Wings (1927) - There were moments of greatness and there were moments of mediocrity

Review No. : 0010

Title : Wings

Year : 1927

Director : William A. Wellman

Country : United States

World’s Verdict : Rotten Tomatoes – 95%; IMDB – 7.8 out of 10.0; Academy Award - Outstanding Picture, Best Engineering Effects.

My Verdict : 2.5 out of 5.0.

I got to admit that part of my movie bucket list is to watch Wings, the first recipient of the Academy Award for Best Picture (Outstanding Picture at that time).  I’m glad that I am doing the Oscar Challenge it forces me to watch these old movies that are in the backburner.

Wings is a story of two young men who enlisted in the American Army during the First World War.  They started as rivals fighting for the heart of one woman but soon became best of friends in the army camp.  They both shared glorious moments as fighter pilots during the war and realized that no woman can destroy their friendship.

What Went Right

• Shock value – When you watch this classic you will see a half-a-second breast exposure of Clara Bow.  You will see a General kissing the neck of the soldiers as a sign of appreciation.  You will see men embracing and almost kissing each other on the lips.  You will see adult men kissing their mothers on their lips and I’m not talking about a simple smack, I’m talking about passionate kiss (gladly without tongue).  The last one was the one that shocked me the most because I never saw any other film that shows that kind of affection.  You will wonder if that was the kind of world a century ago. 

• Richard Arlen – He was the best performer in this film.  He gave the right amount of performance.  Charles “Buddy” Rogers did good, too, but his goofy character almost crossed the line of annoyance.

• Action scenes – The scenes in the skies with the flying and falling airplanes were very impressive.  The shots of the airplanes crashing down were also amazing and very believable.
  

What Went Wrong

• Mixed genre – This film is a romantic comedy, an action and a drama rolled into one long movie.  Bow and Rogers scenes were comical that sometimes I felt that it does not fit in the overall theme.  Or probably Wings was really a comedy film that the serious action and dramatic scenes were the ones that didn’t fit.  I just did not see the cohesiveness of the film.  It’s like I watched three films because the three genres did not gel together.

• Long boring parts – There were scenes that were too long that I wished I could fast forward the film.  Most of these were the action scenes.  Major cause was that it is a silent film and there was a need to narrate the action sequences.

• Inconsistency - Wings is a film that projects polarizing experience.  There are moments that you will laugh because it’s funny but there are times that you will find scenes to be too corny.  There are moments that you will be so much impressed with the action stunts and there are times that you will wish it to stop because it is just too long and boring.  There are times that you will find the cinematography beautiful but there are times that you will find it to be mediocre.  There are times that you will cringe with the melodrama but there will be a time that you will experience goosebumps and teary eyes.

• Editing is bad – I’m not talking about how the scenes were tailored to form a story.  I’m referring to obvious amateur cuts like when you see a man talking with his arms raised up and the next close-up shot you will notice that his arms are now on his side.  I caught a couple of this type of mistakes in this film.

Would I ever watch this film again?  I don’t have any plans to watch it again but I am recommending this film for all the cinephiles out there.

Star Wars: The Force Awakens (2015) - A tributary remake of the first Star Wars film. Disappointed.

Review No. : 0009

Title : Star Wars: The Force Awakens

Year : 2015

Director : J.J. Abrams

Country : United States

World’s Verdict : Rotten Tomatoes – 94%; Metacritic – 81 out of 100; IMDB – 8.6 out of 10.0.

My Verdict : 2.9 out of 5.0.

Warning: This review contains spoilers.

There were positive feedbacks after the first screening day of the new Star Wars that’s why I bought tickets for the next day and added a blue lightsaber in my Facebook profile picture.

I felt the excitement inside the movie house before the start of the film.  First fifteen minutes was still exciting but it died down (at least for me) when I noticed the abundant parallelism of the movie to the original Star Wars film. It was not an inventive film and that caused my disappointment, I was expecting for a new storyline.

What Went Wrong

The same old story – I guess I was anticipating too much for a new narrative and a new set of characters.  This was an opportunity for the franchise to create a new plot that is not much related to the old movie and probably a more meaningful story.  A sequel doesn’t have to be a continuity of the past stories but should feature the relationships of the present and the precedence.  Consider Creed (2015), this movie is technically a sequel of the Rocky franchise but it was reinvented but it was still set in the Rocky universe.  J.J. Abrams could have written a better script that is not much related to the prior movies.  Hello, it was set in a Galaxy far far away, I’m pretty sure there are more interesting stories out there that are better than the Skywalkers and friends battling another evil empire. 

The Force Awakens started years after the rebellion in Return Of The Jedi.  A new evil empire has risen and on a hunt to terminate the missing Luke Skywalker.  The parallelism was overwhelming that it began to lose its originality.  Another dark empire emerged and is called the First Order and as usual another resistance was formed.  There is a new Darth Vader thru Kylo Ren.  There is a new Emperor Palpatine thru Supreme Leader Snoke.  There is a new Han Solo thru the pilot Poe Dameron.  There is a new R2-D2 thru the new better looking robot, BB-8.  There is a new Princess-Leia-slash-Luke-Skywalker character thru Rey.   At the end of the day the story is still the same:  The dark force versus the good force and these forces run in the lives and bloods of the Skywalkers.  This time I will give credit to the prequel trilogy because the story, though a bad story, is more original than The Force Awakens.

Of course, the old characters (literally and figuratively) that we loved were still in the film.  Han Solo, Chewbacca, Princess Leia, C-3PO, R2-D2 and Luke Skywalker were all there.  Did I like that they were there?  Yes, but I was hoping for them to appear as cameos probably be the new Yodas.

Humor was not funny – I almost believe that there was something wrong with me when I was watching the film because I was the only one who was not laughing.  I got the jokes but I just didn’t find it funny.  Then I noticed that the audience were pretentiously laughing.  It was more like laughter out of respect for Star Wars, J.J. Abrams or Harrison Ford or you know when a person laughs just so the neighbors would know that he understood the joke.  Sorry, I’m not that type, if it isn’t funny then it isn’t funny.

Battle scenes were bland – Do I need to say more?  J.J. Abrams should watch Mad Max: Fury Road (2015) and learn from George Miller.

The Characters

• Poe Dameon (Oscar Isaac) – the new Han Solo.  He tried to be funny for a couple of times but just didn’t work.

• Finn (John Boyega) - a new character (probably the son of Lando Calrissian).  At first he doesn’t have a name because he was raised and trained to be a Stormtrooper, just like an unsullied from A Song Of Ice And Fire.  During his first mission he must have seen the cruelty of the First Order or he just did not have the courage to kill other people.  I just don’t buy his life’s story.  Imagine being brainwashed since you were young, trained to obey commands and to kill but in an instant you realized this is not for me and that I wasn’t brainwashed after all.  Yeah, talk about shallow psychology.  I don’t know why people are praising and liking Finn’s character.  He is not funny AT ALL.

• Rey (Daisy Ridley) – a possible daughter of Leia or Luke.  A desert scavenger who is searching for her family.  She is the new Luke Skywalker with the looks of Leia and I’m guessing she will be trained to be a super warrior.  She discovered she has Jedi powers without being trained.  Talk about a new breed of super powers.

• Kylo Ren (Adam Driver) – a Darth Vader wannabe.  The prodigal son of Han Solo and Princess Leia.  Just like his grandfather Hayden Christensen (not the original Darth Vader) this guy is full of bottled-up emotions.  Typical.  He is probably worse than Darth Vader but less annoying than Christensen.

• Hans Solo (Harrison Ford) – He is back and this is his movie.  It was nice to see him again in a Star Wars film and this movie is a fitting tribute to him.  

• Leia Organa (Carrie Fisher) – She is back with a less pronounced hairdo.  I’m guessing she will die in the next episode.

• BB-8 – a Pixar-looking robot who is the new R2-D2.  This one is more adorable than R2-D2.  If there’s one thing that The Force Awakens made right, it’s BB-8.

If you want to judge this film please remove the bias in your mind.  It may be better than the Star Wars films where Christensen starred but it is still not that good a film.

Mad Max: Fury Road (2015) - Everything an action movie should be

Review : 0008

Title : Mad Max: Fury Road

Year : 2015

Director : George Miller

Country : Australia, United States

World’s Verdict : Rotten Tomatoes – 97%; Metacritic – 89 out of 100; IMDB – 8.2 out of 10.0.

My Verdict : 4.5 out of 5.0.

Wow.  This film is excellent in every way.  The story, the stunts, the actors, the production and cinematography are just incredible.

I just wanted to take a break from my Oscar Challenge, so after watching the silent film 7th Heaven (1927) I chose a 2015 film that I haven’t seen.  Oh, boy!  I was so glad I chose Mad Max: Fury Road!  The movie industry has come a long long long way since the silent films.

The movie was set in a post-apocalyptic era where water, greenery and gasoline were scarce.  Max (Tom Hardy) was captured by a tyrannical army and was used as a human blood bag.  Imperator Furiosa (Charlize Theron) was sent to collect gasoline by Immortan Joe (Hugh Keays-Byrne), the tyrant of a secluded city where Max was being held.  Instead of getting gasoline, Furiosa diverted to escape the city with the five beautiful wives of Immortan Joe.  A chase to capture Furiosa began and somehow Max was dragged into it.

What Went Right

• The Story – for an action packed film this one has a storyline that is easy to follow and not stupid.
• The Actors – Tom Hardy, Charlize Theron and Hugh Keays-Byrne gave outstanding performances.  You can feel how physically demanding the roles and they just nailed it.
• The Stunts – When you thought all stunts in the books were already made you will be amazed how this film created unforgettable scenes.  Max tied and standing in a speeding vehicle, villains in a bending pole that were attached to a moving car and a guitar player in red suit playing hard metal in a zooming truck (and his guitar throws flames!).  Unforgettable scenes!
• The Production – the modified cars are just ruggedly handsome.  George Miller created ugly, freakish and threatening automobiles but somehow the effect is just beautiful. Brilliant!
• The Cinematography – there are action films that are probably more thrilling than Mad Max: Fury Road, I’m talking about Die Hard, Indiana Jones and Speed but the incredible cinematography of this movie sets it apart from other action films.  Artistic shots are hard to capture in an action picture because of fast movement but this movie was visually stunning.  Every scene was well thought of, every frame was beautiful and every shot was a work of art.

What Went Wrong

• NONE.

This movie is highly recommended.  One of the best films I have seen so far.  It is one of the movies that I’m excited to watch again after I just finished watching it.

7th Heaven (1927) - First act is romantic, second act is melodramatic

Review : 0007

Title : 7th Heaven

Year : 1927

Director : Frank Borzage

Country : United States

World’s Verdict : Rotten Tomatoes – 100%; IMDB – 7.8 out of 10.0; Academy Award – Best Directing, Best Actress, Best Writing (Adapted Screenplay).

My Verdict : 2.3 out of 5.0.

I am officially starting my Oscar Challenge with the films that were nominated for Best Picture in the Academy Awards for the year 1927/1928 (the first Oscars).

7th Heaven is a silent film.  If my memory is correct this is my first silent film (excluding The Artist, 2011) so I was really not sure what to expect.  I’m just blessed to see that this film is available on YouTube, though the condition of the film was a little dark and blurry I still got to see and understand the film.  The version has a background piano music but I don’t think it is an original part of the film, but definitely better than nothing.

The film is the story of a prostitute named Diane who was saved by a poor Parisian sewer cleaner, Chico, from her abusive sister.  To prevent Diane (Janet Gaynor) from being thrown into prison Chico (Charles Farrell) told that police that she was his wife and not a prostitute.  They decided to live together to cover their lie to the police.  Soon they fell in love but the honeymoon was cut short because Chico joined the army and that was when the corniness started.

What Went Right

• Charles Farrell and Janet Gaynor (at least during the first act) – Farrell was actually funny and natural, he made the film very lively. Gaynor was good in acting as an abused, weak and scared person.

What Went Wrong

• Charles Farrell and Janet Gaynor (during the second act) – Farrell was good in romantic comedy but terrible in drama.  In the end of the film, where he became blind, he was exaggerated it so much that it annoyed me a little and was too hard to watch.  Gaynor had moments where her acting shows a little over the top.  I just wished there were more consistencies in the way they acted in the movie.
• Second part was too melodramatic.  I wish they prolonged the story of the couple living together pretending as husband and wife, that would have given more laughter and smiles to the audience.  The war scenes, though nicely done, should have not taken more of the movie.  It’s probably a marketing tool back then.

The fact that 7th Heaven was nominated during the first Academy Award says a lot of good things about it.  It was also selected for preservation in the US National Film Registry because it is culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant.  I agree that this movie deserves all the respect and importance because it is part of cinema’s history.  But this is a film that will never be my favorite and may not watch again.

Should I recommend it for you to watch? Definitely, if you are a film buff.

A good movie test is: If you will watch it again OR watch it again and again.  7th Heaven neither passed the test.

The Oscar Challenge

Special Entry : 001

Part of my bucket list is to watch all the films that were nominated for Best Picture in the Academy Awards.  Right now there are about 520 nominated films and I want to watch all of these.  Though, I believe there was one lost film (The Patriot, 1928) that we may no longer see.

My Challenge

Watch and review all the Oscars Best Picture nominated films.   Then I will decide which among the nominated movies should have gotten the Best Picture for a particular year.  It’s like saying, “Oscars give me your laundry list of nominees for this year and I will decide which one is the best.”   Because somehow we really don’t find Oscars decisions satisfactory.

The Challenges I Foresee

• There are 520 films.  That means if I can watch at least one of these films a week it would take me 10 years to finish all and that does not include the nominations in the future.  I better start immediately then.
• Lost and hard to find films.  According to Wikipedia one film was already lost so I can do nothing about that, who knows after 10 years they might unearth The Patriot in a basement of a dead producer.  The main challenge here is where to get the materials, I do hope some are in Netflix or at least in YouTube.  If you do have a copy of something I can’t find please lend it to me.

What’s Not Part of the Challenge

I will only watch and review those that were nominated for Best Picture category, so this does not include nominees for best documentary, best short film, best foreign language film, best animated film.  Unless, of course, a movie was also nominated for Best Picture like Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon and Toy Story 3.

Hereafter (2010) - It's simple, it's real and it's also unreal

Review : 0006
Title : Hereafter

Year : 2010

Director : Clint Eastwood

Country : United States

World’s Verdict : Rotten Tomatoes – 46%; Metacritic – 56 out of 100; IMDB – 6.5 out of 10.0.

My Verdict : 3.6 out of 5.0.

A couple of years back when I saw Hereafter I was captivated by the theme and by the story, I believe I even shed a little tear.  A few days ago I watched the film again and somehow it lost a little luster but I still think it is a good film.

Hereafter is a story of the lives of three people and how death affects them.  A French woman (Cecile de France) experienced a near-death experience and it changed how she views life.  An American man (Matt Damon) has the ability to interact with dead people from the dimension of the dead and somehow he doesn't like using the "I see dead people" super power.  A British boy (Frankie McLaren) looks for answers after his twin brother died.

What Went Right

• Cecile de France and Frankie McLaren - they were perfect for this movie.  De France acting was natural and believable and McLaren was good in projecting loneliness and pain.
• The feel of the movie was leaning on reality rather than fantasy.  You will forget that Hereafter is a supernatural story.  It is like how most of us view death, we know its real but in the back of our mind the hereafter is probably just a fantasy.  A possible fantasy worth studying by the way.
• Special effect - The tsunami effect at the start of the movie looked very real and very horrifying and that just hooked me.  After seeing that scene I know it's gonna be a good film.

What Went Wrong

• Matt Damon - Don't get me wrong, Matt was fairly good in this movie, but there were times that I found him too big a star to be in this movie.  Sometimes the real-feel effect becomes a fantasy because of the celebrity being in the film.

This movie has gotten mixed reviews but I like this movie.  It may not be on my favorite list but I really like it.  It's simple, it's real and it's unreal.  I would like you to watch it and if you did not like it tell me what part you didn't like.  I'm really curious.

Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon (2000) - The essential Chinese martial arts film

Review No. : 0005
Title : Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon

Year : 2000

Director : Ang Lee

Country : Taiwan, Hong Kong, United States, China

World’s Verdict : Rotten Tomatoes – 97%; Metacritic – 93 out of 100; IMDB – 7.9 out of 10.0; Academy Award - Best Foreign Language Film, Best Art Direction, Best Original Score, Best Cinematography.

My Verdict : 3.8 out of 5.0.

Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon is the essential Chinese martial arts film for various reasons:  It has a nice story, good actors, incredible fight scenes, beautiful musical score and amazing cinematography.  This film introduced a sophisticated way in creating a traditional Chinese period action movie.  This is one of the films that I have watched more than three times now and I know five years from now I’m going to watch it again.  You better see it if you haven’t yet.

The story is about three people wanting closure in their lives.  One is a warrior, Mu Bai (Chow Yun-Fat), who wants to live a normal life and prossibly marry his true love.  The other character is Mu Bai’s love, Shu Lien (Michelle Yeoh), who is an old maid for she chose to keep her feelings to Mu Bai all these years.  Then there’s Jen (Zhang Ziyi) a princess by day and an adventuring wannabe Wudang warrior during her free time.

The warrior, being done with martial arts, decides to give away his sword (Green Destiny it is called).  The old maid delivers the sword to Mu Bai’s friend and shows it to Jen.  Jen’s imagination triggered her kleptomaniac and adventurous spirit and stole Green Destiny one night.  That’s how the showdown of power started.

What Went Right

• The cast of characters: Chow Yun-Fat, Michelle Yeoh, Zhang Ziyi were made for this movie.  Good-looking Asians, good acting, good action skills.  They are just pretty to watch.

• Cinematography – for a martial arts movie, this one has good taste.  The scene wherein Yun-Fat and Ziyi are fighting on the bamboo grasses are beautiful scenes that are hard to forget.

• Fight scenes – they spun, they flew, they defied gravity.  Amazing fight scenes.  One of the best choreographed  martial arts fights is Ziyi and Yeoh's sword fight turned into whatever-you-grab fight.

• Score – the music was just brilliant and very in synch with the action scenes.

  

What Went Wrong

• Chang Chen – He portrayed a bandit and became Jen’s lover.  Compared to Yun-Fat, Yeoh and Ziyi's performances he just wasn’t at par.

I highly recommend this film, try to watch it in Chinese language and with no subtitles and I bet you would still love it.

Life Of Brian (1979) - An extended classic gag show

Review : 0004
Title : Monty Python’s Life Of Brian

Year : 1979

Director : Terry Jones

Country : United Kingdom

World’s Verdict : Rotten Tomatoes – 96%; Metacritic – 75 out of 100; IMDB – 8.1 out of 10.0.

My Verdict : 2.9 out of 5.0.

I was looking for the funniest movie, one that would make me laugh out loud, and my research told me that Monty Python’s Life Of Brian is one of the funniest movies ever made.  Sadly, it wasn’t hilarious as I thought it would be.  It’s funny but it failed to make me laugh hard.

Life Of Brian starred and written by the Monty Python (a British comedy group).  It tells the tale of Brian Cohen, a man who was born on the same day as Jesus.  His adventure started when he joined a rebel group that fights the Roman who conquered Judea.  His life turned into a series of misadventures, falling in love, being captured by Romans, escaping Pontius Pilate’s guards, becoming an accidental prophet, flying with UFOs in space and being crucified.  Brian’s life was almost futile but in the end he chose to look at the bright side of life. 

This movie is a comedy gag show.  It’s a historical and religious satire and the jokes are still true to this day.

This is a type of film that will make you smile a lot and will make you think of the satirical references.  I enjoyed watching it but it doesn’t have a lot of LOL moments.

Almost forgot, this movie has one of the best uplifting songs in cinema history.

Did I like the movie?  A little.  I was a little disappointed because I thought I would be as funny as the reviews said it was .  Am I going to watch it again?  Yes and will also watch other Monty Python movies.  Would I recommend it to you?  Yes but do not watch it with kids.

Into The Woods (2014) - The original tales in a single complex but not chaotic story

Review : 0003
Title : Into The Woods

Year : 2014

Director : Rob Marshall

Country : United States

World’s Verdict : Rotten Tomatoes – 71%; Metacritic – 69 out of 100; IMDB – 6.0 out of 10.0.

My Verdict : 3.7 out of 5.0.

It was after watching the film and checking Into The Woods in Wikipedia that I learned that this film was based on a musical by Stephen Sondheim.  At first I thought that Disney was pretty smart to stitch a story from different fairy tales, sort of like what was done in Shrek.  I was really surprised when I learned it was based on a musical from the 80s.  Imagine that.

I admire the creativity embedded in the plot.  Fairy tale characters meeting in the woods, each one having a different agenda.  Jack (in the beanstalk) wanted to sell his cow, the witch from Rapunzel wanted to be young again, a couple wanted to have a child, Cinderella wanted to go to the ball, Little Red Riding Hood wanted to visit her granny.  All of them crossed paths in the woods.  When I thought the story was about to end with a happy ending a new conflict began, the last thirty minutes of the movie seemed like a sequel.  I do applaud the writers of the original play.

In this review I will focus more on the performance of the actors.  Here are what I can say for each of them:

Meryl Streep as The Witch – No question that it was a good performance but does she deserve an Oscar nominee for Best Actress in a Supporting Role? Nah, I don’t think so.  1) Her role was not even supporting, she was one of the lead actors in the movie.  In my blog I decide if a role is a lead or a supporting one.  2) Her portrayal reminds me of a cross between her Mamma Mia! and Death Becomes Her characters.  She was okay in Mamma Mia! but terrible in Death Becomes Her.

Emily Blunt as The Baker’s Wife – Blunt was good in this film.  I adored her when she wanted to be a mother in the film, got worried for her when she started to fall into temptation and got sad on what happened to her at the end.

James Corden as The Baker – His acting was a little gayish in the first part of the film then became more masculine in the latter part.  He reminded me of Jack Black in this movie and I think Jack Black would have been better for this role.

Anna Kendrick as Cinderella – She did not fit the role.  She sounded a little pitchy, too.  She did not even feel the role.  It almost was a lazy acting.  She was like a singing Kristen Stewart, you just don’t get too much expression on her face.

Daniel Huttlestone as Jack – This boy’s good.  I believe he is my favorite character in the film.

Lilla Crawford as Little Red Riding Hood – She was annoying at first but she sang very well so you will eventually forgiver her.

Chris Pine as Cinderella’s Prince – He was actually good in this film and he had a good singing voice, too.

Johnny Depp as The Wolf – The problem with this role for Depp was that I saw him as Johnny Depp and not The Wolf.  If I see more of the actor than the character that means it’s either bad makeup or bad acting.

Tracey Ullman as Jack’s Mother – Good.

Billy Magnussen as Rapunzel's Prince – He was okay, too.

Christine Baranski as Cinderella's Stepmother – She was perfect for this role.

MacKenzie Mauzy as Rapunzel – Why didn’t she sing in the movie?  Her character was essential to the story but seemed useless because she was the only one who did not sing.  Her character wasn't well thought of.  She cried a lot, ran away during an earthquake because she was scared (who wants to be alone during an earthquake?).  She did not even meet her brother (The Baker), there was no closure on that one.  I just didn’t grow to love her character in the film.

Fairy tales are actually gruesome stories that became child-friendly over time.  The original Rapunzel fornicated with the Prince, and her prince was blinded by the witch.  One of the original versions of Cinderella tells how the step-sister cut parts of their feet to fit the glass slipper and how the birds of Cinderella pecked their eyes for revenge.  I liked how these details were incorporated in Into The Woods it shows that the writers relied on the original fables rather than sugar-coated Disney fairy tales.  Into The Woods, just like original fairy tales, is a story for adults but became friendly when it became a Disney film.

Did I like the movie?  Yes, but not so much.  Am I going to watch it again?  Not in the near future.  Would I recommend it to you?  Yes, but don’t expect too much from this movie.