Take Shelter (2011) Review

It’s an apocalypse movie, but not one centered around the actual apocalypse or its aftermath. Rather, it looks into the events leading up to the cataclysmic event, and that build-up of suspense makes the story that much more riveting. Jeff Nichols’s primary cast of Michael Shannon and Jessica Chastain have an undeniably strong chemistry in this movie. You’ll have a hard time differentiating them from people in the real world.

That’s not to say the performances aren’t without flaws. Though Shannon give an amazing performance, he seems too understated at times, like he’s detached from the movie. I acknowledge that it IS his character, but when taken slightly past a certain level, it becomes something else entirely. Secondly, the supporting cast wasn’t nearly as strong as Shannon, though all of the characters did mix well together.

The fact that the movie has had me giving it so much thought after the credits (much like Inception did, but in a way that doesn’t feel as cheap or inconclusive) owes to the masterful direction. Throughout the movie, you see that Curtis, Shannon’s character, is plagued with sleeplessness and terrifying dreams accompanied by audio-visual hallucinations, all of which he attributes to his declining psychological health. This main plotline builds up nicely, gradually worsening until Curtis decides to build a storm shelter to protect his family against the tragedy from his nightmares. His obsession with this project leads him to becomes the talk of the town – and not in a good way. The way Nichols builds tension is realistic and stunning. Accompanied by incredible visuals, this film leaves a remarkable impact on you.

There are some other plots that at first seemed unnecessary to me. The one in particular I want to talk about is Hannah, Curtis’s deaf daughter. She wasn’t always deaf so she’s still in the process of learning sign language, and throughout the movie, Curtis and his wife work to train her in it. Watching the movie, I was thinking it was simply padding on to the run time – which, for what the movie is, makes for a grueling two hours – but the more I think about it, the more it seems that she was more of a symbol to sees the world through visions – and that causes a communication barrier. She wasn’t always deaf, and Curtis wasn’t always having nightmares. The two are one and the same in a way. That relationship comes under stress for a powerful, emotionally-driven scene near the end, though I won’t spoil it.

The movie does run a bit too long, and somewhere in the middle, I looked something like this. Granted it gets dull and boring from time to time and many scenes well expire their welcome, Take Shelter does manage to accomplish something that many movies simply can’t. It pushes us into a cloud of uncertainty and leaves us alone to judge for ourselves what is and is not real in the world around us. It teaches us to trust our instincts and to keep those who we treasure the most closest to us. Here is a movie that won’t soon be escaping us…primarily because we’ll see it at the Oscars.

Jack and Jill Preview

It's one of the reasons why every time I see an advertisement for a new Eddie Murphy movie, I have to struggle against to urge to claw my eyes out.

The Avengers Trailer Review Review

Why Batman Shouldn’t Be Rebooted in 2015

If it’s not already painfully obvious, everyone loves Nolan’s version of Batman (alright, to be unbiased, it does have its fair share of “non-believers”). The last installation of Nolan’s reboot is planned for a theatrical release next year, and the box office will feel the sting of millions of fans preordering their tickets, and theaters will shake with the clamor of excitement as everyone waits in anticipation to discover how the trilogy will conclude.

Three years afterwards, fans of The Bat will have another live-action movie to look forward to. We would all be excited to see Nolan directing Bale, Caine, and the usual bunch in a fourth movie, but if plans for a new Batman don’t fall through, that won’t be the case. This new Batman project is intended as a completely new reboot, scrapping the previous canon established by Nolan. We’ve already seen The Green Lantern hit theaters, Man of Steel (the new Superman reboot, funny because the last reboot only lasted for one film) is currently filming, and there is speculation about a Wonder Woman flick. While this isn’t a comprehensive list of the heroes one would expect to see in a Justice League movie, the push towards producing so many superhero movies based on characters from the DC universe strikes me as odd considering only Marvel has really been pushing for big-screen adaptations of their material.

Doubtlessly, it was Nolan’s Batman Begins that set the stage for DC to begin moving forward with more movies based on their heroes. And it’s that exact stage-setting that makes this such an inopportune moment for yet another Batman reboot to arise. Even if Nolan is included on the team responsible for its creation, the expectation for it to live up to its predecessor will be a thorn in its side throughout both the production and marketing processes. Concurrently, with the intent of making the reboot of a different nature than the Begins series, people will expect to see something entirely different. Traces of Nolan’s influence will only serve to compound confusion in differentiating between the two reboots and to bring the canon of the Batman film franchise into question. Most importantly, many hearts have been captivated by Christian Bale’s Batman, and four years from now when the reboot is currently scheduled to be released, those captive hearts won’t have come close to forgetting what’s probably the best live iteration of Batman to date.

But as I begin to probe deeper into this situation, I stumble upon quite an interesting thought: Bale is adverse to the notion of sharing the spotlight with another actor. After all, he threatened to drop the role of the Caped Crusader if Robin was added to the cast. Yeah, that’s probably only because he had a bad experience with the original Batman and Robin, as so many have, but it still makes an interesting point. If Bale won’t share the screen with a single sidekick, why would he share it with multiple? To my knowledge, there has yet to be a big ensemble superhero film to hit Hollywood, so most recurring superhero actors are probably more than used to walking the path of righteous justice alone.

As of now, I’m not sure if Bale has been approached about taking the role of Batman in the Justice League movie, but I do know that the chances of someone else being able to replace what he left us with is slim. A Batman reboot should wait a good ten years after The Dark Knight Rises, when the hype has died down, and we become thirsty to revisit the cinematic presence of everyone’s favorite powerless superhero.

Who Deserves Credit for Movies (Directors vs. Everyone Else)

It’s a trend that runs through the veins of most casual moviegoers – the attribution of the completion of a film solely to the director. It’s undeniable that the lucky individual who takes hold of the esteemed reins of director has the greatest influence over the development of a film. But to say that a movie like Shutter Island is “one of Scorsese’s best works” is a downright lie, not because there’s not a possibility for it to contend for one of his best works but because Scorsese wasn’t the only force driving the creation of the movie.

Shutter Island is the product of the adaptation of a novel by Dennis Lehane, multiple studios, Paramount, writer Laeta Kalogridis, a dozen producers, Leonardo DiCaprio, and the hundreds of members of the crew. Why, then, do most people attribute an entire movie’s creation to the director? My thoughts? They probably don’t know any better. I’m sure everyone has sat through the credits of at least one movie. The list of people involved are far too great for you to ever develop a familiarity with any of them, but that unfamiliarity doesn’t constitute the lack of recognition they receive. I’m willing to state that most directors don’t know how to handle all of the equipment, properly apply makeup, or perform most of the technical tasks required to make a movie successful.

Yes, it’s the director who makes decisions as to how scenes are shot, how to use the lighting, how actors should approach the scenes, and nearly every other aspect of how the film looks. But he couldn’t do any of that without a good many uncredited (by the general public) individuals.

For example, it doesn’t matter how Scorsese decides to direct DiCaprio, Leo is Leo. His screen presence is something in itself, something the viewer sees and automatically associates with DiCaprio, not Scorsese’s direction. In fact, many might also refer to Shutter Island as a Leonardo DiCaprio film, not a Scorsese film. Many likely considered Inception in the same manner. Despite Nolan’s direction being a large “must-see” stamp on the film, DiCaprio cast in the leading role was a magnet for his many Titanic fangirls and others who simply appreciate the work he does. The cast of a film is doubtlessly integral to its success, and leading actors may have just as much a right to call a film their own as the director.

The script, in this particular example, is unoriginal. No, I don’t mean stolen. I mean not the creative work of Scorsese. The film was adapted from a novel, but wasn’t advertised as such, and the collection of people who know about Shutter Island, the novel, are probably amongst the few who may sympathize with my ideas on this subject. Cinematography and film editing were each handled by a single members of the production team. Neither have names that I’m familiar with, though this contemplation of mine may lead me to take increased notice to these individuals. What’s more surprising to me is that the editor, Thelma Shoonmaker, is a three-time Oscar recipient who worked with Scorsese on multiple occasions, including Goodfellas and The Departed. However, I don’t recall ever hearing much about her, not even as a mere appendage to the name of Scorsese. Wouldn’t one be inclined to believe Shoonmaker’s editing has something to do with the visual presentation of what are considered some of Scorsese’s best? I’m sure many would say no because Scorsese oversaw her direction. For me, that’s not an excuse. Shoonmaker attended film school and studied the art of editing. She has her own style, and whether Scorsese had any input as to how she worked or not, it’s ultimately her style of editing that shows up, not Scorsese’s visual vision.

I believe I’ve made enough of my point clear in that brief analysis of Shutter Island, but readers would be wrong to interpret this as saying directors shouldn’t have their names pasted onto movie posters. That’s not true at all; in certain situations, they do deserve to be widely recognized as a driving force behind the creation of a film. In this area, directors such as Christopher Nolan and the Coen brothers begin to shine through. Not only to these directors oversee production, but they tend to fiddle with the screenplays, producing, cinematography, and editing. These are the directors who I have no problem attributing the majority of a film to. They put themselves in as many positions as possible, and while there are still a great many important aspects of creating a film that  they can’t take part in, the multiple roles they assume do enough to speak for their desire to create a film that’s most reflective of their creative vision.

So at the end of the day, who deserves credit for movies? Honestly, it’s hard to say. Cast and crew far outnumber directors, producers, and the like. There are roles that are more important than others. Maybe a movie would have turned out just fine with only a single grip. Maybe it would have turned out better without either; but that’s not to say they didn’t put forth their fair share of effort. It’s just an insignificant measure of worth that I’m using to determine who should be credited. There’s often only a single editor for a film. Without them, production would never conclude. Does that mean they deserve more credit than the casting director? Again, no.

At this point, I feel as though I’m just going around in circles, so I’ll finish up with but a few more statements. At the end of the day, deciding who should be given the most credit is quite ambiguous and largely varies from project to project. While I don’t agree with the fact that many people attribute movies only to the directors, there’s really no way to get everyone’s name out there – except in the credits. And for people who love making movies, that’s enough.

Thor Review

Being an esteemed student at the University of Georgia, I had the absolute pleasure of being able to watch a free screening of Thor. I remember my initial reaction to Thor when I first heard that it was in production. “How can they turn the story of a hammer-wielding god of thunder into a marketable movie?” The answer to that question was simple then, and it’s simple now. Marvel. Anything will Marvel’s name on it is bound to generate an incredible amount of buzz in the film industry, especially when they’re able to throw around references to better movies. But that practice in itself is a double-edged sword to those willing enough to consider the marketing strategy behind it.

When a movie can stand on its own merits, the need to cater to the public’s tastes becomes obsolete. Iron Man sold incredibly well, and it did so as a stand-alone movie. On the other hand, Thor advertised itself by referencing it as being a production from the creators of Iron Man, a movie with generally positive reviews and a positive following of fans. Why would Marvel need to do this? Of course, everyone already knew (or should have known) that the same people must have made Thor, as they are both intellectual properties of Marvel. The reasoning behind publicizing one movie with the success of a predecessor rests behind the studio/producer’s expectations of how well the movie will be able to stand alone. If they have low expectations, it becomes profitable to associate it with a piece of work that’s accepted as “great.” People, casual movie-goers particularly, will then come to expect a movie along the same lines of quality. In truth, one should expect a movie of lesser quality. Making the association between two movies is a clear cut sign that the parties responsible aren’t entirely confident that their newest work will receive as much acclaim as the last. It happens all the time. “From the writers of Hangover.” “By the visionary director of Buitiful.” “With five-time Academy Award-winner (insert actor’s name here).” Knowing that the creators aren’t confident in the work as a whole, I automatically lose confidence in it as well. Accompanied with my inherent distaste for the idea of a movie based on Thor, my motivation to see it was far below par.

To move away from that rant and back to my actual complaints with the movie, I’ll start by saying that it was much better than I expected, but not for the reasons I had previously anticipated. I expected Thor to be a poorly acted, contain a structurally fragmented plot, to have below-average special effects, and to try to take the concept too seriously. Some of those predictions proved well-made. Others fell short of the mark.

As for the pros of Thor, there are admittedly some fairly high points to be made. When the movie started, I immediately revoked any sentiments I harbored about the special effects beforehand. Visually, the movie was quite strong, and I did enjoy (for the most part) what I saw on screen. The costume design also stood out to me, particularly with Loki. He’s the kind of character who you should be able to recognize regardless who designs him – and notice him, I did. Odin’s eye piece and armor were great in my opinion, though I could only really see it comparatively (the comparison being between his subtle armor and Zeus’ extravagantly shiny and blinding armor from the Clash of the Titans remake). The costume that I really expected to fall through was Thor’s. Anyone who walks around in a red cape and a winged helmet is bound to look silly at one point or another, but there was a degree of professionalism to the outfit that I can’t quite wrap my mind around. The second high point was the foreshadowing. What this movie does best is serve as a huge advertisement for The Avengers which is going to be released sometime next year. Captain America did something very similar to this with the new technology being born from an Asgardian stone, it’s conclusion containing Nick Fury doing that thing that he likes to do in these Marvel movies, and a teaser trailer for The Avengers. Thor isn’t quite that covert with its advertising (please note the sarcasm), but there is something to be found that either hints at a sequel or at The Avengers. One such factor is Thor’s desire to return to earth. The second is that…well, Thor is one of the Avengers. If they never originally planned to make a Thor movie, it likely became a prerequisite for filming an Avengers movie. They needed backstories for each of the heroes meant to come together, and this was one of those backstories.

Now for the cons. I’ll try to keep this brief because I feel like I have an abundance of thoughts on this subject, but there’s no guarantee. First, I’d like to address that the story was somewhat fragmented, just as I’d predicted. At its core (if it can be said to have one), Thor was two movies. There was the first story of Thor’s intended ascension to the throne and Loki’s interference; and there was the story of Thor’s banishment to Earth. This duality of plotlines also spelled out another problem I had with the movie, which was the tone, something that I’ll discuss in conjunction with the story. To sum it up, there seemed to be a disconnect, largely because Asgard and Earth were so different visually, and what was happening in Asgard didn’t really have any influence over the events on Earth. To make matters worse, the events on Earth seemed more like a side story than anything else because it served much more as comic relief than the “life-or-death” mood set up in Asgard. Even Thor’s companions, who were typically serious in all that they did, became comical when they arrived on Earth. This separation between the fundamental function of the two worlds made the tone highly inconsistent. It’s not a problem having comic relief, but not to the point that it detracts from what the movie is supposed to be, which I felt was something serious. Tom Hiddleston as Loki seemed truly tormented and grave in his performance, as did Anthony Hopkins as Odin, but everyone else seemed somewhat campy, out on the set having a blast. Thor felt as though it was intended to be two completely different movies, one focused on Earth and one focused on Asgard. In the first, Thor could be banished to Earth and go through the process of redeeming himself so that he may return to his homeland. When he finally is able to return, he finds himself attached to the planet, and makes an oath to one day return. In the second part, Thor could return to Asgard to find that Loki has taken over, and wage war against his brother. The conflict would be the “dramatic sequel” that can function without having to introduce characters, as well as the bridge (get it, bridge?) that bestows upon Thor the ability to freely travel between two worlds. That ending would solidify his return to Earth for the Avengers. The last complaint I have (which I promise to keep brief) is the acting. Again, it seems inconsistent for a movie that I’m positive I’m supposed to be taking seriously. The characters, Thor particularly, too often move between being silly and serious. Sure, because of this, you never know what to expect in a scene, but it doesn’t always go over well for those who are anticipating something that they can invest themselves in.

The cons, for me, far outweigh the pros. Not in an overbearing way so that they’d completely ruin the movie for be, but enough for me to withhold my recommendation of it. I’d rate Thor a 55/100 give or take.

P.S. I still have no intention of seeing The Green Lantern unless a friend happens to acquire a DVD copy, and I can watch it for free.