Sparkling Vampires

Twilight is garbage. I'm not sure if there's been a film that I have cared less about. Like, I'm not even sure how to do a review; I guess I will list some of the blatant negatives, and maybe near the end I can scavenge for some redeemable quality.

I was so bored. I couldn't make it in one sitting; I had to take 2 breaks so that I didn’t fall asleep. Now that I am typing that, I am regretting I didn't just sleep through it. I mean, I understand movies galore have an expositional setup for the first 15 minutes before getting into the meat of the film. Considering these vampires that drink the blood of animals are vegetarians, there's no meat on the bones of the film. To get a little more specific, as soon as Bella enters school halfway through the semester, everybody flocks to her and seems to know her already. Why?? I don't know! And to think that Edward would be compelled to Bella over Anna Kendrick may be the most glaring fault of all. Plus, the dialogue that goes on – and the directing with it-- is the least realistic thing I have ever seen. Nobody acts like they do. And I'm definitely looking at you Kristen Stewart, you sighing, breathing, half-laughing introvert you. For a girl that enjoys being alone, you spend the entire film with other people.

I was able to release a couple of chuckles at the movement of the vampires. Oh man, it was so cheesy...

And they shine bright like a diamond.

Seriously, what was this movie even about? I was about to dedicate this paragraph to the plot, but I have nothing to tell. If I wasn't zoning out at points in the film, I wish I was.

There's no motivation for the film, and it uses about 1 hour and 30 minutes to build a bond between the leads, establish friendships and villains, and put hints at conflicts to come; but really, it was just pointless because I didn't believe any of it. But Bella did. Oh, Edward, you've been watching me in my sleep for the past couple of months? That's cool. Before Bella figures out what Edward and his family really are, she pointlessly asks so many questions. It turns out she's right to have been questioning of everything, but she would've been an obsessed crazy person in any other normal situation – correction, in any other situation. Also, the first 45 minutes of gazing into Edward's eyes at school? I'm not sure if it was supposed to be mysterious or intimate, but it was just weird and uncomfortable.

I'd like to end on some sort of a high note. You somewhat find it in Bella's dad. I honestly believe he was the only rational character in the whole film. So kudos to you, Pops.

I am going to have to unwind and rethink my life after watching this movie. So as of right now, who knows what I'll have for next week.  

It's Totally Dope, But it's Not

 As the title sequence appears with the 3 definitions, the word “dope” can mean different things depending on the context. Such is also the case with my title. You could say that I meant the film Dope was awesome, but it actually wasn't; or you could say that the film deals with a literally large amount of dope, but that it doesn't. I'm not here to tell you what you think I mean, and what's great is that Dope doesn't do that either. I could say how all these different running themes add up to a movie so much more about drugs, but I'd prefer to include a quote from later in the movie, “So, why do I want to go to Harvard? If I was white, would you even have to ask me that question?”

The film centers around Malcolm, a geek living in “the Bottoms” who has to deal with other black people asking him why he does all this white sh*t (it's a list I laughed really hard at... wait... yeah, that actually makes a lot of sense). Luckily for the movie, Shameik Moore brings everything to the table as Malcolm and propels the film even in its shakier moments. Sadly, his two best friends are just annoying to me, like their role is to be there as the two best friends and that's it, but they don't add the humor needed for the spots.

I couldn't help but think of Ferris Bueller's Day Off while watching this film, but it also has a weird style of editing. The flow of the movie is also reflected in the hippier sense of music that the characters love and adore, and I love it for the first half of the film, but as I will continue to say, the music lags later on.

Similar to the music, there is purpose, motivation, and style that sends Malcolm and his friends through unfamiliar territory in the first half. Then, there's a darker change-- not drastic, mind you, but still noticeable-- and I was about to write it off until it was almost redeemed by a clever way to bring the story around at the end. I say almost redeemed because there's still a subplot or two that didn't play off too well beforehand but was left untouched until the filmmakers realized, “Wait, we need to tie all of this back together!” It's like you served somebody a dessert one night that didn't turn out too well, but then you figured after it sat for a day or two the flavors would come together. But that didn't really happen. But I will say I do feel bad, for I am writing all this negative about the film, but in reality it only surmounts to a couple extra minutes in the film; so don't let these add-ons that didn't work detract from the overall thoughtful film.

To refer back to the beginning, yes, there is literal dope that is brought into the plot. But no, it's not The Wolf of Wall Street style where partying non-stop is the culture of the environment, for the film makes it quite clear (especially at the end) that it's actually quite the opposite. Do I think Dope was as dope as it could be? No, I don't. But for a low-budget film to surprise audiences with a movie that succeeds for about two-thirds of the running time, it's a pretty cool film. So, yes, it's totally Dope, but it also isn't quite.

My plan is still to do a movie that I could make comparisons to a book to, but I haven't read the book and have negative desire to do so. But I will review the film.

SuperBat

 Dark and brooding. This describes both Batman and Superman. It's also very similar to how the film is shot. This colossal movie takes the opposite approach to Marvel and The Avengers, but that's pretty much how they want to compete with them anyways. A follow-up to Man of Steel, Zack Snyder is once again at the helm. I'm thinking his visual style should be the opening topic.

First, let's talk about the introductory 10 minutes. The opening credits is a stylish way to bring Batman's story back, and I enjoyed how it was kept brief with only the highlight moments (if you consider a double-homicide of his parents a highlight) since we all know the story already. The slow-mo works well in opening credits, and it's certainly cool, but Snyder definitely gets excessive with it. My favorite part of the film is what follows immediately afterward-- excluding the fact that Bruce Wayne was driving a Jeep Renegade. My favorite shot as well is in the 9/11-like destruction during the Man of Steel climax, but this time from a different perspective; and as the people dash away from the rubble, Bruce rushes towards it. The entire sequence, in fact, is powerful, for the film does a great job of playing off of one of my biggest complaints about Man of Steel, the destruction. Not only does this introduce the political aspect, but it also provides sound motivation for Bruce as he is unable to save the innocents from the crashing towers. This type of storytelling worked well, and maybe Snyder tried using it more in the form of those dreams/premonitions, but the vague references to comic book story lines didn't pull through in those scenes that may have been added just to put in the trailers. I will say, the one awesome moment is in the Batcave, and off to the side is what is presumed to be a Robin costume with a message from the Joker; don't worry, Snyder, I see you being clever.

All right, let's talk us some superheroes. The movie toys with interesting moral dilemmas with Superman, and I still love Henry Cavill, but the overall impact isn't there. There are some cool shots with him still: the people surrounding him with their arms outstretched, and then when he's in space with the sun behind helping to rejuvenate him. On the other side of the two-headed coin (Batman reference), I mean, c'mon, Ben Affleck is awesome. I have always been a firm believer that his directing is far superior to his acting, but don't let that take away from what he does. With the Dark Knight himself, I love the branding. I'm all for it. I was slightly taken aback, however, by the free-spirited use of lethal force employed to take out the goonies. Maybe more interaction would have me more willing to simply say bye-bye to the baddies, but it does retract a little from what Batman usually represents and is used more of a way to set up conflict with Superman. I have no issues with the bulkier suit either; it makes more sense to me as they play with this older version of Batman. Which reminds me, I wasn't as much of a fan as some of my friends were and how they will say how awesome it is, but watching The Dark Knight Returns (animated but still dark) is highly suggested to get more of a full circle of Batman. Oh, and brief shout out to Jeremy Irons. You weren't fully utilized as Alfred, but I look forward to what you will give us in the future.

Now we all know this sets up Justice League. And I was the most skeptical about cheap, forced ways of introducing the rest of the lineup, but I was pleasantly surprised. It was smart and to the point. Not sure how their looks are going to turn out, particularly when they get stand-alone films, but that will be a discussion for when the time comes.

The other very, very smart move was having Gal Gadot be Diana Prince for the majority of the film instead of Wonder Woman even if how it was handled still felt clunky in areas. The reveal worked in to their favor. But it does leave much to look forward to with future outings.

One of the issues I've noticed people have been most split on is Jesse Eisenberg as Lex Luthor. The best way I can describe his performance is as unconventional. At moments he was trying too hard to bring a more psychotic, schizophrenic approach, but in the context of the film it was a contrast vastly needed.

And that ties into the next topic: Hans Zimmer. When we last saw him in the previous caped entry, his dull performance led me to miss the John Williams theme. One of the best parts of the movie was Zimmer bringing out his creative soundtrack; each superhero got a unique theme, and Luthor's blend of quick violins was pure awesomeness and was a redeeming grace to every scene featuring him because it brought out the character Eisenberg desperately tried to portray.

To go back to the visual style, the film is too bleak; the lack of lighting renders some scenes as less effective, like the climax I will describe later. It caused too much straining to know what was presented on the screen instead of doing something like drawing attention to details to treat the observant, smart viewer. There are moments, but there's still a feeling that Snyder had to make sure he appealed to a wide audience, so the more hopeful viewer ends up being dumbed down to size to fit with the marketing. This isn't a dumb film, but a lack of deeper meaning behind visuals doesn't do much to stretch the brain.

Before we move closer to the climax, lets talk about Batman scenes versus Superman scenes. I enjoyed Snyder's use of Bruce. Sure, some scenes dragged the run time out a little, but you could tell he was having fun working with such a different character. This is most evident in the action sequences. You know what I'm talking about from the trailers when I say I loved the Batman: Arkham style fighting. As a slight downer, in one of those weird vision scenes, there's a really long, circling take where Batman tosses bad guys all around as they take him on one at a time for the most part. While the long takes are always appreciated, the delicate nature of not wanting to mess up the fight choreography did lead to a held-back effort from the stuntman and actors. 

With glasses-wearing Clark Kent (still find the disguise lame, but I've had it explained that donning the glasses changes Kent's entire appearance, making it full disguise-- I like that explanation more, but it still seems kind of half-hearted), you'll get your fill of Diane Lane, Amy Adams, and Laurence Fishburne; but nothing better than from Man of Steel comes out, only scenes to propel the plot.

Maybe this is a slight spoiler coming in after 2 hours, but if you don't know that Batman and Superman fight and that Doomsday makes an appearance, then you're already a lost cause. Go be like Tom Hanks in Cast Away, but change up the story and stay on the island. And now that I have tossed out the people that must have put life on mute for the opening weeks of the film, let's talk. This movie has my favorite use of kryptonite. It makes sense, and Batman uses such a cool array of gadgets during the fight. I will say that the fight was totally unnecessary, but if I'm like anybody that paid to see this, I wanted a fight, and a pretty darn good one I got. I also enjoy the idea of putting Doomsday in. But if you've seen Godzilla, King Kong, or even Clash of the Titans (not the laughable original, doesn't count) and its older brother Wrath, then nothing new is added honestly. Big, huge, ginormous, CGI creature with a menacing roar threatens total destruction. I guess teaming up on him can satisfy the nerd in us, but it went too far over-the-top.

I am pleased with the outcome of the film, but the end has its predictable moments. If I had to summarize in one sentence, I would say that Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice is a large improvement over Man of Steel and a very entertaining watch, but it doesn't hold the substance seen in The Dark Knight. I believe Zack Snyder has earned back enough faith in me for Justice League, and it will be interesting to follow all the solo movies, including the reboot for Batfleck.

 Next week, I will look at a coming of age movie, and I look at a series that swooned too many girls for years.

All Hail Macbeth

 If you have ever seen a Shakespeare production, well good for you; but except for understanding the language, it does not prepare you for this ambitious Macbeth. I will include it in the first paragraph because it plays a role more important than any character, and that is our friend Atmosphere. This film utilizes what a stage production could never achieve, and it creates such a distinguished atmosphere.

Say, Mr. Gill, what exactly do you mean by atmosphere? I'm talking about mood, I'm talking about tone, I'm talking about presentation! There is a lot of fog and mist to go around, and the camera hardly moves, painting picture-like shots of characters in front of a wide background. It's so visceral and bold and unexpected. Above all, it works. It fits the puzzle beautifully with the vision in-hand.

There are plenty of smart choices, such as reducing the lines and spirit of the crazy 3 witches. Instead, they add such a mystical element that's almost taunting to the ticking and complex Macbeth. There's other noticeable changes, but before you traditionalists call foul, don't worry because it's not a change from the source like pre-good DiCaprio Romeo + Juliet is.

Okay, the film is perhaps stylish to a fault. If you recall the iconic scene in Mission: Impossible where Tom Cruise sneaks into the white room, you will remember that any sound above a whisper would trigger the alarm. It felt like (with the exception of scenes like the haunting dinner) the entire cast was set to this mode. Although it adds a coolness to many of the lines, I kind of wanted to yell at the screen just to see if the characters would yell back. Oh, and I can't imagine watching the film without the use of subtitles. And on that note, I think every Shakespeare movie is probably enhanced with subtitles to help understand the lines and think them through more thoroughly.

I don't think I have talked about makeup in movies as much as I should, so I will add it here. The battle makeup and makeup on Lady Macbeth stand out in a good way, and that is a big accomplishment to the people in that department.

Now you just know I wouldn't do a review without mention of the acting. Hey, Harry Potter fans, Lupin is in this film! Okay okay, let's talk Michael Fassbender and Marion Cotillard. Fassbender is a powerhouse actor, and I think a little more variation in voice would clean up one of Shakespeare's best characters. And one of Shakespeare's best female characters, if not the best, is played by the French Cotillard, an interesting differentiation from the rest of the Scots. Combine these two experienced actors with incredible lighting, and we're back to the atmosphere.

I must say how I was engaged for the entire film. It's impossible not to give huge credit for this Shakespeare adaptation that perhaps stands out the most from any of the movies of any of the plays. And yeah, the fighting is like Zack Snyder, but with more purpose. I don't think the opening and ending sequences could have been done better, and for the squeamish, there is enough blood to quench a vampire; but as I stated earlier, it is more meaningful and again adds to the atmosphere. If there's any way to get millenials excited about what a dead guy wrote years ago, it is through this film. And that statement could easily have its downsides, but even the shall we say sophisticated can appreciate what is done. I'd say this film is like Zack Snyder meets Gladiator meets European art, and on most notes, that is pretty good praise.

On the topic of Snyder, my thoughts will be given on superheroes in just a couple of hours!

Brothers

My brother Jacob called me in today to review a movie called Brothers (hmm... I wonder if he was intending something by that). I only knew the film from one trailer that I saw 7 years ago, but the trailer gives away far too much. Let me tell you, Mr. Director Jim Sheridan, you'd do yourself a favor not to spoil your own movie. Or if you do, make sure your film has enough going for it that it doesn't need to rely on the element of suspense.

Maybe that's too harsh. There's a certain type of film whose existence depends on the particular scenario its plot establishes (2015's Room is another example of this—also one that gives away far too much in its trailer), and to “sell the audience” on seeing the movie, you need to show them what the scenario is. In this type of film, the characters aren't interesting to us in themselves: they're interesting because of the scenario they're thrown into. Unfortunately, Brothers shows off some of the payoffs and all the pitfalls of this approach to filmmaking.

Sheridan is guilty of a lot of hand-holding in this film. Sam (Tobey Maguire) is the good son. Tommy (Jake Gyllenhaal) is the bad son. And every time Tommy speaks to his father, they get into a big uncomfortable fight. But it's alright. Tommy improves in everyone's eyes—and the improvement is conveyed in minutes via montage with upbeat music overlaid. This conventional premise is hammered into our heads again and again throughout the first hour.

And speaking of hammering, the cuts are guilty of the same broad strokes. Sam's idyllic domestic life—CUT! Tommy up to no good in a bar. Or, we are invited to contrast the peace of life at home vs. life in Afghanistan as we watch the shot of Sam driving a military vehicle succeeded by his wife, Natalie Portman, driving a van. And in case we missed the contrast, we cut back to the military van. And back to the family van. Really, this scene has more cuts in it than a Norman Bates victim, though with less subtlety than a Bates.

Things do get better, though. Eventually. The third act is pretty much the sole premise for the film, and in it we are treated to a topnotch performance by Maguire, complete with his own variation on the Citizen-Kane-tearing-down-the-house motif. But even here, the dialogue is still spotty. This Mature-rated film doesn't expect any maturity from its viewers. For a 'character-driven' film, dialogue is key.

Lastly, you do get some heartwarming moments by the end. And a film that can help make people aware of combat-related post-traumatic stress can bring about an actual good in society. Its heart is in the right place, if not its brain.

Okay guys, I hope you enjoyed my brother's review today! If you'd like to see more of him, check out his blog called Coffee Cup by the Lamplight. Well, what next week's reviews lacks in brothers, it will make up for in Shakespeare and superheroes. If you've seen any stage production whatsoever of Shakespeare, well, good for you, but that does not prepare you for the vision of this movie. And due to popular demand, I need not even say which superhero film I am reviewing next week-- was I entertained, or did I lean more with the critics? All will be found out in next week's episode!

The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly Dinosaur

 Our first Pixar review is also the latest one to hit the screen. The Good Dinosaur marks the first time ever that Pixar has released 2 films in one year (after Inside Out in the summer). This more DreamWorks approach rightfully draws some skepticism toward the integrity and quality Pixar is known for. So how does it fare?

The Good:

This movie is gorgeous. As I was watching it with my younger brother (James) and my mom, Mom would comment how you could tell that they sometimes used actual footage and put animation over it. It's so good she was convinced that some of it was real. While I must give the character models award to Zootopia, that movie is edged by the landscapes and nature that play such an integral role in this film.

The story-telling is at its best when it relies on the visuals. The middle of the movie basically serves as a quest to return home while Arlo and the boy Spot bond as they meet new dinosaurs. With this bare plot-line, usually something like dialogue or actions is used to make up for it. And this movie takes a WALL-E approach to dialogue and storytelling for the most part, and scenes such as at night in the riverbed when they talk about their families with the sticks and hardly a word spoken, that is the type of moment that engages the audience and proves that Pixar knows how to please people of all ages.

It is during these scenes that the hilarious triceratops and cowboy-like t-rexes are met and enjoyed. They add the differing animal backgrounds well enough like Finding Nemo to keep the ball rolling through the minimal plot. Plus, Steve Zahn (Thunderclap) is always a welcome addition.

The boy and dog dynamic is a really neat idea introduced after the 30-minute mark, and it not only plays off well, but it also makes sense. What this does is add more progression to the character development, which is one the movie's main focuses.

The Bad:

Sadly, the story-telling doesn't work very well when it isn't relying on the visuals. The first 20-30 minutes of the film are disappointingly conventional, and add nothing new to the mix (except for eye-popping visuals). Furthermore, there is a much larger sense of predictability that doesn't matter as far as kids are concerned, but older members of the human species will know exactly what to expect.

The main character Arlo is honestly a little too annoying. Of course over the span of the movie he is supposed to grow up and overcome his fears, but the transition happens quickly (the movie is just over 1 ½ hours) and without much effectiveness.

A third act I would kind of compare to Ice Age has a weird sense of wanting to be emotional and dramatic and powerful, but I think even the filmmakers knew it wouldn't have the lasting impression that their other films achieved. And this goes back to both the predictability and the lack of a consistent base throughout the film.

The Ugly:

This movie suffered through production Hell. The story wasn't quite right, the release date kept being pushed back, and people were fired and had to be recast. Luckily, it isn't some Batman & Robin disaster of a film-- but it still does suffer.

Even with an improved story, it is still one of the weakest in that area as far as Pixar movies are concerned. On the bright side of that, however, that's not the focus of the film. And what it does focus on, the two main characters, it doesn't succeed to the level we expect, and also what it simply needs to be. Basically, it falls flat in most areas. But what is not ugly is the visuals. And this goes beyond just what you see on the screen. This takes into account the genuine moments of the film that don't require clunky dialogue to get the point across. It's just a disappointment that there aren't enough of these moments in the film.

Get ready for a new member of the Gill Family to guest-review for tomorrow, and trust me, he will make me look studip.