Saturday, January 12, 2013

First two movies of 2013


The first two movies I saw in 2013.  First, Jack Reacher.  It dwells on the efforts of an ex-army cop to investigate the gunning down of five seemingly random victims by an ex-army sniper with a bad record.  Together with the lovely attorney (Rosamund Pike) with an unshakeable sense of fairness, they try to uncover all the inconsistencies surrounding the shooting and prove that the accused was actually framed for the brutal murders. 


Pros: I liked the plot and the pace of the unfolding events well enough.  Of course they didn’t reveal everything at the outset.  The truth about the murders was slowly but surely revealed, enough to allow you to feel curious about how it’s all going to turn out.  There were also a lot of subtle comedic moments that had me chuckling.  Also, I liked the cars (Camaro, and the white Benz) and Robert Duvall was really cool.  Cons:  Although the mystery surrounding the killings was effectively revealed clue by clue, it wasn’t really gripping or exciting.  Reading a Sherlock Holmes story would give you more of a thrill than this story.  It felt more like events turned out that way just to make Tom Cruise’s character seem smarter, more impressive and heroic.  It was okay, but in the end it all felt too contrived.  The fight scenes were not bad, but lacked impact somehow; like you already expected it all to turn out the way they turn out and it all ended up being a tad bit too predictable.  In the end, it all felt like a half-done thing.  The story could have had merit, but wasn’t delivered too well. The action scenes weren’t bad, but weren’t all that remarkable either.  Overall, I didn’t really understand the point of the movie.   Was it trying to create a glorified image of American soldiers who end up committing crimes?  Was it trying to melodramatize the idea of random gun violence because it’s so rampant in the States nowadays?  Was it trying to just make Tom Cruise look cool (which it quite failed to do, in my opinion)?  I didn’t hate it, but unfortunately it’s not ever going to make my Top 100 favorite movies.  The film flopped in the U.S. 

Next, Life of Pi.  I didn’t read the book, so I don’t know how it compares, and I don’t plan on reading the book.  The movie was visually beautiful, no one can deny that.  It’s more difficult for me to talk about the story’s themes.  Pi tells the story of his life to a journalist (?) who’d been told he would hear a wonderful story that will make him believe in God.  So Pi tells of his childhood – growing up in a zoo, being bullied for having a weird name and how he overcame that, trying out as many as three different religions at the same time, falling in love as a teenager and getting heartbroken, having to leave everything behind for a strange new land, and last but not the least being the only survivor of a shipwreck with only a Bengal tiger for company.  Majority of the movie centers on the moments that transpired while Pi and Richard Parker (the tiger) are lost at sea and struggling to stay alive, how they formed an uneasy friendship, how having to face grief and death in the middle of the beautiful and unmerciful ocean changed his faith and understanding of life and everything.  I loved the ocean and sea life, of course, and the meerkats, and Richard Parker – he’s my favorite. And I understood that the story was trying to get across a message about faith and hope, but unfortunately, story-wise I didn’t appreciate it as much as I thought I would.  In the end I felt it tried nothing more than to proselytize – something that I always resent in anything and anyone.  The acting was good; great even.  Pi was brought to life with sincerity and honesty.  And again, the tiger was splendid.  I just couldn’t get enough of animals in the big screen, especially something as spectacular as a tiger lost at sea.  I was so happy when he got back to the jungle and had lost none of his true wild nature.  I was so happy that he, at least, had never been tamed.  I do recommend everyone to see it.  The film is up for a whole bunch of movie awards and I’m sure it will bag a few of them.  It’s being compared to Avatar a lot, but I have to say I liked Avatar much better.  But that’s me.  Between a sci-fi/aliens love-mother-nature visually awesome fiesta like Avatar and a moralistic/proselytizing love-mother-nature visually awesome fiesta like Life of Pi, I’d choose the former any day.  See it and decide for yourself.  

2 comments:

  1. I haven't read the book it's based on, but I've heard lots of good things about the film adaptation of Life of Pi. Quite looking forward to seeing it when I get the chance. Mostly for the tiger. Haha.

    Were you able to see it in 3D? And if ever, how was it? I've been a bit wary of watching movies with "3D" slapped onto them as of late, to be honest. Seems a bit gimmicky. Tends to make one enter the theater with needlessly lighter pockets and then leave with needlessly strained eyes.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. For me at least, the tiger alone is well worth it. I didn't see it in 3D, because having to wear those 3D glasses wreaks havoc on my viewing pleasure. I wear glasses, so those 3D things are just too bothersome since they don't sit well on my spectacles. But even in 2D, Life of Pi was still surreal enough to be a visual treat. I hope you enjoy!

      Delete