The Dinosaur Project

Logline: Found footage of an expedition into the Congo jungle where a team of explorers stumbles upon a colony of Dinosaurs.

Cast: Natasha Loring, Matt Kane, Peter Brooke.

Directed by: Sid Bennett

I bet not many people out there have heard of The Dinosaur Project. Being a blogger, I try to find very recent material - both popular and unknown. I find it gives a better angle on learning about movies when I take from both Hollywood blockbusters and indie films with low budgets. I chose this one simply because I love dinosaurs, the trailer didn't look THAT low budget, and because this was just recently released and not many people have even heard of it.

Summary

The film's protag, Luke, follows his father on an expedition in Africa in attempt to discover the mythical Loch Ness Monster. To make things a little more spicy, Luke and his father have a rocky relationship. Luke wants to be exactly like him, but his father really doesn't want him around and is angered by the little things that Luke does wrong. While in their helicopter they spot a flock of enormous looking birds that end up crashing into the propellers, sending the helicopter down into mysterious land. Deep in the Congo jungle, the crew stumbles upon an even bigger discovery - dinosaurs are still alive.

Review

Jurassic Park must have ruined dinosaur movies in Hollywood. Think about it. When's the last time you've heard of a dinosaur movie being produced with a good enough budget to make the dinosaurs visibly satisfying? I guess Spielberg set the bar so high that people don't want to attempt jumping over it - and that sucks.

I give all the credit in the world to Sid Bennett. Dinosaur movies are still relevant in my opinion. I've been craving for something new to be done with the concept. I very much doubt this film had any kind of budget, but the dinosaurs didn't look that bad! Surprisingly they're done pretty well. The only thing is - people will moan and complain that it's a found footage film, meaning that the camera is a bit shaky. I've went into this before during my Troll Hunter review, so I won't do it again. I still enjoyed it even though the camera was shaky at times.

So, enough reviewing the concept and camera work... what about the movie itself? Well, the story isn't deep by any means. We have the conflict between Luke and his father, and the rest of the movie is about finding civilization without being eaten by dinosaurs. Characters lacked a unique edge. No one really stood out. The father dressed exactly like Indiana Jones. Luke was just your average teenager. Charlie, another member of the crew, was selfish - that's it I guess. Nothing really stood out, nothing made me cheer for them while they were escaping the jungle.

On the bright side, this film is paced very well. There are constantly things happening. The runtime is 1h and 23 mins and the film has little to no excess fat weighing it down. I love films like this. I've stated before and I'll state it again: I'd rather watch a 1h and 25 minute movie that isn't weighed down with fat, than a 2h movie that is. The story did lack depth, but  but it wasn't to the point where the action suffered. It didn't have any subtle plot points, you know? It just followed the structure of the general story without any substance. I guess with the introduction of dinosaurs I was interested anyways.

One thing I was really disappointed with was the fact that they never really portrayed a hidden meaning as to why all of a sudden dinosaurs were in Africa. Some films have underlying messages as to what made them come out, others flat out tell you why. Given that these dinosaurs are present time, in an actual location on the globe, it would have been nice to have some kind of explanation why they've never been discovered before. Considering some of the dinosaurs can fly, you know, you'd think there'd be a reason. There wasn't.

Topic of the Day

I chose to do two topics today.

1) I hate that some found footage films are way too obvious.

If the beginning of the movie shows that footage was found somewhere, it is pretty evident that NO ONE makes it out alive. So the whole time I was watching characters that I knew were doomed. It is never made clear what happens to Luke, but considering no one had found him yet, you know.... I just hate having a film spoiled like that. Found footage shouldn't been shown as found footage until the ending.

2) If you're going to make an indie film, realize the budget in doing so.

It's kind of silly to think of what went through the creator's minds when this film was made. "Let's make a movie...", "Ok, but we don't have much money". "Let's make it about dinosaurs?", "That sounds like an awesome idea!"... tell me if that conversation makes any sense to you. I'm not saying that the visuals were corny at all, but the film did lack essential moments that this genre is so used to having. For example, when the helicopter goes down, most of the footage is cropped out and the screen goes blank. When they get attacked in their boat, the screen goes blank and comes back when they're on shore. A bigger budget would have allowed for the filmmakers to show what was happening instead of having the cameras turned off. These are the moments that make a dinosaur movie. I'm not totally blasting the creators, it's actually quite astounding what they did with their budget, but I can't ignore my inner urges to see moments like this lost and excuse it due to the constraints of money.

Consensus

The Dinosaur Project is an impressive feat for an indie movie with the concept of dinosaurs. The film's dinos are actually not that bad, but it does lack the essential movie moments by choosing to black out the screen during action sequences due to the lack of money needed to show what happened without looking corny. The characters are pretty lackluster and the story lacks depth, but due to a short runtime and a well paced timeline of events the film becomes quite a fun ride at times. I can't completely recommend it, but I can't say it's bad either. It may or may not be worth your time.

5.8/10

Dark Shadows

Logline: An imprisoned vampire, Barnabas Collins, is set free and returns to his ancestral home, where his dysfunctional descendants are in need of his protection.

Cast: Johnny Depp, Eva Green, Michelle Pfeiffer, Chloë Grace Moretz, Jackie Earle Haley

 

Directed by: Tim Burton

 

 

 

As planned, my review of Dark Shadows on my birthday. I don't think I need explain my reasoning as to why I chose to review this. As past has shown, when director Tim Burton and Johnny Depp link up to make a movie it almost inevitably becomes a hit. I wasn't really expecting much from this one though, considering I watched the trailer and didn't laugh once.

 

 

Summary

 

Barnabas Collins was a lady's man and a business man. He made his way to America at a very young age after growing up in the filthy streets of Liverpool. In America he made a name for his family by starting up a fishing company that made him very wealthy. Jealous of his wealth and angry at Barnabas' knack for breaking hearts, a witch by the name of Angelique Bouchard cursed him into becoming a vampire and had the town lock him in a coffin and buried alive. Two centuries later Barnabas is back - he wants his wealth back and he wants revenge.

 

 

Review

 

Sometimes high expectations can ruin a movie. Being that Tim Burton is a highly acclaimed director, Johnny Depp is considered by many one of the best actors in the world, and the fact that both have linked up for past success quite a few times (Edward Scissorhands, Sweeney Todd, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, Sleepy Hollow, Alice in Wonderland) - I bet a lot of people set their standards really high for this movie. I didn't really. Don't get me wrong, I have liked what the two have done together, especially Edward and Sweeney, but the trailer didn't do it for me and I knew I probably wouldn't enjoy the comedy.

 

That being said, the story does lack that typical umph that we're usually used to. It's definitely eccentric like the others, but it never raises itself above that into being a good story. I will admit, this is another movie that took 20 minutes to get into, but it was forgivable due to the first 10 minutes introducing pure backstory on Barnabas and the second 10 minutes being pure introduction to the new family within the Collin's residence.   That wasn't why I didn't really care for Dark Shadows though.  I think it just didn't flow properly. This might be because there wasn't any urgency, maybe because the stakes were only raised slightly, I'm not too sure. It just felt off.

 

I did enjoy the character of Barnabas though. Some of his dialogue made me laugh and it was quite creative. I felt bad for him being locked up 200 years and I wanted that witch to pay.

 

 

Topic of the Day

 

Goal centric movies.

Dark Shadows barely had any urgency and the stakes were only raised just a little bit (fall in love with the witch, or have his life destroyed by her again). It was an interesting twist of events, but it never really kept my interest much. I think what did keep my interest and kept me watching 'til the end was the fact that Barnabas Collins had his goals set. He wanted to get his wealth back and he wanted to make the witch pay. By having such strong goals it enables the character to constantly be doing things while overcoming obstacles. Although there wasn't urgency, we're never floating because the character is motivated. 200 years of doing nothing motivated. I'd say this rarely carries a movie for 2 hours of runtime, but it kind of worked here. Having a goal centric main character is very important and it's even more important that those goals are clear as day for the audience to understand. Dark Shadows aces that aspect.

 

Consensus

 

Dark Shadows doesn't live up to the prior hook-ups between Johnny Depp and Tim Burton, but it isn't a bad movie either. A lot of the plot develops through comedic turning points and most of its charm develops based on the assumption that the viewers will laugh at the funny parts. Some will, some won't. I can't tell you what should be funny and what shouldn't. I personally laughed at some of the dialogue because it's very old fashioned in a modern day world and his insults become rather interesting/creative. It's definitely an alright movie, maybe even worth the watch if you like this kind of humor.

5.8/10

Throwback Thursday- The Breakfast Club

Logline: Five high school students, all different stereotypes, meet in detention, where they pour their hearts out to each other, and discover how they have a lot more in common than they thought.

Cast: Emilio Estevez, Paul Gleason, Molly Ringwald, Ally Sheedy, Judd Nelson, Anthony Michael Hall

Directed by: John Hughes

 

First of all, I'd like to say that I was shocked and saddened by the death of Michael Clarke Duncan. May he Rest in Peace - he will be missed.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Without further ado, another Throwback Thursday. For those who didn't already know, John Hughes was an absolute legend in the film industry. Planes, Trains and Automobiles, National Lampoon's Vaction, Sixteen Candles, Ferris Buehler's Day Off, Uncle Buck, Home Alone, and seriously, the list goes on. I said I was going to start making my Throwback Thursdays more "throwback-ish" and so far I've chosen a movie from '84 and now '85.

Summary

I really can't describe this movie any better than the logline. Pretty odd that I can't, but try it yourself and you'll see.

Review

This is definitely one of the most weird movies I've ever had to tackle. I'd maybe even say harder than The Tree of Life because I'm without the reasoning of it not being considered a movie per say. The Breakfast Club's structure really is one-of-a-kind, relying heavily on charm, dialogue, and reality to push the story forward and keep audience interested.

Every week I always talk about how films should always be paced well; How you can't keep the same stakes all movie expecting to keep an audience interested. There also needs to be some kind of urgency to make a movie work. The Breakfast Club takes all of my thoughts on film and throws them out the window and says the hell with that. The students are to write an essay to principal Vernon by the end of their 8 hour detention... normally I'd say, well, who cares if they do? I don't need to point out how low the stakes are, how weak the urgency is. If they don't complete the essay then they get detention again, BIG DEAL.

This film isn't really about telling a story - it's about telling the stories of these students in their own way, with having the bigger picture and social standards of high school laid out on the table with nothing to hide. It's about forcing the jock to talk to the criminal for eight hours, the pretty girl to talk to the geek, the weird girl who never talks to finally communicate. Imagine these school stereotypes all thrown together in one room with nowhere to go and nothing to do but write a simple essay that no one wants to do anyway. It's a pretty sweet concept and the movie rides it to the finish line while diving into the many problems teenagers deal with and the standards set by society.

So although The Breakfast Club­ doesn't follow standard storytelling, it's so unique and interesting that you can't miss it. It's very thought provoking and the situations are so true that the movie becomes quite emotional at times.

Topic of the Day

Having a film mean something.

Sometimes these films are exempt from basic storytelling because they're so thought provoking it can keep the audience's interest that way. In order to do so, a film needs to be filled with diverse characters with different backgrounds. The relationships, emotions, and everyday lives of the characters all have to be interesting and they need to drive the point of the movie forward while making sense of the grand scheme. Not many movies have ever done this well. If you look at The Breakfast Club, you'll notice that a lot of the same issues that were happening in it still happen today - and this was made in the '80s. Due to the fact that this is such a big topic, the film has plenty to work with and it drives the point home through playing with the emotions of each character through different conflicts within the group. This film is the pure harsh reality of teenage high school life and just by watching it and really thinking about, you'd become a better teenager. Not many movies can say that. Not many movies are that deep.

Consensus

The Breakfast Club hardly follows any of my structural knowledge, but instead maintains the audience's interest through the problematic thought provoking realities of teenage life. It's also quite comical and, unlike Ghostbusters, is a timely classic - meaning most of the content in it is still relevant today. This is one of my favourite movies and I've watched it probably 5-7 times now. Definitely a classic from one of the most legendary comedy director/writers in the business.

9.5/10

The Bourne Legacy

Logline: An expansion of the universe from Robert Ludlum's novels, centered on a new hero whose stakes have been triggered by the events of the previous three films.

Cast: Jeremy Renner, Rachel Weisz, Edward Norton

Directed by: Tony Gilroy

I chose this movie because I wanted to keep this week filled with recently released in theatre/on DVD films. I believe Thursday's article will be The Breakfast Club and Friday should be Dark Shadows if all goes as planned. I'm debating on doing something special for the week of September 10-14, maybe a genre centric or superhero themed type of thing. We'll see. I might hold out considering I still have newer movies to review. Anywhoo... The Bourne Legacy awaits my critique.

Summary

Aaron Cross is a soldier like Jason Bourne in the Treadstone Project. The film begins with him beating a training record by 2 whole days in which he had to travel from point A to B in the freezing cold region of Alaska. He means business. However, back home things aren't going too well for Treadstone. Due to Bourne exposing them to the public, things are in shambles. A man by the name of Eric Byer, an ex-Air Force colonel, is brought in to help the situation. He decides to eliminate all Outcome initiatives like Cross in attempt to wipe the slate clean. He fails, Cross lives. All should have been fine and dandy for our hero, but in order to live he needs certain chemicals, so this is the story of how he attempts to attain them.

Review

For an action movie there wasn't enough things happening. I don't need to have constant explosions, fights, car chases, etc. I actually don't even care much for them unless they're done just right - somewhere between realistic and holy ____!!! A lot of The Bourne Legacy is spent with people babbling on about their problems and the story staying as stagnant as it possibly could.

I talked yesterday in my review about stakes and how it's bad to keep the level of stakes the same throughout the entire film. It really makes the movie seem like it's dragging along without much change. Unfortunately this entry into the Bourne series suffers in one of the most essential components to story structure, just like Snow White and the Huntsman did. Aaron Cross needs to get those pills. If he doesn't he will no longer be able to live. The woman he saves, Dr. Marta Shearing, can actually viral him off - but this doesn't change or raise the intensity of the situation. The stakes are fine, they're maybe just set way too high from the get go.

What's weird though is, with such high stakes from the early stages of the film, you'd think the first act would be intriguing. It isn't. Nothing really happens for 30 minutes. You know that Aaron Cross has been in this cabin (his point B destination) and anyone who has shown any bit of interest in this movie has seen the trailer for it. You know they blow the cabin up, you know Cross is not inside of it as the missile zooms past him. Everyone was waiting for that first turning point to come and yet, it didn't come for 30 minutes. It was actually 30 minutes on the dot that the missile zooms past Cross. Before this event, the film is padded with unnecessary excessive fat.

To add another con to this list - the characters were bland as ever. Aaron Cross had 1 thing going for him. He was the fastest of Treadstone's kind to make it through a training session. That makes him pretty bad ass, but at the same time, who really cares? He climbed mountains, made a fire, etc. What else do we know about him? It wasn't even made into a mystery like The Bourne Identity was. The whole time you're discovering more and more about Bourne and it keeps it interesting and exciting on top of all the other things happening. That's why I thought this movie was set to fail from the beginning. Jason Bourne was set up so well, there's no way they could duplicate the same formula without feeling repetitive. For a movie like this, that's the best way it could have been done, but they couldn't do it again.

The only positive thing I have to say is that the wolf scene was pretty sweet & so was the motorcycle chase at the end (not the whole chase, just some).

Topic of the Day

Like yesterday's review, I absolutely hate it when movies take 25-30 minutes to dive into their story. It's an absolute movie killer. If a movie is going to take that long to really start picking up the action, it better have a damn good reason to. I gave GoodFellas and City of God high praise two weeks ago for doing so. Both movies actually give a glimpse into the past and show the audience where the characters are coming from. The Bourne Legacy takes 30 minutes to do something that could have been done in 15. A lot of filmmakers out there are pushing for that 2 hour mark. It seems to be the normal finish line now. They must think that when people pay $10 to see their movie that it best be long enough to be worth the price. In reality, I hate that assumption. I'd much rather watch a 1h and 25min movie that charms, scares, thrills, or makes me laugh through the use of good storytelling, than watch a bloated 2h and 15min movie that floats around with padded dialogue to make something "worth my while". I'm trying to make sense of why filmmakers do this, and that's the only thing I can think of. This is two movies in a row that I've reviewed, so it's really frustrating.

Consensus

The Bourne Legacy is a snooze fest. Being the fourth addition into the collection of Bourne films, the bar was already set really high. With the introduction of a new character, the movie suffers due to the constraints set by the film's predecessors. Jason Bourne was a carefully crafted character that used the formula of keeping his identity a mystery; I felt that this was the only way an introduction to a main character in this series could be done. If they did the same with Aaron Cross, it wouldn't have felt repetitive, and therefore the movie couldn't have a satisfying protag. The pacing is ridiculously slow, the action is "been there done that" and the only thing I could think about during most of this movie was what I was going to be doing after it finished. Definitely not worth the watch, can't call it mediocre, but I can't call it absolute trash either because it was decently acted and there were some alright scenes.

I hate that I ended it on a good note with that line. Just know I'd never recommend this movie to anyone.

3.4/10

Snow White and the Huntsman

Logline: In a twist to the fairy tale, the Huntsman ordered to take Snow White into the woods to be killed winds up becoming her protector and mentor in a quest to vanquish the Evil Queen.

Cast: Kristen Stewart, Chris Hemsworth, Charlize Theron, Sam Claflin

Directed by: Rupert Sanders

This movie may or may not be slandered forever by the notorious scandal between Kristen Stewert and director Rupert Sanders. Regardless, I was intrigued by the concept of twisting Snow White's tale and making it dark. Batman did it, Superman is going to do it, and now this.

Summary

The Evil Queen has taken over yet another kingdom. This time she messed with the wrong one as her evil enchantment becomes in danger when the "purest of them all" is held prisoner in her castle - Snow White. Snow White escapes just as The Queen is about to kill her and runs off into the dark forest. The Queen sends The Huntsman in after her. He tracks her down, captures her, and finds out the Queen had lied to him about being able to bring his wife back, so they venture out to the Duke's castle while being chased by the Queen's evil people.

Review

Kristen Stewart takes a lot of flak for her role as Bella Swan in the Twilight series. I've seen her act in it and at times it is quite laughable. However, I've always been with the group that keeps saying it's the movie's fault that the character is so dull and the dialogue is so corny. I've seen her play Joan Jett and other minor roles; she wasn't THAT bad. I was hoping Snow White and the Huntsman was going to be the final tell of her acting for me. A big blockbuster movie, a relationship with Thor, Charlize Theron as the Queen... I wanted to see how she'd match up with all of them. Unfortunately I didn't get to. She hardly has any dialogue and does basic acting 101 for the majority of the movie. Again, I think this is the movie's fault, not hers. The little she had to do in this movie she did it well.

On to the movie review aspect. I couldn't care less about this film. I absolutely hate it when movies take their sweet time to get into the story. Honestly it was about 25 minutes before anything remotely interesting happened because the first 25 were all backstory that could have been compacted into 5 or 10. This almost killed the movie for me, but I kept watching. My TOTD will dive into the many problems of storytelling.

The characters were soooooooo bland. The Queen kind of just yelled a lot. She had one decent scene where she tricks Snow White, but other than that she was reaaaaaallllly boring. When the film's evil antagonist is boring and you really couldn't care less to watch her fall - that's a recipe for disaster. All it needed was one scene of her doing something absolutely despicable for us to hate her. Snow White never really did anything good either - we were just told she was pure and were forced to believe it. The only decent character was The Huntsman because we find out about his wife being killed by the Queen and we have sympathy for him. He's also fearless and would do anything to protect innocent people.

The one thing it had going for it was the visual effects. Normally I don't give ratings based on visuals, but I turned this movie on expecting some creepy and awesome looking monsters and it delivered in that sense.

Topic of the Day

This film was primarily a chase movie like Premium Rush which I reviewed the other day.

To make a chase movie work the stakes have to be high and there has to be urgency. Snow White and the Huntsman has both, but doesn't exploit them very well. The film blows all of its stakes in one go. Reach the Duke's castle or the Queen will live forever and nature will suffer along with innocent people. Simple right? Well, those stakes are never raised & to be honest, I don't think they could have been. That's a serious problem. Raising the stakes is crucial to keep an audience interested in a chase movie because the audience needs reasons to keep the movie fresh on their minds and on the edge of their seats. Urgency was also there because they were being chased, but you never got a glimpse of the bad guys on their tail - they just always seemed to show up at inopportune times. I felt that by choosing not to show the bad guys the film suffered because the tone was all wrong.

By the climax everyone knew a big battle was coming, the Queen was going to be taken down and Snow White would prevail - but personally I had no interest in watching it (even though I had to for the sake of this review).

Consensus

Snow White and the Huntsman provides the visuals, but fails to follow simple storytelling rules that hold a film together and keep it fresh. Rupert Sanders decided it was alright to take his time developing the story which in return made it really boring and dull - especially because he was only developing story and not developing characters. It had the right intentions, but the execution was poor and the visuals became almost irrelevant. 

4.5/10

Lawless

Logline: Set in Depression-era Franklin County, Virginia, a bootlegging gang is threatened by a new deputy and other authorities who want a cut of their profits.

Cast: Shia LaBeouf, Tom Hardy, Guy Pearce, Gary Oldman, Jessica Chastain, Jason Clarke, Mia Wasikowska

Directed by: John Hillcoat

Yup, a rare Saturday review going up because this just got released last night and it's been on my list of upcoming movies of interest for quite awhile now. I may or may not make a post on Monday - being labor day and all... we'll see.

Summary

This film takes place in the prohibition era and follows the story of three brothers from the Bondurant family. They are moonshine bootleggers and they turn quite a profit doing what they do. Shortly into the movie a man named Charlie Rakes takes over as the new deputy in town and attempts to take down the brothers and squash their reputation as being immortal.

Review

This movie strives for perfection with every single scene. It's beautifully filmed and well paced. It may not hit its ultimate goal, but it sure tries really hard in doing so.

As far as story goes, Lawless is basic formula for the most part. There's something that happens midway in that had me thinking "oh, wow." You'll see. For the most part it has a slow build up, but there are always scenes that movie the plot forward. I also enjoyed the fact that they didn't exploit the love interests too much. Some movies have a tendency of turning a crime drama into a romance. Not knocking it, I just felt it wouldn't have fit well in this one.

I think most of my positive review will be in my topic of the day.

Topic of the Day

One thing that Lawless nails that most movies have a really hard time doing is the creation of unique and memorable characters.

Tom Hardy plays Forrest Bondurant. He's the alpha male brother and knocks people out with a single blow. Seems pretty stock, no? Well, when you add in the comical grunts, the speeches that make no sense to distract the enemy, and the immortal status that is achieved through stuff I can't spoil - he becomes this awesome bad ass character. Shia LeBeouf plays the younger brother who always relies on his brothers to protect him. This is also pretty stock, but when you put a guy like Shia who is perfect for that type of role, the character becomes really believable and the journey of him growing up to defend himself is something you can cheer for. Charlie Rakes is such a good enemy too. No eyebrows, slicked back black hair. Everything about the guy makes you want to watch him die. I also noticed that every character had a certain trait to them - bad ass, drunk, dependent, smug, crippled, etc. It was a really nice blend.

The only disappointment was that Gary Oldman is only in two scenes. I thought for sure he'd play a bigger part later in the story, but he didn't. It's weird they have him listed in the trailer before Guy Pearce.

Consensus

Lawless is solid western movie. Each character is unique and memorable in his own way. The slowness of the movie is filled with comical subtleties while the rest is filled with violent action with the story always moving forward. Although it doesn't hit its goal of perfection, it's still a pretty damn good try. I really liked it.

8/10