do-arellano-mayra Reviews

Maze Runner: The Scorch Trials (2015)

More entertaining than the first installment

[8/10 · 10 September 2015]

Let's get this straight out of the way. If you are tired of movies based on books that present a young cast, you won't find something here to convert you. However if you found the first movie to be a surprisingly entertaining, solid action flick;or if you don't mind the age of the main characters as long as the story deliveries, there's plenty to like here. Specially because there are some improvements over the flaws of the first film.

The action sequences are gripping, well directed and have a feel of raw realism. It's evident that the ensemble of actors- young or mature- gave it all physically. It seems as though the stunts doubles had little to do in comparison to the average action flick.

If in the first movie you got 2 or 3 action scenes to keep you in the edge of your seat,in The scorch trials you'll find action almost from the beginning.I'm not a fan of non-stop action, but I was particularly impressed with Barry Pepper who I heard filmed his action scenes with a broken ankle.

The acting is extremely good. Not only the young lead Dylan O'Brien and his young co-stars, Ki Hong Lee, Kaya Scodelario, Rosa Salazar and Thomas Brodie Sangter, deliver strong performances, but also the supporting cast of mature actors. By the way if you have read or heard that the very talented supporting cast of mature actors is there only for their paychecks or that "they have better things to do" you are hearing a biased opinion by unprofessional reviewers who are tired of "YA adaptations". But just because some reviewers are tired of this "subgenre" doesn't mean that plenty of talented cast and crews aren't fully involved with these kind of stories in spite of the studios greedy intentions.

This movie might not be perfect, might not be for everyone but one thing that you can tell for sure is that Barry Pepper, Alan Tudik, Aidan Gillen, Lily Taylor, Patricia Clarkson and particularly Giancarlo Esposito gave it all. They have amazing chemistry with the very talented young cast and they seem to be screaming "100% commitment to my role". It became clear to me through their committed performances that they believed in the project and that they trust the director Wes Ball. There's plenty of character development opportunities and these mature actors take advantage of them all even if their screen time is limited. Ava Paige as played by Patricia Clarkson started the movie as the archetypal "evil scientist" and by the end of the movie I was somehow rooting for her. She really needs to find a cure to this mysterious disease called "the flare". Giancarlo Esposito started limited by a role that seemed at first written to fulfill a quota of the typical "evil adult vs. innocent kid" trope. However, as the movie moves on we discover that he is far from being a cartnoonish "evil adult" and that his character is full of humanity. A scene in which he is concerned over his protegé was one of my favorites of a film from which I was only expecting mindless entertainment and non-stopping action.

The problem is that this brilliant cast was limited by a script that seemed to go nowhere. I'd say the script is not as strong as the one of the first movie and that script wasn't particularly good to begin with. There are some improvements. This time some clichéd lines have gone away, there's more backbone to the characters and a little more of "showing-not-telling". But if you are thinking that everything that didn't make sense in the first one will make sense in this movie you might end up disappointed.

One more time the movie ends in a cliffhanger although this time there's not a last minute info-dump. If you don't mind these minor flaws on the script you might end up enjoying the ride.

In my opinion, the strongest part of the movie, besides the thrilling action and good acting are the visuals. I enjoyed the shots of the scorch because the cinematographer took plenty of risks. I want to see the movie again just to appreciate these shots better. There were also interesting shots in terms of composition.

The VFX is extremely well executed. I thought the director was going to get overboard with the CGI usage but he wisely balanced the visual effects with the emotional arc to take the audience to a journey through this devastated lands in which under each nook, each skeleton building lies a new danger, a new story, a new world which I'd love to explore.

As if this wasn't enough to make me want to see the movie again, Joe Paesano's score (Daredevil TV series, The maze runner) was masterfully used and added a special feeling to the already beautiful visuals. Mark my words, Paesano's scores will get him an Oscar somewhere in the near future.

The scorch trials has everything to become a huge international box office success because is a solid, yet imperfect second chapter, that will keep audiences entertained and screaming for chapter 3.

The Cube (2013)

Good phylosophical themes, great concept

[8/10 · 20 February 2015]

Gratuitous violence, horrible sequels. But the concept itself deserves a good rating.

Very strong opening scene and I think the way it approaches humanity and philosophical themes. okay with it not offering any explanation because cinema is a visual art As long as visuals are okay and there are themes, ideas and direction I'm fine. Jorodowsky's movies lack plot and most of the times don't make any sense and still are considered great movies for the ideas they present.

I just hate the hipsters that keep attacking me on the boards because in addition to the cube I love maze runner. If anything I love it more because it has more explanations and more production value. But the comparisons annoy me. Both are good movies in their own merits and you don't have to hate one to like the other.

Fifty Shades of Grey (2015)

Few redeeming qualities.

[4/10 · 13 February 2015]

I'm not a FSOG hater. For all the book shortcomings I couldn't put down the first book and half of the second. I didn't start the third but I understand why so many women would find this romantic. It's the same love story that has been favored by female readers for centuries in a way or other. From Cinderella, to Beauty and the beast. This fantasy of taming a not approachable man with your love. Unrealistic and unhealthy as this is, those kind of books bring the kind of drama that keep some people turning the pages. I thought the concept even if not original had potential. No inner goddess, no holy cow, no graphic scenes (because they wanted to stick to an R rating) no repetitive scenes, and you could end up with a decent story. Add that to Nowhere Boy director, a Danny Elfman score, and a visually appealing setting and I thought the movie could be one of those cases in which the movie is better than the book. The book is more character driven than plot driven so I wasn't going to complain about the lack of a beginning a climax and an ending.

Well, I was wrong. The movie is not as bad as I thought it could be but Kelly Marcel lost a great opportunity to get rid of the horrible dialog. One thing is Reading ridiculous lines like "I don't make love I f*** hard" "I'm going to f** you into next week" "What have you done to me?" and another seeing them in the big screen. Ridiculous! Everybody knows that EL James is not the best writer and she wrote this piece for fun but I thought the scriptwriter would have a Little bit of respect for her reputation and try to get her name attached to a decent script. I know that giving the nature of the material she couldn't do much but still, something could've been done at the scrip department.

Besides I thought that the whole point of the story is that these couple who are very different from each other, who don't know how to have a healthy relationship, who try to get what they want through manipulation were slowly falling in love. Nothing that I saw in the movie made me feel they were really into each other. Part is that the actors have no chemistry but also that the script gives them little to no room to create characters that convincingly convey how much they are into each other. Scenes that were supposed to be romantic (yes romantic, because disturbed people like Christian fall in love too) turned out to look cheesy or creepy.

The only redeeming quality of these two is how they fall into each other but Kelly Marcel seems to have been more interested in presenting sex scenes. There are plenty and they are not particularly graphic but with the exception of a couple of sex scenes outside the Red room the rest is just...meh! I felt like they were there just trying to say, "look we are presenting sex scenes in an artistic way!"

Also I can't believe I'm going to say this but Christian Grey in the book I can totally understand and is better written. He was hurt, had certain vulnerability, he was a good mix of arrogance, Jack-ass attitude and mystery. Kelly Marcel and Sam Taylor didn't bother to give him more background, more sass, a hook for the viewers to understand why Anastasia was drawn to this man. It looked like she was after the money because other than that, what else is there to draw an intelligent manipulative college graduate into a world she doesn't like?

Talking about the sex scenes. It was really necessary to insert a pop-song in each of them? Danny Elffman's score is one of the few redeeming qualities of the movie and you get distracted by the pop songs.

I thought that Sam Taylor Johnson had good intentions with this film.The scene in which Ana and Christian are discussing the soft and hard limits was brilliant. Besides she inserts some themes here, some themes there. Those themes are part of the book but the sub-par prose doesn't let you appreciate them. Kudos to that but she missed the opportunity of making this movie more Secretary and less twilight.

Dakota Johnson's Acting is decent and in certain scenes she displays a strength that Anastasia didn't have in the books. She's very expressive and carries the movie well. I think her performance is another redeeming quality of this train-wreck. A lot of book readers are always claiming how Anatasia is easy manipulated but I think any woman who wants to change a man for whatever reason has a tendency to manipulation, too. That's not unconditional love. If you love some one take him for what he is and if he is not what you're looking for leave. But if you stay it's because you're as damaged, controlling and manipulative as he is. Dakota plays this woman who tries to turn a disturbed guy into her prince charming quite decently.

Dornan's casting was a huge mistake. His horrible performance reinforces this idea that the only reason Ana is after him is his looks and his money because he gives nothing sexy, interesting, intriguing, magnetic about his character. People who haven't read the book would be wondering why so many women fell in love with Christian Grey. If Charlie Hunnam (who I think could have saved this movie from the disaster it became) wasn't available they should have postponed filming till they found a guy who could portray the role. I've seen Dornan act in the fall and he's not good but he isn't as bad as he is here.

So overall I'm glad I didn't pay to see this movie but saw it in an advanced screening.