Finally, I review a film that's still in theaters! But, you know, it could always disappear from the box office.
Now You See Me is the newest magic movie, and it sure is creating quite a bit of a buzz at the box office, maintaining a position in the top 5 since it came out on May 31. So this review is belated... but still relevant!! Now You See Me follows four magicians, The Four Horsemen, who, after apparently robbing a bank, are hunted by the FBI in a classic game of cat-and-mouse. But, as Wizards of Waverly Place told us back when Disney Channel was still kicking, everything is not as it seems.
Like the apocalyptic comedy This is The End (which is also out in theaters), this is an ensemble piece if ever there was one. The Four Horsemen are composed of magicians who specialize in different fields of the art: escapism, mentalism, sleight-of-hand, and showmanship, and in the opening stunt of the film, all of these come together in a way. This opening stunt, however, turns out to be a bank robbery, prompting FBI agent Dylan Rhodes, played by Mark Ruffalo (The Hulk from The Avengers), and a French Interpol Agent to enlist the help of a magic debunker, played by Morgan Freeman (The Shawshank Redemption, Bruce Almighty, the Dark Knight trilogy, Oblivion, and several documentaries), to get as many steps ahead as possible. Not to mention that Michael Caine gets an extended cameo!
That's really all you need to know about the movie. The acting or character development doesn't quite matter, because the film moves so fast. Would it have been nice to have seen more character development so we can connect with the Horsemen more? Yes, but there was simply no time. While acting doesn't really matter here, I will say that Woody Harrelson really stands out as The Mentalist. With plenty of one-liners to spare, he has the best charisma of the Four Horsemen. Now if you come to this movie because of Sir Michael Caine, you may be disappointed. His character is treated like he was in The Dark Knight Rises. He's with you in the beginning, and you hardly see much else of him. But, like in The Dark Knight Rises, he's used as much as his character needs to be.
It's a great chase, though. A stand-out scene involves an FBI break-in that turns into a showdown between Mark Ruffalo and "Horseman of Death" Wilder, played by Dave Franco (Scrubs, 21 Jump Street). Wilder uses stealth and classic magic tricks to evade Ruffalo before racing on the street, turning traffic into a massive deck of cards and sleight-of-hand trick. It's probably one of the best action sequences I've seen in a movie to be honest.
That said, there are a few flaws. Freeman's character, the debunker, certainly is reasonable in his theories of how the tricks are done. However, the movie isn't very plausible. Even Sherlock Holmes and Moriarity could not have been so many steps ahead as these guys are. Yet it is reasonable, so it doesn't detract from the experience too much, but there's a lot of faith and trust that are needed with this pixie dust. One wrong move or gap in the plans and everything that these guys work for would fall like a row of cards. During the movie, I kept thinking of the video in this link.
Plausibility is also hurt in the overabundance of CGI in the magic stunts. I know these guys aren't professional magicians, but at least the screenwriter could have made up practical tricks. The opening stunt is done with a CGI'd machine: while they make sense of it, could the filmmakers not have made a set and device that could actually work in the situation Freeman is detailing? Same with the bubble stunt in the New Orleans sequence. The movie could have been lightyears more impressive (and perhaps less expensive) if practical magic tricks had been done. Also, the screenwriter doesn't seem to understand the art of magic as a whole. He knows a little bit of the illusion of magic, but when he tries to create sequences with some illusions, he uses the concept of that illusion to make sense of things rather than building the sequence on how the illusion is done, making the film less real because of the need of the CGI and makes the writer seem, well, disillusioned. I may not be making the most sense, but when you see it, you'll know what I mean.
Lastly, did we need a love story? Ruffalo and Interpol are supposed to fall in love, but, honestly, I thought it felt forced and really did not work in the film, being used only as a weak distraction. It kind of took away from Ruffalo's character, to be quite honest. I could have done without it, and the film would hardly have changed.
But when it's all said and done, I liked Now You See Me. It was an entertaining ride with more twists than a Shyamalan film, some entertaining dialogue, and clever action sequences, only weighed down by implausibility, yet to be saved by reason. I give Now You See Me gets 3 out of 5 stars. I won't drop another eight bucks to see it again in theaters, but I won't walk away from a sequel.
Morgan Freeman explains a trick. Fortunately, the film does not fall in flames, being an entertaining time at the movies.
In short, if you like chase films, you'll like Now You See Me. It's no Oscar contender, but it's certainly a fun time at the movies to hold you over until The Conjuring or Frozen comes out in the next few months.
What about you? Will you be seeing Now You See Me or will you instead go see Man of Steel or Despicable Me 2? Have you seen Now You See Me, and, if so, what did you think? Do you want more NEW MOVIE reviews? Comment below! I'd love to hear your thoughts.
From the director and writer of The Shawshank Redemption and The Green Mile comes... a zombie apocalypse TV show?
Earlier today, my girlfriend privileged me and my dad to an episode of The Walking Dead, and if the rest of the series is anything like the first episode, this show deserves every amount of hype it gets.
The pilot episode follows Rick Grimes (Andrew Lincoln), a Georgia Sherrif's Deputy, as he awakens from a coma to find that the world has been infected with a zombie-like virus. Miraculously saved by a massacre at the hospital, Rick is horrified to see piles of dead people everywhere, as well as more gruesome sights called "Walkers," the Walking Dead. While trying to figure out this new world, he is captured, and later befriends, Morgan Jones (Lennie James) and his son Duane, who bring him up to date on the world since the zombie apocalypse outbreak and give him warnings concerning the Walkers before Rick makes his way to the heart of Atlanta, Georgia to find his family, where, unbeknownst to him, a horde of Walkers await him.
Frank Darabont has done it again! While there is certainly a bunch of zombie guts shown throughout this episode, the mastery of it is that it's not focused on the apocalypse, making it more of a backdrop to the human element of it. One of the best moments in the episode was when Morgan once again tries to put to rest his zombified wife as quiet, simple notes play to heighten the emotion of the somber scene. The show could have really failed if it chose to go the route of recent horror movies, like Resident Evil or Silent Hill, and choose to simply have the good guys mow down the infected and whoever falls behind is a sissy. The show would have probably lasted only until its first season then. But I was emotionally attached to the few characters we saw, so much that the television show is very much like a movie. That said, Darabont is one of the biggest names in Hollywood's screenwriter community, so it really isn't that big a surprise that the show is good.
The actors pull off very believable, realistic performances. My girlfriend constantly said, "That's what I would've been like if that happened to me!" Lincoln as Rick shows that, yeah, a person would have some culture shock, but eventually they'd get over it as he soon returns to the Rick we opened the episode with in the prologue and shootout scene.
The only negative I could really come up with is that there's a bit of an overabundance of headshots. It certainly makes sense that they're there, since it's a definite kill, but, to me, they're a bit gratuitous.
Overall, the show is masterfully written and directed, the actors make their characters believable and relatable, and the little extra elements are nice icings on the cake to make a zombie show not completely about zombies! It shows that AMC really is the king of TV. I give the pilot episode 4.5 out of 5 stars.
Trust me! It's not as dumb as it looks.
Have you seen The Walking Dead yet? What did you think? Should I do more TV reviews? Leave your thoughts in the comments below!
Guy Ritchie proves once again that making a Sherlock Holmes movie is not "elementary, dear Watson." Oh no....
Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows is a 2011 action film inspired by the classic Holmesian story "The Final Problem" by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. Returning from the 2009 mystery film Sherlock Holmes are Robert Downey, Jr. (Iron Man, Kiss Kiss Bang Bang) as the incredible detective, Jude Law (Road to Perdition, The Talented Mr. Ripley) as John Watson, and Guy Ritchie (Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels) returning to direct. In this film, Sherlock Holmes enlists the help of his soon-to-be-married friend John Watson to go against "the Napoleon of Crime," Prof. James Moriarty, played by Jared Harris (Mr. Deeds, Mad Men) in a global game of cat-and-mouse. Supposedly, we're to see two of the greatest minds go against each other, but instead, we get a rather boring, dull action picture.
Notice in the introduction, I called Game of Shadows an action film and its predecessor a mystery. While the 2009 film certainly strayed a bit from the source material by including a rather polarizing Satanic villain, it still captured a bit of the spirit of Holmes while still giving a unique Holmes experience. Instead of getting a great mystery film, for the majority of the picture, it's just countless action sequences and very minimal Doyle-style detective elements, which is a very terrible shame. I was looking forward to this film, thinking it would trump the prior film, but it fell flat.
Let's talk what is good with the film. Downey and Law do good with the material they have, Jude Law probably being the highlight of the film. Alone, the action sequences are fun. Harris does well as Moriarty, and the introduction of Mycroft Holmes was a nice surprise. However, the best part of the film was definitely the final sequence. At the end, Holmes and Moriarty (finally) show their mastery of detail and intricacy in a game of chess, each predicting the moves of their "pawns" outside in a gala. Each man has a plan, and the game finally comes to a head. Honestly, I wish that that was what the rest of the film was.
My biggest complaint, I think, is that the film is too darn long. Clocking in at a little over two hours, the film drags in several parts, and the dialogue doesn't help. This is Sherlock Holmes! The dialogue should be pristine: natural, yet intellectual. Nothing is particularly interesting, and we the audience have to sit through two hours of it. This film could have EASILY been a little over ninety minutes; BBC's Sherlock with Benedict Cumberbatch and Martin Freeman (both of whom will be featured in this winter's The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug) does ninety minute mysteries, which, aside from Series 1: Episode 2, always hold the viewers' attention. Sadly, a TV show's version ("The Great Game" and "The Reichenbach Fall") trumps a cinematic version on so many levels. I think what really drags the film is how Ritchie decides to show Holmes's plan of attack in slow-motion, predicting his attackers' moves and how he will beat them, and then playing the entire sequence again in normal time. The first film had these, but it seemed to be overkill this time around.
I also didn't feel as if there was that much connection between scenes and ideas. I really can't say much about the film because the film felt so empty, which is ironic since the next film in the series will probably be partially based on "The Adventure of the Empty House," the sequel to "The Final Problem." The script didn't make me feel that Moriarty was menacing or intimidating. Everything just felt like it was there, nothing much more. Even the score by Hans Zimmer (The Dark Knight Rises, The Lion King), who I feel is one of the best film composers to date, isn't as vibrant or memorable as the one in the first film, which is a terrible shame. I felt the same way with John Williams's (the best film composer ever) score for Star Wars Episode II was weak in comparison to the scores of hundreds of films he composed before and after. Poor films, iffy scores.
I know not everybody will agree with me on this film. One YouReviewer on YouTube, Chris Stuckmann, who I highly respect and who I know has great opinions on film (except with his reasoning for disliking The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey) felt that this was one of the best films of 2011, his reasoning being that it was a fun movie with clever action sequences. Never once in his review did he mention things such as the detective elements, the analysis of Holmes, or the chemistry between Holmes and Watson that makes Doyle's Holmes work, instead praising the antithesis of Sherlock Holmes. The fact that The Game of Shadows bases itself in the antithesis of Sherlock Holmes is why I can't give this film anything higher than 2 out of 5 stars, and I won't be clamoring to see Sherlock Holmes 3 anytime soon. Fortunately, Jaws is coming in my mailbox soon, so I'm looking forward to that!
Although I was expecting a film like the Bride, I ended up feeling like Holmes with a movie like Watson.
Have you seen Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows? Did you like it? Do you disagree with my thoughts? Will you see a sequel? Tell me what you think in the comments below!
Summary: 2 out of 5. Too much action, not at all enough Holmes or suspense.
As with myUnbreakable review, I'll reflect on a spoiler-filled portion here that doesn't change the score I gave the film. So if you don't want the film spoiled for you, proceed with caution.
Call me crazy, but I thought Guy Ritchie made a terrible decision of basing the story on "The Final Problem!" We've only had one film to get to know his version's characters, and throughout the film, characters die, but we haven't had the time to get emotionally invested in them. In "The Final Problem," Holmes fakes his death and he does so as well in the movie. The thing is, Warner Bros. isn't going to stop making a franchise at movie 2, so killing off the lead character doesn't seem probable, so we don't weep when Holmes or Irene Adler dies. What Ritchie should have done is adapt The Hound of the Baskervilles or a little known story he could have put his twist to, adding Moriarty hints throughout, setting up for this as the big finale. That way, we could have gotten to know Mary, Holmes, and Watson enough so this film affects us as an audience more. Had there been more character development in the last two films, I would have much more liked A Game of Shadows. But alas, that was not the case. It's a shame, since Holmes is such a fascinating character. Maybe Ritchie should work with Poirot or Dupin and let a better director take care of the next film, whichever direction they're going to try to go, because I haven't the slightest idea how they're going to get much better than the last two with the hole they've dug themselves in. It's a shame.
Well, while I was doing shows, performing musical numbers, and studying for exams, I missed my monthly blog post! Although, it probably didn't help that I was indecisive of what to do for my next post. Honestly, I couldn't decide whether to write a movie review on my new favorite films The Tree of Life and The Shawshank Redemption or to write a review on the stinkbox Daredevil or write this post. Ultimately, I decided to write this post... as you can tell. Don't worry: eventually I'll write reviews on those films, hopefully in the near future, but for tonight, I want to reflect on perhaps the greatest part of these last nine months: The Calvary Film Society.
Calvary Film Society was founded not too long ago, 2011 or 2010, as a unique club where students at this local high school would watch and analyze movies as an art form instead of merely viewing them for entertainment. In 2011, the club was regarded as a Christopher Nolan fan club, mostly because of the overwhelming presence of his films--which is fine, Nolan is perhaps one of the greatest filmmakers of this generation. There, the students gained a heightened perception of meanings behind films and what filmmakers tried to achieve... and what the heck Inception meant at the end. (Was he dreaming or not? Seriously, people, no clues?) So when it was announced that the Film Society was returning this school year, excitement overflowed.
The four sponsors for the society introduced themselves: the English teacher, the History teacher, the AP teacher, and the Art teacher. Soon, they became known by their admirers as the Dream Team. Of course, they announced cardigans and sweater vests for enhanced classiness, but they made sure that everyone knew what the Film Society was about: analyzing movies to discover the filmmakers' messages and traits of God within. And what better way to show these than by showing Alfred Hitchcock's classic horror film... The Birds! A horror film in a Christian school... makes perfect sense, right?
The first night, a massive crowd showed up. The English teacher, Mr Bohlander, gave us a brief history and trademarks of Hitchcock before jumping right into it. The film, which I'll always state as being well-made and frightening, certainly tested the analysis of the lowly students and they succeeded. Among the really in-depth discussions, the group hypothesized why Hitchcock used certain camera angles and what he was trying to convey in that ambiguous ending (because wasn't that a cliffhanger and a half). But at that moment everyone knew that Film Society would not be like last year's Nolanfest, especially with the Dream Team rallied together to celebrate the art form of film.
With excitement, everyone couldn't wait until the next month when the next film was announced. We had nothing to go by, but people guessed and thought, but I don't think anybody expected the Oscar-winning film True Grit.
And I don't think that it turned out being quite the fun Western the majority thought it would be. What started as a study in a new genre turned into a difficult discussion in morality and who the real heroes are in films. Why do we root for the character who may not have the most moral plans? Why do we cheer for Mattie Ross who is literally a young girl on a neverending quest to kill a man (granted, he killed her father, but she doesn't take the most legal action; rather, she does the opposite, hiring a drunk retired Marshall and tagging along with a Texas Ranger). It was certainly a difficult discussion, and one most try to forget because of its difficulty, but (spoiler alert), it'll return.
The next month, we celebrated Christmas with the classic A Christmas Story, a staple holiday movie and a necessity for any Christmas party. It was the smallest gathering, I think, until We Were Soldiers. Because it was a light-hearted affair, the discussion wasn't as in-depth as True Grit was, but it was a nice little affair on nostalgia and nice little party prizes.
Again, the society eagerly awaited the next installment in this thought-provoking saga of movies. And at last it came. The most obvious thing that could happen to a Film Society: a trip to the cinema! And better yet, to see the film adaptation to one of musical theatre's finest moments: Les Miserables.
Now I had seen Les Miserables before, onstage and onscreen, but this was the Film Society--I could not miss a meeting if I could help it, and considering I loved this movie, I wasn't going to miss this one. Besides, we went out for some Panera and drank some really nice coffee. We were like Oscar films--a tour de force! That's not quite the right term, but we were classy--and how often do you see that in high school students. While at the coffee shop waiting for the showtime, we got to know some more about the sponsors and look around The Oxford Exchange, a really nice place if you ever get the chance to visit it and a fantastic writing spot! Then we went to the cinema. It was a nice cozy theater where we were, and, getting there a bit early, we found our ideal seats; for a while, it seemed like the Society would be the only ones there that night. We were excited, and Mr Seals began to joke about how we would do a discussion in the theater--maybe we could ask the guy to stop the projector at moments to reflect on that one heartbreaking song ("So what was the dream she dreamed?). It seemed magical. That is, until a guy in a baseball cap and his wife walked in and sat in the back. Scratch that idea, I guess. Half the group prepared themselves for all singing all the time (because Les Miserables is a sung-through musical) and commented on the trailers for poor January movies to come. Finally, the overture began, and we began to watch this masterpiece unfold... well, in my opinion it was. By the time Russell Crowe began his first solo, half the theater walked out to do who-knows-what. I guess they were of the popular opinion that Maximus should never sing because we are not entertained. It also seemed that all of his scenes didn't give everyone A Beautiful Mind at rest, because in his final number, a serious situation made one of the sponsors die laughing. I won't go into it, but my row just turned slowly to him, in humor and in awe. He claims it was the "unrealistic" sound effect that finally did it for him and that he had been holding in laughter throughout the entire film.
Good thing he got his pick next.
So after wiping away tears at the deaths of old men and young boys in the movie, we had a quick bite and discussion at Panera Bread, discussing how this film, with many Christian elements, would affect the perception of Christianity in the future and how well it portrays the time period, which made the AP teacher very happy. Then we made our way off and enjoyed the rest of the night.
Unfortunately I did not get to see We Were Soldiers, the only R-rated film shown this year, but I heard that it was a nice crowd and a good discussion, led, of course, by the veteran sponsor.
Over the next month or so, it became known that Mr Seals was not returning the next year, hoping to further his skills and mastery of visual art with a very prestigious program. We were happy for him, but it was bittersweet. So it made absolute perfect sense for him to present the final film for this edition of the Calvary Film Society, one of his favorite films: The Tree of Life by Terrence Malick.
This film, an artistic magnum opus, was more confusing than Inception. There are portions in this film that make you wonder who changed the channel, there are portions in here where you're wondering how we got here from there, and there are parts where you just tilt your head like a dog. But let it be said that this film was one of the most beautiful looking films and, if you understood it, one of the most beautiful stories shown in the Film Society. You could tell how much Mr Seals loved this film, and he took us on this fantastic journey with him, and we lost a few along the way. What started with a relatively full house turned into a very small group. The brains were separated from the brawn, the men from the boys. That, and it was getting really late. The most wonderful thing was, we each pulled something different from it: I pulled out a thing from Job, others pulled out a flashback-like story. It was just wonderful knowing that there was no one answer to any of the symbols in the movie. Mr Seals was happy, the other sponsors were happy: this was the best conclusion.
But, you know, this account seems a bit episodic. There needs to be some connecting force between these, right? One of the most wonderful connectors between the beginning and the end of the 2012-2013 Calvary Film Society was that we began with birds and ended with birds. The Birds ended with the survivors driving off to the bridge, surrounded by birds, not knowing if there was any hope of life left; The Tree of Life ended with a shot of a bridge as birds flew past. We began in the AP classroom, and there we end. We began in dust, and we return to dust. A cycle completed.
But while that's interesting and all, I think this is what they were trying to convey to the Society this year. Since the start of the year, Mr Seals was pushing for all fine arts to be culture makers instead of culture followers: be set apart for God instead of conforming to the pattern of the world. In the films we saw, there was a striving for identity. In The Birds, Melanie Daniels is always asked if she was the start of the fowl apocalypse as she struggles to cope with her identity aside from the bird attacks. In True Grit, we see Texas Ranger Labeouf obsessed with his identity as a Texas Ranger and how to prove it. In A Christmas Story, Ralphie sees that Red Ryder BB Gun to him being the ultimate hero, the western crusader, the big kid on the street. In Les Miserables, Valjean copes with his identity as a former convict and how that affects his life from then on even though he is a changed, Christian man. He even sings about it in a song: "Who Am I?" In We Were Soldiers, Col. Hal Moore struggles to differentiate himself from legendary General Custer, who decades before had served in the very same regiment. Lastly, in The Tree of Life, a father tries to make his son like him, to be a musician and to be a tough guy. Throughout all these films we see people struggle with their identity. Who are they? What purpose do they have? How can they make a difference?
It was a great year of the Calvary Film Society, and even though significant changes are being made with the members, the mission will remain the same. Film must be recognized not only for its entertainment value, but its artistic value and the messages filmmakers convey. As you can see above, these films bring people together and inspire ideas and make differences, especially when you see what they were made for and why they were made.
To end this blog post, I want to share a tribute to the Calvary Film Society. Compiled of various clips from the six films seen and accompanied by the track "Look Around You" from We Were Soldiers, this video exemplifies what the Society was about and the people who made it possible. Keep your eye out for a new film review later this month, and be sure to check out Mr Seals' blog http://jonsealsblog.com/. Enjoy the video and keep your eye out for quality films: in Spielberg, in Coen, in Tarantino. In Clark, in Mallick, in Lee. Who knows the fantastic things you will find in them? Enjoy the clip as we celebrate what God has made with film.
