Welcome…to Jurassic World.
UPDATE: NEW TRAILER
Welcome…to Jurassic World.
UPDATE: NEW TRAILER
Most of you are readily familiar with my reviews, for those new to the page bear with me. I love writing reviews. They are a hobby which I want to turn into something more. There are movies of course which I watch and wonder “whats the point?”. In some cases it is because it is so bad no one wants to see it. In some cases it is so obscure even if you wanted to see it you couldn’t. There are some films, which despite my best efforts you will see *coughs* Bayformers *coughs* and Hollywood will take as a check to make another despite anything else. Then there are movies like Mockingjay.
In Hollywoods ever growing quest for a chance to milk a franchise for every drop of its sweet, precious, blood they have taken to a new trend of splitting the finale film into two. Twilight, Harry Potter, Hunger Games, and even Marvel is doing it with the Infinity War. Though it has not yet been announced the Divergent finale, Allegiant will probably be split in two. I would be surprised if it wasn’t. Don’t get me started on the Hobbit where we took one movie and made it into three. Of the ones made already, Hobbit included, the first of the films tends to have an issue.
Not saying it is a bad movie, but that they use the film to lay all the groundwork for the epic finale. There’s enough action you are not entirely bored. You are already invested in the characters thus far and for once you do get a deeper amount of time with most of them, but at the same time they lack a certain punch. They lack a real weight because you know they aren’t over. Mockingjay is no different. Oh there’s some action here, but not to the level or intensity we’ve gotten used to. This one tries for more emotional punches and a lot of focus on Katniss after the events of the past two movies.
The story of course is by Suzanne Collins who also adapted it for the screen. There’s two screenplay credits with The Town’s Peter Craig and Danny Strong. Strong was Jonathan on Buffy the Vampire Slayer, but has also become a talented writer with Lee Daniels’ The Butler as a written by credit. So with the idea of this particular story needing to be told in mind, these two men are a perfect choice. They do have a keen sense of drama and how to use action to accent it and that is what Mockingjay is – a drama with action added to ease the tension that is building for us until Part II.
Good writing only takes you part of the way with Francis Lawrence taking up the directors chair again after his success on Catching Fire. I also think we get to see his weak points a bit more, much like we did with I Am Legend. We have a very solid film here, with very solid – well – everything. The movie is just lacking something and I think thats a combination of the director, writer, and producers not having a clean and clear idea on how to appropriately split the movie into two. We also have enough tonal shifts and pacing issues in the movie to make it a bit jarring at times. The opening to close shifts just a bit too much and it runs a bit too long in the tooth.
Saving it from these technical, production, and directorial issues are the actors. Ok. Actor. Jennifer Lawrence. 1 Academy award, two nominations and two Golden Globes, with one additional nomination make us think she might be a good actress. This movie reminds us she is. She carries the film and is beautifully doing what she does. Every emotion feels real. Nothing is phoned in or left to chance with her. She just is that good and has no choice but to carry the movie as the rest of the cast, while good, don’t have nearly enough development or screen time. I would have rather seen more of Woody Harrelson’s Haymitch, Elizabeth Banks Effie, and certainly more of Sam Claflin’s Finnick. That boy exudes charisma even when he is pulling it all in. Hutcherson, Hemsworth, Sutherland, Hoffman, Moore, and Tucci all do well enough and really could phone it in if they wanted to. Hutcherson does get a few beats and I enjoyed what I saw there. For my Natalie Dormer fans, yeah there is not enough Cressida, but what we do get is excellent and a huge departure from her Tyrell role. All of the actors do well with what they were given. I can’t say I am a fan of Hemsworth but honestly, I am finding more and more I am not a fan of the Hemsworth clan outside of Thor. All of the power in the film resides with Lawrence. Banks and Harrelson get some shining moments that I wanted so much more of that I was disappointed I didn’t get it.
Not much to talk on the technicals. Nothing new, but at the same time nothing bad either. Actually, I type corrected. The make up effects. Flawless. Not surprised with Ve Neill in charge. Season 1 Face/Off winner Conor McCullagh gets a credit as Key Make Up Artist, with my personal favourite Face/Off contestant Laura Dandridge having a special make up effects artist credit. Glen Hetricks Optic Nerve studios was also involved. We are all better for it. There are a few choice shots were some amazing talent were needed and the effects are subtle going through it so they were worth mention. I know this is a review of Hunger Games, but I have to give credit to Face/Off for actually furthering careers of really talented people.
As I said before, there are movies like Mockingjay. Face it, you are already invested and nothing in my review will stop you from seeing it. Nor should anything in my review stop you from seeing it. You need to for the finale which by all accounts should be filled with enough action and intensity to make you want to cry.
If you haven’t gotten into Hunger Games before, this one is NOT the one to start with. Then again who starts with the 3rd movie out of four?
Otherwise, yeah go see it and be the completionist. It is a solid film but suffers what I now dub The Deathly Hollows curse. Good but not great. Solid, but not quite fun or entertaining. It exists as a filler and placeholder for additional material coming soon to a theatre near you. I did enjoy it, but I wasn’t blown away by any one thing.
So there we go. May the odds be ever in your favor.
Yes. Just yes. It looks like it may be up there with Ever After for live action Cinderella movies, but with far more of the Disney animated version brought in.
Sure this movie came out two weeks ago, but I hadn’t had a chance to see it, and honestly – I wasn’t all that interested. Someone I consider a friend at my local theatre recommended it last night when I saw John Wick again. I believe her exact words were: “Why aren’t you seeing Nightcrawler instead?” So here we go, went back tonight and saw it.
Was it worth it?
Well this has a writer/director combo credit with Dan Gilroy, who for me is a mixed bag of work. I like his work on Freejack and Real Steel, but am not a fan of Bourne Legacy. He is also credited with the screenplay for The Fall, which a friend recommends, but I haven’t seen. The odd thing here is that the body of work I am familiar with is nothing even remotely like this film. They are bright, sharp, even sarcastic, but not this moody, gritty, and intense psychological piece. Perhaps it is because the others are studio films and this is not, instead it is a truly indy film that got a wide release and distribution at the theatres. The film has a rather low production budget of only $8.5 million, which as made up on it’s opening weekend.
The story focuses on Louis Bloom (Jake Gyllenhaal), a down on his luck man living in LA. During his quest to find a job he comes across an accident on the highway and watches a freelance/stringer film crew grab for footage of the moment to sell it to a TV station. The idea crosses his mind that he can do this too and he recruits a second in Rick Garcia (Rick Garcia…no I am not kidding) to help him navigate while he tries to be the first on the scene and get better, bloodier footage to sell to news producer Nina Romina (Rene Russo). His success grows as does his ambition – what will he do for a check, for his ego?
More on that in a second.
I want to talk about performances. There’s only one worth mentioning here and thats Gyllenhaal. I have not seen nearly enough of his body of work, but with Prisoners, Zodiac, Jarhead, and Donnie Darko to his credit he has shown a huge range of dramatic roles requiring different facets of his ability to execute them well. This film gave him yet another facet to explore and give us and that is of someone like Louis. People might be tempted to compare his acting in this to Ryan Gosling in Drive or Only God Forgives. While both show incredible reserved performances I would be forced to disagree as Jake gives us both reserved but an incredibly nuanced performance that shows great levels of emotion and the psychology of his character with rather deft skill. I spent the entire time watching the film trying to understand what makes him tick, even in act three when he tells us (or does he?) what makes him work. It’s a fantastic performance that everyone else tries to keep up with.
Most of the cast could be credited as themselves if they were not playing just slightly fictional versions of their own lives; with many of the local Los Angeles news personnel playing themselves. The more major actors, such as Rene Russo and Bill Paxton are playing secondary roles within the film that truly centers on, lives, and breathes because of Gyllenhaal. Anyone could have played those parts with little effort or change in the outcome, I am not sure about Jake’s part.
From a technical perspective the film hits it’s most major snag from a wide audience acceptance point of view. It is slow. This is a psychological drama with the pacing to match and I was quite honestly bored more than a few times in the movie. It’s shot well, acted well, even written well, but it’s just so slow that it almost becomes unwatchable. If you do watch it though, it does leave you with some questions. The entire drive home I kept thinking
“What would I do?” / “What could I do?”
So from that perspective I can speak to the movies writing as it made me think, by its design, even if it bored me the rest of the time. I think at its heart aside from the psychology of the main actor the movie is a subtle satire on modern news and it’s audiences. What sells. What we consume. What we want to see even if we say otherwise. What the news gives us because it is what we tell them we want by our ratings. There’s something interesting in that line of thinking and I am curious if it is intentional satire or I am just overthinking it.
Nightcrawler is an interesting movie that makes you think. I cannot and will not say I was really entertained by it, but I was intellectually stimulated by it. I sort of expected that going into the movie to not see something actiony, but that it would be dramatic. The movie more than a few times made me feel uncomfortable in a not good way – which I think it should. What is it with October movies this year making me feel uncomfortable and “off”, between this and Fury. Both films really do not hold back on the what if. I have to thank my friend next time I see her, because while I didn’t necessarily enjoy the movie; I enjoyed the concepts and performance. I suppose that is something.
Do I recommend you see it though?
Some – but you need to know what you are getting into. This is a very cerebral film that is designed to make you think and do a little introspection. If you enjoy such things then yes, see the movie. You might be bored at times, but the payoff is there for discussion with like minded individuals.
If you don’t like that kind of movie or want something a bit better paced – give it a pass. Nightcrawler is a good, well made, and mostly well executed movie, but not entirely a watchable one for most audiences. Ironic, I think, that a movie about what the media gives us and what we want them to give us is not a movie most people want to or will see.
If you have already seen it, let me know in the comments. I would love to discuss with you! Bearing in mind the comments are not spoiler free zones. Read at your own risk.
First, as in before we get into the review, let me give you the teaser that got me interested in this film in the first place. Since most of you have not likely even heard of this film, it can provide a good grounding.
Ok, now that this is established the trailer sold me on a certain mood for the film and a certain tone that I should expect. Daniel Radcliffe seems to be rocking the American accent and well, lets face it the horns look interesting. I had no idea it was based on a book (until the trailer spelled it out and still hadn’t heard of it), but then again what isn’t these days. Sadly this film is largely indy and only has had limited release so even if most of you want to see it after the review you may not be able to. I have been waiting weeks to see this and one of the art house style theatres in Tucson was actually showing it. I had to admit I was surprised. So my surprise aside in the fact it was being shown, do I regret seeing it?
The story is written by Stephen Kings son, Joseph Hillstrom King, aka Joe Hill. That said it explains why the movie was set in a place that could be Maine, but could have been the pacific northwest. Now when I say story, I mean the novel and story credit. The screenplay, under Hill’s eyes was adapted by a man named Keith Bunin who has almost literally done nothing else in the industry.
The story focuses on Ig “Iggy” Parrish, a boy in love with a girl in a town that doesn’t want him – especially after her brutal murder. He swears he didn’t commit the murder and no one but one of his best friends since childhood believes him. After a particularly bad night Ig wakes up with …well Horns. Not just that but they seem to have power over others, power he hopes he can use to find the person truly responsible for the death of his one true love Merrin.
So at its heart the movie is a murder mystery wrapped in young adult horror, romance, and the blackest comedy. Which underlies the problem of the movie. It runs a two full hours and feels it. I don’t know what tone they were going for, but its a mixed bag across all of those genre’s. It is also not subtle in the least, which I don’t know is to blame on the source material or director Alexandre Aja. He too is a mixed bag where I don’t know quite what to expect of his films and now as I write this I think that might be intentional. Aja has previously directed Haute Tension, released in the US as High Tension which was considered fairly good by those who I’ve spoken to about it. At the same time he gave us the 2006 remake of The Hills Have Eyes, Mirrors in 2008 (don’t remember it, no one else does either) and the ever infamous Piranha 3D in 2010. Piranha I think covers a portion of his style quite aptly. There is ridiculous humor, disturbing to look at horror/gore, and then the spring break T&A over the top.
Thats it. He goes over the top. He goes to 11. The downside is, I think, he needs someone to turn the dial back down. The movie starts out this beautifully moody, atmospheric piece of art. It then descends into his fathers tropes of the childhood friends with the requisite “fat kid” who is almost never called by his own name. The flashbacks are, for their part, bright and colourful while the current time frame is always a bit darker and a bit more grey. To this he gets credit in intelligent design choices. He also loses those points for the films lack of anything resembling subtly. Eve’s Diner, with an Apple as the logo? Really?
Direction and bad editing on the film aside, the acting is fantastic. Radcliffe owns the screen. He doesn’t chew scenery like Jeremy Irons does, but instead masters it. You want to watch him, even when he is being emo and moody. He just exudes something special and the movie is all the better for it. His emotional range is top notch, with a perfect accent. He commands pity, rage, and fear in equal measures and also has a certain sexiness to him as well. While I haven’t seen the Woman in Black, this does make me want to watch it.
The supporting cast is solid, but not nearly as interesting. You have Max Minghella (The Darkest Hour, Ides of March) as his best friend and Joe Anderson (Across the Universe, The Grey) as his older addiction laden brother. More famous faces such as James Remar (Django, Korra, and a lot of other things), Kathleen Quinlan (Hills have Eyes, Event Horizon), David Morse (Treme, Green Mile), and Heather Graham, who I think may be reincarnated Elizabeth Bathory as she does not look 44 in this movie, rounding out the cast. Of course, I also need to talk about Juno Temple (Maleficent, Killer Joe, Jack & Diane). She plays our deceased girl, through flashbacks of course, and has a presence all her own on screen. I don’t know that I felt her and Radcliffe had onscreen chemistry enough for me to buy the romance, but she does a rather good job through the film in conveying all her character goes through.
From a more technical standpoint the Horns look awesome. Not a surprise when Greg Nicotero and Howard Berger worked on them. The enhanced visual effects were not as clean, but anything that was practical – which was a lot – looked fantastic.
But Jess ( I imagine you asking) should I see it?
Well to be honest, not really. It’s a good film, but not a great film. It had some entertaining beats, but was too slow for too long in others. The humor didn’t always work and because of that a lot of the movies entertainment value falls a bit flat. I don’t know if it needed another polish on the screenplay or a more experienced editor or…I don’t know what precisely would have fixed this movie, but it does need fixing.
If you are a Daniel Radcliffe fan or a fan of the book I think you should be safe to see and enjoy. I was entertained, but I really don’t think everyone will be.
Coming in blind, its a bit of a mess, but you *might* enjoy it. I can’t promise you will (or should) so I can’t say with all my usual confidence avoid it or watch it. It exists as a solid film in the indie realm with some serious starring power in Daniel Radcliffe. I think anyone else in the role the movie dies – and that is a problem.
Horns seems cursed by not knowing what it wants to be. Maybe Alighieri could come and give it a tour next time and it could have been a touch better.
Well, after some dental surgery I can’t talk but I can at least type. Good thing I don’t do podcasts or video reviews yet. I went to this half expecting to fall asleep from the medication or exhaustion and general apathy. I went into Interstellar thinking it has been overhyped to hell and back. So one thing I need to explain right at the start here, which is there are different kind of films. There are bad films, good films, indie films, art house films, tentpoles, and entertaining films. You may mix and match these to your hearts desire. For example The Room qualifies as Indie, Bad, and Art House. Big Hero 6 is both good and entertaining, while Starship Troopers is bad and entertaining. So where does Interstellar land on this weird venn diagram?
Well to be honest, Art House and Good. I normally wouldn’t start with that, but you may have noticed one of the optional traits missing. Let me explain.
The director is Christopher Nolan, of Batman and Inception fame, which I am on record as having no love for. I feel he is a bit too egotistical and wants to show just how “artsy” he can be at the sacrifice of good story, logic, or deformation of otherwise good characters. I honestly think he buys his own press about how “brilliant” a director he is and has gone beyond visionary into pretentious. I don’t feel that this movie is any different. It was hard not to watch the movie without imagining Christopher Nolan hopping around behind me going “see how visionary I am…you haven’t seen that before!” The problem is I have. So much of this movie I have seen before, not always better, but before. I saw Star Trek II, 2001, 2010, Alien, and Aliens. I saw Red Planet, Mission to Mars, Event Horizon, and oh did I mention 2001? Yes. I think Nolan looked at the great films of sci fi, the truly great masterworks and wanted to try his turn at the helm, and from that I can say he …is ok. But because of his style, and partially my bias, I don’t think thats a pass, just a neutral.
The story of course is by his brother Jonathan. Jonathan I think is overly influenced by his brother, but its hard to prove where the flaw is. Having written Memento, the Prestige, and The Dark Knight shows talent, but then Dark Knight Rises shows he doesn’t know how to get himself out of a corner and doesn’t logic it out. It shows that he doesn’t truly and fully understand the characters he is writing at all times. Obviously, he too was a fan of all those movies I referenced and for his part in combining them did well enough. There are sci fi elements I have not quite seen, but was able to predict, but most of the story beats themselves are pure paint by numbers.
Thankfully the actors in the film redeem most of the directorial and writing flubs. McConaughey isn’t my favourite actor, but I don’t hate him. He’s fairly solid here, but becomes too reserved for reasons I would welcome to someone to explain to me. Hathaway is remarkable in her role and I do buy her role as a scientist, which isn’t a slight on female scientists, but actresses playing BAD scientists. Remember Hollywood thought we should by Tara Reid as an archaeologist (Alone in the Dark) and Denise Richards as a Nuclear physicist. Hathaway comes across sound and intelligent and is fairly strong and inspiring. The most inspiring for me is Jessica Chastain. Her role as Murp(y’s Law) is strong, determined, and highly intelligent. She’s one of the brightest points to the film along with the actress that plays the young version of her Mackenzie Foy (The Conjuring, Twilight: Breaking Dawn). It was creepy how easy I could see one growing into the other, not like the garbage that was Looper with Joseph Gordon Levitt becoming Bruce Willis. The rest of the cast is filled with familiar faces doing unfamiliar things and are all turning out some of their better performances. Even the voices of the AI’s are good.
Now visually – the movie is stunning at times and repetitive at others. Their take on the black hole is breathtaking to the point I almost wish I had seen it in IMAX. Honestly, I can’t go too deep into discussing the visual artistry without speaking to scenes so need to stop there to avoid spoilers. The film is really well done from a technical perspective – until the end. Dear Selene above, the Return of the King had less endings and was less long winded! The music is good and used to the right effect to the point I am debating trying to get my hands on the score.
The movie is a beauty. It is cinematic, art inspired, and yes Good. But I don’t know that I can send anyone to the theatre expecting to be entertained. It is a strong movie, but not always entertaining. I did find myself sitting up once or twice, but overall it was just Good and OK.
Christopher Nolan’s pretentiousness is in high form and only mitigated by the actors and sometimes by the visuals.
So – if you are in the mood for a 3 hour long Sci Fi space opera? Sure go see this. Otherwise, sorry folks give this one a pass and go see Big Hero 6 this weekend or save your money for Hunger Games in two weeks.
I can’t lie, but this film is one of the ones I was looking forward to the most this fall. Of course, the makers of Frozen tag line in the trailer had something to do with it. The reality is the original trailer did nothing for me. It looked cute, but if you really want to get me interested in a movie give me a good trailer with good music. Despite my love for Frozen, the trailers didn’t grab me. Point in fact, I almost didn’t see it because of the trailers originally released – how sad would that have been? The use of Fall Out Boys, “My Songs Know What You Did in the Dark” along with some intriguing animation got my eye in the first full trailer. Trailer 2 got me more, with Greek Fire’s “Top of the World”, more importantly it showed me this was a team thing rather than just a boy and his robot. Yes – I know this is based on a comic, but I haven’t read it so didn’t know. The music just sounded inspiring and I love a good heroic team effort. While not usually a fan of Four Colour hero stories, I do find the pure, good, heroism something that makes me smile. Then they released Trailer 3 (below) with New York Comic Con. I was sold. Fall Out Boys new song Immortals was just what I needed to seal the deal and really showed what the team aspect would be about.
So should you see the movie?
This movie is the exception to Jessica’s Film Writing Rule. I’ve often talked about how too many writers on a film tends to lead to a bad film. I happily acknowledge this as an exception. Now we have a story based on the comic by Duncan Rouleau and Steven T. Seagle. I paused writing this review long enough to peruse the power of Google. I will make a slight adjustment, a story based on and inspired by the comic. While the character names are more or less the same, the personalities and styles are incredibly different (more on that when I talk about the characters). The story was written by Don Hall and Jordan Roberts. Hall was the writer on Princess and the Frog and Tarzan, while Roberts had very few writing credits before. Their story was then adapted for a screenplay by Robert L. Baird, Daniel Gerson, and Roberts himself. Baird has a screenplay credit on Monsters University and Monsters Inc. with Gerson.
I have to admit, I was surprised the writers weren’t involved in The Incredibles as the movie really does a good job of evoking that heroic transformation vibe. Now, I will not tell you the plot is anything complex or new. Point in fact the movie had nearly no surprises for me, yet it still kept me entertained and even drew laughs and tears when appropriate. Quite a few tears I should add. The simplicity of the story doesn’t take away from it, but because it mixes action and emotional beats really well for adults, younger audiences (under 6) may be bored until those action beats.
The directors may be a reason why the story has such as an emotional punch, even if it is simple. Story writer Don Hall with, the story writer of Mulan and Bolt, Chris Williams dual direct the film. Directing a live action film requires certain muscles, but animation has a different set of muscles it must use in addition. The physical impossibility of shots becomes irrelevant; while the actors body language and expressions become the realm of the animators.
From a cast perspective we the movie brings in a wide range of talent from different ages and realms of experience. Our Hero…Hiro Hamada, a boy genius, is voiced by young asian american actor Ryan Potter (Supah Ninjas). This character is probably one of the most accurate to his original incarnation with his brilliant mind and the de facto leader of the group. Jamie Chung (Once Upon a Time, Smallville) voices one of my favourite characters Go Go Tomago, speed freak, no nonsense snark, and specialist in magnetics. I wasn’t able to see much of her character from the quick research but she’s fairly on point and fairly snarky in the movie which instantly endears her to me. Honey Lemon, the groups chemist, is voiced by Genesis Rodriguez (Man on a Ledge, The Last Stand) and has the one of the biggest variations from the source. Gone is the blonde cheerleader physique and near exhibitionist clothing style replaced with an almost stereotypical nerd girl. I think this is primarily due to the Disney factor more than anything else, but I don’t find fault in it. In fact I kinda prefer this version. The next biggest change is Wasabi No Ginger, I am not kidding about the name, voiced by Damon Wayans Jr. (Let’s Be Cops, The Other Guys), changing him from a japanese chef, to a black dreadlocked inventor. Much like Go Go, I don’t have much to compare Fred to from the source, but TJ Miller (How to Train Your Dragon, and that horrific Transformers movie this year), but he does seem accurate as the non scientist in the group.
The supporting cast is also filled with named and known character actors, such as Maya Rudolph (SNL), Scott Adsit (30 Rock), Alan -Lead on the Wind- Tudyk (Firefly, Frozen), and James Cromwell (Secretariat, Star Trek: First Contact) .
From a technical perspective the art is fantastic. It still has a certain style to it which I appreciate. There use of light and shadow is probably some of the best I’ve seen with sunsets and skylines that border on photo realistic at times. From a character model perspective people like to rip hard on Frozen and Tangled for looking too much alike and as someone who studied computer animation for a bit when she was in college I understand why and don’t judge on that. If you have pre existing skeletons and muscle structures you can save time and money rather than creating new ones. THe movie has a job to create new ones as well (the full Big Hero 6 crew); so when background and secondary characters look like ones I’ve seen in other films I don’t mind as much. It was a bit distracting at first but I got over it.
There is a lot this movie does right and thats where my focus is. The movement through the film is some of the most dynamic I have seen in a film of this style. The flying sequences are up there with How to Train your Dragon. The camera tracking on some of the others, especially Go Go really has an energy of all its own that gets your heart pumping.
Now, I’ve talked about the characters and brought up race a few times in that. There’s a reason for it and it’s the best one of all – representation. The movie has this in spades with young characters who are scientists from multiple races and genders. This is why I don’t mind the change to Honey Lemon as it only increases the representation within the film giving young girls who feel dorky or nerdy someone to look up to – someone who is consistently strong in the movie. The changes to Wasabi while reducing one aspect of representation create another where there was none, giving young black kids someone (aside from the epic NDGT) to look up to and want to be like. Hiro also marks the first time in my recollection we have a Asian male lead in an american made production – that isn’t a martial artist. This is huge!
There is a huge problem with diversity in film in general, but superhero films specifically. Name the number of female superheroes we’ve had in film in the past decade? Black superheroes? While in this film we have two strong females and a strong black male character. What’s even better is that the movie doesn’t make a big deal out of it – though we need to. The movie SHOULDN’T make a big deal of it, because it should be a naturally accepted state. The characters are the characters defined by personality and skills – not their race or gender. They applied themselves, they weren’t born different, which allows people to identify themselves with these characters and lets them aspire to be these characters. The movie gives us an ideal world in this regard and it’s a world we should aspire to as well and if we can get Hollywood to keep making movies like this, the media can help bring us there.
Go. See. This.
Thats all. I don’t care who you are. What your age is (ok 6+ recommended).
Go. See. This.
I generally find myself agreeing with this particular writer and as a film fan I am excited to see this.
Jamin Winans’ new speculative-fiction film The Frame opens worldwide this November. For folks who’ve not yet had the pleasure, Winans’ previous release – the net-cult classic Ink – is an absurdly imaginative urban-fantasy film whose monochrome aesthetic masks kaleidoscopic creativity. Like Ink, The Frameis a movie Hollywood couldn’t possibly wrap its head around. And although you probably won’t hear a word about it from the Usual Media Suspects, this puzzle-box of a film deserves a place on your go–see-the-damn-thing list, for the following reasons… among many others besides.
The shopworn word sublime means “uplifted; inspiring awe; beyond the threshold.” Given The Frame’s increasingly surreal exploration of the concept of living within boxes, and of trying to escape them, it could be fairly said that the film literally breaks through its cinematic thresholds even as it emotionally uplifts its audience. Transcendence…
View original post 702 more words