Film Review: Cars 2

I’m probably not the first to think that the first Cars was the weak link in the rather strong chain of films that is Pixar (not that it was bad, but it wasn’t as up to their standards). One thing in particular problem I noticed was the lack of human element, which can be found in all Pixar films except in Cars. Now we have Cars 2, the “rev-ed up sequel,” with Lightning McQueen (Owen Wilson), and Mater (Larry the Cable Guy), going on another adventure together.

The story actually shifts to that of Mater instead of McQueen. We see McQueen enter the World Grand Prix against the boastful Francesco Bernoulli (a rather over the top John Turturro). After problems with the first race, their friendship is hurt, and Mater leaves feeling ashamed. On his way out, he gets caught up in espionage, of sorts, with Fin McMissile (the always delightful Michael Caine), and Holley Shiftwell (a rather sincere Emily Mortimer). They are trying to figure out the reason for the sabotaging of a new type of bio-fuel called Allinol (a somewhat clever play on words). We learn that a legion of old cars, called “Lemons” (this is never given much of a back story, but I’m not much of a gear-head). Will Mater be able to save the day and his friendship with McQueen, can the latter win it all?

Pixar has had a solid record with rather excellent films, as had been the case with Up and Toy Story 3 beforehand. Sadly, the streak ends there as Cars 2 doesn’t really improve on the original, rather gets stuck in neutral really. Pixar has a knack for creating a story for all ages, but this one felt more like it was aimed at children. I found Mater to actually get annoying at times and I don’t think team Pixar was ever able to get him off the ground in this story. Granted, he had his evolution throughout the film, but it just didn’t work for me, and it left me disappointed.

The story is the real problem here. The visuals are dazzling as always with Pixar, but the story was a real clunker, which, if you know my preferences, is rather important. It didn’t have the sentimental feeling we often got in a Pixar film, as shown brilliantly in the past two films I noted above. It never truly felt anything more than children entertainment, which isn’t bad, but I expect more from a Pixar film. The ending didn’t really help it either, honestly. I felt it was rather obvious and kind of shoehorned in parts, some of which I never really bought or found all that convincing. And with such talented voice work from Caine and the hilarious Eddie Izzard, and wonderful cameos from the legendary actress’ Sophia Loren and Vanessa Redgrave, they are let down by a script that, maybe with a few more fine tunes, could have been so much better.

Now, am I saying this is the worst film of the year: not at all. Am I being a little harsh constantly comparing it to Pixar’s films? The past two Pixar films were films that really hit emotionally me as far as films go, so to top them would be difficult. The problem was, Cars 2 didn’t even feel like Pixar was trying to top them, and if they were then they are way, way off. I think Pixar can be forgiven for this, as this is the first, and hopefully last, hiccup they have in crafting wonderful films.

Jack’s Grade: C+

Happy Birthday Roger Ebert!!!

Happy 69th birthday to the man I owe much to, both for my love of films and, very much so, this website. If ever I looked to someone for film reviews, it is this man. Happy birthday to a great man and hopefully many more to come from such an inspirational fellow.

Review: Tree of Life

How do you suppose life began? Was it thanks to the Big Bang? Did an almighty being have something to do with it? Could it be both? We ask these questions a lot, and are never closer to the answer, but we come to a level of acceptance of such ideas. In “Tree of Life,” that is simply what is happening. The legendary Terrence Malick (Thin Red Line) weaves a story about the creation of life itself, but does not take a side. Rather, he shows a balance of such ideas, accepting both as they are, and further represents said ideas in the form of a singular family, a bold move if you ask me.

The story begins with a family mourning the death of their child; the only detail we are truly given of this son is his age. We see one of the brothers, Jack (Sean Penn), still grieving years after his brother’s death, as well as his parent’s reaction. We are then thrown into visuals of the creation of time, with voices throughout discussing faith, evolution, love, life, what have you. We are shown the Big Bang, dinosaurs, and everything in between in a set of visuals that harkens back to A Space Odyssey and even reminded me of Planet Earth, the BBC series.

We are then taken back to the childhood of Jack, as he is raised in two separate ideals, which is the film’s main motif: nature and grace (an allusion to the conflicting ideas of evolution and creation). The father (Brad Pitt) represents nature and the mother (Jessica Chastain), represents grace. We see most of the film in the viewpoint of the children, as they are taught about life’s greatest values through the two conflicting influences that are their parents. Which side will they choose? Do they have to choose a side? Is accepting either side a wrong choice?

This is, quite possibly, the most beautiful film I have ever seen. It’s a cheaply made film, well for the visuals anyway, around 32 million. It is an artistic masterpiece, everything happens for a reason. The music adds a certain angelic tone to the film, which is further aided by the equally angelic Jessica Chastain. Brad Pitt has come a long way from 12 monkeys and other such films, this is his strongest performance I have seen. Emanuel Lubezki, the cinematographer who often works with Alfonso Cuaron (one of my favorite directors) and was robbed of a win for Children of Men in particular, is the true champion of the film (aside Malick himself). I am not only putting him on my list for an Oscar nomination, I am giving him the win right now. I have never seen a film crafted so magnificently as this, it’s the closest to a masterpiece I have ever seen.

Mr. Lubezki isn’t the only champion here, however. Terrence Malick, a perfectionist known for creating what many critics consider “masterpieces,” wrote and directed a truly magnificent work of art. He takes his time with his shots, which some may consider being a weakness of the film, but I think it truly works. There isn’t an actual plot/goal to the film, its simply the showing, in an almost documentary feel, of creation as seen in a single household. It’s truly an exceptional piece of work.

The film won the Palm d’or (Cannes version of Best Picture), but it has received its share of applause and boos. I see this film as being considered a controversial film, which is understandable. I see this as a film accepting of both ideas, not discrediting either. It tells us that life is beautiful and it should be treasured. “The less you love, the more life will pass you by.” I doubt I will see a film that will be better than this, it is truly an excellent, near-perfect piece of filmmaking.

Jack’s Grade: A+

Academy Awards Skakeup.... again

So, they've done it again. In recent news, the executives of the Academy Awards have announced that they have changed the best picture category again. This time, it will be instead of having five or 10, they can nominate five TO ten nominees. If a film has at least five percent of the number one votes (a best picture is voted on from a scale of one to ten, cause of the nominees) then they will be placed in the category of best picture. Also, the visual effects category competition will now be between ten films instead of seven for the nominations (which was a staggering five films that get said nom). Finally, if there are at least 13-14 films in contention, there maybe 4 nominees for best animated feature. It was originally 5 nominees for a year of 16 or more and 3 for 16 or less.

The latter two announcements aren't all that groundbreaking or as interesting to me as the first part (I honestly am not a visual effects kind of guy if you know me and as I love animated films, I can't see them all). To nominate a certain amount of films because they are voted by a majority as the best is a wise move. I have seen years where there could've been six, seven, maybe even ten nominations. Now that there is some leniency, we won't be annoyed to see what "fills" out the list (I'm not going to point fingers). So, kudos to the academy, I think this will be a good change and, while it does make it harder for me to predict the list (I'm not feeling an animated film this year at least), it does make it a little more fun to predict what would be considered the best of the year.

Here is the article

Also, expect another film review tomorrow, this one's a biggie, speaking of best picture lists, but until then, have fun at the movies...

Jack's Movie Radar: Girl With the Dragon Tattoo

Hey everyone,
I know I promised a Clint Eastwood review every week and I've sort of dropped the ball on that. I will be continuing on that path soon, but there is a film trailer I kind of wanted to mention before I go back into that stuff. It is the trailer for "The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo." Now, if you are friends with me on facebook, you know I generally post new trailers on my wall with a snippet of my opinion, and I did that with this trailer initially a week or so ago. However, after much thought I decided to give this a further bump, even though this film doesn't come out until december.

The film is based on the popular trilogy of books by Stieg Larsson, about two people (Mikael Blomkvist and Lisbeth Salander). In the first one, Dragon Tattoo, they attempt to solve the mystery around the disappearance of a young lady. It is through this disappearance that we learn more of said family, the Vangers, and their own past. I think thats about as much into the books as I can get without spoiling anything.

Anyway, I had read the book, currently on the second one, and I must say, these books are spectacular. The characters are VERY well defined, Mr. Larsson is a bit of a perfectionist when it comes to writing the backgrounds of the characters. The story is well paced and its sort of written like a journal, so it flows well and doesn't really fall apart, it makes you want to go on to the next book. But I am losing track, on to the trailer.

The Swedish film version I though was ok, it definitely had its moments where it strayed from the books a bit. The cast was great, particularly Noomi Rapace as Liusbeth. Now, Rooney Mara (Social Network) takes the role with, what Im considering a perfect casting choice, Daniel Craig as Blomkvist. That's where I think this film will succeed, the cast I think is perfect. Stellan Skarsgard as Martin Vanger, the great Christopher Plummer as Henrik Vanger (the head of the family), and Robin Wright as Erika Berger, a "coworker" of Blomkvist. The trailer I think is very well done, it doesn't give much away, but if you've read the book, you will have a good idea of whats going on. Also, the great David Fincher (Seven, Social Network) is directing and Steve Zaillian (Schindler's List) is adapting it, I mean come on. Definitely keep this one on the radar come Christmas time, Im already feeling this is going to be a heavy hitter come oscars, but I also said that about Social Network, so we shall see.

p.s. The tagline for the film is "Evil Shall with Evil be Expelled" I think that's just an awesome tagline for this film.

Here's a link to the trailer, since my original attempt got taken down: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6yUwXwrR35U

Movie's I've Seen Recently:
Water for Elephants: B
Win Win: A (see this if you get a chance)
Bridesmaids: B-