If you're one of the people who thought there needed to be a sequel to a film that was already adding nothing really new to the lore of Snow White, then at least you saw the first film. If you didn't see the first film, then you're in luck because you don't have to in order to watch this one. This prequel/sequel is only cosmetically related to 2012's Snow White and the Huntsman.
I mean that in both a good way and a bad way. The two films share some of the same cast--Chris Hemsworth, Charlize Theron, Nick Frost--but feels weighed down by the fact that its predecessor wasn't at all as amazing as its trailer lead us to believe.
But let's, for a moment, judge this movie solely on its own being, and not based on how necessary it is or the demerits of its predecessor.
The first installment ends the same way all Snow White adaptations end, except for there being an ambiguous endearment between Snow White and Eric the Huntsman (Hemsworth).
Snow White isn't in this movie. She's mentioned and silhouetted, but basically omitted. Which is fine. She was probably the worst part of the first one anyway.
Even better, we get a couple of cool additions to the cast in Emily Blunt and Jessica Chastain--both of whom do a superb job in their respective roles of the Snow Queen and Sara, the huntsman's wife.
When I say this installment acts as a prequel AND a sequel, it means that it shows the origins of how Eric becomes the huntsman and how he meets Sara, but then flashes forward 7 years after she dies (we know this from the first film).
The sequel portion of the story has the huntsman setting out on a journey to find the magic mirror, which Snow White sends away after it starts making her go crazy and homicidal. This is where the plot gets hairy. It's never clear why the mirror is making her mad, nor how she has the consciousness to send it away, nor why the huntsman needs to retrieve it even though Snow White wants it gone to begin with.
The magic mirror is a MacGuffin in the worst sense. Not only do we not need it as a plot device, but we're not even really sure why it's a plot device. There could've been a more sensible reason why Eric and the dwarves set out on their quest.
The action sequences are, at times, ridiculous and silly--over-saturated with shaky cam so you just accept what's happening. But the thing is, we would've been just as fine without the nausea.
There's plenty of levity from the dwarves, played by Frost and Rob Brydon. The jokes are a fairly even mixture of both hits and misses. But it's okay, at least it keeps the movie fun and not too self-aggrandizing. That is, until it wants to be self-aggrandizing. Jarring tonal shifts and an overly jokey Hemsworth all of a sudden make us confused about what feel we're supposed to be getting.
Truth is, I can't think of a good enough reason not to like this movie. I find it entertaining. There's a lot of meandering somewhere in the middle of the story. The journey to the mirror isn't half as exciting as it should be. Nonetheless, The Huntsman tops its predecessor, not on essentiality, but on a unique premise.
Twizard Rating: 79
In the Heart of the Sea is approached by audiences as an epic film that faces off a man and a whale. And while that's partially what happens, it's not the whole story.
The Ron Howard-directed film is one half good movie, one half less good movie. Fortunately for him, the good half is the latter half, so it's what we are left with. But the first hour of this film drudges along extremely slowly. Taking place in the 1820s, the characters speak in an archaic verbiage, heavy on sailing terms that mostly go over our heads. Sure, it gives the film a more genuine feel, but also provides us with a bit of a snoozer before the action actually starts happening.
For those of you who don't know, In the Heart of the Sea is about the real-life story that inspired Herman Melville's famed novel Moby Dick. The film begins in 1850 as Melville (Ben Whishaw) pays an unwanted visit to Thomas Nickerson (Brendan Gleeson), the last surviving crew member of a whaling ship, the Essex, which is said to have been destroyed by a giant whale 30 years prior. Much to Nickerson's protest, he tells the story to Melville about how he was a 14-year-old orphan on this boat, lead by Captain Pollard (Benjamin Walker) and First Mate Owen Chase (Chris Hemsworth)--the true protagonist of this film. The strangest thing may be the fact that Nickerson recounts literally all parts of the story, including bits that he wasn't even present for.
Some background: Back before humans drilled the earth for oil, they would use whale oil for lighting and electricity. Men would go out to sea for months at a time in order to bring back hundreds or thousands of gallons of oil. In this case, they were at sea for 2 years.
The film jumps back and forth between 1850 and 1820 showing multiple character dynamics and relationships--most importantly the one between Chase and Pollard, and between Melville and Nickerson.
But the people come to see a film about Moby Dick--the legendary whale who is chased by Captain Ahab--in this case Pollard and Chase. Unfortunately, we don't get to see the whale until an hour into the movie. Before that is a lot of setup, which would have been okay if the setup had been more interesting. 1997's Titanic also features a lot of drama before the action happens, but there's also a lot more tension leading up to it. And this film doesn't have the added benefit of being very charismatic, aside from what the giant whale brings. It takes itself a little too seriously, only giving us maybe two real shards of levity throughout.
I understand that In the Heart of the Sea is supposed to be a disaster film, but seeing that the disaster only accounts for a third of the movie, I think they could have afforded to give us a few more laughs here and there.
With that said, I was actually pretty moved by this film. I found it's overall messages very poignant and thoughtful. The movie showcases some important themes of animal hunting, prejudice, entitlement, and big business integrity--all of which are still relevant in today's world, and perhaps the most powerful things about this film.
The latter part of the film is very memorable and the effects with the whale are incredible. I left the movie satisfied by the second half, but was hoping for a first half that I don't have to skip over when I watch it again.
Twizard Rating: 84
Possibly the 2nd most anticipated movie of the year (behind Star Wars) is Avengers: Age of Ultron. For fans of the series thus far, this movie won't disappoint, but many might not see it living up to the standards set by its 2012 predecessor.
In Age of Ultron, Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.) secretly activates an artificial intelligence program called Ultron that he hopes will be able to do the jobs of the Avengers team so that they can retire. Of course, things go wrong as Ultron decides to seek his independence and destroy the world.
The storyline is a little too convoluted to follow and we see small outcomes of Ultron's huge threats, but it's never clear why it's all happening. There's no sensible reason why Ultron decides to be evil. Much like my issue with Guardians of the Galaxy, the antagonist has no understandable motive. The best villains have a motive that we can empathize with, because it gives him or her more relatability. To hate is to love, right?
That's really the looming issue over the film. But honestly, this film feels a lot more organic than the first. 2012's Avengers is the epitome of action entertainment, but focuses more on satisfying the audience's wants. We were anticipating that movie as though it had all lead up to that point. But while it had the tonal consistency and even pace that this new movie doesn't, it felt a little too contrived and polished.
A main reason why I think that American Graffiti is the greatest movie ever is because it doesn't feel scripted. You see the bumps and bruises, and it feels real. Age of Ultron gives us a little more of that with its humor. It's the story that needs to be told, not the one that we want to be told. It's filled with effective social relevance and doesn't have an overload of quippy in-jokes that really aren't all that funny to the world of people that aren't up to speed with the Marvel Universe. The humor here feel more organic and less scripted. It's a little bit more watchable without having seen the previous films.
But there are still some good bits that are a little more involved. We get a brilliant scene where everyone takes a turn trying to lift Thor's hammer.
We get a small glimpse into Hawkeye's (Jeremy Renner) life. It adds a little more depth to the film as we see a different side (or any side) to his character.
I don't really like when movies open up with an action scene. It's cliche and I'm not quite settled into the movie yet. But the effects are amazing, and so are all the other technicals.
Twizard Rating: 93
After 2 months without a post, I now present to you my new segment entitled "Wrong Tomatoes," where I take a film that I have seen and explain how the score that it's given on Rotten Tomatoes is wrong. In this first edition I will discuss the current remake of the 1984 film Red Dawn. As of today it has a score of 11% on RT.....eleven. The original holds a 53%.
So, let me explain to you the issues I have with this by telling you what was wrong with the original film. It lacked character development of any kind. Out of the 8-or-so teenagers that made up the guerrilla warfare group called the Wolverines, about 3 of them had a distinct personality. The others neither had any identifiable traits, nor did they have any sort of relationship with each other. This made it difficult to become emotionally attached to any of the characters. If an audience isn't attached emotionally, they no longer care about the outcome.
Also, throughout the entire film things keep happening that seem like they were included last minute. A scenario that stands out is where, towards the end of the film, Jennifer Grey and Patrick Swayze's characters are seen in a playful manner as the former intentionally sprinkles food crumbs onto the latter's head. They both get a laugh. However, before this instance, both characters hardly even acknowledge the other's presence. Shortly after this event, Jennifer Grey's character gets killed, which finally clears up the decision for randomly and absurdly including the prior sequence. It was things like this that really lead me to believe that the creators were more into the IDEA of the film, rather than how they will make it entertaining for the audience.
Now, the remake fixes many problems that the '84 version suffered from. The story didn't feel rushed and you actually saw relationships forming between the characters. The issues that they dealt with were more realistic and you saw most of the maturing as the film developed. I mean, it had some issues of its own, but they were minor compared to the distracting and frustrating ones from before.
I know it's hard to have a film that was so significant and meaningful at one point in time and then have it remade. But compared to some of the most recent remakes such as Footloose or Conan the Barbarian, this one wasn't too shabby. It threw in a couple of twists to make it distinguishable from the original and, in my opinion, became a better film because of it.
All nostalgia aside, the 1984 version is pretty below-average. Although relevant to the times, the original is far worse than the 2012 remake. I understand that remakes generally suck especially if it is of such a "legendary" film, but despite the significance of this film in a trivial sense (e.g. the first
PG-13 release and Charlie Sheen's first film role), it's hard to
classify it as a classic for anything other than its historical representation.
Now, I urge critics to see the remake as its own film first and then re-watch the original with a new frame of mind to make the comparison. The acting might not be at par, but neither was the '84 version's. It's not, by any means, a perfect movie, and I could probably write a whole article about how it's not, but it's hard to believe that it's worse than the original.
Rotten Tomatoes Rating: 11%
What it SHOULD be: 64%
