Welcome to the new profile
We're still working on updating some profile features. To see the badges, ratings breakdowns, and polls for this profile, please go to the previous version.
Reviews10
prettymuse789's rating
I went into this movie with high expectations. With its knack for combining high-powered action sequences with character personality and humor, Marvel as an independent studio should exist for quite a while, at least until it makes Ant-Man.
For you action-junkies, you're going to be sorely disappointed. There are action sequences, but this movie refreshingly focuses on the personality behind the steel. Robert Downey Jr. is fantastic. He's probably one of the few who could make the lovable arseface character of Tony Stark believable. Much of the humor comes from the spot-on delivery of his lines alone. The other performances do not disappoint, but you will remember Downey's multi-dimensional portrayal long after you forget Terrence Howard is in this movie.
The film looks at the origins of Iron Man, who is created out of Tony Stark's encounter with morality after he realizes the weapons that have made him rich are fueling terrorism. While traveling in the Middle East to promote his latest invention, he gets captured by terrorists who want him to create a replica of his latest invention for their own personal use. He escapes with the help of his astounding brilliance and an unlikely ally, and returns home with a need to rid all traces of the empire he's created for the future good of humanity--much to the dismay of his co-workers (played ably by Howard and Jeff Bridges). Said co-workers--one of whom is not what he seems--disagree with Stark on whether weaponry ends do justify means as Stark turns his attentions to a new project to make sure terrorism can never use his brilliance for such atrocities again. This leads to the creation of Iron Man.
The script is excellent, something that's usually sub-par in an action movie because filmmakers think special effects can compensate for it. Iron Man isn't as fast paced or Transformers, but the dynamic acting of Jr. and the witty script make the dialogue-heavy scenes interesting. Without so much reliance on action scenes to carry this film, the audience gets to know and relate to every aspect of the characters, much to Iron Man's advantage. Iron Man doesn't forget to blow stuff up, but shows the human behind the iron, which makes a more powerful impact than any missile ever could.
For you action-junkies, you're going to be sorely disappointed. There are action sequences, but this movie refreshingly focuses on the personality behind the steel. Robert Downey Jr. is fantastic. He's probably one of the few who could make the lovable arseface character of Tony Stark believable. Much of the humor comes from the spot-on delivery of his lines alone. The other performances do not disappoint, but you will remember Downey's multi-dimensional portrayal long after you forget Terrence Howard is in this movie.
The film looks at the origins of Iron Man, who is created out of Tony Stark's encounter with morality after he realizes the weapons that have made him rich are fueling terrorism. While traveling in the Middle East to promote his latest invention, he gets captured by terrorists who want him to create a replica of his latest invention for their own personal use. He escapes with the help of his astounding brilliance and an unlikely ally, and returns home with a need to rid all traces of the empire he's created for the future good of humanity--much to the dismay of his co-workers (played ably by Howard and Jeff Bridges). Said co-workers--one of whom is not what he seems--disagree with Stark on whether weaponry ends do justify means as Stark turns his attentions to a new project to make sure terrorism can never use his brilliance for such atrocities again. This leads to the creation of Iron Man.
The script is excellent, something that's usually sub-par in an action movie because filmmakers think special effects can compensate for it. Iron Man isn't as fast paced or Transformers, but the dynamic acting of Jr. and the witty script make the dialogue-heavy scenes interesting. Without so much reliance on action scenes to carry this film, the audience gets to know and relate to every aspect of the characters, much to Iron Man's advantage. Iron Man doesn't forget to blow stuff up, but shows the human behind the iron, which makes a more powerful impact than any missile ever could.
The scariest part about Cloverfield is not its monster, but its realism. Casting a bunch of unknowns to be witnesses of the monster's wrath was a brilliant idea; both that and the camera footage added to the movie's believability. I've heard some reviewers criticize the "acting". I think they're missing the point. This movie isn't about that, and making millions of people believe a terror is raging Manhattan through dialogue does take some sort of skill.
If you're reading the review you know the story: a bunch of twenty-somethings are holding a party to see their pal off on his new job in Japan when something straight out of Japanese cinema rudely interrupts their celebration. The scenes before the monster do feel a little forced; the screenwriter's desperation to make his characters more authentic shows in the first twenty minutes of screen time. The actors do their best with the direction and script, but the party almost feels like the homework you need to finish but rush through so you can go watch television.
Yet the first few minutes are pivotal. While slightly one-dimensional (Rob is stubborn, Hud is the comedian, etc.), the interaction of the characters does set the entire movie in motion. Listen to all the conversations closely and you'll be even more impacted by the movie's ending.
And a few booms, crashes, and explosions later, our twenty-somethings are scrambling through the streets of New York, trying to find a way out of the perilous wasteland our monster has created. Most likely you'll be frustrated by the characters' inability to have common sense in an emergency--the most cliché part about the film.
However, the cinematic experience entirely compensates for the stupidity of the characters. You will the notice the difference between a true Hollywood film and JJ Abrams' creations. Something...gets you about seeing CGI characters on homemade, crappy quality, REALISTIC footage. The moving camera did make some people nauseous, but for me the cameraman should have been nominated for an Oscar since it added to the chaos quite well. By the third BOOM I was in almost as much confusion and panic as the people on screen--and I liked it.
The movie's gritty reality--in contrast to its overblown, often ostentatious genre--was what captivated me. Cloverfield was made on a budget of 25 million, and I was 10000 times more into it than I Am Legend. Making anyone satisfied is the least of Abrams' priorities; all the horror film and monster movie clichés--INCLUDING THE MONSTER--crash and burn like the decapitated Statue of Liberty. Horror and thriller cinema needed a shock to the system, and this is it.
The ending is expectedly unexpected, but appropriate. It doesn't matter what it would have been because the audience would have applauded anyway.
P.S. Stay after the credits.
If you're reading the review you know the story: a bunch of twenty-somethings are holding a party to see their pal off on his new job in Japan when something straight out of Japanese cinema rudely interrupts their celebration. The scenes before the monster do feel a little forced; the screenwriter's desperation to make his characters more authentic shows in the first twenty minutes of screen time. The actors do their best with the direction and script, but the party almost feels like the homework you need to finish but rush through so you can go watch television.
Yet the first few minutes are pivotal. While slightly one-dimensional (Rob is stubborn, Hud is the comedian, etc.), the interaction of the characters does set the entire movie in motion. Listen to all the conversations closely and you'll be even more impacted by the movie's ending.
And a few booms, crashes, and explosions later, our twenty-somethings are scrambling through the streets of New York, trying to find a way out of the perilous wasteland our monster has created. Most likely you'll be frustrated by the characters' inability to have common sense in an emergency--the most cliché part about the film.
However, the cinematic experience entirely compensates for the stupidity of the characters. You will the notice the difference between a true Hollywood film and JJ Abrams' creations. Something...gets you about seeing CGI characters on homemade, crappy quality, REALISTIC footage. The moving camera did make some people nauseous, but for me the cameraman should have been nominated for an Oscar since it added to the chaos quite well. By the third BOOM I was in almost as much confusion and panic as the people on screen--and I liked it.
The movie's gritty reality--in contrast to its overblown, often ostentatious genre--was what captivated me. Cloverfield was made on a budget of 25 million, and I was 10000 times more into it than I Am Legend. Making anyone satisfied is the least of Abrams' priorities; all the horror film and monster movie clichés--INCLUDING THE MONSTER--crash and burn like the decapitated Statue of Liberty. Horror and thriller cinema needed a shock to the system, and this is it.
The ending is expectedly unexpected, but appropriate. It doesn't matter what it would have been because the audience would have applauded anyway.
P.S. Stay after the credits.
After the breathless blockbuster race of 2007, seeing films that realize the emotional (as opposed to visual) appeal of the art is rather nice. Juno will show moviegoers that awesome special effects are not the only qualities that can make a movie a hit.
With great, captivating performances by the entire cast, Juno spotlights the subtle, small moments of life that are often overlooked. The unique quirkiness of Juno especially makes the movie worth watching. Page is a combination of eccentric, rebellious, romantic, and cocky; the result of such a mixture is a compelling character, the likes of which haven't been portrayed so convincingly since the John Hughes films of the '80s (Breakfast Club, Ferris Bueller, etc.).
But Juno's take on her predicament--her unplanned pregnancy with a quiet schoolmate named Bleeker--does become slightly irritating. In the scene where she meets her adoptive parents (Garner and Bateman) for the first time, the focus eventually shifts from her to Garner's character because the protagonist's insensitivity toward the situation is almost repulsive. You almost want to slap Juno for her immaturity toward a situation with such gravity, a contrast to the film's delicate and sympathetic treatment of her pregnancy.
But Juno's eventual maturity is redemption for her initial arrogance. Page gives a multifaceted, heartfelt depiction of a teenage mother, and the impact of her decision on the rest of the Juno universe is made believable by the great performances of the rest of the cast. The subtlety of JK Simmons and Bateman's acting is something to marvel at considering the types of characters they usually play.
The script is excellent. The writing really captures the point of view from the adults and children equally and with authenticity. It's hard to fully support or oppose Juno's decision because you also become attached to the rest of the multifaceted characters. The screenwriter's ability to develop fully fledged, realistic individuals in an hour and a half should not be ignored.
The folksy quaintness of the score, mellow colors of the cinematography, and great humor of immaculate editing all contribute to the movie's polite quirkiness. The director's refusal to ignore the minor realistic and cinematic elements of Juno creates an engaging, compelling, heartwarming story that will be a great way to begin the movie-going journey of 2008.
With great, captivating performances by the entire cast, Juno spotlights the subtle, small moments of life that are often overlooked. The unique quirkiness of Juno especially makes the movie worth watching. Page is a combination of eccentric, rebellious, romantic, and cocky; the result of such a mixture is a compelling character, the likes of which haven't been portrayed so convincingly since the John Hughes films of the '80s (Breakfast Club, Ferris Bueller, etc.).
But Juno's take on her predicament--her unplanned pregnancy with a quiet schoolmate named Bleeker--does become slightly irritating. In the scene where she meets her adoptive parents (Garner and Bateman) for the first time, the focus eventually shifts from her to Garner's character because the protagonist's insensitivity toward the situation is almost repulsive. You almost want to slap Juno for her immaturity toward a situation with such gravity, a contrast to the film's delicate and sympathetic treatment of her pregnancy.
But Juno's eventual maturity is redemption for her initial arrogance. Page gives a multifaceted, heartfelt depiction of a teenage mother, and the impact of her decision on the rest of the Juno universe is made believable by the great performances of the rest of the cast. The subtlety of JK Simmons and Bateman's acting is something to marvel at considering the types of characters they usually play.
The script is excellent. The writing really captures the point of view from the adults and children equally and with authenticity. It's hard to fully support or oppose Juno's decision because you also become attached to the rest of the multifaceted characters. The screenwriter's ability to develop fully fledged, realistic individuals in an hour and a half should not be ignored.
The folksy quaintness of the score, mellow colors of the cinematography, and great humor of immaculate editing all contribute to the movie's polite quirkiness. The director's refusal to ignore the minor realistic and cinematic elements of Juno creates an engaging, compelling, heartwarming story that will be a great way to begin the movie-going journey of 2008.