Ricochet Reviews: I Saw The Devil

I Saw The Devil

Director: Ji-woon Kim (The Good, the Bad, the Weird, A Tale of Two Sisters)

Starring: Lee Byung-hun, Choi Min-sik

Language: Korean

On Blu-Ray + DVD: May 10, 2011

I wish that I Saw The Devil was a 30-45 minute short film. If it was, it would be flawless. However, it isn't, and it is a much lesser film because of this. Despite the film's good acting, decent story, and beautiful camera work, I Saw The Devil is too long and its story arc too silly for its own good.

I Saw The Devil opens with a murder. The film's antagonist, Kyung-chul (Choi), finds a woman in a broken down car on the side of the road. After feigning like he will assist her, he breaks into the car, bludgeons her senseless, takes her to his house, and disassembles her body. It is very gruesome, but it's a great setup for the film that follows. Devil is gruesome from beginning to end. There are rapes, cannibals, and even Saw-like booby traps. If you can't handle gore or extreme violence, you'd be best served to just stay away from Devil (and basically all Korean revenge flicks, for that matter). For me, though, the violence was earned, especially when the protagonist, Soo-hyun (Lee) gets in on the violence. You see, that woman from the first scene was Soo-hyun's fiancee, and after figuring out that Kyung-chul is the killer, he decides to exact some revenge. The gratuity of the violence makes you question whether you're actually cheering for Soo-hyun to succeed or if you're cheering for violence.

My problem with the story isn't that it is too violent. My problem is that this movie should've ended after, at the very most, an hour in. Right around that point in the film, Soo-hyun catches up to Kyung-chul and has the chance to exact his revenge. Instead, he lets him get away so that he can "track" him. This mistake by Soo-hyun causes a lot more people to die and doesn't really make much logical sense. I get the point of wanting him to suffer gruesomely for killing Soo-hyun's fiancee, but he could have just tied him to a chair or something similar and tortured him until he was tired. He actually lets Kyung-chul go multiple times, and it eventually got to the point where I was annoyed at what was happening on screen. A movie should almost never do this to me, especially when the annoyance isn't earned through character development or emotional attachment.

Then again, even after having said all of these negative things about Devil's plot, I still enjoyed the film. After that first hour, this primarily has to do with how wonderfully the film is shot and acted. Between all the gore and violence, the film is full of picturesque imagery. Some personal favorites include the exterior shots from the opening scene, the scenes in the greenhouse when the two main characters first meet, and the scene in the taxi cab. Devil is also anchored by two good performances from the leads. Lee's Soo-hyun really feels like a man who has lost his way in life. Choi's Kyung-chul is the true star, though. He is a sadistic, devilish, unfeeling person driven by the simple urge to hunt, and his apathetic tone is portrayed superbly by Choi.

This is probably my shortest review so far. This might be because I've been writing an average of one movie review per day, but I don't think so. I think it is because of how much I zoned out during I Saw The Devil's unnecessary second half. As I previously stated, my annoyance didn't completely ruin the film, but it definitely turned what could have been one of my favorite films of the year into a mediocre movie that happens to include some great pieces. If you like revenge movies, I Saw The Devil is worth a look, but otherwise, I'd be cautious.

Ricochet Reviews: Super 8

Super 8

Director: J.J. Abrams (Star Trek, Mission Impossible III)

Starring: Joel Courtney, Elle Fanning, Riley Griffiths, Kyle Chandler

Currently In Theaters

I loved Super 8. It more than lives up to its promise to bring back the feel of the early Spielberg films, like E.T. and Close Encounters. More importantly, even without these homages to earlier movies, the film holds up as an exciting and engaging thrill ride that everyone in the family should enjoy.

Super 8 follows the story of a group of kids who are trying to make a zombie movie. They decide to film a scene at a train station and witness an accident that derails the train. Following this, odd things start to happen around town and a government quarantine and later evacuation is ordered. The pure frame of the story sounds very similar to Spielberg's Close Encounters, but the overall tone of the film is different. While Close Encounters was focused on the psychological impact that an alien encounter had on a few people, Super 8's primary focus is on the relationships between the group of kids as well as the romantic relationship between the two main kids, Joe (Courtney) and Alice (Fanning). So I guess you could say it's like a hybrid of Close Encounters and Stand By Me.

This is where we get into the main complaint I've heard from people who have seen Super 8: it is too derivative of other movies. I agree that it is very reminiscent of other films, especially 80's films, and yes, I have already compared it to three other movies in this review, but I feel like this is exactly what Abrams was going for. Super 8 reminds us of these films because Abrams wants us to feel this nostalgia, and, although it's certainly not integral to a positive experience with the film, this nostalgia greatly enhanced the film for me. I can understand the arguments of those who dislike it, but I loved the homages.

I also loved the relationships between the kids. Joe and Charles (Griffiths) really feel like best friends, and their complicated friendship made a lot of sense to me. I've had best friends over the years who dated girls that I liked, and I'm sure I've done the same to them. I've also done things I didn't want to do simply because my best friend asked me to, like when Joe lets Charles destroy his model train for the sake of his zombie movie. I liked that they focused mainly on just two of the boys instead of all four, too. In reality, best friends are the people that you hang out with not only in groups but also by yourselves, and because Super 8 showed us this dynamic, the best friend relationship felt more realistic than in most films. I also thought that Joe and Alice's romance was captured well. Their interactions reminded me of my first love; the way that we didn't know what we were doing and how everything just seemed to be okay when we were together. 

I can't justify a review of Super 8 without mentioning some criticisms, although most of them are minor and restricted to specific scenes. For example, Abrams's trademark lens flares make their valiant return here, and although they work (or at least aren't distracting) in most of the scenes, they are extremely overpowering during the train crash scene. The flares actually take up more of the screen during portions of the scene than what's actually happening does. This criticism wouldn't even be worth mentioning if that weren't one of the most crucial scenes in the entire film. Another problem I had with the film is that a lot of the secondary characters are stereotypical and flat. Alice's father is the stereotypical drunk, the pothead acts like a stereotypical pothead (although he did entertain me). There's far too many of these one-dimensional characters in a film like Super 8 that is otherwise nearly flawless.

I keep bringing up nostalgia in this review, not just in film homages but in my personal memories, as well. Films that can evoke this kind of response in me are special, and Super 8 is one of those. It isn't a perfect film, and it may be too reminiscent of other movies for some people, but Super 8 is one of the best films of the year and a film worthy of anyone's time.

Ricochet Reviews: Biutiful

Since this is the first example review I've had so far, I figured that this was a good opportunity to explain why I'm counting Biutiful (one of the foreign film nominees of 2010) as a 2011 movie. I've decided to use a simple rule that I've seen a few others use: if I had absolutely no opportunity to see the movie before March, then I count it as a 2011 movie. For some other examples, all of the 2010 foreign film nominees except Dogtooth will count as movies of 2011 as well as Barney's Version, Uncle Boonmee, and Rubber. Anyways, I just thought I should mention that here.

Biutiful

Director: Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu (Amores Perros, 21 Grams, Babel)

Starring: Javier Bardem

Language: Spanish
On Blu-Ray + DVD: May 31, 2011

Well, Biutiful is my first foreign film from 2011, and it was a damn good one to start with. Though it may be a bit tedious for some (especially in the first hour), I thought Biutiful was a wonderfully depressing film containing one of the best acting performances I've seen in quite a while.

Biutiful's plot focuses on that anyone should be able to relate to: our own mortality. The main character, Uxbal (played by Javier Bardem), is diagnosed with terminal cancer and told that he does not have long to live. Following this, the film centers around Uxbal's attempts at coping with this news, from denial to depression and everything in between. Uxbal's journey roughly follows the five common stages of grief (denial, anger, bargaining, depression, and acceptance) and their consequences on his family, his friends, and his job.

The theme of mortality is handled perfectly in Biutiful. I was constantly asking myself how I would handle that situation, and the things that Uxbal says and does actually make sense in the context of his life. We see him try to hide his illness from his children so as not to upset them, especially since he grew up without a father figure too. The relationship between Uxbal and his children is heartbreaking and there were two or three scenes that really touched me. Uxbal also tries to help out his employees with the time he has left, which makes sense once we see the emotional attachment he has with every single one of them. The film is bookended with a scene in the middle of the woods that relates to this theme of death, and, though I won't ruin the scene for you, it is deeply moving and beautifully shot. I absolutely loved how Inarritu handled this weighty issue.

I was also impressed with how many mysteries Inarritu was able to juxtapose within this story. One of Uxbal's businesses is paying off policemen for a gang of illegal immigrants so that they turn a blind eye to drug trafficking. The more interesting of his two jobs is helping hide and find work for a group of illegal Chinese immigrants. This subplot leads to both the most worthless and the most surprising parts of the film. I'll leave the surprise as a surprise, but there is a weird subplot involving two Chinese men who run a sweatshop and are homosexual lovers. One is happily married while the other is trying to break up that marriage. It's an interesting plot, but it has no impact at all on Uxbal and seems very out of place within this film.

My other big complaint about Biutiful is that the first hour is very dull. Other than finding out that Uxbal has terminal cancer, the rest of that hour is spent merely introducing all of the great elements that make the rest of the film so wonderful. I understand that you can't just leap into the conclusions of the plot without first explaining how you got there, but so much of the first hour is just Bardem walking around or looking at something. It obviously did not ruin the film for me; I just wish that it had been more interesting.

Speaking of Bardem, he puts forward a stunning performance as Uxbal that, in my opinion, should have won him the Best Actor Oscar from the list of nominees. His performance feels extremely personal; if you told me that he actually has terminal cancer, I'd almost believe you. Uxbal, in the hands of the wrong actor, could have been a flat, boring character, or, on the opposite end, a caricature of emotions; Bardem finds the perfect middle ground between these two. He displays outward emotions, like many men in real life, only when Uxbal is alone or under stress, but his facial expressions let us know that, even when he is composed, Uxbal could break down at any minute. Bardem was able to bring a sense of realness to Uxbal, and this performance is the only one I've seen this year that deserves any special mention. Hence this paragraph.

Biutiful is, well, a beautiful film. Bardem's performance as Uxbal is moving, as is the way Inarritu handled the theme of mortality. The first hour is overlong and, at times, boring, but maybe it had to be that way so that the rest of the film could be so great. It's not packed full of action, and it's in Spanish, but if you're willing to overlook these bad excuses, Biutiful is a film you need to see.

Ricochet Reviews: Drive Angry

Drive Angry

Director: Patrick Lussier (My Bloody Valentine, Dracula 2000)

Starring: Nicolas Cage, Amber Heard, William Fichtner

On Blu-Ray + DVD: May 31, 2011

Where did Drive Angry go wrong? It's not supposed to be serious. It's not supposed to be boring. It's supposed to be filled to the brim with ridiculous action sequences and extremely silly dialogue. That's how these grindhouse films are supposed to work. Director Patrick Lussier must not have gotten the memo, because Drive Angry is overlong and overserious, and it is missing the one thing that grindhouse movies thrive on: fun.

A summary of Drive Angry's plot definitely sounds like it should be fun. A man named John Milton (Cage) breaks out of Hell when he learns that a cult leader has murdered his daughter and kidnapped his granddaughter with plans to sacrifice her body to Satan. While on the hunt for the cultist, Milton picks up Piper (Heard), a waitress with a bad case of the cutoff shorts. On their trail is The Accountant (Fichtner), another man from Hell sent to track Milton down and bring him back. Sounds just outlandish enough to work, right? Nope.

 It's not the silly plot that drags the film down, though. I love stories like this: a movie that is willing to flaunt its silliness as a positive earns my respect. In fact, the ludicrousness of the Crank movies is exactly why I love them. What drags Drive Angry down is that Drive Angry is such a drag. For some reason, the film is hellbent on taking itself seriously, and it's hard to laugh at the absurdity of what's happening on screen whenever the characters themselves seem so upset about it. For example, there's this thing that The Accountant does a few times, where he throws a coin in the air and it changes into a badge or something. It's a goofy concept (why would someone from Hell need a coin for this?), but, for some reason, the film tries to milk every dramatic second out of the flip, showing it twirling in slow motion in mid-air as The Accountant stares up at it. Another example is when Milton beats up Piper's ex-boyfriend. This scene was ripe for over-the-top gore or at least some funny lines, but all Milton does is punch him a couple times and get Piper to come with him. Drive Angry has far too many of these missed opportunities, and because of that the film is overloaded with dull scenes.

Not that the entire movie is bad. Nic Cage does his damnedest to bring out his natural manic personality here, and his character alone is reason enough to see the movie. The character of Milton is a perfect fit for him, and Cage's monotonous delivery of Milton's lines turns what could have been even more weak dialogue into hilarious one-liners (my favorite: "I don't disrobe before gunplay"). This disrobing scene is easily the most entertaining part of the movie. Milton and Piper stop at a hotel bar and Milton picks up a woman for the night. While they are having sex (hence the disrobe quote), a group of men break into the room and try to kill him. Without missing a thrust, Milton kills them all. It is this kind of absurdity and fun that most of the rest of the movie is missing.

Drive Angry does show flashes of fun, and these flashes are what make the movie worth checking out. But this entertainment is regrettably lacking from the majority of the film. Instead of embracing its grindhouse qualities, the movie plays them down in favor of a halfhearted attempt at serious storytelling. It is this mistake that turns what could have been a campy but awesome hour and a half into the okay but forgettable film that is Drive Angry.

Ricochet Reviews: The Green Hornet

Well, since this is my third superhero movie review of the year, I thought this might be a good time to preface my review by stating that I don't care about comic books. How well these films stay true to their comic book origins does not matter at all to me, and therefore does not go into my reviews. I mainly point this out because a major criticism I've seen of The Green Hornet is how far it strays from its source material. I don't care about that. All I care about is whether or not the film, in my opinion, was good.

The Green Hornet

Director: Michel Gondry (Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind)

Starring: Seth Rogen, Jay Chou, Christoph Waltz, Cameron Diaz

On Blu-Ray + DVD: May 3, 2011

I'm not really sure why The Green Hornet got so much of a negative reaction by both critics and moviegoers. Maybe they were expecting something more chaotic and in line with Michel Gondry's previous directorial efforts (including Eternal Sunshine, The Science of Sleep, and Be Kind Rewind). Or maybe they were expecting a more traditional superhero movie, with steroid-laced superheroes and cookie-cutter villains. Regardless of their reasoning, I have to kindly disagree, as I found The Green Hornet to be a light, funny, and entertainingly fresh take on the superhero genre.

The Green Hornet follows the life of millionaire Britt Reid (Rogen) after his father (Tom Wilkinson), a newspaper mogul, is killed by a bee sting. After meeting Kato (Chou), his father's ex-mechanic, and finding out that he hated Britt's father too, they decide to go deface a statue built in his honor. In the midst of this, they come up with the idea to pose as bad guys in the press while doing good deeds behind the scenes. I personally love this concept. The idea of the superhero posing as a bad guy is hinted at in nearly every superhero franchise at some point (The Dark Knight ended with it, Spider-Man 3 sucked because of it, and the X-Men franchise revolves around it), but it was very fun to see one of these films fully embrace the idea and let the characters run with it.

Having said that, The Green Hornet's main problem is its plot development. The characters make important decisions with little to no thought or discussion. For example, when Britt says to Kato that they should become crime fighters, he almost without hesitation agrees and they begin to plan out their strategies. Later, Britt and Kato show up in disguise at Casey's (Diaz) house, who had no idea about their alter egos. After a conversation that lasts probably ten seconds, she believes everything they tell her and actually helps them evade the police. There are far too many instances of this poor storytelling, and it definitely hinders overall quality of the movie.

Luckily, Seth Rogen and Michel Gondry didn't forget to put their personal comedic stamps on The Green Hornet. As the film progresses, it is obvious that Rogen helped write the script, as the dialogue reads in many instances like his previous screenplays, especially Pineapple Express. This may be a negative aspect of the film to some people, but I think that Seth Rogen is very funny, and his comedy is all over The Green Hornet. Gondry's technique comes through here, too. Gondry is well-known for being very visually creative with his films, and he was able to sneak that into The Green Hornet in the fight scenes, which use an interesting pre-planning sequence before the fighting begins a la Sherlock Holmes. These sequences are more funny than inventive, but that's the point, and it's funny to watch Britt fumble through these scenes.

The villainous side of The Green Hornet brings even more hilarity to the film. The film opens on a meeting between the main villain, Benjamin Chudnofsky (Waltz), and Crystal Clear (James Franco). It was one of my favorite scenes of the movie (even with Franco's weird accent), specifically because of the shift in power that occurs halfway through the scene. Waltz's character throughout the film had me laughing. Chudnofsky has image issues; in the opening scene, Clear tells him that he is boring and that he doesn't scare him. This statement resonates with Chudnofsky during the entire film, causing him to murder his own followers and even adopt an alter ego himself, the terribly named Bloodnofsky.

The Green Hornet has taken a lot of criticism, and for its plot, which is a crucial element of the film, it deserved the brunt of it. However, the film should also be remembered for the things that it gets right. Gondry's direction and Rogen's writing make this one of the more unique superhero movies I've ever seen, and the film's comedic elements, especially from Rogen and Waltz, work very well. It's not perfect, but if you're looking for something a bit different, you could do a lot worse than The Green Hornet.

Ricochet Reviews: X-Men First Class

X-Men: First Class

Director: Matthew Vaughn (Kick-Ass, Stardust, Layer Cake)

Starring: James McAvoy, Michael Fassbender, Kevin Bacon
Currently In Theaters

I'll be honest. Having loved X-Men and adored X2: X-Men United, the kidney punch that was X-Men: The Last Stand annoyed me so much that I completely gave up on the X-Men franchise. In fact, I didn't even check out X-Men Origins: Wolverine until after I'd seen First Class (what's up with these increasingly longer names, by the way? Were X-Men 2, X-Men 3, and Wolverine taken?). Even after seeing the awesome trailers they made for First Class I was skeptical, because director Matthew Vaughn's last film, Kick-Ass, didn't exactly blow me away, and the concept (teenage mutants? lame) didn't appeal to me. I am so glad that I looked past all of my doubts, though, and gave First Class a chance: it may actually be the best film of the series.

Taking its reboot classification to heart, First Class opens with a nearly shot-for-shot remake of the opening scene from the original X-Men. A young Magneto is shown discovering his powers in a Jewish concentration camp after he is separated from his mother. First Class expands this scene to introduce the main villain of the film, Sebastian Shaw (played by Kevin Bacon). In this scene, Shaw uses the young Magneto's rage to develop and unleash his magnetic powers. This is actually one of my favorite scenes of the movie; it reminded me of the opening scene from Inglourious Basterds with the calm sense of tension Bacon brought to his character here. My only problem with the opening was that I actually began laughing once Magneto's powers are brought to fruition; the young actor and director made a very odd (and funny) decision to have the character monotonously yell the entire time he uses his power.

The story that follows this opening is more or less straightforward: Magneto (played by Fassbender) begins a manhunt for Shaw that eventually leads him to the newly created X-Men, led by a younger, more able-bodied Xavier (played by McAvoy). After a film's worth of showing off their mutations and testing each others' abilities, the film is corralled into a climactic face-off between our X-Men and Shaw's group of mutants. It's really not very different from the previous films in this franchise, and one of my biggest complaints about First Class is that it doesn't take fuller advantage of its Cold War setting. Yes, the climax revolves around the Cuban Missile Crisis, and yes, JFK can be seen on the television once in a while, but I wish that Vaughn would have tied his story in even more deeply with these things. Not that the plot is bad; on the contrary, I was entertained and interested the entire time. I was just hoping for more historical tie-ins, I guess.

Then again, maybe they didn't feel the need to tie their story in so firmly to the period because the film itself manages to capture that atmosphere so wonderfully. While watching the movie I found myself getting lost in how well Vaughn was able to capture the atmosphere of the 60s here. It's kind of hard to explain if you haven't seen the film, but I'll just say that these characters and the environment they existed in felt authentic to the time period that First Class takes place during, as opposed to a group of teenagers from 2011 written into a film set during the 1960s.

But these things aren't why most of you will be seeing First Class. The reason most filmgoers love this franchise is the mutant's superpowers; this fact actually destroyed X-Men: The Last Stand, because the filmmakers were so busy showing off superpowers that they forgot to actually write a storyline. Don't worry: First Class has some pretty awesome stuff going on here too. Sure, some people have complained about Beast's costume, but these people seem to be leaving out how awesome Beast's transformation scene was. Vaughn used one of his more obvious director tricks in this scene (a first person perspective) and it works just as well as it did in Kick-Ass. Darwin is another great mutant from the film. He has the ability of adapting his body to any environment (like growing gills underwater), and this ability makes for one of the more powerful scenes in the entire film. The other new mutants to the franchise range from cool, like Havok (basically Cyclops but with hands), Azazel (Nightcrawler's dad), and Riptide (basically Storm), to lame, like Angel (her tattoo turns into bug wings), Banshee (he flies by screaming), and Emma Frost. Frost's character isn't bad, actually, but January Jones's acting turns her into an emotionless, diamond-encrusted pile of boredom.

The most important mutants of the film, of course, are Xavier and Magneto, and they (and the actors portraying them) prove more than capable of carrying First Class's emotional core on their shoulders. McAvoy and Fassbender do an amazing job with their roles, giving their characters, in my opinion, far more realistic personalities and emotions than Patrick Stewart and Ian McKellen were ever able to. Their relationship came off as genuine and their actions and thoughts were always true to their characters. Fassbender in particular did a magnificent job here, especially in one particular scene involving a satellite dish. Magneto is definitely the most complex character of the film and Fassbender was able to control Magneto's many changes throughout. This relationship was easily the best part of the film; without it, First Class would've simply been a better version of X-Men: The Last Stand.

X-Men: First Class is not a perfect film. There are costume issues, annoying characters, and some pretty silly directorial decisions (including an unnecessary split screen montage that I didn't even go into). However, the film does so many more positive things that its negatives seem largely unimportant. Vaughn's ability to capture the atmosphere of the 1960s is remarkable, and Fassbender's Magneto should be remembered, along with Ledger's Joker, as one of the greatest comic book portrayal's of all time. X-Men: First Class may not be perfect, but it's still one of the can't-miss movies of the year.

Ricochet Reviews: Pirates of the Caribbean 4

Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides

Director: Rob Marshall (Chicago, Memoirs of a Geisha, Nine)

Starring: Johnny Depp, Geoffrey Rush, Penelope Cruz, Ian McShane

Currently In Theaters

You know, On Stranger Tides definitely has a fitting name. It's a strange movie. On the one hand, the film suffers from being pointless, linear, and redundant. On the other hand, the film suffers from not really making much sense. I'm still unsure of how you could pull off both of these feats in the same film, but On Stranger Tides manages to do so. Not that the film is all bad, granted that you were a Pirates of the Caribbean fan to begin with.

Of course, you are a fan. Why else would you be wasting your time seeing the fourth film of the series? And for us fans, On Stranger Tides keeps enough of the old Pirates fun to make it worth seeing. Jack Sparrow does his normal Jack Sparrow-y thing, running around like a drunken genius, cutting ropes, and getting into fantastical shenanigans. Barbossa is back, too, and he's once again trying to chase down Jack. He's lost a leg since At World's End, too, which is probably the only positive addition this film makes to the series. And the film itself is adequately mystical, giving it that balance between fantasy and reality that makes the Pirates films fun.

There's a big "but" that follows all of that fan praise, though, and it's this: it's fun, but for some reason, the guys in charge are still afraid to just let Jack and Barbossa do their things. Somehow, after four years of promises that they would let their two best characters shine in the next film, they find a way to again hide them in with a jumble of unnecessary and unimportant characters. Jack becomes a servant on Queen Anne's Revenge, a ship captained by Blackbeard (McShane), for nearly half of the movie. This wouldn't be so bad if Blackbeard was actually a cool character. Instead of playing up his ferocity and giving him meaningful dialogue, director Rob Marshall gave him an annoying daughter (Cruz) and a sword that makes ropes move around. Don't even get me started on Cruz.

Meanwhile, Barbossa is leading a British colonial ship that is in pursuit of Sparrow and Blackbeard. Why do the filmmakers believe that we actually care about the British storyline they've been shoving down our throats for three films now? The only good character to come out of that entire branch of the story was Norrington, and halfway through At World's End they had ruined him, too. Then again, I guess they had to give Barbossa some reason to chase Jack since it would have been so hard for them to just make a movie where they are the two main characters.

Now, before I start ripping into the more crucial parts of the storyline, I should mention some parts that were quite good. I actually liked the scenes that take place in Britain. The scene in the courthouse and the chase through the streets of London was a fun way to introduce the film. I also liked how they handled the Black Pearl, although it should've played a role in the ending. I liked the idea of the mermaids, and, other than that weird vampire look they were sporting, I liked their design. I liked the location they used for the fountain of youth; it reminded me of the beautiful cinematography of the first three films, and I wish there was more of this color variety, like in the opening picture of this review. And, of course, I liked the scenes where Jack and Barbossa were on screen together, doing their piratey thing.

Too often, though, the story kept making me ask why. Why is there a romance sub-plot between this guy I've never seen before and a mermaid? Why are there zombies on Blackbeard's ship? Why is the rum gone? Why did Davy Jones have to die? He was so cool. But most importantly: Why in the hell are the Spaniards in this film at all? They're introduced at the very beginning of the film and don't return until the last 30 minutes. They have absolutely no purpose other than to steal two cups that Jack and Barbossa were going to steal anyways.

My number one problem with On Stranger Tides, though, is that it is pointless. If Cruz doesn't return for the fifth film, you could probably skip this one and lose nothing but a couple of inside jokes. Nothing important actually happens to Jack or Gibbs, and Barbossa's peg leg happens before the film begins. In fact, the only motivation within the film to establish any importance at all is that Jack is Blackbeard's prisoner. Barbossa doesn't care about the fountain of youth; he actually admits that. And when it's all over, basically everyone in the entire movie is dead except the three guys from the previous films and Cruz, meaning that not only will On Stranger Tides be unrelated to everything that came before it, but also that the film will have almost no bearing on what comes after, either.

I know that this review probably reads like a rant, and, to an extent, I want it to. There were far too many points in the film where I found myself shaking my head in frustration. Having said this, I can't pretend that I had a bad time while I was watching the movie. There were quite a few scenes that had me laughing, and the Pirates fan in me was almost satiated by the simple fact that Jack was back. On Stranger Tides is the worst and most forgettable of the four Pirates of the Caribbean films, but if you are a fan of the series, you'll definitely want to give it a chance.

Ricochet Reviews: Bridesmaids

Bridesmaids

Director: Paul Feig (Unaccompanied Minors)

Starring: Kristen Wiig, Maya Rudolph, Rose Byrne, Melissa McCarthy

Currently in Theaters

There's been an odd trend in movies so far in 2011. The filmmakers don't seem to understand how to market their own films. Bridesmaids is a prime example of this. From the trailers and posters, this movie looks like, at best, a female version of The Hangover or, at worst, a cookie cutter chick flick with no positive qualities whatsoever. The problem is that these assumptions are completely wrong. Bridesmaids is that rare romantic comedy that guys will want their girlfriends to love just so they get the chance to watch it again.

Bridesmaids is drawing superficial comparisons to The Hangover because of its character structure. The film is about a bride-to-be (Maya Rudolph) and her bridesmaids during the months leading up to her marriage. They also go to Las Vegas (well, not really), but this is where the comparisons stop. Kristen Wiig plays Annie, the maid of honor whose fumbling choices and depressing life turn most of the bachelorette events into disasters. Annie's troubles are further agitated by Helen (Rose Byrne), a bridesmaid who tries to take control from Annie during every event. Annie's love interests are played by Chris O'Dowd and Jon Hamm, who fit the roles of "nice, considerate boyfriend" and "sexist douche", respectively.

The real star of the film, though, is Melissa McCarthy, who plays Megan, the sister of the groom. Although she only plays a supporting role in the movie, she steals every scene she's in and elevating them from just funny scenes into hilarious and memorable ones. Her character's charisma shines through every time she speaks and Megan actually felt like a real person, as opposed to the caricatures that made up the other bridesmaids. I sincerely hope to see more from McCarthy in some other big screen comedies.

And Bridesmaids is first and foremost a comedy, which is where the film shines the brightest. There are many memorable scenes in the film and I've found myself quoting it quite a few times. The scene on the airplane is by far my favorite. Each of the women add something hilarious to the scene and even the minor airplane characters are funny. Another great scene was the dress fitting. I'm not a big fan of toilet humor, but for some reason the joke worked perfectly there. And my most quoted line from a movie so far this year probably has to be "bear sandwich".

All this isn't to say that Bridesmaids is flawless. The pacing is a bit weird in the first half of the film; there's this one scene where Annie bakes a cupcake that kind of comes out of nowhere and seems tacked on. The movie also gets a little too chick flicky for my tastes at points, although I guess that comes with the territory. My biggest problem, though, was the ending. Everything is wrapped up perfectly and everybody gets what they wanted the whole time. This isn't always a bad thing, but here it didn't feel earned at all. Also, the Wilson Phillips lip syncing scene was just terrible.

Don't let that last paragraph leave a bad taste in your mouth. Bridesmaids is a hilarious movie and to point out three bad scenes from a movie that's over two hours long is nitpicking. I know at least ten people who have seen the movie so far and every single one of them loved it, including three guys. In fact, I've already seen it twice. Bridesmaids is cute, different, and, most importantly, hilarious, and you should definitely check it out.

Ricochet Reviews: Thor

Thor

Director: Kenneth Branagh (Henry V, Much Ado About Nothing, Hamlet)

Starring: Chris Hemsworth, Natalie Portman, Anthony Hopkins, Tom Hiddleston

Currently In Theaters

I guess Thor was a worthy film to officially open the 2011 blockbuster season with. The stereotypical blockbuster has a reputation of being lacking in the story department in favor of steroidal action sequences (and actors). While Thor is definitely smarter, better, and more entertaining than most blockbusters, it falls back on many of those cliches.

Thor's first 30 minutes or so are easily the best chunk of the movie. The film opens in Asgard, Thor's home world, as Thor (Hemsworth), his brother Loki (Hiddleston), and a group of friends decide to retaliate against the Frost Giants of Jotunheim (an icy world) for attacking Asgard. What follows is a fantastic (and fantastical) battle sequence where Thor and friends obliterate dozens of Frost Giants. This was the most exciting part of the entire film to me. The battle had a mythic quality about it that made perfect sense given the mythical qualities of Thor that the comics build off of, and I wish there were more sequences like this in the film.

After the battle, Thor is punished by his father, Odin (Hopkins), for disobeying his command (he told them not to fight the Frost Giants). His punishment is that he lose all of his superhuman powers and be banished to Earth. This is probably the biggest flaw of the film for me. I understand that the film has to take place on Earth for it to actually matter to moviegoers, and that by stripping Thor of his power, he becomes essentially human, but he's supposed to be Thor, not just some guy walking around. It was probably made worse by following so closely behind that awesome large-scale battle; pretty much anything would seem boring in comparison. Also, most of the human characters are unimportant and extremely flat. The government agency characters play literally no role other than "guys Thor can beat up", and even important characters, like Dr. Selvig (Stellan Skarsgard), a scientist who helps Thor elude the government and get back his hammer, sometimes don't have much development other than what is needed to help out Thor.

This is not to say that the entire Earth section of Thor is bad. On the contrary, much of this part of the film was fun. Kat Dennings's character, Darcy Lewis, provides a lot of comic relief. She kept me laughing with nearly all of her dialogue. There is also an awesome scene with The Destroyer, this all metal, human-shaped being that becomes controlled by Loki and sent to Earth to kill Thor. The scene was very exciting, though extremely loud (every time The Destroyer used one of its powers, I thought my ear was going to start bleeding). Jane Foster's (Portman) role in the film was also, for the most part, a good thing, although her love interest with Thor at the end felt extremely cheap and tacked on. Thor is a being that can basically live forever, and in the span of a couple days he falls completely in love with this woman? Come on.

Thor is a decent movie and a good blockbuster. It doesn't break any new ground, but it at least makes a good attempt to elevate itself above an average film. It definitely succeeds in the extraterrestrial section of the film, though the Earth scenes could have definitely been better. I'd say that Thor is definitely worth checking out as long as you keep your expectations in check. Oh, and if you see it in theaters, please don't pay extra for 3D. That was probably the biggest waste of 5 dollars I've paid this year.

Ricochet Reviews: Source Code (A Re-Post)

Like I previously said, this is just a repost of my first review from this blog. Just in case people start reading this, it'll be easier to find this way.

Source Code

Director: Duncan Jones (Moon)

Starring: Jake Gyllenhaal, Michelle Monaghan, Vera Farmiga, Jeffrey Wright

On Blu-Ray + DVD: July 26, 2011

I'll get straight to the point: Source Code is one of the best science fiction films I've seen in the past five years. And I'm including last year's mindbender Inception when I say this, too. I know. That's a bold statement, especially when the trailers looked mediocre and the posters were terrible. Just hear me out.

Colter Stevens (played by Jake Gyllenhaal), a US helicopter pilot stationed in Afghanistan, awakens in Chicago on a train in the body of another man. He is eventually informed that he has been selected for a government program called the Source Code, which allows the person in question to re-live the last eight minutes of someone's life. For the film's purposes, Stevens is continuously re-living the last eight minutes of a man who was killed in a terrorist attack on a train in Chicago. His job is to find the bomb and the culprit's name so as to stop a future attack from the same person.

The "repeating day" plot has been used in many films over the years includingGroundhog Day, Deja Vu, and even 50 First Dates. What elevates Source Code above all of these is the execution by director Duncan Jones. Rather than focusing heavily on the train exploding or the love story or even the philosophical questions he brings up, he focuses on Colter Stevens. These things all happen around him, but the viewer is able to believe, understand, and sympathize with what he goes through because Jones is not afraid to just let Gyllenhaal do his thing.

Speaking of the love story, it is one of the most believable ones in any recent sci-fi flick. Similar films like Inception and The Adjustment Bureau don't really create any chemistry between the two lovers, instead relying on a suspension of belief by the viewer. While this is okay, it's also cheap. Somehow, Source Code ends up being the most believable of the three, even though we know that he's in love with a dead woman and she doesn't even remember any of it because it just resets. This may be because of the focus on Stevens, as mentioned earlier. It may just be because Gyllenhaal and Michelle Monaghan (who plays the love interest) exhibit so much chemistry that it doesn't even look like they are acting.

If there is any downside to the film, it's Jeffrey Wright. He plays Dr. Rutledge, a pointlessly crippled man in charge of the Source Code. His entire character seemed completely out of place in the film. His only function seems to be to annoy Stevens (and the viewer). He is the only character in the film that seems inherently bad, and Source Code didn't even need a bad guy to succeed.

It's very early in the year, but I doubt you're going to find a better sci-fi film in 2011. Source Code is a smart, entertaining film that will have you leaving the theater pondering your own existence. Do yourself a favor and go check it out on the big screen.

Ricochet Reviews: Rango

Rango

Director: Gore Verbinski (Pirates of the Caribbean, The Ring)

Starring: Johnny Depp, Abigail Breslin, Isla Fisher, Alfred Molina

On Blu-Ray + DVD: July 15, 2011

I had very low expectations when I went to see Rango. Gore Verbinski's last film (Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End) didn't exactly blow me away, but the main reason for my low expectations was that Rango was an animated film that wasn't made by Disney or Pixar. In my experience, if an animated film isn't made by those two companies, it's probably not going to be very good.

This is just a long-winded way of saying that Rango absolutely blew me out of the water. To put it simply, Rango is, halfway through 2011, the best film I've seen this year, the best animated film I've seen since WALL-E, and one of my favorite animated films of all time. Yes, I said it.

Rango follows the story of a pet chameleon named Rango (Depp). After falling out of his owner's car in the middle of the desert, Rango journeys to Dirt, a small western town inhabited by a variety of desert creatures. By telling a few white lies about his past, he is elected sheriff of the town and is tasked with defending it against the many villainous creatures outside of Dirt. It boils down to a standard western story. What elevates the plot above other similar westerns is that it is animated. Being an animated film allows Rango to explore concepts and imagery that a traditional western literally cannot do, like rattlesnakes with machine gun rattlers and roaming cacti. These elements do not seem out of place in Rango's world and they add a bit of fantasy to the plot that would not make sense in a normal western.

The animation itself, by the way, is gorgeous; it may be the most beautifully animated film I've ever seen. The characters are ruggedly detailed; even minor characters are given personalized touches to make them naturally fit in with the environment around them. And that environment is amazing. One of the most integral parts of a western (especially classic westerns) is, in my opinion, the cinematography. It doesn't get much better than that iconic western panorama of blue sky against an unexplored, unspoiled desert or prairie, and Rango captures this feeling perfectly. My one problem with the animation was the character Beans (voiced by Isla Fisher). I wasn't exactly sure what animal she was supposed to be when I watched it, and her animation just seemed a little too smooth when compared with everyone else in the film. This is a small problem, though, and I probably wouldn't even bring it up if the film hadn't been nearly flawless in its animations otherwise.

Having said all of this, my favorite part of Rango is its overall sense of maturity, both in themes and comedy. Most of the people at the theater when I saw this film were children, and during large portions of the film they seemed honestly confused because the humor simply wasn't written for them to understand. For example, I can distinctly remember jokes about tampons and frontal lobes. Frontal lobe humor is extremely specific and even a large number of adults won't get it, and I can respect Rango's audacity in aiming for such maturity in its jokes. Another aspect of the film that children just won't get is all of its references to other films. There were the obvious ones, like the Fear and Loathing reference near the beginning and the Clint Eastwood reference near the end, but interspersed throughout were little nudges to a wide variety of films that undoubtedly influenced Rango. For example, there's a scene that takes place in the middle of a white, monotonous desert, strongly reminiscent of Verbinski's and Depp's previous film, Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End. There's little touches like that throughout the film, and because they work so well, they elevate Rango that much more.

I don't mean to suggest that Rango is a perfect film. It's not. But it does approach the definition, and it may be as close to perfection as I'll see in the year 2011. With its wonderful blend of mature humor, western themes, and stunning animations, I literally can't think of a reason that anyone should miss this movie. Go see Rango. Trust me.

Ricochet Reviews: The Adjustment Bureau

Like I said in my previous post, I'm going to try to keep up with reviewing all the films I see this year. To do that, though, I have to play catch up (like I did for my Film of the Month entries). I'll post them in order of when I saw them, from earliest to most recent. I'll also repost my Source Code review for continuity's sake. Let's get started.

The Adjustment Bureau

Director: George Nolfi (debut film)

Starring: Matt Damon, Emily Blunt, Anthony Mackie, John Slattery

On Blu-Ray + DVD: June 21, 2011

The worst thing I can say about The Adjustment Bureau is that it doesn't do nearly enough with the great concept that the writers came up with. Bureau is about a man (Matt Damon) who discovers an organization whose job is to make sure people stay on the path that they are supposed to be on. Basically, they make sure that people follow their fate. 

It's a great concept, and, to an extent, the filmmakers allow that concept to shape what happens on screen. Damon's character desperately wants to start a relationship with a woman (Emily Blunt) who the Bureau says he is not meant to be with, and his attempts to defy his fate have a romantic appeal that I could relate to. The special powers of the Bureau were also interesting, and the door portals were one of the better parts of the film.

Sadly, though, this is about as far as The Adjustment Bureau allowed its philosophical side to go. It's a shame, because the film hints at deeper levels of thought: Damon's character asks Bureau members the questions we all wonder about (the encompassing "why?" being at the top), only to be given broad non-answers, if any at all; and the Bureau gives the viewer glimpses into some of their powers that don't involve opening doors, but these glimpses are few and far between. These concepts are left largely untouched in favor of the love story between the two main characters, which is the weakest part of the film. The characters meet a total of one time before fate intervenes, and Damon's character is supposed to be madly in love with her? I guess they were going for a "love at first sight" idea, but it doesn't really make sense when that first sight is the only sight for three years.

Then again, it almost works. Damon and Blunt do their best to make that shoddy writing believable, and their chemistry can be felt from their first scene together. The scene where their characters meet is probably the best scene in the entire film. I could feel a real connection between them and it almost carried over enough to make their "love at first sight" idea plausible. If the rest of their romantic scenes worked as well as that first one, The Adjustment Bureau would have turned out so much better.

Overall, I thought The Adjustment Bureau was an interesting but throwaway film. The love story is weak, but the Bureau is an interesting concept, and those fedora hats are damn sexy. I'll probably never come back to it on my own, but if someone wanted to watch it, I wouldn't have a problem seeing it again.

Coming Soon: The 30 Day Movie Challenge

Haven't updated for a couple weeks, so I thought I'd give my three viewers a heads-up on what's coming soon. Along with my best of June list I'll be doing when June's over (obviously), I'm going to try to write some actual reviews of the movies from 2011 that I've seen already and then keep updating with reviews periodically. Oh, and I'm gonna start this "30 day movie challenge" thing once I'm finished writing the term paper for my summer class. Wondering what the topics will be? Good question!


Day 01- The best movie you saw during the last year
Day 02 – The most underrated movie
Day 03 – A movie that makes you really happy
Day 04 – A movie that makes you sad
Day 05 – Favorite love story in a movie
Day 06 – Favorite made for TV movie
Day 07 – The most surprising plot twist or ending
Day 08 – A movie that you’ve seen countless times
Day 09 – A movie with the best soundtrack
Day 10 – Favorite classic movie
Day 11 – A movie that changed your opinion about something
Day 12 – A movie that you hate
Day 13 – A movie that is a guilty pleasure
Day 14 – A movie that no one would expect you to love
Day 15 – A character who you can relate to the most
Day 16 – The first movie you saw in theaters
Day 17 – The last movie you saw in theaters
Day 18 – A movie that you wish more people would’ve seen
Day 19 – Favorite movie based on a book/comic/etc.
Day 20 – Favorite movie from your favorite actor/actress
Day 21 – Favorite action movie
Day 22 – Favorite documentary
Day 23 – Favorite animation
Day 24 – That one awesome movie idea that still hasn’t been done yet
Day 25 – The most hilarious movie you’ve ever seen
Day 26 – A movie that you love but everyone else hates
Day 27 – A movie that you wish you had seen in theaters
Day 28 – Favorite movie from your favorite director
Day 29 – A movie from your childhood
Day 30 – Your favorite movie of all time

Welp, that's it. I'll update with real content soon enough.

Film of the Month: May

And now we're caught up! As June begins, I reflect on my film watching during the month of May. I saw a lot of great movies this month. I'm actually tempted to expand my long reviews to include more of these. I just may. Then again, I might get lazy. We'll see. Actually, you know what? I think I'll list all nine of those great movies and just say screw the crappiest film. There definitely were a couple of terrible ones this month, but they suck, so why waste time on them?

I'm not really sure what happened this month, but May was full of great romance and romantic comedy movies. In fact, eight of the nine films on this list (including honorable mentions) could be described as such. Weird.

Oh, and one last thing: I've decided to try out video embeds this month to spice up the blog a bit. Anyways, let's get on with it.

Film of the Month: Blue Valentine (2010)

Directed by Derek Cianfrance.

Starring Ryan Gosling and Michelle Williams.

When I told a friend about how great I thought Blue Valentine was, he started complaining about how movies shouldn't revolve around such mundane storylines. Real people live these lives, so it's boring to watch. That was his point, and, to an extent, I can understand it. In fact, one of my least favorite films of the month (Somewhere) suffers from this exact problem: absolutely nothing happens and I was completely bored the entire time. However, Blue Valentine is not one of those movies. Sure, almost everyone has lived through a relationship gone awry, but to suggest that simply being able to relate to the story makes it mundane is ridiculous. Blue Valentine may not have monster trucks exploding on mountaintops or gunfights on top of the Eiffel Tower, but it still has some very intense, dramatic moments. The film was originally given an NC-17 rating, for that matter. BV displays the anatomy of a wilting relationship in an extremely creative and effective way: by contrasting it with how the relationship began. My favorite film of 2009, 500 Days of Summer, used a similar contrast (with very different intentions, though). Scenes of this couple's broken home are interlaced with scenes of them falling in love. This is an excellent way to tell a story and immediately connected with me emotionally on multiple levels. I also must quickly mention the acting in this film. Williams was amazing in her role and deservedly received an Oscar nomination for it. To me, though, the real star of the film was Ryan Gosling. Ever since seeing 127 Hours, I have proclaimed Franco's performance to be the best of the year. No more: Gosling was by far the best actor of the year. If you have any interest in this film genre at all, please check out Blue Valentine.

__________________________________________________________________

Honorable Mentions:

Before Sunrise (1995)

Directed by Richard Linklater.

Starring Ethan Hawke and Julie Delpy.

Before Sunrise is, honestly, just as good as Blue Valentine, and I almost made it the film of the month. Hawke and Delpy work so naturally together in this movie that it doesn't even look like they are acting. Also, being a Linklater film, it's got a lot of philosophical ideas interwoven in the romance. A very unique movie with one of the best sequels of all time, too.

__________________________________________________________________

Bridesmaids (2011)

Directed by Paul Feig.

Starring Kristen Wiig, Maya Rudolph, Melissa McCarthy, and Rose Byrne.

Going into Bridesmaids with very low expectations, I wasn't sure just how much I actually liked it after it was over. Was it really that great, or was it just better than expectations? When I found myself convincing my entire family to go see it instead of The Hangover Part II and laughing even harder the second time, I knew the answer. Disregard the title: this movie is hilarious for women and men.

__________________________________________________________________

District 9 (2009)

Directed by Neill Blomkamp.

Starring Sharlto Copley and a bunch of prawns.

I actually saw District 9 in theaters. I had been out for drinks before I saw it though, and maybe that's why I left underwhelmed and disappointed. Whatever the reason, I re-watched D-9 last month and thought it was really great. It works not just as a political statement but, more importantly, as a sci-fi film. And with all these effects, it only cost $30 million to make? That's impressive.

__________________________________________________________________

Heaven Can Wait (1943)

Directed by Ernst Lubitsch.

Starring Don Ameche, Gene Tierney, and Charles Coburn.

Not to be confused with Warren Beatty's Heaven Can Wait, this film is about a man trying to convince Satan to let him into hell by telling him his life story. It's actually a love story, and the fantastical parts of the movie are pretty silly, but the overall movie is cute and interesting. Also, kudos to the filmmakers for portraying Satan as a nice guy all the way back in the 40s.

__________________________________________________________________

The Red Shoes (1948)

Directed by Michael Powell and Emeric Pressburger.

Starring Moira Shearer, Anton Walbrook, and Marius Goring.

You can tell that Darren Aronofsky watched The Red Shoes before he made Black Swan. Tonally and structurally the films are very different, but Aronofsky borrowed a good amount of his camera technique and choreographic ideas from The Red Shoes. Check the clip I've attached for an example. That's not a bad thing, though. Just like Black Swan, The Red Shoes managed to make a movie about ballet exciting.

__________________________________________________________________

The Science of Sleep (2005)

Directed by Michel Gondry.

Starring Gael Garcia Bernal, Charlotte Gainsbourg, and Alain Chabat.

Michel Gondry's films always leave me with, if nothing else, some very unique visuals. The Science of Sleep is probably the best example of this. In a world where the main character can't tell the difference between dreams and reality, you'd better have some fantastical imagery. Gondry doesn't disappoint, and the blurring of the dream/reality line extends to the viewer, as well, leaving you wondering what actually happened. In a good way.

__________________________________________________________________

Tangled (2010)

Directed by Nathan Greno and Byron Howard.

Starring Mandy Moore and Zachary Levi.

I actually like Tangled better than Disney's last film, The Princess and the Frog (other than that awesome Keith David scene). It's got a lot of the usual cheesy Disney stuff, but it's also got some pretty fun humor for all ages. The highlights of the film were definitely the horse and the chameleon, who didn't even need to speak to bring across their goofy personalities. If this is the trend Disney plans to follow with their animated films, I can support that.

__________________________________________________________________

When Harry Met Sally (1989)

Directed by Rob Reiner.

Starring Billy Crystal and Meg Ryan.

I'm not really sure how I went this long in life without ever seeing When Harry Met Sally, but I'm sure glad I finally checked it out. Although very similar to Annie Hall (probably the best romantic comedy of all time), WHMS stands apart for creating a lengthy, decades-long romance between these two characters. I know a lot of guys (like me) haven't checked out this movie, probably because a lot of women say it's great and that usually signifies that it's a chick flick. Just try it out, guys. It's really great.

__________________________________________________________________

Other (Good) Films From May:

Before Sunset (2004)

Billy Elliot (2000)

Crank 2: High Voltage (2009)

Mother (2010)

A Soldier's Story (1984)