Archive
The 6th Annual Edgy Award Winners
Almost let these get away from me. However, I just can’t seem to get enough closure on last awards season and kick off the current year of moviegoing until I get these down in writing. So without further adieu, the winners of the 6th Annual Edgy Awards:
__________
BEST ORIGINAL SONG
“Till It Happens to You” featured in “The Hunting Ground”
Music and Lyrics by Lady Gaga (1st win) and Diane Warren (2nd win)
RUNNER-UP: “It’s My Turn Now” featured in “Dope”
__________
BEST ORIGINAL SCORE
“Sicario”
Johann Johannsson (1st win)
RUNNER-UP: “Mad Max: Fury Road”
__________
BEST MAKEUP and HAIRSTYLING
“Mad Max: Fury Road”
Damian Martin (1st win), Nadine Prigge (1st win) and Lesley Vanderwalt (1st win)
RUNNER-UP: “The Revenant”
__________
BEST VISUAL EFFECTS
“Star Wars: The Force Awakens”
Chris Corbould (2nd win), Roger Guyett (1st win), Neal Scanlan (2nd win) and Pat Dubach (1st Win)
RUNNER-UP: “The Revenant”
__________
BEST SOUND EFFECTS EDITING
“Star Wars: The Force Awakens”
David Acord (1st win) and Matthew Acord (1st win)
RUNNER-UP: “Mad Max: Fury Road”
__________
BEST SOUND EFFECTS MIXING
“Mad Max: Fury Road”
Chris Jenkins (1st win), Ben Osmo (1st win) and Gregg Rudloff (3rd win)
RUNNER-UP: “The Revenant”
__________
BEST COSTUME DESIGN
“The Danish Girl”
Paco Delgado (1st win)
RUNNER-UP: “Mad Max: Fury Road”
__________
BEST PRODUCTION DESIGN
“Mad Max: Fury Road”
Colin Gibson (1st win) and Lisa Thompson (1st win)
Runner-Up: “Carol”
__________
BEST EDITING
“Spotlight”
Tom McArdle (1st win)
RUNNER-UP: “Mad Max: Fury Road”
__________
BEST CINEMATOGRAPHY
“Sicario”
Roger Deakins (5th win)
RUNNER-UP: “Mad Max: Fury Road”
__________
BEST DOCUMENTARY FEATURE
“Amy”
James Gay-Rees (1st win) and Asif Kapadia (1st win)
RUNNER-UP: “The Look of Silence”
__________
BEST ADAPTED SCREENPLAY
“Brooklyn”
Nick Hornby (1st win)
RUNNER-UP: “Steve Jobs”
__________
BEST ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY
“Inside Out”
Josh Cooley (1st win), Ronnie Del Carmen (1st win), Peter Docter (1st win) and Megan LeFauve (1st win)
RUNNER-UP: “Spotlight”
__________
BEST ENSEMBLE CAST PERFORMANCE
“Spotlight”
Billy Crudup, Brian D’Arcy James, Michael Keaton, Rachel McAdams, Mark Ruffalo, Liev Schreiber, Jamey Sheridan, John Slattery, Stanley Tucci, Elena Wohl
RUNNER-UP: “The Big Short”
__________
BEST ACTRESS in a SUPPORTING ROLE
Rooney Mara – “Carol”
1st win
RUNNER-UP: Kate Winslet – “Steve Jobs”
__________
BEST ACTOR in a SUPPORTING ROLE
Mark Ruffalo – “Spotlight”
1st win
RUNNER-UP: Benicio Del Toro – “Sicario”
__________
BEST ACTRESS in a LEADING ROLE
Brie Larson – “Room”
2nd win
RUNNER-UP: Saoirse Ronan – “Brooklyn”
__________
BEST ACTOR in a LEADING ROLE
Eddie Redmayne – “The Danish Girl”
1st win
RUNNER-UP: Johnny Depp – “Black Mass”
__________
BEST DIRECTOR
George Miller – “Mad Max: Fury Road”
1st win
RUNNER-UP: Thomas McCarthy – “Spotlight”
__________
BEST MOTION PICTURE of the YEAR
“Inside Out”
Pete Docter (1st win) and Jonas Rivera (1st win)
RUNNER-UP: “Spotlight”
__________
FUNNIEST FILM
“The Big Short”
MOST EXCITING FILM
“Sicario”
MOST FRIGHTENING FILM
“It Follows”
MOST EMOTIONALLY MOVING FILM
“Inside Out”
MOST SURPRISING FILM
“Mad Max: Fury Road”
MOST DISAPPOINTING FILM
“Youth”
MOST UNDERRATED FILM
“The End of the Tour”
MOST OVERRATED FILM
“Anomalisa”
BEST PROTAGONIST
Mark Watney – “The Martian”
BEST ANTAGONIST
The Catholic Church – “Spotlight”
BEST ANTIHERO
Alejandro – “Sicario”
BEST ROMANCE
Eilis and Tony – “Brooklyn”
BEST OPENING
“It Follows”
BEST ENDING
“45 Years”
BEST SCENE
Juarez/Border Crossing – “Sicario”
BEST LINE of DIALOGUE
“F*ck you, Mars.” – “The Martian”
FILM I REALLY WANTED TO SEE, BUT NEVER GOT AROUND TO
“Macbeth”
MY TOP TEN of 2015
1. “Inside Out”
2. “Spotlight”
3. “Son of Saul”
4. “Mad Max: Fury Road”
5. “Room”
6. “Star Wars: The Force Awakens”
7. “Sicario”
8. “The Revenant”
9. “45 Years”
10. “Brooklyn”
__________
4th Annual Edgy Award Winners
I didn’t commit to writing up my Top Ten List for last year. Under normal circumstances, one would think such circumstances would provide an element of suspense going through these awards. Any other year, that might be true, but unfortunately there was a heavyweight that didn’t have much trouble cleaning up the lion’s share of the categories. In fact, not since “The Return of the King,” and before that “Schindler’s List.” has a single film taken out the competition as extensively as, well…you’ll find out soon enough.
I’ve tried to provide as many video clips as possible, to help to justify my decisions here. No winner would also be complete without a runner-up because my labor of indecision is insurmountable. Finally, once you’ve seen what’s been crowned the top honors, keep scrolling for some fun extra awards that will tie up any loose ends of 2014.
Without further adieu, here are the winners of the 4th Annual Edgy Awards:
__________
BEST ORIGINAL SONG
“Young and Beautiful” featured in “The Great Gatsby”
Music and Lyrics by Lana Del Ray
[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_1aF54DO60]
Runner-Up: “The Moon Song” featured in “Her”
__________
“Blood on the Plain” Review
I thought I’d take a break from the insanity of the awards season to provide a little spotlight on an outstanding short film to come out of the Chicago area. Having spent six years in film school, I can both understand and relate to what it’s like to be an unrecognized talent, attempting to make a standout film with practically no budget. With that being said, to this little endeavor in moviemaking, I say “bravo.”
The story is set against the backdrop of small-town life in Kansas on the day of the high school homecoming dance. A tribe of people, thought to be extinct for hundreds of years, have returned, evolved into a form of creature never before seen or imagined. Seeking revenge for the sins of the town’s ancestors, the demons strike at what is most precious to them, prompting the residents to band together and put a stop to the evil, once and for all.
Director Mac Eldridge (helmer of “Chemical 12-D,” which played at last year’s Fantasia Fest in Montreal), has gone above and beyond in crafting a fantastic, cross-genre experience: a horror-western. Imagine, if you will, the ominous, wayfaring overtones of “No Country for Old Men” meeting the gruesome action and thrills of “Predator.” The film packs some genuinely philosophical vibes that, while not reaching fruition, raise its caliber a notch or two above what a short like this could normally offer, and yet never skimps on its level of pure excitement.
For a movie in which the characters are not usually the main draw, the actors really hold their own. Otis Fine does a remarkable job of anchoring the ensemble as the thinking-man’s bartender. Richard Alpert, meanwhile, nails the film’s climax, encompassing everything you could hope for from a hard-nosed, eyepatch-wearing sheriff who can still handle a Winchester rifle. The emotional core of the film, however, is held by Joey Bicicchi and Dani Wilkin, the two star-crossed high school lovers who bear witness to the town’s tragedy. Caught in a whirlwind of horror and carnage, we see the massacre through their eyes, and it isn’t pretty.
The above-mentioned storm pertains to the horror element of the film, which will likely draw a large amount of viewers and they will not be disappointed. First off, the creature design is stellar. The makeup team created a lean, mean, savage superhuman with plenty of unique touchups and details that add a distinct element of character. They meet all the necessary criteria to be added to the long list of things you would not want to run into in a dark alley. Meanwhile, the title of the film really lives up to expectations with some outstanding gore. There’s enough stabbing, throat-cutting and general slaughter to keep any self-respecting horror fan glued to the screen.
It’s worth mentioning that much of the film’s success would not have been realized without its fabulous technical qualities. This film, which was made with a minuscule amount of money, looks, sounds and feels like a movie that should garner envy from any big-budget Hollywood producer. The cinematography, crafted by the young Chicago phenom David Wagenaar, is top notch. The film’s warm color palette help heighten the authentic western vibe, while Wagenaar’s staunch, high-contrast lighting during the massacre greatly elevates the level of terror. The film’s production design team successfully pulled off transforming suburban Chicago into rural Kansas (not an easy feat). Finally, the sound mix by Rob Davis adds a quality to the film that absolutely cannot be beaten.
Perhaps the greatest compliment one can give to “Blood on the Plain” is how well it works as a short film. Some may argue that the movie lacks a solid build-up. Yet, all in all, what more could you want for your twelve minutes? The film wastes not a second of its running time and delivers more scares, thrills and raw emotion than any other short that I’ve seen this year. The filmmakers wish to soon expand this film into a feature, and I can only hope beyond hope that it happens. When you see this short you will know what I mean, because, by the time the credits roll, the only thing you will want is more. You’ll be begging for it.
“Blood” is about to start its international festival run and is not yet available for streaming. However, you can go to the film’s website and can find all sorts of ways to see it. The DVD is on sale for ten dollars and is packed with all kinds of great extras. Or, if you’re as self-conscious about blind buys as I am, the film is also available for download in a stunning 2k (a quality higher than HD) transfer for only four dollars. Trust me, this film is worth your four dollars. Help support these phenomenal young indie filmmakers.
Below is the film’s official trailer and a link to their site:
Blood on the Plain’s Official Site
Interview with Michael Rooker
This is certainly worth a read. A little while back, The Edge of the Frame, on behalf of The DePaulia, got a chance to interview actor Michael Rooker at the James Hotel. He was in town on a press tour for his new film “Super,” which he co-stars with Rainn Wilson, Ellen Page and Kevin Bacon.
Rooker is both one of the most iconic, while at the same time, under-appreciated actors of his generation. If you enjoy movies and see them fervently, it’s almost guaranteed that you have seen him in a role at some point in the last twenty-five years. He is one of those actors who barely ever headlines, yet always delivers a memorable performance.
To refresh some folks’ memories, he got his start right here in Chicago playing the title role in John McNaughton’s influential and disturbing “Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer.” Since then, he has hammered out loads of fantastic supporting performances. Certain standouts include racer Rowdy Burns in “Days of Thunder,” the brutal racist Frank Bailey in “Mississippi Burning,” the courageous lawyer Bill Broussard in “JFK” and the infamous chocolate-covered pretzel-eating Svenning in “Mallrats.” Aside from “Super,” most recently Michael has appeared on the AMC TV series “The Walking Dead.”
A great interview subject, Rooker discusses working with director James Gunn, his life in Chicago, his favorite of films that he has worked on, and more. Here is a short excerpt:
DP: You worked with director James Gunn on “Slither.” How was it the second time around?
MR: Just as bad as the first time around [laughs]. He’s so demanding. He’s always telling me what to do [laughs]. He’s not the boss of me. He’ll learn.
DP: When did he first approach you about the film? I know it’s been in the makes for a while.
MR: It has been in the makes for a while. But this last time, it actually got cast and got done, of course. But the film was actually written ten years ago. So it’s gone through several casts and never got made. This time around, it just so happened that James’ ex-wife, Jenna Fisher, knew and worked with Rainn Wilson. So she showed the script to him and he loved it and that’s how the film finally got made. I’ve been friends with James since “Slither” and he eventually asked me if I wanted to do a role. He was a little embarrassed about asking me to do it since it was like three lines [laughs]. But, I mean, we all did it for nothing. We did it because we all knew each other and we’re all friends and wanted to make the movie.
Read the full interview over at the new DePaulia Online website. Afterwards, you just might feel the need to go back and truly notice this actor in some of his best works.
Here is the full INTERVIEW and below is a clip from “Mississippi Burning,” my favorite role by the actor. I apologize for the poor quality, but it was the only version of this scene that I could find. Enjoy.
“Hanna” Review at The DePaulia
I had attended an early screening of this film a few weeks ago, but had to embargo my review until opening weekend. The review got published in The DePaulia today. Once again, here’s a short excerpt:
“Joe Wright, the young director of such films as “Pride and Prejudice” and “Atonement,” goes far out of his usual element to direct this fantastic thriller. It’s as though the man has suddenly started using artistic steroids or been abducted by aliens. Whatever the reasoning, Wright’s new style is not necessarily an improvement, but a welcome change. The pace and tone that he brings to the film create a sensation that I’m not sure I’ve ever experienced from a film.”
This is film honestly still has my head spinning. I have no doubt that it’s already in contention for my eventual Top Ten List of the year and I had a lot of fun writing this review. Check out the full article through the link, below:
“Director, actress take a thrilling break from the norm”
“Win Win” Review at The DePaulia
As some of you know, I recently started writing for The DePaulia, DePaul University’s official newspaper. It’s not the Chicago Tribune, but it is a highly respected student publication and is a big step for me in building my reputation in the Chicago area. I recently published my first review for them and it is available online. Here’s a quick excerpt:
“Over the last decade, writer/director/actor Tom McCarthy has championed himself as a voice for the underappreciated. His pair of independent features (“The Station Agent” and “The Visitor”) stands as an ode to those ordinary people we see on the street and don’t give a second thought to, despite them having interesting stories to tell. With “Win Win,” the director crafts a true modern parable of contemporary middle class life and it’s a treat to behold.”
I was very pleased with the film, as well as my own review. I’m still not sure about the ethics or permissions of posting the actual reviews on my blog once they’ve been published in the paper. Meanwhile, below is a link to the full review at The DePaulia Online. Hope everyone enjoys it and wishes me luck on this new venture.
Why I’m Re-Watching “LOST” and Unnecessary Censorship
As some of you may know, I am presently re-watching all six seasons of ABC’s “LOST” on my Netflix instant queue. I had originally shown up really late to this show. I didn’t begin to start watching it on Hulu until a few months before the final season was about to air. I, of course, became addicted like everyone else, and watched the entire series on my computer at home, at work, on film sets, and even on my phone during my CTA commute. I finally got caught up only a few episodes prior to the finale.
Overall, I enjoyed the show. It makes incredible use of close-ups and editing. Michael Emerson and Terry O’Quinn fully deserved their Emmy wins. Most of all, the show contains one of the greatest musical compositions I’ve ever heard come out of the small screen. Michael Giacchino ended up winning an Oscar for “Up” during the course of the final season’s airing.
However, I definitely have a few qualms. The biggest, by far, is the liberties that the show takes in the crafting of it. Similar to the issues that I had with “Rango.” The show gives itself a blank slate that basically allows it to do whatever the hell it wants. If something doesn’t make sense or just breaks every law we can imagine in the world of filmmaking or common sense, it doesn’t matter. Why? The island’s magical.
Despite all of that, it’s a great show. One reason as to why it seems so great, however, is not necessarily because of its quality, but it’s addictiveness. There seem to be at least four or five cliffhangers PER EPISODE. The suspense that the show creates is literally out of control. That has always presented an interesting question to me: whether the show will hold up a second time around. If there’s no longer any suspense as to what’s going to happen the next episode, five episodes down the line or several seasons away.
Some of the greatest shows of all time are just that because they can create a single episode that can stand alongside some of the best feature films that you’ll ever see. Examples include “Irregular Around the Margins.” from season five of “The Sopranos” or “Bartlet for America” from season three of “The West Wing.” If “LOST” cannot function as a great, quality show, episode per episode, without relying simply on what happens next, then I’m not sure if it will remain one of my favorite shows of recent years.
This is truly a rambling post of mine, but I felt like getting it off my chest. So, for fun, check out this hilarious video my friend put me on to. It doesn’t contain any straight-up spoilers. However, if there is anyone who intends to watch the show and doesn’t want to know ANYTHING about it, which is totally acceptable for a show like this. If not, watch this video. You won’t be sorry:
New Additions: “Sahara,” “Frantic” and “Stagecoach”
Haven’t done one of these in a while. Once again, these are just some films that I’ve seen recently for the first time and added to The Mitchell List. I’ve featured them here, with a short review for each.
“Sahara” (Zoltan Korda) – 1943
No, I’m not talking about the Matthew McConaughey/Penelope Cruz turd that came out a few years ago. “Sahara,” starring Humphrey Bogart and Lloyd Bridges was not only a movie about World War II, but one of the first films ever made featuring Americans fighting in said war. It takes place in the deserts of North Africa and follows a diminished American tank crew, a handful of stranded British soldiers and their fight to protect a water hole from a Battalion of five hundred Nazis. The film features some good cinemtagraphy, excellent sound design and some riveting action scenes. However, I was kind of put off by the mean spiritedness of the American soldiers, tricking the Germans who are dying of thirst into coming to an empty water hole with the intent of slaughtering them. Overall, it adds to the central propagandist logic of the film of glorifying the G.I.s and antagonizing the Nazis as the real battle raged across the ocean, back at a time period when our soldiers really did have a cause worth fighting for.
GRADES: B * * * 1/2 / * * * * * 6.8 / 10.0
“Frantic” (Roman Polanski) – 1988
Roman Polanski has been known for a lot of things, both in the filmmaking world and outside of it. However, after seeing films like “The Ghost Writer” and now this, one facet that I can definitely accredit to him is perfecting the formula of the Hitchcock thriller. Harrison Ford is an ordinary man put into an extraordinary situation when his wife is kidnapped while both are on a business trip to Paris. Ford must go beyond his limitations as a private citizen to solve the kidnapping and ends up getting involved in a criminal conspiracy in the process. This is a great little thriller with some classic scenes. Polanski and Ford both do a fantastic job of never letting the main character tread into action-hero territory, keeping the suspense alive by allowing the audience to see themselves in the protagonist’s shoes by constantly asking themselves what they would do if put in said situation. My only huge qualm with the film is its technical quality. There’s some interesting shots and cutting work in play. Yet overall, the film looks not only plain, but boring. Still a successfully thrilling film.
GRADES: B+ * * * * / * * * * * 7.8 / 10.0
“Stagecoach” (John Ford) – 1939
With this grand tale of high adventure, John Ford created, perhaps, the mother of all westerns. A true motley crew of passengers, including a marshall, a prostitute, an alcoholic doctor and an fugitive outlaw, must take a stagecoach through volatile indian country. They must put aside their differences, band together and survive the journey, together. Classic films from the golden age of cinema rarely display such excitement and raw adventure. Ford’s portrait of the separate characters forming a courageous bond, though certainly not without turmoil, is the strongest prospect of the film. The audience really becomes a member of the journey. It’s not difficult to understand why this film, among others, inspired an entire generation of kids playing cowboys and indians. The film also features some great performances, the standout being Thomas Mitchell’s Oscar-winning work as the comic and philosophical doctor struggling with his demons.
GRADES: A- * * * * 1/2 / * * * * * 9.2 / 10.0
Now, since it has been a time since I authored one of these posts, I’ve obviously seen a lot more than three films since the last one. Therefore, I thought I’d put up my ratings and simply say a few words on the other features that I viewed.
“The Last Emperor” (Bernardo Bertolucci) – 1987
Certainly a gorgeous-looking epic which has some well-directed scenes, however lacking a strong protagonist or a worthy third act.
GRADES: B * * * 1/2 / * * * * * 7.4 / 10.0
“The Beach” (Danny Boyle) – 2000
By far, the worst outing of Danny Boyle’s entire career. A true misstep from beginning to end, with flaccid characters that seek out a psuedo-“Lord of the Flies” style of Spring Break.
GRADES: C- * * / * * * * * 3.6 / 10.0
“Suspiria” (Dario Argento) – 1977
A true horror classic with some highly influential camerawork and one hell of an unorthodox and all together harrowing musical score.
GRADES: B+ * * * * / * * * * * 8.0 / 10.0
“Flirting with Disaster” (David O’Russell) – 1996
O’Russell is definitely a director who has gotten better with age. This film is a lot of fun with an extensive cast, but is just too goofy to be taken seriously.
GRADES: B+ * * * 1/2 / * * * * * 6.8 / 10.0
“Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room” (Alex Gibney) – 2005
The breakout film for rockstar documentary director, Alex Gibney, which uncovers corruption with excitement and poise.
GRADES: B+ * * * * / * * * * * 7.8 / 10.0
“Iron Man 2” (Jon Favreau) – 2010
This sequel, lacking the wit and excitement of the original, doesn’t quite flush the franchise down the toilet, but makes it a lot less reputable.
GRADES: C- * * / * * * * * 4.0 / 10.0
“Catch-22” (Mike Nichols) – 1970
I’m usually always up for a good war/political satire, which this is. However, the plot is so insanely convoluted that it’s just downright confusing, but not in a good way.
GRADES: B * * * 1/2 / * * * * * 7.2 / 10.0
“Trade” (Marco Kreuzpainter) – 2007
A compelling, yet overly self-righteous, thriller about sex trafficking features Kevin Kline in a role with nearly no comedy and one really weird and unbalanced ending.
GRADES: B- * * * / * * * * * 6.0 / 10.0
“Cool World” (Ralph Bakshi) – 1992
Ridiculously bad on all accounts. This movie makes “Space Jam” look like an undisputed masterpiece.
GRADES: D * / * * * * * 2.4 / 10.0
“All the King’s Men” (Robert Rossen) – 1949
A true acting showcase. Obviously superior to the remake, yet still not coming close to grasping the depth and insight of the novel they’re both based on.
GRADES: B * * * 1/2 / * * * * * 7.0 / 10.0
“The Adventures of Robin Hood” (Michael Curtiz) – 1936
Definitely, the best film I’ve ever seen by Michael Curtiz. Like “Stagecoach,” it’s a source of pure inspiration for imagination and adrenaline.
GRADES: A- * * * * 1/2 / * * * * * 9.0 / 10.0
“Dodsworth” (William Wyler) – 1936
This early work by one of my favorite directors can be dry and unentertaining a times, but features great production value and an extremely satisfying climax.
GRADES: B+ * * * * / * * * * * 7.8 / 10.0
“Battle: Los Angeles” Review
As Jim McKay once said at the Munich Olympics, “Our greatest hopes and our worst fears are seldom realized.” Well, my greatest fears have certainly been realized as of now. The film that I have been following, intently, through its entire brilliant publicity campaign and have been anticipating greatly…well…pretty much blows. I suppose it could have been worse, but I prefer not even to think like that.
The story is what it is, although I was really hoping there would have been some more to it. Aliens from another world in the form of meteors crash into the shorelines, interrupting surfing season, for sure. Once the military figures out what’s going on (which takes about two minutes of plot and character development), they mobilize to combat the threat. However, go figure, they’ve underestimated their foe and soon, its up to a tiny group of surviving soldiers to put those pesky aliens in their places and somehow take out practically an entire army which is bigger, better and smarter than they are. Look at what I’ve gone and done. I couldn’t even get through the plot synopsis without tearing into this movie.
What a mess. What a big sorry mess. This movie is trite and incompetent on so many levels, that its shortcomings are the scariest aspect of it. It wants to be so many things: “Independence Day,” “Black Hawk Down,” “War of the Worlds” and “District 9.” None of them does it even come close to. There is so much that could have come out of this film and so many directions the creators could have taken it. Instead, the simplest measures were taken and the result does not even qualify as second-rate.
Aaron Eckhart isn’t horribly cast as the fearless leader. Him, and the rest of the cast, are simply pegged into cliched character roles. There’s the fresh, young officer with a pregnant wife. There’s the fearful rookie facing combat for the first time. And who could live without the courageous soldier trying to live up to the memory of a fallen family member who also served? Finally, there is Eckhart’s Staff Sergeant Nantz, as gung-ho and red-blooded a hero as one can find, in other words, probably the least humanistic individual to be found in the film.
The script is one of the worst I’ve seen portrayed on screen in a long time. It is chock full of so many war movie cliches and stereotypes that it could even make Samuel Fuller laugh out loud. There is poor character development on all fronts. The characters might as well have been titled “Soldier #2” or “Helpless Little Girl #1.” Actually, let me rephrase. With the stories given for these characters, they’d have been BETTER OFF being given anonymity. The writing also features what is potentially the corniest, most laughable speech ever given by a leader addressing his troops, and that tops quite a long list.
The technical aspects of the film nearly equal to, if not surpass, the content’s horrid taste. The cinematography is lazy and uncoordinated. I’m as big of a fan of handheld realism as the next man, but when used with a purpose. This film looks like someone handed a camera to a two year-old and let them run around and shoot the apocalypse. It’s hard to believe that any storyboarding or preconception was taken when planning this film out and the result is nearly a complete lack of memorable shots. The sound design is less a supportive tool to the film and more of a sensual assault on the viewer. Finally, the music is a sloppy concoction of boring tones, alternating between either exciting or not, without a single original theme to be heard, throughout. I guess some credence must be given to the production design and CG teams for successfully tearing the city apart, but after a while, it just becomes routine and uninteresting.
Without a doubt, the biggest flaw of the film, and a good note to end on, is the film’s refusal to take an in depth look at its main topic: an alien invasion of the planet Earth. Say what you want about films like “Independence Day,” “War of the Worlds” and “Signs.” They at least had the creative perception to give a bit of insight into just what such an event would really mean for the world. “Battle: Lost Angeles” lacks any kind of nuance pertaining to the inevitable societal ramifications of another race colonizing the planet. In a movie like this, I want to see more than Marines being deployed, crumbling buildings and a few dead civilians in the street. I want to feel the pangs of sheer terror at the thought of our world being irreparably torn apart. Not addressing the socio-emotional factors that come into play during a story such as this, quite frankly, relieves the film of any true form of interest, entertainment, or most importantly, credibility.
GRADES: D * / * * * * * 2.2 / 10.0
“Rango” Review
Granted that last year was a phenomenal one for animated features (“Toy Story 3,” “How to Train Your Dragon”), I have to say that I didn’t give animated fare enough of my time through the course of the season. Therefore, I thought I’d get things started early this year. However, while Gore Verbinski’s “Rango” is certainly not a bad film, it doesn’t set the bar very high, in the same way that Lee Unkrich’s masterpiece did almost a year ago.
“Rango” is a simple story of an unlikely hero. The before-nameless chameleon (Johnny Depp) is stranded hopelessly in the desert. He is half-rescued by a local lizard (Isla Fisher) who brings him to her water-deprived township. Through a series of mishaps and good luck, the iguana wins the respect from the townspeople, their job of sheriff and the title-name “Rango.” Yet, when all that’s left of the people’s dwindling water supply is stolen and the town’s most ominous figures are suspect, Rango realizes that he might be out of his league. The chameleon must find the courage that he never thought he had and prove himself to a group of people who have nothing left to hope for.
The story itself certainly isn’t anything in the realm of high art. It’s a standard tale of a seemingly weak individual thrown into extraordinary circumstances and forced to become the person, or chameleon, he only dreamed that he could. That structure isn’t a bad one. It’s worked time and time again in phenomenal films, but only when there’s an added element of creativity, which this film lacks…other than all the character’s being cowboy-animals, which is a little more preposterous than it is creative. However, we’ll get into that later.
The voice cast does great work. One can tell, right off the bat that the title role was directly written for the talent of Johnny Depp. From the soft-spoken quips to random outbursts, it’s really difficult to imagine anyone else reading these lines. Bill Nighy and Ray Winstone use their sinister tones to great extent as a few of the film’s many antagonists. The only actor I could do without is the ever-growing-more-annoying Abigail Breslin. Her entire cute, mousy, adorable relief could be done away with, entirely, in my opinion.
There is one aspect of this film that is a monkey I just can’t get off my back. Some people will call me unimaginative or argumentative, but I’m sorry, this just bugs me. I’m put off by the absence of any effort to have the setting, characters or events make logical sense. This is a world in which desert animals wear Hawaiian shirts and cowboy hats. They drink out of shot glasses, sit under ceiling fans and play mean riffs on the guitar. It just doesn’t compute for me. The film takes whatever liberties it wishes and stretches the boundaries of reality however it pleases. Just because a film is animated does not mean that there are no cinematic guidelines that should be respected.
To further illustrate my point, certain other animated features have a fantastic premise, while keeping their roots firmly planted in reality. “Finding Nemo,” “Happy Feet” and all of the “Toy Story” films create improbable plotlines, but never escape the boundaries of logic. The animals in “Finding Nemo” and “Happy Feet” have a defined society, talk to each other, and in some cases, sing and dance. Yet, they don’t build auditoriums to do their routines. All of the animals basically exist the same way they do in nature. And in the case of “Toy Story,” obviously toys are inanimate objects, and yet in their world, they don’t escape the realm of possibility. They create tools out of accessible household items and their environments are their owners’ bedrooms and toy boxes.
It’s this creative sense of plausible fantasy that not only make the plot and setting of said movies easier to entertain in the mind, but funnier and ultimately more entertaining. And it’s not just the lack of logic, but the unmitigated disregard for it in “Rango” that really knocks it down in my book. It puts up as a nicer-looking version of “Sponge Bob Square Pants,” so, congratulations if you like that kind of thing. It’s that same ode to ridiculousness that ruined Pixar’s “Up” for me. The first act of that film, and especially the opening ten minutes, are absolutely extraordinary and heartbreaking. However, once the talking dogs (that could fly planes, no less) came in, I checked out.
Speaking of nice-looking, one positive note that I must leave this film on is just how incredible its appearance is. An impressive amount of detail was put into all of the visual aspects, from the fur on the chin of the hedgehog to the shine on the drinking glasses. One can definitely tell that Roger Deakins had a hand in this, being credited as a visual consultant (just as he was on “How to Train Your Dragon” and “WALL-E”). Every shot is incredibly predetermined, framed and orchestrated. It’s a real shame, in fact, that the quality of the story could not match the film’s astounding look.
The Edge of the Frame 