Inside Out (2015) - Mind-blowing concept of what's going on in our minds

Review No. : 0018

Title : Inside Out

Year : 2015

Director : Pete Docter, Ronnie Del Carmen

Country : United States

World’s Verdict : Rotten Tomatoes – 98%; Metacritic – 94 out of 100; IMDB – 8.3 out of 10.0.

My Verdict : 3.9 out of 5.0.

The last time I was overly amazed by an animated movie screenplay was through the movie Monsters, Inc. (2001).  Monsters, Inc. (2001) is a movie about our fears of bogeymen hiding in our closets when we were kids.  It shows us a side of the story behind the closet, that there is an existing industry that profits through the screams of the children.  The concept is just so smart and mind blowing that you will wonder how the writers came up with the concept.  Inside Out (2015) has the same effect to me because it is a movie with a unique premise and idea.  It’s simply very smart.

Inside Out (2015) tells the story of a girl named Riley Anderson (Kaitlyn Dias) and what goes inside her mind. Her reactions are triggered by five basic entities of emotions: Joy (Amy Poehler), Sadness (Phyllis Smith), Fear (Bill Hader), Disgust (Mindy Kaling) and Anger (Lewis Black).  These emotions live in Riley’s brain and each one has a purpose to ensure Riley correctly reacts to protect herself or get what she needs.  Apart from making sure that Riley reacts correctly, the emotions also have other jobs.  It is also their job to protect the long-term core memories of the child and to monitor her dreams.  One day, Joy and Sadness are sucked out accidentally from their headquarters and lands on a place where the things Riley values are located.  Without Joy in the office, the three emotions (Fear, Disgust and Anger) struggles to operate Riley’s reactions.  Joy and Sadness meanwhile meets different characters in Riley’s head and hopes that someone could help them find their way back to the headquarters of emotions.

The Good

• The story and theme – Without giving any spoiler I want to say that the story is unbelievably smart, there is also meaning in the story that even adults will find it eye opening and unlike other animated movies, or any other movies for that matter, the story is unpredictable (except of course for the happy ending).

The Bad

• Don’t expect too much humor – Whenever I watch a Disney-Pixar movie I expect to laugh a lot and to laugh out loud.  Not in this case, there are funny moments (like the scenes with Bing Bong, the imaginary friend of Riley, played by Richard Kind) but it never made me laugh so hard.  Amy Poehler is not so funny in this movie, too, but she did a very good job.  I guess what I’m trying to say is that this movie is more of a heartwarming movie rather than a hilarious one.  I just wish they made sure humor works when there’s an opportunity to make it work.

This is a movie that is a must-see.  Not a favorite of mine but the concept of the plot is bewildering.

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.

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.

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.