Transcendence: Cool premise, lame story

(Source)

I'll admit that I went into Transcendence a bit biased...all reviews I had read about it were negative. ("Why go and see it?" you ask. "Well, it only cost me five dollars," I respond sheepishly.) However, after a shaky start, Transcendence started to get interesting, and I started to enjoy it, and then...the film blew it.

Starring Johnny Depp, Morgan Freeman, and a very familiar-looking girl (who IMDb tells me is Rebecca Hall), Transcendence takes place in the not-too-distant future, following the life and death of Will Caster, who has devoted his life to studying artificial intelligence. In fact, he created a gigantic AI machine named PINN...and then is assassinated by an anti-technology terrorist group. Before he dies, Will, with the help of his wife Evelyn, upload his consciousness into PINN's software. Evelyn refuses to listen to her friends' concerns as Computer Will starts evolving, growing stronger, smarter, and way more powerful. Will she be able to shut it--him--down before it's too late?

(Source)

The idea of Transcendence is pretty intriguing, but the execution fell flat. The beginning is slow-paced, chock full of admittedly necessary, but unexciting expository information. Once Computer Will starts taking over, things get more interesting, but just as you're starting to get into the world of the film, and just as you're starting to root for the right people, the film takes the weirdest twists and turns, bringing all sorts of things you never previously knew about Will into play. The ending was far from satisfying, and actually ended up just being incredibly confusing. The ending proves the first half of the movie to be pointless setup, as nothing gets paid off. It will leave you with a bad taste in your mouth.

One good thing about Transcendence is it's not afraid to ask tricky questions. How far is too far, in the world of technology? Is AI the way to go? Is it okay to play God, curing sick people, creating the next generation of humanity, or is that something that should be left alone? What are the consequences to playing God? What is knowledge, anyways? What can you do with unlimited knowledge? Just how big is the Internet? It's appropriate that the film does not attempt to answer all of these questions, but instead attempts to give hints, possible outcomes, and leaves them open. Despite all of the interesting moral issues that the film touches on, Transcendence chose the wrong question to answer, which makes you question who you should have been rooting for in the first place.

The premise of Transcendence is on the right track, but the storytelling isn't. Watch it to get a glimpse at some cool science stuff (which I'm honestly not sure if it's real....yet), hear Johnny Depp practically narrate the whole movie, and wonder about the power of technology. Don't watch it if you want to be entertained. You'll spend seventy-five percent of the time trying to keep up with the wild goose chase Transcendence turns out to be.

A Maleficent Movie?

(Source)

Sleeping Beauty is my absolute favorite Disney princess. I don't know why, but her movie was my favorite when I was younger, and I still love the movie. So when I heard they were making a movie about Maleficent, I was a little disappointed--why focus on the bad guy? She's creepy, and has horns growing out of her head, which is weird. A live action Sleeping Beauty, I could get behind, but a live action Maleficent? Ew.

(Source)

And then Angelina Jolie was attached to the project, and I got a little more optimistic about it. I'm still not entirely sure about Maleficent, but Sleeping Beauty is a darker fairy tale anyways, and yes, I'm curious to see how Maleficent got those horns. Are they real? I'm really interested.

The first teaser trailer was haunting and pretty, and all other trailers released promise beautiful visuals, if nothing else. I'm not really sold on the tree-monster things (nice CGI and everything, but it seems a lot like Narnia to me), but, Angelina Jolie, man. She looks and sounds exactly like the cartoon character (hopefully she will take that as a compliment?) and that laugh is absolutely perfect.



Then when I heard Lana Del Rey's haunting rendition of "Once Upon A Dream", I was both horrified that they'd creepified one of my favorite Disney songs, and also very intrigued. Basically, the marketing ploy worked on me.

All this goes to say, I'm interested. And cautiously optimistic. I think looking at it as a remake of Sleeping Beauty is the wrong way, as the trailer makes it clear that although these are familiar characters, the story is very different from the tale I've grown up with. I'm excited to see what they've done with this classic.

Maleficent hits theaters May 30.

Web Series Wednesday: Kissing in the Rain

Kissing in the Rain is a new web series that's taking transmedia to a whole new level. It just launched a few weeks ago, and it's already one of my favorites.

Kissing in the Rain follows two actors who find themselves "kissing in the rain" on the set…but their off-screen relationship is almost the complete opposite. It's hilarious, cute, and the perfect blend of parody and seriousness.

Kissing in the Rain stars one of my personal favorite actresses, the lovely and talented Mary Kate Wiles (who once messaged me on Tumblr and told me to "stay square", which might have something to do with my love for her). She is perfect as the actress Lily, who pretends she doesn't care for co-star James, but is starting to crack a bit.

Everyone should watch this show. It's cute, quirky, and funny. The chemistry (or lack thereof) between the two characters is fun to watch and root for. And you have no excuse not to watch it...each episode is short and sweet, usually 1-3 minutes long.

There's currently five episodes released, with two more coming out in this chapter. Eventually, Chapter 2 will come out, starring two different sets of actors who find themselves constantly kissing in the rain.

Captain America: The Winter Soldier: Darker & grittier

(Source)

I really enjoyed Captain America 2. Marvel films aren't supposed to be super deep...they set a light-hearted tone, and they're just so much fun to watch, gasp at the plot twists, and root for your favorite superhero. Basically, they're a fun way to spend a couple hours of your day. But Captain America: The Winter Soldier is a departure from the Marvel snark of the past. It's a dark story, with a depressing moral: Don't trust anyone. Ever. Everyone can and will betray you in the end.

Cap discovers that Nick Fury is going rogue, trying to keep information secret from S.H.I.E.L.D. and also building gigantic heliplanes in the S.H.I.E.L.D. basement to basically assassinate people before they even commit a crime, Minority Report-style. Also trying to assassinate people: This dude with long hair and a Bane-like mask known as "The Winter Soldier" runs around shooting/punching/destroying cars and generally being obnoxious. When Nick Fury entrusts Cap with an important piece of data, S.H.I.E.L.D. turns on the Captain and Black Widow, chasing them down wherever they go. Our heroes must figure out what's so important about the data, and figure out why their own company is trying to kill them.

(Source)

The thing I missed most about this film was the traditional Marvel humor. There were some good one-liners, but nothing really funny (besides the first scene). It gave a darker feel to the film and set a more serious tone. Maybe I was just missing Tony Stark's snark, and I get that Cap isn't really in the mood for joking in this film, but I wish that it had been funnier.

Despite the lack of humor, the movie is a fun ride, taking audiences from Washington, D.C. to New Jersey, to Apple stores and museums. Wherever our heroes go, trouble is sure to find them...but somehow, the Cap manages to get himself out right in the nick of time. (And I mean....right in the nick of time.) Sometimes it's a little unbelievable how perfect his timing is, but hey, if it wasn't perfect, he'd be dead, and there would be no movie.

(Source)

The action was grittier and faster. A lot of the fights were hand-to-hand combat that seemed straight out of a Jason Bourne movie, which was fun and intense to watch. It was cool to get a better look at exactly how Cap uses his shield...I don't remember him throwing it often in previous films, but he's got a great throwing arm in this one. Black Widow is as deadly as usual (and I so appreciate a film that has girls doing proper hand-to-hand combat). The new addition to the team, Sam Wilson (aka the Falcon) was the much-needed comic relief of the film, as well as being pretty kick-butt himself.

My biggest question left unanswered is...where were the other Avengers? If S.H.I.E.L.D. is going crazy and wants superheroes dead, then wouldn't they theoretically be attacking the others too? There are hints to Tony Stark in one sequence, but how about the other Avengers, especially Hawkeye, who is more an agent of S.H.I.E.L.D. then the others? However, I think every standalone Marvel film will have this question to answer. If the world is going to end, why aren't the other Avengers concerned?

Overall, Captain America: The Winter Soldier is a really good addition to the Marvel franchise, as well as working as a standalone film. There's superheroes, and cool gadgets, and awesome action sequences, and new villains and heroes and love interests and basically anything you could ask for in a Marvel film. It's a great way to pleasantly spend a few hours of your time.

 

Noah: Not as blasphemous as everyone says

(Source)

There has been a ton of controversy surrounding the recent adaptation of Noah, and I feel like half of it is completely deserved, but the other half really isn't. Before I begin, I'd like to say that no, Noah is nothing like the actual story of Noah, besides both stories feature characters named Noah, and both stories involve a boatload of animals and a flood that wipes out the Earth. If you go into Noah wanting to be educated in your faith, please don't go. If you go into Noah expecting an entertaining story that yes, isn't like the Bible, but isn't horrible either, then go see it.

The main problem I had with Noah is that the fallen angels are made out to be the "good guys". The film explains that demons (also known as "The Watchers") went to Earth of their own accord to help the human race (helping here equals "tempting to eat the apple so they could be like God") and then God got mad at them, so He cursed them to become giant boulder monsters that kind of resemble Transformers, except, they're rocks. Then, when God warns Noah of the approaching flood, the Watchers decide to help Noah. The film paints that picture that all Lucifer wanted to do was help humanity, not, you know, blatantly defy and try to overthrow God. This is the main thing that I took issue with.

(Source)

The first half of the movie is pretty decent. It's interesting, entertaining, and a completely new story. Noah's dreams about the flood perfectly communicate what his mission is without any voiceover narration or lengthy explanations, which is exactly what the entire medium of film is...visually telling a story. Noah builds an ark with the help of his family (his wife and three teenaged sons, one who is a dead ringer for young Johnny Depp), and the weird demons-turned-good-guys Watchers. The tribes of Cain start bothering the family, threatening to storm the boat if it ever starts raining. Drama ensues. It starts raining. More drama ensues. It's entertaining and beautifully shot (that shot of all the animals coming into the ark? GORGEOUS), and overall not terribly blasphemous. I enjoyed it.

(Source)

But then the flood really starts. The family seeks refuge on the ark, and then the story gets really, really weird. Noah is somehow convinced that God didn't want to save humanity, He only wanted to save the animals, and goes on a murderous rampage to make sure that his grandchildren do not carry on the human race. His family (quite obviously) turns against him. This was the strangest part of the movie for me. It seemed like, since there was nothing else left storytelling wise except sitting on a boat, the writers said, "Hmm, what can we do to make this movie longer? Ooh! I know!"

(Source)

Storytelling wise, Noah does fall short, especially to a believer. But technically speaking, Noah is a really beautiful film. The cinematography is really beautiful. It's just fun to watch because of all of the colors, the wide landscape shots, and the cool and creative time lapse shots of the creation of the world (my favorite part of the movie). The first few times the silhouette-against-a-sunset shot was used, it was pretty cool, but then it got a bit overused. And as I said before, the shot with all the animals walking towards the ark was amazing.

(Source)

With Russell Crowe as your main character, you really can't go wrong, acting-wise. But for me, the standout performance was definitely Jennifer Connolly as Naameh, Noah's wife. She's the emotional heart of the movie and of Noah's family, staunchly supporting him no matter how crazy others thought he was. When Noah tries to tell her that the human race should not survive, she refuses to stand by him, and you can see how hard this has been for her, and how hard it will be for her. It was brilliantly acted, and I really enjoyed her performance.

(Source)

One other thing that I appreciated was the pro-life aspect of Noah. My absolute favorite line of the film was when Ila, an orphan that Noah and Naameh adopted ten years ago, is worried that she isn't good enough because a childhood injury left her barren. Noah tells her, "You're a gift--a precious, precious gift. Never forget how precious a gift you are." The value of human life is represented by the character of Ila. Throughout the film, she remains a staunch advocate for the dignity of life.

Overall, I enjoyed Noah. It's an entertaining and thought-provoking (and very original!) look at the Bible story. The cinematography is really gorgeous, and the film brings up a lot of interesting points. As long as you aren't going into the film to learn about the story of Noah and be educated in your faith, you will be fine. I promise you will not melt in a puddle of blasphemy. Do you know how many other worse films are out there?

Divergent (better late than never?)

(Source)

Minor spoilers may follow. Enter at your own risk.

I actually watched "Divergent" opening night. (And, for the record, wrote this post the day after. But didn't get around to posting it till now. Whoops.) I thought the theater would be completely packed. My experiences with watching YA adaptations during the first week of release led me to think that it would be difficult to get a seat. There were about five people in the whole theater when I got there roughly half an hour early, although the place did fill up quickly. Although the Divergent trilogy is popular, it definitely has not yet hit Harry Potter and Hunger Games level of fame.

"Divergent" has been received fairly well by fans, but critics are slamming it. I think part of this is due to the movie trying to cater to the book's fans (it definitely helps to have read the whole series to fill in the "gaps" in the film), and part of this is due to "Catching Fire"'s huge success. "Catching Fire" is pretty much the perfect example of a YA book adaptation, and it set the bar pretty high. Although "Divergent" does a great job at bringing the story of the book to life, it's not quite at "Catching Fire" level.

Some things that I loved about "Divergent": Well, Shailene Woodley, for starters. I disliked Tris in the books, I thought she was too unrelatable, and she seemed very violent and volatile, especially in the second and third books. However, I found Tris to be much more relatable in the movie. She wasn't too violent, and I felt that her strength was portrayed accurately for a girl her age. Shailene Woodley is a terrific actress and brought a much needed human element to the character of Beatrice Prior, and this is largely what made the movie for me.

The cast as a whole did a fantastic job. I especially enjoyed Theo James as Four (the last thing I saw him do was this stellar performance, so I applaud him for being, you know, alive and a semi-decent guy in "Divergent"), Zoe Kravitz as Christina (my personal favorite book character, so I'm glad she did her justice), Ashley Judd as Tris's mom, and last but definitely not least, Kate Winslet as the villainous Jeanine Matthews. I'm a bit biased, as I love Kate Winslet and I firmly believe she can do no wrong, but she makes a great villain. She was definitely given more screen time in the film than she should have been, but…it's Kate Winslet. When you cast Kate Winslet as your film's baddie, you use her.

(Source)

As a whole, "Divergent" did a good job at balancing the amount of violence used in the film. In the book, Dauntless is portrayed as completely brutal (someone gets stabbed in the eye with a knife while sleeping, for example). The movie does a good job at getting across the startling violence of the Dauntless without getting too crazy (the stabbing scene, although filmed on set, did not make it into the final cut of the movie). There's still that sense of life-or-death danger found in the book though. Eric forces initiate Christina to hang over a ledge to teach her a lesson. Al is so heartbroken that Tris won't forgive him, he makes a horrible choice. The initiates are made to fight people much bigger and stronger than they are, and they react as any human being would (for example, no matter how much last-minute advice Four gave me, there is no way I could avoid getting knocked out when facing Peter in the ring…just like Tris). The film keeps the intensity high will avoiding that "R" rating.

The film is confusing if you haven't previously read the book…it is definitely made just for the fans. If you are a fan of the book Divergent, chances are you'll really like the movie too. I personally enjoyed the film more than the book (mostly due to the fact that this time around, I could relate to the main character), and I think it's really well done. Go see it, and support YA book adaptations and cool lead female characters!