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-

Clint Eastwood Review: Unforgiven

I know I said this would come out on Sunday, but my blogspot account was acting funny and I’ve been delayed for other reasons. I was also going to start this with a different film, but since today is Clint Eastwood’s 81^st birthday, I decided to celebrate it by reviewing my favorite film of his, Unforgiven. Enjoy…

The story of Unforgiven begins with the brutal cutting of a prostitute in Big Whiskey, Wyoming. The men responsible are held for their crimes, but the sheriff (played by the always terrific Gene Hackman), goes rather light on the punishment. This angers the prostitutes and they set a $1,00 reward for anyone who can kill them.

It is then we are introduced to William Munny (Mr. Eastwood), a former gunslinger turned farmer and single father (wife died before the film began). He is asked by a young kid (Jaimz Woolvett) to help him claim the reward. The boy says his name is the Scholfield Kid, and he brings a lot of clout (though we never really learn his real name), but as the film goes on we learn more about him that may question his tales. At first, Munny is reluctant, but after seeing what the money could do for his family, he rides off, and recruits Ned Logan (Morgan Freeman), to help take down these wrongdoers.

The sheriff, however, doesn’t like this plan and will do anything in his power to keep people from coming. This includes the horrible beating of a gunfighter, English Bob (Richard Harris, better known as the first Dumbledore) in broad daylight right in front of everyone in town. The women begin to lose hope. Can Munny bring justice when the justice itself is so corrupt as is? Will our three heroes complete this mission without having any bad repercussions? Can we have hope in having multiple scenes exemplifying why Clint Eastwood is such a badass?

The film won 4 Academy Awards, including Best Director and Picture, both for Eastwood (he would latter repeat this in 2004 with Million Dollar Baby). In my mind, this is arguably his best work, and definitely ranks as one of my favorite films of all time. The cast is brilliant all around, particularly Eastwood and Hackman (who won an Oscar for his role). Their scenes are filled with such tension and suspense that you could down right pass out they are an awesome pair. The writing is superb; it gives the Western a noire-feel we don’t get much of in such a genre, and its rather welcomed.

What sets this apart though is the direction, which is rather top notch. Clint Eastwood takes his time with each shot, giving us the raw emotions of the characters in each scene. He gives everyone a chance to grow and express him or herself, without weighing the film down or destroying the pace. This is one of the best-paced films I have seen, and we can also thank the editor Joel Cox (who won the other Oscar), for his assisting Clint with the pacing, it’s really terrific.

Clint Eastwood is a man I say can do no wrong. He has made missteps in his career, but honestly you can say that about anyone. With Clint Eastwood, any missteps are easily forgiven, because he has a film repertoire that includes such classics as Unforgiven. I implore anyone who is reading this, if you haven’t watched it yet, go watch it, you will not regret this

Unforgiven’s Critical Grade: A+

Note: I have made a rule to only give an A+ to films that have Sam Neil in it, but I shall make an exception for such a film as this.

Project Eastwood

Hello all,
As you have noticed, I am rather bad at keeping a good tab on my blog, what with seeing movies being rather expensive and the movies I had seen being ones that have been out for quite sometime at the time of my watching them. Rest assured, I have every intention of reviewing more movies the more chances I have to see them. However, this is on a different matter. I have decided (that is I actually had this idea for awhile) to do a few minor movie projects to help bring films you might not have heard of to your attention. The first one of these projects would be on Clint Eastwood. I know he is a rather main stream man, but I have his 35 years/35 films, and many of which aren't as main stream as the one's that are. So, I shall, or at least try to, every Sunday, review a Clint Eastwood movie from this package. I will also be reviewing other movies, both in theaters and ones I believe need more attention than they have, as well as maybe more on those Oscar Mishaps I did before. So, until then, go see a movie or two, I would suggest Kung Fu Panda 2 or maybe Midnight in Paris (if you can find that one), and enjoy...
p.s. I picked this picture because when I found it, for some reason cracked me up......

Film Review: Thor

So, before I begin this review, I must warn all you readers that about three or four hours before I went and saw Thor, I read through about 9 Thor comics to prepare myself with some knowledge of the material before I went and saw it. So, just to prepare you all, this review will be done by that sort of fellow. Now, without further ado, my review of Thor.

The movie Thor tells the story of the mighty god of thunder named…. well Thor (played by newcomer Chris Hemsworth). He is the son of Odin (Anthony Hopkins), who is weary of the years of being ruler of Asgard and must decide between the rather brash Thor, or his brother, the deceptive Loki (Tom Hiddleston). After a brief scuffle in Asgard caused by the frost giants, Thor’s brash arrogance leads him to start up a war that was resolved ages ago. Because of this, he is banished to earth and, I guess, think about what he had done.

While on earth, we meet the human counterparts of the film. There is Jane Foster (Natalie Portman), Dr. Erik Selvig (Stellan Skarsgard), and Kat Dennings character (her name is Darcy in the film, but really apart from a few jokes at the beginning her character quickly takes a back seat to everything). While on earth, Thor must learn humility in order to gain back his spot in Asgard. During all of this, however, Loki and his sly ways makes plans in order to make Asgard his (which is helped with Odin’s failing health), and to end this war with the frost people once and for all, but not in the way Odin would’ve preferred. It is now up to Thor to save not just his world, but all worlds from Loki before it is too late. Will he learn his lesson? Will the other worlds be saved? Will this film not suck?

I must admit, I had my reserves about this film. Being a huge fan of Iron Man, I believed this to be something less like that and more of a bridge to the Avengers. Granted at parts it felt as such, but really, Iron Man was made at a time where Jon Favereau wanted to make it, Thor was made at a time where Avengers was coming up, so it did feel weak at parts. Still, I thought it was better than what I was expecting.

You get your money’s worth on the visuals, which aren’t blindingly obnoxious, but actually rather beautiful and amazing. Yes, there were some weird parts with the CGI, but I am a nitpicker when it comes to visuals, which are second to me in a great film. As far as story goes, while its not up to the level as the first Iron Man or Spiderman 2, I liked it a lot. It gave us plenty of character development and went at a nice pace. Some people I talked to said his lesson in humility happens way to quickly, I don’t think so. I think it was more subtle and sort of here and there in the film, but that’s for you to judge. The direction by the great Kenneth Brannagh was good, but had way too many tilted angles. Overall though, I was satisfied with my visual experience.

The acting is the real star here, as everyone in this film was perfectly cast. From the Warriors Three to the human counterparts to the mighty God of thunder, there wasn’t a weak link in the bunch (the Warrior’s Three in particular really looked the part). Chris Hemsworth is really the driving force behind all this, and he was the best part, every scene in the film he was in I believed him and enjoyed his presence, same goes for the always terrific Anthony Hopkins as Odin (such a strong performance there as well. I had a few problems with Loki (I felt he should’ve been a little more childish as the deceptive one), but honestly, that’s more of me being a nitpicker.

Many reviews will tell you that the part in earth, or Midgard as its called in the comics, will drag, and that’s partially true. But to be fair, anything would drag compared to the beauty that is Asgard. Thor is a great movie worthy of it placement as the beginning of the summer. Sure, it may not compare to some of the summer openers that came before it, but I think if we get something like Thor as a beginner rather than Spiderman 3 or Xmen: Wolverine, I’ll take it any day.

My Final Grade for Thor: B+

Jack's Reviews: Battle: Los Angeles

Hello everyone, so don't expect many of these over the next few weeks as I am finishing up college, I am luckily on break and got a chance to see a film I have been wanting to see for a while. Enjoy:

Imagine a world in which aliens were to invade the world. Coming from the sky, crashing into our coastlines and other areas around the world, its an event we didn’t see coming. Now, we are under attack from forces unknown and we must fight back or else it is all over. What will we do? Can we defeat them? Have I heard this before?

To start off, no I am not talking about Independence Day. In fact, I am talking about Battle: Los Angeles, a film by South African director Jonathan Liebesman. The story folds out as a race of alien invaders come down to earth and attacks earth for our supplies, namely our water. As cities around the world seem to fall, it looks as though Los Angeles has become the last stronghold in the fight for survival. It is up to Staff Sergeant Nantz (Aaron Eckhart), and his rag tag crew of marines to fight back this army from beyond the stars and save our planet, before its too late.

Now, I know I might be sounding sarcastic as I right this, but this is about as best I can write the plot to this film. The action is top notch, sometimes a little too much at times to the point where I have to look away just to take a breather. The aliens aren’t all that scary, in fact they are hardly shown, and when we finally get to see them, you will understand why we rarely see them. The script can take the biggest blame of all, its rather laughable. Every other line is one of them saying something you’ve heard millions a time over in other films, its really quite unspectacular. The acting is rather lacking, we have Michelle Rodriguez in a role we’ve seen her play many times before, which isn’t a bad thing but we also don’t see enough of her to really enjoy her presence as I’ve had in the past, much like with other alien film plots, District 9 being an exception to the past few years.

Aaron Eckhart might be the one big exception to the poor dialogue and acting here, and ultimately the one who anchors the film. He has done great work in the past and this is far from his best, he helps make some of the dialogue and scenes in general feel real and powerful. Other than him and some of the action scenes, which shows hints of Black Hawk Down among other films, Battle: Los Angeles is a film with high ferocity, but little left to be desired. If this film helps us learn anything at all its that aliens never come for peace, whether or not that makes us more xenophobic, or I guess Baaraparchuterphobia (I just googled fear of aliens), this film doesn’t exactly make our planet a very welcoming environment. If anything, we are slowly showing them ways to improve their defense when attacking us. So for goodness sake, either stop making alien films or make a good one that doesn’t give away too much, is that too much to ask?

Jack’s Grade: C+