Showing posts with label ian mckellan. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ian mckellan. Show all posts
June 22, 2014
X-Men: Days of Future Past (2014)
4/5
X-Men: Days of Future Past reignites the fire that made the X-Men movies such hits. The story is set at some ambiguous time in the future, in which mutant-killing machines named Sentinels are continuously hunting the last of the mutant race. Fortuitously, Ellen Page's character can send people back in time, and Hugh Jackman's character has the "healing power" to withstand going back to the 1970's and changing the course of human--err, mutant--history. (I'm still not sure how going back in time is physically damaging to the human body, but I guess the producers wanted to milk the Wolverine cow for as much advertising power as they could.)
The movie feels a little over the top, with a depressing post-apocalyptic vision of the future and an overwhelming sense of dread permeating the entire movie. The stakes in action movies just seem to get bigger and bigger with every franchise sequel. But there is one truly magical scene early on in the movie (when the younger generation of mutants break Magneto out of prison) that is filled with such levity and fun, such imagination and creativity, to make you think you were in a different movie. Unfortunately, after that scene, the movie returns to its aggressively-serious, doom-filled march.
I'm sure the comic canon fanatics will have complaint after complaint with the creators playing fast and loose with characters, backstories, and time travel, but the fact remains that the latest X-Men movie is one of the rare action movies that remains a mystery despite a predictable plot progression. Although you know the general trend of what happens, it keeps you on the edge of your seat wondering not just who will live and who will die, but how exactly all the details play out. The story is a bit convoluted and probably has its fair share of plot holes, but the action is astutely-directed, the editing is exciting and tight, and the production value is excellent. It's one of the best entrants in the X-Men series and a fantastic summer blockbuster.
IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1877832/
July 14, 2008
The Da Vinci Code (2006)
2/5
The Da Vinci Code is a faithful adaptation of a trashy airplane novel. Sure, it works, but at what level? The plot follows Tom Hanks and Audrey Tautou as they try to uncover the mystery surrounding Tautou's grandfather's death in the Louvre. They soon realize that it is part of a far greater mystery involving the Holy Grail, the Priory of Scion, and Opus Dei. For those that care or know little about religion, this movie will surely bore you, as 90% of the time they are solving puzzles relating to ancient Christian cover-ups and lies. For those that hate the French, this movie will surely aggravate you, as 50% of it is in French. But for the rest, you might find it acceptable. After all, Hanks and Tautou are always excellent, and do their best with the somewhat lacking source material. While Howard's directing was expectedly subpar, it did provide some level of entertainment, albeit frustrating at some points.
After Howard and his incessant stylized flashbacks, mediocre cinematography, and terrible editing, the script was easily the next worst part about this movie. The writers were so faithful to the book that they decided to keep in all the bad parts. Novels must be adapted to work on the screen, not simply converted to the proper format. The first main problem is the pacing of the story. The book has about five different endings, which is bad enough in book form, but in movie form it just makes the last half hour drag painfully on and on and on. The second main problem is the atrocious dialogue. The plot elements themselves were quite silly and far-fetched, but interesting nonetheless. Still, I thought I would hate the movie based on all the negative reviews and anecdotal evidence I had heard about it, but I was surprised at how captivating it was. At least, how captivating it was late at night while simultaneously talking to friends online. I wouldn't go out of your way to check this out, but if you were excited about it at one point in your life, it might not hurt to catch it on TV.
IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0382625/

After Howard and his incessant stylized flashbacks, mediocre cinematography, and terrible editing, the script was easily the next worst part about this movie. The writers were so faithful to the book that they decided to keep in all the bad parts. Novels must be adapted to work on the screen, not simply converted to the proper format. The first main problem is the pacing of the story. The book has about five different endings, which is bad enough in book form, but in movie form it just makes the last half hour drag painfully on and on and on. The second main problem is the atrocious dialogue. The plot elements themselves were quite silly and far-fetched, but interesting nonetheless. Still, I thought I would hate the movie based on all the negative reviews and anecdotal evidence I had heard about it, but I was surprised at how captivating it was. At least, how captivating it was late at night while simultaneously talking to friends online. I wouldn't go out of your way to check this out, but if you were excited about it at one point in your life, it might not hurt to catch it on TV.
IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0382625/
December 08, 2007
The Golden Compass (2007)
3/5
I read these books a while back and really liked them. I never fell in love with them like a fanboy, but I appreciated the depth of characters and mature content usually absent in "children's books." Those are almost precisely the things this movie lacked. It was a children's movie without the adult themes and complex characters. And yet somehow it managed to stay too faithful to the book. There was no adaptation involved; instead it compacted every single important event in the book and shoved it into this movie, which made everything seem forced and outright ridiculous. Moreover, the world they imagined was so different from what I had imagined. It was futuristic with blue balls of energy powering everything. What is that? When I read the book I imagined it was just London in present day. Another qualm is the CGI. I hated it. Filmmakers depend on it too much; it seems as if they don't even shoot anything anymore. It's just not believable.
But to be fair, I did find myself enjoying it a lot. The bear fight scene was awesome, and there were some parts that were really exciting. There's nothing really terrible about the movie, just frustrating. It's irritating when you see good material treated sloppily. Don't go out and see it if you can avoid it. Save yourself a whole lot of ire and just read (or re-read) the books.
IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0385752/

But to be fair, I did find myself enjoying it a lot. The bear fight scene was awesome, and there were some parts that were really exciting. There's nothing really terrible about the movie, just frustrating. It's irritating when you see good material treated sloppily. Don't go out and see it if you can avoid it. Save yourself a whole lot of ire and just read (or re-read) the books.
IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0385752/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)