Invictus Review

As my first real attempt at movie reviewing outside of my class, here is my dissection of Clint Eastwood's new film Invictus.

Well-meaning but ultimately too heavy-handed, Clint Eastwood’s Invictus gets lost in the scrum. Nelson Mandela and the South African Springbok’s 1995 Rugby World Cup victory may be an inspiring story, but the constant need to show how inspiring it all was makes the film dramatically inert.

It all starts to falter when the movie presents Mandela’s (Morgan Freeman) vision of uniting white and black through the victory of the World Cup as the ultimate answer to South Africa’s woes. The thought that a sporting victory would somehow heal the wounds of the past few decades is laughable. Invictus though, treats Mandela and the idea with utmost seriousness. A bodyguard says of him: “He’s not a saint, he’s a man;” though that concept is certainly not conveyed as any hint that Mandela or his ideas might be less than perfect is not to be seen. Senses are gradually deadened as every scene turns into another opportunity for a speech about inspiration or the need to adapt to change. Mandela recruits Francois Pienaar (Matt Damon), the captain of the Springbok’s, as the person to inspire the team to victory. Since the team starts off the movie as a joke, a little explanation as to how the Springboks turned it around should be warranted, but none is offered. I guess when you have star power like Morgan Freeman and Matt Damon on your side, great things just happen.

In an attempt to create tension, a sizable amount of screen time is devoted to Mandela’s security detail and their worries over a possible assassination attempt. After returning to these worries over and over, the final payoff involving a jumbo jet is so ludicrous, it plays as a parody of Black Sunday.

The true hero of the film turns out to be Eastwood’s D.P., Tom Stern, who manages to make the Rugby matches exciting to watch, especially since no attempt is made at explaining how Rugby works. Nor is there ever any dramatic obstacle to overcome; the movie’s theme runs roughshod over the Springbok’s opponents, so the outcome of every match is never in doubt.

Invictus is a Latin word that translates as “unconquerable”. The film, however, makes one want to wave the white flag, as two hours of being fed unbridled piety and inspiration feels like being beaned in the head by a rugby ball.

Step Brothers Haiku Review

Ferrell and Reilly
Hate then learn to tolerate
Much laughter ensues.

The Dark Knight Haiku Review

Batman, Joker, Dent
Good and Evil push and pull
Viewer is left pleased.

Fdot responds to panta924

This is basically a continuation of my Revolutionary Road review and the comments left by panta924.

I purposely left out technical considerations of the film. Being a screening, we will given the typical caveat that color correction and sound still needed to be completed; and indeed, the first few establishing shots of the film were so dark that it was difficult to discern what they were. I assume those will be fixed up in time for the general release. Addressing the mentioned areas:

Cinematography: It's certainly serviceable, but nothing that truly stood out from the film. A large percentage of the film takes place indoors during the daytime, so there is a lot of typical indoor office and house lighting. The cinematographer is Roger Deakins, so I was hoping for a bit more. It's not disappointing by any means, just not amazing.

Such: The music was bad. This is not one of Thomas Newman's better scores. It was either too dramatic for the scene, or didn't fit the mood the scene.

Screenplay: This is the film's major flaw. The screenplay is the major reason I gave the film a C-. Revolutionary Road is not a bad film, it's a dull film. The decision to start the film with a major argument and continue after the opening credits with more marital strife never allows the audience to develop a relationship with the characters. You just don't really care what happens to them. The decision to movie to Paris is milked for a few laughs, but the decision is made right after another major argument. One scene is Frank and April yelling at each other, the next scene is April playing the doting wife and coming up with this plan. The way that Winslet plays April gives the audience a sense that there is some sort of mental imbalance within her, but the film doesn't spend 1 second exploring that possibility, so April just comes off as an incredibly strange character. I don't need everything explained to me in a movie, but dropping no clues can leave one confused. Mental Issue? Suburban Malaise? Who knows? The ending of the film also falls short (I haven't read the book, so I don't know if it matches up). It's telegraphed well in advance, so it's not much of a shock, then it's followed by a strange coda of two scenes featuring the secondary characters of the movie (a neighbor couple and Kathy Bates' real estate agent). The film just presents Frank and April as miserable for so much of the running time, that it just wears you down.

Leo: Well, I like Leo, so I'm happy to say that he does do a good job in the film. However, he isn't given that much to do. Apart from the arguments with April and an argument with Michael Shannon's character, he is largely reactionary. His character arc is very small and undramatic, so he has nothing big to sink his acting chops into. He pulls off what he has to do well, but I wish there was more for him to do.

FDot breaks down "Revolutionary Road"

N.B. I saw Revolutionary Road at a test screening this past Wednesday. Obviously, there will be some changes made to it before the final version is released later this year.

Directed by: Sam Mendes

Written by: Justin Haythe based on the Richard Yates' novel.

Starring: Leonardo DiCaprio, Kate Winslet, Kathy Bates, Michael Shannon

The Short of it: A depressing slog through a disintegrating marriage that not even test screenings can save.

The Long of it: Obviously, reviewing a test screening comes with it's own set of issues; the least of which is that the version I saw will no doubt have some changes made to it before the final release. However, with a running time of 1:51, there's not a whole lot to work with.

The story is actually quite simple; in 1955, Frank and April Wheeler (DiCaprio and Winslet) are a young married couple (with 2 children) in the suburbs. They both suffer from a superiority complex, believing they are more important then the other rubes who live in the suburbs, and both feeling that they don't have the lives they were meant to live: April wanted to be an actress and Frank just doesn't want to be doing his job. On a whim, they decide that a move to Paris will be beneficial to both.

This plot device is where the problems with the movie start. The film opens with a major fight between Frank and April, so it's hard to develop any feelings for the characters. Then, even though April was majorly annoyed with Frank, suddenly on a dime, she proposes this Paris trip. She'll work as a secretary while Frank just does stuff (seriously, the idea is for him to lay about and read). A good chunk of time is spent watching every secondary character's reaction to this news. Obviously, complications ensue, with Frank in his professional life and April in her personal life. Unfortunately, the movie continues on a slog through fight after fight and depressing scene after depressing scene until the very end of the film.

Here are my main issues with Revolutionary Road.

1. The obvious comic relief. The Wheeler's real estate agent (Kathy Bates) asks the Wheeler's if they would be willing to entertain her son (Michael Shannon) for an afternoon, while he is on a furlough from the local psychiatric ward. Shannon is a breath of fresh air in the proceedings, and is supposed to be the one character who can see through the facade of happiness that the Wheeler's put up, but his character is so odd and tic-y, that it becomes obvious he was needed solely to relieve the film of it's dour tone and liven up the screen for a moment. There are no laughs to be found in the film when Shannon is not on the screen. So while the character is enjoyable to watch, he feels a touch shoehorned in.

2. April Wheeler. This is where the film truly lost it. The character of April obviously suffers from some sort of mental imbalance. In one scene, she will be having a major fight with Frank, telling him that she hates him, never wants to see him again, yet in the next scene, she is playing the perfect housewife. There must be some sort of disorder going on, but the film's major flaw is that it never even remotely delves into examining this idea. The viewer is left with the possibility that either she does have some sort of imbalance, or else she is suffering from the worst case of suburban ennui ever recorded. Winslet overacts slightly in the role, making it even more frustrating that the film ignores this tack.

3. The tone. The film is just depressing. Save for Michael Shannon's two scenes, all the rest of the scenes tend to be fights or discussions about how unhappy they are. I have nothing against a film that wants to be bleak, but Revolutionary Road is such a downer, you can't catch your breath.

4. The ending. I can't imagine that it will be left alone. It's just bad. It's set up so boldly that it comes as no surprise to the viewer when it happens. Worse, it's a bit of an abrupt end, then strangely followed by two scenes with the secondary characters discussing the Wheelers.

The Sum Up: Again, this was a test screening, so the final product will be somewhat different. With a running time already under 2 hours, I'm not sure what can be done with the film. It's just a depressing movie with no surprises that doesn't examine the issues it should. Lightning has not struck twice for DiCaprio and Winslet.

FDot breaks down "Speed Racer"

Directed by: Larry and Andy Wachowski

Written by: Larry and Andy Wachowski

Starring: Emile Hirsch, John Goodman, Susan Sarandon, Christina Ricci, an annoying monkey

The Short of it: Good beginning, good ending, bloated middle

The Long of it: Full disclosure here: My friend knows the night manager of a local theatre, so I've been seeing a number of movies recently for free, Speed Racer included. I believe that when one sees a movie for free, it does alter slightly one's perception of a movie. I'm a bit more forgiving of a movie when I don't have to shell out $11 to see it.

Speed Racer actually starts off quite well, quickly setting up the main character and his motivations. Much has already been said about the visuals of the movie, so I can't add much to that discussion. However, while they certainly are something to behold, by the end they just become part of the movie; there's no more WOW factor about the visuals at the end. The first 40 minutes zip by quite quickly, as the rest of the Racer family is introduced and the character arcs are set up. At the 40 minute mark, however, is when the movie takes a turn for the worse.

Speed has been approached by a large corporation about racing for them. Speed wants to maintain his Independence and chooses not to sign. This is where the villain of the piece launches into a large discussion about racing and how it's always operated and how certain races affect the stock prices of companies and the machinations that went into certain racer to enable takeover bids and........my god I got lost listening to this. If this movie was rated PG-13, I might buy into a more complex description, but this is quite obviously a PG movie aimed at 10 year old, and what 10year old is interested in a minutes long discussion about the stock market?

That scene was just the precursor to an incredibly bloated middle section. The audience is treated to about 40 minutes of screen time on a cross country race only to serve a plot point that could have been wrapped up in 5. This was the main issue I had with the film. Slice off 45 minutes and Speed Racer would have been a great film, but it looks like the editor fell asleep. 135 minutes for a children's movie not about Harry Potter is a dicey proposition. The other main bloat issue was Spirtle and his monkey. I am aware that in the TV show these 2 served virtually the same purpose, but here they just detract from the story. While Speed is hearing about stock takeover bids, Spirtle and the monkey go on a candy eating spree at the company's headquarters, then take a joyride around on a cart until they are finally caught. What does that scene have to do with the movie. Nothing. It's just total filler, no doubt included to make young people laugh. Maybe it does, but it's scenes like this that just added to the running time. At least have Spirtle spot something or perform some task that will actually assist Speed Racer later on, but instead, he and the monkey are just comic relief that serve no purpose to the overall story.

At least Speed Racer does pick back up at the end. The final race and especially its finish is done quite well. Even I couldn't help getting excited watching it, even though I knew what the outcome would be. Obviously, everyone got exactly what was coming to them, good or bad.

The Sum Up: The visuals are fantastic, but don't WOW throughout the entire film. The story is needlessly convoluted and contains way too much filler, but the beginning and end of the film shine through and it's an enjoyable enough movie to sit through.

The Good, the Bad and the Ugly of: Jumper

The Good:

1. Jamie Bell. Ok....Jumper is not a great movie by any means. Nor is it a long one....only 83 minutes. However, whenever Jamie Bell was on screen, it was a little bit easier to take. He gives the film a shot of energy that is sorely missed whenever he is off screen.

2. Hayden Christensen's Looks. I'm only human. He does doff his shirt a few times in the movie, I'm all for that...keep me watching.

3. Lack of moral issues. Christensen's character is a bit of a bastard. Early on, we discover he earns his money by robbing banks, yet nothing is made of this fact in a moral way. In fact, he never uses his powers for "good", even when shown an opportunity. Good for the screenwriters. Not everyone with superpowers has to be a do-gooder.

The Bad:

1. Hayden Christensen's acting. I thought he was wooden in the Star Wars films because that was how Lucas directed him. Perhaps I was wrong. He tackles this role with too much intensity which only makes him seem stiffer.

2. She-Who-I-Will-Not-Name. She plays his mother in the film. Total screen time is only about 3 minutes (which is a good thing). Someday I'll go into why I'm against her.

3. The Plot Issues. There are a number of plot issues that affect the credibility of the film. I'll mention two. One--at the beginning of the film, Christensen's character is 13 and supposedly learns about his ability for the first time. Later, it is established he actually used his ability for the first time when he was only 5 years old. If I developed the ability to teleport at age 5, I think I'd remember that. I have memories from when I was five. Two--just at the moment when it look like the bad guys have been shaken off....suddenly the bad guys just happen to have a machine that will allow them to continue. How convienent.

The Ugly:

1. Sam Jackson's Hair:



What the hell is that? Why does he even have it? There is a tretise to be found somewhere in the correlation between a movies quality and the villian's hairstyle. There is absolutely no reason to have a discolored Chia Pet as hair. It's just distracting.

Verdict: Rent it.

Catching up with the movies---

I was hoping to do some Good, Bad and Ugly's for these films.....but the aforementioned issues got in the way. So I'll just encapsulate:

Away From Her: Quite a lovely touching film. Julie Christie deserves the Oscar for this one. A nice, quiet, flowing performance. No big scenes, just a solid job from beginning to end. The movie even ended on a slight up note, which was pleasant.

Eating Out 2: Sloopy Seconds: Ok, I laughed at some stuff, but overall this was pretty bad. Yes, the actors were pretty to look at, but that is why the internet was invented. Watching a movie, I want to watch a movie, with characters and story.

Rambo: He blows shit up! It was comforting to see gratuitous 80's violence on the screen again. The story and characters were massively simplistic, but just enough to keep me going. Who doesn't love watching someone get an arrow through the face, then get blown up by a land mine?

Norbit: Solely watched because of the Oscar nomination for Makeup. I've seen a glimpse of hell.

Atonement: Not as good as I hoped. The ending "twist" did not work in the context of the film; it left a rather bland feeling behind. As the movie ends up being predicated on the twist, it deadens the movie a little.

2001 Maniacs: A little too goofy for it's own good, at least the gore effects were done well. Robert Englund was a hoot.

Surf's Up: It's ok, but entirely predictable. How this beat out The Simpsons Movie for the Best Animated Film nomination, I'll never know.

The Good, the Bad and the Ugly of: Cloverfield

The Good:

1. Population Control. Manhattan is already overcrowded as it is. It was kind of nice to see a monster rampage around freeing up some space so us suburbanites can come in and have some elbow room.

2. Those little tiny monsters. I want one as a pet. I have many uses for him. Plus, I will love him and I will pet him and I will cuddle him and I will call him George.

3. The actors. They all did a decent job in fulfilling the sketch of their characters. I wasn't expecting much development in a 73 minute film and I got exactly what I wanted. Relatively blank people with just a touch or two of personality.

The Bad:

1. Real Estate. You think the prices to live in Manhattan were bad before. Try finding a place after half if it has been leveled.

2. Character Motivation. Yes, without the entire saving the friend angle (since the film did not imply to me they were a couple) there would have been no Cloverfield. Still, if that was me, I'd say to myself: "I'm in my early 20's, there'll be other friends." And I would have been in Brooklyn long before anyone else.

The Ugly:

1. The monster. Good job on it. Appropriately ugly looking.

2. The Camerawork. This didn't affect me at all; I saw The Blair Witch Project and wasn't affected by that, so I knew going in I wasn't going to be bothered by shaky-cam. However, I do know quite a few people that will have trouble watching the film. It is what it is.

Overall: Enjoyable, fun monster flick. I'd recommend it more for a matinee as 74 minutes is really short to shell out $10 on.

The Good, the Bad and the Ugly of: Juno

Caught up with Juno the other day.....

The Good:

1. Ellen Page. This was a fantastic performance. She played both sides of the character quite well, both the snarky teenager and the teen who realizes she doesn't know everything. I'm thinking she might get an Oscar nod, doubtful she'll win, but a nod is always nice.

2. The Supporting Cast. Really, the entire cast of the movie does a great job. Everyone from J.K. Simmons to Margo Martindale does a superb job. The characters felt believable and lived in.

The Bad;

1. Juno. Acting aside, I found the character herself to be annoying. I think this is due in part to may career as a teacher. I've taught plenty of Juno's in my time. Those teenagers who believe they have all the answers to life, have their own little phraseology to speak in, and generally think they are heads and shoulders above all adults. Frankly, they irritate me. It's not hard to see through most of their shallowness. To spent 92 minutes in the company of one was not the most pleasant experience I can imagine.

2. Jason Bateman's Character. Granted, he had a full character arc, but it didn't feel real to me. What he went through seemed to happen to fast to me to make it feel as if this was a decision he had been brewing about and not just a screenwriting point. His interactions with Juno also left me cold. I guess the film was trying to be obtuse on purpose about what his true intentions were in regards to Juno, but it gave me the creeps.

The Ugly:

1. The look. I may be mistaken, but the film looked like it had been shot on every gray, overcast day the production could find. The palette of the film just didn't appeal to me at all.

So there you have it, great acting, ok story, eh characters and ugly photography.

The Good, the Bad and the Ugly of: I Am Legend

I'm going to go with this format of reviewing movies for the time being. I like this concept when the fine folks over at Reality News Online use it to discuss a television episode so hopefully it will work for movie reviews.



The Good: 1. The first hour. It was a solid, tight hour, that introduced the world nicely and set up the character of Robert Neville. You can really get the sense of what it must be like to be the last person on Earth, how the simple act of going through a specific routine each day keeps insanity in check.

2. Will Smith. I'm not his biggest fan, but I really enjoyed his performance. He threw off his joking persona (I refuse to watch The Pursuit of Happyness, so I don't care what he did there) and really got to the heart of the character. He got the audience to feel empathy for the character and what he was going through.

The Bad: 1. The Last Half-Hour. What happened? It was such a great movie for 60 minutes then suddenly it all went to pot. It was almost as if the screenwriters ran out of ideas and just decided to end the film as quickly as possible. As beautifully paced the first hour was, the last 30 minutes were rushed and riciculous.

2. The mother and son. They're obviously supposed to play a major part in the film, but when they have less than 30 minutes of screentime, it's hard to feel a connection to them.

The Ugly: 1. The ending. !!Spoilers herein!! Uh....a cure? He spent the whole movie looking for a cure and all he needed was some ice cubes? And what was that about "It's in the blood."? It didn't appear to be in the blood before. He uses the same compound that killed the mutant before only with ice this time but yet it's in the blood?

2. The mutants. I liked the special effects. Though it looked as if they were going to go down some mutant adaptation route then didn't. And if you're going to have a great actor like Dash Mihok in the film...give the man a scene that's not fx'ed over.

3. The title. Call it something else. It's one of these adaptation that aside from the title and main character name, has nothing in common with the source material. Either a different title or an "inspired by" credit would have worked better than claiming it's a adaptation.

There you go.....my opinions of the film....let me know yours! Seriously....please....I'm happy to take comments.