Ah, Godzilla, a name that has resonated with movie fans for almost 60 years now dating all the way back to the Japanese monster's debut in 1954 with the original Gojira. Everyone's favorite King of the Monsters has starred in over 20 movies and is one of the most iconic movie characters to ever grace the screen. I was more than curious when I found out the Godzilla franchise was getting a reboot and downright psyched when I saw the trailers for the new film. What's the verdict for 2014's reboot Godzilla? Read on and find out.
It's 1999 near the Janjira Nuclear Power Plant by Tokyo and plant supervisor Joe Brody (Bryan Cranston) is tracking a weird anomaly that his supervisors aren't nearly as worried about. In a violent, destructive explosion, the plant is destroyed, Joe's wife killed in the accident. The incident is identified as an earthquake, but Joe suspects something else. Some 15 years later, Joe's son, Ford (Aaron Taylor-Johnson), is now an explosive ordinance disposal technician with a wife and son...who's still dealing with his Dad. Joe has been arrested near the quarantined Janjira plant, Ford flying to Japan to bail him out. There's more though. Looking for answers, father and son head back into the quarantined plant looking for answers only to get caught again. What waits inside? More than they were counting on including a creature unlike any the world has ever seen before. It is a creature that threatens to tear the world apart, leaving waste and destruction wherever it goes. There's more though, another creature that's the stuff of myth and legend. It could save us or kill us.
If a studio wants to do a reboot, do it right and with a franchise that needs and/or deserves one. The Godzilla franchise certainly deserves one. This is the 30th Godzilla movie and first for American audiences since the awful 1998 version which was too goofy and campy for its own good. For starters, the 2014 reboot gets points for taking things seriously. The trailers were exceptionally good, setting the tone for what was to come. Director Gareth Edwards (who directed the somewhat similar Monsters) has done an admirable job with a story that tries to tackle a whole lot. That plot description was difficult to write because, well, you can write it without actually mentioning that Godzilla fella. Still, it reboots the franchise while creating its own identity, especially Godzilla's backstory, one of the best things to come out of the script in a very cool, unique twist. The original has Godzilla forged out of nuclear testing in the 1940s and 1950s, but that ain't the case here. No spoilers here though. Go see the movie!
Here's somewhat of a warning. Don't go into this movie expecting two hours of Godzilla fighting and tearing apart cities. Nope, instead Edwards goes for the more subtle, even artsy attack similar to what Steven Spielberg did with his 1975 classic Jaws where the shark wasn't shown in full until the final act. It's not so extreme here thankfully! That said, Godzilla isn't front and center for long stretches of a 123-minute movie. What's there is excellent, by far the strongest parts of the movie. We see the King of the Monsters out of focus, in shadows and hidden away, building up the mystery and the tension so when we actually see him....yeah, it's epic and awesome and perfect, exactly what you're looking for. On other levels, the look of the creature is perfect and back to basics. It's the immense reptilian character with the long tail and razor-sharp back plates that looks like a gigantic sea creature/dinosaur. Oh, and that Godzilla yell (Listen HERE). Yes, it's there and it's great.
Semi-SPOILERS ahead. Semi-SPOILERS. So where does the story go? Godzilla treads that fine line between King of the Monsters who destroys the world and King of Monsters who's the lesser of two evils and somewhat unintentionally becomes a protector of Earth and mankind. Who does he go up against? Two creatures dubbed MUTOs (Massive Unidentified Terrestrial Organisms) who have been separated and trying to reunite. Yes, this movie isn't just about Godzilla. It starts off in Japan and heads across the Pacific to San Francisco and into the Nevada desert and Las Vegas and then back again. The fights between the MUTOs and Godzilla are epic, the movie's strongest points and what most people/fans/audiences want to see when they go see a Godzilla movie. The action sequences are remarkable, CGI that doesn't look like CGI as these monsters do battle. They're everything that the Transformers often missed out on, even last year's Pacific Rim. It's CGI, but it doesn't get bogged down. These are just COOOOOOOOOOOL sequences. END OF SPOILERS
Oh yeah, those pesky people in the movie. No huge names here, and that's a positive. There's good and bad among the human cast. I liked Cranston a lot, bringing the right of drama without overdoing it, especially his scenes with his wife (Juliette Binoche). Johnson becomes the more prototypical action hero, the E.O.D. technician seemingly everywhere as Godzilla and Co. traverse the globe. His Ford is given a worrying wife (Elizabeth Olsen) and cute kid. As for the military personnel, look for the always reliable David Straithairn as the Admiral in charge of the operation while Ken Watanabe and Sally Hawkins are the two scientists who may know more than they're letting on. Nothing crazy good or crazy bad, just necessary parts. Cranston stands out for the positive, and Johnson holds his own without calling too much attention to himself.
What the trailers seemed to hint at and Edwards came through on was the "smart" aspect of the movie. This isn't a dumb, shoot 'em up action movie with prehistoric monsters tearing apart the world. The build-up is a little slow for the first hour, but it does a heck of a job building the tension to almost unbearable levels. When we do see Godzilla and his prehistoric rivals, it's almost like a release/relief to finally see them. It's a great-looking, stylistic, even artsy visual look for 'Godzilla.' Some sequences especially stood out for me, including our first real look at Godzilla as we get landfall in Hawaii, tsunamis, explosions, airports blowing up, and all sorts of shenanigans going on. It's big and sweeping like you'd hope to see. The coolest sequence though is a HALO jump into an on-fire, apocalyptic San Francisco, SEAL teams and specialists dropping into the city in a last ditch effort to save thousands of lives. Set to music from 2001: A Space Odyssey (listen HERE), this is a remarkable sequence, beautifully haunting and proof that action can have an art quality to it.
Well, here I sit. I didn't love the movie, but I did like it a lot. I'll be curious to see where this rebooted franchise heads in coming years -- should sequels be in the works. For now, this is an excellent attempt to reboot one of the most iconic, infamous characters/creatures in film history. An easy flick to recommend, and a hopefully excellent start to the summer blockbuster season. Also check out THIS excellent teaser trailer.
Godzilla (2014): ***/****
The Sons of Katie Elder
"First, we reunite, then find Ma and Pa's killer...then read some reviews."
Showing posts with label Aaron Taylor-Johnson. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Aaron Taylor-Johnson. Show all posts
Monday, May 19, 2014
Thursday, September 12, 2013
Anna Karenina
Thanks to high school and college honors classes in English and literature, certain names and genres scare me to death. Yeah, Shakespearean anything isn't my favorite, nor is Victorian literature. But anything Russian absolutely sends a shiver up my back, especially Leo Tolstoy. I've never had the guts to try one of his behemoth novels, but movies? Sure, why not?!? Let's give 2012's Anna Karenina a shot.
It is 1874 in imperialist Russia and Anna Karenina (Keira Knightley) visits her brother's family in Moscow from St. Petersburg. Her brother, Stiva (Matthew Macfayden), has been kicked out of his home by his wife who caught him with a mistress. During her visit, Anna attends a ball, meeting Count Vronsky (Aaron Taylor-Johnson), a young, handsome, glamorous cavalry officer with quite the reputation as a ladies man. She is immediately drawn to him, putting her in quite the morally questionable spot. Anna is married to Alexei Karenin (Jude Law) for years and very much loves him, her life and her young son. She can't help what she feels though, and her emotions for Vronsky seem very real. Pursuing anything with the young Count though could tear her life apart as well as the lives of her family.
A Tolstoy novel from the 1870s, 'Anna' is a classic novel that ranks with War and Peace as the Russian author's best. It has been adapted to film countless times (okay, 15 according to Wikipedia) and with director Joe Wright (Atonement, Pride and Prejudice) at the helm of a very talented cast and crew, this 2012 version seemed like a gimme. I'm a huge fan of historical epics and periods pieces, and I was psyched to check this one out. Even Netflix thought I'd like it, recommending a 4.1 on a 5 scale. The movie is a stunner to watch -- kudos to cinematographer Seamus McGarvey -- and features great uses of wardrobe and period appropriate attire. Even the music from composer Dario Marianelli is solid, a good mix of stirring epic and soothing classical, stands out from the crowd.
Unfortunately, not much else stands out from the crowd. Stylistically, there are issues which I'll get to in a bit, but the biggest issue kneecapping the story is the casting and the script. I like Knightley a lot, but she keeps playing the same part over and over again, a strong historical woman who's forced to deal with some gutwrenchingly emotional issue. Much of the movie follows her relationship with Taylor-Johnson's Vronsky, maybe the dullest relationship I can think of in recent memory. They exchange glances at the ball and are instantly in love. For some reason, Anna falls madly in love with him -- obviously because of his stirring personality -- and ruins her life. I liked Taylor-Johnson in Savages, and by all accounts, he's good in Kick-Ass, but other than his good looks, I thought his Vronsky had the personality of cardboard. It's hard to see why they're drawn to each other. Is it just a physical connection? That's all I was seeing.
Some of the supporting performances stand out for the better, even if their purpose is distracting. I especially liked Jude Law as Alexei, Anna's husband who comes out smelling like roses here. With their marriage possibly crumbling, Alexei must decide what is most important to him. As a powerful government statesman, his name and reputation are on the line, but that doesn't seem to bother him in the least. A solid, understated and emotional performance from Law. Macfayden is good as Stiva with Kelly McDonald playing his wife, Dolly. Also worth mentioning is Domhnall Gleeson as Levin, a young man from a well-to do family who wants to create a life for himself with Kitty (Alicia Vikander), a beautiful young woman and Dolly's younger sister. At a certain point though, faces start to look alike, characters run together, and none make too much of an impression.
One major style choice ends up handcuffing the movie in a big way. Filming his movie, Wright actually shot much of it on an old stage in an abandoned theater. Scenes transition from one to another, the camera whirling around to follow the characters. The sets, designs and backgrounds change, but much of the movie quite literally takes place on a stage. Is he going for a truly artsy look? If so, it doesn't work. It took me completely out of the movie itself, making me question if I was watching a stage-based adaptation instead of a theatrical release. While the thought was there to try something new/unique, it came across as pretentious a little bit. "Oh, look at me, look what I can do!" Too bad, because the visuals are certainly there to make an above average period piece.
Most of all, it's just the characters. For lack of a more thought out, articulate description, they're annoying. Anna and Vronsky look adoringly into each others' eyes, each imploring the other to tell them how much they love the other one. Anna is beyond stupid, not seeing what consequences her actions are going to produce. It's just disappointing. You can have all the great sets and designs, all the impressive set pieces, but it comes down to this. If you're not interested in the characters, it's hard to be interested in the film.
Anna Karenina (2012): **/****
It is 1874 in imperialist Russia and Anna Karenina (Keira Knightley) visits her brother's family in Moscow from St. Petersburg. Her brother, Stiva (Matthew Macfayden), has been kicked out of his home by his wife who caught him with a mistress. During her visit, Anna attends a ball, meeting Count Vronsky (Aaron Taylor-Johnson), a young, handsome, glamorous cavalry officer with quite the reputation as a ladies man. She is immediately drawn to him, putting her in quite the morally questionable spot. Anna is married to Alexei Karenin (Jude Law) for years and very much loves him, her life and her young son. She can't help what she feels though, and her emotions for Vronsky seem very real. Pursuing anything with the young Count though could tear her life apart as well as the lives of her family.
A Tolstoy novel from the 1870s, 'Anna' is a classic novel that ranks with War and Peace as the Russian author's best. It has been adapted to film countless times (okay, 15 according to Wikipedia) and with director Joe Wright (Atonement, Pride and Prejudice) at the helm of a very talented cast and crew, this 2012 version seemed like a gimme. I'm a huge fan of historical epics and periods pieces, and I was psyched to check this one out. Even Netflix thought I'd like it, recommending a 4.1 on a 5 scale. The movie is a stunner to watch -- kudos to cinematographer Seamus McGarvey -- and features great uses of wardrobe and period appropriate attire. Even the music from composer Dario Marianelli is solid, a good mix of stirring epic and soothing classical, stands out from the crowd.
Unfortunately, not much else stands out from the crowd. Stylistically, there are issues which I'll get to in a bit, but the biggest issue kneecapping the story is the casting and the script. I like Knightley a lot, but she keeps playing the same part over and over again, a strong historical woman who's forced to deal with some gutwrenchingly emotional issue. Much of the movie follows her relationship with Taylor-Johnson's Vronsky, maybe the dullest relationship I can think of in recent memory. They exchange glances at the ball and are instantly in love. For some reason, Anna falls madly in love with him -- obviously because of his stirring personality -- and ruins her life. I liked Taylor-Johnson in Savages, and by all accounts, he's good in Kick-Ass, but other than his good looks, I thought his Vronsky had the personality of cardboard. It's hard to see why they're drawn to each other. Is it just a physical connection? That's all I was seeing.
Some of the supporting performances stand out for the better, even if their purpose is distracting. I especially liked Jude Law as Alexei, Anna's husband who comes out smelling like roses here. With their marriage possibly crumbling, Alexei must decide what is most important to him. As a powerful government statesman, his name and reputation are on the line, but that doesn't seem to bother him in the least. A solid, understated and emotional performance from Law. Macfayden is good as Stiva with Kelly McDonald playing his wife, Dolly. Also worth mentioning is Domhnall Gleeson as Levin, a young man from a well-to do family who wants to create a life for himself with Kitty (Alicia Vikander), a beautiful young woman and Dolly's younger sister. At a certain point though, faces start to look alike, characters run together, and none make too much of an impression.
One major style choice ends up handcuffing the movie in a big way. Filming his movie, Wright actually shot much of it on an old stage in an abandoned theater. Scenes transition from one to another, the camera whirling around to follow the characters. The sets, designs and backgrounds change, but much of the movie quite literally takes place on a stage. Is he going for a truly artsy look? If so, it doesn't work. It took me completely out of the movie itself, making me question if I was watching a stage-based adaptation instead of a theatrical release. While the thought was there to try something new/unique, it came across as pretentious a little bit. "Oh, look at me, look what I can do!" Too bad, because the visuals are certainly there to make an above average period piece.
Most of all, it's just the characters. For lack of a more thought out, articulate description, they're annoying. Anna and Vronsky look adoringly into each others' eyes, each imploring the other to tell them how much they love the other one. Anna is beyond stupid, not seeing what consequences her actions are going to produce. It's just disappointing. You can have all the great sets and designs, all the impressive set pieces, but it comes down to this. If you're not interested in the characters, it's hard to be interested in the film.
Anna Karenina (2012): **/****
Labels:
2010s,
Aaron Taylor-Johnson,
Historical epics,
Jude Law,
Keira Knightley
Sunday, July 29, 2012
Savages
First released in 2010, author Don Winslow's novel Savages is a mostly entertaining, sometimes maddening and uniquely written story. The trailer for 2012's Savages -- the feature film version -- had me intrigued so I read the book first and was glad I did. The movie? Mostly entertaining, sometimes maddening and....yeah, that ending. Wow, what a mess. Still worth a watch, but I'll have some advice on the ending later.
Selling and distributing some of the best marijuana that southern California has ever seen, Iraq war vet Chon (Taylor Kitsch) and pacifist/botanist Ben (Aaron Johnson) are making money hand over fist and have been doing so for years. In fact, their business is too good because now they've attracted the attention of the powerful Baja Cartel in Mexico, run with an iron fist by the brutal Elena (Salma Hayek) and her enforcer, Lado (Benicio Del Toro). Seeing through the ruse of an offer, Chon and Ben turn down an offer to become "partners" with the cartel, and quickly feel the repercussions when their mutual girlfriend, O, short for Ophelia (Blake Lively), is kidnapped by the Baja cartel. What to do now? Go along with the previously offered plan, or come up with a new one that will bring O back to them?
With movies like World Trade Center, W., and his Wall Street sequel, director Oliver Stone got away from that brutal, in your face, aggressive style that shot him to stardom behind the cameras. It's safe to say that with this drug crime thriller, he's back to basics. This is a world where our heroes are drug dealers, somewhat idealistic drug dealers (well, Ben at least), but you get the point. It's a down and dirty world where lives come cheap, and the end result is accepted if there is enough money or supply to justify the means. The bad guys are bad whether they be the indie drug dealers, the sadistically evil cartel, or even the corrupt DEA agents involved. It's good to see Stone get back to that darker view of the world. Hopefully he keeps up with movies like this.
What allows the movie to be entertaining considering it deals with such a dark, nasty occupation is the style Stone brings to it. It's the type of style you're either going to go along with it and enjoy it or resent it almost immediately. The intro gets things rolling, Lively's O stating "Just because I'm telling this story doesn't mean I'm alive in the end." There are artsy retro title cards to introduce where the action takes place. Stone films with a variety of film styles; black and white, digital, good old-fashioned formatting, hyper edited in a few instances. And the Laguna Beach/Mexico location sure adds a lot of color to the proceedings. The soundtrack too is a positive boost, an eclectic mix of classical music, choirs, modern pop/rock, and an almost ethereal sound of beach music. Throwing so much at the wall and seeing what sticks shouldn't work like this -- it just shouldn't -- but the completely random collection ends up doing just that.
Opinions will vary no doubt, but the casting department did a fine job selecting its three young leads. The dynamic among O, Chon and Ben is certainly unique; two well-to-do, attractive 20-somethings sharing a girlfriend? Hayek's Elena has some fun with that, telling O they'll never love her as much as they love each other. However you interpret that odd triangle, Kitsch, Johnson and Lively are all surprisingly good. Kitsch especially stands out, his Chon a veteran of a 2-year stretch in Iraq and Afghanistan where he saw the worst the world can offer. His enforcer attitude works well alongside Johnson's Ben, his highly intelligent, idealistic business partner. Ben struggles to comprehend the violence the duo will have to undertake if they hope to succeed. My least favorite character in the book as well as the movie, O as done by Lively is the weakest link, but it's not a bad performance, especially late when the kidnapping goes down. Her narration is beyond bad at times (not her fault), that awful mix of trying to be smart and pretentiously unique. She says at one point "I have orgasms, Chon has wargasms." Oh, clever!
Then there's the fun, more over the top, and in some cases, stereotypical roles, but dammit, these actors are enjoying themselves. Start with Salma Hayek as Elena, the leader of the Baja cartel who does it with as little humanity as possible. She's cold, sinister, intimidating and seems to be channeling some Spanish soap operas at times, but it's a solid performance. Del Toro as Lado is a scene-stealer. He is callous in his brutality, less than honest in his dealings, and interested in saving his own backside first and foremost. Rounding out the bigger parts, John Travolta is also a scene-stealer right up there with Del Toro as he plays Dennis, the DEA agent working with Ben and Chon -- and seemingly everyone else -- to keep the drug wars away....and a little extra cash in his pocket. Also look for Emile Hirsch in a quick, memorable part as Spin, Ben and Chon's money launderer, and recent Oscar nominee Demian Bichir as Alex, Elena's "accountant" of sorts.
So here we are. The ending. Winslow's ending in the novel is a bloody, chaotic gem that worked on so many levels, both for the characters, the story and the general darkness of the story. The odd thing? Stone uses that ending too, and then literally rewinds back and erases that ending, O explaining 'And this is how it really happened.' It is the definition of a cop out. Not only that, you feel duped as a viewer. We see one ending -- a highly effective one -- and then are introduced to a genuinely dumb, tacked-on ending. What was Stone thinking? This new ending is single-handedly able to ruin the movie. So rather than rip the entire movie, I'm trying to think outside of the box a little. For me, the ending comes right before "O's rewind." That epilogue, explaining how everything turned out, doesn't exist in my mind. I can't believe Stone willingly changed that "alternate" ending though. It's that bad. The movie though is still very entertaining and worth a watch.
Savages <---trailer (2012): ***/****
Selling and distributing some of the best marijuana that southern California has ever seen, Iraq war vet Chon (Taylor Kitsch) and pacifist/botanist Ben (Aaron Johnson) are making money hand over fist and have been doing so for years. In fact, their business is too good because now they've attracted the attention of the powerful Baja Cartel in Mexico, run with an iron fist by the brutal Elena (Salma Hayek) and her enforcer, Lado (Benicio Del Toro). Seeing through the ruse of an offer, Chon and Ben turn down an offer to become "partners" with the cartel, and quickly feel the repercussions when their mutual girlfriend, O, short for Ophelia (Blake Lively), is kidnapped by the Baja cartel. What to do now? Go along with the previously offered plan, or come up with a new one that will bring O back to them?
With movies like World Trade Center, W., and his Wall Street sequel, director Oliver Stone got away from that brutal, in your face, aggressive style that shot him to stardom behind the cameras. It's safe to say that with this drug crime thriller, he's back to basics. This is a world where our heroes are drug dealers, somewhat idealistic drug dealers (well, Ben at least), but you get the point. It's a down and dirty world where lives come cheap, and the end result is accepted if there is enough money or supply to justify the means. The bad guys are bad whether they be the indie drug dealers, the sadistically evil cartel, or even the corrupt DEA agents involved. It's good to see Stone get back to that darker view of the world. Hopefully he keeps up with movies like this.
What allows the movie to be entertaining considering it deals with such a dark, nasty occupation is the style Stone brings to it. It's the type of style you're either going to go along with it and enjoy it or resent it almost immediately. The intro gets things rolling, Lively's O stating "Just because I'm telling this story doesn't mean I'm alive in the end." There are artsy retro title cards to introduce where the action takes place. Stone films with a variety of film styles; black and white, digital, good old-fashioned formatting, hyper edited in a few instances. And the Laguna Beach/Mexico location sure adds a lot of color to the proceedings. The soundtrack too is a positive boost, an eclectic mix of classical music, choirs, modern pop/rock, and an almost ethereal sound of beach music. Throwing so much at the wall and seeing what sticks shouldn't work like this -- it just shouldn't -- but the completely random collection ends up doing just that.
Opinions will vary no doubt, but the casting department did a fine job selecting its three young leads. The dynamic among O, Chon and Ben is certainly unique; two well-to-do, attractive 20-somethings sharing a girlfriend? Hayek's Elena has some fun with that, telling O they'll never love her as much as they love each other. However you interpret that odd triangle, Kitsch, Johnson and Lively are all surprisingly good. Kitsch especially stands out, his Chon a veteran of a 2-year stretch in Iraq and Afghanistan where he saw the worst the world can offer. His enforcer attitude works well alongside Johnson's Ben, his highly intelligent, idealistic business partner. Ben struggles to comprehend the violence the duo will have to undertake if they hope to succeed. My least favorite character in the book as well as the movie, O as done by Lively is the weakest link, but it's not a bad performance, especially late when the kidnapping goes down. Her narration is beyond bad at times (not her fault), that awful mix of trying to be smart and pretentiously unique. She says at one point "I have orgasms, Chon has wargasms." Oh, clever!
Then there's the fun, more over the top, and in some cases, stereotypical roles, but dammit, these actors are enjoying themselves. Start with Salma Hayek as Elena, the leader of the Baja cartel who does it with as little humanity as possible. She's cold, sinister, intimidating and seems to be channeling some Spanish soap operas at times, but it's a solid performance. Del Toro as Lado is a scene-stealer. He is callous in his brutality, less than honest in his dealings, and interested in saving his own backside first and foremost. Rounding out the bigger parts, John Travolta is also a scene-stealer right up there with Del Toro as he plays Dennis, the DEA agent working with Ben and Chon -- and seemingly everyone else -- to keep the drug wars away....and a little extra cash in his pocket. Also look for Emile Hirsch in a quick, memorable part as Spin, Ben and Chon's money launderer, and recent Oscar nominee Demian Bichir as Alex, Elena's "accountant" of sorts.
So here we are. The ending. Winslow's ending in the novel is a bloody, chaotic gem that worked on so many levels, both for the characters, the story and the general darkness of the story. The odd thing? Stone uses that ending too, and then literally rewinds back and erases that ending, O explaining 'And this is how it really happened.' It is the definition of a cop out. Not only that, you feel duped as a viewer. We see one ending -- a highly effective one -- and then are introduced to a genuinely dumb, tacked-on ending. What was Stone thinking? This new ending is single-handedly able to ruin the movie. So rather than rip the entire movie, I'm trying to think outside of the box a little. For me, the ending comes right before "O's rewind." That epilogue, explaining how everything turned out, doesn't exist in my mind. I can't believe Stone willingly changed that "alternate" ending though. It's that bad. The movie though is still very entertaining and worth a watch.
Savages <---trailer (2012): ***/****
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)