Review: The Perks of Being a Wallflower

There are couple interesting things about this movie that I would have liked to know before watching it.  First, it's supposed to take place in the 1991-1992 school year and has a lot of 90's references.  Second, it originally received an R rating, but the filmmakers appealed the ruling and were able to convince the MPAA to give it a lower rating without editing it at all.

SYNOPSIS
An extremely shy freshman boy is taken under the wings of two seniors who welcome him to the real world. Only there are reasons for his shyness.

THE GOOD
The cinematography is very well crafted.  That was my first clue that this was NOT just another high school movie.

The acting, particularly by Logan Lerman, is brilliant.  I had no idea that Logan could be such a subtle actor. He will be one to watch in the future.

The reveals are done very well.  Very subtle and very effective.

THE BAD
It was really hard to watch Emma Watson try to do an American accent.  It felt forced to me, although her actual performance was great.

The high school extras that had one liners felt like they were pulled from a Disney movie and were a little distracting.  This might have been intentional, nevertheless I was distracted by it.

CONCLUSION
This movie has some very adult themes and should only be viewed by mature audiences (hence the original R rating).  I suppose there might be a high school student or two who would benefit from watching it, but if I had teenagers I wouldn't let them.  It was very well done and very heavy.  4/5 stars.

Superman's TV survival skills

How many of you out there in reader-land remember a show called 'Lois & Clark: The New Adventures of Superman'? I remember that it aired on Sundays and I watched it every chance I got growing up.  How about the 1950's George Reeve 'The Adventures of Superman' TV series?  I'm told that children of that generation just ate it up.  Or perhaps the WB hit 'Smallville'?  All of these shows have more than one thing in common.  First, they all involve Superman and his supporting cast, all of which were played by very attractive actors and actresses.  Second, and more importantly, they were all HORRIBLY written, horribly acted, and every one of them ages about as well as Lindsey Lohan.

I noticed this pattern a few years ago after watching some early Smallville episodes at the same time I was also going through the old 'Lois & Clark' show.  I was shocked at how low the quality was, and yet I was still watching them!  All of these Superman TV series defied death (cancellation) much longer than their quality should have allowed.  Death should have stood at their doorstep soon after their respective first seasons, but they marched onward.

I would like you to imagine that the show didn't include Superman as a character, yet had the same actors and actresses in a different story. Would it even have gotten past the pilot stage?  Or maybe gotten a pilot, but been picked up for more than one season?  I humbly suggest that the answer is a hard NO. 

It seems that Superman is the King Midas of the comic book television world (Batman is a close second, but that's another topic for another column).  They have tried to turn many other superheroes into TV series, however they never get as much play.  The Flash, Wonder Woman, or the good-intentioned 90's Birds of Prey (a girl-only spin-off of the Batman universe) never reached the success that any of these Superman shows did.  Even the campy 60's version of Batman starring Adam West only had 2 seasons!  Lois and Clark had 4 seasons, the 50's 'Adventures of Superman' had 6 (which would've lasted longer if George Reeves hadn't committed suicide), and Smallville had a record-breaking 10 seasons.  The only other property to have as many successful incarnations is Law and Order.

So, what is it about Superman that can survive bad writing and bad acting?  I think there are many variables, but I will focus on two.  First, Superman seems to appeal to the best in us.  He is arguably the most powerful superhero ever created, and yet he is a grown-up boy scout.  He has the potential to be the worst tyrant, yet he uses his power for good.  That strikes a chord in the human heart.

Second, I think he is to many the definitive superhero.  When one thinks of comic books and superheroes, Superman is often the first to come to mind.  He is the most recognizable superhero in the world, in my humble opinion.  He is also very American, so there is a patriotic element to his appeal.  After all, he fights for 'Truth, Justice, and the American Way.'

I think it can be argued that the reason that Superman Returns wasn't as successful as Warner Bros had hoped it would be was that the film wasn't true to these principles.  When Superman becomes a Peeping Tom or has an out-of-wedlock child he is no longer Superman, merely a cheap knock-off.  My apologies to Bryan Singer (Director of Superman Returns), but you really dropped the ball on that one.

I await the day that there is another Superman-themed live TV show to test my hypothesis.  I predict it will have horrible actors and writing and production value.  Yet it will defy the laws of television gravity and beat the odds by getting picked up for a full season.  Superman is part of our modern day mythology.  He gives us hope that there are good people in the world.

P.S. I must give a shout out to Geoff Johns, the best writer of Superman in the last 20 years.  If you want to read some great Superman, read anything he's written with Superman in it. 

A review of Les Misérables

DISCLAIMER

I seem to be the only one in my circle of friends and family that didn't adore this movie.  So, statistically speaking, you will probably like it.  Take what I write with a grain of salt.  I am much more critical of movies than most.  Nevertheless, it was the single most unique film experience I think I've ever had.  

INTRODUCTION

From the first trailer, showing Anne Hathaway singing 'I Dreamed a Dream', I have anticipated this film.  With a cast including Hugh Jackman, Russel Crowe, Anne Hathaway, Helena Bonham Carter, and Samantha Barks, I felt this project couldn't go wrong (with the exception of Amanda Seyfried, which I contend that she is always the worst part of any movie she's in).  Add Tom Hooper (director of The King's Speech, which I ADORED) and we are setup for Oscar territory.  Even more interesting was the innovative 'live singing' that they did--basically they sang live on set, instead of prerecording the tracks as all others filmed musical have done.  

THE GOOD

Anne Hathaway is the best part of this movie.  Every scene she was in had me in tears.  It will be a travesty if she doesn't win Best Supporting Actress for her performance.  Hugh Jackman gave the best performance of his life.  And of course Samantha Barks' Eponine was brilliant.  

The cinematography was quite brilliant, with a few exceptions.  The coloring, the costumes, the lenses were all amazing. 

THE BAD

Regarding the cinematography: I could have done with more variety of camera shots and angles.  The camera focused almost entirely on a close-up of the current singer's face.  It was very distracting to me.  

Russel Crowe is one of the great actors of our time, but Javere just might be one of his worst performances ever.  He CANNOT sing!  Whoever thought it was a good idea to cast him should be run out of Hollywood.  

Amanda Seyfried was less atrocious than I expected, but she had dramatically less screen time than I had anticipated.  It seems they got the memo that she is an awful actress during the editing process.  Her singing voice is almost unbearable to my ears. 

In the end, the 'live singing' was also a distraction for me.  It didn't feel like a musical to me, but like an entirely new genre.  Each individual performance was powerful (with the exception of Russel Crowe's and Amanda Seyfried's), however when they are strung together it just felt weird to me.  It didn't have the energy that a musical normally does.  I felt the brakes being slammed between almost every number.  

CONCLUSION

Like I said in my disclaimer, I seem to be the only one of my acquaintances that didn't love this film.  As a result I recommend it to all except those who are critically-minded.  Also, it is NOT family-friendly.  Lots of sexual content, most of it unneeded.  My score: 3/5 stars. 

Review: The Bourne Legacy

When I first heard about The Bourne Legacy and that the director and many of the same actors would be involved, I will admit I was elated.  Then I felt the project was bulletproof with the additions of Jeremy Renner (The Hurt Locker, MI4) and Edward Norton (the man who re-wrote The Incredible Hulk script because he didn't want to be a part of something that was less than perfect).  Then, I saw that they slated an August release for it, the month where they release movies that have a blockbuster budget but the studios lost faith in. Ruh-Roh.  I just brushed that off.  There's no way that a movie with all these talented people could be August-worthy.  It must be a coincidence, right?

SYNOPSIS
The plot takes place during the same basic time frame as The Bourne Ultimatum.  Another recruit (Jeremy Renner) of the secret CIA program known as Black Brier finds himself being hunted by the said same group.  He teams up with a doctor that has helped him before to find out why they want him dead.

THE GOOD
The action scenes are almost flawless.  They are on par with what we expect from a Bourne movie.  It was wonderfully shot. The acting was wonderful on all counts.

THE BAD
The problem with this movie is that there was no third act.  It ends abruptly with almost no resolution and no hint of a sequel.  It's not even a cliffhanger!  It just ends in an awful place, story-wise. When they started playing the definitive end-of-a-Bourne-movie song (Extreme Ways by Moby), I loudly proclaimed in the middle of a full theater 'You've got to be kidding me!' @RaySubers said that there were rumors that the 3rd act had problems early on in the development of the script and in shooting.  I consider that an understatement: I honestly believe that they just skipped the third act entirely and tried to end it in the least painful place possible.

CONCLUSION
I despised this movie.  My hatred of it is probably spawned from my high expectations, but this movie shouldn't be included in the Bourne Saga.  2/5 Stars.

Let me know what you thought of the review or the movie in the comments!

Star Trek Into Darkness Preview Locations

Our good friends at Paramount didn't do a good job making the site that details the locations of the IMAX Star Trek Into Darkness preview very searchable.  So, here's the website:

http://www.startrekmovie.com/imax/

In Arizona, there are several locations, but only in Phoenix and Mesa.  I personally am probably going to hit up the one in Mesa this weekend. :)

#14 Rudy

To those that know one of my best friends Steve, you are aware that he loves sappy sports movies.  Throughout high school, he would always say that his favorite movies of all time were Remember the Titans and Rudy.  And I am grateful to this day that he made me watch Rudy (I had already seen Remember the Titans in the theater).  It was a 'too-cold-for-the-buses-to-run-day' in Rexburg, Idaho and he brought over the DVD.  I didn't fully appreciate the film back then, but it is now a yearly tradition in my home that we watch Rudy in the fall.  

SYNOPSIS

Rudy Ruttiger has always wanted to attend the University of Notre Dame and play football for them.  This movie is about his journey of overcoming almost impossible odds to achieve his dreams. 

REVIEW

Before Sean Astin won an Academy Award for Lord of the Rings, he showed his talent as Rudy.  He really makes this movie, although the supporting cast is great as well.  I would suggest that this is Warren Beatty's best performance, playing Rudy's father.  

The story is one of the most inspiring stories ever put on film.  The highs of the movie move me every time.  It motivates me to try and be a better person and reach my goals. 

The music is a gem.  This is easily Jerry Goldsmith's best music and is one of my favorite soundtracks of all time.  I can listen to it any time, any day and feel inspired.  It does what a soundtrack should do: it is memorable and moving but not distracting.  

CONCLUSION

This movie is a must see.  You've probably seen it on cable, but it's certainly worth owning on DVD or even Blu-ray.  

Star Trek 2 Trailer

I know I'm late to the game in posting this here, but I saw it on the big screen over the weekend, in front of The Hobbit.  I don't think I took a breathe during the whole thing.  It was AMAZING.  The poster (click the pic on the left for a larger version)  is obviously borrowing from The Dark Knight Rises teaser poster.  And you will notice the addition of a certain Sherlock playing the villain, which we don't know his identity yet.  My pick for most anticipated of 2013.  On a side note, you can see see the first 9 minutes of the movie in the front of The Hobbit in IMAX.

Comment below to let me know what you think!

The Hobbit was indeed an Unexpected Journey

The Hobbit is easily one of the most anticipated films of this year, and for good reason: The Lord of the Rings trilogy will go down in cinematic history as both a masterpiece and a game changer.  Now Peter Jackson has returned to the storyteller's chair to tell the prelude tale of the trilogy, The Hobbit.  Does it live up to the hype, or in this case the critical panning?  I'll go over the good and the bad, and then my conclusion.

THE BAD
There are certainly pacing issues, which is expected with the amount of filler content that Mr. Jackson and his team inevitably had to create.  There are whole scenes that weren't needed and only provided nostalgic value.  The side stories were distractions rather than adding to to it.

It seems there was less detail in many of the scenes than in any of the LOTR films.  The Shire wasn't as beautiful, nor was Rivendell.

The Goblin King was disgusting to look at and really distracted me.  I found myself avoiding the screen whenever it showed him.  If the Orcs and Goblins weren't CGI, the film would've easily been rated R for the sheer amount of graphic beheadings.

THE GOOD
The soundtrack was brilliant, as always.  Many of the recognizable themes were present as well as new ones that were just as memorable and emotion-provoking.

Martin Freeman as Bilbo was the best part of the movie.  Never once did I think that he wasn't Bilbo or that he was Watson from Sherlock.  He really lived the part, and I daresay did a better job as a leading man than Elijah Wood did as Frodo.

It is beautifully shot, which I expect nothing less from Peter Jackson.  The opening prologue scene was a spectacle to see.

The language was less Shakespearean than the previous trilogy, but the content is less epic (i.e. the fate of the world doesn't hang in the balance).  The banter between the dwarves is fun and appropriate for the story.  There is a scene between Cate Blanchet's character and Gandalf that was the turning point for my verdict of the film.  It really touched me and brought home what the story was about.  Peter Jackson, like all the master directors, is a master of manipulating emotions.

CONCLUSION
I really enjoyed this movie.  There were problems, most of them relating to the 'filler content' that they had to insert in order to fill up 3 films from only a 300 page novel.  Also, thanks to @RaySubers and other critics, my expectations were REALLY low, which helped me enjoy this movie even more.  It has heart and a playfulness that the other films didn't.  I would try not to compare them too much, because they are very different with different goals.  4/5 stars.  I recommend it.

3D or not 3D: The Hobbit

The big movie of the weekend/month/season is without a doubt the first of three Hobbit films, which is being released worldwide today.  I haven't seen it yet, but will tomorrow  morning (Saturday) and will have the review up by the afternoon.

Most don't know that there is a bit of controversy surrounding this movie in critics' circles.  First of all, it's very strange that they are taking a book that is dramatically smaller than any of the individual installments of The Lord of the Rings trilogy and making it into 3 different movies.  There is bound to be a lot of filler content, and that's almost never a good thing.

Second, Peter Jackson decided to use new camera setups for this film with a higher frame-rate than any previous feature film has ever used.  A normal Hollywood film would use a 30 frames-per-second (fps) rate, with quite a bit of detail already being showcased.  Mr. Jackson decided that he was going to up it to 48 fps, which is over a 50% increase.  He showed some footage of the new frame rate at Comic Con this year, and it was it horribly panned. People hated it.  But, he was not deterred and went ahead with the higher fps with most of the 3D releases, and in particular the IMAX release.

So, I almost always recommend against the 3D version of a film, but this one I say: run far away from the higher priced, headache inducing 3D. Critics have DESPISED this higher fps, which is one of the main reason that it hasn't gotten higher scores across the board.

Please let me know your decision and if you liked the movie in the comments.

Oscar buzz cola and predictions

Oscar season is upon us!  What is Oscar season you ask?  It refers to the last few months of a year in which movie studios release their best bets at winning awards.  They do this for many reasons, but the two main ones that I'm aware of are a) to get the good movies in before the deadline of January 1st and b) to release them later in the year to keep them fresh in voters' minds.  This is the reason why there is usually a major lull in good movies from January to May (right before the summer blockbusters) and from August to the end of October.  Some have argued that there have been some great movies that were released during these lull times, but I counter that these are the exception and not the rule.  Also, it is important to understand that these buzz-worthy films are most often not big money makers.  The studios are kind of split-personalities in this regard: they make their money from summer blockbusters, but will distribute artsy, Oscar-ish films in the hope that they get some praise.  

So, which films were released near the end of the year to help their Oscar consideration?  Here's my list, but feel free to add to it in the comments section if you feel I omitted any.  I also included what category(s) it will be considered for and bold the ones that I think it will win. 

• Argo (Best Picture, Best Actor-Ben Aflek, Best Director, Best Adapted Screenplay)
• Lincoln (Best Picture, Best Actor-Daniel Day Lewis, Best Director, Best Score, Cinematography)
• Zero Dark Thirty (Best Picture, Best Director)
• Les Miserables (Best Picture, Best Director, Best Actor -Hugh Jackman, Best Supporting Actress-Anne Hathaway)
• Life of Pi (Best Director, Best Picture, Best Score, Best Cinematography, Best Adapted Screenplay)

There are others that will rank consideration, but I don't think that any film not listed above will be a contender for one of the big awards.  There are several societies that have voted or will vote their picks.  Overwhelmingly Zero Dark Thirty has taken the Best Picture award from these societies (i.e. New York Film Critics, Boston Film Critics, etc.).  The most important of these votes that will indicate Best Picture is the Director's Guild Awards.  They have consistently chosen the Best Picture winner for a very long time, even when others have scoffed at their choice (i.e. The King's Speech beating The Social Network a few years ago).  

So, those are a few of my early predictions.  They might change, they might not.  And they DO NOT reflect my views of what I think SHOULD get it, but what I think WILL get it.  I haven't seen Zero Dark Thirty or Les Miserables, so I can't judge yet!  

New Superman: Man of Steel Trailer!

Alright, here it is!  The brand-new trailer for the new Superman movie: Man of Steel!  I'm still wary of the film, mostly because of Sucker Punch, Zach Snyder's last outing.  But this sure does look awesome!  Please leave comments on what you think about the trailer. 

Review: The Dark Knight Rises on Blu-ray

I was lucky enough to attend The Dark Knight Marathon that our local theater presented this last summer.  It showed Batman Begins, The Dark Knight, and then culminated in the midnight premiere of The Dark Knight Rises.  It was an amazing experience to see those first two movies in the theater again.  But, did the third Christopher Nolan Batman movie live up to its hype?  Is the Blu-ray worth owning?  I'll try to answer these questions, and many others, here.

SYNOPSIS
Taking place 8 years after the events of The Dark Knight, Bruce Wayne is in seclusion and has not been Batman since.  But, a new terrorist named Bane has arrived in Gotham City and threatens to undo what he and Police Commissioner Gordon had worked so hard for.  Bruce must then become the vigilante to fight his most formidable foe yet.

MOVIE REVIEW
Seeing this movie directly after watching its predecessors was a mixed bag. On the one hand, it was amazing to see those two glorious films again on the big screen.  But, on the other hand, it raised my expectations for the third movie to almost impossible levels.  I ended up seeing it again the next weekend so I could take it in on its own, which did help give me a better impression of it.

I felt like it was a good superhero movie, but just not a great Christopher Nolan Batman movie. It is much better than Thor, Iron Man 2, Captain America, Superman Returns, and many others.  I just was hoping for more from the genius, Christopher Nolan. I suppose what they say is true: it's very hard to end a franchise.

The acting is good, but nothing to write home about.  I think Michael Caine (Alfred) gives the best performance in this movie.  Christian Bale gives a good deep performance, although probably not his best.  Anne Hathaway was a delight to watch as Catwoman.  Tom Hardy did good as Bane, however his character was really deflated at the end, in my opinion.

The music was not as good as Batman Begins or even The Dark Knight.  It was fine, just not as deep or emotionally prescient as Batman Begins (which I consider to be the gold standard for comic book movie soundtracks).

The cinematography was amazing and probably the best of the trilogy.  The lighting really invokes the right emotions and of course is beautiful to look at, like all of Wally Pfister's work.

BLU-RAY REVIEW
The Blu-ray is a good buy, especially to complete a collection or to look at how they made the movie.  The featurettes (i.e. small documentaries about how they made the film) are plentiful, well done, and very informative.  Getting into the mind of Christopher Nolan and his crew is well worth the time and money you put into watching/purchasing it.

The HD quality of the film really brings out the beauty of Wally Pfister's cinematography.  There are some movies that should be watched in HD because or the lightning and detail, and this film belongs on that list.  Like I said, this is the best cinematography of the trilogy and the HD really makes that evident.

CONCLUSION
I give the movie 4/5 stars.  Not the best of the trilogy, but still in my top 10 superhero movies list (which will be released at a later date, I'm sure).  The Blu-ray is worth it if 1) you are completing your collection, 2) you are a junkie for how films are made, or 3) You really liked the film.  Most of the special features can be found on the 2-disc DVD, but not in HD.  This week it's at the low price of $17.96 at Amazon.  It will go up by the end of the week, so now's the time to buy. The Link is below:

The Dark Knight Rises (Blu-ray/DVD Combo+UltraViolet Digital Copy)

The Blu-ray Experience: Batman Begins

I can still remember seeing this movie in the AMC in the Foothills Mall in Tucson with my dad in the summer of 2005.  It was a great experience.  My dad said it was the best movie he'd ever seen.  It really redefined the comic book movie genre.  So, when I saw it on sale for $3.99 at Wal-Mart's Black Friday event, I just had to get it.  Does the Blu-ray Experience live up to the actual movie?  That's what I'm here to answer.

SYNOPSIS
Bruce Wayne, heir to his family's fortune, saw his parents murdered right before his eyes.  In an attempt to avenge his parents' death, he becomes a vigilante that preys on the fear of criminals in order to clean up one of the most corrupt cities in history.

REVIEW
The movie itself in HD doesn't add a lot.  The only thing I noticed was that the music was better, and the music is one of the best things about this movie.

Most of the special features are the same as the DVD two-disc Edition: featurettes that document the making of the movie.  These featurettes are wonderful to watch, but they are not in HD so it is the same experience as watching them on DVD.  However, there is a great Blu-ray exclusive 'in-movie-experience' feature that intermittently shows the filmmakers (director, producers, actors, costume designers, etc.) talking about particular places in the movie.  It was AWESOME to watch it with this feature turned on!  It really added to the movie, and I think this type of experience is what owning a movie on Blu-ray is about.

THE VERDICT
I give it a thumbs up at the right price.  It really is a great movie and the features are great IF you don't already own the two-disc DVD set. It's currently $8.99 at Amazon.  And again, I've provided the link below.

          Batman Begins [Blu-ray]

#15 Twelve Angry Men

If you were lucky, you were shown 12 Angry Men in school.  I was introduced to it in high school, but I can't seem to recall which class (I think it was Junior English).  Even though I was not cinematically mature  (yes, I just made up a word), I could not keep my eyes off the screen.  Out of all the movies I watched in a high school classroom, this one had the most impact.

SYNOPSIS
A Hispanic teenage boy is on trial for murder and a jury of twelve men deliberate on whether or not to sentence him to death.

REVIEW
This movie is part of cinema history.  It's ahead of its time in both acting and the depth of the characterizations. This is one of the few films Pre-Star-Wars that I can really get into.  Any audience of any generation can relate to these characters and most probably know people that fit into the personality archetypes of each of these men.

Every one of the performances is so spot on with Henry Fonda leading the way and proving why he's one of the greatest screen actors of all time.  Lee Cobb is stellar as well and is really the person that makes you feel the strongest emotions.

The story is so deep, yet takes place in such a small room.  I guess it started it out as a play, which would make sense; it would be very easy to build a stage for this!  I personally would feel intimidated to play some of these characters.

TRIVIA

• As shooting went on, the director chose to gradually change the focal lengths of the lenses to induce the feeling of claustrophobia.
• Was shot in 21 days, which is unheard of.
• All but 3 minutes are shot in a 16 by 24 ft room.
• The budget for the film was only $350,000

CONCLUSION

Seriously, if you haven't seen this movie, do it!  It can be found at almost any public library.  It is essential viewing, in my opinion.  4.7/5 stars.