Upcoming Review

I'll be sharing a review for Monster's University in the near future.

"Let There Be Zombies" Review

Thanks to the awesome people over at Bricks of the Dead, my review for Let There Be Zombies has been published on their site. Read it here.

Coming Soon

Hello readers, and I apologize for the recent lack of content. However, in the next few days, I'll be sharing a side-by-side analysis of Django Unchained and To Kill A Mockingbird, along with a review of a local indie horror/comedy film. Stay tuned for more.

"The Night Shift"

It's become clear over the past twenty years that independent film is steadily growing in popularity. Beginning with Miramax in the 1990s, there has been a veritable cornucopia of studios and films that fuel the fandom for indie movies. And, with the rise of the Internet, crowdfunding projects like Kickstarter and Indiegogo have made it easier than ever for aspiring filmmakers to make their ideas a reality. So, you can imagine my enthusiasm when I came across this gem on Indiegogo: The Night Shift. In this dystopian sci-fi tale, a man experiences his first day on the job at a futuristic orphanage where the children are euthanized after a seven-day period if they are not adopted. It has the feel of a classic dystopian work, Bradbury-esque in feel. I myself am a fan of classic dystopian literature and today's dystopian fiction is very bandwagon: people just see something popular and make their own spin on it, without investing any love or effort into it. The Night Shift seems to make an exodus back to type of fiction that was made famous by 20th Century authors, and finally bringing it justice on-screen for the first time since the 1980s. The viral pitch echoes famous evil corporations like Tyrell, Weyland-Yutani, Buy-n-Large, Cyberdyne, Omni Consumer Products, and, most of all, the Soylent Corporation. Unfortunately, I discovered the page only after the project had ended, and the filmmakers are still somewhat behind their goal, but you can still support it by liking it on Facebook and following their online presence there. Here's the pitch: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=njNr7uuXYe4

Review: "Olympus Has Fallen"

NOTE: I chose to suspend the prelude as I would be spoiling too much of the review. Here's the full review, enjoy!

The latest film from Shooter director Antoine Fuqua, Olympus Has Fallen chronicles a takeover of the White House by a group of North Korean terrorists. Starring Gerard Butler as an Army Ranger-turned Secret Service agent, he must retake the White House and rescue the recently widowed president, Benjamin Asher (Aaron Eckhart), all while being guided by Speaker of the House Allan Trumbull (Morgan Freeman). It may be one of the most patriotic films since last year's remake of Red Dawn, and director Fuqua takes a few cues from Michael Bay by adding such obvious symbolism as a torn American flag and awful character development not unlike that in Pearl Harbor, and he takes dialogue cues from Call of Duty: Modern Warfare Two. Actually, a lot of it seems to be taken from Modern Warfare Two. From the White House storming (Several Missions in Act III of the game) to the fact that Gerard Butler's Secret Service is an ex-US Army Ranger (the American protagonists in Modern Warfare Two are Army Rangers), it seems hopelessly derivative. It also takes cues from Die Hard in the sense that Butler is trapped in a building with terrorists, Air Force One, and it is almost exactly like it, except Olympus Has Fallen takes place on land, and Superman due to the fact that Rick Yune's multinational terrorist villain, wanted across the world, was able to infiltrate the Prime Minister of South Korea's Security Detail by wearing a pair of glasses, not unlike Clark Kent (this was subtlety lampshaded by a minor character). The characters themselves fell flat: Gerard Butler has as much acting ability as a block of cold marble, uttering hammy lines ad nauseam and using guns in lieu of dialogue and character development: his biggest flaw is that he blames himself for the death of the First Lady (Ashley Judd), and it's resolved very poorly by the end of the film. Morgan Freeman seems to not be into the role, speaking in his normal, calming voice most of time and quietly yelling if the situation calls for it, like a calmer Al Powell, albeit in a higher position, and Eckhart suffered from a singular flaw and not being put into a very emotional role: his flaw is shared with Butler, and the character of the President seems like an objective in an arcade game. The President's son Connor fit the archetypal annoying spoiled movie child like a glove, sporting a mullet and showing surprisingly little emotion after his mother's death on an icy road from Camp David, summing it up with literally one sentence: "I hate Camp David." However, in my opinion, the worst character in the film was easily Rick Yune as Kang Yeonsak, multinational terrorist and proponent for Korean Reunification  While pleasantly timely, he also suffers from poorly-penned dialogue and derivative one-dimensionality. He essentially plays an Asian Hans Gruber who could only be more evil if he had a mustache to twirl: he roughs up Melissa Leo's Secretary of Defense and kills the Vice President on webcam, among other dastardly deeds. His master scheme is to cripple the United States by stealing the codes to disarm the nuclear weapons, as to destroy them in their silos, and you get the typical "I'm not going down without a fight" talk from the Americans, at which point we arrive at the "we'll hurt you if you don't" talk from the Korean terrorists. It's a lazy device worked in by the writers so they could minimize the amount of work they had to do. Another big issue were the special effects. I realize that the film could not be shot at Camp David or in Washington D.C., so there has to be some leeway given to them. However, the effects are simply painful. The drive on an icy road at the beginning looked hilariously fake, to the point where I thought I had seen better computer-generated graphics in a video game. The explosions were also very poorly done, looking as fake as the roads. The vehicles, such as the planes, could not even compare to the a great video game engine like Frostbite 2 or idTech 5. As far as computer screens and technology went, any depiction of it in this film can be used to conclusively prove that Hollywood doesn't get hacking. Now that I have thoroughly criticized the storyline, acting, and special effects, allow me to guide you through the absolute lunacy of this movie. There are a plethora of Greek references, mostly used as a handy way of code-naming objects, characters, and locations: the White House is Olympus, a large weapon is called Hydra, among many others. There are also questiones raised about the terrorists' tactic in invasion. We've already pointed out how ridiculous it was for a wanted terrorist to infiltrate a rival country's politics, but that is only the tip of the psychosis iceberg. They were able to infiltrate Washington airspace, already a difficult task, in a large AC-130 gunship, hijacked from a nearby air force base, judging by the markings on it. Not only does this behemoth enter the airspace, it is able to fire off shots and destroy several fighters before finally being taken down. After this, the inexplicably well-armed terrorists hold off the US Army before retreating into the White House. Keep in mind that the terrorists are armed with submachine guns and a few assault rifles, and are able to defeat trained and heavily armed soldiers in a short firefight. I can't believe they got as far as the plane. The most offensive moment is when Trumbull and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs decided to send in a Navy SEAL raid on the White House. This should work, and it would eliminate the terrorists quickly and effectively. Then the writers pull the ultimate deus ex machina: a minigun that looks like an eight-year old's math doodling appears and tears those Blackhawk helicopters to shreds, no "buts" about it. If they had this superweapon in the White House the entire movie, why only use it now and not during the initial assault? It's also never revealed why an experimental weapon was being kept in the White House, but this shows how crazy this movie is.

A friend of mine said that everyone has to take a movie for its genre: and he said that Olympus Has Fallen was to be judged as terrorist attack movie, and he thought that it was a good example of the genre. This is very true, every movie has to be judged by classics of the genre; I can't compare Dr. Strangelove to Citizen Kane, or Goodfellas to Toy Story. And as a subgenre of action, there are some great terrorist attack pieces, and it is the opinion of my friend that this movie is one of them. In the case of Olympus Has Fallen, I can't help but disagree, as the genre has so many better examples: Die Hard, Die Hard With A Vengeance, Air Force One, most James Bond films, even video games like Call of Duty that do the genre much more justice than this film.

Consensus: Olympus Has Fallen is a hopelessly derivative action flick that is filled to the brim with clichés, poor special effects, incomprehensible logic, and hammy dialogue that director Antoine Fuqua fails to infuse with anything special.

Rating: 1/5

Update

The analysis of Goodfellas will be postponed in order to make room for an upcoming review of Olympus Has Fallen. In addition to the review, I will write up a short prelude to it before. Sorry to put it off again, but it will be worth the wait.

Analysis: "Kill Bill"

Note: this analysis will NOT be mere speculation on whether or not Kill Bill is actually a movie within the Tarantinoverse, a la From Dusk Till Dawn. You can fry your brain with fridge logic over at TV Tropes, Cracked.com, and r/FanTheories. 

In my analysis of Tarantino's Inglourious Basterds, I mentioned how he tends to gravitate towards tales of revenge, and how the type of revenge varies, from film to film. With Kill Bill, the revenge is two-tined, but both are a revenge of love. We'll begin chronologically, unlike Mr. Tarantino would do himself. The first is Bill's revenge on Beatrix herself, the Massacre at Two Pines. The second film reveals that she discovered she was pregnant while on a mission abroad for the DiVAS. She knew that the life of a super-assassin was not befitting of a mother, so she chose to go off-the-grid and start a new life underneath the not-so-subtle pseudonym of "Arlene Machiavelli." She moves to El Paso becomes engaged to a record store owner, Tommy Plympton and begins to work at the store, tricking him into thinking that her baby is, in fact, his, while it is truly Bill's child. As they plan their wedding, she meets Bill outside of the chapel, and he feigns happiness and wishes Beatrix good health in her new life with Tommy. This all conceals an elaborate lie; Bill has recruited the Deadly Vipers to come to EL Paso and kill each person in the chapel. They almost succeed, and Bill executes what is supposed to be Beatrix's death, accompanied by an evil monologue, and shoots her in the head, a move normally avoided by movie villains. In spite of the odds, Beatrix goes into a four-year coma and survives, and from here she goes and attempts to accomplish her eponymous goal. However, Bill's attempt to kill Beatrix is not unfounded. When Budd attempts to bury Beatrix alive, he describes it as revenge (there's that word again) for "breaking his brother's heart." Even when Bill talks to her, he reveals his deep seated frustration over the Bride leaving him. Despite his ties with fellow Deadly Viper Elle Driver (Daryl Hannah), he never truly loved her, obviously he would have been more engaged after her disappearance. He loved Beatrix, and he thought that when she didn't return, she had been killed. He searched every corner of the globe for the person he thought killed her, and when he discovered she had been alive and well in El Paso, engaged to some bumpkin record store owner, he was infuriated. He wanted to kill her, and everyone else involved with her. While this is certainly evil, morally wrong, reprehensible, and overreaction at its crux, it's not entirely unsympathetic; if anything, it makes Bill much more interesting as villain. Who wants to see a villain who is nothing but evil? No one! The best villains are sympathetic, flawed, and, above all, human. Bill is like a modern Darth Vader: wronged by the death (or in his case, supposed death) of the woman they loved, so they became heartless men, or in Bill's case, more heartless. Now to the biggest revenge in the entire film: the Bride's quest to cull the DiVAS and put them all six feet in a hole. This is also a revenge of love, but of a different sort: paternal love. The first thing she did when she woke from her coma was feel her stomach for her daughter, and presumes her dead (much like Bill did when Beatrix went missing). She was horrified and cried heavily, stopping only when a truck driver tried to rape her, only for him to become deprived of tongue and life. When she kills him, she waits for the orderly pimp, the chill-inducing Buck, to return. She suspects him of being in cahoots with Bill, and, out of motherly vengeance, slams his head into a steel doorframe multiple times, killing him via hemorrhaging. She's like a fierce Mama Grizzly, as she'll do absolutely anything to avenge the death of her daughter; throughout the film, she scalps a Yakuza overlord, slices through a small army of bodyguards, kills Gogo Yubari by sticking a piece of wood with nails in it into the back of her head; plucks out eyeballs, (accidentally) kills Vernita Green in front of her own daughter (fuel for specualtion of Kill Bill: Volume III), among other techniques to get to Bill and avenge her daughter's death. When she discovers that her daughter is, in fact, alive and well, she is overjoyed, and shows reservations about killing Bill. She eventually does (Surprise!) with a special technique taught to her by the late Kung Fu yogi Pai Mei. In many ways, it's very similar to Bill's: she traveled the globe to find him, discovers he's leading a new life off the grid, and reacts with violence, albeit much calmer than Bill's violence. Don't let me be misunderstood, the two are very similar, both committing violent and deadly acts of revenge to avenge supposed losses, after trotting the globe, and are shocked to see the news lives each other are leading. It is, for lack of a better phrase, yin and yang, fire and ice, sugar and spice, Batman and the Joker. Above all, however, it is the story of people fighting and killing out of love. Really, there is another major revenge subplot: the yarn of O-Ren Ishii. I'm tempted to make that a separate article, as O-Ren is one of the most interesting characters and villains in modern cinema. Like Bill she is sympathetic, cunning, smart, and not afraid to get her hands bloody.

NOTE: Soon, hopefully within the next week, I will have written and finished my analysis of Goodfellas. Just so you remember that I write about non-Tarantino films too.