Grade: A-
Directed by Louis Leterrier, “Now You See Me” is a visually dazzling, absorbing, fun and exciting film that’s sure to entertain. “See” follows the intense police pursuit of three on-the-rise magicians and one fallen star who get summoned by an anonymous figure with an ulterior motive to pull off a series of stunts and heists. Sure, that plot may sound cheesy at face value, but the way the story is executed gives you “X-Men” meets “Takers,” with all the “can’t keep your eyes off” action and “let me figure this out” mystery. The film’s strongest facet is that, with the exception of a few spots, it is truly unpredictable and each feat is done plausibly, rarely defying logic. Most motion pictures have some, if not multiple clichés and a plot that foreshadows itself, but with “See,” it’s hard to guess where it’s going, which makes it thrilling and kind of unique. Adding onto the film’s inventiveness is how everything is completely centered on purpose of the caper, not a romance between characters or their jaded backgrounds. Receiving tepid reviews, most critics complained that the cast’s talents were wasted and there wasn’t much character development, but it just wasn’t necessary to get the point across. The writing gives you just enough to find the characters likable and see their dynamic; going any further would’ve distracted from the intoxicating narrative. To feed my contention, I don’t think it’s a coincidence that most of the main characters aren’t “big names,” which I love. I only agree with the critics to the degree that I would’ve liked to know why the characters would easily follow the directions of a literal stranger and what they received as a result of their extensive efforts, but I'm hoping those details were left out because there are plans for a sequel. Other than that, I left the theater thinking the film was baller, I wish I knew magic and that the “Four Horsemen” (the magician’s moniker) really existed. I thoroughly enjoyed “Now You See Me;” it was definitely magical. Can’t wait to own it on DVD.
Grade: A-
0 Comments
Official Film Poster By Eddie J., contributing writer After watching Tyler Perry’s very underwhelming “Temptation” film, I was not only reminded as to why I don’t support him financially anymore, but was also disgruntled by the fact that I wasted my time to watch this sad attempt at a movie. The following is a mix between a movie review and a Tyler Perry critique/letter, so in case you’re wondering, I give the movie a D-. *Warning: This review contains spoilers* Tyler Perry, I’m very confused about your lack of creativity and the mixed messages you are portraying to the black community in the disguise of a “moral message” and it’s getting annoying. It feels as if you think your audience is too dim to understand something deeper than a bible scripture and I honestly don’t understand why you won’t take a risk to make an exceptional movie. “Temptation,” for example, had me intrigued for the first hour because it could have gone several ways: The infidelity-embroiled main character, Judith (portrayed by Jurnee Smollett), could’ve remained happily in a secret affair, divorced her husband (Lance Gross) and married the new guy (because that does happen in the real world) or taught her husband the very qualities she wanted see and have a thriving marriage (because that happens in the real world also). Hell, she could’ve felt guilty and committed suicide after keeping the affair a secret for a few years and had a child, not knowing who the baby’s biological father was. But no…let’s just make the guy she cheats with a wicked villain, like you do in every movie about relationships. I’m SICK of the Tyler Perry formula. Why is it that every guy a woman falls for in a Tyler Perry film has to be more than just an incompatible match? Why does he have to be a greedy, abusive, drug dealing, HIV positive, illegal gun selling, puppy killing, crack-head? No man is that horrible and for the rare ones who are, I don’t think they’re ever nearly as wealthy or handsome as the characters in these films. Some of you may say “Okay, whatever, it’s just a movie,” but to that I say most of his movies (and movies in general) are based in some reality or want to affect the way you perceive your reality. I’m over this part of the formula because it purposes there are only two types of guys out there. Also, it makes me feel like Perry is low key trying to convince us to stay comfortable, especially in this movie: “Yeah, these people are rich, but they are evil, so be happy you’re unemployed and living below the poverty line; at least you’re sanctified and will get into heaven after you die.” Yes, this was one of the major themes of the film and the “rich men can’t get into heaven” line was used by the archetypal overbearing Christian mother character (Ella Joyce), because yeah, it’s a Tyler Perry movie (then you realize that Perry is one of those “rich men,” but we won’t question that shade). Quentin Tarantino is a popular director for a reason: he usually delivers. “Django Unchained” tells the story of a newly freed slave’s journey (Oscar winner Jamie Foxx) to find and rescue his wife (ABC “Scandal” star Kerry Washington who’s screen time is disappointingly short) after they’ve been purposely sold separately by their owner. The plot unfolds like a rollercoaster; it’s initially all very fascinating as highly unusual circumstances lead to Django’s freedom and he becomes a bounty hunter, but at the midpoint, things start to drag slightly and it doesn’t kick up again until the nail-biting end. The middle falls flat for two reasons: the length (some scenes are unnecessarily detailed) and the writing of Foxx’s encounter with Leonardo DiCaprio as Calvin Candie. Promotional trailers lead you to believe that Candie is an epic antagonistic firewall between Django and his lasy love, but Samuel L. Jackson’s character, Stephen, proves to be a more delicious villain. Another con: Tarantino is known for his over-the-top exaggerations of reality, but it’s hard to believe the level of sympathy and kindness to slaves of Django’s bounty-hunter partner, Dr. King Schultz (Christoph Waltz). However, it would be hard for Django to be victorious in any way without a major help agent, not to mention Waltz’s performance is wonderfully endearing and entertaining. One of the best aspects of “Unchained” is the humor. Only Tarantino can manage to make a slavery-era film funny. The light-hearted parts off-set the darker ones, especially those provided by Don Johnson. I’m still not a fan of Tarantino’s love of graphic violence, but, all in all, “Django Unchained” is a fantastic film that will spark a lot of post-view discussion. Official movie poster (2012) 1st, let me start off by saying I am not a film student or connoisseur, nor do I have aspirations to join the film industry. I’m just a simple movie-goer who decides to occasionally write film reviews. Translation: the following is a loose opinion and critique of the Tri-Star Pictures remake of the 1976 film, “Sparkle,” starring “American Idol” alum Jordin Sparks in the title role, Derek Luke, comedian Mike Epps and the late songstress Whitney Houston. Some will try to provide an objective critique and not consider the original film, but the notable differences make it hard to not draw comparisons. However, in analyzing the comparisons lay the strengths and weaknesses of the remake standing alone. “Sparkle” tries to be endearing and pull at your heart-strings, but it generally fails. There are a few attempts at dramatization that aren’t necessary, while opportune times to be intense aren’t taken. It’s difficult to become immersed in the story and attached to the characters so that you’ll be eager to see the outcome or leave the theater deeply affected. The most alluring performances and scenes were delivered by Carmen Ejogo (Tammy, AKA ‘Sister’), who plays Sparkle’s ambitious, but wayward sibling, and Houston as Sparkle’s protective and overbearing mother, Emma (Houston arguably gave her best on-screen performance in this film). Interactions between the pair were absolute gold. Epps’ seamless transitions from comedic to sinister as the shady Satin was also praise-worthy. It’s kind of troubling that the storylines and portrayals of supporting characters outshined the lead. For a new actress, Sparks did a decent job, but the screenplay didn’t give her much room to stand out unfortunately. The screenplay of the original definitely had its faults, but it was much easier to become enamored with or “sucked in” by the tale. The passionate sweetness of the love story between Sparkle and Styx (Luke) was significantly toned down and the edgier, action portions were almost non-existent. A nice change from the original was that Sister’s unruliness was given a little more of a rationale and background, and 3rd sister Dee (Tika Sumpter, “One Life to Live”) had more of a proactive and fiesty presence. As far as the legendary music is concerned (the 1976 soundtrack featured music written by Curtis Mayfield and performed by Aretha Franklin; there was also a cast recording album), only 4 songs from the original were used. Whether that’s a good thing or not can be debated, but most perplexing was that the title-track “Sparkle” was omitted. It’s a rather ironic symbol of how Sparks as Sparkle didn’t really…well, sparkle. The new additional music failed to sparkle as well. It just wasn’t memorable. My last criticism was that the film visually resembled 2006’s “Dreamgirls” in its opening and closing. It struck me as a little uncreative. Don’t get me wrong, “Sparkle” wasn’t a bad film, but it isn’t the type that you’ll want to see over and over again. Grade: C |
Entertainment
Rants and raves about all things entertainment industry. Includes my own movie, music and concert reviews. You can find topics under "Tags and Categories" below. Archives
April 2024
Tags/Categories
All
|