Change Your Image
pinwang
Reviews
Fury (2014)
Saving Private Ryan meets Rambo
Fury is in some ways a serious war film, with engaging characters and storytelling that– though clichéd– is carried by strong performances. It is indeed predictable at times but then again what story isn't? What is more important to me is that the characters are interesting, and that their choices engage me as the viewer. This film certainly did that for me.
The battle scenes with tank tactics are extremely intense, and rank among the best battle scenes in any war movie. Pacing is great, so the amount of action feels just right while the scenes in between move the story forward. The end scene is absolutely insane. Brad Pitt has got to hold the record for most Nazis killed in movies by now. Realistic? No, but still damn enjoyable.
Fury is a serious war film that also stays fun. This is probably what bothers the naysayers. It is an action movie for adults who want both of these things in a war film– the people who like Saving Private Ryan as well as Rambo.
Is it as bad as the negative reviews are saying? No, we're storytelling not recreating WWII. And does it really show the horrors of war? Same as above. All Fury is, is a good story and good entertainment, and that's plenty enough for me. 7/10
Predestination (2014)
Great storytelling
The dialogue in this movie carried the whole thing. Powerful acting and fantastic pacing. The writing was cute, but for me it was the storytelling that kept me interested.
As with all time traveling sci-fi films, there are logical leaps. Some viewers will see certain events coming up around the corner, but in no way will that stop them from screaming "OH SNAP" when those events occur. In many ways this effect on the viewer falls cleverly in line with the themes of the film.
In the end, Predestination has its flaws, but its statements on identity and fate are so strong that they unquestionably transcend any shortcomings. As is the hallmark of great film, all shortcuts taken seem to enhance expression and deepen exploration.
Art at its finest and a must watch. 8/10
Space Station 76 (2014)
Darkly funny and very dry mock sci-fi
I found this film to be a hilarious, dark commentary on contemporary life.
All of the characters are struggling throughout the film with their own problems– none of which really resolve. Every person in the film is a caricature, a cheesy (and I would hope) consciously designed stereotype. In that sense it is a very drama-filled story with very little real drama.
However, juxtaposed against the wonky 70s space theme, the drama with these ridiculous characters is just hilarious. It's really the opposite of Star Trek where everyone on the ship is living in some sort enlightened state. Instead, you have people with real issues living in a mock sci-fi world, where human social behavior has not evolved with the technology.
Maybe I'm stretching here, but I think that's the point.
Most sci-fi films out there start with an insane/cute/philosophical proposition for the future that you are expected to just swallow and believe. In Space Station 76, the proposition is that people make drama over a lot of stupid crap, and that will still happen when they live in space. For some reason, I found that quite refreshing.
Divergent (2014)
I gotta say this: Divergent is not that bad
Just watched this film and, as I usually do with all movies, hopped on to IMDb to see what other people thought. And BOY, was I surprised!
All of these negative reviews are insane. I mean was the writing good? No. Was the acting Oscar- worthy? No. Was the premise rational? No.
I thought the writing was entertaining, it used many old tricks. The tricks that made you feel like the movies were magic when you were a kid. The storytelling was well-paced, and felt much more like an adventure movie than an intellectual sci-fi.
Speaking of which, I'm so underwhelmed by sci-fi films being all intellectual and sad and coldly existential. **** that ****! So what if the story itself wasn't particularly believable or filled with holes? At least the characters here have agency. At least they go out and rebel gloriously instead of spending two hours moping about, contemplating their incompetence and accepting the sad truth of reality. I mean what happened to the good old sci-fi fantasy flick anyways? People obviously love it, but is telling a fun adventure story full of holes suddenly not OK with the review hipsters anymore?
The acting was credible. People who say Shailene Woodley cannot act are out of their minds, she did a great job and was absolutely adorable, especially considering the script. Sure, every character was played in a way that at times was pretty annoying. But it was clear to me that this was intentional– as in intentionally annoying you for emotional fuel. Again, I think all the actors played their roles well in the context of the adventure template. The leads, even if they could not play whole characters (because of the script), accomplished admirably what was needed to move the story forward.
Which brings me to the premise. What makes a good sci-fi story worth our time? Is it a post- apocalyptic background setting where the zombies rose on Dec. 21 2015, spread by a rare virus strain incubated in the asses of mutated monkeys? Seriously who gives a ***!
All the pieces in the setup have major flaws, but they come together fine. They get the point across and I'd like to remind you critics that everything in the creative world is a simplification and reference to the infinite complexity of the real world. That is the whole point of movies and other creative mediums.
This is a teen fantasy adventure movie. It's about being different and not fitting into categories. It's about family, love, and courage.
It's entertaining, emotionally engaging, not particularly smart, and retells a classic story we've all heard/seen/read a thousand times. What's wrong about sticking to the basics?
6.5/10 (rounded up to spite the haters)