Burn After Reading

Well, I finally saw Burn After Reading, and while it featured good filmmaking, humor, pacing and style, the lack of a definite protagonist and the fact that almost none of the main characters are even remotely likable makes it very difficult to enjoy the film. While the Coens' characters have long been less than perfect, they're at least human enough for us to identify with, but Burn takes the "imperfection" of the characters far enough that its impossible to like them, and they fail to function as accurate criticisms of human beings because they're so completely hateful that they fail to register as human. While the film does pack some good comedic lines, it is not essentially a comedy, and the grimness quickly douses the fun of the comedy, worsening the film by making it difficult to be able to tell when the Coens are being serious and when they're making a joke out of there pathetic, hateable characters, until the whole film becomes one big joke on watching the torment of their characters. The filmmaking is better than the characters are, with strong pacing and performances, and crisp photography, but it is not enough to redeem this otherwise shallow, unfulfilling  film.

The Short Version

|score- |||||- 5.5/10|

Kung-Fu Panda

Here I go with yet another review thats waaaay late

Kung-Fu Panda is a breath of fresh air considering the general low quality of Dreamworks movies as of late. Its certainly nothing special, but its light, humorous, and, most important of all, its not another Shrek movie.The film is a decent movie and a great Dreamworks movie which shines through the thick layer of scum that has coated Dreamworks movies since the days after Shrek 2. It opens with a Samurai Jack influenced 2D sequence, which made me want more 2D feature films. The CG style almost seemed like a disappointment compared to the fun traditional animation, but the 3D animation is also high quality. Although the fat joke centered trailer made me cringe, Panda is a stellar example of how things that are generally frowned upon can still prove funny if done well. That being said, like the humor, the film is well executed but lacks depth. Its story is the typical underdog story, and a lot of the moments are incredibly cliche. The main thing that makes the film unique is the humor, which basically makes it an irreverent take on a cliche hero story rather than just a cliche hero story, which turns out to make all the difference. 

Indy 4

So heres my very very very late thoughts on Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. A lot of fans were disappointed by this movie, but I am not a fan, so I set my standards even lower. I had heard it was awful, but I was pleasantly surprised to find that it was mildly entertaining. Yes, it follows the classic Indy formula the least, but since I didn't like the classicy Indy formula, I didn't mind. It was some fun mindless car chases, nothing special, but certainly not bad. That being said I do have a few gripes. Marion Ravenwood's appearance is pathetic and completely unnecessary. It seems like a failed bid at fan approval/nostalgia. Obviously, Indy is too old to fight Nazis, but fortunately for him, there's plenty of communists to fight. Go figure. Finally, the ending is a total anti-climax, and while the rest of the film was fairly exciting, the ending didn't live up to its promise, and the final love scene was bad as well. Overall, a pretty mediocre movie with nothing to offer besides some cheap entertainment. But thats all the series was worth to me anyways, so I don't really mind.

Two Follow Up Reviews

What? No Christmas post? Well, this is kind of a Christmas post since the two films I'm doing a follow-up on were brought to me courtesy of gift-giving relatives. Thanks folks :D. 

Anyways, the follow-ups I'm doing are on two of the top rated Summer movies: The Dark Knight and Wall-E. Second viewings made different impressions than before, with Wall-E's being considerably better. Anyways, lets get to the reviews.

The Dark Knight: Revised Score: 7.8

I'm pretty sure thats the same score I gave it last time, because, while my views of The Dark Knight's flaws has changed, the amount of flaws stays the same. TDK is definitely a very entertaining movie, but I find that a shorter cut could have improved the pacing and general flow of the movie. I think TDK's greatest weakness is that it feels like two separate 90 minute movies, with three climaxes, since the second half's climax is a double climax. TDK is full of great scenes, but they feel somewhat out of order; it seems as if the development of the multiple plot lines impedes the flow of the movie, since the film is so overloaded that the plot lines consistently interrupt each other. While I have no problems with an over the top, overloaded film, I do have a problem with the fact that the overload actually results in a decrease in intensity. This is TDK's  greatest problem, and it greatly impeded my enjoyment of the film.

TDK's greatest strength, and a lot of its appeal comes from the amount of risks it takes. It deals even casualties to both sides, and actually kills off one of the key protagonists. Must like its titular hero, TDK does things that other movies wouldn't do, and that gives it strength.

Although the pacing and the sense of flow aren't very good, all of the independent scenes are excellent, they are well produced, and quite entertaining. Unfortunately, this whole doesn't make a sum as big as its parts make it to be, but it is still entertaining and technically well made.

Wall-E: Revised Score: 9.3

I was right about this one. I enjoyed it far more this time around. Like with my first time watching TDK, Wall-E's pacing caught me off guard since I didn't know the run time. Since most current P.I.X.A.R films clock in at about two hours, I expected Wall-E to be much longer and heavier and was disappointed in that regard. However, evaluating it as what it is, Wall-E packs lots of depth, laughter, fun and emotion into 90 minutes, and I predict it will grow on me even more as I continue to watch it. It's very easy to watch but also very rewarding, so I think I'll be popping this one in for years to come.

Journey In 3D

Well, after watching Journey to the Center of the Earth in 3D, I can say that it was definitely not worth it. Much like dumb action movies with too much dumb and not enough action, Journey is a 3D movie with too much headache and not enough 3D effects. The ones that are there are cool, but there are nowhere near enough to justify the movie being 3D. At this point I think the most effective way to use 3D technology is to have a 3D movie of Kurt Russell throwing chain-saws at the screen for an hour and a half. With a movie like Journey, 3D changes it from a Sci-Fi Adventure movie to an effects movie, where the plot only gets in the way, since every moment of dialogue is a moment of not actual 3D, and any moment of not actual 3D is a moment of thinking "can I take these glasses off now?"

Thoughts on Ghost Rider: The Deterioration of Action Scenes

When someone goes to see a movie like Ghost Rider, the least they can expect is some good action scenes. However, it seems like a new trend in Hollywood action fodder: not much actual action. First of all, Ghost Rider is a movie that takes itself about 10 times as seriously as it should. It seems to think it is some emotional, deep, epic, exciting, ghost story, but it doesn't seem to actually deliver on the action. It seems like once Spider Man introduced super heroes with emotional problems to Hollywood, every super hero movie has tried to copy it. However, emotion is much harder to execute than action, but with the focus of the day set on developing emotional conflict, the action is shoved aside. Now in some cases that may be a good thing, but usually, when a movie is bad, it can fall back on action. Not so with Ghost Rider. Each of the villain's main henchmen fall prey to Ghost Rider within 7 seconds. It doesn't help that the titular character's powers turn him into a glorified special effect. If Hollywood can't do action anymore, than what can it do?

Thoughts on: 28 Days Later, Cast Away, and I Am Legend

For my first "thoughts on" post I will discuss three films, two of which have similar stories, and two of which have similar problems. One is probably my favorite movie. The others are excellent for the first two thirds and then are marred by a horrendously sappy ending that is completely out of tone with the rest of the film. Lets start with 28 Days Later.

A group of people break in to a facility and free a bunch of captured chimpanzees. A worker pleads with them not to let them go because they are infected with "rage" but the liberators pay no heed. 28 days later, a man named Jim wakes up in a hospital bed, and finds he is in an empty city. That is the beginning of one of the most visionary movies I have ever seen. It manages to effectively be a horror film, a survival film, a zombie film, an emotional film, and social satire. The characters in 28 Days Later are incredibly human, so they do not fall prey to the same situations many less believable characters fall to. They don't often split up, making sure not to lose each other, but as one of the "family" groups so often seen in films and novels, they work effectively. In fact the only reason one of the characters dies is because of compassion for a dead man. 28 Days Later was written by a novelist: Alex Garland, and the narrative shows it. As beautiful images of the English countryside and flesh eating monsters blend seamlessly together to create a story that manages to be both meditative and exciting, and the story is full of unexpected plot points because of the situation. Let me just say that the unexpected plot points are one of the things that I love about the genre. With other movies you are trying to find the treasure or get the girl or win the war, but in a world that is hell on earth you just have to survive and keep going in a direction without a map. When the characters find a goal and achieve it, they find that there isn't the security that they were looking for and that they have to move on. Garland's novel-like narrative is beautifully complemented by Director Danny Boyle's visual style, as well as the music of Godspeedyou Black Emperor. Boyle's photography uses slightly lowered image quality to its advantage, making the beauty and majesty still remaining in this post-apocalyptic London seem as surreal as it must seem to the characters. Humanity has gone to hell, but the world is still spinning, still green, and still eerily beautiful, ugly people fighting in a world that seems happier without them. Boyle's other cliche-breaking achievement in this film is not relying on the dark to create fear, but to make the daytime scary as wel. He creates a fear not so much for ones own life but for the loss the other characters will experience and have experienced. However, there is one curiosity to the film. There were two filmed endings, a happy one, and a sad one, both of which maintain the surreal feel of the film, although the sad one is more effective, and the happy one is a crowd-pleaser, both are good enough not to mar an excellent film.

Now on to Cast Away, the film with a fascinating beginning and middle, and a stifling interminable end. After introducing the characters, a truly frightening plane crash sequence leaves a postal worker stranded on an uninhabited island. Thus begins a fascinating survival saga. The first part of this story has virtually no dialogue, yet manages to show the character's duty to his job as well as his sheer desperation. The rest of the story begins when he creates for himself an "imaginary friend" of sorts, using a Wilson volleyball that was in one of the packages on his plane, which allows for dialogue and should get co-star billing above the other human actors. The story then details his survival and escape, and then his return to society. However, once he returns to society, the entire film falls to pieces. What was once a story about the will to live becomes another "girlfriend has moved on but he wants her back" story. The wrap-up to the love story is nowhere near as powerful as the wrap-up to his life on the island with Wilson, which is truly touching, rather than the phony ending.

I Am Legend is basically a combination of the two. Its about a man and his one, non-speaking friend, struggling to survive and to have the will to survive in a post-apocalyptic world ruled by diseased humans. When the film opens with a woman stating she has created a cure for cancer, followed by a wide shot of a deserted New York City, it may seem to be a 28 days knockoff. It is anything but. I Am Legend focuses on aspects of the Zombie Horror genre that are not typically explored. Instead of focusing on the survival of a "family group" fending off hordes of the undead, Legend focuses on the endeavors of one lonely man attempting to find a cure. Everything about what has happened is revealed in flashbacks, which are the only scenes with human dialogue. Dr. Neville's (Will Smith) only companion is his dog, Samantha, who leads him into some exciting and intense sequences, as well as saving his life, as he fights the disease that has taken over the world. That is what the first hour of the film is like, and its a blast. It manages to be emotionally satisfying, action packed, and distinguish itself from its other post-apocalyptic zombie predecessors. Unfortunately, that's only the first hour. From there, the film loses all of its momentum and all of its vision to become a typical Hollywood film. All this happens because the filmmakers felt the need to add two more characters, even though the film was better off without them. The characters are Anna and Ethan, although the latter should be called "silent kid" as he does not have a single line in the entire film. Anna merely serves as a catalyst to end the movie, and silent kid as a catalyst to create one of the "family groups" that characterizes so many films of this genre. It is like Cast Away in proportions of bad and good. The dog is Wilson, and Anna is like the postal worker's ex-girlfriend, who show's up just in time to blandify the film. It's disappointing, because the first hour is amazing (except for the poor CGI animation) but it falls flat to deliver a formulaic ending.