The 15:17 to Realism

15-17 to paris.jpg

 

Biography movies, another genre victim to dramatization, editing cuts, and wild cards in terms of quality to tell the story.  Yet the great Clint Eastwood has proven to be quite the artist to bring these movies to life in that dark, emotional, presentation we all love.  So, with another biography being released this weekend, yours truly is back to the trenches to give you some insight into the latest movies to sweep the nation.  What is in store for you?  Please read on to find out as I cover: The 15:17 to Paris.

 

LIKES:

Realistic: The movie’s highlight for me is how realistic the journey is, at least in terms of how their life progresses.  That Hollywood magic of instant success, of things falling into the right place at the right time, are essentially absent in this film.  You’ll get to see the struggles of the character’s lives, feel the stinging defeat at the limitations that were in their way, and experience the frustration at the ambiguity life holds. If realism and facts are your preference in these movies, then this film delivers on this premise and probably as close to the truth as you’ll get outside of talking to them.

 

A Fun Vacation:  The chronicle of the heroes’ journey has some pretty fabulous settings that they transverse too.  As the trio begin to tour Europe, you really get to see some fabulous sights of the culture held on that continent.  The way the film is presented, this component of the movie is a fun breakup of the drama, and if you’re like me and haven’t traveled internationally, a nice way to drink in the settings.  In addition, this was probably the most entertaining component of the film.

 

Cinematography:  The movie also gets massive props for the utilization of camera work to sell the emotion of the moment.  Eastwood’s latest film doesn’t have the most memorable moments in acting, but the camera picks up the slack.  Key close ups, dynamic angles, and a constantly evolving structure are the components that help bring this tale to life for me.  Once the sound editing and musical scores come in, that is when the scenes come together and paint the emotional tension of the film.

 

Quick Pace:  Can’t lie, biographies sometimes knock my energy out depending on how long and slow they go.  Like the train though, this movie moves at a very brisk pace, unyielding to the distracting tangents and keeping the film on pace.  As such, this film didn’t lose me and I got to appreciate the tale from start to finish.

 

DISLIKES:

 

Overdramatic opening:  The film starts with a glimpse back into the hero’s childhood days, which can be a tough time.  For me though, these opening moments were where the acting suffered the most.  Many of the teachers seemed to be overly grandiose in their negativity, their attitudes, and prejudice towards the kids.  During parent-teacher conferences, these discussions turned into absurd arguments that seemed more extreme than necessary and to the point of eye-rolling for me.  It’s all based on perspective, but the monstrous portrayal of these teachers either indicates action for their termination, or another example of movie magic gone wrong.

 

Piecemeal Presentation:  I liked the presentation at the start, the integration of the actual event, intertwined with their history.  So, I’m unsure why this concept was dropped a third of the way into the film and ditched for a different presentation. Even weirder, is that the movie felt very piecemeal to me, starting down one angle only to again drop it without any major resolution.  Eastwood’s team kept taking leaps and bounds across the story including: hastily finishing the kid story, dropping the challenges in training, and in many cases forgetting the other major characters.  Speaking of which…

 

One character vs. Three:  The trailers say the film is about the three heroes of the movie, and it starts out that way.  Then once again the other characters get pushed to the back burner, pretty much forgotten until halfway through the final act.  Were the other’s tales just that lacking?  Was it because only one of them did a lot of the physical work in the actual event the reason he was awarded most of the screen time?  Honorable as this may be, the false advertising didn’t impress me so much in the film on something that based its promotion on three characters.  Sorry guys, but the occasional shot of the friends doesn’t count as major storytelling.

 

Overhyped End:  Don’t get me wrong, hostile attacks in any form are intense, scary, and traumatic.  Yet, the hype the trailers placed on this movie was not fulfilled for me.  The tension was low, the theatrics were gone, and in truth it was over in the blink of the eye.  Again, I appreciate the realism, but a little magic at this point could have amped up the suspense and pulled me more into the story. I guess when you expect all three to have majorly stopped the incident, you expect bigger bang, so shame on me for that.  Still, not the most climactic thrills to grace the screen. 

 

 

The VERDICT:

 

            Eastwood is famous for biographies, but this one didn’t have quite the investment, heart, and dynamic his other works have had.  The 15:17 to Paris is certainly a more realistic movie, that keeps a quick pace and nice cinematography to tell pieces of a tale.  While I enjoyed the vacation, aspects presented in the film, the movie failed to unite the fragments together, leading to a very haphazard and unfinished tale for me to enjoy.  With all the hype, I expected more of Eastwood’s dramatic flair to take hold, but this film didn’t quite live up to what the trailers presented.  So, if you’re looking for a realistic, big budget documentary hit the theaters, but my opinion is to save this one for a legal home viewing. 

 

My scores:

Drama/History/Thriller:  5.5

Movie Overall: 4.0

Advertisements

A Little More Development Would Have Made This 12 Stronger

12 strong.jpg

            The World Trade Center attack, a day that will forever live on in the history of the American society.  From this event, our military launched a new war that targeted terrorism, and the escalating threats that hid in the shadows.  We’ve had plenty of tales about the heroes who acted on that day, uncovered the leads to locating the leaders of the attack, and potential occupations of territories of those who might continue their work.  This weekend, yet another campaign heavy feature comes to theaters entitled 12 strong, the declassified story of the Horsemen who fought back.  What lies in this political drama?  Robbie K here to answer that question in hopes of guiding your viewing pleasures.  Let’s’ move out!

 

LIKES:

 

The Pace:  Some military dramas get lost in all the political jargon and build up, but this movie manages to dive through that medium quickly to get to what you want to see. While the opening hour is on the slower side and dialogue heavy, it eventually takes off when the first battles begin to rock out.  From there, the rest of the movie is tense ride, moving at a consistent speed to bring suspense and intensity at what lies in the Middle Eastern range.

 

The Dialogue:  The story of the horsemen may be action heavy focused, but my buddy and I agreed that the dialogue was well done in this movie.  One component is between the soldiers, a realistic, almost natural, exchange of insults, jabs, and venting that represents the bond the soldiers have.  Well-timed jokes relieve some of the tension, and the comedic punch is subtle but perfect to get a good laugh out of you.  When the action starts up, you’ll get your feel of military jargon, as the soldiers call out strategic maneuvers and call in air strikes utilizing the coordinates.  While not the most creative writing here, it’s a component that helps pull you into the heat of the moment.  The strongest writing though, comes in the philosophical debates between Captain Mitch (Chris Hemsworth) and General Dostum  (Navid Negahban). A contest of wills takes place numerous time between the two leaders, and in it contains Hollywood inspired lines designed to open your minds to bravery, empathy, and what it means to fight.  These moments are the most moving, and in it a great study on the hell war truly is.

 

The Messages:  The dialogue does much of the lifting in this category, but 12 Strong also has enough visual representation on the culture of the battlefield that was the war on terror.  Perhaps there is some studio magic to gloss up things, the movie did a solid job portraying the Arabic cultures and approaches to war on all sides.  Honor and dignity are heavy in the population, and not all factions are as heated as the terrorism associated with it.  Seeing this duality not only supports the dramatic storytelling, but does a solid job at educating the audience that not everyone out there is an enemy.

 

Action: Okay now the part you really want to know about.  The action of 12 Strong delivers what the trailer promised.  Special effects heavy sequences erupt to life as Hemsworth and company unleash their disciplined fury onto the poor extras that are heavy in this film.  Exciting gunplay is the main theme of the mix, all sharing a similar foundation, but with some tweaks to help each battle stand out.  As many of my fellow reviewers agree, the movie’s final battle is the best of the bunch, packed with emotion, tension, and all out courage and glory that America loves to see as they ride their horses into the fray.  A powerful cinematic score will assist in bringing the whole shebang to life.  Not the strongest of all the movies I’ve seen, but dang strong in its own right.

 

 

DISLIKES:

 

Too Long:  For a movie that is action packed, you would think that the story could be told in under 2 hours.  Yet, this movie was a little too long at points for me.  It starts with the delayed opening, taking nearly an hour to get to the first battle the movie promised.  Sure, the information is presented in a concise manner, but how much of it was really needed is the question that remains.  In addition, the movie took some tangents to give you the whole journey, admirable in terms of capturing every detail, but not done well enough to be fully pertinent to the movie.  This story takes some unnecessary tangents that didn’t get the time it needed, acting as quick acknowledgements to the soldier’s lives and nothing more.

 

Hard To Differentiate Soldiers:  Another problem with this movie is how much the soldiers seem to blend together in this movie.  You’ve got Hemsworth who sticks out like a sore thumb, and a couple of other members that have a unique quality to them to help differentiate them.  Much of the cast though are just bearded big men who all have a vendetta to settle with the terrorists.  Sacrificing logical combat gear choices, like helmets and armor, they try to give some visual cues to help each member stand out, but their identities still aren’t really prominent for the audience to grab onto.  They relied on Hemsworth too much to do the lifting, letting his good looks do most of the eye grabbing.  In addition, none of the other soldiers had strong background development, with only the ones with family getting any glimpse of a life.  They try to give a few of them some screen time at parts of the movie by splitting the team, but most of the supporting antics fall to quick sequences that could have been left out.

 

Army Of One: Exciting as the battles are, 12 strong is more like 1-5 strong in the grand scheme of things.  Hemsworth is the soldier whose perspective you’ll get the most of, despite being the member who has had the least combat experience.  Where other movies do a nice job of integrating all members of the team in some way, but this film sort of glazed over the contributions of the others.  Don’t get me wrong, the other troops have some displays of their skills, but they just don’t have that unique component other military films do.  Even the main villain sometimes get lost to the sea of extras, with only some close ups of sneers to shine the spotlight on.  Again, the movie relies of Hemsworth to do most of the lifting, and it really could have achieved more had the others been more involved.

 

The VERDICT:

 

            When it comes to action films, 12 strong is the leader for the new year at the moment.  While the movie starts out slow, the second act gets things going, primarily thanks to the action sequences that are loaded in this movie. Still, the movie manages to get some good dialogue into the mix that, in tandem with the visual effects, does a nice job delivering the emotional messages about the culture of war.  However, the movie was a little too long, going down too many paths that, while entertaining, did not provide much to the story.  Such a shame, as the other members of the platoon could have used some development to not only add more to the battles, but also help the other cast stand out a little more.  Given all these things though, the movie is the pick of the weekend to go see in theaters, due to the special effects and storytelling at hand.

 

My Scores:

 

Action/Drama/History:  7.5

Movie Overall:  6.5

 

Extra, Extra, See All About It!

Post

 

Hollywood, the new political battleground that continues to take public issues and launch a campaign for their favorite charity.  Assuming you weren’t under a rock over the last few years, you know things have heated up in glamour land, igniting another battle between the government and fine dressed actors/actresses.  One bullet to be fired this weekend is the Post, a tale describing the newspaper’s attempt to fight censorship by the government. With legendary actress Meryl Streep and actor Tom Hanks leading the way under Steven Spielberg’s direction there is much promise held in this film.  What’s the verdict?  Robbie K here to share some opinions and guide your movie going expertise.  Let’s go!

 

LIKES:

 

Realistic: You want a movie that feels like a capture of real life?  Look no further, because the Post has many components to please the realism fans that flood the theaters these days.  The magical finesse is more of a glaze in this film: a small sound editing here, some dramatic music there, all to help maximize the emotion of the scene. Outside of that though, The Post is more of a recreation of the events of that time period and the life of the press in their pursuit of the truth.  Therefore, you history buffs are really going to fall for this film.

 

Acting:  The highest component of this film is the acting, which is to be expected given the headliners of the film.  Streep continues shine, her talents and skills coming to full front as she plays Kay Graham.  A recent widower, concerned mother, and recent business owner who not only had to balance all these roles, but face the challenges set before by the government.  Streep manages to dive into each of these positions and really portray the struggles Graham felt.  No overacting here, Streep continues to show why she is a champion at the Academy Awards and her ability to blend acting with realism with no divisible lines.

Hanks as her opposite is yet another great move, diving into the stubborn, career driven paper chief of Ben Bradlee.  Where Streep’s character is all about trying to stand up for her paper without compromising her morals, Hank is all about the rough-edged road of getting the story, sometimes ignoring the other things around him to get it.  This performance is powerful again, delivering the lines with that drive and passionate spectrum Hanks is famous for.  Together these two make the world come to life, both able to hold their own, but truly greatest when together on the battlefield of morale grounds. 

 

The Writing: The Post has great writing, no surprise given Spielberg’s ability to make history come to life.  Gone are cheesy one-liners and over the top monologues, and in their place a script that is loaded with a natural dialogue exchange, clever wit, and realistic reactions to these problems.  Strong writing like this makes for a smooth ride for the actors bringing the words to life and developing their characters with little to no fear.

 

DISLIKES:

 

The Pace:  A movie like this has to deliver the morals in a manner that is both motivational and entertaining.  It accomplished the motivational component, but sadly lost on the entertainment component for me.  Part of this was due to the pace. The opening scenes tickled my fancy, but that intrigue was lost to a very monotonous speed of slow as dirt.  While the freedom of the press issue is the main topic of discussion, all the other life components were included in great details, which led to tangents not necessarily needed and longer run times.  Seeing the persona life was important, but not worth the dragging velocity this movie hit at various points of the movie, especially at later showings.  Even worse, these tangents led to a delay in getting to the heart of the issue, which is what this movie is all about.

 

The Climax:  While I appreciate the lack of movie magic, this movie needed a little enchantment to pump the tension up and make those lessons come alive even more.  The Post does a nice job of setting up the problem and explaining the information at hand. Yet the buildup would hopefully lead to an emotion/tension packed debate between the two parties to really get the crowd fired up.  Not the case in this film my friends, as much of this part is reduced to a short montage of brilliant sets and well adorned extras.  Spielberg could have had another gold mine of approval by the critics if he had added that little extra oomph to give our characters the satisfying dramatic action they deserved.  I won’t tell you how it goes, but I can say the suspension was practically extinct at the end for this reviewer.

 

 

The VERDICT:

 

            The Post is an important movie for many, primarily those who pursue the truth and are hindered by the oppressiveness of power.  Spielberg certainly crafted a winner in regards to realism, writing, and direction in guiding the actors.  With Streep and Hanks really bringing the players to life, this movie is a total Oscar nomination eater in regards to the artistic component.  However, the pace really suffers from the realism and dilutes the climax into an under impressive finale that does not scream of Spielberg’s prime work.  This glorified documentary would have held better premise on Netflix, because this movie was overhyped for me, with the acting being the exception to the rule.  So, save your cash and wait for a RedBox rent in my honest opinion. 

 

Biography/Drama/History:  7.0

Movie Overall:  6.0

Nolan, Dun Got It Right

Dunkirk

 

War, huh, yeah, what is it good for?  Entertaining movies, that is what it is good for.  Hollywood has numerous examples of wars from the various historical times in our human legacy. Many of these installments focus on a hero who saved the war, or a band of brothers that bravely faced the odds to hold the line.  In most cases though, you can bet there will be violence, explosions, and often graphic portrayals of the hell contained in our squabbles.  I finish my weekend reviews with Dunkirk, which is the latest installment in the Christopher Nolan library.  Can the Dark Knight director work his magic in war?  Or does it fizzle out like a dud bomb.  Robbie K here to give his opinions.  Let’s get started.

 

LIKES:

 

Layered Story:  Many war movies are the linear tales of the hero who will win the battle.  Dunkirk diverts from this main path and instead presents its plot from three viewpoints that overlap at various times.  A cryptic opening doesn’t do much to explain this, but eventually the plots coincide and your mind is blown by the presentation.  This element, though confusing at times, adds that unique flare to the movie that keeps your interest piqued as you connect the journeys of those involved.  In addition, the multiple viewpoints give you a more complete picture of the war, further bringing the history to life in a manner Hollywood special effects is famous for.

 

Realism:  We know the doctoring editing and story writers can make to score big bucks in the box office.  These moments often lead to overdramatic, eye-rolling moments that war dramas can be.  Dunkirk again shines in the unique department in terms of crafting the story to be realistic in many details.  You’ll be pulled into the war in this film, grounded in the nightmares that plague the battlefields and the internal struggle that all involved face.  I felt plagued with the emotional guilt in the choices made in this film, while also concerned with the consequences that could follow those choices. The film’s focus on the people and not the battle works on so many levels, and makes you interested in the characters more so than the special effects.  Nice choice again Noland!

 

The Cinematography:  Dunkirk doesn’t have a lot of lines, award winning dialogue, or even one-liners that we as humans like.  Instead it is the cinematography and editing that bring Dunkirk to life and make it shine in the theater’s dark halls.   While the special effects are certainly impressive (though not that showy), it’s really the camera work that brings the mood out in the form of hope seeking faces that are suffering through the onslaught dealt to them.  Throw in the powerful musical score and mix in the little line delivery and you get that recipe for emotional bombardment that brings respect, empathy, and pride of the sacrifices made by troops long ago.

 

Short run time:  Such a dynamic, sounds like it would take forever…fortunately Nolan’s direction kept the movie under 2 hours and brought quality out in that short time.  This is an example of good directing and editing, and proof that you can have a quality film in a short time limit.

 

DISLIKES:

 

Missing that Hollywood Story:  Realism is good, but I certainly missed having a flared-up story to grip onto.  Dunkirk is a quality movie, but it isn’t as much fun as I have had with other war movies.  It lacks some of the big, bang excitement made famous in other war movies, and the realistic psychological approach can drag at times.  The result is not the action-packed survival I had hoped for, but I can always rewatch Hacksaw Ridge for that. And while I enjoyed the layered story approach, I again think it was confusing at times to piece things together without a central story, plot, or goal (outside of survival/rescue) to hook onto.

 

The placement of certain scenes: My buddy and I agreed that there were points to this movie that were difficult to follow.  Much of this came from the odd placement of clips in the movie and the rapid transitions between these various stories with little guidance.  Things do get better when the lines start to come together, but there are still scenes that still stay confusing at points until the end of the movie.  In addition, the pacing of the stories was uneven at times, with a couple of stories rapidly concluding (so you think), only to reappear after a prolonged gap.  Not the biggest weakness, but things could have been a little better oriented for me.

 

Depressing:  We know war sucks, and this movie’s portrayal of the loss of hope amplifies those feelings. There are so many elements of depression in this movie that you may feel a little down following the opening.  I felt a little tired during this movie, especially during the drawn-out moments that were more depressing and less stressing.

 

The VERDICT:

 

Dunkirk is certainly one of the more artistic and clever portrayals of war, dropping Hollywood flare for realism.  Nolan’s impressive directing opens up new worlds of war theater and keeps things fresh with the impressive displays of heroism.  Yet all the good the cinematography and directing is… I missed the Hollywood flare that cinemas bring.  Without that story/entertainment value to it… Dunkirk has some confusing presentations and dragged out moments that can weigh heavy on you.  Still, this movie has plenty to qualify a visit to the theater, and one of the better movies of the summer.  Not the epic wartime thriller, but certainly one of the more realistic, war dramas I have ever seen. 

 

My scores:

 

Action/Drama/History:  9.0

Movie Overall:  8.0

 

 

Let Patriotic Pride Ring

patriots-day

 

Mark Wahlberg and disaster movies seem to go hand and hand these days and this weekend brings the latest installment in his library.  Today I got to see Patriots Day, a movie that dramatizes the Boston Marathon Bombing in 2013.  Like all disaster movies, it holds the promise for inspiring the audience or stirring up emotion.  But has Hollywood hit its saturation point?  Hi Robbie K here, with a new abbreviated review of Patriots Day.  Let’s get started

 

LIKES:

  • Very Detailed
  • Good visual/audio techniques
  • Emotionally strong movie

 

Summary:  When it comes to historical movies we like details and Patriots Day does not fall short in portraying this tragic event.  From the bombings to the manhunt, you get to see the thrilling, and sometimes chilling, journey to bring the case to a close. The movie shows the events from the perspectives of many involved including victims, cops, and the terrorists themselves.  An even more impressive twist is the smooth integration of real life security clips that helps keep the facts in check, while also showing the inspiration of the movie.  When you take these clips, and mix them with the movie magic of scene and music editing, you get incredibly powerful scenes that are certain to inspire you.  I agree with the trailers that Patriots Day is one of the most emotional stirring pieces to grace the silver screen this year.  So many sequences promote the concepts of uniting in the face of danger, perseverance of spirit, and American pride.  It had many in my viewing sniffling and certainly got some goosebumps going in this reviewer.  Therefore, Patriots Day editing is certainly the selling point of this movie.

 

DISLIKES  

  • Movie magic overdramatizes
  • Some editing issues
  • May poke some snakes

 

Summary: As seen many times in Hollywood, the magic of the cinema sometimes steps into overdramatic role.  Patriots Day, despite how emotionally stirring it is, does cross into preachy side at times. While it certainly is inspiring, much of the ending moments (primarily the dialogue) is geared towards American pride that may be seen as boastful.  In addition, some people may not appreciate the portrayal of the various characters, perhaps thinking they were too extreme in their renditions.  Yes, some of the audience said this during the movie.  But outside of overdramatic moments and extreme portrayals, the only other component for me was some of the editing lapses in the movie.  There are certain scenes that attempt to show some of the background info on the characters (e.g. dating, guys getting high on weed, etc) which were certainly entertaining or aggravating.  However, these moments were either not timed right, or more often not needed for me to get the emotional kick of the movie.  And to be honest, most of these clips do extend the cast’s screen time.

 

The Verdict:

Patriots Day is a movie that will bring some sort of emotion to most audience members.  The detail is fantastic and makes you feel a part of the team in this epic manhunt, establishing that rage to capture the bad guys.  The special effects and audio score will only deepen your immersion into the story.  However, be ready for some political discussions and potential airing of grievances when you see the very extreme portrayals in this movie. Overall though, this movie is a solid opening to the year and a welcome break up from the mundane.

 

My scores:

 

Drama/History/Thriller:  8.0

Movie Overall: 7.0

Ben-Hur, Done That

Ben-Hur

 

In 1959 the world was introduced to Ben-Hur, a movie that today remains on many top movie lists. So of course Hollywood, would be ready for a remake in this golden age of well…remakes. My final review of the weekend is on the latest rendition of the classic tale that promises the entire plot with more of the action. So let’s get started shall we?

 

LIKES:

  • Sticks to the story
  • Acting
  • The chariot scene finale

 

With remakes sometimes comes a major plot overhaul, which is sometimes good and sometimes bad. In Timur Bekmambetov’s production the story is pretty consistent with its 55-year-old predecessor. The backbone is essentially the same, but they have made a few tweaks such a making Messala, Judah’s brother and using assassination as the means of starting war instead of a tile falling from the ceiling. Some of these additions I think make the drama more gripping, and others were a little more long-winded and overdramatic. At least most of these additions added to the plot and allowed us to get closer and more involved with Ben-Hur’s tale. I liked most of the plot points myself, despite rolling my eyes at times, and welcomed the additions.

I also welcomed the acting, with Jack Huston being an extraordinary Ben-Hur of the modern age. He captures the noble side of the character well and did a decent job for most of the hopeless romantic scenes as well. I can’t lie that his deep brooding voice, sounded a lot like a comical Batman impression and his shaken faith moments were a bit overdone, but overall he did a nice job. Toby Kebell also does the role of Messala well too, though he is a bit more overbearing and brash compared to Huston and bleeds over to the overacted realm a few times. But these two sync with each other well, and both have a great chemistry with the rest of the cast making for a believable crew that you fall into place with.

And as promised, the chariot scene was quite the display of technical ingenuity the modern day Hollywood. The sequence is well put together, with the cinematography capturing all the glorious chaos and action in glorious detail. Its stable, multi angled, and all designed to maximize emotion without making you sick (take a look at this Michael Bay). Now throw in a killer symphony score and sound editing and you get the next component that brings the 15 minutes of adrenaline pumping shots to full force. Finally, throw in some beautifully choreographed moments and planned accidents and you get the complete picture that immerses you into the moment. It certainly was a fitting ending to the tale.

 

DISLIKES:

  • Some of the Drama overdone
  • Writing is surprisingly lacking at parts
  • The savage nature of the film

As mentioned earlier, the writers of the script added some good story elements to the mix, but there were parts that were a little overdone. Many of these parts often had to do with the mother and sister roles, very shallow moments that did not add much to the plot for me. The obsession from that point on led to a lot of circular arguments that were not impressive to me and kept the plot from moving along. A few other character introductions and building rivalries were almost not needed, for the characters weren’t on screen long enough to really add much to the story other than fodder for the violent moments.

This brings me to the next dislike: the lacking writing. For a movie all about finding faith and challenging the reign of the prestigious Roman Empire, you would have thought there would be more boisterous and moving speeches. There are a few of these pride-stimulating moments, but much of Ben-Hur’s dialogue has been reduced to casual conversations where testosterone leads to a semi heated complaining match. Morgan Freeman probably has the best conversations of the bunch when he interacts with the group, filled with the wisdom and enlightenment this time in history was famous for. In addition Esther (Nazanin Boniadi) also had a few wise moments though not as well thought out. While you certainly aren’t there for the writing, it was something that I had hoped would match the intensity of the 50s film.

Finally comes the savage nature of the film. Yes, I know times were horrendous back then and the might of the army was merciless and not shy of brutality. Still I didn’t expect so much focus on it. Ben-Hur’s modern day graphics truly amplify the reality of suffering as both Roman and Jewish citizens are burned, maimed, and crushed under the wrath of entertainment. Some of the violence was indeed necessary, but the cruelty towards the horses in this film was a little too focused for my liking. Yes it does bring you into the heat of the moment and I did feel the suspense building. But seeing those horses (even CGI ones) suffer was not entertaining to me. The violence is certainly fitting, but those with weak constitutions might want to stick to the 50s lower technical qualities.

 

The VERDICT

Ben-Hur is one of the better remakes I have seen in a while, and has many of the elements we fell in love with all those years ago. The actors play their roles nicely and the modern day graphics certainly bring the world to life and immerse you into the entire story. But it is a remake that is a bit more savage and is does not hold anything really special to constitute a trip to theater, with the exception of the few action scenes. Yet those looking for a good historical, action, drama will get their fill, but I recommend waiting on this one to grace RedBox.

 

My scores:

Adventure/Drama/History: 7

Movie Overall: 7

Well Designed World that Drags

Jersey boys

            The Four Seasons, a musical sensation that lasted throughout the years as one of the greatest bands of the 20th century.  With uptown beats, a blend of instruments, and a high pitched Frankie Valli; this group led the charts for many years.  So what is the entertaining world’s current trend in recognizing their achievements?  Simple, they make plays and movies about the group, in particular about the origins and underlying story of the singing sensations.  That’s right, my movie review is on Jersey Boys, the latest work of director Clint Eastwood.

 

Like most movies about singing legends, the underlying tone is dark, often the glamorous lifestyle of fame a mere cover for some tormenting background.  If you didn’t get this from the movie trailer, or the title, I’m here to tell you that Jersey Boys is a tale of dark and dreary times.  Right from the start we are thrown smack dab in the middle of a depressing neighborhood, filled with citizens whose dreams seem dead, with the exception of a few, as Tommy DeVito (Vincent Piazza) introduces us to his life.  In a curse filled, angry tone, one already gets a feeling the movie will have a more somber tone than any of the films I’ve seen in the past few weeks.  Over the course of two hours, the tale grows darker, every ounce of happiness offset by seedy greed and selfish desires of one or two characters.  While realistic, it became slow at points and bored me to wanting to take a nap.  Now maybe it was the double feature after a day of work, but the truth is this movie dragged at points for me, especially in the beginning where I was waiting for them to actually sing something.  Luckily the film picks up pace when the first song leaves Frankie’s golden throat, but after the brief span of nostalgic tunes, it hits a low point again.  Yes, it sets up a tale that has lots of character development, but shorten the movie by a half an hour and you will still make your point.

 

Putting story aside, the recreated world of the 60’s was well executed, as various trends and commodities returned from the shelves of time.  Various couples in the audience lit up with delight at being dragged back in time, commenting on how much fun establishments like that used to be. Regardless, the setting is well done, both costumes and makeup blending in with the artificial towns that changes, as the seasons grow older.  While I am no expert in how the seasons looked, I felt the cast did a nice job of recreating them, styling hair and casting actors who looked and played the part.  While the characters can be real sleaze balls, I think the fantastic four did a great job filling the epic shoes, and blending Jersey edge with Italian loyalty.  Frankie (John Lloyd Young) in particular was my favorite character, a wide variety of emotion and qualities that made me most interested in his story.  Of course seeing as the tale was more focused on him, I can’t tell how much was glamorized to make him look good, but still I rather enjoyed his character.  As for the other actors, well I applaud their talent as well, each playing an integral role in “moving” the story along and providing a different angle on things.

 

Let’s talk about the part I enjoyed the most about Jersey Boys.  No I’m not talking that it ending, I’m talking about the music.  The one shred of light in this story is getting to hear the gang sing some of their big time hits.  Is it live singing or well-rehearsed dub overs?  I don’t know, but regardless I was moving my knees and bobbing to the rhythm as the Four Seasons played their melodies.  The elaborate stage shows with their bright lights brightened the mood and temporarily eliminated the cloud of dismay I was feeling.  Getting not one, but four songs as well, made me feel as if I wasn’t being gipped, and the fact they played the entire son, or at least most of it, was another plus that Eastwood did right.  Of course, the only thing that I wished could have been different, was that these songs were not so clustered together, to help relieve some of the latter dramatic tension and depression, but Eastwood cant’ change history any more than we can.

 

Jersey Boys has the magic of bringing a world to life, however depressing that world may be.  With a great cast, beautiful setting, and music that continues to span the test of time, Eastwood deserves applause for what he has done.  Yet, it is slow, and not really a movie I can say deserves flocking to the theater to see, when it can be appreciated from the comforts of home, and cheaper as well.  It may win an Oscar though, so if given the chance to see it take it, but hold your money for some of the other films coming in the next couple of weeks.

 

I give Jersey Boys:

 

Drama/Biography/Musical:  7.5

Overall:  7.0