filmfanperspective's Reviews

Poltergeist (1982)

10/10

Underrated; one of my all-time favorite films

22 May 2015

As a species, we odd beings known as humans mark the passage of time in a variety of odd ways. Some keep pictures, whereas others may travel to specific locations on an anniversary. Me? I watch certain films each year at particular times, for they either remind me of that time of year, were released at that time originally, or give me a general 'feeling' that can only come from being wrapped up in them. The original Poltergeist belongs in that category. It puts me in the mindset of a fall evening, when the howling, cool wind carries a bite that only a thin-skinned child can feel. It also calls back to a time when the nuances of a house frightened me, when I assumed that things going bump in the night were after me, and when the fear of being lost was tantamount to death itself. Directed by The Texas Chainsaw Massacre veteran Tobe Hooper, but crafted by Steven Spielberg (we can argue about that later), Poltergeist is a film that has affected me deeply in different ways at different points in my life. It remains one of the best films of the genre, darned near a masterpiece of spiritual and familial terror.

I was near the tender age of 5 when I first saw the film, as it aired on broadcast TV for the first time. For some unknown reason, my parents felt I was up for the experience. After all, it was rated PG; a rating that was clearly inaccurate for the terrors and occasional gore on-screen. However, Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom and the furor surrounding its' gore was still two years away, and thus the MPAA had yet to develop the PG-13 rating. I remember feigning my bravest face after it was over, wanting my parents to continue bestowing those special privileges upon me. Inside, my stomach churned. Like any child that dealt with a menacing-looking tree, static on an analog television, or a creepy stuffed animal their family thrust upon them, it was clear that Poltergeist spoke directly to me.

As I learned later in life, that may have been close to Spielberg's intention. Like E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial, released a week later in 1982, he framed this story through the lens of a child's experience. Children can be easily frightened by stuffed animals, or thunderstorms, dark closets, or even a misshapen tree. Parents generally try to assuage them, and over time they overcome those irrational fears. Poltergeist is intimately aware of those fears, and they're all systematically brought to life in the film. The scary tree will eat you, clowns are evil, and the closet literally will come after you. In this film, the cozy comforts of a friendly neighborhood and a cookie-cutter home cannot save you. From a parent's perspective, all the safeguards we build up around our children, all the rules about talking to strangers, the fears we allay in our kids- this film boots them to the side, praying on our "parent" brain as well. The film begins with that innocent, sweet tone, slowly lurking in the shadows to take everything precious and stomp on it.

Spielberg and crew made a smart, timely film that tore into the very fabric of baby boomers' suburban dreams. Representing the now aging demographic is Steven Freeling (Nelson). He's the consummate post- hippie salesman father, passively parenting his children, selling carbon copy real estate like an old pro, escaping in aggressive Sunday football parties and beers with the exuberance of a frat boy. His wife Diane (Williams), still riding that wave of hippie bliss, has yet to encounter her primal, maternal self at the beginning of the film. Perhaps it's the pot residue, but the most trying thing she seems to encounter are misplaced clothes and the death of the family bird. They're living the dream, or at least the Reaganomics version of the dream. Even their kids are cute and relatively well- behaved, if not also blissfully unaware. The dynamic can be summed up in a scene where Carol Anne (O'Rourke) is gently chided for staring at static on the screen for it will "hurt her eyes"; Diane changes the channel, apparently fine with the war film now on the tube instead. Oh, the irony!

Then it starts to happen. Carol Anne is caught talking to the 'TV people' in the dead of the night, the house appears to quake, and household objects move themselves. At first, Steven and Diane think it neat, like a trippy magic trick; then comes the menace of the trippy magic trick, the snatching of the 'WASP' dream. Carol Anne is taken somewhere, Robbie (Robins) is nearly devoured, and Dana (Dunne) is hysterical. Steven, against his beliefs, consults a parapsychology team at the local college. This motley crew, led by Dr. Lesh (Straight) and the odd, diminutive Tangina (Rubenstein), quickly learn that the Freeling's predicament far exceeds the excitement of a time-lapse video. In the span of fifteen minutes in the film, we go from seeing this relatively normal family deal with a standard, nighttime thunderstorm to being completely strung out in immeasurable grief, pleading with pseudo-science for assistance. This paranormal spirit that envelops the Freeling house succeeds in luring the family into a false sense of security, then it viscerally "breaks on through to the other side". What follows is a series of unexpected, thrilling, deeply moving scenes that play with the notions of life, death, instinct, and fear.

Read the full review here: http://filmfanperspective.com/2015/05/20/classic-film-review- poltergeist-1982/

4 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Hot Pursuit (2015)

4/10

Earnest, yet formulaic and bland 'comedy' (**)

22 May 2015

Full review here: http://filmfanperspective.com/2015/05/14/film- review-hot-pursuit/

Tell me if you've heard this before: a straight, overzealous law enforcement officer comes into a dangerous situation and must escort a quirky witness from point A to point B. If it sounds familiar, that's because the film has been done before. Ad nauseam. But oh, the hijinks! Be still my beating heart! Alas, I kid you- despite an honest effort (as usual) from Reese Witherspoon, combined with a perfunctory attempt to foist herself upon the comedic landscape by Sofia Vergara, Hot Pursuit is a tired, familiar viewing exercise. While I'm sure the principles involved had a hoot during filming, they forgot to provide much of anything to hold our attention, and assumed that tired stereotypes and also-ran clichés were fine stand- ins for actual fun.

Witherspoon is "Cooper", the daughter of a well-known and respected police officer in the sovereign state of Texas. She grew up riding in a squad car, learning police codes through the scanner, and becoming a thoroughly trained officer herself. An unfortunate incident involving a taser has left her not quite disgraced, but also not, well, 'graced' either. In staying true to 'cop movie' form, Cooper is ridiculed by her supposed brethren as she is relegated to the evidence room. In a not-so-surprising twist of fate (but not really, since there isn't a movie otherwise), her boss assigns her to a high-profile witness relocation mission. She is to accompany a FBI agent (Jones) to the home of Felipe Riva (Laresca), an important cog in the Vicente Cortez (Cosio) drug cartel, who is choosing to turn informant. Cooper's part in this is to escort Felipe's wife Daniella (Vergara), who wants to shove everything into her suitcase. She's high-maintenance, it appears, and insists on having things her way. This, of course makes it difficult for Cooper to do her job. Do I hear sitcom?

We don't have a movie if it's a group of four people, though. Cooper and Daniella escape a sticky situation when two separate groups of assailants attack the household. Now it's a road/buddy movie! These two sure do get into a whole bunch of shenanigans on their way to Dallas. First, they discover that there are (gasp) crooked cops! Then they lose their transportation. Then, of course, the straight-laced one gets all wacky after ingesting a banned substance. Then, there's some physical comedy involving Jim Gaffigan's awful stereotype of a rural Texan. But wait- there's more! There's a super hunky convict that takes a shine to Cooper, and we just know he's going to crack that shell of awkwardness. There's also more to Daniella than we may have originally thought. Cortez has killed her brother, or so we're led to believe, so the chickens will, in all likelihood, come home to roost.

Please do not mistake my blatant sarcasm as intentionally vicious. I don't hate this film, and for all intents and purposes, it isn't Adam Sandler-level offensive to my sensibilities. I would have gladly welcomed a fresh take from a new release comedy, however, especially considering how likable and convincing Reese Witherspoon can be in most any role. Hot Pursuit simply doesn't have the wherewithal to be fresh or new, especially when we consider that in the past few years, we've had multiple police comedies, usually pairing one straight-laced personality with an unpredictable one, or just a cop movie comedy in general. (See The Heat, 21 Jump Street, Ride Along, the Rush Hour films, Reno 911!, and even Let's Be Cops for examples) At this point, whatever humor exists that is inherent to the police trade has been covered to the nth degree. It's simply a tired formula that has seemingly bled out, and only gasps for life. I, for one, would like to officially call the time of death.

Oddly enough, the outtakes shown with the end credits outshine the film itself. We can see a distinct chemistry between the two stars, and their natural personalities are revealed. Now, if that magic could have been captured on-screen, we'd have something. Unfortunately, there is a humor deficit and familiarity with this film, which apparently forced the writers to rely on lazy cultural stereotypes and gross-out gags to generate laughs. Save for the staunchest of Witherspoon supporters, or perhaps those that can't seem to get enough "Modern Family", the film is wholly unnecessary. Actually, that thought leads to another- go watch "Modern Family", then pop in Walk the Line, Election, or Legally Blonde (if you're into that kind of thing) to get a better understanding of how these stars can make a project shine. Seek them out with a hot pursuit. See what I did there? I just made myself chuckle, a far greater accomplishment than I can credit to this film.

2 out of 36 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Ex Machina (2014)

10/10

Pure science fiction- so good that could be science fact (*****)

11 May 2015

Warning: Spoilers

Full version: http://filmfanperspective.com/2015/05/07/film-review- ex-machina/

Director Alex Garland, the writer of such science fiction fables as 28 Weeks Later and Sunshine, handles his first directorial charge with the hand of an old pro. As the title implies, the film deals in gods and monsters, and is never swift to identify which is which. The subtlety Garland and the cast play between beauty and menace results in a truly mesmerizing, smart fable for our time- well, for all time. The film is science fiction embodied, chock full of questions, precisely in the manner I prefer to digest it. As it wades in both the shallow waters of our societal and moral atmospheres, whilst simultaneously toeing the line between tension and horror, it stands as 2015's best thus far.

Domnhall Gleeson stars as Caleb, a programmer for a company called 'Bluebook'. We come to him as he's just won an exclusive trip to meet the company's founder and stay with him for a week. I imagine that would be like a Microsoft programmer spending a week with Bill Gates, whether that individual would want to or not. The fictional 'Bluebook', the world's preeminent search engine, was created by a mysterious, reclusive genius (is there any other) named Nathan (Isaac). By now, we know the type; disconnected, awkward, wealthy beyond our imaginations, and lonely. Nathan is indeed that, it appears, and wants Caleb to interact with his latest creation, a "female" android named Ava (Vikander).

We know that Ava is a robot because we can see her metal innards, exposed gears, coverings and all. If we were unable to see her interact with Caleb, however, would we be able to tell whether or not she was human? That's his dilemma, and a striking one at that. As the audience, we're given their dalliances like acts of a play, each separate in nature, each building upon the previous one in terms of depth, understanding, and tension level. Caleb is increasingly affected by her pleasantness, curiosity, and insight, leading to emotions he can't quite understand, including affection for her as a female. He begins to wonder what has transpired in this compound. Has Nathan, the creator, abused her? Does he keep her prisoner for any particular reason other than his own insecurities and misgivings? Does Nathan understand the responsibility of creating an intelligence, only to then repress its' growth?

Caleb's task, per Nathan, is simply to gauge whether or not Ava can pass for human, but it becomes clear early on that it will not, and cannot, be that simple. From their first chat until the film's final moment, everything Ava says and does is unpredictable, just like the film itself. Will she be child-like? Will she be motivated to evolve? Will she see humans as a threat? If she does, will she use brute force, or maybe even manipulation, to achieve that goal? Does Nathan have a "kill" switch in the event of an emergency? Why does Ava not appear to be programmed with a template of Asimov's Three Laws of Robotics? Is there a reason the film doesn't touch on them? Is everything that Ava says and does simply a result of programming, or has she actually transcended what she was intended to be? I hope you can tell that just by watching, the film inspires a number of interesting and difficult questions and thoughts. Garland writes this in a way that plays on our wonder of scientific possibility as well as our inherent fears of robots and the future. We can't help but question what happens and what doesn't happen during the film, creating a specific feeling of tension akin to horror. The film's location, in an isolated, constricting compound in the mountains that can only be reached via helicopter, only adds to the feeling of impending doom. The film's color palate adds to the feeling as well- the foggy, almost smoky wash when the camera is on a human, then clean and clear when focusing on an artificial being. Whether or not it was intentional, it certainly adds a dimension and a contrast to the film.

I'm fascinated with Garland's continued interest in the constructs of society, and how theoretical situations affect human beings in his work. In Sunshine, he sees an interesting dynamic within the pressures of saving humanity and our human natures. In 28 Days Later, he again puts human nature to the test in the wake of an apocalypse. Ex Machina is yet another test of our theoretical resolve, and I for one don't believe his result is far from the theoretical truth. As he put it himself, this film is designed to emulate a future not too far from now, maybe 'ten minutes out'. I wouldn't be surprised if there's a reclusive "Nathan" currently holed up somewhere with his own "Ava". For all we know, there may be robots walking among us. Maybe Garland knows this to be true. It is clear to me that he should continue telling stories, and continue to generate what all excellent science fiction does- questions. This is a film that truly belongs in the upper echelon of the genre, which is no small feat for a rookie filmmaker.

20 out of 44 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

The Gunman (2015)

5/10

Sean Penn's 80s Stallone/Schwarzenegger flick

5 May 2015

An all-too-familiar feeling surrounds director Pierre Morel's latest film The Gunman. As the saying goes, familiarity does occasionally breed contempt. I cannot recommend The Gunman to you, but by acknowledging my contempt, I should be fair in saying that it is not a bad film. The performances are steady, the pacing is fine, the foreign locales are well shot, and the action is tightly edited. We've just seen this film too often, so we neither need, nor should we want for this film.

Sean Penn stars as Jim Terrier, a mercenary-for-hire with a heart of gold (aren't they always?). Penn is another quinquagenarian (yes, of course I looked up the word) trying his hand at an action role, but I sincerely do not believe it was for that reason alone. It's clear to see why Penn was attracted to the role, as it's laced with a potent whiff of liberal guilt, topped with a crème fouettée of extreme anguish (yes, I looked up crème fouettée also). When the film begins, he's basically a hit-man, doing bad things, with little to no thought on the moral complications, and voraciously loving a woman (Jasmine Trinca). Typical man (amiright, ladies?). He's clearly in love with this woman as well, but stays true to the ol' mercenary code and walks away after killing the "Minister of Mining" in the Congo.

We meet up with him eight years later in a different state, working to basically right what he hath wrought. Hell, as it is wont to do, comes to breakfast for Jim, as he's targeted while on one of his humanitarian missions. Scared stiff, he seeks out his mercenary brethren to warn them, then kill the killers before they kill him. Two of his former mates have already been offed, while the third (Mark Rylance) and fourth (Javier Bardem) are running their own multinational companies. Rylance's character is befuddled with Jim's story, and gives half-hearted assurances that he'll look into it (which, of course, tells the audience that we should be leery). Bardem's character, on the other hand, has wedded Jim's former flame, and immediately gets on the defensive with him. We know he's bad news, because he's Javier Bardem.

Luckily for Jim, he's got a pal he can rely on. If I asked you which actor was cast for the role of "trusty yet seedy English sidekick on the inside", you'd guess Ray Winstone, right? Of course you would, and the film doesn't disappoint. He even has a perfect trusty sidekick name in Stanley. Jim, and the plot, need Stanley to get 'another job', which will inject him into the situation so he can find out why he has been targeted after all this time. Of course, with international murder mysteries, we must have Interpol show up at some point, and that's where Special Agent Awesome (Idris Elba, on-screen for all of three minutes) comes in, patiently waiting for the mercs to kill each other before he swoops in to catch the survivors in the act. It's all very standard and not very interesting.

If could call attention to one special item in regards to this production, it is Bardem. For what seems like the umpteenth time now, he plays a role in which the character suffers some sort of massive bodily injury, contemplates or tempts death, or in which his visage is horrifically altered. It pains me to think of why he continues to accept roles like this, and for that matter, appears to enjoy them. I wonder why I haven't sensed this before, but join me in reflection, dear reader: No Country For Old Men, The Sea Inside, Love In The Time Of Cholera, Skyfall, The Counselor, and now The Gunman. The man clearly enjoys seeing himself maimed, harmed, or in decay. You could say I'm done being excited about seeing him in films, at least until his Danse Macabre is finished already.

It sounds like I hate this, but I truly don't. The film doesn't offend, and is made with a deft action hand. Therein lies the issue, however. As a tried and true formula action picture, it exists with the Bournes and Bonds and Takens that came before it; I'm going to forget this one, though. I may have already. Without a single memorable line, moment, or exuberance of charisma from any character, it would take a great deal of faith or fandom in Sean Penn or Bardem to truly remember it. It simply exists, much like the Taken franchise does, but with a better actor in charge. Wait, I remembered something- when I'm a quinquagenarian, I want my veins to pop out of my skin like Penn's do here. I'll have what he's having.

9 out of 28 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Oculus (2013)

3/10

Are you afraid of the big, bad, evil-bronze rubbed stained mirror? (*1/2)

5 May 2015

"You see what you want to see"– tagline for "Oculus"

If the above tagline made any sense to you, more power to you. Mirrors have the capacity to bring forth a myriad of emotions from those gazing upon them. From a single view, we can generate everything in our minds from self-doubt, vanity, horror, and even wonder. That being the case, I'm surprised it took this long for the horror genre attempt something preposterous about a mirror, as it seems ripe for the picking. Go figure, "Oculus" exists, if for no better reason than to give young people something to do on a weekend. It doesn't have much to say, and when it does, it is vague and non-sensical. Despite a fine visual sensibility and a smattering of palpable tension, "Oculus" just doesn't yield anything revelatory, and at times is simply maddening.

'Doctor Who' alum Karen Gillan stars as the adult version of Kaylie, and her character is introduced looking rather smugly at a mirror she appears to have located at an auction house. We'll ignore the fact that her employment at said auction house is a convenient way for the script to explain her acquisition, as well as provide her an understanding husband (Ryan) who just happens to run the place. This mirror, with Gothic arches, serpentine decor, and an obvious 'Evil-Rubbed Bronze' stain, is an ominous-looking artifact. The sinister nature of the its' appearance is a dead giveaway that it has an ulterior motive other than, say, hanging on a wall.

Keeping in mind the motives of inanimate objects, let's examine the capacity of a mirror to be creepy, and perhaps we can discern whether or not this movie's premise itself is "ridoculus" (see what I did there?). When I was younger, I saw mirrors three ways: 1) a reflective surface that was literally a framing device to develop my self- image, 2) a playground for my imagination, as I envisioned a 'world' behind the mirror, and 3) a horrific homeland for monsters and demons, particularly due to the "Bloody Mary" myth perpetuated by older friends and relatives. Does "Oculus" feel like exploring any of that territory?

Of course not, for the mirror in this film has some kind of supernatural power. Those that gaze upon it are 'influenced' (not quite possessed) to carry out horrific deeds for the mirror. Here's the odd part- the mirror can apparently materialize into a physical presence as well, that humans can interact with, and the kids in this film actually see. It leads to an obvious question- why in the world would a supernatural presence have another body take care of what it could do all by itself? It's a good example of why this film doesn't work, for the script provides no motivation or origin for the mirror's nefarious behavior, or scientific reason for it's existence; therefore there are no rules, simply tired devices to advance the plot. In the likely sequels to follow, the writers will be forced to concoct an explanation out of the illogical mess they've created.

Back to the "story"- Kaylie is determined to get back at this inanimate object, so much so that she involves her brother Tim (Thwaites). I have a problem with this: the film shows these two siblings directly involved in the grisly death of their parents, then only reveals that one (Tim) has been hospitalized. Then, upon Tim's release eleven years later, Kaylie immediately involves him in her plan to return to their old home and destroy this mirror that was apparently responsible for their parent's fates. The movie could stop right here, as a healthy Tim would reject his sister's plot for revenge if he was, in fact, healthy. It also bears mentioning that Kaylie, as disturbed as she might also be, doesn't seem to consider her brother's well-being at all. In one step, the film shows us a pair of very close siblings that experienced something terrible, then in the next breath she's dragging him back into the fray and ostensibly risking both of their lives. These siblings aren't as in tune as the movie might suggest- at one point while 'documenting' the mirror's evils, they specifically tell each other to stay together the rest of the time they are in their old house. The very next scene? They split up.

This is a good looking movie, capably made and all. There are even a couple of reasonably tense moments, and the score is a fine companion piece. As an entire film, however, it just doesn't work. I wonder if the filmmakers originally started with a story about perception, and the way we view ourselves, or (this is a stretch) perhaps a larger parable about children and the collateral damage of divorce, but ended up with a cheap horror movie. The latter is the more likely of the two. "Oculus" makes up rules to advance the story, gives us characters that make odd decisions, and even the film's centerpiece (a killer mirror, oh my!) is given no logical origin or purpose for existence. Even the plot device that seems logical is goofed- the story spends time setting up cameras, computers, and routines to prove the existence of spiritual wrongdoing, but oddly enough, within its' own framework cannot prove it. It's the blind leading the blind. I found myself disliking the film exceedingly more as I took the time to organize my thoughts for this review. Perhaps that's a disservice to the project, and maybe my more immediate reactions would have produced a more favorable result and a fairer assessment. Perhaps it's just a bad film, masquerading as a serious psychological thriller.

7 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Under the Skin (I) (2013)

9/10

A haunting science fiction fable that rewards patience (****1/2)

5 May 2015

Some films, regardless of their quality, just haunt you- not in the traditional sense, but rather in the way that it lingers in your mind. Maybe it's a stunning visual, a rousing piece of music, a bravura performance, or even the moment in your life that the film finds you, but something latches on and doesn't let go. All of those examples apply to director Jonathan Glazer's "Under The Skin", which defies categorization, for it lacks a traditional narrative. It is neither a science fiction nor a horror film- in fact, one might be hard pressed to even label it as a 'film' that one goes to 'see'. Instead, it is more of an experience, or a feeling- a nearly two-hour dream sequence, equal parts nightmare and erotica, with an extra-terrestrial predator (I guess?) as the central figure. Despite the occasional lull, "Under The Skin" is a sinister symphony of a film, wholly unique and engrossing.

The opening scene, is, wellsomething, for I can only provide an interpretation of what it entails. We are taken through a portal of sorts, as if enveloped by the imagery on-screen, as we hear a human female voice sounding out words that she most certainly has never spoken before. The camera moves out to reveal an eye, coupled with a familiar face, faded out to a familiar body. We know this figure to be Scarlett Johansson, but oddly enough there appears to be two of her. One is prone and immobile on the floor, while the other studies from above. What has happened here? The simplest explanation is that the steely figure above (the film calls her "Laura") has 'copied' the stunned figure below, and will now go forward with 'her' purpose.

That purpose appears to be the systemic seduction of hapless young males for nefarious reasons. The chilly, damp villages and countrysides of Scotland become the perfect setting for this monster, who uses what she has gathered of human sexuality to lure men to her. Interestingly enough, "Laura" doesn't just want any testosterone-crazed fool; instead, she wants those that are relatively unattached, men who won't necessary be 'missed'. This story recognizes the traits of an effective predator, and together with Johansson's brilliant portrayal as a cool hunter and a warm soul, creates "Laura" as such. She gives her would-be victims just enough to be not only convinced of her intentions, but also the confidence to feel safe in doing so. In other words, she lets these men basically do the work for her- and the unnerving ritual begins.

One particular would-be victim, a gentleman with a facial disfigurement, seems to affect "Laura", to the point where she lures him to the trap, but cannot complete the deed. At this point, the film seems to want to play with the idea of the 'human experience', and shows "Laura" viewing herself in a mirror (ok, not herself, but her borrowed human skin). From that moment, she attempts some basic human activities, and oddly enough, it appears to send her reeling. Advanced she may be as an extra-terrestrial, but she cannot process the sensations. What does this mean? Does the film want to reaffirm humanity as a unique, viable species despite our shortcomings (walking into danger for sex, violence, etc)? Perhaps her reactions are simply the filmmakers need to explore how an alien might feel. I cannot be sure, but I like the result.

The science fiction sap in me kept wanting to ask more questions. Why are these aliens doing this? What is that opaque nightmare composed of? How do these creatures solve the problem of our atmosphere? Who is the motorcycle man who appears to direct "Laura" through some sort of empathic connection? This film is smarter than that, and in the process shows off some science fiction skills; by alluding to, but never directly answering, the solutions to these questions, we're left to ponder them in our minds, a surefire way to keep a film in your mind.

It is entirely possible that those of you reading this may see the film and come away with entirely different feelings than I. Some may see this for what I do- a jarring ball of creepy. Others may fall asleep, or come away from it desperately wanting to accost me for recommending it. Others may walk out of the theater (I counted multiple departures in the theater I was at). It's that kind of film, or experience, if you will. No matter which side of the aisle you find yourself on, one thing is for certain- it will stick with you, for better or worse. There is enough unnerving and beautiful imagery, jolting arcs in the score with a sinister undertone, and genuinely tense moments that lead me to declare that Glazer and crew have managed to successfully and intelligently create something that can do what few films can claim- have an effect on an audience long after they've viewed it. I'd even venture a guess that the filmmakers, even Scarlett Johansson, would be more interested in hearing how their film made you feel as opposed to your final opinion. Myself? I can't imagine forgetting this one. It made me feelickyin a good way.

3 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Captain America: The Winter Soldier (2014)

9/10

Marvel's best film is also their most daring (****1/2)

5 May 2015

Warning: Spoilers

Until now, Marvel's high-water mark had been 2012's "The Avengers", a slick, brilliant achievement in movie-making that actually lived up to the hype. Since then, this universe (groundbreaking as it may be) has been uninspiring. The mild amusement of "Iron Man 3″ coupled with the sub par "Thor: The Dark World" led me to wonder if the franchise had lost its' mojo. Considering the lackluster ratings for the tie-in TV show 'Marvel's Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.', it wasn't hard for me to suspect that the best this group had to offer might be behind us.

Fortunately, "Captain America: The Winter Soldier" Marvel's best offering. It deserves praise as an excellent film as well, reinvigorating the entire 'Avengers' universe. To paraphrase the Captain himself, take away the suits from this film, and what do we have? A fantastical surprise- a spy thriller, a political potboiler of a story (in the vein of a '70s paranoia film), and a topical, dark, cautionary tale. Oh yeah, and a glorious action spectacle.

When we left Steve Rogers (Evans), he had just finished leading a motley crew of heroes to victory in New York over an army of aliens, then closing a portal to another dimension. One can imagine that any subsequent mission might seem mundane, but the mundane is what the Captain prefers- he just happens to be inundated with super soldier serum. The Captain has settled into his role as Nick Fury's (Jackson) lead dog, but he has grown weary of S.H.I.E.L.D.'s increase in power, and weary of Fury's excuses for having said power. The two have mutual respect for each other as soldiers, but sit on different ends of the ideological spectrum. Fury's distrust of people has brought him success; Captain America's distrust in those who distrust people has brought him a modicum of the same. Fury believes people might just need to be protected from themselves, whereas the Captain stands firm on the idea that any sacrifice of freedom is not right.

The film allows their conflict to spill out on-screen, as the two career soldiers are forced to test their beliefs when a mysterious assassin targets S.H.I.E.L.D. and its' agents. As Black Widow (Johansson) explains, this ghost of a bad guy is the stuff of legend. This legend is responsible for many of the world's top 'hits' over the past 50 years, and she should know- Natasha did, after all, tell us that she has red on her ledger. The question, of course, is who this emo-cyborg is that keeps showing up to bring the pain, and how much this 'Winter Soldier' might mean to Captain America. While not a groundbreaking comic film antagonist, the Winter Soldier is given a fine arc, bolstered with an effective flashback scene, further enriching our understanding of their special bond. He's a righteous opponent for Captain America- both a physical equal and an emotional test.

The assassin's appearance actually sparks the arrival of a greater evil, the onus for the film's ever-present tension. Nick Fury sensed this through his prescient understanding of the world's rhythms; well, as Gloria Estefan warned us, the rhythm is gonna get you. Fury is pursued in a scene that rivals the greatest street fights and car chases in film history, and sparks the plot. The resulting chaos forces our heroes to become fugitives, hunted from every angle by those they worked alongside and trusted until they learn of the real plan. Without revealing anything crucial, I can say that the script provides appropriate reasons for the treachery, and when viewed as an entire story, brings the 'Avengers' arc to a precipitous and revelatory head. It's a risky, game-changing decision, bold enough to earn my highest marks, in that it 1) makes sense, and 2) provides real danger to all our heroes- even the ones not in this film.

I imagine it's also apropos to mention that the good Captain (and Chris Evans) finally gets a chance to stretch his legs as a character here. His 'power' seems more tangible here, and he gets the chance to actually portray some depth, and (gasp) maybe even find a date. He does end up finding a trusted friend and worthy peer in Sam Wilson (Anthony Mackie), a former paratrooper who now spends his time counseling vets dealing with post-war stress. Sure, the plot needs him, but it was easy to buy Wilson as a peer, for he appears to be much like the Captain- just short of superhero abilities, in which the film finds comedy. Wilson is an important character in comics- not simply because of his abilities, but because his alter ego 'Falcon' (adapted well here to fit a modern context) turned out to be the first African-American superhero in major comics. The script gives this character a sensible role in this universe, one that is likely to expand. The film even allows for Black Widow to aspire for more than simply a super-spy; she's vulnerable, clearly shaken by the film's events, and we discover the odd understanding from opposite ends of the spectrum between herself and the Captain.

When comic books are at their best, the story reflects our society in a specific way, channeling the zeitgeist. Sure, the artwork is wonderful and occasionally iconic, but it is the topical, relevant, and reflective nature of the stories that people remember most. This film resembles the best of those comics, in that it brings some rather obvious real-world issues to the forefront. Think about it- do we expect comic films to touch on the idea of sacrificing freedom for protection, and then have characters figure out that morality on- screen (with respects to "The Dark Knight")? What about the manipulation of our personal data into future projections of ability? The brainwashing and torture of POWs? See what I mean? This is no Saturday morning cartoon.

5 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Noah (2014)

5/10

Noah as a superhero (**1/2)

5 May 2015

It is important to note that I have no grounds to critique the historical accuracy or inaccuracy of a Bible story. Suffice to say, I'm familiar enough with the idea of the ark, Noah, animals furry and slimy, and scripture that I can at least have a frame of reference. The thought of an actual Hollywood production of this story seems a bit preposterous- with varying viewpoints, faith-based opinions, and a lack of pure evidence to reference, a representation of such a fantastical story would have to be taken for what it is, conjecture.

The question, then, is whether or not "Noah" accomplishes the mission to be a competent, consistent film, conjecture be damned- and my answer is a soft 'no'. It has the ambition of a blockbuster, but none of the joy. It has the tenacity to be provocative, but lacks the conviction required for deeper meaning. It is thoughtful, but not wholly religious. It strives for authenticity, then allows for silliness. All of these inconsistencies might generally doom a film, but "Noah" isn't a complete failure- simply an incomplete and confusing undertaking. It's a blockbuster film from an independent filmmaker, and it just doesn't work.

Most know the story, but I digress. Noah (Crowe, in a performance you'd likely expect), per the Old Testament, was an obedient man. So obedient, in fact, that God chose him as the deliverer of all innocent creatures- for He so loved people that He decided to kill 99.9% of us and 'cleanse' the Earth. A task so grandiose would call for a steadfast servant, and Noah was indeed that man. A direct descendant of Seth, one of Adam and Eve's children, Noah possessed the pure-of-heart genealogy that made him ideal for God's task, and set him apart from others in his time. The film depicts him as a decent but sad man, weary of outsiders (descendants of Cain and Abel) that seem to be driven simply by chaos.

We understand through the narrative that Noah is part of the tenth generation of man, a population that had clearly lost touch with their creator. This film also tells us that despite our youth as a species, we were apparently quite advanced- we could manufacture vast amounts of weaponry, grasp the nuances of hand-to-hand combat, speak with distinguished English accents, and give birth in soggy, animal- infested environments with little to no consequence (or medicine). We also walked the Earth in the presence of fallen angels, who apparently became prehistoric transformers as part of their plight. A select few of us apparently had God-like powers as well, which begs the question- why believe in a creator when you don't need one?

Therein lies the problem with "Noah"- the film simply cannot commit. It begins bombastically, then depicts humanity as primitive and savage. Then it introduces mysticism. Then Noah and his family are helpless, but then the next moment they have God to bankroll their actions. Then humans are incapable of behaving humanely, thus 'proving' why they deserved death, I suppose. Then they are inspired by a single menacing guy (Winstone) to intricately organize a massive assault on Noah's ark and provide an unnecessary antagonist. Furthermore, the very moment Noah can prove his obedience beyond a shadow of a doubt, to truly affect the future of the human race as he was tasked to do- he cannot, for he is weak. It's the same type of weakness that millions were punished for. The moment disproves the notion that Noah was indeed special, for how can the chosen messenger be the chosen messenger if he disobeys a direct order? We'll never know. I'd say the filmmakers were making a statement about faith, free will, or human nature, but the rest of the film is jumbled just enough that I cannot say for sure either way.

As a technical achievement, however, "Noah" has few rivals. The ark, for one, is a thing to behold. For that matter, most effects in this film, especially those involved with the flood, are stunning. When the rains come, and the water flows, it is swift and frenzied to the point where I became immediately sold that nothing land-based could survive. As the ark becomes a mobile vessel, the film's most powerful moment, enhanced by CGI, takes place. A 'mound' of people, crawling over each other to escape the rising waters,writhes in fear, creating one of the more terrifying scenes in recent memory. Imagining how Noah and his family must have felt hearing the carnage outside was humbling. If the rest of the film carried the same weight as that scene, we'd have something. Director Darren Aronofsky ("Black Swan") understands that weight- in fact, his "Requiem For A Dream" was so heavy that I cannot bear to see it again. He seemed to understand the need for a steady theme and tone, which makes this film even more confusing.

I'm aware that I may be attempting to interpret this film too literally, but please do not misunderstand- I gather that the film is asking us to take the story on faith, and perhaps take something away from it to bolster said faith. That doesn't excuse its' faults, nor will I ignore its' merits. Despite being an inconsistent film lacking a true identity, I found myself appreciating a variety of moments. I simply wanted the film to embrace something, to be that movie that tries to interpret the language of the time, the fighting style of the time, the brutal, primitive nature of the first round of humans. "Noah" is certainly not a complete failure. Rather, it is a fine case study on how a filmmaker with the movie-making soul of an independent created a studio-appeasing blockbuster so he can continue making movies with an independent soul.

0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

As the Palaces Burn (2014)

8/10

An engrossing documentary that transcends the subject (****)

5 May 2015

When I was younger, I viewed metal music as dangerous- something the angry, mischievous kids listened to, and thus I stayed away. Later, I found that I couldn't digest it as music; it was too much for me- I only heard unstructured sounds and silly growling. Here we are, in March of 2014, and I had remained ambivalent- perhaps until now. I was clueless to who 'Lamb of God' was, nor did I recognize any songs, despite the band having had the #2 charting album quite recently. According to this documentary, they're a metal heavyweight, standing shoulder to shoulder with the likes of Megadeth and Metallica- not that I knew any better. "As The Palaces Burn" had the unlikely task of enlightening me to a side of music I had dismissed, simply due to a lack of understanding. I'm pleased to report that it succeeded, not just in re-educating me, but also the way it deftly handles a complete swing in tone.

Vocalist Randy Blythe's intro lays the framework for what this documentary tries to tell us over the first half, i.e. the purpose of metal music in people's lives, and the extent to which Lamb of God is responsible for that. We're introduced to a couple of 'die-hard' fans from different cultures, and the way they explain their affection for this music is unexpected. Their love appears to come not just from the music itself, but also a need to release aggression, to purge unhealthy feelings, and the desire to belong to something. Listening to a young Columbian cab driver spoke volumes- he thinks about "getting out a machete and start cutting off heads", but he puts in the music and he feels better.

That mindset may seem on the verge of sociopathic behavior, but in this context it seems reasonable. Music has always been an organic, healthy outlet for people; it has a way of bringing focus and peace to minds constantly barraged by negativity. "As the Palaces Burn" lends credence to the thought that there exists a healthy connection between the angst and energy of metal and the fans who crave it to release their own. After all, it stands to reason that if the lyrics come from a place of hurt, desperation, and anger, it will likely resonate with many a person. That's a fascinating angle that I hadn't considered before, and a welcome thought indeed.

If I told you that's simply what the documentary was about, you might think it was perfectly fine as is. However, we're led down an entirely different path as the band reaches the Czech Republic for a leg of their tour- a path the film had to explore, and it becomes the crux of the experience. Fans familiar with the band know the story, but allow me to illuminate those in the dark- as they landed, the band was detained. Why? Back in 2010, as was alleged, a fan died as a result of injuries sustained 'leaping' from the stage at a Lamb of God concert in Prague. The prosecution alleged that Randy Blythe was partially responsible for this, and thus charged him with manslaughter- later he was indicted.

If your first reaction was 'what?', you're on the right track. We'll need to put aside the fact that a human being did die, a young man and fan of the band to boot- that's clearly sad enough. What's interesting for our purposes is the legal situation itself. The documentary does a commendable job of intertwining the emotional journey of Blythe through this process and the guts of putting a real defense together, all laid out before our eyes. As an American just familiar enough with our legal system to get by, I could easily spot the holes in the prosecution's case. However, I also know of the danger in allowing foreign courts, with all the uncertainty, to decide the fate of an American. The end result might seem perfunctory- but be it by accident or not, the filmmakers were able to craft this unfortunate court case to the tune of a perfectly adept legal thriller.

I commend the film for getting through to me as a non-fan of the genre, and furthermore for deftly weaving our new-found intimate knowledge of the band with a messy overseas legal scenario. It's honest, forthright, and unflinching as it reveals to us the band's personal demons along with the celebration of their triumphs and successes. We see the band for who they are- talented musicians with varied backgrounds who managed to put something special together, and nearly lost it. What we may take for granted, as fans, is that bands are families too; non-traditional, perhaps, but families nonetheless. The threat of losing a family member long- term had to weigh on the group, especially if you consider how unfair the entire situation seemed. On top of that, think of something like this happening to, let's admit it, a 'more popular band'. Take N-Sync at the height of their popularity, or Beyonce. I never heard of this particular incident involving Lamb of God, but a major American band had a member detained in a jail– my guess is that we'd break Twitter again if Beyonce was put behind bars. Luckily this documentary exists to tell us what happened.

If there is one negative to take away from this, I'd say the lack of immediate reaction from the band, or the failure to capture what was likely more visceral disbelief in Blythe's imprisonment is slightly disappointing. I imagine that out of respect for the young man who lost his life, some stronger commentary existed, but it's not for our eyes. That's hardly a damning statement, for this is still a very well- done documentary- tense and informative, even enlightening for this metal rookie.

7 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Non-Stop (2014)

6/10

Taken On A Plane (***)

5 May 2015

Warning: Spoilers

There may come a day when Liam Neeson can no longer play the same (or similar) role over and over and get away with it. Today is not that day. He's the sensitive yet menacing lead that audiences have warmed up to again and again ("Taken", "The Grey") . He's a down- to-earth god ("Clash of the Titans"), a war captain ("Battleship"), and even a benevolent yet rebellious Jedi ("Star Wars, Episode I"). He's the go-to guy for films that need a front man who audiences trust to not be too risqué, yet deliver on chops. His latest action-fest "Non-Stop" happens to be a generic film, and I liked it more than I should have. I attribute that almost entirely to Neeson's presence, and the expectations that now come with it.

Neeson plays Bill Marks, a troubled, weary, alcoholic federal air marshal. I'm sure the United States government chooses nothing but top-notch candidates to be air marshals, but I'm also sure that many of them are likely worn out by their jobs. Bill sure is worn out by his, or perhaps it's because of his life (does it matter?). However, he keeps on keepin' on, albeit with a swig of booze beforehand. His latest flight is from London to New York (how's that for foreshadowing?), and luckily for him, he gets to sit right next to Julianne Moore. After all, if you're going to take a transatlantic flight, can it at least be next to her? She'd probably be game for a deep soul-searching chat, right? The problem here is that we know her, and if something goes awry, how can we not expect her to be involved? I'm sure this violates one of Roger Ebert's 'Movie Laws'.

I digress, for something does go awry once the flight is airborne, and we must get to that. Bill receives a disturbing message (spoiler alert- it's not Brett Favre's dick) on his phone threatening to kill someone on the plane every 20 minutes unless, you got it, money is deposited to a special account. Bill has a secure phone, so whomever is texting him threats must really be, well, threatening. Even worse, people begin to actually die, so somehow someone is sending him messages and making this all happen. Bill knows the lead stewardess (Dockery), and enlists her and Julianne Moore to watch everyone on camera to see who answers their text. This creates the air of suspicion, distracting us from the real troublemaker.

This film tries so hard to throw the audience off the scent by throwing in just enough recognizable character actors to generate reasonable doubt. It basically works, for at one point during the film I eliminated everyone on the plane from being culpable, and began to consider even spiritual angles. Bravo, plot. It's a contrived scenario, simply just to be contrived. I actually started thinking back to Occam's Razor (all things considered, the simplest explanation is likely the correct one). If only I'd begun with that, and went with my gut feeling that the one responsible was, in fact, responsible. After all, "Non-Stop" wasn't interested in changing the action-thriller game. All the usual suspects for a functional whodunit are present, and while effective, doesn't blow our minds.

Sure, the ending is unsatisfying, hammy, and abrupt. Sure, the would-be terrorist's reasoning is unoriginal, selfish, and delivered in typical 'villain reveals all motives for no reason' fashion. Sure, there's another angle the filmmakers could have gone with regarding post 9/11 paranoia, or the loneliness of people who live in the air. Sure, it's not ground-breaking. I really should hate this film for taking me on another unnecessary action-thriller ride, but I just cannot bring myself to do so. It's banality is just so complete, and I can't help but wonder- was Liam Neeson was really the only thing I drew me to enjoy this movie? The answer is basically yes, and that's fine. I would probably enjoy watching Liam Neeson simply sit on a flight and make strained facial gestures for 2 hours. Really, who needs a film where he takes charge of a flight and hunts down a terrorist? In fact, maybe I should write that script. (Better get to it before Michael Bay or Luc Besson does)

0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Divergent (2014)

4/10

Ironically, nothing 'divergent' about the film (**)

5 May 2015

Warning: Spoilers

If you find yourself lost in the apparent endless sea of similarly themed young adult novels & movies these days, please allow me to join you in your malaise. Sifting through the titles can easily become annoying, as it is chock-full of semi-colons and non-sensical word pairings (i.e. "The Mortal Instruments: City of Bones"- huh?). Imagine my relief when I first learned that "Divergent", based on the first in a trilogy of novels, only had one word to remember for each book. How refreshing!

Combined with the dual casting of young Shailene Woodley (brilliant in "The Descendants" but restricted here) and Kate Winslet (trying her best to keep a straight face), I allowed a modicum of hope to creep in my head for this project. Perhaps this would be the one young adult adaptation up to the task of legitimizing the genre, thus allowing discerning audiences to take it seriously. Try as it may, "Divergent" struggles mightily to make logical sense, drags on for an eternity, and leaves us scratching our heads in befuddlement. Ironically, this offers very little in the way of deviation, or divergence, if you will, from its' genre predecessors.

Please allow me to illustrate, for it is the crux of the film's failure. Strong, free-spirited heroine that can't be held back by the constricts of society? Check. Token description of a brutal, world-changing 'war' with no resonance or background? Check. Dystopian future with a factionalized society convinced to the point of law that human nature is the enemy? Check. Mysterious absence of babies or seniors? Check. Initially misunderstood, controversial hunk turned sensitive, wounded lover? Check. Hushed references to life beyond a 'wall' that is never explored, much to our bewilderment? Check. Young people required to perform adult actions without the film lending the gravity that those moments require? Check.

There are more, but I'll spare the reader additional sarcasm. What I mean to point out is the film's sincere lack of any fresh ideas or believability, despite its' protestations that the ideas it presents are clearly a big deal. How can we take the 'test' seriously when we aren't given the slightest dose of scientific reasoning behind it? Shoot, even if it's an awful "Jurassic Park" half-hearted version of an explanation, at least give us something. For that matter, how can the 'test' be so important in determining where one belongs, yet the individual still has the ability to choose their destiny? Is the plot telling us that free will is an illusion? Does the plot know what it's telling us? How can we buy that heroine Tris (Woodley) is able to wake from an unconscious stupor to catch up with a speeding train thirty minutes after Four (James) tells us she has "no muscles"?

It would be preferable to take the film on its' own merits, and not allow silly things like logic, science, or cynicism to cloud my judgment. After all, it does appear that films like this are critic-proof; they simply need to satisfy fans of the source material, quality be damned. For fairness purposes, please consider that I gave the film a shot to impress. In fact, one particular scene struck my fancy, nudging me in the direction of satisfaction. On the eve of "Choosing Day", the Prior family (Tris, her twin brother Caleb (Elgort), and her parents) shares a few quiet, tender, tense moments as Ellie Goulding's entrancing "Hanging On" plays into the next scene. In this, I sensed the filmmakers deciding to elevate the source material and create a more human film.

Alas, 'tis but a fleeting moment, for the film nosedives into the typical immediately afterward. Tris goes against the grain and chooses "Dauntless", quite possibly the most awkward-sounding, goofy name for a faction ever created. We're treated to scene after scene after scene of training, training, training, with nothing particularly cool, noteworthy, or original to speak of. All the while, this Chicago- based society (where is the rest of the world???) is trying to eliminate 'divergent' minds. Conveniently (lazily), divergent Tris is tested by the one government-sanctioned tester that's sympathetic, or we wouldn't have a movie, I suppose. Think about this, though- murdering someone who doesn't conform is a cold, ruthless, interesting, albeit unoriginal science-fiction premise. This isn't the type of film that wants to understand or explore those big ideas, unfortunately.

In the time that has passed since viewing "Divergent", I've actually grown more weary and less accepting of the film. Maybe I'm just tired of the genre's attention. Perhaps I'm raw that the far superior weekend release ("Muppets Most Wanted") will garner less box office and less audience affection. The likely truth is that I've grown more weary of 'products' marketed as films, especially in this particular genre. When there's nothing new to take from the experience, and I feel like I'm simply contributing to the greenlight of a sequel, it's an empty feeling. Whether it's Gryffindor, District 12, or 'Dauntless', it's all starting to run together for me.

"Divergent", like others before it, and presumably more to follow, simply offers a structured way to package an entire entertainment experience in a consumable bundle, masquerading as a moving parable for our time. In the end, I feel less like having just seen a film, and more like I just got swindled by a used car salesman. It's confusing, illogical, lacking in chemistry, and just doesn't mean anything. Presumably, those familiar with the novels but somehow not bewildered by this film will inform me that I shall 'understand' by the end. Frankly, I can't imagine caring less what happens to these characters. Give me the story of those living outside the wall, or the likely interesting and complicated series of events that lead up to the film, and I might just be on board. This? There's nothing remotely 'divergent' about it.

0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

The Lego Movie (2014)

5/10

Well-intentioned, but over-caffeinated and not funny enough.

5 May 2015

It is likely that at some point you have put together a LEGO set, or at least sat in a doctor's office as a child and fiddled with "Duplo" blocks. The innovate building toy has been around for over 60 years in various incarnations, and over time has become ingrained in our culture- so much so that the licensed lines are commonplace. With licensing came comics, innovative and fun video games, and alas, short and full-length films. A feature-length film is really a culmination of years of success coming to a head. While not an entirely empty excuse to rake in more cash, "The LEGO Movie" falls short. At best it brings forth a few guffaws, and at worst it's pun overkill, forced emotion, and boredom.

Please, allow me to 'build' my case 'brick by brick' (see, I can do pun humor too!). Until the first "LEGO Star Wars" video game arrived in 2004, I was blasé about the brand. The gameplay was immensely enjoyable, and the cut scenes interspersed between levels were light and humorous. Additional "LEGO" games were made, each seemingly more unique than the previous one. This led to the creation of short films, beginning in the "Star Wars" universe, and they've been excellent- made with the right balance of pun humor and quirky fun for adults and children. Like any good farcical comedy, the creators turned the subject on its' head, poking fun at the material whilst revering it. The entire LEGO media experience has been rewarding for myself and my child until now. Everything was awesome (see the film to understand that statement).

Keeping that in mind, you'd think it would be a drop in the bag that I'd enjoy this immensely, but that's not the case. I can't help but compare "The LEGO Movie" to everything else the company has put out thus far, and in comparison, it doesn't hold up. The story is pretty straightforward- Emmet (Pratt) is a 'regular guy' who literally falls into an interesting situation. Adventurous Wyldstyle/Lucy (Banks) sees him as the 'special'- the one meant to overthrow malicious "Lord Business" (Ferrell) and keep him from permanently gluing everything together. Of course, that's just the WORST for LEGO figures, as they love to build. There's also a blind shaman/wizard (Freeman) guiding Emmet, and somehow he teams with Batman (Arnett) and a host of other random mini-figures (including Han Solo and crew?) to stop the 'lord' from doing his 'business'. See what I did there again?

None of this is silly through the eyes of a child, however. The viewing I saw was chock full of cheering little ones. The frenetic nature of the film may be a big draw to those kids, but it just wore me out, to the point of restlessness. Maybe it had something to do with the 'stop-motion' style of animation. Maybe it was just the hyperactivity of the plot, or the way that certain characters spoke. Maybe I'm getting old enough that these kinds of things finally hit me, and I've turned the corner. It would be easier if I could say the film was dull, that I didn't laugh at all, or that it was an empty enterprise.

None of that is true, and one can tell the care the creators put into the film. Consider this- most animated films of later years have done their best to make the film enjoyable for kids and adults alike, and thus its made for everyone. That's a benefit to everyone- the audience doesn't have to fake it and snore through 90 minutes, and the kids actually remember it afterwards.

"The LEGO Movie" may have been aiming to please everyone, but what made LEGO media work before is missing here. Tack on a confusing, sappy real-life scene at the end between father and son and it shifted into overkill for this reviewer. It performed so well that we can expect a sequel. My suggestion? Hire those responsible for the earlier fare, and recapture the original spirit that didn't need such clamor to work.

5 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

RoboCop (2014)

6/10

Smarter and more worthwhile compared to the original (***)

5 May 2015

Warning: Spoilers

The original "RoboCop", while revered by many, was a dreadful chore to watch. It's an overindulging film that thinks it's saying something about the world we're in, but is too dumb to know better. The message, if there was any, was lost soon after the first limb was shredded. Director Paul Verhoeven has often believed with his films that he's ahead of the curve- I can't deny that his films have been innovative, and even groundbreaking at times, but always for silly reasons. The first "RoboCop" had unprecedented and copious amounts of violence, "Total Recall" left us with a new 'mammary arrangement' as the most memorable scene, and "Basic Instinct" wore out multiple VCRs as a result of one leg-crossing moment. Verhoeven's "cynicism as satire" angle never quite hit, and his "RoboCop" fails as a result. This isn't a review of the 1987 version, however- Jose Padilha's remake is a sleeker, smarter, and overall better film than the predecessor, hitting the marks that the original missed.

Joel Kinnaman (TV's "The Killing") is well-cast as Alex Murphy, an undercover detective for the Detroit PD who's hot on the trail of Antoine Vallon (Patrick Garrow), a known drug lord. Conveniently, Murphy "gets too close" and becomes a target. Vallon and two corrupt officers then plot to eliminate Alex by planting a 'device' in his car- right in front of his home. It's a devious action- for it clearly could have taken out his wife and child (although it does neither, nor does it seen to damage the house).

Alex is not so lucky- with burns all over his body and amputated limbs, he has no quality of life. Luckily for him, OmniCorp founder Raymond Sellers (Keaton- remember him?) wants to 'help'. They've been looking to win over public opinion to put their robots in harm's way and not people. Of course, public opinion contends that because robots don't have emotion, they can't operate with the difficult discernment required of soldiers and/or cops. This means they need Alex. With his wife's (Cornish) reluctant permission, Sellers and Dr. Dennett Norton (Oldman, in another film-grounding performance) advance the company's cybernetics technology to merge Alex's conscience with a robot suit, thus making him the world's first 'cyborg'.

What could have turned out silly (like the original) is actually given some resonance with this new film. Although we aren't given much screen time with Alex and his family pre-explosion, I loved that the filmmakers decided to flesh out the scenes introducing him as RoboCop. We get glimpses of blood-cleansing and cranial-computer chip fusion that are both difficult to watch but also plausible. Padilha wisely allows these first scenes upon Alex's re-awakening to 'walk' a bit, and it gives the entire process a depth we don't expect from this 'type' of film. It encourages us to explore this whole concept and ask interesting questions, which is what good science-fiction should do.

What questions are these, you ask? For beginners, Clara's decision is a would-be first; millions upon millions have had to make end-of- life decisions for their spouses, but she's the first one that has to consider allowing her spouse to become something else- a cyborg. Could we accept our loved ones in a state like RoboCop Alex? Is it really enough just to have someone exist, or do you need all of them, including their personality, to love them? Also, where would the society in "RoboCop" draw the line? Like all technologies, it would likely become more accessible to people, including in the home. Could a dying Fido last longer in a 'RoboDog' apparatus? Should Fido last longer?

Intentionally or not, "RoboCop" explored the willingness of our brains to accept outside, or 'robotic' influences. Alex is 'controlled' by OmniCorp, but his brain spends plenty of time trying to override the programming. Is it possible that the electrical and chemical activity in our wildly complex brains would be able to accept another system, or would it continue to stay its' staunchly autonomic self?

On top of that, Samuel L. Jackson's fanatic talk-show host of a character throws out words like 'pacify' and 'safe'. These catchy, focus-group tested words, used to encourage viewers, support Sellers and OmniCorp's push to remove government restrictions. Jackson's portrayal may remind you of the various talking head blow-hards on TV now. These personalities are not interested in journalism; instead they push a veiled, business-oriented agenda, which shines through in the character's final screen moments.

Do you see what I mean? "RoboCop" is supposed to be a dumb remake of a dumb movie, right? We should never expect to take ideas from this, or think about it at all more than five minutes after the credits roll, right? I suspect the difference this time around involved bright, creative people like Padilha and the writer (writers?) seeing something deeper within the framework of the original film, then deciding to extrapolate. The result is a surprisingly thoughtful, smart, and almost prescient science-fiction movie- not at all a dumb action film. It's the type of film that should be remade- the original is bad, and they made it better. If only all remakes cared to be so thoughtful.

4 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

The Monuments Men (2014)

4/10

Unfocused and ultimately droll, and Clooney knew it (**)

5 May 2015

One of the more memorable scenes in film is the last moment from "Raiders of the Lost Ark", where the camera slowly pans up to reveal an entire warehouse of artifacts. Granted, this was a place of 'secret things', not necessarily artwork. However, that film did cover the fact that the World War II-era Nazis hoarded thousands of cultural artifacts from across the Eastern Hemisphere. They wanted it all for themselves- for if you rob a people of its' culture, you rob them of their spirit, as the theory was. These are big ideas, ripe for extrapolation on-screen, either as a dead-serious drama, or as quasi-adventure film, a la Indiana Jones. "The Monuments Men", however, never settles for one idea, and thus doesn't have an identity. The result is a muddled, aimless enterprise of a film that combines a fantastic cast, then doesn't do much with them.

I'll declare myself a big fan of George Clooney, but his directorial efforts have brought about decidedly mixed results despite stellar casts before. "Good Night, and Good Luck" is a very good film with a specific focus. "The Ides of March" seemed to exist simply to tell us what we already knew- politics are corrupt. The Chuck Barris biopic "Confessions of a Dangerous Mind" was also an unspectacular, yet star-studded shoulder-shrugger of a film. In other words, it's hard to really get a grasp on how creatively talented Clooney is behind the camera. The only common thread I gather is that his films start with an inspired idea, and he simply presents it to us on-screen. Some just keep our attention longer than others.

"The Monuments Men" cannot keep its' own attention for long, not even to enrich the main characters (real people, for which real facts exist to extrapolate on). The film wastes no time in gathering this apparently motley crew, in a sequence so rushed it reeks of a montage. We do know this to be true, however; there were, in fact, a group of middle-aged men that joined the Army in World War II in hopes of recovering stolen art. They were, as the film shows us, an unlikely group. They were indeed brave by definition for heading into war zones. They did, in fact, recover thousands upon thousands of pieces of art across Europe.

What else were they, however? Other than brief, obligatory mention of families back home, the film doesn't provide much nuance or inspiration to any of these characters. That's a crying shame when you consider the massive talents in the cast. Clooney? The affable 'really cool guy'. Damon? Eminently likable. Murray? Capable of showcasing a broad range of abilities. Goodman? Everyone's favorite 'dad' figure. Dujardin? Limited exposure to American audiences, but already an Oscar winner. The film asks us to care deeply about these men and what happens to them, but it clearly overestimates our zest for the actors themselves. So little time is spent with them as a group and exploring what made them tick, and it just doesn't work. On top of that, what exactly did this magnificent conglomeration of actors bring to their roles? For all the fanfare about their grouping, it doesn't seem to have brought the best work out of any of them.

An exception to that would be (big surprise) Cate Blanchett as a French woman forced to catalog the art Nazis were stealing from her own community. Not only is she important to the mission (and the film's resolution), but her character's longing to feel anything other than hatred for Nazi action lends this film a steely emotional grab it so desperately needed. I envisioned there could have been a different film centered around this Claire Simone- a woman forced to betray her beliefs, then forced to watch, then forced to catalogue all of her culture's artistic heritage, then forced to smile about it.

As straightforward as it is, the story of "The Monuments Men" may have worked better in documentary form. That would've afforded whatever filmmaker took on the project a chance to show the individuals involved with the 'Monuments Men' mission- without associating our notions of these actors with them. There are multiple ideas with which to work in this film, but no strong, emotional connection is created with any of them. We're not sure whether Clooney wants us to laugh at the myriad of personalities thrown together for a decidedly non-traditional mission, or be moved by the wretchedness of war and Nazi malfeasance. Even the most poignant moment in the film, taking place in an Allied camp at Christmas time, seems out-of-place and awkward in its' silence. I wasn't sure whether I should be laughing or crying. It's precisely the type of confused reaction you might expect when you watch a film that has no idea what it wants to be.

1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Mr. Peabody & Sherman (2014)

7/10

What we gonna do here is go back, WABAC. Back into time! (***1/2)

5 May 2015

Those south of 30 may not recall the "Rocky and His Friends" or "The Bullwinkle Show" cartoons, created in the 1950s and shown via syndication in the 1980s. Attached to those shows were segments entitled "Peabody's Improbable History", which were neat, albeit corny little entries focused around the world's smartest individual, Mr. Peabody. He just happens to be a beagle, who happens to have an adopted son, Sherman. I remember enjoying the show, more so than the adventures of Rocket J. Squirrel and Bullwinkle J. Moose, for it focused on science (specifically time travel) and history, and had something to say. They visited a variety of historical figures, breathing life into the people I only read about in class.

Despite how neat it was, I was surprised to see that this lesser- known property had the traction to become a major motion picture, for it was something I had forgotten over time. Thankfully "Mr. Peabody & Sherman" is a flick worthy of everyone's attention, and worthy of entering the stream of public conscience again. It isn't content to simply be a hyper children's film, but also isn't so highbrow as to distance itself from the little ones. In other words, it's rather satisfying, excellently rendered family film that gives 'smarts' a palatable voice in a genre that generally excludes them.

Mr. Peabody (Burrell) can pretty much do it all. He's a scientist, explorer, inventor, painter, photographer, athlete, chef, etc. Like other high achievers though, he's missing something. That's where Sherman comes in. Mr. Peabody adopts him (which differs from the original show, where Sherman was his pet), as he sees much of himself in the young boy. Luckily, the film acknowledges the species difference, and gracefully allows the explanation to work within the framework of the plot. Mr. Peabody is not so graceful at expressing his feelings, for when Sherman tells his adoptive father he loves him, he's met with a neutral "I have a very fond regard for you, too". As you can imagine, that is revisited later in the film.

This is an interesting family dynamic- not so much because he's a dog, but because it's non-traditional. Even if it was by accident, the script wonderfully allows for their small, non-traditional family to have the same kind of ups and downs as a 'regular' family. It may be a stretch to draw the conclusion that children who see this will remember this and become more accepting of alternative family situations, but it's pleasant to see a children's film open to different ideas.

Interestingly, the same family situation I referenced does drive the plot. Sherman is starting school, and in the process he gets picked on for being the son of a 'dog'. Specifically, a girl named Penny decides he is ripe for the bullying, and picks on him until he actually bites her. That'll earn a trip to the principal's office, and parents, teachers, case workers, etc will get involved. Interestingly, the film doesn't seem interested in the justice or injustice of the situation- after all, the girl did provoke him, but I digress. Mr. Peabody does what he can to mend the situation by having Penny and her parents over for dinner. He's confident that a few drinks and pleasant conversation can wash the situation under the table.

As is wont to occasionally happen, the children explore while the adults chat, which leads Sherman to mistakenly show Penny the "WABAC". The cleverly-acronymed WABAC is, you guessed it, a time machine (looking more like the 'red matter' from "Star Trek" than a time- travel device). Sherman and Penny get themselves into hot water, which requires some clever work on Mr. Peabody's part to set things straight. The resulting adventure through time is crisp, funny, and reverent to the original material. Director Rob Minkoff ("The Lion King") once again proves himself a very capable craftsman of animated features, managing to give us comedic and beautiful scenes interlaced with a needed intelligence.

The film isn't without its' flaws, however. For as much as I praised it earlier for allowing smart to be cool, the filmmakers made the choice not to explain how Mr. Peabody figures out time travel. I'd be remiss if I didn't also mention the scientific inaccuracies, for this film has not heard of the 'butterfly effect'. Clearly Mr. Peabody's actions would have drastic effects on the present, but it's entirely possible that I'm giving this too much thought. It's an unfortunate choice, for if it trusts kids to enjoy being confident with their intelligence, it should have trusted them to enjoy being challenged as well. These criticisms don't hurt the film on the whole, however. It's enjoyable for everyone, and by being picky, I'm criticizing the film's flip- flop on whether or not to trust us with 'smart' stuff. That's hardly a reason not to enjoy a tale of a beagle and his pet, I mean son.

1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Her (2013)

10/10

The best film of 2013 (*****)

5 May 2015

Warning: Spoilers

It comes as no surprise that the director of "Adaptation" and "Where The Wild Things Are" would create something wholly unique. Remember, this is also the guy who made a movie about people entering John Malkovich's mind through a trap door. "Her" does indeed stand apart from the crowd- but proudly, in its' own perfect little corner of the gym, observing other films and their bombastic, silly, cynical existences and kindly waiting for someone to ask it to dance. I'm extremely pleased that I finally got to tango with this one- a funny, smart, topical, and supremely brave film that deserves to be called one of the best of 2013. It poses so many interesting questions, and then leaves so many to interpretation, satisfying on both accounts.

Like other indie-themed films with relatively small budgets, "Her" has not been broadly marketed, and was only recently put in wide release. You may not even know what it's about. To put it simply, "Her" is set in the near future, and artificial intelligence has advanced to the point where consumers can purchase an operating system that interacts with them just like a human. Of course, this OS can be on the desktop, or it can come with you as a hand-held device. The point is that the public can purchase this OS and adapt it to their lives. It can collate emails, give you instant writing tips, or even talk you through a break up!

We see the entire range of emotions that a relationship with someone (or something) can bring about, and it's not just sexual in nature. It's the innocent beginnings of a relationship, the warm feelings that kind words can bring, the exhilarating joy of giving and receiving emotional love, the euphoria of sex. It's also the frustration that comes from arguing, the vulnerability of dropping your guard to someone, and the complete agony of losing a relationship. Theo goes through the ringer in this film, but so does Samantha (the name the OS gives itself), who becomes more aware of the emotions 'she' is having, since 'she' is also on an emotional journey. This is definitely a dual-sided love affair.

"Her" shows the reality of companionship, not just saccharine, Hollywood relationship fluff, and oddly enough, it's Theo and Samantha that show the relationship with the most respect in the film. There exists a humanity between the two that is clearly lacking in the film's human relationships. The A.I. won't harbor grudges, judge, or define what love means to the person feeling it. However, one human female (Wilde) knows just how to hurt Theo, calling him creepy. Another (Mara) makes light of Theo's newfound happiness by accusing him of being lazy- "having a wife without the challenges of having a wife". Humans really know how to hurt each other, and while the A.I. has the capability for cruelty, it doesn't have the 'pretense' or capability for judgment.

It's exciting to think about films like this, and how they challenge us to consider new ideas. For example, I found myself envisioning multiple scenarios for the governance of such theoretical OS units. How could they be kept 'in line'? For that matter, would they be allowed to quarrel with an owner? Would they have any freedoms? Would they just be bound by programming? How does an operating system interpret pleasure, and thus how would a partner provide it, both physically and emotionally?

What a fascinating subject by itself- but "Her" isn't just an A.I. story. Like the relationship between Theo and Samantha, the film transcends traditional thought patterns on such subjects. We can't say the film's subject is 'creepy', or 'weird' or not 'real'- not unless we first examine our own thoughts about what love, companionship, and our emotional needs really is, right?

With such interesting subject matter that's handled with the utmost respect, grace, and honesty, "Her" is one of the more rewarding film experiences I've had in recent memory. I admit to loving what Spike Jonze does, or tries to do, but this film in particular is his crowning achievement thus far, and stands on its' on merits. Sometimes it takes an inhuman event to truly understand a human behavior or emotion. Many people point to acts of evil when they want to show how wonderfully capable the human race is. "Her", as a work of fiction, is a clear example of using a different point of view to help us better define what the human experience is, and can be. For that (and for just being all-around enjoyable), it's one of the best of 2013.

0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

The Secret Life of Walter Mitty (2013)

8/10

In a busy world, Walter Mitty is our spirit animal (****)

5 May 2015

It might be difficult for choosy audiences with cynical dispositions, but if we can look past the pesky product placement in "The Secret Life Of Walter Mitty", we're left with one very, very good film. Ben Stiller, who usually seems to have little clue how to use his specific talents, gives his best performance to date in front of and behind the camera. This is a film that may not resemble the source material verbatim, but the spirit is clearly alive, with a few touches to modernize the idea. As a whole, it's a sweet, confident, and poignant film that has a lot to say, but I think it speaks only to those willing to listen.

Walter Mitty (Stiller) is a negative asset manager for Life magazine- basically, his is the department responsible for bringing in and processing the film from the field that will go into the magazine (and by his 'department', I mean Walter and his assistant (Martinez) ). In essence, in the time Walter has worked at the publication, the very soul of the magazine has been processed on his watch. It's prescient, that his seemingly simple position holds so much sway, but we'll return to that idea.

His problem, it seems, is that he daydreams. Mind you, this isn't the type of absent-mindedness that you or I take part in. Walter misses large chunks of actual time in his fantasy land, jolted back to reality by silence, love interests, or transition managers. In his escapes, Walter is well-traveled and mysterious, interesting and not invisible to others. He's confident and allowed to pursue that which he wants. In other words, he's the full version of himself. I like how this film pulls back the comedic reigns here- Stiller too often becomes, well, Stiller, and overdoses on the comedy. Here, the humor is subtle and fits the tone of the film. It also doesn't pander, or make us feel sorry for Walter. There's a very good reason his life is the way it is, and again, it's presented without pretense.

I mentioned a transition manager, profiled in full douchebag by Adam Scott. Well, the print version of Life is going under in this film, and switching to an online format. Positions like Walter's are likely to be eliminated, as well as accounting spots like the one Cheryl (Wiig) holds down. However, before the end, they want to send up one last issue, and long-time contributor Sean O'Connell (Penn), who has sent a roll of film containing an image he specifically wants to become the last cover. The problem is that Walter has either misplaced it, or it was lost along the way. This causes him to seek it out, thus finally spurring him to make his fantasies become, well, realities.

I think a good portion of society can identify with an individual that finally lets loose a bit, that allows himself, finally, the adventure he deserves. A lesser film would make these emotional breakthroughs farcical, ala "Last Holiday", but this is subtle and decent. That's why the big reveal of what that last cover image is a fantastic moment. I believed in this Walter Mitty as a hard- working guy who missed out on life thus far due to some bad luck. It was wonderfully refreshing to see a character, despite his quirks, find happiness in the midst of just being, well, a good guy.

I caution those looking simply for a pandering, feel-good story around the holidays. That's not what this is. Instead, Stiller and crew have taken the spirit of the source material and adapted it to our world. Granted, there are a few goofs- for example, Walter seems keen on good rock music and skateboard culture, but he isn't aware of a popular David Bowie song? Also, how does one get a clementine cake, sweet as it may be, through customs? Those things don't doom the film, but I do feel it's another reason this will divide people- those that claim this has nothing to offer but cynical product placement messages, and those like myself that sense a broader theme of becoming who we want to be, and understanding where we lose our way. That's a powerful thought, and this quietly beautiful film has the sense to not beat us over the head with it. After all, the film does tell us that "beautiful things don't ask for attention". That's certainly a statement that a number of filmmakers could stand to hear more often.

70 out of 77 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

The Hunt (2012)

9/10

Paranorium Euphorium (****1/2)

5 May 2015

Community is an interesting word, isn't it? I've always been led to believe that the term embodies a group of people working together towards the same goals- fellowship and support in good times and bad. No matter what country or region, it's a universal idea. Thomas Vinterberg's "The Hunt" is a maddening, frustratingly brilliant portrayal of a good man embattled by a broken community, either too lazy or too proud to self-reflect. It's less of a commentary on pedophilia or child abuse and more a visceral commentary on what today's idea of a community actually is, and the powerful way it can simultaneously build up or destroy an individual or group.

Lucas (Mads Mikkelsen) is an average, lonely guy. Recently divorced with a teenage son and a newer job, he's made progress trying to piece his life back together. Interestingly, he's the only male teacher in a preschool-kindergarten, but as the movie tells us, it appears that was his only choice after his other school closed. The children appear to adore him, and why not? He's kind, helpful, and approachable. So approachable, in fact, that children come to him for solace, comfort, and even assistance using the restroom.

One particular child, his best friend's daughter Klara (Wedderkopp), looks to Lucas to fill a role that her own parents haven't been filling (which makes sense considering how much they fight). Klara just craves positive attention, and who could blame her? After all, it appears all she's learning at home is animosity from her parents, and she's even forced to view adult material by her brother and his friend at one point. What child wouldn't gravitate towards another adult male that isn't the embodiment of things she doesn't yet understand? Unfortunately, the comfort that Klara finds in Lucas gets twisted in her mind with the need to 'imitate' adults, as she has been taught. In a perfect storm of events, the headmaster of the school is made to believe (via Klara) that Lucas has molested her.

As I mentioned earlier, this isn't a film about molestation- instead it's about communities, society, and the power of conjecture. From the moment that the headmaster suspects an issue, Lucas' world falls apart. Word spreads rapidly about his alleged wrongdoing, and because the audience is made to be aware of his innocence, our outrage begins. This man endures alienation from friends, isolation from his son, a suspension from his job, an arrest, a savage beating from grocery store employees who ban him from shopping there, and violations to his property- even his pet.

This small community, so quick to rally around the young girl and her family, throws their entire weight behind destroying this man. Even his best friend, the father of the girl, can't rely on their friendship bond to decide whether or not he's at fault. Why bother waiting for evidence, a trial, or common logic, right? I got a sense that this community is so ugly on the 'inside' that they couldn't wait to take it out on someone else- Lucas was simply an easy target. He's a divorcée, lives by himself, is a male in a traditionally female job- he's ripe for the picking. As a society, we're familiar with this situation, for if you exhibit any quirks or deviate from the norm, it's suspicious, and by proxy guilty to some.

This film stirred such an anger in me, but not simply because child abuse was a subject. I was more infuriated by the amount of ignorance displayed by a group of people who went out of their way to destroy a person's reputation and livelihood. Even when young Klara admits her mistake, people go out of their way to ignore what she's really saying. It sure must have taken a lot of self-hatred and lack of understanding to push even further against Lucas.

This community puts on a show with a sense of closeness, but we know better. Earlier in the film, we see these adults argue, get drunk, ignore their children, and it's fine- but when a crisis happens, they're a unified bunch, ready to take out their inadequacies on another. I'm obviously aware that an actual crime like the alleged one in this film should incite anger in a community. What's so galling, that this film reflects in such a concise manner, is the inability of people to look within themselves, and how damaging it can be to others.

There's a reason why we have law enforcement and courts in our world, for it's a slippery slope when accusations fly. We're understandably so protective of children that our mind's defense mechanisms open up during a crisis, disregarding reason and intuition. "The Hunt", showing the ugly side of smaller communities, will stick with me for some time. I watched a community shun the beliefs that it was likely founded upon. The film's most powerful moment, as a battered Lucas tries to pull himself together for a Christmas Eve service, is simply poetic. A knowing look from Lucas to his best friend encapsulates the utter betray he must have felt. It's a moment that I imagine many innocent community outsiders have felt over time, for it's clear our world is no stranger to snap judgments. "The Hunt" is an important film to consider, and deserves mention as one of the best of the year.

4 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Anchorman 2: The Legend Continues (2013)

7/10

Great fun, but the element of surprise is missing. (***1/2)

5 May 2015

This will be hard to admit, but from time to time, a film occasionally surprises me- and I'm proved wrong. My first experience with the original "Anchorman" ended up being one of those times. I didn't see it theatrically, and waited until a friend forced it upon me. What a revelation it was- a straight-up comedy, incredibly well-made and structured, with nearly every joke hitting the mark. Sure, it's a complete farce, but one that worked extremely well. Audiences didn't initially warm up to the theatrical release, but like a cult film, it found an immense audience on DVD- including myself.

It comes as no surprise that there has been clamor for a sequel- the only issue is that Paramount had strong misgivings about making one. The box office wasn't strong for the first film, and farce comedies don't generally perform well. It's wonderful that this did get made, however. Not only does it satisfy fans of the first film, but it contains enough fresh material and biting sarcasm to go around. It may not be as crisp as the first, and it contains a few awkward moments, but overall, it deserves kudos for continuing to take risks, and I laughed out loud multiple times.

Summarizing the plot should be rather straightforward. The blustering Ron Burgundy (Farrell) has now married the daring anchorwoman from the first film, Veronica Corningstone (Applegate), with whom he has fathered young Walter. Life is beautiful for them until Mack Tannen (Harrison Ford) decides to retire at the network and makes Veronica, not Ron, the lead nightly anchor. Ron can't handle it, leaves the network, leaves Veronica & Walter, and ends up back in San Diego, drunk in front of Sea World crowds. Luckily for him, he meets a recruiter looking to start a 24 hour news network in New York City. The idea sounds ludicrous to Ron, but perfectly normal and sane to us.

Aside from the jokes and scenarios you can imagine after seeing the first film, the sequel offers a biting satire of today's version of the "news". With news networks on all the time, it's necessary to fill that space with CONTENT. How do these networks acquire this content? Is it possible that the content isn't always 'newsworthy'? Is it possible the boundaries of acceptable news stories have stretched a tad over the years? Answers to all questions are a resounding yes. The fact that news and news anchors are now trusted less by the public are part of the reason that these two films exist, and that the farce is so resonant. It's an unfortunate but true part of our society.

Thankfully, "Anchorman 2″ understands the folly that is a good portion of news today. By showcasing Ron Burgundy on a screen surrounded by multiple talking heads, with headlines running across the top and bottom of the screen, we can clearly see how crowded news delivery is today. Creating a scene with Brick Tamland (Carell) going postal in front of a green screen points out the hilarity that is broadcast meteorology. After all, do we need high- tech graphics to tell us what weather is coming our way? The whole thing is silly, really, which is most likely the reason why these films work so well.

If there are downsides to having this much fun at the theater, it's the occasional overkill. Farce is susceptible to such things, and at nearly two hours, the film occasionally runs into that. The subplot involving Ron going blind and living in exile could have been skipped. Also unnecessary are the oddly repetitive and off- putting actions of Champ Kind (Koechner), illustrating the need for a more well-rounded character (or perhaps actor? This film illustrates why Koechner hasn't been nearly as successful as his comrades). Poor Christina Applegate doesn't have much to do this time around except react to what Will Ferrell's character does to her, and the attempt to give Meagan Good's producer a meaty role falls a bit short.

For its' minor drawbacks, "Anchorman 2: The Legend Continues" is still the year's funniest film. It's also an obvious achievement, not only to get these actors together again, but to give us a film that is worthy of our attention, all while inventing a few new laughs and trying its' hand at social commentary. If there is another sequel, I'm not sure there is anything left to comment on. We know the 'news' is no longer news, and so we, the audience, have to choose what we consume. It's a laborious task- perhaps one of the reasons why so many flock to The Onion, 'The Daily Show', and for all intents and purposes, 'Anchorman' films.

14 out of 26 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Inside Llewyn Davis (2013)

10/10

Flawless film that shows everyone how great Oscar Isaac is (*****)

5 May 2015

If you haven't seen a Coen Brothers movie at this point, shame on you. While not all of their films are equally entertaining, they are all perfectly unique, yet the same. If that doesn't make sense, consider it for another moment. From "Barton Fink" and "The Big Lebowski" to "Fargo" and "No Country For Old Men", as one fellow amateur critic put it, you can always tell when you're watching a Coen Brothers movie, despite how different they may play. "Inside Llewyn Davis" is in the same vein, yet still manages to stand alone as a unique tale of a man who's either a self-absorbed jerk or a supremely unlucky soul. The film makes no judgments of its' own, and through its' quirks and memorable dialogue, it stands as a supremely enjoyable, if not melancholy masterpiece.

Llewyn Davis (Isaac) has an abundance of talent, evident from the opening scene as he performs a soulful folk scene. Unfortunately, he carries an abundance of arrogant negativity with him as well. After the opening number, bar owner Pappi Corsicato (Max Casella- Doogie Howser's old buddy if you can recognize him) tells Llewyn that a friend wants to speak to him outside. This is no friend- the gruff man is angry about criticism Llewyn threw his wife's way at an earlier time, and proceeds to beat Llewyn senseless. It's a great tone-setter for the film, as we can sense Llewyn's greatness with music and his propensity for poor social behavior in the same sequence.

That knack for paining others doesn't stop there. Upon waking the following day, Llewyn manages to lock himself out of a friend's apartment after mistakenly letting out the house tabby cat. Then he calls upon folk-singing 'friends' in Jean (Mulligan) and Jim (Timberlake) to stash the cat while he takes care of business. The problem? Jean is none too happy with Llewyn for reasons I won't reveal, and then he lets the cat escape out of their window. The same day, he upsets his sister after a brief visit. See a pattern yet?

Llewyn just can't get out of anyone's way, including himself. He's without a partner (who appears to have killed himself without reason), without a permanent home, without a competent career plan or agent, and without a confidant. He has plenty of 'acquaintances', whom he calls upon to provide him with a couch to sleep on, but even they have become disillusioned with him. There are those that will see this film and feel sorry for Llewyn, and others who will feel he deserves what he gets. It's hard to argue with either point of view, but here's an alternate thought- he seems to meet everyone on their worst day. Could it be that Llewyn is just trapped in a vicious circle of self-doubt and bad timing, made worse by how callous he's forced to become with everyone's negativity towards him? I got the impression that the character means well, in all honesty- he's just locked into a good run of bad luck.

I'll try to illustrate my theory by describing a series of scenes in the latter half of the film. Llewyn has decided to make his own luck by hitching a ride to Chicago, whereupon he'll meet Bud Grossman (F. Murray Abraham), producer extraordinaire, who will realize his talent and make him a star. His companions for the trip are Roland Turner (Goodman) and Johnny Five (Hedlund), two more eccentric people Llewyn tangles with, and another cat. Llewyn ends up having to take the last leg of the trip on his own, even leaving the cat behind (it's just another being he'll let down, right?). Upon arrival in Chicago, it's clear that despite the conditions he's in, Llewyn is optimistic; he may not trust himself, but he trusts his talent. He meets Grossman, plays for him- and Bud isn't interested. It's not that Llewyn isn't talented, which is clear, but as the man says, it won't sell. I believe the film shows its' soul in this scene. Llewyn croons with a purpose here, his entire career and life leading up to that moment, but that moment has already passed him by. It's heartbreaking to watch, as Llewyn finally get his opportunity but cannot seize it. I loved how the camera slowly zoomed in on him while he played. It was as if we could, for that moment, dare I say, see 'inside Llewyn Davis'.

Very few filmmakers are able to squeeze so much out of what might seem so simple, but the Coens are the masters. This is a flawless film for what it is- a multi-layered character study. On the surface, "Inside Llewyn Davis" may seem like a basic, quirky story about a few days in the life of a jerk. Digging deeper brings forth a different result- a portrayal of a man who's been calloused by bad luck and what's projected on to him by others. The cycle of unfortunate luck and choices for Llewyn just goes on and on, encapsulated by the final scene of the film. It's a fitting ending for one of the best films of 2013, and we're left to wonder if Llewyn will ever catch a break.

2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit (2014)

6/10

By the numbers, but exactly what you want (***)

5 May 2015

It used to be that 'origin' stories were reserved for those in spandex. Now, any fictional character can get the reboot treatment, whether it's Alex Cross, James Bond, or the late Tom Clancy's recurring hero Jack Ryan. With classically trained British legend Kenneth Branagh at the helm and cutting his villain chops, and charismatic everyman Chris Pine taking the role, we should expect, at bare minimum, an efficient machine of a film. That's exactly what "Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit" is: formulaic, safe, but still fun and well-made, resulting in a middling-to-good action/espionage film reboot.

Four solid to very good films featuring the character were made before this, not to mention the multiple Tom Clancy novels written from 1984 to the present featuring the Jack Ryan character. It has always been a film franchise in a state of flux, however, with the lead never committing long-term, Paramount never quite satisfied with the middling-to-positive box office returns, and an inconsistent story line. With this reboot, they have a chance to start from scratch, and there is a plethora of rich source material to pluck ideas from (I enjoy the meticulously detailed Tom Clancy novels). Of course, it stands to reason that they would choose to film from an entirely original screenplay instead of adapting one of the novels. In a way, it makes sense, considering the novels describe Ryan's history over various stories, with nothing concrete in the way of an origin.

It also stands to reason that an espionage film set after 2001 would have to take into account the heightened tension level in the intelligence community. Ergo, the creative decision is made to have the 9/11 attack be the onus for Jack Ryan joining the military, where he excels in seeing patterns develop, and being a leader. While rehabbing after his chopper goes down in the Afghan mountains (definitely a nod to the novels), he meets spirited medical resident Cathy Muller (Knightley), who seems to give him the "right motivation" to heal. Also scoping out Ryan is Thomas Harper (Costner), who gives him the extra push to finish his doctorate and go to work for the CIA as an analyst. Harper is the classic mentor character, something Costner is becoming more familiar with as he ages.

Of course, being an 'analyst' is rather vague, and we know that Jack is basically going to become a field agent- not just because we're familiar with the character, but the plot needs him to be more than that. A lot more. We're quickly shifted in the film to ten years after his rehab, and Jack's living with Cathy (now a practicing physician), well-entrenched in Wall Street working for a firm, and in the thick of things as a CIA analyst. I guess we'll have to assume that Jack and Cathy had a magical courtship, as the film doesn't bother. Jack has done what he does best- discover a pattern, and a disturbing one at that- there are multiple hidden accounts with large dollar amounts belonging to a Russian corporation headed by Viktor Cherevin (Branagh). We know this is dirty money, because Branagh is a name actor, and thus his intentions must be evil.

Those new to the story will at least be able to gather that Ryan is an ultra-bright, resourceful, kind, and valuable boy scout of a character. He's the reluctant spy. In essence, that's what this film does well- it sets us up for future Jack Ryan outings by giving us an incredibly likable character played by an incredibly likable actor. It's debatable whether or not we should buy into Chris Pine as a borderline tactical genius, even if he's also Captain Kirk (which I don't necessarily buy, either). I do buy him as a charismatic good man, though, which sells more movie tickets. Branagh does all he can to breathe some evil nuance into the Cherevin character, whose motivations are typical (he even sneaks in a "Mother Russia" for good measure). The one who seems out-of-place here is Keira Knightley; she's a fine actress that I've enjoyed in many different roles, but something about her version of Cathy Muller (Ryan?) isn't right. She's just so lithe. Perhaps comparing her to Anne Archer's take on the character isn't the best idea, but I sensed someone like Rachel McAdams belonged in the role instead.

I sense there will always be a crowd for films like this- the international espionage thriller. I for one am a sucker for them (and an unabashed fan of the Ryan character), and even done half- heartedly (I'm looking at you, "The Bourne Legacy") I'll be inclined to enjoy them. When the stakes are higher, it lends a gravity to a film, and all of the Jack Ryan stories have that specific weight to them. "Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit" is not special by any means, and compared to the best in the franchise, "The Hunt For Red October", it pales in comparison. You'll have to suspend some disbelief to enjoy this film (how would the world NOT notice if Russia bought up all the U.S. currency and then dumped it right after a terrorist attack?). However, as an origin story/reboot/franchise starter, it's effective enough in its' mechanical nature to make me recommend it, based on the relative sharpness of the script, the decent action sequences, and in what it does best- exist as an international espionage film. People are constantly looking over their shoulders in this film, which is right at home in the genre, and a solid set up for the future.

0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Lone Survivor (2013)

5/10

Treated with care, but in the wrong care (**1/2)

5 May 2015

Warning: Spoilers

I need to be upfront and admit that I've had a difficult time formulating a response to this film. On one hand, it was a very solid, albeit Hollywood-ized version of a true story. On the other hand, the actual true story was different in important ways, and finding out about the inaccuracies after seeing the film frustrated me to no end. I'm left feeling very neutral and blasé about the whole thing- for if it's not real, does the film really honor those that lost their lives? Does it really show us the true nature of heroism if it's partially fabricated? "Lone Survivor" works in some ways, but there is no getting around the cynical feeling that comes from knowing creative license has trumped the truth.

The film is based on Navy SEAL Marcus Luttrell's account of the events surrounding Operation Red Wings in 2005. As the film explains, this mission's intent was specifically to assassinate Ahmad Shah, who was (is?) allegedly an Al Qaeda/Taliban general, responsible for multiple U.S. deaths, and was/is considered a generally abhorrent guy. The plan was to have a team infiltrate the camp where Shah was located by crossing the rough terrain of the Afghan mountains and take him out quietly. I like how the film takes its' time showing the prelude to the chaos, which allows us to see how harsh the environment is in Afghanistan, and how difficult it must have been to navigate on foot as a foreigner. Also, the way the film sets up how this team clicks, or for that matter how all Navy SEALs click, was portrayed well. These men are put through so much mental and physical stress to become SEALs that it's not at all surprising how close-knit these men are. They're brothers through and through, and there was never a doubt about that.

I'm sure former and current military personnel would say that missions can be meticulously planned, but still go wrong due to unforeseen variables. "Lone Survivor" has just that type of variable in the form of goat farmers, who just happen to be wandering in the same area where the SEAL team is resting before carrying out their task. It seems innocent enough- until a Taliban communication device is found on one of them. It brings about a terrible dilemma- can these soldiers complete their mission independent of this threat, or do they have to break the rules of engagement to go forward? The decision they make decides the team's fate and sets the stage for the rest of the film.

It can be assumed by his demeanor that the younger, sinister-looking farmer will go back to the village and tell Shahd's men about the team. If he does, the mission is compromised- if the soldiers tie them to trees, it's possible they'll never be found, or eaten by wildlife. It's an impossible decision, but one SEALs are trained to handle. I did wonder why there was even a discussion about the decision- after all, they're robotic in their responses for a reason.

Once the fighting began, however, disbelief crept in. Sure, I bought the expertise of the SEALs, but as others have been keen to mention about the last half of the film, the body can only take so much. It's hard to believe anyone, even the best of the best like SEALs, could absorb multiple gunshot wounds, and multiple falls upon sharp, jagged rocks, then keep fighting. Does SEAL training prepare individuals to do what seems like the impossible? I don't have an issue suspending disbelief in the right situation, though, and when I finished, I accepted the film as a slightly overproduced, occasionally aggrandized version of a true story.

Then I read stuff. Specifically, I read a Slate.com story (which referenced the site OnViolence.com) that detailed what the inaccuracies of the film are. I understand why creative choices are sometimes made to dramatize true stories; what I can't understand are conscious choices to make already brave individuals appear superhuman, and fabricate events that are already monumental. Director Peter Berg was quoted as saying "We never set out to do something non-Hollywood or Hollywood. We just literally told the story." If they did just 'tell the story', why does the film depict Luttrell as flat-lining as the film opens and closes, when the apparently reality was quite the opposite, per Luttrell? Why does the film invent an old Afghan villager that brings the news to the U.S. base that Marcus is hiding in one of their homes, when the truth is that U.S. forces found him while scouring the mountains? Why did the film invent the entire last battle sequence in said village? Why is that Luttrell was on set, moving the actors around to get them in more accurate positions according to the real event, yet he hasn't said anything publicly about the fabrications?

I think I know the reason, and I feel sad for it. Films like "Act of Valor" and "Zero Dark Thirty" have been successful, in part for attempting to accurately reproduce the military experience on film. I haven't seen either film, so I cannot comment on the quality of either, but I sense "Lone Survivor" is capitalizing on their success. Cynically, I can't help but think that someone in charge of this project saw dollar signs, and those spoke much louder than giving a voice to this story, or a greater audience to help honor the fallen from this mission. Even Wal-Mart is selling a tie-in documentary about the life and times of Lieutenant Mike Murphy (not a bad thing, but it raises my skeptical flag). As a straight Hollywood film, this works just fine, but discovering the inaccuracies behind the final product disappointed me. I feel the true stories of our military heroes are perhaps more important, and thus should be depicted without grandiose creativity. It's enough that they did what they did.

0 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

The Best Man (1999)

8/10

Channeling the best of Raymond Carver

5 May 2015

"The Best Man" is the closest thing to Raymond Carver's work that I've seen on film, and that's a great compliment to pay. Coincidence or not, the main character of Harper Stewart (Taye Diggs) is a writer as well, and references to Hughes and Wright are in the film. Harper has just had his first novel published, has a beautiful girlfriend (Saana Lathan), and seems to have it all together. He's nervous about commitment and the reaction to his book, which serves as a fictional interpretation of his young adult life. Harper is certainly justified in his worry, as he doesn't pull any punches, and once the real versions of his characters read what he's written about them, he has to face his mistakes and be, literally, the best man he can be.

The film centers around one whirlwind weekend that has the four main characters reminiscing in advance of Lance Sullivan's (Morris Chestnut) wedding. Lance is a pro footballer, engaged to Mia (Monica Calhoun), who has stood by him despite his egregious lack of fidelity. My guess is that Mia doesn't even know the half of it. Lance is a classic alpha male- he's so strong in body and belief, but cannot make the connection between his steadfast conviction and keeping it in his pants. So, like many men, he's a 'dog'. Harper is a 'dog' in a different way- he's sneaky in his selfishness, and takes those that love him for granted. Quentin (Terrence Howard) is a knowing, world-weary 'dog'- he's been around the block, has known his share of disappointments, and brings balance to this group of friends. Howard's turn here (the first I was exposed to him) lends gravity to the film- he's the one who knows what's going to go down once the dirty laundry is aired, because he's already gone through the maturation process that the other three haven't. Murch (Harold Perrineau from 'Lost') is the spineless 'dog'. He clearly lacks the confidence to stand up for himself, and therefore doesn't have what he really wants.

As I mentioned before, Carver's influence is present, intentional or not. It's never more evident than the poker game our main group shares, and the way the characters interact. What is said during this particular scene provides deep insights into gender roles, relationships, sex, religion, honesty, and loyalty- all within a 10 minute scene. The men may talk crudely, but the truths are clear. These men are good, caring people, but have done selfish things. No amount of aggression can keep the powerful truths from coming out, truths that Harper's book give away. It says something for a film that might be seen as a traditional rom-com that instead says something about really becoming a man.

Without giving away everything, let's just say that eventually it hits the fan. By then, we're so invested in the characters that the reactions from all involved seem justified. Lance must face the music in the most powerful way- in the moment that should be his greatest, he's finally humbled for his indiscretions. Perhaps it's Morris Chesnut's performance, or maybe the script is that good, but in that moment I felt both a satisfaction and a sadness for his character's punishment. Quentin is finally rewarded by the film for being the 'cool, level-headed' one that leads the characters towards the truth, Murch grows a pair and gracefully moves on from his overbearing, confidence-sucking girl, and Harper? He's forced to be self- reflective, to recognize the good in his life, the need versus the want, and to not take things for granted. All of the character arcs, including the females, make sense in their conclusions. It's something that can only happen when a filmmaker cares enough about the characters. Most adults have been through similar life events and the emotions that go with them; this movie respects its audience enough to challenge them with specific thoughts about manhood, relationships, change, and the like. It's rare for that to happen, but it's what Carver's book did, and what this film does as well.

Sure, there are some problems with the film. For whatever reason, the script requires these characters to have the most bombastic and presidential names, insisting that they say those full names over and over for the first quarter of the film. It's overtly obvious that Malcolm Lee thought it necessary to establish these people as successful, professional, driven individuals to distance this film from others released in the same vein. Unfortunately it comes across as awkward; they're the kind of names little girls give to tea party guests. Harper Stewart. Jordan Armstrong. Lance Sullivan. Julian Murch. Shelby. Robyn. Mia Morgan. Candace. There's somethingoff about that. As well, the perfunctory and impromptu proposal by our lead seems oddly misplaced, especially considering his apparent understanding of the situation; I'm not sure that a humbled character like Harper should be leaping back into the fire he just escaped.

Obviously I forgive the film that minor slip. It's important to note that this cost 9 million to make in 1999. Considering that many of the cast members have continued working since then, many successfully, and considering this film's appeal why not revisit the characters? It's a good opportunity when it normally wouldn't exist for a romantic comedy, and I'm looking forward to seeing how these characters have progressed 15 years later when "The Best Man Holiday" comes out.

3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Thor: The Dark World (2013)

5/10

The Cough Syrup of Destiny!! (**1/2)

5 May 2015

It wasn't that long ago that I remember the deep feeling of appreciation for Marvel as they delivered on their promise. After all, "The Avengers" was the Hollywood rarity- a film that audiences were asked to be patient for, and for all intents and purposes, the hype was well-justified. Going forward, we know "The Avengers: Age of Ultron" is coming in 2015, and "The Avengers 3″ in 2018. These immense upcoming films will follow the same pattern as the first, in that a series of individual films will set up the events to culminate in the team-up. I'm fine with that, but I do require Marvel to maintain their focus with these solo efforts. "Thor: The Dark World" is a very good looking movie that doesn't pay off in the most disappointing way- it doesn't respect its own audience, and thus becomes a huge missed opportunity for Marvel.

If you've seen "Thor" and "The Avengers", you know that the 'Bifrost' and 'rainbow bridge' were destroyed, Loki (Hiddleston) is going back to Asgard and prison, and that Thor (Hemsworth) returned to Earth, but without visiting Jane Foster (Portman). These issues will need to be addressed in this film, and they are (mostly). After "Thor" made a big deal about the destruction of the Bifrost and its implications, nothing is said about how it was repaired in such short time (2 years). I suppose that is of little consequence in the big scheme of events. Loki still plots away in his Asgardian prison cell, apparently not humbled by his convincing defeat. He still feels entitled to a throne (any throne will do). The astrophysicist Jane Foster, as Heimdall (Elba) tells us in the first film, still searches for a way to reach Thor through the path of science. For as little time as they had together in the first film, clearly the Prince of Asgard and the Earth-bound, mortal scientist formed a strong connection- something this film doesn't spend enough time extrapolating. These characters will do anything for each other, but I've struggled to buy into their bond; after all, they haven't been on a single date, haven't shared their feelings or intentions to each other, and haven't shared a bed (that we're aware of). Other than a few longing glances, what is it about these two characters that make their actions believable or justified?

Dr. Foster is working out of London in this film- luckily for her, that happens to be the EXACT location (Tanzania was apparently too remote) of a magnificent quantum space event is taking place. The 'Nine Realms' of the universe are all aligning at once, and this 'convergence' apparently allows for easy travel amongst the many branches of existence. As the movie tells us, an artifact of a sinister nature (of course) was hidden a long time ago during the last convergence, and wouldn't you know it- our favorite senator from Naboo (oops, wrong film) stumbles upon it. Literally.

This artifact, designed by Malekith (Eccleston) of the ancient race of beings known as Dark Elves, looks exactly like angry Dimetapp to me. According to the movie, it's darkness as a weapon. So, Dr. Foster gets 'infected' by this substance, and becomes slightly dangerous to others. Except Thor. On top of that, the dormant Dark Elves are reawakened across the universe by Jane's interaction with the gooey Robitussin. I'm still confused by these things, but this film isn't interested in explaining away that kind of logic.

Doesn't it seem like a grave misstep by the all-powerful Odin and the mighty Thor to have this weapon in the heart of their kingdom? Granted, Thor does have a plan to save her, but by then the Dark Elves have come a calling on Asgard, with technology that is at least 9,000 years old but makes the modern Asgardian defense seem obsolete. That perfectly encapsulates the problems with this movie; we've established a feasible, grounded-in-reality 'Thor-verse' to work with, and this film just craps all over those very rules. I also wondered where the entire population of Asgard was the first film gave us a bustling, populated kingdom, but when Dark Elves attacked, I only remember seeing soldiers and royalty. Did I miss something, or did the filmmakers get lazy?

I should counter by saying that this isn't a bad film- it is earnest, and funny at times. It simply seems to have forgotten its audience as well as what made the other films in the 'Avengers' pantheon work, which is what bothers me. After sitting through five set-up films before "The Avengers", producer and Marvel film chief Kevin Feige should know better than to allow a film like this to go through- one that treats the established audience like amateurs. It's a rushed, heavily edited (it appears), logic-defying action spectacle that lacks the emotional resonance of the first film and defies the established logic we were used to. Is it possible that there is a better edition of this film out there, or that director Alan Taylor (of 'Game of Thrones' fame) had a grittier, longer version in mind? With the film clocking in at 111 minutes, and with rumors about studio-directed reshoots earlier this past year, I can't help but wonder if those interested in dollar signs saw a bleaker, longer film at first and got scared enough to ask for changes (or mandate changes). I'm clearly speculating, but if that's the case, shame on them. Shame on them anyways for giving us an inferior film.

0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Free Birds (2013)

4/10

Cinematic tryptophan!! (**)

5 May 2015

It's important to preface this review with two things. First, I gave my child the choice of which movie he wanted to see between this and "Ender's Game". Without skipping a beat, he said "FREE BIRDS!". Also, it bears mentioning that I'm not a fan of vocal leads Owen Wilson OR Woody Harrelson, and I actively try to avoid seeing movies they're in. Sometimes it's unavoidable, like seeing "Wag the Dog" and having Woody surprise me with his presence. Keeping these things in mind, I didn't think there would be much to whet my appetite; truth be told, there isn't a great deal here to enjoy for kids or adults, but at least I can say that I didn't abhor the experience, and it's family friendly. If that does anything for you.

The idea is that turkeys are people, too. Yep. One turkey (Owen Wilson), who is 'different than all the others' (hence his purple visage), manages to become the one turkey the president pardons. The first daughter keeps him as a pet, and in the process, he orders pizza, watches telenovelas, and all while the humans are cool with the apparent personification of the turkey. The powerful turkey does not raise any red flags with humans of the present day, an interesting fact when contrasted with the humans from the past in the SAME MOVIE.

Did I say humans of the past? I did! That's right, our hero turkey meets another powerful turkey (Harrelson), who has one goal in mind- travel back in time to get turkeys off the thanksgiving menu. This other powerful turkey has been able to (without opposable thumbs): infiltrate top-secret government plans on time-travel research, get past the secret service, defy physics and get into the time-travel 'egg', etc, and SUCCEEDS. Adding to the silliness is the fact that the film shows us that humans can't understand the gobbles of turkeys (obviously), but the time capsule (with a navigation system voiced by George Takei) understands the turkeys perfectly (of course). I'm willing to suspend disbelief for most animated films, but this film takes complicated subjects and plays with them so lazily I couldn't help but get perturbed.

Once our 'hero turkeys' reach the past and the Plymouth settlement, the film makes the most sense, and has the most fun. The interaction among the film's main characters, while standard fare, makes the most sense, and provides a couple of laughs. Again, it's nothing new, though. The most damning representation of the value of this film was in the reaction of my child, though, who seemed disinterested, and in fact, ready to nap about an hour into the film during the colonial scenes.

The film's co-writer and producer, Scott Mosier, is a frequent collaborator of Kevin Smith. My problem with all of Smith's movies has been the laziness of the script to not expound on a good original idea. While it's not ultimately his responsibility, I sense the same thing with this film from Mosier and crew. It's not terrible, but the original, silly idea of altering the future of turkeys is unfortunately extrapolated over 90 minutes of typical character development, confounding science, and nonsensical decision-making by the humans in the film, who supposedly have much larger brains/brain capacity. I certainly didn't feel compelled to think, laugh, or enjoy myself for most of the film.

0 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

filmfanperspective

Reviews

Tell Your Friends

Recently Viewed