The Giver [film review]

★★★★

STORY 4/5

WRITING 3.5/5

ACTING 4/5

MUSIC 3.5/5

CINEMATOGRAPHY 3.5/5

     I'm still trying to figure out the primary critiques of this film as I'm writing this review. The Rottentomatoes summary states that it doesn't explore the themes of the book well enough. This is hardly a good critique, as critics aren't supposed to review a film's quality as an adaptation, but as a film. Now, a decent critique that could be made of The Giver is that the story has been done many times before. It's your classic dictatorial world civilization, featuring a rejection of emotion, art and any and all true quality of life (yet all the citizens are living happily in their blindness somehow). We've seen this, to some extent, in Fahrenheit 451, Equilibrium, and to a much lesser extent, in City of Ember. But, pointers has to be given to this one, as it its basis was written before all of those except for Fahrenheit 451. 

     Even more pointers should be given to this film for the cinematography and Jeff Bridges' unsurprisingly tremendous performance. Though he is the greatest among an otherwise mediocre cast (with another exception of Meryl Streep), he performs brilliantly and livens up the film a great deal.

     Some could call this film manipulative, and I would agree. It is rather emotionally manipulative, but aren't most films that try to be emotional at all? It emphasizes what makes life life, what makes one do more exist. As I said before, yes it's been done before. Sure, it's ridiculous to think that this could ever happen, but it's simply an exaggeration of a realistic possibility, done to stress the idea.

     Yes, it's unrealistic in more than one way (both in terms of an unrealistic civilization and in the fact that it's factually unrealistic in that a motorcycle falls of a cliff and makes it down safely), yes it's old news. But it's still effective, and a decent adaptation (or so it seems, I myself have not read the book), and I consider it a good film. 

Sin City: A Dame to Kill For [film review]

STORY 2.5/5

WRITING 2/5

ACTING 3/5

MUSIC 3/5

CINEMATOGRAPHY 3.5/5

     The first Sin City film is widely viewed as one of the best tributes to the comic book format. The visuals are some of the most celebrated and adored of the genre. The black-and-white with the seldom emphasis (the meaning of which I have still not deciphered) on certain flashy elements is both eye-catching and uniquely entertaining. 

     Robert Rodriguez now follows up that critical success with a similarly colored, similarly gory, sexy and unrealistic graphic novel adaptation, now with some new characters, some new cast members portraying old characters, and several new stories. Unfortunately, the critics are right here: Sin City: A Dame to Kill For does not match the impact and memorableness of the predecessor. 

     Though the cast is absolutely spectacular (specifically Joseph Gordon Levitt, who fits into the town with terrific charisma and style), the stories are tired, uninteresting and too similar to those of the previous film. It crosses the line from reference into imitation/copying. Many lines from the previous film are repeated, specifically those spoken by Rourke's character. The invincibility of the Roarks becomes boringly repetitive, and despite the unrealistic violence and all-too-common dismembering, it's all so very tiresome.

     I was really looking forward to this film. I was hoping for a continuation of the previous stories, rather than unrelated stories, prequels, and unnecessary uninteresting follow-ups. Levitt's story is easily the most intriguing, but it does not make up for what is lacking. 

So, I'm just getting back in the rhythm of reviewing again. I've now left Letterboxd, and thus have given up on No-Rewatch November, and am rewatching to my heart's delight. I'll begin reviewing films more soon, and they'll all be posted on here and none will be posted on Letterboxd. 

On Leaving Letterboxd

You may have noticed a ten day absence from me if you know me from Letterboxd... well I've essentially left the site. I've decided to spend less time online, and also, the community has become rather negative towards my life as a Christian. Not to pinpoint or accuse, but specifically, reviews of God's Not Dead have been especially... offensive, really. Often, when people on Letterboxd review that film, they do not restrict their criticism but then begin accusing Christians in general and then joke about hell. I know that is how much of the world is, but it's not what I want to be around.

I'll still have my Letterboxd up, so that my reviews will remain, and I'll still be able to use my lists and such, as those have been very very useful (especially my current scheduled watch list). But I won't be posting reviews on there anymore. Instead, they'll all be here.

Peeples [film review]

STORY 2/5

WRITING 2.5/5

ACTING 3/5

MUSIC 2.5/5

CINEMATOGRAPHY 3/5

     This is pretty much Meet the Parents. In oh so many ways. It's just a whole lot less charming, due to both the lack of originality and the lack of restraint the film has. Meet the Parents was cheap and nothing close to a truly quality movie, don't get me wrong. But it was fun, it had a killer cast (Ben Stiller was okay) and it was pretty funny throughout. The same could not be said for the sequels, but it was still pretty good. This is not nearly as good.
     This film also has a rather spectacular cast... first of all, we have Craig Robinson, who gained his fame primarily through the tremendous sitcom, The Office, and has been a consistent sensation on the screen. Then there's Kerry Washington, who, though I've only seen her in one other film (guess), I've been able to notice some fantastic acting in. The rest of the cast is nothing more than decent really, but they all serve up acceptable performances.
     Unfortunately, the film just does not know where to stop with the murphy's law theme, and because of this it makes many comedic missteps. There's potential, but it's wasted. It ends up just being a mediocre unofficial remake of Meet the Parents, unfortunately. It's funny at times (all of the most comedic scenes involving Robinson performing the comedy. The scenes where he observes the comedy are less successful), so it does have its moments. But in the end it's forgettable as heck.