Advertisements

Dan the Man's Movie Reviews

All my aimless thoughts, ideas, and ramblings, all packed into one site!

Tag Archives: Logan Lerman

3:10 to Yuma (2007)

Most cold-blooded killers are, after all, misunderstood.

Ben Wade (Russell Crowe) has been on the run, gun slingin’, robbin’, killin’, and committing all sorts of crimes that have him number one on every person’s bounty list. However, Wade is a pretty ruthless man, to where he can get away from anyone looking to reel him in for justice; it also helps that he’s got the helping hand of his band of fellow thugs, especially his go-to-guy, Charlie (Ben Foster). But eventually, Ben gets caught by the local law and ready for the 3:10 train to take him to Yuma. But in order to get him there, he’ll have to be transported among many lines, where everyone is looking to take Ben down and get a little piece of the reward-money pie. However, Dan Evans (Christian Bale) is just looking to do this so that he can get some money, save his farm, and go home to his family, where he can feel like a responsible man again. As expected though, the trip goes through all sorts of bumps, bruises, and plenty of violence, where one thing leads to another, and it’s never very clear if Ben will ever get on that train and behind bars, like he should.

"Hold it! I'm not Batman here, but other places. Kind of."

“Hold it! I’m not Batman here, but other places. Kind of.”

3:10 to Yuma is the rare kind of Western that not only revitalizes the genre, but also proves why it’s so great in the first place. It doesn’t try to re-invent the wheel of the genre, make up new rules, and play by its own game, but instead, take everything that you know and love from all those other classics, bring them together, and let you have a great time. It’s as if it’s own beast, entirely, even if, yeah, it’s actually a remake, too.

Still, even if 3:10 to Yuma isn’t the most original story out there, it more than makes up for it in all the thrilling, exciting and rather unpredictable action-sequences that take place over its two-hours. James Mangold is a perfect fit for this material, because he knows exactly how to make it all crackle and pop, without ever seeming like he’s out of his depth. Even though Mangold sure does love to jump around from genre to genre, with sheer reckless abandon, it seems like the action-genre may be the one he sticks with, not just because he seems to enjoy it the most, but because he actually seems to know what he’s doing with it, as opposed to those like Michael Bay, or McG.

Why on Earth did I just mention McG’s name?

Anyway, moving on. 3:10 to Yuma more than gets by with its action, but at the heart of it all, and perhaps what makes it more than just another fun and exciting romp through the Old West, is that it’s also the tale of two interesting, challenging, and complex men. Both Christian Bale and Russell Crowe put in great work here, going beyond the silly accents, and showing that there’s more to these two guys. Crowe’s Wade may be a ruthless, toothless (not really, he has quite the set of chompers), and almost sadistic killer, but he’s also got a set of morals and he’s quite the charmer. Whereas, on the other side of the coin, Bale’s Dan is a man with plenty of morals, a simpleton, and family man, but at the same time, won’t hesitate to kill, if he ever has to.

Ben Foster. Up to his usual tricks of not taking a shower to prep for a role.

Ben Foster. Up to his usual tricks of not taking a shower to prep for a role.

Both men are different, yes, but they’re also quite alike in many ways, too, and it’s what makes 3:10 to Yuma quite compelling to watch.

Even when the action is gone for a short while and everyone’s sitting around a fire, eating beans, chewing the fat, it’s still entertaining to watch; the cast is so good, the characters so well-defined, and the script is actually polished. And with Bale and Crowe’s performances, we get to see two men who, despite being on opposites of the social spectrum, still respect the other enough to know where they come from, what their ideals are, and why they are, the way they are in the world. It almost comes close to a bromance, except for the fact that they do try and kill each other every so often, but even then, who knows.

Bromances work in mysterious ways, sometimes.

But anyway, aside from both Crowe and Bale, the ensemble’s a pretty good one. A very young Logan Lerman shows that he can hold his own as Dan’s son; Dallas Roberts plays the sheriff who has to take Wade in with Dan and shows that even the scrawniest of men, with a gun, can still kind of be bad-ass; Peter Fonda shows up and brings some class; Kevin Durand is, as expected, pretty crazy; Luke Wilson has a fun cameo; and Ben Foster, as Wade’s right-hand man, is so crazy, so deranged and so evil, that he almost ends up stealing the show. But still, it’s Bale’s and Crowe’s show to the end and when they’re together, their scenes never stop igniting the spark and make you wish that they’d work together more and more. It doesn’t even have to be in Westerns.

Couldn’t hurt, though.

Consensus: Even if it’s still a Western through and through, 3:10 to Yuma is a tense, exciting and incredibly well-acted piece of entertainment.

8 / 10

Look at 'em. Trying so hard not to make-out and measure sizes.

Look at ’em. Trying so hard not to make-out and measure sizes.

Photos Courtesy of: AV Club, Rotten Tomatoes 

Advertisements

Indignation (2016)

College was always just one sexual experience, really.

It’s the early 50’s and Marcus Messner (Logan Lerman) is ready to start a new chapter in his life. Rather than risking his life for his country in the war, something all of his other friends are doing, he decides to go to college, far, far away from home to Ohio. There, Marcus goes through the same old problems of studying too long, not getting along with his roommates, and having issues with his teachers. However, the one thing that keeps Marcus actually interested in this college life is the illustrious and mysterious Olivia Hutton (Sarah Gadon). Eventually, Marcus builds up enough courage to ask Olivia out on a date, and it ends with them engaging in some controversial and naughty acts. While Olivia thinks as if she’s done nothing wrong and, if anything, just helped pleasure someone she’s attracted to, Marcus is shocked and has no idea what to think. After all, it’s 1951 and no one really does what Olivia to Marcus on this one fateful day – even if they do, they don’t ever tell people about it. Then, word travels round about Marcus and Olivia are left, wondering what to do with their college careers and most importantly, with one another.

Behind every good man, is a girl just waiting to rock his world.

Behind every good man, is a girl just waiting to rock his world.

For Philip Roth, it seems as if no matter how good his novels are, they don’t always seem to translate well to the screen. That’s to be said with a lot of writers and their pieces of work, however, with Roth, it seems to be all too glaring and obvious; someone who’s narrative voice just hasn’t translated yet to film, to where someone can perfectly understand what sense of mood he’s trying to give off. People have attempted to try and capture this (and others still are trying to), yet, have come up short.

Writer/director James Schamus is, finally, the rare exception.

While Indignation itself is a movie adaptation without any sort of narration that sometimes provide to be the best parts of Roth’s books, it actually ends up working in the movie’s favor, as it allows for there to be more attention set on the look and feel of this whole film. For one, it’s a lot more downbeat and sad than you’d expect; the grainy way the movie looks, to the sometimes silent way these characters talk, it all feels like we’re in the Depression, when in reality, we’re stuck in the beginning of the 50’s, where teens were getting sent to Korea and everyone was still finding their place after the war. And for what reasons?

Well, the movie seems to address these questions, but without ever answering them – which is fine, because Schamus makes it clear from the beginning that isn’t the kind of story that’s meant to sum up the underlining repression of the 50’s. If anything, it’s mean to be one, sole tale of a young man, trying to navigate throughout the world, one step at a time, as well as he can without losing his head. While it sounds conventional and somewhat hokey, Schamus and his cast keep it all together to where it works and, even if you weren’t alive during this time to feel some sense of nostalgia, you still feel compelled by watching it all play out.

But of course, the movie doesn’t always even itself out.

For example, it sometimes feels like the protagonist, Marcus, is a bit of a mess himself, albeit an expected one. Due to him being such a young guy, at a very confusing time in his life, and trying to make that awkward transition from childhood, to adulthood, the movie mixes and mashes with trying to identify what kind of person he is. We get that he’s going through some growing-up pains, but how severe are they? Better yet, how are they brought on in the first place? By him? His overbearing parents? His rude roommates? His needy and somewhat psycho gal-pal? His Communist-like Dean? His religion?

Oh, that Logan Lerman. So sassy and cool.

Oh, that Logan Lerman. So sassy and cool, in a nostalgic kind of way.

Who knows?

While it’s fine that Schamus brings all of these different ideas up, it’s a tad infuriating to see him touch on all of these, yet, still get that chance to fully fall down on what he’s trying to say about Marcus, the character. Instead, we mostly rely on Logan Lerman’s great performance, showing all sorts of anger being bent-up in this kid, while also making him seem compassionate and loving to those who deserve it the most. He’s got a bit of an edge to him that’s typical with Roth, and Lerman plays it up so perfectly that it would be neat to see him in more adaptations after this, even if it’s not playing this same character, or what have you.

And everybody else is pretty great, too. Sarah Gadon keeps us interested in whether or not she’s a total whack-job, or just someone who needs love in this cruel, dark world; Linda Emond plays Marcus’ mother who never makes it quite clear what’s on her mind, but we do feel her pain; Pico Alexander shows up as, what you’d assume to be the typical “frat jock a-hole”, but turns out to be the most interesting character of the whole flick; and Tracy Letts just about nails every scene he has as Dean Caudwell, although it’s mostly because he has some of the best scenes in the whole flick. In fact, the few scenes that he has, can sometimes take up a large portion, but because they’re so well-done and well-acted, they’re hard to talk about at greater-length.

You’ll just know them when you see them and they’ll steal the show.

Consensus: As Roth adaptations go, Indignation is good in that it balances out a certain level of heart, humanity and raw passion, with some solid performances to help it out, as well.

8 / 10

"Uh, so what you wanna do?"

“Uh, so what you wanna do?”

Photos Courtesy of: Indiewire

The Patriot (2000)

Ah. The good old days of when people could actually trust in Mel Gibson to save the day.

During the American Revolution in 1776, Benjamin Martin (Mel Gibson), a veteran of the French and Indian War, declares that he will not fight in a war that is not his own. However, his oldest son (Heath Ledger) thinks differently and decides to enlist himself. Though Benjamin is upset with this decision, he knows that it is up to his son to make his own decisions and to be able to live with them, just as he has done with his own. But one fateful night, his son comes back, bloody, beaten-up, battered, and in need of some shelter; Benjamin, obviously, gives it to him, thinking that this will be the last time his son sets out for battle ever again. But Benjamin is proven wrong when, early the next morning, the British come looking for him and want to take his son away. Obviously, Benjamin is against this, as well as the rest of his family, which is when one of his young sons is shot and killed. This is when Benjamin decides that it’s time to quit being a pacifist and to pick up his sword, his gun, and his tomahawk, in order to extract some revenge, the good, old-fashioned way, baby!

Evil.

Evil.

Obviously, seeing as how this is a film from Roland Emmerich, I wasn’t expecting there to be any sort of complexity involved with the occasion. However, what’s different about the Patriot, apart from most of Emmerich’s other movies, is that it seems like he’s actually trying to make this an emotionally-gripping, detailed-story about how one man fought for the love and honor of his family, even when all the odds were stacked-up against him. This, on paper, all sounds heartfelt and kind of sweet, but the way in which it plays out?

It’s the furthest thing from.

For one, as soon as Gibson’s Benjamin Martin picks up his tomahawk, it’s go time right from there. People are shot, decapitated, split-open, spit-on, bled-out, and all sorts of other lovely actions involved with war. To be honest, I’m not one to back away from a movie that contains an awful lot of violence (especially when the violence is as graphic as it is in a big-budgeted blockbuster such as this), but there’s something here that feels incredibly off about the whole movie, that put a sour taste in my mouth.

Because, to be honest, it doesn’t seem like Emmerich gives much of a hoot about whether or not Benjamin actually feels fulfilled when every Redcoat is dead and gone away with; he cares more about how many people get killed, and in how many ways that make people go, “Aww yeah!”, or “Ooh!”. You can’t hate Emmerich for wanting to please his audience, but you can hate him for trying to pass all of that death and destruction with something resembling a peaceful; it’s just stupid and feels ill-written.

But, if I did have to rate this movie as a summer blockbuster, it’s an okay one.

It sure as hell did not at all need to be nearly three-hours, but considering the huge budget it has to work with, it’s nice to see that, at one time at least, Hollywood was willing to put all of their money into a history epic that featured as much gritty and raw violence as a single season of the Sopranos. Though the violence is oddly thrown in there with an inspirational message about standing up for your rights and taking down those who take what means most to you, it’s still effective; through the many war-sequences, we get a certain feel for just how dangerous and hellish the battlefield was, without any bullshit thrown in there.

It’s literally just blood being shed, lives being lost, and more disturbing memories for the generations to come. If anything, that’s as deep and as far as the Patriot is willing to go with any life-affirming message. For the most part, it is, like I said, concerned with just showing how many people can get killed, in all sorts of graphic ways that may, or may not please people.

Naive.

Naive.

Depends on who you are, I guess.

Though the movie tries to dig deep into Benjamin Martin’s psyche, eventually, it just stops and allows for Mel Gibson to do the leg-work for them. Which was obviously a smart idea, because even though Gibson seems to be, once again, playing another man on the search for getting justice and revenge for the loss of a loved-one (see Braveheart and/or Mad Max), the role still fits him like a glove that it doesn’t matter how old it seems for him to be playing. He has that perfect balance of being just vulnerable enough to make you think that the odds could topple over him, as well as being just mean and vicious enough to make you think he could kill whoever he wanted, how he wanted to, and whenever he saw fit. It’s actually quite scary, but it’s the role Gibson’s worked well for as long as he’s been acting and it’s only gotten more dramatic as he’s gotten older.

A lot of other people show up here and seem to be trying on the same level as Gibson, but they’re sadly tossed-away once the movie decides it doesn’t have time for them to stretch their wings out. The late, great Heath Ledger, Rene Auberjonois, Joely Richardson, and Chris Cooper all seem to have shown up, ready for work, but they don’t have anything worthwhile to do. After all, they’re in a Roland Emmerich movie, and when was the last time when of them was actually about the solid performances on-display?

No seriously – when was that? Cause I sure as hell don’t remember!

And the main reason why I didn’t include the likes of Tom Wilkinson and Jason Isaacs in that last paragraph, is because they are sadly given the roles as “the British” here, which means they play, either, nonsensical idiots, or blood-loving savages. It would make sense why the British would have a problem with this movie to begin with, but it’s made all the worse by the fact that two immensely talented actors like Isaacs and Wilkinson were given roles, so limited in their development and scope, that even they couldn’t save them. Sure, they went through the motions and collected the nice, meaty paychecks, but is it really all that worth it?

Consensus: As a summer blockbuster, the Patriot is more violent and bloodier than you’d expect it to be, but also happens to be a Roland Emmerich movie, which means it’s basically all of that, and hardly any depth beyond.

5 / 10

Heroic.

Heroic.

Photos Courtesy of : Super Marcey, Rob’s Movie Vault, Popcorn for Breakfast

Fury (2014)

I guess something that weighs over 30 tons isn’t all that safe after all.

It’s April 1945 in Nazi Germany, towards the end of WWII and the Allies seem to be kicking all sorts of ass and taking names. So much so, that Adolf Hitler himself has been ordering just about every man, women, and/or child, to get out there on the front lines and fight the good fight. And during all of this, therein lies a tank crew who maintain and work in a big mofo they call “Fury”. The tank sergeant is a man that goes by the name of Wardaddy (Brad Pitt) and just recently, finds himself all torn up over the fact that his second-in-command has just been blown away in the middle of combat. He still has the rest of his crew intact, but this proves to be such a hard hit, that he doesn’t know necessarily how to move on. Well, except all that he and his crew have to do is fight, fight, and fight some more. This time though, they’ll be along for the ride with a newbie by the name of Cobb (Logan Lerman) who nobody really takes a liking to and with good reason: He’s never been on the battlefield before and doesn’t know if he can handle killing other people that haven’t done anything specifically to him. Throughout the next week or so, that may change and Wardaddy will be more than happy to show him why.

There’s something of a plot to be found here in Fury, but honestly, what it all comes down to is “Brad Pitt and a bunch of his fellas go around Germany, shooting and killing people.” While that sounds somewhat repetitive and ultimately, boring, there’s a feeling here that writer/director David Ayer is using it for a whole other reason in particular.

For instance, it’s never made clear to us what exactly the objective here of this story is; usually for a war movie, we understand who is searching for what, why, how they’re going to go about it, and what is going to be accomplished at the end of the day. However, here, the only objective of the plot-line is to fight the war, continue killing the enemy, and try to do so without getting you, or your fellow soldier killed in the process.

Looking that good, can sometimes be so tiring.

Looking that good, can sometimes be so tiring.

In all honesty, that’s more of how the war probably is. there’s no need to save any Private Ryan’s, or even any plan to capture top-level Mogadishu-officials. Here, it’s all about trying to stay alive and killing as many Germans as they possibly can, which is probably just how being in a bloody war is like – hardly ever stopping and always fighting. This is a bold move on Ayer’s part to take, but it’s one that I think needed to be taking, because so rarely is it that we get a war movie that shows us just how screwed up and unforgiving the battlefield truly is, without trying to force a message down our throats. Here, you could say that the moral of the story is, “the war is terrible, and people die.” That’s all Ayer seems to be saying here and I think that’s all that needed to be said.

But of course Ayer takes it a bit of another step forward and actually get to discussing the certain soldiers in the war, by showing us just the type of disturbing affect the war has on them, regardless of how messed-up in the head the individual may be. This is where I think Ayer’s writing is at its best, because rather than glamorizing these soldiers and having them come off as the Nation’s biggest heroes, Ayer has them portrayed as a bunch of guys who had nothing else better to give to society back in the States, other than just sitting around and taking up space. On the battlefield, they have a purpose, they have a cause, and most of all, they have a reason to live. Though we never actually hear a character state this throughout the film, they don’t really have to for us to get the point; in fact, them just stating every so often that being in the war was, “the best job they ever had”, gives us the impression that this is all they have to live for and they’re more than proud to die if they have to. They may be scared, but they’ll at least feel proud to perish because it’s for a reason, even if that reason is for their own well-being.

And though I may make this movie come off as a bit of a melodrama, I can assure you that it’s not; there are moments of pure drama where characters break down, shout their hearts out, and let us know how they feel. However, at the end of the day, it’s a war movie, and because of this, we get plenty of action-sequences with tanks going toe-to-toe with another, people getting shot, stabbed in the face, lit on fire, and most of all, dying. But while these scenes are effective in the most gruesome ways possible, there’s still a feeling that the movie doesn’t know what it wants to say about them – are we supposed to feel bad that countless soldiers on both sides are getting killed? Or are we just supposed to care that way for the American side?

The best example to highlight this problem the movie seems to have with itself is when Cobb, the new blood of this tank group, is ordered by Wardaddy to shoot a German prisoner. Though the German prisoner has surrendered (thus, making it illegal to kill him), Cobb is physically and emotionally manipulated into doing it, even though it is a horrifying act he does not want to partake in. We know it’s not right, he knows it’s not right, but every other character around him (as well as the movie), doesn’t and that’s one of the sole problems with this movie. It doesn’t have enough to say to be an anti-war movie, yet, it doesn’t have enough self-control to not glamorize the violent, sometimes inhumane, acts that occur during the war itself.

Basically, you could write it all down to Ayer not being the best director out there. Sure, as a writer, he’s pretty fine and has shown that he has a knack for writing gritty, raw, and bare human beings who are conscience enough to be considered “realistic”, but as a director, his movies don’t always translate so well. End of Watch was a fine piece that showed he was able to turn the found-footage genre on its head a bit, but that’s about all the praise Ayer gets as a director (his other film released earlier this year, Sabotage, is currently running the gauntlet for being one of my least favorite of the year). That said, while this is probably Ayer’s most accomplished film as director, there’s still signs that what comes out of the pen, doesn’t always translate so well onto the screen, even if the one writing, also happens to be the same individual filming.

Thankfully though, for Ayer at least, he can fall back on the amazing ensemble he has here to ensure that his material will be more than just what’s presented on the surface, and can at least be dissected and looked at a bit more. Brad Pitt, playing a WWII soldier that isn’t collecting Nazi scalps, does a lot as Wardaddy, although it seems like he’s just being his usual-self: Cool, smart, collective, and most of all, masculine as hell. However, there’s more to this character and we get the idea that even though he’s all about defending his country to the very end and do whatever he has to do to protect those around him, at any costs, he still fears the idea of dying, or even worse, a close-one of his meeting the same fate. He’s an emotionally-battered man that disguises it all with orders, commands, and death, but if you look closely, you can see exactly what kind of person he is, and it’s not all that different from you or I.

That's the look of someone who has maybe gone too method.

That’s the look of someone who has maybe gone “too method”.

Except that he looks like this, a sad reality I live with everyday I look in the mirror.

But as good as Pitt is in the lead role, I really have to give a lot of kudos to Logan Lerman, a young talent who is really rising through the ranks and showing us he has what it takes to hang with the big boys. Though Lerman’s character can be classified as “scared, wimp-ish rookie”, Lerman presents us with shades to this character that makes it easy to see why someone as sheepish and kind as he is, would actually totally change into a ruthless, unforgiving killer. It’s actually pretty horrifying if you think about it, and that is why Lerman’s performance is so good: He’s a normal person like you or me, but now it’s time for him to grow up, face the terrible realities of the war, and start shooting that rifle of his.

Though, as good as Lerman and Pitt are, there is a glaring difference between them two, and the attention they get from Ayer, as opposed to the characters played by Michael Peña, Shia LaBeouf and Jon Bernthal, who all seem like types that want to be more than just that, but never get a chance to cause the writing prohibits them from doing so. However, because these three are all good performers, we get a deeper, more effective camaraderie between the whole group that seems to go further than just “war buddies”; they could actually be something of brothers, that just so happen to be connected by the reality of war.

One instance of this is a scene that, for some reason or another, takes place all in real-time and runs for about twenty-five minutes. It starts with Wardaddy and Cobb going into a random German woman’s home, having dinner and sex, but turns into something darker and tense once the rest of the group shows up. This is a great scene because it not only shows the restraint in Ayer’s sometimes confused direction, but actually allows all of these guys to just act with one another, in one scene, one location, and uninterrupted. In this scene, we get to understand who all of these fellas are, why they stick up for one another when they have to, and why they all love each other, in the most non-sexual way possible. It’s probably the most memorable scene of the movie, which is probably a testament to the cast, especially when you consider how much blood, guts, bullets and steel are flying around.

Consensus: Maybe not the deepest war movie ever made, Fury doesn’t know where it stands on certain ideas, but is still well-acted by its highly-capable cast and displays a growing talent in David Ayer as a director, even if there is some room for improvement to be made.

8 / 10 = Matinee!!

#2MasculineForYou

#2MasculineForYou

Photo’s Credit to: Goggle Images

Noah (2014)

Thought he’d need a bigger boat. Guess not.

I don’t think I really need to state what this movie is about, but in case those of you out there have either been living under a rock for the past one million years, or just don’t pay attention to anything at all in the whole, wide world, here’s the plot: Noah (Russell Crowe) is a descendant of Seth, which means he is one of the very few nice men in the world that doesn’t eat meat, doesn’t kill when he doesn’t have to, and loves all things that are beautiful with the world. He loves nature, he loves his wife (Jennifer Connelly), his family and most of all, his God. So much so, that when he has a vision in his dreams that the world will be destroyed one day due to a huge flood, he decides to take matters into his own hands and prepare the right way. What is “the right way”, you ask? Well, that consists of building a giant-scale Ark that will hold two of every animal species known to man in order to have all of them continue on and live, even if the world itself is totally wiped-out. Things for Noah and his whole family seem to go fine, that is until Noah gets a little bit crazy with what it is that God actually wants him to do, against what it is that he thinks he should do.

As predicted, there’s been a lot of talk surrounding this movie. Many Christian-advocates have stood-up, said their peace about this flick and even though they haven’t necessarily been totally against it, per se, they definitely haven’t given it the glowing pass of approval neither. So basically, this movie may offend you, but then again, at the same time, it may not. It all depends on how in-touch you are with your faith and whether or not you actually want to see a full-length, feature-flick about a dude who built an Ark to preserve life for the rest of humanity.

Personally, I don’t want to see that kind of movie. But if Darren Aronofsky is directing it, then count me the hell in!

"Guess you didn't get the memo about '80's glam-metal hair-styles only', huh?"

“Guess you didn’t get the memo about ’80’s glam-metal hair-styles only’, huh?”

And if anything, the idea of having Darren Aronofsky direct this as a certain “passion project” of his, is definitely the most intriguing-aspect behind this flick. You’d never expect the same kind of guy who gave us scenes like this, or this, or hell, even this, to be so willing and dedicated to give his own, in-depth version of an as-old-as-time story that’s only about a few paragraphs or so long. But with Aronofsky, you can never, ever tell what his next move is going to be; whether it be what movie he decides to direct next, or what he actually does in his own movies, the guy is totally unpredictable. However, in today’s day and age of cinema, we need that, which is why when you get a Darren Aronofsky movie, it doesn’t matter what the subject-material is or how it’s going to play-out in terms of who it’s for – all you have to know is when, where, what time and if you’re able to see it right away!

As you can probably tell, I was very excited for this movie, just judged solely by who was making it and to be honest, that’s probably what kept this movie going for me. It seemed strange in the first place that a major-studio would actually back a biblical-epic directed by Darren Aronofsky in the first place, and seeing the end-result, it’s apparent why I had those ideas in my in the first place. Like all of Aronofsky’s movies, this is downright beautiful; from the visuals, to the amazing, sometimes over-wrought score from Clint Mansell, to even the biblical-imagery that doesn’t hit you over the head, but is able to make you understand what message it’s trying to convey, everything was given the right attention of detail it needed to seem like an actual story from this time and place, rather than just a cheap dramatization we’d get on the History Channel.

Even the actual story here, which Aronofsky clearly took plenty of liberties with, seems like something he’d do; the main character of Noah, here, has an obsession over doing what God wants him to do, even if it does make him absolutely insane. In fact, where this movie really gets interesting is when Aronofsky sheds a light on how Noah either does or doesn’t take God’s demands or ideas about saving humanity and getting rid of those who don’t deserve to live, as understandably as he should. In any movie, directed by anybody else who didn’t have nearly as bright a mind as Aronofsky, this message could have been handled terribly and even offend some out there, but what Aronofsky does is just show a character finding himself in a bit of a bind as to whether or not he should do exactly what he thinks God is telling him to do, or act as he should, a moral human being. Instead of seeing Noah as a Saint that did everything right, for every person around him, including God, we see him as a man that struggled with his faith, with the situation he was thrown into and how all of the pressure was thrown onto him to not only preserve these animals, but keep those around him alive and well, knowing that they’d die soon, and possibly even be the last ones alive on Earth.

Pretty freaky stuff, but I guess when you got the big G.O.D. backing you up, it doesn’t matter.

But as interesting as most of the things that Aronofsky does with this material, I still can’t help but feel as if a bit too much of it is over-blown beyond its means. For instance, Noah, as almost every epic, is nearly two-and-a-half-hours, and it feels like so. That isn’t good, not because long movies shouldn’t exist, but because this one feels unnecessarily long, when only a good hour-and-a-half of this movie is really worth seeing. Everything leading-up from when Noah has these dreams of the apocalypse, to when he actually gets the Ark up and running, is exciting, tense and exactly the type of viewing-experience I expected to have with something on this grand-of-a-scale.

"But in all seriousness though, honey, I'm fucking craving a hamburger. We gotta get rid of the pigs."

“But in all seriousness though, honey, I’m fucking craving a burger. We gotta get rid of the cows.”

However, all of the energy of this movie seems to fade out, slowly but surely. I don’t want to say where this story goes and how dark it gets, but it seemed like Aronofsky felt like he really needed to allow this movie to play-out as long as he possibly could, so threw in all sorts of subplots he could. This not only has it seem like it’s meandering and taking its good old time to get to a finale, but doesn’t really know where it’s going to end-up – much like Noah and the rest of his family on this Ark. I was still interested in seeing where this movie would go, but after awhile, I began to wonder if that moment would ever come around, and if it did, would it actually be satisfying, or just rushed and too safe for its own good.

Somehow, it placed somewhere in the middle, but I can’t say I was all that disappointed where it did go and end. Doesn’t offend too many people, but still keeps it a bit edgy and hard-hitting for those who want some deeper-meaning out of what they see here.

And of course, before I head-off into the sunset, I do have to give some credit to the cast for at least trying with what they’re given, as timid as some of it may be. Russell Crowe is perfectly-cast as Noah, showing all sorts of grit, manliness that makes you seem his as the type of guy you don’t want to mess with when it comes to the apocalypse, but also enough compassion to where you can sort of see that he’s a sweet guy behind the huge muscles and supreme fighting-skills. It was also nice to see Jennifer Connelly back in a movie with Darren Aronofsky, and actually get some worthy-material that has her shed those skills more than a few times, particularly in a scene where she basically tells Noah to wake up and snap out his crazed-daze. And as usual, Anthony Hopkins is a fine-addition to the cast as he brings a lot of fun, light and humor to a film that seemed so serious and over-blown most of the time. And he does it all by wanting berries!

Didn’t see that part in the original source-material, but then again, it’s been a long time since my Vacation Bible School days.

Consensus: While the first hour-and-a-half packs a exciting, tense and epic-punch that Darren Aronofsky is clearly able to deliver, the remainder of Noah does seem to meander and have no clue where to go, which may be more of a problem with the studio that helped produce it, rather than the creator himself, but it’s still a noticeable problem nonetheless.

8 / 10 = Matinee!!

"ARE YOU NOT ENTERTAINED, YOU DIE HARD CHRISTIANS YOU?!?!?"

“ARE YOU NOT ENTERTAINED, YOU DIE HARD CHRISTIANS YOU?!?!?”

Photo’s Credit to: IMDBColliderJobloComingSoon.net

The Perks of Being a Wallflower (2012)

Oh, high-school. Those were the freakin’ piss-poor days of teenage angst.

This adaptation stars Logan Lerman as Charlie, an introverted and unpopular teenager who has to come to terms with the suicide of his best friend, falls in with a crowd of outsiders (Ezra Miller and Emma Watson), and is now falling in love for the first time. You know, the usual kids stuff.

High-school. Everybody knows what it’s all about and everybody has memories of it, whether they be good ones or bad ones. For me, being fresh out of high-school, I feel the same exact way where there were days that I loved, and others I just wanted to be over with and move on. High-school is not the only thing you can relate that to, but it’s definitely one of the first times in life where we actually start to feel this, understand this, and eventually, use this tool in our lives to move on and be bigger, possibly more mature adults. Thankfully, this movie made me never, ever want to grow-up.

The trailers, advertisements, and even poster for this film have made it out to be one of your ordinary, run-of-the-mill teenage dramas where we look at how kids eventually grow-up and live their lives. Yawn! Seen it all before and that’s why this film didn’t really intrigue me at first, no matter how much hype was surrounding the book. The one element to this film that did intrigue me a bit was how the actual writer of that book, Stephen Chbosky, not only wrote the screenplay for this adaptation, but also directed it as well. This is a very rare occurrence to hear about in Hollywood since those high-class executives don’t really feel comfortable giving off a big-budget flick to a director they have never worked with before, nor a director that has ever directed anything else before this. However, I don’t think anybody else could have ever directed this. I seriously don’t.

The reason I say this is because Chbosky not only knows everything about this story that he created, but he also feels everything that these characters feel. Every scene here has been done in plenty of other high-school movies before. For instance, the first couple days of high-school where a kid sits all by himself at lunch and can’t connect with anyone; meeting your first friend; going to your first party; getting high for the first time; getting drunk for the first time; and even falling in love for the first-time. All of this, and plenty more conventions of the high-school drama that we usually see, are shown here, but they feel different this time, and by different I mean in a very understandable and powerful way.

Chbosky feels what these characters feel when they get hurt, they get happy, and when they get confused, and every single scene he shows this, never feels tacked-on, manipulative, or cheesy. It all feels real and done with pure and rich emotion to the point of where you can actually relate to these characters a lot on so many topics that get very, very dark at times. But when it does get dark at times, it never loses you because you feel invested in these characters and all of their surroundings and you almost feel like you’re a part of the Wallflowers, more than Charlie is. It can get depressing, but not in a bad way because when it does have fun with itself, it really does have fun and it’s almost like you’re taking a road down memory lane and remembering all of the fun and dumb stuff you did back when you were in high-school. I remember all of the stuff that I did, and I thank this film for letting me actually smile about it all again.

The whole 90’s setting is done well because it uses all of the popular and hip music of that time, but still never exactly tells us when the story takes place giving it that idea that no matter what generation you’re from, or where you grew-up in, teenage angst has always been around and been the same case for all of the people that have had to go through it. That’s one of the main points of the story, but it’s not the only one. The film mainly touches on the feeling of being accepted and actually feeling like you belong somewhere. In this world, sometimes, you can get very, very lonely and almost feel as if you don’t really have much to go about in life anymore and are just going to be stuck in this on-going world of sameness and monotony. To be honest, I feel like that a lot at times and it hits me hard but even in my deepest and darkest times, I still feel accepted by the people around and me and have this idea that I do matter in the world. This film really does hammer that idea down to it’s core and in all honesty, had me in tears by the end of it all once I realized that this wasn’t just one kids story that not a single person could relate to, this is everyone’s story and it’s one story that I think will be beneficial for all of those younglings out there in the world who need to feel accepted and that they do matter in life.

Now that I’ve gone on a huge rant about high-school and the feelings it makes you feel, let me go back to the movie and tell you exactly why this story is as emotionally-involving as any other one I have seen this year: the cast. When I first saw that Logan Lerman was going to be the lead in this, my expectations pretty much plummeted since the kid seems to annoy me in almost everything he does and playing an awkward teen wasn’t going to do much for me, either. However, I stand corrected and say that it’s one of the finest, young performances I have seen this year and in quite some time. The reason I state this is because Lerman has a lot to do. The kid has to be a bit awkward, a bit nerdy, a bit weird, a bit horny, a bit angsty, and above all, a bit of a likable character. Thankfully, the kid nails every single one of those emotions and makes this Charlie character, such a lovely person to stand behind and feel for, especially when we get behind his back-story. Charlie is a nerd, but he’s a lovable nerd that has this type of innocence to him that is easy to root for and only hope for the best, and the trip he takes us through his freshman year of high-school is one of the best class-trips I have ever taken, and that’s all because of Lerman. He’s come a long, long way since being dumb-ass Percy Jackson.

The other one in that cast that everybody has been wondering about was Emma Watson and whether or not she was going to be able to get rid of the whole Hermione Granger act that she has come to be worldly-known for by now. Thankfully, just like Lerman, she does a great job with this character and makes us realize just why there is so much to love about her in the first-place. My only complaint with this film would probably have to be her and that American-accent that seems to come-in and out sometimes, but she’s so damn charming here that it’s very easy to get by and just love her character as much as our little friend Charlie does. I look forward to seeing more from this gal in the future and hopefully seeing her go-on and do bigger stuff than Rupert Grint or Daniel Radcliffe may do. Sorry guys, you just don’t got it like Emma.

And last, but certainly not least, Ezra Miller plays the crazy, fun, and gay kid that Charlie first befriends, Patrick. After seeing Miller play a pretty effed-up kid in We Need to Talk About Kevin, I was so happy to see him absolutely steal each and every single scene he was in because of that delivery he has. I don’t know what it is about his delivery or what, but whenever he’s given a line that’s either funny or sarcastic, he just owns it and totally comes off as the funniest guy in the room. But it’s not all fun and games with his character, he’s actually got a very dark-element to him that really makes you feel for him and understand just why he feels the way he does in life, despite being a gay young teen. Miller finally shows us the emotional side to his acting ability that we’ve all been waiting to see for so long and makes me feel like this kid is going to be a huge break-out star after this and probably the most successful out of three young stars in this movie. Sorry Logan and Emma, you two are great, but Ezra kicks ass.

Since this is mainly a movie about kids and everything they go through, it seems a bit unneeded for adult characters but each one does a great job with the limited material they’re given. Some stars show-up for only a minute, while others show-up for 6 minutes, but regardless of how much they actually show-up, they all do what they’re needed and that’s to give good performances. Much of this love goes out to Paul Rudd as Bill, Charlie’s ridiculously cool English teacher that made me really jealous that I never had him in my high-school life. And I mean Paul Rudd, not the actual cool teacher himself. God, that would be so damn cool.

Consensus: In case you haven’t been able to tell from my highly-detailed review, I loved almost everything about The Perks of Being a Wallflower. It’s emotionally heartfelt, poignant, entertaining, funny, dark, insightful, sad, well-acted, great to listen to, and always had me watching and loving these characters for what they were, and not for what they needed to be. Definitely see it, especially if you’re just another little guy starting out in high-school. This one here, may change your life.

9/10=Full Price!!

The Three Musketeers (2011)

I guess it’s time for there to be a rum-drinking, Keith Richards impersonating musketeer.

The original three musketeers are past their prime and working menial jobs in Paris when their friend D’Artagnan rallies them to defend the nation. To do so, they must undermine Cardinal Richelieu’s plot to have himself crowned France’s next king.

I wasn’t a huge fan of ‘The Three Musketeers‘ when I was a kid, and having a film directed by Paul W.S. Anderson doesn’t make me want to go out there and watch some either.

The whole film is surprisingly straight-forward and with a run-time of only about 100 minutes, the film basically resolves itself pretty well in that time-limit. The film also is pretty entertaining with a lot of jokes, that sometimes fall completely flat on their face, but others actually work and made me chuckle. Too bad the same couldn’t have been said for the actual writing of this film.

The problem this film has is that it’s plot, direction, and writing don’t really jell well together at all and come off a bit jumbled. The plot goes all-over-the-place and gets too in-depth about a couple of dudes with swords, which wasn’t needed at all. It’s also a bit confusing because they do a lot of pointless talking to where I didn’t really care what they were even talking about, but somehow there was some back-stabbing going on and other crap that didn’t really matter.

The writing is also kind of off because even though it did have me laughing at times, a lot of it just felt like total cheesiness that reminded me of something I would see in an 80’s film. Granted, this film doesn’t really take itself too seriously, which is what I liked but the one-liners just try too hard to be funny and instead come off a bit corny. Also, the film is called The Three Musketeers but they were barely even in it. It was always this smart-ass kid and these three villains that I didn’t give two shits about, which was annoying since they were probably the funniest parts of the whole film.

The direction from Anderson is a little hectic but he still does keep this film moving at a quick enough pace to where we get enough story, romance, action, and humor, which don’t all work well together still make us have a lot of fun. I didn’t see this film in 3-D but I could bet it’d be a lot of fun because Anderson does know how to film action and make it a lot of fun with swords, bullets, glass, and little boat bombs constantly flying at the screen. There’s also a bout 5 slow-mo scenes as opposed to other films directed by Anderson that usually have about 30, so at least he’s moving up in the world.

The cast is here just to chew up scenery but that is not so bad really. The Three Musketeers Athos (Matthew Macfadyen), Porthos (Ray Stevenson), and Aramis (Luke Evans) are all having a ball with their roles and that transits to us watching as well. The problem is that even though the film is named after them, they aren’t in it as much as you would expect and it’s a real bummer. It’s an even bigger bummer that I had to watch Logan Lerman as D’Artagnan because out of this whole cast, he is probably the weakest link. A lot of his lines just seem off as cocky and arrogant as opposed to being funny and even though that’s basically what his character was supposed to be, I still shouldn’t want to be the main characters face in every time he’s on screen.

The villains are fun to watch too but all under-utilized by some bad writing. Orlando Bloom looks like a parody of a movie-villain and comes off as Will Turner gone bad, rather than this bad guy he was supposed to be playing. Milla Jovovich, who is obviously in this because her hubby’s the director, is under-written as Milady and doesn’t really do anything special and new with this character that I haven’t already seen her do as Alice from Resident Evil. The best of the villains is probably Christoph Waltz as Cardinal Richelieu because he seems like he is in such an entirely different film. He has many moments where he seems like he breaks the fourth wall many times, and just features this funny, sarcastic side to him that made him the best “villain” in this whole film.

Consensus: The cast is here to chew up scenery, and the action is very fun to watch but the plot is too detailed, the writing is too cheesy, and a lot of it just feels dull but The Three Musketeers is still entertaining, just leave your brain at the door.

5/10=Rental!!

Gamer (2009)

God, I wish I was playing a video game instead of watching this crap.

It’s 2034, and humans can control and kill each other in a large-scale online gaming world. But Kable (Gerard Butler), a wrongfully convicted soldier forced to join the violent competition, tries to free himself by taking out its evil architect, Ken (Michael C. Hall). While being controlled by a rich kid (Logan Lerman), Kable must also save his wife, Angie (Amber Valletta), who’s trapped in her own avatar world.

Looking at the plot and trailer from a far, I was thinking it looks really cheesy, but at the same-time, bat-shit crazy which is always good. However, it’s not good here.

The problem with this film is that it really is all over the place, with no sense of logic or control whatsoever. I get the satire and what the film is trying to say, by saying we’re to feel guilty for what the world has become in exploiting violence and death on TV, movies, and even in video games, but the problem is that the film focuses on this by showing us loads and loads of amounts of violence and death. The script also tried too hard to be witty or funny at points, and it just ended up being weird or dumb really.

Sometimes when you have crazy, slam-banging action thrillers, you don’t have to really rely on the story because the action is always there to keep you busy. However, this film doesn’t even do that so well, and that’s all blame on writing and directing team Mark Neveldine and Brian Taylor, known for the even crazier Crank films. The problem here is that all the violence just looks terrible, and the way they film this just makes it look low-budget, and a cheap indie film. The action is OK I guess, but that shaky cam gets way too annoying for points, and you don’t even feel like you’re watching a movie anymore, you almost feel like your on a LSD trip. Make sure you just take yourself some mushrooms before you go in.

Also, what the hell was up with all those titty shots? It was like almost every time this film cooled down, they just decided to show some big boobies. Usually, I don’t mind this, but this film literally over-does the whole “boob shot” thing for me, which I thought I’d never have to say….ever.

Gerard Butler is alright in this role as Kable. I have always had faith in this guy, and I do believe he will eventually get that role that will bring him back up, but as the main hero in this film, he is OK. Michael C. Hall does his very best to do a Southern accent as the villain, Ken Castle, and this really doesn’t work probably because they make him seem so cheesy, but this film probably made that on purpose. I still don’t know what Kyra Sedgwick was doing here, and why the hell she accepted this piece of crap! There are also others in this film that need new agents such as Logan Lerman, Amber Valletta, John Leguizamo, Ludacris, and a totally jacked-up Terry Crews. Also, Keith David shows up too! What the hell is wrong with these people!?!? It’s not the cast’s fault as to why these characters suck, it’s the damn film itself.

Consensus: By taking a glorious amount of psychedelics beforehand one could actually have an enjoyable time with this crazy, all-over-the-place action thriller, but if sober, you may find yourself totally bored, annoyed, and just not entertained one bit by this dumb piece of failed satire.

1/10=SomeOleBullShitt!!