Review: Wes Anderson's "Moonrise Kingdom" (2012)

Easily Wes Anderson's best and 2012's best so far. Anderson couldn't have gathered a better group of actors for this project. Every look of every face at every moment was perfect. "Moonrise Kingdom" elevated the name of Wes Anderson from quirky, off the wall humor which has attracted a large cult following but not yet appealed to a mass audience. "Moonrise Kingdom" might be the ticket that gets him over the hump and into the living rooms of a far larger audience. The film successfully transgressed the hearts of children and adults, something rare outside of Pixar.

The film is constantly clever, frequently hysterical, and once it was over it was absolutely one of the best films I had ever seen. The chemistry between the actors, specifically Sam (Jared Gilman) and Suzy (Kara Hayward) were fantastic. Of Bruce Willis, Bill Murray, Edward Norton, and Frances McDormand, only one name is used to doing the type of film "Moonrise Kingdom" is. Bill Murray seems to only be looking out for films like this, and especially Wes Anderson films. It was a nice surprise to see Bruce Willis and Ed Norton in this project defying their normal type cast characters.

The adventure of this film was unique, special to watch. As Sam and Suzy venture out into the wild, you are walking beside them. So many critics of Wes Anderson claim his characters aren't grounded within reality but I beg to differ. All Wes Anderson does is play out the real fantasies of even adults in beautifully pictured films while using childish or silliness means to communicate his ideas. The imagination of Wes Anderson is short of Terry Gilliam while remaining in reality.

The love story in "Moonrise Kingdom" is between children but can't immediately think of a film with a significantly superior love story. The film attaches you to any sense of nostalgic childhood love while having nostalgic childhood adventures. Nostalgic, that is what "Moonrise Kingdom" was for me. Absolutely a must-see for 2012, the best film of the year outside of an awaiting December.

"Moonrise Kingdom"
9 / 10

Review: Steven Spielberg's "Lincoln" (2012)

Steven Spielberg is back! I have failed the film fan community by not yet exposing myself to "The Adventures of Tintin" (2011) or "War Horse" (2011). The marketing for both of those films just didn't sell me the idea that those films were going to deliver. From what I had read both films were moderately reviewed films, but I intend on checking out "War Horse" first of the two. Having said that, the last film Steven Spielberg gave to me was "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" (2008) which was a huge letdown even though generally reviewed kindly. The film before that was "War of the Worlds" (2005). In my eyes Spielberg was starting to look like he was entering Hollywood's mediocrity. No director has given the number of iconic films Spielberg has, and "Lincoln" has revived Spielberg's image for me. "Lincoln" reminded me that Spielberg is still a giant, no matter how long it's been since I've seen something great from him.

Spielberg has shown he has a special attention to detail. There wasn't a moment in the film I can recall that I felt something was out of place or didn't feel real. Having said that, Daniel Day Lewis delivers again. Most people have only been exposed to the image of Lincoln on American currency, and now they have been given Daniel Day Lewis. Daniel Day Lewis is Lincoln and this was as surreal a life of Lincoln I will possibly ever see. Daniel Day Lewis gave a consistent performance, expressing to me Lincoln's consistently calm, thoughtful, wise, and ambitious personality.

Lighting is special to me and the lighting of the film was superb. Every mood Spielberg wanted to express through lighting in my opinion was successful. I don't have a sure idea yet where "Lincoln" lines up against Spielberg's top films, but there is a sure chance it will be an arm's reach away from "Saving Private Ryan" (1998)

I admire Spielberg for not sacrificing historical truths and allowing the politics play out as they did in history honestly. So many filmmakers would seemingly sacrifice themselves to degrade their opposing political perspective and opinions. In this film, rarely seen in Hollywood, is a built-up Republican Party which set out against all odds with the jump start and direction of Abraham Lincoln. It was interesting to see how Spielberg played out the roles of both parties in their heated debates in the film. There was a sense of authenticity in the film due to the apparent lack of political bias. Instead of selling political or religious ideas, we are sold an honest view of one of the greatest men in the world's history.

The entire cast was fantastic. Tommy Lee Jones pulled out another good one, best since "No Country For Old Men" (2007). Sally Field's best ever performance. The first time I ever cared to watch James Spader and he gave exactly what the character needed to. Who would have known Joseph Gordon-Levitt was going to be the one on the bottom? I felt like he was picking up where Heath Ledger left off in "The Patriot" (2000), a son defying his father to enlist in a civil war era war in order to find honor.

One of the most successful things coming from this movie is something the mass of Americans has already given up on, that American politics are capable of great things. If trying to swim up creek in American politics has consistently been in the best interest of the majority, perhaps we can take something from the film after all. The film made me evaluate motives of each character, what and why they did the things they did, including Lincoln, and the transparency is actually similar to that of today's politicians. Times are different but maybe not the politics. Thanks to "Lincoln", I have been given more to think about. Really does reveal the pettiness in today's politicians regarding ridiculous issues whereas history's icons like Lincoln dealt with monstrous issues.

I don't think Daniel Day-Lewis gave the year's 'Best Performance', nor do I don't think the film is the best of the year. I do think Spielberg should get 'Best Director'. I don't want to take anything away from Daniel Day-Lewis, he delivers huge in each performance, my favorite in "There Will Be Blood" (2007) but this role while intense in the icon portrayed, I didn't feel the range was great. I'm not sure what Daniel Day-Lewis cannot do.

Outside of political conspiracy films, what political film could compare to "Lincoln"? Can't think of anything on the level of "Lincoln". "Lincoln" is an absolute must-see film of 2012, and must-see in theaters! Without Peter Jackson's "Hobbit" released, this is the overall 2nd best film of the year.

"Lincoln"

8 / 10

Review: George Lucas's "Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace" (1999)

This film comes off of too much time apart from the original trilogy which I think aided in an inevitable failure. It isn't contended among fans or critics of film, or fans or critics of Star Wars. George Lucas as a director is blind. Sure he had a good run with "American Graffiti", but come on, no one is going to make an argument to say he is anything but a bad director. He decided to helm Episode 1, ouch.

If you have seen the film, I will say the whole movie can be really summed up with the same terms as judging the character Jar Jar Binks. Dialogue sucks, graphics suck, and story sucks. Sure, there is creativity. I like the idea of podracing. I like the look of so many things in the film from the droids, costumes, and some of the sets. Unfortunately they all feel empty when there is no story holding it all together. You can wave gold in my face all day, but unless I have the knowledge of value or beauty, it is meaningless. In this case, I was never invested in the story, so when anything happens, it never matters.

The planet of Naboo sucks. Character of Jar Jar is unforgivable. The graphics are lazy. I have heard better stories in pop-up books in an elementary school library. Pretty much everything outside of the idea of podracing, hiring Liam Neeson, and everything that is Darth Maul, the film failed at. Liam Neeson was a great find, its just too bad his character was never explored or able to perform in any scene at his potential. I am actually not a huge hater of the kid actor chosen for Anakin, I blame the direction before all. I think direction can lead to either great acting or terrible acting depending on contentment and picking talent. Contentment was infectious in "The Phantom Menace".

Speaking of it's title, I don't get it. We spend hours adventuring through various lands and scenarios doing all kinds of things, not really grounded in any single direction. All the while it's title is referring to a villain we see for 5 minutes. Don't get me wrong, the time spent with Darth Maul is absolutely amazing, and really carries anything good in the film, but to title the film after a character who doesn't impact very much in terms of STORY is really missed. Not that changing the title would save much.

The actors in the film are mediocre at their peak, but usually just plain bad. There isn't much to hang on to in the film. The only argument I could make is comparing it to any other fantasy film to argue its vastness in content. I couldn't argue story, acting, or graphics. I think "Blade Runner" was much more amazing on a much smaller budget. I really believed Harrison Ford was in a real futuristic dirty city, holding a fantastic weapon, in an even better story. Plenty of fantasy to be found in Hollyworld, and this is mediocre at best in just fantasy.

If it wasn't for Darth Maul, from his epic introduction, face, and double lightsaber was pure greatness. Darth Maul could be the single best character given in the prequels, and we don't even know who he is or why he is... he just is.

If you haven't seen the film, I don't know how that would be possible, but seeing it would be a requirement to maintain legal citizenship. It wouldn't be to fulfill any need for quality film. This film would be exceedingly fun for children, but for myself, I can go years without watching the film from beginning to end, and that's because as a Star Wars fan I'm required to endure the pain. At the end of the day, it is a Star Wars film, and contains Darth Maul...

"Star Wars Episode 1: The Phantom Menace"

5 / 10