tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3208319902565474832024-03-12T18:37:27.951-07:00White Fox Movie ReviewsKeanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07956213545173821534noreply@blogger.comBlogger180125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-320831990256547483.post-54664473654822633682019-12-20T11:04:00.003-08:002019-12-20T11:12:27.565-08:00Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker (spoiler-free review)Here are links to my spoiler-free reviews of <a href="http://www.whitefoxmoviereviews.com/2015/12/star-wars-force-awakens.html">The Force Awakens</a> and <a href="http://www.whitefoxmoviereviews.com/2017/12/star-wars-last-jedi.html">The Last Jedi</a>, which have links to the spoiler reviews. There will also be a spoiler review of this movie, linked at the end.<br />
<br />
I don't write reviews much anymore. I'm writing this one primarily because this is the last movie of the Skywalker Saga, and I like finishing things. When I did write reviews, my mandate was providing guidance for whether or not the reader will like the movie in question. So, will you, dear reader, like Rise of Skywalker? As usual, it depends.<br />
<br />
I'm going to presume you have seen at least Episodes VII and VIII. This, as the last of that trilogy, needs to deal with the threats and promises made in the first two and arrive at a conclusion. Many people disliked the setup in VII and VIII, though, so for them, is it worth sitting through IX? Probably not, for the ones who really hated one or both. While IX does answer a lot of questions, it's not an Original Trilogy film, and I don't think it will provide relief for people who wanted the new trilogy to be that.<br />
<br />
For the people who really liked the first two, the third is a must-watch, of course, and I think the vast majority of those should like it. There are a couple disconcertingly unforeshadowed plot points, and some other weak bits, but not enough to ruin the movie, not by far.<br />
<br />
The people in between are the question, then, and the answer really depends on <i>why</i> they disliked parts of VII and/or VIII. For those who complained that VII was too derivative - let me digress a moment. Someone pointed out recently that not only was VII deliberately derivative, it was derivative in a very specific way. Where the Original Trilogy's Empire was coded as (inspired by) Nazis, VII's New Order was coded as neonazis. In that sense, the movie did exactly what it set out to do.<br />
<br />
Back to IX, I don't think anyone will complain that it is derivative. There are some genuine surprises, and it does not mirror the structure of VI, III, or any other Star Wars movie.<br />
<br />
For those who complained about the plot structure of VIII, IX addresses most of that. I've seen a headline accusing IX of tarnishing Rian Johnson's legacy, which is a weird flex, but ok. For the three people who hate Abrams' VII but love Johnson's VIII, that will be a problem. For the much larger number who were on board with Abrams and felt Johnson strayed from the course, Abrams is back with a course correction.<br />
<br />
For those who dislike Rey in particular, IX probably won't make that go away.<br />
<br />
For those who dislike Finn, the best I can say is that this is the first movie in which he is not trying to run away. Whether that helps or not I can't say.<br />
<br />
For those who liked Poe in VII and hated what Johnson did with him in VIII, don't worry about it.<br />
<br />
For those who hated Kylo Ren... I'm not sure. I liked his arc in IX, but I suspect that not everyone will.<br />
<br />
For those who hated what VIII did with Snoke, IX might satisfy you.<br />
<br />
So there you have it - I think most people will like this film, but it won't be universal.<br />
<br />
The rest of my thoughts are in the <a href="http://www.whitefoxmoviereviews.com/2019/12/star-wars-rise-of-skywalker-spoiler_20.html">spoiler review</a>.Keanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07956213545173821534noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-320831990256547483.post-85426742500863942332019-12-20T11:04:00.002-08:002019-12-20T11:06:11.510-08:00Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker (spoiler review)This review has spoilers. For the non-spoiler review of this movie, click <a href="http://www.whitefoxmoviereviews.com/2019/12/star-wars-rise-of-skywalker-spoiler.html">here</a>.<br />
<br />
Episode IX is in a tough spot. Not only does it need to finish the much-criticized Sequel Trilogy, it also need to wrap up the entirety of the Skywalker Saga. In order to understand whether or not it does this, we need to understand what narrative promises were made throughout the Saga.<br />
<br />
Despite the general feeling that nothing important happens in Episode I (reflected in its exclusion from the Machete Order), for this purpose it is the most important film. While Episode IV was obviously the first movie made, Episode I is chronologically first, and the last movie needs to conclude the story that was started there. I'll return to the Original Trilogy in a bit.<br />
<br />
Episode I introduced the idea of Anakin Skywalker as the Chosen One, and it introduced Palpatine. The Chosen One's destiny to bring balance to the Force never made much sense - at the time of Episode I, the Force's imbalance was decidedly in the Light Side's favor, so balance shouldn't have been desirable from a Jedi point of view. Regardless of this, Anakin died in Episode VI with no balance in sight - Luke was the only known trained Force-user at that point, and he was definitely Jedi-aligned. Episode VII flipped the balance, removing Luke from the Force and leaving Kylo Ren as the only active Force-user (not counting Leia and the Knights of Ren).
<br />
<br />
Rey's arrival then brought something similar to balance, or at least opposition, but there are two issues. The first is that the implied consequence of the prophesied balance is harmony, which the Rey-Ren dynamic certainly lacked. The second is that Rey is not a descendant of Anakin. It would seem, then, that the only way to pay off the Anakin-as-Chosen-One arc would be for Kylo Ren to revert to Ben Solo (Skywalker), but as something more nuanced than a Jedi. That, after all, was the original problem: the Jedi represent pure good, and the Sith represent pure evil, and extremes don't balance. And that sort of is what happened, but not in the way anyone expected.<br />
<br />
The other half of the setup from Episode I involved Palpatine. As the main plot driver for the first six movies, it appeared that his direct involvement was done there. In Episodes VII and VIII, his relevance was tertiary at best - Kylo Ren venerated the version of Vader who was created by Palpatine. Episode IX brings him back, though, and returns him to his place as the primary villain. It then does some serious retconning, both in asserting that Snoke was a Palpatine puppet the entire time, and in declaring that Rey is a Palpatine. This really, really could have used some foreshadowing. Even a passing mention in the Prequel Trilogy that Palpatine had a family would have made this reveal much more palatable.<br />
<br />
As a narrative shape, though, this is actually quite satisfying. The Sequel Trilogy is the story of the grandchildren of Skywalker and Palpatine, with the Skywalker as villain and the Palpatine as hero. At the last, the two confront Palpatine together, and here the structure breaks down a little. Rather than Skywalker defeating Palpatine, it is Palpatine who defeats Palpatine, and if you think I'm being obtuse with naming here, I'm doing it on purpose. In part because Sheev is a terrible name, and in part because it's not Rey who kills him. Palpatine kills himself with the reflection of his own power, and that symbology is important. The last act of the last living Skywalker, then, is to give his life force to Rey, and this too is symbolically important. The filmmakers were careful to show throughout Episodes VIII and IX that Rey was not pure good, and Ren was not pure evil. Ben's resurrection of Rey is the payoff of the prophecy to bring balance to the Force, in the person of Rey. Ben was too damaged to play that role himself, but Rey should be able to balance both sides of the Force. The fact that she takes the Skywalker name at the end shows that she aligns with good, but we assume that she will be more moderate than the Jedi of old. Besides, the good guys need to win in the end.<br />
<br />
So, Episode IX does indeed wrap up the story set down in Episode I. What of the Original Trilogy, then? Episode IV does not make any narrative promises that are unresolved at the end of the movie. It is the only self-contained story in the nonology. Episode V is the one that made promises and complicated the mythos, which may be why it is so revered. However, all of those promises were paid off at the end of Episode VI. There was not yet any concept of balancing the Force - in those days, a win for the Light Side and a promise of a return of the Jedi was enough. By bookending the Original Trilogy with additional context, promises, and resolutions, though, the narrative importance of those original films is diminished. The good guys didn't really win. No one lived happily ever after. I think this is the root of much of the dissatisfaction of the older generations of Star Wars fans with regards to the new films. We mostly just ignored the Prequel Trilogy, but the Sequel Trilogy makes that hard to do.<br />
<br />
<br />
How is Rise of Skywalker as a film in itself, though? As mentioned above, Rey's reveal was problematically unforeshadowed, though narratively good. I also have a lot of questions about the dagger - who made that thing, when, and why? It clearly couldn't have been used until after the Death Star crashed on Endor, but who had the knowledge of Old Sith to make it after that? If it was made beforehand, it must have been done as prophecy, and again - why? Other than those two, though, my main criticism of the film is that it is complex. While it's not hard to follow everything, it's a lot to take in.<br />
<br />
There are also the usual Star Wars-isms.<br />
An entire fleet of Star Destroyers with miniaturized Death Star cannons? Sure, why not? Who built those things? Who was crewing them at the end? Someone in the New Order noted the need to recruit more, but they had no time for it.<br />
Inexplicable physics? Sure, why not. Hyperspace-skipping is now a thing, purely because it looked cool on film. There is some kind of red barrier between the Core Worlds and the Unknown Regions, because the plot demanded an impediment.<br />
<br />
On the plus side, the cinematography is stunning, as has been the norm in the Sequel Trilogy. While not as strikingly colorful as VIII, IX has much of visual interest. And while none of the lightsaber fights stand up to the Snoke's Guards scene in VIII, they don't disappoint. Also, Ren's crossguard gets used for defense, so that's nice.<br />
<br />
I've been hard on Adam Driver, but I was very impressed with his last few scenes. The transformation from Kylo Ren to Ben Solo is good acting work. It was nice to see Lando, though I have to try pretty hard not to be creeped out by his last interaction. I strongly suspect that Han's scene was supposed to feature Leia instead, but Harrison Ford did a very nice job there, and it parallels nicely with the scene in VII. JJ Abrams clearly didn't want to feature Rose, but he didn't remove her, he didn't kill her off, and he didn't shove her entirely to the background - generous of him, and nice for the actress.<br />
<br />
Overall, I think I liked the film. It has problems, but all the Star Wars films do. It entertains with action, drama, and humor, with only a few jarring bits. And it wraps up the Skywalker Saga, the most dysfunctional set of nine movies you'll ever find, in a satisfactory way.<br />
<br />
Not bad.Keanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07956213545173821534noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-320831990256547483.post-39906594577697250862019-08-21T14:41:00.002-07:002019-08-21T14:41:29.830-07:00What is the Wheel of Time and why should I care?This post is aimed at people who have not read the Wheel of Time books, but have heard about it due to the news surrounding the upcoming TV show.<br />
<br />
The Wheel of Time is a lengthy high-fantasy book series by Robert Jordan (though the last three were completed by Brandon Sanderson after Jordan died. Probably the easiest way to explain the importance of the Wheel of Time is to note that when A Game of Thrones was published in 1996, it carried a cover blurb recommendation from Robert Jordan, and that was a significant factor in my acquaintances deciding to read that series. The Wheel of Time was Game of Thrones before Game of Thrones dethroned it (sorry).<br />
<br />
This is especially relevant because it's blatantly obvious that Amazon is making the Wheel of Time TV show to capitalize on the immense popularity of the Game of Thrones TV show. The comparisons go deeper than that, though. Both Jordan and Martin had (have) a really serious problem which I like to call Epic Fantasy Bloat. This is where the author keeps introducing more and more characters and plotlines until there is so much going on that each book barely advances the overall progress of the story. Martin nominally attempted to solve this problem by killing off major characters, but this was a failure - he still needed to split the events of A Feast for Crows and A Dance with Dragons into two volumes, even though they cover the same period of time. Likewise, the Wheel of Time's tenth (yes, tenth) book contains material which mostly overlaps the previous book. The fan outcry was so intense that Jordan promised to speed things up, which he did (though he died after the eleventh book).<br />
<br />
The Wheel of Time book series was enormously popular, selling over 80 million total copies. Why? Similar reasons to Game of Thrones: it features a richly detailed secondary fantasy world with large amounts of political intrigue and action. That, however, is about where the comparisons end. Jordan was extremely long-winded even in comparison to Martin. Even in books where important things actually happened, he was in no hurry to get to them. I believe he was trying to follow in the footsteps of Tolkien, whose verbosity is legendary. Instead of attaining a dignified epic narrative, though, Jordan produced an infuriatingly languorous meander through his world. For fans (and believe it or not, I'm a fan), this is bearable because of the incredible depth and detail. If you think Game of Thrones is complex, it's got nothing on the Wheel of Time.<br />
<br />
There are also a large number of people who stopped reading the series partway through, and it's important to understand why. Obviously, the slow pace is off-putting for many. The readers with insufficient tolerance for such usually stop after book one or three. Book two is also slightly repetitive of book one, so many people stop there. More importantly, though, Jordan's character portrayal varies from shallow to offensive, which is a significant problem that the writers of the TV show will need to deal with.<br />
<br />
The world of the Wheel of Time is (at the start, at least) one where only a small group of women have magic. This leads to a gendered power imbalance that is politically and socially important, and the series dwells heavily on it. In addition, many of the early points of view are of teenaged boys and girls, who spend a lot of time angsting about each other, as teenagers do. Jordan, though, was 41 by the time the first book was published, and it shows. The really sad part is that he thought he was being progressive (Heinlein had the same issue, but that's a different essay). The series features a lot of strong female characters who have their own story arcs - it passes the Mako Mori test many times over. However, in any given moment the portrayal of any given woman is more likely to be caricature than character. One character was notorious for tugging on her braid when angry, and this was her defining characteristic until well into the series. Many of the women repeatedly cross their arms under their breasts when angry, usually at men. Later in the series, there are some problematic male-fantasy-centered story elements which I won't get into for spoiler reasons. What I'm saying is that while Jordan thought he was doing a great job of writing women, he wasn't. Compared to most of what came before him (including but hardly limited to Tolkien) he was downright fantastic, but even in the 90s when the first several books came out, his depictions ranged from cringy to offensive. Now, in the 2010s, those aspects of the books are unacceptable. The writers of the TV show will need to do better.<br />
<br />
Even setting aside the gender issues, Jordan was frequently guilty of lazy plotting. There are many, large, world-altering sections of plot that could have been solved by characters communicating with each other. These characters had the means and motive to do so, but Jordan invented half-assed reasons for them not to so that the plot would continue moving in the direction he wanted. This is an unforgivable sin of writing.<br />
<br />
The good news is that the TV show has a real opportunity to improve a series that is beloved by many. Just as the Game of Thrones TV show improved on the books by cutting out large parts of it (until, of course, they ran out of books and floundered), the Wheel of Time TV show can improve on the books by turning a long-winded slog into a tight, exciting narrative. Will they actually do this? I don't know. Will they go too far, and lose the depth of the books? That is unfortunately possible, as there are several recent examples of bad fantasy adaptations.Keanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07956213545173821534noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-320831990256547483.post-29545836800525727462019-07-26T23:16:00.001-07:002019-07-26T23:18:03.292-07:00Once Upon a Time ... in HollywoodThis review will contain spoilers. However, it will contain spoilers that I really wish I had known about before going to see the film.<br />
<br />
I'm going to put this right up front: do you think about the Manson murders on a daily basis? I don't. I was vaguely aware that they happened, but they're not important to my life, nor was I under the impression that they were important to history in general. Apparently some people think they mark the end of an era (the fact that they conveniently happened at the end of a decade helps with that, but I wasn't particularly aware of what year they happened in, because again - not relevant to my life). Without an awareness of the particulars of the Manson murders, though, this movies makes not a damn bit of sense. Sure, the plot of the main characters is relatively coherent. DiCaprio's character is an actor struggling to deal with his declining fame, and that's fairly interesting, though told at a glacially plodding pace. Pitt's character is DiCaprio's character's stunt double who shares a bit of that plot and also dips into the Manson thing, except no one ever mentions that name. Then there's Margot Robbie's character, who wanders around being vacantly pretty, and who happens to live next door to DiCaprio's character with her husband, Roman Polanski. This is the part where people who actually know something about the Manson murders are going to think I'm an idiot. But honestly, the fact that Polanski has spent the last forty years in exile because he drugged and raped a 13-year-old is the only thing I think of when his name comes up.<br />
<br />
So if you're going to see this movie, this is what you need to know: in real life, Charles Manson's followers brutally murdered Polanski's wife and some friends at Polanski's house while he was elsewhere. Tarantino clearly expects the audience to know that, and the movie doesn't make sense without that knowledge.<br />
<br />
Other than that, you ask, how was the movie? Kinda boring, honestly. It is very long, and completely unhurried to get anywhere. Tarantino appears to expect that the audience will be satisfied with the atmosphere that he has created. That's what the trailer conveys, after all - it promises a stylish, sassy, groovy kind of movie. There is a bit of that, but there are also a lot of long, long tracking shots where nothing much happens. Many of them involve feet.<br />
<br />
This is a Tarantino movie, so one might expect bloody, gratuitous violence. That is, after all, what he made his name on. This movie has only one scene of Tarantino-style violence, but it is pretty graphic and very specifically involves the mutilation of women. Just so you know.<br />
<br />
As far as the craft of filmmaking goes - well, Tarantino is an artist. Aside from the gratuitous tracking shots, the cinematography is lovely. There is a lot of clever meta-ness to the film, since it involves actors playing actors making movies. Hollywood loves that stuff, and I'll be interested to see if it gets award nominations, or if the Academy will be scared off by the vandalized billboards. The acting is excellent, though I could really do without Emile Hirsch and his conviction for assault (strangling a woman to unconsciousness). Overall, though, I really can't recommend the film. It has its moments, but not enough of them, and with a severe lack of an editor willing to tell Tarantino that the movie didn't need to be 2 hours 45 minutes long. Or maybe it was a major feat getting it down that far, since James Marsden and Tim Roth filmed parts that didn't make it into the movie.<br />
<br />
Performance: 4/5<br />
Plot: 2/5<br />
Production: 4/5<br />
Overall: 2/5<br />
Bechdel: Fail<br />
Mako Mori: FailKeanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07956213545173821534noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-320831990256547483.post-54512348027924942502018-03-30T22:18:00.002-07:002018-03-30T22:21:32.391-07:00Ready Player OneBelieve it or not, this is a review of Ready Player One.
<br />
<br />
Let's talk about adaptations from one medium to another. Specifically, the most common adaptation, book to movie.
<br />
<br />
But first, a story. I used to go to Comic Con when I lived in San Diego, and I saw a lot of neat things, most of which I've long since forgotten. One thing I haven't forgotten is the Stardust panel, which I presume was 2006. Actually, I have forgotten most of it, but one thing in particular stuck with me. In the Q&A portion, someone asked if the ending of the movie was the same as the ending of the book. For those who don't know, the ending is not the same - not at all. Neil Gaiman was there, and he paused, and looked serious, and then said words that I wish I had a recording of. Wait, scratch that - there's totally a video of this on YouTube. It's not exactly how I remember it, but it's the right answer. Just watch this and then come back.
<br />
<br />
<a href="https://youtu.be/Md7qa2HxoU8?t=3m27s">https://youtu.be/Md7qa2HxoU8?t=3m27s
</a><br />
<br />
Books and movies are different things. Even good movie adaptations aren't the same thing as the book, Stardust being an excellent example. Sometimes, a movie adaptation only loosely resembles the book - Starship Troopers, for instance, used some names from the book but completely changed plot, tone, and theme. For the most part, though, even movie adaptations that I don't like very much made the specific changes they made in order to make a coherent movie out of something that is inherently not a movie. Or, specific parts of otherwise decent adaptations might diverge from the source material in order to make the movie flow. In The Two Towers, for instance, Jackson changed Faramir's character specifically to influence the tension arc of the movie. I, like many Faramir fans, intensely dislike that change, but I understand why it was done, and the movie overall is still good.
<br />
<br />
Sometimes, a filmmaker adds or changes things for no discernible reason. For instance, Jackson's meddling with The Hobbit, which I have complained about at length elsewhere.
<br />
<br />
And, at last, this is what I have to say about Ready Player One: this is a perfectly fine adaptation of the book. The end result is a fun movie which has no more flaws than the source material does (the source material has some egregious flaws, largely but not exclusively in regards to sexism). It does not contain all the elements of the book, because it is not a book. Significant plot elements were changed, either to make the story more movie-like or because they couldn't get the rights - hard to say which in some cases. The end result, though, has fundamentally the same characters, structure, and plot arc that the book does, allowing for condensing due to time pressure.
<br />
<br />
And just in case you somehow read this far and haven't already read the book: Ready Player One is a nerdy and kinda shallow semi-apocalyptic sci-fi action movie, or a really nerdy and kinda dark (but still shallow) semi-apocalyptic sci-fi book. Not both at the same time.Keanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07956213545173821534noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-320831990256547483.post-89973244221436610632017-12-15T15:09:00.001-08:002017-12-15T16:15:45.082-08:00Star Wars: The Last JediThis review will be spoiler-free, assuming you have seen the trailer.<br />
<br />
I am mostly writing this because as of the afternoon of December 15, Last Jedi has a Rotten Tomatoes rating of 93% with critics, and only a 56% audience score.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.whitefoxmoviereviews.com/2015/12/star-wars-force-awakens.html">This</a> is a link to my review of The Force Awakens. It has a long explanation of my relationship with Star Wars, which I will briefly revisit here.<br />
<br />
I love Star Wars. The movies are generally not very good. The books are usually not great, with some notable exceptions. But the idea of Star Wars, that is good. At its essence, Star Wars is a simple fantasy: good-vs-evil, plucky rebels against the dictator, but with space wizards and starships instead of regular wizards and horses. This is, I think, part of where the prequel trilogy went wrong, but I won't dwell on that here.<br />
<br />
Episode VII, The Force Awakens, brought the series back to its roots, which was a cause of much complaint among the fanbase. Because the film had such structural similarity to Episode IV, irrational expectations were generated for Episode VIII. Almost everyone agrees that Empire Strikes Back is the best Star Wars film. There are a lot of reasons for this, which I'm also not going to go into now, but the upshot is that there was strangely a lot of pressure on the middle film of this trilogy, even though that's a tradition weak spot in any trilogy structure.<br />
<br />
The Last Jedi is not Empire. There are actually some similarities - notably the apprentice training with a master, and rebels fleeing a superior enemy - but they play out in dramatically different ways than they did in Empire. This by itself will cause some people to dislike the film. No other franchise raises hopes like Star Wars, usually higher than can possibly be fulfilled.<br />
<br />
There are some significant problems with Last Jedi. For one, it is extremely long. About three quarters of the way through, I started wondering how they were going to wrap up all of the plot threads they had set in motion and arrive at an ending. This brings me to a second problem: the film has several plot threads which fizzle out or dead end in ways that are less than satisfying. The most charitable thing that can be said about this is that the film keeps the audience guessing as to what is going to happen next. Less charitably, this movie has too much going on at a structural level. I also have some issue with matters of in-universe physical continuity that can't be discussed without spoilers.<br />
<br />
That said, I liked this movie. I'll need to watch it again to see if I feel differently now that I know how the plot goes. The filmmakers made some bold choices, which I appreciate. As usual, the visual effects are top-notch. Some scenes are stunningly executed, enough to draw gasps from the audience. The score is excellent. The fight choreography is better than Episode VII. There is excellent use of color and contrast to make the film visually interesting. While the pacing drags in places, there are a number of good action sequences, and also some decently emotional bits and some humor to break the tension.<br />
<br />
Speaking of which, I was worried that the Porgs would be obnoxious, but they don't bother me. I <i>love</i> the crystal foxes, though as the name of the website might indicate, I'm biased.<br />
<br />
Most other topics I might want to discuss involve spoilers, which I will address in a different post.<br />
<br />
So, why do audiences like this movie so much less than the critics do? Keeping in mind that critics are pretty much paid to dislike movies, and that being a movie critic is a soul-crushing job that will such any joy you might have ever had for movies out of you... ahem. Reasons why I don't review much anymore.<br />
I suspect that a lot of it comes down to expectations. The people leaving feedback on Rotten Tomatoes right now are the people invested enough to go to Thursday showings. I don't think any movie could have satisfied all of them. Combined with the very real problems discussed above, I'm somewhat surprised that a majority of audience feedback is positive.<br />
<br />
So, will you like it? Good question. The primary reason I started doing this was to give some advice on what kind of person would like a given movie, but this one is tough. If you hated Force Awakens, this isn't likely to redeem the series for you, though I suspect you will think it's better, at least. If you loved Force Awakens, you should like this too. If you're in between, it probably depends (like the force cave on Dagobah) on the baggage you bring with you. Remember that Star Wars is space fantasy, an adventure story. It is not high cinema, and has never been known for its outstanding plotting or acting. If you reacted badly to that last sentence, maybe wait and catch this on video.<br />
<br />
The spoiler version of this review is <a href="http://www.whitefoxmoviereviews.com/p/the-spoiler-review-of-force-awakens-is.html">here</a>.Keanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07956213545173821534noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-320831990256547483.post-86540014691790695192017-07-30T22:02:00.000-07:002017-07-30T22:02:25.243-07:00Atomic BlondeAtomic Blonde is an extremely good action film. It has a solid plot, good writing, better acting, stunning cinematography and action sequences, and it absolutely nails the period.<br />
<br />
It is set in Berlin at the tail end of the Cold War, and is in many ways a standard spy-action film. We've seen similar things out of Bond and Bourne, among others. Atomic Blonde has a real style to it, though, both in its visual aesthetic and its effective use of music, that sets it apart.<br />
<br />
This is very much an R-rated movie. It has nudity, it has language, and it has lots and lots of violence. Some of the fight scenes are breathtakingly brutal. The movie does also have talking, so don't expect wall-to-wall action, but it has enough action to support the plot and vice versa.<br />
<br />
Oh, and it also passes both Bechdel and Mako Mori.<br />
<br />
The cinematography on this movie is good enough that I looked up the directory of photography. His name is Jonathan Sela, and his credits mostly include music videos (Wrecking Ball, for instance). His feature film credits are limited, but do include John Wick, which is presumably where he met David Leitch, the director of Atomic Blonde. Leitch has worked as a stuntman and stunt coordinator for a couple decades, which explains rather a lot. Both of them deserve lots of credit for getting this film right, and I'm pleased to note that they are working together again on Deadpool 2.<br />
<br />
Bottom line: if you like action movies, and none of the above specifically turned you off, go see Atomic Blonde.Keanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07956213545173821534noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-320831990256547483.post-65269761698402529502017-07-23T19:34:00.000-07:002017-07-23T19:34:05.078-07:00DunkirkDunkirk is, as of this writing, getting 92% positive reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. I'm with the other eight percent.<br />
<br />
The movie has many positive qualities, by far the best of which is the cinematography. I was lucky enough to see it projected in 80mm, which definitely gives a better experience than standard 35mm or digital projection. The actors all delivered fine performances. The sound was masterfully mixed.<br />
<br />
Unfortunately, none of that makes up for the film's two enormous flaws:<br />
<br />
First, the narrative is badly disjointed, jumping back and forth across the timeline as it moves from story to story. Some of this is caused by the plot including so many disparate parts, but that's no excuse. Christopher Nolan, who wrote, directed, and produced, has moved well past artistic license with story structure (which he did well in Inception) into needless muddling. It is very possible that an editor could create a version of this move which works much better than the one I saw.<br />
<br />
Second, the vast majority of the characters lack... well, character. This isn't the fault of the actors - as I said, they did a fine job. The problem is the script, which completely fails to give the audience reasons to care about the people on screen other than the direness of their circumstances. Most of them barely have names, and none of them have any evidence of interesting qualities other than the desire to survive - with the welcome exception of the featured civilians.<br />
<br />
So what we end up with is an engaging, immersive film that utterly fails to be compelling on a personal level (except for the small percentage of the movie which focuses on said civilians).<br />
<br />Slight spoilers in the last paragraph:<br />
Aside from the previous complaints, I have one other, lesser one: the enemy is faceless. They're hardly referred to as Germans at all - the opening text calls them "enemy", and only a couple lines of dialogue name them. While the effects of the German siege are depicted frequently, at no point is any German face depicted in focus - only airplanes, bombs, and bullets. Perhaps this was done to avoid the appearance of offending modern Germans, or perhaps it was an artistic decision to focus on the British soldiers and their plight. Either way, the lack of a visible antagonist further dehumanizes a movie which already lacks in that regard.Keanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07956213545173821534noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-320831990256547483.post-35636599134727978262017-07-20T20:56:00.001-07:002017-07-23T19:09:15.999-07:00Valerian and the City of a Thousand PlanetsValerian is a reasonably enjoyable sci-fi adventure film. It is not, by any stretch of the imagination, actually a good movie, but if you're willing to ignore its more glaring defects, it's quite fun. By far its best quality is the visual spectacle. The advertisements quote a review comparing it to Avatar, which is an easy (and lazy) comparison to make - Valerian's primary alien design is a smaller, pearlescent version of Avatar's aliens. There is also a plot point or two that are reminiscent of Avatar, but otherwise Valerian has more in common with Guardians of the Galaxy or Jupiter Ascending.
<br /><br />
Like Jupiter Ascending, it's really best not to look at the plot too hard. Luc Besson wrote the script himself, which might not have been the best of ideas. There is, for instance, a particularly egregious maid-and-butler scene (where characters talk about things they should already know as a way of telling the audience). The science is laughably bad, but if you were expecting hard sci-fi you should have been paying more attention.
<br /><br />
Like the latest Pirates movie, the romance subplot between the two leads is somewhat problematic, forced, and unnecessary. It is, however, entirely typical, unfortunately.
<br /><br />
This is a movie you'll want to see on the big screen to get the full effect of the visuals, but you might catch a discount showing, and make sure your disbelief (and possibly your critical thinking skills) are well and truly suspended.Keanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07956213545173821534noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-320831990256547483.post-87995310919753574182017-01-07T18:59:00.000-08:002017-01-07T18:59:03.824-08:00Assassin's CreedI wasn't really planning to see Assassin's Creed. While I am a fan of action movies, I've never played any of the Assassin's Creed games, and the trailer wasn't impressive. Thanks to the generosity of some friends, though, I did see it, so you get this summary of how I feel about this movie:<br />
<br />
You know how there are cheap/bootleg DVDs out there with English subtitles done by people who don't really know English very well? For example, some friends had a copy of an anime called Ayashi no Ceres with these sorts of subtitles. There's a scene where a character falls screaming off a bridge, which was subtitled "Disguusttiing!!"<br />
The dialogue in this movie is like someone took an English script, had one of those guys translate it, then another one translate it back, and shot that.<br />
<br />
Michael Fassbender, Marion Cotillard, and Jeremy Irons are all fine actors, and they performed their lines with great feeling and gravity - but much of it is nonsense. This isn't even counting the parts that were supposed to be nonsense - don't get me started on genetic memory. No, even if you swallow the ludicrous premise (helpfully laid out in the trailer), the plot makes little to no sense.<br />
<br />
Now, it's an action movie. There are a lot of very good, or at least fun, action movies without much in the way of plot or dialogue. This isn't one of those. The action sequences can best be described as okay. They're not bad, but they're very much not good either. They are not improved by shaky-cam and a lot of murky lighting.<br />
<br />
On top of all this, the cinematography is atrocious. The director makes extensive use of long soaring aerial shots, which I understand is meant to evoke the eagle which is associated with the assassins. This sort of thing can be done well. Here, though, these shots aren't grand and sweeping so much as pointless wastes of time. If they'd used half as many, I'd have gotten ten minutes of my life back.<br />
<br />
So, it has a terrible script, a bad plot, and okay action. The acting is fine, but... I can't help but think that Marion Cotillard spent much of her time on set wondering how an Oscar-winning actress ended up in this piece of crap.<br />
<br />
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13.2px;">Performance: 3/5</span><br style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13.2px;" /><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13.2px;">Plot: 1/5</span><br style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13.2px;" /><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13.2px;">Production: 1/5</span><br style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13.2px;" /><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13.2px;">Overall: 1/5</span><br style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13.2px;" /><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13.2px;">Bechdel: Fail (C)</span><br style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13.2px;" /><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13.2px;">Mako Mori: Pass</span><br style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13.2px;" /><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: xx-small;"><a href="http://www.whitefoxmoviereviews.com/p/blog-page_25.html" style="color: #7a7a7a; text-decoration: none;">What are these?</a></span>Keanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07956213545173821534noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-320831990256547483.post-24691492124201992102016-12-22T18:33:00.001-08:002016-12-22T18:33:18.672-08:00PassengersI don't think I've done a meta-review before, but I need to rant about the press coverage that Passengers is getting, and dammit I have a blog.<br />
<br />
This will involve spoilers. Lots of them.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://io9.gizmodo.com/passengers-has-huge-ambitions-but-no-guts-1790283435">Gizmodo's review</a> of Passengers, for reference.<br />
<br />
The plot point at the center of the complaint in that review (and others) is that Chris Pratt's character Jim wakes up Jennifer Lawrence's character Aurora. As the review says, this is a terrible thing to do, and robs her of the future she had planned for herself, <i>and that's the entire point of the movie</i>. It's not like the movie tiptoes around it.<br />
<br />
Gizmodo's review says "Sometimes you see it, others you don’t. It gets a big moment, then it’s forgotten." No. No one ever forgets it. The romance plot, before Aurora finds out, is littered with Jim's guilt. They don't talk about it during the action sequences, because that's really not the time for it, but everything else revolves around his decision to wake her up and what that means.<br />
<br />
It's possible that the author of the review simply wasn't paying attention - in the next paragraph, he asks "Why are these people taking this trip?" and "Why is anti-gravity swimming even available?" The first of those is addressed, though not in great depth, and the second - it's not, except when gravity fails due to critical system shutdowns, which is, you know, the driving plot of the movie.<br />
<br />
Passengers is good sci-fi. It takes human characters, puts them in difficult situations, and imagines what they would do. Humans are social creatures, and while Jim's decision is clearly unethical, it is understandable, and asking the audience to think about that is the point.<br />
<br />
The Gizmodo review further says "Waking Aurora up is tantamount to murder." It's true that Aurora says the same thing, but she changes her mind later, and the reviewer doesn't seem to understand that, or why. We're all going to die. Your parents sentenced you to death at the moment of your birth. How we live our lives is what matters, and that's the other main point of the film. It's not like they were trying to hide that either - it's flatly stated more than once, by more than one character (which is impressive, since there are only four characters with appreciable speaking lines). I understand disliking the ending. I can think of a few other ways they could have handled the situation that might have allowed them a different outcome - but I also understand the choice the characters made, to live the life they had in front of them because it was a good enough life to live.<br />
<br />
For the objection that Jim's a manipulative asshole - sure. He's also smart, charming, good looking, funny. I've seen people make worse choices. I do wish the filmmakers had had the vision and balls to pull a <i>Clue</i> and film alternate endings. That would have been spectacular.<br />
<br />
Lastly, I'm shocked and appalled that none of the reviews I've read have pointed out the obvious - Jennifer Lawrence's character is named Aurora Lane. And she's a reporter. Aurora for Sleeping Beauty, and Lane for Lois Lane. It's so completely obviously referential. Jim even wakes her up from a glass coffin nonconsensually (in the Disney sense, not the fairy tale sense). Then they reverse the glass coffin scene at the end for closure. The writers clearly knew what they were doing here, and I'm ashamed of the movie critics who didn't get it.<br />
<br />
Performance: 4/5<br />
Plot: 3.5/5<br />
Production: 5/5<br />
Overall: 3.5/5<br />
Bechdel: Fail (F - I'm not counting holograms)<br />
Mako Mori: Pass - and this is where I have a problem with some other reviewers. Aurora did have her own motivations that didn't involve Jim, <i>and that's the point</i>.<br />
<br />
<div style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;">
</div>
<br />
<div style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; margin: 0px; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;">
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><a href="http://www.whitefoxmoviereviews.com/p/blog-page_25.html">What are these?</a></span></div>
Keanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07956213545173821534noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-320831990256547483.post-36093539287374493532016-12-16T21:29:00.000-08:002016-12-22T18:33:30.738-08:00Rogue One: A Star Wars StoryThere are mild spoilers in this review.<br />
<br />
I'm going to start my review with a two-part statement that may cause confusion and outrage: I'm a huge Star Wars fan, and none of the movies are very good. The original Star Wars has an important and hallowed place in cinema history, and it's not a very good movie. Empire, the golden child of Star Wars fans, is really pretty decent, but it has its problems. I have a soft spot for Jedi, but Ewoks, man. Ewoks. Force Awakens was enjoyable, but not really good cinema. Also, there were prequels. What I'm saying here is that Star Wars does not have a track record of making good movies.<br />
<br />
There is something about Star Wars, though, that makes it great despite this. The grandeur, the wonder, the scope, the imagination, the Force, the bigness and smallness of it - and of course the music - add up to a cultural phenomenon that I deeply love. I have similar thoughts about Potter, but that's a different topic.<br />
<br />
All of this introduction exists to give background and context to my one-sentence review of Rogue One: it's a pretty decent Star Wars-themed action film. It's not great cinema, but I was entertained.<br />
<br />
As a Star Wars fan, I appreciated the many references to other Star Wars properties, mostly Episode IV. The digital effects that allowed them to insert characters that first hit the screen almost forty years ago without jarring the audience - impressive.<br />
<br />
Of course, as a Star Wars fan, I knew how this film needed to end. Rather, I knew the state that the setting needed to be at the end of the film, and therefore the ending was, by definition, predictable. The journey of getting there was fairly well done, though, and I appreciate that the studio had the guts to make a movie with that ending. I suspect that the commentary I'm seeing comparing it to Empire is based in part on similarity in arc.<br />
<br />
I do have a number of problems with the film. I was never convinced by the motivations of the main characters. The actors emoted well, and the writers tried very hard to give them depth, but most of it rang hollow to me. The pacing was off; I suspect tightening up the edit by five or ten minutes would have helped a lot. The movie was very dark; I don't mean tonally, I mean it wasn't well-lit, which often made it hard to see what was going on. And, large parts of the plot (mostly everything to do with Saw Gerrera) were forced/borderline nonsensical.<br />
<br />
Despite that, I enjoyed this movie. K-2SO (voiced by Alan Tudyk) was great, as was Donnie Yen's blind monk. The space battles were fantastically good. The ground combats were also well done, and all of it felt like Star Wars. There's a large extent to which not sucking is a major achievement for a Star Wars movie, and this one passed that test.<br />
<br />
Speaking of tests, it passes Bechdel but fails Mako Mori - arguably. The test calls for a female character whose arc is not about supporting a man's story. Jyn's arc is all about her father, from start to finish - but his arc is about her, always, down to the project name. It might be a gray area.<br />
<br />
I'd have appreciated more female background characters (though there were some), but it was nice that there wasn't a forced romance between the male and female leads.<br />
<br />
Performance: 3/5<br />
Plot: 3/5<br />
Production: 5/5<br />
Overall: 3.5/5<br />
Bechdel: Pass (B)<br />
Mako Mori: Fail<br />
<br />
<div style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;">
</div>
<br />
<div style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; margin: 0px; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;">
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><a href="http://www.whitefoxmoviereviews.com/p/blog-page_25.html">What are these?</a></span></div>
Keanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07956213545173821534noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-320831990256547483.post-59754816162915012342015-12-26T22:44:00.000-08:002015-12-26T22:44:51.049-08:002015 Year in Review2015 was a very different year for me than <a href="http://www.whitefoxmoviereviews.com/2014/12/2014-year-in-review.html">2014</a>. I saw exactly half as many movies. On average, those movies were a fair amount better than last year, if you ignore Blackhat and Chappie (3.417 vs 2.9, or 3.175 vs 2.9 if those two are included, which is still better).<br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh76AupowYNfAN4uhnSNDfbWvZlW0DCVQfkHAdvT4flmkGwoJZ4Q6BLv2XB28-A5o5wYyRfc4eNAcZ_2vL6IoSuZsNH2qREb9_jq2T_SWkhq5OineLSsbyK9JJKPSnNK_Y5U7fLBEXxOu0W/s1600/Overall.JPG" imageanchor="1"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh76AupowYNfAN4uhnSNDfbWvZlW0DCVQfkHAdvT4flmkGwoJZ4Q6BLv2XB28-A5o5wYyRfc4eNAcZ_2vL6IoSuZsNH2qREb9_jq2T_SWkhq5OineLSsbyK9JJKPSnNK_Y5U7fLBEXxOu0W/s1600/Overall.JPG" /></a><br />
<br />
Whereas last year only 40% of the movies I saw scored higher than 3 overall, this year 55% did. Only 30% of movies were lower than 3, versus last year's 45%.<br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhieWr6nzaDCmZHD4DTrUQYtqKPWVsnqDim3x-gfuHvhaH98IlENfTyZU01BmmrK42X7JWIY3c9otphctoeEhz-1aaj2mdOV1c7Qz8JnlvsOwowdS6wAhq1cV2eCp5l4tGOHEl2mq7NU4Ih/s1600/Performance.JPG" imageanchor="1"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhieWr6nzaDCmZHD4DTrUQYtqKPWVsnqDim3x-gfuHvhaH98IlENfTyZU01BmmrK42X7JWIY3c9otphctoeEhz-1aaj2mdOV1c7Qz8JnlvsOwowdS6wAhq1cV2eCp5l4tGOHEl2mq7NU4Ih/s1600/Performance.JPG" /></a><br />
<br />
2015 was once again a good acting year, with only 10% of movies I reviewed earning less than a 3 in Performance (which is the same as 2014). The average increased from 3.2 to 3.45.<br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjAFu8POphQfbTelI1xd4BNfErpgT2a1uYo4X_eQFwV1N-5EddIe3B4dPxDVtmkg2zU8anXiMiqkPz0oVpB7pvpXOmhOaKrJvKYz5UsczbK9hxrK7JT25DArHu7fAFAwqt8o3l1NZ6RfYRl/s1600/Plot.JPG" imageanchor="1"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjAFu8POphQfbTelI1xd4BNfErpgT2a1uYo4X_eQFwV1N-5EddIe3B4dPxDVtmkg2zU8anXiMiqkPz0oVpB7pvpXOmhOaKrJvKYz5UsczbK9hxrK7JT25DArHu7fAFAwqt8o3l1NZ6RfYRl/s1600/Plot.JPG" /></a><br />
<br />
I continued to be far more critical of plots than other aspects of movies, though the average did increase from 2.6 to 2.8. The percentage of movies I reviewed earning higher than 3 actually decreased from 35 to 30, though.<br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgZH-Tdrx_EcggvYP1hFFyN0MUsI02CSJcoUj1UtW9qYIWKCkJMiGViF6lD5fZ6uSqPNYBp6lrD3Sb2aF28ogGZlkLw4mxIu0DB_HoN8sa-Dilb13Q4mRoZ2nOYjjblE5EBqqoTrnoUzJ7m/s1600/Production.JPG" imageanchor="1"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgZH-Tdrx_EcggvYP1hFFyN0MUsI02CSJcoUj1UtW9qYIWKCkJMiGViF6lD5fZ6uSqPNYBp6lrD3Sb2aF28ogGZlkLw4mxIu0DB_HoN8sa-Dilb13Q4mRoZ2nOYjjblE5EBqqoTrnoUzJ7m/s1600/Production.JPG" /></a><br />
<br />
2015 was a heck of a year for production values, though. My average increased from 3.2 to 4, with four movies earning a 5 from me.<br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgVBc79zK3VIhyphenhyphenFoAhQx7E6eVVBXUon3dVfDMGLMjwzwbiA4H620TKItctY-A7IYlxTfDBOom-Lj90H8QUWq5h-MgKLkdO9_yPWzFEO-TQed-yXiXYlvVopePIe2cAD1yWvVSGxdOMCThZI/s1600/Tests1.JPG" imageanchor="1"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgVBc79zK3VIhyphenhyphenFoAhQx7E6eVVBXUon3dVfDMGLMjwzwbiA4H620TKItctY-A7IYlxTfDBOom-Lj90H8QUWq5h-MgKLkdO9_yPWzFEO-TQed-yXiXYlvVopePIe2cAD1yWvVSGxdOMCThZI/s1600/Tests1.JPG" /></a><br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiQ-B5atHr8aqPb71GV1xc5V5bbfpsWdwcl4h_ZDm20UJPMK94AwZ3EOYC4Y3uTpxJZHlrTV1scpxbt76wo1kVkYw22QRE8M8VA5zD0Dtd3S471W1C7An67f7T2c43-QZBvq8d4oNow92LG/s1600/Tests2.JPG" imageanchor="1"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiQ-B5atHr8aqPb71GV1xc5V5bbfpsWdwcl4h_ZDm20UJPMK94AwZ3EOYC4Y3uTpxJZHlrTV1scpxbt76wo1kVkYw22QRE8M8VA5zD0Dtd3S471W1C7An67f7T2c43-QZBvq8d4oNow92LG/s1600/Tests2.JPG" /></a><br />
<br />
There was an enormous difference between 2014 and 2015 as far as the Bechdel and Mako Mori tests are concerned. The pass rate for each was 65% this year, versus 37% and 30% respectively in 2014. The majority of movies I saw passed both (55%), whereas last year only 20% did so.<br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg7u90IedJkksL6APoThGmVl4JHVy0QbKJMwln2HjS39LiHFxqTiGtmT3kUaxEw7Ll6KPW7TMvAfH2p0kTtdBwQ0p63qTxEGw_LK66yYq2Lel-ipIWvh_ZZupmctTDXRd-SaU3nGkKFH5oo/s1600/Bechdel+Grades.JPG" imageanchor="1"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg7u90IedJkksL6APoThGmVl4JHVy0QbKJMwln2HjS39LiHFxqTiGtmT3kUaxEw7Ll6KPW7TMvAfH2p0kTtdBwQ0p63qTxEGw_LK66yYq2Lel-ipIWvh_ZZupmctTDXRd-SaU3nGkKFH5oo/s1600/Bechdel+Grades.JPG" /></a><br />
<br />
I attempted to break down the Bechdel test by how much a movie passed or failed, but I'm not sure the results are worthwhile. It's just not a very good test, which its creator acknowledges - The Hateful Eight passes it, and no one would say that that movie has a positive treatment of women or anything approaching parity of roles for women. It does show that about half the movies which passed the Bechdel test did so more or less on a technicality, with only a brief conversation to qualify.<br />
<br />
I'm thinking that next year I'll try to add a measure - something like percentage of female principle actors, or maybe something related to billing order. Articles related to The Force Awakens noted that movies have a shockingly low percentage or female parts, both in the foreground and background - TFA doesn't have that problem, at least in part because someone bothered to point it out to the people who made it.<br />
<br />
I also attempted to divide my scores into Fun and Serious sections so that I wouldn't have to compare them... and then only saw one movie that fit into the Serious section. I probably won't be doing that again.<br />
<br />
I currently have 19 movies on the to-see list for 2016, which will appear on the right-hand menu sometime soon. I'm optimistic that it will be a good year.<br />
<br />
Here is the final list for 2015:<br />
<br />
<br />
Fun Movies<br />
<br />
<ol>
<li><a href="http://www.whitefoxmoviereviews.com/2015/05/mad-max-fury-road.html">Mad Max: Fury Road</a> (4.5)</li>
<li><a href="http://www.whitefoxmoviereviews.com/2015/12/star-wars-force-awakens.html">Star Wars: The Force Awakens</a> (4.5)</li>
<li><a href="http://www.whitefoxmoviereviews.com/2015/05/avengers-age-of-ultron.html">Avengers: Age of Ultron</a> (4.5)</li>
<li><a href="http://www.whitefoxmoviereviews.com/2015/11/the-martian.html">The Martian</a> (4)</li>
<li><a href="http://www.whitefoxmoviereviews.com/2015/11/the-hunger-games-mockingjay-part-2.html">The Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part 2</a> (4)</li>
<li><a href="http://www.whitefoxmoviereviews.com/2015/09/pitch-perfect-2.html">Pitch Perfect 2</a> (4)</li>
<li><a href="http://www.whitefoxmoviereviews.com/2015/09/ant-man.html">Ant-Man</a> (4)</li>
<li><a href="http://www.whitefoxmoviereviews.com/2015/09/the-man-from-uncle.html">The Man from U.N.C.L.E.</a> (4)</li>
<li><a href="http://www.whitefoxmoviereviews.com/2015/11/spectre.html">Spectre</a> (3.5)</li>
<li><a href="http://www.whitefoxmoviereviews.com/2015/09/mission-impossible-rogue-nation.html">Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation</a> (3.5)</li>
<li><a href="http://www.whitefoxmoviereviews.com/2015/02/jupiter-ascending.html">Jupiter Ascending</a> (3.5)</li>
<li><a href="http://www.whitefoxmoviereviews.com/2015/09/maze-runner-scorch-trials.html">Maze Runner: The Scorch Trials</a> (3)</li>
<li><a href="http://www.whitefoxmoviereviews.com/2015/09/jurassic-world.html">Jurassic World</a> (3)</li>
<li><a href="http://www.whitefoxmoviereviews.com/2015/12/the-hateful-eight.html">The Hateful Eight</a> (3)</li>
<li><a href="http://www.whitefoxmoviereviews.com/2015/09/tomorrowland.html">Tomorrowland</a> (2.5)</li>
<li><a href="http://www.whitefoxmoviereviews.com/2015/02/kingsman-secret-service.html">Kingsman: The Secret Service</a> (2)</li>
<li><a href="http://www.whitefoxmoviereviews.com/2015/05/insurgent.html">Insurgent</a> (2)</li>
<li><a href="http://www.whitefoxmoviereviews.com/2015/09/bonus-review-chappie.html">Chappie </a>(1)</li>
<li><a href="http://www.whitefoxmoviereviews.com/2015/01/blackhat.html">Blackhat</a> (1)</li>
</ol>
<br />
<b><br /></b>Serious Movies<br />
<br />
<ol>
<li><a href="http://www.whitefoxmoviereviews.com/2015/01/american-sniper.html">American Sniper</a></li>
</ol>
Keanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07956213545173821534noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-320831990256547483.post-68623045620886216002015-12-26T15:36:00.000-08:002015-12-26T17:01:54.185-08:00The Hateful EightThe Hateful Eight is a Quentin Tarantino movie. That means it is violent - gratuitously over-the-top violent. It is also offensive - if anyone tracks number of uses of the N-word in a film, this almost certainly broke the record. It is also a work of art. This doesn't make it a good movie, just one that is well filmed.<br />
<br />
I had the opportunity to see it in 70mm in the Roadshow cut, which is longer than the general release will be, and has an intermission. I recommend reading the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/70_mm_film">Wikipedia article</a> about 70mm, but the short version is that it's a much larger physical format than standard 35mm film, which makes for a higher quality picture. Tarantino acquired the lenses from 1959's Ben Hur to film this movie, and it definitely has a gorgeous look.<br />
<br />
The film is a Western set a number of years after the Civil War. The titular Hateful Eight are trapped in a roadhouse by a blizzard, and large amounts of exposition and violence ensue. The acting is top-notch, as one might expect from Sam Jackson, Kurt Russell, and Tim Roth. The script is also expertly crafted, with a superbly done Mystery element. Whether you enjoy the final product, though, depends on your tolerance for gore, racism, misogyny, torture, and murder.<br />
<br />
This is not a movie with heroes. These are the Hateful Eight, and none of them are good guys. Still, there's a good chance that if you enjoyed Pulp Fiction and Reservoir Dogs, you'll like this movie. It's not particularly more offensive than they are, and is extraordinarily well-made.<br />
<br />
My overall scores are not an average of Performance, Plot, and Production - they are a measure of how much I enjoy a film. For a movie like this, it's somewhat hard to say how much I enjoyed it. It's a stunning work of cinematic art which is utterly devoid of positive moral qualities. So I'm going to kinda average that out to a 3.<br />
<br />
Performance: 4.5/5<br />
Plot: 4.5/5<br />
Production: 5/5<br />
Overall: 3/5<br />
Bechdel: Pass (B)<br />
Mako Mori: Fail<br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><a href="http://www.whitefoxmoviereviews.com/p/blog-page_25.html">What are these?</a></span><br />
<div>
<br />
Fun Movies<br />
<br />
<ol>
<li><a href="http://www.whitefoxmoviereviews.com/2015/05/mad-max-fury-road.html">Mad Max: Fury Road</a> (4.5)</li>
<li><a href="http://www.whitefoxmoviereviews.com/2015/12/star-wars-force-awakens.html">Star Wars: The Force Awakens</a> (4.5)</li>
<li><a href="http://www.whitefoxmoviereviews.com/2015/05/avengers-age-of-ultron.html">Avengers: Age of Ultron</a> (4.5)</li>
<li><a href="http://www.whitefoxmoviereviews.com/2015/11/the-martian.html">The Martian</a> (4)</li>
<li><a href="http://www.whitefoxmoviereviews.com/2015/11/the-hunger-games-mockingjay-part-2.html">The Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part 2</a> (4)</li>
<li><a href="http://www.whitefoxmoviereviews.com/2015/09/pitch-perfect-2.html">Pitch Perfect 2</a> (4)</li>
<li><a href="http://www.whitefoxmoviereviews.com/2015/09/ant-man.html">Ant-Man</a> (4)</li>
<li><a href="http://www.whitefoxmoviereviews.com/2015/09/the-man-from-uncle.html">The Man from U.N.C.L.E.</a> (4)</li>
<li><a href="http://www.whitefoxmoviereviews.com/2015/11/spectre.html">Spectre</a> (3.5)</li>
<li><a href="http://www.whitefoxmoviereviews.com/2015/09/mission-impossible-rogue-nation.html">Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation</a> (3.5)</li>
<li><a href="http://www.whitefoxmoviereviews.com/2015/02/jupiter-ascending.html">Jupiter Ascending</a> (3.5)</li>
<li><a href="http://www.whitefoxmoviereviews.com/2015/09/maze-runner-scorch-trials.html">Maze Runner: The Scorch Trials</a> (3)</li>
<li><a href="http://www.whitefoxmoviereviews.com/2015/09/jurassic-world.html">Jurassic World</a> (3)</li>
<li><b>The Hateful Eight (3)</b></li>
<li><a href="http://www.whitefoxmoviereviews.com/2015/09/tomorrowland.html">Tomorrowland</a> (2.5)</li>
<li><a href="http://www.whitefoxmoviereviews.com/2015/02/kingsman-secret-service.html">Kingsman: The Secret Service</a> (2)</li>
<li><a href="http://www.whitefoxmoviereviews.com/2015/05/insurgent.html">Insurgent</a> (2)</li>
<li><a href="http://www.whitefoxmoviereviews.com/2015/09/bonus-review-chappie.html">Chappie </a>(1)</li>
<li><a href="http://www.whitefoxmoviereviews.com/2015/01/blackhat.html">Blackhat</a> (1)</li>
</ol>
<br />
<b><br /></b>Serious Movies<br />
<br />
<ol>
<li><a href="http://www.whitefoxmoviereviews.com/2015/01/american-sniper.html">American Sniper</a></li>
</ol>
</div>
Keanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07956213545173821534noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-320831990256547483.post-71786760911949352622015-12-22T17:19:00.002-08:002015-12-22T17:19:53.474-08:00The Force Awakens updateI've written a spoiler version of the review, but have not posted it on the front page, for obvious reasons. I have added a link to it at the bottom of the spoiler-free review, which should be immediately below this post.Keanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07956213545173821534noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-320831990256547483.post-84474674446188828652015-12-18T22:45:00.001-08:002019-12-20T08:27:01.414-08:00Star Wars: The Force AwakensThis will be a spoiler-free review, at least for Episode VII, and assuming you have at least seen the trailer.<br />
<br />
Context is important. I am a Star Wars fan. By that I mean I grew up with the original trilogy, pre-Special Edition. I was actually in the theater, at least briefly, for Jedi, though I don't remember it. I've watched the original trilogy dozens of times each. When Bantam Spectra started publishing Star Wars books, I read them, both the good (Zahn) and the bad (rather a lot of them). I have an encyclopedic knowledge of the original trilogy and of the now-noncanon Expanded Universe.<br />
<br />
Even when the books weren't great, though, they were (usually) still Star Wars - and Star Wars is heroic adventure. Much has been written about Lucas using Campbell's Hero's Journey as the basis for the original Star Wars, so I won't rehash. Suffice it to say that the essence of Star Wars is a primally relatable story. It fires the imagination.<br />
<br />
When the Special Editions were released, I was one of the people waiting long hours in line. The Special Editions were the start of my disillusionment with George Lucas. I was willing to explain away some of his decisions (adding lots of CGI critters for no reason, changing some music) and not others (replacing Jabba's band, Han's encounter with Greedo). Still, I am a Star Wars fan. When Episode 1 was announced, I was excited. I remember seeing the poster with Jake Lloyd standing in front of the dome on Tatooine, with his Vader-shaped shadow. And I remember sitting in that theater, during the podrace scene, and the journey through the planet's core, shifting uncomfortably in my seat as I realized that this movie had some very serious problems. Still, it was Star Wars, and it wasn't until quite a bit later that I fully appreciated how bad that movie is. When Episode II wasn't better, I was profoundly disappointed, but I saw Episode III anyway, because I'm a completionist. And then I shelved the Prequel Universe away into its own section, the lesser-Star-Wars section. I didn't bother to read any of the prequel-setting books. I didn't watch any of the Clone Wars-related movies or TV shows. And it was okay, because I had the original trilogy and the Expanded Universe.<br />
<br />
When it was announced that Lucas was making Episode VII, I was... not disappointed exactly, but hardly optimistic. Lucas had conclusively shown that he doesn't understand the essence of what he created. Also, I always thought of the Thrawn Trilogy as the equivalent to episodes VII-IX - as indeed I suspect did Zahn when he wrote them. But it was clear from the beginning that Lucas was never going to use that plotline for the cinema. He couldn't, really - that time came and went long ago for the actors.<br />
<br />
When Lucas sold Star Wars to Disney, I allowed myself to hope for a movie that did not suck. This is not a very high bar, but it's also not one that any of the prequels cleared. When JJ Abrams was attached as director, I was cautiously optimistic. I have a number of issues with Abrams and his handling of Lost and Star Trek, but it's clear that he's a competent film-maker. And then I spent time managing expectations. I avoided as many details about the film as possible. I refused to get my hopes up.<br />
<br />
And then I decided to re-watch the existing movies, in Machete order. Briefly, this is IV-V-II-III-VI. Nothing happens in Episode I that is important for the plot of the series (or at all, really), so it can be skipped. In this order, the story of Luke unfolds until the big reveal that Vader is his father, and then there is a two-movie flashback of how Anakin became Vader, and then back to the future for the showdown. This was the first time I had seen Episodes II and III since the theater. They have not improved. What I really learned though, re-watching them in this manner, though, is that the original trilogy really isn't that good either. I've known that, on some level, for a long time, but it was more obvious when viewing them in company with the prequels. They remain far superior, of course, but they are hardly exemplars of virtuoso writing or acting. They had spirit, though, and heartfelt drama and action mixed with humor (not of the scatological variety, as in Episode I). They also had groundbreaking special effects, and hold an important place in the history of cinema, but that's not terribly relevant to the discussion at hand.<br />
<br />
Incidentally, I did later re-watch Episode I in an edited version which cuts out large amounts of the things that made the movie bad, and it was actually watchable. Sadly, the movie is fundamentally unfixable. But that, too, is not relevant right now.<br />
<br />
So then, when all of that background as to my qualifications and opinions about Star Wars, I have this to say about Episode VII - I'm pretty sure that movie did not suck. I'm going to watch it again. This is not a perfect movie, but it is a movie which respects its past - in many cases, it is literally littered with its past - while moving into the future with new and interesting characters. It has heroes, and heroics, of a variety of types. It doesn't have as iconic a villain as Episode IV, but that's a high bar indeed. It has action, and some truly breathtaking special effects and cinematography, without ever letting that take over the film (I'm looking at you, pod-race). It even has a few surprisingly emotional bits.<br />
<br />
This is not the original trilogy - nothing ever will be like those, for good or for bad. It is also not the prequel trilogy, for which I am indescribably grateful. This is something new. This is a modern Star Wars, and it does not suck. So far. I reserve the right to be pessimistic about all forthcoming Star Wars films. Certainly not all of the new Star Wars content is good - I read the first book in the new-canon, and it was really badly written.<br />
<br />
As a side note, I'd like to thank whoever was responsible for cutting the trailer for this movie, for doing a brilliant job of misdirection. I hate when trailers reveal the entire plot of the movie, and this trailer emphatically did not.<br />
<br />
Edited 12/22/15 to add the <a href="http://www.whitefoxmoviereviews.com/p/the-force-awakens-spoiler-edition.html">link</a> to the spoiler-filled review.<br />
<br />
<br />
Performance: 4/5<br />
Plot: 4/5<br />
Production: 5/5<br />
Overall: 4.5/5<br />
Bechdel: Pass (B)<br />
Mako Mori: Pass<br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><a href="http://www.whitefoxmoviereviews.com/p/blog-page_25.html">What are these?</a></span><br />
<div>
<br />
Fun Movies<br />
<br />
<ol>
<li><b>Star Wars: The Force Awakens (4.5)</b></li>
<li><a href="http://www.whitefoxmoviereviews.com/2015/05/avengers-age-of-ultron.html">Avengers: Age of Ultron</a> (4.5)</li>
<li><a href="http://www.whitefoxmoviereviews.com/2015/05/mad-max-fury-road.html">Mad Max: Fury Road</a> (4.5)</li>
<li><a href="http://www.whitefoxmoviereviews.com/2015/11/the-martian.html">The Martian</a> (4)</li>
<li><a href="http://www.whitefoxmoviereviews.com/2015/11/the-hunger-games-mockingjay-part-2.html">The Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part 2</a> (4)</li>
<li><a href="http://www.whitefoxmoviereviews.com/2015/09/pitch-perfect-2.html">Pitch Perfect 2</a> (4)</li>
<li><a href="http://www.whitefoxmoviereviews.com/2015/09/ant-man.html">Ant-Man</a> (4)</li>
<li><a href="http://www.whitefoxmoviereviews.com/2015/09/the-man-from-uncle.html">The Man from U.N.C.L.E.</a> (4)</li>
<li><a href="http://www.whitefoxmoviereviews.com/2015/11/spectre.html">Spectre</a> (3.5)</li>
<li><a href="http://www.whitefoxmoviereviews.com/2015/09/mission-impossible-rogue-nation.html">Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation</a> (3.5)</li>
<li><a href="http://www.whitefoxmoviereviews.com/2015/02/jupiter-ascending.html">Jupiter Ascending</a> (3.5)</li>
<li><a href="http://www.whitefoxmoviereviews.com/2015/09/maze-runner-scorch-trials.html">Maze Runner: The Scorch Trials</a> (3)</li>
<li><a href="http://www.whitefoxmoviereviews.com/2015/09/jurassic-world.html">Jurassic World</a> (3)</li>
<li><a href="http://www.whitefoxmoviereviews.com/2015/09/tomorrowland.html">Tomorrowland</a> (2.5)</li>
<li><a href="http://www.whitefoxmoviereviews.com/2015/02/kingsman-secret-service.html">Kingsman: The Secret Service</a> (2)</li>
<li><a href="http://www.whitefoxmoviereviews.com/2015/05/insurgent.html">Insurgent</a> (2)</li>
<li><a href="http://www.whitefoxmoviereviews.com/2015/09/bonus-review-chappie.html">Chappie </a>(1)</li>
<li><a href="http://www.whitefoxmoviereviews.com/2015/01/blackhat.html">Blackhat</a> (1)</li>
</ol>
<br />
<b><br /></b>Serious Movies<br />
<br />
<ol>
<li><a href="http://www.whitefoxmoviereviews.com/2015/01/american-sniper.html">American Sniper</a></li>
</ol>
</div>
Keanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07956213545173821534noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-320831990256547483.post-15749939635534031532015-11-19T15:05:00.002-08:002015-11-19T15:05:21.983-08:00The Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part 2Refer to <a href="http://www.whitefoxmoviereviews.com/2014/12/the-hunger-games-mockingjay-part-1.html">this</a> for my review of the first part.<br />
<br />
Mockingjay Part 2 is the conclusion of the series which started with Hunger Games. If you haven't seen the previous films, you'll be completely lost, as it picks up right after the conclusion of Part 1 and makes no effort to reintroduce anything.<br />
<br />
I'm a fan of the Hunger Games books and movies - while the first movie earned relatively low placement from me, Catching Fire ranked #2 of 40 in 2013, and Mockingjay Part 1 ranked #3 of 40 in 2014. Mockingjay Part 2 is the movie it needs to be in order to conclude the story by following the books, and it has moments where it is powerful. Unfortunately, it is hindered by weak source material.<br />
<br />
Yeah, that's what I said. I was working at Barnes & Noble when the Mockingay book came out, and I well remember the hype and then the strongly divided reactions when people read it. I liked it at the time, and when I re-read it, but many people hated it, and it took me until this movie to really understand why. The first two books have essentially the same structure, and the third does not - that's obvious, and what I pointed to as the cause of dissatisfaction. But watching the condensed film version, it's obvious that the problems run much deeper than that.<br />
<br />
Without getting into spoilers, a large portion of the book is devoted to setting up an action that doesn't happen. I understand what Collins was trying to accomplish, and there's an extent to which it works despite the problems, but there is a harsh anticlimax before the story progresses again, and a sense in which the only purpose of the preceding action was to inflict loss on the reader/watcher.<br />
<br />
This isn't to say that this is a bad movie, or that you shouldn't see it. If you've come this far with the series, definitely see it through. There is a great deal of fine acting, and the moral messaging of the films is more topical than ever. Catching Fire and Mockingjay Part 1 are the best in the series, though.<br />
<br />
As a side note, this movie has a wide range of diverse, deep, and powerful characters who happen to be female. Really happy about that.<br />
<br />
Performance: 4.5/5<br />
Plot: 2.5/5<br />
Production: 4.5/5<br />
Overall: 4/5<br />
Bechdel: Pass (A)<br />
Mako Mori: Pass<br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><a href="http://www.whitefoxmoviereviews.com/p/blog-page_25.html">What are these?</a></span><br />
<div>
<br />
Fun Movies<br />
<br />
<ol>
<li><a href="http://www.whitefoxmoviereviews.com/2015/05/avengers-age-of-ultron.html">Avengers: Age of Ultron</a> (4.5)</li>
<li><a href="http://www.whitefoxmoviereviews.com/2015/05/mad-max-fury-road.html">Mad Max: Fury Road</a> (4.5)</li>
<li><a href="http://www.whitefoxmoviereviews.com/2015/11/the-martian.html">The Martian</a> (4)</li>
<li><b>The Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part 2 (4)</b></li>
<li><a href="http://www.whitefoxmoviereviews.com/2015/09/pitch-perfect-2.html">Pitch Perfect 2</a> (4)</li>
<li><a href="http://www.whitefoxmoviereviews.com/2015/09/ant-man.html">Ant-Man</a> (4)</li>
<li><a href="http://www.whitefoxmoviereviews.com/2015/09/the-man-from-uncle.html">The Man from U.N.C.L.E.</a> (4)</li>
<li><a href="http://www.whitefoxmoviereviews.com/2015/11/spectre.html">Spectre</a> (3.5)</li>
<li><a href="http://www.whitefoxmoviereviews.com/2015/09/mission-impossible-rogue-nation.html">Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation</a> (3.5)</li>
<li><a href="http://www.whitefoxmoviereviews.com/2015/02/jupiter-ascending.html">Jupiter Ascending</a> (3.5)</li>
<li><a href="http://www.whitefoxmoviereviews.com/2015/09/maze-runner-scorch-trials.html">Maze Runner: The Scorch Trials</a> (3)</li>
<li><a href="http://www.whitefoxmoviereviews.com/2015/09/jurassic-world.html">Jurassic World</a> (3)</li>
<li><a href="http://www.whitefoxmoviereviews.com/2015/09/tomorrowland.html">Tomorrowland</a> (2.5)</li>
<li><a href="http://www.whitefoxmoviereviews.com/2015/02/kingsman-secret-service.html">Kingsman: The Secret Service</a> (2)</li>
<li><a href="http://www.whitefoxmoviereviews.com/2015/05/insurgent.html">Insurgent</a> (2)</li>
<li><a href="http://www.whitefoxmoviereviews.com/2015/09/bonus-review-chappie.html">Chappie </a>(1)</li>
<li><a href="http://www.whitefoxmoviereviews.com/2015/01/blackhat.html">Blackhat</a> (1)</li>
</ol>
<br />
<b><br /></b>Serious Movies<br />
<br />
<ol>
<li><a href="http://www.whitefoxmoviereviews.com/2015/01/american-sniper.html">American Sniper</a></li>
</ol>
</div>
Keanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07956213545173821534noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-320831990256547483.post-39370801292697597942015-11-05T23:08:00.001-08:002015-11-05T23:08:10.628-08:00SpectreI saw Spectre.<br />
<br />
Those following my movie reviews may remember that I gave <a href="http://www.whitefoxmoviereviews.com/2013/04/skyfall.html">Skyfall</a> a fairly negative review. It ranked 14th of the 28 movies I saw in 2012. I had plenty of time while watching Spectre to ponder why I was less enthusiastic about the later films in the Daniel Craig era. I very much liked Casino Royale, though I wasn't yet writing reviews when it came out. Skyfall and Spectre, though, are not the same kind of film as Casino Royale was; the latter was an action film, and I suspect that much of my issue with Skyfall was that I was expecting an action film, and that's not what it was. Sure, it had action in it - glorious, overly engineered set pieces as one expects from Bond films - but in between it had long, dreary, moody not-action. The ratio of not-action to action was very high.<br />
<br />
Spectre is the same way. While I think it's a better film in most ways than Skyfall, it's still not what I want out of a Bond film. It's not an action film, it's not a thriller. It's an art movie. No, really. It's an art movie which occasionally breaks out into action. The entire opening location shoot, right up until the action starts, is a single shot. It's a glorious piece of cinematography, but completely unnecessary. The pacing is glacially slow. The movie is two and a half hours long, but it feels like at least three. Spectre is beautiful, expansive, lush - and also, bloated, slow, and honestly not that well written.<br />
<br />
There is a good plot in there somewhere, and I applaud the topical subject matter. However, even with all the glacial slowness, the plot advances in fitful jerks, and not all of the pieces actually fit together very well, especially when it comes to characters and their motivations. The dialogue, while witty in some places, is dreadfully bad in others. The acting, too, is uneven. In some places the actors give compelling performances, and in others they walk through their parts with no emotion.<br />
<br />
Is this a good film? Maybe. It is not a good action film at all - it's much too slow. Is it a good art film? Quite possibly, though I'm only an amateur student of film, so what do I know? Is it a good Bond film? I'm not even sure what a Bond film is any more. It seems to hit many of the character and plot points which I associate with Bond, at least. I'm enough of a Bond fan to know that there are quite a number of references to classic Bond films in this one, but not enough of a Bond fan to actually get them fully.<br />
<br />
I understand that this may be Daniel Craig's last performance as Bond. I'm okay with that.<br />
<br />
Still, I enjoyed the film.<br />
<br />
Performance: 3/5<br />
Plot: 3/5<br />
Production: 4.5/5<br />
Overall: 3.5/5<br />
Bechdel: Fail (D)<br />
Mako Mori: Fail<br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><a href="http://www.whitefoxmoviereviews.com/p/blog-page_25.html">What are these?</a></span><br />
<div>
<br />
Fun Movies<br />
<br />
<ol>
<li><a href="http://www.whitefoxmoviereviews.com/2015/05/avengers-age-of-ultron.html">Avengers: Age of Ultron</a> (4.5)</li>
<li><a href="http://www.whitefoxmoviereviews.com/2015/05/mad-max-fury-road.html">Mad Max: Fury Road</a> (4.5)</li>
<li><a href="http://www.whitefoxmoviereviews.com/2015/11/the-martian.html">The Martian</a> (4)</li>
<li><a href="http://www.whitefoxmoviereviews.com/2015/09/pitch-perfect-2.html">Pitch Perfect 2</a> (4)</li>
<li><a href="http://www.whitefoxmoviereviews.com/2015/09/ant-man.html">Ant-Man</a> (4)</li>
<li><a href="http://www.whitefoxmoviereviews.com/2015/09/the-man-from-uncle.html">The Man from U.N.C.L.E.</a> (4)</li>
<li><b>Spectre (3.5)</b></li>
<li><a href="http://www.whitefoxmoviereviews.com/2015/09/mission-impossible-rogue-nation.html">Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation</a> (3.5)</li>
<li><a href="http://www.whitefoxmoviereviews.com/2015/02/jupiter-ascending.html">Jupiter Ascending</a> (3.5)</li>
<li><a href="http://www.whitefoxmoviereviews.com/2015/09/maze-runner-scorch-trials.html">Maze Runner: The Scorch Trials</a> (3)</li>
<li><a href="http://www.whitefoxmoviereviews.com/2015/09/jurassic-world.html">Jurassic World</a> (3)</li>
<li><a href="http://www.whitefoxmoviereviews.com/2015/09/tomorrowland.html">Tomorrowland</a> (2.5)</li>
<li><a href="http://www.whitefoxmoviereviews.com/2015/02/kingsman-secret-service.html">Kingsman: The Secret Service</a> (2)</li>
<li><a href="http://www.whitefoxmoviereviews.com/2015/05/insurgent.html">Insurgent</a> (2)</li>
<li><a href="http://www.whitefoxmoviereviews.com/2015/09/bonus-review-chappie.html">Chappie </a>(1)</li>
<li><a href="http://www.whitefoxmoviereviews.com/2015/01/blackhat.html">Blackhat</a> (1)</li>
</ol>
<br />
<b><br /></b>Serious Movies<br />
<br />
<ol>
<li><a href="http://www.whitefoxmoviereviews.com/2015/01/american-sniper.html">American Sniper</a></li>
</ol>
</div>
Keanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07956213545173821534noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-320831990256547483.post-10454726452309707022015-11-05T23:01:00.001-08:002015-11-05T23:01:16.848-08:00The MartianI'm a fan of Andy Weir's book on which this movie was based. It has style, wit, action, suspense, and is just generally good.<br />
<br />
Ridley Scott's The Martian is a fairly faithful adaption of the book. It leaves out a lot of things, of course, but it hits the right notes, and covers enough ground to do justice to the source material. And, of course, it's pretty - the chief advantage of a cinematic version of a story is the visual immersion, which Scott took full advantage of. Matt Damon does a fine job of acting in the titular role, and that's about all I have to say about this film.<br />
<br />
If you like sci-fi films, you should probably see it. If you like sci-fi books, you should definitely read the book.<br />
<br />
Performance: 4/5<br />
Plot: 4/5<br />
Production: 4/5<br />
Overall: 4/5<br />
Bechdel: Pass (B)<br />
Mako Mori: Fail<br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><a href="http://www.whitefoxmoviereviews.com/p/blog-page_25.html">What are these?</a></span><br />
<div>
<br />
Fun Movies<br />
<br />
<ol>
<li><a href="http://www.whitefoxmoviereviews.com/2015/05/avengers-age-of-ultron.html">Avengers: Age of Ultron</a> (4.5)</li>
<li><a href="http://www.whitefoxmoviereviews.com/2015/05/mad-max-fury-road.html">Mad Max: Fury Road</a> (4.5)</li>
<li><b>The Martian (4)</b></li>
<li><a href="http://www.whitefoxmoviereviews.com/2015/09/pitch-perfect-2.html">Pitch Perfect 2</a> (4)</li>
<li><a href="http://www.whitefoxmoviereviews.com/2015/09/ant-man.html">Ant-Man</a> (4)</li>
<li><a href="http://www.whitefoxmoviereviews.com/2015/09/the-man-from-uncle.html">The Man from U.N.C.L.E.</a> (4)</li>
<li><a href="http://www.whitefoxmoviereviews.com/2015/09/mission-impossible-rogue-nation.html">Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation</a> (3.5)</li>
<li><a href="http://www.whitefoxmoviereviews.com/2015/02/jupiter-ascending.html">Jupiter Ascending</a> (3.5)</li>
<li><a href="http://www.whitefoxmoviereviews.com/2015/09/maze-runner-scorch-trials.html">Maze Runner: The Scorch Trials</a> (3)</li>
<li><a href="http://www.whitefoxmoviereviews.com/2015/09/jurassic-world.html">Jurassic World</a> (3)</li>
<li><a href="http://www.whitefoxmoviereviews.com/2015/09/tomorrowland.html">Tomorrowland</a> (2.5)</li>
<li><a href="http://www.whitefoxmoviereviews.com/2015/02/kingsman-secret-service.html">Kingsman: The Secret Service</a> (2)</li>
<li><a href="http://www.whitefoxmoviereviews.com/2015/05/insurgent.html">Insurgent</a> (2)</li>
<li><a href="http://www.whitefoxmoviereviews.com/2015/09/bonus-review-chappie.html">Chappie </a>(1)</li>
<li><a href="http://www.whitefoxmoviereviews.com/2015/01/blackhat.html">Blackhat</a> (1)</li>
</ol>
<br />
<b><br /></b>Serious Movies<br />
<br />
<ol>
<li><a href="http://www.whitefoxmoviereviews.com/2015/01/american-sniper.html">American Sniper</a></li>
</ol>
</div>
Keanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07956213545173821534noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-320831990256547483.post-60198954586864635182015-09-17T23:06:00.004-07:002015-09-17T23:07:06.390-07:00Maze Runner: The Scorch TrialsThe Scorch Trials is the sequel to last year's <a href="http://www.whitefoxmoviereviews.com/2014/12/the-maze-runner.html">The Maze Runner</a>, based on a series of YA dystopian sci-fi books. I praised that movie for having a different feel than the rest of the teen-dystopian-fantasy/sci-fi genre. The sequel keeps the thriller aspect to some extent, but morphs into a zombie/chase film. This is not quite what I was expecting, but it works.<br />
<br />
This is not as tight a film as the first. There are still secrets to be revealed in the forthcoming third movie, but even at the start of this one there is much less of a mystery than in the first. The twists of The Scorch trials are more predictable. Still, this is a frequently tense movie with plenty of action.<br />
<br />
Aside from some aspects of the premise and setting that don't hold up to close examination, my major complaint about this film is its use of shakycam. In a couple scenes, this worked very well - even I will admit that shakycam can enhance the tension and chaos in certain kinds of fight scenes - but in other scenes it was excessive or gratuitous. If the camera is moving along with running characters, it's okay for it to shake (to an extent). If the camera is stationary and panning across the path of running characters, it is not okay for it to shake. It's just not.<br />
<br />
If you haven't seen The Maze Runner, give that a try first - this one depends heavily on the audience knowing what happened there. If you like the first one, then you'll probably like the second - it's not as good, but it has its moments.<br />
<br />
Performance: 3.5/5<br />
Plot: 3/5<br />
Production: 3/5<br />
Overall: 3/5<br />
Bechdel: Pass (B)<br />
Mako Mori: Pass<br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><a href="http://www.whitefoxmoviereviews.com/p/blog-page_25.html">What are these?</a></span><br />
<div>
<br />
Fun Movies<br />
<br />
<ol>
<li><a href="http://www.whitefoxmoviereviews.com/2015/05/avengers-age-of-ultron.html">Avengers: Age of Ultron</a> (4.5)</li>
<li><a href="http://www.whitefoxmoviereviews.com/2015/05/mad-max-fury-road.html">Mad Max: Fury Road</a> (4.5)</li>
<li><a href="http://www.whitefoxmoviereviews.com/2015/09/pitch-perfect-2.html">Pitch Perfect 2</a> (4)</li>
<li><a href="http://www.whitefoxmoviereviews.com/2015/09/ant-man.html">Ant-Man</a> (4)</li>
<li><a href="http://www.whitefoxmoviereviews.com/2015/09/the-man-from-uncle.html">The Man from U.N.C.L.E.</a> (4)</li>
<li><a href="http://www.whitefoxmoviereviews.com/2015/09/mission-impossible-rogue-nation.html">Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation</a> (3.5)</li>
<li><a href="http://www.whitefoxmoviereviews.com/2015/02/jupiter-ascending.html">Jupiter Ascending</a> (3.5)</li>
<li><b>Maze Runner: The Scorch Trials (3)</b></li>
<li><a href="http://www.whitefoxmoviereviews.com/2015/09/jurassic-world.html">Jurassic World</a> (3)</li>
<li><a href="http://www.whitefoxmoviereviews.com/2015/09/tomorrowland.html">Tomorrowland</a> (2.5)</li>
<li><a href="http://www.whitefoxmoviereviews.com/2015/02/kingsman-secret-service.html">Kingsman: The Secret Service</a> (2)</li>
<li><a href="http://www.whitefoxmoviereviews.com/2015/05/insurgent.html">Insurgent</a> (2)</li>
<li><a href="http://www.whitefoxmoviereviews.com/2015/09/bonus-review-chappie.html">Chappie </a>(1)</li>
<li><a href="http://www.whitefoxmoviereviews.com/2015/01/blackhat.html">Blackhat</a> (1)</li>
</ol>
<br />
<b><br /></b>Serious Movies<br />
<br />
<ol>
<li><a href="http://www.whitefoxmoviereviews.com/2015/01/american-sniper.html">American Sniper</a></li>
</ol>
</div>
Keanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07956213545173821534noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-320831990256547483.post-82986519952744353542015-09-17T16:59:00.001-07:002015-12-26T15:52:08.043-08:00Bonus review: ChappieI skipped Chappie in the theater because I heard it was bad. Then I was stuck on a transatlantic airplane flight, and thought why not? Ugh. I made it all the way through, but mainly because I could distract myself with word games on a tablet.<br />
<br />
This is a movie without much in the way of redeeming features. I already wasn't a fan of Neill Blomkamp (District 9 and <a href="http://www.whitefoxmoviereviews.com/2013/08/elysium.html">Elysium</a>), and this is no improvement. Casting Yolandi Visser and Ninja of Die Antwoord was a mistake - the two of them are fascinatingly weird but not actually good actors. The story is uninspired, and both it and the dialogue are occasionally cringe-worthy.<br />
<br />
The best thing I can say about this movie is that the effects are pretty decent. On the other hand, I didn't pay to see it and I still think the price was too high.<br />
<br />
...and it's still a better movie than Blackhat.<br />
<br />
<br />
Performance: 1/5<br />
Plot: 1/5<br />
Production: 2.5/5<br />
Overall: 1/5<br />
Bechdel: Fail (D)<br />
Mako Mori: Fail<br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><a href="http://www.whitefoxmoviereviews.com/p/blog-page_25.html">What are these?</a></span><br />
<div>
<br />
Fun Movies<br />
<br />
<ol>
<li><a href="http://www.whitefoxmoviereviews.com/2015/05/avengers-age-of-ultron.html">Avengers: Age of Ultron</a> (4.5)</li>
<li><a href="http://www.whitefoxmoviereviews.com/2015/05/mad-max-fury-road.html">Mad Max: Fury Road</a> (4.5)</li>
<li><a href="http://www.whitefoxmoviereviews.com/2015/09/pitch-perfect-2.html">Pitch Perfect 2</a> (4)</li>
<li><a href="http://www.whitefoxmoviereviews.com/2015/09/ant-man.html">Ant-Man</a> (4)</li>
<li><a href="http://www.whitefoxmoviereviews.com/2015/09/the-man-from-uncle.html">The Man from U.N.C.L.E.</a> (4)</li>
<li><a href="http://www.whitefoxmoviereviews.com/2015/09/mission-impossible-rogue-nation.html">Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation</a> (3.5)</li>
<li><a href="http://www.whitefoxmoviereviews.com/2015/02/jupiter-ascending.html">Jupiter Ascending</a> (3.5)</li>
<li><a href="http://www.whitefoxmoviereviews.com/2015/09/jurassic-world.html">Jurassic World</a> (3)</li>
<li><a href="http://www.whitefoxmoviereviews.com/2015/09/tomorrowland.html">Tomorrowland</a> (2.5)</li>
<li><a href="http://www.whitefoxmoviereviews.com/2015/02/kingsman-secret-service.html">Kingsman: The Secret Service</a> (2)</li>
<li><a href="http://www.whitefoxmoviereviews.com/2015/05/insurgent.html">Insurgent</a> (2)</li>
<li><b>Chappie (1)</b></li>
<li><a href="http://www.whitefoxmoviereviews.com/2015/01/blackhat.html">Blackhat</a> (1)</li>
</ol>
<br />
<b><br /></b>Serious Movies<br />
<br />
<ol>
<li><a href="http://www.whitefoxmoviereviews.com/2015/01/american-sniper.html">American Sniper</a></li>
</ol>
</div>
Keanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07956213545173821534noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-320831990256547483.post-4869517400218175542015-09-17T16:45:00.004-07:002015-09-17T16:45:54.577-07:00The Man from U.N.C.L.E.The Man from U.N.C.L.E. is a spy action/comedy from Guy Ritchie (Snatch, Downey's Sherlock Holmes) and based on a 60s TV show (with which I am unfamiliar). More than anything, this is a stylish, slick film. It uses Ritchie's usual cinematic flair with an extra period feel to excellent effect.<br />
<br />
Henry Cavill and Armie Hammer are superb as dueling gentleman spies. The female lead, Alicia Vikander, actually has a decent part and does it well. The villain is also played by a woman, Elizabeth Debicki. The plot is suitably twisty for a spy piece.<br />
<br />
It occurs to me that this is the third spy film I've seen this year. All of them have had style, two in a British way and the other in a big-budget American action way. This, for me, is the best of the three for its occasional British understatedness, its fine acting performances, its spot-on and refreshing period feel, and its wonderful production values.<br />
<br />
This is a satisfying and fun film. I enjoyed it.<br />
<br />
Performance: 4/5<br />
Plot: 4/5<br />
Production: 4.5/5<br />
Overall: 4/5<br />
Bechdel: Pass (B)<br />
Mako Mori: Pass<br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><a href="http://www.whitefoxmoviereviews.com/p/blog-page_25.html">What are these?</a></span><br />
<div>
<br />
Fun Movies<br />
<br />
<ol>
<li><a href="http://www.whitefoxmoviereviews.com/2015/05/avengers-age-of-ultron.html">Avengers: Age of Ultron</a> (4.5)</li>
<li><a href="http://www.whitefoxmoviereviews.com/2015/05/mad-max-fury-road.html">Mad Max: Fury Road</a> (4.5)</li>
<li><a href="http://www.whitefoxmoviereviews.com/2015/09/pitch-perfect-2.html">Pitch Perfect 2</a> (4)</li>
<li><a href="http://www.whitefoxmoviereviews.com/2015/09/ant-man.html">Ant-Man</a> (4)</li>
<li><b>The Man from U.N.C.L.E. (4)</b></li>
<li><a href="http://www.whitefoxmoviereviews.com/2015/09/mission-impossible-rogue-nation.html">Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation</a> (3.5)</li>
<li><a href="http://www.whitefoxmoviereviews.com/2015/02/jupiter-ascending.html">Jupiter Ascending</a> (3.5)</li>
<li><a href="http://www.whitefoxmoviereviews.com/2015/09/jurassic-world.html">Jurassic World</a> (3)</li>
<li><a href="http://www.whitefoxmoviereviews.com/2015/09/tomorrowland.html">Tomorrowland</a> (2.5)</li>
<li><a href="http://www.whitefoxmoviereviews.com/2015/02/kingsman-secret-service.html">Kingsman: The Secret Service</a> (2)</li>
<li><a href="http://www.whitefoxmoviereviews.com/2015/05/insurgent.html">Insurgent</a> (2)</li>
<li><a href="http://www.whitefoxmoviereviews.com/2015/01/blackhat.html">Blackhat</a> (1)</li>
</ol>
<br />
<b><br /></b>Serious Movies<br />
<br />
<ol>
<li><a href="http://www.whitefoxmoviereviews.com/2015/01/american-sniper.html">American Sniper</a></li>
</ol>
</div>
Keanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07956213545173821534noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-320831990256547483.post-59385086298772414692015-09-17T16:29:00.000-07:002015-09-17T16:29:06.379-07:00Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation<br />
Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation is the fifth Mission Impossible film. This time around, writing and direction are by Christopher McQuarrie, who co-wrote The Usual Suspects and Edge of Tomorrow (and also Jack the Giant Slayer, though that's not to his credit). Accordingly, this film has a complex, twisted plot which mostly holds up to scrutiny.<br />
<br />
Tom Cruise does his usual good job of playing a slightly crazy action star. Jeremy Renner and Simon Pegg reprise their roles from 2011's Ghost Protocol, and are solid to good. The newcomer is Rebecca Ferguson, who was the token female in the better of last year's Hercules movies. She does very well as Ilsa Faust.<br />
<br />
The movie is slick, over-the-top, and fun, but lacks any real substance.<br />
<br />
<br />
Performance: 3.5/5<br />
Plot: 4/5<br />
Production: 4/5<br />
Overall: 3.5/5<br />
Bechdel: Fail (F)<br />
Mako Mori: Pass<br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><a href="http://www.whitefoxmoviereviews.com/p/blog-page_25.html">What are these?</a></span><br />
<div>
<br />
Fun Movies<br />
<br />
<ol>
<li><a href="http://www.whitefoxmoviereviews.com/2015/05/avengers-age-of-ultron.html">Avengers: Age of Ultron</a> (4.5)</li>
<li><a href="http://www.whitefoxmoviereviews.com/2015/05/mad-max-fury-road.html">Mad Max: Fury Road</a> (4.5)</li>
<li><a href="http://www.whitefoxmoviereviews.com/2015/09/pitch-perfect-2.html">Pitch Perfect 2</a> (4)</li>
<li><a href="http://www.whitefoxmoviereviews.com/2015/09/ant-man.html">Ant-Man</a> (4)</li>
<li><b>Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation (3.5)</b></li>
<li><a href="http://www.whitefoxmoviereviews.com/2015/02/jupiter-ascending.html">Jupiter Ascending</a> (3.5)</li>
<li><a href="http://www.whitefoxmoviereviews.com/2015/09/jurassic-world.html">Jurassic World</a> (3)</li>
<li><a href="http://www.whitefoxmoviereviews.com/2015/09/tomorrowland.html">Tomorrowland</a> (2.5)</li>
<li><a href="http://www.whitefoxmoviereviews.com/2015/02/kingsman-secret-service.html">Kingsman: The Secret Service</a> (2)</li>
<li><a href="http://www.whitefoxmoviereviews.com/2015/05/insurgent.html">Insurgent</a> (2)</li>
<li><a href="http://www.whitefoxmoviereviews.com/2015/01/blackhat.html">Blackhat</a> (1)</li>
</ol>
<br />
<b><br /></b>Serious Movies<br />
<br />
<ol>
<li><a href="http://www.whitefoxmoviereviews.com/2015/01/american-sniper.html">American Sniper</a></li>
</ol>
</div>
Keanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07956213545173821534noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-320831990256547483.post-47262699094239184072015-09-17T13:37:00.001-07:002015-09-17T13:37:29.950-07:00Ant-ManI saw this movie two months ago, which is to say this isn't going to be a super high-quality in-depth review. I write these reviews for fun, and I haven't been feeling the fun for the last few months.<br />
<br />
-----<br />
<br />
Ant-Man is a Marvel Studios movie, and Marvel hasn't made a bad movie in the MCU era. Some have been better than others, but no outright duds. Ant-Man is a bit of a complicated property - the character has a long history in the comics but has never been popular outside the comic book community. Furthermore, he is best known for storylines where he abused his wife and was generally a terrible person.<br />
<br />
Marvel took a very smart approach to this spider's nest by making the main character of the Ant-Man movie a brand-new character, and relegating Hank Pym to a secondary role as an old, retired Ant-Man. The script was co-written by Edgar Wright (Shaun of the Dead, Hot Fuzz, The World's End, Scott Pilgrim), who was also slated to direct until fairly deep into pre-production. The man who replaced him, Peyton Reed (Bring it On) did a competent enough job, but it seems apparent that most of the good parts are Wright's, and the not-as-good parts are the reason he left the project. Wright's style and humor infuse much of the film, to its benefit.<br />
<br />
The basic plot is that Hank Pym's former protege and current CEO of Pym's company is a comic-book villain who wants to replicate the technology which allowed Pym to be the first Ant-Man, weaponize it, and sell it to the highest bidder. This is not a groundbreaking plot, but it serviceable. The new Ant-Man is a reluctant hero (Scott, played well by Paul Rudd) who is thoroughly unqualified to take the role. This is the weakest part of the plot - it's hard to accept him when Pym's daughter (Evangeline Lilly's Hope) is demonstrably more capable than him. The rest of the plot is about Pym's relationship with said daughter, and this is the part where the script was clearly doctored, and clumsily, to make that part of the plot come together, with imperfect results.<br />
<br />
Much of the humor comes from Scott's trio of criminal associates, especially Michael Peña's Luis.<br />
<br />
Ant-Man is an enjoyable movie with some annoying flaws. One of those was already touched on - the treatment of Pym's daughter Hope. Another is the underrepresentation of women in general. The only female characters worth noting other than Hope are Scott's ex and daughter, who have limited parts. I would have liked one or two of Scott's criminal sidekicks to be female.<br />
<br />
<br />
Performance: 3/5<br />
Plot: 3/5<br />
Production: 4/5<br />
Overall: 4/5<br />
Bechdel: Fail (C)<br />
Mako Mori: Pass<br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><a href="http://www.whitefoxmoviereviews.com/p/blog-page_25.html">What are these?</a></span><br />
<div>
<br />
Fun Movies<br />
<br />
<ol>
<li><a href="http://www.whitefoxmoviereviews.com/2015/05/avengers-age-of-ultron.html">Avengers: Age of Ultron</a> (4.5)</li>
<li><a href="http://www.whitefoxmoviereviews.com/2015/05/mad-max-fury-road.html">Mad Max: Fury Road</a> (4.5)</li>
<li><a href="http://www.whitefoxmoviereviews.com/2015/09/pitch-perfect-2.html">Pitch Perfect 2</a> (4)</li>
<li><b>Ant-Man (4)</b></li>
<li><a href="http://www.whitefoxmoviereviews.com/2015/02/jupiter-ascending.html">Jupiter Ascending</a> (3.5)</li>
<li><a href="http://www.whitefoxmoviereviews.com/2015/09/jurassic-world.html">Jurassic World</a> (3)</li>
<li><a href="http://www.whitefoxmoviereviews.com/2015/09/tomorrowland.html">Tomorrowland</a> (2.5)</li>
<li><a href="http://www.whitefoxmoviereviews.com/2015/02/kingsman-secret-service.html">Kingsman: The Secret Service</a> (2)</li>
<li><a href="http://www.whitefoxmoviereviews.com/2015/05/insurgent.html">Insurgent</a> (2)</li>
<li><a href="http://www.whitefoxmoviereviews.com/2015/01/blackhat.html">Blackhat</a> (1)</li>
</ol>
<br />
<b><br /></b>Serious Movies<br />
<br />
<ol>
<li><a href="http://www.whitefoxmoviereviews.com/2015/01/american-sniper.html">American Sniper</a></li>
</ol>
</div>
Keanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07956213545173821534noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-320831990256547483.post-69035741851008893582015-09-17T10:55:00.003-07:002015-09-17T13:36:13.375-07:00Jurassic WorldI saw this movie three months ago, which is to say this isn't going to be a super high-quality in-depth review. I write these reviews for fun, and I haven't been feeling the fun for the last few months.<br />
<br />
-----<br />
<br />
My comment when I saw this movie on the schedule for this year was "It <i>might</i> not suck." I am happy to report that it does not in fact suck. This is not a movie without problems, but it is definitely the best Jurassic movie since the original Jurassic Park. Wait, that's not a very high bar - instead, let me say that it's probably that only nostalgia makes me indecisive about which movie was better.<br />
<br />
Jurassic World ticks off all the boxes that a sequel to Jurassic Park should - it has enormous scale, lots of dinosaur-related action, and an obvious moral message about the hubris of mankind. It manages references to the original without being too heavy-handed about it. It has lots of little easter eggs which are fun if you notice them but not required to enjoy the film. The producers clearly understood that the velociraptors were the best part of the original movie, so they gave them a co-starring role.<br />
<br />
A large part of the reason the movie works as well as it does, though, is the human star, Chris Pratt. He was fabulous in Guardians of the Galaxy, and he's great here. You know a character resonates with the public when people are imitating one of his poses all over social media. He's charming, dashing, and heroic. The character is, unfortunately, also a throwback sexist.<br />
<br />
At this point, I have to admit that the movie's main character is supposed to be Bryce Dallas Howard's Claire. However, her character is appalling. She is strong-corporate-woman-with-no-time-for-family who becomes damsel-in-distress who becomes self-sufficient-woman-who-still-needs-a-man in a "character arc" about learning to care for family and life above work. It's 50s-era retrograde sexist nonsense, and ignoring it as much as possible is how I retain fond feelings for this movie.<br />
It does pass the Bechdel and Mako Mori tests, but the fact that it does so mostly exposes the flaws in those tests, not the quality of the movie.<br />
<br />
So, ignoring that, this is a fun action movie which will benefit from the largest screen you've got and a good sound system.<br />
<br />
Performance: 3.5/5<br />
Plot: 2/5<br />
Production: 4.5/5<br />
Overall: 3/5<br />
Bechdel: Pass (B)<br />
Mako Mori: Pass<br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><a href="http://www.whitefoxmoviereviews.com/p/blog-page_25.html">What are these?</a></span><br />
<div>
<br />
Fun Movies<br />
<br />
<ol>
<li><a href="http://www.whitefoxmoviereviews.com/2015/05/avengers-age-of-ultron.html">Avengers: Age of Ultron</a> (4.5)</li>
<li><a href="http://www.whitefoxmoviereviews.com/2015/05/mad-max-fury-road.html">Mad Max: Fury Road</a> (4.5)</li>
<li><a href="http://www.whitefoxmoviereviews.com/2015/09/pitch-perfect-2.html">Pitch Perfect 2</a> (4)</li>
<li><a href="http://www.whitefoxmoviereviews.com/2015/02/jupiter-ascending.html">Jupiter Ascending</a> (3.5)</li>
<li><b>Jurassic World (3)</b></li>
<li><a href="http://www.whitefoxmoviereviews.com/2015/09/tomorrowland.html">Tomorrowland</a> (2.5)</li>
<li><a href="http://www.whitefoxmoviereviews.com/2015/02/kingsman-secret-service.html">Kingsman: The Secret Service</a> (2)</li>
<li><a href="http://www.whitefoxmoviereviews.com/2015/05/insurgent.html">Insurgent</a> (2)</li>
<li><a href="http://www.whitefoxmoviereviews.com/2015/01/blackhat.html">Blackhat</a> (1)</li>
</ol>
<br />
<b><br /></b>Serious Movies<br />
<br />
<ol>
<li><a href="http://www.whitefoxmoviereviews.com/2015/01/american-sniper.html">American Sniper</a></li>
</ol>
</div>
Keanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07956213545173821534noreply@blogger.com0