Category Archives: Movies

The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug (2013)

Posted on by
Reply

hobbit

Link: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug

Summary: Bilbo Baggins continues his journey with the dwarves to the Misty Mountains to reclaim their home.  In the process, they’ll have to escape orcs, angry citizens of Laketown, and the ferocious dragon Smaug.

Thoughts: I thought this was great film, even better than the first Hobbit film from last year.  I must admit, I never finished the book.  I only got about half-way through it and then moved on and never went back to it.  That was in middle school.  I think Harry Potter came out in the US the next year.  Anyway, the point is, I am not a Tolkien purist who would get upset by how much of the story was fabricated for the film.  I thought they did a great job with what they created.  It did feel a bit modern; I can’t imagine Tolkien creating a character like Tauriel.  But she worked for the purposes of the film, and I loved the look and feel of the new elven home we get to see in this installment.  I also thought Laketown looked wonderful, though I’ll admit that I didn’t think Stephen Fry worked very well as the master of Laketown.  He just seems too worldly and modern to be in a fantasy film like this.

The dragon Smaug was fantastic.  He looked epic in 3D on the big screen; I loved pretty much every Smaug scene.

The film is almost three hours, but the time really flew by; the film was captivating throughout.  Great film.

Frozen (2013)

Posted on by
Reply

Link: Frozen

Summary: When a queen with uncontrollable ice-creating powers runs away in fear and shame, her sister goes after her, hoping to bring her back to her kingdom where she belongs to end the eternal winter her powers have brought upon the kingdom.

Thoughts: There may be spoilers ahead.

I was not planning on seeing this film at first because the trailers made it look awful.  The humor was cheesy and the characters came off as annoying.

But then I started hearing good things about it, and trailers have misrepresented films before.  (I thought the trailers for Shrek looked awful, and I ended up loving that film.  I confess that I even thought the trailers for Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring looked unimpressive, and that film along with its sequels ended up blowing me away.)

I thought the film was great.  The humor that seemed so awful in the trailers worked wonderfully when watched in context, and the characters made much more sense.  The story was engaging, and I loved the fairy tale look and feel of everything.

The songs are clearly not from Alan Menken, but they’re very catchy and, at times, very emotionally powerful.  I enjoyed how they continuously moved the story along; it really felt like a 2D Disney film from my childhood in the 90’s.

The film did have some weaknesses.  “Oh, Sean, must you critique things so?”  Yes.  You should be happy that I thought the film was interesting enough to provide this much commentary.

I loved the beginning, how they established the strained relationship between the sisters with the catchy “Do You Want to Build a Snowman?” song.  But when Elsa becomes angry after her coronation and begins losing control of her powers, it feels a bit sudden and forced.  “Well, that escalated quickly.”  The story is then set in motion when Anna decides to go after her.  But why?  What are the stakes?  It just feels rushed.  Maybe if Elsa had accidentally frozen some of her kingdom’s citizens or something.  And while Elsa building her ice palace while singing “Let It Go” is cinematically fantastic, I wonder what exactly her intentions are?  To just stay there forever, walking around?  What does she plan to do for food?

One line really bothered me.  In the song “Fixer Upper” one of the trolls sings “People don’t really change”.  Really?  If that bleak hopeless statement were true, doesn’t that kind of defeat the purpose of the song?  And of the entire story?  And of any story?  That said, I think it’s true that one shouldn’t dive into a romantic relationship with the belief that she will somehow change her love interest to conform to her desires.  That’s hardly fair to the love interest anyway.  “I don’t have to change, but you do; you’re not quite good enough for me yet, but you will be after I work on you!”  But changing in general?  People change all the time.  But you can only change yourself, and only by wanting to.  It’s not always easy, but that’s what having Free Will is all about.  And that’s what stories are all about; they’re about characters wanting change and making decisions to achieve it.  I really didn’t understand the point of this song, or what it was trying to say, other than, “Hey, audience, in case you’re really stupid, we should tell you that Anna really loves Christoff.”  (And not that prince with red hair, because remember: red-head men are always bullies or clowny side-kicks, not romantic interests.)

Come to think of it, Anna’s romantic sub-plots, though entertaining, don’t really add much thematically to the main conflict, which is about Anna’s relationship with her sister, and her sister’s control of her powers.  Might’ve been an interesting film if they had forgotten the romantic sub-plots completely and focused only on the sibling relationship.  Why does a Disney “princess movie” necessarily have to include romantic relationships at all?  (I’ve heard debates about whether or not this film is “feminist”.  I guess it depends on what “feminist” means to you.  This film is just atypical because the main conflict does not depend on romantic relationships for solutions to problems.  Well, in a way, it pretends like it does for a while near the end, and then it says, “Nope, we tricked you, haha!”  If that makes a woman feel empowered, well, um, OK, whatever.  But I don’t personally see how that makes it any more or less “feminist” than any other story featuring a female protagonist in a non-romantic-relationship story.)

Overall, even with these weaknesses, I thought the film was far above the other animated films I’ve seen this year.  What the film does well, it does fantastically.

On a side note, the film is so unlike the Hans Christian Andersen tale it’s inspired by, The Snow Queen, I’m confident someone could still make a great film adaptation that holds more true to the original tale and not look like a Frozen rip-off.

The Internship (2013)

Posted on by
Reply

Link: The Internship

Summary: Two out of work (but charming and witty!) sales men miraculously get accepted into an internship program at Google, where they must work with a younger generation to win a contest that will guarantee them a position with the tech company.

Thoughts: This was an awful film.  It almost felt like nobody really want to make it.  The whole thing just feels too… fake… if that makes any sense in the context of a film.  The story didn’t feel genuine.  The humor was fortunately not as raunchy as one might expect from Owen Wilson and Vince Vaughan, but it was all very forced and not funny.  It was almost like watching the Disney Channel without a laugh track.  But what really bothered me was the whole idea of the older generation (as represented by the two main characters) needing to mentor the younger tech-savvy-but-socially-stupid generation, teaching them how to break their social shells and have a good time.  I found it almost condescending.

Computer Chess (2013)

Posted on by
Reply

computerchess

Link: Computer Chess

Summary: A group of programming nerds get together at a convention to let their chess programs battle each other in a computer chess tournament.

Thoughts: As someone who enjoys both chess and programming (and I’m working on my own chess engine), I thought this would be interesting.  But I suppose I would’ve been much more interested in a straight-forward documentary on the subject of computer chess.  This film tries to be an awkward comedy, somewhere between a comedy-drama and a mockumentary, but hardly any of its humor is very funny, and there’s not much for the true computer chess fan to see.

Reign of Fire (2002)

Posted on by
Reply

reignoffire

Link: Reign of Fire

Summary: In a post-apocalyptic world brought on by dragons, a man fights to kill the dragon alpha-male, hoping to restore peace and prosperity to the dragon-ravaged lands.

Thoughts: I love the idea of merging dragons with sci-fi, pitting dragons against modern military machinery.  The look-and-feel of combining classic fantasy (dragons and castles) with sci-fi (machinery in a post-apocalyptic world) is very unique and engaging.  Unfortunately the overall story for this film was rather bland and suffered from some major pacing issues.  The first act was bloated by unnecessary subplots and what should’ve been the midpoint event came too late in the story, making the climax rushed and anti-climactic.  In the end, it leaves you feeling you haven’t watched anything too special.  Fun idea ruined by plotting mistakes.

The Conjuring (2013)

Posted on by
Reply

conjuring

Link: The Conjuring

Summary: A paranormal investigator studies a house haunted by particularly sinister demons, hoping to drive them away and make the house a safe place for its family.

Thoughts: I thought this was a well-made classic-style horror film.  It featured nice pacing and some great creepy moments.  It’s also nice to see Christianity used as a force of good against demons, something a lot of modern horror film makers tend to shy away from these days.  Ultimately, though, if you’ve seen a good number of horror films, this one doesn’t really bring anything new to the genre like some of the director’s other work (Saw and Insidious).

Tales from Earthsea (2006)

Posted on by
Reply

talesfromearthsea

Link: Tales From Earthsea

Summary: I’m not sure how to summarize this film.

Thoughts: I’m not sure how to summarize this film because the storytelling is horrible slop.  It begins with a young man who kills his father, steals his sword, and runs away.  He ends up joining this older man who is a wizard on a mission to do something that I never really understood.  They come to the house of some woman and her daughter and do things.  And then this evil guy comes and kidnaps people and they fight him.  And the girl turns into a dragon.  And the young man defeats the bad guy.  The end.

The film features Studio Ghibli’s usual beautiful artwork and mesmerizing music.  But the storytelling is so sloppy and confusing that I could not understand what was going on and could not emotionally invest myself in any of the characters.  By far the worst film from the studio.  In fact, it’s one of the worst animated films of all time.

Come and See (1985)

Posted on by
Reply

Link: Come & See

Summary: A young man joins a group of Russian partisans fighting Nazis during the chaos of World War 2.

Thoughts: This film is less story-driven or character-driven and more image-driven, almost working as a set of montages depicting the tragedies of war and the cruel indifference it can provoke in soldiers.  I suppose it’s supposed to come across as shocking and terrifying, showing audiences the horribleness of war with its gritty realism, but if you’ve watched a lot movies, it doesn’t quite stand out as anything special.

12 and Holding (2005)

Posted on by
Reply

twelveholding

Link: 12 and Holding

Summary: After bullies accidentally kill a twelve year old, his two best friends and his brother deal with his death in various ways, his brother by seeking lethal revenge on the bullies.

Thoughts: One of the more bizarre films I’ve seen.  Its quirky awkward humor seems too upbeat for how sad everyone’s situation really is.  It creates a bizarre atmosphere in which you’re not sure whether the film is trying to make you laugh or cry.  Perhaps it’s trying to make you do both, or perhaps it’s only trying resist being too heavy-handed either way, but the product is only a weird muddled confusion that pushes you out of the story (rather than the sort of natural forwardness Truffaut might’ve been able to manage).  There’s something about the dialog that doesn’t quite work either, something a bit forced and unnatural about the things people say to each other, and the ways they emotionally react to each other.  I can’t quite put my finger on why it doesn’t work, but it just didn’t feel very honest to me.  I did, however, appreciate the rather dark ending that leaves you a bit unsettled.

The Awakening (2011)

Posted on by
Reply

Link: The Awakening

Summary: A woman who debunks ghost myths investigates a boarding school said to be haunted by an evil ghost child, hoping to help calm the frightened boys there.  But when it becomes apparent that this ghost is quite real, she realizes she’ll have to find a different way to end the school’s haunting.

Thoughts: Grrr!  This film made me angry.  It had a lot of potential.  It feels like the filmmaker’s spark of inspiration was something special.  But it’s completely ruined by a horribly plotted ending.  A huge chunk of backstory exposition has to be suddenly introduced for the ending to make sense, and it’s all just so out-of-nowhere that the emotional power of the ending is squashed completely.  The brain has to process too much information too suddenly that the otherwise powerful emotion it would have evoked is destroyed.  It makes me angry because it would have been such an awesome, tragic, powerful, beautiful ending if it had only been set up right.  That said, I’m not sure how I would fix it.  It would be very tricky.  Certainly, the huge chunk of backstory that is revealed at the end would have to come much sooner, perhaps at the very beginning of the film as a prologue.  Perhaps I’d make it more like The Devil’s Backbone and reveal the nature of the ghost in the first act.  I don’t know.  I’d have to play around with the possibilities.  Anyway, the film had some other weaknesses as well, but the nature of the film’s climax is my biggest complaint, especially as I think the idea they were going for is so awesome.  They just did it ineffectively.

The film did have some strengths.  I enjoyed the look and feel of the film, the historic atmosphere.  For some reason, that historic era just seems more ghostly in and of itself.  The story would not at all have worked in modern day.  There are some genuinely creepy moments that work wonderfully, especially the jump moments.  Those are always a bit hit-or-miss for me in these sorts of films, but they worked really well in this film.  The music was great, especially its use of choirs.  And overall, the story manages to stay engaging throughout, even if the ending is messed up.

Only God Forgives (2013)

Posted on by
Reply

Link: Only God Forgives

Summary: An ex-gangster seeks revenge on the evil man who killed his brother.

Thoughts: While the film has a very unique look and feel to it (and it’s refreshing to see somebody shoot some decent action sequences without having to shake the camera), it ultimately falls flat because the story is slow and full of bland characters.  The ambiguity of the characters’ backgrounds and motivations could’ve been forgiven if there were more to the story, or the simplicity of the story could’ve been forgiven if there were more to the characters.  Without either, we’re not left with enough material for a film.  There are too many ambiguous scenes that only try to evoke visceral reactions without actually moving the story forward.

Leviathan (2012)

Posted on by
Reply

leviathan

Link: Leviathan

Summary: A collection of random visuals from a modern fishing boat.

Thoughts: This film called itself a documentary, but there’s not much to see or to learn here.  All the filmmakers did was get on a fishing boat, put the camera here, record random stuff for a few minutes, then put it over there, record for a few minutes, etc.  Half the time it’s hard to even figure out what you’re looking at.  The best you can hope for is falling into a meditative stupor.  (Hey, look, the poster uses that font…)

The Wall (2012)

Posted on by
Reply

thewall

Link: The Wall

Summary: A woman finds herself trapped in a valley by an invisible wall.

Thoughts: I’ve seen some pretty terrible and boring films this year, but this film managed to find new depths of inanity I did not know were possible.  After finding the wall, the main character quickly realizes she will have to live off the land all by herself, which she is fortunately very proficient at (unlike Tom Hanks in Cast Away, who actually has to figure things out).  She doesn’t explore the strange phenomenon of the invisible wall all that much, other than feeling it with her hands and then deciding to smash her car into it (she may know how to grow crops and hunt, but she’s also stupid).  The entire film then consists of images of her surviving on her own while she narrates, trying to wax philosophical and romantic about her relationship with the world and the human condition, with the philosophical depth of a fourth grader.  Her thoughts include ideas like: “I think mankind is the only creature for which right and wrong exist.”  “Maybe humans are the most pitiable creatures because we have enough intelligence to try to resist the natural order.”  “Does time move, or do we move through time?”  These may be interesting philosophical subjects in and of themselves, but if I were interested in pondering these things, I’d read a book by a philosopher who thought about these things in some depth.  I watch films for a subtler sort of introspection.  When it’s just a narrator mentioning these things in passing while I watch her character walk across a landscape doing nothing, what’s the point?  In the end (spoiler alert), she never escapes or finds out anything about the mysterious wall.  She just says something she thinks is poetic and looks out a window, hoping viewers will give her credit for being so contemplative.

Eyes Without a Face (1960)

Posted on by
Reply

Link: Eyes Without a Face

Summary: A surgeon kidnaps women and cuts off their faces, grafting them onto his disfigured daughter, hoping for successful face transplant.

Thoughts: Although the summary sounds disturbing, this film was made in the 1960’s.  The make-up is super-cheesy by modern standards.  How do you make it look like a young woman has no face?  Apparently by squiggling dark crayon all over it.  But maybe the cheesy effects can be forgiven by a compelling story?  Nope.  There’s really not much more to the story than the summary suggests.  There is no subtext, there are no deeper meanings.  The dialog is bland.  The characters are bland.  The whole thing is just dull.  Not sure why this is considered a classic or why the Criterion Collection thought this would be a good film to put on blu-ray.  The blu-ray’s bonus features include the director’s first film, the classic 1949 documentary Blood of the Beasts, giving us a charming little glimpse into the workings of a slaughterhouse.  It’s fun for the whole family!  Just don’t eat anything for a few hours before watching.