Category: Film (Page 3 of 3)

Gangster Squad Review

January 26, 2013 / Kyle A. Massa

Image courtesy oldfocals.com

What can I say? I’m a sucker for gangster movies.

Some people may tell you that Gangster Squad is all style and no substance, that is has a lackluster script, and that it doesn’t really add anything to the genre.

Ok, yeah, that’s all kind of true. But is it entertaining? Absolutely.

I thought that the style was very cool. Clearly they were going for the film noir/Warner Bros.’ gangster atheistic, and they nailed it. The script, the performances, costumes, music, sets, all of them created a gritty, moody affair. There were solid performances as well, particularly from Ryan Gosling, Sean Penn, and Mireille Enos.

No, this movie isn’t going to de-define the genre, it isn’t an in depth character study, and it isn’t going to win any awards. Gangster Squad is a gangster movie, and doesn’t try to be anything else.

…

If you’re expecting an Oscar-winning drama out of Gangster Squad, expect to be disappointed. If you’re expecting a fun movie that doesn’t require a lot of thought, then expect to be entertained.

Rating: 7/10

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey Review

December 29, 2012 / Kyle A. Massa

I just saw The Hobbit a couple of nights ago, and my first thought upon leaving the theatre was…what was wrong with that?

I’ve heard mostly bad things about this new installment, and I’m not entirely sure why. Criticisms range from slow pacing to tonal incongruence with the Lord of the Rings trilogy to Radagast the Brown (he’s already getting Jar-Jar Binks comparisons). I suppose I’d agree with the pacing argument, but only at the end of the film. Otherwise, I’d say that it was excellent. Not as great as the original trilogy, of course, but still pretty damn good in its own right.

Firstly, the effects were astounding. I know special effects don’t make a movie but…wow. They were just jaw dropping. No, literally. When the new and improved Gollum came on screen, my jaw actually dropped. I used to say that Avatar was the pinnacle of CGI. No longer. Right from the opening prologue scene, I was blown away.

I thought the film had a typically good script from the trio of Jackson, Phillipa Boyens, and Fran Walsh. Guillermo Del Toro even got a credit, which was nice to see. They did a good job weaving in some of the threads from The Silmarilion, and also expanding on other scenes. Some cameos by Cate Blanchett, Hugo Weaving, Ian Holm, Elijah Wood, and Christopher Lee were nice additions as well.

Another thing I liked were the homages to the original trilogy, both in the script and visually. For example, the shot where Frodo slips in the Prancing Pony and the ring falls onto his finger is copied exactly in The Hobbit, only this time with Bilbo instead of Frodo. Also, Azog comments on the dwarves smelling of fear. A similar remark is made by the orc Gothmog in Return of the King. A lot of franchises reference themselves, Pirates of the Caribbean, for example, but I found this to be a much more subtle and much more enjoyable way to do it.

Martin Freeman and Ian McKellan certainly stood out as Bilbo and Gandalf, respectively. Freeman brought the same energy to the role that Ian Holm had, plus an extra ounce of neurotic humor for good measure. And of course, Ian McKellan just was Gandalf. Great performances there.

As I alluded to at the beginning, the end of the film really dragged for me. Without spoiling anything for those who haven’t seen it, there was a lengthy, exciting action sequence that seemed like the logical climax and ending of this first installment. But in the words of Gandalf and Thorin, the party comes “out of the frying pan and into the fire,” immediately engaging in another skirmish. Faithful to the book, yes, but on film I thought it became anti-climactic. And not only that, there were still about fifteen minutes left at that point. Could’ve been much more exciting if they’d just ended it a tad sooner.

…

Overall, I thought that The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey was too harshly judged by critics and audiences alike. Sure, there were some problems with the tempo, but nothing so heinous that the film was ruined.

Rating: 8.5/10

Dark Knight or Dark Knight Rises?

August 21, 2012 / Kyle A. Massa

Four years ago, I (like many others) saw Christopher Nolan’s The Dark Knight. Two and a half hours later, I came out of the theatre thinking that there would never be a superhero film as good as that.

I was wrong.

I know I’m probably in the minority here, but I thought that The Dark Knight Rises was a better film than was The Dark Knight. Shocking, I know. I surprised myself when I decided this. But nevertheless, I truly believe that Rises was the best in the trilogy. Let me tell you why.

For starters, let’s get one thing out of the way. Heath Ledger’s performance as the Joker was incomparable. Incredible. Indescribable. His mere presence on the screen was enough to compel millions of filmgoers to flock to the theaters. And whether or not you think his death had anything to do with it, he still won the Academy Award for the role. But a performance like that can be a detriment as well as a strength. When the villain literally steals the show from the hero, you might have a problem.

Here’s a simple test to prove my point. Go find a friend who saw The Dark Knight and loved it. That shouldn’t be too hard. Now ask that friend why she or he loved the movie so much. I’ll bet you a cool thousand that the answer was two words: “The Joker.”

Now see if you can find a friend who liked Rises more than Dark Knight. That might be a little more tricky. I’ll bet you another thousand that they have a much different answer than just one actor’s performance.

My point is this: The Dark Knight was too Joker-centric. Christopher Nolan knew it, Jonathan Nolan knew it, and everyone who saw the film knew it too. Everyone loved it. But I felt that it became less about Batman/Bruce Wayne’s character and more about “what can Batman do to stop the Joker?”

The Dark Knight Rises introduces us to a very different Batman. Ruined both physically and spiritually, I found him to be a much more compelling character this time around, with far more dramatic depth than in the previous two installments. We got to see a much more human side to Bruce Wayne, a much more vulnerable side, one that has doubts about the Batman. I found this to be a brilliant conflict: the idea that Batman no longer wants to be Batman.

And let’s not forget the ending. The final twenty minutes of the film were brilliant. I thought that the Nolan brothers did a fantastic job playing with filmgoers expectations, such as with Batman’s death and the presence of Robin. It was excellent screenwriting, in my opinion, and it helped to elevate the film above a mundane superhero story and into very human territory.

Yes, the critics will say that the Bruce Wayne/Selina Kyle relationship was underdeveloped, among other complaints. I completely agree. But the film isn’t a romance. It’s an action film and the conclusion to a trilogy.

Of course, based on the ending, it is possible that it isn’t the conclusion. It’s possible that there will be a spin-off series of Robin films.

We can only wait and hope.

The Avengers!

May 3, 2012 / Kyle A. Massa

Tonight, I’m going to The Avengers midnight premier. Well, actually the 12:20 showing, but close enough. The midnight show was already sold out, so that should tell you how popular this movie is already.

The plot centers around four well-known superheroes coming together to fight some crazy super villian. The studios also decided to throw in a couple lesser-known superheroes (as if four wasn’t enough), plus the great Samuel L. Jackson (who is pretty much playing himself, but with an eyepatch).

The film is written and directed by Joss Whedon, creator of numerous TV series such as Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Angel, Firefly, and Dollhouse. More recently, Whedon helped co-write and produce The Cabin In The Woods, which has thus far been a good box office draw.

Personally, I think The Avengers should be pretty good (…and so does everyone else, but whatever). At first I was afraid it would just be a ridiculous explosion-fest, but from what I’ve heard, the script goes a little deeper than that.

Also, I’ve never been to a midnight premier, so that should be a good atmosphere. I just hope I don’t get stuck in the front row…

Oh, and I’m calling this now. They’re going to set up for a sequel.

You heard it here first.

I JUST KILLED A DOG! (I bet you’ll read this now.)

April 26, 2012 / Kyle A. Massa

Before we start, just to be clear, I’ve never actually killed a dog. But dogs are the topic of today’s blog, or rather, animals in general. Have you ever been to a movie in which an animal is killed? People get mad. What’s funny is, nobody seems to care when, in the very same scene, a human being is killed.

Of course, I should first clarify what I’m talking about. I’m sure that many people were moved when Jenny died in Forest Gump or when Dumbledore died in Harry Potter. But these were characters that we had connected with over the course of the film. I’m not talking about them. I’m talking about action films in which people are being blown away in every other shot. Most of the time, viewers don’t even blink.

Take the same movie, but now replace that nameless extra with a dog. Suddenly you have a mutiny in the theater. Chairs get destroyed, popcorn begins to fly, chaos reigns supreme…

Of course, I’m exaggerating. By not by much. I kid you not, I’ve been to movies where people have left the theater after seeing a cat get killed. I’m not trying to say that this isn’t upsetting, but at least ten humans were killed earlier in the film, and no one flinched.

So what does this say about us? Why do we find dying animals so upsetting?

Personally, I think it might be about cuteness. Yes, cuteness. Show someone a video of a guy stepping on an ant. Very few people will get upset. But replace that ant with a kitten, and you’re in for it. And what’s the difference between an ant and a kitten? You guessed it. Cuteness.

I’m sure there are thousands of other explanations for this phenomenon, but honestly, I don’t care to spend five-thousand plus words exploring them. I think the reason probably varies from person to person.

At any rate, I’ll leave you with this parting question: why do we always assume that animals are all innocent and cuddly?

Hasn’t anyone ever read Cujo?

Not just movie magic. Movie sorcery.

January 6, 2012 / Kyle A. Massa

Imagine this: you go to a movie, sit down with your popcorn and your soda, settle in for your movie, and who appears on screen in this brand new, 21st century film but…Marilyn Monroe?

Personally, I don’t really buy this idea, but after chatting with my father just a few nights ago, I thought it was at least worth some thought. He and I were talking, and he was telling me about a movie he’d just seen, called “The Adventures of Tin-Tin.” I’ve not yet seen the film, but my dad described the CGI (computer generated imagery) as excellent, almost comparable to a real-life image. Furthermore, he surmised that soon, within the next five years, we would have CGI so lifelike that we could effectively resurrect dead actors and actresses and put them back onto the screen. My dad cited Humphrey Bogart, Elvis Presley, and Marilyn Monroe as his three most likely candidates for this treatment. He even thinks that synthesizers will soon be built that can match their voices exactly, creating the perfect CG recreation of the dead. This technique would eliminate the need to pay actors millions of dollars. And without real actors, who needs agents or producers? Entire films could be made within studios, by only a handful of people. In the near future, promises my father, this will be commonplace.

I hope I’m not the only one who doesn’t like this idea. First off, do we really want movie studios to have this kind of power? Essentially, they’ll be able to put any star they want into any movie. So let’s say they make some snoozer rom-com that no one will be interested in. “Why not throw Marilyn in?” they might ask. It’s not like they would need to pay her computer-generated counterpart. It would be far cheaper than hiring a new actress, and who wouldn’t want to see Marilyn Monroe back on the silver screen?

But what would that do to her legacy, I wonder? She would go from an American icon to a marketing gimmick, a computer generated simulacrum thrown into any old B-movie just to generate a little interest. I’d even go as far as to say that this would be disrespectful to her memory, or the memory of any star resurrected in such a way.

Furthermore, what would this do to the industry? Imagine a world without actors and actresses. Yes, there would be far less celebrity gossip, and admittedly, some of those actors and actresses wouldn’t exactly be missed. But think about what we would be losing in terms of screen performance. Acting, like many other forms of art, is based in subtlety. Though film animators are vastly talented people, can we really expect them to create characters with more depth and passion than experienced actors? Granted, most viewers have no problem identifying with Woody and Buzz and Mike and Sully, myself included. But in terms of emotional depth, these are relatively simple characters. If we take an intense, introspective drama, 2007’s “There Will Be Blood” for example, and replace Daniel Day-Lewis with a perfectly lifelike, computer-generated version of himself, can we really expect the same quality of performance?

Lastly, acting is a human art. Just like athletic exhibition or musical performance, we appreciate it because it is a difficult skill that requires practice. In this country, athletes are loved because they possess skills that most other people do not. Part of the reason Michael Jordan became so famous was that he could perform feats that wowed even his peers. His leap from the foul line in the 1988 Slam Dunk Contest was impressive because he was pushing the limits of human potential. The same goes for music. Jimi Hendrix was admired because he did things on the guitar that no other human could do, then or now. Meryl Streep has earned 16 Academy Award Nominations because she exhibits acting skills that surpass those of most other people.

But where is the achievement if we replace these extraordinary people with computer-generated clones of themselves? Even if the clones perform the exact same feats, I doubt that anyone would be impressed. After all, a machine is built to perform a task. If one such machine can replicate the actions of a dead star, it is merely performing the task which it was built for. On the other hand, a human who could perform these tasks would be met with praise, because that human is functioning above the norm.

I realize that this is an awfully long post, and though I could go on for several more pages, I’ll end it here. If my dad turns out to be right, I hope to see you picketing for real actors. I know I will.