KNOWING.
Starring: Nicholas Cage
Directed by: Alex Proyas
“Alex Proyas’ latest flick, “Knowing”, is a good pulse-pounding thriller."
Poor John Koestler. It’s hard enough raising a precocious kid as a single dad, avoiding issues with his father for so long and then drowning himself in alcohol every night just to forget the loss of his wife. Now his life gets more complicated when a mysterious piece of paper containing only random numbers and accurately forecasting global disasters is displaying a serious warning leading to his greatest fears.
This is the premise to “Knowing”, a film which Alex Proyas directs with adequate success. Taking some of the plot twisting elements he dished out in “I, Robot” and showing brooding imagery he provided in “Dark City”, Proyas manages to mix ancient ideologies with present day visual effects into a well-paced science fiction/thriller flick.
The film brings us to present day Massachusetts, where an elementary school is celebrating its 50th year of existence. As part of the festivities, school officials dig up a time capsule containing illustrations of pupils from 1959 who were asked to draw images of what they think the future would look like.
When the drawings were given to the students, Caleb Koestler, (Chandler Canterbury) receives the most intriguing drawing – a document filled with random numbers. When his dad John (Nicholas Cage) stumbles upon the page and accidentally analyzes a couple of numbers in the computer, he learns that it accurately predicted the major global disasters in the last 50 years.
John starts to investigate and find out who drew those numbers and learns that the student, Lucinda Embry, has now passed away. He interviews Lucinda’s teacher and tries to get hold of Lucinda’s daughter Diana (Rose Byrne) but gets rejected. When the second natural disaster occurs exactly as what the document said, Diana decides to tell John everything she knows about her mother, and brings him to her house. As John examines the rooms of the abandoned dwelling, another shocking discovery leads him to believe that unless something is done, terrible things will happen.
Actor Nicholas Cage, who gained the nod of audiences for his spot in the film “Leaving Las Vegas” and cast in lead roles in action-adventure movies such as “National Treasure”, “The Rock”, “Face-Off” and “Ghost Rider”, is a good reason why people will be coming over to see this 121-minute flick. But beyond the main character he portrays, the fine directing of Proyas will sustain the interest throughout. “Knowing” is not on top of the list as far as highlighting Cage’s acting prowess goes despite playing a character with drinking problems similar to “Leaving Las Vegas”. He never really gave a convincing performance this time around and seems to be selling out. Rose Byrne gives a good account of herself as the troubled daughter of Lucinda despite having a limited screen time.
The pacing of the movie is done well, as Proyas utilizes a series of eye-catching montages during the first part of story to unveil relevant information with some timely camera work and suspense-filled music. The use of CGI works well in key disaster scenes, one of which took days to both set up and shoot, and able to deliver a significant sense of urgency to Cage’s character as he becomes involved in these tragic events.
Holes in the plot are kept to a bare minimum, with loose ends being tied up towards the end. The twist in the climax is an attention-grabbing scene and answers some of the questions found during the beginning of the story.
As a whole, “Knowing” is not the director’s best feature film he has made, as his “I, Robot” flick gets some great points going for it, with “The Crow” coming in as second. Still, this is a solid piece of work, as he once again tries to send the message of hope amidst grim realities. This accessible pulse-pounding thriller may not be the best nor unique piece you’ll find, but what you have is a riveting story; a narrative about what lies ahead, and having the faith to know that all will be good in the end.
FILM RATING: 3 stars (out of 5)
Monday, April 13, 2009
Friday, April 10, 2009
Movie Review: Slumdog Millionaire
Entertaining Realism
Question: Slumdog Millionaire won “Best Picture” at the 2009 Academy Awards because of:
A. Great storytelling
B. Awesome directing
C. Wonderful cinematography and film editing
D. All of the above
If posed with the question above and given the respective choices below, it helps to discuss first why the film “Slumdog Millionaire” works.
Well, it works primarily because the majority can relate to the story: a wonderful narrative about a kid with a dream and fueled by this universal phenomenon called love.
”Slumdog Millionaire” is the story of Jamal Malik (Dev Patel), a slumdog youngster living together with his elder brother Salim (Madhur Mittal) in the impoverished streets of Mumbai, India. Jamal meets fellow slumdog Latika (Freida Pinto) during one rainy evening and falls for her. After a series of unfortunate twists and turns, Salim forces Jamal to go live on his own due to personal greed. Jamal runs away in tears as he is separated from his love. Years later, Jamal works as an assistant for a call center and gets a chance to be reunited with both Salim and Latika when he covers for a call center agent who wanted to watch Indian’s version of “Who Wants To Be A Millionaire”. Although Jamal and Latika finally gets to see each other after so long, it lasted briefly, as Salim took her away from him. It is in this moment when Jamal decides to become a contestant in “Who Wants To Be A Millionaire”, believing that Latika will be watching the show.
Jamal does join the show, pulling out his answers based on his remarkable experiences growing up in Mumbai. When he reaches the jackpot round that promises a bounty of 20 million rupee, Jamal is brought to the police station for questioning, based on the assumption that the reason why an ill-educated slumdog could answer correctly was due to cheating. As Jamal narrates his past and his phenomenal story unfolds, his fate to return to the show hangs in the balance. Will he be able to come back and answer the final question correctly? Will he be reunited with Latika as well?
Call this movie a mini-comeback of sorts for director Danny Boyle (Trainspotting). After making ”Sunshine” in 2007 which received its share of negative reviews, Boyle chanced upon the opportunity to helm “Slumdog Millionaire” after reading a script from screenwriter Simon Beaufoy, whose past work “The Full Monty” Boyle admired. The visual interpretation of Beaufoy’s well-written script is done well, adding a touch of realism with a breath of movie entertainment savvy and mixing them all in this artistic montage of flashback scenes that succeeds to tell the story as a whole. Co-director Loveleen Tandan also deserves the credit for helping bring together cohesion especially in the on-location scenes that show the raw emotions of the harsh conditions of the slums.
The actors who portrayed the characters showed authenticity, with some of them actually living their lives in the slums, further enhancing the realistic feel to the movie. Also, the use of smart shot selection is evident, particularly in the chase scene of Jamal and Salim in the middle of the shanties. From a close up shot looking down, the scene gradually zooms out to reveal the world where both kids live in. Another memorable scene is felt between Jamal and Latika, as they were both looking at each other in the subway station. Amidst the fast-paced, heavily populated and maddening chaos, everything else seemed to be in slow motion, as both protagonists express their feelings for each other.
The film’s plot lines come together in the end magnificently, fixing the loose ends and leading to a brilliantly executed climax that reflects life’s take on fate and destiny. What also makes this flick standout is that it is able to deliver its message about the existence of hope; that is exists no matter what circumstance a person is in.
Now going back to the question posted above as to why “Slumdog Millionaire” was chosen as “Best Picture”, my answer would be letter D. The film caught attention not only because it was uniquely special, but also because of great storytelling, awesome directing, wonderful cinematography and film editing.
D. All of the above.
And this is my final answer.
FILM RATING: 4 stars ( out of 5 )
Question: Slumdog Millionaire won “Best Picture” at the 2009 Academy Awards because of:
A. Great storytelling
B. Awesome directing
C. Wonderful cinematography and film editing
D. All of the above
If posed with the question above and given the respective choices below, it helps to discuss first why the film “Slumdog Millionaire” works.
Well, it works primarily because the majority can relate to the story: a wonderful narrative about a kid with a dream and fueled by this universal phenomenon called love.
”Slumdog Millionaire” is the story of Jamal Malik (Dev Patel), a slumdog youngster living together with his elder brother Salim (Madhur Mittal) in the impoverished streets of Mumbai, India. Jamal meets fellow slumdog Latika (Freida Pinto) during one rainy evening and falls for her. After a series of unfortunate twists and turns, Salim forces Jamal to go live on his own due to personal greed. Jamal runs away in tears as he is separated from his love. Years later, Jamal works as an assistant for a call center and gets a chance to be reunited with both Salim and Latika when he covers for a call center agent who wanted to watch Indian’s version of “Who Wants To Be A Millionaire”. Although Jamal and Latika finally gets to see each other after so long, it lasted briefly, as Salim took her away from him. It is in this moment when Jamal decides to become a contestant in “Who Wants To Be A Millionaire”, believing that Latika will be watching the show.
Jamal does join the show, pulling out his answers based on his remarkable experiences growing up in Mumbai. When he reaches the jackpot round that promises a bounty of 20 million rupee, Jamal is brought to the police station for questioning, based on the assumption that the reason why an ill-educated slumdog could answer correctly was due to cheating. As Jamal narrates his past and his phenomenal story unfolds, his fate to return to the show hangs in the balance. Will he be able to come back and answer the final question correctly? Will he be reunited with Latika as well?
Call this movie a mini-comeback of sorts for director Danny Boyle (Trainspotting). After making ”Sunshine” in 2007 which received its share of negative reviews, Boyle chanced upon the opportunity to helm “Slumdog Millionaire” after reading a script from screenwriter Simon Beaufoy, whose past work “The Full Monty” Boyle admired. The visual interpretation of Beaufoy’s well-written script is done well, adding a touch of realism with a breath of movie entertainment savvy and mixing them all in this artistic montage of flashback scenes that succeeds to tell the story as a whole. Co-director Loveleen Tandan also deserves the credit for helping bring together cohesion especially in the on-location scenes that show the raw emotions of the harsh conditions of the slums.
The actors who portrayed the characters showed authenticity, with some of them actually living their lives in the slums, further enhancing the realistic feel to the movie. Also, the use of smart shot selection is evident, particularly in the chase scene of Jamal and Salim in the middle of the shanties. From a close up shot looking down, the scene gradually zooms out to reveal the world where both kids live in. Another memorable scene is felt between Jamal and Latika, as they were both looking at each other in the subway station. Amidst the fast-paced, heavily populated and maddening chaos, everything else seemed to be in slow motion, as both protagonists express their feelings for each other.
The film’s plot lines come together in the end magnificently, fixing the loose ends and leading to a brilliantly executed climax that reflects life’s take on fate and destiny. What also makes this flick standout is that it is able to deliver its message about the existence of hope; that is exists no matter what circumstance a person is in.
Now going back to the question posted above as to why “Slumdog Millionaire” was chosen as “Best Picture”, my answer would be letter D. The film caught attention not only because it was uniquely special, but also because of great storytelling, awesome directing, wonderful cinematography and film editing.
D. All of the above.
And this is my final answer.
FILM RATING: 4 stars ( out of 5 )
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
Movie Review: Monsters vs Aliens
Let me just say right off the bat that I commend “Monsters vs Aliens” for showcasing innovative 3D and expected visual brilliance, but let me add that the film also exposed an inferior script, forgettable characters and story concepts stolen from several science-fiction movies. Though it was cool idea to have a family-oriented flick that featured two “special” beings go up against each other in a grand scale, it was disappointing enough to watch it unfold in half-baked fashion.
The movie begins with California girl Susan Murphy (voiced by Reese Witherspoon), who is happily expected to wed fiancé Derek Dietl (voiced by Paul Rudd). On the day of their marriage however, Susan is hit by a green-glowing meteor from outer space and grows to 50 feet. Susan is then captured by a military and brought to a secret facility which holds other “monsters”: Dr. Cockroach Ph.D.(voiced by Hugh Laurie), a brilliant scientist with the body of a roach, B.O.B. (voiced by Seth Rogen),a brain dead living piece of goo, the Missing Link (voiced by Will Arnett), a 20,000 year-old fish man skilled in hand-to-hand combat and Insectosaurus, a fuzzy insect that stands a monstrous 350 feet tall.
Susan, now called Ginormica (the names just keep on getting interesting right?), is oriented by General W.R. Monger (voiced by Kiefer Sutherland) about her new “home” but which she considers as prison. As she starts to miss her family and friends back home, several light years away, an alien overlord smartly named “Gallaxhar” (voiced by Rainn Wilson) begins to covet planet Earth and sends a gigantic machine probe over with hostile intentions. As the U.S. army realizes that conventional warfare has no effect on the rampaging alien visitor, the confident General Monger advises the President (voiced by Stephen Colbert) that the monsters can stand a chance to fight the enemy.
Compared to other recent computer-animated releases by DreamWorks (“Bee Movie”, “Kung Fu Panda” and “Madagascar: Escape 2 Africa”), “Monsters vs Aliens” ranks as the least recommended of the lot. Whereas in past films we get characters we could easily fall in love with and even go to great lengths buying their toy versions for the kids, we could care less if we saw a scaled version of Ginormica hugging the shelves. Try imagining walking into Toy Kingdom and spotting a giant Kung Fu Panda stuff toy placed beside a fluffy and bouncy Insectosaurus. Which toy would you rather be buying? An insect that looks as scared as hell with bulging eyes the size of giant watermelons?
Reese Witherspoon tries to bring charm into Susan, but her character portrayals on previous live action movies endear us more. Among the actors who lent their voices to the project, Seth Rogen provides the most impact as the dimwitted B.O.B, though sadly the dialogue made for him are tiring in most parts.
Speaking of the dialogue, the script reeks of predictable storylines and stale jokes that keep on repeating. In one scene we find B.O.B. remark a punch line that elicited no response from the audience. Minutes later, the same type of lines are again being said but failing to tickle the funny bone.
The film is a parody of many past movies, and for awhile there it was tough to keep track how many works it made fun of: “Independence Day”, “X-Men”, “Attack of the 50 foot woman”, “The Blob”, “The Fly” and “War of the Worlds”. ( If you can think of other movies it parodied, it wouldn’t be a surprise.) A clever approach of uniting all these ideas into one flick, or a lazy attempt to come up with a fresh and engaging story?
With “Monsters vs Aliens”, it’s easy to be seduced by the groundbreaking visuals and not be bothered that it lacked enough substance to bring home its nice message that individuals considered to be “different” have their place in the world. But thinking a bit further leaves enough room to suggest that this film could’ve – and should’ve been better.
FILM RATING: 2 stars (out of 5)
The movie begins with California girl Susan Murphy (voiced by Reese Witherspoon), who is happily expected to wed fiancé Derek Dietl (voiced by Paul Rudd). On the day of their marriage however, Susan is hit by a green-glowing meteor from outer space and grows to 50 feet. Susan is then captured by a military and brought to a secret facility which holds other “monsters”: Dr. Cockroach Ph.D.(voiced by Hugh Laurie), a brilliant scientist with the body of a roach, B.O.B. (voiced by Seth Rogen),a brain dead living piece of goo, the Missing Link (voiced by Will Arnett), a 20,000 year-old fish man skilled in hand-to-hand combat and Insectosaurus, a fuzzy insect that stands a monstrous 350 feet tall.
Susan, now called Ginormica (the names just keep on getting interesting right?), is oriented by General W.R. Monger (voiced by Kiefer Sutherland) about her new “home” but which she considers as prison. As she starts to miss her family and friends back home, several light years away, an alien overlord smartly named “Gallaxhar” (voiced by Rainn Wilson) begins to covet planet Earth and sends a gigantic machine probe over with hostile intentions. As the U.S. army realizes that conventional warfare has no effect on the rampaging alien visitor, the confident General Monger advises the President (voiced by Stephen Colbert) that the monsters can stand a chance to fight the enemy.
Compared to other recent computer-animated releases by DreamWorks (“Bee Movie”, “Kung Fu Panda” and “Madagascar: Escape 2 Africa”), “Monsters vs Aliens” ranks as the least recommended of the lot. Whereas in past films we get characters we could easily fall in love with and even go to great lengths buying their toy versions for the kids, we could care less if we saw a scaled version of Ginormica hugging the shelves. Try imagining walking into Toy Kingdom and spotting a giant Kung Fu Panda stuff toy placed beside a fluffy and bouncy Insectosaurus. Which toy would you rather be buying? An insect that looks as scared as hell with bulging eyes the size of giant watermelons?
Reese Witherspoon tries to bring charm into Susan, but her character portrayals on previous live action movies endear us more. Among the actors who lent their voices to the project, Seth Rogen provides the most impact as the dimwitted B.O.B, though sadly the dialogue made for him are tiring in most parts.
Speaking of the dialogue, the script reeks of predictable storylines and stale jokes that keep on repeating. In one scene we find B.O.B. remark a punch line that elicited no response from the audience. Minutes later, the same type of lines are again being said but failing to tickle the funny bone.
The film is a parody of many past movies, and for awhile there it was tough to keep track how many works it made fun of: “Independence Day”, “X-Men”, “Attack of the 50 foot woman”, “The Blob”, “The Fly” and “War of the Worlds”. ( If you can think of other movies it parodied, it wouldn’t be a surprise.) A clever approach of uniting all these ideas into one flick, or a lazy attempt to come up with a fresh and engaging story?
With “Monsters vs Aliens”, it’s easy to be seduced by the groundbreaking visuals and not be bothered that it lacked enough substance to bring home its nice message that individuals considered to be “different” have their place in the world. But thinking a bit further leaves enough room to suggest that this film could’ve – and should’ve been better.
FILM RATING: 2 stars (out of 5)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)