Last summer, still charmed by her engaging portrayal of Mystique in X-men: First Class and impressed by her Oscar nomination for Winter’s Bone, I couldn’t wait to see what the future had in store for newcomer Jennifer Lawrence; that’s when I saw her on the cover of Entertainment Weekly, promoting her portrayal of a literary character in an upcoming blockbuster known as The Hunger Games. Now, I had actually never heard of the book series, aside from some comparisons to Twilight (cue eye-roll), but based on the synopsis provided in the magazine, I decided to pick up the novel…48-hours later, I was a devoted fan who couldn’t wait to read the sequels or see the movie. Leading up to its release, the film adaptation of the wildly-popular book was placed under a microscope, with fans scrutinizing every possible element, from some of the questionable casting choices (Lenny Kravitz…really?), to the decision to rate the notoriously violent narrative as PG-13. Still, author Suzanne Collins gave her stamp of approval to the film, and absolutely everyone knew that this would be the first true cinematic event of 2012 (sorry John Carter), which many tracked to outperform those smug, sparkling vampires and whiny werewolves. Advanced ticket sales were breaking the bank, fans were lighting up Twitter and Facebook in anticipation, and even those who flatly refuse to pick up a book were intrigued…hopefully the high hopes wouldn’t find themselves trampled.
Wholly respectful of its source material and refusing to shy away from darker themes, The Hunger Games is a brilliant film adaptation filled with impressive imagination and thoroughly engaging acting. Director Gary Ross knows how to set up and transition characters, but where his true talent lies is in the ability to convey some of the more mature emotions of the narrative, whether that involves grief over a friend’s death or the despair of being placed in a hopeless situation. In terms of acting, Jennifer Lawrence proves her worthiness as a leading-lady; adequately matching a beloved literary character is one hell of a challenge, but the young actress is a PERFECT fit for the conflicted and no-nonsense Katniss…I cannot wait to see her in the sequels. If I had one complaint to raise against The Hunger Games, it is that while the film may convey considerable emotion, in switching for first-person to third-person storytelling, the film fails to match the same intensity of emotion presented in the books: namely, the tyranny of fascist government, the plight of starvation, the shamelessness of unchecked consumerism, or the peril and betrayal associated with forced survivalist scenarios. So, because of that, The Hunger Games is best classified as a supplement; you can enjoy the film (and indeed there is much to enjoy), but in order to truly appreciate the implications of the story told, you should still read the book.
Overall Recommendation: Very High
Sunday, March 25, 2012
The Hunger Games: Full Review
The Hunger Games - (March 23rd, 2012): PG-13
Distributor: Lionsgate Entertainment
Opening Weekend Box Office: #1 with $155,000,000
Domestic Box Office Gross to-date: $155,000,000
Gross Revenue: $214,250,000
Production Budget: $78 million
Director: Gary Ross
From a movie marketer perspective, when studios decide to adapt a highly popular literary series, half of your work is already done for you; face it, all you had to do was tell Harry Potter and Twilight fans that a movie was coming, release a few tidbits of information, and handle damage control in case fans saw something they didn’t like…other than that, you were virtually guaranteed a nine figure box office run. For The Hunger Games, Lionsgate seemed to follow a similar formula (unlike John Carter, people knew that this movie was based on a book), adding in a few character posters and a Facebook application that created District Identification cards, and fan response was through the roof; but that doesn’t mean that every filmmaking decision wasn’t scrutinized. The internet debate over whether Jennifer Lawrence could validly portray Katniss Everdeen was heated to say the least, but discussion boards exploded when newcomers like Josh Hutcherson (The Kids Are All Right) and Liam Hemsworth (younger brother of Thor’s Chris Hemsworth) were announced to play the romantic leads, or other big names (Elizabeth Banks, Woody Harrelson, Lenny Kravitz, Stanley Tucci, and Donald Sutherland) were attached to the well-established characters. In essence, it was brilliant marketing strategy to screen the film for author Suzanne Collins and let her approval go viral, and going out of your way to distance yourself from the Twilight films ensured that the male demographic wouldn’t write-off the film as another sappy chick flick. With IMAX showings, midnight screenings, and fans organizing Hunger Games viewing parties, to say that this film had high expectations to meet could be classified as the understatement of the year; the film’s tagline read: “The World Will Be Watching”…how appropriate.
The Hunger Games universe takes place at an unspecified future date, where the ruins of North America are now known as Panem and are divided into thirteen poverty-stricken districts. As punishment for a past rebellion, in which District 13 was destroyed, and as a constant reminder of the dangers of questioning authority, the wealthy Capitol mandates that one male and one female between the ages of 12 and 18 from each district must participate in the Hunger Games, a televised death match where only one “tribute” can survive. Within District 12, sixteen-year-old Katniss Everdeen (Jennifer Lawrence) hunts game with her best friend, Gale Hawthorne (Liam Hemsworth), in order to ensure that her family does not succumb to starvation; though she gets along peaceably enough, when her younger sister, Primrose (Willow Shields), is selected for the games, Katniss selflessly volunteers herself as the female tribute. Alongside District 12’s male tribute, Peeta Mellark (Josh Hutcherson), Katniss travels to the wealthy Capitol in preparation for the games, working with her stylist, Cinna (Lenny Kravitz), her capitol escort, Effie Trinket (Elizabeth Banks), and her advisor/former Hunger Games victor, Haymitch Abernathy (Woody Harrelson), to increase her odds of survival. Quickly catching the attention of Capitol citizens like media personality Caesar Flickerman (Stanley Tucci), Head GameMaker Seneca Crane (Wes Bentley), and the villainous President Snow (Donald Sutherland), Katniss works to gain popular support and hone her natural archery abilities in order to battle the 23 other tributes. Unsure of whom she can trust, even as Peeta reveals his secret love for her, Katniss must use all her skills to fight for her life and fight against the society that shows such careless disregard for human welfare.
As is true of most book-to-screen adaptations, the best part of The Hunger Games is seeing a world established in literature brought to life, and that translation is strengthened through creative production design, strong acting, and skillful direction. Whether it is the poverty-stricken and subjugated districts, the materialistic and utterly shallow Capitol, or the perilous and sinisterly serene battle arena, the visual style of the film is brilliant. In terms of the acting, each of the actors does their share to add a distinct style to the characters (Lenny Kravitz and Woody Harrelson being the standouts), but as it should be, the main focus is on Jennifer Lawrence; the young actress takes that responsibility in stride, expertly portraying Katniss’ resolve, despair, and mistrust of the seemingly hopeless situation which she faces…talk about being born to play the heroine. In speaking of the direction, Gary Ross ably tackles the mature themes of the book and flawlessly executed certain scenes that fans were undoubtedly prepared to tear apart: the brutality and necessity of the pre-game training, not to mention the fear and tension surrounding the countdown to the games’ beginning, matches and even enhances the book’s description. However, as good as it may be, The Hunger Games is not a perfect translation, but rather than being an outright flaw, this criticism was almost a necessity, otherwise the film would have to have been four hours long.
In the original book, the horror and inhumanity of The Hunger Games is told in the form of a first-person narrative, with Katniss perceiving and reacting to everything with some type of internal struggle…a story-telling style that is virtually impossible to execute onscreen. The film is told from the third-person viewpoint, so no matter how strong an actress Lawrence may be, we will never be 100% certain concerning what she is thinking, and as such, certain deeper elements (such as character motivations) are lost in the translation. For instance, we never get a true feeling of the poverty hardships that District 12 faces or of the tyrannical rule of the Capitol; we never fully appreciate Katniss’ revulsion at the wealth and waste of the Capitol citizens, nor her empathy towards another tribute that reminds her of her sister; and perhaps most importantly, we never get a true sense of the psychological nightmare that the death match represents. In the books, you feel Katniss’ terror as she is struggling to survive, and her internal conflict concerning Peeta (who claims he loves her but will probably end up trying to kill her), but in the movie, you never truly feel like she is in peril: “oh, giant fireballs and monstrous wolves are chasing her?...meh, she’s got her bow and arrow, she’ll be fine.” As one of my trusted friends and fellow literary fanatics put it, this disconnect makes the film a perfect supplement to the movie; losing some of the deeper elements is almost a necessary evil in any film adaptation, and though the book offers plenty of violence to stay true to the intended spirit of the story, if you want the full story, you are going to HAVE to read the book. So, with nothing overtly worthy of criticism, suffice it to say that for both fans and non-fans, The Hunger Games remains an insanely strong movie.
Leading up to its release, analysts everywhere were predicting that The Hunger Games would upstage Twilight as the literary translation juggernaut, and projections were as high as $125 million, but even those numbers ended-up underestimating 2012’s first true blockbuster. Scoring $19.74 in midnight showings alone (the highest for a non-sequel), the wildly popular dystopian tale ended up with the fifth-best opening day ever (with $68.25 million), and a weekend total of $155 million. I may be Captain Obvious in telling you that such a beefy opening was big enough for first place, but that number was enough to earn the honor of being the third-highest opening weekend ever, behind Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 2 and The Dark Knight…choke on that all you Twi-hards! Add-in international totals and this literary adaptation pulled in $214 million against a $78 million production budget in one weekend; no wonder Lionsgate’s stock went through the roof. Jennifer Lawrence, Josh Hutcherson, and Liam Hemsworth have signed-on for the entire franchise, so we’ll see them together again in 2013’s Catching Fire, but all are soon going to be household names, and within Hollywood, Lawrence will steal her character’s nickname, becoming the true “Girl on Fire.” Whether you’ve read the book or not, both males and females, both the young and the old…simply put, everyone will love The Hunger Games, and you owe it to yourself to see this piece of cinematic history.
Overall Recommendation: Very High
Distributor: Lionsgate Entertainment
Opening Weekend Box Office: #1 with $155,000,000
Domestic Box Office Gross to-date: $155,000,000
Gross Revenue: $214,250,000
Production Budget: $78 million
Director: Gary Ross
From a movie marketer perspective, when studios decide to adapt a highly popular literary series, half of your work is already done for you; face it, all you had to do was tell Harry Potter and Twilight fans that a movie was coming, release a few tidbits of information, and handle damage control in case fans saw something they didn’t like…other than that, you were virtually guaranteed a nine figure box office run. For The Hunger Games, Lionsgate seemed to follow a similar formula (unlike John Carter, people knew that this movie was based on a book), adding in a few character posters and a Facebook application that created District Identification cards, and fan response was through the roof; but that doesn’t mean that every filmmaking decision wasn’t scrutinized. The internet debate over whether Jennifer Lawrence could validly portray Katniss Everdeen was heated to say the least, but discussion boards exploded when newcomers like Josh Hutcherson (The Kids Are All Right) and Liam Hemsworth (younger brother of Thor’s Chris Hemsworth) were announced to play the romantic leads, or other big names (Elizabeth Banks, Woody Harrelson, Lenny Kravitz, Stanley Tucci, and Donald Sutherland) were attached to the well-established characters. In essence, it was brilliant marketing strategy to screen the film for author Suzanne Collins and let her approval go viral, and going out of your way to distance yourself from the Twilight films ensured that the male demographic wouldn’t write-off the film as another sappy chick flick. With IMAX showings, midnight screenings, and fans organizing Hunger Games viewing parties, to say that this film had high expectations to meet could be classified as the understatement of the year; the film’s tagline read: “The World Will Be Watching”…how appropriate.
The Hunger Games universe takes place at an unspecified future date, where the ruins of North America are now known as Panem and are divided into thirteen poverty-stricken districts. As punishment for a past rebellion, in which District 13 was destroyed, and as a constant reminder of the dangers of questioning authority, the wealthy Capitol mandates that one male and one female between the ages of 12 and 18 from each district must participate in the Hunger Games, a televised death match where only one “tribute” can survive. Within District 12, sixteen-year-old Katniss Everdeen (Jennifer Lawrence) hunts game with her best friend, Gale Hawthorne (Liam Hemsworth), in order to ensure that her family does not succumb to starvation; though she gets along peaceably enough, when her younger sister, Primrose (Willow Shields), is selected for the games, Katniss selflessly volunteers herself as the female tribute. Alongside District 12’s male tribute, Peeta Mellark (Josh Hutcherson), Katniss travels to the wealthy Capitol in preparation for the games, working with her stylist, Cinna (Lenny Kravitz), her capitol escort, Effie Trinket (Elizabeth Banks), and her advisor/former Hunger Games victor, Haymitch Abernathy (Woody Harrelson), to increase her odds of survival. Quickly catching the attention of Capitol citizens like media personality Caesar Flickerman (Stanley Tucci), Head GameMaker Seneca Crane (Wes Bentley), and the villainous President Snow (Donald Sutherland), Katniss works to gain popular support and hone her natural archery abilities in order to battle the 23 other tributes. Unsure of whom she can trust, even as Peeta reveals his secret love for her, Katniss must use all her skills to fight for her life and fight against the society that shows such careless disregard for human welfare.
As is true of most book-to-screen adaptations, the best part of The Hunger Games is seeing a world established in literature brought to life, and that translation is strengthened through creative production design, strong acting, and skillful direction. Whether it is the poverty-stricken and subjugated districts, the materialistic and utterly shallow Capitol, or the perilous and sinisterly serene battle arena, the visual style of the film is brilliant. In terms of the acting, each of the actors does their share to add a distinct style to the characters (Lenny Kravitz and Woody Harrelson being the standouts), but as it should be, the main focus is on Jennifer Lawrence; the young actress takes that responsibility in stride, expertly portraying Katniss’ resolve, despair, and mistrust of the seemingly hopeless situation which she faces…talk about being born to play the heroine. In speaking of the direction, Gary Ross ably tackles the mature themes of the book and flawlessly executed certain scenes that fans were undoubtedly prepared to tear apart: the brutality and necessity of the pre-game training, not to mention the fear and tension surrounding the countdown to the games’ beginning, matches and even enhances the book’s description. However, as good as it may be, The Hunger Games is not a perfect translation, but rather than being an outright flaw, this criticism was almost a necessity, otherwise the film would have to have been four hours long.
In the original book, the horror and inhumanity of The Hunger Games is told in the form of a first-person narrative, with Katniss perceiving and reacting to everything with some type of internal struggle…a story-telling style that is virtually impossible to execute onscreen. The film is told from the third-person viewpoint, so no matter how strong an actress Lawrence may be, we will never be 100% certain concerning what she is thinking, and as such, certain deeper elements (such as character motivations) are lost in the translation. For instance, we never get a true feeling of the poverty hardships that District 12 faces or of the tyrannical rule of the Capitol; we never fully appreciate Katniss’ revulsion at the wealth and waste of the Capitol citizens, nor her empathy towards another tribute that reminds her of her sister; and perhaps most importantly, we never get a true sense of the psychological nightmare that the death match represents. In the books, you feel Katniss’ terror as she is struggling to survive, and her internal conflict concerning Peeta (who claims he loves her but will probably end up trying to kill her), but in the movie, you never truly feel like she is in peril: “oh, giant fireballs and monstrous wolves are chasing her?...meh, she’s got her bow and arrow, she’ll be fine.” As one of my trusted friends and fellow literary fanatics put it, this disconnect makes the film a perfect supplement to the movie; losing some of the deeper elements is almost a necessary evil in any film adaptation, and though the book offers plenty of violence to stay true to the intended spirit of the story, if you want the full story, you are going to HAVE to read the book. So, with nothing overtly worthy of criticism, suffice it to say that for both fans and non-fans, The Hunger Games remains an insanely strong movie.
Leading up to its release, analysts everywhere were predicting that The Hunger Games would upstage Twilight as the literary translation juggernaut, and projections were as high as $125 million, but even those numbers ended-up underestimating 2012’s first true blockbuster. Scoring $19.74 in midnight showings alone (the highest for a non-sequel), the wildly popular dystopian tale ended up with the fifth-best opening day ever (with $68.25 million), and a weekend total of $155 million. I may be Captain Obvious in telling you that such a beefy opening was big enough for first place, but that number was enough to earn the honor of being the third-highest opening weekend ever, behind Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 2 and The Dark Knight…choke on that all you Twi-hards! Add-in international totals and this literary adaptation pulled in $214 million against a $78 million production budget in one weekend; no wonder Lionsgate’s stock went through the roof. Jennifer Lawrence, Josh Hutcherson, and Liam Hemsworth have signed-on for the entire franchise, so we’ll see them together again in 2013’s Catching Fire, but all are soon going to be household names, and within Hollywood, Lawrence will steal her character’s nickname, becoming the true “Girl on Fire.” Whether you’ve read the book or not, both males and females, both the young and the old…simply put, everyone will love The Hunger Games, and you owe it to yourself to see this piece of cinematic history.
Overall Recommendation: Very High
21 Jump Street: Short and Sweet
I’m not going to sugar-coat it, when I first caught wind of 21 Jump Street, I wasn’t exactly thrilled, because not only has Hollywood continued to demonstrate its lack of originality by recycling material from the 80s, but I also didn’t have much faith in the leading men attached to the project. I know that from Haywire, to The Vow, to the upcoming G.I. Joe: Retaliation, Channing Tatum has been a consistent presence in theaters this year, but no one has ever described him as funny, so his placement in a raunchy comedy seemed a definite mismatch. As for Jonah Hill, I’ve mentioned before that I’ve been growing tired of his trademarked style of comedy, and while he did regain some of my confidence with his performance in Moneyball, The Sitter seemed to confirm that it was time for him to give the comedy genre a rest for a while. Needless to say, 21 Jump Street wasn’t high on my list of must-sees, but then I caught wind of the red-band trailer, and I found myself laughing much harder than ever expected…maybe this new comedy would be entertaining. Early critical reaction was through the roof, and word-of-mouth was equally strong, so with no other true adult comedies vying for audience attention, it looked like 21 Jump Street could be very successful.
Offering non-stop laughs that are offense, clever, and surprisingly self-aware, 21 Jump Street is the funniest film that I have seen in recent memory, one that showcases thoroughly engaging characters that you cannot help but love. As surprising as it may seem, Channing Tatum is actually hysterical and, together with Jonah Hill, the two make a heavyweight comedic duo that share a fraternal chemistry that makes them very-believable friends. In terms of the story, the script adds surprisingly deep and engaging elements by sending the characters back to high school and reversing their traditional roles, begging the question within each audience member as to how we would do things differently were we given a second chance as teenagers. When it comes to the action, 21 Jump Street has plenty of gunfights and explosions, but the film does a capable job of not taking itself too seriously, thereby creatively poking fun at the buddy-cop genre. Simply put, you will love 21 Jump Street, laugh uncontrollably, and eagerly await the sequel.
Overall Recommendation: Very High
Offering non-stop laughs that are offense, clever, and surprisingly self-aware, 21 Jump Street is the funniest film that I have seen in recent memory, one that showcases thoroughly engaging characters that you cannot help but love. As surprising as it may seem, Channing Tatum is actually hysterical and, together with Jonah Hill, the two make a heavyweight comedic duo that share a fraternal chemistry that makes them very-believable friends. In terms of the story, the script adds surprisingly deep and engaging elements by sending the characters back to high school and reversing their traditional roles, begging the question within each audience member as to how we would do things differently were we given a second chance as teenagers. When it comes to the action, 21 Jump Street has plenty of gunfights and explosions, but the film does a capable job of not taking itself too seriously, thereby creatively poking fun at the buddy-cop genre. Simply put, you will love 21 Jump Street, laugh uncontrollably, and eagerly await the sequel.
Overall Recommendation: Very High
21 Jump Street: Full Review
21 Jump Street - (March 16th, 2012): R
Distributor: Columbia Pictures (Sony Pictures Entertainment)
Opening Weekend Box Office: #1 with $36,302,612
Domestic Box Office Gross to-date: $56,001,000
Gross Revenue: $63,001,000
Production Budget: $42 million
Directors: Phil Lord and Chris Miller
For those of you who don’t know, the original 21 Jump Street television show ran from 1987 to 1991, and definitely had more of a dramatic slant, so fans of the show weren’t exactly the target audience for the film adaptation, which was clearly going to be focusing on comedy. The key demographic who would respond to an R-rated action comedy were infants during the show’s first run, so nostalgia wasn’t going to help fill theaters; instead, marketing efforts were clearly going to have to focus on the novelty of seeing Jonah Hill and Channing Tatum work together. Each of the actors has a definitive fan-base, but both were going to playing against character, as Hill would have to tackle gun fights and car chases, while Tatum would have to generate credible laughs...and given that Hill contributed as a co-writer for the script and both earned executive producer credits, there was plenty to prove on both ends. Between the promotional appearances on Comedy Central and the extended trailers, I had to appreciate some of the creative positioning applied to 21 Jump Street, as the idea of a second chance at high school was pitched just as strongly as the comedic slant…what a way to draw those who are far enough removed from high school to see the appeal of such a concept. Plain-and simple, based on what I had seen thus far, I was promised good laughs and an engaging story with 21 Jump Street, and given early critical reaction, it didn’t look like I would be disappointed.
21 Jump Street introduces audiences to Officers Morton Schmidt (Jonah Hill) and Greg Jenko (Channing Tatum), former polar-opposite classmates who reunited and built a strong friendship at the police academy. After bungling their first bust, as Jenko forgot to read the Miranda rights, the two are reassigned to an undercover division run by the short-tempered Captain Dickson (Ice Cube), one which specializes in using youthful-looking cops to infiltrate high schools. Schmidt and Jenko are tasked with returning to their old high school and stopping the distribution of a new synthetic drug that is causing dangerous overdoses. Things get complicated when their identities are switched and Schmidt ends up a popular jock while Jenko is assigned to honors science courses, thereby attracting the attention of teachers like the P.E. Coach, Mr. Walters (Rob Riggle), and the science lab instructor, Ms. Griggs (Ellie Kemper). Initially reveling in their reversed roles, Schmidt and Jenko quickly identify the popular student Eric (Dave Franco) as the supplier, but Schmidt soon gets lost in the attention he receives from popular student Molly (Brie Larson). As old tensions and insecurities begin to rise, the two friends must find a common ground in order to stop the school’s growing drug trade, thereby proving their competency as police officers.
I mentioned earlier that 21 Jump Street is the funniest film that I have seen in recent memory, and what separates this comedy from others like Bridesmaids or Horrible Bosses is the fact that the laughs are consistent from start-to-finish. Pulling absolutely no punches in terms of offensive humor, this film will have you rolling in your seats as Jonah Hill and Channing Tatum showcase masterful comedic chemistry and timing, whether they are resorting to ad-libbing or physical comedy…you know the movie if funny when you can see the actors trying to hold-back laughs on-screen. Channing Tatum has already proved his competency in the romance and action genres, but after 21 Jump Street, I definitely want to see him in more comedies; as for the rest of the supporting cast, Dave Franco demonstrates some of his older brother (James Franco)’s comedic talents, while Rob Riggle is characteristically wild, but one of the biggest surprise is Ice Cube as the stereotypical angry black police captain. Another one of the bigger surprises is the skillful use of the original show’s alumni in cameos, with Holly Robinson Peete, Peter DeLuise, and Johnny Depp all adding extra laughs and novelty to the narrative. With so many laughs, 21 Jump Street is the kind of movie that you will want to see again and again in order to remember more quotes, and the second that the end credits begin to roll, you will be begging for a sequel.
Now, while some may be tempted to write-off the laughs of 21 Jump Street as nothing more than excessive use of foul language and crude subject matter, the reality is that the film makes skillful usage of an intriguing concept and is self-aware enough not to take itself too seriously. Absolutely everyone has some regrets associated with high school, and we have all questioned how we would have done things differently, so there is an inherent appeal in watching Hill and Tatum return and have their traditional roles reversed in a familiar setting that is no longer familiar…watching a nerd revel in his new popularity or a former jock squirm in honors classes is hysterical. I also loved how the narrative took the time to make fun of its own components and challenge traditional elements of a cop film, whether the two cops abuse their privileges to throw an epic party or brace themselves for the expected explosions that usually occur during a chase scene. For instance, while chasing suspects along the freeway, Schmidt and Jenko repeatedly flinch as tankers filled with flammable liquid crash, but nothing explodes until a truck filled with poultry detonates after getting a flat tire…the questioning expression on their faces is priceless, and the unexpected take on the traditional is brilliant. So, in addition to being remarkably funny, 21 Jump Street is also remarkably creative, and that is what makes this unconventional comedy worth seeing.
From a box office perspective, it looks like the apparent disparity between fans of the original and today’s desired audiences made no difference, and the star-studded marketing efforts did their job, as 21 Jump Street debuted with a commanding and truly impressive opening weekend. It may have been the only wide-release in its first weekend, but a $36 million debut and 1st place finish helped showcase the film’s quality and draw, as well as the increased audience attendance that traditionally accompanies the spring months. I expect that this comedy will continue to draw-in significant revenue, as it will not face any direct competition at the box office until American Reunion opens on April 6th. Given the strong financial performance of the film, the positive critical reaction, and the narrative’s open ending, Sony Pictures has already green-lit a sequel, and I personally cannot wait to see Jonah Hill and Channing Tatum reunite. Bottom line, if you are looking for a good laugh and enjoy comedy on any level, then you cannot afford to miss 21 Jump Street…enjoy.
Overall Recommendation: Very High
Distributor: Columbia Pictures (Sony Pictures Entertainment)
Opening Weekend Box Office: #1 with $36,302,612
Domestic Box Office Gross to-date: $56,001,000
Gross Revenue: $63,001,000
Production Budget: $42 million
Directors: Phil Lord and Chris Miller
For those of you who don’t know, the original 21 Jump Street television show ran from 1987 to 1991, and definitely had more of a dramatic slant, so fans of the show weren’t exactly the target audience for the film adaptation, which was clearly going to be focusing on comedy. The key demographic who would respond to an R-rated action comedy were infants during the show’s first run, so nostalgia wasn’t going to help fill theaters; instead, marketing efforts were clearly going to have to focus on the novelty of seeing Jonah Hill and Channing Tatum work together. Each of the actors has a definitive fan-base, but both were going to playing against character, as Hill would have to tackle gun fights and car chases, while Tatum would have to generate credible laughs...and given that Hill contributed as a co-writer for the script and both earned executive producer credits, there was plenty to prove on both ends. Between the promotional appearances on Comedy Central and the extended trailers, I had to appreciate some of the creative positioning applied to 21 Jump Street, as the idea of a second chance at high school was pitched just as strongly as the comedic slant…what a way to draw those who are far enough removed from high school to see the appeal of such a concept. Plain-and simple, based on what I had seen thus far, I was promised good laughs and an engaging story with 21 Jump Street, and given early critical reaction, it didn’t look like I would be disappointed.
21 Jump Street introduces audiences to Officers Morton Schmidt (Jonah Hill) and Greg Jenko (Channing Tatum), former polar-opposite classmates who reunited and built a strong friendship at the police academy. After bungling their first bust, as Jenko forgot to read the Miranda rights, the two are reassigned to an undercover division run by the short-tempered Captain Dickson (Ice Cube), one which specializes in using youthful-looking cops to infiltrate high schools. Schmidt and Jenko are tasked with returning to their old high school and stopping the distribution of a new synthetic drug that is causing dangerous overdoses. Things get complicated when their identities are switched and Schmidt ends up a popular jock while Jenko is assigned to honors science courses, thereby attracting the attention of teachers like the P.E. Coach, Mr. Walters (Rob Riggle), and the science lab instructor, Ms. Griggs (Ellie Kemper). Initially reveling in their reversed roles, Schmidt and Jenko quickly identify the popular student Eric (Dave Franco) as the supplier, but Schmidt soon gets lost in the attention he receives from popular student Molly (Brie Larson). As old tensions and insecurities begin to rise, the two friends must find a common ground in order to stop the school’s growing drug trade, thereby proving their competency as police officers.
I mentioned earlier that 21 Jump Street is the funniest film that I have seen in recent memory, and what separates this comedy from others like Bridesmaids or Horrible Bosses is the fact that the laughs are consistent from start-to-finish. Pulling absolutely no punches in terms of offensive humor, this film will have you rolling in your seats as Jonah Hill and Channing Tatum showcase masterful comedic chemistry and timing, whether they are resorting to ad-libbing or physical comedy…you know the movie if funny when you can see the actors trying to hold-back laughs on-screen. Channing Tatum has already proved his competency in the romance and action genres, but after 21 Jump Street, I definitely want to see him in more comedies; as for the rest of the supporting cast, Dave Franco demonstrates some of his older brother (James Franco)’s comedic talents, while Rob Riggle is characteristically wild, but one of the biggest surprise is Ice Cube as the stereotypical angry black police captain. Another one of the bigger surprises is the skillful use of the original show’s alumni in cameos, with Holly Robinson Peete, Peter DeLuise, and Johnny Depp all adding extra laughs and novelty to the narrative. With so many laughs, 21 Jump Street is the kind of movie that you will want to see again and again in order to remember more quotes, and the second that the end credits begin to roll, you will be begging for a sequel.
Now, while some may be tempted to write-off the laughs of 21 Jump Street as nothing more than excessive use of foul language and crude subject matter, the reality is that the film makes skillful usage of an intriguing concept and is self-aware enough not to take itself too seriously. Absolutely everyone has some regrets associated with high school, and we have all questioned how we would have done things differently, so there is an inherent appeal in watching Hill and Tatum return and have their traditional roles reversed in a familiar setting that is no longer familiar…watching a nerd revel in his new popularity or a former jock squirm in honors classes is hysterical. I also loved how the narrative took the time to make fun of its own components and challenge traditional elements of a cop film, whether the two cops abuse their privileges to throw an epic party or brace themselves for the expected explosions that usually occur during a chase scene. For instance, while chasing suspects along the freeway, Schmidt and Jenko repeatedly flinch as tankers filled with flammable liquid crash, but nothing explodes until a truck filled with poultry detonates after getting a flat tire…the questioning expression on their faces is priceless, and the unexpected take on the traditional is brilliant. So, in addition to being remarkably funny, 21 Jump Street is also remarkably creative, and that is what makes this unconventional comedy worth seeing.
From a box office perspective, it looks like the apparent disparity between fans of the original and today’s desired audiences made no difference, and the star-studded marketing efforts did their job, as 21 Jump Street debuted with a commanding and truly impressive opening weekend. It may have been the only wide-release in its first weekend, but a $36 million debut and 1st place finish helped showcase the film’s quality and draw, as well as the increased audience attendance that traditionally accompanies the spring months. I expect that this comedy will continue to draw-in significant revenue, as it will not face any direct competition at the box office until American Reunion opens on April 6th. Given the strong financial performance of the film, the positive critical reaction, and the narrative’s open ending, Sony Pictures has already green-lit a sequel, and I personally cannot wait to see Jonah Hill and Channing Tatum reunite. Bottom line, if you are looking for a good laugh and enjoy comedy on any level, then you cannot afford to miss 21 Jump Street…enjoy.
Overall Recommendation: Very High
Monday, March 12, 2012
John Carter: Short and Sweet
Ask any film analyst in Hollywood…leading up to its release, no one had much confidence in the drawing potential of Disney’s massively-budgeted sci-fi epic, John Carter, and that was largely due to obscure source material, a lack of truly bankable actors, and a thoroughly confusing marketing campaign. I doubt many people realize that John Carter is actually a pretty historic literary character, the protagonist of Edgar Rice Boroughs’ 11-volume sci-fi series that is credited with inspiring both Star Wars and Avatar. In terms of the top-billing actors, Taylor Kitsch is known for his work on the Friday Night Lights TV-series, and both he and leading-lady Lynn Collins have previously worked together in the sci-fi realm, thanks to 2009’s X-men Origins: Wolverine. Now, both the source material and previous work of the film’s stars could have been used to add credibility to John Carter, but for inexplicable reasons, Disney’s marketing campaign couldn’t seem to decide how it wanted to position the “blockbuster,” therefore keeping audience tracking ominously low. Needless to say, despite the rise in theater attendance in March, I’m sure more than a few movie executives lost sleep leading up to John Carter’s release and the massive $250 million production cost that had to be recovered.
Definitely creative and entertaining at certain points, John Carter does show some future potential for its relatively unknown stars, but beyond that, there is little to this sci-fi epic that justifies a nearly two-and-a-half hour running time or a $250 million budget. Taylor Kitsch certainly has the definitive tough-guy heroic swagger, and Lynn Collins is beautiful enough to keep your eyes onscreen, but the individual character development and co-star chemistry takes far too long to develop. If the energy and action of the last half hour were matched throughout the entire narrative, I guarantee that both critical and audience reaction would have gone through the roof, but the lack of familiarity with the source material necessitates far too much set-up and exposition, making it one tall order to sit back and wait for momentum to build. When it comes to the dialogue, I’m impressed that the actors made it through most of the scenes with straight faces, but that still doesn’t make it any easier to follow the story, which is already overshadowed by the sub-par special effects. Bottom line, there’s not much wisdom in paying to see a “blockbuster” that was released AFTER the classics it inspired and yet still failed to achieve anything memorable, or anything that hasn’t already been seen before in a far more effective manner.
Overall Recommendation: Low
Definitely creative and entertaining at certain points, John Carter does show some future potential for its relatively unknown stars, but beyond that, there is little to this sci-fi epic that justifies a nearly two-and-a-half hour running time or a $250 million budget. Taylor Kitsch certainly has the definitive tough-guy heroic swagger, and Lynn Collins is beautiful enough to keep your eyes onscreen, but the individual character development and co-star chemistry takes far too long to develop. If the energy and action of the last half hour were matched throughout the entire narrative, I guarantee that both critical and audience reaction would have gone through the roof, but the lack of familiarity with the source material necessitates far too much set-up and exposition, making it one tall order to sit back and wait for momentum to build. When it comes to the dialogue, I’m impressed that the actors made it through most of the scenes with straight faces, but that still doesn’t make it any easier to follow the story, which is already overshadowed by the sub-par special effects. Bottom line, there’s not much wisdom in paying to see a “blockbuster” that was released AFTER the classics it inspired and yet still failed to achieve anything memorable, or anything that hasn’t already been seen before in a far more effective manner.
Overall Recommendation: Low
John Carter: Full Review
John Carter - (March 9th, 2012): PG-13
Distributor: Walt Disney Pictures
Opening Weekend Box Office: #2 with $30,603,000
Domestic Box Office Gross to-date: $30,603,000
Gross Revenue: $101,203,000
Production Budget: $250 million
Directors: Andrew Stanton
I would have loved to have been a fly on the wall during the meeting in which the idea was pitched to adapt a big screen version of a book in which a Confederate captain is mystically transported to Mars and engages in a brutal civil war between advanced civilizations. Make no mistake; the concept was once wildly popular, as John Carter’s release marks the centennial of the character’s first appearance as the protagonist of Edgar Rice Burroughs’ 11-volume series of novels that were published between 1912 and 1943, but would audiences react to or recognize a work of fiction that hasn’t been at the forefront of pop culture for nearly 70 years? Now, in addition to Taylor Kitsch and Lynn Collins, there were a number of other big-name actors attached to John Carter, including, Willem Dafoe, Thomas Haden Church, Bryan Cranston, and Mark Strong, so with a strong story and some spectacular special effects, there was really no reason that this newest sci-fi fantasy shouldn’t be able to draw a crowd. But unfortunately, the marketing tactics undertaken seemed determined to ensure lukewarm audience response; the Disney name already came-off as a little bit of a mismatch, but there was really no justification for the fact that none of the promotions made any effort to familiarize potential audiences with the character or the actors who would be bringing the novel to life. With a vague tagline like “Lost in our world, found in another,” barely anyone knew that the film actually took place on Mars, and with notoriously low tracking across audience reaction, John Carter certainly had one massive hurdle to overcome in terms of recovering its massive production and marketing costs.
Disney’s newest epic adventure focuses on Confederate captain John Carter (Taylor Kitsch), a jaded warrior who is mysteriously transported to Mars, known to the natives as “Barsoom,” and finds himself instantly confronted by a nomadic group of alien warriors known as Tharks who are led by Tars Tarkas (Willem Dafoe). Because of the lower levels of gravity on Mars, Carter is granted enhanced strength and the ability to perform astounding leaps, a talent which wows the natives and quickly catches the attention of the warring humanoid factions on the planet. It is revealed that the peaceful city of Helium is being attacked by warlord Sab Than (Dominic West) of Zodanga, who is wielding a mystic weapon that nobody has yet been able to defend against. Behind the scenes, it turns out that a set of ancient prophets, led by Matai Shang (Mark Strong), are manipulating events and serving as advisors to Sab Than in order to further their own sinister agenda. Beseeched for help by the beautiful Princess of Helium, Dejah Thoris (Lynn Collins), Carter must look beyond his own hesitancies and work to save innocent lives, all while discovering the secret of his abrupt transportation and finding a way back to Earth.
Confusing as the above plot synopsis may be, there are a number of positive accolades associated with John Carter, thanks largely to the creative production design, the energetic climax, and the efforts of the two main stars. The first time you see the costumes and sets associated with Barsoom outside of the barren Martian desert, you will undoubtedly be impressed, and once John Carter and the princess do decide to start a romance, things start to get engaging…unfortunately, it takes almost two hours to get to that point. Even though the film is nearly two-and-a-half hours long, it still takes a painful amount of exposition to set up the world of Barsoom and its inhabitants, thereby leaving little room for character development and generating an unacceptable amount of questions that are ultimately left unanswered. Carter himself may not be a perfect character, but Taylor Kitsch transforms him into charismatic enough of a hero; Lynn Collins is a tough and utterly gorgeous damsel-in-distress; and Mark Strong, as always, is a sinister and decidedly cool villain…yet NONE of these characters receives adequate attention or development that would have helped explain or justify some of their decisions. And yet, despite the confusing and bloated plot, and the laughably bad dialogue coming from thoroughly un-engaging characters, there are still some even worse elements associated with John Carter.
When you consider the fact that filming for John Carter wrapped in July 2010, leaving plenty of time for post-production development, and that this is the source material that inspired the visually-stunning Avatar, and that $250 million was spent on many elements including presumably cutting-edge visual technology, expecting impressive special effects is really not that tall of an order. Unfortunately, nearly everyone questioned the quality of the graphics when the first trailers found their way online, and I hate to say it, but the green Thark warriors and giant Martian monsters look just as laughably fake on the big screen as they do in the commercials, a fact sure to leave many raising the question as to where exactly all the money from the production budget actually went. And forget forking over extra money for 3D or an IMAX 3D showing, because the technology is shamefully wasted, and not even adeptly applied to the scenes where it actually would have worked effectively. And bad characters, poor dialogue, and horrible graphics aside, there is still nothing overtly unique or memorable about John Carter, which largely rehashes sci-fi material that has been seen thousands of times before. The original book may have inspired Star Wars and countless other epics, but at least they didn’t wait over half a century to bring a story to a wider audience; talk about showing up to a race far too late.
Well, even seemingly acknowledging the dropped ball in terms of effective marketing, studio execs and analysts generously projected $50 million for an acceptable opening weekend…alarm bells had to go off when John Carter pulled in only $9.8 million on Friday. As the weekend drew to a close, the fact that John Carter only generated $30.6 million in its opening weekend, thereby failing to overtake second week holdover The Lorax is just embarrassing. I guess the silver-lining is that the film was able to draw a surprising $70.6 million overseas, which was probably enough to save somebody’s job over at Disney marketing, but there is no way that the long-haul take will be that impressive with The Hunger Games right around the corner. For me, the biggest takeaway that I got from John Carter is the fact that Lynn Collins’ role has generated some buzz that she might be the perfect actress to bring superheroine Wonder Woman to life on the big screen…I’ll be front of the lone for that one. Again, I would be lying if I said that I didn’t enjoy John Carter on at least some level, but I still don’t think I have the heart to advise you to sit through an overly long and decidedly disappointing movie.
Overall Recommendation: Low
Distributor: Walt Disney Pictures
Opening Weekend Box Office: #2 with $30,603,000
Domestic Box Office Gross to-date: $30,603,000
Gross Revenue: $101,203,000
Production Budget: $250 million
Directors: Andrew Stanton
I would have loved to have been a fly on the wall during the meeting in which the idea was pitched to adapt a big screen version of a book in which a Confederate captain is mystically transported to Mars and engages in a brutal civil war between advanced civilizations. Make no mistake; the concept was once wildly popular, as John Carter’s release marks the centennial of the character’s first appearance as the protagonist of Edgar Rice Burroughs’ 11-volume series of novels that were published between 1912 and 1943, but would audiences react to or recognize a work of fiction that hasn’t been at the forefront of pop culture for nearly 70 years? Now, in addition to Taylor Kitsch and Lynn Collins, there were a number of other big-name actors attached to John Carter, including, Willem Dafoe, Thomas Haden Church, Bryan Cranston, and Mark Strong, so with a strong story and some spectacular special effects, there was really no reason that this newest sci-fi fantasy shouldn’t be able to draw a crowd. But unfortunately, the marketing tactics undertaken seemed determined to ensure lukewarm audience response; the Disney name already came-off as a little bit of a mismatch, but there was really no justification for the fact that none of the promotions made any effort to familiarize potential audiences with the character or the actors who would be bringing the novel to life. With a vague tagline like “Lost in our world, found in another,” barely anyone knew that the film actually took place on Mars, and with notoriously low tracking across audience reaction, John Carter certainly had one massive hurdle to overcome in terms of recovering its massive production and marketing costs.
Disney’s newest epic adventure focuses on Confederate captain John Carter (Taylor Kitsch), a jaded warrior who is mysteriously transported to Mars, known to the natives as “Barsoom,” and finds himself instantly confronted by a nomadic group of alien warriors known as Tharks who are led by Tars Tarkas (Willem Dafoe). Because of the lower levels of gravity on Mars, Carter is granted enhanced strength and the ability to perform astounding leaps, a talent which wows the natives and quickly catches the attention of the warring humanoid factions on the planet. It is revealed that the peaceful city of Helium is being attacked by warlord Sab Than (Dominic West) of Zodanga, who is wielding a mystic weapon that nobody has yet been able to defend against. Behind the scenes, it turns out that a set of ancient prophets, led by Matai Shang (Mark Strong), are manipulating events and serving as advisors to Sab Than in order to further their own sinister agenda. Beseeched for help by the beautiful Princess of Helium, Dejah Thoris (Lynn Collins), Carter must look beyond his own hesitancies and work to save innocent lives, all while discovering the secret of his abrupt transportation and finding a way back to Earth.
Confusing as the above plot synopsis may be, there are a number of positive accolades associated with John Carter, thanks largely to the creative production design, the energetic climax, and the efforts of the two main stars. The first time you see the costumes and sets associated with Barsoom outside of the barren Martian desert, you will undoubtedly be impressed, and once John Carter and the princess do decide to start a romance, things start to get engaging…unfortunately, it takes almost two hours to get to that point. Even though the film is nearly two-and-a-half hours long, it still takes a painful amount of exposition to set up the world of Barsoom and its inhabitants, thereby leaving little room for character development and generating an unacceptable amount of questions that are ultimately left unanswered. Carter himself may not be a perfect character, but Taylor Kitsch transforms him into charismatic enough of a hero; Lynn Collins is a tough and utterly gorgeous damsel-in-distress; and Mark Strong, as always, is a sinister and decidedly cool villain…yet NONE of these characters receives adequate attention or development that would have helped explain or justify some of their decisions. And yet, despite the confusing and bloated plot, and the laughably bad dialogue coming from thoroughly un-engaging characters, there are still some even worse elements associated with John Carter.
When you consider the fact that filming for John Carter wrapped in July 2010, leaving plenty of time for post-production development, and that this is the source material that inspired the visually-stunning Avatar, and that $250 million was spent on many elements including presumably cutting-edge visual technology, expecting impressive special effects is really not that tall of an order. Unfortunately, nearly everyone questioned the quality of the graphics when the first trailers found their way online, and I hate to say it, but the green Thark warriors and giant Martian monsters look just as laughably fake on the big screen as they do in the commercials, a fact sure to leave many raising the question as to where exactly all the money from the production budget actually went. And forget forking over extra money for 3D or an IMAX 3D showing, because the technology is shamefully wasted, and not even adeptly applied to the scenes where it actually would have worked effectively. And bad characters, poor dialogue, and horrible graphics aside, there is still nothing overtly unique or memorable about John Carter, which largely rehashes sci-fi material that has been seen thousands of times before. The original book may have inspired Star Wars and countless other epics, but at least they didn’t wait over half a century to bring a story to a wider audience; talk about showing up to a race far too late.
Well, even seemingly acknowledging the dropped ball in terms of effective marketing, studio execs and analysts generously projected $50 million for an acceptable opening weekend…alarm bells had to go off when John Carter pulled in only $9.8 million on Friday. As the weekend drew to a close, the fact that John Carter only generated $30.6 million in its opening weekend, thereby failing to overtake second week holdover The Lorax is just embarrassing. I guess the silver-lining is that the film was able to draw a surprising $70.6 million overseas, which was probably enough to save somebody’s job over at Disney marketing, but there is no way that the long-haul take will be that impressive with The Hunger Games right around the corner. For me, the biggest takeaway that I got from John Carter is the fact that Lynn Collins’ role has generated some buzz that she might be the perfect actress to bring superheroine Wonder Woman to life on the big screen…I’ll be front of the lone for that one. Again, I would be lying if I said that I didn’t enjoy John Carter on at least some level, but I still don’t think I have the heart to advise you to sit through an overly long and decidedly disappointing movie.
Overall Recommendation: Low
Saturday, March 10, 2012
Dr. Seuss' The Lorax: Short and Sweet
Back when I first reviewed Despicable Me, I had commented on the ridiculously strong and prevalent marketing campaign designed to send interest for those little yellow Minions through the roof, and now Universal and Illumination Entertainment were teaming together again and using similar tactics to introduce audiences to The Lorax. Leading up to its release, if you didn’t recognize that little orange creature with the ridiculous mustache, you had to be living under a rock, because he was absolutely everywhere, whether he was judging contestants on The Voice or helping you order breakfast at IHOP. The box office usually experiences a boost in both revenue and quality as March rolls around, and given the talented voice cast and the reputation of the parent studio, hopes had to be high for The Lorax. I may have never read the original Dr. Seuss book, but that small technicality wasn’t going to stop me, because the same was true for Horton Hears a Who!, and I loved that animated translation. So, being a fan of Danny DeVito, Betty White, Ed Helms, and Taylor Swift, I couldn’t wait to see and review The Lorax, even though my spell-check was sure to go through a workout.
Clever, heartfelt, and filled with astounding imagination, The Lorax is an incredibly strong film that is sure to charm audiences of all ages. Beautiful animation is a given, but one of the most surprising accolades involves the catchy and creative musical angle of the film, with the characters often bursting into songs that are sure to be stuck in your head long after you leave the theater. In terms of the voice acting, Danny DeVito may have received top billing, and he does in fact do a strong job, but the true star is Ed Helms, who utilizes his unique personality to effectively portray his character at different and distinct stages of life. If I had to make one complaint, it is that the film’s environmental and anti-consumerism message comes off a little too strongly and both grows wearisome and darkens the mood, but then again, the original book did cause its fair share of controversy. Bottom line, kids will adore The Lorax, and for those older audience members, I guarantee you will enjoy the film more than you’re probably willing to admit.
Overall Recommendation: High
Clever, heartfelt, and filled with astounding imagination, The Lorax is an incredibly strong film that is sure to charm audiences of all ages. Beautiful animation is a given, but one of the most surprising accolades involves the catchy and creative musical angle of the film, with the characters often bursting into songs that are sure to be stuck in your head long after you leave the theater. In terms of the voice acting, Danny DeVito may have received top billing, and he does in fact do a strong job, but the true star is Ed Helms, who utilizes his unique personality to effectively portray his character at different and distinct stages of life. If I had to make one complaint, it is that the film’s environmental and anti-consumerism message comes off a little too strongly and both grows wearisome and darkens the mood, but then again, the original book did cause its fair share of controversy. Bottom line, kids will adore The Lorax, and for those older audience members, I guarantee you will enjoy the film more than you’re probably willing to admit.
Overall Recommendation: High
Dr. Seuss' The Lorax: Full Review
Dr. Seuss’ The Lorax - (March 2nd, 2012): PG
Distributor: Universal Pictures
Opening Weekend Box Office: #1 with $70,217,070
Domestic Box Office Gross to-date: $92,479,000
Gross Revenue: $92,842,916
Production Budget: $70 million
Director: Chris Renaud
Translating Dr. Seuss’ classic works to the big screen has worked surprisingly well in the past (though I think we would all choose to forget The Cat in the Hat), and when you think about the capabilities of modern animation, there is no real limit to the number of the author’s works that could be brought to the masses; The Lorax was simply the next on the list. Universal and Illumination Entertainment were swinging for the fences in terms of drawing a crowd, striking as many as 70 different product integration promotions to build buzz and raise awareness; though I saw the IHOP menu with broccoli labeled as “Truffula Trees” as nothing more than a dirty trick to get kids to eat vegetables. A definite source of interest was the return of Danny DeVito to big screen voice acting, a talent he really hasn’t displayed since he brought Phil to life back in Disney’s 1997 juggernaut, Hercules; who knows what he could accomplish as the titular guardian of the forest? In terms of attracting a diverse crowd, the other members of the voice cast appealed to a wide demographic, from Zac Efron and Taylor Swift drawing the teens to Betty White drawing absolutely everyone else. February was now over, and it looked like The Lorax would be setting the pace for the rest of the spring season; hopes were high, and by all appearances, it didn’t look like the unconventional children’s film would disappoint.
Set in the fictional town of Thneed-Ville, The Lorax focuses on 12-year-old Ted Wiggins (Zac Efron), a young romantic who desperately seeks to impress his older neighbor, Audrey (Taylor Swift). Thneed-Ville is completely artificial and run by a greedy businessman, Aloysius O’Hare (Rob Riggle), who sells bottled oxygen to residents; as such, Audrey’s biggest wish is to see a real tree, and Ted naturally sets out to accomplish the seemingly impossible task. Unsure of where to begin, Ted’s Grammy Norma (Betty White) suggests that Ted seek out the Once-ler (Ed Helms), a recluse outside of town who knows what happened to the trees. Over a series of visits, the Once-ler recounts his story of how, as a young man, he sought out a forest to harvest Truffula Trees in order to supply his revolutionary invention; he was in turn confronted by the Lorax (Danny DeVito), the mystical guardian of the forest. Ignoring warnings and greedily harvesting beyond a sustainable pace, the Once-ler completely destroys the forest and drives away all the native wildlife; realizing the consequences of his actions far too late, the Once-ler is horrified as the Lorax sadly departs. After the story is finished, both Ted and the Once-ler decide that something must be done to bring the Truffula Trees back, but it turns out that they face massive opposition, and a once-simple request transforms into a massive responsibility.
In its entirety, The Lorax is a surprisingly strong film, thanks largely to catchy music, beautiful animation, interesting characters, and clever writing that can appeal to both children and adults. Almost instantaneously, the residents of Thneed-Ville break into song, and even though the initial shock could be a little off-putting, you soon realize that the songs are surprisingly catchy, and peppered through the film just enough to be welcome and engaging. When it comes to Dr. Seuss, off-the-wall imagination is a given, and The Lorax took that precedent into overdrive with the creative script and gorgeous, animation, which you cannot help but enjoy. In terms of the characters, you will undoubtedly love the hysterical woodland creatures, from the singing fish to the playful bears, but the real charmer is the Once-ler himself, who is imbued with remarkable depth and trademark humor, all of which is enhanced through the wonderful voice acting of Ed Helms. While these accolades are lighthearted and humorous, The Lorax does take a pretty drastic shift in tone with its environmental message, something that is a little too prevalent and sure to alienate some moviegoers.
While there is nothing overtly wrong with The Lorax, critical reaction has been decidedly mixed, and that is largely due to the film’s underlying environmental message. As the guardian of the forest, the Lorax himself is understandably against any trees being harvested in the name of commerce, but the anti-consumerism and de-forestation message in this film is so strong that it is actually a little disappointing that a children’s film could get so political. Make no mistake, I’m all for protecting the environment, but the film demonizes consumerism and big business so strongly, placing such a strong emphasis on protecting nature, that I could see little children going home and freaking out if their parents step on a flower or forget to recycle. Another slightly disappointing element involves the underuse of some of the bigger names on the cast list…the Lorax may be the title character and the face of the marketing campaign, but the main focus is on Ed Helms, with Taylor Swift and Betty White only being granted a handful of lines. These small qualifications aside though, if you can look past some of the more mature implications, The Lorax remains a decidedly entertaining animated feature.
The sheer volume of product integration used to promote The Lorax may seem a little hypocritical in light of the film’s message, but the aggressive marketing clearly worked, with the children’s film exploding onto the scene and shattering studio projections. In its first weekend, The Lorax took in over $70 million, the second largest debut for an environmentalist film and the third-best debut for a March release…looks like kids decided to return to theaters with a vengeance. In light of such a strong debut, studio execs have to be thrilled that the Dr. Seuss animation has already recovered its hefty production budget, and many analysts believe that the film will also overtake new-release John Carter this weekend. When the Summer Movie Season hits, theaters will be overrun with strong animated offerings, from Madagascar 3 to Brave, but until then, Illumination Entertainment has effectively cornered the market on the youth demographic…cue strong and continuous revenue. Despite lukewarm critical reaction, I maintain that as long as you don’t see yourself getting offended by an environmental message, you will find yourself charmed and entertained by The Lorax.
Overall Recommendation: High
Distributor: Universal Pictures
Opening Weekend Box Office: #1 with $70,217,070
Domestic Box Office Gross to-date: $92,479,000
Gross Revenue: $92,842,916
Production Budget: $70 million
Director: Chris Renaud
Translating Dr. Seuss’ classic works to the big screen has worked surprisingly well in the past (though I think we would all choose to forget The Cat in the Hat), and when you think about the capabilities of modern animation, there is no real limit to the number of the author’s works that could be brought to the masses; The Lorax was simply the next on the list. Universal and Illumination Entertainment were swinging for the fences in terms of drawing a crowd, striking as many as 70 different product integration promotions to build buzz and raise awareness; though I saw the IHOP menu with broccoli labeled as “Truffula Trees” as nothing more than a dirty trick to get kids to eat vegetables. A definite source of interest was the return of Danny DeVito to big screen voice acting, a talent he really hasn’t displayed since he brought Phil to life back in Disney’s 1997 juggernaut, Hercules; who knows what he could accomplish as the titular guardian of the forest? In terms of attracting a diverse crowd, the other members of the voice cast appealed to a wide demographic, from Zac Efron and Taylor Swift drawing the teens to Betty White drawing absolutely everyone else. February was now over, and it looked like The Lorax would be setting the pace for the rest of the spring season; hopes were high, and by all appearances, it didn’t look like the unconventional children’s film would disappoint.
Set in the fictional town of Thneed-Ville, The Lorax focuses on 12-year-old Ted Wiggins (Zac Efron), a young romantic who desperately seeks to impress his older neighbor, Audrey (Taylor Swift). Thneed-Ville is completely artificial and run by a greedy businessman, Aloysius O’Hare (Rob Riggle), who sells bottled oxygen to residents; as such, Audrey’s biggest wish is to see a real tree, and Ted naturally sets out to accomplish the seemingly impossible task. Unsure of where to begin, Ted’s Grammy Norma (Betty White) suggests that Ted seek out the Once-ler (Ed Helms), a recluse outside of town who knows what happened to the trees. Over a series of visits, the Once-ler recounts his story of how, as a young man, he sought out a forest to harvest Truffula Trees in order to supply his revolutionary invention; he was in turn confronted by the Lorax (Danny DeVito), the mystical guardian of the forest. Ignoring warnings and greedily harvesting beyond a sustainable pace, the Once-ler completely destroys the forest and drives away all the native wildlife; realizing the consequences of his actions far too late, the Once-ler is horrified as the Lorax sadly departs. After the story is finished, both Ted and the Once-ler decide that something must be done to bring the Truffula Trees back, but it turns out that they face massive opposition, and a once-simple request transforms into a massive responsibility.
In its entirety, The Lorax is a surprisingly strong film, thanks largely to catchy music, beautiful animation, interesting characters, and clever writing that can appeal to both children and adults. Almost instantaneously, the residents of Thneed-Ville break into song, and even though the initial shock could be a little off-putting, you soon realize that the songs are surprisingly catchy, and peppered through the film just enough to be welcome and engaging. When it comes to Dr. Seuss, off-the-wall imagination is a given, and The Lorax took that precedent into overdrive with the creative script and gorgeous, animation, which you cannot help but enjoy. In terms of the characters, you will undoubtedly love the hysterical woodland creatures, from the singing fish to the playful bears, but the real charmer is the Once-ler himself, who is imbued with remarkable depth and trademark humor, all of which is enhanced through the wonderful voice acting of Ed Helms. While these accolades are lighthearted and humorous, The Lorax does take a pretty drastic shift in tone with its environmental message, something that is a little too prevalent and sure to alienate some moviegoers.
While there is nothing overtly wrong with The Lorax, critical reaction has been decidedly mixed, and that is largely due to the film’s underlying environmental message. As the guardian of the forest, the Lorax himself is understandably against any trees being harvested in the name of commerce, but the anti-consumerism and de-forestation message in this film is so strong that it is actually a little disappointing that a children’s film could get so political. Make no mistake, I’m all for protecting the environment, but the film demonizes consumerism and big business so strongly, placing such a strong emphasis on protecting nature, that I could see little children going home and freaking out if their parents step on a flower or forget to recycle. Another slightly disappointing element involves the underuse of some of the bigger names on the cast list…the Lorax may be the title character and the face of the marketing campaign, but the main focus is on Ed Helms, with Taylor Swift and Betty White only being granted a handful of lines. These small qualifications aside though, if you can look past some of the more mature implications, The Lorax remains a decidedly entertaining animated feature.
The sheer volume of product integration used to promote The Lorax may seem a little hypocritical in light of the film’s message, but the aggressive marketing clearly worked, with the children’s film exploding onto the scene and shattering studio projections. In its first weekend, The Lorax took in over $70 million, the second largest debut for an environmentalist film and the third-best debut for a March release…looks like kids decided to return to theaters with a vengeance. In light of such a strong debut, studio execs have to be thrilled that the Dr. Seuss animation has already recovered its hefty production budget, and many analysts believe that the film will also overtake new-release John Carter this weekend. When the Summer Movie Season hits, theaters will be overrun with strong animated offerings, from Madagascar 3 to Brave, but until then, Illumination Entertainment has effectively cornered the market on the youth demographic…cue strong and continuous revenue. Despite lukewarm critical reaction, I maintain that as long as you don’t see yourself getting offended by an environmental message, you will find yourself charmed and entertained by The Lorax.
Overall Recommendation: High
Wednesday, March 7, 2012
Project X: Short and Sweet
With its surprisingly strong debut last month, Chronicle proved that the found-footage format could entertain beyond the horror genre, so it wasn’t all that surprising when filmmakers decided to expand the shooting style to the comedy realm. High school parties are by no means a new setting in comedies, but very few films have the audacity to focus exclusively on the party itself, my personal favorite being 1998’s Can’t Hardly Wait. Enter Project X, the newest comedy featuring teens behaving badly that was the brainchild of the minds that brought audiences The Hangover and was being described as “Superbad on crack.” Needless to say, I am sure that the interests of countless members of the teen demographic were piqued, while the guerrilla-style marketing efforts that compiled test audience reactions through Twitter kept buzz going strong. Early critical reaction was surprisingly negative, but c’mon, a raunchy and wild teen party devolving into mayhem…laughs shouldn’t be too hard to come by, and really, how bad could it be?
Wow, awful in almost every way imaginable, Project X throws all logic and coherent story development out the window in favor of showcasing putrid behavior carried out by thoroughly unlikable and completely irredeemable characters. Don’t get me wrong, teens behaving badly is nothing new, but in each of those past examples, there were mitigating factors or personality quirks that allowed the audience to sympathize…in Project X, I actually prayed that the parents would return and kill their children. One character in particular, Costa, may be the single most vile human being in cinema; it takes him all of five seconds into the film to alienate any supporters, and he screws over his “friends” so completely that I’m surprised it isn’t illegal. In terms of the aftermath that follows the party, the script is not only unbelievable, it is downright insulting and surprisingly irresponsible. The sole redeeming factor is that the party did look like fun and there were plenty of attractive “teens” to provide eye candy, but those facts do not excuse the poor writing, forced humor, and shocking lack of heart or emotion that make Project X an early heavyweight contender for worst film of 2012, you know, at least until Adam Sandler returns to the big screen.
Overall Recommendation: Very Low
Wow, awful in almost every way imaginable, Project X throws all logic and coherent story development out the window in favor of showcasing putrid behavior carried out by thoroughly unlikable and completely irredeemable characters. Don’t get me wrong, teens behaving badly is nothing new, but in each of those past examples, there were mitigating factors or personality quirks that allowed the audience to sympathize…in Project X, I actually prayed that the parents would return and kill their children. One character in particular, Costa, may be the single most vile human being in cinema; it takes him all of five seconds into the film to alienate any supporters, and he screws over his “friends” so completely that I’m surprised it isn’t illegal. In terms of the aftermath that follows the party, the script is not only unbelievable, it is downright insulting and surprisingly irresponsible. The sole redeeming factor is that the party did look like fun and there were plenty of attractive “teens” to provide eye candy, but those facts do not excuse the poor writing, forced humor, and shocking lack of heart or emotion that make Project X an early heavyweight contender for worst film of 2012, you know, at least until Adam Sandler returns to the big screen.
Overall Recommendation: Very Low
Project X: Full Review
Project X - (March 2nd, 2012): R
Distributor: Warner Bros. Pictures
Opening Weekend Box Office: #2 with $21,051,363
Domestic Box Office Gross to-date: $25,405,734
Gross Revenue: $25,405,734
Production Budget: $12 million
Director: Nima Nourizadeh
Back in 2007, Superbad blazed onto the screen and set a new standard for raunchy humor and behavior on the part of teens; since then, no filmmaker has dared try and replicate that type of unconventional success. That is not to say that raunchy teen comedy is a one-hit wonder, but Warner Bros. and producer Todd Phillips (The Hangover) definitely tried to experiment with Project X, which would be taking unknown actors and the found-footage format to a heretofore unproven area, the high school comedy. Absolutely everyone has at least one high school house-party that they remember (and probably several that they would like to forget), so audience interest had to skyrocket when footage showed teens reveling in a party that seemed to defy all expectations. And in all honesty, my ticket was sold the second I saw that titles like The Hangover and Superbad were being associated with and described as “mild” in comparison to Project X…test audiences seemed to love the mayhem. Imagine my surprise when I learned that early critical reaction was overwhelmingly negative; either this comedy completely missed the mark, or some members of the older demographic simply couldn’t stomach watching teens throw all caution to the wind and engaging in the greatest party ever…there was only one way to find out.
Billed as “the party you’ve only dreamed about,” Project X introduces audiences to three high school friends, Thomas (Thomas Mann), Costa (Oliver Cooper), and J.B. (Jonathan Daniel Brown), all of whom are determined to throw a massive birthday party for Thomas that will skyrocket each of them to high school popularity. As his parents leave the family home in his care for the weekend, Thomas works with Costa and J.B. to spread word about the party throughout the school, hoping that word of mouth will be strong enough to convince the most popular girl, Alexis (Alexis Knapp), to attend. Having taken extra precautions to alert neighbors about the party in order to discourage noise complaints and to hire child security guards that might discourage unwelcome guests, Thomas is understandably disheartened when no one aside from Costa, J.B., and childhood friend Kirby (Kirby Bliss Blanton), shows up. Soon enough, hundreds of guests descend on the house, turning the party into a rousing success that no one expected…it is revealed that Costa posted Thomas’ address on Craigslist and advertised the party over the local radio station. Add-in a violent midget, a flamethrower-wielding drug dealer, and a garden gnome filled with Ecstasy, and the party quickly spirals out of control, causing the friends to both revel in the positive impact on their popularity and contemplate how they will ever repair the damage done to the house.
Even though Project X earned my lowest classification, I would be lying if I said that I didn’t enjoy at least part of the film, as there is a perverse enjoyment to be had in watching a wild party decline into utter chaos. As long as the party wasn’t at YOUR house, I think that a majority of moviegoers would agree that the evening’s events looked like a blast; and seriously, who hasn’t dreamed about throwing a party that turns you into a high school god and finally gets you the attention of gorgeous classmates (who apparently have no standards whatsoever)? In terms of the film’s characters, forget the three party hosts (who will be torn apart momentarily), the best partygoers are the two child security guards, whose sarcastic and violent antics are easily the funniest moments throughout the entire running time. But you have to ask yourself, is a few years of high school infamy worth virtually bankrupting your parents, destroying their house, gutting your college fund, and facing jail time for inciting a riot? Of course not, but Project X would irresponsibly have you believe that the trade-off is not only fair, but something to be encouraged…and that is a message that cannot be justified with the vile characters and complete disregard for logic that plague this “comedy.”
When you think about teen comedies like Can’t Hardly Wait, American Pie, or Superbad, the parties may have been epic, but you best remember the well-rounded characters, who may engage in some questionable behavior, but ultimately display enough heart to earn some redemption…such is not the case with Project X, whose vile characters neither deserve forgiveness nor do anything to earn redemption, yet somehow illogically come out on top. Thomas’ hesitancy to destroy his parents’ house evaporates almost instantaneously, turning him into an irresponsible and heartless ingrate, while J.B. can be described as little more than a pathetic leech, but the worst by far is Costa, who reinforces every negative teenage stereotype imaginable. In a grand-total of five seconds into the movie, Costa alienates ninety-percent of the moviegoers who would usually support a snarky sidekick; this kid is so disgustingly arrogant, crude, and shockingly unfunny that you are rocked by the impulse to take his party chalice and beat him into unconsciousness. Now, maybe Project X could have saved itself if all of the shockingly bad behavior was punished, but these kids illogically dodge any repercussion; there is no way in hell that I buy Thomas’ dad not killing his son because he is impressed that the kid he considered a “loser” was able to draw a crowd…yeah, that justifies him destroying your house and sinking your Mercedes. With absolutely no conscience, Project X took a daring concept and made no effort to elevate the project beyond mindless, unoriginal trash with surprisingly little humor…don’t waste your time or money.
As a raunchy teen comedy, Project X didn’t have a chance of overtaking the family appeal of The Lorax, but a $21 million debut certainly illustrates that audiences still responded to the idea of some wild laughs. And even though critics hated the film, audience polling still remains relatively high, so it is unlikely that word of mouth will bury Project X, which in my view is a bit of a disappointment. As the March box office starts to gain momentum after the notoriously slow winter months, this comedy will likely be able to draw continued revenue against diverse offerings like John Carter and The Hunger Games, but personally I think that 21 Jump Street would be a far better choice. Warner Bros. does not seem too worried, as a sequel has already green-lit, but I cannot image what anyone would have done to deserve seeing Costa onscreen again. Plain and simple, if you are looking forward to the wild party scenes and gratuitous nudity, I still think that you should wait and rent Project X, because it is just too horrible to justify paying money for a theater ticket.
Overall Recommendation: Very Low
Distributor: Warner Bros. Pictures
Opening Weekend Box Office: #2 with $21,051,363
Domestic Box Office Gross to-date: $25,405,734
Gross Revenue: $25,405,734
Production Budget: $12 million
Director: Nima Nourizadeh
Back in 2007, Superbad blazed onto the screen and set a new standard for raunchy humor and behavior on the part of teens; since then, no filmmaker has dared try and replicate that type of unconventional success. That is not to say that raunchy teen comedy is a one-hit wonder, but Warner Bros. and producer Todd Phillips (The Hangover) definitely tried to experiment with Project X, which would be taking unknown actors and the found-footage format to a heretofore unproven area, the high school comedy. Absolutely everyone has at least one high school house-party that they remember (and probably several that they would like to forget), so audience interest had to skyrocket when footage showed teens reveling in a party that seemed to defy all expectations. And in all honesty, my ticket was sold the second I saw that titles like The Hangover and Superbad were being associated with and described as “mild” in comparison to Project X…test audiences seemed to love the mayhem. Imagine my surprise when I learned that early critical reaction was overwhelmingly negative; either this comedy completely missed the mark, or some members of the older demographic simply couldn’t stomach watching teens throw all caution to the wind and engaging in the greatest party ever…there was only one way to find out.
Billed as “the party you’ve only dreamed about,” Project X introduces audiences to three high school friends, Thomas (Thomas Mann), Costa (Oliver Cooper), and J.B. (Jonathan Daniel Brown), all of whom are determined to throw a massive birthday party for Thomas that will skyrocket each of them to high school popularity. As his parents leave the family home in his care for the weekend, Thomas works with Costa and J.B. to spread word about the party throughout the school, hoping that word of mouth will be strong enough to convince the most popular girl, Alexis (Alexis Knapp), to attend. Having taken extra precautions to alert neighbors about the party in order to discourage noise complaints and to hire child security guards that might discourage unwelcome guests, Thomas is understandably disheartened when no one aside from Costa, J.B., and childhood friend Kirby (Kirby Bliss Blanton), shows up. Soon enough, hundreds of guests descend on the house, turning the party into a rousing success that no one expected…it is revealed that Costa posted Thomas’ address on Craigslist and advertised the party over the local radio station. Add-in a violent midget, a flamethrower-wielding drug dealer, and a garden gnome filled with Ecstasy, and the party quickly spirals out of control, causing the friends to both revel in the positive impact on their popularity and contemplate how they will ever repair the damage done to the house.
Even though Project X earned my lowest classification, I would be lying if I said that I didn’t enjoy at least part of the film, as there is a perverse enjoyment to be had in watching a wild party decline into utter chaos. As long as the party wasn’t at YOUR house, I think that a majority of moviegoers would agree that the evening’s events looked like a blast; and seriously, who hasn’t dreamed about throwing a party that turns you into a high school god and finally gets you the attention of gorgeous classmates (who apparently have no standards whatsoever)? In terms of the film’s characters, forget the three party hosts (who will be torn apart momentarily), the best partygoers are the two child security guards, whose sarcastic and violent antics are easily the funniest moments throughout the entire running time. But you have to ask yourself, is a few years of high school infamy worth virtually bankrupting your parents, destroying their house, gutting your college fund, and facing jail time for inciting a riot? Of course not, but Project X would irresponsibly have you believe that the trade-off is not only fair, but something to be encouraged…and that is a message that cannot be justified with the vile characters and complete disregard for logic that plague this “comedy.”
When you think about teen comedies like Can’t Hardly Wait, American Pie, or Superbad, the parties may have been epic, but you best remember the well-rounded characters, who may engage in some questionable behavior, but ultimately display enough heart to earn some redemption…such is not the case with Project X, whose vile characters neither deserve forgiveness nor do anything to earn redemption, yet somehow illogically come out on top. Thomas’ hesitancy to destroy his parents’ house evaporates almost instantaneously, turning him into an irresponsible and heartless ingrate, while J.B. can be described as little more than a pathetic leech, but the worst by far is Costa, who reinforces every negative teenage stereotype imaginable. In a grand-total of five seconds into the movie, Costa alienates ninety-percent of the moviegoers who would usually support a snarky sidekick; this kid is so disgustingly arrogant, crude, and shockingly unfunny that you are rocked by the impulse to take his party chalice and beat him into unconsciousness. Now, maybe Project X could have saved itself if all of the shockingly bad behavior was punished, but these kids illogically dodge any repercussion; there is no way in hell that I buy Thomas’ dad not killing his son because he is impressed that the kid he considered a “loser” was able to draw a crowd…yeah, that justifies him destroying your house and sinking your Mercedes. With absolutely no conscience, Project X took a daring concept and made no effort to elevate the project beyond mindless, unoriginal trash with surprisingly little humor…don’t waste your time or money.
As a raunchy teen comedy, Project X didn’t have a chance of overtaking the family appeal of The Lorax, but a $21 million debut certainly illustrates that audiences still responded to the idea of some wild laughs. And even though critics hated the film, audience polling still remains relatively high, so it is unlikely that word of mouth will bury Project X, which in my view is a bit of a disappointment. As the March box office starts to gain momentum after the notoriously slow winter months, this comedy will likely be able to draw continued revenue against diverse offerings like John Carter and The Hunger Games, but personally I think that 21 Jump Street would be a far better choice. Warner Bros. does not seem too worried, as a sequel has already green-lit, but I cannot image what anyone would have done to deserve seeing Costa onscreen again. Plain and simple, if you are looking forward to the wild party scenes and gratuitous nudity, I still think that you should wait and rent Project X, because it is just too horrible to justify paying money for a theater ticket.
Overall Recommendation: Very Low
Tuesday, March 6, 2012
Act of Valor: Short and Sweet
Regardless of what your politics may be relative to warfare, few can deny the bravery and sacrifice of the men and women who serve in the U.S. Military, so an undeniably high amount of interest was generated when the first trailers for Act of Valor hit. Military films are by no means something new, but what made Act of Valor so unique was the fact that it would focus on actual active-duty U.S. Navy SEALs and showcase cutting edge combat technology that really hasn’t been seen outside the video game realm. And speaking of video games, when you consider the fact that Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 grossed $400 million in the first 24 hours of release; Relativity Media certainly didn’t have to worry about an audience existing for their newest release. Using actual military personnel in place of actors, though creative, was certainly a double-edged sword; compelling and gripping performances might be a little hard to come by, but what was missing in terms of acting ability would certainly be compensated by an unrelenting realism. Early critical reviews were not kind, but in all honesty, I couldn’t have cared less, because I was still excited to see what amounted to a tribute for the American heroes who protect this country in the most badass way possible.
Offering an in-depth and realistic look at the inner-workings of a tightly-knit group of Navy SEALs, Act of Valor keeps audiences riveted with compelling action and a stream-lined narrative that presents a very real and harrowing threat. The realistic tone and look of the film is largely driven by the creative cinematography, which regularly makes use of over-the-shoulder and down-barrel shots, which accompany slow-motion sequences and chaotic camerawork to make you feel that you are right down in the mud alongside the SEAL team. With this type of cinematography, Act of Valor could definitely be retitled Call of Duty: Modern Warfare, The Movie, and at times this similarity feels a little overplayed, but it is still more than enough to make any fan of military video games feel giddy. The fact that each of the highlighted SEALs is not an actor is apparent, but where that might be a source of contention for others, to me it helps the film feel like one of the most intense documentaries ever made. It may not be perfect, but Act of Valor is a patriotic and respectful testament to the armed services that serves both to entertain and inform, and that fact makes this action film well-worth seeing.
Overall Recommendation: High
Offering an in-depth and realistic look at the inner-workings of a tightly-knit group of Navy SEALs, Act of Valor keeps audiences riveted with compelling action and a stream-lined narrative that presents a very real and harrowing threat. The realistic tone and look of the film is largely driven by the creative cinematography, which regularly makes use of over-the-shoulder and down-barrel shots, which accompany slow-motion sequences and chaotic camerawork to make you feel that you are right down in the mud alongside the SEAL team. With this type of cinematography, Act of Valor could definitely be retitled Call of Duty: Modern Warfare, The Movie, and at times this similarity feels a little overplayed, but it is still more than enough to make any fan of military video games feel giddy. The fact that each of the highlighted SEALs is not an actor is apparent, but where that might be a source of contention for others, to me it helps the film feel like one of the most intense documentaries ever made. It may not be perfect, but Act of Valor is a patriotic and respectful testament to the armed services that serves both to entertain and inform, and that fact makes this action film well-worth seeing.
Overall Recommendation: High
Act of Valor: Full Review
Act of Valor - (February 24, 2012): R
Distributor: Relativity Media
Opening Weekend Box Office: #1 with $24,476,632
Domestic Box Office Gross to-date: $46,140,965
Gross Revenue: $46,140,965
Production Budget: $12 million
Directors: Mike McCoy and Scott Waugh
Time and again, I have commented on how Relativity Media seems to go out of their way to tackle unique and thoroughly unconventional projects, and on paper, paying for a military-themed blockbuster with an unknown cast certainly had to generate some skepticism. Fortunately, that uncertainty was pushed aside when it was revealed that the “unknowns’” were going to be active-duty Navy SEALs and Special Warfare Combatant Crewman…the kind of men that need absolutely no acting to come-off as complete badasses. It looked like every member of the male demographic who had ever picked up a military-themed shooter video game would sprint to theaters, and marketing strategy certainly took advantage of that fact, airing the trailer on the official website of Battlefield 3 and during ESPN’s coverage of the Carrier Classic basketball game. Of course, there were the undeniable skeptics out there, who saw Act of Valor as nothing more than a pro-military, war-mongering showcase that couldn’t possibly offer any emotional depth without using real actors. I for one chose to ignore the possibility of a political agenda and to just sit-back and enjoy an elite grouping of heroes using cutting-edge military weaponry to bring justice to some terrorists.
Act of Valor opens with a mysterious terrorist setting off a bomb at a school for the children of dignitaries in The Philippines, killing many children and the American ambassador. Concurrently, C.I. A. agent Morales (Roselyn Sánchez) is kidnapped from her safe house in South America during an intelligence operation focusing on the identification of drug smugglers. An elite group of Navy SEALs is deployed to rescue Morales and uncover the information that got her attacked in the first place. It is revealed that Morales uncovered a plot where the previously unnamed terrorist, Christo (Alex Veadov), will be smuggled into the United States alongside a group of radicals, planning to detonate virtually undetectable suicide bombs in a coordinated attack against several major cities. Upon learning that Christo will attempt to make his entrance on the Mexico-California border, the team of SEALs coordinates to prevent an attack that will crush the economy and kill countless innocents, making September 11th look like a rehearsal by comparison. Equipped with cutting-edge weaponry and an unflagging sense of brotherhood and patriotism, this group of American heroes resolves to save their country, to protect each other, and to return safely to their families.
Make no mistake; Act of Valor is first and foremost an action film for the male demographic, offering the type of brutal action, sleek weaponry and tactics, and unrelenting bullet storms and explosions that are sure to send testosterone into overdrive. Watching a group of SEAL’s execute a coordinated nighttime skydive, silently take out guards from a distance with the help of a crack-shot sniper, or lower battle-ready assault ships into a swamp using Blackhawk helicopters, all with the intent of kicking the crap out of terrorists, is just…cool. The cinematography is brilliant and helps the film look like a live-action video game; the down-the-barrel point-of-view adds to the tension and excitement of the narrative, helping the cinematic experience feel far more real than other military film dramas…don’t be surprised if you flinch during a grenade explosion. In terms of characters and story, the real stars of Act of Valor are the villains, with the fanatic terrorists providing a very-real threat that hits a little too close to home; pray it isn’t that easy to get that close to unleashing doomsday. Add-in the energetic soundtrack, and this action film keeps energy levels consistently high, a fact that does help to distract from some of the weaker elements.
Unfortunately, with such a strong focus on military action, Act of Valor sacrifices character development and relies a little too heavily on its creative cinematography. The aforementioned SEALs are obviously not actors, so in-depth emotive presentation is a tall order, but for the most part, that is okay; speaking with the distinctive military dialect and confidence, you have no problem identifying these men as REAL military, making the experience all the more legitimate. Still, there is simply not enough character development to help you distinguish the members of the SEAL team, making it difficult to not only connect with the men onscreen, but also fully distinguish who exactly encounters what narrative element. My single biggest gripe is that, at times, the film feels a little too much like a video game, with some of the camera angles and shooting styles being painfully overused…even the most creative ideas can get tiresome after a while. Other than that, perhaps the film does lay-on the pro-military agenda a little thick, and I would have appreciated a little more focus on the emotional impact of war, but such an oversight is easily forgivable.
As I mentioned in the “Short and Sweet” review, the popularity of the Call of Duty video game series seemed to guarantee a strong audience for Act of Valor, and opening weekend numbers seemed to reinforce that fact. Hauling in just under $25 million, the military action film handily defeated other openers like Tyler Perry’s Good Deeds and the two blatant under-performers Wanderlust and Gone. At the very least, Relativity Media has to be thrilled that the unconventional military adventure has already nearly quadrupled its modest production budget of $12 million. Critical reaction has been decidedly low, but I maintain that such a ranking is decidedly unfair, as filmmakers could have delivered far worse given the decision to forgo professional actors. Plain and simple, if you are in any way a fan of video games, a military enthusiast, or are simply in a patriotic mood, you need to see Act of Valor.
Overall Recommendation: High
Distributor: Relativity Media
Opening Weekend Box Office: #1 with $24,476,632
Domestic Box Office Gross to-date: $46,140,965
Gross Revenue: $46,140,965
Production Budget: $12 million
Directors: Mike McCoy and Scott Waugh
Time and again, I have commented on how Relativity Media seems to go out of their way to tackle unique and thoroughly unconventional projects, and on paper, paying for a military-themed blockbuster with an unknown cast certainly had to generate some skepticism. Fortunately, that uncertainty was pushed aside when it was revealed that the “unknowns’” were going to be active-duty Navy SEALs and Special Warfare Combatant Crewman…the kind of men that need absolutely no acting to come-off as complete badasses. It looked like every member of the male demographic who had ever picked up a military-themed shooter video game would sprint to theaters, and marketing strategy certainly took advantage of that fact, airing the trailer on the official website of Battlefield 3 and during ESPN’s coverage of the Carrier Classic basketball game. Of course, there were the undeniable skeptics out there, who saw Act of Valor as nothing more than a pro-military, war-mongering showcase that couldn’t possibly offer any emotional depth without using real actors. I for one chose to ignore the possibility of a political agenda and to just sit-back and enjoy an elite grouping of heroes using cutting-edge military weaponry to bring justice to some terrorists.
Act of Valor opens with a mysterious terrorist setting off a bomb at a school for the children of dignitaries in The Philippines, killing many children and the American ambassador. Concurrently, C.I. A. agent Morales (Roselyn Sánchez) is kidnapped from her safe house in South America during an intelligence operation focusing on the identification of drug smugglers. An elite group of Navy SEALs is deployed to rescue Morales and uncover the information that got her attacked in the first place. It is revealed that Morales uncovered a plot where the previously unnamed terrorist, Christo (Alex Veadov), will be smuggled into the United States alongside a group of radicals, planning to detonate virtually undetectable suicide bombs in a coordinated attack against several major cities. Upon learning that Christo will attempt to make his entrance on the Mexico-California border, the team of SEALs coordinates to prevent an attack that will crush the economy and kill countless innocents, making September 11th look like a rehearsal by comparison. Equipped with cutting-edge weaponry and an unflagging sense of brotherhood and patriotism, this group of American heroes resolves to save their country, to protect each other, and to return safely to their families.
Make no mistake; Act of Valor is first and foremost an action film for the male demographic, offering the type of brutal action, sleek weaponry and tactics, and unrelenting bullet storms and explosions that are sure to send testosterone into overdrive. Watching a group of SEAL’s execute a coordinated nighttime skydive, silently take out guards from a distance with the help of a crack-shot sniper, or lower battle-ready assault ships into a swamp using Blackhawk helicopters, all with the intent of kicking the crap out of terrorists, is just…cool. The cinematography is brilliant and helps the film look like a live-action video game; the down-the-barrel point-of-view adds to the tension and excitement of the narrative, helping the cinematic experience feel far more real than other military film dramas…don’t be surprised if you flinch during a grenade explosion. In terms of characters and story, the real stars of Act of Valor are the villains, with the fanatic terrorists providing a very-real threat that hits a little too close to home; pray it isn’t that easy to get that close to unleashing doomsday. Add-in the energetic soundtrack, and this action film keeps energy levels consistently high, a fact that does help to distract from some of the weaker elements.
Unfortunately, with such a strong focus on military action, Act of Valor sacrifices character development and relies a little too heavily on its creative cinematography. The aforementioned SEALs are obviously not actors, so in-depth emotive presentation is a tall order, but for the most part, that is okay; speaking with the distinctive military dialect and confidence, you have no problem identifying these men as REAL military, making the experience all the more legitimate. Still, there is simply not enough character development to help you distinguish the members of the SEAL team, making it difficult to not only connect with the men onscreen, but also fully distinguish who exactly encounters what narrative element. My single biggest gripe is that, at times, the film feels a little too much like a video game, with some of the camera angles and shooting styles being painfully overused…even the most creative ideas can get tiresome after a while. Other than that, perhaps the film does lay-on the pro-military agenda a little thick, and I would have appreciated a little more focus on the emotional impact of war, but such an oversight is easily forgivable.
As I mentioned in the “Short and Sweet” review, the popularity of the Call of Duty video game series seemed to guarantee a strong audience for Act of Valor, and opening weekend numbers seemed to reinforce that fact. Hauling in just under $25 million, the military action film handily defeated other openers like Tyler Perry’s Good Deeds and the two blatant under-performers Wanderlust and Gone. At the very least, Relativity Media has to be thrilled that the unconventional military adventure has already nearly quadrupled its modest production budget of $12 million. Critical reaction has been decidedly low, but I maintain that such a ranking is decidedly unfair, as filmmakers could have delivered far worse given the decision to forgo professional actors. Plain and simple, if you are in any way a fan of video games, a military enthusiast, or are simply in a patriotic mood, you need to see Act of Valor.
Overall Recommendation: High
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)