Explore
 Lists  Reviews  Images  Update feed
Categories
MoviesTV ShowsMusicBooksGamesDVDs/Blu-RayPeopleArt & DesignPlacesWeb TV & PodcastsToys & CollectiblesComic Book SeriesBeautyAnimals   View more categories »
Listal logo
All reviews - Movies (204) - DVDs (1)

Pineapple Express

Posted : 13 years, 6 months ago on 6 September 2010 03:16 (A review of Pineapple Express (2008))

Dopey fun is at its best in this absolute riot of an action comedy. Despite awareness that this is a product of the Judd Apatow clan, it's difficult not to approach Pineapple Express skeptically because of the fact that it is a stoner comedy, and good films that fall into that category don't come along often. VERY good films that fall into that category are even rarer, which is all the more reason why Pineapple Express is such an awesome surprise. Thanks in large part to an uproariously hilarious James Franco, this is a terrific piece of humorous cinema.

In terms of quality of this type of movie, this year has seen a pretty wide range. Earlier in the year, we got Strange Wilderness (which, incidentally, featured a card-carrying member of the Apatow clan, who apparently decided to embarrass himself: Jonah Hill). Bad movie. It's probably not the nadir for stoner comedies (as I'm guessing there's a bunch of doozies out there that I haven't seen), but it still sucked big time, and thankfully, most people avoided the pain of watching it. Then we got the sequel Harold and Kumar Escape From Guantanamo Bay, which was a decent film, definitely living up to the standards set by its predecessor: a few botched jokes, but still funny enough and worth watching. But what we've gotten with Pineapple Express is near comedic perfection. Just like Franco's character in the film (Saul) is the only one in possession of the titular drug (described as "the dopest dope you've ever smoked"), one could easily say that only Evan Goldberg and Seth Rogen (both of whom also co-wrote last year's great Superbad) could have given us something as fantastic as this film. And no, you really don't need to be under the influence of ANYTHING to laugh your ass off. I mean, I had one alcoholic drink before I went to see it, but I don't believe it impacted my enjoyment of it, and I didn't even have the drink with the express purpose of it assisting my enjoyment of it either.

The opening scene of Pineapple Express features the always hilarious Bill Hader in a black-and-white sequence that, although it's meant to clue us into the origin of the titular drug, it's not REALLY a relevant scene as far as the plot elements of the film are concerned, but that doesn't matter, because it gives us a chance to enjoy Hader's comedic prowess, and though it's a short scene, it's a great hilarious introduction to this laugh-riot. As was the case in Forgetting Sarah Marshall (the Apatow-produced project that preceded this one), Hader's short screen time is still magnificently humorous.

Seth Rogen is a very good comedian, even if he's not a consistently great actor. But that's okay because it's pretty obvious that the former goal is what he's aiming for, anyway. The problem is that his slight lack of acting skill comes across as being a bit more problematic here than in other films he has starred in, and that is because of the plethora of moments in which his Dale gets agitated; he definitely overacts and chews the scenery more than is necessary, even in an outrageous romp like this. In fact, the only nitpick I had with Knocked Up (which I think is equal in quality to this, an 8/10 as well) is that both Rogen and co-star Katherine Heigl didn't exactly give great lead performances, or at least (to be fair), they weren't bad at all, but their acting was definitely trumped by the supporting work done by Leslie Mann and Paul Rudd, as the secondary couple in the film. I actually think that the best comedic work Rogen has done in a film was his supporting role last year in Superbad, as one of the two cops (great characters, by the way).

But not to worry... because in Pineapple Express, any lackings in Rogen's performance are MORE than made up for by his co-star's pitch-perfect work. I'm predicting right now that Franco's Saul will become one of the most unforgettable comedic characters ever. With his long hair and pajamas and his laid-back stoner attitude (which is spot-on), he's created a truly hilarious persona. Keep your ears open because there's a lot of times that Saul is saying things while people are talking over him, and if you don't listen, you might not get a chance to hear some of his best lines; a good example of this is when Dale is describing his job as a server of legal documents, and Saul makes uproariously simple-minded observations about Dale's description (especially funny is Saul's curiosity towards the word "subpoenas"). According to the trivia on IMDB, Rogen originally intended to play Saul, and then discovered Franco would be better for the role. Thank God. Saul could've been several things: he could've been severely annoying, a lame pantomime, or blandly funny, worthy only of small chuckles. But thanks to Franco, he's unquestionably the comedic highlight of this film.

Also great is Craig Robinson as Matheson, one of the two guys in charge of tracking down Dale and Saul. He had a small, yet very funny, role in Knocked Up as the club doorman. It's interesting how both Franco and Robinson had small parts in that film (Franco played himself, in yet another great scene). One suspects there's a reason why these two have now been given a chance to display their range even more. Had they been the two characters who dominated the screen time in Pineapple Express, it may have even been a perfect comedy. Not to say the film isn't close to perfection, though, because it sure as heck is.

Some have criticized the action sequences as taking away from the film's effectiveness, and some have even claimed that the final showdown is overlong. Couldn't disagree more. First of all, the action sequences find just the perfect balance between silly gags and suspenseful excitement. In these scenes, there'll be times that you'll go from being engrossed in the fight sequences and car chases to laughing your ass off. Usually in films, it's either one or the other (or if both are present, one works much better than the other). Also, those who accuse it of trying to copy Tarantino are completely off-base; it's pretty obvious that that's NOT what the filmmakers here are going for at all. Pineapple Express has its own individual approach to its delightfully engrossing mix of action and comedy, and it is a hugely successful approach. If there is a movie that was a blatant (and totally unsuccessful) attempt at copying Tarantino, it's last year's Smokin Aces (gag). Needless to say, Pineapple Express is waaaay superior to that unholy mess of a film. And to be honest, the final sequence isn't over-extended at all. In fact, it shows just what it needs to, and it is well-edited, effectively cutting from what is happening to one character to what is happening elsewhere to another, and never boring or repetitive.

In fact, I'll confess that the action component of the film was what I was most worried about prior to seeing it, since it is territory that I hadn't previously seen explored in an Apatow-produced effort. Yet the action sequences are actually pretty exciting, and often very funny. There are even moments that would normally be considered lame in other films, such as Saul getting hit repetitively in the balls, but they somehow manage to NOT make this seem like an overused gag (talk about a feat) - this also gives way for a hilarious moment later in the film when the two protagonists need money, and Dale asks "How about your sack?", hoping that perhaps some of Saul's weed can be sold, and the hilariously unwitting Saul thinks that Dale is referring to his, um, sac. Okay, I promise that'll be the last time I'll quote anything, since it's obviously far funnier to actually hear it while watching the film. Also, while there's quite an amount of gross-out, blood-soaked humor, it manages to never come across as crass, in my opinion, which is yet another amazing accomplishment.

To make things even better, there's a decent amount of unconventionality to be found here, which is only one of the many things that separate Pineapple Express from the average, often disposable stoner comedy. When Dale gets arrested for selling weed, the scene plays out rather realistically, and rather than having the policewoman who arrests him be a stubborn cop who could care less about anything he's got to say and is totally ready to just lock him up in the station, she actually listens to what he has to say about Carol (Rosie Perez), the corrupt cop whom he witnessed committing a murder, and the policewoman who arrested him actually believes him and plans on helping him bring her down. Speaking of Dale's arrest, it happens because of yet another unconventional thing that I imagine a lot of people won't appreciate at all: Dale and Saul sell weed to high school kids. And in this case, the actors are actual kids, not adults playing high school students (as is so often the case in movies), which is surely what will bother some people. Some are even saying that, because of this, the film encourages that kids smoke weed. Come on. Seriously? Just because something HAPPENS in a film, it doesn't mean that its filmmakers endorse that behavior for those watching. This may sound like simple-minded logic, but if that were true, then every film that features someone murdering or stealing or whatever is also encouraging that behavior, which is obviously not true. PLUS, as I just said, Dale actually gets ARRESTED for selling pot to the kids, so those of you ostensibly righteous folks who are accusing the film of such encouragement, haven't you considered the fact that it shows the negative consequences of doing that? In fact, as the dopey comedy that it is, the film didn't even need to show said consequences, but it does, anyway. Think about that before you condemn it. You may also want to consider the fact that it's just a movie.

Another unconventional element of Pineapple Express is that the romantic aspect either doesn't end happily or it isn't resolved, as the last we see of it is a phone conversation that seems to put an end to things... well, at least this is the case in terms of the romantic aspect that involves Dale and his girlfriend, Angie (Amber Heard). There's another, far more interesting and hilarious, romantic aspect to the film, and that is the homoerotic humor between Dale and Saul, which manages to NEVER be offensive and ALWAYS bust a gut, even in the uproarious scene in which they're struggling to loosen their binds and they sort of get into a few, um, interesting (and hilarious) positions. This is another of the loads of moments that could've felt like a stupid gag, but it doesn't. There was also a small instance of that in this year's earlier Get Smart but it is played to much better effect here, and it is still also much better than the excruciatingly painful hotel scene in Borat.

What a truly fantastic work of comedic genius this is. Although Pineapple Express is a slight notch below last year's Superbad, that doesn't take away in the least bit from this film's irrefutable success. They say that the film that jumpstarted this genre was 1978's Animal House, which I actually find really unamusing. Perhaps it was funny in 1978 due to the novelty of the whole concept, but I found very little humorous material in the film. On the other hand, Pineapple Express (the movie) is more than a trip, and I don't mean in the hallucinogenic sense, although I have to admit that the often-referenced awesomeness of the titular drug is a pretty apt descriptor of the film itself.


0 comments, Reply to this entry

Boy A

Posted : 13 years, 6 months ago on 6 September 2010 02:00 (A review of Boy A)

Emotionally-wrenching and perfectly executed, Boy A is the first truly great film to be released this year. Though it was released in the U.S. a few days ago, its first release was last year in the UK, and there's no surprise in the fact that it racked up four BAFTA awards, particularly in the case of lead actor Andrew Garfield, who gives a relentlessly flawless performance in this movie. It is mainly through his protagonist that we are exposed to this devastating story of the often painful and frustrating path one has to tread to achieve redemption, a goal that may render itself unachievable even once one has done everything possible to reach it. People aren't generally fond of giving second chances to others.

Garfield plays an adult who's been imprisoned since he was a child and is finally released, deciding to go by the name Jack. Imagine being let out into society after not being a part of it since your childhood. We don't often notice this, but as is made patently obvious in Boy A, the teens are crucial years in figuring out how you're going to carry yourself socially and how you're going to approach a plethora of things for the rest of your life. There are several nuances that highlight how unfamiliar Jack is with his surroundings, from something as basic as not knowing what a DVD is to his social awkwardness when engaging the opposite sex.

Jack is taken under the wing of Terry (Peter Mullan), who takes care of finding a place for him once he gets out and takes on the role of overseeing the way he integrates himself into society. They decided to have him use the fake name "Jack" because, as we learn, the crime he committed as a child was far more serious than mere joyriding (which is the answer he makes up when his co-workers ask him what he was in jail for). Therefore, he needs to keep a low profile, so that the large amount of people who resent the fact that he's been released don't find out where he lives and works, etc. It certainly doesn't help that the media not only proclaims that he's been released, but the newspaper even features an age-progressed picture to give the public an idea of what the child convict, now a free adult, probably looks like.

Such is the beginning of a brilliantly-edited cinematic offering, in which we observe Jack's attempts at leading a normal life, whilst getting gradual flashbacks of him as a child (played by Alfie Owen). The most masterful, fascinating thing about this film is how the flashbacks slowly reveal things, and they are synchronized so perfectly with what is happening in the present. No, we don't immediately SEE everything that happened. We do find out early on that Jack's real name is Eric Wilson and that he, along with another boy, Phillip Craig (Taylor Doherty, in a fantastic turn for a child actor), murdered a girl their same age, Angela Milton (Skye Bennett). But we don't find out the details immediately. The film waits until we are closing in on the climax and the tension in the present time is at an all-time high to show us what actually happened, in a truly devastating scene that will be hard for many to take. It would be disturbing enough if the people involved were two adult men and one adult woman, but the fact that it instead involves three children makes this a horrifying moment... and we don't even actually see everything that happens.

Before that revelation comes along, though, we are still exposed to fantastic filmmaking. Boy A establishes a great parallelism between Eric/Jack's desire to redeem himself and the similar efforts carried out by Terry, the man who is trying to help the recently-released prisoner integrate himself into society. That's right, unlike in 99% of movies, in Boy A a character like Terry isn't present as a mere plot device or as a character whom we only get to know as a piece of cardboard. Terry is fleshed out three-dimensionally. His son, Zeb (James Young) shows up on his doorstep, and we soon learn that Terry's role in helping people like Eric/Jack might be functioning as a sort of penance for the approach he's taken towards the people he should have never neglected: his family. As it turns out, his attempt to redeem himself is frustratingly unsuccessful when we note the crucial role that Zeb has in setting into motion the tragic events of the climax. Just as frustratingly unsuccessful are Eric/Jack's efforts to be forgiven for what he did, despite the fact that he even saves a young girl's life in a crucial moment in the film. Note the irony in the fact that he uses a knife to save the girl by cutting her seatbelt in order to take her out of the car, and that a knife was precisely the weapon used to murder Angela, as we eventually find out. Eric/Jack is praised as a hero, particularly by his coworkers, when he saves the girl, yet once his true identity as a former murderer is discovered later in the film, the same people who praised him turn their backs on him without even flinching. This film is great precisely because of how accurate it is in portraying how cruelly unforgiving people can be, and it is all the more perfect because of how it incorporates the undeniable effect that the media has on situations of this nature.

Paranoia. When it creeps in, it can be an extremely powerful emotion. At several times in this film, Eric/Jack gets into situations in which he is vulnerable to being discovered as the notorious killer whose photo has been plastered on the newspaper. His buddies from work nonchalantly tell him they put an ecstasy pill in his drink, and he freaks out, naturally fearing that he won't be able to control himself and do something that'll expose him. After he's saved the girl and is praised for his heroism, a news reporter comes wanting to take his picture, and he almost tries to just run away from the situation, claiming to not like having his picture taken. There's several moments like these, and in all of them, we feel the paranoia that Eric/Jack is experiencing coursing its way through our veins, and we do so because of Andrew Garfield's hugely amazing performance.

I've yet to speak of the romantic element of the film. At the depot he works in, our protagonist immediately catches the eye of Michelle (Katie Lyons). There's not even a slight feeling of contrivance in anything that transpires as these two begin to develop feelings for one another. Even the sexually-oriented scenes have an extremely natural feeling to them, particularly an instance in which the camera focuses strictly on their faces, which happens to lead to one of the many heart-wrenching moments in this film: once the sexual act is over, Eric/Jack looks at Michelle and breaks down, thus releasing the avalanche of emotions that he's experiencing not only as a result of what seems to have been his first time with a girl, but also as a result of the entire situation he's dealing with. Soon, our main character grows weary of the dishonesty he has to practice in not telling Michelle the truth about himself. This marks the beginning of a truly devastating final act.

Earlier I mentioned how harrowing the murder scene is, but I have more to say about it. I have to admit that, fascinated as I was by the film right before this scene was unveiled, I expected this particular scene to be something relatively formulaic. I just didn't think any filmmaker could have the cojones to take a graphic and authentic approach to a scene that features children involved in such a heinous act. I was wrong. The reasons that motivate the boys to start attacking Angela aren't reasons I saw coming at all, and the untidy, disorganized way it all happens (which makes it seem very much realistic) is not at all what I expected. For that, the film gets an enormous amount of credit. As I said, it doesn't show everything, but it shows enough, perhaps more than enough for some people. Not everyone will be able to stomach it, that's for sure.

Towards the end of the film, the final scene of dialogue between Eric/Jack and Michelle is a gem. Flawlessly shot and acted. I don't want to spoil what happens, but suffice it to mention that light is adroitly used here to convey something very important. It's something that should still be obvious, especially considering the echoing of certain lines spoken earlier in the film, but it's always great when cinematic techniques help accentuate things of this nature. It proves that the people in charge of this know how to speak in the language of film, and that's quite a praiseworthy skill.

The makers of Boy A made the correct decision not to reveal the answer to every question (particularly due to the fact that we don't see EXACTLY what happens to Angela). However, there's no question that the ending is entirely tragic. As if he hadn't already acted his ass off in all prior scenes, the very last shots of the film feature Garfield at his best, in a heartbreaking moment that is incredibly tough to watch. The final lines that are uttered are the two voice messages that he left to two particular characters. These lines are spoken and the screen goes dark to start revealing the credits, and it is then that this magnificent film hits its toughest emotional blow. Boy A is a rarity: a film that succeeds hugely in all its facets, and much like last year's equally great Gone Baby Gone, it even leaves a great deal of room for debate once it's over.


0 comments, Reply to this entry

The Visitor

Posted : 13 years, 6 months ago on 6 September 2010 01:58 (A review of The Visitor)

The Visitor is easily one of the most authentic takes on the illegal immigration issue to ever be presented in a film. As if that weren't enough of a triumph, this movie is also an excellent character study, thanks to a truly fantastic lead performance by Richard Jenkins and to a script that never succumbs to cliches, even when it has SEVERAL opportunities to do so. There's not a single moment of falsity in this film; everything rings true.

Walter Vale (Jenkins) works as a university professor in Connecticut, and the first few scenes of the film focus on that aspect and they are dead-on in terms of accurately capturing even the smallest nuances of the college academic environment. It's uncanny how in these scenes Vale resembles your run-of-the-mill professor so much, particularly in a moment when one of his students visits him in his office hours to turn in a late paper and Vale does not accept the paper, even though the student claims he'd had personal problems that kept him from completing it on time. This is one of the many moments in The Visitor that could've felt forced or staged, yet it plays out exactly the way that it actually would in real life. Vale has tried and tried to learn how to play piano (with several different instructors), and it's all been a fruitless effort. A little later in the film, during a conversation between Vale and an old neighbor in the New York building, we discover the reason why he so badly wants to learn to play piano, and it is a heartbreaking revelation, to say the least.

The most fascinating thing about the character study that plays out over the course of this film is how it leads Vale to awkward moments in which he has to make up excuses and tell white lies, and how this all concludes with a great moment at a restaurant table in which he is finally able to admit the ways in which he's been dishonest with himself and others. Vale needs to leave Connecticut to give a conference on a paper he co-wrote... or rather, he simply read it, and agreed to co-author it, but he didn't really contribute anything to it. Upon arriving at the apartment he has in New York, he discovers a couple, a Syrian man and a Senegalese woman. They are Tarek (Haaz Sleiman) and Zainab (Danai Gurira). They've been living in his apartment without his knowledge. The conventional way for this to unfold, of course, would be an overblown, angry moment in which Vale gets frightened and calls the police or kicks them out, but the moment is, instead, quite subtle and understated. He lets the couple stay, and it is amazing to observe how the relationship he develops with both of them, and later with Tarek's mother, Mouna (Hiam Abbass), revitalizes him so much. Prior to this chance encounter, it was obvious that Vale was bored as heck with himself, not even really accomplishing much academically, and lying to himself and to others about how "busy" he was, etc.

Things take a turn for the worse, though, when Tarek is arrested, not even for an actual crime, but for an extremely silly misunderstanding at the subway station. A despondent and scared Zainab soon leaves the apartment, although she does remain in contact with Vale. The only thing that's a shame about this part of the film is that it relegates the actress who plays Zainab to a more supporting role throughout the rest of the film, and she has far less screen time; this is unfortunate because Gurira gives a wonderful performance, and is able to display an extremely wide range. Consider her subtle reactions during her first few scenes when she's still skeptical of Vale and feels awkward around him. Consider also the scene in which Vale tells her that Tarek's been arrested, and she's not only sad that her boyfriend is imprisoned, but she's also scared for her own security. And consider the scene in which she glows with happiness upon finally meeting Tarek's mother, Mouna. She doesn't miss a single beat in any of these moments.

Once Tarek is arrested and his mother comes, the film focuses more on the relationship between our protagonist and the mother, and what is great about it is that there certainly is a romantic undertone here, as much as nothing blatant happens, but it is never forced. Arguably the best scene in the film comes when Vale and Mouna are sitting at a restaurant, and Vale goes ahead and reveals something that you'll definitely have already been aware of if you'd been noticing (throughout the film) all the nuances in how Vale answers questions about himself and all the "work" he does, but what's fascinating is the way he reveals this, turning this into such a poignant moment between these two characters. Several movies, particularly dramas, feature characters who experience emotional voids, but rarely is it so easy to relate to them as it is here with what our protagonist conveys.

I haven't spoken much about how the film treats the issue of illegal immigration because it would force me to reveal several plot points. After mentioning that Tarek gets arrested, it's tough to keep providing a synopsis of the film without spoiling important things. But suffice it to say that this could be the film that gets people to acquire an understanding of the severe trials that illegal immigrants have to go through and to stop viewing them as "the plague that is invading our country". That the characters who are illegal immigrants in this film are Arabs is yet another important consideration. During the scene in which Tarek is arrested, when one of the police officers pronounces his name, those words alone, coupled with how he looks at him when he says them, embody the prejudice that has been developed against this culture. Tarek himself says it best at one point: none of the people in the prison he's in are terrorists because terrorists have money and power and would never get stuck in the situation he's in, all because of his ethnic background. It is such a shame that this truly happens in real life, and it would be great if people could at least take something away from this film and re-evaluate their conceptions.

The Visitor is an extremely good film. I haven't even been able to mention all of the moments of sheer brilliance that are to be found here. I'll give you an interesting example to show just how authentic this movie is. I know this is quite a nitpick, but it's always bothered me that often in movies a telephone or a doorbell will always ring once people have stopped talking. The dialogue ends, and THEN you hear "ring!" or "buzz!", but it never happens while people are talking, even though you know that in real life, phones are usually gonna ring while you're actually talking, since (obviously) nothing in real life happens at the most precise, opportune moment. Well, surprise of surprises, this film actually features a phone that rings mid-conversation! It happens during the scene in which Vale and Mouna are at the office of the lawyer who is working on Tarek's case. I know this seems insignificant, but I really appreciated it, for some reason.

I can't say enough about how terrific Jenkins is. If the Academy Awards weren't a popularity contest, he'd certainly get a Best Actor nomination, but since the film is so small (which is a shame), and is being released earlier in the year, it may not happen. It's also important to note that Jenkins could've easily ruined things in the climactic scene in which he yells at the immigration police officers. An infinite number of actors would've gone completely over the top during this scene (which, if you notice, the things that the officer says to Vale in this scene are precisely the same as what he says to another character much earlier in the film, when Tarek had only just been arrested). Jenkins is a relatively unknown actor; prior to this, he starred alongside Emile Hirsch in The Mudge Boy (which is a masterpiece, by the way), and gave yet another great performance in that film. Interestingly enough, his character in The Mudge Boy was also coping with the grief of having lost his wife.

As you may predict, things don't end well in The Visitor. A positive outcome would've rendered the film an inaccurate depiction of the issue and its often unfair consequences. Its relentless honesty is more than commendable, and just as importantly, it is also a drama that strays from wallowing in melodrama (unlike last year's The Namesake). But the best thing about it is that it combines a very well-crafted character study with an excellent depiction of a pertinent sociopolitical issue, and for that, The Visitor is a superior motion picture.


0 comments, Reply to this entry

Strange Wilderness

Posted : 13 years, 6 months ago on 6 September 2010 01:57 (A review of Strange Wilderness)

This is a severely deficient "comedy" that won't lead you to burst out laughing, not even occasionally. I realize that humor is subjective, but the farthest Strange Wilderness will go with ANYONE is providing a couple of sporadic "hehe" moments. The unfortunate thing is that, for all of those moments in which there is a glimmer of comedic success, there are about two or three inexplicable moments in which the film features unnecessarily crass footage of an animal being ravaged or gutted or something along those lines. Some comedies are crass in their choice to overdo things such as toilet humor, which is something that at least can be considered passable in some cases, but there is absolutely no reason to do this. I watched the credits just to see whether they'd have the "no animals were hurt in this film" disclaimer, and they did have it, but that still doesn't make this any better (and it certainly won't make PETA happy).

The moments of potential laughs mostly come courtesy of a clearly high Justin Long, who sometimes makes random comments that work way better than anything else in the movie's "script" (if there was a script at all). One suspects it may be more fun to hang out with Justin himself after he's smoked a few joints than watching this movie, though (that actually might be worth the price of admission!). Heck, it may have even potentially been a good movie if his character had been the lead, but Steve Zahn is horribly over-the-top and annoying as the protagonist.

One thing I'll note, though, is that the 0% Tomatometer certainly is a little harsh. Strange Wilderness sure is a disposable movie, but it's also better than a lot of truly HORRIBLE comedies that I've had the misfortune of watching (and probably several that I haven't watched). I mean, last year's Bratz didn't score a 0%, and that film was fucking painful. In fact, "fucking painful" doesn't even begin to describe how ghastly it is. Watching Strange Wilderness at least isn't torturous. But it's far from being a joy ride.

This film is incredibly stupid, which is something that doesn't always have to be a detriment in comedies. You can milk stupid moments in such a way that you can sometimes even turn them into comedic genius, and it's been done plenty of times before, but such isn't the case here. Only in about 10% of the film's moments does it feel like there's at least the possibility of an effective attempt at humor. One thing that's interesting is that the laughing shark in the trailer is pretty funny, but when put into the context of the film during its final scenes (which are horrible), it doesn't work, for some reason. Maybe it's because, by that point, we're already pretty tired of the lameness and couldn't summon a laugh even if there was something that was truly funny.

Speculation that the guys were high while filming is more than likely valid, particularly in the case of Jonah Hill and Justin Long, both of whom are much better comedic actors than to embarrass themselves with this. But if they were high, I guess you can't blame them, and I guess that means they had a pretty fun time shooting the movie. Good for them, but it's too bad that nobody will come even close to having as much fun watching it.


0 comments, Reply to this entry

The Dark Knight

Posted : 13 years, 6 months ago on 6 September 2010 01:56 (A review of The Dark Knight)

Intensely thrilling and impeccably acted, The Dark Knight is one of the best movies to be released this summer. Despite its lengthy running time, it rarely strays from keeping the audience engaged, and it is a lot more intelligent than several films of its kind. Christopher Nolan and a stellar cast bring us a very good piece of cinema that is every bit as effective as the film that preceded it. Both Batman Begins and The Dark Knight represent the most insightful and successful take on the Caped Crusader ever committed to the big screen.

As much as I'm not always fond of agreeing with majority opinion, there's no avoiding the truth: Heath Ledger is absolutely the highlight of this film, to the point that the movie sometimes even feels like it loses some of its steam whenever The Joker isn't on-screen. Prior to watching The Dark Knight, I was definitely skeptical of the hype over his performance. This wasn't because I don't believe he was a great actor. Of course he was. He gave incredibly devastating performances in Brokeback Mountain, Monster's Ball and Candy, and he's also practically unrecognizable in his role in Lords of Dogtown, much like his equally unrecognizable work here as The Joker. But I was skeptical about all the praise because I feared it could just be sympathetic hyperbole due to his passing away last January. I was quite relieved when I realized this wasn't the case, upon watching the film. While one could argue with those who are giving the film accolades of masterpiece or best superhero film ever or the solution to all of the world's problems, there is NO arguing that what Ledger does here is a work of genius.

The face-painted villain is enthralling and great to watch from the very first few seconds he appears on camera. There's irony in terms of the fact that, although he certainly conveys a relentlessly terrorizing menace, he also does live up to his name in that he provides several laughs to the audience (at least it did for the audience at the midnight showing that I attended on Thursday night). These laughs, however, are obviously more of a result of the evil, sadistic humor that we also got from Javier Bardem and Michael Pitt's respective villains in No Country For Old Men and Funny Games (speaking of those two and of Ledger, what a wonderful last few months it has been for films with great villains). Another thing that I found to be ironic was that The Joker, anarchist fiend that he is, claims that he never makes any plans and/or organizes anything: "I just do!" Yet he certainly comes up with several ingenious and well thought-out schemes throughout the film.

There's not a single qualm to be had with any of the performances, all of which range from excellent to very good. Aside from Heath Ledger, I thought that Gary Oldman was also great as Lieutenant Gordon, and that he's not necessarily getting as much credit as he deserves (his character is also far more important to the film than we might initially guess). Aaron Eckhart has a tough job with the crucial role of Harvey Dent; he's not great, because he does go over the top sometimes, but considering the difficulty of playing this character, he's certainly very good. As they did in Batman Begins, Michael Caine and Morgan Freeman bring the same level of class that they always bring to films they star in (Caine's Alfred, in particular, is great at serving insight often with a side of humor). Supplanting Katie Holmes in the role of Rachel Dawes, Maggie Gyllenhaal neither helps nor hurts the role of the girl who got away from our hero. Many people made gross exaggerations about Holmes' performance being terrible, which it wasn't. She did well with what she had to work with, and so does Gyllenhaal. The only negative remarks I expect people could make about the acting is that Christian Bale doesn't get much space to really act, since he's usually wearing the mask. Although the hype will certainly continue focusing on Ledger, Bale is (yet again) fantastic whenever the mask does come off, and it's a shame that he may not end up getting as much recognition as he deserves.

The Dark Knight takes several twists and turns that will keep people on the edge of their seats and that make the film a constantly enjoyable experience. In particular, more than one important character dies during the film, leading to a great deal of surprises (at least for me, since I didn't read any spoilers prior to seeing it, even though it seems several people did). The film only has a few drawbacks. As I mentioned before, The Joker is indeed the highlight here, and the problem is that there are times that, when Ledger's terrifying specimen isn't on-screen, nothing we're watching is anything we haven't seen before or anything that would lead me to view this as the groundbreaking film many are hailing it to be. A great performance doesn't necessarily translate into a great film; Javier Bardem was excellent as Anton Chigurh, but his performance was only ONE of the many things that made No Country For Old Men great. In addition, while the majority of the action sequences are very well-choreographed, the most important ones (which come in the last act) are edited a bit choppily, and I DON'T think this is necessarily due to a lack of competence by the editors, but rather the consequence of a film that tries to coalesce a lot of characters and plot elements into a final cohesive action sequence, and that makes this all a little more disorderly and overwhelming than it should be. Speaking of the film's final act, I must note that the "social experiment" that takes place (compliments of The Joker, of course) is very, very interesting; I won't say much about it, so as to not spoil things for those who haven't seen it (but beware to keep reading if you haven't), but those who HAVE seen it obviously know that I'm talking about the conundrum with the two ships. Unfortunately, interesting as it is, the flaw with it is that the outcome is exactly what we've come to expect from superhero movies. A character says "Let me do what you should've done 10 minutes ago," and he then does the opposite of what the audience thinks he's going to do; sure, the surprise is nice, but since this twist that leads to a positive outcome feels like such a conventional contrivance for a film of said genre, I guess it's disappointing in some senses, ESPECIALLY considering the darker undertones the film aims for. Still, none of these minor drawbacks take away from what is definitely a largely superior entry into the superhero film realm.

Is it the best superhero film of the year? Possibly. I've given a 7 to both this and Iron Man, though this is certainly a more complex film. However, "more complex" doesn't always mean "better" because complexity isn't the only important consideration in evaluating a movie, and in my case, I enjoyed both equally. Is it the best superhero film of all time? I can absolutely understand why a lot of people would think it is, and I certainly don't think there's much I could say to debate it, but on the level of personal opinion, I have more appreciation for the first two Spider-Man films (the second of which is one of my all-time favorite films), and also for the second entry into the X-Men series (X2: X-Men United). That said, though, The Dark Knight is definitely better than the first X-Men movie, the two Hellboy films, the two Fantastic Four films, and it is a heck of a lot better than Superman Returns and than both of the third entries into the Spider-Man and X-Men franchises, both of which were serious disappointments considering what both franchises had accomplished with each of their first two entries. One can only hope that this won't happen if Nolan and his team decide to do a third film.

Although WALL-E still remains the best film to be released in what has, thus far, been a relatively unimpressive year for cinema, The Dark Knight is right up there as one of the most well-crafted cinematic offerings we've had in 2008. I don't think it is suitable for younger audiences that aren't ready for the darker themes it touches upon, but it is incredibly good as a source of entertainment for older teenagers and adults. A lot of hype has surrounded Heath Ledger's performance because of the fact that he died recently, but the truth is that his praiseworthy turn in The Dark Knight is unforgettable, NOT because of his untimely death, but because it is one of the most haunting villainous performances I've ever witnessed, sure to stay in people's minds long after the credits roll.


0 comments, Reply to this entry

The Wackness

Posted : 13 years, 6 months ago on 6 September 2010 01:55 (A review of The Wackness)

Originality of plot is always welcome in a time that multiplexes are overflowing with films that feature recycled storylines, and an original plot is exactly what The Wackness gives us; it's an examination of that weird time known as the summer between the end of high school and the start of college, and it's also set in 1994. In addition, our protagonist, Luke (Josh Peck), is a drug dealer, but believe it or not, that won't take away from the audience's ability to relate to the feelings of angst and confusion that he undergoes. In fact, one of the most interesting aspects of the film is that it doesn't at all condemn him for being a dealer (the only moment in which there's a glimmer of it is when he gets arrested, but the movie moves through that event pretty quickly, and it all turns out to be more of a comedic moment than anything else).

This film reminded me a bit of 2006's underrated Art School Confidential, as both movies are realistic portrayals of the emotional trials that young adults often have to deal with, and both films are, at times, slightly tarnished by scenes that are a bit too much on the grim side. However, the refusal to sugarcoat things is much appreciated in a film like this one.

I'd never even heard of Peck before, but the friend that I went to see the movie with told me that this is very different from what he did in the Nickelodeon TV show he starred in. He's impressive in terms of his acting, and his accent is dead-on. His older counterpart, veteran actor Ben Kingsley (as Jeffrey), is predictably good. This film is definitely more about the storyline between those two rather than the storyline between Luke and Jeffrey's stepdaughter, Stephanie (Olivia Thirlby). Thirlby's fine in her supporting work here, but she doesn't get a chance to display as much range as the other two.

Much like Art School Confidential, The Wackness is a good film but there are some missteps, such as the obligatory corny line that is used to integrate the film's title into the screenplay (which wasn't really a necessary thing to do). The movie also meanders a little awkwardly in the final act, particularly in the scenes in which Luke and Jeffrey go to the beach, even if it is a nice moment that gives a certain level of closure to the interactions they've had throughout the film. Nonetheless, this is a well-written drama that even has its share of humorous moments, and I imagine it'll probably resonate emotionally with a lot of people who are either currently experiencing or have already undergone this toilsome stage in the transition to adulthood. This movie's dope.


0 comments, Reply to this entry

Hellboy II: The Golden Army

Posted : 13 years, 6 months ago on 6 September 2010 01:54 (A review of Hellboy II: The Golden Army)

Equal in quality to its predecessor, Hellboy II: The Golden Army is a decent film, thanks mostly to its good humor and well-crafted visuals. It is interesting to note how several of the images and even many of the creature types that we come across are reminiscent of what we saw in Pan's Labyrinth, which was Guillermo Del Toro's last cinematic project prior to this sequel. Through praiseworthy cinematography and an enjoyable plot that never takes itself too seriously, Del Toro and his team haven't created a great film, but they've definitely crafted an entertaining summer movie, and that's exactly the point of the Hellboy films.

Many will be outraged by what I'm about to say, since a lot of people would think it's an insult to compare Del Toro's work to that of the creators of the Fantastic Four movies, but I have to admit that I sort of enjoy the Hellboy series in the same way that I do the Fantastic Four series: both sets of films are pretty much just having fun with themselves and don't aspire to delve into the darker themes that other superhero films have covered. Before I start getting hateful comments, I'll concede that visuals in the Hellboy films are (obviously) much better, and the acting is also certainly better (especially now that Selma Blair has apparently finally learned how NOT to give wooden performances). But I think that, still, both series are characterized by an effective overall sense of fun, and I think it's commendable in both cases.

Hellboy II does have plot holes at the end, particularly in certain areas that aren't consistent with the story that we get at the beginning on the Golden Army. For the most part, though, they are things that sort of need to happen in order to have the conventional "happy" ending (hopefully you don't think that's much of a spoiler), even though certain things aren't completely resolved. In fact, one of the good things about the film is that it introduces something that is certainly going to lead to further sequels, and that even leads me to suspect that things could get even better from here. Much is revealed about the choices that our title character will have to deal with in the future, and this sets things up very nicely for future entries into this series. I also appreciated the lighthearted note that the film ended on, particularly the final exchange between the two characters that are on-screen before credits roll and the same song that we heard during a very funny drunken scene between Abe and Hellboy starts playing.

Though I certainly was looking forward to this sequel, what I absolutely cannot wait for is to see what Del Toro does with The Hobbit. I expected Hellboy II to be as enjoyable as the first film in the series was, just like I expect The Hobbit to be a worthy prequel to the supremely masterful Lord of the Rings trilogy. That task will be a little bit harder, because in my opinion, the three Lord of the Rings films FAR AND AWAY represent the finest cinematic achievement ever reached, and that nothing comes even close to rivalling them. But I also have no doubt that Del Toro can accomplish it. I didn't think Pan's Labyrinth was perfect, but it definitely is a near-masterpiece and it's got everything in it to prove that the man is more than up to the challenge, and the day can't come fast enough when we finally get to see what he does with it.

At this point, Iron Man (which I rated 7/10) remains the best superhero film I've seen this year (though I've yet to see The Incredible Hulk). So, now it's a matter of waiting four days to see what Christopher Nolan has in store for us, and for that matter, whether it's even fair to place The Dark Knight in the "superhero film" category, as the hype is warning us that it's more in the territory of crime dramas like The Untouchables and The Departed (in which case it goes without saying that it has a truckload of things to live up to). But as far as Hellboy II is concerned, it is a worthy accomplishment by a filmmaker who we know is capable of a lot more, but in this case, he's simply having fun with the images and specimens that his visionary mind has come up with, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that because, in this case, it still makes for a good film that has at least set a precedent for potential greatness in future entries.


0 comments, Reply to this entry

Get Smart

Posted : 13 years, 6 months ago on 6 September 2010 01:52 (A review of Get Smart)

Get Smart is really good stuff. It's constantly funny, and often even hilarious. I wasn't familiar in the least bit with the TV show that the film is based on because I'm 22, but my parents had definitely heard about it and claimed it was a pretty funny show, so it was interesting to figure out whether or not this measured up to that. Regardless of whether you're familiar with the program or not, this is a thoroughly enjoyable comedic experience. The script is very effective at milking ridiculous situations into things that will easily bust a gut, and it is never lame or corny, even though this is the kind of material that could easily veer in that direction. Although several of these gags are things we've seen before, for some reason it feels fresh in Get Smart, and that's a very welcome thing, considering the tripe offered by most of the comedies that hit multiplexes.

Surprisingly, there are some similarities between this film and this year's earlier Harold and Kumar Escape From Guantanamo Bay, even though both films are ostensibly pretty different. One of the more blatant similarities is the situation that Max (Steve Carell) and his partner, Agent 99 (Anne Hathaway) get into when they're on a plane, and Max is taken for a terrorist when he's scraping a piece of gum from his shoe. It doesn't help that the word "gum" sounds a little bit like "bomb" just like it didn't help Harold and Kumar that the word "bong" also sounds like it when they were on a plane as well. What's interesting is that, since both films have been released so close to each other, the filmmakers for both movies obviously came up with the idea individually and this is a mere coincidence. It's just funny, I guess, because for people who saw the Harold and Kumar sequel and go see this, there's no doubt it'll immediately be like "hey, wait a second, they've done that one before". To be fair, the situations aren't exactly similar in how they unfold, and not at all in terms of the outcome either.

Another (perhaps more subtle) similarity between both films is the humorous criticism of the US government and its approach to terrorist threats. Both films have the President as a character, and in both cases he is depicted as an absent-minded fellow who tells people to check with the Vice President on things. In Harold and Kumar 2, he gets high with the title characters and talks about how "Cheney scares the hell out of him". In Get Smart, the President (played by none other than James Caan, in a short, but hilarious turn) mispronounces "nuclear" as "nucular," and he's the only person who is obliviously amused instead of preoccupied when things go awry during a musical performance in which a bomb has been planted in order to get him killed. Just like the Harold and Kumar film aimed its satire at the US government and at the inherent racist stereotypes in American culture, through Rob Corddry's character (who automatically assumes that Harold and Kumar are terrorists because of their ethnicities, and who dumps a load of coins in front of their Jewish friends to try to bribe them), Get Smart doesn't shame away from criticism either; there's a particularly interesting scene in the "War Room", where a meeting takes place between members of the CIA and members of the film's fictional agency (CONTROL) in which much is implied about how lightly terrorist threats are taken. For all the fun they provide, these two films certainly have a good deal of insight, and neither is afraid to share it.

Another comparison to yet another unforgettable comedy comes with a scene that involves Ken Davitian, who played Azamat (the title character's companion of sorts) in Borat. He plays Bruce in Get Smart, and there is a scene in which, much like in Borat, he is involved in a fight with the protagonist that makes it seem as though they are, well, doing something else... THANKFULLY, in this scene in Get Smart, everyone keeps their clothes on (not that the film would've kept its PG-13 rating otherwise). That scene was definitely one of my objections watching Borat; yes, it was outrageous, which was what the filmmakers were constantly going for, but it was unnecessary, disgusting beyond belief, and really not very funny in my opinion. Since it's far more tame in Get Smart (and the moment lasts, oh, about 3 seconds, rather than the excruciating length it lasted in Borat), it works as a humorous moment.

Steve Carell is totally in his element here. He's very funny as the klutzy Max, and you couldn't really expect any less from one of today's best comedic actors. I could go into specific examples of scenes in which he's hilarious, but nothing I'll say will have the effect that you'll get from actually watching the gags that befall Max throughout the film. Anne Hathaway yet again proves her versatility, as this is a very different comedy than The Devil Wears Prada was, but she handles the ludicrous and silly moments perfectly, and does the same during a few serious instances (two in particular in which her character gets emotional), in which we see the resurfacing of the effective dramatic acting that she's always been able to do, and she doesn't miss a beat.

The action sequences in Get Smart don't quite match the success of the film's comedic elements. There's nothing wrong with the stunts, but they're nothing groundbreaking either. A moviegoer who doesn't like to read a synopsis might get confused and think this is strictly an action movie, and if you're looking for that, it may satisfy, but with a film like Wanted showing in the next theater, it may not be the best alternative. Basically, if you're looking for laugh-out-loud fare, Get Smart will certainly get the job done, and if you're looking for thrilling action sequences, Wanted is the better ticket. That said, Get Smart does have a good deal of action (just like Wanted has some comedic moments). Also, the twist at the end of Get Smart and the identity of the traitor are both extremely easy to figure out, and you might even figure them out really early on in the film.

Get Smart is essentially a concoction of funny one-liners and situations in which the plot really isn't all that important. For those seeking a movie that won't fail at making you bust a gut and that is free of the lameness and corniness that plagues most comedies nowadays, this is definitely a good choice.


0 comments, Reply to this entry

The Life Before Her Eyes

Posted : 13 years, 6 months ago on 6 September 2010 01:51 (A review of The Life Before Her Eyes)

This is a shame because, aside from a jarring twist at the end that goes tragically over-the-top in convoluting the film's entire plot, The Life Before Her Eyes is a beautifully-photographed and very well-acted cinematic offering. Despite being a dialogue-based drama, it manages to be a constantly involving movie... that is, until everything gets so poorly turned on its head at the end; you'll go from feeling engrossed to heavily disoriented and cheated in a matter of seconds during the film's final frames.

The Life Before Her Eyes deals with the emotional consequences of a Columbine-like high school shooting incident. In my opinion, no film that has dealt with this subject matter has ever trumped the unforgettably astounding Elephant, which is nothing short of a perfect work of art. It is also one of my all-time favorite films, and that's probably something I'm alone in because a lot of people probably find Gus Van Sant's uncompromisingly realistic approach to be monotonous, and while I respect those who hold that opinion, I couldn't disagree more; Elephant is beyond enthralling. What's interesting is that I bet most people would find The Life Before Her Eyes to be a more entertaining film than Elephant because the former isn't as slow-moving and its plot elements are far more similar to what we're used to seeing in movies. In fact, both films play with the chronology of events, showing us certain things out of order or from different characters' perspectives, but the difference is that the undeniably inferior The Life Before Her Eyes plays an insultingly disappointing fast one on the audience at the end, while Elephant never strays from the relentless realism that makes it a masterpiece.

As I mentioned, The Life Before Her Eyes does feature really good cinematography. Driven by an ostensible interest in scientific details, the filmmakers are particularly interested in sublime, ethereal shots of flora, and they also give us a number of scenes involving a science class in which the teacher talks about how the heart is the strongest muscle in the body (a tidbit that becomes crucial in several later moments in the film) and how the body is 75% water (and images of water are a predominant motif throughout the movie, right until the end). It's interesting to note how there are even some visual similarities between this film and Elephant. In both films, the shooter discovers the girls inside the school bathroom; in both cases, this is a wise choice by the filmmakers because of the feeling of confinement you can get here and can't quite get in other school areas, such as spacious cafeterias, long hallways, or large classrooms with windows. Another visual similarity that I really can't help but wonder if the makers of The Life Before Her Eyes took directly from Elephant is that of the shots that focus solely on a light blue sky with perfectly white clouds; these shots in The Life Before Her Eyes are unmistakably similar to those in Elephant, but the latter film is so much more cinematically-savvy in terms of the precise moments in which it chooses to place those shots throughout its running length.

Evan Rachel Wood's performance as the young Diana is note-perfect. That's not to say that Uma Thurman doesn't do well as the protagonist's older version, because she certainly does, but the material she has to work with simply isn't as meaty as what Wood is given. It's evident in this movie that Wood is better than the large majority of young actors and actresses who have attempted to carry out effective emotional depictions of a teenager's tough transition from adolescence to adulthood. In fact, her performance here serves as a great follow-up to the work she did in Thirteen, a film in which she did a stellar job depicting a child's toilsome entry into the teenage years. She does a particularly remarkable job in a scene during The Life Before Her Eyes that alludes to the teacher's comment about the heart being the strongest muscle in the body... despondently certain that this isn't the case with her own heart, young Diana breaks down, and there's not a second in this moment that we don't believe the authenticity of the pain that suddenly overcomes her. The only thing is, though, that aside from the horrible decision to have the twist ending it has, one other flaw of the film is that young Diana's story is certainly much better crafted and emotionally-involving than what we get from the main character's older version, not because there's anything wrong with Thurman's acting, but because the story is weaker. One suspects that the film may have been a triumph if it had focused solely on young Diana's experiences and on the often painful path she treads in hopes of becoming a woman.

By severely objecting to the film's twist at the end, I'm not suggesting that I dislike the film because I disagree with its views on the concepts of life and death (or of the possibility of elements that can blur the line between the two). My agreeing or disagreeing with that would not influence whether or not I think the movie is good because I don't think it's fair to make a judgment like that simply because you disagree with the filmmakers' viewpoint (I agree that war is a bad thing, and that the ongoing war in Iraq is a mistake, but I disliked The Kingdom, In The Valley of Elah, and Stop-Loss because all three films had different, yet equally flawed approaches to the subject matter). What DOES influence how I feel about The Life Before Her Eyes is how the twist is brought about in a way that it feels like you've been hit on the head with a hammer. All of a sudden, you find yourself in a disoriented state as the film's final minutes elapse with the obligatory shots of things that we have already seen being presented to us in a condescendingly explanatory way, perhaps so that we stand in awe at the craftiness that the filmmakers believe they possess. If this were a campy film, such a turn of events might be acceptable, but the fact that such a sublime and emotionally-affecting film can warp itself so abruptly in its denouement is simply not forgivable. Watching The Life Before Her Eyes is like observing a beautiful artistic image suddenly get blotched or ripped, thus becoming irreversibly tainted.


0 comments, Reply to this entry

WALL-E

Posted : 13 years, 6 months ago on 6 September 2010 01:50 (A review of WALLยทE)

One of the last things I would've ever imagined is that a film that has so little dialogue could be so engrossing. It's not just that there isn't any dialogue in the first half hour of WALL-E, it's that there really isn't much of it throughout the whole movie, but that doesn't for a second take away from the massive amount of entertainment that there is to be had with Pixar's latest entry.

Of course, although the task of making an extremely entertaining movie with very little dialogue sounds like a tough feat, this shouldn't be too hard if the movie you're making features characters who ooze readable facial reactions and who are very expressive. Not so in WALL-E, where our two protagonists are robots, thus making this an even harder feat for the filmmakers, who do a stellar job of exploiting every possible tool available to get these characters to display what the audience needs to get totally immersed in this film. The result is not only that they succeed hugely at fulfilling that task, but they've also managed to craft one of the most charming on-screen romances ever... certainly one of the best ones in an animated film... with robots!!! Who would've thought?

In fact, with their last two films, the folks at Pixar have taken unlikely caricatures that wouldn't normally be considered particularly cute or even likable (rats last year, robots this year) and effectively crafted appealing characters for both films. I think it was probably easier with Ratatouille because, although rats are generally regarded with disgust, they gave the rats in that film pink spots on their cheeks and whatnot, thus rendering them cuter than what the actual rodent tends to look like. But how do you do this with robots? How do you get a drab metal machine to display any palpable gesture? Aside from the frequent expressions made by EVE's "eyes" (if you can call them that), which are often helpful, the makers of WALL-E have to use a diversity of sounds and other things to get us to understand the interactions between the two love-struck robots, and they achieve this seamlessly. It sounds hard to believe, but you absolutely will more than believe it once you see it. WALL-E and EVE's interactions and the growth of their romantic feelings are nothing short of enthralling.

I was going to wait till a weekday to see WALL-E because, once I heard that the theme/message of the film was of a slightly adult nature, I was worried if I went to see it on a day in which the theater was full of kids that there would be a lot of restlessness and yelling and crying that would keep me from enjoying the film thoroughly. But I couldn't wait. I had to go see it. So I went today (on a Sunday) at the earliest showing, hoping perhaps people still wouldn't be up and going to the movies. Well, there were still plenty of kids in the audience, but here's the thing. Although WALL-E does have an adult theme/message in its approach as a cautionary tale, it still has everything that kids could possibly need from an animated film. There are plenty of funny moments and gags, and chase sequences, etc. So, just like the adults, the kids were quiet and well-behaved because of how engrossed they were in the movie. This is one of the many great things about WALL-E: it has that balance of being a charmingly fun animated film while still touching on pertinent issues, and it gets a lot of points for this. Also, the film is preceded by an animated short titled "Presto" which is VERY funny. It's silly and generic, but still a welcome lighthearted prelude. It's not a visually impressive piece of short animation, but that doesn't matter at all, considering the galore of great visuals we're exposed to as soon as WALL-E gets started.

WALL-E has garnered equally stellar reviews as those earned by Ratatouille last year. When I watched Ratatouille in theaters last year, I thought it was very good, but certainly not deserving of accolades like "perfect" or "masterpiece", let alone "best animated film ever". It made me wonder whether critics were just being too nice or biased towards Pixar fare, which made me concerned as to whether WALL-E would truly be the amazing film they were hailing it to be. Thank God that it actually is. While "perfect" and "masterpiece" may still not quite be appropriate descriptors, WALL-E comes a heck of a lot closer to them than Ratatouille ever could. I do still think that Finding Nemo is Pixar's best film and the best animated film of this decade so far, but there is no question that WALL-E is a VERY close second. (I've also yet to see The Incredibles)

I can't imagine for a second that there is a single animated film that could give WALL-E a run for its money in the Best Animated Feature Film category at the next Academy Awards ceremony. WALL-E is just a ravishing motion picture that may even give staunch skeptics some hope, despite the fact that the world we live in seems to give us less and less hope every day. It's amazing just how timely WALL-E is, and for that, it is more than just worth seeing; it's an experience you definitely don't want to miss out on.


0 comments, Reply to this entry