Sam Adams on Wreck-It Ralph

Article reviewed: Wreck-It Ralph, Sam Adams, City Paper

Article url: http://www.citypaper.net/movies/2012-11-01-wreck-it-ralph-disney-review.html?c=r

Mr. Adams opens his review with a creatively constructed comment regarding the relationship between Disney and Pixar by pointing out that Wreck-It Ralph is the most “Pixarian” Disney, while the previously released Brave was “the most Disneyfied of Pixar movies. From there he flows into a colorfully worded overview of the movie's first act. He concisely covers the necessary backgrounds of the primary characters before briefly touching upon the secondary characters, and gives only as much information as needed to connect which character he's referring to with the one you saw in the preview.

The second half of Adams' article is much quicker and to-the-point than the first, starting with his thoughts on the cookie-cutter nature of the movie's plot. He warns of a surprise-less outcome and recycled story, adding that the movie's smaller details are “far more engaging” than the broader strokes. The treatment of nostalgic arcade references along with the unimaginative backdrop left him understandably unimpressed; however, despite his sarcastic verbiage, he seems content with what he watched.

I found myself very entertained by Mr. Adams’ pithy summary of this standard fare Disney release. His adjective laden description is cleverly written and his analysis of the film is surprisingly insightful considering it was covered in only a few sentences. What impressed me the most though was how Adams seemed to play on the movie's alliterative title by scattering subtle alliterations of his own throughout the article, like the "Donkey Kong doppelganger” that is a "sad sack, not a misunderstood monster.” I admire the style and personality that Adams writes with and I am curious to see how he uses it in other reviews.

Love and basketball

I chose this critique from critic Robert Wilonsky because I was shocked at his critique of this movie, "Love and Basketball" from writer, Gina Prince-Bythewood. I wanted to see what his critiques would be of other good movies as well. One of the things he says is that the transition is weak. I don't believe that the transition was weak because in the beginning the main characters, which were Monica Wright (Sanaa Lathan) and Quincy McCall (Omar Epps) started out as children and as the time went on in the movie their age changed. When they went to high school, they became teenagers and when they transitioned into college they became adults. When they were children playing basketball together the other two children that played as Sanaa and Omar as little kids looked like they could have really been them. That transition of age growth made it seem very realistic to the point where you forget their actually acting. Another thing he says is that the movie was predictable. I disagree because I couldn't predict the next outcome of this movie like I can with scary movies. In this movie the two main characters stayed together throughout the whole movie, ever since they were younger, which don't usually happen in movies. I admit that one factor that I predicted in the movie was the fact that they would become lovers, but that was not until I seem that they still were friends from childhood up until high school. The critique use in his review words such as, “of course" which mean he basically predicted most of the movie. Another part that he says was an obvious outcome was the fact that they eventually got recruited to the same school. Even though they stayed friends from childhood until high school, I did not think they would get recruited to the same college. I thought in that point of the movie they would split up being as though they were still friends since they were kids. Even though the title of the movie is called love and basketball it could have meant other things such as; the struggle between family and basketball or the love of basketball period. So, I don’t know how Robert Wilonsky found this movie to be so predictable. Another thing he mentions in his critique of this movie is that Monica Wright (Sanna Lathan) had no force behind her words when she was about to lose the love of her life, which was Quincy McCall (Omar Epps). I disagree because when she was about to lose him she did everything in her power to try to win him back. The sound of her voice was very sincere to the point that any viewer could cry. The whole movie is about love and basketball and Monica was willing to play Quincy in a game of basketball to win his heart back knowing that Quincy was better than her, but she was determined to give it her all. The game was very fierce and a lot of contact was involved. The outcome of the game was very unpredictable because at first Monica was winning because Quincy had a broken knee, but then he caught up and the game was neck and neck. I did not think Monica would lose and Quincy still accepted her back in her life because Quincy seemed as though he was really done with Monica and he didn’t let her win the game easily. I found this movie to be very good especially since I can relate because I am a basketball player and the events of this movie really happens in the life of a basketball player.

Foul shots

All's so-so in the off-the-mark hoop drama Love & Basketball

Comments (0)

By Robert Wilonsky Thursday, Apr 20 2000

Love & Basketball is divided into four quarters; thank God there's no overtime. The directorial debut from writer Gina Prince-Bythewood, who once penned scripts for A Different World andFelicity, is a film built upon transitions so weak and obvious it's astonishing the entire thing doesn't collapse on itself. You want to root for it, as you would any rookie underdog, but it offers nothing to cheer for. It's a basketball film that chokes at crunch time, that bitches out when it should be taking a charge. In the end, it's nothing but a montage of self-help aphorisms and feel-good love scenes set to Kate Bush songs as performed by Maxwell. All you're left with is a fairy tale set in the suburbs, a coming-of-age romance that feels as though it's shot in real time. The principals grow up; you only grow old, tired, bored.

Reach around: Omar Epps (left) tries to teach Sanaa Lathan something about life, love, and palming the ball in Love & Basketball.

Details

Starring Omar Epps, Sanaa Lathan, Alfre Woodard, Dennis Haysbert, and Debbi Morgan

Release Date:

April 21

Written and directed by Gina Prince-Bythewood

Related Content

• Delonte West Could Be Headed Back to Dallas
  January 24, 2013
• Nuts Will Be Cracked
  December 20, 2012
• Lebron James Will Honor Jerry Brown, Who Died After a Party at a Dallas Night Club, with a Party at a 
  
  
  Dallas Night Club
  December 19, 2012
• LeBron James Partied at Zouk for Jerry Brown Last Night, at an Event Called "Fade to Black"
  December 20, 2012
• The Dunk Tank
  November 15, 2012

More About

• Quincy
• NBA Pacific Division
• National Basketball Association
• Los Angeles Clippers
• Gina Prince-Bythewood

It begins in 1981, set in the cushy Los Angelessuburb of Baldwin Hills long after white flight has rendered the neighborhood a darker shade of rich. There, NBA journeyman Zeke McCall(Dennis Haysbert) has settled his family: sonQuincy (played by Glenndon Chatman as a child,Omar Epps as a young man) and wife Nona (Debbi Morgan, once of All My Children). Eleven-year-old Quincy rules the neighborhood courts; he dreams of playing for the Los Angeles Clippers, just like his old man. But Q's small world is thrown into disarray when a new family moves in, and the girl next door, Monica (Kyla Pratt, who grows up and becomes a radiantSanaa Lathan), proves she can ball and take a fall as good as any boy. Quincy can't tell if he loves or loathes this tomboy-next-door, whose room is wallpapered with Magic Johnson posters. A day after meeting her, Q kisses Monica before shoving her to the ground.

It's at this juncture that the film begins to lay its of-course bridges -- meaning, everything that happens during the movie's opening minutes leads to a resolution so predictable it makes a sunrise look surprising. Quincy and Monica end up at the same 

high school (Crenshaw), of course, where they're both round-ball standouts and off-court rivals, of course. But at the spring dance, which they've attended with different dates, of course, Quincy and Monica decide all those years of living within inches of each other (their bedroom windows are so close, one can hear the other breathing) have made them more than friends. They're lovers, of course.

And, of course, both get recruited to play ball for the same college, the University of Southern California -- where Quincy's old man was a star back in the day. But, as it turns out, childhood lovers don't last too long in college, so, of course, Quincy and Monica end up parting ways. He goes into the NBA before his freshman year ends, only to wind up riding the pine for a handful of teams before landing as a Lakers reserve in 1993. Monica lasts long enough to become an All-American and, eventually, a star in Europe. Of course. Ah, but will such star-crossed lovers remain apart forever? If you don't know the answer, perhaps you need to get out of the house more often.

Such narrative troubles are bound to arise when a first-timer tries to condense a lifetime ofOprah-worthy issues into a two-hour film; anything meaningful is rendered as a cliché until all emotion is watered down as trite sentiment. It's not just a film about lovers and basketball; it's not just a movie about winning and losing the games men and women play. Love & Basketball is also a film about sons and the fathers who guide them, daughters and the mothers who don't understand them, sons and the mothers who protect them, and daughters and the fathers who appreciate them. There's enough here for a handful of after-school specials (or at least a really good, Very Special two-part White Shadow), much less one movie.

Almost no one in this film seems terribly interested in it. Omar Epps possesses a chiseled body and a blank stare; he shows the same intensity driving a car as he does driving to the hoop. Lathan is only slightly better, but she's stuck in a hollow role. Never do we get the sense this woman needsto play ball. She tells Quincy she lost her drive the day she lost him, but there's no force behind her words; they bounce against the audience like an off-the-mark jump shot. Prince-Bythewood thinks that just putting a basketball in Monica's hands (at one point, Quincy jokes that she ought to take Spaulding to the school dance) is enough to explain her obsession, but in the end, the ball is only a prop. She can play; we have no idea why she must.

Lost amid the ruins of good intentions and trite filmmaking is a rather engaging story: that of the old man, Zeke, who can't adjust to life after basketball and celebrity. Haysbert, a survivor of theMajor League films who has since prospered on the CBS series Now & Again, limps around this movie like a lost man -- a shamed shadow who has failed at his marriage and who finally fails his own son. He's the one real character in a film full of cutouts and foul-outs.

Elizabeth Weitzman on "Silver Lining's Playbook"

In Elizabeth Weitzman’s review for Silver Linings Playbook you can tell she really enjoyed the movie from just the tagline under the Title. She opens her review with saying, “If there’s anything we can learn from David Russell’s ‘Silver Linings Playbook,’ it’s how crucial chemistry is.” If she had opened with that sentence without giving a positive header then we the readers would be unsure of her view of the movie.

Weitzman believes that it Bradley Cooper and Jennifer Lawrence’s acting skills and chemistry that leads the film to the commercial success it achieved. Weitzman feels that the director, David Russell, included a lot of clichés and without Cooper and Lawrence’s delivery, it may have saturated the movie. The fact that actor’s known mostly for their cult classic hits such as “The Hangover” and “the Hunger Games”, have chemistry and actual acting skills is impressive. A lot of actors’ careers die out as the popularity of their movie does as well, i.e. Ken Jeong. Cooper and Lawrence proved they are more than their most popular movie; they are real actors.

In her reviews, Weitzman gives a compact plot review but does not give away too much information. She keeps her information on a “need to know basis” and lets the viewer find the rest out on his or her own. I like her style of doing this because generally a viewer will read a review to see if the film is worth seeing. They are no longer interested in seeing the film if the entire plot is revealed in the review.

As much as Weitzman enjoys the film and the acting, she does give some criticism. She believes that the film was very predictable and ended like every other romantic comedy. Weitzman also criticizes Russell on his characters development through the movie.I do not completely agree with Weitzman. Pat (Bradley Cooper) may have started the movie off as a raging lunatic but that was a brief period of his life. Before his breakdown he was a doting husband with a life and a future. The movie starts after that but gives flashback to the original Pat. So in the end, when Pat begins to have a life and a future again, I felt like he had returned to his old self. I thought it was predictable but provided the viewers with the closure we all wanted.

Original review: http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/tv-movies/movie-review-silver-linings-playbook-article-1.1202621

Lisa Schwarzbaum on Warm Bodies

Liza Schwarzbaum starts off her brief review of Warm Bodies for Entertainment Weekly by comparing it to the ever-popular Twilight. I'm sure the two films have been compared time and time again, but Schwarzbaum does it in an interesting way. Many critics would cringe and belabor all that is wrong with the world while claiming it is a direct result of Twilight and its many derivatives. Schwarzbaum merely pokes gentle fun at the concept of "young dead boys...emo enough not to devour the girls they love" being a sort of new form of chivalry for Generation X.
Comparing it to Twilight may turn some viewers off (myself included), but Schwarzbaum paints this "zomb-rom-com" in an appealing light. She applauds the film for its ability to mock the genre and audience while still managing to be light and humorous; not scathing (or annoying like too many recent parody movies). Unlike other movies that were made strictly to parody and cash in on a goldmine genre, Warm Bodies actually has a coherent and seemingly interesting plot. Schwarzbaum comments that this movie was targeted towards both those who love Twilight and would like to see it reimagined, and those that hate it and would like to see it made fun of. That alone makes me want to see what this movie has to offer (well, that and the fact that Dave Franco is in this---hello!).
Schwarzbaum doesn't comment on the acting in general, preferring not to focus on the negatives or shortcomings. Instead she gives praise only to the performances which she thought were especially fun to watch and kept the movie interesting. These performances include Hoult, Coddry, Tipton, and of course John Malkovich (who should be another incentive to get you interested in watching the movie, although probably for different reasons than Dave Franco).
After reading her review, I feel I have a concept of how the movie feels. Schwarzbaum doesn't make it seem like a must-see masterpiece that will define an era, but she makes it sound fun and worth a few bucks and a few hours. This review does the job of piquing my interest in a film which I previously would have rolled my eyes at, perhaps judging it without giving it a fair chance. Now I'm looking forward to watching it.

Gangster Squad review by Robert Denerstein

Robert lets the reader know from the opening lines of his review that Gangster Squad, directed by Ruben Fleischer, misses it's mark so horribly that it doesn't even live up to it's own trailer.  He says sitting through the "cliches and bullets" is like watching a bad Brian DePalma film, then notes that it may not even be worthy of that description.

Breaking his review into three parts, he is able to break down the movie into easily digestible chunks peppered by poignant points.  In the first section, he gives information about gangster Mickey Cohen, played by Sean Penn, and the events that inspired the film.  Denerstein places the words "inspired by" in sarcastic quotes and reveals further in the section that the film is cliched pulp fiction with real people's names.

The reviewer goes easy on the cast, not assigning fault to the thespians.  Sean Penn, Ryan Gosling, Emma Stone, Nick Nolte, and Josh Brolin headline the film.  Robert adds that the dialog and by-the-book script didn't challenge the cast members, comparing it to professional athletes having to play amateur games.

He hammers the final nails into the coffin in his last section.  The characters come across flat and static; a crew of archetypes who talk in a language of cliches.  Although backstory and development are there they are quickly glossed over.  I liked that he ended strong and clear, summarizing the review, calling the film "the year's first dissapointment."

Hyde Park on Hudson

Nathan Rabin's review of Hyde Park on Hudson is brief and focuses mainly on the directing style of Robert Michell. Rabin asserts that in the film Michell goes against his trend of showcasing the dark side of sexuality in favor of a tamer, more palatable tone of voice. Rabin argues that this approach "blunts the film story's sharp edges" and credits any engagement with the audience to the performances of Bill Murray and Laura Linney (playing Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Daisy Suckley respectively). The rest of the review is plot summary, offering little to no analysis of the story itself. It is hard to tell how Rabin feels about the film aside from assuming that he was unaffected by it on the basis that he apparently feels it doesn't offer much to talk about.

While I wish this review went into more analysis it does mirror my feelings about the film specifically that when it ended I assessed it as a movie that I would easily forget having seen.

Devil May Cry Reboot (DmC)- Stephen Totilo writing for the New York Times. He's Chief Editor at Kotaku.com

     The prior four Devil May Cry games needed a desperate reboot. DmC is that reboot, but it takes away from the Japanese feel of the previous games. Gameplay is still the same, but Dante, the main character is now an emo, juvenile, immature devil hunter. His hair is no longer the stylized silver-white of previous games. He looks more grunge youth in his attire. He no longer has the professional look of a bounty hunter.
This does not take away from the game. Totilo's review is informative. It's good at inaugurating people into the fourth installment without a history lesson.
     Totilo relates the DmC's story to that of an action movie. This makes sense. Many video games today emulate the formula action movies follow. The protagonist is a chosen one like Dante. That protagonist is put up against impossible odds. Ultimately he is victorious. Totilo only delves partially into that formula. The review focuses on the art of storytelling in an interactive medium. I think that's the perfect way to help skeptics realize that gaming isn't really for kids anymore.
    According to his review, DmC illustrates the adult themes throughout the story. The main demons are allusions to what many people would consider evil entities today. Mundus, the archdemon, tries to dominate the world through debt. He even owns a news network anyone could see resembles Fox News. Totilo says that DmC talks about current ills in society, even if the game itself isn't very good.
    That's something I can get behind. Art is supposed to comment of society, mimic it, try to change it, and provoke thoughts about it. Even terrible games have that capability. It's good to see developers trying to make a higher art form. It's great to see journalists do close readings of the games they review, and not just explain things away for the uninitiated.

Stephen Whitty on Flight

          
Flight Review Thoughts
Eric Middleton


      

        I thought the review by Stephen Whitty was a very well written one full of substance and intuition. He harbors alot on what the audience feels the movie will be mostly about and he starts to unravel general questions. The first would be who is Denzel Washington's character?

Trailers for this movie have Denzel pegged as the star character as even ifs promotional posters have just Denzel on it. Whitty knows that the audience will be keyed on his performance as "Whip Whitaker." Each sentence about him is short, concrete, and gets straight to the point with accurate details. Even when Whitty gets into the scenery, theme, and plot of the movie, he shows how Whip reacts to these subjects of interest. Whitty chooses other movies as clarification through character studies on similarities amongst them.

 The best thing I like about the review is that he gives the right kind of revelations while emphasizing the complexity of Whip's psyche as we delve deeper in the movie. The theme he chooses compliments this whole kind of psychological take on the movie. It works because it isn't just praise, it gets the reader into knowing what kind of film they can expect to see. 

Brian Juergens on Les Miserables

In “Review: ‘Les Miserables’” by Brian Juergans, a fairly well rounded review demonstrates the pros and cons of the broadway musicals recent appearance on film. Jeurgens also has an interesting angle of reviewing films for a lgbt online source. This adds many different but interesting qualities to his reviews, which I think are worthy of unpacking. Jeurgens’ instantly shows his credibility by referring to the films past, and the tendency for musicals to become films. He also gives an angle of interest, and eases the reader into his critique with a lot of humorous rhetorical devices. I think the humor takes away from the formality and credibility of the writer, however it does make the actual review more entertaining. 

The review contains much of the most important information one would wish to know about the film. Jeurgens describes the film’s place in history, the revolutionary use of technology in a new way (the live singing performances), and the important members of the cast and crew. Without seeing the film, we know what to expect, whether we will agree with this reviewer or not. The use of giving factual information seems imperative, as it shows who the film could possibly interest. 

Jeurgens also critiques and praises several performers he finds note worthy. He praises Anne Hathaway and Hugh Jackman, describing the emotional effects of the scenes and film. Again he also uses humor, adding a very comical phrase about Jackman’s impoverished and bread stealing Jean Valjean, as a “Carb-happy hero.” I think the humor is almost crossing a line in much of the review, but I think it works as an angle of interest when reviewing films. The place of the review on an lgbt source, can also be responsible for this playful tone, and in that sense he is working for his audience. 

In criticisms Jeurgens does seem to fairly give both credit and praise, while demonstrating why he believes a certain performance wasn’t excellent. In a criticism of Russell Crowe’s acting, for example, Jeurgens claims a role in another film as better suited as a model for Crowe’s current role, as well as clearly explaining what didn’t work about the performance with a descriptive metaphor. The review is well rounded, and easily influential, as it is both entertaining and not too judgmental about the film, but a broad review of important features. In this way, Jeurgens succeeds in his arguments. 

Critic Dana Stevens is Unsettled by Django Unchained

Slate reviewer Dana Stevens experienced a series of emotions while watching Quentin Tarantino's Django Unchained. Ultimately, she is left feeling both "physically and morally queasy" by the films graphic violence. I'd suggest that this is the sign of a truly effective film. Of course, for me the ideal film experience is one that unsettles. I'm very particular. I don't like comedies unless they're dark. I only like horror or sci-fi if it's atmospheric and creepy (anything late 70s to early 80s). I like independent films but only if they're edgy and weird. I don't care for romance or melodrama. So, the only recently released film that I have really wanted to see has been Django Unchained. Perhaps I am slightly biased towards Tarantino's work but the sense of "moral unease" that the film creates and Stevens disliked is what makes the film work. Steven's rightly suggests that the change in Tarantino's subject matter in his most recent films, Inglourious Basterds and Django Unchained show that he is maturing. However, it seems that his moving beyond ultra violent and comedic crime films into ultra violent and comedic re-imaginings of historical events is not quite enough for her, rather she would prefer he treat history's horrors with a staid and reserved approach.

Though I disagree with Steven's final assessment of the film, I do agree that Tarantino should have focused longer on the character of Stephen (Samuel Jackson). This, I think, was Jackson's best performance ever.  He brilliantly captures the curious mixture of self-loathing and desire for autonomy that one can assume was present in every slave. Jackson's Stephen plays his Step-N-Fetchit role but there is a bright and terrifying rage behind his eyes and a shrewdness and mastery that is showcased in the way he handles his master Calvin Candie (fantastically played by Leonardo DiCaprio). Steven's refers to Jackson's role as compellingly "complex" and I would wholeheartedly concur.

Steven's remarks on Tarantino's characteristic "style pastiches [drawn] from...mob dramas, martial arts films and grade B exploitation flicks", however, I think it is reductive to assume that Tarantino is merely a collector, stitching his favorite movie memories together. Django Unchained is a moving film, it inspires laughter, anger, sadness and yes, even nausea. Steven's finds what she calls Tarantino's "directorial delectation" of "acts of racial violence" sickening because it "places the viewer in the position of Calvin Candie" in that they relish the violence of the film just as Candie relishes the violence his slaves display. This I think is purposeful on Tarantino's part. He wants the viewer to feel this way and that is the root of the unsettled feeling, the unease. Tarantino puts it on the screen for us without holding back. He shows that history has never been staid but rather for, the most part, violent and brutal and that there have always been willing participants and willing witnesses to this violence.

Stephen Whitty on Lincoln

Stephen Whitty, writer and movie critic for The Star-Ledger, gave his opinion of Steven Spielberg’s Lincoln on November 9^th, 2012. Lincoln was one of the few films that disappointed me this year. It had all of the elements of a great film but fell very short. Whitty points out several things to admire about Lincoln. Tony Kushner, screenwriter for the film, creates well- crafted movie dialogue. His screenplay brought the best out of every actor in the film. I agree with Whitty that there are surprising performances. He mentions James Spader (W.N. Bilbo) and Sally Field (Mary Todd Lincoln) as being a tremendous supporting cast. I would have liked Whitty to mention Tommy Lee Jones (Thaddeus Stevens). I thought that Tommy Lee Jones acting stole the show in certain parts of the film. No one can put down the genius of Daniel Day-Lewis’ portrayal of Abraham Lincoln, however. He is a lock for Best Actor at the 2013 Academy Awards.

Whitty touches on the film’s important plot points. He mentions that Lincoln is a film about the 13^th Amendment, and ultimately ending the Civil War. Spielberg takes the audiences through every measure it took to passing the 13^th Amendment, including bribery and political extortion. There is only one battle scene in the entire film. Mr. Whitty mentions that none of Lincoln’s famous speeches are brought to the big screen. The assassination is not shown on screen as well, which is probably a good thing. Mr. Whitty also asserted that the film had no dramatic engagement. He claimed that there were too many parts of the film that were either unclear or dull. For example, he writes about how the film never explains why members in Lincoln’s Cabinet were contentious against each other.

I agree with many of Whitty’s points. I think that the title of his article speaks for itself: “Lincoln isn’t, but wants to be, a perfect movie.” There are many things to love and hate about the film. The acting is tremendous and Daniel Day-Lewis’ performance is the key that holds everything together. While Kushner’s screenplay was good, it can be overbearing and preachy at times. John Williams delivered a quality film score, even if it’s not as original or complex as his early works. The cinematography is something to marvel at as well. Take all of these things away and Lincoln does become somewhat of a dull film.

There were many issues that I personally had with the film. Mr. Whitty is right to claim that there is barely a point of dramatic engagement in the film. A film that runs 2 and 1/2 hours without dramatic engagement, knowing what the end results will be, can be constituted as boring. It's not an easy thing to avoid with historical films like Lincoln. With a production of Lincoln's magnitude, one would expect the best. Mr. Whitty gave an honest opinion of Lincoln, a film that has been favored to win many Oscars. It was a decent film despite its problems, but even a director like Spielberg could not save its mistakes. 

Elliott Noble on Warm Bodies

In his review of the recently released film Warm Bodies, Elliott Noble makes references to popular films, actors, and directors, in order to make connections to things the reader might be more familiar with. For example, Noble inevitably compares the film to Twilight, as well as comparing the main female actor to Kristen Stewart, so that we have an extremely well-known film and book series to refer to. Noble even hints at the obvious Romeo and Juliet reference in Warm Bodies that establishes the idea of forbidden love. While this concept maybe trite by now, Noble assures us that the film is anything but boring; writer-director Jonathan Levine reinvents the love story using an undead main character and a setting that we have never seen linked to romance before.

Noble also picks out the elements of Warm Bodies that are also seen in other Jonathan Levine films like 50/50, All the Boys Love Mandy Lane, and The Wackness. Through these comparisons, we learn about the hopelessly romantic tone of the film without any spoilers. Similarly, Noble gives us a plot summary of the film with enough detail and witty commentary ("From his chivalry to his appreciation of vinyl, he proves remarkably sensitive for a guy who can't feel anything") to get our attention, but without giving away any major plot points that might ruin the film. Noble spends a few short paragraphs establishing the main characters R and Julie, and making sure to emphasize the romantic and comedic undertones of the film.

I thought from watching the trailer for Warm Bodies that the film would be corny and goofy, but after reading Elliott Noble's review, I was convinced that the film might be worth watching, seeing that it gives the classic love story a new, apocalyptic twist.

Original review:  http://skymovies.sky.com/warm-bodies/review

Dargis Critiques Les Miserables - Mon Dieu!

Film critic Manohla Dargis of the New York Times wrote a review on Les Miserables which appeared on December 24^th, 2012. Dargis begins her review by focusing on Anne Hathaway’s performance. I agree that Hathaway’s performance is incredible; she portrays Fantine as the martyr figure she is and does so by emotionally attaching herself to the character. Hathaway’s performance of “I Dreamed a Dream” is one of the main highlights of this rendition of Les Miserables. Viewers cannot take their eyes off of her during this scene. Dargis points out that the “artful grunge” on the actors is distracting, but it adds an aspect of reality to the film considering it takes place in early 19^th century France; the characters sporting dirt are members of the impoverish lower class who have nothing but the clothes on their backs. Dargis also throws an insult at director Tom Hooper when she writes, “This [“I Dreamed a Dream”] is one number in which he doesn’t try to upstage his performers.”

Dargis makes sure she gives some background information on the musical. The information she provides is relevant and interesting to readers. She spends two paragraphs mentioning the awards Les Miserables has received, moments in which some of the songs have been sung (like when Susan Boyle sang “I Dreamed a Dream” on Britain’s Got Talent), and Victor Hugo, who wrote the novel Les Miserables that the musical is based upon.

Key points of the film are pointed out in Dargis’ review such as the way the film begins. Dargis cleverly writes about Jean Valjean (Hugh Jackman) and how he is portrayed as a Christ figure in the beginning of the film when he is carrying the cumbersome flagpole. Hooper focuses on Christianity in Les Miserables and makes it a key theme in the film. Dargis expresses that Les Miserables is a “story of oppression, liberation and redemption,” which is true. Every character carries his or her cross, from Valjean trying to find worth in his life after being a prisoner to the prison guard Javert (Russell Crowe) struggling with internal conflict of his own. Redemption is suggested at the end of the film when the cast is singing on a “ship” made from furniture.

I agree with Dargis when she writes that Hooper’s choice of having the songs sung live rather than prerecorded is extremely beneficial. If Anne Hathaway lip sang “I Dreamed a Dream,” it would not have compared to her heart-rending live rendition. The actors’ expressions are put under a microscope in which the audience can see their varying emotions while singing. The camera enhances these emotional songs by focusing on the actors’ expressions (like Hathaway trembling).

After praising most aspects of the movies, Dargis’ review makes a turn for the worst when she writes Les Miserables lacks spark. She expresses that Hooper’s camera angles are what destroy the movie because he is always “hurtling or throwing the camera around.” She suggests viewers may wait for the movie to end out of impatience (she thinks relationships and rebellion are not enhanced in the film), but in reality, the film is just extremely long. Despite its length, I think Les Miserables is a must-see film. Although Dargis’ review contains distracting grammatical errors and slaps Les Miserables with undeserved critiques, she does provide a different opinion of the film.

I Thought It Was Ralph Bakshi!

Reviewed Review: http://www.avclub.com/articles/the-hobbit-an-unexpected-journey,89816/

 

Tasha Robinson’s (of the Onion’s AV Club) review of The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is very comprehensive. Having seen the film, I can say for a fact that she not missed a thing, and she also explained a few things about the film that I did not understand. She is right to mention the Rankin-Bass 80’s cartoon, which shared many of the same songs as well as source material. She also highlights and shares the opinion that myself and many people I know have that the cartoon did a decent enough job without butchering the plot into three blockbusters.

Ms. Robinson clarifies the inclusion of a Necromancer and the ‘Brown Wizard’, who I did not recognize from the cartoon version and immediately thought it was Peter Jackson trying to go George Lucas and pander to the masses in his own crazed way. I was wrong—the one armed Orc was the only major invention of Jackson that was put in to give The Hobbit the gritty, grim and nasty atmosphere that permeated The Two Towers and The Return of The King. Thought after reading this review, I can agree that it was a nice touch to give the orcs some motivation other than ‘let’s kill everything and eat it’ feeling that permeated the prior trilogy.

However, Ms. Robinson is quick to point out what I also saw as the main flaw of the film: too many stories, interwoven well but at some points randomly. She is right to call the scene with Elrond, Saruman, Galadriel and Gandalf next to pointless, as it was little more than a shout-out to the Lord of the Rings trilogy. She should have gone a bit further and predicted that most of these plots—almost none of which were resolved—are going to lay the basis for the other two upcoming films.

I do disagree with Ms. Robinson’s assessment that the film would have been better off if it was cut down do two hours. Cohesive? Yes. But better? I still play D&D, so just about any traditional fantasy epic except the first and third Dungeons and Dragons movies (*shiver*) makes me all warm and fuzzy inside. I know I complained about it earlier, but I actually liked the extra plots and the parts not taken strictly from Tolkien’s book. While The Fellowship of the Ring had all the magic and wonder I could’ve wanted outside of the 1980’s fantasy gems (side note: Krull was unofficially titled ‘Dungeons and Dragons the Movie’). But The Two Towers and The Return of the King seemed to trade in fantasy and wonder for Saving Private Ryan -3: Frodo’s a Bitch. Even though D&D was based off wargames, its rules for mass combat always seemed off to me. So it was very nice to see the bantering trolls and the Goblin King and stone giants and the bunny-sled, even if the first three of that list were obviously written for children.

Overall, Tasha Robinson’s review of The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey was informative, comprehensive and agreeable in the utmost.

Welcome to the blog for my Spring '13 course in review writing.  Over the next few months you'll find reviews, features, and commentary on works of criticism.  Please leave a comment, and thanks for stopping by!