Change Your Image
colossus24
Reviews
The Perks of Being a Wallflower (2012)
A Mediocre Attempt
I wanted to like this movie. I read the book about a decade ago, while in my late teens, and the story resonated with me on several levels. I have been hoping (and praying as much as an atheist can pray) that the Hollydood commerce machine would not screw it up. Alas, in vain.
I am struggling of what to describe first in this review, but I think that I will give the makers of this movie a little credit. "Perks" was always going to be a difficult story to televise and the attempt is not a total cop-out. The movie stays true to the book in many respects and it's obvious that there was some thought put into capturing the feel of the written tale. That it didn't succeed is a confluence of several factors.
The main problem is down to the casting and portrayal of the main characters. I have no issue with the protagonist, Charlie, but the roles of Patrick (Ezra Miller) and especially Sam (Emma Watson) have been rather absurdly twisted, albeit each in a different way.
Patrick is overtly and flamboyantly homosexual, which becomes a real distraction. In the book, he was just a cool and funny guy for whom sexual orientation was a nuisance with which he struggled, but he didn't seem to consider it a core of his persona. The movie falls way short of that level of subtlety. Here Patrick is oozing gayness - that's where he begins and that's where he ends.
The character of Sam is even worse. I am not sure what is the big deal about Emma Watson. She has very little in terms of acting chops and it's a shame that she keeps getting roles, on the strength of "Potter" fame, that she is totally ill-suited for. She lacks any kind of charm and on top of that she looks androgynous. Sam is supposed to be a slutty girl gone good who is still feminine and unwittingly seductive. Emma looks and acts like a preteen boy making it hard to understand Charlie's infatuation with her.
The last problem that I want to touch upon is the lack of flow in the narrative. There is just no feeling of cohesiveness that characterizes good movies. It's a succession of short vignettes, loosely related, and strung together. The book also makes frequent jumps in time, but they are easier to digest due to transitional material. It makes sense that there is a time lapse when Charlie starts writing his letter, but somehow that doesn't translate well to the screen.
Overall, I give this movie a 4/10 score as I consider it a slightly sub-par effort. It wasn't for a lack of trying, but I wish that the creators resisted the urge to capitalize on Emma Watson's supposed star power and instead found an actress well suited for the role.
Star Trek (2009)
Frantic, sometimes entertaining, quite dumb
It's already been a few weeks since I saw this movie, which is kind of a bummer when it comes to writing a review because the nature of this flick is one of rapid, almost continuous action sequences, hurled at the viewer with warp speed. Coupled with few, if any, scenes of emotional significance, it creates a sense of having looked into a kaleidoscope for a few minutes and attempting to recall specific patterns. The retained memory is that of a jumble of pretty colors, but little describable coherence.
I am giving this movie five stars for its pure entertainment value generated by some decent attempts at humor and some inventive action sequences. To be honest, I would rate this movie a star or two lower if I haven't been desensitized by the truly awful blockbuster movies released in the past few years (Matrix 2/3, Dark Knight, Terminator 4, Transformers). Way to keep lowering the bar, Hollywood.
Now, let's get on with the nitpicks, shall we? I think I will use the good old bullet-point technique for this one as I just feel to lazy to write transitional paragraphs.
- The time travel plot - Time travel usually amounts to asking for trouble because of the innumerable paradoxes involved and it's typically a sign that the writers just didn't have a good idea for how to setup the action. In this case, it's almost certain that they were looking for a way to plug Leonard Nimoy (and possibly Shatner as well) into the movie to tap into the rapturous fan boy sentiments. It was a bad idea and the plot is weak. Besides, time travel has been used on numerous occasions in Star Trek movie/series' so it feels very derivative.
- The weak villains - They look fine, all thuggish and ruthless, and their ship is actually really cool (there's a funny scene when Kirk and Spock are beamed onto the villain ship), but the plot fails to provide a decent justification for their desire to create carnage. OK, their planet was destroyed and it sucks, but it was destroyed by a natural phenomenon. Spock honestly tried to save that planet and failed simply because it was already too late. It's not like he caused the explosion through some careless experiments in his science lab. Therefore, it's a stretch for Nero and his crew to harbor such strong sentiments against Spock and chase him through space and time to finally blow up his home planet. One could argue that villains aren't always the most reasonable of folk and one would be technically correct, but that's just a cop out. Movie plots require well-defined motivations for character behavior, otherwise the creators can argue away any script weakness saying: uhmmm, yeah, we actually meant for it to be vague and nonsensical.
- Dweebish, irresponsible Kirk's stratospheric career rise - I don't think this needs a particularly detailed explanation how dumb it is for an inexperienced cadet, who made his way onto a military ship as a stowaway and should have been summarily court-martialed or executed on the spot, to become a captain of said ship within the span of one day. Honestly, the only justification of that should have been if the entire crew suddenly died out from space-fever and the ship computer, certainly more qualified than Kirk, suffered a Hal9000-like cyber-dementia. What bothers me is the type of precedent set for the viewers, that you don't need to put in honest hard work to become successful. You can just flaunt the rules, act unreasonably cocky, because somehow you are better than everyone else, and then just hang around to reap the immediate rewards. Yeah, that's just the kind of example that people need to see, especially in the crumbling US.
- Impossible action sequences - I basically repeat it as a mantra after watching every action flick since the original Matrix. Virtually all film makers have given up on trying to create realistic and immersive action in lieu of the most ridiculous stunts the mind can conjure. I find it notoriously exasperating that the art of creating fantastic. but internally cohesive and plausible action seems to be lost. There are some examples of that in ST as well, such as the very first scene where kid Kirk jumps out of a car and hangs on by his fingertips over a deep chasm. I mean, really?!? What's that supposed to illustrate exactly, other than trying to draw in the most easily impressed and gullible audience out there? Similarly when Sulu and Kirk fight the two guys on the drilling platform. First of all their dive out of the sky was ludicrous, but it was somewhat interesting so that can slide. But it gets downright lame, when exactly two bad guys emerge from the platform, conveniently wielding melee combat weapons (now that wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that Sulu stated a couple of minutes earlier that he's a fencing expert now would it? I thought not).
- Uhura (sp?) - What a strange character. I still haven't figured out what was the point of introducing her. Sure she was decent enough eye candy, but the movie bounced between trying to portray her as ambitious and competent, and an emotional manipulator. Her attempts to seduce Spock were rather immoral given the fact that he was her commanding officer and she was just fresh on the job. Also, using sex appeal to get onboard the Enterprise in the first place was rather low class. Once again, the main issue here is the kind of example that is being set for the viewers, mostly female in this case.
Overall, the movie was somewhat entertaining, but it continues the trend of rather awful Blockbusters who continue to rack in the cash on the strength of rehashing old, once great franchises, and aggressive, in-your-face advertising campaigns.
...And the Earth Did Not Swallow Him (1994)
An emotional outburst or calculated agenda?
I rented this movie from a local library without having any prior knowledge of the book it is based on or the movie itself, purely based on the chance that it's one of those rare, overlooked gems that one can discover from time to time and really enjoy.
Unfortunately this is not one of those movies. I am not sure if this is a movie driven by sentimentality or worse, deliberate agenda, but certain elements of it made it impossible to immerse. It is supposed to portray a struggling immigrant worker community which tries to cope with the difficult realities of their life. That is a fine premise and it could have made for a gripping story, but the execution just made me alternate between getting annoyed and amused at the ridiculousness of it.
Here we have a community of simple farm workers who migrated to the US in search of employment and who get used and abused repeatedly by evil white men. And when I say evil - I mean EVIL. All white people in this movie are sinful, racist, sadistic, abusive devils whose sole purpose in life is sexual depravity intertwined with exploiting the poor immigrants. It would be a sad story if it wasn't so unintentionally grotesque and therefore hilarious.
The portrayal of the immigrants is also a poster-worthy example of exaggeration except that it goes in the opposite direction. The immigrants are saintly, clean and could serve as ointment for boo-boos and ouies the world over. I couldn't help but laugh when I saw these "field workers" presumably digging in the ditches all day with their notoriously clean clothes and chiseled hair cuts from a top notch hair salon. A little restraint and a more unbiased hand at the helm could have made this a much better movie evoking some intended emotion rather than sarcastic snickers.
The Dark Knight (2008)
Surprisingly incoherent and boring
I don't think that in my quarter century of living I've ever felt more disconnected from the pop-culture at large than after seeing this movie. With all the hype and uniform praise I thought beforehand that this is at least a solid piece of cinematic craft, maybe embellished slightly by Heath Ledger's unexpected death.
Unfortunately, this movie is rock solid proof that sometimes mass delusion can strike an entire society at one time. There is absolutely no way that this film can be regarded not just as a masterpiece, but even as half-way decent.
Let's get to the point. First - the plot. It's just unconvincing as a whole. Batman is basically a side character with little to do as he takes backseat on the Joker train. He whines incessantly about how no one needs him and how he needs to hang up his cape. Do it already! His troubled relationship with Rachel Dawes has zero chemistry and it's hard to care about the outcome. The idea of Joker being an anarchist, goalless and malevolent force sounds good on paper, but it translates to aimlessness on the screen. Joker shows up out of nowhere seemingly with no one backing him and then... snap! It seems like the whole world is at his service. Not only he has no trouble hijacking a school bus (and then blending into a line of school buses after driving out of a half collapsed bank), hacking into the public TV feed or rigging an entire hospital with explosives; he apparently does it with such ease that the creators didn't feel the need to reveal a shred of information about how he did it. Many events in the movie make absolutely no sense whatsoever. For example - what was the purpose of Lt. Gordon faking his death? And why did they make a point of showing the scene where his family is informed of the death - was that just to get the audience to buy into it as well? That's just dumb and a waste of time. Why did Harvey Dent become evil all of a sudden? Sure he was badly burned, but he had to know the risks going into this business and he had a steely resolve just minutes prior. There are many other plot issues, but it's pointless listing them all. They are there and easy to spot.
The acting in the movie is a-OK, but most of the actors just don't have any good lines as their characters are irrelevant puppets. Heath Ledger is good for sure, but his take on the character gets tedious after a while - mostly from overexposure. Maggie Gyllenhaal is a good actress, but she's just so wrong for the role. She's a nice-girl-next-door type and as superficial as it sounds, it's hard to believe that she would have two hotshots like Harvey Dent and Bruce Wayne chasing after her. Christian Bale has zero material to work with and they've turned Morgan Freeman into a moralizing nerd. Gary Oldman, Aaron Eckhart and especially Michael Caine do a decent job considering the script they were given to work with.
The screenplay is atrocious, incongruent and messy. It's like the movie was cut-up into a thousand pieces of varying length, reshuffled and then strung together. There is no natural progression of events and subsequent scenes frequently befuddle. It takes a couple of minutes to figure out what the hell is going on or why should we care. It's just poorly done.
For all the car chases, fight scenes, and giant explosions, the movie is just unforgivably boring. It's a combination stemming from a poor script, naive (or barely existent) plot, flat characters (that can't be remotely identified with much less loved or hated), and a general lack of good sense. There is also an annoying feeling that the creators had a rather low opinion of the viewers intelligence or maybe they just rushed the movie and had to come up with a lot of material in a little time, hence the low quality.
Before I end this overlong diatribe, let me just mention three scenes that I absolutely cannot get over with in terms of their pointlessness and stupidity. 1. Batman is riding his wicked-cool motorcycle approaching an aftermath of a multi vehicle crash and accelerates aiming it straight at the Joker. What he is trying to accomplish is never explained. One thing certain is that at the last moment he veers right, barely avoiding the villain, and drives his bike without touching the brakes, straight into a wall. I mean he drives it into a wall (or overturned truck, can't remember) full speed like a blind man. Had he even chosen to hit the Joker, how the hell did he expect to stop? 2. This one actually occurs a couple of times at least. Batman leaps out of a 20th story window and falls onto the ground unharmed. Unharmed! He didn't have a parachute, a bungee cord, and he didn't even spread his cape on the way down. He just hit full blast and walked away. And on one occasion his squeeze Ms Dawes fell with him and experienced a similarly puzzling lack of after-effects. Filmmakers, needless to say, didn't find it prudent to even try to provide some explanation.
3. Joker enters the hospital in a nurse uniform. That should present a logistical problem by itself, but OK. However, not only he seems to move around the hospital freely, he also does it still wearing his face paint. I mean the lower half his face is covered by a protective mask, but the rest is clearly visible. What's even funnier is that Harvey Dent looks at Joker straight in the eyes and the face paint doesn't give him away until he takes of the mask. Is this a cartoon?