Jump to content

SLAM!

Slam! Movie Reviews [Y6 Edition]

Recommended Posts



4 minutes ago, YourMother the Edgelord said:

Which Homeward

 

Not the Gyllenhaal one... I haven't read the Gyllenhaal one...

 

4 minutes ago, Spaghetti said:

Very interesting lineup! It's actually kinda funny that a lot of people seem to have Homeward ranked last so I'm curious what worked so well about it for you.

 

I think Homeward was able to resonate with me because of how well it defined the place of characters in the story, and how real their emotions and struggles felt. I thought it was the best example Spark had of blending its dramatic and comedic elements.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SLAM! said:

February Reviews and Scores

 

Chuck Norris and Liam Neeson vs. the Current Hollywood Landscape

Blankments Productions places their industry history on a pedestal in this satirical action comedy, and it would promptly fade into obscurity if not for its side-splittingly hilarious nature. 6.75/10

 

im gonna quit 

  • Haha 2
  • Sad 2
  • ...wtf 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites





SLAM! REVIEWS: APRIL ISSUE SPOTLIGHT

 

Spoiler

*DOUBLE FEATURE*

 

Spoiler

SUPER MARIO BROS.

 

dir. Mark Dindal

 

This film does an impressive job handling its source material. It pays homage to the franchise it's adapting while maintaining a solid level of visual flair and keeping itself grounded in its own story. The filmmakers manage to give depth to characters that, let's face it, are not known for their depth. Also, the world of the Mushroom Kingdom feels fully-realized in every sense of the phrase.

 

Practically all of the actors are well-cast for their roles. Oscar Isaac gives a different spin for what is essentially a different, more complex Mario. Jay Baruchel is great, Idina Menzel is great, Liev Schreiber is great... but the real standout is Zoe Kravitz as Daisy. The character Daisy almost steals the film with her place in the story, and Zoe Kravitz manages to deliver on the challenges given to her by the material.

 

There are a few minor gripes--nitpicks, really--that I had with this film. Some of the original spirit of Mario's innocence is lost in translation by making more complex versions out of the character. It's sort of a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation, because the Mario characters have no development in the games. But I was a little sad that some of the simplistic trademark personalities of the characters felt like they were traded in for what amounts to shades of grey. I also think that the film was elongated in parts. Many parts with Daisy could've been cut out, even though I almost didn't notice it was going on for too long because of how complex and interesting Daisy's character was.

 

All in all, Super Mario Bros. is a quintessential animated feature for the entire family to enjoy. It is a film that everyone can appreciate for a variety of reasons. Do not miss this while it's in theaters.

 

Spoiler

CHILDREN OF EDEN
 

dir. Alfonso Cuaron

 

I'm gonna talk anecdotally for a moment. This past summer, I took a class about how film correlates with the Bible, and how filmmakers apply the Bible to film. The first film we watched as part of the curriculum was The Story of Ruth. (You can guess who's story the film tells.) Hollywood stained the story with the fingerprints of man by indulging in the storytelling cliches of the 50s and 60s, with its tacked-on Hollywood-style romance first between Ruth and Mahlon, then between Ruth and Boaz. The second film we watched as part of the curriculum was the 1959 sword-and-sandal masterpiece Ben-Hur. This film, too, was stained with the fingerprints of man through the way it was billed as an earth-shattering masterpiece, the last film to ever be deemed a relevant film, the BIGGEST FILM EVER, and presented itself as delivering on that promise.

 

When I suggest that these films are stained with the fingerprints of man, I do not suggest that the films are bad. I suggest that a passion and a faith for God does not seem to be the primary goal for having the film be made in the first place. Maybe the primary goal is to make money. Maybe the primary goal is to progress actors and actresses through the star system. Maybe the primary goal is to make a human individual's point about the Bible that fails to be found within the Bible. Understand that some of my favorite films are biblical films that which are stained by the fingerprints of man. The Prince of Egypt, Passion of the Christ, and the aforementioned Ben-Hur are some of my favorites movies to this day. Currently, I'm daydreaming about an idea for a film that people might be able to point to and say, "That film is stained by the fingerprints of man."

 

To the film's credit, I don't think a single biblical film exists that isn't stained by the fingerprints of man, unless we're talking about those cheap reenactments we sometimes see on television. Heck, even the Bible miniseries that was on the History channel was MARRED in biblical inaccuracies and, therefore, stained by the fingerprints of man. That doesn't make the miniseries bad by any means, but it DOES cause controversy. It leaves faith-based audiences asking, "I wonder what this project would've been if it was a little more biblically accurate."

 

I hereby suggest that Children of Eden is along the lines of a project like Darren Aronofsky's Noah or the musical Jesus Christ Superstar in terms of how the film seems to blatantly be stained by the fingerprints of man. In the way that maximalist production values are incorporated, in the way that grandiose musical numbers constantly interrupt the biblical story as it plays out, the way the film has its own idea of how the creation story would be 'more thematically effective' when taken along the path of a different narrative branch. Some of the most important and quintessential aspects to the Biblical understanding of the story of Adam and Eve and Cain and Abel are changed to the likings of the filmmakers; perhaps they're afraid to present potentially controversial biblical truths to wide audiences, or they very simply wanted to favor creative freedom over biblical accuracy. Personally, I'm leaning towards the latter, and if I'm right, I'm happy it's the latter, because I absolutely think that creative freedom is something important that needs to be granted to creatives of all mindsets.

 

I personally got the vibe that there were suggestions of humanity being better off having eaten the apple, and suggestions of "The Father" being somehow imperfect. I don't even know if those suggestions were intentional, but I personally felt upset by those suggestions, and it caused my mind to take stock out of the film as I was reading it. I understand that many people have those ideologies, but my problem is that those are not the biblically-accurate ideologies surrounding the story of Adam and Eve.

 

I'm sure this magazine's readers are thinking that this reaction is on par to how some members of the Christian faith reacted to the controversies involving The Last Temptation of Christ. They would definitely be correct in their assumption. Perhaps reacting this way is a mistake I'll regret; perhaps how I view the film will dampen and grow more lax with time; perhaps I'm overthinking things. But I could not stay silent about my gut feeling that Children of Eden was on par with the 1959 Ben-Hur, and Noah, and Jesus Christ Superstar, in regards to how it felt, in my honest opinion, stained by the fingerprints of man.

 

(Two more nitpicks and I'll move on the good aspects of the film, I promise--this film has many good aspects. My first nitpick is the musical aspect of the film. I had trouble identifying this film as a musical. I think the film had a more serious tone, and that the film could have had more attention to the story without the songs interrupting it. My other nitpick is that I think half of the performers were pretty grossly miscast. I think Chris Pine, Anthony Ramos, and Ryan Potter were all perhaps insidiously miscast, the reason being that they possessed way too much natural charisma for what should have been extremely serious roles. I really hope it wasn't the film's ideology to approach the Adam and Eve story with a happy-go-lucky Broadway musical vibe, as that is not the vibe the actual Biblical story gives off at all--not one bit. But I think those three actors and their casting in their roles do a lot of harm to an audience member's ability to approach the film with seriousness. To cast Ryan Potter as Abel is to come extremely close to suggesting, if not outright suggesting, that the film is intended for children in Sunday-school.)

 

Anyways, I think what really salvages this film and stops it from being a bomb in my eyes is Alfonso Cuaron's directorial effort and Lupita Nyong'o's performance as Eve. Alfonso Cuaron was a great choice for this project, and he would've been an even better choice, in my opinion, if this wasn't a musical; Cuaron is a director who knows maximalism as well as minimalism--he can truly harness both of those--and there are moments where both maximalism and minimalism are utilized, which is extremely awesome to see. Lupita N'Yongo poured everything she had into the role of Eve, and she brought a frank seriousness to the role as well, even if I didn't agree with all of the lines that were given for her to say.

 

I was extremely close to deciding not to review this film because of my own personal biases. I decided to review this because I appreciated how daring it was from its artistic stand-point; all of the technical aspects are exemplary. In the end, I couldn't look past the biblical inaccuracies that are present in the piece. There is no denying that this film's goal is to be the next big sword-and-sandal epic, to reach the glamorous heights of the 1959. I feel that it reached for the glory, tripped over itself, and busted its chin open. Blankments, I'm really sorry about what turned out to be more of a rant than a review, and I must say that I personally hope other reviewers (who aren't as restricted by one's faith as I am) see it in themselves to give the film the benefit of the doubt and reward it with a higher score than I will, if they are so inclined. I simply view this as a great film, but I couldn't get past its inaccuracies.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites



April Reviews & Scores

 

Super Mario Bros.

All in all, Super Mario Bros. is a quintessential animated feature for the entire family to enjoy. It is a film that everyone can appreciate for a variety of reasons. Do not miss this while it's in theaters. 9/10

 

Children of Eden

I simply view this as a great film, but I couldn't get past its inaccuracies. 8.5/10

 

Pandas

We've seen this film before. At least the way it follows the panda bears is a little exciting. 7/10

 

Home Invasion Part II: Abduction

Jason Statham's latest action vehicle goes for the touchdown and fumbles. 5.25/10

 

The Pixies in the Back Yard

The film presents itself in an interesting visual way, but stops short of saying something interesting. 6.25/10

 

Jane and Tony

This film belongs on the Lifetime Channel rather than in the theater. It's much too saccharine for its own good. 4.5/10

 

The Thin, the Phat, and the Felon

Edgar Wright's latest directorial effort is an gut-bustingly hilarious time in the cinema. Himesh Patel's Martin teeters on the edge of being annoying, but I can appreciate the film as a love letter to classic westerns. 9/10

 

Nights into Dreams

This animated effort presents a somewhat original premise in regards to the animation medium, but, despite Kristen Bell and Eddie Redmayne having been perfectly cast in their roles, the film doesn't give them a world to bring to life. The game's aesthetic design has this baroque, circus-like style, and I was disappointed that the potentially innovative style was never woven into the seams of the film--it's there, but it isn't woven into the seams. I still view this as a valiant effort, though. 7.5/10

Edited by SLAM!
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

on your review of Eden:

 

I find your response very intriguing. Simply put, I'd also view myself as a Christian, but I'd say any biblical movie, as you refer it, "stained by the fingerprints of man" is inherently more potent and important than a straightforward adaptation. To engage in the material and adapt it in a new way forces the faith-based audience to actually engage in a similar manner to how you did with this film. Look at 

Noah for example. I remember seeing it and although I didn't find it perfect and obviously not "accurate", I was left thinking about God and the meaning of faith for days afterwards. See also films like Silence, which, when I watched it with my father, he said it felt at moments it was Satanic, but when I talked to him a couple of days later, he said he thought it asked important questions most Christian filmmakers would be afraid to take.

 

IMO, if I was to do a straightforward retelling of the Garden of Eden and Cain and Abel, it would be dull. By giving you the complexity of a Father and Eve who aren't entirely biblically accurate, it makes a film relevant both for today and for believers who would naturally struggle with doubt at points. IMO, the heart of all great Christian films is the internal struggle between doubt and belief, fear and trust. I attempted to move Eden into that direction, and when I saw the source material years ago, I was touched by how intriguing the take on the first act was. If you were to see this show, you'd discover Act 2 is a remarkably straightforward retelling of Noah's Ark, at the end of which the Father forgives Cain's descendants and promises the Messiah to come and save his children. I cut this for 1) a more focused film and 2) the ambiguity that forces the audience to engage would be gone. I understand your response, but respectively disagree with it on every level. Christian films should not be made for just Christians; they should be made for all in the hope that someone watching it would be either forced to engage in their own faith or be intrigued enough to look up what the filmmaker's changed from the original text.

 

And as for your other complaints, Paradise Lost was released a few years ago in this game that was a retelling of the Garden of Eden and Cain and Abel without any musical numbers; I find the music of Children of Eden to be a remarkably underrated Broadway score and as it's not a dance heavy show, it fits well. I doubt many complain about the music of Les Mis, despite the subject matter being serious. Likewise, I can get the complaints about Ramos and Potter (although Ramos has given some very good stage performances) but Chris Pine is an accomplished dramatic actor who has starred in several indie films delivering remarkably nuanced performances, most famously in Hell or High Water. To say he belongs nowhere near this film is a serious insult to his acting capability. Pine's singing voice is merely fine; I cast him for his strengths in acting, and I will defend him till my last breath.

 

I appreciate the review! I just needed to engage in a dialogue about it because some aspects of it are things I personally cannot comprehend, especially as someone who identifies as a Christian as well. My most famous meltdown in 2.0 was towards a film I too viewed as anti-Christian, but in this case, writing Eden in the manner I did is how I personally feel is the best way to go about a Biblical adaptation (not to say it isn't flawed; I think it has flaws, just not the big one you mentioned).

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites



8 hours ago, Blankments said:

on your review of Eden:

 

 

  Hide contents

I find your response very intriguing. Simply put, I'd also view myself as a Christian, but I'd say any biblical movie, as you refer it, "stained by the fingerprints of man" is inherently more potent and important than a straightforward adaptation. To engage in the material and adapt it in a new way forces the faith-based audience to actually engage in a similar manner to how you did with this film. Look at 

Noah for example. I remember seeing it and although I didn't find it perfect and obviously not "accurate", I was left thinking about God and the meaning of faith for days afterwards. See also films like Silence, which, when I watched it with my father, he said it felt at moments it was Satanic, but when I talked to him a couple of days later, he said he thought it asked important questions most Christian filmmakers would be afraid to take.

 

IMO, if I was to do a straightforward retelling of the Garden of Eden and Cain and Abel, it would be dull. By giving you the complexity of a Father and Eve who aren't entirely biblically accurate, it makes a film relevant both for today and for believers who would naturally struggle with doubt at points. IMO, the heart of all great Christian films is the internal struggle between doubt and belief, fear and trust. I attempted to move Eden into that direction, and when I saw the source material years ago, I was touched by how intriguing the take on the first act was. If you were to see this show, you'd discover Act 2 is a remarkably straightforward retelling of Noah's Ark, at the end of which the Father forgives Cain's descendants and promises the Messiah to come and save his children. I cut this for 1) a more focused film and 2) the ambiguity that forces the audience to engage would be gone. I understand your response, but respectively disagree with it on every level. Christian films should not be made for just Christians; they should be made for all in the hope that someone watching it would be either forced to engage in their own faith or be intrigued enough to look up what the filmmaker's changed from the original text.

 

And as for your other complaints, Paradise Lost was released a few years ago in this game that was a retelling of the Garden of Eden and Cain and Abel without any musical numbers; I find the music of Children of Eden to be a remarkably underrated Broadway score and as it's not a dance heavy show, it fits well. I doubt many complain about the music of Les Mis, despite the subject matter being serious. Likewise, I can get the complaints about Ramos and Potter (although Ramos has given some very good stage performances) but Chris Pine is an accomplished dramatic actor who has starred in several indie films delivering remarkably nuanced performances, most famously in Hell or High Water. To say he belongs nowhere near this film is a serious insult to his acting capability. Pine's singing voice is merely fine; I cast him for his strengths in acting, and I will defend him till my last breath.

 

 

I appreciate the review! I just needed to engage in a dialogue about it because some aspects of it are things I personally cannot comprehend, especially as someone who identifies as a Christian as well. My most famous meltdown in 2.0 was towards a film I too viewed as anti-Christian, but in this case, writing Eden in the manner I did is how I personally feel is the best way to go about a Biblical adaptation (not to say it isn't flawed; I think it has flaws, just not the big one you mentioned).

 

Spoiler

It's really cool to see your thoughts on my review, and I think I understand a lot more about the film now then I did before. After posting this review, I fell into a bit of a weird mood, not sure if I had done the right thing. I feel like a bit of a hypocrite because, during that aforementioned summer class, I was telling the class how there are better films involving Christianity than the Pure Flix stuff--I really don't like their films at all. I guess it's ultimately the Bible's job to share the pure unadulterated Biblical story. And I do agree that "the heart of all great Christian films is the internal struggle between doubt and belief, fear and trust," as you said.

 

After seeing your reasoning and finding out that you are a Brother in Christ, I'm starting to think that I did the wrong thing. CAYOM is great, but I wish I could peer into the mind of the writer and see what images they're visualizing. A picture is worth a thousand words, and that would help me understand the amount of respect the story had for the Bible. But I don't think I'm going to change my review; I think it's important to keep a record of what my knee-jerk reaction was. However, I think the more accurate score to how I feel about the film would be an 8.5 instead of an 8. I still think the film has some issues, but now that I understand it's ultimately coming from a place of love, I feel a lot better about it.

 

Thank you for your response. I want to grow as a Christian and as a storyteller, and this is the way that happens.

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites



I need to apologize that May is taking a bit longer than I expected. Nothing against Mass Effect: Ascension in terms of its length, but my busy schedule isn't giving me time to finish it in one sitting. Nonetheless, I'm more than halfway through the film, past the part where Garrus (an extremely cool character, might I add as someone with a lack of Mass Effect familiarity) is introduced. I plan to finish reading Mass Effect: Ascension soon so I can continue progressing through my monthly review system. Nevertheless, I wouldn't expect the May issue until Wed. or Thurs..

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, SLAM! said:

I need to apologize that May is taking a bit longer than I expected. Nothing against Mass Effect: Ascension in terms of its length, but my busy schedule isn't giving me time to finish it in one sitting. Nonetheless, I'm more than halfway through the film, past the part where Garrus (an extremely cool character, might I add as someone with a lack of Mass Effect familiarity) is introduced. I plan to finish reading Mass Effect: Ascension soon so I can continue progressing through my monthly review system. Nevertheless, I wouldn't expect the May issue until Wed. or Thurs..

IIRC if you've gotten to Garrus you're in the last third so not much left for you to pick up.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites





13 minutes ago, SLAM! said:

I need to apologize that May is taking a bit longer than I expected. Nothing against Mass Effect: Ascension in terms of its length, but my busy schedule isn't giving me time to finish it in one sitting. Nonetheless, I'm more than halfway through the film, past the part where Garrus (an extremely cool character, might I add as someone with a lack of Mass Effect familiarity) is introduced. I plan to finish reading Mass Effect: Ascension soon so I can continue progressing through my monthly review system. Nevertheless, I wouldn't expect the May issue until Wed. or Thurs..

 

If you've met Garrus you're definitely a bit over 2/3 done.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites









@4815162342 @Alpha @Blankments @cookie @Ethan Hunt @Reddroast @Rorschach @Spaghetti @Xillix @YourMother the Edgelord 

 

So some of you may have known from my post in the Survivor thread that I got in a pretty bad car accident on Wednesday. That's the reason why I announced that I'd have to take a break from reviewing things, and I thank you guys for your support in that time. Miraculously, I was uninjured, but I was pretty disheveled.

 

Well, I did say that I'd take a break from reviewing, but I didn't say I'd take a break from reading. I've finished all of the May and June plot summaries, and I think I'm ready to post my reviews for those tonight.

 

Again, thank you guys for your support, and I'll be posting spotlights and reviews for the May and June films shortly.

 

😉

  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites





Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Guidelines. Feel free to read our Privacy Policy as well.