Rush (2013) Review

After some awkwardly unfunny acting in Arrested Development´s fourth seasons, Ron Howard returns to directing. Despite it´s name, Rush is not a movie about the legendary Canadian hard rock band, but instead about two Formula 1 drivers during the 70s. One (other than being a Norse god), James Hunt, is a handsome, witty playboy living his life on the edge. The other, Niki Lauda, is a calculated, detail-oriented intellectual. Together they form a bitter rivalry that would prove near fatal for one of them.

The film is heavily stylized, something that had me worried at first, but once 5-10 minutes had passed I was totally with the style. The style is a bit odd in some of the quieter scenes, but once the wheels start spinning it is all worth it. The driving was by far some of the most intense racing I have ever seen on film, and the crashes were truly terrifying. However, as cool it was visually I still do think it did overpower the drama at times, which is a bit of a bummer.

As for the writing, it was very strong for the most part, yet I could not help but feel like a lot was missing. Of course when a film is covering roughly 6 years of two peoples career you have to move fast through a lot of information, something the film does very well. At times it has almost a documentary vibe to it in the way it moves through several races over short time, but it does it in the way of an exiting action film. At a point the film started hinting at some of James Hunt´s darker sides, including substance abuse. For the first you feel like you get a full view of this man, but then it never properly explored this side of him, even though it was a very important part of the man. That being said, I do understand why they choose to merely hint at it instead of exploring it, as the film is mainly meant to be fun and exiting, something it does succeed in. The only point where I thought it lost track was during the last 15 minutes or so where the film forced a sense of closure upon itself by saying things that I thought had already been said through subtlety. In my opinion the last 10-15 minutes could have been cut down to 5 for a better result. Ending a film is difficult and when done wrong it can partly overshadow how great everything else was, as it did for me.

The two leads are both great, as well as being some of the most perfect casting in years. Chris Hemsworth gets to show that he is more than simply a perfectly haired muscle charmer, but actually a pretty damn good actor as well. However, it is the creepy Nazi film star from Inglorious Basterds, Daniel Brühl, who steals the show as Lauda. He is definitely a frontrunner in my book for this upcoming awards season.  

Despite the fact that it never delves too deep into the characters, it is an exhilarating action sports film that portrays an interesting rivalry. As whole the documentary Senna was better, but in contrast this film manages to show the rivalry from both sides. Outside a brilliant performance from Brühl it may not be the Oscar contender Ron Howard might be hoping for, but it is still a very entertaining film.

3.5/5

The Lone Ranger (2013) Review

History has proven that it is a dangerous thing to make a commercialized western, a matter that has been proven once more. In an attempt to recreate the success of Pirates of the Caribbean, Verbinski and Depp have come ashore and headed for the Wild West.

The film starts off using an odd framing device where old Tonto (Depp) is telling the story of his adventures with the Lone Ranger. Already here problems arise, as there is absolutely no need for this whatsoever. At times it feels like they are trying to use this to contrast the progress America made in such short time, but it never really becomes clear why they included it.

Once we get to the Wild West the plot slowly unfolds, however for the first hour it is just a series of action set pieces that never give you any time to get proper context for story or character and you are left feeling like you walked in halfway through the film. The story never really gets going, as it never really feels like there is a story, just a guy to catch. After the film was over I felt like I had missed an hour of exposition, as nothing seemed to hang well together.

Johnny Depp needs to stop all this nonsense, I used to love him, but even he is just a mess at this point. His Tonto isn´t even clever in the way Jack Sparrow often was. There are several scenes where they rely simply on Johnny Depp giving a weird look and us laughing, but the audience never does and it just becomes painful to watch as so many jokes fail. There is a fairly interesting bit of backstory to Tonto that is unravelled eventually, which was interesting. The problem is that in this section it is shown that Tonto is a darkly disturbed character, but instead he just comes off as silly and all the dark layers he supposedly have are soon forgotten.

As for Armie Hammer it is obvious that he is no leading man, he lacks any form of charisma and likability. Even he just comes off as whimsical and silly, as opposed to a hero. That leaves us at a point where there is really no hero to cheer for or any characters to stand behind, something essential for a film like this.

What is most baffling is how a man, whose previous film was an animated western, can make a film that feels so cartoony compared to his previous film. Rango was a cartoon that captured the feel and look of the Wild West. The Loner Ranger on the other hand feel like a cartoon pretending to be something else. It is hard to understand how he has made such an ugly looking film where certain scenes shot on location even feel like they are shot on a green screen due to some distracting and odd lighting.

The tone of the film is all over the place. It tries to be a western, but never captures that feel; it tries to be a fun adventure, but then all of a sudden throws in some really dark moments in the middle of all the cartoonish silliness. There is one scene where you have Tonto doing some silly, supposedly fun, stuff and then in the same scene a bunch of Indians are getting slaughtered; yet the tone is so light that it almost feels offensive.

As someone who really enjoyed the Pirates trilogy (the fourth one is dreadful) I had hope for this to be good, no matter how bad it looked. Sadly it is even worse than it looks, even Hans Zimmer´s score is pretty generic. This is probably one the worst blockbusters of recent memory, being nothing, but a generic, boring, bloated mess, outside the occasional chuckle.

1/5

Pacific Rim (2013) Review

Once in a while a film comes along that, if you allow it, will transform you into twelve year-old yourself. Pacific Rim is one of these films. From the opening prologue both you and the film itself acknowledges the ridiculousness of the premise, yet puts you in a sweet spot where you go with it.

The writing is for the most part corny and cheesy, but purposefully so. In a way you could say that it is cheep to say something like that, but the fact of the matter is that it does benefit the film. The story is after all extremely corny, and by having the incredibly corny dialogue and characters, you never forget that it is a film that is not meant to be taken too seriously.

Attempting something like that will in most cases result in a disaster, luckily it is Guillermo del Toro holding the reins on this disaster film. Like with his Hellboy film, he finds the perfect tone between serious and ridiculous. He manages to make everything fun, yet at same time make us care enough for the characters that the few carefully placed emotional moments actually work. The whole film is really a testament to how great of a director Guillermo del Toro is; hitting every note right in what could otherwise have been a disaster.

 

The visuals are extraordinary, sprawling with Del Toro´s imagination in the almost surreal, neon landscapes. The inspiration from Japanese anime is very apparent and totally works for the visuals. The film does use a cheap trick of having most of the big fights in night during rain, which makes it easier to get good looking CGI. That being said it doesn´t really matter when the visuals are so damn good and imaginative.

The world-building was also surprisingly good, setting up a good sci-fi universe and adding to the film´s immersion. 

The acting is for the most part at the same corniness as the dialogue, but most of the actors pull of the balance that Del Toro has in the mood. Charlie Hunnam doesn´t do anything spectacular, but he has enough presence and likability that I really did care for him to be alive at the end of the film. The standouts were Idris Elba, Rinko Kukushi and Ron Perlman. Not all the actors managed to hit the right note of corniness and became cringe worthy at times, but it never bothered me enough to drag the film down.

Pacific Rim is something uniquely fun, surprisingly engaging and somewhat satirical. It is an orgy of imaginative visuals and action, creating one of the most fun film of the year so far.

4.5/5

World War Z (2013) Review

The scariest thing about this film is by far Brad Pitt´s hair, but the zombies are kind of creepy as well. The film has to be commended for trying to stand out amongst the swarming hordes of zombie movies and games. There is a delightful feeling of not having seen these kinds of zombies before, creating a bigger sense of unpredictability. The decision of having the zombie virus get control over your body in about 12 seconds creating a greater sense of panic and urgency.

The film attempts to show what it might be like if a zombie apocalypse really did happen. Small details like using the word zombie (because if it was real we would be using the word zombie to describe it) adds more realism the to the film. One problem however is that it feels like a contradiction, as it is a Hollywood blockbuster in every sense, making the realism not work. That being said, it works on some levels as a Hollywood blockbuster, at least much more so then as a realist zombie picture.

After only scene setting up the family dynamic, we were put straight into the action, which did feel a bit rushed. The first scene was good, but it alone was not effective enough to get an emotional connection the family before putting them into the horror. For me this really created a sense of distance between Brad Pitt´s character, making me not really care. Oddly enough, what then saved it from becoming utterly boring were all the supporting character that we meet during the course of the film. There was not real character to any of these, but all of t

hem had this sort of instant likability to hem, thereby making me want to see more of them (aka not having them die).

The idea of having the zombies swarm so intensely is pretty cool, but it is dragged down by CGI that is good, but not quite good enough for me to say it worked. When seeing the trailer I was really hoping it would look better in the actual film, but sadly it just looked messy. The best sequence in the film was one in South Korea, which took place during night and rain, thereby making the CGI much more passable. However, this was an overall pretty exiting sequence, as I found it to have a great sense of a dreading mood. It is a shame no other sequence really reached the heights of this sequence as I found it to be very exiting and creepy. The thing about the film though is that it is this globetrotting adventure, where some parts work very well, others not so much.

One thing I did really enjoy (though it may be a credit to the book) was the conclusion, which at first felt like a cheep solution, but as I thought of it I found it to be an effective conclusion and one that seemed logical enough for me to go along with it.

 

Despite some great moments and glimpses of originality here and there, the film still feels like a generic Hollywood blockbuster. While not hugely entertaining, it is rarely boring and the great moments are too far apart, ensuring that you will be fairly entertaining, but then probably never watch the film again.

Lastly I would like to mention that the 3D was by far the most useless 3D ever. There was no depth in the picture and I have never felt so distracted by 3D before. If you do go see, please don´t see it in 3D.

2.5/5

Pain and Gain (2013) Review

There is a certain sense of shame that I feel when I realize that I paid a ticket for, thereby supporting, a Michael Bay film. There are few directors who are as universally disliked as Michael Bay, yet there are few that are as financially successful. It is a strange phenomenon, but it lies in the fact that he delivers what could be considered the definition of mindless summer blockbuster, something that we humans have a strange affection for.

Pain And Gain is a smaller movie then what we have gotten from him lately, seriously there is only like one explosion in the whole film. That being said, it is about some of the biggest human beings alive, by which I mean bodybuilders. Based on a true story it gives the pretty fucked up story of three guys who decided to kidnap and torture rich people to the point where they signed over all their money. Of course it seems only natural that they decided to make this a comedy… in all seriousness I do think the darkly comedic part of the film is the main thing it has got going for it. Some people may be very offended by the fact that they make a comedy of these people stupidity, but personally I got past that quickly.

To start off with the positives, The Rock (the actor, not the Michael Bay film), is by far the best thing in the movie. He plays a once coke addicted criminal who found Christ and is trying to be a good Christian… while injecting himself with steroids of course. The movie is elevated to a whole new level when he is on screen as he manages to be the only one who is at least somewhat sympathetic, as well as having great comedic timing. Sadly he is for the most part the only one who hits the right notes when it comes to intentional humour. Mark Wahlberg is a hit and miss actor for me, but this is a huge miss in his department. He is not likable, funny or interesting to watch

One of the film´s biggest problems is that Michael Bay doesn´t really know what he wants the tone of the film to be. At times it seems like he is aiming for something almost satirical, but then you start to wonder if it isn´t in fact satirical, but actually serious. One of the on going themes so to speak is that of the American Dream, but I could never tell if he was ridiculing it or celebrating it and it felt unintentionally funny.

 

Another issue is the film narration, which is done by almost every major character in the film. I don´t if this was an attempt to give the characters more depth, but whatever it was for, it didn´t work, leading to much confusion about who is speaking. The narration plagued the film for the first two-thirds, but was lessened by the last act, making the final act the most enjoyable.

The lack of purpose or consistency throughout the film made it often dull as the jokes weren’t hitting, but by the third act it really did pick itself up and became pretty entertaining. It is most definitely a bad film, but it is an often-entertaining film thanks to The Rock, who forms a solid foundation for the mess around him. That being said he was entertaining enough that I did have a good time for the most part and so the film was made watchable by his great charisma.

2.5/5