Insomnia (2002) Review

INSOMNIA (2002)
Director: Christopher Nolan

Writer: Hillary Seitz (based off screenplay from original Swedish version)

Producers: George Clooney, Steven Soderbergh, Kim Roth, Charles Schlissel, and Tony Thomas

Editor: Dody Dorn

Cinematography: Wally Pfister

Music: David Julyan

Starring: Al Pacino, Hilary Swank, and Robin Williams

Runtime: 1 hour 58 minutes

Rating: R (violence, language, brief nudity)

Genre: Crime, Mystery/Suspense, Film Noir

Release Date: May 24, 2002

Intro: On the downside, I have been sick this last week. On the upside, I've had the chance to watch some movies I wouldn't normally have time to watch. Insomnia was one of these (the reviews of the others to come within the next month or so). It's one I've wanted to see for a while because I like Christopher Nolan and I am a film noir fan. According to stuff I'd read, this was both. Insomnia is a good, enjoyable movie and a complex psychological thriller, but it isn't up to the standards Christopher Nolan has set for himself through movies like Memento, The Dark Knight, and Inception.

Plot: Two L.A. homicide detectives, Will Dormer (Pacino) and his partner (Martin Donavon), are sent to a small Alaskan town during the time of year where the sun doesn't set to investigate the savage murder of a teenage girl. While tracing the suspect (Williams), Dormer's partner is shot and killed, presumably by the suspect of the murder. As a local detective who idolizes Dormer (Swank) is put on the case of the murder of his partner, Dormer begins to find out more information about his case and that of the one he's following. As the two cases become increasingly intertwined and the murder suspect seems all too nice and compliant with Dormer and the police, the more and more the morality of the situation becomes twisted.

Things people may find “objectionable”: The main thing here would be language, as f-bombs are dropped here and there throughout the movie. There is also a brief nudity shot or two when the detectives are looking at pictures of the victim. These couple shots are brief and not in a sexual scenario and are not an integral part of the movie and they're over in the first 10 minutes, so they are very easy to skip. And of course, there's some shooting and blood here and there, but there isn't a lot of either. Just in a couple scenes.

Ratings: I've decided I'm done with the numerical ratings system. I'm going to try this new system of just addressing things by category instead of ranking them. I think the numerical rating system was too  arbitrary and wasn't a good representation of how well I liked the movie. Anyway, let's try this.

     -Directing/Cinematography: Good, but Nolan has done better. There was some interesting lighting, but nothing striking and nothing that really stuck out. I'm not saying this is bad, but it wasn't as good as it could have been. I think Nolan really becomes great as a director more through his vision than through the shots and lighting he uses. However, for the movie he was given much less free reign than his other projects, as he was remaking a Swedish film, so I think this is why Insomnia isn't up to par with some of Nolan's other projects.

     -Acting: As always, a great performance from Al Pacino. I don't think it's possible for the man to give a bad performance. Robin Williams, though he'll forever be a comedy man in my mind, actually does a pretty good job as the murder suspect. It's kind of hard to accept this at first, since the character of Finch is completely opposite from his comedy work. Hilary Swank also does a good job. This is definitely a strong point of the movie

     -Story: An interesting story and a great base for a psychological thriller. I would definitely like to see the Swedish version at some point to see what the original story is like. It's one of those nice stories where there are no good guys, but at the same time there are no bad guys. It's a very interesting relationship that is explored a lot in the movie.

     -Script: Pretty good script. It wasn't earth-shattering, but it worked. 

For lack of a better picture, here's the cool
Swedish poster for the movie. I haven't
a clue with the birds, C's, wrenches,
watchtowers, and die mean, though.

     -Characters: One thing this movie does well is present good, complex characters. The character of Will Dormer is very complex and a good portion of the movie focuses on the psychology of the character. Finch, the murder suspect, is another interesting character, and his motivation and reasoning are very interesting parts of the movie.

     -Special Effects: None to speak of, but then again, not really needed.

     -Music/Score: Ok score. It works, but I didn't think it was anything special and/or powerful.

     -Power/Emotion: Makes you feel psychologically more than anything else. I found myself caring more about the characters' motivations than the characters themselves. However, you do feel bad for Dormer with his inability to sleep and his trying to wrestle with his increasingly complicated situation.

     -Adrenaline: More of a slow, tense adrenaline than anything else. There are a couple intense fight/chase scenes, but most of the engagement comes from the slow, atmospheric and psychological tension.

     -Intelligence: Makes you think a lot, especially psychologically. The movie is driven by the psychologies of the characters, and what really makes you think are the motivations and the thoughts of all the characters and the justifications behind all their actions. The psychological aspect is one thing I love about Christopher Nolan movies, and this one is no exception.

     -Humor: This is one thing that always bugs me a bit about Christopher Nolan. In all of his movies I've seen (which is all but his first film and The Prestige), there is hardly any humor at all, as he prefers a deadly serious tone. I mean, he usually gets along fine without humor, but I think his movies could benefit from the occasional comic relief or witty line.

     -Best Credit: Chris Guthior as "Uninformed Officer."

     -Final Score: Don't get me wrong, Insomnia is a good movie. It succeeds mostly due to its interesting psychological plot, gray-area morality, and good acting. Having said that, this still does not rank among Christopher Nolan's best. If you're a fan of film noir, cop films, Al Pacino, or psychological thrillers, I recommend seeing Insomnia. However, if you're looking for a classic Christopher Nolan movie, check out Memento, The Dark Knight, and Inception instead. So in other words, unless you're looking for why Christopher Nolan is famous, I recommend Insomnia.

Enjoying my reviews? Like my Facebook page.

Moon (2009) Review

MOON (2009)
Director: Duncan Jones

Writers: Duncan Jones and Nathan Parker

Producers: Trevor Beattie, Bil Bungay, Michael Henry, and Bill Zysblat

Editor: Nicholas Gaster

Cinematography: Gary Shaw

Music: Clint Mansell

Starring: Sam Rockwell and Kevin Spacey

Runtime: 1 hour 37 minutes

Rating: R (Language)

Genre: Sci-Fi, Drama

Release Date: June 12, 2009 (US theater release)

Before Watching the Movie: The less you know going in, the better. This really should be your ground rule for watching sci-fi mind-benders like Moon. These types of movies are always best going in blind.

Intro: I buy a lot of DVDs I never get around to watching. Any time I see a good deal on Amazon or at a store or something on a movie I've heard good things about, I more than often buy it, which leads to an ever-growing stack of movies I own but haven't watched. This is how I picked up a copy of Moon. I remember hearing good things about it when it came out via Rotten Tomatoes, but I didn't know much about it, but this was enough to drop $4 on a copy at a used DVD store in Ohio. Anyway, I had some time yesterday and was looking for a short-ish movie to watch, so I decided to watch Moon and cross one title off my list. It turns out this was a good idea. Moon is a great sci-fi mind-bender with good special effects, a good one-man performance, and a storyline that intrigues and does what every science fiction plot should do--ask questions.

Plot: In the future, scientists have found an eco-friendly solution to the energy problem in mining Helium 3 from the dark side of the moon. The Lunar Corporation has sent Sam Bell to the moon on a 3-year contract to run the mining station, which sends the deposits to earth. Sam is all alone in space except for the station's computer named GERTIE. At the end of his 3-year contract, strange things begin to happen in the station and things soon become not what they seem.

Things people may find “objectionable”: There are some scattered uses of the f-word and a couple gruesome blood shots that are intense. Otherwise, there's no violence or nudity.

Ratings:

     -Directing/Cinematography: 9/10. The directing was very good and the shots and lighting were all very interesting. It is especially good since this was Duncan Jones' directorial debut (his only other movie to date is Source Code). The other thing that impressed me about the directing, as well as the whole production, is how cheaply the movie was made. The budget was a mere $5,000,000 compared to the $220,000,000 The Avengers had, and yet they managed to make the movie much deeper and more psychological than The Avengers.  
     -Acting: 9/10. This is as close to a one-man performance as you're going to find in a movie, and Sam Rockwell does a good job with the role. I.... God, it's really tough to critique a movie while trying not to reveal spoilers. I would elaborate more, but I really can't without revealing spoilers.
     -Writing: 23/30.

          -Story: 10/10. I loved the story, and it's what carries the movie. It's really hard to have a good science fiction film without a good story. I guess my love of science fiction is where I get my appreciation for a good story.

A really cool alternate poster. I almost
like this one better than the one they used.

          -Script: 8/10. Pretty good script that worked pretty well with the movie. While it's not an earth-shatteringly good script (like the one from Social Network for example), it works nicely and had a few good and thought-provoking lines. The line that hit me was one of the last ones that was really thought-provoking, but I'm not going to post it because it'll ruin a plot twist.

          -Characters: 5/10. The movie is more of a thinking movie to me than it is a feeling movie. While you can feel for Sam, the turn of events that takes place puts the emphasis on psychological questions and less on the character of Sam. I do not mind this choice, honestly, but some people might. I've always been more of a story person anyway.

     -Special Effects: 9/10. For an indie film, the special effects are surprisingly good. In reading up on the trivia, this is because there was a lull in moviemaking during the production during the Writer's strike, so Jones was able to get good special effects people who were looking for work.

     -Music/Score: 8/10. Though it wasn't omnipresent, the score helped ratchet up the tension every time it was used. If nothing else, it was used very effectively.

     -Power/Emotion: 7/10. The movie was more powerful in the questions it asks than the characters it develops. While you do care for Sam, the emphasis is on psychology and asking deep, powerful questions.
     -Adrenaline: 6/10. I wouldn't say Moon is a thriller of any kind, but it had enough interesting concepts and plot twists to keep you thoroughly engaged. The relationship between Sam, GERTIE, and Lunar Industries created a lot of tension as well (no spoilers here!).

     -Intelligence: 10/10. I love movies that make me think and I love a good sci-fi mind bender, and this satisfied both my loves. It starts out with an interesting concept and the story gets weirder and more mind-bending the more it unravels. It makes you think and leaves you with a lot of questions, which is exactly what a good science fiction film should do.

     -Humor: 0/10. None, really. This didn't add or take away from the movie, it just wasn't there.   

     -Final Score: Moon is my favorite kind of movie---the kind that makes me think. You've probably never heard of it until reading this review, but if you can get your hands on a copy, I highly recommend it, especially if you love mind-bending sci-fi.

Liking my reviews? Like my Facebook Page.

Django Unchained (2012) Review

DJANGO UNCHAINED (2012)

Director: Quentin Tarantino

Writer: Quentin Tarantino

Producers: Shannon McIntosh, Michael Shamberg, James Skotchdopole, Bob Weinstein, and Harvey Weinstein

Editor: Fred Raskin

Cinematography: Robert Richardson

Music: Various artists

Starring: Jamie Foxx, Christoph Waltz, Leonardo DiCaprio, Kerry Washington, and Samuel L. Jackson

Runtime: 2 hours 45 minutes

Rating: R (violence, language, some nudity)

Genre: Western, Action, Drama

Release Date: December 25, 2012

Before Watching the Movie: Watch this trailer for the blaxploitation/grindhouse flick from the 70s called Boss N*****. Tarantino has explicitly stated that this is one of the movies he based Django Unchained on, and there are some obvious similarities.

Intro: I have never seen a Tarantino movie before, but I have heard a lot about them. I have also heard how violent they are. I first heard about this movie when I looked on IMDb to see what Leonardo DiCaprio was doing next (I am a fan of his). I was intrigued. Then when it came out and it started getting rave reviews, I decided to go see it with a friend. Django Unchained, as I guess is expected from Tarantino, is incredibly and over-the-top violent, but very well done otherwise with stylized directing, great acting, good writing, great music, and lots of intense action.

Plot: A former dentist turned bounty hunter named Dr. King Schultz (Waltz) finds a couple of slave owners looking for a slave named Django (Foxx), hoping he can help him find his previous owners, who Schultz is hunting. Schultz teaches Django to be a successful bounty hunter. After a while, the two get caught up in finding and freeing Django's wife named Broomhilda (Washington), who was sold off at the same time Django was. The search leads them to a Mississippi plantation called Candieland owned by the ruthless Calvin Candie (DiCaprio). Django and Schultz must try and free Broomhilda and escape Candieland unscathed.

Things people may find “objectionable”: Be warned before watching the movie that it is incredibly violent. If you are at all uncomfortable with blood, violence, and people being shot, this is not the movie for you. Aside from that, there is a ton of swearing, a lot of which is racial (it's period-accurate though) and there are a couple quick nudity shots (not in a sexual context), but the main thing is the massive and over-the-top amount of violence.

Ratings:

     -Directing/Cinematography: 10/10. This is the first Quentin Tarantino movie I have seen and I now know why people like him so much as a director (and a writer). The directing is really good and it's full of interesting shots. I definitely want to see more of his movies now.

     -Acting: 10/10. The acting was fantastic. Everyone was great in their respective roles. Jamie Foxx was great as Django and I'm guessing he'll probably be nominated for Best Actor (but won't win because of Daniel Day Lewis in Lincoln). Leonardo DiCaprio also plays a great evil character. I've always seen him as a protagonist, but he is just so evil as Calvin Candie in the movie. Samuel L. Jackson is also great as always.

     -Writing: 9.5/10.

          -Story: 9/10. Very good story. It was both original and interesting, though it did not have any plot twists. My only complaint is that I think it went on a bit too long. The ending was good and satisfying, but I saw several different and earlier points at which I thought it could've ended.

          -Script: 10/10. Tarantino can write! I have a feeling this is a strength for him considering how quoted his other movies seem to be. I liked the script a lot, in a nutshell.

     -Special Effects: 9/10. Not a huge part of the movie, aside from all the gunshots and blood and stuff from that, but what there was of it was good. 

One of the main movies Django Unchained was based
on, just with a more appropriate Spanish title. See the
trailer link up in the "Before the Movie" section.

     -Music/Score: 10/10. I loved the musical  choices. Tarantino picked great songs to accompany the movie and in some cases it helps ratchet up the tension.

     -Power/Emotion: 8/10. The most powerful emotion the movie evokes is the horrors of slavery. It shows the ugly side of racism and slavery and makes the audience feel bad for anyone in that situation. As for the characters, more of the feeling comes out in the adrenaline than it does for care for the characters. There are no real heroes in the movie. While Schultz and Django are technically "good guys," they are anti-heroes, and this makes them harder to feel compassionate for than other characters, though you do feel bad for Django, since his life has been torn apart by slavery and racism and you can understand his hatred of white men.

     -Adrenaline: 10/10. The movie gets extremely intense at times, especially in the last 45 minutes or so. Though the most intense parts are supposed to be the action scenes, I think the tension is highest in the talking scenes in Candieland.

     -Intelligence: 6/10. You could probably understand and get as much out of this movie if you were an MIT phd grad or a high school dropout. This isn't a bad thing, it just isn't that much of a thinking man's movie. It seemed to be relatively historically-accurate, though I really wasn't paying attention to that stuff. As long as you understand how horrible slavery was and the kinds of things that happened to slaves, you should be able to fully comprehend the movie.

     -Humor: 6/10. Though a lot of the movie is serious and intense, there are some truly hilarious moments. The scene with the KKK meeting killed me. It's absolutely hilarious. Aside from that, there are several witty lines throughout the movie.

     -Best Credit: Amber Tamblyn as "Daughter of a Son of a Gunfighter"

     -Final Score: Though on the surface, Django Unchained may just look like 2 and a half hours of senseless violence, the movie is extremely well-made and enjoyable if you don't mind blood and people being shot (I'd be willing to bet the body count is higher than Macbeth and Hamlet combined). I'd recommend Django Unchained to anyone who is a fan of Tarantino, who likes grindhouse or blaxploitation flicks from the 70s or someone who wants to see a very well-made movie and doesn't mind blood and violence.

Enjoying my reviews? Like my Facebook page.

2012 (2009) Review in Light of the Events (or lack thereof) of December 21, 2012

2012 (2009)
Director: Roland Emmerich

Writers: Roland Emmerich and Harald Kloser

Producers: Michael Wimer, Roland and Ute Emmerich, Larry Franco, Mark Gordon, and Harald Kloser

Editors: David Brenner and Peter S. Elliot

Cinematography: Dean Seamer

Music: Harald Kloser and Thomas Wanker

Starring: John Cusack, Amanda Peet, Chiwetel Ejiofor, Thomas McCarthy, Oliver Platt, Liam Hames, and Zlatko Buric

Runtime: 2 hours 37 minutes

Rating: PG-13 (intense disaster, language)

Genre: Action/Adventure, Drama, Comedy (after yesterday)

Release Date: November 13, 2009

Before Watching the Movie: Keep in mind that all the Mayan prophecy crap you've been hearing and everything the movie is based off never happened. December 21, 2012 passed as any other day would, and if you keep this in mind, the movie will get funnier due to its absurdity.

Things people may find “objectionable”: There are some intense destruction and death scenes and a few minor swear words, but otherwise there isn't anything.

Intro: "It's the end of the world as we know it. And I feel fine." -R.E.M. For a couple years, mainly the last few, people, as you probably know, have been kinda freaking out because supposedly the Mayan calendar ended on December 21, 2012. Well, folks, it's December 22, 2012, and I think it's safe to say we all survived. But when people were actually making a kind of big deal about the whole apocalypse thing, ironically back in 2008 and 2009, 2012 was released. Being a fan of the cheesy over-the-topness of director Roland Emmerich's other films such as Independence Day, The Day After Tomorrow, and 10,000 BC, I decided to see it in theaters when it came out (so technically, I'm breaking my personal rule of only reviewing movies I've seen for the first time). It was kind of like Emmerich's other movies in that it was over the top and unrealistic, but had good effects. Then, yesterday, on December 21s. t, I decided to rent the movie from the library and watch it with some friends, keeping in mind that everything occurring in the movie was supposed to be happening as we watched it. It was about as I remembered. The effects were great, but the writing was stupid, the scientific concepts were absurd, and the movie was way too serious and overlong.

Plot: It turns out the Mayans were right (at least in the movie's world). The world is ending in 2012. Scientists predicted it 3 years before the catastrophe and now everything's going to hell. A writer named Jackson (Cusack) on vacation stumbles across a conspiracy that the world is going to end. As mysterious events happen across the globe, baffling scientists like the U.S. science advisor, Adrian Hemsley (Ejiofor). Jackson must go and save his ex-wife (Peet), her husband (McCarthy), and his untrusting kids from certain death on doomsday.

Ratings:

     -Directing/Cinematography: 5/10. Roland Emmerich actually does know how to direct. The cinematography was good, it was just his decisions that turned the movie to crap. By decisions, I mean to make the damn thing 2 1/2 hours long, make it super serious, and use about every freaking cliché in the book. It's these directing decisions and not the cinematography and the visuals that earn him the low grade on this category.

     -Acting: 4/10. Waaaaaaaaayyyy overacted. By everyone. I think this is mostly the fault of the director, but it got so overacted and over-serious at times, it became incredibly hard to take the movie seriously. A couple of my friends and I broke out laughing during some ultra-serious scenes just because of how over-the-top and overacted it was. Also, the Russian guy, played by Zlatko Buric, had such a heavy accent that I thought he sounded a lot like Jabba the Hutt.

     -Writing: 3/10.

          -Story: 4/10. "Daddy, how do you spell unrealistic?" "T-w-e-n-t-y -T-w-e-l-v-e, dear." Yes, it was that bad. As with other Roland Emmerich films (mainly The Day After Tomorrow and 10,000 BC), it is possible to compare 2012 to the Republican Party in that neither care too much for facts (Sorry, conservative readers. Please still read my blog!). The movie was loaded with absurd scientific inaccuracies and impossibilities. The plot was also very predictable too. It was very easy to tell who was going to live or die and what chain of events was going to take place. The only reason this gets a 4 is because of the pretty good usage of the intertwining stories. While the stories that might intertwine are stupidly written, at least they connect well. There were only one or two concepts in the movie that were actually kind of cool. The rest were lame and unrealistic.

          -Script: 2/10. Oh dear God, where to start. The script was extraordinarily cheesy and included the classic disaster line of someone dramatically saying "my god." Keeping in mind I took an AP Physics final just 4 days before, there was one line in particular that stuck out in a bad way. Two characters are talking about a mine shaft and how it is becoming unbearably hot due to the Earth's climate change. One character reports, "Temperatures are rising at an incredible velocity!" Temperatures are not objects, and therefore have no velocity because they cannot move. Their rate can rise incredibly, but their velocity. Anyway, my friends, 4 of which have braved or are braving AP Physics had a lot of fun laughing at that.                                                               

                                                                                                          ^ Some good end of the world-themed music to listen to while 

                                                                                                                                                   reading this review.

     -Special Effects: 10/10. If there was a bright spot in the movie, this was definitely it. The effects and visuals as a whole were very good. The movie looked great. It was just everything else that killed it.

     -Music/Score: 8/10. Pretty good score, but not Oscar-worthy. It wasn't incredible, but it worked nicely.

     -Power/Emotion: 3/10. There wasn't a ton of emotional attachment to any of the characters in the movie. In fact, in one scene, a character dies heroically and like 2 minutes later no one in the movie or the audience really cares about him. The only emotion produced by the movie is due to seeing the world destroyed and people trying to survive. Even so, you know everything is going to be ok because of the cheesiness and predictability of the plot.

     -Adrenaline: 7/10. Despite my panning of the movie in other areas, I must admit that Roland Emmerich does know how to make an exciting movie, even if the movie's writing, acting, and historical/scientific accuracies are not great.

     -Intelligence: 1/10. The movie is really pretty stupid. Though they thrown scientific jargon at you every once in a while, it is pretty easy to understand and is most likely scientifically inaccurate anyway.

     -Stupidity: 10/10. The movie seems extremely stupid, even comedic, after the events (or lack thereof) of yesterday. Even so, the movie was stupid to begin with. I mean, the crust shrinking? Massive floods covering the whole country of India and going over Himalayan peaks? Come on, was this ever going to be remotely realistic whatsoever? It only looks more stupid now that we've all survived the supposed apocalypse.

     -Humor: Intentional: 1/10. Unintentional: 5/10. Parts of the movie, especially the lines and the science, got laughably bad. Also, it was fun laughing at it because the events of the movie were supposed to be happening while we were watching it, so the irony became funny. It really loses most of its shock value (if it had much to begin with) now that the doomsday date it was based off has now passed.

This is an accurate summary of the Humor section of the review

     -Best Credit: John Mee as "Angry billionaire."

     -Final Score: 2012 really wasn't and isn't a great movie. It's way too serious, inaccurate, formulaic, and long to be that enjoyable. You should only really watch 2012 to make fun of it (like I did yesterday). If you're looking for a better disaster movie, check out the original Godzilla or Independence Day, as both are far more enjoyable.

Enjoying my reviews? Like my Facebook page.