"The Hunger Games"

(Herr Wozzeck's Note: Oh my God, would you look at the date? Holy shit, I haven't updated this blog in forever!

I am so sorry, guys. As some of you know, my profession lies elsewhere. Unfortunately for me, though, this meant that real life caught up with me, and for a large span of time that took up most of February and the first weekend of March, I was stuck doing grad school auditions in composition. So far, my results are great (I've gotten accepted to two schools), but it's meant that this has taken a back seat. Hopefully now that that's over, though, I can get back to this with some sense of regularity.

So now, back to our regularly scheduled programming.)

Young adult novels... young adult novels...

What to say about them? They've got heroines. They've got plotlines. And they've got... some rather non-descriptive prose. But people also eat them up like they're going out of style. Hence, why they make good movie fodder: you adapt the latest craze into a movie, and bam, instant success.

Hence, why today's movie does stuff with that. Is it any good?

Well, let's dive right in, shall we?

The Hunger Games


Now, since this is one of those rare times where I've actually managed to read the book before seeing the movie, and seeing as how I somehow became a pretty big fan of the books once I started reading through them all (yes, I read all the way through the entire trilogy), I find that I'll have to give this movie two ratings because my judgment of the movie might be affected by how well I know the books. So one rating will be for how it stands as a movie on its own, and the other rating will be for how it stands as an adaptation.

Now, let's go on with the show, shall we?

It is the future, in North America. Now, all that's left of North America is a country called Panem. In this nation are twelve districts, and each district is under the command of the Capitol. The Capitol hosts a series of yearly games in which each district sends one boy and one girl between the ages of 12 and 18 to a gladiatory contest to the death that is broadcast all across the nation (in a pointed satire/criticism of reality television), in which only one can come out victor. Stuck in one of these "Hunger Games", as they're called, is Katniss Everdeen (Jennifer Lawrence), a girl from District 12 who volunteers to keep her younger sister Prim out of the Games. This puts Katniss' skills to the test, and she must deal with twenty-three other tributes to survive, and hopefully to help fellow District 12 tribute Peeta Mellark (Josh Hutcherson) survive as well.

Now, let's get to the first rating: this movie as a movie.

Overall as a movie... well, I think that it stands on its own as an entertaining movie. Is it perfect? No. Is it good? Certainly.

I'll start off here: the acting and casting of this movie are, in a word, impeccable. Everyone is perfectly cast in their roles, and they literally become these characters. I had faith that Jennifer Lawrence would be able to play Katniss Everdeen perfectly--in a way, she already played the same sort of character in her breakout film Winter's Bone. So it was great to see that my faith in Lawrence was well placed. There are many moments throughout the film where it can't benefit from being able to glance into Katniss' mind the way the first person narration in the books can, but Lawrence perfectly conveys what her character feels, particularly during one scene relatively late in the movie pertaining to the death of a character. Everyone else is good too, but they don't get as much screentime as Lawrence. Standouts are seen from Josh Hutcherson, and from Woody Harrelson as Haymitch Abernathy, Katniss and Peeta's tutor that they work with before the games. All around, the acting is stellar.

It's a bit of a shame, then, that they were stuck with director Gary Ross. Ross cannot seem to lay off of the shaky cam, and in the first hour of the film the editing can get very disorienting to the point of making one's eyes hurt. It also doesn't help that a good portion of the film's action scenes are not as well-shot as we would like. I didn't seem to have the problems with the action scenes that most people had, but sometimes the action can get a little incomprehensible, particularly in the final fight of the whole movie (which has no sense of continuity whatsoever: literally the only reason I knew what was going on was because I knew how the fight was supposed to go in the book, and that is not a good thing. The fight as seen in the movie is disjointed, confusingly edited, and uses so much shaky cam that it was almost a relief to see the camera pan back.). They could have gone with a slightly better director, I think. (I say slightly, because of one of the things with the adaptation I'll mention below.)

I also had the feeling that the movie was fighting against its own rating, though in this regard it wasn't as bad as I've seen in other examples. (*coughPriestcough*) It was unavoidable, unfortunately: some of the injuries as described in the book are actually very R-rated, considering that it's aimed at teenage girls. Given that the movie has a PG-13 rating, they had to downplay the gore. Even so, the movie manages to be as brutal as it can be, and there are some shockingly violent things that are for a PG-13 movie (such as one instance of a tribute's neck being snapped on-screen).

As for the plot... well, that ties in to how I view the movie as an adaptation. I'll get to that in the adaptation's review, but let's just say for now that while it doesn't quite get around to following through with all the digs against reality television/the American obsession with being beautiful/dictatorial governments that it sets up, that's less a fault of the movie itself and more the fact that it's how the book is (and I'd argue that much of the first book of the Hunger Games trilogy isn't really about commenting on any of those things, anyhow: that's what the other two books in the series do in much greater detail).

So as a movie? I liked it. It featured strong performances from a bunch of actors who really understood how their characters are, which was enough for the movie to overcome its over-reliance on shaky-cam and particularly the clumsily-edited action scenes. So as a movie? Give it a chance.

3/4


It has a few flaws, but is still worth checking out.


Now, let's get to my rating of this film as an adaptation.

As an adaptation? This movie hits a home run out of the ballpark. It's a rare thing to see a movie that manages to be good while staying extremely faithful to the source material, but somehow this movie managed to do just that.

I think a lot of it actually has to do with Gary Ross' vision for the film. Now, I harped on him earlier for his action scenes, but I can't deny that he's got an eye for how to realize the finer details of the book. There's supposed to be a major dichotomy between Katniss' home of District 12 (a little grungy, gritty, down to earth) and then its contrast against the Capitol (which is colorful to the extreme of having people that you'd think would fit better in a Dr. Seuss book), and the movie nails the aesthetic difference. One of my big fears going into the movie was that it would underplay the out-of-control opulence that's seen in the Capitol, and I was quite glad to see that everybody looked as ridiculous as I envisioned them to look when I was reading the books. It also takes on minor aesthetic details in a way that I think actually works in the movie's favor.

The plot of the book is also very faithfully adhered to. There are a couple of subplots that are cut for time (the cuts are particularly noticeable as far as the world-building and much of the first part of the book goes), but otherwise, this is as faithful a movie of a book as you can get. As well, in the few times where it deviates from the book the deviations actually works in the movie's favor, such as taking one scene that wasn't in the book (and actually couldn't have been featured in the book, given that the book is told from Katniss' point of view) to explain a little further about why they have games instead of killing all 24 tributes right off the bat. This is especially telling considering that the movie had a lot of material to cover. (That's most likely the reason why this movie runs at nearly two and a half hours long, by the way. It's two and a half hours long, and it moves very fast.) I had a small issue with some of the world-building that was cut, and especially how it will affect the sequels that will no doubt be spawned from this series' popularity (the book series does have nearly 27 million copies in circulation, from what I hear).

Overall, it was a good adaptation of a book. If you're a fan of the books, I'll tell you this now: you should definitely see this movie.

4/4


A must-see picture of the year.


So those are my two verdicts on this movie.

This is Herr Wozzeck Reviews. I'll see you guys next time. (Hopefully, next time won't be a month and a half... and two missing countdowns as well.)

"Chronicle"

(Note: Yes, I know I'm extremely behind on the EotYE for 2011. I'm sorry about that, and I'll try to get to it as quickly as I can. But it's been a very busy semester, so...)

Well, something must've happened. I have no idea why, but 2012 has gotten off on a darn good foot this year. We've barely even hit the summer season and already we've got two movies that are action packed and quite good. I already talked about The Grey, though, so this is for other things.

What are those other things, you ask?

Well.... Let's take it to today's movie, shall we?

Chronicle


Andrew (Dane DeHaan), Matt (Alex Russell), and Steve (Michael B. Jordan) are three high-schoolers who come across a hole with an object. Soon after they come into contact with it, they begin to exhibit strange telekinetic powers. Once they begin exhibiting these powers, they begin bonding over them, using their powers to play harmless pranks on people. However, as their powers get stronger, Andrew's dark side is coaxed out, and he eventually becomes a danger to everyone around him.

And you have your standard rise and fall kind of arc that you'd get in a superhero movie. Is it familiar? You can imagine so.

Is it still impressive? You better believe it.

I guess I'll start by addressing the fact that this movie uses the 'found footage' gimmick that's used often by a lot of movies these days. But after a while, this found footage gimmick takes on an odd property, given that once the telekinesis comes into play, the characters start levitating the camera around them. I have to admit that in some instances this leads to the viewer forgetting that it's supposed to be a found footage movie. Its use remains rather uneven throughout: while there are a bunch of things in the third act that make incredible use of this gimmick, there are a few cuts between cameras that sort of ruin why they would use the gimmick in the first place. But when the use of it works, it really works.

One way it really works? It really works in constructing the action scenes. There are a lot of examples peppered throughout, but the final action scene that's embedded in the third act is absolutely nothing short of jaw-dropping. The way that entire finale is cut is incredible to behold, and it results in one of the most visceral action sequences I've seen since the rotating hallway from Inception, and for much the same reason.

And of course, this gimmick ends up taking a back seat to what's going on in the movie, which is some intense characterization. Watching the trailers for this movie, I felt that these were going to be some of the most unlikable characters in the movies. And yet, I was with the characters pretty much all the way. These characters are fully realized and fully fleshed out. Andrew's violence is extreme, but it comes out of an extremely hostile environment (horrible father, dying mother, and quite a few bullies) and we can understand where his anger comes from. The other two characters are also quite interesting to watch as they realize their telekinetic powers, and the result is a movie with characters who we root for pretty much the whole way.

And the acting? Well, I almost forgot these were actors for a second. While the fact that these three actors were a bunch of unknowns helped a bit, it's also worth noting that they had quite an easy rapport going throughout the entire movie. The chemistry between all of them sizzled when their friendship built after seeing the object, and the acting helps carry the movie where it needs to go.

So with a tight script, excellent direction, and excellent acting, Chronicle serves as yet another really good film to start the year off with.  I think best of all is that this movie sheds light on some incredible talent. (This is Josh Trank's directing debut, and yet you wouldn't know it from the way the movie is cut.) So overall? Go see Chronicle.

3.5/4

Most definitely worth checking out.

This is Herr Wozzeck Reviews. I'll see you guys next time.

"The Grey"

Wow. This is a record. We're only one month into January, and yet here we are with one movie that's already blown me away.

That was certainly fast, in a year where I don't expect a lot of movies to be good. So here we go.

Let's get going with today's movie.

The Grey


Ottway (Liam Neeson) is a guy who kills wolves to keep them from killing people at an outpost in Alaska. On a flight to get out of the worst weather of the year, however, the plane he is on crashes in the middle of the wilderness. Thus, he bands together with the other remaining survivors to attempt to make it out alive while battling a pack of wolves that is always encircling them.

And uncompromising stuff ensues from there. It's of course an action survival film, with some very good set pieces. While some of the cuts are a little too close for comfort, I still had a good sense of what was happening in each action scene, which is always a good thing. The action itself is also compelling, which works on itself. Sure, the CGI on the wolves can be a bit questionable at times, but overall there is still quite a bit of tension involved.

But honestly, I think the action is the least of this movie's concerns. Because there is so much more that happens in this movie than the action. Rather, it's a meditative piece that's more about the characters than anything. And what compelling characters they are. We see their reactions as they are slowly picked off one by one, and we see them think about their situation as it gets more and more hopeless. And it unfolds beautifully, because we eventually come to like all of the characters in the story. This folds back on the action, making it compelling even when it gets difficult to tell what's going on.

And without the right actors in each role, it would've completely fallen apart. Every actor here gives it their all, and while Neeson is undoubtedly the center of the show, the other actors are all up to par with him. Of special note is Frank Grillo, who has a character arc so compelling I don't think I'll ever see a character arc quite like it throughout the rest of the year in film. Everyone else is great as well, and the ensemble overall is incredible.

There's not much more to say about The Grey. If you haven't seen it yet, change that, because it boasts some of the best character drama you can find in an action movie, and it's even better that this kind of movie can do this kind of thing so early in the year. It almost gives me hope for the rest of the movie-going season.

Almost.

4/4


A must-see picture of the year.


This is Herr Wozzeck Reviews. I'll see you guys next time.

End of the Year Bonanza: Top 5 Favorite Male Performances

Hello again, and welcome back to the End of the Year Bonanza, with a bit of a late entry considering that the Oscars are getting very close to being announced. So here we go.


5) Chris Evans, Captain America


Ah, Steve Rogers. That perfect wholesome American guy who always saves the day because of stuff. This performance is on my list mostly because Evans managed to take an archetype that I personally hate and turn the character who used it into someone I actually rooted for. I didn't find him to be annoying in the least, which is what tends to happen with characters like these. Thus, for taking a character archetype I hated and making it into something I like, I think it's worth taking note of Chris Evans.

4) Gary Oldman, Kung Fu Panda 2


Ah, Gary Oldman. Who knew that you voicing an animated villain would be so incredibly juicy? Well, anyone who watched The Book Of Eli, but I'm not going to mention that atrocity for obvious reasons. But here, Oldman manages to make his villain character incredibly fun. Every so often I need my deliciously fun villain roles, and Gary Oldman provided exactly that.

3) Owen Wilson, Midnight in Paris

This is on this list for the sheer fact that Owen Wilson is a joy to watch. His comic timing is great, he's got command of a great character, but Owen Wilson here brings a certain charm to the role of Gil Pender that I don't think any other actor could have successfully brought to the role. This is ultimately why Wilson is here on this list, for creating a charming performance that wins the viewer over.

2) Ryan Goseling, Drive

As the old adage goes, 'less is more'. Ryan has less than twenty lines over the course of this movie, but his gestures end up being more important than anything he could possibly say. We see everything that goes down in his mind from how he acts, and somehow the gestures all add up even when he doesn't say that much. It's in this very strange way that Ryan Goseling commands this movie, as the Driver is mysterious in the best way possible.

But as you'll recall, I had a similar character type show up as my number one on the list. So who could top that?

Well...

1) Michael Fassbender, Shame


Even before I was making this list, I knew Fassbender was going to be at the top of the list for Shame. X-Men: First Class already solidified that he is a very solid actor, but with his performance in Shame... Shame is one of those movies that hinges on an electrifying lead performance, and in this Fassbender throws himself into his character. To say that Fassbender is astounding in Shame is something of an understatement, as he shows us the many complexities of Brandon's sex life and how it affects his home life, all while doing things that I imagine would make most other actors run away in fright.

----**----

So those are my favorite roles of the year. Now... Now we have to move on to other things.

Like my favorite performances from an actress.

I'll see you guys next time.

"The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo"

Okay, so... I decided I'll be taking a break with my end of the year bonanza, but only temporarily. Why?

Well, I had some minor catching up to do for some releases that came out at the end of the year. So here we are.

And what are we talking about?

Sexual violence, of course. Let's take it away with today's movie!

The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo

Mikael Blomkvist (Daniel Craig) is a disgraced journalist who gets contacted by Henrik (Christopher Plummer) to look into the mysterious disappearance/possible murder of his grand-niece Harriet. Mikael thus comes over to a different part of Sweden to investigate, where he eventually enlists the help of teen hacker extraordinaire Lisbeth Salander (Rooney Mara) to find out what happened to Harriet.

This is... a very interesting movie. It's a thriller, of course, which requires great pacing all on its own. In that... it's kind of iffy. On the one hand, the murder mystery that occupies almost the whole film is intriguing and very well-plotted, but on the other, when the murder mystery is done the movie limps to its final shot for a little over ten minutes too long. Uneven pacing issues like this drag the film down, but the parts that do work really work. And thankfully, we get more parts that work than parts that don't work, which means that the movie is a tense, very arresting movie. Well, that is, while the murder mystery is still going on.

And this movie is also harsh and uncompromising in every sense. There's something to be said about the fact that this movie's story has tons of sexual violence in it, and in this regard this movie takes no prisoners. Graphic depictions of rape, uncompromising angles of talking about the act... it's all so tightly controlled that in some bizarre way every element works to its advantage.

And that's something I think goes for the performances. It's clear that director David Fincher has got tight control in the acting in this movie, and it works exactly how it should. Daniel Craig is of course very good as Blomkvist, though the fact that his British accent stood out amidst a sea of false-Swedish accents was a little distracting at times. Stellan Skarsgard as the main bad guy works wonderfully as the villain, giving an understated performance while waiting for just the right time to rear his ugly head. And as for Rooney Mara, I'll only say this: she's come a looooooooooooooooong way from when she starred in the abysmal Nightmare on Elm Street remake with the star-making role of Lisbeth.

So with a reasonably good plot, excellent acting, and an uncompromising vision, The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo is a very good movie. Is it great? I don't think so: there are severe pacing issues with the third act that means that the movie kind of overstays its welcome. But when it works, it really works.

3.5/4

Most definitely worth checking out.

This is Herr Wozzeck Reviews. I'll see you guys next time.

End of the Year Bonanza 2011: 5 Worst Movies

Oh hello again. Missed me?

Yeah, sorry about the silence on my end. I've had a heck of a time here, running around doing things. But now, things have cooled down slightly, and I'm able to get back to this.

So... seeing as how I was unable to watch a movie on my last night in Boston, I thought I'd get to the chase with the end of the year show. So as with last year, I'll supply some of my best and worst lists for the year.

So I'll start us off with the movies I really didn't like. Let's get to it:

*****************

5. Sanctum

This goes relatively low on the list. While it was bad, it was thankfully mostly inoffensive. I felt the plot just went wherever it wanted to, I felt the characters were all cardboard cut-outs, and some of the interactions baffled me. But it was bad enough to warrant a place on this list, so there we go.

4. Priest

This one, was a movie I was expecting to be okay at least. I mean, it's vampires being fought by religious guys weilding all kinds of Jesus-themed weaponry! How could that not be awesome? Well, it wasn't awesome, because the plot was a mess, the characters were flat, they had a terrible, terrible screenplay to work off of, and it felt like a movie that was fighting against its rating. Oh, and the 3D was atrocious. That too.

3. Battle: Los Angeles

Aside from being noisy and headache-inducing, I just found this movie to be incredibly dull. It's a shame, because it had the potential to be so much more than it was. I was hoping it could be a movie that explored the hopelessness of fighting against an alien invasion. Instead, it became just another military-style "America f*** yeah" movie which laid on the army-related cliches, flat characters, and really incomprehensible action scenes as much as they could. The end result was a really, really dull movie.

2. Abduction

If I had to give the above three movies any credit, though, it's that they're all only boring. Abduction... Now that actually really angered me. It's a bad sign when notable actors can't elevate the screenplay they're working with, so I'll just put that out there now. But what really gets me about this movie is how the people behind it somehow didn't realize how audience-insultingly stupid the screenplay really is. The screenplay of this movie is offensively stupid, to the point where I wanted to hit the screenwriter over the head.

As offensively stupid as it is, though, it doesn't change a thing about the movie I hated most this year...

1. Atlas Shrugged Part 1

The fact that this is the first movie I've ever walked out of in my life should tell you everything you need to know about why this movie is in this slot in the list. It's not even that I don't agree with Ayn Rand's politics (which, let's face it, are a huge piece of every fictional work she ever wrote): I was able to sit through The Fountainhead and actually enjoy it even through its preachy parts. No, I hated Atlas Shrugged Part 1 because it was a completely incompetent production on every level. It was noticeably cheap, it had truly atrocious acting, it had an unengaging, flat script that couldn't make economic/political conversations interesting, and just felt rushed. I'm pretty sure that Ayn Rand herself would have disowned this adaptation simply on the strength of how bad it is.

*************************

And that's my list.

So next time? You'll be seeing another list on my favorite performances of the year.

This is Herr Wozzeck Reviews. I'll see you guys next time.

Herr Wozzeck Muses: Lingering Ideas...

Shame brought up a very interesting question for me, I think. Most of these questions were actually fairly critical to how I thought about the film, and it brought me to realize one of the great things about that movie.

My question was this:

Why does Steve McQueen linger on some things for a much longer period of time than others?

It was something I noticed a lot when I was watching Shame, that McQueen would tend to linger a lot on certain pieces of certain scenes. The camerawork tended to live in slightly longer cuts, particularly in Fassbender's scenes where he interacts with other characters. I will admit it was a little jarring to see that the director lingers a lot on the same motif for several minutes, staying on that for a while before something interesting happens. There's a date scene that goes on for a while, there's a scene of intimacy that goes on for a while, and there's an entire scene that messes with our perception of time that goes on for a while close to the end.

But at the end of the day, I think this works to its advantage. For when we get subjected to so much within a certain amount of time, it really jumps at us when something happens. The date scene is necessarily long for a reason that becomes clear later on: it serves as a characterization bit that lets us peer into Brandon's mind when he tries to have sex with her later and ultimately can't bring himself to go all the way with it. A long scene of Carey Mulligan singing focuses almost exclusively on her face, with only a brief glimpse of Brandon's face that tells us everything we need to know about what he's feeling.

But ultimately, I think the fact that McQueen lingers on the same topic for so many minutes is best demonstrated by the last sex scene that occurs in the movie. Let me relate the camera work of the final sex scene of the movie so you can see what I mean...

So the final sex scene is a threesome with Fassbender and two women. What entails is a bunch of extremely close shots of the sex, with some shots getting almost pornographic in how graphic they are. It always cuts to flashes of flesh, bare flesh and nothing but as these three people engage in the act. However, the scene ends not with a wide shot of the act itself, but with a close-up of Michael Fassbender's face as he orgasms. From his facial expression, however, we get the all-too-clear sense that this is an orgasm that is wrought with pain and anger and a great amount of sadness. While Fassbender's acting does so much for the shot, it's the fact that we've seen so much sexualized flesh in the preceeding two or so minutes that really makes the shot work. This is partly because it's the first full shot of Fassbender's face in such a scene, partly also because we don't see the other parties in the shot, and partly because seeing that expression in what's supposed to be the height of ecstasy is rather jarring for the audience, and casts the entire two or so scenes beforehand in a completely different light. It sums up everything about the events leading up to that point in a way that no other edit of the film could have, and it's a critical shot for a character-defining moment.

And in all honesty, that singular shot that lasts for about six or so seconds was literally the point where, at least for me, Shame took a step up from being just a really good movie, and became a movie that I can say is unforgettably great. If we had seen such a shot earlier, I doubt the impact would have been as great as it ultimately was. But thanks to the fact that he lingered on other things before presenting the shot was what ultimately contributes most to how powerful it is.

And that is why lingering on something can be a virtue in film making.

This is Herr Wozzeck Muses. I'll see you guys next time.

"Shame"

I think I'll start today by saying something about movies. Sometimes, a movie comes along, and you'll be so floored by it that literally, you find yourself at a loss to speak. Sometimes, a movie so incredibly good comes along, and it'll make you think about it for a long time. And sometimes, that movie is one that takes a lot of risks.

Today's movie is one of these movies.

Shame

Brandon (Michael Fassbender) is an office worker who has a bit of a problem: he's addicted to sex, to the point that he can form no personal attachments at all. Enter his sister Sissy (Carey Mulligan), who stays with Brandon at his apartment for a few days. His personal life from there begins to unravel, and he begins to question many things in his life.

I... This is one of those films that defies summaries, really. And I really don't know where to begin.

I guess... Yeah, I think I'll start at the NC-17 rating. Trust me, this movie earns its NC-17 rating, especially near the end when the sex scenes get really graphic, almost to the point of being pornographic in one or two shots. Trust me when I tell you, though, that this movie is so masterful that I don't think that it could've done without those shots I mention.

I think the best way to describe this movie is as a slow character study of sex obsession. There's something wonderful about the way Brandon's character develops: we see him as a man who is always having sex a lot of the time, but from what we see we're not sure why as he forms no personal connections, and love is the kind of thing he feels he has no use for. And then, when his sister Sissy comes along, we see some of his insecurities come about in some of her actions, and from there he just begins to question what the hell he is doing as a result. This shift in his character is key in this movie, and while it is very slow to develop, the viewer's patience is greatly rewarded.

With the wrong actors, it could've fallen apart. But the casting people did a wonderful job casting this. I was pretty convinced of Michael Fassbender's acting abilities from his portrayal of Magneto in X-Men: First Class. But here? After seeing him in this movie, I'm convinced that Fassbender can do no wrong. Fassbender's performance is spellbinding: Brandon's character is full of hidden rage and sorrow, and Fassbender's performance captures this perfectly, particularly when he lets it all out as the movie draws to its conclusion. This is to say nothing of a good supporting turn from Carey Mulligan, but Fassbender steals the show, and the movie just works incredibly well thanks to him. Academy, take note: if I don't see Michael Fassbender at the Oscars this year, there's gonna be hell to pay.

Director Steve McQueen, too, gives it his all here. I am at odds with some of his choices in the shakier camera work, but he makes some really smart decisions on where to train the camera in relation to the actors, and the shots he chooses say almost everything you need to know about what the characters are thinking most of the time. In many ways, the camera work tells the whole story for us, and it's wonderful to see a movie take such an approach to how it tells its story. Combine that with the incredible acting at work, and... well...

I... I've got nothing else to say here. Go see Shame right now. It's one of the best movies of the year, hands-down, and Fassbender has now made it perfectly clear that he's a force to be reckoned with. So go see this movie right now.

4/4

A must-see picture of the year.

This is Herr Wozzeck Reviews. I'll see you guys next time.

"Hugo"

And this review begins with the very appropriate phrase given to us by the credentials of this movie:

"Martin Scorcese is making a family movie."

And right there, you have all the impetus you need to see today's movie.

Oh, by the way, before I get to it... a spoiler warning:

In order to properly talk about the movie, I will have to spoil the plot. So here's a spoiler warning, and don't take it lightly, whatever you do.

Okay, with that out of the way, let's get to today's movie.

Hugo

Hugo Cabret (Asa Butterfield) is a boy who lives alone in a train station managing all their clocks. Along the way, he attempts to fix an automaton that his father (Jude Law) found in a museum. However, when he comes across Georges Méliès (Ben Kingsley) at a toy shop in his train station, things suddenly happen, and then he finds himself going on an adventure with Georges' goddaughter Isabelle (Chloe Grace-Moretz) that leads him to many new places.

So, here are a couple things to note about this movie.

1) No, they don't mean that kind of adventure that so many movies these days try to force into their plots.
2) *here be spoilers* For those of you who know your film history backwards and forward, yes, this is that Georges Méliès.

Yes, this is a movie about movies, though more specifically, it's about other things pertaining to the movies. Don't trust the trailers here: the big whimsical stuff comes less from Hugo's escapades and more from what he and Isabelle discover on their little adventure: that Isabelle's godfather was once a great film-maker, was revolutionary for his time as being the godfather of special effects, and other things like that. *Here end the spoilers*

And honestly, there's something about that which comes across as a breath of fresh air in the family movie genre. Yes, there's the usual capery stuff that comes up with these movies, but they're not the main focus of the movie after a while. While it's a tonal shift that may surprise some, I found that it lent itself to a certain element of charm that I think is missing from the genre these days, and it becomes engaging for a totally different reason than you'd think.

And as well, the whole visual aesthetic works. I'll go out on a limb here and say that you definitely should see this movie in 3D: I'm not normally for the format, but this movie sports one of the best uses of 3D I've ever seen in a movie. The style is also incredibly vivid and quite pleasing to look at.

So overall? I suggest you all go see Hugo. It's a very charming, engaging movie that does things differently. And the things it does differently work really well for the movie, and so it becomes a fresh new experience for everyone. Go take your kids to see this over the Holiday season. Trust me, you won't regret it.

4/4

A must-see picture of the year.

This is Herr Wozzeck Reviews. I'll see you guys next time.

"The Muppets"

So... these days a lot of cultural icons have been coming back into the fold in the form of reboots by various major film studios. So far, we've had Alvin and the Chipmunks being among the more successful properties returning to the fold, and... well, now we have a cultural icon returning.

And boy, have we missed the guys in today's movie...

The Muppets

Gary (Jason Siegel) and Walter (Peter Linz) are both brothers, with Walter being a huge fan of the Muppets. On a trip to LA to celebrate the anniversary of Gary and his girlfriend Mary (Amy Adams), however, Walter uncovers a nefarious plot by Tex Richman (Chris Cooper) to destroy the Muppet Theater to get at some oil on the property. Thus, the three of them recruit Kermit, Ms. Piggy, Gonzo, Fozzie, and all of the other favorites of the old gang to put on a last show to raise the ten million dollars that will save the theater.

And from there, we get things going.

Now, I'll make something clear. I'm not a fan of the Muppets, but this is more on account of being sorely unfamiliar with the property, except for maybe a couple of points when I've stumbled upon clips of the Muppet Show as part of music-related searches (more especially sketches with Victor Borge). So going in, I wasn't quite sure what to expect, except from tidbits I've heard from other people who like the Muppets.

But when I sat there? I was really quite charmed by everything this movie has. It's funny, it's got very catchy tunes, it has a major heaping of optimistic heart, and the whole thing just comes together at the end of the day. Everybody involved in this movie gets a chance to shine, even with the cameo appearances made by way too many celebrities to count.

And ultimately? I was charmged by The Muppets, as I had a lot of fun watching this movie? Is it the greatest thing ever? I think that the humor could have been a little more constant, with all the lampshade hanging and fourth wall destruction this movie has. But at the end of the day, it's a charming movie with charming characters that is a great time for both kids and adults.

3.5/4

Most definitely worth checking out.

This is Herr Wozzeck Reviews. I'll see you guys next time.

Flashback Reviews: The Fall

Okay, so last weekend, we managed to review a movie directed by Tarsem. We found distinct visual flair, and we found that while the story was pretty lacking, the visuals more than made up for it. So overall, it ended up being very fun.

But what about the rest of Tarsem's filmography? Well... The Cell is reportedly pretty bad, and we still have Mirror, Mirror to look forward to next year, so... we'll not touch on those. Yet. But there is another movie...

And this one, is actually really good.

The Fall (2006)

Roy (Lee Pace) is a movie stuntman who winds up paralyzed in a hospital. He gets frequently visited by the curious Alexandria (Catinca Untaru), a girl who is there for a broken arm. When Roy begins telling Alexandria a very long fantasy, story, however, he begins to weave the tale of the Black Bandit and the Governor Odius, in exchange for favors from Alexandria that involve her stealing the hospital's supply of morphine.

And things get rather trippy from there.

So again, Tarsem's visual flair comes to the movie's aid a lot. There are some shots of the movie that would be considered works of art in their own right, though the fantasy sequences all tend to have this rather grand air about them that steals the show every time it cuts to them.

Of course, though, one thing I find striking about the story is how deliberately paced it is. It's a very slow-paced story that builds up gradually, but as the story of the movie goes on, it reveals an incredibly tragic dychotomy at its heart. Slowly, the tale Roy tells begins to show parallels to the hospital around them, and Tarsem is extremely careful in choosing which details are filled in as parallels. And the last fifteen or so minutes of the movie? They have to be some of the most heartbreaking fifteen minutes I've ever seen in a movie, as we've seen the fairy tale get progressively darker to reflect Roy's character. These parallels add enough richness to the story, that we don't watch the movie soley for the visual style.

And that is a strength that suits The Fall very well. It has an engaging storyline, as well as having the great visual style. Thus, as a whole, the movie works on just about every level, even if some of the acting is a little stilted.

So at the end of the day?

3.5/4

Most definitely worth checking out.

This is Herr Wozzeck Reviews. I'll see you guys next time.

"Immortals"

Okay, so… Sorry about last week. Again. It happened again where I was way too busy to be able to go to the movies. You’d be surprised how much stuff I have to do right at the moment.

But rest assured guys, I have not forgotten about you! So here I am to provide another little review on something.

And we get right to today’s movie with a bang.

Immortals

Theseus (Henry Cavill) is a peasant boy who finds himself entangled in a larger than life quest. His mother is killed in front of him by the evil King Hyperion (Mickey Rourke), who seeks to unleash the titans on the Earth after the Gods abandon his family. Thus, Theseus, with the indirect guidance of Zeus (Luke Evans) and the oracle Phaedra (Freida Pinto), goes to defeat Hyperion.

So in other words, it’s a huge Greek Mythological story… if it decided to give actual Greek myth a historic middle finger. That, however, is unrelated to the point, and another story entirely.

So let’s get down to business. What this movie doesn’t quite have in its favor… it suffers mildly from a rather turgid script that more or less goes through the motions and has the same kind of “Greek-ish epic” dialogue that you’d expect that goes along the lines of “honor honor the other guys are evil blah blah blah”. There’s also a rather large part of the second act which drags quite a bit in the action as there really isn’t that much that is interesting about it.

What it does have in its favor, though? It’s got one heck of a visual style behind it. Director Tarsem brings a ridiculous amount of visual pizazz to the action, and every scene in the movie is clear, easy to see, and—surprisingly—quite brutal. It also features some truly wild set and costume design, and the whole aesthetic works really beautifully in combination with everything. So if nothing else, we have a really wonderful aesthetic that works incredibly well. The actors too all try their best to make the script they have work, though it’s not entirely successful at a few points.

So overall? Well, there’s not much to say about Immortals. It has exciting action, one incredible visual style, and a rather poor script. If you’re into these kinds of movies, well… this movie is quite definitely for you.

2.5/4

If you want to go see it, go see it. If you don’t want to go see it, don’t.

This is Herr Wozzeck Reviews. I’ll see you guys next time.

Herr Wozzeck Goes To The Opera!

Hi guys. Yes, I know I didn't have a review for a new release last week. Well... to be honest, none of the new releases were terribly interesting to me at all. Most of the hold-overs were stuff I really didn't have time for, and the only thing I could've found intriguing about the new movies this past weekend was Gabourey Sidibe finally getting herself into a big Hollywood movie, although the fact that her part is an incredibly tiny part wasn't enough to convince me to see said movie.

Besides, I had other plans. Why?

Well, for those of you who follow Fathom Events, then you'll know that the Metropolitan Opera broadcasted a production of Richard Wagner's Siegfried last Saturday at around 12:00 EST. What's even better is that the Regal multiplex I go to for a vast majority of my film reviews was one of the locations of the broadcast. So I attempted to make my way to that to see the opera at the movies.

So I thought that today I'd comment on the experience, and my impressions of the production from one average every-day moviegoer to the next.

So, the experience? Well, it's Wagner opera, so I was there for a long time. If you thought Avatar was a long movie? Forget it: the broadcast of Siegfried lasted about five hours and twenty minutes, including the intermission features the Met broadcasts usually include. So that's a long time to be sitting in the theater: thankfully, also due to the fact that it was opera, we didn't have to stay in the theater for the whole five and a half hours. At the intermissions, there were fifteen minutes between the ends of each act and the intermission feature that would play before the start of the next act, so we all had fifteen minutes to walk around and do stuff between acts. Good thing, too.

It was also a fairly strange experience: literally, I think I was the youngest person at that theater for the broadcast. Being a frequent opera-goer at one time in my life, I can tell you that it's nothing unusual if you're at the opera in a theater or an opera house, but if you're in the opera at the movies where you've been used to seeing young people all the time? Now that is surreal. Though it's also funny that going to the opera at the movies has been the only time I've been able to get away with drinking Orange Fanta in the theater while the show is going on, but that is another story entirely.

As for the production itself? Well... putting on my critical hat for a second, I can tell you that the broadcast itself was excellent. The singing was excellent (especially from Jay Hunter Morris as the title role, who stepped into one of opera's most difficult roles at basically the last minute (Which, oddly enough, is a lot more common for the Met than you'd think. And not just recently, either: its entire history is filled with mishaps that occurred at some point or another.) and still managed to sing and act as an incredibly convincing Siegfried), and everyone involved brought their best to the table. I wish the projection hadn't been as dark as it was in the broadcast I saw it at, as there were a few times when it was needlessly difficult to tell what was set up in the set from time to time. However, I can also tell you that Robert LaPage's production is something you have to see, even if you're not an opera buff. Most productions of any of the operas in Wagner's Ring tend to fall victim to the fact that they are typically operas in which things are incredibly dynamic as far as stage directions go, but LaPage's production is both visually stunning and brings an element of dynamism into the operas that very few productions have ever managed to do. Overall, it was an excellent broadcast all around.

And it was a great time, for me being an opera-goer who went to the movies for this one.

So... that's that. I went to the opera, and crazy times were had for all.

"In Time"

So... Sci-fi thrillers. Sci-fi thrillers can be filed into any number of places. They can be filed into the pure-fun adrenalin-rush kind of film that doesn't seek to say a thing. They can be just as mindless as your average crime thriller.

And then, they can use their hook to sort of comment on social issues that go down today.

You don't get cookies for figuring out which category today's movie falls into, just telling you now.

In Time

In the near future, man has been cured of aging: people will stop aging at twenty five, and now the amount of time a person has left to live has become the world's chief unit of currency. In this world, the rich live forever while the poor live by the days. Will Salas (Justin Timberlake) is a man who lives in a ghetto in this world. When he is given a hundred and sixteen years by a mysterious, suicidal millionaire, however, he finds himself sucked up in something bigger. Along with Sylvia (Amanda Seyfried), the millionaire heiress of a bank tycoon, he becomes a Robin Hood kind of figure to the poor.

So... I don't think I need to tell you what the movie discusses with its hook, or the fact that with Occupy Wall Street/The Nation picking up heat this movie couldn't have been better timed. But if I do... well, it uses this thing to discuss class divisions in modern day America. To this end, it plays with a lot of the possibilities involved with this world. It manages to do that thing that is most difficult in a sci-fi movie: it manages to explain how the world works without ever having to resort to telling the audience about it. And trust me, it's extremely effective, as the viewer gets more invested in the world and what it has to say about our own state than he/she would have if most of the rules of this world had been told to us.

In terms of the metaphor that is explored... Well, the metaphor is pretty appropriate, but if there's one thing I had to say about how it discusses the issue, I think that sometimes it stretches the metaphor a little bit. There is being subtle about a message, and then there is slapping you in the face with 'this is messed up'. It's a very neat thing to see just how much time as a unit of currency affects the proceedings, but there are a few points when the metaphor is stretched a little too far. Thus, the message tends to get overpowering, and at some points the movie actually becomes less interesting because of it.

But that said, it's still a reasonably entertaining little movie. Justin Timberlake and Amanda Seyfried make for two very appealing leads, and at the end of the day, we want these characters to succeed. The entire rest of the cast (including Cillian Murphy and Alex Pettyfer in what I think is a career-changing performance for Pettyfer) is also quite good, and they make the most of their roles (even Olivia Wilde, who makes the most of the (almost literal) five minutes that she has in the movie). The action, while fairly standard, is visible and easy to keep track of, and so the whole thing more or less still comes together.

So while it does tend to stretch its metaphor to the point that it is bashing us over the head with it, In Time still manages to be somewhat successful for what it is. Honestly, I think the mark that makes this movie is that I thought the premise worked really well in the movie's universe. When I first heard about this movie, I thought it was going to be the silliest movie of the year, but I was pleasantly proven wrong. And nevertheless, it's a fun little thriller at the end of the day.

3/4

It has a few flaws, but is still worth checking out.

This is Herr Wozzeck Reviews. I'll see you guys next time.

"Paranormal Activity 3"

Okay, so the first two Paranormal Activity movies were good movies, going around doing crazier things with horror. They were both atmospheric, they both worked really well, and they warranted a second sequel.

So what's that sequel?

Well... it's today's movie.

Paranormal Activity 3

Katie and Kristi had encountered the ghost before, and now, we see the first time they saw it. Kristi and Katie are little girls at that time, and when strange things start happening around the house, things get absolutely crazy.

And crazy, in the typical Paranormal Activity way. As with the first two films, there is a lot of building of atmosphere that is done. These movies have always been slow, and this one gets all the cues down right. The scares start off with a few very, very minor things, and they only build in intensity as the movie goes on. And once they really start coming, they are absolutely visceral in their realization.

So then why does this movie feel like the PA franchise is starting to lose its novelty?

Well... I can think of a few reasons, but I guess the two big ones are really important:

The first one: CGI. We can see it now. Paranormal Activity itself used all practical effects. It had to, given that it was made on a ridiculously tight budget. Paranormal Activity 2 didn't use all that much, but what CGI was used wasn't really all that noticeable? But here? Oh, there's CGI all right, and what there is looks really bad in comparison with the practical effects. It's not used often, but when it is, it really sticks out, and that's never a good thing with a movie.

The second thing, and this is a huge one: END. CREDITS. Paranormal Activity did not have them. Paranormal Activity 2 did not have them. So why does Paranormal Activity 3 have them? It completely breaks the immersion if you cut to "directed by so and so" after the last shot of the movie. Seriously, people. Seriously?

And this isn't counting some of the other problems with this movie. There are child actresses in this, and unfortunately, the girl who played Kristi to me didn't feel very convincing at all in her role. On the whole, there were some things in the acting that just didn't work at all. And then, there's the fact that many facets of the plot make little to no sense, particularly during the last fifteen minutes or so. All this tends to catch up with you as you exit the theater.

And in the end? It shows signs that Paranormal Activity 3 may just be the point when the PA franchise is starting to get bad. I was sitting in a theater where half the audience was laughing at some things. At first I got a little annoyed, but as I watched the movie, I began to find myself agreeing with them. Is it tense? Yes. But once you leave the theater, you're asking yourself "what was I so scared about?"

Thus, why the franchise may have gone past the point where any good movies can be made from it.

2/4

It has its moments, but overall you might be left disappointed.

This is Herr Wozzeck Reviews. I'll see you guys next time.

P.S. Yes, I know I didn't leave a review last week. I'm sorry. A lot of things were going on last weekend, and unfortunately I wasn't able to get a review out. I'll try to make up for it this week, though, so stay tuned.

"Real Steel"

Expectations are a funny thing. About a week before release, I was expecting today's movie to be really bad, awful even. So lo and behold, when I check Rotten Tomatoes (yes, I check movie ratings on RT prior to release) and find that it's actually hovering relatively high on the tomatometer for most of the days leading up to the release. So I decided I'd give this movie a chance.

And... well... here we are, with today's movie.

Real Steel

Charlie (Hugh Jackman) is a former professional boxer who got ousted from the game when crowds began to crowd around boxing with robots instead of people. Thus, he falls on really hard times, for both himself and his robot maintenance lady Bailey (Evangeline Lily). However, this changes when the death of an ex-girlfriend of his leads him into looking after his son Max (Dakota Goyo), things change when Max finds a bot named Atom that turns out to become a huge hit on the underground circuit, and then in the professional ring.

So essentially, Rocky, if it was being done with giant fighting robots and a random kid plunked down if Mickey wasn't there.

But over the course of the movie, I found I really didn't care that it was a Rocky retread. Because all the individual elements still come together.

The acting especially makes everything work. Hugh Jackman brings a great energy to the part of Charlie, and while he is a bit of a jerk at the start of the movie, we're with him throughout the entire ride for a lot of reasons, and all the supporting actors do their thing well, even the ones with the smaller amounts of material. Honestly, though, I think the biggest props go to Dakota Goyo, who took a part that could have been extremely annoying and grating and turned it into one of the most engaging parts of the whole movie. Seriously, the kid's a good actor, and I think he'll be a talent to watch.

And the action is really good. Yes, we can see it all, and yes, it's incredibly exciting. You wouldn't think that watching computer-generated robots fight would be so engaging, but, well, here you have it, and in much more exciting form than in your average Bayformers movie. I think the one misstep this movie made was to rely on having one too many fight montages, but even that can be forgiven when they're still pretty entertaining to watch.

And in terms of the plot? Yeah, everything is played safe, but in many ways it's a good kind of safe, because some bits actually feel a little more fresh that way. There aren't a very large amount of subplots surrounding the movie, but in the end that small amount helps keep the movie focused on the main plot. And in the end, it's a focus that the movie could not have gone without, for everything feels so much more satisfying since we know what the stakes are for each character and we can follow and sympathize with the characters more.

It's tough to say exactly how Real Steel works. I know that many times, playing things safe ends up coming up uninspired, but in a few select cases, I think it's possible for exceptions to be made. And this is one of those cases, in which we get a movie that is thoroughly entertaining and, in the end, quite good.

So yeah.

3.5/4

Most definitely worth checking out.

This is Herr Wozzeck Reviews. I'll see you guys next time.

"50/50"

So, cancer. Cancer, cancer, cancer, one of the leading causes of death in the United States of America, and that disease that puts so much pressure on life. And one that goes around with it.

So how does one deal with it? Well... there are lots of ways, depending on how you are related.

And today's movie is a comedy about that.

50/50

Adam (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) is a writer for a local radio station, has a supportive girlfriend (Bryce Dallas Howard), and a great friend in Kyle (Seth Rogen). However, all this is jilted with the sudden revelation that at the ripe age of 27, he has a very rare form of spinal cancer. And so, he finds himself facing 50/50 odds with Kyle as his friend through everything.

So... a comedy about cancer. Of course, cancer is an extremely sensitive subject, and has to be treated with aplomb. Too much low-brow, and it can come across as being extremely offensive and not cool. Too sensitive, however, and the humor can lose something.

And as for that? Well, Will Reiser's screenplay hits all the right notes. It manages to have a blend of comedy that somehow works despite the incredibly touchy subject matter. It's funny, side-splittingly hilarious at a lot of points, but it's never in a way that crosses a line that shouldn't be crossed. And when it needs to be serious, the humor wisely backs off, and surprisingly, this movie proves that it's not a jarring tonal shift if you nearly engage in a 'this is sad' cry in a comedy. So it manages to be both hilarious and heartwarming at the same time.

And the fact that it has a bunch of really good actors here also helps a lot. The comic timing of everyone is great here, and when they need to be serious they manage to bring a lot of great things to the table. Everyone is great in this movie, especially the lead actors, and especially Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Seth Rogen as the two leads. They also help in keeping the tone of the movie consistent, even when it juggles comedy and drama at the flick of a switch.

So to sum it up? 50/50 is a movie about a very, very serious subject that manages to treat it in both a humorous way and a really serious way. It's got a charming cast, a really tight screenplay, and it works really well as a whole. So go check it out.

3.5/4

Most definitely worth checking out.

This is Herr Wozzeck Reviews. I'll see you guys next time.

Cloud Cuckoolander Treatise: Let's Iron Out Some Plot Holes!

Warning: This Cuckoolander Treatise will contain spoilers for Abduction, and a major spoiler for Hanna. Reader discretion is advised, though I really don’t know why you’d take such a warning seriously in relation to a movie that makes no flippin’ sense. (I can see why you’d take it seriously for Hanna, though.)

So those of you who were with me last weekend to review the nonsensical shitfest that was Taylor Lautner’s Abduction will probably remember I lambasted the story for making no sense. Well, I thought to myself, “well, Herr, can you do any better to make this story make sense?”

Well, let’s see, shall we?

I propose a few solutions to make that shitty movie actually make some amount of sense:

1) Ditch a huge part of the reason why Nathan has adoptive parents in the first place.

As I mentioned in my review, the real father of Taylor Lautner’s character was still alive and well during the events of the movie. The reason Nathan was given to adoptive parents, then? It basically whittles down to this: “BOO HOO I CAN’T RAISE A CHILD MY WIFE’S DEATH LEFT ME SO EMOTIONALLY FRAGILE I CAN’T RAISE A CHILD BY MYSELF AND I HAVE NO MORALS THEREFORE I AUTOMATICALLY MAKE AN AWFUL PARENT AND I’M NOT EVEN GONNA TRY TO RAISE THIS KID!” So he was given to some of his friends from the CIA, and stuff evolved from there.

Bullshit, movie. The father just comes across as a whiny little bastard who shouldn’t even be in the CIA, let alone in a higher government job.

Therefore, here is what I propose: I propose you just kill the father off. Completely. Therefore, the fact that Nathan’s parents aren’t actually his parents makes sense. It’s not like you already killed off his mother; one extra victim would actually benefit this movie. Well, that, and it actually makes it more plausible why they would gun after the kid.

Which leads me to suggestion 2…

2) Give the bad guys an actual reason to go after Nathan and Nathan only.

Again, as I said in the review, the Slavic guy is after Nathan for a list that isn’t actually in his possession at the start of the movie. In fact, he doesn’t get the list until after the bad guys gunned for him. You could argue it’s part of a gambit, but you could also… you know… go after the CIA yourselves?

Therefore, here is what I propose to that: have Nathan start the movie with the list somehow. It could be interlaced in a family memento, it could be in a chip inside one of Nathan’s most prized possessions, anything. Anything that makes more sense than getting a list from an apartment that isn’t even in the same state as Nathan’s state of residence.

Speaking of chips, actually…

3) Put the list on a format that actually makes sense in relation to the timeline.

I really doubt they had flip phones in the mid-90’s, which was when the father supposedly got his list. So unless he updated it to a new format every few years (which makes even less sense than before), then there’s no reason it should be on a flip phone.

But assuming that he updated the format, that only opens up another plot hole:

Why didn’t Nathan’s father just give the list directly to the CIA?

Oh, wait, we wouldn’t have a movie that way, that’s why. And you know, it’s bad when your bad guys are chasing your good guys for a reason that opens up a plot hole by default.

My proposition, therefore?

4) Explain why the father didn’t just give the list to the CIA, and thus avoid a case of We Could Have Avoided All This.

You can also completely ditch the list angle, but I’ve got a feeling you don’t want to hear that, so I have to go with everything else. So, you know, give a reason why the father couldn’t just give the list to the CIA. That would go over much better.

That’s all the stuff about the list. Trust me, we’re only halfway done. So let’s get to it.

5) Find a more practical way to kill the mother.

There are more practical ways of killing the mother than just gassing the whole room. Oh yeah, and it also results in less stupid when baby Taylor Lautner picks up a breathing mask, somehow knows what it does, and lives, despite the fact that, you know, he’s still a freaking baby!

6) Find another excuse to involve Nathan in addition to the list.

(Seriously, I just can’t get over the fact that the bad guys are chasing Taylor Lautner for a fucking list that they can get just as easily if they gun for the still-alive father.)

Like, you know, make him a super-secret experiment baby who has enhanced abilities or something. (Funny, when you consider that this is why I originally thought they were gunning for Lautner’s character.) You know, the kind of thing that someone would actually want to get their hands on.

Hey, it worked for Hanna, I’m sure it’ll work just as well here.

7) Keep track of where your movie is, and how long it takes to get there.

Seriously, how the hell did that one dude from The Great Debaters get all the way from Pennsylvania to Virginia with a bunch of fake ID’s in a few hours? I thought making stuff like fake IDs was supposed to take a lot of time, so how does it happen in a few hours? How, movie? How?

8) Have more competent CIA agents, and only slightly less competent Slavic guys.

You mean to tell me that the CIA goes almost the entire running time of the movie without somehow noticing that every single interaction they’ve had with Taylor Lautner’s character over the phone is being tapped by the Slavic guys? Come on, people! The CIA can’t possibly be that stupid!

And lastly…

9) Change the flippin’ title!

Seriously. The title doesn’t relate to the movie at all when you think about it. It really doesn’t.

So yeah, there are a whole bunch of plot suggestions to work with. The one thing I’ll tell you not to do?

10) Do not take out the romance subplot.

Seriously, the romantic subplot of the movie was literally the only thing I enjoyed about it.

And it’s sad when the romantic subplot is the best part of a really twisty action-thriller with complicated plot and all that. It really is.

"Abduction"

Here's a little thing I'd like to say to movie screen-writers. We like twisty, complicated plots. We like them in action movies. And we like them as an excuse to watch crazy things happen.

But please, please, for the love of God don't insult our intelligences while doing so.

Seriously, today's movie is a prime example of why you shouldn't treat your audience like a bunch of idiots.

Oh, and for the record, this review WILL contain spoilers. You have been warned about that, and the fact that I really don't care if I give them away for this particular movie. So if you saw this movie and got spoiled, you can't say I didn't warn you about spoilers.

So yeah.

Abduction

Nathan (Taylor Lautner) is a young man in high school going around doing what he does. However, on a project he does with classmate Karen (Lily Collins), he finds out that his picture just happens to be on a missing person's website. And soon after that, things go downhill, and Nathan is then pursued by both the CIA headed by... Alfred Molina (I can't remember the character's name, nor do I really care), and... some Slavic dude, I don't know.

See? I've forgotten details about the movie already. Not a good sign, people. Let's get this review out of the way before I forget more details.

So, action? Yes, the action here is exciting, we can actually see what the hell is going on... but there isn't as much as there should be. Mindless diversions like this are supposed to be just that: mindless diversions, and we don't really get inclined to care so long as we get action. But there isn't really as much action as you'd hope for in this movie. Instead, it concerns itself with a very twisty plot.

And you know, I wouldn't mind, except for the fact that this movie's plot makes no sense. At all. (Warning: here be spoilers.) Basically, Taylor Lautner's character is being chased around because he has information about stuff that the Slavic guy wants back... except that he doesn't actually start the movie with this information. In fact, he doesn't get this information until after some dudes come into his house, kill the people who are supposedly his parents, and then gets directed to an apartment in which he just so happens to pick up a cell phone that has that information, and just so happens to take it with him. And get this: the missing persons website was a front from the Slavic guy, specifically made to get Nathan so he can get that information. It's a fine plan, until the revelation is made that Nathan's real father is still alive, and extremely well. So why the hell did the bad guys sit and wait for fifteen years for the kid to find the site when they could've just concentrated on finding the father? That makes no sense! There are numerous other plotholes and unexplained plot conveniences peppered around, but when your entire premise makes no sense, you're in trouble.

It doesn't help that nothing is believable about the action or the acting. The guys that attack Nathan's house in the beginning are spending all there time trying to find Nathan, and then trying to kill his "adopted" parents. So when the hell did they find time to stick a time bomb into the oven? That's one thing in a series of missteps in all the action scenes which make the action extremely difficult to believe. And the acting? Forget the acting: the script is so bland (and laughable at a couple of points) that none of the actors can save it. Seriously, you're in trouble when Sigourney Weaver can't save your movie.

So all around? Stay the hell away from Abduction. The acting is stilted, in some cases horrible, and in even more cases laughable, the plot makes no sense, and the action is basically all an excuse for Taylor Lautner to show his stuff as an action hero. Whatever. I want my nine dollars back.

And for the record, I still don't know what the hell the title has to do with the movie, because nobody gets abducted. Ever.

0.5/4

Do NOT see this movie at any cost.

This is Herr Wozzeck Reviews. I'll see you guys next time.

"Drive"

Well... at around this time last year, we actually had an existentialist thriller about some dude living life who has a really dangerous side of him that constantly threatened him. Oh, and he had a lot of ties to crime. So wouldn't you know, they decide to release a movie with similar subject matter this year, at around the same time.

To be honest, though, today's movie couldn't possibly be any more different from the other one.

Drive

The driver (Ryan Gosling) (Yes, he remains unnamed throughout the movie, but it really doesn't matter.) is a mysterious man who has no real connections to anything. He does stunt driving, he works at a car shop, and he provides getaway rides by night. He then meets his neighbor Irene (Carey Mulligan), but then gets pulled into a huge web of conspiracy surrounding her kinda sorta husband Standard (Oscar Isaac) and a crime boss that throws everything into disarray.

So... let's get started with the details? The details? Well, we have a crime thriller here. Oh, but not just any crime thriller: an existentialist crime thriller, with a rather large cast of characters and a hero who doesn't really say all that much but does a lot. You'd think such a movie would have a tough time getting its tone straight.

And yet, this doesn't happen. Ever. And the movie is all the better for it. And I think it comes down to the lead role.

The whole thing is tied together by an incredible performance from Ryan Gosling. His character says fewer than twenty sentences total throughout the entire running time of the movie, but in a way every single sentence counts. And it works perfectly towards the movie's advantage, as the driver is supposed to be isolated from pretty much everything. However, it's tantamount that we see the driver's expressions, and on this Gosling brings a huge amount of subtlety to the character. And later in the movie, it helps when he gets much more involved than someone who was so isolated from the world before: with any other actor in the role, it would have seemed nonsensical, but with the subtlety that Gosling brings to every interaction with the other characters it makes perfect sense.

And the whole thing comes together from there, but everyone else brings their all to it, too. Director Nicolas Winding Refn brings a visual style to the thing that seems to highlight the film's neo-noir tendencies. All the supporting actors bring their work to the table, and they all have a certain magnetism with Gosling that works to the movie's advantage. And the action is extremely tense. While there isn't a lot of it and what there is tends to be short, what there is extremely exciting.

So... what to say? Drive is one of the best movies of the year, no contest. And the whole thing comes together thanks to Ryan Gosling. Seriously, people. Don't miss out on Drive. You will not regret seeing it.

4/4

A must-see picture of the year.

This is Herr Wozzeck Reviews. I'll see you guys next time.