E.J. Boxler
E.J.'s Collection
E.J.'s collection is private.
E.J.'s Friends
E.J.'s Activity
E.J. reviewed...
American Gangster (2007)
The great director Ridley Scott has three masterpieces behind his… More
The great director Ridley Scott has three masterpieces behind his belt: Alien, Blade Runner, and Gladiator. He can now add a fourth to that list: American Gangster.
Besides another great performance by Denzel Washington, not to mention the incredible supporting actors he has to work with like Russell Crowe, Chiwetel Ejiofor, Josh Brolin, Arman Assante, and Cuba Gooding Jr., the film is a wholly original gangster picture. Denzel's performance is not to be understated however. His fans will get everything they watch the actor for; the smooth talk, the mannerisms, the bad ass stare, the yelling, and the cool demeanour. But like his best roles, he turns Frank Lucas into a fully realized character, a flawed but wholly sympathetic one.
The story focuses on how Frank Lucas was able to make more money than the Mafia through good business decisions. This film could almost be taught in economics classes, except for the fact that Lucas' product is heroine. Image, and an honest living giving back to the community were what helped Lucas get ahead, stay ahead for as long as he did, and never get backstabbed.
The film smartly contrasts his life with Richie Roberts (Crowe), who may stand for what's right, but doesn't impact his community the way Lucas does. Lucas isn't Scarface, nor is he Michael Corleone. He went a diferent way, which makes his story just as important as the others.
Ridley's production team successfully and accurately re-creates a gritty, realistic view of Harlem in the 1970s. They also don't shy away from showing what Lucas' product is doing to addicts. There's no denying that Frank Lucas does bad things. But given the world he grew up in, he did what he could to survive, and survive he did.
Note: I prefer the theatrical version to the unrated cut. I believe that Ridley made the edits for the theatrical cut for a reason and the additions interrupt the pacing and don't add any more depth to the already perfect narrative.
2 days ago via Flixster
E.J. reviewed...
The Hunger Games (2012)
Aside from a few story changes that don't really affect the overall… More
Aside from a few story changes that don't really affect the overall outcome of the narrative, the film adaptation of Suzanne Collins' brilliant novel, The Hunger Games, captures the political and social undertones while making a fast paced sci-fi action picture that doesn't exploit the idea of kids being trapped in an arena to fight to the death. Director Gary Ross knows what he's doing. It helps that he had Ms. Collins as a co-writer and producer to help him accurately portray the novel in the way she envisioned it. That doesn't necessarily make for a good film; The Hunger Games is a great film because of its pacing, its focus, the performances, and the way the film skims over the violence of the novels for a more accurate portrayal of a nation that governs its people through fear and fascism.
Front and centre to all this is Katniss Everdeen, the young heroine played by Jennifer Lawrence. Lawrence may be a bit old for the part, but she understands every little conscious and subconscious motive of her character. Just the slightest look from her communicates an entire page of inner monologue from her character in the book. Equally great are her romantic supporting characters, Peeta (Josh Hutcherson) and Gale (Liam Hemsworth). The focus is not on them, but their limited screen presence adds to the complexity of the story and Katniss' plight. Woody Harrelson deserves a best supporting actor nod for his work as the always drunk but very smart Haymitch Abernathy. And the ever great Donald Sutherland portrays President Snow as the ideal villain who will have a very big roll in the films to come.
The film has a more epic focus than the novel, which focused solely around Katniss. It would have been too difficult and too shallow to make a film that satirizes reality tv without multiple perspectives. Ross and Co. remarkably succeed in adding new scenes and finding new ways of communicating all the things that happen apart from Katniss, making the nation of Panem seem as believable and real as the danger in which these children have been forced to be in.
The summer has started early, and The Hunger Games sets the bar astonishingly high for this year's blockbusters. This is a film with intelligence that understands that films work when the action and effects serve the story, not the other way around.
2 days ago via Flixster
E.J. reviewed...
Goon (2012)
Goon is the kind of oddball, potty mouthed yet heartfelt comedy that… More
Goon is the kind of oddball, potty mouthed yet heartfelt comedy that the Judd Apatow gang lovingly churns out at least once a year. Except Goon is undoubtedly a Canadian product - despite being co-written by Superbad's Evan Goldberg - and it portrays a romantic view on hockey fighting, one that indirectly perceives the game as something of a poor man's UFC. Real hockey aficionados might criticize that the hockey portrayed in this movie isn't real hockey, and no one would disagree. But that's the charm of the movie. Writer/producer Jay Baruchel definitely exaggerates the most appealing aspect of the game; I mean, let's face it, a person who watches hockey with hoping a fight doesn't break out is about as realistic as a person who watches Nascar hoping nobody crashes. And yet, though this exaggeration, the script and the film reveal what is so great about this game in the first place. Hockey is a tough as nails game, fast paced, dangerous, and played by people who have nothing but a love for it.
At the front and centre of the story is Sean William Scott who plays Doug Glatt, a mentally slow bouncer who has one hell of an ability to brawl. Put it this way; if Doug hits you, you'll be lucky if all you get is unconscious. His buddy, Pat (Baruchel) runs a foul mouthed radio show. One day on Pat's radio show, Doug gets a call from a scout to play hockey. Despite the fact that he can't skate or handle the puck, Doug gains fame because of his ability to beat the crap out the other team's enforcers, hereby protecting his teammates and making them feel safer when trying to score. Doug is scouted to play for the semi-pro Halifax team.
From there, the usual sports movie cliches abound, but what elevates this film is how likable all the characters are. From the tough as nails coach to the team's Quebecois captain, you want to cheer for every one of these players that glory comes their way. For all the brute force, aggression, and instability these guys possess, they're just a bunch of big, sensitive softies with hearts of gold.
That's where the charm of Goon really shines through. It's full of coarse language and crude jokes that will have you on the floor laughing. But like the Paul Newman classic Slap Shot - a huge influence on this film - Goon will have you cheering to the very end.
2 months ago via Flixster
E.J. reviewed...
John Carter (2012)
Roger Ebert's opening line to his Star Wars Episode II Attack Of The… More
Roger Ebert's opening line to his Star Wars Episode II Attack Of The Clones review reads, "It's not what's there on the screen that disappoints me, but what's not there." The exact same sentiment can be said about Disney's new over bloated, $300 million dollar (including marketing costs) gamble, John Carter. CGI has been done again and again. We live in an age now where there are no limits to what can be put on the screen; this is no longer something to marvel at, it's more of a given. My expectations in 2012 are far higher than they were in 1993, and while I acknowledge the amount of work required to create CGI, I'm just not impressed with it anymore. Nor am I any more impressed with 3D. Avatar, Hugo, Beowulf, Journey to the Centre of the Earth, and Pixar's latest releases have all pretty much displayed the strengths and limitations of the technology. It's not enough for a film like John Carter to boast lavish visuals, scenery, computer animated characters, epic fight sequences all exhibited in 3D. It needs an intriguing story to work. And it's in this regard that the film fails.
No amount of special effects can make Taylor Kitsch any less awkward in his role, or spark any chemistry between Kitsch and his female co-star Lynn Collins. No amount of CGI can cover up the cliche story of a renegade anti-hero who falls in with the enemy only to learn and respect their ways and lead them into battle. No amount of 3D can make up for the story's lack of focus, character development, or just plain uninteresting characters.
This film is based on a series of popular science fiction books, written by Edgar Rice Burroughs, books that pretty much are the inspiration for so many similar stories like Avatar, and writers such as Robert A. Heinlein and Alan Moore. Unfortunately, the novelty of these books does not come across in the film. There is very little in the movie John Carter that hasn't been done before, and this is it's biggest weakness. I know how this kind of story pans out. This character, this world, and these situations are just not as good as the ones they take their cues from. The producers have seen too many other movies, and are simply copying what they liked into their own work, albeit lacking all imagination.
2 months ago via Flixster