Change Your Image
Prinsterish
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
The Bling Ring (2013)
Coppola Disappoints Amidst a Creative Idea
The Bling Ring is a stunningly shot, visually entertaining film that strives to make a statement about materialism and young teens' fame obsessions. Unfortunately, Sofia Coppola fails to translate her vision into a substantiated plot that develops a story and protagonists; neither of which, are worth caring about. Aside from Emma Watson's intimidating performance, the acting is sub-par which aids in the instantaneous transition from Coppola's attempts to create a smart, creative film to a shallow, unsatisfactory film that feels quite unfinished. The idea of The Bling Ring is fresh, however you cannot help but ignore the large lack of intellectual Bling, the film once promised or Coppola might have hoped for.
Man of Steel (2013)
Man of Steel is not so strong.
Man of Steel was a great, well-directed Superman origin story, with fantastically creative action sequences, yet I cannot seem to ignore the large lack of character development.
While I understand that Superman is widely known and understood, David Goyer fails to develop Superman into a superhero the audience can actually care about. The dialogue and writing, at times, feels shallow and inconsistent. Not to mention, that some character's intensity and lack of humor or light heartedness was distracting and felt out of place.
Bottom Line: I am giving it a weak 8/10. Man of Steel is a impressive movie that will hopefully launch a bigger DC universe into existence. Individually, I really want to like Man of Steel and somewhere between the satisfying plot, the intense action, and the satisfaction of Superman done right, the positives outweigh the negatives.
Skyfall (2012)
An Absolute Epic
Perhaps the most somber moment of Skyfall is when the credits begin rolling and you realize that the film has presented a potentially unstoppable, untouchable, superior story to the modern Bond franchise. Mendes joins the ranks of Rian Johnson, Jon Favreau, and Marc Webb in his first action film attempt. Fortunately for the viewer and Bond franchise fan-boys, Mendes succeeds with flying royal colors. Mendes' cinematography coincide with the best Bond character performances in series' history. Amid Daniel Craig's most convincing Bond performance yet and Bardem's chilling villain play, Dench, Fiennes and others give an fantastic emotional flair rarely seen in past action epics. In the end, Skyfall merges old bond with new bond in such unbelievable fashion, that Skyfall has made itself a mandatory keystone in the famous British series. An absolute must see.
Lawless (2012)
A Plot Line Muddled in Blood
Amongst many summer action blockbusters, Director John Hillcoat attempts to shine the audience with a glimmer of gritty, old world splendor in "Lawless". While Lawless won me over with a refreshing plot surrounding moonshine and the Prohibition era, the film's plot lingered far too long above the reel, leading me to believe that Lawless did in fact break one important storytelling law. That is, a satisfactory climax.
Upon first look many months ago, the film's cast is what caught my eye. Shia LaBeouf is the young protagonist, Jack Bondurant. His two partners in crime consist of his two brothers, Forrest Bondurant and Howard Bondurant, played by Tom Hardy and Jason Clark respectively. Their enemy, on the law's side, is Charlie Rakes, a brutal, self-indulged detective played by none other than Guy Pearce; one of my favorite actors. Gary Oldman also fills a roll in the film as wanted criminal, Floyd Banner. Unfortunately, the audience sees too few of him to be able to call him a large contributor to the plot. Additionally and quite stereotypically of gritty, western-like films, women interests arise played by Jessica Chastain and Mia Wasikowska. Finally, "Chronicle" star Dane DeHaan plays Cricket Pate, an assistant and friend to the Bondurant brothers.
In hindsight, casting was very well done in this film aside from a few characters. First, Shia, although I consider him to be a good actor, nothing new was under the sun in this film. As seen in the many of his movies, especially in Michael Bay's Transformer trilogy, LaBeouf is very good at being an emotional wreck. Mix that emotion with anger and he begins a screaming and yelling fit in which he becomes some type of screen monster that spits out an extraordinary amount of saliva. While his multiple emotional outbursts do not ruin the film, they are slightly distracting and invoke quite a bit of déjà vu. Oldman's character was a great character casted with a greater actor. Unfortunately his character is too small for Oldman. I really enjoy Oldman's acting and the different type of characters he can play, however, when a character he plays receives only about 15 minutes of screen time, you're left wanting more and disappointed. Again, the casting decision did not alter or taint the film in any way—it was just, disappointing. Alternatively, two acting choices I thought were great were Hardy and Pearce. Hardy played a straight faced, poised moonshine criminal who knew how to send a message and despite his lack of emotion, his character was a joy to watch. On the other hand, Pearce in his roll gave me the chills. Guy fit right into a character that had brutality, intelligence, and an interesting slicked back hairdo. His character, Charlie Rakes was the perfect antagonist and I believe that Pearce is the man responsible; a fantastic watch.
As I stated above, Lawless' plot is quite refreshing. Although it is another gritty, criminal film, no modern film has attempted to produce a story or a screenplay in the prohibition era surrounding the production of illegal moonshine. The film follows the Bondurant brothers, Jack, Forrest, and Howard on their under the table deals of illegal alcohol in Franklin County, Virginia. Raised together on a farm, the brothers stood by each other and began to produce moonshine for profit. Of course, such a job comes with difficulties such as thieves and deals gone wrong. However, the brothers have been able to overcome all obstacles mostly with bloody violence in order to stake a place in the illegal market. So much so that the brothers have become a legend of invincibility in Virginia. Although business is booming, everything changes when Charlie Rakes, a brutal and well-dressed detective comes to town. When Forrest and the brothers refuse to pay a "tax" on their production, Rakes will use any force necessary to stop the brothers, which begins a bloody and violent county war between the brothers and the law in which only one party can come out on top.
Although a plot synopsis might seem intriguing, the plot is what holds this film back from being anything more than a summer blockbuster. Between the very violent and bloody attacks of the law and the Bondurant brothers, there seems to be a lack of cohesiveness in the film. As I sit here and write, I still cannot completely figure out why the climax fed to me in the theater and in the film was not satisfactory. While the plot advances during the film, each event seems to be just another shootout or an act of violence that somehow leads up to a final shootout. It felt like cinema pinball; the ball would, metaphorically, hit different scenes and plot points yet never linked them all together in a satisfying climax. To put it simply, the film is jumbled. Yes, the plot makes sense and leads to a climax but does so in a very roundabout way that leaves the audience asking, "Is that it?" Lawless just doesn't seem to have the so-called "bang" many were expecting from a violent, gun-toting film.
Well casted, well written, and well-acted, Lawless is a well-made film, there's no doubt. It's a fun watch and an entertaining adult summer blockbuster. Unfortunately, the plot is what holds this film back from being anything further. In the end, Lawless just doesn't seem to have a distinct, satisfactory plot line and if it does, it's covered in blood.
The Bourne Legacy (2012)
Unnecessary Espionage Scrap
In its purest form, "The Bourne Legacy" is a film that in a little over two hours tells the audience exactly what the trailer conveys—that "Bourne was just the tip of the iceberg." In this film, we follow a new agent named Aaron Cross (Jeremy Renner) who is physically and psychologically enhanced. The film follows a familiar storyline to other Bourne movies, in which an agency executive and his/her team of keyboard wizards try their best to find a highly-skilled agent running "willy nillly" around the globe. Accredited and well known actor, Edward Norton fits nicely into this role as Eric Byer who's only characteristic is that he cuts straight to the chase in order to avoid all possible collateral damage. Bourne Legacy also takes notes from The Bourne Identity and involves a female partner. The lucky lady in this film is Dr. Marta Shearing (Rachel Weisz), who works in a bio-medical super lab in order to help create and maintain the genetics needed to keep agents such as Cross, genetically enhanced. When Byer decides to shut down the genetic program and destroy any active agents, Cross narrowly avoids death and begins to search for Dr. Shearing who he knows will be able to help him find more gene-altering pills in order to find answers and survive the onslaught of trained operatives set on killing him and the doctor. Cross and Shearing travel around the globe to find answers and when they do, all hell breaks loose and both have to fight, gun, and ride their way to safety. Tony Gilroy, an original screenwriter for all three of the previous Bourne films, daringly attempts to write and direct a film that merges a new original story with Bourne's final days in the "Bourne Ultimatum" storyline. Unfortunately, the film, in so many ways, becomes an unfortunate mess.
It should be said that I am a massive Bourne trilogy fan. The original three films were great and ended in great fashion. Therefore, when Bourne Legacy was announced, I immediately had my doubts. Perhaps Bourne Legacy's first fatal flaw is that the film is entirely confused on who is more important—our new main character, Cross—or the Treadstone "messiah" himself, Jason Bourne. The first half of the film cuts between Cross camping in the mountains for no apparent reason and Byer tossing around policies and theories in which the audience has no idea what he is talking about. The Bourne films have always been known to be confusing and complex involving the CIA, US Senators, etc. yet the Bourne Legacy attempts to replicate the same complexity, however fails in execution. Instead, the story is confusing in the least attractive or interesting way. At times, I couldn't help but cringe a little at how hard Gilroy's story was trying to match its predecessor.
It wasn't until the second half of the movie that Legacy felt anything remotely like a Bourne film. Filled with the same deadly combat we all came to love in the original films, Renner shows that he can match Damon's showmanship in the "kicking ass" department, which was a welcome sight. Furthermore, Renner also flaunts his motorcycle driving skills in the film's only chase scene which seems to drag on into eternity. Although, the film's action sequences were impressive and entertaining, it was the little nuances that were completely unnecessary to both Bourne fans and the average movie-goer. Small aspects such as an enemy's ability to survive multiple bullet wounds, Shearing's over the top emotional cries and yelps, and Cross's lack of focus or "super-agent poise" was endlessly distracting and took away the little momentum the film had.
Now aside from comparing the film to its Damon predecessors, the acting and writing was sub-par at best. Although the cast featured many experienced actors, only Norton and Renner seemed to bring any actual ability to the stage and the characters they were playing. However, it was certainly the writing that seemed to bring everyone down. There were many emotional one liners that Renner's character spit out that seemed completely out of place in an espionage film. A super-agent is supposed to have composure and poise and yet Renner's script played at the opposite. Yet, perhaps the most painful of all writing and acting was Weisz's role. Although I do understand that the character was in an emotional position after being close to death many times, any genuine emotion from Weisz's character could not be found—even amidst the yelling and crying found too often in the film. In the end, the over the top emotion and mediocre writing felt odd and several times, laughable.
Near the end of the film, Weisz's character asks Cross if they are lost. Despite Cross's actual response, I cannot help but think that "lost" is the best way to describe Gilroy's attempt to extend the series further. Although entertaining and a fun cinematic adventure, Bourne Legacy becomes just another action flick that will soon be forgotten by its audience and any hopeful Bourne fans. However, Legacy's biggest flaw is the aforementioned fact that a two hour film was produced to reveal relatively nothing about Bourne, Gilroy's new character, or the popular story arc created in Damon's Bourne trilogy. As an audience, you cannot help but feel like the film takes you around in pointless circles and therefore, lost couldn't be any better of a term to describe the pile of espionage scrap Tony Gilroy found in the bottom of the—already empty— Bourne barrel.