INDEPENDENCE DAY - Review

"WE WILL NOT GO QUIETLY INTO THE NIGHT! WE WILL NOT VANISH WITHOUT A FIGHT! WE'RE GOING TO LIVE ON! WE'RE GOING TO SURVIVE! TODAY WE CELEBRATE OUR INDEPENDENCE DAY!"

God Bless Americ....I mean the world.....Yeah, the world. Cause the movie President says its no longer exclusive to America. So the world.

The Plot

On July 2nd, gigantic spaceships surround the world, hovering over major cities. When a cable company analyst (Jeff Goldblum) discovers a hidden signal from their satellites that acts as a countdown of destruction, he contacts his estranged wife (Margaret Colin) who is aide to the President of the United States (Bill Pullman) to enact a large scale evacuation. But it is too late, as the aliens destroy every major city around the world. On July 3rd, the surviving military forces, including a cocky air pilot (Will Smith), launch an assault on the ships. Only to discover their weapons have no effect. But on July 4th, the aliens move to make their final strike on the planet, as humanity makes one last desperate attack on their invaders.

Review

What better way to celebrate the Fourth of July than watching the most patriotic pro-American movie ever made.... but ironically directed by a German Director. Roland Emmerich is pretty much the disaster movie king, a title he earned by creating this very film. Jaws may have been the first blockbuster film, but when people look back at what defines a Summer Blockbuster, it will be this one. 

Independence Day is a type of High Concept Summer Blockbuster film that we don't get much in the post Superhero Age of Cinema. A film that pretty much solidified to studio execs what a blockbuster film should be like. Epic storytelling, epic visual effects, massive amounts of action, and relatable yet extremely heroic everyday characters who don't have to be developed too much. It may not have been the first of its kind, but it is heavily considered the best of its kind. Because this movie was the very definition of what cinematic spectacle is suppose to be. From the dogfights to the epic wide shots of  spaceships the size of cities hovering over a famous landmark, this film has everything that is now attributed with popcorn cinema. And I pretty much love it.

The film was created in 1996, post-Jurassic Park, which means that CGI still hasn't been refined to its fullest potential yet. This is where we see a true blending between our modern visual effects and the old school practical effects that have been around for decades prior. The inferno destruction of the major American cities due to the alien blast, still holds up after so many years. Mainly because the destruction of cities was done with miniatures that were built painstakingly detailed, only to be blown with real explosions. This gives it a very tangible feeling that has gotten lost with CGI films, mainly because no matter how much watching a CGI city getting destroyed may be more accurate, there is still that realm of knowing what you see isn't real. But in here, most of what is seen on the screen is completely real. Yes, there is CGI in the movie. But to create the appearance of massive spaceship and jet fighter armadas in the background, while real miniature models fly in the foreground. It is no wonder why this film won the Oscar for best visual effects, because no matter how old this movie gets I can guarantee it will still hold up.

But that's enough praise for the spectacle and the special effects. Because one of the weakest points of the film is its characters. Yes, Jeff Goldblum, Will Smith, Bill Pullman and Randy Quaid are pretty much the only memorable aspects of the film. And an argument can be made that Brent Spiner, the guy who plays the wacky Area 51 scientist, is also the other most memorable actor in the film. However the fact that I can't remember the names of their characters or any other characters for the matter, kind of tells you how important they really are. Because the film is pretty much all story, with the characters acting as drivers for the plot rather than participants. There is some character arc developments for Goldblum's and Quaid's characters, but the changes are so small that it doesn't really seem like so much of one. Everyone in the film is pretty much a capable and heroic version of what we hope we can be if we were ever put in that situation. And given that the only true bad guys of the film are aliens, performed by animatronic puppets, it is pretty clear that the movie is not going for the type of really in depth characters we demand so much in modern blockbusters. This is a film that brings back the simple notion that the first Star Wars movie was about: Good versus Evil. Simple and clean.

The only thing that would really date this movie though is that it is pretty obvious that it is a product of the 90s. Blockbuster films of that era are known to have an occasional over the top character as well as tech that would make youngsters of this generation cringe. In an age when Superhero movies offer good guys and bad guys with a lot depth, this one is just pure fun good versus evil shoot em up.

Final Thoughts

Overall, this movie is a product of a forgotten age of high concept blockbuster cinema. In the Superhero Age of Cinema, there are rarely any original high concept films like this anymore. The closest that we have to something like this is Pacific Rim, which pretty much has a similar story except we have giant robots to fight with against giant monsters, and San Andreas, a very dumb movie that is high popcorn entertainment. I wish we can return to a time when blockbusters were something worth seeing, and not sequels or reboots of existing properties. Which ironically enough is happening with this film in the form of Independence Day: Resurgence. Why can't we have more new ideas? Why? Oh well. Watch this movie to have fun, and that's all.

SCORE: 8.5/10 - AMERICA! F#CK YEAH!

The Host (2006) - Analysis and Review

The "JAWS" of Korea, and it is brilliant!

Just as how my review of the Korean film, The Good, The Bad, The Weird, states that a Korean film triumphs with a western adventure blockbuster better than Hollywood, The Host is a triumph in the monster horror adventure film that Hollywood has abandoned. This is the first film I ever saw created by the brilliant director, Bong Joon-Ho. His upcoming film Snowpiercer starring Chris Evans will be making its way to the U.S. soon which looks like another triumph in Korean filmmaking over Hollywood blockbusters. But before that, I must talk about this movies: The HOST.

The Plot

When snack vendor Gang-Du (Song Kang-ho) witnesses his daughter getting taken by a mysterious fish monster, his world goes spiraling out of control as a virus begins to break out in the city shortly after the monsters appearance. Forced into quarantine with his family and several others who first witnessed the monster's rampage, Gang-Du must escape in order to locate the monster that has taken his daughter.

Analysis

The monster movie genre has never really be used to its fullest potential. When JAWS came out, a bunch of imitators have tried to replicate the success. Mainly by just having a ravenous animal attacking people. But that's not so much what made JAWS successful. It was the characters and the need to show restraint of showing the creature. That is what helped Ridley Scott's ALIEN become such a success by following those traits but not trying to copy the exact same story. John Carpenter's The Thing also benefits from this but instead of having restraint in showing the creature, the creatures are shown in full form but can change their appearance making them unpredictable as to where they will be next.

It is a genre that hasn't been tapped into a long time. Sure there have been Godzilla films but nothing like this. If an American studio were to make this a movie, and they had planned on remaking it back when it first came out in 2006, I already know it is going to lack the heart. American audiences are all about the spectacle these days instead of the stories of the characters. I come up with this point due to people preferring to see Godzilla destroying things rather than a human story. So there come stat question of whether to do one or the other? Who is more important? The story of the characters and their development or the rampaging monster on the loose? The answer in this film is both can exist in perfect balance.

Unlike JAWS which showed restraint in revealing the shark, this film does no such thing. It immediately shows the creature, but it makes its entrance into the film memorable. The design is very unique in that usually in giant monster films, the beast is gigantic, but in this one the creature is no bigger than a bus. It is a bold move to show the creature immediately, something that has been done in American monster horror films before but for some reason it did not have the same impact? Why is that? Again. The characters and the story are what matters.

Review

This is how it is done. This is what a monster movie should be. Strong characters: In this case a very lovable yet dysfunctional family that you genuinely believe will do anything to save one of their own.  Strong story: a mysterious monster releases a viral outbreak that has the city in quarantine with a father desperate to get his daughter back from the beast. Strong themes: in this film it may not be apparent to Americans, but this is definitely a direct reaction to an incident involving America and South Korea. To put it simply, Americans are the bad guys. We are indirectly responsible for the creation of the monster, and are directly responsible for taking advantage of the situation in order to have a hold over South Korea. All these elements help elevate this monster movie above and beyond what it is on the surface to something that is truly spectacular.

The cast is brilliant. Song Kang-ho, Byun Hee-bong, Park Hae-il, Bae Doona, and Go Ah-sung are all brilliant in their roles as the dim-wited protagonist, the stern but caring father, the stuck in the glory days brother, the successful yet timid sister and the daughter who fights to survive. This is a family that you wish you were a part of during better times because seeing them at their worst is really heart wrenching. The scene when they believed that the daughter was dead was borderline pulling on heartstrings while also being strangely funny to watch. It is a brilliant balance of how a family can't really stay serious but would try to be funny at appropriate times to make their situation more easier. And in a dark time of not knowing if your daughter is alive in the hands of a literal monster, it really goes to show how strong a small moment of comedy can help bring hope. It is hard to give a standout performance in this film but if there had to be one, then it is by the daughter. Go Ah-sung's performance as the captive daughter was extremely convincing and watching a young girl having to grow up into survivalist was one of the great subplots of the film. She weighs her opportunities for escape while also coming to terms with the fact she may not make it out alive.

The creature in this film is also one of the most smartly designed creatures in a long time. It is ugly. There is nothing cool about it. It is just straight up ugly. And really does resemble what a fish would realistically look like had it been mutated by weird chemicals. The design was to give it various abilities such as running, swimming, climbing, and swinging from high beams with its tail. This is a creature that very much acts like a creature. By nature it just wants to live, and how it lives is by eating people occasionally. One of the best creature moments in the film was when it was outside in clear view with its mouth open just drinking the rain. Usually in monster movies the creature would never do such a thing, but a small moment like that makes it believable that this thing doesn't really care if its seen.

Final Thoughts

Bong's directing and creativity with the film definitely shines. It is one of the best monster movies made in a long time as well as maintaining that blockbuster flavor that has been missing in Hollywood for years. Be on the look out for any movie this guy makes, especially his efforts into big budget Sci-Fi with Snowpiercer. This is a film that will make one believe that the monster movie blockbuster is alive again. Whether or not we'll see another monster movie with such powerful storytelling and an original creature remains to be seen. Gareth Edwards' Godzilla comes close yet lacks the powerful narrative or originality that this film has. It can be done. This film proves it.

SCORE: 9/10 - The Korean monster movie blockbuster that trumps modern American efforts

Why Luke Evans would've made a great Batman and Perseus

I remember it very clearly. It was April 2, 2010, I was out with some old high school friends and some new college friends watching the Clash of the Titans remake. Having seen the original Clash of the Titans when I was much younger, within the first few minutes of the remake I was already making judgements about the movie. Then came the scene on Olympus where we see Liam Neeson as Zeus in all his shiny armor glory along with Ralph Fiennes introduction as the scheming Hades. The rest of the Olympian Pantheon was present in their shiny armor, but other than Zeus and Hades there were only two other gods that had lines: Poseidon played by Danny Huston and Apollo played by... who is that?

Funny how Apollo only had two lines yet I remembered him after I saw the movie. I didn't completely understand why, but something about the actor who played Apollo stood out to me. Perhaps because it was such as small role and that he was one of the few gods to actually have lines? That's what I told myself after leaving the theater. It wouldn't be until I bought the DVD (out of pure Greek Mythology fan bias than for being an actual good movie) and watched that deleted scenes that consisted MOSTLY of this actor having Apollo originally playing a larger part in the movie that I realized something. This guy who goes by the name of Luke Evans should've, in my opinion, been the guy who played Perseus.

It really had to do with a deleted scene dealing with Apollo stating to his half brother Perseus (the hero of the movie played by Sam Worthington) that "(they) are brothers." It really was that moment where I thought what if their roles were switched. I have nothing against Sam Worthington. He's a decent actor, though he has yet to wow me. However there was something about this Luke Evans guy who seemed to have more of a draw and a presence. He definitely fit will playing the god Apollo, had his role not been reduced to just two lines instead of an entire sub plot that was deleted. However seeing him just reminded me immediately of the original Clash of the Titans star, Harry Hamlin. They both had presence and a voice that says leading man and legendary hero. I kept thinking about it a little bit more and thought casting Luke Evans as Perseus would've been perfect. Hypothetically had he been cast as Perseus instead of Sam Worthington, would that have made the movie better? Probably not. However it would've made this version of Perseus more compelling. Sam is capable of playing a compelling character if the character is written to be compelling. The Perseus in the remake was not written as a compelling character but rather as a cookie cut out cliche hero character. It takes a compelling actor to make a cliche something watchable, and that was something that Luke Evans had.

Luke would've made a very interesting Perseus. He has looks, the voice, and if he had been casted hopefully the hair would still be in tact because he has that too. Had I been involved with the film as a casting director or as the director of the film in general he would've been my first and only choice. However there are factors I have to put into consideration. The first being no one in America knows who he is. I didn't know who he is. So, the casting of Sam Worthington was definitely meant to draw in the Avatar audience because everyone in the world has seen him in that. However, he did get put into the film so he had to have auditioned for more than one part. If I was the director or casting director of the project I would've taken a gamble with him as Perseus because he just fits the bill perfectly. Although if I was the director of the Clash of the Titans remake, the story would've been completely different but that's not really what this post is about. It's simply stating this idea that's been going around in my mind for three years now. I would've liked the 2010 Clash of the Titans more had Luke Evans been given the role instead of Sam.

Since then I've been following this guy's career to see if anything big is going to happen to this guy. There are cases where you see an actor do a small part in a film who is more compelling than anyone else in the film that you just know that person is going to become someone. And good thing he did. Immortals, Fast & Furious 6, and now The Hobbit trilogy. I'm really glad that right now he has some name recognition because I believe he is one of the most compelling actors in the business. Not the greatest, I'm not saying he's Oscar worthy, but he is definitely someone who you won't have a problem watching or even criticize his acting. That's why this next thought came to my mind recently.

The casting of Ben Affleck as Batman is said and done. I have no problem with it other than the fact that it means I won't see a film directed by the Affleck for a while. But when there was still speculation about who should be the next Batman, I had two choices in mind: Josh Brolin and yep you guessed it Luke Evans. The thought of him playing Batman would've done wonders for propelling his career even further. If The Hobbit movies don't, then him getting casted as Batman surely would.

It would've been a nice nod to Immortals by having Luke (who played Zeus) and Henry Cavill (the new Superman and the lead of Immortals) to be seen side by side one another. Luke definitely has the charm and the voice to pull off an older Batman. He is older than Cavill by about five years so it does fit the bill of an Older Batman as a nemesis and potential mentor figure for Batman. However as the fates may have it, Ben Affleck has the role which means I'll never see Luke Evans as Batman. Then again I'll never see him as the lead in a Clash of the Titans remake. He's got a nice career ahead of him after The Hobbit, and I look forward to seeing what else he does in the future.