I am not going to pretend to understand everything that happens in the film. You will likely have several questions after watching it. I did. Normally, this bothers me, however, in the case of “Prometheus,” I was so overwhelmed by the scope and superiority of the filmmaking that these unanswered questions became only minor nuisances that soon left my brain. I would not be surprised to hear that “Prometheus” is the first of two or three films that will serve as a prequel to the 1979 film. I do not know if “Prometheus” is supposed to be a prequel to “Alien” or not. Arguments could be successfully debated on both sides. It does not really matter to me. As a stand-alone film, “Prometheus” succeeds in being very entertaining as a result of a focused narrative and very good performances aided by some very good science fiction writing. What I mean by “very good science fiction writing” is that the script never gets sidetracked by silly subplots or a need to explore a character’s past love affair with another character, for example. References are made to relationships in the film and it is made clear at the beginning of the film that the characters Elizabeth Shaw (Noomi Rapace) and Charlie Holloway (Logan Marshall-Green) are a couple, however, that is all we need to know. No backstory about this subject is necessary in this film, and fortunately, none is given to bog down the proceedings.
Characters are introduced smoothly in the film. It is as if the viewer walks into the room and encounters somebody for the first time. There is no fanfare and the trope of showing someone from the back and having them turn around slowly is not used. One of the most egregious uses of this kind of trope was used in “Star Trek 2” to introduce Captain Kirk. Yes, it’s Shatner. Yes, it’s Kirk and he is an iconic character. It was still pretty corny, though. In that scene, Kirk was first shown in shadows, then the lighting is adjusted as he walks closer into the frame to reveal that it is the massively cool Captain Kirk. Make no mistake, he is massively cool…but that was corny.
Charlize Theron’s performance as Meredith Vickers, the leader of the mission of which the ship, Prometheus, undertakes, is fantastic. She could have played her character as a soulless bitch. Fortunately, Theron is an excellent actress and she stands out playing her character as a no-nonsense woman who understands her role on the ship and with the company for which she works. The script allows her to be more than a two-dimensional cardboard cutout. Such is the case with most of the characters in the film. Noomi Rapace also stands out as Elizabeth Shaw, one of the scientists aboard Prometheus, a vessel assigned to locate the source of a mysterious image which was found in seven different locations on Earth. The planet the crew of Prometheus is on course for is discovered to be full of many surprises, none of which I will divulge. As I inferred, I was left with some questions after watching the film. I have discussed the film with friends, as this film will surely inspire conversation. Said conversations have helped explain some, but not all, of my questions, as it does not appear that answers to some of our questions were in the film, which leads to my estimation that one or two more films will follow.
“Prometheus” is very good science-fiction/horror entertainment and is among Ridley Scott’s best films, but not quite as good as “Alien” or “Blade Runner.” Those two films are science-fiction classics. “Prometheus” falls just a bit short of the level of greatness of those two films. It is no slight to “Prometheus” to make such a statement. Though I do not want you to feel bound to see “Prometheus,” I do hope that my words will direct you to some interest in it.
Tuesday, June 26, 2012
I Was Bound to Write About "Prometheus"
The straight-forwardness with which “Prometheus” tells it’s story is the film’s most impressive feature. If you liked Ridley Scott’s 1979 film, “Alien,” there is a very good chance you will enjoy his new film.
I am not going to pretend to understand everything that happens in the film. You will likely have several questions after watching it. I did. Normally, this bothers me, however, in the case of “Prometheus,” I was so overwhelmed by the scope and superiority of the filmmaking that these unanswered questions became only minor nuisances that soon left my brain. I would not be surprised to hear that “Prometheus” is the first of two or three films that will serve as a prequel to the 1979 film. I do not know if “Prometheus” is supposed to be a prequel to “Alien” or not. Arguments could be successfully debated on both sides. It does not really matter to me. As a stand-alone film, “Prometheus” succeeds in being very entertaining as a result of a focused narrative and very good performances aided by some very good science fiction writing. What I mean by “very good science fiction writing” is that the script never gets sidetracked by silly subplots or a need to explore a character’s past love affair with another character, for example. References are made to relationships in the film and it is made clear at the beginning of the film that the characters Elizabeth Shaw (Noomi Rapace) and Charlie Holloway (Logan Marshall-Green) are a couple, however, that is all we need to know. No backstory about this subject is necessary in this film, and fortunately, none is given to bog down the proceedings.
Characters are introduced smoothly in the film. It is as if the viewer walks into the room and encounters somebody for the first time. There is no fanfare and the trope of showing someone from the back and having them turn around slowly is not used. One of the most egregious uses of this kind of trope was used in “Star Trek 2” to introduce Captain Kirk. Yes, it’s Shatner. Yes, it’s Kirk and he is an iconic character. It was still pretty corny, though. In that scene, Kirk was first shown in shadows, then the lighting is adjusted as he walks closer into the frame to reveal that it is the massively cool Captain Kirk. Make no mistake, he is massively cool…but that was corny.
Charlize Theron’s performance as Meredith Vickers, the leader of the mission of which the ship, Prometheus, undertakes, is fantastic. She could have played her character as a soulless bitch. Fortunately, Theron is an excellent actress and she stands out playing her character as a no-nonsense woman who understands her role on the ship and with the company for which she works. The script allows her to be more than a two-dimensional cardboard cutout. Such is the case with most of the characters in the film. Noomi Rapace also stands out as Elizabeth Shaw, one of the scientists aboard Prometheus, a vessel assigned to locate the source of a mysterious image which was found in seven different locations on Earth. The planet the crew of Prometheus is on course for is discovered to be full of many surprises, none of which I will divulge. As I inferred, I was left with some questions after watching the film. I have discussed the film with friends, as this film will surely inspire conversation. Said conversations have helped explain some, but not all, of my questions, as it does not appear that answers to some of our questions were in the film, which leads to my estimation that one or two more films will follow.
“Prometheus” is very good science-fiction/horror entertainment and is among Ridley Scott’s best films, but not quite as good as “Alien” or “Blade Runner.” Those two films are science-fiction classics. “Prometheus” falls just a bit short of the level of greatness of those two films. It is no slight to “Prometheus” to make such a statement. Though I do not want you to feel bound to see “Prometheus,” I do hope that my words will direct you to some interest in it.
I am not going to pretend to understand everything that happens in the film. You will likely have several questions after watching it. I did. Normally, this bothers me, however, in the case of “Prometheus,” I was so overwhelmed by the scope and superiority of the filmmaking that these unanswered questions became only minor nuisances that soon left my brain. I would not be surprised to hear that “Prometheus” is the first of two or three films that will serve as a prequel to the 1979 film. I do not know if “Prometheus” is supposed to be a prequel to “Alien” or not. Arguments could be successfully debated on both sides. It does not really matter to me. As a stand-alone film, “Prometheus” succeeds in being very entertaining as a result of a focused narrative and very good performances aided by some very good science fiction writing. What I mean by “very good science fiction writing” is that the script never gets sidetracked by silly subplots or a need to explore a character’s past love affair with another character, for example. References are made to relationships in the film and it is made clear at the beginning of the film that the characters Elizabeth Shaw (Noomi Rapace) and Charlie Holloway (Logan Marshall-Green) are a couple, however, that is all we need to know. No backstory about this subject is necessary in this film, and fortunately, none is given to bog down the proceedings.
Characters are introduced smoothly in the film. It is as if the viewer walks into the room and encounters somebody for the first time. There is no fanfare and the trope of showing someone from the back and having them turn around slowly is not used. One of the most egregious uses of this kind of trope was used in “Star Trek 2” to introduce Captain Kirk. Yes, it’s Shatner. Yes, it’s Kirk and he is an iconic character. It was still pretty corny, though. In that scene, Kirk was first shown in shadows, then the lighting is adjusted as he walks closer into the frame to reveal that it is the massively cool Captain Kirk. Make no mistake, he is massively cool…but that was corny.
Charlize Theron’s performance as Meredith Vickers, the leader of the mission of which the ship, Prometheus, undertakes, is fantastic. She could have played her character as a soulless bitch. Fortunately, Theron is an excellent actress and she stands out playing her character as a no-nonsense woman who understands her role on the ship and with the company for which she works. The script allows her to be more than a two-dimensional cardboard cutout. Such is the case with most of the characters in the film. Noomi Rapace also stands out as Elizabeth Shaw, one of the scientists aboard Prometheus, a vessel assigned to locate the source of a mysterious image which was found in seven different locations on Earth. The planet the crew of Prometheus is on course for is discovered to be full of many surprises, none of which I will divulge. As I inferred, I was left with some questions after watching the film. I have discussed the film with friends, as this film will surely inspire conversation. Said conversations have helped explain some, but not all, of my questions, as it does not appear that answers to some of our questions were in the film, which leads to my estimation that one or two more films will follow.
“Prometheus” is very good science-fiction/horror entertainment and is among Ridley Scott’s best films, but not quite as good as “Alien” or “Blade Runner.” Those two films are science-fiction classics. “Prometheus” falls just a bit short of the level of greatness of those two films. It is no slight to “Prometheus” to make such a statement. Though I do not want you to feel bound to see “Prometheus,” I do hope that my words will direct you to some interest in it.
Monday, June 18, 2012
"Rock of Ages" is Not Like Bad Medicine
I was a bit trepidatious going in to see “Rock of Ages,” the new film about a guy, a girl, and a band set in 1987. The story in the film is quite a simple one, however, “Rock of Ages” is not about the story, so the more comfortable you are knowing that going into the film, the better off you will be as far as your enjoyment of the film is concerned.
Julianne Hough, who I admit, I knew nothing about, which is probably best, plays Sherrie Christian, a girl from Oklahoma who travels to Hollywood to find fame and fortune. Diego Boneta, who I know equally as little about as Julianne Hough, plays Drew Boley, a young man who works at a music club owned and operated by Dennis Dupress (Alec Baldwin). Here is a big surprise---Drew has his own band and also wants to become famous. “Rock of Ages” takes place in a two day time frame, which is a very good idea as far as structuring goes. The film is not interested in character development. Usually, this is not wise, however, “Rock of Ages” is not about character development or profound storytelling. It is about the music and the fun of seeing people like Alec Baldwin, Catherine Zeta-Jones, Tom Cruise, Russell Brand, Bryan Cranston, and even Paul Giamatti sing 80’s songs.
The film, as mentioned, takes place in 1987. It is based on a musical by Adam Shankman. Shankman also directs this film version of his show. What works best in the film is the placement of the 1980’s songs. None of the musical numbers, which are all popular songs from the 80’s, are forced or seem shoehorned into the action. This, I believe, would be a very difficult thing to achieve, that is, directing a movie musical and being able to place the musical numbers at just the right time in the film. The same perfect placement of songs into a musical can be seen in the film versions of “Grease,” “Hair,” “Chicago,” and the fantastic 1972 film, “1776.” In these films, the songs and music flow seamlessly into the action of the film. “Rock of Ages” is not of the caliber of these other four films, however, it is one of the better musicals I have seen. The musical numbers are full of positive energy and they move the plot along, as songs in a musical are supposed to do. It appears that the entire cast enjoys their chance to sing onscreen. We have seen some of the cast members sing in films before. Catherine Zeta-Jones was very good in “Chicago.” Tom Cruise sang in “Magnolia.” Remember that great scene in “Magnolia,” in which the entire cast is shown, one at a time, singing the Aimee Mann song, “Wise Up?” That was a great scene in a wonderful film.
Another great thing about “Rock of Ages” is it’s flawless attention to detail. I almost always notice any imperfection in a period film, especially when a film made in 2012 is set in 1975 or 1985, etc. Usually, there will be a line of dialogue which will not match the time period. For instance, a character in a film set in 1975 will say he or she waited “online” for tickets to a movie. Regardless of time period, this is a horrible misuse of that word, but the idea of anything being “online” has become prevalent only in the last twenty years. Anyway, enough of my rattling on about the English language, a once proud system of communication, which is dying a horrible death as we speak. Every set, outdoor scene, costume, looked authentic, true to the year in which the film was based. Only one thing bugged me, however, my attention to music began to wane around the late 1980’s so this thing that bothered me may be correct after all. The character of Drew (Diego Boneta), near the end of the film, joins a boy band, a new and alarming phenomenon that, we all rememeber, began at that time. In one of the closing numbers in the film, Drew is wearing one of those ridiculous over the ear microphones that always make singers look like they are taking phone orders from somebody. Since my music awareness waned in the late 80’s, due to the quality of popular music badly dwindling around that time, I may have not noticed that these silly over the ear microphones may have begun being used around this time. Madonna was the first artist I remember using these. That was in the early 90’s, I think. Anyway, that is not a big issue. I did enjoy the film’s attitude towards the intrusion of the boy band into the popular music scene. The film basically gives this entire notion the finger, a feeling for which I am in complete agreement. I think the film understands and, I know I understand, that music does evolve, however, in that evolution must come quality, not the lazy sameness that has plagued the music industry for the last twenty years. Obviously, there are some exceptions, however, there are not that many exceptions.
Anyway, back to “Rock of Ages.” The entire cast seems to be having a great time. The two leads, Julianne Hough and Diego Boneta, are very good in their roles. Neither seem to be suffering from a lack of talent, which is refreshing. One minor concern is the continued underuse of Bryan Cranston. I am 100 percent certain that anyone who watches the first few episodes of his tv series, “Breaking Bad,” will have know doubt that he is one of the most talented actors working in the film/tv industry today. As shows like “Breaking Bad,” “Dexter,” “Game of Thrones,” and “Six Feet Under,” have shown us, there is some wonderful writing and acting going on on television these days, some which is as good as anything you would discover in a movie. Cranston’s talent is on display on every episode of “Breaking Bad,” and it astonishes me that his talent is not used more often in films. He was underused in the 2011 film, “Drive,” as well.
Despite this, “Rock of Ages” is a good film. All of the performances are great and not forced. There is no overreaching for some extra bit of goofiness by any of the performers in the film. I believe it is understood that the humor in the film is in the premise of the film. It is a musical set in 1987 with all 1980’s songs used. That is why it is fun. It is not profound and thought-provoking. It does not try to be so and that’s ok. It’s just fun watching Tom Cruise, Alec Baldwin, and Paul Giamatti sing. The best musical number is one performed by Alec Baldwin and Russell Brand. You will know why. Malin Ackerman's hair is perfect in this film. She and Tom Cruise share another memorable scene which worked quite well for it's intention. See “Rock of Ages.” It is not overbearing and it does not overstay it's welcome. It's just a lot of fun.
Julianne Hough, who I admit, I knew nothing about, which is probably best, plays Sherrie Christian, a girl from Oklahoma who travels to Hollywood to find fame and fortune. Diego Boneta, who I know equally as little about as Julianne Hough, plays Drew Boley, a young man who works at a music club owned and operated by Dennis Dupress (Alec Baldwin). Here is a big surprise---Drew has his own band and also wants to become famous. “Rock of Ages” takes place in a two day time frame, which is a very good idea as far as structuring goes. The film is not interested in character development. Usually, this is not wise, however, “Rock of Ages” is not about character development or profound storytelling. It is about the music and the fun of seeing people like Alec Baldwin, Catherine Zeta-Jones, Tom Cruise, Russell Brand, Bryan Cranston, and even Paul Giamatti sing 80’s songs.
The film, as mentioned, takes place in 1987. It is based on a musical by Adam Shankman. Shankman also directs this film version of his show. What works best in the film is the placement of the 1980’s songs. None of the musical numbers, which are all popular songs from the 80’s, are forced or seem shoehorned into the action. This, I believe, would be a very difficult thing to achieve, that is, directing a movie musical and being able to place the musical numbers at just the right time in the film. The same perfect placement of songs into a musical can be seen in the film versions of “Grease,” “Hair,” “Chicago,” and the fantastic 1972 film, “1776.” In these films, the songs and music flow seamlessly into the action of the film. “Rock of Ages” is not of the caliber of these other four films, however, it is one of the better musicals I have seen. The musical numbers are full of positive energy and they move the plot along, as songs in a musical are supposed to do. It appears that the entire cast enjoys their chance to sing onscreen. We have seen some of the cast members sing in films before. Catherine Zeta-Jones was very good in “Chicago.” Tom Cruise sang in “Magnolia.” Remember that great scene in “Magnolia,” in which the entire cast is shown, one at a time, singing the Aimee Mann song, “Wise Up?” That was a great scene in a wonderful film.
Another great thing about “Rock of Ages” is it’s flawless attention to detail. I almost always notice any imperfection in a period film, especially when a film made in 2012 is set in 1975 or 1985, etc. Usually, there will be a line of dialogue which will not match the time period. For instance, a character in a film set in 1975 will say he or she waited “online” for tickets to a movie. Regardless of time period, this is a horrible misuse of that word, but the idea of anything being “online” has become prevalent only in the last twenty years. Anyway, enough of my rattling on about the English language, a once proud system of communication, which is dying a horrible death as we speak. Every set, outdoor scene, costume, looked authentic, true to the year in which the film was based. Only one thing bugged me, however, my attention to music began to wane around the late 1980’s so this thing that bothered me may be correct after all. The character of Drew (Diego Boneta), near the end of the film, joins a boy band, a new and alarming phenomenon that, we all rememeber, began at that time. In one of the closing numbers in the film, Drew is wearing one of those ridiculous over the ear microphones that always make singers look like they are taking phone orders from somebody. Since my music awareness waned in the late 80’s, due to the quality of popular music badly dwindling around that time, I may have not noticed that these silly over the ear microphones may have begun being used around this time. Madonna was the first artist I remember using these. That was in the early 90’s, I think. Anyway, that is not a big issue. I did enjoy the film’s attitude towards the intrusion of the boy band into the popular music scene. The film basically gives this entire notion the finger, a feeling for which I am in complete agreement. I think the film understands and, I know I understand, that music does evolve, however, in that evolution must come quality, not the lazy sameness that has plagued the music industry for the last twenty years. Obviously, there are some exceptions, however, there are not that many exceptions.
Anyway, back to “Rock of Ages.” The entire cast seems to be having a great time. The two leads, Julianne Hough and Diego Boneta, are very good in their roles. Neither seem to be suffering from a lack of talent, which is refreshing. One minor concern is the continued underuse of Bryan Cranston. I am 100 percent certain that anyone who watches the first few episodes of his tv series, “Breaking Bad,” will have know doubt that he is one of the most talented actors working in the film/tv industry today. As shows like “Breaking Bad,” “Dexter,” “Game of Thrones,” and “Six Feet Under,” have shown us, there is some wonderful writing and acting going on on television these days, some which is as good as anything you would discover in a movie. Cranston’s talent is on display on every episode of “Breaking Bad,” and it astonishes me that his talent is not used more often in films. He was underused in the 2011 film, “Drive,” as well.
Despite this, “Rock of Ages” is a good film. All of the performances are great and not forced. There is no overreaching for some extra bit of goofiness by any of the performers in the film. I believe it is understood that the humor in the film is in the premise of the film. It is a musical set in 1987 with all 1980’s songs used. That is why it is fun. It is not profound and thought-provoking. It does not try to be so and that’s ok. It’s just fun watching Tom Cruise, Alec Baldwin, and Paul Giamatti sing. The best musical number is one performed by Alec Baldwin and Russell Brand. You will know why. Malin Ackerman's hair is perfect in this film. She and Tom Cruise share another memorable scene which worked quite well for it's intention. See “Rock of Ages.” It is not overbearing and it does not overstay it's welcome. It's just a lot of fun.
Monday, June 4, 2012
You Will Beam With Joy at "Moonrise Kingdom"
Wes Anderson’s latest film, “Moonrise Kingdom” follows in his ability to create his own unique world in which the action of his films take place. In Anderson’s films, the viewer is taken to an alternate world. This world is similar to our own, however, there are enough unique things present in his world to make it quite appealing and makes for a wonderful setting for his films.
“Moonrise Kingdom” takes place somewhere off the coast of the Northeastern United States. We are never told exactly where the location is, however, we do know that it takes place on some fictional islands including New Penzance. The locations are beautiful. They look similar to the coast of New England. The closing credits thank some government authorities in Rhode Island, so it is possible it was filmed there. The story involves two young people who have developed a friendship through the miracle of letter-writing. The film takes place in 1965, so, as some of us may remember, letter-writing and calling on the phone were the only means of communication back then and into the early 90’s. The youngsters in question are Suzy (Kara Hayward) and Sam (Jared Gilman). Neither of these actors, according to IMDB, which is as good a source as any without having access to Wes Anderson or the actors themselves, had ever acted in anything before this film! Hayward and Gilman are fantastic in this film! I will repeat. Hayward and Gilman are fantastic in this film! I had no idea that they were new to acting. There is absolutely nothing in their performances to indicate that they are novices. The film is theirs. Most of the screen time is devoted to these two outstanding young actors and this was, I am sure, an intentional choice. The supporting cast includes very good performances by Bruce Wilis, Bill Murray, Frances McDormand, Harvey Keitel, and Edward Norton. It is clear that the film is all about the two young leads. Their performances are exceptional. The film is not a kid’s film, nor does it make an attempt to be so. At the same time, it would be a great film for young adults to see. There is nothing in the film to offend anyone or attack anyone’s paper-thin sensibilities.
The relationship that Suzy and Sam develop throughout the course of the film is natural and a false note is never detected. As usual, Anderson places objects of the era in the film. For example, Suzy carries around with her a children’s record player, like the ones kids who grew up in the 60’s and 70’s may have had. She carries with her her favorite record as well. You may recall in Anderson’s “The Royal Tenenbaums,” the closet full of vintage board games from the 1960’s and 1970’s. Even though a dialogue scene takes place, at one point, in this closet, I could not help looking at all of the many board games that were intentionally onscreen. There is not as much of that in “Moonrise Kingdom.” There is, however, the same amount of appeal that will satisfy fans of Anderson’s other films (Rushmore, The Life Aquatic, and the before mentioned Royal Tenenbaums).
The characters in Anderson’s films are somewhat flawed, but not so much that they are unlikable. Anderson knows just the right style of acting to get from his actors so they mesh with his vision and match the specific scenes in his films. Such is the case, as I have highlighted in this exceptionally well-written piece, with the characters of Suzy and Sam in “Moonrise Kingdom.” I always enjoy a well-written and well-acted film more than a loud, in your face action film. As with Jell-O, there is always room for a good action film, such as “The Avengers” or Liam Neeson’s film, “Taken,” however, the most fun I glean at the movies is from witnessing wonderful writing and acting.
I have avoided describing much of the plot of the film, mostly because it is a relatively simple story and I would hate to give much away. Simplicity, in this case, does not mean pedestrian. It just means that to outline the plot of the film would take away from your future enjoyment of discovering what happens in the film. Plus, isn’t a dissection of the plot of the film the most boring part of a movie review? To me it is. So there.
Go see it. “Moonrise Kingdom” is fantastic! Don’t let the sun go down on you before seeing “Moonrise Kingdom.”
“Moonrise Kingdom” takes place somewhere off the coast of the Northeastern United States. We are never told exactly where the location is, however, we do know that it takes place on some fictional islands including New Penzance. The locations are beautiful. They look similar to the coast of New England. The closing credits thank some government authorities in Rhode Island, so it is possible it was filmed there. The story involves two young people who have developed a friendship through the miracle of letter-writing. The film takes place in 1965, so, as some of us may remember, letter-writing and calling on the phone were the only means of communication back then and into the early 90’s. The youngsters in question are Suzy (Kara Hayward) and Sam (Jared Gilman). Neither of these actors, according to IMDB, which is as good a source as any without having access to Wes Anderson or the actors themselves, had ever acted in anything before this film! Hayward and Gilman are fantastic in this film! I will repeat. Hayward and Gilman are fantastic in this film! I had no idea that they were new to acting. There is absolutely nothing in their performances to indicate that they are novices. The film is theirs. Most of the screen time is devoted to these two outstanding young actors and this was, I am sure, an intentional choice. The supporting cast includes very good performances by Bruce Wilis, Bill Murray, Frances McDormand, Harvey Keitel, and Edward Norton. It is clear that the film is all about the two young leads. Their performances are exceptional. The film is not a kid’s film, nor does it make an attempt to be so. At the same time, it would be a great film for young adults to see. There is nothing in the film to offend anyone or attack anyone’s paper-thin sensibilities.
The relationship that Suzy and Sam develop throughout the course of the film is natural and a false note is never detected. As usual, Anderson places objects of the era in the film. For example, Suzy carries around with her a children’s record player, like the ones kids who grew up in the 60’s and 70’s may have had. She carries with her her favorite record as well. You may recall in Anderson’s “The Royal Tenenbaums,” the closet full of vintage board games from the 1960’s and 1970’s. Even though a dialogue scene takes place, at one point, in this closet, I could not help looking at all of the many board games that were intentionally onscreen. There is not as much of that in “Moonrise Kingdom.” There is, however, the same amount of appeal that will satisfy fans of Anderson’s other films (Rushmore, The Life Aquatic, and the before mentioned Royal Tenenbaums).
The characters in Anderson’s films are somewhat flawed, but not so much that they are unlikable. Anderson knows just the right style of acting to get from his actors so they mesh with his vision and match the specific scenes in his films. Such is the case, as I have highlighted in this exceptionally well-written piece, with the characters of Suzy and Sam in “Moonrise Kingdom.” I always enjoy a well-written and well-acted film more than a loud, in your face action film. As with Jell-O, there is always room for a good action film, such as “The Avengers” or Liam Neeson’s film, “Taken,” however, the most fun I glean at the movies is from witnessing wonderful writing and acting.
I have avoided describing much of the plot of the film, mostly because it is a relatively simple story and I would hate to give much away. Simplicity, in this case, does not mean pedestrian. It just means that to outline the plot of the film would take away from your future enjoyment of discovering what happens in the film. Plus, isn’t a dissection of the plot of the film the most boring part of a movie review? To me it is. So there.
Go see it. “Moonrise Kingdom” is fantastic! Don’t let the sun go down on you before seeing “Moonrise Kingdom.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
