Mockingbird In A Blizzard

By Nadia Ranaputri

Source: Screen Rant

Director: Mel Gibson
Cast: Andrew Garfield, Vince Vaughn, Luke Bracey, Sam Worthington, Hugo Weaving, Teresa Palmer.

From Braveheart, to Apocalypto, Mel Gibson has proven himself a great director as he is an actor. It’s not often that an actor nails at being a director, but Mel Gibson is one of the exceptions.

Hacksaw Ridge tells the true story of Desmond Doss, a young man with religious morals; who enlists in the army and served during the Battle of Okinawa. As he excels in his training physically, his reluctance to carry a weapon ranks him among the outcasts. Despite orders from his superiors for him to resign due to his reluctance of using a weapon, Desmond refuses to back down. When Desmond is put in the middle of battle, he braves his way through as he becomes the first man in history to fight in a battle without firing a single weapon.

Andrew Garfield plays Desmond Doss himself, and I’d say that this is the best performance that Garfield has ever given. Garfield portrayed Doss with such charm and gravitas. From the most charming moments to his most dire ones, Garfield makes a powerful performance that really hits you through the screen.

Vince Vaughn’s performance was also very good. His character provided much needed humor without having too much, so it wasn’t saturated and forced. But his character had emotional moments, too, and though Vaughn is known for his comedic performances, his serious side doesn’t drag him down. In fact, it elevated his character as well as Vaughn as a dramatic actor. Under the ranks of Vaughn’s character, Sam Worthington and Luke Bracey give strong and solid performances, giving their characters depth as they never seem too overshadowed by the lead character.

Teresa Palmer and Hugo Weaving completes the spectacular cast, and though they’re not in much, their characters and their relationship with our protagonist leave a lasting effect on not only the protagonist, but also us as the audience.

Source: moviesharkdeblore

As far as storytelling goes, Hacksaw Ridge takes its time to set its characters before it throws them to the hell that is war itself. At times, the setup can feel a little too long, as the film opens with a bang, but settles itself to the flashback and the buildup of Desmond’s story. Yet for a film that takes its time setting up the characters and their story, Hacksaw Ridge never really gives a dull moment that makes audiences beg to get the story going and get to the war already. As characters are introduced and given time to present themselves to the audience, the film gives us enough to warm up to them.

And because Hacksaw Ridge is a war film, there is violence, and a lot of it. Once our protagonist and his comrades are thrown into the depths of war, Hacksaw Ridge becomes a spectacle that is not afraid to show blood and guts. It doesn’t glorify the epic scale of war; it glorifies the horror and realism of it. The violence in Hacksaw Ridge is explicitly brutal, yet it begs you to keep your eyes on the screen as these comrades fight for their lives and plunge to uncertain tragedy.

Source: Screen Rant

Despite the film’s unashamed glorification of horror and goriness of the war, it hits you right in the core. Hacksaw Ridge excels incredibly in its emotional aspect. The setup during the first and second act may take its time, but that was what made the third act ever more powerful to witness. Take away the violence for a second, and we have our hero running through the battlefield as guns and explosions set ablaze among the field with only his courage to protect him. It might sound cliché, but this is a real person who actually did brave against the ever terrifying war, deprived of a single weapon in hand; and the film did such a great job in depicting this without making it seem like a cliché.

In all, Hacksaw Ridge manages to truly leave an impact on its viewers. Though the first and second act feels a little slow, they have a purpose, as it sets up the characters well before throwing them to the war pit. Its explicit gore and horror doesn’t carry the film down, rather it elevates the impact. As war stories go, Hacksaw Ridge excels and deserves the highest ranks among one of the best films of the year, if not the best.

Stars: 4.4/5

By Nadia Ranaputri

Source: Entertainment Fuse

Director: J.C Chandor
Cast: Oscar Isaac, Jessica Chastain, David Oyelowo, Albert Brooks, Alessandro Nivola, Elyes Gabel.

I was looking forward to seeing this film for two reasons. One, it has Oscar Isaac in it. Two, it has a very interesting premise.

A Most Violent Year is about an immigrant named Abel Morales (played yet again by Oscar Isaac) who runs an oil company in the year 1981. Things are well at hand until one of his drivers was attacked. Abel, the ever moral businessman, is determined to find the culprit behind the constant attacks on his company whilst refusing to dip his hand into any kind of violence; despite the encouragement from his wife Anna. When he consults with the District Attorney, he finds his company under siege as his company is suddenly investigated for certain felonies that are unidentified to Abel himself. Because of this, Abel is forced to interfere, while at the same time, avoiding the cheap and dirty ways of running his business.

Oscar Isaac is brilliant as usual in the role of Abel Morales. Unlike Llewyn Davis, Abel is calm and collected. His performance carries every bit of nuance that reflects a sort-of young Al Pacino type. Once he struggles with his inner morals that threaten to destroy both his life and his work, that’s when his performance is the most intriguing.

His performance isn’t the only star of the show. In fact, it’s Jessica Chastain’s fiery character Anna Morales, Abel’s wife; that equally steals the show. Being the daughter of the mobster, Anna is the complete opposite of Abel. As her husband tries his best to maintain is calm and collected demeanor, Anna is the pin in a balloon that seeks to break the air out with a bang. The chemistry between Isaac and Chastain is like water and fire on screen, with Oscar’s Abel being the calm water and Jessica’s Anna being the vicious fire.

Source: Athena Cinema

While the performances, especially between the two leads, are forms of captivation to behold, the plot itself is very slow. For a film titled A Most Violent Year, you’d think that it would show plenty of violence to match up to its title, but there’s a surprisingly minimal amount of violence that is shown throughout the movie. It’s very dialogue heavy, where characters discuss things from money, economics, to family life. It does get dull at times, but because the film boast quite a brilliant script, most of the dialogue is smart enough to hook the audience in with the situation.

For me, this was a film that required multiple viewings to really get in to the story. On first viewing, I thought the film had a dull progress, but I found myself watching it again and again to the point where I was actually hooked most of the time. It’s one of those films that you’d find tedious at first, yet after the first viewing, it seems as if that particular film is begging you to watch again until you fully understand and appreciate where they were going with it. This is mostly helped by the performances of the actors and how they delivered their lines. The film does improve once you start to appreciate it, but it doesn’t mean that you should watch it multiple times to get that type of feel. It just depends on how you think about it.

Source: fanart.tv

Beyond the story, I absolutely loved the cinematography of this film. The film plays with its colors and shots that embrace that 1981 setting. Completed with the catchy tunes of that era, the film knows its setting and it puts the colors from bright to slightly dim to play out on the screen.

A Most Violent Year truly has an interesting premise and a great cast on its belt, but the story does get dull. It took me a few more viewings to really appreciate where they were going with the film. Then again, it depends on the viewer who watches the film. When the story falls flat, it’s the intriguing performances and beautiful cinematography that gets the spotlight and are the true stars of the film that keeps the story from ever doing so again once it progresses.

Stars: 3.5/5

By Nadia Ranaputri

Source: Screen Rant

Director: David Yates
Cast: Eddie Redmayne, Katherine Waterston, Dan Fogler, Collin Farrell, Ezra Miller, Allison Sudol.

Five years ago, we said goodbye to what we thought was the last we’ve seen of the beloved Wizarding world. It certainly was the last we’ve seen of Harry Potter and Co. (well, at least until Cursed Child). But author J.K Rowling is not done with her world quite yet, and frankly; neither are we. With J.K Rowling on deck with the script and David Yates at the helm, Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them opens their doors to a new era of Rowling's fantasy spectacle.

Fantastic Beasts takes us decades before the story of The Boy Who Lived had even begun. Newt Scamander, a brilliant Wizard and an avid Magizoologist, travels to New York with a case that’s a lot bigger on the inside than how it looks from the outside. Alas, what a magical but tricky luggage it was, as it holds wondrous exotic creatures caught from Newt’s various adventures. It’s not long until the luggage is unexpectedly opened, which causes some of the creatures to escape and run amok around New York. As Newt sets out to re-capture his creatures, a much bigger threat takes over, plunging both Wizards and No-Majs (Muggles, as we all know them as) into high stakes of danger.

As the film’s lead star, Eddie Redmayne brings whirls of lively joy to Newt Scamander. He’s somewhat a reminiscent of an eccentrically giddy schoolboy, though it’s not meant to seem like it’s a bad thing. In fact, it’s one of the charms of Newt as a character. His fascination and admiration towards his many creatures add in to the beneficial charms.

Source: Collider

Katherine Waterston’s Tina Goldstein brings in as much of a charm as her fellow co-star. Unlike Redmayne’s giddy-like character, Tina is a much more bold character. She stands tall among other characters, including Newt himself. She doesn’t loom over to the shadow of the leading character, rather she stands above it.

Dan Fogler as Jacob Kowalski might be seen as a clueless No-Maj, but much like Newt himself, Jacob is fascinated with the world that he’s come to seen. Though Jacob provides one of the many comic reliefs, he becomes so much more than a No-Maj that becomes an audience-type character.

And Collin Farrell is really, really good in this film. It’s been a while since Collin Farrell did a good movie where his character brings in a keen eye of interest. Farrell’s character in Fantastic Beasts is quite intriguing and enigmatic. I thought his arc was very interesting and I was hooked everytime he was on screen.

Fantastic Beasts’s greatest strength lies within its characterizations. As the story sometimes goes a little haywire, Fantastic Beasts takes outmost care to their characters. The film takes its time to pave way to these characters and their arcs, which is immensely impressive for an introduction to a whole new slate of characters in a familiar world.

Source: New York Daily News

Both J.K Rowling and David Yates have managed to not only give layers to the characters, but also set up a new side of the Wizarding World. From the world inside Newt's case to the world outside of it, this era of the Wizarding World brims with so much appeal and captivation, it'd be foolish if you want to leave sooner. And for the Potterheads like me out there, there are some fun little Potter throwbacks and Easter Eggs that are interwoven in the story. Think of it like a Marvel movie, but for the Potter universe.

However, the wonder stops there. Despite those aspects mentioned above, the story as a whole was what brought it down. There were some parts where the film felt as if it didn’t know what it was aiming for; or what kind of tone they were going for. It’s all fantasy and magic, of course; but sometimes the film slightly switches its tones and you wonder what it was that they were truly trying to aim for. And like I said before, this causes the story to sometimes go haywire as the film crams various different arcs and different plot points into the runtime; and this can be a problem to most films: cramming in so many plots and arcs that it disrupts the cohesiveness of the story.

Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them as a whole is a plateful of charm and magic. Above all others, Fantastic Beasts manages to make it its own thing, putting on a fresh coat of paint on a somewhat familiar canvas. On the other hand, its disappointment lies in the excecution of the story itself, not knowing where it wants to focus and what story it wants to tell. Fantastic Beasts may have the beasts, but it doesn't quite have that fantastic element that a franchise starter should have.

Stars: 3/5

By Nadia Ranaputri

Source: Entertainment Weekly

This review was requested by my friend TM Fazar, who I watched the show with. Also, I apologize to all the Mortal Instruments fans out there, especially the ones who like the show. I like the novels, and the film was alright, but the TV show? Well....

If you haven’t heard of Shadowhunters, you’re forgiven. Shadowhunters is the TV remake of The Mortal Instruments: City of Bones and is based on The Mortal Instruments book series by Cassandra Clare (which I have read before). Since City of Bones didn’t do well in the box office, Constantine decided to put the beloved fantasy story to the small screen.

Shadowhunters practically has the same premise as its predecessor. Clary Fray is your average 17 year old girl living in New York. She draws in her spare time, and hangs out with her best friend Simon. Life was pretty simple for her. Until it basically turned upside down (nope, not Stranger Things related, sorry) on her 17^th birthday. While spending the night of her birthday with her friend Simon in a nightclub, Clary witnesses a supernatural event that only she could see. Top the night off with her mother going missing, and a stranger who introduces her to the side of the world that she never knew.

I usually don’t compare books to their adaptations. I do prefer to judge the movie on its own, but with this? I definitely have to compare it to both the book and its previous film adaption.

Kate McNamara as Clary is just a step down from Lily Collins in my opinion. It isn’t a major step-down, though. But if you compare the Kate McNamara’s portrayal to Lily Collins, Collins’ portrayal wins the latter. Both Collins’ and McNamara’s Clary depicts her as confused teen, which is also an aspect of Clary’s traits in the first novel, since she’s new to the world of Shadowhunters. Despite that, I can’t help but prefer Collins’ grounded portrayal a little more.

As for Jace Wayland? Okay, look. This is definitely an unpopular opinion, and everyone will hate me for this, but I do not like Jace. From the book, the film, and the TV show, I cannot bring myself to like Jace as a character. I never did like him. Dominic Sherwood‘s portrayal is fine, and I can’t complain fully. Here’s the thing, what I can say though, is this: both Clary and Jace in the TV show aren’t as captivating as the portrayals in the film, as the film’s portrayal felt slightly more mature and grounded, unlike the TV show’s soap-opera-like acting.

Source: Pinterest

The character whose characterization and traits felt butchered the most to me was Isabelle Lightwood (played by Emeraude Toubia). She was my favorite character (still is, actually) from the book series. She had a complex characterization and her arc always seems the most interesting out of all the other characters in the series. She can be sassy, witty, and snarky without ever banishing the more serious and thoughtful side of her. But in here? Butchered. She sasses and snarks her way into banishing her most interesting traits. The film did a better job at putting this badass Lightwood on screen, while the TV series just downright ruined her character. I don't blame the actress, but her character was poorly written and shows her as a literal sex object, when she never was that in the series.

On the other hand, the show did pretty well in depicting her brother, Alec Lightwood (played by Matthew Daddario). Alec Lightwood seems the most interesting and the most grounded out of the rest. It mostly comes from Daddario’s performance, bringing sense and moral to the other Lightwood.

Harry Shum Jr as Magnus Bane was also as interesting as Alec. In fact, both Alec and Magnus have pretty good arcs and personalities. They have fascinating chemistry together, and I was more invested in their arcs rather than the show’s two main protagonists.

Source: Fanpop

The acting tends to dip itself too deep to the soap-opera side of things, which I don’t tend to enjoy. Once it's out of the water, the performances tend to come out flat, and has no in-between that balances the effect of them.

It’s also completed with tropes and clichés that do happen in the novels. But here’s the thing about novel adaptations. Sometimes they don’t translate well in movies as they do in the novel. The Mortal Instruments is a fine example of that. I like the novels. They’re good fun, even with all the tropes; but when you put it to life on screen, it doesn’t have the same grip that the novel had. The show falls victim to showing clichés and tropes that sometimes repeats itself to the point where I roll my eyes more than once in just one episode.

One of the positives that I can say from this show is that it provides a good introduction to the world that Cassandra Clare has laid out. The world interwoven with supernatural beings is a great concept, and the show tries its best to present it to us. The show succeeds in this for the most part, they have good substance to add in the introduction of these worlds. What’s funny is that the other worlds and beings such as Downworlders are much more vibrant and fascinating than the sometimes tedious world of Shadowhunters.

In terms of the show as a whole, I understand that it is aimed for YA. I actually liked the book, even when I have to admit that the book series does have its tropes. I know that most fans of the book and the film do enjoy the show, and maybe you will, too. But for me, it’s nothing much to gawk at.

Stars: 2/5

By Nadia Ranaputri

Director: Alex Garland
Cast: Domnhall Gleeson, Oscar Isaac, Alicia Vikander, Sonoya Mizuno

Source: Drive-in Zeppelin

There are many films about Artificial Intelligence. You name them. I Robot, A.I, The Terminator franchise, and of course, Avengers: Age of Ultron. But the thing is, most of the movies mentioned earlier are well-known and rely heavily on CGI and action sequences. Ex Machina is a different kind of A.I movie.

Ex Machina tells a story about Caleb Smith (Domnhall Gleeson), an advanced coder who is offered the opportunity to spend the week with his company’s CEO, Nathan (Oscar Isaac). Upon his visit, Caleb discovers it to be more than just spending a week with the CEO. Nathan, the genius that he is, created an A.I (who he named Ava) and has chosen Caleb as a human component to take part in the Turing Test, a test to determine whether a machine can have consciousness. However, Caleb then finds himself torn by loyalty as his relationship with Nathan and Ava are put to the test.

Domnhall Gleeson has done a great job portraying the ultimately smart yet innocent Caleb. His character acts as an audience to the story and the movie plays that element well. As his character progresses, there’s a feeling of uneasiness and nuance that is set out once Caleb discovers a much deeper meaning behind Nathan’s creation.

Oscar Isaac is the opposite of our protagonist as Nathan. From the moment you see his character; you know something’s off, and the film presses hard on that. What the film does so well with Nathan is that he seems like an easy-going guy, but Oscar Isaac does such an immersive job with creating layers that stack up during as the film progresses.

Source: Evening Standard

With the two leads delivering clashing performances, Alicia Vikander comes on the screen and steals the light. The thing with Artificial Intelligence is that they will always be deceiving. We’ve seen it before with Terminators, Ultron, and the hosts from Michael Crichton’s Westworld. Vikander’s Ava fits the latter, but somehow her portrayal of this certain AI is unlike the others. She charms and wonders as her sessions with Caleb become more personal.

It’s a slow film, but its small hints of nuance and dread lingers as we see these three characters interact on an isolated facility. The film isn’t afraid to show its colors, and it shows through Geoff Barrow and Ben Salisbury’s score as well as the film’s use of dim colors and luscious cinematography. The film also manages to put the Norway landscape to good use, providing wide and stunning landscape shots.

There are expositions in this film, but they never seem to falter. As expositions go, Ex Machina finds a way to make them interesting, as these expositions are delivered brilliantly by its cast. It’s also quite obligatory, because of course, the audience wants to know how the hell Nathan made his A.I. It doesn’t go too far into details on how Nathan did it, but it does give some general expositions on how his A.I thinks and how he brought her to life.

Source: Awards Daily

There’s also an element of foreshadowing in this film, and it’s used with subtlety. Ex Machina has these foreshadowing elements that go unnoticed until the final shot of the film, which is why it is a film that does require full attention to actually get it. The foreshadowing mostly lies within the dialogues. It’s one of those rare movies that make you want to watch again to see whether you caught those little hints of foreshadowing.

One negative I can take from the film is that at times, there are elements that do feel unsettling, at least to me. It's only a small negative, but the unsettling elements are sometimes shown more than once.

But in all, Ex Machina is really the kind of film that reminded me that in a time where big budget sci-fi action films rule the cinema, there is a sci-fi film that doesn’t require action or big budget effects to hook me in. Upon first viewing, I could not stop thinking about it for days. It’s quite rare that such a film is able to do something like that. Ex Machina is truly the kind of film that wants you to think, and wants you to focus until the very end, which is why I consider it to be one of the best sci-fi films that I've seen.

Stars: 4.7/5

HELLO THERE!

Categories

Contact Form

Advertisement

Report Abuse

Search This Blog

Blog Archive

Pages

Popular Posts

featured posts

Advertisement