Change Your Image
jatzel09
Reviews
Spectre (2015)
Better see this as a stand alone film and don't compare it to some of the great entries.
For a series that has been going on for 53 years, any resemblance of continuity is quite a chore so it is no wonder that from "Diamonds are Forever" in 1971 (Arguably since "For your Eyes Only") until "Casino Royale" in 2006, every Bond film was pretty much a stand alone story. The reboot changed all that and not only have we gotten a more developed character for Daniel Craig's Bond but there has been a connection between all four films, all of that reaching it's highest point in "Spectre" which marks the return to film (or reboot) of the organization that was dismantled precisely back in '71. That alone is a big selling point for longtime fans and Sam Mendes gives us many winks in the form of references to vintage Bond.
Unlike films such as "Superman Returns" however, this one is more than fan service. We have the great as always Lea Seydoux who continues the tradition of French belles being the best Bond girls, the flashiest and nicest of action scenes since the reboot, Craig's screen presence that we've come to love and Christoph Waltz again showing why he is one of the best actors on both sides of the Atlantic.
But the third most expensive film ever made seems rather misguided at times and that ultimately hurts the movie going experience. This one takes quite a long time, almost half the run time in my opinion to really get going and at 148 minutes, that is just too much. Once it does, you are in for a thrill ride but having to wait through what can only be called filler leaves you close to disinterested by the time the better part begins. Worry not though since the good definitely outshines the bad here.
All in all, this is a movie that I recommend. Just don't go in expecting another "Goldfinger", "Goldeneye", "Casino Royale" my personal favorite "On Her Majesty's Secret Service" or even the very good and recent "Skyfall". If you must compare, this is more like a well crafted "Tomorrow Never Dies".
Mad Max: Fury Road (2015)
The best possible revival
A lot can happen in 30 years. The world of 2015 is a vastly different one from what was the reality of 1985 when the last Mad Max was released, let alone 1979 when the first one first hit theaters down under. During that time, came a noticeable change in what film audiences expect in front of their screen. While the 1980s was arguably the peak of action packed films (The early 90s being a top contender), the movie going public today is much more comfortable with zany comedies or drama. The constant bombing (no pun intended) of action film after action film at the box office gives only further evidence. Of course there are exceptions to this and one could point at super hero films but that is quickly becoming a genre in itself. But pure action, is nowhere near it's peak.
So in this new world, three decades later, how does Mad Max speak to the public? That's where Tom Hardy, Charlize Theron and Nicholas Hoult lead by George Miller come in.
Just as our heroes are in constant movement away from Immortan Joe, the movie never stops going. There is not a second wasted during the two hour run time. No filler or throwaway scenes, everything is part of the story. Even when there is no dialog, there is narration be it in the form of a gaze, deep breath or fight. Miller, who returns to the franchise that made him famous, proves to be just as much a visionary at 70 that he was at 35 giving us remarkable direction that uses the talents of the cast to it's fullest potential.
For all the non-stop action that this film carries, the characters are never over looked. Hardy is proving himself a highly versatile player who can believable adapt himself to what the story requires of him just as Hoult fully embraces his role as Nux while Theron as Furiosa keeps the whole story together.
Music of course plays a fundamental part in every film and this is no exception. I have always considered Hans Zimmer the best in the game and no doubt that JXL's work with him in many other films, including The Dark Knight Rises has been a big influence. Every piece of the score accentuates the adrenaline rush that is Mad Max: Fury Road.
An adrenaline rush that will leave you questioning yourself if you really just spent two hours sitting in the theater as it was so entertaining and engaging that you will hardly notice time going by.
El Teniente Amado (2013)
This should have been much better
The Dominican film industry has for the longest time been guilty of short sighted mentality. While film making is a business and this is true for Hollywood, Bollywood, Europe and everywhere, Dominican films have been disproportionately focused on making instant profits in the Dominican market and not given any attention to making exportable films that could in the end make even bigger profits. Low brow comedies directed at the masses, Dominican masses specifically, has been the norm.
With that in mind, the announcement of a historical film, treating the subject of one of the conspirators that killed Dictator Rafael Leonidas Trujillo, who for 31 years held absolute power over this Caribbean half island, was of course a ray of positive light. Serious, exportable and with a compelling premise.
"El Teniente Amado" is the the story of Lieutenant Amado Garcia. A young officer in the Dominican Army who is assigned to Trujillo's convoy and made his personal military assistant. Something that he proudly shares with his cousin, Salvador Estrella Sadhala (Liche Ariza) and his girlfriend/bride to be Carmen Soto (Mercedes Renard). Unbeknownst to Amado, his future brother in law Felix Soto is a Trujillo opposer and his cousin Salvador is part of a conspiracy to kill the Dictator. A conspiration that history shows, Amado would also join.
What follows is a very poorly edited film. The story takes place over two years since 1959 to June 2nd, 1961 and it all seems rushed. There are no transitions, just scene after scene thrown together. The acting was dis-par among the cast with some doing a good job like Liche Ariza and even with a caricature of Trujillo, Efrain Figueroa plays a convincing maniac. Prison Break's Amaury Nolasco plays a Dominican for the second time since 2007's Benchwarmers and this time it is not insulting. He talks like any Dominican in the Capital. The fault however is in the poor script.
Terribly simplistic dialog, a story that soon loses focus on the eponymous character and then turns completely into a murder Trujillo plot and an extreme lack of character exploring.
There are many instances in which the character of Amado could have been explored deeply. His relationship with Carmen, the position with Trujillo and more importantly his change of mind when deciding to kill the Dictator. Instead, what we get is a sudden change, characteristic of a very short feature. The whole movie seems like an ubber long short feature.
So with bad directing, average script writing from a first timer and disjointed editing, what keeps this movie interesting for non Dominicans who might not have an emotional connection to the Trujillo story, is the fine acting by some of the actors who make up the cast.
This is still quite possible the best Dominican film of the past two decades, but that is not saying much. It is a step forward, but a long road lies ahead.
Iron Man Three (2013)
An Improvement Over the Previous Entry
Film-wise, 2008 will be remembered as the year of The Dark Knight. The movie that made critics and audiences alike go wild. But about two months before the Caped Crusader swept the Box Office, came the first film in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, Iron Man. A movie that also got good reaction from critics and made over 500 million at the Box Office. The movie had humor, a good villain and a charismatic lead in Robert Downey Jr. who was great at being a less than heroic super hero.
The movie also planted the seed for the Avengers and Tony Stark had a cameo in Hulk just a month later. But then the sequel. That was a really big miss. Trying too hard with the humor and failing while also spending too much time trying to set up the Avengers. It was a big disappointment after an enjoyable first movie. However this was all forgiven and forgotten after 2012 saw a very entertaining Avengers adaptation.
Now comes Iron Man 3. While 2008 was the year that Downey Jr. became mainstream again with Tropic Thunder and Iron Man, he had been lead in some good smaller films like Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang directed by Shane Black whom he is now reunited with as Black takers over directing duties from Jon Favreau. The former director is Executive Producer this time but stays on camera as Happy Hogan.
The movie tries to do more with the character. Something that had not been done in the previous two. This time we see Stark struggling with anxiety which was a great touch. The talent of Downey Jr. is remarkable as he goes from light-hearted wit-master to serious in a matter of seconds and it does not come off as one bit phony. Quite the contrary it seems very genuine. Below all the humor is a real person with real problems.
While that was a nice exploration of the character, other things in the movie were not as well done. There was waste of talented actors, the action scenes while providing us with some good visuals, were not as good as the first Iron Man, the plot was not as compelling outside of Tony Stark and there were some shocking deviations from the source material. Not just artistic license but major deviations.
The pacing of the movie was also shockingly slow considering that something was always happening. Every scene had something and still, the two hours felt like two hours.
All in all, this was a great improvement over the previous entry but that is not saying much. The exploring of the character was nice and this is an Iron Man movie. Not a set up, but an Iron Man movie. My disappointment is with the waste of other actors, the action and some script decisions but it's an inoffensive movie. The audience seems to be liking it but if you are expecting to go to the theater and cheer, clap and laugh hysterically like last year with the Avengers, you will be surprised. Perhaps pleasantly if you like characterization, perhaps unpleasantly if you don't like change.
The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (2012)
A Trilogy's Average Beginning
There are films that define a decade. Works of the seventh art that one must view in the future to better understand culture, taste and trends of a particular time period. Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings Trilogy is an example of this. Having made close to three billion dollars all together, these are films that greatly influenced culture in the 2000s to the point that the fantasy genre was no longer one overwhelmingly followed by book worms but now one of high mainstream appeal. Even the Academy of Infinite Wisdom could not deny the last entry a much deserved Oscar in the year 2003.
We are now in the 2010's and exactly 11 years after The Fellowship of the Ring first hit theaters, The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is released. Most fans know of the long and tedious pre-production process that went on before this came to be and it is not relevant now how Peter Jackson ended up being the Director and not Guillermo del Toro. What is relevant is how this entry does little to capture audience's imagination.
What was originally going to be two-parts has ended up being three, basically three hour movies which is extremely excessive for a 300 page book that is just an introduction to the masterpiece that is Lord of the Rings. Mr. Jackson himself has said that this was done so that the characters could be developed more deeply. Something which one does not see in this film. The reasons for Thorin's Quest are obvious and there is no depth.
This does not make it a bad movie, it is still entertaining. Great costumes, a familiar score, the return of beloved characters, wonderful panoramas as always. But we are left scratching our heads regarding if three epics were necessary. After asking this question, the most resounding answer is no.
While all three LOTR films have their own magic and could easily stand alone, The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is nothing more than a glorified introduction. I sure hope that by next November, things are different.
Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time (2010)
A cursed genre if there ever was one
I'll start off by saying that I am a video game fan and have been ever since I was a small boy playing Super Mario 3 for the Nintendo Entertainment System (NES). Unlike a lot of my contemporaries, I did not "grow out" of it after entering puberty. Sure, I loved nudity and girls but I was still a big gamer. Can't say I'd put the Prince of Persia series amongst my top 5 but I can say I always enjoyed the game-play and storyline. That, I cannot say for the film adaptation.
What is it about video games? Why are they so hard to translate to the big screen? If a movie about a fat Italian plumber who jumps on turtles isn't a masterpiece and actually turns into one of the biggest pieces of excrement to ever be internationally released, well that's no surprise at all. But one with such a rich storyline like POP? You have to start wondering.
This wasn't directed by untalented good for nothing directors like Uwe Boll (Who I hope doesn't beat the crap out of me after reading this). Mike Newell is actually a 30 year pro who's made decent to good flicks like Donnie Brasco (Also starring Gyllenhall). So you can't just blame the poor quality of the film on the director. Maybe video game films are not to be.
The Sands of Time does not have any interesting characters. None of the protagonists are developed the least bit to make the audience care for them. It also might have been a mute film. The dialogue was more poor than Sierra Leone. Not one good line that stays with you during this whole 116 minutes.
And what's worse (At least for a movie with a 200 million dollar budget), the action was horrible. Those were some of the worst A-Movie fight scenes I've ever seen. They were going for an epic feel to make you gasp but really, the only thing that made me gasp was that I actually stayed until the end.
I would not recommend this movie to anyone with at least a sub-par standard. If you want to see a video game movie, just rent Mortal Kombat which at least has a cool techno song. Persian or Arab film? Heck, Alladin beats this one out of the park. Yes, Disney's Alladin.
The only redeeming factor in this (And I'm being very liberal with the use of the term) is Alfred Molina's character.
Here we have Gandhi, who gained independence for his country by peaceful protest. But not even he could save this.
Alice in Wonderland (2010)
109 deadening minutes
Like many in my generation, I first came across Tim Burton after seeing his 1989 version of Batman. That was the highest grossing film of the year and it was the most profitable Batman movie until 2008's The Dark Knight. But the success was not just monetary. It was also a critical darling. What could we not love about it? a dark and gritty story, Jack Nicholson playing a mad man with a purple suit, Robert Wuhl as an ace reporter and a magnificent (If not exaggerated) Danny Elfman score.
Batman made Tim Burton a star director and it gave him power that he probably never imagined having. But the man could not handle so much power. Perhaps no other director is as polarizing as the creator of Edward Scissorhands (A darn good film). He commands the loyalty of legions of mall goths the world over but at the same time causes the irritation of pretty much anyone else.
I wont go as far as to call him a bad director but the movies he's had the most control over seem to be his worst. The Tim Burton style that was so well done in 1990 has run it's course in 2010.
I went to see this movie with very low expectations and while it was not an offensively bad movie, it was still a very tedious hour and 40 minutes. Everything that is wrong with a Burton film was back with a vengeance in "Alice in Wonderland". A very bad case of style over substance. And not very good style to boast.
The one thing I was looking forward to was Danny Elfman's score. If Hans Zimmer could make "Pearl Harbor" enjoyable then surely Elfman could do the same for "Alice" right? answer is no. Even the score was amazingly sub-par.
Seems like even Disney knew they had a stinker if they decided to release the movie on DVD after only 3 months. But don't get confused, not all is lost with this film. It has some very nice make-up, wardrobe, facial expressions, voice acting and visuals.
Everything else? just plain tedious. Oh and the 3D? non-factor. I recommend you buy and read a nice book instead of seeing this movie. Don't even rent it, wait until it's on HBO or network television. You'll thank me later.
I'm sure there's a market for this kind of junk but I am also pretty sure they are the Hot Topic crowd.