Tom Hanks is one of my favorite actors of all time, and yet there is much of his early work that I have not seen. I always find it interesting to discover earlier and lesser known films in the careers of certain actors because it is a window into how they became as great as they are today. I had never seen Every Time I Say Goodbye, nor had I even heard of it. While the film does have some good performances in it, unfortunately it is riddled with cliches right up until the very end.
Every Time We Say Goodbye is the story of a pilot and a girl from Jerusalem who fall in love, even though their individual backgrounds suggest that they should not be together at all. As I said before, this film is your typical "forbidden love story". These two characters are not meant to be together because of their different backgrounds, but they do not care and continue to see each other anyway. The big problem with the film is that it does not focus on this aspect as much as it should. It is more focused on the fact that David (Tom Hanks) is an American, and does not understand the Jewish culture and heritage. The entire film consists of David and Sarah (Cristina Marsillach) seeing each other behind the back of Sarahs' family. The storytelling falls completely flat, and were it not for the performances of Hanks and Marsillach, this movie would be dead on arrival.
Tom Hanks plays David. Even though his character arc is predictable in every way, I like what Hanks brings to the table. There are scenes where he displays his classic comedy chops, but for a majority of the film he displays a serviceable dramatic range that is nice to see so early in his career. The scene where he is attempting to see Sarah one last time before he leaves is actually quite moving to watch because he is almost violent in his determination to see her. This is a solid performance from an an actor who would go on to become one of the greatest ever.
Cristina Marsillach plays Sarah. While I do like Marsillachs' performance, her character arc is the most cliched element of this film. She meets David, and they start spending time with each other even though she is forbidden from seeing him. She falls in love with him, tells her family, then tells David to leave so that she is spared more pain, and chooses to marry her best friend. Then, she realizes she cannot marry him because she is in love with David. Marsillach does what she can with such limited material, and her performance, along with Hanks' is the only other reason to watch this film in its entirety.
Moshe Mizrahi is the director of Every Time We Say Goodbye. The relationship between David and Sarah is the most important aspect of this film. Mizrahi uses this to his advantage because not only is the chemistry good between the actors, but all of their scenes together are quite touching to watch. My favorite scene in the film is when Sarah confesses her love for David to her family. The performances of every actor in this scene are so genuine. You can feel the emotional conflict within Sarah, just as you can feel the anger and hatred from her family. The location of Jerusalem is beautiful to look at as well. Mizrahi chooses nice shots to showcase the landscape. There is not much to like about the direction of this film, but these aspects do stand out in a positive way for me personally.
There is not much to like about Every Time We Say Goodbye. The story and character arcs are all too familiar and predictable, but I honestly think that the acting is serviceable. I would say if you are fan of Tom Hanks, and would like to experience his earlier work, check this movie out. If not, you are better off skipping it.
Friday, October 27, 2017
Sunday, October 22, 2017
Tragedies In The Wilderness
Time to Kill is another early film in Nicolas Cages' career that I had not seen, or even heard of, until recently. I have always liked him as an actor, so I was automatically intrigued to watch the film. I have to say that I thoroughly enjoyed this movie, and I think Cage gives one of his best performances of his entire career.
Time to Kill is the story of an Italian Army Lieutenant who is suffering from a toothache, travels to the nearest hospital to get it treated, but encounters many horrors throughout his journey. In fact, that is the most intriguing thing about this movie. The experiences that Lieutenant Silvestri (Nicolas Cage) has throughout the film are almost, if not just as, terrible as experiencing the war itself. There are even times when you think that Silvestri would have been better off fighting in the war. This is a heavy film to get through, and some of the characters are downright unlikable. In fact, this might be one of those movies that you only watch once a year. However, this is an incredibly well-made film that I highly recommend you make the effort to watch. There are a few plot holes with this movie that I must address. Firstly, it is unclear where the war in this film is being fought. I actually had to do some research online to find out that the war was being fought in Ethiopia in 1936. Also, at one point in the movie, Silvestri accidentally shoots a woman and kills her. We do not learn this womans' name until moments before her death, and her name-drop feels completely random. Later in the film, Silvestri has a standoff with an enemy, and his enemy has stolen has his gun. Silvestri reveals that he has unloaded his gun so that the enemy cannot fire it. While this plot point can be somewhat debatable as to whether it should be seen or not, I personally feel it necessary. Despite these extremely minor flaws, this is an incredible film that every movie buff should have in their collection.
Nicolas Cage plays Enrico Silvestri. This is one of Cages' most emotional and vulnerable performances. Silvestri is a man who has plenty of war experience, but when it comes to surviving on his own in the wilderness, he has no idea what to do or where to go. He suffers horrors beyond his imagination, and because of that he will have personal demons for the rest of his life. The scene where he accidentally shoots and kills a local woman is particularly moving because there is no one/nowhere to go to for help. Even though Silvestri is not a likable character in the slightest, his journey is quite remarkable. Cage is brilliant in this film.
Giuliano Montaldo is the director of Time to Kill. I like what Montaldo does with this movie for a couple of reasons: Firstly, the wide shots that show Silvestri traveling across the vast landscape are absolutely spectacular, and almost make you forget about all of the terrible things that have happened to this character. Second, I like the way all of the incidents are filmed. Montaldo does a brilliant job of making us feel like we are experiencing these events along with Silvestri, which makes you feel empathy for the character even though he is not particularly likable. Montaldo does a fine job directing this movie.
Time to Kill is heavy on dramatic storytelling and dark character arcs. However, it is a must for any film connoisseur. This film might be hard to find, but if you do, I highly suggest that you pick it up.
Time to Kill is the story of an Italian Army Lieutenant who is suffering from a toothache, travels to the nearest hospital to get it treated, but encounters many horrors throughout his journey. In fact, that is the most intriguing thing about this movie. The experiences that Lieutenant Silvestri (Nicolas Cage) has throughout the film are almost, if not just as, terrible as experiencing the war itself. There are even times when you think that Silvestri would have been better off fighting in the war. This is a heavy film to get through, and some of the characters are downright unlikable. In fact, this might be one of those movies that you only watch once a year. However, this is an incredibly well-made film that I highly recommend you make the effort to watch. There are a few plot holes with this movie that I must address. Firstly, it is unclear where the war in this film is being fought. I actually had to do some research online to find out that the war was being fought in Ethiopia in 1936. Also, at one point in the movie, Silvestri accidentally shoots a woman and kills her. We do not learn this womans' name until moments before her death, and her name-drop feels completely random. Later in the film, Silvestri has a standoff with an enemy, and his enemy has stolen has his gun. Silvestri reveals that he has unloaded his gun so that the enemy cannot fire it. While this plot point can be somewhat debatable as to whether it should be seen or not, I personally feel it necessary. Despite these extremely minor flaws, this is an incredible film that every movie buff should have in their collection.
Nicolas Cage plays Enrico Silvestri. This is one of Cages' most emotional and vulnerable performances. Silvestri is a man who has plenty of war experience, but when it comes to surviving on his own in the wilderness, he has no idea what to do or where to go. He suffers horrors beyond his imagination, and because of that he will have personal demons for the rest of his life. The scene where he accidentally shoots and kills a local woman is particularly moving because there is no one/nowhere to go to for help. Even though Silvestri is not a likable character in the slightest, his journey is quite remarkable. Cage is brilliant in this film.
Giuliano Montaldo is the director of Time to Kill. I like what Montaldo does with this movie for a couple of reasons: Firstly, the wide shots that show Silvestri traveling across the vast landscape are absolutely spectacular, and almost make you forget about all of the terrible things that have happened to this character. Second, I like the way all of the incidents are filmed. Montaldo does a brilliant job of making us feel like we are experiencing these events along with Silvestri, which makes you feel empathy for the character even though he is not particularly likable. Montaldo does a fine job directing this movie.
Time to Kill is heavy on dramatic storytelling and dark character arcs. However, it is a must for any film connoisseur. This film might be hard to find, but if you do, I highly suggest that you pick it up.
Thursday, September 28, 2017
Birth of the Blue Flash
I have always found Nicolas Cage to be one of cinemas' most interesting actors. Everything from the projects he chooses to his subtle nuances as an actor have made him one of the most polarizing celebrities in Hollywood. Up until now, I have been unfamiliar with his earlier work. As I watch more of his movies, it will be fascinating to see how his career has evolved. My first choice is the 1986 film The Boy in Blue.
The Boy in Blue is the true story of Ned Hanlan, the Canadian sculler who would go on to become the World Champion. This film effectively chronicles Hanlans' (Nicolas Cage) days growing up in Canada, and the events that transpired as he went on to become internationally famous. One of the things that keeps this movie grounded, and not just a puff piece, is that it shows that while Hanlan is the best sculler in Canada, he has trouble competing with the big boys around the world and truly has much to learn. In fact, he does not even win his first race once he leaves Canada. He is even bullied and looked down upon for being an outsider and not having professional training. Again, it is all of these factors, as well as Nicolas Cages' performance, that make this story believable. Other than the fact that it is unclear that Hanlan is not American ( I actually had to look up where he is from), this is a wonderful film about having the strength to accomplish your goals, and the triumph of the human spirit.
Nicolas Cage plays Ned Hanlan. There is a certain recklessness, and yet determination, to Hanlan throughout the beginning of the film. Hanlan enjoys living life and taking risks, but when it comes to sculling he is extremely focused. Cage balances these emotions well, and even makes you laugh at his recklessness not because it is funny, but because he is wasting his potential. However, once he begins to make it big in the United States, his determination is kicked into overdrive. There is also a certain humbleness to Hanlan that Cage plays into quite well. Hanlan is an every-man who is a casual sculler, and is not used to a celebrity status, so when he is greeted with thunderous applause it is awkward for him. Cages' performance is the heartbeat of the film, and he displays all of these emotions in such a well-rounded way.
Christopher Plummer plays Knox. Knox is a wealthy businessman who sees Hanlan as a financial investment, and not as a talented man. He is ruthless, and has Hanlan training vigorously for the championship. It takes a truly great actor to make you hate the character they are playing, and Plummer plays the role with such conviction that every fiber of your being despises his character. He virtually steals every scene that he is in. This is such a deliciously evil performance delivered by an acting titan.
Charles Jarrott is the director of The Boy in Blue. I love what Jarrott brings to this film because he brings you into the world and culture of sculling. The sequences at the Centennial Regatta are a sight to a behold. I also like the way Hanlans' relationships with Knox and Margaret (Cynthia Dale) are handled. One is affecting him in a positive way, and the other is affecting him in a negative way. Jarrott handles these relationships with great care. Of course, the main character arc is about Ned Hanlan, and his story truly has an epic, "zero-to-hero" feel to it. Jarrott does a magnificent job directing this film.
The Boy in Blue is a must-own movie for any film enthusiast. With great characters and a compelling story, this film will truly capture your heart. This film may be hard to find, but if you do, I highly suggest you pick it up.
The Boy in Blue is the true story of Ned Hanlan, the Canadian sculler who would go on to become the World Champion. This film effectively chronicles Hanlans' (Nicolas Cage) days growing up in Canada, and the events that transpired as he went on to become internationally famous. One of the things that keeps this movie grounded, and not just a puff piece, is that it shows that while Hanlan is the best sculler in Canada, he has trouble competing with the big boys around the world and truly has much to learn. In fact, he does not even win his first race once he leaves Canada. He is even bullied and looked down upon for being an outsider and not having professional training. Again, it is all of these factors, as well as Nicolas Cages' performance, that make this story believable. Other than the fact that it is unclear that Hanlan is not American ( I actually had to look up where he is from), this is a wonderful film about having the strength to accomplish your goals, and the triumph of the human spirit.
Nicolas Cage plays Ned Hanlan. There is a certain recklessness, and yet determination, to Hanlan throughout the beginning of the film. Hanlan enjoys living life and taking risks, but when it comes to sculling he is extremely focused. Cage balances these emotions well, and even makes you laugh at his recklessness not because it is funny, but because he is wasting his potential. However, once he begins to make it big in the United States, his determination is kicked into overdrive. There is also a certain humbleness to Hanlan that Cage plays into quite well. Hanlan is an every-man who is a casual sculler, and is not used to a celebrity status, so when he is greeted with thunderous applause it is awkward for him. Cages' performance is the heartbeat of the film, and he displays all of these emotions in such a well-rounded way.
Christopher Plummer plays Knox. Knox is a wealthy businessman who sees Hanlan as a financial investment, and not as a talented man. He is ruthless, and has Hanlan training vigorously for the championship. It takes a truly great actor to make you hate the character they are playing, and Plummer plays the role with such conviction that every fiber of your being despises his character. He virtually steals every scene that he is in. This is such a deliciously evil performance delivered by an acting titan.
Charles Jarrott is the director of The Boy in Blue. I love what Jarrott brings to this film because he brings you into the world and culture of sculling. The sequences at the Centennial Regatta are a sight to a behold. I also like the way Hanlans' relationships with Knox and Margaret (Cynthia Dale) are handled. One is affecting him in a positive way, and the other is affecting him in a negative way. Jarrott handles these relationships with great care. Of course, the main character arc is about Ned Hanlan, and his story truly has an epic, "zero-to-hero" feel to it. Jarrott does a magnificent job directing this film.
The Boy in Blue is a must-own movie for any film enthusiast. With great characters and a compelling story, this film will truly capture your heart. This film may be hard to find, but if you do, I highly suggest you pick it up.
Sunday, September 17, 2017
Age Is Only A Number
I have been a huge fan Clint Eastwood fan ever since I graduated high school. Personally, I believe that his career as a director outshines his career as an actor, which is saying quite a lot. However, there are still many of his earlier films that he directed that I have not seen. After watching Breezy, and rather enjoying it, I can finally cross this movie off of my list.
Breezy is the story of a teen-aged hippy and a middle-aged divorced man who unexpectedly fall in love. Ultimately, this film shows how profoundly one person can affect your life. Frank Harmon (William Holden) has just gone through a bitter divorce, and is living a live of seclusion. He is cranky, old and lonely. However, when Breezy (Kay Lenz) enters his life, there is a youthfulness that springs up inside of him. It is quite beautiful to see how their relationship progresses throughout the film. This film also sends the profound message that it does not matter who you love. Even though there is a vast age difference between Frank and Breezy, you can tell that they are perfect for each other. This is a solid, well put together film about enjoying life and finding love. However, there are some minor plot points I have with the movie. Relatively early in the film, Frank and Breezy find a dog lying helpless on the side of the road. Breezy gets out of the passenger side to help, and Frank....does the same??? Why does he not get out of the drivers' side??? Later in the film there is a scene in a bar, but why is the dog taken inside the bar?? Why is he not tied up outside?? Then, towards the middle of the film, Frank says he is going out. He tells Breezy that he will be home around 10:00 p.m. It turns out that he gets home much later. When he gets home, Breezy is not even mad at him. Instead, there is an impromptu love scene. Why is Breezy so forgiving of this?? Why is she not more worried about him??? Again, these are all EXTREMELY minor flaws in an otherwise good film.
William Holden plays Frank Harmon. I love this character because you can tell that even though he lives a life of seclusion, he actually does want happiness and companionship in his life again. In fact, it seems as if he is unwilling to admit to himself that Breezy is giving him all of this even though deep down he knows it to be true. I love the way Holden plays the character because what could be viewed as grumpiness towards Breezy actually shows that he knows that she is the right woman for him. The banter and chemistry that he has with Kay Lenz is impeccable, and you truly believe that these two are a couple. Franks' character arc is quite well done as well because we see him struggle with this relationship throughout the film, and it is only at the end that he realizes that this is meant to be. This is a remarkable performance by Holden that almost steals the show from the title character/actress.
Clint Eastwood is the director of Breezy. I love the way Eastwood handles this movie. Breezy is such a pivotal character in this film because she has such a strong impact on everyone she encounters and, because of this, Eastwood naturally has her on camera for virtually the entire film. Even when she is not on screen, you can still feel her presence. The relationship that she has with Frank is also such a driving force in the film, and Eastwood lets those two characters chew up every piece of celluloid that they are in together. The scene where Frank takes Breezy to the beach is so emotional to watch because it marks a turning point in their relationship, and Eastwood handles it in such a way that just makes you smile. While I would not rank this as one of Eastwoods' best films by any means, he does show that he can make a film about a romantic relationship without it being overly dramatic. This movie is a solid gem in his directorial filmography.
Breezy is a fine film directed by one of the industrys' greatest legends. It has a beautiful story, great characters, and a powerful message. However, to be perfectly honest, this is probably a "one-and-done" movie to the casual viewer. Unless you are a massive film fan or a Clint Eastwood enthusiast, you can probably skip this movie without any regrets.
Breezy is the story of a teen-aged hippy and a middle-aged divorced man who unexpectedly fall in love. Ultimately, this film shows how profoundly one person can affect your life. Frank Harmon (William Holden) has just gone through a bitter divorce, and is living a live of seclusion. He is cranky, old and lonely. However, when Breezy (Kay Lenz) enters his life, there is a youthfulness that springs up inside of him. It is quite beautiful to see how their relationship progresses throughout the film. This film also sends the profound message that it does not matter who you love. Even though there is a vast age difference between Frank and Breezy, you can tell that they are perfect for each other. This is a solid, well put together film about enjoying life and finding love. However, there are some minor plot points I have with the movie. Relatively early in the film, Frank and Breezy find a dog lying helpless on the side of the road. Breezy gets out of the passenger side to help, and Frank....does the same??? Why does he not get out of the drivers' side??? Later in the film there is a scene in a bar, but why is the dog taken inside the bar?? Why is he not tied up outside?? Then, towards the middle of the film, Frank says he is going out. He tells Breezy that he will be home around 10:00 p.m. It turns out that he gets home much later. When he gets home, Breezy is not even mad at him. Instead, there is an impromptu love scene. Why is Breezy so forgiving of this?? Why is she not more worried about him??? Again, these are all EXTREMELY minor flaws in an otherwise good film.
William Holden plays Frank Harmon. I love this character because you can tell that even though he lives a life of seclusion, he actually does want happiness and companionship in his life again. In fact, it seems as if he is unwilling to admit to himself that Breezy is giving him all of this even though deep down he knows it to be true. I love the way Holden plays the character because what could be viewed as grumpiness towards Breezy actually shows that he knows that she is the right woman for him. The banter and chemistry that he has with Kay Lenz is impeccable, and you truly believe that these two are a couple. Franks' character arc is quite well done as well because we see him struggle with this relationship throughout the film, and it is only at the end that he realizes that this is meant to be. This is a remarkable performance by Holden that almost steals the show from the title character/actress.
Clint Eastwood is the director of Breezy. I love the way Eastwood handles this movie. Breezy is such a pivotal character in this film because she has such a strong impact on everyone she encounters and, because of this, Eastwood naturally has her on camera for virtually the entire film. Even when she is not on screen, you can still feel her presence. The relationship that she has with Frank is also such a driving force in the film, and Eastwood lets those two characters chew up every piece of celluloid that they are in together. The scene where Frank takes Breezy to the beach is so emotional to watch because it marks a turning point in their relationship, and Eastwood handles it in such a way that just makes you smile. While I would not rank this as one of Eastwoods' best films by any means, he does show that he can make a film about a romantic relationship without it being overly dramatic. This movie is a solid gem in his directorial filmography.
Breezy is a fine film directed by one of the industrys' greatest legends. It has a beautiful story, great characters, and a powerful message. However, to be perfectly honest, this is probably a "one-and-done" movie to the casual viewer. Unless you are a massive film fan or a Clint Eastwood enthusiast, you can probably skip this movie without any regrets.
Monday, August 28, 2017
Simian Takeover: Part 2
After watching Rise, I was immediately excited to watch Dawn of the Planet of the Apes. I have to say that I had no idea what I was in for, how exciting this film would be, or how much fun I would have watching it. Dawn of the Planet of the Apes is a superb sequel that shows the violent conflict between the humans and the apes.
Dawn of the Planet of the Apes is the story of Caesar and his army of genetically enhanced apes being threatened by human survivors of the virus that was unleashed ten years earlier. One of the things that this movie does well is continue the story of the previous film while also standing on its own as a great sequel. There are a couple of plot points and character arcs that carry over to this film in a wonderful way. For example, we saw at the end of Rise that the virus that enhances apes has a vastly different affect on humans. Then, at the beginning of Dawn, we see that the virus has actually killed 150 million Americans. This leaves the apes as the dominant species on the planet. However, perhaps the most important aspect about this movie is how the conflict between the apes and the humans arises. While Caesar (Andy Serkis) and Koba (Toby Kebbell) both have opposing points of view about the humans, the most important thing about their relationship is that their points of view are CORRECT. They are both right in everything that they say about each other. This makes Kobas' betrayal, and his showdown with Caesar at the end of the film, so much more powerful. Also, like the previous film, Caesar is extremely adamant that the apes will only fight if necessary. This adds to the conflict between Caesar and Koba because Koba feels strongly that the humans are the enemy, and that they need to be eliminated. In fact, Koba feels as strongly about fighting as the humans do. The fact that Caesar sticks to his beliefs, even after Koba goes behind his back and does things without his knowledge, speaks volumes about Caesars' character. Tonally, this is a much darker film than the first, with many violent action sequences that enhance the story and the conflict between the characters. I would have liked to see a scene that explains Ellie's (Keri Russell) medical background but, other than that, this film is superb in every way.
Matt Reeves is the director of Dawn of the Planet of the Apes. As per usual with the second chapter in a story, this film is darker and more violent than the previous installment. However, it does not start that way. The conflict slowly builds through several scenes that are quite dramatic and tense to watch. This is is not only because you do not know how the characters will behave in certain situations, but also because Reeves uses long takes and good reaction shots to build the tension. The scene where Koba pretends to be a playful ape in front of two humans, and then shoots them point blank with their own guns, is a perfect example of this. I also love the sequence in which the apes attack the stronghold where the humans are located. The cinematography is beautiful, and the quick cuts make the action incredibly intense to watch. The long P.O.V. "turret shot" is a personal favorite of mine. I also enjoy the way the fight between Caesar and Koba is handled. This fight, between two CGI characters, could have easily been silly and laughable. However, given the tone of the movie and the emotions going through these two characters, this is more an emotional battle than a physical one. Also, given the arcs of both characters, the end result just about makes you leap for joy. This film is one of the better sequels in modern cinema, and that is due to the tone that Reeves set for this movie, and the direction in which he takes the story and the characters.
Dawn of the Planet of the Apes is a rare example of a sequel being better than its predecessor. It expands on the relationships between the characters, and the action sequences are incredibly exciting to watch. If you enjoyed the first Apes movie, you will LOVE Dawn of the Planet of the Apes.
Dawn of the Planet of the Apes is the story of Caesar and his army of genetically enhanced apes being threatened by human survivors of the virus that was unleashed ten years earlier. One of the things that this movie does well is continue the story of the previous film while also standing on its own as a great sequel. There are a couple of plot points and character arcs that carry over to this film in a wonderful way. For example, we saw at the end of Rise that the virus that enhances apes has a vastly different affect on humans. Then, at the beginning of Dawn, we see that the virus has actually killed 150 million Americans. This leaves the apes as the dominant species on the planet. However, perhaps the most important aspect about this movie is how the conflict between the apes and the humans arises. While Caesar (Andy Serkis) and Koba (Toby Kebbell) both have opposing points of view about the humans, the most important thing about their relationship is that their points of view are CORRECT. They are both right in everything that they say about each other. This makes Kobas' betrayal, and his showdown with Caesar at the end of the film, so much more powerful. Also, like the previous film, Caesar is extremely adamant that the apes will only fight if necessary. This adds to the conflict between Caesar and Koba because Koba feels strongly that the humans are the enemy, and that they need to be eliminated. In fact, Koba feels as strongly about fighting as the humans do. The fact that Caesar sticks to his beliefs, even after Koba goes behind his back and does things without his knowledge, speaks volumes about Caesars' character. Tonally, this is a much darker film than the first, with many violent action sequences that enhance the story and the conflict between the characters. I would have liked to see a scene that explains Ellie's (Keri Russell) medical background but, other than that, this film is superb in every way.
Matt Reeves is the director of Dawn of the Planet of the Apes. As per usual with the second chapter in a story, this film is darker and more violent than the previous installment. However, it does not start that way. The conflict slowly builds through several scenes that are quite dramatic and tense to watch. This is is not only because you do not know how the characters will behave in certain situations, but also because Reeves uses long takes and good reaction shots to build the tension. The scene where Koba pretends to be a playful ape in front of two humans, and then shoots them point blank with their own guns, is a perfect example of this. I also love the sequence in which the apes attack the stronghold where the humans are located. The cinematography is beautiful, and the quick cuts make the action incredibly intense to watch. The long P.O.V. "turret shot" is a personal favorite of mine. I also enjoy the way the fight between Caesar and Koba is handled. This fight, between two CGI characters, could have easily been silly and laughable. However, given the tone of the movie and the emotions going through these two characters, this is more an emotional battle than a physical one. Also, given the arcs of both characters, the end result just about makes you leap for joy. This film is one of the better sequels in modern cinema, and that is due to the tone that Reeves set for this movie, and the direction in which he takes the story and the characters.
Dawn of the Planet of the Apes is a rare example of a sequel being better than its predecessor. It expands on the relationships between the characters, and the action sequences are incredibly exciting to watch. If you enjoyed the first Apes movie, you will LOVE Dawn of the Planet of the Apes.
Saturday, August 19, 2017
Simian Takeover: Part 1
I was extremely skeptical of watching these new Planet of the Apes films. Even though I have become more tolerant of remakes in recent years, the original Apes movie will always have a special place in my heart because of my genetic connection to its director, Franklin J. Schaffner. Needless to say that, once again, I was proven wrong. Rise of the Planet of the Apes is quite an enjoyable film that has powerful themes within the story line.
Rise of the Planet of the Apes is the first installment of this new, reinvented Apes film franchise, and is the story of a brain-repairing substance that makes chimpanzees super-intelligent. I have to say that I worry about the future of humanity when I see film that makes us seem like the bad guys. Not that there is anything wrong with that. In fact, it is one of the main reasons this film is so compelling. We see how evil the human race is at its core right from the beginning of the movie. Instead of breeding the apes in captivity, and testing Substance 112 on them when they reach the right age, the humans go out into the jungle and capture them. Also, when the substance has an adverse affect on Bright Eyes, instead of tranquilizing her or putting her down in a peaceful way, she is violently shot in front of dozens of witnesses. The saddest part about this particular sequence is that she was just being protective of her son Caesar (Andy Serkis) which, of course, the humans were too reactionary to think about. The most important part of this film, as far as realizing the evil of humanity goes, is when Caesar is taken to a primate shelter after protecting Charles Rodman (John Lithgow) from their violent neighbor. We see that Caesar does not understand why he is being punished. After all, he is not the bad guy. He was just doing what he was taught to do by his master, Will Rodman (James Franco). Caesar sees the human race as primitive, and the apes as the superior, and more intelligent, race. Perhaps this is why Caesar leads the apes into the redwood forest at the end of the film: to wait for humanity to catch up to their intelligence level so that they do not react in a violent way, which of course is something that we begin to see. This is quite an enjoyable film that has a powerful message: some things are not meant to be changed. However, there are a couple of minor plot holes that I need to address. At one point in the film, I believe we see a picture of Will and his father. We are to understand that this picture was taken earlier in the film, and yet we do not see this happen. Also, later in the film during the sequences at the primate shelter, it is revealed that owner of the shelter is actually Dodge Landons' (Tom Felton) father. I think that this could have been revealed at an earlier time because, as it stands, it feels somewhat forced. These are EXTREMELY minor plot holes that in no way detract from how good this movie is. This movie proves that, if you get the right creative people involved, remakes/re-imaginings can actually be great films.
Andy Serkis plays Caesar. I truly love the way Caesar is portrayed by Serkis. The range of emotions that are portrayed on Caesar's face is nothing short of extraordinary. There is a beautiful moment in the film where Will opens the back door of his truck to let Caesar in, and Caesar refuses, instead choosing to ride in the back seat like a typical human being. The look on his face when he asks Will, "Am I a pet?" is the perfect combination of anger and confusion. I also love Caesar as a character because, even when the ape uprising starts, he feels strongly about not killing any humans unless absolutely necessary. He feels that killing makes them no better than the savageness of humanity. This groundbreaking role is a major reason why Serkis has become the godfather of performance capture.
Rupert Wyatt is the director of Rise of the Planet of the Apes. As I mentioned before, I enjoy the themes that this film deals with. Specifically, this movie shows how cruel humanity is at its core. When the humans realize that the apes have the potential to be better than them, both physically and mentally, they react in a violent way. That being said, I was actually quite surprised at how little violence is in this film. The violence does not escalate until the climax of the film, and it is only after the apes present a serious and legitimate threat. The action scene on the bridge is well shot and thrilling to watch. This action scene also shows the cruelty of humanity once again. The humans are the ones who instigate the violence, and the apes are responding in self-defense. The apes rarely kill any of the humans because they realize that doing so would mean that they are no better than them. This scene is exciting, and it also sets up the extremely violent second chapter in the Apes trilogy. Wyatt does a wonderful job of setting up the journey of Caesar. The sequence where we see Caesar grow up and develop is quite moving to watch. This is an epic and emotional film, and that is due to the tone that Wyatt set with this film.
I love being proven wrong about films. Rise of the Planet of the Apes breathes new life into this franchise while also reinvigorating my love for all of the previous films. All I can say is that if you are skeptical about watching this reinvention of the Apes franchise, as I was, I urge you to take a chance on it.
Rise of the Planet of the Apes is the first installment of this new, reinvented Apes film franchise, and is the story of a brain-repairing substance that makes chimpanzees super-intelligent. I have to say that I worry about the future of humanity when I see film that makes us seem like the bad guys. Not that there is anything wrong with that. In fact, it is one of the main reasons this film is so compelling. We see how evil the human race is at its core right from the beginning of the movie. Instead of breeding the apes in captivity, and testing Substance 112 on them when they reach the right age, the humans go out into the jungle and capture them. Also, when the substance has an adverse affect on Bright Eyes, instead of tranquilizing her or putting her down in a peaceful way, she is violently shot in front of dozens of witnesses. The saddest part about this particular sequence is that she was just being protective of her son Caesar (Andy Serkis) which, of course, the humans were too reactionary to think about. The most important part of this film, as far as realizing the evil of humanity goes, is when Caesar is taken to a primate shelter after protecting Charles Rodman (John Lithgow) from their violent neighbor. We see that Caesar does not understand why he is being punished. After all, he is not the bad guy. He was just doing what he was taught to do by his master, Will Rodman (James Franco). Caesar sees the human race as primitive, and the apes as the superior, and more intelligent, race. Perhaps this is why Caesar leads the apes into the redwood forest at the end of the film: to wait for humanity to catch up to their intelligence level so that they do not react in a violent way, which of course is something that we begin to see. This is quite an enjoyable film that has a powerful message: some things are not meant to be changed. However, there are a couple of minor plot holes that I need to address. At one point in the film, I believe we see a picture of Will and his father. We are to understand that this picture was taken earlier in the film, and yet we do not see this happen. Also, later in the film during the sequences at the primate shelter, it is revealed that owner of the shelter is actually Dodge Landons' (Tom Felton) father. I think that this could have been revealed at an earlier time because, as it stands, it feels somewhat forced. These are EXTREMELY minor plot holes that in no way detract from how good this movie is. This movie proves that, if you get the right creative people involved, remakes/re-imaginings can actually be great films.
Andy Serkis plays Caesar. I truly love the way Caesar is portrayed by Serkis. The range of emotions that are portrayed on Caesar's face is nothing short of extraordinary. There is a beautiful moment in the film where Will opens the back door of his truck to let Caesar in, and Caesar refuses, instead choosing to ride in the back seat like a typical human being. The look on his face when he asks Will, "Am I a pet?" is the perfect combination of anger and confusion. I also love Caesar as a character because, even when the ape uprising starts, he feels strongly about not killing any humans unless absolutely necessary. He feels that killing makes them no better than the savageness of humanity. This groundbreaking role is a major reason why Serkis has become the godfather of performance capture.
Rupert Wyatt is the director of Rise of the Planet of the Apes. As I mentioned before, I enjoy the themes that this film deals with. Specifically, this movie shows how cruel humanity is at its core. When the humans realize that the apes have the potential to be better than them, both physically and mentally, they react in a violent way. That being said, I was actually quite surprised at how little violence is in this film. The violence does not escalate until the climax of the film, and it is only after the apes present a serious and legitimate threat. The action scene on the bridge is well shot and thrilling to watch. This action scene also shows the cruelty of humanity once again. The humans are the ones who instigate the violence, and the apes are responding in self-defense. The apes rarely kill any of the humans because they realize that doing so would mean that they are no better than them. This scene is exciting, and it also sets up the extremely violent second chapter in the Apes trilogy. Wyatt does a wonderful job of setting up the journey of Caesar. The sequence where we see Caesar grow up and develop is quite moving to watch. This is an epic and emotional film, and that is due to the tone that Wyatt set with this film.
I love being proven wrong about films. Rise of the Planet of the Apes breathes new life into this franchise while also reinvigorating my love for all of the previous films. All I can say is that if you are skeptical about watching this reinvention of the Apes franchise, as I was, I urge you to take a chance on it.
Wednesday, August 2, 2017
Sweaty Nerd Fandom: Part 7
When it comes to superhero/comic book movies, Superman: The Movie is the grandfather of them all. The sheer spectacle of the film, as well as a flawless performance by Christopher Reeve, helped pioneer these kinds of films into their own genre. This is such a revolutionary movie that helped launch comic book characters off of the printed page and on to the cinema screen.
Superman: The Movie is the story of an alien boy who gets sent to Earth because his planet is dying. This boy grows up to become Earth's first superhero. What this movie does so well that, quite frankly is insanely hard to do in narrative storytelling, is dive right into the action by giving you a scene of exposition. We learn about the history between Jor-El (Marlon Brando) and General Zod (Terence Stamp) without actually seeing the events that happened. One could argue that it would have helped the film if we actually got to see these events, but I believe that there is enough dialog in this opening scene to understand what happened, and to also understand the intentions of the characters. This film also does a wonderful job of explaining the mythology of the character of Superman. We see Kal-El's birth mother, Lara (Susannah York), wrap him in the red and blue clothing that he will eventually wear as Superman. We also clearly understand that Clark Kent is a disguise, that he took his adoptive mothers' middle name, and Superman is the kind of person that Kal-El is at his core. This film does a magnificent job of bringing the Man of Steel to the big screen in a beautiful way. After nearly forty years, this film still holds up for the most part. However, after re-watching it recently, there are some cheesy elements that just do not feel right. After the sequence where Kal-El speaks to Jor-El at the Fortress of Solitude, Jor-Els' face turns to ice and slowly spins off screen. If this was meant to be a metaphor for his permanent disappearance, I do not believe that this was executed well. I think it would have been better to have his face just slowly fade away into nothingness. This would also help us understand that Jor Els' task is done, and that Kal-El does not need his fathers' wisdom and advice anymore. Also, in the scene where Superman and Lois Lane (Margot Kidder) are flying together, we hear narration by Kidder that explains her feelings when she is with Superman. This is unnecessary. We can clearly see how she is feeling from the way she is looking at Superman. We do not need to be told this through narration. There are also a few flaws in the scene where Lois Lane interviews Superman. Lois asks a few questions that begin with, "Is it true that...." In order for her to phrase the question like that, she had to have heard rumors about Superman, and yet there are no previous scenes where she is learning anything about him. Also, later in the film, when Eve Teschmacher (Valerie Perrine) is reading about the interview in the newspaper, some of the traits she reveals about Superman were not even asked in the interview! Later in the film, Lex Luthor (Gene Hackman) puts Superman through a gauntlet of attacks before he enters Luthors' lair. While this is all visually splendid to watch, Luthor knows these attacks will not kill Superman. So, why does he do this? Does he think Superman will retreat?? Now, towards the climax of the film, it is revealed that there are two nuclear missiles that Lex Luthor and Eve Teschmacher have altered (even though it was actually Otis, played by Ned Beatty, that did the altering). The only thing is, we only Otis alter ONE missile. Where was the other one this whole time?? During the exciting climax of the film, an earthquake occurs which results in a dam breaking, sending endless amounts of water towards a neighborhood. Wait....is there really a neighborhood near a dam?? Does that even make sense?? I feel that this particular scene exists just so we can witness the power of Superman. Despite all the glaring plot holes, Superman: The Movie is still just as influential and entertaining as it was forty years ago. I personally never get tired of watching the movie that launched superhero films as their own genre.
Christopher Reeve, in one of my personal favorite performances of all time, plays Superman/Clark Kent. What Reeve does in this movie is so beautiful. His physical nuances as Clark Kent and his gentlemanly demeanor as Superman are captivating to watch. The first scene with Clark Kent at the Daily Planet is a personal favorite of mine. Reeve completely disappears into the character, and it feels genuine. When Superman says, "I'm here to fight for truth, justice, and the American way", you believe him. There are truly not enough words for how much I love Reeves' performance in this film.
Margot Kidder plays Lois Lane. Personally, I find this version of Lane to be somewhat dimwitted. Yes, she does display remarkable exuberance when it comes to her job, but other than that it just seems like nothing can go right for her. Now, her being "dimwitted" may partially have something to do with her being head-over-heels in love with Superman, which is understandable. I just do not see her purpose in being in the film other than being Supermans' love interest. I mean, how can you be a writer at the Daily Planet if you do not know how to spell?? Kidder is fantastic at playing the character, do not get me wrong. I just do not like the character all that much.
Gene Hackman plays Lex Luthor. Quite honestly, I have always had mixed feelings about the way Hackman plays the character. I enjoy seeing the maniacal, intelligent side of Luthor. However, I do not particularly care for the scenes where he shows his more humorous side. I believe this takes away from how cunning the character can be. In fact that cunning side is played brilliantly by Hackman when Luthor and Superman come face to face near the climax of the movie. Even though I do have some misgivings about the portrayal of the character, that does not take away from how much I enjoy watching Gene Hackman play the character. This is a solid piece of acting by one of cinemas' finest.
Richard Donner is the director of Superman: The Movie. I love Donners' work in this film because he dives right into the conflict between the characters, and sets up their characteristics and motivations. This makes you care about the characters even more when all the spectacular visual effects scenes happen. I love the set design of the Daily Planet and Lex Luthor's lair. The Daily Planet is bustling with people doing their jobs, people typing and phones ringing off the hook. Luthor's lair is lined with encyclopedias and research books written by well-renowned authors. I have to say that some of the visual effects during the flood sequence at the climax of the film do feel a bit dated. You can tell that the sets of the neighborhoods are miniatures. Other than this minor complaint, Donner does a marvelous job with this movie. The characters, sets and visual effects are handled with the greatest of care by one of the most brilliant directors of our time.
Superman: The Movie is an unmitigated classic in every sense of the word. It has a great story, wonderful characters, and spectacular visual effects. If you have not yet checked out the movie that started the superhero movie genre, I highly suggest that you do as soon as possible. You will love it.
Superman: The Movie is the story of an alien boy who gets sent to Earth because his planet is dying. This boy grows up to become Earth's first superhero. What this movie does so well that, quite frankly is insanely hard to do in narrative storytelling, is dive right into the action by giving you a scene of exposition. We learn about the history between Jor-El (Marlon Brando) and General Zod (Terence Stamp) without actually seeing the events that happened. One could argue that it would have helped the film if we actually got to see these events, but I believe that there is enough dialog in this opening scene to understand what happened, and to also understand the intentions of the characters. This film also does a wonderful job of explaining the mythology of the character of Superman. We see Kal-El's birth mother, Lara (Susannah York), wrap him in the red and blue clothing that he will eventually wear as Superman. We also clearly understand that Clark Kent is a disguise, that he took his adoptive mothers' middle name, and Superman is the kind of person that Kal-El is at his core. This film does a magnificent job of bringing the Man of Steel to the big screen in a beautiful way. After nearly forty years, this film still holds up for the most part. However, after re-watching it recently, there are some cheesy elements that just do not feel right. After the sequence where Kal-El speaks to Jor-El at the Fortress of Solitude, Jor-Els' face turns to ice and slowly spins off screen. If this was meant to be a metaphor for his permanent disappearance, I do not believe that this was executed well. I think it would have been better to have his face just slowly fade away into nothingness. This would also help us understand that Jor Els' task is done, and that Kal-El does not need his fathers' wisdom and advice anymore. Also, in the scene where Superman and Lois Lane (Margot Kidder) are flying together, we hear narration by Kidder that explains her feelings when she is with Superman. This is unnecessary. We can clearly see how she is feeling from the way she is looking at Superman. We do not need to be told this through narration. There are also a few flaws in the scene where Lois Lane interviews Superman. Lois asks a few questions that begin with, "Is it true that...." In order for her to phrase the question like that, she had to have heard rumors about Superman, and yet there are no previous scenes where she is learning anything about him. Also, later in the film, when Eve Teschmacher (Valerie Perrine) is reading about the interview in the newspaper, some of the traits she reveals about Superman were not even asked in the interview! Later in the film, Lex Luthor (Gene Hackman) puts Superman through a gauntlet of attacks before he enters Luthors' lair. While this is all visually splendid to watch, Luthor knows these attacks will not kill Superman. So, why does he do this? Does he think Superman will retreat?? Now, towards the climax of the film, it is revealed that there are two nuclear missiles that Lex Luthor and Eve Teschmacher have altered (even though it was actually Otis, played by Ned Beatty, that did the altering). The only thing is, we only Otis alter ONE missile. Where was the other one this whole time?? During the exciting climax of the film, an earthquake occurs which results in a dam breaking, sending endless amounts of water towards a neighborhood. Wait....is there really a neighborhood near a dam?? Does that even make sense?? I feel that this particular scene exists just so we can witness the power of Superman. Despite all the glaring plot holes, Superman: The Movie is still just as influential and entertaining as it was forty years ago. I personally never get tired of watching the movie that launched superhero films as their own genre.
Christopher Reeve, in one of my personal favorite performances of all time, plays Superman/Clark Kent. What Reeve does in this movie is so beautiful. His physical nuances as Clark Kent and his gentlemanly demeanor as Superman are captivating to watch. The first scene with Clark Kent at the Daily Planet is a personal favorite of mine. Reeve completely disappears into the character, and it feels genuine. When Superman says, "I'm here to fight for truth, justice, and the American way", you believe him. There are truly not enough words for how much I love Reeves' performance in this film.
Margot Kidder plays Lois Lane. Personally, I find this version of Lane to be somewhat dimwitted. Yes, she does display remarkable exuberance when it comes to her job, but other than that it just seems like nothing can go right for her. Now, her being "dimwitted" may partially have something to do with her being head-over-heels in love with Superman, which is understandable. I just do not see her purpose in being in the film other than being Supermans' love interest. I mean, how can you be a writer at the Daily Planet if you do not know how to spell?? Kidder is fantastic at playing the character, do not get me wrong. I just do not like the character all that much.
Gene Hackman plays Lex Luthor. Quite honestly, I have always had mixed feelings about the way Hackman plays the character. I enjoy seeing the maniacal, intelligent side of Luthor. However, I do not particularly care for the scenes where he shows his more humorous side. I believe this takes away from how cunning the character can be. In fact that cunning side is played brilliantly by Hackman when Luthor and Superman come face to face near the climax of the movie. Even though I do have some misgivings about the portrayal of the character, that does not take away from how much I enjoy watching Gene Hackman play the character. This is a solid piece of acting by one of cinemas' finest.
Richard Donner is the director of Superman: The Movie. I love Donners' work in this film because he dives right into the conflict between the characters, and sets up their characteristics and motivations. This makes you care about the characters even more when all the spectacular visual effects scenes happen. I love the set design of the Daily Planet and Lex Luthor's lair. The Daily Planet is bustling with people doing their jobs, people typing and phones ringing off the hook. Luthor's lair is lined with encyclopedias and research books written by well-renowned authors. I have to say that some of the visual effects during the flood sequence at the climax of the film do feel a bit dated. You can tell that the sets of the neighborhoods are miniatures. Other than this minor complaint, Donner does a marvelous job with this movie. The characters, sets and visual effects are handled with the greatest of care by one of the most brilliant directors of our time.
Superman: The Movie is an unmitigated classic in every sense of the word. It has a great story, wonderful characters, and spectacular visual effects. If you have not yet checked out the movie that started the superhero movie genre, I highly suggest that you do as soon as possible. You will love it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)