"Lucy" - Dual Review

What You're In For:

After being coerced into delivering a mysterious package to a crime syndicate, Lucy is forced to take part in their smuggling rink in order to earn her freedom. Waking from an altercation with her captors, she discovers that a pouch of synthetic drugs have been surgically implanted into her abdomen. In route to her rondevouz, Lucy is attacked, causing the drug pouch to rupture and leak into her body. Immediately after, Lucy's brain power begins to steadily increase, allowing her to do tremendous things. As her powers grow stronger, she begins to restructure the science of our world, and become something beyond our imagination. 

Who's Involved:

"Lucy" is a production of EuropaCorp, TF1 Films Production, and Canal+, Written & Directed By Luc Besson, and Starring: Scarlett Johansson, Morgan Freeman, Min-sik Choi, Amr Waked, Julian Rhind-Tutt, and Analeigh Tipton.


Travis’s Take:

"Lucy" is a film that fails to deliver on every level, stumbling through a laundry list of filmmaking flaws along the way, and ultimately offering up a messy 89 minutes of complete dreck. As if the science (fiction) wasn't hard enough to swallow on its own, the filmmakers have decided that there is simply no sense in pairing logic to Lucy's abilities. We're treated to mere morsels of exposition to support these anomalies, and the film runs on the assumption that the resulting action sequences are enough to sustain the plots fluidity. There is no narrative structure here, but rather a downhill dive into obscurity. The film movies along at a quick pace, building momentum parallel to Lucy's rise in cerebral capacity, but falters as each outlandish concept is hurled towards the audience. The only characters we can truly buy in to and relate with are throwaway plot pawns, and the films primary hero is an unrelatable and unreadable character with a non-existant character arc. Ironically, the only thing the film executes successfully is its runtime, allowing us to escape the theater quickly with a few of our brain cells still intact.
 

Austin's Take:

 I'll be honest and up front, "Lucy" was a colossal failure. It's been quite a long time since I've seen such chaos and garbage on screen. Lucy tells the story of a 20 something year old named Lucy (Scarlett Johansson), who is tricked into delivering a package that unbeknownst to her, carries a potent new drug called CPH4. The deadly deal goes down and the next thing Lucy knows, she's waking up with a bag of the drug surgically stowed away inside of her. Through a series of events, the bag breaks open releasing the drugs throughout her body. Instantly the side effects of the narcotic takes hold giving her the ability to access full brain capacity. Also included in the effects are psychic abilities, teleportation, telekinesis, envision things others can't, see the roots of trees growing, and the desire to stare quizzically off into space. None of which is more over the top than the idea itself. The story is based around the notion that we humans only have access to 10% of our brains capacity. If the percentage were to increase, so would our ability to do wondrous things, such as control matter and see cell phone signals floating in the air (so cool). What's funny is that at almost every turn the film discredits itself. A professor named Samuel Norman (Morgan Freeman) explains that since humans have never experienced a larger capacity with the mind that we in fact don't know what could really happen. So if we do not know what would happen then that must mean we have no idea what WOULDN'T happen either. This in turn opens the door to all the bizarre sequences of events that takes place in "Lucy." Writer and director Luc Besson, leaves every ounce of explanation from this film and tries to ride the story out on the assumption that what you see is just the way it is. Through the terribly paced, silly, and downright ludicrous moments, "Lucy" becomes a full contradiction. Lucy is not supposed to feel fear, but she does. She is unable to experience desire, but she does. Physically, she should not be able teleport through space and time (all while sitting on a chair in the middle of a gun battle), but and I'm sure you guessed it, she does. Filled with obvious flaws from top to bottom, "Lucy" would be a good lesson on how not to make a movie. The film wasn't lost to begin with, and when I say begin, I mean in theory. It just so happened to fall off course through its writing, directing, editing, acting, CGI, and above all the concept. We may never know what could happen if we were to achieve a higher level of brain capacity, but I do know one thing, stay away from "Lucy."

Filmmaking Report-Card:

Screenplay: 2/10

Directing: 3/10
 

Editing: 1.5/10

Cinematography: 4.5/10

Acting: 4/10

 

Over-All Experience: 3/10

The Final Say:

Above everything, "Lucy" is on aggravating film to watch. It simply ignores detail, plot structure, character force, and any explanation of what's going on. An angry "yah right" can be said for everything about the story and what happens throughout. With such a short run time, this picture will leave you feeling as if it may never end. Save your money, no need to waste your time, and keep your distance from this disaster.

Final Score: 3/10 

"Dawn of the Planet of the Apes" - Dual Review

What You're In For:

10 years after the Simian Flu spread throughout the world, and wiped out most of mankind; we find the Apes living in a comfortable and structured society, governed by the great Caesar. Our story stars when a small band of surviving humans stumble upon this great civilization, and disturb their peace. As a feud develops between the colony of humans, and the thriving apes society, both apes and man make delicate mistakes, leading them on the path to war.

Who's Involved:

"Dawn of the Planet of the Apes" is a production of 20th Century Fox & Chernin Entertainment, Written by Rick Jaffa, Amanda Silver, and Mark Bomback, Directed by Matt Reeves, and Starring: Andy Serkis, Jason Clarke, Gary Oldman, Keri Russell, Kodi Smit-McPhee, and Toby Kebbell.

Travis’s Take:

Matt Reeves has done something truly remarkable here, not only has he made a phenomenal blockbuster film, but he has crafted an intelligent and captivating drama within it. Showing an immense level of control as a filmmaker, Reeves paints a delicate masterpiece with the camera, drawing the audience in to each sequence. The skill required to balance the story's necessary whit, charm, and devastation, seems to be second nature to the filmmaker, who channels a complete understanding of the art. Matching the skill behind the camera, is Andy Serkis' unequaled motion-capture performance as Caesar; delivering more heart and soul to the screen than perhaps any other animated character before him. Serkis is supported by a great ensemble of motion-capture performers, and live action actors, bringing great weight to the story and its themes. Balancing the performances perfectly, is Michael Giacchino's mesmerizing score, enriching the cinematography with wonderful nuances, and even clever nods to the sound of the original franchise.The script is also quite an achievement, building strong characters, and creating a vast world for our conflict to arise in. The level of and talent across the entire production, is a true testament to what filmmaking is all about, and what summer movies can be, when crafted with such careful precision and unwavering devotion. It seems blasphemous to say, but I'm afraid "Dawn of the Planet of the Apes" may have even out-done the original classic.

Austin's Take:

However stunning “Dawn of the Planet of the Apes” looks, and by all means it is visually remarkable, the depth it takes within its story and central characters is what truly should be remembered. This film is the perfect blend of motion capture CGI and a well thought out script that pays as much detail to the individual hairs on the monkeys back as to what they feel on the inside. Directed by the underrated Matt Reeves (Let Me In), “Dawn” is set in a world where its population, recently devastated by a global virus, is on the decline and a new alpha species of apes is poised to take control. They are a new society that has learned to structure itself similar to their human counterpart. They interact with each other, speak to one another, and have learned to love and hate. In these emotions is where the story is grounded. The screenplay written by a team of writers, Rick Jaffa, Amanda Silver, and Mark Bomback, is more of a character exploration disguised as a summer blockbuster. Surprisingly, the evolution of individual emotions is shown not only through humans but more so in the apes. The apes are given a choice, whether to hate or forgive, and it’s in those moments that each ape is defined. Though none of this could have been possible without the magic that Andy Serkis brings to the screen via motion capture. Rarely do we see his face actually in a film yet he has starred as some of the most memorable characters (Gollum, King Kong) in recent history. And his work with the lead ape Caesar is no different. Overall, “Dawn” is a prime example that there can be a higher level in a summer film when the attention to emotional detail and in depth character development is the focus. Not only the story, but the CGI/motion capture is brought to a new level of its own, leaving the previous installments a thing of the past. I can’t wait to see how the franchise, just like the apes, will continue to evolve.

Filmmaking Report Card:

Directing Score: 10/10

Editing Score: 8.75/10

Cinematography: 9.5/10

Acting: 9/10

Screenplay: 8/10

Over-All Experience: 9/10

The Final Say:

Blockbusters and franchise films don't get much better than this. From the expert execution of a well balanced script, to the spectacular visuals, Matt Reeves shows a high level of control; handling the daunting effects driven performances, and intimate character moments with great ease. This is a powerhouse film that breaks through the cliche barriers of the summer movie market, and delivers us something fresh and invigorating. 

Final Score: 9/10  

"Snowpiercer" - Dual Review

What You're In For:

In the height of global warming, our brightest scientists attempted to correct the planet's climate problems; but instead, thrusted the world into a modern ice age. 18 years after these events, we find the earth's remaining survivors fighting for control of an impervious train, the "Snowpiercer". As the years go by, the train's lower class feels burdened by the weight of social structure, and an uprising begins.

Who's Involved:

"Snowpiercer" is a production of CJ Entertainment, Opus Pictures, Moho Film, & Stillking Films. Written by Joon-Ho Bong & Kelly Masterson, Directed by Joon-Ho Bong, and Starring: Chirs Evans, Kang-Ho Song, Tilda Swinton, Jamie Bell, Octavia Spencer, Ah-Sung Ko, Ewen Bremner, Alison Pill, John Hurt, and Ed Harris

Travis’s Take:

Director Joon-Ho Bong makes his English-language film debut, with this masterfully crafted and heavy-weighted beast of a thriller. “Snowpiercer” breaks out of the confines of low-budget filmmaking, delivering a claustrophobic dystopian tale about the fundamentals of human nature, and the order that keeps us at bay. Buried beneath the layers of snow and science fiction, exists an absorbing character drama that studies our unrelenting will to survive; and with it, our imminent demise. In the wake of a man made ice age, our characters boarded their one-and-only hope, an enormous train, outfitted with a fully sustainable ecosystem; doomed to an eternity of cycling the barren earth, one year at a time. Amongst the backdrop of this hopeless world, is a society of people struggling with the balance of a social structure that plagued their lives long before the world, as we know it, ended. This is an exquisitely ugly film, drenched in a palpable filth; with production design and cinematography that construct a truly tangible setting for our characters to populate. The camera enjoyed a great balance of intimate character moments and stylized action shots; thriving greatly when placed in the heat of physical conflicts. Joon-Ho Bong is never afraid to heighten the intensity, often leaving much of the violence hidden behind objects, or even right off screen. This approach draws the audience into the film’s most brutal sequences, without drenching the screen in unnecessary gore. Selling a film of this nature takes true talent, and we are given exactly that. The brilliant cast is in top form, supporting the material with great intensity and an authentic believability. This credibility can also be attributed to great writing, which allows the characters to deliver exposition comfortably, without overloading the audience. All-in-all, we’re treated to a daring and unique movie, supported by talented filmmaking. This is one train you’ll want to board.

Austin's Take:

This movie feels just as cold as the ice that covers the earth, in the sci-fi action thriller "Snowpiercer."  Directed by Bong Joon-ho, a self sustained never ending train filled with the worlds last survivors, speeds around the barren snow covered earth. They are destined to never stop circling the globe in the hopes that humanity will continue on. Gritty, unique, and quite chilling to watch, Snowpiercer will easily get under your skin. It all starts with the passengers and the class system in which they live under. Segregated by each car of the train, the rich inhabit the lavish front and the poor reside in the back. For the folks stuck in the rear life is wretched, dirty, and horrendous. They want nothing more than to get to the front of the train. If you take away the story and the well designed set pieces, the train is quite the analogy between itself and how much of society functions. There are the rich and sadly there are the poor. For the lower class it's about the struggle of being on the bottom, or in the "back," and the constant feeling of unfairness. There is a never ending desire to rise to the top and have an equal share of what the elitists hoard for themselves. This is the central theme of Snowpiercer. That and of course the action. As the built up tensions between the two classes of people boils over, gritty violence ensues sending the blood flying. The stylized action is what makes this film great. Not necessarily the look but in the camera work. With a train serving as the only physical set, Joon-ho and his cinematographer Hong Kyung-pyo positioned the camera in a way that helps the viewer understand who's fighting who all within the tight constraints of a train. The way the camera moves through the individual fight scenes puts the gruesome violence in your face, with nowhere for the characters to run to (even in the dark). I'm sure a lot of talk will be given to Tilda Swinton (Minister Mason), and her outrageous over bight, as she brought a level of dark humor to the film. Surprisingly, her performance overshadowed the remaining cast who all seemed a bit generic within their characters. Not to say their onscreen exploits were terrible, but more often than not it felt that the well timed action was there to bail them out. However, with a concept like Snowpiercer, it's hard to do any wrong. Capitalizing on that is Bong Joon-ho, who has made quite a remarkable English debut film. If he continues to progress his style, the world of film looks bright. Brighter than it did for the passengers of Snowpiercer. 

Filmmaking Report-Card:

Directing: 8/10

Editing: 6.75/10

Cinematography: 8.5/10

Acting: 7.75/10

Screenplay: 7/10

Over-All Experience: 7.5/10

The Final Say:

Plowing into the summer movie season is the unique and low budget thriller, Snowpiercer. It brought a nice change of pace, but was ultimately a far cry from the film it could have been. While the movie struggled to find an identity, the overall tone and style allowed for an engaging experience. The film jumped headfirst into a grizzly and violent world filled with great concepts and themes, all of which support the films overall tone. Pacing and narrative flaws do hold the film back a bit from achieving greatness, but this is a well crafted sci-fi outing, that allows the audience to truly connect with the material.

Final Score: 7.5/10  

"The Fault In Our Stars" - Single Review (By: Austin M.)

What You're in For:

Two cancer stricken teenagers meet and fall in love. They share similar interests, ways of thinking, and unfortunately sickness. The disease of cancer has plagued their normal lives for years and the possibility of succumbing to the disease looms closer each and every day. As their relationship deepens and grows so does the inevitable result of cancer. In the face of mortality their love, courage, and views of life will be tested to the max.


Who's Involved:

"The Fault in Our Stars" is a production of Temple Hill Entertainment, Written by Scott Neustadter and Michael H. Weber, Directed by Josh Boone, and Starring: Shailene Woodley, Ansel Elgort, Nat Wolff, Laura Dern, and Willem Dafoe.


Austin's Take:

"That's the thing about pain, it demands to be felt." - Augustus, "The Fault In Our Stars" 

  

The Fault In Our Stars is about pain, the misery of cancer, and the devastating effect it can have on our view of life. "Fault" begins with Hazel (Shailene Woodley) who is an on going survivor of type 4 thyroid cancer. The cancer causes fluids to drain into her lungs and therefore she's dependent on an oxygen tank to breathe. While the thought of looking pretty and being attractive has slowly vacated her mind, she slowly settles into a cycle of living with the cancer, essentially waiting to die. One day she bumps into another cancer survivor named Augustus (Ansel Elgort). Augustus is the polar opposite of her. He's witty, boisterous, and has the ability to find the humorous side of life. He's immediately attracted to Hazel and without blinking they begin a friendship that slowly deepens into a strong romantic bond. Amidst the hardships for both of them, everything begins to look up, except for the cancer.  Cancer has a way of interjecting itself into life suddenly and without warning. We can fight cancer, take precautions to limit the risk of the disease, and even manage some of the symptoms. Yet we still don't fully understand it and have been unable to create a cure thus far. For years people have questioned, why does the universe allow this to happen? If there is a God, why does he enable cancer to form? Why does it happen to people, especially to those we love? The idea of the film is about the characters asking the same questions, each in their own way. Some question the reasons for having to deal with the disease, others try to ignore it, and some have simply accepted  the fact that cancer may inevitably lay them to rest. All these questions point to the obvious fact of how this movie is going to end. The content is excruciatingly sad and will wrench your heart out, yet the story seems unoriginal, lacking any vigor of it's own. The characters of Hazel and Augustus were strong and brought a unique approach to this type of script. Unfortunately they seemed more solid than the choppy story and their wonderful personalities could not save it alone. Also, mixed in are several out of place plot twists including a trip to Amsterdam in search of the author Peter Van Houten (Willem Dafoe). Van Houten is an indignant writer who is still reeling from the death of his own daughter to cancer. His purpose to the film is rather confusing, making little sense to the concept, and throwing the pacing off completely. Not in any way do I want to undermine cancer or those who have or are experiencing it. "Faults" brightest moments came when it boldly dealt head on with the heavy material the characters faced, including a marginal amount of focus given to the treatments and the realism of the disease. Shailene Woodley was magnificent in personifying a skeptical cancer patient and Ansel Elgort's charm easily matched her on screen. So why doesn't this picture fully work? The issue of cancer as a main center point for a love story has been done in a very limited way (see "A Walk To Remember"). Here is where the film could have explored more into the disease and the effects it has on an individual. It started as such but slowly "Fault" slipped into the procession of a normal romantic movie, written from the lovers perspective of past films. It did give another shot at exploring the emotions through the confusing Van Houten segment but could not redeem the story and only set itself up for a shaky ending. Not much directing seemed to be involved either, as director Josh Boone apparently took a hands off approach to everything but acting. If your looking to let the tears flow or sink a little deeper into the emotion of pain, "The Fault In Our Stars" will fit your taste. Sadly the story itself lays somewhat barren on the idea that if these feelings are pulled from you, it's completed the job. Setting itself apart was there for the taking, but in the end, this film continuously teetered on being destructive, just like the disease. 

Filmmaking Report-Card:

Directing: 5/10

Editing: 6/10

Cinematography: 5/10

Acting: 7.5/10

Screenplay: 6/10

Over-All Experience: 6/10

The Final Say:

The Fault In Our Stars is quite the saddening experience. Between the misguided script and directorial mishaps, the story serves as a cold reminder of the reality of cancer and the devastation it has caused for millions of lives. The only fault being is which one depresses more. The characters will captivate your heart as you journey along with them through their pain but ultimately the story falls complacent to unoriginality. 

Final Score: 6/10