Author name: Lawrence Napoli

A Reboot is a Remake is a Reboot

They Didn’t Stop To Think If They Should

A Film Review of Independence Day: Resurgence

First of all, I hope everyone had a wonderful and safe 4^th of July.  It is a great time to reflect on this wonderful country of ours despite its flaws with friends, family and barbecue.  Having said that, few films in Hollywood’s history inspire as many chest-pounding, fist-pumping moments of pure ‘Merica on screen than the original ID4 back in 1996.  Us Yanks didn’t put it to the Russians, Communists, Chinese, terrorists or even Nazis, but an entire invading species from outer space.  We welcomed their intergalactic hostility with a fist in their face and a tactical nuke up their mother ship’s … tail pipe.  And of course, there was that speech by President Bill Pullman, er … Whitmore. 

As far as blockbusters go, mega-disaster films aren’t complicated beasts to tame.  The overall plot is straightforward, most characters are trying to survive in some unified effort and very rarely do the protagonists get completely wiped out without some definitive victory of hope to survive, endure, rebuild, etc.  The story is simplified as much as possible to allow more screen time to be filled with immense set pieces of incomprehensible destruction.  Director Roland Emmerich has decimated planet Earth so many times that one would presume that returning to the franchise that spring-boarded his career for a sequel would have been an explosive walk in the park.  If there’s one thing that recent Hollywood productions have taught us is that there is no such thing as a sure thing.

Yes, Will Smith is not in this film.  Sure, the public demand for a continuation of this story has more or less fizzled.  Absolutely, the returning cast looks better suited to be signed on for another sequel to Cocoon rather than a sci-fi action film.  Yet, none of these significant handicaps are the true culprits for why Resurgence is doing about half as well as ID4 did at the box office after 11 days even with today’s exorbitant ticket prices.  In a nutshell, the real reason this movie didn’t work is thanks to stereotypical Hollywood obtuseness: “the sequel has gotta be bigger because bigger is better!”  No.  Sometimes “bigger” just means “more” as in more explosions, characters, action and (convenient) twists and when studio executives become obsessed with this train of thought “more” quickly turns into “too much.”  Independence Day: Resurgence is a film determined to fill out its runtime with so much of everything that the main plot is obscured by an ever expanding fog of inconsequential subplots.  This film tries so desperately to be a jack of all trades that it couldn’t be bothered with attempting to master anything.

It’s not so much that Resurgence is a “bad” Hollywood blockbuster, but rather a completely unfocused story that is strung together by a cavalcade of subplots that simply go nowhere and is supported by characters that are ostensibly all sidekicks with no main protagonist to rally behind.  Adding to the confusion is the fact that a ton of really important plot points to the mythos of this saga like Captain Hiller dying, the benefits of applied alien technology to all aspects of human civilization and the achievement of world peace thanks to a universal threat all happens off screen, before this movie even begins and is barely touched upon during its runtime.

Unfortunately, the story of “the aliens are back with bigger ships” is just not as interesting as exploring any one of those previously mentioned plot points and the characters that take us there redefine the concept of flatness.  Character development is an afterthought as precious few scenes are allowed to endear anyone to the audience.  It is as much the fault of poor writing and production planning as it is performance that leads to characters and by extension, circumstances that no one cares about. 

“Moving” = 20/33

“Picture” = 22/33

“Story” = 12/34

Overall MPS Rating: 54/100

Independence Day: Resurgenceis one of those film productions that beg the question “why” on so many levels all of which can only be answered by cost effective dollars and cents.  Form the business perspective of the entertainment industry, this film makes sense in every textbook example of “the formula” at work.  From the enjoyment perspective of an audience, this film delivers “been there, done that” moment, after moment, after moment.   Simply adding Will Smith (and the rumored $50 million dollar pay day he was supposedly demanding) to this movie exactly as it stood would not have flipped the switch for this film.  However, if he were always part of the production from the very beginning, the story would have been vastly different with a “dollars and cents” focus on his character arc with everyone else towing the line in support.  Then at least, the audience would have had an unquestioned hero to get behind.

Family Friendly Zombie Slaying

[[wysiwyg_imageupload:21789:]]

Chronically Cubed and Cured

A Film review of Straight Outta Compton

Biopic films can sometimes be a difficult sell to studios and audiences because some can get too focused on heavy-handed performances and dramatic historical recreations.  They also tend to move awfully slow and get a bit chatty as most individuals selected for this sort of Hollywood treatment aren’t exactly James Bond types.  Straight Outta Compton is a film that plays like a biopic, but never loses sight of maintaining a high entertainment value thanks to two important factors.  First, the individuals that comprised the NWA lived real lives that interwove with some of the most signature elements showcased in cinematic crime dramas such as guns, drugs, gangs, money, violence, loyalty, betrayal, ego and unbridled psychosis.  These dangers were as real as they were common to these young men as the audience bears witness to a number of specific incidents involving the main characters that directly explains where they come from, why they feel the way they do and how it all inspired their music.  Second, as seductive as all of the aforementioned vices may be on the fictional screen, they all constitute secondary window dressing to the music of NWA.  With a multitude of scenes that use original recordings, the energy of some of NWA’s slickest tracks keeps the audience engaged with aggressive beats and defiant lyrics.

“Art reflecting life” was clearly the name of the game for this expertly casted, performed, directed and produced example of cinema.  However, the audience should be made well aware that this film prizes the concept of legacy above all else so expect a lot of pulled punches when the mirror is held not-so-directly upon the individuals of NWA; specifically Dr. Dre.  Ice Cube and Dr. Dre were at the epicenter of this film’s production staff as their firsthand accounts, attention to detail and mentoring of the young actors portraying their past selves certainly enhanced the overall quality of the film.  But, director F. Gary Gary is boys with Cube and Dre having directed Friday (1995) as well as music videos for both and he certainly protects everyone that has the most to lose about revisiting parts of the past deemed too brutal for general audiences.  Perhaps this is the reason why John Singleton (Boyz ‘n the Hood, Higher Learning) wasn’t tapped to direct this film because his style would demand showing at least some aspect of Dre’s admitted violence against women to raise the stakes and the drama.  To suggest that this movie presents a revisionist’s history concerning NWA’s individuals is the understatement of the century. 

Be that as it may, I must remind the reader that this biopic is still a work of fiction and (as with The Imitation Game) is not a documentary designed to expose fact.  Straight Outta Compton is a drama rooted in a popular corner of the music business culture, but electrified by uncommonly refined performances by a raw cast of relative unknowns.  Even putting aside the fact that most of these young men are the spitting image of which they portray (especially Marcc Rose as Tupac in a short scene where I’m certain necromancy was involved in its creation), the sincerity and visceral execution of the cast’s performance makes this movie Oscar worthy.  The audience feels the frustration, the ambivalence, the defiance and the ascendancy.  I would be shocked if Jason Mitchell as Eazy-E doesn’t at least get a nomination for best male lead or best supporting performance from the Academy.

[Note: the MPS rating system is still in full effect, but as it is a system designed around fairness, its modular nature allows for the non-application of categories not relevant to the production: in this case, digital effects]

“Moving” = 27/33

“Picture” = 19/27

“Story” = 22/34

Overall MPS Rating:  68/94 or 72%

Approaching this movie as any sort of inside track on the “real” happenings of the NWA would be a mistake because the propaganda of the film conflicts with police reports of reality.  The better mindset would be simply sitting down to be entertained by a screen story inspired by true events.  It is one heck of an entertaining tale that strikes a great balance between poignant drama and lyric action with a dash of laugh-out-loud comedic beats, but viewer be forewarned; this is a very male centric film.  It depicts women as eye candy set pieces and obstacles to productivity, so this may not be the best movie to plan a date night around.  Despite all the legitimate criticism this production deserves, it would be a crime to dismiss the excellent performances displayed by the entire cast.  Gritty, gutsy and as true to life as the public personas they presented to the world is the least that can be said of all the actors fortunate enough to be a part of this film.  As the fall approaches, so too does the Hollywood award season and I consider Straight Outta Compton as an early contender for some Oscar gold; that is of course, if Dre and Cube are willing to play a bit more Hollywood politics to get in that race.

The Moving Picture Story Rating

The MPS Rating is a cumulative point system whereby several specific elements of a film are scored to produce an overall grade that directly stands upon its designated strengths and weaknesses.  Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic are well known and referenced when comparing media by way of their own number systems.  Unfortunately, without transparency that reveals where these “scores” could possibly be derived, any number is arbitrary and ultimately has no comparative value.  Criticism is subjective in its nature, but by fragmenting general observations into bullet point breakdowns, the reader can rely less on a leap of faith.  An accumulation of specific valuations presents a series of more meaningful reflections that are still determined by the reviewer, but minimizes the impact of said reviewer’s expectations and preferences on the final score.

The philosophy behind this rating system revolves around equality and recognition for as many fundamental aspects of contemporary, narrative filmmaking as possible without turning every review into a dissertation.  Mega-budget Hollywood productions may have a number of advantages over smaller indie films, but the MPS Rating is strictly interested in what is shown on the screen, what works for the film and what doesn’t.  There is no perfect system because there is no perfectly balanced method to weigh the impact of costume design vs. computer graphic fabrication, for example.  The key here is recognizing as much of the observable product as possible which unfortunately leaves other important parts of filmmaking like directing and producing outside of the MPS. 

The final MPS Rating is a score out of 100 points and broken down into 3 major subsets:

“Moving” = 33 points                        “Picture” = 33 points             “Story” = 34 points

The “Story” subset gets one additional point because every narrative film’s most basic concept before it enters any day of principal photography is the script.  There is no film without a story or some concept organized into words that are written/typed on the page/screen.

Each subset is broken down further into 3 smaller categories:

 “Moving”

–  Action (11 points)

–  Performance (11 points)

–  Audio (11 points)

“Picture”

–  Visual Effects (11 points)

–  Cast presentation (11 points)

–  Setting (11 points)

“Story”

–  Plot (12 points)

–  Conversation (11 points)

–  Character (11 points)

From there, 1 additional layer of fragmentation occurs in each category dividing them as evenly as possible while favoring some above others.

——————————————————————————————————

[Within the Moving Subset]

Action:

“Action Style” or any featured special training movement the cast engages in such as martial arts, dance, parkour or gymnastics.  (6 points)

“Action Frame” or any common movement within the frame by the cast (walking, running) in addition to moving the frame itself via tracks, pans, tilts and more.  (5 points)

Performance:

“Lead Performance” or the effort put forth by the featured protagonists and/or antagonists of the film.  (6 points)

“Supporting Performance” or the effort put forth by the supporting cast like sidekicks, love interests, mentors and villains.  (5 points)

Audio:

“Music” or the implementation of any orchestral score or proprietary tracks to enhance the emotive moments of the film.  (6 points)

Sound F/X” or the creation and application of any Foley recording (analog or digital) further enhancing the realism of anything fabricated from settings to props.  (5 points)

——————————————————————————————————

[Within the Picture Subset]

Visual Effects:

“Digital F/X” or the use of computer graphics to create and interact with fabricated locations, characters, and anything else represented visually that simply cannot exist in real life.  (6 points)

“Special F/X” or the use of more practical visual spectacles such as pyrotechnics, gunfire, artillery, vehicles.  (5 points)

Cast presentation:

“Costumes” are self explanatory.  Does the cast look like the characters they are attempting to portray for the screen?  (6 points)

“Hair & Makeup” is more than making beautiful people look even better for their close-ups.  As time, circumstances and other situations occur to affect the cast during the story; is it well reflected on their bodies outside of their performance?  (5 points)

Setting:

“Exteriors” or any scene featuring an outdoor or outer space environment.  Note: this physical space does not have to be captured in the natural world, but will still be evaluated for its detail which will enhance or detract from the realism of the moment.  (6 points)

“Interiors” or any scene featuring an indoor environment.  The above special note also applies to interior set design.  (5 points)

—————————————————————————————————–

[Within the Story subset] 

Plot:

“Hook” or the inciting incident/gimmick/idea that lies at the core of the film’s story.  (4 points)

“Conflict” or any adversary the protagonists are challenged by.  How interesting is it; circumstantial or otherwise?  (4 points)

“Resolution” or how the story wraps up.  Is it surprising?  Is it satisfying?  (4 points)

Conversation:

“Dialogue” or how every character verbally interacts with each other.  It doesn’t need to come off naturally, but any stylized choices need to work for the story.  (6 points)

“Exposition” or any information regarding this fictional world like the rules for how things work as well as understanding what is at stake and the risks involved to the main characters.  This can be expressed via pockets of dialogue, narration or onscreen titles.  (5 points)

Character:

“Uniqueness” or how dynamic the featured and supporting characters are in general.  Are they intriguing everymen?  Are they mysterious anti-heroes?  Are they bland?  (6 points)

“Relatability” or how well do characters make connections with the audience.  Do we sympathize with them thanks to personal experience?  Are we completely put off by their off-center code of conduct?  Is there any part of them that we can appreciate?  (5 points)

——————————————————————————————————

All of these elements combine to form a completed film.  How well they stack up with each other determines how strong the final product is.  I reiterate that even with 19 different sections to draw points from, it remains an opinion-based evaluation.  My intention is to be as brief and as thorough as possible.  Hopefully, I can communicate a more tangible sense of value to the reader so that he or she can determine worth for buying into a general admission, rental or on-demand viewing.

[[wysiwyg_imageupload:20731:]]

A Better Tomorrow Starts With Today

A Film Review of Tomorrowland

Who doesn’t like George Clooney?  He’s a classy, millionaire, former playboy and philanthropist who’s been in a number of successful films over the course of many years and has disallowed his ever advancing age to deter him.  He’s got the Hollywood pedigree as well as individual affirmation by way of his academy award for his supporting role in Syriana (2005).  As far as star power goes, George Clooney is a “sure thing,” right?  I would just about agree with that notion for just about everything save for a PG-rated, kid centric cinematic adventure.  What’s that you say?  Tomorrowland is a PG-rated, kid centric cinematic adventure?  Darn it!  Before those of you who don’t have kids or would simply rather watch Avengers: Age of Ultron for a third or fourth time, stay with me.  The formula of Clooney + sci-fi + kids + Disney is certainly uncommon, but is far from a mishmash of completely ill conceived ideas. 

From an adult’s perspective, this film starts and ends with Clooney himself as inventor Frank Walker.  His character isn’t entirely unsympathetic, but at the same time doesn’t display any unique charisma that isn’t a result of George infusing as much of his own personality to fill out the role.  Translation: his character is there, but who cares, it’s George Clooney (but chances are anyone else could’ve played this part for cheaper).  Any film that boasts a healthy budget of around $190 million (Disney) dollars isn’t looking for bargains at any level of production so his presence is not a question of affordability; it’s a question of worth.  Frank is the key character to this film’s plot, but he isn’t the main character and he isn’t given enough screen time to make for an adequate mentor, so he’s essentially a side-kick and that doesn’t make for a worthy investment regardless of his enhanced star power.  That’s not to say his performance was mailed in via UPS (what does brown do for you?).  He does an adequate job for a veteran actor who doesn’t have a strong history of sci-fi under his belt and it’s his charm and his signature delivery that prevents the performance from being a wash.  Still, Clooney in this role for this type of film feels awkward at best and reaffirms the importance of the casting process in any production.  “Any actor you can get” or “the biggest names you can book” are not words that should have been used by those creating this film.  This is not Clooney’s best work.

From a kid’s perspective, this film is all about the computer graphics and visual effects that meld otherworldly wonders with live action.  I can’t imagine any kid not wanting to be THAT kid that gets to go to Tomorrowland.  Most of the budget went into this aspect of the filmmaking process, but film buffs will make note of a lot of “been there” and “done that” much bigger and better in blockbusters of the recent past.  But the kids will have plenty of lasers, spaceships, robots and technology to gawk at.  There’s a few neat takes on applied sciences of the future (my favorite being the free floating, multi-tiered diving pool).  Everything looks bright, clean and colorful and it would have been nice to explore some of these newfangled toys had the plot allowed it.

As for said plot, well, let’s just say it doesn’t have the luster or polish of the subject material it’s attempting to showcase.  The story is a garden variety road trip that follows our heroine, Casey Newton (Britt Robertson), and her journey to apply her personal confidence and sense of self to “fixing” Tomorrowland’s problem(s).  There is no complimentary coming of age or identity crisis tale that bolsters the plot because the story is quite dependent on Casey knowing exactly who she is, what she wants and how she needs to go about doing things.  She tells the audience directly in so many words during the film’s opening moments.  Newcomer Britt Robertson has a kid safe demeanor about her and easy enough to relate to for boys and girls of any age.  Like Clooney, she provides a good enough performance that neither awes nor reviles.  I simply wished to have more scenes featuring Raffey Cassidy as Athena in a support role that features the most emotionally poignant moment of the entire film.

Did I mention that House (Roadhouse, that too) was in this film?  Yeah, Hugh Laurie’s performance was an afterthought for this production.

For a film going by the name of Tomorrowland, it sure would have been nice to spend more time there.  Instead, the audience has to spend the majority of time in Today Land which makes sense from a plot point perspective, but isn’t particularly interesting or entertaining.  The strength of the story is hidden in its themes regarding technology, development, society and figuring out how real people fit into the application of everything.  Jetpacks are cool, but are they safe and can they be fueled by something that isn’t going to smog the skies with carcinogens?  It is good that the film identifies today’s real world problems regarding the environment, the economy, warfare, poverty, hunger, disease, etc; but then what?  Being a kid movie, the story doesn’t get past the notion that little (if any) is actually being done to “fix” these things and presents precious little regarding solutions such as the tried and true (and awfully generic) “we need new ways of thinking,” which is equal parts inspiring in its optimism and frustrating in its nonspecific nature.  J.J. Abrams’ acolyte Damon Lindelof and kid movie vet Brad Bird are responsible for this screenplay that is decent enough and completely unremarkable at the same time.

I’m not entirely sure of how the true potential of a film adaptation based on a Disney Theme Park attraction area can be accessed without some strong characters at work.  I’d say it’s about as good as adapting a movie from a board game.  Strong characters can give you Clue while irrelevant characters (and plot, and performances and just about everything else) can give you Battleship.  Tomorrowland is not a character driven adventure.  It is propelled by gimmickry and circumstance and that might be good enough for some pre-teens out there, but PG doesn’t have to stand for just “pretty good.”  This is only a must see for young kids that desperately need to be corralled by mom and dad for some safe summer fun.  It’s a solid Netflix or not at all for everyone else.