Based off of a Hans Christian Andersen fairy tale, this Disney animated musical (they failed to mention this in many of the advertisements) stars Kristin Bell as Anna, a princess who must find and stop her sister, Elsa, who accidentally caused eternal winter in their Kingdom with her ice powers.
With Robert Lopez – co-creator of both Avenue Q and The Book of Mormon – on board for the soundtrack of this film, it’s disappointing that the songs are as bland as they are. For a movie that’s being sold as the next Lion King (1994), the songs shouldn’t be so forgettable. Not to mention that halfway through the movie they just stop, likely to avoid reaching a 2-hour run-time. It never feels like the movie fully commits to being a musical. It just seems like the songs were added last minute for the sake of novelty.
The characters in this film are incredibly one-dimensional. While an interesting moral dilemma is presented early on with Elsa, it quickly gets recycled and the writers never really do all that much with it. Anna is same faux-strong female archetype that you’ve likely seen many times before. Josh Gad’s Olaf – a snowman obsessed with summer – provides most of the laughs, but his character is still very hit-and-miss.
Frozen has been getting a lot of press for being the “female-friendly” Disney tale. It was refreshing that even though they were playing up the romantic elements throughout the film, its ultimate message is not one of “needing a man to survive.” But while this is all good, it should be pointed out that Frozen takes out most of the female characters from Hans Christian Andersen’s The Snow Queen, replacing them with comic relief and potential love-interests. In fact, in the original story, Gerda, the character that would become Anna, attempts to rescue her passive platonic male best friend, who is the only significant male character in the story.
Ultimately, the energy is just spent in the wrong place. The animation is beautiful, but the story is just plain lazy. Near the climax, there are plot-twists that occur for the necessity of the plot, not because they actually make sense. And the resolution to restore the Kingdom is downright cringe-worthy. That said, for the most part, it’s not a painful movie to sit through; there just aren’t many redeeming factors. 5/10.
In my opinion, The Hunger Games (2012) is not a very good movie. The books essentially rehash a generic dystopian government tale and market it to a young adult audience. Not that there’s anything really wrong with this though. It can serve as a gateway to other, better, cinema and literature. And other than the constant annoying references, people who aren’t interested can just attempt to ignore it. However, when adapting a book about kids killing kids, the MPAA creates an issue. When your main audience is in its adolescence, an ‘R’ rating is out of the question. To keep it ‘PG-13’, the original Hunger Games avoided showing any of the consequences of the violence, and missed the tone entirely. Playing up every aspect except the brutality, The Hunger Games did exactly what it preaches against. However, with a shift in directors, Catching Fire is a significant improvement from its predecessor.
The twist for this movie is that instead of drafting 24 kids to fight to the death, only past winners of the games will be considered. With this ploy, the movie is able to be more explicit with it’s depiction of the Battle Royale, as well as bring quality actors into supporting roles – including Jeffrey Wright, Amanda Plummer, and Sam Claflin. However, with so many characters, many get left to the wayside. Nearly half of the contestants are never mentioned. You see them for the first time after they’ve died, which essentially reduces them to a number.
The people who say they watch the movies for the social commentary are lying. The entire message can be summed up with a simple “Class Warfare = bad.” However, I do think this movie does a good job at depicting a government trying to keep control of its people. There isn’t much of a change in President Snow (Donald Sutherland), but the addition of Philip Seymour Hoffman as the new “Game-maker” adds an interesting element. And Effie Trinket (Elizabeth Banks), the ambassador to District 12, significantly develops as a character.
The movie still struggles with pacing, has numerous logistical inconsistencies, and could benefit from an ‘R’ rating, but nonetheless it still manages to be pretty entertaining. If you liked the first movie, you’ll like this movie. If you didn’t, I wouldn’t recommend you rush out to see it, but you might not hate it as much as the first movie. 7/10.
As of recently, Matthew McConaughey has had a significant resurgence in his career. Following The Lincoln Lawyer (2011), he’s had a string of successful supporting roles in some independent films; from Richard Linklater’s Bernie (2012), to winning the Independent Spirit Award for his role in Magic Mike (2012), to Oscar buzz surrounding his (supporting) title role in Mud (2013) this Spring, McConaughey has proved that he can act. Dallas Buyers Club may be his magnum opus however, as he lost 38 pounds for the role, and frankly gives the best performance I’ve seen this year.
Based on a true story, McConaughey plays Ron Woodroof, a homophobic, promiscuous, drug-addicted, electrician in 1985 Dallas. After he is diagnosed with HIV and given 30 days to live, he becomes an outcast because of the connotations with the disease at the time. The FDA’s corrupt and lackluster policy of approving drugs leads Woodroof to start smuggling unapproved substances into Texas. With the help of Rayon (Jared Leto), a transsexual AIDs patient, he sets up a Buyers Club – a way of indirectly selling drugs.
The main reason to see this movie is for the performances. Along with an amazing physical transformation, McConaughey adds dimension to a seemingly one-note, cartoonish role. It’s a brilliant character study, and it’s a lot of fun watching the arc. Also losing 30 pounds, this movie is Jared Leto’s first film in 4 years. He truly transforms into Rayon; if I hadn’t known that it was Leto prior to seeing the film, I never would have guessed. It’s a heart-breaking character and it’s played with absolute sincerity.
My main complaint with the film is that it drags near the end. It repeats the same theme over and over with only slight differentiation in the events. It overstays its welcome a bit, but it’s still a very enjoyable film. Not to say that it’s happy-go-lucky, far from it, but I’m definitely planning on watching it again sometime soon. 9/10.
Replacing Kenneth Branagh with TV Director Alan Taylor, Thor: The Dark World is the sequel to 2011’s Marvel movie of the same name, sans the colon. There’s nothing inherently wrong with this movie, it’s just remarkably bland.
In this installment, the fill-in-the-blanks villain is a Dark Elf named Malekith (Christopher Eccleston). With the Convergence approaching, Jane (Natalie Portman) is infected by the Aether – a powerful weapon. This leads to Thor reuniting with Jane and Malekith attacking Asgard. If you don’t understand the science or importance of things like “The Convergence” or “The Aether”, don’t worry. The movie doesn’t expect you to think about it. In fact, the writers spend as little time developing these things as possible. Just know that they’re super important and lead to crazy hijinks.
Loki (Tom Hiddleston) is the only character that adds any life to the movie. The movie picks up every time he’s on screen, and then immediately draws back once he leaves. And Marvel seems to have realized this, adding re-shoots to stretch out Loki as much as possible. I could talk about other characters in this movie, but to be honest, none of them are more than a simple gag. There’s plenty of humor in the movie, mostly with Darcy Lewis and Erik Selvig (Kat Dennings and Stellan Skarsgård, respectively); the jokes are pretty good for the most part, but they just seem out-of-place.
The climax of this film is admittedly very exciting, but it’s a long trek to get to that point. Thor: The Dark World isn’t as bad as Iron Man 3 – Marvel’s other attempt for the year – but it’s just not memorable. It will likely just be a distant memory the next day. 5/10.
Arguably Brad Pitt’s best chance for an Oscar anytime soon (His company – Plan B Entertainment – produced the film), 12 Years a Slave is the third feature film from British artist Steve McQueen. With this movie, Shame (2011), and Hunger (2008), McQueen has become one of my favorite directors working today. Although he was not a writer for this film, it definitely has his distinct style. 12 Years a Slave is probably his most accessible feature, but that’s not to say it’s any less emotionally taxing. It’s not an easy watch, but 12 Years a Slave is one of the best – if not the best movie of this year.
Based on the memoirs of the same name, the story follows Solomon Northup (Chiwetel Ejiofor), a free black man from upstate New York, who is kidnapped and sold into slavery. The movie is less about its destination and more about the journey that takes place. The title in itself spoils the ending, yet the film is so engaging there’s no feeling of waiting for the inevitable.
The brilliance of the performances is one of the reasons that the film is as convincing and effective as it is. Chiwetel Ejiofor’s turn as Solomon Northup is one of the best of the year. The real scene-stealer, however, is Michael Fassbender as Solomon’s malicious, possibly mentally unstable, plantation owner. He was snubbed by the Academy in 2011 for Shame, but this performance will hopefully turn some heads. The entire ensemble is absolutely fabulous though; Newcomer Lupita Nyong’o was heart-wrenching as the constantly abused Patsey, Paul Dano (who is slowly turning into one of my favorite actors) is stunning as a despicable plantation manager, and Benedict Cumberbatch provides a touch of irony as Soloman’s (relatively) kind initial owner. Not to mention the rest of the supporting cast, boasting Paul Giamatti, Scoot McNairy, and Quvenzhané Wallis.
Stylistically similar to McQueen’s other films, 12 Years a Slave lingers on each shot, not anxious to change to a different angle. The cinematography captures the mood, dragging you into the experience. Hans Zimmer’s haunting score is the cherry on top. It’s subtle and subdued, but takes the movie to the next level.
A word of warning though, this is not a movie for the faint of heart. Nor is it one that will allow you to function normally for the rest of the day. It took me at least half an hour before I was ready to rejoin society. I will definitely be revisiting 12 Years a Slave in the future; I just don’t know when I’ll be ready. 10/10.
Based on the classic Orson Scott novel, this movie is the result of a 28-year effort to get the book adapted. After an alien invasion, the military decides to recruit children to be future leaders. Directed by Gavin Hood, Asa Butterfield stars as Ender. The impressive supporting cast includes Harrison Ford, Viola Davis, and Sir Ben Kingsley. With a 100 million dollar plus budget and numerous technical innovations going into it, it’s disappointing that Ender’s Game is as underwhelming as it is.
The film’s main falter is the lack of focus in its script. The underlying moral messages are either shoved into your face or underdeveloped. There are several ideas that are presented in the film (love interests, character faults, etc.) but then completely forgotten about. The first 2/3 of the film isn’t great, but it’s harmless enough. Everything falls apart in the remaining 1/3 though. Characters start making less and less sense, themes and messages are muddled, and everything seems less real. Not to mention the incredibly anti-climatic ending.
For a film with so many child actors, the performances are surprisingly solid. Especially with so much CGI. Asa Butterfield holds the movie together with relative believability, and the supporting roles are played well – even surpassing the performances of some of the veteran actors in the film. Viola Davis is good with what she’s given. Harrison Ford isn’t that great, though not worse than anything else he’s done in the past decade. And the film pulls an ‘Iron Man 3’ by barely including Ben Kingsley, and while he’s there, he’s not memorable.
On a technological level, this film is great. Plenty of scenes are in zero gravity, and it’s believable. The battle training sequences in the middle of the film are probably the high point. And the creature designs are great – with what little they do with them.
This film isn’t terrible. It just feels a little bit rushed. With all of the money put into special effects, it would have been nice if there were a little more put into making the script good. 7/10.
Starring Owen Wilson and Woody Harrelson, this animated film involves turkeys that travel back in time in attempt to stop turkeys from being eaten on Thanksgiving. As an APUSH student, I can tell you that this might not be historically accurate, but we’ll look past that flaw for the sake of this review.
The biggest problem with this film is that it tries to do too much. Free Birds attempts to be a buddy-comedy, a sci-fi adventure, a romance story, a coming-of-age tale, and a war movie all in one. It ends up doing none of them well. This lack of focus took me out of the movie and left me more confused than entertained.
Even in terms of kids’ films, this movie isn’t that funny. It never fully lost me, every once in a while there’d be a joke that caught me off-guard, but for the most part it was kind of painful to sit through. I know that it’s a kids’ movie and the target audience is eight-year-olds who don’t know any better, but that still doesn’t make this movie good.
The most baffling part of this movie though is the weird, contradictory political message. On one hand it touches on animal cruelty and how there are other options, then on the other hand the other option the film presents is fast food. Not to mention the moral ambiguity and animal cruelty behind that, unironically preaching how great fast food is to kids isn’t a great way to end a film.
There are also just some straight-up strange choices in Free Birds. When going back in time to 1620, all of the turkeys are Native American. Face paint and all. It’s a small detail, and I’d hesitate to call it truly racist., but it’s something that bothered me for a large chunk of the film.
On that note the movie isn’t all bad. There’s a strong female character, which is nice. I also want to congratulate Free Birds for making the first homoerotic turkey movie. It’s not the worst thing of all time, but it’s nothing you should be wasting your time with. And it’s probably nothing you want to show your kids either. 3/10.
