We all knew this was coming. And we were all thrilled, yet horrified that the fourth film would suck. Really, it isn't so much that the fourth one was destined to fail; it's just that it had so much to live up to. So now, twenty years later, I can safely say that Indy 4 is not a miserable failure, but it will never receive the acclaim of the original trilogy.
I try not to spoil anything in my reviews, and sadly, I can't really say much about the plot at all in this case without giving anything away. I'll just repeat what you probably know already. In the Indy canon, Kingdom takes place roughly twenty years after the events of Last Crusade (go figure). So there are no more Nazis. The key villains happen to be Russians, and Indy is in his sixties. Aliens have some sort of involvement in the plot, although not like E.T.
Kingdom seems to poke fun at itself in some instances, which I think is a bit necessary given this twenty year gap between films. Like the original trilogy, this one is a bit ridiculous, and it's not afraid to admit it. And of course, it delves into the supernatural, which is nothing new to the franchise, but this one is by far the most off the wall. Even so, it still keeps an archaeological air about it and stays within the style of classic Indiana Jones.
The problem is that it's all a bit much. For one, Indiana Jones has always had a knack for solving riddles, but this time, he's the riddle master. Not to mention he now understands a handful of dead languages and interprets symbols in a matter of moments. That's all well and good, but in the original trilogy, such things became part of the story and just made it all the more intriguing. Who could forget the riddles in Last Crusade? This time, they are just a means of quickly moving the plot along. No sooner is a riddle revealed than it is solved: 'So that means we need to go here.' As far as the supernatural elements go, it doesn't all fit into place as well as it used to. In a story centered around the lost ark, the ark turned out to have a supernatural power that became significant to the story. Now, in a story centered around a crystal skull, aliens fit in there somewhere. Yeah.
But I've been comparing too much. On its own, this movie isn't so bad. One thing I love about it is that even now in a completely different film culture, it still manages to maintain the feeling of an Indiana Jones movie, for the most part. The only trouble there comes from the fact that it also tries to be a modern summer blockbuster. Some stuff was put in to appeal to a modern crowd, and although a lot of it is fun and funny, it does sometimes take away from the classic Indy flair. In the middle, particularly, I must have said "Oh, come on" a good five or ten times. On that note, Shia LaBeouf has no place in this movie. Sure, his character matters, but it's obvious that he was only put in to try to round up the younger viewers. I would probably respect this film more without him. More than anything, he's just a distraction, not only from Indiana Jones's character, but also from his style since LaBeouf's character is a modern contrast to Indy's classic form, and the two don't really mesh well.
The only other thing I really have an issue with is the ending. It's not a bad ending by any means, but a lot happens at once, and none of it really makes any sense. Granted, the trilogy rarely explained much either, but this time it just seems like too much and too random.
The action scenes are very entertaining for the most part. Like I said already, they maintain the classic Indy style, and it's a lot of fun. Sometimes, though, ridiculous things will happen, and eyes will roll.
Fans of the series, do yourself a favor and allow yourself to enjoy this movie. It's tempting to get wrapped up in all the things that are wrong with it, all the inconsistencies, and all the things the original trilogy did better. No one ever thought this movie could measure up to the original trilogy's legacy after all this time, and of course it doesn't, but I argue that it was impossible for it to do that, no matter what the makers had done with it. Taken for what it is, this is a fun adventure flick that's very well-made. I'm sure it will be underrated for years to come, but I think it was a worthwhile effort.
Caius's Rating: 3 stars
Sunday, May 25, 2008
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
Death Cab for Cutie: Narrow Stairs Review
Narrow Stairs is Death Cab's second release on a major label. 2005's Plans was a solid album that showed the strength of this atypical rock band. Narrow Stairs, on the other hand, seems to take the band a step backwards.
The album opens with "Bixby Canyon Bridge." This is a choice I'll never understand. I suppose it's just because they had no other place to put it, but I would have just bitten the bullet and opened with the single in this case. "Bixby" is one of the most lifeless tracks on the album, and in my opinion, not a suitable intro. Granted, it picks up and starts to sound more like a rock anthem in the absurdly long bridge section, but even that is pretty simple and not the best showcase of Death Cab's talent.
Next we have the single, "I Will Possess Your Heart." Although it doesn't represent the band's best songwriting, it displays the highest production values on this album. The radio edit is classic Death Cab. The album version was somehow stretched into eight and a half minutes, which is way too long for this structurally simple song, but the length doesn't kill it.
The next two songs, "No Sunlight" and "Cath" are probably the most similar to Death Cab's usual style. They are not among the band's best work, but they are solid in their own right.
That's where it starts to go downhill. The rest of the album feels sloppy and hastily thrown together. The songwriting becomes noticeably less creative, almost immediately. But we can all forgive a few "fillers." The problem is that so many of these songs made it onto the album. I would argue that only about five of the album's eleven songs really belong at all. A few, in fact, show a sharp contrast in style compared to the rest of the album, which makes it feel like they just came out of nowhere. The relatively mellow "Your New Twin Size Bed" is followed by a sudden transition to bright rock in "Long Division" (which, ironically, was probably this album's best candidate for a single. It just doesn't fit!). The closing song, "The Ice is Getting Thinner," is slow and simple, and it also feels like it was forced into place to fit with the rest of the album.
Taking Narrow Stairs as a whole, I don't think it's bad. Some of the songs are solid, and Death Cab for Cutie's overall style smacks generic rock in the face. That said, a lot of this album feels sloppy, and I think that fans will be disappointed when they compare this release to the band's other work, especially Plans.
Caius's Rating: 2.5 stars
The album opens with "Bixby Canyon Bridge." This is a choice I'll never understand. I suppose it's just because they had no other place to put it, but I would have just bitten the bullet and opened with the single in this case. "Bixby" is one of the most lifeless tracks on the album, and in my opinion, not a suitable intro. Granted, it picks up and starts to sound more like a rock anthem in the absurdly long bridge section, but even that is pretty simple and not the best showcase of Death Cab's talent.
Next we have the single, "I Will Possess Your Heart." Although it doesn't represent the band's best songwriting, it displays the highest production values on this album. The radio edit is classic Death Cab. The album version was somehow stretched into eight and a half minutes, which is way too long for this structurally simple song, but the length doesn't kill it.
The next two songs, "No Sunlight" and "Cath" are probably the most similar to Death Cab's usual style. They are not among the band's best work, but they are solid in their own right.
That's where it starts to go downhill. The rest of the album feels sloppy and hastily thrown together. The songwriting becomes noticeably less creative, almost immediately. But we can all forgive a few "fillers." The problem is that so many of these songs made it onto the album. I would argue that only about five of the album's eleven songs really belong at all. A few, in fact, show a sharp contrast in style compared to the rest of the album, which makes it feel like they just came out of nowhere. The relatively mellow "Your New Twin Size Bed" is followed by a sudden transition to bright rock in "Long Division" (which, ironically, was probably this album's best candidate for a single. It just doesn't fit!). The closing song, "The Ice is Getting Thinner," is slow and simple, and it also feels like it was forced into place to fit with the rest of the album.
Taking Narrow Stairs as a whole, I don't think it's bad. Some of the songs are solid, and Death Cab for Cutie's overall style smacks generic rock in the face. That said, a lot of this album feels sloppy, and I think that fans will be disappointed when they compare this release to the band's other work, especially Plans.
Caius's Rating: 2.5 stars
Saturday, May 10, 2008
Iron Man Review
It's been a while since I've gotten to do a movie review, but I doubt this will be my last in the near future with all the big movies coming out this summer. The first, of course, is Iron Man, yet another superhero flick based on the Marvel comics. It shares many similarities with - to be honest - all the other Marvel films that have been made in the last ten years, but fortunately, Iron Man manages to avoid many of the failures that have plagued so many of the others.
The plot follows Tony Stark, the head of a successful weapons manufacturing company. He ends up getting captured by terrorists who ask him to build missiles for them. Instead, he decides to build a giant kickass suit of armor. Somehow, they couldn't tell the difference. Once he gets free, he decides to stop dealing with weapons and use his new suit of armor to protect people.
The whole sequence when Stark is held captive is probably this movie's strongest point. Although it's thoroughly dramatized, it's probably the most real part of the movie, and it's a strong beginning for Stark's hero personality. The rest is extremely predictable, from the rise and fall of the key villain to Stark's love interest. Now don't get me wrong; none of this is badly done. If you have liked most of the recent Marvel movies, then you will undoubtedly like this one too, and it is one of the better ones. It's just that it contains all the same cliches and style choices as all the others, and sometimes, it can just be ridiculous. The best examples of all this come toward the end of the movie, so I won't spoil anything for the sake of giving examples.
Most of the depth of this movie is the result of the recurring theme of manipulation, which is a driving force in both character and plot development. It is also worth noting that this theme is well-presented throughout with some clever camera and editing tricks. Sadly, that's about it for the depth. It's a shame, because there really was some potential for depth, and a good start too. It just didn't turn into very much. The overall plot is shallow and predictable.
One of the specific problems is that the plot dwells too much on the creation of the suit. That is of course the focus of the action when Stark is held captive, but even when that's over, he spends about the middle third (that's a guess) of the movie building and testing new models of the suit. We get it, the suit is awesome; now let's see some deeper character development.
On that note, I have to give them credit for Stark's development. For a superhero, he actually has some depth and internal conflict, and it's kind of interesting to see his change from a wealthy asshole to a slightly more (but not overly) caring person. That said, every other character, however significant, is very shallow and underdeveloped. The acting from the other major characters is also not nearly as strong as Robert Downey, Jr.'s.
As far as the action goes, there are some explosions and such, but mostly, it's just scenes of Iron Man being a badass. And hey, that's cool, as long as you think a rich dude in a super high-tech suit is badass. I thought so.
As a whole, Iron Man is a solid superhero adventure. It's fun, it's funny, and if you take it for what it is, it works well. It's no Batman Begins, but it's also no Batman and Robin, and for fans of the genre, that's all that matters. For the rest of us, it's only as worthwhile as we're willing to make it. If you just want to see a fun summer movie, then you will be entertained. I just doubt that this will be one of the superhero movies that will be widely remembered and respected in 10 years.
Caius's Rating: 3 stars
The plot follows Tony Stark, the head of a successful weapons manufacturing company. He ends up getting captured by terrorists who ask him to build missiles for them. Instead, he decides to build a giant kickass suit of armor. Somehow, they couldn't tell the difference. Once he gets free, he decides to stop dealing with weapons and use his new suit of armor to protect people.
The whole sequence when Stark is held captive is probably this movie's strongest point. Although it's thoroughly dramatized, it's probably the most real part of the movie, and it's a strong beginning for Stark's hero personality. The rest is extremely predictable, from the rise and fall of the key villain to Stark's love interest. Now don't get me wrong; none of this is badly done. If you have liked most of the recent Marvel movies, then you will undoubtedly like this one too, and it is one of the better ones. It's just that it contains all the same cliches and style choices as all the others, and sometimes, it can just be ridiculous. The best examples of all this come toward the end of the movie, so I won't spoil anything for the sake of giving examples.
Most of the depth of this movie is the result of the recurring theme of manipulation, which is a driving force in both character and plot development. It is also worth noting that this theme is well-presented throughout with some clever camera and editing tricks. Sadly, that's about it for the depth. It's a shame, because there really was some potential for depth, and a good start too. It just didn't turn into very much. The overall plot is shallow and predictable.
One of the specific problems is that the plot dwells too much on the creation of the suit. That is of course the focus of the action when Stark is held captive, but even when that's over, he spends about the middle third (that's a guess) of the movie building and testing new models of the suit. We get it, the suit is awesome; now let's see some deeper character development.
On that note, I have to give them credit for Stark's development. For a superhero, he actually has some depth and internal conflict, and it's kind of interesting to see his change from a wealthy asshole to a slightly more (but not overly) caring person. That said, every other character, however significant, is very shallow and underdeveloped. The acting from the other major characters is also not nearly as strong as Robert Downey, Jr.'s.
As far as the action goes, there are some explosions and such, but mostly, it's just scenes of Iron Man being a badass. And hey, that's cool, as long as you think a rich dude in a super high-tech suit is badass. I thought so.
As a whole, Iron Man is a solid superhero adventure. It's fun, it's funny, and if you take it for what it is, it works well. It's no Batman Begins, but it's also no Batman and Robin, and for fans of the genre, that's all that matters. For the rest of us, it's only as worthwhile as we're willing to make it. If you just want to see a fun summer movie, then you will be entertained. I just doubt that this will be one of the superhero movies that will be widely remembered and respected in 10 years.
Caius's Rating: 3 stars
Sunday, March 16, 2008
Vantage Point Review
Vantage Point is a thriller that starts off with the president getting shot. For the rest of the movie, the same event is shown from the perspectives of several different characters. Each of these adds a bit to your knowledge of the situation and adds a few minutes to the story. The whole thing takes place over the course of about 15 minutes.
It should sound interesting; that's what they were going for: something unusual. But in reality, the concept really only serves to limit your knowledge as time goes along. It is very deliberate in what it shows you each time, and a lot of the information you obtain by seeing a new perspective doesn't even come as much of a shock, because you knew just from the way it was shot that SOMETHING was going to be significant about that person or object. So what you end up with is a really drawn out 15 minute story. Luckily, it's not just senseless time stretching as there are some worthwhile moments in the movie, and it all culminates in a final message that makes you think not just about the movie, but about what it would be like if something like that happened in the real world today.
Still, at its core, it's just an average thriller with an average (and long) car chase and an average kidnapping and some average terrorists at work. While it seems to try to present itself as something more, that's really all you're going to get out of the overall experience, plus the more positive points I already described. What gets me the most about it is the predictability. The characters are all shallow, the action is typical (car chase? come on), and the ending is bland and predictable, aside from the final message.
The core film here is what I call 2 stars, but I give it a half star bonus for its fine points, which, of course, stem mostly from the concept of it. Not bad, but nothing exceptional. If you like thrillers, then you'll probably get a kick out of it. Otherwise, you'll probably see it as very average.
Caius's rating: 2.5 stars
It should sound interesting; that's what they were going for: something unusual. But in reality, the concept really only serves to limit your knowledge as time goes along. It is very deliberate in what it shows you each time, and a lot of the information you obtain by seeing a new perspective doesn't even come as much of a shock, because you knew just from the way it was shot that SOMETHING was going to be significant about that person or object. So what you end up with is a really drawn out 15 minute story. Luckily, it's not just senseless time stretching as there are some worthwhile moments in the movie, and it all culminates in a final message that makes you think not just about the movie, but about what it would be like if something like that happened in the real world today.
Still, at its core, it's just an average thriller with an average (and long) car chase and an average kidnapping and some average terrorists at work. While it seems to try to present itself as something more, that's really all you're going to get out of the overall experience, plus the more positive points I already described. What gets me the most about it is the predictability. The characters are all shallow, the action is typical (car chase? come on), and the ending is bland and predictable, aside from the final message.
The core film here is what I call 2 stars, but I give it a half star bonus for its fine points, which, of course, stem mostly from the concept of it. Not bad, but nothing exceptional. If you like thrillers, then you'll probably get a kick out of it. Otherwise, you'll probably see it as very average.
Caius's rating: 2.5 stars
Friday, February 1, 2008
Lunar
Hey everyone. I normally don't advertise on behalf of bands, even if I really like them, but I wanted to make an exception. The reason is because this is really something unique that I've never heard before and the band is not very well-known. So anyway, even if it's not your style, support the originality and ambition of the one-man-band Lunar. It's a combination of orchestral and electronica in a really dark, epic-sounding style. In other words, it's like a movie soundtrack on crack. Check it out.
www.lunarmusic.net
www.lunarmusic.net
Friday, January 18, 2008
Cloverfield Review
Cloverfield? What's Cloverfield? Oh, it's a monster movie that's gotten a lot of hype? I see. Ok, let's go see it so I can slam it in a fun review. We go to the theater to get tickets, arrive just after it sells out, and wait around for two hours for a later show. Our tickets are taken and we get in line. Before long, the line has gone all the way to the side exit and looped around back to where it started. "What the hell is the big deal about this movie?" my brain asks. "Fuck if I know," I reply. Finally, we go in, get our seats, and it starts.
No intro, no credits, no title. It begins with a message saying that the footage is owned by the Department of Defense and was recovered from the area formerly known as Central Park. The rest of the less than 90 minute movie is said footage, shot on a normal guy's handheld camera. Most of it is footage of a giant monster attack on New York.
But this is not your ordinary "monster movie." The best part of it is that it was shot in the way it was. It puts you right up next to the main characters, and it just feels entirely real. Cuts occur when the camera would have been paused, and previous footage is shown when the camera would have been fast-forwarded too far. Some people might complain that the camera was too shaky; a few people even said it made them sick. To be honest, though, I don't think it could have been done any other way and still been good. It works incredibly well, and it's just one of those things you have to see to understand, and for your own sake, see this one in a theater.
Largely as a result of this technique, Cloverfield is intense. All night I've been trying to think of a more intense movie that I've seen lately, and I just can't think of any. The best part is, it doesn't rely on cheap thrills like so many other horror/disaster movies. It just puts you in the shoes of the main characters, and it works extremely well. Sure, there are a few "oh shit" moments, but even they fit well; nothing feels like it was tacked on just for shock value. Again, it really makes you feel like you're right there.
Another thing that helped a lot was that there were no big name actors (that I noticed) in the movie at all. Having a recognizable actor in a movie is a big distraction, and this was not the one to do it in. And better still, the acting is fantastic. Every character is wholly believable, and nothing is overdone; even the scenes of desperation have a realistic feel to them. The audience's reactions to this film were some of the most pronounced I've ever heard in a theater.
Ok, now that I've gone on a big rant about the realism of the film, it's time to talk about what isn't real. It's not perfect. The visual design is done in such a way as to make it look like it was done on a handheld camera, and overall it's extremely convincing. In a few scenes, though, there's just a bit too much light, or slightly too perfect contrast, which indicates artificial lighting in some scenes. Luckily, it's not overdone and the vast majority of the scenes look just how they should. The biggest problem is in the sound design. The microphone on a small handheld camera is almost always very small, and in the midst of the enormous sounds and screams going on all over the place, it would often get distorted. What you actually hear is very clear. I understand the design choice as hearing a ton of static every few seconds wouldn't make for such a cinematic experience, but just a touch of it in some places would do a lot for the realism. Also, in one or two scenes, you can hear what the main characters are saying very clearly when in reality, it should all just be a jumbled mess considering what's going on all around. I mean, yes, it's important to the plot and everyone would want to know what they were saying, but a lot of the realism comes in the fact that you really don't know much about what's going on.
Really, that's about all I could complain about in this one. It's extremely well-done overall, and it creates one of the most intense and realistic experiences I've ever seen. Such an original and ambitious idea certainly deserves a lot of credit. Judging by the sell-out crowds, I think it's going to do well. What we have to watch out for is overdoing it. If the success of Cloverfield generates a surge of similar films, I will be pissed off. This movie is a statement for originality in a number of ways; let's not ruin the idea.
I keep thinking I'm going to get to review a terrible movie. I realized that I have yet to rate a movie at less than three stars on this blog. Usually, I hesitate to give a movie more than two and a half, unless I really think it deserves it. What can I say? I'm thoroughly convinced that Cloverfield deserves it. Like any movie that exists or ever will, it's far from perfect, but when I look at this one as a whole, I can't help but feel that it went above and beyond what we think of as a film and truly succeeded. Some people would argue with me forever on this, but when I think of how this movie made me feel as I was watching it and even now that I'm only looking back on it, I see no alternative. For these reasons, I proudly bestow upon Cloverfield my very rare five star rating. Go see it.
Caius's Rating: 5 stars
No intro, no credits, no title. It begins with a message saying that the footage is owned by the Department of Defense and was recovered from the area formerly known as Central Park. The rest of the less than 90 minute movie is said footage, shot on a normal guy's handheld camera. Most of it is footage of a giant monster attack on New York.
But this is not your ordinary "monster movie." The best part of it is that it was shot in the way it was. It puts you right up next to the main characters, and it just feels entirely real. Cuts occur when the camera would have been paused, and previous footage is shown when the camera would have been fast-forwarded too far. Some people might complain that the camera was too shaky; a few people even said it made them sick. To be honest, though, I don't think it could have been done any other way and still been good. It works incredibly well, and it's just one of those things you have to see to understand, and for your own sake, see this one in a theater.
Largely as a result of this technique, Cloverfield is intense. All night I've been trying to think of a more intense movie that I've seen lately, and I just can't think of any. The best part is, it doesn't rely on cheap thrills like so many other horror/disaster movies. It just puts you in the shoes of the main characters, and it works extremely well. Sure, there are a few "oh shit" moments, but even they fit well; nothing feels like it was tacked on just for shock value. Again, it really makes you feel like you're right there.
Another thing that helped a lot was that there were no big name actors (that I noticed) in the movie at all. Having a recognizable actor in a movie is a big distraction, and this was not the one to do it in. And better still, the acting is fantastic. Every character is wholly believable, and nothing is overdone; even the scenes of desperation have a realistic feel to them. The audience's reactions to this film were some of the most pronounced I've ever heard in a theater.
Ok, now that I've gone on a big rant about the realism of the film, it's time to talk about what isn't real. It's not perfect. The visual design is done in such a way as to make it look like it was done on a handheld camera, and overall it's extremely convincing. In a few scenes, though, there's just a bit too much light, or slightly too perfect contrast, which indicates artificial lighting in some scenes. Luckily, it's not overdone and the vast majority of the scenes look just how they should. The biggest problem is in the sound design. The microphone on a small handheld camera is almost always very small, and in the midst of the enormous sounds and screams going on all over the place, it would often get distorted. What you actually hear is very clear. I understand the design choice as hearing a ton of static every few seconds wouldn't make for such a cinematic experience, but just a touch of it in some places would do a lot for the realism. Also, in one or two scenes, you can hear what the main characters are saying very clearly when in reality, it should all just be a jumbled mess considering what's going on all around. I mean, yes, it's important to the plot and everyone would want to know what they were saying, but a lot of the realism comes in the fact that you really don't know much about what's going on.
Really, that's about all I could complain about in this one. It's extremely well-done overall, and it creates one of the most intense and realistic experiences I've ever seen. Such an original and ambitious idea certainly deserves a lot of credit. Judging by the sell-out crowds, I think it's going to do well. What we have to watch out for is overdoing it. If the success of Cloverfield generates a surge of similar films, I will be pissed off. This movie is a statement for originality in a number of ways; let's not ruin the idea.
I keep thinking I'm going to get to review a terrible movie. I realized that I have yet to rate a movie at less than three stars on this blog. Usually, I hesitate to give a movie more than two and a half, unless I really think it deserves it. What can I say? I'm thoroughly convinced that Cloverfield deserves it. Like any movie that exists or ever will, it's far from perfect, but when I look at this one as a whole, I can't help but feel that it went above and beyond what we think of as a film and truly succeeded. Some people would argue with me forever on this, but when I think of how this movie made me feel as I was watching it and even now that I'm only looking back on it, I see no alternative. For these reasons, I proudly bestow upon Cloverfield my very rare five star rating. Go see it.
Caius's Rating: 5 stars
The Great Debaters Review
The Great Debaters is a movie that honestly surprised me. I went into it with every expectation of seeing a run-0f-the mill drama, but it turned out to be far superior to the average. That said, it's far from perfect, but still a solid film that any fan of the genre should see. People who are not so into dramas will likely see all the same genre trends in this movie, except they're done much, much better than normal, making for a good experience overall.
On that note, this movie does tend to stick to genre conventions. Like so many others, it tackles race and gender issues very deliberately, contains scenes of violence, sex, and alcoholism, and throws tears into the eyes of nearly every major character at some inspirational moment. My biggest gripe along these lines comes in the last three or four scenes of the movie, which scream the ending of just about every underdog story ever put on film.
It's the rest of the movie, i.e. what comes before the ending, that makes it good. Although it goes about the issues very deliberately, it creates an unusually strong feeling of tension around those issues. In some scenes, the cinematic effects really do a good job of putting you in the shoes of the characters. I honestly feared for their lives in a few scenes, and I am not the type of person who gets emotionally invested in characters in movies. So, if you're the type who does, then you'll probably gasp and cry a few times (several of the people I went with did).
The debate scenes serve their purpose well, but they're a bit too movie-like. Allow me to explain. In real debates, the stance that each team is supposed to take is randomly assigned; then they take turns making logical arguments and the winner is determined by judges. In the movie, most of the debates, and all of the ones that had a major plot significance, involved a topic that had something to do with race, and the main characters were always assigned to argue on the side that they would support on their own. For example, in one debate they were assigned to argue in favor of the integration of schools. On its own, that scene is fine, but it's very unlikely that they would have gotten their own side every time. Also, the characters on both sides of each debate had a noticeable tendency to focus more on the emotional side rather than the logical side of the issue. While this can be effective in moderation, it wouldn't leave you with a very strong argument in a real-life debate. The short version of this paragraph is: this movie sacrifices realism in favor of cinematic effect in the debate scenes. I wouldn't normally complain about this issue so much, but this is one of those movies that really tries to portray something real and believable.
The acting is pretty solid. Forest Whitaker is kickass.
I wouldn't recommend The Great Debaters to everyone, but most people will probably be moved by it in one way or another. It's not perfect by any means, and it still needs to stray farther from the all-too-common conventions of similar movies, but overall, I give it my kudos.
Caius's Rating: 3 stars
On that note, this movie does tend to stick to genre conventions. Like so many others, it tackles race and gender issues very deliberately, contains scenes of violence, sex, and alcoholism, and throws tears into the eyes of nearly every major character at some inspirational moment. My biggest gripe along these lines comes in the last three or four scenes of the movie, which scream the ending of just about every underdog story ever put on film.
It's the rest of the movie, i.e. what comes before the ending, that makes it good. Although it goes about the issues very deliberately, it creates an unusually strong feeling of tension around those issues. In some scenes, the cinematic effects really do a good job of putting you in the shoes of the characters. I honestly feared for their lives in a few scenes, and I am not the type of person who gets emotionally invested in characters in movies. So, if you're the type who does, then you'll probably gasp and cry a few times (several of the people I went with did).
The debate scenes serve their purpose well, but they're a bit too movie-like. Allow me to explain. In real debates, the stance that each team is supposed to take is randomly assigned; then they take turns making logical arguments and the winner is determined by judges. In the movie, most of the debates, and all of the ones that had a major plot significance, involved a topic that had something to do with race, and the main characters were always assigned to argue on the side that they would support on their own. For example, in one debate they were assigned to argue in favor of the integration of schools. On its own, that scene is fine, but it's very unlikely that they would have gotten their own side every time. Also, the characters on both sides of each debate had a noticeable tendency to focus more on the emotional side rather than the logical side of the issue. While this can be effective in moderation, it wouldn't leave you with a very strong argument in a real-life debate. The short version of this paragraph is: this movie sacrifices realism in favor of cinematic effect in the debate scenes. I wouldn't normally complain about this issue so much, but this is one of those movies that really tries to portray something real and believable.
The acting is pretty solid. Forest Whitaker is kickass.
I wouldn't recommend The Great Debaters to everyone, but most people will probably be moved by it in one way or another. It's not perfect by any means, and it still needs to stray farther from the all-too-common conventions of similar movies, but overall, I give it my kudos.
Caius's Rating: 3 stars
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)