Aug 29, 2014

"As Above, So Below" Review

As Above, So Below

2.5 out of 5 Stars

Family appropriateness rating: 2.5 out of 5 stars
Rated R
-Moderate amount of gory violence
-Moderate amount of strong language, including f-words
-Some images might scare children.










"As Above, So Below" succeeds at offering an interesting premise, but it fails to deliver scares.

Scarlett (Perdita Weeks) is a go-getter on a quest to find the Philosopher's Stone, a magical artifact created by Nicholas Flamel that is rumored to grant immortality and the power to change everything to gold.

She happens upon a breakthrough that leads her to believe the stone is beneath the catacombs of Paris where over six million people have been buried because the city lost room for the dead. She gets a team together to go with her and find it. None of them suspect that there are dangers beyond what they can imagine.

The film starts off interesting. It is a found-footage version of "National Treasure" at the beginning. In fact, there is one part reminiscent of that film in which Scarlett pours a chemical on the back of a stone, which reveals a clue.

The idea of searching for the Philosopher's Stone is a good premise in and of itself especially for people like me who are fans of Harry Potter. The fact that they are in the catacombs beneath Paris is also enough keep my attention. In fact, one scene shows that people can tour them, and it made me interested in going there one day.

It seems that the filmmakers started off with a "National Treasure" type of movie, but halfway into the first act, they decided to do horror instead. So they got a make up artist from off the streets to do living dead figures, and they did some cliché shots of disappearing characters.

Every time the camera shows a figure that is supposed to be scary, it is not. They look like something an amateur would put in a haunted corn maze. In fact, the make up artists for those probably do a better job.

A possible reason for this is a lack of money. According to Wikipedia, the budget was only 5 million dollars, and this is painfully obvious. The filmmakers do not seem to understand that what is scary is what is not shown. They should have looked at classics like John Carpenter's "Halloween" as an example of what to do. In the entirety of that film, the character, Michael Myers, is never shown in full light. Another example is "Paranormal Activity" in which the demon is invisible.

There are a few intense moments, but none of them involve the "frightening images." The best scene is in the beginning before Scarlett even thinks about the catacombs. She searches for a certain artifact in Iraq that would help her find the Philosopher's Stone. It involves hiding from real people and real explosions. The audience never even sees who is chasing her. Had the whole film been like that one scene, it would have been fantastic. As it stands, it is cheesy.

Like my Facebook page: www.facebook.com/criticalchristopher

Follow me on Twitter: @ChrisCampbell02


Aug 16, 2014

"The Giver" Review

The Giver

4.5 out of 5 stars

Family appropriateness rating: 4.8 out of 5 stars
Rated PG-13
-One scene of war violence. Someone gets shot, and a little blood from the gunshot wound is shown.
-Some minor action-violence near the end.
-A very light PG-13 rating. I actually thought it was PG.









"The Giver" takes full advantage of the visual, film medium to tell a thought-provoking story about why diversity is important.

The story is set in a post-apocalyptic city where everyone sees black and white. Their function is to obey rules set by the Elders that make everyone completely equal. There is no pain, no suffering and no poverty. There is also no joy, no happiness and no knowledge. The people in this society think they are happy, but that is because they are ignorant of what life has to offer.

When the citizens of this city reach a certain age -- at about the start of puberty -- they are told what their profession is. The Elders watch them from infancy and know what career they are best suited for.

The main character, Jonas (Brenton Thwaites), is assigned to be "The Receiver." His job is to receive the memories of the past, before the post-apocalyptic world. Everyday, the memories are passed to him by the former Receiver, who calls himself The Giver (Jeff Bridges).

What The Giver gives is more than just information. Jonas learns the emotions of the past and starts to see that the world before was much better than the world now. People are content with what they have because they have been told that they can only be happy in their little society. Everyone is told that with the good from the past, there comes a lot of misery and pain, which is why they do not want to go back.

Director Phillip Noyce does an excellent job using visuals to tell the story. At the beginning, everything is shot in black and white. One of the major memories of the past is color, which Jonas sees fully by the end. At first, he -- as well as the audience -- only sees a little bit: the first color is red, which is beautifully contrasted with the black and white. As the story progresses, more and more color is shown.

The way it is shot becomes more complex near the end. Every scene with Jonas is shot in full color, while scenes without him are only in black and white. There is another character, who starts to vaguely see color while coming to an understanding of what is going on.

Jeff Bridges is perfect as The Giver. He portrays the character with a sense of broken wisdom. It is clear that living in this world with the knowledge he has is a great burden to bear.

I would not be surprised to see Brenton Thwaites, the young actor playing Jonas, start becoming more popular in the future. At the beginning, he and his friends are two-dimensional without very much emotion, and the way they speak is always formal. However, as the story goes on, Thwaites does a great job conveying the emotions -- both positive and negative -- that comes with learning how life is supposed to be.

This film is very underrated. On Rotten Tomatoes, it has a 30%, which means that out of all the reviews that have been coming in by major critics, only that percentage liked it. The general synopsis is that it does not explore this world or the depth of the novel very well. I admit to have never read the book. Seeing it as an objective movie-goer, it is engaging, well-written, beautifully-shot and thought-provoking.

There are some details that seem to be omitted by the movie, but these are some minor nitpicks in an overall great film. For one thing, it does not explain what the purpose of having a Receiver is. The Elders want everyone to be ignorant, so why are there two people who know everything? How do the Elders not expect the Giver and Receiver to cause trouble? The film also is not as detailed as it should be about how the society works. Before I saw it, a friend of mine -- who had read the book -- told me that the children are assigned to certain age groups, which is not explained at all in the movie.

Like my Facebook page: www.facebook.com/criticalchristopher

Follow me on Twitter: @ChrisCampbel02

Aug 14, 2014

Robin Williams Tribute: "Good Will Hunting"

Good Will Hunting

5 out of 5 stars

Family appropriateness rating: 3 out of 5 stars
Rated R
-A few sexual references including one scene in which a character tells a joke about oral sex, and several scenes in which a couple are in bed together. No nudity or sex is shown.
-Strong language throughout, including f-words.
-Mild violence from a fist fight which shows a little blood.









Introduction: Robin Williams's passing is nothing short of tragic. He was an actor who brought a lot of warmth and depth into many of his roles. In an effort to celebrate his life, I will be reviewing some of the films for which he received the most praise.

Review: If everyone saw "Good Will Hunting," the world would be a better place. It is an inspirational story about helping people and moving on with life.

Will Hunting (Matt Damon) is a genius who has been holding himself back. Instead of dedicating himself to become really successful, he works as a janitor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). One day he sees a problem outside of Professor Gerald Lambeau's (Stellan Skarsgård) classroom, which is incredibly difficult to even the most intelligent people. Hunting's genius is at a level beyond anyone else's, and he solves the problem before Lambeau's students have a chance.

After having started a fight, Hunting ends up in jail, and Lambeau works out a deal with him: the professor will bail him out only if he promises to help with scholarly work and undergo counseling.

Hunting agrees to the deal but does not want to see a therapist. He knows how to get under the skin of the professionals Lambeau hires, and he does so, which makes them not want to work with him. When they all refuse to help Hunting, the professor hires his old college roommate, Dr. Sean Maguire (Robin Williams), who ends up being the perfect person to help the prodigy.

The role of the good psychologist is one of Robin Williams's most critically acclaimed performances. In fact, it won him an Oscar, which was very deserving. The character has recently undergone some tragedy in his life, and Williams does a great job portraying the emotional turmoil this causes, while still adding warmth to Hunting's life. Not only is he the psychologist, he becomes Will Hunting's best friend, and he is an example to everyone watching the film of what that entails.

The thing Maguire does differently than other psychologists is he spends time developing a relationship with Hunting. The others tackle his problems head-on and attempt to cure him in the first session. Hunting sees through their façade and automatically does not trust them. Maguire approaches the situation by getting to know who Hunting is as a person.

When I served a Mormon mission, there was a photo in one of the training manuals of an entire iceberg, both top and bottom. Most of it is underwater and cannot be seen. The manual compared the visual to people. They often look a certain way and act a certain way, but there is so much more underneath that no one else can see.

That is ultimately what this film is about. Both Hunting and Maguire are complete icebergs, who wind up helping each other with their deep problems. Hunting does not want to move on with his life. He is perfectly comfortable staying exactly where he is even though he has the potential to do more. In fact, he wants to do more. This frustrates Lambeau to no end because he hates seeing this wasted potential, but he has no idea how to approach the situation.

Because of their differences in approach, there is drama between Lambeau and Maguire. The MIT professor is impatient. He thinks all of Hunting's problems should just be solvable, and he keeps pressuring Maguire. However, the psychologist knows that something as important as an individual's psyche takes time.

Maguire also has issues that hold him back from reaching his full potential. The tragedy he just went through makes him not want to move on. It is through counseling Hunting that he ends up helping himself as much as he helps his friend.

"It's not your fault" (spoilers): One of the most memorable scenes in this film is one that I frankly did not understand when I first saw it over a year ago. However, it ends up being the solution to everything.

There are ultimately two reasons Hunting holds himself back. The first is because he grew up as an orphan, and the people he became close to ended up leaving him. He is afraid that after things go well, he will be abandoned again.

The other reason is he does not feel like he deserves happiness. He had undergone some intense physical abuse in some of the foster homes he lived in, and he feels guilty because of it. The key scene is the one in which Maguire lovingly repeats "It's not your fault" several times as he goes in for a hug.

When I first saw this, I did not know what to make of it. In my mind, of course it is not his fault. It is the fault of some horrible people he came into contact with as a child. This caused me to look at some message boards on IMDB in which people with different experiences than mine said that the feeling of guilt is one that many abused children feel.

This is something I did not understand because I grew up with two parents who love me and my siblings. I had not gone through the physical abuse that Will Hunting did.

The lack of sympathy on my part ends up being a major theme of this film. There is a speech that Maguire gives about how Hunting has a lot of knowledge from books, but he does not have a lot of knowledge from experience. It is a great speech, and it gives the reason why it is wrong to judge other people. It is impossible to know exactly what they are going through unless you walk a mile in their shoes.

What is interesting is Hunting says "I know" after Maguire tells him "It's not your fault" the first time. It is something that Hunting knows but has never internalized or believed until that moment.

Like my Facebook page: www.facebook.com/criticalchristopher

Follow me on Twitter: @ChrisCampbell02

Aug 8, 2014

"Get on Up" Review

Get on Up

3 out of 5 stars

Family appropriateness rating: 3 out of 5 stars
Rated PG-13
-Moderate amount of profanity including two uses of the f-word.
-Moderate amount of sexual content. One scene shows two clothed people having sex standing up, another scene shows a man taking his shirt off as he kisses a woman, but the scene ends after that.
-One scene shows a topless woman hiding her breasts with her arms.
-Several depictions of domestic abuse.






There is no question that Chadwick Boseman does a great job in his portrayal of James Brown, but "Get on Up" is a disorganized look at the singer's life.

James Brown is well known for singing popular songs like "I Feel Good" and "Get Up Offa That Thing." He is an excellent entertainer who knows how to please a crowd, but he is not a very nice person. Brown is a control freak, and he thinks he is God's gift to the world. His personality drives other people away.

His abrasive personality happens to be why he is so successful. He knows what he wants and he will stop at nothing to get it. One scene in particular shows how creative he is in business as he ingeniously promotes his show without hiring a promoter. He decides that he can very well do it himself. He does not want to pay someone to do it for him.

Chadwick Boseman does a great job in his portrayal of the main character. It would not have been an easy role to play. James Brown is a loud, energetic man who has moments of tragedy. The performance was believable, and I came out of the theatre knowing better what what the man was like.

As in recent biopics, this film seems like the CliffsNotes version of his life. It shows various events, but it feels rushed. The way the film is organized does not seem logical especially in the beginning. It starts in one year, then it goes to several decades before, then it shows Brown's childhood and then back to another period. The chronology is confusing, and I do not understand why it was edited that way.

James Brown also gets in relationships with a few different women in this film, but it does not address this aspect very well. The way the audience knows about one of them is because Brown tells his friend/singing partner, Bobby Byrd (Nelsan Ellis), that he plans to get married to Velma (Jacinte Blankenship), who is either not shown before this or the audience is never given any reason to recognize her. The film never addresses whether or not he got married to her, but it shows him several years later leaving his house, kissing her and his infant. It was not until I looked it up on Wikipedia that I found out he did get married to her.

He later ends up in another relationship with a woman named DeeDee (Jill Scott). It shows them together, but it never addresses whether or not they are married -- which according to Wikipedia, they were. It shows him see her, and in the next scene, they are together. The film addresses something dark that happens within this relationship, but I was so confused about what they were that I did not care as much as I should have.

That is how the whole film is. It glosses over important details, especially about his relationships with important people in his life, and it awkwardly transitions into different time periods. I know James Brown's personality better after having seen the film, but I do not know his personal life as deeply as I should.

For a good example of what a biopic should be, see "Walk the Line." Johnny Cash's relationship with his wife in that film is well-defined, and it is easy to see where their marriage goes wrong. It also does a great job at developing his relationship with another woman he falls in love with. "Get on Up" fails at establishing basic relationships the main character has, which would have made it a more powerful film.

This is not by any means a horrible movie. It is just disorganized and does not know what it wants to focus on. I recommend seeing it when it comes to Redbox rather than in theaters.

Like my Facebook page: www.facebook.com/criticalchristopher

Follow me on Twitter: @ChrisCampbell02

"Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles" Review

Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles

3 out of 5 stars

Family appropriateness rating: 4.3 out of 5 stars
-Action violence throughout.
-Mild language
-One brief sex-related joke during the credits.











"Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles" is what the trailers promise: plenty of fun, action scenes within a generic story that offers little substance.

Reporter April O'Neal (Megan Fox) is basically Kate Hudson's character on "How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days" and Robin in "How I Met Your Mother." She wants to be a serious journalist but is confined to cover menial, fluff stories. In order to break out of this rut, she is investigates robberies done by a group of outlaws known as the "Foot Clan," led by the evil Shredder (Tohoru Masamune).

This leads her to find a group of vigilantes who are fighting the Clan. It is extremely difficult to get anyone to believe her because they are mutant turtles who happen to be teenage ninjas.* There is a deal going on between the Foot Clan and someone who wants money that will put many lives in danger. The turtles need to stop this from happening, and O'Neal tries to help them.

The first scenes with the turtles are from April O'Neal's perspective. They fight so fast in the shadows that it is impossible to see anything. When the turtles are introduced, the action is seeable, and there are some good throw-downs between them and the Foot Clan. The action is done in a super-quick, martial-arts style. Like recent super hero movies, when they hit, they hit hard.

A lot of announcements about this film have been met with skepticism. It is based on a franchise that is important to many people, and the producer is Michael Bay, who is famous for the "Transformers" films. Many people do not like him because he does not care about the source material. A lot of what he directs are shallow, lazy movies with a lot of explosions. Some of the skepticism came from rumors that the turtles were going to be aliens -- which the filmmakers decided not to do -- and the casting of Megan Fox.

This movie ended up being better than I thought it would be. It was produced by Michael Bay, not directed by him. It is not an overly-long movie with nothing but action and crazy big explosions. It is more grounded than that. It does well balancing story with action.

Megan Fox does an okay job in this film. The role does not require a great performance, and she does exactly what is required of her. What might make fans angry is not so much her performance but the fact that the turtles' origins are linked to her and her father. I do not know much about this franchise, but I am pretty sure that is not how it is supposed to be.

Though it is not horrible, this movie is mostly forgettable. The story is just a generic action-adventure, and the characters are not particularly interesting. There is too much focus on April O'Neal's story and not enough on the turtles. It shows just enough to where I have the gist of who the turtles are. There is a lot of potential for some witty banter, but most of what they say falls flat. Though the action is well-choreographed, it is not capable of putting people at the edge of their seats because it does not matter what happens to the characters.

Had this been in the hands of a better writer/director like James Gunn, it would have been a much better film. I do not recommend going out to see it in theaters. Spend your money on something worthwhile like "Dawn of the Planet of the Apes" or "Guardians of the Galaxy." This one can wait for a Redbox or Netflix release.

*See what I did there?

Like my Facebook page: www.facebook.com/criticalchristopher

Follow me on Twitter: @ChrisCampbell02


Aug 5, 2014

Quentin Tarantino Month: Conclusion

When I started reading film reviews as a teenager, I learned that character development is very important. At first, I was not sure what it meant, but over the years I have come to understand it more and more. It is when the characters are given believable motivation and personality so the audience can connect with them. There was a time when I thought in order for this to happen, their backstories needed to be known. The main thing I learned from watching Quentin Tarantino movies last month is how untrue that is. We do not need to know every detail about the characters' lives.

As has been stated several times in other reviews, Tarantino develops his characters through a steady flow of dialogue. He often sets his scenes up as if it were in a play. There is a setting and there are characters talking in it. They have their own distinct personalities that are revealed through what is being said and the way the actors say it.

A great example of this is Hans Landa (Christoph Waltz) from "Inglourious Basterds." As stated in the review for it, Quentin Tarantino has said in several interviews that Landa is the greatest character he had written. I was not entirely sure why at first because there is very little that is explicitly known about him. He is not given a backstory about why he became a Nazi soldier in the first place. Everything we know about him is revealed through each scene he is in, the most notable being the opening of the film. What is interesting about him, is even though the audience is not given specific details at first, his motivation is shown near the end.

Tarantino has a way of giving just enough information for us to understand the characters and their motivations. However, what is interesting is he often does not reveal everything. For example, in "Pulp Fiction," Vincent (John Travolta) and Jules (Samuel L. Jackson) retrieve a suitcase. It is opened twice in the film, and both times the only thing the movie shows is golden light shining from the inside. The audience never knows what is inside, but it is probably very valuable.

In an interview with Charlie Rose about "Inglourious Basterds," Tarantino said he leaves certain things open for the audience's interpretation. The example from the film he was promoting was Aldo Raine's (Brad Pitt) rope burn on his neck. It is clear to see, but there is no explanation for it. Tarantino said he does this because he wants the experience to be different for everybody. The reason he imagines the rope burn came to be may be different than what I, or any other audience member, may create in our own minds, and it is therefore, a completely different movie to everyone.

There is a big detail about Tarantino films that I left out of my reviews: each pays homage to a specific genre. "Reservoir Dogs" and "Pulp Fiction" were his version of the crime genre, "Jackie Brown" is his black exploitation film, "Kill Bill" is martial arts, "Inglourious Basterds" is a war movie and "Django Unchained" is a spaghetti western. In Hollywood, Tarantino is known for being very knowledgable about cinematic history. He has seen a lot of older films, and some of the genres he tackles are not common today. Most of what I personally know about movies comes from the last 20 to 30 years, and I did not think I could do justice to a discussion on this aspect.

None of the Tarantino movies I have seen are bad by any means, but some are better than others. Here is my list from "worst" to best:

7. Django Unchained













                                                               
              6. Jackie Brown



                                                                                                                          5. Inglourious Basterds














                                                                 4. Kill Bill: Vol. 1



3. Kill Bill Vol. 2













                                           
                2. Pulp Fiction



                                                                                                                               1. Reservoir Dogs















It surprised me that "Reservoir Dogs" would make the number one spot on this list. I had seen that film about eight months ago. I remember thinking it was a good movie, but it did not seem extraordinary to me. However, watching it the second time, I realized that it is a near-perfect film. The characters are interesting, the story reveals just enough at a time to constantly keep the audience involved and the pacing is perfect. "Pulp Fiction" had been my favorite for a while -- I still love it -- but it has its slow moments whereas "Reservoir Dogs" does not.

Quentin Tarantino Month was a much more difficult task than I thought it would be, but it was also rewarding.  Writing reviews about movies by the same director is a challenge because what is great about one film is often great about the others. This makes it tedious to discuss every film individually. It was rewarding because watching films by one of the greatest writer/directors of today is a learning experience. I learned a lot about how to use dialogue to create interesting characters and an enjoyable cinematic experience.

Quentin Tarantino Month:

Introduction
Kill Bill: Vol. 1
Kill Bill Vol. 2
Pulp Fiction
Django Unchained
Inglourious Basterds
Jackie Brown
Reservoir Dogs

Like my Facebook page: www.facebook.com/criticalchristopher

Follow me on Twitter: @ChrisCampbell02

Aug 2, 2014

"Guardians of the Galaxy" Review

Guardians of the Galaxy

4.5 out of 5 stars

Family appropriateness rating: 4 out of 5 stars
Rated PG-13
-Action violence throughout.
-A moderate amount of language. No f-words, but one character almost says it once.










Once you get past the initial confusion that comes with learning different names, "Guardians of the Galaxy" is every bit as good as "The Avengers."

The movie is about five different characters who work together to save the universe: Peter Quill (Chris Pratt), Rocket (Bradley Cooper), Groot (Vin Diesel), Gamora (Zoe Saldana) and Drax (Dave Bautista). There is an all-powerful object that the Kree terrorist, Ronan (Lee Pace), wants, and they need to make sure he does not get it.

Like "The Avengers," this film is great because it combines fun action scenes with excellent dialogue between characters with distinct personalities and motivations. Peter Quill is a human from earth who was captured by the alien, Yondu (Michael Rooker), as a child. Now, he is a goofy outlaw, who constantly references things from earth that no one else would understand. He has spent his adult life as a lonely man, stealing things from around the galaxy until he meets the other main characters.

Rocket and Groot are best friends who are always looking out for each other. Rocket is an opinionated, loud-mouthed, raccoon-like creature who is very talented with guns. Groot is a gentle, walking tree, who believes in not being violent unless it is necessary. When it is necessary, you do not want to be on his bad side. His entire language consists of "I am Groot," and only Rocket understands what he says.

Gamora is a daughter of the evil Thanos (Josh Brolin), who has been responsible for the deaths of many people. She has spent her life serving Ronan and her father against her will. She wants to stand up for what is right.

Drax is from a race of aliens that take everything literally. When someone says something metaphorical, he does not understand it. He tags along with the other characters because he wants to take revenge on Ronan for killing his family.

The trailers make this movie look like it will be a weird space adventure, much like Spaceballs. That is not entirely true. There are certainly a lot of funny, quirky moments, but that is not the whole film. It knows when to be dramatic, and it knows when to be comical. Most of the humor comes from the dialogue. Writer/director James Gunn does a great job writing witty banter that keeps the characters consistent.

The way certain characters and places are introduced can be a little confusing. The film deals with different planets and therefore different names. The first time they are said is often too fast and connected with other key names. I missed some minor details while trying to get them all straight. However, the story is simple enough to understand once you know who all the players are.

For the most part the action scenes are well-done and fun to watch, but they are sometimes cut too quickly to see what is happening. When they are good, they are very good. One of the best action sequences involves Groot, and he is my favorite character because of it.

Like my Facebook page: www.facebook.com/criticalchristopher

Follow me on Twitter: @ChrisCampbell02