The Wind Rises

On a Scale of 1 to 10, with 10 Being the Best

7

Courtesy of Buzzfeed

Plot: This last Hayao Miyazaki film is about story about a man's life who always loved airplanes. Due to his poor eyesight, Jiro, decides to design airplanes instead. The movie follows along his hopes, his love life, and his literal dreams during the 1920s until the end of WWII. This film is more serious than the other Miyazaki films and has basically no crazy creatures but is still lovely to watch.

Characters/Actors of Note: *English Dubbed Cast*

Joseph Gordon-Levitt playing Jiro Horikoshi: I enjoy Mr. Gordon-Levitt's acting and this film was perfect for his voice. Jiro is a serious fellow that loves his work and the soft and somewhat monotone voice that Mr. Gordon-Levitt gave this character was lovely. I really enjoyed the performance and give it a thumbs up.

Stanley Tucci has Caproni: The extraordinary talented Mr. Tucci once again did his magic on movies. I was surprised to read in the credits that Tucci was the voice. Caproni is the airplane designer that Jiro only talks to in dreams and leads Jiro to success. The accent and joy that he gave this character was GREAT. Mr. Tucci gave a nice fatherly tone to Caproni and was such a nice supporting character. 

Emily Blunt playing Nahoko Satomi: Ms. Blunt also surprised me when I found out she was the voice. Ms. Blunt has also shown her great versatility in films and she was wonderful in this film as well. Nahoko plays the love interest for Jiro and compliments him to a T. She is also a soft spoken person who thoroughly loves her work, which is painting. She is also a huge supporter to Jiro and loves him more than many could understand. Ms. Blunt's characterization of this was what we needed from the film that was getting a bit too heavy. Nicely done. 

Music: The music was the typical Miyazaki sound which is kind of a folky sound. It was as if I was listening to a charming folk song from Italy. There were guitars and accordions for the lower parts of the film, tubas and accordions for the silly parts, and the piano for the sad moments. I did not notice the music at times because it was so well fleshed into the film. Everyone had their own theme song as well, which I wish were included in films more often. A person could hear a few bars from the song and have a picture in their mind on who was supposed to be on screen. 

Camera Work/Cinematography: This is by far one of the most well illustrated animated film I have seen. The shadows, reflections, and glares from glass were all included and the colors were vibrant. Whenever I saw a person wearing a kimono in the film, it grabbed my eye instantaneously and ooheed and ahhed a great deal. The issue I had with this movie is that there was not a clear cut from dream and reality. Perhaps that is the way it was supposed to appear but it caused confusion at times. Whenever Caproni showed up, I got so excited because I thought Jiro had finally met his idol...only to realize he was dreaming again. They cut to the dreams and reality too fast and wish they would have done something to signal to me that they were changing the setting. Usually in films where the characters age they jump time periods too fast, I did not feel this way in this film.  

RECAP:

The casting was spot-on, the music was great, and the animation was stunning. The issue I had was with the dream sequences as they seemed to jump in and out so fast. I also wish the story, how do I say this, not necessarily shorter but perhaps more urgency? Maybe not even that but something to be a little snappier? It just seemed a bit slow. (Sorry to the big anime fans!) Another fact about the film is that Jiro is designing airplanes to fight the USA, and I found myself conflicted. On one hand I wanted to cheer on Jiro and on the other hand, I didn't want him to fight the USA. Despite these two things, I did think that it was still a nice film to watch. 

Courtesy of dramafever.com

Want me to critique a movie? Comment below!

Jurassic World

On a Scale of 1 to 10, with 10 Being the Best

5

Courtesy of Buzzfeed

Plot: A theme park has genetically engineered carnivorous dinosaurs. What could go wrong? Well, science could once again try to outdo itself. This new Jurassic Park movie has a new scientist whose job is to keep the park going. All is well in the security department until they engineer a dinosaur that is part T-Rex and part every other bad decision which makes it stronger, smarter, and harder to kill. I think it's good for the thrills but the added plot points are disappointing. (At one point they try to add in a story-line of the kids parent's divorcing...people are dying, I do not care.) As always, the original is better. 

Characters/Actors of Note:

Bryce Dallas Howard playing Claire: I was a bit wary of this character at first but I liked how strong she was in the film. Ms. Howard was a business woman who learned how to focus more on family. She was also able to out-run a dinosaur in heels. Where I was disappointed was how everyone treated her. Her nephews thought that her "boyfriend" was stronger than she was, her sister said she should start a family, and everyone else called her a control freak. Give a girl a break! She's been running a successful theme park of dangerous dinosaurs for years now. I thought her emotions that she used were understandable and I liked how professional she seemed throughout the film.

Chris Pratt playing Owen: Mr. Pratt plays the man who has been training raptors and sort-of a dinosaur expert. As much as I love Christ Pratt, I didn't think he fit the film well. The reason being that he often talked about how the dinosaurs thought and worked in a nice way, but then added this weird level of sarcasm. His "tough guy" attitude was strange too. It seemed so cliche to have him beat dinosaurs and then flirt with the main girl. He watched 10 people die and he's relatively undeterred? Try again. 

Irrfan Khan playing Simon Masrani: When I saw Mr. Khan, I was so excited! I loved his character in Life of Pi and looked forward to seeing his character. Simon Masrani is the head of Jurassic World and is the one that orders for bigger and scarier dinosaurs. Mr. Khan added the curiosity to the film and even talked about important the human quality was to the park. Of course, he was all in for the fun and not the true reality of dinosaurs which gets him into trouble. I do wish that the character was a bit smarter and was in the film more. SPOILER ALERT: move on to the next item if you don't want to be ruined. I wish he would have survived the film just so we could see the moment where he learned his lesson or seen more of his curiosity. 

Music: They had the original score to the movie which is iconic of course! I thought the volumes were done well and the surprising moments were well orchestrated. 

Camera Work/Cinematography: Since Spielberg did not direct this film (darn it) it did not have the iconic shots. There could have been more mouth dropping moments but instead it was more horror-like. There was a lot of dinosaurs biting into people, blood dripping, and hiding behind cars than I would have imagined. The suspense could have been built better if it was done in a different way. I will admit it got boring after a bit because you knew who was going to die next. The animation was well done for the dinosaurs and the park looked very nice. Thumbs up for design, thumbs down for creativity. 

RECAP:

Music was excellent and everything else was okay. Mr. Pratt's character was too cliche, Ms. Howard's character was never given a break, the plot was mediocre, and the camera work wasn't creative. As a movie by itself, it's interesting but cliche. I would support watching this film just because it's another Jurassic Park and dinosaurs are cool, otherwise not much to brag about. 

Courtesy of Geektryant.com

Want me to critique a movie? Comment below!

Captain Phillips

On a Scale of 1 to 10, with 10 Being the Best

5

Courtesy of Buzzfeed

Plot: A boat is headed around Africa to deliver food and supplies to poor people. Along the way, the cargo ship is followed and boarded by Somali pirates. The movie is based off of true events but apparently many of the items that happened were left out, which makes sense when the incident took five days and the movie is two hours long.

Characters/Actors of Note:

Tom Hanks as Captain Phillips: Mr. Hanks actually looks like the real Captain Phillips and I thought the portrayal was nicely done. Mr. Hanks could be stern and also feeling which I thought was a great balance. It was not overdone as I was expecting, good job. 

Barkhad Abdi as Muse: As the lead pirate of the story, I thought that Mr. Adbi did a wonderful job. I was impressed how he showed the desperate motives of Muse without harping on them. The balance he gave as a leader and as a worker for the Somali bad guys was also well done. This was his first film and was impressed. The one issue I had is that Muse was supposed to be 18 when this event occurred and I think Mr. Adbi was a bit old to be playing him.

Music: The music in the film was so stressful! I felt my heart beat out of my chest for a majority of the film and just wanted to take a break. It was mostly brass which made me think that Hans Zimmer did the music for the film. I was surprised to see that it was Henry Jackman. (It is noted in the credits that Hans Zimmer did help and I bet he was the one that offered the brass idea.)

Camera Work/Cinematography: The director tried to make this movie seem like a documentary with the camera shaking and quick cuts to other people. I personally hated that very much. It was hard to get into the film when I felt like I was being thrown all over the place. Two big thumbs down in this aspect.

RECAP:

The movie is pretty close to the actual events and the acting was well done. I did not like the music or the camera work as they both were huge distractions. They gave more anxiety to the situation which I am not sure was needed. The story itself was frightening enough and did not need the extra push. I would recommend the film only if you want to learn more about the story, otherwise prepare for a lot of stress.  

Courtesy of christianmediamagazine.com

Want me to critique a movie? Comment below!

Milk

On a Scale of 1 to 10, with 10 Being the Best

8

Courtesy of Buzzfeed

Plot: A gay hippie and his boyfriend move to California where they work on equal rights for gay people. As tensions rise across the US to oppress homosexuals in the workplace, Harvey Milk decides to step up and be the first openly gay government official. This biopic follows Harvey Milk's love affairs, the influence he had on others, and his work in California.

Characters/Actors of Note:

Sean Penn as Harvey Milk: Mr. Penn did a phenomenal job portraying such a loving and kind person as Harvey Milk, which surprised me since Mr. Penn has such a violent and crude history. I can't deny that his portrayal was done very well including voice and looks. Despite Mr. Penn being a horrible human being, his acting skills can't be denied. 

James Franco as Scott Smith: I didn't find Mr. Franco that believable as Scott Smith. Scott Smith is Milk's longtime boyfriend but I just kept thinking that it was James Franco on the screen and couldn't break from it. I felt that Mr. Franco could have more emotional connection. He just fell flat. 

Josh Brolin as Dan White: Mr. Brolin played the politician that tried to work with Harvey Milk but eventually turned his back to him. I thought the struggle that Mr. Brolin portrayed was evident throughout the film. He went from hating homosexuals to accepting them and then hating Milk on a political level. He even showed how sneaky and desperate he was in small ways. The acting done here was well-done.

Music: The music in the film kind of sounded like a music box. It was light and refreshing and I loved that. There were violins and pianos that gave such a soulful beautiful tone. Danny Elfman was the orchestrator and I couldn't be happier with that choice.

Camera Work/Cinematography: I loved the work that they did in this film. They used film that looked exactly like the real video clips from the 1970s. I noticed lots of white in the film and loved it. The filmmaker did a great job capturing moods from the colors and angles. The final scene with Milk was done in such a poetic way. Really superb job here. The make-up and costumes were exceptional as well.

RECAP:

This movie was accurate to the history of Harvey Milk. The acting was well done by Mr. Penn and Mr. Brolin but I felt that the supporting characters were not as strong (except Emile Hirsch, he was very good). The music fit perfectly for Harvey Milk's character. The cinematography was superb as well. I think it is a wonderful biopic that is still relevant today.

Image Courtesy of Rotten Tomatoes

Want me to critique a movie? Comment below!

After the Dark

On a Scale of 1 to 10, with 10 Being the Best

7

Courtesy of sbnation.com

Plot: A philosophy class' final is to decide who will live and who will die in a three different hypothetical apocalypse situation. There is also a romance between two of the students who are the best in the class and the professor tries to pin them against each other. This movie is great for making you think but also has lovely humorous moments. I found this movie very entertaining and interesting and recommend it to others.

Characters/Actors:

Sophie Lowe playing Petra: The only issue I had with this movie is the acting; Ms. Lowe is the main character in this film and she is the main culprit. The way she portrayed her character was soft and submissive, something that makes her character suffer. Since she is the smartest in the class and ends up being the leader and I found her attitude annoying. She just wasn't assertive enough to be a real leader. She also has to face a tug-of-war scenario and she does not give a single care about it and I felt that she could have given some emotion there. 

James D'Arcy playing Mr. Zimit: Mr. D'Arcy plays his character well. Mr. Zimit is a jerk of a professor who loves to stir the pot and make a bad situation even worse. He's also got a secret which we find out at the end between him and Petra. I thought his performance was well done.

Bonnie Wright playing Georgina: Ms. Wright's character is not a pivotal person in the film but loved her character. Georgina has the most leadership out of all the students and is very smart. Ms. Wright also has a soft voice but is assertive enough to tell off Mr. Zimit. I wish that Ms. Wright played Petra instead.

Music: The movie uses lots of brass. It was used well and I enjoyed it.

Cinematography/Camera Work: The movie appeared to be in high definition. The colors and lines were sharp. They also used slow motion often in the film but I thought it was used well. Good work here.

RECAP:

The movie is entertaining and it looks nice. I felt that Ms. Lowe was not assertive enough but the other actors do a fairly good job. The reason I did not rate it higher is because I would laugh at how ridiculous some of it was or how awkward. There is a scene where they have to decide who will repopulate the human race, and it is a serious discussion, but I couldn't stop laughing. I would recommend watching it and hope you enjoy this film.

Courtesy of Pinterest

Want me to critique a movie? Comment below!

Mommie Dearest

On a Scale of 1 to 10, with 10 Being the Best

4.5

Courtesy of Buzzfeed

Plot: This is the story of Joan Crawford and her abusive relationship with her daughter Christina Crawford. It starts when Joan Crawford adopted Christina up until Joan dies. I was told that this movie is pretty traumatic but I was surprised. There was a lot of mental abuse but the way it was described to me was that Joan Crawford beat her kids often, but there was only one case of that in the film. It is hard to watch but most of the time it was infuriating. I also found that it lacked the brother's side of the story. He also lived with Joan Crawford but his abuse was not documented in the film. Many people have watched this film and I have even heard the term, "Her mom as a real 'Mommie Dearest'." It does have relevance in our culture. It is based off the novel with the same title.

Characters/Actors: 

Faye Dunaway as Joan Crawford: I thought that Ms. Dunaway was overacting. She characterized Joan Crawford in a way that seemed so fake. It almost felt that she was trying to be one of those bad 1950 actors. It was uncomfortable watching her because she was so borderline cheesy the entire time. Whenever she delivered a cruel line, I never thought that she delivered it well but thought about how Joan Crawford really said these things. I felt that Ms. Dunaway was more of a middle person. She told the story of Joan but did not embody Joan. 

Diana Scarwid as Christina Crawford: Ms. Scarwid did a pretty average job. I liked her acting performance more than Ms. Dunaway's as she seemed to try to really imagine how it was. I could sense her trying, though. It wasn't completely believable but wasn't awful. 

Mara Hobel as Young Christina Crawford: Ms. Hobel was by far the best actress in the film. Her grasp on the emotion of the film was much better than the other's. I could have been because her real innocence as a child could be seen in her portrayal of Christina. I was impressed with how intelligent Christina was and how she understood fairness, even if the adults around her did not. Spot on performance here.

Music: The music used many violins and brass which added to the drama. It's not iconic in anyway but does it's part well.

Cinematography/Camera Work: There were several errors I noticed in the movie that just made it seem sloppy. It's ironic because Joan Crawford was such a neat freak (emphasis on freak). I remember specifically in one scene where a waiter hit a glass of pop and it almost fell off the table. The fight scene was also done poorly. Everything seemed so fake as well. When I saw the house in the movie my first thought was, "That's a nice set." I did not think, "This is a nice house." I also hated the make-up on Ms. Dunaway, mostly for her lips. Joan Crawford had these strange thick lips but to hide that Ms. Dunaway didn't have the same lips, just added more lipstick. Not convincing. The camera work was fine. It had good angles, close-ups, and distance shots that worked nicely.

RECAP:

Camera work was done well but everything was pretty bad. The only good acting came from the young Christina and the music did it's part. I think this movie is good to watch to understand that even picturesque family's have dark stains and how abuse works in a family. 

Courtesy of Etsy

Want me to critique a movie? Comment below!

Dear White People

On a Scale of 1 to 10, with 10 Being the Best

5

Image courtesy of http://cool-whipfree.blogspot.com/

Plot: The story takes place at a prestigious school and focuses on four African American students. The movie talks about the ways that black people are oppressed, how racism still exists, and how black people react to a dominant white culture. I was glad to watch this film as I wanted to learn this perspective. My wish for this film was that it would have been more hard hitting. I was under the impression that the movie was about Sam White's radio show but it ended up being about a racist party at the end of the film. The movie could have been more hard hitting if they could have focused more on day-to-day racist actions than the party at the end.

Characters/Actors of Note:

Tessa Thompson playing Sam White: I think Ms. Thompson did a wonderful job with the character Sam White and found it believable until later (which I will get to). This character was fire and brimstone about equal rights and I loved it. She was the character throughout the film explaining how black people are oppressed at her school (and our everyday lives) and how others reacted to it. Halfway through the film we find out her true nature and how she is so overbearing because she is covering up this truth. This disappointed me as she was such a powerful character at the start. The acting was good the writing was not. 

*Note there were many other characters in this film that were written to demonstrate a point. They seemed flat though and not note worthy.*

Music: The music was new and up-beat. Sometimes it seemed to go well and others I found that it stuck out to the point of distraction. It would make for great music on your own Itunes but perhaps not this film. There was one song that they play repeatedly and I hated that. So it had good music but not fitting.

Cinematography/Camera Work: The definition in the movie was nice and it looked crisp and clean. The problem was the choppiness. The movie would intermediately cut off to a bright colored background with black letters. It drove me NUTS. It took me forever that it is supposed to be chapters from Sam White's book, in fact someone had to explain it to me. These cards also cut-off the flow from the film. So the movie looked choppy and it was probably solely due to these cards.

RECAP: 

Music was excellent as a soundtrack but not fitting for the film. The look of this film was nice except that it was chopped up to bits by those cards. Ms. Thompson was by far the best actress and the others were flat. The biggest flaw was the writing. This film had the chance to hit everyone with the facts that African Americans are facing oppression in small ways almost everyday. That chance fell through when they focused on a racist party and let their leading lady become passive towards the end. I appreciate this movie nonetheless and thought it wasn't too bad. 

Image Courtesy of http://www.refinery29.com/

Want me to critique a movie? Comment below!