Advertising Fail

Uh, I have no clue what this billboard for Caprica is supposed to be saying.

It's almost something that belongs on PhotoshopDisasters, but it's not really the retoucher's fault, it's the art director's fault.  I'll admit that I'm commenting without having seen the pilot, but really now.  Apart from the over-use of the Eve imagery and the blatant inappropriateness of having a girl who's supposed to be, what, sixteen, posing nude?  Granted, the actress is twentysomething, but still.  One thing is for sure, Caprica is going to be nothing like it's parent series, Battlestar Galactica.  Wheres that was all about the darkness, the fight for life, Caprica is about . . . well, I'm not exactly sure, from the poster.  The funny thing is, although I know perfectly well what the series is about, the poster tells nothing.  There's none of the high-tech glitzyness that's supposed to define human society at this time evident.  I dig the color scheme . . . the brushed chrome and gray are awesome . . . but, what does it have to do with anything?  The poor girl looks like a vampire.  The contrast is nice, I love the font, but otherwise, this poster is a complete fail.  The future of humanity begins with a choice?  Sure it does.  A choice for horrid art direction!

"The Young Victoria" Movie Review

I admit, The Young Victoria is not my usual fare, as far as movies go.  On the rare occasions I do watch period movies, they're usually more along the lines of Elizabeth: The Golden Age, with enough war and court intrigue to keep me occupied for the two hour long movie.  The Young Victoria, on the other hand, seems more like a movie my unimaginative history teacher from last year would show.

Regardless, I found it an okay movie.  It wasn't great, it wasn't awful.  It didn't bore me to death, but I'd never watch it again.  It earns points for historical accuracy, the beautiful settings, and the performance of the ever-awesome Miranda Richardson, who I have mildly idolized ever since I saw her in The Phantom of the Opera and The Hours.  What it loses points for: its utter forgettability.

The sets/locations are absolutely fabulous.  They really capture the the grandeur of British royal palaces. The wide expanses, especially in the outdoor and coronation scenes, are used to great effect in wide angle shots to capture the all-encompassing nature of the monarchy, and how lost Victoria is in it.  Or maybe I'm just reading too much into it :P

The directing is, I'm sad to say, unimaginative for nearly the whole movie.  It feels almost like a documentary, which is not helped by the fact that it breaks two of my golden rules for movies, namely, no text on screen, and no narration.  There's the rare movie where narration works, but I have not yet found the movie where you can throw text up on screen and have it not look preachy or immature.  The one element of the presentation that I really enjoyed was how so many of the important events (King William's death, Victoria's pregnancy) are shown, without words.  So many directors fail at "show, don't tell", Jean-Marc Vallee doesn't.

The acting is solid but not amazing.  Miranda Richardson and Mark Strong, as the Duchess of Kent and Sir James Conroy, respectively, steal much of the show.  Emily Blunt is a passionate, intelligent young queen, but her performance just . . . it didn't have any real "spark" for me.  And the guy who played Albert was just plain boring.  Maybe it's the writing that bugged me -- the film focused a lot on Victoria's personal life, and less than I would have liked on her actual reign.

Overall, The Young Victoria is a good movie for someone who just wants to see a nice, pretty accurate historical romance/drama (the love story is a bit sweet at times . . . but way overly sweet at others).  But for me, it was just a bit bland.

"Sherlock Holmes" Movie Review

I feel like all I've been writing lately is movie reviews, but watching movies is pretty much what I've been spending my winter break doing (besides the mandatory schoolwork, of course).

But anyway.  So Sherlock Holmes wasn't really what I expected . . . but it was pretty good!  Bottom line, it's an action movie, not a mystery movie.  Which is okay (I actually really like action/adventure movies, especially when they have a lot of humor thrown it), but I also don't think it really did the great detective justice.

Let me say that I am in love with the art department.  From sets to props to the closing credits, this film had me completely convinced I was chasing around London with Holmes.  His room was spot-on -- reminds me a lot of my room, actually, except with more explosives.  The location filming is probably this film's strongest point, especially on in the cathedral in the opening and the inadvertently hilarious accidental launching of a steamboat on the Thames.  The ending credits are hands-down the most awesome I have ever seen . . . remember how Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban did their ending credits with the Maurader's Map?  Well, this is kind of like that.  I'm not going to describe them, that would ruin the surprise, but . . . the whole film was worth it just for that.

Music.  Hans Zimmer is like a god . . . his scores make any movie better (he did the score for Angels & Demons too, just FYI.  It also features the Dubliner's version of "The Rocky Road to Dublin", giving parts of the film a very ordinary-man-on-the-street feel.  Sometimes the music takes away from the story, sometimes it overwhelms the story, and sometimes . . . it just fits the story beautifully, like here.

Casting.  Robert Downey Jr. is actually a very good actor, which surprised me . . . I hadn't seen any other movies of his, but I've had enough movie-going experience to say that the guys most girls my age swoon over can't act to save their lives.  This is an exception :).  While I loved loved loved Irene Adler's character, I can't help but think Rachel McAdams was . . . miscast, I suppose.  She's a good actress, but she's too . . . modern?  bland?  I dunno.  Something.  Jude Law was a great foil for Holmes, Mark Strong was a creepy evil Lord Blackwood.  While he was over-the-top, that fault lies with the writers.

Now, to the plot.  Probably the weakest part of the whole movie, IMHO.  The story is overblown, interesting parts are played down, and the occasional moments of inventive directing are weighed down by the less than spectatular writing.  There's plenty of funny moments, notably any scene involving Homes's dog, and the whole steamboat-launching thing; unfortunately, those moments are too often lost in the rest of the jumble.  The boxing scene, for one, makes me roll my eyes in annoyance, and if Blackwood was any more a stereotypical villain, he would . . . um, help me out here guys, I can't think of anything!  Anyway, I wish they'd focus more on the magic and detective work, rather than have Holmes go around punching people and accidentally blowing stuff up.  We need more scenes like the one in the midget's workshop.

On the plus side, Sherlock Holmes has one of the best opening sequences I've seen in a long time.  Dark, suspenseful, and making full use of a variety of camera angles (crane shots = <3).  I also really liked director Guy Rithcie's glimpses into Homes's brain during the fight scenes, breaking down each of his moves in slow motion before he finally explodes into action.  It shows a bit of Holmes' intelligence that isn't always on display.

Overall, I recommend it.  It's harmless fun, a summer movie with too little CGI and romance to actually be a summer movie, and a winter movie with too big of a budget and too much humor to actually be a winter movie.  Go watch it, you'll like it!  (If you can ignore the fact that the last 30 minutes are doing nothing but screaming "SEQUAL!" in your ear with a megaphone or two :P).

18 Best Movies of 2009, and 6 from 2010 That I'm Looking Forward To!

Since I have exactly 5 hours left of the year 2009!  The ten best movies of the year, that I saw, in order of release date.

1. Star Trek
2. Angels & Demons
3. Terminator Salvation
4. The Proposal
5. Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen
6. Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince
7. Avatar
8. Sherlock Holmes

Oops.  Those are all the films I saw this year . . . with the exception of New Moon, which doesn't deserve to be on the list even as a filler.  Okay then, let's try this:  The top ten movies of the year I wish I'd seen, in order of release date

1. Inkheart
2. Coraline
3. Push
4. Watchmen
5. The Soloist
6. Public Enemies
7. G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra
8. District 9
9. Cirque Du Freak: The Vampire's Assistant
10. 2012

Not included are The Road, The Lovely Bones, Invictus, and It's Complicated, because those are still in theaters and I can see them next year . . . :)

And, movies I'm very much looking forward to in 2010!

1. Salt
2. Knight and Day
3. Shutter Island
4. Letters to Juliet
5. Percy Jackson & The Olympians: The Lightning Thief
6. Alice in Wonderland

"Avatar" Movie Review

This movie is . . .
Amazing.
Epic.
Beautiful.
Completely awe-inspiring.
One of the best movies I've seen in a very long time.
Totally groundbreaking in terms of production.
Epic.
Epic.
And apparently it's still doing a very good job of rendering me speechless.

Please please please do not go into Avatar expecting just an effects movie.  I have to admit that I did, and I was proved so completely wrong.  Sure, it might not be the most original story ever told, but is anything original these days?  In any case, the characters are just as strong as the effects, thanks in no small part to the cast.  My favorite characters by far were Trudy and Grace, and of course, they ended up dead (everyone always kills my favorite characters :(.  Not fair >.<).  But I still loved the movie.  Now, that takes talent.  The characters are all very real and believable, and I ended up caring more for the Naa'vi than the humans (I think that was supposed to happen, so yay :)).

The special effects.  Ohmygosh.  To quote from the LA Times' review "You've never seen anything like it.  And neither has anyone else."  I can totally see why Cameron needed to wait 14 years for technology to catch up.  I saw Avatar in 3D, and I strongly encourage you to do the same.  Pandora is perfectly real, everything from trees to floating mountains to strange creatures . . . even the Naa'vi.  You can barely tell that this is all CG.  You're thrust so seamlessly into the new world that there's never any issue of suspension of disbelief . . . you're just there.

Writing.  Leaves a bit to be desired, sometimes, but that's easily overlooked because of the acting.  Sigourney Weaver . . . I have to admit, this is the first time I've seen one of her movies, and she steals every scene she's in.  I can't believe they killed her . . . sooooo pointless.  But I suppose that's the point . . .  Sam Worthington was not overly impressive as a human, I found him much more likeable as a Naa'vi.  Zoe Saldana gives a remarkable, nuanced performance as Neytiri, which somehow all comes through even though Neytiri is 10 feet tall, blue, and completely CG.  The Colonel and the businessman (whose names I've forgotten by now, probably 'cause I hated them so much :P) were absolutely freakish in their disregard for the natives lives.  Brilliant performances.  I loved Michelle Rodriguez as Trudy Chacon, and I have to admit, I think I saw a bit of myself in her (even though I don't plan on joining the Marines any time soon :P).

The anti-corporate, pro-environmentalist standpoint is obvious throughout the film.  It might come off as heavy-handed to some, but I think we need to take a good, hard look at this film and say "We could end up like that."  It's a frightening possibility, but very real.

One more thing.  I don't cry at movies, as a general rule.  Julianne and I sobbed through probably half of Avatar.  This movie is so hard to describe . . . it left me speechless for a good ten minutes after it finished.  All I can say is . . . go watch it.  You won't regret it.

"New Moon" Movie Review

I have to say, if anybody but Julianne had asked me to go see this movie, I wouldn't have.  But she's my best friend, so I felt I owed it to her . . . Anyway, you guys all know how much I hate the whole Twilight series, and why, so I'm going to try my absolute best to stay away from how awful the story is and just focus on the movie itself.

The best parts of the movie: The National Guard and Lovely Bones commercials/previews in the beginning, any scene that Victoria or Laurent were in, Bella jumping off the cliff, and the bit with the Volturi at the end.

The worst parts of the movie: Anytime Bella or Edward opened their mouths.

It's better than Twilight, and I think that's really the best I can say.  Much of the movie looks like it was directed by a 12 year old.  Chris Weitz seems to have started a love affair with slow motion that he definitely didn't have going on in The Golden Compass.  Slow motion is used to add to the story, NOT to tell the story.  There's a few scenes where it's used very well (the Victoria-in-the-forest-cliff-diving scenes come to mind) and some scenes where it's superfluous and childish (Bella running through the streets of Italy comes to mind).  On the other hand, maybe I'm just overestimating the intelligence of the general audience of this movie.

Which brings me to another one of my least favorite scenes: Bella sitting in a chair, with the camera spinning around her, watching the view outside her window change as the months go by.  Apart from the fact that the spinning camera is also way overused and all it accomplishes is making me dizzy, Weitz decided that he needed to have text onscreen saying the different months.  Way to hit people over the head . . . I think that the view alone should explain that time is passing.  Peh.

I do have to give credit where credit is due, however: the costume designers, the set people, and whoever designed the movie posters.  They all do a great job of making the film seem more mature/creepy/interesting than it actually is.  Apparently they're the only real professionals who worked on this whole movie.

There's very few characters in this film that I don't hate.  In fact, I can list them all on one hand.  Rosalie, Victoria, Laurent, the Volturi, and Jacob.  Unfortunately, they are the characters who get almost nothing to do the whole movie!  Rosalie is in like 2 scenes; Victoria gets enough time to come down out of a tree, scare a man to death, and cliff dive; Laurent just shows up to get killed, the Volturi are present but under-used and under-developed, and Jacob is in . . . my friend told me 30 minutes of a movie that's over 2 hours long.  Now, I've never read the books, so I can't say if their screen time in the movie corresponds to their roles in the book, but I think it's a darn shame that they're not given more to do.  That alone would have made the film better.  Like Rosalie.  We know pretty much nothing about her, except that she hates Bella.  Why can't that dynamic be explored more?  Or Victoria.  She's easily my favorite character.  Pretty, strong, and, like Rosalie, one of the very few characters who has no pretense at all.

So, I give this movie a 0.5 out of 5 stars.  The movie itself is sloppily put together, the underlying story is pathetic, and most of the main characters are boring as anything.  I watched it just to make fun of it . . . I suggest you do the same.

*hides from screaming horde of Twilight fans

"Once" Movie Review

Once was the first R-rated movie I saw (and it doesn't deserve that rating anyway). For that alone, it would hold a special place in my heart, but I love it for many, many other reasons.

For such a small-budget indie film, Once is really professional.  The director is obviously experienced, and knows how to bring out the best in his actors.  For two people who are musicians who have never had a large role (or even any role) in a film before, they're remarkably natural and comfortable, both in front of the camera and with each other.  This film makes great use of natural light/settings, for example, filming the party scene at the lead actor's own flat.  It gives a sense of warmth to the scenes that fits perfectly with the story they're telling.  They use a lot of medium close-ups, and a lot of really small sets (like in the Girl's flat) that make it clear that the film is almost just a window onto a very intimate and real friendship that develops over the course of the movie.  There's also an amazingly beautiful crane shot at the end that is just . . . wow.  It basically says everything the film is.  You really have to see it to understand . . .

Another thing I love is that the music is so seamlessly integrated into the film.  It doesn't even seem like a soundtrack at many points, it's more diegetic sound, such as when the Girl is walking down the street and starts singing along to one of the songs she's writing lyrics for.  The music is beautiful by itself too.  This is where the advantage of casting two professional musicians shows up: They wrote and recorded all their own songs.  Glen Hansard and Marketa Irglova are two extremely talented musicians, and their songs are beautiful and heartfelt . . . and occasionally very, very, funny, a la "Broken Hearted Hoover Fixer Sucker Guy".

And then, the story is just so unique.  While I take pride in being one of five girls in the theater to see Transformers 2, and I usually avoid romance/drama films like the plague, Once is something else entirely.  It's not a traditional romance at all.  The two leads have such an easy camaraderie, it's so lovely to watch.  The Girl is strong and independent, raising her child while working as a flower seller.  One of my (many) favorite parts is when she totally flips out when the Guy asks her to spend the night, and then he realizes what an idiot he was.  It's not about the sex and the drama, like so many other romance films are (The Other Boleyn Girl, which deserves an "R" rating far more than Once does, comes to mind), it's about the friendship and the respect.

Overall, I think Once is one of the best movies I've seen in a very, very long time.  Its funny (I love the scene with the Girl dragging her broken Hoover down Grafton Street.  It's just . . . perfect), warm, and realistic.  The ending is sad, in a way, because the Guy and the Girl can't be together, even though they seem so perfect for each other; at the same time, the Girl has another shot at a real relationship with her husband and the Guy gets another chance with his girlfriend in London.  Once is so hard to describe because so much of its power comes from the acting, rather than the storytelling.  Just watch it :)

"Eagle Eye" Movie Review

Soooooo this was one of the movies I was dying to watch in theaters when it first came out, but, for a variety of reasons, that never worked out. I finally got it from the library (my library is AWFUL, it takes them like 5 months to get new DVDs), and, more importantly, I finally had time to watch it. And my conclusion is, Eagle Eye gets a bad rap.

Okay, so the plot is a bit lame. The storyline gets a bit unbelievable at points. But the bottom line is, Eagle Eye is a dark, fast-paced action/adventure movie that caters to those who love high-tech gadgets and explosive special effects. And the writers/directors/producers know it, too. They never attempt to pretend this is the most intelligent, thought-provoking film out there, they just focus on making Eagle Eye the best movie in its genre, without ever slipping into the trap of making it silly, pathetic, or mindless. This film is remarkably unpretentious, leading to overall better acting, better writing, and better directing.

So, at school this semester, I'm taking a digital video production course. Two weeks into the class, and I'm already watching movies going, "Oh that was a brilliant shot! I wonder how they got that effect! No, no, no, the scene should be set up like this!" I was focusing a lot on the production aspects, which maybe made the plot a bit more acceptable. Some of the things I noticed: Eagle Eye follows the "show, don't tell" principle maybe better than any movie I've seen (or maybe I've just never payed attention before). Probably the most notable example is Ethan's funeral. We aren't "told" Ethan died, we aren't "told" that Ethan and Jerry were twins, but you get all that and more from the acting. As for the special effects (*cough*explosions*cough*) they are not the gratuitous, constant explosions you'll find in a Michael Bay film (not that there's anything wrong with those, but everything in its place). They're gritty, realistic, purposeful and well done. I'm thinking especially of the falling power lines here. By the way, car chases? So much more fun when one participant doesn't know how to drive her stickshift car ;)

As for the characters, we learn a surprising lot about them. Over the course of the movie – which is really only a few days, if that – we see the two leads slowly moving from hostility to trust to friendship, which culminates in a (slightly corny) birthday scene at the end. I'm actually starting to think that Shia LaBeouf has the potential to be a good actor now. Agents Tom Morgan and Zoe Perez might be a bit stereotypical, but the actors lend them crediblity, and I was actually quite liking them by the end. Overall, much more characterization than you get from, say, Transformers.

Last, but not least, the societal commentary. Sure, we have nothing close to Ariia now, but how soon until we do? Five years? Ten? And what happens then? How much do you trust the computer? How much do you trust the government to protect your privacy? How long until the computer does something you completely aren't prepared for? All very important questions that hit you after the movie is over. Oh . . . and don't watch this with your cellphone on! Mine rang during the movie, at one of the points where Ariia was trying to contact Jerry, and I jumped a foot!

Bottom line, if you love well produced, dark, effects-filled films that still manage to be intense action/adventure movies, go watch this. Even if you don't, watch it anyway. The societal commentary just might make it all worth it.

"Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince" Movie Review

Before you read, I have to warn you . . . spoilers abound here!

I had sworn I wasn't going to watch this movie. I had been seriously disappointed by the fifth movie (it was sooo lame!) and I had heard not-so-great things about HP6. But then I had to go, because I promised one of my friends I would take her. And you know what? It wasn't that bad.

I have to say, I think one of the reasons that I ended up liking the movie so much is that I read the book so long ago (Two years ago? Three?) that I wasn't constantly making book-to-movie comparisons in my head the whole time. I mean, I understood the really big things that had changed, a la burning the Burrow instead of having a huge final battle at Hogwarts, but I know there were other, numerous changes that just didn't even register on my mind. With the fourth and fifth movies, you would have been completely lost had you not read the book. Not so here, and the screenwriters deserve a lot of credit for that.

Let me just say straightaway that the best parts of this film are the scenes with Helena Bonham-Carter's Bellatrix Lestrange. She steals every scene shes in, and has the pretty-but-psychotic-and-evil witch character down with a close to scary perfection.

The other acting is pretty good, too. Bonnie Wright finally manages a decent performance as Ginny (I used to despise her, and her tiny roles in the past three movies didn't help that). Evanna Lynch as Luna Lovegood is also completely wonderful, she is the very definition of Luna and as much of a scene-stealer in her own way as Bonham-Carter is in hers. The three leads are, as usual, good actors, although my dislike for the characters somewhat hinders my appreciation for the acting. Tom Felton deserves special mention for his dead-on portrayal of Draco -- such a complex character to deal with, and Felton carries the role with ease.

The effects, the few that there were, were amazing. I was joking to one of my friends before the movie started that the main reason I wanted to watch HBP was to see the Millenium Bridge collapse (no offense to the bridge, but hey, I'm a CGI junkie xP). I also loved the new flying-Death-Eaters effect, which turns them into something like flying cannonballs with smoke tails. I spent a good while puzzling over how that would be possible, physically, before giving it up and just deciding "hey, it's magic." Other notable effects scenes are the numerous (okay, two or three) Dark Marks that appear in the clouds (I know it means evil is coming, but they look sooooo coooool!) and the whole end scene battling Inferi and getting pulled into lakes and conjuring fire, among other fun things. While the effects aren't on the same scale as, say, Transformers 2, they were carried out quite well.

Now, on to the not-so-great. I was worried from the beginning when I saw the movie was getting away with a PG rating (I'm one of those weird people who's of the belief that if it's a Harry Potter movie with a number from 3 - 7, you should have a PG13 rating or lose a lot of what the book is about). And I was even less happy when I heard from some of my friends that basically the entire battle scene at the end was deleted. And it is, really, Snape kills Dumbledore (basically, he walks into the room, says a few words, points his wand at Dumbledore, and says "avada kedavara"), then all the Death Eaters just leave. I mean, Harry throws a few curses at Snape, but that's not a battle, not really. Bellatrix's penchant for throwing fireballs around, a collapsing bridge, and a few zombie-like and regular dead people do not come anywhere close to the level of darkness in the book. Wider audience and all that . . . but it's a shame to see such good parts just left out.

Second, the film focuses on relationships a lot -- and I'll even go so far as to say too much. As the Harry Potter series progresses, its supposed to get darker, filled with more Death Eaters, more destruction, more death, more students leaving the school. Where was all of that? Instead of hearing of Amelia Bones' death, we get one more scene of Ron and Lavender snogging, is that it? That's certainly the trend this film takes. I don't want to see more teenage romance drama, there's enough of that on the TV these days. On the other hand, the Harry/Ginny romance was toned down, and I appreciated that (I hate hate hate that pairing. It's so contrived and Ginny is farrrrr too good for Harry, if you want my opinion).

Now, I understand that things must be cut (it's a 400+ page book, after all) but I think there could have been better choices made as to what to keep. The supporting characters -- and even some of the main characters -- fall by the wayside. How many scenes did Neville Longbottom appear in? One: he was serving food at Slughorn's party. Cormac McLaggen gets more screen time than that! Where's Susan Bones, Hannah Abbot, Seamus Finnigan, the Patil twins? Gone. And that's sad, because those are some of my favorite characters. Also notably missing is Dumbledore's funeral and his huge tomb, although I understand how budget constraints might have forced the tomb out of the movie ;). But the final salute to Dumbledore -- when every student and teacher raised their lit wands around Dumbledore's body -- was more than a fitting substitute, and intensely powerful . . . first time I've cried in a HP film, I have to say.

Overall, a pretty good movie that often delves into pure silliness but that stays far truer to the book than the past few movies have.