Death is something we are all confronted with throughout our lives; it's one of the few things that can freeze time around you, halt your ambitions and plunge you into a state of deep remorse. We see many deaths up on the screen, but the vast majority of them carry no weight, no impact. The hundreds of faceless goons who die in our action films have lives, ambitions, dreams. Sadly, fiction never takes the time to explore the nature of death because it is a somber subject, and it is not a topic too many people are eager to seek out. Cinema, after all, is escapism, and being reminded of our mortality isn't really the escapism we seek.
But Manchester by the Sea handles loss beautifully, and is a stark character study in what remorse and grief can do to a person. Opening on a boat where Lee Chandler (Casey Affleck) is playing with his young nephew Patrick (Ben O'Brien as a lad, Lucas Hedges as a teen), the film starts with a rather light tone. Suddenly we cut to Lee as a janitor, moving from tenant to tenant dealing with different plumbing issues and the like, we see a man who seems a shell of his former self, empty and lost, willing to throw a punch at a random guy at a bar simply for looking at him wrong.
Events are set in motion when Lee's brother, Joe (Kyle Chandler), passes away; while not an unexpected event (Joe is later revealed to have been diagnosed with a degenerative heart disease), it still halts Lee's life, forcing him to travel from a Boston suburb to Manchester, where his brother and nephew reside. There, he discovers that his brother has named him the guardian of Patrick, but Lee isn't necessarily ready to take on this responsibility. Much of the rest of the film details the process of dealing with the death, Patrick's way of coping (surrounding himself with friends and juggling two girlfriends who are unaware of each other is one way to keep your mind of your father's death), and the sadness of another tragedy that is revealed around halfway through the film.
Writer/director Kenneth Lonergan, whose past credits include You Can Count on Me and Margaret, is an incredibly skilled storyteller. Flashbacks are organically woven into the story that help illustrate the characters and explain their pain. We see Lee in various flashbacks when he was happily married to Randi (Michelle Williams), as well as Patrick's alcoholic mother Elise (Gretchen Mol). Nothing is ever stated obviously, and you are always aware of what the characters are feeling or thinking.
The film's tone is another strong point; although somber, it does contain flares of comedy layered into the sadness. Little moments like exchanges between Patrick and Lee, to sadly comic moments like the formality of signing paperwork for one's deceased relative. In one of the saddest moments of the movie, a gurney is having trouble collapsing fully to put a distraught person into an ambulance. This moment is the absolute nadir of this persons' life, yet life does not stop to forgive. And yet the drama comes through strongly, never feeling melodramatic. It would be so easy to for this film to feel like a Hallmark movie, yet it feels real.
The character of Lee is a rather unlikable person; you understand him by the film's end, but that doesn't make him forgivable. Even in flashbacks where he is a more animated person, he is no more likable. And where the film really excels is it doesn't offer up any redemption for him. This may be getting into minor spoilers, but one might expect a film like this to let Lee reconcile with his nephew and redeem himself. Yet there's a soul crushing line late in the film that let's you know that some things are irreparable. Some people can never come back.
Manchester by the Sea must be seen, if at least once. It's not really a good time; in fact, it will probably devastate most audience members. But its skill as a drama, its characters, everything about this movie is fantastic. It trusts the audience to know what is happening without holding their hands. That's a rare quality for a film in this day and age.
Tuesday, December 20, 2016
Thursday, December 15, 2016
Rogue One: A Star Wars Story (2016)
Rogue One: A Star Wars Story is the first in what is set to be a series of spin-off films in the ever-expanding universe that is Star Wars. Since Disney bought Lucasfilm over four years ago, we have been promised a new Star Wars feature every year. Kicking off with Episode VII last year, we now have at least two more episodes and a Han Solo spinoff to look forward too. No telling how many more of these films Disney is cooking up but rest assured, there will be no shortage of Star Wars for the foreseeable future.
Which isn't necessarily a bad thing. Star Wars, after all, is a galaxy-wide universe, so the amount of characters and stories that inhabit it are infinite. The storytelling possibilities are limitless, unlike the Marvel Cinematic Universe where everything must eventually satisfy the overall plan at hand.
Rogue One details the events that lead to the acquisition of the Death Star plans that are central to A New Hope, the first of the Star Wars series. There's Jyn Erso (Felicity Jones), a rebellious young woman whose father (Mads Mikkelsen) has been recruited back into the empire after he tried to escape. As a young girl, she witnesses her mother gunned down by Imperial Troops and her father whisked away by the evil Orson Krennic (a good but underused Ben Mendelsohn). The rest of the crew includes the rebel soldier Cassian (Diego Luna), the sarcastic robot K-2SO (Alan Tudyk), an imperial pilot (Riz Ahmed), and two random characters that somehow became involved, Chirrut (Donnie Yen, awesome as ever) and Baze Malbus (Wen Jiang).
How these people all come together to steal the plans is somewhat confusing and really not worth breaking down here. What matters is that everyone turns in a fine performance in their respected roles, and while no one delivers the end-all-be-all performance, they are better than, say, the prequels and, dare I say, many members of the original trilogy.
Where the film will get real mileage from fans is the return of many familiar characters. Darth Vader (James Earl Jones again supplying the voice) returns for a brief cameo, and the actor Peter Cushing, who passed away in 1994, has been digitally resurrected to play the role of Grand Moff Tarkin, a role he played in A New Hope. It really is a feat of CGI that this character looked very convincing, and I admired how well they had recast the role until I learned after that it was all CGI.
The film itself is competently directed by Gareth Edwards, from a script by Chris Weitz and Tony Gilroy. It sets a dark tone that fans will probably love, and stays true to the spirit of hopelessness for the rebellion, who haven't acquired Luke Skywalker yet. While the Force does enter the proceedings, lightsabers are for the most part absent as the art of the Jedi is extinct. The film even addresses, rather brilliantly, a plot-hole from A New Hope, now tied up and given extra weight and meaning.
One thing that does irk me is the peddling in heavy nostalgia these movies employ. Say what you will about the quality of the prequels, but for the most part they tried and offered up something new. We got pod racers, the federation ships, the federation robots, the Naboo fighters, and several other fresh designs. At least George Lucas was always thinking about how he could make the universe bigger.
The nostalgia factor isn't a hindrance here; in fact it makes perfect sense, given the movie's setting. But coming off the heels of The Force Awakens, which also featured heavy callbacks, I'm starting to worry these will revel in nostalgia too much.
Another shortcoming of the film is that, despite the actor's best efforts, the characters just aren't very interesting. Sure Jyn gets a backstory, but otherwise everyone is fairly underwritten and unmemorable. In a Star Wars movie, you should know the names of all the characters after a first viewing. The Force Awakens established it's three leads well (even Poe Dameron, who doesn't do much, is more interesting than anyone in this movie). Chalk it up to the more dour tone, but in the end I had no idea who most of the characters really were beyond the main heroine and villain.
It's a decent flick, and if you're a Star Wars fan, you'll love it. Casual fans will probably enjoy it too, but they will miss the references that will tickle the more devoted. What I fear, though, is that getting one of these every year is going to dilute the impact these films have. Once every two or three years and they become something truly special, but I worry that soon enough we won't care to see them because, well, it's just another Star Wars movie.
I guess that means the pressure is on Lucasfilm to give us a reason to keep coming back. I'm all for the Star Wars universe; it's a fun, exciting place with a rich mythology with many great stories to be told. But the nostalgia factor, at some point soon, is going to have to go. I want a Star Wars movie that isn't tied to the central conflict of the Empire vs. the Rebellion, or the Skywalkers. I want something that has nothing to do with that. Eventually, nostalgia is going to have to give for some original stories.
Which isn't necessarily a bad thing. Star Wars, after all, is a galaxy-wide universe, so the amount of characters and stories that inhabit it are infinite. The storytelling possibilities are limitless, unlike the Marvel Cinematic Universe where everything must eventually satisfy the overall plan at hand.
Rogue One details the events that lead to the acquisition of the Death Star plans that are central to A New Hope, the first of the Star Wars series. There's Jyn Erso (Felicity Jones), a rebellious young woman whose father (Mads Mikkelsen) has been recruited back into the empire after he tried to escape. As a young girl, she witnesses her mother gunned down by Imperial Troops and her father whisked away by the evil Orson Krennic (a good but underused Ben Mendelsohn). The rest of the crew includes the rebel soldier Cassian (Diego Luna), the sarcastic robot K-2SO (Alan Tudyk), an imperial pilot (Riz Ahmed), and two random characters that somehow became involved, Chirrut (Donnie Yen, awesome as ever) and Baze Malbus (Wen Jiang).
How these people all come together to steal the plans is somewhat confusing and really not worth breaking down here. What matters is that everyone turns in a fine performance in their respected roles, and while no one delivers the end-all-be-all performance, they are better than, say, the prequels and, dare I say, many members of the original trilogy.
Where the film will get real mileage from fans is the return of many familiar characters. Darth Vader (James Earl Jones again supplying the voice) returns for a brief cameo, and the actor Peter Cushing, who passed away in 1994, has been digitally resurrected to play the role of Grand Moff Tarkin, a role he played in A New Hope. It really is a feat of CGI that this character looked very convincing, and I admired how well they had recast the role until I learned after that it was all CGI.
The film itself is competently directed by Gareth Edwards, from a script by Chris Weitz and Tony Gilroy. It sets a dark tone that fans will probably love, and stays true to the spirit of hopelessness for the rebellion, who haven't acquired Luke Skywalker yet. While the Force does enter the proceedings, lightsabers are for the most part absent as the art of the Jedi is extinct. The film even addresses, rather brilliantly, a plot-hole from A New Hope, now tied up and given extra weight and meaning.
One thing that does irk me is the peddling in heavy nostalgia these movies employ. Say what you will about the quality of the prequels, but for the most part they tried and offered up something new. We got pod racers, the federation ships, the federation robots, the Naboo fighters, and several other fresh designs. At least George Lucas was always thinking about how he could make the universe bigger.
The nostalgia factor isn't a hindrance here; in fact it makes perfect sense, given the movie's setting. But coming off the heels of The Force Awakens, which also featured heavy callbacks, I'm starting to worry these will revel in nostalgia too much.
Another shortcoming of the film is that, despite the actor's best efforts, the characters just aren't very interesting. Sure Jyn gets a backstory, but otherwise everyone is fairly underwritten and unmemorable. In a Star Wars movie, you should know the names of all the characters after a first viewing. The Force Awakens established it's three leads well (even Poe Dameron, who doesn't do much, is more interesting than anyone in this movie). Chalk it up to the more dour tone, but in the end I had no idea who most of the characters really were beyond the main heroine and villain.
It's a decent flick, and if you're a Star Wars fan, you'll love it. Casual fans will probably enjoy it too, but they will miss the references that will tickle the more devoted. What I fear, though, is that getting one of these every year is going to dilute the impact these films have. Once every two or three years and they become something truly special, but I worry that soon enough we won't care to see them because, well, it's just another Star Wars movie.
I guess that means the pressure is on Lucasfilm to give us a reason to keep coming back. I'm all for the Star Wars universe; it's a fun, exciting place with a rich mythology with many great stories to be told. But the nostalgia factor, at some point soon, is going to have to go. I want a Star Wars movie that isn't tied to the central conflict of the Empire vs. the Rebellion, or the Skywalkers. I want something that has nothing to do with that. Eventually, nostalgia is going to have to give for some original stories.
Saturday, November 5, 2016
Doctor Strange (2016)
At some point, Marvel's formula has got to give. The superhero genre is not one that seems open to much innovation, and origin stories, while essential when introducing a character such as Doctor Strange, unfamiliar to the masses and myself, are getting a little old. A roguish fiend, sometimes rich (see: Tony Stark), must learn to better himself and master a new power (the Iron Man suit, the Ant-Man suit, recovering the strength to lift a hammer), before becoming the hero he was always meant to be.
After a stunning opening in which buildings expand and unfold like fans, we move into the story of Doctor Stephen Strange (Benedict Cumberbatch), an arrogant super surgeon (think an attitude a la Sherlock), who, in a horrific accident, receives excessive nerve damage to his hands. Seeking a cure where Western medicine has failed, he ventures to the Kathmandu where he is instructed by a Celtic Master (Tilda Swinton in a role originally for a Tibetan but rewritten to not offend the Chinese audience). There he masters ancient arts that allow him to summon weapons, leap from his body, and even control time.
Where the movie excels beyond every Marvel movie to date, is in its amazing visual effects that further the groundwork laid by Inception and one-ups it with even more city-defying visuals. Add to that an amazing sequence where Strange is sent through infinite multiverses, and you have some of the most beautiful and dazzling sequences of the year. I love when visual effects artists are allowed to stretch their chops, and Doctor Strange is one of the few cases where the visuals don't interfere or overpower the story.
But at this point, do we really need to see the same beats over and over again? Black Panther was refreshingly introduced in this past summer's Civil War with little explanation, and at this point we kind of accept that these people have crazy powers. But maybe Doctor Strange's world was a little too out there to just launch us into it; it's nice to learn the world along with Strange, being introduced to the rules of combat, what going astral means, and what a mirror universe is.
However, I really don't care for these arrogant rich assholes who learn to better themselves; it's hard to identify with them because they are already extraordinary to begin with, unlike me and my talentless life. The appeal of Peter Parker is that he is just like us, unsure of the world, and is gifted these powers. This is why so many of Hitchcock's films work, because an everyman is launched into extraordinary circumstances.
But it does little for my investment in a character when they have it all. Tony Stark was refreshing as he was at least the first of that brand of superhero (although he's still learning what it means to care for others 8 years into this franchise), but now that we've had Starlord and Ant-Man and Thor, the cocky, self-centered hero is just done at this point.
Quibbles aside, I rather enjoyed Doctor Strange quite a bit. Cumberbatch is fine and charismatic as Strange, Swinton is great as a mystical guru, Rachel McAdams becomes the latest female to have a thankless girlfriend role that she'll doubtful hang around for, Michael Stuhlbarg is wasted as a jealous fellow surgeon, and Mads Mikkelsen, though he can be villainous in his sleep, does not do much to help Marvel's villain problem. He leaves little impression on the story and is not given his full due.
It's a little disheartening that we've gotten 14 films into the MCU and there's not one I would hold up to Spider-Man 2 or The Dark Knight. The Avengers was revolutionary in the ambition and scope of the project, but the MCU at this point is too much of a corporate machine, a well-oiled engine designed to keep the cogs moving and establish the next film. I do enjoy these singular stories more, though, that don't really connect to the overall MCU beyond a reference or two. As far as superhero movies go, Doctor Strange is one of the better ones, especially for the eye popping visuals. Basic plotlines aside, that stuff is worth the price of admission.
After a stunning opening in which buildings expand and unfold like fans, we move into the story of Doctor Stephen Strange (Benedict Cumberbatch), an arrogant super surgeon (think an attitude a la Sherlock), who, in a horrific accident, receives excessive nerve damage to his hands. Seeking a cure where Western medicine has failed, he ventures to the Kathmandu where he is instructed by a Celtic Master (Tilda Swinton in a role originally for a Tibetan but rewritten to not offend the Chinese audience). There he masters ancient arts that allow him to summon weapons, leap from his body, and even control time.
Where the movie excels beyond every Marvel movie to date, is in its amazing visual effects that further the groundwork laid by Inception and one-ups it with even more city-defying visuals. Add to that an amazing sequence where Strange is sent through infinite multiverses, and you have some of the most beautiful and dazzling sequences of the year. I love when visual effects artists are allowed to stretch their chops, and Doctor Strange is one of the few cases where the visuals don't interfere or overpower the story.
But at this point, do we really need to see the same beats over and over again? Black Panther was refreshingly introduced in this past summer's Civil War with little explanation, and at this point we kind of accept that these people have crazy powers. But maybe Doctor Strange's world was a little too out there to just launch us into it; it's nice to learn the world along with Strange, being introduced to the rules of combat, what going astral means, and what a mirror universe is.
However, I really don't care for these arrogant rich assholes who learn to better themselves; it's hard to identify with them because they are already extraordinary to begin with, unlike me and my talentless life. The appeal of Peter Parker is that he is just like us, unsure of the world, and is gifted these powers. This is why so many of Hitchcock's films work, because an everyman is launched into extraordinary circumstances.
But it does little for my investment in a character when they have it all. Tony Stark was refreshing as he was at least the first of that brand of superhero (although he's still learning what it means to care for others 8 years into this franchise), but now that we've had Starlord and Ant-Man and Thor, the cocky, self-centered hero is just done at this point.
Quibbles aside, I rather enjoyed Doctor Strange quite a bit. Cumberbatch is fine and charismatic as Strange, Swinton is great as a mystical guru, Rachel McAdams becomes the latest female to have a thankless girlfriend role that she'll doubtful hang around for, Michael Stuhlbarg is wasted as a jealous fellow surgeon, and Mads Mikkelsen, though he can be villainous in his sleep, does not do much to help Marvel's villain problem. He leaves little impression on the story and is not given his full due.
It's a little disheartening that we've gotten 14 films into the MCU and there's not one I would hold up to Spider-Man 2 or The Dark Knight. The Avengers was revolutionary in the ambition and scope of the project, but the MCU at this point is too much of a corporate machine, a well-oiled engine designed to keep the cogs moving and establish the next film. I do enjoy these singular stories more, though, that don't really connect to the overall MCU beyond a reference or two. As far as superhero movies go, Doctor Strange is one of the better ones, especially for the eye popping visuals. Basic plotlines aside, that stuff is worth the price of admission.
Saturday, September 24, 2016
Don't Breathe (2016)
Set in Detroit, Hollywood's favorite stage for a depressed, rundown city, the film follows 3 young adults (Jane Levy, Dylan Minette and Daniel Zovato) who break into people's houses, although they never take more than $10k to avoid grand larceny charges. However, faced with the opportunity to score at least six figures, they take on an old blind man (Steven Lang) who is sitting on a huge court settlement. Easy right? Well, of course the Blind Man is not what he seems.
Directed by Fede Alvarez, who helmed the Evil Dead remake a couple years ago, the film is extremely effective at laying out the confined space of the house and peril that the young characters find themselves in. The film also establishes a great moral conundrum for the audience; root for the robbers, who have noble if misguided goals (get out of their shitty situation), or the Blind Man, seemingly innocent and defenseless.
It's a great quandary, until about midway through the movie when a shift happens that I won't spoil that definitively places the Blind Man into the monster category. I suppose that's the price we must pay for such a tense film; you need to be rooting for someone, and the initial setup left who the actual heroes were too ambiguous.
Which is fine. These movies need some sort of definitive villain I guess. The movie lays out tense scenario after tense scenario, and just when you think it's over it keeps going. The Blind Man is a sometimes inconsistent monster, at one moment able to sense exactly where a character is in the room, at another oblivious to anyone's presence.
Don't Breathe is fairly schlocky, and it's the kind that goes to depraved places you will not be able to anticipate. Equal parts thriller and horror, it's an example of an effective genre film. I enjoyed the ride, but I'm not sure I'm ready to do it again anytime soon.
Monday, August 15, 2016
Sausage Party (2016)
Adult-aimed animated films are few and far between here in the states. In Japan, anime runs free, existing in any genre it pleases, satisfying both young and old on different levels. There is no need to dumb down and add fun things for kids in the anime world. In some ways I wish that existed here in the states; then maybe Sausage Party, the new Seth Rogen-Evan Goldberg comedy, wouldn't feel compelled to litter the script with so much profanity and could instead focus on being a little more clever.
A Pixar parody, Sausage Party poses the question "what if food had feelings the same way the toys in Toy Story (1995) did?" The food in a supermarket dream of being taken by the "Gods" (a.k.a. humans) into the great beyond where they will enter nirvana. In one of the movie's funniest scenes, food quickly realizes that the great beyond is not so pleasant.
A feisty sausage named Frank (Seth Rogen) learns the truth through other means, and sets out on a quest along with his sweetheart Brenda (Kristen Wiig), a hot dog bun, and two foods named Lavash (David Krumholtz) and Sammy (Edward Norton), a bagel. They come across several other food items, and slowly Frank realizes he must try and spread the truth to the other foods.
The movie is often pretty funny, providing a surprising analogy to real world religion and atheism. Lavash and Sammy both clearly represent Palestinian and Israeli relations, and several other ethnic stereotypes are on display, including a taco voiced by Salma Hayek, and tubes of sauerkraut dressed like the SS that are determined to exterminate the "juice."
It also takes full advantage of it's R rating and goes places I didn't fully expect and was surprised and shocked by. There is a final montage near the end that I won't dare spoil that definitely pushes the bounds of taste and will leave your audience in stitches or in disbelief.
But, on some level, I wish the movie had been cleverer with it's R rating. The first word uttered is "Shit" and the opening number, written by Alan Menken (who has written his fair share of Disney songs), is surprisingly profanity laden. On one level, it is probably Rogen and company simply stating to any foolish parents who wandered in with their child "leave now, while you still can, because this movie is going places."
But, I dunno, to really do the religion parallel it would have been interesting to see the food actually have language befitting a Christian (at least at church), and then as the veil is lifted, their language is also corrupted. I don't really know how that would work, but it also gets a little numbing hearing a "hot dog" say fuck a lot, and less would be more.
It's also troubling to hear reports coming out about the animators on the film supposedly working tons of overtime for no pay, to keep the film coming in at an amazingly cheap $19 million (for comparison, June's Finding Dory cost an estimated $200 million). All the characters are well rendered, although the backgrounds and feel of the world leave something to be desired. It's understandable that adult animated movies are not a sure thing, but that doesn't excuse abuse of workers.
Controversy aside, the final product is overall a very fun, funny time. You'll probably know within five minutes of the movie if you are in or out. Rogen and Goldberg, along with co-writers Ariel Shaffir and Kyle Hunter, and directors Greg Tiernan and Conrad Vernon have delivered a raunchy sex-comedy about food that offends in the right ways and pushes the boundary of taste beyond what I thought was possible. It doesn't outdo South Park, but it comes close.
A Pixar parody, Sausage Party poses the question "what if food had feelings the same way the toys in Toy Story (1995) did?" The food in a supermarket dream of being taken by the "Gods" (a.k.a. humans) into the great beyond where they will enter nirvana. In one of the movie's funniest scenes, food quickly realizes that the great beyond is not so pleasant.
A feisty sausage named Frank (Seth Rogen) learns the truth through other means, and sets out on a quest along with his sweetheart Brenda (Kristen Wiig), a hot dog bun, and two foods named Lavash (David Krumholtz) and Sammy (Edward Norton), a bagel. They come across several other food items, and slowly Frank realizes he must try and spread the truth to the other foods.
The movie is often pretty funny, providing a surprising analogy to real world religion and atheism. Lavash and Sammy both clearly represent Palestinian and Israeli relations, and several other ethnic stereotypes are on display, including a taco voiced by Salma Hayek, and tubes of sauerkraut dressed like the SS that are determined to exterminate the "juice."
It also takes full advantage of it's R rating and goes places I didn't fully expect and was surprised and shocked by. There is a final montage near the end that I won't dare spoil that definitely pushes the bounds of taste and will leave your audience in stitches or in disbelief.
But, on some level, I wish the movie had been cleverer with it's R rating. The first word uttered is "Shit" and the opening number, written by Alan Menken (who has written his fair share of Disney songs), is surprisingly profanity laden. On one level, it is probably Rogen and company simply stating to any foolish parents who wandered in with their child "leave now, while you still can, because this movie is going places."
But, I dunno, to really do the religion parallel it would have been interesting to see the food actually have language befitting a Christian (at least at church), and then as the veil is lifted, their language is also corrupted. I don't really know how that would work, but it also gets a little numbing hearing a "hot dog" say fuck a lot, and less would be more.
It's also troubling to hear reports coming out about the animators on the film supposedly working tons of overtime for no pay, to keep the film coming in at an amazingly cheap $19 million (for comparison, June's Finding Dory cost an estimated $200 million). All the characters are well rendered, although the backgrounds and feel of the world leave something to be desired. It's understandable that adult animated movies are not a sure thing, but that doesn't excuse abuse of workers.
Controversy aside, the final product is overall a very fun, funny time. You'll probably know within five minutes of the movie if you are in or out. Rogen and Goldberg, along with co-writers Ariel Shaffir and Kyle Hunter, and directors Greg Tiernan and Conrad Vernon have delivered a raunchy sex-comedy about food that offends in the right ways and pushes the boundary of taste beyond what I thought was possible. It doesn't outdo South Park, but it comes close.
Friday, August 12, 2016
Swiss Army Man (2016)
It's been a pretty disappointing summer; there has really been no Mad Max: Fury Road or Inside Out to stand above the endless deluge of sequels and reboots that is Hollywood's stock-in-trade these days. Afraid to take a risk, studios try and feed us the same crap over and over again, and if box office receipts are any indication (currently $1 billion less than last summer), the general public is a little fatigued.
And while Swiss Army Man doesn't exactly live up to last summer's best, it certainly does something else; it's bold, exciting, interesting, and worth thinking about, if ultimately what it has to offer up isn't particularly deep.
Opening on a desolate island, a man named Hank (Paul Dano) is attempting to hang himself, until he sees a flatulent corpse (Daniel Radcliffe) washed up on the shore. Harnessing the power of his farts to propel him through the water, Hank uses the corpse as a jet ski to get him to the mainland. He drags the corpse along on his journey to civilization, and soon the corpse begins to talk.
Named Manny, the corpse possesses a childlike outlook on the world; reanimated, he has forgotten his current life and so questions everything Hank tells him, wondering why humans are isolated and lonely, and more importantly, why we are uncomfortable farting in front of each other.
These aren't exactly hard hitting questions; any freshman philosophy major has surely pondered questions far beyond these. But the way the movie presents these queries is unique enough that you forgive it for not diving a little bit deeper. Manny's wonderment and Hank's explanations lead to some truly beautiful passages in the film, and Hank recreates society out of garbage strewn through the woods they traverse.
The film is written and directed by Dan Kwan and Daniel Scheinert, who collectively call themselves Daniels, best known as music video directors (their most well-known probably being the outrageous, shocking Turn Down For What video, in which people's body parts lose control to the beat of DJ Snake's rhythm). As visual artists, they are ones to be reckoned with, as the truly best parts of the film are those that come closest to being a music video. Accompanying a score by Andy Hull and Robert McDowell (both from the band Manchester Orchestra), there are some sequences here that people will refer back to as I guarantee this movie will attain a sort of cult status in the years to come. The production design by David Duarte is also spectacular, creating a tactile, alternate world out of the trash in the woods.
But, unfortunately, the movie can't sustain itself and falls apart in the end. Without giving too much away, the movie goes to a bold place that unfortunately doesn't work, and leaves you with a bit of a sour taste in your mouth. What had been, up until that point, a morbid but surprisingly touching meditation on life devolves into a stalker creep show. I give the movie props for trying, but it also tries to take the easy way out with it's final images, and the clash doesn't work.
Overall, though, the movie billed as the farting-corpse film surprisingly works very well. Paul Dano and Daniel Radcliffe are both stellar in the film, Radcliffe especially as the corpse. They achieve a touching relationship, and bizarre as that sounds that a man and a corpse bond, it's a least something refreshing that's worth talking about.
And while Swiss Army Man doesn't exactly live up to last summer's best, it certainly does something else; it's bold, exciting, interesting, and worth thinking about, if ultimately what it has to offer up isn't particularly deep.
Opening on a desolate island, a man named Hank (Paul Dano) is attempting to hang himself, until he sees a flatulent corpse (Daniel Radcliffe) washed up on the shore. Harnessing the power of his farts to propel him through the water, Hank uses the corpse as a jet ski to get him to the mainland. He drags the corpse along on his journey to civilization, and soon the corpse begins to talk.
Named Manny, the corpse possesses a childlike outlook on the world; reanimated, he has forgotten his current life and so questions everything Hank tells him, wondering why humans are isolated and lonely, and more importantly, why we are uncomfortable farting in front of each other.
These aren't exactly hard hitting questions; any freshman philosophy major has surely pondered questions far beyond these. But the way the movie presents these queries is unique enough that you forgive it for not diving a little bit deeper. Manny's wonderment and Hank's explanations lead to some truly beautiful passages in the film, and Hank recreates society out of garbage strewn through the woods they traverse.
The film is written and directed by Dan Kwan and Daniel Scheinert, who collectively call themselves Daniels, best known as music video directors (their most well-known probably being the outrageous, shocking Turn Down For What video, in which people's body parts lose control to the beat of DJ Snake's rhythm). As visual artists, they are ones to be reckoned with, as the truly best parts of the film are those that come closest to being a music video. Accompanying a score by Andy Hull and Robert McDowell (both from the band Manchester Orchestra), there are some sequences here that people will refer back to as I guarantee this movie will attain a sort of cult status in the years to come. The production design by David Duarte is also spectacular, creating a tactile, alternate world out of the trash in the woods.
But, unfortunately, the movie can't sustain itself and falls apart in the end. Without giving too much away, the movie goes to a bold place that unfortunately doesn't work, and leaves you with a bit of a sour taste in your mouth. What had been, up until that point, a morbid but surprisingly touching meditation on life devolves into a stalker creep show. I give the movie props for trying, but it also tries to take the easy way out with it's final images, and the clash doesn't work.
Overall, though, the movie billed as the farting-corpse film surprisingly works very well. Paul Dano and Daniel Radcliffe are both stellar in the film, Radcliffe especially as the corpse. They achieve a touching relationship, and bizarre as that sounds that a man and a corpse bond, it's a least something refreshing that's worth talking about.
Saturday, August 6, 2016
Star Trek Beyond (2016)
As far as the new series of Star Trek movies go, Star Trek Beyond is the most enjoyable, probably in part because it was co-written by Simon Pegg, who you can feel is a real fan of the series. Not to say that previous scribes Alex Kurtzman and Roberto Orci weren't, or director J.J. Abrams, but there's something about this one that just feels more Star Trek than what we've gotten before.
Set 3 years into the 5 year deep-space mission of the USS Enterprise, we pick up on a Kirk (Chris Pine) bored with the journey and looking to make a career move, a Spock (Zachary Quinto) who learns of the death of his alternate universe self (the late Leonard Nimoy) and decides maybe he should do more to help his endangered race, and a crew that still more or less functions as a whole.
After a stopover at a Federation port, the crew comes across a refugee from an alien attack in a nearby nebulae, and jump on the opportunity to investigate the misdeeds. It's not long until the Enterprise is under attack and crashes on a nearby planet, where the crew is separated and must journey to reunite with each other.
As directed by Justin Lin, best known for reviving the Fast and the Furious movies into a lucrative franchise, the film is chockfull of delightful, fun action sequences that vibrate with a unique pulse and entertain. He's helped by Pegg's script, co-written with Doug Jung, which makes Pine's Kirk bearable for the first time in the franchise, and unites the crew in a way we haven't really seen in this series.
Back again are Zoe Saldana as Uhura, Karl Urban as Bones, Pegg as Scotty, John Cho as Sulu, and the late Anton Yelchin as Chekov, all comfortable and making the roles their own, the pressures of living up to the original cast all but a distant memory. Joining the cast are Sofia Boutella as Jayla, an alien the crew stumbles across on the foreign planet, and Idris Elba as Krall, a rather boring bad guy whose motivations and twists are a little too confusing and muddied.
While the film is entertaining, there are large portions that jump incredible logic, and you kind of just accept it because it's sci-fi and that's what happens. But too many times the film does this and at some point it feels a little convenient for convenience sake.
But my quibbles are minor; this film is a great step-up from the dour tone of Into Darkness, which was more obsessed with being a mirror to The Wrath of Khan than being it's own unique piece. While the first in this series ingeniously set-up a new universe where new stories could be told, the second squandered this potential by paying too much homage to a classic. Beyond, hate or love it, at least tries to tell a new story, familiar as it may be to other Trek films.
And Lin, surprisingly, is a director I don't mind. This is the first of his films I've seen, and while I don't consider him a great auteur, he has an effortless, entertaining way of delivering his films that make them palatable. Sadly, this is something that many directors today can't do, and while we shouldn't praise serviceable entertainment for doing the bare minimum, it's somewhat needed to prop up films like this that, at the very least, go one step beyond.
Set 3 years into the 5 year deep-space mission of the USS Enterprise, we pick up on a Kirk (Chris Pine) bored with the journey and looking to make a career move, a Spock (Zachary Quinto) who learns of the death of his alternate universe self (the late Leonard Nimoy) and decides maybe he should do more to help his endangered race, and a crew that still more or less functions as a whole.
After a stopover at a Federation port, the crew comes across a refugee from an alien attack in a nearby nebulae, and jump on the opportunity to investigate the misdeeds. It's not long until the Enterprise is under attack and crashes on a nearby planet, where the crew is separated and must journey to reunite with each other.
As directed by Justin Lin, best known for reviving the Fast and the Furious movies into a lucrative franchise, the film is chockfull of delightful, fun action sequences that vibrate with a unique pulse and entertain. He's helped by Pegg's script, co-written with Doug Jung, which makes Pine's Kirk bearable for the first time in the franchise, and unites the crew in a way we haven't really seen in this series.
Back again are Zoe Saldana as Uhura, Karl Urban as Bones, Pegg as Scotty, John Cho as Sulu, and the late Anton Yelchin as Chekov, all comfortable and making the roles their own, the pressures of living up to the original cast all but a distant memory. Joining the cast are Sofia Boutella as Jayla, an alien the crew stumbles across on the foreign planet, and Idris Elba as Krall, a rather boring bad guy whose motivations and twists are a little too confusing and muddied.
While the film is entertaining, there are large portions that jump incredible logic, and you kind of just accept it because it's sci-fi and that's what happens. But too many times the film does this and at some point it feels a little convenient for convenience sake.
But my quibbles are minor; this film is a great step-up from the dour tone of Into Darkness, which was more obsessed with being a mirror to The Wrath of Khan than being it's own unique piece. While the first in this series ingeniously set-up a new universe where new stories could be told, the second squandered this potential by paying too much homage to a classic. Beyond, hate or love it, at least tries to tell a new story, familiar as it may be to other Trek films.
And Lin, surprisingly, is a director I don't mind. This is the first of his films I've seen, and while I don't consider him a great auteur, he has an effortless, entertaining way of delivering his films that make them palatable. Sadly, this is something that many directors today can't do, and while we shouldn't praise serviceable entertainment for doing the bare minimum, it's somewhat needed to prop up films like this that, at the very least, go one step beyond.
Wednesday, August 3, 2016
Lights Out (2016)
It seems that horror films today feel they need one unique gimmick to stand out from the scores of slasher and ghost flicks to really make an impact and draw interest. Paranormal Activity (2007) did this fairly well with a stationary camera watching a couple sleeping, except when something spooky happened like a blanket moving or door creaking; Saw (2004) brought horror-torture to the mainstream, the first a fairly straightforward thriller, the rest showcases of escalating gruesomeness.
Lights Out, directing by first-timer David F. Sandberg, based on a short film he made with Lotta Losten, has one ingeniously chilling effect that it succeeds in not over-doing throughout its brisk 81-minute runtime: when the lights goes out, a shadow materializes, and when the lights go on, the shadow is gone.
The initial visual was a great sell in the trailer, but sadly the movie dispenses with the best shot early, as a factory worker sees the ghoulish specter as she leaves, flipping the lights on and off revealing and disappearing the shadow, in a set-up that is both comedic and frightening. And after that, the movie really has nowhere to go from there.
Opening with the murder of Rebecca's (Teresa Palmer) dad (Billy Burke) at the hands of the photophobic ghoul, the film sets about with a fairly routine story; the main girl, who is relationship-adverse to her otherwise charming and committed beau, Bret (Alexander DiPersia); the child (Gabriel Bateman) who knows something is wrong yet is not believed by adults; and the crazy mother (Maria Bello) who is harboring a secret.
There's nothing bad about the movie, and the scares are rather well done, if they conform to the usual routine of being very loud to startle you. Fighting a ghost adverse to light can seem like a silly task when you just leave the lights on, but of course the ghost seems to be able to cut power to a whole house so that tension can mount.
And the performers are all around pretty good. Maria Bello is a welcome sight, and is a strong addition to the cast. The direction is fine, as Mr. Palmer has been assigned to direct the forthcoming Annabelle 2, part of a spin-off The Conjuring series. Maybe he can envision more ingenious images that illicit fright, as he does so well with the initial shots of this film.
But the movie could have benefited from a little Jaws style horror, where the ghost isn't "seen" (although it never really is) until later in the movie. And the reason behind who-and-what this ghost is is a little disappointing. I understand too much ambiguity can be frustrating and lazy, but too much clarification balances the scales in the other direction. I don't mind the ghost has a backstory, but it's so definitive and finite that it takes away some of the scares. We know Freddy's backstory in A Nightmare in Elm Street, but we're never sure why he is in people's dreams (at least in the initial film).
Overall, as far as horror films go, you could do a lot worse. This one is short on gore, but the tension is real, and for a hot summer day, it's a fun respite from the heat.
Lights Out, directing by first-timer David F. Sandberg, based on a short film he made with Lotta Losten, has one ingeniously chilling effect that it succeeds in not over-doing throughout its brisk 81-minute runtime: when the lights goes out, a shadow materializes, and when the lights go on, the shadow is gone.
The initial visual was a great sell in the trailer, but sadly the movie dispenses with the best shot early, as a factory worker sees the ghoulish specter as she leaves, flipping the lights on and off revealing and disappearing the shadow, in a set-up that is both comedic and frightening. And after that, the movie really has nowhere to go from there.
Opening with the murder of Rebecca's (Teresa Palmer) dad (Billy Burke) at the hands of the photophobic ghoul, the film sets about with a fairly routine story; the main girl, who is relationship-adverse to her otherwise charming and committed beau, Bret (Alexander DiPersia); the child (Gabriel Bateman) who knows something is wrong yet is not believed by adults; and the crazy mother (Maria Bello) who is harboring a secret.
There's nothing bad about the movie, and the scares are rather well done, if they conform to the usual routine of being very loud to startle you. Fighting a ghost adverse to light can seem like a silly task when you just leave the lights on, but of course the ghost seems to be able to cut power to a whole house so that tension can mount.
And the performers are all around pretty good. Maria Bello is a welcome sight, and is a strong addition to the cast. The direction is fine, as Mr. Palmer has been assigned to direct the forthcoming Annabelle 2, part of a spin-off The Conjuring series. Maybe he can envision more ingenious images that illicit fright, as he does so well with the initial shots of this film.
But the movie could have benefited from a little Jaws style horror, where the ghost isn't "seen" (although it never really is) until later in the movie. And the reason behind who-and-what this ghost is is a little disappointing. I understand too much ambiguity can be frustrating and lazy, but too much clarification balances the scales in the other direction. I don't mind the ghost has a backstory, but it's so definitive and finite that it takes away some of the scares. We know Freddy's backstory in A Nightmare in Elm Street, but we're never sure why he is in people's dreams (at least in the initial film).
Overall, as far as horror films go, you could do a lot worse. This one is short on gore, but the tension is real, and for a hot summer day, it's a fun respite from the heat.
Tuesday, August 2, 2016
The Nice Guys (2016)
As far as films like The Nice Guys (2016) go, you can't do much worse in a summer packed full of even more sequels and unimaginative reboots then ever thought possible (although I'm sure 2017 and on will wear us down just as much). I don't know if it's fair to say "They don't make them like this anymore," but The Nice Guys has a sort of easy enjoyability that doesn't insult your intelligence too much and is an all around good time.
Set in 1970s Los Angeles, the film follows two private eyes, Jackson (Russell Crowe) and Holland (Ryan Gosling), who cross paths while investigating the same missing girl. What seems like a fairly open-and-shut case spirals out of control as a conspiracy plot is unveiled that leads high up in ranking officials.
The film is written and directed by Shane Black, best known for writing the Lethal Weapon series and directing Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang (2005) and Iron Man 3 (2013). Like most of those other films, the plot involves two guys, one a loose canon/alcoholic, the other a "trained professional." To say the man has a pattern is an understatement, but if it ain't broke, don't fix it. And he does it mighty well.
But certain issues still pervade this film; for one, almost all the female characters exist in the porn industry, accept Holland's daughter Holly (Angourie Rice), a spunky little pistol of her own right who doesn't listen to her dad and tags along. There is also a certain disregard for casualties that abound in the movie; while most of the central characters stay alive, many bystanders who have little to no bearing on the plot meet untimely ends.
Which I guess is fine; mass casualties are kind of a stock-in-trade for films like this. But the film makes a big deal out of one major character's redemption near the end by convincing him killing is wrong, which I would buy if maybe the person spared hadn't just caused several other deaths. It's a bit backwards for the film to decide mercy is the way when for so long people are just mowed down in the background for no cause.
Crowe and Gosling make a fun combo, and the well-rounded supporting cast include Matt Bomer, Keith David, and Kim Basinger (fascinating to see Crowe and Basinger reunited in a LA period piece nearly two decades after the superb L.A. Confidential (1997)). Really, there's not much to say other than the movie is fairly enjoyable and will hold your interest for its near two-hour running time. Sometimes, in a summer full of mediocrity, that's just enough.
Set in 1970s Los Angeles, the film follows two private eyes, Jackson (Russell Crowe) and Holland (Ryan Gosling), who cross paths while investigating the same missing girl. What seems like a fairly open-and-shut case spirals out of control as a conspiracy plot is unveiled that leads high up in ranking officials.
The film is written and directed by Shane Black, best known for writing the Lethal Weapon series and directing Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang (2005) and Iron Man 3 (2013). Like most of those other films, the plot involves two guys, one a loose canon/alcoholic, the other a "trained professional." To say the man has a pattern is an understatement, but if it ain't broke, don't fix it. And he does it mighty well.
But certain issues still pervade this film; for one, almost all the female characters exist in the porn industry, accept Holland's daughter Holly (Angourie Rice), a spunky little pistol of her own right who doesn't listen to her dad and tags along. There is also a certain disregard for casualties that abound in the movie; while most of the central characters stay alive, many bystanders who have little to no bearing on the plot meet untimely ends.
Which I guess is fine; mass casualties are kind of a stock-in-trade for films like this. But the film makes a big deal out of one major character's redemption near the end by convincing him killing is wrong, which I would buy if maybe the person spared hadn't just caused several other deaths. It's a bit backwards for the film to decide mercy is the way when for so long people are just mowed down in the background for no cause.
Crowe and Gosling make a fun combo, and the well-rounded supporting cast include Matt Bomer, Keith David, and Kim Basinger (fascinating to see Crowe and Basinger reunited in a LA period piece nearly two decades after the superb L.A. Confidential (1997)). Really, there's not much to say other than the movie is fairly enjoyable and will hold your interest for its near two-hour running time. Sometimes, in a summer full of mediocrity, that's just enough.
Thursday, June 30, 2016
Independence Day: Resurgence (2016)
Independence Day: Resurgence (2016) is the very, very late sequel to the 1996 box office smash that more or less helped define the modern, overblown blockbuster. It was the film that put Roland Emmerich on the map and ushered in a new era of big, dumb explosion films. But, viewing the new film, one can almost feel the original is a subtle masterpiece of deft storytelling.
Resurgence picks up 20 years after the original, in an alternate-universe Earth where the alien technology has helped us make great advances as a civilization. World peace is universal, as all our petty differences have been put aside to unite and build a strong fortification for the inevitable return of the aliens that attacked us so long ago.
And, before long, the aliens do return. This time, instead of sending several large discs from one mothership hovering near the moon, we get one, massive ship, 3,000 miles in diameter, with it's own gravitational pull, which creates a whole new method of city destruction as one East Asian city is picked up and dropped on London, completely obliterating both places.
The film does an impressive job of reigning back in all the major players from the first film, except Will Smith, who opted to make the forthcoming Suicide Squad instead. His absence is explained away as a test run crash that killed him, and his son Dylan (Jessie T. Usher) has filled his father's large shoes rather well, becoming a pilot in his own right. Jeff Goldblum, Bill Pullman, Judd Hirsch, Vivica A. Fox, and even Brent Spiner (who many, myself included, assumed died in the first film) are back.
There's very little this film does right, but the things it does well include Spiner's character, a wacky scientist who gets considerable more screen time and adds some much needed levity to the proceedings, and one or two fun set pieces, including Goldblum driving a school bus full of children away from a giant alien.
But the film has a multitude of problems. The first is it's endless subplots. Emmerich is a fan of having many characters in many locations to move the plot forward, but unfortunately the film becomes spread so thin between all these different locations that none of them have barely anytime to register, leaving us simply exhausted trying to keep up.
There's President Whitmore (Pullman) from the first film, suffering visions from his psychic link to the aliens; an African warlord who also suffers the same visions; a nerdy guy proving he can kill aliens; a rivalry between Dylan and Jake (Liam Hemsworth); a budding romance between Jake's friend and a Chinese pilot; a real romance between Jake and the President's daughter (Maika Monroe); a therapist deciphering the alien message; an alien being from another planet not associated with those trying to kill us; Judd Hirsch traversing across the country with a school bus full of children to reach his son; and a merchant boat out in the Atlantic monitoring the aliens' drilling.
All of this is edited at a breakneck pace that barely gives you anytime to breathe. The film hurdles through scenes, establishing characters and relationships with the typical expository dialogue you've come to expect from Emmerich. Characters introduce themselves by quickly explaining their backstories and what issues they might have with other characters so we know they'll be resolved by the end of everything. That this film has five credited screenwriters is baffling; something written by five people should never be this bad.
The film also suffers from not feeling as big as the first one. Say what you will about Independence Day, but it builds and builds to the first payoff, the set piece in which the White House and Los Angeles are blown to hell. The films spends about 45 minute getting all the characters into place, and while the script is really no better, at least there is a sense of pacing. There is a sense of how big this threat is and how impossible the odds are for our heroes to win. In this film, there is never a moments doubt that our heroes will prevail in the end.
I guess I'm not sure what I expected from a big Emmerich blockbuster. He's got a long track record of horrible films, and while this is certainly not his worst, it does nothing to give him credit as a filmmaker. The film shrewdly tries to set the wheels in motion for a sequel, which I certainly do not look forward to. In our reality of 2016, everything must be built to be a franchise, a unique universe to pull in huge bucks for the studios. But you have to make the characters interesting and worth investing in first.
Resurgence picks up 20 years after the original, in an alternate-universe Earth where the alien technology has helped us make great advances as a civilization. World peace is universal, as all our petty differences have been put aside to unite and build a strong fortification for the inevitable return of the aliens that attacked us so long ago.
And, before long, the aliens do return. This time, instead of sending several large discs from one mothership hovering near the moon, we get one, massive ship, 3,000 miles in diameter, with it's own gravitational pull, which creates a whole new method of city destruction as one East Asian city is picked up and dropped on London, completely obliterating both places.
The film does an impressive job of reigning back in all the major players from the first film, except Will Smith, who opted to make the forthcoming Suicide Squad instead. His absence is explained away as a test run crash that killed him, and his son Dylan (Jessie T. Usher) has filled his father's large shoes rather well, becoming a pilot in his own right. Jeff Goldblum, Bill Pullman, Judd Hirsch, Vivica A. Fox, and even Brent Spiner (who many, myself included, assumed died in the first film) are back.
There's very little this film does right, but the things it does well include Spiner's character, a wacky scientist who gets considerable more screen time and adds some much needed levity to the proceedings, and one or two fun set pieces, including Goldblum driving a school bus full of children away from a giant alien.
But the film has a multitude of problems. The first is it's endless subplots. Emmerich is a fan of having many characters in many locations to move the plot forward, but unfortunately the film becomes spread so thin between all these different locations that none of them have barely anytime to register, leaving us simply exhausted trying to keep up.
There's President Whitmore (Pullman) from the first film, suffering visions from his psychic link to the aliens; an African warlord who also suffers the same visions; a nerdy guy proving he can kill aliens; a rivalry between Dylan and Jake (Liam Hemsworth); a budding romance between Jake's friend and a Chinese pilot; a real romance between Jake and the President's daughter (Maika Monroe); a therapist deciphering the alien message; an alien being from another planet not associated with those trying to kill us; Judd Hirsch traversing across the country with a school bus full of children to reach his son; and a merchant boat out in the Atlantic monitoring the aliens' drilling.
All of this is edited at a breakneck pace that barely gives you anytime to breathe. The film hurdles through scenes, establishing characters and relationships with the typical expository dialogue you've come to expect from Emmerich. Characters introduce themselves by quickly explaining their backstories and what issues they might have with other characters so we know they'll be resolved by the end of everything. That this film has five credited screenwriters is baffling; something written by five people should never be this bad.
The film also suffers from not feeling as big as the first one. Say what you will about Independence Day, but it builds and builds to the first payoff, the set piece in which the White House and Los Angeles are blown to hell. The films spends about 45 minute getting all the characters into place, and while the script is really no better, at least there is a sense of pacing. There is a sense of how big this threat is and how impossible the odds are for our heroes to win. In this film, there is never a moments doubt that our heroes will prevail in the end.
I guess I'm not sure what I expected from a big Emmerich blockbuster. He's got a long track record of horrible films, and while this is certainly not his worst, it does nothing to give him credit as a filmmaker. The film shrewdly tries to set the wheels in motion for a sequel, which I certainly do not look forward to. In our reality of 2016, everything must be built to be a franchise, a unique universe to pull in huge bucks for the studios. But you have to make the characters interesting and worth investing in first.
Saturday, June 25, 2016
The Fits (2015)
The Fits (2015) is a rather strange little indie drama from first time director Anna Rose Holmer that showcases remarkable skill and a gifted filmmaker to watch for in the coming years. The film is short, at only 72 minutes, but it feels just right and that there shouldn't be any more or any less to it. It's an economical story and sometimes those feel just right.
The story concerns an 11-year-old tomboy named Toni (Royalty Hightower), who helps her older brother at a boxing gym, but is fascinated with the dancing troupe right next door (many of whom admire the bulked up boxing boys). She slowly grows to fit in, but not before the girls on the troupe start having unexplainable violent fits that send them to the hospital.
The why explaining what the fits are isn't important; some speculate it's the school water supply, but tests ring back that the water is clean, and soon the girls grow from fearing the oncoming fits to accepting that they will happen at some point, and almost anticipating the out-of-body experience others are describing.
Shot almost entirely in one location, the movie has a terrific, indescribable sense of dread pervading it. At first it seems like an innocuous pre-teen movie, before the fits start taking over. Holmer, who has extensive credits in the camera department for bigger budge Hollywood films (such as Twilight), stages many shots to focus solely on our protagonist and not show us what is going on around her. We almost see her from everyone else's perspective, and barely register hers.
Ultimately this is an interesting movie that's worth checking out on Video on Demand. By no means a great achievement, it showcases a great talent for the creative team behind it, and makes me anticipate any new films from these creators.
The story concerns an 11-year-old tomboy named Toni (Royalty Hightower), who helps her older brother at a boxing gym, but is fascinated with the dancing troupe right next door (many of whom admire the bulked up boxing boys). She slowly grows to fit in, but not before the girls on the troupe start having unexplainable violent fits that send them to the hospital.
The why explaining what the fits are isn't important; some speculate it's the school water supply, but tests ring back that the water is clean, and soon the girls grow from fearing the oncoming fits to accepting that they will happen at some point, and almost anticipating the out-of-body experience others are describing.
Shot almost entirely in one location, the movie has a terrific, indescribable sense of dread pervading it. At first it seems like an innocuous pre-teen movie, before the fits start taking over. Holmer, who has extensive credits in the camera department for bigger budge Hollywood films (such as Twilight), stages many shots to focus solely on our protagonist and not show us what is going on around her. We almost see her from everyone else's perspective, and barely register hers.
Ultimately this is an interesting movie that's worth checking out on Video on Demand. By no means a great achievement, it showcases a great talent for the creative team behind it, and makes me anticipate any new films from these creators.
Saturday, June 11, 2016
Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Out of the Shadows (2016)
What is there to say about a Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles movie? The premise is wholly silly, a quartet of turtles mutated to humanoid form who hide in the sewers of New York and fight the evil Foot Clan, lead by Shredder (Brian Tee). It's unfair really to objectively review a movie like this because I don't believe it was ever meant to be taken seriously, or be good.
This follow-up to the 2014 revival of the franchise is fairly forgiving to those who didn't see the first one (me!), as the film nice sets up the status quo. The turtles still hide in the sewers, and attend Knicks games by hiding in the jumbotron. Vernon (Will Arnett) for some reason was credited with bringing down Shredder in the last movie, and lives the life in the spotlight. Meanwhile, the turtles and April O'Neil (Megan Fox) investigate things and I think Megan Fox transformed into a school girl outfit to get close to Baxter Stockman (Tyler Perry), a mad scientist who's bent on breaking Shredder out of prison?
The details aren't really that important. For turtles fans, this movie introduces Casey Jones (Stephen Amell), Bebop and Rocksteady (Gary Anthony Williams and Sheamus, respectively), and Krang (voice of Brad Garrett). If those names are familiar to you, and the prospect of their presence in this movie excites you, then you should probably go check this out.
But if you're like me and are only cursorily aware of the turtles and their universe, maybe not so much. The movie is directed by Dave Green and produced by Michael Bay, and the movie hews close to his aesthetic. Unlike Bay's recent films, this one clocks in at under 2 hours and is not a pain to sit through. Bay can up the ante so much that his movie's are insufferable, and to Green's credit, he does Bay better than Bay.
The movie also does a pretty good job of distinguishing the turtles. I have to admit, they all seemed fairly interchangeable to me, despite the colored masks. Strip those away and they are as identical as any of the South Park kids without hair or hats. But the movie gives each turtle a characteristic, so dummy like me actually knew which one was Raphael and Leonardo. Previous iterations only defined the turtles by their masks and weapons of choice.
The action is fine. There is an opening chase scene in which Shredder is extracted from a prison convoy, in a scene eerily similar to The Dark Knight. There is an extended sequence in Brazil where the turtles ride down a river on a tank, and a final battle in the skies over New York. Just don't ask me how they defeated Krang, because I may have closed my eyes for that part.
But there's nothing special about this movie. There is the echoes of a good idea as the turtles confront a substance that could make them human, and grapple with what that would mean. But the movie quickly resolves this and emphasizes team work and camaraderie. The rest is fairly forgettable and boring. The script is rote, the performances phoned in (except for Laura Linney who is always fantastic and for some reason is in this movie), and the movie is over 50% CGI, so why are we watching a live-action version of this? I don't think a real April O'Neil and Casey Jones sells the universe. Sorry turtles, you are not my cup of tea.
This follow-up to the 2014 revival of the franchise is fairly forgiving to those who didn't see the first one (me!), as the film nice sets up the status quo. The turtles still hide in the sewers, and attend Knicks games by hiding in the jumbotron. Vernon (Will Arnett) for some reason was credited with bringing down Shredder in the last movie, and lives the life in the spotlight. Meanwhile, the turtles and April O'Neil (Megan Fox) investigate things and I think Megan Fox transformed into a school girl outfit to get close to Baxter Stockman (Tyler Perry), a mad scientist who's bent on breaking Shredder out of prison?
The details aren't really that important. For turtles fans, this movie introduces Casey Jones (Stephen Amell), Bebop and Rocksteady (Gary Anthony Williams and Sheamus, respectively), and Krang (voice of Brad Garrett). If those names are familiar to you, and the prospect of their presence in this movie excites you, then you should probably go check this out.
But if you're like me and are only cursorily aware of the turtles and their universe, maybe not so much. The movie is directed by Dave Green and produced by Michael Bay, and the movie hews close to his aesthetic. Unlike Bay's recent films, this one clocks in at under 2 hours and is not a pain to sit through. Bay can up the ante so much that his movie's are insufferable, and to Green's credit, he does Bay better than Bay.
The movie also does a pretty good job of distinguishing the turtles. I have to admit, they all seemed fairly interchangeable to me, despite the colored masks. Strip those away and they are as identical as any of the South Park kids without hair or hats. But the movie gives each turtle a characteristic, so dummy like me actually knew which one was Raphael and Leonardo. Previous iterations only defined the turtles by their masks and weapons of choice.
The action is fine. There is an opening chase scene in which Shredder is extracted from a prison convoy, in a scene eerily similar to The Dark Knight. There is an extended sequence in Brazil where the turtles ride down a river on a tank, and a final battle in the skies over New York. Just don't ask me how they defeated Krang, because I may have closed my eyes for that part.
But there's nothing special about this movie. There is the echoes of a good idea as the turtles confront a substance that could make them human, and grapple with what that would mean. But the movie quickly resolves this and emphasizes team work and camaraderie. The rest is fairly forgettable and boring. The script is rote, the performances phoned in (except for Laura Linney who is always fantastic and for some reason is in this movie), and the movie is over 50% CGI, so why are we watching a live-action version of this? I don't think a real April O'Neil and Casey Jones sells the universe. Sorry turtles, you are not my cup of tea.
Saturday, June 4, 2016
Popstar: Never Stop Never Stopping (2016)
The mockumentary is all but a dead format in mainstream cinema. Not that is was ever thriving, but since the format was repurposed for found-footage horror flicks, there has been precious little comedies put out in the format, save anything Christopher Guest and crew put out.
Popstar: Never Stop Never Stopping is the new film from the Lonely Island, the rap trio composed of Andy Samberg, Jorma Taccone, and Akiva Schaffer, and utilizes this format very well. Intercutting an impressive amount of fake interviews with established music industry heavyweights, including Mariah Carey, Carrie Underwood, Nas, Usher, 50 Cent, Ringo Starr, Akon, DJ Khaled, and so forth, the movie tells the story of the latest release from superstar Conner 4 Real (Samberg), and the tour to promote his album.
He's an egomaniac, a member of a three piece outfit called The Style Boyz (the other members being Taccone and Schaffer), before he split off on a solo career and poisoned his relationship with one of the members (Schaffer). Surrounded by entourage that can never tell him no, Conner lives a life of luxury and ignorance, until his latest release bombs both critically and financially, and he has to bring on a new up-and-coming rapper to open his tour just get ticket sales up.
In addition to the multitude of musicians tapped to star, there is also Sarah Silverman as Conner's publicist, Tim Meadows as his manager, Joan Cusack as his mom, Maya Rudolph, Will Arnett, and Will Forte. It's an impressive lineup of comedians who all deliver in various ways, and add an extra bit of fun to the proceedings.
The real star here, though, is the music. You either love or hate the Lonely Island's output (which includes I'm On a Boat, I Just Had Sex, Jizz in My Pants, and more), and I myself am a pretty big fan of their stuff. The songs are all dumb jokes, but they are just the right amount of dumb, if that makes sense. The songs written for this film include an opening number about Conner's humility, a riff on Spaniard accents, a song about not being gay but still cool with equal rights, and a song about deep thoughts. Honestly, I would have preferred the movie to showcase more the songs, as only three get full productions and the rest are no more than an iTunes sample to entice you to buy the album. I suspect the digital/blu-ray/DVD (whatever you call it these days) release will have an extended cut with these songs more fully fleshed out.
Which isn't to say I didn't enjoy the rest of the movie; it has plenty of laughs throughout, including one hilarious scene where Conner signs a member of that I'm sure few people have signed. But the film estranges the trio and while Samberg is funny enough on his own, Taccone and Schaffer to hold up much on their individual scenes and the movie has some real sparks when they are altogether again (oops, minor spoilers, although honestly you could have predicted that).
The closest comparison I can draw to this movie is This Is Spinal Tap (1984), and while I am not saying these two movies are close in quality (nothing here will enter the lexicon quite like "These go to 11."), the formula set forth in that older film plays well here. Popstar is entertaining and funny enough to act as a nice diversion from the oncoming summer heat. But it will probably play better on your home theater, where an extended cut with more of the songs will hopefully be available. That is, after all, The Lonely Island's greatest strength.
Popstar: Never Stop Never Stopping is the new film from the Lonely Island, the rap trio composed of Andy Samberg, Jorma Taccone, and Akiva Schaffer, and utilizes this format very well. Intercutting an impressive amount of fake interviews with established music industry heavyweights, including Mariah Carey, Carrie Underwood, Nas, Usher, 50 Cent, Ringo Starr, Akon, DJ Khaled, and so forth, the movie tells the story of the latest release from superstar Conner 4 Real (Samberg), and the tour to promote his album.
He's an egomaniac, a member of a three piece outfit called The Style Boyz (the other members being Taccone and Schaffer), before he split off on a solo career and poisoned his relationship with one of the members (Schaffer). Surrounded by entourage that can never tell him no, Conner lives a life of luxury and ignorance, until his latest release bombs both critically and financially, and he has to bring on a new up-and-coming rapper to open his tour just get ticket sales up.
In addition to the multitude of musicians tapped to star, there is also Sarah Silverman as Conner's publicist, Tim Meadows as his manager, Joan Cusack as his mom, Maya Rudolph, Will Arnett, and Will Forte. It's an impressive lineup of comedians who all deliver in various ways, and add an extra bit of fun to the proceedings.
The real star here, though, is the music. You either love or hate the Lonely Island's output (which includes I'm On a Boat, I Just Had Sex, Jizz in My Pants, and more), and I myself am a pretty big fan of their stuff. The songs are all dumb jokes, but they are just the right amount of dumb, if that makes sense. The songs written for this film include an opening number about Conner's humility, a riff on Spaniard accents, a song about not being gay but still cool with equal rights, and a song about deep thoughts. Honestly, I would have preferred the movie to showcase more the songs, as only three get full productions and the rest are no more than an iTunes sample to entice you to buy the album. I suspect the digital/blu-ray/DVD (whatever you call it these days) release will have an extended cut with these songs more fully fleshed out.
Which isn't to say I didn't enjoy the rest of the movie; it has plenty of laughs throughout, including one hilarious scene where Conner signs a member of that I'm sure few people have signed. But the film estranges the trio and while Samberg is funny enough on his own, Taccone and Schaffer to hold up much on their individual scenes and the movie has some real sparks when they are altogether again (oops, minor spoilers, although honestly you could have predicted that).
The closest comparison I can draw to this movie is This Is Spinal Tap (1984), and while I am not saying these two movies are close in quality (nothing here will enter the lexicon quite like "These go to 11."), the formula set forth in that older film plays well here. Popstar is entertaining and funny enough to act as a nice diversion from the oncoming summer heat. But it will probably play better on your home theater, where an extended cut with more of the songs will hopefully be available. That is, after all, The Lonely Island's greatest strength.
Neighbors 2: Sorority Rising (2016)
Despite it's best intentions, Neighbors 2: Sorority Rising can't help but feel like a quickly thrown together sequel to follow-up the successful 2014 comedy starring Seth Rogen and Zac Efron. The first film was a fairly funny look at what its like to suddenly realize you are not the cool kids anymore, instead the cantankerous neighbor that calls the cops for noise complaints.
Neighbors 2 fits the bill of repeating the same thing but this time with a sorority next store rather than a fraternity, to shake things up. There are a few beat-for-beat repeats of gags from the first film, but surprisingly, the movie stands alone as its on entity, and even has a different message to spin.
Shelby (Chloë Grace Moretz), a young college freshman, is looking to enter a sorority, but soon discovers that sororities are not allowed to throw parties, it is only fraternities that can do that. So she sets out to a fraternity party to find the whole thing nothing more than a fairly rapey set-up, a cattle call of beautiful women for these bros to have sex with.
So Shelby, along with her two new friends Beth (Kiersey Clemons) and Nora (Beanie Feldstein), set out to start their own sorority and throw their kind of parties. And, naturally, they end up next door to Mac (Rogen) and Kelly (Rose Byrne), who have their home in escrow and don't want the new buyers to be scared away by the unexpected presence of a loud sorority.
So enter a lot of the same shenanigans as last time, as Mac and Kelly try to civilly quiet their neighbors, before resorting to war. Teddy (Zac Efron) returns, first to help the sorority get established, then when he is kicked out to join Mac and Kelly's side of the war. Plenty of funny and unfunny gags ensue.
One refreshing spin is checking in on the bros of the first film, who all have filled into adulthood, save Teddy whose peak was when he ran the fraternity. It's a nice reminder that not everyone stays on top forever, and that those who seemed like jerks can grow to be good people.
And the film seems to be trying to be fairly feminist, as Teddy's character comes to the realization that frat parties are, essentially, cattle calls for bros to have sex with beautiful women, the rape culture they inspire. The film is rated R for nudity, but you won't find female nudity here; instead it is the men who are exploited, particularly Efron in one of the film's better moments when he puts on a Magic Mike-lite show at a tail gate party. And there is a frank, true conversation about how a dad feels when his son has sex vs. his daughter. It doesn't all feel honest, but it feels like the right step.
But the problem with the film is the pacing. Set, more or less, during the 30 days Mac's house is in escrow, the film hurdles through events at a breakneck pace and barely allows anything to develop. For all of Shelby's good intentions with the new sorority, she comes off as a self-entitled brat that I wanted to see lose. She is the antagonist, but at the same time, her anger and reason for doing what she is doing is well-founded. You might argue it's the movie being morally complex, but I say it's the script and the characters being rushed due to the 2-year turnaround for this movie.
Neighbors 2 is a slight sequel with a big message. What it is trying to do is fairly positive, but unfortunately it hangs it all on a rather mediocre film.
Neighbors 2 fits the bill of repeating the same thing but this time with a sorority next store rather than a fraternity, to shake things up. There are a few beat-for-beat repeats of gags from the first film, but surprisingly, the movie stands alone as its on entity, and even has a different message to spin.
Shelby (Chloë Grace Moretz), a young college freshman, is looking to enter a sorority, but soon discovers that sororities are not allowed to throw parties, it is only fraternities that can do that. So she sets out to a fraternity party to find the whole thing nothing more than a fairly rapey set-up, a cattle call of beautiful women for these bros to have sex with.
So Shelby, along with her two new friends Beth (Kiersey Clemons) and Nora (Beanie Feldstein), set out to start their own sorority and throw their kind of parties. And, naturally, they end up next door to Mac (Rogen) and Kelly (Rose Byrne), who have their home in escrow and don't want the new buyers to be scared away by the unexpected presence of a loud sorority.
So enter a lot of the same shenanigans as last time, as Mac and Kelly try to civilly quiet their neighbors, before resorting to war. Teddy (Zac Efron) returns, first to help the sorority get established, then when he is kicked out to join Mac and Kelly's side of the war. Plenty of funny and unfunny gags ensue.
One refreshing spin is checking in on the bros of the first film, who all have filled into adulthood, save Teddy whose peak was when he ran the fraternity. It's a nice reminder that not everyone stays on top forever, and that those who seemed like jerks can grow to be good people.
And the film seems to be trying to be fairly feminist, as Teddy's character comes to the realization that frat parties are, essentially, cattle calls for bros to have sex with beautiful women, the rape culture they inspire. The film is rated R for nudity, but you won't find female nudity here; instead it is the men who are exploited, particularly Efron in one of the film's better moments when he puts on a Magic Mike-lite show at a tail gate party. And there is a frank, true conversation about how a dad feels when his son has sex vs. his daughter. It doesn't all feel honest, but it feels like the right step.
But the problem with the film is the pacing. Set, more or less, during the 30 days Mac's house is in escrow, the film hurdles through events at a breakneck pace and barely allows anything to develop. For all of Shelby's good intentions with the new sorority, she comes off as a self-entitled brat that I wanted to see lose. She is the antagonist, but at the same time, her anger and reason for doing what she is doing is well-founded. You might argue it's the movie being morally complex, but I say it's the script and the characters being rushed due to the 2-year turnaround for this movie.
Neighbors 2 is a slight sequel with a big message. What it is trying to do is fairly positive, but unfortunately it hangs it all on a rather mediocre film.
Keanu (2016)
Keanu was cooked-up with a simple premise in mind; gangsters and hard thugs will melt in the presence of an adorable kitten. That's the joke that runs through most of Keanu, the first big screen film from the comedy duo Keegan-Michael Key and Jordan Peele. And while that doesn't sound like enough to sustain a 90-minute movie, thankfully Key and Peele's charisma carry most of the film
Opening with a drug shoot-out, two assassins known as the Allentown Boys (Key and Peele) halt the massacre when a drug dealer's kitten approaches him. The silent duo adopt him as their own, but soon the kitten escapes into the home of Rell Williams (Peele), a recently dumped homebody who uses the kitten to get over his break-up. His best friend Clarence (Key) is an obsessive George Michael fan (his love of Faith is the movie's long-running gag that loses steam), and when Rell's kitten escapes, dubbed Keanu, Clarence joins him in infiltrating a gang that has taken possession of the kitten.
Key and Peele always traded off playing comic foil to one another on their sketch comedy show, and here they are reigned in to playing only three characters apiece. To watch them shift from normal, everyday guys to hard thugs is hilarious, and they carry out the task admirably. But they are limited to those two sides (the Allentown characters don't give them much room to exercise their chops), and one almost wishes they had gone full Monty Python and peppered themselves in various roles throughout the movie.
The transition from sketch comedy to full narrative can be tricky, and more often then not doesn't fly. Peele co-wrote the screenplay with Alex Rubens (a Key & Peele veteran), and it more or less holds up a three-act structure and hits the necessary dramatic beats to tell a story. But some of it is tiresome, specifically the violence, and I found myself getting a little weary of the film's repeated beats.
Not to mention that the screenplay ends with a fairly convenient outcome, including a gang member who was undercover the whole time, and Clarence finally learning to be a man and stand-up for himself. There is nothing innovative here, and the script likes a satirical edge that makes many of their sketches from their show great. There's a sly social commentary that is sorely missed here.
But what does work, works. The George Michael Faith gag, though long running, still provides laughs and culminates in a fairly ridiculous payoff. There is an extended cameo from a famous actress that is one of the films' more inspired scenes. And Key and Peele are great together on screen. But the biggest complaint anyone walking into this movie will have was there was not enough of the kitten. That little guy almost steals the show.
Opening with a drug shoot-out, two assassins known as the Allentown Boys (Key and Peele) halt the massacre when a drug dealer's kitten approaches him. The silent duo adopt him as their own, but soon the kitten escapes into the home of Rell Williams (Peele), a recently dumped homebody who uses the kitten to get over his break-up. His best friend Clarence (Key) is an obsessive George Michael fan (his love of Faith is the movie's long-running gag that loses steam), and when Rell's kitten escapes, dubbed Keanu, Clarence joins him in infiltrating a gang that has taken possession of the kitten.
Key and Peele always traded off playing comic foil to one another on their sketch comedy show, and here they are reigned in to playing only three characters apiece. To watch them shift from normal, everyday guys to hard thugs is hilarious, and they carry out the task admirably. But they are limited to those two sides (the Allentown characters don't give them much room to exercise their chops), and one almost wishes they had gone full Monty Python and peppered themselves in various roles throughout the movie.
The transition from sketch comedy to full narrative can be tricky, and more often then not doesn't fly. Peele co-wrote the screenplay with Alex Rubens (a Key & Peele veteran), and it more or less holds up a three-act structure and hits the necessary dramatic beats to tell a story. But some of it is tiresome, specifically the violence, and I found myself getting a little weary of the film's repeated beats.
Not to mention that the screenplay ends with a fairly convenient outcome, including a gang member who was undercover the whole time, and Clarence finally learning to be a man and stand-up for himself. There is nothing innovative here, and the script likes a satirical edge that makes many of their sketches from their show great. There's a sly social commentary that is sorely missed here.
But what does work, works. The George Michael Faith gag, though long running, still provides laughs and culminates in a fairly ridiculous payoff. There is an extended cameo from a famous actress that is one of the films' more inspired scenes. And Key and Peele are great together on screen. But the biggest complaint anyone walking into this movie will have was there was not enough of the kitten. That little guy almost steals the show.
Captain America: Civil War (2016)
Captain America: Civil War, the 13th entry in the never-ending Marvel Cinematic Universe, has the distinct honor in kicking off what is being dubbed Phase Three, which will include more sequels to Thor, Guardians of the Galaxy, and The Avengers, as well as standalone movies for Black Panther and Spider-Man (introduced in this film), as well as Doctor Strange and Captain Marvel. It's a golden age for comic book movies, as they have never been more lucrative and the fanbase never more rabid.
Civil War, the third and presumably final Captain America film, stars little of Cap (Chris Evans), as this movie functions more as an Avengers 2.5, reeling in all the Avengers characters save Hulk and Thor (who will pal up in Thor's third installment). At this point it's kind of hard to make one of these movies without bringing in the whole gang, as the most prevalent question throughout Marvel's Phase 2 movies was "Why don't they just bring in The Avengers?" (see: Iron Man 3 and Winter Soldier, although in Ant-Man they address this head-on).
Politics bog down the first hour or so of this film, as the Avengers divide over the issue of whether or not they should cede power to the U.N., in what is being known as the Sokovia Accords, named after the city lifted into the sky in Age of Ultron. Tony Stark (Robert Downey, Jr.) can't live with the guilt of what their actions have wrought on innocents, and Steve Rogers maintains the Avengers should have autonomy. Meanwhile, Rogers' old pal Bucky Barnes, aka The Winter Soldier (Sebastian Stan) resurfaces as a suspect in a U.N. bombing, but Rogers believes he is innocent and goes on the lam.
Directors Anthony and Joe Russo do a more capable job of juggling the many characters established in this universe. One of Age of Ultron's biggest downfalls was how overstuffed it felt, and how no one character stood out as the lead. Here, Rogers and Stark are the clear protagonists, and the movie benefits from several films establishing these characters' ideological backgrounds, so it's clear when they divide why they do. Their conflict makes sense, although why several other members rally to Cap's side is a bit of a mystery (probably so they can evenly match the two sides with 6 apiece).
The film does double duty of introducing a character never before seen on the big screen, Black Panther (Chadwick Boseman), as well as bringing in fan favorite Spider-Man (Tom Holland), who both enliven the proceedings. Spider-Man's presence is a bit pointless, his function no more then to have the character in the film because Sony finally relinquished the rights after those awful Amazing Spider-Man films. Regardless, his moments are some of the best in the film, and Holland is an able Spider-Man and shows promise for the upcoming standalone film.
Two of the best fight scenes in all of Marvel exist here: one is a showdown at an abandoned airport between the super friends that is both exciting, alive, and endlessly inventive. It works because we are invested in each character on different levels and they all bring unique powers and abilities to the fold. Ant-Man (Paul Rudd) is a particularly delightful addition, adding some humor to the proceedings.
The other is a final showdown that I won't spoil, but carried surprising emotional heft and was a fight where I genuinely didn't know which side to root for. Both sides were wrong and right for different reasons, and to see that kind of moral complexity in these films is encouraging for later installments. Let's just say it's a more emotional battle than the gladiator match of the century promised us in March.
But alas, despite all this film does right, it still just fails to connect overall. The opening hour or so, while effectively staging the conflict, drags on and I felt rather sleepy during it. The villain, a regular dude named Zemo (Daniel Brühl), is a bore, his intricate plan so elaborate that it could only work in the movies where characters act exactly as he wants them too. And at this point, there are too many damn characters to follow or care about. Side plots include Scarlet Witch (Elizabeth Olsen) and Vision (Paul Bettany) meditating on their powers, as well as Black Panther's hunt for justice.
Not that Captain America: Civil War isn't a good time; it's a blast. But I fear this may be the last, cohesive film starring the Avengers. The films have already gone full comic book (the existence of a character like Vision is still something I don't quite comprehend), and I can't imagine the upcoming Infinity Wars, for all their good intentions, to not be overblown mega-blockbusters that will ultimately exist to service whatever is next for Marvel. Civil War's biggest shortcoming is in it's ending; after all the events that have transpired have split our heroes, an olive branch is offered to assure reunification in the sequel. These films can't stand alone anymore because they have to set-up the next billion dollar entry, and while that is exciting from an overall, big picture perspective, it takes its toll on the individual experience.
Civil War, the third and presumably final Captain America film, stars little of Cap (Chris Evans), as this movie functions more as an Avengers 2.5, reeling in all the Avengers characters save Hulk and Thor (who will pal up in Thor's third installment). At this point it's kind of hard to make one of these movies without bringing in the whole gang, as the most prevalent question throughout Marvel's Phase 2 movies was "Why don't they just bring in The Avengers?" (see: Iron Man 3 and Winter Soldier, although in Ant-Man they address this head-on).
Politics bog down the first hour or so of this film, as the Avengers divide over the issue of whether or not they should cede power to the U.N., in what is being known as the Sokovia Accords, named after the city lifted into the sky in Age of Ultron. Tony Stark (Robert Downey, Jr.) can't live with the guilt of what their actions have wrought on innocents, and Steve Rogers maintains the Avengers should have autonomy. Meanwhile, Rogers' old pal Bucky Barnes, aka The Winter Soldier (Sebastian Stan) resurfaces as a suspect in a U.N. bombing, but Rogers believes he is innocent and goes on the lam.
Directors Anthony and Joe Russo do a more capable job of juggling the many characters established in this universe. One of Age of Ultron's biggest downfalls was how overstuffed it felt, and how no one character stood out as the lead. Here, Rogers and Stark are the clear protagonists, and the movie benefits from several films establishing these characters' ideological backgrounds, so it's clear when they divide why they do. Their conflict makes sense, although why several other members rally to Cap's side is a bit of a mystery (probably so they can evenly match the two sides with 6 apiece).
The film does double duty of introducing a character never before seen on the big screen, Black Panther (Chadwick Boseman), as well as bringing in fan favorite Spider-Man (Tom Holland), who both enliven the proceedings. Spider-Man's presence is a bit pointless, his function no more then to have the character in the film because Sony finally relinquished the rights after those awful Amazing Spider-Man films. Regardless, his moments are some of the best in the film, and Holland is an able Spider-Man and shows promise for the upcoming standalone film.
Two of the best fight scenes in all of Marvel exist here: one is a showdown at an abandoned airport between the super friends that is both exciting, alive, and endlessly inventive. It works because we are invested in each character on different levels and they all bring unique powers and abilities to the fold. Ant-Man (Paul Rudd) is a particularly delightful addition, adding some humor to the proceedings.
The other is a final showdown that I won't spoil, but carried surprising emotional heft and was a fight where I genuinely didn't know which side to root for. Both sides were wrong and right for different reasons, and to see that kind of moral complexity in these films is encouraging for later installments. Let's just say it's a more emotional battle than the gladiator match of the century promised us in March.
But alas, despite all this film does right, it still just fails to connect overall. The opening hour or so, while effectively staging the conflict, drags on and I felt rather sleepy during it. The villain, a regular dude named Zemo (Daniel Brühl), is a bore, his intricate plan so elaborate that it could only work in the movies where characters act exactly as he wants them too. And at this point, there are too many damn characters to follow or care about. Side plots include Scarlet Witch (Elizabeth Olsen) and Vision (Paul Bettany) meditating on their powers, as well as Black Panther's hunt for justice.
Not that Captain America: Civil War isn't a good time; it's a blast. But I fear this may be the last, cohesive film starring the Avengers. The films have already gone full comic book (the existence of a character like Vision is still something I don't quite comprehend), and I can't imagine the upcoming Infinity Wars, for all their good intentions, to not be overblown mega-blockbusters that will ultimately exist to service whatever is next for Marvel. Civil War's biggest shortcoming is in it's ending; after all the events that have transpired have split our heroes, an olive branch is offered to assure reunification in the sequel. These films can't stand alone anymore because they have to set-up the next billion dollar entry, and while that is exciting from an overall, big picture perspective, it takes its toll on the individual experience.
Saturday, April 30, 2016
Green Room (2015)
Very few films are effectively unsettling, creating a sense of dread that permeates an entire film's aura and leaves the audience in a state of almost unending suspense. Green Room, the latest writer/director Jeremy Saulnier (whose breakout film Blue Ruin was a modest success a few years ago), is such a film, and whether or not you are the type of audience for that will influence how you feel about the film.
A 4-piece punk rock band, who are so broke they siphon gas just to make it to their next gig, end up at a skinhead bar in Southern Oregon for a scheduled gig. There, one of the members, Pat (Anton Yelchin), witnesses a brutal murder and the group ends up stuck in the venue's green room, fighting against the owner Darcy (Patrick Stewart) and his gang of Neo-Nazis.
It's an effectively simple set-up to a 90-minute thrill ride that increases the stakes ever more as our characters are locked away, scrambling to figure a way out of their situation. Set almost entirely within the same bar, the film makes great use of limited space, and finds fun ways to expand on the claustrophobic environment as the victims find a way to escape.
The cast is all fantastic, including Imogen Poots as a fellow prisoner, Alia Shawkat, Joe Cole, and Callum Turner as the other members of the band. Yelchin is fine as the lead, and Stewart is fantastic as always as the main villain, the man who has a shrewd plan for covering up the crime and framing the unwitting band in the process.
Like Saulnier's previous film, Blue Ruin, the film is a fine example of suspense ratcheted up. Only the director's third feature, this is the sign of an assured hand, one who knows how to slowly move the pieces along and keep an audience engaged. There is not much wasted time in this film, as it propels along with an urgent dread.
And while I admire Saulnier's talents, I didn't necessarily enjoy the film all that much. There are a few brutal moments that made my entire audience let out groans and shouts of horror, and while the moments are few and far between, they certainly make an impression. The movie itself is a rather depressing affair, and if you were hoping for any element of fun, there is none to be found here.
And plenty of people will flock to see this movie and enjoy it for those reasons. And I applaud any director that can effect my mood and create that sense of dread that never lets up. But this is a movie I would recommend cautiously. If you like suspense, and don't mind brutal violence, then you'll love this movie. For everyone else, they'll wonder if the director is this intense in real life, and who did what to cause him to want to make such dark, brutal tales.
A 4-piece punk rock band, who are so broke they siphon gas just to make it to their next gig, end up at a skinhead bar in Southern Oregon for a scheduled gig. There, one of the members, Pat (Anton Yelchin), witnesses a brutal murder and the group ends up stuck in the venue's green room, fighting against the owner Darcy (Patrick Stewart) and his gang of Neo-Nazis.
It's an effectively simple set-up to a 90-minute thrill ride that increases the stakes ever more as our characters are locked away, scrambling to figure a way out of their situation. Set almost entirely within the same bar, the film makes great use of limited space, and finds fun ways to expand on the claustrophobic environment as the victims find a way to escape.
The cast is all fantastic, including Imogen Poots as a fellow prisoner, Alia Shawkat, Joe Cole, and Callum Turner as the other members of the band. Yelchin is fine as the lead, and Stewart is fantastic as always as the main villain, the man who has a shrewd plan for covering up the crime and framing the unwitting band in the process.
Like Saulnier's previous film, Blue Ruin, the film is a fine example of suspense ratcheted up. Only the director's third feature, this is the sign of an assured hand, one who knows how to slowly move the pieces along and keep an audience engaged. There is not much wasted time in this film, as it propels along with an urgent dread.
And while I admire Saulnier's talents, I didn't necessarily enjoy the film all that much. There are a few brutal moments that made my entire audience let out groans and shouts of horror, and while the moments are few and far between, they certainly make an impression. The movie itself is a rather depressing affair, and if you were hoping for any element of fun, there is none to be found here.
And plenty of people will flock to see this movie and enjoy it for those reasons. And I applaud any director that can effect my mood and create that sense of dread that never lets up. But this is a movie I would recommend cautiously. If you like suspense, and don't mind brutal violence, then you'll love this movie. For everyone else, they'll wonder if the director is this intense in real life, and who did what to cause him to want to make such dark, brutal tales.
Saturday, April 23, 2016
Everybody Wants Some!! (2016)
Richard Linklater has become the modern master of the laidback, casual hangout film. His films often feature a few characters talking for the majority of the runtime and philosophizing about life and our greater place in the grand scheme of things. Sometimes his movie has conflict; Boyhood (2014), his 12-years-in-the-making odyssey, had an ill-advised subplot involving an alcoholic father; the Before series (1995 - 2013) mostly featured 2 people talking; and Waking Life (2001) has a weird, abstract animated film about weird, abstract ideas.
Everybody Wants Some!!, his latest film, has been billed as a spiritual sequel to Dazed and Confused (1993). Having not seen that film I cannot comment on how closely it mirrors that films style, but considering Dazed and Confused is set on the final day of High School, and Everybody Wants Some!! concerns the weekend leading up to the beginning of college classes, I have a pretty good idea of what lies in store.
And Everybody Wants Some!! is essentially a fairly laid back, enjoyable hangout film. Set in 1980, when disco reigned supreme and punk was being born, the film follows incoming Freshman Jake (Blake Jenner) as he arrives at college and the frat-style house he will reside in with his fellow baseball teammates. Over the course of the weekend Jake bonds with his new friends, gets laid, and generally has a pretty good time.
And that's pretty much it. In terms of drama and plot, its a thin movie. But that is what Linklater excels at, making films about characters hanging out and having a good time. His goal is for you to enjoy being with the characters, and leaving the movie feeling like you just had a good time at a party meeting some fun people and having interesting conversations. And he achieves that remarkably well.
The movie doesn't contain any cynicism, which is a nice, refreshing change of pace from most movies about college. The characters are at that point in their lives where seemingly anything is possible, and they face the future with the same glowing optimism that many of us contained back when we were entering college. These people are fairly carefree; life is not stressing them out yet, no bills or kids or mortgages. It's nice to remember that there was a time we were all like that, possibly, and it is fun to see that spirit recaptured. The title is taken directly from a Van Halen song, and according to Linklater means wanting to get laid, while also meaning wanting more out of life and what it holds in store.
Ultimately, I think Linklater succeeded very well at making a movie where you enjoy hanging out with the characters. He played College Baseball in the 80s himself, so the movie has a lot of personal elements he drew from, and many of the characters represent different facets of his personality. It's that personal touch that sells the film. Linklater has assembled a fun cast that has a great chemistry together, replicating the machismo nature of male competition (one-upsmanship is a constant game at their house) while staying true to the things that bring people together. It's a pleasant 2-hour visit with characters that remind you that at one time, life was full of promise. It's nice to reminded of that sometimes.
Everybody Wants Some!!, his latest film, has been billed as a spiritual sequel to Dazed and Confused (1993). Having not seen that film I cannot comment on how closely it mirrors that films style, but considering Dazed and Confused is set on the final day of High School, and Everybody Wants Some!! concerns the weekend leading up to the beginning of college classes, I have a pretty good idea of what lies in store.
And Everybody Wants Some!! is essentially a fairly laid back, enjoyable hangout film. Set in 1980, when disco reigned supreme and punk was being born, the film follows incoming Freshman Jake (Blake Jenner) as he arrives at college and the frat-style house he will reside in with his fellow baseball teammates. Over the course of the weekend Jake bonds with his new friends, gets laid, and generally has a pretty good time.
And that's pretty much it. In terms of drama and plot, its a thin movie. But that is what Linklater excels at, making films about characters hanging out and having a good time. His goal is for you to enjoy being with the characters, and leaving the movie feeling like you just had a good time at a party meeting some fun people and having interesting conversations. And he achieves that remarkably well.
The movie doesn't contain any cynicism, which is a nice, refreshing change of pace from most movies about college. The characters are at that point in their lives where seemingly anything is possible, and they face the future with the same glowing optimism that many of us contained back when we were entering college. These people are fairly carefree; life is not stressing them out yet, no bills or kids or mortgages. It's nice to remember that there was a time we were all like that, possibly, and it is fun to see that spirit recaptured. The title is taken directly from a Van Halen song, and according to Linklater means wanting to get laid, while also meaning wanting more out of life and what it holds in store.
Ultimately, I think Linklater succeeded very well at making a movie where you enjoy hanging out with the characters. He played College Baseball in the 80s himself, so the movie has a lot of personal elements he drew from, and many of the characters represent different facets of his personality. It's that personal touch that sells the film. Linklater has assembled a fun cast that has a great chemistry together, replicating the machismo nature of male competition (one-upsmanship is a constant game at their house) while staying true to the things that bring people together. It's a pleasant 2-hour visit with characters that remind you that at one time, life was full of promise. It's nice to reminded of that sometimes.
The Jungle Book (2016)
Glorious, glorious remakes abound as Disney plumbs the depths of its animated film library to essentially remake everything they can in live-action, repurposing classic films for a new generation. Already done with Maleficent (which at least tried to see things from the villain's view) and Cinderella, now they remake the final film ol' Walt himself was alive for the production of, The Jungle Book.
By now the plot is fairly well-known; man-cub Mowgli (Neel Sethi) is found as a child by Bagheera the Panther (Ben Kingsley) and raised by wolves. Of course man cannot exist peacefully with the animals, as the fearsome man-killer Shere Khan (Idris Elba) has a vendetta against the man cub, and so Mowgli must venture back to the man village or else be killed.
To call this a "live-action" film is being fairly generous, since the only live-action thing in it is Mowgli, acting on green screen to animals that were placed in later. To be fair, the film is gorgeous, and the photorealistic jungle settings are sights to behold. The animals are, for the most part, fairly convincing. They are pretty clearly CGI creations, but the fact that they talk makes their artificiality forgivable.
The voice actors are all, for the most part, suitable to their roles. It's a little bit distracting at first, but you get used to Bill Murray as Baloo and Scarlett Johansson as Kaa. The only miscast is Christopher Walken as King Louie; he has such a distinct voice that I never really saw the massive orangutang, instead seeing the man behind the facade.
Neel Sethi, on the other hand, is not very good, and I hate saying that about child actors. He brings a great physicality to the role, jumping through trees and running through fields. But his line readings are terribly flat, although it's hard not to blame him. It must be pretty hard, being a kid and having your first big acting gig be entirely on a green screen stage, imagining all the creatures around you.
In terms of adaptation, the movie does a good job of hitting the familiar beats of the story as told by Disney (most audiences, myself included, are probably more familiar with the animated film rather than the book). There's enough that feels fresh here that makes the movie worth recommending. Not everything is exactly the same as the old one (no mop-top Beatles-lite Vultures), and the central conflict between Mowgli and Shere Khan is a little more interesting (although it is slightly boring that Shere Khan killed Mowgli's father and orphaned him).
My biggest gripe is with the songs; "Bare Necessities" and "I Wanna Be Like You" are redone, but none of the other songs are. It's fairly odd when Baloo and Louie break out into song for no reason other than "this song was in the original and we have to redo because it's what audiences remember." The moments don't entirely work and pull me out of the world the movie has built.
But, otherwise, this is worth checking out. The visuals are stunning, and though I did not see this in 3D, I did see a trailer for it in 3D a while back and was blown away by it. In terms of remakes and adaptations, this is a pretty solid one. I'm not sure we needed it, and will be interesting to see how audiences receive Andy Serkis' version in two years, but for now, this is a solid piece of entertainment.
By now the plot is fairly well-known; man-cub Mowgli (Neel Sethi) is found as a child by Bagheera the Panther (Ben Kingsley) and raised by wolves. Of course man cannot exist peacefully with the animals, as the fearsome man-killer Shere Khan (Idris Elba) has a vendetta against the man cub, and so Mowgli must venture back to the man village or else be killed.
To call this a "live-action" film is being fairly generous, since the only live-action thing in it is Mowgli, acting on green screen to animals that were placed in later. To be fair, the film is gorgeous, and the photorealistic jungle settings are sights to behold. The animals are, for the most part, fairly convincing. They are pretty clearly CGI creations, but the fact that they talk makes their artificiality forgivable.
The voice actors are all, for the most part, suitable to their roles. It's a little bit distracting at first, but you get used to Bill Murray as Baloo and Scarlett Johansson as Kaa. The only miscast is Christopher Walken as King Louie; he has such a distinct voice that I never really saw the massive orangutang, instead seeing the man behind the facade.
Neel Sethi, on the other hand, is not very good, and I hate saying that about child actors. He brings a great physicality to the role, jumping through trees and running through fields. But his line readings are terribly flat, although it's hard not to blame him. It must be pretty hard, being a kid and having your first big acting gig be entirely on a green screen stage, imagining all the creatures around you.
In terms of adaptation, the movie does a good job of hitting the familiar beats of the story as told by Disney (most audiences, myself included, are probably more familiar with the animated film rather than the book). There's enough that feels fresh here that makes the movie worth recommending. Not everything is exactly the same as the old one (no mop-top Beatles-lite Vultures), and the central conflict between Mowgli and Shere Khan is a little more interesting (although it is slightly boring that Shere Khan killed Mowgli's father and orphaned him).
My biggest gripe is with the songs; "Bare Necessities" and "I Wanna Be Like You" are redone, but none of the other songs are. It's fairly odd when Baloo and Louie break out into song for no reason other than "this song was in the original and we have to redo because it's what audiences remember." The moments don't entirely work and pull me out of the world the movie has built.
But, otherwise, this is worth checking out. The visuals are stunning, and though I did not see this in 3D, I did see a trailer for it in 3D a while back and was blown away by it. In terms of remakes and adaptations, this is a pretty solid one. I'm not sure we needed it, and will be interesting to see how audiences receive Andy Serkis' version in two years, but for now, this is a solid piece of entertainment.
Friday, April 8, 2016
Zootopia (2016)
Zootopia, the 55th official animated movie out of Disney Animation Studios, is a surprisingly relevant story with real world analogies that will get adults thinking and teach kids about tolerance. Disney has always been one to poke fun at its own formula as of late, and Zootopia continues this trend by featuring standard tropes with some nice twists.
Set in an anthropomorphic world where animals have evolved beyond their roles as predator and prey, the movie follows Judy Hopps (Ginnifer Goodwin), a bunny determined to be the first rabbit on the police force in the metropolis of Zootopia. Its the same "if you work hard, you can achieve your dreams" angle that is a favorite of the Disney stable, but rarely have they applied it to someone breaking the mold and tearing down stereotypes.
After she graduates as valedictorian and is assigned to ZPD (Zootopia Police Department), she moves to the big city from her humble small town and discovers that the urban environment is not very friendly, and that just because she was the best at her school, she will not get special treatment (her chief is a Ram played by Idris Elba, a great touch). Assigned to parking duty, she eventually snags a piece of a larger case involving missing animals, and sets out to solve the mystery or else lose her job.
The film plays draws interesting parallels to real world racial tensions; rabbits have preconceived notions about foxes as wily, sly, and untrustworthy, so naturally she teams up with a street urchin fox named Nick Wilde (Jason Bateman). Nick calls her "cute," and an interesting line she retorts with is, "Other rabbits can call each other that, but you can't." And the dynamic of predator and prey is put in the foreground, as the weaker animals grow fearful of what their more powerful friends could be capable of doing.
It's all fascinating stuff, and the world of Zootopia itself is a wonder to behold. Laid out very much like a theme park, the city features "zones" where different animals of different climates live (a rainforest zone, a snow zone, etc.), surrounding a central city where animals go to work and live a regular 9 to 5 life. An early chase scene moves from the regular city to a mouse sized neighborhood where our heroes suddenly become Godzilla sized monsters.
But, like many films out of the Disney Animation Studio, the film doesn't fully commit to its bold premise. Wreck-it Ralph (2012) has a great moment where the eventual villain convinces our hero that if he helps his friend, it could mean her demise. That's a great, nuanced story, but unfortunately it squanders that storyline for a more traditional villain. The same goes for Zootopia, where the central mystery is a fascinating analogy for real world race relations, but takes a turn I suspected, but hoped it wouldn't.
But that's the price of family-friendly entertainment. Zootopia proves that Disney's output has been overall stronger than Pixar's (although none of their films can hold a candle to Inside Out). But I hope Disney can move past the need for a villain in their movie. Pixar usually employs villains as well, but their motivations make sense and their defeat is sometimes surprising and unique. Zootopia's villain is a lame cop-out that I saw coming a mile away, and was an ultimately unnecessary edition to the story.
Still, this is a fun, delightful, and mostly very smart movie. True to most Disney films, it is one adults can enjoy as well as their kids. I just wish the movie did even more with its bold premise. Disney has been mocking its own formula for quite some time now; its time they actually broke it.
Set in an anthropomorphic world where animals have evolved beyond their roles as predator and prey, the movie follows Judy Hopps (Ginnifer Goodwin), a bunny determined to be the first rabbit on the police force in the metropolis of Zootopia. Its the same "if you work hard, you can achieve your dreams" angle that is a favorite of the Disney stable, but rarely have they applied it to someone breaking the mold and tearing down stereotypes.
After she graduates as valedictorian and is assigned to ZPD (Zootopia Police Department), she moves to the big city from her humble small town and discovers that the urban environment is not very friendly, and that just because she was the best at her school, she will not get special treatment (her chief is a Ram played by Idris Elba, a great touch). Assigned to parking duty, she eventually snags a piece of a larger case involving missing animals, and sets out to solve the mystery or else lose her job.
The film plays draws interesting parallels to real world racial tensions; rabbits have preconceived notions about foxes as wily, sly, and untrustworthy, so naturally she teams up with a street urchin fox named Nick Wilde (Jason Bateman). Nick calls her "cute," and an interesting line she retorts with is, "Other rabbits can call each other that, but you can't." And the dynamic of predator and prey is put in the foreground, as the weaker animals grow fearful of what their more powerful friends could be capable of doing.
It's all fascinating stuff, and the world of Zootopia itself is a wonder to behold. Laid out very much like a theme park, the city features "zones" where different animals of different climates live (a rainforest zone, a snow zone, etc.), surrounding a central city where animals go to work and live a regular 9 to 5 life. An early chase scene moves from the regular city to a mouse sized neighborhood where our heroes suddenly become Godzilla sized monsters.
But, like many films out of the Disney Animation Studio, the film doesn't fully commit to its bold premise. Wreck-it Ralph (2012) has a great moment where the eventual villain convinces our hero that if he helps his friend, it could mean her demise. That's a great, nuanced story, but unfortunately it squanders that storyline for a more traditional villain. The same goes for Zootopia, where the central mystery is a fascinating analogy for real world race relations, but takes a turn I suspected, but hoped it wouldn't.
But that's the price of family-friendly entertainment. Zootopia proves that Disney's output has been overall stronger than Pixar's (although none of their films can hold a candle to Inside Out). But I hope Disney can move past the need for a villain in their movie. Pixar usually employs villains as well, but their motivations make sense and their defeat is sometimes surprising and unique. Zootopia's villain is a lame cop-out that I saw coming a mile away, and was an ultimately unnecessary edition to the story.
Still, this is a fun, delightful, and mostly very smart movie. True to most Disney films, it is one adults can enjoy as well as their kids. I just wish the movie did even more with its bold premise. Disney has been mocking its own formula for quite some time now; its time they actually broke it.
Saturday, March 26, 2016
Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (2016)
We have arrived at a titular moment in comic book mythos; two of the most well-known superheroes have been pitted against one another in the gladiator match to end all gladiator matches. It's a double billing sure to fill many multiplex seats this weekend, as the Caped Crusader goes up against the Man of Steel. And the biggest question on everyone's minds will be, "Why are they fighting?"
Good question. I guess it's up to you whether the movie satisfactorily answers that. For Batman's part (Ben Affleck), the motivations seem to make sense. The opening credits take place over a recreation of the murder of Bruce Wayne's parents, an origin story as familiar as Krypton's destruction or Peter Parker's spider bite. This is followed by a very effective scene set at the climax of 2013's bombastic Man of Steel, except this time we get a ground-level perspective as Bruce Wayne races into the carnage to save whoever he can. Witnessing first-hand the kind of destruction Superman (Henry Cavil) is capable of, Wayne grows fearful of a power that cannot be contained and becomes obsessed with finding a way to stop him, should Superman's loyalties ever be in question (to quote Wayne at one point: "If there is even a 1% chance he is evil, we must take that as absolute," which seems rather extreme to me).
Superman's motivations, on the other hand, are a little vaguer and harder to describe without being spoilery. Suffice to say, he is forced into it because he has no other choice, although I find it hard to believe he couldn't foil the evil plot forcing him into this battle royale. For his part, Superman (or Clark Kent) spends most of the movie dealing with the public's skeptic eye of his role in the world. Now that a God exists, can he be trusted? And though he does a lot of good, Superman's few missteps are enough to hold congressional hearings prosecuting him for the destruction he is partially responsible for.
I've been dancing around a succinct plot summary and that is because there really is none to give. The movie is so overstuffed with plots that it's hard to know where to begin. How about Lois Lane's (Amy Adams) quest to identify a bullet never before developed by arms dealers? Or Lex Luthor's (Jesse Eisenberg) quest to import kryptonite to build a weapon to make sure Superman doesn't go unchecked? Or the senator (Holly Hunter) leading the hearings against Superman? Or Clark Kent's criticism of Batman's vigilante justice? Or Batman's hunt for an arms dealer known as the White Portuguese?
Scripted by David S. Goyer (who co-wrote The Dark Knight Trilogy and Man of Steel) and Chris Terrio (writer of Argo), and directed by Zack Snyder, the movie never gracefully moves between all of these plot points. There are multiple times dream sequences are employed, and the audience isn't aware of it until things start getting really weird. That's a fine writing trick, but three times is just lazy and I got a little tired of being deceived. Other scenes just start on a medium shot of a character, no establishing shots of where we are, and we are launched into dialogue. In fact, the pace of the first 90 minutes is more or less like this, with the audience having to pay rapt attention or else miss the whole point of the scene.
This is nothing new with Goyer's writing style. But at least with Christopher Nolan directing, you felt like you could follow the chaos of Goyer's structure. Snyder, on the other hand, is not good with subtlety, and when Lex Luthor sneaks a dead body onto an alien spaceship, I couldn't figure out until 30 minute later where the spaceship even was or how he got there. I fancy myself fairly attentive, and I think the lack of establishing shots lends itself to the confusion.
Very few things in this movie are established. It seems like this is catered for the comic book lovers that can fill in the blanks with everything they know, but for plebeians like myself, they just raised more questions. Gotham and Metropolis apparently share a harbor, but this has never been established in any movies, and is barely established here. Bruce Wayne's family manor is a burned wreckage, but why? Batman at one point looks at a Robin costume with a spray painted message reading "Haha, Joke's on you bats!" I guess this refers to an incident where Joker killed Robin, but we've never seen that on film, and it lands with little impact here.
I'm fine with easter eggs being thrown into these movies that are for the fans, and that I won't get. But the things I mentioned above are at least somewhat crucial to the central conflict, at least in terms of motivating our characters. There's a great sentiment that when movies are adapted from books, some things that are unclear will make sense when you read the book. That's great, except a work of art should stand on its own and provide the audience with the context they deserve. Unless the express intent of the artist is for you to read the book as well, it's just sloppy filmmaking.
Part of this comes from DC/Warner Bros.' mad rush to catch up with the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Iron Man (2008) and the other Phase One movies all effectively set-up the major players, culminating in the juggernaut The Avengers (2012), and suddenly DC realized they needed to get Justice League off the ground, stat. But who cares? There are teasers of the other members in this film, very lazily shoehorned in before the final battle, and Wonder Woman (Gal Gadot) makes an epic entrance in the climax. But I can't help but feel if DC had proceeded more like Marvel in building up to this Batman v Superman title it would have felt more rewarding. Man of Steel, for all its issues, at least set-up Superman and his place in the universe. I guess the issue was if you start with the Superman movie, you can't really make another one without addressing him since the presence of Alien Jesus can't be ignored.
Not to mention Batman's whole mantra is just thrown out the window. Famously, Batman's one rule that keeps him from being a criminal is he does not kill. It's his one moral code that keeps him sane. Yet this Batman kills indiscriminately, firing guns at bad guys and mowing down more henchmen than James Bond. I suppose the burned down Wayne Manor and Robin suit help explain this? Or is Snyder's version just a homicidal maniac?
The things is, I didn't hate this movie. I was actually entertained. I liked it more than Snyder's Man of Steel, and didn't think it was as awful as the critics made it out to be. But I obviously still have problems with it, the biggest of which is the serious tone. Nolan handled Batman in a serious manner and grounded him in a reality that was believable. These movies want to do the same thing, but there are so many silly sci-fi elements that I wish it would just embrace the honestly campy nature of Batman and Superman fighting. The fight itself is well done, and actually pretty funny. Batman of course employs Kryptonite to make the match more even, but there are moments of comedy when the Kryptonite wears off and Batman's punches land on Superman's face with metallic thuds.
I should briefly talk about the performances. For all the crying over his casting, Affleck does a great job as Batman. Cavil and Adams are fine in their returning roles. Jeremy Irons is fantastic as Alfred, a fun new take on the usually subservient butler. Eisenberg is really the only misstep here, playing Lex Luthor with so many tics it's hard not to recall Robert Downey, Jr's famous speech in Tropic Thunder about over doing stuff like this.
SPOILERS!
Finally, the movie ends with a ballsy twist that would seem surprising if you don't know what Doomsday's presence in the movie means (he's the big slime monster that is the real foe in the end). But it's a twist that, like most of what happens, is meaningless. It's a lazy attempt to invest pathos into the end. But does anyone really believe that the new status quo at the end will stand? Because I don't. There's no way they will proceed. It's a twist that will be rendered as meaningless as the end of Wrath of Khan.
END SPOILERS!
The spectacle of this film is something to behold. It's a screen-pairing that nerds and casual fans alike have been waiting for for decades. But that's what I really wish we got; a pairing. A team-up. Sure Justice League is right around the corner. But that's going to add Aquaman and the Flash and Cyborg, and make the whole thing overstuffed. I wish we could have gotten Batman and Superman teaming up for the whole film, instead of being adversaries until near the end. But I guess Batman v Superman is a better poster than Batman & Superman.
Good question. I guess it's up to you whether the movie satisfactorily answers that. For Batman's part (Ben Affleck), the motivations seem to make sense. The opening credits take place over a recreation of the murder of Bruce Wayne's parents, an origin story as familiar as Krypton's destruction or Peter Parker's spider bite. This is followed by a very effective scene set at the climax of 2013's bombastic Man of Steel, except this time we get a ground-level perspective as Bruce Wayne races into the carnage to save whoever he can. Witnessing first-hand the kind of destruction Superman (Henry Cavil) is capable of, Wayne grows fearful of a power that cannot be contained and becomes obsessed with finding a way to stop him, should Superman's loyalties ever be in question (to quote Wayne at one point: "If there is even a 1% chance he is evil, we must take that as absolute," which seems rather extreme to me).
Superman's motivations, on the other hand, are a little vaguer and harder to describe without being spoilery. Suffice to say, he is forced into it because he has no other choice, although I find it hard to believe he couldn't foil the evil plot forcing him into this battle royale. For his part, Superman (or Clark Kent) spends most of the movie dealing with the public's skeptic eye of his role in the world. Now that a God exists, can he be trusted? And though he does a lot of good, Superman's few missteps are enough to hold congressional hearings prosecuting him for the destruction he is partially responsible for.
I've been dancing around a succinct plot summary and that is because there really is none to give. The movie is so overstuffed with plots that it's hard to know where to begin. How about Lois Lane's (Amy Adams) quest to identify a bullet never before developed by arms dealers? Or Lex Luthor's (Jesse Eisenberg) quest to import kryptonite to build a weapon to make sure Superman doesn't go unchecked? Or the senator (Holly Hunter) leading the hearings against Superman? Or Clark Kent's criticism of Batman's vigilante justice? Or Batman's hunt for an arms dealer known as the White Portuguese?
Scripted by David S. Goyer (who co-wrote The Dark Knight Trilogy and Man of Steel) and Chris Terrio (writer of Argo), and directed by Zack Snyder, the movie never gracefully moves between all of these plot points. There are multiple times dream sequences are employed, and the audience isn't aware of it until things start getting really weird. That's a fine writing trick, but three times is just lazy and I got a little tired of being deceived. Other scenes just start on a medium shot of a character, no establishing shots of where we are, and we are launched into dialogue. In fact, the pace of the first 90 minutes is more or less like this, with the audience having to pay rapt attention or else miss the whole point of the scene.
This is nothing new with Goyer's writing style. But at least with Christopher Nolan directing, you felt like you could follow the chaos of Goyer's structure. Snyder, on the other hand, is not good with subtlety, and when Lex Luthor sneaks a dead body onto an alien spaceship, I couldn't figure out until 30 minute later where the spaceship even was or how he got there. I fancy myself fairly attentive, and I think the lack of establishing shots lends itself to the confusion.
Very few things in this movie are established. It seems like this is catered for the comic book lovers that can fill in the blanks with everything they know, but for plebeians like myself, they just raised more questions. Gotham and Metropolis apparently share a harbor, but this has never been established in any movies, and is barely established here. Bruce Wayne's family manor is a burned wreckage, but why? Batman at one point looks at a Robin costume with a spray painted message reading "Haha, Joke's on you bats!" I guess this refers to an incident where Joker killed Robin, but we've never seen that on film, and it lands with little impact here.
I'm fine with easter eggs being thrown into these movies that are for the fans, and that I won't get. But the things I mentioned above are at least somewhat crucial to the central conflict, at least in terms of motivating our characters. There's a great sentiment that when movies are adapted from books, some things that are unclear will make sense when you read the book. That's great, except a work of art should stand on its own and provide the audience with the context they deserve. Unless the express intent of the artist is for you to read the book as well, it's just sloppy filmmaking.
Part of this comes from DC/Warner Bros.' mad rush to catch up with the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Iron Man (2008) and the other Phase One movies all effectively set-up the major players, culminating in the juggernaut The Avengers (2012), and suddenly DC realized they needed to get Justice League off the ground, stat. But who cares? There are teasers of the other members in this film, very lazily shoehorned in before the final battle, and Wonder Woman (Gal Gadot) makes an epic entrance in the climax. But I can't help but feel if DC had proceeded more like Marvel in building up to this Batman v Superman title it would have felt more rewarding. Man of Steel, for all its issues, at least set-up Superman and his place in the universe. I guess the issue was if you start with the Superman movie, you can't really make another one without addressing him since the presence of Alien Jesus can't be ignored.
Not to mention Batman's whole mantra is just thrown out the window. Famously, Batman's one rule that keeps him from being a criminal is he does not kill. It's his one moral code that keeps him sane. Yet this Batman kills indiscriminately, firing guns at bad guys and mowing down more henchmen than James Bond. I suppose the burned down Wayne Manor and Robin suit help explain this? Or is Snyder's version just a homicidal maniac?
The things is, I didn't hate this movie. I was actually entertained. I liked it more than Snyder's Man of Steel, and didn't think it was as awful as the critics made it out to be. But I obviously still have problems with it, the biggest of which is the serious tone. Nolan handled Batman in a serious manner and grounded him in a reality that was believable. These movies want to do the same thing, but there are so many silly sci-fi elements that I wish it would just embrace the honestly campy nature of Batman and Superman fighting. The fight itself is well done, and actually pretty funny. Batman of course employs Kryptonite to make the match more even, but there are moments of comedy when the Kryptonite wears off and Batman's punches land on Superman's face with metallic thuds.
I should briefly talk about the performances. For all the crying over his casting, Affleck does a great job as Batman. Cavil and Adams are fine in their returning roles. Jeremy Irons is fantastic as Alfred, a fun new take on the usually subservient butler. Eisenberg is really the only misstep here, playing Lex Luthor with so many tics it's hard not to recall Robert Downey, Jr's famous speech in Tropic Thunder about over doing stuff like this.
SPOILERS!
Finally, the movie ends with a ballsy twist that would seem surprising if you don't know what Doomsday's presence in the movie means (he's the big slime monster that is the real foe in the end). But it's a twist that, like most of what happens, is meaningless. It's a lazy attempt to invest pathos into the end. But does anyone really believe that the new status quo at the end will stand? Because I don't. There's no way they will proceed. It's a twist that will be rendered as meaningless as the end of Wrath of Khan.
END SPOILERS!
The spectacle of this film is something to behold. It's a screen-pairing that nerds and casual fans alike have been waiting for for decades. But that's what I really wish we got; a pairing. A team-up. Sure Justice League is right around the corner. But that's going to add Aquaman and the Flash and Cyborg, and make the whole thing overstuffed. I wish we could have gotten Batman and Superman teaming up for the whole film, instead of being adversaries until near the end. But I guess Batman v Superman is a better poster than Batman & Superman.
Tuesday, March 15, 2016
10 Cloverfield Lane (2016)
Many people who flocked to see 10 Cloverfield Lane this weekend were probably expecting a pretty straightforward sequel to the 2008 January hit, a found footage move about a monster terrorizing Manhattan and the group of 20-somethings just trying to survive. Directed by Matt Reeves, that first Cloverfield was a masterstroke of viral marketing. The first trailer premiered before the first Transformers (2007) film, omitting the title completely from the trailer leaving audiences wondering what it was called, other than "Untitled J.J. Abrams Movie" (he serves as producer on both films).
So when two months ago a trailer was dropped announcing a sequel, and that sequel would be out in March, we got another example of some pretty ingenious marketing. I don't know if general audiences were clamoring for a Cloverfield follow-up, the promise of one suddenly popping up just around the corner was enticing enough to generate enough buzz to grab this movie a decent $24 million opening weekend. With an estimated $5 million production budget, that's not too shabby.
What audiences will get, instead, is a fairly well-directed thriller that only really ties in with the Cloverfield universe (if such a thing can be said) at the end. The film opens with Michelle (Mary Elizabeth Winstead) leaving behind her life in New York and fiancee over an unheard argument. Driving for 100s of miles, she ends up in the country and gets into a car accident. When she wakes, she is handcuffed, attached to an IV, and her leg is set in a make-shift cast to deal with a sprain. She soon discovers she is prisoner to Howard (John Goodman). Or is she?
The movie does a lot of toying with the audiences emotions in terms of whether Howard is to be trusted. Michelle soon discovers she is in Howard's bunker, an underground living space with enough food to last years. There is another fellow there with a broken arm called Emmett (John Gallagher Jr.), and Howard explains that a bomb has gone off and fallout has made the outsider world uninhabitable.
The question, naturally, becomes about whether Howard is telling the truth or not. He has a lot of crazy theories about what is happening; that Russia or Al-Qaeda or even aliens are attacking. And though he offers up a lot of proof, Michelle is never quite trusting of him and everything he tells her.
I won't really say much more about the movie's plot except that overall I was surprised by how effective this film was. There is a pervading sense of claustrophobia and terror throughout, and the movie does an excellent job of laying out the space of the bunker and making it feel familiar.
Directed by newcomer Dan Trachtenberg, the film is also extraordinarily suspenseful. An opening title card sequence announces the movie's presence with exciting sound design, and there is a dinner scene that slowly builds to an explosive climax. Really much of the movie is a bit of a slow burn, as some of what Howard says turns out to be real, while other things he says are not.
The film finally ties back into Clovefield at the end with a final 15-minutes that almost feel out of left field and unwelcome. If not for the name attached, the ending would probably be a completely surprising, out-of-nowhere twist. But because it has the name, it has certain duties to fill.
Which isn't a bad thing. Hell, I kind of like the notion of Cloverfield movies telling varying stories about the same incident from different individual stories. The first movie dealt with how a couple of Manhattanites deal with a monster attack, while this deals with one woman's struggle as she is held captive, or is rescued (take your pick), by a different kind of monster (I'm so insightful!).
Ultimately this a solid thriller. It's fairly predictable, but Goodman and Winstead are both great and the movie achieves a lot through primarily dialogue in a confined setting. It's a surprising film and one I actually recommend people check out. As long as you're not gearing yourself for 100% straight up Cloverfield, you might be pleasantly surprised by what you see.
So when two months ago a trailer was dropped announcing a sequel, and that sequel would be out in March, we got another example of some pretty ingenious marketing. I don't know if general audiences were clamoring for a Cloverfield follow-up, the promise of one suddenly popping up just around the corner was enticing enough to generate enough buzz to grab this movie a decent $24 million opening weekend. With an estimated $5 million production budget, that's not too shabby.
What audiences will get, instead, is a fairly well-directed thriller that only really ties in with the Cloverfield universe (if such a thing can be said) at the end. The film opens with Michelle (Mary Elizabeth Winstead) leaving behind her life in New York and fiancee over an unheard argument. Driving for 100s of miles, she ends up in the country and gets into a car accident. When she wakes, she is handcuffed, attached to an IV, and her leg is set in a make-shift cast to deal with a sprain. She soon discovers she is prisoner to Howard (John Goodman). Or is she?
The movie does a lot of toying with the audiences emotions in terms of whether Howard is to be trusted. Michelle soon discovers she is in Howard's bunker, an underground living space with enough food to last years. There is another fellow there with a broken arm called Emmett (John Gallagher Jr.), and Howard explains that a bomb has gone off and fallout has made the outsider world uninhabitable.
The question, naturally, becomes about whether Howard is telling the truth or not. He has a lot of crazy theories about what is happening; that Russia or Al-Qaeda or even aliens are attacking. And though he offers up a lot of proof, Michelle is never quite trusting of him and everything he tells her.
I won't really say much more about the movie's plot except that overall I was surprised by how effective this film was. There is a pervading sense of claustrophobia and terror throughout, and the movie does an excellent job of laying out the space of the bunker and making it feel familiar.
Directed by newcomer Dan Trachtenberg, the film is also extraordinarily suspenseful. An opening title card sequence announces the movie's presence with exciting sound design, and there is a dinner scene that slowly builds to an explosive climax. Really much of the movie is a bit of a slow burn, as some of what Howard says turns out to be real, while other things he says are not.
The film finally ties back into Clovefield at the end with a final 15-minutes that almost feel out of left field and unwelcome. If not for the name attached, the ending would probably be a completely surprising, out-of-nowhere twist. But because it has the name, it has certain duties to fill.
Which isn't a bad thing. Hell, I kind of like the notion of Cloverfield movies telling varying stories about the same incident from different individual stories. The first movie dealt with how a couple of Manhattanites deal with a monster attack, while this deals with one woman's struggle as she is held captive, or is rescued (take your pick), by a different kind of monster (I'm so insightful!).
Ultimately this a solid thriller. It's fairly predictable, but Goodman and Winstead are both great and the movie achieves a lot through primarily dialogue in a confined setting. It's a surprising film and one I actually recommend people check out. As long as you're not gearing yourself for 100% straight up Cloverfield, you might be pleasantly surprised by what you see.
Sunday, February 28, 2016
88th Annual Academy Awards: Won vs. Predicted
Best Picture
Won/Predicted: Spotlight
Best Actor
Won/Predicted: Leonardo DiCaprio for The Revenant
Best Actress
Won/Predicted: Brie Larson for Room
Best Director
Won/Predicted: The Revenant
Best Original Song
Won: "The Writing's on the Wall" from Spectre
Predicted: "'Til it Happens to You" from The Hunting Ground
Best Original Score
Won/Predicted: The Hateful Eight
Best Foreign Film
Won/Predicted: Son of Saul
Best Live Action Short
Won: Stutterer
Predicted: Shok
Best Documentary
Won/Predicted: Amy
Best Documentary Short
Won: A Girl in the River: The Price of Forgiveness
Predicted: Body Team 12
Best Supporting Actor
Won: Mark Rylance for Bridge of Spies
Predicted: Sylvester Stallone for Creed
Best Animated Film
Won/Predicted: Inside Out
Best Animated Short
Won: Bear Story
Predicted: World of Tomorrow
Best Visual Effects
Won: Ex Machina
Predicted: Mad Max: Fury Road
Best Sound Mixing
Won/Predicted: Mad Max: Fury Road
Best Sound Editing
Won/Predicted: Mad Max: Fury Road
Best Editing
Won/Predicted: Mad Max: Fury Road
Best Cinematography
Won/Predicted: The Revenant
Best Makeup and Hairstyling
Won/Predicted: Mad Max: Fury Road
Best Production Design
Won/Predicted: Mad Max: Fury Road
Best Costume Design
Won: Mad Max: Fury Road
Predicted: Cinderella
Best Supporting Actress
Won/Predicted: Alicia Vikander for The Danish Girl
Best Adapted Screenplay
Won/Predicted: The Big Short
Best Original Screenplay
Won/Predicted: Spotlight
Overall: 17/24 correct. On par for me. Until next year!
Won/Predicted: Spotlight
Best Actor
Won/Predicted: Leonardo DiCaprio for The Revenant
Best Actress
Won/Predicted: Brie Larson for Room
Best Director
Won/Predicted: The Revenant
Best Original Song
Won: "The Writing's on the Wall" from Spectre
Predicted: "'Til it Happens to You" from The Hunting Ground
Best Original Score
Won/Predicted: The Hateful Eight
Best Foreign Film
Won/Predicted: Son of Saul
Best Live Action Short
Won: Stutterer
Predicted: Shok
Best Documentary
Won/Predicted: Amy
Best Documentary Short
Won: A Girl in the River: The Price of Forgiveness
Predicted: Body Team 12
Best Supporting Actor
Won: Mark Rylance for Bridge of Spies
Predicted: Sylvester Stallone for Creed
Best Animated Film
Won/Predicted: Inside Out
Best Animated Short
Won: Bear Story
Predicted: World of Tomorrow
Best Visual Effects
Won: Ex Machina
Predicted: Mad Max: Fury Road
Best Sound Mixing
Won/Predicted: Mad Max: Fury Road
Best Sound Editing
Won/Predicted: Mad Max: Fury Road
Best Editing
Won/Predicted: Mad Max: Fury Road
Best Cinematography
Won/Predicted: The Revenant
Best Makeup and Hairstyling
Won/Predicted: Mad Max: Fury Road
Best Production Design
Won/Predicted: Mad Max: Fury Road
Best Costume Design
Won: Mad Max: Fury Road
Predicted: Cinderella
Best Supporting Actress
Won/Predicted: Alicia Vikander for The Danish Girl
Best Adapted Screenplay
Won/Predicted: The Big Short
Best Original Screenplay
Won/Predicted: Spotlight
Overall: 17/24 correct. On par for me. Until next year!
Saturday, February 27, 2016
Top 10 of 2015
It's the time of the year again! Oscars are here, and I am officially ready to release my top 10. I usually wait longer than normal because I'm a working person who has limited time to see what's out. That said, I'm pretty happy with my list this year. Without further ado, here is my personal top 10 films of 2015!
10. Star Wars: Episode VII - The Force Awakens, 135 min. PG-13
I had a somewhat reserved reaction to J.J. Abrams' revival of the this franchise. The epic space opera that pits ultimate good against ultimate evil was thought to be all but dead, but then Disney went and bought the rights and now we're getting a new movie every year. At first, I had the same criticisms of this one that everyone else did: it's essentially the first movie all over again, down to an ultimate planet-sized weapon that needs to be destroyed, a villain with daddy issues, and a mentor that dies. But, upon a second viewing, I threw those criticisms aside and enjoyed what is overall a very solid, entertaining entry in the Star Wars saga. It nicely sets up what I am confident will be a stellar eighth entry, with a likable new cast of characters mixed in with our old favorites. Basically, it gets everything right that George Lucas didn't with the prequels.
9. Amy, 128 min. R
Asif Kapadia's heart-wrenching account of Amy Winehouse's life is a fantastic and fascinating look at celebrity and tabloid life. The film incorporates almost no talking-head interviews, instead rolling endless B-Roll of Amy's life, collected from personal recordings and paparazzi footage, with various accounts of Winehouse underneath. It's a fascinating style that creates a compelling narrative that could have so easily been a by-the-numbers Behind the Music doc. Instead, it paints an intimate portrait of a tortured soul, and makes us feel as if we knew Amy.
8. Room, 118 min. R
I went into this film knowing absolutely nothing, and I advise you do the same. So if you haven't seen this film and know nothing, don't read on. Lenny Abrahamson's dour, depressing film details one woman's (Brie Larson) imprisonment by a crazy man. Her son (Jacob Tremblay), born in this prison, is taught that the only world is the room they live in. So when he is told the truth of their situation, and escapes, his integration into society becomes a fascinating case study of Plato's Allegory of the Cave. It's a gripping film that goes farther than you might expect (other directors may have ended this film at the halfway point), and pays off in extraordinary performances, especially from newcomer Tremblay.
7. Brooklyn, 111 min. R
This is overall a simple film that defies a quick plot summary, but here it goes: Eilis (Saoirse Ronan), a young Irish girl, immigrates to New York in 1950s America. She quickly adapts to life there, gets an Italian boyfriend, and then has to go back to Ireland for unforeseen circumstances, where she realizes she may want to stay. By all accounts its a small story, and the outcome really means nothing except to one person, but the film, directed by John Crowley from a Nick Hornby screenplay, is very compelling and draws you in. I was surprised how much I cared, and the film, though simple, is very well done. There's nothing wrong with that.
6. It Follows, 100 min. R
David Robert Mitchell's cool, suspenseful horror film is a nice wake-up call to how most horror films should be done. The film relies less on jump scares and more on a pervading sense of dread that permeates the entire film. The film's monster, the It of the title, is a ghoul that follows you if you have sex with the wrong person (a fairly obvious STD metaphor). Set in a weird, 1980s-like world with clamshell kindles, the movie evokes horror films of that decade and before. You continually scan the horizon for It in every scene, as It can take any shape or form. Remarkably well done and chilling.
5. The Hateful Eight, 187 min. R
Tarantino's eighth film (cheekily titled as such) is basically the director at his most indulgent. Over 3 hours if you saw the roadshow version, this film has accurately been described as the bar scene from Inglourious Basterds drawn out to epic lengths:; a dialogue-drive first half, and rather bloody second. The plot brings eight rather different characters together in a remote cabin during a blizzard, circa late 1800s. Tarantino's entertaining dialogue is on full display, as well as his penchant for very entertaining characters. The ending is a little predictable, but the ride is enjoyable as hell, especially for Tarantino fans. Shot in glorious Super Panavision, it was definitely one of my favorite experiences of 2015.
4. Mad Max: Fury Road, 120 min. R
Mad Max is the shot in the arm action films have been needing for a long time. There is barely any narrative to speak of; yet the movie's plot is one of the most engaging of the year. It speaks volumes with visuals and little dialogue. Many have drooled over this movie, and I join them in the revelry; its an endlessly inventive, exhilarating thrill ride. What else can I say? If you haven't seen it yet, you owe it to yourself to check out one of the best action movies every made.
3. Gett: The Trial of Viviane Amsalem, 115 min. NR
This Israeli film struck a chord with me back in March and has stuck with me ever since. It details the years long struggle of one woman, Viviane (Ronit Elkabetz, also the co-writer and co-director), in her quest to divorce her husband, Elisha (Simon Abkarian). But in Israel, where the film takes place, only rabbis can end a marriage, and for that to happen either someone must have violated the marriage, or both parties must agree. Viviane's husband refuses to end the marriage, and has done nothing wrong, so her trial persists for months and years on end. It's a gripping film, although its only location is the court rooms where the rabbis hear testimony. But it's a great one that deserves to be seen by a wider audience.
2. Spotlight, 128 min. R
A modern-day All the President's Men that follows the intrepid reporters of the Boston Globe as they uncover the clergy sex-abuse scandal within the Catholic church, unveiling decades of corruption and cover-up for pedophilic priests. Michael Keaton, Rachel McAdams, and Mark Ruffalo lead a great cast through a rather dry-sounding story. The plot involves watching people investigate and uncover things, and makes it damn interesting. Its an infuriating film, and everyone I know who has seen it agrees it is excellent. One of those rare films that lives up to the hype.
1. Inside Out, 95 min. PG
Where to even begin with this one. Pixar has always been good at tugging at our emotions, and now they deal directly with them. A modern Herman's Head, the movie follows Joy (Amy Poehler), Sadness (Phyllis Smith), Anger (Lewis Black), Disgust (Mindy Kaling), and Fear (Bill Hader), anthropomorphized emotions of 11-year-old Riley. Riley's life is happy until her family up and moves from Minnesota to San Francisco, and her emotions struggle to deal with the new change. When Joy and Sadness are sucked out of the control center, Riley is left being a moody preteen. Beyond that, this is an incredibly mature family film whose central conflict is accepting sadness as an emotion that is ok. The character Joy fails to recognize Sadness' place until she realizes that she generates empathy, that people come to your aide when you ask. This all culminates in a climax so emotionally wrenching that I haven't been able to get through the scene in four viewings without at least tears welling up in my eyes. It's a movie that at one point will have you laughing, and at another will have you in tears. Its hands-down one of Pixar's best, and the best film of the year.
10. Star Wars: Episode VII - The Force Awakens, 135 min. PG-13
I had a somewhat reserved reaction to J.J. Abrams' revival of the this franchise. The epic space opera that pits ultimate good against ultimate evil was thought to be all but dead, but then Disney went and bought the rights and now we're getting a new movie every year. At first, I had the same criticisms of this one that everyone else did: it's essentially the first movie all over again, down to an ultimate planet-sized weapon that needs to be destroyed, a villain with daddy issues, and a mentor that dies. But, upon a second viewing, I threw those criticisms aside and enjoyed what is overall a very solid, entertaining entry in the Star Wars saga. It nicely sets up what I am confident will be a stellar eighth entry, with a likable new cast of characters mixed in with our old favorites. Basically, it gets everything right that George Lucas didn't with the prequels.
9. Amy, 128 min. R
Asif Kapadia's heart-wrenching account of Amy Winehouse's life is a fantastic and fascinating look at celebrity and tabloid life. The film incorporates almost no talking-head interviews, instead rolling endless B-Roll of Amy's life, collected from personal recordings and paparazzi footage, with various accounts of Winehouse underneath. It's a fascinating style that creates a compelling narrative that could have so easily been a by-the-numbers Behind the Music doc. Instead, it paints an intimate portrait of a tortured soul, and makes us feel as if we knew Amy.
8. Room, 118 min. R
I went into this film knowing absolutely nothing, and I advise you do the same. So if you haven't seen this film and know nothing, don't read on. Lenny Abrahamson's dour, depressing film details one woman's (Brie Larson) imprisonment by a crazy man. Her son (Jacob Tremblay), born in this prison, is taught that the only world is the room they live in. So when he is told the truth of their situation, and escapes, his integration into society becomes a fascinating case study of Plato's Allegory of the Cave. It's a gripping film that goes farther than you might expect (other directors may have ended this film at the halfway point), and pays off in extraordinary performances, especially from newcomer Tremblay.
7. Brooklyn, 111 min. R
This is overall a simple film that defies a quick plot summary, but here it goes: Eilis (Saoirse Ronan), a young Irish girl, immigrates to New York in 1950s America. She quickly adapts to life there, gets an Italian boyfriend, and then has to go back to Ireland for unforeseen circumstances, where she realizes she may want to stay. By all accounts its a small story, and the outcome really means nothing except to one person, but the film, directed by John Crowley from a Nick Hornby screenplay, is very compelling and draws you in. I was surprised how much I cared, and the film, though simple, is very well done. There's nothing wrong with that.
6. It Follows, 100 min. R
David Robert Mitchell's cool, suspenseful horror film is a nice wake-up call to how most horror films should be done. The film relies less on jump scares and more on a pervading sense of dread that permeates the entire film. The film's monster, the It of the title, is a ghoul that follows you if you have sex with the wrong person (a fairly obvious STD metaphor). Set in a weird, 1980s-like world with clamshell kindles, the movie evokes horror films of that decade and before. You continually scan the horizon for It in every scene, as It can take any shape or form. Remarkably well done and chilling.
5. The Hateful Eight, 187 min. R
Tarantino's eighth film (cheekily titled as such) is basically the director at his most indulgent. Over 3 hours if you saw the roadshow version, this film has accurately been described as the bar scene from Inglourious Basterds drawn out to epic lengths:; a dialogue-drive first half, and rather bloody second. The plot brings eight rather different characters together in a remote cabin during a blizzard, circa late 1800s. Tarantino's entertaining dialogue is on full display, as well as his penchant for very entertaining characters. The ending is a little predictable, but the ride is enjoyable as hell, especially for Tarantino fans. Shot in glorious Super Panavision, it was definitely one of my favorite experiences of 2015.
4. Mad Max: Fury Road, 120 min. R
Mad Max is the shot in the arm action films have been needing for a long time. There is barely any narrative to speak of; yet the movie's plot is one of the most engaging of the year. It speaks volumes with visuals and little dialogue. Many have drooled over this movie, and I join them in the revelry; its an endlessly inventive, exhilarating thrill ride. What else can I say? If you haven't seen it yet, you owe it to yourself to check out one of the best action movies every made.
3. Gett: The Trial of Viviane Amsalem, 115 min. NR
This Israeli film struck a chord with me back in March and has stuck with me ever since. It details the years long struggle of one woman, Viviane (Ronit Elkabetz, also the co-writer and co-director), in her quest to divorce her husband, Elisha (Simon Abkarian). But in Israel, where the film takes place, only rabbis can end a marriage, and for that to happen either someone must have violated the marriage, or both parties must agree. Viviane's husband refuses to end the marriage, and has done nothing wrong, so her trial persists for months and years on end. It's a gripping film, although its only location is the court rooms where the rabbis hear testimony. But it's a great one that deserves to be seen by a wider audience.
2. Spotlight, 128 min. R
A modern-day All the President's Men that follows the intrepid reporters of the Boston Globe as they uncover the clergy sex-abuse scandal within the Catholic church, unveiling decades of corruption and cover-up for pedophilic priests. Michael Keaton, Rachel McAdams, and Mark Ruffalo lead a great cast through a rather dry-sounding story. The plot involves watching people investigate and uncover things, and makes it damn interesting. Its an infuriating film, and everyone I know who has seen it agrees it is excellent. One of those rare films that lives up to the hype.
1. Inside Out, 95 min. PG
Where to even begin with this one. Pixar has always been good at tugging at our emotions, and now they deal directly with them. A modern Herman's Head, the movie follows Joy (Amy Poehler), Sadness (Phyllis Smith), Anger (Lewis Black), Disgust (Mindy Kaling), and Fear (Bill Hader), anthropomorphized emotions of 11-year-old Riley. Riley's life is happy until her family up and moves from Minnesota to San Francisco, and her emotions struggle to deal with the new change. When Joy and Sadness are sucked out of the control center, Riley is left being a moody preteen. Beyond that, this is an incredibly mature family film whose central conflict is accepting sadness as an emotion that is ok. The character Joy fails to recognize Sadness' place until she realizes that she generates empathy, that people come to your aide when you ask. This all culminates in a climax so emotionally wrenching that I haven't been able to get through the scene in four viewings without at least tears welling up in my eyes. It's a movie that at one point will have you laughing, and at another will have you in tears. Its hands-down one of Pixar's best, and the best film of the year.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)