at 5:25 AM||comments (0)|
4 / 5
Visioneers establishes its bizarre world from the first scene: single-finger salutes, minute-by-minute workweek countdowns, and a co-worker who plays Russian roulette to keep from exploding. This is fortunate as dispensing the silliness as quickly as possible allows the rest of its quirks to be seen dark satire and not pure ridiculousness. Of the two central conceits – that a monolithic corporation has become so powerful it’s taken over the government, and that a plague of human explosions has petrified the populous – one feels startlingly relevant (especially considering recent American court decisions and one party’s obsession with privatization) while the other appears farfetched. Yet once examined, both are equally pertinent. Within this Brazil-like crushing bureaucracy is George Washington’s direct descendant, whom Galifianakis plays with the deadpan earnestness, highlighted by hilarious yet emotive breakdowns. It’s a shame he’ll always be more famous as the chubby doofus from Hangover. Visioneers is odd, yet oddly relevant and thoroughly enjoyable.
|Posted by jesskroll on August 30, 2012 at 8:15 AM||comments (0)|
4 / 5
A lot has changed since Robocop’s debut in 1987, what was once an extreme level of gore, to the point of morbid humor, is actually pretty tame. Similarly, its effects and action pacing are badly dated. Nonetheless, the inclusion of social satire, in the form of bizarre commercials for nuclear board games, comments on gentrification and capitalism and the still-prescient idea of corporations privatizing city police (which is presently happening with some fire departments, to the detriment of the area), allow Robocop to remain a compelling piece of speculative science fiction instead of an outdated action movie. The action and story are quite slow in comparison to modern standards, but there is still a certain sick humor and Robo’s gradual re-transformation into Murphy makes for great, emotive viewing. Like its namesake, Robocop has a sleek and tough exterior, masking a deeper, more humane core. While its surface has weakened what’s inside remains solid.